Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BAN BAN SPRINGS
PERPETUAL PASTORAL LEASE No 1111
PASTORAL LAND CLEARING APPLICATION
2016
2
BAN BAN SPRINGS PPL 1111
LAND CLEARING APPLICATION 2016
LEASE : PPL 1111 BAN BAN SPRINGS
PARCEL : NT PORTION 695
LESSEE : BAN BAN SPRINGS STATION PTY LTD
MANAGEMENT : JOHN BOOTE & FAMILY
AREA : 1873 km2
REGION : DARWIN
LOCATION : 150 KM SOUTH OF DARWIN
LEASE TERM : IN PERPETUITY
DATE : 3/5/2016
DISCLAIMER The material presented in this document is based upon sources that are believed to be reliable. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of the document, the authors cannot guarantee that all information presented is correct, complete, or current and accept no responsibility for any resultant errors contained herein or any damages or loss whatsoever caused or suffered by any individual, corporation, or company.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 APPLICANT DETAILS 5 2.0 DETAILS OF LEASE ON WHICH CLEARING IS PROPOSED 5 3.0 APPLICATION FEE 5 4.0 CLEARING DETAILS 6
4.1 Land proposed to be cleared 6 4.2 Previous cleared Areas associated with this project 6 4.3 Other areas on the property that have been previously cleared 7 4.4 Clearing plan 7
4.4.1 Homestead Yards Paddock 8 4.4.2 Hay/Holding Paddocks 10 4.4.3 North Holding Paddock 12 4.4.4 Tramway West Paddock 14 4.4.5 4 Km2 Paddock 17 4.4.6 Tramway Paddock 20 4.4.7 Twin Bong Paddock 22 4.4.8 Glencoe & Glencoe West Paddock 24
4.5 Suitability of pastures and requirements 26 4.6 Outline of establishment plan, activity, timing, methodology 27 4.7 Staging of development 29
5.0 WATER REQUIREMENTS 29 6.0 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 29 7.0 LAND RESOURCES 29 8.0 WEEDS 30 8.1 Declared weeds 30 8.2 Weed management plan 30 9.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 31 9.1 Coastal & marine areas on the property 30 9.2 Public facilities, utilities, or infrastructure in the locality 30 9,3 Record of threatened fauna/flora species 31 9.3.1 Risks posed to threatened species in the project area 31 9.4 Significant vegetation communities 34 9.5 Native vegetation/wildlife corridors proposed to be retained 34 9.6 Potential impacts to soils, surface water & groundwater 34 9.6.1 Perennial/seasonal water features adjacent project area 34 9.6.2 Risk of chemical sprays or aerial application of fertilizer drift into and polluting surface water 34 10.0 SITES OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE 34 11.0 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL 34 11.1 Clearing plan 34 11.2 Potential for water & wind erosion 35 11.3 Risk of erosion or sedimentation of adjacent infrastructure 35 11.4 Acid sulphate soils 35
4
12.0 POTENTIAL IMPACT ACROSS PROPERTY BOUNDARIES 36 12.1 Is there a public road within 200 meters of the project area 36 12.2 Risk of reduced visual amenity 36 12.3 Risk of chemical spray drift & dust pollution impacting the community 36 12.4 Introduced species planned to be planted within 100 meter of the property boundary 36 13.0 HERITAGE & SACRED SITES 37 13.1 Declared heritage places 37 13.2 Sacred or significant sites 37 List of figures : Figure 1.0 – Proposed land clearing polygons & paddock areas 7 Figure 2.0 – Homestead Yards Pdk clearing polygons image 8 Figure 3.0 – Homestead Pdk landsystems & clearing polygons 9 Figure 4.0 – Hay Holding Pdks clearing polygons image 10 Figure 5.0 – Hay Holding Pdks landsystems & clearing polygons 11 Figure 6.0 – Nth Holding Pdk clearing polygons image 12 Figure 7.0 – Nth Holding Pdk landsystems & clearing polygons 13 Figure 8.0 – Tramway Pdk West clearing polygons image 15 Figure 9.0 – Tramway Pdk West landsystems & clearing polygons 16 Figure 10.0 – 4 Km2 Pdk clearing polygons image 17 Figure 11.0 – 4 Km2 Pdk landsystems & clearing polygons 18 Figure 12.0 – Tramway Pdk clearing polygons image 20 Figure 13.0 – Tramway Pdk landsystems & clearing polygons 21 Figure 14.0 – Twin Bong Pdk clearing polygons image 22 Figure 15.0 – Twin Bong Pdk landsystems & clearing polygons 23 Figure 16.0 – Glencoe/Glencoe West Pdks clearing polygons image 24 Figure 17.0 – Glencoe/Glencoe West Pdks landsystems & clearing polygons 25 Figure 18.0 – Retained vegetation, wildlife corridors & buffers 35 Figure 19.0 – Sacred & Heritage Sites 41 List of tables : Table 1.0 Proposed land clearing location, land use & area (Ha) 6 Table 2.0 Previous clearing details applicable to the project area 6 Table 3.0 Establishment Plan 29 Table 4.0 Weed management declared species 31 Table 5.0 Threatened species recorded in the project area 32 Table 6.0 Mitigation of risk to threatened species 33 List of Appendices ; Appendix 1.0 Whole of Property Clearing Plan Appendix 2.0 Land Systems, Proposed Clearing & Pastoral Infrastructure Appendix 3.0 Letter Correspondence NT Heritage Branch Appendix 4.0 Map of Archaeological Sites & Declared Heritage Places Appendix 5.0 Spreadsheet Archaeological Sites Within Vicinity of Development Appendix 6.0 AAPA Sacred Sites Map & Restricted Works Zone Appendix 7.0 AAPA Letter of Correspondence Sacred Sites
5
NORTHERN TERRITORY PASTORAL LAND BOARD
APPLICATION TO CLEAR PASTORAL LAND
(s.38(1)(h) Pastoral Land Act)
1: APPLICANT’S DETAILS
Full Name BAN BAN SPRINGS STATION PTY LTD (Gunther Gschwenter)
Position (eg. Lessee / Manager) LESSEE
Telephone 08 89782438
Mobile
Facsimile 08 89782438
Email [email protected] [email protected]
Postal Address PMB 195 Winnellie NT 0821
2: DETAILS OF LEASE ON WHICH CLEARING IS PROPOSED
Lease Name BAN BAN SPRINGS STATION
Pastoral Lease Number PPL 1111
NT Portion Number NTP695
Location / Pastoral District DARWIN
Area of Lease (km2) 1873 Km2
Total areas previously cleared on the property (ha)
483 HECTARES (Historical Non Permit & forms part of this application)
3: APPLICATION FEE An application fee is charged for clearing applications and payment is required at the time the application is lodged.
6
4: CLEARING DETAILS 4.1 Project Land proposed to be cleared area’s (Ha) and proposed land use.
SITE ID (Paddock Name)
PROPOSED USE (Pasture species)
AREA (ha)
Homestead Yards Grazing Existing Pastures eg; Sorghum, Centro 151 Hay/Holding Paddocks Graze Existing pastures eg; Humidicola & Stylo and
use for seasonal hay production. 77
North Holding Paddock Renovate & Graze Existing Pastures eg; Humidicola & Stylo
28
Tramway West Paddock Sucker regrowth control and establish pastures for grazing eg; Humidicola
80
4 Km2 Paddock Sucker regrowth control and establish pastures for grazing eg; Humidicola, Centro
87
Tramway Paddock Clear native vegetation for pasture establishment & grazing eg; Humidicola, Centro, Sabi
508
Twin Bong Paddock Clear native vegetation for pasture establishment & grazing eg; Humidicola, Centro, Sabi
216
Glencoe & Glencoe West Paddocks
Clear native vegetation for pasture establishment & grazing eg; Humidicola, Centro, Sabi
201
TOTAL 1348 Table 1.0 – Proposed land clearing location, land use, & area (ha). Note : Some of the paddocks listed above have been previously cleared and sown to pastures. 4.2 Previous cleared areas associated with this project/application.
SITE ID (Paddock Name)
AREA PREVIOUSLY CLEARED (ha)
DETAILS OF PREVIOUS CLEARING
Homestead Yards Paddock 151 Cleared 1970’s & 80’s for pasture development & holding paddock facility adjacent main drafting/trucking yards & homestead complex.
Hay/Holding Paddocks 100 Cleared 1980’s for hay paddock & holding livestock within close proximity to main station yards complex.
Nth Holding Paddock 48 Cleared 1980’s for hay paddock & holding livestock within close proximity to main station yards complex.
Tramway West Paddock 95 Cleared 1980’s not developed 4 km2 Paddock 89 Cleared 1980’s not developed TOTAL 483 Table 2.0 – Previous Clearing Details.
7
Note that previous cleared areas for some paddocks listed in table 2.0 exceed that of proposed cleared areas as per application purposes listed in Table 1.0. Adoption of best practice techniques and adherence to Land Clearing Guidelines has resulted in a slightly reduced application area within some paddocks in comparison to lands cleared previously listed in table 2.0 Sections of Tramway, Twin Bong, and Glencoe Paddocks show have the appearance of some areas having been cleared many decades ago in the past eg; 1960’s, however it is difficult to determine the extent of historical activities both on ground or via satellite imagery, and accordingly these areas have not been included within table 2.0 listed above. 4.3 Other areas on the property that have been previously cleared. No other areas on the property have been previously cleared. 4.4 Outline of the Land Clearing Proposal on a per paddock basis including clearing plans, description of land resources, and accompanying photographs The Pastoral Plan at Figure 1.0 and Appendix 1.0 provides details of land proposed to be cleared as per this application. Proposed project details are listed below on an individual paddock basis including location of development (clearing polygons), land resource mapping, description of vegetation and general physical site characteristics. Georeferenced shape files detailing location of proposed clearing polygons are provided with this application. Further plans detailing the proposed land clearing are at Appendice 1 & 2 and figures 1.0 to 17.0 of this application document. Ban Ban Springs has all weather sealed access to Port Darwin and is ideally situated to service the expanding northern live export trade. Large tracts of the property remain undeveloped, despite significant potential for further development and improvement. The Northern Territory Government has invested significant time and effort in to growing new and existing live export markets including Indonesia, Vietnam, and potentially China. The outlook for the northern live cattle export industry is strong. In order to capitalise on market efforts and further grow the industry to meet growing market demand it is imperative that strategically located pastoral properties such as Ban Ban Springs have capacity to develop and grow accordingly. The proposal to clear small to medium sized land areas within the central hub of the property, and to bring previously cleared land under the permit system for further pasture development on Ban Ban Springs, will provide for increased investment and assist to serve and support a growing livestock export market whilst complementing highly publicised government policy in accordance with ‘growing & developing the north’. The long term aim of the property is to develop a sustainable business, both financially and environmentally.
Sacred Site
Sacred Site
Area
Sacred Site
Dam
CLAYTONS PDK
TWIN BONG PDK
GIENCOE PDK
Ban Ban Springs
Tank
Yard
TRAMWAY PDK
PDK
Tank
Tank
4.5 km†
4.5 km†
10 km†
11 km†
4 km†
2 km†
2 km†
1.5 km†
D
B
W
W
W No 3 Bore
Gas Substation
PA
PA
Lookout
PA
22 Ha
22 Ha
80 Ha
65 Ha
151 Ha
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
(average width 800 to 1,000 metres)
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
(average width 550 metre)
slope &scrapes
Low Rise& Old mine Site
41 Ha
slight rise
gentle slope(excluded)
77 Ha
28 Ha
Retained Vegetation
(Green Belt Corridor)Proposed Land Clearing
Direction ofSlope
9 Ha19 Ha
229 Ha
132 Ha
82 Ha
65 Ha
132 Ha 25 Ha
& Restricted Works Area
BAN BAN SPRINGS - PROPOSEDLAND CLEARING & PADDOCK AREAS
(Figure 1.0)
AAPA Restricted Works
84 Ha
25 Ha
57 Ha
8
4.4.1 HOMESTEAD YARDS PADDOCK
Figure 2.0 - Clearing Polygon Homestead Yards Paddock 151 Hectares Total
Photograph One – Homestead Yards Previously Cleared & Developed.
9
Figure 3.0 – Homestead Yards Paddock Clearing Polygon and Landsystems. Landform : Homestead Yards Paddock gently slopes towards the east (towards homestead complex), typical slope is approx. 14 meters over 1 km distance, and 5 meters over a distance of 650 meters – representing a generalized slope of 1 to 1.4 % over-all. Soils : The majority of the previously cleared land falls within the Bend Landsystem (95%) whilst a small area in the east of the polygon falls within the Baker Landsystem (5%). Cleared paddock areas within the Bend Landsystem comprise lower ridge down to alluvial flats (B2 & B3). Soils tend to generally be yellow mottled earths with minor stone content within upper slope. The small area of Baker landsystem comprises gentle slope tending alluvial at lower reaches with yellow mottled earths gradational to brown at lower reaches. Vegetation : Homestead Yards Paddock was cleared in the 1970’s and 1980’s for the purpose of holding livestock within close proximity to the main trucking/drafting yards. The paddock is currently sown to sorghum for stock feed and also as a means of controlling weeds in the area. No sucker regrowth is present. Soil Conservation : The land has been cleared for 30 -40 years with no visible sign of soil erosion issues. Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 2.0 & 3.0 and photograph one above.
10
4.4.2 HAY HOLDING PADDOCKS
Figure 4.0 – Clearing Polygon Hay/Holding Paddocks 77 Hectares Total. Landform : The southern area of the polygon (maintained hay Pdk) is generally flat terrain with minimal slope. The northern section of the polygon is generally flat with a very gentle slope towards the north (less than 0.5 %). Vegetation : The southern end of the polygon has a good stand of Humidicola pasture, whilst the northern end has Humidicola and native perennial sorghum species with some regrowth present (corymbium spp).
11
Figure 5.0 – Clearing Polygon Hay/Holding Pdk and Landsystem.
Photograph Two – Hay/Holding Pdk Previously Cleared and Sown to Humidicola. Soils : Rumwagon Landsystem tending more alluvial in type at north and south ends of polygon within closer proximity of alluvial flats and drainage lines, general mottled yellow earths with increased gravel content on rises.
12
Soil Conservation : Previously cleared in the 1980’s, generally flat to very low slope land with no soil conservation issues or requirements. Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 4.0 & 5.0 and photograph two listed above. 4.4.3 NORTH HOLDING PADDOCK
Figure 6.0 – Clearing Polygons North Holding Paddock 28 Hectares Total
13
Figure 7.0 – Clearing Polygons Nth Holding Paddock & Landsystems.
Photograph Three – North Holding Paddock Landform : Clearing polygon comprises generally flat low slope terrain with minor slope at both the northern and southern ends towards adjacent regional drainagelines. Slope at either end of the polygon is 1% or less to the north and south. Previously in the 1980’s 48 ha was cleared within this paddock, however for the purpose of this application and to comply with best practice and associated guidelines approximately 20 ha has been excluded for clearing and development purposes.
14
Soils : Approximately 65% of the previously cleared land is located within Bend Landsystem and 35% within Rumwagon Landsystem. Soil types comprise yellow mottled earths tending to become more alluvial in the eastern section associated with Rumwagon Landsystem. Vegetation : Vegetation was previously cleared during the 1980’s. Occasional sucker regrowth is present. Dominated by a mixture of native and introduced pastures including Humidicola, Stylo, Plume Sorghum, Golden Beard/Ribbon Grass, and some Gamba. Soil Conservation : Previously cleared in the 1980’s. Areas of excess slope towards north and south of the polygon have been excised in line with land clearing guidelines. Land is generally flat to very low slope with no soil conservation issues or requirements. Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 6.0 & 7.0 and photograph three listed above. 4.4.4 Tramway West Paddock
Photograph Four – Tramway West Paddock Regrowth Vegetation : Previously cleared 1980’s but not developed or maintained. Vegetation dominated by Annual Sorghum, Perennial Sorghum, Golden Beard/Ribbon Grass, with rather sparse sucker regrowth between 1 to 3 meters. During the 1980’s approximately 95 ha was previously cleared within this paddock, however for the purpose of this application and to comply with best practice and associated guidelines approximately 15 ha of historical clearing has been excluded from development.
15
Figure 8.0 – Clearing Polygon Tramway West Paddock 80 Hectares Total Landform : Land is gently sloping towards the north with a typical fall of approximately 5 meters over 1 km in distance representing a slope of 0.5 % overall. Excess slope located in the South West corner of the paddock has been excluded from clearing to comply with best practice.
16
Figure 9.0 – Tramway West Paddock Clearing Polygons and Landsystem. Soils : Proposed clearing within Tramway West Paddock is located fully within the Rumwagon Landsystem comprising gentle lower slopes tending to become more alluvial towards drainage lines. Mottled yellow earths tending more brownish in color downslope towards alluvial drainagelines. Soil Conservation : Previously cleared during the 1980’s but not developed. Low slope, good perennial grass groundcover with no erosion present. No soil conservation works required or envisaged. Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 8.0 & 9.0 and photograph four listed above. .
17
4.4.5 4 KM2 PADDOCK
Figure 10.0 – Clearing Polygons 4 Km2 Paddock 87 Hectares Total. Landform : Both the 65 ha & 22 ha polygons slope slightly towards a central drainage feature located between the two polygons which is buffered/excised accordingly in line with best practice guidelines. Slope is approximately 2 meters over a length of approximately 600 meters, and therefore less than 1 %. Excessive area of slope located south of 22 Ha polygon has been excluded from clearing in accordance with best practice.
18
Figure 11.0 – 4Km2 Paddock Clearing Polygons & Landsystems Soils : Proposed clearing within 4 Km2 Paddock is located fully within the Rumwagon Landsystem comprising gentle lower slopes tending to become more alluvial towards the central drainage line located midway between and excised from the two polygons. Mottled yellow earths tending more brownish in color downslope towards alluvial drainagelines.
19
Photograph 5 – Sucker Regrowth 4 km2 Paddock Vegetation : Approximately 48 ha of 4 Km2 paddock has been cleared previously back in the 1980’s. This area has not been maintained and reverted back to sucker regrowth ranging from 2 to 4 meters height. A small area of previously cleared land comprising approximately 3 hectares has been removed from the southern polygon in line with best practice. The remainder of the southern polygon has been previously cleared but not maintained. The northern polygon comprises a total area of 65 hectares of which approximately 24 hectares appears to have been historically cleared - possibly in the 1980’s. The remaining 31 hectares associated with this polygon has not been cleared previously. Soil Conservation : Previously cleared lands do not have any soil erosion present. Proposed clearing polygons in this paddock are of generally flat low slope terrain and should not present any soil conservation issues or requirements. Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 10.0 & 11.0 and photograph five listed above.
20
4.4.6 TRAMWAY PADDOCK
Figure 12.0 – Clearing Polygons Tramway Paddock 508 Hectares Total
Photograph Six – Open Woodland over perennial native grasses low slope terrain Tramway Paddock.
21
Figure 13.0 – Tramway Paddock Land Clearing Polygons & Landsystems Landform : Tramway paddock is dissected by two drainage lines in an east-west orientation. Both drainagelines have been excised from clearing polygons and buffered in accordance with slope and drainage requirements with additional consideration given to maintaining wildlife corridors. Clearing polygons are of generally flat terrain with slope being less than 1% over-all, with slight slope towards drainagelines to the north and south of the paddock. Soils : Approximately 80% of proposed Tramway Pdk clearing lands fall within the Rumwagon Landsystem, 10% Bend Landsystem, and 10% McKinlay Landsystem. Rumwagon lands within the paddock form a gentle rise that slightly slopes down towards the drainage lines becoming more alluvial in the process. A similar process occurs for the Bend landsystem where gentle lower slopes trend down towards more alluvial drainage lines. Bend and Rumwagon landsystems transition to alluvial floodplain associated with the McKinlay landsystem with mottled yellow earths becoming gradational brown towards the silty clay soils associated with McKinlay landsystem. Vegetation : Parts of Tramway Paddock have the appearance of having been cleared many years in the past however this is difficult to determine due to size of current vegetation. Vegetation comprises C.foelscheana, C.dichromophloia, C.bleeseri, C papuana over perennial grass species Plume Sorghum, Chrysopogon fallax (Golden Beard/Ribbon Grass), Themeda australis (Kangaroo Grass), Sehima nervosum (White Grass).
22
Soil Conservation : Proposed clearing polygons have been carefully planned to exclude excessive slope and buffer drainagelines accordingly. Potential for soil erosion is very low and there should be no requirement for soil conservation works within Tramway Paddock. Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 12.0 & 13.0 and photograph six listed above. 4.4.7 TWIN BONG PADDOCK
Figure 14.0 – Clearing Polygons Twin Bong/Tramway Nth Pdks 216 Hectares Total Landform : Twin Bong Paddock is dissected by a central branching east to west drainage line which has been sufficiently buffered and excluded from proposed clearing polygons. 25 ha and 22 ha polygons in combination with the northern sections of 84 ha and 57 ha polygons gently slope towards the northern drainage line. Slope is minimal on the majority with one meter fall over a distance of approximately 600 meters within the major polygons. Slope is greatest within the north of the paddock and has been excluded from clearing accordingly. Vegetation : The NE section of Twin Bong Paddock may have been cleared many years in the past however is difficult to determine. Vegetation comprises C.foelscheana, C.dichromophloia, C.bleeseri, over perennial grass species Plume Sorghum, Chrysopogon fallax (Golden Beard/Ribbon Grass), Themeda australis (Kangaroo Grass), Sehima nervosum (White Grass). Soil Conservation : Proposed clearing polygons have been carefully planned to exclude excessive slope particularly in the north of the paddock. Drainagelines have been sufficiently buffered in accordance with best practice principles. Potential for soil erosion is very low and there should be no requirement for soil conservation works within Twin Bong Paddock,
23
Figure 15.0 – Twin Bong Paddock Clearing Polygons & Landsystems. Soils : Twin Bong proposed land clearing is entirely located within the Rumwagon landsystem comprising gentle low slopes with mottled yellow earths tending more brownish down slope towards drainage lines. Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 14.0 & 15.0 listed above and photograph seven.
Photograph Seven – Twin Bong Pdk open woodland proposed for clearing. Some areas within Twin Bong Pdk have the appearance of having been cleared many years in the past.
24
4.4.8 GLENCOE & GLENCOE WEST PADDOCKS
Figure 16.0 – Clearing Polygons Glencoe & Glencoe West Paddocks 201 Hectares Total Landform : Glencoe West proposed clearing polygons are of low slope less than 1% trending towards the drainage depression located in the south of the paddock associated with the McKinlay landsystem. Areas of excess slope including an old mine site on a rise in the central north of the paddock have been excluded from clearing polygons. Vegetation : Vegetation comprises C.foelscheana, C.dichromophloia, C.bleeseri, C papuana over perennial grass species Plume Sorghum, Chrysopogon fallax (Golden Beard/Ribbon Grass), Themeda australis (Kangaroo Grass), and Sehima nervosum (White Grass). A small area to the north of Glencoe West 44 ha polygon has been previously cleared and sown to Cavalcade Centro. Soil Conservation : Proposed clearing polygons have been carefully planned to exclude excessive slope particularly in the north of the paddock where a ridge and old mining works have been excluded. Drainagelines have been sufficiently buffered in accordance with best practice principles. Potential for soil erosion is very low and there should be no requirement for soil conservation works within Glencoe & Glencoe West Paddocks, Diagrams/Photos : Refer figures 16.0 & 17.0 and photograph eight.
25
Figure 17.0 Glencoe/Glencoe West Paddocks Clearing Polygons & Landsystems Soils : 44 ha polygon is located entirely in Rumwagon landsystem, whilst polygon 25 ha is located entirely within McKinley landsystem. The larger 132 ha polygon comprises approximately 80% Rumwagon and 20% McKinley landtypes. The gentle low slopes associated with the Rumwagon landsystem tends to have mottled yellow earths gradationally increasing in color as this land type trends towards the silty clay soils associated with the McKinlay landsystem.
Photograph Eight – A small area comprising 10 hectares to the north of Glencoe West has been cleared an planted to cavalcade Centro.
26
Photograph Nine – Typical of medium sized open woodland within proposed clearing polygons Glencoe Paddock. 4.5 Suitability Of Pastures & Requirements Humidicola and Stylo are the dominant established pasture species on the previously cleared lands subject to this application. Minor areas of Cavalcade Centro are also present. It is envisaged to continue sowing these proven pasture species along with Sabi grass on future developed lands pending approval for further development/clearing. Evidence based research in combination with physical examples of established pastures on ground indicates that Humidicola species is particularly suited to establishment and utilization on the dominant yellow/yellow brown earths that exist on Ban Ban Springs. These pasture species are currently successfully established on the landtypes at other locations throughout the region including large tracts on neighboring properties. Introduced pasture species assist reduce seasonal grazing imbalance, improve pastoral productivity and assist maintain economic viability. Some areas will require pasture renovation over time, potentially this can be performed utilizing minimum till oversowing techniques with low to nil ground disturbance, with no requirement to plough or disturb the soil.
27
Similar land types on neighboring properties have previously been utilized for pasture research purposes and subsequently there is significant evidence based research determining suitability of the lands for pasture development purposes (Mt Bundy Pastures Research). Fertilizer and herbicide application may on occasions be required for weed control and production maintenance purposes. Fertilizer and herbicide application will be conducted in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and advice from Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Department of Land Resource Management and other NT Government personnel. 4.6 Outline of Establishment Plan Including Activity, Timing of Activities, and Methodology Details Approximately 36% of the land subject to this application has been previously cleared. Some of this previously cleared land is sown to pastures and has no sucker regrowth, whilst other areas have varying degrees of regrowth and regrowth size (refer photographs one to nine). Clearing methodology, activities, and timing of activities will vary accordingly. Areas previously sown to pastures will require nil to minimal establishment activity other than occasional spot spray of isolated sucker regrowth or slashing where small sucker regrowth is becoming established. Slashing of minor regrowth will result in nil soil disturbance whilst maintaining vegetative and mulch ground cover. Where sucker regrowth has become more established light chaining will be required. Ban Ban Springs land types have a good stand and composition of native perennial pasture species providing for good strong groundcover. Light chaining will allow the dense grass understorey to remain intact resulting in minimal ground disturbance. A wheeled stickrake can be used to gather (or clear) small chained suckers with minimal ground disturbance. Where small sized sucker population density is low, vegetative remains can be left to mulch over the wet season. As depicted in photographs seven and nine, the majority of vegetation proposed to be cleared is of medium height open woodland with a good ground cover of perennial grass species. Good ground cover can be retained within this open vegetation landscape via chaining, followed by raking and pin wheel with minimal ground disturbance therefore reducing potential for soil erosion during the development phase.
28
ACTIVITY TIMING (month/year)
METHODS/DETAILS
Felling of Vegetation
Spot spray or slash minor regrowth previous cleared lands - late Dry Season (October 2016) Chain larger vegetation (preferably end 2016/17 wet season)
Spot spray isolated regrowth or slash start of 2016/17 wet season. Light chaining of larger suckers & chain larger vegetation preferably at end of 2016/17 wet season when erosion potential is low & the following dry seasonal conditions will assist kill rate.
Removal of felled vegetation
Mulch during 2016 & 2017. Burn to reduce biomass if required. Rake 2017 dry season.
Spot sprayed, slashed, & felled suckers/vegetation will mulch during 2016/17. Burn dry season to remove excess large felled vegetation if required. Rake larger vegetation, followed by pin wheel with minimum ground disturbance.
Site Preparation Nil Required for previous developed lands. Seed bed preparation new lands late 2017.
Nil preparation required for spot sprayed slashed areas. NT Dept Primary Industry to be consulted regarding seed bed preparation eg, combination of aerial seed, direct drill, & traditional cultivation techniques.
Planting October – December 2017 when soil moisture is sufficient. Establish ground cover prior to onset of wet season proper.
Direct drill, over sow, or surface broadcast pending specific location & DPI&F advice.
Weed and Sucker management
Commencement of peak growing season or at other times if required. (October – January)
Spot spray, Grasslan occasional sucker, if, when, where required.
Grazing Management
Annually in accordance with seasonal conditions
Rotational grazing in accordance with best practice. Utilisation rates in accordance with maintaining ground cover. Seasonal spelling to allow seed set and promote healthy pastures.
Crop Management
Not applicable Not applicable
Table 3.0 - Establishment Plan – Sucker Regrowth Removal & Associated Management Practices.
29
4.7 Staged development A large percentage of this development project (36%) involves bringing previously cleared lands under permit, some of which is sown down to pastures and has no sucker regrowth. The land clearing development project is not excessive in size and there should be no need to stage the development works accordingly. It is envisaged that works will be conducted over the 2016 and 2017 years in accordance with seasonal conditions and best practice operations. 5.0 WATER REQUIREMENTS No irrigation is required associated with this project involving clearing and further development of Ban Ban Springs Station. Intention is for dryland pasture production only. 6.0 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION The proposal to control sucker regrowth and further clear vegetation exceeds 100 ha in size and is subject to Ministerial Determination to decide if an EIS is required. It should be noted a large percentage of this development project involves bringing previously cleared lands under permit. Significantly larger sucker regrowth and general land clearing programs performed within the region including neighboring pastoral properties have not been subject to EIS requirement. 7.0 LAND RESOURCES
The proposed land clearing polygons have been depicted in detail at figures 2.0 to 17.0 for each of the eight individual paddock areas proposed to be cleared. Figures 2.0 to 17.0 depict satellite imagery and land resource information for each individual clearing polygon including incorporation of a written description accordingly. Appendix 2.0 provides a map of the proposed clearing incorporating land systems and existing pastoral infrastructure development.
30
8.0 WEEDS 8.1 Weeds declared under the Weed Management Act on the property.
Weed species and declared class
Weed Locations
(eg. tracks, previously cleared & proposed clearing areas)
Describe how common the weed is
Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus) Class B
Confined to isolated locations throughout property.
The presence of this weed has been significantly reduced within Ban Ban Springs due to a concerted control effort. The weed is now confined to smaller previously cleared paddocks and is regularly monitored to reduce further spread.
Hyptis (Hyptis sauvalons) Sida (Sida acuta)
Isolated locations. Disturbed lands & high concentration livestock areas.
Falls within annual weed control program. Herbicide control : spot spray Amicide 500 or Brushoff.
Table 4.0 – Weed Management Declared Species. 8.2 Weed Management Plan Table 4.0 provides an indication of weeds present and control measures implemented. Ban Ban Springs Station does not have a formalized documented weed management plan however is aware of the importance of controlling weed infestation and spread. The new Station Manager John Boote currently conducts weed control activities and DPI&F pasture agronomist and regional extension officers visit the property to provide pasture land management advice. Clearing of vegetation and establishment of improved pastures will serve to increase pastoral productivity supporting the economic viability of the business enterprise, and this will provide capital to further fund weed control measures. Funding for weed control and other land management activities is largely dependent upon economic sustainability of the pastoral enterprise. 9.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
9.1 Coastal marine areas No coastal or marine areas exist on or near the proposed project area. 9.2 Public facilities, utilities, or infrastructure in the locality. A gas sub-station is located within the NE corner of Twin Bong Paddock. A gas pipeline and cleared easement extends from the sub-station through Twin Bong, Tramway, and Glencoe Pdks and has been buffered from clearing activities.
31
9.3 Record of threatened flora and/or fauna species listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act or the Territory Parks & Wildlife Conservation Act within 5 km of the proposed clearing site Common Name
Species Name National Status
NT Status
Observations (Latest)
Specimens (Latest)
Surveys (Latest)
Yellow spotted monitor
Varanus panoptes
- VU 0 (unknown) 1 (1997) 0 (unknown)
Partridge Pidgeon
Geophaps smithii
VU VU 1 (1998) 6 (2003) 0 (unknown)
Masked Owl (northern mainland)
Tyto Novaehollandiae kimberlii
VU VU 1 (1997) 0 (unknown)
0 (unknown)
Northern Brush Tailed Phascogale
Phascogale pirata
VU EN 0 (unknown) 4 (unknown)
0 (unknown)
Golden Backed Tree Rat
Mesembriomys macrurus
VU CR 0 (unknown) 1 (unknown)
0 (unknown)
VU = Vulnerable CE = Critically Endangered (possibly extinct) Table 5.0 – Threatened species recorded within the project area. The above mentioned species are listed as being recorded within a 5 km radius of proposed development. 9.3.1 Risks posed to species from proposed development. A significant proportion of the proposed development (36%) was cleared of native vegetation many years in the past, back in the 1970’s and 1980’s when no land clearing legislation was in place. Flora and fauna would have been most impacted at the time of initial felling of vegetation. Risk to threatened species would have been greatest at the time of the initial clearing process for previously cleared land. Vegetation clearing practices have potential to impact upon species such as the Brush Tailed Phascogale, Golden Backed Tree Rat, and Masked Owl where tree hollows form part of the species habitat, however it should be noted that the development project applies to less than 1% of the total property area. Subsequently 99% of the property is located outside of the project area allowing sufficient habitat for maintaining biodiversity within the property and region. Furthermore, significant effort is being applied to reducing the impact from development through reducing the size of previously cleared lands and through best practice planning, allowing for significant sized wildlife corridors, and appropriately maintaining remnant vegetation.
32
It is interesting to note that the Golden Backed Tree Rat is listed as a potential inhabitant of Ban Ban Springs when DLRM records indicate the only confirmed sitings of this species to have occurred in the Gulf Region in 1901 & 1903 and at Death Adder Gorge (Kakadu) in 1969. Other sitings and hair samples remain unconfirmed. It is likely Cane toads have seriously impacted upon populations of the above mentioned species. Risk Assessment Risk Mitigation Loss of habitat from initial land clearing activities – previous and proposed development.
It is difficult to mitigate risks to species from clearing operations that occurred several decades in the past. Where appropriate reduce the area of old regrowth to be maintained in relation to previously cleared lands, encouraging revegetation of habitat including establishment of tree hollows. Area to be cleared represents less than 1% of the total property land mass retaining sufficient lands for maintaining regional species habitat.
Loss of connectivity through the landscape resulting from clearing activities.
Allow for appropriate sized and shaped inter-connecting corridors exceeding required NT Land Clearing Guidelines, potentially allowing wildlife to feed and breed in the corridor whilst providing free passage across the landscape
Poor management of retained native vegetation corridors and buffers reducing their effective capacity.
Implement best practice stocking rates and grazing land management practices in accordance with land capability reducing potential harm from over grazing the resource. Maintain appropriate fire breaks to protect retained vegetation in accordance with the NT Bushfires Act. Limit use of fertiliser and herbicide application including aerial application reducing potential impact upon retained native vegetation. Implement appropriate weed management practices including spread of introduced pasture species to protect and maintain remnant vegetation.
Table 6.0 – Mitigation of risk to threatened species.
33
9.4 Significant Vegetation Communities such as rainforest; closed forest; riparian vegetation; communities containing large trees with hollows; sand-sheet heath; or mangroves within 200m of the proposed clearing area(s)? There are no significant vegetation communities located within 200 meters of the proposed project clearing area 9.5 Retention of native vegetation buffers and wildlife corridors Figure 18.0 over page depicts the location and width of proposed wildlife corridors/retained vegetation. A large proportion of the land subject to this application (36%) was previously cleared several decades in the past when no land clearing legislation or guidelines were in place and there was reduced knowledge or consideration towards the retention of wildlife corridors and buffers.
In an attempt to improve upon past practices the current lessee/management have planned to improve connectivity and incorporate sufficient sized and located buffers into the proposed development with the aim of maintaining connectivity and amenity throughout the landscape as depicted in figure 18.0. Retained buffers are of sufficient width and placement to allow for connectivity within similar landscapes and also between differing landscapes allowing passage from rugged ranges (Baker landsystem) through to lowland floodplains (Mckinlay landsystem), and are of sufficient size to allow wildlife to feed and breed within the retained vegetation. Corridors are also of sufficient size as to not be adversely impacted from wind, weeds, or erosion. The corridors will also serve to reduce any overland flow associated with the project. Refer Figure 18.0 (over page) for further details.
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
(average width 800 to 1,000 metres)
Sacred Site
CLAYTONS PDK
GIENCOE PDK
Ban Ban Springs
Yard4.5 km†
11 km†
2 km†
2 km†
B
W
W
W
Gas Substation
PA
Lookout
PA
22 Ha
22 Ha
80 Ha
65 Ha
151 Ha
slope &scrapes
Low Rise& Old mine Site
41 Ha
slight rise
gentle slope(excluded)
77 Ha
28 Ha
9 Ha19 Ha
229 Ha
132 Ha
82 Ha
65 Ha
132 Ha 25 Ha
84 Ha
25 Ha
57 Ha
CLAYTONS PDK
GIENCOE PDK
Ban Ban Springs
Yard4.5 km†
11 km†
2 km†
2 km†
B
W
W
W
Gas Substation
PA
Lookout
PA
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR(average width 550 metres)
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
(average width 750 meters)GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
Tank TWIN BONG PDK4.5 km2
(width 450 - 500 meters)
No 3 Bore& tank
TRAMWAY PDK
10 km2
4 KM2 PDK
LOWLANDS
McKINLAY LS
UPLANDHILLS
LOWLANDS
McKINLAY LS
UPLANDHILLS
GREEN BELT/CORRIDORPROPOSED CLEARING
POLYGON
34
9.6 Potential impacts to soils, surface water, and groundwater.
A large percentage of this land has been cleared and developed with no noted impacts to soils, surface water, or ground water. As defined in section 4.6 of this application (Establishment Plan) the project lands are generally flat to low slope and have a very dense perennial ground cover. Timing of activities and methodologies as outlined in table 3.0 are conducive to reducing impact upon soil and water resources. The location and size of retained vegetation corridors/buffers are conducive to reduce over land flows.
9.6.1 Permanent or seasonal water features or sinkholes adjacent to the proposed clearing.
No permanent water features or sinkholes exist adjacent the proposed development. Seasonal drainage lines within the project area have been buffered exceeding the requirements of clearing guidelines. Seasonal water features including drainage areas and 4th order streams exist on Ban Ban Springs and these have been buffered beyond guideline requirements as depicted in attached plans.
9.6.2 The risk of chemical sprays or aerial application of fertiliser associated with the proposed land use drifting into and polluting surface water or sinkholes.
Aerial application of fertilizers or chemical sprays is not anticipated. Slashing in conjunction with isolated low impact low risk spot spraying by quad bike or vehicle will be employed for weed control resulting in nil to minimal pollution risk. Good ground cover (pastures) will be maintained at all times reducing potential for run-off of herbicide or fertilizer that may at times be required. 10.0 SITES OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE. There are no sites of Conservation Significance located on Ban Ban Springs. 11.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
11.1 Clearing plan A clearing plan is at appendices 1.0 & 2.0 whilst individual areas proposed to be cleared are described in detail at figures 2.0 to 17.0 including landtypes, direction of flow, property infrastructure and cadastre boundaries. Georeferenced shape files detailing clearing polygons have also been provided with this application for GIS use.
35
11.2 Potential for water & wind erosion during both the establishment and operational phases of development.
A large percentage of the project land has been cleared and developed with no erosion issues present. As defined in section 4.6 of this application (Establishment Plan) the project lands are generally flat to low slope and have a very dense coverage of perennial ground cover representing low potential for wind and water erosion. Timing of activities and methodologies as outlined in table 3.0 are conducive to reducing potential for wind and water erosion. The location and size of retained vegetation corridors/buffers are conducive to inhibiting over-land flows resulting in reduced erosion potential. Intention is to retain the existing dense perennial ground cover to protect the soil surface from wind and water erosion during initial clearing operations. This will be achieved through use of a light chain for sucker regrowth in conjunction with appropriate seasonal timing of operations to avoid leaving wheel ruts and subsequently channeling run-off. Use of a suitable stick and pin wheel rakes will assist maintain ground cover during initial operations reducing potential for erosion. The project has been designed to reduce potential impact from water accumulating and running down slope. Proposed clearing polygons are designed to eliminate long gentle slopes which may have potential to accumulate and channel over land flow. Slope within proposed clearing polygons is minimal and of short duration reducing capacity for impact from overland flow, further aided by the significant size and appropriately located retained vegetation buffers. It is anticipated initial clearing operations will be performed by a combination of across slope or on the contour decreasing potential for soil erosion occurrence. Pastures will be allowed sufficient time to become suitably established prior to grazing by livestock. Best practice stocking rates and grazing land management will be implemented in accordance with land capability to maintain ground cover reducing potential for erosion. 11.4 Erosion or sedimentation of adjacent infrastructure, water features, sink holes. There are no sinkholes located in or near the proposed development. Drainage lines and infrastructure is appropriately buffer in excess of guideline requirements. Ground cover will be maintained and there should be nil to minimal requirement for chemical use and nil to very low potential for associated pollution. There will be no requirement for temporary or permanent erosion control measures . 11.5 Presence of acid sulfate soils There are no acid sulfate soils in or within 200 meter of the proposed clearing.
36
12.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ACROSS PROPERTY BOUNDARIES Ban Ban Springs is in excess of 1870 km 2 in size. The development is located within the confines of the property boundary. No change in land use is anticipated in contrast to the current and historical use of the land. Current land use is for grazing purposes and is the same form of land use undertaken upon neighbouring properties. Project land is not located abutting property boundaries. The development would unlikely adversely impact across property boundaries.
12.1 Is there a public road or public area within 200 metres of the proposed development.
There is no public road or public area within 200 meter of the proposed development. Adjacent access to Ban Ban Springs is via a private road.
12.2 Assess the risk of reduced visual amenity (any quality that makes the location harmonious pleasant or enjoyable), recreation or tourism value associated with the proposed development and describe how risk will be mitigated
The proposed development is not located near any public access or public areas. The general public including tourists do not frequent the area, and access is via a private locked gate. Much of the proposed development area has been cleared previously.
12.3 Assess the risk of chemical spray drift or dust pollution associated with the proposed development affecting neighbours/community and describe how the risk will be mitigated.
The previously cleared lands are wholly contained within the property boundary with no effect upon neighbouring properties. Any required application of chemicals for weed control will be via spot spray from quad bike or vehicle. There will be no aerial application of chemicals and spray drift is not anticipated to occur accordingly. Ground cover will be maintained and there will be minimal soil disturbance contributing to dust pollution.
12.4 Are introduced species planned to be planted within 100 metres of the property boundary.
Introduced species will not be planted within 100 metres of the property boundary.
37
13.0 HERITAGE & SACRED SITES Due to extensive mining activity in the region, heritage and sacred sites are well documented.
13.1 Are there any declared heritage places or archaeological sites within the meaning of the Heritage Conservation Act on the property.
There are numerous Aboriginal archaeological sites within Ban Ban Springs. The sites are located outside of the proposed clearing polygons and no further archaeological surveys are recommended in relation to the development as detailed in attached correspondence from the Heritage Branch NT Department of Lands Planning & Environment at Appendix 3.0. Figure 19.0 provides the location of the two heritage sites closest to the proposed development. Site BM 34 is located adjacent the gas substation in Twin Bong Paddock, whilst site BM 35 is located in/near a creek in Tramway Paddock where the gas pipeline intersects. Both sites relate to scattered isolated stone artefacts recorded and collected during the Frances Creek mining works. NT Heritage Branch have recommended that if any stone artefacts are discovered during the clearing operations, then all works in the immediate area should stop and the NT Heritage Branch contacted for comment (Refer Appendix 3.0). A map detailing Aboriginal archaeological sites and declared heritage places on Ban Ban Springs has been provided by the NT Heritage Branch and is at Appendix 4.0. Also provided is a spreadsheet detailing co-ordinates for archaeological sites within the vicinity of the proposed development (Refer Appendix 5.0)
13.2 Are there any sacred sites or significant sites protected under the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act located on the property.
There are two recorded Sacred Sites and two restricted work areas located within the proximity of the proposed development as detailed in Figure 19.0. Recorded Sacred Sites are sites that have not been evaluated or placed in the register however there is sufficient information indicating they are nonetheless significant according to Aboriginal tradition and therefore ‘Sacred Sites’ within the meaning of the Act. A sacred site and restricted work area is associated with a billabong located approximately 760 meters (restricted work area) and 1 kilometre (sacred site) from proposed development works on the eastern side of Glencoe Paddock. A second Sacred Site is located central Glencoe Paddock and is buffered by approximately 300 metres as per delineated in Figure 19.0. A Restricted Work Area has also been placed over the gas pipeline/easement which has also been excluded from clearing development works.
38
The symbols representing sites on the provided AAPA Abstract map and also at figure 19.0 are not intended to precisely show the extent of each site. Before entering, or undertaking works on, or in the vicinity of these sites further advice should be sought from the Registrar AAPA. If a Sacred Site previously unknown is identified after commencement of works then works must cease to avoid possible breach of the offence provisions of the Act. At Appendix 6.0 is a map provided by AAPA detailing location of Sacred Sites and Restricted Work Areas. At Appendix 7.0 is correspondence from the AAPA detailing further site information and guidelines that must be adhered to by the landholder. Gunther Gschwenter Ban Ban Springs Station Pty Ltd
.
Archaeological Site(isolated stone artifact)
BM35
BM34
Appendix 1
Sacred Site
Sacred Site
Dam
CLAYTONS PDK
TWIN BONG PDK
GIENCOE PDK
Ban Ban Springs
Tank
Yard
TRAMWAY PDK
PDK
Tank
Tank
4.5 km†
4.5 km†
10 km†
11 km†
4 km†
2 km†
2 km†
1.5 km†
D
B
W
W
W No 3 Bore
Gas Substation
PA
PA
Lookout
PA
22 Ha
22 Ha
80 Ha
65 Ha
151 Ha
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
(average width 800 to 1,000 metres)
GREEN BELT & CORRIDOR
(average width 550 metre)
slope &scrapes
Low Rise& Old mine Site
41 Ha
slight rise
gentle slope(excluded)
77 Ha
28 Ha
9 Ha19 Ha
229 Ha
132 Ha
82 Ha
65 Ha
132 Ha 25 Ha
& Restricted Works Area
(Figure 1.0)
84 Ha
25 Ha
57 Ha
FOUNTAIN HEAD
Howley
Mine Bores
Trough
Dam
Waterhole
Bore
Bore
Dam
Dam
Dam
Bore (u/e)
NORTH BOB PATRICKS PDK
LEITS PDK
Wild Horse Bore
GRANITE PDK
SOUTH BOB PATRICKS PDK
HOWLEY PDK
WILD HORSE PDK
YELLOW HOLE PDK
BROCKS
CREEK
PDK BRITANNIA PDK
Britannia Bore
KUWAIT PDK
D.D. PDK
SWAMP PDK
TURTLE HOLE PDKMOUNT ELLISON PDK
CLAYTONS PDK
TWIN BONG PDK
SOUTH
McCALLUMS
PDK
NORTH
McCALLUMS
PDK
Dam
TRUCKING YARD PDK
GIENCOE PDK
REDBACK PDK
FOUNTAIN
HEAD
PDK
MARGARET PDK
Ban Ban Springs
Tank
Yard
TRAMWAY PDK
WOOLWONGA
PDK
Tank
Tank
Bore
Honers Creek Mine
39 km†
99 km†
23 km†
24 km†
48 km†
26 km† 4.5 km†
26 km† 18 km†
5 km†
11 km†
4.5 km†
21 km†
33 km†
33 km†
27 km†
4.5 km†
3.5 km†
10 km†
11 km†
4 km†
10 km†9 km†2.5 km†
8 km†
4 km†
82 km†
55 km†
143 km†
2.5 km†
2 km†
2 km†
1.5 km†
Great Northern Mine
Dam
Dam
Dam
D
D
B
B
B
B
No 4 Bore
D
B
W
W
W No 3 Bore
B
BWH
B B
B
D
D
D
B
B
No 1 BoreNo 2 Bore
D
WHD
D
32 km†
LOST HILL PDK
14 km†
15 km†
HARTNETT PDK
FRANCIS CREEK PDK112 km†
5 km†
HALF-WAY PEAK
MOUNT SAUNDERS
167 km†
PDK
WHITESTONE7 km†
160 Ha 170 Ha
13 km†
Cosmo Mine & Camp
Howley Bore
BBS03
DGS07
Landing Ground
Saunders
RIV
ER
Grove Hill Siding
BROCKS CREEK
DGS01
ELE
CTRICITY TR
ANS
MISSIO
N LIN
E
MOUNT OSBORNE
MAR
GARET
Landing GroundBurrundie
Creek
The Banyans
Hayes Creek
Dam C
Dam A
DGS02
Yellow Waterhole
MOUNT GEORGE
MOUNT MASSON
MOUNT DOUGLAS
MOUNT ELLISON
MOUNT WELLS
MOUNT RINGWOOD
LOST HILL
Frances
Creek
Dou
glas
Creek
Georg
e
Minglo
Creek
Maude
RIV
ER
MARY
Watts
Creek
MC
KIN
LAY
RIV
ER
RIV
ER
MCKI
NLAY
RIV
ER
MARGAR
ET
Creek
Mccallu
m
Creek
Creek
Rya
n
RIV
ER
GAS PIPELIN
E
Ruins
Cookys Corner
Drill Sites
Mine Camp
Mount Harris Mine
Mount Masson Mine
Jessops Mine
Landing Ground
Cemetery
CemeteryMount Wells Battery
Gas Substation
Abd.
Abd.Abd.
Landing Ground
Goodall Mine
Wetlands Wall
PA
PA
PA
Lookout
PA
Francis Creek Mine
MRG06
BBS04
BBS05 BBS06
BBS08
BBS07
BBS09
BBS02BBS01
Yards u/s
u/sPDK
SPRING
1000 Ha DAM PDK
Dam
Mill & Bore
D
BLUE HOLE PDK
129 km†
100 km†
BAN BAN SPRINGS - PROPOSED LAND CLEARING
RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATIONPROPOSED LAND CLEARING
FOUNTAIN HEAD
Dam
LEITS PDK
GRANITE PDK
BROCKS
CREEK
PDK BRITANNIA PDK
Britannia Bore
SWAMP PDK
TURTLE HOLE PDKMOUNT ELLISON PDK
CLAYTONS PDK
TWIN BONG PDK
SOUTH
McCALLUMS
PDK
NORTH
McCALLUMS
PDK
Dam
TRUCKING YARD PDK
GIENCOE PDK
REDBACK PDK
FOUNTAIN
HEAD
PDK
MARGARET PDK
Ban Ban Springs
Tank
Yard
TRAMWAY PDK
WOOLWONGA
PDK
Tank
Tank
26 km† 4.5 km†
26 km† 18 km†
5 km†
11 km†
4.5 km†33 km†
27 km†
4.5 km†
3.5 km†
10 km†
11 km†
4 km†
10 km†9 km†2.5 km†
8 km†
4 km†
82 km†
2.5 km†
2 km†
2 km†
1.5 km†
B
B
No 4 Bore
D
B
W
W
W No 3 Bore
D
B
B
No 1 BoreNo 2 Bore
DGS07
Saunders
RIV
ER
Grove Hill Siding
BROCKS CREEK
MOUNT ELLISON
MARGAR
ET
Gas Substation
Abd.
Landing Ground
PA
PA
Lookout
PA
BBS09
BBS02BBS01
151 Ha
Cully Landsystem
Cully Landsystem
Cully Landsystem
McKinlay Landsystem
McKinlay Landsystem
McKinlay Landsystem
Bend Landsystem
Bend Landsystem
Bend Landsystem
Rumwaggon Landsystem
Rumwaggon Landsystem
Rumwaggon Landsystem
PROPOSED LAND CLEARING 1348 HECTARES TOTAL
BAN BAN SPRINGS PASTORAL DEVELOPED LANDS & LANDSYSTEMS
(Appendix 2.0)
