Community Information and Consultation Session · Community Information and Consultation Session Environment Effect Statement –draft Technical Studies ... 7.40 pm Technical Presentation

Community Information and Consultation Session

Environment Effect Statement – draft Technical Studies

Tuesday 17 July 2018

Welcome and Overview

Time Item Presenter / Lead

7.00 pm - 7.15 pm Welcome and Overview of Proceedings Stephanie Glue

Victor Hugo, Kalbar7.15 pm – 7.25 pm Study Context Erin Pears, Senior Associate Environmental

Consultant, Coffey7.25 pm - 7.40 pm Technical Presentation 1 - Air Quality Natalie Shaw, Principal Consultant – Air Quality,

Katestone7.40 pm - 7.55 pm Group Discussions All

7.55 pm - 8.10 pm Technical Presentation 2 - Biodiversity Aaron Organ, Principal Ecologist and Director, Ecology and Heritage Partners

8.10 pm - 8.25 pm Group Discussions All

8.25 pm - 8.40 pm Technical Presentation 3 - Socioeconomic Tasha Latham, Senior Associate and Social Consultant, Coffey


8.55 pm - 9.10 pm Technical Presentation 3 - Agriculture John Hamilton, Social and Economic Consultant & Director, Hamilton SierraCon


9.25 pm - 9.50 pm Panel Q &A Technical Presenters

9.50 pm – 10.00 pm Next Steps and Close Stephanie Glue

Study Context - EES Process and Study Program

EES OverviewJuly 2018

5

Contents

EES scope 1

EES process 2

6

7

01Environment Effects Statement scope

EES scope

• Defined by EES Scoping Requirements, issued by Victorian

Government

– EES process

– Matters to be addressed in the EES

– Evaluation objectives

– Key issues

– Priorities for characterising existing environment

– Design and mitigation measures

– Assessment of likely effects

– Approach to manage performance

• https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/environment-

assessment/browse-projects/projects/fingerboards-mineral-

sands

8

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/environment-assessment/browse-projects/projects/fingerboards-mineral-sands

9

02Environment Effects Statement process

EES process

10

Specialist studies

EES process

11

Define project (Project

Description)

Specialist studies

Technical Reference

Group review

Prepare EES Chapter

Address TRG comments

Brief Technical Reference Group on changes

Technical Reference

Group review

Compile final EES

EES process

12

• Geology, landform and soils

• Traffic and transport

• Land use and planning

• Radiation

• Noise and vibration

• Cultural heritage

• Geomorphology

• Ecology

• Visual and landscape

• Agriculture

• Socioeconomic

• Air quality and greenhouse gas

• Surface water and groundwater (x 4)

• Rehabilitation

17 specialist studies being completed to inform the EES:

• Studies inform and are informed by other studies.

• This is an iterative process.

• EES chapters are then based on the specialist studies.

What’s in a specialist study

13

Objectives

Regulatory requirements

Method

Existing environment

Impact assessment

Mitigation measures

Project description

How are the findings used

14

• The EES brings together the findings of the specialist

studies in plain English.

• The EES provides an integrated analysis of the existing

environment, potential impacts of the project and how

these will be managed.

• Specialist studies are exhibited to the public with the EES

document.

Technical Presentation 1Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas

Assessment for the Fingerboards

Project

Preliminary Assessment18 July 2018

Introduction

Katestone Environmental:

• Leading provider of expert air quality and meteorology services in Australia since 1989

• Experts in Air Quality, Meteorology and Climate

• Clients include industry, state and local governments and community groups

• Our experience:

– Atlas Campaspe Project, Cristal Mining

– Yeelirrie Project, Cameco

– Eastern Leases, South32

Introduction

• Emissions to air from mineral sands mining

• Air quality assessment requirements

• Baseline monitoring results so far

• Mitigation and management opportunities

• Work to be completed

Purpose of Study

• Describe the facility and its existing or proposed

activities

• Determine the influence of a facility on the local

and/or regional airshed (e.g. modelling)

• Assess against relevant criteria

• Deliver to approving authority

Purpose of Study

Particulate matter

• emitted from mining

• solid or liquid particles that may be suspended in the atmosphere

• large particles generated by:

– Mechanical disturbance of soil material by bulldozing, scraping and trucks travelling on unsealed roads

– Wind erosion of stockpiles and bare ground

• May affect human health and amenity depends on the size of the particles, the concentration of particulate matter in the atmosphere and rate of deposition

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics)

Purpose of Study

• Other emissions include:

– Crystalline silica

– Heavy metals

– Combustion gases (carbon dioxide, carbon

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide)

– Greenhouse gases

EES Scoping Requirements

• Environment Protection Act 1970

• Environment Protection Act 2017

• State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management (SEPP (AQM))

• Protocols for Environmental Management Plans (PEM)

• PEM for Mining and Extractive Industries

• National Environmental Protection Measure (Air Quality)

Methodology Underpinning Study – PEM Level

1 requirements

12 months ambient

monitoring

Continuous dust – PM10

and PM2.5

Crystalline silica

Heavy metal content

Meteorology

Management and controls

Best available technology

Dispersion modelling

EPA Approved Model

Predict ground-level

concentrations

Assess against air quality objectives

/criteria

Methodology Underpinning Study

- Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Scope 1 emissions

Diesel combustion:

- Heavy machinery and site vehicles

- Processing plants and equipment

- Diesel generators

- HMC transport

Land clearing

Scope 2 emissions

Electricity usage:

- Processing operations

- Lighting

- Offices and amenities

Methods

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting

(Measurement) Determination 2008

The National Greenhouse Accounts,

July 2013 (DIICCSCRTE, 2013)

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Findings So Far:

Baseline monitoring

2 x high volume air samplers- 24 hour average PM10 (analysed

for heavy metal content)

- 24 hour average PM2.5 (analysed

for α-quartz content)

GRIMM- 1 minute PM10

- 1 minute PM2.5

Partisol- 24 hour average PM10

- 24 hour average PM2.5

E-BAM- 1 hour PM10

BAM- 1 hour PM2.5

Dust deposition gauge

Baseline dust monitoringPM10 – all measurements below PEM objective

Baseline dust monitoringPM2.5 – most measurements below Air NEPM and PEM objective

Baseline dust monitoringCrystalline silica –measurements below PEM objective

Baseline dust monitoring

• Heavy metals - large range measured, including:

– Arsenic

– Cadmium

– Cobalt

– Iron

– Lead

• Arsenic measurements so far < 44% of PEM objectives

• Other heavy metals <7% of assessment criteria

Local wind patterns

on-site meteorological monitoring station

Dust mitigation measures• Haul material shortest possible distance

• Apply water to minimise dust:

• To exposed unrehabilitated areas

• Prior to dozing or scraping of material

• To haul roads

• Prior to grading of haul roads

• Construct haul roads out of material that isn’t dusty

• Transport ore in slurry form to minimise dust

• Progressive rehabilitation

• Use machinery that minimises dust

Greenhouse Gas – Best Practice Initiatives

• Ongoing monitoring and reporting GHG emissions

and identifying opportunities to reduce GHG

emissions

• Fuel efficient equipment

• Load optimisation, production scheduling and

logistics planning including route optimisation

• Use of solar power to supplement electricity use

where practical

• Minimisation of grid electricity consumption through

power factor correction

Next Steps in the Study Process:

Dispersion modelling• Mathematical models that predict the change in

pollutant concentrations with time and distance

• Varying levels of complexity

• Can make predictions across any range of

times and at any location

• Can make predictions about sources that

haven’t been built yet


Dispersion modelling• Develop meteorological data for the model based

on ambient monitoring data

• Estimate emissions for construction and 3 operational years (2024, 2027 and 2031)

• Emissions to be based on emission factors and site specific sampling data

• Predict ground-level concentrations (incorporating 12-month ambient monitoring data)

• Assess predicted ground-level concentrations against PEM objectives


Greenhouse Gas• Estimate emissions for construction and all

operational years

Group Discussion – Air Quality

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the study scope and / or purpose?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the methodology used to conduct the study?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the initial findings and whether there is anything additional you think needs to be considered?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the next stage of the process, including whether you believe there are any additional impact areas that need to be considered?

Technical Presentation 2Biodiversity

www.ehpartners.com.auwww.ehpartners.com.au

Community Session Presentation 17th July 2018

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Fingerboards Mineral Sands Project, Glenaladale, Victoria

Aaron Organ

Director / Principal Ecologist

www.ehpartners.com.au

Objectives of Study

Objectives: • Define the relevant legislation, standards and guidelines

• Describe the survey methods

• Characterise the existing environment relevant to biodiversity

• Assessment of likely and potential direct and indirect impacts• Against significant impact thresholds for significant species and ecological communities)

• Outline avoidance, mitigation and management measures to reduce the significance of impacts

• State and Commonwealth biodiversity offsets under the relevant policy and EPBC Act

40

www.ehpartners.com.au 41


Desktop Assessment Methods

Desktop Assessment• DELWP’s NatureKit Online interactive map

• Ecological Vegetation Class benchmarks

• The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas

• The Flora Information System

• Atlas of Victorian Wildlife

• The Department of the Environment and Energy’s Protected Matters Search Tool under the EPBC Act

• Relevant listings under the FFG Act and DELWP’s Threatened Species Advisory Lists

• The Planning Maps Online and Planning Schemes Online

• Aerial photography

• Previous ecological or other relevant assessments of the project area

42


Detailed Field Surveys

• Vegetation surveys completed over a five-day period in June 2016 and a three-day period in March 2018

• An Aquatic Ecology Assessment completed over a three-day period in June 2016

• Terrestrial fauna surveys over a five-day period in October 2016 (excluding the subsequent collection of deployed remote cameras)

• Targeted flora surveys and updated vegetation mapping completed over two five-day survey events in October and November 2016, and February 2018

43


Field Assessment Methods

Flora Survey

• >300 person hours surveying native vegetation, ecological communities and listed flora species

• The targeted surveys were undertaken

• Areas of remnant native vegetation were traversed at five metre intervals

• Hand-held GPS units were used to record the location of any listed species

44


Field Assessment Methods

Fauna Survey Methods• Terrestrial and aquatic fauna assessments were

undertaken within the project area during early winter and spring 2016

• >140-person hours undertaken • Diurnal bird and herpetofauna surveys• Spotlighting• Stag-watching• Call play-back surveys• Opportunistic sightings of fauna and indirect evidence of

fauna activity, such as scats, diggings, scratch marks, etc;• Anabat surveys• Remote camera surveys• Nocturnal frog call census surveys (e.g. targeted surveys

for Growling Grass Frog and Green and Golden Bell Frog)

45


Flora Results

Species diversity• A diverse assemblage of plants and animals, with 174 flora species (46 introduced) and 96 fauna species

(eight introduced) recorded during the field surveys

Remnant Vegetation• 163.0 ha of remnant vegetation represented by seven Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs):• Lowland Forest • Lowland Herb-rich Forest • Valley Grassy Forest • Plains Grassy Forest • Plains Grassy Woodland • Aquatic Herbland• Plains Grassy Wetland • 382 native scattered trees (mostly large eucalypts)

Listed Ecological Communities• 2.84 ha of the nationally significant (EPBC Act-listed) Gippsland Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp.

mediana) Grassy Woodland and Associated Native Grassland (GRGGW) ecological community• 5.43 ha of the State significant (FFG Act listed) Forest Red Gum Grassy Woodland ecological community

46


Significant Flora

• No nationally significant flora have been recorded within the project area (previously or during surveys)

• The potential occurrence of three nationally significant flora species:– Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre

– Dwarf Kerrawang Commersonia prostrata

– Gaping Leek-orchid Prasophyllum correctum

• The known occurrence of four State significant flora species:– Slender Wire-lily Laxmannia gracilis

– Blue Mat-rush Lomandra glauca s.s.

– Slender Tick-trefoil Desmodium varians

– Sandfly Zieria Zieria smithii subsp. smithii

• The potential occurrence of additional State significant species within the project area

47


Fauna Results

Species diversity• A total of 96 species of fauna including 88 native

species and eight introduced species

Fauna habitats • Remnant forest, woodland, scattered trees,

drainage lines, farm dams, plantations and pasture

48

Fauna guildSpecies richness

Native Introduced

Birds 59 3

Mammals (non-bats) 6 5

Mammals (bats) 8 -

Frogs 8 -

Reptiles 7 -

Total 88 8




Significant Fauna

Fauna Species• No nationally significant fauna species have been recorded within

the project area (previously or during surveys)

• Known occurrence of one State significant fauna species (Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus flaviventris

• Low likelihood of four fauna species of national significance:

• Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor

• Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta

• Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus

• Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus

• Potential occurrence of 12 State significant fauna species

• Known occurrence of two regionally significant fauna (Emu and Eastern Long-necked Turtle) and the potential occurrence of an additional six regionally significant species

51



Impact AssessmentOverall

Pre and post mitigation measures the impacts to these values at the Project Area (scale) are Moderate to High, whilst at the regional, State and national scales the project will have a very low (negligible) to low impact on biodiversity values

Direct Impacts• Vegetation removal and habitat loss (118 ha and 282 scattered trees)

• Approximately 2.82 ha of the nationally significant GRGGW ecological community

• 5.43 ha of the State significant Forest Red Gum Grassy Woodland ecological

• State significant flora species: Slender Wire-lily (33 plants), Blue Mat-rush (three plants) and Sandfly Zieria (nine plants)

• Removal of known habitat for the following fauna species of State and regional significance:

– Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat - 283 scattered trees and 118 ha of remnant vegetation

– Emu - Forest and woodland, wetland/ aquatic habitat and disturbed land

– Eastern Long-necked Turtle - 0.87 ha of wetland/ aquatic habitat

53


Mitigation Measures

54

• Further avoidance of biodiversity values

• Pre-clearing significant species surveys

• Flora and fauna salvage/ translocation

• Water quality monitoring

• Reinstatement of fauna habitat

• Establishment of ‘no-go areas’

• Installation of nest boxes

• Dust, noise and light suppression / management

• Contingency measures to manage unexpected discovery of listed flora and fauna species during construction and operation of the project

• Staff and contractor inductions


Management Plans

55

• Offset Management Plan

• Construction Environmental Management Plan

• Biodiversity Management Plan

– Protection measures

– Pre and post construction monitoring

• Pest Animal and Plant Management Plan

• Restoration / Rehabilitation Plan

www.ehpartners.com.auwww.ehpartners.com.au 56

Aaron OrganDirector / Principal Ecologist

0425 873 159

[email protected]

Group Discussion – Biodiversity





Technical Presentation 3Socioeconomic

Fingerboards Mineral Sands

ProjectSocioeconomic Impact Assessment

July 2018

Introduction

Tasha Latham, Coffey

Overview of the presentation:

• Environment Effects Statement Scoping Requirements for socioeconomic aspects

• Regulatory framework

• Purpose of study

• Method

• Preliminary findings on existing socioeconomic environment

• Socioeconomic values

• Next steps

17 July 2018A presentation to the community

60

Environment Effects Statement Scoping Requirements

• Characterise the social structure of the local communities (demographics,

employment, infrastructure, community groups, housing/accommodation

availability, etc).

• Describe community attitudes, existing emergency response services and

industries in the vicinity of the project which could be affected by it.

• Assess the potential effects on communities living within or near the project

area.

• Assess the potential economic effects (beneficial and adverse) which could

result from the project, including opportunities for local workers and

businesses.

• Outline measures to minimise potential adverse effects to local communities,

infrastructure and businesses and enhance potential benefits to local and

regional businesses.


61

Regulatory framework

• Environment Effects Act 1978

• Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1986


62

Purpose of study


63

• Characterise existing social and economic conditions of areas potentially

affected by the project.

• Describe local landowner and community attitudes towards the project.

• Describe socioeconomic values, particularly those within proximity to the

project area.

• Assess potential socioeconomic impacts and opportunities associated with

the project.

• Propose measures to minimise potential socioeconomic impacts and

maximise potential opportunities associated with the project.

Method underpinning study

• Source and review a range of secondary

sources (e.g., Australian Bureau of

Statistics census data) to understand:

– Key socioeconomic characteristics

– Living conditions

– Key trends

• Draw on consultation to understand

community concerns and values

• Establish socioeconomic values

• Use of risk-based approach to assess

potential project impacts on

socioeconomic values and opportunities


64

Findings so far: existing socioeconomic environment

Local and regional towns:

• Nine settlements and towns within 10 km radius of project area.

• Each with a distinct identity.

• Some residents with strong family history of farming, others moved to

area for lifestyle reasons.

• Residents involved in a range of community groups, clubs and

associations.

• Short-term accommodation e.g., in Fernbank and Lindenow.


65

Findings so far: existing socioeconomic environment (cont’d)

Broader area (East Gippsland and Wellington shires):

• Experiencing population growth, projected to continue

• Ageing population.

• Well-serviced by community infrastructure and services, but demand for health services

high.

• Property prices relatively low but trending upwards since 2000.

• Majority of short-term accommodation in popular tourist towns.

• Manufacturing, construction, real estate and agriculture, forestry and fishing significant to

East Gippsland economy (economic output).

• Mining, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and fishing and real estate services significant

to Wellington economy (economic output).


66

Socioeconomic values

Theme Socioeconomic value

Health, safety and wellbeing Amenity and wellbeing

Cohesive community

Access and connectivity

Healthy people

Safe community

Safe roads

Infrastructure and services Basic community needs

Well-serviced community


67

Socioeconomic values (cont’d)

Theme Socioeconomic value

Connection to and use of the land Beneficial uses

Landscape

Connection to land

Rural lifestyle

Livelihoods Crops and livestock

Livelihoods

Local and regional economic

growth


68

Next steps in the study process

• Review feedback from community and Technical Reference Group and update

report.

• Review findings and management measures in relevant technical studies once

available including findings on potential agricultural impacts.

• Complete impact assessment drawing on the above.

• Types of impacts and opportunities to be assessed:

– Health and safety

– Reduced amenity and/or wellbeing

– Disruption to community services

– Loss of identity

– Loss of crops (including horticultural crops) or reduced productivity

– Housing / short-term accommodation affordability and availability impacts

– Employment opportunities


69

Next steps in the study process (cont’d)

• Issue draft socioeconomic impact assessment report to the Technical

Reference Group.

• Address comments from the Technical Reference Group and finalise

study for public exhibition.


70

Group Discussion – Socioeconomic





Technical Presentation 3Agriculture

Kalbar Resources Ltd.

Fingerboards Project

Agriculture Impact Assessment

Introduction

– About Hamilton SierraCon

– This presentation outlines:

• The Study objectives and methods

• A brief overview of local agricultural activity and “values”

• Potential agricultural impacts that need to be addressed through the EES

2

EES Scoping Requirements

– Evaluation objective:

• “To minimise potential adverse social and land use effects, including on

agriculture, dairy, irrigated horticulture, …”

– Key issues:

• “The potential for dislocation due to severance causing reduced access to

farm land…”

• “Potential for adverse effects on the existing and future land and beneficial

uses, including agricultural, dairy, irrigated horticulture, forestry, tourism

and local businesses”.

3

Purpose of the Study

– To describe:

• Agriculture in the Project Area and Region, including economic value

• Potential economic contribution of the Fingerboards Project

• Possible actions to reduce or avoid significant impacts on agriculture

• Possible actions to monitor and manage Project performance

– To assess the impact of the Fingerboards Project on current

agricultural operations

– Excludes environmental technical issues (covered by other studies)

4

Method of Study

• Review of available reports and data

• Consultation with:

– Four Project Area landholders

– Two nearby landholders

– Five Lindenow vegetable growers

– Relevant local agencies and industry groups

• Collection of information about farm management practices, productivity and

employment

5

Findings so far: Current Agriculture

• Local Agriculture Region (Bruthen-Omeo-Bairnsdale):

– $169 million farm gate value

– Vegetables - $ 50.4 million

– Beef cattle - $42.4 million

– Sheep and wool - $ 24.5 million

• Project Area (1,675 ha):

– Dryland grazing: sheep and beef

– Blue gum and radiata pine

– Remnant native vegetation

6

Findings so far: Current Agriculture

• 19 landholders: full-time, part-time, lifestyle

• Farming Challenges: Variable weather and prices, cost-price squeeze, soil and animal health

• Local challenges: Maintaining prosperity and population, a lack of local jobs, particularly for young people

• Feedback themes:

– “Peaceful”, “beautiful”, “attractive”, and “quiet” area

– A great part of the world

– Family heritage, a great place for families

– A good farming area, positive vegetable industry outlook

7

Finding so far: Effects on Project Area Production

• 404 ha out of agriculture, with 5 year land removal

• Lost gross margin: $52,500 and $75,500 p.a

• Loss of employment: 0.39 to 0.58 staff and contracting

• Mitigation: minimise land take and progressive rehabilitation

8

Potential Impacts for Further Assessment

Consideration on the vegetable industry

– Risks: dust, sedimentation, water-borne contamination

– Actual or perceived risks could impact on industry’s reputation

– Thorough assessment: avoid/mitigate potential environmental impacts

– Engagement with the vegetable industry, e.g. reference group

– Investigate opportunities to support off-river storage infrastructure

9


Success and assurance of land rehabilitation

– Concern of whether full rehabilitation is possible

– Track record of rehabilitation of other mining projects

– Explain rehabilitation through consultation

– Test pit and early monitoring of rehabilitation

– Safeguards and assessments for land hand back

10


General disruption to agriculture, restriction on property

sale and development

– Scheduling and procedures for best possible property access

– As much information and certainty as possible

– Landholder Compensation process and landholder lease agreements

11


Loss of on-farm infrastructure, property severance:

– Road diversions, potential isolation, ability to access paddocks

– Scheduling and procedures to provide best possible property access

– Consultation to identify and avoid severance issues

– Comprehensive landholder compensation and lease agreements

12


Project traffic

– Traffic procedures considering farming traffic

Environmental issues and concerns

– “General feel of the local area”, noise, dust, worker influx

– Environmental assessments, Environmental Management Plan and

stakeholder engagement

13


Farming community cohesion

– Feedback: many locals are upset and stressed about the Project

– Some local relationships have been strained - a divisive issue

– A desire for detailed Project information now

– Stakeholder Engagement - explain the Project as much as possible

– Opportunities for community investment

14

Possible Monitoring Measures

• Environmental monitoring

• Monitoring of land rehabilitation:

– Specific variables, e.g. pasture cover, soil health monitoring

– Sign-off for the handover of rehabilitated land

• Stakeholder Engagement

– Point of contact for each landholder

– Regular landholder communication about access and feedback

– A grievance management system

– Vegetable industry feedback

15

Group Discussion – Agriculture





Panel - Q & A

Next Steps and Close

Documents

Community Information and Consultation Session · Community Information and Consultation Session Environment Effect Statement –draft Technical Studies ... 7.40 pm Technical Presentation