bald hill bauxite mine - epa tasmaniaepa.tas.gov.au/documents/australian bauxite ltd, bald hill -...

Environmental Assessment Report Australian Bauxite Limited – Bald Hill Bauxite Project, Campbell Town

I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Bald Hill Bauxite Mine

Macquarie Road, west of Campbell Town

Australian Bauxite Limited

Board of the Environment Protection Authority

November 2014


II


III

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Australian Bauxite Limited

Proposal Bald Hill Bauxite Mine

Location Macquarie Road, west of Campbell Town

NELMS no. 8902

Permit application no.

P14-288 (Northern Midlands Council)

Doc1 folder EN-EM-EV-DE-238488

Doc1 no. H328470

Class of Assessment 2B

Assessment process milestones

10 May 2013 Notice of Intent submitted

19 June 2013 DPEMP Guidelines issued

22 September 2014 Permit application submitted to Council

22 September 2014 Application received by Board

27 September 2014 Start of public consultation period

25 October 2014 End of public consultation period

19 November 2014 Supplementary information submitted to Board


IV

Acronyms

ASL Above Sea Level

ABx Australian Bauxite Limited

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

BOM Bureau of Meteorology

DPEMP Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EMPCS Environmental management and pollution control system

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

PCAB Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch

RMPS Resource management and planning system

SD Sustainable development

TSP Act Threatened Species Protection Act 1995


V

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of Australian Bauxite Limited’s proposed Bald Hill Bauxite Mine. The proposal involves the extraction and screening of up to 650,000 tonnes (375,000 cubic metres) per year of bauxite from land within a mining lease approximately 5 kilometres northwest of Campbell Town. This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) and DPEMP Supplement. Relevant government agencies and the public have been consulted and their submissions and comments considered as part of this assessment. Further details of the assessment process are presented in section 1 of this report. Section 2 describes the statutory objectives and principles underpinning the assessment. Details of the proposal are provided in section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the proposal, site and design alternatives. Section 5 summarises the public and agency consultation process and the key issues raised in that process. The detailed evaluation of key issues is in section 6, and other issues are evaluated in section 7 and Appendix 1. The report conclusions are contained in section 8. Appendix 2 contains details of comments made and issues raised in the consultation process. Appendix 3 contains environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the DPEMP.


VI

Table of Contents

1 Approvals process .................................................................................... 1

2 SD objectives and EIA principles .............................................................. 2

3 The proposal ............................................................................................ 3

4 Need for proposal and alternatives ......................................................... 11

5 Public and agency consultation .............................................................. 11

6 Evaluation of key issues ......................................................................... 13

6.1 Flora and vegetation ....................................................................................................... 13 6.2 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 16

7 Other issues ........................................................................................... 20

8 Report conclusions ................................................................................. 21

9 References ............................................................................................. 23

10 Appendices ......................................................................................... 24

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues .............................................................................. 25 Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions .................................................... 37 Appendix 3 Permit Conditions ............................................................................................. 40


1

1 Approvals process

A Notice of Intent in relation to the proposal was received by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) on 10 May 2013. An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Northern Midlands Council on 22 September 2014. The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under clause 6(a)(ii), Schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being an activity undertaking crushing, grinding or milling of rocks, ores or minerals. Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 22 September 2014. The Board required that information to support the proposal be provided in the form of a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) prepared in accordance with guidelines issued by the Board and Northern Midlands Council on 19 June 2013. Several drafts of the DPEMP were submitted to the EPA for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance on behalf of the Board. The final DPEMP was submitted to Council with the permit application. The DPEMP was released for public inspection for a 28-day period commencing on 27 September 2014. Advertisements were placed in The Examiner newspaper and on the EPA website. The DPEMP was also referred at that time to relevant government agencies for comment. Two public submissions were received. On 11 November 2014, the Board requested that the proponent submit supplementary information to address public, government agency (including Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, DPIPWE) and Council comments on the DPEMP and to meet other information requirements. Satisfactory supplementary information was submitted by the proponent on 19 November 2014.


2

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

The proposal must be considered by the Board in the context of the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (RMPS), and in the context of the objectives of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control System (EMPCS) (both sets of objectives are specified in Schedule 1 the EMPC Act). The functions of the Board are to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act, and in particular to use its best endeavours to further the RMPS and EMPCS objectives.

The Board must undertake the assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles defined in Section 74 of the EMPC Act.


3

3 The proposal

The proposal involves the extraction and screening of up to 650,000 tonnes (375,000 cubic metres) per year of bauxite over 5 years from a mining lease approximately 5 kilometres northwest of Campbell Town. Production is expected to ramp up during the first year to a maximum production in year 2. Progressive rehabilitation will occur during mining, with final rehabilitation and regrowth monitoring anticipated for year 5 (Table 5 of the DPEMP). There will be an active disturbance footprint of 22 ha at any one time. The resource consists of 10 isolated surface deposits along an undulating ridgeline north west of Macquarie Road, with an isolated deposit south of the road (Figures 1 and 2). The average thickness of the deposits is approximately 3.5 to 4 m, with a maximum depth of 6 m. The resource will be mined in 30 metre wide panels, from 50 to 300 metres in length. Excavation will be west to east across the top of the ridge in small benches approximately 0.25 to 0.5m deep. It will be undertaken using surface miners or dozer ripping and large excavators, negating the need for blasting. Crushing of oversized rock may be required occasionally, and will be undertaken on a campaign basis using a rock breaker. Mined material will be transported to a central mine area for screening (Figure 2). The majority of bauxite will be dry screened. A small proportion of ore may require wet screening. This will be undertaken on a campaign basis adjacent to a constructed sedimentation dam on the mining lease. There is no requirement for a waste rock dump or tailings dam. All waste and non-ore grade material will be used on-site or sold locally for off-site purposes. Waste product, if sold locally, will represent a small proportion of total production. Ore will be transported via trucks along Macquarie Road, West Street through Campbell Town, and the Midlands Highway to Conara rail siding, to be transport by train to Bell Bay for shipping. The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Section 2 of the DPEMP. Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics

Activity

Extraction and screening of up to 650,000 tonnes per year of bauxite over 5 years.

Location and planning context

Location Off Macquarie Road, approximately 5 km northwest of Campbell Town (Figure 1).

Land zoning Rural Resource. Land tenure The proposed mine is on freehold land across two property titles:

‘Rosedale’ - Property ID 6207803; and

‘Meadowbank’ - Property ID 2701038. Mining lease ML 1961P/M.

Lease area 205 ha.

Bond $435,000

Existing site

Land Use Stock grazing.

Topography The resource occurs on top of a low lying, undulating ridgeline oriented in a northwest-southeast direction. The pit areas are located between 230 m and 240 m ASL, with the infrastructure area located at approximately 220 m ASL.


4

Geology Thin layers of iron-rich bauxite material cap the resource, with underlying friable bauxite and variable amounts of clay. Clay-altered volcanic rock typically underlies the resource.

Soils Soils in the bauxite resource area are thin to non-existent (0.05 m to 0.25 m deep), and of low nutrient value.

Hydrology There are no permanent water bodies or streams within the project area. A farm dam is located approximately 430 m south west of the main resource area (pit MB4, Figure 2). Elizabeth River is approximately 750 m south west of the closest pit, West Pit (JB1, Figure 2), and 1.6 km south of the main resource area (pit MB6, Figure 2).

Fauna No fauna species listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) were observed within the lease area.

Flora Two threatened flora species were found on site, knotty speargrass (Austrostipa nodosa) listed as rare under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) and spreading knawel (Scleranthus fasciculatus) listed as vulnerable under the TSP Act.

Vegetation The Midlands Woodland Complex, listed as threatened under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, occurs in remnant form within the lease area. Themeda triandra (Kangaroo grass) was also identified within the lease area. The grassland communities present on site do not meet the EPBC Act listing criteria for Low Land Themeda triandra Grassland, listed under the EPBC Act as critically endangered.

Local region

Climate Mean annual rainfall (Ross, Bureau of Meteorology station (BOM)) – 497.9 mm.

Mean maximum temperature - 17.6 degrees centigrade.

Mean minimum temperature - 5.6 degrees centigrade.

Predominant winds are from the north and northwest.

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

Surrounding land is zoned Rural Resource. The site is located just within the northern boundary of the irrigable district serviced by the Midlands Irrigation Scheme. Irrigated cropping (e.g. poppies) occurs on the flats to the east of the mining lease. A portion of West Pit (JB1, Figure 2) occurs within the area listed on the Tasmanian geo-conservation database as the Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets (Figure 11 of the DPEMP). The nearest residence is approximately 870 metres south of pit JB1, 1.7 km from pit MB6, the closest pit within the main resource area (Figure 2). Numerous residences are located within 3 km of the mine site, on the outskirts of Campbell Town (Figure 4).

Species of conservation significance

37 threatened flora species listed under the TSP Act have been recorded from within 5 km of the site (Table 15 of the DPEMP). Based on habitat preferences and geographical range, the following threatened fauna were identified as having a low to moderate chance of occurrence:

Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae castanops);

Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii); and

Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus). A Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax subsp. Fleayi) and Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), listed as endangered and rare respectively under the TSP Act, were observed during surveys of the area.

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment

1 x surface Miner 1 x 35 tonne excavator and rock breaker 2 x 25 tonne loaders 1 x Cat 1400 grader or equivalent 1 x service truck 3 x light vehicles


5

1 x track mounted screening plant 4 x lighting plants 2 x diesel generators 3 x haul trucks

Other infrastructure

Site office, amenities building, weighbridge, workshop/lay down area, process area, wash loop, fuel storage site, sediment control dams, haul roads. Off-site infrastructure at Bell Bay will be utilised. No upgrades requiring planning approval are required.

Inputs

Water Water for dust suppression and wet screening.

Energy Two diesel generators.

Other raw materials

Material for internal road construction and building foundations.

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Stormwater and dust suppression runoff, wet screen processing.

Atmospheric Dust from internal and external traffic, mine pits, extraction and materials handling, and stockpiles.

Solid General refuse including food scraps, paper and packaging. All waste generated from the mining process will be re-used on site or sold for off-site use.

Controlled wastes

Sewage removed by licensed contractor to Campbell Town waste water treatment plant.

Noise Noise generated from the surface miner, excavator, rock breaker and heavy vehicle movements on site, and going to and from the site.

Greenhouse gases

Estimated carbon dioxide emissions for the project are 3.26 kt CO2-e per year.

Construction, commissioning and operations

Proposal timetable

Construction and site preparation is expected to take 1 to 2 months, and will include establishment of the amenities and workshop area, haulage roads and plant equipment. The development of shallow mining operations in pits MB1, MB2 and JB1 (Figure 2) will be undertaken during the initial construction phase. Commissioning requirements are expected to be limited to the mobile screening plant. Production will be over a 5 year period. The extraction sequence is shown in Figure 3 (yearly mine plans are shown in Appendix A of the DPEMP).

Operating hours (ongoing)

Construction will be undertaken during day light hours.

Operating hours will be 0700 to 1900, 7 days a week, 365 days per year

Transport will commence at Conara rail siding at 6:30 am and cease at Conara rail siding at 7:30 pm, Monday to Saturday.


6

Figure 1: Location of the Mining Lease (red boundary) (Figure 4 of the DPEMP)


7

Figure 2: Site plan (altered from Figure 3 of the DPEMP)

Elizabeth River

Rosedale farm dam

Amenities, workshop and fuel storage

Central mine area

Main Pit Area


8

Figure 3: Mining sequence from years 1 to 5 (Figure 7 of the DPEMP) See Appendix A of the DPEMP for yearly mine plans.


9

Figure 4: Nearest sensitive receptors (Figure 21 of the DPEMP). Campbell Town is shown in the lower right corner.


10

Figure 5: Site drainage (figure supplied in the DPEMP Supplement).


11

4 Need for proposal and alternatives

Australian Bauxite Limited (ABx) has a number of prospective bauxite deposits in the north of the state. ABx’s Tasmanian bauxite strategy relies on multiple sites to ensure continuity of supply to its markets and blending for grade control. The Bald Hill deposit will be a critical and indispensable first mine in this strategy. It contains high quality product and will provide the necessary cash flow to assist with the exploration of other deposits and project start-up costs. The location of the Bald Hill mine is necessarily determined by the resource. The infrastructure will be located on the western side of the ridge line so as not to be visible from Campbell Town or from the Midland Highway. Social and economic impacts A total of 25 people will be employed for the full scale operation, comprising 11 permanent on-site personnel, plus haulage and other contractors. The project workforce will be accommodated in Campbell Town and sourced, where possible, locally. Port stockpiling, ship loading and related documentation and administration will employ approximately 7 personnel. There has been approximately $3.1 million spent on exploration to date, with a further $1.5 million to be spent in delineation drilling, due diligence and approval processes prior to project commencement. Project capital costs are estimated at $16 million. With a maximum production 0.55 million tonnes per annum, mineral royalties payable are expected to be between $0.5 million to $1.0 million per annum. The development of other bauxite deposits in the northern Tasmania will increase the social and economic benefits of the area significantly.

5 Public and agency consultation

A summary of the public representations and government agency/body submissions is contained in Appendix 2 of this report. Two representations were received. One representation in support of the proposal, the other from Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd, acknowledging the potential for impact on their assets. The DPEMP was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

DPIPWE, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania;

DPIPWE, Heritage Tasmania;

DPIPWE, Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch (PCAB);

Department of State Growth, Mineral Resources Tasmania;

Department of State Growth, Transport Infrastructure Division; and

Northern Midlands Council. The following Divisions/areas of DPIPWE also provided submissions on the DPEMP:

Water specialist, EPA Division;


12

Air specialist, EPA Division; and

Noise specialist, EPA Division. The DPEMP Supplement prepared by the proponent provides a response to each of the relevant environmental issues raised by the public and government agencies/bodies. According to the DPEMP, the proponent consulted with the following stakeholders:

Quorn Hall and Meadowbank property owner;

Rosedale property owner;

Northern Midlands Council;

State and Federal Members of Parliament;

State Government Departments; o Department of State Growth (Mineral Resources Tasmania) o DPIPWE, Environmental Protection Authority

State Authorities; o Tasrail o Tasports o Forestry Tasmania

Other organisations; o Australian Workers Union

Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association; and

Residents of West Street in Campbell Town and the general community.


13

6 Evaluation of key issues

The key environmental issues relevant to the proposal that were identified for detailed evaluation in this report were:

Flora and vegetation; and

Noise These issues are discussed in the following subsections.

6.1 Flora and vegetation

Description Flora surveys were undertaken on 14 October 2010 and 7 March 2013 by Philip Milner. Additional survey work was carried out by North Barker Ecosystem Services in April and May 2013, with a follow up spring survey in October 2013. The North Barker Survey report is provided in Appendix E of the DPEMP. Two threatened flora species were found on site, knotty speargrass (Austrostipa nodosa), listed as rare under the TSP Act, and spreading knawel (Scleranthus fasciculatus), listed as vulnerable under the TSP Act (Figure 6). Approximately 70 knotty speargrass plants were recorded from two locations outside the disturbance footprint. Five spreading knawel plants were recorded within the bounds of pit MB1 (Figure 6). The total area to be cleared is approximately 40.4 ha. A remanent form of the Midlands Woodland Complex, listed as threatened under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, was found on the site in two small patches (Figure 6). According to the DPEMP, it is characterised by scattered mature and dead standing trees, and is in remnant form due to decades of intensive agriculture. The DPEMP notes that the TASVEG (2.0) benchmarks for the community are not satisfied. Small patches of Themeda triandra occur in the study area, and were assessed against the Low Land Themeda triandra Grassland EPBC Act criteria. According to the DPEMP, the community fails to meet the EPBC Act criteria on at least two counts, extent of gorse and size of patches (see Appendix E of the DPEMP). The Low Land Themeda triandra Grassland community is listed under the EPBC Act as critically endangered. The DPEMP concludes that no listed vegetation communities occur within the mining lease.

Management measures The extent of clearance required for the project will be clearly defined prior to work starting

(Commitment 25);

Appropriate measures (including marking tape, signs, site plans, site inductions, tool box talks and work inspections) will be undertaken to ensure that no unnecessary clearance occurs (Commitment 26);

All works, vehicles and materials will be confined to the designated works areas (Commitment 27);


14

The limits of the allowable disturbance will be marked on mine plans and in the field by flagging tape and signs were necessary (Commitment 28); and

The reason for disturbance restrictions and the importance of staying within the limits of the disturbance footprint will form part of employee and site visitor induction information (Commitment 29).

Figure 6: Threatened flora, fauna and vegetation observations (altered from Figure 16 of the DPEMP).

5 spreading knawel plants

40 knotty speargrass plants

30 knotty speargrass plants

remnant Midlands Woodland Complex

Lowland Grassland Complex


15

Public and agency comment and responses

PCAB noted that any disturbance of Scleranthus fasiculatus will require a permit to take issued under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.

Evaluation The DPEMP indicated that a permit to take will be obtained for the removal of Scleranthus fasciculatus within pit MB1. According to the DPEMP, under the current land use, populations of S. fasciculatus would unlikely persist due to the impacts of exposure, weed invasion and the effects of fertilizer. The DPEMP concludes that the population on the mine site is not critical to its survival, and the proposed mine will not have a significant impact on the conservation of the species. According to Appendix E of the DPEMP, there are six other records of S. fasciculatus from within 5 km of the site, with a total of 333 records state wide, based on the Natural Values Atlas. PCAB did not require further surveys to be undertaken nor stipulate any further management requirements in relation to S. fasciculatus. It is agreed that the taking of the 5 individual plants will not adversely impact this species. According to the DPEMP, individuals of Austrostipa nodosa will not be impacted. The proponent has nevertheless committed to minimise the potential for disturbance to this species through implementation of delineated work areas and work area restrictions, and information based induction programs (Commitments 25 to 29). This is considered necessary and appropriate, and is reinforced by condition FF1. With regard to survey effort, PCAB considers that sufficient effort has been made to identify the natural values on the site, and it is unlikely any flora species listed under the TSP Act have been overlooked. The DPEMP indicates that neither the remanent patches of Midlands Woodland Complex nor the patches of Themeda triandra occur within the disturbance footprint (Figure 6). Measures are nevertheless proposed to reduce the potential for unnecessary disturbance to areas that contain these remnant communities (commitments 25 to 27). Adherence to these avoidance measures is considered important and required by condition FF1.

Conclusions

The proponent will be required to comply with the relevant DPEMP commitments summarised above.

The proponent will be required to comply with the following conditions:

FF1 Protection of Austrostipa nodosa (knotty speargrass), Midlands Woodland Complex and Lowland Grassland Complex

G8 Commitments


16

6.2 Noise

Description During construction and operation, noise emissions will be associated with the operation of heavy equipment, screens, generators, on site haulage, and the transport of ore and waste material off site. The DPEMP considers ambient noise levels at the site to be low, mostly associated with farming activities and the project’s own exploration activities. Noise modelling was undertaken to determine the potential impact of noise emissions from the activity on nearby residences. The modelling assumed all machinery on site was operating simultaneously, regarded as a worst case scenario. The methodology and full results are provided in Appendix I of the DPEMP. Maximum noise levels of 26.3 dB(A) and 25 dB(A) were predicted at ‘Merton Vale’ and ‘Rosedale’, the closest residences at approximately 0.87 km and 1.40 km respectively from pit JB1, and 1.7 km and 2.3 km respectively from pit MB6 (Figure 2). The DPEMP considers it is unlikely the mining operation will be audible at the closest residences. Product transport was initially proposed in the DPEMP via truck along Macquarie Road, West Street through Campbell Town, and the Midlands Highway to Bell Bay (Figure 4), between 0600 hours and 2000 hours (14 hour period), 6 to 7 days per week. This was subsequently amended in the DPEMP supplement to a 13 hour transport period, 6 days per week, with transport via truck ceasing at Conara rail siding. Rail will be used for transport from Conara to Bell Bay. The DPEMP supplement further indicated that TasRail had been appointed as the transport provider, and that trucks would not leave Conara rail siding before 0630 hours and would cease operations at the siding at 1930 hours. A maximum of 40 daily trips would occur, equating to a maximum of 3.5 truck movements per hour. Traffic counts undertaken for the proposal indicate and average of 0.03 truck movements per hour along West Street (Appendix I of the DPEMP). Noise modelling was carried out to assess the potential for product transport noise to impact residences on West Street and Pedder Street (Figure 7 below). Two haulage options were considered in the model:

production rates of 300,000 t in years 1,4 and 5; and

production rates of 550,000 t in years 2 and 3. According to Table 8 of Appendix I of the DPEMP, the modelling assumed 4 truck movements per hour along West Street in years 1, 4 and 5, and 6 truck movements per hour in years 2 and 3, approximating that initially proposed in the DPEMP (Table 28). The results of the modelling are summarised as follows:

The five dwelling locations modelled, on West Street, High Street and Pedder Street, are predicted to experience an increase in noise level ranging from 0.5 Aeq(1 hr) to a maximum at one dwelling of 11.6 Aeq(1 hr) on the West Street property façade.

For residences along the transport route in close proximity to the Midland Highway, for example properties at 2 & 4 High Street (Figure 7), high ambient noise levels are experienced particularly on the Midland Highway property façade (see Tables 3, 9 and 10, Appendix I of the DPEMP). The proposed activity is predicted to increase noise levels on


17

the West Street façade of these properties by 5.6 Aeq(1 hr) and 9.2 Aeq(1 hr) respectively, assuming a maximum level of production in years 2 and 3 (Table 10).

The properties near the proposed transport route but distant to the Midland Highway are predicted to experience a greater increase in relative traffic noise from the proposed activity. An increase on the West Street façade of 11.6 Aeq(1 hr) at 11 West Street, 9.5 Aeq(1 hr) at 13 West Street and 9.7 Aeq(1 hr) at 7 Pedder street (Figure 7) is predicted. According to the DPEMP, an increase of 11.6 Aeq(1 hr) is likely to be noticeable and significant.

A full summary of the modelling results is shown in Tables 9 and 10 of Appendix I of the DPEMP.

Figure 7: Transport route via Macquarie Road, West Street and Midland Highway in the proximity of Campbell Town. The locations marked are those assessed in the transport noise model (See

4 High Street

7 West Street

9 West Street

7 Pedder Street

13 West Street

11 West Street


18

Appendix I of the DPEMP for predicted noise levels) (altered from Figure 4 of Appendix I of the DPEMP).

Management measures In order to mitigate noise levels from on-site mining activities the following measures were proposed:

All equipment and vehicles will be fitted with manufacturer’s silencing equipment, operated appropriately and regularly maintained (Commitment 16);

Mine planning designed to progress from west to east (Commitment 17); and

Use of appropriate hearing protection equipment will be mandatory in all relevant areas (Commitment 18).

In order to mitigate noise levels from off-site transport the following measures were proposed:

Truck drivers will be inducted on “polite” driving etiquette to reduce noise produced by braking and accelerating (Commitment 19); and

Appropriate impact mitigation or compensation measures will be negotiated with the residents depending on their individual needs (Commitment 20). According to the DPEMP, 5 residences on West Street affected by the proposal are rental properties. The DPEMP notes that ABx could negotiate with these residences to rent the properties for the duration of the project for use by staff and contractors, if the properties were available.

Public and agency comment and responses A representor residing less than 1 km from the proposed mine pit JB1 was concerned about hours of work and noise if work was to be undertaken at night. The representor stated in their representation that in consultation with the proponent, they were advised that mining operations would only be undertaken during daylight hours, and that noise should not be a problem.

The representor stated that they support the proposal.

Evaluation According to the DPEMP, the mine will operate over a 12 hour day shift, 365 days a year. The proponent subsequently confirmed that the operating hours will be from 0700 hours to 1900 hours, with mining only to be undertaken during daylight hours. Given the nature of the activity and proposed hours of operation, the EPA noise specialist considers the nearest residences are unlikely to experience a noise nuisance, and as such it is not necessary to impose noise limits. To ensure that noise does not become an environmental nuisance during quieter periods however, such as night time, it is considered appropriate to restrict the operation of the mine to those hours proposed in the DPEMP (Condition N1). These hours are consistent with those recommended in the Quarry Code of Practice (1999) for operation during Monday to Friday. It is noted however that the proponent intends to also operate on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Operational restrictions on these days however are not considered necessary given the predicted noise levels at the nearest residences, and the nature of the surrounding land use, where the operation of heavy farming equipment is not necessarily restricted to week days. The proponent should nevertheless be directed to section 53 of EMPCA (legal obligation LO2), which will encourage noise emissions to be managed in such a manner as to not unreasonably


19

interfere with a person’s enjoyment of the environment. Adherence to commitment 16 will also assist in keeping noise to acceptable levels (Condition G8). In regard to the transportation of product off-site, the DPEMP acknowledges the potential for noise generated from haulage to be noticeable and significant, with the potential to cause irritation and annoyance. Commitment 19 will assist in reducing noise associated with acceleration and braking near the West Street and the Midlands Highway junction, and is supported. In relation to commitment 20, the DPEMP suggested several options for the residents of West Street, although dismissed all as ineffective except the prospect of property rental, if available. This specific option cannot be guaranteed, and is not considered further. Ongoing consultation between the proponent and the residences is nevertheless supported. The EPA noise specialist considers there is a potential for noise nuisance to occur if truck movements occur during early morning or later in the evening, as initially proposed in the DPEMP. Indeed, this is likely where ambient noise levels from the Midlands Highway are lower and the residences potentially not accustom to the predicted levels of heavy vehicle traffic, such as at 11 and 13 West Street and 7 Pedder Street. While the residences on the transport route close to the junction of West Street and the Midlands Highway (2 and 4 High Street) are potentially more accustom to traffic noise, the increase in truck movements along West Street may somewhat limit available refuge from traffic noise that would otherwise be provided by the façade along this side of the street. To further mitigate noise impacts on West Street, the DPEMP supplement indicated the following operational instructions for transport would apply:

No trucks along West Street before 0700 hours;

No exhaust brakes would be used; and

Speed would be kept to less than 60 KPH. To ensure early morning transport does not create a noise nuisance to residences on West Street, the above operational measures are supported, particularly that of no trucks along West Street before 0700 hours. Acknowledging the distance from the mine site to Conara rail siding, a distance of approximately 15 km, the 13 hour cartage period to end at Conara rail siding at 1930 would also ensure late evening transport does not create a noise nuisance. Condition N2 therefore imposes a restriction on the time haulage trucks may enter and exit the mine site, underlining the key avoidance measure of no trucks along West Street prior to 0700 hours. Note, to reinforce this measure, considered important due to the potential for early morning disturbance to residences from empty trucks traveling past, condition N2 stipulates that trucks may not enter The Land prior to 0715 hours. It is the intent to impose such restrictions for at least the early phase of the project. Dependent upon the successful implementation of commitment 19, and in recognising a lower predicted number of truck movements than that assumed in the noise model (maximum of 3.5 truck movements per hour, DPEMP supplement), it is anticipated that a review of the transport restrictions imposed by condition N2 may be undertaken at a later date. Nevertheless, should a complaint be received, condition G6 requires a complaint register be maintained and be available for inspection by an Authorised Officer.


20

Conclusions



N1 Operating hours

N2 Vehicle movements

G6 Complaints register

G8 Commitments

The proponent should be directed to section 53 of EMPCA (legal obligation LO2), which will encourage noise emissions to be managed in such a manner as to not unreasonably interfere with a person’s enjoyment of the environment.

7 Other issues

In addition to the key issues, the following environmental issues are considered relevant to the proposal and have been evaluated in Appendix 1.

1. Fauna

2. Weed and disease management

3. Air emissions

4. Effluent, stormwater and sediment management

5. Groundwater and dry land salinity

6. Aboriginal heritage

7. European heritage

8. Waste management

9. Environmentally hazardous materials

10. Geoconservation

11. Rehabilitation


21

8 Report conclusions

This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit application, DPEMP, DPEMP Supplement and in correspondence and discussion between the EPA Division and the proponent and the proponent’s representatives. This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by EPA Division scientific specialists and regulatory staff, other Divisions of DPIPWE and other government agencies. This assessment has taken into account issues raised in public submissions. It is concluded that:

1. the RMPS and EMPCS objectives have been duly and properly pursued in the assessment of the proposal; and

2. the assessment of the proposal has been undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles.

It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the Permit Conditions - Environmental No. 8902 appended to this report are imposed and duly complied with, including commitments made by the proponent in the DPEMP and DPEMP Supplement.


23

9 References

Australian Bauxite Limited, Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan, Bald Hill Bauxite Project. Sydney, NSW, (2014)

Australian Bauxite Limited, Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan, Bald Hill Bauxite Project, Campbell Town, Supplement Response, 18 November 2014, Sydney, NSW, (2014)

Quarry Code of Practice (1999), Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Environment Protection, Planning and Analytical Services Division.


24

10 Appendices

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions Appendix 3 Permit conditions, includes Attachment 2 - DPEMP commitments

Appendix 1


25

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues

Issue 1: Fauna

Description of potential impacts

Surveys of the mine lease area during April, May and November 2013 found no threatened fauna species listed under the TSP Act or the EPBC Act (Appendix E of the DPEMP). Several old-growth trees with viable nest hollows for masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae castanops) were found on site. Targeted spotlight and callback surveys however found no individuals, nor evidence of their presence in the form of regurgitated pellets at the base of trees. According to the DPEMP, the site does not contain suitable denning habitat for the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Based on the lack of animal carcasses, the DPEMP concludes the Tasmanian devil is not foraging on the property, and has not been present on the site for some time. One Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) was observed killed on Macquarie Road during a spotlight survey of the area. According to the DPEMP, the area is not considered to be a part of the core range, with only one observation previously recorded from within 5 km of the site. The DPEMP notes however that tree hollows and hollow logs on site could be used for denning opportunities and suitable prey would exist in the area, suggesting the site may be a used as part of a territory, almost certainly for foraging. A Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax subsp. Fleayi) was observed during surveys of the area. According to the DPEMP, no suitable nesting habitat was present on site and no nests have been recorded within 5 km.

Management measures proposed in DPEMP

No management measures were proposed.

Public and agency comment

No comment was received.

Evaluation

There is limited potential habitat for threatened fauna within the mine lease. Some remnant old-growth trees contained hollows which may be potential nest sites for the masked owl. Based on their mapped distribution (Figure 5), three trees occur within the disturbance boundary of pits, and five along the proposed internal haulage route. According to Appendix E, there is a low probability that masked owls utilise the site for nesting. Given the small number of trees to be removed and nest site exposure, it is unlikely the proposal will impact on this species. PCAB did not require further survey work for threatened species to be undertaken. The proposed activity is unlikely to result in an impact to threatened fauna.

Conclusion

No conditions are required.

Issue 2: Weed and Disease Management


According to the DPEMP, a significant number of introduced plants occur on the project site but only two declared weeds were observed:

gorse (Ulex europaeus), well established on uncultivated areas; and

horehound (Marrubium vulgare), occurs sparingly, mostly in patches of bare ground. According to Appendix E of the DPEMP, the declared weed species winged slender thistle (Carduus tenuiflorus) also occurred on site.

Appendix 1


26

The proposed mine site falls within Zone B municipality for gorse management, with a containment management objective. There was no symptomatic evidence of Phytophthora cinnamomi on site.


A Phytophthora quarantine protocol will be developed, focusing on washdown of all machinery and equipment coming onto the site from other earthwork areas (Commitment 30);

All machinery and vehicles undertaking earthwork activities will be cleaned prior to leaving the mining lease for work at other premises (Commitment 31);

Any areas that become infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi will be managed in accordance with DPIPWE ‘Interim Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Guidelines’ (Commitment 32); and

Phytophthora cinnamomi signs and symptoms and the recognition of gorse and horehound will form part of employee induction information (Commitment 33).



Evaluation

The commitment to develop a Phytophthora cinnamomi quarantine protocol (commitment 30), clean all machinery and vehicles undertaking earthworks (commitment 31) and manage any areas infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi in accordance with DPIPWE ‘Interim Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Guidelines’ (commitment 32) is considered necessary and reinforced by condition FF2. The gorse infestation on site is considered to be extensive within areas not subject to frequent cultivation (Appendix E of the DPEMP). According to the DPEMP, the risk of introducing weeds and/or plant diseases to the mine site is greatest during the initial clearance and construction phase when equipment will be brought on site. Once the mine is operating there will be little requirement for external earthmoving equipment and product transport will use existing infrastructure (sealed roads and rail) for access to shipping, reducing the potential for the spread of weeds. It is noted in the DPEMP however that some reject material from the screening plant may be sold locally, providing a potential pathway for weeds off-site. The DPEMP acknowledges that if appropriate mitigation and management measures are not implemented the activity may contribute to the spread of weeds. The DPEMP further acknowledges that during and after the proposed mining activity, disturbed areas will be susceptible to weed regeneration and/or weed invasion. While it is noted in the DPEMP that no gorse currently occurs within the disturbance area, thus reducing the potential for spread, information on the distribution of horehound and winged slender thistle relative to the disturbance area was not provided. It is considered appropriate that the proponent be required to develop a weed management plan to prevent the spread of weeds (condition FF3).

Conclusion



FF2 Washdown Guidelines

FF3 Weed Management Plan

G8 Commitments

Issue 3: Air emissions


There is potential to generate dust during clearing and preparation of the mine site, excavation and handling of materials, screening, onsite haulage and product transport. Dust may also be generated from

Appendix 1


27

fines returned to the mined out areas after screening. The proposal will result in a maximum area of cleared land at any one time of 22 hectares. The prevailing winds at the site are from the north and north-west. According to the DPEMP, secondary winds are from the south. The closest residences, ‘Merton Vale’ and ‘Rosedale’ are approximately 0.88 km and 1.40 km respectively from pit JB1, and 1.7 km and 2.3 km respectively from pit MB6, in a south west direction (Figure 2). The closest residences in Campbell Town are located between 2.75 km and 3 km south east of the proposed mine site (Figure 4). According to the DPEMP, 10 to 12 residences are located within this distance. The DPEMP concludes that it is unlikely dust emissions from the activity would result in an environmental nuisance, given the distances to the receptors, the prevailing winds and the location of the infrastructure positioned to the west of the ridgeline. The DPEMP acknowledges however that under certain weather conditions, such as hot, dry windy periods, if appropriate management measures are not undertaken dust may be carried from the site by the prevailing winds.

Exhaust emissions will also be generated from the mining operation from construction, excavation and transportation equipment.


Construction phase dust impacts will be minimised by watering using a road tanker as required (Commitment 1);

The extent of exposed bare land will be kept to a minimum at any one time, thereby reducing the risk of aeolian sediment loss (Commitment 2);

Site clearing will not take place in extremely dry and windy conditions. (Commitment 3);

All mining and processing equipment, including surface miners, trucks, excavators, screens and generators, will be operated appropriately, in accordance with design specifications, and regularly maintained (Commitment 4);

Haul roads, ore dumps, screening drop points, and earth stockpiles will be kept watered in dry, windy conditions to reduce the potential for dust generation. (Commitment 5); and

Revegetation will be watered in the event of excessive consecutive hot dry summer days (Commitment 65).


Dust has the potential to impact Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd’s assets. The nearest transmission line (Palmerston-Avoca 110kV Transmission Line (TL429)) is approximately 4.8 km north of the proposal. Given the prevailing winds are from the north, the short mine life, and the proponents’ undertaking to employ dust suppression measures, a dust monitoring regime for impact to transmission assets is not considered necessary.

Evaluation

The proposed mine is located on an exposed ridge line in an area that experiences less than 500 mm of rain per annum. While it is acknowledged the placement of infrastructure to the west of the ridgeline may provide some form of topographic barrier, the EPA Air Specialist considers there is potential for elevated dust emissions from the site to result in environmental nuisance, due to the prevailing wind direction and distance to sensitive receptors. Commitments 1, 5 and 65 are considered necessary and important controls, and are required by condition G8. Note, according to the DPEMP, the intent of commitment 65 is to assist in the ongoing establishment of vegetation. The measure will nevertheless assist in suppressing dust from regenerating areas in the short term, and assist in the long term via revegetation.

Appendix 1


28

The mined out zones along the ridgeline and those areas receiving returned fines from the screening plant are also likely to generate dust during windy conditions. Indeed, the DPEMP indicated that 10 ha of pits will remain clear at any one time. In response to a quest for further information from the EPA, the proponent committed to water spray the pits where dry fines are retuned, as required (commitment 73, DPEMP supplement), and shroud the dry screening equipment and dust supress with a natural citrus spray (commitment 74, DPEMP supplement). These additional measures are considered necessary and required by Condition G8. According to the DPEMP, water from the main sedimentation dam adjacent to Macquarie Road (Figure 5) will be used for dust suppression. In response to a quest for further information from the EPA, the DPEMP supplement indicated that an access agreement exists between the proponent and the ‘Rosedale’ property landholder to pump water from the irrigation dam south of Macquarie Road to a dam on the mining lease as needed, ensuring a reliable source of water. The measures proposed in the DPEMP and DPEMP supplement are considered sufficient to mitigate for dust emissions. Appropriate application of the measures is reinforced by conditions A1 and A2. To mitigate the potential for product dispersing from the back of trucks during transport from The Land, the proponent is required to ensure that all material that may blow or spill from the vehicle is covered with tarpaulins or transported within lidded containers (condition A3).

Conclusion



A1 Control of dust emissions

A2 Dust emissions for traffic areas

A3 Covering of vehicles

G8 Commitments

Issue 4: Effluent, stormwater & sediment management


The nearest water body is a farm dam on the ‘Rosedale’ property, approximately 430 m south west of the main pit area (pit MB4 the closest), and 310 m north west of pit JB1 (Figure 2). Elizabeth River is approximately 750 metres south west of pit JB1, and 1.6 km from the main pit area. The proposal will result in a maximum area of disturbance of 41 hectares, with no more than 22 hectares of cleared land at any one time. The DPEMP acknowledges that the activity will create exposed surfaces that could be vulnerable to erosion and sediment loss during rainfall events. The proposed drainage plan is shown in Figure 5. According to the DPEMP, pit floors will be sloped towards sumps that will naturally self-drain. Any water build-up will be pumped into drains along the access roads. All drainage from the mining operations will lead to a natural catchment/sedimentation dam in the southwest of the Mining Lease, adjacent to Macquarie Road (Figure 5). Overflow will discharge into the landholder’s water dam south of Macquarie Road. There will be no release of mine water into the westernmost catchment area which drains into creeks leading into Elizabeth River. The potential for acid mine drainage is considered to be extremely low. Results of elemental analyses from ore, waste rock, overburden and underlying clay samples are shown in Tables 20 and 21 of the DPEMP. No sulphide minerals were encountered, with low levels of sulphur present as sulphate minerals.


Field tests for water quality (turbidity, pH and dissolved oxygen) will regularly be carried out on

Appendix 1


29

sediment basin water (Commitment 11);

The infrastructure area settlement basin will be sampled monthly for laboratory analysis of total petroleum hydrocarbons and oil and grease (Commitment 12);

If anomalously low pH or AMD precursors are detected, the sediment basins will be dosed with lime or similar (Commitment 13);

Monthly ongoing water quality monitoring of sediment basin water for pH, redox potential (Eh), electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature (Commitment 15);

No clearance will take place during high rainfall events (Commitment 59);

Erosion and sediment control measures will be established prior to the commencement of works (Commitment 60);

Overland drainage flow from the infrastructure area will be directed via a series of drains to a sediment basin Commitment 61);

Temporary silt stop fencing will be utilised where appropriate to prevent transport of any eroded material (Commitment 62);

All drainage systems and cut-off drains will be designed to provide adequate capacity for heavy rainfall events, and will incorporate energy dissipation structures and erosion control measures as necessary (Commitment 63);

The extent of land exposed to the elements will be kept to a minimum practical (Commitment 64);

Revegetation will be watered in the event of excessive consecutive hot dry Summer days (Commitment 65);

Silt fences will be used at the base (down slope) of each cleared and mined area during mine operations (Commitment 66);

Cut-off drains will be established between the resource and the infrastructure area so that flow is diverted to the on-line sediment basin when required (Commitment 67);

Temporary silt fences will be placed downstream of areas where fines are being returned from the screening process to allow the fines to drain without causing significant suspended sediment loss. The fines will also be covered with topsoil and/or mulch to protect them from rain erosion (Commitment 68); and

On site analysis of sediment basins to monitor for increased pH, Eh, EC, DO and temperature (Commitment 70).


Northern Midlands Council requested information on the size of the main sedimentation dam adjacent to Macquarie Road, and the proposed measures to ensure that overflow from the dam does not impact on the Road.

MRT noted that discharge from the main sedimentation dam may need to be controlled to mitigate any potential damage to Macquarie Road.

Evaluation

Given the proposed drainage plan, with overflow from the main sedimentation dam directed to a large irrigation dam, it is highly unlikely mine process water or contaminated stormwater from the activity north of Macquarie Road will pollute the receiving environment. To minimise the potential for contaminated stormwater leaving the mine site, the establishment of sediment basins downslope from the infrastructure area (Commitment 61) and adjacent to Macquarie Road, and the development of appropriate cut-off drains (Commitment 67, 63) is considered necessary, and reinforced by conditions E1, E2 and E3. Commitments 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, and 68 are considered appropriate and will reduce the potential for surface erosion and sediment loss during rainfall events. The DPEMP supplement indicated that wet-screening will be undertaken adjacent to a sedimentation dam. Condition E3 will ensure all sediment dams are cleaned out regularly and adequately maintained. According to the DPEMP supplement, material cleaned out from the wet screening dams will be placed within the pits or sold locally. No specific infrastructure for controlling and or treating stormwater downslope from pit JB1 is proposed (Figure 5). Given the climate of the area, short term excavation of this pit and proposed strategy to create a pit sump for self-draining and or pumping to the access road, stormwater is unlikely to impact the receiving

Appendix 1


30

environment. Conditions E1, E2 and E3 will nevertheless ensure stormwater from this pit is managed appropriately. The potential for acid and metalliferous drainage is considered to be very low. As a precaution, the proponent has committed to undertake testing of sediment basin water on a monthly basis (commitments 15 and 70). If anomalously low pH is detected, the proponent has committed to dose with lime or similar (commitment 13). In considering the nature of the proposed activity, the EPA Water Specialist considered the sampling and testing for pH, EC and turbidity on a monthly basis appropriate, and required by condition M1. The infrastructure site sediment pond will be provided with a hydrocarbon separator to remove potential hydrocarbon contamination from the workshop and parking areas. Condition E2 will ensure hydrocarbon contamination of the environment beyond the mine lease does not become an issue. Commitment 12 will provide additional security, and is supported. The EPA Water Specialist indicated that further regulatory controls are not required. The proposal allows for the sustainable management of Tasmania’s surface and groundwater resources and is in compliance with the objectives of the State Policy on Water Quality Management (1997) (see also Issue 5).

Conclusion



E1 Perimeter drains

E2 Stormwater

E3 Maintenance of settling ponds

M1 Monitoring requirements

G8 Commitments

Issue 5: Groundwater and dry land salinity


The pits are located approximately 12 m to 20 m above the break-of-slope. Groundwater has not been encountered in any of the 227 drill holes established during exploration and resource definition, which ranged in depth from 7 m to 12 m and extended up to 250 m outside the proposed mine areas. According to the DPEMP, excavation will not intercept the water table. The project area is identified as being within a Land System which could be susceptible to salinity issues. During exploration and resource definition, the salt content of 671 samples from 150 drill holes from ore, waste, and surrounding material from outside the pits were analysed (results are shown in Tables 20 and 21 of the DPEMP). The sodium levels from material within the pit areas were lower than that from outside the pits. The DPEMP concludes that the bauxite resource is leached of sodium, noting that there is no evidence of salinity issues currently occurring on the site. As a further check, the proponent undertook a mass balance calculation, assuming 100% of the 0.06% of sodium (as Na2O) within the bauxite was removed. According to the mass balance, this would increase the sodium content of the land from 0.06% to 0.09%, which is still lower than the 0.12% levels recorded from the farmland immediately surrounding the deposits. The DPEMP considers that the mining operation represents a low risk for dry land salinity.

Appendix 1


31

Management measures proposed in the DPEMP

Monthly groundwater monitoring for pH, Eh, EC, DO and temperature will commence 3 months prior to construction and be maintained during the life of the mine (Commitment 14);

The extent of land exposed to the elements will be kept to a minimum practical (Commitment 64);

Numerous small drainage lines and settling ponds will be designed prior to mine excavation in order to reduce the volume of water concentrations and maintain the existing groundwater flow (Commitment 69);

On site analysis of sediment basins to monitor for increased pH, Eh, EC, DO and temperature. (monthly) (Commitment 70);

Installation of groundwater bores at the break of slope east and west of the operations (Commitment 71). 4-6 groundwater bores will be installed at least three months prior to construction on the perimeter of the mining area; and

Ongoing monitoring of groundwater bores (monthly) (Commitment 72).



Evaluation

The nature of the bauxite and surrounding material is such that the likelihood of the mine impacting on the salinity of the local environment is considered to be low. According to the DPEMP, best practice is nevertheless to keep the clearing of vegetation to a minimum (commitments 2 and 64), and reduce the amount of immediate surface water infiltration by reinstating the soil layer and vegetation as soon as practicable (commitment 35, progressive rehabilitation). This is considered appropriate and is supported. The installation and monthly monitoring of groundwater bores (commitments 14, 71, 72), including monitoring of sediment basins (commitment 70), will be able to detect any changes in the quality of the surface and groundwater, is also considered to be appropriate and supported. The DPEMP indicates that if changes in groundwater occur, advice will be taken from independent groundwater experts as to the cause, with appropriate response and communications with the regulatory authorities. The management measures proposed are considered appropriate for the level of risk and the EPA Water Specialist considered that no further regulatory controls are required.

Conclusion



G8 Commitments

Issue 6: Aboriginal heritage


An Aboriginal cultural heritage survey and assessment of the site was undertaken by Cultural Heritage Management Australia (CHMA) (report contained in Appendix F of the DPEMP). One artefact site was discovered on the fringe of the disturbance area.


Mining and associated infrastructure will not be located within a 50 m radius of the identified site (Commitment 38);

The final mine plan will take into account the exclusion zone (Commitment 39); and

In the event that previously unrecorded cultural material is discovered during construction of the mine, the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Section 13.0 of the CHMA report, Appendix F) will be followed (Commitment 40).


Following the mitigation advice provided in the DPEMP (stated as commitments above) no Aboriginal

Appendix 1


32

heritage should be impacted by the proposed project, and therefore Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) have no objections to works proceeding.

Evaluation

AHT considers the management measures proposed in the DPEMP to be sufficient to protect the identified site. The proponent should nevertheless be made aware of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (LO3).

Conclusion



G8 Commitments

Any relics discovered should be managed in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (refer Information Schedule LO3).

Issue 7: European heritage


Listed heritage features are located at ‘Rosedale’, approximately 2 km south-west, and ‘Wanstead Park’, approximately 2 km north-east of the project site. These will not be impacted by the proposed mine. CHMA undertook a desktop investigation and field study of the area (Appendix F of the DPEMP). Seven sites of low to moderate cultural heritage significance were identified within the proposed mine site (Figure 19 of the DPEMP). According to the DPEMP, one site of low significance may be impacted by the operations.


The mine layout has been designed with as little impact as possible to the identified heritage sites.


Heritage Tasmania (HT) sought clarification on which site may be impacted. If sites ADM 2, 3, 7 or 8, are to be impacted (see section 3.2.16 of the DPEMP for site descriptions), the mitigation measures recommended in the CHMA report (Appendix F) should be implemented.

Evaluation

Heritage Tasmania acknowledged that no listed sites will be impacted, and does not object to the proposal proceeding.

The proponent indicated in the DPEMP supplement that site ADM 6, a row of old pine trees, will be removed in agreement with the landowner. They further indicated that they will photograph the trees, noting the DPEMP already provides a record.

Conclusion


Issue 8: Waste management


According to the DPEMP, overburden, non-ore grade material and screened fines will be returned to the mining areas as part of progressive rehabilitation, and/or sold locally. Other solid waste produced will be general refuse waste. There is no requirement for a waste rock dump or tailings dam.

Appendix 1


33

Management measures proposed in the DPEMP

Rubbish bins will be provided with lids at appropriate locations around the site and all staff will be required to avoid littering and to collect and bin any rubbish and litter that they observe on site (Commitment 21);

Refuse will be periodically taken to an approved waste disposal facility (Commitment 22);

Any hydrocarbon contaminated soil will be removed to an appropriate disposal site or treatment facility (Commitment 23); and

Any mined material that is not of sufficient grade for blending and shipment will be replaced back into the mined out strips prior to cover with topsoil and vegetation (Commitment 24).



Evaluation

Adherence to commitments 21 and 22 will ensure that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from general refuse waste from the mine site. Commitment 23 will ensure any contaminated soil is disposed of appropriately. There is inconsistency in the DPEMP with regard to the disposal of screened fines and non-ore grade material. Commitment 24 is in consistent with that stated elsewhere in the DPEMP, and indeed as indicated in the DPEMP supplement; fines may be sold for construction aggregates and other domestic purposes, possibly including cement and fertiliser manufacture. It appears that the intent of the proponent is to be able to on-sell some waste material if the opportunity arises. Given the inert nature of the material and development of a Weed Management Plan (Condition FF3), on-selling would unlikely increase the level of environmental risk. Recognising the intent of the proponent to place material not sold back into the mined out areas, commitment 24 should not be required. Commitments 21, 22 and 23 are considered appropriate and are required by Condition G8.

Conclusion



G8 Commitments

Waste management principles are described in Information Schedule OI2.

Issue 9: Environmentally hazardous materials


Fuel and oil will be brought onto the site as required in a mobile tanker and stored in an appropriately designed bunded area. Refuelling and repairs of equipment will be undertaken within a designated workshop facility, which will be appropriately designed and bunded, and equipped with measures to contain and clean up any spills that may occur. Ablution blocks will be temporary and contain black water storage tanks which will be emptied or removed by a suitably qualified waste disposal contractor for sewage disposal to the municipal wastewater treatment plant. Management measures proposed in the DPEMP

The fuel tankers used will be located in a bunded area with 110% capacity of the tanker (Commitment 6);

Fuel clean-up equipment will be stored in readily accessible sites, including the fuel tanker (Commitment 7);

In the event of a spill, appropriate absorption materials will be used immediately, and any

Appendix 1


34

hydrocarbon contaminated soil will be removed and taken to an appropriate authorised disposal or treatment facility. The Director, Environment Protection Authority, will be notified as soon as possible (Commitment 8);

All equipment will be properly maintained and serviced regularly (Commitment 9); and

Sewage will be collected in black water tanks and intermittently removed from site by a suitably qualified waste disposal contractor for disposal at the municipal wastewater treatment plant (Commitment 10).



Evaluation

The commitment (commitments 7 and 8) to have fuel clean-up equipment and adsorption material available, should a spill occur, is considered necessary. Condition H1 will ensure spill kits are available on site, and appropriate to task. The commitment (commitment 6) to store fuel within a bunded area is also considered necessary and required (conditions H2 and H3). Conditions H2 and H3 will also ensure any oils, fuels or other environmentally hazardous materials stored within the workshop or other areas on the mine site are stored and handled appropriately. Commitment 9 will reduce the potential for spills associated with equipment malfunction, and is supported. Appropriate storage and handling of sewage (commitment 10) is also supported.

Conclusion



H1 Spill kits

H2 Storage and handling of hazardous materials

H3 Hazardous material (<250 litres)

G8 Commitments

Issue 10: Geoconservation


A portion of pit JB1 intersects with the Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets, a listed geoconservation feature on the Tasmanian geoconservation database (Figure 11 of the DPEMP). The feature is characterised as aeolian sands, common in the northern midlands between Campbell Town and Cressy. According to the DPEMP, the area of Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets within the mining lease represents only 0.023% of its total extent. The proponent concludes any impact to the feature would be negligible, with no significant loss to the geoconservation values.


No management measures were proposed.


PCAB recommended that post-mining, soil should be replaced in its original profile as close to pre-mining conditions as feasible within the Tasmanian Geo-conservation listed site, ‘Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets’.

Evaluation

In response to comments raised by PCAB during the public consultation stage, the proponent indicated in the DPEMP supplement that the Tasmanian geoconservation listed site had been identified and will be segregated from any mine disturbance. If any disturbance was to occur however, soil would be returned to its original profile within the site.

Conclusion

Appendix 1


35


Issue 11: Rehabilitation


A Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (DRP) is provided in Appendix H of the DPEMP. The following provides a summary of the proposed rehabilitation, based on that stated in the DPEMP and DRP:

Progressive rehabilitation will occur as the panels are mined along the length of each deposit, such that all material cleared for mining will be spread across recently mined and re-contoured areas so that revegetation will progress alongside and close behind each actively mined panel (see Tables 8 and 9 of the DPEMP).

Monitoring of rehabilitation success and management requirements will be ongoing throughout the 5 year mine life. Monitoring will continue post-closure for at least 1 year until disturbed areas have stabilised and achieved a permanent vegetation cover.

Future land use of the site will be finalised in consultation with the landowner. Note, as part of the land access agreement, the proponent has agreed to leave a 1 ha site on top of the ridge in the northwest corner of the Mining Lease flattened, ready for construction of a pressure dam.

There will be no overall change in the topography of the area.


Disturbed areas will be progressively revegetated (Commitment 35);

No ‘benches’ will be left around the edges of the mined out sections upslope that may promote ponding of water (Commitment 51);

Drainage systems established during operations will be rehabilitated prior to mine closure (Commitment 52);

Unless otherwise requested by the landowner, sediment basins will be removed after mine closure once a vegetative cover of disturbed areas has been established (Commitment 53); and

Revegetation will be watered in the event of excessive consecutive hot dry summer days (Commitment 65).



Evaluation

The DRP is considered sufficient to enable commencement of operations. As stated in the DRP, the plan will be updated as the operation progresses. While the operational period of the mine is short, there is scope adaptive management in relation to rehabilitation and revegetation. Indeed, the DPEMP supplement indicated that once wetted and permitted to dry, bauxite material, for example returned fines, may form a thin cemented crust. This in combination with the dry climate may inhibit vegetation establishment and or growth. The DRP acknowledges that development of a progressive rehabilitation plan is central to the DRP. Noting that the majority of mining will occur in years 2 and 3 (Figure 3), condition DC1 requires submission of a revised DRP 1 year after commencement of operations and again prior to cessation of operations. The commitment to undertaken progressive rehabilitation (commitment 35) will provide for ongoing monitoring of rehabilitation success and adaptive management. Condition DC2 requires that progressive rehabilitation is carried out concurrently with extractive activities, and limits the total area of land disturbance to 22 ha at any one time. It is considered 22 ha provides sufficient scope for establishment of site infrastructure, roading and extraction, while placing reasonable limits on the total area of exposed ground at any one time. It is noted that the availability of top soil, and nutrient level, may be limited. In order to ensure as much soil is available for rehabilitation as possible, condition DC3 requires all surface soil be stockpiled for use in rehabilitation, and protected from erosion and other disturbance. It is recognised that the stockpiling of surface materials will occur for a limited time only, the longest periods being potentially 5 years,

Appendix 1


36

associated with the infrastructure area. Conditions DC4, DC5 and DC6 will ensure the mine site is appropriately managed during temporary cessation of the activity, and rehabilitated upon final close. Note, according to the DPEMP, the mine site will be returned to grazing land on closure, with the final landform materially unchanged except for a 1 ha site in the northwest of the mining lease where the landowner will construct a dam for irrigation purposes. The proposed mine site is on land classified as agricultural land class 5, is temporary in nature, and will not interfere or conflict with the surrounding agricultural practices. The proposal is in compliance with the objectives of the State Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land 2009).

Conclusion



DC1 Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan

DC2 Progressive rehabilitation

DC3 Stockpiling of surface soil

DC4 Temporary suspension of activity

DC5 Notification of cessation

DC6 Implementation of the DRP

G8 Commitments

Appendix 2


37

Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions

Australian Bauxite Limited – Bald Hill Bauxite mine, Macquarie Road, Campbell Town

Summary of public representations and agency and Council comments

Details of comments on the project are provided in following tables:

Table A, a summary of comments made in the representation.

Table B, a summary of comments, including requests for further information from State

Government agencies.

Table C, a summary of comments, including requests for further information from Northern

Midlands Council.

In the following tables, DPEMP means the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan, Bald Hill Bauxite Project, dated 23 September 2014.

A. Public representations

Representation No.

Comment

1

Representor resides less than 1 km from the proposed JB1 mine pit. Representor was concerned about hours of work, noise and lighting if work was to be undertaken at night. Consultation between the representor and proponent provided assurance that the mining operations would only be undertaken during daylight hours. The representor noted that the proposal should benefit the local community and supports the proposal.

2 Dust has the potential to impact Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd’s assets. The nearest transmission line (Palmerston-Avoca 110kV Transmission Line (TL429)) is approximately 4.8 km north of the proposal. Given the prevailing winds are from the north, the life of the mine is short, and the proponent has undertaken to employ dust suppression measures (e.g. wet spraying on site), a dust monitoring regime for impact on transmission assets is not considered necessary. A local power supply runs along Macquarie Road which may be tapped into if the need arises. This can be assessed in the event a connection application is made.

Appendix 2


38

B. Agency comments Agency Issue Comment

DPIPWE,

EPA

Transport noise

It is noted in the DPEMP that haulage will occur between 0600 hours and 2000 hours, 6 to 7 days per week, with modelling indicating several residences are likely to be impacted. The DPEMP acknowledges that the level of noise increase at one property is likely to be very noticeable and significant. The EPA considers the movement of trucks along West Street and onto the Midlands Highway in Campbell Town, particularly before 0700 hours and after 1900 hours and on Sundays is likely to result in environmental nuisance to residences in close proximity. It is further noted that the proponent intends to keep the transport vehicles well maintained and include the fitment of manufacturers silencing equipment. This is supported.

Dust It is noted in Commitment 5 that haul roads, ore dumps, screening drop points, and earth stockpiles will be kept watered in dry windy conditions. All cleared areas on the mine site, including the mined out areas and areas receiving returned material are also likely to generate dust during windy conditions. These areas should be incorporated into commitment 5. It is noted in the DPEMP (page 26) that if sufficient water for dust suppression is not available from the main sedimentation dam adjacent to Macquarie Road, it will be piped from a landholder’s dam. This is considered to be an important management measure given the local climate. The landholder’s dam referred to needs to be clearly stated and or marked on a map. It is noted in the DPEMP that dust will be generated from the screening and returning of fines if dry screening is used, as opposed to wet.

DPIPWE,

Heritage Tasmania

Historic heritage sites

Clarify which historic heritage site is to be impacted. If it is any of ADM 2, 3, 7 or 8, it is recommended that additional commitments are made in line with the CHMA report, such as photographic recording, mapping and reporting (see page 71 of Appendix F). Commitment 40 states that a plan for unanticipated discoveries is to be followed. This is generally in accordance with Heritage Tasmania’s ‘Pre-Development Assessment Guidelines’ and is supported.

DPIPWE,

Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch

Threatened flora

Any disturbance of Scleranthus fasiculatus will require a permit to take issued under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The processing of permit applications may take up to 4 weeks.

Geo-conservation

In order to minimise potential impacts on the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD) listed site Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets, it is recommended soil be replaced post-mining within the TGD site in its original profile and as close to pre-mining conditions as feasible.

Department of State Growth,

Sedimentation dam

Discharge from the main sedimentation dam may need to be controlled to mitigate any potential damage to Macquarie Road. Potentially any discharge could be directed to the landowner’s dam

Appendix 2


39

Mineral Resources Tasmania

directly south of the sedimentation dam.

Department of State Growth, Transport Infrastructure Division

Midlands Highway junction(s)

The Transport Infrastructure Division does not object to the proposal in principle. As mentioned in the TIA and in consultation with the proponents’ representatives, the transport route is yet to be finalised. The Department will need to receive confirmation of the proposed route before being able to provide a definite position. In the event that the product is to be transported via the West Street (Campbell Town) / Midland Highway intersection, a channelised right turn lane would need to be fitted on the highway at the West Street intersection. This facility must be designed to Ausroads Guidelines and provide storage for two heavy vehicles. In the event that the rail option north of Campbell Town is to be used, a channelised right turn lane would also need to be fitted on the highway at the entrance to the private road accessing the rail facility.

C. Northern Midlands Council comments The following table details the requests for further information received from Northern Midlands Council. The proponent may wish to address the issues identified.

Issue Comment

Building and Bushfire Code

Advice from a Building Surveyor on the class of the proposed buildings under the Building Code is required. Code E1.0 Bushfire Prone Areas Code of the Interim Scheme needs to be addressed for any buildings that are Class 1-9.

Sedimentation dam

Detail on the size of the sedimentation dam adjacent to Macquarie Road, and the proposed measures to ensure that overflow from the dam does not impact on Macquarie Road is required.

Traffic Impact Assessment

The Traffic Impact Assessment must include a road pavement analysis for Macquarie Road and West Street, and address:

Traffic load effects on Macquarie Road and West Street;

The standard of Macquarie Road and West Street to accommodate the proposed truck movements and the likelihood of pavement failures due to the heavy vehicle; and

The suitability of the existing access ways to accommodate the heavy vehicles and the likelihood of pavement damage due to turning trucks.

Appendix 3


40

Appendix 3 Permit Conditions

bald hill bauxite mine - epa tasmaniaepa.tas.gov.au/documents/australian bauxite ltd, bald hill -...

Documents