Request - Parliament of Western Australia · Tabled Paper No. 1 QON 4515 ... REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE...

Government of Western Australia South West Development Commission

Request

REQUEST TITLE:

Provision of a Public Environmental Review of the Koombana Bay Marine Structures

REQUEST NUMBER:

SWDC201600500

CLOSING TIME:

2:30 PM Wednesday 30 March, 2016

Perth, Western Australia

ISSUED BY:

South West Development Commission

Tabled Paper No. 1 QON 4515 - SWDC (c)

PART A RESPONDENT TO READ AND KEEP THIS PART PART A

FINAL REQUEST NO SWDC201600500 Page 2 of 37 FINANCE VERSION 120116

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 3

1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 3

1.2 SUBMISSION OF OFFER .................................................................... 3

1.3 OFFER VALIDITY PERIOD .................................................................. 3

1.4 TENDERS WA ..................................................................................... 3

1.5 CONTACT PERSONS .......................................................................... 4

1.6 REQUEST CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 4

2. SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................. 5

2.1 SELECTION PROCESS ....................................................................... 5

2.2 STATE SUPPLY COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES ......... 5

1. NOTE TO RESPONDENT .............................................................................. 6

2. IDENTITY OF RESPONDENT ........................................................................ 6

3. COMPLIANCE AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS .................................... 7

4. QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................11

5. CUSTOMER CONTRACT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................16

1.1 STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS ....................................................19

1.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................19

1.3 PROJECT AREA/LOCATION ...............................................................21

1.4 SPECIFICATION .................................................................................21

1.5 EXISTING INFORMATION AND DATA ................................................23

1.6 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION .........................................................25

1.7 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ..............................................................25

1.8 STANDARDS ......................................................................................25

1.9 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ......................................................25

1.10 CONTRACT TASKS AND DELIVERABLES .........................................26

1.11 REPORTING .......................................................................................27

1.12 AWARD OF CONTRACT .....................................................................27

1.13 PAYMENT SCHEDULE .......................................................................27

1.14 INDICATIVE COST AND REVISION ....................................................28

1.15 AGREED COST AND COST OVERRUN ..............................................28

1.16 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ..............................................................28

1.17 ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................29



PART A – REQUEST NO SWDC201600500

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The South West Development Commission is seeking a suitably qualified Consultant to prepare a Public Environmental Review document for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures.

Refer to Schedule 2 – Specification/Statement of Requirements for further details.

1.2 SUBMISSION OF OFFER

1.2.1 The Respondent may submit the Offer by hand at:

TENDER BOX

Department of Finance

Level 8, 61 Victoria Street

BUNBURY WA 6230.

If the Respondent submits the Offer by hand, the Respondent must provide four (4) copies, with one copy marked “original” and three (3) copies marked “copy”.

1.2.2 The Respondent may submit the Offer electronically by uploading at: www.tenders.wa.gov.au.

The Offer can only be submitted to: www.tenders.wa.gov.au if the size of the Offer is equal to or less than 20 megabytes. The Respondent must be registered to submit an offer electronically.

1.2.3 Offers may not be submitted by facsimile.

1.2.4 Conditions regarding the submission of Offers (including late lodgement and mishandling) are contained in the Request Conditions.

1.3 OFFER VALIDITY PERIOD

The Offer Validity Period is for a period of three (3) months.

1.4 TENDERS WA

The Respondent may register (free) for the Tenders WA website to ensure that the complete Tender has been downloaded including any and all addenda.



1.5 CONTACT PERSONS

Different enquiries can be best dealt with by the most appropriate contact, shown below.

The Respondent must not contact any other person within Government or any consultant engaged in relation to this Request to discuss this Request.

CONTRACTUAL AND ROUTINE ENQUIRIES:

Name: Geoff Brown

Title: Senior Procurement Manager

Department of Finance

Telephone: (08) 9781 4103

E-mail: [email protected]

TECHNICAL / CUSTOMER ENQUIRIES:

Name: Cate Brooks

Title: Project Analyst


Telephone: (08) 9792 2000

E-mail: [email protected]

ADVICE ON DELIVERING OFFERS:

Name: Geoff Brown

Telephone: (08) 9781 4103

ADVICE ON USING TENDERS WA:

Name: Procurement Systems Support

Telephone: (08) 6551 2020

1.6 REQUEST CONDITIONS

The “Request Conditions” are contained in the Part A of the Request Conditions and General Conditions of Contract [August 2012] located at www.finance.wa.gov.au (select Government Procurement, then select “Goods and Services Templates, Guides and Conditions of Contract” from the Quick Links menu) and contain important provisions regarding the nature of this Request and the consequences of the Respondent submitting an Offer. The Respondent is deemed to have read and considered the Request Conditions prior to submitting an Offer.



2. SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 SELECTION PROCESS

Value for Money is a key State Supply Commission policy objective to ensure that when purchasing products and/or services, Public Authorities achieve the best possible outcome, for every dollar spent, by assessing the costs and benefits of, and the risks inherent in, an Offer, rather than simply selecting the lowest Offered Price.

In determining Value for Money, the Contract Authority or Customer will:

a). apply relevant State Supply Commission and Government policies to the assessment of Offers;

b). assess Offers against the Compliance and Disclosure Requirements in Section 3 in Part B;

c). assess Offers against the Qualitative Requirements in Section 4 in Part B;

d). assess Offers against the Insurance Requirements in Section 5 in Part B; and

e). assess the Offered Prices, which includes assessing the Offered Price and Pricing Requirements in Schedule 3.

The determination of Value for Money will require a consideration of all of the above factors and any other matters that the Contract Authority or Customer considers relevant.

2.2 STATE SUPPLY COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES

The following State Supply Commission policies apply to this Request:

f). Value for Money;

g). Probity and Accountability;

h). Open and Effective Competition; and

i). Sustainable Procurement.

The following Government policies apply to this Request:

a). Buy Local Policy; including the January 2015, July 2013 and December 2009 Addenda.

These policies can be viewed and downloaded at www.ssc.wa.gov.au or copies of these policies are available from the State Supply Commission (telephone (08) 6551 1500).

PART B RESPONDENT TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS PART PART B


PART B – CONTENT REQUIREMENT AND RESPONDENT’S OFFER PART B SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONDENT AND RETURNED TO THE CONTRACT AUTHORITY OR CUSTOMER (REFER ‘SUBMISSION OF OFFER’ REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE 2.1 IN THE REQUEST CONDITIONS).

1. NOTE TO RESPONDENT

In preparing its Offer, the Respondent must:

a). address each requirement in the form set out in this Part B;

b). take into account the Customer Contract requirements, as explained in the Customer Contract Details. The Respondent must read these in conjunction with the General Conditions.

c). in respect of the Qualitative Requirements in Section 5 in this Part B, provide full details of any claims, statements or examples;

d). assume that the Contract Authority or Customer has no knowledge of the Respondent, its activities, experience or any previous work undertaken by the Respondent for the Contract Authority, Customer or any other Public Authority; and

e). nominate any Offer Information that the Respondent wishes to expressly and reasonably nominate as confidential for the purposes of the Request Conditions.

2. IDENTITY OF RESPONDENT

The Respondent must provide the following details:

RESPONDENT TO COMPLETE:

(a) Name of Legal Entity: ...........................................................................................

(b) ACN (if a company): ...........................................................................................

(c) Registered address of Company or address of principal place of business if no registered address:

...........................................................................................

...........................................................................................

(d) Business Name: ...........................................................................................

(e) ABN: ...........................................................................................

(f) Contact Person: ...........................................................................................

(g) Contact Person Position Title: ...........................................................................................

(h) Email: ...........................................................................................

(i) Telephone: ...........................................................................................

(j) Facsimile: ...........................................................................................

(k) Address and facsimile number for service of contractual notices:

...........................................................................................

...........................................................................................

NB: The Offer does not require the Respondent’s signature.



3. COMPLIANCE AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

The Contract Authority or Customer will, in its Value for Money assessment, consider the extent to which the Offer satisfies the following Compliance and Disclosure Requirements. The Contract Authority or Customer reserves the right to reject any Offer that does not properly address any of the Compliance and Disclosure Requirements, and/or which contains material departures from the Customer Contract Details and/or General Conditions.

a) Compliance

(i) Customer Contract

The Respondent must confirm whether it will comply with the Customer Contract (excluding the General Conditions and Schedules). If the Respondent will not comply with any clause of the Customer Contract, the Respondent must set out:

(A) the clause it will not comply with;

(B) the extent of non-compliance – including the alternative clause, if any, or a description of any changes it requires to the Customer Contract; and

(C) the reason for non-compliance.


Does the Respondent agree to the Customer Contract?

(Yes / No)

If no, provide details

(ii) General Conditions / Schedules

The Respondent must confirm whether it will comply with the General Conditions and Schedules. If the Respondent will not comply with any of the General Conditions and Schedules, the Respondent must set out:

(A) the General Conditions / Schedules it will not comply with;

(B) the extent of non-compliance – including the alternative clause, if any, or a description of any changes it requires to the General Conditions / Schedules; and

(C) the reason for non-compliance.


Does the Respondent agree to the General Conditions / Schedules?

(Yes / No)

If no, provide details.



b) DISCLOSURES

(i) Participants (including subcontractors)


Is the Respondent acting as an agent or trustee for another person or persons?

(Yes / No)

If yes, provide details.

AND

Is the Respondent acting jointly or in association with another person or persons?

(Yes / No)

If yes, provide details.

AND

Has the Respondent engaged, or does the Respondent intend to engage, another person or persons as a subcontractor in connection with the supply of the Products and/or Services.

(Yes / No)

If yes, provide details

(ii) Criminal Convictions

The Respondent must confirm that neither the Respondent nor any person included in the Specified Personnel has been convicted of a criminal offence that is punishable by imprisonment or detention.


Has the Respondent or any person included in the Specified Personnel been convicted of a criminal offence that is punishable by imprisonment or detention?

(Yes / No)

If yes, provide details



(iii) Conflict of Interest

The Respondent must declare and provide details of any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.


Does the Respondent have any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the performance of the Customer Contract (if awarded) by the Respondent?

(Yes / No)

If yes, the reasons why.

(iv) Small Business, Australian Disability Enterprise (ADE) and/or Aboriginal Business

The Respondent is required to disclose whether it is a:

(A). small business that employs less than twenty (20) people; and/or

(B). registered Australian Disability Enterprise (ADE) – registered means to be listed as an approved ADE on the Australian Disability Enterprises website at: www.australiandisabilityenterprises.com.au/; and/or

(C). registered Aboriginal Business – the business is to be registered on the Aboriginal Business Directory WA at: http://www.abdwa.com.au/.

The Respondent should note that its response to this Compliance and Disclosure Requirement:

(A) will be used by the Department of Finance for statistical purposes only; and

(B) will not be used by the Contract Authority or Customer in its evaluation of the Offer.


Is the Respondent a small business that employs less than twenty (20) people?

(Yes / No)

Is the Respondent a registered Australian Disability Enterprise?

(Yes / No)

Is the Respondent a registered Aboriginal Business?

(Yes / No)



(v) Professional Standards Scheme

The Respondent is required to disclose whether it is a member of an occupational association for which a scheme has been approved under the Professional Standards Act 1997 (WA) or equivalent legislation of another State or Territory of Australia.


Is the Respondent a member of an occupational association for which a scheme has been approved under the Professional Standards Act 1997 (WA) or equivalent legislation of another State or Territory of Australia?

(Yes / No)

If yes, the Respondent must provide details.



4. QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENTS

The Contract Authority or Customer will, in its Value for Money assessment, consider the extent to which the Offer satisfies the following Qualitative Requirements. The Contract Authority or Customer reserves the right to reject any Offer that does not properly address and satisfy any of the Qualitative Requirements.

The Qualitative Requirements are not weighted equally. Refer to the % weighting (xx% weighting) for each Requirement listed below.

a). SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH (30% WEIGHTING) [37.5%]

The Respondent must provide details of their proposed methodology and approach which will be used to meet the requirements as set out in Schedule 2 – Specification / Statement of Requirements.

Details of the methodology should include:

(i) The scope of work/requirements broken into components including individual studies and investigations, timeframes and the estimated number of hours required to complete each component of the requirements;

(ii) Details of the roles of the Specified Personnel and the estimated number of hours required by each of the Specified Personnel to complete each component of the requirements;

(iii) Details on which elements of work will be completed in house and which will be completed by Subcontractors;

(iv) A description of the advantages of the proposed approach; and

(v) A description of critical issues, challenges and risks that the Respondent considers relevant to consider and mitigate for, for the successful completion of the contract, and the quality control mechanisms used in undertaking the requirements.

Respondents should ensure that their Offer includes:

an indicative work program;

detailed timeframe and schedule for the duration of the contract;

proposed milestones; and

a detailed budget for all activities, including allocation for printing, posters, public consultation activities and any other known disbursements.


Respondent to provide the methodology and approach information required under this clause.



b). SPECIFIED PERSONNEL (30% WEIGHTING) [37.5%]

The Respondent and any Subcontractors must:

(i) identify any proposed Specified Personnel together with a summary of their roles for this contract and a brief curriculum vitae for each;

(ii) detail the availability of the proposed Specified Personnel for the Customer Contract during the Term;

(iii) describe the skills, qualifications and industry experience of all proposed Specified Personnel. The Respondent and any Subcontractors must demonstrate how the experience of Specified Personnel relates to the requirements set out in Schedule 2 – Specification / Statement of Requirements; and

(iv) provide details of suitable backup personnel should the Specified Personnel become unavailable during the term of the Contract. Consultants must provide a current CV with their Quotation for each of the backup personnel.


Respondent to provide the Specified Personnel information required under this clause.

c). ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY AND DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE (20% WEIGHTING) [25%]

The Respondent and any Subcontractors must demonstrate that they have the organisational capacity to complete the contract requirements, along with relevant demonstrated experience in delivering similar requirements. Previous work that is recent, similar to the proposed contract in size, scope, complexity and value, and in locations relevant to the Specification is preferred.

As a minimum, the Respondent should provide:

(i) An organisational profile of the Respondent and any Subcontractors including its resources;

(ii) Details on how the Respondent and any Subcontractors will be able to provide the required services consistently over the duration of the contract i.e. access to suitable levels of resources and suitably skilled personnel.

(iii) A detailed description of similar services provided by the Respondent and any Subcontractors to other organisations, including

the similarities between the previous contracts and this Request, including size, scope, complexity, value and location;

when the previous contracts were performed;

how the Key Specified Personnel nominated in this Request were involved; and

the outcome of the previous contracts.



(iii) A minimum of [2] referees each for the Respondent and any Subcontractors in respect of the contracts detailed above. Referee details must include:

the referee’s name and position;

company name;

the contact telephone number; and

the contract or project title.


Respondent to provide the Organisational Capacity and Demonstrated Experience information required under this clause.



d). LOCAL CONTENT (20% WEIGHTING) [0%]

When a bid is received from:

A business that is located in another state or territory of Australia, or in New Zealand under the Australia New Zealand – Government Procurement Agreement (ANZGPA); or

A business that is located in the United States (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA));

A business that is located in Chile (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement (ACI-FTA));

A business that is located in Korea (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA)); or

A business that is located in Japan (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA)),

the local content weighted selection criteria will not be evaluated during the qualitative assessment. Should the local content criterion not be applicable, the 20% weighting will be divided proportionately across the remaining criteria (see [xx%] for revised weightings).

The Respondent must address the following:

(i) the Respondent must specify the location where contract management will be undertaken;

(ii) the Respondent must provide details of how the Respondent supports other Western Australian businesses through subcontracting or material supply arrangements;

(iii) The Respondent must estimate the percentage of the total Offered Price as to the amount which represents Contract activities performed in Western Australia, in other Australian States or Territories, New Zealand, the United States, Chile, Korea, Japan and overseas, in accordance with the following table:

Western Australian Content

Other Australian States, New Zealand, United

States, Chile, Korea and Japan

Imported Overseas Content

TOTAL

% % % % 100%

(iv) the Respondent must estimate the employment creation and retention and industry and skills development initiatives which may arise if a contract is awarded to the Respondent; and



(v) the Respondent must provide details of any other economic, social or environmental benefits to Western Australia.


Respondent to provide the local content information required under this clause.



5. CUSTOMER CONTRACT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

The Respondent must demonstrate that it has the insurances required under Schedule 1 - Customer Contract Details.

RESPONDENT TO COMPLETE

Does the Respondent have the insurance requirements set out in Schedule 1 - Customer Contract Details?

(Yes / No)

If yes, the Respondent must complete the following table:

Insurer ABN Policy No

Insured Amount

Expiry Date

Exclusions, if any

1. Public Liability Insurance

2. Professional Indemnity

3. Workers’ Compensation including common law liability of $50 million

4. Motor Vehicle Third Party Liability

OR

If no, does the Respondent confirm that if it is awarded a contract, then it will obtain the insurance policies set out in Schedule 1 - Customer Contract Details prior to the Commencement Date?

(Yes / No)

If no, the reasons why.

SCHEDULE 1 - CUSTOMER CONTRACT DETAILS


SCHEDULE 1 - CUSTOMER CONTRACT DETAILS Customer The Customer is the Chief Executive Officer, South West Development

Commission.

The Term of the Customer Contract

The Term will commence on the Commencement Date and will expire when the Services have been supplied in accordance with Clause 6 of the General Conditions.

Commencement Date The Customer will notify the Contractor of the Commencement Date in the Letter.

Price Variation The Price is fixed for the Term.

Public Liability Public liability insurance covering the legal liability of the Contractor and the Contractor’s Personnel arising out of the Services for an amount of not less than $20 million for any one occurrence and unlimited in the number of

occurrences happening in the period of insurance.

Professional Indemnity

Professional indemnity insurance covering the legal liability of the Contractor and the Contractor’s Personnel under the Customer Contract, if awarded, arising out of any act, negligence, error or omission made or done by or on behalf of the Contractor, or any subcontractor in connection with the Contract for a sum of $5 million for any one claim and in the annual aggregate, with a provision of one automatic reinstatement of the full sum insured in any one period of insurance.

Professional indemnity insurance required under this clause must include:

a) Fraud and dishonesty;

b) defamation;

c) infringement of intellectual property rights;

d) loss of or damage to documents and data; and

e) breach of Australian Consumer Law.

Workers’ Compensation

Workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), including cover for common law liability for an amount of not less than $50 million for any one occurrence in respect of workers of the Contractor. The insurance policy must be extended to cover any claims and liability that may arise with an indemnity under section 175(2) of the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981.

Motor vehicle third party

Motor vehicle third party insurance covering legal liability against property damage and bodily injury to, or death of, persons (including bodily injury gap protection) caused by motor vehicles used in connection with the [Products and / or Services] for an amount of not less than $30 million for any one occurrence

and unlimited in the aggregate.

Compulsory third party

Compulsory third party insurance as required under any statute relating to motor vehicles used in connection with the Products and/or Services.

Contract Management Requirements

Customer’s Representative

Ashley Clements Strategic Manager Infrastructure South West Development Commission

Customer’s address and contact details

South West Development Commission 9

th Floor, Bunbury Tower PO Box 2000

61 Victoria Street BUNBURY WA 6231 BUNBURY WA 6230 P: (08) 9792 2000 E: [email protected]

SCHEDULE 1 - CUSTOMER CONTRACT DETAILS


Reporting

Refer Clause 1.11 of the Specification.

Meetings

The Contractor will be available to attend meetings at a mutually agreeable time with the Customer’s Representative and other parties as identified by the Customer’s Representative upon request.

Key Performance Indicators

The key performance indicators are the deliverables as detailed in Schedule 2.

The Customer shall monitor the extent to which:

a. The quality of the services and deliverables are to the Customer’s satisfaction and as agreed upon between the Customer and the Contractor;

b. The services and deliverables are provided to the Customer within the required time period; and

c. The Contractor responds to the Customer’s recommendations and instructions to the Customer’s satisfaction and within the required timeframes.

Confidential Information

Refer Clause 1.6 of the Specification.

Police Clearance Clause 18.4 of the General Conditions applies.

Confidential Declaration – Prevention of Paedophilia

Clause 18.5 of the General Conditions does not apply.

Warranties For the purposes of clause 19.5 of the General Conditions, no warranties are specified.

Intellectual Property Owner

Clause 23.1 of the General Conditions applies. Refer also Clause 1.7 of the Specification.

Working Papers Clause 23.7 of the General Conditions applies.

Publicity For the purposes of clause 25.4 of the General Conditions, no other Public Authority is specified.

Government Policies For the purposes of clause 33 of the General Conditions, no obligations relating to Government procurement policies are specified.

SCHEDULE 2 - SPECIFICATION/STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – RESPONDENT TO READ AND KEEP THIS PART


SCHEDULE 2 - SPECIFICATION / STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

1.1 STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

The South West Development Commission (the Customer) is seeking the services of a suitably qualified consultant to undertake studies and investigations, prepare key documentation, coordinate and undertake public and stakeholder consultation, and assist and guide the Customer in obtaining environmental approvals for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures project. The Koombana Bay Marine Structures project has previously been referred to and assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as a Strategic Proposal at the level of Public Environmental Review (PER).

The successful Respondent (the Consultant) will be required to prepare the PER for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures as directed by the EPA, including carrying out all required studies and investigations. The requirements for the PER are set out by the EPA in Environmental Scoping Document 2049 (ESD 2049) (Attachment 1). Respondents should note that there may be additional studies required, to be identified during the progression of the PER process.

The Consultant will then be required to coordinate the peer review (page 11, ESD 2049) and public consultation activities as part of the PER’s comment processes, and prepare responses on any comments received from those processes or from reviews by any Decision Making Authorities (DMAs).

Finally, the Consultant will be required to provide advice and guidance to the Customer on any conditions recommended or imposed by the EPA at the conclusion of the environmental approvals process.

In summary, this contract includes undertaking technical studies, reviews and investigations, preparation of documentation, participation, liaison and attendance at meetings with regulators and stakeholders and provision of advice pertaining to the proposal throughout the process, until such time as Ministerial approval is obtained (estimated mid 2017).

Full specifications are at section 1.4 Specifications.

1.2 BACKGROUND

The Koombana Bay Marine Structures Project is a component of the Transforming Bunbury’s Waterfront (TBW) project. The TBW aims to complete the redevelopment of Bunbury’s central business district to the water’s edge and position Bunbury as the State’s major regional centre for the next 30 years. It is designed to immediately grow Bunbury’s contribution to State tourism, fast track the development of the region’s marine industry addressing existing marine facilty shortages and demand in the Region whilst building capacity and creating a significant new mixed use development precinct on the waterfront.

The TBW project builds on previous redevelopment work that has reconstructed the northern end of the city centre and created Marlston Hill residential and mixed use precinct. It completes a long term strategy to effectively position Bunbury for growth and includes the relocation of port-related industry from the Outer Harbour to the Inner Harbour.



The total TBW project will:

Deliver 2.7 hectares of mixed use waterfront land;

Provide 5.7 hectares of land dedicated to marine infrastructure including large areas for marine related industry to service the region’s needs;

Provide for an expansion of commercial and recreational berthing and boat launching facilities to meet Bunbury’s forecast needs to 2040;

Provide protection for Casuarina Boat Harbour and shore line protection for Koombana Bay;

Redevelop the Dolphin Discovery Centre as Bunbury’s premier tourism attraction; and

Provide for 1.6 hectares in improved public amenity and open space.

By improving the City’s shorelines for community use and providing the infrastructure necessary to stimulate the growth of the local marine and tourism industries, it is envisioned Bunbury will be further revitalised, and its appeal as a place to live, work and invest, greatly enhanced. When the project is completed, Bunbury will have a bustling marina complex, new job and business opportunities, a revamped tourist attraction, and enhanced public open space and amenity.

The TBW project will be carried out in four stages. An overview of those stages is at Attachment 2.

The TBW project has been developed under the guidance of the Transforming Bunbury’s Waterfront Steering Committee (TBWSC). Established by the Ministers for Regional Development and Transport, the TBWSC is chaired by the Member for Bunbury, Hon. John Castrilli MLA, and includes key government agencies and industry representatives.

In order to progress the project, the South West Development Commission has the responsibility of managing the environmental approval process for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures component of the TBW project, in accordance with the requirements as set out by the EPA. The EPA process for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures has been set at PER level.

Koombana Bay Marine Structures consist of new additional or enhanced marine based infrastructure within the Koombana Bay area. Specifically, the Environmental Scoping Document (ESD 2049) makes reference to Future Proposals under the TBW project. An overview image of the Future Proposals is at Attachment 2 and also detailed in section 2.1 of the ESD 2049.

The Future Proposals for the project include:

Redevelopment of the Dolphin Discovery Centre – includes a T or L shaped finger jetty and potentially a boat ramp;

Koombana Sailing Club Marina – includes dredging, breakwaters, reclamation (Koombana Breakwater), boat pens, internal jetties and associated terrestrial facilities; and

Casuarina Boat Harbour Development – includes dredging, breakwaters (Casuarina Breakwater), reclamation, piling, boat ramps, boat pens and internal jetties.

The scope of the future proposals and the key characteristics (including their respective development envelopes) will be defined through the assessment



process and outlined in the PER, in accordance with EAG 1 – Defining the key characteristics of a proposal.

As outlined in ESD 2049, the PER is to consider the cumulative impacts of future proposals, adjacent proposed and approved proposals, and proposals currently being assessed by the EPA. This includes stormwater drains, other approved marine infrastructure, the Southern Port Authority Inner Harbour Structure Plan proposal, new breakwater structures in Casuarina Boat Harbour and Koombana Bay and proposed marine development of the Koombana Bay Sailing Club.

1.3 PROJECT AREA/LOCATION

The assessment area set out by the Environmental Protection Authority in its Environmental Scoping Document 2049 covers the extent of the Koombana Bay Marine Structures project area, including all of Koombana Bay.

1.4 SPECIFICATION

The South West Development Commission (the Customer) is seeking the services of a suitably qualified consultant to undertake studies and investigations, prepare key documentation, coordinate public and stakeholder consultation, and assist and guide the Customer in obtaining environmental approvals for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures project. The Koombana Bay Marine Structures project has previously been referred to and assessed by the EPA as a Strategic Proposal at the level of PER.

The Consultant will be required to prepare the PER process for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures as directed by the EPA, including carrying out all required studies and investigations. The requirements for the PER are set out by the EPA in Environmental Scoping Document 2049 (ESD 2049) (Attachment 1).

The requirements include (but are not limited to) compiling and undertaking marine and land based assessments, studies and surveys across the Koombana Bay area and preparing reports and documentation relating to:

Marine Environmental Quality;

Benthic Communities and Habitat;

Marine Fauna; and

Coastal Processes.

As outlined in ESD 2049, Terrestrial Environmental Quality and Amenity will also require consideration in the PER.

The scope for the PER includes, but is not limited to, Attachment 1 - ESD 2049. Respondents should note that the works required to obtain EPA approval may include additional studies and/or documentation not otherwise mentioned in the EPA ESD and that will be identified as the PER process progresses.

Respondents should note that the scope of works will likely need to be responsive to the addition or refinement of studies and findings as this project progresses. It is envisaged that there will be some iterative processes around modelling and design.



Preparation of the PER will require the Consultant to:

collate existing datasets

undertake a gap analysis

prepare a detailed project plan confirming the scope of works required to prepare the PER

collect additional data

undertake investigations, reviews and studies

undertake numerical modelling

prepare technical reports

develop and maintain a project risk register

liaise with the EPA Assessment Officer for the project to ensure that PER process is meeting the requirements of the ESD 2049

identify, liaise and attend meetings with relevant and appropriate key stakeholders and regulators not elsewhere identified by the Customer or by the EPA

liaise with key Decision Making Authorities (DMAs) during the PER development to ensure that the PER addresses their key requirements for the project

coordinate the peer review process (page 11, ESD 2049) ensuring the peer reviewer is referred to at key stages during preparation of the PER, i.e. model calibration and validation.

Following submission of the PER to the EPA, the Consultant will be required to:

revise the PER in response to feedback from the EPA and relevant DMAs.

Once the EPA has approved the PER for public release, the Consultant will be required to:

manage the public consultation activities as part of the PER’s public comment process, as outlined within the ESD

prepare responses on any public comments received and incorporate changes into the PER as necessary prior to resubmission of the PER to the EPA

provide advice and guidance to the Customer on any conditions recommended or imposed by the EPA as a result of the PER process activities

provide advice pertaining to the proposal until such time as Ministerial approval is obtained (estimated mid 2017).

In summary, the Consultant will be required to take all reasonable steps, in suitable detail and accuracy, to prepare a PER that will satisfy the requirements of the EPA for the purpose of obtaining environmental approval. This is anticipated to include the development and refinement of numerical models which will need to both inform and be informed by the emerging engineering designs, noting that the necessary studies imply an iterative modelling process.



1.5 EXISTING INFORMATION AND DATA

Environmental Impact Assessments have recently been undertaken across the project area by other organisations. The ESDs and Final Reports (for those completed) are available on the EPA website.

The ESD for the Southern Ports Authority (SPA)’s recent strategic PER for its Inner Harbour Structure Plan 2009 is at Attachment 3 - ESD 1879. The current status of that process is draft PER submitted to EPA. There is some degree of overlap between the data required as part of the SPA’s ESD 1879 and the Koombana Bay Marine Structures ESD 2049 (subject of this process).

The SPA has agreed to provide the Customer with the reports and data used for it’s PER submission to the EPA once the EPA has approved the PER for public release, potentially in first half 2016. This may include additional information not listed below. This data will be made available to the successful Respondent and includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Bunbury Port Environmental Management Long Term Monitoring Program Routine Contaminants Monitoring January 2015

South West Development Commission Bunbury Marine Facilities Plan Sediment contaminants Monitoring January 2015

Bunbury Port Environmental Management Long Term Monitoring Program Routine Contaminants Monitoring December 2013

Bunbury Port Authority Invasive Marine Species (IMS) Survey October 2014

Bunbury Port Authority Sand Trap Evaluations for Possible Reuse as Engineered Fill March 2014

Environmental Baseline Survey Proposed Lease Area, Berth 1 & 2 Bunbury Port January 2013

Bunbury Harbour Siltation Investigation July 2009

Bunbury Port – Dredge Plume Modelling November 2009

Review of Bunbury Port Authority Ambient Dust Data January 2011 to December 2012 February 2013

Lanco Resources Australia Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage Facility Public Environmental Review November 2012 and associated studies

Bunbury Port Authority meteorological data from Beacons 3 and 10

Tide and current data from Beacons 3 and 10

Ambient dust and wind vector data from the Port of Bunbury’s dust monitoring network (last 5 years’ data).

The Southern Ports Authority, and consequently the Customer, makes no representation and provides no warranty in respect of the reports/data above. In particular, SPA does not warrant the information’s accuracy or fitness for any particular purpose. The appointed Consultant may use the information for information purposes only and may not rely on the information.

Respondents may wish to use SPA’s ESD 1879 to assess the extent of the overlap of data with the SWDC’s ESD 2049 for the purpose of this contract.



The Respondent should make their own assessment of the relevance and applicability of the SPA’s ESD 1879 and/or its information/data in considering the use of such data for the purpose of the Customer’s PER submission for ESD 2049. Where gaps exist, the Consultant will be required to undertake all relevant studies to ensure that the final PER submission for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures is complete, relevant, and to the satisfaction of the EPA.

The Final Report for Lanco’s PER 1486 pertaining to the Bunbury Port Berth 14A coal export facility is also relevant to the Koombana Bay Marine Structures project area. This Final Report is available on the EPA website but also attached at Attachment 4 - EPA Final Report 1486 Bunbury Port PER Lanco 170713.

All conceptual designs for the in-water structures proposed as part of the Koombana Bay Marine Structures project will be released to the Consultant for the purposes of this contract.

Respondents should note that the scope of works will likely need to be responsive to the addition or refinement of studies and findings as this project progresses. It is envisaged that there will be some iterative processes around modelling and design of key structures as consideration is given as to how to manage changes in engineering design that may result from findings during PER, i.e. flushing study indicates a change in the structure is required.

The Customer will provide the Consultant with the Casuarina Master Plan for the proposed Outer Harbour area (stage 4 on Attachment 2 – Transforming Bunbury’s Waterfront staging concept image) and CAD files for the TBW project area.

Other existing data, reports and information that will be made available to the Consultant upon award of contract are:

Koombana Bay Bathymetry Data held by the DoT

Bunbury Water Level Data held by the DoT

Coastline Movement Data held by the DoT

Historical aerial photography held by the DoT.

Casuarina Boat Harbour wave and current data held by the DoT: some wave and current data from AWACs and current meters in 2015.

Koombana Bay Coastal Hazard Risk Management & Adaptation Plan.



1.6 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

For the purposes of this contract, all information provided to the Consultant and all information and reports produced by the Consultant for the purposes of or as a result of this contract will be considered Confidential Information under the Customer Contract. Confidential Information must not be referenced, reproduced or distributed to interested parties or the general public without the express prior written permission of the Customer. Refer Clause 23 of the General Conditions of Contract.

1.7 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Respondents should note that the Intellectual Property of the modelling outputs, data, reports and other outputs of this contract including CAD files, data sets, investigation results, etc collected for the purposes of this project, rests with the State of Western Australia, as referenced in Clause 23 of the General Conditions of Contract.

The Consultant may be required to share any knowledge gained in the course of conducting this contact. Any reports (including documents and agreements) produced as a result of a contract awarded from this Request may only be released to interested parties and the general public at the absolute discretion of the Customer, refer Clause 23 of the General Conditions of Contract.

1.8 STANDARDS

The appointed Consultant will be required to ensure that all relevant Australian or International standards and procedures are followed when undertaking this contract. Respondents should refer to Attachment 1 - ESD 2049 for relevant policies

1.9 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

In addition to the requirements set out in ESD 2049, including item 4, the appointed Consultant will be required to consult with the following key stakeholder organisations in the preparation of the PER, where appropriate:

South West Development Commission (Customer)

Department of Transport

Southern Ports Authority

Office of the Environmental Protection Authority

Department of Fisheries

Dolphin Discovery Centre

Koombana Bay Sailing Club

City of Bunbury

Landcorp

Lanco



1.10 CONTRACT TASKS AND DELIVERABLES

The Requirements for this contract are the Tasks, and linked Deliverables, as set out below.

Task Deliverable

1 Project Plan A. Submission of a detailed project plan, informed by a detailed gap analysis on the information and data available and appropriateness for use. Liaison with stakeholders should inform the project plan where necessary. This project plan is to outline the scope of works to complete the PER and include a revised costing based on gap analysis.

2 Assessments B. Following direction by the Customer, undertake all assessments, studies, testing and prepare reports and documentation as required and set out by the EPA in ESD 2049 and in the agreed project plan.

C. Prepare and provide to the Customer technical notes or similar outlining numerical model setup, calibration and validation for review by the Customer, peer reviewer and key stakeholders prior to utilisation for modelling.

3 PER submission D. Prepare and provide to the Customer a draft version of the PER documentation for review and feedback.

E. Develop a PER submission, including results of all assessments, studies and testing to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority as set out by ESD 2049. The PER documentation, including any attachments, should be submitted to the Customer in both electronic copy (PDF, MSWord) and in five (5) bound, colour printed copies.

4 Consultation F. Coordinate the public consultation and peer review process and provide advice to the Customer in the response to any comments received.

G. Liaise closely and attend meetings with the Customer, the EPA and other key stakeholders as reasonably required. Upon completion of the contract, provide electronic copies of all data sets, data collected/produced, models and working papers to the Customer.



1.11 REPORTING

The Consultant will be required to submit written progress reports to the Customer on a monthly, or as otherwise reasonably requested, basis.

These monthly updates should include:

Actions completed for the month including achievement of deliverables/milestones

Hours consumed for that month

% progress for the contract

Actions planned for the next month

Total expenditure against budget.

1.12 AWARD OF CONTRACT

It is expected a contract will be awarded as result of this process by 1 May 2016.

1.13 PAYMENT SCHEDULE

The Customer proposes that payments are made on a monthly basis, upon submission of a written monthly report detailing:

work completed for the period

achievement of deliverables and milestones

a register of time worked, identified against each project related task

schedule maintenance

accompanied by a valid tax invoice.

All invoices for payment shall be forwarded to:

Corporate Services


PO Box 2000

BUNBURY WA 6231.



1.14 INDICATIVE COST AND REVISION

The tasks listed in the Scope and the Price Schedule in the Respondent’s Offer, may require further investigation during the consultancy to refine the Scope for the Services to be delivered.

Prior to the commencement of each task, the Consultant shall either confirm that the Indicative Cost is still current or a revision is required. If a revision is required, the Consultant shall provide details of the necessity for the revision and where the methodology differs from that initially tendered.

In addition, the Consultant shall provide for that task, an updated methodology and a revised Indicative Cost that includes a schedule of resources, estimated hours, disbursements and copies of Sub-consultants priced submissions (if applicable) for consideration by the Customer. The revised Indicative Cost and methodology must be agreed between the Consultant and the Customer and the Customer will confirm the agreement in writing prior to commencement of each task.

Should the Customer discover that a task or tasks require further investigation, the Customer shall discuss this with the Consultant and process this in the same manner as above.

The Customer reserves the absolute right to remove some tasks, activities or minor environmental consultancies from this Contract. The Customer shall discuss this with the Consultant and where necessary, obtain from the Consultant an updated methodology and a revised Indicative Cost.

1.15 AGREED COST AND COST OVERRUN

Where it becomes evident during the Contract that the agreed cost for a task is to be exceeded then the Consultant shall notify the Customer’s Representative in writing immediately upon becoming aware of the likely cost overrun. The Consultant shall provide detailed information substantiating the reasons for the cost overrun and the value and scope of outstanding services for completion of the task prior to the cost overrun being incurred. The Customer shall review the submitted information and the Customer will either accept or decline in writing the request for the cost overrun. Where the agreed cost has been exceeded without the Customer’s approval then the Customer may decline payment of the cost overrun.

1.16 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

For further information on the TBW project, visit:

http://www.swdc.wa.gov.au/projects/transforming-bunbury's-waterfront.aspx

Department of Transport Coastal Data and Charts webpage:http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/coastal-data-and-charts.asp

SPA page: http://www.southernports.com.au/

Bunbury Port homepage: http://www.byport.com.au/



1.17 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Environmental Scoping Document 2049 for the Koombana Bay Marine Structures (subject of this contract)

Attachment 2 – Transforming Bunbury’s Waterfront staging concept image

Attachment 3 – Environmental Scoping Document 1879 for the Southern Ports Authority’s Inner Harbour Structure Plan (current status: field work complete)

Attachment 4 – EPA Final Report 1486 for Lanco Bunbury Port Berth 14A expansion 170713

SCHEDULE 3 - PRICING - RESPONDENT TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS PART


SCHEDULE 3 – PRICING The Customer will, in its Value for Money assessment, consider the extent to which the Offer satisfies the following Offered Price and Pricing Requirements. The Customer reserves the right to reject any Offer that does not properly address and satisfy any of the Offered Price and Pricing Requirements.

a) OFFERED PRICE AND PRICE SCHEDULE

(i) The Respondent must include in the Offer this completed Schedule 3 - Pricing.

(ii) The Respondent must state the basis of its Offered Price in Australian Dollars.

(iii) The Offered Price will be deemed to include the cost of complying with this Request (including the Customer Contract Details) and the General Conditions and the cost of complying with all matters and things necessary or relevant for the due and proper performance of the Customer Contract. Any charge not stated as being additional to the Offered Price will not be payable by the Customer.

(iv) If the Offered Price is consideration for a taxable supply under the GST Act, the Offered Price will be deemed to be inclusive of all GST applicable to the taxable supply at the rate in force for the time being.

Table 1 Total Indicative Cost - Summary

Table 1 is to be completed by the Respondent for the purpose of determining the Total Indicative Cost for completion of all tasks listed at 1.10. Further information to support this should be completed at Table 2.

Task Item Description Total (Inc GST)

1 Project Plan $

2 Assessments $

3 PER Submission $

4 Consultation $



Table 2 - Indicative Cost for Each Task

Table 2 should be completed to the extent required to support the Total Indicative Cost at Table 1.

Where no further detail is required for a Task or Deliverable leave blank.

Task

Resource

Hourly Rate (Inc of GST)

Total Cost (Inc of GST)

Task 1

Project Plan

Deliverable Activity No. Hours

As listed at Clause 1.10 $ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

Disbursements / Other Costs $

$

$

$

$

Total (as shown at Table 1) $



Task

Resource



Task 2

Assessments



$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $


$

$

$

$




Task

Resource



Task 3

PER Submission



$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $


$

$

$

$




Task

Resource



Task 4

Consultation



$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $


$

$

$

$




b) SETTLEMENT DISCOUNT

The Respondent must state whether it is prepared to offer a discount if payment of the Price or that part of the Price specified in the invoice is made within:

(i) seven (7) Calendar Days;

(ii) fourteen (14) Calendar Days; or

(iii) twenty-one (21) Calendar Days,

of the date of the invoice.


A discount of:

….% is offered if payment of the Price or that part of the Price specified in an invoice is made within seven (7) Calendar Days of the date of the invoice;

….% is offered if payment of the Price or that part of the Price specified in an invoice is made within fourteen (14) Calendar Days of the date of the invoice;

….% is offered if payment of the Price or that part of the Price specified in an invoice is made within twenty-one (21) Calendar Days of the date of the invoice.

c) REGIONAL PRICE PREFERENCES

The Western Australian Government provides price preferences to Western Australian businesses when they are in competition with other Western Australian businesses for government contracts where the purchase or contract delivery point is in regional Western Australia.

The two types of regional price preferences are Regional Business Preference and Regional Content Preference.

Details regarding the regional price preferences and how they are applied are documented in the Western Australian Government’s “Buy Local” Policy. This policy can be viewed and downloaded at www.ssc.wa.gov.au or copies of this policy are available from the State Supply Commission (telephone (08) 6551 1500).

When a bid is received from:

A business that is located in another state or territory of Australia, or in New Zealand under the ANZGPA; or

A business that is located in the United States (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the AUSFTA);

A business that is located in Chile (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the ACI-FTA);

A business that is located in Korea (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the KAFTA); or

A business that is located in Japan (when the purchase is a “covered procurement” under the JAEPA),

the regional business preference and the regional content preference will not be applied.

However, in circumstances where one or more bids are received from businesses located in the jurisdictions above and these bids are not being considered in the final analysis then the regional business preference and the regional content preference will



be applied. The Contract Authority or Customer (as the case requires) retains the complete discretion to determine those bids in the final analysis.

(i) Regional Business Preference

Bona fide regional businesses located within a prescribed distance from the purchase or contract delivery point that bid, manage or deliver the majority of the contract outcomes from their regional business location are eligible to claim the regional business preference.

The contract delivery point for this contract is: Bunbury, Western Australia.

The prescribed distance is 200 km.

Government agencies, when comparing bids received from regional businesses located within the prescribed distance, with bids received from Western Australian businesses located outside the prescribed distance, including the Perth region, will reduce the price of bids received from regional businesses located within the prescribed distance, for evaluation purposes only, by 10% of the total Offered Price calculated to a maximum of $250,000.

To receive the regional business preference and to ensure that the preference is applied correctly where appropriate, regional businesses must be able to answer ‘Yes’ to the first five questions below:


1. Is your business located within the prescribed distance from Bunbury, WA (excluding zone one, the Perth region)?

Yes

No

2. Does your business maintain a permanent operational office within the prescribed distance?

Yes

No

3. Has your business maintained and conducted business from this office for the past six (6) months or more prior to the date this Request was called?

Yes

No

4. Will your business manage / deliver the majority of the contract outcomes from the business location described above?

Yes

No

5. The regional business preference is only available to eligible regional businesses that submit their offer submission from their regional business location. Have you bid from your business location described above?

Yes

No

6. What is your total Offered Price? $

(ii) Regional Content Preference

A regional content preference is available to Western Australian businesses located outside the prescribed distance, including businesses located in the Perth region, that use products, materials or services in regional contracts that are purchased from businesses located within the prescribed distance. The preference applies to the cost of products, materials or services purchased and used in the delivery of the contract outcomes.

Respondents should note that costs not eligible for the regional content preference include all travel, accommodation and meal costs associated with sending people from outside a prescribed distance to work on a regional contract



and all ongoing travel, accommodation and meal costs associated with the delivery of the contract outcome.

The cost of the declared regional content will be reduced, for evaluation purposes, by 10% calculated to a maximum of $250,000.

To claim the regional content preference and to ensure that the preference is applied correctly where appropriate, businesses must be able to answer the questions set out below:


Does your business intend purchasing products or services for use in the Customer Contract from regional businesses, which are located within the prescribed distance from the contract delivery point [excluding zone one, the Perth region]?

If yes, Respondent’s must show the actual cost of their regional content in the table below (attach additional list if required):

Yes

No

1 Description of the Products or Services

Supplier’s Name & Location Cost $

2 Total Cost of Regional Content: $

Page 1 of 16

Environmental Protection Authority

ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING DOCUMENT

PROPOSAL NAME: KOOMBANA BAY MARINE STRUCTURES

ASSESSMENT NUMBER: 2049

LOCATION: KOOMBANA BAY, BUNBURY

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA: CITY OF BUNBURY

PROPONENT: SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: 6 WEEKS 1. Introduction This Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) sets out the form, content and timing of the Environmental Review for the above Strategic Proposal. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) sets out that where a proposal is considered to have a significant environmental impact it will be subject to an assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under section 38 of the EP Act. The EP Act also provides for the assessment of a strategic proposal, which is a future proposal (or a number of future proposals implemented together) that may singularly or in combination have a significant effect on the environment. The desired objective of assessing a strategic proposal is to identify all potentially significant environmental impacts and management as early as possible. It also provides for greater certainty to local communities and proponents over future development, improved capacity to address cumulative impacts and flexible timeframes for consideration of environmental issues. If it is agreed that a strategic proposal may be implemented, a Ministerial Statement for the strategic proposal is published. Future Proposals will be managed in accordance with Section 11 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Administrative Procedures 2012 (Administrative Procedures). This strategic proposal is being assessed by the EPA at the level of Public Environmental Review (PER). The purpose of an ESD is to: provide proposal-specific guidelines to direct the proponent on the preliminary

key environmental factors or issues that are to be addressed during the environmental review and preparation of the environmental review report;

identify the required work that needs to be carried out; and confirm the timing of the environmental review.

donnaw

Typewritten Text

donnaw

Typewritten Text

donnaw

Typewritten Text

Approved by EPA Chairman Dr Paul Vogel 26 June 2015

Environmental Scoping Document Koombana Bay Marine Structures

Page 2 of 16

The proponent must conduct the environmental review in accordance with this ESD and then report to the EPA in an environmental review report (PER document). As well as the proposal-specific requirements for the environmental review identified in this ESD, the PER document must also address the generic information requirements listed in section 10.2.4 of the EPA’s Administrative Procedures. When the EPA is satisfied that the PER document adequately addresses both of these requirements, the proponent will be required to release the document for a public review period of 6 weeks. This ESD has been prepared by the EPA in consultation with the proponent, decision-making authorities and interested agencies consistent with EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline (EAG) 10 – Scoping a proposal. ESDs prepared by the EPA are not subject to public review. The ESD will be available on the EPA website (www.epa.wa.gov.au) upon endorsement and must be appended to the PER document. 2. The strategic proposal The subject of this ESD is the South West Development Commission’s (the proponent) Koombana Bay Marine Structures proposal. The proponent is proposing to upgrade the marine structures in Koombana Bay in order to meet existing demand and future requirements for small craft maritime infrastructure. The proposal includes new mooring facilities for commercial and recreational vessels, floating jetties, a boat servicing facility, improved public ablution facilities and upgraded boat launching and storage facilities. The regional location of the proposal is shown in Figure 1. 2.1 Future proposals Subject to the outcomes of this assessment, future proposals are expected to be developed in stages. At this stage the proponent has identified the following future proposals:

Redevelopment of the Dolphin Discovery Centre – includes a T or L shaped finger jetty and potentially a boat ramp;

Koombana Sailing Club Marina – includes dredging, breakwaters reclamation, boat pens, internal jetties and associated terrestrial facilities; and

Casuarina Harbour Development – includes dredging, breakwaters, reclamation, boat pens and internal jetties.

The development envelope encompassing the physical elements of the overall strategic proposal is delineated in Figure 2. The scope of the future proposals and the key characteristics (including their respective development envelopes) will be defined through the assessment process and outlined in the PER, in accordance with EAG 1 – Defining the key characteristics of a proposal. It is expected the proponent will describe the strategic proposal including the identification of future proposals within the PER document, in accordance with Environmental Protection Bulletin No. 17 Strategic and derived proposals.


Page 3 of 16

3. Preliminary key environmental factors and scope of work The information provided by the proponent has informed the identification of the preliminary key environmental factors for the proposal, in accordance with EAG 8 – Environmental principles, factors and objectives. The preliminary key environmental factors for this proposal and the EPA’s objective for each of those factors are identified in Table 1. To provide context to the preliminary key environmental factors, Table 1 also identifies the aspects of the proposal that cause the factors to be key factors, and the potential impacts and risks likely to be relevant to the assessment. All of this in turn has informed the work required to be conducted in the environmental review. Finally, Table 1 identifies the policy documents that establish how the EPA expects the environmental factors to be addressed in the environmental review and the PER document that follows. Impacts associated with proposals are to be considered at a local and regional scale, including evaluation of cumulative impacts, and provide details of proposed management/mitigation measures. This includes whether environmental offsets are required by application of the mitigation hierarchy, consistent with the WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines. In addition to the preliminary key environmental factors, the PER is to address the environmental principles in EAG 8. Table 1: Preliminary key environmental factors and required work

Marine Environmental Quality

EPA objective To maintain the quality of water, sediment and biota so that the environmental values, both ecological and social, are protected.

Relevant aspects

Dredging; construction and operation of coastal infrastructure including the breakwaters and marina/harbour waterbodies.

Potential impacts and risks

The proposal may have the following effects:

Removal of existing marine infrastructure may temporarily affect water quality due to increased turbidity and the release of any nutrients and contaminants in sediments.

Dredging to allow for the construction and maintenance of the marina and harbour waterbodies may temporarily affect water quality in Koombana Bay, adjacent marine waters outside Koombana Bay, Leschenault Inlet and Leschenault Estuary due to increased turbidity and the release of any nutrients and contaminants in dredged sediments.

Seepage of return water from land reclamations areas may temporarily impact marine environmental quality due to increased turbidity and the release of any nutrients and contaminants in dredged sediments.

Placement of limestone for the marina and harbour breakwaters and leaching of fines from the limestone may cause temporary turbidity during and after the limestone is placed.

Surface and stormwater drainage into the marina and harbour waterbodies


Page 4 of 16

may affect water and sediment quality.

Outflow of marina and harbour waters into adjacent marine and estuarine waters during operation may result in changes in turbidity, nutrient and/or contaminant loads and concentrations which may adversely affect marine ecology and function, particularly within the Leschenault Inlet.

Increased boat numbers increases the potential for pollution within marinas, including from antifouling paints, anti-corrosion anodes, increased risk of accidental discharges (e.g. fuel spills, oils and greases) and sullage.

Required work 1. Conduct monitoring as necessary to characterise the existing marine environmental quality (baseline water and sediment quality) in the area potentially affected by the proposal. The characterisation needs to capture spatial variability in sediment quality and spatial and seasonal variation in relevant water quality parameters as informed by an assessment of threats and pressures to marine environmental values, both ecological and social. The characterisation is to inform dredge spoil management and the environmental quality monitoring and management plans required in 7a and 7b.

2. Provide an Environmental Quality Plan (EQP)1 that spatially defines the Environmental Values (EVs), Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) and Levels of Ecological Protection (LEPs) that currently apply to the area. The EQP is to be developed consistent with EAG 15 Protecting the Quality of Western Australia’s Marine Environment.

3. Characterise the hydrogeology of the groundwater system and the quality, quantity, and seasonal and spatial variability of the groundwater flows into the proposal and surrounding areas based on contemporary monitoring data from the catchment.

4. Identify elements of each of the future proposals which may potentially affect marine environmental quality, including both direct and indirect impacts, and for both construction and operation. Detail is required for the proposed dredging and spoil placement methods.

5. Develop an accurate and validated three dimensional model which considers circulation in the existing boat harbour and the surrounding hydrodynamics to understand dispersion, deposition and accumulation of sediments and contaminants from marine-based construction and maintenance activities and outflow from the marina and harbour waterbodies. Hydrodynamic and particle transport modelling should take into account factors such as tides, meteorological and seasonal ocean conditions and ground and surface water inputs (as identified in 3 above). It should also be linked to ecological modelling as necessary to predict the ecological responses where specific proposal elements may affect marine environmental quality (as identified in 4 above). The modelling is to consider the staging of the future proposals and include the Leschenault Inlet and Estuary in order to determine the potential effects of the proposal singularly and in combination.

6. Predict the residual impacts from each of the future proposals, both direct and indirect, after outlining any avoidance and mitigation options that will be applied. Impact predictions are to consider the staging of the future proposals and include, but not be limited to:

1 The EPA recognises that a draft Environmental Quality Plan has already been developed by the Southern Ports Authority for the Koombana Bay area. The EPA therefore expects that this proposal will use this existing draft EQP as the basis for predicting changes to the Environmental Values, Environmental Quality Objectives and Levels of Ecological Protection.


Page 5 of 16

a. The likely extent, severity and duration of direct and indirect marine-based construction impacts on marine environmental quality and EVs. These impacts should be justified and defined spatially as an overlay on the existing EQP showing where the EVs (both ecological and social), EQOs and the spatially defined LEPs will not be achieved during construction of each of the future proposals and the duration of any non-achievement.

b. The likely extent, severity and duration of direct and indirect operational impacts. These impacts should be justified and defined spatially as an overlay on the existing EQP showing where the EVs (both ecological and social), EQOs and the spatially defined LEPs will not be achieved during the operational life of each of the future proposals.

c. A revised EQP should be proposed that takes into account unavoidable construction and operational impacts, including maintenance dredging, on marine environmental quality and spatially maps the EQOs/LEPs that will be achieved in the long term.

d. Impacts to biodiversity; abundance and biomass; water, sediment and biota quality, and ecosystem processes including nutrient cycling. An adequate understanding of the natural rates and types of ecological processes operating in the area must be demonstrated in order to evaluate the possible extent and severity of any changes to the types and/or rates of processes.

e. Predictions of impacts to marine environmental quality for both construction and operation are to include the most likely scenario and the best and worst case scenarios that are most likely to occur. They are to also consider and assess the cumulative effects of each of the future proposals both singularly and in combination to the effects of other adjacent approved proposals and proposals currently being assessed by the EPA. These other proposals include stormwater drains, other approved marine infrastructure and the Southern Ports Authority Inner Harbour Structure Plan proposal.

7. Identify management and mitigation measures for each of the future proposals to demonstrate that the EPA’s objectives for marine environmental quality can be met and to ensure residual impacts are not greater than predicted. The PER is to include:

a. A Marine Construction Monitoring and Management Plan (MCMMP) that includes the protocols and procedures for monitoring (e.g. turbidity, light attenuation coefficient, visual records etc.) and management (e.g. silt curtains, pre-washing of limestone rock for breakwater etc.) to ensure that the construction of each of the future proposals achieves the proposed EQOs/LEPs defined in the revised EQP required by 6c.

b. A Marina Environmental Quality Management Plan (MEQMP) that includes monitoring and management to ensure that the construction and operation of each of the future proposals achieves the proposed EQOs/LEPs defined in the revised EQP required by 5c. The MEQMP should be based on the EPA’s EAG 15 Protecting the Quality of Western Australia’s Marine Environment. The MEQMP is to define the EVs to be protected, identify the environmental concerns or threats and establish the EQOs and LEPs to be achieved. It is also to include and detail the management and mitigation measures to ensure that the EVs and EQOs are achieved. The MEQMP is to consider the staging the identified future proposals to ensure that both future proposals will meet the EPA’s objectives in the long term.

8. Outline the agency responsible for the management of marine environmental quality, maintenance dredging and ongoing wrack management for each of


Page 6 of 16

the future proposals.

Relevant policy ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, National Water Quality Management Strategy No. 4.

Australian Government, 2009 National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging

EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 7 Marine Dredging Proposals

EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 15 Protecting the Quality of Western Australia’s Marine Environment

EPA Position Statement 2000 Perth's Coastal Waters: Environmental Values and Objectives

Government of WA, 2004 State Water Quality Management Strategy Document No.6

McAlpine, KW Wenziker, KJ Apte, SC and Masini, RJ 2005 Background quality for coastal marine waters of Perth, Western Australia, Department of Environment, Perth, Western Australia.

Benthic Communities and Habitat

EPA objective To maintain the structure, function, diversity, distribution and viability of benthic communities and habitats at local and regional scales.

Relevant aspects

Dredging; construction and operation of coastal infrastructure including the breakwaters and marina/harbour waterbodies.



Direct removal of benthic communities and habitat as a result of the construction of the marina/harbour waterbodies and breakwaters.

Indirect impacts to benthic communities and habitats, including from altered sediment and water movement and flows caused by breakwaters and other coastal infrastructure, including within the Leschenault Inlet and the Leschenault Estuary.

Reduction in marine environmental quality that supports healthy benthic communities and habitat during construction and operation of the marina/harbour, including within the Leschenault Inlet and the Leschenault Estuary.

Alteration of the natural benthic communities in the area caused by the introduction of marine pest species.

Required work 1. Characterise the environment by designing and conducting a benthic communities and habitat survey (as necessary) to accurately map the spatial extent of benthic habitats. Based on the findings of the surveys, produce geo-referenced maps showing the extent and distribution of the different benthic communities and habitats and present these at the appropriate scale. Mapping is to extend to the outer boundary of the area where both reversible and irreversible effects of biota are predicted to occur and into the zone of influence and for appropriate reference sites. Surveys should be conducted to a standard such that the results can be used as a baseline for future monitoring both during construction and operation of the proposal.

2. Assess the values and significance of benthic communities and habitats within the future proposal area, and adjacent areas, and describe these values in a local and regional context.

3. Identify elements of each of the future proposals which may potentially affect


Page 7 of 16

benthic communities and habitat, including both direct and indirect impacts and for both construction and operation.

4. Predict the residual impacts from each of the future proposals, both direct and indirect, on benthic communities and habitat after outlining any avoidance and mitigation options that will be applied. Impact predictions are to:

a. Include the likely extent, severity and duration of direct and indirect impacts of each of the future proposals on benthic communities and habitats. This is to be done through spatially defining the zones of high and moderate impact and the zone of influence and is to include management targets based on the lower end of the range of likely impacts, consistent with EAG 7 Marine Dredging Proposals. Predictions for each of these zones, for both construction and operational impacts, are to include the most likely scenario and the best and worst case scenarios that are most likely to occur.

b. Address any irreversible loss of, or serious damage to, benthic primary producer habitat, in the context of EAG 3 Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats in Western Australia’s Marine Environment including an appropriately defined local assessment unit and an assessment of any loss against EAG 3’s cumulative loss guidelines.

c. Consider the staging of the future proposals.

d. In the context of 4(b) above, consider and assess the cumulative effects of each of the future proposals both singularly and in combination to the effects of adjacent approved proposals and proposals currently being assessed by the EPA. These other proposals include stormwater drains, other approved marine infrastructure and the Southern Ports Authority Inner Harbour Structure Plan proposal.

5. Include in the MCMMP details of the monitoring and management to occur during and after construction for each of the future proposals to demonstrate and ensure that the EPA’s objectives for benthic communities and habitats can be met and that residual impacts are not greater than predicted. The MCMMP is to include the protocols and procedure for mapping turbidity plumes and reporting the realised extent of the zones of impact and influence defined for each of the future proposals.

Relevant policy EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 3 Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitat in Western Australia's Marine Environment

EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 7 Marine Dredging Proposals

Marine Fauna

EPA objective To maintain the diversity, geographic distribution and viability of fauna at the species and population levels.

Relevant aspects

Dredging; construction and operation of coastal infrastructure, including the breakwaters and marina/harbour waterbodies



Construction activities may cause temporary displacement of marine fauna due to elevated underwater noise, vessel operations, dredging and the construction of breakwaters and death or injury from vessel strikes and entanglement and/or entrainment.

Changes in marine environmental quality during construction and operation, physical impediments to fauna movement, and changes in coastal processes during operation, may potentially affect locally significant marine fauna such as dolphins, blue swimmer crabs, other fishery important species and sea and


Page 8 of 16

shore birds (including little penguins), including effects to food quality and quantity, spawning and breeding.

Loss or degradation of important feeding, nursery and/or resting areas for marine fauna and sea and shore birds.

Increased public access resulting in increased interactions between humans and marine fauna.

Increased boat numbers with consequential increases in potential boat strike and fishing pressure.

Increased risk of introduced marine species due to increased numbers of vessels berthing in the marina.

Required work 1. Conduct a desktop study of available information to provide a comprehensive listing of marine fauna known or likely to occur within, or regularly pass through, the Koombana Bay area and Leschenault Inlet and Estuary and document any known uses of the area by them (e.g. foraging, migrating, calving, nursing, spawning, roosting and nesting etc). The study is to identify any critical windows of environmental sensitivity for marine fauna in the proximity of the proposal area, including for marine mammals, blue swimmer crabs, finfish and sea and shorebirds. The study is to also identify any significant gaps in knowledge for marine fauna and assess the importance and/or significance of those gaps with respect to meeting the EPA’s objectives, and where required conduct surveys to address these critical knowledge gaps. The listing should include the identification of both locally significant marine fauna species (including dolphins), marine species important to fisheries (both commercial and recreational) and sea and shorebirds that are likely to occur in the area.

2. Design and conduct a baseline survey in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Australian National System for the Prevention of Marine Pest Incursions (DAFF 2009) to identify if there are any introduced marine pests in the existing Casuarina Boat Harbour and Koombana Bay Sailing Club Marina and/or adjacent waters.

3. Assess the values and significance of marine fauna in areas likely to be impacted by the proposed developments and describe these values in a local, regional and State context.

4. Identify elements of each of the future proposals which may potentially affect marine fauna and sea and shorebirds, including both direct and indirect impacts and for both construction and operation. This is to include the risks posed by introduced marine organisms from construction and ongoing operations.

5. Undertake underwater noise modelling to determine the potential impacts from construction and staging of each of the future proposals, including from pile driving, on marine fauna. Modelling is to delineate the areas within which physical injurious impacts (including permanent and temporary threshold hearing shift), and behavioural impacts (including avoidance behaviours) may occur. Modelling is to outline the extent, magnitude and duration of potential impacts from underwater noise and should estimate overall noise levels.

6. Predict the residual impacts from each of the future proposals, both direct and indirect, after outlining any avoidance and mitigation options that will be applied. Impact predictions:

a. Are to include both short and long-term impacts and are to consider the staging of the future proposals.

b. Are to consider how the proposal may change marine fauna and sea and shorebird patterns of use e.g ongoing viability of feeding, roosting,


Page 9 of 16

nesting, migratory patterns, spawning and nursery areas and any impacts resulting from changes to water quality during construction and operation and physical barriers to marine fauna movement.

c. For underwater noise, modelling results should inform the design and management of construction activities to ensure that the impacts of underwater noise on marine fauna, including little penguins, are minimised.

d. Are to consider and assess the cumulative effects of each of the future proposals both singularly and in combination to the effects of adjacent approved proposals or reasonably foreseeable and proposals currently being assessed by the EPA. These other proposals include stormwater drains, other approved marine infrastructure and the Southern Ports Authority Inner Harbour Structure Plan proposal.

7. Identify management and mitigation measures for each of the future proposals to demonstrate that the EPA’s objectives for marine fauna can be met and to ensure residual impacts are not greater than predicted. This is to include management and monitoring protocols for introduced marine organisms during construction and operation and protocols to reduce the impacts to marine fauna during construction and operation.

8. Include a Marine Fauna Management Plan which details the monitoring and management that will apply during and after construction to demonstrate and ensure that residual impacts to marine fauna are not greater than predicted.

Relevant policy Commonwealth of Australia, 2009 National Biofouling Management Guidance for Non-trading Vessels

Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and associated schedules of specially protected fauna

Coastal Processes

EPA objective To maintain the morphology of the subtidal, intertidal and supratidal zones and the local geophysical processes that shape them.

Relevant aspects

Construction and operation of coastal infrastructure, including the breakwaters and marina/harbour waterbodies



Construction of the breakwaters and enclosed waterbodies may alter wave dynamics, interrupt longshore sediment transport and change erosion and depositional patterns.

Construction of the breakwaters may trap algae and seagrass wrack both inside and adjacent to the waterbodies.

The construction of the breakwaters may interrupt tidal flow and exchange between Koombana Bay and the Leschenault Inlet and impact benthic communities and habitats and associated marine fauna.

Required work 1. Characterise the environment by describing the current coastal processes in the proximity of each of the future proposals. This is to include, but not be limited to,

a. modelling the local current and wave climate;

b. conducting a detailed analysis of existing long-shore sediment movements to estimate erosional and depositional patterns including for cross-shore processes;


Page 10 of 16

c. determining beach profiles;

d. determining the tidal flows and exchanges between Koombana Bay and the Leschenault Inlet; and

e. determining coastal vulnerability and the potential impacts as a result of climate change, including through using multiple tide gauge records in the Bunbury Region to determine local sea level rise.

The characterisation is to consider all temporal scales, including seasonal and inter-annual, and the spatial scale must be adequate to address all coastal processes and patterns likely to be affected as a result of the proposal. The characterisation should spatially define the limit of where impacts are expected to occur.

2. Identify elements of each of the future proposals which may potentially affect coastal processes, including both direct and indirect impacts and for both construction and operation.

3. Predict the residual impacts from the proposal, both direct and indirect, after outlining any avoidance and mitigation options that will be applied. Impact predictions are to:

a. Be provided at a sufficient scale to allow all impacts resulting from each of the future proposals to both up and down coast processes as well as onshore-offshore processes to be assessed.

b. Be informed by monitoring previously undertaken at local harbours, ports and marinas.

c. Determine changes to local current and wave climate, long-shore sediment movements and the erosional and deposition patterns (including to cross-shore processes), and beach profiles resulting from each of the future proposals, including within Leschenault Inlet.

d. Consider and assess the cumulative effects of each of the future proposals both singularly and in combination to the effects of adjacent approved proposals and proposals currently being assessed by the EPA. These other proposals include stormwater drains, other marinas and the Southern Ports Authority Inner Harbour Structure Plan proposal.

e. Be for both the short and long-term (100 year planning horizon); be provided for best, most likely and worst case scenarios; and consider the likely impacts of climate change.

f. Examine the need (if any) for coastal structures to mitigate the impacts of wave shadows that would be caused by each of the future proposals.

g. Address the frequency, volume and potential environmental impacts of wrack and maintenance dredging within and adjacent to each of the future proposals.

h. Address the requirements of State Planning Policy 2.6, particularly with regard to setback and coastal risk management.

4. Identify management and mitigation measures for each of the future proposals to demonstrate that the EPA’s objectives for coastal processes can be met and to ensure residual impacts are not greater than predicted. This is to include the identification of areas of land and sea within the harbour/marina boundary to allow for management works and buffer areas to manage sand and/or wrack accumulations. Management and mitigation measures are to have regard for existing coastal management plans, including the Bunbury Coastal Protection, Part A – Koombana Bay Coastal Erosion and Design Report (Seashore Engineering 2013).

5. Outline the agency responsible for the management of coastal processes including the roles and responsibilities for wrack management and


Page 11 of 16

maintenance dredging.

6. Include a Coastal Processes Management Plan which details the monitoring and management that will apply during and after construction to demonstrate and ensure that residual impacts to coastal processes are not greater than predicted.

Peer review Commission, in consultation with the OEPA, and include in the PER, a peer review of the coastal process modelling and the predicted impacts to coastal process (scopes 1 and 3).

Relevant policy Department of Transport (2010) Sea Level Change in Western Australia – Application of Coastal Planning

Seashore Engineering (2013) Bunbury Coastal Protection, Part A – Koombana Beach Coastal Erosion and Design Report. Report SE001-01-Rev0.

Western Australian Planning Commission (2013) State of Planning Policy No. 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy

Western Australian Planning Commission (2013) State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines

Western Australian Planning Commission (2014) Coastal Hazard Risk Management And Adaptation Planning Guidelines

4. Stakeholder consultation The EPA expects that the proponent will consult with stakeholders who are interested in, or affected by, the proposal. This includes decision-making authorities (DMAs), other relevant State government departments and local government authorities, environmental non-government organisations and the local community. The proponent must document the stakeholder consultation undertaken and the outcomes, including any adjustments to the proposal and any future plans for consultation. This is to be addressed in a specific section of the PER document and, in addition, key outcomes of consultation are to be reported against the preliminary key environmental factors as relevant. It is expected that as a part of the consultation with DMA’s there will be discussion around each agency’s specific regulatory approvals, and a demonstration that other factors can be managed by another regulatory body. 5. Other factors or matters During assessment of proposals, other factors or matters will be identified as relevant to the proposal, but not of significance to warrant further assessment by the EPA, or impacts can be regulated by other statutory processes to meet the EPA’s objectives. These factors do not require further work as part of the environmental review, or detailed discussion and evaluation in the PER document, although they must be included in the PER document in a summarised, tabular format noting that the PER document will be subject to public review.


Page 12 of 16

At this stage, the EPA has identified the following factors or matters that require addressing in the PER.

Terrestrial Environmental Quality – with a particular focus on the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils around the Southern Port Authority Outer Harbour area.

Amenity, particularly regarding the impacts of construction and operation noise, and vibration on surrounding residences.

However it is important that the proponent be aware that other factors or matters may be identified during the course of the environmental review that were not apparent at the time that this ESD was prepared. If this situation arises, the proponent must consult with the EPA to determine whether these factors and/or matters are to be addressed in the PER document, and if so, to what extent. 6. Agreed assessment timeline Table 2 sets out the timeline for the assessment of the proposal agreed between the EPA and the proponent. Proponents are expected to meet the agreed timeline, and in doing so, provide adequate, quality information to inform the assessment. Table 2 Assessment Timeline

Key Stages of Assessment Agreed Completion Date EPA approval of ESD 30 June 2015

Proponent submits first adequate draft PER document

4 April 2016

Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) provides comment on first adequate draft PER document

13 May 2016 (6 weeks)

Proponent submits adequate revised draft PER document

3 June 2016

EPA authorises release of PER document for public review

17 June 2016 (2 weeks)

Proponent releases authorised PER document for public review

20 June 2016

Public review of PER document 1 August 2016 (6 weeks)

EPA provides Summary of Submissions 19 August 2016 (3 weeks)

Proponent provides Response to Submissions

16 September 2016

OEPA reviews the Response to Submissions

14 October 2016 (4 weeks)


Page 13 of 16

Key Stages of Assessment Agreed Completion Date OEPA assesses proposal for consideration by EPA

2 December 2016 (7 weeks)

Preparation and finalisation of EPA assessment report (including two weeks consultation on draft conditions with proponent and key Government agencies)

20 January 2017 (5 weeks + 2 additional weeks due to the Christmas period)

If any stage in the agreed timeline is not met or inadequate information is submitted by the proponent, the timing for the completion of subsequent stages of the process will be revised. Equally, where the EPA is unable to meet an agreed completion date in the timeline, the proponent will be advised and the timeline revised. The proponent should refer to EPA’s EAG 6 – Timelines for environmental assessment of proposals for information regarding the responsibilities of proponents and the EPA for achieving timely and effective assessment of proposals. 7. Decision-making authorities At this stage, the EPA has identified the authorities listed in Table 3 as DMAs for the proposal. Additional DMAs may be identified during the course of the assessment. Table 4 Decision-making authorities Decision-making authority Relevant legislation Minister for Planning Planning and Development Act 2005 Minister for Lands Land Administration Act 1997 Southern Ports Authority Port Authorities Regulations 2001 Western Australian Planning Commission Planning and Development Act 2005 City of Bunbury Planning and Development Act 2005 Department of Transport Jetties Act 1926 Department of Environment Regulation Environmental Protection Act 1986 8. Parallel processing Pursuant to section 40B of the EP Act, the provisions of the EP Act constraining decision-making authorities from making a decision which would cause or allow a proposal being assessed by the EPA to be implemented, do not apply in respect of a strategic proposal unless, and to the extent, that the strategic proposal is itself a significant proposal. 9. PER document When the EPA is satisfied with the standard of the PER document (refer to section 4.4 of EAG 6) it will provide written authorisation for the release of the document for


Page 14 of 16

public review. The proponent must not release the PER document for public review until this authorisation is provided. The proponent is responsible for advertising the release and availability of the PER document in accordance with instructions that will be issued to the proponent by the EPA. The EPA must be consulted on the timing and details for advertising.


Page 15 of 16

Figure 1 – Regional location


Page 16 of 16

Figure 2 – Development envelope and conceptual future proposal footprints

WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT STAGES

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTBreakwater to facilitate Casuarina Harbour works

and developments

Boating and marine industry precinct

Casuarina mixed-use development precinct

Casuarina beach enhancement

Harbour boating facilities expansion

Marlston waterfront

Koombana North mixed-use development precinct

Koombana Bay breakwater

Koombana beach enhancement

Dolphin Discovery Centre enhancement

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

101

2

3

4

6

7

8

9 10

STAGE ONE

STAGE TWO

STAGE THREE

STAGE FOUR

Disclaimer: Stages three and four are subject to operational changes as the project develops.South West Development Commission PO Box 2000 Bunbury WA 6231Phone: +61 08 9792 2000 Email: [email protected] www.swdc.wa.gov.au

5

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

January 2012 1 of 19

ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING DOCUMENT

PROPOSAL: Bunbury Port Inner Harbour Structure Plan (Assessment No. 1879)

LOCALITY: City of Bunbury PROPONENT: Bunbury Port Authority LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT: Public Environmental Review with an 8 week

public review period This scoping document is provided to define the requirements for the proponent’s environmental review document (Public Environmental Review). The specific environmental factors to be addressed are identified in Section 2. The generic guidelines for the format of an environmental review document are provided in Attachment 2. The environmental review document must adequately address all elements of this scoping document prior to approval being given to commence the public review. The environmental review document must also address any requirements of the Commonwealth Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, where the assessment is being undertaken under the bilateral agreement. The Environmental Protection Authority expects the proponent to fully consult with interested members of the public and relevant stakeholders, and to take due care in ensuring any other relevant environmental factors, which may be of interest to the public and stakeholders are addressed. The PER should document the results of all consultation undertaken.

1. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) sets out that where a proposal is considered to have a significant environmental impact it will be subject to an assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under section 38 of the EP Act. The EP Act also provides for the assessment of a strategic proposal, which is a future proposal (or a number of future proposals implemented together) that will in combination have a significant effect on the environment. A strategic proposal is assessed by the EPA at the level of Public Environmental Review (PER). The desired objective of assessing a strategic proposal is to identify all potential significant environmental impacts and management as early as possible, give early advice to the proponent as to whether the proposal has any fundamental flaws and what management actions are required to minimise impact on the environment.



All future proposals will need to be referred to the EPA. When a future proposal is referred, the proponent may request that the EPA declare the proposal to be a derived proposal. A derived proposal is one:

that was identified in the strategic proposal that was assessed by the EPA; was determined that it could be implemented;

where the environmental issues were adequately addressed;

where no significant new or additional information has been raised that justifies reassessment of the issues; and

where there are no significant changes in the relevant environmental factors since the assessment of the strategic proposal.

A derived proposal would not require further assessment by the EPA, apart from a review of the implementation conditions. Where a proposal is subject to Public Environmental Review (PER), the proponent is required to produce a PER document in accordance with an approved Environmental Scoping Document (ESD). The purpose of the ESD is to:

develop proposal-specific guidelines to direct the proponent on the key environmental issues for the strategic proposal that should be addressed in preparing the PER document; and

identify the necessary impact predictions for the strategic proposal, and the information on the environmental setting required to carry out the assessment.

The EPA has determined that it will prepare and issue the ESD outlining the scope and content of the PER in relation to this proposal. The EPA, in its formulation of the ESD, undertakes consultation with the proponent regarding the details of the proposal, its environmental setting and the environmental surveys and investigations required and expected outcomes. In addition the EPA will consult with the relevant government agencies, including Decision Making Authorities. The Office of the EPA (OEPA) provides services and facilities for the EPA. In many cases the OEPA will act for the EPA. The proponent will then be required to prepare a PER document in accordance with the ESD. When the EPA is satisfied that the PER document has adequately addressed all of the environmental factors and studies identified in the ESD, the proponent will be required to release the document for a public review period normally between 4 and 12 weeks. ESDs prepared by the EPA are not subject to a public review period. The ESD will be available on the EPA website (www.epa.wa.gov.au) upon finalisation and should be included as an appendix in the PER document.

The proposal that is the subject of this assessment is Bunbury Port’s Inner Harbour Structure Plan, which outlines the nature and scope of potential future port



expansion. The proposal description is provided in Section 2 of this guideline and a map showing the location of the proposal is shown in Attachment 1. An important aspect of the environmental impact assessment process is the review by the public. The EPA requires public input into the possible environmental impacts of this proposal and its implementation. To facilitate adequate public input, the PER should be made available as widely as possible and at a reasonable cost.

2. Specific Guidelines for the Preparation of the Environmental Review

2.1 The strategic proposal The strategic proposal is Bunbury Port Authority’s Inner Harbour Structure Plan. Bunbury Port Authority has prepared this plan to guide future development and decision making within the Inner Harbour and to conform to the strategic planning requirements under the Port Authorities Act 1999. It will also provide greater certainty of land use and development for port users, the Bunbury Port Authority and other decision making authorities, neighbouring landowners and the community. At this stage, the following future proposals have been identified:

1. Removal of the node of land south of Berth 5 to allow construction of Berths 7 and 9 and squaring off the Inner Harbour basin.

2. Realigning the Preston River along the southern boundary of Bunbury Port Authority land and filling of land to approximately 3.6m AHD.

3. Extension of the Inner Harbour to construct Berths 11-13 and 15. It is expected the proponent will provide the details and key characteristics of the future proposals within the PER document. In setting out the details of the strategic proposal, it is also expected that the PER document will distinguish between the proponent’s 10-year plans and longer term plans for the inner harbour expansion. Additional future proposals may also be identified during the course of the assessment. 2.2 Environmental factors, scope of works and policy documents relevant to this proposal The PER should give a detailed assessment of each of the environmental factors identified for this proposal. At this stage, the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) believes the relevant environmental factors, objectives and work required is detailed in Table 1. Table 1 also identifies a list of relevant policy documents for this proposal, which set out how the environmental factors are to be considered. The EPA expects that the treatment of environmental factors will be consistent with the approaches set out in these policy documents.



Table 1: Environmental factors and scope of works relevant to the proposal

Terrestrial Flora and vegetation

EPA objective To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of flora at species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and improvement in knowledge.

Construction and Operational Phase

Potential Impact

Direct clearing of vegetation during construction with the potential for deterioration of vegetation condition over time through operational impacts.

Work and outputs required

- Complete a Level 1 (Reconnaissance) flora and vegetation survey as described in EPA Guidance 51 within the proposal footprint and immediate adjacent area. The survey should identify flora present and describe and map the vegetation communities present and condition as per Keighery (1994), as well as identify the ecological value of the proposal area in a local, regional and State context the criteria for determining regional significance using EPA’s Guidance Statement No. 10. Areas of remnant tuart and the small area of intact native vegetation adjacent to the Australind Bypass on the south-east boundary of the proposal should be targeted for survey for conservation significant flora or communities.

- Identify the construction and operational elements of the proposal that may affect significant flora and vegetation.

- Describe and assess the potential direct and indirect impacts that may result from construction and operations of the proposal on flora and vegetation. This should be done in accordance with EPA Guidance Statement No. 51 and the degree to which the advice has been followed should be provided.

- Identify and assess all direct and indirect impacts to native vegetation in regional and public open space and the immediate adjacent Leschenault Estuary from the proposal.

- Undertake a risk assessment to determine the impact of climate change, specifically future sea level rise and increased risk of storm surge, from the proposal to flora and vegetation.

- Identify any coastal set-backs or buffer zones that will be required between the development and adjacent flora and vegetation as well as how they will be incorporated into the design of the proposal. This should include any measures to mitigate the risk of climate change.

- Define the specific environmental outcome(s) to be achieved for loss of native vegetation consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.

- Identify management measures to mitigate1 adverse impacts on the significant flora and vegetation so that the EPA’s objectives can be met.

Relevant policy/guidance documents

Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

EPA Position Statement No. 2 Environmental Protection of Native Vegetation in Western Australia

EPA Position Statement No. 3 Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection.

EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles of Environmental Protection.

1 To mitigate means a sequence of proposed actions designed to help manage adverse environmental impacts, and which includes (in order of preference):

1. avoidance – avoiding the adverse environmental impact altogether; 2. minimisation – limiting the degree or magnitude of the adverse impact; 3. rectification – repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted site as soon as possible; and 4. reduction – gradually eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during

the life of the action.



EPA Guidance Statement No. 6 Rehabilitation of Terrestrial Ecosystems.

EPA Guidance Statement No. 10 Level of Assessment for Proposals Affecting Natural Areas Within the System 6 Region and Swan Coastal Plain Portion of the System 1 Region.

EPA Guidance Statement No. 51 Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia.

Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy and the WAPC Position Statement State Planning Policy No. 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy Schedule 1 Sea Level Rise Keighery BJ 1994 Bushland Plant Survey. A Guide to Plant Community Survey for the Community. Wildflower Society of Western Australia (Inc.), Nedlands, Western Australia.

Terrestrial Fauna

EPA objective To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of fauna at species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and improvement in knowledge.


Potential Impact

The proposal has the potential to impact the roosting, nesting and foraging of water and shorebirds. Realignment of the Preston River channel particularly has the potential to impact the water and shore birds that use the delta for foraging.


- Complete a targeted Level 2 fauna survey over the project area and immediate adjacent Leschenault Estuary for water and shorebirds to determine the distribution, nesting, foraging and roosting habits of conservation-listed waterbird species. Describe these values in a local, regional and State context considering EPA Guidance Statement 10.

- Identify the construction and operational elements of the proposal that may affect water and shorebirds and their habitat.

- Describe and assess the potential direct and indirect impacts that may result from construction and operation of the proposal on water and shorebirds and their habitat. This should be done in accordance with EPA Guidance Statement (GS) No. 10 and No. 56 and the EPA’s Technical Guide Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment. This should include changes to distribution, composition and pattern of the habitat at the mouth of the Preston River and other potential impacts including dust and noise.

- Define the specific environmental outcome to be achieved for water and shorebirds consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.

- Identify measures to mitigate1 adverse impacts on water and shorebirds and their habitat so that the EPA’s objectives can be met.


Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

EPA Position Statement No. 3 Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection.

EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles of Environmental Protection.

EPA Guidance Statement No. 20 Sampling of Short-Range Endemic Invertebrate Fauna for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia.

EPA Guidance Statement No. 56 Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia.

EPA Technical Guide – Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment.



EPA Checklist for documents submitted for environmental impact assessment on marine and terrestrial biodiversity.

Wetlands

EPA objective To protect, sustain and, where possible, restore the biological diversity of wetland habitats in Western Australia.


Potential Impact

Loss of wetland area through clearing and potential impacts due to changes in water quality and quantity and flows resulting from the realignment of the Preston River channel. Potential deterioration over time through land use activities.


- Identify the functions, values and significance of wetlands within the proposal area and adjacent area and describe them in a local, regional and State context.

- Identify wetland boundaries, wetland management categories and wetland buffers in accordance with DEC requirements and EPA Guidance Statement 33 for wetlands on or adjacent to the proposal site.

- Describe and assess the potential direct and indirect impacts that may result from the proposal on any wetlands, including their buffers, within the proposal area and adjacent area. This should include potential impacts resulting from changes to local hydrology such as the impacts of groundwater drawn down on wetland values and functions, any groundwater dependant ecosystems, and from changes to stormwater and drainage.

- In consultation with the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), consider an Environmental Offset Program, consistent with the EPA’s Position Statement No.9 Environmental Offsets, (January 2006), that considers the values of the wetland impacted by the proposal, an appropriate mechanism to mitigate the loss of the values caused by the proposal.

- Define the specific environmental outcome to be achieved for terrestrial fauna consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.

- Identify measures to mitigate1 adverse impacts on significant wetlands or provide appropriate offsets so that the EPA’s objectives can be met.


Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 EPA Position Statement No. 4 Environmental Protection of Wetlands EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles of Environmental Protection EPA Position Statement No. 9 Environmental Offsets EPA Guidance Statement No. 33 Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development

Surface water quality

EPA objective To maintain the quantity of water so that existing and potential environmental values, including ecosystem maintenance, are protected. To ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards.


Potential Impact

Realignment of the Preston River channel has the potential to impact water quality and quantity within Leschenault Estuary. Bank stabilisation, erosion, sedimentation and changes to flood risk are potential impacts. Filling of land to 3.5m AHD has the potential to change surface flows in the proposal area. Port operations have the potential to contaminate surface water.




- Characterise the existing surface water environment in the project area and surrounding area. This should include, but not be limited to, surface water quality, flow and drainage patterns, flood risk and the potential impacts from climate change.

- Identify the potential direct and indirect impacts to surface water resulting from the proposal, including through realigning the Preston River channel and from climate change.

- Describe and assess the realignment channel of the Preston River channel, predicting stream water velocity, flood risk, erosion risk and scouring and water quality including from potential acid sulphate soils, increased suspended sediment and release of sediment bound nutrients and contaminants. This should include predicting impacts, such as changes to flood and sediment movement and disposition, to the Leschenault Estuary as a result of the proposal.

- Predict the quality and quantity of surface water run-off during the construction phase of the project, as well as describing and mapping the receiving environment. This should include predicting changes to flood and drainage rates resulting from the realignment of the Preston River channel.

- Predict the potential direct and indirect impacts to Vittoria Bay within the Leschenault Estuary resulting from movement of the mouth of the Preston River channel. This should include an evaluation of any potential impacts to water quality within the bay resulting from changes to sediments dispersion and settling. This may require hydrodynamic modelling.

- Describe management measures, including effluent disposal, and drainage and nutrient management, to be implemented to reduce the quantity of drainage runoff from the site and to reduce impacts on water quality.

- Define the specific environmental outcome to be achieved for surface water quality consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.


Waterways Conservation Act 1976 Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000) EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles of Environmental Protection Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy and the WAPC Position Statement State Planning Policy No. 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy Schedule 1 Sea Level Rise Department of Water (2011) Leschenault Estuary Water Quality Improvement Plan: draft for public comment

Groundwater quality

Potential Impact

Realignment of the Preston River channel has the potential to impact groundwater through dewatering, with potential consequential impacts to other users of groundwater. Rock fracturing to construct new berths has the potential to impact the confining layer of the Yarragadee Aquifer, allowing saline water to enter the public drinking supply. Extending the inner harbour further inland has the potential to impact on groundwater quality through saline intrusion.

EPA objective To maintain the quantity of water so that existing and potential environmental values, including ecosystem maintenance, are protected.



- Characterise the hydrogeology of the groundwater system and the quality and quantity of the groundwater within the project areas and surrounding area. Where the groundwater is contaminated, determine the extent of the contamination.

- Identify the potential direct and indirect impacts to groundwater from the



proposal. This should include potential impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems and impacts to current groundwater allocation within the area.

- Develop a hydrogeological model and predict the hydrogeological changes that will result from the proposal (including dewatering). The extent, severity and duration of potential impacts should be predicted and include changes to local and regional groundwater flows and levels, extent of drawdown, impacts to local water quality through management of dewater effluent and impacts to other groundwater users.

- Predict the likelihood that rock fracturing will breach the confining basalt layer of the Yarragadee aquifer, potentially allowing saline water to intrude into the public water supply.

- - If contaminated groundwater is encountered, prepare a remediation and/or

disposal plan for contaminated material. This should be independently reviewed by an accredited contaminated sites auditor.

- Develop a management plan which includes contingency and monitoring measures should a breach of the confining layer of the Yarragadee Aquifer occur, including methods to seal the breach to prevent saline intrusion into the public drinking supply.

- Evaluate the potential threats of extending the inner harbour further inland on groundwater quality and the ecosystems and beneficial uses that it supports.


Waterways Conservation Act 1976 Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 Contaminated Sites Act 2003 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000) EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles of environmental protection DEC Contaminated Sites Management Series, including - Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water - Development of Sampling and Analysis Programs - A guideline for managing the impacts of dust and associated contaminants

from land development sites, contaminated sites remediation and other related activities.

Department of Health (2006) Contaminated Sites Reporting Guideline for Chemicals in Groundwater

Soil Quality

EPA objective To ensure that rehabilitation achieves an acceptable standard compatible with the intended land use, and consistent with appropriate criteria


Potential Impact

Areas of the proposal are listed contaminated sites, and disturbance of these may release contaminated material into the receiving environment. Most of the proposal site has a high risk of acid sulphate soils, which will be disturbed during the realignment of the Preston River channel and the extension of the Inner Harbour basin.


- Complete investigations to determine the acid-generating potential of land to be disturbed as a result of the proposal, according to the DEC’s acid sulphate soil guidelines.

- Identify and map known and suspected contaminated sites and complete investigations to characterise the nature of the contamination. A Sampling and Analysis Plan should be prepared to the satisfaction of the Contaminated Sites Branch of the DEC.

- Describe and assess the potential direct and indirect impacts from acid sulphate soils resulting from the proposal on the receiving environment. This should include the potential to generate acidic conditions during dewatering and the potential for monosulphidic black oozes to form either in the Inner Harbour, the realigned Preston River channel and delta or in the Leschenault



Estuary adjacent to the new river mouth. - Identify areas where disturbance of contaminated sites will result from the

proposal. Where contaminated sites are to be disturbed, describe and assess the potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from the disturbance of contaminated material. This should include impacts where there is the potential for contaminated material to be liberated into the environment, such as through water or dust, and potential impacts on rehabilitation success along the new Preston River ecological corridor.

- Studies should be done accordance with the guidance in the DEC Contaminated Sites Management Series, Acid Sulphate Soil Guidelines and through references to the DEC Contaminated Sites Register.

- Describe the management measures for the disturbance of contaminated material. This should include the preparation of a remediation and/or disposal plan for contaminated material, where relevant. This should be independently reviewed by an accredited contaminated sites auditor.

- Define the specific environmental outcome(s) to be achieved for soil quality consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.


Contaminated Sites Act 2003 DEC Contaminated Sites Management Series, including - Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water - Development of Sampling and Analysis Programs - A guideline for managing the impacts of dust and associated contaminants

from land development sites, contaminated sites remediation and other related activities.

- Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and Management of Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia - May 2009

DEC Acid Sulphate Soil Guidelines, including - Identification and investigation of acid sulfate soils and acidic landscapes - Draft Treatment and management of soils and water in acid sulfate soil

landscapes EPA Guidance Statement No. 17 Remediation Hierarchy for Contaminated Land

Air Quality

EPA objective To ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards


Potential Impact

Port operations have the potential to increase emissions of dust and other material, which has the potential to affect the health and amenity of the City of Bunbury residents.


Construction - Develop a Dust Management Plan for those areas that are likely to be

contaminated consistent with DEC’s ‘A guideline for managing the impacts of dust and associated contaminants from land development sites’.

Operational - Identify the potential sources of air emissions from the proposal as a result of

material handling and loading activities. - Describe the likely control measures that will be implemented (e.g. sheds and

enclosed systems) to ensure that dust emissions from material handling infrastructure and stockpiles are managed to a standard that protects the surrounding environment and NEPM standards.

- Undertake modelling of all likely emission sources incorporating proposed control measures consistent with the Department of Environment (2006) Air Quality Modelling Guidance Notes. Identify and map the likely extent of dust



emissions, taking into consideration local air-sheds and wind patterns. - Describe the air quality monitoring procedures that will be carried out. - Define the specific environmental outcome to be achieved for operational dust

consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.

- Evaluate the impacts of stack emissions from ships as a consequence of increased ships in port.


EPA Guidance Statement No. 3 Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses EPA Guidance Statement No.18 Prevention of Air Quality Impacts from Land Development Sites

Noise and Vibrations

EPA objective To protect the amenity of nearby residents from noise impacts resulting from activities associated with the proposal by ensuring the noise levels meet statutory requirements and acceptable standards.

Construction & Operational Phase

Potential Impact

Increased activity at the port has the potential to increase noise and vibrations experienced at nearby residences and businesses.


- Identify the likely noise emission sources during the construction and operational phases of the proposal.

- Evaluate the potential noise impacts of the proposal consistent with EPA’s Draft Guidance Statement No. 8 Environmental Noise. A cumulative assessment of noise impacts from port operations and its compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 2007 should be completed.

- Evaluate the potential noise impacts from the transport of material to the port using the noise exposure levels in the Statement Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning and EPA Guidance No 14 - Road and Rail Transportation Noise (Preliminary Draft).

- Identify the likely management and amelioration measures to mitigate noise impacts of the proposal.

- Define the specific environmental outcome to be achieved for noise emissions consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.


Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 2007 EPA Draft Guidance Statement No.8: Environmental Noise Statement Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning EPA Guidance No 14 - Road and Rail Transportation Noise (Preliminary Draft)

Marine Environmental Quality

EPA objective To maintain the quality of waters, sediment and/or biota so that the environmental values, both ecological and social, are protected.

Construction Phase

Potential Impact

Dredging has the potential to increase turbidity and affect marine environmental quality. Sediments to be dredged may be contaminated, affecting the receiving environment.


- Conduct a water and sediment quality survey to characterise pre-development marine water and sediment quality in the area of the proposal and to identify background levels of toxicants and physio-chemical parameters, with the scope of survey parameters to be informed by an assessment of threats and pressures to marine water and sediment quality.

- Undertake analysis of sediment sample and interpret resultant data in



accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging. Prepare a sampling and analysis plan to the satisfaction of the Office of the EPA prior to its implementation.

- Detail the likely dredging or dry excavation and spoil placement methods e.g. type of dredge and/or dry excavation equipment, management of dredge overflow, potential location of spoil ground(s) and or land based disposal areas etc.

- Assess whether the Environmental Values (EVs), Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) and associated levels of protection proposed for the operations phase would be temporarily compromised for the duration of the construction phase. If so, then predict the extent, severity and duration of temporary potential impacts of construction on the relevant EVs, EQOs and associated levels of protection. This includes an evaluation of potential impacts of turbidity on the environmental values of the Leschenault Inlet.

- Detail management measures and contingency plans proposed to protect the EVs, and achieve the EQOs and levels of ecosystem protection during construction.

- Propose the environmental protection outcomes to be achieved for marine water and sediment quality consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.

- Consider cumulative impacts of the proposal in the context of existing and approved developments and other activities in the area, including consideration of the possible loss of marine water quality to other industrial uses of marine water in the area.

Operational Phase

Potential Impact

Port operations may affect marine environmental quality through ship movements general operations and maintenance dredging.


- Conduct a water and sediment quality monitoring program to characterise marine water and sediment quality in the area of the proposal and to identify background levels of contaminants.

- Complete a hydrodynamic flushing study to spatially predict the long-term water quality within the area identified for Berths 10-13 and 15. This study should consider all likely potential nutrient and contaminant inputs and identify water residence times and identify whether the established EQOs and levels of ecological protection can be achieved.

- Propose EVs, EQOs and spatially define the levels of ecological protection that are to be achieved by the proposal throughout the operations phase, consistent with State Water Quality Management Strategy Document No.6 (Government of WA, 2004) and the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ) and considering principles established in the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy and Pilbara Coastal Waters Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives.

- Identify and assess ongoing threats and pressures to marine water and sediment quality from operation of the proposal and the measures taken, or proposed to be taken, to avoid or minimise those threats and pressures. Descriptions of threats and pressures should include, but not be limited to, an estimate of the frequency and quantity of maintenance dredging, ship loading, stormwater and groundwater inputs, and uncontrolled contaminant discharges such as from cathodic protection of sheet piling of berths.

- Predict the consequences of the threats and pressures identified in accordance with the point above and couch the outcomes of those predictions in the context of the proposed EVs, EQOs and levels of ecological protection. Examine the likely effectiveness of the design of the proposal and proposed management measures. If, during the assessment, it is determined that there



is a high risk of not meeting the ecological and/or social EVs and EQOs, and levels of ecological protection, then evaluate and spatially define the degree of conformity and non-conformity of the proposal.

- Develop a marine environmental management plan which should be designed to give effect to the proposed EVs, EQOs and associated levels of protection for the operation phase of the proposal and include procedures for environmental monitoring using appropriate water and sediment quality indicators and environmental quality criteria, and a suitable decision framework for interpreting monitoring results.

- Detail management measures and contingency plans proposed to meet the environmental values, objectives and levels of ecosystem protection during operations.


Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000) National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (Australian Government, 2009) State Water Quality Management Strategy Document No.6 (Government of WA, 2004) EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles of Environmental Protection EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 7 Marine Dredging Proposals McAlpine KW, Wenziker KJ, Apte SC, Masini RJ (2005) Background quality for coastal marine waters of Perth, Western Australia. Department of Environment, Perth, Western Australia, 6000 State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 2005 Department of Environment (2006) Pilbara Coastal Waters Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives.

Benthic Habitats (including benthic primary producer habitats)

EPA objective To maintain marine ecological integrity through protection, management and improved knowledge of benthic habitats.


Potential Impact

Dredging has the potential to affect benthic habitats, through either direct removal as part of dredging operations or through sedimentation or inadequate light from turbidity. Port operations have the potential to impact benthic habitats through maintenance dredging and reduced water quality from general port operations.


- Using scientifically sound approaches, conduct surveys to identify the key components of different benthic habitats and report the findings of those surveys, noting levels of confidence and any assumptions that underpin the surveys and associated reporting. Benthic surveys should cover the area potentially affected by the proposal,

including the predicted zone of influences associated with dredging and spoil placement activities.

Seasonality of key biota should be addressed where appropriate. Surveys and data interpretation should provide confidence in habitat

boundaries and the communities they represent. Key components of different benthic habitats should be described to a

taxonomic resolution that is sufficient to inform the application of relevant guidance (e.g. EAG No.3 and EAG No.7) and to inform the design and implementation of a scientifically robust, relevant and cost-effective environmental monitoring program.

- Based on the findings of benthic surveys, produce spatially-accurate maps showing the extent and distribution of the different benthic habitats and present these at an appropriate scale.

- Identify the proposal-related activities that would potentially impact benthic habitats.



- Detail the measures exercised to avoid and, where avoidance is not possible, minimise impacts of the proposal on benthic habitats.

- Provide scientifically sound predictions of the likely extent, severity and duration of direct and indirect impacts of the proposal on benthic habitats. Impacts of the proposal on benthic habitats are couched in the context of the guidance set out in EAG No.7 (Marine Dredging Proposals).

- Implement guidance set out in EAG No.3 (Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats in Western Australia’s Marine Environment) when losses of, or serious damage to, BPPH are predicted.

- Detail the proposed environmental monitoring and management arrangements designed to minimise impacts and ensure that the environment will be protected to at least the level indicated by the predictions.

- Propose the specific environmental protection outcome(s) to be achieved for benthic habitats, including BPPHs, consistent with the EPA’s Draft Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.


EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles of environmental protection Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 3 Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitat in Western Australia's Marine Environment. Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 7 Marine Dredging Proposals

Marine Fauna

EPA objective To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of fauna at species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and improvement in knowledge.


Potential Impact

Direct impacts through berth construction, including through rock fracturing and piling, has the potential to affect marine fauna, particularly cetaceans through underwater noise. Changes to marine environmental quality has the potential to impact marine fauna through impacts to marine fauna movements, feeding or breeding areas. Introduced marine organisms have the potential to increase risk to marine environmental quality in the long term.


- Identify and assess the values and significance of marine and estuarine faunal assemblages within the proposal area and immediate adjacent area and describe these values in a local, regional and State context.

Marine mammals - Describe the presence of marine mammals, particularly bottlenose dolphins, in

the proximity of the proposal and any known uses of the area by them (e.g. foraging, calving and nursing).

- Undertake underwater noise modelling to determine the potential noise exposure levels that may result from rock fracturing, pile driving and wharf construction on marine fauna.

- Consult with the Bunbury Dolphin Discovery Centre on mitigating effects of the proposal on the dolphin population in Koombana Bay.

- Describe management and monitoring protocols to be implemented during rock fracturing, pile driving and wharf construction that will reduce the risk of marine fauna being exposed to excessive underwater noise.

Fisheries - Describe the major fisheries in the Geographe Bay/Bunbury region and

Leschenault estuary that may be affected by the proposal. - Describe and assess the potential direct and indirect impacts on recreationally

and commercially important marine species, including impacts to migratory patterns, spawning areas and nursery areas.



Introduced Marine Organisms (IMOs) - Identify and detail the abundance and extent of any invasive marine species

already present in the project area. - Evaluate risk of invasive marine species introduction from dredging plants and

from ongoing operations. - Evaluate the risk of invasive marine species introduction from commercial and

recreational craft utilising the nearby Casuarina Boat Harbour. - Describe management and monitoring protocols to be implemented during

dredging and construction to avoid introduction of IMOs. Describe controls available to manage risk of IMOs from ongoing operations.

- Define the specific environmental outcome(s) to be achieved for marine fauna consistent with the Draft EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 4 - Towards Outcome Based Conditions.


Fish Resources Management Act 1999 National Biofouling Management Guidance for Non-trading Vessels (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). EPA Position Statement No. 7 Principles Of Environmental Protection. Southall et.al. (2007) Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4), 411-521.

Cultural Amenity

EPA objective To ensure that changes to the biophysical environment do not adversely affect historical and cultural associations and comply with relevant heritage legislation.

Construction Phase

Potential Impact

The proposal area contains a number of sites of cultural importance. Loss or impacts to these sites could impact the associations of these sites.


- Identify and access the values and significance of Aboriginal and/or European culture and heritage sites within the project area and immediate adjacent area. This should include the Leschenault Homestead and the historic shipwreck located in the foreshore area.

- Describe and access the potential direct and indirect impacts that may result from any use or development during construction of the proposal, on any significant Aboriginal and/or European cultural and heritage sites.

- In the event that significant Aboriginal and/or European cultural and heritage sites are impacted, describe measures to be implemented to avoid and protect such areas and/or manage and offset potential impacts where it is not possible to avoid or protect these sites.


Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 EPA Guidance Statement No. 41 Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage

These factors must be addressed within the environmental review document for the public to consider and make comment to the EPA. The EPA anticipates addressing these factors in its report to the Minister for Environment. 2.3 Other Environmental Issues The EPA expects the proponent to take due care in ensuring all other relevant environmental impacts which may be of interest to the public are addressed and that management is covered in the environmental review.



The EPA has identified other environmental factors which it considers to be relevant to the proposal which are considered to be significant enough to warrant attention as part of the environmental review of this proposal to the extent that the PER should show how these factors will be managed. These include but are not limited to the following; Hazard and risk Impacts of water supply options for the port Visual impact This list is provided to assist with the preparation of the PER document, but during the course of the preparation of the document other factors may be found also to be relevant, and they should be included in the detailed discussion. 2.4 Agreed Assessment Milestones EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 6 “Timelines for EIA of Proposals” addresses the responsibilities proponents and EPA for achieving timely and effective assessment of proposals. This timeline (Table 2) is agreed between the EPA and proponent. Proponents are expected to meet the agreed proposal assessment timeline, and in doing so, provide adequate, quality information to inform the assessment. Proponents will need to allocate sufficient time to undertake the necessary studies to the appropriate standard and incorporate the outcomes of the studies into the PER. Where an agreed timeline is not being met by the proponent, or if adequate information is not submitted by the proponent, the timeline for subsequent steps will be re-established. Where the OEPA is unable to meet a date in the agreed timelines the proponent will be advised and the timeline adjusted. The EPA will report to the Minister for Environment on whether the agreed proposal assessment timeline has been met. Where the timeline has not been met, the reasons for this will be identified.



Table 2: Agreed Milestones for the proposal Key Stage of Proposal Agreed Milestone

EPA approval of ESD Document January 2012

Proponent submits first adequate draft of PER Document

Early 2014

OEPA provides comment on first draft PER Document

6 weeks

Proponent submits adequate revised draft PER Document

Early 2014

EPA authorises release of PER Document

2 weeks

Proponent releases approved PER Document

Mid 2014

Public Review of PER Document 8 weeks

Response to Public Submissions late 2014

OEPA assesses proposal for consideration by EPA

7 weeks

Preparation and finalisation of EPA Report (including 2 weeks consultation on draft conditions with proponent and key Government agencies)

5 weeks from receipt of final information

2.5 Decision Making Authorities At this preliminary stage, the Environmental Protection Authority had identified the following Decision Making Authorities (DMAs) (see Table 3). These Decision Making Authorities are constrained from making any decision that could have the effect of causing or allowing the proposal to be implemented. Throughout the assessment process further DMAs may be identified.

Table 3: Nominated Decision Making Authorities

Decision Making Authority Relevant Legislation Minister for Water Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 Minister for Indigenous Affairs s18 licence under Aboriginal Heritage Act

1972 Minister for Transport Port Authorities Act 1999 Department of Water Realigning the Preston River. Beds and

Banks permit. Department of Environment and Conservation

Works approval under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986



Department of Mines and Petroleum Dangerous goods licence approvals/activities within designated mine-site and mining tenement areas within the Port Reserve

Western Australian Planning Commission Greater Bunbury Region Scheme Amendment

WA Museum Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 City of Bunbury Local planning scheme amendment Bunbury Water Board (AqWest) Potable water infrastructure Heritage Council Relocation of Leschenault homestead DMAs are not prevented from parallel processing, up to the point of their decision, so that their views can inform the ministerial consultation process. 2.6 Preparation of the Environmental Review Document The recommended format for the PER document is enclosed as Attachment 2. When the EPA is satisfied with the standard of the environmental review document (see EAG 6 Section 4.3) it will provide a written sign-off, giving approval to advertise the document for public review. The review document may not be advertised for release before written approval is received. The proponent is responsible for advertising the release and availability of the PER in accordance with the guidelines which will be issued to the proponent by the OEPA. The EPA must be consulted on the timing and details for advertising the document.



Attachment 1 Location of proposal



Attachment 2

Generic Guidelines for the preparation of an environmental review document

Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority

Report 1486

July 2013

Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd

Bunbury Port Berth 14A expansion and coal storage and loading facility

Public Environmental Review Environmental Impact Assessment Process Timelines

Date Progress stages

Time

(weeks)

03/05/2011 Level of Assessment set (date appeals process completed)

22/09/2011 Final ESD approved 20 19/11/2012 Public Environmental Review document (PER)

released for public review 60

16/01/2013 Public review period for PER closed 8 20/03/2013 Final Proponent’s Response to Submissions

Received 9

03/05/2013 EPA requested additional information 6 13/05/2013 Proponent submitted additional information requested

by EPA 1

15/07/2013 Provision of the EPA Report to the Minister 9

17/07/2013 Publication of EPA report (3 days after report to Minister)

3 days

31/07/2013 Close of appeals period 2 STATEMENT ON TIMELINES Timelines for an assessment may vary according to the complexity of the project and are usually agreed with the proponent soon after the level of assessment is determined. In this case, the Environmental Protection Authority did not meet its agreed timeline objective for the completion of the assessment and provision of a recommendation to the Minister.

Dr Paul Vogel Chairman 12 July 2013 ISSN 1836-0483 (Print) ISSN 1836-0491 (Online) Assessment No. 1886

i

Summary and recommendations This report provides the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) advice and recommendations to the Minister for Environment on the proposal by Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd (Lanco Resources) to develop the Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage and Loading Facility. Section 44 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) requires the EPA to report to the Minister for Environment on the outcome of its assessment of a proposal. The report must set out:

• the key environmental factors identified in the course of the assessment; and

• the EPA’s recommendations as to whether or not the proposal may be implemented, and, if the EPA recommends that implementation be allowed, the conditions and procedures to which implementation should be subject.

The EPA may include in the report any other advice and recommendations as it sees fit. The EPA is also required to have regard for the principles set out in section 4A of the EP Act.

Key environmental factors and principles The EPA decided that the following key environmental factors relevant to the proposal required detailed evaluation in the report:

(a) Marine environmental quality; (b) Marine fauna; (c) Benthic communities and habitat; (d) Air quality (dust emissions); and (e) Amenity (noise).

There were a number of other factors which were relevant to the proposal, but the EPA is of the view that the information set out in Appendix 3 provides sufficient evaluation. The following principles were considered by the EPA in relation to the proposal:

(a) The precautionary principle; (b) The principle of intergenerational equity; (c) The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological

integrity; (d) Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive

mechanisms; and (e) The principles of waste minimisation.

ii

Conclusion The EPA has considered the proposal by Lanco Resources to develop the Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage and Loading Facility within the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour. The proposal is consistent with the Bunbury Port Authority’s Inner Harbour Structure Plan, which is currently being assessed separately by the EPA as a Strategic Proposal. Key objectives of the Structure Plan are to guide future development and associated decision-making within the Inner Harbour. The Structure Plan conforms to the strategic planning requirements under the Port Authorities Act 1999. The construction and operation of Berth 14A will accommodate 15 million tonnes per year of coal exports from the Bunbury Port. The EPA notes that the proponent has made a number of modifications to the proposal including:

• proposing to undertake dry-land piling and excavation wherever possible to minimise the need for marine pile driving;

• adjusting the dredge methodology to shorten the dredging period and utilising a backhoe bucket dredge;

• a commitment to the construction of one ship-loading facility; and

• ensuring the presence of marine fauna observers during marine construction activities and a commitment to undertaking long-term visual boat-based dolphin monitoring following construction.

Marine environmental quality The area considered for assessment is the waters of the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour, including Koombana Bay, and the marine offshore waters out to the limits of the Port Authority controlled waters. The proposal has the potential to impact on marine environmental quality during marine construction activities and during the operations phase of the proposal when coal is being loaded onto ships for export. Construction phase

The key issues that could affect the EPA’s objective for this factor are associated with the dredging activities and include:

• adverse effects on water quality of contaminant release and mobilisation from sediments during dredging; and

• potential effects of dredging on community uses and aesthetic issues in Koombana Bay.

Capital (construction) dredging for the proposal involves the dredging of 1.9 million cubic metres of sediment to accommodate the construction of the berth pocket. As all dredged material is proposed to be disposed of at an offshore disposal site in Commonwealth waters, the proponent is required to apply for a sea dumping permit under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. The application process requires the applicant to

iii

undertake sediment quality investigations to demonstrate whether the material is clean and suitable for ocean disposal. Analysis of sediment sampling carried out by the proponent has found that levels for all contaminants in the dredge material are below the relevant national assessment guideline thresholds. Although the risk of contamination of marine water and sediment quality from the proposed dredging activities is low, the EPA considers it appropriate to monitor water quality during construction to ensure the protection of ecological and social values in Koombana Bay (recommended condition 8). Therefore, to manage potential impacts during dredging and any perceptions of public health issues relating to a visible dredge plume, the EPA has required the proponent to prepare and implement a Construction Marine Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan. The Plan will require the proponent to implement a reporting protocol for the monitoring results including making the monitoring results publicly available, and to maintain close consultation with the Department of Health and stakeholders such as the City of Bunbury and the Dolphin Discovery Centre. Dredge plumes and aesthetic issues

Based on the proponent’s preliminary modelling, dredge plumes are expected to be highly visible and likely to affect aesthetic values to the extent that the community are likely to be concerned about swimming, boating and fishing in Koombana Bay. However, it is important to note that although there will be a temporary aesthetic impact, the dredge plume is not predicted to have an ecological or health impact, and the proponent will be required to monitor the extent and intensity of the plumes, and make the results publicly available. To manage the potential aesthetic impact during dredging, the EPA has required condition 9 to be implemented during dredge activities, which requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Dredging Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan. The proposed monitoring plan will need to provide for:

• the modelling and validation of the likely dredge plume based on the revised dredging program;

• the establishment of reporting procedures to inform the general public of the actual extent and intensity of the dredge plumes in Koombana Bay; and

• a framework for developing management and contingency actions to be implemented if the dredge plume moves beyond what has been modelled by the proponent.

To further reduce the impact on the local community, the EPA recommends condition 9-1 which requires the proponent to avoid dredging between the months of November to March, in any year, when recreational usage is at its highest.

iv

Operations phase

The key operational marine environmental quality issues associated with the proposal are considered to be ongoing contaminant inputs from coal spillages at the wharf from loading activities. Spillage of coal product into the marine environment from the wharf and vessel hatches is one of the key threats from the proposal. The proponent has committed to best practice management of the storage and loading of coal material. The Department of Environment Regulation (DER1) is required to regulate the proposal under Part V of the EP Act. The DER has advised that the works approval and licensing process will require the conditioning of appropriate emissions control technology to minimise risk of coal spillages and ensure that where spills do occur, they are recovered and disposed of appropriately. Notwithstanding the above, the EPA has also included other advice in Section 5 in view of the need for the Bunbury Port Authority (BPA) to have a holistic and consultative approach to the ongoing management of marine waters in Bunbury Port (and portions of Koombana Bay) that goes beyond the impacts from just this proposal. This advice is about the need to establish a plan of spatially allocated environmental values (EVs), environmental quality objectives (EQOs) and levels of ecological protection (LEPs) consistent with the EPA’s Environmental Quality Management Framework for the ongoing and long-term management of Port waters including Koombana Bay. Marine fauna Koombana Bay provides habitat for a variety of marine fauna, including cetaceans, pinnipeds, penguins and predatory fish, some of which are listed or protected under State and Commonwealth legislation. Koombana Bay is also a hub of human activity, and there are significant vessel movements as a result of an operating port and numerous private marinas. Of the cetacean species, the Common Bottlenose dolphin (Turisops truncates) is considered to be of particular significance to the region and most likely to be sighted near the proposal area. Australian sea lions, New Zealand fur seals and little penguins are also known to utilise the marine waters of Koombana Bay although less frequently. Potential threats to marine fauna in Koombana Bay from the proposal include underwater noise generated from:

• dredging activities;

• marine pile-driving activities; and

• rock fracturing (blasting) activities. The EPA has recommended condition 9-1, which aims to minimise the impacts of dredging activities on marine fauna in Koombana Bay. The recommended condition limits the timing of dredge activities to the months of 1 The Department of Environment Regulation was part of the previous Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) prior to 1 July 2013.

v

winter (1 April to 31 October) and therefore avoids the peak dolphin calving period and the majority of the blue swimmer crab spawning season. To mitigate the potential impact on marine fauna the proponent has proposed a number of modifications to the proposal’s marine construction methodology that aim to reduce underwater noise during the execution of the above activities, including:

• undertaking dry-land piling and excavation wherever possible to minimise the need for marine pile driving;

• implementing best management marine pile driving technologies, such as vibratory pile-driving techniques, to reduce the underwater noise associated with marine pile-driving;

• ensuring that if rock fracturing (blasting) of the Bunbury Basalt layer during dredging is necessary, only minimal blasting using best-practice technologies will be undertaken; and

• post-construction monitoring of the Bottlenose Dolphin community. The EPA has recommended conditions 6 and 7 that apply to marine construction activities and post-construction dolphin monitoring. These conditions require the presence of marine fauna observers during marine construction activities to ensure exclusion zones are applied, as well as post-construction monitoring of dolphin abundance. The EPA has also recommended condition 6-7 which requires any rock fracturing (fracturing) to occur outside the dolphin calving period. Furthermore, the EPA has also identified introduced marine pests as a potential source of risk relating to the proposal. The two primary mechanisms by which introduced marine pests can be introduced are through ballast water and biofouling. The EPA has recommended condition 11 to be implemented with the aim of managing the risk of introduced marine pest incursion in the waters of Koombana Bay. Benthic communities and habitat The proponent’s benthic habitat surveys of Koombana Bay have shown the Bay is predominately characterised by a bare sand substrate and comprises a low biotic cover (less than two per cent) with trace amounts of foliose and turf algae. During the proponent’s surveys no seagrass was observed in Koombana Bay. However, one area of reef (about 15 hectares (ha)) located about two kilometres (km) from the berth pocket on the north-eastern margin of the bay was surveyed and observed to consist of approximately 30 per cent biotic coverage, mainly comprising foliose algae and filter feeders. The EPA has identified the key issue facing these benthic communities and habitat to be impacts associated with a dredge plume resulting from dredging activities during the construction phase. The EPA is of the view that although the likelihood of impacting the benthic communities within Koombana Bay is low, a risk does present itself from the outer extent of the dredge plume (Zone

vi

of Influence) having the potential to move over the reef area and potentially smother the benthic communities. The EPA has recommended condition 10 to ensure that the health of these benthic communities is surveyed following construction. The condition provides for a baseline survey of benthic communities health before dredging and post-construction to confirm no detectable impact to benthic communities occurs. Air quality (dust emissions) Coal dust is the key atmospheric emission that could result from the operation of the proposal. The proponent proposes to implement world best management technologies at the site to help minimise fugitive dust emissions, including:

• fully enclosed coal stockpiles that incorporate dust suppression water spray systems;

• fully enclosed conveyors with provision for controlled wash-down of spillage;

• fully enclosed transfer points fitted with misting sprays; and

• a ship loading facility that will be fitted with fully enclosed boom conveyors and telescopic chutes, and covered rail wagons to minimise fugitive emissions.

The EPA supports the proponent’s implementation of best management technologies to ensure the dust emissions are reduced to as low as practicable. When compared to other coal export facilities around Australia, these technologies represent best practice for coal export facilities in Australia. The EPA has received advice from the DEC (now DER) indicating that coal dust emissions can be managed under Part V of the EP Act, specifically by conditioning appropriate emissions control technologies in the proponent’s Works Approvals and Licences. The EPA has identified spontaneous combustion of coal at the Port as a potential risk to the proposal. The proponent is aware of these risks and has incorporated technologies that will monitor the stockpiles for potential spontaneous combustion. Furthermore, the EPA has been advised that the risk of spontaneous combustion can be managed under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994, which is administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. In view of the measures proposed by the proponent and the controls available through Part V of the EP Act and other legislation, the EPA considers that its objectives for this factor can be met and has not recommended a condition for this factor.

vii

Amenity (noise) The proposal will be located in a busy operating Port that experiences noise emissions from a range of industries and activities including mineral sands, woodchips and alumina export operations. The proponent’s noise modelling of the facilities has shown that noise emissions from the proposal, when considered in isolation, can comply with assigned noise levels. However, accounting for noise from other Port users, it is likely that cumulative noise impacts will exceed the night-time assigned noise levels under certain conditions. To reduce the risk of this non-compliance, the proponent has modified the proposal to incorporate only one ship loader as part of their operations. This modification has reduced the predicted noise emission level from ship loading by three decibels. The EPA has received advice from the DER stating that noise emissions from the proposal’s operations can be managed to substantially comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Regulations). The EPA notes that noise and vibrations associated with pile driving can be managed under the Regulations. Construction noise is exempt from meeting assigned noise levels but must be carried out during the appropriate hours in accordance with a noise management plan approved by the CEO of the City of Bunbury and/or the CEO of the DER. In view of the measures proposed by the proponent and the requirements of the Noise Regulations, the EPA considers that its objectives for this factor can be met and has not recommended a condition. The EPA has therefore concluded that it is likely that the EPA’s objectives would be achieved provided there is satisfactory implementation by the proponent of the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 4 and summarised in Section 4. The EPA has also included other advice regarding:

• the requirement for the Bunbury Port Authority to establish an Environmental Quality Management Framework for the Port-operated waters within the inner and outer harbour; and

• the management of existing and future cumulative noise emissions from the Port through a Regulation 17 application under the Regulations.

Recommendations The EPA submits the following recommendations to the Minister for Environment: 1. That the Minister notes that the proposal being assessed is for the

development of the Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage and Loading Facility within the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour;

viii

2. That the Minister considers the report on the key environmental factors and principles as set out in Section 3;

3. That the Minister notes the EPA has concluded that it is likely that the EPA’s objectives would be achieved, provided there is satisfactory implementation by the proponent of the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 4 and summarised in Section 4; and

4. That the Minister imposes the conditions and procedures recommended in Appendix 4 of this report.

Conditions Having considered the information provided in this report, the EPA has developed a set of conditions that the EPA recommends be imposed if the proposal by Lanco Resources Australia to develop the Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage and Loading Facility within the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour is approved for implementation. These conditions are presented in Appendix 5. Matters addressed in the conditions include the following:

(a) minimising impacts to marine fauna during construction through requirements for Marine Fauna Observers to be present, and restricting rock fracturing (blasting) operational timing (condition 6);

(b) requiring the development and implementation of a Dolphin Monitoring Plan with the aim of ensuring that there are no long-term adverse effects on the abundance and distribution of the Bottlenose Dolphin in Koombana Bay (condition 7);

(c) monitoring and managing impacts to marine environmental quality from marine construction activities to achieve the relevant Environmental Quality Objectives within Koombana Bay (condition 8);

(d) ensuring the marine construction activities are managed in a manner that minimises the extent of the dredge plume within Koombana Bay, and restricting the dredge operational timing (condition 9);

(e) ensuring the health and distribution of any benthic communities and habitat in Koombana Bay are monitored post-construction (condition 10); and

(f) prevention and control of ‘Introduced Marine Pests’ during construction (condition 11).

ix

Contents Page

Summary and recommendations .................................................................. i 1. Introduction and background ................................................................ 1

2. The proposal ........................................................................................... 2

3. Key environmental factors and principles ............................................ 8

3.1 Marine environmental quality ......................................................... 9

3.2 Marine fauna ................................................................................ 15

3.3 Benthic communities and habitat ................................................. 17

3.4 Air quality (dust emissions) .......................................................... 20

3.5 Amenity (noise) ............................................................................ 22

3.6 Environmental principles .............................................................. 25

4. Conditions ............................................................................................. 25

4.1 Recommended conditions ............................................................ 25

4.2 Consultation ................................................................................. 25

5. Other advice .......................................................................................... 26

Recommendations ....................................................................................... 27

Tables Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics .......................................... 3 Table 2: Assigned noise levels for selected receptors ................................... 22 Figures Figure 1. Proposal development envelope ...................................................... 4 Figure 2. Bunbury Port Inner Harbour Structure Plan ..................................... 5 Figure 3. Proposal’s key infrastructure components ....................................... 6 Figure 4. Offshore spoil dredge disposal site location ..................................... 7 Figure 5. Benthic communities and habitat of Koombana Bay ...................... 19 Figure 6. Receiver locations.......................................................................... 24 Appendices 1. List of submitters 2. References 3. Summary of identification of key environmental factors 4. Identification of Decision Making Authorities and Recommended

Environmental Conditions 5. Proponent’s response to submissions

x

1

1. Introduction and background This report provides the advice and recommendations of the EPA to the Minister for Environment on the key environmental factors and principles for the proposal by Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd (Lanco Resources) to develop the Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage and Loading Facility within the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour. The proposal involves the development of a berth pocket and associated on-shore coal storage and export infrastructure to accommodate the export of 15 million tonnes of coal per year. The proposal was referred to the EPA in April 2011. The EPA decided to assess the proposal at the level of Public Environmental Review (PER) with a six week public review period. This was due to the potential impacts to biodiversity including vegetation and fauna; marine environmental quality, benthic communities and habitat, marine fauna and inland waters environmental quality. The PER’s public review period was extended by two weeks as a result of releasing the document over the Christmas period and was subsequently released for eight weeks from November 2012 to mid- January 2013.

2

2. The proposal The proponent aims to progress the development of Berth 14A located within Bunbury Port Inner Harbour (Figure 1). The Bunbury Port Authority (BPA) has advised that the proposal is consistent with the Bunbury Port Authority’s Inner Harbour Structure Plan, which is currently being assessed separately by the EPA as a strategic proposal at a level of Public Environmental Review. Key objectives of the Structure Plan are to guide future development and associated decision making within the Inner Harbour. The Structure Plan conforms to the strategic planning requirements under the Port Authorities Act 1999 and the final proposed layout of the Inner Harbour is displayed in Figure 2. Berth 14A will have the capacity to export 15 million tonnes per year of coal from Bunbury Port. The construction of the berth pocket will involve the dredging and excavation of up to 2.7 million cubic metres (m3) of material. Lowering the berth pocket and swing basin to -12.7 metres (m) chart datum (CD) and the associated approach navigational area to -12.2 m CD will involve the dredging of up to 1.9 million m3 of sediment. Dredging the berth pocket to the proposed depth may also require the removal of up to 20,000 m3 of Bunbury Basalt from the dredge profile, which may require rock fracturing (blasting). However, the proponent is of the view that there is a low likelihood that blasting will be required due to the weathered nature of the basalt layer. Further detailed geotechnical investigations will confirm the extent of the basalt layer that intersects with the dredge profile. The offshore spoil disposal site for dredge material is located in Commonwealth waters (Figure 4), and as such does not form part of this assessment. The suitability of this site, as well as the disposal of spoil, will be assessed by the Commonwealth under the Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. The total development envelope of the proposal is up to 30 ha, of which about 2 ha has been identified as native vegetation. Site investigations of the vegetation and flora indicated the site is heavily degraded and no Threatened Ecological Communities or Declared Rare Flora were found. Terrestrial infrastructure will encompass various land uses including a rail loop, covered shed for coal storage, fully enclosed transfer station and conveyors, and one ship loading facility. The components of the proposal are shown in Figure 3. The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1 below. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Section 3 of the PER (Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2012).

3

Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics Marine Components Description

Berth Pocket Berth pocket dredged to -12.7 m CD and approach navigational area dredged to -12.2 m CD.

Dredging Dredge volume up to 1.9 million m3. Underwater rock fracturing (blasting) may be required to remove up to 20,000 m3 of Bunbury Basalt rock.

Land Based Excavation

The land based component of the berth pocket will involve the excavation of 0.8 million m3 of soil. Depending on the soils characteristics, material will either be remediated and used on-site or disposed of to an approved landfill.

Berth Structure

The final quantities will be determined as the final designs for Berth 14A are prepared. It is likely that construction of a rock armour seawall with sheet pile walls along the berth length will be undertaken, in addition to rock armoured slope protection at the entrance to the basin and the construction of the wharf facility.

Terrestrial Components Description

Material Handling Infrastructure

Train unloader, conveyors, stackers, coal storage facility and ship loading equipment.

Rail

New dump station and rail loop. The assessable section of the rail loop is located within the site boundary, beginning and terminating to the north west of the Preston River.

Since release of the PER, a number of modifications to the proposal have been made by the proponent. These include:

• proposing to undertake dry-land piling and excavation where ever possible to minimise the need for marine pile driving;

• adjusting the dredge methodology to shorten the dredging period and utilising a backhoe bucket dredge;

• a commitment to the construction of one ship loading facility; and

• ensuring the presence of marine fauna observers during marine construction activities and a commitment to undertaking long-term visual boat based dolphin monitoring post-construction.

The potential impacts of the proposal initially predicted by the proponent in the PER document (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012) and their proposed management are summarised in Table E.2 in the Executive Summary of the proponent’s document.

4

Figure 1. Proposal development envelope

5

Figure 2. Bunbury Port Inner Harbour Structure Plan

6

Figure 3. Proposal’s key infrastructure components

7

Figure 4. Offshore spoil dredge disposal site location

8

3. Key environmental factors and principles Section 44 of the EP Act requires the EPA to report to the Minister for Environment on the key environmental factors relevant to the proposal and the conditions and procedures, if any, to which the proposal should be subject. In addition, the EPA may make recommendations as it sees fit. The identification process for the key factors selected for detailed evaluation in this report is summarised in Appendix 3. The reader is referred to Appendix 3 for the evaluation of factors not discussed below. A number of these factors, such as noise and air quality, heritage and traffic, are relevant to the proposal, but the EPA is of the view that the information set out in Appendix 3 provides sufficient evaluation. It is the EPA’s opinion that the following key environmental factors for the proposal require detailed evaluation in this report:

(a) Marine environmental quality; (b) Marine fauna; (c) Benthic communities and habitat; (d) Air quality (dust emissions); and (e) Amenity (noise).

The above key factors were identified from the EPA’s consideration and review of all environmental factors generated from the PER document and the submissions received, in conjunction with the proposal characteristics. Details on the key environmental factors and their assessment are contained in sections 3.1 - 3.6. The description of each factor shows why it is relevant to the proposal and how it will be affected by the proposal. The assessment of each factor is where the EPA decides whether or not a proposal meets the environmental objective set for that factor. The following principles were considered by the EPA in relation to the proposal:

(a) The precautionary principle; (b) The principle of intergenerational equity; (c) The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and

ecological integrity; (d) Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive

mechanisms; and (e) The principles of waste minimisation.

9

3.1 Marine environmental quality The EPA’s objective is to maintain the quality of waters, sediment and biota so that the environmental values, both ecological and social, are protected. The proposal has the potential to impact on marine environmental quality during marine construction activities and during the operations phase of the proposal when coal is being loaded onto ships for export. As the threats and pressures from these two phases require different impact assessment methodologies and frameworks, the EPA’s discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal on marine environmental quality is set out below under the headings of Construction phase and Operations phase. The area considered for assessment is the waters of the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour, including Koombana Bay, and the offshore marine waters out to the limits of the Port Authority controlled waters. The EPA notes that the waters of Koombana Bay are heavily utilised by the local community for recreational activities and Port users. In the absence of an established plan of spatially allocated environmental values (EVs), environmental quality objectives (EQOs) and levels of ecological protection (LEPs) consistent with the EPA’s Environmental Quality Management Framework, the EPA considers that in the interim the following EQOs apply to Koombana Bay:

• maintenance of ecosystem integrity

• maintenance of cultural and spiritual values

• maintenance of seafood safe for human consumption

• maintenance of aquaculture

• maintenance of primary contact recreation

• maintenance of secondary contact recreation

• maintenance of aesthetic values, and

• maintenance of industrial water supply values.

Although all the EQOs listed above are relevant, it is not necessary or possible for the proponent to demonstrate they have all been achieved. For example:

• there is no aquaculture facility close to the proposal

• the impacts from the dredge plume to aesthetics will be temporary

• if the proponent can maintain primary contact recreation objectives, then by default it has maintained secondary contact recreation objectives, and

• there are no environmental quality criteria for the Cultural and Spiritual or Industrial Water Supplies EVs.

10

The EPA therefore considers the most important, relevant and manageable EQOs to be achieved within Koombana Bay during the construction phase for this proposal are:

• maintenance of ecosystem integrity (high level of ecological protection)

• maintenance of seafood safe for human consumption, and

• maintenance of primary contact recreation. For ongoing and long-term operations of the Port, the EPA considers that there is a need to develop an established plan of EVs and EQOs for Koombana Bay and Port waters which takes into account the users of the Port and the Bay, and the desires of the local community. The EPA has therefore provided advice on this issue in the other advice section of this report (Section 5). Construction phase The key issues that could affect the EPA’s objective for this factor are associated with the dredging activities and include:

• adverse effects on water quality of contaminant release and mobilisation from sediments during dredging, and

• potential effects of dredging on community uses and aesthetic issues in Koombana Bay.

The proposal involves the dredging of 1.9 million m3 of sediments to accommodate the construction of the berth pocket. Dredged material is proposed to be disposed of at an offshore disposal site in Commonwealth waters shown in Figure 4. The proponent was required to apply for a sea dumping permit under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. In accordance with the Commonwealth National Assessment Guidelines Dredging (NAGD) a detailed Sampling and Analysis Plan for the dredging component was prepared to assess sediment quality. Sediment samples were taken within the marine dredge footprint from a total of 16 sites, and all metals were found to be below the relevant NAGD screening levels (Wave Solutions, 2012). As levels for all contaminants in the dredge material are below the screening levels, the proponent has concluded that the likely risk to ecosystem and human use environmental values contaminant release and mobilisation is low. The EPA notes, however, that the proponent has indicated sediments adjacent to the proposal footprint could be disturbed as a result of dredging activities and hence this issue will need to be carefully managed by the proponent. The EPA considers it appropriate for the proponent to monitor water quality and, potentially, biota during the dredging program to confirm that ecological and social values in Koombana Bay are being protected. The EPA has

11

therefore recommended conditions 8-1 to 8-7. Recommended condition 8-2 requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Construction Marine Environmental Quality Monitoring and Management Plan. The proposed Plan will provide for:

• identifying the indicators, including metals of concern, to be monitored based on results of previous monitoring

• the establishment of monitoring sites for water quality (and potentially biota) to determine the achievement of EQOs, particularly in areas of high recreational usage

• the development of trigger levels based on the approach in the ANZECC Guidelines for a ‘high’ level of ecological protection

• the establishment of reporting procedures to inform the general public of water quality results, as well as the plume characteristics, and

• a framework for developing management and contingency actions to be implemented during dredging in the event trigger levels are not met.

The Plan will also require the proponent to implement a reporting protocol for ensuring the monitoring results are made publicly available. Close consultation will also be required with the Department of Health and stakeholders such as the City of Bunbury and the Dolphin Discovery Centre. The EPA notes that the proponent has attempted to establish baseline conditions for water quality parameters (heavy metals) within Koombana Bay and the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour to inform the establishment of trigger values for management actions. The data that has been collected to date is provided in Technical Appendix No. 8 – Marine sediment sampling and analysis plan report (Wave Solutions, 2012). However, on reviewing the baseline data, the EPA has concluded that the results are at odds with the results of other surveys undertaken in the State which reported significantly lower levels of most of the metals measured. The EPA considered these results to be indicative of problematic sampling or analytical practices rather than likely actual background values and assigns a low level of confidence to the background water quality data for heavy metals presented in Koombana Bay and the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour. The EPA has recommended condition 8-3 (ii) which will ensure the proponent undertakes future baseline surveys with appropriate quality assurance procedures, to better characterise the ambient environment and to design their monitoring and management plans accordingly. Dredge plumes and aesthetic issues

The marine environment of the proposal area includes the waters of the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour and the marine waters of Koombana Bay (Figure 4). The marine waters of Koombana Bay are extensively used by the community and tourists for recreation including boating, fishing and swimming, and for tourism activities such as dolphin watching/interactions at Koombana Beach. Based on the proponent’s preliminary modelling, turbidity plumes

12

would be expected to be highly visible from time to time. It also may affect aesthetic values to the extent that people may be concerned about swimming, boating and fishing in Koombana Bay. The proponent initially modelled the extent of dredge-generated plumes based on the assumption that a cutter suction dredge would take 40 weeks to complete the berth pocket and approach channel. However, the proponent has subsequently advised the EPA that the final dredging technology to be adopted is likely to include a backhoe bucket dredge (rather than a cutter suction dredge) and be approximately 24 weeks in duration. The initial modelling in the PER is therefore considered to be a conservative assessment of the potential plume extent. As there is some uncertainty about the final dredge program, the EPA has required the proponent to model and predict a revised Zone of Influence based on the final dredge technology, timing and duration (recommended condition 9-4 (ii)). The final dredging duration and technology will need to be consistent with condition 9-1 which requires the dredging program to avoid the spring-summer period. The revised Zone of Influence should bound the composite of all of the predicted maximum extents of dredge plumes and represents the point beyond which dredge-generated plumes should not be discernible from background conditions at any stage during the dredging campaign. Based on the proponent’s advice during the assessment regarding the likely dredge technology and duration to be adopted, this revised Zone of Influence would be smaller than the one presented in the PER. The EPA has required the proponent to make this revised Zone of Influence publicly available prior to dredging commencing (recommended condition 9-4 (xii)). The EPA has also required that the revised Zone of Influence forms the basis of developing limits and targets which the proponent will need to monitor against during the dredging program. This is to ensure that the extent of the plumes is not greater than predicted. To increase the confidence in the predictions about dredge-generated plumes, the proponent has committed to undertaking intensive sampling of total suspended solids during the initial stages of dredging to validate the assumptions in the plume modelling and re-run the model using the collected data. This commitment is supported by the EPA and has been included as a requirement in the Dredging Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan required by condition 9-3. It is the EPA’s view that the proponent would not be able to undertake the proposed dredging without causing some dredge plume within Koombana Bay. This means that the aesthetic values of Koombana Bay will be temporarily compromised during the term of the dredging campaign. However, it is important to note that although there will be a temporary aesthetic impact, the proponent’s sediment analysis indicates that the dredge plume is not predicted to have an ecological or health impact. To manage the potential aesthetic impact during dredging, the EPA has required condition 9 to be implemented during dredge activities. Condition 9

13

requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Dredging Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan to provide for:

• the modelling and model validation of the likely dredge plume that will result during the dredge activities

• the establishment of reporting procedures to inform the general public of the actual dredge plumes movement and characteristics within Koombana Bay, and

• a framework for developing management and contingency actions to be implemented if the dredge plume moves beyond what has been modelled by the proponent.

Operations phase The key operational marine environmental quality issues associated with the proposal are considered to be ongoing contaminant inputs from coal spillages at the wharf from loading activities. Other aspects that could potentially impact marine environmental quality include:

• liquid and solid waste disposal

• leaks and spills during operation, and • discharge of stormwater.

The EQO for maintenance of ecosystem integrity has two LEPs that would apply in the Port waters – ‘High’ and ‘Moderate’. All of the Inner Harbour would be assigned a ‘Moderate’ LEP in recognition of existing port activities. The allocation of a moderate LEP in the Inner Harbour recognises that, around wharves, jetties and ship turning basins, there is enhanced potential for a range of uncontrolled contaminant inputs (e.g. shedding of antifouling paints, stormwater, product spillage) in addition to turbidity and sediment mobilisation during ship berthing. A ‘High’ LEP would apply directly outside the entrance of the Inner Harbour, in Koombana Bay. As the proponent’s proposal is located entirely in the Inner Harbour, it would need to be managed and monitored to meet a Moderate LEP. This is recognised by the proponent. Spillage of coal product into the marine environment from the wharf and vessel hatches is one of the key threats from the proposal. The proponent has committed to best practice management of the storage and loading of coal material. Elements of best practice include enclosed conveyor infrastructure loading coal material directly into vessels. The proponent has also advised that drainage systems and procedures will be in place to ensure contaminants and coal materials spillage does not enter the marine environment during wash-down, and is recovered and disposed of appropriately. The DER is required to regulate the proposal under Part V of the EP Act. The DER has advised that the works approval and licencing process will require the conditioning of appropriate emissions control technology to minimise risk of

14

coal spillages and, where spills do occur, they are recovered and disposed of appropriately. Accordingly, it is the EPA’s view that the proposal can be managed to the meet the EPA’s objectives for this factor during operations, without the requirement for Ministerial conditions provided that a works approval and licence is obtained from the DER. Notwithstanding the above, the EPA has also included other advice in Section 5 in view of the need to have a holistic and consultative approach to the ongoing management of marine waters in Bunbury Port that goes beyond the impacts from just this proposal. This advice is about the need to establish a plan of spatially allocated EVs, EQOs and LEPs consistent with the EPA’s Environmental Quality Management Framework for the ongoing and long term management of Port waters, including Koombana Bay.

Summary Having particular regard to:

(a) levels for all contaminants in the dredge material being below Commonwealth NAGD guideline thresholds and that the proponent has concluded the likely risk to ecosystem and human use environmental values to be low;

(b) the dredge plume is likely cause a temporary aesthetic impact during the construction phase, however, the dredge plume is not predicted to have an ecological or health impact;

(c) the requirement for water quality monitoring of Koombana Bay during marine construction activities, particularly in areas of high recreational usage, and publishing the monitoring results to inform the public and stakeholders of the results; and

(d) dredging activities will be restricted to occur outside the summer period when recreational usage is expected to be at its highest,

it is the EPA’s opinion that the proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objective for this factor provided conditions 8 and 9 are imposed requiring the proposal to:

• manage the marine construction activities in a manner that meets the environmental quality objectives for maintenance of ecosystem health, seafood safe for human consumption and primary contact recreation

• manage the marine construction activities in a manner that minimises the extent of the dredge plume within Koombana Bay, and

• avoid dredging activities from November to March in any year.

15

3.2 Marine fauna The EPA’s environmental objective for this factor is to maintain the diversity, geographic distribution and viability of fauna at the species and population levels. The marine environment of the proposal area includes the waters of Koombana Bay. Potential threats to marine fauna in Koombana Bay from the proposal include underwater noise generated from:

• dredging activities

• marine pile driving activities, and

• rock fracturing (blasting) activities. Koombana Bay is already a hub of human activity, and there are significant vessel movements as a result of an operating Port and numerous private marinas. Koombana Bay supports a variety of marine fauna, including cetaceans, pinnipeds (sea lions and fur seals), penguins and predatory fish, some of which are listed or protected under State and Commonwealth legislation. Of the cetacean species, the Common Bottlenose dolphin (Turisops truncates) is considered to be of particular significance to the region and is most likely to be observed near the proposal area. The local dolphin community contributes to the region’s tourism industry as dolphin interaction activities at the Dolphin Discovery Centre (DDC) are a major attraction for the City of Bunbury (Zeppel, 2007). The calving season beginning in December and peaking in February and March is a critical time to dolphin populations as newborn calves are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Australian sea lions, New Zealand fur seals and little penguins are also known to utilise the marine waters of Koombana Bay, although with less frequency. The blue swimmer crab fishery was identified as being particularly important in the Bunbury region. Potter and de Lestang (2000) identified that the mean monthly densities of crabs were highest between mid-spring and mid-autumn and declined to very low or zero levels during winter and early spring. To mitigate the potential impact on marine fauna the proponent has proposed a number of modifications to the proposal’s construction methodology to reduce the intensity of underwater noise emissions, including:

• re-designing the proposal’s marine pile driving approach to ensure the need for marine pile driving is minimised. This is achievable by constructing Berth 14A in a manner that utilises dry-land pile insertion, and hence avoiding the in-water piling and underwater sound. Furthermore, the proponent aims to implement best management technologies, such as vibratory pile driving techniques, to reduce the intensity of underwater noise emissions associated with marine pile driving where it is unavoidable

16

• ensuring that if rock fracturing (blasting) of the Bunbury Basalt layer during dredging is necessary, only minimal blasting will be undertaken. Best practice technologies, such as low explosive devices, will also be investigated, and

• a commitment to extend the post-construction visual boat-based monitoring for a further 12 months by carrying out quarterly (every three months) visual boat-based dolphin monitoring from the conclusion of dredging. The visual boat-based monitoring program is also proposed to be carried out in partnership with the DDC to build on the data collected as part of the on-going South West Marine Research Program.

The EPA has recommended conditions 6 and 7 to protect marine mammals during the implementation of marine construction activities. Condition 6-7 provides for the protection of dolphins during peak calving periods by ensuring no rock fracturing (blasting) activities occur between October and May in any year. Marine construction activities that are permitted to occur within this period will be required to ensure exclusion zones are implemented. Marine fauna observers (condition 6-8) are required to monitor these exclusion zones for marine fauna and the activities will be suspended if cetaceans, pinnipeds or penguins are observed to enter these zones. Figure 2 of Appendix 5 shows the locations and extent of the exclusion zones as they apply to the relevant marine construction activities. Based on the proponent’s commitment and the controls in recommended condition 6, the EPA considers that there is a low risk of Bottlenose Dolphins being exposed to short-term acute impacts and physiological injury. Also, based on the proposal’s revised management approaches, the monitoring results from Binningup Southern Seawater Desalination proposal, as well as the proponent’s proposal being located within a busy working port, the EPA considered that there is a low risk of Bottlenose Dolphins becoming permanently displaced and not returning to Koombana Bay as a result of this proposal. The EPA has also identified introduced marine pests (IMP) as a potential source of risk to marine fauna and marine environmental quality. The two primary mechanisms by which IMP can be introduced are through ballast water and biofouling. The most likely sources of IMP are from dredge and construction equipment. The EPA has recommended condition 11 to manage the risk of IMP incursion in the waters of Koombana Bay. It is therefore considered that the proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objective for marine fauna.


(a) the proponent’s revised approach to pile driving, which aims to minimise marine pile driving and utilise best management

17

technologies such as vibratory pile driving where marine pile driving is considered to be necessary;

(b) requirement for marine fauna observers to monitor exclusion zones during dredging, marine pile driving and rock fracturing (blasting) activities;

(c) post-construction monitoring of Bottlenose Dolphin community; and (d) provisions to ensure introduced marine pests are controlled and

managed, it is the EPA’s opinion that the proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objective for this factor provided conditions are imposed requiring the proponent to:

• ensure best management technologies are identified and implemented during marine pile driving and rock fracturing (blasting) activities (condition 6-3);

• limit the period of rock fracturing (blasting) to exclude the period from 1 October to 31 May in any year (condition 6-7);

• ensure marine fauna observers are present during all marine construction activities and exclusion zones are enforced (6-10); and

• manage the risk of incursion of introduced marine pests.

3.3 Benthic communities and habitat The EPA’s environmental objective for this factor is to maintain the structure, function, diversity, distribution and viability of benthic communities and habitats at local and regional scales. The proponent has carried out benthic surveys of Koombana Bay. Results from survey work have shown that the bay is dominated by a bare sand substrate and comprises a low biotic cover (less than two per cent) with trace amounts of foliose and turf algae (Figure 5). No seagrass was observed in Koombana Bay during the habitat surveys. However, one area of reef (about 15 ha) located about 2 km from the berth pocket on the north-eastern margin of the bay (shown in figure 5), was surveyed and observed to consist of foliose algae and filter feeders (Wave Solutions, 2012a). The EPA has identified the key issue relevant to benthic communities and habitat to be impacts associated with a dredge plume resulting from dredging activities. Dredging increases water turbidity levels through an increase in total suspended sediments (TSS) in the water column and an increase in sedimentation. Elevated TSS leads to a decrease in water transparency and a corresponding decrease in light that is available to primary producer benthic communities, which can affect their photosynthetic capacity. The proponent has predicted and presented the potential impacts on benthic communities consistent with the framework provided in the EPA’s Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 7 for Marine Dredging Proposals. The proponent’s predicted zones of high and moderate impacts are located

18

close to the Inner Harbour. No benthic communities occur within these predicted zones. The zone of influence however, coincides with the benthic communities and habitats mentioned above (turf algae and filter feeder communities). Plumes in the zone of influence are not expected to be of an intensity which would have an ecological impact and hence there is a low risk that these communities will be impacted. Recognising this, the EPA has recommended condition 10 for benthic communities which is not linked to dredge management responses. The condition provides for baseline monitoring of benthic community health before and post-construction, to confirm no detectable impact to benthic communities occurs within the Zone of Influence. Summary The EPA considers the key environmental factor of benthic communities and habitat has been adequately addressed. The EPA’s objectives for this factor are likely to be met provided that conditions are imposed requiring the proponent to:

(a) undertake baseline monitoring of benthic communities health prior to dredging, and

(b) undertake post-construction monitoring to confirm no impact to benthic communities occurs as a result of implementation of the proposal.

19

Figure 5. Benthic communities and habitat of Koombana Bay

20

3.4 Air quality (dust emissions) The EPA’s environmental objective for air quality is to maintain air quality of the environment and human health and amenity. The proposal will be located in a busy operating Port that accommodates industries and activities including mineral sands, woodchips and alumina export operations. Coal dust is the key emission that could result from the operation of the proposal and impact the EPA’s objective. The proponent has identified the following potential operational dust emission sources associated with the proposal:

• fugitive emissions from the partially-enclosed train unloading facility

• conveyors and their transfer points

• ship load out facilities, and

• emissions from the dust extraction system associated with the storage sheds.

Noting this, the proponent proposes to implement world’s best management technologies at the site to assist in minimising fugitive dust emissions. Best management technologies proposed by the proponent include:

• Coal stockpiles will be fully enclosed in a steel frame and clad building (large shed) and dust emissions shall be minimised through the use of a dust suppression spray water system with provision for negative pressurisation and dust extraction. It is considered best practice within Australia to cover coal stockpiles.

• Conveyors will be enclosed, with provision for controlled wash-down of spillage.

• Transfer points will be fully enclosed and fitted with misting sprays to supress dust emissions at transfer points and dust extraction of conveyors at transfer points will use local ducted bag filters to collect any remaining airborne dust.

• The ship loading facility will be fitted with a fully enclosed boom conveyor, a washdown system and a telescopic spout with misting sprays designed to minimise the drop height of material into the holds of vessels.

• Rail wagons will be covered to minimise fugitive emissions. Advice from the DEC (now DER) confirms that it is unlikely that zero air emissions of coal dust from the site will be achieved. However, the EPA supports the proponent’s implementation of best management technologies to ensure the dust emissions are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable. When compared to other coal export facilities around Australia, these technologies represent best practice for coal export facilities in Australia.

21

The EPA has received advice from the DEC (now DER) indicating that coal dust emissions can be managed under Part V of the EP Act, specifically by conditioning appropriate emissions control technologies in the works approval and licences. The scope of the works approval will address the above coal dust management technology, as well as the requirement to identify dust monitoring locations, frequency of sampling, and sampling methodology, which will include real time monitoring and dust speciation. Collie coal that will be processed through Berth 14A is classed as sub-bituminous and under certain conditions can be subject to spontaneous combustion. The proponent is aware of these risks and has incorporated technologies that will monitor for hot-spots in stored coal, fire detection and suppression systems, and a carbon monoxide (CO) gas detection system to monitor and mitigate the risk of fire. The EPA has been advised that the risk of spontaneous combustion can be managed under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994, which is administered by Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). In accordance with this Act the proponent will be required to prepare a Project Management Plan to the satisfaction of DMP, who will inspect the facility to ensure measures are in place that mitigate the potential for the combustion of coal. In view of the measures proposed by the proponent and the controls available through Part V of the EP Act and under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994, the EPA considers that its objectives for this factor can be met and has not recommended a condition for this factor.


(a) The best management technologies proposed for the proposal that aim to minimise fugitive dust emissions to as low as reasonably practicable

(b) a fire detection and suppression system and CO gas detection system to monitor coal and mitigate the risk of fire

(c) the DEC (now DER) indicating that coal dust emissions can be managed under Part V of the EP Act, and

(d) the risk of spontaneous combustion able to be managed under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994,

it is the EPA’s opinion that the proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objective for this factor, without the requirement for a Ministerial condition provided that a works approval and licence is obtained from the DER.

22

3.5 Amenity (noise) The EPA’s environmental objective for amenity is to ensure that impacts to amenity are reduced as low as reasonably practicable. The proposal will be located in an operating port that experiences noise emissions from a range of industries and activities including mineral sands, woodchips and alumina export operations. The proposal’s main sources of noise that could contribute to cumulative noise levels at the port include emissions from the coal stackers, conveyors and ship loading facility. Noise management in Western Australia is implemented through the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Regulations) which operate under the EP Act. The Regulations specify maximum noise levels (assigned levels) which are the highest noise levels that can be received at noise-sensitive premises, commercial and industrial premises. The assigned noise levels for the Bunbury area are shown in Table 2 and the locations of receptor sites are shown in Figure 4. Table 2: Assigned noise levels for selected receptors

Time of Day

Assigned Noise Levels – LA10 dB(A) Locations R1, R2, R4,

R5

Location R3

Commercial Premises

Industrial Premises

0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Saturday

45 52 60 65

0900 to 1900 hours Sunday and public holidays

40 47 60 65

1900 to 2200 hours all days

40 47 60 65 2200 hours on any day to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and public holidays

35 42 60 65

The Regulations require that noise emissions must not exceed or significantly contribute to an exceedance of the assigned noise levels. Since there are other port users that can be considered as significant contributors, noise emissions from the proposed coal handling facility should be five decibels (dB) below the assigned noise levels when these other port users are operating. The noise limit accounts for cumulative noise impacts from other operating projects within the port. The proponent’s initial noise modelling of the proposal’s facilities has shown that noise emissions, when considered in isolation, can comply with the assigned noise levels. However, accounting for noise from other port users, it

23

is likely that cumulative noise impacts will exceed the night-time assigned noise levels under certain operating and weather conditions (SVT, 2012). The EPA understands that a risk of non-compliance would occur under worst case scenarios when the wind is blowing from the proposed berth to the affected residences and noise from other port operations is present and/or at high levels. Under these circumstances the noise from the proposed berth would likely result in exceedences on allowed night-time noise levels. To reduce the risk of this non-compliance, the proponent has modified its proposal to incorporate only one ship loader as part of its operations. This modification has reduced the predicted noise emission level from ship loading by three decibels. Preliminary modelling conducted by the proponent has shown that there is now likely to be no exceedances at any receiver locations within the City of Bunbury. The EPA has received advice from the DEC (now DER) stating that noise emissions from the proposal’s operations can be managed to substantially comply with the Regulations. Furthermore, the DER recommends that the proponent continue work with the BPA to ensure that the cumulative noise emissions from the port, including that from the proposed Berth 14A expansion, are adequately managed. In addition, the EPA notes that noise and vibrations associated with pile driving can be managed under the Regulations. Construction noise is exempt from meeting assigned noise levels if carried out during the appropriate hours under a noise management plan approved by the CEO of the City of Bunbury and/or the DER. In view of the measures proposed by the proponent and the controls available under the Noise Regulations, the EPA considers that its objectives for this factor can be met and has not recommended a condition for this factor. As a result of the assessment of this proposal, the EPA has also provided other advice in Section 5 of this report relating to cumulative noise emissions at Bunbury Port.

Summary Having particular regard to: (a) modification of the proposal by the proponent to incorporate only one

ship loader, reducing the predicted noise emission by three decibels; and

(b) preliminary modelling conducted by the proponent has shown that there are now likely to be no noise exceedances,

it is the EPA’s opinion that the proposal can be managed to meet the environmental objective for this factor without the requirement for a Ministerial condition in view of the Regulations available under the EP Act to manage noise emissions.

24

Figure 6 – Receiver locations

25

3.6 Environmental principles In preparing this report and recommendations, the EPA has had regard for the object and principles contained in s4A of the EP Act. Appendix 3 contains a summary of the EPA’s consideration of the principles.

4. Conditions Section 44 of the EP Act requires the EPA to report to the Minister for Environment on the key environmental factors relevant to the proposal and on the conditions and procedures to which the proposal should be subject, if implemented. In addition, the EPA may make recommendations as it sees fit.

4.1 Recommended conditions Having considered the information provided in this report, the EPA has developed a set of conditions that the EPA recommends be imposed if the proposal by Lanco Resources to develop the Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage and Loading Facility within the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour is approved for implementation. These conditions are presented in Appendix 5. Matters addressed in the conditions include the following:

(a) minimising impacts to marine fauna during construction through requirements for Marine Fauna Observers to be present, and restricting rock fracturing (blasting) operational timing (condition 6);

(b) requiring the development and implementation of a Dolphin Monitoring Plan with the aim of ensuring that there are no long-term adverse effects on the abundance and distribution of the Bottlenose Dolphin in Koombana Bay (condition 7);

(c) monitoring and managing impacts to marine environmental quality from marine construction activities to achieve the relevant Environmental Quality Objectives within Koombana Bay (condition 8);

(d) ensuring the marine construction activities are managed in a manner that minimises the extent of the dredge plume within Koombana Bay, and restricting the dredge operational timing (condition 9);

(e) ensuring the health and distribution of any benthic communities and habitat in Koombana Bay are monitored post-construction (condition 10); and

(f) prevention and control of ‘Introduced Marine Pests’ during construction (condition 11).

4.2 Consultation In developing these conditions, the EPA consulted with the proponent, the DEC (now DER), the DoF and the BPA in respect of matters of fact and matters of technical or implementation significance.

26

5. Other advice

Marine environmental quality

In 2008 the BPA undertook the development of a Long-term Marine Monitoring Program within the Authority’s controlled marine waters. The Program aimed to document the status of any contaminants of concern in seawater, sediment and biota over time (annually) in accordance with the Commonwealth’s National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (SKM, 2011). The Program, although implemented, has not been designed or implemented in a manner that conforms with the EPA’s Environmental Quality Management Framework (EQMF). This means that a spatial plan of Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) and Levels of Ecological Protection (LEPs) within the Inner Harbour, as well as a large portion of Koombana Bay, has not been developed and agreed with the community and the EPA.

If a marine monitoring program incorporating the EPA’s EQMF was available for existing port activities, and was supported by a port-wide Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), it would allow for the integration of individual monitoring programs from all the operating port users/exporters in the BPA’s controlled marine waters (i.e. Alcoa, Worsley, Hansol, Bemax, Talison, Tiwest, etc). Also, proponents of future export facilities, such as Lanco Resources Australia, would then be required to design a monitoring and management program in the context of the BPA’s spatial plan of EQOs and LEPs and contribute towards the implementation of the BPA’s port-wide EMMP.

The EPA has required the BPA to undertake work to identify EVs, EQOs and LEPs as part of its Environmental Scoping Document for the Strategic Proposal for the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour expansion plan (assessment number 1879). However, at this stage it is not likely to be submitted to the EPA until mid-2014. Therefore, it is the EPA’s view that this work should be brought forward so that future proposals, as well as existing day-to-day operations in the Port, operate under an approved EQMF. The EPA will work closely with the BPA in the immediate future to develop a spatial plan of EQOs and LEPs and supporting EMMP, and will offer any required expertise and advice on the application of the EQMF in port waters. Amenity (noise) Through the assessment of this proposal it has become apparent to the EPA that there are cumulative noise issues at the Port. This has been confirmed through meetings with the BPA, who advised that it was its view that despite its best efforts, exceedences of noise standards, on occasion, may be occurring at the Port. These cumulative noise emissions are the result of all current port users carrying out their operations simultaneously. This issue is viewed as a particularly significant environmental matter for the community, and from the BPA’s perspective it could constrain future port developments.

27

Advice received from the DEC’s Noise Regulation Branch (now part of the DER) indicates that management of existing and future cumulative noise emissions from the Port could be evaluated through a Regulation 17 application under the Noise Regulations. The BPA have discussed the possibility of submitting a Regulation 17 application as part of the Inner Harbour Structure Plan, with the view to have the noise issues dealt with before Lanco’s Berth 14A proposal becomes operational. Further discussions are intended to be held with the DER and the BPA regarding the process of the Regulation 17 assessment and how this could be progressed in parallel with the EPA’s assessment of the Inner Harbour Structure Plan. This includes the issue of timing and rationalising the opportunities for public review and comment on the BPA’s strategic proposal and reporting.

Recommendations The EPA submits the following recommendations to the Minister for Environment:

• That the Minister notes that the proposal being assessed is to develop the Bunbury Port Berth 14A Coal Storage and Loading Facility within the Bunbury Port Inner harbour

• That the Minister considers the report on the key environmental factors and principles as set out in Section 3

• That the Minister notes the EPA has concluded that it is likely that the EPA’s objectives would be achieved, provided there is satisfactory implementation by the proponent of the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 4 and summarised in Section 4, and

• That the Minister imposes the conditions and procedures recommended in Appendix 4 of this report.

28

Appendix 1

List of submitters

Organisations: Department of Fisheries Department of State Development Department of Planning Department of Health Department of Indigenous Affairs Department of Environment and Conservation Department of Transport Department of Water City of Bunbury AqWest Bunbury Port Authority Bunbury Dolphin Centre Cetacean Research Unit WAPRES Perdaman Chemicals Pelican Point Estate Bunbury Wellington Economic Alliance Doctors for the Environment ALCOA Individuals: M Johnson M Keiley J Burgin A & T Franco M Kneale S Turner P Bazzo D Scott-Hamilton H Freeman M Doust B Humble G & K Ralph P Chapman M Blake J Cicchillitti R & J Hammersley D Papalia J Larmin D Hill K & G Ausden J Waring D Willis J Jenkins E L Parsons

Appendix 2

References

Commonwealth of Australia (2009) National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging, Commonwealth of Western Australia, Canberra. Gedamke J, Rafic M and Hinten G (2008) Progress report on cetacean research, January 2008 to December 2008, with statistical data for the calendar year 2008, Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth. Parsons Brinckerhoff (2012) Bunbury Port Berth 14A Expansion and Coal Storage and Loading Facility Public Environmental Review Prepared for Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd, Parsons Brinckergoff, Perth. Potter IC and de Lestang S (2000) Biology of the blue swimmer crab Portunus pelagicus in Leschenault Estuary and Koombana Bay, south-western Australia, Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 83: 443-458. SKM (2011) Bunbury Port Environmental Management Long-term Monitoring Programme Prepared for the Bunbury Port Authority, SKM, Perth. SVT Engineering Consultants (2012) Technical Report 16 – Noise Impact Assessment Prepared for Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd, SVT, Perth. Wave Solutions (2012) Technical Report 8 – Marine sediment sampling and analysis plan report prepared for Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd Wave Solutions, Perth. Wave Solutions (2012a) Technical Report 5 – Benthic habitats near Bunbury, Western Australia prepared for Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd, Wave Solutions, Perth. Zeppel H (2007) Meeting Flipper in the wild: Managing swim with dolphin tourism in Australia, 5th International Coastal and Marine Tourism Congress: Balancing Marine Tourism, Development and Sustainability (CMT2007), 11-15 Sep 2007, Auckland, New Zealand.

Appendix 3

Summary of identification of key environmental factors and principles

Preliminary Environmental

Factors Proposal

Characteristics Government Agency and Public

Comments Identification of Key

Environmental Factors

Marine environmental quality

Impacts to water quality through dredging during construction and ship movements and maintenance dredging during operation.

• Lack of sufficient information and evaluation about dredge disposal.

• Not enough consideration of the cumulative impacts of previous and new dredge campaigns.

• Mobilisation of contaminated sediments could affect human health.

• Technical comments were made regarding the modelling.

Considered to be a key environmental factor discussed in section 3.1

Marine fauna Injury or death of marine fauna due to rock fracturing (blasting) during construction. Indirect impacts due to avoidance behaviour during construction and operation

• Pile driving, rock fracturing (blasting), dredging, spoil disposal and reduced water quality has the potential to impact on the Koombana Bay dolphin population as well as other marine fauna such as fish.

• Long-term adverse impacts on dolphins may be possible due to the duration of the dredge campaign and the significant disturbance posed by blasting/rock fracturing.

• Better management and monitoring programs should be implemented.

Considered to be a key environmental factor, discussed in section 3.2.

Benthic habitat Potential impact to macroalgae reef community within the Zone of Influence

No comments received. Considered to be a key environmental factor, discussed in section 3.3.

Flora and vegetation

Loss of 6 ha of vegetation of which only

• Indirect impacts to the remaining vegetation from erosion and/or

Most of the site is completely degraded or degraded. The 2 ha of


Factors Proposal




2 ha is composed of native species.

contamination need to be addressed. • A landscape management plan should be

required.

native vegetation is degraded with a small area in good condition but the area is fragmented and the project is unlikely to impact species viability. Landscape management and erosion will be addressed through management plans prior to construction. Not considered to be a key environmental factor

Terrestrial fauna Loss of black cockatoo foraging habitat

• Management and mitigation measures are needed to address fauna entrapment in trenches.

Fauna habitats within the proposal area are generally poor in condition and provide only limited habitat for some opportunistic birds and common amphibian species. Black cockatoo foraging habitat is small (< 1 ha) and not all is likely to be lost as a consequence of the proposal. The environmental management plan for site will include a requirement for regular inspections of trenches for fauna. Not considered to be a key environmental factor


Factors Proposal




Inland waters environmental quality (groundwater)

Reduced integrity of the confining Bunbury Basalt layer. Contamination and/or acidification of the groundwater due to construction and/or operation.

• Risk that rock fracturing (blasting) could result in pathways for water to flow between the harbour and the Yarragadee aquifer.

• Surface water flows (including during flood events) should be managed. Any water discharged to the harbour must meet relevant Australian standards.

The thickness of the Bunbury Basalt layer beneath Berth 14A has been characterised by the proponent’s geological surveys to be about 40 m thick. A review of DoW’s bore logs has confirmed this. If rock fracturing (blasting) is required, the proponent has indicated that precision blasting techniques will be deployed by blasting experts. These techniques include using low explosive devices that expand the rock as opposed to blasting that causes fracturing. Noting this, it is considered that there is low risk of the proposal impacting the integrity of the Bunbury Basalt layer. The proposal area will be bunded to cope with a 1 in 100 year event. Surface water will be collected and pumped into Waste Water Treatment Plant within the site to be recycled back into the system. Discharge to the estuary is not proposed. The final water management plan will be sent to the DoW and the DER prior to construction.


Factors Proposal




Not considered to be a key environmental factor

Terrestrial environmental quality

Disturbance of acid sulfate soils. Disturbance of contaminated soils.

• Soil sampling, analysis and reporting needs to be undertaken.

• There is a risk that fugitive coal may cause contamination of other port users’ stockpiles and infrastructure.

A detailed site investigation for contamination will be completed prior to any earthworks being undertaken on the site. Consultation with relevant authorities will also be undertaken if required. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 requires that sites must be investigated and if required, remediated to the satisfaction of the DER. The risk of coal contamination can be managed through infrastructure containment and regular inspections. Acid sulfate soils will be addressed through a management plan prepared to the satisfaction of the DER. Not considered to be a key environmental factor


Factors Proposal




Air quality Increases in the dust load in the air shed during construction and operation. Risk of spontaneous combustion.

• The proposal will result in increased dust levels at residential areas.

• All coal transport and storage sheds need to be enclosed and have dust extraction systems in place.

• Issues were raised concerning the dust modelling.

• Risk of spontaneous combustion.

The proponent has committed to implementing best management technologies to assist in minimising fugitive dust emissions at the site to as low as reasonably practicable. The EPA has received advice from DEC indicating that coal dust emissions can be managed under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, specifically by conditioning appropriate emissions control technologies in the Works Approval and Licences. The site would be subject to the Mine Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and the spontaneous combustion/fire risk this would need to be covered off under a Project Management Plan approval. Considered to be key environmental factor, discussed in section 3.4


Factors Proposal




Noise and vibrations

Increased noise levels due to construction and operation.

• The proposal will result in increases in noise levels during construction and operation.

In isolation, the proposal will meet the assigned noise levels however compliance for the cumulative impact is dependent on the port operating conditions and weather. Modelling indicates that exceedences will occur 20% of the time. A noise management plan will be prepared for the approval of the DER and the proponent will continue to work with the BPA and the DER to comply with the Regulations. Not considered to be a key environmental factor, discussed in section 3.5.

PRINCIPLES

Principle Relevant Yes/No

If yes, Consideration

1. The precautionary principle Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In application of this precautionary principle, decisions should be guided by – (a) careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and (b) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

Yes In considering this principle, the EPA notes the following: • Investigations of the biological and physical environment

should provide background information to assess risks and identify measures to avoid or minimise impacts.

• The assessment of these impacts and management is provided in Section 3 of this report.

• Conditions have been recommended as considered necessary.

2. The principle of intergenerational equity The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

Yes The proposal would result in potential impacts to marine environmental quality from marine construction activities, and ongoing operational discharges. These values are relevant environmental factors and discussed in this report. Conditions have been recommended to ensure minimal impact.

3. The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.

Yes The proposal has the potential to affect the marine environmental quality of Bunbury Port Inner Harbour and Koombana Bay. Marine environmental quality, benthic habitat

and marine fauna are key environmental factors discussed in this report.

4. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms (1) Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services. (2) The polluter pays principles – those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance and

abatement. (3) The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life-cycle costs of providing goods and services,

including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste. (4) Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structure, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximize benefits and/or minimize costs to develop their own solution and responses to environmental problems.

Yes The proponent should bear the cost of any potential pollution, containment, monitoring, management, decommissioning.

5. The principle of waste minimisation All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to minimize the generation of waste and its discharge into the environment.

Yes The marine waters of the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour and Koombana Bay have the potential to change marine environmental quality through the marine construction activities and operational activities of the proposal. This is a key environmental factor of this report and appropriate conditions have been recommended.

Appendix 4

Identified Decision-making Authorities and Recommended Environmental Conditions

Identified Decision-making Authorities

Section 44(2) of the EP Act specifies that the EPA’s report must set out (if it recommends that implementation be allowed) the conditions and procedures, if any, to which implementation should be subject. This Appendix contains the EPA’s recommended conditions and procedures. Section 45(1) requires the Minister for Environment to consult with decision-making authorities, and if possible, agree on whether or not the proposal may be implemented, and if so, to what conditions and procedures, if any, that implementation should be subject. The following decision-making authorities have been identified for this consultation:

Decision-making Authority Approval 1. Minister for Water Water extraction licence (Rights in Water

and Irrigation Act 1914) 2. Department of Mines and

Petroleum Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 and Mine Safety and Inspection Act 1994

3. Bunbury Port Authority (CEO) Port Authorities Act 1999

4. Minister for State Development

Collie Coal (Griffin) Agreement Act 1979

5. Department of Environment Regulation

Part V Licence and Works Approval under the Environmental Protection Act 1986

6. Minister for Transport Port Authorities Act 1999

Note: In this instance, agreement is only required with DMAs 1, 4, and 6 as these DMAs are Ministers.

RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

STATEMENT THAT A PROPOSAL MAY BE IMPLEMENTED (PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1986)

Bunbury Berth 14A Expansion Project

Proposal: The proposal is to construct and operate a coal handling and export facility within the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour in the south-west region of Western Australia.

Proponent: Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd Proponent Address: Level 1 677 Murray Street West Perth WA 6005 Assessment Number: 1886

Report of the Environmental Protection Authority Number: 1486

This Statement authorises the implementation of the Proposal described and documented in Columns 1 and 2 of Table 2 of Schedule 1. The implementation of the Proposal is subject to the following implementation conditions and procedures and Table 3 of Schedule 1 details definitions of terms used in the implementation conditions and procedures.

1 Proposal Implementation

1-1 When implementing the proposal, the proponent shall not exceed the authorised extent of the proposal as defined in Column 3 of Table 2 in Schedule 1, unless amendments to the proposal and the authorised extent of the Proposal has been approved under the EP Act.

2 Contact Details

2-1 The proponent shall notify the CEO of any change of its name, physical address or postal address for the serving of notices or other correspondence within twenty eight (28) days of such change. Where the proponent is a corporation or an association of persons, whether incorporated or not, the postal address is that of the principal place of business or of the principal office in the State.

3 Time Limit for Proposal Implementation

3-1 The proponent shall not commence implementation of the proposal

after the expiration of five (5) years from the date of this statement, and

any commencement, within this five (5) year period, must be substantial.

3-2 Any commencement of implementation of the proposal, within five (5) years from the date of this statement, must be demonstrated as substantial by providing the CEO with written evidence, on or before the expiration of five (5) years from the date of this statement.

4 Compliance Reporting

4-1 The proponent shall prepare and maintain a compliance assessment

plan to the satisfaction of the CEO.

4-2 The proponent shall submit to the CEO the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1 at least six (6) months prior to the first compliance assessment report required by condition 4-6, or prior to implementation, whichever is sooner.

The compliance assessment plan shall indicate: (i) the frequency of compliance reporting; (ii) the approach and timing of compliance assessments; (iii) the retention of compliance assessments; (iv) the method of reporting of potential non-compliances and

corrective actions taken; (v) the table of contents of compliance assessment reports; and (vi) public availability of compliance assessment reports.

4-3 The proponent shall assess compliance with conditions in accordance

with the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1.

4-4 The proponent shall retain reports of all compliance assessments described in the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1 and shall make those reports available when requested by the CEO.

4-5 The proponent shall advise the CEO of any potential non-compliance

within seven (7) days of that non-compliance being known. 4-6 The proponent shall submit to the CEO the first compliance

assessment report fifteen (15) months from the date of issue of this Statement addressing the twelve (12) month period from the date of issue of this Statement and then annually from the date of submission of the first compliance assessment report.

The compliance assessment report shall: (i) be endorsed by the proponent’s Managing Director or a person

delegated to sign on the Managing Director’s behalf;

(ii) include a statement as to whether the proponent has complied with the conditions;

(iii) identify all potential non-compliances and describe corrective and preventative actions taken;

(iv) be made publicly available in accordance with the approved compliance assessment plan; and

(v) indicate any proposed changes to the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1.

5 Public Availability of Data

5-1 Subject to condition 5-2, within a reasonable time period approved by the CEO of the issue of this statement and for the remainder of the life of the proposal the proponent shall make publicly available, in a manner approved by the CEO, all validated environmental data (including sampling design, sampling methodologies, empirical data and derived information products (e.g. maps)) relevant to the assessment of this proposal and implementation of this Statement.

5-2 If any data referred to in condition 5-1 contains particulars of: (i) a secret formula or process; or (ii) confidential commercially sensitive information;

the proponent may submit a request for approval from the CEO to not make this data publically available. In making such a request the proponent shall provide the CEO with an explanation and reasons why the data should not be made publically available.

6 Marine Fauna (Construction) 6-1 Prior to the commencement of any marine pile driving and rock

fracturing (blasting) activities, the proponent shall prepare a Marine Pile Driving and Rock Fracturing (Blasting) Plan subject to the approval of the CEO.

6-2 The objectives of the Marine Pile Driving and Rock Fracturing (Blasting) Plan are to: (i) minimise the need for marine pile driving and rock fracturing

(blasting) in the inner habour; and (ii) for elements of the proposal where marine pile driving and rock

fracturing are necessary, ensure that it has been planned and designed to minimise underwater noise emissions.

6-3 The Marine Pile Driving and Rock Fracturing (Blasting) Plan required

pursuant to condition 6-1 shall include: (i) the duration, timing and methodology of each activity; and

(ii) best practice management technologies that will be implemented during marine pile driving and rock fracturing (blasting) activities to minimise the intensity of underwater noise emissions, including the use of vibratory pile drivers and low explosive devices.

6-4 During marine pile driving or rock fracturing (blasting) activities, unless

otherwise agreed by the CEO, the proponent shall implement the approved plan required by condition 6-1.

6-5 Revisions to the Marine Pile Driving and Rock Fracturing (Blasting)

Plan may be approved by the CEO. 6-6 The proponent shall implement the revised Marine Pile Driving and

Rock Fracturing (Blasting) Plan required by condition 6-5. 6-7 No rock fracturing (blasting) activities shall occur between the dolphin

calving periods defined as between 1 October to 31 May in any year. 6-8 Prior to construction and for the duration of the marine construction

activities, as defined in table 4 of Schedule 1, the proponent shall engage dedicated Marine Fauna Observers (observers) who must: (i) demonstrate a knowledge of marine wildlife species in the

South-west Region of Western Australia, including Threatened and Migratory Species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and Wildlife Conservation (Specially protected fauna) Notice 2010(2) (and their updates) and priority listing, and their behaviours;

(ii) have the capacity, subject to safety considerations, to move and make observations and other relevant records independently within 500 metres of marine construction activities;

(iii) be on duty during all marine construction activities; and (iv) maintain a log of:

a. their observations of cetaceans in a format consistent with the National Cetacean Sightings and Strandings Database;

b. observations of cetaceans, pinnipeds and penguins, including injured or dead fauna within 500 metres (m) of the marine construction activities referred to in 6-8 (ii);

c. observations of cetaceans, pinnipeds and penguins behaviours, in particular any behaviour that could be interpreted as a display of disturbance or distress;

d. management responses by the proponent in relation to observation of disturbed or distressed fauna, and injured or dead fauna;

e. observation hours; and f. the duration of the marine construction activities.

6-9 The proponent shall within six (6) months of completing marine

construction activities, lodge cetacean records with the National Cetacean Sighting and Strandings Database at the Australian Antarctic Division and with the DPaW.

6-10 The Marine Fauna Observer as required by condition 6-8 is to be

present on each vessel undertaking marine construction activities, or land-based location approved by the CEO, and will be trained in marine fauna observations and mitigation measures, including the requirements of the Wildlife Conservation (Closed Season Marine Mammals) Notice 1998, as amended or replaced from time to time, and maintain a watch and a log of fauna observed during transit and construction activity consisting of: GPS coordinates; species (if known); and behaviour. Logs are to be submitted to the DPaW on an annual basis at the same time as submitting the compliance assessment report required by condition 4-6 to the CEO.

6-11 Subject to condition 6-7, no marine construction activities, shall commence until the observer(s) required by condition 6-8 have verified that no cetacean(s), pinniped(s) or penguin(s) have been observed within the: (i) Marine Fauna Observation Zone delineated in Figure 2 of

Schedule 1, during rock fracturing (blasting); (ii) Marine Pile Driving Exclusion Zone delineated in Figure 2 of

Schedule 1, during marine pile driving activities; or (iii) Dredging Exclusion Zone delineated in Figure 2 of Schedule 1,

during dredging activities,

during the thirty (30) minute period immediately prior to commencement of the relevant marine construction activity.

6-12 Prior to commencement of full power marine pile driving, the proponent shall implement soft start-up procedures that slowly increase the intensity of noise emissions over a period of no less than fifteen (15) minutes.

6-13 If the observer(s) required by condition 6-8, or any other person,

observes cetacean(s), pinniped(s) or penguin(s) within the: (i) Marine Fauna Observation Zone delineated in Figure 2 of

Schedule 1, during rock fracturing (blasting); (ii) Marine Pile Driving Exclusion Zone delineated in Figure 2 of

Schedule 1, during marine pile driving activities; or (iii) Dredging Exclusion Zone delineated in Figure 2 of Schedule 1,

during dredging activities, those activities are to be suspended.

6-14 Marine construction activities that have been suspended in accordance with condition 6-13 shall not recommence until the cetacean(s), pinniped(s) or penguin(s) has moved beyond: (i) the Marine Fauna Observation Zone delineated in Figure 2 of

Schedule 1, for rock fracturing (blasting); (ii) Marine Pile Driving Exclusion Zone delineated in Figure 2 of

Schedule 1, for marine pile driving activities; or (iii) Dredging Exclusion Zone delineated in Figure 2 of Schedule 1,

for dredging activities,

for a period of thirty (30) minutes. 6-15 Marine pile driving that has been suspended for more than fifteen (15)

minutes shall recommence with soft start-up procedures as required by condition 6-12.

7 Marine Fauna (Dolphin Monitoring)

7-1 Prior to the commencement of marine construction activities, the

proponent shall prepare a Dolphin Monitoring Plan subject to the approval of the CEO in order demonstrate that condition 7-2 has been met.

7-2 The objective of the Dolphin Monitoring Plan is to ensure that marine construction activities are carried out with the aim of ensuring that there are no long-term adverse effects on the abundance and distribution of the Bottlenose Dolphin in Koombana Bay.

7-3 The Dolphin Monitoring Plan shall include: (i) procedures and protocols for a monitoring program to measure

dolphin abundance and distribution, consistent with the studies and long-term monitoring programs that have been undertaken in Koombana Bay;

(ii) visual boat-based dolphin monitoring, as a component of the dolphin monitoring procedures in 7-3 (i) above;

(iii) the temporal and spatial scales at which the protocols and procedures in 7-3 (i) would apply;

(iv) the reporting procedures, including the format, timing and frequency for the monitoring data and method of comparing against the available baseline data of dolphin abundance and distribution; and

(v) protocol’s for ongoing consultation with the Dolphin Discovery Centre on dolphin monitoring results.

7-4 Prior to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise agreed by

the CEO, the proponent shall implement the approved plan required by

Condition 7-3 and continue to implement the plan during marine construction activities and for 12 months following the completion of marine construction activities.

7-5 A report shall be submitted to the CEO which includes trends of the

abundance and distribution of the local Bottlenose Dolphins as monitored by Condition 7-3 compared with the baseline data collected by the South West Marine Research Program - Cetacean Research Project, within 18 months following the completion of construction.

8 Marine Environmental Quality (Construction) 8-1 The proponent shall manage the marine construction activities in a

manner that meets the environmental quality objectives listed in Schedule 2 within the area shown in Figure 3.

8-2 Prior to the commencement of dredging, the proponent shall prepare a

Construction Marine Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan subject to the approval of the CEO to demonstrate that condition 8-1 has been met.

8-3 The Construction Marine Environmental Management and Monitoring

Plan shall include for all environmental quality objectives: (i) the location of monitoring sites for monitoring water and biota

quality, including at sites of high recreational usage; (ii) a baseline water and biota quality survey plan, including

contaminants of concern at monitoring sites identified pursuant to condition 8-3 (i), based on the guidelines and recommended approaches in the Manual of Standard Operating Procedures for Environmental Monitoring against the Cockburn Sound Environmental Quality Criteria (2003-2004), as amended or replaced from time to time;

(iii) the development of trigger levels (total suspended solids not required) for the environmental quality objectives listed in Schedule 2;

(iv) protocols, procedures and frequency for monitoring and evaluating water and biota quality at monitoring sites required under condition 8-3 (i);

(v) procedures for publishing the monitoring results periodically throughout the marine construction activities to inform the stakeholders and public of the monitoring results;

(vi) reporting procedures, including the format, timing, and frequency for the reporting of monitoring data against the relevant trigger levels and environmental quality objectives; and

(vii) a framework for development of management and contingency actions to be implemented in the event that any trigger levels referred to in 8-3 (iii) are not met.

8-4 Prior to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise agreed by the CEO, the proponent shall implement the approved plan required by condition 8-1.

8-5 Revisions to the Construction Marine Environmental Management and

Monitoring Plan may be approved by the CEO. 8-6 The proponent shall implement approved revisions of the Construction

Marine Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan required by condition 8-5.

8-7 In the event that monitoring required in condition 8-3 indicates that the

trigger levels, are exceeded, or likely to be exceeded, due to construction, the proponent shall: (i) report such findings to the CEO within 48 hours of the

exceedance being identified; (ii) investigate to determine the likely cause(s) of the trigger levels in

condition 8-3(iii) being exceeded; (iii) if determined by CEO to be a result of activities undertaken in

implementing the proposal, the proponent shall submit actions to be taken until the trigger levels in condition 8-3(iii) are no longer exceeded, to the CEO; and

(iv) the actions required by 8-7(iii) to meet the trigger levels shall be undertaken upon approval of the CEO.

8-8 The proponent shall provide spatial data for the constructed marine

footprint as set out in Column 1, Table 2 of Schedule 1 to the CEO within 2 months of completion of construction.

9 Marine Environmental Quality (Dredge Plume Management) 9-1 The proponent shall not carry out any dredge activities as set out in

Schedule 1 of this statement between 1 November and 31 March in any year.

9-2 The proponent shall manage the marine construction activities in a

manner that minimises the extent of the dredge plume within Koombana Bay.


Dredging Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan subject to the approval of the CEO.

9-4 The Dredging Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan shall

include: (i) a baseline water quality survey for total suspended solid

concentrations and turbidity (NTU); (ii) the duration, timing and methodology of the dredging program;

(iii) a spatial map of the modelled Zone of Influence in total suspended solid concentrations, based on the dredge program in (ii), above. This Zone of Influence shall be no greater than the Zone of Influence presented in Figure 10.3 of the Public Environmental Review (November 2012);

(iv) a ‘target’ level which if exceeded trigger management responses in (viii);

(v) a ‘limit’ level based on the modelled Zone of Influence in (iii), above, which if exceeded triggers the requirements of condition 9-9;

(vi) the location of reference and impact monitoring sites to apply to the ‘target’ level in (iv) and ‘limit’ level in (v);

(vii) protocols and procedures for monitoring and evaluating water quality at monitoring sites required in (vi);

(viii) a framework for development of management responses to be implemented in the event that the ‘target’ levels in (iv) are exceeded;

(ix) procedures for publishing the dredge program’s modelled Zone of Influence in (iii), prior to the commencement of dredging to inform the stakeholders and public of the modelling results;

(x) descriptions of the program for intensive field sampling to be carried out within the initial period (2 weeks) of dredging, to validate/calibrate the dredge model;

(xi) protocols and procedures for the mapping of dredge plumes and reporting the realised extent of the Zone of Influence to the CEO; and

(xii) procedures for publishing on a fortnightly basis, throughout the dredging program, the mapped dredge plumes in (xi), above.

9-5 Prior to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise agreed by

the CEO, the proponent shall implement the approved plan required by condition 9-3.

9-6 If intensive sampling required in condition 9-4 (x) and mapped dredge

plumes in 9-4 (xi) show significant differences between the predicted and realised extent of the Zone of Influence then within six (6) weeks of the commencement of dredging activities the proponent shall submit a revised Dredge Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan to the CEO. The revised Dredge Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan shall include recommendations for alternative and/or additional monitoring sites as required in condition 9-4 (vi), and management measures as required in condition 9-4 (viii).

9-7 Revisions to the Dredge Environmental Monitoring and Management

Plan may be approved by the CEO.

9-8 The proponent shall implement the revised Dredge Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan required by condition 9-6.

9-9 In the event that monitoring required in conditions 9-4 (vii) or 9-6, indicates that the ‘limit’ level in condition 9-4 (v), is exceeded, or likely to be exceeded, due to dredge activities, the proponent shall: (i) report such findings to the CEO within two working days of the

exceedance being identified; (ii) investigate to determine the likely cause(s) of the ‘limit’ level being

exceeded; (iii) if determined by CEO to be a result of activities undertaken in

implementing the proposal, the proponent shall submit actions to be taken to the CEO, including the cessation of dredging, until the ‘limit’ level is no longer exceeded or as determined by the CEO; and

(iv) the actions required by 9-9(iii) shall be undertaken upon approval of the CEO.

10 Benthic Communities and Habitat 10-1 The proponent shall aim to ensure the implementation of the proposal

does not cause any detectible effects on the health and distribution of any benthic communities and habitat shown in Figure 4.


Benthic Community Monitoring Plan.

10-3 The Benthic Community Monitoring Plan required pursuant to condition 10-2 shall: (i) include criteria and measures for benthic community health and

distribution; (ii) confirm the extent and coverage of benthic communities and

habitat located within Figure 4; (iii) prior to the commencement of dredging, characterise the benthic

community health and distribution within the area identified pursuant to condition 10-3(ii); and

(iv) protocols and procedures for monitoring of benthic community health and distribution following the completion of dredging to determine if condition 10-1 has been met.

10-4 Prior to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise agreed by the CEO, the proponent shall implement the approved plan required by condition 10-2.

10-5 A report shall be submitted to the CEO following the completion of

dredging detailing the health and distribution of benthic communities

and habitat surveyed in condition 10-3 and the extent to which condition 10-1 is achieved.

11 Introduced Marine Pests 11-1 The Proponent shall manage all non-trading vessel activities and

immersible equipment activities whilst engaged for the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the Proposal so as to prevent the introduction of Introduced Marine Pests into and within State waters.

11-2 Prior to any non-trading vessels or immersible equipment entering the

Bunbury Port Inner Harbour, the proponent shall prepare an Introduced Marine Pest Risk Assessment Procedure to the satisfaction of the CEO in consultation with the DoF which includes but is not limited to the following: (i) all factors to be considered in the risk assessment; (ii) limits for unacceptable risk of introducing an Introduced Marine

Pest; (iii) a tool for performing Introduced Marine Pest Risk Assessments;

and (iv) measures to be implemented to reduce risks to an acceptable

level, where the risk assessment identifies an unacceptable risk. 11-3 The proponent shall ensure any non-trading vessels or immersible

equipment are subject to an Introduced Marine Pest Risk Assessment, prior to entering or demobilising from the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour, in accordance with the Introduced Marine Pest Risk Assessment Procedure approved pursuant to condition 11-2.

11-4 The proponent shall ensure that any Introduced Marine Pest Risk

Assessment undertaken pursuant to condition 11-3 is recorded and that record is provided to the DoF within seven (7) days of the Introduced Marine Pest Risk Assessment being undertaken.

11-5 The proponent shall ensure that any non-trading vessels or immersible

equipment that poses an unacceptable risk, as defined by the limits identified under condition 11-2(ii), of introducing Introduced Marine Pests, as determined by an Introduced Marine Pest Risk Assessment undertaken pursuant to condition 11-3, does not enter Bunbury Port Inner Harbour.

11-6 Prior to any non-trading vessels or immersible equipment entering the

Bunbury Port Inner Harbour, the proponent shall prepare an Introduced Marine Pests Monitoring Program to the satisfaction of the CEO in consultation with the DoF that:

(i) is consistent with monitoring design, implementation and reporting standards as set out in the National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions (National System2);

(ii) includes a minimum monitoring frequency of once per year and/or consistent National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions (National System); and

(iii) requires opportunistic sampling and analysis of specimens removed during port, vessel and immersible equipment monitoring activities.

11-7 The proponent shall implement the Introduced Marine Pests Monitoring

Program approved pursuant to condition 11-6, or amended versions approved by the CEO for the life of the proposal, prior to any entry to the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour by any non-trading vessel or immersible equipment.

11-8 The proponent shall provide the results of monitoring undertaken

pursuant to condition 11-7 to the CEO and the DoF annually. 11-9 Prior to any non-trading vessel or immersible equipment entering the

Marine Project Area, the proponent shall prepare an Introduced Marine Pests Management Strategy to the satisfaction of the CEO in consultation with the DoF, to prevent wherever practicable, the establishment and proliferation of any Introduced Marine Pest, aiming to control and potentially eradicate that Introduced Marine Pest, and to minimise the risk of that Introduced Marine Pest being transferred to other locations within Western Australia.

11-10 The proponent shall notify the CEO, the DoF and any relevant Port

Authority: (i) within 24 hours following initial detection of a suspected

Introduced Marine Pest; and (ii) within 24 hours following subsequent analysis and confirmation

of species identification of the suspected Introduced Marine Pest.

11-11 In the event that any Introduced Marine Pest is suspected or detected,

the proponent shall, in consultation with the DoF and the CEO, implement the Introduced Marine Pests Management Strategy.

11-12 The proponent is to submit a report detailing the outcomes of any

implementation of the Introduced Marine Pests Management Strategy to the DoF and the CEO within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the implementation of the Introduced Marine Pests Management

2 National System - The Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity (IGAB)

Strategy and thereafter as required by the CEO in consultation with the DoF.

Schedule 1 Table 1: Summary of the Proposal Proposal Title Lanco Bunbury Berth 14A Expansion Project Short Description The proposal is to construct and operate Berth 14A within the

Inner Harbour of Bunbury Port to accommodate the storage and export of 15 Mtpa of coal. Marine infrastructure includes:

• Berth structure with rock armour seawall and sheet pile wall and rock armour slope protection;

• Jetty, wharf, two (2) dolphin mooring stations and a ship loading rail structure running the length of the jetty.

Terrestrial infrastructure includes:

• Material handling facility – including train unloader, conveyors and fully enclosed coal storage facility;

• One (1) ship loading facility; and • Rail loops.

Table 2: Location and authorised extent of physical and operational elements

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Element Location/Description Authorised Extent

Terrestrial Elements

Includes coal storage facility, train unloader, conveyors, ship loader, rail loop, roads and supporting infrastructure within the proposal’s Development Envelope shown in Figure 1.

• Terrestrial ground disturbance of up to 30 ha.

• Clearing of up to 2 ha of native vegetation.

• Rail loop beginning on the northern side of the Preston River.

Marine Elements

Includes a berth pocket, navigational channel, and berth structure consisting of a rock armour seawall with sheet pile wall and rock armour slope protection within the proposal’s Development Envelope shown in Figure 1.

• Marine component of the proposal’s Development Envelope.

Construction Activities

Clearing, dry-land excavation and marine dredging of the berth pocket and berth structure, and approach channel located within the proposal’s Development Envelope shown in Figure 1.

• Marine dredging volume of up to 1.9 million m3.

• Rock fracturing (blasting) of up to 20,000 m3 of Bunbury Basalt.

Table 3: Abbreviations Abbreviation Term CD Chart Datum ha Hectares m3 Cubic Metres Mtpa Million tonnes per year DPaW Department of Parks and

Wildlife DoF Department of Fisheries

Table 4: Definitions Term or Phrase

Definition

Marine Construction Activities

Dredging, marine pile driving and rock fracturing (blasting) activities as detailed in Table 2 – Construction Activities.

Marine Pile Driving

Means driving structural supports into the ground below the waterline.

Zone of Influence

As defined in Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 7 for Marine Dredging Proposals

Introduced Marine Pest

Means any marine species that poses a threat to the Western Australian environment or industry, if introduced, established or translocated. The marine species that are considered to pose a threat as outlined above include those detailed in the Western Australian Prevention List for Introduced Marine Pests, Department of Fisheries (2012), as amended from time to time and other species that appear to have clear adverse impacts or invasive characteristics.

Figures (attached) Figure 1 – Location of Proposal and Development Envelope Figure 2 – Exclusion zones for marine construction activities Figure 3 – Environmental Quality Protection Area (Construction) Figure 4 – Benthic Communities and Habitat within Koombana Bay

Figure 1 Location of Proposal and Development Envelope

Figure 2 Exclusion zones for marine construction activities

Figure 3 Environmental Quality Protection Area (Construction)

Figure 4 Benthic Communities and Habitat within Koombana Bay

Schedule 2

The Environmental Quality Objectives and Level of Ecological Protection to be achieved in marine waters of Koombana Bay during marine construction activities.

Environmental Values

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND THEIR DESCRIPTIONS

Ecosystem Health

Maintenance of ecosystem integrity. Ecosystem integrity is considered in terms of structure (eg. the biodiversity, biomass and abundance of biota) and function (eg. food chains and nutrient cycles). A high level of ecological protection shall apply to the marine waters of Koombana Bay. This means to allow small changes in the quality of water, sediment and biota (e.g. small changes in contaminant concentrations and toxicology with no resultant detectable changes beyond natural variation in the diversity of species and biological communities, ecosystem processes and abundance/biomass of marine life). For this protection level the 99% species protection guideline trigger values* for toxicants in water apply (except for cobalt for which the 95% species protection guideline should apply) and for other physical and chemical parameters the trigger values are based on the 80th percentile of natural background measurements. Trigger values should be derived in accordance with the recommended approaches in ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). For sediments the ISQG-low* apply.

Fishing and Aquaculture

Maintenance of seafood for human consumption Seafood is safe for human consumption when collected or grown in Port waters.

Recreation and Aesthetics

Maintenance of primary contact recreation values Primary contact recreation (eg. swimming) is safe to undertake in Port waters. Maintenance of secondary contact recreation values Secondary contact recreation (eg. boating) is safe to undertake in Port waters.

Notes The following notes are provided for information and do not form a part of the implementation conditions of the Statement:

• The proponent for the time being nominated by the Minister for Environment under section 38(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 is responsible for the implementation of the proposal unless and until that nomination has been revoked and another person is nominated.

• If the person nominated by the Minister, ceases to have responsibility for the proposal, that person is required to provide written notice to the Environmental Protection Authority of its intention to relinquish responsibility for the proposal and the name of the person to whom responsibility for the proposal will pass or has passed. The Minister for Environment may revoke a nomination made under section 38(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and nominate another person.

• To initiate a change of proponent, the nominated proponent and proposed proponent are required to complete and submit Post Assessment Form 1 – Application to Change Nominated Proponent.

• The General Manager of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority was the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Public Service of the State responsible for the administration of section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 at the time the Statement was signed by the Minister for Environment.

Appendix 5

Proponent’s response to submissions

This appendix is provided on CD in printed copies and is available on the EPA’s website with this report.

Date post:	08-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buiphuc
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Request - Parliament of Western Australia · Tabled Paper No. 1 QON 4515 ... REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE...

Documents