Oakajee Deepwater Port PDF

Dredging, Breakwater Construction
and Land Reclamation

Management Plan
Document No : 301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Revision : Rev 0
Date of Issue : 12 November 2010
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Page 1 12 November 2010
Oakajee Deepwater Port
Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Plan
NOTE
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the proponent/port operator and their contractors.
This report was developed by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd using a standard document template and structure supplied by Oakajee
Port and Rail Pty Ltd
Copying this report without the permission of the proponent/port operator is not permitted.
PROJECT 301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
0 Issued for Approval 9-Nov-10 12-Nov-10

EMay D. McAlinden D. McAlinden
D Issued for OPR Review 7-Nov-10 9-Nov-10

L.Twomey D.McAlinden D. McAlinden
C Issued for Internal Review L.Twomey M.Bailey 3-Nov-10 6-Nov-10
B Issued for Peer Review 3-Nov-10 6-Nov-10

L.Twomey P.Lavery D. McAlinden
M.Mulligan
B Issued for Final Review 01-Sep-10 13-Sep-10

L.Twomey D.Lord D. McAlinden
M.Mulligan
B Issued for OPR Review 25-June-10 25-June-10

L.Twomey D.McAlinden D. McAlinden D. McAlinden
M.Mulligan
A Issued for Internal Review 17-May-10 17-May-10

L.Twomey P. Scott D. McAlinden D. McAlinden
M.Mulligan
REV DESCRIPTION ORIG REVIEW REVIEW DATE APPROVED DATE
OWNER
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table of Contents
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................7

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................9
1.1 Background/Project Description ...............................................................................9
1.2 Scope and Objective .................................................................................................10
1.3 Description of Key Works ........................................................................................14
1.4 Key Environmental Legislation and Conditions .....................................................17
1.5 Stakeholder Consultation .........................................................................................24
1.5.1 Peer Review of Baseline Studies ........................................................................................................... 24
1.5.2 Collaborators .......................................................................................................................................... 25
1.5.3 Peer Review of Draft EMP ..................................................................................................................... 25
2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................................26
2.1 BPPH Mapping ..........................................................................................................26
2.2 BPPH Health ..............................................................................................................26
2.3 Water Quality.............................................................................................................27
2.4 Sediment Quality.......................................................................................................27
2.5 Wind, Currents, Waves and Tide Conditions ..........................................................27
2.6 Introduced Marine Organisms .................................................................................30
3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...............................................................................................................................31
3.1 Method .......................................................................................................................31
3.2 Impacts ......................................................................................................................32
3.3 Hydrodynamic modelling of BPPH impacts ............................................................37
3.3.1 BPPH loss predictions ............................................................................................................................ 37
3.4 Water Quality Impacts ..............................................................................................44
3.5 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................................47
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .........................................................................................................48
5. MITIGATION...................................................................................................................................................50
6. KEY CONTROL MEASURES ..................................................................................................................52
7. MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................54
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
7.1 BPPH Direct Impacts Monitoring .............................................................................55

7.1.1 Parameters............................................................................................................................................. 55
7.1.2 Frequency and Location ......................................................................................................................... 55
7.1.3 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 55
7.2 BPPH Indirect Impact Monitoring ............................................................................57
7.2.1 Parameters (Light requirements and thresholds for Benthic Primary Producer Habitat) ........................ 57
7.2.2 BPPH monitoring zones ......................................................................................................................... 58
7.2.3 Frequency and Location ......................................................................................................................... 60
7.2.4 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 66
7.3 Water Quality (Physio-Chemical Monitoring) ..........................................................70
7.3.1 Parameters............................................................................................................................................. 70
7.3.2 Frequency .............................................................................................................................................. 70
7.3.3 Location.................................................................................................................................................. 70
7.3.4 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 74
7.4 Return Water Discharge Monitoring ........................................................................75
7.4.1 Parameters............................................................................................................................................. 75
7.4.2 Frequency .............................................................................................................................................. 75
7.4.3 Location.................................................................................................................................................. 75
7.4.4 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 75
8. CONTINGENCIES AND REACTIVE MANAGEMENT .....................................................................77
8.1 Contingencies/Reactive Management for BPPH Indirect Impacts.........................77
8.1.1 Management triggered by decline in seagrass cover at impact sites ..................................................... 77
8.1.2 Management triggered by ∆Hsat exceedances ....................................................................................... 78
8.1.3 Management triggered by BPPH health exceedances ........................................................................... 78
8.2 Contingencies/Reactive Management for Water Quality Impacts .........................79
8.3 Contingencies/Reactive Management for Return Water Discharge ......................79
8.4 Contingency/Reactive Management Actions ..........................................................80
9. REPORTING ..................................................................................................................................................85
10. AUDITING & REVIEW ................................................................................................................................86
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
10.1 Auditing .....................................................................................................................86

10.2 Review and revision .................................................................................................86
11. RELATED PLANS ........................................................................................................................................88
12. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................................89
ATTACHMENT A.........................................................................................................................................................92
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM BRANCH OF THE EPASU ON THE
DESIGN AND REQUIREMENTS OF BASELINE STUDIES AT OAKAJEE ...............................................................92
ATTACHMENT B.........................................................................................................................................................96
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...............................................................................................................................96
ATTACHMENT C....................................................................................................................................................... 101
APPENDIX D: OCEANICA AND APASA (2010), BENTHIC PRIMARY PRODUCER IMPACTS FROM
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED OAKAJEE PORT ..................................................................................... 103
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
General Information
Min Statement No 469 Project Title Oakajee Deepwater Port
EMP Title Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation
EMP Content Yes No Comments
Is the document structured according to the EMP guideline? -

Element - Is the aspect appropriately described? Section 1
Current Status – Are the project description and receiving environment details Section 2
adequate?
Potential Impacts – Are the potential impacts described adequately? Section 3
Environmental Objectives – Are the objectives consistent with the Ministerial Section 5
Statement and the EPA bulletin?
Performance Indicators/Criteria – Are the indicators and criteria used Table 5-1
meaningful, sufficient and appropriate?
Are the criteria verifiable and reproducible? Table 5-1
Implementation strategy – Are the strategies, tasks and the action program Section 5
adequate for the environmental objectives?
Have roles and responsibilities been identified? Section 4 and Section 6
Have adequate timeframes and priorities been identified? Section 6
Monitoring – Is the program to monitor performance against objectives and Section 7

criteria adequate?
Are details provided on how/when monitoring will be undertaken and reported? Section 7 and Section 9
Contingencies – Are the mechanisms to identify actual and apparent non- Section 8
conformance adequate?
Are the actions to address non-conformances adequate? Section 8
Stakeholder consultation – Is a list of major stakeholders and details of how Section 1.5 and Attachment A
and when they were and will be consulted, provided?
Auditing – Are details of an audit process to demonstrate implementation and Section 10
compliance provided?
Review and Revision – Is a suitable process to assess the adequacy of the Section 10
plan detailed?
Reporting – are the reporting details provided adequate? Section 9
Key Management Actions Table - Has adequate information been provided Section 6
in the Table?
Does the table list the key actions, how implementation will be reported and the Section 6 and Section 9
evidence that will be provided to DoE?
Figures and Tables – Have relevant figures and tables been provided? Section 1
Advisory bodies – Has advice been sought from all relevant advisory bodies Requires DEC advice - pending DSD
and incorporated into the EMP? and GPA review
Has evidence of this advice been provided with the document? As above
Additional Comments
The EMP has been developed in
accord with the DoE EMP ………………………………………….
guideline. Environmental Manager Date
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

∆ Hsat Change in Hours above Saturating Irradiance
AMSA Australian Maritime Safety Authority
ANZECC Australian New Zealand Environment Conservation Council Australian New Zealand
AQIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
AS/NZS Australian Standards/New Zealand Standards
BPPH Benthic Primary Producer Habitat
CD Chart Datum
CM Construction Manager
CSD Cutter Suction Dredge
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
DBCLRMP Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation
DM Dredging Manager
DSD Department of Statement Development
EAG3 Environmental Assessment Guidelines 3
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EMS Environmental Management System
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
EPASU Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit
EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
GPA Geraldton Port Authority
HEPA High Ecological Protection Area
Hsat Hours above Saturating Irradiance
IMO Introduced Marine Organism
IMPMP Introduced Marine Pest Management Plan
ISO International Standards Organisation
LAC Light Attenuation Coefficient
LAU Local Assessment Unit
MS Ministerial Statement
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
MEPA Moderate Ecological Protection Area

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
NRA Northern Reclamation Area
OEPA Office of the Environmental Protection Authority
OPR Oakajee Port and Rail Pty Ltd
OIE Oakajee Industrial Estate
PER Public Environmental Review
Sea Dumping Act Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981
SEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Water, Population and Communities
SHI Seagrass Health Indices
SQMP Sediment Quality Management Plan
SSMP Shoreline Stability Management Plan
SRA South Reclamation Area
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UNMP Underwater Noise Management Plan
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background/Project Description

In 1997 a proposal from the then Western Australian (WA) Government Minister for Resources Development led to an
assessment of the Oakajee Deepwater Port concept by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), resulting in the
release, on the 25th of February 1998, of Ministerial Statement 469 (MS469) by the then Minister for the Environment.
The Statement established the legally binding environmental conditions under which the Oakajee Deepwater Port
development could proceed, with the original term of the environmental approval extending to the 25th of February 2003.
The term of the environmental approval has subsequently been extended on several occasions, the current expiry date
being the 25th of February 2013. The Minister for State Development is the proponent for the Oakajee Deepwater Port.
Development of the Oakajee Port has been linked to expansion in the Mid-west iron ore mining sector. The number of
Mid-west iron ore projects currently being progressed has increased the impetus for development of the Oakajee
Deepwater Port which led to the State Government initiating a competitive tendering process from consortia interested in
developing the Oakajee Deepwater Port and associated infrastructure. Following the tender process, Oakajee Port and
Rail Pty Ltd (OPR) was appointed in July 2008 by the State Government as the preferred developer of the Oakajee
Deepwater Port. On the 20th March 2009 the State Government and OPR entered into a State Development Agreement,
which provided OPR exclusive rights to build the Oakajee Deepwater Port and a railway line linking the port to the iron ore
mines to the east.
Consistent with agreements between the State Government and OPR, OPR is preparing the Environmental Management
Plans (EMPs) required as conditions or commitments of MS469 for the Department of State Development (DSD), which is
the agency acting on behalf of the Minister for State Development.
The Oakajee Deepwater Port will be located 24 km north of Geraldton on Western Australia's mid west coastline
(Figure 1.1), and will comprise a large breakwater sheltering up to three berths (being two Cape Class berths plus one
further Cape Class berth or one Panamax berth), a tug and work boat harbour and associated land based facilities
including ship loaders, conveyors, stockpile yard, stackers and reclaimers. Additional facilities may be added at a later
stage (subject to further approvals).
Construction of the port is scheduled to commence in 2011 with current forecasts having the port operational in 2014.
Iron ore exports for the foundation development of Oakajee Deepwater Port are expected to be up to 45 million tonnes per
annum.
The Oakajee Iron Ore Export Development, being part of the broader Oakajee Development that includes provision for the
industrial development in the Oakajee Industrial Estate (OIE), has three key project areas, as outlined in Table 1.1.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table 1.1 : Key OPR Project Areas

Area Key Aspects Approval Status
Oakajee Deepwater Includes breakwater, harbour basin, three berths, dredging, land reclamation Approved (Ministerial
Port1 and some port terrestrial aspects including storage area and access corridor. Statement 469) (including
Excludes quarry. Section 45C and 46)2
Port Terrestrial Includes storage stockpiles, ship loader, material handling system, rail Referred to EPA Nov 2009
unloader, desalination plant, administration buildings, rail marshalling yards
and workshop and other associated land based infrastructure Pending Part IV Public
Environmental Review
(PER)3
Rail Development Includes 570km rail route and supporting infrastructure Referred to EPA Nov 2009
Pending Part IV PER
1.2 Scope and Objective
This document details the management strategies to be implemented by OPR to ensure dredging, breakwater
construction and land reclamation works and any associated adverse impacts on benthic primary producers and water
quality are managed in an appropriate manner during the construction of the Oakajee Deepwater Port Development.
Extensive dredging will be required in the construction of the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port. Dredging causes
sediment to be suspended in the water column which adds to the natural turbidity which, in the absence of management
controls, could possibly cause unacceptable environmental impact via the following pathways:
 Reduced light penetration to the photosynthetic algae and seagrasses;
 Inhibit filter feeding animals and larval recruitment of benthic biota;
 Cause mechanical damage to benthic fauna;
 Deplete oxygen; and/or,
 Cause nutrient enrichment.
1 The proponent for the Oakajee Deepwater Port approval is the Minister for State Development.
2In relation to the Oakajee Deepwater Port area in Table 1-2, Ministerial Statement (MS469) was subsequently released (February
1998) outlining the conditions and commitments that the proponent must meet to construct a deepwater port at Oakajee. The Oakajee
Deepwater Port approval was subject to a recent Section 45C and Section 46 approval granting variation and extension to the existing
approval
3 The Port Terrestrial and Rail Development were referred to the EPA in November 2009 under Part IV of the EP Act 1986 and the
level of assessment for both aspects has been set at Public Environmental Review
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
The Approved Proposal for construction of the deepwater port at Oakajee was approved for implementation by the issuing
of MS469 (1998).
The Ministerial Condition 5-3(5) and Proponent's Environmental Management Consolidated Commitments (6b)
(Attachment 1 to MS469 dated 28 August 1997) applicable to this Plan (DBCLRMP) are outlined in Ministerial Statement
469 (1998) and include:
The proponent will, prior to construction, prepare a Marine Management Plan that will include a Dredge and
Dredge Spoil Management Plan in the event that the final port plan involves dredging. The Plan will be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP, and will include a
monitoring program for water quality in and within a relevant distance of the work area. The management
plan and all results of the monitoring programs will be made available to the general public.
The key characteristic of the Approved Proposal relevant to this DBCLRMP was identified in Table 1 of the
Bulletin 866, as:
“6.3.7 Marine area affected – up to 170 ha”
The objective of this document is to:
1. provide guidance during construction to:
 minimise impacts to benthic primary producers (up to 170 ha);
 minimise impact to marine fauna; and,
 minimise impacts to water quality.
2. outline monitoring programs and reporting that will be implemented;
3. ensure OPR operations comply with regulatory requirements with respect to dredging and benthic flora and
marine fauna management; and,
4. enable optimisation of construction works taking cognisance of item 1 to 3 above.
Based on the Ministerial Conditions outlined above, the scope of this DBCLRMP is:
 Establish a baseline for the existing water quality and sediment quality within and adjacent to the port.
 Establish a baseline for benthic habitat and marine fauna in the Oakajee area.
 Describe how the dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation will be conducted.
 Describe the potential marine environmental impacts associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land
reclamation, with particular attention to benthic primary producers and water quality.
 Define the management measures associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation that will
be undertaken to reduce the potential for, and minimise, environmental impact during the construction phases of
Oakajee Port.
This EMP is to be updated at regular intervals as scheduled within the OPR Environmental Management Systems.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 1.1: Location of the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port in Western Australia
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 1.2: Layout of the Approved Oakajee Deepwater Port (Port Marine Project) (Figure 1 Attachment 2 of MS469)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
1.3 Description of Key Works

Construction Phase
The proposed port construction is expected to occur over a 36 month period. The major components will include:
 Breakwater construction using land based equipment (i.e. rock placement);
 Breakwater construction using rock dumping barges;
 Development of a bunded northern reclamation area; and,
 Dredging.
An outline construction schedule was developed to assist with development of the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009a),
which required an indicative schedule of the major construction components. The anticipated schedule to complete each
major construction activity is approximately:
 Northern reclamation area breakwater construction – 18 months ;
 Marine based construction – 16 months;
 Land based construction – 18 months; and,
 Dredging – 6 months.
It is expected that the major construction activities will overlap so that the full construction campaign will be complete
within a proposed 36 month construction period.
To protect the Oakajee Port harbour waters from prevailing seas and swell, a 2.5 km long (projecting 1.9 km offshore)
rock breakwater will be constructed (Figure 1.2). The breakwater will provide shelter for the port basin and allow
dredging, pile driving and general berth construction to occur. At the same time, a reclamation area abutting the shoreline
will be constructed using dredged material for use as general port land. This area, known as the Northern Reclamation
Area (NRA) will contain up to approximately 1.5 Mm3 of dredge material, while the primary settlement area with a capacity
of approximately 2 Mm3 will be constructed onshore at the Southern Reclamation Area (SRA) (Figure 1.3).
The breakwater will be constructed from granulite rock sourced from a nearby quarry that will be developed as part of the
Port construction. It is expected that rock placement will occur from both land (using excavators) and sea (using barges).
At its highest point the seaward crest of breakwater will stand at a level of 11.0 m Chart Datum (CD) and its design is
capable of withstanding a 1 in 100 year storm event with no more than five percent damage. The seaward walls of the
breakwater will be armoured with rocks up to 30 tonnes in weight. It is expected that the breakwater will take two years to
construct.
Dredging is required in the berth pockets, harbour basin and channel to achieve design depths ranging between -11 m CD
in the turning basin and approximately -22 m CD in the outer channel enabling fully-laden Cape class vessels to safely
manoeuvre and navigate the harbour basin and channel (Figure 1.3). To achieve the design depths, dredging of
approximately 2.6 Mm3 of material will be required (Table 1.2). This volume incorporates a 0.5 m allowance for over
dredging (Table 1.2). Dredging will be carried out with a large Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD), which will cut the seabed
material and pump it directly to either of the two settlement and reclamation areas (Figure 1.3). During cutting and
placement of dredged material in the reclamation areas it is expected that the volume of this material will increase to
approximately 3.3 Mm3 due to ‗bulking‘ of the in-situ material. The dredge will regularly move locations based on dredging
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
and operational requirements as well as sea and swell conditions. The dredge will move using an array of anchors, rather
than being self propelled. The dredge will pump material as a slurry (consisting of solids and seawater) at a rate of
approximately 900 m3/minute to the reclamation areas (Figure 1.3)). It is expected that after an initial period of land
reclamation area filling, the overflow velocity will match that of the input velocity (i.e. 900 m3/minute).
Table 1.2: Approximate Dredge Volumes4
3 3
Material Type Design Volume (m ) Design + Over dredge Volume (m )
Sand 234,900 256,800
Alluvium 32,900 44,700
Non-Calcreted 693,400 836,100
Calcreted 1,372,700 1,472,400
TOTAL 2,333,900 2,610,000
The reclamation areas have been designed to incorporate a series of settlement ponds to increase retention time to allow
maximum settlement of fine particles prior to returning water to the ocean. The settlement ponds will be managed using a
system of adjustable height weirs and pumps in order to minimise reduce return water turbidity before discharging to the
marine environment (refer drawing 301012-01054-1112-MA-DAL-0009). Overflow from the reclamation areas will be
directed back to the marine environment once the suspended sediment concentration of the return water has fallen to less
than 250 mg/L5. In addition to facilitating the active management of the dredge material and the associated return water,
the placement of dredge material in these reclamation areas will lead to a reduction in future and ongoing requirements for
land based fill material at the Oakajee Port site.
4 These volumes are approximate only and serve only to describe the relative proportions and type of sediment
5 The return-water turbidity of 250 mg/L was chosen as a worst-case, and has been used in the hydrodynamic modeling (see Section 3.3.1).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 1.3: Oakajee Port Project Interfaces and Location of Dredge Material Placement
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
1.4 Key Environmental Legislation and Conditions

The key legislation and Ministerial Conditions relevant to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation is
provided in Table 1.3 .
Table 1.3: Key legislation and Ministerial Conditions relevant to dredging, breakwater construction and land
reclamation
Document Responsible Government Authority Aspect
International Conventions and Commonwealth Legislation
This is the most important convention regulating and preventing

pollution of the marine environment by ships. This convention aims
International Convention for the
to preserve the marine environment through the complete
Prevention of Pollution from Ships International Maritime Organization
elimination of pollution by oil and other harmful substances from
(MARPOL).
ships and the minimisation of accidental discharge of such
substances.
These legislations give effect to the MARPOL convention in

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Australia.
Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
under the Department of Infrastructure, The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is the
Transport, Regional Development and Local International Maritime Organisation's major technical body
Government (Infrastructure) concerned with the prevention and control of pollution from ships.
Navigation Act 1912
AMSA leads Australia's work in MEPC.
AQIS administers the Quarantine Act 1908 with the objective of

protecting Australia's animal, plant and human health status, and to
maintain market access for Australian food and other agricultural
exports.
Section 4 of the Act provides measures for ‗…the inspection,
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service exclusion, detention, observation, segregation, isolation, treatment,
Quarantine Act 1908 (AQIS) under the Government Department of sanitary regulation and disinfection of vessels, persons, goods,
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). things, animals or plants, and having their object the prevention of
the introduction or spread of diseases or pests affecting man,
animals or plants.‘
Section 17 of the Act lists the vessels subject to quarantine,
including ―every overseas vessel until pratique has been granted or
until it has been released from quarantine―.
Waters surrounding Australia's coastlines are protected from wastes

Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Department Sustainability, Environment, Water,
and pollution dumped at sea by the Environment Protection (Sea
Act 1981 Population and Communities (SEWPaC)
Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act).
Environment Protection and Biodiversity SEWPaC Protects matters of national significance, including listed species of
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) fauna, including those in the marine environment.
State Government Legislation
WA Contaminated Sites Act (2003) Western Australia Department of Environment The Contaminated Sites Act (2003) (WA) took effect in Western
and Conservation (DEC) Australia on December 1, 2006. ‗The Contaminated Sites
Management Series‘ was developed to provide guidance for risk
assessments prior to activities governed under the Act, and
stipulates that ―…Sampling of sediments as part of contaminated
site assessment/remediation is required where (…) sediment is
required to be dredged as part of port/harbour
construction/expansion works or development in a riverine or marine
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0

environment…‖ (DEP, 2001).
Environmental Protection Act 1986 Western Australia Office of Environmental The key piece of environmental legislation within Western Australia,
Protection Authority (OEPA) relating to the prevention, control and abatement of pollution and
environmental harm, for the conservation, preservation, protection,
enhancement and management of the environment.
Western Australian Environmental DEC These regulations prohibit commercial activities from discharging
Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) certain wastes into the environment. The prohibited wastes include
Regulations 2004 petrol, sewage, degreasers, detergents and food wastes. It covers
minor pollution offences that were missed out of the Environmental
Protection Act 1986 (see above).
Specifically, is an offence to discharge sediment into the marine
environment, and to discharge wastewater in which are: acid with a
pH less than 4; alkali with a pH more than 10; animal oil, fat or
grease; compounds of solutions of cyanide, chromium, cadmium,
lead, arsenic, mercury, nickel, zinc, copper; degreaser; detergent;
dye; engine coolant or engine corrosion inhibitor; mineral oil; organic
solvent; paint; petrol, diesel or other hydrocarbon; pesticide;
vegetable oil, fat or grease.
Environmental Protection (Controlled DEC These regulations list the types of controlled waste which must be
Waste) Regulations 2004 stored, treated, transported and disposed of as set out in the
regulations. Controlled wastes relevant to the OPR waste
management include (but are not limited to) heavy metal
compounds, sewage, filter cake, acidic solutions, and waste from
the use of organic solvents.
The DEC have developed a series of guidelines in support of the
regulations for appropriate transport and disposal of controlled
waste:
 Guideline for Controlled Waste Carriers (DEC, 2004a)
 Guideline for Controlled Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites
(DEC, 2004b)
 User Guide: Controlled Waste Tracking System (DEC, 2006)
 Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions
(DEC, 1996).
W.A. Port Authorities Regulation 2001 W.A. Port Authorities The W.A. Port Authorities Regulation 2001 sets out rules for port
use applicable to all port authorities across Western Australia.
Regulation 17 stipulates: ‗Unless authorised by a member of staff of
the port authority, the master of a vessel must not cause or permit
any wastewater or waste substances of any kind to be discharged
from the vessel on to any part of the wharf or into the waters of a
port‘.
Department of Consumer and Employment

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 Occupational Safety and Health
Protection
Western Australian Marine (Sea

DEC Sea dumping
Dumping) Act 1981
Ministerial Conditions
Ministerial Statement 469 (25 February Minister for the Environment and Youth Condition 1.1 requires commitments made by the proponent to be
1998) Conditions relevant to Sediment fulfilled as part of implementing the proposal, the commitments
Quality. made in relation to Sediment Quality were as follows:
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0

Condition 5-3(5) requires the development of a Dredge and Dredge
Spoil Disposal Management. Note: the Plans 5-3 (4) to 5-3 (11)
have been formulated, based in part, on proponent commitment no.
6.
Consolidated List of Commitments (Attachment 1 to MS469)
relevant to Marine Water Quality and Sediments states (Item #6):
The proponent will, prior to construction, prepare a Marine
Management Plan that will include the following:
6a. A Construction Management Plan in accordance with the
requirements of the EPA, upon advice from the DEP. All
contractors will be required to comply with this plan, which will
specify measures designed to prevent marine pollution and to
limit the impact on the marine environment;
6b. A Dredge and Dredge Spoil Disposal management Plan
(DDSDMP) in the event that the final port plan involves
dredging. This Management Plan will be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of the EPA, upon advice
from the DEP, and will include a monitoring program for water
quality in and within a relevant distance of the works area. The
management plan and all results of the monitoring programs
will be made available to the general public;
6c. An Oil Spill Contingency Plan to the satisfaction of the
Department of Minerals and Energy, the Environmental
Protection Authority, the Department of Environmental
Protection, and the WA State Committee for Combating Oil
Pollution at Sea. This plan will include management
processes required to avoid or minimise any impacts to the
beaches north of the port;
6d. A Waste Management Plan of port operations prepared in
from the DEP. This plan will specify management procedures
for the collection and disposal of waste discharges from ships,
and will regulate wash-down of ships in harbour. This plan will
include management processes required to avoid or minimise
any impacts to beaches north of the port, and will include
treatment of stormwater if appropriate;
6e. An accidental Spillage Management Plan to the requirements of
the Department of Minerals and Energy. This Plan will include
management processes required to avoid or minimise any
impacts to beaches north of the Port;
6f. A Water Quality Monitoring and Management Program in
from the DEP. A summary of the scope this monitoring is
provided in Section 6 of the PER document. Should levels of
any parameter be above the criteria during the sampling
period, more frequent monitoring will occur in order to identify
a possible cause for the elevated levels, and also to determine
the duration of the levels over time. Provision will be made to
implement appropriate management practices if the monitoring
program identifies any unacceptable impacts on the quality of
marine waters in the vicinity of the port; and
6g. A Sediment Monitoring and Management Program. This will be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EPA,
upon advice from the DEP. The program will involve bi-annual
samples following construction. All samples will be analysed
for a range of heavy metals and other potential contaminants.
The results of the monitoring program will be provided to the
EPA. Should levels of any parameters be above criteria during
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0

the sampling period, more frequent monitoring will occur to
identify a possible cause for the elevated levels, and also to
determine the duration of the levels over time. Provision will
be made to implement appropriate management practices if
the monitoring program identifies any unacceptable impacts on
the quality of marine waters (assumed to have meant
sediments) in the vicinity of the port.
The marine management plan will address the issue of protection of
offshore seal colonies, and any other applicable protection issues.
Other Requirements
Provides a framework to impart clarity and consistency to the

environmental impact of proposals that have potential to result in
irreversible loss of, or serious damage to, benthic primary producer
habitats in Western Australia's marine environment.
EPA Environmental Assessment
OEPA Recognises the importance of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats
Guidelines 3 (EAG3) (EPA 2009)
(BPPH) and the potential consequences of their loss for marine
ecological integrity, and also the fact that almost all marine
development proposals will result in some loss of these important
habitats.
Provides the framework for environmental management on the

project site in compliance with Australian Standards and New
Zealand Standards (AS/NZS) International Standards Organisation
OPR Environmental Management System (ISO) 14001:2004 Environmental Management Systems –
OPR Requirements with Guidance for Use.
(EMS)
This EMP is managed via the OPR EMS
OPR has prepared separate management plans for each of the items listed under Section 6 of the Proponent's
Consolidated Commitment (MS469, Attachment 1) rather than a single Marine Management Plan. This is described in
more detail in Table 1-4 below.
The relationship between the environmental management system, the approvals for the various components of the overall
Oakajee development and these environmental management plans is shown in Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table 1.4: MS469 EMP Title and Proposed EMP submissions

MS 469
MS469 Title Proposed MP
Condition
5-3 (1) Rehabilitation and Coastal Management Plan Rehabilitation and Coastal Management Plan
Marine Flora and Fauna Management Plan to include: Marine Flora and Fauna Management Plan
- habitat description; Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land
- benthic surveys; Reclamation MP (this plan)
5-3 (2)
- marine mammal surveys (as it relates to underwater noise); Underwater Noise Management Plan
- wrack monitoring and management; Beach-cast Wrack Management Plan
- water quality monitoring Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan
5-3 (3) Introduced Marine Organisms Management Plan: Introduced Marine Pest Management Plan
5-3 (4) Construction Management Plan Construction Management Plan
Dredge Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation
5-3 (5) Dredge and Dredge Spoil Management Plan
MP (as above)
Material Handling Environmental Requirements
5-3 (6) Material Handling Environmental Requirements Specification
Specification
5-3 (7) Accidental Spillage Management Plan Accidental Spillage Management Plan
5-3 (8) Drainage Design and Treatment Management Plan Drainage Design and Treatment Management Plan
5-3 (9) Oil Spill Contingency Plan Oil Spill Contingency Plan
5-3 (10) Port Waste Management Plan Port Waste Management Plan
Water Quality Monitoring and MP (as above)
5-3 (11) Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring and Management Plan
Sediment Quality Management Plan
5-3 (12) Air Quality Management Plan Air Quality Management Plan
5-3 (13) Noise Management Plan Noise Management Plan
5-3 (14) Heritage Management Plan Heritage Management Plan
5-3 (15) Recreation Management Plan Recreation and Fishing Access Management Plan
7-1 Fishing Access Management Plan Recreation and Fishing Access MP(as above)
6
CC Coastal Stability Management Plan Coastal Stability Management Plan
6 CC - Consolidated Commitments 8 and 9 (Attachment 1 to MS 469) - see legislative and other requirement (Table 1-3)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan
Figure 1.4: Project roadmap describing the environmental system and the relationship to the major areas of construction and environmental management programs
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure1.5: Project roadmap describing the environmental system hierarchy and details on the relationship to environmental management plans
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
1.5 Stakeholder Consultation

Ongoing stakeholder and community engagement is an important part of maintaining a ―community licence to operate‖.
That engagement should include open and transparent communication, and recognise the importance of genuine
stakeholder involvement in the identification of potential issues and concerns, as well as appropriate strategies for
management of impacts.
Stakeholders are defined as people or organisations who have an impact on, or who are impacted by project operations
and activities. An understanding of key stakeholder attitudes and issues is crucial to support effective stakeholder
engagement. Additionally the ability to demonstrably respond to community concerns is important. Initial consultation
was with the Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit (EPASU; now restructured to the Office of the EPA - OEPA)
(see Section 1.5.1 and Attachment A), followed by more extensive stakeholder consultation. A detailed description of
OPR stakeholder consultation is provided in Attachment B.
This DBCLRMP has been developed by recognised consultants and experts in the field and reviewed by various
government agencies (see Section 1.5.2). Furthermore, the design of baseline studies relevant to the Oakajee Deepwater
Port EMPs (Attachment C) was peer reviewed (see Section 1.5.1 below) by relevant field experts and the
outcomes/reports of those baselines studies were also peer reviewed.
1.5.1 Peer Review of Baseline Studies

Project representatives, consultants and OEPA met on 9 December 2008 to discuss the present Oakajee Port proposal
and the need to commence field surveys and data acquisition tasks with long lead times. Following the meeting, the
Marine Ecosystem Branch of the OEPA provided some preliminary comments, which are summarised in Attachment A.
To ensure that the baseline studies were comprehensive and adopted rigorous sampling approaches, they were peer
reviewed by qualified professionals (Table 1.5). Reviewer‘s comments and suggestions were incorporated into the
sampling methods for each of the studies.
Table 1.5: Summary of peer reviewers for the marine and coastal baseline studies
Reviewer Institute – Position Studies Reviewed
Michael Mulligan Geraldton Port Authority - Port Environmental Coordinator All baseline studies
All baseline studies (except

Dr Jim Stoddart MScience – Principal Marine Scientist
coastal processes)
Ian LeProvost URS Australia - Principal Environmental Scientist All baseline studies
Dr Karen Hillman Oceanica Consulting - Director All baseline studies
Dr Julia Phillips CSIRO – Marine Ecologist Marine habitat
Curt Jenner Centre for Whale Research (WA) - Managing Director Marine mammals
National Centre for Coastal and Marine Conservation, Australian Introduced Marine Species
Professor Chad Hewitt
Maritime College – Chairman.
Validation report for

Jason Antenucci Centre for Water Research - Manager, Contract Research Group hydrodynamic modelling
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
1.5.2 Collaborators
To ensure the highest standard of work, the development and implementation of the marine and coastal baseline studies
represents collaboration between Oceanica and various research institutes and marine and coastal specialists, as detailed
in Table 1.6.
Table 1.6: Summary of collaborators for the marine and coastal baseline studies
Collaborators Tasks
Asia Pacific Applied Science Associates Hydrodynamic modelling for the Oakajee Port
(APASA)
Batavia Coast Air Charter, Geraldton Provision of aeroplane and pilot for monthly aerial flight of Oakajee coastline for
beach cast wrack survey
Batavia Coast Maritime Institute (BCMI, Provision of field personnel for the water quality and marine mammal surveys.
Geraldton) Processing of seagrass, algal and wrack samples to determine health
characteristics (seagrass and algae) and composition (wrack)
Centre Marine Science and Technology – Curtin Underwater noise modelling and interpretation of potential risks to marine fauna
University (Rob McCauley) in the Oakajee region
Centre for Whale Research (Curt Jenner – Provision of specialist advice on the sampling of marine mammals within the
Director) Oakajee region. Analysis of whale distribution and abundance data
Enviro Marine Consulting Pty Ltd (Alex Wyatt, Provision of specialist advice on the sampling of introduced marine species
Director); and around the proposed location of the Oakajee port. Implementation of pre-
National Centre for Coastal and Marine construction sampling in the Oakajee region as per Hewitt and Martin protocols
Conservation, Australian Maritime College (see Hewitt & Martin 2001)
(Marnie Campbell)
Global Environmental Modelling Systems Hydrodynamic modelling for the Oakajee Port
(GEMS)
Hille Thompson & Delfos, Surveyors & Planners Seasonal beach profiles for the coastal processes investigation
(HTD)
Latitude Fisheries, Geraldton Provision of research vessel for all marine surveys that require offshore work.
Marine and Freshwater Research Laboratory Provision of specialist field assistance, equipment and laboratory analysis for
(MAFRL) - Murdoch University the water and sediment quality monitoring
Specialised Diving Services, Geraldton Provision of research vessel for all habitat mapping surveys and field personnel
for underwater diving
Two Fish Drowning, Geraldton Photography Capture of aerial photographs for monthly aerial flight of Oakajee coastline for
beach cast wrack survey
University of Western Australia (Professors Gary Advice on the method for developing benthic primary producer habitat maps.
Kendrick and Di Walker) Interpretation of results and advice on determining the appropriate groups of
dominant primary producers.
Western Whale Research (Chris Burton, Provision of specialist advice on the sampling of marine mammals within the
Director) Oakajee region. Analysis of whale distribution and abundance data
1.5.3 Peer Review of Draft EMP

The EPA was consulted with regard to the list of proposed EMPs to address the requirements of MS469. All EMPs
relevant to MS469 also require review and final approval by the EPA.
The draft EMPs were also reviewed by the various government agencies and consultants and comments incorporated as
per the table in Attachment B.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A description of the existing physical and biological marine environment surrounding the proposed port development was
provided as part of the environmental impact assessment process and was presented in the original Oakajee Deepwater
Port PER (AT & WEC 1997).
Following the PER, OPR completed extensive work in relation to marine and coastal baseline studies (refer to
Attachment 2 for the full list of marine studies) for the purpose of developing the construction and operational
environmental management plans (EMPs), to enable the Oakajee Deepwater Port to be implemented pursuant to MS469.
The following discussion on the existing environment is related to those aspects that are likely to be impacted by dredging,
breakwater construction and land reclamation during the proposed port construction.
2.1 BPPH Mapping
The benthic habitat at Oakajee was first described in detail during the Oakajee Deepwater Port PER (AT & WEC 1997).
This study mapped benthic habitat in terms of the dominant substrate types, including; beach, shallow sand, high reef, a
mixture of shallow pavement, low reef and shallow sand, and a mixture of deep pavement and deep sand. Most recently
BPPH in the vicinity of the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port was further surveyed to map the spatial distribution of the
dominant BPPH groups in greater detail (Oceanica, 2008). The area mapped has a footprint of ~57 km2, which was
agreed with the OEPA to be the local assessment unit (LAU) in accordance with Environmental Assessment Guideline 3
(EAG3) (EPA 2009). The area includes the coastal marine environment ~11 km to the north and south of the port, and
extending ~2.5 km to 3.5 km offshore to the 20 m depth contour (Figure 2.1).
The BPPH at Oakajee are similar to and generally representative of BPPH on the west coast of Western Australia
(Kirkman, 1997). The dominant primary producers are algae, of which robust brown (including Ecklonia sp.) and foliose
brown algae appear to be most prevalent (Oceanica 2008). The dominant seagrass is from the genus Amphibolis, which
is endemic to temperate western and southern Australian coastal areas (Ducker et al., 1977). The other major seagrass
present in the region is Thalassodendron pachyrhizum, which has a distribution from the Abrolhos Islands south to Bremer
Bay, Western Australia (Huisman, 2000). As reported by other workers (AT& WEC, 1997; LDM, 1999; Van Keulen et al.,
1998) the BPPH at Oakajee is best described as being extremely heterogeneous, characterised by a complex mosaic of
habitats, which change ‗considerably over the space of a few metres, particularly in the shallow inshore waters and the
high relief reef‘ (LDM, 1999).
2.2 BPPH Health
A marine habitat monitoring survey was conducted to provide background habitat data for a Before-After-Control-Impact
(BACI) assessment, with sufficient rigour to separate change associated with natural variation from change that can be
reasonably attributed to anthropogenic impacts, such as dredging (Oceanica, 2010). The monitoring program was
designed to assess changes in seagrass health characteristics in space (reference areas versus areas with potential for
port construction impacts) and time (inter annual variability, rather than seasonal variability). The study assessed three
years of baseline data from seagrass surveys and two years baseline data from an algal survey using several different
physiological indicators. Differences between potential impact areas and reference areas were detected for 3 of the 28
parameters that were measured. The study also revealed that some of the habitats in the potential impact areas were
naturally different from the reference areas, before port construction. Twelve of the 28 seagrass and algal characteristics
were found to differ significantly among reference areas. The differences detected among the reference areas reflect
natural spatial and temporal variation occurring in the system. Five of the 28 seagrass and algal characteristics were
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
found to differ significantly from year to year, which may be associated with broad-scale oceanographic or climatic
processes.
2.3 Water Quality
The baseline water quality of the Oakajee region was characterised seasonally for the period 2006-2009 (Oceanica 2008a
and Oceanica 2009). Considerable spatial and temporal variation was apparent for the majority of water quality
parameters at Oakajee. Spatial variation existed between the majority of sites reflecting the patchy and heterogeneous
nature of conditions in the Oakajee region. Such variation is common for such an exposed and highly dynamic coastline.
Comparison of the water quality data at Oakajee with the Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council
ANZECC and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) (2000) default
water quality guidelines revealed that some of the measured baseline conditions at Oakajee were naturally higher than the
guideline levels. Such exceedances were most common for nutrients and chlorophyll a in the inshore environment, and
were occasionally observed at midshore and offshore sites. Turbidity and light attenuation measures at midshore and
offshore sites were also above the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) guideline range in all seasons. Nutrient exceedances
in inshore waters may reflect the contribution from wrack accumulation and decomposition (Oceanica, 2009), while
turbidity and light attenuation exceedances are likely to be indicative of the highly exposed and dynamic conditions at
Oakajee, creating a naturally more turbid environment.
2.4 Sediment Quality
The baseline sediment investigations of the Oakajee region tested for the presence of natural and anthropogenic
contaminants (Oceanica 2009a, b, c and d) in accordance with methods defined by the National Water Quality Strategy
(ANZEEC and ARMCANZ 2000), the Contaminated Sites Guideline Series (DoE 2003), and the National Assessment
Guidelines for Dredging (CA 2009). Both the surface sandy sediments and the consolidated rocky sediments were
screened for natural and anthropogenic contamination. The screening included: metals, hydrocarbons and acid sulphate
soils in the consolidated sediments; and, metals, pesticides and organotins in the unconsolidated sediments. All of the
sediments tested returned results below guideline levels, which included: the Ecological Investigation Level (EIL) for a
‗first pass‘ assessment (DoE, 2003); and, the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (CA, 2009). Consequently,
the proposed dredge material was compliant in relation to both ocean disposal and land reclamation activities (Oceanica
2009c; Oceanica 2009d).
2.5 Wind, Currents, Waves and Tide Conditions
The meteorological and oceanographic conditions for the Oakajee region are described in detail in APASA (2009a) and
Oceanica (2007) reports.
A general description of the wind speed and strength was obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM;
www.bom.gov.au). The wind strength and direction exhibited a strong diurnal pattern. The dominant wind directions in
the mornings were from the NE and E (Figure 2.2), whereas during the afternoon the winds were primarily from the S and
SW (Figure 2.2). The summer wind pattern was dominated by S and SE winds in the morning and S and SW sea breezes
in the afternoon. Autumn directions were relatively light and variable in the mornings, and were generally from the S and
SW in the afternoon. During winter, winds were mostly from the NE in the morning, whereas speeds generally increased
in the afternoons with strong sea breezes from the S and SW. Spring wind directions were generally from the south, with
a greater E component in the morning and W component in the afternoon. The greatest wind speeds were observed in
the winter and the summer with the maximum speeds recorded in the summer during most years.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 2.1: Benthic primary producer habitat map of the Oakajee region
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 2.2: Wind frequency analysis (wind roses) from the Geraldton Airport (9am and 3pm)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Current measurements from the Oakajee 20m AWAC station indicate that there is a significant difference in the dominant
current direction when comparing the near-seabed measurements to those made closer to the surface. Measurements
from the mid-depth and near surface meters, indicate that currents head in the NW direction approximately 35% and 45%
of the time. This is also the direction where the strongest currents occur, with currents over 0.25 m/s occurring for
approximately 73% of the time in the NW direction. Similarly, at mid-depth, of the currents over 0.25 m/s approximately
45% occur in the NW direction. Near seabed currents, on the other hand, show an almost equal distribution in current
direction in the N, NW, W and SW directions, with current magnitudes consistently spread over these directions.
Seasonal variations at the Oakajee 20m AWAC near-surface and mid-depths, indicate that summer and spring show a
similar dominance of currents heading NW. In contrast, autumn and winter show a transition to more S and SE directed
currents; however the strongest currents still occur in the W to NW directions.
Analysis of ADCP data measured between 7 June 2006 to 10 January 2007 and 23 November 2007 to 25 July 2008
showed that wave heights were <2 m for ~98% of the record. Wave directions were from the south west predominantly.
Peak wave periods are in the range 12-18 seconds for 85% of the record, showing the site to be dominated by swell
waves.
The typical tidal cycle is diurnal (typically one high and one low tide per day) with a mean spring tidal range of 0.8 m The
transition from spring to neaps to springs again occurring at intervals of 14.5 days, approximately half the length of the
lunar (synodic) cycle.
2.6 Introduced Marine Organisms
Only four of the 55 target Introduced Marine Pest species on the National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group
(NIMPCG) list have been introduced to Western Australia; with all four species limited to the southern WA waters, from
the Swan River and Fremantle, south to Bunbury and east to the ports between Albany and Esperance (NIMPCG, 2006a,
2006b).
Huisman et al. (2008) demonstrated that 60 Introduced Marine Species were present in Western Australia. Using the
Kalbarri Cliffs as the dividing line between tropical and temperate species, the majority were temperate species (37); six
were tropical species, and; 17 species were found in both the tropical and temperate waters.
A recent analysis of the threats of marine species being introduced through 15 ports in Western Australia saw Geraldton
Port ranked fifth highest (McDonald, 2008). The report assigned a moderate overall likelihood of introduced marine
species to Geraldton Port, which was largely due to the high volume of domestic shipping traffic through the port. At least
nine introduced and three cryptogenic species are likely to be established in Geraldton Port (Campbell et al, 2003).
A baseline investigation of Introduced Marine Organisms (IMO) at the proposed Oakajee Port development area was
undertaken. Selected sites targeted potential inoculation areas within the proposed port area, adjacent areas (including
pristine areas) and proposed port approaches (23 sites in total). The baseline study did not detect any IMO (EnviroMarine
2009). The result suggests that transportation and/or establishment of IMO in the Oakajee region is limited.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
3. POTENTI AL IMP ACTS
The potential impacts outlined below are those may be expected from dredging, breakwater construction and land
reclamation activities associated with the construction of Oakajee Port. For clarity, the main focus of each subsection is
summarised below:
 Method
o Outlines the method for identifying and managing potential marine environmental impacts from dredging,
breakwater construction and land reclamation activities.
 Impacts
o Provides a list of the environmental aspects, potential impacts and impact pathways from dredging,
breakwater construction and land reclamation activities.
 Hydrodynamic modelling of impacts to BPPH
o Provides information on the methods and results of hydrodynamic modelling;
o Provides loss calculations for indirect BPPH losses due to construction sedimentation; and,
o Provides loss calculations for indirect BPPH losses due to a reduction in saturating light.
 Infrastructure footprint impacts to BPPH
o Outlines the expected losses from the direct impact of port infrastructure on BPPH.
 Water quality impacts
o Provides information on the potential impacts to the water quality of the receiving marine environment from
land reclamation return water.
3.1 Method
This EMP was developed on the basis of the Ministerial Conditions and the project's Environmental Risk Register. The
register was developed using the IMS-SF-1 Environmental Risk Register Template and in accordance with the IMS-SP-1
Environmental Risk Management Procedure. The risk evaluation is based on the overall project risk management
principles based on AS/NZS 4360: Risk Management.
The management of impacts associated with the Project activities are based on a risk management framework aligned to
ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management. This involves:
 Identification of key activities that may interact with the project environment;
 Implementing controls to reduce risk and severity of impacts; and,
 Monitoring the effectiveness of controls.
A risk assessment of activities and potential impacts of the Project was conducted within the risk management framework
to create a Risk Register.
The key project activities of the proposal were identified. The events that may cause impacts to the environment were
determined, and their associated potential impacts listed.
The risk of the impacts occurring was analysed by determining the consequence severity of the impacts and the likelihood
of consequences being realised. The severity of the consequences was determined using a Consequence Severity
Table. The likelihood of an impact resulting from a pathway was determined with a Likelihood Ranking Table. The level
of risk was determined using a Risk Matrix, which determines the overall level of risk.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
To prevent or minimise the impacts, controls are placed on the pathways in this order of hierarchy of control principles:
 Elimination of the activity;
 Substitution with a lower risk activity or product;
 Engineering solutions to reduce the impact of the event;
 Implementation of administrative procedures to control the activity; and,
 Clean up or remediation measures to mitigate impacts after an event.
Performance indicators are selected parameters that provide indications of the effectiveness of the management
strategies. These indicators have been translated to performance targets.
3.2 Impacts
Port construction, including dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation will cause the development of turbid
sediment plumes that could potentially cause adverse impacts on the marine environment.
Return water from the land reclamation areas may potentially have different temperature, salinity and pH, than the
receiving natural environment, which may impact the environmental values of the area immediately surrounding the point
of water return to the receiving environment.
The major pathways potentially causing turbidity and a change to the physico-chemical water quality are listed below:
 Dredged materials7, including beach sand and consolidated rock, which may release suspended sediments into the
marine environment during dredging of the port berths, turning basin and shipping channel;
 Dredged materials used in the land reclamation area, which may result in the release of suspended sediments into
the marine environment;
 Return water from the reclamation area, which may change the physico-chemical water quality adjacent to the port;
and,
 Dust and dirt from the breakwater rock armour and core material, which may release suspended into the marine
environment during breakwater construction.
The three major types of construction activity, including dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation have the
potential to cause impact the marine environment through different pathways (Table 3.1).
The predicted losses of marine habitat attributable to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation are provided
in Table 3.2. These predictions indicate that the total impact from the port footprint will result in losses of 146.2 ha
(Figure 3.1), which complies with the MS469 requirement that not more than 170 ha of habitat should be destroyed.
Additionally, no individual habitat type has a cumulative loss of more than 10% of the local assessment unit (5690 ha at
Oakajee), which is in accordance with Category E (development areas) as outlined in EAG3 (EPA 2009). Expected BPPH
losses associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation are shown in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.2.
7Screening of the unconsolidated (sandy) sediments and consolidated (rock) sediments for potential contamination did not reveal any
naturally occurring contamination above screening levels at the port development site (Oceanica 2009a Oceanica 2009b).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table 3.1: Construction activity, pathway, environmental impact

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

To examine the environmental impacts associated with sediment plumes expected to be generated during construction of
the Oakajee Deepwater Port, hydrodynamic modelling was undertaken by Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates
(APASA). The description below provides a summary of the modelling conducted for the proposed port construction. For
a more detailed account of the methods, scenarios and limitations of the modelling refer to the following documents:
 Oceanica and APASA (2010a) (Attachment D);
 APASA (2009); and,
 APASA (2009a).
The APASA modelling was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 involved modelling the fate of suspended sediment
material deposited into the marine environment during the construction of the port breakwater. Phase 2 involved dredge
dispersion modelling for the duration of all the dredging operations associated with the development. The methods
employed in the modelling are provided in detail in APASA (2009).
A supplementary report was developed to interpret the predictive (numerical) modelling results from port construction and
use those data to assess the potential impact of turbidity and sedimentation on benthic primary producer habitat
(Oceanica and APASA 2010a). Specifically, the report described the zones of impact on benthic primary producer habitat
resulting from the predicted the turbidity plume generated by construction activity over the construction period. Benthic
primary producer habitat in the Oakajee Deepwater Port region comprise algae as well as seagrass, but as seagrass was
considered the benthic primary producer most sensitive to turbidity, the predicted effects on seagrass (Amphibolis griffithii)
health were used to conservatively define potential areas of impact on all benthic primary producers. Furthermore, an
estimate of the potential loss from bottom deposition of sediment over the model domain was made.
The APASA modelling was undertaken to quantify the movement of suspended sediment generated during construction of
the proposed Oakajee Deepwater Port Development, and incorporated physical data collected from the Oakajee region.
The study involved using Lagrangian particle tracking models to track the fate of the sediment using forcing conditions
specified by a wave model and three-dimensional, numerical, hydrodynamic model. The models enabled the sediment
dispersal patterns to be calculated under a range of forcing conditions, and for different construction scenarios. The
domain of the study was sufficient to encompass the total area affected by the sediment plumes arising from the proposed
dredging and disposal operations, to a distance where the concentrations might be significant. The total area affected
included the initial extent of the sediment plume and deposition and areas affected following the reworking of sediments,
which occurs through re-suspension and subsequent transport. The domain of the study was large enough to capture the
forcing effects of all relevant sediment transport mechanisms over the study area. In particular the effect of wind energy
transfer to the sea surface over long fetches of the order of 10‘s km was important for both wave and current generation.
The sediment transport model also accounted for particle-size specific sinking, sedimentation and re-suspension of
sediments for the range of current and wave conditions as derived by the hydrodynamic and wave models. The model
also accounted for the effects of sediment cohesion (i.e. clumping) on sinking rates of fine particles and the effects of
sedimentation history, burial and armouring on re-suspension rates. The sediment model also represents cumulative
effects of multiple sources of suspended sediment over and beyond the duration of the full construction program (i.e.
36 months) in order to quantify the time-history of effects and the full footprint of the operation. All of these requirements
were considered in developing optimal models for this study.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
The model was developed using four likely scenarios of meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which included:
1. Low total suspended solid (TSS) concentration (100 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and La Niña climatic
conditions;
2. High TSS concentration (250 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and La Niña climatic conditions;
3. Low (TSS) concentration (100 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and El Niño climatic conditions; and,
4. High TSS concentration (250 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and El Niño climatic conditions.
La Niña and El Niño climatic conditions were both modelled because the transition between autumn and spring showed
distinct inter-annual variation depending on whether a particular year was more ‗summer like‘ with winds from the south,
or more ‗winter like‘ with winds from the north-east. ‗Winter like‘ winds corresponded to weak La Niña years, whereas
‗summer like‘ winds were related to weak El Niño years (APASA 2009). In order to capture the effects of inter-annual
variability, both cases were considered in the modelling.
The selection of TSS concentrations was based on results from other capital dredging projects in Western Australia. In
particular, data from a dredging program where the dredge material was collected in a bunded reclamation area had
return water with a measurable TSS of ~100 mg L-1 (confidential data). Based on these data, the selection of 250 mg L-1
was considered a highly conservative estimate and a worst-case scenario.
Estimates of the area impacted by the modelled turbidity plume were based on seagrass light criteria described by the
parameter ∆Hsat, which describes the decrease in hours of saturating irradiance of seagrass in shaded (impact) areas
versus control (reference) areas. The impact on seagrass was expressed as the percentage reduction in the above
ground biomass (leaves and stems) of seagrass in the impact site compared with the reference site. These parameters
were based on an established study conducted at Jurien Bay, some 200 km south of the Oakajee Port site
(Lavery et. al. 2009). For a full description of the methods employed to develop the ∆Hsat light criteria, refer to
Attachment D.
Zones of high impact, moderate impact and low impact were determined for the Oakajee development site for each of the
model scenarios. Of the four scenarios, the worst-case in terms of impacts on the light environment (i.e. shading) was the
high TSS concentration (250 mg L-1) from land reclamation return-water and La Niña climatic conditions. Note that due to
the close proximity of the three areas of impact described above and the relatively small combined total footprint, these
will be considered together in the loss calculations at the Zone of Impact (ZoI) (Table 3.4). The predicted area of the ZoI
is shown in Figure 3.2, which provides a good estimate of the potential area of impact based on the physical
oceanographic parameters used in the model. However, it is likely that the actual oceanographic conditions will vary from
the modelled conditions during construction so that the actual footprint location may differ to that predicted by the model.
Considering this, the predicted area of impact (10.2 ha, see Section 3.4), will be assessed within a moderate ecological
protection area (MEPA, see section Section 3.4 for the MEPA boundary).
An estimate of the area of BPPH lost by sediment burial was also made using APASA (2009) modelling output. The
threshold amount of ≥50 kg m-2 over the entire construction campaign (i.e. 36 months) was used to estimate potential
BPPH loss through burial (Oceanica and APASA 2010a). The threshold amount of 50 kg m-2 equates to approx. 4 cm
burial for seagrass (Oceanica and APASA 2010a). This is a highly conservative threshold for A. griffithii, which has been
shown to tolerate up to 16 cm of sediment (Coupland 1997). It is also highly unlikely that the full amount of sediment
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
estimated would remain deposited in the area because the model predicts the cumulative total sediment at the end of the
simulation period (i.e. 2 years). More likely the high wind and wave energy experienced in the Oakajee region would
remobilise much of the material before it accumulates (Oceanica, 2009). The selection of the worst case model scenario
(El Niño, high TSS output) also adds to the conservatism of the estimate. The total area of 6.9 ha predicted is therefore a
highly conservative estimate of BPPH loss attributable to sedimentation. The estimated area impacted by sediment burial
is shown in Table 3.5.
Table 3.4: Estimate of BPPH areas impacted by increased light attenuation (∆Hsat) during construction
Estimated Area of Impact (ha)
Zone of Impact
Habitat Type High Impact Moderate Impact Low Impact
(i.e Total)
Sand with Seagrass 0 0.1 0.1 0.2
Reef with algae 0 0 0 0
Reef with algae and seagrass 0.1 1.0 1.9 3.0
Inshore reef with algae 0 0 0.1 0.1
TOTAL 0.1 1.1 2.1 3.3
Table 3.5: Worst-case modelling scenarios of BPPH loss from construction at Oakajee Port
Indirect Impact (ha) Outside of Dredge and Breakwater Footprint
Habitat Type Turbidity Sedimentation Total construction
Sand with Seagrass 0.2 0 0.2
Reef with algae 0 0.8 0.8
Reef with algae and seagrass 3.0 0.7 3.7
Inshore reef with algae 0.1 5.4 5.5
TOTAL 3.3 6.9 10.2
The assumptions and methods used to define the zones of impact (Table 3.4) and the sediment burial BPPH losses are
provided in detail in Oceanica and APASA (2010a). The combined worst-case scenario is presented in Table 3.5 and
Figure 3.1.
The conservative approach taken with the modelling is likely to represent a worse-case than might be expected. The
major reasons for the model to over-estimate the TSS and sediment deposition rates presented in this report are:
1. The worst-case from the four model scenarios was chosen to represent possible BPPH loss for both TSS/turbidity
and sedimentation.
2. High TSS levels in the return waters from the settlement area were assumed.
3. The retention time of the reclamation area and settlement area was not included in the model, therefore it was
assumed all of the water going into land reclamation was output at the return water points. It is likely that some water
will be lost to evaporation, into the ground and returned to the sea through the soil/reef profile.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
4. Point source return water rather than diffuse source return water – less likely to have areas of high sediment
deposition.
5. Zone of low impact was chosen as the trigger for loss of BPPH.
6. Highly conservative sedimentation threshold level of approx. 4 cm (≥50 kg m-2) was selected to estimate the possible
impact on BPPH from burial.
7. Additional mitigation measures were not included in the model, such as using the tug-boat harbour as an additional
settling area, or switching from one reclamation to the other to maximise infiltration and reduce return water flow.
Furthermore the potential for BPPH to recover after dredging related turbidity impacts was not considered in the
modelling, even though strong evidence exists to suggest that recovery is likely within 3 years of the impact (CSIRO
2008). Therefore, it is possible that any areas of BPPH lost during construction may recover within 3 years.
3.3.2 Predicted Visual Plume
The combined BPPH loss estimates presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.1 may appear small when compared with that
experienced by the Geraldton Port Expansion Project. However, there are several reasons why the turbidity plume is not
expected to greatly impact BPPH health. The hydrodynamic model adopted a highly conservative approach and therefore
provides a worst case than might be expected. The data used for the predicted loss was the worst case scenario for
meteorological and oceanographic conditions. Additionally, the return water TSS concentrations were assumed to be very
high (250 mg L-1) and the retention time of the large reclamation and settlement areas were not included in the model.
The TSS concentrations will most likely be considerably lower than those modelled. Finally, management mitigation
measures were not included in the modelling, such as selecting relatively coarse core material for breakwater construction
to reduce the fines content, or switching from one reclamation area to another to maximise infiltration and reduce return-
water flow.
It is important to make the distinction between turbidity impacts to BPPH and turbidity visible to the naked eye. The visual
plume is a zone of influence that will be larger than the zone of BPPH impact (Figure 3.1), where turbidity is higher than it
would normally be, but does not cause a significant impact to BPPH. In contrast, the zone of impact is that area where
the turbidity is sufficiently high to cause negative impacts on the BPPH. The spatial and temporal extent of the visual
plume is expected to be intermittent depending on the construction activities and the prevailing meteorological and
oceanographic conditions. To provide an indicative guide to the potential visual extent of the suspended sediment plume,
instant snap shots during the modelling simulation were taken at 4 hourly intervals over different stages of port
construction to give a sense of the temporal behaviour of the suspended sediment plume (APASA 2009). The entire
construction program was divided into 25 day ‗scenarios‘ for computational and data storage reasons.
A summary of the construction activities for each scenario is provided in Figure 3.3. The construction activities include:
 Breakwater construction by end-tipping, using rock material sourced from a land based quarry;
 Breakwater construction by barges, using rock material sourced from a land based quarry;
 Construction of the northern bunded area, using rock material sourced from a land based quarry; and,
 Dredging of marine sediment and rock and disposal at the northern and southern land reclamation areas.
The following construction scenarios were selected to illustrate the possible extent of the visual plume:
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
 Scenario 2 - breakwater construction (Figure 3.4), which is indicative of the visual plume for the first 475 days of the
construction campaign;
 Scenario 19 - dredging and return water discharge from the northern reclamation area (Figure 3.5), which is indicative
of the visual plume from approximately day 475 to day 525 of port construction; and
 Scenario 23 - dredging and return water discharge from the southern reclamation area (Figure 3.6), which is
indicative of the visual plume from approximately day 525 to day 700 of port construction.
Snap shots are presented for the different construction components over the period of construction during the worst case
modelling scenario (i.e. La Nina oceanographic conditions, high TSS concentration in return water). The snap shots are
presented as spatial surface plots of the maximum water column concentration (in mg/L) over all layers of the bulk
material in the water column (Figure 3.4 to Figure 3.6).
The results suggest that during construction of the breakwater, a visual plume may be evident up to ~13 km north of the
port. During dredging and return-water flow from the reclamation area, the visual plume is likely to extend to ~5-6 km
north of the port. These predictions from the hydrodynamic modelling of the worst case scenario suggest that the visual
plume will extend over a significantly larger area than the predicted extent of BPPH impact discussed in Section 3.3.1 and
shown in Figure 3.1.
Impacts to coastal sediment transport are considered in the Shoreline Stability Management Plan (SSMP).
Figure 3.3: Volume of dredge material for each construction scenario (S1-S27) during El Nino oceanographic
conditions (source APASA [2000])
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Scale
2km
Figure 3.4: Sequence of snap shots of the maximum TSS concentration in the water column (mg/L) at 4 hourly intervals on 31 October Year1 of the
construction schedule. The snap shots are taken from the La Nina case and the sediment source is from dumping of core material via land based
operation during breakwater construction (Source: APASA 2009)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Scale
2km
Figure 3.5 Snap shot sequence of maximum TSS in the water column (mg/L) at 4 hourly intervals on 10
December Year 2 of the construction schedule. The sediment source is from dumping core material during the
breakwater construction, the cutter head during dredge operation and the northern return water discharge
(Source: APASA 2009)
Scale
2km
Figure 3.6 Snap shot sequence of maximum TSS in the water column (mg/L) at 4 hourly intervals on 27
April Year 3 of the construction schedule. The sediment source is from the cutter head during dredge operation
and the southern return water discharge (Source: APASA 2009)
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
3.4 Water Quality Impacts

The Oakajee Deepwater Port PER outlined the parameters and guidelines proposed for dredging activities undertaken
during port construction (Table 3.6).
Table 3.6: Water Quality Monitoring Program – Oakajee deepwater port dredging parameters and guidelines
Parameter Waterways Guidelines (Waterways Commission Guidelines No 9, December 1995)
pH Range 5-9; <1.0 unit change
Dissolved Oxygen >5.0 mg/L or >60% saturation
Temperature Return water discharges shall not cause the water temperature in the receiving waters to vary by more than
2°C from background temperatures in the receiving waters.
Nutrients The concentration of nutrients in the return waters shall not exceed the background concentration in
receiving waters.
Suspended Solids The suspended solids concentration of the return water shall not exceed the higher of the background
concentration in the receiving waters or 80 mg/L.
Odours and Colours Return water discharges shall not produce objectionable odours or colours in the receiving waters.
Floatable Matter Return water discharges shall not cause visible floating oil, foam, grease, scum, litter or other objectionable
matter in the receiving waters.
Settleable Matter Return water discharges shall not cause the deposition of settleable matter which may adversely affect the
visual, recreational and ecological values of the receiving waters.
Salinity The return water salinity shall not vary by more than 10% from the background salinity levels in the receiving
water.
Toxicants The operator may be required to undertake toxicity analysis of the return water discharge. The level of
toxicants shall not exceed the desirable concentrations in ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000).
However, it was noted in MS469 that the final parameters and guidelines to be used will be determined in consultation
with the relevant regulatory bodies. This DBCLRMP forms the basis of that consultation.
Of the parameters listed in Table 3.6 above, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity and contaminants will be
addressed in this DBCLRMP. The reason for selection of these parameters is explained in the next section.
P H Y S I C O - C H E M I C A L W A T E R Q U A L I T Y I N DI C AT O R S
Land reclamation return water may have higher temperature and salinity than the receiving coastal waters. Similarly,
dissolved oxygen, pH and nutrient concentrations may be different in the land reclamation area compared with the
receiving environment. Therefore, physico-chemical water quality monitoring will be conducted in the receiving marine
waters adjacent to the reclamation areas during periods when the return-water is directed into the receiving marine
waters.
Physico-chemical water quality testing during breakwater construction and dredging activities will also measure TSS, and
light attenuation data to validate the assumptions of the relationship between these parameters in the sediment plume
modelling.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Water quality triggers for physico-chemical parameters have been adopted as indicators of ecosystem health within
moderate ecological protection areas (MEPA) and high ecological protection areas (HEPA). These are based on
Ecological Quality Criteria (EQC) as outlined in EPA (2005), and reproduced in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Physico-chemical water quality indicators, trigger levels and detection limits
Indicator Moderate Ecological High Ecological Protection Detection Limit
Protection Trigger Trigger
Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) >80% >90% 1% saturation
pH (pH units) Within the range 5th-95th%ile of Within the range 20th-80th%ile 0.1 pH units
reference site of reference site
Temperature (°C) ≤95th%ile of reference site ≤80th%ile of reference site 0.1°C
Salinity (ppt) Within the range 5th-95th%ile of Within the range 20th-80th%ile 0.1 ppt
reference site of reference site
The method for deriving the moderate and high protection triggers described above was based on ANZEEC & ARMCANZ (2000)
The EQC for dissolved oxygen will be considered exceeded if median values are less than the MEPAs and HEPAs for six
consecutive weeks of monitoring, in accordance with EPA (2005a).
The EQC for pH, temperature and salinity will be considered exceeded if median values are outside the range for the
MEPAs and HEPAs when compared with an appropriate reference site/s for four consecutive weeks of monitoring, in
accordance with EPA (2005a).
The MEPA will extend 250 m from port infrastructure in accordance with DoE (2006). Beyond the MEPA, all areas are
considered HEPA. The MEPA for the proposed Oakajee Port are shown in (Figure 3.7).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 3.7: Construction MEPA surrounding port infrastructure and the southern land reclamation return water
area
CONTAMINANTS IN WATER
The results of the baseline sediment investigation demonstrated that the levels of both natural and anthropogenic
contamination contained in the sediments at Oakajee were below ANZEEC/ARMCANZ (2000) guideline levels (Oceanica
2009c and Oceanica 2009d). Considering this, there is a low risk to water quality and ecological health from naturally
occurring contaminants during construction. However, to demonstrate that the natural levels of contaminants are below
guideline levels throughout construction, sampling will be performed on water from the land reclamation area prior to
discharge into the receiving environment.
The water quality triggers for contaminants8 including metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are shown in
Table 3.8. These are based on indicators of ecosystem health values within MEPAs and HEPAs (EPA, 2005), which
include:
8The baseline investigations of sediment quality revealed negligible risk of contaminant in the sediments, which included screening of:
organotins, organic herbicides and pesticides, and acid sulphate soils. These parameters will not be screened in the water quality
monitoring sampling.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
 90% species protection values for MEPAs (as defined by Table 3.4.1 of ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000);
 99% species protection values for HEPAs, except for cobalt which is 95% species protection (as defined by Table
3.4.1 of ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000; and as agreed with the DEC in previous correspondence); or
 Low Reliability Values (LRVs) defined in Chapter 8 of ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) and Table 2c of EPA (2005),
for ‗other‘ chemicals not listed within the above.
Table 3.8: Indicators, trigger levels and detection limits for contaminants in water
Indicator Ecosystem Health Trigger Levels Detection Limits
Metals High Ecological Protection (µg L-1) Moderate Ecological Protection µg L-1
(µg L-1)
Cadmium 0.7 14 0.6
Chromium III 7.7 49 5
Chromium VI 0.14 20 2**
Cobalt 1 14 1
Copper 0.3 3 1**
Lead 2.2 6.6 2
Mercury 0.1 0.7 0.1
Nickel 7 200 2
Silver 0.8 1.8 0.8
Vanadium 50 160 1
Zinc 7 23 2
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene 50* 90 0.01
# #
Phenanthrene 0.6 4 0.01
# #
Anthracene 0.01 1.5 0.01
Fluoranthene 1 1.7 0.01
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 0.4 0.01
# Based on Low Reliability Values (LRVs) - Action is not mandatory if LRVs are exceeded, but regulators and management agencies should be
advised and consideration given to developing strategies that will ensure environmental impacts are avoided (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000; EPA
2005a).
* 99% species protection value utilised (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000).
3.5 Summary of Impacts

A summary of impacts for the purpose of performance management include:
 Loss of biodiversity from indirect impacts to BPPH due to turbidity plume.
 Loss of biodiversity from indirect impact to BPPH due to sedimentation.
 Loss of biodiversity from direct impact to BPPH due to infrastructure footprint.
 Loss of biodiversity from water quality physicochemical impacts.
 Loss of biodiversity from water quality contaminant impacts.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBI LITIES
This section outlines the overarching roles and responsibilities relating to this Plan. The responsibility for more detailed
control measures are presented in Section 6.
Environment Manager
 Overall accountability for the implementation and compliance with this DBCLRMP.
 Provide support to all Project personnel as required ensuring this DBCLRMP is implemented and complied with.
 Provide advice to the Construction Manager, Dredge Manager and Environmental Coordinators to ensure
compliance with the legal requirements, achievement of environmental objectives and improving environmental
performance.
 Obtain relevant approvals as required.
 Review and closing out any corrective actions listed in the Complaints Register.
Construction Manager
 To ensure all staff are trained as to their responsibilities with respect to the DBCLRMP.
 To investigate and subsequently rectify issues that may arise as a result of non-conformance.
Dredge Manager
 Accountability for compliance with dredge management controls detailed in this DBCLRMP.
 Accountability for the implementation of additional dredge management controls detailed in this DBCLRMP.
Site Supervisor
 To provide work place induction of requirements of their team(s) under this DBCLRMP.
 To ensure work is undertaken cognisant of the commitments made in this Plan.
 To provide feedback into any DBCLRMP review process.
Environmental Coordinator
 Provide training and induction on relevant control measures as outlined in this DBCLRMP.
 Provide monitoring teams and programmes.
 Assist with investigating incidents and co-ordinating corrective actions, if required;
 To liaise with the Site Supervisor and Construction Manager and other relevant personnel on the DBCLRMP
implementation effectiveness.
 To review the DBCLRMP as required and disseminate any changes to affected personnel.
 To report as required to regulating authorities.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Contractors
 Shall complete project inductions and abide by OPR and PMSC policies, procedures and plans including but not
limited to Environmental Management Plans;
 Manage activities so as to avoid contamination of marine waters
All Personnel
 To comply with this DBCLRMP and the overall EMS and SMS as it pertains to their activities; and
 To report incidents and support environmental investigations and audits.
Also refer to EMS for further details on general OPR personnel responsibilities.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
5. MITIG ATION
Impacts on benthic primary producers and water quality generally will be minimised by appropriate design and avoidance
where possible. To prevent or minimise the impacts, controls are placed on the pathways in the order of hierarchy of
control principles listed below:
 Elimination of the activity;
 Substitution with a lower risk activity or product;
 Engineering solutions to reduce the impact of the event;
 Implementation of administrative procedures to control the activity; and
 Clean up or remediation measures to mitigate impacts after an event.
The management strategy structure and content follows EPA and DEC guidance.
Management strategies have been developed to meet the following EPA objectives:
 To maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of marine flora and fauna at
species and ecosystems levels through the avoidance and management of adverse impacts and improvement in
knowledge; and
 To maintain water quality to accepted criteria to protect the environmental values of recreation aesthetics, aquatic
life for human consumption and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas.
 EQO1 - Maintain ecosystem integrity (EPA 2005)
The intended mitigation of impacts, determined in accordance with the EPA recommended mitigation hierarchy, is outlined
in Table 5.1 below. The impacts, objectives, targets and performance indicators related to dredging, breakwater
construction and land reclamation, have been developed based upon the management strategies outlined in Table 5.1
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table 5.1 Performance Management targets and indicators for Dredging, Breakwater Construction & Land Reclamation
Potential Impacts OPR Management Objective OPR Management Strategy Target Performance Indicators
Loss of biodiversity from direct Infrastructure footprint conforms to To monitor disturbance footprint to ensure it is within Combined total infrastructure footprint and permanent loss of BPPH will be less Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated
impact to BPPH due to the 'Approved' Port design (MS469) the approved footprint impact threshold as defined in than or equal to 170 ha (MS469). Calculation of total loss will consider the through external audit (Section 10)
infrastructure footprint. MS469 following:  Infrastructure footprint assessment post-
 Infrastructure footprint is less than or equal to that proposed in the construction through GIS verification
'Approved' Port design (MS469); and
 Permanent sedimentation impacts to BPPH are less than or equal to those
predicted by the hydrodynamic model (Oceanica and APASA 2010a); and
 Permanent indirect loss (from reduced light availability) of BPPH are less
than or equal to those predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009);
and
 Recovery of BPPH in accordance with EAG3 (EPA 2009)
Loss of biodiversity from indirect To maintain the abundance, diversity, Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land Combined total infrastructure footprint and permanent loss of BPPH will be less Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated
impacts to BPPH due to turbidity geographic distribution and reclamation construction activities to minimise than or equal to 170 ha (MS469). Calculation of total loss will consider the through external audit (Section 10)
plume. productivity of BPPH at species and turbidity. following:  Seagrass cover monitoring
ecosystems levels.  Permanent indirect loss (from reduced light availability) of BPPH are less  BPPH health monitoring
and  ∆Hsat (light) monitoring
 Infrastructure footprint is less than or equal to that proposed in the
 Permanent sedimentation impacts to BPPH are less than or equal to those
predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009); and
Loss of biodiversity from indirect To maintain the abundance, diversity, Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land Combined total infrastructure footprint and permanent loss of BPPH will be less Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated
impacts to BPPH due to geographic distribution and reclamation construction activities to minimise than or equal to 170 ha (MS469). Calculation of total loss will consider the through external audit (Section 10)
sedimentation. productivity of BPPH at species and sedimentation. following:  Seagrass cover monitoring
ecosystems levels.  Permanent sedimentation impacts to BPPH are less than or equal to those  BPPH health monitoring
predicted by the hydrodynamic model (APASA 2009); and
 Infrastructure footprint is less than or equal to that proposed in the
 Permanent indirect loss (from reduced light availability) of BPPH are less
and
Loss of biodiversity from water To maintain water quality to accepted Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land Physico-chemical water quality parameters within land reclamation water are Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated
quality physicochemical impacts. criteria to protect the environmental reclamation construction activities to minimise less than with MEPA trigger levels (Table 3.7) before being returned to the through external audit (Section 10)
values of recreation aesthetics, changes to physico-chemical water parameters receiving environment.  Physico-chemical water quality monitoring
aquatic life for human consumption
and maintenance of aquatic
ecosystems in agreed areas.
Loss of biodiversity from water To maintain water quality to accepted Manage dredging, breakwater construction and land Contaminant levels within land reclamation water are less than the MEPA trigger Compliance with DBCLRMP demonstrated
quality contaminant impacts. criteria to protect the environmental reclamation construction activities to minimise the levels (Table 3.8) before being returned to the receiving environment. through external audit (Section 10)
values of recreation aesthetics, release of contaminants into the receiving marine  Contaminant water quality monitoring
aquatic life for human consumption environment within the land reclamation area/s
and maintenance of aquatic
ecosystems in agreed areas
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
6. KEY CONTROL MEASURES
A series of control measures have been established to address the potential impacts related to dredging, breakwater
construction and land reclamation that could arise during the construction of the OPR Port Marine and Port Terrestrial
infrastructure. The control measures directly address the EPA objectives and OPR management strategies set out in
the Public Environmental Review and Ministerial Statement 469.
Control measures for the management of turbidity during construction activities including; dredging, breakwater
construction and land reclamation, are outlined in Table 6 below. The control measures in Table 6 relate to
construction impacts on benthic primary producer habitat (BPPH) and water quality caused by suspended sediments.
In addition, several control measures that may related to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation were
identified and outlined in full in other associated Oakajee Deepwater Port EMPs. These plans include:
 Construction Management Plan;
 Oil Spill Contingency Plan;
 Port Waste Management Plan;
 Accidental Spills Management Plan;
 Introduced Marine Pests Management Plan
 Beach-cast Wrack Management Plan
 Shoreline Stability Management Plan
 Underwater Noise Management Plan
Please refer to these management plans for further control measures that may be associated with dredging,
breakwater construction and land reclamation (Section 11). A copy of the management plans are available from OPR.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table 6.1: Control measures for dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation during construction
OPR Management Objective Control Construction Control Measures Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Measure ID Management Level
Direct BPPH impacts MCD1 General Comply with MS469 footprint conditions. Construction Manager Design & Construction Survey and GIS
MCD2 General Progressive construction surveying of dredge area, breakwater and land reclamation Construction Manager Design & Construction Survey and GIS
Infrastructure footprint conforms to the areas to validate detailed design to confirm compliance with MS469.
'Approved' Port design (MS469)
MCD3 General Conduct a final construction survey on completion of Port infrastructure construction to Construction Manager Design & Construction Survey and GIS
validate compliance with MS469.
Sedimentation and Turbidity- Indirect MCD4 General Ensure all dredge material is disposed to land. Dredge Manager Construction Site inspection
BPPH impacts
MCD5 General A cutter suction dredge will be used to remove the majority of material. Dredge Manager Construction Site inspection
To maintain the abundance, diversity,
geographic distribution and productivity of MCD6 General Implement a maintenance and inspection program for floating pipelines to minimise Dredge Manager Construction Maintenance records
BPPH at species and ecosystems levels. leakage of turbid water during pumping of material to the reclamation area.
MCD7 General Ensure two return water discharge points are utilised. Dredge Manager /Construction Construction Site inspection
Turbidity- Indirect BPPH impacts Manager
To maintain the abundance, diversity, MCD8 General Alternate land disposal locations to minimise turbidity of return water. Construction Manager Construction Site inspection
geographic distribution and productivity of
BPPH at species and ecosystems levels. MCD9 General Seawalls will be lined with geotextile material or filter rock to reduce leakage and Construction Manager Design &Construction Site inspection
increase particle retention.
Water Quality MCD10 General Internal bunding of reclamation areas will be implemented to increase retention times. Construction Manager Design & Construction Site inspection
To maintain water quality to accepted criteria MCD11 General Water levels within settlement ponds will be managed to maximise internal capacity of Construction Manager Construction Daily logs
to protect the environmental values of the system (weir box levels).
recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for human
consumption and maintenance of aquatic MCD12 General Discharge of dredge material to one of two large receiving reclamation areas to Dredge Manager Construction Daily logs and site inspection
ecosystems in agreed areas. maximise sedimentation within reclamation areas.
MCD13 General Selective use of quarry material to avoid fine particle size material. Construction Manager Construction Quarry daily logs and site
inspection
th
MCD14 Level 1 Implement Level 1 management contingency actions if median BPPH impact site > 80 Environment Manager Construction Refer to section 7
percentile BPPH at reference site (refer to Table 8.1).
th
th
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
7. MONITORING
The monitoring strategies employed in this DBCLRMP primarily apply to impacts associated with BPPH and water
quality during dredging and disposal. This section provides the detailed monitoring program for assessing the indirect
impacts to BPPH from the turbidity plume during dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation activities, and
for assessing direct impacts to BPPH from port infrastructure and sedimentation. This section also provides the
detailed monitoring program for assessing water quality impacts associated with land reclamation return water.
A brief summary of the monitoring requirements for construction monitoring are provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Summary of DBCLRMP monitoring
Management Objective Monitoring Requirement Responsibility
To maintain the abundance, diversity, Sedimentation: Environmental

geographic distribution and productivity of  Infrastructure surveys Manager
BPPH at species and ecosystems levels.  Bathymetry
 Benthic Habitat Mapping
Turbidity: Environmental
Light Monitoring - ∆Hsat (i.e. light required by seagrass to Manager
maintain growth and biomass)
BPPH Health Monitoring
 Seagrass biomass and physiology
 Algal biomass (not for assessment of
construction impacts)
(refer to Section 7.
To maintain water quality to accepted Physico-chemical monitoring Environmental

criteria to protect the environmental values Contaminants in land reclamation return water Manager
of recreation aesthetics, aquatic life for
human consumption and maintenance of
aquatic ecosystems in agreed areas.
Infrastructure footprint conforms to the Analyse detailed GPS coordinates during construction. Construction
'Approved' Port design (MS469) Manager and
Dredge Manager
There are many potential impacts associated with port construction and outlined in Table 7.1 that are not addressed
within this DBCLRMP. However, these potential impacts and the monitoring programs that have been developed to
assess them are presented in full in the other relevant EMPs. They include:
 Construction Management Plan;
 Oil Spill Contingency Plan;
 Port Waste Management Plan;
 Accidental Spills Management Plan;
 Introduced Marine Pests Management Plan;
 Beach-cast Wrack Management Plan;
 Shoreline Stability Management Plan; and,
 Underwater Noise Management Plan.
The reader is referred to these management plans for further information on control measures to reduce the impacts
associated with dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation. Copies of these management plans can be
obtained from OPR.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
7.1 BPPH Direct Impacts Monitoring

The proposed port infrastructure was designed to have a final footprint of ~148 ha (JFA 1808-14-2E). MS469 states
that total footprint (which is BPPH loss and bare sand) is not to exceed 170 ha, which includes the total of direct loss
(infrastructure footprint) and indirect loss. The marine area affected by the proposed port is shown in Table 7.2. The
infrastructure footprint includes a 50 m halo around the breakwater, which accounts for localised physical processes
that often prevent benthic primary producers from becoming established in this zone. The total estimated area of
146.2 ha will be assessed at the end of construction to demonstrate that the port infrastructure and loss estimates
were accurate, and that the port is in compliance of MS469.
The Section describes the monitoring program and management measures that will be undertaken to demonstrate
compliance with MS469.
Table 7.2: Marine area affected from direct and indirect impacts of the proposed port
Marine Area Affected Port design drawing (JFA 1808-14-2E)
Direct Impact: Infrastructure Footprint
Breakwater 26.8
Breakwater Halo 13.9
Dredge 69.0
Land Reclamation 26.3

SUBTOTAL 136
Indirect Impact: Turbidity Plume Modelling
Construction sedimentation (model) 6.9

Construction shading (model) 3.3
SUBTOTAL 10.2
TOTAL AREA 146.2
7.1.1 Parameters
The parameters for direct impact assessment will include:
 Surveys of marine infrastructure including the breakwater, and land reclamation areas;
 Bathymetry of the port area; and,
 Benthic habitat mapping of the Local Assessment Unit.
7.1.2 Frequency and Location

 Surveys of the marine infrastructure and bathymetry of the port area will be conducted on completion of
construction;
 Benthic habitat mapping of the local assessment unit (LAU) will be conducted within 5 years of the completion of
construction to determine the final area of BPPH loss. This is consistent with EAG3 (EPA 2009) which states:
“Recoverability from the impacts may be considered if proponents can reasonably demonstrate that full recovery
of the impacted benthic primary producer habitat would be expected within a timeframe of 5 years or less.”
7.1.3 Method
 Differential Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) will be used to accurately survey the port infrastructure. The final
port infrastructure footprint will be calculated using Global Information System software.
 DGPS will be used on the dredge(s) to ensure that the dredge does not deviate from the approved dredging
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
areas. Side scan sonar will be employed to develop accurate bathymetry of the dredge footprint. The proposed
and final dredge footprint will be compared to calculate the total volume of dredge material removed.
 Benthic habitat mapping will be conducted using the methods of the initial survey of the area (see Figure 2.1).
The methods are described in (Oceanica 2008). The habitat of the Local Assessment Unit (LAU) will be described
according to the five categories of BPPH types that were previously mapped, including:
o Sand with seagrass;
o Reef with algae;
o Reef with algae and seagrass;
o Inshore reef with algae; and
o Sand.
 A final loss table will be developed to compare the total final footprint (direct and indirect loss) against the 170 ha
threshold, and the percent loss of all BPPH categories within the LAU relative to the 10% threshold when
compared to the baseline BPPH map (consistent with EAG3).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
7.2 BPPH Indirect Impact Monitoring

A discussion on light and its measurement at Oakajee, the method for calculating the term ∆Hsat, and the relevant
information used to develop the light requirements and thresholds for BPPH is provided in Oceanica and APASA
(2010a); (Attachment D).
7.2.1 Parameters (Light requirements and thresholds for Benthic Primary

Producer Habitat)
As previously discussed in Section 3.3.1, the potential construction impacts on BPPH were developed based on the
relationships between modelled TSS concentrations, the parameter ∆Hsat and the anticipated responses of the
dominant seagrass in the region (Amphibolis griffithii [Lavery et al. 2009]) to changes in ∆Hsat. Consequently, the
BPPH monitoring program to assess the indirect impact of construction turbidity on BPPH health will use the parameter
∆Hsat as an early warning and sub-lethal indicator of a potential decline in BPPH health. The monitoring program will
use a systematic approach for early detection of a significant reduction in the light environment, which may result in
damage to seagrass. The parameter ∆Hsat will be monitored and assessed against the trigger values that were used
to determine the zones of BPPH impact in Oceanica and APASA (2010a) and shown in Table 7.3. Where ∆Hsat is
below the trigger values, there is expected to be sufficient light for A. griffithii to undergo photosynthesis. Where ∆Hsat
is greater than the trigger value, there is a possibility that A. griffithii will be adversely impacted by shading from
construction turbidity. When this occurs, key measures of A. griffithii biomass, density and morphology will be
conducted to determine whether or not the increase in ∆Hsat has directly impacted the BPPH. A. griffithii sampling will
also be conducted at regular intervals (every 6 months) throughout construction of the port, regardless of whether the
∆Hsat triggers have been exceeded or not.
The parameter ΔHsat is determined by measuring light (µ mol photons m-2 s-1) at the seagrass canopy height at both
reference and impact sites (Oceanica 2010).
Methods used for sampling BPPH health will follow those used in the collection of four years of baseline data at
Oakajee (Oceanica 2010), which were adopted from the Geraldton Port Expansion Project (CSIRO 2005) and (Lavery
et al.(2009). The pre-construction baseline data were collected to clearly characterise any variability between different
areas and across different years, the baseline study only collected data during the summer and did not capture
seasonal variability. Considering this, during construction monitoring, data collected outside the summer period will not
be compared with the baseline data from previous years and data collected outside of the summer period will be
compared against reference data sampled in the same period from non-impact areas.
Four years of baseline health monitoring data exist for the seagrasses A. griffithii and A. antarctica. The same
parameters will be monitored during BPPH health monitoring during port construction including:
 Seagrass cover;
 Above-ground biomass (leaves and stems);
 Shoot density;
 Shoot length;
 Number of leaves per cluster;
 Clusters per shoot; and
 Epiphyte load (plants with ‗no‘, ‗few‘ or ‗many‘ epiphytes).
After completion of the Geraldton Port Expansion Project, the CSIRO (2005, 2007 and 2008) seagrass investigations
observed that cover, density and biomass were most impacted by the sediment plume. Conversely, the seagrass
morphological parameters (such as shoot height, leaves per shoot, and leaves per cluster) did not show clear trends
since they responded quickly to changing environmental conditions and were influenced strongly by factors such as
shoot density and biomass. However, these parameters may provide a useful indicator of early seagrass impacts at
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Oakajee post construction and will be assessed during the construction period.
The parameter, leaf 15N will also be added to the suite as an early indicator of light induced stress on seagrass
(Lavery et al. 2009). Baseline leaf 15N measurements will be taken in the summer of 2011, to provide at least one
year of ‗before‘ data, prior to construction.
The Oakajee Port baseline BPPH investigation also sampled algal health characteristics over three consecutive years
(Oceanica 2010). However, the relationship between ∆Hsat and algal health has not been established. Considering
this, algal health characteristics will only be collected for contextual purposes to support a multiple lines of evidence
approach, but will not be assessed against trigger values: The algal health parameters will include:
 Algal cover
 Density of three life history stages of Ecklonia radiata (as defined by Mann & Kirkman 1981):
o stage 1 (new recruit);
o stage 2 (juvenile); and
o stage 3 (adult).
 The height of adult plants (stage 3)
Both seagrass and algal health data will be analysed to determine whether or not significant differences have occurred
between impacted and reference sites. These data will be interrogated using the univariate and multivariate methods
described in detail in Oceanica (2010).
7.2.2 BPPH monitoring z ones

Oceanica and APASA (2010a) describe in detail the methods used to develop the BPPH monitoring zones for
construction. The zones were based on advice from DEC Marine Ecosystems Branch (2008), which recommends the
application of stress threshold criteria that predict severity and extent of impact. These criteria have been explicitly
defined based on peer reviewed research, which addressed the impact of dredging campaigns on seagrass survival
(Lavery et al. 2009; Collier 2006):
Zone of High Impact – possible recovery of leaf biomass in >5 years9, but with potential permanent loss of seagrass
habitat;
Zone of Moderate Impact – recovery of leaf biomass expected to near initial density within 5 years;
Zone of Influence – minor change in water quality/turbidity during the project and potential minor and short-term
reduction in seagrass leaf biomass, with predicted recovery to near initial leaf biomass within 1 year; and,
Outside zone of influence – no discernable impact on seagrass leaf biomass.
Hydrodynamic modelling of the construction campaign was used to establish the likely BPPH zones of impact for the
full construction period and six months post-construction. The zones were developed based on threshold levels of the
parameter ∆Hsat, and Amphibolis griffithii leaf biomass, which were derived from baseline data from Jurien Bay (Lavery
et al., 2009). The ΔHsat criteria defining zones of impact and the predicted effect on A. griffithii biomass are provided in
Table 7.3.
9 According to EAG3 (EPA 2009) “Recoverability from impacts may be considered if proponents can reasonably demonstrate that
full recovery of the impacted benthic primary producer habitat would be expected within a timeframe of 5 years or less.”
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table 7.3: ΔHsat threshold criteria defining zones of impact and predicted decline in seagrass biomass
Amphibolis griffithii leaf biomass
Zones of Impact ΔHsat (hours) comparison of reference sites versus impact site
(% of reference biomass)
Outside ≤427 ≥80
Influence >427, ≤572 51-80
Moderate Impact >572, ≤845 22 -51
High Impact >845 <22
The zones of impact were transcribed on the logarithmic relationship established by (Lavery et al. 2009) to clearly
demonstrate the impact of increasing light attenuation on A. griffithii leaf biomass (Figure 7.1).
effect (% biomass of impact site compared to reference site)
Figure 7.1 Zones of potential impact on Amphibolis griffithii leaf biomass due to increasing ΔHsat based
on the data from experimental manipulations of light at Jurien Bay (Lavery et al. 2009)
Hydrodynamic modelling predicted the zone of high impact would be contained within the dredge footprint, where all of
the BPPH habitat will be destroyed by dredging (Figure 7.2). Similarly, the zones of moderate impact and influence
would largely be contained within the dredge footprint and within approximately 100 m of the port infrastructure
(Figure 7.2). Considering that the zones of high impact, moderate impact and influence were predicted to have a small
combined footprint, to be conservative hereafter they are considered together as the Zone of Impact (ZoI).
During construction, a moderate ecological protection area (MEPA) will extend 250 m from the port infrastructure, the
dredge footprint and the land reclamation return water discharge points (see Figure 3.6). To assess impacts to BPPH
in the ZoI during construction, BPPH monitoring will be conducted in the northern area of the port, adjacent to the
dredge footprint and within the MEPA. All other areas of BPPH monitoring will be outside the predicted ZoI and within
the HEPA.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 7.2: Zones of impact predicted from hydrodynamic modelling of the worst case scenario (i.e. La nina,
high TSS concentration in return-water)
7.2.3 Frequency and Location
LIGHT LOGGERS
 Moored light loggers will be deployed at five sites (SG1, SG7, SG11, SG15 and CB1; see Figure 7.3). The
selection of logging sites was based on the location of long-term (i.e. 4 years) seagrass monitoring sites;
 Light loggers with wipers will be used to log continuously during daylight hours;
 Light loggers will be cleaned of biofouling and downloaded at monthly intervals;
 Telemetered loggers will be deployed at sites SG1 and SG7 to log continuously during daylight hours. Data will be
downloaded from the loggers and uploaded to a remotely located computer server at regular intervals (i.e. one
hour intervals during daylight hours). Data backed will occur on a daily basis.
 All light loggers will be deployed six months before construction begins and will remain deployed for no less than
six months after construction has finished.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 7.3: Light logging sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
BPPH H E A L T H M O N I T O R I N G
 Five areas will be sampled to assess seagrass health, each containing three sites, within which four replicate
1 m x 1 m quadrats will be sampled. Four years of baseline seagrass data have been collected in these areas
(Figure 7.4);
 Six areas will be sampled to assess algal health, each containing three sites, within which four replicate 1 m x
1 m quadrats will be sampled. Three years of baseline algal data have been collected in these areas
(Figure 7.5);
 One area adjacent to the dredge footprint and located within the MEPA will be sampled to assess both seagrass
and algal health during construction. The area will contain three sites, within which four replicate 1 m x 1 m
quadrats will be sampled (Figure 7.6);
 BPPH health monitoring will be conducted at six-monthly intervals during construction;
 BPPH health monitoring will commence six months after the start of construction and will conclude six months
after construction;
 Seagrass health monitoring will be based on seagrass (Amphibolis) health indices (SHI) will include the following
parameters:
o Seagrass cover;
o Above-ground biomass;
o Shoot density;
o Shoot length;
o Number of leaves per cluster;
o Clusters per shoot, and
o leaf 15N
 Algal health monitoring will be based on algal health indices (AHI), including algal community cover as provided
below:
o Algal cover (refer to Oceanica 2010 for method);
o Density of three life history stages of Ecklonia radiata
 Stage 1 (new recruit);
 Stage 2 (juvenile); and
 Stage 3 (adult).
o Height of adult (E. radiata) plants (Stage 3).
 Where one or more sites exhibit impacts beyond those predicted by the hydrodynamic model, BPPH health
monitoring will continue at annual intervals (during the dry season) until recovery10, or for a period of 5 years;
 In the event that ∆Hsat trigger values are exceeded, BPPH health monitoring will be undertaken as soon as
practicable and within three months of exceedance;
10 Recovery is achieved when the median of impact site is less than or equal to the 80th percentile of the reference sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
 Depending on the level of SHI and/or AHI exceedance, control measures will be implemented to reduce the
potentially adverse impacts of construction (refer to Figure 7.6 and Section 5);
 In the event that SHI and or AHI values are exceeded, BPPH health monitoring will be repeated as soon as
practicable and within three months of exceedance;
In areas that had exceeded SHI and/or AHI monitoring triggers in the previous monitoring event, which recover to
have a median value of ≥80th percentile of the SHI and/or AHI of the reference areas, three-monthly sampling will
cease. Six monthly BPPH health monitoring will continue until such time that those areas exceed the triggers again..
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0

Figure 7.4: Seagrass health monitoring sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 7.5: Algal health monitoring sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 7.6: Approximate locations of BPPH indirect impact health monitoring sites (red dots)
7.2.4 Method
A S S E S S I N G I N D I R E C T BPPH I M P A C T A G A I N S T ∆H S A T T R I G G E R S
 From the commencement of construction, the cumulative amount of time that Iz is above specified Ik values will
be determined to calculate Hsat. The difference between monitored Hsat and reference Hsat, will be determined at
all light monitoring sites (∆Hsat monitored);
 The ∆Hsat monitored be determined at each light monitoring site will be compared to the ∆Hsat values predicted via
dredge plume modelling (∆Hsat predicted). Monthly trigger values will be determined using Equation 1 below:
Tm = (T/Mt)*Mc [Equation 1]
where:
Tm = Monthly trigger value
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
T = Trigger value (427 hours11)

Mc = Construction month
Mt = Total number of construction months (i.e. 36)
The trigger values for ∆Hsat predicted for each month of the construction period were calculated and are provided in
Figure 7.6. When ∆Hsat monitored is below the red line in Figure 7.7, there is no exceedance. When less ∆Hsat monitored is
above the red line in Figure 7.7, the ∆Hsat triggers are exceeded.
450
400
350
300
∆Hsat (hours)
ΔHsat trigger exceeded

250
200
150 ΔHsat trigger not exceeded
100
50
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Construction Month
Figure 7.7: Trigger values for ∆Hsat monitoring for the duration of port construction
 Should port construction run significantly under or over the anticipated 36 month campaign, the appropriate
monthly management zone triggers may be calculated using Equation 1. However, the maximum trigger values
(Table 7.3) for the entire dredge campaign will not change;
 Where ∆Hsat monitored is greater than ∆Hsat predicted (±5%), BPPH health monitoring will be triggered.
A S S E S S I N G I N D I R E C T BPPH I M P A C T A G A I N S T S E A G R AS S AN D AL G AL HE AL T H T RI G G E RS
BPPH Data Analyses
BPPH health measurements and statistical analyses will be conducted according to Oceanica (2010), which are
described below:
 SHI and AHI will be analysed using univariate methods to test for differences between Year, impact vs reference
(IvR), Area and Site. Analyses will be performed using PERMANOVA+ (non-parametric analysis of variance,
Version 1.0.1, Primer-E Ltd.), on Euclidean distances, with permutations of residuals under a full model
(n = 9999 permutations) (Anderson 2001a, 2001b). This method will allow for statistical testing, without
normalised data or homogeneity of variances. Four factors will be used, where Year will be a random factor, IvR a
fixed factor, Area a random factor (nested within IvR), and Site a random factor (nested within Area);
11 A27ll light logging sites are located outside the zone of influence, therefore the trigger values will always be ≤427 hours
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
 The AHI for assemblage structure of algal habitats will be analysed using multivariate analyses with
PERMANOVA+, on Euclidean distances, with permutations of residuals under a full model (n = 9999
permutations) (Anderson 2001a, 2001b). This method enabled a test of whether the composition of habitat
types differed among Year, IvR, Area and Site. Four factors were used, where Year was a random factor, IvR
was a fixed factor, Area was a random factor (nested within IvR), and Site was a random factor (nested within
Area).
 When the ANOVA yields a significant result (p<0.05) (for the factor Year, Year × IvR, Among R and
Year × Among R), a post-hoc pair-wise comparison of the sample means will be performed to determine which
sites are different from one another.
A S S E S S M E NT A G A I N S T BPPH H E A L T H T R I G G E R S
 Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is less than the 80th percentile of the
reference sites12, no additional monitoring will be required, routine monitoring (six-monthly monitoring) will
continue.
 Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is greater than the 80 th of the
reference sites, three-monthly seagrass monitoring will be initiated.
A S S E S S I N G BPPH I N T H E Z O N E O F I M P A CT AG AI NS T BPPH HE AL T H T R I G G E R S
 A small area of BPPH within the MEPA is expected to be impacted by construction turbidity. The BPPH sites
adjacent to the port and within the MEPA will be assessed against the 90th percentile of the reference sites.
 Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is less than the 90th percentile of the
reference sites13, no additional monitoring will be required, routine monitoring (six-monthly monitoring) will
continue.
 Where the median value of any SHI and/or AHI at any potential impact site is greater than the 90 th of the
reference sites, three-monthly seagrass monitoring will be initiated.
A S S E S S I N G L A R G E A N D S I G N I F I C A N T L O S S O F S E AG R AS S C A NO P Y B E T W E E N BPPH I M P A CT
ASSESSMENT
As outlined above, the frequency of BPPH monitoring will occur at six-monthly intervals if there are no ∆Hsat trigger
exceedances, and three-monthly if ∆Hsat triggers are exceeded. Given that the monitoring program was designed for
both early and moderate-term detection of sub-lethal impacts on BPPH, this frequency should be sufficient to detect
any decline in BPPH health. However there is a possibility that a large scale and significant loss of BPPH could
occur between sampling events.
12Oceanica (2010) demonstrated high natural variability between reference sites. Regardless of the potentially high natural
variability and statistically significant differences between the reference sites, all reference sites will be used in comparisons
against the potential impact sites.
13Oceanica (2010) demonstrated high natural variability between reference sites. Regardless of the potentially high natural
variability and statistically significant differences between the reference sites, all reference sites will be used in comparisons
against the potential impact sites.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
To provide an additional level of confidence that any large and significant losses of seagrass canopy are detected
within timeframes that are sufficient to affect management of the construction program, monitoring of seagrass cover
will be conducted at monthly intervals (during moored light-logger downloading), as described below:
 Two areas will be sampled to assess seagrass health, each containing three sites, within which four replicate
1 m x 1 m quadrats will be sampled. The area directly adjacent will assess seagrass canopy in the Zone of
Impact, whereas the other area will be reference (Figure 7.6).
 Seagrass cover will be analysed using univariate methods to test for differences between Year and impact vs
reference (IvR). Analyses will be performed using PERMANOVA+ as previously described.
 Where a significant reduction of seagrass cover at the impact site compared to the reference site is revealed, the
full BPPH monitoring (as described above in the section titled BPPH Health Monitoring) will be conducted within
three months.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
7.3 Water Quality (Physio-Chemical Monitoring)
7.3.1 Parameters
 Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, temperature, and salinity will be used as the primary triggers for physico-chemical
monitoring of land reclamation return water.
 Total suspended solids (TSS) and light attenuation coefficient (LAC) will be determined in the plume generated by
breakwater construction, dredging and/or land reclamation, for sediment plume model validation.
7.3.2 Frequency
 Sampling will be initiated in the month prior to construction.
 Water quality sampling will occur at monthly intervals.
 In the event that water quality trigger values are exceeded, weekly sampling will be initiated at the site/s where
triggers were exceeded.
 Note, for the EQG of DO to be breached, the DO saturation must be below the applicable MEPA trigger for a
period of 6 weeks or more. To ensure that this criteria can be appropriately assessed, if DO is found to be below
the applicable MEPA trigger level during the routine monthly sampling, weekly sampling will be initiated until DO
saturation recovers above the trigger level.
 Similarly, for the EQG of pH, temperature and salinity, the values must be outside the range of applicable MEPA
triggers for a period of four or more weeks. To ensure that these criteria are appropriately assessed, if any
parameter is found to be outside the applicable MEPA trigger level during the routine monthly sampling, weekly
sampling will be initiated until that parameter recovers to within the trigger range.
 The final sampling will occur within one month of cessation of land reclamation return water flow.
7.3.3 Location
 Land reclamation activities will monitored along a ‗dynamic transect‘ adjacent to the northern and southern
reclamation return water outlets (Figure 7.8). A fixed sampling site will be located approximately 10 m from the
return water outlet. Note that this distance may be relocated during the first return water flow sampling trip to be
as close as possible, but within an area for safe operation for the marine water quality monitoring contractor. A
transect will then be extended along the visual turbidity plume and sampling will be conducted at distances of
10 m, 50 m, 100 m, 250 m and 500 m from the return water outlet, and will be located within the visible turbidity
plume. A conceptual diagram of a ‗dynamic transect‘ is provided in Figure 7.9.
 Sites located within the MEPA (i.e. 10 m, 50 m and 100 m from the return water outlet) will be assessed against
MEPA triggers.
 Sites located within the HEPA (i.e. 250 m and 500 m from the return water outlet) will be monitored against HEPA
triggers.
 Dynamic transect sampling will not occur if return water has not been returned to the receiving environment in the
previous sampling period (i.e. monthly if in compliance with triggers, weekly if triggers are exceeded).
 Two reference sites will be sampled ~10 km south of the port development, distal to any potential construction
impacts, including one site located midshore and one site located offshore (Figure 7.10).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
FIGURE TO BE PROVIDED BY OPR
Figure 7.8: Land reclamation discharge points
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Reclamation return water
10 m
50 m
100 m
MEPA
250 m <250 m from port infrastructure
HEPA
≥250 m from port infrastructure
500 m
Figure 7.9: Conceptual diagram of ‘dynamic transect’ sediment plume sampling sites for land reclamation
return water. The MEPA is located within the blue shaded area, and red dots indicate those sites that will be
assessed against MEPA trigger levels. The HEPA is located outside the blue shaded area, and orange dots
indicate those sites that will be assessed against HEPA trigger levels.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Figure 7.10 Map of the construction water quality monitoring reference sites
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
7.3.4 Method
 The methods for collection of all physico-chemical parameters will be consistent with Section 6.1 of the EPA
(2005a);
 A depth-profile of DO, pH, temperature and salinity will be taken through the water column from the surface (0-
0.5 m below the surface) to the bottom (0-0.5 m above the bottom);
 DO saturation of bottom waters (0.5 m above the sediment) at each site within the MEPA will be compared against
EQG triggers for moderate protection as listed in Table 3.7);
 DO saturation of bottom waters (0.5 m above the sediment) at each site within the HEPA will be compared against
EQG triggers for high protection as listed in Table 3.7);
 Median pH, salinity and temperature of surface (0.5 m below surface) and bottom (0.5 m above the sediment)
waters at sites within the MEPA will be compared against the ‗reference‘ sites for moderate protection triggers as
listed in Table 3.7);
 Median pH, salinity and temperature of surface (0.5 m below surface) and bottom (0.5 m above the sediment)
waters at sites within the HEPA will be compared against ‗reference‘ sites for high protection triggers as listed in
Table 3.7);
 If one or more physico-chemical parameter is greater than the EQG triggers, determine whether the EQG for
moderate protection areas as defined by EPA (2005) have been exceeded;
o DO will be considered breached when DO level at any site is below the applicable EQG trigger (80%
saturation) for a period on not more than 6 weeks;
o For salinity, temperature and pH at a particular site must exceed the EQG trigger level for ≥4 weeks.
 For sediment plume model validation, TSS concentration will be determined at each location according to EPA
(2005a); and,
 For sediment plume model validation, light attenuation will be measured using two underwater light collectors
separated by an appropriate distance in the water column. Light attenuation will be simultaneously logged and
LAC calculated to measure the return water plume light attenuation.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
7.4 Return Water Discharge Monitoring
The results of the baseline sediment investigation demonstrated that the levels of both natural and anthropogenic
contamination contained in the sediments at Oakajee were below ANZEEC/ARMCANZ (2000) guideline levels
(Oceanica 2009c and Oceanica 2009d). Considering this, there is a low risk to water quality and ecological health
from naturally occurring contaminants during construction. However, to demonstrate that the natural levels of
contaminants are below guideline levels throughout construction, sampling will be performed on water from the land
reclamation area prior to return water discharge.
7.4.1 Parameters
 Metals (Table 3.8) will be tested; and,
 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Table 3.8) will be tested;
7.4.2 Frequency
 Sampling will be conducted at monthly intervals;
 Sampling will be conducted in triplicate; and,
 Sampling will not occur at land reclamation return-water sites if there has been no return-water outflow in the
previous sampling period.
7.4.3 Location
 Water will be collected either within the reclamation area or from the return water discharge (before mixing with
marine waters); and,
 Two reclamation areas are proposed to return water to the marine environment (Figure 7.9). Each site will be
sampled provided that return water has been discharged in the period since last sampling, and water is present
in the reclamation area.
7.4.4 Method
 The methods for collection of all potential contaminant parameters will be consistent with Section 6.2 of the EPA
(2005a)
 Contaminants listed in Table 3.8 will be tested;
 Filtered (0.45 µm pore size) water samples will be collected in triplicate from integrated-depth water samples at
each sampling site;
 Samples will be stored immediately on ice and sent to a laboratory with NATA accreditation for each of the
contaminant parameters listed in Table 3.8;
 Contaminant concentration data will be processed within 10 working days of collection and compared against
triggers (see Table 3.8); and
 Six potential impact samples (2 sites in triplicate) will be collected each time water quality contaminant testing is
conducted; therefore no calculations are required for comparison against the relevant EQG (EPA 2005a).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
Rather, each individual sample must be below guideline, or trigger level values and any exceedance by a
sample will result in non-compliance against the EQG.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
8. CONTINGENCIES AND RE ACTIVE MAN AGEM ENT
To ensure the DBCLRMP controls are effective the following will occur:
 OPR will regularly consult with the DEC and field specialists as to the need to refine the Management Plan;
 The DBCLRMP will be revised as needed and its effectiveness monitored; and,
 If the need arises, contingency management actions will be initiated where performance indicators have not
been met. These actions will be determined in consultation with the EPA, other relevant regulatory
authorities and others in relevant fields of expertise.
The contingency/reactive management actions are grouped into four main categories including:
 General – contingency/reactive management actions that will be routinely implemented throughout construction.
 Level 1 – contingency/reactive management actions implemented under the first signs of potential adverse
impacts to the marine environment from construction.
 Level 2 - contingency/reactive management actions implemented when the construction impacts are sustained
and do not show any signs of improvement.
 Level 3 – contingency/reactive management actions that are implemented when the construction impacts are
ongoing and have reached unacceptable levels.
The contingency/reactive management actions listed in Table 8.1 provide a list of available options, of which one or
more must be implemented when triggered by monitoring. The options should be selected based on the source of
the environmental impact and a risk assessment to determine which options will be most effective in reducing the
impact.
8.1 Contingencies/Reactive Management for BPPH Indirect

Impacts
The decision process for initiating management strategies (control measures) is depicted in the data analysis and
management action flow diagram (Figure 8.1).
8.1.1 Management triggered by decline in seagrass cover at impact sites

 Where the monthly seagrass cover (A. griffithii) at the impact sites (Figure 7.6) is significantly less than the
seagrass cover at the reference sites then:
o The CEO of the Office of the EPA will be informed of the exceedance and proposed management
strategies (see below) as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection of the
exceedance (i.e. subsequent to processing of data);
o If applicable, any management actions already implemented within 72 hours will also be reported;
o All management strategies will be implemented as soon as practicable; and,
o The exceedance will also be noted in monthly reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to
OPR, and the Office of the EPA.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003
 Where the monthly seagrass cover (A. griffithii) at the impact sites (Figure 7.6) is significantly less than the
seagrass cover at the reference sites, BPPH health monitoring will be undertaken at all sites as soon as
practicable and within three months of detection.
8.1.2 Management triggered by ∆H s a t exceedances

 Where the monthly rolling total of ∆Hsat monitored is greater than ∆Hsat predicted then:
o The CEO of the Office of the EPA will be informed of the exceedance and proposed management
strategies (see below) as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection of the
exceedance (i.e. subsequent to processing of data);
o If applicable, any management actions already implemented within 72 hours will also be reported;
o All management strategies will be implemented as soon as practicable; and,
o The exceedance will also be noted in monthly reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to
OPR, and the Office of the EPA.
 Where the monthly rolling total of ∆Hsat monitored is greater than ∆Hsat predicted, BPPH health monitoring will be
undertaken at all sites as soon as practicable and within three months of detection.
8.1.3 Management triggered by BPPH health exceedances

Where SHI and/or AHI trigger values are exceeded then:
 The CEO of the Office of the EPA will be informed of the exceedance and proposed management strategies
(see below) as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection of the exceedance (i.e.
subsequent to processing of data);
 If applicable, any management actions already implemented within 72 hours will also be reported;
 All management strategies will be implemented as soon as practicable; and,
 The exceedance will also be noted in monthly reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to OPR,
and the Office of the EPA.
A hierarchy of management measures will be triggered by exceedance in SHI and/or AHI trigger levels (i.e. Level 1,
Level 2 and Level 3 management, see Section 8.4). Those management measures are described in detail in
Section 5. The decision process for initiating a higher level of management (or reverting back to a lower
management level) is depicted in the data analysis and management action flow diagram (Figure 8.1). On receipt of
BPPH health data, the following management actions will be triggered:
 If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area is greater than the 80th percentile of the
corresponding reference areas (i.e. exceedance of zone of low impact trigger), BPPH health monitoring will be
conducted on a monthly basis and Level 1 Construction Management will be initiated (see Section 8.4);
 If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area is greater than the 90th percentile, yet less
than the 95th percentile of the corresponding reference areas (i.e. exceedance of zone of moderate impact
trigger), BPPH health monitoring will be conducted on a monthly basis and Level 2 Construction Management
will be initiated (see Section 8.4);
 If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area is greater than the 95th percentile of the
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
corresponding reference areas (i.e. exceedance of zone of high impact trigger), BPPH health monitoring will be
conducted on a monthly basis and Level 3 Construction Management will be initiated (see Section 8.4). The
EPA will be contacted to review the risks and management for the continuation of Port construction; and,
 If the median of one or more SHI and/or AHI at any monitoring area that was previously >80th percentile, >90th
percentile or >95th percentile of the reference site recovers to less than the 80th percentile of the corresponding
reference areas, any construction management (Level 1, 2 or 3) that was previously triggered may cease.
8.2 Contingencies/Reactive Management for Water Quality

Impacts
 Where monthly monitoring reveals exceedance of the trigger values of one or more physico-chemical
parameters listed in Table 3.7, OEPA will be notified of the exceedance and any proposed or implemented
management strategies as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection;
 Weekly monitoring will commence in the week following any exceedance and will continue until there are no
exceedances of the physic-chemical trigger values in Table 3.7;
 If the trigger values of one or more physico-chemical parameters listed in Table 3.7 are exceeded for a period of
four consecutive weeks, Level 1 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4);
eight consecutive weeks, Level 2 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4);
twelve consecutive weeks, Level 3 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4). OEPA will be
contacted to review the risks and management for the continuation of Port construction;
 If the trigger values of the physico-chemical parameters listed in Table 3.7 that had previously exceeded the
trigger values, return to levels below the trigger values, construction management (Level 1, 2 or 3) may cease;
 Compliance reporting for physico-chemical monitoring will be provided to OEPA on a monthly basis (within
2 weeks of data receipt); and,
A summary of construction monitoring for water quality physico-chemical parameters from the reclamation area will
be provided annually in the DBCLRMP annual report.
8.3 Contingencies/Reactive Management for Return Water

Discharge
 Where monthly monitoring reveals exceedance of the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in
Table 3.8, OEPA will be notified of the exceedance and any proposed or implemented management strategies
as soon as practicable and no later than within 72 hours of detection;
 Weekly monitoring will commence in the week following any exceedance and will continue until there are no
exceedances of the contaminant trigger values in Table 3.8;
 If the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in Table 3.8 are exceeded for a period of four
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
consecutive weeks, Level 1 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4);
 If the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in Table 3.8 are exceeded for a period of eight
consecutive weeks, Level 2 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4);
 If the trigger values of one or more contaminants listed in Table 3.8 are exceeded for a period of twelve
consecutive weeks, Level 3 management actions will be triggered (see Section 8.4). OEPA will be contacted to
review the risks and management for the continuation of Port construction; and,
 If the trigger values of contaminants listed in Table 3.8 that had previously exceeded the trigger values, return to
levels below the trigger values, construction management (Level 1, 2 or 3) may cease;
 Compliance reporting for contaminant monitoring will be provided to OEPA on a monthly basis (within 2 weeks of
data receipt); and,
 A summary of construction monitoring for water quality contamination from the reclamation area will be provided
annually in the DBCLRMP annual report.
8.4 Contingenc y/Reactive Management Actions
The monitoring section above contains details about additional monitoring to be implemented if triggers are met.
Figure 8.1 below summarises these triggers and details of additional monitoring to be implemented. This monitoring
will determine what level of additional contingency/reactive management actions (Level 1, 2 or 3) will be required
(Table 8.1).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Seagrass Cover ∆Hsat BPPH Monitoring
Monthly Seagrass cover assessment Monthly ∆Hsat assessment 6-monthly 3 BPPH monitoring at all sites
Median 4 BPPH
1 SC impact
site < SC ∆Hsat monitored > impact site > 80th
No No No
reference site ∆Hsat predicted percentile BPPH at
reference
Cessation of Level
1, 2 and/or 3
Yes Yes Yes management
2 Undertake BPPH
Undertake 3-monthly BPPH health
monitoring at all sites
monitoring at all sites
Median BPPH
impact site > 80 th
No
5 Level 1 percentile BPPH at
Management reference
3-monthly BPPH monitoring
Yes
Median BPPH
impact site > 90 th
No
5 Level 2 percentile BPPH at
Management reference
3-monthly BPPH monitoring
Yes
Median BPPH
Review of risks and impact site > 95 th
No
management percentile BPPH at
reference
1 Seagrass Cover (SC)

2 BPPH monitoring 5 Level 3
to occur as soon as possible and within 3 months of ∆Hsat trigger being exceeded Yes
3 Seagrass Health Indices (SHI) and Algal Health Indices (AHI) Management
4 Applies to one or more SHI and/or AHI 3-monthly BPPH monitoring
5 Level 1, Level2 and Level 3 Management strategies are provided in Table
Table 8.1
5.2
Figure 8.1 Data analysis process and triggering of contingency actions
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Table 8.1: Summary of Contingency/Reactive Management Actions

Performance Contingency/Reactive Management Actions Responsibility
Indicator
Site inspections,  Any observed or detected leaks in the dredge pipeline Construction
incident reporting will be repaired as soon as practicable. Manager
 Pumping will stop as soon as any major ruptures are Dredge Manager
identified (within the operational constraints of the
Site Supervisor
equipment).
Infrastructure footprint If non-compliance with MS469 infrastructure footprint, report and Environment
assessment post- consult with the DEC and EPA. Manager
construction through
GIS verification
Sedimentation - Indirect BPPH impacts
Seagrass cover Implement Level 1 management contingency actions below if Environment
th
monitoring median BPPH impact site > 80 percentile BPPH at reference site: Manager
Level 1 Construction
BPPH health  Turn off dredge pumps when the cutter head is not Manager
monitoring engaged Dredge Manager
 Selective use of quarry material to optimise the use of Site Supervisor
larger rock size material.
 Investigate the viability of constructing an internal cross
sectional bund wall within the southern reclamation area
to assist retention times.

th
monitoring median BPPH impact site > 90 percentile BPPH at reference site. Manager
BPPH health  Relocate dredge to minimise sustained impact to any one Manager
monitoring area Dredge Manager
 Vary rock dumping barge locations (preference to Site Supervisor
offshore) to minimise sustained sedimentation impacts
nearshore.
 During breakwater construction utilise a general quarry
material wash station to minimise the fines content.
 Temporarily adjust breakwater construction methodology
to only place larger size rocks rather than the fine core
material. This will minimise the sedimentation and
turbidity aspects associated with fine core material in-
water placement.
Turbidity - Indirect BPPH impacts

th
monitoring median BPPH impact site > 80 percentile BPPH at reference site: Manager
BPPH health  Turn off dredge pumps when the cutter head is not Manager
monitoring engaged Dredge Manager
 Selective use of quarry material to optimise the use of Site Supervisor
larger rock size material.
∆Hsat (light) monitoring
 Investigate the viability of constructing an internal cross
sectional bund wall within the southern reclamation area
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0

Indicator
to assist retention times.

th
BPPH health  Relocate dredge to minimise sustained impact to any one Manager
monitoring area Dredge Manager
 Vary rock dumping barge locations (preference to Site Supervisor
offshore) to minimise sustained sedimentation impacts
nearshore.
 During breakwater construction utilise a general quarry
material wash station to minimise the fines content.
 Temporarily adjust breakwater construction methodology
to only place larger size rocks rather than the fine core
material. This will minimise the sedimentation and
turbidity aspects associated with fine core material in-
water placement.
 Intensive dredging during low light hours (e.g. 1600 to
0800) to maximise light availability during periods of high
light intensity
 Install silt curtain to minimise fines content in return water
 Alternate return water discharge points to minimise
turbidity impacts on any particular area
 When possible manage downtime (e.g. maintenance
stops, dredge movements, non dredging times) for
periods of high light intensity (i.e. conduct maintenance
stops during the middle of the days rather than during the
night)
 Redirect return water to the alternate reclamation area to
enhance retention times
 Investigate the viability of increasing the size and
capacity of the reclamation areas

th
BPPH health  Restrict dredging frequency to only dredge during low Manager
monitoring light periods (e.g. 1600 to 0800). Dredge Manager
 Stop dredging for 1 day and then recommence Site Supervisor
 Place breakwater rocks into the water during periods of
low light intensity where practicable.
 Manage reclaim return water to avoid highly turbid
discharges during periods of in high light intensity (i.e.
restrict discharges between the hours of 1000 and 1400)
 Only conduct core placement during periods of low light
intensity (e.g. night). This will minimise the light reduction
associated with fine core material placement that would
be experienced during the day.
 Avoid core placement during period of high ocean seas
and swells
 Where practicable, intensify breakwater construction
during low light periods with any planned downtime (e.g.
maintenance periods, meal breaks) centred around
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0

Indicator
periods of high light intensity. This will maximise the light
availability to Benthic Primary Producers.
Water Quality
Physico-chemical Implement level 1 management contingency actions below if Environment
th
water quality median BPPH impact site > 80 percentile BPPH at reference site: Manager
monitoring Level 1 Construction
 Turn off dredge pumps when the cutter head is not Manager
Contaminant water engaged Dredge Manager
quality monitoring  Investigate the viability of constructing an internal cross Site Supervisor
within the land sectional bund wall within the southern reclamation area
reclamation area/s to assist retention times.
BPPH health
monitoring
Physico-chemical Level 2 Environment
water quality Implement Level 2 management contingency actions below if Manager
monitoring th
median BPPH impact site > 90 percentile BPPH at reference site. Construction
 Install silt curtain to minimise fines content in return water Manager
Contaminant water  Alternate return water discharge points to minimise Dredge Manager
quality monitoring turbidity impacts on any particular area Site Supervisor
within the land  Redirect return water to the alternate reclamation area to
reclamation area/s enhance retention times
 Investigate the viability of increasing the size and
BPPH health capacity of the reclamation areas
monitoring
Physico-chemical Implement Level 3 management contingency actions below if Environment
th
water quality median BPPH impact site > 95 percentile BPPH at reference site. Manager
monitoring Level 3 Construction
 Stop dredging for 1 day and then recommence Manager
Contaminant water Dredge Manager
quality monitoring Site Supervisor
within the land
reclamation area/s
BPPH health
monitoring
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
9. REPORTING
The Proponent is required to report on the effectiveness of the Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation
Management Plan as part of the overall Ministerial approval conditions reporting requirements. Reporting requirements
have been summarised in the Table 9.1 below.
Table 9.1: Summary of Reporting
Report Details Reporting Responsibility
Frequency
DBCLRMP Data report and summary of the relevant results including: Monthly, noting a Environmental
monthly data and  BPPH indirect loss assessment lag in reporting of Manager
compliance report o ∆Hsat, SHI and AHI results some results due to
o Summary of exceedances laboratory analysis
o Summary of management steps taken to of BPPH samples.
reduce impacts
 Water Quality assessment
o Physico-chemical results
o Contaminant results
o Summary of exceedances
o Summary of management steps taken to
reduce impacts
DBCLRMP Detailed report outlining the full sampling program and Annually, within Environmental
Annual Report results including: eight weeks of Manager
 BPPH indirect loss assessment receipt of the last
o ∆Hsat, SHI and AHI results data set
reduce impacts
 Water Quality assessment
o Physico-chemical results
o Contaminant results
reduce impacts
DBCLRMP Close Final report summarising the construction monitoring Once only at the Environmental
out report program. end of construction, Manager
within eight weeks
of receipt of the last
data set
BPPH direct loss Final report summarising the specifications of the port Within six months of Environmental
assessment – infrastructure including: the completion of Manager
Final  Breakwater footprint construction
infrastructure  Land reclamation area footprint
footprint
 Dredge area bathymetry and final estimate of the
compliance and
volume of material removed
close-out report
BPPH direct loss Final report summarising the loss of BPPH including: Within five years of Environmental
assessment –  Final BPPH map the completion of Manager
Impact to BPPH  Loss calculations of major BPPH groups within the construction
compliance and Local Assessment Unit (57km )
2
close out report
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
10. AUDITING & REVIEW
10.1 Auditing
This DBCLRMP will be audited (both internally and externally) in accordance with OPR overall EMS auditing regime. The
auditing will ensure compliance with FMP commitments, the OPR EMS and procedures. Internal auditing will focus on
reviewing non-conformance reports, systems and registers and the control measures register (via the EMS). An Audit
report will be produced every 6 months detailing the outcomes of the audit including:
 completeness of implementation of systems, databases and registers;
 integration of approvals systems with Procurement, Contracting and Construction;
 compliance with commitments and control measures; and
 recommendations of changed and follow up actions.
10.2 Review and revision

Any non-conformances identified through the monitoring or auditing procedures will be assessed to determine if changes
to the DBCLRMP will be required. The review will follow on from an audit and audit report to determine if any non-
conformances are the result of inadequacy of the management plans and EMS systems and processes. Details of the
review program for all EMPs are detailed in the OPR EMS with regular 6 monthly reviews scheduled to align to the audit
schedule.
Specific external auditing requirements attached to this plan are detailed in Table 10.1 below
Table 10.1: Key Management Actions Audit Table

Management Monitoring Performance DEC Reporting/Evidence Status
Objective Indicator
To maintain the  Weekly Monthly ∆Hsat  DBCLRMP monthly data ;and Pending annual
abundance, diversity, monitoring of (light) monitoring compliance report - submitted performance
geographic telemetered to OEPA on a monthly basis; report
distribution and light logging
Seagrass cover  DBCLRMP annual report –
productivity of BPPH sites three reports at the end of
monitoring
at species and  Monthly each year of construction,
ecosystems levels. monitoring of submitted within eight weeks
moored light BPPH health of receipt of the last data set;
logging sites monitoring and,
 DBCLRMP close out report –
one report submitted at the
end of construction and within
eight weeks of receipt of the
last data set.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Management Monitoring Performance DEC Reporting/Evidence Status

Objective Indicator
To maintain the Seagrass and Algal Seagrass cover  DBCLRMP monthly data ;and Pending annual
abundance, diversity, health monitoring monitoring compliance report - submitted performance
geographic  Six-monthly to OEPA on a monthly basis; report
distribution and monitoring of  DBCLRMP annual report –
productivity of BPPH SHI and AHI BPPH health
three reports at the end of
at species and monitoring
 Three-monthly each year of construction,
ecosystems levels. monitoring of submitted within eight weeks
SHI and AHI if of receipt of the last data set;
triggered and,
 Monthly  DBCLRMP close out report –
seagrass cover one report submitted at the
monitoring at end of construction and within
impact and eight weeks of receipt of the
reference sites last data set.
Infrastructure footprint BPPH total loss Infrastructure  Impact to BPPH compliance Pending annual
conforms to the footprint monitoring footprint and close out report, within performance
'Approved' Port assessment five years of the completion of report
design (MS469) post- construction
construction  Final infrastructure footprint
through GIS compliance and close-out
verification report , within six months of
the completion of construction
To maintain water Water quality - Physico-  DBCLRMP monthly data ;and Pending annual
quality to accepted physico-chemical chemical water compliance report - submitted performance
criteria to protect the monitoring quality to OEPA on a monthly basis report
environmental values monitoring  DBCLRMP annual report –
of recreation  Monthly three reports at the end of
aesthetics, aquatic life monitoring; BPPH health each year of construction,
for human  Weekly monitoring submitted within eight weeks
consumption and monitoring if of receipt of the last data set;
maintenance of triggered. and,
aquatic ecosystems in  DBCLRMP close out report –
agreed areas. one report submitted at the
last data set.
Water quality - Contaminant  DBCLRMP monthly data ;and Pending annual
contaminant water quality compliance report - submitted performance
monitoring monitoring to OEPA on a monthly basis report
 Monthly within the land  DBCLRMP annual report –
monitoring reclamation three reports at the end of
area/s each year of construction,
submitted within eight weeks
BPPH health of receipt of the last data set;
monitoring and,
 DBCLRMP close out report –
one report submitted at the
last data set.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
11. RELATED PLANS
This EMP has control measures and potential impacts that are associated with the following related management plans.
Specific details of potential impacts and control measures are outlined in the associated EMPs. The Related Management
Plans have been summarised in the Table 11.1 below.
Table 11.1: Related Management Plans

Associated Control
Related Management Plan Associated Potential Impacts
Measure
 Contamination from port waste WMP control

Waste Management Plan
 Contamination from shipping waste measures
 Water Quality OSCP control

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

BASELINE SURVEYS
Spatial and Temporal Scale The spatial and temporal scale of the baseline surveys should be governed by a rigorous
assessment of the scale of influence of the project on key environmental processes, including
the dredging plume and changes to the hydrodynamic and littoral drift regimes.
In planning the baseline surveys, it should be acknowledged that the development of a port at
Oakajee will spur a node/strip of industrial and urban development that will exceed the scale of
the port and industrial estate.
Baseline water quality sampling sites and habitat condition locations should be aligned along
the main anticipated axis of dredge plume.
Reference Sites The will be a need to identify appropriate, un-impacted, reference sites for ongoing comparison
with impacted sites before and after implementation of the project. Reference sites for habitat
condition and environmental quality should be established in the zone of no influence.
Baseline Water Quality Survey Baseline survey to include photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), light attenuation
coefficient (LAC), Chlorophyll_a and sediment deposition.
Water quality indicators should be compared to the Environmental Quality Guidelines, triggers
for investigation, as described in ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000.
Examine the background characteristics (e.g. effect of rivers) that may cause enhanced
turbidity that may persist through spring and summer after a significant flow year.
Baseline Introduced Marine Baseline survey to use appropriate techniques (perhaps including artificial substrates) and to
Pests Survey be completed for comparison against follow-up surveys.
MARINE HABITAT STUDIES
Extent and Condition of Baseline marine habitat studies should focus both on extent and condition of habitats and their
Habitats biological communities, as there are significant uncertainties in the present habitat mapping
and characterisation due to the extremely limited extent of area mapped.
The extent of the marine habitat survey should relate to the anticipated spatial scale of threats
due to the project (e.g. the spatial scale of the dredging, reclamation and breakwater
construction plumes, extent of changes in hydrodynamic and water quality regimes) and
should be aligned along the main anticipated axis of the dredge plume.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Health Indicators Need to select and use appropriate habitat and associated biological community condition
(‗health‘) indicators to establish baseline conditions and unimpacted reference sites for
comparison with potentially impacted areas within influence of port. Health indicators should
be compared to the Environmental Quality Standards, triggers for management, as described
in ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000.
The Proponent should be aware of the work by the Strategic Research Fund for the Marine
Environment (SRFME) in Jurien and Geraldton to help select benthic condition indicators (e.g.
for Posidonia and Amphibolis).
Towed Underwater Videos and Towed underwater videos and diver surveys should be relocatable for subsequent monitoring
Diver Surveys of habitat. Extent of detailed habitat mapping should be based on predictions of:
The likely extent of the turbidity plume from dredging and reclamation;
The direct impact footprint of the project;
Consideration of the spatial scale of changed swell and wave climate;
Consideration of the spatial scale of changes in littoral drift, sedimentation and erosion; and
Consideration of the spatial scale of changes in wrack accumulation.
CURRENT & WAVE MEASUREMENTS
Original Assessment No current data was collected in the original assessment.
Current Model Validation Valid current data and matching meteorological data will be required for model validation.
The proposed one current meter in 20 m (1.5 m above the seabed) is inadequate and will not
satisfy the need for detailed model validation and prediction for this project. There will
definitely be a need for more than one current metre.
The real test for the model will be whether it can represent water flux, circulation, flushing and
transport in the bathymetrically and ecologically more complex inshore region (<7 m).
Wave Measurements The change in wave and swell regime caused by the presence of the port infrastructure is
likely to be a very important factor in the ecological and sediment flux responses and coastal
changes (erosion/accretion) in relation to the proposal. This will need to be understood and
quantitatively predicted.
LITTORAL DRIFT AND SHORELINE EROSION
Sand Transport Careful consideration needs to be given to the length-scale over which the following changes
may manifest :
Reclamation and construction of the southern spur will trap sand to south which will increase
the size of the reclamation area over time, and is likely to result in erosion to the north;
The long (1.5 km) breakwater could create a wave shadow immediately to the north of the
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
structure, therefore the shoreline erosion may be located northwards of this shadow zone; and
Any sand making it to the tip of the breakwater is likely to be lost from the nearshore system
(and could cause channel siltation problems).
Erosion and Accretion The report R035 (Rogers & Associates 1997) identified that there would be areas of
Predictions accumulation and erosion but provides no clear prediction of the magnitude and rate. Detailed
predictions must be provided.
Shoreline Movement Further investigations of the energetics. sediment fluxes and shoreline movements involving
more detailed modelling and some in situ experiments/studies is required to more accurately
assess sediment fluxes and potential for sediment trapping and erosion due to the proposed
port—this is a matter which requires a long lead time.
The accuracy of many of the sediment transport estimates as well as the overall understanding
of the coastal processes would be greatly improved by completing a proper littoral drift and
shoreline movement analysis of the area.
Program of controlled photogrammetry should be implemented to produce shoreline

movement plans.
HYDRODYNAMIC MODELLING
Considerations Hydrodynamic modelling should assist in examining:
Effects on circulation of structures/dredging;

Effects on transport of sediment and wrack; and
Transport of dredge plumes/re-suspension/deposition.
Materials Transport Points to be considered in the modelling of materials transport include:
Well-documented re-suspension/deposition algorithms;

Adequate and accurate wave forcing and current data as input to re-suspension/deposition
algorithms;
Characterisation of dredged sediments and their fate (e.g. coagulation/flocculation/burial etc);
Inclusion of all significant relevant processes in transport model; and
Direct validation of fate of particle transport (e.g. environmental particle tracing technologies).
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
ATTACHMENT B
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEME NT
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Proponent is committed to ongoing stakeholder and community engagement, including open and transparent
communication, and recognises the importance of genuine stakeholder involvement in the identification of potential issues
and concerns, as well as appropriate strategies for management of impacts.
The Proponent defines stakeholders as people or organisations who have an impact on, or who are impacted by the
Proponent‘s operations and activities. An understanding of key stakeholder attitudes and issues is crucial for the
Proponent to support effective stakeholder engagement. Additionally the ability to respond to community concerns and to
guide the management of issues is key.
Community Relations
The Proponent takes a proactive approach to liaising with stakeholders and interested parties. The Proponent's
understanding of local attitudes and community issues has been guided by an ongoing program of research,
communications, and consultations with key stakeholders and the broader community.
In order to ensure local presence and be responsive to local community interests in the Project, OPR opened a Mid West
Community Office at 260 Foreshore Drive, Geraldton. Local community and stakeholders are able to visit or speak to one
of OPR‘s staff members during office hours from Monday to Friday.
Other mechanisms for engagement and providing information to the community to date have included:
 meetings including council meetings;
 personal stakeholder meetings and visits;
 briefings, including presentations;
 hosting hospitability events, including luncheons, sundowners and office open days;
 hosting visits to the proposed deep water port site and conducting site briefings;
 community consultation and interviews;
 social and environmental impact assessment workshops;
 direct mail via letter drops (e.g. OPR newsletter 'Oakajee Quarter')'
 information resources including Proponent Project Updates, Fact Sheets and media releases;
 sponsorship and partnership projects;
 attendance a Mid West functions;
 displays and information at local agricultural shows; and
 presentations at industry business conferences and events
Engagement to Date
OPR has worked closely with the Western Australian Government regarding the development of the Project, as well as
relevant government agencies, the Geraldton Iron Ore Alliance and Mid West stakeholders. OPR has developed a
methodology for external stakeholder engagement.
In addition to meetings with individuals, Table A-1 below provides an overview of the general presentation and
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
consultation provided to groups on the preliminary engineering contained in the pre-feasibility works of the Approved Port,
focusing on the more recent consultation. Further to this, consultation with the Department of Fisheries and the DEC-
Geraldton were conducted to discuss any issues directly relating to marine flora and fauna. The outcome of these
meetings are summarised in Table A-2.
14
Table A-1 Summary of Stakeholder Consultation
Organisation Date(s)
Local Government
Shire of Chapman Valley Ongoing, including Council meeting in October 2009, and June 2010.
City of Geraldton-Greenough Ongoing, including Council meeting in September and October 2009, and June 2010.
State Government Agencies
Department of Environment and Ongoing including briefings to the Geraldton Regional Office and Perth Environmental
Conservation Management Branch.
Attendance at OEPA site visit - 27 April 2010
Attendance at EPA Board site visit 3 May 2010 (including discussion of the Approval Port
Management Plans)
Department of State Development Ongoing meetings and workshops to discuss Approved Port Management Plans.
Circulation of draft Management Plans for DSD review and comment.
Environmental Protection Authority Ongoing, including briefings to the EPASU in December 2008 and February 2009.
EPA Board meeting - 18 February 2010
Attendance at OEPA site visit - 27 April 2010
Attendance at EPA Board site visit 3 May 2010 (including discussion of the Approval Port
Management Plans)
Fisheries WA June 2010 and July 2009 Meeting (including discussion of the Approval Port Management
Plans)
Geraldton Port Authority Ongoing meetings and workshops to discuss Approved Port Management Plans.
Circulation of draft Management Plans for GPA review and comment.
Elected Members
State Member for Geraldton- Oct 2009 and November 2009 meetings
Greenough Region (Mr Ian Blayney
MLA) May 2010 meeting (including discussion of the Approval Port Management Plans)
Speaker Legislative Assembly. State Oct 2009 and November 2009 meetings
Member for Moore (The Hon Grant
Woodhams MLA) May 2010 meeting (including discussion of the Approval Port Management Plans)
14 Please note that the stakeholder consultation list provided in Table A-1 is not an exhaustive list of stakeholder consultation undertaken
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Community
Drummonds Cove Progress June 2008, July 2009, October 2009 and May 2010
Association
Attendance at SIA/EIA workshops (Oct 09, Feb 10)
Geraldton Windsurfing Club May 2010 Meeting
Geraldton Long Board Club May 2010 Meeting
Geraldton Board Riders Club May 2010 Meeting
Geraldton Caravan Clubs May 2010 Meeting
Geraldton 4WD Clubs May 2010 Meeting
Professional/Industry
Customers Ongoing including meetings with Sinosteel Midwest Corporation, Crosslands Resources,
Karara Mining/Gindalbie Metals, Golden West Resources, etc
Fishing and Cray fishing Industry Ongoing consultation since 2007, through regular meetings and emails.
(Geraldton Professional Fishers
Association, United Mid-West Fishing July 2009 meeting
Association, Western Rock Lobster
Council) Attendance at SIA/EIA workshop (Oct 09)
Main-stream Western Australian and Ongoing including various media releases, media tours and conferences. Project updates
Mid-West media (including Geraldton available through website.
Guardian, Midwest Times), shire
publications, WA Business News,
The West Australian, GWN TV, ABC
Radio, WIN TV) as well as OPRs
website
Table A2 Stakeholder Consultation relevant to dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation at Oakajee
Agency/Group Comment/request Addressed by
DEC (Geraldton) OPR should consider that there is potential for ASS This will be managed if excavation activities are
5 August 2010 to form within the reclamation area from the required in the future. The reclamation areas
breakdown on marine plant material within the are designed to be used for project activities
Mike Mulligan (OPR), Gavin dredge spoil. This may have future consequences and therefore it is unlikely that they will need to
Edwards (OPR), Beth Chapple when earthworks are required within the be removed at any stage.
(DEC), Anthony Desmond reclamation area.
(DEC), Steve Checker (DEC)
and Paul Anderson (DEC)
Fisheries Dredge and Dredge Spoil A safety exclusion zone will be located
6 August 2010  plume issue: commercial fishers will be surrounding the breakwater both during
concerned regarding impacts on catch rates construction and operation. Fishing and
Attendees: Michelle Hanlon recreational activities will be restricted within
(Fisheries), Damien McAlinden and puerulus settlement
this area and it is anticipated that the dredge
(OPR), Michael Mulligan  Nick Caputi (Fisheries Research) suggested plume will remain within this exclusion zone and
(OPR) as a contact for further information is therefore unlikely to cause an impact on
catch rates or puerulus settlement
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
Agency/Group Comment/request Addressed by

Overarching: Consultation has been conducted with the
 Engagement with the Western Australian Western Australian Fishing Industry Council
Fishing Industry Council and RecFishWest is and RecFishWest. Please refer to Recreation,
essential. Fishing and Access Management Plan.
OEPA Several comments on: DBCLRMP edited and response to comments

1 October 2010  status of the approved areas submitted to government agencies
Attendees: Hans Jacob  impact areas, light monitoring and
(OEPA), Patrick Cavilli triggers
(OEPA), Ray Masini (DEC-  Management actions
MEB), Mike Mulligan (OPR), Phil  Potential to use macroalgae as triggers
Scott (OPR), Luke Twomey  Model verification
(Oceanica), Murray Burling
(APASA)
Table A3 Peer review of dredging, breakwater construction and land reclamation at Oakajee
Reviewer Comment/request Addressed by
Des Lord Several comments across the DBCLRMP DBCLRMP edited and response to comments
submitted to government agencies
Prof. Paul Lavery Several comments across the DBCLRMP DBCLRMP edited and response to comments
submitted to government agencies
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF BASELINE STUDIES FOR OAKAJEE PORT
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
LIST OF BASELINE STUDIES FOR OAKAJEE PORT

Baseline Study Corresponding Report
 Oceanica 2007, Oakajee Port Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report (2006-2007),
Report no. 503_002/1
Water Quality
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Report (2006-2009),
 Oceanica 2007, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies Sediment Quality,
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port - Oakajee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan -
Geotechnical Survey, Report no. 503_003/2
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port - Oakajee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan -
Sediment Quality Surface Sediment Survey, Report no. 503_003/3
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies -
Geotechnical Survey Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report,
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Surface
Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, Report no. 503_003/5
 Oceanica 2008, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Habitat Mapping,
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Habitat
Benthic Primary Producer Habitat
Monitoring Report 2009, Report no. 503_004/2
 Oceanica 2010, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Habitat
Monitoring Report 2010, Report no. 503_004/3
 Oceanica 2008, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Baseline Beach
Cast Wrack Report (2006-2007), Report no. 503_005/1
Beach Cast Wrack
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Baseline and Coastal Baseline Studies - Beach Cast
Wrack Report (2006-2009), Report no. 503_005/2
 EMC 2008, Oakajee Port Introduced Marine Species Baseline Survey - Desktop
Review and Survey Design, Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Murchison
Metals Limited by Enviro Marine Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. EM-REP-06-002-001
REV 1, Perth, Western Australia, June 2008
Introduced Marine Organisms
 EMC 2009, Oakajee Port Introduced Marine Species Baseline Survey - Survey Report,
Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Murchison Metals Limited by Enviro
Marine Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. EM-REP-06-002-002 Rev 1, Perth, Western
Australia, June 2009
 Oceanica 2009, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies, Baseline (2006–
Coastal Processes
2009) Coastal Processes Investigation, 503_008/1
 APASA 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail: Marine Environmental Modelling - Model
Validation Report Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Oakajee Port and Rail
by Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates, Report no. Rev 0, Perth, Western
Australia, June 2009.
 APASA 2009, Oakajee Port and Rail: Sediment Plume Modelling Prepared for
Hydrodynamic Modelling
Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd & Oakajee Port and Rail by Asia-Pacific Applied Science
Associates, Report no. Rev A, Perth, Western Australia, November 2009.
 Oceanica DRAFT, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Benthic
Primary Producer Impacts from construction of the proposed Oakajee Port, Report no.
503_009/1.
 Oceanica DRAFT, Oakajee Port Marine and Coastal Baseline Studies - Marine
Mammals Pilot Survey Report, Report no. 503_010/1.
Marine Mammals
 Oceanica 2010, Oakajee Port - Risk Assessment of Pile Driving Noise on Marine
Fauna, Report no. 503_001/6.
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
APPENDIX D: OCEANICA AND APAS A (2010), BENTHIC PRIMARY PRODUCER

IMPACTS FROM CONSTRU CTION OF THE PROPOSED OAKAJEE PORT
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0
301012-01054-1000-EN-PLN-0003 Rev 0

Oakajee Deepwater Port PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oakajee Deepwater Port PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dredging, Breakwater Construction

and Land Reclamation

Date of Issue : 12 November 2010

0 Issued for Approval 9-Nov-10 12-Nov-10

D Issued for OPR Review 7-Nov-10 9-Nov-10

C Issued for Internal Review L.Twomey M.Bailey 3-Nov-10 6-Nov-10

B Issued for Peer Review 3-Nov-10 6-Nov-10

B Issued for Final Review 01-Sep-10 13-Sep-10

B Issued for OPR Review 25-June-10 25-June-10

A Issued for Internal Review 17-May-10 17-May-10

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................7

7.1 BPPH Direct Impacts Monitoring .............................................................................55

10.1 Auditing .....................................................................................................................86

EMP Content Yes No Comments

Is the document structured according to the EMP guideline? -

Monitoring – Is the program to monitor performance against objectives and Section 7

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

MEPA Moderate Ecological Protection Area

Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Plan

1.1 Background/Project Description

Table 1.1 : Key OPR Project Areas

1.2 Scope and Objective

 Reduced light penetration to the photosynthetic algae and seagrasses;

 Inhibit filter feeding animals and larval recruitment of benthic biota;

 Cause mechanical damage to benthic fauna;

 Deplete oxygen; and/or,

 Cause nutrient enrichment.

Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Plan

1.3 Description of Key Works

Sand 234,900 256,800

Alluvium 32,900 44,700

Non-Calcreted 693,400 836,100

Calcreted 1,372,700 1,472,400

TOTAL 2,333,900 2,610,000

1.4 Key Environmental Legislation and Conditions

International Conventions and Commonwealth Legislation

This is the most important convention regulating and preventing

These legislations give effect to the MARPOL convention in

AQIS administers the Quarantine Act 1908 with the objective of

Waters surrounding Australia's coastlines are protected from wastes

State Government Legislation

Document Responsible Government Authority Aspect

Department of Consumer and Employment

Western Australian Marine (Sea

Document Responsible Government Authority Aspect

Document Responsible Government Authority Aspect

Provides a framework to impart clarity and consistency to the

Provides the framework for environmental management on the

This EMP is managed via the OPR EMS

Table 1.4: MS469 EMP Title and Proposed EMP submissions

Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Management Plan

Dredging, Breakwater Construction and Land Reclamation Plan

1.5 Stakeholder Consultation

1.5.1 Peer Review of Baseline Studies

All baseline studies (except

Dr Karen Hillman Oceanica Consulting - Director All baseline studies

Dr Julia Phillips CSIRO – Marine Ecologist Marine habitat

Validation report for

1.5.3 Peer Review of Draft EMP

3. POTENTI AL IMP ACTS

Table 3.1: Construction activity, pathway, environmental impact

3.3 Hydrodynamic modelling of BPPH impacts

3.3.1 BPPH loss predictions