Sand Quarry Production Increase - EPA Website Quarries Pty Ltd, Badger Head … · Sand Quarry Production Increase Badger Head Rd, Badger Head Tas Quarries Pty Limited Board of the

Environmental Assessment Report Tas Quarries Pty Limied – Sand Quarry, Badger Head Rd

I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Sand Quarry Production Increase

Badger Head Rd, Badger Head

Tas Quarries Pty Limited Board of the Environment Protection Authority

September 2015


II

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Tas Quarries Pty Limited

Proposal Sand excavation and washing increased production

Location 299 Badger Head Rd, Badger Head.

NELMS no. 9170

Permit application no.

PA2015082

Doc1 folder EN-EM-DE-EV-242885

Doc1 no. H452007

Class of Assessment

2B

Assessment process milestones

25/8/14 Notice of Intent submitted

26/9/14 DPEMP Guidelines issued

20/5/15 Permit application submitted to Council

29/5/15 Referral received by Board

13/6/15 Start of public consultation period

13/7/15 End of public consultation period


III

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

DPEMP Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EMPCS Environmental management and pollution control system

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

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

RMPS Resource management and planning system

SD Sustainable development

TSPA Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

QCP Quarry Code of Practice 1999


IV

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of Tas Quarries Pty Limited’s proposed expansion of their sand quarry located on Badger’s Head Rd, Badgers Head. The proposal involves increasing production from a permitted 10,000 tonnes (5,800m3) per year to 50,000m3 per year and includes the introduction of sand washing to produce higher specification sands for concrete batching. This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP). Relevant government agencies and the public have been consulted and their submissions and comments considered as part of this assessment. Further details of the assessment process are presented in section 1 of this report. Section 2 describes the statutory objectives and principles underpinning the assessment. Details of the proposal are provided in section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the proposal, site and design alternatives. Section 5 summarises the public and agency consultation process and the key issues in that process. The detailed evaluation of key issues is in section 6, and other issues are evaluated in section 7 and Appendix 1. The report conclusions are contained in section 8. Appendix 2 contains details of comments made and issues raised in the consultation process. Appendix 3 contains environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 4 of the permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the DPEMP. The environmental permit conditions in Appendix 2 are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing environment permit conditions.


V

Table of Contents

1 Approvals process .................................................................................... 6

2 SD objectives and EIA principles .............................................................. 6

3 The proposal ............................................................................................ 7

4 Need for proposal and alternatives ......................................................... 13

5 Public and agency consultation .............................................................. 14

6 Evaluation of key issues ......................................................................... 15

6.1 Threatened flora, fauna and vegetation impacts ............................................................. 15

7 Other issues ........................................................................................... 21

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

9 References ............................................................................................. 22

10 Appendices ......................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues .............................................................................. 23 Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions .................................................... 30 Appendix 3 Permit Conditions - Environmental No 9170 ..................................................... 32


6

1 Approvals process

A Notice of Intent in relation to the proposal was received by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) on 25 August 2014. An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Waste Tamar Council on 20 May 2015. The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under clause 6(a)(ii), Schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being a sand extraction and processing activity with the use of washing and screening plant. 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 29 May 2015. The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board. The Board required that information to support the proposal be provided in the form of a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) prepared in accordance with guidelines issued by the Board on 26 September 2014. Several drafts of the DPEMP were submitted to the EPA for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance on behalf of the Board. The final DPEMP was submitted to Council with the permit application. The DPEMP was released for public inspection for a 28-day period commencing on 13 July 2015. Advertisements were placed in the Examiner newspaper and on the EPA website. The DPEMP was also referred at that time to relevant government agencies for comment. One public submission was received.

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

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

The 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 consists of an increase in production to 50,000m3 and an upgrade of sand processing equipment at the existing sand quarry located at 225 Badger Head Rd (accessed through 299 Badger Head Rd), Badger Head (Fig 1). Mining lease 916 P/M was granted in 1976. The current environmental conditions were last issued in 1987 to W.L & N.J Hoggett, originally as Licence to Operate Scheduled Premises 3345 (which became permit conditions under EMPCA). The DPEMP states that Vic Quarries Pty Limited, the current owner, purchased the site in July 2014. The Hoggett’s excavated sand across the middle and eastern part of the site by targeting high grade patches, leaving a large number of disturbed pockets across the landscape. The proponent proposes to take a more systematic approach by excavating sand in a number of large stages of up to 20 ha in area (Fig 2). Vegetation will first be removed and then sands will be stripped down to the underlying clays and gravels. The DPEMP states that following exhaustion of each stage’s resource the land will be converted in large part to an olive plantation and otherwise rehabilitated by surface preparation and natural reseeding. The processing upgrade consists of the addition of sand washing equipment in 2 processing stages. The first stage will require the use of existing on site settling ponds to settle out fines prior to reuse of wash water (Fig 3). It is intended to install stage 2 sand washing plant after 6 months of operation. This will be a much larger system capable of producing 150 t/hr of product. This system will include a thickener and the external settling ponds will no longer be required. Both processing stages will require the intake of make-up water from an existing on site water impoundment. The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Section 2 of the DPEMP. Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics

Activity

Extraction, washing and screening of a maximum of 50,000m3 of sand per year

Location and planning context

Location 299 Badger Head Rd upon which the access road is located and 225 Badger Head Rd over which the mining lease is granted.

Land zoning Rural Resource.

Land tenure Privately owned.

Mining lease 916 P/M.

Lease area 139 Ha.

Bond Mineral Resources Tasmania reports the bond is expected to be approximately $60,000 for extractive operations with a proportional additional amount for processing infrastructure areas.


8

Existing site

Land Use The mining lease was granted in 1976 to a previous operator. Sand has been extracted in pockets across much the eastern half of the site.

Topography Very shallow gradient from the north through to the centre of the site then rising from 60m to a maximum of 120m AHD to the south, the low rise forming a catchment boundary.

Geology The DPEMP states the geology is a combination of tertiary sediments being predominantly non-marine sequences of gravel, sand, silt, and clay and undifferentiated Cenozoic era rounded gravels of mainly vein quartz. These materials are alluvium derived from higher in the landscape.

Soils Soils are thin grey and yellow sandy podsols. Soils are however described in the DPEMP as fertile.

Hydrology The majority of the site drains northward via a drainage line running through the central western part of the mining lease and another minor line along the eastern boundary. A very small portion of the site drains southward from the catchment boundary

Fauna The ecological assessment conducted as part of the DPEMP reports that the site is within the range of the following species listed as threatened under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA):

Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil)

Dasyurus maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll)

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. Castanops (Tasmanian masked owl)

Litoria raniformis (green and gold frog)

No evidence of the presence of these species was found.

Flora In addition to large areas of existing disturbance, the ecological assessment found the following communities present.

Predominantly Eucalyptus amygdalina coastal forest with E. obliqua dry forest on slopes and E. obliqua over Leptospermum and Leptospermum lanigerum - Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest on poorly drained sites.

An isolated stand of the threatened vegetation community ‘Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland’ as listed in the Nature Conservation Act 2002, fringes the existing water impoundment.

Local region

Climate Not described in DPEMP

Winds expected to be dominated by the proximity to the coast 6km to the north. On the basis of Port Sorell weather station data, rainfall is expected to be 700-800mm per year.

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

Private freehold adjacent except to the south and south east which is crown land reserved as possible future forest production.

Further afield to the south and west is the Briggs Regional Reserve, and to the south west and north west Narwantapu National Park and the coast.

Species of conservation significance

It is concluded in the ecological assessment that forest to the southwest of the site has the potential for wedge tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) breeding habitat. Otherwise key species that may be impacted are listed above.


9

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment

Stage 1: Portafill screen, sand washing and dewatering system

Stage 2: A closed loop wash plant and thickener

Excavator, dump truck and loader.

Other infrastructure

Stage 1: a series of 4 existing sediment settling ponds are required for recycled water.

Stage 2: the sediment settling ponds are no longer required.

The existing water storage impoundment will be used for sand washing make-up water.

Inputs

Water 5kL/hr during processing stage 1 rising to 10kL/hr during stage 2 for 12 hours a week at maximum production.

Energy Stage 1 plant is diesel powered. Stage 2 plant will be electrically powered with a demand of 340 kW. It is reported in the DPEMP that the power supply transformer should be adequate.

Other raw materials

n/a

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Stormwater from extraction and processing areas.

Atmospheric Dust from exposed surfaces, stockpiles and truck movements

Solid Minor general wastes.

Fines from sand washing operations.

Controlled wastes

Minor waste oils and lubricants.

Noise From screening equipment, excavator on site, and vehicles on site and going to and from the site.

Greenhouse gases

The annual greenhouse gas emissions calculated in the DPEMP are as follows:

Mobile equipment: 332 tonnes.

Fixed plant: 288 tonnes.

Construction, commissioning and operations

Proposal timetable

Processing stage 1 equipment is proposed to be in production by October 2015, with stage 2 equipment being commissioned from March 2016.

Operating hours (ongoing)

0700 to 1900 hours, Monday to Friday.

0800 to 1600 hours Saturday.

Other key characteristics

Proposed the establishment of an olive plantation on the site after extractive works.


10

Figure 1: Proposed location (Figure 5 of the DPEMP)


11

Figure 2: Site plan (Figure 10 of the DPEMP). NB: the land parcel on which the access road, weighbridge and office is located is also considered part of the site.


12

Figure 3: Process area (Figure 14 of the DPEMP).


13

4 Need for proposal and alternatives

Project viability and alternatives are considered in Section 3 of the DPEMP and summarised below. The proponent has identified a market niche in Tasmania for high quality sand for bedding and concrete batching. The following alternatives were considered:

Apply for an exploration licence and identify a greenfield site.

Develop and abandoned sand quarry.

Purchase an existing viable operation and upgrade (the chosen option). The DPEMP states the proponent has extensive experience with sand as a resource. (the proponents background is detailed in section 1.1 of the DPEMP). The Bader Head site was selected for the following reasons:

The site has already been highly disturbed by previous operations.

Significant infrastructure is already in place.

The operation has been ongoing for 40 years and most of the local community have moved there with the operation already in existence.

Most other sand quarries in the north of Tasmania are small scale, similar to the previous operation. By systematically exploiting the site and putting in place a reliable sand washing system the proponent has the opportunity to supply a consistent high grade product.

Socio-economic aspects of the proposal are considered in Section 5.3 and 6.12 of the DPEMP and summarised below:

The local community has high levels of unemployment (17.4%) and part time employed (34%) with a large number of trade workers (19.5%) and machinery operators and drivers (14.6%)

The existing sand quarry operation would support only 1 operator. The proposed operation could support 2 to 3 operators and an additional person to man the weighbridge. The cartage task is likely to engage 4-5 drivers.

Sand for concrete has strict quality control requirements. The proposed process would allow product to be adjusted via process control to precise customer requirements and allow the proponent to continuously supply a fluctuating market demand with increased annual production.


14

5 Public and agency consultation

A summary of the public representations and government agency/body submissions is contained in Appendix 2 of this report. One public representation was received. The representor raised concerns about safety and road dust associated with truck usage of Badger Head Rd. These are not considered environmental issues associated with conduct of the proposed activity. The representor was not opposed to the proposal. The DPEMP was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from Mineral Resource Tasmania, Department of State Growth (MRT) and the Policy and Conservation Advice Branch, DPIPWE (PCAB): The issues raise are summarised as follows: Issues raised by MRT included:

Maintenance of a 30m vegetation screen to Badger Head Rd.

Protection of the identified Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland community. Issues Raised by PCAB included:

Better definition of vegetation buffer around waterways

Retention of old growth and hollow bearing trees where practicable

Definition of areas to be surveyed for wedge tailed eagle nests prior to clearance of stage 5 of the mine plan.

Survey of stage 5 of the mine plan for Tasmanian devil dens prior to clearance.

Measures to protect the existing water storage impoundment, limit water extraction and maintain its value as potential green and gold frog habitat.

Specialist within the EPA Division were also consulted during the preparation of this report. These included the noise specialist and the relevant regulatory officer. Section 4 of the DPEMP also reports that the proponent has consulted regularly with the neighbours and has had residents attending the site on a regular basis.


15

6 Evaluation of key issues

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

Potential impacts on threatened flora and fauna species and vegetation communities.

This issue is discussed below.

Other key issues originally specified in the DPEMP Project Specific Guidelines are discussed in Appendix 1.

6.1 Threatened flora, fauna and vegetation impacts

An ecological assessment of the Badger Head Quarry is included as Appendix 1 to the DPEMP. The existing site environmental aspects are discussed in Section 5.2 of the DPEMP. The impact of the proposal on Biodiversity and Natural values is discussed in Section 6.6 of the DPEMP and, in relation to management of the water storage impoundment, in Section 6.2 of the DPEMP. Existing vegetation A satellite image of the mining lease is provided in Figure 4 below and the results of TASVEG 3.0 vegetation mapping in Figure 5 following. Large areas of disturbance were found scattered throughout the site to the east of the main natural drainage lines. With the exception of disturbed areas the majority of the site was found to be vegetated with Eucalyptus amygdalina coastal forest and woodland. Leptosermum lanigerum – Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest was found in the western drainage line west of the water storage impoundment and E. obliqua forest over Leptosermum higher up the drainage line. E. obliqua dry forest was found on the rise along the western edge of the site. A small patch of Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland (0.26ha) was identified fringing the west side of the water storage impoundment and within dense Melaleuca scrub in the vicinity. The community is listed as threatened under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. A total of 202 vascular plan species were recorded in the study area during the ecological assessment conducted. No plant species listed as threatened under either the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) or the TSPA were detected on the mining lease. It should be noted that a vegetation survey was not conducted for the property on which the access road to the site is located (299 Badger Head Road, CT54826/15 shown on Figure 2 of this report as the road with ‘weighbridge and office’ marked). Fauna Habitat for a number of threatened fauna species was determined to be present on the site. Site observations are summarised as follows:

Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil): no evidence of species noted, despite extensive areas of tracks and bare ground ideal for detection of scats.

Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll): as above.

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops (Tasmanian masked owl): generally a low proportion of trees with large hollows but dense undergrowth virtually throughout is ideal temporary roosting habitat.


16

Litoria raniformis (green and golden frog):the water storage impoundment is potential habitat (as are surrounding areas of interconnected swampy habitats) but call-back survey over 2 days did not detect the species.

It is noted in the ecosystem assessment that the native forest adjacent the south –east corner of the mining lease is potential breeding habitat for the wedge tailed eagle. It is reported that there are no known nest sites recorded within 1km of the mining lease.

Figure 4: Satellite image of mining lease (From Appendix 1, Figure 2 of the DPEMP)


17

Figure 5: Vegetation map of mining lease from the ecological assessment (from Appendix 1, Figure 5 of the DPEMP


18

Surface water system In Section 5.2.3 of the DPEMP it is reported that the land drains towards an unnamed tributary, the drainage path being highly modified. This has resulted in these water lines having a conservation management priority of moderate, in accordance with the DPIPWE Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Program’s classification system. It is intended to use water from the on-site water storage impoundment as make-up water from the sand washing operation. As noted above the impoundment is potential habitat for the green and gold frog. An estimate of the volume of water that may be extracted from the impoundment is provided in Section 6.2.5 of the DPEMP. It is estimated that the maximum quantity of water that would be required would be 10kL per hour. The impoundment is estimated to have a maximum surface area of 6250m2 and 4000m2 at a depth of 0.25m. The volume of the top 0.25m of the impoundment is estimated at 1.28ML. It is stated that sand washing plant would run for a maximum 12 hours per week. It would thus take 10 consecutive weeks of operation to lower the impoundment water level by 0.25m. Based on a catchment size of 147ha it is estimated that this volume of water would be replenished by 6mm of rainfall during the period. Thus it is concluded that the volume of water off-take will be within natural variation. Section 6.2 of the DPEMP also details measures to prevent excessive sediment discharge to the impoundment from both extraction areas and from sediment settlement ponds proposed to be used for process stage 1 sand washing. These measures are discussed in this report in Appendix 1, Issue 1 and Issue 2.

Management measures

The proponents has made the following commitments regarding the threatened vegetation community, and threatened species habitat protection:

Commitment 13 – The area of native Eucalyptus ovata woodland adjacent to the [water storage] impoundment and watercourse will be preserved.

Commitment 14 – Generally areas of native scrub and woodland adjacent creeks and waterways will be preserved.

Commitment 15 – A wedge tailed eagle nest survey will be undertaken prior to clearing stage 5 of the mine plan. In addition, the following commitment is made in relation to controlling the amount of make-up water taken from the water storage impoundment during processing stage 1 sand washing:

Commitment 4 – An electronic float switch system will ensure make-up water will not overfill the settling ponds. The DPEMP also includes a mine plan as shown in Figure 2 of this report. The plan specifies mining stages and the area of land to be left uncleared along drainage lines, as well as sediment control infrastructure. The ecological assessment recommends old-growth trees with obvious hollows are retained as potential nesting habitat. It is noted that such trees are generally restricted to the drainage lines.


19

Public and agency comment and responses

Comments made by PCAB are summarised below and included in Appendix 2 of this report. Clarification of Commitment 14 to better define the buffers of no disturbance along existing waterways is recommended.

It is recommended a commitment be made to retain old growth and hollow bearing trees, where practicable and safe to do.

Better definition of areas to be surveyed for wedge-tailed eagle nests prior to clearance of stage 5 of the mine plan is recommended (commitment 15)

It is recommended the area to be cleared [stage 5] be surveyed for the dens of, and potential use by, the Tasmanian devil.

It is recommended that mitigation actions/commitments be developed to ensure no significant impact from the operations on the water storage impoundment.

It is recommended the levels of water extraction are limited/managed to ensure a refuge is maintained for frog species.

Following discussion with the nominated PCAB officer, the officer confirmed on 11 August 2015 that PCAB did not consider further information from the proponent was necessary and was satisfied that issues raised could be resolved by the imposition of conditions on the permit. MRT commented that the threatened vegetation community Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland should be preserved. MRT plans to include an exclusion zone over this vegetation community

Evaluation

The mine plan allows for the orderly development of the site whilst retaining vegetation around drainage lines. Retention of this vegetation will result in the protection of some potential habitat as well as mitigate water quality impacts to the down gradient water storage impoundment. PCAB noted ambiguity in the proponent’s commitment (Commitment 14) and recommended vegetation along all drainage lines be retained. Accordingly condition FF1 imposes the minimum vegetation buffer distance for class 4 streams as recommended in the Forest Practices Code 2000. The identified patch of E. ovata woodland is located within the vegetated area marked as for retention in the mine plan (also Commitment 13 is made). To ensure the area is not inadvertently disturbed condition FF2 requires its delineation prior to any land clearance in the vicinity. The DPEMP notes that stage 5 of the mine plan may lie within 1km of potential wedge tailed eagle nesting habitat. The proponent has committed to carrying out an eagle nest survey prior to clearance of vegetation from stage 5 (Commitment 15). PCAB has recommended that the area of land to be surveyed for nests be defined. Survey distances of Any potential habitat within 500m and 1km where a line of site exists are recommended. Condition FF3 imposes these prescriptions on the survey area. A Survey for Tasmanian devil dens prior to clearance of stage 5 is also recommended by PCAB. A survey requirement is imposed for both stage 5 and stage 6 of the mine plan, these stages currently being substantially vegetated (condition FF4).


20

Frog call back surveys over 2 nights failed to detect any evidence of the presence of the green and gold frog on the site. Nevertheless the existing water storage impoundment on the site was identified as potential habitat for the species. PCAB recommended that commitments are made to ensure operations do not significantly impact the impoundment and that water extraction from the impoundment is limited such that it value as potential habitat is not compromised. It is considered that the proponent has provided a significant set of management commitments in the DPEMP in relation to a number of aspects of the operation that have the potential to impact the water storage impoundment. These are specifically:

A staged development and rehabilitation of the site.

Incorporation of designed sediment control systems.

Segregation of process stage 1 sand washing water from the water storage impoundment.

Use of sand washing systems that limit the need for the addition of make-up water.

The retention of vegetation around drainage lines. It us however noted that the impoundment has been impacted since the approvals process was commenced by works conducted under the permit applicable to the existing activity. Thus it is considered merited to require the impoundment’s habitat value is restored to a similar state described in the DPEMP, and that under the proposed operations the impoundment is managed in accordance with the DPEMP (Conditions FF5 and FF6). The land parcel upon which the access road to the site is located is included to the development application referred to the Board (CT 54826/15). This land parcel is outside the mining lease and has not been included in the ecological assessment conducted as part of the DPEMP. Condition FF7 requires that no land clearance occurs on this parcel without the approval of the Director. Condition OP1 requires that operations are carried out in accordance with the mine plan. Each stage of the mine plan is significant (ie 10-20ha in area) and thus it is likely at the proposed production rate that the Mine Plan will be in effect for a significant period to time. Conditions FF2, FF3 and FF4 are triggered by commencement of development of stage 5 or stage 6 of the mine plan. In addition, the development of each stage requires the installation of specific stormwater controls. It is thus considered merited that a report be provided to the Director prior to the development of each stage in which is detailed the survey and construction works to be carried out prior to the commencement of sand extraction (Condition OP2)

Conclusions

The proponent is required to comply with the following permit environmental conditions:

FF1 Vegetation to be retained as shown on the Mine Plan and to at least 10m distance from identified drainage lines.

FF2 The identified Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland community must not be disturbed and must be delineated prior to land clearance west of the western drainage line.

FF3 A wedge tailed eagle nest survey must be conducted prior to clearance of stage 5 of the Mine Plan

FF4 A Tasmanian devil den survey must be carried out prior to clearance of areas marked stage 5 and stage 6 on the Mine Plan

FF5 Only water necessary for sand washing is to be drawn from the water supply impoundment. The impoundment must be allowed to revegetate and embankments must be prevented from eroding.


21

FF6 A report detailing management of the water supply impoundment is required after 9 months.

FF7 No vegetation is to be removed from the land parcel on which the access road to the mining lease is located.

OP1 The site must be developed in accordance with the Mine Plan

OP2 Prior to the development of each mining stage the Director must be notified of the date of commencement, any construction and survey works to be carried out, and any requirements that must be implemented.

7 Other issues

In addition to the key issue evaluated in section 6 of the report, the following environmental issues are considered relevant to the proposal and have been evaluated in Appendix 1.

1. Stormwater management.

2. Process water management.

3. Noise.

4. Dust.

5. Hazardous materials.

6. Waste management.

7. Cultural heritage.

8. Weed management and plant hygiene.

9. Decommissioning and rehabilitation.

8 Report conclusions

This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit application and DPEMP. This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by EPA Division scientific specialists and regulatory staff, other Divisions of DPIPWE and other government agencies. It is concluded that:

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

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

It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the Permit Conditions - Environmental No. 9170 appended to this report are imposed and duly complied with. The environmental conditions appended to this report are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing permit conditions.

Appendix 1


23

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues

Issue 1: Stormwater management

Description of potential impacts

Large areas of land are to be exposed at any one time, generating a greater volume of surface water runoff. The DPEMP states that surface materials consist of sands gravels and clays and are erodible. Product stockpiles and process areas will also generate drainage that will need to be managed. Change in surface water flow rates and discharge of sediment has the potential to impact the on-site water storage impoundment and the down gradient water courses.

Management measures proposed in DPEMP

The DPEMP includes a mine plan as shown in Figure 2 of this report. Two main sediment settling ponds are shown, the existing western and a proposed eastern sediment settling pond. Stages 2, 4 and 6 of the plan also have separate ponds.

The following commitments are made:

Commitment 5 – the west and east sediment retention basins will be cleaned out of accumulated sediment to maintain storage capacity.

Commitment 23 – Sediment control infrastructure will be monitored to ensure their performance is not compromised.

Public and agency comment

None.

Evaluation

Design calculations for the western and eastern sediment settling ponds and the stage 2 pond are provided in Appendix 3 of the DPEMP. These are based on the Guidelines WSUD Engineering Procedures for Stormwater Management in Tasmania 2012, DPIPWE. They show that the available storage capacity within the proposed ponds is well in excess of calculated requirements for a 1 in 20 year storm event (from Bureau of Meteorology data). These 3 sediment ponds are sufficient to enable mining for many years at the proposed production rate. Regular clean out of these will be necessary given potential rates of erosion of exposed extraction areas.

Standard stormwater controls are required to prevent uncontrolled stormwater runoff and discharge of pollutants to the receiving environment, these being Condition SW1 requiring perimeter cut-off drains, Condition SW2 requiring stormwater pollution controls and Condition SW3 specify sediment pond design and maintenance criteria.

Section 6.2 of the DPEMP includes investigation of the potential for acid mine drainage. No acid sulphate soils are mapped in close proximity to the site and pH results did not indicate a potential for acid generation. The results are accepted.

Conclusion

The proponent is required to comply with permit environmental conditions SW1, SW2 and SW3.

Appendix 1


24

Issue 2: Process water management


Sand washing uses significant volumes of water for the washing process (estimated in Section 2 of the DPEMP as 105kL/hour in stage 1 and 400kL/hr in stage 2). The potential exists for extreme flows from failure of the sand washing plant and for excessive use of make-up water from the water storage impoundment. This would impact on surface water habitat as discussed in Section 6 of this report.


There are 4 existing process settling ponds which will be kept separate from the stormwater management systems. During processing stage 1 it is intended to use these ponds to settle sediment from discharged wash water. Make-up water will be pumped into the last pond using a float switch to ensure overfilling does not occur.

During processing stage 2 a thickener will be used and there will be no need for external sediment settling. Make-up water will be drawn directly from the water storage impoundment by sand washing plant as needed.


Commitment 4 – an electronic float switch will control make-up water supply.

Commitment 6 – process flow settling ponds will be cleaned of accumulated silt as needed.


None.

Evaluation

The DPEMP states the process settling ponds are sufficient to ensure water will not discharge to the western sediment retention basin except in extreme weather events of greater than 1in 20 year frequency. Additional information supplied by the proponent gives settling pond volumes as pond 1 = 125m3, pond 2 = 287m3 and pond 3 and 4 combined = 583m3. Surface areas are also given and these are in the order of 500-600m3 per pond. This arrangement of ponds provides significant settling potential for fines and for retention of any significant release of sand washing water. The deposition of silt in the process settling ponds will be significant and will need to be cleaned out on a regular basis (Commitment 6, Condition OP3)

Make-up water requirements are discussed in Section 6 of this report. The use of the water storage impoundment for make-up water is considered acceptable. Conditions FF5 and FF6 as already discussed are relevant.

Conclusion

The proponent is required to comply with permit environmental condition OP3.

Appendix 1


25

Issue 3: Noise


A noise investigation was conducted by a specialist consultant and is included as Appendix 3 of the DPEMP. Noise measurements of operating equipment were taken as part of the investigations. The DPEMP states the nearest residence to operating areas is 750m distant. The nearest residence to the access road is approximately 140m distant.

The noise investigation concluded that the mean noise level at the nearest residence during operations at the quarry (39.6dB(A)) would not be significantly altered from the mean ambient noise level (39.2dB(A)) and thus the operation would not be audible. The investigation did however conclude that trucks travelling on the access road at 30km/hr would generate a maximum noise level at the nearest residence of 55.7dB(A) and that this would be audible. Truck movements were estimated at 18 per day.


Quarry operating hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 4pm Saturday are proposed.

The following commitment is made:

Commitment 7 – Truck speeds will be limited to 20km/hr on site and 70km/hr on Badger Head Rd.


The use of Badger Head Rd by trucks was the subject of the public representation. Noise was not mentioned.

The noise specialist accepted the methodology and conclusions of the noise investigations carried out. The imposition of day and night noise limits was considered merited to allow for some out of hours activity on the site.

Evaluation

The Quarry Code of Practice 1999 (QCP) recommends a separation distance from screening equipment to the nearest sensitive use of 500m. The proposal separation distance is significantly greater than this. The noise investigation carried out adds some surety that on site processing operations will not cause a noise nuisance.

Excavation works may occasionally occur closer to residences and also will occur close to Badger Head Rd during stage 2 of the mine plan. Truck movement would likely cause a nuisance if excessive and outside of daylight hours, when ambient noise level are likely to be lowest. The proposed operating hours are consistent with the QCP and are considered appropriate (Condition N1). Reasonable rural noise emission limits are set for operating hours and at levels consistent with ambient noise level outside of operating hours (Condition N2).

Limiting truck speed (Commitment 7) is supported. Condition N1 is however considered a sufficient requirement with regard limiting nuisance caused by vehicle movements.

Conclusion

The proponent is required to comply with environment permit conditions N1 and N2.

Appendix 1


26

Issue 4: Dust


The DPEMP states that sources of dust emissions include excavation and operations areas and the access road. Point sources include product stockpiles, drop points and traffic. It is considered that the introduction of washing into the process will reduce the potential for dust by removing fines and producing wet product stockpiles.



Commitment 1 – Stockpiles will be wetted as required.

Commitment 2 - Truck speeds will be limited to 20km/hr on site.

Commitment 3 - Truck loads will be kept below tray sides or covers will be used.

Commitment 17 - A vegetation screen will retained adjacent Badger Head Rd.


MRT stated that a 30m deep vegetation screen must be retained adjacent Badger Head Rd.

Evaluation

Although large areas of land are to be exposed at any one time it is noted that the majority of surface materials are course. It is also accepted that the sand washing process will in generally mitigate potential dust generation and that the most likely source of dust is form vehicle movement along the compacted access road.

It is not considered likely that excessive water use will be required to control dust

Standard dust control measures area considered adequate (Conditions A1 and A2).

The purpose of tree screening is primarily visual screening. Nevertheless it will also provide dust attenuation where extractive activities are occurring near the boundary of the land with Badger Head Rd (Condition OP5)

Conclusion

The proponent is required to comply with permit environmental conditions A1, A2 and OP5.

Appendix 1


27

Issue 5: Hazardous materials


The DPEMP states that diesel equipment will be refuelled daily using a 800L tank located in a light utility tray which is filled off-site. Routine maintenance will generate waste oils and lubricants. The potential exists for minor release of fuels and oils during accidents and malfunctions.

Stage 2 operations will utilise a flocculent. The flocculent will be ‘Cyndan Flocculent’ which is considered to pose a low environmental risk. It will be stored in a covered bunded area.



Commitment 10 – A hydrocarbon spill kit and hydrocarbon booms will be available on site.

Commitment 11 – All hydrocarbons and flocculents will be stored in a bunded covered area.


None.

Evaluation

The volume of fuels and oils to be used on site is not considered to be excessive. The flocculent to be used is a cationic polymer. The MSDS is provided as Appendix 4 to the DPEMP. The product is toxic to aquatic ecosystems but is biodegradable and will not bio accumulate. Standard containment requirements are imposed (Condition H1) and A spill kit is required to be kept on site (Condition H2)

Conclusion

The proponent is required to comply with permit environmental conditions H1 and H2.

Issue 6: Waste management


General waste and metal wastes and other waste associated with operating and maintaining machinery will be generated by the activity.

Waste fines will be generated by the sand washing activity. These are to be reused for site rehabilitation activities


Wastes are to be managed in accordance with the waste management hierarchy.


Commitment 9 – waste fines will be used for rehabilitation works.


None.

Evaluation

Management of waste in accordance with the waste management hierarchy will ensure more efficient use of resources.

Conclusion

The waste management hierarchy is presented in Information Schedule 3 OI1 to the attached permit environmental conditions.

Appendix 1


28

Issue 7: Cultural heritage


It is reported in the DPEMP that AHT did not require an Aboriginal heritage survey.



Commitment 16 – An unanticipated discovery protocol will be enacted during clearing works items of potential heritage significance are found.


AHT has confirmed the advice provided to the proponent.

Evaluation

No conditions are imposed.

Conclusion

Requirements under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 are reported in Information Schedule 3 LO3 to the attached permit environmental conditions.

Issue 8: Weed management and plant hygiene


No declared weeds under the Weed Management Act 1999 were identified recorded during the ecological assessment of the site. Vehicle and product movements have the potential to cause the introduction of weeds and disease.



Commitment 12 – Strict machinery controls complying with the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines will be implemented.

Commitment 24. The site and surrounding vegetation will be monitored for weeds biannually and if weeds are present control acts will be implemented.


None.

Evaluation

The commitments are considered appropriate. As the land is of a substantial area and much of the site will be disturbed a requirement to develop and implement a weed management plan is merited (Condition OP4)

Conclusion

The proponent is required to comply with permit environmental condition OP4.

Appendix 1


29

Issue 9: Decommissioning and rehabilitation


Large areas of land are to be exposed at any one time. Without revegetation worked out areas will cause further environmental degradation by erosion, weed propagation and hydrological changes.

Sand washing equipment and associated infrastructure will require decommissioning


It is proposed to convert a substantial area of worked out land to an olive plantation. Where the land is unsuitable for olives it is to be prepared for natural reseeding. Waste fines are to be returned for use in rehabilitation. It is reported in the DPEMP that a minimum of 20ha of land is required initially for a viable olive plantation.


PCAB considers that as it is intended to convert worked out areas to an olive plantation that these works are best described as ‘land use change’ rather than ‘rehabilitation’.

MRT has accepted an area of at least 20ha, plus additional land for processing areas, will be disturbed at any one time, subject to an appropriate bond.

Evaluation

The DPEMP states that climactic conditions and the sandy soils are ideal for the proposed end use as an olive plantation. It is stated in Section 5.2 of the DPEMP that although the soils are thin and sandy they are fertile and will readily support regeneration. In Section 8 of the DPEMP it is noted that soil amendment, fertiliser and composting will be carried out as necessary.

Sand washing decommissioning works are outlined in Section 8 of the DPEMP. It is not considered that these works will cause any significant issues.

It is considered necessary that the Director be informed of the intent to cease operations and be provided with a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan (DRP) prior to commencement of such works (Conditions DC1 and DC2). Condition DC3 requires that rehabilitation must be in accordance with the DRP. Condition DC5 requires progressive rehabilitation and specifies a maximum area of disturbance of 25ha consistent with the mine plan. Condition DC6 specifies requirements in relation to temporary suspension of operations. Condition DC4 requires that soils stripped during land clearance are stockpiled for rehabilitation activities.

Conclusion

The proponent is required to comply with permit environmental conditions DC1, DC2, DC3, DC4, DC5 and DC6.

Appendix 2


30

Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions

One Public representation was received: Issues raise were all in relation to use of Badger Head Rd by trucks:

Road safety compromised by truck usage.

Dust from the road impacts on rainwater tanks and clothes washing.

The road provides access to residences and for tourists to Badger Head.

The representor states that they are not opposed to the developed but would like Badger Head Rd sealed with bitumen.

Council has agreed that all the issues raised by the representor are concerns to be addressed by Council. Following referral to State government agencies comments were received from MRT and PCAB MRT made the following comment:

A 30m vegetation screen must be retained along Badger Head Rd.

MRT is prepared to accept the mine plan subject to an appropriate security deposit for such a large unrehabilitated area.

The mapped Tasveg vegetation community ‘DOV Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland’ should be preserved. MRT plans to include an exclusion zone over this vegetation community.

PCAB made the following comment

Clarification of Commitment 14 to better define the buffers of no disturbance along existing waterways is recommended.

A commitment be made to retain old growth and hollow bearing trees, where practicable and safe to do so is recommended.

Given the intent is to convert [some of] the quarried areas to olive plantation it is suggested that in this case these works would be more accurately described as ‘land use change’ or ‘conversion’, rather than ‘rehabilitation’.

Better definition of areas to be surveyed for wedge tailed eagle nests prior to clearance of stage 5 is recommended (commitment 15) e.g. any areas of potential nesting habitat in, and within 500 m and/or 1 km line of sight of, the area to be cleared. The commitment should specify the survey will be undertaken by a suitably qualified person following recommended survey guidelines, and that PCAB will be contacted for advice if any potential nests are recorded.

It is recommended the area to be cleared [Stage 5] be surveyed for the dens of, and potential use by, the Tasmanian devil. If any den sites are recorded during the survey PCAB should be contacted for further advice.

It is recommended that mitigation actions/commitments be developed to ensure no significant impact from the operations on the water storage impoundment as the impoundment is potential habitat for the green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis).

It is recommended the levels of water extraction are limited/managed to ensure a refuge is maintained for frog species.

Appendix 2


31

Following discussion with the nominated PCAB officer, the officer confirmed on 11 August 2015 that PCAB did not consider further information from the proponent was necessary and was satisfied that issues raised could be resolved by condition.

Appendix 3


32

Appendix 3 Permit Conditions - Environmental No 9170

Documents

Sand Quarry Production Increase - EPA Website Quarries Pty Ltd, Badger Head … · Sand Quarry Production Increase Badger Head Rd, Badger Head Tas Quarries Pty Limited Board of the