EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document and attachments comprise the Public Environmental Review (PER) documentation for
the proposed Oakajee Rail Development (the Proposal), a Proposal for construction and operation of
rail infrastructure to connect Mid‐West mining operations with the Oakajee Port.
The proponent for the Proposal is Oakajee Port and Rail Pty Ltd (OPR) which was established as an
infrastructure provider to develop and coordinate an iron ore supply chain comprising rail and port
infrastructure for iron ore sourced from the Mid‐West region of WA.
Development Background
The Proposal is a component of the larger Oakajee Port and Rail Development, also consisting of:
A deepwater port facility at Oakajee for which the Minister for State Development is the
proponent. The Oakajee Deepwater Port was approved by the WA Government in 1998,
with the release of Ministerial Statement 469.
The original approval was subject to additional processes under the Environmental
Protection Act 1986 in 2009, as follows:
o Section 45C (clarification of approved Proposal) – clarification of the location and
scale of the Proposal was approved by the Chairman of the Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) under delegated authority on the 2 September 2009, with
administrative revisions on the 1 December 2009; and
o Section 46 (extension of time to implement the Proposal) – a three year extension to
the substantial commencement date was approved by the Minister for the
Environment on the 25 November 2009 via the release of Statement No. 815.
The Oakajee Terrestrial Port Development which will include the infrastructure necessary
for the acceptance, storage and export of ore materials to the overseas market. This
proposal is the subject of a separate and parallel approval process for which OPR is the
proponent. This proposal is for the infrastructure required to develop and operate a 45
Mtpa iron ore export facility as a first stage.
It is understood that the Government of WA has plans to further develop the Oakajee area
as a multi‐user, multi‐product port when there is a demand for further import and export
facilities serving the region and in particular the Oakajee Industrial Estate. Development
beyond OPR’s 45Mtpa iron ore project will be the subject to future approvals processes and
stakeholder consultation.
On 20 March 2009 the State of WA and OPR entered into a State Development Agreement (SDA).
This SDA provided OPR exclusive rights to build the Oakajee Port and a northern railway line, and
operate it for a determined period.
Proposal Overview
The railway and the facilities covered in this Proposal will connect Oakajee, approximately 24 km
north of Geraldton, to Jack Hills, 380 km to the north‐east, in the Mid‐West of WA.
The objective of the Proposal is to develop an open access world‐class rail ore transport
infrastructure for the State of WA, including those components outlined in Table ES‐1.
The key characteristics and environmental footprint of the Proposal are summarised in Table ES‐1:
Figures ES‐1 and ES‐2 highlight the environmental footprint of the Proposal.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
ii
Table ES‐1
Key characteristics of the Proposal
Non-spatial elements
Description
Proposal Life
In excess of 50 years
Throughput
45 Mtpa of iron ore
Train Operations
Diesel electric locomotives, up to 200 wagons (approximately 2 km in length) with a
carrying capacity of approximately 20,000 tonnes. Approximately 18 train movements
per day (9 each way).
Operating hours
24 hours/day, 365 days/year
Accommodation
Construction: 6 camps capable of holding up to 3000 personnel in total
Operation: Up to 2 camps holding up to 80 personnel in total
Construction timeframe
Approximately 36 months
Groundwater requirements
Construction: approximately 3.5 GL (total over 36 months),
Operation: approximately 140 ML per year
Description
Approximate
footprint
Rail Corridor
Includes approximately 570 km of rail line including a 10 – 15 km
spur, 20 km spur line near Mullewa , access roads, rail crossings, rail
loops, rail sidings optic fibre cable, water pipeline, approximately
nine bridges. Final operating disturbance width of 50 – 80 m
4500 ha
Construction activities
Including borrow pits, ballast quarries, turkey’s nests, associated
access roads
1450 ha
Supporting facilities
Including accommodation camps, lay down areas, communication
towers, water supply, workshops, associated access roads
1050 ha
Total area of native vegetation
clearing
Maximum area of native vegetation clearing within the freehold area
100 ha
Approximate area of native vegetation clearing within the pastoral
area
5900 ha
Total area of disturbance
Combination of native vegetation clearing and disturbance of cleared
land.
7000 ha
Meekatharra
Meekatharra
KalbarriKalbarri
Mount MagnetMount Magnet
MullewaMullewa
Figure No:
CAD Resources File No:
Drawn:
CAD Resources
02
0
Scale
MGA94 (Zone 50)
6900000mN
200000mE
40km
7000000mN
7100000mN
6900000mN
7000000mN
7100000mN
300000mE
400000mE
500000mE
600000mE
700000mE
200000mE
300000mE
400000mE
500000mE
600000mE
700000mE
g1660_Pub_PER_R_F021_01
Notes:
Project Overview
ProposedProposed
ConservationConservation
ProposedProposed
ConservationConservation
NatureNature
ReserveReserve
NationalNational
ParkPark
GeraldtonGeraldton
OakajeeOakajee
Jack HillsJack Hills
Weld RangeWeld Range
Greenough
Greenough
River
River
Murchison
Murchison
Murchison
Murchison
River
River
RiverRiver
Sanford
Sanford
RiverRiver
Figure ES-1 Proposal Area
Oakajee
Mullewa
Mullewa
Northampton
Northampton
LOCALITY
OakajeeOakajee
Figure No:
CAD Resources File No:
Drawn:
CAD Resources
g1660_Pub_PER_P_F021_02
01
0
Scale
MGA94 (Zone 50)
6950000mN
6850000mN
6950000mN
6850000mN
250000mE
250000mE
350000mE
350000mE
450000mE
450000mE
Road Road
Mt Magnet Mt Magnet
Geraldton
Geraldton
Yalgoo
Yalgoo
20km
ProposedProposed
Conservation ParkConservation Park
WoolgorongWoolgorong
Pastoral leasePastoral lease
ProposedProposed
Conservation ParkConservation Park
WoolgorongWoolgorong
Pastoral leasePastoral lease
Proposed Conservation ParkProposed Conservation Park
Twin Peaks Pastoral LeaseTwin Peaks Pastoral Lease
Proposed Conservation ParkProposed Conservation Park
Narloo Pastoral LeaseNarloo Pastoral Lease
ProposedProposed
Conservation ParkConservation Park
Yuin Pastoral LeaseYuin Pastoral Lease
East YunaEast Yuna
Nature ReserveNature Reserve
WandanaWandana
Nature ReserveNature Reserve
Bindoo HillBindoo Hill
Nature ReserveNature Reserve
UrawaUrawa
Nature ReserveNature Reserve
ProposedProposed
Conservation ParkConservation Park
Moresby RangeMoresby Range
WokatherraWokatherra
Nature ReserveNature Reserve
ProposedProposed
Conservation ParkConservation Park
Moresby RangeMoresby Range
WokatherraWokatherra
Nature ReserveNature Reserve
OakajeeOakajee
Refer toRefer to
EnlargementEnlargement
Enlargement
Notes:
DEC Estates data supplied by Department of Environment and Conservation
Project Overview
Freehold / Pastoral Interface
Figure ES-2 Proposal Area (Freehold Area)
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
v
Benefits of the Proposal
The existing port and rail system at Geraldton has limited capacity to accommodate the expanding
iron‐ore industry in the Mid‐West region. In addition, due to depth limitations, Geraldton port can
only partially load Panamax‐class vessels. Further expansion of Geraldton Port is inhibited by the
Port’s location in the town of Geraldton.
The proposed Oakajee Port and Rail Proposal will provide an iron ore transport, receiving, handling
and exporting facility within the Mid‐West region.
Oakajee was planned by the Government of WA to mitigate environmental and community impacts,
including dust and noise emissions and heavy vehicle traffic, associated with bulk‐commodity exports
in close proximity to a population centre.
The development of the Proposal will result in financial and social benefits throughout the region
through increases in employment opportunities, infrastructure development in more suitable
locations and a flow‐on effect to the non‐mining sectors. Geraldton is currently benefiting from the
re‐development of the town following removal of rail components of the port facilities from the
town centre.
Environmental Assessment
The Proposal was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in October 2009. Based
on the information in the referral document, it was determined that the likely environmental impacts
associated with the Proposal are sufficient to warrant formal assessment under the Environmental
Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). In November 2009 the EPA advertised that the Proposal would be the
subject of a PER level of assessment, including a four week public comment period. No appeals were
made to the level of assessment.
The purpose of the PER is to assist the EPA in assessing the environmental impacts of the Proposal
under Section 40 of the EP Act. Preparation of this document has been undertaken in accordance
with the Environmental Scoping Document (OPR, 2010) as agreed with the EPA and according to the
Guidelines for Preparing a Public Environmental Review /Environmental Review and Management
Plan (EPA, 2009b).
OPR has commissioned a range of environmental investigations to identify key risks to the
environment as a result of the Proposal. Environmental surveys to date have included vegetation
and flora, fauna (including short range endemics and subterranean invertebrate fauna), surface
hydrology, groundwater, noise, Aboriginal heritage and social impacts.
Environmental Factors
Environmental factors relevant to the Proposal are considered to be:
Vegetation and flora – the Proposal is expected to require approximately 7000 ha of ground
disturbance, including approximately 6000 ha of native vegetation. Some clearing will be
required in the freehold area, which has already been extensively cleared. Four Priority
Ecological Communities, three Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act) listed flora species (of which two are also listed as Declared Rare Flora (DRF))
and 87 Priority Flora species have been recorded within the Proposal Area;
Fauna – habitat will be impacted by the Proposal. Five species listed under the EPBC Act have
been recorded within the Proposal Area, as have two migratory bird species. An additional
eight listed species listed under the Wildlife Conservation Act (1950) were also recorded
within the Proposal Area;
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
vi
Surface hydrology – the Proposal Area crosses a number of major and minor drainage lines,
as well as sheetflow areas;
Groundwater – the Proposal involves the construction of approximately 200 groundwater
bores for use as construction, potable or maintenance water;
Noise, light and vibration – the Proposal will generate noise, vibration and light emissions,
with noise emissions during operation being of most interest;
Air quality – the Proposal will generate dust emissions during construction;
Soil quality – the Proposal Area intersects with several areas of potential acid sulfate soil
(ASS) risk;
Wastes and hazardous materials – the Proposal will generate construction, industrial,
hazardous, domestic and other wastes. Hazardous materials will be stored within the
Proposal Area, predominantly during construction;
Greenhouse gases (GHG) – the Proposal will generate GHG emissions;
Aboriginal heritage – sites are known to exist within the Proposal Area and there is the
potential for additional unknown sites to be discovered;
Visual amenity – the Proposal will be visible from nearby vantage points; and
Other social and economic factors – including nuisance issues, public risk and benefits.
Stakeholder Consultation
OPR is committed to ongoing stakeholder and community engagement and recognises the
importance of genuine stakeholder involvement in the identification of potential issues and
concerns, as well as appropriate management of impacts.
Community and stakeholder consultations in relation to the Proposal were commenced in 2006 by
Murchison Metals Ltd and continue to the present date with OPR.
Key stakeholders identified early in the planning phase of the Proposal include:
Local government authorities;
State and Commonwealth government agencies;
Local communities;
Traditional owners; and
Interested groups and organisations.
Key themes from community and stakeholder consultations relating to environmental impacts have
been:
changes to surface hydrology;
salinity;
groundwater overuse;
impacts on vegetation and flora;
weeds;
Aboriginal heritage;
impacts on fauna;
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
vii
visual amenity;
impacts on land use;
emissions – dust, noise, light, GHG;
traffic impacts; and
community engagement.
The above issues raised by stakeholders have been addressed in this PER.
OPR will continue to engage with the stakeholders identified in this PER, including regulatory
authorities, throughout the construction and operational phases of the Proposal, on a range of social
and environmental issues. OPR is currently implementing a Community Stakeholder Engagement
Plan to ensure future communication and consultation with key stakeholders through a range of
mechanisms.
Environmental Management
The scope of the environmental impact assessment and consideration of social issues has been
defined following consultation with key stakeholders and agreed with the EPA through the
environmental scoping process. The scope of investigations has required a range of specialist studies,
the results of which are included in this document. The full reports of the key specialist studies are
included as appendices to this PER.
Table ES‐2 identifies the relevant environmental factors, EPA objectives and summarises the
potential impacts, and identifies environmental management and mitigation measures to reduce
impacts and the predicted outcome.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
Table ES‐2
Environmental factors relevant to the assessment of the Proposal
Environmental
Factor
EPA Objective
Existing Environment
Potential Impacts
Environmental Management
Predicted Outcome
BIOPHYSICAL
Vegetation and
Flora
Maintain the
abundance,
biodiversity,
geographic distribution
and productivity of
flora at species and
ecosystem levels
through the avoidance
of adverse impacts
and improvement of
knowledge.
Native vegetation subject to broad
scale grazing with low levels of
disturbance throughout the pastoral
area in the eastern two thirds of the
Study Area
Approximately 830 vascular flora
species recorded within the Study
Area.
Largely cleared land used for
farming with small, detached
remnants of native vegetation in the
western third of the Study Area
(freehold area).
62 Weed species recorded within the
Study Area, including 3 Declared
Weeds occurring largely in the
freehold area
26 Beard vegetation associations
recorded within Study Area.
72 Ecologia vegetation units
recorded within Study Area.
No Threatened Ecological
Communities (TECs) known from
within the Study Area.
4 Priority Ecological Communities
(PECs) known from within the Study
Area.
3 EPBC Act listed flora species, 2 of
which are Declared Rare Flora
(DRF). 87 Priority Flora (PF)
recorded within the Study Area.
Agricultural land use in the freehold
area dominated by broad scale
dryland farming with crops and
pastures.
The most significant potential impact
identified is the direct impact of clearing of
native vegetation for construction of the Rail
Corridor. Most of the disturbance of native
vegetation is in the pastoral area 5900 ha
out of a total of 6000 ha).
Indirect impacts may also occur on
vegetation within and immediately adjacent
to the Rail Corridor and ancillary facilities
from interference with local drainage
patterns.
Spread of weeds, particularly from
construction and maintenance activities
Indirect impacts through possible increases
in the frequency of fire.
Increased risk of erosion and / or
sedimentation impacting on vegetation.
Possible fragmentation of vegetation and
flora populations, which may impact on
population dynamics and increase edge
effects
Clearing control system will be implemented to
restrict the number and extent of cleared areas
to the minimum needed for safe and efficient
implementation of the Proposal.
Vegetation clearing will be minimised and will
occur within clearly defined boundaries.
All conservation significant locations will be
avoided where possible and will be marked
with restricted access.
Throughout the freehold area native vegetation
will not be cleared except for the purposes of
the Rail Corridor itself and access tracks
where alternative routes are not practicable.
Rail Corridor restricted to an average 100 m
disturbance width through areas of native
vegetation in the freehold area.
PECs will be avoided and a 50 m buffer will be
put in place around these areas.
More detailed weed assessments completed
along the corridor prior to significant ground
disturbance and hygiene controls based on
this information and consultation with
landholders.
Restricted movement of topsoil and machinery
or hygiene controls between sites where
weeds could be spread to new locations during
construction.
Workforce education to include weed
awareness and control information.
Maintain Weed Hygiene Program such that
weed inspection reports, records of weed
hygiene certificates and weed survey data is
recorded, assessed and reported. The Weed
Hygiene Program will be regularly reviewed.
Use incident reporting system to identify and
rectify non-compliance with the Weed Hygiene
Program,
Post-construction weed survey and weed
control program to ensure that new weed
infestations from construction activities are
controlled.
Preparation and implementation of
construction rehabilitation management plans
in consultation with landholders.
Monitoring of vegetation health to ensure that
Vegetation Clearing
Approximately 6000 ha of
native vegetation.
Up to 100 ha of
vegetation clearing in
the freehold area.
Sheetflow
dependant
Mulga will not be
significantly impacted
due to the installation of
‘environmental’ culverts
Weeds
controlled
by
survey, hygiene and
control measures.
Consideration of offset
package for residual
environmental impacts.
Significant communities:
No impacts to TECs or
PECs.
Reductions in vulnerable
Beard and Burns (1976)
mapped associations all
less than 0.2% or pre-
European extent and not
considered significant.
>92%
of
significant
Ecologia vegetation units
within the Study Area to
remain undisturbed by
the Proposal
Significant Flora:
No impacts to DRF
Majority of Priority Flora
species will not be
significantly impacted by
the Proposal. 11 species
subject to further surveys
pre-disturbance to allow
Proposal to avoid where
practicable resulting in no
threat to the viability of
Priority Flora species.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
Environmental
Dostları ilə paylaş: |