final report mcb 19 aug 2004 incl epasu comments · x:\projects_and_clients\fmg\30-0086 east...

$: Final report MCB 19 Aug 2004 incl EPASU comments · x:\projects_and_clients\fmg\30-0086 east pilbara iron ore\86d stage a per\subconsultants reports\dalse-worley\final report mcb$
x:\projects_and_clients\fmg\30-0086 east pilbara iron ore\86d stage a per\subconsultants reports\dalse-worley\final report mcb 19 aug 2004 (incl epasu comments).doc

Pilbara Iron Ore and

Infrastructure Project

Marine Environmental Impacts and their Management

Prepared for:

Fortescue Metals Group

Prepared by:

DAL Science & Engineering Pty Ltd

July 2004

Report No. 389/1

Client: Fortescue Metals Group Revisions history

Submitted to client Report Version Prepared by Reviewed by Copies Date

Draft 1 M Bailey Digital copy to K Pope (Environ) 10/5/04Draft 2 M Bailey Digital copies to L Todd (FMG) and K Pope

(Environ) 9/6/04

Final as Draft 1 M Bailey K Pope Digital and two bound copies to K Pope (Environ)

14/6/04

Final as Draft 2 M Bailey L Todd Digital copy to L Todd and K Pope 24/6/04Final 3 M Bailey I LeProvost Digital copy to L Todd and K Pope

2 bound copies to FMG 2 bound copies DALSE library

4/7/04

Disclaimer This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Fortescue Metals Group Pty Ltd, and is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreed terms and scope between Fortescue Metals Group Pty Ltd and DAL Science & Engineering Pty Ltd. DAL Science & Engineering Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. Copying this report without the permission of Fortescue Metals Group Pty Ltd or DAL Science & Engineering Pty Ltd is not permitted. Acknowledgements This report was prepared with assistance from Garth Humphreys (Biota Environmental Sciences), Dr Eric Paling and Celeste Wilson (Murdoch University), Murray Burling and Nuala Fitzpatrick (Worley), Craig Wilson (Port Hedland Port Authority), Paul Petropulos (Coffey Geosciences), Vince Piper (Aquaterra), Ed Heyting and Laura Todd (Fortescue Metals Group), Kirsty Pope and Brian Bell (Environ), Ian LeProvost (URS) and Spencer Shute and Katy Rawlings (DALSE). © Copyright 2004 DAL Science & Engineering Pty Ltd

DALSE:FMG: Marine Issues and their Management i

Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................iv

1. Scope of the study ............................................................................................1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Original Consultant Scope................................................................................................1 1.3 Environmental Scoping Document ..................................................................................1

1.3.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................2 1.3.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................2 1.3.3 Key Environmental Factors Table...........................................................................2

1.4 EPA Guidance Statements................................................................................................8 1.5 Other Relevant Standards and Policies...........................................................................8

2. The Proposal (Port Component) ......................................................................9 2.1 The Port...............................................................................................................................9 2.2 Alternatives considered ................................................................................................. 12

2.2.1 Original Design..................................................................................................... 12

3. Existing Marine and Nearshore Environment...............................................14 3.1 Marine Conservation Status .......................................................................................... 14

3.1.1 EPA Guidance No. 1 ............................................................................................ 14 3.1.2 EPA Guidance No. 29 .......................................................................................... 14

3.2 Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Bathymetry ........................................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Hydrodynamics and Tides.................................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Geological Setting ................................................................................................ 17 3.2.4 Sedimentation ...................................................................................................... 18 3.2.5 Dredge Areas ....................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Chemical Environment ................................................................................................... 20 3.3.1 Pollution Sources ................................................................................................. 20 3.3.2 Sediment Quality.................................................................................................. 20 3.3.3 Acid Sulphate Soils .............................................................................................. 24

3.4 Biological Environment.................................................................................................. 24 3.4.1 Water column ....................................................................................................... 24 3.4.2 Introduced Species .............................................................................................. 25 3.4.3 Subtidal ................................................................................................................ 25 3.4.4 Intertidal................................................................................................................ 25

3.5 History of Marine Impacts .............................................................................................. 25 3.5.1 History of Port Hedland ........................................................................................ 25 3.5.2 Dredging and disposal ......................................................................................... 26

4. Marine Environmental Impacts and their Management ...............................28 4.1 Marine Biota and Associated Habitat ........................................................................... 28

4.1.1 Relevant Standards and Policies ......................................................................... 28 4.1.2 Intertidal Mudflats................................................................................................. 29 4.1.3 Subtidal Zone ....................................................................................................... 29

4.2 Coastal Processes .......................................................................................................... 30 4.2.1 Impacts on Currents............................................................................................. 30

4.3 Water Quality–Marine water and sediment quality...................................................... 35 4.3.1 Relevant Environmental Quality Objectives and Criteria ..................................... 35 4.3.2 Dredging and Reclamation: Sediment Quality ..................................................... 35 4.3.3 Dredging and Reclamation: Turbidity................................................................... 36 4.3.4 Ocean Disposal.................................................................................................... 36

DALSE:FMG: Marine Issues and their Management ii

4.3.5 Dredging Management......................................................................................... 37 4.3.6 Sediment Quality: Operations .............................................................................. 37 4.3.7 Water Quality: Operations.................................................................................... 38

4.4 Contamination–Acid Sulphate Soils ............................................................................. 39 4.5 Contamination–Oil Spills ............................................................................................... 41 4.6 Introduction of Exotic Organisms................................................................................. 41 4.7 Recreational Fishing....................................................................................................... 41

5. References.......................................................................................................42

List of Tables Table 1.1 Key Marine Related Environmental Factors and their Management ......3 Table 1.2 EPA Guidance Statements.....................................................................8 Table 2.1 FMG Port key Characteristics...............................................................11 Table 3.1: Concentrations of key contaminants determined by PHPA at sites

near Anderson Pt (URS, 2003).............................................................21 Table 3.2 Metals concentrations in sediments sampled by FMG .........................22 Table 4.1 Environmental Quality Objectives for Port Hedland Harbour................28 Table 4.2 Potential/Actual Acid Sulphate Soil Field Results .................................40 Table 4.3 Actual acid sulphate soil (AASS) results for Port Hedland samples .....40

List of Figures Figure 2.1 FMG Proposal: Port, Rail Loop and Stockpile Areas (this figure

shows a an option for sharing the Hope Downs facilities, this is not part of the current proposal and an updated figure will be issued by FMG) ...............................................................................................10

Figure 2.2 Original stockpile, rail and berth layouts ...............................................12 Figure 3.1: Aerial view of Port Hedland inner harbour ............................................16 Figure 3.2 Port Hedland Harbour Bathymetry .......................................................16 Figure 3.3 Example of Port Hedland Tidal elevations (source Worley 2004).........17 Figure 3.4 FMG Port Dredge Areas (Source: Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd) ..........19 Figure 3.5 Sediment and Acid Sulphate Soil Sampling Locations (Figure by

Biota) ....................................................................................................23 Figure 3.6 Port Hedland Port Authority Spoil Grounds and sediment sampling

sites (source PHPA/URS 2003)............................................................27 Figure 4.1 Modelled Port Hedland Harbour configurations: A) Existing; B)

Hope Downs; and C) Hope Downs and Fortescue Metals Group (Source Worley 2004)...........................................................................31

Figure 4.2 Currents in Port Hedland for existing bathymetry. Top: Ebb tide, and Bottom: Flood tide (Source Worley 2004)......................................32

Figure 4.3 Currents in Port Hedland for bathymetry post-FMG and Hope Downs developments. Top: Ebb tide, and Bottom: Flood tide (Source Worley 2004)...........................................................................33

DALSE:FMG: Marine Issues and their Management iii

Figure 4.4 Residual depth-averaged current differences between the proposed Hope Downs development layout and the combined FMG and Hope Downs development layouts. Positive values (red-yellow) represent an increase in residual current magnitude post-FMG development. Residual current vectors (post- FMG development) are overlaid for reference (Source Worley 2004) ...........34

Figure 4.5 Culvert locations, numbers and sizing (Source Worley 2004) ..............34

List of Appendices Appendix A Laboratory Analysis Results .................................................................45

DALSE:FMG: Marine Issues and their Management iv

Executive Summary Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) proposes to develop a 45 Mtpa iron ore load-out facility, based at Anderson Point, in Port Hedland. This report examines the potential marine impacts of FMG’s facility and outlines management initiatives to minimise potential for adverse impacts. The marine impact assessment was based on evaluation of: existing information, sediment samples collected by others (Coffey and Dr Eric Paling) and numerical modelling of the effects of the proposed port on circulation in the harbour and the inundation of mangroves by Worley. The existing industrial use of Port Hedland harbour’s marine environment for port dependent industry is recognised by WA’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in that the port marine environment is not afforded any special protection. However, under the Port Authorities Act 1999, the Port Hedland Port Authority is responsible for protection of the port environment and as such it is expected that all marine impacts will be minimised and managed by proponents and operators within the port. The key findings of this report are as follows: • Impacts of the project on water circulation and sediment movement: The port will

result in deepening of the existing swing basin area and creation of a berth pocket at Anderson Point. The hydrodynamic modelling study found that the FMG port will not have an adverse effect on water circulation or tidal flushing of the harbour or alter the sedimentation regime outside its own facility. The construction of a deep berth at Anderson Point will naturally attract sedimentation in the berth over time, at rates similar to those recorded elsewhere in the harbour;

• Changes in tidal drainage: The port facility (through reclamation and causeways) has the potential to impact on the existing tidal inundation regime and it was considered important to examine potential changes to tidal inundation as significant changes to tidal wetting and drying may have corresponding impacts on affected mangroves. The design was included in the hydrodynamic modelling completed by Worley. As part of this process, culvert designs for the tidal creek crossings were developed to ensure that environmental flows were maintained. The impact of the project was found to be localised in the area immediately surrounding the culverts, with minimal impact on the broader creek and mangrove regions;

• Increased turbidity and the effects on water quality within Port Hedland Harbour, as a result of dredging operations: Approximately 3.3 million m3 of material will be dredged from the Anderson Point area and used for onshore reclamation over period lasting up to twelve months. Port Hedland is a macro-tidal creek system, first dredged in the 1960s, and it is a naturally turbid environment. Therefore the sub-tidal marine communities in the harbour are tolerant to turbid conditions and the harbour does not support any significant seagrass or coral reef (i.e. light sensitive habitats). Further, the harbour has been dredged extensively and is still subject to a regular regime of maintenance dredging and there has been no previous requirement to monitor turbidity in the harbour. On this basis, it has been concluded that there should be no requirement to monitor the effects of turbidity from dredging within the harbour;

• Increased turbidity and the effects on water quality outside Port Hedland Harbour, as a result of dredging operations: It was found that there is a risk that a twelve month dredge campaign could result in water of higher than background turbidity leaving the harbour on ebb tides with the potential to increase turbidity stress on coral reef communities outside the harbour (Port Hedland Reef is a significant community recreational asset). Therefore, it is recommended that when the particle size characteristics of the dredge material have been determined (following the geotechnical

DALSE:FMG: Marine Issues and their Management v

drilling program) and the most likely dredge equipment confirmed, the area of influence of a plume leaving the harbour should be modelled and the results used in conjunction with existing habitat information for the region to determine the communities most at risk and the most appropriate monitoring program if required;

• Impacts of disposal of discharge water during dredging, reclamation and other construction operations: Dredge material will be disposed of onshore in bunded ponds to ensure that the spoil remains in place and that sedimentation is maximised prior to release of discharge water back to the harbour. The supernatant discharge water will be released back to the harbour after it has passed though a settling basin to minimise the return of suspended solids. The return water discharge and route to the harbour should be designed so as not to cause damage mangroves though erosion of creek beds and/or banks, with monitoring during dredging to ensure that erosion is not occurring;

• Levels of contamination in dredge spoil: Analysis of sediment samples from Anderson Point and immediately offshore found no exceedence of Environmental Quality Guidance levels for metals or tributyltin (TBT) compounds;

• Presence of acid-sulphate sediments and the potential for pollution on disposal: A pilot survey for actual and potential acid sulphate soils found that the soils that will be disturbed by the proposed dredging of Anderson Point have low acidity and low potential to form acid. Deeper soils in the mangrove system at Anderson Point have the potential to be acid producing, however, the likelihood of these soils being disturbed is low and the regular flushing of the area with seawater also substantially reduces the risk of environmental harm from acid sulphate soils;

• Risk of oil spills and spill contingency measures: The activities of FMG will pose a relatively low risk of oil spills. As the FMG port is within the PHPA waters, the FMG oil spill and contingency response plans will need to be developed in close collaboration with the PHPA and other operators in Port Hedland;

• Potential for introduction of exotic marine organisms: The FMG port will increase the risk of translocation of species into Port Hedland harbour. FMG will need to cooperate with AQIS in ensuring that AQIS Ballast Water Management procedures are implemented on visiting ships. FMG should also consult with PHPA to ensure that any management measures are consistent with those developed by the PHPA. FMG should prohibit hull cleaning at the berth; and

• Cumulative impacts of port operations: Port Hedland harbour has been substantially modified by capital dredging since 1965. Hydrodynamic modelling of the FMG development has shown that there will be no significant change to the currents in the harbour and adjacent mangrove creeks as a result of both this proposal and the approved Hope Downs proposal.

This report found that the key marine management issues will be: • Risk of further sediment contamination from ore spillage and antifouling coatings on

ship hulls; • Increased risk of introduction of exotic species; and • Potential for dredging to case turbidity outside of the harbour. The loss of mangroves and intertidal mudflats and potential impacts on freshwater surface flows are key issues which are addressed by technical studies prepared by Biota and Aquaterra respectively.

-o0o-

DALSE:FMG: Marine Issues and their Management 1

1. Scope of the study

1.1 Background Fortescue Metals Group Pty Ltd (FMG) proposes to build a new 45 Mtpa iron ore load-out facility in Port Hedland harbour as part of their proposed Pilbara iron ore operations, details of the port aspect of the proposal are provided in Section 2.1. DAL Science & Engineering Pty Ltd (DALSE) was appointed by FMG as the marine environmental consultant, to work together with Biota Environmental Consultants (Biota), Dr Eric Paling, Aquaterra Pty Ltd, Coffey Geosciences and Worley Ltd to assess the environmental impacts of the port.

1.2 Original Consultant Scope The original scope of DALSE’s brief was to undertake the following key marine related tasks: 1. Synthesise existing information on: meteorology and oceanographic data,

coastal processes, siltation rates, hydrodynamic modelling, sediment and water quality, marine habitat surveys, contaminated soils and potential dredge spoil quality, previous dredging operations and location of previous dredging disposal sites.

2. Assess the effects of the proposed dredging (and any modifications to the shoreline) on the long-term hydrodynamics, water quality and siltation of Port Hedland harbour.

3. Assess the effects of turbidity and suspended sediments on marine habitats adjacent to the dredge area and disposal site.

4. Use the results of an assessment of sediment quality (by others) to assess the suitability of sediments for reclamation.

5. Review existing information and the mangrove surveys by Biota to assess the presence or absence of any sensitive marine habitats adjacent to the dredge and the reclamation areas.

6. Instruct Biota (or others) to conduct sampling for potential acid sulphate soils. 7. Review and assess the information collected with respect to potential acid

sulphate soils. 8. Assess the work by others (hydrologists) with respect to the effects of port

construction on surface runoff and drainage water flows and potential impacts on marine water quality and habitats (working together with Biota as mangroves are likely to be the key marine habitat issue).

9. Assess the effects of FMG’s port operations on the marine environment (e.g. introduced pests, oil spill risk, navigation safety etc).

10. Develop outline management strategies to ensure that the impacts of dredging and port construction are minimised.

11. Document all of the above in a technically robust and yet readable format suitable for inclusion in a Public Environmental Review document.

12. Provide advice as required on the approval process in relation to marine impacts.

1.3 Environmental Scoping Document In April 2004, FMG submitted an Environmental Scoping Document to the Environmental Protection Authority which outlined the scope of the work to be undertaken for the PER. The section for the coastal and marine study set out the following approved purpose and scope.


1.3.1 Purpose To map and describe the benthic marine biota and habitat likely to be impacted by the Project, and to investigate the hydrodynamics of the coastal mudflats and the influence of freshwater inflows into mangrove communities. To assess the potential impacts resulting from dredging and port development on the hydrodynamic processes (including flushing dynamics and storm surge) of the area.

1.3.2 Scope This study will investigate the benthic and shore environments, as well as the intertidal mudflats within the Project Area, and assess the potential impacts of the proposed port development. The study will investigate: • The impacts of the Project on water circulation, sediment movement and

benthic communities’ susceptibility to on-shore disturbance; • Changes in surface drainage; • Increased turbidity and the effects on water quality, as a result of dredging

operations; • The impacts of disposal of discharge water during dredging, reclamation and

other construction operations; • Levels of contamination in dredge spoil; • The presence of acid-sulphate sediments and the potential for pollution on

disposal; • The risk of oil spills and spill contingency measures; • The potential for introduction of exotic marine organisms; and • The cumulative impacts of port operation. It is currently proposed to dispose of dredge spoil on-shore, for use as fill during construction of the port. However, should geotechnical studies indicate that the spoil is unsuitable for use as fill; an alternative disposal option will need to be investigated. The coastal and marine study, will also tie in with the regional biological studies, which will include an assessment of the local mangrove species and community. The investigative work will be conducted by DALSE and will be undertaken in accordance with the principles outlined in the EPA Draft Guidance Statement No. 29 (EPA 2004) for the protection of benthic primary producer habitats in Western Australia’s marine environment and in consultation with the Department of Environment (DoE), Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA) and other relevant stakeholders. In the event that offshore disposal is required then FMG will initiate discussions with Environment Australia to obtain approval to dispose of spoil offshore. The results of this study and application will also be copied to the DoE.

1.3.3 Key Environmental Factors Table This study is also required to address the relevant portions of the Key Environmental Factors and their Management table in the scoping document as approved by the EPA. These key marine factors are given in Table 1.1.


Table 1.1 Key Marine Related Environmental Factors and their Management

Environmental Factor Relevant Area EPA/Project Environmental

Objective Potential Impacts Additional Investigations

Potential management

Applicable standards, guidance

and policies BIOPHYSICAL Marine biota and associated habitat (mangroves, benthic and other marine floral and faunal communities)

Intertidal mudflats, mangroves and subtidal zone at the proposed port and loadout facilities at Port Hedland.

Maintain the ecological function, abundance, species diversity and geographic distribution of marine biota and habitat in order to protect ecosystem health, in accordance with the principles identified in Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000).

Construction of the port facilities will disturb intertidal, mangrove and subtidal habitats. Marine biota may be directly affected by dredging and construction activities or hydrodynamic changes at the port site, and in the harbour.

Map and describe the benthic marine biota and habitat (including mangroves) likely to be impacted by dredging, land reclamation, construction and operational activities. Undertake a hydrodynamic investigation of the coastal mudflats and the influence of fresh-water inflows into mangrove communities.

The port facility will be designed to minimise disturbance to the natural coastal processes and hydrodynamic forces. Sensitive marine communities will be avoided during dredging and/or measures implemented to mitigate the impacts. Disturbance to mangroves will be minimised and the port facilities constructed to ensure littoral process on which the mangroves depend, are maintained.

EPA Guidance Statement No. 1: Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves along the Pilbara Coastline (EPA 2001) EPA Guidance Statement No. 29: Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia’s Marine Environment (EPA 2004). Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000).






and policies Coastal Processes The coastal

zone in and around the proposed port and loadout facilities at Port Hedland.

Ensure the development does not significantly impact on existing coastal processes.

Approximately 160 ha will require clearing for construction of the port and loadout facilities, with dredging of up to 3.3 Mm3 of spoil. The port facility may alter the hydrodynamics and the natural erosion and deposition processes around the proposed port and loadout facilities.

Undertake a study to assess and describe the potential impacts resulting from dredging and port development on the hydrodynamic processes (including flushing dynamics and storm surge) of the area.

The port facility will be designed and constructed to minimise disturbance to the natural hydrodynamics of the area. The Project will be designed to withstand storm surge. Disturbance to mangroves will be minimised and the port facilities constructed to ensure littoral process on which the mangroves depend, are maintained.

Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000).






and policies Water Quality -Surface water

Proposed port development area and near waterbodies within the Project Area.

Maintain or improve the quality of surface water to ensure that existing and potential uses, including ecosystem maintenance are protected, consistent with the Australian and New Zealand Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000).

Surface water runoff or discharge of waste water from the Project Area could contaminate, or increase sediments flowing into, nearby waterbodies.

Detail site drainage, modifications to drainage and potential for contamination.

Any waste water or surface runoff that is potentially contaminated will be treated before discharge to the environment. Potentially sulphide-rich dredge spoil will be disposed of in a manner which prevents release of acidic runoff or seepage into surface waters.

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000). EPA Draft Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors No. 26, Management of Surface Run-off from Industrial and Commercial Sites (EPA 1999).

Water Quality -Marine water and sediment quality

Proposed port development area.

Maintain or improve marine water and sediment quality to protect Environmental Values (EVs) and Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO’s) defined in Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000) and the sediment and water quality guidelines documented in Australian and New Zealand Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000).

Surface water runoff, discharge of waste water or spills during shipping and loading activities could potentially contaminate waters in the port, or marine sediments.

Assess and describe the potential impacts within the port area resulting from sediment disturbance, disposal of discharge water during dredging, reclamation and other construction operations. Investigate the impact of increased turbidity on dredging on marine water quality;

Any waste water or surface runoff that is potentially contaminated (e.g. around the ore stockpiles at the port) will be treated before discharge to the environment. Shipping and loading operations will have spill prevention and clean-up procedures.

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000) Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000)






and policies Contamination - Acid Sulphate Soils

Proposed port development and harbour.

Minimise the risk to the environment resulting from Acid Sulphate Soils.

Sediments excavated for the port development site could contain acid sulphate soils that may cause acid drainage problems if oxidised.

Investigate the potential for acid sulphate soils.

If acid sulphate soils are present, these will be disposed in a manner that prevents the generation of acidic drainage (e.g. by preventing oxidation and/or leaching).

Contamination - Oil Spills


Minimise the impacts of fuel or oil spillage during ship movements and refuelling (if applicable).

Spills during shipping or loading activities could potentially contaminate soils, or surface waters including the port.

Describe the oil spill contingency measures in place.

A spill prevention and clean-up strategy will be developed for construction and operations, and will be regularly reviewed within the EMS to take into account any increase in risk or change in operation.






and policies Contamination - Dredge spoil


Contaminated material should be treated and/or disposed of in a manner that minimises the risk of long-term contamination to the environment.

Dredge spoil will be saline and may contain acid sulphate soils. There may also be traces of TBT or heavy metals in the sediments. This material has the potential to contaminate soils, groundwater and surface water if incorrectly disposed.

Assess and describe the nature and extent of any contamination (including TBT and heavy metals) within proposed dredge spoil with reference to accepted Department of Environment (DoE) criteria. Undertake a geotechnical investigation and discuss the risk and suitability of dredge spoil for use as landfill or reclamation material.

Management and disposal of dredge spoil will be determined by the characteristics of the sediments. If onshore disposal is unsuitable, dredge spoil will be disposed of off-shore.

Introduction of exotic organisms

Within the Port Hedland harbour.

Minimise the risk of introduction of unwanted marine organisms consistent with the Australian Quarantine Inspection Services (AQIS) guidelines for ballast water management and ANZECC Code of Practice for Anti-fouling and In-Water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance.

Ships travelling from foreign waters may bring exotic marine organisms into coastal waters in discharge of ballast water, or during cleaning of the ship hulls.

Review strategies for the management of potential exotic organism introduction associated with ballast water and in-water hull cleaning and demonstrate how these are consistent with the AQIS guidelines for ballast water management and ANZECC Code of Practice for Antifouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance.

Shipping companies operating within Australian waters are required to comply with marine quarantine laws, which include prohibition of the disposal of ‘high risk’ ballast water from foreign ports and coastal waters. Ships using FMG’s port will be required to comply with these laws.

AQIS guidelines for ballast water management. ANZECC Code of Practice for Antifouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance (ANZECC 2000).


1.4 EPA Guidance Statements The EPA has produced a number of Guidance Statements which are directly relevant to the marine environmental issues which need to be addressed by FMG and hence this report. The parts of the Guidance Statements relevant to this marine study are summarised in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 EPA Guidance Statements

EPA Guidance Statement Requirements No 1. Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves Along the Pilbara Coastline (April 2001)

A proponent may be required to use engineering solutions (e.g. trestles instead of solid structures) to manage impacts on mangroves. Avoid the impacts of dredging on mangroves (e.g. channel dredging should not cause instability of adjacent mangrove flats/sediments). Avoid direct removal or filling of mangroves wherever possible. Disposal of dredge spoil on mangrove areas should be minimised, and then only if no other reasonable alternative is available. Avoid significant disturbance of processes supporting mangroves (e.g. fresh water inflows). Alternative management measures may include replacement of mangroves, or research into mangroves.

No. 29 Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia’s Marine Environment. (Draft) (August 2003)

Consider options to avoid damage/loss to benthic primary producer habitats (BPPH). Where avoidance is not possible, design the project to minimise loss. Implement ‘best practice’ in design, construction methods and environmental management of the Project. Estimate cumulative loss of BPPH (since pre-settlement – see guidance for methodology), and consider providing offsets (e.g. artificial reefs, seagrass transplants) where cumulative loss is high (e.g. >70% loss).

1.5 Other Relevant Standards and Policies Other standards and policies which are directly relevant to the marine environmental issues which need to be addressed by FMG are: • Perth Coastal Waters Study (EPA, 2000); • Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000); • Guidelines for ballast water management (AQIS 2001); and • Code of Practice for Antifouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance

(ANZECC, 2000).


2. The Proposal (Port Component)

2.1 The Port The proposed port facility will be developed at Anderson Point on the south-western side of Port Hedland harbour. The final location and configuration for the facility has been selected on the basis of environmental investigations, engineering constraints and land access issues. An overview of the port facilities is shown in Figure 2.1 and the key characteristics are identified in Table 2.1. The port facility will consist of a rail loop, car dumper, stockyard and ore handling facilities (including two stackers and a single reclaimer), re-screening facility and product conveyor out to a wharf and shiploader at Anderson Point. The wharf will be approximately 750 m in length, with mooring dolphins at each end. The wharf will be capable of servicing ships up to 250,000 DWT and will service approximately 180–200 ships per annum. If the rail loop or track crosses the South West Creek, carefully designed drainage works will ensure the free movement of surface water into the harbour. The product conveyor from the stockpile to the shoreline will be constructed on a solid causeway with culverts to allow adequate tidal movement; the final section to the ship loader will be constructed on trestles. The conveyor from the car dumper to the screen-house will be carried overland via an elevated truss to allow full tidal movement. Dredging of the harbour will be required to accommodate the additional berths at Anderson Point. A cutter suction-dredge will be used and approximately 3,300,000 m3 of dredge material will be generated. Subject to final geotechnical analysis, this material will be used as bulk fill for preparation of the stockyard and surround facilities. If the dredge spoil is unsuitable for use or disposal on land (e.g. due to fine particle structure, or oxidation of acid-generating sulphides), then dredge spoil might require disposal offshore. In this instance approvals will be applied for from the Commonwealth as required under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. Within the Port Hedland Port, FMG will construct and operate a ship loading terminal with a capacity of 45 Mtpa. This will consist of a continuous train unloader, ore blending and ship loading facility. The Port stockpile areas will be built to provide the necessary flexibility to ensure continuity of supply to steel mill customers, whilst ensuring that environmentally sensitive issues such as mangrove impacts, dust and noise are at the lowest practicable levels within the industry. Dust suppression and water run-off will be closely monitored and controlled to ensure that all environmental and health related issues are managed.


Figure 2.1 FMG Proposal: Port, Rail Loop and Stockpile Areas (this figure shows a an option for sharing the Hope Downs facilities, this is not part of the current proposal and an updated figure will be issued by FMG)


Table 2.1 FMG Port key Characteristics

Element Characteristics General Construction period Project Life Export Tonnage Shipping

20 months approximately 20+ years 45 Mtpa 180–200 ships/yr

Port Stockyard Materials handling Port Development Buildings

2.5 Mt capacity Car dumper Conveyors and Transfer Points Rescreening Plant 2 x Stackers (11,800 tph each) Reclaimer (11,800 tph) Piled Wharf 750 m long Ships up to 250,000 DWT Shiploader (10,000 tph) Dredging – 3.3 Mm3 (construction, with minor ongoing maintenance dredging) Administration Office, Shift Office, Control Room and Amenities Wharf amenities Substations Workshop/warehouse

Disturbance Areas Dredge Volume Dredge Material to reclamation Duration of dredge program Dredge Material to PHPA spoil ground Total Dredge Area Area of existing turning basin deepened to 14.6 m Area of existing mudflats dredged Area of port facilities construction Area of operating port facilities

3,300,000 m3 3,300,000 m3 Up to 12 months 0 m3 (contingency in place to dispose of unsuitable material offshore) 36.8 ha 19.0 ha 17.8 ha 160 ha 110 ha

Infrastructure Power Water Fuel Roads Sewage

17.5 MW from existing system 2.5 GLpa from existing system 50 MLpa for locomotives General traffic, port access, rail service Construction – package treatment plant Operations – septic systems

Workforce (approximate peak levels) Construction Operations Accommodation

Port – 400 personnel Port – 70 personnel Construction – single status in Port Hedland Permanent – new or existing residences in Port Hedland

Key: DWT - dead weight tonnes GLpa - gigalitres per annum ha - hectare km – kilometre

m – metre Mm3 - million cubic metres Mtpa - million tonnes per annum Mt - million tonnes MW - megawatts


2.2 Alternatives considered

2.2.1 Original Design Optimising engineering and financial factors for the project dictated that reclamation areas be sited as close to Anderson Point as possible and have simple geometric shapes (Figure 2.2). Further, the most cost effective method of providing access for rail, road and conveyors is via earth causeways. This concept was then subjected to a preliminary environmental assessment which concluded that the impacts on mangroves and creeks had not been minimised. As a result, the project engineers moved the reclamation areas back from Anderson Point and reshaped them to minimise the direct loss of mangroves. In addition, the accessways were redesigned to incorporate trestleways, bridge sections and culverts to maintain tidal flows within mangrove lined creeks.

Figure 2.2 Original stockpile, rail and berth layouts


FMG’s conceptual layout now includes two conveyors, a rail loop with an access road next to the rail loop going over the dredge spoil reclamation area and an access road built next to the ship loader conveyor. This infrastructure is shown in FMG’s PER. The conveyor from the car dumper to the screen house will be constructed on an elevated truss to allow full tidal movement through South West Creek. The conveyor to the ship loader will be constructed on a solid causeway, due to engineering requirements associated with the construction of an adequate access road for maintenance and operation of the conveyor and ship loader. Large, suitably engineered culverts will be installed at tidal creek crossings through this solid causeway to allow adequate tidal movement. The rail loop will be built on a solid embankment, again with large culverts across tidal creeks to allow adequate tidal movement. In all cases, the culverts have been designed to minimise hydraulic impediment and the modelling work by Worley (2004) has shown that impacts on tidal exchange in the mangrove area is unlikely to be significant (refer Section 4).


3. Existing Marine and Nearshore Environment

3.1 Marine Conservation Status The marine environment of Port Hedland harbour has not been proposed for reservation under the Wilson Report (DCLM 1994). There are two EPA Guidance Statements which apply to the marine environment of Port Hedland. These are discussed below. In summary, these key policy documents recognise Port Hedland as a key industrial centre which has been extensively modified and is a suitable node for future industrial development in the region. This finding does not preclude operators in Port Hedland from having to act to minimise and manage environmental impacts.

3.1.1 EPA Guidance No. 1 EPA Guidance No. 1 (Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves along the Pilbara Coastline) (EPA 2001), categorises Port Hedland as being covered by Guideline 4: Other mangrove areas—Inside designated industrial areas and associated port areas. These are all mangrove areas that occur inside areas that have been designated as industrial areas, associated ports or other development and not covered by Guideline 3. The EPA's operational objective for Guideline 4 areas is that the impacts of development on mangrove habitat and ecological function of the mangroves in these areas should be reduced to the minimum practicable level. The EPA would consider the significance of the environmental impacts but would expect that the proposals in these zones are likely to be capable of being made environmentally acceptable. Accordingly, proposals in these areas will not be subject to a presumption against finding the proposal environmental acceptable provided that: • A high priority being placed on protecting tropical arid zone mangroves,

habitat and dependent habitats; and • Any development being planned and designed to keep impacts on mangroves,

habitats and dependent habitats to a minimum practical level.

3.1.2 EPA Guidance No. 29 Under EPA Guidance No. 29 (Benthic Primary Producer Habitat (BPPH) Protection for Western Australia's Marine Environment) (EPA 2004), Port Hedland would be categorised under Category E: Development Areas. Development Areas have been identified either by the EPA or through the literature as: • Having moderate conservation or ecological significance, and where the land

use has been designated for heavy industry, large coastal proposals or related purposes by a State Cabinet decision (e.g. inner port areas), a statutory planning process where environmental factors have been demonstrably addressed, or any other planning process which can be, or has been, referred to the EPA for assessment (e.g. proposals within a management unit focused on the inner Dampier Port, Oakajee Port proposal).

The EPA objectives for these areas are:


• Moderate damage/loss of BPPH and/or their associated BPP communities may be acceptable where proponents can demonstrate that there are no feasible alternatives to avoid damage/loss and/or where proposals are consistent with relevant management plans or with a use of the management unit that is consistent with a State Government decision. (e.g. port expansions, dredged navigation channels, land reclamations and marinas);

• The EPA has set a nominal Cumulative Loss Threshold = 10% loss of BPPH in the relevant bioregion;

• The EPA expects the proponent to apply the general principles of assessment and develop and commit to the implementation of a comprehensive environmental management plan with an objective of protecting and maintaining ecosystem integrity. The plan must provide the basis for the ongoing development of an understanding of the environmental impacts of the proposal in question in the context of existing and approved development and minimising cumulative impacts on BPPH arising or predicted to arise from these developments; and

• The acceptability of any damage/loss in these areas will be a judgement of the EPA.

In this case, the relevant bioregion could be defined as being all the subtidal and intertidal areas south of Hunt Point. This captures the tidal creek system and associated mangrove and algal mat areas. The work by Biota will address the issue of impacts on these mangrove and algal ecosystems in the context of the relevant EPA objectives.

3.2 Physical Environment The Port of Port Hedland covers an area of 41,822 ha. The port area vested in the Port Authority comprises all water mass of the inner harbour as well as the seaward area in a 10 nautical mile radius of Hunt Point (Beacon No. 47), which is situated at the entrance of the inner harbour to the high water mark at the shoreline (PHPA 2003). The Port Hedland inner harbour area is shown in Figure 3.1.

3.2.1 Bathymetry Port Hedland Harbour has been considerably altered since 1965 with the commencement of dredging of the harbour. Modifications have included: • Dredging an approach channel to the harbour; • Dredging of a turning basin and berthing pockets; • Reclamation of East Creek to enable development of Nelson Point; • Construction of general cargo, iron ore and salt loading wharves; • Construction of the Finucane Island causeway which has closed West Creek; • Disposal of dredge spoil to east of the inner harbour channel and in designated

grounds offshore; and • Construction of BHP facilities at Nelson Point and Cargill Salt field has closed

off tidal connection to the east. As a result of these modifications the bathymetry of the harbour has been significantly altered affecting patterns of sedimentation, water velocities and mixing, and harbour flushing times.


The current harbour bathymetry is shown in Figure 3.2. The shipping channel in the inner harbour has an average depth of 14.6 m and is 14.1 m at the shallowest point. The channel is deeper offshore, reaching a depth of 16.2 m at Beacon 2 (not shown, refer Australian Hydrographic Service 2004). The average depth of the turning basin is 9.1 m.

Figure 3.1: Aerial view of Port Hedland inner harbour

Figure 3.2 Port Hedland Harbour Bathymetry

Hunt Point

Nelson Point

Finucane Island

Anderson Point

Stingray Creek


3.2.2 Hydrodynamics and Tides Water movement within the harbour is dominated by tidal flows through the harbour entrance. The tides at Port Hedland are predominantly semi-diurnal and range in movement from 1.5 m during neaps to 5.8 m at springs, with the highest astronomical tide being 7.9 m (PHPA 2003). Figure 3.3 shows typical tidal range over the spring-neap cycle. The peak tidal currents are approximately 1 knot and currents of 3 knots can occur at some locations. These tidal currents impact on ship handling during berthing and departure manoeuvres (HGM 1997). Spring tides circulate in a counter-clockwise pattern in the turning basin which results in the deepest part of the basin not being as effectively flushed as the rest of the harbour. During neap tides the harbour is generally well flushed although stratification is evident as lower water velocities decrease mixing efficiency and increase the residence time of water, particularly in the northeast region of the main basin (HGM 1997).

Figure 3.3 Example of Port Hedland Tidal elevations (source Worley 2004)

3.2.3 Geological Setting Anderson Point is a low relief area that is part of the coastal flats of Port Hedland. The coastal flats include tidal mangrove swamps, younger beach and dune shelly sands and extensive flats of mud and silt overlying typically consolidated deposits of red brown silty/clayey sands of the Holocene period which are underlain by variably cemented calcium carbonate rich deposits of the Pleistocene period. Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd has investigated the soils around Anderson Point on behalf of FMG and come to the following conclusions on likely subsurface geology (Coffey 2004): • Unconsolidated sediments: consisting of recent mud deposits, Mangrove

muds, carbonate muds and younger beach and dune sands, generally extending


from the existing surface/seabed to levels in the range of 0.5 m to 2.0 m Chart Datum (CD);

• Consolidated sediments: likely to comprise old channel deposits of carbonate sand and gravel, red to brown clayey sand/ sandy clay with calcarenite gravels and cobbles extending to levels in the range of 8.0 m to 10.0 m CD; and

• Cemented sediments: variably cemented calcarenite and calcareous materials extending to the lowest levels investigated, typically 12.0 m to 15.0 m CD.

3.2.4 Sedimentation Sediments within the harbour are mostly fine mud washed down from the creeks, although some parts are sandy such as Anderson Point, or sand and shell grit such as on the south side of Stingray creek. Natural erosion and deposition processes have been significantly altered since dredging of the port commenced. Harbour sedimentation has been examined in detail by Halpern Glick Maunsell (1999) and MJ Paul & Associates (2001) for the PHPA. The key findings were: • The harbour is continually undergoing sedimentation and maintenance

dredging is required at 3 to 4 year intervals in some areas; • The five tidal creeks are a significant source of sediment loading to the

harbour; • Sedimentation tends to occur in the deeper and calmer areas of the harbour, i.e.

on the inside of each bend within the shipping channel, in the southeast corner of the turning basin inside the inner harbour, near the tug boat harbour and small boat ramp;

• Sediment also enters the harbour from the outer channel; and • Cyclonic activity causes some sedimentation in the channel bottom. The region immediately opposite Anderson Point (southern side of swinging basin) was found to be silting at a rate of about 40 mm/yr (MJ Paul & Associates 2001) and this rate probably provides the best indication of sedimentation rates for the FMG proposal.

3.2.5 Dredge Areas Coffey Geosciences (2004) reported that the subsurface profile at Anderson Point in the proposed dredged zone is expected to comprise unconsolidated surficial sediments, as encountered by the hand probes, extending to depths varying from nominally 0.5 m to 2.5 m, overlying consolidated sand/clay/gravel sediments to levels in the order of -8.0 m to -10.0 m CD and overlying variably cemented materials. Coffey Geosciences (2004) suggested that sediments would generally be transported down the drainage systems that flank Anderson Point during flood events and the coarser materials (sands and gravels) would be deposited around the Point and that the finer materials (silts and clays) would be carried into the dredged basin where a slow build-up of finer materials would occur. Coffey Geosciences (2004) noted weaker, higher plasticity, surficial muds were generally thickest in those areas in and around the mangroves (up to 3.2 m thick). The thickness of this weaker material reduces away from the mangrove system. Dredging works will be undertaken in four separate areas, as shown on Figure 3.4, and described by Coffey Geosciences (2004) as follows:


1. Area A: This area, located immediately north of the proposed berths, has been previously dredged to nominally -9.1 m CD, and will require further dredging to nominally -14.6 m CD. While this dredged material is expected to be very hard and well cemented, a thin layer of weaker muddy material may have formed on the seabed, due to sediment flowing into the dredged basin from the main creeks including the South West and South Creeks adjacent to Anderson Point.

2. Area B: This area is located immediately east of the proposed berths and will require dredging from its existing level, at nominally 0.5 m above CD to -9.1 m CD. Weaker silty/sandy material is expected to be present to depths varying from 0.5 m to 1.0 m, further geotechnical drilling is planned to characterise the full depth of material to be dredged.

3. Area C: This area is located within the berthing pocket and will require dredging from its current level, which varies from nominally between 0.0 m CD and +2.5 m CD, to -19.5 m CD. Weaker silty/sandy material is expected to be present to depths varying from 0.5 m to 2.5 m. Further geotechnical drilling is planned to characterise the full depth of material to be dredged.

4. Area D: This area is located immediately south of the berthing pocket and will require battered dredging from its current level to tie in with Area C at -19.5 m CD.

Coffey Geosciences has estimated the volume of dredged material based on the information presented above to be approximately 3,300,000 m3. In this desktop investigation, Coffey Geosciences found that there were no materials in the proposed dredge area that would be unsuitable for reclamation. However, as this is a preliminary survey, FMG have held discussions with the PHPA and reached agreement that should more detailed investigations find large quantities of unsuitable material, it may be disposed of at the PHPA spoil grounds (refer Section 3.5.2). At this stage, dumping at the spoil grounds will be a contingency measure and FMG will undertake the necessary investigations to support a sea dumping permit application if it is required.

Figure 3.4 FMG Port Dredge Areas (Source: Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd)


3.3 Chemical Environment

3.3.1 Pollution Sources The main source of contaminants to Port Hedland Harbour is from shipping and dust from iron ore loading activities. The harbour catchment is urbanised to the east and may contribute some contaminants following rainfall events.

3.3.2 Sediment Quality The soils of the tributary plains of the Port Hedland area are predominantly duplex soils consisting of sand overlaying clay of red colour due to the iron oxide content. The alluvial soils of the coastal plains consist of red earthy sands and hard red soils along the creek lines. The soils of the areas susceptible to tidal inundation are soft surface sediments, such as mangrove mud and alluvial sediments of up to a depth of 4 m (HDMS 2002). Sediment characteristics in the harbour were first described in 1964 as “a thin layer of sand covering a weakly cemented crust of shelly conglomerate with sand, shells and silt underneath” (PHPA, 2003). Since then, there has been an increase in finer sediments, with layers of mud at least 30 cm thick measured in 1984 (PHPA 2003). The PHPA (2003) reported on the results of recent sediment surveys in Port Hedland Harbour, which are summarised as follows: • 1990: surveyed levels of copper, chromium and zinc in the harbour sediments.

All of these metals were recorded at elevated levels; • 1991. a follow-up to the 1990 study found copper levels in the range 3–

67 mg/kg dry weight (dwt), chromium levels 26–283 mg/kg dwt and zinc levels 8–86 mg/kg dwt. The lower levels were found in samples from sites in the channel and a side branch of South East Creek, whereas the higher levels occurred close to the wharves and in Stingray Creek (PHPA, 2003). The trigger levels (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000) for copper (65 mg/kg) and chromium (80 mg/kg) were found to be exceeded at some sites;

• 1993: cadmium and arsenic levels at some sites within the harbour exceeded the trigger values (cadmium 1 .5 mg/kg, arsenic 20 mg/kg);

• 1994: study undertaken specifically to examine copper contamination and found that copper levels from 1991 had not reduced and were still exceeding ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines;

• 1998: high levels of tributyltin (TBT) were recorded at the base of the tug slip way (up to 70,000 ng Sn/g dwt). Samples taken from sites further away from the tug slip way and at Nelson Point contained much lower, but still significant concentrations of TBT exceeding the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines;

• 2002: In preparation for the Berth 1 extension a further survey verified significant concentrations of chromium, copper, lead and nickel at the berth. Nutrient levels were also higher at the berth than in adjacent areas. TBT levels at the berth exceeded the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines; and

• Work undertaken as part of the ongoing maintenance dredging programme has shown that nickel levels at all sites are generally above the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) screening level, it has been postulated that this may simply be a result of the mineralogy of the region and further work is anticipated to establish natural background concentrations.


All the sediment sampling work to date suggests that the areas in the harbour frequented by ships and tugs are contaminated to some extent with metals and TBT. Further, Stingray Creek, which collects run-off from urban and industrial areas may also contain contaminated sediments. PHPA recently commissioned sampling and analysis for 14 metals (total concentration), TBT and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) for marine sediments at a number of sites throughout the harbour including sites PHPA58, PHPA61, PHPA62, and PHPA63 which are in the vicinity of Anderson Point and away from shipping and industrial activity (Figure 3.5). The key findings are summarised in Table 3.1. As found in other surveys, levels of iron, manganese, zinc and nickel are elevated and this is likely to be a combination of high background levels in the region and the effect of dust from loading operations. Elevated TBT levels at site PHPA58 reflect shipping impacts. All the PHPA sites are within the region where FMG is proposing to dredge.

Table 3.1: Concentrations of key contaminants determined by PHPA at sites near Anderson Pt (URS, 2003)

As Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn TBT Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng

Sn/g PQL a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 Screening Level b

20 80 65 n/a n/a 21 50 200 5

Maximum Level c

70 370 270 n/a n/a 52 220 410 72

PHPA Site PHPA58 11 45 14 19,600 125 19 6 28 26.7 PHPA61 14 52 19 24,700 195 23 7 38 - PHPA62 7 31 7 11,500 81 12 3 15 - PHPA63 15 61 21 28,900 229 28 8 47 -

a Practical Quantitation Limit b Concentration below which toxic effects on organisms are not expected (Environment Australia 2002) c Concentration at which toxic effects on organisms are probable if contaminant is in a biologically available form (Environment Australia 2002) In addition, FMG commissioned analyses for a suite of ten metals (Ag, As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Se and Zn) in 12 samples collected from the intertidal area of Anderson Point in March 2004 (Sites 1–12 in Figure 3.5) and in samples collected from the seabed north-east of Anderson Point in May 2004 (Sites PH63–PH67; Figure 3.5)). None of the metal concentrations exceeded the National Ocean Disposal Guideline Screening Levels (Environment Australia 2002). Sites PH63–PH67 were also tested for TBT compounds, with no TBT contamination found. The results from analyses undertaken by FMG are shown in Table 3.2 and laboratory data sheets provided in Appendix A.


Table 3.2 Metals concentrations in sediments sampled by FMG

As Cd Co Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn TBT DBT MBT Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng.Sn/g ng.Sn/g ng.Sn/g Reporting Limit <1 <0.06 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.4 <1 <0.5 <1 <1 <1 Screening Level 20 1.5 NA 80 65 21 50 200 5 NA NA Maximum Level 70 10 NA 370 270 52 220 410 70 NA NA

Site E MGA94

N MGA94

1 664323 7751756 5 <0.06 0.7 14 0.3 1.2 <1 4.9 2 664458 7751678 8 <0.06 2.1 23 2.4 5.9 2 12 3 664406 7751725 7 <0.06 1.5 18 1.7 4.2 1 11 4 664439 7751632 6 <0.06 0.7 13 0.5 1.4 <1 5.8 5 664442 7751574 6 <0.06 0.9 14 0.5 2.2 <1 6.8 6 664355 7751608 9 <0.06 2.2 22 2.8 7.1 1 14 7 664275 7751615 7 <0.06 1.6 18 1.9 5.1 <1 9.1 8 664217 7751658 8 <0.06 1.4 15 1.3 3.8 <1 7.8 9 664250 7751729 10 <0.06 2.4 23 3.1 7 2 13 10 664258 7751792 10 <0.06 2.9 29 4.7 9.7 2 16 11 664308 7751693 9 <0.06 1.6 19 1.6 4.5 1 8.2 12 664377 7751661 7 <0.06 1.8 21 2.2 4.9 2 9.8

P63 664881 7751242 6 <0.06 2.3 23 2.3 4.9 2 13 <1 <1 1 P64 664829 7751321 6 <0.06 2.8 27 3.9 7.2 2 18 <1 <1 1 P65 664920 7751297 8 <0.06 2.6 21 2.9 5.9 2 17 <1 <1 1 P66 665113 7751533 8 <0.06 2.1 17 2.2 4.5 1 14 <1 <1 2 P67 665121 7751603 9 <0.06 2.3 17 2.2 4.7 1 15 1 <1 1


Figure 3.5 Sediment and Acid Sulphate Soil Sampling Locations (Figure by Biota)

.


3.3.3 Acid Sulphate Soils The port area includes areas with low lying waterlogged soils which, due to their low elevation, are considered to potentially be acid sulphate soils (ASS) which contain pyrite or iron sulphate. ASS are usually found in Holocene deposits associated with mangroves as the formation of pyrite occurs naturally in the mangrove environment (Paling 2002). Undisturbed, these soils do not have a harmful impact, however, when exposed to the air, oxidation results in the formation of sulphuric acid. The acid will reduce the pH of the soil and any receiving water as it drains into the harbour. As the pH decreases, iron and aluminium are released from the soil into the water, which may affect the environment (Paling 2002). Paling (2002) examined soils and marine sediments that were to be dredged and disposed onshore in the planned Hope Downs development areas and found that the soil and sediment tested showed a low potential of producing acid when disturbed. It was concluded that there was no requirement for an ASS management plan for the Hope Downs proposal. In general discussion, Paling (2002) noted that: “on the North West coastline of Western Australia where very high tidal ranges are the norm that any potential for generation of acid from Acid Sulphate Soils would be neutralised by the flushing effect of large volumes of alkaline seawater.” However, with respect to this issue, the PHPA concluded: “Prior to new developments that include significant soil disturbance in the low lying areas of the port, the presence of acid sulphate soils should be determined” (PHPA 2003). Therefore, although it would appear that the risk of acid generation was low, FMG has sampled and tested for ASS (refer Section 4.4).

3.4 Biological Environment

3.4.1 Water column Port Hedland harbour waters are marine with occasional small freshwater inflows via the creeks and drains from Nelson Point. The fringing mangroves, the constant movement of ships, the large tidal range and the presence of silt and mud throughout the harbour mean that the waters are turbid. Irregular sampling for phytoplankton and zooplankton has found that there was low species diversity which is likely to be a result of the turbid waters. There are no known anthropogenic nutrient sources to affect water quality, the main anthropogenic effects are: • Deposition of dust from ore loading operations; • Leaching of anti-foulants from hulls; • Creation of turbidity from ship movements; and • Leaching of corrosion protection products from infrastructure (e.g. zinc

anodes). These activities may be responsible for elevated iron, copper, lead and zinc levels in the water column near the berths being recorded for several surveys (HDMS, 2002; PHPA 2003). Dissolved copper and zinc levels are close to or above the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Low protection trigger values (HDMS, 2002).


3.4.2 Introduced Species The size and number of the vessels visiting Port Hedland means that Port Hedland is subject to relatively high volumes of ballast water discharge. In 1998, the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests conducted a survey of the harbour and the two off-shore dredge spoil grounds for introduced species and did not detect any of the Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council (ABWMAC) targeted pest species. Other introduced or ‘cryptogenic’ (those species which cannot definitely or demonstrably be categorised as introduced or native) species identified to date include the hydroids Obelia longissima and Antennella secundaria (status still unclear whether native or introduced), the bryozoans Amathia distans, Bugula neritina, the barnacle Balanus amphitrite. None of these species are considered pests in Australia and their potential impact on the environment is regarded as low (CSIRO 1999).

3.4.3 Subtidal Because of the constant input of turbidity from the tidal creeks and also the continuous shipping operations, Port Hedland harbour’s subtidal habitats are characterised by fine mud and shell grit and do not support substantial benthic flora. PHPA (2003) reported that the two main subtidal vegetation types in the harbour were green algal mats and Sargassum. Green algal mats have been identified within the proposed project area (Biota, 2004), however Sargassum does not occur within the project area, but is known to occur in Stingray Creek on the eastern side of the harbour (HGM, 1997).

3.4.4 Intertidal Extensive mudflats characterise the intertidal areas of the harbour and support diverse communities of benthic invertebrates. HGM (1997) identified a total of 183 species, of these approximately 55% were polychaete worms, 24% molluscs and 18% crustaceans. DALSE understands that Biota (2004) has further characterised the typical benthic invertebrate communities in the project area and made an assessment of potential impacts of the project on these communities.

3.5 History of Marine Impacts

3.5.1 History of Port Hedland The following historical information has been sourced from the PHPA website (http://www.phpa.wa.gov.au). In 1863 the vessel 'Mystery' dropped anchor in a mangrove inlet, which was given the name of Port Hedland after the Master of the 'Mystery', Captain Peter Hedland. Towards the end of the century it became apparent that the pastoral industry in the Eastern Pilbara needed a port, and in 1896 the first Port Hedland jetty was begun. With the discovery of gold in the Marble Bar area a few years later, the jetty was extended in 1908, and a railway between Marble Bar and Port Hedland was completed in 1911. From then until the late 1930s, the port was mainly used for the import of stores and producer items for the local industries, and the export of pearl shell, wool, livestock, gold, tin and small amounts of copper.


After the Second World War, the port continued to serve the pastoral industry, and began to export significant quantities of manganese. However, in 1965 the iron ore industry, as we know it today, began in the port, when Goldsworthy Mining (now BHP Iron Ore) dredged an approach channel and turning basin for ships of up to 65,000 Dead Weight Tonnes (DWT). At the same time the Leslie Salt Company (now Cargill Salt Ltd) commenced development of a solar salt industry. A new land backed wharf was built to cater for salt exports and to improve the facilities available for the import of fuel and producer items. Subsequently the Mt. Newman Mining Company (now BHP Iron Ore) chose Port Hedland as its export port, and further dredging and development took place to allow the use of the port by very large bulk carriers of up to 120,000 DWT. With experience, the size of vessels was increased, and vessels of up to 315 m in length, and 185,000 DWT, were accepted. In 1975/76 further work was carried out when extensions to the turning basin and some channel widening took place, allowing ships of up to 225,000 DWT to be handled. In 1986 major capital dredging was undertaken to deepen the channel by 2.5m. In conjunction with a computerised under keel clearance programme, (the first in an Australian port) this allowed the port to handle ships up to 330 m, and 260,000 DWT. The channel at Port Hedland is now 20 nautical miles in length for outward vessels, varying in both width and depth with minima of 183 m and 14.2 m respectively. Gated pairs of synchronised beacons, which are maintained and owned by the Port Authority mark the channel to Port limits 10 nautical miles offshore. The Outer Channel (beyond Port Limits) which varies in width from 250 m to 470 m is marked by thirteen synchronised beacons owned and maintained by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

3.5.2 Dredging and disposal Previously spoil from capital and maintenance dredging in the PHPA has either been used for reclamation (e.g. East Creek, Nelson Point and Finucane Island) or disposed of to the large spoil bank immediately outside the harbour north of the township. Maintenance dredging is a regular activity and is carried out approximately every four years to maintain the depth of the approach channel and the turning basin (PHPA 2003). The PHPA currently has approval from Environment Australia to dump dredge material offshore at spoil ground “I” shown in Figure 3.6 (C. Wilson PHPA, pers. comm.). No sedimentation controls are implemented during dredging due to the already turbid nature of the harbour (PHPA, 2003).


Figure 3.6 Port Hedland Port Authority Spoil Grounds and sediment sampling sites (source PHPA/URS 2003)


4. Marine Environmental Impacts and their Management

4.1 Marine Biota and Associated Habitat

4.1.1 Relevant Standards and Policies The relevant areas impacted here are the intertidal mudflats, mangroves and subtidal zone. EPA has requested that the following documents be used by FMG to guide this assessment: • EPA Guidance Statement No. 1: Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves

along the Pilbara Coastline (EPA 2001); • EPA Guidance Statement No. 29: Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection

for Western Australia’s Marine Environment (EPA 2004); • Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000); and • Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000). Port Hedland has been discussed in the context of EPA Guidance Statement No. 1 and EPA Guidance Statement No. 29 in Section 3.1 and impacts with respect to these Guidance Statements will largely be covered in the Biota report on terrestrial impacts. Although this project is not in the area covered by Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000) and the ecosystems are quite different, the document sets out a general framework for setting the Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) for a water body in Western Australia. At this stage there are no agreed EQOs for Port Hedland Harbour and Table 4.1 provides an interpretation of EPA (2000) with respect to the harbour. The Department of Environmental Protection (DoE) has recently commenced community and stakeholder consultation to develop community-derived Environmental Values (EVs) and EQOs specifically for marine waters from Exmouth to Port Hedland, Western Australia. Once derived, these values and objectives will form the basis for managing water quality sustainably and protecting the environmental values from the effects of diffuse and point source discharges, wastes and deposits. If the outcomes of this work are available in time for preparation of the EMPs for the work, then they should replace the EQOs in Table 4.1. The ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) document provides the current Environmental Quality Guidelines (EQG) for the harbour.

Table 4.1 Environmental Quality Objectives for Port Hedland Harbour

Environmental Quality Objective (EPA 2000)

Comments

EQO1: Ecosystem Health (Maintenance of ecosystem integrity)

Port Hedland Harbour is highly modified and zoned for heavy industrial use however, it also supports mangroves and other marine habitats and associated fauna. Based on previous commentary by the EPA (e.g. Cockburn Sound, (EPA 2002)) it is most likely that the harbour would need to be managed to meet a Moderate Level of Protection (E3).

EQO2: Fishing and It is most likely that the harbour would need to be managed


Aquaculture (Maintenance of aquatic life for human consumption):

such that aquatic life is fit for human consumption.

EQO3: Recreation and Aesthetics (Maintenance of primary contact (e.g. swimming) recreation values).

It is unlikely that the harbour will need to be actively managed to meet primary contact values, which would require assessment of bacterial contamination levels in consultation with the WA Health Department

EQO4: Recreation and Aesthetics (Maintenance of secondary contact (eg. boating) recreation values).

It is unlikely that the harbour will need to be actively managed to meet secondary contact values, which would require assessment of bacterial contamination levels in consultation with the WA Health Department.

EQO5: Recreation and Aesthetics (Maintenance of aesthetic values).

It is unlikely that the harbour will need to be actively managed to meet aesthetic values

EQO6: Industrial Water Supply (Maintenance of industrial water supply values).

There will be no requirement for the harbour to be managed to meet industrial water supply values.

4.1.2 Intertidal Mudflats The project will result in the direct loss of 17.8 ha of intertidal mudflats through the dredging of a new berth pocket (Figure 3.4). The intertidal flats are comprised of surficial sands, silts and clays/muds, which extend to depths of around 2.5 m and support a range of organisms typical to the region (refer Section 3.4.4). Although there is heavy industrial use of the harbour and an extensive history of modification, intertidal mudflats play an important ecological role in tidal system and the loss of mudflats should be kept to a minimum. DALSE understands that the extent of loss of intertidal areas, the context in term of total areas and cumulative impacts will be discussed in the Biota report.

4.1.3 Subtidal Zone The majority of the subtidal area, offshore from the mudflats has already been dredged to 9.3 m navigable depth by the PHPA for use as a swinging basin. The FMG proposal will result in the deepening of approximately 19.0 ha of this area to 14.6 m navigable depth. The habitat has been extensively modified in this area and comprises bare sandy silty sediments which, due to the turbidity of the overlying waters, are not conducive to supporting significant marine flora or corals. Given the heavy industrial use of the harbour and the extensive history of modification and the low ecological value of the existing habitat, this further modification does not comprise a significant impact. The EPA has largely confirmed this finding with regard to its deliberations on the Hope Downs Iron Ore Project (EPA, 2002), which had a similar level of impact on the marine environment. The EPA found that although the loss of marine biota and habitat was a relevant factor, the issue required to be addressed in detail was impacts on mangroves and not subtidal communities. The EPA found that the Hope Downs project could be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives with regard to this issue.


4.2 Coastal Processes

4.2.1 Impacts on Currents FMG commissioned Worley to undertake a numerical modelling study to address: 1. The effect of the port development on currents and circulation in the harbour. 2. The effect of the port development on tidal flows in adjacent mangrove creek

areas. The modelling study included the proposed Hope Downs development so that the cumulative impacts of both developments on the above factors could be fully assessed (Worley 2004). Worley refined the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) three-dimensional numerical model for the harbour used for the PHPA planning study (Worley, 2003) and applied it to FMG’s requirements. A comparative analysis was conducted using a simulation of the existing configuration of the Port as the baseline and comparing this to simulations of the proposed Hope Downs development and the combined FMG and Hope Downs proposed developments (Figure 4.1). The model was forced with 29 days of synthesised tidal data covering the full neap–spring cycle (Figure 3.3). To validate the model, the results for the existing configuration were compared against observations at selected locations around the harbour by PHPA. There was a good agreement between measured and modelled results, providing confidence in the predictive capability of the model. Figure 4.2 shows the peak currents in the harbour under ebb and flood conditions for the existing bathymetry. It can be seen that some of the strongest currents (~1 m/s) occur in the shallows either side of Anderson Point. Figure 4.3 shows the peak currents in the harbour under ebb and flood conditions for the bathymetry modified by the Hope Downs and FMG developments. It can be seen that the dredging has the effect of slowing down currents. The relative impact of the FMG proposal is best seen in Figure 4.4, which shows the difference between the existing mean currents and the mean currents for the combined FMG and Hope Downs developments. It was found that the impacts on currents in the harbour will be small and localised. Worley were also commissioned to design and model the culverts for each opening for the tidal crossings (Figure 4.5). The model was used to size the culverts so that the impact on tidal flushing was minimised (Worley 2004). From this work it is concluded that the proposal will not alter the flushing and tidal exchange of Port Hedland Harbour and nor will it affect circulation and currents within the harbour beyond the immediate area of development.


A)

B)

C)

Rail loop Causeway

Loadout Conveyor Causeway

HD Storage Area

HD Berth Dredge Pocket and Turning Areas

FMG Berth Dredge Pocket and Turning Areas

FMG Storage Areas

Figure 4.1 Modelled Port Hedland Harbour configurations: A) Existing; B) Hope Downs; and C) Hope Downs and Fortescue Metals Group (Source Worley 2004)


Figure 4.2 Currents in Port Hedland for existing bathymetry. Top: Ebb tide, and Bottom: Flood tide (Source Worley 2004)


Figure 4.3 Currents in Port Hedland for bathymetry post-FMG and Hope Downs developments. Top: Ebb tide, and Bottom: Flood tide (Source Worley 2004)


Figure 4.4 Residual depth-averaged current differences between the proposed Hope Downs development layout and the combined FMG and Hope Downs development layouts. Positive values (red-yellow) represent an increase in residual current magnitude post-FMG development. Residual current vectors (post- FMG development) are overlaid for reference (Source Worley 2004)

Figure 4.5 Culvert locations, numbers and sizing (Source Worley 2004)

Opening 1: 3 No. 3600x3600 culverts





4.3 Water Quality–Marine water and sediment quality

4.3.1 Relevant Environmental Quality Objectives and Criteria The EPA has recommended that the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines provide the default EQG for the harbour water and sediment quality. The ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) sediment quality guidelines are identical to Environment Australia’s National Ocean Disposal Guidelines (NODG; Environment Australia 2002) and the EPA’s 2002 sediment quality guidelines (EPA 2002). Because the dredge material also ends up as fill onshore, the DEP’s contaminated soil criteria will also need to be met (DEP 2003).

4.3.2 Dredging and Reclamation: Sediment Quality

Dredging Approximately 3,300,000 m3 of material will be dredged from the existing swing basin and the intertidal mudflats (Figure 3.4). The primary issue with respect to sediment contamination is the disturbance of contaminated sediments in situ by dredging. The present level of sediment quality assessment has been preliminary, based on historical analysis and opportunistic sampling as part of the geotechnical program. It suggests there is potential for low level contamination, primarily due to shipping impacts (refer Table 3.1 and Table 3.2). Therefore, prior to dredging, it is recommended that FMG develop a sediment analysis sampling programme (SAP) using the NODG as a guide. If this programme finds toxicant levels above screening levels using the methods of interpretation set out in the NODG, the next level of investigations should be triggered (e.g. testing for bio-available fractions, elutriate testing and potentially ecotoxicity testing). For example, if elutriate testing is required, the contaminants in the elutriates should be compared against ANZECC/ARMCANZ 95% species protection guideline values (moderate level of protection, EPA 2002) . If these ANZECC/ARMCANZ guideline values are exceeded, then the toxicity of elutriated contaminants should be investigated by undertaking ecotoxicity testing on 5 species from 4 taxonomic groups (as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2002).

Reclamation The dredge material will be placed in the two areas shown in Figure 2.1, the area at the end of Anderson Point behind the mangroves and the area inland where the stockpiles will be located. The reclamation area boundary has been shaped to minimise impacts on the mangrove areas. Prior to commencement of dredging a perimeter embankment will be constructed around the proposed spoil deposition areas which will contain the dredged spoil. These embankments will initially be constructed using imported fill or borrow excavated from beneath the reclamation area, however later they will likely be raised with selected reclaimed spoil material. The finished level of the perimeter embankment will be at a minimum level of RL 6.0 m AHD, being 0.5 m above the design 100 year ARI average storm surge level of RL 5.5 m AHD. The DEP’s contaminated soil criteria (DEP 2003) would apply to the reclamation and the sediment quality results should be provided in comparison with these.


4.3.3 Dredging and Reclamation: Turbidity

Dredging Port Hedland harbour is a naturally turbid environment and much of the region in question has previously been dredged by the PHPA for the swinging basin while the harbour itself has been largely created through extensive dredging campaigns since the mid-1960s. There are no significant light sensitive marine habitats (such as seagrass and corals) within the harbour and the risk of increased turbidity having any impact on benthic ecosystems in the harbour is considered to be negligible as the current habitats are tolerant to turbid conditions. However, there is a risk that a twelve month dredge campaign will result in water of higher turbidity than usual leaving the harbour over period sufficiently extended to cause stress on coral reef communities outside the harbour. Therefore, it is recommended that when the particle size characteristics of the dredge material are known (following the geotechnical drilling program) and the most likely dredge equipment confirmed, the area of influence of a plume leaving the harbour should be modelled and the results used in conjunction with existing habitat information for the region (URS 2003) to determine the communities most at risk and the most appropriate monitoring locations.

Return water flow Approximately 3.3 million m3 of material will be dredged from the Anderson Point area and used for onshore reclamation over period lasting up to twelve months. Within the reclamation areas, dredge material will be retained to settle the solids and decant the free water back into the port via sediment interception basins to minimise sediment load and turbidity. This water will be discharged to the port at locations and in a manner established in the DREMP such that the potential for impact to the mangrove populations is minimised. The return water discharge and route to the harbour should be designed so as not to cause damage mangroves though erosion of creek beds and/or banks. Upon completion of the dredging, the spoil deposition areas will be drained and levelled. The finished surface will be seeded to minimise the potential for surface erosion from rainfall and dust generation. The perimeter bund will also contain internal stormwater runoff, which will be harvested and used for dust control. Excess surface runoff water will be treated via an oil separator and a sediment interceptor basin, prior to discharging to the environment.

4.3.4 Ocean Disposal At the request of the EPA, DALSE approached the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) and requested advice as to whether disposal to tidal flats south of Anderson Point would trigger the need for a Sea Dumping Permit. The DEH response was that there is no doubt that this area is in waters within the limits of the State and that the Sea Dumping Act does not, therefore, apply in this case. While initial geotechnical investigations indicate that dredged material is suitable for structural fill, DALSE has been informed that there is a risk that detailed geotechnical investigations may find that some dredge material will be unsuitable for reclamation and will need to be disposed in an area where development will not occur or at an approved offshore disposal location. In the unlikely event that offshore disposal is required, FMG will need to obtain the necessary approvals from DEH.


4.3.5 Dredging Management DALSE recommend that FMG commit to preparing a Dredging and Reclamation Environmental Management Plan (DREMP) prior to construction which will detail the dredging and reclamation work, the procedures to be put in place to manage the impacts of dredging and reclamation and contingencies in the event of unacceptable levels of impact. It is recommended that the DREMP address the following: 1. FMG to develop a sediment Sampling and Analysis Programme (SAP) using

the NODG as a guide to the satisfaction of the EPA. 2. The results of the sediment SAP should be reported against relevant criteria to

EPA prior to dredging. 3. The return water from reclamation to be drained to a settling basin before

release to the harbour. 4. The return water discharge to be managed so as not to cause erosion of creeks

or damage mangroves. 5. Dredging to be undertaken by cutter suction dredge with spoil pumped directly

to reclamation areas. 6. The likely extent of turbidity from the harbour due to dredging (above natural

levels) to be modelled and the predicted extent checked against known areas of sensitive habitat and the results presented to the DoE.

7. If there is a risk that habitat sensitive to turbidity may be impacted, a monitoring program (e.g. coral monitoring) and suitable trigger criteria should be designed to the approval of the DoE.

8. Photographs and other records of visual impacts should be taken at regular intervals during the dredging and reclamation to establish and monitor the extent of any plumes and ensure that above actions have been correctly implemented.

9. The return water discharge to harbour should be monitored to ensure that there is no damage to mangrove system through erosion.

It should be noted that if the project were to be assessed in a manner consistent with the Hope Downs assessment with respect to dredging (the Hope Downs project proposed 2.9 million m3 dredging with disposal onshore), then there should be no need to monitor turbidity during construction (HDMS, 2002; EPA 2003).

4.3.6 Sediment Quality: Operations The dredging of the mudflats to create the berths will result in the creation of approximately 17.8 ha of new seabed between 14.6 m and 19.5 m deep. Sediments at berth pockets elsewhere in the harbour already show significant impacts from shipping with elevated TBT, copper, chromium and lead levels (Refer Section 3.3.2 and PHPA 2003). Given that the berths will be continuously used by Cape and Panamax Class bulk carriers, there will be ongoing contamination of this region from leaching and flaking from hulls as well as overspill from iron ore loading. It is estimated that the operation of the FMG port will result in an additional 180 to 200 ship visits each year, in excess of the current 735 ship visits (2003 calendar year). FMG will not have jurisdiction with regard to hull-coatings on visiting vessels as this is subject to international marine protocols and therefore will not be able to control contamination from this vector (the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) called for a global prohibition on the application of organotin compounds by 1 January 2003 and a complete prohibition 1 January 2008). However, FMG should commit to the implementation of current best practice management with respect to management of wharf-side and loading operations and, prior to operations, prepare a


Water and Sediment Quality Environmental Management Plan to the approval of the EPA and the PHPA to address the following sediment quality issues: • Control of contamination from berth maintenance activities; • Enforcement of ban on hull cleaning in port; • Control of fuel handling operations; • Control of ship loading to minimise dust and spillage; • Routine sediment quality monitoring and reporting; • Contingency management for contamination events within FMG’s

management responsibility; and • Clean-up and disposal procedures. In addition, given the history of siltation in Port Hedland, maintenance dredging of the berth areas will probably be required at approximately four-yearly intervals. This will act to prevent the build-up of toxicants and dredged sediments will need to be disposed of in an approved manner.

4.3.7 Water Quality: Operations The operation of the FMG port has the potential to compromise water quality via the following mechanisms (which are already present in Port Hedland): • Shiploading operations (via dust or product spillage); • Offsite discharges from the stockyard and berth areas; and • Hydrocarbon spills. FMG should develop processes to minimise impacts on water quality such as: • Installation of dust suppression equipment on loading equipment and break

detection equipment on conveyors to minimise the amount of iron ore that enters the harbour;

• Retention of stormwater discharges from the majority of the site in settling basins prior to discharge to the port;

• Stormwater from potentially contaminated areas (e.g. fuel storage, maintenance, parking areas) may require separation from the general runoff; and

• Implement procedures developed by the surface water consultant (Aquaterra) to maintain or improve surface water quality.

FMG should commit to prepare a Water and Sediment Quality EMP to the approval of the EPA and the PHPA which addresses the following issues: • Design of general stormwater drains and pits and any monitoring requirements; • Design of drains and traps from areas at risk from contamination and any

monitoring requirements; • Control of fuel handling operations; • Routine water quality monitoring and reporting; and • Contingency management for contamination events within FMG’s

management responsibility.


4.4 Contamination–Acid Sulphate Soils As part of the mangrove fieldwork, Dr Eric Paling of Murdoch University was asked to conduct a pilot survey for ASS, with in situ field testing and sampling for subsequent laboratory analysis. The samples were obtained from sites PH1 to PH4 (refer Figure 3.5). At PH1, samples were obtained from depths of: 10–25 cm; 25–50 cm and 50–75 cm, at sites PH2, PH3 and PH3, the hand auger could not penetrate a stiff clay layer and only the top 10–25 cm could be sampled. The laboratory analysis was undertaken by Murdoch University’s Marine and Freshwater Research Laboratory which has recently established procedures for the ASS analyses. The assessment of ASS in Western Australia is a developing field, and therefore the methods employed to calculate the potential and actual acidity were chosen following discussions with officers from the DoE. The most recent guidelines (Ahern et al. 2003) were also considered and Prof. Bob Gilkes (UWA) and Angus McElnea (Qld dept Natural Resources) were consulted. Following this consultation, the preferred method of analysis (due to be published in the Australian standards late 2004/early 2005) was identified as the Chromium reducible sulphur (SCR (S-sulphur method, CR-chromium reducible), one of several sulphur methods for estimating potential acidity) and associated chromium suite. The measurement of total sulphur (ST) may be used to estimate the maximum potential environmental risk from acid produced by the oxidation of sulphides. The measurement of ST is a useful screening approach and is widely used in the mining industry when estimating the maximum potential for acid drainage from sulphide sources. ST can, however, over-estimate the risk as organic sulphur and soluble sulphate salts are included in the calculation. The SCR values give a more accurate measure of the reduced inorganic sulphur compounds present within the sediment. The first step in this analysis was the determination of the reduced inorganic sulphur content (SCR) to estimate the potential sulphuric acidity of the sediment. Next, the soil pH, in a potassium chloride suspension (pHKCL), is determined as a means of estimating the actual acidity of the sediment. Following these steps, and depending upon the results, Titratable Actual Acidity (TAA) may be required to accurately measure the actual acidity or Net Acid Soluble Sulphur (SNAS) to estimate the retained acidity. The acid neutralising capacity of the sediment, giving an estimate of the ability of the soil to naturally neutralise any acid produced (for example due to calcium carbonate content), may also be measured as the acid neutralising capacity (ANC). In addition to the collection of soil samples for the above analyses, site observations and sub-sampling of the cores for Actual Acid Sulphate Soils (AASS) and Potential Acid Sulphate Soils (PASS) (the pHFOX test) field testing was carried out. The AASS and pHFOX testing involved the measurement of the pH of the sample both before and after the addition of Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2), with the difference in pre- and post-treatment pHs, and the violence of the reaction with H2O2, giving an indication of the current and potential acidity of the sediment. The field tests results found that none of the sites are exhibiting signs of AASS (pH Field ≤4) and that all the sediments are slightly alkaline (Table 4.2).


Table 4.2 Potential/Actual Acid Sulphate Soil Field Results

Site pH

Field pH Oxidised

(pHFOX) Peroxide Reaction

(Low/Medium/High/Volcanic) PH1 10/25 8.1 - low/med PH1 25/50 7.9 8.1 high/vol PH1 50/75 7.8 3.3 high/vol PH2 10/25 7.5 7.9 high/vol PH3 10/25 8.4 6.3 low PH4 10/25 7.8 7.5 low/med PH4 10/25 - - -

Although purely qualitative, the pHFOX test provides an indication of any iron sulphide present and can therefore identify PASS (pHFOX <3 or a marked decrease in pH). The violence of the reaction also gives an indication of the level of sulphides present although other soil constituents (for example organic material) also have an effect. Sample PH1 50/75 (deeper sediment) was the only sample found to be PASS, exhibiting a pH of just over 3 and a large drop in pH, and generally a violent reaction with H2O2. The other samples producing a high/volcanic reaction with H2O2, but no corresponding decrease in pH, are not likely to be PASS. The violent reaction produced was likely to be the result of the high organic content of the sediment rather than high sulphide content. The generally high pH (>8) values obtained for the pH KCL show that none of the samples taken from the Port Hedland survey area exhibit actual acidity (Table 4.3), they pose no risk of causing acid sulphate problems. The SCR values show that the sediments from all of the sites tested fall below the Queensland Action Criteria (QEPA, 2001) for total sulphur, except for the sediment at site PH1 50/75, which exceeds the criteria. The most likely scenario is that this area will be filled, however, if soils will be disturbed at depths greater than 0.5 m (i.e. for drainage) then further testing from depth in the areas to be disturbed should undertaken and if PASS found, an ASS management plan will need to be prepared. The management plan would need to address the likely volumes involved, the likely fate and consequences of any acid drainage (for example if the area is continuously flushed with seawater then any acid will be quickly neutralised, refer Paling (2002)). The plan would also need to address options for neutralising acid soils if there is a risk of acid runoff.

Table 4.3 Actual acid sulphate soil (AASS) results for Port Hedland samples

Sample pH KCL Action Criteria for soils* (%S)

%S (ST) %S (SCR)

PH1 10/25 9.7 0.03 0.072 0.002 PH1 25/50 9.7 0.03 0.078 0.003 PH1 50/75 8.9 0.03 0.990 0.740 PH2 10/25 9.7 0.03 0.064 <0.002 PH3 10/25 9.1 0.03 0.030 <0.002 PH4 10/25 9.7 0.03 0.100 <0.002

* (>1000 tonnes disturbed soils, QEPA, 2001)


4.5 Contamination–Oil Spills The risk of significant oil spills at the FMG berth is extremely low, however there may be small spills from time to time. The PHPA has recognised this for the harbour in general and there is an Emergency Response Plan in place (PHPA 2003) which covers the responses to oil spills and other events as follows: 1. Fire or explosion in a ship alongside berth. 2. Fire or explosion in a ship in transit of at anchor. 3. Vessel collision, sinking, stranding or emergency situation in Port Hedland

harbour. 4. Oil spill. 5. Spill of hazardous substances. 6. Spill of bulk cargo. 7. Cyclone. 8. Aircraft emergency. 9. Sabotage or act of terrorism. FMG should commit to preparing an Emergency Procedures Manual which covers the above items and work with the PHPA to ensure that procedures for the FMG port are consistent with the PHPA procedures. FMG should educate and train their staff to ensure that they are able to implement these procedures and work with the PHPA as required.

4.6 Introduction of Exotic Organisms Shipping has resulted in the contamination of sediments in the harbour (refer Section 3.3.2) and the introduction of some exotic species (Section 3.4.2). In 2003, a total of 735 ships visited the port and 84,305,000 tonnes were exported, of these ships 521 were iron ore ships (Source PHPA). The trade figures are expected to increase by about another 50% by 2005, which will see a corresponding increase in ship visits. In Australia, the control of exotic organisms is largely governed by the Ballast Water Management Guidelines developed by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS 2001). FMG should ensure that shippers are aware of the procedures and develop protocols for liaison with AQIS to ensure that best practise is followed with regard to ballast water management. FMG will also have to work with the PHPA on this issue to ensure that protocols are consistent between operators in Port Hedland. As controller of the berth, FMG has the power to initiate at least the following actions: • Ensure that the dredges and other marine construction equipment complies

with AQIS requirements; • Ban hull cleaning and scraping at the FMG berth; • Implementation of an Introduced Marine Pests Monitoring Program; and • Prevent visits from vessels found to be in contravention of AQIS requirements.

4.7 Recreational Fishing DALSE understands that South West Creek is accessed by road for recreational fishing. It is suggested that FMG contact the local fishing community to establish the usage of the area and if required to discuss possible mitigation of loss of access to the creek caused by construction of the rail loop.


5. References Ahern CR, Sullivan VA, McElnea AE 2003. Laboratory Methods Guidelines 2003—

Acid Sulfate Soils. In: Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual. Dept. of Natural Resources and Mines, Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia.

ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and

Marine Water Quality ANZECC 2000. Code Of Practice for Antifouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and

Maintenance AQIS 2001. Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements.

http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/html/quarantine/ballast_water/index.html

Australian Hydrographic Service 2004. AUS 54 Port Hedland 1:7500 chart. Coffey Geosciences 2004. Fortescue Metals Group Limited, East Pilbara Iron Ore

Project: Desktop Study and Site Visit. March 2004. CSIRO 1999. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests. Introduced Species

Survey Port Hedland Western Australia. June 1999. DEP 2003. Contaminated Sites Management Series Assessment Levels for Soil,

Sediment and Water Draft for Public Comment. Version 3 November 2003 Environment Australia 2002. National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged

Material. May 2002. EPA 1999. Draft Guidance Statement No. 26: Management of Surface Run-off from

Industrial and Commercial Sites. March 1999. EPA 2000. Perth Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives EPA 2001. Guidance Statement No. 1: Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves

along the Pilbara Coastline. April 2001. EPA 2002. Revised Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document (Cockburn

Sound). November 2002. EPA 2004. Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors (in accordance

with the Environmental Protection Act 1986) No. 29. Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia's Marine Environment. June 2004

HDMS 2002. Hope Downs Iron Ore Project—Rail and Port Facility, Public

Environmental Review. February 2002. HGM 1997. Port Hedland Port Developments—Environmental Study. Report to

PHPA July 1997. Halpern Glick Maunsell 1999. Port Hedland Harbour Model Study. Report to

PHPA March 1999.


MJ Paul & Associates 2001. Review of silting rates and calculations of dredged

volumes in the Port Hedland Harbour channel, turning basin and berths. Report to PHPA October 2001.

Paling EI 2002. Assessment of issues relating to acid sulphate soils at Port Hedland.

August 2002. Port Hedland Port Authority 2003. Port Hedland Port Authority Environmental

Management Plan. PHPA January 2003. URS, 2003. Port Hedland Port Authority Sampling and Analysis Plan for

Maintenance Dredging. December 2003. Worley, 2003. Port Planning Study: Phase 2 Report. August 2003. Worley 2004. Port Hedland Harbour: Hydrodynamic Modelling of FMG

Conceptual Layouts. May 2004.


Appendix A

Laboratory Analysis Results

Clie

nt:S

penc

er S

hute

Dat

e of

Issu

Add

ress

: Dal

Sci

ence

and

Eng

inee

ring,

PO

box

317

2, N

edla

nds

WA

600

9O

ur R

efer

ence

: DA

MET

HO

D

23A

22B

23F

20A

SAM

PLE

CO

DE

Dep

thpH

FpH

OX

Rea

ctio

npH

KC

LSC

RTA

AS

(tota

l)(c

m)

%S

mol

H/t

%S

Det

ectio

n Li

mit

<0.0

02<0

.001

File

PH

1 10

/25

10-2

58.

1lo

w/m

ed9.

70.

002

00.

072

PH

1 25

/50

25-5

07.

98.

1hi

gh/v

ol9.

70.

003

00.

078

PH

1 50

/75

50-7

57.

83.

3hi

gh/v

ol8.

90.

740

0.99

PH

2 10

/25

10-2

57.

57.

9hi

gh/v

ol9.

7<0

.002

00.

064

PH

3 10

/25

10-2

58.

46.

3lo

w9.

1<0

.002

00.

030

PH

4 10

/25

10-2

57.

87.

5lo

w/m

ed9.

7<0

.002

00.

10P

H4

10/2

5<0

.002

0

Car

rara

4.5

1.6

105

SED

IMEN

T Q

UA

LITY

DA

TA

final report mcb 19 aug 2004 incl epasu comments · x:\projects_and_clients\fmg\30-0086 east...

Documents