Gascoyne Gateway - Scoping Document.pdf

GASCOYNE GATEWAY LTD Scoping document Single JettyDeep-water Port&RenewablesHub

Document No Rev 2: 4023-001 10th November 2021

Unit 38-39 145 Stirling Hwy Nedlands, WA

Gascoyne Gateway LTD

© Copyright 2020 Gascoyne Gateway Ltd ABN 72 638 151 747. No part of this document or the information it contains may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Gascoyne Gateway Ltd. gascoynegateway.com.au

Synopsis

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has determined that the Single Jetty Deep-water Port & Renewables Hub proposal is to be assessed under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). The purpose of this document is to define the form, content, timing and procedure of the environmental review required by section 40(3) of the EP Act. Gascoyne Gateway LTD has prepared this environmental scoping document (ESD) according to the procedures in the EPA's Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) procedures manual 2016.

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Gascoyne Gateway LTD. Gascoyne Gateway LTD accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it regarding any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. Copying this report without the permission of Gascoyne Gateway LTD is not permitted.

Page ii of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Table of contents 1. Invitation to make a submission ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7 Proposal name:...........................................................................................................................................7 Single Jetty Deep-water Port & Renewables Hub ......................................................................................7 2.1 Structure of this report ..................................................................................................................7 2.2 Content ..........................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Timing.............................................................................................................................................7 2.4 Procedure.......................................................................................................................................8 2.5 Accredited assessment under the EPBC Act ..................................................................................8 3. The proposal ................................................................................................................................ 11 4. Preliminary key environmental factors and required work............................................................. 16 5. Preliminary key environmental factors and required work............................................................. 19 5.1 Table 5-1: Benthic communities and habitat...............................................................................19 5.2 Table 5-2: Coastal processes ........................................................................................................23 5.3 Table 5-3: Marine environmental quality ....................................................................................26 5.4 Table 5-4: Marine fauna...............................................................................................................29 5.5 Table 5-5: Flora and vegetation ...................................................................................................33 5.6 Table 5-6: Subterranean fauna (stygofauna and troglofauna). ...................................................35 5.7 Table 5-7: Terrestrial fauna..........................................................................................................38 5.8 Table 5-8: Inland waters ..............................................................................................................42 5.9 Table 5-9: Social surroundings .....................................................................................................45 5.10 Table 5-10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................49 6. Stakeholder consultation.............................................................................................................. 51 7. Decision-making authorities ......................................................................................................... 52 7.1 The Department of Agriculture, Water, and the Environment (DAWE) ......................................52 8. References ................................................................................................................................... 53 List of tables Table 2-1: Assessment timeline......................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3-1: Key characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4-1: Regional context and integrating issues......................................................................................... 18 5.1 Table 5-1: Benthic communities and habitat.............................................................................. 19 5.2 Table 5-2: Coastal processes ....................................................................................................... 23 5.3 Table 5-3: Marine environmental quality ................................................................................... 26 5.4 Table 5-4: Marine fauna.............................................................................................................. 29 5.5 Table 5-5: Flora and vegetation .................................................................................................. 33 5.6 Table 5-6: Subterranean fauna (stygofauna and troglofauna). .................................................. 35 5.7 Table 5-7: Terrestrial fauna......................................................................................................... 38 5.8 Table 5-8: Inland waters ............................................................................................................. 42 5.9 Table 5-9: Social surroundings .................................................................................................... 45 5.10 Table 5-10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 49 Table 7-1: Decision-making authorities........................................................................................................... 52

Page iii of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

List of figures Figure 3-1: Proposed development envelope ................................................................................................. 14 Figure 3-2: Proposal development footprint................................................................................................... 15

Page iv of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

1.

Invitation to make a submission

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) invites public submissions on the draft Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) for this proposal.

Gascoyne Gateway LTD is proposing to, build and operate a new single jetty deep-water port and renewables hub, located 10km south of Exmouth township. The port is proposed to provide the Exmouth Gulf’s existing marine traffic with a better place to berth, including t ourist vessels, and enabling the Royal Australian Navy to bring its vessels to Exmouth. The draft ESD has been prepared in accordance with the EPA’s Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures Manual (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) 2021. The draft ESD outlines the work required and key areas of focus for the environmental review. The proponent will undertake this work and the information will be used to prepare an Environmental Review Document.

The draft ESD is available for a public review period of 4 weeks from 15 November 2021, closing on Monday 13 December 2021.

Why write a submission?

The EPA seeks information that will inform the EPA’s consideration of the likely effect of the proposal, if implemented, on the environment.

The EPA will use the information in the submissions to identify any additional preliminary key environmental factors/issues and the type and extent of any additional work for the environmental review that should be included in the ESD.

Submissions will be treated as public documents unless provided and received in confidence, subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.

Why not join a group?

It may be worthwhile joining a group or other groups interested in making a submission on similar issues. Joint submissions may help to reduce the workload for an individual or group. If you form a small group (up to 10 people) please indicate all the names of the participants. If your group is larger, please indicate how many people your submission represents.

Developing a submission

The draft ESD specifies the form, content, indicative timing and procedure of the proponents environmental review. The ESD also outlines the preliminary key environmental factors, any specific work required and key areas of focus for the environmental review. The likely environmental impacts and the proposed management measures will be addressed in the Environmental Review Document after the proponent undertakes the studies outlined in the ESD.

You may agree or disagree with, or comment on, the general issues discussed in the draft ESD or on specific elements.

When making comments on the draft ESD:

 Suggest other preliminary key (i.e., most important) environmental factors and/or any additional work you consider would be appropriate.

Page 5 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Clearly state your point of view and give reasons for your conclusions.

 Reference the source of your information, where applicable.

Suggest recommendations or alternatives.

What to include in your submission?

Include the following in your submission to make it easier for the EPA to consider your submission:

your contact details – name and address

date of your submission

 whether you want your contact details to be confidential  summary of your submission, if your submission is long

 list points so that issues raised are clear, preferably by environmental factor  refer each point to the page, section and if possible, paragraph of the draft ESD

attach any reference material, if applicable.

Make sure your information is accurate.

The closing date for public submissions is: 13 December 2021

The EPA prefers submissions to be made electronically via the EPA’s at https://consultation.epa.wa.gov.au.

Alternatively, submissions can be:

 posted to: Chair, Environmental Protection Authority, Locked Bag 10, Joondalup DC, WA 6919, or  delivered to: Environmental Protection Authority, Prime House 8 Davidson Terrace, Joondalup Western Australia 6027. If you have any questions on how to make a submission, please contact EPA Services at the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation on 6364 7000.

Page 6 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

2.

Introduction

Proposal name:

Single Jetty Deep-water Port & Renewables Hub

Proponent:

Gascoyne Gateway LTD

Assessment number:

2302

Location:

The site selected is next to the existing light industrial area at Mowbowra Creek that lies 10 kilometres south of the Exmouth township.

Local government area:

Shire of Exmouth

Public review period:

Environmental Review Document – 12 weeks

EPBC Act reference number:

2021/8942

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has determined that the Single Jetty Deep-water Port & Renewables Hub proposal (hereafter 'the proposal') is to be assessed under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). The purpose of this document is to define the form, content, timing and procedure of the environmental review required by section 40(3) of the EP Act. Gascoyne Gateway LTD ('the proponent') has prepared this environmental scoping document (ESD) according to the EPA's Environmental impact assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) procedures manual 2016 (EPA procedures manual). 2.1 Structure of this report For compliance with section 40(3) of the EP Act, the EPA requires this ESD to follow its Environmental document review template .

2.2 Content See sections 2 to 6 of this ESD for the content that the EPA requires.

2.3 Timing See Table 2-1 for the assessment timeline that the EPA and Gascoyne Gateway has agreed on.

Table 2-1: Assessment timeline

Key assessment milestones

Completion date 15 November 2021

Draft environmental scoping document released for public review (4 weeks) Proponent responds to submissions and submits revised ESD EPA approves environmental scoping document (ESD) Proponent submits the first draft of the environmental review document (ERD) EPA/DAWE comments on first draft of the ERD

January 2022

February 2022

February 2022

April 2022 May 2022 June 2022

Proponent submits revised draft ERD

EPA authorises release of ERD for public review

Page 7 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Proponent releases ERD for public review for 12 weeks

June 2022

Close of the public review period

September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022

EPA provides a summary of submissions Proponent provides a response to submissions EPA/DAWE reviews the response to submissions EPA prepares draft assessment report and completes an assessment

February 2023

EPA finalises assessment report

March 2023

2.4 Procedure The EPA requires the proponent to undertake the environmental review according to the procedures in the Environmental impact assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) administrative procedures 2016 and the procedures manual .

When the EPA endorses the ESD, it will make the document available on the EPA website and append it to the ERD.

2.5 Accredited assessment under the EPBC Act The proponent referred the project to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE). Subsequently the EPA and DAWE have determined the proposal to be a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It is being assessed by the Australian Government and the State of Western Australia as an accredited assessment. The relevant matters of national environmental significance (MNES) for this proposal are:

 Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 218A)

 Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)

 The world heritage values of a declared world heritage property (sections 12 and 15A)

 The heritage values of a national heritage place (sections 15B and 15C)

 Commonwealth land (section 26 and 27A) This ESD includes work that must be carried out and reported in the ERD document concerning MNES. The ERD will also address the matters in Schedule 4 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Regulations 2000. The ERD will have a dedicated EPBC Act chapter that discusses impacts to matters of national environmental significance (MNES) including ‘whole of environment’ and identifies suitable a voidance, mitigation, management, and (if appropriate) offset measures.

This chapter will detail the impacts and mitigation measures on the following protected matters:

 Humpback Whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) – Vulnerable, Migratory

Marine turtles:

 Loggerhead Turtle ( Caretta caretta ) – Endangered, Migratory Marine  Green Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) – Vulnerable, Migratory Marine  Hawksbill Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) – Vulnerable, Migratory Marine  Leatherback Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) – Endangered, Migratory Marine  Flatback Turtle ( Natator depressus ) – Vulnerable, Migratory Marine

Sharks

Page 8 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

 Whale Shark ( Rhincodon typus ) – Vulnerable, Migratory, Marine  Grey Nurse Shark ( Carcharias taurus ) – Vulnerable

 Short-nosed Seasnake ( Aipysurus apaefrontalis ) – Critically endangered

Subterranean Fauna

 Blind Gudgeon ( Milveringa veritas ) - Vulnerable  Blind Cave Eel ( Ophisternon candidum ) – Vulnerable

Seabirds and migratory shorebirds

 Australian Fairy Tern ( Sternula nereis nereis ) - Vulnerable  Eastern Curlew ( Numenius madagascariensis ) – Critically Endangered  Bar-tailed Godwit ( Limosa lapponica baueri ) – Migratory, Marine  Common Greenshank ( Tringa nebularia ) – Migratory, Marine  Grey-tailed Tattler ( Tringa brevipes ) - Migratory  Ruddy Turnstone ( Arenaria interpres ) – Migratory

 Dugong ( Dugong dugon ) – Migratory, Marine

Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Property Ningaloo Coast National Heritage Place

 Commonwealth land within Exmouth Gulf Defence equities may also be impacted. Baseline surveys proposed under the various environmental factors will be designed to capture these impacts for lighting (Study 54 and 120), noise (Studies 118, 119, 124 and 126), and dust (Studies 118, 119, 124 and 126) that will have corresponding mitigation measures and management plans during the assessment process.

Information about any offsets that may be required for MNES will potentially include:

the type of offset proposed

 the extent to which the proposed offset actions correlate with, and adequately compensate for, the significant residual impacts of the proposed action on the protected matter

 suitability of the location of any proposed offset site for the protected matter

 conservation gain to be achieved by the offset; that is, positive management strategies that improve the site or avert the future loss, degradation or damage of the protected matter

 the time it will take to achieve the proposed conservation gain  level of certainty that the proposed offset will be successful  current land tenure of any proposed offset and the method of securing it

 managing the offset for the life of the impact. The ERD will discuss the proponent’s environmental history, including any instance of non-compliance with Australian environmental regulations. DAWE will require a 'Whole of Environment' approach due to potential impacts on Commonwealth land. This will mean the Commonwealth will consider impacts to landscapes/soils, coastal processes, ocean forms/processes/life, water resources, pollutants/chemicals/toxic substances, plants, animals, peoples and communities, and heritage. Most of these concerns are addressed in the WA EPA key environmental factors. There will be additional discussions on landscapes/soils (Study 129) and pollutants/chemicals/toxic substances (Study 30) in addition to the studies presented in the ESD. In deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action under the EPBC Act, the Australian Minister for Agriculture, Water and the Environment must consider economic and social matters. The ERD will include an appendix detailing the social and economic costs and benefits of undertaking the proposed action

Page 9 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

including, but not limited to, the basis of any estimation of costs and benefits and potential employment opportunities.

Page 10 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

3.

The proposal

Gascoyne Gateway LTD (the proponent) proposes to privately fund, build and operate a new Single Jetty Deep-water Port and Renewables Hub (the proposal) about 10 km south of the Exmouth townsite in Western Australia. The port will provide reliable, year-round berthing for a broad range of ships, including cruise ships, defence, and border security. It would be constructed within a development envelope approximately 4.19 km 2 in size.

At the overview level, the proposal's key attributes are summarised as follows:

Single access jetty

 Several berths based on bathymetry at the offshore jetty abutment  Small dredging volume with all material brought ashore or used in construction  A jetty on piles across the nearshore/dune intersect to allow coastal longshore processes

Onshore strategic port land

Renewables precinct

Desalination infrastructure

Fuel storage

Proposal title

Single Jetty Deep-water Port & Renewables Hub

Proponent

Gascoyne Gateway LTD

Short description

 Gascoyne Gateway Ltd plans to build, own and operate a multi- purpose marine facility in Exmouth. The project has been designed primarily with cruise liners and associated eco-tourism activity in mind to meet immediate state tourism outcomes. Other marine trade sectors are intrinsic to the business model to ensure the project's long-term financial viability. Thus the project will be a multi-purpose facility to capture diverse revenue streams. The project will not be utilised for livestock or iron ore.  The site selected is next to the existing light industrial area that lies 10 kilometres south of the Exmouth township. This 'greenfields' project will have a port precinct footprint of approximately 259.62 ha land side

and 62.76 ha marine side – this is necessary for the variety of activities to be undertaken at the multi-purpose facility. See

 Table 3-1 for more details about the development envelope.  Design is based around a combination rock groin (breakwater) and pylon steel construction to a 'T' section berth-face to support the anticipated vessels. This berth face will require about 12.0 metres of depth (at chart datum) to meet design vessel draughts. This will be achieved by both natural depth and some dredging of sand and seabed limestone at the berth pocket.

Page 11 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Table 3-1: Key characteristics

Element

Proposal extent

Marine components

Basin dimensions

360 m x 1100 m Nom.

Dredging area and volume

Area = 0.50 km² (50.1 ha) Volume = 1,128,251 m³

Basin depth

-4 to -12m LAT

Number of berths

Five Berth 1 – 7m

Berth 2- 13.5m Berth 3- 11.5m Berth 4 – 11.5m Berth 5 – 9.5m

Offshore infrastructure

Small laydown area to support the operation at the seaward side, 200 m x 230 m

Total marine disturbance

 Development envelope – 85 ha (which includes a 25 m buffer on marine infrastructure footprint.

 Marine infrastructure footprint = 62.76 ha, which includes:

12.63 ha marine infrastructure

50.13 ha dredge footprint.

Desalination plant

The capacity of 2 ML/day potable water.

Intake 6 ML/day of seawater.

 4 ML/day of seawater concentrate (brine) to be discharged back to the ocean at approximately 70 ppt.

Terrestrial components

Terrestrial components include:

 Development envelope – 334.12 ha landside which includes:

Operational areas

open space buffers of 74.5 ha.

Fuel storage

 Development footprint – leaving permanent clearing of no more than 259 ha, broken up as:

Water storage

Renewables precinct

171.43 ha as renewables 28.57 ha for fuel storage

Desalination

59.62 ha as strategic port land.

Renewables precinct

 Solar and wind components to be confirmed during the study.

 Wind turbines and associated electrical infrastructure:

 Up to 12 wind turbines generating up to 3.5 MW, with each turbine being up to 250 m tall from the ground to the top rotation limit of the highest blade tip.  With no more than 1 wind turbine per 14 hectares

 PV solar panels and associated electrical infrastructure:

 The Solar PV will be deployed in modules. The panels will be mounted on low-impact steel frames and there will be inverters installed among the solar panels.

Page 12 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Battery – 264 MWh battery system.

Development footprint Development envelope

No more than 322 ha No more than 419 ha

Page 13 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Figure 3-1: Proposed development envelope

Page 14 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Figure 3-2: Proposal development footprint

Page 15 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

4.

Preliminary key environmental factors and required work

The primary key environmental factors for the environmental review are:

1. Benthic communities and habitat 2. Coastal processes 3. Marine environmental quality 4. Marine fauna

5. Flora and vegetation 6. Subterranean fauna 7. Terrestrial fauna 8. Inland waters 9. Social surroundings

Page 16 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Table 4-1 recognises the regional context of the proposal and outlines the work necessary for issues that cut across multiple preliminary environmental factors.

Table 5-1 to Table 5-9 outlines the work required for each primary key environmental factor and contains the following elements for each factor:

 EPA factor and EPA objective for that factor.

 Relevant activities – the proposal activities that may have a significant impact on that factor.

Potential impacts and risks to that factor.

Required work for that factor.

 Relevant policy and guidance – EPA (and other) guidance and policy relevant to the assessment. The Studies address the EPA’s six expectations ( EPA’s s16e recommendation) of future activities and developments in the Exmouth Gulf as outlined in the report to the Minister (EPA 2021). These are covered within the scoping document as follows:

Broad regional context – Study 1 Critical site selection – Study 1 and 2

 Protect key social surroundings values – Environmental factor Social Surrounds - Table 4.9

 Adaptable design and infrastructure – Study 4

Cumulative impacts, and – Study 3

 Climate change considerations. – Environmental factor Greenhouse gas emissions - Table 4.10

Page 17 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Table 4-1: Regional context and integrating issues

The proposal is located within the Shire of Exmouth, with the preferred location being about 10 km south of the Exmouth township. Construction and operational activities may impact the Exmouth Gulf, Ningaloo Marine Park, Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Property/ Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Place, Cape Range Subterranean Waterways, and Qualing Pool the significant environmental values they support. The EPA has identified the following issues, which cut across multiple preliminary vital factors that need to be addressed in the ERD. 1. Undertake a regional site selection study incorporating Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) 2. Provide information regarding the selection process for the proposed site, including examining the alternative options considered and the environmental constraints and values at risk for each alternative option, to demonstrate that the proposed site has been selected to avoid and minimise impacts and the protection of key values in Exmouth Gulf and its surrounds including MNES. Note: Information regarding the environmental constraints and values at risk for the alternative options should be supported by environmental data. 3. Discuss the regional and cumulative impacts of other existing or reasonably foreseeable development in the vicinity of the proposal with the potential to impact the same receptors and environmental values and MNES. 4. Undertake a study to demonstrate adaptability in design and approach to protect the key values and ecological processes in a dynamic ecosystem. This includes iterations of current designs, utilising feedback from stakeholders and community consultation groups and working with nature principles. 5. Provide details of proposed care and maintenance and decommissioning, and closure of the proposal. Provide details of the potential risks and impacts to environmental values, and details of mitigation and management measures to ensure that the impacts are not more significant than predicted.

Regional context

Required work

Page 18 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

5.

Preliminary key environmental factors and required work

5.1

Table 5-1: Benthic communities and habitat

Benthic communities and habitat

EPA objective

To protect benthic communities and habitats so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained.

The aspects of the proposal that may impact benthic communities and habitats include:

Relevant activities

 installation of the trestle structure, rock groyne and steel pilings

 dredging around the berths and approach channel

 increased vessel activity (associated with construction and operation of the facility).

Potential impacts and risks

The potential impacts arising from the proposal include:

 temporary increase in water column turbidity due to nearshore construction activities and dredging offshore  temporary release of contaminants from marine sediments during nearshore construction and dredging activities

 increased vessel activity from operations introducing invasive marine species

 increased vessel activity bringing the potential for spills.

 Direct impacts to BCH from dredging and infrastructure

 Indirect impacts to BCH due to altered sediment and water movement and flows caused by infrastructure such as causeways and breakwaters  Potential for BCH to be impacted by changes to marine environmental quality during construction and operation of the facility (e.g. brine discharge)  Potential for BCH to be affected by increased shading and sedimentation associated with propellor wash from vessel movement near the approach channel and turning basin.  Unplanned releases of chemicals or hydrocarbons associated with proposal activities, including storage on land

Page 19 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Benthic communities and habitat

Direct impacts to benthic communities and habitat will likely be limited to areas of bare sand and sparse filter feeders (from dredging) and reef veneer in the coastal areas (from the construction of the rock groyne). Indirect impacts from dredging and construction will be subject to detailed assessment following completion of additional field surveys and collection of metocean data. 6. Characterise the environment by designing and conducting a benthic communities and habitat survey to map the spatial extent of benthic habitats accurately. Based on the findings of the surveys, produce geo- referenced maps showing the extent and distribution of the different benthic communities and habitats across the defined Local Assessment Unit offshore of the proposal. Geo-referenced maps of benthic communities and habitats should also be provided for the anchorage areas. This characterisation should also identify any critical windows of environmental sensitivity for benthic communities, particularly corals and any seasonality for seagrasses. Note: if surveys were undertaken at the referral stage, survey results/mapping and a demonstration of how the Technical guidance – protection of benthic communities and habitats (EPA 2016) has been followed are to be included in the ERD. 7. Assess the values and significance of benthic communities and habitats within the proposal area and adjacent areas, and describe these values in a local and regional context. 8. Identify elements of the proposal that may affect benthic communities and habitat, including direct and indirect impacts, for construction and operation. This should include impacts in the event of an accidental spill or incident. 9. Undertake modelling to predict the direct and indirect impacts of dredging, including using the Impact Zonation Scheme consistent with the EPA’s technical guidance on dredging. 10. Predict the likely impact of repeated exposure to sediment plumes caused by propellor wash on adjacent BCH (this may require modelling using actual measurements of the extent, duration and intensity of prop wash associated plumes). 11. Predict the residual impacts from the proposal, both direct and indirect, on benthic communities and habitat after demonstrating how the mitigation hierarchy has been applied. Impact predictions are to:

Required work

Page 20 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Benthic communities and habitat

a. Include the likely extent, severity and duration of direct and indirect impacts of the proposal on benthic communities and habitats. Predictions for both construction and operational impacts include the most likely worst-case and the most likely best-case loss scenarios. b. Address any irreversible loss of, or serious damage to, benthic communities and habitat, in the context of Technical guidance – protection of benthic communities and habitats (EPA 2016) , including an appropriately defined local assessment unit and assessing the significance of any loss, including cumulative loss. c. Include a risk assessment identifying potential impacts to benthic communities and habitat: that provides habitat for conservation-significant or locally important marine fauna; that provides habitat for commercial and recreational fisheries; and that may be potentially affected by shipping activities within the Exmouth Gulf, Ningaloo Marine Park Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Property/Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Place and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area. This risk assessment should consider accidental spills or incidents, including damage to or loss of control of vessels. 12. Identification of the risk of unplanned releases of chemicals or hydrocarbons associated with proposal activities to BCH, including from storage on land. 13. Undertake brine outfall dilution modelling, to determine predicted mixing zone and determine the potential for impacts to adjacent BCH 14. Include details of the monitoring and management during and after construction of the proposal and during ongoing operations to demonstrate that residual impacts are not greater than predicted at the proposal site. 15. Describe the likely consequences for the ecological integrity and biological diversity of the benthic communities and habitats that the identified impacts may have and include a description of the likely impact of any changes on other dependent factors. 16. Determine and quantify any significant residual impacts by applying the Residual Impact Significance Model (page 11) and WA Offset Template (Appendix 1) in the WA Environmental Offset Guidelines (EPA 2014a). Where significant residual impacts remain, propose an appropriate offset package consistent with the WA Environmental Offsets Policy and associated guidelines and where residual impacts relate to EPBC Act-listed

Page 21 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Benthic communities and habitat

threatened and migratory species the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy (EPBC 2012a). Spatial data defining the areas of significant residual impacts should be provided. 17. Identify the environmental outcome that will be achieved during construction and operation of the proposal and the monitoring and/or management actions that willbe undertaken to achieve the outcome. If plans are required to demonstrate howthe environmental outcome will be achieved, they are to be presented in accordance with the EPAs Instructions.

Relevant policy and guidance

EPA policy and guidance

 Statement of environmental principles, factors and objectives, (EPA 2020)

 Potential cumulative impacts of proposed activities and developments on the environmental, social and cultural values of Exmouth Gulf in accordance with section 16(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , EPA, Western Australia, (EPA 2021)

 Environmental factor guideline – benthic communities and habitats (EPA 2016).

 Technical guide – benthic communities and habitats (EPA 2016).

 Technical Guidance Environmental Impact Assessment of Marine Dredging Proposals, (EPA 2021) . Other policy and guidance

 WA Environmental Offsets Policy (EPA 2011a)  WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (EPA 2014b)

 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy (EPBC 2012b)  Management plan for the Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area 2005 – 2015 (DPAW 2016a)

 Technical guidance environmental impact assessment of marine dredging (EPA 2021)

Page 22 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

5.2

Table 5-2: Coastal processes

Coastal processes

EPA objective

To maintain the geophysical processes that shape coastal morphology so that the environmental values of the coast are protected.

The aspects of the proposal that may impact coastal processes include:

Relevant activities

 alteration of wave energy and dynamics, current patterns and interruption to longshore sediment transport caused by jetty construction across the nearshore zone  construction of the rock groyne structure further offshore having the potential to trap sediment and causing changes to the morphology of the coastal zone and potentially impacting nearshore benthic communities and habitat

closure and decommissioning.

Potential impacts and risks

Construction of the proposal may:

 locally alter wave and current conditions, interrupting existing longshore and cross-shore sediment dynamics

 trap sediment and cause further loss of nearshore benthic communities and habitat

 disrupt longshore sediment by altering downdrift sediment supply, causing dune and beach erosion adjacent to the proposal  alter wave overwash and drainage during extreme flooding events, with possible implications for dune stability. 18. Characterise via modelling the environment by describing the current coastal processes in proximity to the proposal. This is to include, but not be limited to: a. conducting a detailed analysis of existing longshore sediment movements and variability over at least 20 years to estimate erosional and depositional patterns, including for cross-shore processes b. spatially quantify the coastal morphology by presenting beach profiles and bathymetry c. characterise erosion and inundation provided by extreme events, particularly the potential effects of severe tropical cyclones. d. at least 6 months of wave and current data collection near the proposed jetty. e. The spatial quantification of changes to coastal morphology should include aerial imagery 19. The characterisation is to consider all temporal scales, including seasonal, inter-annual and episodic. The spatial scale must be adequate to address all coastal processes and patterns likely to be affected due to the proposal. The characterisation should

Required work

Page 23 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Coastal processes

extend beyond the limits of where impacts may potentially occur to provide a baseline for subsequent evaluation.

a. Coastal inundation and sediment transport during cyclone events need to be assessed appropriately. Tropical cyclone Vance which passed the Exmouth coast as a category 5 cyclone in March 1999 needs to be modelled. b. The impact of the proposed development on coastal sand dune stability needs to be assessed. The risk of dune breaching and rapid changes at the creek mouth entrance during cyclone flooding needs to be assessed. 20. Identify elements of the proposal that may potentially affect coastal processes, including direct and indirect impacts and construction and operation. 21. Mowbowra Creek, its role, and potential impacts of the proposed facilities on the hydrology, hydraulics and geomorphology of the Mowbowra Creek needs to be included in the assessment. 22. Predict the residual impacts from the proposal, both direct and indirect, after outlining any avoidance, mitigation and management options that will be applied. Impact predictions are to: a. Be provided at a sufficient scale to address all impacts resulting from the proposal to both alongshore and across-shore sediment transport. b. Be informed by monitoring previously undertaken in the local area. c. Predict near-field responses and beach erosion accretion rate and sand volumes to the proposed coastal facilities, including anticipated updrift and downdrift coastal change. Information should include forecast changes to beach morphology over the intended service life of the facility (e.g. predicted beach profiles). d. Determine changes to local current and wave climate, longshore sediment movements and erosional and deposition patterns (including cross-shore processes). e. Consider and assess the cumulative effects from and to any other approved or reasonably foreseeable coastal developments. f. Be for both the short and long term (100-year planning horizon or planning horizon relevant to the facility's service life); be provided for best, most likely and worst-case scenarios; and consider the likely impacts of climate change within the service life of the facility. g. Address the frequency, volume and potential environmental impacts of sand bypassing/back passing adjacent to the proposal.

Page 24 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Coastal processes

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

23. Identify the environmental outcome that will be achieved during construction and operation of the proposal and the monitoring and/or management actions that will be undertaken to achieve the outcome. If plans are required to demonstrate how the environmental outcome will be achieved, they are to be presented in accordance with the EPAs Instructions. 24. Identify management and mitigation measures to ensure residual impacts are not greater than predicted. 25. Outline the proposed ongoing governance arrangements to manage coastal processes, including the roles and responsibilities for sand bypassing/back passing requirements where required. 26. Include details of monitoring and management that will apply during construction and operation to demonstrate and ensure that residual impacts to coastal processes are not greater than predicted. 27. Identify the facility's proposed service life, the anticipated service life of the facility, and the due process of decommissioning. Include details of mitigation, monitoring and management that will apply during and after decommissioning.

Relevant policy and guidance

EPA policy and guidance

 Statement of environmental principles, factors and objectives, (EPA 2020)

 Potential cumulative impacts of proposed activities and developments on the environmental, social and cultural values of Exmouth Gulf in accordance with section 16(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , EPA, Western Australia, (EPA 2021)

 Statement of environmental principles, factors and objectives (EPA 2016)  Environmental factor guideline – coastal processes(EPA 2016)

Other policy and guidance

 State Planning Policy no. 2.6, State Coastal Planning Policy (DPLH 2006)

 Sea level change in Western Australia – application of coastal planning (Charlie Bicknell 2010)  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy (EPBC 2012c)

Page 25 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

5.3

Table 5-3: Marine environmental quality

Marine environment quality

EPA objective

To maintain the quality of water, sediment and biota so that environmental values are protected.

The aspects of the proposal that may impact marine environmental quality include:

Relevant activities

 increased vessel activity in the region during construction, operation and maintenance  increased vessel activity to the site may result in the introduction of non-native marine species  water for the desalination plant, which will result in an increased discharge of brine from the ocean outfall.

Potential impacts and risks

 Construction of the proposal may temporarily affect water quality due to increased turbidity and the release of any nutrients and contaminants in disturbed sediment. This may also occur during closure and decommissioning.  Placement of material for the construction and leaching of fines from the material may cause temporary turbidity during and after the material is placed.

 Vessel operations (including propeller wash) in shallow water may disturb sediments.

 Unplanned releases of chemicals or hydrocarbons associated with proposal activities including fuel storage on land; and accidental collisions or ship grounds. 28. Conduct monitoring as necessary to characterise the existing marine environmental quality (baseline water and sediment quality) in the area potentially affected by the proposal. The characterisation needs to be informed by assessing threats and pressures to marine environmental values, both ecological and social. The characterisation is to inform the environmental quality monitoring and management plans required in Table 5-3. 29. Provide an environmental quality plan (EQP) that spatially defines the environmental values (EVs), environmental quality objectives (EQOs) and levels of ecological protection (LEPs) that apply to the area. The EQP shall be consistent with Technical guidance – protecting the quality of Western Australia's marine environment (EPA 2016) and have regard for the Pilbara coastal water quality outcomes: environmental values and environmental quality objectives (EPA 2006a) 30. Identify elements, activities and potential inputs of the proposal which may potentially affect marine environmental quality for both construction and operation.

Required work

a. Brine discharge from the desalinisation plant

Page 26 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Marine environment quality

b. Disturbance or exposure of acid sulphate soils. c. Contamination of sediments from antifoulant and degradation of anticorrosion devices (sacrificial anodes) d. Placement of rock for the breakwaters and leaching of fines may cause turbid plumes with potential ecological and social impacts. 31. Describe the marine system and the cause and effect pathways of each element, activity or input from the proposal on marine environmental quality. 32. Predict the extent, severity and duration of any impacts from the proposal after outlining any avoidance and mitigation options that will be applied. Impact predictions are to be presented in the context of the EQP for: a. Construction of coastal infrastructure – predicted impacts should also be presented spatially as an overlay to the EQP to identify where the EVs, EQOs and LEPs may not be achieved during construction. b. Operation/maintenance of site – predicted impacts should also be presented spatially as an overlay to the EQP to identify where the EVs, EQOs and LEPs may not be achieved during operations/maintenance of the fabrication site. 33. Undertake modelling to predict the impacts of the breakwater and the harbour type facility on marine environmental quality, including the flushing characteristics and water residence times for the harbour type facility. 34. Identify the source and type of rock to be used for the infrastructure and the management strategies to be used to minimise impacts of construction on marine environmental quality. 35. Undertake brine outfall dilution modelling to determine predicted mixing zones required to meet the levels of ecological protection of the waters surrounding the outfall as described in the EQP. 36. Conduct whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing to determine and describe the toxicity of the brine discharge and predict the number of dilutions required to meet the different levels of ecological protection surrounding the outfall as shown in the Environmental Quality Plan (EQP). 37. Identify the environmental outcome that will be achieved during construction and operation of the proposal and the monitoring and/or management actions that will be undertaken to achieve the outcome. If plans are required to demonstrate how the environmental outcome will be achieved, they are to be presented in accordance with the EPAs Instructions. 38. Identify management and mitigation measures to ensure residual impacts are not greater than predicted. The ERD is to include: a. A marine construction monitoring and management plan (MCMMP) that includes the protocols and procedures for monitoring

Page 27 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Marine environment quality

of key environmental quality indicators (e.g. turbidity, light attenuation coefficient, visual records etc.) and management of environmental quality to ensure that the construction of the proposal achieves the proposed EQOs/LEPs defined in the EQP. b. Include details of the monitoring and management during and after construction of the proposal and during ongoing operations to demonstrate that residual impacts to water quality are not greater than predicted. c. A marine emergency response plan that includes procedures to be implemented during operations that specifically address measures to be implemented in the event of an accidental spill or incident, including damage to or loss of control of a ship any losses from land based storage facilities. 39. To monitor and manage the ongoing impacts to marine environmental quality a Monitoring and Management Plan should be included for the operation of the port facility. The monitoring should include, but not be restricted to, impacts on water and sediment quality of:

a. b. c. d.

Causeway

Harbour type facility

Brine discharge

Contaminants from shipping activities

40. Outline the proposed ongoing governance arrangements for the management of marine environmental quality, maintenance dredging and ongoing management for the port facility.

Relevant policy and guidance

EPA policy and guidance

 Statement of environmental principles, factors and objectives, (EPA 2020)

 Potential cumulative impacts of proposed activities and developments on the environmental, social and cultural values of Exmouth Gulf in accordance with section 16(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , EPA, Western Australia, (EPA 2021)

 Environmental factor guideline – marine environmental quality (EPA 2016)

 Technical guidance protecting the quality of Western Australia's marine environmen t (EPA 2016)

Other policy and guidance

 Pilbara coastal water quality outcomes: environmental values and environmental quality objectives (EPA 2006b)

Page 28 of 55

Environmental Scoping Document

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14-15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20-21 Page 22-23 Page 24-25 Page 26-27 Page 28-29 Page 30-31 Page 32-33 Page 34-35 Page 36-37 Page 38-39 Page 40-41 Page 42-43 Page 44-45 Page 46-47 Page 48-49 Page 50-51 Page 52-53 Page 54-55 Page 56-57 Page 58-59 Page 60-61 Page 62-63 Page 64-65 Page 66-67 Page 68-69 Page 70-71 Page 72-73 Page 74-75 Page 76-77 Page 78-79 Page 80-81 Page 82-83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92

gascoynegateway.com.au

Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter