albany iron ore project albany port expansion … · public environmental review supplementary...

March 2009

ALBANY IRON ORE PROJECTALBANY PORT EXPANSION PROPOSAL

PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION PACKAGE

Albany Port AuthorityEPA Assessment No 1594


March 2009 Page i

Document Status Approved for Issue Rev

No. Author Reviewer/s Date

Name Distributed To

Date

1 P. Mackey T. Souster

ecologia Environment (2009). Reproduction of this report in whole or in part by electronic, mechanical or chemical means including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, in any language, is strictly prohibited without the express approval of Albany Port authority and/or ecologia Environment.

Restrictions on Use

This report has been prepared specifically for Albany Port Authority. Neither the report nor its contents may be referred to or quoted in any statement, study, report, application, prospectus, loan, or other agreement document, without the express approval of Albany Port Authority and/or ecologia Environment.

ecologia Environment

1025 Wellington Street

WEST PERTH WA 6005

Phone: 08 9322 1944

Fax: 08 9322 1599

Email: [email protected]


March 2009 Page ii

Table of Contents

1 CHANNEL DEFINITION: ...........................................................................................1

2 GEOTECHNICAL AND SEDIMENT JUSTIFICATIONS/EXPLANATION REQUIRED.................................................................................................................7

3 DURATION, CONSTITUENCY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE CAMPAIGN .............7

4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF HABITAT .....................................................8

5 SCENARIOS SEEKING APPROVAL ......................................................................10

6 DEGREE OF CHANGE IN THE ZONE OF PERMANENT LOSS............................25

7 SPOIL DISPOSAL LOCATION................................................................................25

8 GIS DATA ................................................................................................................25

9 SEAGRASS REHABILITATION PLAN ...................................................................25

10 MLR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS................................................................................26

Tables

Table 4.1 – Table presenting a comparative analysis between the PER and Final Impact predictions for all Management Units and seasons in both percentages and hectares ...............................................................................................................9

Table 5.1 – BPPH Impacts for the independent CSD program across all Management Units and seasons ......................................................................................................17

Table 10.1 – Management Unit 2 seagrass area around the outer channel as requested by EPASU...............................................................................................................26

Table 10.2 – Total Management Unit 2 Seagrass Area .........................................................33 Table 10.3 – BPPH Impacts for Combined CSD and TSHD Dredging ..................................33

Figures

Figure 1.1 – Revised Post PER Footprint...............................................................................3 Figure 1.2 – Revised Port PER Reclammation and Berth Pocket Footprint...........................5 Figure 5.1 – Impact to BPPH July to October from the Concurrent TSHD abd CSD Prohram11 Figure 5.2 – Impact to BPPH November to February from the Concurrent TSHD and CSD

Program............................................................................................................13 Figure 5.3 – Impact to BPPH March to June from the Concurrent TSHD and CSD Program15 Figure 5.4 – Impact of BPPH July to October from an Independent CSD Program .............19 Figure 5.5 – Impact of BPPH November to February from an Independent CSD Program .21 Figure 5.6 – Impact of BPPH March to June from an Independent CSD Program ..............23 Figure 10.1 – MLR Sensitivity Test Around the Outer Channel Area Within King George

Sound, As Requested By EPASU - July to October.........................................27 Figure 10.2 – MLR Sensitivity Test Around the Outer Channel Area Within King George

Sound, As Requested By EPASU - November to February.............................29 Figure 10.3 – MLR Sensitivity Test Around the Outer Channel Area Within King George

Sound, As Requested By EPASU - March to June ..........................................31


March 2009 Page iii

This page has been left blank intentionally


March 2009 Page 1

Response Document to EPASU Meeting 6th October 2008 commencing 1:30pm in order to clarify some unresolved issues prior to finalisation of the Environmental Impact Assessment for EPA Assessment 1594.

1 CHANNEL DEFINITION:

DETAILED OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND EXPLANATION THAT HAS LEAD TO THE CHANGES FROM THE PER THROUGH TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL INCLUDING THE CHANNEL BEND REFINEMENTS.

The PER footprint was a concept channel with a range of dredge volumes designated to accommodate Cape Class vessels based on qualitative advice from professional dredging and harbour engineers. At that early stage of conceptual engineering design, the PER channel concept was not a detailed quantitative design channel sufficient for the determination of a safe and adequate shipping channel and substantive detailed design investigations have been on-going since the PER was released.

These investigations have not been finalised, but have advanced sufficiently to provide enough information and confidence to move forward with the environmental approvals, and that an adequate and safe channel that suits the requirements of customer can be achieved at or within the boundaries set out in the revised information, including the Response to Public Submissions (RPS) document.

The various investigations to determine a safe and adequate shipping channel and port infrastructure have been considered the following issues:

- safe under keel clearance limits,

- swell,

- weather and sea-state conditions,

- channel availability,

- operational availability and safety, and

- ship motion and handling simulations.

As the detailed channel design evolved, with the addition of the quantitative investigations aided by ship handling simulations in Launceston by Albany Port Authority’s Harbour Master, Figure 1.1 now indicates that the channel design is fit for purpose.

From the suite of investigations undertaken in regards to the channel design there were some minor changes made to the bend area. The investigations and further development of the design found that the radius of the bend was too tight for a Cape size vessel to passage safely and modelling verified that an increased bend radius or flattening of the bend was required to allow safe vessel passage. These modifications have been included in the dredge volumes and footprints being sought for approval. The key characteristics of the program are as follows:

- A channel footprint of 247.6 ha containing an existing channel area that consists of 47.3 ha. The design depicted correlates to a maximum dredge volume of 12 million cubic meters (refer to Figure 1.1).

- A reclaim area with a maximum footprint of up to 9ha as outlined in Figure 1.2.


March 2009 Page 2

The concept reclamation area outlined in the PER, and previous RPS documents, has also been refined in order to optimise the layout and respond appropriately to regulatory (local Departments of Water; and Environment and Conservation) and community inputs by protecting the A Class Reserve and increasing the flushing dynamics adjacent to the reclaim (refer to Figure 1.2). The reclamation area maintains the overall 9ha footprint and does not alter the Benthic Primary Producer Habitat impact predictions.

50

03/11/2008

A1

KING POINT

7

8

6

5

6122000mN 6122000mN

6122250mN

6122500mN

5827

50m

E

5830

00m

E

5835

00m

E58

3500

mE

5837

50m

E58

3750

mE

0.0m CHART DATUM (CD)LOW WATER MARK ALBANY 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.80.0m AHD0.771m CD

1.0m CD

-0.771m AHD

0.229m AHD

GRANGE RESOURCES - SOUTHDOWN PROJECT

ALBANY PORT DEVELOPMENT

DRAWING NUMBER

DATUMVERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

REVN

DATE

ORIG SIZE

REVN AMENDMENT DRNDESIGN

APPROVAL

ARCHIVE PROJECT No

NOTES

MAP GRID OF AUSTRALIA, BASED ON GDA94

ACTION NAME SIGNATURE DATE

DRAWN

DESIGNED

S.Mouchemore

APPROVED

PROJECT MGR YLA BA N P ORT

A

03/11/2008

6122250mN

BERTH 6

SEMAPHORE POINT

6122500mN

5827

50m

E

5830

00m

E

5832

50m

E

35m

WID

EN

ING

OR

IG C

HA

NN

EL 145m

WID

E

35m

WID

EN

ING

FILL RLmin 4.00m CD

min 3.23m AHD

Figure1.1

03/11/2008

JFA-1257-16-7A.DGN,

LWM ALBANY WHICH IS 4.010m BELOWPWD BM HR2 AND 0.771m BELOW A.H.D.

A

DESIGN-12.2 CD

PROPOSED CHANNELTOELINE

EXISTING CHANNELTOELINE

0

METRES

10 150SCALE 1 : 1500

T.Green

DESIGN-12.2 CD

1 - JETTY, VESSEL AND ONSHORE PLANT DETAILS

SCHEMATIC ONLY

ISSUED FOR COMMENT

PROPOSED BERTH 7

-16.3m BERTH POCKET

PORT BOUNDARY

3

AA

BB

-

SM TG

HWM (0.4m AHD)

coastal, port and harbour engineers

BEBBINGTONCARTOGRAPHICS Pty Ltd

300

MAXIMISED PER FOOTPRINT (9Ha)

68.2

65

USEABLE SURFACEAREA = 7.51ha

FOOTPRINTAREA = 8.98ha

FILL VOLUME360,500m

DRAWING NUMBER

DATUMVERTICAL

REVN

A1

DATE

ORIG SIZE

REVN AMENDMENT DRN

ARCHIVE

NOTES

MAP GRID OF AUSTRALIA, BASED ON GDA94

BEBBINGTONCARTOGRAPHICS Pty Ltd

15 CESSNA DRIVE, JANDAKOTPHONE (08) 9335 9900FAX (08) 9433 5966MOB 041 995 8650EMAIL [email protected]

ACTION NAME SIGNATURE DATE

DRAWN

ENGINEER

CARTOGRAPHY

CHECK

APPROVED

PROJECT MGR

0

METRES

SCALE 1 : 15000500 1000

GRANGE RESOURCES - SOUTHDOWN PROJECT

Y

LA BA N P ORT

ALBANY WHARF - LWM ALBANY WHICH IS 4.010m BELOWPWD BM HR2 AND 0.771m BELOW A.H.D

VERTICALDESIGN

APPROVAL

HORIZONTAL

A

ALBANY PORT EXPANSION

R.MockeENGINEER CHECK

SOURCE INFORMATION

DPI1980

DPI2005

DPI1976 &1987

FUGRO2005

NAVY1980

FUGRO2007

FUGRO2007

117°

54'0

0.0"

E11

7°54

'00.

0"E

117°

56'0

0.0"

E11

7°56

'00.

0"E

117°

58'0

0.0"

E11

7°58

'00.

0"E

118°

00'0

0.0"

E11

8°00

'00.

0"E

35°02'00.0"S

35°02'00.0"S

6120000mN 6120000mN

6122500mN 6122500mN

6125000mN 6125000mN

5825

00m

E58

2500

mE

5850

00m

E58

5000

mE

5875

00m

E58

7500

mE

5900

00m

E59

0000

mE

35m

WID

EN

ING

35m

WID

EN

ING

215

RADIUS 1892.5m

RADIUS 2000m

RADIUS 2107.5m

215

G.Bebbington

C. LivingstoneISSUED INTERNAL REVIEW & USE

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

-20

-15

-10-10

Ele

vatio

n m

CD

F

20/04/2008

J.Bailey 26/06/2008

16/06/2008

GKB

0

1000

2000

3000

00

CONCEPT CHANNEL

2100

3100

6100

7600

6600

8400

-17.8m CD

-19.0m CD -19.2m CD -19.0m CD-19.1m CD -19.1m CD -19.2m CD

PRELIMINARY

16

14

10

7

5

1

2

3

4

Lights in Line 117

ALBANY

HanoverBay

PRINCESS

ROYAL

HARBOUR

KING POINT

BRAMBLE POINTPOSSESSION POINT

WOODING POINT

Whale Head Rock

GEORGE

KING

SOUND

9

12

12A

SEMAPHORE POINT

Gio Batta Patch

Gull Rock

Cheyne Head

Ledge Point

INCLUDES 300mm OVERDREDGE

PROJECT No

JFA-1183-29-4D.DGN, JFA-1183TOP-15000-V8.DGN, ALB CHAN DES 98-47% od + 1m 0808ALBANY-COMB-0407.DTM

CAPE SIZE - Figure 1.207/07/2008B TEXT CORRECTIONS SM

VOL m AREA ha

16m CAPE (98.47%) 12,000,000 247.7

3

16m CAPE (98.5% -0.3m OD)

EXISTING CHANNELOVERLAP

- 47.3

08/08/2008C EXISTING CHANNEL OVERLAP AREA ADDED CJL

11/08/2008D CJLCONCEPT CHANNEL AMENDED & INSET ADDED

REFER JFA 1257-18-2

-18.8m CD


March 2009 Page 7

2 GEOTECHNICAL AND SEDIMENT JUSTIFICATIONS/EXPLANATION REQUIRED.

The EPASU posed the following question for consideration:

‘As the revised channel is now considerably deeper and wider do the geotechnical and sediment contaminant (NODGDM) work require additional work (e.g. to avoid rock)?’

The proponents Dredging and Harbour engineering consultants undertook and oversaw rigorous geotechnical and geophysical investigations that included seismic reflection studies. These studies were undertaken and interrogated by Fugro Services that identified that there was no significant rock material in the footprint of the channel area.

The sediment contaminant work undertaken for the PER was entirely relevant and there is no requirement to undertake further investigations as it is widely accepted that the anthropogenic influence on sediment contamination is restricted to the first 1-2 m’s of the sediment profile. The Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) have confirmed via correspondence, dated 10 November 2008, to the EPASU that no further investigations in regards to these factors is required.

3 DURATION, CONSTITUENCY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE CAMPAIGN

Stage 1:

Berth Batter Dredging and Reclamation Works comprises of the following:

- Construction of the seawall around the reclamation area as per Figure 1.2.

- Dredging of the Berth 7 batter slope and a slot at the full depth with a CSD for a period of 3 months. All material (~300, 000m3) dredged during Stage 1 will be pumped directly to the reclamation area. This stage shall remove sufficient material to meet the following objectives:

• Provide sufficient area to design levels in the reclamation area to allow for the construction of onshore facilities for Grange to commence landside construction.

• Provide a sufficient buffer adjacent to the wharf face to allow the remaining channel dredging works to be carried out with a TSHD on a separate contract while the wharf construction is underway.

Stage 2:

Dredging of the Channel by TSHD comprises the following:

- Dredging of the remainder of the material in the channel will be undertaken by a TSHD. This dredging may occur as an independent and separate exercise to the Stage 1 dredging and reclamation. To reflect the modelling that has been undertaken, to understand the impact predictions of the proposal, this stage will be completed within 137 days. There is the potential requirement for top-up material to complete the reclamation to be provided by the TSHD up to a maximum of 160,000 m3 as per the PER modelled and understood case. The remainder and bulk of the material from Stage 2 will be disposed of at the offshore disposal site.


March 2009 Page 8

- Due to the presence of mercury identified in the mid channel area during the sediment sampling and analysis program, it will be necessary to remove the upper 2m of material in this area at the start of the dredging program and dispose of this material in the offshore disposal area. This material will then be covered with the remainder of the material to be dredged from the channel. The estimated quantity to be dredged in order to remove all the mercury affected material is in the order of 360,000 m3.

Sections 4 and 5 below provide further detail in regards to the impact predictions and scenarios being sought for approval.

4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF HABITAT

PROVISION OF A TABLE THAT REFLECTS THE ACCURATE INFORMATION FOR ALL SCENARIOS ACROSS ALL SEASONAL PERIODS, AS PER SECTION 9.4 IN THE PER, INCLUDING ALL THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT LOSSES OF HABITAT IN % AND HECTARES.


March 2009 Page 9

Table 4.1 – Table presenting a comparative analysis between the PER and Final Impact predictions for all Management Units and seasons in both percentages and hectares

Definitions Best case: This is the direct loss in the footprint of dredging and reclamation. Most probable case: This is that predicted for the zones for Permanent Loss. Worst case: This is a combination of that predicted for the zones for Permanent Loss and Temporary Loss/Damage.

The information provided in the Final impact prediction columns from Table 1 incorporates the revised settling velocities and resolution of the minor spatial data anomalies identified by EPASU.

Original PER Modelling Final

Management Units Management Units

1 2 3 1 2 3 Seasons Scenarios

ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % ha %

Jul–Oct Best case 0.36 0.01% 11.79 1.44% 0.00 0.00% 0.36 0.01% 11.79 1.44% 0.00 0.00%

Most probable case 0.38 0.01% 21.44 2.62% 0.00 0.00% 0.78 0.03% 16.58 2.03% 0.00 0.00%

Worst case 1.17 0.04% 30.19 3.69% 0.00 0.00%

8.56 0.30% 27.96 3.42% 0.00 0.00%

Nov–Feb Best case 0.36 0.01% 11.79 1.44% 0.00 0.00% 0.36 0.01% 11.79 1.44% 0.00 0.00%


Worst case 9.39 0.32% 55.31 6.77% 0.00 0.00% 139.18 4.82% 79.34 9.70% 0.00 0.00%

Mar–Jun Best case 0.36 0.01% 11.79 1.44% 0.00 0.00% 0.36 0.01% 11.79 1.44% 0.00 0.00%


Worst case 1.22 0.04% 37.00 4.53% 0.00 0.00%

0.78 0.03% 25.98 3.18% 0.00 0.00%


March 2009 Page 10

5 SCENARIOS SEEKING APPROVAL

CONSISTENCY AND DESCRIPTION REQUIRED IN REGARDS TO THE SCENARIOS BEING SOUGHT FOR APPROVAL SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE IMPACTS IN PRH (I.E. STAND ALONE IMPACTS FOR INDEPENDENT CSD PROGRAM AND A CONCURRENT PROGRAM THAT INCORPORATES BOTH THE CSD AND THE TSHD).

There are 2 scenarios that have been modelled and that are subsequently seeking approval. These scenarios are detailed as follows:

1. A concurrent CSD and TSHD program to implement the port infrastructure including the channel, berth and reclamation, and jetty construction as per the scenario outlined in the PER with the revised footprints and settling velocities. The revised impact predictions along with the comparative changes from the PER predictions are presented in Table 4.1 and Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2 & Figure 5.3. The total program volume seeking approval is 12 million m3; this has been previously modelled and understood. Similarly, the program duration modelled and understood is based on 137 day duration (refer to Table 4.1). The concurrent program impacts are depicted in Figures 5.1, Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 and the correlating impact predictions are displayed in Table 4.1 (Final Columns).

2. A split program where the CSD activity can be undertaken independently across any weather/seasonal period from the TSHD activities so as to provide the requisite reclamation area for development of the landside and jetty infrastructure. All the material from the independent CSD program will be pumped directly into the reclamation area. The estimated volume of this activity is approximately 360,000 m3

and the estimated duration for this activity is 3 months. The TSHD under a separate and subsequent program will finish the channel and top – up any further material required in the reclamation area to design levels. The independent CSD program activities have been modelled and impact predictions understood and presented below in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.4, Figure 5.5 & Figure 5.6.

±

0 1 2 3 40.5Kilometres

Scale -1:93,000

Fig 5.1Impact on Benthic Primary Producer Habitat of Princess Royal

Harbour and King George Sound study area July to October

Management Areas

Channel and Disposal

Zone of Permanent Loss

Zone of Temporary Loss or Damage

Zone of Influence

Benthic CommunitiesMacroalgaeSeagrassSand

I:\W

VE

S\P

roje

cts\

WV

0291

9\Te

chni

cal\S

patia

l\Del

iver

able

s\H

abita

tDat

a_R

ev20

\Map

Out

puts

\Mxd

\g02

2_W

V02

919_

Rev

A_H

abita

tMap

Impa

ctJu

ly.m

xd P

rodu

ced:

23/

10/2

008

Management Unit 1

Management Unit 2

Management Unit 3

PreferredDisposal Area

Gio BattaPatch

MichaelmasReef

±


Scale -1:93,000

Fig 5.2 Impact on Benthic Primary Producer Habitat of Princess Royal

Harbour and King George Sound study area November to February

Management Areas




Zone of Influence


I:\W

VE

S\P

roje

cts\

WV

0291

9\Te

chni

cal\S

patia

l\Del

iver

able

s\H

abita

tDat

a_R

ev20

\Map

Out

puts

\Mxd

\g02

3_W

V02

919_

Rev

A_H

abita

tMap

Impa

ctN

ovem

ber.m

xd P

rodu

ced:

23/

10/2

008

Management Unit 1

Management Unit 2

Management Unit 3


Gio BattaPatch

MichaelmasReef

±


Scale -1:93,000

Fig 5.3 Impact on Benthic Primary Producer Habitat of Princess Royal

Harbour and King George Sound study area March to June

Management Areas




Zone of Influence


I:\W

VE

S\P

roje

cts\

WV

0291

9\Te

chni

cal\S

patia

l\Del

iver

able

s\H

abita

tDat

a_R

ev20

\Map

Out

puts

\Mxd

\g02

1_W

V02

919_

Rev

A_H

abita

tMap

Impa

ctM

arch

.mxd

Pro

duce

d: 2

3/10

/200

8

Management Unit 1

Management Unit 2

Management Unit 3


Gio BattaPatch

MichaelmasReef


March 2009 Page 17

Table 5.1 – BPPH Impacts for the independent CSD program across all Management Units and seasons

Management Units 1 2 3 Seasons Loss scenarios

ha % ha % ha % Best case 0.36 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Most probable case 0.78 0.03% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% July to October

Figure 6 Worst case 8.56 0.30% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Best case 0.36 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Most probable case 0.78 0.03% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

November to February Figure 7

Worst case 139.18 4.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Best case 0.36 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Most probable case 0.78 0.03% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% March to June

Figure 8 Worst case 0.78 0.03% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Definitions Best case: This is the direct loss in the footprint of dredging and reclamation. Most probable case: This is that predicted for the zones for Permanent Loss. Worst case: This is a combination of that predicted for the zones for Permanent Loss and Temporary

Loss/Damage.


March 2009 Page 18

±

Scale -1:31,455

Fig 5.4 Impact of Benthic PrimaryProducer Habitat of Princess Royal

Harbour and King George Soundstudy area July to October

Management Areas

Channel and DisposalZone of Permanent LossZone of Temporary Loss or DamageZone of Influence


I:\W

VES

\Pro

ject

s\W

V02

919\

Tech

nica

l\Spa

tial\A

rcM

ap\0

04\g

004_

WV0

2919

_Rev

A_h

abita

t_m

ap_t

urbi

dity

_jul

.mxd

Pro

duce

d:01

/07/

2008

Management Unit 1

0 375 750 1,125 1,500187.5

Metres

±

Scale -1:47,310


Harbour and King George Soundstudy area November to February

Management Areas



I:\W

VES

\Pro

ject

s\W

V02

919\

Tech

nica

l\Spa

tial\A

rcM

ap\0

04\g

004_

WV0

2919

_Rev

A_h

abita

t_m

ap_t

urbi

dity

_nov

.mxd

Pro

duce

d:01

/07/

2008

Management Unit 1

Management Unit 2

0 550 1,100 1,650 2,200275

Metres

±

Scale -1:44,215


Harbour and King George Soundstudy area March to July

Management Areas



I:\W

VE

S\P

roje

cts\

WV

0291

9\Te

chni

cal\S

patia

l\Arc

Map

\004

\g00

4_W

V02

919_

Rev

A_h

abita

t_m

ap_t

urbi

dity

_mar

.mxd

Pro

duce

d:01

/07/

2008

Management Unit 1

Management Unit 2

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250

Metres


March 2009 Page 25

6 DEGREE OF CHANGE IN THE ZONE OF PERMANENT LOSS

AN EXPLANATION OF THE APPARENT LACK OF CHANGE IN THE ZONE OF PERMANENT LOSS WAS QUERIED BY EPASU IN THAT THE SPATIAL FOOTPRINT FOR THE DIRECT LOSS WOULD NOT CHANGE, BUT THE PERMANENT LOSS AREA THAT EXPERIENCES A HIGH DEGREE OF LIGHT LIMITATION AND / OR SILTATION HAS NOT CHANGED. THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BE AN ‘ARBITRARY’ FOOTPRINT OR THE DEGREE OF CHANGE WAS VERY SMALL IN THAT A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH WAS APPLIED AND LEFT AS A BIGGER FOOTPRINT. CLARIFICATION IS SOUGHT AND THE DEGREE OF CHANGE PROVIDED.

The proponent’s consultants have interrogated the corrected spatial data and impact predictions including double checking the footprints and report that the degree of change, if any, has resulted in either no difference to the zone, or the degree of change is too small to influence the impact prediction calculations. Whilst it is possible to apply the interrogated micro differences by using several more decimal places in the impact prediction calculations this does not appear to add to the understanding of the projects potential impacts or aid the assessment thereof by the EPASU. The revised impact predictions based on the improved settlement velocities have been incorporated and are presented for comparison against the PER predictions in Table 4.1.

7 SPOIL DISPOSAL LOCATION

SPOIL DISPOSAL LOCATION ON THE IMPACT PREDICTIONS DOES NOT SHOW THE EXTENT (CIRCLE) OF THE DISPOSAL FOOTPRINT – SIMILARLY THE FULL EXTENT OF THE CIRCLE SHOULD TECHNICALLY BE DISPLAYED AS PERMANENT LOSS (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY EPASU THAT THERE IS NO BPPH PRESENT). THE DISPOSAL DREDGE LOGS APPEAR TO BE BASED ON A CENTROID ONLY AND A VARIETY OF POINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED.

APA apologises for the omission of the data. It is important to note that the areas were included in the habitat loss calculations, but as identified by EPASU omitted from the spatial data. SKM have now included the areas previously omitted from the permanent loss outputs and these have been included in the spatial data made available to EPASU.

8 GIS DATA

THE GIS DATA SUPPLIED WAS NOT CONSISTENT AND EPASU PROVIDED APA WITH SEVERAL EXAMPLES WHERE THERE APPEARED TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE DATUM AND ALSO WITH THE OVERLAP OF THE VARIOUS ZONES.

The GIS data issues have been resolved and the final dataset will be made available to EPASU.

9 SEAGRASS REHABILITATION PLAN

EPASU REQUESTED CONFIRMATION THAT THE SMALL AREAS OF SEAGRASS ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PRH ENTRANCE AND THE RECLAIM HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BPPH LOSS PREDICTIONS. As explained at the meeting on the 6th October 2008 between Albany Port Authority and EPASU, the areas of seagrass queried had already been incorporated in to the direct loss predictions for PRH and are subject to additional fine-scale focus through the Seagrass Rehabilitation Plan being developed by consultants at Oceanica. The Seagrass Rehabilitation Plan will be made available for EPASU review once completed.


March 2009 Page 26

10 MLR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

CLARIFICATION FOR EPASU ON INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED IN REGARDS TO A MLR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND WHAT APA HAS DELIVERED.

On the 19th June 2008, the APA and its consultants attended a meeting requested by the DEC Marine Branch and the EPASU to discuss (among other issues) queries regarding the nominated minimum light requirement (MLR) values used as part of BPPH impact predictions. As a result, additional MLRs (10% and 14%) have been incorporated into the impact assessment calculations for the specified area around the outer channel. Table 10.1 and Figure 10.1, Figure 10.2 and Figure 10.3 depict and provide the information requested by the EPASU.

The changes in loss scenarios for the combined CSD berth pocket and TSHD channel dredging based on different MLR’s (and corrected sediment settling velocities) is quantified and presented in Table 10.1 (seagrass around the outer channel area) along with a percentage increase from the base and most appropriate 8.5% MLR case.

Table 10.1 – Management Unit 2 seagrass area around the outer channel as requested by EPASU

Temporary Loss/Damage (ha) % Increase from base case MLR 8.5%

MLR 8.5% MLR 10% MLR 14% MLR 8.5% MLR 10% MLR 14%

July to October 11.72 11.77 11.97 0.00% 0.43% 2.15%

November to February 9.12 9.13 13.32 0.00% 0.10% 46.05%

March to June 10.56 10.59 13.36 0.00% 0.27% 26.49%

±

Scale -1:19,880

MLR sensitivity test as requestedby EPASU for the outer channel

area in Management Unit 2King George Sound

July to October FIGURE 10.1

Channel and DisposalZone of Permanent Loss all ranges

Zone of Temporary Loss or Damage 8.5%

Zone of Temporary Loss or Damage 10%Zone of Temporary Loss or Damage 14%

Benthic Communities

MacroalgaeSeagrassSand

I:\W

VE

S\P

roje

cts\

WV

0291

9\Te

chni

cal\S

patia

l\Arc

Map

\005

\g00

5_W

V02

919_

Rev

1_Ju

l_zo

ne2.

mxd

Pro

duce

d:9/

12/2

008

Gio BattaPatch

0 210 420 630 840105Metres

±

Scale -1:19,880




Benthic Communities


I:\W

VE

S\P

roje

cts\

WV

0291

9\Te

chni

cal\S

patia

l\Arc

Map

\005

\g00

5_W

V02

919_

Rev

1_Ju

l_zo

ne2.

mxd

Pro

duce

d:9/

12/2

008

Gio BattaPatch

0 230 460 690 920115Metres



November to February FIG 10.2

±

Scale -1:19,880




Benthic Communities


I:\W

VE

S\P

roje

cts\

WV

0291

9\Te

chni

cal\S

patia

l\Arc

Map

\005

\g00

5_W

V02

919_

Rev

1_Ju

l_zo

ne2.

mxd

Pro

duce

d:9/

12/2

008

Gio BattaPatch

0 230 460 690 920115Metres



March to June FIG 10.3


March 2009 Page 33

Additionally, APA and their consultants voluntarily scaled this sensitivity test up to the entire Management Unit 2 in providing the impact prediction calculations for this entire management unit to provide a wider context for the sensitivity test. APA apologises for any confusion that may have occurred in not providing adequate contextual information to this voluntary additional work.

Table 10.2 (for the entire Management Unit 2 area) depicts the temporary loss/damage component of the sensitivity test only as the permanent loss data has not changed as the MLR criteria applied to the zone of permanent loss was 100%. This is due to the ‘black out’ effect upon which further reduction in light would not have any additional impacts. The overall loss scenarios for the CSD berth pocket and the TSHD channel dredging is presented in Table 10.3, and illustrated in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2 & Figure 5.3. Due to the relative absence of epiphyte growth, 8.5% MLR is considered as the most appropriate measure for the King George Sound area.

Table 10.2 – Total Management Unit 2 Seagrass Area

Temporary Loss/Damage (ha) % Increase from base case MLR 8.5% MLR

8.5% MLR 10% MLR 14% MLR 8.5% MLR 10% MLR 14%

July to October 11.77 11.81 23.47 0.00% 0.34% 99.38%

November to February 65.10 65.10 66.78 0.00% 0.01% 2.58%

March to June 10.58 10.68 54.25 0.00% 0.97% 412.83%

Table 10.3 – BPPH Impacts for Combined CSD and TSHD Dredging

Management Unit 2 MLR (%) Loss scenarios

8.5 10 14 Best case 1.44% 1.44% 1.44% Most probable case 2.03% 2.03% 2.03% July to October

Figure 9.13 Worst case 3.42% 3.43% 9.16%

Best case 1.44% 1.44% 1.44% Most probable case 1.97% 1.97% 1.97% November to February


Best case 1.44% 1.44% 1.44% Most probable case 1.95% 1.95% 1.95% March to June


Definitions Best case: This is the direct loss in the footprint of dredging and reclamation. Most probable case: This is that predicted for the zones for Permanent Loss. Worst case: This is a combination of that predicted for the zones for Permanent Loss and Temporary

Loss/Damage.

albany iron ore project albany port expansion … · public environmental review supplementary...

Documents