Bejaling Deepwater Port Study - gdc.wa.gov.au

Gascoyne Development Commission

15 October 2010

Document No. 60154869-EN-REP-0002

Bejaling Deepwater PortStudyFinal Report

AECOMBejaling Deepwater Port Study

I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\8 Issued Docs\8.1 Reports\60154869-EN-REP-0002_0.docRevision 0 - 15 October 2010

Bejaling Deepwater Port Study

Final Report

Prepared for

Gascoyne Development Commission

Prepared byAECOM Australia Pty Ltd3 Forrest Place, Perth WA 6000, GPO Box B59, Perth WA 6849, AustraliaT +61 8 6430 2000 F +61 8 6430 2999 www.aecom.comABN 20 093 846 925

15 October 2010

60154869

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd 2010

The information contained in this document produced by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheetfor the purpose for which it has been prepared and AECOM Australia Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third partywho may rely upon this document.

All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmittedin any form without the written permission of AECOM Australia Pty Ltd.



Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 1

1.1 Introduction 11.2 Imports and Exports 11.3 Environmental Impact 11.4 Land Access 11.5 Land Based Infrastructure 21.6 Port Concepts 2

1.6.1 Site 1 – South Bejaling 21.6.2 Site 2 – Darwin Reefs 21.6.3 Site 3 – Cape Cuvier 2

1.7 Order of Magnitude Costs 31.8 Uncertainty 3

2.0 Introduction 42.1 Study Scope 42.2 Background 4

3.0 Trade and Service Opportunities 63.1 Introduction 63.2 Minerals 6

3.2.1 Salt 63.2.2 Gypsum 73.2.3 Mineral Sands 73.2.4 Iron Ore 83.2.5 Copper/Gold 93.2.6 Potash 93.2.7 Uranium 10

3.3 Livestock 103.3.1 Background 103.3.2 Livestock Export opportunities 113.3.3 Port Requirements 11

3.4 Horticultural 113.4.1 Background 113.4.2 Port Requirements 12

3.5 Accommodation of Oil and Gas Support Vessels 123.5.1 Port Requirements 12

3.6 Tug Pen 123.7 Slipway 12

3.7.1 Port Requirements 123.8 Trade Opportunities Summary 12

4.0 Port Site Selection 144.1 Introduction 144.2 Port Sites 15

4.2.1 Port Location 1 – South Bejaling 154.2.2 Port Location 2 – Darwin Reefs 164.2.3 Port Location 3 – Cape Cuvier 16

5.0 Land Access 185.1 Tenure Constraints 185.2 Land Tenure 185.3 Land Use 195.4 World and National Heritage 225.5 Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title 225.6 Summary and Recommendations 24

6.0 Environmental Constraints 266.1 Desktop Study 266.2 Stakeholder Consultation 266.3 Marine Conservation Reserves 26



6.4 Estuarine and River Mouth Environments 276.5 Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs) 286.6 Shipwrecks 306.7 Reserves 306.8 Significant Wetlands 30

6.8.1 Ramsar Wetlands 306.8.2 Directory of Important Wetlands 30

6.9 Protected Flora 316.9.1 Declared Rare, Priority and Threatened Flora Species 316.9.2 Threatened Ecological Communities and Priority Ecological Communities 366.9.3 Marine Flora 36

6.10 Protected Fauna 376.10.1 WC Act Threatened Fauna Species 376.10.2 Commonwealth EPBC Listed Fauna 376.10.3 Marine Fauna 38

6.11 Environmentally Sensitive Areas 406.12 Summary and Recommendations 40

7.0 Vessel Parameters 458.0 Design Assumptions and Criteria 46

8.1 Water Levels 468.1.1 Astronomical Tides 468.1.2 Storm Surge 468.1.3 Currents 46

8.2 Wave Heights 468.2.1 Introduction 468.2.2 Input Data 468.2.3 Methodology 478.2.4 Model Description 478.2.5 Results 498.2.6 Long Period Wave 53

8.3 Geotechnical 538.4 Bathymetry 54

9.0 Port Structures 559.1 Introduction 559.2 Causeway 559.3 Breakwaters 559.4 Bulk Berth 55

9.4.1 Wharf Structure 559.4.2 Dolphins 569.4.3 Turning Basin 56

9.5 General Purpose Berth 569.5.1 Wharf Structure 569.5.2 Dolphins 569.5.3 Berth Pocket 569.5.4 Turning Basin 569.5.5 Outer Channel 56

10.0 Port Layout Schemes 5710.1 Site 1 – South Bejaling 5710.2 Site 2 – Darwin Reefs 5710.3 Site 3 – Cape Cuvier 58

11.0 Shore Based Infrastructure Requirements 5911.1 General 5911.2 Shore Based Structures 59

11.2.1 Materials Handling 5911.2.2 General 59

11.3 Services 5911.3.1 Water 5911.3.2 Power 59



11.4 Access 6012.0 Port Concept Order of Magnitude Costing 61

12.1 General 6112.2 Dredging Costs 6112.3 Breakwater/Causeway Costs 6212.4 Wharf Structure Costs 6312.5 Miscellaneous Port Structures 6512.6 Survey and Investigation Costs 6512.7 Order of Magnitude Total Port Development Costs 66

13.0 Inland Port 6714.0 Conclusion 68

14.1 General 6814.2 Site 1 – South Bejaling 6814.3 Site 2 – Darwin Reefs 6814.4 Site 3 – Cape Cuvier 68

15.0 Future Work 6916.0 References 72

Appendix ACarnarvon Port and Industrial Development, 1961 Report .................................................................... A

Appendix BStudy Kick-off Meeting Minutes ........................................................................................................... B

Appendix CImport/Export Stakeholder Register.....................................................................................................C

Appendix DMines and Petroleum Tenement Search Results .................................................................................D

Appendix EEnvironmental/Land Access Stakeholder Register ............................................................................... E

Appendix FAboriginal Heritage Sites .................................................................................................................... F

Appendix GEPBC Matters Search ....................................................................................................................... G

Appendix HMetocean Engineers Study .................................................................................................................H

Appendix ISummary of Recorded Berth Availability and Modelled Wave Conditions at Cape Cuvier ....................... I

Appendix JPort Concept Sketches ....................................................................................................................... J

Appendix KCosting Details ................................................................................................................................... K

List of Tables

Table 1 Preliminary Order of Magnitude Costs 3Table 2 Live Cattle Export by Port of Loading 2009 10Table 3 Summary of Aboriginal Heritage Sites within the Proposed Project Area 23Table 4 Land Access 25Table 5 Priority Flora Species Near / Within Proposed Sites (NatureBase and ForaBase DEC

2010) 32Table 6 Categories of Threatened Fauna Species (Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected

Fauna) Notice 2005) 37



Table 7 Summary of EPBC Protected Matters search 38Table 8 Threatened Terrestrial Species of Interest (EPBC Act 1999) 38Table 9 Threatened Marine Species of Interest (EPBC Act 1999) 38Table 10 Summary of Environmental Constraints Investigation for Potential Port Sites 42Table 11 Vessel Parameters 45Table 12 Carnarvon Tides 46Table 13 Summary of Modelling Operational Condition Hs Attenuation Coefficient 49Table 14 Operational Metocean Condition Based on SW Case 49Table 15 Approximated Operational Condition Percentage Exceedence for Proposed Sites 51Table 16 Approximated Operational Condition Percentage Exceedence for Site 1 and Site 2

Channel Extent 51Table 17 Cyclonic Condition Hs Attenuation Coefficients 51Table 18 Cyclonic Metocean Condition Based on Westerly Case 51Table 19 Estimated Hmax at Proposed Sites 52Table 20 Dredging Costs 61Table 21 Breakwater and Causeway Costs 62Table 22 Wharf Structure Costs – Site 1 – South Bejaling 63Table 23 Wharf Structure Costs – Site 2 – Darwin Reefs 63Table 24 Wharf Structure Costs - Site 3 – Cape Cuvier 64Table 25 Miscellaneous Port Structure Costs 65Table 26 Survey and Investigation Costs 65Table 27 Order of Magnitude Total Port Development Costs 66Table 28 Inland Port Additional Cost 67Table 29 Staged Sequence for Data Gathering and Engineering Studies 69

List of Figures

Figure 1 Location Map 14Figure 2 Site 1 Port Layout 15Figure 3 Site 2 Port Layout 16Figure 4 Site 3 Port Layout 17Figure 5 Land Tenure of the Proposed Project Area between Cape Cuvier and Carnarvon. 19Figure 6 Gascoyne Regions Estimated Catch by Fishery in Tonnes (Source: GDC 2010) 21Figure 7 Aboriginal Heritage Sites (Source: DIA 2010; Landgate 2010) 23Figure 8 Estuarine Systems Highlighted, at the Proposed Project Area (Source: Landgate, 2010)

= Estuarine = Riverine 28Figure 9 Fish Habitat Protection Areas Point Quobba & Miaboolya Beach Outlined in Red (Source:

Landgate 2010) 29Figure 10 Model Domain 48Figure 11 Wave Modelling Results for Operational Condition Based on SW Case 50Figure 12 Wave Modelling Result for Cyclonic Condition Based on W Case 52



1

Executive Summary

1.1 IntroductionIn March 2010 AECOM was appointed by the Gascoyne Development Commission (GDC) to perform a studyassessing the viability of developing a deep water port North of Carnarvon.

The scope of work for this study included the following activities:

Identification of two potential port sites between Carnarvon and Point Quobba; Identification of current and future import and export opportunities from the port; Comment on the environmental impact of the potential sites; Comment on land access issues and availability; Identification of shore based requirements, access routes and infrastructure requirements; Order of magnitude cost estimate for the port structures; CAD drawings of port layout and general arrangements for main port structures. Comparison of the relative cost, benefits and overall feasibility of expanding the existing Dampier Salt Cape

Cuvier facility in order to allow for increased salt production and other export commodities, compared to useof new proposed deep water port.

Three potential port sites were assessed by AECOM: South Bejaling, 18 km north of Carnarvon

- the most naturally protected of the sites. Darwin Reefs, approximately 30km north of Carnarvon

- located closer to deepwater with lower dredging costs. Expansion of the existing Dampier Salt berth at Cape Cuvier.

Concept designs were prepared for all three port sites.

1.2 Imports and ExportsA clear demand for additional berth space in the Gascoyne region was identified to support local growth in saltand gypsum production and opportunities in the live cattle export trade. South Bejaling and Darwin Reefs wouldbe suitable for the export of all potential commodities identified from stakeholder consultation and desktop study.Dampier Salt have stated that they would not share infrastructure at Cape Cuvier with other salt or gypsumexporters.

1.3 Environmental ImpactConsidering the potential for environmental impact on the three sites, the disturbed and impacted Cape Cuvierlocation represents the best opportunity for development. Proposals to develop either South Bejaling or DarwinReefs represent a greater potential environmental impact. Both Darwin Reefs and South Bejaling are constraineddue to the presence of sensitive Fish Habitat Protection Areas. It is likely that should development at DarwinReefs or South Bejaling be approved, that these sites will attract detailed environmental management (Ministerial)conditions.

1.4 Land AccessAll three short-listed sites are on Crown reserve land with pastoral leases administered by both Quobba andBoolathana stations. The coastal area from Point Quobba to Carnarvon Township is zoned as a File NotationArea (FNA) exclusion zone extending 1 kilometre inland from the coastal strip on both pastoral leases and 2kilometres elsewhere. After the lease expires in June 2015, any area to be excluded from the new lease willbecome unallocated Crown land where it will then be subject to clearances by various Government agenciesbefore a suitable reservation or tenure is put in place and management arrangements formalised. Discussionswith the Department of Regional Development & Lands; State Lands Services highlight that the excised coastalstrip is likely to be vested for conservation activities, which would conflict with the development of portinfrastructure.



2

Cape Cuvier has been identified as subject to significant land access constraints. The Cape Cuvier site wouldrequire detailed and successful land use negotiations with Dampier Salt / Rio Tinto.

1.5 Land Based InfrastructureThe land based infrastructure requirements comprise shore based structures to support port operations, servicesto the port and means of access to the port from Carnarvon and the sources of the export product.

1.6 Port ConceptsThe concept design has been developed based on the assumption the port will have high availability to all vesselsvisiting the Port.

Vessels supporting bulk trade will berth at a separate bulk berth while vessels supporting live cattle export,container trade and the oil and gas industry will berth at a general purpose berth. Smaller scale bulk exportopportunities that are incompatible with larger scale bulk loading operations due to loading rates and vessel sizescould be accommodated at a General Purpose Berth.

Port structures at each of the port sites comprise the following;

1.6.1 Site 1 – South Bejaling

The port structures at site 1 comprise:

600 m long causeway up to 7 m below CD; 500 m long breakwater up to 7 m below CD; 300 m long double sided open steel bulk berth to accommodate a Panamax size vessel with shiploader,

tripper and conveyor on the wharf; 150 m long general purpose berth with continuous concrete deck; Outer channel length of 15 km.

1.6.2 Site 2 – Darwin Reefs


1750 m long causeway up to 7 m below CD; 760 m long breakwater up to 7 m below CD; 2 no. 180 m long single sided open steel bulk berths to accommodate a Panamax size vessel with

shiploader on the wharf and trailing bridge conveyor and tripper car located on the causeway; 150 m long general purpose berth with continuous concrete deck; Outer channel length of 6 km.

1.6.3 Site 3 – Cape Cuvier

At site 3, the locations of the new port structures and the number of bulk berths which can be accommodated areconstrained by the existing Dampier Salt structures and the cliffs to the east of the existing port. AECOM haveassumed the existing port structures are to remain operational however the mooring system would be replaced bya traditional fixed dolphin mooring system.


780 m long causeway up to 25 m below CD; 250 m long breakwater up to 25 m below CD; 1 no. 180 m long single sided open steel bulk berths to accommodate a Panamax size vessel with

shiploader on the wharf and trailing bridge conveyor and tripper car located on the causeway; 150 m long general purpose berth with continuous concrete deck;



3

1.7 Order of Magnitude CostsPreliminary Order of Magnitude Costs for the Port developments at the 3 sites are indicated in the table below:Table 1 Preliminary Order of Magnitude Costs

Port Location South BejalingSite 1

(million)

Darwin ReefsSite 2

(million)

Cape CuvierSite 3

(million)Dredging $438 $250 $0

Causeway and Breakwaters $111 $287 $536

Main Port Structures $369 $321 $204

Miscellaneous Port Structures $43.2 $27.1 $18

Survey and Investigation $19.5 $15.4 $15.3

Engineering, procurement, constructionmanagement (11%)

$108 $101 $85

Total $1,089 million $1001 million $858 million

Berths Provided Stage 1 21 2 2

Future Berths Provision2 14 1 0

In summary, though a clear demand for a port has been identified and environmental and land access constraintsmay be overcome, the high costs of the port development indicate that only a large, long term resources projectwould justify the development of the port.

1.8 UncertaintyAll of the port site concept designs have been prepared with only limited bathymetric survey and chart data.There is virtually no geotechnical data available for any of the proposed sites.

The concepts are therefore based on assumptions with respect to site conditions, particularly with respect togeotechnical conditions for dredging and piling. Thus there is a significant degree of uncertainty that couldsignificantly affect the proposed plan layouts and costs.

1 Plus two lay-by berths.2 Dredging and Breakwater provided, berth cost not included.



4

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Study ScopeIn March 2010, AECOM was appointed by the Gascoyne Development Commission (GDC) to perform a studyassessing the viability of developing a deep water port North of Carnarvon. The Gascoyne DevelopmentCommission (GDC) is investigating options to develop a deep water port to take advantage of export and importmarkets that may include, but not be limited to:

Resource industries; Expansion of Dampier Salt Lake MacLeod; Livestock exports; and Horticultural exports.

As identified in GDC request for quotation document number GDC056909, AECOM proposal document WA-B10-240 and as confirmed in the Project Kick-Off meeting on 3-5-10, the scope of work for this study includes:

Identify two potential port sites between Carnarvon and Point Quobba; Identify current and future import and export opportunities from the port; Provide comment on the environmental impact of the potential sites; Provide comment on land access issues; Identify shore based requirements, including land availability, access routes and infrastructure requirements; The capital cost estimate for the proposed Ports; Comparison of the relative cost, benefits and overall feasibility of expanding the existing Dampier Salt Cape

Cuvier facility in order to allow for increased salt production and other export commodities, compared to useof new proposed deep water port.

There has been a staged delivery of findings during the course of the project. The Preliminary Report was thefirst deliverable for the project and described the findings to date in regards to:

Identification of potential port sites; Future import/export opportunities from the port; Possible environmental constraints; Land access issues; Port concept design at the 2 proposed port sites and expansion of Cape Cuvier.

This Report is the final deliverable for the project and describes all study findings.

2.2 BackgroundThe Shire of Carnarvon is situated on the Western Australian coast, bordered to the south by the Shark BayWorld Heritage Area, and to the north by the Ningaloo Reef and associated marine parks. The town of Carnarvonis located on the coast approximately 904 kilometres north of Perth at the mouth of the Gascoyne River.

Carnarvon was originally developed as a port for shipping livestock and wool from pastoral stations in the region.The first town jetty serviced light boats that could moor in shallow water. The One Mile Jetty was built in 1898 andallowed larger ships to transport stock, passengers, goods and services to and from the town of Carnarvon. Theonset of reliable road transport saw the importance of the jetty reduce and completion of the bituminising of theroad between Geraldton and Carnarvon in 1962 accelerated the decline in shipping. Bigger vessels beingfabricated could not be accommodated at the jetty as the port was not the required depth. The annual flooding ofthe Gascoyne River began to silt up the One Mile Jetty. Appeals from the people of Carnarvon between1960-1962 to the WA Government for a deeper port were refused as dredging costs were high and could not bejustified with a corresponding rise in shipping. In 1984 the last significant size vessel berthed at One Mile Jetty.

A report titled “ Carnarvon Port and Industrial Development, The Development of a Deepwater Port”, (referAppendix A) prepared in 1961, identified two potential port sites 20.5km and 25.5km north of Carnarvon nearBejaling. The sites had been positioned north of the mouth of the Gascoyne River to ensure siltation from the



5

river did not adversely impact on port structures. In addition the sites were located north and south of adesignated industrial area.



6

3.0 Trade and Service Opportunities

3.1 IntroductionFor development of the deepwater port to proceed, a definitive resource project needs to be identified to ensurelong term viability of the port. In the Bejaling Deepwater Port kick-off-meeting (refer Appendix B for meetingminutes) the following possible import/export opportunities were identified:

Dampier Salt - with future expansion plans to increase salt production from 3 Mtpa to 6 Mtpa in 5 years and20 Mtpa into the future;

Live cattle export - difficult to secure berth space at northern ports for livestock carriers; Horticultural exports; Uranium export; Slipway for maintenance of Dampier Salt tugs or other craft; Accommodation of rig tender vessels servicing offshore installations.

Through desktop study and a stakeholder consultation process the above trade opportunities were examined andadditional opportunities have been identified. For details of findings from the stakeholder consultation process,refer to the Import/Export Stakeholder Register Appendix C. For a summary of findings from a search of theDepartment of Mines and Petroleum online tenement search system “Tengraph Online” refer Appendix D.

The Department of State Development have stated (Refer Appendix B) that based on the information available tothem, it appears difficult to justify development of a port at Carnarvon. They could not see significant potentialmineral tonnage from the hinterland of this port proposal, beyond any expansion by Dampier Salt and a possiblereplacement of their facilities at Cape Cuvier. Arrangements are well-advanced, with many dollars spent, for theestablishment of the Oakajee Port and Railway (OPR). Accordingly, any mines in the vicinity of Jack Hills willuse this route, if OPR proceeds. However, they did state that they are not familiar with all the developments in thearea.

3.2 Minerals3.2.1 Salt

3.2.1.1 Dampier Salt Rio Tinto

Dampier Salt located at Lake MacLeod currently exports 3 million tonnes of salt per annum from their port at CapeCuvier. Dampier Salt has plans to expand their salt production to 6 million tonnes per annum in 5 years and 20million tonnes per annum by 2025. The current port site would require further expansion to meet the plannedexport targets and Dampier Salt are currently looking at ways to expand the port and this study is about tocommence.

The port site is highly exposed without protective breakwater structures and has low availability to vessels, duringthe winter season as low as 50% (Source Dampier Salt berth availability measurements). The mooring systemused for restraining the vessels requires highly skilled personnel, is labour intensive, time consuming and can bedangerous.

Dampier Salt would not agree to share the port site with other salt and gypsum interests as they would be in directcompetition.

3.2.1.2 Straits Exploration Licence/ PTT Asia Pacific Mining

PTT Asia Pacific Mining P/L is proposing to develop the Yannarie Solar Salt project, 4Mtpa salt operation on theeast coast of the Exmouth gulf. It has exploration licences over the area and has applied for a mining lease. InJuly 2008 the proposal was assessed and the EPA recommended to the Minister for the Environment that theYannarie Solar Project should not be approved. The Office of Appeals Convenor has since recommended that thematter be referred back to the EPA for further assessment.

The independent peer review committee of environmental experts which was established to address theenvironmental concerns of the project has recommended that the project be relocated further north (closer toOnslow Salt) to improve environmental outcomes. The current project was withdrawn from assessment tofacilitate dialogue with stakeholders on a new project location.



7

The revised project location remains entirely within the Temporary Ministerial Reserve set aside for saltproduction. Numerous presentations have been held with key stakeholders detailing the new proposal and theimproved environmental credentials. Further discussions are scheduled with key Ministers to gauge thegovernments support for the new location.

3.2.1.3 Port Requirements

Bulk berth wharf suitable for Panamax vessels up to 75 000 DWT, maximum operational wave height forPanamax vessels 1.5 m;

Stockpile areas; Mechanical equipment for bulk handling, shiploaders, conveyors; Tug vessels; Tug pens.

3.2.2 Gypsum

3.2.2.1 Australian Mining and Minerals Group (AMMG)

AMMG have extensive gypsum and possibly salt reserves over 5 large exploration licenses east and north ofLake Macleod. Advanced exploration is underway and AMMG are confident of resource levels from resultsgenerated in the 1970’s.

There would be a requirement to ship up to 3 million tonnes per year from the site however securing developmentof the project is dependent on securing berthage at a Port. AMMG are in the position to sell material in 6 to 12months and has spoken with potential off take parties. AMMG have had discussions with Dampier Salt CapeCuvier regarding sharing their facilities, however, Dampier Salt have indicated they are not prepared to sharefacilities with a future competitor.

For a new port, their likely shipping requirement would be Handysize to Handymax size vessels (25 000 DWT to50 000 DWT). This would need to be confirmed with the proponent.


Bulk berth structure suitable for Handymax vessels up to 50 000 DWT, maximum operational wave heightfor Handymax vessels 1.2 m;

Stockpile areas; Mechanical equipment for bulk handling, shiploaders, conveyors; Tug vessels; Tug pens.

3.2.3 Mineral Sands

3.2.3.1 Gunson Resources -Shark Bay Coburn Zircon Project

Gunson Resources are currently undertaking investor discussions for development of the Shark Bay CoburnZircon Project, 200 km south of Carnarvon. Once investors have been secured the company envisages an 85week construction/commissioning stage to project commencement. At this stage of the project, GunsonResources are planning to ship from Geraldton Port as the Port is set up to store and export mineral sands. Thecompany estimates they will be shipping 100,000 – 140,000 tonnes per annum.

For a new port their likely shipping requirement would be for Handysize vessels up to 35,000 DWT. This wouldneed to be confirmed with the proponent.

In terms of utilizing a Port north of Carnarvon, there would be a number of factors that would need to beconsidered, i.e. transport costs, port facilities to handle their products, investor preferences. The distancebetween the Coburn site to Geraldton and Carnarvon are very similar so there would be little benefit from thatalone.

We have not considered mineral sands as a Carnarvon Port export in this study.



8


Bulk berth structure suitable for Handysize vessels up to 35 000 DWT, maximum operational wave height forHandysize vessels 1.0 m;

Sheds for storage; Mechanical equipment for bulk handling, shiploaders, conveyors; Tug vessels; Tug pens.

3.2.4 Iron Ore

There are a number of possible iron ore projects in the region; however, the most likely outcome for the projectswould be to export via Oakajee.

If a new port was to be considered near Carnarvon, the shipping requirement would be Cape Class vessels up to200,000 DWT for large projects (> 15Mtpa). For smaller projects a Panamax facility would be more likely.

We have not considered iron ore as a Carnarvon Port export in this study.

3.2.4.1 Atlas Iron

Atlas Iron have shown an interest in the proposal to develop a Port in Carnarvon as there is a large iron orepotential near Robinson Range – approximately 400 km inland from Carnarvon.

Development in the Robinson Range has been put on hold due to the lack of transport links to a port. In this areahowever there is the potential to link in with the Oakajee Port and Rail network once established, and for smalleroperations to transport via the Great Northern Highway.

3.2.4.2 Meteoric Resources

Significant iron ore potential has been identified on Meteoric’s 100%-owned Robinson Range project situated100km north of Meekatharra in the northern part of the emerging Midwest iron province of WA.

3.2.4.3 Pepinnini Minerals

Pepinnini is in discussions to finalise a Joint Venture Agreement to facilitate progressing the exploration anddevelopment of the identified Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) potential within the project tenements in RobinsonRange.

Robinson Range tenements are at early stage exploration and possible development in the future. Estimatedtiming is 3-4 years until mining can begin.

At this stage transport options include linking into the Oakajee Port and Rail, however it was indicated that there isalready pressure for usage of this resource.

Pepinnini stated that there was definitely a need for another port facility as there is enormous mining potential inthis area and Oakajee may not have the future capacity. However AECOM understands that based on long termplans for Oakajee there would be sufficient capacity; it would be a question of the timing of development of theadditional berths.

3.2.4.4 Sinosteel Midwest

Sinosteel Midwest is in the early stages of exploration at its Robinson Range project, approximately 400 km inlandfrom Carnarvon, which it is developing for iron ore and manganese potential.

Robinson Range's proximity to Jack Hills and Weld Range means that any economic mineral resource confirmedat Robinson Range could be transported using the same rail and port infrastructure available to transport WeldRange and Jack Hills ore.

Sinosteel Midwest has also acquired ML52/244 at Robinson Range which is a known previous source of highgrade manganese in the Robinson Range area. Sinosteel Midwest has identified other mineralised outcrops ofmanganese on tenements at Robinson Range. The company will be evaluating the opportunities to develop asmall scale manganese mining operation using the existing infrastructure at Geraldton Port for the currentKoolanooka/Blue Hills operation.



9


Bulk berth structure to suit Cape Class or Panamax vessels, maximum operational wave height for Panamaxvessels 1.5 m;

Stockpile areas; Mechanical equipment for bulk handling, shiploaders, conveyors; Tug vessels; Tug pens; Sealed road from Robinson Range to Carnarvon.

3.2.5 Copper/Gold

3.2.5.1 Sandfire Resources

Doolgunna Copper/Gold Project

The Doolgunna Copper-Gold Project is located 900 km north of Perth and approximately 150 km north ofMeekatharra in the Peak Hill mineral field of Western Australia.

It is expected mining at this site will begin in 2 years with sulfide ore concentrate being transported by road to theGeraldton Port. It is anticipated the volume shipped will be 200,000 tonnes per annum.

Transport costs are in the vicinity of 8-10 cents per ton on a sealed road and 18 cents on gravel. Ideally if therewas a sealed road between Meekatharra and Carnarvon there could be potential for port usage.

The Jack Hills site is approximately 150 km from the Doolgunna site and in the future there is the possibility ofextending the Oakajee Rail network to this site.

If the project was to be viable out of Carnarvon the likely shipping requirement would be for Handysize vessels upto 30,000 DWT.

3.2.6 Potash

3.2.6.1 East Coast Minerals

The company are in the process of finalising arrangements to approve the purchase of tenements in theGascoyne area which are in the Southern Carnarvon Basin. The tenements are highly prospective for Potash,which was intersected in the late 60’s.The tenement package is contiguous and covers some 4,710sq/km. Basedon success, the company would be looking to delineate a Potash resource in the billions of tonnes range.Production based on a resource of this size would depend on project economics and feasible production rates.Based on projects in America, production rates vary from a couple of million tonnes to 20 million tonnes pa. BHPBjust announced they will develop a mine in Canada which will produce 22 Mtpa for 60 years.

Tenements are immediately adjacent to tenements of Reward Minerals Limited who are also exploring for potashdeposits. A South African coal company, Injula, have tenements to the east of Reward. East Coast Mineralshave been told historical drilling has intersected coal, although they have not checked to validate the comment.

The production process would involve using Solution Mining and Solar Evaporation. This would provide twoproducts, potash and salt, which would be exported through a port. At this point the Oakajee Port would be theonly option. As the company is dealing with bulk commodities, the largest expense will be transportation. Anythingto reduce distance to available Ports or rail infrastructure would be beneficial to project economics.

Based on successful drilling in the next few years, production would commence in say 5-10 years.


Bulk berth wharf suitable for Panamax vessels up to 75 000 DWT, maximum operational wave height forPanamax vessels 1.5 m;

Storage shed; Mechanical equipment for bulk handling, shiploaders, conveyors; Tug vessels; Tug pens;



10

3.2.7 Uranium

3.2.7.1 Paladin Energy - Manyingee Uranium project

The project is located 85 km inland from Onslow and is in the advanced stages of development with thecompletion of a pre-feasibility study and is now free for development consideration.

Currently work is concentrating on achieving land access by obtaining all required permits and negotiating anExploration Access Agreement with the Traditional Owners.

Uranium is a high value low volume resource and as such would be readily transported via road to a port somedistance away from the mine.


Protected general purpose berth to cater for a multi purpose cargo vessel carrying containers of uranium,maximum operational wave height for container vessels 0.3 m;

Storage area for containers; Tug vessels; Tug berth.

3.3 Livestock3.3.1 Background

The value of the live cattle export trade to Australia was $666 million in 2009, generated from 954 000 head ofcattle (Source Livecorp). Approximately one third of these exports were sourced from Western Australia.

Five ports service livestock bound for the live cattle export trade: Broome, Wyndham, Port Hedland, Geraldtonand Fremantle. Table 2 below indicates live cattle export figures by port of loading:Table 2 Live Cattle Export by Port of Loading 2009

Live Cattle Export by Port of Loading 2009Port Head of cattleBroome 97 000Fremantle 138 500Geraldton 48 000Port Hedland 23 000Wyndham 75 500

Source: Livecorp website

There is currently a large problem securing berthage at ports and LiveCorp, acting on behalf of livestock exportersare in the process of conducting a study into the issue. Export of cattle from the port needs to be given priority ascattle cannot be stored at the wharf unless feed lots are provided. Generally the export of cattle through the portsis not popular with the Port Authorities.

Refer below for a summary of Livecorp findings from visits to ports servicing the live cattle export industry inWestern Australia.

Fremantle

There is excellent infrastructure on the wharf, with shelter and good priority ratings. Trucks are required to travelthrough the city centre to access the port. The live cattle export industry would prefer to move south of Fremantlebut there are political issues.

Geraldton

Only one berth makes priority for cattle and livestock trade is not included in future planning of the Port. Thereare small basic facilities for livestock, access for trucks is adequate and there are good yards out of the town.

Broome

The Port of Broome is approaching full capacity. The authority has shown an interest in expanding live exporttrade through the port however there is competition with vessels servicing the oil and gas industry, cruise ships



11

and the tourism industry. The large range in tidal movements restricts loading of small vessels. There is pooraccess for trucks with insufficient room for triple trailers. Support infrastructure is basic.

Port Hedland

The berth is large with good access for trucks. There is limited knowledge of loading animals among stevedoresand night loading is not possible. Iron ore, manganese and copper export take priority over livestock and miningdust can be a problem for both trucks and cattle.

Wyndham - No information available.

3.3.2 Livestock Export opportunities

There is an opportunity to export livestock through a new port in Carnarvon sourcing cattle not only from theGascoyne but also the Pilbara. Approximately 50% of the Pilbara’s cattle are turned off for export through thePorts of Broome and Port Hedland and the remainder are transported south for backgrounding and feedlottingprior to export from Fremantle. The value of live exports through a Port in Carnarvon could be as high as $70million a year assuming 100 000 head of cattle are exported from the Port (Based on Livecorp figures that $666million is generated from 954 000 head of cattle).

The bulk of cattle exported from Carnarvon would come from larger ports e.g. Fremantle on larger ships with ownfeed and water supplies and would top up with 2000 to 3000 head of cattle in Carnarvon on route overseas.

It should be noted that cattle export is seasonal with a reduction in exports in the wet season because of difficultyaccessing the cattle.

Producers are currently looking at the feasibility of establishing an abattoir in the area. A move to meat exportthrough Carnarvon would require heavier cattle than used in live export. The abattoir would require a holdingfacility however this facility could also support the live export trade bulk up of cattle for live export. The facilitycould be up to 30 km from the Port.

Economies make live export of young stock to be fattened in Indonesia quite viable compared to establishing anabattoir and exporting meat. There is also a drive in Indonesia to establish local cattle industries but the level ofinfrastructure and expertise make live export difficult. A meat export market from Australia wouldn’t compete withlocal product from Indonesia hence the likelihood of an abattoir in the Gascoyne region is remote.

From discussions with Livecorp it appears the future of the cattle export industry in WA is sound (81% of productto Indonesia) although it fluctuates. It is doubtful whether a new Port would increase the overall cattle supply asPorts are not the limiting factor to production. Savings in transport and better wharf facilities could makeCarnarvon an attractive proposition over current ports which are getting more difficult to access.

3.3.3 Port Requirements

Protected general purpose berth, suitable for livestock vessels up to 140 m long, maximum operational waveheight for livestock vessels 0.5 m;

Good access for trucks; Tug vessels; Tug pens.

3.4 Horticultural3.4.1 Background

The bulk of horticultural produce grown in Carnarvon is sent to Western Australian markets. In order to maintainfreshness, product is transported overnight by truck and is available at the Perth fruit and vegetable markets thenext morning. Given the current transport arrangements it would be difficult for direct shipping to Perth tocompete on a cost basis.

Some product from Carnarvon is sent to the eastern states but generally growers will only take advantage of rareopportunities e.g. increased sale of bananas to the eastern states following cyclone Larry.

Grapes are currently the only horticultural product exported overseas to Thailand and Malaysia over the months ofDecember and January. Large scale export of grapes is not viable at present as greater profits can be made byselling produce locally. Producers may move into other products if export opportunities become more viable e.g.



12

mangoes. There is some room for further expansion of plantations in the Carnarvon area however maximumcapacity has been reached for area under grapes.

There would be opportunities to receive imports for the horticultural trade through a Port in Carnarvon. Inputs areshipped to Fremantle from Indonesia, China and occasionally the eastern states and then transported fromFremantle using road transport. Inputs to the horticultural industry could be shipped directly to Carnarvon e.g.cardboard packing boxes, fertiliser (value of each annually approx $800 000).


Protected general purpose berth, suitable for geared general cargo vessels up to 140 m long, maximumoperational wave height for multi purpose cargo vessel of 0.5 m;

Storage and refrigeration for imports or exports; Tug vessels; Tug pens.

3.5 Accommodation of Oil and Gas Support VesselsWith a significant amount of oil and gas installations off the Pilbara Coast there may be an opportunity toaccommodate rig tender vessels which service offshore installations. The rig tender vessels could visit the portfor crew changeover and to load supplies for the offshore installations.

These vessels can range in size up to 60 m and could be accommodated at a general purpose berth.


Protected general purpose berth, suitable for rig tender vessels up to 60 m long, maximum operational waveheight for rig tender vessel of 0.5 m;

Services including water, fuel and power; Undercover storage.

3.6 Tug PenVessels at all potential port sites assessed in this study will require tug assistance to berth so provision must bemade to accommodate these vessels. The tug pens would require protection from a breakwater structure.

3.7 SlipwayThere may be an opportunity to provide a slipway for ship repairs capable of servicing a range of vessels engagedin offshore support activities and for locally operated tugs. Maintenance of Dampier Salt, Cape Cuvier tugsoccurs at the closest slipway, Mermaid Marine, Dampier but cost of servicing is high. Dampier Salt slips one tug ayear but there would be opportunities to service vessels engaged in offshore support activities or harbour tugsworking in the bulk trade in the Pilbara.A slipway capacity of about 1200 tonnes would be required to service tugs and fishing trawlers. Capacity wouldneed to be around 2000 to 2500 tonnes to service rig tender vessels.


Slipway; Services including water, fuel and power; Laydown area; Undercover storage; Tradesmen and workshop.

3.8 Trade Opportunities SummaryThere is a clear demand for additional berth space in the Gascoyne region to support local growth in salt andgypsum production and opportunities in the live cattle export trade.



13

Opportunities may exist to export small tonnages of iron ore from the Robinson Ranges north of Meekatharra, butthis would be subject to the speed that berth space is made available at Oakajee Port, north of Geraldton.Improved access routes from the Robinson Ranges to Carnarvon would also be required for road transport of ironore.

Ancillary services such as berthage for oil and gas support vessels and a maintenance slipway may also be viablebusiness opportunities at the port.



14

4.0 Port Site Selection

4.1 IntroductionThe GDC requested that AECOM assess the coastline from Carnarvon to Point Quobba to determine suitable portlocations.

The potential port sites were selected with the following preferred characteristics in mind:

Close proximity to deep water to limit dredging costs; Sufficient protection from cyclonic waves for safety; Reduced operational wave height to ensure high availability of the port to vessels.

Two potential port sites, South Bejaling, located 18 km north of Carnarvon and Darwin Reefs, locatedapproximately 30km north of Carnarvon were assessed for suitability. Refer Figure 1 Location Map indicatinglocation of potential port sites.

Figure 1 Location Map

Given the highly exposed nature of the Gascoyne coast, the two new port sites selected for the study do notsatisfy all of the preferred characteristics of a port location. As inadequate natural protection is available,breakwaters would be required to protect the port structures from extreme environmental events and reduceoperational wave height and thus increase port availability.

In addition the feasibility of expanding Cape Cuvier has also been considered.



15

4.2 Port Sites4.2.1 Port Location 1 – South Bejaling

Situated 18 km North of Carnarvon, the site was selected to take advantage of the natural protection provided byBernier Island but positioned north of the Gascoyne River so the port would not be adversely affected by siltation.

A breakwater structure would be required to provide protection for the general purpose berth but the bulk berthcould be exposed.

The main disadvantage of this site is the large distance to deep water from the port structures requiring a longapproach channel.

Refer Figure 2 below for Site 1 Port Layout.

Figure 2 Site 1 Port Layout



16

4.2.2 Port Location 2 – Darwin Reefs

Situated approximately 30 km north of Carnarvon, the site was selected to take advantage of the naturalprotection provided by Darwin Reefs and to minimise the length of the approach channel.

A breakwater structure would be required to provide protection for both the general purpose berth and the bulkberth.

The main disadvantage of this site is the large distance to water of sufficient depth for locating the berth pocket,requiring a long causeway.

Refer Figure 3 below for Site 2 Port Layout


4.2.3 Port Location 3 – Cape Cuvier

Situated at Dampier Salt’s existing export facility at Cape Cuvier, the advantage of this site is the small distancefrom the coast to deep water.



17

The disadvantages of this port site are:

The exposure of the site requires a major breakwater to provide adequate protection for vessels and berths; The breakwater will be subject to much higher extreme waves than the other two sites and will require very

large and expensive manufactured concrete armour; The breakwater is very exposed during construction and may be very difficult to construct in the winter

months; The breakwater will need to extend to very deep water (over 25m CD). Availability and access to land onshore is very poor.

Refer Figure 4 for Site 3 Port Layout.




18

5.0 Land AccessThis section addresses issues regarding land access at the proposed port sites. Issues have been identifiedthrough desktop database analysis and stakeholder consultation. Refer Appendix E for details. Areas affected bythe constraints as listed below have been identified through this desktop study. These constraints may prevent orimpact on the development of a deepwater port in the Gascoyne Region:

Land Access Constraints:

Protected sites in the Register of the National Estate (RNE); Land identified as being of World, National or Commonwealth heritage value; Land and waters identified as a Registered Site on the Aboriginal Site Register under the Aboriginal Heritage

Act 1972, or known to be of Aboriginal heritage significance; Land zoned ‘Urban’ or ‘Urban Deferred’ under the Region or Town Planning Scheme.

5.1 Tenure ConstraintsTenure considered suitable for development consideration included:

Freehold Land; Vacant Crown Land; Unallocated Crown Land

5.2 Land TenureThe study area consists of a strip of vacant crown land along the foreshore, with the Boolathana and Quobbapastoral leases adjacent. All three short-listed sites are on Crown reserve land with pastoral leases administeredby both Quobba and Boolathana stations. All pastoral leases in Western Australia issued under the Land Act 1933expire on 30 June 2015. This provides an opportunity for the State to exclude from the lease renewal offer thoseareas required for "Public Purposes", at the time of renewal of these Leases. Under the 2015 exclusion process,submissions have been received from State and local government agencies for exclusions of areas of land frompastoral leases for purposes ranging from protecting a heritage site to consolidating national parks andconservation areas when the leases reach the renewal date in 2015 (DMP 2010).

Crown reserve tenure falls under section 41 of the Land Administration Act (LAA) 1997 where the Minister mayset aside Crown lands by Ministerial order in the public interest which is subsequently administered by Stategovernment department, local government or incorporated community group by way of a Management Orderregistered against the relevant Crown Land Title (CLT), in this case Landgate (DMP 2010).

The coastal area from Point Quobba to Carnarvon Township is zoned as such, with the File Notation Area (FNA)exclusion zone extending 1 kilometre inland from the coastal strip on both pastoral leases and 2 kilometreselsewhere. After the lease expires in June 2015, any area to be excluded from the new lease will becomeunallocated Crown land where it will then be subject to clearances by various Government agencies before asuitable reservation or tenure is put in place and management arrangements formalised (Figure 2). Discussionswith the Department of Regional Development & Lands; State Lands Services highlight that the excised coastalstrip is likely to be vested for conservation activities, which would conflict with the development of portinfrastructure (Appendix E).

The File Notation area containing South Bejaling and Darwin Reefs is thus considered a constraint. Ongoingliaison with the Shire of Carnarvon, Department of Regional Development & Lands; State Lands Services andPastoral Lands Board, as well as with affected pastoralists, would be required if development of a port is deemedfeasible.



19

Figure 5 Land Tenure of the Proposed Project Area between Cape Cuvier and Carnarvon.

5.3 Land UseLand use in the Gascoyne region is predominantly pastoral activity undertaken on both Quobba and Boolathanastations. Mining activities on Lake McLeod involve the production of salt and the extraction of gypsum whereasthe southern end of the study area, closer to the township of Carnarvon, has a thriving horticultural districtsupplying the majority of Perth’s fruit and vegetables during the winter months.

A thriving prawn, scallop, crab and fishing industry also operates from the waters offshore from Point Quobba toCarnarvon.

Consideration during construction of a proposed port will need to consider impacts to surrounding land-users andindustry.

Pastoral Activity

115,800 square kilometres of the Gascoyne is taken up by pastoral stations. The production of meat and wool arethe primary activities however many stations are diversifying into goat domestication, horticulture (grapes) inlandaquaculture and outback tourism. Despite its history as a wool producing region, the main production from thepastoral region in the Gascoyne is now beef, sheep and lamb meat.

Total livestock disposals in the 2006/7 year added $11.4 million to the region’s economy. During the same year,wool production brought in $7.35 million (GDC 2010).

Quobba station was established in 1898 and is bounded by Gnarloo Station to the north, Lake McLeod andBoolathana Station to the East/South and the Indian Ocean to the west. The station is approximately 187,000acres measuring 80km of WA’s spectacular rugged coastline north to south and approximately 14km east to west.

Charles Brockman founded the 120,000-hectare Boolathana Station, north of Carnarvon in 1877. Diversificationby pastoralists in the Gascoyne is seeing cattle; goats and exotic sheep breeds replace many merino flocks

LEGEND

Mining Lease

Exploration Lease

Boundary betweenPastoral Leases



20

Ongoing liaison would be required with the Shire of Carnarvon, Department of Regional Development & Lands;State Lands Services and Pastoral Lands Board, as well as with affected pastoralists, if development of a port isdeemed feasible.

The Pastoral land use of the Study Area is considered a potential constraint to development as access issues willrequire negotiation with pastoralists.

Salt & Gypsum Mining

Lake MacLeod is situated 65km north of Carnarvon. This large near coastal lake occupies 2072 square kilometresseparated from the Indian Ocean by coastal dunes and outcrops of rock. The lake is 110km long and 40kmacross its widest section.

The geological data of the lake consists of a layer of gypsite (natural gypsum) which is now mined, approximately2 metres thick, overlaying a body of halite (mineral salt) which measures up to 6 metres deep.

The southern end of Lake MacLeod has been utilised by Dampier Salt Ltd for commercial salt production since1978 and to date, the production of salt has involved pumping groundwater onto the lake surface, allowing it toevaporate and then collecting the crystallised salt. The saturated brine contained in Lake MacLeod isapproximately 10 times saltier than normal seawater, eliminating the need for a series of concentration pondsnormally required to evaporate water to reach “salting” point (sodium chloride saturation)(DEC 2009).

In 1997, Dampier Salt also began mining gypsum adjacent to the salt mine. Gypsum is a key ingredient in thewallboard, plaster, cement and agriculture markets. It appears as a white or colourless mineral and is composedof calcium sulphate dehydrate. Gypsum is mined at Lake MacLeod using a floating dredge. The dredge pumps aslurry of gypsum and brine to a cluster of classifying cyclones that remove ultra fine material from the slurry andreturns it to the lake (Rio Tinto 2009).

The salt and gypsum production activities and associated infrastructure occupy approximately 4400 hectares ofthe 200 000 hectare lake area. In 2008/2009 salt production was approximately 3 million tonnes valued at about$75m.

The Department of Fisheries has advised that should the Cape Cuvier site be chosen for development of anadditional port, that access will likely be a significant issue. The road belongs to Rio Tinto and there may beissues with shared use (Appendix E).

Dampier Salt has advised that millions of dollars are spent each year managing dust and materials handling. Ifsimilar materials are proposed for export (salt and gypsum), it is highly likely that similar requirements will apply,including additional requirements to monitor cumulative impacts (Appendix E).

Negotiating the development of additional port facilities at Cape Cuvier would require ongoing liaison withDampier Salt. Land use (salt and gypsum mining) is thus considered a constraint to development.

Fishing

The region's fishing catch is dominated by prawns, however molluscs, lobster, crabs and a variety of wetline fishare also caught in the Gascoyne and processed at on shore operations at Carnarvon, Exmouth and Shark Bay.The diversity and importance of the commercial fishing operations are shown in (Figure 3). In 2006/07 the fishingindustry contributed $56.7 million to the Gascoyne economy.



21

Figure 6 Gascoyne Regions Estimated Catch by Fishery in Tonnes (Source: GDC 2010)

Liaison with the Department of Fisheries is further detailed in Section 0 -

Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs).

Impacts to the fishing industry will require careful consideration irrespective of site chosen for development.

Horticulture

The Carnarvon plantation area consists of around 170 plantations. This includes approximately 1020 ha ofcropped horticultural land situated along the Gascoyne River about 5 to 19 km inland from the river mouth.Vegetables are grown on about 570 ha, 350 ha are planted to bananas, and 100 ha to tree fruits. Considerablediversity of produce means, tropical fruits, citrus, stone and vegetable crops such as tomatoes, beans, capsicumsand asparagus are grown in the area.

Irrigation and drinking water are drawn from the aquifers in the Gascoyne River which are replenished during riverflows. Water is rationed and each grower receives an annual allocation (Shire of Carnarvon 2010). In 2007 theGascoyne horticultural industry grew approximately 39,000 tonnes of produce worth $87.6 million. Of this, fruitaccounted for 8,400 tonnes worth $26.7 million and vegetables 30,500 tonne of valued at $60.9 million (GDC2010).

Although horticulture is not considered likely to be impacted by the development of a deep-sea port, dustgenerated during construction activities does have the potential to impact vegetation. A desk-top dust-dispersionstudy showing impacts to sensitive premises and areas is recommended.

Tourism and Recreation

Tourism is the largest revenue earner of all industry sectors in the Gascoyne region and the level of attractionscan be demonstrated by both Shark Bay to the south of Carnarvon being listed as a World Heritage area, andNingaloo Reef in the north being considered for World Heritage listing.

The Ningaloo Reef is the focus of much of the regions tourism activity comprising a number of unique wildlifeexperiences including swimming with whale sharks and manta rays. The Ningaloo Reef is closely adjoined withthe Cape Range National Park and a significant karst or cave system that contributes to the biodiversity of thereef (GDC 2010).

To the south of the proposed project area, Shark Bay is home of the world famous Monkey Mia, where visitors areable to interact with dolphins in their natural environment. The unique hyper saline environment of Shark Bay seesit maintain some of the oldest life forms on earth and the bays are home to the largest sea grass ‘paddocks’ whichattract many species to spawn and nurture their young (GDC 2010).

Discussions with the Shire of Carnarvon highlighted that the Blowholes in the vicinity of the Darwin Reefs site is amajor tourism area and may be met with community opposition depending on how the land is accessed. Theremay also be positive benefits and synergies, should the proposed new airport and vessel port both be locatedtogether.



22

The marine environment of the wider Carnarvon area is also frequently used by local people for a wide variety ofrecreational purposes including but not limited to fishing, surfing and kayaking. Other activities are also pursuedfor recreational purposes including beach camping and four wheel driving or dirt-motorbike riding along the sand.

The proposal has the potential to affect amenity of the coastline, and also usage of the area through the creationof marine exclusion zones and increased shipping traffic. Engagement with local tourist providers andrecreational groups would take place once the potential port sites are further refined.

Port Operations

Dampier Salt delivers salt to customers in a variety of shipment sizes, from Cape Cuvier. Private berthing andship loading facilities exist at Cape Cuvier and can accommodate Panamax vessels up to 75,000 dwt (Rio TintoDampier Salt 2010).

Discussions with Dampier Salt (Appendix E) indicate that third party access is likely to be a concern to Rio Tinto iffurther development at Cape Cuvier is proposed. The Evaporites (Lake MacLeod) Agreement Act 1967 and RioTinto should be consulted.

Negotiating the development of additional port facilities, other than for the export of salt by Dampier Salt at CapeCuvier, would require ongoing liaison with Dampier Salt. Export of salt and gypsum by competitors from CapeCuvier is thus considered a land use constraint to development.

5.4 World and National HeritageWorld heritage sites are those places that are important to and belong to everyone, irrespective of where they arelocated. They have universal value that transcends the value they hold for a particular nation. These qualities areexpressed in the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the WorldHeritage Convention), which aims to promote cooperation among nations to protect heritage from around theworld that is of such outstanding universal value that its conservation is important for current and futuregenerations (DEWHA 2010).

A review of the Commonwealth DEWHA EPBC Protected Matters Search indicated there are no World HeritageSites within the proposed project area.

Australia's national heritage comprises exceptional natural and cultural places that contribute to Australia'snational identity. The National Heritage List has been established to list places of outstanding heritagesignificance to Australia. It includes natural, historic and Indigenous places that are of outstanding nationalheritage value to the Australian nation (DEWHA 2010).

A search of the Australian Natural Heritage Assessment Tool (ANHAT) identified one National heritage area.Lake MacLeod. This will be discussed in Section 5.8 Significant Wetlands.

Lake McLeod is also identified on the Australian Heritage database as listed on the Register of National Estate;however, this status has limited conservation value.

As Lake MacLeod is unlikely to be directly disturbed as a result of the proposed deep-sea port development, theNational Heritage area is not considered a constraint to development.

5.5 Aboriginal Heritage and Native TitleAboriginal sites are places of importance and significance to Aboriginal people and to the cultural heritage ofWestern Australia. Aboriginal sites are significant because they link Aboriginal cultural tradition to place, land andpeople over time.

Aboriginal people are traditionally linked with the Gascoyne area and the Gascoyne coastline is within thetraditional area of the Baiyungu people, who are members of the Gnulli Group. Registered sites of Aboriginalsignificance are likely to be found within all three short-listed sites. Liaison with the Department of IndigenousAffairs and the Yamaji Land and Sea Council, to identify potential Aboriginal heritage constraints would berequired if development of a port is deemed feasible.



23

A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System identified five Aboriginal heritage sites near the proposedproject areas. The individual reports are attached in Appendix F. A summary of the site description is shownbelow in Table 3 and shown in Figure 7.

Table 3 Summary of Aboriginal Heritage Sites within the Proposed Project Area

Site ID Site Name Site Description6060 Cape Cuvier Artefacts / Scatter,

Midden / Scatter7138 Quobba Dunes Skeletal material/Burial,

Artefacts / Scatter,Midden / Scatter

8897 Yalabidie Well Skeletal material/Burial10355 Chinamans Pool Mythological11044 Red Bluff Skeletal material/Burial

Figure 7 Aboriginal Heritage Sites (Source: DIA 2010; Landgate 2010)

A further search of the Commonwealth EPBC Protected Matters report tool identified an additional IndigenousAustralian Heritage Site, the Dugong Butchering Site located at Quobba Station to the north of the Darwin Reefssite. This area was also used historically as a coastal burial site (Appendix E).

Discussions with the Yamaji Land and Sea Council (Appendix E) highlight that the whole Study Area is subject toNative Title and rights issues would need to be dealt with if tenure and land access is pursued.



24

Traditional Owner Groups are likely to have concerns about any development near reef and/or coastal area andas such, any proposed development will require demonstration that the impacts to fisheries or benthicenvironment can be managed, and that traditional fishing practises are not affected. Dreaming stories are alsotied to rivers and wetlands, so these areas should be avoided. Access to country will need to be maintained,which may be impacted depending on tenure required.

Aboriginal heritage and Native Title are considered constraints to all three sites, however engagement withheritage groups, Traditional Owners and relevant stakeholders generally result in the negotiation of suitablemanagement practices.

5.6 Summary and RecommendationsThe purpose of this investigation into land access issues is to provide preliminary advice on any land useconstraints on the three short-listed sites, which are being pursued for the proposed development of a deep-seaport, within proximity to Carnarvon WA.

The results of this assessment of land access issues is summarised in Table 4. Cape Cuvier has been identifiedas subject to significant land access constraints. The Cape Cuvier site would require detailed and successful landuse negotiations with Dampier Salt / Rio Tinto.

Further work in the form of Aboriginal Heritage Surveys for all potential port sites would be required andstakeholder consultation would need to continue throughout all phases of project development.



Table 4 Land Access

Potential Port SiteSouth Bejaling Darwin Reefs Cape CuvierConstraint(Y/N)

Recommendations Constraint(Y/N)


Recommendations

Land Access ConstraintsLand Tenure Y FNA area will require ongoing

liaison.Y FNA area will require ongoing

liaison.N Liaison with Dampier Salt required.

Land UsePastoral Activity Y Land access will require

negotiation with pastoralistsY Land access will require

negotiation with pastoralistsY Land access will require negotiation with

pastoralistsSalt and GypsumMining

N - N - Y Ongoing liaison with Dampier Salt.

Fishing Y Ongoing liaison with fishingassociations and DEC required.

Y Ongoing liaison with fishingassociations and DEC required.

Y Ongoing liaison with fishing associationsand DEC required.

Horticulture N Dust studies may be required. N Dust studies may be required. N Dust studies may be required.Tourism Y Ongoing liaison required. Y Ongoing liaison required. NPort Operations N Vessel Interaction studies will

likely be required for cetaceanimpact assessment.

N Vessel Interaction studies willlikely be required for cetaceanimpact assessment.

Y Ongoing liaison with Dampier Salt/RioTinto to negotiate third party access.Vessel Interaction studies will likely berequired for cetacean impact assessment.

World andNational Heritage

N - N - N -

AboriginalHeritage

Y(no knownheritagesites,knownNativeTitle area)

Liaison required. Y(knownheritagesites,knownNative Titlearea)

Liaison required Y(knownheritagesites,knownNative Titlearea)

Liaison required



26

6.0 Environmental Constraints

6.1 Desktop StudyThe environmental constraints identified for the purpose of this study are listed below. Areas affected by theconstraints, as listed below, have been identified through this desktop study. These constraints will need to beconsidered in the context of a formal environmental assessment process.

Environmental Constraints:

Land immediately adjacent to Marine Conservation Reserves; Land immediately adjacent to estuarine or river mouth environments; Land immediately adjacent to Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs); Land immediately adjacent to waters with potential for fouling; Land and waters immediately adjacent to known protected Shipwrecks; Land included in a reserved National Park, Nature Reserve, Conservation Park, State Forest or Regional

Park; Land and waters declared to be under the Ramsar Convention; Land declared as a Conservation Category Wetland (CC Wetland) or in the Directory of Important Wetlands

(DI Wetlands); Land declared as the location and buffer of Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs); Land known to include Declared Rare Flora (DRF) or to be known to support Threatened or Endangered

Fauna; Land recognised by the DEC as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).

The following section summarises the known occurrence of the above-listed constraints on each the SouthBejaling, Darwin Reefs and Cape Cuvier sites and includes recommendations for further work, should any ofthese sites be intended for future development.

Of these sites, South Bejaling and Darwin Reef would require the development of greenfields sites (i.e. presentlyun-developed sea and land), whereas the Cape Cuvier location would require expansion of an existingbrownfields site (the existing Dampier Salt port).

Environmentally, it is generally accepted that expansion of brownfields sites presents less potential environmentalimpacts than the development of greenfields sites, however for the purpose of the environmental constraintsinvestigation, the environment occurring at these three sites will be equally considered, discounting the fact thatCape Cuvier has already been impacted by development. It should be noted that this approach presents a biasedreview, as there will certainly be less environmental impacts when developing most brownfields sites, comparedwith greenfields sites. This bias however will be discounted for purposes of this analysis.

6.2 Stakeholder ConsultationFor the purposes of the final report, stakeholders who have been contacted during the study have beenincorporated into the relevant sections of this report with a reference back to the shareholder register forEnvironmental/land access issues in (Appendix E).

6.3 Marine Conservation ReservesMarine Conservation Reserves is the term used in Western Australia to describe areas of the marine andestuarine environment that have been legally established to facilitate the conservation of biodiversity. There arethree marine reserve categories; Marine Nature Reserves, Marine Parks and Marine Management Areas.

The Shark Bay Marine Park is the closest Marine Reserve to the Survey Area. It includes the Hamelin PoolMarine Nature Reserve and is classified as a World Heritage Property under matters of National EnvironmentalSignificance (NES) by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The Shark Bay Marine Reserve is significantly south of the Study Area and as such does not present a directconstraint to the proposed development. Dredging activities do however present the potential to impact the Shark



27

Bay Marine Reserve and dispersion modelling, especially from the southern-most short-listed site, South Bejaling;will be required to ensure that any potential impacts are manageable.

6.4 Estuarine and River Mouth EnvironmentsThe Department of the Environment and Conservation (DEC) provides the following contextual information as tothe importance of waterways (DEC 2004). Waterways such as estuaries and rivers have important spiritual andcultural significance for Aboriginal people and for environmental functions. Many waterbodies such as rivers,soaks, springs, rock holes and billabongs have Aboriginal sites associated with them. Waterways became a focalpoint for explorers and settlers with many of the State’s towns located near them. Waterways supply us with foodand drinking water, irrigation for agriculture and water for aquaculture and horticulture. They are valuable assetsfor tourism and are prized recreational areas.

A healthy waterway has a stable channel which is supported and maintained by native fringing vegetation.Fringing vegetation such as eucalypts, paperbarks, rushes and sedges, has a number of roles including habitat,shading, holding the banks in place (reducing erosion), filtering material washed from the catchment and slowingwater flow. Within waterways, aquatic plants provide food for native fish, waterbirds and frogs as well as breedinghabitat and shelter from predators and the harsh summer sun. Areas of fast flow over rocks or logs are known asriffles and are a favoured habitat for many macroinvertebrates. Slower flowing areas such as pools or backwatersare often home to many native fish. Floodplains provide important habitat for small crustacea, wading birds, frogsand fish. For some species the inundation of the floodplain is crucial to part of their lifecycle.

Numerous rivers drain the region; their beds are mostly dry on the surface, except for a few permanent waterholes. They flow intermittently, often with great force. The largest of these is the Gascoyne River and its tributarythe Lyons which are within the Study Area (Figure 8), and have a catchment area of 6.7 million hectares whichextends 500 kilometres inland. The Gascoyne River flows occasionally between February and August. The riverflows re-charge aquifers (water storage areas) in the river bed and are essential for the continuity of watersupplies to Carnarvon.

While the three short-listed sites are not located directly within or abutting any estuarine or riverine systems,activities such as the placement of permanent structures or groundwater abstraction for construction orconsumption, have the potential to impact surfacewater and groundwater systems.

Due to the importance of the river systems within the Study Area, whilst not being directly contained in any of thethree short-listed sites, it is recommended that studies be undertaken to demonstrate that the proposeddevelopment will not impact the river systems or their aquifers through pollution, altered water regime (increasedor decreased runoff or temporal changes) or dependent ecosystems. Such studies may include:

Groundwater Modelling - required if groundwater is to be abstracted from the ground; Surfacewater Flow Modelling – required if natural surface flows are impacted by land based structures; Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Studies - required if groundwater is to be abstracted or surface water

flows have changed.



28

Figure 8 Estuarine Systems Highlighted, at the Proposed Project Area (Source: Landgate, 2010) = Estuarine = Riverine

6.5 Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs)A Fish Habitat Protection Area (FHPA) is a location declared by the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Fisheriesand Electoral Affairs as having special ecological and community significance and thus deserving specialmanagement to ensure its long-term sustainability. Its principal aim is to preserve valuable fish and marineenvironments for the future use and enjoyment of all people (DoF 2009).

The Landgate SLIP tool identified two areas set aside as FHPAs, Miaboolya Beach FHPA and Point QuobbaFHPA (Figure 6). Stakeholder consultation with the Department of Fisheries has confirmed the protection andmanagement status of these two areas.

Miaboolya Beach is an area of the Gascoyne River delta near Carnarvon. The FHPA covers the nearshore watersand extends north to South Bejaling and south to the northern side of the Gascoyne River mouth. In addition, itincludes the adjoining mangrove system, associated seasonal creeks and salt marshes.

In 2004 the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (as per previous portfolio) set aside Point QuobbaFHPA, incorporating all waters extending from the lagoon reef area south to, and including, Black Rock to ensurethe conservation of fish and the aquatic ecosystem in the vicinity of the reef.



29

Figure 9 Fish Habitat Protection Areas Point Quobba & Miaboolya Beach Outlined in Red (Source: Landgate 2010)

Consultation with the Department of Fisheries and with the Department of Regional Development & Lands; StateLands Services has confirmed that in the event that development was proposed adjacent or within the FHPAsstringent environmental assessment and management arrangements would be required to demonstrate that therewill be no adverse impact to the FHPA as a result of the development. The Department of Fisheries and theDepartment of Regional Development & Lands; State Lands Services suggest that should either the SouthBejaling or Darwin Reefs site be selected for development, that turbidity and the change in coastal processes arelikely to adversely affect the FHPAs. This would require monitoring and management and is likely to beexpensive.

The two FHPAs as shown in Figure 9 also contain important terrestrial connections associated with wetlandattributes, as per information supplied during discussions with The Department of Fisheries. Land access to thesesites is thus affected due to the FHPA status of the adjoining marine environment.

It is therefore considered that the FHPAs within the Study Area present significant environmental constraints toboth the South Bejaling and the Darwin Reefs short-listed sites.

Should South Bejaling and Darwin Reef sites be further investigated, it is recommended that the studies requiredmay include:

Benthic Habitat Survey; Whole Effluent Toxicity Studies; Ecosystem Integrity Study; Plume Dispersion Modelling / Hydrodynamic Survey.



30

6.6 ShipwrecksThe Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 aims to ensure that historic shipwrecks are protected for their heritage valuesand maintained for recreational, scientific and educational purposes. It also seeks to control actions which mayresult in damage, interference, removal or destruction of an historic shipwreck or associated relic. Divers can usewreck sites for recreational purposes but relics must not be removed from the wreck site and the physical fabric ofthe wreck must not be disturbed, unless a permit has been obtained (DEWHA 2009).

A search of the Western Australian Museum Maritime database (2004) shows the closest ship wreck, the Gudrun,to be located to the south of Carnarvon, at 25º 25.50'S 113º 31.51'E in Shark Bay outside the proposed port andchannel locations.

There are no known shipwrecks in close proximity to the Study Area and as such Shipwrecks are not considereda constraint to development.

6.7 ReservesThe Western Australian system of conservation reserves is designed to represent and protect native communitiesand species of plants and animals.

A review of all State nature reserve and conservation area databases failed to identify any reserves within theStudy Area and as such Reserves are not considered a constraint to development.

6.8 Significant Wetlands6.8.1 Ramsar Wetlands

Ramsar wetlands are declared when the wetland is on a list of Wetlands of International Importance or where it isa wetland of international significance and its ecological character is under threat.

A search of the EPBC Environmental Reporting Tool as well Ramsar database found there to be no Ramsarwetlands in the proposed project area.

A further search of the Wetland base ID Tool however identified Lake Macleod as a draft proposed RamsarAddition. Lake Macleod should therefore be considered a wider environmental constraint to development anddiscussed further in the sections below. It is not however expected to be directly impacted by development and assuch Ramsar wetlands are not considered a constraint to development.

6.8.2 Directory of Important Wetlands

The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) together with Stateauthorities have developed a list of wetlands of national importance. Such wetlands are listed formally in theDirectory of Important Wetlands Australia.

A search of the Directory of Important Wetlands Australia has identified Lake McLeod as a regionally importantwetland that lies within the Study Area.

The Lake MacLeod System is currently identified as a wetland of national importance under criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 and6 of the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. These have been criteria provided by DEC (2009) and areas follows:

1) It is a good example of a wetland type occurring within a biogeographic region in Australia. The LakeMcLeod System is an outstanding example of a major coastal lake that is episodically inundated by freshwater, which includes permanent saline wetlands and inland mangrove swamps that are maintained bysubterranean waterways - a unique assemblage of wetland types in Australia.

2) It is a wetland that plays an important ecological or hydrological role in the natural functioning of a majorwetland system/complex.

3) It is a wetland that is important as the habitat for animal taxa at a vulnerable stage in their life cycles, orprovides a refuge when adverse conditions such as drought prevail. The Lake McLeod system is a majormigration stop-over and drought refuge area for shorebirds, including Banded Stilt (Caldorhynchusleucocephalus), Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) and Red-necked Stint (Calidris rufilcollis). It alsosupports Australia's largest inland community of mangroves and associated fauna.



31

4) The wetland supports one percent or more of the national populations of any native plant or animal taxa.Surveys at Lake MacLeod have recorded as many as 111,600 shorebirds and 114,956 waterbirds belongingto fifty-eight different species. The system supports more than one percent of the national population of thefollowing shorebirds:- Banded Stilt (Cladorhynchus leucocephalus);- Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea);- Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis);- Red Knot (Calidris canutus);- Pied Cormorant (Phalacrocorax melanoleucos);- Red-necked Avocet (Recurvirostra novaehollandiae);- Red -capped Plover (Charadrius ruficapillus); and- Australian Pelican (Pelecanus conspicillatus).

5) The wetland is of outstanding historical or cultural significance (DEC 2009).Lake MacLeod is highly significant in maintaining regionally and nationally important ecological processes. Thelake is a major migration stop over and drought refuge area for shorebirds and is one of the most important non-tidal stop over sites in Australia. It also supports Australia's largest inland community of mangroves andassociated fauna. Lake MacLeod is a critical habitat for maintaining the life cycle of a number of migratory birdspecies and is listed on The Register of National Estate under Environment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

As none of the short-listed sites are expected to directly impact upon Lake MacLeod, it is not considered aconstraint to development. The water regime of Lake MacLeod may however require more careful consideration.

6.9 Protected Flora6.9.1 Declared Rare, Priority and Threatened Flora Species

The DEC assigns conservation status to endemic plant species that are geographically restricted to few knownpopulations or threatened by local processes. Allocating conservation status to plant species assists in protectingpopulations and conserving species from potential threats (DEC 2010a and 2010b).

Declared Rare Flora (DRF) species are gazetted under subsection 2 of section 23F of the WC Act. It is an offenceto “take” or damage Rare Flora without Ministerial approval. Section 23F of the WC Act defines “to take” as “togather, pick, cut, pull up, destroy, dig up, remove or injure the flora or to cause or permit the same to be done byany means.”

Species designated as Priority Flora are under consideration for declaration as ‘Rare Flora’ and are in urgentneed of further survey (Priority One to Three) or require monitoring every 5-10 years (Priority Four).

Whilst there were no species with the conservation status of DRF in the study area, a review of the DEC onlinedatabase identified species in Table 5 with Priority listings:



32

Table 5 Priority Flora Species Near / Within Proposed Sites (NatureBase and ForaBase DEC 2010)

Priority Flora Speciesnear/within proposed sites

IBRA Distribution Map

Abutilon pritzelianum (P1)

Abutilon sp. Quobba (P2)



33



Abutilon sp. Hamelin (P2)

Acacia ryaniana (P2)



34



Chthonocephalusspathulatus (P1)

Chthonocephalustomentellus (P2)



35



Lepidium biplicatum (P2)

Lerista haroldi (P1) N/A

Ptilotus alexandri (P2)



36



Stenanthemum divaricatum(P3)

Special consideration is required in the management of priority flora as they are of conservation significance.Priority flora does not have the same legal status as DRF but are considered as species requiring regular statusassessments. Developments impacting Priority species are likely to require the inclusion of a broader assessmentof regional distribution in the environmental approvals process under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Itshould be acknowledged that stringent environmental Conditions are likely to be set by the Minister for theEnvironment if development requires the disturbance of any priority or threatened flora.

Flora surveys are recommended to identify threatened flora species locations and areas of threatened ecologicalcommunities. If the proposal has the potential to clear land near threatened ecological activities, the proposalshould be discussed with the DEC to identify management issues, mitigation measures, and the requirements forsubmission of an application, including any conservation offset measures that may support the proposal.

Prior to this liaison and research, each of the three short-listed sites are considered equally constrained.

6.9.2 Threatened Ecological Communities and Priority Ecological Communities

Threatened ecological communities (TECs) are plant communities that were once widespread but now only occurin restricted pockets. The DEC maintains a TEC Database for the State and in addition DEWHA maintains theCommonwealth TEC database under the EPBC Act.

Vegetation communities in Western Australia are described as ‘TECs’ if they have been defined by the DEC’sSpecies and Community Branch and found to be Presumed Destroyed, Critically Endangered, Endangered orVulnerable. For definitions of TEC categories and criteria refer to English and Blyth (1997). The DEC maintains adatabase of state listed TECs which is available for online searches via their website (www.dec.wa.gov.au).

No TEC’s listed in the State and Commonwealth database, occur within the Study Area, hence TECs are notconsidered a constraint to development.

6.9.3 Marine Flora

The central Gascoyne coast and Shark Bay supports major seagrass communities. Over 4 000 square kilometresof Shark Bay is covered by 12 species of seagrass, with the Wooramel Seagrass Bank the largest structure of its



37

type and most diverse seagrass assemblage in the world. The Wooramel Seagrass Bank covers 1 030 squarekilometres from the eastern shore of Shark Bay almost to Carnarvon. This seagrass is important to ecosystemsincluding to the protected dugong (Dugong Dugon) that frequent the area.

Whilst Shark Bay and the Wooramel Seagrass Bank are south of the study area, these areas could potentially beaffected by indirect impacts from the development of a port near Carnarvon, due to water quality impacts.Bathymetric and benthic surveys are recommended for the proposed area to determine extent of marine floracommunities and to allow determination of likely impact. Of particular concern would be the impact of dredgingactivities on seagrass. Even if not contained directly at the chosen site, seagrass may be impacted by increasedturbidity over a larger area.

The South Bejaling site is considered more constrained than the two more northern sites due to its location closerto known seagrass meadows. Cape Cuvier and Darwin Reefs sites are also unlikely to contain significantseagrass communities due to the less sheltered and deeper environments in these areas, not generally beingconducive to seagrass requirements.

6.10 Protected Fauna6.10.1 WC Act Threatened Fauna Species

All native species of fauna in Western Australia are ‘protected’ unless otherwise declared, and cannot be capturedor killed without a licence. A number of threatened native fauna species are further declared to be ‘fauna that is inneed of special protection’ under the Act. A specially protected fauna list is published in a notice in theGovernment Gazette.

The Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2005 lists specially protected fauna in fourschedules listed in Table 6.

Table 6 Categories of Threatened Fauna Species (Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2005)

ConservationCode Category

Schedule 1 Fauna that is rare or likely to become extinct.Schedule 2 Fauna that is presumed to be extinct.Schedule 3 Birds protected under an international agreement.Schedule 4 Other specially protected fauna.

The DEC assigns conservation status to fauna taxa that either need surveying to determine whether or not thespecies require special protection, or could require special protection if present circumstances change. Fivecategories are recognised in allocating Priority Fauna conservation status.

Whilst there were no species with the conservation status of Protected Fauna in the study area, a review of theDEC online database identified two sp. with Priority listings: Falco hypoleucos - Grey Falcon (P4) and Neochimaruficauda subsp. Subclarescens - Star Finch (western) (P4).

Whilst these species do not occur directly within the Study Area, as they are avian, they may possibly at times befound within the Study Area, they are not however considered an environmental constraint in this instance.

It is however recommended that a targeted Fauna Survey be conducted and that the Carnarvon Deep Sea Portproposal be discussed with the DEC to identify management issues, mitigation measures, and the requirementsfor submission of an application, including any conservation offset measures that may support the proposal.

6.10.2 Commonwealth EPBC Listed Fauna

Threats of extinction of species are also recognised at a Commonwealth level and are categorised according tothe EPBC Act, 1999. To protect species of migratory birds in danger of extinction, agreements were signedbetween Australia and Japan (Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA)), Australia and China (ChinaAustralia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), and Australia and the Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA)) to takespecial measures to protect identified migratory birds that migrate between these countries, the governments ofthese countries agrees that co-operation was essential. The EPBC reporting tool was used to identify listedthreatened and migratory species. The report is attached in Appendix G. A summary of the report is shown below



38

in Table 7. The EPBC reporting tool did not identify any migratory birds listed in the JAMBA, CAMBA andROKAMBA.

Table 7 Summary of EPBC Protected Matters search

BiodiversityThreatened Species: 10Migratory Species: 37Listed Marine Species: 57Invasive Species: 8Whales and Other Cetaceans: 10Threatened Ecological Communities: None

Threatened terrestrial species in the project area are listed in Table 8.

Table 8 Threatened Terrestrial Species of Interest (EPBC Act 1999)

Threatened Species Commonwealth Status Type of PresenceBirdsAcanthiza iredalei iredaleiSlender-billed Thornbill (western)

Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely tooccur within area

Macronectes giganteusSouthern Giant-Petrel

EndangeredMigratory Marine BirdListed Marine Species

Species or species habitat mayoccur within area

Pterodroma mollisSoft-plumaged Petrel

VulnerableListed Marine Species


A terrestrial fauna survey will be required, irrespective of site, to determine the likely presence of any of the listedspecies. Should listed species be present, habitat and foraging areas will be likely to be required to bemaintained.

6.10.3 Marine Fauna

Threatened marine species of particular interest are listed in Table 9.

Table 9 Threatened Marine Species of Interest (EPBC Act 1999)

Threatened Species Commonwealth Status Type of PresenceMammalsBalaenoptera musculusBlue Whale

EndangeredMigratory Marine SpeciesCetacean


Eubalaena australisSouthern Right Whale

EndangeredMigratory Marine SpeciesCetacean

Species or species habitat likely tooccur within area

Megaptera novaeangliaeHumpback Whale

VulnerableMigratory Marine SpeciesCetacean

Congregation or aggregation knownto occur within area

Balaenoptera edeniBryde's Whale

Migratory Marine SpeciesCetacean


Dugong dugonDugong

Migratory Marine SpeciesCetaceanListed Marine Species


Orcinus orcaKiller Whale, Orca

Migratory Marine SpeciesCetacean




39

Threatened Species Commonwealth Status Type of PresenceMammalsBalaenoptera acutorostrataMinke Whale

Cetacean Species or species habitat mayoccur within area

Delphinus delphisCommon Dolphin, Short-beakedCommon Dolphin


Grampus griseusRisso's Dolphin, Grampus


Stenella attenuataSpotted Dolphin, PantropicalSpotted Dolphin


Tursiops aduncusIndian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin,Spotted BottlenoseDolphin

Cetacean Species or species habitat likely tooccur within area

Tursiops truncatus s. str.Bottlenose Dolphin


ReptilesCaretta carettaLoggerhead Turtle

EndangeredMigratory Marine SpeciesListed


Chelonia mydasGreen Turtle

VulnerableMigratory Marine SpeciesListed


Dermochelys coriaceaLeatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle

EndangeredMigratory Marine SpeciesListed


Eretmochelys imbricataHawksbill Turtle

VulnerableMigratory Marine SpeciesListed


SharksCarcharias taurus (west coastpopulation)Grey Nurse Shark (west coastpopulation)

Vulnerable Species or species habitat mayoccur within area

Carcharodon carchariasGreat White Shark

VulnerableMigratory Marine Species


Rhincodon typusWhale Shark

VulnerableMigratory Marine Species


Approvals documentation will need to address likely impacts upon these EPBC listed marine species.

The Gascoyne habits diverse and abundant marine fauna due to the Leeuwin Current’s effect of generating awarm southerly current along the Gascoyne coast. Tropical seed for fish and coral is transported by the LeeuwinCurrent to the Gascoyne coast from the Indian-Indonesian Archipelago. Consequently the Gascoyne coast isknown to be the best recreational fishing area in Western Australia. The central Gascoyne coast due to the majorseagrass communities, play an important role in sedimentary processes, food chains and nutrient cycling.

Hawksbill turtles are also suggested to be within the Gascoyne area as well as humpback whales and whalesharks. The Gascoyne region an important site for migratory species and is especially significant to Humpbackwhales. The Gascoyne Region is within the migratory pathway for north and south bound Humpback Whales. Ontheir northward migration, Humpback Whales travel to the Kimberley breeding and calving grounds in the winterand the southward migration to Antarctic feeding grounds during August to October.

Additional marine fauna with scientific and tourism significance in the Gascoyne area are sea snakes howeverlittle information is known of their distribution. Further numbers of species of cetaceans may also be found in theGascoyne such as the bottlenose dolphin which is the most common (DoF 2002). A large wild dolphin pod of



40

about 300 animals inhabit Monkey Mia in which several of these bottle nose dolphins are regular visitors to thebeach.

Environmentally, impacts to cetaceans, dugong and turtles are likely to be the key concerns of the proposal for adeep-sea port in this Study Area and thus present the largest constraint to development.

Studies to ascertain the likely impacts to species from increased turbidity, seismic activities, blasting and pile-driving, increased vessel movements, invasive marine species, marine physical presence, discharges andincreased lighting will likely be required, irrespective of site selected.

6.11 Environmentally Sensitive AreasThe term environmentally sensitive area (ESA) is defined in the Environmental Protection (Clearing of NativeVegetation) regulations 2004. ESA’s are:

Declared world heritage areas; Areas that are registered on the Register of the National Estate; A defined wetland and a buffer of 50 m; The area covered within 50 m of rare flora; The area covered by a threatened ecological community; Bush Forever sites; Areas covered by the Environmental Protection Policy EPP 1992.

A review of the Landgate SLIP Database identifies Lake McLeod as an ESA Area under EP (Clearing of NativeVegetation) Regulations 2004 and is discussed in section 6.8.

6.12 Summary and RecommendationsThe purpose of this environmental constraints investigation is to provide preliminary advice on the environmentalsuitability of three short-listed sites, which are being pursued for the proposed development of a deep-sea port,within proximity to Carnarvon WA.

The intended outcome of this investigation is not to assign weightings to sites as is typical for some multi-criteriaor risk analyses, but rather to present the issues that would require consideration should any one of the sites bechosen for further detailed investigation.

The results of the environmental suitability for development of each of the three sites is summarised in Table 10.The risk to the marine environment from development is likely to present the most significant environmental issue,irrespective of the site chosen. Environmental regulatory authorities are likely to require justification of the need toimpact sensitive marine environments such as reef or benthic habitat, when other areas such as sand orpreviously disturbed areas may be available for development.

Considering these three particular sites environmentally, the disturbed and impacted Cape Cuvier locationrepresents the best opportunity for development. Proposals to develop either South Bejaling or Darwin Reefsrepresent a greater potential environmental impact.

The results of this preliminary environmental constraints investigation are such that Site 1 and 2 containsignificant constraints. Both Darwin Reefs and South Bejaling are constrained due to sensitive FHPAs. It is likelythat should development at Darwin Reefs or South Bejaling be approved, that these sites will attract detailedenvironmental management (Ministerial) conditions.

Irrespective of site chosen, the site is likely to require formal environmental assessment under Part IV of theEnvironmental Protection Act 1986. One year should be allowed as an approximate guide for the timing requiredin obtaining project environmental approval. In addition to this, sometimes up to two years of environmental dataare required, to allow for impact assessment and the development of mitigation and monitoring strategies.Preliminary surveys likely to be required for the environmental assessment process include but are not limited to:

Aboriginal Heritage Survey; Air Quality (including dust and noise) Modelling; Flora Surveys and Impact Assessment; Fauna Surveys and Impact Assessment;



41

Marine Benthic Survey and Impact Assessment; Marine Hydrodynamic Survey and Impact Assessment; Marine Sediment Survey and Impact Assessment; Vessel Interaction Studies; Underwater Acoustic Impact Studies; Fisheries Impact Studies.

Stakeholder consultation would need to continue throughout all phases of project development.



Table 10 Summary of Environmental Constraints Investigation for Potential Port Sites




Recommendations

Environmental ConstraintsMarine ConservationReserve N

Plume dispersion modellingwith focus on impacts toShark Bay marine reserve.

N - N -

Estuarine and RiverMouths N

May be required todemonstrate no impact toGascoyne River or LakeMacLeod. This may require:Groundwater ModellingGroundwater DependentEcosystem StudiesSurfacewater FlowModelling

NMay be required todemonstrate no impact toLake MacLeod. This mayrequire:Groundwater ModellingGroundwater DependentEcosystem StudiesSurfacewater FlowModelling

NMay be required todemonstrate no impact toLake MacLeod. This mayrequire:Groundwater ModellingGroundwater DependentEcosystem StudiesSurfacewater FlowModelling

Fish Habitat ProtectionAreas Y

Implications could be therefusal of environmentalapproval for the project, orstringent environmentalconditions.Studies required mayinclude:Benthic Habitat SurveyWhole Effluent ToxicityStudiesEcosystem Integrity StudyPlume Dispersion Modelling/ Hydrodynamic SurveyFisheries Impact Studies

YImplications could be therefusal of environmentalapproval for the project, orstringent environmentalconditions.Studies required mayinclude:Benthic Habitat SurveyWhole Effluent ToxicityStudiesEcosystem Integrity StudyPlume Dispersion Modelling/ Hydrodynamic SurveyFisheries Impact Studies

N -

Shipwrecks N - N - - N -Reserves N - N - - N -






Recommendations

Significant WetlandsY

Lake MacLeod is present;however activity is generallypermissible in the southernportion.Potential requirement forgroundwater/water regimestudies.

YLake MacLeod is present;however activity is generallypermissible in the southernportion.Potential requirement forgroundwater/water regimestudies.

YMay be required to show noimpact to sensitivegroundwater exchangeregime of Lake MacLeod.Potential requirement forgroundwater/water regimestudies.

Protected FloraDRF, Priority,Threatened Y

Targeted Flora Survey. Ifflora found on site it is likelyto require retention ofhabitat, or significantoffsets.Liaison with Authorities

YTargeted Flora Survey. Ifflora found on site it is likelyto require retention ofhabitat, or significantoffsets.Liaison with Authorities

YTargeted Flora Survey. Ifflora found on site it is likelyto require retention ofhabitat, or significantoffsets.Liaison with Authorities

TECs N - N - - N -Marine Flora Not known Benthic Survey Not known Benthic Survey Not known Benthic SurveyProtected FaunaWC Act ThreatenedFauna

N Fauna survey will likely berequired.



EPBC Listed FaunaY

Potential need for studies todemonstrate impact toEPBC species from:increased turbidity,seismic activities, blastingand pile-driving,increased vesselmovements,invasive marine species,marine physical presence,discharges and increasedlighting

YPotential need for studies todemonstrate impact toEPBC species from:increased turbidity,seismic activities, blastingand pile-driving,increased vesselmovements,invasive marine species,marine physical presence,discharges and increasedlighting

YPotential need for studies todemonstrate impact toEPBC species from:increased turbidity,seismic activities, blastingand pile-driving,increased vesselmovements,invasive marine species,marine physical presence,discharges and increasedlighting






Recommendations

Marine FaunaY

Benthic Habitat Survey willbe required.See above requirements forEPBC species.

YBenthic Habitat Survey willbe required.See above requirements forEPBC species.

YBenthic Habitat Survey willbe required.See above requirements forEPBC species.

EnvironmentallySensitive Areas Y

Lake MacLeod is present;however activity is generallypermissible in the southernportion.

YLake MacLeod is present;however activity is generallypermissible in the southernportion.

YMay be required to show noimpact to sensitivegroundwater exchangeregime of Lake MacLeod.



45

7.0 Vessel ParametersVessel parameters have been determined from a search of IHS Fairplay, Lloyds Register of ships online, othergeneral web searches and past experience. The design vessels adopted in the development of the preliminaryport concepts consist of the following:

Table 11 Vessel Parameters

Vessel Type PortStructure

Product DWT Lengthoverall(LOA) m

Beam(m)

Depth(m)

Draft(m)

Comments

Panamax bulkcarrier

Bulk Berth SaltIron orePotash

75 000 225 32.2 14 Operational waveless than 1.5 m

Handysize bulkcarrier

GeneralPurposeBerth orBulk Berth

GypsumMineralSands

30 000 175 27 10 to11

Operational waveless than 1.2 m

Livestock Carrier GeneralPurposeBerth

Cattle 10 000 140 18 8 Operational waveless than 0.5 m80% of cattlevessels have lessthan 8m draft.

Multi purposecargo vessel

GeneralPurposeBerth

ContainersHorticulturalproducts,bulk cargo

12 000 140 21.5 8.5 Operational waveless than 0.5 m

Multi purposecontainer vessel

GeneralPurposeBerth

Uranium Operational waveless than 0.3 m

Oil and Gassupport vesselse.g. Anchorhandling tugs,Multi-purposesurvey vessels,Platform supportvessels, Supplyvessels

GeneralPurposeBerth

Supplies tooffshoreplatforms

2 000 60 15 6 5 Berths servicedwith water, fueland power,Laydown areaundercoverstorage andworkshops

Tugs Tug Pen 35 10 4.5Ship RepairFacility

Slipway For servicingtugs, oil andgas supportvessels

2 000 60 15 6 5 Routine andemergencydockings ormarinemaintenanceservices.Fabrication,mechanical andelectrical staffrequired.



46

8.0 Design Assumptions and Criteria

8.1 Water Levels8.1.1 Astronomical Tides

The tides at Carnarvon are predominately diurnal (one high and one low per day) with a tidal range ofapproximately 2 m.

Table 12 Carnarvon Tides

Title Tide Level RL (m) to LATHighest Astronomical Tide HAT + 2.0Mean High High Water MHHW + 1.7Mean Low High Water MLHW + 1.1Mean Sea Level MSL + 1.0Mean High Low Water MHLW + 1.0Mean Low Low Water MLLW + 0.4Lowest Astronomical Tide LAT + 0.0

8.1.2 Storm Surge

Storm surge is a major threat around Shark Bay in particular. In 1937 high seas and an estimated 4.3 m tide,associated with a cyclone passing offshore, resulted in 14 km of the Hamelin Pool - Denham road being coveredwith water. In February 1921 a storm surge pushed sea water 2.9 m above the highest tide mark at Denham,resulting in 20 cm of water in the Post Office. The whole town was inundated and from 3:30 pm until midnight onthe 20th, the population had to shelter in the School and Police Station.

It has been assumed in the determination of water levels and wave crest heights that the maximum still waterlevel is 4.9 m LAT assuming 2.9 m above H.A.T (+2 m LAT). Further storm surge modelling would be required todetermine design storm surge levels for the port.

8.1.3 Currents

The current regime at Carnarvon is predominately tide driven with a significant component from the persistentsoutherly wind pattern. Currents are likely to be in the order of 1 to 2 knots.

Current speed and direction influences loading on port structures and the required width of the channel.

8.2 Wave Heights8.2.1 Introduction

Preliminary wave modelling using the SWAN model was conducted to assist the viability assessment process ofthis project. It was intended to produce an indicative estimate of the operational and cyclonic metocean conditionsat the proposed sites in order to identify an overall cost and possible risks to the construction of the deep waterport.

Note that only limited data was available for this study and hence modelling assumptions were made and nomodelling calibration was done. It was assumed that this analysis would be sufficient for planning purposes;however, further studies need to be conducted for design.

8.2.2 Input Data

8.2.2.1 Bathymetry

The bathymetry data used in the model was derived from digitising nautical charts of the area and frombathymetric drawings provided by Dampier Salt. The nautical charts used were AUS 746 and AUS 747. Thedrawing used was “Cape Cuvier & Approaches (Including June 1979 Bathymetry)”, prepared by Associated OsirisSurvey, 11 February 1981.



47

8.2.2.2 Metocean Condition

There was no site specific metocean data available for this study. The boundary metocean conditions used forthis preliminary wave modelling were estimated from literature review of publically available data and past projectexperience.

Cyclonic

The cyclonic metocean conditions used as boundary input for the wave model were estimated from publicallyavailable data and literature for the study area. The cyclonic boundary conditions (offshore metocean condition)assumed for this study are as follows:

Water level = + 1.7m CD (Carnarvon MHHW). Hs = 8 m. Tp = 16 s. Direction = NW through to SW.

Operational

The operational metocean conditions were approximated from past studies performed near the proposed sites.The past studies used in estimating the operational conditions were:

Schluter, C. (2005). Operational Waves Carnarvon. Perth: Metocean Engineers. Included in Appendix I. Summary of recorded berth availability (May 2004 – April 2005) and modelled wave conditions (January

1997 – December 2004) at Cape Cuvier. Included in Appendix J.The operational boundary conditions (offshore metocean conditions) used as boundary input for the model wereas follows:

Water level = + 1m CD (Carnarvon MSL). Hs = 3 m. Tp = 14 s. Direction = S through to W.

8.2.3 Methodology

The steps taken in conducting the preliminary wave study can be summarised as follows:

1) Create a model domain that encompasses the project sites with an appropriate grid cell resolution thatadequately resolves nearshore bathymetric features while maintaining computational efficiency.

2) Determine the metocean boundary conditions to be utilised under cyclonic and operational conditions.3) Run SWAN to estimate the cyclonic and operational metocean condition at the proposed sites for various

incident directions.4) Compare the modelling results with the results from past studies.5) Summarise the estimated operational and cyclonic metocean conditions at the three proposed sites.

8.2.4 Model Description

The SWAN model was utilised for the preliminary wave modelling study. SWAN (Simulating Waves Nearshore) isa wave model used for the simulation of waves in waters of deep, intermediate and finite depth. SWAN simulatesthe following physical phenomena:

Wave propagation in time and space, shoaling, refraction due to current and depth, frequency shifting due tocurrents and non-stationary depth.

Wave generation by wind. Nonlinear wave-wave interactions. Whitecapping, bottom friction, and depth-induced breaking. Blocking of waves by current.

The physical processes taken into account in this study are as follows:

Depth-induced wave breaking. Bottom friction.



48

Wave-induced setup. Whitecapping process Triad wave-wave interactions method. Diffraction.

The parameters used in each of the physical processes are SWAN’s default values as there is no available sitedata that can be utilised to calibrate the parameters.

The model’s grid resolution was 1 km x 1 km and the extent of the grid area is depicted in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Model Domain

Site 3

Site 2

Site 1



49

8.2.5 Results

8.2.5.1 Operational Condition

The model produces an “attenuation coefficient” which is used to factor down the significant wave height (Hs)from offshore (the boundary condition), to the site. The attenuation coefficients for the proposed sites(Hs site/Hs offshore), are summarised in Table 13 below.

Table 13 Summary of Modelling Operational Condition Hs Attenuation Coefficient

Wave from theSite No.

West South West South

Site 1 0.42 0.13 0.03Site 2 0.90 0.37 0.06Site 3 0.90 0.83 0.22

The attenuation coefficient from the SWAN modelling runs compared well to past project information. Historicalinformation suggests that swell waves (Tp > 8s) will predominantly approach offshore from the south west. Theresults of the operational conditions are summarised in Table 14 and the SWAN modelling result is depicted inFigure 11.

Table 14 Operational Metocean Condition Based on SW Case

Site No. Easting Northing Hs (m) Tp (s) Directionfrom (deg)

Seabed Level(m CD)

Site 1 762031 7262439 0.4 14 264 -6Site 2 749863 7274583 1.1 14 261 -7Site 3 742800 7319600 2.5 14 254 -26



50

The coloured scale on the figure below indicates an increase in significant wave height north along the coast asprotection provided by Bernier Island reduces.

Figure 11 Wave Modelling Results for Operational Condition Based on SW Case

As previously indicated the larger Panamax vessels are capable of mooring at the berth under operational waveheights up to 1.5 m while the smaller livestock vessels and multi purpose cargo vessel can safely moor underoperational wave conditions up to 1.2 m. Note that the livestock vessels and multi purpose cargo vessel couldonly be loaded under operational wave conditions of less than 0.5 m.

A knowledge of the percentage occurrence of operational waves is critical to establishing the availability of theport structures to vessels and suitability of the location for dredging. Utilising the SW attenuation coefficient ratio,Hs percentage exceedence statistics for the proposed sites were approximated from past project information andare summarised in Table 15. The modelled percentage exceedence corresponds well with data from past studies(refer to Appendix H and I).



51

Table 15 Approximated Operational Condition Percentage Exceedence for Proposed Sites

Hs Percentage ExceedenceSite No. Hs > 0.5m Hs > 1m Hs >1.5m Hs > 2mSite 1 12.9% 1.0% <1.0% -Site 2 99.0% 55.7% 6.6% 1.3%Site 3 100% 99.0% 92.3% 77.1%

The percentage occurrence of operational waves is critical to establishing downtime during dredging for costestimate purposes. The attenuation coefficients at the proposed channel entrances for Site 1 and 2 (based on SWcase) were 0.35 and 0.40 respectively. The Hs resulting percentage exceedence statistics for the proposedchannel entrances were approximated from past project information and are summarised in Table 16. It shouldbe noted that the 10 000 m3 trailer hopper suction dredge (THSD) suitable for silt and sand dredging is only ableto operate in operational waves of Hs = 1.5 m or less so operational downtime is a key issue.

Table 16 Approximated Operational Condition Percentage Exceedence for Site 1 and Site 2 Channel Extent

Hs Percentage ExceedenceSite No. Hs > 0.5m Hs > 1m Hs >1.5m Hs > 2mSite 1 Channel Extent 99.0% 55.7% 6.6% 1%Site 2 Channel Extent 99.0% 55.7% 12.9% 1.3%

8.2.5.2 Cyclonic Condition

Tropical cyclones will generate waves which propagate radially out from the storm centre. Depending on theintensity, size, relative location and forward speed of the storm, tropical cyclones can generate swell of 12 to 18seconds with associated significant wave heights ranging from 4 to 15 m deeper offshore waters. The longerperiod swell waves generate the largest wave forces on the structure and are likely to propagate from the westthrough northwest.

The modelling results for cyclonic wave conditions produced attenuation coefficients for the proposed sites(Hs site/ Hs offshore), which are summarised in Table 17.

Table 17 Cyclonic Condition Hs Attenuation Coefficients

Wave from theSite No.

North West West South West

Site 1 0.27 0.29 0.13Site 2 0.45 0.50 0.40Site 3 0.79 0.85 0.75

There was no data available to verify the modelling results at proposed sites. In the absence of data, the worstmodelling scenario (cyclone from the West) was utilised to estimate cyclonic metocean condition at the proposedsites. The results are summarised in Table 18.

Table 18 Cyclonic Metocean Condition Based on Westerly Case

Site No. Easting Northing Hs (m) Tp (s) Directionfrom (deg)

Depth(m CD)

Site 1 762031 7262439 2.3 16 274 -6Site 2 749863 7274583 4.0 16 274 -7Site 3 742800 7319600 6.8 16 280 -26



52

The maximum wave heights (Hmax) were estimated for each location using Goda (1985), where Hmax isapproximately about 1.87 Hs. The Hmax values were also checked against the breaking limit, which in this casewas approximated to be 0.55xdepth for sites 1 and 2 due to relatively flat slope seabed of the area (Kamphuis),and 0.7xdepth at Cape Cuvier. The Hmax values are summarised in Table 19 and the results for cycloniccondition approaching from the West is depicted in Figure 12.

Table 19 Estimated Hmax at Proposed Sites

Site No. H max (Goda) H max (Breaking) Estimated H max on SiteSite 1 4.3 4.8 4.3Site 2 7.5 4.8 4.8Site 3 12.7 19.4 12.7

The coloured scale on the figure below indicates an increase in significant wave height north along the coast asprotection provided by Bernier Island reduces.

Figure 12 Wave Modelling Result for Cyclonic Condition Based on W Case



53

8.2.6 Long Period Wave

This preliminary wave study did not include the modelling of long period wave. Long-waves or infragravity waveshave periods in the order of 60 to 120 seconds and have magnitudes less than 0.5 m and are generally directlyrelated to set down under groups or sets of high waves in heavy swell conditions. Beneath the groups of largewaves, the mean sea level is lowered (set-down) around the coastal zone (CIRIA, 2007). Between the groups,where the wave activity is less intense, the mean sea level is higher. This varying level of set-down produceslong period wave motion. These are known as bound long-waves (bound to the wave groups) and have periodsin the order of 60 to 120 seconds.

A second, less frequent but potentially larger mechanism, could possibly be remotely generated, “trapped” edgewaves with periods in the order of 100 s and longer. As long-period waves propagate with the groups of highwaves towards the shoreline, the primary waves are dissipated by breaking and friction effects while the boundlong wave is not and becomes “free” (CIRIA, 2007). Most of the free long-period wave is reflected leading to apartial standing wave pattern known as surf beat. If the waves approach the beach obliquely, the long-periodwaves can form “trapped” edge waves that propagate along the coastline.

Although low in magnitude long-waves can have serious implications for ship moorings. Geraldton Port haveexperienced up to 200 broken lines per annum due to long waves penetrating into the harbour basin. Long-wavesneed to be considered in the port planning and mooring design of the proposed port as they can propagatearound reefs/islands/breakwaters with little attenuation due to their long (in the order of 1 km) wavelengths.

From an assessment of peripheral data and in-house experience at Oakajee and Geraldton, an indicativeestimate of the long wave climate is estimated as follows:

Hs (long) = 0.1 - 0.4 m Tp (long) = 60 – 120 s

Long-waves greater than 0.2 m are likely to be problematic for the conventional mooring (to a wharf) of largevessels. From past project experience long-waves greater than 0.2 m could occur approximately 10% of the time.

The following metocean investigations are recommended for further phases of work: One year metocean measurement program with 2 wave rider buoys for offshore and inshore locations. Site specific metocean modelling done for operational and cyclonic conditions, calibrated using measured

data. Detail long-wave investigation including site specific measurements.

8.3 GeotechnicalThere is no detailed data available on the founding conditions at the proposed port sites.

It will be assumed in the preliminary costings for this study that the port structures at site 1 and 2 are founded insand and at site 3 are founded in soft rock.

If soft rock (e.g. limestone) is present, then implications on capital construction costs would be:

Major increase of dredging costs due to more expensive dredging plant and slower dredging rates. Extent ofcost increase is dependent on quantum of rock encountered.

Possible drilling of wharf support piles into the founding material rather than driving which would result insignificant cost increases.

In hard rock conditions where drilling and blasting are required it is likely costs would be prohibitive.It should be noted that it is possible rock would be encountered at Site 2 Darwin Reefs due to proximity to reef.

A review of land based geological maps was performed to determine if rock suitable for placement as rock armouron the breakwaters could be sourced close to the port sites. The closest igneous rock source was found 250 kmaway at an undeveloped quarry site. Given there is not an operating quarry at any of the potential sources forrock armour and the large haulage distance required, the use of rock armour as the outer protection layer on thebreakwater is uneconomical. Concrete armour would have to be fabricated and used as the outer protectivelayer.

Based on local experience it may even be difficult to obtain good quality core rock for the body of the breakwaters.



54

8.4 BathymetrySeabed levels adopted in this study have been taken from a number of sources. The navigational charts AUS747 and 746 provide seabed levels for all three potential port sites do not provide contours to sufficient detail.

In addition we have referred to more detailed data to assess seabed levels for the sites:

Site 1 – Bejaling Hydrographic Survey maps, May 1961, supplied by GDC 3/5/10; Site 2 – Shark Bay hydrographical survey 1921; Site 3 - Cape Cuvier bathymetric drawings M40-10-111;M40-10-006;M40-10-005, M00-10-029, supplied by

Dampier Salt.AECOM is unable to confirm the accuracy of this data and detailed bathymetrical survey would be required duringthe detailed design stage for the Port. Variations in actual seabed levels would have significant impact onbreakwater and channel lengths and depths and thus costs.



55

9.0 Port Structures

9.1 IntroductionThe port concept design has been developed based on the assumption that the port will have high availability toall vessels visiting the Port.

The port has been designed such that vessels supporting bulk trade will berth at a separate bulk berth whilevessels supporting live cattle export, container trade and the oil and gas industry will berth at a general purposeberth. Generally, the mechanical equipment requirements of large bulk handling operations (ship loadingequipment and conveyors) and size of bulk berth vessels make it difficult to share a berth with general purposevessels (as discussed in section 2.3 Livestock).

Some smaller scale bulk export opportunities that are incompatible with larger scale bulk loading operations dueto loading rates and vessel sizes could be accommodated at a General Purpose Berth.

Each port concept comprises the following port structures:

Causeway; Breakwaters; Bulk berth; General purpose berth; Tug pen; Berth pockets; Turning basins; Inner and outer channels.

9.2 CausewayA causeway consisting of a raised rock bund formation allows access from the shore to the port structures. Thelength of the causeway at each proposed port site varies depending on the distance to water of a suitable depthfor dredging of a berth pocket.

Height of the armour on the seaward side of the causeway is governed by extreme wave levels and wave run-up.

9.3 BreakwatersA breakwater consisting of a raised rock bund formation provides protection to the berth structures to ensurewave heights are suitable for safe operation of vessels at the berth. As the arrangement of the berths varies witheach site the length of each breakwater varies.

Height of the armour on the seaward side of the causeway is governed by extreme wave levels and wave run-up.

9.4 Bulk Berth9.4.1 Wharf Structure

The Bulk berth structure may comprise an open steel deck supported on tubular steel piles. The shiploader wouldbe supported on large fabricated steel girders. Access along the jetty would be provided by a concrete roadwaywith a turnaround area at one end and maintenance and lay down area at the opposite end.

The height of the wharf will be governed by the cyclonic wave crest height which is a function of cyclonic waveheights, storm surge levels and seabed levels at the port location. The structure level would be set to ensure a0.5 m air gap between the top of design cyclonic wave crest and the underside of the berth structure.

Vessels at the berth could safely operate subject to operational waves up to 1.5 m in height, depending on thevessel size.



56

9.4.2 Dolphins

Independent berthing and mooring dolphins would be provided to protect the wharf and for securing the vessel.These dolphins would likely comprise a concrete pile cap supported on steel piles.

Height of the dolphins would be governed by vessel freeboard.

9.4.3 Turning Basin

A turning basin of 400 m diameter has been allowed for tug assisted turning of bulk vessels prior to berthing at thewharves.

9.5 General Purpose Berth9.5.1 Wharf Structure

The general purpose berth structure may comprise a continuous concrete deck supported on tubular steel piles.A continuous deck would allow good access for livestock trucks and storage areas for containers.

The berth would be approximately 150 m in length in order to accommodate a handymax bulk carrier.

The variety of vessel sizes at this berth would require a line of fenders attached to the berth possibly attached to afender pile. For smaller oil and gas support vessels, a continuous fender structure may be required.

General cargo vessels at the berth would be capable of operating under operational waves up to 0.5 m in height.

9.5.2 Dolphins

It is likely that fendering would be included as part of the main wharf structure for this facility which would negatethe requirement for independent dolphins and help to reduce costs.

9.5.3 Berth Pocket

The general purpose berth pockets would be dredged to a depth of -12 m CD to accommodate vessels with amaximum draft of 11 m with an underkeel clearance of 1 m.

9.5.4 Turning Basin

A turning basin of 250 m diameter has been allowed for tug assisted turning of general purpose vessels prior toberthing at the wharves.

9.5.5 Outer Channel

The outer channel for all 3 sites has been set at a level of -15m CD, with underkeel clearance of 2.5 m and widthof 200 m. Due to the significant channel dredging volumes, the depth of the channel has been limited so vesselswill only leave the berth on tides greater than 1.5 m CD. The width of the channel has been set at 200 m based onrecommendations from "Approach Channels - A Guide for Design" by the Joint PIANC-IAPH Working Group II-30in cooperation with IMPA and IALA.



57

10.0 Port Layout Schemes

10.1 Site 1 – South BejalingThe layout at site 1 comprises a 600 m long causeway, perpendicular to the shoreline with a 500 m breakwaterframing off the causeway. Refer Figure 2 in the body of the report for port layout.

The causeway formation provides support for bulk handling (conveyors) and road access. A clear access width of18.9 m has been adopted assuming 6.5 m wide roadway, 7 m access for maintenance of the breakwater armourand 2 no. conveyors 1.5 m wide. Refer Appendix J - Sketch 9 causeway cross-sections.

At site 1 the breakwater does not provide support for conveyors to the bulk berth so a clear access width of 11.7m has been adopted assuming 7 m wide roadway and support for services. Breakwater protection is not requiredfor the bulk berths at this site due to low operational wave heights resulting from protection provided by BernierIsland. Refer Appendix J - Sketch 9 breakwater cross-sections.

It has been assumed the structures will be located in seabed 7 m below LAT. The structures have been locatedat this depth to try to minimise the costs of channel dredging and breakwater construction.

The bulk berth would be approximately 300 m in length to accommodate a Panamax size vessel and a shiploaderwith tripper on the wharf. The port layout makes allowance for the future construction of a second bulk berthwhich would be required in order to support Dampier Salt’s plans for future expansion or alternative bulk exports.Refer Appendix J - Sketch 4 and 5 for bulk berth details

The bulk berth pocket would be dredged to a depth of -16 m LAT to accommodate vessels with a maximum draftof 14 m with an underkeel clearance of 2 m.

At port site 1 the General Purpose berth is well protected by the breakwater from extreme cyclonic waves and thedeck level can be chosen to suit optimum cargo loading. Refer Appendix J - Sketch 1 and 2 for general purposeberth details.

The outer channel length is 15 km.

10.2 Site 2 – Darwin ReefsThe layout at site 2 comprises a 1750 m long causeway, perpendicular to the shoreline with a 760 m breakwaterframing off the causeway. Refer Figure 3 in the body of the report for port layout.

The causeway formation provides support for bulk handling (conveyors) and road access. A clear access width of18.9 m has been adopted assuming 6.5 m wide roadway, 7 m access for maintenance of the breakwater armourand 2 no. conveyors 1.5 m wide. Refer Appendix J - Sketch 9 causeway cross-sections.

The breakwater provides support for elevated conveyors and a roadway width of 7 m to allow access formaintenance of the breakwater armour. A total clear access width of 12.4 m has been adopted. Refer AppendixJ - Sketch 9 breakwater cross-sections.

The bulk berth would be approximately 180 m in length to accommodate a Panamax size vessel. The shiploaderwould include a trailing bridge conveyor and tripper car located on the breakwater reducing the required length ofthe berth. The port layout makes allowance for the future construction of a second bulk berth which would berequired in order to support Dampier Salt’s plans for future expansion or alternative bulk exports. Refer AppendixJ - Sketch 6 and 7 for bulk berth details

As the bulk berths at Site 2 are protected by the breakwater, a reduced underkeel clearance of 1.5 m could beadopted in the bulk berth dredge pocket, requiring dredging to only -15.5 m LAT.


The outer channel length is 6 km.



58

10.3 Site 3 – Cape CuvierAt site 3, the locations of the new port structures are constrained by the existing Dampier Salt structures and thecliffs to the east of the existing port. The result being that the new port structures would have to be located off thereef to the west of the existing structures. AECOM have assumed the existing port structures are to remainoperational however the mooring system would be replaced by a traditional fixed dolphin mooring system. ReferFigure 3 in the body of the report for port layout.

The layout at site 3 comprises a 780 m long causeway, perpendicular to the shoreline with a 250 m breakwaterframing off the causeway.

The causeway formation provides support for bulk handling (conveyors) and access for breakwater maintenance.A clear access width of 12.4 m has been adopted assuming 7 m wide roadway and 2 no. elevated conveyors 1.5m wide. Refer Appendix J - Sketch 10 causeway cross-sections.

At site 3 the breakwater requires a clear access width of 11.7 m for construction and maintenance of thebreakwater structure. Refer Appendix J - Sketch 10 breakwater cross-sections.

The causeway and breakwater are located in seabed levels up to 25 m below CD.

At site 3 the bulk berth would be approximately 180 m in length to accommodate a Panamax size vessel. Theshiploader would include a trailing bridge conveyor and tripper car located on the breakwater reducing therequired length of the berth. Refer Appendix J - Sketch 6 and 8 for bulk berth details

As the bulk berth at Sites 3 is protected by the breakwater, a reduced underkeel clearance of 1.5 m could beadopted in the bulk berth dredge pocket, requiring dredging to only -15.5 m LAT. The current port arrangementcan only accommodate a single bulk berth unlike the ports at site 1 and 2 due to constraints provided by theexisting port structures and the higher water depth making breakwater construction unviable. Refer Appendix J -Sketch 1 and 2 for general purpose berth details




59

11.0 Shore Based Infrastructure Requirements

11.1 GeneralThe land based infrastructure requirements comprise shore based structures to support port operations, servicesto the port and means of access to the port from Carnarvon and the sources of the export product.

11.2 Shore Based StructuresArea next to the port would need to be set aside for the following structures to support bulk export and generalcargo export from the port.

11.2.1 Materials Handling

Stockpile areas for salt and/or iron ore which may include a pair of linear stockpiles with a travelling twinboom stacker or slewing stacker.

Material would be reclaimed by mobile hoppers and front end loaders or bridge reclaimers or reclaimtunnels under the stockpiles using mobile machinery to push salt through a series of chutes in the tunnelroof.

It is assumed the port would be exporting prepared salt and no washdown facilities at the port would berequired.

Material would be transported to the port using overland conveyor or haul trucks. Haul trucks would requirea salt dump bridge and reclaim conveyor feeding the stacker.

Laboratory for sample testing of materials Sheds for storage of mineral sands and potash, or any product that creates dust issues

11.2.2 General

Laydown/storage areas; Workshop to support the slipway; Refrigeration and storage for horticultural exports; Port Authority offices; Stores; Crib rooms; Parking and waiting areas for salt or iron ore haulage trucks or livestock trucks; Security.

11.3 Services11.3.1 Water

Water is required to support the following utilities on the port structures:

Water system; Fire water system.

Water may come from the existing town scheme or new borefields adjacent to the port.

11.3.2 Power

Power is required to support the following utilities on the port structures:

Lighting and small power; Process Control System; Communications.



60

11.4 AccessSite 1 and Site 2 would require the creation of new sealed access roads off the Blowholes Road to the port site.Site 3 has established road infrastructure to the port site.If any of the sites were to support trade in iron ore then a sealed road from Robinson Range to Carnarvon wouldbe required a distance of approximately 400 km.



61

12.0 Port Concept Order of Magnitude Costing

12.1 GeneralThis approximate order of magnitude costing is based on the following qualifications:

There has been no allowance made for land based structures and establishment of services; Pricing in August 2010 dollars with no allowance for escalation; Costs have been developed from quotations on current projects and detailed estimations of costs on current

projects which account for construction methodology; Costs are based on assumed geotechnical parameters, variations in these parameter will have a significant

impact on costs; Variations in actual seabed levels would have significant impact on breakwater and channel lengths and

depths and thus costs.

12.2 Dredging CostsDredging rates have been calculated using information collated from other project work conducted by AECOM.The dredging costs account for the construction methodology and the following assumptions:

Downtime approximately:- 12% for site 1 based on percentage exceedence of 1.5 m high operational waves and equipment

failure;- 18% for site 2 based on percentage exceedence of 1.5 m high operational waves and equipment

failure;- Dredging at site 3 could only occur after construction of the breakwater. However, the layout proposed

does not require dredging.At Sites 1 and 2

- Soft material at sites 1 and 2;- Travel distance for disposal of spoil 20 km;- Effective cargo of 10 000 m3 for sand dredge is 7 000 m3 at site 1 and 2;

At Site 3

- Soft rock;- Travel distance for disposal of spoil 20 km;- Production per efficient hour 1100 m3/hr.

Refer Appendix K for further detail on determination of dredging rates. Refer Table 20 below for estimate ofdredging costs for each site:Table 20 Dredging Costs

Port Location Dredging Volume (m3) Dredging Cost (million)Site 1 – South Bejaling 26,500,000 $438

Site 2 – Darwin Reefs 14,200,000 $250

Site 3 – Cape Cuvier 0 $0

It should be noted that the 10 000 m3 trailer hopper suction dredge (THSD) suitable for silt and sand dredging isonly able to operate in operational waves of Hs = 1.5 m or less so operational downtime is a key issue.

A Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) suitable for soft rock dredging is limited to an operational seastate of about 0.9 m.The dredger operational limits are also affected by wave period. Use of a CSD at site 1 is feasible; however thecost of removing soft rock is likely to be triple the cost of removing soft material. Use of a CSD at site 2 does notappear to be feasible based on our preliminary assessment of operational seastates.



62

It is understood that there is rock present at site 3 so if dredging was required a CSD would be operated in theprotection of the breakwater.

12.3 Breakwater/Causeway CostsThe following rates have been adopted from work on recent projects taking into account haulage costs.

The breakwater cost calculations are based on the following assumptions:

Site 1 and 2, 5% non productive time during core placement; Site 3, 20% non-productive time during core placement due to exposed conditions; 20% core loss during placement at Site 3 due to exposed conditions; Core and rock underlayer is located 50 km from site; Core and rock underlayer haulage rate based on 50c a tonne km.

Refer Appendix K for further detail on determination of breakwater and causeway rates.

Refer Table 21 below for an assessment of breakwater and causeway costs.

Table 21 Breakwater and Causeway Costs

Site 1 – South Bejaling Unit TotalBreakwater CostCore material 207,000 m3 $40 millionRock armour 50,000 m3 $10 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 57.5 million

Causeway CostCore material 210,000 m3 $40.6 millionRock armour 30,000 m3 $5.8 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 53.5 million

Site 2 – Darwin Reefs Unit TotalBreakwater CostCore material 380,000 m3 $73.6 millionRock underlayer 64,000 m3 $14 millionArtificial armour 12,000 m3 concrete $24 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 128 million

Causeway CostCore material 507,000m3 $98.5 millionRock underlayer 63,800m3 $12.5 millionArtificial Armour 13,700m3 concrete $27.4 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 159 million

Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Unit TotalBreakwater CostCore material 651, 000 m3 $144 millionRock underlayer 67,000 m3 $13.2 millionArtificial armour 20 500 m3 concrete $ 41.3 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 228 million

Causeway CostCore material 893,000 m3 $ 197.8 millionRock underlayer 96 500 m3 $19 millionArtificial Armour 25,400 m3 concrete $50.7 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 307.6 million



63

12.4 Wharf Structure CostsWharf structure costs have been developed from quotations on current projects and detailed estimations of costson current projects which account for construction methodology. Refer Table below for the breakdown of wharfstructure costs.

Table 22 Wharf Structure Costs – Site 1 – South Bejaling

SITE 1 – SOUTH BEJALING NUMBER COST (million)Bulk Berth300m Bulk Berth Structure (double sided - open steel) 1 $105Approach Jetty – 150 m 1 $28Concrete Breasting Dolphins 16 $80

General Purpose Berth18 m wide by 150m long concrete deck with steel substructure withfender system

1 $38

Approach bridge -25m long 2 $8.5Concrete Mooring Dolphins 4 $8.8Struts 5 $0.5Catwalks 4 $0.8

Materials HandlingConveyors and Transfers 1 $13Shiploader 1 $28

Utilities3

Water System 1 $0.9Fire Service System 1 $0.2Lighting and Small Power 1 $7.9Process Control System 1 $0.7Communications 1 $0.2

TOTAL with 15% contingency $ 369 million

Table 23 Wharf Structure Costs – Site 2 – Darwin Reefs

SITE 2 – DARWIN REEFS NUMBER COST (million)Bulk Berth x 2180 m Bulk Berth Structure (single sided - open steel) 2 $80Approach bridge -20 m long 2 $10.2Concrete Breasting Dolphins 12 $33.6Concrete Mooring Dolphins 4 $8.8Catwalks 4 $1.3Struts 18 $1.8

General Purpose Berth18m wide by 150m long concrete deck with steel substructure withfender system

1 $38

Approach bridge -25 m long 2 $8.5Concrete Mooring Dolphins 4 $8.8

3 Very approximate cost for offshore utilities reticulation and fittings only based on distance from shoreline. Noonshore costs for headworks are included.



64

SITE 2 – DARWIN REEFS NUMBER COST (million)Struts 5 $0.5Catwalks 4 0.8


Utilities4


TOTAL with 15% contingency $321 million

Table 24 Wharf Structure Costs - Site 3 – Cape Cuvier

SITE 3 – CAPE CUVIER NUMBER COST (MILLION)Bulk Berth x 1180 m Bulk Berth Structure (single sided - open steel) 1 $40Approach bridge - 40 m long 1 $7.2Concrete Breasting Dolphins 6 $16.8Concrete Mooring Dolphins 2 $4.4Catwalks 2 $0.7Struts 9 $1.3

General Purpose Berth18 m wide by 150 m long concrete deck with steel substructure withfender system

1 $38

Approach bridge -35 m long 2 $12.8Concrete Mooring Dolphins 4 $8.8Struts 5 $0.7Catwalks 2 $0.8


Utilities3


TOTAL with 15% contingency $204 million

4 Very approximate cost for offshore utilities reticulation and fittings only based on distance from shoreline. Noonshore costs for headworks are included.



65

12.5 Miscellaneous Port StructuresThe table below provides preliminary cost estimates for miscellaneous port structures. The costs for navigationaids have been adjusted from quotes received on current projects. The cost of the navigation aids will increasewith outer channel length. Tug pen costs have been adjusted from cost estimates developed in current projects.

Table 25 Miscellaneous Port Structure Costs

Site 1 – South Bejaling Cost (million)Navigation Aids $23Tug Pens $8.6Slipway $6TOTAL with 15% contingency $43.2 million

Site 2 – Darwin Reefs Cost (million)Navigation Aids $9Tug Pens $8.6Slipway $6TOTAL with 15% contingency $27.1 million

Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Cost (million)Navigation Aids $1Tug Pens $8.6Slipway $6TOTAL with 15% contingency $18.0 million

12.6 Survey and Investigation CostsThe scale of the project and the current lack of reliable data has been considered in the estimation of survey andinvestigation costs.

Table 26 Survey and Investigation Costs

Site 1 – South Bejaling Cost (million)Bathymetrical Survey $0.45Environmental Studies and Surveys $4Geotechnical Investigations $15TOTAL with 15% contingency $19.5 million

Site 2 – Darwin Reefs Cost (million)Bathymetrical Survey $0.4Environmental Studies and Surveys $4Geotechnical Investigations $11TOTAL with 15% contingency $15.4 million

Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Cost (million)Bathymetrical Survey $0.3Environmental Studies and Surveys $4Geotechnical Investigations $11TOTAL with 15% contingency $15.3 million



66

12.7 Order of Magnitude Total Port Development CostsThe table below provides a cost summary of the major elements of the port development at the three potentialport sites and the total cost of development at each site.

Table 27 Order of Magnitude Total Port Development Costs

Port Location South BejalingSite 1

(million)

Darwin ReefsSite 2

(million)

Cape CuvierSite 3

(million)Dredging $438 $250 $0

Causeway and Breakwaters $111 $287 $536

Main Port Structures $369 $321 $204

Miscellaneous Port Structures $43.2 $27.1 $18

Survey and Investigation $19.5 $15.4 $15.3

Engineering, procurement, constructionmanagement (11%)

$108 $101 $85

Total $1,089 million $1001 million $858 million

Berths Provided Stage 1 25 2 2

Future Berths Provision6 14 1 0

Based on the above order of magnitude preliminary costs, none of the above sites would be feasible fordevelopment of a port unless supported by a large throughput resources project. Note due to constraints at theCape Cuvier site the port could support only one bulk berth and would be unlikely to meet future export plans forDampier Salt and other users.

5 Plus two lay-by berths.6 Dredging and Breakwater provided, berth cost not included.



67

13.0 Inland PortAECOM were requested to assess the viability of an inland port. Locating the port inland would eliminate therequirement for breakwater and causeway structures but increase dredging requirements for the port. Therewould be some savings in the port structures as the structures could be built from land.

With an estimated storm surge level of +4.9 m CD the structures would need to be located next to land ofminimum RL +7 m CD. The distance from the coast to RL +7m for both sites has been estimated to be 500 m.

Site 3 is deemed unsuitable for an inland port due to the presence of high rocky cliffs adjacent to the port.

There is only a nominal cost saving from building the port structures from land estimated to be 8%.

The time required to dredge the channels and berth pockets would make inland ports at site 1 or 2 unviable inaddition to the increased cost of the development. Refer table below for calculation of additional cost ofdevelopment, compared to the sea port.

Table 28 Inland Port Additional Cost

Port Location Site 1 - South Bejaling(million)

Site 2 - Darwin Reefs(million)

Dredging $946 $670

Main Port Structures $340 $309

Cost Increase $479 million $394 million



68

14.0 Conclusion

14.1 GeneralRefer below for a summary of advantages and disadvantages for development of a new port at each of thepotential port sites.

14.2 Site 1 – South Bejaling The site at South Bejaling would be suitable for the export of all commodities identified from stakeholder

consultation and desktop study. The site at South Bejaling is subject to significant environmental constraints due to its location within a

sensitive FHPA (Miaboolya Beach FHPA). It is likely that should development at South Bejaling beapproved, then this site will attract detailed environmental management (Ministerial) conditions.

Preliminary assessment of port availability indicates 5% downtime for the two bulk berths. This site would likely have the most suitable founding conditions for dredging (though volumes are high) due

to the protection from large waves provided by Bernier Island and likelihood of a sandy seabed. The magnitude of the port development costs would likely make development of the current port

arrangement at the site unviable.

14.3 Site 2 – Darwin Reefs The site at Darwin Reefs would be suitable for the export of all commodities identified from stakeholder

consultation and desktop study. The site at Darwin Reefs is subject to significant environmental constraints due to its proximity to a sensitive

FHPA (Point Quobba FHPA). It is likely that should development at Darwin Reefs be approved, then thissite will attract detailed environmental management (Ministerial) conditions.

Environmental regulatory authorities are likely to require heavy justification of the need to impact sensitivemarine environments such as reef which is present at the site.

As both bulk berths are located within the breakwater, the bulk berths will have 100% availability. The magnitude of the port development costs would likely make development of the current port

arrangement at the site unviable.

14.4 Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Cape Cuvier has been identified as subject to significant land access constraints. The Cape Cuvier site

would require detailed and successful land use negotiations with Dampier Salt / Rio Tinto. Dampier Salt have stated that they would not share infrastructure with other salt or gypsum exporters and

are to confirm the acceptability of sharing Cape Cuvier with other exporters. Environmental regulatory authorities are likely to require heavy justification of the need to impact sensitive

marine environments such as reef which is present at the site. Otherwise the area is previously disturbedand should be the most suitable for development from an environmental point of view.

Accommodating two new bulk berths at the site would increase the magnitude of the breakwater costs,making development of such a port arrangement at the site very difficult. Only one new bulk berth has beenaccommodated within the breakwater.

The Cape Cuvier site is by far the most exposed site and would pose significant construction challenges andrisks.

There would be constraints on suitable land area for stockyards and difficulty accessing the berth due tocliffs at the shore edge.

The magnitude of the port development costs would likely make development of the current portarrangement at the site unviable.



69

15.0 Future WorkThis report provides a basis for initial appraisal of possible port options for the Carnarvon region. Clearly to beviable any port would require a significant minerals export project as discussed in Section___.

To proceed to the next phase of evaluation and assessment it will be necessary to collect critical survey,geotechnical and Metocean data. At this time the most important missing data that could significantly impact onconcepts and cost estimates is survey and geotechnical data. In particular, seabed survey to more accuratelyevaluate dredging quantities and a preliminary geotechnical evaluation to identify likely conditions for dredgingand piling for wharf structures are essential to reduce pricing uncertainty and evaluate a preferred port site andlayout.

Once a preferred site is identified a staged approach to data collection for environmental and engineeringpurposes would be appropriate.

As a guide Table 29 below indicates a staged sequence to data gathering and engineering studies with indicativeorder of magnitude costs. At some point it is likely that Government would consider opening the proposed port toprivate development, in which case the port proponent would need to fund the development work. We have notattempted to differentiate between private and public expenditure at this stage.

Table 29 Staged Sequence for Data Gathering and Engineering Studies

Stage Activities IndicativeCost

Time Comments

1 Desktop Concept Study of options $100,000 3 months Completed2 Basis Data Collection and Option Development

Bathymetric Survey of the shortlisted sites (assume 2only)

Geophysical Survey of the shortlisted sites Collation and analysis of data Update and revise port plans Re-evaluate quantities and costs to update estimates

$0.4M 4 months

3 Preliminary Data Collection and Concept Development(preferred site) Deploy Metocean instrumentation to record on site

data to evaluate wind, wave and currents foroperational and extreme engineering design criteriaand environmental evaluation. Assume three ADCPand one AWC instrument deployed for 6 months

Preliminary Environmental Seabed survey Hydrodynamic modelling of the port sites including

calibration with Metocean measurements Desktop Rock Quarry Study Update port users requirements with foundation

customers Update and revise port plans Concept development of Onshore Stockyards and

Infrastructure Expand cost estimates to include onshore costs and

update port estimates Desktop Environmental Study Prepare Concept report and recommend preferred

site

$0.75M 8 months May overlap withStage 4



70


Time Comments

4 Prefeasibility Study (PFS) – Port Only Develop and commence environmental data

collection and …….. Rock Quarry Preliminary Site Investigation (drilling

and geophysical survey) Commence preliminary heritage surveys Develop detailed user Basis of Design (BOD) and

Design Criteria for port Prepare Concept Designs for all port and onshore

infrastructure and prepare Coastal Modelling and Analysis Preliminary Dredging Analysis Take-off Material Quantities Procure major equipment quotes Prepare a PFS cost estimate Develop a preliminary project schedule Prepare PFS report.

$1M 6 months

5 Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) – Port Only Complete Environmental Data Collection (onshore

and offshore) Complete Heritage Surveys Stage 1 Offshore Geotechnical Drilling Site

Investigation Stage 1 Onshore Geotechnical Site Investigation Geotechnical laboratory testing Dredge Plume Modelling Prepare and submit Environmental Approvals Shiphandling Simulation Modelling Underkeel Clearance (UKC) Modelling Vessel Mooring Analysis Breakwater 2D and 3D laboratory Testing (Stage 1) Prepare Geotechnical Factual Reports Preliminary Design of all infrastructure Update Material Quantities Formal equipment and construction cost enquiries Port Capacity Simulation Modelling and report Prepare Detailed Cost Estimates Prepare Project Schedule Complete Project BOD Complete DFS reports

$10M



71


Time Comments

6 Pre-Design And Early Works Contracts – Port Only Final Detailed Offshore And Onshore Geotechnical

Site Investigation And Laboratory Testing Final Breakwater 3D Laboratory Testing Value Engineering Studies Prepare and issue Tenders for critical supply of major

equipment (eg. Shiploaders)

$5M

7 Project Execution – Design, Procurement andConstruction Management

10 – 15% ofconstruction

cost8 Project Execution - Construction To be

determined



72

16.0 ReferencesLivecorp - The Live Export Industry - Assessing the Value of the Livestock Export Industry to Regional Australia,Clarke, Morison and Yates July 2007.

Australian Natural Resources Atlas (ANRA) 2009 Biodiversity Assessment- Carnarvon Accessed May 2010 fromhttp://www.anra.gov.au/topics/vegetation/assessment/wa/ibra-carnarvon.html

Aylmore, S. and Anderson, S. 2003. Plan of management for the Miaboolya beach fish habitat protection area,Fisheries Management Paper No. 161

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2003) Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate andRepresentative Terrestrial Conservation Reserve System in Western Australia. Accessed May 2010 fromhttp://www.dec.wa.gov.au/pdf/projects/car_report.pdf

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2004). Importance of Western Australia’s Waterways.Accessed May 2010 from http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/85861.pdf

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2009) Resource Condition Report for a Significant WesternAustralian Wetland – Lake MacLeod System. Inland Aquatic Integrity Resource Condition Monitoring Project,Strategic Reserve Fund, Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth Western Australia.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2010) Conservation on other lands Accessed May 2010from http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/category/31/144/1823/

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2010) Native Vegetation Viewer. Accessed May 2010 fromhttp://maps.dec.wa.gov.au/idelve/nv/index.jsp

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2010) NatureMap online database.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2010) WetlandBase online wetland data.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2010). Personal Communication with Regional Managerfor Denham, Mr Brett Fitzgerald on 21 May 2010.

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) 2009. Historic shipwrecks laws Accessed May2010 http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/shipwrecks/legislation/index.html

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) Australian Heritage database, Lake MacLeodArea, Carnarvon, WA, Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=10784

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) Environmental Protected Matters Search Tool.Accessed April 2010 from http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/ert_report.pl#reserve

Department of Fisheries (DoF) 2009 Point Quobba FHPA Accessed May 2010 fromhttp://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/FHPAQuobba/PointQuobba_fpha_2009.pdf

Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) 2009 Description of Land Type Categories within TENGRAPHAccessed May 2010 from http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/2Land_Types_Descriptions.pdf

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (2010) Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation)Regulations 2004, Accessed May 2010 fromhttp://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_304_homepage.html

Environment Australia (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, Third Edition. EnvironmentAustralia, Canberra.

Gascoyne Development Commission (GDC) 2010. Accessed from http://www.gdc.wa.gov.au

Landgate (2010) Shared Land Information Platform (SLIP) Enabler WA Atlas. Accessed April 2010 fromhttps://www2.landgate.wa.gov.au/bmvf/app/waatlas/

Rio Tinto Dampier Salt 2010 Dampier Salt Lake McLeod Accessed May 2010 fromhttp://www.dampiersalt.com.au/ENG/sales/1148_lake_macleod.asp



73

Wells, M.R., Keating, C.D.M., Bessell-Browne, J.A. 1992. Land Resources Study of the Carnarvon LandConservation District and Part of the Boolathana Station, Western Australia. Department of Agriculture, SouthPerth WA.

Western Australian Museum (WAM). 2004. Wreck Finder. Accessed May 2010 fromhttp://www.museum.wa.gov.au/collections/maritime/march/shipwrecks/Wreckfinder/home.html

Shire of Carnarvon 2010 Accessed may 2010 from http://www.carnarvon.wa.gov.au



A

Appendix A

Carnarvon Port andIndustrial Development,1961 Report



a-1

Appendix A Carnarvon Port and Industrial Development, 1961Report



B

Appendix B

Study Kick-off MeetingMinutes



b-1

Appendix B Study Kick-off Meeting Minutes

i:\60154869 - bejaling deep water\6 draft docs\6.1 reports\preliminary report 1\appendix b\3_5_10 meeting minutes - kick-off meeting.doc

No Item Action Date

1 Aim of Bejaling Deepwater Port study is to identify: Suitable port locations; Vessels the port can accommodate; Other constraints associated with the port

location and operation.

Note

2 For development of the port to proceed a definitiveresource project needs to be identified to secure a basecustomer. The port needs to have long term viability. Mustdemonstrate business case to secure Government support.

Identified the following possible trade through the Port: Dampier Salt (DS) Future expansion in salt

production from 3 million tonnes to 10 million in 5years and 20 million in the future. Aggressive saltmarket tends to follow trend of iron ore markets.

Difficult to get berth space at northern ports(Broome) for livestock carriers. Movement ofcattle trucks through Broome is not popular withresidents. High cost of transport for cattle to Perthand Darwin;

Coastal trading ship carrying variety of cargo,importation of containers, export of horticulturalgoods

Uranium export may require independent berth forsafety/security reasons

Slipway for maintenance of DS tugs or other craft.Mermaid Marine Dampier is closest slipway butcost of servicing high. DS slip one tug a year.

Accommodation of rig tender vessels servicingoffshore installations;

Liquid bulk exports eg LNG clients can afford to develop

Note

Note

Minutes of Meeting

Bejaling Deepwater Port Study

Subject Kick-off Meeting Page 1

Venue Gascoyne Development Commision Time 2pm

Participants Stephen Yule - GDC, Toni Hibbert - GDC, Tom Day - GDC, Graham Wilks – Shire ofCarnarvon, Dudley Maslen – Shire of Carnarvon, Tim Darcy – WA Cattle Council TonyTower – Dampier Salt, Daren Hutchins – Dept of Transport, Bob Lamont-Smith- AECOM,Carmel Matthews- AECOM

Apologies

File/Ref No. 60154869 Date 03-May-2010

Distribution As above

i:\60154869 - bejaling deep water\6 draft docs\6.1 reports\preliminary report 1\appendix b\3_5_10 meeting minutes - kick-off meeting.doc2 of 3

No Item Action Date

their own berth.

AECOM with GDC assistance to contact governmentdepartments to identify future resource developments inthe Gascoyne. AECOM/GDC June 9th

3 AECOM will develop port concept based on the followingdesign vessels:

- Panamax bulk carrier 14m draft, can do quickassessment of implications of Baby Cape size;

- Livestock Carrier, 8m draft, note 80% of cattle vesselshave less than 8m draft.

- Coastal trading vessel- Rig tender vessel- Tugs

Port structures are envisaged to comprise: Breakwaters Dredging for channel and turnaround basin Bulk berth and general purpose berth comprising

land backed or independent berth structures Tug harbour Slipway

Note

4 Port locations will be driven by: Seabed levels (influence dredging quantities); Cyclonic waves, (influence scale and height of

port structures); Operational wave climate, smaller vessels cannot

be safely moored or loaded under highoperational wave conditions eg Cattle vesselshave large wind area

AECOM to complete assessment of inland port. Wouldrequire at least 750m to manouvere into port and turnaround.

Note

AECOM June 9th

5 Port design criteria:

Assumptions will be made on sea state (wave, stormsurge), geotechnical conditions, seabed levels givenpublically available information and previous workperformed by AECOM.

Smaller vessels require protection of breakwater for wavereduction to allow safe operations. Breakwater high coststructures, require igneous rock to resist cyclonic waveloading, need local source of rock otherwise concretearmour.

Deeper channels for larger vessels more likely toencounter rock.

Required under keel clearance and thus channel depthdriven by wave conditions.

Note

i:\60154869 - bejaling deep water\6 draft docs\6.1 reports\preliminary report 1\appendix b\3_5_10 meeting minutes - kick-off meeting.doc3 of 3

No Item Action Date

6 Land availability close to shore-AECOM will focus onlocating port based on offshore parameters.

AECOM will comment on land availability adjacent to port,access routes and general shore based requirements

Note

Note

7 Assess service requirements as per Greenfields site.- Upgrade Blowholes road;- Power runs along Blowholes road, increase in

capacity required;- Power and water from Carnarvon.

Note

8 At this stage of the project port location will be driven byoffshore parameters.

AECOM will comment on land access and environmentalconstraints.

Baiyungu people propose to develop access track throughthe area similar to bibbulmun track. Confirmlocation/timing

Note

Note

AECOM June 9th

9 Assess feasibility of expanding Cape Cuvier:

Cape Cuvier dangerous port requires highly skilledpersonnel. Vessels are moored to buoys. Vessels mustbe moved (warped) to load full vessel length

Currently vessel size at the port: 60% panamax, 40%handimax, small % post panamax.

AECOM June 9th

9 Project schedule and deliverables: 8 week prelim report 1, provide rough costs for 2

sites, environmental/land access issues, exportand import opportunities;

12 week prelim report 2, further develop portoptions ;

Draft of final report week 16; Final report week 20.

In final report provide recommendations for future work andfactual back-up to justify new port.

AECOM

AECOM

AECOMAECOM

Note

17th June

15th July

12th August9th September



C

Appendix C

Import/Export StakeholderRegister



c-1

Appendix C Import/Export Stakeholder Register

[Type text]

STAKEHOLDER REGISTER IMPORTS/EXPORTS Revision 1

Stakeholder Contact Name Contact Details Contact Date Comments Follow up contact date Comments

GENERALMid West Chamber ofCommerce and Industry

9964 6767

Vicki

'[email protected]'

Phone - 27/5/10 Follow up email sent regarding trade opportunities through theport. No response received

Department of StateDevelopment

Roger Dean

Director

New ProjectsDivision

[email protected] 17/5/10 Based on the information available at present it looks difficult tojustify development of a port at Carnarvon. However, thedepartment are not familiar with all the developments in the area.

Cannot see significant potential mineral tonnage for the hinterlandof this port proposal, beyond any expansion by Dampier Salt anda possible replacement of their facilities at Cape Cuvier.

Coburn Mineral sands is a long way south and Manyingeeuranium a long way north. Setting aside the distance, neitherrequires deepwater facilities and in any case would provide verysmall tonnages.

Arrangements are well-advanced, with many dollars spent, for theestablishment of the Oakajee Port and Railway. Accordingly, anymines in the vicinity of Jack Hills will use this route, if OPRproceeds.

HORTICULTURALCarnarvon GrowersAssociation

Ivor Gaylard

General Manager

9941 8384

[email protected]

Phone - 27/5/10 Bulk of product is marketed to WA. Hard to compete with theexisting transport arrangements to Perth. $120 punnet fortransport to Perth. Freshness is important, goes overnight and isin the market the next morning

Grapes are the only product currently exported overseas.Thailand, Malaysia December and January, don’t know

Grapes Not really viable at the moment, better money locally soldproduce. Port locally this may change, at the moment reachedmaximum capacity for area under grapes. Could move intomangoes for international exports, profitability marginal. Sold onPerth market, so if export opportunities are more viable thenpeople will change focus.

Inputs directly shipped, cardboard imported from Indonesia andChina and occasionally from eastern states. Shipped to Fremantlethen road transport, value cardboard imports $800 000, fertiliserimports $800 000. Could be shipped through Carnarvon portinstead

Take advantages of export over east only when they are available.

Little bit of room for expansion of horticultural trade.

Department of Agricultureand Food - Carnarvon

Anthony Kirwan [email protected]

9956 3315

Phone - 27/5/10 Feasible to send down to Perth by ship rather than road transport.Transport is via smaller trucks then to the larger refrigeratedtrucks.

65% of Perth product produced in Carnarvon

Large volume of grapes could be exported via ship

[Type text]


If larger markets then horticultural growers could increase theirbusinesses. Constrained by the size of the domestic market.

CATTLE EXPORTAustralian livestockexporters council (ALEC)

Refer Livecorpbelow

02 6366 3074 Refer Livecorpbelow

Livecorp

The Australian LivestockExporters' Council (ALEC) isthe national policy bodyrepresenting the livestockexport industry. ALEC ismade up of livestockexporters and state chapterswhose members are directlyinvolved in the export ofcattle, sheep and goats.LiveCorp consults withindustry through theAustralian LivestockExporters' Council (ALEC)

Peter Stinson

LiveCorp ServicesManager

[email protected]

Telephone 02 9929 6755

Phone 14/5/10 Cattle export is seasonal, wet season slow down because can’taccess the cattle

Timing is critical, can’t store cattle at the wharf, require feed lots.

Not popular with the port authorities

Broome competition with cruise ships and the tourism industry.

Port Hedland and Wyndham tied up with minerals industry. Tiedup with iron ore or servicing oil and gas facilities.

Huge problem securing berthage at ports, in the process ofconducting a large study into the issue.

Email 20/05/2010 Fremantle- Great infrastructure on wharf, sheltered and good priorityratings. Geography is poor with trucks having to go through citycentre. Prefer to move South but politics are an issue. For moreinformation on Fremantle and our attempts to move contact JohnEdwards from the Western Australian Livestock export Association(WALEA) [email protected]

Reports from visits to the northern ports this year are summarisedbelow. Still waiting on the Wyndham report.

Geraldton- small basic facilities for livestock. Only one berth makespriority for cattle over oil and gas shipping difficult. Livestock notincluded in future planning of the Port. Truck facilities for unloadingonto vessels adequate but basic but access is good with good yardsout of the town.

Broome- Port approaching full capacity. Have expressed interest inexpanding livestock exports but priorities are now being shared by oiland gas and now cruise ships. Tidal movements restrict small vesselloading. Trucking facilities poor with only enough room for doubletrailers not triples, infrastructure basic

Port Hedland- large berth, good access for trucks, limited knowledgeof loading animals among stevedores, mining dust can be a problemwith trucks and cattle night loading not possible. Iron ore, manganeseand copper export take priority over livestock

Wyndham- will get a report to you

The future of the cattle export industry in WA is sound although itfluctuates, with Indonesia by far the major market (81%). Economiesmake live export young stock to be fattened in Indonesia quite viablecompared to establishing an abattoir and exporting meat. There isalso a drive in Indonesia to establish local cattle industries but thelevel of infrastructure and expertise make this a difficult if notimpossible goal. It would seem using unique fodder for cattle which isfar cheaper in Indonesia on a protein equivalent plus the closeproximity (4 days from Darwin and 7 from Geraldton) lends itself tolive cattle export. I doubt a meat export market from Australia wouldcompete hence the likelihood of an abattoir in the Gascoyne region isremote.

With regard to a new Port doubt it would increase the overall cattlesupply as Ports are not the limiting factor but savings in transport andbetter wharf facilities could make it an attractive proposition overcurrent ports which are getting more and more difficult to access.

Representing live exportindustry in north westernAustralia.

Tim Darcy

[email protected]

0429 200 276 Phone 21/5/10 Pilbara and Gascoyne Cattle could be exported out of Carnarvon.

Pilbara struggle to ship cattle out of Port Hedland due to demandfrom oil and gas, go to Broome or Carnarvon.

Light live cattle 200kg are exported.

[Type text]


Heavier cattle are used in abattoir. Abattoir would require holdingfacility and this facility could also be utilised for bulk up for liveshipping of cattle. Facility could be up to 30km form Port. Smallerships require water facility to fill up with drinking water

Larger ships pick up feed and water supplies at major ports(Fremantle say) bulk of cattle would come from larger ports thenwould top up with say 2000 to 3000 head of cattle in Carnarvon.

Producers are currently looking at feasibility of establishingabattoir in the area.

MINERALSChamber of Minerals andEnergy

Perth 93252955

[email protected]

www.cmewa.com

11/5/10 phone Referred to Department of Mines and Petroleum

Department of Mines andPetroleum

Deidre McQuillan -Acting MiningRegistrar

9222 3111 11/5/10 phone Referred to Michelle Baker see below

Department of Mines andPetroleum

Department ofMines - KarrathaMichelle Baker

9186 8888 11/5/10 phone Suggested viewing tenement maps online on the Department ofMines and Petroleum website.

Dampier Salt Tony TowerSuperintendentMarine – DampierSalt Ltd

Captain AdamMcPhail

[email protected] 3/5/10 Dampier Salt located at Lake MacLeod currently exports 3 milliontonnes of salt from their port at Cape Cuvier. Dampier Salt hasplans to expand their salt production to 10 million tonnes in 5years and 20 million into the future. The current Port site wouldrequire further expansion to meet the planned export targets. Themooring system used for restraining the vessels requires highlyskilled personnel, is labour intensive, time consuming and can bedangerous.

Tony Tower 8/6/10 email Expansion to 6 million tonnes in 2016 years and 20 million by 2025.The current Port site would require further expansion to meet theplanned export targets and Dampier Salt are about to commence astudy.

Dampier Salt would not agree to share the port site with other salt andgypsum interests as they would be in direct competition.

Tony Tower has forwarded a request internally to confirm whethersharing the site with other export products would be acceptable to DS.

Australian Mining andMinerals Group

William Witham

ExplorationManager

0417097172

www.ammg.com.au

11/5/10 email Wishes to register interest in the Carnarvon port. Have extensivegypsum and perhaps salt reserves over 5 large explorationlicenses east and north of Lake Macleod. Could be shipping 2 to3 million tonnes a year, as a maximum, trial shipments envisagedbut at this stage would need a port to do that.

Also exploring for iron ore, kaolin and salt, but not in an area closeto Carnarvon.

26/5/10- phone Advanced exploration – confident of resource levels from results fromthe 1970’s

Southern area granted, within a year working on the northern area

Had discussions with Cape Cuvier but not interested in sharingfacilities.

In the position to sell material in 6 to 12 months but no where to shipfrom, spoken to potential off take parties

8 million in bank, Chinese partners.

Can access from Great Northern Highway down to

Shipping from any port further than Carnarvon/Cape Cuvier would notbe viable.

Paladin Energy Resources Ed Becker

General Manager -Geology andExploration

[email protected]

Email 12/7/10 The Manyingee uranium Project is located 85 km inland form thecoastal township of Onslow. Paladin Energy plans to develop theproject into a producing in-situ leach (ISL) uranium mine over aperiod of 5 to 6 years. A minimum mine life of 9 to 10 years isexpected and approximately 1000 tonnes of uranium oxide isplanned to be produced per year. The uranium will be transportedin 400 litre drums and loaded into shipping containers for export.

[Type text]


Approximately 70 to 100 containers will be exported per year. Themine will require a good access road to the North West CoastalHighway and port will be required to land chemical imports for theproduction process and exports. Feasibility study is expected to becompleted in 4 to 5 years.

Golden Century Mining John Karajas-Geologist

92254936 3/6/10 Phosphate - highly unlikely that exploration at this site will provesuccessful.

Syndicated Metals Russell Davis 93809440

[email protected]

3/6/10 Base metals, silver mineralization, uranium mineralizationActivities are early stage exploration

Gunson Resources Todd Colton 92263130

[email protected]

13/5/10 Shark Bay Coburn Zircon Project

Current stage of project is investor discussions; project is ready togo once the investors are secured with an 85 weekconstruction/commissioning stage. At this stage planning to shipout of Geraldton Port as the Port is set up to store and shipmineral sands. Estimate they will be shipping 100,000 – 140,000tonnes per annum.

In terms of utilizing a Port north of Carnarvon, there would be anumber of factors that would need to be considered, i.e., transportcosts, port facilities to handle their products, investor preferences.The distance between the Coburn site to Geraldton and theproposed new port are very similar so there would be little benefitfrom that alone.

Have asked to be kept up to date with progress on the project.

Atlas Iron Andrew Patterson 9476 7900

[email protected]

3/6/10 Tenement E09/1684 was pegged on the potential for mineralsands. Not Atlas Iron’s core focus and are not planning to domuch at this site, they may even withdraw the tenement.

Company is interested in the Carnarvon Port proposal as the areaaround Robinson Range – directly inland from Carnarvon, haslarge iron ore potential; however this has been put on hold due tothe lack of transport links to a port.

In the Robinson Range area there is the potential to link in with theOakajee Port and Rail network once established, and for smalleroperations to transport via the Great Northern Highway.

[Type text]


Meteoric Resources Roger Thomson –Managing Director

94852836

[email protected]

8/6/2010 Robinson Range Iron Ore

Significant iron ore potential has been identified on Meteoric’s100%-owned Robinson Range project situated 100km north ofMeekatharra in the northern part of the emerging Midwest ironprovince of WA. This 50sq km project covers a foldedsequence of Proterozoic banded iron formation, siltstone andhematitic shale. The Meteoric tenements cover a cumulativestrike length of some 13km of iron formation althoughexamination of aeromagnetic images suggests the ironformations may extend beneath alluvial cover and be moreextensive than indicated by previous mapping.

Wilthorpe

Situated 25km south of the 1Mtpa mothballed Fortnum goldtreatment plant, a 2.4km x 500m bedrock gold anomaly has beenidentified at Wilthorpe overlying an extensive sheeted vein andstringer system.

Systematic RAB drilling of this large anomaly has so far identifiedtwo zones with resource potential at Harrods Central and HarrodsSouth. RC drilling of these two zones identified resources totalling61,600ozs of gold.

Pepinnini Minerals Norman Kennedy –Managing Director

82185000 8/6/2010 Robinson Range Iron Ore

PepinNini Minerals (ASX: PNN) has reported encouraging surfacesampling results at its Robinson Range Iron Ore Project which liesin the Midwest region of Western Australia.PepinNini is in discussions to finalise a Joint Venture Agreementto facilitate progressing the exploration and development of theidentified Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) potential within the projecttenements.

Robinson Range tenements are at early stage exploration andpossible development in the future. Estimated timing is 3-4 yearsuntil mining can begin.

At this stage transport options include linking into the Oakajee Portand Rail, however it was indicated that there is already pressurefor usage of this resource.

Norman Kennedy stated that there was definitely a need foranother port facility as there is enormous mining potential in thisarea and Oakajee may not have the future capacity.

Sinosteel Midwest Hold Robinson Range Iron Ore

Sinosteel Midwest is in the early stages of exploration at itsRobinson Range project, approximately 120km north ofMeekatharra, in Western Australia, which it is developing for ironore and manganese potential.

Robinson Range's proximity to Jack Hills and Weld Range meansthat any economic Mineral Resource confirmed at RobinsonRange could be transported using the same rail and portinfrastructure available to transport Weld Range and Jack Hillsore.

Sinosteel Midwest has also acquired ML52/244 at RobinsonRange which is a known previous source of high grade

[Type text]


manganese in the Robinson Range area. Sinosteel Midwest hasidentified other mineralised outcrops of manganese on tenementsat Robinson Range. The company will be evaluating theopportunities to develop a small scale manganese miningoperation using the existing infrastructure at Geraldton Port for thecurrent Koolanooka/Blue Hills operation.

Alchemy Resources Stewart House 94184400 8/6/2010 Robinson Range Iron Ore

The Three Rivers gold project, hosts two gold deposits andseveral high-gradeAs a prospective gold site, Alchemy would not need a port facilityshould this site begin mining operations. It was indicated thatthere is prospectively in the nearby area for bulk commodities fromother resource companies.

Sandfire Resources John Evans –Executive TechnicalDirector

64303800

[email protected]

8/6/2010 Doolgunna Copper/Gold Project

The Doolgunna Copper-Gold Project is located 900km north ofPerth and approximately 150km north of Meekatharra in the PeakHill mineral field of Western Australia.

The Doolgunna tenement package comprises six contiguousgranted Exploration Licenses (E52/1698, E52/1699, E52/1715,E52/2209, E52/2358 and E52/2208) plus a seventh ExplorationLicense (E52/2401) covering a total area of 395 square kilometreswithin an emerging copper-gold mineralised belt in the BryahBasin.

It is expected mining at this site will begin in 2 years with sulfideore concentrate being transported by road to the Geraldton Port.It is anticipated the volume shipped will be 200,000 tons perannum.

Transport costs are in the vicinity of 8-10 cents per ton on a sealedroad and 18 cents on gravel. Ideally if there was a sealed roadbetween Meekatharra and Carnarvon there could be potential forport usage.

The Jack Hills site is approximately 150km from the Doolgunnasite and in the future there is the possibility of extending theOakajee Rail network to this site.

Yannarie

The Yannarie Project is located 250 kilometres northeast ofCarnarvon on the west coast of Western Australia.The Yannarie Project covers an inferred fault-bounded sub-basinwhich is part of the larger Bangemall Basin. The target for theCompany is base metal mineralisation associated with thedevelopment of this sub-basin. This project is only at earlyexploration stage.

West Coast Potash/EastCost Minerals

Ed Mead

Executive Director160 Tenth Avenue, Inglewood,Perth WA 6052, Australia

Mobile: +61 407 445 351

Office: +61 8 9272 6084

mailto:[email protected]

11/6/2010 West Coast PotashThese tenements are located in the Southern Carnarvon Basin ofWestern Australia and are immediately adjacent to tenements ofReward Minerals Limited who are also exploring for potashdeposits. A South African coal company, Injula, have tenementsto the east of us and Reward. East Cost Minerals have been toldhistorical drilling has intersected coal, although they have notchecked to validate the comment.

The company are in the process of finalising arrangements toapprove the purchase of tenements in the Gascoyne area whichare in the Southern Carnarvon Basin. The tenements are highly

West Coast Project Exploration

[Type text]


prospective for Potash, which was intersected in the late 60’s.Thetenement package is contiguous and covers some 4,710sq/km. Based on success, the company would be looking to delineate aPotash resource in the billions of tonnes range. Production basedon a resource of this size would depend on project economics andfeasible production rates. Based on other projects in America,production rates vary from a couple of million tonnes to 20 milliontonnes pa. BHP just announced a mine they will develop inCanada called Jansen which will be a 22mtpa for 60 years mine.

The production process would involve using Solution Mining andSolar Evaporation. This would provide two products, Potash andSalt, which would both need to be exported through a port. At thispoint the Oakajee Port would be the only option. As the companyis dealing with bulk commodities, the largest expense will betransportation. Anything to reduce distance to available Ports orrail infrastructure would be beneficial to project economics.

There are plans to drill at least 1 drill hole (well) this year tovalidate a 1966 well which intersected Potash and initiate plans fora seismic survey to be undertaken early next year. Based on thatwe will then be drilling for the next couple of years. If successfulproduction would commence in say 5-10 years.

Reward Minerals Michael Ruane -Director

93864699

[email protected]

8/6/2010 Gascoyne

The Gascoyne project comprises 13 granted Exploration Licenses,covering approximately 2600 sq km’s, within the Carnarvon Basinin the Western Australia.

The Carnarvon Basin has a geological setting similar to theCanadian Basins that host the Saskatchewan deposits.Logistically the project is adjacent to the National Highway andhas existing port facilities and salt works nearby. The oilexploration efforts in the area have defined the basin whichReward has use for its modelling and defined its potash drillingtargets.

Initial drilling has taken place however at this stage no potash hasbeen discovered at the site. Exploration will continue.

NOTE: Michael Ruane owns the Beta Nutrition site on theBlowholes Road. Product from this site would not require portfacilities; however he was interested from anaccess/environmental point of view.

Gascoyne Project Exploration



D

Appendix D

Mines and PetroleumTenement Search Results



d-1

Appendix D Mines and Petroleum Tenement Search Results

Online Tenement Search Results from Mines and Petroleum WebsiteCompany Tenement

statusResource Location Closest port

siteProject/ Status Comments Source

Dampier Salt Live Salt andGypsum

Cape Cuvier Site 3 Operating minesite with futureexpansion plans

Dampier Salt located at Lake MacLeod currently exports 3 million tonnes ofsalt from their port at Cape Cuvier. Dampier Salt has plans to expand theirsalt production to 10 million tonnes in 5 years and 20 million into the future.The current Port site would require further expansion to meet the plannedexport targets. The mooring system used for restraining the vessels requireshighly skilled personnel, is labour intensive, time consuming and can bedangerous.

Stakeholder consultation

Straits ExplorationLicence/ PTT AsiaPacific Mining

Live Salt East coastExmouth gulf

Site 3 Yannarie SolarProject

Seeking EPA approval PTT Asia Pacific Mining P/L is proposing to develop the Yannarie Solar Saltproject. 4Mtpa salt operation in It has exploration licences over the area andhas applied for a mining lease. The proposal was assessed at the EPA. TheOffice of Appeals Convenor has recommended that the matter be referredback to the EPA for further assessment.

‘Prospect’ magazine March 2010–Projects under ConsiderationDepartment of Mines and Petroleumwww.dmp.wa.gov.au

West CoastPotash/East CostMinerals

Live Potash East ofHamelinPool

Site 1 West CoastProject

Exploration Emphasized proximity to major port facilities in Geraldton and proposed newport at Oakajee

Tengraph online,website:www.eastcoastminerals.com

Reward Minerals Live Potash East ofHamelinPool

Site 1 Gascoyne Project Exploration Noted great infrastructure located close to existing salt works and port facilities. Tengraph online,website:www.rewardminerals.com

Syndicated Metals Live Silver, zinc,uranium,phosphate

50km east ofCoral Bay

Site 3 Exmouth Project Early stage exploration Project not in a position to identify infrastructure requirements Tengraph online, StakeholderConsultation

Australian Mineralsand Mining Group(AMMG)

Live Gypsum Sites Northand South ofLakeMacleod

Site 3 Lake Macleod Verification drilling of thedeposits to seek to defineJORC compliantresource

Emphasises proximity of Cape Cuvier Port.May compete with Dampier Salt for Asian export markets

Tengraph online, StakeholderConsultation

Gunson Resources Live MineralSands

250km northof Geraldton,similardistance toproposedport site 1

Site 1 Shark Bay CoburnZircon Project

Securing investors forproject development

There will be an 85 week construction/commission stage once investors havebeen secured. At this stage they are planning to ship out of Geraldton Port asthey are set up to store and ship mineral sands. shipping 100,000 – 140,000tons per annum Planning to ship out of Geraldton Port - In terms of utilizing aPort north of Carnarvon, he said there would be a number of factors that wouldneed to be considered, i.e., transport costs, port facilities to handle theirproducts, investor preferences. The distance between the Coburn site toGeraldton and the proposed new port are very similar so there would be littlebenefit from that alone.

Tengraph online, StakeholderConsultation, websitewww.gunson.com.au

Paladin EnergyResources

Live Uranium 85km inlandfrom Onslow40km fromgreatNorthernHighway,closer toDampierPort.

Site 3 ManyingeeUranium project-

Advanced uraniumproject, which hasalready had a pre-feasibility studycompleted and isavailable for developmentconsideration.

Currently work isconcentrating onachieving land access byobtaining all requiredpermits and negotiatingan Exploration AccessAgreement with theTraditional Owners.

High value low volume product that can be transported via truck to distant portsite (GDC)

Website paladinenergy.com.au

Atlas Iron Live Iron ore RobinsonRange400km east

Site1 Midwest project Exploration not yetcommenced

Develop in a timeframe which complements development of the Oakajee Portand Rail infrastructure. Other project tenements are close to iron ore currentlybeing mined and exported from Jack Hills (Murchison metals).

Tengraph online, StakeholderConsultation

Online Tenement Search Results from Mines and Petroleum WebsiteCompany Tenement

statusResource Location Closest port

siteProject/ Status Comments Source

ofCarnarvon,550km northeast ofOakajee

Atlas Iron Pending Mineralsands

South ofLakeMacleodTenementE09/1684

Site 1 May withdraw thetenement.

This is not however Atlas Irons core focus Tengraph online, StakeholderConsultation

Golden CenturyMining

Pending Phosphate 80km SE ofCoral Bay

Site 3 Gooch Exploration not yetcommenced

Highly unlikely that exploration at this site will prove successful Tengraph online, StakeholderConsultation

South BoulderMines

Pending Potash 50km northeast CoralBay, 200kmnorth-northeastCarnarvon

Site 3 CardabiaPhosphate Project

Exploration not yetcommenced

Intends to expedite the licence to grant to commence on ground exploration assoon as possible (Web)

Websitewww.southbouldermines.com.au



E

Appendix E

Environmental/LandAccess StakeholderRegister



e-1

Appendix E Environmental/Land Access Stakeholder Register

Client Name: Gascoyne Development CommissionProject Name: Bejaling Deepwater Port StudyProject No: 60154869

ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND ACCESS STAKEHOLDER REGISTER - Revision 1 8/6/10

StakeholderCategory

StakeholderOrganisation

Engagement Point Notes for discussion Has been contacted/consulted?

Title First Name Surname Position Phone Address Email Issues Raised (note these notes have been para-phrased and are a representation only of what was discussed) Date consulted Response andhow addressed(response andform ofcommunication,i.e. letter)

StateGovernment

GascoyneDevelopmentCommission/Bejaling Deep WaterPort InvestigationSteeringCommittee

Needs to be kept informedthroughout.

Proponent Yes Ms Toni Hibbert Project Officer 9941 7000 15 Stuart Street,Carnarvon WA 6701

Discussed the stakeholders to be contacted during the preliminary stage for land access and environmental constraintsdiscussions. List agreed on is list as shown here.

27/05/2010 Telephonediscussion withAECOMEnvironmentalPersonnel

StateGovernment

Department ofEnvironment andConservation

Throughout process. Preliminaryengagement is acceptable toenquire about known sensitivereceptors.

Environmentally sensitiveareas/receptors.

Yes Mr Brett Fitzgerald DistrictManagerDenham office

9948 1208 [email protected]

Sites south of Survey area likely to have mangrove issues, north of area likely to encounter reef. For this sort of work it is hardto advise, a desktop analysis is needed first. Southern half of Lake McLeod is where the mining takes place. The northern halfof the lake is where the seawater exchange with ocean occurs and is an important migratory bird refuge. The marine sciencesection at DEC will be able to further advise as the suitabiility of a deep sea port in this location.


StateGovernment

Department ofFisheries

Preliminary engagement isappropriate, hoewever messageshave been left and it wouldrequire additional time to follow-up.

Significance of Fish HabitatProtection Areas.

Yes Mr Keith Van Dongen RegionalManager

9941 1185 59 Olivia TerraceCarnarvon WA 6701

[email protected]

The impacts to the area will depend on the import/export materials. The region does not seem to require a port, hence it ispostualted that yellow-cake may be a potential export substance, which would require much consultation. Cape Cuvier willexperience significant constraints with respect to access and road construction. There is an existing road, which belongs to RioTino [AECOM further advises that Rio Tinto have in the past refused to share access due to safety and process requirements].The existing port at Cape Cuvier is old and although deep water is present it would require a significant amount of work todevelop a suitable port for larger-scale opportunities. A Significant breakwater would be required, which is likely to render theproject economically unsuitable. The Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs) would require significant demands for monitoringand research as they are highly likely to be impacted by turbidity (during construction) and coastal processes (construction andoperation). Desalination activites are opposed in Carnarvon and should artesian water be required there will be significantstudies requirements also. The cost of construction at Darwin Reef and Bejaling is likely to be significant.


StateGovernment

Shark Bay WorldHeritage ScientificAdvisoryCommittees

Preliminary engagement isappropriate, however it is knownthat significant seagrass occurssignificantly south of sitesinvestigated, hence should not beimpacted.

WA professor and seagrassexpert

Left Message 21/05/10.Follow-up on 27 May notsuccessful in contacting MsWalker. Left furthermessage 16 June.

Ms Diana Walker Chair ofCommittee

6488 2089(UWA)

Shark Bay DistrictOffice (DEC) 89Knight Terrace,Denham WA 6537

LocalGovernment

Shire ofCarnarvon

Preliminary engagement isappropriate, hoewever messageshave been left and it wouldrequire additional time to follow-up.

Claughton, B. (1986).Carnarvon port and industrialdevelopment-Thedevelopment of a deep waterport at Bejaling. Unpublishedreport prepared for Shire ofCarnarvon, January 1986.

Yes Mr Tony Dowling Town Planner 9941 0021 [email protected]

Discussed that District Zoning Scheme 11 may be of use in Land Use Planning and can be downloaded from the Shire ofCarnarvon website. The port may be exempt from the Planning Act if it is for Public Purposes. The Shire is currently looking atlocating the airport near the Blowholes, which may present synergies with port co-location. The Blowholes are also a majortourism area, hence the Darwin Reefs site may be met with community opposition, depending on how land is accessed.


Private Dampier Salt -Cape Cuvier

Preliminary engagement isappropriate, hoewever thesediscussions will need to focusmore on access and sharingarrangements rather thanenvironmental constraints.

- General environmental,aboriginal heritage issues atcape cuvier, salt miningissues

Yes Mr Brett Renton EnvironmentalOfficer

9942 6007 [email protected]

Dust and Materials handling are the two biggest environmental issues that Dampier Salt is required to manage at Cape Cuvier,in the order of several million dollars being required to be spent on mitigation and management. If similar materials areproposed for export (salt, gypsum, fine ore) then similar management measures are likely to be required. Ballast water controlsare also an issue and external controls would apply. Depending on the materials proposed for import/export and the location ofthe shipping channel, the ballast water discharge area could be a constraint to the development of the proposal. A MarineImpact Study (impact to benthos from salt/gypsum) at Cape Cuvier has been conducted and could be requested by GascoyneDevelopment Commission for further detail. Cape Cuvier is very exposed and should a new port be developed this wouldrequire improvement and as such would require the development of infrastructure to shelter the port which is likely to beexpensive. Rio Tinto would have third party access concerns and the Evaporites (Lake MacLeod) Agreement Act 1967 shouldbe consulted for further information as to land access and sharing agreements.


Private Yamaji Land andSea Council

Preliminary engagement isacceptable to enquire aboutknown sensitive sites/issues.

Indigenous issues, GnulliNative Title Working Group,boardering Baiyungu area

Yes Ms Brooke Cramers Lawyer -Gascoyne

92687000 Native Title rights issues would need to be dealt with if tenure/land access is pursued. The coastal area in this region holdheritage values (for example coastal burials, sites unmarked) in particular at Point Quobba. Consultation with Traditional Ownergroups would be required to determine which activities and infrastructure would be acceptable. The Groups are likely to haveconcerns about any development near reef areas and the coast and projects are likely to require demonstration that impacts tofisheries or benthic environment can be managed. Dreaming stories are also tied to rivers and wetlands, so these areas shouldbe avoided. Access to country will need to be maintained, which may be impacted depending on tenure required. Whole-of-project infrastructure requirements would require discussion with the Groups, including access roads.


StateGovernment

Department ofWater

Preliminary engagement isacceptable to enquire aboutknown sensitive receptors.

Artesian water source Yes Ms Katrina Burton 99416100 [email protected]

Carnarvon mainly utilises the superficial aquifer from the Gascoyne River for town water supply and horticultural purposes,however the surrounding areas use artesian water (eg pastoral stations). The artesian aquifer is part of the Carnarvon ArtesianBasin (commonly referred to as the birdrong aquifer). This aquifer occurs at depths of 200-1000m and is under pressure andat high temperatures (32 to 62 deg C). The groundwater is mainly brackish, although salinity depends greatly on location.Several properties use desalination of this water for potable purposes (eg Coral bay), however it requires treatment due to itshigh temperatures and salinities. More information on this aquifer in the Carnarvon Artesian Basin Management Plan (2007) isavailable on the DoW’s website. We have recently completed some drilling and decommissioning works in this aquifer and ifyou would like further detail let me know.

The northern Lake McLeod area is valued for its environmental values, and if its likely that a port may affect this area, thenfurther investigation works would be required. The port proposal has been referred to theregional hydrogeologist to providefurther detail.

DatabaseRevision A 8 June 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\6 Draft Docs\6.1 Reports\Final Report-Draft\Appendix E\Env Stakeholder Register rev 1.xls

Page 1 of 2Print Date: 23/09/2010


ENVIRONMENTAL/LAND ACCESS STAKEHOLDER REGISTER - Revision 1 8/6/10

StakeholderCategory

StakeholderOrganisation

Engagement Point Notes for discussion Has been contacted/consulted?

Title First Name Surname Position Phone Address Email Issues Raised (note these notes have been para-phrased and are a representation only of what was discussed) Date consulted Response andhow addressed(response andform ofcommunication,i.e. letter)

StateGovernment

Department ofRegionalDevelopment &Lands; StateLands Services

Preliminary engagement isacceptable to enquire about landaccess and potential constraints

Land access discussions Yes Mr Steve Burgess Manager MidWest

93475100 [email protected]

The whole area under investigation is covered by pastoral leases. These end 40m above the highwater mark. The areabetween this and the high water mark is Unallocated Crown Land. In 2015 the pastoral leases are due to expire. Thegovernment will excise a 2km coastal strip for conservation purposes from these pastoral leases. This conservation strip mayconflict witht the proposed port land-use. The strip will likely either be managed by DEC or by the local Shire. The land issubject to Native Title and approriate tenure will need to be sought. Similarly heritage issues will apply and require consultationthroughout. Pastoralists need consulting throughout as does the Shire. Department of Transport (Marine Division) may havesome hydrodynamic data that could be of use, and the Department of Planning have a Ningaloo Coast Regional Stratgey(Carnarvon to Exmouth 2004) that will be of use. Any impact upon the Fish Habitat Protection areas will be a concern as willfisheries impacts in general.

StateGovernment

Department forRegionalDevelopment andLands; PastoralLands Board

Department of RegionalDevelopment & Lands; StateLands Services has providedadequate information forpreliminary stage. Pursue furtherengagement in later stages.

Further discussion notrequired at this stage asDept of RegionalDevelopment and Lands(State Lands Services) haveprovided adequate advice.

No Mr Nevin Whittber GeneralManager

93475126

StateGovernment

Department forRegionalDevelopment andLands; RemoteCommunities


Review of Ningaloo CoastalStrategy

No Mr Ashley Randell ManagerRemoteCommunities

92647685

StateGovernment

Department forRegionalDevelopment andLands; StatutoryPlanning


Ningaloo Coastal Strategyimplications of a PortProposal

No Mr Justin Breeze ManagerStatutoryPlanning

92647624

Private BoolathanaStation

Preliminary engagement todiscuss land access.

Land pastoral lease holder,access. Has been previouslyconsulted by GDC.

Yes spoke with Mrs Bettiniand she suggested Bobshould be consulted but hewill not be available duringday-time hours.

Mr Bob Bettini Lease Holder 99412522

Private Quobba Station Preliminary engagement todiscuss land access.

Land pastoral lease holder,access. Potentailly south ofboundary.

No - line disconnected. Mr Tim Meecham Lease Holder 99485098

DatabaseRevision A 8 June 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\6 Draft Docs\6.1 Reports\Final Report-Draft\Appendix E\Env Stakeholder Register rev 1.xls




F

Appendix F

Aboriginal Heritage Sites



f-1

Appendix F Aboriginal Heritage Sites

Site 6060

Search Criteria

N

M

F

No restriction

Male access only

Female access

Legend

I

S

Insufficient Information

Permanent register

Stored data

C

O

V

Closed

Open

Vulnerable

[Reliable]

[Unreliable

The spatial information recorded in the site file is deemed to be reliable, due to methods of capture.

The spatial information recorded in the site file is deemed to be unreliable due to errors of spatial data capture and/or quality of spatial information reported.

Restriction

Status

Access Coordinate Accuracy

Accuracy is shown as a code in brackets following the site coordinates.

Disclaimer

Aboriginal sites exist that are not recorded on the Register of Aboriginal Sites, and some registered sites may no longer exist. Consultation with Aboriginal communities is on-going to identify additional sites. The AHA protects all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia whether or not they are registered.

Index coordinates are indicative locations and may not necessarily represent the centre of sites, especially for sites with an access code “closed” or “vulnerable”. Map coordinates (Lat/Long) and (Easting/Northing) are based on the GDA 94 datum. The Easting / Northing map grid can be across one or more zones. The zone is indicated for each Easting on the map, i.e. '5000000:Z50' means Easting=5000000, Zone=50.

Spatial Accuracy

Copyright

Copyright in the information contained herein is and shall remain the property of the State of Western Australia. All rights reserved. This includes, but is not limited to, information from the Register of Aboriginal Sites established and maintained under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA).

L Lodged

P

PR Permanent register (as assessed by Site Assessment Group)

Stored data (as assessed by Site Assessment Group)

IR Insufficient Information (as assessed by Site Assessment Group)

SR

Sites lodged with the Department are assessed under the direction of the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites. These are not to be considered the final assessment.

Final assessment will be determined by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC).

Site Assessment Group (SAG)

Register of Aboriginal Sites

Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System

© Government of Western Australia Report created 18 May 2010 14:27:30. Identifier: 681438. Page 1

Site ID Status Access Restriction Site Name Site Type Additional Info Informants Coordinates Site No.

6060 P07053Cape CuvierOP Artefacts / Scatter, Midden / Scatter

743392mE 7318648mN Zone 49 [Reliable]

N






Legend

Town

Highlighted Area

Map Area

Search Area

Copyright for base map information shall at all times remain the property of the Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia - National Mapping Division. All rights reserved.

Copyright for Native Title Land Claim, Local Government Authority, Mining Tenement boundaries shall at all times remain the property of the State of Western Australia, All rights reserved.

For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Indigenous Affairs’ Terms of Use statement at http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Terms-Of-Use/


Site 8897

Search Criteria

N

M

F

No restriction

Male access only

Female access

Legend

I

S


Permanent register

Stored data

C

O

V

Closed

Open

Vulnerable

[Reliable]

[Unreliable



Restriction

Status



Disclaimer



Spatial Accuracy

Copyright


L Lodged

P




SR








8897 P03595Yalabidie WellOI Skeletal material/Burial

750092mE 7282297mN Zone 49 [Unreliable]

N






Legend

Town

Highlighted Area

Map Area

Search Area





Site 11044

Search Criteria

N

M

F

No restriction

Male access only

Female access

Legend

I

S


Permanent register

Stored data

C

O

V

Closed

Open

Vulnerable

[Reliable]

[Unreliable



Restriction

Status



Disclaimer



Spatial Accuracy

Copyright


L Lodged

P




SR








11044 P01144Red BluffOI Skeletal material/Burial

744642mE 7300648mN Zone 49 [Unreliable]

N






Legend

Town

Highlighted Area

Map Area

Search Area





Site 7138

Search Criteria

N

M

F

No restriction

Male access only

Female access

Legend

I

S


Permanent register

Stored data

C

O

V

Closed

Open

Vulnerable

[Reliable]

[Unreliable



Restriction

Status



Disclaimer



Spatial Accuracy

Copyright


L Lodged

P




SR








7138 P05804Quobba Dunes.CP Skeletal material/Burial, Artefacts / Scatter, Midden / Scatter

Not available for closed sites

Camp *Registered Informant names available from DIA.

N






Legend

Town

Highlighted Area

Map Area

Search Area





Site 10355

Search Criteria

N

M

F

No restriction

Male access only

Female access

Legend

I

S


Permanent register

Stored data

C

O

V

Closed

Open

Vulnerable

[Reliable]

[Unreliable



Restriction

Status



Disclaimer



Spatial Accuracy

Copyright


L Lodged

P




SR








10355 P01827Chinaman'S PoolOP Mythological 766370mE 7248398mN Zone 49 [Unreliable]

N






Legend

Town

Highlighted Area

Map Area

Search Area







G

Appendix G

EPBC Matters Search



g-1

Appendix G EPBC Matters Search

Protected Matters Search Tool

You are here: Environment Home > EPBC Act > Search

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report18 May 2010 16:26

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protectedby the EPBC Act in the area you have selected. Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on datasupporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

You may wish to print this report for reference before moving to other pages or websites.

The Australian Natural Resources Atlas at http://www.environment.gov.au/atlas may provide further environmentalinformation relevant to your selected area. Information about the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, formsand application process details can be found athttp://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessmentsapprovals/index.html

This map may contain data which are© Commonwealth of Australia(Geoscience Australia)© PSMA Australia Limited

Search Type: Area

Buffer: 0 km

Coordinates: -24.1575,113.3372, -24.1529,113.4386, -24.4731,113.4386, -24.6275,113.5538, -24.7058,113.6367, -24.7865,113.6644, -24.9155,113.6967, -24.9294,113.6022, -24.7681,113.5423, -24.4847,113.3533

Report Contents: SummaryDetails

Matters of NESOther matters protected by the EPBC ActExtra Information

CaveatAcknowledgments

Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or mayrelate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can beaccessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have asignificant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider theAdministrative Guidelines on Significance - seehttp://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessmentsapprovals/guidelines/index.html.

World Heritage Properties: None

National Heritage Places: None

Wetlands of International Significance:(Ramsar Sites)

None

Commonwealth Marine Areas: Relevant

Page 1 of 10EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

18/05/2010http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl

Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Threatened Ecological Communities: None

Threatened Species: 13

Migratory Species: 38

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated.Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land,when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken onCommonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposingto take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken onCommonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of aplace are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of aCommonwealth Heritage place and the heritage values of a place on the Register of the National Estate.Information on the new heritage laws can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/index.html.

Please note that the current dataset on Commonwealth land is not complete. Further information on Commonwealthland would need to be obtained from relevant sources including Commonwealth agencies, local agencies, and landtenure maps.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listedthreatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans,or a member of a listed marine species. Information on EPBC Act permit requirements and application forms can befound at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/permits/index.html.

Commonwealth Lands: 2

Commonwealth Heritage Places: None

Places on the RNE: 6

Listed Marine Species: 59

Whales and Other Cetaceans: 11

Critical Habitats: None

Commonwealth Reserves: None

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

State and Territory Reserves: 2

Other Commonwealth Reserves: None

Regional Forest Agreements: None

Commonwealth Marine Areas [ Dataset Information ]

Approval may be required for a proposed activity that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment in aCommonwealth Marine Area, when the action is outside the Commonwealth Marine Area, or the environmentanywhere when the action is taken within the Commonwealth Marine Area. Generally the Commonwealth MarineArea stretches from three nautical miles to two hundred nautical miles from the coast.

EEZ and Territorial Sea

Threatened Species [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence

BirdsAcanthiza iredalei iredaleiSlender-billed Thornbill (western)

Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area




Endangered Species or species habitat may occur withinarea


Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur withinarea

MammalsBalaenoptera musculusBlue Whale



Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area


Vulnerable Congregation or aggregation known to occurwithin area


Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area


Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area

Dermochelys coriaceaLeatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth




SharksCarcharias taurus (west coast population)Grey Nurse Shark (west coast population)






Migratory Species [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence

Migratory Terrestrial SpeciesBirdsHaliaeetus leucogasterWhite-bellied Sea-Eagle

Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area

Hirundo rusticaBarn Swallow

Migratory Species or species habitat may occur withinarea

Merops ornatusRainbow Bee-eater


Migratory Wetland SpeciesBirdsActitis hypoleucosCommon Sandpiper

Migratory Species or species habitat known to occurwithin area

Ardea albaGreat Egret, White Egret


Ardea ibisCattle Egret


Arenaria interpresRuddy Turnstone


Calidris albaSanderling


Calidris canutusRed Knot, Knot


Calidris ferrugineaCurlew Sandpiper


Calidris ruficollisRed-necked Stint




Calidris tenuirostrisGreat Knot


Charadrius leschenaultiiGreater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover


Charadrius veredusOriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel


Heteroscelus brevipesGrey-tailed Tattler


Limosa lapponicaBar-tailed Godwit


Limosa limosaBlack-tailed Godwit


Numenius madagascariensisEastern Curlew


Numenius phaeopusWhimbrel


Pluvialis squatarolaGrey Plover


Tringa glareolaWood Sandpiper


Xenus cinereusTerek Sandpiper


Migratory Marine BirdsApus pacificusFork-tailed Swift








Migratory Marine SpeciesMammalsBalaenoptera edeniBryde's Whale


Balaenoptera musculusBlue Whale


Dugong dugonDugong





Migratory Congregation or aggregation known to occurwithin area











Sharks



Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act





Listed Marine Species [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence

BirdsActitis hypoleucosCommon Sandpiper

Listed Species or species habitat known to occurwithin area

Apus pacificusFork-tailed Swift

Listed -overflymarinearea

Species or species habitat may occur withinarea







Arenaria interpresRuddy Turnstone


Calidris albaSanderling


Calidris canutusRed Knot, Knot


Species or species habitat known to occurwithin area

Calidris ferrugineaCurlew Sandpiper



Calidris ruficollisRed-necked Stint



Calidris tenuirostrisGreat Knot



Charadrius leschenaultiiGreater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover


Charadrius ruficapillusRed-capped Plover



Charadrius veredusOriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel



Haliaeetus leucogasterWhite-bellied Sea-Eagle

Listed Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area

Heteroscelus brevipesGrey-tailed Tattler


Himantopus himantopusBlack-winged Stilt





Hirundo rusticaBarn Swallow



Limosa lapponicaBar-tailed Godwit


Limosa limosaBlack-tailed Godwit




Listed Species or species habitat may occur withinarea

Merops ornatusRainbow Bee-eater



Numenius madagascariensisEastern Curlew


Numenius phaeopusWhimbrel


Pluvialis squatarolaGrey Plover





Recurvirostra novaehollandiaeRed-necked Avocet



Tringa glareolaWood Sandpiper



Xenus cinereusTerek Sandpiper



MammalsDugong dugonDugong


Ray-finned fishesCampichthys galeiGale's Pipefish


Choeroichthys suillusPig-snouted Pipefish


Festucalex scalarisLadder Pipefish


Filicampus tigrisTiger Pipefish


Halicampus brockiBrock's Pipefish


Haliichthys taeniophorusRibboned Seadragon, Ribboned Pipefish


Hippocampus angustusWestern Spiny Seahorse, Narrow-bellied Seahorse


Hippocampus histrixSpiny Seahorse




Hippocampus planifronsFlat-face Seahorse


Lissocampus fatiloquusProphet's Pipefish


Nannocampus subosseusBony-headed Pipefish


Solegnathus lettiensisGunther's Pipehorse, Indonesian Pipefish


Solenostomus cyanopterusRobust Ghostpipefish, Blue-finned Ghost Pipefish,


Solenostomus paegniusRough-snout Ghost Pipefish


Stigmatopora argusSpotted Pipefish, Gulf Pipefish


Syngnathoides biaculeatusDouble-ended Pipehorse, Alligator Pipefish


Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatusBend Stick Pipefish, Short-tailed Pipefish


ReptilesAipysurus apraefrontalisShort-nosed Seasnake


Aipysurus laevisOlive Seasnake


Aipysurus pooleorumShark Bay Seasnake


Caretta carettaLoggerhead Turtle






Disteira kingiiSpectacled Seasnake


Disteira majorOlive-headed Seasnake


Emydocephalus annulatusTurtle-headed Seasnake


Ephalophis greyiNorth-western Mangrove Seasnake




Hydrophis elegansElegant Seasnake


Pelamis platurusYellow-bellied Seasnake


Whales and Other Cetaceans [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence

Balaenoptera acutorostrataMinke Whale

Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur withinarea

Balaenoptera edeniBryde's Whale


Balaenoptera musculusBlue Whale


Delphinus delphisCommon Dophin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin



Cetacean Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area



Extra Information

Caveat

The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the endof the report.

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determiningobligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations ofWorld Heritage and Register of National Estate properties, Wetlands of International Importance, Commonwealth andState/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecologicalcommunities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a rangeof sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guideonly. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicatedin general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below andmay need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans,State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological communitydistributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicativedistribution maps.

For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plans anddetailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicated under "type of

Grampus griseusRisso's Dolphin, Grampus



Cetacean Congregation or aggregation known to occurwithin area



Stenella attenuataSpotted Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin


Tursiops aduncusIndian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin, Spotted BottlenoseDolphin

Cetacean Species or species habitat likely to occurwithin area

Tursiops truncatus s. str.Bottlenose Dolphin


Commonwealth Lands [ Dataset Information ]

Defence

Unknown

Places on the RNE [ Dataset Information ]Note that not all Indigenous sites may be listed.

HistoricCarnarvon One Mile Jetty WA

Jubilee Hall WA

Lighthouse Keepers Cottage WA

IndigenousDugong Butchering Site WA

NaturalLake MacLeod Area WA

Wooramel Seagrass Bank WA

State and Territory Reserves [ Dataset Information ]

Chinamans Pool Nature Reserve, WA

One Tree Point Nature Reserve, WA



presence". For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collated from government wildlifeauthorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimatic distribution models are generated and thesevalidated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps are based solely on expert knowledge.

Only selected species covered by the migratory and marine provisions of the Act have been mapped.

The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports producedfrom this database:

threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrantssome species and ecological communities that have only recently been listedsome terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine areamigratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers.

The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species:

non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites;seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent.

Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

AcknowledgmentsThis database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The Department acknowledges the followingcustodians who have contributed valuable data and advice:

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife ServiceDepartment of Sustainability and Environment, VictoriaDepartment of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, TasmaniaDepartment of Environment and Heritage, South Australia Planning SAParks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern TerritoryEnvironmental Protection Agency, QueenslandBirds AustraliaAustralian Bird and Bat Banding SchemeAustralian National Wildlife CollectionNatural history museums of AustraliaQueensland HerbariumNational Herbarium of NSWRoyal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of VictoriaTasmanian HerbariumState Herbarium of South AustraliaNorthern Territory HerbariumWestern Australian HerbariumAustralian National Herbarium, Atherton and CanberraUniversity of New EnglandOther groups and individuals

ANUCliM Version 1.8, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University was usedextensively for the production of draft maps of species distribution. Environment Australia is extremely grateful to themany organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and theArtsGPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 AustraliaTelephone: +61 (0)2 6274 1111

Last updated: Thursday, 20-Nov-2008 14:17:56 EST





H

Appendix H

Metocean EngineersStudy



h-1

Appendix H Metocean Engineers Study



I

Appendix I

Summary of RecordedBerth Availability andModelled WaveConditions at CapeCuvier



i-1

Appendix I Summary of Recorded Berth Availability andModelled Wave Conditions at Cape Cuvier

Table 1 Summary of berth availability information collected by Capt Adam McPhail, May 2004-April 2005Number of May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprDays in month 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30Days of no data 18 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22Days berth is available 11 15 21 19 23 28.5 24 28 25 27 28 N/ADays lost due to swell 2 7 3 8 4 2.5 3.5 1 1 0 3 2Days lost due to wind 0 8 4 4 3 0 2.5 2 5 1 0 3% availability N/A 50 75 61 77 92 80 90 81 96 90 N/A

Table 2 Percentage occurrence by month of waves with a significant wave height (Hs) greater than 2 m indicated by Wavewatch 3 globalhindcast model for Jan 1997 to Dec 2004Percentage of waves May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprHs over 2m from N 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.60 0.75 0.39 0.76 0Hs over 2m from S 3.32 3.56 3.72 4.39 5.14 0.35 0 0.1 0 0 0 0Hs over 2m from SW 4.83 27.59 31.45 37.54 8.57 2.57 0 0 0 0 0 0.42Hs over 2m from W 9.00 50.42 62.10 43.06 12.13 4.88 0 0.70 0 0 0 0Hs over 2m from NW 0 0 0 0 1.53 1.21 0 0 0.25 0 0.31 0Total waves over 2m 20.92 81.57 97.27 84.99 21.94 9.11 0.1 1.40 1.00 0.79 1.08 0.42

Table 3 Percentage occurrence by month of waves with a peak period (Tp) greater than 12s indicated by Wavewatch 3 global hindcastmodel for Jan 1997 to Dec 2004Percentage of waves May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprTp over 12s from N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tp over 12s from S 37.94 10.14 3.14 4.16 23.52 26.56 21.10 10.38 2.8 8.56 24.95 48.42Tp over 12s from SW 1.16 0.47 0 0 2.78 2.07 5.31 0.2 0.55 2.12 1.97 4.58Tp over 12s from W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tp over 12s from NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.35 0 0 0Total waves over 12s 39.11 2.13 3.14 4.16 26.3 28.63 26.41 10.58 1 3.84 26.93 53.01

Summary: Recorded berth operability and modelled wave conditions indicate lowest berth operability occurs during the winter months when thereis a high percentage of waves greater than 2m from the southwest and west. The link between operability and longer wave periods is not asstrong. Wind conditions appear to have a greater effect on operability than wave conditions during summer. Given the distance from the modeloutput point to the Cape and potential for wave development/refraction and diffraction around the Cape, it is not possible to directly correlate thepercentage occurrence of Hs to operability without further modelling.



J

Appendix J

Port Concept Sketches



j-1

Appendix J Port Concept Sketches



K

Appendix K

Costing Details



k-1

Appendix K Costing Details


Port Structures Cost Summary

Port Location Dredging volume (m3) Dredging cost

Site 1 – South Bejaling 26,500,000 $438 million

Site 2 – Darwin Reefs 14,200,000 $250 million

Site 3 – Cape Cuvier 0 0

Site 1 – South Bejaling Unit Total

Breakwater CostCore material 207,000 m3 $40 millionRock armour 50,000 m3 $10 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 57.5 million

Causeway CostCore material 210,000 m3 $40.6 millionRock armour 30,000 m3 $5.8 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 53.5 million

Site 2 – Darwin Reefs Unit Total

Breakwater CostCore material 380,000 m3 $73.6 millionRock underlayer 64,000 m3 $14 millionArtificial armour 12,000 m3 concrete $24 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 128 million

Causeway CostCore material 507,000m3 $98.5 millionRock underlayer 63,800m3 $12.5 millionArtificial Armour 13,700m3 concrete $27.4 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 159 million

Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Unit Total

Breakwater CostCore material 651, 000 m3 $144 millionRock underlayer 67,000 m3 $13.2 millionArtificial armour 20 500 m3 concrete $ 41.3 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 228 million

Causeway CostCore material 893,000 m3 $ 197.8 millionRock underlayer 96 500 m3 $19 millionArtificial Armour 25,400 m3 concrete $50.7 millionTOTAL with 15% contingency $ 307.6 million

DREDGING COSTS

BREAKWATER AND CAUSEWAY COSTS

Sheet1Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Port structures cost summary.xls




Site 1 – South Bejaling Number Reference Calculation Total million

Bulk Berth300m Bulk Berth Structure (double sided -open steel)

1 API 342m $118 million 105.0

Approach Jetty – 150 m 1 API 40 mill -216m long 28.0Concrete Breasting Dolphins 16 $5 million each 80.0Subtotal 213.0

Material HandlingConveyors and Transfers 1 API 55 million 3 km site 1

is 0.7 km13.0

Shiploader 1 API 28 million 28.0Subtotal 41.0

UtilitiesWater system 1 API 3.9 mill 3km 0.9Fire service system 1 API 0.7 mill 3km 0.2Lighting and small power 1 API 34.5 mill 3km 7.9Process control system 1 API 2.9mill 3km 0.7Communications 1 API 0.84 mill 3km 0.2Subtotal 9.9

General Purpose Berth18m wide by 150m long concrete deck withsteel substructure with fender system

1 Darwin 38.025 38.0

Approach bridge and abutments -25m long 2 API 40 mill -216m long 8.5

Concrete Mooring dolphins 4 2.2 8.8Struts 5 $15 000 tonne 0.09 0.5Catwalks 4 $18 000 tonne 0.21 0.8Subtotal 56.6

TOTAL with 15% contingency 369

WHARF STRUCTURE COSTS





Site 2 – Darwin Reefs Number Reference Calculation Total million

Bulk Berth x 2180 m Bulk Berth Structure (singlesided -open steel)

2 40.025 80.0

Approach bridge and abutments-20 m long 2 API 40 mill -216m long $4million abutment

10.2

Concrete Breasting Dolphins 12 2.8 33.6Concrete Mooring Dolphins 4 2.2 8.8Catwalks 4 $15 000 tonne 0.335238598 1.3Struts 18 $18 000 tonne 0.101921057 1.8Subtotal 135.8

Material HandlingConveyors and Transfers 1 API 55 million 3 km site 2

is 2.2 km40.0

Shiploader with land based tripper– 10mtpa 1 API 28 million 28.0Subtotal 68.0

UtilitiesWater system 1 API 3.9 mill 3km 2.9Fire service system 1 API 0.7 mill 3km 0.5Lighting and small power 1 API 34.5 mill 3km 25.3Process control system 1 API 2.9 mill 3km 2.1Communications 1 API 0.84 mill 3km 0.6Subtotal 31.5

General Purpose Berth18m wide by 150m long concrete deck withsteel substructure with fender system

1 Darwin 38.025 38.0

Approach bridge -25 m long 2 API 40 mill -216m long $4million abutment

8.5 Concrete Mooring dolphins 4 2.2 8.8Struts 5 $15 000 tonne 0.10 0.5Catwalks 4 $18 000 tonne 0.21 0.8Subtotal 56.7

TOTAL with 15% contingency 335.7






Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Number Reference Calculation Total million

Bulk Berth x 1180 m Bulk Berth Structure (singlesided -open steel) 1 40.025 40.0

Approach bridge and abutments - 40 mlong 1 API 40 mill -216m long $4

million abutment 7.2

Concrete Breasting Dolphins 6 2.8 16.8Concrete Mooring Dolphins 2 2.2 4.4Catwalks 2 $15 000 tonne 0.335238598 0.7Struts 9 $18 000 tonne 0.139777449 1.3Subtotal 70.4

Materials HandlingConveyors and Transfers 1 API 55 million 3 km Cape

Cuvier is 0.6km11.0

Shiploader with land based tripper– 10mtpa 1 API 28 million 28.0Subtotal 39.0

UtilitiesWater system 1 API 3.9 mill 3km 0.8Fire service system 1 API 0.7 mill 3km 0.1Lighting and small power 1 API 34.5 mill 3km 6.9Process control system 1 API 2.9mill 3km 0.6Communications 1 API 0.84 mill 3km 0.2Subtotal 8.6

General Purpose Berth

18m wide by 150m long concrete deck withsteel substructure with fender system 1 Darwin 38.025 38.0

Approach bridge -35 m long 2 API 40 mill -216m long $4million abutment

12.8 Concrete Mooring dolphins 4 2.2 8.8Struts 5 $15 000 tonne 0.14 0.7Catwalks 4 $18 000 tonne 0.21 0.8Subtotal 61.1







Site 1 – South Bejaling Reference Calculation Total millionNavigation Aids - 15 km channel API 15.5km - $23 mill 23Tug Pens API 8.6 mill 8.6Slipway 6

37.6TOTAL with 15% contingency 43.24

Site 2 – Darwin Reefs Reference Calculation Total millionNavigation Aids - 6 km channel API 15.5km - $23 mill 9Tug Pens API 8.6 mill 8.6Slipway 6

24TOTAL with 15% contingency 27.14

Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Reference Calculation Total millionNavigation Aids no channel API 15.5km - $23 mill 1Tug Pens API 8.6 mill 8.6Slipway 6

16TOTAL with 15% contingency 17.94

Site 1 – South Bejaling Total millionBathymetrical survey 0.45Environmental studies and surveys 4Geotechnical investigations 15


Site 2 – Darwin Reefs Total millionBathymetrical survey 0.4Environmental studies and surveys 4Geotechnical investigations 11


Site 3 – Cape Cuvier Total millionBathymetrical survey 0.3Environmental studies and surveys 4Geotechnical investigations 11


Sea Port Inland Port Sea Port Inland PortSite 1 (millions) Site 1 (millions) Site 2 (millions) Site 2 (millions)

Dredging 438 946 250 670.5

Main Port Structures 369 340 336 309

Cost Increase for new inland port 479 393.5

SURVEY, INVESTIGATION COSTS

Port Location

MISCELLANEOUS PORT STRUCTURES

INLAND PORT




Preliminary Costing - Bejaling

Site 1 - Breakwater

Length 500 m

m2/m Volume Cost/m3 Total

Core 414 207000 184.375 $40,073,906 Base cost $110 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 , 25% indirect+profitIncludes 5% downtime

Mass armour length Volume Cost/m3

Seeward and Landward 2T rock armour 1.75 m thickness 50 43750 196.875 $8,613,281 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profitToe 1-3T rock 2 m thickness 7 7000 196.875 $1,378,125 Base cost $120 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect+profit

BREAKWATER COST + 15% contingency $57,575,109

Site 1 - Causeway

m2/m length Volume Cost/m3 Total costCore area 1 500 150 75000 184.375 $14,519,531 Base cost $110 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 , 25% indirect+profitCore area 2 300 450 135000 184.375 $26,135,156 Includes 5% downtime


Seeward and landward 1.5T rock armour 1.7 m thickness 50 12750 196.875 $2,510,156 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profitSeeward and landward 1.5T rock armour 1.5 m thickness 25 16875 196.875 $3,322,266 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profit

CAUSEWAY COST + 15% contingency $53,460,176

$111,035,285

Causeway_breakwater MTORevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejalingrev2.xls



Site 1 - Dredging Method Costs

Site 1 - DREDGING METHOD COSTS

10 000 m3 trailer operates in 1.5 m waves

Total volume Bejaling 26,459,700

ExecutionTrailer gross capacity 10000 m3

Material Soft

Effective cargo 7000 m3

Sailing one way 20 km

Cycle minutes

Dredging 110

Sailing 20km at 15km/hr 80

Hook up 30

Pump ashore 90

Hook off 10

Sailing 20km @20km/hr 60

Cycle minutes 380

Cycle hours 6.3333333

Gross hours/week 168

Effective hours per week 145

Cycles per week 22.894737

Production m3 per week 160263.16

Execution 165 weeks

Delays 20 weeks 12 % downtime

Total 185 weeks

Equipment cost

Per week Quantity totalTime on site

weeks Sum total $ Per m3 $

10 000 m3 trailer $1,100,000

reclamation spread incl

Pipe handling tug incl

Site OH, incl vessels and surveys $300,000

Sub totals $1,400,000 26,459,700 165 $231,142,207 $8.74

Weather delays $900,000 20 $17,830,970

Mob, incl install and in-survey $7,000,000

Demb $3,000,000

Cont $23,114,220.69

Direct cost: $282,087,397.83

OH + Profit:35% of direct cost $98,730,589.24

Grand total 100% with 15% contingency 26,459,700 $437,940,685.13 $16.55

Dredging costs per m3Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejalingrev2.xls



Site 1 - Inland Port- Dredging Method Costs

Site 1 INLAND PORT- DREDGING METHOD COSTS




Material Soft



Cycle minutes

Dredging 110


Hook up 30

Pump ashore 90

Hook off 10


Cycle minutes 380






Execution 364 weeks

Delays 44 weeks 12% downtime

Total 407 weeks

Equipment cost



10 000 m3 trailer $1,100,000




Sub totals $1,400,000 58,296,159 364 $509,253,806 $8.74

Weather delays $900,000 44 $39,285,294


Demb $3,000,000

Cont $50,925,380.60

Direct cost: $609,464,480.25

OH + Profit:35% of direct cost $213,312,568.09

Grand total 100% with 15% contingency 58,296,159 $946,193,605.58 $16.23

Dredging costs per m3Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejaling inland port.xls



Site 1 - Inland Port - Inner Channel, Berth Pocket

SITE 1 BEJALING INLAND PORT - INNER CHANNEL, BERTH POCKET

2.5

1 15 0.75 5

Overdredge depth 0.75 mOverdredge width 2.5 m

General Purpose berth

Dredge pocketWidth 220 m Width with allowance 225Length 400 mDredge level 12 m Dredge level with allowance 12.75Seabed level -4 m

Dredge depth 16.75 mArea 5171.5625 m2/m

Volume 2,068,625 m3

Turning circleWidth 250 m Width with allowance 255Length 250 mDredge level 12 m Dredge level with allowance 12.75Seabed level -4 m


Volume 1,418,516 m3

Channel - turning circle to outer channelWidth 300 m Actual width 305Length 1650 mDredge level 12 m Actual dredge level 12.75Seabed level -4 m


Volume 10,744,078 m3

Bulk Berth

Dredge PocketWidth 320 m Width with allowance 325Length 1500 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75Seabed level -4 m


Volume 13,344,844 m3

ChannelWidth 0 m Width with allowance 5Length 0 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75Seabed level -4 m


Volume 0 m3

Turning BasinWidth 300 m Width with allowance 305Length 1700 mDredge level 10 m Dredge level with allowance 10.75Seabed level -4 m


Volume 9,497,156 m3

Total volume 37,073,300 m3

Inner channel, berth pocketRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejaling inland port.xls



Site 1 - Inland Port - Outer Channel

SITE 1 BEJALING INLAND PORT- OUTER CHANNEL

2.5

1 15 0.75 5


Outer channelSection 1Width 200 m Width with allowance 205Length 1350 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 1.5 m -7m to +4 m


Volume 5,314,359 m3

Outer channel to RL+4Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejaling inland port.xls



Site 1 - Inland Port - Outer Channel

SITE 1 BEJALING INLAND PORT - OUTER CHANNEL

2.5

1 15 0.75 5


Outer channelSection 1Width 200 m Width with allowance 205Length 6000 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 8.5 m 7m to 10m


Volume 10,494,375 m3

Section 2Width 200 m Width with allowance 205Length 9000 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 13 m 10m to 16m


Volume 5,414,063 m3


Outer channel to RL-7Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejaling inland port.xls



Site 1- Inner Channel, Berth Pocket

SITE 1 BEJALING - INNER CHANNEL, BERTH POCKET

2.5

1 15 0.75 5


General Purpose Berth

Dredge pocketWidth 220 m Width with allowance 225Length 400 mDredge level 12 m Dredge level with allowance 12.75Seabed level 7.3 m


Volume 549,905 m3

Turning circleWidth 250 m Width with allowance 255Length 250 mDredge level 12 m Dredge level with allowance 12.75Seabed level 7.3 m


Volume 384,566 m3

Channel - turning circle to outer channelWidth 300 m Actual width 305Length 1650 mDredge level 12 m Actual dredge level 12.75Seabed level 7.6 m


Volume 2,810,548 m3

Inner channel, berth pocketRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejalingrev2.xls



Site 1- Inner Channel, Berth Pocket

Bulk Berth

Dredge PocketWidth 320 m Width with allowance 325Length 1500 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75Seabed level 7.6 m


Volume 5,088,544 m3

ChannelWidth 0 m Width with allowance 5Length 0 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75Seabed level 7.6 m


Volume 0 m3

Turning BasinWidth 300 m Width with allowance 305Length 1700 mDredge level 10 m Dredge level with allowance 10.75Seabed level 7.6 m


Volume 1,717,616 m3


Inner channel, berth pocketRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Bejalingrev2.xls



Site 2 - Breakwater Causeway Costs

Site 2 - Breakwater

Length 760 m


Core 500 380000 184.375 $73,565,625 Base cost $110 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 , 25% indirect+profitIncludes 5% downtime

Artificial armour3.6T unitsConcreteBased on Ajaxhudson calculator 33.6 Ajs per 100 m2 1 AJ = 1.55 m3


Seeward Artificial armour 1.6 m thickness 30 11874.24 2000 $23,748,480 $1600+25% indirect and profitSeeward and Landward 1T rock under layer 1.4 m thickness 57 60648 196.875 $11,940,075 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profitToe 1-3T rock 2 m thickness 7 10640 196.875 $2,094,750 Base cost $120 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect+profit

BREAKWATER COST+ 15% contingency $128,051,270

Site 2 - Causewaym2/m Average length Volume Cost/m3 Total cost

Core 580 875 507500 184.375 $98,248,828 Base cost $110 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 , 25% indirect+profitIncludes 5% downtime


Seeward Artificial armour 1.6 m thickness 30 13671 2000 $27,342,000Seeward and Landward 1T rock under layer 1.4 m thickness 50 53200 196.875 $10,473,750 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profitToe 1-3T rock 2 m thickness 7 10640 196.875 $2,094,750 Base cost $120 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect+profit

CAUSEWAY COST + 15% contingency $158,883,227

TOTAL $286,934,497

Breakwater_causeway costRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefsrev2.xls



Site 2 - Dredging Method Costs

Site 2 - DREDGING METHOD COSTS




Material Soft



Cycle minutes

Dredging 110


Hook up 30

Pump ashore 90

Hook off 10


Cycle minutes 380






Execution 88 weeks


Total 104 weeks

Equipment cost



10 000 m3 trailer $1,100,000




Sub totals $1,400,000 14,152,100 88 $123,627,540 $8.74

Weather delays $900,000 16 $14,305,473


Demb $3,500,000

Cont $12,362,754.02

Direct cost: $160,795,766.77

OH + Profit:35% of direct $56,278,518.37

Grand total 100% + 15% contingency 14,152,100 $249,635,427.90 $17.64

Dredging cost sand per m3Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefsrev2.xls



Site 2 - Inland Port - Dredging Method Costs

Site 2 INLAND PORT - DREDGING METHOD COSTS




Material Soft



Cycle minutes

Dredging 110


Hook up 30

Pump ashore 90

Hook off 10


Cycle minutes 380






Execution 248 weeks


Total 292 weeks

Equipment cost



10 000 m3 trailer $1,100,000




Sub totals $1,400,000 39,672,906 248 $346,567,917 $8.74

Weather delays $900,000 45 $40,102,859


Demb $3,500,000

Cont $34,656,791.67

Direct cost: $431,827,567.26

OH + Profit:35% of direct $151,139,648.54

Grand total 100% + 15% contingency 39,672,906 $670,412,298.17 $16.90

Dredging cost sand per m3Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefs inland port.xls



Site 2 - Darwin Reefs Inland Port - Inner Channel, Berth Pockets

SITE 2 DARWIN REEFS INLAND PORT- INNER CHANNEL, BERTH POCKETS

2.5

1 15 0.75 5



Dredge pocket (1)Width 450 m Actual width 455Length 400 mDredge level 12 m Actual dredge level 12.75Seabed level 7.3 m


Volume 1,051,305 m3

Bulk Berth

Dredge PocketWidth 250 m Width with allowance 255 mLength 700 mDredge level 15.5 m Dredge level with allowance 16.25 mSeabed level -4 m


Volume 5,049,844 m3

Turning BasinWidth 300 m Width with allowance 305 mLength 450 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75 mSeabed level -4 m


Volume 3,816,703 m3

ChannelWidth 375 m Width with allowance 380 mLength 1500 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75 mSeabed level -4 m


Volume 15,056,719 m3


Inner channel, berth pocketRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefs inland port.xls



Site 2 - Darwin Reefs Inland Port - Outer Channel

SITE 2 DARWIN REEFS INLAND PORT- OUTER CHANNEL

2.5

1 15 0.75 5


Section 1Width 200 m Width with allowance 205Length 2500 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 1.5 m -7m to +4 m


Volume 9,841,406 m3

Outer channel to RL+4Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefs inland port.xls



Site 2 - Darwin Reefs Inland Port - Outer Channel

SITE 2 DARWIN REEFS INLAND PORT- OUTER CHANNEL

2.5

1 15 0.75 5


Outer channel Total length 7 km

Section 1Width 150 m Width with allowance 155Length 5500 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 11 m


Volume 4,669,844 m3

Section 2Width 150 m Width with allowance 155Length 500 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 13.5 m


Volume 187,031 m3


Outer channel to RL-7Revision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefs inland port.xls



Site 2 - Darwin Reefs Inner Channel - Berth Pockets

SITE 2 DARWIN REEFS - INNER CHANNEL, BERTH POCKETS

2.5

1 15 0.75 5



Dredge pocket (1)Width 450 m Actual width 455Length 400 mDredge level 12 m Actual dredge level 12.75Seabed level 7.3 m


Volume 1,051,305 m3

Bulk Berth

Dredge PocketWidth 250 m Width with allowance 255 mLength 700 mDredge level 15.5 m Dredge level with allowance 16.25 mSeabed level 7.3 m


Volume 1,877,934 m3

Turning BasinWidth 300 m Width with allowance 305 mLength 450 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75 mSeabed level 7.3 m


Volume 1,497,943 m3

ChannelWidth 375 m Width with allowance 380 mLength 1500 mDredge level 16 m Dredge level with allowance 16.75 mSeabed level 9 m


Volume 4,867,969 m3


Inner channel, berth pocketRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefsrev2.xls



Site 2 - Darwin Reefs - Outer Channel

SITE 2 DARWIN REEFS - OUTER CHANNEL

2.5

1 15 0.75 5


Outer channel Total length 7 km

Section 1Width 150 m Width with allowance 155Length 5500 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 11 m


Volume 4,669,844 m3

Section 2Width 150 m Width with allowance 155Length 500 mDredge level 15 m Dredge level with allowance 15.75Seabed level 13.5 m


Volume 187,031 m3


Outer channelRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Darwin Reefsrev2.xls



Site 3 - Cape Cuvier - Breakwater Causeway

Site 3 - Breakwater

Length 250 m


Core 2170 651000 184.375 $144,033,750 Base cost $110 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 , 25% indirect+profitIncludes 20% core loss and 20% downtime

Artificial armour16.8T unitsConcrete $14,000 m3

Based on Ajaxhudson calculator 12.14 Ajs per 100 m2 1 AJ = 7.14 m3


Seeward Artificial armour 2.7 m thickness 68 20629.7448 2000 $41,259,490 $1600+25% indirect and profitSeeward and Landward rock under layer 1.65 m thickness 120 63360 196.875 $12,474,000 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profitToe 1-3T rock 2 m thickness 7 3500 196.875 $689,063 Base cost $120 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect+profit

BREAKWATER COST + 15% contingency $228,224,747

Site 3 - Causewaym2/m Length Volume Cost/m3 Total cost

Core area 1 1560 390 730080 184.375 $161,530,200 Base cost $110 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 , 25% indirect+profitCore area 2 700 390 163800 184.375 $36,240,750 Includes 20% core loss and 20% downtime


Seeward 1 Artificial armour 2.7 m thickness 50 16902.522 2000 $33,805,044Seeward 2 Artificial armour 2.7 m thickness 25 8451.261 2000 $16,902,522Seeward and Landward 1 rock underlayer 1.65 m thickness 100 64350 196.875 $12,668,906 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profitSeeward and Landward 2 rock underlayer 1.65 m thickness 50 32175 196.875 $6,334,453 Base cost $130 + haulage at 50c tonne km at 1.5T/m3 +25% indirect + profit

CAUSEWAY COST +15% contingency $307,604,157

$535,828,904

Breakwater_causeway costRevision 0 15 October 2010I:\60154869 - Bejaling Deep Water\4 Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\Preliminary costing Cape Cuvier rev2.xls


Bejaling Deepwater Port Study - gdc.wa.gov.au

Documents

Transcript of Bejaling Deepwater Port Study - gdc.wa.gov.au