Draft Screening Study, Port of Saldanha - Transnet of Saldanha/FINAL... · Draft Screening Study, Port of Saldanha ... Annex E Alternative Disposal Options for Excess Dredge Material

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

Draft Screening Study, Port of Saldanha Transnet Limited 3 September 2008 www.erm.com

Transnet Limited

Draft Screening Study, Port of Saldanha

3 September 2008

Prepared by: Stuart Heather-Clark

Zoe Day

This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the trading name of Environmental Resources Management Southern Africa (Pty) Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk. This proposal is provided solely for the purposes set out in it and may not, in whole or in part, be used for any other purpose without ERM's prior written consent. This proposal may not, in whole or in part, be reproduced without ERM's prior written consent.

For and on behalf of Environmental Resources Management Approved by: Stuart Heather-Clark

Signed: Position: Partner Date: 3 September 2008

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 EXISTING PHASE 2 IRON ORE TERMINAL EXPANSION EIA PROCESS 1 1.2 INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTY CONSULTATION TO DATE 2 1.3 PREVIOUS SCREENING STUDIES 3 1.4 OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING PORT DEVELOPMENT 5 1.4.1 Transnet National Infrastructure Plan 5 1.4.2 Relocation of Oil Terminal to St Helena Bay 5 1.4.3 Alternative Disposal Options for Excess Dredge Material 6

2 APPROACH 7

2.1 AIMS OF THE SCREENING STUDY 7 2.2 STEP 1 – GATHER & REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION 7 2.3 STEP 2 - DEVELOP CRITERIA 7 2.3.2 Environmental and Social Considerations 7 2.3.3 Consideration of Environmental Risk 8 2.3.4 Engineering and Operational Considerations 8 2.3.5 Port & Regional Planning Principle Considerations 8 2.3.6 Financial Considerations 8 2.4 STEP 3 - WORKSHOP WITH SPECIALISTS 9 2.5 STEP 4 - COMPILE SCREENING REPORT 10

3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE BERTH OPTIONS 11

3.1 BERTHING OPTIONS 11 3.1.1 Option 1: South of MPT (Small Bay) 11 3.1.2 Option 2: South of MPT (Big Bay) 11 3.1.3 Option 3: Alongside MPT (Small Bay) 11 3.1.4 Option 4: North of MPT (Small Bay) 11 3.2 BASE DATA ON BERTHING OPTIONS 12

4 FINDINGS OF SPECIALIST INPUT 18

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 18 4.1.1 Long-term Ecological Consequences (Marine Environment) 18 4.1.2 Dredge Head Suspension Impacts During Construction 25 4.1.3 Reclaim Area Suspension Impacts During Construction 27 4.1.4 Shoreline Stability 27 4.1.5 Ballast Water 31 4.1.6 Discharges from Site 31 4.1.7 Noise During Construction 32 4.1.8 Noise During Operation 33 4.1.9 Visual Impact of Construction Activity (Construction) 35 4.1.10 Visual Impact of Turbidity Plumes (Construction) 37 4.1.11 Visual Impact on Sense of Place (Operation) 40 4.1.12 Air Quality Aspects During Construction 44

4.1.13 Air Quality Aspects During Operation 45 4.1.14 Social Aspects 46 4.2 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK (PROBABILITY AND FATE OF OIL

SPILLS) 48 4.2.2 Oil Spill Scenarios 48 4.2.3 Fate of an Oil Spill (Consequence) 49 4.2.4 Probability of an Oil Pollution 50 4.2.5 Conclusions 51 4.3 ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 52 4.3.1 Disruption to Existing Marine Related Activities and Other Port Operations

During Construction 52 4.3.2 Berthing and Mooring Conditions 55 4.4 PORT & REGIONAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 55 4.4.1 Port Planning Principles 55 4.4.2 Port Development Framework Plan for the Port of Saldanha 56 4.5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 60

5 ANALYSIS 62

5.1 INITIAL SCREENING OF OPTIONS 62 5.2 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 63 5.2.1 Long-term Ecological Consequences (Marine Environment) 64 5.2.2 Consideration of Risk (Probability and Fate of Oil Spills) 65 5.2.3 Port and Regional Planning Consideration 66 5.2.4 Financial Considerations 66

6 CONCLUSIONS 67

FIGURES Figure 6.1 Indicative Alternative Berth Options 4 Figure 6.2 Option 1 – South MPT (Small Bay) 14 Figure 6.3 Option 2 – South MPT (Big Bay) 15 Figure 6.4 Option 3 – Alongside MPT (Small Bay) 16 Figure 6.5 Option 4 – North of MPT (Small Bay) 17 Figure 6.6 Port of Saldanha - Current Layout (December 2007) 57 Figure 6.7 Port of Saldanha – Long-Term Potential 58 Figure 6.8 Summary Matrix 63 TABLES Table 6.1 Specialist Workshop Participants 9 Table 6.2 Base Data on Berthing Options 13 Table 6.3 Dredge Volumes 53 Table 6.4 Construction of Reclamation Bund 54 Table 6.5 Construction costs for all options 61

BOXES Box 6.1 Summary of Phase 2 Iron Ore Terminal Expansion EIA Process To Date 2 Box 6.2 Summary of Screening Study Programme 10 Box 6.3 Photos of the Four Berthing Options 12 ANNEXURE Annex A Specialist Reports Annex B Engineering & Planning Information Requirements Annex C Port Zoning and Operational Opportunities and Constraints Annex D Relocation to Oil Terminal to St Helena Bay Annex E Alternative Disposal Options for Excess Dredge Material

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TRANSNET LIMITED

1

1 INTRODUCTION

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Southern Africa has been appointed by the HMG Joint Venture (on behalf of Transnet Limited) to undertake a Screening Study to evaluate alternative berthing options for the future development of the Iron Ore Terminal at the Port of Saldanha. The Screening Study has run in parallel with the current Phase 2 Iron Ore Terminal Expansion EIA process and is anticipated to be completed by early October 2008. The Screening Report will be appended to the draft Phase 2 Iron Ore Terminal Expansion Environmental Impact Report. This Screening Study aims to demonstrate due-process and balanced evaluation of social, environmental, engineering, planning and financial considerations in selecting the preferred berthing option currently included in the Phase 2 Port EIA. In the course of the Screening Study, ERM has interacted with Transnet (including the Operating Divisions and the HMG JV), the Phase 2 EIA Consultants PDNA/SRK JV and specialists involved in the Phase 2 EIA, particularly during the specialist workshops (see Section 2.4). ERM’s findings in this Screening Report are based on an independent and unbiased process.

1.1 EXISTING PHASE 2 IRON ORE TERMINAL EXPANSION EIA PROCESS

Transnet has identified the need to expand the current capacity of the bulk iron ore handling facilities along the Sishen - Saldanha Export Corridor, culminating at the Port of Saldanha. This is in response to the increased requirements of the mining companies to export more product and thereby grow the economy of South Africa. The expansion includes the increase of the iron ore handling capacity from approximately 45 to 93 million tonnes of iron ore per annum (MTPA), along with associated infrastructure at the port. The planned expansion of the iron ore handling facility will be undertaken in two stages: i.e. expanding infrastructure to cater for 67 MTPA (Phase 2A), and to cater for 93 MTPA (Phase 2B). A Joint Venture of PD Naidoo & Associates (Pty) Ltd (PDNA) and SRK Consulting (SRK) (The Joint Venture) has been appointed by Transnet to undertake the required Phase 2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed expansion of the iron ore handling infrastructure at the Port of Saldanha. Previously, EIAs were conducted for increases in export capacity, firstly from 24 to 38 MTPA (Phase 1A) and then from 38 to 45 MTPA (Phase 1B). In response to concerns raised by the environmental authorities and members of the public about this incremental approach, Transnet decided to conduct a


2

comprehensive EIA to assess the cumulative impacts of an expansion in capacity up to 93 MTPA. A summary of the Phase 2 Iron Ore Terminal Expansion EIA process to date is shown in Box 1.1 below:

Box 1.1 Summary of Phase 2 Iron Ore Terminal Expansion EIA Process To Date

• Transnet identified the need to expand the current capacity from 45 MTPA to 93 MTPA • Previous EIAs include Phase 1A (24 to 38 MTPA) and Phase 1B (38 to 45 MTPA) • Phase 1A approved in 2002, construction activities complete • Final approval for Phase 1B issued in March 2007, construction activities on-going • Phase 2 EIA commenced in May 2006 • First phase of Phase 2 EIA (Scoping) culminated in submission of Scoping Report to DEAT

in June 2007 • DEAT acceptance of Scoping Report and Plan of Study for the EIA phase received in

September 2007 • Specialist studies currently investigating environmental issues including those identified by

I&APs during the Scoping Process Source: PDNA/SRK JV Presentation - Follow up to alternatives information sharing meeting, 29th November 2007

1.2 INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTY CONSULTATION TO DATE

Throughout 2007, Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) have indicated that they wanted to understand how Transnet selected the three stockyard alternatives being assessed in the process and why there was no alternative to the berthing locations. On the 20th September 2007, a meeting was held to provide further information about the selection criteria used for the consideration of alternatives (stockyard layouts and berthing locations). During this meeting, the advantages and disadvantages associated with different stockyard layouts and berthing locations, as included in the pre-feasibility engineering studies undertaken by Transnet were presented. In particular, I&APs were interested in how Transnet chose to locate two new iron ore berths in Big Bay (Langebaan side), screening out development in Small Bay (Saldanha side). It was agreed at this meeting that a follow-up meeting would be held in order for Transnet to report back on a number of the issues that were raised. This follow up meeting took place on 29th November 2007 where Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg (Pty) Ltd (PRDW) presented a discussion on the development of the Port Development Framework and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) presented opinions relating to the marine environment and the development in Small Bay. At these meetings, I&APs expressed concern that environmental and social criteria did not appear to be part of the decision making process. In response to the I&APs concerns, Transnet proposes to undertake a Screening Study to demonstrate due-process and balanced evaluation of


3

social, environmental, engineering, planning and financial considerations in selecting the preferred berthing option. The objective of the Screening Study is to document the logic and the process undertaken. The Screening Study has run in parallel with the current EIA process to supplement the Environmental Impact Report and will be undertaken to a level associated with a pre-application evaluation. This means that only existing information and expert knowledge will be used to screen out berthing options that are not feasible from a social, environmental, engineering, planning and financial perspective.

1.3 PREVIOUS SCREENING STUDIES

Prior to the Phase 2 engineering feasibility study and commencement of the Phase 2 EIA, a series of high level screening studies were undertaken to identify a range of design alternatives concerning the expansion. Only options that were identified to be reasonably practical were selected to be addressed in the feasibility study and the EIA process. Design alternatives included stockyard areas and berth positions. The pre-feasibility engineering screening study identified three locations for the two iron ore berths required as part of the Phase 2 expansion. The alternatives meeting on the 20th September 2007 presented a variation on Option 3 which is Option 4. These four locations are to be evaluated as part of the Screening Study (Option 1, Option 3 & Option 4 in Small Bay and Option 2 in Big Bay). Figure 1.1 provides a summary map of the four berthing options.

Figure 1.1 Indicative Alternative Berth Options


5

1.4 OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING PORT DEVELOPMENT

A range of factors influence the outcome of port development generally and location of the iron ore terminal specifically. These factors are discussed below.

1.4.1 Transnet National Infrastructure Plan

The National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) is an investment plan compiled by Transnet that looks specifically at developing key port, rail and pipeline infrastructure. This plan ensures that capacity is provided ahead of demand in the interest of national economy. Since the NIP includes all of the port, rail and pipeline infrastructure owned by Transnet, this document also considers the interplay between various ports and between the ports and the hinterland that they serve. Transnet’s cargo volume flows are concentrated in four ports and in five land corridors. The four ports are Richards Bay, Durban, Cape Town and Saldanha Bay. The documents that inform the NIP in respect of the ports are the Port Development Framework Plans (PDFP’s). A PDFP for each port has been developed and approved by Transnet during 2008. The process of compiling each PDFP consisted of an assessment of the existing port infrastructure and demand for future capacity within the context of port specific opportunities and constraints to development. Based on a comprehensive cargo demand, port development options were identified and assessed, in collaboration with national and local operating division representatives, using selection criteria that included technical, economic, environmental and statutory parameters. The outcome of this process was to provide a spatial guideline for port development for the next 30 years. In order to ensure a synergetic relationship between the Port of Cape Town and the Port of Saldanha, the spatial development plans for each port have taken into consideration the potential development plans of the other port. The importance of the PDFP within the NIP is therefore evident at a local, regional and national level.

1.4.2 Relocation of Oil Terminal to St Helena Bay

The option of relocating the oil terminal to render this part of the jetty free to be converted into a dual iron ore loading facility, with one berth on either side of this section of the jetty was previously investigated by Transnet. This change in use of the jetty implies that the oil terminal has to be relocated to another site such as St Helena Bay. Transnet undertook three contract investigations in parallel to investigate the feasibility of locating a Single Point


6

Mooring (SPM) (1) in St Helena Bay. These investigations included the following: • CSIR Engineering and Environmental Feasibility Study; • PRDW: St Helena Bay SPM – Prefeasibility Report; and • Connell Hatch Oil Berth Conversion Project, Conceptual Study and

Preliminary Engineering. On completion of these investigations, it was concluded that locating the SPM in St Helena Bay was not feasible for a number of reasons. The costs associated with this were estimated to be R4.32 billion and the estimated time to complete the SPM was 4.5 years with considerable disruption of shipping during construction. Delays were also expected in the EIA process for the SPM and for the development of an on-land pipeline to the oil storage facilities. As a result the option of converting the existing oil terminal into an ore terminal was not considered feasible and is therefore not considered as an option in this Screening Study. For more detailed information see Annex D.

1.4.3 Alternative Disposal Options for Excess Dredge Material

The requirement to create a shipping channel to allow access of the iron ore vessels to the new berths results in a significant amount of dredge material requiring handling either in a beneficial manner or disposal on land or offshore. The HMG JV undertook studies to assess the alternative options for disposal of dredged material for both land-based and offshore options. The reports concluded that neither land-based nor off-shore options were feasible. For more information on land-based disposal options, please see Annex E. As a result, for the purposes of this study it is assumed that no other beneficial uses of alternatives exist other than to use the dredge material for reclaim in Big Bay.

(1) A SPM is a buoy to which a tanker is moored by a bow hawser and which also acts as a transfer facility for liquid cargo. The attached tanker is allowed to weathervane around the buoy with its bow hawser. The tanker has to pump its cargo through a floating pipeline to the SPM and subsequently to shore through a pipeline on the seabed.


7

2 APPROACH

2.1 AIMS OF THE SCREENING STUDY

The aims of the Screening Study include the following: • Develop a similar level of technical information (i.e. dredge volume, berth

design, operational aspects etc) for the four berthing options; • Undertake a comparative assessment of the four berthing options against

social, environmental, engineering, planning and financial criteria through the review and analysis of existing information and specialist workshops; and

• Ensure a transparent, consistent and rigorous process to document this information that will lead to a logical conclusion as to the preferred berthing location.

The Screening Study comprised four steps which are outlined below.

2.2 STEP 1 – GATHER & REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION

ERM’s initial step was to gather and review all existing information. This included the following: • EIA and specialist studies undertaken for the General Cargo Quay/Multi-

Purpose Terminal; • Previous EIAs undertaken for the Port of Saldanha (Phase 1A, Phase 1B); • Draft Specialist study reports currently being compiled for the Phase 2 Port

of Saldanha EIA; and • Port Development Framework Plan. This information was analysed in order to gain an understanding of the existing level of information on the four berthing options.

2.3 STEP 2 - DEVELOP CRITERIA

Based on the above, criteria were developed against which the four berthing options could be assessed. The criteria include the following:

2.3.2 Environmental and Social Considerations

• Long-term Ecological Consequences o Phytoplankton o Dissolved Oxygen o Habitat Modification (shipping channel/dredge area) o Habitat Destruction (reclaim area)


8

• Dredge Head Sediment Suspension Impacts During Construction o Water Column Turbidity o Effects on Benthic Habitats o Remobilisation of Contaminants During Dredging o Effects on Phytoplankton Productivity

• Reclaim Area Suspended Sediment Impacts During Construction o Water Quality Turbidity o Effects on Benthic Habitats o Effects on Phytoplankton Productivity

• Shoreline Stability o Channel Dredging o Reclamation - Shoreline Stability o Reclamation - Beach amenity

• Operational Impacts Associated with Ballast Water and Discharges from Site o Ballast Water o Discharges from Site

• Noise During Construction • Noise During Operation • Visual Impact of Construction Activity • Visual Impact of Turbidity Plumes (Construction) • Visual Impact on Sense of Place (Operation) • Air Quality Impacts During Construction • Air Quality Impacts During Operation • Social Impact During Construction • Social Impact During Operation

2.3.3 Consideration of Environmental Risk

• Probability and fate of oil spills

2.3.4 Engineering and Operational Considerations

• Disruption of Existing On-land Operations During Construction • Berthing and Safe Mooring Conditions

2.3.5 Port & Regional Planning Principle Considerations

• Port Planning Considerations

2.3.6 Financial Considerations

Costs for Construction (1)

(1) Operational and maintenance costs were not considered within this study since it was envisaged that each scenario would have similar manpower and maintenance requirements.


9

2.4 STEP 3 - WORKSHOP WITH SPECIALISTS

A series of three specialist workshops were held. Those specialists participating in the workshops comprised Transnet (including the Operating Divisions and the HMG JV), ERM, the Phase 2 EIA Consultants PDNA/SRK JV and specialists involved in the Phase 2 EIA. The following workshops included: • Workshop 1 - Engineering and Planning; • Workshop 2 - Social, Visual, Noise and Air Quality; and • Workshop 3 - Marine. Workshop participants are provided in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Specialist Workshop Participants

Workshop Participants Workshop 1 May 30th

2008

Workshop 2 June 10th

2008

Workshop 3 June 11th

2008 Ellen Campbell - HMG JV x Max Clark - HMG JV x x Christelle van der Merwe - Transnet Capital Projects x Denovan Titus - Transnet NPA x x Sharon Jones - PDNA/SRK JV x Nimi Ramchand - Transnet NPA x Peter Silbernagl - PDNA/SRK JV x x x Lyndon Metcalf - Transnet NPA x x Nic Strydom - Transnet Port Terminals (TPT) x Allan Wijnberg – PRDW x x Ken Russel - HMG JV x x x Daniel Rogatschnig – ERM x x x Zoe Day – ERM x x x Stuart Heather-Clark – ERM x x x Dorian Bilse - Transnet NPA x Vonk Claassens - Transnet NPA x Sophie Carnegie - PDNA/SRK JV x x x Vis Reddy – SRK x Demos Dracoulides – DDA x Bunny Reid - HMG JV x x Ilse Aucamp – Independent x Mader van den Berg – Independent x Dr Koos Schoonees – WSP x Mr Geoff Smith – WSP x Roy van Ballegooyen – CSIR x Cpt Peter Stowe - Transnet NPA x Dr Hans Moes – CSIR x Dr Robin Carter – Llwandle x Dr Pedro Monteiro – CSIR x Mark Cawood - PDNA/SRK JV x

The aim of the workshops was firstly to agree on the assessment criteria. These criteria were then used to provide a comparative assessment of the risks associated with each of the four berthing options for the Phase 2 Iron Ore Terminal Expansion EIA. Workshop participants were asked to prepare a


10

short report which discussed each option in terms of the identified criteria to develop a comparative assessment of the four berthing options. Specialist reports are included in Annex A. It should be noted that at the time of compiling the Screening Study, the Phase 2 EIA specialist studies had progressed substantially. This allowed more detailed information to be available than would have been the case should the Screening Study have been completed before the start of the EIA.

2.5 STEP 4 - COMPILE SCREENING REPORT

Based on the findings from the specialist workshops and existing knowledge based on the work undertaken to date, this Screening Report has been compiled which provides a comparative assessment for each of the criteria for the four options. A summary matrix has been compiled to summarise the comparative assessment of all the criteria and is used as an initial screening tool to screen out those options that are clearly not viable. Further discussion is then provided on the remaining options and recommendations as to the preferred berthing location presented. The Draft Screening Report will be circulated to key stakeholders for a comment period of 10 days. All comments received will be addressed and integrated into the Final Screening Report. The final Screening Report will be appended to the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report which is anticipated for release during the course of 2009. Box 2.1 provides a summary of the anticipated programme for the Screening Study.

Box 2.1 Summary of Screening Study Programme

• Specialist Workshops – June 2008 • Compilation of Comparative Assessment & draft Screening Report –July 2008 • I&AP comment period (20 days) on draft Screening Study report – Anticipated September

2008 • Collate & address I&AP comments on draft Screening Report – October 2008


11

3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE BERTH OPTIONS

3.1 BERTHING OPTIONS

The following sections provide a summary of the four berthing options considered in the Screening Study. All other infrastructure required for the export terminal upgrade, for example, stock yards, ship loaders, stacker-reclaimers, etc will remain the same. All options include using dredge material for reclaiming the area to the east of the port in Big Bay. Maps summarising the positions for each berthing option and reclaim area are provided in Figure 3.1 - Figure 3.4 with more detail on each option outlined below.

3.1.1 Option 1: South of MPT (Small Bay)

Option 1 (Figure 3.1) is located along side the existing iron ore quay in the Small Bay side of Saldanha Bay. The section of causeway available from the southern end of the multi-purpose terminal (MPT) and the existing iron ore jetty is approximately 1,000m long. A small portion of the causeway is currently used to accommodate Oil Pollution Control South Africa (OPCSA). In order for iron ore vessels to access these berths, dredging will be required to create an appropriately sized shipping channel.

3.1.2 Option 2: South of MPT (Big Bay)

Option 2 (Figure 3.2) is located alongside the existing iron ore quay in the Big Bay side of Saldanha Bay. The section of causeway available between the existing iron ore stockpiles and the iron ore jetty is approximately 300m long. This section of causeway is relatively straight with the exception that the quay widens (50m) temporarily in the vicinity of the MPT. Dredging would also be required in this location.

3.1.3 Option 3: Alongside MPT (Small Bay)

Option 3 (Figure 3.3) is located at the existing multi-purpose terminal. This location would require the conversion of the MPT to an iron ore terminal. The existing MPT is 874m long and consists of 4 berths numbered 201 to 204. Berth 201 is 250m long, consists of caisson units and extends to a depth of – 13.5 CD. Berths 202 to 204 consist of counterfort units and extend to a depth of – 15m CD. Dredging would also be required in this location.

3.1.4 Option 4: North of MPT (Small Bay)

Option 4 (Figure 3.4) is located in the Small Bay side of Saldanha Bay to the north of the MPT. There are currently no existing berths at Option 4. This option is closely located to the Iron Ore stockpiles. Dredging would also be required in this location.


12

Box 3.1 Photos of the Four Berthing Options

Source: Specialist Study – Saldanha Iron Ore Export Terminal Evaluation of Additional Berth Options, Considering Incremental Shipping Risks, J Moes, CSIR, 2008 (Annex A)

3.2 BASE DATA ON BERTHING OPTIONS

Table 3.1 provides a summary of the engineering and planning requirements for each of the options. For more detailed information, please refer to Annex B.

Option 3 →

Option 1 →

Option 4 →

← Option 2

Option 2 → ← Option 1

← Option 3

← Option 4


13

Table 3.1 Base Data on Berthing Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Length (m) i 380 380 380 380 Size of Berth Width (m) ii 360 360 360 360

Depth of Berth (m CD) -21 -21 -21 -21 Dredge Volume (Mi m3) 4.1 6.25 7.7 12.7 Dredge Area (m2) 830,000 iii 650,000 iii 980,000 iv 1,200,000 iv Reclamation Volume (Mi m3) v 4.9 7.2 9.24 15.24 Reclamation Area (m2) 392,000 560,000 890,000 1,540,000 Anticipated Duration of Dredging Activities (weeks)

24 40 46 75

Increased turning width to -14m Yes No Yes Yes Blasting Volume (m3) 51,250 vi 90,000 vi 136,000 vii 205,000 viii

Volume of Revetment (Mi m3)

4.9 7.2 9.24 15.24

Volume of Rock Required (m3)ix

285,500 329,000 483,000 513,000

Number of Trucks Required

40,000 46,000 67,000 71,000

Revetment

Construction Duration (weeks)

52 60 87 93

No. of Conveyors 3 4 4 3 Length of Conveyors (m) Cv414 = 1,620

m Cv514 = 1,620 m Cv128 = 96 m Cv129 = 96 m Cv130 = 873 m Cv530 = 873 m Total = 5,178m

Cv414 = 2,470 m Cv514 = 2,470 m Cv114 = 396 m Cv214 = 396 m Cv128 = 115 m Cv129 = 115 m Cv130 = 823 m Cv530 = 823 m Total = 7,608 m

Cv414 =1,657 m Cv514 = 1,660 m Cv130 = 957 m Cv230 =967 m Cv128 = 125 Cv129=125 m Total = 5,491 m

Cv414 = 740 m Cv514 = 740 m Cv128 = 250 m Cv129 = 250 m Cv130 = 930 m Cv230 =930 m Total = 3,840 m

Sampler Buildings Relocated (Y/N) N N Y Y Buildings/Facilities to be Relocated Small craft

harbour; and OPCSA

None Multi-Purpose Terminal

None

i - For each of the two berths ii - Quay face to dredge limit iii - Inclusive connection to existing channel iv - Inclusive access channel (270m wide, 2000m long) v - Inclusive bulking of dredged material vi -Inclusive of bulking of the rock, the figure increases to 144,600 m3 vii - Inclusive of bulking of the rock, the figure increases to 218,500 m3 viii - Inclusive of bulking of the rock, the figure increases to 328,000 m3 ix – Sourced from a suitable quarry Source: HMG JV, Transnet Capital Projects, Saldanha Port Berthing Alternatives, Engineering & Planning Information Requirements, 21 August 2008.


14

Figure 3.1 Option 1 – South MPT (Small Bay)


15

Figure 3.2 Option 2 – South MPT (Big Bay)


16

Figure 3.3 Option 3 – Alongside MPT (Small Bay)


17

Figure 3.4 Option 4 – North of MPT (Small Bay)


18

4 FINDINGS OF SPECIALIST INPUT

The following section provides an analysis of the four berthing options from the following considerations: • Environmental and Social Considerations (marine, noise, air, visual and

social); • Consideration of Environmental Risk; • Engineering and Operational Considerations; • Port & Regional Planning Principle Considerations; and • Financial Considerations.

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1.1 Long-term Ecological Consequences (Marine Environment)

The assessment criterion used is to minimise the changes to the biogeochemical processes (1) that support the key ecosystem services from the coupled Saldanha Bay – Langebaan Lagoon System. The key biogeochemical process underpinning ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient rich water that mariculture depends on) in the system is biological productivity (distribution in space and time) and its utilisation in the system reflected through changes in oxygen in bottom waters. Also of concern is habitat destruction (direct or indirectly). The three metrics of change utilised include the following: • The extent of change in water column phytoplankton productivity; • The extent of change in dissolved oxygen in the bottom waters of the

system (low dissolved oxygen concentrations may lead to ecological effects such as reductions in benthic biomass, species abundance and diversity as well the elimination of crustacean at very low concentrations); and

• The extent of physical habitat change (i.e. shipping channel) and habitat loss (i.e. reclamation area).

The degree of change considered to be significant is an anomaly of 10% in the phytoplankton productivity and dissolved oxygen in the water column that has a persistence of 7 days or greater. The basis for this criterion is that changes smaller than 10% are unlikely to be reliably measured/resolved. Furthermore, the reason for selecting a 7 day or greater persistence of the > 10% anomalies is that, for changes to be ecologically meaningful, such

(1) Biogeochemical processes are those physical, chemical and geological processes determining the inter-relationship between the geochemistry of an region and the animal and plant life in that region.


19

changes need to persist for at least one upwelling cycle (that here is considered to be of an approximate 7 day duration). Non-exceedence of these metric thresholds is considered to represent a “no change” scenario for the ecological status of the Saldanha Bay-Langebaan Lagoon ecosystem. In terms of habitat, the comparative magnitude of habitat change (either volume or spatial extent) is considered. As discussed in Section 1.4.3, it is assumed that no other beneficial uses or alternatives exist other than to use the dredge material for reclaim in Big Bay. The anticipated changes in the Saldanha Bay-Langebaan Lagoon ecosystem associated with the various options are described below. Option 1 – South MPT (Small Bay)

The dredge channel will result in a deepened channel (830 000 m2 in extent) extending as far as the MPT berth in Small Bay and a reclaim area (392 000 m2 in extent) in Big Bay. Compared to the existing layout, there will be increased penetration of cold bottom water (< 10ºC water containing high silicates and nitrates) into the eastern side of Small Bay. Phytoplankton Associated with this is the possibility of an increase in phytoplankton production over a small area of the new dredge channel, however these changes are unlikely to be significant. An opposing effect is also possible in the sense that a larger volume of cold water could result in a stronger thermocline, reduced nutrient fluxes into the surface layers and consequently decreased production. It will be similarly spatially very limited and not significant in that it will not significantly affect existing ecosystem services (e.g. mariculture activities) and the overall productivity of the bay. Dissolved Oxygen Such increased production may result in a possible increase in deposition of detrital material in the immediate vicinity of the dredge channel in Small Bay. However, depending on the exact nature of the circulation, this material may “drain out” of Small Bay as flocs. (1) There may be a possible increase in the deposition of detrital material in the western side of Small Bay. In the absence of detailed modelling as has been undertaken for Option 2, the extent to which the deposition of detrital material will indeed occur in Small Bay and the likely consequences thereof are not clear. However, any increase in deposition of detrital material and/or sediments in the newly dredged area is expected to be limited due to the fact that much of the proposed dredge channel area (-21m CD) already exists as a shipping channel deepened to approximately -15m CD.

(1) A flocculent mass formed in a fluid through precipitation or aggregation of suspended particles.


20

Should the increase in phytoplankton production be limited or not occur, there is likely to be no impact on the anoxic sediments in Small Bay, however due to seabed morphology there may be increased deposition in the dredge channel with a limited localised effect on dissolved oxygen concentrations near the seabed. Habitat Modification (shipping channel/dredge area) While the increase in the spatial extent of the existing channel is fairly limited, as much of the proposed dredge channel already exists, the total area of the dredge area in Option 1 (830,000 m2) is nevertheless greater than for Option 2 (650,000 m2). Habitat Destruction (reclaim area) The loss of benthic habitat due to the establishment of the reclaim area in Big Bay is approximately 392 000 m2. This is less than that occurring for Option 2 (560 000 m2). This loss of benthic habitat is relatively modest in terms of the spatial extent of available benthic habitat in Big Bay (> 30 000 000 m2). The consequences in terms of water column “habitat” in Big Bay are insignificant. Option 2 – South MPT (Big Bay)

The dredge channel will result in a deepened channel (650,000 m2 in extent) extending into the shallower waters alongside the causeway in Big Bay and a reclaim area (560,000 m2 in extent) in Big Bay. Compared to the existing layout, there will be increased penetration of cold bottom water (< 10ºC water containing high silicates and nitrates) into the proposed dredge area alongside the causeway in Big Bay. Phytoplankton Associated with this is the possibility of an increase in phytoplankton production over mostly the area of the new dredge channel. The likelihood of such an increase in phytoplankton production is greater than for Option 1 because of a larger mixing energy in Big Bay however existing detailed modelling results indicate that these changes remain insignificant. Dissolved Oxygen The modelling results indicate that the increased production that does occur, results in deposition of detrital material in the area alongside the causeway and the area between the northern extremity of the proposed shipping channel and the reclaim area. There are also indications of deposition of detrital material resulting in a lowering of dissolved oxygen in the offshore area between the causeway and Lynch Point however this is evident for a total duration of approximately 24 hours in summer and autumn. The model results indicate that the deposition of detrital carbon in the proposed dredge area and any associated effects on dissolved oxygen are limited. Habitat Modification (shipping channel/dredge area)


21

Modification of benthic habitats will occur throughout the proposed new shipping channel however the spatial extent of benthic modification remains limited. It should be noted that in overall terms, the spatial extent of the proposed dredge area for Option 2 (650,000 m2) is less than that for Option 1 (832,000 m2). Habitat Destruction (reclaim area) Conversely, the habitat destruction due to the establishment of the reclamation area is greater for Option 2 (560,000 m2) than for Option 1 (392,000 m2), i.e. an approximate 40% increase. This loss of habitat is relatively modest in terms of the aerial extent of available benthic habitat in Big Bay (> 30,000,000 m2). The consequences in terms of water column “habitat” in Big Bay are insignificant. Option 3 – Alongside MPT (Small Bay)

The dredge channel will result in a deepened channel (980,000 m2 in extent) extending into the shallower waters alongside the causeway in Small Bay and a reclaim area (890,000 m2 in extent) in Big Bay. Compared to the existing layout, there will be increased penetration of cold bottom water (< 10ºC water containing high silicates and nitrates) into the proposed dredge area, extending into the shallower waters of Small Bay. While much of the proposed shipping channel has been dredged to -15 m CD, the dredging of the shipping channel to an increased depth of -21 m CD will result in cold nutrient –rich water extending into Small Bay in areas where exposure to these waters is normally more limited. Furthermore the deepened shipping channel will result in increased exposure of Small Bay to smaller upwelling events as the cold waters associated with the weaker upwelling events will more easily enter Small Bay in the deeper shipping channel. Phytoplankton Despite the increased occurrence of cold nutrient-rich waters in the bottom waters of Small Bay, the mixing of these nutrient-rich waters into the surface waters may be quite limited due to the low wave energy in the affected areas in Small Bay and possibly the limited exposure to winds that mix these nutrient-rich bottom waters into the surface waters. The impact of shipping stirring these deeper nutrient-rich waters into the surface layers is unknown. It is likely that there will be increased phytoplankton growth however the extent of the increase is uncertain. Despite the higher frequency of upwelling events penetrating further into Small Bay, the change in phytoplankton production (although likely to be greater that Options 1 and possibly Option 2) is likely to be insignificant. Such increased production may result in a possible increase in deposition of detrital material in the immediate vicinity of this more extensive and deepened dredge channel in Small Bay. However, depending on the exact nature of the circulation, this material may “drain out” of Small Bay as flocs. There may be a possible increase in the deposition of detrital material in the


22

western side of Small Bay. In the absence of detailed modelling as has been undertaken for Option 2, it is not clear the extent to which the deposition of detrial material will indeed occur in Small Bay and the likely consequences thereof. Dissolved Oxygen There will be increased deposition of detrital carbon in the deeper, more extensive shipping channel that could lead to local oxygen depletion. Should the increase in phytoplankton production be limited, there is likely to be no impact on the anoxic sediments in Small Bay. There is however likely to be increased deposition of detrital material in the dredge channel that may have a limited localised effect on dissolved oxygen concentrations near the seabed. Habitat Modification (shipping channel/dredge area) The proposed shipping channel for Option 3 (980,000 m2 in extent) is significantly greater than for Option 1 (830,000 m2) or Option 2 (650,000 m2), however a large proportion of the proposed shipping channel under Option 3 is already a shipping channel, albeit only at – 15 m CD rather than 21 m CD. Therefore the increase in modified benthic habitats in Small Bay under development Option 3 is likely to be insignificant. However, the overall extent of the modified habitat (980,000 m2) under development Option 3 approaches an area approximately 10% of the total benthic habitat in Small Bay (~ 14,000,000 m2) and therefore comprise a significant portion of the available benthic habitat in Small Bay. Habitat Destruction (reclaim area) The loss of benthic habitat due to the establishment of the reclaim area in Big Bay is approximately 890,000 m2. This is significantly greater than that proposed for Option 1 (392,000 m2) or for Option 2 (560,000 m2). While this loss of habitat remains relatively modest in terms of the aerial extent of available benthic habitat in Big Bay (>30,000,000 m2), the consequences in terms of available benthic habitat remain uncertain. The consequences in terms of water column “habitat” in Big Bay are likely to remain insignificant. Option 4 – North of MPT (Small Bay)

The dredge channel will result in a deepened channel (1,180,000 m2 in extent) extending deep into Small Bay. The deep channel will cut into the shallow oligotrophic (nutrient poor) waters of Small Bay, resulting in the injection of nutrient rich water into the shallow northern euphotic zone of Small Bay directly. Furthermore the extended shipping channel will result in increased exposure of Small Bay, particularly the shallow waters along the northern shore, to smaller upwelling events as the cold waters associated with the weaker upwelling events will more easily enter Small Bay in the deeper shipping channel extending all of the way into the shallow waters. Phytoplankton The result of this is likely to be a significant increase in the phytoplankton productivity and biomass in the northern region of the bay which is usually


23

clear and nutrient poor. The aesthetics of these waters will change with a likely reduction in the water clarity (required by macrophytes). There is a strong possibility that this will result in a > 10% change in water clarity compared to present conditions. Consequently these changes are likely to be of moderate/medium significance. Dissolved Oxygen Such increased production will result in an increase in deposition of detrital material in the immediate vicinity of this more extensive and deepened dredge channel in Small Bay that could lead to local oxygen depletion. Furthermore an increase in the deposition of detrital material in the western side of Small Bay is likely to result in a small but measurable impact on the dissolved oxygen conditions in this region. In the absence of detailed modelling as has been undertaken for Option 2, it is not clear the extent to which the deposition of detrital material will indeed occur in Small Bay and the likely consequences thereof. Habitat Modification (shipping channel/dredge area) Modification of benthic habitats will occur throughout the proposed new shipping channel (1,180,000 m2 in extent) extending to the area north of the MPT. The proposed shipping channel for Option 4 (1,180,000 m2 in extent) is significantly greater than all of the other options. The extent of the modified habitat (1,180,000 m2) approaches an area approximately 10% of the total benthic habitat in Small Bay (~ 14,000,000 m2) and therefore starts to become significant. Habitat Destruction (reclaim area) The loss of benthic habitat due to the establishment of the reclaim area in Big Bay is approximately 1,660,000 m2. This is approximately 3 to 4 times more extensive than that proposed for Option 1 and Option 2 and double that of Option 3. There is also a loss of intertidal and shallow subtidal area (important for fish spawning and recruitment) that will not occur for the other options. The loss of habitat due to the proposed reclaim area (whilst still < 10% of the available benthic habitat in Big Bay) is likely to constitute a moderate to severe loss of habitat in Big Bay. The consequences in terms of the loss of water column “habitat” in Big Bay are likely to remain small. The likely changes in circulation and associated consequences for the ecosystems in Big Bay and the coupling of the Big Bay – Langebaan Lagoon ecosystems are not known. However, given the significant greater loss of water area in Big Bay it can be safely assumed that the potential impacts will be greatest for the Option 4. Conclusion on Long-term Ecological Consequences

The overall consequences of the changes associated with Option 1 and Option 2 are likely to be insignificant in terms of the overall ecosystem functioning of the ecosystems of Small Bay and Big Bay, and the coupling of the Big Bay – Langebaan Lagoon ecosystems.


24

The overall consequences of the changes for Option 3 are likely to be insignificant in terms of the overall ecosystem functioning of the ecosystem of Big Bay and the coupling of the Big Bay – Langebaan Lagoon ecosystems. However, the expansion of modified benthic habitat in Small Bay is appreciable and the loss of such habitat under the reclaim in Big Bay is large relative to Option 1 and Option 2. The consequences of these changes are uncertain. With regards to Option 4, when compared to Option 1 and Option 2 habitat loss and/or modification is appreciable in Small Bay and Big Bay. The latter specifically in the inter- and shallow subtidal area which is known to be important as a fish nursery area. Option 4 is the least suitable of all alternatives put forward because of this and uncertainties of affects on other functions in the Saldanha Bay-Langebaan Lagoon ecosystem. Current understanding of the ecosystem functioning of the Saldanha Bay – Langebaan Lagoon system is that Langebaan Lagoon is dependant on the physics and productivity processes in Big Bay, particularly the flux of organic material into the latter system from Big Bay. Being less directly linked, the ecosystem functioning of Small Bay is likely to be of lesser importance to Langebaan Lagoon than that of Big Bay. Nevertheless there are significant ecosystem services provided by Small Bay (e.g. nutrient rich water that mariculture depends on, assimilation of discharges, etc). The quantitative aspects of the link between Big Bay and Langebaan Lagoon are not fully understood. This requires that the precautionary principle be invoked when assessing risks to Langebaan Lagoon. This has been interpreted as a requirement that there be no change to the indices selected (i.e. phytoplankton production, dissolved oxygen) at locations adjacent to and in the lagoon mouth. This implies that the ecosystem thresholds in turn would not be threatened. The indices used for the assessment of long term ecological consequences have indicated that the morphological changes (and linked changes in ecosystem function) associated with either Option 1 or Option 2 do not pose any identified long-term risk to the Saldanha Bay – Langebaan Lagoon system. Thus either of these development options could be acceptable. Future Development in Big Bay

Uncertainties exist where ecosystem thresholds lie for the linkages between Big Bay and Langebaan Lagoon. It is probable that extended development within Big Bay, be this port development or other operations such as mariculture, etc, may ultimately threaten ecosystem thresholds. The risk (in terms of linkages between Big Bay and Langebaan Lagoon) of similar extended development in Small Bay is likely to be lower.


25

Thus, within the context of present available knowledge of the functioning of the Saldanha Bay - Langebaan Lagoon ecosystem and associated ecosystem thresholds, the selection of Option 2 on this occasion should not be considered to set a precedent for further development in Big Bay by either the port or other industry. Assessment of the acceptability of any further or extended development in Big Bay will need to be based on an improved understanding of potential ecosystem thresholds to ensure that the risks posed by such further development in Big Bay on the Saldanha Bay - Langebaan Lagoon ecosystems remain acceptable.

4.1.2 Dredge Head Suspension Impacts During Construction

Dredging activities will increase water column turbidity and have the potential to change particle size distribution in the sediments. Increased turbidity in the water column, in turn, may impact phytoplankton production and larval and juvenile fish survival. There may be feeding efficiency effects on filter feeders such as mussels and very high concentrations can affect mussel recruitment. Two sources of turbidity include: • Suspension at the dredge head; • Return flows from the proposed reclaim areas. Dredge head suspension is variable between the proposed locations while return from the reclaim areas will vary over small spatial scales in Big Bay. Turbidity due to suspension at the dredge head is significantly less than that due to return flows from the reclaims area(s). Water Column Turbidity Option 1 will result in the generation of plumes (dredge head suspension) at the outer extremity of Small Bay that may have direct effects (feeding efficiency, mussel recruitment) on the adjacent mariculture areas. Most likely to be affected is the mariculture area adjacent to the Marcus Island breakwater. The effects are likely to remain low for a properly controlled dredge operation. Option 2 will result in the generation of plumes in Big Bay and is likely to have a limited effect on existing mariculture areas in Small Bay or Big Bay. In the early stages of dredging the impacts for Option 3 will be the same as for Option 1. During the latter stages, it may also affect the mariculture activities in the centre of Small Bay. Option 4 will have the same effects as for Option 3 with increased duration. There may be some effects on the Gracileria (1) in Small Bay. The scale of potential impacts is likely to be roughly proportional to the quantity of material to be dredged.

(1) A red agar-producing seaweed that grows in Saldanha Bay and is harvested via the collection of wash-ups on the beaches. Agar is a product in demand by the microbiological, medical and food industries.


26

Effects of Benthic Habitats The likely impacts include: • inundation, the effects of which are not likely to be significant for any of

the options due to the burrowing abilities of benthic organisms, and; • the longer term effects of modified particle size distributions in the host

sediments affecting the benthos community structure. The effects of modified particle size-distribution have been shown to persist for up to 4 years for dredging activities in Small Bay. Due to the more dispersive environment in Big Bay, it is likely that the effects will be less persistent in Big Bay. In terms of these effects Option 1 and Option 2 are unlikely to be significantly different, however potential impacts due to modified particle size-distribution are likely to increase for Option 3 and Option 4, with Option 4 being the greatest. The ecological implications of these changes on overall system productivity are uncertain but an effect on biodiversity will occur. Remobilisation of Contaminants During Dredging The anthropogenic contaminants are known to exist in Small Bay, particularly adjacent to the MPT. Recent surveys have shown there to be petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the existing channels and basins to the south of the MPT. In Big Bay there is no evidence of any such contamination. It is possible that trace metals (e.g. lead, zinc and copper) may be remobilised during dredging but elutriation tests (1) carried out in sediments from the Port of Cape Town indicate that, in the presence of absorption species such as iron and manganese, the amount of toxicants entering the water column are likely to be limited. Being a similar West Coast environment, it is highly likely that a similar conclusion could be reached for sediments in Saldanha Bay. Elutriation tests of the release of contaminants associated with the TPH in the sediments in the vicinity of Caisson 3 and 4 of the causeway in Saldanha Bay indicate that the toxicants entering the water column are also likely to be limited. In terms of trace metal contaminants the risks are highest for Option 3 and Option 4. For Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) the risks are equally high for Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4. Option 2 does not present any risk in this regard. Effects on Phytoplankton Productivity Elevated turbidity will affect the light distribution within the water column. For an effect on phytoplankton production to be expressed, the turbidity needs to penetrate into the upper layers of the water column. For an effect on benthic algal production (macrophytes in Small Bay and/or benthic diatoms,

(1) Procedure for estimating the concentration of contaminants that could be released from sediments during dredging activities or sea dumping


27

seagrasses, etc in Langebaan Lagoon), any elevation in water column turbidity may generate an effect. The risks posed on production are likely to be roughly proportional to the duration of the dredging activities as the main process affecting the distribution of turbidity is mixing by high energy wave events. Accordingly the potential impacts are greatest for Option 4, followed by Option 3. Option 2 may have slightly higher risks associated with elevated water column turbidity than Option 1 due to Big Bay being a more exposed location.

4.1.3 Reclaim Area Suspension Impacts During Construction

Whilst the concentration or load of sediments in the return flows from the proposed reclaim areas can be controlled, the higher the degree of control required, the higher the costs of the operation and possibly the greater the duration of reclaim activities. Turbidity from the Reclaim Return Flows Return flows will occur into Big Bay. Given that these discharges will occur in more or less the same location, the magnitude of any effects are likely to be dependant on only the quantity of material dredged and the duration of dredging. Based on this the impacts are likely to be greatest for Option 4, followed by Option 3, Option 2 and Option 1. Whether these differences are significant will depend on the extent to which the reclaim area is managed to minimise sediment concentrations in the outflow. Should the control of sediment concentrations in the return flows from the reclamation be effective, there is a strong likelihood that the potential effects on water column turbidity will be mitigated to such an extent that it will not be possible to differentiate between the various options in terms of the generation of water column turbidity and associated impacts. Effects on Benthic Habitat The effect on benthic habitats is likely to be proportional to the quantities being dredged and dredge durations. Based on this the impacts are likely to be greatest for Option 4, followed by Option 3, Option 2 and Option 1. Effects on Phytoplankton Productivity The effect on phytoplankton productivity in Big Bay is likely to be proportional to the quantities being dredged and dredge durations. Based on this the impacts are likely to be greatest for Option 4, followed by Option 3, Option 2 and Option 1.

4.1.4 Shoreline Stability

Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

Channel dredging (Risk of shoreline erosion)


28

Although situated on the Small Bay side of the jetty, the channel dredging footprint and depth for Option 1 is similar to some of the designs simulated in CSIR (2007) (1). Based on the results of CSIR (2007) it is expected that subtle changes in wave height (order of a few percent) and wave directions (possibly up to about 1 degree at the shoreline) would result from the proposed dredging. Furthermore based on the results of CSIR (2007), and taking into account the relatively diminished wave action in Small Bay, it is estimated that effects on the shoreline of channel dredging would be virtually undetectable after 50 years. The induced change will be such that the small southward longshore transport would be reduced or possibly slightly reversed. Based on the shoreline modelling as a result of dredging of the channel in Big Bay (CSIR, 2007), it is estimated that shoreline changes (both accretion and erosion) in Small Bay will definitely be less than 5 m (the maximum determined in the more dynamic Big Bay), and will most likely be in the region of 2-3 m at most. Furthermore, it is certain that this equilibrium would be attained well after 100 years. Reclamation (Risk of loss of beach amenity) The reclamation footprint in Big Bay from Option 1 is relatively small. Wave and shoreline modelling in CSIR (2007) demonstrated that even a larger reclamation area (and extending further west) would have a negligible effect on the neighbouring shoreline. A negligible loss of beach amenity would result from implementation of Option 1. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

Channel dredging (Risk of shoreline erosion) Option 2 is equivalent to the Final Large Revetment Design as assessed in the shoreline stability report for the Phase 2 EIA (CSIR, 2008) (2) with detailed, validated wave and shoreline models. This modelling demonstrated that changes to nearshore wave angles and heights are restricted to the northern half of the bay between Lynch Point and the existing reclamation dam. As a result of small changes to wave conditions, predicted accretion of 40 m on the beach just south of the reclamation dam was reduced to 36 m (after a 40 year period) and predicted localised erosion of 15 m (about a kilometre further south of the reclamation dam) was reduced to 10 m. Wave and shoreline changes were predicted to reach equilibrium with the proposed channel and revetment developments after 60 years, at which time shoreline changes were predicted to be no more than one metre different from conditions after 40 years.

(1) CSIR (2007) Assessment of the Effects of Channel and Reclamation Design on Shoreline Stability. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2006/0188/C. (2) CSIR (2008) Phase 2 Expansion of the Saldanha Iron Ore Export Handling Facility CSIR Report No. CSIR/NRE/WR/ER/2007/0132/C.


29

In summary, the effects of the channel dredging are very small and are actually positive, since predicted erosion (relative to the trend with no port developments) is reduced. Reclamation (Risk of loss of beach amenity) The reclamation area for Option 2 is similar to the Final Large Revetment Design as assessed in CSIR (2008) (1), as it extends some 60 m further south-east of the existing reclamation dam. However, considering that the case of “no revetment” compared to the case “with revetment” in CSIR (2007) (2) showed no differences at all in the predicted shorelines, it is expected that the Option 2 revetment (which is very similar to the “with revetment” case) would have a negligible effect on the neighbouring shoreline. While the amenity of about 60 m length of beach would be lost because of the footprint of the reclamation area, this effect can be considered to be very small or negligible, considering that the beach between the Reclamation Dam and Lynch Point is about 4.5 km long. Option 3 – Alongside MPT (Small Bay)

Channel dredging (Risk of shoreline erosion) The dredged channel for Option 3 is considerably longer than that for Option 1. The longer channel (compared to Option 1) would tend to have a greater effect on wave conditions (model tests demonstrated this in CSIR, 2007 (3)). In addition, the wide dredging area opposite the present multi-purpose quay would serve to change wave conditions. However, the decrease in channel width at the seaward end would mitigate the above two effects, and it is likely that the net effect would be quite similar to that for the Option 1 dredging. Thus, as for the Option 1 case (and again referring to the experience of CSIR, 2007 modelling (4)), it is expected that subtle changes in wave height (order of a few percent) and wave directions (possibly up to about 1 degree at the shoreline) would result from the proposed dredging. As a result, it is estimated that effects on the shoreline of channel dredging would be virtually undetectable after 50 years. The induced change will be such that the small southward longshore transport would be reduced or possibly slightly reversed. Based on the shoreline modelling as a result of dredging of the channel in Big Bay, it is estimated that shoreline changes (both accretion and erosion) in Small Bay will definitely be less than 5m (the maximum determined in the more dynamic Big Bay), and will most likely be in the region of 2-3m at most. Furthermore, it is certain that this equilibrium would be attained well after 100 years. Reclamation (Risk of loss of beach amenity)

(1) Ibid. (2) CSIR (2007) Assessment of the Effects of Channel and Reclamation Design on Shoreline Stability. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2006/0188/C. (3) CSIR (2007) Assessment of the Effects of Channel and Reclamation Design on Shoreline Stability. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2006/0188/C. (4) Ibid.


30

The reclamation area for Option 3 is considerably larger than that for Option 1 and Option 2 and extends some 200 m south-eastward of the existing reclamation dam. The effect of the south-eastward extension is that it occupies part of the accreting beach, where several tens of thousands of sand would have accumulated over the next few decades (based on transport predictions from CSIR, 2008 (1)). As this sand cannot accumulate on the reclamation footprint it becomes available to the neighbouring beach where it will marginally increase accretion and possibly also mitigate areas of erosion further south. The effect of the reclamation on shoreline stability can therefore be considered to be slightly positive to negligible. However, a loss of 200 m length of beach amenity will occur at the existing reclamation dam. As this represents roughly 4% of the beach between the Reclamation Dam and Lynch Point, such a loss may be considered marginal or slight. Option 4 – North of MPT (Small Bay)

Channel dredging (Risk of shoreline erosion) The dredged channel footprint for Option 4 is much longer than that for Option 1 and Option 3. As discussed above, this would tend to increase changes to wave conditions. In addition, the 21 m deep channel extends (towards the coast) into shallow water (of some 7 m relative to Chart Datum) where effects on waves will be strongly felt. However, the channel is generally narrower than those for both Option 1 and Option 3. The relative influence of the Option 4 channel on waves is not easily quantified, but it is certain that the net effect of the channel of Option 4 will not be significantly different to that for Option 1 and Option 3. Thus, as for the Option 1 and Option 3 cases, subtle changes in wave height (order of a few percent) and wave directions (up to about 1 degree at the shoreline) would result. As for Options 1 and 3 (and based on previous modelling in CSIR, 2007 (2)), it is estimated that effects on the shoreline of channel dredging would be virtually undetectable after 50 years. The induced change will be such that the small southward longshore transport would be reduced or possibly slightly reversed. Based on the shoreline modelling as a result of dredging of the channel in Big Bay, it is estimated that shoreline changes (both accretion and erosion) in Small Bay will definitely be less than 5 m (the maximum determined in the more dynamic Big Bay), and will most likely be in the region of 2-3 m at most. Furthermore, it is certain that and that this equilibrium would be attained well after 100 years. Reclamation (Risk of loss of beach amenity) The reclamation area for Option 4 is the largest of all options by far, and extends about 1,100 m south-eastward of the existing reclamation dam. The effect of the south-eastward extension is that it would occupy a significant

(1) CSIR (2008) Phase 2 Expansion of the Saldanha Iron Ore Export Handling Facility CSIR Report No. CSIR/NRE/WR/ER/2007/0132/C (2) CSIR (2007) Assessment of the Effects of Channel and Reclamation Design on Shoreline Stability. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2006/0188/C.


31

part of the accreting beach, where over a hundred thousand cubic metres of sand would have accumulated over the next few decades (based on transport predictions from CSIR, 2008). As this sand cannot accumulate on the reclamation footprint it becomes available to the neighbouring beach where it will cause some accretion and possibly also mitigate areas of erosion (just north of Lynch Point). The effect of the reclamation on shoreline stability can therefore be considered to be slightly positive to negligible. However, a loss of 1,100 m length of beach amenity will result. As this loss represents about quarter of the beach between the Reclamation Dam and Lynch Point, the loss can be considered significant. Conclusion of Shoreline Stability

Option 2 is the most favourable option because the shoreline effects (even though very small) are actually positive (relative to the trend with no Port development), and effects on beach amenity are negligible. The relative differences between shoreline stability effects for Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 are estimated to be very small and cannot be estimated without more detailed studies. However, the negative effect of reclamation on beach amenity is negligible for Option 1, slight for Option 3 and significant for Option 4. As the predicted shoreline changes for all options are estimated to be small, and in fact so small that they would probably not be detectable (against the background of natural beach processes) within several decades, it is deemed that the shoreline stability criterion has limited significance as a differentiator between the four options. However, criterion of beach amenity has significance as a differentiator between Option 4 (where the negative effect is considered significant) and the other three options.

4.1.5 Ballast Water

The risks of the release of alien species and/or pathogenic organisms is roughly proportional to the frequencies of ballast water releases given that trading patterns do not change. It is not possible to differentiate the various proposed options in terms of risk of establishment of alien species through ballast water and it is unlikely to be a differentiating factor.

4.1.6 Discharges from Site

The potential risks in terms of discharge from the site include: • storm water run-off from the site • possible spillages of iron-ore during ship loading; • wind-blown dust.


32

The only likely differentiating factor between the various locations would be the receiving environment in terms of dispersion of pollutants. Pollutants entering Small Bay are likely to remain in Small Bay, while pollutants entering Big Bay are likely to diffuse into a greater area, and possibly in to the Langebaan Lagoon. However, due to the low rain fall in the area and the management measures that can be implemented to manage storm water, storm water run-off is likely to pose an insignificant risk. Furthermore, due to the close proximity of alternative options wind blown dust as a potential risk is not likely to be a differentiator. The degree of spillage of iron-ore that may occur for all of the options during operations will not be a differentiating factor in terms of risk to the marine environment.

4.1.7 Noise During Construction

During construction period, the parameters that affect the generated noise and subsequent impact on the surrounding communities will include the following: • The proximity to community receptors; • The type and number of the berth construction equipment; • The duration of the berth construction; • The quantity of the dredged material and dredging duration; and • The number of trucks required for the transportation of the rock material

required for the reclamation area revetment. Blue Water Bay (BWB) is the closest community receptor to the port. Since the construction and dredging equipment will be similar in type and quantity for all four options, the most significant parameters affecting the noise impacts on Blue Water Bay would be the proximity and duration of the construction and dredging operations. Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

The distance of the required dredging area for Option 1 is 2,400 m from Blue Water Bay. The berth construction area is 2,700 m from Blue Water Bay. Option 1 will involve the shortest construction period for the revetment taking 52 weeks and 40,000 truck trips. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

Option 2 is situated furthest from the Blue Water Bay. The distance of the required dredging area for Option 2 is 3,600 m from Blue Water Bay. The berth construction area is 3,000 m from Blue Water Bay. The construction period for the revetment will take 60 weeks and 46,000 truck trips. Option 3 – Alongside MPT (Small Bay)

Option 3 is second closest to Blue Water Bay with the distance of the required dredging area 1,900 m from Blue Water Bay. The berth construction area is 2,200 m away from Blue Water Bay. The construction period for the revetment


33

for Option 3 has the second longest construction duration of 87 weeks and the second largest number of trucks for the revetment of 67,000 truck trips. Option 4 – North of MPT (Small Bay)

Option 4 is situated closest to Blue Water Bay with the distance of the required dredging area 1,500 m from Blue Water Bay. The berth construction area is 2,100 m away from Blue Water Bay. Option 4 will involve the longest duration for both the dredging and berth construction activities taking 104 weeks in total. In addition, this option will require the largest number of trucks for the construction of the reclamation area revetment of 80,000 truck trips. Conclusion of Noise During Construction

The noise aspects for Options 1 and 2 are similar, but Option 2 is preferable, since it is situated further away from Blue Water Bay, and the construction operations will be more sheltered by the existing port infrastructure, which lies between the Blue Water Bay and the Option 2 location. The construction activities are however not expected to have a significant contribution on the existing noise levels in Blue Water Bay, since beyond a 2 km distance the construction noise contribution is expected to be below 40 decibels (dBA). The only exception to this is possibly berth location Option 4, which is the closest to Blue Water Bay. The noise impacts of all construction and dredging activities are considered to be short-term, and in conjunction with the generated noise levels in the surrounding communities will probably carry a low impact significance.

4.1.8 Noise During Operation

During operation there are several differences in the equipment layout for each option that could potentially differentiate the noise impacts for the closest residential area of Blue Water Bay. Due to the large distance between the port and the other residential areas of Saldanha, Langebaan and Vredenburg, it is expected that the location variations of the port’s berth will make no difference to the resulting or the existing noise levels in these areas. The parameters that affect the generated noise and subsequent impact on the surrounding communities during operation will include the following: • The proximity to community receptors; • Type and number of noisy equipment relevant to the berth position, such

as conveyor belts, transfer points and ship loaders; and • Horizontal and vertical positions of noisy equipment. It should be noted that the majority of the equipment associated with noise generation during operation will remain the same for all options, such as tipplers, shunting lines after the tipplers, stacker-reclaimers, and the majority of transfer points and conveyor belts. The infrastructure affected by the berth


34

positions are the end portions of the conveyor belts towards the berths, the positions of transfer points and the position of the ship loaders. As such, the most significant parameters affecting the noise impacts on Blue Water Bay would be the proximity and vertical positioning of the equipment. Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

The lengths of the affected conveyor belts for Option 1 include the following: • Conveyor Cv-414 =1620 meters • Conveyor Cv-514 =1620 meters • Conveyor Cv-128 Elevated =96 meters • Conveyor Cv-129 Elevated =96 meters • Conveyor Cv-130=873 meters • Conveyor Cv-530 =873 meters • Total length = 5,178 meters For this option the conveyor belts towards the ship loaders will have to be raised by approximately 10 m in order to pass over the existing service road. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

The lengths of the affected conveyor belts for Option 2 include the following: • Conveyor Cv-414 =2,470 meters • Conveyor Cv-514 =2,470 meters • Conveyor Cv-114 Extension = 396 meters • Conveyor Cv-214 Extension = 396 meters • Conveyor Cv-128 Flat = 115 meters • Conveyor Cv129 Flat =115 meters • Conveyor Cv-130 =823 meters • Conveyor Cv-530 =823 meters • Total length = 7,608 meters Option 2 is the only option that does not require the raising of conveyor belts and transfer points. Option 3 – Alongside MPT (Small Bay)

The lengths of the affected conveyor belts for Option 3 include the following: • Conveyor Cv-414 =1,657 meters • Conveyor Cv-514=1,660 meters • Conveyor Cv-130 = 957 meters • Conveyor Cv-230 =967 meters • Conveyor Cv-128 Elevated =125 meters • Conveyor Cv- 129 Elevated =125 meters • Total length = 5,491 meters


35

For this option, the conveyor belts towards the ship loaders will have to be raised by approximately 10m in order to pass over the existing service road. Option 4 – North of MPT (Big Bay)

The lengths of the affected conveyor belts for Option 4 include the following: • Conveyor Cv-414 =740 meters • Conveyor Cv-514 =740 meters • Conveyor Cv-128 Elevated = 250 meters • Conveyor Cv-129 Elevated =250 meters • Conveyor Cv-130 =930 meters • Conveyor Cv-230 =930 meters • Total length = 3,840 meters The conveyor belts towards the ship loaders will also have to be raised for this option in order to pass over the existing service road. Conclusion of Noise During Operation

Based on the fact that the equipment to be utilised for all alternative positions is the same, the most significant parameters affecting the noise impacts on Blue Water Bay would be the proximity and vertical positioning of the equipment. Option 4 is situated closest to Blue Water Bay, has the shortest conveyor belt system and will require raising some part of the conveyor belt. Option 3 is second closest to Blue Water Bay, has the second shortest conveyor belt system and will also require raising some part of the conveyor belt. Options 1 and 2 are similar but Option 2 would be preferred option, since it is situated further away from Blue Water Bay and will not require any raising of the conveyor belts. It should be noted that the above-mentioned noise sources are not expected to add any significant variation to the resulting noise levels at Blue Water Bay, since they are not the most predominant noise sources and their position variation in relation to the distance between the berths and Blue Water Bay is small. Although the noise impact differentiates between the options, the actual resulting overall noise difference (i.e. taking into consideration all noise sources) in Blue Water Bay would be below 2 dBA.

4.1.9 Visual Impact of Construction Activity (Construction)

The type of construction activity will be similar for each option. The same type of equipment will be used and a similar construction programme will be implemented to construct the berths, regardless of its location. The differentiating factor will be the duration of construction and the location of


36

the construction activity, relative to the different observers in the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). Dredging activities are considered in Section 4.1.10. Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

The closest observers to the construction of the superstructures will be residents from Bluewater Bay who will be approximately 2,700 m from the activity. Saldanha residents will be approximately 4,000 m away. At this distance even the largest construction equipment will seem minute. Considering the panoramic view that is experienced by an observer, an excavator or even a number of excavators and trucks will hardly be noticeable and a minimum intrusion on the observers’ views will be experienced. Construction of the rock revetment and reclamation area will be completely out of sight from Bluewater Bay and the low lying areas of Saldanha, as it will be behind the existing quay. The elevated terrain west of Saldanha provides a raised vantage point for some residents, which allow them to see over the quay. This will expose them to the construction activity of the new reclamation area. Again, the distance is so great, that with the naked eye, the construction activity will be barely noticeable. A similar argument accounts for observers from Club Mykonos which will be 5,000 m from the construction of the new reclamation area. The activity is expected to have a minimum intrusion on the observers’ views. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

Observers from Bluewater Bay and Saldanha will have very limited views to the construction activity due to the presence of the quay in between. Intrusion on their views is regarded as insignificant. The elevated vantage point of some Saldanha residents will marginally increase their exposure to the construction activity behind the quay, but the distance factor will mitigate the intrusion considerably. Observers from Club Mykonos will experience the greatest exposure to the activity. They will be 5,000 m from the activity. Again, the distance is so great that construction activities will be hardly noticeable. No significant intrusion on their views is anticipated. Option 3 – Alongside MPT (Big Bay)

Observers from Bluewater Bay will be the closest at 1,900 m and Saldanha residents will be approximately 4,000 m away. Even at 1,900 m, the construction equipment will be barely noticeable. Construction of the new reclamation area will be completely out of sight from Bluewater Bay and the low lying areas of Saldanha, as it will be behind the existing quay. The elevated terrain west of Saldanha provides a raised vantage point for some residents, which allow them to see over the quay. This will expose them to the construction activity of the new reclamation area. The reclamation area will be much larger due to the greater volumes of dredging material that must be


37

deposited, but the distance factor remains an effective mitigation element and construction activity is expected to be barely noticeable. Observers from Club Mykonos will experience the greatest exposure to the activity. They will be 5,000 m from the activity. Even with the construction of the 890,000m² reclamation area, the distance is so great that construction activities will be hardly noticeable. No significant intrusion on their views is expected. Option 4 – North of MPT (Small Bay)

Observers from Bluewater Bay will be the closest at 1,500 m and Saldanha residents will be approximately 4,000 m away. A minimum intrusion on the observers’ views is expected. Construction of the new reclamation area will be completely out of sight from Bluewater Bay and the low lying areas of Saldanha, as it will be behind the existing quay. The elevated terrain west of Saldanha provides a raised vantage point for some residents, which allow them to see over the quay. This will expose them to the construction activity of the new reclamation area. The reclamation area will be much larger due to the greater volumes of dredging material that must be deposited, but the distance factor remains an effective mitigation element and construction activity is expected to be barely noticeable. Observers from Club Mykonos will experience the greatest exposure to the activity. They will be 5,000 m from the activity. Even with the construction of the 1,660,000m² reclamation area, the distance is so great that construction activities will be hardly noticeable. No significant intrusion on their views is anticipated.

4.1.10 Visual Impact of Turbidity Plumes (Construction)

During dredging of the approach channels for the iron ore carriers, it is expected that visible turbidity plumes will be generated in the water. Turbidity plumes will become visible when the concentration of suspended particles in the water, noticeably discolours the water. The following six factors influence the degree of visibility of a plume: • Colour of suspended sediment; • Concentration of suspended sediment; • Background concentration of suspended sediment in the water, which may

vary seasonally; • The condition of the sea; • Angle of the sun; and • Height of the viewer above the sea (1). It is assumed that a Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) will be utilised. A CSD consists of a cutter head at the suction inlet which loosens the sea bottom and transports the material to the suction mouth. A centrifugal pump discharges the material through a floating pipeline to the point of deposit, in this case the new reclamation area behind the stone revetment. Turbidity plumes will not

(1) Gebhardt, B (2007). Berth Deepening EIA: Visual Impact Assessment Report No: 367079/VIA January 2007: Unpublished report for Transnet. SRK Consulting, Cape Town.


38

only be limited to the dredging area but silt that will overflow from the reclamation area during deposition of the material, will also cause discolouration of the sea. At this stage it is not known what the extent of the plumes will be and how noticeable the colour contrast between the sea and the silt will be. The distance factor and duration of dredging will be the differentiating factor between the different options which will determine the exposure of observers to the visual impact. Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

Dredging will continue for a period of 24 weeks and will be limited to the approach channel south of the Multi-Purpose Terminal (MPT). Observers from Bluewater Bay and Saldanha are expected to have a limited view of the turbidity plume due to their low viewing angle and their distance from the dredging. A severe discolouration will however be noticeable if the angle of the sun is favourable. The elevated terrain west of Saldanha provides a raised vantage point for some residents. They will experience a greater exposure to the turbidity plume and will be able to see over the quay and possibly witness turbidity on the southern side of the stone revetment during construction of the reclamation area. Observers from Club Mykonos will experience a very limited exposure to the plume that will originate from the dredging. Most of the dredging will occur in Small Bay which will be screened by the quay from Club Mykonos. The plume from the stone revetment is expected to be visible, but to a limited degree. The low viewing angle and considerable distance will limit the obviousness of the discolouration. Severe discolouration and a large turbidity plume may even be noticeable from the elevated terrain at Langebaan and at Postberg viewpoint inside the West Coast National Park when the weather is favourable. The significant viewing distances should be taken into account as observers will be more than 10,000 m away. The intrusion on these observers’ views will be considered minimal. The temporary discolouration of the water will intrude on the aesthetic quality of the visual resource, therefore impacting on the views of residents in Small Bay and Club Mykonos. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

Dredging will continue for a period of 40 weeks and will be limited to the approach channel east of the quay. Observers from Bluewater Bay and Saldanha will be screened from the plume by the quay. The elevated terrain west of Saldanha provides a raised vantage point for some residents. They will notice the turbidity plume from the dredging and possibly witness turbidity on the southern side of the stone revetment during construction of the reclamation area. Observers from Club Mykonos will be exposed to the plume that will originate from the dredging and from the stone revetment. The low viewing angle and considerable distance will limit the obviousness of the discolouration. A concern is that turbidity will originate from two nearby


39

sources and that a considerably larger area of turbidity may occur. If so, the temporary discolouration of the water will cause an intrusion on the aesthetic quality of the visual resource, therefore impacting on the views of observers at Club Mykonos. Discolouration and a turbidity plume may even be noticeable from the elevated terrain at Langebaan and at Postberg viewpoint inside the West Coast National Park when the weather is favourable. The significant viewing distances should be taken into account as observers will be more than 10,000 m away. The intrusion on these observers’ views will be considered minimal. Option 3 – Alongside the MPT (Big Bay)

Dredging will continue for a period of 46 weeks and will be limited to the approach channel south of the MPT and up to the MPT. Observers from Bluewater Bay and Saldanha are expected to have a limited view of the turbidity plume due to their low viewing angle and their distance from the dredging. A severe discolouration will however be noticeable if the angle of the sun is favourable. The elevated terrain west of Saldanha provides a raised vantage point for some residents. They will experience a greater exposure to the turbidity plume and will be able to see over the quay and possibly witness turbidity on the southern side of the stone revetment during construction of the reclamation area. Observers from Club Mykonos will experience a very limited exposure to the plume that will originate from the dredging. Most of the dredging will occur in Small Bay which will be screened by the quay from Club Mykonos. The plume from the stone revetment is expected to be visible, but to a limited degree. The low viewing angle and considerable distance will limit the obviousness of the discolouration. The temporary discolouration of the water will intrude on the aesthetic quality of the visual resource, therefore impacting on the views of residents in Small Bay and Club Mykonos. Discolouration and a turbidity plume may even be noticeable from the elevated terrain at Langebaan and at Postberg viewpoint inside the West Coast National Park when the weather is favourable. The significant viewing distances should be taken into account as observers will be more than 10,000 m away. The intrusion on these observers’ views will be considered minimal. Option 4 – North of MPT (Small Bay)

Dredging will continue for a period of 81 weeks and will be limited to the approach channel past the MPT and to the north of the MPT. Observers from Bluewater Bay and Saldanha are expected to have a limited view of the turbidity plume due to their low viewing angle and their distance from the dredging. A severe discolouration will however be noticeable if the angle of the sun is favourable. The elevated terrain west of Saldanha provides a raised vantage point for some residents. They will experience a greater exposure to the turbidity plume and will be able to see over the quay and possibly witness turbidity on the southern side of the stone revetment during construction of the reclamation area.


40

Observers from Club Mykonos will experience a very limited exposure to the plume that will originate from the dredging. Most of the dredging will occur in Small Bay which will be screened by the quay from Club Mykonos. The plume from the stone revetment is expected to be visible, but to a limited degree. The low viewing angle and considerable distance will limit the obviousness of the discolouration. The temporary discolouration of the water will intrude on the aesthetic quality of the visual resource, therefore impacting on the views of residents in Small Bay and Club Mykonos. Residents from Bluewater Bay will experience the greatest exposure due to their closer proximity to the dredging activity. Severe discolouration will have a major intrusion on the aesthetic quality of the visual resource and will impact on the views of the observers at Bluewater Bay. Severe discolouration and a large turbidity plume may even be noticeable from the elevated terrain at Langebaan and at Postberg viewpoint inside the West Coast National Park when the weather is favourable. The significant viewing distances should be taken into account as observers will be more than 10,000 m away. The intrusion on these observers’ views will be considered minimal. Conclusion of Visual Aspects During Construction

The major issue during construction relates to the visibility of the turbidity plume. It has been established that the construction activity and equipment used, will have a very limited impact on any of the observers in the study area. Due to limited information available on the turbidity plume the differentiating factors between the different options are limited to the possible duration of the turbidity plume and the exposure of observers to the visual impact. Although the presence of turbidity will be temporary, the period of dredging is quite considerable. Based on this, Option 1 is the most preferred as dredging is limited to 24 weeks and viewers are therefore exposed to impact for only 24 weeks. Option 2 and Option 3 have roughly the same time allocated for dredging. Option 2 will have a more intense impact on a smaller group of observers, and Option 3 will have a less intense impact on a greater number of observers. Option 2 is marginally more preferred than Option 3. Option 4 is the least preferred as it has a considerably longer dredging period and will expose a greater number of observers over an extended period to the visual impact.

4.1.11 Visual Impact on Sense of Place (Operation)

The current sense of place that exists in Saldanha Bay is one of remoteness and tranquillity. Its character is greatly influenced by the presence of the Port of Saldanha, but despite the major industrial development, the bay has managed to retain an open and highly appreciated character. The additional berths will allow for an increase in the number of carrier ships in the bay. Currently, the Port of Saldanha handles approximately 500 vessels per annum which include all types of vessels, including iron ore carriers. The Incremental Shipping Risk


41

Assessment (CSIR, 2007) found that with the completion of Phase 1B the number of iron ore carriers will increase to 290 per annum. Phase 2 will see this number reaching 600 iron ore carriers per annum, effectively doubling the traffic. It is anticipated that a maximum of 3 ships will be moored in the bay at any point in time. The ship loaders are slender structures that are approximately 30m high. Currently visible dust clouds from the ship loaders are sporadically noticeable when excessive wind conditions are present. A reddish cloud escapes as ships are loaded. It quickly dissipates but the consequent discolouration of the landscape is severe. It is not the intention to discuss the degree or extent of discolouration, the focus is mainly on the dust cloud and its visibility from surrounding viewpoints. The additional ship loaders, carrier ships and enlarged reclamation area will have an impact on the sense of place. The differentiating factors are the location of these elements relative to the observers and the size of the reclamation area for each option. Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

The closest observers to the ship loaders will be the residents from Bluewater Bay, which will be 3km from the new superstructure. Saldanha residents will be 4km away. The visual change will be marginal and no major impact is expected with the presence of two additional ship loaders. The visibility of iron ore dust from the ship loaders is greatly influenced by the background colour and the distance from the ship loaders. Residents from the Small Bay side will be able to notice dust due to the fact that the background colour is usually a light hazy grey. A fairly high degree of colour contrast makes it noticeable. The incidence of visible dust is dependant on weather conditions as well as the implementation of dust suppression mitigation. Accordingly, mitigation is supposed to significantly limit dust at the ship loaders. The new reclamation area will effectively reduce the area of open sea in the Big Bay. The 392,000m² of reclaimed land is a relatively small percentage of area in relation to the sea area. This is expected to have a minimal impact on the sense of place. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

Observers from Bluewater Bay and Saldanha will have limited views of the ship loaders due to the presence of the quay and other infrastructure in between the line of sight. Intrusion on their views is regarded as insignificant. The elevated vantage point of some Saldanha residents will marginally increase their visibility of the ship loaders, but the distance factor will mitigate the intrusion considerably. The visual change will be marginal and no major impact is expected with the presence of two additional ship loaders. The quay acts as a visual screen that will partially block views from Small Bay to the additional carrier ships at the berths. The quay also forms a psychological threshold and it can be argued that with the location of the new berths on the Big Bay side, their intrusion on the intimate sense of place in Small Bay will be minimal. The vast expanse of water on Big Bay’s side will


42

perceivably reduce the scale of the carrier ships thus limiting their impact on the sense of place. The visibility of iron ore dust (that has the potential to be released) from the ship loaders is greatly influenced by the background colour and the distance from the ship loaders. Residents from the Small Bay side will be able to notice dust due to the fact that the background colour is usually a light hazy grey. A fairly high degree of colour contrast makes it noticeable. The incidence of visible dust is dependant on weather conditions as well as the implementation of dust suppression mitigation. Accordingly, mitigation is supposed to significantly limit dust at the ship loaders. The new reclamation area will effectively reduce the area of open sea in Big Bay. The 560,000m² of reclaimed land is still a relatively small percentage of area in relation to the sea area, but will become noticeable from elevated views in the bay and especially from Club Mykonos. This is expected to have a minimal impact on the sense of place as the enormous water surface between the observers and the reclamation area dwarfs the scale of reclamation. Option 3 – Alongside the MPT (Small Bay)

The closest observers to the ship loaders will be the residents from Bluewater Bay, which will be 2,200 m from the new superstructure. Saldanha residents will be 4,000 m away. It is assumed that the MPT will be relocated to accommodate the new superstructures and ship loaders. The visual change will be noticeable if the shed structure is removed. At this distance the visual change is still considered marginal and no major impact is expected. As discussed in Option 1, the additional iron ore carriers will enter Small Bay and disturb the intimate sense of place. Option 3 is still considered to be on the perimeter of Small Bay, but visually it is located more to the centre, therefore enforcing its prominence. It is expected that the presence of these carrier ships will have a marginally increased impact on the sense of place than Option 1. The visibility of iron ore dust (that has the potential to be released) from the ship loaders is greatly influenced by the background colour and the distance from the ship loaders. Residents from the Small Bay side will be able to notice dust due to the fact that the background colour is usually a light hazy grey. A fairly high degree of colour contrast makes it noticeable. The incidence of visible dust is dependant on weather conditions as well as the implementation of dust suppression mitigation. Accordingly, mitigation is supposed to significantly limit dust at the ship loaders. The new reclamation area will effectively reduce the area of open sea in Big Bay. The 890,000m² of reclaimed land is still a relatively small percentage of area in relation to the sea area, but will become noticeable from elevated views in the bay and especially from Club Mykonos. This is expected to have an increased impact on the sense of place compared to Option 2. Although the enormous water surface between the observers and the reclamation area dwarfs the scale of reclamation, it replaces a great area of seascape amenity.


43

Option 4 – North of the MPT (Small Bay)

The closest observers to the ship loaders will be the residents from Bluewater Bay, which will be 2,100 m from the new superstructure. Saldanha residents will be 4,000 m away. The ship loaders will visually blend with the background buildings and stockyards, thus making them even more difficult to detect. As discussed in Option 1, the additional iron ore carriers will enter Small Bay and disturb the intimate sense of place. Option 4 is still considered to be on the perimeter of Small Bay. With the carrier ships closer to the stockyards it will tend to conglomerate a number of elements together. It is expected that the presence of these carrier ships will have a marginal increased impact on the sense of place than Option 1. The visibility of iron ore dust (that has the potential to be released) from the ship loaders is greatly influenced by the background colour and the distance from the ship loaders. Residents from the Small Bay side will not be able to notice dust that easily as the background colour of the buildings and stockyards will reduce the colour contrast considerably. The incidence of visible dust is dependant on weather conditions as well as the implementation of dust suppression mitigation. Accordingly, mitigation is supposed to significantly limit dust at the ship loaders. The new reclamation area will effectively reduce the area of open sea in Big Bay. The 1,660,000m² of reclaimed land is still a relatively small percentage of area in relation to the sea area, but will become noticeable from elevated views in the bay and especially from Club Mykonos. This is expected to have an increased impact on the sense of place compared to Option 3. Although the enormous water surface between the observers and the reclamation area dwarfs the scale of reclamation, it replaces a great area of seascape amenity. Conclusion of Visual Aspects During Operation

The major impact of the operational phase is the impact on the sense of place. This impact relates to the increased carrier ship traffic and the encroachment of the reclamation area on the seascape amenity. It has been established that the additional berths will cause a relatively small visual change and that these project components will have a minimal impact on the sense of place. The differentiating factors are the location of these elements relative to the observers and the size of the reclamation area for each option. Option 2 is the most preferred option as the berths and the additional ships will be located outside Small Bay. It has been described that the quay brings a physical as well as a psychological division to the bay. The intimate sense of place of Small Bay will not be impacted on and the vast expanse of water on Big Bay’s side, will perceivably reduce the scale of these carrier ships. The area of reclamation is considered relatively small and is expected to have a minimal impact on the scale and sense of place of Big Bay. Option 1 is marginally less preferred than Option 2. The smaller reclamation area and therefore a lesser impact on the seascape amenity is an advantage. However, the additional carrier ships will have a marginally greater impact on the intimate sense of place in Small Bay. Option 3 and 4 are the least preferred


44

options, respectively. The much larger reclamation areas will encroach on the seascape amenity which will be visible from elevated areas in Saldanha Bay. The presence of additional carrier ships in Small Bay will have an increased impact on the intimate sense of place.

4.1.12 Air Quality Aspects During Construction

The following air quality issues can be identified for the construction phase of the project: • Dust generated as a result of construction activities associated with the

construction of the berths and revetment areas; and • Exhaust emissions associated with the movement of construction vehicles

at the site e.g. trucks, dredger etc. In light of the above, if any one of the options selected results in an increase in air emissions this will result in deterioration in ambient air quality. Factors such as an increase in the duration of the construction activity and/or an increase in the footprint of the project area will result in an increase in air emissions or an increase in the period over which the ambient air is expected to be adversely affected. Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

Option 1 will result in the smallest amount of dredged material (4.1 million m3) that needs to be removed and by implication will require the smallest revetment area. This will therefore result in the lowest amount of vehicle movements (especially trucks for the transportation of rocks for the construction of the revetment area), lowest exhaust (e.g. trucks and dredgers) emissions, least amount of dust generated on the roads used and shortest project duration. Hence this option will be result in the lowest impact on ambient air quality. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

This option will require 7.35 million m3 of dredged material that will need to be removed and therefore require a larger area for disposal. The dredging and construction period will increase to 40 and 60 weeks respectively relative to the 24 and 52 weeks required for Option 1. Whilst daily ambient air quality is unlikely to be worse than that which may be observed during the construction of Option 1, the duration of the construction period will be extended and hence the deterioration in air quality is likely to last longer. Hence from this perspective this option has a lower preference relative to Option 1 during the construction phase. Option 3 and Option 4 Alongside and North of MPT (Small Bay)

Using the logic that Options 3 and 4 will require substantial increases in the amount of dredging and hence a larger disposal area, it is safe to assume that air quality and the increased duration of the construction of these two options


45

will be worse than that could be observed during the construction of Option 1 and Option 2. Hence from an air quality perspective Option 3 and Option 4 will be the least preferred options with respect to air quality during the construction, with Option 4 being the worst.

4.1.13 Air Quality Aspects During Operation

The following air quality issues of concern were identified as differentiators for the operational phase of the project for the four different options: • The difference in the amount of dust generated during transfer of ore at

transfer points, the sampler buildings and ship loading; • The proximity of dust sources to off-site receptors; and • Height of conveyors. Based on dispersion modelling results for Phase 1B (1) , dust emissions from transfer points after the sampler plant and the ship loader are lowest contributors of dust relative to the overall dust emission load from the IOEHF. While all options have the same number of transfer points and ship loaders, Option 4 will have two additional sampler buildings and Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 will require the transfer points to be raised in order for the conveyor belts to cross existing infrastructure (e.g. roads). Although transfer points located high off the ground will generate a similar amount of dust released relative to points located close to the ground, the dispersion potential from the higher level points is greater due to the higher release height and increased exposure to wind. Options 1 and 2 are the furthermost location of the four options relative to receptors to the north-west and west of the loading berth with Option 2 being the most desirable. Conclusion of Air Quality Impacts During Construction and Operation

Air Quality as a Differentiator between Options During the construction phase the duration of the increase ambient dust levels will be a key differentiator and hence Option 1 and Option 2 should be selected over Option 3 and Option 4. During the operational phase Option 2 is considered the most desirable option as it is likely to generate the least amount of dust and is further away from off-site receptors with Option 1 and Option 3 being less desirable and Option 4 being the least desirable due to the additional sampler buildings and proximity to off-site receptors. Air Quality as a Differentiator Relative to the Entire Project When considering the changes associated with the berths only, the main sources of dust during the operational phase are associated with the transfer points (after the sampler plant) and the ship loaders. Relative to other dust

(1) SRK Report No. 3753349, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: PHASE 1B EXPANSION OF THE SALDANHA IRON ORE EXPORT HANDLING FACILITY: Air Quality Impact Assessment for Phase 1B, August 2007.


46

sources from the Iron Ore Terminal, dust emissions from these sources are considered to be negligible. Therefore the significance of air quality issues as a differentiator between the four options is considered to be low relative to other issues that need to be considered when selecting a suitable berthing location.

4.1.14 Social Aspects

Only once the ecological, visual, noise and air quality risks have been assessed is it possible to address the social risks since impacts tend to be inter-related, and bio-physical impacts can lead to social impacts and vice-versa. Broadly speaking, the social risks are unlikely to be substantially different irrespective of the location of the berthing options. The severity of the social risk will be directly related to the severity of the environmental risks. The main environmental issues relating to social risks include noise, air quality, visual, long-term ecological consequences and the risk of oil spills which are discussed below. Noise

The noise impacts of construction and dredging activities for all options are considered to be short-term, and in conjunction with the generated noise levels in the surrounding communities will probably carry low impact significance. Option 2 however is the preferred option during construction since it is situated further away from Blue Water Bay (the closest receptor), and the construction activities will be more sheltered by the existing port infrastructure. Similarly during operation, Option 2 is again the preferred option due to being situated furthest from Blue Water Bay. This option is also preferred since it will not require any raising of conveyor belts. It should be noted however that noise sources are not expected to add any significant variation to the resulting noise levels at Blue Water Bay, since they are not the most predominant noise sources and their position variation in relation to the distance between any of the berths and Blue Water Bay is small. Air Quality

During construction, Option 1 will be result in the lowest impact on ambient air quality since the smallest amount of dredged material will need to be removed and by implication will require the smallest revetment area. This will therefore result in the lowest amount of vehicle movements (especially trucks for the transportation of rocks for the construction of the revetment area), lowest exhaust (e.g. trucks and dredgers) emissions, least amount of dust generated on the roads used and shortest project duration. The key differentiator during operation is the proximity of the loading berth relative to receptors. As such, Option 2 is the preferred option since it will be furthest away from the closest receptors of Saldanha and Blue Water Bay.


47

Visual

The construction activity and equipment used will have a very limited impact on any of the observers in the study area. As such, the issue during construction mainly relates to the visibility of the turbidity plume. Although the presence of turbidity will be temporary, the period of dredging is quite considerable. Based on this, Option 1 is preferred as it has the shortest dredging period as such viewers are exposed for the shortest duration. The major visual impact during operation is the impact on the sense of place. This impact relates to the increased carrier ship traffic and the encroachment of the reclamation area on the seascape amenity. Option 2 is preferred as the berths and the additional ships will be located outside Small Bay thus reducing the impact on sense of place for the closest receptors of Saldanha and Blue Water Bay. The additional berths will however cause only a relatively small visual change and will therefore have a minimal impact on the sense of place. Long term ecological consequences

The overall consequences of the changes associated with Option 1 and Option 2 are likely to be insignificant in terms of the overall ecosystem functioning of the ecosystem of Big Bay and the coupling of the Big Bay – Langebaan lagoon ecosystems. Option 1 however may pose a greater risk to the interruption of mariculture activities during dredging since it will result in the generation of plumes (dredge head suspension) at the outer extremity of Small Bay. This may have direct effects on the adjacent mariculture areas, in particular, the area adjacent to the Marcus Island breakwater. The effects are however likely to remain low. Oil spills

The main threat of oil pollution relates to crude oil spills resulting from a collision between an ore carrier and a moored oil tanker. A lower threat of oil pollution relates to the spill of bunker oil resulting from a collision between an iron ore carrier or with a concrete structure (jetty or quay). For Option 2, with regards to crude oil spills, the incremental shipping traffic (increased number of vessels) will take place in Big Bay along the Langebaan side of the jetty, while the oil tankers are moored in Small Bay on the Saldanha side. As such, Option 2 will have no risk of crude oil spills which involves a collision with oil tankers. The risk of crude oil spills is highest for Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 as ore carriers will have to pass moored oil tankers in Small Bay. For this risk, it is likely that Big Bay and possibly Langebaan Lagoon (depending on certain weather conditions) will be most affected impacting on nature conservation, fishing, tourism and recreation. Bunker oil spills related to Option 3 and Option 4 will have social impacts mainly related to impacts on various fishing, recreational and mariculture activities in Small Bay. Bunker oil spills for Option 1 and Option 2 are more


48

likely to impact Big Bay and possibly Langebaan Lagoon (depending on certain weather conditions) resulting in similar impacts. Conclusion

From a social perspective, in general, there is very little difference between the options. Based on the above discussion it is difficult to clearly differentiate between the four berthing options with regards to noise, visual and air quality with each of these environmental impacts having minimal impact on the wider social environment. In terms of long term ecological consequences, there is a small risk that Option 1 may interrupt mariculture activities during construction. During operation, the risks of crude oils spills for Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 are higher than for Option 2, as ore carriers will have to pass moored oil tankers in Small Bay. Although the main social impact as a differentiating factor is the risk of oil spills, it must be noted that although not insignificant if they occur, the risks in absolute sense are small.

4.2 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK (PROBABILITY AND FATE OF OIL SPILLS)

An assessment of the risk of oil spills for each of the four berth options are presented below. To assess the risk of an oil spill the probability of the oil spill of occurring needs to be understood, together with the consequence of the impact should the spill occur. The consequence is related to the fate of the oil i.e. where the oil may spread to during the spill incident. Both consequence and probability are discussed below in order to obtain a perspective on the risk of an oil spill occurring at all of the four berthing options.

4.2.2 Oil Spill Scenarios

Oil spills at the Port of Saldanha can occur in a number of ways. Firstly, there could be a collision between an ore carrier and a moored oil tanker in Small Bay (resulting in crude oil spill) and secondly there could be a collision between an ore carrier and moored ore carrier or concrete caisson structure (resulting in a bunker oil spill). A collision between a moored oil tanker and an ore carrier could occur if the bulk carrier, in ballast or partially laden, would be on its way to or from a berth of Option 1, Option 3 or Option 4 or to anchorage in Small Bay. During this process, the ore carrier could loose control and collide with a moored oil tanker. In the same way the ore carrier could collide with another ore carrier moored at the Saldanha side of the ore berth at the jetty or against the concrete caisson structure. This has the highest probability of happening during a north-


49

westerly or westerly storm when the bulk carrier could drift eastwards towards the oil or iron ore terminals. If the collision involves an oil tanker, it could then happen that, due to the impact, the manifold connection between the oil tanker and the quay would become dislocated and crude oil would leak into the seawater or the collision could result in the rupture of the oil tanker hull. In the first instance, due to the almost immediate and automatic shut down of the pumping of oil, the spill would be small and should be contained within the floating oil boom which is always deployed around the tanker during oil transfer operations. In the second instance, the volume of the oil spill will be larger and should be limited to the size of one cargo tank within the oil tanker (i.e. 30,000 tonnes). If the collision involves a bulk carrier, this may, in the worst case, cause a rupture of the bunker fuel tanks and subsequent leaking of bunker oil in the bay. The maximum load of bunker oil that an ore vessel in Saldanha would carry is about 2,000 tonnes. The fuel tanks are at the forward and aft section of the vessel, usually with double-hull and double-bottom protection. In summary there are two probable ways in which on oil spill could occur: Scenario 1 - Collision of an iron-ore carrier with a moored oil tanker: such a spill is only likely to occur for Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 where ore carriers will have to pass moored oil tankers in Small Bay and is likely to result in a spill of up to 30,000 tonnes (rupture of cargo tank). A collision between a moored oil tanker and an ore carrier is not possible for Option 2 as berths located in Big Bay will not require that the additional iron-ore bulk carriers pass moored oil tankers.

Scenario 2 - Collision of an iron ore carrier with another iron ore carrier or with a concrete structure (jetty or quay): such a spill could occur for all options and is likely to result in a bunker oil spill of typically <2000 tons.

4.2.3 Fate of an Oil Spill (Consequence)

Scenario 1 - Collision of an iron-ore carrier with a moored oil tanker (Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 only)

Small spills under this scenario are likely to be confined to Small Bay, particularly as mitigation measures can relatively easily be deployed in Small Bay which is a relatively sheltered environment. However, large spills could easily enter Big Bay due to the fact that: i) the jetty at the end of the causeway does not constitute an effective barrier for flows between Small Bay and Big Bay as it is of open caisson structure; and ii) such an oil spill is likely to occur at the end of the causeway where ebb flow tidal currents and/or north-westerly wind conditions (under which such a spill is the most likely to occur) could easily allow an oil spill to enter Big Bay and possibly ultimately Langebaan Lagoon. See Section 4.2.4 for the probability of this occurrence.


50

Scenario 2 - Grounding of an iron-ore carrier or collision with a concrete structure (jetty or quay)

For Option 2 the spill will occur in relatively exposed conditions of Big Bay where the currents and tides are such that there is a significant likelihood of an oil spill having some risk of impact on Langebaan Lagoon should adequate mitigation measures (e.g. booming) not be possible or prove to be ineffective (e.g. due to environmental conditions). The fate and ultimate consequences of an oil spill at the berth locations for Option 1 is likely to be less than for Option 2, but perhaps not as different as would be expected, due to the fact that the outer extremity of Small Bay is strongly linked to Big Bay by tidal and wind-driven flows (particularly the clockwise circulation that is considered to prevail in Small Bay under both southerly and north-westerly wind conditions). The jetty at the end of the causeway does not constitute an effective barrier for flows between Small Bay and Big Bay as it is of open caisson structure. The likelihood of containing oil spills in Small Bay at berth locations for Option 3 and Option 4 are significantly higher, particularly for Option 4. Consequently the risk of potential impacts on Big Bay and Langebaan Lagoon associated with oil spills at these two locations are significantly less than for Option 1 and Option 2. Potential risk of impacts on Small Bay (including impacts on the mariculture industry, fish factories, local fisherman and recreational activities), associated with oil spills are likely to be more significant for Option 3 and Option 4. In terms of the likely efficacy of mitigation measures such as booming, these are likely to be the most effective for Option 3 and Option 4, flowed by Option 1 and Option 2. The efficacy of mitigation measures is likely to be the least for Option 2 due to the more exposed nature of Big Bay due to prevailing wind and wave conditions. It must be noted that under this scenario such an occurrence is likely to result in a bunker oil spill of typically <2000 tons.

4.2.4 Probability of an Oil Pollution

The port operations risks of oil tankers have been related by Capt Gilchrist and Dr Ian Borthwick (1) to grounding, collision and berthing / unberthing. These risks have been determined to be 0.00667 per year for grounding, with a minor oil spill, on the basis of 25 tanker visits to the port per year. This means a probability of a serious course deviation (i.e. probability of a tanker of grounding) of 0.00027 per tanker. If this grounding risk value would also be related to the iron ore bulk carriers, with the present maximum of 290 bulk carrier visits per year, the total risk per


51

year would become 0.077 or statistically one spill every 13 years. However, to apply these tanker oil spill risks to bulk carriers, which have much better protected bunker tanks, is very conservative. Accepting this tanker probability also for the increase in bulk carrier shipping to 600 bulk carriers per year, would result in an increase of the total risk per year to 0.162, or statistically one oil spill every 6.5 years. For a collision with a bulk carriers, this would be a spill of bunker oil and for a collision with a moored oil tanker this could be a spill of crude oil. However, over the past 30 years of port operations, with on average about 200 bulk carriers calling at the port per year, no significant bunker oil spills as a result of bulk carrier collisions have been reported. This is an indication that bunker oil spills from bulk carrier collisions would probably not be more than 0.00017 per bulk carrier, or about one spill per 10 years with a shipping intensity of 600 bulk carriers per year. Of this total probability, the incremental effect of the two new berths, compared to the existing two berths, will only be half or statistically one accident of an individual ship with an oil spill every 20 years. On the basis of its track record, the Port of Saldanha is a safe port for shipping under the present shipping and port operational guidelines. Safety guidelines, rules and regulations are reviewed regularly by the marine staff of the port, as well as by experienced and senior marine advisors, using feed back on critical situation. Constant efforts to further improve safety standards according to international practice, such as reflected in various International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (ALA) guidelines should be made. In this way the port should be able to maintain its present safety profile at world class standards. This requires that oil spill response measures at the port, including those for bulk carriers, should be at a highly operational level. The emphasis should be on avoidance of oil spills and on reducing the scale of the impact.

4.2.5 Conclusions

The main environmental risks due to shipping in the Port of Saldanha are related to spillage of oil due to shipping accidents and disruption of oil tanker (un)loading. The probability of a spill occurring is estimated to be once every 20 years. For an oil spill resulting from a collision of an iron-ore carrier with a moored oil tanker (i.e. Scenario 1), the consequence of this spill could be significant if the accident resulted in the rupture of one of the oil tankers cargo tanks. The oil could easily enter Big Bay and ultimately Langebaan Lagoon due to the fact that: i) the jetty at the end of the causeway does not constitute an effective barrier for flows between Small Bay and Big Bay as it is of open caisson

(1) CSIR,1996. Environmental Impact Assessment : Proposed changes to oil transfer operations : SFF, Saldanha Bay. Specialist studies report, Vol 2(ii). CSIR Report ENV-S-C 96005D, Stellenbosch, December.


52

structure; and ii) such an oil spill is likely to occur at the end of the causeway where ebb flow tidal currents and/or north-westerly wind conditions (under which such a spill is the most likely to occur) could easily allow an oil spill to enter Big Bay and possibly ultimately Langebaan Lagoon. The overall risk of an oil spill (risk to Langebaan Lagoon) for Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 is significantly higher than for Option 2 where there is no risk for this scenario. For an oil spill resulting from the grounding of an iron-ore carrier or collision with a concrete structure (i.e. Scenario 2), the consequence of the spill would be far less than for Scenario 1 as the spill would involve bunker oil and is likely to be of much lower volume. For Option 2 the spill will occur in relatively exposed conditions of Big Bay where the currents and tides are such that there is a significant likelihood of the bunker oil spill having some risk of impact on Langebaan Lagoon should adequate mitigation measures (e.g. booming) not be possible or prove to be ineffective (e.g. due to environmental conditions). The fate and ultimate consequences of a bunker oil spill at the berth locations for Option 1 is likely to be less than for Option 2, but perhaps not as different as would be expected, as the jetty at the end of the causeway does not constitute an effective barrier for flows between Small Bay and Big Bay as it is of open caisson structure and bunker oil is likely to circulate into Big Bay. The likelihood of containing oil spills in Small Bay at berth locations for Option 3 and Option 4 are significantly higher, particularly for Option 4. Consequently, for Scenario 2, the potential risk to Big Bay and Langebaan Lagoon associated with bunker oil spills for Option 3 and Option 4 are significantly less than for Option 1 and Option 2.

4.3 ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.3.1 Disruption to Existing Marine Related Activities and Other Port Operations During Construction

Engineering and operational constraints are related to the following: • Dredging of the approach channels • Dredging to -21m CD fronting the berths • Discharge of the dredge material to the reclaim dam • Construction of the berth – pile driving and the revetment slope • Construction of the reclamation bund • Relocation of existing infrastructure Each of these engineering and operational constraints is discussed below.


53

Dredging of the Approach Channels

Table 4.1 Dredge Volumes

Dredge Volume Mm3

Dredge Area m2

Duration Weeks

Remarks

Option 1 4.1 830 000 24 Small Bay Disrupts shipping to MPT

Option 2 6.25 650 000 40 Large Bay No impact on shipping Option 3 7.7 980 000 46 Relocate MPT Major disruption Option 4 12.7 1 540 000 75 North of MPT Channel deepening

The duration of dredging is based on a production rate of 175 000 m3 per week, allowing a 5% margin for downtime. Option 1 has less dredge volume as the section of the approach channel to the MPT has already been dredged to -15m CD. The area however increases to provide an increased turning width to -14m CD for vessels to reverse into the berth. Option 1 is likely to have downtime due to restrictions from shipping to and from the MPT. These restrictions relate mainly to ensuring the safe passage of vessels. The existing width of shipping channel does not allow for a dredger and a MPT vessel to be accommodated safely at the same time. One MPT vessel entering and departing the MPT daily would cause a potential 3 to 4 hour delay to the dredger daily. Stand-by costs for the dredger are estimated at R 1M per day. Dredging to -21m CD Fronting the Berths

Option 1 and Option 3 will be more impacted during dredging for berth construction than Option 2 and Option 4. Option 1 is adjacent to the shipping channel to MPT. For Option 3, relocating the MPT – possibly south of the existing – would also impact on shipping during construction of the new MPT. Discharge of the Dredge Material to the Reclaim Dam

The most economical method to pump dredge spoil is by floating or submerging a pipeline. The required pipeline diameter is estimated to be 0.8m. It is envisaged that the dredger will be attached to a floating pipeline allowing the dredger to move around the dredge site. The floating pipeline will be connected to a fixed mooring/transfer point close to the dredging area. From the fixed mooring point, the pipeline will then be submerged, anchored to the sea bed and directed towards the reclaim area in a location that will not interfere with vessel anchors. Option 2 (Big Bay) has a direct route for a pipeline connection to the reclaim dam.


54

At Option 1, the pipeline can be routed around the southern end of the causeway. At Option 3 and Option 4, the pipeline would have to be laid across the causeway. This would require trenching under roads, conveyors, the rail embankment, and service mains. Construction of the Berth – Pile Driving and the Revetment Slope

The construction sequence will be dredging followed by piling, construction of the revetment slope under the quay and backfilling behind the revetment. The front piles will be driven from a piling barge and the rear piles installed on the backfill. Option 2 followed by Option 4 will result in minimal impact and potential downtime on shipping, due to positioning the pile driving barge fronting the berth. Option 3 (with the MPT relocated possibly south of the existing location) and Option 1 will be more impacted as they are adjacent to the shipping channel to MPT. Construction of the Reclamation Bund

The reclaim area is located in the NE area of Big Bay adjacent to the causeway and south of the existing Stockpile area. The main impact during construction of the revetment is the volume of rock (and the number of truck loads), which will have to be transported through the port from an adjacent quarry. The table below provides estimates of the anticipated number of trucks required. For example, it is estimated that there will be approximately 770 trucks/per week, approximately 110 trucks/day (for a 7 day week) which would equate to approximately 7 trucks per hour for a 16 hour day. The main interface will be with the existing port users and also the traffic outside of the port boundaries along to the quarry site.

Table 4.2 Construction of Reclamation Bund

Volume of rock (m3) Number of trucks Location 1 285 500 40 000 Location 2 329 000 46 000 Location 3 483 000 67 000 Location 4 513 000 71 000

Relocation of Existing Infrastructure

Option 1 (Small Bay) is between the MPT and the existing ore berth No.2 facing Saldanha. The existing OPCSA (Oil Pollution Control) offices, quay and boathouse will have to be demolished and relocated – possibly to an area north of the MPT. High level conveyors will be required to cross the existing infrastructure such as roads, conveyors, rail and services.


55

Option 2 (Big Bay), the berths are constructed along the un-developed eastern coastline of the causeway, has minor impact on existing infrastructure. All construction is east of the existing road. The berths link directly to the stockyard and conveyors can be kept at a low level. Option 3 (Small Bay) means relocating the MPT, possibly to the south of its existing location, - at a cost of R 1.7 billion – and then constructing the new ore berths on top of the existing terminal. The present MPT has quay walls (caisson and counterfort) to a depth of -14m and -15m CD. The proposed ore berths have a depth of -21m CD. Relocation of the MPT will result in considerable delays to the schedule, as the new MPT would have to be constructed and fully operational before the construction of the iron ore berths could commence. High level conveyors will be required to cross the existing infrastructure – roads, conveyors, rail and services. Option 4 (Small Bay), north of the MPT is in a presently in an undeveloped section of shoreline and will have minor impact on existing infrastructure. The location will place restrictions on future development of possible container terminals and probable expansions into the offshore oil and gas markets. High level conveyors will be required to cross the existing infrastructure such as roads, conveyors, rail and services. The ore sampling facility will have to be re-located.

4.3.2 Berthing and Mooring Conditions

Wind and wave occurrence, influencing berthing and mooring conditions, will be reduced at Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 (Small Bay), when compared to Option 2 (Big Bay), due to the sheltering effect behind the causeway. Conditions at Option 2 will be slightly reduced from that presently experienced at the existing berths, as Option 2 is further north along the causeway. However, considering the port guideline plans, the calmer conditions in Small Bay is best reserved for future development for smaller, shallower draft vessels (container ships, general cargo, etc.) that would not be accommodated at berths located in Big Bay. The large ore carriers can operate in higher sea conditions – the ship manoeuvring and mooring studies undertaken by the CSIR satisfactorily modelled the sea conditions in Big Bay.

4.4 PORT & REGIONAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

4.4.1 Port Planning Principles

Transnet has recently undertaken a national planning process to develop a National Infrastructure Plan (NIP). The plan takes cognisance of the national and regional linkages between the ports, the ports and the associated railway infrastructure and demands of the various hinterlands. As part of this


56

planning process detail Port Development Framework Plans were developed for each port. When developing the Port Development Framework Plans for each port, certain port planning principles were considered. Adherence to these principles ultimately leads to a Port Development Framework Plan that will facilitate efficient, effective and sustainable port development. These Port Planning Principles include: • Terminal layout • Terminal location • Commodity handling • Development potential • Status quo limitations • Retaining flexibility • Early integration of environmental and social opportunities and constraints Each of these principles is discussed in detail in Annex C and has a bearing on the future growth and spatial layout of the port.

4.4.2 Port Development Framework Plan for the Port of Saldanha

Several general port development constraints and opportunities within Saldanha Bay have a bearing on the future spatial layout of the Port of Saldanha. Some of the constraints include: • The Bluewater Bay residential area to the west of the causeway; • Concerns regarding shoreline stability to the east of the causeway; • Dust emanating from the iron ore stockpiles and iron ore handling; • The larger wave climate experienced on the Big Bay side of the causeway; • Possible environmental impact on the Langebaan Lagoon; • Mariculture within Small Bay and the dependency of this industry on

uncontaminated water; • Sensitive dune system (Spreeuwal) to the north east of the iron ore stock

piles; and • The lack of suitable dredge disposal sites within close proximity to the port. Some of the opportunities include: • Small Bay provides a relatively sheltered area; • There are areas of deepwater available at the seaward end of the causeway; • Large amounts of undeveloped land adjacent to the port; and • The ease with which existing developments can be expanded without

impacting on other port activities.


57

Combining these local constraints and opportunities with the Port Planning Principles discussed in Section 4.4.1 has led to the development of a Port Development Framework for the Port of Saldanha (1). Figure 4.1 shows the current layout for the Port of Saldanha according to the Port Development Framework Plan (December 2007) and Figure 4.2 the proposed port development scenario as per the Port Development Framework which represents the spatial layout of the port into the future (2).

Figure 4.1 Port of Saldanha - Current Layout (December 2007)

Source: Port Development Framework for the Port of Saldanha (December 2007), Annexure A.2

(1) PRDW (2007) Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg; Western Ports Rail Corridor Study; Port of Saldanha Development Framework Plan; Report No. 491/01/006 Rev 01; December 2007. (2) These layouts were presented at a public meeting in Saldanha on the 29th November 2007.


58

Figure 4.2 Port of Saldanha – Long-Term Potential

Source: Port Development Framework for the Port of Saldanha (December 2007), Annexure E.1

Each of the berth location options are discussed below in terms of how they may either conflict or support the Port Development Framework for the Port of Saldanha. Option 1 – South of MPT (Small Bay)

Option 1 is the area on the Small Bay side of the causeway between the existing iron ore berth and the MPT. Developing an iron ore terminal here is in direct conflict with the Port Development Framework. Future development potential in this location includes possible expansion of the existing multi-purpose quays. This location could limit the future development potential of the MPT and will result in Oil Pollution Control South Africa (OPCSA) having to relocate. While the relocation of the OPCSA may be relatively easy, it may not be as easy to accommodate medium to long-term changes for the MPT. The MPT terminal is used for handling both break-bulk and dry-bulk (except iron ore) cargo. Between 2007 and 2015, the tonnage of break-bulk and dry-bulk cargo handled is expected to increase from approximately 2.15 million tons to approximately 3.15 million tons (PRDW, 2007). Furthermore, general cargo vessels require calmer water to off and on-load, while iron ore vessels can operate in more unfavourable conditions. Allowing for future MPT expansion into Big Bay is therefore not advisable, from a port operations perspective.


59

Allowing future MPT growth to be accommodated northwards of the existing MPT may make more sense. However, this will create a long-term conflict with future container terminals. Annual container handling in the Western Cape is expected to increase from approximately 0.7 million TEU's in 2007 to approximately 4.1 million TEU's by 2036. (1) Limitations at the Port of Cape Town will place greater emphasis on the Port of Saldanha to meet the needs in container traffic growth for the Western Cape. Furthermore, container terminals require significantly calmer waters for container handling activities than general cargo vessels and iron ore vessels. The requirement for calm water conditions combined with the limitations at the Port of Cape Town emphasise the importance of not compromising future space for the development of a container terminal in Saldanha. Option 2 – South of MPT (Big Bay)

Option 2 is the area on the Big Bay side of the causeway between the existing iron ore berth and the iron ore stockpiles. This option compliments the Port Development Framework. This option is however more exposed to wave action than Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4. However, this is unlikely to be a major concern as ship berthing and mooring operations occur in this area for existing iron ore vessels. Option 3 – Alongside the MPT (Small Bay)

Option 3 is located at the existing MPT. Locating an iron ore berth here would require that the MPT facility be moved. This would require the construction of a new MPT facility before the old facility is decommissioned and new infrastructure built. This option would pose similar constraints to the future of the port as it would limit space within Small Bay for the future growth of the MPT and it would conflict with the future spatial requirements for container terminals if moved northwards. This option does not compliment the Port Development Framework and the costs associated with this, together with the additional time that would be required may ultimately render this option not feasible. Option 4 – North of the MPT (Small Bay)

Option 4 is the area on the Small Bay side of the causeway, northwards of the existing MPT. Developing an iron ore berth here is in direct conflict to the Port Development Framework. Allowing the iron ore berths to be accommodated northwards of the existing MPT will create a long-term conflict with future container terminals. As discussed for Option 1, annual container handling in the Western Cape is expected to increase from approximately 0.7 million TEU's in 2007 to approximately 4.1 million TEU's by 2036. (2) Limitations at the Port of Cape

(1) (PRDW, 2007c) Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg (Pty) Ltd; Port of Cape Town Development Framework Plan; Report No. 491/02/004 Rev 01; December 2007. (2) Ibid.


60

Town will place greater emphasis on the Port of Saldanha to meet the needs in container traffic growth for the Western Cape. Furthermore, container terminals require significantly calmer waters for container handling activities than general cargo vessels and iron ore vessels. The requirement for calm water conditions combined with the limitations at the Port of Cape Town emphasise the importance of not compromising future space for the development of a container terminal in Saldanha. Conclusions for Port and Regional Planning Considerations

The port planning principles together with the local opportunities and constraints in Saldanha Bay provide a foundation upon which the planning of future development within the port has been based. The majority of the planning principles emphasize the importance of considering other cargo handling terminals and port activities when planning for the expansion of any particular terminal. Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 could have a negative knock on effect with substantial impacts on the economic development of other commodities in the region. The ability of the port to expand its multi-purpose activities is a driver of development for the industrial area in proximity to the Port of Saldanha and the hinterland serving the port. The Spatial Development Framework Plan for Saldanha Bay and surrounds identifies extensive industrial area which is dependent on the ability of the port to meet the export/import demands. This import/export demand can only be met through the development of additional multi-purpose berths. In conclusion, Option 1, Option 3 and Option 4 all have impact on long-term port development potential. Of these options, Option 1 has the least negative effect, since it still allows for multi-purpose development northwards, but in turn demands that the configuration for container terminals and offshore oil and gas services be re-evaluated and possibly scaled down. This knock on effect could stagnate and/or deter growth in the region. Therefore, Option 2 is best suited to meeting the long-term port development potential and the associated enabling of regional development.

4.5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The estimated construction costs associated with each option are provided in Table 4.3. When considering these costs, Option 3 and Option 4 will require substantially more investment than Option 1 and Option 2. This is mainly due to the costs associated with building a new MPT facility (Option 3), together with the additional dredging costs (Option 3 and Option 4). The investment required for Option 1 and Option 2 are similar when compared with the other two options. While Option 1 will require the OPCSA facility to be moved and additional conveyors to be built, Option 2 will


61

require more dredging. There is a difference of R252 million between Option 1 and Option 2, with Option 2 being the most cost effective.

Table 4.3 Construction costs for all options i

Construction Costs (1) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Cost of Dredging & Reclamation (including blasting and removal of rock (billion)

~ R1.658 ~ R1.935 ~ R2.175 ~ R2.681

Cost of Berths (including relocation of Multi-Purpose Terminal (billion)

~ R1.597 ~ R1.597 ~ R3.284 ~ R1.887

Cost of OPCSA demolition and rebuild (million)

~ R200 R0 R0 R0

Cost of Conveyors (million)

~ R360 ~ R496 ~ R386 ~ R302

Estimated Direct Costs -Capital cost for construction (to include dredging, reclamation, drilling/blasting of rock, berth construction, construction facilities, conveyor costs, relocation of existing facilities)

Cost of Construction facilities (million)

~ R11 ~ R11 ~ R11 ~ R11

Consultant & Transnet fees (million)

~ R314 ~ R281 ~ R413 ~ R570

Contingency (billion)

~ R1.242 ii ~ R648iii ~ R1.873 ii ~ R1.728 ii

Estimated In-direct Costs – (to include Consultants/Transnet’s fees, Contingency and escalation)

Escalation (billion)

~ R3.727 ~ R3.889 ~ R5.990 ~ R5.070

TOTAL Estimated Cost (Direct & In-direct) (+/- 20% accuracy) (billion)

~ R9.111 ~ R8.859 ~R13.671 ~ R11.888

i – Includes dredging, reclamation, requirement for disposal of excess material, berth sub and superstructure. ii – 30% on Direct Costs and Consultant/Transnet Fees. Refer to Annex B for further explanation. iii – 15% on Direct Costs and Consultant/Transnet Fees. Refer to Annex B for further explanation

(1) Operational and maintenance costs and the associated uncertainties are not catered for in this study. Additional environmental costs (mitigation) required for all berth locations and the associated uncertainties are also not catered for in this analysis to provide an even basis for comparison.


62

5 ANALYSIS

5.1 INITIAL SCREENING OF OPTIONS

In order to analyse the complexity of information provided in Section 4, the assessment of the criteria for each of the four options has been simplified into a summary matrix. The risk of impact has been graded from lowest risk of impact to highest risk of impact as follows: • Green – lowest risk of impact • Yellow – higher risk of impact • Orange – highest risk of impact The assessment and conclusions reached for each assessment criteria, as discussed in Section 4, has been used to allocate the relative risk for all assessment criteria for each of the four options. It is important to note that the assessment provided under each of the assessment criterion is a “comparative” assessment. While it could be argued for some criteria to either depict a “lower” or “higher” risk of impact for a specific option, this will result in the other options having to be changed, resulting in no net difference in the comparative assessment of the options. Summarising the assessment of the criteria for each of the four options in this way allows for easy comparison of the four options against one another, and allows some options to be screened out. From the summary matrix in Figure 5.1 it is clear that Option 3 and Option 4 are less feasible that Option 1 and Option 2. Option 3 would result in significant disruption to the existing operations and requires significantly more investment than Option 1, Option 2 and Option 4. While Option 4 would have less of a disruption on existing operations and requires slightly less investment than Option 3, it clearly has the most criteria assessed to have the highest risk of impact and is thus not considered as a feasible option. While it is argued that no further justification is required for screening out these options, further analysis is required to fully distinguish between Option 1 and Option 2.


63

Figure 5.1 Summary Matrix

Opt

ion

1

Opt

ion

2

Opt

ion

3

Opt

ion

4

A Environmental & Social Considerations1 Long-term Ecological Consequences

1.1 Phytoplankton1.2 Dissolved Oxygen1.3 Habitat Modification (shipping channel/dredge area)1.4 Habitat Destruction (reclaim area)

2 Dredge Head Sediment Suspension Impacts During Construction2.1 Water Column Turbidity2.2 Effects on Benthic Habitats2.3 Remobilisation of Contaminants During Dredging2.4 Effects on Phytoplankton Productivity

3 Reclaim Area Suspended Sediment Impacts During Construction3.1 Water Quality Turbidity3.2 Effects on Benthic Habitats3.3 Effects on Pytoplankton Productivity

4 Shoreline Stability4.1 Channel Dredging4.2 Reclamation - Shoreline Stability4.3 Reclamation - Beach amenity

5 Operational impacts associated with ballast water release and discharge from site5.1 Ballast Water5.2 Discharges from site

6 Noise6.1 Noise During Construction6.2 Noise During Operation

7 Visual7.1 Visual Impact of Construction Activity7.2 Visual Impact of Turbidity Plumes (Construction)7.3 Visual Impact on Sense of Place (Operation)

8 Air Quality8.1 Air Quality Impacts During Construction8.2 Air Quality Impacts During Operation

9 Social9.1 Social Aspects During Construction9.2 Social Aspects During Operation

B Consideration of Environmental Risk10.1 Probability and Fate of Oil Spills

Collision of an iron-ore carrier with a moored oil tanker (impact on Langebaan Lagoon)Grounding of an iron-ore carrier or collision with a concrete structure (impact on Langebaan Lagoon)

C Engineering and Operational Considerations11.1 Disruption of Existing On-land Operations During Construction 11.2 Berthing and Mooring Conditions

D Port & Regional Planning Principle Considerations12.1 Port Planning Considerations

E Financial Considerations13.1 Costs for Construction

Port of Saldanha Assessment Criteria

5.2 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2

When considering the conclusions of each of the specialist inputs, it can be concluded that several of the criteria can be excluded for use in a comparative assessment between Option 1 and Option 2. The reason for this being that, while there may be a comparative difference between the options, the actual impact may remain insignificant, irrespective of which option is selected i.e. Option 4 may present the highest risk of noise during both construction and operation, however the actual noise impact is unlikely to be significant irrespective of which option is selected. As a result, the following criteria were selected to provide a substantive basis on which to differentiate Option 1 and Option 2: • Long-term ecological consequences (marine environment); • Consideration of Environmental risk: probability and fate of oil spills; • Port and regional planning consideration; and • Financial considerations.


64

5.2.1 Long-term Ecological Consequences (Marine Environment)

The assessment of the long-term ecological consequences considered how the biogeochemical processes (1) that support the key ecosystem services from the coupled Saldanha Bay – Langebaan Lagoon System may change as a result of either Option 1 or Option 2. The key biogeochemical process underpinning ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient rich water that mariculture depends on) in the system is biological productivity (distribution in space and time) and its utilisation in the system reflected through changes in oxygen in bottom waters. Also of concern is habitat destruction (direct or indirectly). As a result the three metrics of change used to assess Option 1 and Option 2 include the following: • The extent of change in water column phytoplankton productivity; • The extent of change in dissolved oxygen in the bottom waters of the

system (low dissolved oxygen concentrations may lead to ecological effects such as reductions in benthic biomass, species abundance and diversity as well the elimination of crustacean at very low concentrations); and

• The extent of physical habitat change (i.e. shipping channel) and habitat loss (i.e. reclamation area).

Dredging for Option 1 and Option 2 is likely to result in a penetration of cold bottom water (< 10ºC water containing high silicates and nitrates) into the eastern side of Small Bay and an increased penetration of cold bottom water (< 10ºC water containing high silicates and nitrates) into the proposed dredge area alongside the causeway in Big Bay respectively. Change in Phytoplankton Productivity

Associated with the penetration of cold water is the possibility of an increase in phytoplankton production mostly over the area of the new dredge channel. The likelihood of such an increase in phytoplankton production is greater for Option 2 than for Option 1 because of a larger mixing energy in Big Bay however existing detailed modelling results indicate that these changes remain insignificant. Change in Dissolved Oxygen

An increase in phytoplankton production resulting from dredging for Option 1 may result in a possible increase in deposition of detrital material in the immediate vicinity of the dredge channel in Small Bay. However, any increase in deposition of detrital material and/or sediments in the newly dredged area is expected to be limited, resulting in a limited change in dissolved oxygen, due to the fact that much of the proposed dredge channel

(1) Biogeochemical processes are those physical, chemical and geological processes determining the inter-relationship between the geochemistry of an region and the animal and plant life in that region.


65

area (-21m CD) already exists as a shipping channel deepened to approximately-15m CD. The modelling results for Option 2 indicate that the increased phytoplankton production that does occur, results in deposition of detrital material in the area alongside the causeway and the area between the northern extremity of the proposed shipping channel and the reclaim area. The model results indicate that the deposition of detrital carbon in the proposed dredge area and any associated effects on dissolved oxygen are limited. Habitat Modification (shipping channel/dredge area)

Modification of benthic habitats will occur throughout the proposed new shipping channels for Options 1 and Option 2 however the spatial extent of benthic modification remains limited. It should be noted that in overall terms, the spatial extent of the proposed dredge area for Option 2 (650,000 m2) is less than that for Option 1 (832,000 m2). Habitat Destruction (reclaim area)

Conversely, the habitat destruction due to the establishment of the reclamation area is greater for Option 2 (560,000 m2) than for Option 1 (392,000 m2), i.e. an approximate 40% increase. This loss of habitat is relatively modest in terms of the aerial extent of available benthic habitat in Big Bay (> 30,000,000 m2). The consequences in terms of water column “habitat” in Big Bay are insignificant. Conclusion

The indices used (i.e. change in phytoplankton production, change in dissolved oxygen and change in physical habitat) in the assessment of the long-term ecological consequences of Option 1 and Option 2 have indicated that the morphological changes (and linked changes in ecosystem function) associated with either of Option 1 and Option 2 do not pose any identified long-term risk to the Saldanha Bay – Langebaan Lagoon ecosystem. Thus from a long term ecological perspective, either of these development options may be considered acceptable.

5.2.2 Consideration of Risk (Probability and Fate of Oil Spills)

The main environmental risks due to shipping in the Port of Saldanha are related to spillage of oil due to shipping accidents and disruption of oil tanker (un)loading. The risks of oils spills due to the realisation of Option 1 are significantly higher than for Option 2, due to the presence of a moored oil tanker (Saldanha bay side) adjacent to the navigation channel for the additional ore carriers. Furthermore, large spills as a result of a shipping accident with an oil tanker (Option 1 only) is likely to occur at the end of the causeway where ebb flow tidal currents and/or north-westerly wind conditions (under which such a spill is the most likely to occur) could easily allow an oil spill to enter Big Bay and possibly ultimately Langebaan Lagoon.


66

In most ports, oil tanker terminals are dedicated and separated facilities, where the movement of other vessels nearby is restricted as much as possible. In the case of the Port of Saldanha, passing of large ships along moored oil tankers should be reduced to the absolute minimum for minimum risk. Although the risks in absolute sense are small, they are not insignificant and cannot be ignored. In this regard Option 1 poses a significantly higher risk of impact than Option 2 due to the additional ore vessel traffic passing the oil tanker terminal located in Small Bay. However, it should be noted that with the Port of Saldanha’s past track record it is classified as a “safe port for shipping” under the present shipping and port operational guidelines.

5.2.3 Port and Regional Planning Consideration

Option 1 will restrict the long-term development options for the MPT i.e. expansion in a southerly direction to meet long-term future demands (Figure 4.2). Expansion of the MPT would be forced in a northerly direction and the knock-on effect would be to limit the space available for the development of a container terminal. It has been reported that container growth in the Western Cape is expected to increase from 0.7 million TEU's (approximately 1.2 million containers) in 2007 to approximately 4.1 million TEU's (approximately 7 million containers) by 2036. The Port of Cape Town is currently the only container handling port in the Western Cape. Since it is unlikely that the Port of Cape Town will be able to accommodate the total future container demand, the possible need for the Port of Saldanha to develop a container terminal is very real. Since development of a MPT or container terminal in Big Bay is not practical due to the harsher wave climate, the development potential of the port would be reduced with the result being a potential negative impact on the economy of the Western Cape. While it is challenging to predict the medium to long-term global, national and regional economic trends that may impact future port development, it is acknowledged that well recognised port planning principles and local opportunities and constraints have been used in compiling the Port Development Framework Plan for the Port of Saldanha. Option 1 is therefore considered to be less favourable than Option 2, which contributes to realising the full development potential of the Port.

5.2.4 Financial Considerations

Option 1 requires an estimated investment of R9.111 billion while Option 2 requires an estimated investment of R8.859 billion. Thus Option 2 requires approximately R252 million or 2.8% less investment than Option 1, making it the most cost effective option.


67

6 CONCLUSIONS

Four alternative berthing options were selected for consideration as potential locations for the establishment of the new iron ore terminal at the Port of Saldanha. The four options were assessed against a number of environmental, social, engineering, planning and financial criteria to establish the preferred option. On completion of a detailed assessment, a summary matrix was completed to allow for a comparative analysis of the four options to be undertaken. From the summary matrix, it was evident that Option 3 and Option 4 posed significantly more risks than Option 1 and Option 2. As a result, Option 3 and Option 4 were screened out and Option 1 and Option 2 were then subjected to a more detailed comparative analysis. Several of the criteria were excluded for use in more detailed comparative analysis of Option 1 and Option 2. The reason for this being that, while there may have been a comparative difference between the options, the actual impact may be insignificant, irrespective of which option is selected i.e. Option 4 may present the highest risk of noise during both construction and operation, however the actual noise is unlikely to be significant irrespective of which option is selected. As a result, the following criteria were selected to provide a substantive basis on which to differentiate Option 1 and Option 2: • Long-term ecological consequences (marine environment); • Consideration of Environmental risk: probability and fate of oil spills; • Port and regional planning consideration; and • Financial considerations. On completion of the more detailed comparative analysis of Option 1 and Option 2, the following was concluded: • The overall consequences of the changes associated with Option 1 and

Option 2 are likely to be insignificant in terms of the overall ecosystem functioning of the ecosystem of Big Bay and the coupling of the Big Bay – Langebaan Lagoon ecosystems. Thus from the long-term ecological perspective, this consideration does not differentiate between options;

• When considering the potential of risk of oil spills Option 1 poses significantly higher risk that Option 2;

• Option 1 presents some conflicts with the long term development of the Port of Saldanha, while Option 2 optimises this potential; and

• Option 1 will require 2.8% more investment than Option 2. From the above it can be concluded that Option 2 is the preferred option. However, in considering this conclusion it should be noted that the oil spill risks can be effectively managed through implementing appropriate port controls and adequate oil spill response planning thus minimising the


68

difference between Option 1 and Option 2 for this aspect. Port and regional planning considerations and financial considerations remain as distinguishing criteria which remain in favour of Option 2. While it is concluded that Option 1 and Option 2 do not pose any identified long-term risk to the Saldanha Bay – Langebaan Lagoon ecosystem, uncertainties exist where ecosystem thresholds lie for the linkages between Big Bay and Langebaan Lagoon. It is probable that extended development within Big Bay, be this port development or other operations such as mariculture, etc, may ultimately threaten ecosystem thresholds. The risk (in terms of linkages between Big Bay and Langebaan Lagoon) of similar extended development in Small Bay is likely to be lower. Thus, within the context of present available knowledge of the functioning of the Saldanha Bay - Langebaan Lagoon ecosystem and associated ecosystem thresholds, the selection of Option 2 on this occasion should not be considered to set a precedent for further development in Big Bay by either the port or other industry. Assessment of the acceptability of any further or extended development in Big Bay will need to be based on an improved understanding of potential ecosystem thresholds to ensure that the risks posed by such further development in Big Bay on the Saldanha Bay - Langebaan Lagoon ecosystems remain acceptable.

��

ERM has over 100 offices across the following countries worldwide Argentina Malaysia Australia Mexico Belgium The Netherlands Brazil Peru Canada Poland Chile Portugal China Puerto Rico Colombia Russia Ecuador Singapore France South Africa Germany Spain Hong Kong Sweden Hungary Taiwan India Thailand Indonesia UK Ireland United Arab Emirates Italy US Japan Vietnam Kazakhstan Venezuela Korea ERM’s Cape Town Office Silverwood Block A Silverwood Close Steenberg Office Park Steenberg, 7945 Cape Town, South Africa T: +27 (0) 21 701 8687 F:+27 (0) 21 701 7900 ERM’s Johannesburg Office Building 23, The Woodlands, Woodlands Drive, Woodmead, Sandton T: +27 (0) 11 802 8263 F:+27 (0) 11 802 8299 ERM’s Durban Office Unit 6, Texmaco House, Cnr Jan Smuts & York Roads Winston Park 3610 Durban, South Africa T: +27 (0) 31 767 2080 F:+27 (0) 31 764 3643

www.erm.com

Documents

Draft Screening Study, Port of Saldanha - Transnet of Saldanha/FINAL... · Draft Screening Study, Port of Saldanha ... Annex E Alternative Disposal Options for Excess Dredge Material