Jensen’s Rd near Scottsdale HBMI Pty Ltd · An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Sand Extraction Operation

Jensen’s Rd near Scottsdale

HBMI Pty Ltd

Report and recommendations of the

EPA Division

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority

February 2010

Environmental Assessment Report – HBMI-Sand Extraction, Jensen’s Rd

I

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent HBMI Pty Ltd (HBMI)

Proposal Sand Extraction Operation

Location Jensen’s Road, Approximately 7 kilometres north-east of Scottsdale

NELMS no. 7700

DA number 2009/72

File 11 10 52

Document Class of Assessment

G:\EEOEAS\ P\HBMI_Scottsdale\AssessmentReport 2A

Assessment process milestones

27 August 2008 Notice of Intent submitted

30 Sept 2008 EER Guidelines issued

24 November 2009 Permit application submitted to Council

30 November 2009 Application received by Board

9 January 2010 Start of public consultation period

22 January 2010 End of public consultation period


II

Acronyms

AHO Aboriginal Heritage Officer

AHT Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (DPIPWE)

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

DCAB Development and Conservation Assessment Branch (DPIPWE)

DIER Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Roads

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EER Environmental Effects Report

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

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

FPA Forest Practices Authority

FPP Forest Practices Plan

FT Forestry Tasmania

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

ML Mining Lease

MRT Mineral Resources Tasmania (DIER)

NVA Natural Values Assessment

PC Phytophthora cinnamomi

SD Sustainable development

SRAD Standard Recommended Attenuation Distance

TIA Traffic Impact Assessment

TSP Act Threatened Species Protection Act 1995


III

Recommendations It is recommended that the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board of the Environment Protection Authority:

1. Consider the Division’s evaluation of environmental issues associated with the proposal in Section 6 of this report

2. Note that the evaluation has concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the recommendations made in this report are satisfactorily implemented. These recommendations include the implementation of the commitments made by the proponent in the EER.

3. Approve the proposal subject to the conditions attached to this report.

4. In accordance with s.25(5)(a)(i) of the EMPC Act, notify Dorset Council that the conditions and restrictions detailed in Appendix 2 (recommended permit conditions) must be contained in a permit granted by the planning authority under the LUPA Act in respect of the proposal, if a permit is to be granted.

5. In accordance with s.25 (5) (a) (ii) of the EMPC Act, provide Council with a copy of this report to outline the reasons for the conditions and restrictions.


IV

Table of Contents

1 Approvals process ..................................................................................... 7 2 SD objectives and EIA principles .............................................................. 7

3 The proposal ............................................................................................. 8 4 Need for proposal and alternatives ......................................................... 12 5 Public and agency consultation ............................................................... 12 6 Evaluation of environmental issues ......................................................... 12

Appendix 1 Summary of issues raised by public and agency submissions .......................... 26

Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions ................................................................................ 27


VI

1 Approvals process An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Dorset Council on 24 November 2009.

The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under Schedule 2 Subsection (6)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being

6. Materials Handling

(a) Crushing, Grinding or Milling: processing (by crushing, grinding, milling or separating into different sizes by sieving, air elutriation or in any other manner) of:

(ii) rock, ores or minerals at a rate in excess of 1 000 cubic metres per year.

Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 30 November 2009.

The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board.

The Board required that additional information to support the proposal be provided in the form of an Environmental Effects Report (EER).

Several drafts of the EER were submitted to the EPA Division for comment prior to its formal submission. Documentation including a final EER was submitted to Council with the permit application. The documentation was released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on 9 January 2010. Advertisements were placed in The Examiner and on the EPA web site. The documentation was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. One public submission was received.

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) established by 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 protect the environment of Tasmania, and 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.


7

3 The proposal The proposal is for the expansion of an existing sand extraction and screening operation near Scottsdale. The existing Level 1 permit allows for the production of up to 4,000 cubic metres per annum. No blasting or crushing will be required.

The documentation states that the site has been under lease for sand extraction since the mid 1980`s. In October 2008 HBMI were instructed, by the Director, to cease operations in response to the company exceeding the allowable quantity of extracted material under the Level 1 permit.

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 key environmental issues

Characteristic Description/quantities

Activity description The extraction and screening of up to 20,000 cubic metres of sand per annum; it is expected that three campaigns of approximately 6,000 cubic metres per annum will be undertaken.

The Notice of Intent stated that the operational life expectancy of the operation is approximately 15 years.

Location Off Jensen’s Road, approximately 7 kilometres north-east of Scottsdale.

Mining Lease (ML) 50M/1985 covers 16 hectares of Property Identifier (PID) # 7355066.

Land zoning Zoning is Mixed Rural according to the Dorset Planning Scheme 1996; extractive industries are a discretionary use in this zone.

The site is also within the Great Forester Resource Management Area.

Land tenure State Forest.

Site overview The nearest residence is approximately one kilometre to the south east. Scottsdale is 7 kilometres to the south-west.

Vegetation is a mixture of coastal Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and sedgey heathland.

The site is on tertiary sediment mainly derived from Devonian Granite, soil is Duncraggen; erodibility is high.

Surrounding area overview

The site is in an area of low hills. Forestry, quarrying and agriculture dominate the area.

The Great Forester river valley is approximately one kilometre to the east and a small tributary, Ruby Creek, runs in a north easterly direction just outside the NW corner of the lease area.

The Mount Stronach Forest Reserve which is approximately 1.5 kilometres to the southwest is listed on the Register of the National Estate.

Lucky Strike Peak is approximately 3 kilometres to the south-west.

Major equipment Mobile screen, excavator, trucks and a loader.

Other infrastructure Nil.

Inputs

Water Nil for operation, dust suppression only.

Energy Fuel for machinery.


8


9

Characteristic Description/quantities

Other raw materials Nil.

Wastes

Liquid Stormwater only.

Atmospheric Dust.

Solid General waste eg rags and grease cartridges.

Noise Will be generated by all machinery; screen, excavator, trucks, loader.

Operating hours Proposed operating hours are:

0700-1900 Monday to Friday; and

0800-1600 Saturdays.

Project timetable Operation, progressive rehabilitation, decommissioning.

Other key characteristics

Approximately 30 truck movements (15 loads) per day during campaigns; 2000 movements (1000 loads) per annum.

Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse gases will be emitted from the use of diesel fuel for the operation of machinery and for haulage.

Potential future vegetation clearance would also have implications for greenhouse gases.

Bond The proponent currently has a bond with Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) of $10,500.

Figure 1: Location of Mining Lease 50M/1985 (Diagram 9 of the EER)


10

Figure 2: Mine Plan (Diagram 5 of the EER)


11

4 Need for proposal and alternatives The proposal is for the expansion of an existing quarry intended to primarily supply Hazell Bros Group concrete batching operations in the north and northeast of Tasmania, no alternatives were investigated.

5 Public and agency consultation A summary of the public representations and government agency submissions is contained in Appendix 1 of this report.

One representation was received. The main issue raised in the representations was traffic impacts: dust and safety.

The documentation was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

• Development and Conservation Assessment Branch (DCAB), DPIPWE;

• Planning & Design Section, Traffic & Infrastructure Branch DIER.

The following Divisions/Areas of DPIPWE also provided submissions on the application:

• Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania;

• Heritage Tasmania.

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 recommended permit conditions, are shown in the tables below.


12

Issue 1

Traffic Impacts (Noise and Dust).

Description of Potential Impacts

Noise and dust emissions from traffic movements have the potential to cause an environmental nuisance along transport routes.

A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was undertaken and Dorset Council engaged GHD, consultants, to review the TIA. These reports were included in the documentation.

The TIA stated that the production level of 20,000 cubic metres will require 1000 truck loads per annum. The campaign nature of operations is expected to result in up to 40 vehicle movements per day during operations; 10 vehicles per day for extraction and stockpiling and 30 truck movements (15 loads) per day for cartage.

Jensen’s Road is unsealed and current traffic levels are estimated at less than 50 per day. A number of residences are located within 50 metres of the road.

The TIA states that traffic volumes on North Scottsdale Road are approximately 400 per day.

Measurement Measures Proposed in EER

• Operating hours are to be limited to 0700-1900 Monday to Friday and 0800-1600 Saturdays.

• Discussions will be held with Council with a view to organizing an annual joint operation to regrade Jensen’s Road.

• Local residents on Jensen’s Road between the quarry entrance and North Scottsdale Road will be consulted, to ascertain dust suppressant needs and how dust issues will be addressed.


13

Public and agency comment

The public representation raised the issue of dust caused by traffic movements and the associated impacts on 4 residences at the northern end of Jensen’s Road, close to North Scottsdale Road. The submission was concerned that dust would impact on the health of residents by causing respiratory problems and by contaminating rainwater used for drinking.

DIER provided comments regarding Council issues.

Evaluation and recommendation

The application states that the transport route will vary depending on the destination; some loads will go north on Jensen’s Road to North Scottsdale Road, some south on Jensen’s Road to the Tasman Highway. The campaign nature of operations will result in periods of no traffic and periods (approximately 67 days per annum) when the number of vehicles on Jensen’s Road may be doubled, primarily by heavy vehicles.

Noise Noise from traffic has the potential to impact on residents along transport routes if uncontrolled. In the experience of the EPA Division, the limiting of operating hours at the site is a reasonable method of limiting the hours of truck movements. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard permit condition G11 requiring that operating hours are restricted to 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays. These hours are consistent with the Quarry Code of Practice and, given that representors are located near to North Scottsdale Road where ambient daytime noise levels are likely to be elevated by existing traffic conditions, these hours of operation are considered suitable to prevent traffic noise causing an environmental nuisance for local residents.

Dust Dust from traffic has the potential to impact on residents along transport routes. In the experience of the EPA, there are a number of potentially effective methods for reducing dust; these include the use of water carts, the application of chemical sealant or the sealing of the road with asphalt. Non-standard permit condition A1 requires that dust from truck movements be managed to the extent necessary to prevent environmental nuisance and that measures must be implemented to prevent the escape of material from the vehicles.


14

Issue 2

Noise (operations).


Noise may cause an environmental nuisance for sensitive uses, such as residences, in the vicinity.

Noise will be produced by truck movements within the site and by all equipment; an excavator, a mobile screen and a loader.

Nearest residences are approximately 1 kilometre to the south-east.


The EER states that the loading of sand generates low levels of noise and that machinery used to dig and load sand at the quarry is unlikely to cause any noise nuisance at the nearest residences. No management measures proposed.

Public and Agency Comment

No comments received


Nearest sensitive uses are beyond the 500 metre recommended separation distance for screening operations as defined in the Quarry Code of Practice. Noise from operations on the Land is considered unlikely to be a significant impact of this proposal. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard condition G8 requiring the maintenance of a complaints register.

Issue 3

Dust (operations).


Dust may be generated by material handling, stockpiles, vehicle movements and from disturbed areas.

The nearest residences are approximately 1 kilometre to the south-east.

Prevailing winds are from the north.


• Stockpiles will be located in the quarry floor.

• The EER states that winds will generally blow dust away from nearest residences but that other dust minimisation measures may be required.


No comments received.


Nearest sensitive uses are beyond the 500 metre recommended separation distance for screening operations, as defined in the Quarry Code of Practice and the site is surrounded by forest. It is considered unlikely that dust from the site will be a significant impact of this proposal. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard condition A2 requiring that dust generated on the Land is managed to the extent necessary to prevent environmental nuisance.


15


16

Issue 4

Threatened species/Flora and fauna habitat.


Loss of threatened flora through vegetation clearance and soil removal and the subsequent impacts on threatened fauna through loss of habitat and disturbance.

Approximately 2.5 hectares of vegetation has previously been cleared as part of the existing Level 1 activity.

A Natural Values Assessment (NVA) of the entire ML was undertaken in the manner of a Forest Practices Plan (FPP), no threatened species were identified.

The desktop survey identified vegetation types on the site as Coastal Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and ‘ti-tree’. The field survey established that the ‘ti-tree’ area was actually wet sedgey heathland which provides potential habitat for the Scottsdale Burrowing Crayfish (Engaeus spinicaudatus)1.

The application states that Ruby Creek, a permanent stream in the vicinity of the quarry, presents good habitat for the Giant Freshwater Crayfish (Astocopsis gouldi)2.

Suitable habitat also exists for the Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae castenops)3 but no nest sites were identified.


Crayfish

• Extra precautions will be taken to reduce sediment input into the watercourses during quarry operations and operations will be timed to avoid periods of heavy rainfall.

• Areas shown as ‘ti-tree’ in the NVA will be excluded from operations (Commitment 11) and a 10 metre buffer will be applied, marked by blue tape.

• The operational area will not be extended in a northerly direction (Commitment 13).

• Operations will be excluded within 40m of all watercourses on the ML.

• In addition, discussions will be held with Forestry Tasmania to limit public access and therefore disturbance to the site.

Masked Owl

• Prior to any further tree felling to extend the quarry a Forest Practices Officer will inspect trees for evidence of masked owl nests (Commitment 14).

• If a suspected Masked Owl nest tree is located within the area during clearing, operations will cease within 100 metres and the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) biodiversity manager is to be contacted as soon as possible.

1 Listed as endangered under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) and the

Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 2 Listed as vulnerable under the TSP Act and the EPBC Act 3 Listed as endangered under the TSP Act


17

Public and Agency Comment

Advice from the Development Conservation Assessment Branch (DCAB), DPIPWE, stated that:

• The measures proposed for the protection of fauna considered in the NVA are sufficient.

• The measures proposed for the protection of crayfish species are sufficient.

• The flora and fauna survey undertaken did not meet the requirements of the DPIPWE Natural Values Assessment Guidelines

• The NVA did not consider the potential for Acacia ulicifolia,4 to be present;

• The NVA stated the vegetation present provided unsuitable habitat for the Spotted Tail Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus)5 but DCAB advise that while this habitat is less favourable, the species can be found in this type of habitat;

• The NVA did not consider the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii)6

• Prior to any further disturbance a further flora and fauna survey should be undertaken that satisfies the Natural Values Assessment Guidelines.


The proponent has confirmed (Peter Bennet, HBMI (January 2010), personal communication) that no further vegetation clearance is currently required; that extraction will only occur within the existing cleared footprint.

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER commitments (enforced by standard permit condition G10), and with standard permit condition FF1 requiring that a flora and fauna survey is undertaken prior to any further disturbance of vegetation.

Non-standard condition FF2 requires that the activity is conducted in a manner that does not degrade or disturb areas identified as crayfish habitat.

4 Listed as rare under the TSP Act, 5 Listed as rare under the TSP Act and as vulnerable under the EPBC Act 6 Listed as endangered under the TSP Act and the EPBC Act

Issue 5

Stormwater Management.


The proposal has the potential to impact on the quality of water through sedimentation, turbidity and spillages of hydrocarbons.

The operational area is located approximately 200 metres from the nearest waterway, Ruby Creek, which is to the northwest of the site, beyond the boundary of the ML. There is a dam to the north approximately 150 metres from the ML boundary. Drainage lines to the north of the lease direct drainage into the dam.


The EER states that the objective of the measures proposed is to minimise the quantity of fines leaving the site and capture and settle runoff before dispersal into adjacent vegetation and, to the extent possible. away from Ruby Creek:

• A drain will be constructed at the northern side of the existing exposed area. Site drainage will be intercepted and directed into a settling pond (Commitment 5) to the north-east. The settling pond will release water, via an armoured outlet, into vegetation near to the head of an existing drainage line;

• Monitoring and maintenance of the drain and settling pond will occur at 3 monthly intervals for the first 2 years. If it becomes apparent that a longer period between clearing is sufficient to maintain effectiveness then a 6 monthly maintenance period is recommended; and

• Tracks leading away from the quarry area will be blocked off to prevent them from channelling runoff towards Ruby Creek or the dam to the NE.


DCAB advised that 3 Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) wetlands of high to very high significance exist within 1.3 kilometres of the site and that precautions should be taken to minimise sediment input into these areas.


Details of the stormwater system were included in the documentation; these included predicted run off volumes and proposed dimensions and design of the cut-off drain and settling ponds. The measures proposed are considered sufficient to protect water quality in the receiving environment and also to prevent sedimentation of Ruby Creek and other water bodies to the north of the ML. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with the following standard conditions: E1 perimeter drains; E2 stormwater; E3 design and maintenance of settling ponds.


18

Issue 6

Weed and Disease Management.


The spread of invasive weeds and diseases via the disturbance and the movement of soil, material and machinery and the importation of weeds and diseases to and from the site.


• Trucks and machinery entering the site from other areas must be confirmed as treated in accordance with the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines 2004 for Weed and Disease Control.

• Washdown procedures must be repeated if trucks leave this cartage for other quarry destinations during operations.

• The site will be monitored for weed emergence during spring and summer during operations and for 12 months following completion of rehabilitation and a report of each examination stored.

• On completion of the final monitoring report the DPIPWE Weed Officer - North will be contacted and an inspection of the rehabilitated area carried out to ensure that any weeds have been effectively controlled

• Weed control during operations will follow the "Suggested Measures" contained in section 7.8.1 of the Quarry Code of Practice (Commitment 10).


DCAB advised that the vegetation types on the site are susceptible to Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC), that the NVA was unclear as to whether evidence of PC was present on the site and whether a full weed survey had been undertaken.

DCAB also advised that the measures prescribed in the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines are sufficient if the site is PC free however if PC is present on the site, specific measures need to be implemented. Therefore, a Weed and Disease survey is required to determine the status of the site and a suitable Weed and Disease Management Plan should be developed.


Material such as sand can be a major source of the spread of weed propagules and disease, particularly if the product is used for horticultural purposes. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with non-standard condition FF2 which requires that the proponent submit a Weed and Disease Management Plan prior to the commencement of operations and that this plan must be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the Director.

Standard condition FF3 requires that weeds on the Land are managed to the satisfaction of the Director.


19

Issue 7

Fire Management.


The site is surrounded by forest. There is the potential for operations to cause bushfires, associated atmospheric emissions and loss of habitat.


• The settling pond will serve as a water point for fire control.

• Tasmania Fire Service fire permit conditions and FT requirements will be complied with. This will be the responsibility of the quarry manager designated by HBMI. The quarry manager will liaise with FT during November each year to discuss a fire plan.

• Each item of plant operating in the quarry will have a dry powder extinguisher of at least 1.5 kg capacity. There will be a knapsack pump of at least 9 litres capacity or one charged air-water extinguisher on site during operations. During high fire danger periods a 200 litre drum of water will be maintained on site.




The measures proposed are considered sufficient and the lighting of fires must be in accordance with local fire permit requirements. No further recommendations.


20

Issue 8

Hazardous Substances.


Pollution of land and water through spilt hydrocarbons.

Only daily quantities of fuel will be stored on site, this is unlikely to exceed 200 litres.


• An area will be set up in the quarry floor, away from the lower edge of current workings, where vehicles carrying fuel will be parked. This area will consist of a bunded depression to localise any spill.

• Plant will be serviced in the quarry floor and grease will be in cartridges contained in a box on service vehicles

• Plant will be maintained so that the risk of leaks is minimised (Commitment 9).

• The general principles and approach to fuel management will follow section F of the Forest Practices Code 2000.

• A spill kit will be located with the mobile plant on site. When plant is serviced oils will be collected in containers such that spill risk is minimised and grease will be contained in a box on service vehicles. Should any spill occur clean up procedures will be applied at the earliest opportunity and if there is any leakage into a watercourse the contractor will report the incident to DPIPWE as soon as practicable.




It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with the following standard conditions:

H1 requires the bunding of storage areas for hazardous substances; and

H2 requires that spill kits be kept on the Land.


21

Issue 9

Waste Management.


Waste should be collected and disposed of appropriately to avoid causing environmental harm or nuisance.

Minimal solid wastes will be produced; possibly grease cartridges and rags.


• General waste such as plastic and metal will be stored separately and regularly removed to an authorised collection depot or transfer station.

• Solid wastes will be removed to an approved disposal site (Commitment 6).

• Any oily wastes such as cartridges, filters or rags will be stored separately from general rubbish and removed regularly to a collection depot suitable for receiving such wastes.

• Grease cartridges and rags will be stored in drums prior to removal to an authorised disposal site at the end of each operational cycle or monthly.




The measures proposed are considered sufficient. No recommendation.


22

Issue 10

Heritage.

Description of potential impacts

Loss of Aboriginal and/or European cultural heritage through disturbance.

A heritage survey was undertaken in the manner of a FPP and the report was included in the documentation. The desktop survey lists the historic Ruby Creek Tin Mine west of the site, beyond the boundary of the Land (± 100 metres) this site was not discovered during the field survey.

There are drains remaining from previous tin mining works which are visible in the sedgey heathland area in the northern area of the mining lease.

An Aboriginal heritage survey was undertaken by an Aboriginal Heritage Officer.

Management measures proposed in EER

• The operation will not be extended to the north (Commitment 13).

• The quarry manager will advise contractors prior to the commencement of operations that during any stripping of topsoil or overburden and during extraction that if any items of old machinery, hand tools, building foundations, pottery, arranged stones or scattered stones different from the in situ quartzite material such as cherty hornfels are located then they must cease operations in the vicinity of and in areas likely to disturb the find until the quarry manager has viewed the find. The quarry manager may forward a description to DPIPWE in regard to European heritage material. With regard to Aboriginal Heritage it should be noted that as well as artefacts in cherty hornfels type rock they may also be in quartz or quartzite which is prevalent in the quarry area. (Commitment 2).

• During the course of operations and periodic rehabilitation work the recommendations detailed in the Aboriginal Archaeological (Heritage) survey will be complied with, in particular the requirement to contact Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania if artefacts or relics of the type described in the consultants report are located (Commitment 1).


Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania advised that no further Aboriginal heritage survey was required.

Heritage Tasmania advised that the commitment 2 was inadequate and that the proponent should be required to seek advice from Heritage Tasmania should a significant heritage site be discovered.


It is known that historic sites exist in the vicinity of the ML. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with non-standard condition G12 for the protection of cultural heritage. If any further disturbance is required in the future, any Aboriginal heritage relics discovered should be managed in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (refer Information Schedule LO4).


23


24

Issue 11

Decommissioning and Rehabilitation.


Lack of appropriate rehabilitation may cause future degradation of the natural values of the site and may cause environmental harm or nuisance.

The EER states that the mining lease conditions require progressive rehabilitation and a bond is lodged with Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) to ensure rehabilitation.

Correspondence with Forestry Tasmania (FT), included in the documentation, required that revegetation should include species that reflect the original communities in the area.


The rehabilitation objective is to return the worked areas of the lease to native vegetation. The EER contains a range of rehabilitation measures including:

• The site will be progressively rehabilitated in three stages (see Figure 2)

• Removal of equipment and waste;

• Stockpiling and spreading of soil;

• Details of the seed mix to be used.

• The quarry manager will consult with FT- Bass District regarding rehabilitation and regeneration processes and monitoring (Commitment 12) and a Forest Practices Officer will be engaged to conduct regeneration surveys.

• The site will be monitored for weed emergence during the rehabilitation process

• Site rehabilitation and operation will be in accordance with the provisions of Mining Lease 50M/1985 (Commitment 8).

• Final drainage will be towards the north. Settling ponds may be retained as water storage for fire fighting. In order to minimise sediment leaving the quarry runoff will be directed into the settling pond after rehabilitation and the drain and settling pond monitored for effective working condition


FT and MRT provided no comment on the documentation, however the proponent has undertaken consultation with FT and copies of these correspondences were included in the documentation.


The rehabilitation measures proposed are considered sufficient. To formalise these measures it is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with the following standard conditions:

DC1 requires that the Director be notified of the cessation of operations;

DC2 requires a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (DRP);

DC3 requires the stockpiling of soil for rehabilitation purposes; DC4 requires progressive rehabilitation; DC5 requires rehabilitation on cessation; and DC6 outlines requirements for the suspension of the activity.

7 Conclusions The EPA Division is of the view that:

(i) the RMPS and EMPCS objectives have been duly and properly pursued in the assessment of the proposal; and

(ii) the assessment of the proposal has been undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles; and

(iii) the recommendations set out in this report accord with the Board’s responsibilities in relation to these objectives and principles.

This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit application, including EER

This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by Divisions of DPIPWE in relation to a number of key issues.

It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the recommendations made in this report are satisfactorily implemented, including the commitments made by the proponent in the EER.

8 References HBMI Pty Ltd (November 2009), Planning Application-Quarry near Jensen’s Road.

DPIW and DIER (June 1999), Quarry Code of Practice.

DPIPWE (July 2009), Guidelines for Natural values Assessments-Reporting On The Impact Of Proposed Developments On Natural Values And Providing Recommendations For Mitigating Those Impacts.

9 Summary of appendices Appendix 1 Summary of issues raised by public and agency submissions

Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions, includes the EER commitments as Attachment 2


25

Appendix 1 Summary of issues raised by public and agency submissions 1. Issues raised in public submission

Section Comment TRAFFIC • As Jensen’s Road is unsealed, increased use by heavy vehicles will

exacerbate the dust problem, causing health problems through breathing, allergies, general lifestyle and drinking water supplies (from roofs).

• Request proposal is rejected, or as a minimum, the Jensen’s Road be sealed from North Scottsdale Road to the quarry site and speed be restricted to 30 km/h.

• The width and surface of the road make it unsuitable and unsafe. Heavy vehicle use will cause it to become impassable. Speed concerns.

2. Issues raised in agency submissions Agency Comment

Environmental

Heritage Tasmania • The documentation refers to a tin mine at Ruby Creek, listed in a Forest Practices Authority Conservation Report.

• The commitment in relation to historic heritage material is very weak. It is recommended that any materials discovered be assessed by a person with cultural heritage expertise and advice sought from Heritage Tasmania found to be significant.

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) have reviewed the EER and can advised that no need further Aboriginal heritage assessments are required.

Resource Management and Conservation

• The Flora and Fauna survey does not meet DPIPWE Guidelines for NVA’s;

• Acacia ulicifolia has the potential to occur at the site; this species has not been mentioned in the EER;

• Most of the significant fauna risks have been addressed but in addition the area to be disturbed should be surveyed for Sarcophilus harrisii dens and Dasyurus maculatus maculatus dens;

• It is not clear if a full weed and disease survey was undertaken; a thorough survey for weeds should be undertaken;

• The PC status of the site should be undertaken • If declared weeds or disease are present a weed management plan

should be developed. • There are 3 high sensitivity water bodies within 1.3 kilometres

downstream of the site-precautions should be taken to minimise sediment into water courses leading to these wetlands.

Planning

DIER – Infrastructure Policy and Planning

From a desktop assessment of the Jensen’s Road/Tasman Highway junction it is apparent that the line marking is not to DIER standard. It would be appreciated if Council were to condition the permit, if approved, to have the line marking at this junction upgraded to DIER standard by way of a holding line and associated barrier line.


Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions


Documents

Jensen’s Rd near Scottsdale HBMI Pty Ltd · An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to