extractive pit expansion - epa.tas.gov.au timber... · p13-008 (northern midlands council) doc1...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Extractive Pit Expansion

Forest Hall Road, Cleveland

Prospect Timber & Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd

Board of the Environment Protection Authority

August 2013

Environmental Assessment Report Prospect Timber & Landscape Supplies – Extractive Pit Expansion, Cleveland

I

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Prospect Timber & Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd

Proposal Extractive pit expansion

Location Forest Hall Road, Cleveland

NELMS no. 8701

Permit application no.

P13-008 (Northern Midlands Council)

Doc1 folder EN-EM-EV-DE-112474

Doc1 no. H180150

Class of Assessment

2A

Assessment process milestones

19/01/2012 Notice of Intent lodged

14/02/2012 EER Guidelines issued

08/01/2013 Permit application submitted to Council

10/01/2013 Application received by Board

26/01/2013 Start of public consultation period

11/02/2013 End of public consultation period

24/06/2013 Supplementary information submitted to Board


II

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

DIER Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources

EER Environmental Effects Report

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

MRT Mineral Resources Tasmania (DIER)

PCAB Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch (DPIPWE)

RMPS Resource management and planning system

SD Sustainable development


III

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of Prospect Timber & Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd’s proposed extractive pit expansion. The proposal involves expansion of an existing extractive pit (sand) at Forest Hall Road, Cleveland. The pit currently has a production limit of 5,000 cubic metres per annum and operates as a ‘level 1’ activity as defined in the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (the EMPC Act). The proposed expanded operation would have a limit of 20,000 cubic metres per annum and would be a ‘level 2’ activity regulated by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Environmental Effects Report (EER) and EER 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 environmental issues is contained in Section 6. The report conclusions are contained in Section 7. Appendix 1 contains details of comments made and issues raised in the consultation process. Appendix 2 contains environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the EER.


IV

Table of Contents

1 Approval process ..................................................................................... 1

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

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

4 Need for the proposal and alternatives ..................................................... 8

5 Public and agency consultation ................................................................ 9

6 Evaluation of environmental issues ........................................................ 10

Issue 1: Nature conservation ................................................................................................. 10

Issue 2: Weed and disease management .............................................................................. 14

Issue 3: Liquid effluent, stormwater and ambient water quality .............................................. 15

Issue 4: Air emissions and air quality ..................................................................................... 16

Issue 5: Waste management ................................................................................................. 17

Issue 6: Hazardous substances ............................................................................................. 18

Issue 7: Noise emissions ....................................................................................................... 19

Issue 8: Transport impacts ..................................................................................................... 20

Issue 9: Sustainability and climate change ............................................................................. 21

Issue 10: Cultural heritage ..................................................................................................... 22

Issue 11: Decommissioning and Rehabilitation ...................................................................... 23

7 Report conclusions ................................................................................. 24

8 Report approval...................................................................................... 24


1

1 Approval process

A Notice of Intent in relation to the proposal was received by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) on 19 January 2012. 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 8 January 2013. The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under clause 5(b), schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being an extractive pit (sand). 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 10 January 2013. The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board. The Board required that information to support the proposal be provided in the form of an Environmental Effects Report (EER). Drafts of the EER were submitted to the Department for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance on behalf of the Board. The final EER was submitted to Council with the permit application. The EER was released for public inspection for a 15-day period commencing on 26 January 2013. An advertisement was placed in The Examiner and the EER was placed on the EPA website. The EER was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. No public submissions were received. On 15 February 2013, the Director requested that the proponent submit supplementary information to address government agency (including DPIPWE) comments on the EER. Satisfactory supplementary information was submitted by the proponent on 24 June 2013.


2

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

The proposal must be considered by the Director in the context of the sustainable development 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 Director 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 production level at the existing extractive pit will be increased and it is proposed that the pit be physically extended in stages over a period of up to 20 years, from the present mining lease area of 2 hectares. Vegetation will be cleared in stages on a new mining lease area of 10.5 hectares contiguous with the existing lease. The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Part B of the EER. Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics

Activity

Extraction and screening of a maximum of 20,000 cubic metres of sand per annum. The screening is for the cleaning of sand only (no size separation).

Location and planning context

Location Off Forest Hall Road, Cleveland – see Figure 1.

Land zoning The site is zoned Rural Resource under the Northern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2013. The current extractive activity is a permitted use within this zone, however a level 2 activity is a discretionary use.

Land tenure Mining lease on land owned by a local farmer (not the proponent) (CoT 243828/1).

Mining lease Currently ML 1711P/M.

Lease area Currently two hectares; application has been made for an additional, contiguous lease of 10.5 hectares.

Bond $10,000.

Existing site

Land Use The current use of the site is an extractive pit (sand). Expansion is proposed over an additional 10.5 hectares of forested land, all of which is unsuitable for farming use, not able to be cultivated or used extensively for grazing livestock. The majority of the proposed expansion area has been extensively logged in the past.

Topography Relatively flat, sloping gently to the east towards a small unnamed watercourse.

Geology The proposal site is situated on the Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets listed in the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database. The site contains deep sand deposits.

Soils Sandy soils, minimally disturbed in the area proposed for expansion.

Hydrology There is no water course or natural water body on the activity site. No surface drainage is apparent due to the porosity of the sands, but any drainage of water within the quarried areas will be through sandy soils along the lower (eastern) portion of the lease. There is a minor unnamed watercourse to the east, 127 metres from the nearest point of the proposed activity, which feeds wetlands to the north.

Fauna No information about fauna actually present on the site was provided in the EER. Habitat modelling was carried out for threatened species (see below).


4

Flora Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on dolerite (TAS VEG community DAD) covers the western part of the lease, while the majority of the area is Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic deposits (TAS VEG community DAZ). The area has been heavily logged in the past with few mature or old growth trees, but contains an adequate stocking of regrowth trees. Understorey species are diverse and abundant, while woody debris is sparse.

Local region

Climate No information on the local climate was provided in the EER, except that prevailing winds are generally north-westerly during the drier periods. At the nearest weather station, Campbell Town, rainfall has averaged around 530 mm per year since the mid 1990s. At the Cressy research station (the nearest station at which temperature is recorded), July mean temperature is 10.9 degrees Celsius and January mean is 23.6.

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

Surrounding land is zoned Rural Resource under the Northern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2013, with some areas having a priority habitat overlay. Land on which the proposal site is located, and all adjacent land, is owned by a local farmer (CoT 243828/1).

The land situated to the north-west and north-east of the mine site, between the mine site and the property owner’s residence, is predominantly used for the cultivation of crops, mainly barley, potatoes and poppies. Land to the east, west and south is forested.

The nearest residence is located 1.2 km from the closest point of the mining lease boundary. Two other residences are located along the access road (Forest Hall Road).

Species of conservation significance

Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland is listed as threatened under Tasmanian legislation, but (according to the proponent) the cover on the proposed expanded lease area is of poor quality.

The Natural Values Atlas shows two records for Leucopogon virgatus var. Brevifolius, a threatened species listed under the TSPA, adjacent to the proposed lease area. No other threatened flora is recorded within 500 metres of the proposed lease. A number of threatened flora species have been recorded within 5 km of the site.

The Natural Values Atlas shows no records for threatened fauna within 500 metres of the proposed lease. Habitat suitability modelling and records within 5 km of the site indicate a potential for several species of threatened fauna to occur on the site. Based on vegetation types and inspections of the general area, Eastern-barred Bandicoot, Spotted-tail Quolls and Tasmanian devils are likely to occur, but suitable habitat for other species within the proposed lease is unlikely.

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment Wheel loader, bulldozer, mobile trommell screener, generator.

Other infrastructure

Site shed.

Inputs

Water Water for dust suppression.

Energy Fuel use in machinery and vehicles.

Other raw materials

Nil.


5

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Stormwater runoff will occur from extraction and stockpile areas, although no surface drainage is apparent on the site due to the porosity of the sands. Any pooling in extraction and rehabilitation areas should be short term and filtered by sands before entering natural water bodies.

Atmospheric Dust emission is likely from internal and external traffic, blow-off from stockpiles and screening. This will not be significantly greater than from the existing operation. Prevailing winds are generally north westerly during the drier periods and dust, if any, will normally blow away from existing residences located on the farming property.

Waste General wastes (e.g. food scraps, packaging, grease cartridges, rags, envirosorb matting).

Chemical toilet to be located in the site shed will produce waste.

Waste generated from screening on site, i.e. tailings from the screening process (usually 1-2% of total sand pushed, and consisting of small lumps of clay, stones and deep roots).

Controlled wastes

Chemical toilet waste.

There will be no machinery or vehicle maintenance on site, and thus no waste oils, etc.

Noise Noise emissions from machinery and vehicles operating on site. No blasting or drilling will be carried out. Nearest residence is located 1.2 km from the closest point of the mining lease boundary.

There is potential noise nuisance from cartage vehicles en route to and from the site.

Greenhouse gases

The combustion of hydrocarbons in machinery used in the excavation and screening of the sand, and in vehicles, is a source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Construction and operations

Proposal timetable

Expanded operations will commence as soon as approval is granted.

The expanded site will be worked in stages over a 20-year period, with progressive rehabilitation. The proponent advises that the existing mining lease can be worked for several years before expansion into the proposed new lease is necessary.

A high level of production is expected during the first 12 months (to supply sand to the Milford Dam project), decreasing afterwards.

Operating hours (ongoing)

0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday

0800 to 1600 hours Saturday

No work on Sundays or public holidays.

Other key characteristics

Transport impacts

There will initially be five movements per day to and from the site, reducing to four movements after about 12 months. The main traffic impact will be at the intersection of Forest Hall Road with the Midlands Highway, where trucks will enter and leave the highway.


6

Figure 1: Location plan (Appendix B in EER)


7

Figure 2: Site plan (Appendix C in EER)


8

4 Need for the proposal and alternatives

The existing extractive pit supplies sand to the company’s retail yard at Prospect and direct to customers both wholesale and retail. This will continue under expanded operations, although during the first 12 months sand will also be supplied to the Milford Dam project. According to the EER (Part B, section 4) no alternative locations were considered because Prospect Timber & Landscape Supplies has been operating an extractive pit at the location for several years, and has identified the areas containing the deepest sand deposits by digging test holes on the proposal site and all adjacent areas. The current two hectare site (mining lease 1711/PM) was originally chosen due to the deep sand deposits in that particular area. The area of the proposed expansion was chosen to exclude areas of threatened species and limit impact on threatened vegetation communities, while allowing access to the deepest sand deposits. The 10.5 hectare proposed mining lease expansion is an extension of the existing two hectare lease, and because the site adjoins the existing lease and extractive pit, minimal impact on the area is anticipated because the existing infrastructure (i.e. road access into the site) can be utilised.


9

5 Public and agency consultation

A summary of government agency submissions is contained in Appendix 1 of this report. No public representations were received. The EER was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

Mineral Resources Tasmania, DIER

Transport Infrastructure Services Division, DIER

Workplace Standards Tasmania, Department of Justice

Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts The following Divisions/areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment also provided submissions on the EER:

EPA Division

Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch, RMC Division The EER Supplement prepared by the proponent provides a response to each of the relevant issues raised by the government agencies.


10

6 Evaluation of environmental issues

The environmental issues considered relevant to the proposal have been evaluated by the EPA Division. Details of this evaluation, along with the permit conditions subsequently required by the Director, are shown below.

Issue 1: Nature conservation

Description of potential impacts

Flora

Up to an additional 10.5 hectares of vegetation could potentially be cleared during the life of the proposed activity. Vegetation clearance and soil removal can damage or destroy threatened flora and can affect threatened fauna through loss of habitat and disturbance.

Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on dolerite (TASVEG DAD) covers the western part of the lease, while the majority of the area is Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic deposits (TASVEG DAZ). The area has been heavily logged in the past with few mature or old growth trees, but contains an adequate stocking of regrowth trees. Understorey species are diverse and abundant, while woody debris is sparse. Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland is listed as threatened under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, but (according to the proponent) the cover on the proposed expanded lease area is of poor quality.

The Natural Values Atlas shows two records for Leucopogon virgatus var. Brevifolius, a threatened species listed as rare under the Threatened Species Act 1995, adjacent to the proposed lease area. No other threatened flora is recorded within 500 metres of the proposed lease. A number of threatened flora species have been recorded within 5 km of the site. A consultant engaged by the proponent conducted a threatened flora survey in the area of the proposed new mining lease area.

Fauna

The Natural Values Atlas shows no records for threatened fauna within 500 metres of the proposed lease. Habitat suitability modelling and records within 5 km of the site indicate a potential for several species of threatened fauna to occur on the site. Based on vegetation types and inspections of the general area, eastern barred bandicoot, spotted tailed quolls and Tasmanian devils are likely to occur, but suitable habitat for other species within the proposed lease is unlikely.

Geomorphology

The site is situated on the Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets listed in the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD). According to the EER (Part C, section 1) the Macquarie River Valley sandsheets site should be treated as a Predictive Region. This means that it is an area within which significant examples of specific classes of geoconservation feature are known or considered likely to occur, although these may not all be mapped or mapped with sufficient precision to enable them to be identified individually. The extent of the geomorphological feature is mapped as 17,800 ha. The proposed extension therefore affects 0.001% of the predictive area of this feature. The impact on geomorphological features is relatively small, both in the percentage of the feature affected and the already disturbed nature of the surrounding sand beds.


11

Management measures proposed in EER

The vegetation clearing will occur in small working areas of approximately 200 x 100 metres (equal to two hectares), scattered over the entire 12.5 hectares of mining leases, with areas being rehabilitated as soon as practicable after being worked out. Revegetation will incorporate a programme that aims to establish a similar suite of species to that currently existing (EER: Part C, section 1; commitments 2 and 3).

Where possible, remnant “islands” will be retained within the site to provide a seed source for native species (EER: Part C, section 1; commitment 4).

The proposed new mining lease has been designed to exclude all known occurrences of Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius and no permit to take under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 is required (EER: Part C, section 1).

To offset the proposed clearance of the Eucalyptus amygdalina forest community, a 28 hectare area to the south east of the proposed lease, which is known to contain threatened species and riparian values, is proposed by the proponent as a potential offset area (EER: Part C, section 1).

No measures are proposed in respect of fauna or geoconservation.

Public and agency comment

Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) proposed that the size of working area be limited to two hectares. MRT also suggested that the area containing Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius be fenced off from the extractive area.

The Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch (PCAB) in DPIPWE raised three issues.

o Flora surveys for the EER were undertaken outside the optimal time to detect a range of annual species. PCAB recommended that an additional flora survey be undertaken in spring, by a suitably qualified expert.

o PCAB did not support the offset area proposed in the EER, and suggested that two alternative areas were preferable. These latter areas adjoin an existing perpetual conservation covenant on the neighbouring property and could potentially provide for better environmental outcomes with the connectivity of these sites. PCAB recommended that these proposed offset areas be further investigated for their suitability by undertaking thorough site inspections.

o The EER provided inadequate information on the potential geoconservation significance of the site and measures for the avoidance or minimisation of impacts to the TGD features where relevant. PCAB recommended that a survey be undertaken by a suitably qualified expert, to assess the condition of the TGD site and likely impacts the proposal will have on the site.

EER Supplement

The proponent was required to submit an EER Supplement addressing the issues raised by PCAB. Following an approach by the proponent, the Board’s delegate agreed that only the geoconservation survey need be conducted and included in the Supplement. The spring flora survey and the further investigations into offsets can be deferred until such time as the proponent wishes to commence operations in the new mining lease area.

A geoconservation survey report was provided in the Supplement. The report advised that due to the operation being of small size and less than 0.001% of the total Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets, that whatever occurs on the site is essentially irrelevant to the integrity of the sand sheets. PCAB advised that the report was acceptable.


12

Evaluation

MRT recently advised the EPA Division that it is unwilling to process the proponent’s application for a new mining lease because of uncertainty about an appropriate lease configuration, given PCAB’s recommendations for a fresh flora survey and a review of threatened forest community offset areas.

Accordingly, the permit conditions will describe the proposed new mining lease as a lease application only. Condition FF1 will be included prohibiting expansion of the activity’s footprint outside of the existing lease area until such time as:

the spring flora survey recommended by PCAB has been conducted (condition FF2); and

an application for a covenant is made under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 in relation to an area of land elsewhere to provide an offset for clearance of the listed Eucalyptus amygdalina forest community (condition FF3).

The permit condition will also require that, in the event that threatened flora are detected within the new mining lease area, a mining plan will need to be submitted to the Director to demonstrate how the flora will be protected prior to commencement of operations.

PCAB has endorsed this approach and has raised no objection to continued operations on the existing mining lease.

The issue raised by PCAB about the appropriateness of the offset area proposed by the proponent can be addressed during the process of applying for the offset covenant. A requirement will be imposed (in condition FF3) to require the Director’s written approval of the terms of the covenant before application is made for its registration. A further requirement will be imposed (in condition FF3) to require cessation of extractive operations in the new mining lease area in the event that the offset covenant has not been registered within a 24 month period (or extended period as approved by the Director).

It is possible that the spring flora survey will show that threatened flora exists in a substantial proportion of the proposed new mining lease area. In that event it is unlikely that the new mining lease will be granted, and the proponent may decide to investigate expansion of the extractive pit in another area. That would necessitate either another permit application under the LUPA Act or referral of a new proposal to the Board under section 27 of the EMPC Act.

This situation does not prevent the intensification of production on the existing mining lease to 20,000 cubic metres per year. The proponent has indicated that there is sufficient resource on the existing lease for several years’ production at that level, and the permit conditions will include a regulatory limit of 20,000 cubic metres per year.

MRT’s proposal to limit the size of working area to two hectares (which is consistent with the proponent’s commitment), and to fence off areas of threatened flora adjacent to working areas, are appropriate precautions and corresponding conditions will be included in the permit. Condition FF4 addresses the second issue. It will be required regardless of whether or not threatened flora is found within the new mining lease area, as the survey previously conducted has shown that there is Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius adjacent to the area. see Issue 11 in this report for the condition on maximum working area.

Conclusion

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

G2 Compliance with the EMP and BPEM (this condition and condition G3 will effectively require compliance with all the undertakings and commitments in the EER, for nature conservation and other matters).


13

G3 Commitments

FF1 Expansion of working area

FF2 Threatened flora survey

FF3 Registration of Covenant

FF4 Protection of threatened flora


14

Issue 2: Weed and disease management


The spread of invasive weeds and diseases, on-site and to and from the site, may occur through the disturbance and movement of soil, sand and machinery, with impacts on native flora and fauna. Weeds or pathogens may spread to neighbouring native forest or to construction sites via sand products.

There are no known occurrences of weed and diseases on the site according to the Natural Values Atlas. A recent test by Forestry Tasmania for Phytophthora cinnamomi fungus produced a negative result. An inspection found some common agricultural weeds such as Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) in the existing worked area. There are a number of weeds declared under the Weed Management Act 1999 recorded in adjacent areas, and gorse (Ulex europaeus) is known to be present.


A Weed Management Plan will be implemented. A draft Plan was appended to the EER. (EER: commitment 7 and appendix E).

Quarry hygiene will be stringent with wash down procedures for visiting machinery being performed in strict adherence to the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control Edition 1 (EER: Part C, section 1).

No materials from other locations will be stored or dumped within the quarry area (EER: Part C, section 1).


PCAB advised that avoiding transfer to the site of propagable weed material should be a high priority. It considered that the weed management plan appended to the EER was inadequate and that hygiene measures should be detailed in a separate hygiene management plan.

Evaluation

The proposed management measures are generally appropriate, but given the presence of threatened flora in the area the measures should be reinforced by the standard permit conditions relating to weed management and washdown (conditions FF1 and FF2), and a site-specific condition requiring that a formal weed management plan be submitted to the Director for approval and implemented (condition FF3). The hygiene issues raised by PCAB can addressed through the plan.

Conclusion


FF5 Washdown Guidelines

FF6 Weed management

FF7 Weed management plan


15

Issue 3: Liquid effluent, stormwater and ambient water quality


The proposal will not result in the filling, excavating or impoundment of a river, creek, wetland or estuary.

There will be no use of process water in the activity.

Stormwater runoff will occur from extraction and stockpile areas, although no surface drainage is apparent on the site due to the porosity of the sands. There is potential to pollute the nearby watercourse through sedimentation, turbidity and escape of hazardous substances, although current and past extractive activities have occurred to within 40 metres of the watercourse with no apparent impact.

The unfenced watercourse flows through agricultural land (pasture), prior to entering the wetlands and therefore limited effect is likely from pit operations in comparison to potential water quality impacts from unrestricted stock access.

No information on groundwater is provided in the EER.


All future activities will be at least 100 metres from the watercourse (EER: Part C, section 2).

All roading within the lease should ensure that runoff is directed into vegetative buffers or previously worked areas and not directly to watercourses (EER: Part C, section 2).


Public and agency submissions did not raise stormwater or ambient water quality as an issue.

Evaluation

The sandy nature of the site indicates that stormwater runoff directly to the nearby watercourse is unlikely except in extreme rainfall events. Average annual rainfall in the area is relatively low and it appears that the watercourse rarely flows. Pollution of the stream or groundwater is unlikely because of the natural filtering action of the sandy soil. The undertaking that future activities will be at least 100 metres from the watercourse (which will be ensured by the location of the proposed mining lease boundary – see Figure 2) will further mitigate risk. Despite this, it would be a useful precaution to include in the permit the standard condition on stormwater management at extractive activities to facilitate enforcement action by the EPA if necessary (condition E1).

The absence of groundwater information in the EER prevented any assessment of the activity’s impacts on groundwater or the possible impact of groundwater on future rehabilitation activities. The latter is the more significant issue and has been addressed under Issue 11 of this report.

Conclusion


E1 Stormwater management


16

Issue 4: Air emissions and air quality


Dust emissions are likely from internal and external traffic, blow-off from stockpiles and screening. This has potential to cause an environmental nuisance to neighbours.

According to the EER, dust emissions will not be significantly greater than from the existing operation. Prevailing winds are generally north-westerly during the drier periods and dust, if any, will normally blow away from existing residences located on the farming property. There is no current indication of a dust nuisance to the residences, the nearest of which is located 1.2 km from the closest point of the site.

There are two residences situated on the unsealed access road (Forest Hall Road) which could be subject to dust nuisance from cartage vehicles.


In the event of dust from trucks carting sand causing a dust nuisance, a water cart will be provided for dust suppression, if necessary (EER: Part C, section 6).

Dust emissions are currently managed by only clearing small working areas at a time and the site will continue to be operated in this manner, thus minimising sand blow (EER: Part C, section 6).

Stockpiles will be located on the quarry floor which will give some protection from the prevailing north westerly winds thereby reducing dust transmission. To further minimise dust generated during the loading process, the bucket drop distance will be kept low (EER: Part C, section 6).

The rehabilitation of each working area after use will also ensure that dust emissions will not spread to neighbouring areas (EER: Part C, section 6).


The EPA Division queried where the water cart would be used – within the proposed activity, on the private access roads or on Forest Hall Road.

The proponent advised in the EER Supplement that it would be used on Forest Hall Road. Northern Midlands Council subsequently advised that Council’s Works and Infrastructure Department would need to be notified prior to use of the cart on Forest Hall Road.

Evaluation

The proponent’s assertion that dust emissions will not be significantly greater than from the existing operation is not entirely reasonable given that the level of production may quadruple.

Nonetheless, the considerable distance to the nearest residences and the prevailing wind direction should ensure that nuisance caused by dust/sand blow-off from the activity itself is unlikely. As a precaution the standard permit condition relating to the control of dust should be imposed (condition A1). The proponent’s undertaking to use a water cart to suppress dust from truck movements, if necessary, is appropriate and should be reinforced by the imposition of a permit condition (condition A2) requiring dust suppression on the access road when necessary (it will be proponent’s responsibility to arrange for notification to the Council). There is also potential for dust blow-off from truck loads, and the standard condition relating to covering or dampening of loads on trucks should be imposed (condition A3).

Conclusion


A1 Control of dust emissions

A2 Control of dust on Forest Hall Road

A3 Covering of vehicles


17

Issue 5: Waste management


Solid and liquid wastes have the potential to pollute surface waters, groundwater and soil, and may become litter.

General wastes (e.g. food scraps, packaging, grease cartridges, rags, envirosorb matting) will be generated on site.

A chemical toilet to be located in the site shed will produce waste.

Waste will be generated from screening on site, i.e. tailings from the screening process (usually 1-2% of total sand, and consisting of small lumps of clay, stones and deep roots).


Drums will be located on site for the storage of any general wastes, prior to removal to an authorised disposal site (EER: Part C, section 8 and commitment 6).

Waste from the chemical toilet will be removed from the site and disposed of at an authorised dump point (EER: Part C, section 8).

There will be no machinery or vehicle maintenance on site, and thus no waste oils, etc (EER: Part C, section 12).

Waste generated from screening on site will be used in the rehabilitation process (EER: Part C, section 8).


Public and agency submissions did not raise waste management as an issue.

Evaluation

Given the small number of employees that will be on site, the volume of general and toilet waste generated is likely to be small. The proposed management measures for those wastes are considered adequate. Toilet waste is a controlled waste and is regulated under the EMPC (Waste Management) Regulations 2010 and the EMPC (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010.

The proposal to use screening wastes in site rehabilitation is acceptable. This does not need reinforcement by a permit condition as it is unlikely that the wastes would be removed from the site or used on site for any other purpose.

Conclusion

No permit conditions relating specifically to waste are required.

The Information Schedule in the permit conditions will include a description of the waste hierarchy and a reference to controlled waste transport legislation (refer LO6 and OI1 in the draft permit conditions appended to this report).


18

Issue 6: Hazardous substances


Soil contamination and pollution of waters may potentially occur from spillage of fuels and lubricants used in vehicles and equipment.

The EER states that there is no indication of previous contamination on the site as a result of past activities.


Fuel will only be brought onto the site as required (maximum 200 litres per day), will be kept in drums on a utility and will not be stored on site (EER: Part C, section 12).

“Envirosorb” matting will be placed under machinery at the time of refuelling as a precaution against spillage. A sufficient quantity of matting will be kept on site to absorb a spill of up to 200 litres (EER: Part C, section 12 and commitment 8).

There will be no machinery or vehicle maintenance on site. There is occasional top-up of oil on site, and “Envirosorb” matting will be employed as a precaution against spillage (EER: Part C, section 12 and commitment 8).


The EPA Division queried whether spill trays will be used under fuel drums that are on site, and the capacity of trays that may be used.

In the EER Supplement, the proponent undertook to use a spill tray of 200 litres capacity under fuel drums.

Evaluation

The proposed management measures (including the one described in the EER Supplement) are satisfactory, except that the capacity of the spill tray for the fuel drum will need to be at least 110% of the capacity of a standard fuel drum (i.e. 110% of 220 litres). The standard permit conditions on spill containment and spill kits (conditions H1 and H2) will be imposed to ensure this and to facilitate enforcement by the EPA if necessary.

Conclusion


H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials

H2 Spill kits


19

Issue 7: Noise emissions


Noise emissions from pit operations, including the use of earthmoving equipment, screening, a generator and loading of product onto cartage vehicles, have potential to cause nuisance at neighbouring residences. No blasting or drilling will be carried out.

According to the EER, due to the remote location of the site (which is screened by vegetation and situated in a depression), and the distance to main roads, houses, and other infrastructure, the operation would not result in nuisance beyond the site boundary. The nearest residence is located 1.2 km from the closest point of the mining lease boundary. The nature of the material being excavated (sand) will also reduce noise emissions.

There is potential noise nuisance from cartage vehicles en route to and from the site. There will initially be five movements per day to and from the site, reducing to four movements after about 12 months. There are two dwellings on the access route (Forest Hall Road) and several dwellings at Cleveland where trucks enter and leave the Midlands Highway.


Operating hours will be limited to those recommended in the Quarry Code of Practice (EER: Part C, section 9), viz:

0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday

0800 to 1600 hours Saturday

No work on Sundays or public holidays.


Public and agency submissions did not raise noise as an issue.

Evaluation

Noise nuisance from activity at the site is unlikely due to its remote location, the nature of the operation and the material being excavated. A significant nuisance from truck movements is unlikely due to the small number of movements. The proposed operating hours should suffice to prevent any significant nuisance. This will be reinforced by imposition of the standard permit condition relating to extractive activity operating hours (condition N1), to facilitate enforcement action by the EPA if necessary.

Conclusion


N1 Operating hours


20

Issue 8: Transport impacts


Truck movements to and from the activity can potentially cause dust and noise nuisance and have road traffic and infrastructure impacts. There will initially be five movements per day to and from the site, reducing to four movements after about 12 months. Dust and noise impacts are addressed under Issues 4 and 6 above.

The main traffic impact will be at the intersection of Forest Hall Road with the Midlands Highway, where trucks will enter and leave the highway. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) provided with the EER concludes that truck movements associated with the activity will have minimal impact on users of the Midlands Highway provided that commencement time at the activity is scheduled to separate individual truck arrival times, i.e. to avoid queuing at the loading area (and consequent queuing of trucks at the Midlands Highway intersection).


No management measures specifically relating to traffic or infrastructure impacts are proposed in the EER.


DIER commented that it did not object to the proposal provided that the conclusions of the TIA are adopted.

In the EER Supplement, the proponent responded that the activity will schedule 30 minute intervals between trucks arriving on site to avoid queuing at the loading area, as recommended in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Truck drivers will be instructed to pull off to the side of Forest Hall Road and switch to channel 12 on their UHF radio at the entry to the “Forest Hall” property and await clearance from the quarry manager before proceeding further into the activity area to ensure 30 minute intervals are maintained throughout the day.

Evaluation

Queuing of trucks at the activity and the Midlands Highway intersection is not an environmental issue and the EPA Board cannot impose permit conditions in relation to it.

An environmental issue associated with truck movements is the generation of dust on Forest Hall Road and the consequent potential for environmental nuisance to residents along the road. This matter is addressed under Issue 4 above.

Conclusion

No permit environmental conditions relating specifically to transport movements are required.


21

Issue 9: Sustainability and climate change


The combustion of hydrocarbons in machinery used in the excavation and screening of sand, and in vehicles, is a source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Midlands region is expected to experience increased average temperature and reduced rainfall during the 21st century. This is not expected to affect the activity other than through increased fire risk.


The proponent is committed to reducing the footprint of the operation and will endeavour to regularly maintain and service equipment to ensure efficient fuel use (EER: Part C, section 14 and commitment 9).

Fire risk is covered in the company’s occupational health & safety policy for the site. Machines and vehicles are equipped with fire extinguishers and the property owner has a water tanker on the property and access to dam water (EER: Part C, section 14).


Public and agency submissions did not raise sustainability or climate change as an issue.

Evaluation

The proposed management measures are satisfactory for an activity of the proposed type and scale.

Conclusion

No permit environmental conditions relating to sustainability or climate change are required.


22

Issue 10: Cultural heritage


The site is not included on the Tasmanian Heritage Register or Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory. No other heritage issues (buildings, places or landscapes) are relevant to the site.

The proponent is not aware of any Aboriginal heritage values being present at or in the vicinity of the site.


No management measures specifically relating to European or Aboriginal heritage are proposed in the EER, although the provisions of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 were noted (EER: Part C, section 15).


Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) completed a search of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index regarding the proposed activity and advised that there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within the mining lease. Due to the area being highly disturbed it is believed that that area has a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present. Accordingly there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and AHT has no objection to the proposal proceeding.

Evaluation

The proposal is unlikely to impact on European or Aboriginal heritage, and permit conditions relating to this matter are not warranted.

Any aboriginal relics discovered should be managed in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.

Conclusion

No permit environmental conditions relating to European or Aboriginal heritage are required.

The Information Schedule in the permit conditions will include a description of requirements under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (refer LO4 in the draft permit conditions appended to this report).


23

Issue 11: Decommissioning and Rehabilitation


Lack of appropriate decommissioning and rehabilitation may cause degradation of the natural values of the site and environmental harm or nuisance. Visual impact will persist unless appropriate rehabilitation is carried out.

The proposed activity will involve the staged clearing of 8-10 hectares of land in total.


Land clearing will occur in small working areas of approximately 200 x 100 metres (equivalent to two hectares) scattered over the entire 12.5 hectare mining lease, over the expected 20-year life of the activity. Each working area will remain in use until the sand has been extracted prior to a new working area being established. (EER: Part C, section 17 and commitment 1).

Each working area will be rehabilitated to meet the approval of MRT and the EPA, as soon as practicable after being worked out. All rehabilitation will be carried out under strict adherence to the rehabilitation conditions detailed in the permit environmental conditions, if a permit is granted. Revegetation will incorporate a programme that aims to establish a similar suite of species to that currently existing (EER: Part C, sections 1 and 17 and commitment 3).

The site will be monitored for weed emergence during the rehabilitation process. Any weed treatment will follow DPIPWE control guidelines and the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, as outlined in the proponent’s Weed Management Plan (EER: Part C, section 17).


Public and agency submissions did not raise decommissioning and rehabilitation as an issue.

Evaluation

The EER (Part C, section 17) provides detail of how each working area will be rehabilitated. The proposed management measures are generally satisfactory, but will be reinforced by appropriate standard permit conditions to facilitate enforcement action by the EPA if necessary (conditions DC1-DC6).

The EER provides no information on groundwater or on the proposed depth of excavation. In view of this, a requirement will be imposed (in condition DC5) that progressive rehabilitation must be carried out such that water does not accumulate on the surface of any rehabilitated area, either by artesian action or from surface drainage, following the completion of rehabilitation.

Conclusion


Condition DC1: Notification of cessation

Condition DC2: Rehabilitation following cessation

Condition DC3: Decommissioning and rehabilitation plan requirements

Condition DC4: Temporary suspension of activity

Condition DC5: Progressive rehabilitation

Condition DC6: Stockpiling of surface soil


25

9 References

Gadsby, A (2012); Environmental Effects Report. Extractive Pit (Sand). “Forest Hall” Forest Hall Road Cleveland (dated December 2012); Prospect Timber and Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd, Prospect, Tasmania.

Gadsby, A (2013); Draft Environmental Effects Report Supplement (dated June 2013); Prospect Timber and Landscape Supplies Pty Ltd, Prospect, Tasmania.


26

10 Appendices

Appendix 1 Summary of agency submissions Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions, includes Attachment 2 - EER commitments


Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Summary of agency submissions

Agency EER section no.

Comment

Mineral Resources Tasmania, DIER

- The commitments outlined in the EER are adequate from MRT’s perspective. The proponent has demonstrated sound management and operation of sand quarries with an excellent record of progressive rehabilitation of worked sites.

MRT recommends that the proposal be approved with the condition that the maximum area of disturbance not exceed 2 hectares.

MRT does not require any additional information (supplement) to the EER. MRT has no further recommendations nor requires any modifications to the EER.

Transport Infrastructure Services Division, DIER

Part C, section 10

DIER has reviewed the documentation submitted with the application, in particular the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), and does not object to the proposal on the basis that the conclusions made in the TIA are adopted.

Workplace Standards Tasmania, Department of Justice

- Workplace Standards has no comments to make in relation to the Environmental Effects Report.

If the expansion goes ahead, construction and operation will, at a minimum, have to comply with the 'health and safety', 'dangerous goods' and 'hazard analysis and risk assessment sections' of the:

Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (No. 1 of 2012), and

Mines Work Health and Safety (Supplementary Requirements) Act 2012 (No. 46 of 2012)

It should be noted that the Workplace Health and Safety Act has been repealed by the commencement in Tasmania of the national modelled Work Health and Safety Act 2012 on 1 January 2013 and following that, compliance with this legislation is now required.

Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts

- Mining has been identified within the Tasmanian Government’s Regional Economic Development Plans as a priority sector for the Northern Tasmanian region.

It is noted from the EER that since mining operations beginning in 2008 PTLS has complied with all conditions of the Environment Management and Control Act, the Quarry Code of Practice 1999 and the company states it has complied with all conditions of the permit including site rehabilitation to the satisfaction of Mineral Resources Tasmania.

It is understood that the proposal will see PTLS operations become a Level 2 activity under EMPCA, and will see existing the lease area enlarged and that the majority of the project area has already been extensively logged in the past and all areas to be mined will be rehabilitated to meet the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency and Mineral Resources Tasmania as soon as these areas have been worked out.

DEDTA welcomes this proposed development in Tasmania’s north in terms of the potential longer term economic benefits that the proposal will bring to an existing local business operating in the area.

http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=all;doc_id=1%2B%2B2012%2BAT%40EN%2BSESSIONAL;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=work

http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=all;doc_idF%2B%2B2012%2BAT%40EN%2BSESSIONAL;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=work

http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=all;doc_idF%2B%2B2012%2BAT%40EN%2BSESSIONAL;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=work


Appendix 1

Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch, DPIPWE

Part C, section 1

Flora

The data presented in the EER is insufficient to make a determination on the area’s values or indeed the proposed mitigation measures. As noted on p.3 of the report, there are numerous threatened flora records from within 5 km of the site, yet there has been no discussion as to the reasons for their absence or the likelihood of their presence. It should also be noted that the surveys undertaken in March and May 2012, were conducted outside the optimal time to detect a range of annual species. Therefore PCAB recommends that additional flora surveys be undertaken by a suitably qualified expert in spring 2013, to address the gaps in information provided in the report.

Threatened Native Vegetation Communities

The proposed extractive pit is expected to impact on the threatened vegetation community, Eucalyptus amygdalina on Cainozoic deposits listed under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. The proposed offsets discussed in the Environmental Report (Appendix A of the EER), are made in consideration of the Forest Practices Authority offset policy, which requires a ratio of 5:1, and the metric allows for a reduction of this ratio for areas of vegetation in good condition. It should be noted that DPIPWE’s policy for establishing conservation covenants under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 generally requires a minimum area of 10 ha. Any covenant proposed will need to be considered by the Conservation Partnerships Section within the Land Conservation Branch.

From the information provided in the Environmental Report, it could be ascertained out of the potential offset areas mapped on p.8 that Areas 1 & 2 would present viable options for covenanting. These areas adjoin an existing perpetual conservation covenant on the neighbouring property and could potentially provide for better environmental outcomes with the connectivity of these sites. At this stage, PCAB would recommend these proposed offset areas be further investigated for their suitability by undertaking thorough site inspections. The amount of detail required would need to be at a level sufficient for the offset covenant proposal proforma.

Geoconservation

Within the Geomorphology section of the EER, there is a discussion concerning the issue that the Macquarie River Valley Sandsheets, listed on the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD) may be impacted upon. Previous advice issued by PCAB, requested that the EER should describe the condition or potential significance of the specific area proposed to be quarried, and should include measures for the avoidance or minimisation of impacts to the TGD features where relevant. This information has not been adequately detailed in the current EER and therefore it is recommended that a survey be undertaken by a suitably qualified expert, to assess the condition of the TGD site and likely impacts the proposal will have on the site.


Appendix 1

Weeds and Diseases

The EER identifies the site as free of declared weeds. Avoiding transfer to the site of propagable weed material is therefore a high priority. A brief Weed Management Plan (WMP) with generally good proposed actions has been provided. However the WMP and the EER do not provide adequate detail to cover issues such as washdown areas and water sources (either fixed or transportable) has not been identified. PCAB recommends that the proponent detail whether the hygiene actions are to take place at the site or at other locations (which may be appropriate, given the risk to the site is potentially greater than any weed risk of transfer from the site).

The WMP includes several important points in a hygiene plan. However, a separate hygiene plan is best practice. A brief hygiene plan should cover, but not be limited to: o Vehicle, machinery and equipment hygiene including the

Washdown protocols when travelling between clean and contaminated areas within the development footprint and also vehicle entering or leaving the site.

o The location and management of washdown areas and facilities, including the management of effluent.

o Maintaining logbooks detailing adherence to hygiene protocols. o Material hygiene (soils, gravel, plant material etc)-ensuring that

no materials contaminated with weed propagules (seed, propagative vegetative material) are either imported into the development footprint or exported out of those areas.

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, DPIPWE

Part C, section 11

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania has completed a search of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI) regarding the proposed extractive pit extension at Holwell and can advise that there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within or close to the property. Due to the area being highly disturbed it is believed that the area has a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present.

Accordingly there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania has no objection to the project proceeding.

EPA Division, DPIPWE

Part C, section 6

The EER states that, in the event of dust from trucks carting sand causing a dust nuisance, a water cart will be provided for dust suppression if necessary. It is unclear whether this refers to dust suppression within the proposed activity, on the private access roads or on Forest Hall Road.

Part C, section 12

The EER states that fuel will be brought onto the site as required and will be kept in drums on a utility, but escape of fuel from drums is not addressed.


Appendix 2

Appendix 2 Permit conditions - Environmental

extractive pit expansion - epa.tas.gov.au timber... · p13-008 (northern midlands council) doc1...

Documents