Method Breakwater - Rock Placement PDF

Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan
Document No Revision Date of Issue : : : 301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0 12 November 2010
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 1
Rev 0 12 November 2010
Oakajee Deepwater Port Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Plan
NOTE
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the proponent/port operator and their contractors. This report was developed by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd using a standard document template and structure supplied by Oakajee Port and Rail Pty Ltd Copying this report without the permission of the proponent/port operator is not permitted.
PROJECT 301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
0 Issued for Approval EMay D Issued for OPR Review L.Twomey C B Issued for Internal Review Issued for Peer Review L.Twomey M.Mulligan B Issued for Final Review L.Twomey M.Mulligan B Issued for OPR Review L.Twomey M.Mulligan A Issued for Internal Review L.Twomey M.Mulligan
REV DESCRIPTION ORIG REVIEW REVIEW OWNER DATE APPROVED DATE
9-Nov-10 D. McAlinden D. McAlinden 7-Nov-10 D.McAlinden M.Bailey D. McAlinden 3-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 P.Lavery D. McAlinden
12-Nov-10
9-Nov-10
L.Twomey
6-Nov-10 6-Nov-10
01-Sep-10 D.Lord D. McAlinden
13-Sep-10
25-June-10 D.McAlinden D. McAlinden D. McAlinden
25-June-10
17-May-10 P. Scott D. McAlinden D. McAlinden
17-May-10
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 2
Table of Contents
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................7 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 2. Background/Project Description ...............................................................................9 Scope and Objective .................................................................................................10 Description of Key Works ........................................................................................14 Key Environmental Legislation and Conditions .....................................................17 Stakeholder Consultation .........................................................................................24 Peer Review of Baseline Studies ........................................................................................................... 24 Collaborators .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Peer Review of Draft EMP ..................................................................................................................... 25
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................................26 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 BPPH Mapping ..........................................................................................................26 BPPH Health ..............................................................................................................26 Water Quality.............................................................................................................27 Sediment Quality.......................................................................................................27 Wind, Currents, Waves and Tide Conditions ..........................................................27 Introduced Marine Organisms .................................................................................30
3.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...............................................................................................................................31 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.4 3.5 Method .......................................................................................................................31 Impacts ......................................................................................................................32 Hydrodynamic modelling of BPPH impacts ............................................................37 BPPH loss predictions ............................................................................................................................ 37 Water Quality Impacts ..............................................................................................44 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................................47
4. 5. 6. 7.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .........................................................................................................48 MITIGATION...................................................................................................................................................50 KEY CONTROL MEASURES ..................................................................................................................52 MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................54
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 3
7.1 7.1.1 7.1.2 7.1.3 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 8.
BPPH Direct Impacts Monitoring .............................................................................55 Parameters............................................................................................................................................. 55 Frequency and Location ......................................................................................................................... 55 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 55 BPPH Indirect Impact Monitoring ............................................................................57 Parameters (Light requirements and thresholds for Benthic Primary Producer Habitat) ........................ 57 BPPH monitoring zones ......................................................................................................................... 58 Frequency and Location ......................................................................................................................... 60 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 66 Water Quality (Physio-Chemical Monitoring) ..........................................................70 Parameters............................................................................................................................................. 70 Frequency .............................................................................................................................................. 70 Location.................................................................................................................................................. 70 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 74 Return Water Discharge Monitoring ........................................................................75 Parameters............................................................................................................................................. 75 Frequency .............................................................................................................................................. 75 Location.................................................................................................................................................. 75 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 75
CONTINGENCIES AND REACTIVE MANAGEMENT .....................................................................77 8.1 8.1.1 8.1.2 8.1.3 8.2 8.3 8.4 Contingencies/Reactive Management for BPPH Indirect Impacts.........................77 Management triggered by decline in seagrass cover at impact sites ..................................................... 77 Management triggered by Hsat exceedances ....................................................................................... 78 Management triggered by BPPH health exceedances ........................................................................... 78 Contingencies/Reactive Management for Water Quality Impacts .........................79 Contingencies/Reactive Management for Return Water Discharge ......................79 Contingency/Reactive Management Actions ..........................................................80
9.
REPORTING ..................................................................................................................................................85
10. AUDITING & REVIEW ................................................................................................................................86
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 4
10.1 10.2
Auditing .....................................................................................................................86 Review and revision .................................................................................................86
11. RELATED PLANS ........................................................................................................................................88 12. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................................89 ATTACHMENT A.........................................................................................................................................................92 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM BRANCH OF THE EPASU ON THE DESIGN AND REQUIREMENTS OF BASELINE STUDIES AT OAKAJEE ...............................................................92 ATTACHMENT B.........................................................................................................................................................96 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...............................................................................................................................96 ATTACHMENT C....................................................................................................................................................... 101 APPENDIX D: OCEANICA AND APASA (2010), BENTHIC PRIMARY PRODUCER IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED OAKAJEE PORT ..................................................................................... 103
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 5
General Information
Min Statement No EMP Title
EMP Content Is the document structured according to the EMP guideline? Element - Is the aspect appropriately described? Current Status Are the project description and receiving environment details adequate? Potential Impacts Are the potential impacts described adequately? Environmental Objectives Are the objectives consistent with the Ministerial Statement and the EPA bulletin? Performance Indicators/Criteria Are the indicators and criteria used meaningful, sufficient and appropriate? Are the criteria verifiable and reproducible? Implementation strategy Are the strategies, tasks and the action program adequate for the environmental objectives? Have roles and responsibilities been identified? Have adequate timeframes and priorities been identified? Monitoring Is the program to monitor performance against objectives and criteria adequate? Are details provided on how/when monitoring will be undertaken and reported? Contingencies Are the mechanisms to identify actual and apparent nonconformance adequate? Are the actions to address non-conformances adequate? Stakeholder consultation Is a list of major stakeholders and details of how and when they were and will be consulted, provided? Auditing Are details of an audit process to demonstrate implementation and compliance provided? Review and Revision Is a suitable process to assess the adequacy of the plan detailed? Reporting are the reporting details provided adequate? Key Management Actions Table - Has adequate information been provided in the Table? Does the table list the key actions, how implementation will be reported and the evidence that will be provided to DoE? Figures and Tables Have relevant figures and tables been provided? Advisory bodies Has advice been sought from all relevant advisory bodies and incorporated into the EMP? Has evidence of this advice been provided with the document? Additional Comments The EMP has been developed in accord with the DoE EMP guideline.
469
Project Title
Oakajee Deepwater Port
Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation

Yes No Comments Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 5 Table 5-1 Table 5-1 Section 5 Section 4 and Section 6 Section 6 Section 7 Section 7 and Section 9 Section 8 Section 8 Section 1.5 and Attachment A Section 10 Section 10 Section 9 Section 6 Section 6 and Section 9 Section 1 Requires DEC advice - pending DSD and GPA review As above
. Environmental Manager
Date
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 6
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Hsat AMSA ANZECC AQIS ARMCANZ AS/NZS BPPH CD CM CSD DAFF DBCLRMP DEC DM DSD EAG3 EMP EMS EPA EPASU EPBC Act GPA HEPA Hsat IMO IMPMP ISO LAC LAU MS MARPOL Change in Hours above Saturating Irradiance Australian Maritime Safety Authority Australian New Zealand Environment Conservation Council Australian New Zealand Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand Australian Standards/New Zealand Standards Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Chart Datum Construction Manager Cutter Suction Dredge Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan Department of Environment and Conservation Dredging Manager Department of Statement Development Environmental Assessment Guidelines 3 Environmental Management Plan Environmental Management System Environmental Protection Authority Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Geraldton Port Authority High Ecological Protection Area Hours above Saturating Irradiance Introduced Marine Organism Introduced Marine Pest Management Plan International Standards Organisation Light Attenuation Coefficient Local Assessment Unit Ministerial Statement International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 7
MEPA MEPC NRA OEPA OPR OIE PER Sea Dumping Act SEWPaC SHI SQMP SSMP SRA TSS UNMP
Moderate Ecological Protection Area Marine Environment Protection Committee Northern Reclamation Area Office of the Environmental Protection Authority Oakajee Port and Rail Pty Ltd Oakajee Industrial Estate Public Environmental Review Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 Department of Sustainability, Water, Population and Communities Seagrass Health Indices Sediment Quality Management Plan Shoreline Stability Management Plan South Reclamation Area Total Suspended Solids Underwater Noise Management Plan
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 8
1. 1.1
INTRODUCTION Background/Project Description
In 1997 a proposal from the then Western Australian (WA) Government Minister for Resources Development led to an assessment of the Oakajee Deepwater Port concept by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), resulting in the release, on the 25th of February 1998, of Ministerial Statement 469 (MS469) by the then Minister for the Environment. The Statement established the legally binding environmental conditions under which the Oakajee Deepwater Port development could proceed, with the original term of the environmental approval extending to the 25th of February 2003. The term of the environmental approval has subsequently been extended on several occasions, the current expiry date being the 25th of February 2013. The Minister for State Development is the proponent for the Oakajee Deepwater Port. Development of the Oakajee Port has been linked to expansion in the Mid-west iron ore mining sector. The number of Mid-west iron ore projects currently being progressed has increased the impetus for development of the Oakajee Deepwater Port which led to the State Government initiating a competitive tendering process from consortia interested in developing the Oakajee Deepwater Port and associated infrastructure. Following the tender process, Oakajee Port and Rail Pty Ltd (OPR) was appointed in July 2008 by the State Government as the preferred developer of the Oakajee Deepwater Port. On the 20th March 2009 the State Government and OPR entered into a State Development Agreement, which provided OPR exclusive rights to build the Oakajee Deepwater Port and a railway line linking the port to the iron ore mines to the east. Consistent with agreements between the State Government and OPR, OPR is preparing the Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) required as conditions or commitments of MS469 for the Department of State Development (DSD), which is the agency acting on behalf of the Minister for State Development. The Oakajee Deepwater Port will be located 24 km north of Geraldton on Western Australia's mid west coastline (Figure 1.1), and will comprise a large breakwater sheltering up to three berths (being two Cape Class berths plus one further Cape Class berth or one Panamax berth), a tug and work boat harbour and associated land based facilities including ship loaders, conveyors, stockpile yard, stackers and reclaimers. Additional facilities may be added at a later stage (subject to further approvals). Construction of the port is scheduled to commence in 2011 with current forecasts having the port operational in 2014. Iron ore exports for the foundation development of Oakajee Deepwater Port are expected to be up to 45 million tonnes per annum. The Oakajee Iron Ore Export Development, being part of the broader Oakajee Development that includes provision for the industrial development in the Oakajee Industrial Estate (OIE), has three key project areas, as outlined in Table 1.1.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 9
Table 1.1 : Key OPR Project Areas

Area Oakajee Deepwater Port1 Key Aspects Includes breakwater, harbour basin, three berths, dredging, land reclamation and some port terrestrial aspects including storage area and access corridor. Excludes quarry. Includes storage stockpiles, ship loader, material handling system, rail unloader, desalination plant, administration buildings, rail marshalling yards and workshop and other associated land based infrastructure Approval Status Approved (Ministerial Statement 469) (including Section 45C and 46)2 Referred to EPA Nov 2009 Pending Part IV Public Environmental Review (PER)3 Referred to EPA Nov 2009 Pending Part IV PER
Port Terrestrial
Rail Development
Includes 570km rail route and supporting infrastructure
1.2
Scope and Objective
This document details the management strategies to be implemented by OPR to ensure dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation works and any associated adverse impacts on benthic primary producers and water quality are managed in an appropriate manner during the construction of the Oakajee Deepwater Port Development. Extensive dredging will be required in the construction of the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port. Dredging causes sediment to be suspended in the water column which adds to the natural turbidity which, in the absence of management controls, could possibly cause unacceptable environmental impact via the following pathways: Reduced light penetration to the photosynthetic algae and seagrasses; Inhibit filter feeding animals and larval recruitment of benthic biota; Cause mechanical damage to benthic fauna; Deplete oxygen; and/or, Cause nutrient enrichment.
1 2
The proponent for the Oakajee Deepwater Port approval is the Minister for State Development.
In relation to the Oakajee Deepwater Port area in Table 1-2, Ministerial Statement (MS469) was subsequently released (February 1998) outlining the conditions and commitments that the proponent must meet to construct a deepwater port at Oakajee. The Oakajee Deepwater Port approval was subject to a recent Section 45C and Section 46 approval granting variation and extension to the existing approval The Port Terrestrial and Rail Development were referred to the EPA in November 2009 under Part IV of the EP Act 1986 and the level of assessment for both aspects has been set at Public Environmental Review
3
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 10
The Approved Proposal for construction of the deepwater port at Oakajee was approved for implementation by the issuing of MS469 (1998). The Ministerial Condition 5-3(5) and Proponent's Environmental Management Consolidated Commitments (6b) (Attachment 1 to MS469 dated 28 August 1997) applicable to this Plan (DBCLRMP) are outlined in Ministerial Statement 469 (1998) and include: The proponent will, prior to construction, prepare a Marine Management Plan that will include a Dredge and Dredge Spoil Management Plan in the event that the final port plan involves dredging. The Plan will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP, and will include a monitoring program for water quality in and within a relevant distance of the work area. The management plan and all results of the monitoring programs will be made available to the general public. The key characteristic of the Approved Proposal relevant to this DBCLRMP was identified in Table 1 of the Bulletin 866, as: 6.3.7 Marine area affected up to 170 ha The objective of this document is to: 1. provide guidance during construction to: minimise impacts to benthic primary producers (up to 170 ha); minimise impact to marine fauna; and, minimise impacts to water quality.
2. outline monitoring programs and reporting that will be implemented; 3. ensure OPR operations comply with regulatory requirements with respect to dredging and benthic flora and marine fauna management; and, 4. enable optimisation of construction works taking cognisance of item 1 to 3 above. Based on the Ministerial Conditions outlined above, the scope of this DBCLRMP is: Establish a baseline for the existing water quality and sediment quality within and adjacent to the port. Establish a baseline for benthic habitat and marine fauna in the Oakajee area. Describe how the dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation will be conducted. Describe the potential marine environmental impacts associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation, with particular attention to benthic primary producers and water quality. Define the management measures associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation that will be undertaken to reduce the potential for, and minimise, environmental impact during the construction phases of Oakajee Port.
This EMP is to be updated at regular intervals as scheduled within the OPR Environmental Management Systems.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 11
Figure 1.1: Location of the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port in Western Australia
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 12
Figure 1.2: Layout of the Approved Oakajee Deepwater Port (Port Marine Project) (Figure 1 Attachment 2 of MS469)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 13
1.3
Description of Key Works
Construction Phase
The proposed port construction is expected to occur over a 36 month period. The major components will include: Breakwater construction using land based equipment (i.e. rock placement); Breakwater construction using rock dumping barges; Development of a bunded northern reclamation area; and, Dredging.
An outline construction schedule was developed to assist with development of the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009a), which required an indicative schedule of the major construction components. The anticipated schedule to complete each major construction activity is approximately: Northern reclamation area breakwater construction 18 months ; Marine based construction 16 months; Land based construction 18 months; and, Dredging 6 months.
It is expected that the major construction activities will overlap so that the full construction campaign will be complete within a proposed 36 month construction period. To protect the Oakajee Port harbour waters from prevailing seas and swell, a 2.5 km long (projecting 1.9 km offshore) rock breakwater will be constructed (Figure 1.2). The breakwater will provide shelter for the port basin and allow dredging, pile driving and general berth construction to occur. At the same time, a reclamation area abutting the shoreline will be constructed using dredged material for use as general port land. This area, known as the Northern Reclamation Area (NRA) will contain up to approximately 1.5 Mm3 of dredge material, while the primary settlement area with a capacity of approximately 2 Mm3 will be constructed onshore at the Southern Reclamation Area (SRA) (Figure 1.3). The breakwater will be constructed from granulite rock sourced from a nearby quarry that will be developed as part of the Port construction. It is expected that rock placement will occur from both land (using excavators) and sea (using barges). At its highest point the seaward crest of breakwater will stand at a level of 11.0 m Chart Datum (CD) and its design is capable of withstanding a 1 in 100 year storm event with no more than five percent damage. The seaward walls of the breakwater will be armoured with rocks up to 30 tonnes in weight. It is expected that the breakwater will take two years to construct. Dredging is required in the berth pockets, harbour basin and channel to achieve design depths ranging between -11 m CD in the turning basin and approximately -22 m CD in the outer channel enabling fully-laden Cape class vessels to safely manoeuvre and navigate the harbour basin and channel (Figure 1.3). To achieve the design depths, dredging of approximately 2.6 Mm3 of material will be required (Table 1.2). This volume incorporates a 0.5 m allowance for over dredging (Table 1.2). Dredging will be carried out with a large Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD), which will cut the seabed material and pump it directly to either of the two settlement and reclamation areas (Figure 1.3). During cutting and placement of dredged material in the reclamation areas it is expected that the volume of this material will increase to approximately 3.3 Mm3 due to bulking of the in-situ material. The dredge will regularly move locations based on dredging
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 14
and operational requirements as well as sea and swell conditions. The dredge will move using an array of anchors, rather than being self propelled. The dredge will pump material as a slurry (consisting of solids and seawater) at a rate of approximately 900 m3/minute to the reclamation areas (Figure 1.3)). It is expected that after an initial period of land reclamation area filling, the overflow velocity will match that of the input velocity (i.e. 900 m3/minute). Table 1.2: Approximate Dredge Volumes4
Material Type Sand Alluvium Non-Calcreted Calcreted TOTAL Design Volume (m ) 234,900 32,900 693,400 1,372,700 2,333,900
3
Design + Over dredge Volume (m ) 256,800 44,700 836,100 1,472,400 2,610,000
The reclamation areas have been designed to incorporate a series of settlement ponds to increase retention time to allow maximum settlement of fine particles prior to returning water to the ocean. The settlement ponds will be managed using a system of adjustable height weirs and pumps in order to minimise reduce return water turbidity before discharging to the marine environment (refer drawing 301012-01054-1112-MA-DAL-0009). Overflow from the reclamation areas will be directed back to the marine environment once the suspended sediment concentration of the return water has fallen to less than 250 mg/L5. In addition to facilitating the active management of the dredge material and the associated return water, the placement of dredge material in these reclamation areas will lead to a reduction in future and ongoing requirements for land based fill material at the Oakajee Port site.
4 5
These volumes are approximate only and serve only to describe the relative proportions and type of sediment The return-water turbidity of 250 mg/L was chosen as a worst-case, and has been used in the hydrodynamic modeling (see Section 3.3.1).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 15
Figure 1.3: Oakajee Port Project Interfaces and Location of Dredge Material Placement
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 16
1.4
Key Environmental Legislation and Conditions
The key legislation and Ministerial Conditions relevant to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation is provided in Table 1.3 . Table 1.3: Key legislation and Ministerial Conditions relevant to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation
Document Responsible Government Authority Aspect
International Conventions and Commonwealth Legislation This is the most important convention regulating and preventing pollution of the marine environment by ships. This convention aims to preserve the marine environment through the complete elimination of pollution by oil and other harmful substances from ships and the minimisation of accidental discharge of such substances. These legislations give effect to the MARPOL convention in Australia. The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is the International Maritime Organisation's major technical body concerned with the prevention and control of pollution from ships. AMSA leads Australia's work in MEPC. AQIS administers the Quarantine Act 1908 with the objective of protecting Australia's animal, plant and human health status, and to maintain market access for Australian food and other agricultural exports. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) under the Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). Section 4 of the Act provides measures for the inspection, exclusion, detention, observation, segregation, isolation, treatment, sanitary regulation and disinfection of vessels, persons, goods, things, animals or plants, and having their object the prevention of the introduction or spread of diseases or pests affecting man, animals or plants. Section 17 of the Act lists the vessels subject to quarantine, including every overseas vessel until pratique has been granted or until it has been released from quarantine. Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) State Government Legislation WA Contaminated Sites Act (2003) Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) The Contaminated Sites Act (2003) (WA) took effect in Western Australia on December 1, 2006. The Contaminated Sites Management Series was developed to provide guidance for risk assessments prior to activities governed under the Act, and stipulates that Sampling of sediments as part of contaminated site assessment/remediation is required where () sediment is required to be dredged as part of port/harbour construction/expansion works or development in a riverine or marine Department Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) SEWPaC Waters surrounding Australia's coastlines are protected from wastes and pollution dumped at sea by the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act). Protects matters of national significance, including listed species of fauna, including those in the marine environment.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
International Maritime Organization
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983
Navigation Act 1912
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) under the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure)
Quarantine Act 1908
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 17
Document
Responsible Government Authority
Aspect environment (DEP, 2001).
Environmental Protection Act 1986
Western Australia Office of Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA)
The key piece of environmental legislation within Western Australia, relating to the prevention, control and abatement of pollution and environmental harm, for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment. These regulations prohibit commercial activities from discharging certain wastes into the environment. The prohibited wastes include petrol, sewage, degreasers, detergents and food wastes. It covers minor pollution offences that were missed out of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (see above). Specifically, is an offence to discharge sediment into the marine environment, and to discharge wastewater in which are: acid with a pH less than 4; alkali with a pH more than 10; animal oil, fat or grease; compounds of solutions of cyanide, chromium, cadmium, lead, arsenic, mercury, nickel, zinc, copper; degreaser; detergent; dye; engine coolant or engine corrosion inhibitor; mineral oil; organic solvent; paint; petrol, diesel or other hydrocarbon; pesticide; vegetable oil, fat or grease.
Western Australian Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 2004
DEC
Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004
DEC
These regulations list the types of controlled waste which must be stored, treated, transported and disposed of as set out in the regulations. Controlled wastes relevant to the OPR waste management include (but are not limited to) heavy metal compounds, sewage, filter cake, acidic solutions, and waste from the use of organic solvents. The DEC have developed a series of guidelines in support of the regulations for appropriate transport and disposal of controlled waste: Guideline for Controlled Waste Carriers (DEC, 2004a) Guideline for Controlled Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites (DEC, 2004b) User Guide: Controlled Waste Tracking System (DEC, 2006) Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions (DEC, 1996).
W.A. Port Authorities Regulation 2001
W.A. Port Authorities
The W.A. Port Authorities Regulation 2001 sets out rules for port use applicable to all port authorities across Western Australia. Regulation 17 stipulates: Unless authorised by a member of staff of the port authority, the master of a vessel must not cause or permit any wastewater or waste substances of any kind to be discharged from the vessel on to any part of the wharf or into the waters of a port. Occupational Safety and Health
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 Western Australian Dumping) Act 1981 Ministerial Conditions Ministerial Statement 469 (25 February 1998) Conditions relevant to Sediment Quality. Marine (Sea
Department of Consumer and Employment Protection DEC
Sea dumping
Minister for the Environment and Youth
Condition 1.1 requires commitments made by the proponent to be fulfilled as part of implementing the proposal, the commitments made in relation to Sediment Quality were as follows:
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 18
Document
Aspect Condition 5-3(5) requires the development of a Dredge and Dredge Spoil Disposal Management. Note: the Plans 5-3 (4) to 5-3 (11) have been formulated, based in part, on proponent commitment no. 6. Consolidated List of Commitments (Attachment 1 to MS469) relevant to Marine Water Quality and Sediments states (Item #6): The proponent will, prior to construction, prepare a Marine Management Plan that will include the following: 6a. A Construction Management Plan in accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP. All contractors will be required to comply with this plan, which will specify measures designed to prevent marine pollution and to limit the impact on the marine environment; 6b. A Dredge and Dredge Spoil Disposal management Plan (DDSDMP) in the event that the final port plan involves dredging. This Management Plan will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP, and will include a monitoring program for water quality in and within a relevant distance of the works area. The management plan and all results of the monitoring programs will be made available to the general public; 6c. An Oil Spill Contingency Plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Minerals and Energy, the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the WA State Committee for Combating Oil Pollution at Sea. This plan will include management processes required to avoid or minimise any impacts to the beaches north of the port; 6d. A Waste Management Plan of port operations prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP. This plan will specify management procedures for the collection and disposal of waste discharges from ships, and will regulate wash-down of ships in harbour. This plan will include management processes required to avoid or minimise any impacts to beaches north of the port, and will include treatment of stormwater if appropriate; 6e. An accidental Spillage Management Plan to the requirements of the Department of Minerals and Energy. This Plan will include management processes required to avoid or minimise any impacts to beaches north of the Port; 6f. A Water Quality Monitoring and Management Program in accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP. A summary of the scope this monitoring is provided in Section 6 of the PER document. Should levels of any parameter be above the criteria during the sampling period, more frequent monitoring will occur in order to identify a possible cause for the elevated levels, and also to determine the duration of the levels over time. Provision will be made to implement appropriate management practices if the monitoring program identifies any unacceptable impacts on the quality of marine waters in the vicinity of the port; and 6g. A Sediment Monitoring and Management Program. This will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP. The program will involve bi-annual samples following construction. All samples will be analysed for a range of heavy metals and other potential contaminants. The results of the monitoring program will be provided to the EPA. Should levels of any parameters be above criteria during
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 19
Document
Aspect the sampling period, more frequent monitoring will occur to identify a possible cause for the elevated levels, and also to determine the duration of the levels over time. Provision will be made to implement appropriate management practices if the monitoring program identifies any unacceptable impacts on the quality of marine waters (assumed to have meant sediments) in the vicinity of the port. The marine management plan will address the issue of protection of offshore seal colonies, and any other applicable protection issues.
Other Requirements Provides a framework to impart clarity and consistency to the environmental impact of proposals that have potential to result in irreversible loss of, or serious damage to, benthic primary producer habitats in Western Australia's marine environment. OEPA Recognises the importance of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats (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. Provides the framework for environmental management on the project site in compliance with Australian Standards and New Zealand Standards (AS/NZS) International Standards Organisation (ISO) 14001:2004 Environmental Management Systems Requirements with Guidance for Use.
EPA Environmental Assessment Guidelines 3 (EAG3) (EPA 2009)
OPR Environmental Management System (EMS)
OPR
This EMP is managed via the OPR EMS
OPR has prepared separate management plans for each of the items listed under Section 6 of the Proponent's Consolidated Commitment (MS469, Attachment 1) rather than a single Marine Management Plan. This is described in more detail in Table 1-4 below.
The relationship between the environmental management system, the approvals for the various components of the overall Oakajee development and these environmental management plans is shown in Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 20
Table 1.4: MS469 EMP Title and Proposed EMP submissions

MS 469 Condition 5-3 (1) MS469 Title Rehabilitation and Coastal Management Plan Marine Flora and Fauna Management Plan to include: - habitat description; - benthic surveys; 5-3 (2) - marine mammal surveys (as it relates to underwater noise); - wrack monitoring and management; - water quality monitoring 5-3 (3) 5-3 (4) 5-3 (5) 5-3 (6) 5-3 (7) 5-3 (8) 5-3 (9) 5-3 (10) 5-3 (11) 5-3 (12) 5-3 (13) 5-3 (14) 5-3 (15) 7-1 CC
6
Proposed MP Rehabilitation and Coastal Management Plan Marine Flora and Fauna Management Plan Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation MP (this plan) Underwater Noise Management Plan Beach-cast Wrack Management Plan Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan Introduced Marine Pest Management Plan Construction Management Plan Dredge Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation MP (as above) Material Handling Environmental Requirements Specification Accidental Spillage Management Plan Drainage Design and Treatment Management Plan Oil Spill Contingency Plan Port Waste Management Plan Water Quality Monitoring and MP (as above) Sediment Quality Management Plan Air Quality Management Plan Noise Management Plan Heritage Management Plan Recreation and Fishing Access Management Plan Recreation and Fishing Access MP(as above) Coastal Stability Management Plan
Introduced Marine Organisms Management Plan: Construction Management Plan Dredge and Dredge Spoil Management Plan Material Handling Environmental Requirements Specification Accidental Spillage Management Plan Drainage Design and Treatment Management Plan Oil Spill Contingency Plan Port Waste Management Plan Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring and Management Plan Air Quality Management Plan Noise Management Plan Heritage Management Plan Recreation Management Plan Fishing Access Management Plan Coastal Stability Management Plan
CC - Consolidated Commitments 8 and 9 (Attachment 1 to MS 469) - see legislative and other requirement (Table 1-3)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 21
Oakajee Deepwater Port Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan
Figure 1.4: Project roadmap describing the environmental system and the relationship to the major areas of construction and environmental management programs
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Page 22
Figure1.5: Project roadmap describing the environmental system hierarchy and details on the relationship to environmental management plans
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Page 23
1.5
Stakeholder Consultation
Ongoing stakeholder and community engagement is an important part of maintaining a community licence to operate. That engagement should include open and transparent communication, and recognise the importance of genuine stakeholder involvement in the identification of potential issues and concerns, as well as appropriate strategies for management of impacts. Stakeholders are defined as people or organisations who have an impact on, or who are impacted by project operations and activities. An understanding of key stakeholder attitudes and issues is crucial to support effective stakeholder engagement. Additionally the ability to demonstrably respond to community concerns is important. Initial consultation was with the Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit (EPASU; now restructured to the Office of the EPA - OEPA) (see Section 1.5.1 and Attachment A), followed by more extensive stakeholder consultation. A detailed description of OPR stakeholder consultation is provided in Attachment B. This DBCLRMP has been developed by recognised consultants and experts in the field and reviewed by various government agencies (see Section 1.5.2). Furthermore, the design of baseline studies relevant to the Oakajee Deepwater Port EMPs (Attachment C) was peer reviewed (see Section 1.5.1 below) by relevant field experts and the outcomes/reports of those baselines studies were also peer reviewed. 1.5.1 Peer Review of Baseline Studies
Project representatives, consultants and OEPA met on 9 December 2008 to discuss the present Oakajee Port proposal and the need to commence field surveys and data acquisition tasks with long lead times. Following the meeting, the Marine Ecosystem Branch of the OEPA provided some preliminary comments, which are summarised in Attachment A. To ensure that the baseline studies were comprehensive and adopted rigorous sampling approaches, they were peer reviewed by qualified professionals (Table 1.5). Reviewers comments and suggestions were incorporated into the sampling methods for each of the studies. Table 1.5: Summary of peer reviewers for the marine and coastal baseline studies
Reviewer Michael Mulligan Dr Jim Stoddart Ian LeProvost Dr Karen Hillman Dr Julia Phillips Curt Jenner Institute Position Geraldton Port Authority - Port Environmental Coordinator MScience Principal Marine Scientist URS Australia - Principal Environmental Scientist Oceanica Consulting - Director CSIRO Marine Ecologist Centre for Whale Research (WA) - Managing Director National Centre for Coastal and Marine Conservation, Australian Maritime College Chairman. Centre for Water Research - Manager, Contract Research Group Studies Reviewed All baseline studies All baseline studies (except coastal processes) All baseline studies All baseline studies Marine habitat Marine mammals Introduced Marine Species
Professor Chad Hewitt
Jason Antenucci
Validation report for hydrodynamic modelling
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 24
1.5.2
Collaborators
To ensure the highest standard of work, the development and implementation of the marine and coastal baseline studies represents collaboration between Oceanica and various research institutes and marine and coastal specialists, as detailed in Table 1.6. Table 1.6: Summary of collaborators for the marine and coastal baseline studies
Collaborators Asia Pacific Applied Science Associates (APASA) Batavia Coast Air Charter, Geraldton Batavia Coast Maritime Institute (BCMI, Geraldton) Centre Marine Science and Technology Curtin University (Rob McCauley) Centre for Whale Research (Curt Jenner Director) Enviro Marine Consulting Pty Ltd (Alex Wyatt, Director); and National Centre for Coastal and Marine Conservation, Australian Maritime College (Marnie Campbell) Global Environmental Modelling Systems (GEMS) Hille Thompson & Delfos, Surveyors & Planners (HTD) Latitude Fisheries, Geraldton Marine and Freshwater Research Laboratory (MAFRL) - Murdoch University Specialised Diving Services, Geraldton Two Fish Drowning, Geraldton Photography University of Western Australia (Professors Gary Kendrick and Di Walker) Western Whale Research (Chris Burton, Director) Tasks Hydrodynamic modelling for the Oakajee Port Provision of aeroplane and pilot for monthly aerial flight of Oakajee coastline for beach cast wrack survey Provision of field personnel for the water quality and marine mammal surveys. Processing of seagrass, algal and wrack samples to determine health characteristics (seagrass and algae) and composition (wrack) Underwater noise modelling and interpretation of potential risks to marine fauna in the Oakajee region Provision of specialist advice on the sampling of marine mammals within the Oakajee region. Analysis of whale distribution and abundance data Provision of specialist advice on the sampling of introduced marine species around the proposed location of the Oakajee port. Implementation of preconstruction sampling in the Oakajee region as per Hewitt and Martin protocols (see Hewitt & Martin 2001)
Hydrodynamic modelling for the Oakajee Port Seasonal beach profiles for the coastal processes investigation Provision of research vessel for all marine surveys that require offshore work. Provision of specialist field assistance, equipment and laboratory analysis for the water and sediment quality monitoring Provision of research vessel for all habitat mapping surveys and field personnel for underwater diving Capture of aerial photographs for monthly aerial flight of Oakajee coastline for beach cast wrack survey Advice on the method for developing benthic primary producer habitat maps. Interpretation of results and advice on determining the appropriate groups of dominant primary producers. Provision of specialist advice on the sampling of marine mammals within the Oakajee region. Analysis of whale distribution and abundance data
1.5.3
Peer Review of Draft EMP
The EPA was consulted with regard to the list of proposed EMPs to address the requirements of MS469. All EMPs relevant to MS469 also require review and final approval by the EPA. The draft EMPs were also reviewed by the various government agencies and consultants and comments incorporated as per the table in Attachment B.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 25
2.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A description of the existing physical and biological marine environment surrounding the proposed port development was provided as part of the environmental impact assessment process and was presented in the original Oakajee Deepwater Port PER (AT & WEC 1997). Following the PER, OPR completed extensive work in relation to marine and coastal baseline studies (refer to Attachment 2 for the full list of marine studies) for the purpose of developing the construction and operational environmental management plans (EMPs), to enable the Oakajee Deepwater Port to be implemented pursuant to MS469. The following discussion on the existing environment is related to those aspects that are likely to be impacted by dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation during the proposed port construction.
2.1
BPPH Mapping
The benthic habitat at Oakajee was first described in detail during the Oakajee Deepwater Port PER (AT & WEC 1997). This study mapped benthic habitat in terms of the dominant substrate types, including; beach, shallow sand, high reef, a mixture of shallow pavement, low reef and shallow sand, and a mixture of deep pavement and deep sand. Most recently BPPH in the vicinity of the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port was further surveyed to map the spatial distribution of the dominant BPPH groups in greater detail (Oceanica, 2008). The area mapped has a footprint of ~57 km2, which was agreed with the OEPA to be the local assessment unit (LAU) in accordance with Environmental Assessment Guideline 3 (EAG3) (EPA 2009). The area includes the coastal marine environment ~11 km to the north and south of the port, and extending ~2.5 km to 3.5 km offshore to the 20 m depth contour (Figure 2.1). The BPPH at Oakajee are similar to and generally representative of BPPH on the west coast of Western Australia (Kirkman, 1997). The dominant primary producers are algae, of which robust brown (including Ecklonia sp.) and foliose brown algae appear to be most prevalent (Oceanica 2008). The dominant seagrass is from the genus Amphibolis, which is endemic to temperate western and southern Australian coastal areas (Ducker et al., 1977). The other major seagrass present in the region is Thalassodendron pachyrhizum, which has a distribution from the Abrolhos Islands south to Bremer Bay, Western Australia (Huisman, 2000). As reported by other workers (AT& WEC, 1997; LDM, 1999; Van Keulen et al., 1998) the BPPH at Oakajee is best described as being extremely heterogeneous, characterised by a complex mosaic of habitats, which change considerably over the space of a few metres, particularly in the shallow inshore waters and the high relief reef (LDM, 1999).
2.2
BPPH Health
A marine habitat monitoring survey was conducted to provide background habitat data for a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) assessment, with sufficient rigour to separate change associated with natural variation from change that can be reasonably attributed to anthropogenic impacts, such as dredging (Oceanica, 2010). The monitoring program was designed to assess changes in seagrass health characteristics in space (reference areas versus areas with potential for port construction impacts) and time (inter annual variability, rather than seasonal variability). The study assessed three years of baseline data from seagrass surveys and two years baseline data from an algal survey using several different physiological indicators. Differences between potential impact areas and reference areas were detected for 3 of the 28 parameters that were measured. The study also revealed that some of the habitats in the potential impact areas were naturally different from the reference areas, before port construction. Twelve of the 28 seagrass and algal characteristics were found to differ significantly among reference areas. The differences detected among the reference areas reflect natural spatial and temporal variation occurring in the system. Five of the 28 seagrass and algal characteristics were
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 26
found to differ significantly from year to year, which may be associated with broad-scale oceanographic or climatic processes.
2.3
Water Quality
The baseline water quality of the Oakajee region was characterised seasonally for the period 2006-2009 (Oceanica 2008a and Oceanica 2009). Considerable spatial and temporal variation was apparent for the majority of water quality parameters at Oakajee. Spatial variation existed between the majority of sites reflecting the patchy and heterogeneous nature of conditions in the Oakajee region. Such variation is common for such an exposed and highly dynamic coastline. Comparison of the water quality data at Oakajee with the Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council ANZECC and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) (2000) default water quality guidelines revealed that some of the measured baseline conditions at Oakajee were naturally higher than the guideline levels. Such exceedances were most common for nutrients and chlorophyll a in the inshore environment, and were occasionally observed at midshore and offshore sites. Turbidity and light attenuation measures at midshore and offshore sites were also above the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) guideline range in all seasons. Nutrient exceedances in inshore waters may reflect the contribution from wrack accumulation and decomposition (Oceanica, 2009), while turbidity and light attenuation exceedances are likely to be indicative of the highly exposed and dynamic conditions at Oakajee, creating a naturally more turbid environment.
2.4
Sediment Quality
The baseline sediment investigations of the Oakajee region tested for the presence of natural and anthropogenic contaminants (Oceanica 2009a, b, c and d) in accordance with methods defined by the National Water Quality Strategy (ANZEEC and ARMCANZ 2000), the Contaminated Sites Guideline Series (DoE 2003), and the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (CA 2009). Both the surface sandy sediments and the consolidated rocky sediments were screened for natural and anthropogenic contamination. The screening included: metals, hydrocarbons and acid sulphate soils in the consolidated sediments; and, metals, pesticides and organotins in the unconsolidated sediments. All of the sediments tested returned results below guideline levels, which included: the Ecological Investigation Level (EIL) for a first pass assessment (DoE, 2003); and, the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (CA, 2009). Consequently, the proposed dredge material was compliant in relation to both ocean disposal and land reclamation activities (Oceanica 2009c; Oceanica 2009d).
2.5
Wind, Currents, Waves and Tide Conditions
The meteorological and oceanographic conditions for the Oakajee region are described in detail in APASA (2009a) and Oceanica (2007) reports. A general description of the wind speed and strength was obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM; www.bom.gov.au). The wind strength and direction exhibited a strong diurnal pattern. The dominant wind directions in the mornings were from the NE and E (Figure 2.2), whereas during the afternoon the winds were primarily from the S and SW (Figure 2.2). The summer wind pattern was dominated by S and SE winds in the morning and S and SW sea breezes in the afternoon. Autumn directions were relatively light and variable in the mornings, and were generally from the S and SW in the afternoon. During winter, winds were mostly from the NE in the morning, whereas speeds generally increased in the afternoons with strong sea breezes from the S and SW. Spring wind directions were generally from the south, with a greater E component in the morning and W component in the afternoon. The greatest wind speeds were observed in the winter and the summer with the maximum speeds recorded in the summer during most years.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 27
Figure 2.1: Benthic primary producer habitat map of the Oakajee region
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 28
Figure 2.2: Wind frequency analysis (wind roses) from the Geraldton Airport (9am and 3pm)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 29
Current measurements from the Oakajee 20m AWAC station indicate that there is a significant difference in the dominant current direction when comparing the near-seabed measurements to those made closer to the surface. Measurements from the mid-depth and near surface meters, indicate that currents head in the NW direction approximately 35% and 45% of the time. This is also the direction where the strongest currents occur, with currents over 0.25 m/s occurring for approximately 73% of the time in the NW direction. Similarly, at mid-depth, of the currents over 0.25 m/s approximately 45% occur in the NW direction. Near seabed currents, on the other hand, show an almost equal distribution in current direction in the N, NW, W and SW directions, with current magnitudes consistently spread over these directions. Seasonal variations at the Oakajee 20m AWAC near-surface and mid-depths, indicate that summer and spring show a similar dominance of currents heading NW. In contrast, autumn and winter show a transition to more S and SE directed currents; however the strongest currents still occur in the W to NW directions. Analysis of ADCP data measured between 7 June 2006 to 10 January 2007 and 23 November 2007 to 25 July 2008 showed that wave heights were <2 m for ~98% of the record. Wave directions were from the south west predominantly. Peak wave periods are in the range 12-18 seconds for 85% of the record, showing the site to be dominated by swell waves. The typical tidal cycle is diurnal (typically one high and one low tide per day) with a mean spring tidal range of 0.8 m The transition from spring to neaps to springs again occurring at intervals of 14.5 days, approximately half the length of the lunar (synodic) cycle.
2.6
Introduced Marine Organisms
Only four of the 55 target Introduced Marine Pest species on the National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group (NIMPCG) list have been introduced to Western Australia; with all four species limited to the southern WA waters, from the Swan River and Fremantle, south to Bunbury and east to the ports between Albany and Esperance (NIMPCG, 2006a, 2006b). Huisman et al. (2008) demonstrated that 60 Introduced Marine Species were present in Western Australia. Using the Kalbarri Cliffs as the dividing line between tropical and temperate species, the majority were temperate species (37); six were tropical species, and; 17 species were found in both the tropical and temperate waters. A recent analysis of the threats of marine species being introduced through 15 ports in Western Australia saw Geraldton Port ranked fifth highest (McDonald, 2008). The report assigned a moderate overall likelihood of introduced marine species to Geraldton Port, which was largely due to the high volume of domestic shipping traffic through the port. At least nine introduced and three cryptogenic species are likely to be established in Geraldton Port (Campbell et al, 2003). A baseline investigation of Introduced Marine Organisms (IMO) at the proposed Oakajee Port development area was undertaken. Selected sites targeted potential inoculation areas within the proposed port area, adjacent areas (including pristine areas) and proposed port approaches (23 sites in total). The baseline study did not detect any IMO (EnviroMarine 2009). The result suggests that transportation and/or establishment of IMO in the Oakajee region is limited.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 30
3.
POTENTI AL IMP ACTS
The potential impacts outlined below are those may be expected from dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation activities associated with the construction of Oakajee Port. For clarity, the main focus of each subsection is summarised below: Method o Outlines the method for identifying and managing potential marine environmental impacts from dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation activities. Impacts o Provides a list of the environmental aspects, potential impacts and impact pathways from dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation activities. Hydrodynamic modelling of impacts to BPPH o Provides information on the methods and results of hydrodynamic modelling; o Provides loss calculations for indirect BPPH losses due to construction sedimentation; and, o Provides loss calculations for indirect BPPH losses due to a reduction in saturating light. Infrastructure footprint impacts to BPPH o Outlines the expected losses from the direct impact of port infrastructure on BPPH. Water quality impacts o Provides information on the potential impacts to the water quality of the receiving marine environment from land reclamation return water.
3.1
Method
This EMP was developed on the basis of the Ministerial Conditions and the project's Environmental Risk Register. The register was developed using the IMS-SF-1 Environmental Risk Register Template and in accordance with the IMS-SP-1 Environmental Risk Management Procedure. The risk evaluation is based on the overall project risk management principles based on AS/NZS 4360: Risk Management. The management of impacts associated with the Project activities are based on a risk management framework aligned to ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management. This involves: Identification of key activities that may interact with the project environment; Implementing controls to reduce risk and severity of impacts; and, Monitoring the effectiveness of controls.
A risk assessment of activities and potential impacts of the Project was conducted within the risk management framework to create a Risk Register. The key project activities of the proposal were identified. The events that may cause impacts to the environment were determined, and their associated potential impacts listed. The risk of the impacts occurring was analysed by determining the consequence severity of the impacts and the likelihood of consequences being realised. The severity of the consequences was determined using a Consequence Severity Table. The likelihood of an impact resulting from a pathway was determined with a Likelihood Ranking Table. The level of risk was determined using a Risk Matrix, which determines the overall level of risk.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 31
To prevent or minimise the impacts, controls are placed on the pathways in this order of hierarchy of control principles: Elimination of the activity; Substitution with a lower risk activity or product; Engineering solutions to reduce the impact of the event; Implementation of administrative procedures to control the activity; and, Clean up or remediation measures to mitigate impacts after an event.
Performance indicators are selected parameters that provide indications of the effectiveness of the management strategies. These indicators have been translated to performance targets.
3.2
Impacts
Port construction, including dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation will cause the development of turbid sediment plumes that could potentially cause adverse impacts on the marine environment. Return water from the land reclamation areas may potentially have different temperature, salinity and pH, than the receiving natural environment, which may impact the environmental values of the area immediately surrounding the point of water return to the receiving environment. The major pathways potentially causing turbidity and a change to the physico-chemical water quality are listed below: Dredged materials7, including beach sand and consolidated rock, which may release suspended sediments into the marine environment during dredging of the port berths, turning basin and shipping channel; Dredged materials used in the land reclamation area, which may result in the release of suspended sediments into the marine environment; Return water from the reclamation area, which may change the physico-chemical water quality adjacent to the port; and, Dust and dirt from the breakwater rock armour and core material, which may release suspended into the marine environment during breakwater construction. The three major types of construction activity, including dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation have the potential to cause impact the marine environment through different pathways (Table 3.1). The predicted losses of marine habitat attributable to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation are provided in Table 3.2. These predictions indicate that the total impact from the port footprint will result in losses of 146.2 ha (Figure 3.1), which complies with the MS469 requirement that not more than 170 ha of habitat should be destroyed. Additionally, no individual habitat type has a cumulative loss of more than 10% of the local assessment unit (5690 ha at Oakajee), which is in accordance with Category E (development areas) as outlined in EAG3 (EPA 2009). Expected BPPH losses associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation are shown in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.2.
Screening of the unconsolidated (sandy) sediments and consolidated (rock) sediments for potential contamination did not reveal any naturally occurring contamination above screening levels at the port development site (Oceanica 2009a Oceanica 2009b).
7
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 32
Table 3.1: Construction activity, pathway, environmental impact

Environmental Aspect Dredging BPPH BPPH BPPH Introduced Marine Organisms Marine Fauna Marine Fauna Water Quality Water Quality Indirect impact to BPPH Direct impact to BPPH Direct impact to BPPH Introduction of Marine Pests may cause a shift in species composition and ecosystem processes Disruption or injury to cetaceans and other marine fauna Injury or death to cetaceans and other marine fauna Intermittent reduction in visibility for duration of the dredge program Contamination of the marine environment, potential impact on ecology, and commercial and recreational fishery Sediment Plume - Reduction in the amount of light reaching BPPH Sediment Plume Smothering of BPPH by sediment as it settles out of the water column Dredge footprint Destruction of BPPH by the dredge outside the proposed area Inoculation from dredge and associated vessels caused by inadequate quarantine practices Noise from dredge Vessel strikes Sediment plume from dredge cutter head Refuelling, hydrocarbon handling, lubrication of dredge cutter head Ecosystem health Ecosystem health Ecosystem health Ecosystem health DBCLRMP DBCLRMP DBCLRMP IMPMP Potential impact Potential Impact Pathway EPA Environmental Value Relevant EMP
Ecosystem health Ecosystem health Recreation and aesthetics -Ecosystem health -Fishing -Recreation and aesthetics
UNMP MFFMP DBCLRMP OSCP
Breakwater Construction BPPH Indirect impact to BPPH Sediment Plume from fine particulate material on construction material and disturbance of marine sediments - Reduction in the amount of light reaching BPPH Sediment Plume Smothering of BPPH by sediment as it settles out of the water column Breakwater footprint - Destruction of BPPH by breakwater construction outside the proposed area Inoculation from dredges and barges caused by inadequate quarantine practices Noise from pile driving Sediment plume from breakwater construction material may reduce water clarity Decomposing beach-cast wrack may alter the distribution of nutrients in the region, may produce unpleasant odour and impact the visual amenity. Breakwater construction may alter water circulation patterns Ecosystem health DBCLRMP
BPPH BPPH
Direct impact to BPPH Direct impact to BPPH
Ecosystem health Ecosystem health
DBCLRMP DBCLRMP
Introduced Marine Organisms Marine Fauna Water Quality Beach-cast Wrack (Water Quality) Shoreline Stability
Introduction of Marine Pests may cause a shift in species composition and ecosystem processes Disruption or injury to cetaceans and other marine fauna Intermittent reduction in visibility for duration of the breakwater construction program Accumulation of beach cast wrack against breakwater
Ecosystem health
IMPMP
Ecosystem health Recreation and aesthetics Ecosystem health Recreation and aesthetics Ecosystem health
UNMP DBCLRMP BWMP
Erosion or accretion of beaches in close proximity to the port
SSMP
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 33
Environmental Aspect
Potential impact
Potential Impact Pathway
EPA Environmental Value
Relevant EMP
Land Reclamation BPPH Indirect impact to BPPH Sediment Plume from the discharge of return water from land reclamation containing fine particulate material- Reduction in the amount of light reaching BPPH Sediment Plume Smothering of BPPH by sediment as it settles out from return-water discharge Land reclamation footprint Destruction of BPPH by land reclamation footprint outside the proposed area Sediment plume from land reclamation returnwater material, which may reduce water clarity Ecosystem health DBCLRMP
BPPH
Direct impact to BPPH
Ecosystem health
DBCLRMP
BPPH
Direct impact to BPPH
Ecosystem health
DBCLRMP
Water Quality
Intermittent reduction in visibility for duration of the return-water flow
Recreation and aesthetics
DBCLRMP
Table 3.2 : Summary of the total area of marine habitat impacts impacted from port construction, including port infrastructure footprint and indirect impacts to BPPH
Cause of impact Breakwater Breakwater halo Dredge Reclamation # Sedimentation impact on BPPH -model output # Indirect impact on BPPH (reduction in saturating light) - model output Total Area of impact (ha) 26.8 13.9 69.0 26.3 6.9 3.3 146.2
# BPPH losses do not include areas bare sand habitat
Table 3.3: Summary of BPPH categories and losses attributable to port construction
# *
Habitat Type
Hsat impact - Modelled 0.2 0 3.0 0.1 3.3
Sedimentation - Modelled 0 0.8 0.7 5.4 6.9
Dredge footprint 3.2 11.0 31.5 4.3 50.0
Breakwater footprint 0 4.9 9.7 0.6 15.2
Breakwater Halo 0 0.8 6.8 6.1 13.7
Total 3.4 17.5 51.7 23.5 96.1
Percentage of habitat loss 0.06% 0.31% 0.91% 0.41% 1.69%
Sand with seagrass Reef with algae Reef with algae and seagrass Inshore reef with algae
# BPPH losses do not include areas bare sand habitat * habitat losses should not include port infrastructure for assessment purposes according to EAG3 (EPA 2009)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 34
Figure 3.1: Total area of marine habitat impacted from port construction, including port infrastructure footprint, indirect impact to BPPH from reduced light, and direct BPPH impact from sedimentation. Note that the sedimentation impacts to the south are attributable to southern land reclamation return water
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 35
Figure 3.2: BPPH losses from port construction attributable to sedimentation and reduced light attenuation
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 36
3.3
3.3.1
Hydrodynamic modelling of BPPH impacts

BPPH loss predictions
To examine the environmental impacts associated with sediment plumes expected to be generated during construction of the Oakajee Deepwater Port, hydrodynamic modelling was undertaken by Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates (APASA). The description below provides a summary of the modelling conducted for the proposed port construction. For a more detailed account of the methods, scenarios and limitations of the modelling refer to the following documents: Oceanica and APASA (2010a) (Attachment D); APASA (2009); and, APASA (2009a).
The APASA modelling was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 involved modelling the fate of suspended sediment material deposited into the marine environment during the construction of the port breakwater. Phase 2 involved dredge dispersion modelling for the duration of all the dredging operations associated with the development. The methods employed in the modelling are provided in detail in APASA (2009). A supplementary report was developed to interpret the predictive (numerical) modelling results from port construction and use those data to assess the potential impact of turbidity and sedimentation on benthic primary producer habitat (Oceanica and APASA 2010a). Specifically, the report described the zones of impact on benthic primary producer habitat resulting from the predicted the turbidity plume generated by construction activity over the construction period. Benthic primary producer habitat in the Oakajee Deepwater Port region comprise algae as well as seagrass, but as seagrass was considered the benthic primary producer most sensitive to turbidity, the predicted effects on seagrass (Amphibolis griffithii) health were used to conservatively define potential areas of impact on all benthic primary producers. Furthermore, an estimate of the potential loss from bottom deposition of sediment over the model domain was made. The APASA modelling was undertaken to quantify the movement of suspended sediment generated during construction of the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port Development, and incorporated physical data collected from the Oakajee region. The study involved using Lagrangian particle tracking models to track the fate of the sediment using forcing conditions specified by a wave model and three-dimensional, numerical, hydrodynamic model. The models enabled the sediment dispersal patterns to be calculated under a range of forcing conditions, and for different construction scenarios. The domain of the study was sufficient to encompass the total area affected by the sediment plumes arising from the proposed dredging and disposal operations, to a distance where the concentrations might be significant. The total area affected included the initial extent of the sediment plume and deposition and areas affected following the reworking of sediments, which occurs through re-suspension and subsequent transport. The domain of the study was large enough to capture the forcing effects of all relevant sediment transport mechanisms over the study area. In particular the effect of wind energy transfer to the sea surface over long fetches of the order of 10s km was important for both wave and current generation. The sediment transport model also accounted for particle-size specific sinking, sedimentation and re-suspension of sediments for the range of current and wave conditions as derived by the hydrodynamic and wave models. The model also accounted for the effects of sediment cohesion (i.e. clumping) on sinking rates of fine particles and the effects of sedimentation history, burial and armouring on re-suspension rates. The sediment model also represents cumulative effects of multiple sources of suspended sediment over and beyond the duration of the full construction program (i.e. 36 months) in order to quantify the time-history of effects and the full footprint of the operation. All of these requirements were considered in developing optimal models for this study.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 37
The model was developed using four likely scenarios of meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which included: 1. Low total suspended solid (TSS) concentration (100 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and La Nia climatic conditions; 2. High TSS concentration (250 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and La Nia climatic conditions; 3. Low (TSS) concentration (100 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and El Nio climatic conditions; and, 4. High TSS concentration (250 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and El Nio climatic conditions. La Nia and El Nio climatic conditions were both modelled because the transition between autumn and spring showed distinct inter-annual variation depending on whether a particular year was more summer like with winds from the south, or more winter like with winds from the north-east. Winter like winds corresponded to weak La Nia years, whereas summer like winds were related to weak El Nio years (APASA 2009). In order to capture the effects of inter-annual variability, both cases were considered in the modelling. The selection of TSS concentrations was based on results from other capital dredging projects in Western Australia. In particular, data from a dredging program where the dredge material was collected in a bunded reclamation area had return water with a measurable TSS of ~100 mg L-1 (confidential data). Based on these data, the selection of 250 mg L-1 was considered a highly conservative estimate and a worst-case scenario. Estimates of the area impacted by the modelled turbidity plume were based on seagrass light criteria described by the parameter Hsat, which describes the decrease in hours of saturating irradiance of seagrass in shaded (impact) areas versus control (reference) areas. The impact on seagrass was expressed as the percentage reduction in the above ground biomass (leaves and stems) of seagrass in the impact site compared with the reference site. These parameters were based on an established study conducted at Jurien Bay, some 200 km south of the Oakajee Port site (Lavery et. al. 2009). For a full description of the methods employed to develop the Hsat light criteria, refer to Attachment D. Zones of high impact, moderate impact and low impact were determined for the Oakajee development site for each of the model scenarios. Of the four scenarios, the worst-case in terms of impacts on the light environment (i.e. shading) was the high TSS concentration (250 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and La Nia climatic conditions. Note that due to the close proximity of the three areas of impact described above and the relatively small combined total footprint, these will be considered together in the loss calculations at the Zone of Impact (ZoI) (Table 3.4). The predicted area of the ZoI is shown in Figure 3.2, which provides a good estimate of the potential area of impact based on the physical oceanographic parameters used in the model. However, it is likely that the actual oceanographic conditions will vary from the modelled conditions during construction so that the actual footprint location may differ to that predicted by the model. Considering this, the predicted area of impact (10.2 ha, see Section 3.4), will be assessed within a moderate ecological protection area (MEPA, see section Section 3.4 for the MEPA boundary). An estimate of the area of BPPH lost by sediment burial was also made using APASA (2009) modelling output. The threshold amount of 50 kg m-2 over the entire construction campaign (i.e. 36 months) was used to estimate potential BPPH loss through burial (Oceanica and APASA 2010a). The threshold amount of 50 kg m-2 equates to approx. 4 cm burial for seagrass (Oceanica and APASA 2010a). This is a highly conservative threshold for A. griffithii, which has been shown to tolerate up to 16 cm of sediment (Coupland 1997). It is also highly unlikely that the full amount of sediment
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 38
estimated would remain deposited in the area because the model predicts the cumulative total sediment at the end of the simulation period (i.e. 2 years). More likely the high wind and wave energy experienced in the Oakajee region would remobilise much of the material before it accumulates (Oceanica, 2009). The selection of the worst case model scenario (El Nio, high TSS output) also adds to the conservatism of the estimate. The total area of 6.9 ha predicted is therefore a highly conservative estimate of BPPH loss attributable to sedimentation. The estimated area impacted by sediment burial is shown in Table 3.5.
Table 3.4: Estimate of BPPH areas impacted by increased light attenuation (Hsat) during construction
Estimated Area of Impact (ha) Habitat Type Sand with Seagrass Reef with algae Reef with algae and seagrass Inshore reef with algae TOTAL High Impact 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 Moderate Impact 0.1 0 1.0 0 1.1 Low Impact 0.1 0 1.9 0.1 2.1 Zone of Impact (i.e Total) 0.2 0 3.0 0.1 3.3
Table 3.5: Worst-case modelling scenarios of BPPH loss from construction at Oakajee Port
Indirect Impact (ha) Outside of Dredge and Breakwater Footprint Habitat Type Sand with Seagrass Reef with algae Reef with algae and seagrass Inshore reef with algae TOTAL Turbidity 0.2 0 3.0 0.1 3.3 Sedimentation 0 0.8 0.7 5.4 6.9 Total construction 0.2 0.8 3.7 5.5 10.2
The assumptions and methods used to define the zones of impact (Table 3.4) and the sediment burial BPPH losses are provided in detail in Oceanica and APASA (2010a). The combined worst-case scenario is presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.1. The conservative approach taken with the modelling is likely to represent a worse-case than might be expected. The major reasons for the model to over-estimate the TSS and sediment deposition rates presented in this report are: 1. The worst-case from the four model scenarios was chosen to represent possible BPPH loss for both TSS/turbidity and sedimentation. 2. High TSS levels in the return waters from the settlement area were assumed. 3. The retention time of the reclamation area and settlement area was not included in the model, therefore it was assumed all of the water going into land reclamation was output at the return water points. It is likely that some water will be lost to evaporation, into the ground and returned to the sea through the soil/reef profile.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 39
4. Point source return water rather than diffuse source return water less likely to have areas of high sediment deposition. 5. Zone of low impact was chosen as the trigger for loss of BPPH. 6. Highly conservative sedimentation threshold level of approx. 4 cm (50 kg m-2) was selected to estimate the possible impact on BPPH from burial. 7. Additional mitigation measures were not included in the model, such as using the tug-boat harbour as an additional settling area, or switching from one reclamation to the other to maximise infiltration and reduce return water flow. Furthermore the potential for BPPH to recover after dredging related turbidity impacts was not considered in the modelling, even though strong evidence exists to suggest that recovery is likely within 3 years of the impact (CSIRO 2008). Therefore, it is possible that any areas of BPPH lost during construction may recover within 3 years. 3.3.2 Predicted Visual Plume
The combined BPPH loss estimates presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.1 may appear small when compared with that experienced by the Geraldton Port Expansion Project. However, there are several reasons why the turbidity plume is not expected to greatly impact BPPH health. The hydrodynamic model adopted a highly conservative approach and therefore provides a worst case than might be expected. The data used for the predicted loss was the worst case scenario for meteorological and oceanographic conditions. Additionally, the return water TSS concentrations were assumed to be very high (250 mg L-1) and the retention time of the large reclamation and settlement areas were not included in the model. The TSS concentrations will most likely be considerably lower than those modelled. Finally, management mitigation measures were not included in the modelling, such as selecting relatively coarse core material for breakwater construction to reduce the fines content, or switching from one reclamation area to another to maximise infiltration and reduce returnwater flow. It is important to make the distinction between turbidity impacts to BPPH and turbidity visible to the naked eye. The visual plume is a zone of influence that will be larger than the zone of BPPH impact (Figure 3.1), where turbidity is higher than it would normally be, but does not cause a significant impact to BPPH. In contrast, the zone of impact is that area where the turbidity is sufficiently high to cause negative impacts on the BPPH. The spatial and temporal extent of the visual plume is expected to be intermittent depending on the construction activities and the prevailing meteorological and oceanographic conditions. To provide an indicative guide to the potential visual extent of the suspended sediment plume, instant snap shots during the modelling simulation were taken at 4 hourly intervals over different stages of port construction to give a sense of the temporal behaviour of the suspended sediment plume (APASA 2009). The entire construction program was divided into 25 day scenarios for computational and data storage reasons. A summary of the construction activities for each scenario is provided in Figure 3.3. The construction activities include: Breakwater construction by end-tipping, using rock material sourced from a land based quarry; Breakwater construction by barges, using rock material sourced from a land based quarry; Construction of the northern bunded area, using rock material sourced from a land based quarry; and, Dredging of marine sediment and rock and disposal at the northern and southern land reclamation areas.
The following construction scenarios were selected to illustrate the possible extent of the visual plume:
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 40
Scenario 2 - breakwater construction (Figure 3.4), which is indicative of the visual plume for the first 475 days of the construction campaign; Scenario 19 - dredging and return water discharge from the northern reclamation area (Figure 3.5), which is indicative of the visual plume from approximately day 475 to day 525 of port construction; and Scenario 23 - dredging and return water discharge from the southern reclamation area (Figure 3.6), which is indicative of the visual plume from approximately day 525 to day 700 of port construction.
Snap shots are presented for the different construction components over the period of construction during the worst case modelling scenario (i.e. La Nina oceanographic conditions, high TSS concentration in return water). The snap shots are presented as spatial surface plots of the maximum water column concentration (in mg/L) over all layers of the bulk material in the water column (Figure 3.4 to Figure 3.6). The results suggest that during construction of the breakwater, a visual plume may be evident up to ~13 km north of the port. During dredging and return-water flow from the reclamation area, the visual plume is likely to extend to ~5-6 km north of the port. These predictions from the hydrodynamic modelling of the worst case scenario suggest that the visual plume will extend over a significantly larger area than the predicted extent of BPPH impact discussed in Section 3.3.1 and shown in Figure 3.1. Impacts to coastal sediment transport are considered in the Shoreline Stability Management Plan (SSMP).
Figure 3.3: Volume of dredge material for each construction scenario (S1-S27) during El Nino oceanographic conditions (source APASA [2000])
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 41
Scale 2km
Figure 3.4: Sequence of snap shots of the maximum TSS concentration in the water column (mg/L) at 4 hourly intervals on 31 October Year1 of the construction schedule. The snap shots are taken from the La Nina case and the sediment source is from dumping of core material via land based operation during breakwater construction (Source: APASA 2009)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 42
Scale 2km
Figure 3.5 Snap shot sequence of maximum TSS in the water column (mg/L) at 4 hourly intervals on 10 December Year 2 of the construction schedule. The sediment source is from dumping core material during the breakwater construction, the cutter head during dredge operation and the northern return water discharge (Source: APASA 2009)
Scale 2km
Figure 3.6 Snap shot sequence of maximum TSS in the water column (mg/L) at 4 hourly intervals on 27 April Year 3 of the construction schedule. The sediment source is from the cutter head during dredge operation and the southern return water discharge (Source: APASA 2009)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 43
3.4
Water Quality Impacts
The Oakajee Deepwater Port PER outlined the parameters and guidelines proposed for dredging activities undertaken during port construction (Table 3.6). Table 3.6: Water Quality Monitoring Program Oakajee deepwater port dredging parameters and guidelines
Parameter pH Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Waterways Guidelines (Waterways Commission Guidelines No 9, December 1995) Range 5-9; <1.0 unit change >5.0 mg/L or >60% saturation Return water discharges shall not cause the water temperature in the receiving waters to vary by more than 2C from background temperatures in the receiving waters. The concentration of nutrients in the return waters shall not exceed the background concentration in receiving waters. The suspended solids concentration of the return water shall not exceed the higher of the background concentration in the receiving waters or 80 mg/L. Return water discharges shall not produce objectionable odours or colours in the receiving waters. Return water discharges shall not cause visible floating oil, foam, grease, scum, litter or other objectionable matter in the receiving waters. Return water discharges shall not cause the deposition of settleable matter which may adversely affect the visual, recreational and ecological values of the receiving waters. The return water salinity shall not vary by more than 10% from the background salinity levels in the receiving water. The operator may be required to undertake toxicity analysis of the return water discharge. The level of toxicants shall not exceed the desirable concentrations in ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000).
Nutrients
Suspended Solids
Odours and Colours Floatable Matter
Settleable Matter
Salinity
Toxicants
However, it was noted in MS469 that the final parameters and guidelines to be used will be determined in consultation with the relevant regulatory bodies. This DBCLRMP forms the basis of that consultation. Of the parameters listed in Table 3.6 above, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity and contaminants will be addressed in this DBCLRMP. The reason for selection of these parameters is explained in the next section. P H Y S I C O - C H E M I C A L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y I N DI C AT O R S Land reclamation return water may have higher temperature and salinity than the receiving coastal waters. Similarly, dissolved oxygen, pH and nutrient concentrations may be different in the land reclamation area compared with the receiving environment. Therefore, physico-chemical water quality monitoring will be conducted in the receiving marine waters adjacent to the reclamation areas during periods when the return-water is directed into the receiving marine waters. Physico-chemical water quality testing during breakwater construction and dredging activities will also measure TSS, and light attenuation data to validate the assumptions of the relationship between these parameters in the sediment plume modelling.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 44
Water quality triggers for physico-chemical parameters have been adopted as indicators of ecosystem health within moderate ecological protection areas (MEPA) and high ecological protection areas (HEPA). These are based on Ecological Quality Criteria (EQC) as outlined in EPA (2005), and reproduced in Table 3.7. Table 3.7: Physico-chemical water quality indicators, trigger levels and detection limits
Indicator Moderate Ecological Protection Trigger Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) pH (pH units) >80% Within the range 5th-95th%ile of reference site Temperature (C) Salinity (ppt) 95th%ile of reference site Within the range 5th-95th%ile of reference site High Ecological Protection Trigger >90% Within the range 20th-80th%ile of reference site 80th%ile of reference site Within the range 20th-80th%ile of reference site 0.1C 0.1 ppt 1% saturation 0.1 pH units Detection Limit
The method for deriving the moderate and high protection triggers described above was based on ANZEEC & ARMCANZ (2000)
The EQC for dissolved oxygen will be considered exceeded if median values are less than the MEPAs and HEPAs for six consecutive weeks of monitoring, in accordance with EPA (2005a). The EQC for pH, temperature and salinity will be considered exceeded if median values are outside the range for the MEPAs and HEPAs when compared with an appropriate reference site/s for four consecutive weeks of monitoring, in accordance with EPA (2005a). The MEPA will extend 250 m from port infrastructure in accordance with DoE (2006). Beyond the MEPA, all areas are considered HEPA. The MEPA for the proposed Oakajee Port are shown in (Figure 3.7).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 45
Figure 3.7: Construction MEPA surrounding port infrastructure and the southern land reclamation return water area CONTAMINANTS IN WATER The results of the baseline sediment investigation demonstrated that the levels of both natural and anthropogenic contamination contained in the sediments at Oakajee were below ANZEEC/ARMCANZ (2000) guideline levels (Oceanica 2009c and Oceanica 2009d). Considering this, there is a low risk to water quality and ecological health from naturally occurring contaminants during construction. However, to demonstrate that the natural levels of contaminants are below guideline levels throughout construction, sampling will be performed on water from the land reclamation area prior to discharge into the receiving environment. The water quality triggers for contaminants8 including metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are shown in Table 3.8. These are based on indicators of ecosystem health values within MEPAs and HEPAs (EPA, 2005), which include:
The baseline investigations of sediment quality revealed negligible risk of contaminant in the sediments, which included screening of: organotins, organic herbicides and pesticides, and acid sulphate soils. These parameters will not be screened in the water quality monitoring sampling.
8
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 46
90% species protection values for MEPAs (as defined by Table 3.4.1 of ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000); 99% species protection values for HEPAs, except for cobalt which is 95% species protection (as defined by Table 3.4.1 of ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000; and as agreed with the DEC in previous correspondence); or Low Reliability Values (LRVs) defined in Chapter 8 of ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) and Table 2c of EPA (2005), for other chemicals not listed within the above.
Table 3.8: Indicators, trigger levels and detection limits for contaminants in water
Indicator Ecosystem Health Trigger Levels High Ecological Protection (g L-1) 0.7 7.7 0.14 1 0.3 2.2 0.1 7 0.8 50 7 Detection Limits g L-1 0.6 5 2** 1 1** 2 0.1 2 0.8 1 2
Metals Cadmium Chromium III Chromium VI Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Vanadium Zinc Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Naphthalene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene
Moderate Ecological Protection (g L-1) 14 49 20 14 3 6.6 0.7 200 1.8 160 23
50* 0.6
# #
90 4
# #
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 1 0.1
1.5 1.7 0.4
# Based on Low Reliability Values (LRVs) - Action is not mandatory if LRVs are exceeded, but regulators and management agencies should be advised and consideration given to developing strategies that will ensure environmental impacts are avoided (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000; EPA 2005a). * 99% species protection value utilised (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000).
3.5
Summary of Impacts
A summary of impacts for the purpose of performance management include: Loss of biodiversity from indirect impacts to BPPH due to turbidity plume. Loss of biodiversity from indirect impact to BPPH due to sedimentation. Loss of biodiversity from direct impact to BPPH due to infrastructure footprint. Loss of biodiversity from water quality physicochemical impacts. Loss of biodiversity from water quality contaminant impacts.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 47
4.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBI LITIES
This section outlines the overarching roles and responsibilities relating to this Plan. The responsibility for more detailed control measures are presented in Section 6. Environment Manager Overall accountability for the implementation and compliance with this DBCLRMP. Provide support to all Project personnel as required ensuring this DBCLRMP is implemented and complied with. Provide advice to the Construction Manager, Dredge Manager and Environmental Coordinators to ensure compliance with the legal requirements, achievement of environmental objectives and improving environmental performance. Obtain relevant approvals as required. Review and closing out any corrective actions listed in the Complaints Register.
Construction Manager To ensure all staff are trained as to their responsibilities with respect to the DBCLRMP. To investigate and subsequently rectify issues that may arise as a result of non-conformance.
Dredge Manager Accountability for compliance with dredge management controls detailed in this DBCLRMP. Accountability for the implementation of additional dredge management controls detailed in this DBCLRMP.
Site Supervisor To provide work place induction of requirements of their team(s) under this DBCLRMP. To ensure work is undertaken cognisant of the commitments made in this Plan. To provide feedback into any DBCLRMP review process.
Environmental Coordinator Provide training and induction on relevant control measures as outlined in this DBCLRMP. Provide monitoring teams and programmes. Assist with investigating incidents and co-ordinating corrective actions, if required; To liaise with the Site Supervisor and Construction Manager and other relevant personnel on the DBCLRMP implementation effectiveness. To review the DBCLRMP as required and disseminate any changes to affected personnel. To report as required to regulating authorities.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 48
Contractors Shall complete project inductions and abide by OPR and PMSC policies, procedures and plans including but not limited to Environmental Management Plans; Manage activities so as to avoid contamination of marine waters
All Personnel To comply with this DBCLRMP and the overall EMS and SMS as it pertains to their activities; and To report incidents and support environmental investigations and audits.
Also refer to EMS for further details on general OPR personnel responsibilities.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 49
5.
MITIG ATION
Impacts on benthic primary producers and water quality generally will be minimised by appropriate design and avoidance where possible. To prevent or minimise the impacts, controls are placed on the pathways in the order of hierarchy of control principles listed below:

Elimination of the activity; Substitution with a lower risk activity or product; Engineering solutions to reduce the impact of the event; Implementation of administrative procedures to control the activity; and Clean up or remediation measures to mitigate impacts after an event.
The management strategy structure and content follows EPA and DEC guidance. Management strategies have been developed to meet the following EPA objectives:
To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of marine flora and fauna at species and ecosystems levels through the avoidance and management of adverse impacts and improvement in knowledge; and To maintain water quality to accepted criteria to protect the environmental values of recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for human consumption and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas. EQO1 - Maintain ecosystem integrity (EPA 2005)
The intended mitigation of impacts, determined in accordance with the EPA recommended mitigation hierarchy, is outlined in Table 5.1 below. The impacts, objectives, targets and performance indicators related to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation, have been developed based upon the management strategies outlined in Table 5.1
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 50
Table 5.1
Performance Management targets and indicators for Dredging, Breakwater Construction & Land Reclamation
OPR Management Objective Infrastructure footprint conforms to the 'Approved' Port design (MS469) OPR Management Strategy To monitor disturbance footprint to ensure it is within the approved footprint impact threshold as defined in MS469 Target Combined total infrastructure footprint and permanent loss of BPPH will be less than or equal to 170 ha (MS469). Calculation of total loss will consider the following: Infrastructure footprint is less than or equal to that proposed in the 'Approved' Port design (MS469); and Permanent sedimentation impacts to BPPH are less than or equal to those predicted by the hydrodynamic model (Oceanica and APASA 2010a); and Permanent indirect loss (from reduced light availability) of BPPH are less than or equal to those predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009); and Recovery of BPPH in accordance with EAG3 (EPA 2009) Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated through external audit (Section 10) Seagrass cover monitoring BPPH health monitoring Hsat (light) monitoring Performance Indicators Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated through external audit (Section 10) Infrastructure footprint assessment postconstruction through GIS verification
Potential Impacts Loss of biodiversity from direct impact to BPPH due to infrastructure footprint.
Loss of biodiversity from indirect impacts to BPPH due to turbidity plume. To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of BPPH at species and ecosystems levels. Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation construction activities to minimise turbidity.
Combined total infrastructure footprint and permanent loss of BPPH will be less than or equal to 170 ha (MS469). Calculation of total loss will consider the following: Permanent indirect loss (from reduced light availability) of BPPH are less than or equal to those predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009); and Infrastructure footprint is less than or equal to that proposed in the 'Approved' Port design (MS469); and Permanent sedimentation impacts to BPPH are less than or equal to those predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009); and Recovery of BPPH in accordance with EAG3 (EPA 2009)
Loss of biodiversity from indirect impacts to BPPH due to sedimentation. To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of BPPH at species and ecosystems levels. Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation construction activities to minimise sedimentation.
Combined total infrastructure footprint and permanent loss of BPPH will be less than or equal to 170 ha (MS469). Calculation of total loss will consider the following: Permanent sedimentation impacts to BPPH are less than or equal to those predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009); and Infrastructure footprint is less than or equal to that proposed in the 'Approved' Port design (MS469); and Permanent indirect loss (from reduced light availability) of BPPH are less than or equal to those predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009); and Recovery of BPPH in accordance with EAG3 (EPA 2009)
Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated through external audit (Section 10) Seagrass cover monitoring BPPH health monitoring
Loss of biodiversity from water quality physicochemical impacts. To maintain water quality to accepted criteria to protect the environmental values of recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for human consumption and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas. To maintain water quality to accepted criteria to protect the environmental values of recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for human consumption and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation construction activities to minimise changes to physico-chemical water parameters
Physico-chemical water quality parameters within land reclamation water are less than with MEPA trigger levels (Table 3.7) before being returned to the receiving environment.
Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated through external audit (Section 10) Physico-chemical water quality monitoring
Loss of biodiversity from water quality contaminant impacts.
Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation construction activities to minimise the release of contaminants into the receiving marine environment
Contaminant levels within land reclamation water are less than the MEPA trigger levels (Table 3.8) before being returned to the receiving environment.
Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated through external audit (Section 10) Contaminant water quality monitoring within the land reclamation area/s
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 51
6.
KEY CONTROL MEASURES
A series of control measures have been established to address the potential impacts related to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation that could arise during the construction of the OPR Port Marine and Port Terrestrial infrastructure. The control measures directly address the EPA objectives and OPR management strategies set out in the Public Environmental Review and Ministerial Statement 469. Control measures for the management of turbidity during construction activities including; dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation, are outlined in Table 6 below. The control measures in Table 6 relate to construction impacts on benthic primary producer habitat (BPPH) and water quality caused by suspended sediments. In addition, several control measures that may related to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation were identified and outlined in full in other associated Oakajee Deepwater Port EMPs. These plans include: Construction Management Plan; Oil Spill Contingency Plan; Port Waste Management Plan; Accidental Spills Management Plan; Introduced Marine Pests Management Plan Beach-cast Wrack Management Plan Shoreline Stability Management Plan Underwater Noise Management Plan
Please refer to these management plans for further control measures that may be associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation (Section 11). A copy of the management plans are available from OPR.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 52
Table 6.1: Control measures for dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation during construction
OPR Management Objective Direct BPPH impacts Infrastructure footprint conforms to the 'Approved' Port design (MS469) Control Measure ID MCD1 MCD2 MCD3 Construction Management Level General General General Control Measures Comply with MS469 footprint conditions. Progressive construction surveying of dredge area, breakwater and land reclamation areas to validate detailed design to confirm compliance with MS469. Conduct a final construction survey on completion of Port infrastructure construction to validate compliance with MS469. Ensure all dredge material is disposed to land. A cutter suction dredge will be used to remove the majority of material. Implement a maintenance and inspection program for floating pipelines to minimise leakage of turbid water during pumping of material to the reclamation area. Ensure two return water discharge points are utilised. Alternate land disposal locations to minimise turbidity of return water. Seawalls will be lined with geotextile material or filter rock to reduce leakage and increase particle retention. Internal bunding of reclamation areas will be implemented to increase retention times. Water levels within settlement ponds will be managed to maximise internal capacity of the system (weir box levels). Discharge of dredge material to one of two large receiving reclamation areas to maximise sedimentation within reclamation areas. Selective use of quarry material to avoid fine particle size material. Implement Level 1 management contingency actions if median BPPH impact site > 80 percentile BPPH at reference site (refer to Table 8.1). Implement Level 2 management contingency actions if median BPPH impact site > 90 percentile BPPH at reference site (refer to Table 8.1). Implement Level 3 management contingency actions if median BPPH impact site > 95 percentile BPPH at reference site (refer to Table 8.1).
th
Responsibility Construction Manager Construction Manager Construction Manager
Timing Design & Construction Design & Construction Design & Construction
Monitoring Survey and GIS Survey and GIS Survey and GIS
Sedimentation and Turbidity- Indirect BPPH impacts To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of BPPH at species and ecosystems levels. Turbidity- Indirect BPPH impacts To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of BPPH at species and ecosystems levels. Water Quality To maintain water quality to accepted criteria to protect the environmental values of recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for human consumption and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas.
MCD4 MCD5 MCD6 MCD7 MCD8 MCD9 MCD10 MCD11 MCD12 MCD13 MCD14 MCD15 MCD16
General General General General General General General General General General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Dredge Manager Dredge Manager Dredge Manager Dredge Manager /Construction Manager Construction Manager Construction Manager Construction Manager Construction Manager Dredge Manager Construction Manager Environment Manager Environment Manager Environment Manager
Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Design &Construction Design & Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction
Site inspection Site inspection Maintenance records Site inspection Site inspection Site inspection Site inspection Daily logs Daily logs and site inspection Quarry daily logs and site inspection Refer to section 7 Refer to section 7 Refer to section 7
th
th
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 53
7.
MONITORING
The monitoring strategies employed in this DBCLRMP primarily apply to impacts associated with BPPH and water quality during dredging and disposal. This section provides the detailed monitoring program for assessing the indirect impacts to BPPH from the turbidity plume during dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation activities, and for assessing direct impacts to BPPH from port infrastructure and sedimentation. This section also provides the detailed monitoring program for assessing water quality impacts associated with land reclamation return water. A brief summary of the monitoring requirements for construction monitoring are provided in Table 7.1. Table 7.1: Summary of DBCLRMP monitoring
Management Objective Monitoring Requirement Sedimentation: Infrastructure surveys Bathymetry Benthic Habitat Mapping Responsibility Environmental Manager
To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of BPPH at species and ecosystems levels.
Turbidity: Light Monitoring - Hsat (i.e. light required by seagrass to maintain growth and biomass) BPPH Health Monitoring Seagrass biomass and physiology Algal biomass (not for assessment of construction impacts)
Environmental Manager
(refer to Section 7.
To maintain water quality to accepted criteria to protect the environmental values of recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for human consumption and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas. Infrastructure footprint conforms to the 'Approved' Port design (MS469)
Physico-chemical monitoring Contaminants in land reclamation return water
Analyse detailed GPS coordinates during construction.
Construction Manager and Dredge Manager
There are many potential impacts associated with port construction and outlined in Table 7.1 that are not addressed within this DBCLRMP. However, these potential impacts and the monitoring programs that have been developed to assess them are presented in full in the other relevant EMPs. They include: Construction Management Plan; Oil Spill Contingency Plan; Port Waste Management Plan; Accidental Spills Management Plan; Introduced Marine Pests Management Plan; Beach-cast Wrack Management Plan; Shoreline Stability Management Plan; and, Underwater Noise Management Plan.
The reader is referred to these management plans for further information on control measures to reduce the impacts associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation. Copies of these management plans can be obtained from OPR.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 54
7.1
BPPH Direct Impacts Monitoring
The proposed port infrastructure was designed to have a final footprint of ~148 ha (JFA 1808-14-2E). MS469 states that total footprint (which is BPPH loss and bare sand) is not to exceed 170 ha, which includes the total of direct loss (infrastructure footprint) and indirect loss. The marine area affected by the proposed port is shown in Table 7.2. The infrastructure footprint includes a 50 m halo around the breakwater, which accounts for localised physical processes that often prevent benthic primary producers from becoming established in this zone. The total estimated area of 146.2 ha will be assessed at the end of construction to demonstrate that the port infrastructure and loss estimates were accurate, and that the port is in compliance of MS469. The Section describes the monitoring program and management measures that will be undertaken to demonstrate compliance with MS469. Table 7.2: Marine area affected from direct and indirect impacts of the proposed port
Marine Area Affected Direct Impact: Infrastructure Footprint Breakwater Breakwater Halo Dredge Land Reclamation SUBTOTAL Indirect Impact: Turbidity Plume Modelling Construction sedimentation (model) Construction shading (model) SUBTOTAL TOTAL AREA 6.9 3.3 10.2 146.2 26.8 13.9 69.0 26.3 136 Port design drawing (JFA 1808-14-2E)
7.1.1
Parameters
The parameters for direct impact assessment will include: Surveys of marine infrastructure including the breakwater, and land reclamation areas; Bathymetry of the port area; and, Benthic habitat mapping of the Local Assessment Unit. 7.1.2 Frequency and Location
Surveys of the marine infrastructure and bathymetry of the port area will be conducted on completion of construction; Benthic habitat mapping of the local assessment unit (LAU) will be conducted within 5 years of the completion of construction to determine the final area of BPPH loss. This is consistent with EAG3 (EPA 2009) which states: Recoverability from the impacts may be considered if proponents can reasonably demonstrate that full reco very of the impacted benthic primary producer habitat would be expected within a timeframe of 5 years or less. 7.1.3 Method
Differential Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) will be used to accurately survey the port infrastructure. The final port infrastructure footprint will be calculated using Global Information System software. DGPS will be used on the dredge(s) to ensure that the dredge does not deviate from the approved dredging
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 55
areas. Side scan sonar will be employed to develop accurate bathymetry of the dredge footprint. The proposed and final dredge footprint will be compared to calculate the total volume of dredge material removed. Benthic habitat mapping will be conducted using the methods of the initial survey of the area (see Figure 2.1). The methods are described in (Oceanica 2008). The habitat of the Local Assessment Unit (LAU) will be described according to the five categories of BPPH types that were previously mapped, including: o o o o o Sand with seagrass; Reef with algae; Reef with algae and seagrass; Inshore reef with algae; and Sand.
A final loss table will be developed to compare the total final footprint (direct and indirect loss) against the 170 ha threshold, and the percent loss of all BPPH categories within the LAU relative to the 10% threshold when compared to the baseline BPPH map (consistent with EAG3).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 56
7.2
BPPH Indirect Impact Monitoring
A discussion on light and its measurement at Oakajee, the method for calculating the term Hsat, and the relevant information used to develop the light requirements and thresholds for BPPH is provided in Oceanica and APASA (2010a); (Attachment D). 7.2.1 Parameters (Light requirements and thresholds for Benthic Primary Producer Habitat)
As previously discussed in Section 3.3.1, the potential construction impacts on BPPH were developed based on the relationships between modelled TSS concentrations, the parameter Hsat and the anticipated responses of the dominant seagrass in the region (Amphibolis griffithii [Lavery et al. 2009]) to changes in Hsat. Consequently, the BPPH monitoring program to assess the indirect impact of construction turbidity on BPPH health will use the parameter Hsat as an early warning and sub-lethal indicator of a potential decline in BPPH health. The monitoring program will use a systematic approach for early detection of a significant reduction in the light environment, which may result in damage to seagrass. The parameter Hsat will be monitored and assessed against the trigger values that were used to determine the zones of BPPH impact in Oceanica and APASA (2010a) and shown in Table 7.3. Where Hsat is below the trigger values, there is expected to be sufficient light for A. griffithii to undergo photosynthesis. Where Hsat is greater than the trigger value, there is a possibility that A. griffithii will be adversely impacted by shading from construction turbidity. When this occurs, key measures of A. griffithii biomass, density and morphology will be conducted to determine whether or not the increase in Hsat has directly impacted the BPPH. A. griffithii sampling will also be conducted at regular intervals (every 6 months) throughout construction of the port, regardless of whether the Hsat triggers have been exceeded or not. The parameter Hsat is determined by measuring light ( mol photons m-2 s-1) at the seagrass canopy height at both reference and impact sites (Oceanica 2010). Methods used for sampling BPPH health will follow those used in the collection of four years of baseline data at Oakajee (Oceanica 2010), which were adopted from the Geraldton Port Expansion Project (CSIRO 2005) and (Lavery et al.(2009). The pre-construction baseline data were collected to clearly characterise any variability between different areas and across different years, the baseline study only collected data during the summer and did not capture seasonal variability. Considering this, during construction monitoring, data collected outside the summer period will not be compared with the baseline data from previous years and data collected outside of the summer period will be compared against reference data sampled in the same period from non-impact areas. Four years of baseline health monitoring data exist for the seagrasses A. griffithii and A. antarctica. The same parameters will be monitored during BPPH health monitoring during port construction including: Seagrass cover; Above-ground biomass (leaves and stems); Shoot density; Shoot length; Number of leaves per cluster; Clusters per shoot; and Epiphyte load (plants with no, few or many epiphytes). After completion of the Geraldton Port Expansion Project, the CSIRO (2005, 2007 and 2008) seagrass investigations observed that cover, density and biomass were most impacted by the sediment plume. Conversely, the seagrass morphological parameters (such as shoot height, leaves per shoot, and leaves per cluster) did not show clear trends since they responded quickly to changing environmental conditions and were influenced strongly by factors such as shoot density and biomass. However, these parameters may provide a useful indicator of early seagrass impacts at
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 57
Oakajee post construction and will be assessed during the construction period. The parameter, leaf 15N will also be added to the suite as an early indicator of light induced stress on seagrass (Lavery et al. 2009). Baseline leaf 15N measurements will be taken in the summer of 2011, to provide at least one year of before data, prior to construction. The Oakajee Port baseline BPPH investigation also sampled algal health characteristics over three consecutive years (Oceanica 2010). However, the relationship between Hsat and algal health has not been established. Considering this, algal health characteristics will only be collected for contextual purposes to support a multiple lines of evidence approach, but will not be assessed against trigger values: The algal health parameters will include: Algal cover Density of three life history stages of Ecklonia radiata (as defined by Mann & Kirkman 1981): o stage 1 (new recruit); o stage 2 (juvenile); and o stage 3 (adult). The height of adult plants (stage 3) Both seagrass and algal health data will be analysed to determine whether or not significant differences have occurred between impacted and reference sites. These data will be interrogated using the univariate and multivariate methods described in detail in Oceanica (2010). 7.2.2 BPPH monitoring z ones
Oceanica and APASA (2010a) describe in detail the methods used to develop the BPPH monitoring zones for construction. The zones were based on advice from DEC Marine Ecosystems Branch (2008), which recommends the application of stress threshold criteria that predict severity and extent of impact. These criteria have been explicitly defined based on peer reviewed research, which addressed the impact of dredging campaigns on seagrass survival (Lavery et al. 2009; Collier 2006): Zone of High Impact possible recovery of leaf biomass in >5 years9, but with potential permanent loss of seagrass habitat; Zone of Moderate Impact recovery of leaf biomass expected to near initial density within 5 years; Zone of Influence minor change in water quality/turbidity during the project and potential minor and short-term reduction in seagrass leaf biomass, with predicted recovery to near initial leaf biomass within 1 year; and, Outside zone of influence no discernable impact on seagrass leaf biomass. Hydrodynamic modelling of the construction campaign was used to establish the likely BPPH zones of impact for the full construction period and six months post-construction. The zones were developed based on threshold levels of the parameter Hsat, and Amphibolis griffithii leaf biomass, which were derived from baseline data from Jurien Bay (Lavery et al., 2009). The Hsat criteria defining zones of impact and the predicted effect on A. griffithii biomass are provided in Table 7.3.
According to EAG3 (EPA 2009) Recoverability from impacts may be considered if proponents can reasonably demonstrate that full recovery of the impacted benthic primary producer habitat would be expected within a timeframe of 5 years or less.
9
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 58
Table 7.3: Hsat threshold criteria defining zones of impact and predicted decline in seagrass biomass
Zones of Impact Outside Influence Moderate Impact High Impact Hsat (hours) 427 >427, 572 >572, 845 >845 Amphibolis griffithii leaf biomass comparison of reference sites versus impact site (% of reference biomass) 80 51-80 22 -51 <22
The zones of impact were transcribed on the logarithmic relationship established by (Lavery et al. 2009) to clearly demonstrate the impact of increasing light attenuation on A. griffithii leaf biomass (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1 Zones of potential impact on Amphibolis griffithii leaf biomass due to increasing Hsat based on the data from experimental manipulations of light at Jurien Bay (Lavery et al. 2009) Hydrodynamic modelling predicted the zone of high impact would be contained within the dredge footprint, where all of the BPPH habitat will be destroyed by dredging (Figure 7.2). Similarly, the zones of moderate impact and influence would largely be contained within the dredge footprint and within approximately 100 m of the port infrastructure (Figure 7.2). Considering that the zones of high impact, moderate impact and influence were predicted to have a small combined footprint, to be conservative hereafter they are considered together as the Zone of Impact (ZoI). During construction, a moderate ecological protection area (MEPA) will extend 250 m from the port infrastructure, the dredge footprint and the land reclamation return water discharge points (see Figure 3.6). To assess impacts to BPPH in the ZoI during construction, BPPH monitoring will be conducted in the northern area of the port, adjacent to the dredge footprint and within the MEPA. All other areas of BPPH monitoring will be outside the predicted ZoI and within the HEPA.
effect (% biomass of impact site compared to reference site)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 59
Figure 7.2: Zones of impact predicted from hydrodynamic modelling of the worst case scenario (i.e. La nina, high TSS concentration in return-water) 7.2.3 LIGHT LOGGERS Moored light loggers will be deployed at five sites (SG1, SG7, SG11, SG15 and CB1; see Figure 7.3). The selection of logging sites was based on the location of long-term (i.e. 4 years) seagrass monitoring sites; Light loggers with wipers will be used to log continuously during daylight hours; Light loggers will be cleaned of biofouling and downloaded at monthly intervals; Telemetered loggers will be deployed at sites SG1 and SG7 to log continuously during daylight hours. Data will be downloaded from the loggers and uploaded to a remotely located computer server at regular intervals (i.e. one hour intervals during daylight hours). Data backed will occur on a daily basis. All light loggers will be deployed six months before construction begins and will remain deployed for no less than six months after construction has finished. Frequency and Location
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 60
Figure 7.3: Light logging sites

301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 61
BPPH H E A L T H M O N I T O R I N G Five areas will be sampled to assess seagrass health, each containing three sites, within which four replicate 1 m x 1 m quadrats will be sampled. Four years of baseline seagrass data have been collected in these areas (Figure 7.4); Six areas will be sampled to assess algal health, each containing three sites, within which four replicate 1 m x 1 m quadrats will be sampled. Three years of baseline algal data have been collected in these areas (Figure 7.5); One area adjacent to the dredge footprint and located within the MEPA will be sampled to assess both seagrass and algal health during construction. The area will contain three sites, within which four replicate 1 m x 1 m quadrats will be sampled (Figure 7.6); BPPH health monitoring will be conducted at six-monthly intervals during construction; BPPH health monitoring will commence six months after the start of construction and will conclude six months after construction; Seagrass health monitoring will be based on seagrass (Amphibolis) health indices (SHI) will include the following parameters: o Seagrass cover; o Above-ground biomass; o Shoot density; o Shoot length; o Number of leaves per cluster; o Clusters per shoot, and o leaf 15N Algal health monitoring will be based on algal health indices (AHI), including algal community cover as provided below: o Algal cover (refer to Oceanica 2010 for method); o Density of three life history stages of Ecklonia radiata Stage 1 (new recruit); Stage 2 (juvenile); and Stage 3 (adult). o Height of adult (E. radiata) plants (Stage 3). Where one or more sites exhibit impacts beyond those predicted by the hydrodynamic model, BPPH health monitoring will continue at annual intervals (during the dry season) until recovery10, or for a period of 5 years; In the event that Hsat trigger values are exceeded, BPPH health monitoring will be undertaken as soon as practicable and within three months of exceedance;
10
Recovery is achieved when the median of impact site is less than or equal to the 80th percentile of the reference sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Depending on the level of SHI and/or AHI exceedance, control measures will be implemented to reduce the potentially adverse impacts of construction (refer to Figure 7.6 and Section 5); In the event that SHI and or AHI values are exceeded, BPPH health monitoring will be repeated as soon as practicable and within three months of exceedance;
In areas that had exceeded SHI and/or AHI monitoring triggers in the previous monitoring event, which recover to have a median value of 80th percentile of the SHI and/or AHI of the reference areas, three-monthly sampling will cease. Six monthly BPPH health monitoring will continue until such time that those areas exceed the triggers again..
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 63
Figure 7.4: Seagrass health monitoring sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 64
Figure 7.5: Algal health monitoring sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 65
Figure 7.6: Approximate locations of BPPH indirect impact health monitoring sites (red dots)
7.2.4
Method
A S S E S S I N G I N D I R E C T BPPH I M P A C T A G A I N S T H S A T T R I G G E R S From the commencement of construction, the cumulative amount of time that Iz is above specified Ik values will be determined to calculate Hsat. The difference between monitored Hsat and reference Hsat, will be determined at all light monitoring sites (Hsat monitored); The Hsat monitored be determined at each light monitoring site will be compared to the Hsat values predicted via dredge plume modelling (Hsat predicted). Monthly trigger values will be determined using Equation 1 below: Tm = (T/Mt)*Mc where: Tm = Monthly trigger value [Equation 1]
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 66
T = Trigger value (427 hours11) Mc = Construction month Mt = Total number of construction months (i.e. 36) The trigger values for Hsat predicted for each month of the construction period were calculated and are provided in Figure 7.6. When Hsat monitored is below the red line in Figure 7.7, there is no exceedance. When less Hsat monitored is above the red line in Figure 7.7, the Hsat triggers are exceeded.
450 400 350
Hsat (hours)
300
Hsat trigger exceeded
250
200
150
100
Hsat trigger not exceeded
50
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Construction Month
Figure 7.7: Trigger values for Hsat monitoring for the duration of port construction Should port construction run significantly under or over the anticipated 36 month campaign, the appropriate monthly management zone triggers may be calculated using Equation 1. However, the maximum trigger values (Table 7.3) for the entire dredge campaign will not change; Where Hsat monitored is greater than Hsat predicted (5%), BPPH health monitoring will be triggered.
A S S E S S I N G I N D I R E C T BPPH I M P A C T A G A I N S T S E A G R AS S AN D AL G AL HE AL T H T RI G G E RS BPPH Data Analyses BPPH health measurements and statistical analyses will be conducted according to Oceanica (2010), which are described below: SHI and AHI will be analysed using univariate methods to test for differences between Year, impact vs reference (IvR), Area and Site. Analyses will be performed using PERMANOVA+ (non-parametric analysis of variance, Version 1.0.1, Primer-E Ltd.), on Euclidean distances, with permutations of residuals under a full model (n = 9999 permutations) (Anderson 2001a, 2001b). This method will allow for statistical testing, without normalised data or homogeneity of variances. Four factors will be used, where Year will be a random factor, IvR a fixed factor, Area a random factor (nested within IvR), and Site a random factor (nested within Area);
11
A27ll light logging sites are located outside the zone of influence, therefore the trigger values will always be 4 27 hours
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 67
The AHI for assemblage structure of algal habitats will be analysed using multivariate analyses with PERMANOVA+, on Euclidean distances, with permutations of residuals under a full model (n = 9999 permutations) (Anderson 2001a, 2001b). This method enabled a test of whether the composition of habitat types differed among Year, IvR, Area and Site. Four factors were used, where Year was a random factor, IvR was a fixed factor, Area was a random factor (nested within IvR), and Site was a random factor (nested within Area). When the ANOVA yields a significant result (p<0.05) (for the factor Year, Year IvR, Among R and Year Among R), a post-hoc pair-wise comparison of the sample means will be performed to determine which sites are different from one another.
A S S E S S M E NT A G A I N S T BPPH H E A L T H T R I G G E R S Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is less than the 80th percentile of the reference sites12, no additional monitoring will be required, routine monitoring (six-monthly monitoring) will continue. Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is greater than the 80 th of the reference sites, three-monthly seagrass monitoring will be initiated.
A S S E S S I N G BPPH I N T H E Z O N E O F I M P A CT AG AI NS T BPPH HE AL T H T R I G G E R S A small area of BPPH within the MEPA is expected to be impacted by construction turbidity. The BPPH sites adjacent to the port and within the MEPA will be assessed against the 90th percentile of the reference sites. Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is less than the 90th percentile of the reference sites13, no additional monitoring will be required, routine monitoring (six-monthly monitoring) will continue. Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is greater than the 90 th of the reference sites, three-monthly seagrass monitoring will be initiated.
ASSESSMENT
A S S E S S I N G L A R G E A N D S I G N I F I C A N T L O S S O F S E AG R AS S C A NO P Y B E T W E E N BPPH I M P A CT As outlined above, the frequency of BPPH monitoring will occur at six-monthly intervals if there are no Hsat trigger exceedances, and three-monthly if Hsat triggers are exceeded. Given that the monitoring program was designed for both early and moderate-term detection of sub-lethal impacts on BPPH, this frequency should be sufficient to detect any decline in BPPH health. However there is a possibility that a large scale and significant loss of BPPH could occur between sampling events.
Oceanica (2010) demonstrated high natural variability between reference sites. Regardless of the potentially high natural variability and statistically significant differences between the reference sites, all reference sites will be used in comparisons against the potential impact sites.
12
Oceanica (2010) demonstrated high natural variability between reference sites. Regardless of the potentially high natural variability and statistically significant differences between the reference sites, all reference sites will be used in comparisons against the potential impact sites.
13
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 68
To provide an additional level of confidence that any large and significant losses of seagrass canopy are detected within timeframes that are sufficient to affect management of the construction program, monitoring of seagrass cover will be conducted at monthly intervals (during moored light-logger downloading), as described below: Two areas will be sampled to assess seagrass health, each containing three sites, within which four replicate 1 m x 1 m quadrats will be sampled. The area directly adjacent will assess seagrass canopy in the Zone of Impact, whereas the other area will be reference (Figure 7.6). Seagrass cover will be analysed using univariate methods to test for differences between Year and impact vs reference (IvR). Analyses will be performed using PERMANOVA+ as previously described. Where a significant reduction of seagrass cover at the impact site compared to the reference site is revealed, the full BPPH monitoring (as described above in the section titled BPPH Health Monitoring) will be conducted within three months.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 69
7.3
7.3.1
Water Quality (Physio-Chemical Monitoring)

Parameters
Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, temperature, and salinity will be used as the primary triggers for physico-chemical monitoring of land reclamation return water. Total suspended solids (TSS) and light attenuation coefficient (LAC) will be determined in the plume generated by breakwater construction, dredging and/or land reclamation, for sediment plume model validation. 7.3.2 Frequency
Sampling will be initiated in the month prior to construction. Water quality sampling will occur at monthly intervals. In the event that water quality trigger values are exceeded, weekly sampling will be initiated at the site/s where triggers were exceeded. Note, for the EQG of DO to be breached, the DO saturation must be below the applicable MEPA trigger for a period of 6 weeks or more. To ensure that this criteria can be appropriately assessed, if DO is found to be below the applicable MEPA trigger level during the routine monthly sampling, weekly sampling will be initiated until DO saturation recovers above the trigger level. Similarly, for the EQG of pH, temperature and salinity, the values must be outside the range of applicable MEPA triggers for a period of four or more weeks. To ensure that these criteria are appropriately assessed, if any parameter is found to be outside the applicable MEPA trigger level during the routine monthly sampling, weekly sampling will be initiated until that parameter recovers to within the trigger range. The final sampling will occur within one month of cessation of land reclamation return water flow. 7.3.3 Location
Land reclamation activities will monitored along a dynamic transect adjacent to the northern and southern reclamation return water outlets (Figure 7.8). A fixed sampling site will be located approximately 10 m from the return water outlet. Note that this distance may be relocated during the first return water flow sampling trip to be as close as possible, but within an area for safe operation for the marine water quality monitoring contractor. A transect will then be extended along the visual turbidity plume and sampling will be conducted at distances of 10 m, 50 m, 100 m, 250 m and 500 m from the return water outlet, and will be located within the visible turbidity plume. A conceptual diagram of a dynamic transect is provided in Figure 7.9. Sites located within the MEPA (i.e. 10 m, 50 m and 100 m from the return water outlet) will be assessed against MEPA triggers. Sites located within the HEPA (i.e. 250 m and 500 m from the return water outlet) will be monitored against HEPA triggers. Dynamic transect sampling will not occur if return water has not been returned to the receiving environment in the previous sampling period (i.e. monthly if in compliance with triggers, weekly if triggers are exceeded). Two reference sites will be sampled ~10 km south of the port development, distal to any potential construction impacts, including one site located midshore and one site located offshore (Figure 7.10).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 70
FIGURE TO BE PROVIDED BY OPR
Figure 7.8: Land reclamation discharge points
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 71
Reclamation return water
10 m
50 m
100 m
MEPA 250 m
<250 m from port infrastructure
HEPA
250 m from port infrastructure
500 m
Figure 7.9: Conceptual diagram of dynamic transect sediment plume sampling sites for land reclamation return water. The MEPA is located within the blue shaded area, and red dots indicate those sites that will be assessed against MEPA trigger levels. The HEPA is located outside the blue shaded area, and orange dots indicate those sites that will be assessed against HEPA trigger levels.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 72
Figure 7.10
Map of the construction water quality monitoring reference sites

301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 73
7.3.4
Method
The methods for collection of all physico-chemical parameters will be consistent with Section 6.1 of the EPA (2005a); A depth-profile of DO, pH, temperature and salinity will be taken through the water column from the surface (00.5 m below the surface) to the bottom (0-0.5 m above the bottom); DO saturation of bottom waters (0.5 m above the sediment) at each site within the MEPA will be compared against EQG triggers for moderate protection as listed in Table 3.7); DO saturation of bottom waters (0.5 m above the sediment) at each site within the HEPA will be compared against EQG triggers for high protection as listed in Table 3.7); Median pH, salinity and temperature of surface (0.5 m below surface) and bottom (0.5 m above the sediment) waters at sites within the MEPA will be compared against the reference sites for moderate protection triggers as listed in Table 3.7); Median pH, salinity and temperature of surface (0.5 m below surface) and bottom (0.5 m above the sediment) waters at sites within the HEPA will be compared against reference sites for high protection triggers as listed in Table 3.7); If one or more physico-chemical parameter is greater than the EQG triggers, determine whether the EQG for moderate protection areas as defined by EPA (2005) have been exceeded; o o DO will be considered breached when DO level at any site is below the applicable EQG trigger (80% saturation) for a period on not more than 6 weeks; For salinity, temperature and pH at a particular site must exceed the EQG trigger level for 4 weeks.
For sediment plume model validation, TSS concentration will be determined at each location according to EPA (2005a); and, For sediment plume model validation, light attenuation will be measured using two underwater light collectors separated by an appropriate distance in the water column. Light attenuation will be simultaneously logged and LAC calculated to measure the return water plume light attenuation.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 74
7.4
Return Water Discharge Monitoring
The results of the baseline sediment investigation demonstrated that the levels of both natural and anthropogenic contamination contained in the sediments at Oakajee were below ANZEEC/ARMCANZ (2000) guideline levels (Oceanica 2009c and Oceanica 2009d). Considering this, there is a low risk to water quality and ecological health from naturally occurring contaminants during construction. However, to demonstrate that the natural levels of contaminants are below guideline levels throughout construction, sampling will be performed on water from the land reclamation area prior to return water discharge. 7.4.1 Parameters
Metals (Table 3.8) will be tested; and, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Table 3.8) will be tested; 7.4.2 Frequency
Sampling will be conducted at monthly intervals; Sampling will be conducted in triplicate; and, Sampling will not occur at land reclamation return-water sites if there has been no return-water outflow in the previous sampling period. 7.4.3 Location
Water will be collected either within the reclamation area or from the return water discharge (before mixing with marine waters); and, Two reclamation areas are proposed to return water to the marine environment (Figure 7.9). Each site will be sampled provided that return water has been discharged in the period since last sampling, and water is present in the reclamation area. 7.4.4 Method
The methods for collection of all potential contaminant parameters will be consistent with Section 6.2 of the EPA (2005a) Contaminants listed in Table 3.8 will be tested; Filtered (0.45 m pore size) water samples will be collected in triplicate from integrated-depth water samples at each sampling site; Samples will be stored immediately on ice and sent to a laboratory with NATA accreditation for each of the contaminant parameters listed in Table 3.8; Contaminant concentration data will be processed within 10 working days of collection and compared against triggers (see Table 3.8); and Six potential impact samples (2 sites in triplicate) will be collected each time water quality contaminant testing is conducted; therefore no calculations are required for comparison against the relevant EQG (EPA 2005a).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Rather, each individual sample must be below guideline, or trigger level values and any exceedance by a sample will result in non-compliance against the EQG.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 76
8.
CONTINGENCIES AND RE ACTIVE MAN AGEM ENT
To ensure the DBCLRMP controls are effective the following will occur: OPR will regularly consult with the DEC and field specialists as to the need to refine the Management Plan; The DBCLRMP will be revised as needed and its effectiveness monitored; and, If the need arises, contingency management actions will be initiated where performance indicators have not been met. These actions will be determined in consultation with the EPA, other relevant regulatory authorities and others in relevant fields of expertise.
The contingency/reactive management actions are grouped into four main categories including: General contingency/reactive management actions that will be routinely implemented throughout construction. Level 1 contingency/reactive management actions implemented under the first signs of potential adverse impacts to the marine environment from construction. Level 2 - contingency/reactive management actions implemented when the construction impacts are sustained and do not show any signs of improvement. Level 3 contingency/reactive management actions that are implemented when the construction impacts are ongoing and have reached unacceptable levels.
The contingency/reactive management actions listed in Table 8.1 provide a list of available options, of which one or more must be implemented when triggered by monitoring. The options should be selected based on the source of the environmental impact and a risk assessment to determine which options will be most effective in reducing the impact.
8.1
Contingencies/Reactive Management for BPPH Indirect Impacts
The decision process for initiating management strategies (control measures) is depicted in the data analysis and management action flow diagram (Figure 8.1). 8.1.1 Management triggered by decline in seagrass cover at impact sites
Where the monthly seagrass cover (A. griffithii) at the impact sites (Figure 7.6) is significantly less than the seagrass cover at the reference sites then: o The CEO of the Office of the EPA will be informed of the exceedance and proposed management strategies (see below) as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection of the exceedance (i.e. subsequent to processing of data); If applicable, any management actions already implemented within 72 hours will also be reported; All management strategies will be implemented as soon as practicable; and, The exceedance will also be noted in monthly reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to OPR, and the Office of the EPA.
o o o
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Where the monthly seagrass cover (A. griffithii) at the impact sites (Figure 7.6) is significantly less than the seagrass cover at the reference sites, BPPH health monitoring will be undertaken at all sites as soon as practicable and within three months of detection. 8.1.2 Management triggered by H s a t exceedances
Where the monthly rolling total of Hsat monitored is greater than Hsat predicted then: o The CEO of the Office of the EPA will be informed of the exceedance and proposed management strategies (see below) as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection of the exceedance (i.e. subsequent to processing of data); If applicable, any management actions already implemented within 72 hours will also be reported; All management strategies will be implemented as soon as practicable; and, The exceedance will also be noted in monthly reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to OPR, and the Office of the EPA.
o o o
Where the monthly rolling total of Hsat monitored is greater than Hsat predicted, BPPH health monitoring will be undertaken at all sites as soon as practicable and within three months of detection. 8.1.3 Management triggered by BPPH health exceedances
Where SHI and/or AHI trigger values are exceeded then: The CEO of the Office of the EPA will be informed of the exceedance and proposed management strategies (see below) as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection of the exceedance (i.e. subsequent to processing of data); If applicable, any management actions already implemented within 72 hours will also be reported; All management strategies will be implemented as soon as practicable; and, The exceedance will also be noted in monthly reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to OPR, and the Office of the EPA.
A hierarchy of management measures will be triggered by exceedance in SHI and/or AHI trigger levels (i.e. Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 management, see Section 8.4). Those management measures are described in detail in Section 5. The decision process for initiating a higher level of management (or reverting back to a lower management level) is depicted in the data analysis and management action flow diagram (Figure 8.1). On receipt of BPPH health data, the following management actions will be triggered: If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area is greater than the 80th percentile of the corresponding reference areas (i.e. exceedance of zone of low impact trigger), BPPH health monitoring will be conducted on a monthly basis and Level 1 Construction Management will be initiated (see Section 8.4); If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area is greater than the 90th percentile, yet less than the 95th percentile of the corresponding reference areas (i.e. exceedance of zone of moderate impact trigger), BPPH health monitoring will be conducted on a monthly basis and Level 2 Construction Management will be initiated (see Section 8.4); If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area is greater than the 95th percentile of the
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 78
corresponding reference areas (i.e. exceedance of zone of high impact trigger), BPPH health monitoring will be conducted on a monthly basis and Level 3 Construction Management will be initiated (see Section 8.4). The EPA will be contacted to review the risks and management for the continuation of Port construction; and, If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area that was previously >80th percentile, >90th percentile or >95th percentile of the reference site recovers to less than the 80th percentile of the corresponding reference areas, any construction management (Level 1, 2 or 3) that was previously triggered may cease.
8.2
Contingencies/Reactive Management for Water Quality Impacts
Where monthly monitoring reveals exceedance of the trigger values of one or more physico-chemical parameters listed in Table 3.7, OEPA will be notified of the exceedance and any proposed or implemented management strategies as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection; Weekly monitoring will commence in the week following any exceedance and will continue until there are no exceedances of the physic-chemical trigger values in Table 3.7; If the trigger values of one or more physico-chemical parameters listed in Table 3.7 are exceeded for a period of four consecutive weeks, Level 1 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4); If the trigger values of one or more physico-chemical parameters listed in Table 3.7 are exceeded for a period of eight consecutive weeks, Level 2 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4); If the trigger values of one or more physico-chemical parameters listed in Table 3.7 are exceeded for a period of twelve consecutive weeks, Level 3 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4). OEPA will be contacted to review the risks and management for the continuation of Port construction; If the trigger values of the physico-chemical parameters listed in Table 3.7 that had previously exceeded the trigger values, return to levels below the trigger values, construction management (Level 1, 2 or 3) may cease; Compliance reporting for physico-chemical monitoring will be provided to OEPA on a monthly basis (within 2 weeks of data receipt); and,
A summary of construction monitoring for water quality physico-chemical parameters from the reclamation area will be provided annually in the DBCLRMP annual report.
8.3
Contingencies/Reactive Management for Return Water Discharge
Where monthly monitoring reveals exceedance of the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in Table 3.8, OEPA will be notified of the exceedance and any proposed or implemented management strategies as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection; Weekly monitoring will commence in the week following any exceedance and will continue until there are no exceedances of the contaminant trigger values in Table 3.8; If the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in Table 3.8 are exceeded for a period of four
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 79
consecutive weeks, Level 1 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4); If the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in Table 3.8 are exceeded for a period of eight consecutive weeks, Level 2 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4); If the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in Table 3.8 are exceeded for a period of twelve consecutive weeks, Level 3 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4). OEPA will be contacted to review the risks and management for the continuation of Port construction; and, If the trigger values of contaminants listed in Table 3.8 that had previously exceeded the trigger values, return to levels below the trigger values, construction management (Level 1, 2 or 3) may cease; Compliance reporting for contaminant monitoring will be provided to OEPA on a monthly basis (within 2 weeks of data receipt); and, A summary of construction monitoring for water quality contamination from the reclamation area will be provided annually in the DBCLRMP annual report.
8.4
Contingenc y/Reactive Management Actions
The monitoring section above contains details about additional monitoring to be implemented if triggers are met. Figure 8.1 below summarises these triggers and details of additional monitoring to be implemented. This monitoring will determine what level of additional contingency/reactive management actions (Level 1, 2 or 3) will be required (Table 8.1).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 80
Seagrass Cover
Hsat
BPPH Monitoring
Monthly Seagrass cover assessment
Monthly Hsat assessment
6-monthly 3 BPPH monitoring at all sites
1 SC impact
site < SC reference site
No
Hsat monitored > Hsat predicted
No
Median 4 BPPH impact site > 80th percentile BPPH at reference
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cessation of Level 1, 2 and/or 3 management
2 Undertake BPPH
monitoring at all sites
Undertake 3-monthly BPPH health monitoring at all sites
5 Level 1
Management 3-monthly BPPH monitoring
Median BPPH impact site > 80 th percentile BPPH at reference
No
Yes
5 Level 2
No
Yes
Review of risks and management
No
1 Seagrass Cover
(SC) to occur as soon as possible and within 3 months of Hsat trigger being exceeded 3 Seagrass Health Indices (SHI) and Algal Health Indices (AHI) 4 Applies to one or more SHI and/or AHI 5 Level 1, Level2 and Level 3 Management strategies are provided in Table Table 8.1 5.2
2 BPPH monitoring
5 Level 3
Yes
Figure 8.1
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Data analysis process and triggering of contingency actions

Page 81
Table 8.1: Summary of Contingency/Reactive Management Actions

Performance Indicator Site inspections, incident reporting Contingency/Reactive Management Actions Any observed or detected leaks in the dredge pipeline will be repaired as soon as practicable. Pumping will stop as soon as any major ruptures are identified (within the operational constraints of the equipment). Responsibility Construction Manager Dredge Manager Site Supervisor Environment Manager
Infrastructure footprint assessment postconstruction through GIS verification
If non-compliance with MS469 infrastructure footprint, report and consult with the DEC and EPA.
Sedimentation - Indirect BPPH impacts Seagrass cover monitoring BPPH health monitoring Implement Level 1 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 80 percentile BPPH at reference site: Level 1 Turn off dredge pumps when the cutter head is not engaged Selective use of quarry material to optimise the use of larger rock size material. Investigate the viability of constructing an internal cross sectional bund wall within the southern reclamation area to assist retention times. Environment Manager Construction Manager Dredge Manager Site Supervisor
Seagrass cover monitoring BPPH health monitoring
Implement Level 2 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 90 percentile BPPH at reference site. Level 2 Relocate dredge to minimise sustained impact to any one area Vary rock dumping barge locations (preference to offshore) to minimise sustained sedimentation impacts nearshore. During breakwater construction utilise a general quarry material wash station to minimise the fines content. Temporarily adjust breakwater construction methodology to only place larger size rocks rather than the fine core material. This will minimise the sedimentation and turbidity aspects associated with fine core material inwater placement.
Environment Manager Construction Manager Dredge Manager Site Supervisor
Turbidity - Indirect BPPH impacts Seagrass cover monitoring BPPH health monitoring Hsat (light) monitoring Implement Level 1 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 80 percentile BPPH at reference site: Level 1 Turn off dredge pumps when the cutter head is not engaged Selective use of quarry material to optimise the use of larger rock size material. Investigate the viability of constructing an internal cross sectional bund wall within the southern reclamation area Environment Manager Construction Manager Dredge Manager Site Supervisor
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 82
Performance Indicator
Contingency/Reactive Management Actions to assist retention times.
Responsibility
Implement Level 2 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 90 percentile BPPH at reference site. Level 2 Relocate dredge to minimise sustained impact to any one area Vary rock dumping barge locations (preference to offshore) to minimise sustained sedimentation impacts nearshore. During breakwater construction utilise a general quarry material wash station to minimise the fines content. Temporarily adjust breakwater construction methodology to only place larger size rocks rather than the fine core material. This will minimise the sedimentation and turbidity aspects associated with fine core material inwater placement. Intensive dredging during low light hours (e.g. 1600 to 0800) to maximise light availability during periods of high light intensity Install silt curtain to minimise fines content in return water Alternate return water discharge points to minimise turbidity impacts on any particular area When possible manage downtime (e.g. maintenance stops, dredge movements, non dredging times) for periods of high light intensity (i.e. conduct maintenance stops during the middle of the days rather than during the night) Redirect return water to the alternate reclamation area to enhance retention times Investigate the viability of increasing the size and capacity of the reclamation areas
Implement Level 3 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 95 percentile BPPH at reference site. Level 3 Restrict dredging frequency to only dredge during low light periods (e.g. 1600 to 0800). Stop dredging for 1 day and then recommence Place breakwater rocks into the water during periods of low light intensity where practicable. Manage reclaim return water to avoid highly turbid discharges during periods of in high light intensity (i.e. restrict discharges between the hours of 1000 and 1400) Only conduct core placement during periods of low light intensity (e.g. night). This will minimise the light reduction associated with fine core material placement that would be experienced during the day. Avoid core placement during period of high ocean seas and swells Where practicable, intensify breakwater construction during low light periods with any planned downtime (e.g. maintenance periods, meal breaks) centred around
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 83
Performance Indicator
Contingency/Reactive Management Actions periods of high light intensity. This will maximise the light availability to Benthic Primary Producers.
Responsibility
Water Quality Physico-chemical water quality monitoring Contaminant water quality monitoring within the land reclamation area/s BPPH health monitoring Physico-chemical water quality monitoring Contaminant water quality monitoring within the land reclamation area/s BPPH health monitoring Physico-chemical water quality monitoring Contaminant water quality monitoring within the land reclamation area/s BPPH health monitoring Level 2 Implement Level 2 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 90 percentile BPPH at reference site. Install silt curtain to minimise fines content in return water Alternate return water discharge points to minimise turbidity impacts on any particular area Redirect return water to the alternate reclamation area to enhance retention times Investigate the viability of increasing the size and capacity of the reclamation areas Environment Manager Construction Manager Dredge Manager Site Supervisor Implement level 1 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 80 percentile BPPH at reference site: Level 1 Turn off dredge pumps when the cutter head is not engaged Investigate the viability of constructing an internal cross sectional bund wall within the southern reclamation area to assist retention times. Environment Manager Construction Manager Dredge Manager Site Supervisor
Implement Level 3 management contingency actions below if th median BPPH impact site > 95 percentile BPPH at reference site. Level 3 Stop dredging for 1 day and then recommence
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 84
9.
REPORTING
The Proponent is required to report on the effectiveness of the Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan as part of the overall Ministerial approval conditions reporting requirements. Reporting requirements have been summarised in the Table 9.1 below. Table 9.1: Summary of Reporting
Report DBCLRMP monthly data and compliance report Details Data report and summary of the relevant results including: BPPH indirect loss assessment o Hsat, SHI and AHI results o Summary of exceedances o Summary of management steps taken to reduce impacts Water Quality assessment o Physico-chemical results o Contaminant results o Summary of exceedances o Summary of management steps taken to reduce impacts Detailed report outlining the full sampling program and results including: BPPH indirect loss assessment o Hsat, SHI and AHI results o Summary of exceedances o Summary of management steps taken to reduce impacts Water Quality assessment o Physico-chemical results o Contaminant results o Summary of exceedances o Summary of management steps taken to reduce impacts Final report summarising the construction monitoring program. Reporting Frequency Monthly, noting a lag in reporting of some results due to laboratory analysis of BPPH samples. Responsibility Environmental Manager
DBCLRMP Annual Report
Annually, within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set
DBCLRMP Close out report
BPPH direct loss assessment Final infrastructure footprint compliance and close-out report BPPH direct loss assessment Impact to BPPH compliance and close out report
Final report summarising the specifications of the port infrastructure including: Breakwater footprint Land reclamation area footprint Dredge area bathymetry and final estimate of the volume of material removed Final report summarising the loss of BPPH including: Final BPPH map Loss calculations of major BPPH groups within the 2 Local Assessment Unit (57km )
Once only at the end of construction, within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set Within six months of the completion of construction
Within five years of the completion of construction
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 85
10. AUDITING & REVIEW 10.1 Auditing
This DBCLRMP will be audited (both internally and externally) in accordance with OPR overall EMS auditing regime. The auditing will ensure compliance with FMP commitments, the OPR EMS and procedures. Internal auditing will focus on reviewing non-conformance reports, systems and registers and the control measures register (via the EMS). An Audit report will be produced every 6 months detailing the outcomes of the audit including: completeness of implementation of systems, databases and registers; integration of approvals systems with Procurement, Contracting and Construction; compliance with commitments and control measures; and recommendations of changed and follow up actions.
10.2
Review and revision
Any non-conformances identified through the monitoring or auditing procedures will be assessed to determine if changes to the DBCLRMP will be required. The review will follow on from an audit and audit report to determine if any nonconformances are the result of inadequacy of the management plans and EMS systems and processes. Details of the review program for all EMPs are detailed in the OPR EMS with regular 6 monthly reviews scheduled to align to the audit schedule. Specific external auditing requirements attached to this plan are detailed in Table 10.1 below
Table 10.1: Key Management Actions Audit Table

Management Objective To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of BPPH at species and ecosystems levels. Monitoring Weekly monitoring of telemetered light logging sites Monthly monitoring of moored light logging sites Performance Indicator Monthly Hsat (light) monitoring Seagrass cover monitoring BPPH health monitoring DEC Reporting/Evidence DBCLRMP monthly data ;and compliance report - submitted to OEPA on a monthly basis; DBCLRMP annual report three reports at the end of each year of construction, submitted within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set; and, DBCLRMP close out report one report submitted at the end of construction and within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set. Status Pending annual performance report
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 86
Management Objective To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of BPPH at species and ecosystems levels.
Monitoring Seagrass and Algal health monitoring Six-monthly monitoring of SHI and AHI Three-monthly monitoring of SHI and AHI if triggered Monthly seagrass cover monitoring at impact and reference sites
Performance Indicator Seagrass cover monitoring BPPH health monitoring
DEC Reporting/Evidence DBCLRMP monthly data ;and compliance report - submitted to OEPA on a monthly basis; DBCLRMP annual report three reports at the end of each year of construction, submitted within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set; and, DBCLRMP close out report one report submitted at the end of construction and within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set.
Status Pending annual performance report
Infrastructure footprint conforms to the 'Approved' Port design (MS469)
BPPH total loss footprint monitoring
Infrastructure footprint assessment postconstruction through GIS verification Physicochemical water quality monitoring BPPH health monitoring
To maintain water quality to accepted criteria to protect the environmental values of recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for human consumption and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas.
Water quality physico-chemical monitoring Monthly monitoring; Weekly monitoring if triggered.
Water quality contaminant monitoring Monthly monitoring
Contaminant water quality monitoring within the land reclamation area/s BPPH health monitoring
Impact to BPPH compliance and close out report, within five years of the completion of construction Final infrastructure footprint compliance and close-out report , within six months of the completion of construction DBCLRMP monthly data ;and compliance report - submitted to OEPA on a monthly basis DBCLRMP annual report three reports at the end of each year of construction, submitted within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set; and, DBCLRMP close out report one report submitted at the end of construction and within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set. DBCLRMP monthly data ;and compliance report - submitted to OEPA on a monthly basis DBCLRMP annual report three reports at the end of each year of construction, submitted within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set; and, DBCLRMP close out report one report submitted at the end of construction and within eight weeks of receipt of the last data set.
Pending annual performance report
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 87
11. RELATED PLANS

This EMP has control measures and potential impacts that are associated with the following related management plans. Specific details of potential impacts and control measures are outlined in the associated EMPs. The Related Management Plans have been summarised in the Table 11.1 below. Table 11.1: Related Management Plans
Related Management Plan Waste Management Plan Associated Potential Impacts Oil Spill Contingency Plan Introduced Marine Pests Management Plan Accidental Spillage Management Plan Underwater Noise Management Plan Marine Flora and Fauna Management Plan Contamination from port waste Contamination from shipping waste Water Quality Sediment Quality Impacts to beaches north of the Port (as stated under MS 469) PAH Contamination Ballast water containing IMP within dredge, rock dumping barge or other construction vessel; Biofouling with IMP on dredge, rock dumping barge or other construction vessel Spillage to the environment (air, land, water, marine) from Port activities Impacts to Protected Marine Fauna Impacts to Protected Marine Fauna Impacts to BPPH ASMP measures UNMP control measures MFFMP control measures control IMPMP measures control Associated Control Measure WMP measures OSCP measures control control
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 88
12. REFERENCES
ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Volume 1: The Guidelines, Prepared by Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, ACT, October 2000. Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates (APASA) 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail: Sediment Plume Modelling Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Oakajee Port and Rail by Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates, Report no. Rev A, Perth, Western Australia, November 2009. Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates (APASA) 2009a, Oakajee Port and Rail: Marine Environmental Modelling Model Validation Report Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Oakajee Port and Rail by Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates, Report no. Rev 0, Perth, Western Australia, June 2009. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Dept (AQIS) 2008, Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Canberra, A.C.T. Alan Tingay & Associates and Welker Environmental Consultancy (AT & WEC) 1997, Oakajee Deepwater Port Public Environmental Review, Prepared for Minister for Resources Development by Alan Tingay & Associates and Welker Environmental Consultancy, Report no. 96/93, Perth, Western Australia, May 1997. Campbell, M. L., Gould, J. B. and Hewitt, C. L. 2003, Baseline Introduced Marine Pest survey Port of Geraldton, Western Australia: Final Survey Report. Corporate Process Management, Perth, Western Australia, 45p. Collier, C. J. 2006, Characterising responses of the seagrass Posidonia sinuosa to changes in light availability, Faculty of Computing, Health and Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. Commonwealth of Australia (CA) 2009, National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging, Prepared by Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. CA 2009a, National Biofouling Management Guidance for Commercial Vessels - The National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions, Prepared by Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, January 2009. CA 2009b, National Biofouling Management Guidance for Non-trading Vessels - The National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions, Prepared by Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, April 2009. CSIRO 2005, Post-dredging recovery of seagrass in the Geraldton region - Year 1 report, Prepared for Geraldton Port Authority by CSIRO Marine Research, Perth, Western Australia, June 2005. CSIRO 2007, Post-dredging recovery of seagrasses in the Geraldton region - Year 3 Report. I - Recovery and Impact, Prepared for Geraldton Port Authority by CSIRO Marine Research, Perth, Western Australia, September 2007. CSIRO 2008, Post-dredging recovery of seagrasses in the Geraldton region - Year 3 Report. II - Remote Sensing Analyses and Carbohydrate, Prepared for Geraldton Port Authority by CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Perth, Western Australia, February 2008. Department of Environment (DoE) 2003, Contaminated Sites Management Series - Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water - Draft for Public Comment: Version 3, Prepared by Department of Environment, Perth, Western Australia, November 2003.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 89
Department of Environment (DoE) 2006, Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives, Prepared for Environmental Protection Authority & Rangelands NRM Coordinating Group by Department of Environment, Report no. MR1, Perth, Western Australia, March 2006. Ducker, SC, Foord, NJ, Knox, RB. 1977, Biology of Australian seagrasses genus Amphibolis C Agardh (Cymodoceaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 25: 67-95. Enviro Marine 2009, Oakajee Port Introduced Marine Species Baseline Survey Survey Report. Report to Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd on behalf of Oakajee Port and Rail by Enviro Marine Consulting, Perth, Western Australia. EPA 2005, Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document for Cockburn Sound (2003-2004) - A supporting document to the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 2005, Prepared by Environmental Protection Authority, Report no. 20, Perth, Western Australia. EPA 2009, Environmental Assessment Guidelines No 3 - Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats in Western Australia's Marine Environment, Prepared by Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia, December 2009. Huisman, J. M. 2000, Marine Plants of Australia, University of Western Australia Press, Perth, Western Australia. Huisman, J. M., Jones, D. S., Wells, F. E. & Burton, T. 2008, 'Introduced marine biota in Western Australian waters', Records of Western Australian Museum, vol. 24, pp. 323-366. Kirkman, H. 1997, Seagrasses of Australia - State of the Environment Technical Paper Series (Estuaries and the Sea), Prepared by Department of the Environment, Canberra, ACT. Lavery, P. S., McMahon, K., Mulligan, M. & Tennyson, A. 2009, Interactive effects of timing, intensity and duration of experimental shading on Amphibolis griffithii, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 394: 21-33. Mann, E.H. and Kirkman, H. 1981. Biomass method for measuring productivity of Ecklonia radiata, with the potential for adaptation to other large brown algae. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 32: 297-304. McDonald, J.I. 2008, A likelihood analysis of non-indigenous marine species introduction to fifteen ports in Western Australia. 2008. Fisheries Research Report No. 182. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 36 p. National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group (NIMPCG). 2006a, Marine Pests Monitoring Manual: Version 1. National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group (NIMPCG). 2006b, Australian Marine Pests Monitoring Guidelines: Version 1. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. Oceanica 2008, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies Habitat Mapping, Prepared for Crosslands Resource Limited by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_004/1, Perth, Western Australia, April 2008. Oceanica 2008a, Oakajee Port Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report (2006-2007), Prepared for Crosslands Resource Limited by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_002/1, Perth, Western Australia, April 2007. Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies Water Quality Monitoring Report (20062008), Prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_002/2, Perth, Western Australia, October 2009.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 90
Oceanica 2009a, Oakajee Port - Oakajee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan - Geotechnical Survey, Prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_003/2, Perth, Western Australia, April 2009. Oceanica 2009b, Oakajee Port - Oakajee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan - Surface Sediment Survey, Prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_003/3, Perth, Western Australia, April 2009. Oceanica 2009c, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Geotechnical Survey Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, Prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_003/4, Perth, Western Australia, October 2009. Oceanica 2009d, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Surface Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, Prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_003/5, Perth, Western Australia, June 2009. Oceanica 2010, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Habitat Monitoring Report 2010, Prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_004/2, Perth, Western Australia, November 2009. DRAFT Oceanica & APASA 2010a, Oakajee Port - Benthic Primary Producer Impacts from construction of the proposed Oakajee Port, Prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd and Asia-Pacific ASA Pty Ltd, Report no. 503_009/1, Perth, Western Australia, March 2010. Van Keulen, M., Green, B., Astill, H. & Wheeler, K. 1998, Report on marine survey of proposed deep-water harbour development site at Oakajee, Prepared, January 1998.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 91
ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE MARINE ECOS YSTEM BRANCH OF THE EPASU ON THE DESIGN AND REQUIREME NTS OF BASELINE STUDIES AT OAKAJEE
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 92
Summary of comments from the EPASU (MEB)

BASELINE SURVEYS Spatial and Temporal Scale The spatial and temporal scale of the baseline surveys should be governed by a rigorous assessment of the scale of influence of the project on key environmental processes, including the dredging plume and changes to the hydrodynamic and littoral drift regimes. In planning the baseline surveys, it should be acknowledged that the development of a port at Oakajee will spur a node/strip of industrial and urban development that will exceed the scale of the port and industrial estate. Baseline water quality sampling sites and habitat condition locations should be aligned along the main anticipated axis of dredge plume.
Reference Sites
The will be a need to identify appropriate, un-impacted, reference sites for ongoing comparison with impacted sites before and after implementation of the project. Reference sites for habitat condition and environmental quality should be established in the zone of no influence.
Baseline Water Quality Survey
Baseline survey to include photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), light attenuation coefficient (LAC), Chlorophyll_a and sediment deposition.
Water quality indicators should be compared to the Environmental Quality Guidelines, triggers for investigation, as described in ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000.
Examine the background characteristics (e.g. effect of rivers) that may cause enhanced turbidity that may persist through spring and summer after a significant flow year. Baseline Introduced Pests Survey Marine Baseline survey to use appropriate techniques (perhaps including artificial substrates) and to be completed for comparison against follow-up surveys.
MARINE HABITAT STUDIES Extent and Habitats Condition of Baseline marine habitat studies should focus both on extent and condition of habitats and their biological communities, as there are significant uncertainties in the present habitat mapping and characterisation due to the extremely limited extent of area mapped. The extent of the marine habitat survey should relate to the anticipated spatial scale of threats due to the project (e.g. the spatial scale of the dredging, reclamation and breakwater construction plumes, extent of changes in hydrodynamic and water quality regimes) and should be aligned along the main anticipated axis of the dredge plume.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 93
Health Indicators
Need to select and use appropriate habitat and associated biological community condition (health) indicators to establish baseline conditions and unimpacted reference sites for comparison with potentially impacted areas within influence of port. Health indicators should be compared to the Environmental Quality Standards, triggers for management, as described in ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000.
The Proponent should be aware of the work by the Strategic Research Fund for the Marine Environment (SRFME) in Jurien and Geraldton to help select benthic condition indicators (e.g. for Posidonia and Amphibolis). Towed Underwater Videos and Diver Surveys Towed underwater videos and diver surveys should be relocatable for subsequent monitoring of habitat. Extent of detailed habitat mapping should be based on predictions of:
The likely extent of the turbidity plume from dredging and reclamation; The direct impact footprint of the project; Consideration of the spatial scale of changed swell and wave climate; Consideration of the spatial scale of changes in littoral drift, sedimentation and erosion; and Consideration of the spatial scale of changes in wrack accumulation. CURRENT & WAVE MEASUREMENTS Original Assessment Current Model Validation No current data was collected in the original assessment. Valid current data and matching meteorological data will be required for model validation. The proposed one current meter in 20 m (1.5 m above the seabed) is inadequate and will not satisfy the need for detailed model validation and prediction for this project. There will definitely be a need for more than one current metre. The real test for the model will be whether it can represent water flux, circulation, flushing and transport in the bathymetrically and ecologically more complex inshore region (<7 m).
Wave Measurements
The change in wave and swell regime caused by the presence of the port infrastructure is likely to be a very important factor in the ecological and sediment flux responses and coastal changes (erosion/accretion) in relation to the proposal. This will need to be understood and quantitatively predicted.
LITTORAL DRIFT AND SHORELINE EROSION Sand Transport Careful consideration needs to be given to the length-scale over which the following changes may manifest : Reclamation and construction of the southern spur will trap sand to south which will increase the size of the reclamation area over time, and is likely to result in erosion to the north; The long (1.5 km) breakwater could create a wave shadow immediately to the north of the
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 94
structure, therefore the shoreline erosion may be located northwards of this shadow zone; and Any sand making it to the tip of the breakwater is likely to be lost from the nearshore system (and could cause channel siltation problems). Erosion and Predictions Shoreline Movement Accretion The report R035 (Rogers & Associates 1997) identified that there would be areas of accumulation and erosion but provides no clear prediction of the magnitude and rate. Detailed predictions must be provided. Further investigations of the energetics. sediment fluxes and shoreline movements involving more detailed modelling and some in situ experiments/studies is required to more accurately assess sediment fluxes and potential for sediment trapping and erosion due to the proposed portthis is a matter which requires a long lead time.
The accuracy of many of the sediment transport estimates as well as the overall understanding of the coastal processes would be greatly improved by completing a proper littoral drift and shoreline movement analysis of the area.
Program of controlled photogrammetry should be implemented to produce shoreline movement plans. HYDRODYNAMIC MODELLING Considerations Hydrodynamic modelling should assist in examining:
Effects on circulation of structures/dredging; Effects on transport of sediment and wrack; and Transport of dredge plumes/re-suspension/deposition. Materials Transport Points to be considered in the modelling of materials transport include:
Well-documented re-suspension/deposition algorithms; Adequate and accurate wave forcing and current data as input to re-suspension/deposition algorithms; Characterisation of dredged sediments and their fate (e.g. coagulation/flocculation/burial etc); Inclusion of all significant relevant processes in transport model; and Direct validation of fate of particle transport (e.g. environmental particle tracing technologies).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 95
ATTACHMENT B STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEME NT
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 96
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Proponent is committed to ongoing stakeholder and community engagement, including open and transparent communication, and recognises the importance of genuine stakeholder involvement in the identification of potential issues and concerns, as well as appropriate strategies for management of impacts. The Proponent defines stakeholders as people or organisations who have an impact on, or who are impacted by the Proponents operations and activities. An understanding of key stakeholder attitudes and issues is crucial for the Proponent to support effective stakeholder engagement. Additionally the ability to respond to community concerns and to guide the management of issues is key. Community Relations The Proponent takes a proactive approach to liaising with stakeholders and interested parties. The Proponent's understanding of local attitudes and community issues has been guided by an ongoing program of research, communications, and consultations with key stakeholders and the broader community. In order to ensure local presence and be responsive to local community interests in the Project, OPR opened a Mid West Community Office at 260 Foreshore Drive, Geraldton. Local community and stakeholders are able to visit or speak to one of OPRs staff members during office hours from Monday to Friday. Other mechanisms for engagement and providing information to the community to date have included: meetings including council meetings; personal stakeholder meetings and visits; briefings, including presentations; hosting hospitability events, including luncheons, sundowners and office open days; hosting visits to the proposed deep water port site and conducting site briefings; community consultation and interviews; social and environmental impact assessment workshops; direct mail via letter drops (e.g. OPR newsletter 'Oakajee Quarter')' information resources including Proponent Project Updates, Fact Sheets and media releases; sponsorship and partnership projects; attendance a Mid West functions; displays and information at local agricultural shows; and presentations at industry business conferences and events
Engagement to Date OPR has worked closely with the Western Australian Government regarding the development of the Project, as well as relevant government agencies, the Geraldton Iron Ore Alliance and Mid West stakeholders. OPR has developed a methodology for external stakeholder engagement. In addition to meetings with individuals, Table A-1 below provides an overview of the general presentation and
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 97
consultation provided to groups on the preliminary engineering contained in the pre-feasibility works of the Approved Port, focusing on the more recent consultation. Further to this, consultation with the Department of Fisheries and the DECGeraldton were conducted to discuss any issues directly relating to marine flora and fauna. The outcome of these meetings are summarised in Table A-2.
Table A-1
Organisation Local Government Shire of Chapman Valley City of Geraldton-Greenough State Government Agencies Department of Environment and Conservation Ongoing including briefings to the Geraldton Regional Office and Perth Environmental Management Branch. Attendance at OEPA site visit - 27 April 2010 Attendance at EPA Board site visit 3 May 2010 (including discussion of the Approval Port Management Plans) Department of State Development Ongoing meetings and workshops to discuss Approved Port Management Plans. Circulation of draft Management Plans for DSD review and comment. Ongoing, including briefings to the EPASU in December 2008 and February 2009. EPA Board meeting - 18 February 2010 Attendance at OEPA site visit - 27 April 2010 Attendance at EPA Board site visit 3 May 2010 (including discussion of the Approval Port Management Plans) Fisheries WA June 2010 and July 2009 Meeting (including discussion of the Approval Port Management Plans) Ongoing meetings and workshops to discuss Approved Port Management Plans. Circulation of draft Management Plans for GPA review and comment. Ongoing, including Council meeting in October 2009, and June 2010. Ongoing, including Council meeting in September and October 2009, and June 2010.
Summary of Stakeholder Consultation

Date(s)
14
Environmental Protection Authority
Geraldton Port Authority
Elected Members State Member for GeraldtonGreenough Region (Mr Ian Blayney MLA) Speaker Legislative Assembly. State Member for Moore (The Hon Grant Woodhams MLA) Oct 2009 and November 2009 meetings May 2010 meeting (including discussion of the Approval Port Management Plans) Oct 2009 and November 2009 meetings May 2010 meeting (including discussion of the Approval Port Management Plans)
14
Please note that the stakeholder consultation list provided in Table A-1 is not an exhaustive list of stakeholder consultation undertaken
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 98
Community Drummonds Cove Progress Association June 2008, July 2009, October 2009 and May 2010 Attendance at SIA/EIA workshops (Oct 09, Feb 10) May 2010 Meeting May 2010 Meeting May 2010 Meeting May 2010 Meeting May 2010 Meeting
Geraldton Windsurfing Club Geraldton Long Board Club Geraldton Board Riders Club Geraldton Caravan Clubs Geraldton 4WD Clubs Professional/Industry Customers
Ongoing including meetings with Sinosteel Midwest Corporation, Crosslands Resources, Karara Mining/Gindalbie Metals, Golden West Resources, etc Ongoing consultation since 2007, through regular meetings and emails. July 2009 meeting Attendance at SIA/EIA workshop (Oct 09)
Fishing and Cray fishing Industry (Geraldton Professional Fishers Association, United Mid-West Fishing Association, Western Rock Lobster Council) Main-stream Western Australian and Mid-West media (including Geraldton Guardian, Midwest Times), shire publications, WA Business News, The West Australian, GWN TV, ABC Radio, WIN TV) as well as OPRs website
Ongoing including various media releases, media tours and conferences. Project updates available through website.
Table A2
Agency/Group DEC (Geraldton) 5 August 2010
Stakeholder Consultation relevant to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation at Oakajee
Comment/request OPR should consider that there is potential for ASS to form within the reclamation area from the breakdown on marine plant material within the dredge spoil. This may have future consequences when earthworks are required within the reclamation area. Addressed by This will be managed if excavation activities are required in the future. The reclamation areas are designed to be used for project activities and therefore it is unlikely that they will need to be removed at any stage.
Mike Mulligan (OPR), Gavin Edwards (OPR), Beth Chapple (DEC), Anthony Desmond (DEC), Steve Checker (DEC) and Paul Anderson (DEC) Fisheries 6 August 2010 Attendees: Michelle Hanlon (Fisheries), Damien McAlinden (OPR), Michael Mulligan (OPR)
Dredge and Dredge Spoil plume issue: commercial fishers will be concerned regarding impacts on catch rates and puerulus settlement Nick Caputi (Fisheries Research) suggested as a contact for further information
A safety exclusion zone will be located surrounding the breakwater both during construction and operation. Fishing and recreational activities will be restricted within this area and it is anticipated that the dredge plume will remain within this exclusion zone and is therefore unlikely to cause an impact on catch rates or puerulus settlement
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 99
Agency/Group
Comment/request Overarching: Engagement with the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council and RecFishWest is essential.
Addressed by Consultation has been conducted with the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council and RecFishWest. Please refer to Recreation, Fishing and Access Management Plan. DBCLRMP edited and response to comments submitted to government agencies
OEPA 1 October 2010 Attendees: Hans Jacob (OEPA), Patrick Cavilli (OEPA), Ray Masini (DECMEB), Mike Mulligan (OPR), Phil
Several comments on: status of the approved areas impact areas, light monitoring and triggers Management actions Potential to use macroalgae as triggers Model verification
Scott (OPR), Luke Twomey (Oceanica), Murray Burling (APASA)
Table A3
Reviewer Des Lord
Peer review of dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation at Oakajee

Comment/request Several comments across the DBCLRMP Addressed by DBCLRMP edited and response to comments submitted to government agencies DBCLRMP edited and response to comments submitted to government agencies
Prof. Paul Lavery
Several comments across the DBCLRMP
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 100
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF BASELINE STUDIES FOR OAKAJEE PORT
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 101
LIST OF BASELINE STUDIES FOR OAKAJEE PORT

Baseline Study Water Quality Corresponding Report Oceanica 2007, Oakajee Port Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report (2006-2007), Report no. 503_002/1 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report (2006-2009), Report no. 503_002/2 Oceanica 2007, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies Sediment Quality, Report no. 503_003/1 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port - Oakajee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Geotechnical Survey, Report no. 503_003/2 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port - Oakajee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Surface Sediment Survey, Report no. 503_003/3 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies Geotechnical Survey Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, Report no. 503_003/4 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Surface Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, Report no. 503_003/5 Oceanica 2008, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Habitat Mapping, Report no. 503_004/1 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Habitat Monitoring Report 2009, Report no. 503_004/2 Oceanica 2010, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Habitat Monitoring Report 2010, Report no. 503_004/3 Oceanica 2008, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Baseline Beach Cast Wrack Report (2006-2007), Report no. 503_005/1 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Baseline and Coastal Baseline Studies - Beach Cast Wrack Report (2006-2009), Report no. 503_005/2 EMC 2008, Oakajee Port Introduced Marine Species Baseline Survey - Desktop Review and Survey Design, Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Murchison Metals Limited by Enviro Marine Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. EM-REP-06-002-001 REV 1, Perth, Western Australia, June 2008 EMC 2009, Oakajee Port Introduced Marine Species Baseline Survey - Survey Report, Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Murchison Metals Limited by Enviro Marine Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. EM-REP-06-002-002 Rev 1, Perth, Western Australia, June 2009 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies, Baseline (2006 2009) Coastal Processes Investigation, 503_008/1 APASA 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail: Marine Environmental Modelling - Model Validation Report Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Oakajee Port and Rail by Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates, Report no. Rev 0, Perth, Western Australia, June 2009. APASA 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail: Sediment Plume Modelling Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Oakajee Port and Rail by Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates, Report no. Rev A, Perth, Western Australia, November 2009. Oceanica DRAFT, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Benthic Primary Producer Impacts from construction of the proposed Oakajee Port, Report no. 503_009/1. Oceanica DRAFT, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Marine Mammals Pilot Survey Report, Report no. 503_010/1. Oceanica 2010, Oakajee Port - Risk Assessment of Pile Driving Noise on Marine Fauna, Report no. 503_001/6.
Sediment Quality
Benthic Primary Producer Habitat
Beach Cast Wrack
Introduced Marine Organisms
Coastal Processes
Hydrodynamic Modelling
Marine Mammals
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 102
APPENDIX D: OCEANICA AND APAS A (2010), BENTHIC PRIMARY PRODUCER IMPACTS FROM CONSTRU CTION OF THE PROPOSED OAKAJEE PORT
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 103
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 104
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 105
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 106
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 107
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 108
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 109
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 110
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 111
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 112
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 113
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 114
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 115
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 116
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 117
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 118
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 119
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 120
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 121
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 122
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 123
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 124
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 125
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 126
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 127
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 128
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 129
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 130
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 131
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 132
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 133
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 134
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 135
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 136
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 137
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 138
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 139
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 140
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 141
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 142
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 143
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 144
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 145
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 146
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 147
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 148
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 149
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 150
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 151
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 152
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 153
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 154
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 155
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 156
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 157
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 158
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 159
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 160
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 161
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Page 162

Method Breakwater - Rock Placement PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Method Breakwater - Rock Placement PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan

Document No Revision Date of Issue : : : 301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0 12 November 2010

Rev 0 12 November 2010

01-Sep-10 D.Lord D. McAlinden

25-June-10 D.McAlinden D. McAlinden D. McAlinden

17-May-10 P. Scott D. McAlinden D. McAlinden

Rev 0 12 November 2010

10. AUDITING & REVIEW ................................................................................................................................86

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Auditing .....................................................................................................................86 Review and revision .................................................................................................86

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Oakajee Deepwater Port

Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation

Rev 0 12 November 2010

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Rev 0 12 November 2010

INTRODUCTION Background/Project Description

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Table 1.1 : Key OPR Project Areas

Includes 570km rail route and supporting infrastructure

Scope and Objective

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Rev 0 23 November 2010

Description of Key Works

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Design + Over dredge Volume (m ) 256,800 44,700 836,100 1,472,400 2,610,000

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Key Environmental Legislation and Conditions

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

International Maritime Organization

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983

Navigation Act 1912

Quarantine Act 1908

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Responsible Government Authority

Aspect environment (DEP, 2001).

Environmental Protection Act 1986

Western Australia Office of Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA)

Western Australian Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 2004

Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004

W.A. Port Authorities Regulation 2001

W.A. Port Authorities

Department of Consumer and Employment Protection DEC

Minister for the Environment and Youth

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Responsible Government Authority

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Responsible Government Authority

EPA Environmental Assessment Guidelines 3 (EAG3) (EPA 2009)

OPR Environmental Management System (EMS)

This EMP is managed via the OPR EMS

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Table 1.4: MS469 EMP Title and Proposed EMP submissions

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Professor Chad Hewitt

Validation report for hydrodynamic modelling

Rev 0 12 November 2010

Peer Review of Draft EMP