Tassal Operations Pty Ltd - epa.tas.gov.au Operations Pty Ltd - Hamilt… · ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand AWTS Aerated Wastewater

Tassal Operations Pty Ltd

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

HAMILTON RECIRCULATING AQUACULTURE SYSTEM HATCHERY

SEPTEMBER 2019

Document Control

Date Version Revision Review by Approved by

02/09/2019 V.01 R.01 JW Tassal Executive

16/09/2019 V1.0 R.02 JW Tassal Executive

17/09/2019 V1.1 R.03 SR Tassal Executive

EIS - HAMILTON RAS HATCHERY DRAFT

i

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... VII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. VIII

GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................... IX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... X

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS OF PROPONENT ................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND OF PROJECT PROPONENT .......................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................................. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION ..................................................................................................................... 5

Commonwealth legislation ............................................................................................................... 5 State legislation ................................................................................................................................ 5 Other legislation, guidelines, policies and standards ........................................................................ 7

2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................... 9

GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Major infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 9 Hatchery processes ......................................................................................................................... 11 Production capacity ........................................................................................................................ 22 Raw material requirements ............................................................................................................ 23 Vehicle movements ......................................................................................................................... 23 Hours of operation .......................................................................................................................... 24

CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 24 COMMISSIONING ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Hydraulic, electrical and mechanical commissioning ..................................................................... 27 Functional commissioning .............................................................................................................. 28

GENERAL LOCATION .................................................................................................................................. 29 SITE PLANS .............................................................................................................................................. 32 SERVICES AND OFF-SITE INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................................... 36

Water supply to the Hatchery ......................................................................................................... 36 Potable water supply for staff amenities ........................................................................................ 36 Power supply ................................................................................................................................... 36 Reuse water dam and irrigation scheme ........................................................................................ 36 Access .............................................................................................................................................. 37

3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................ 38

4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................................... 40

5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................... 43

PLANNING ASPECTS .................................................................................................................................. 43 Land zoning and use ....................................................................................................................... 43 Land tenure ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Neighbouring land use .................................................................................................................... 43 Other required approvals ................................................................................................................ 43

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ......................................................................................................................... 44 Topography ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Meteorology ................................................................................................................................... 44 Geology & soils (including erodibility and acid sulphate soils) ....................................................... 45 Natural Processes ........................................................................................................................... 48 Natural Values ................................................................................................................................ 49


ii

Groundwater ................................................................................................................................... 55 Drainage and surface water ........................................................................................................... 55 Heritage values ............................................................................................................................... 55

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS ........................................................................................................................ 56

6 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT ................................................................................... 58

AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Existing conditions .......................................................................................................................... 58 Performance requirements ............................................................................................................. 58 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................ 58 Avoidance and mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 62

WATER QUALITY (SURFACE AND DISCHARGE) ................................................................................................ 63 Existing conditions .......................................................................................................................... 63 Performance requirements ............................................................................................................. 63 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................ 64 Avoidance and mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 65 Assessment of residual impacts ...................................................................................................... 67

GROUNDWATER ....................................................................................................................................... 67 Existing conditions .......................................................................................................................... 67 Performance requirements ............................................................................................................. 71 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................ 71 Avoidance and mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 71 Assessment of residual impacts ...................................................................................................... 73

NOISE EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 73 Performance requirements ............................................................................................................. 73 Existing conditions .......................................................................................................................... 74 Potential impacts and mitigation measures ................................................................................... 77 Assessment of residual impacts ...................................................................................................... 81

WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 81 Hatchery Discharge Water .............................................................................................................. 81 Solid Organic Waste (Waste Management) ................................................................................... 87

DANGEROUS GOODS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................... 90 Performance requirements ............................................................................................................. 90 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................ 91 Avoidance and mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 91 Assessment of residual effects ........................................................................................................ 92

BIODIVERSITY AND NATURAL VALUES ........................................................................................................... 93 Vegetation and Flora ...................................................................................................................... 93 Fauna .............................................................................................................................................. 96

MARINE AND COASTAL .............................................................................................................................. 97 GREENHOUSE GASES AND OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES ................................................................................ 98

Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................ 99 Avoidance and mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 99

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES ........................................................................................................................... 99 Estimated Capital Investment .................................................................................................... 99 Local and state labour markets, skills and training .................................................................. 100 Source of raw material ............................................................................................................. 100 Community infrastructure effects and opportunities ............................................................... 100 Community demographic effects .............................................................................................. 101 Land values and demand for housing ....................................................................................... 101 Local, Regional, State and National Economies ....................................................................... 101

HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 102 Risk assessment ........................................................................................................................ 102 Identifying the hazards ............................................................................................................. 102 Risk ranking .............................................................................................................................. 103


iii

Hazard risk evaluation .............................................................................................................. 104 Environmental aspects high risk ............................................................................................... 117 Environmental aspects moderate risk ...................................................................................... 117

FIRE RISK .............................................................................................................................................. 117 Existing conditions .................................................................................................................... 117 Performance requirements ....................................................................................................... 117 Potential impacts and avoidance/mitigation measures ........................................................... 117

INFRASTRUCTURE AND OFF-SITE ANCILLARY FACILITIES ................................................................................... 118 Performance requirements ....................................................................................................... 118 Construction impacts and mitigation measures ....................................................................... 118 Operational Impacts and mitigation measures ........................................................................ 118

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 120 Management system description ............................................................................................. 120 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) .......................................................... 120

CUMULATIVE AND INTERACTIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 123 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................... 124 VISUAL AMENITY.................................................................................................................................... 125

7 MONITORING ...................................................................................................................................... 130

8 DECOMMISSIONING AND REHABILITATION......................................................................................... 133

9 MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................................................................................. 134

10 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 142

11 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 143


iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of the proposed Hatchery in the context of Tasmania and township of Hamilton .................... 3

Figure 2 Illustrative schematic of the proposed Hatchery from the Lyell Highway ................................................ 4

Figure 3 Summary flowchart of the Hatchery water management process ......................................................... 12

Figure 4 Schematic of intake water treatment and RAS process ......................................................................... 16

Figure 5 Schematic of treatment of hatchery discharge water and irrigation of reuse water ............................. 18

Figure 6 Site for the proposed reuse water dam, viewed from the left abutment toward the impoundment area .............................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 7 Tenure of 56 and 90 Woodmoor Road, Ouse ......................................................................................... 30

Figure 8 Proposed Lots 1 & 2 of 56 Woodmoor Rd, Ouse .................................................................................... 31

Figure 9 Location and layout of the Hatchery and its infrastructure.................................................................... 33

Figure 10 Layout schematic of Hatchery building and ancillary infrastructure arrangement .............................. 34

Figure 11 Schematic of proposed areas identified for reuse water irrigation (for coordinates of property boundaries refer to Figure 7) ................................................................................................................................ 35

Figure 12 Long-term (1998-present) climate statistics from the BoM weather station at Ouse Fire Station: 095048. ................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 13 Map of the geology of the Ouse/Hamilton District .............................................................................. 46

Figure 14 Photograph of one of the test pits illustrating the soil profile at the proposed Hatchery site ............ 47

Figure 15 Natural values identified for the proposed Hatchery site .................................................................... 50

Figure 16 Photograph of the typical vegetation currently covering the proposed Hatchery site ........................ 52

Figure 17 Map of declared weed records at the Hatchery site from the Natural Values Atlas ............................ 54

Figure 18 Suburb of Hamilton, Tasmania (source: Google Maps, 2019) .............................................................. 56

Figure 19 Aerial view of dispersion modelling of odour emissions from the Hatchery site (shows predicted 99.5th percentile 1-hour average ground level concentrations odour emission contours in odour units) .......... 61

Figure 20 Hydrogeological model for the Hatchery site (see Figure 20 for the location of cross section A – B) (Appendix L) .......................................................................................................................................................... 69

Figure 21 Proposed groundwater monitoring bore locations (Appendix O) ........................................................ 72

Figure 22 L90 (5 min) noise levels (dBA) recorded in April 2019 at a location near the 56 Woodmoor Road residence. A 5-point running mean has been applied to clarify the diurnal pattern of noise levels.................... 75

Figure 23 Leq (1 h) and L90 (1 h) noise levels (dBA), top and bottom plots respectively, recorded by the noise logger located 53m from the middle of the Lyell Highway near the site of the proposed hatchery. .................. 76

Figure 24 Maximum monthly reuse water volumes generated from the Hatchery ............................................. 82

Figure 25 View of proposed Hatchery from Lyell Highway (from west to south-east) ...................................... 126

Figure 26 View of proposed Hatchery from the Lyell Highway (from west to east) .......................................... 126

Figure 27 Elevated view of the proposed Hatchery and nearest eastern residence .......................................... 127

Figure 28 Ground level view of the proposed Hatchery from the nearest eastern residence ........................... 128

Figure 29 Ground level view of the proposed Hatchery from the nearest proposed eastern residence ........... 128

Figure 30 Elevated view of the proposed Hatchery and nearest north-eastern residence (i.e. residence on northern side of the Lyell Highway).................................................................................................................... 129


v

Figure 31 Ground level view of the proposed Hatchery from the nearest north-eastern residence (i.e. residence on northern side of the Lyell Highway) .............................................................................................................. 129


vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Potential production scenerios for the Hatchery..................................................................................... 22

Table 2 Example of monthly biomass for the Hatchery........................................................................................ 22

Table 3 Forecasted vehicle movements associated with the Hatchery operations ............................................. 24

Table 4 Key construction phases and timeframes ................................................................................................ 25

Table 5 Stakeholder engagement to-date ............................................................................................................ 40

Table 6 Meetings with landowners adjoining the Hatchery ................................................................................. 41

Table 7 List of current and future engagement with stakeholders ...................................................................... 41

Table 8 Climate data (temperature and rainfall 1998-present) ........................................................................... 44

Table 9 Predicted odour emissions at discrete boundary receptors .................................................................... 60

Table 10 Predicted odour emissions at discrete residental receptors ................................................................. 60

Table 11 Sound power levels (dBA re 1pW) of the principal on-site noise sources. ............................................ 78

Table 12 Noise level predictions of identified noise sources to the nearest residence ....................................... 78

Table 13 Anticipated reuse water quality for the Hatchery (based on data from Tassal’s Rookwood Hatchery) against proposed maximum limits for irrigation .................................................................................................. 83

Table 14 Estimated nutrient removal rates for pasture production in a livestock system .................................. 84

Table 15 Hazardous materials expected to be used and/or stored at the Hatchery site ..................................... 90

Table 16 Consequence of hazard ........................................................................................................................ 103

Table 17 Likelihood of occurrence ...................................................................................................................... 103

Table 18 Risk ranking matrix ............................................................................................................................... 104

Table 19 Hamilton Hatchery Environmental Risk Assessment ........................................................................... 105

Table 20 Environmental Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................... 130

Table 21 Summary of management measures for the Hatchery ........................................................................ 134


vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Natural Values Assessment (Enviro-dynamics, July 2019) APPENDIX B Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (Macquarie Franklin, September

2019) APPENDIX C Proposed Dam Consequence Category Assessment (Macquarie Franklin, July

2019) APPENDIX D Soil Evaluation & System Design for Domestic Wastewater Management

(Cromer, W.C, July 2019) APPENDIX E Clay Availability & Permeability for Dam Construction (Cromer, W.C, August

2019) APPENDIX F Traffic Impact Assessment (Midson Traffic, August 2019) APPENDIX G Hamilton Hatchery Site Plans APPENDIX H Tassal Stakeholder Engagement Plan APPENDIX I Planning Report (All Urban Planning, September 2019) APPENDIX J Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations (Cromer, W.C, August 2019) APPENDIX K Bushfire Hazard Report (Enviro-dynamics, August 2019) APPENDIX L Groundwater Prospectivity (Cromer, W.C, August 2019) APPENDIX M Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Cultural Heritage Management, April

2019)

APPENDIX N Air Emission Assessment (Tarkarri, September 2019) APPENDIX O Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Bores (Cromer, W.C, July 2019) APPENDIX P Noise Impact Assessment (Environmental Dynamics, September 2019) APPENDIX Q Visual Impact Assessment (Environmental Dynamics, August 2019)


viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability

AHD Australian Height Datum

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

AWTS Aerated Wastewater Treatment System

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

DA Development Application

DPIWE Department of Primary Industries, Water and the Environment

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMPCA Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

FSL Finished Surface Level

IEMP Irrigation and Environmental Management Plan

LAA Land Application Areas

LUPAA Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

NOHSC National Occupational Health and Safety Commission

NVA National Values Atlas

NOI Notice of Intent

OU Odour Unit

PEV Protected Environmental Values

PLC Programmable Logic Controller

RAS Recirculating Aquaculture System

RMPS Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System

SSC State Suburb

WHS Work Health and Safety


ix

GLOSSARY

Access - the driveway by which vehicles enter and/or leave the property adjacent to the road.

Background noise – The Tasmanian Noise measurement procedures manual defines background noise level as a reference against which an intrusive noise is assessed. For the purposes of the policy, (Noise EPP), background noise level is defined as the L90 statistic, in the absence of the noise under consideration.

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) – a measure of the amount of biologically and/or chemically degradable organic material that is present in the water. It indicates the amount of oxygen that aerobic aquatic organisms could potentially consume in the process of metabolising all the organic matter available to them.

Broodstock – mature individuals used in aquaculture for breeding purposes.

Electrical conductivity – the degree to which a specified material conducts electricity, calculated as the ratio of the current density in the material to the electric field which causes the flow of current.

Heavy vehicle – a vehicle that has a gross vehicle mass (GVM) or aggregate trailer mass (ATM) of more than 4.5 tonnes.

On-grow – refers to the stage at which smolt will be transferred to sea and further grown at marine farming sites.

Potable water – water suitable for human consumption as drinking water or in the preparation of food.

Reuse water – recycled water that has been treated for a specific purpose (irrigation).

Sludge – the nutrient-rich organic material resulting from the treatment of Hatchery discharge water.

Smolt system – system where young salmon (>10 grams) are moved from the startfeed system to larger tanks (smolt tanks) to continue growing until they are at the stage of development where they assume a silvery colour of an adult salmon and are ready to migrate to sea.

Startfeed system – fish tanks where newly hatched salmon are begun to be feed via pellets until they reach approximately 10 grams in size.

Total suspended solids – dry-weight of suspended particles, that are not dissolved, in a sample of water that can be trapped by a filter that is analysed using a filtration apparatus.

Water balance – irrigation requirements for a time period given seasonal rainfall and evaporation data, and crop irrigation requirements.


x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tassal Operations Pty Ltd (Tassal) proposes to construct and operate a freshwater recirculating aquaculture system hatchery (the Hatchery) on freehold land near Hamilton, Tasmania to help meet the increasing national and international demand for salmon products.

Freshwater recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) exhibit significant advantages compared to ‘open’ or flow-through hatcheries. They recycle water resulting in less freshwater used per tonne of fish produced, and because there is minimal water exchange with the environment, these systems improve fish welfare allowing improved health and growth. The production of larger smolt reduces grow-out times at sea, improves fish health, and gives rise to biosecurity and other environmental benefits associated with extending fish growth at the proposed Hatchery. Approvals Framework This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to support a development application by Tassal, the project proponent for the Hamilton RAS Hatchery project, to the Central Highlands Council.

The purpose of this EIS is to provide:

• documentation to support the development application to the Central Highlands Council;

• a basis for the Central Highlands Council and the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to consider the planning and environmental aspects of the proposal under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA);

• a basis for the conditions under which any approval can be given; and

• a source of information for interested individuals and groups to gain an understanding of the proposal.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) was submitted to the EPA on 11 April 2019. On 24 April 2019 the EPA advised the environmental impact of the proposal will be assessed by the Board of the EPA as a class 2B assessment under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (the EMPC Act). The EIS identifies and evaluates the potential effects of the Hatchery and the ways identified to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. It has been prepared according to the EPA’s General Guidelines for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (March 2019) and the EPA’s Project Specific Guidelines for the preparation of an EIS for the Hatchery issued in May 2019. The development application will be advertised by the Central Highlands Council in relevant newspaper(s) and the EIS will be available for public examination at:

• Tassal’s office at Level 9, 1 Franklin Wharf, Hobart;

• the EPA’s internet site; and

• Service Tasmania at 134 Macquarie St, Hobart. A Planning Permit for the development will be required from the Central Highlands Council and an environmental licence, including conditions, is required from the EPA.


xi

The EIS also fulfils the role of providing information on the proposal to other decision-making authorities and the public, who have the opportunity to make submissions on the proposal under Section 57 of the LUPAA. Any person may make representations relating to an application or proposal in the case of a class 2B assessment, within 28 days from when the application or proposal is first advertised. Existing Environment

The proposed site of the Hatchery and associated infrastructure is essentially flat with elevations ranging from 110-100 m above sea level. The natural environment has been heavily modified for agricultural purposes, which limits the overall impact of the development. The land is cleared of native vegetation and is dominated by exotic grasses and herbs. No threatened flora or fauna species, or significant fauna habitat were identified. All drainage lines that traverse or are adjacent to the site have low conservation management priority and low naturalness. Meadowbank Lake, which adjoins the southern boundary of the site is, however, classified as having very high conservation management priority. The Hatchery and its water re-use system is therefore designed to prevent any impacts on the freshwater values of the Lake. Groundwater was not observed within test pits conducted on the site area and no heritage properties, sites and/or values exist in the area of the proposed site. The footprint of the Hatchery and associated infrastructure will be contained within approximately 7.8 hectares of the total 58.8 hectare property. Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Tassal conducted preliminary assessments to identify key environmental aspects associated with the proposed Hatchery. The assessments were informed by operational experience at Tassal’s Rookwood Hatchery and from the findings detailed in the specialist reports commissioned for the EIS process. A risk assessment was then carried out for each of the aspects to assess potential impacts from the proposed construction and operation of the Hatchery and to subsequently assess the risk once design features and management controls were developed to mitigate the identified impacts. The risk analysis provides a ranking system that can be used to compare and prioritise risks associated with each hazard.

The key risks (or issues) identified are:

• Hatchery discharge water treatment, storage and reuse.

• Odour emissions from the Hatchery.

• Noise emisions from construction and operation of the Hatchery.

• Spread of pathogens to hatchery smolt or other fish farming operations (biosecurity). These issues (excluding biosecurity) align with the key issues identified for this proposal by the EPA in its EIS Project Specific Guidelines for Hamilton Recirculatory Aquaculture System (RAS) Hatchery (May 2019).


xii

Hatchery Discharge Water Treatment, Storage and Reuse

The hatchery will produce discharge water from the cleaning and flushing of the water filtration system. Potential impacts associated with the treatment, storage and reuse of this water has been assessed by Macquarie Franklin and addressed in an Irrigation and Environmental Management Plan. Tassal is committed to implementing management controls and continual monitoring, which will be reviewed regularly to ensure ongoing mitigation of potential impacts. Odour Emissions Odour emissions from the Hatchery have been investigated in detail by Dr. Alex McLeod of Tarkarri Engineering. The modelling of odour emissions from the Hatchery indicates that environmental nuisance and/or harm is highly unlikely. Management measurements will be implemented to ensure odour emissions do not cause any environmental nuisance.

Noise Emissions The Hatchery’s potential to impact surrounding agricultural and residential uses during its construction and operation has been assessed by Environmental Dynamics. Noise associated with construction will be addressed in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). During operation of the Hatchery the predicted noise level at each of the locations assessed will be below the EPA’s standard noise level limits. Strict protocols will be implemented to reduce the risk of noise nuisance to residences from smolt tankers approaching and leaving the Hatchery during night time hours (i.e. 10pm to 7am). Biosecurity Without mitigation the spread of pathogens from within the Hatchery, to waterways or other facilities could potentially result in increased biosecurity risks. Tassal has an extensive and effective biosecurity management system that will include the Hatchery. Key controls that will be implemented by Tassal are:

• Disinfection procedures.

• Site entry restrictions (i.e. cannot visit site on the same day as visiting a processing facility).

• Mortality management procedures.

• Pilchard Orthomyxovirus (POMV) vaccination.

• No hatchery discharge water will be released into any waterway.

Biosecurity at the Hatchery will be managed by dedicated and qualified fish health personnel and a Biosecurity Management Plan will be implemented at the Hatchery. Monitoring and Review

Monitoring will be in place pre-construction, during construction and during operation to monitor the accuracy of predicted environmental impacts and measure the success of proposed mitigation measures. Conclusion

The proposed Hatchery has been designed to meet the objectives of all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation and the applicable planning policy. Mitigation and management measures have been incorporated in the EIS to either mitigate, or manage to within acceptable limits, the identified


xiii

impacts. Where predictions have been made as to the environmental impact, monitoring and review is proposed.


1

1 INTRODUCTION

Name and contact details of proponent

Proponent Contact Details Tassal Operations Pty Ltd ABN: 38 106 324 127 ACN: 106 324 127 Level 9 1 Franklin Wharf HOBART TASMANIA 7000 GPO Box 1645 HOBART TASMANIA 7001 Telephone: (03) 6244 9099 Website: www.tassalgroup.com.au

Primary contact details Justin O’Connor Head of Engineering and Risk Tassal Group Limited Phone: (03) 6244 9018 Email: [email protected]

Project team The EIS was compiled by the Tassal Environment, Engineering and Communication Departments with contributed advice and information from the following consultants:

• All Urban Planning (Planning)

• Cultural Heritage Management (Aboriginal Heritage)

• Dock4 Architects (Design, Planning for staff residence)

• Environmental Dynamics (Noise, Visual)

• Enviro-dynamics (Natural Values, Bushfire Hazard)

• Gandy & Roberts Consulting Engineers (Visual)

• Macquarie Franklin (Irrigation and Dam Consequence Categorisation)

• Midson Traffic (Traffic)

• Tarkarri Engineering (Odour)

• William C. Cromer (Soil, Geotechnical, Groundwater, Materials for Construction)

http://www.tassalgroup.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]


2

Background of project proponent

Tassal Group Limited (Tassal) is a Tasmanian-based Australian salmon farming company founded in 1986. Its principal activities are the breeding, hatching, farming, processing, sales and marketing of Atlantic salmon. Its wholly owned subsidiaries include Tassal Operations Pty Ltd and Aquatas Pty Ltd. It has been listed on the Australian Securities Exchange since 2003 and in 2015 Tassal acquired De Costi Seafoods, which established additional distribution networks to meet a growing national and international demand for sustainable seafood products. In 2018, Tassal acquired and now operates three prawn farms at Mission Beach and Proserpine in Queensland and Yamba in New South Wales.

Tassal is the largest producer of Tasmanian grown Atlantic salmon and as at 30 June 2019 Tassal employed over 1,400 people.

Tassal currently operates two hatcheries; one at Rookwood Rd, Ranalegh and one at Russell Falls. Between them these hatcheries have the capacity to produce around 10 million smolt a year. The smolt are bred from broodstock housed at the Tasmanian-based industry selective breeding program based at Saltas at Wayatinah, in the Central Highlands. The state-of-the-art Rookwood Road Hatchery underwent an expansion in April 2016 making it the biggest land-based salmon nursery in Australia with the capacity to produce approximately 8 million smolt per year.

At 8–12 months after incubating the smolt are ready to be transferred to sea.

Tassal has five marine regions, within which salmon are kept in large sea cages for between 12–18 months and continue to grow until they are ready to be harvested at an average weight of 5.0 kilograms live weight. Approximately 33,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon are harvested per year by Tassal. Tassal operate five salmon processing facilities in Tasmania, a retail outlet and a mobile salmon truck.

Tassal has a history of successfully executing major projects, including recently with the Triabunna Fish Rendering Facility and the Rookwood Road Hatchery, which is similar in nature to this proposal.

Overview of proposal

Tassal seeks approval to construct and operate a new freshwater recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) hatchery approximately 6 kilometres west of the township of Hamilton, Tasmania (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The proposal will include:

• A freshwater RAS hatchery.

• A staff residence.

• A new dam for storage of reuse water generated by the Hatchery.

• Underground pipeworks to transfer freshwater from Meadowbank Lake to the Hatchery.

• Irrigation infrastructure, including on the neighbouring property to enable irrigation of reuse water.

• Ancillary infrastructure.

• Site landscaping and tree planting.


3

Figure 1 Location of the proposed Hatchery in the context of Tasmania and township of Hamilton

6 km

N


4

Figure 2 Illustrative schematic of the proposed Hatchery from the Lyell Highway

The Hatchery will enable Tassal to improve and expand its onshore facilities and production to meet a growing national and international demand for sustainable Atlantic salmon. The maximum potential biomass capacity for the Hatchery is approximately 750 tonnes with a maximum annual production of around 1,400 tonnes. The Hatchery will have the capability to produce a range of smolt sizes, from regular (100 grams) to larger smolt (up to 600 grams). The production of larger smolt has multiple benefits as follows:

• Improved fish health because fish require less time at sea to reach harvest size (i.e. fish are more robust and there is a reduction in the loss of small fish).

• Increased fallow periods of Tassal’s marine farming leases, allowing more time for natural recovery processes to occur prior to re-stocking.

• Less cost to produce Tassal’s final harvest product.

The total capital cost of the proposal is anticipated to be $46 million. Once developed, the Hatchery will be used by Tassal for an expected 25-year plus period. Upgrades and redesigning may occur throughout the 25 years of the Hatchery’s operation, potentially extending its expected lifespan beyond this period. Any regulatory approvals will be obtained as required at the time of any future developments.


5

Environmental legislation

Commonwealth legislation

Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) actions that have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance require approval from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment (the Minister). The Minister will decide whether assessment and approval is required under the EPBC Act. The nine matters of national environmental significance protected under the EPBC Act are:

• world heritage properties.

• national heritage places.

• wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention).

• listed threatened species and ecological communities.

• migratory species protected under international agreements.

• Commonwealth marine areas.

• the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

• nuclear actions (including uranium mines).

• a water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.

Tassal has undertaken a self-assessment of the proposed Hatchery against the EPBC Act and considers that it does not require referral to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment. The self-assessment identified potential impacts to threatened fauna species (i.e. Tasmanian devil and wedge-tailed eagle). In July 2019, Tassal commissioned Enviro-dynamics to assess the natural values the proposed Hatchery site (Appendix A). It concluded the site of the Hatchery has no significant habitat for threatened fauna species and that the development will not have a significant impact on any of the identifiable matters of national environmental significance.

State legislation

A number of state legislative instruments apply to the proposed project. The relevant statutes are:

• State Policies and Projects Act 1993.

• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (Water Quality Policy).

• State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009.

• Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA).

• Central Highlands Council Planning Scheme 2015.

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA).

• Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975.

• Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995.

• Inland Fisheries Act 1995.

• Nature Conservation Act 2002.

• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/glossary.html#significant

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/heritage.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/heritage.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/wetlands.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/species-communities.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/migratory.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/marine.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/great-barrier-reef.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/nuclear.html

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/water-resources

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/water-resources


6

• Water Management Act 1999.

State Policies and Project Acts 1993

The State Policies and Projects Act 1993 establishes the process to effect state policies under the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). Policies established under the Act define the objectives and approach for the management of natural resources. State policies are integrated into local government planning schemes. In the context of the Hatchery two state policies apply:

• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.

• State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009.

State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

The Water Quality Policy was established to protect or enhance Tasmania’s surface water and groundwater resources while allowing for sustainable development in accordance with the RMPS. The Water Quality Policy is relevant to this project and the protection of surface and groundwater values is addressed in detail within this report.

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009

The objective of the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land is to; “conserve and protect agricultural land so that it remains available for the sustainable use and development of agriculture, recognising the particular importance of prime agricultural land”. The sustainable management of the land is addressed in detail in the relevant sections of this report.

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Under the LUPAA, local councils are required to administer and assess the development and use of land within their municipal boundary. Development and use of the Hatchery will be assessed in accordance with the Central Highland Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

A NOI was submitted to the EPA in April 2019. On 24 April 2019 the EPA advised the environmental impact of the proposal will be assessed by the Board of the EPA as a class 2B assessment under the EMPCA. The proposed project is listed as a Schedule 2 activity under the EMPC Act (Schedule 2, s4(h) – Finfish farming) and is being assessed by the EPA as a class 2B assessment. As such this EIS has been prepared according to the EPA’s General Guidelines for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (March 2019) and the EPA’s project specific guidelines for the preparation of an EIS for the Hatchery issued in May 2019. There are a number of Regulations made under the EMPC Act. The Regulations relevant to the proposed project are:


7

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Noise) Regulation 2016.

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulation 2016.

Both regulations are addressed in detail in the relevant sections of this report.

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975

The Aboriginal Heritage Register indicates there no registered Aboriginal sites located within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed hatchery footprint. This was confirmed by a survey of the site.

Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995

No heritage properties, sites and/or values as listed on the National Heritage List, Register of the National Estate, Tasmanian Heritage Register or the Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory exist in the area of the proposed site.

Inland Fisheries Act 1995

The Inland Fisheries Act 1995 applies to all fish and fisheries in inland waters. The Tasmanian Inland Fisheries Service ensures that inland fish farms implement adequate safeguards to protect Tasmania’s freshwater environment. Tassal will obtain an Inland Fisheries Service fish farm licence to operate the Hatchery.

Nature Conservation Act 2002 and Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

The site of the Hatchery is highly modified and has limited natural value. A Natural Values Assessment has been conducted and the outcomes detailed in the relevant sections of this report.

Water Management Act 1999

In accordance with the Water Management Act 1999 a dam works permit will be required for the construction of a proposed reuse water dam on-site and a licence to extract water from Meadowbank Lake. Tassal has a licence from Hydro Tasmania to extract water from the Lake, and will apply for a permit from the Water Management Branch of Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE).

Other legislation, guidelines, policies and standards

Other legislation, guidelines, policies and standards applicable to the Hatchery are listed below:

• Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000).

• Australian Standard 1940:2017 The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.

• Building Act 2016: Directors Guidelines for On-Site Wastewater Management Systems (Department of Justice, 2017a).

• Building Act 2016: Director’s Determination – Requirements for Building in Bushfire-Prone Areas (Department of Justice, 2017b)

• Environmental Guidelines for the use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (DPIWE, 2002).


8

• Tasmanian Biosolids Reuse Guidelines (DPIWE, 1999).

• Weed Management Act 1999.


9

2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION

General

This section details the Hatchery’s major infrastructure, key processes, production capacity, and operational information.

Major infrastructure

The Hatchery will comprise the following major infrastructure, which is discussed in detail below:

• Hatchery building and RAS;

• Residence for staff;

• Water management; and

• Ancillary.

Hatchery building and RAS infrastructure

The Hatchery building will be approximately 13,000 square metres in area measuring 169.5 metres (length) x 78.3 metres (width) and with a low gabled roof measuring 8.7 metres in height from the proposed finished surface level. The building floor level is nominated to be Reduced Level (RL) 108.0 (Australian Height Datum) due to the natural topography of the area within the proposed building works footprint. This specific height is optimum with regard to developing economy around construction methodology for establishing suitable foundations for the structure and the trafficable areas within the building.

Due to the nature of the building and the gravity flow requirement of the recirculation technology, concrete chambers for the biofilter in some areas may exceed 5 metres deep below floor slab level. Similarly, the culture tanks may exceed 3 metres deep below floor slab level. This means excavation works will generate an excess cut volume to establish formation levels for the building works.

Preliminary assessment of the bulk excavation estimates an excess of 59,000 cubic metres cut over fill shall be generated from the building works. Much of this excess material shall be used in the construction of the re-use dam wall, which requires 35,000 cubic metres of suitable material.

Additional excess material shall be stockpiled in the area south east of the hatchery to create a berm beyond the compound boundary. The berm shall be constructed with shallow batters to allow maintenance and control of grasses. The berm shall be topsoiled, seeded and planted out with trees, assisting with the visual amenity and noise outcomes of this proposal.

Access to the Hatchery will be via the Lyell Highway (A10) directly opposite the existing access to Kimbolton Coal Mine. The Lyell Highway is a Category 3, Regional Access Road, used by both heavy freight and passenger vehicles. The Hatchery building and RAS infrastructure will generally comprise:

• Rooms for egg and fry incubation.


10

• 27 x 300 cubic metre smolt tanks.

• 12 x 70 cubic metre fry tanks.

• Intake water treatment plant and tanks (1 x 70 cubic metres and 3 x 300 cubic metres) to disinfect and store water sourced from Meadowbank Lake.

• Pumps for recirculating water around the fish tanks.

• Water management infrastructure to treat recirculated water.

• Hatchery discharge solids removal plant.

• Plant room with oxygen and ozone generators.

• Water exchange chillers and pump shed.

• Bulk liquid oxygen storage.

• Feed storage.

• Fire detection and firefighting equipment, including smoke detectors, alarm systems, fire hydrants, hose reels and extinguishers.

• 300 cubic metre firefighting water storage tank and pump.

• Loading area to count and transfer smolt to trucks.

• Truck cleaning station to disinfect smolt trucks.

• Truck water fill stations.

• Office and amenities for staff.

• Maintenance workshop.

• Internal road network providing circulation and loading/unloading facilities around the proposed building.

• On-site car parking for 23 cars.

• 2 x high voltage power transformers.

Residence for staff

A single level dwelling will be built on the site, approximately 100 metres to the east of the Hatchery building. The dwelling will provide for Tassal staff working at the Hatchery.

Water management infrastructure

Infrastructure to manage water supply, treatment and irrigation includes intake pumps and pipelines, solids removal plant and hatchery discharge water treatment infrastructure and irrigation infrastructure, and is listed below:

• Intake pump station at Meadowbank Lake.

The pump station will be capable of supplying up to 650 mega litres of water per annum, via a rising main of nominally 300 mm diameter, to the Hatchery and the irrigation systems. The pump station has a nominal capacity of 360 cubic meters per hour to be able to supply peak demand to the Hatchery and irrigation pivots simultaneously.


11

• Underground pipe alignment to transfer water from the intake pump station at Meadowbank Lake to both storage tanks (3 x 300 cubic metres) at the Hatchery and the main pump station.

• Main pump station and underground pipe alignment to supply reuse water from the dam to the irrigation system, including the required level of shandying (normal operations). The plumbing and values in the Main pump station will be of a fail-safe design so that in the event of a power outage or hatchery shutdown water will not be able to flow back into Meadwbank Lake or the irrigation pivots.

• Irrigation system comprising three separate fixed pressure-controlled centre pivot irrigators all with a level of variable rate irrigation control.

• Plant to treat discharge water from the Hatchery and storage tanks (1 x 70 cubic metre and 2 x 300 cubic metre) to treat fish-generated discharge water from the Hatchery.

• Underground pipe alignment to transfer hatchery discharge water to the reuse water dam.

• Reuse water dam with a capacity of 120 mega litres.

• Potable water supply (either from TasWater or from roof collected rainwater).

Ancillary infrastructure

Several small buildings for storage and equipment, such as electrical transformers, back-up electrical generators, liquid oxygen storage, chillers and pumps, area for cleaning and disinfecting trucks and a workshop/store will be located external to the Hatchery building.

Hatchery processes

Various processes take place at the Hatchery. These include:

• Intake water treatment

• Recirculating aquaculture system (RAS)

• Hatchery discharge water treatment

• Reuse water irrigation

• Domestic wastewater (sewage) treatment and irrigation

• Fish husbandry Each component is described in more detail in the sections below. Figure 3 shows a summary flow chart of the Hatchery water management process. Note: Reuse water is equivalent to recycled water as per Environmental Guidelines for the use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (DPIWE, 2002).


12

Figure 3 Summary flowchart of the Hatchery water management process


13

Intake water treatment

Water for the Hatchery will be sourced from Meadowbank Lake. To ensure it is safe for use it will undergo a filtration treatment process (Figure 4) comprising the following steps:

• Filtration Water will be filtered through sand/media or a proprietary screen.

• Ozone treatment The filtered water will fill a 70 cubic metre tank where it will be mixed with ozone for approximately 20 minutes to achieve a redox of 750 millivolts to facilitate disinfection.

• Carbon filter The ozone treated water will then be pumped through a carbon filter to remove ozone residue before being transferred to 3 x 300 cubic metre storage tanks ready for use in the Hatchery.

The Hatchery’s recirculation systems will be topped up as required from the storage tanks.

Recirculating aquaculture system (RAS)

Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) operate by recycling the water through the fish tanks and a filtration system. Advantages of a RAS system over conventional flow-through fish farms are:

• Significantly reduces the amount of water required.

• Makes heating and cooling of the water to achieve a set temperature viable.

• Provides ideal environmental conditions for fish health and growth.

• Can isolate fish from pathogens found in the surrounding environment.

• Allows capture and utilisation of fish waste.

• Minimal impact on local waterways. Components of the RAS system (Figure 4) are:

• Incubation

• Fish tanks

• Mechanical filtration

• Biological filtration

• Ozone treatment

• Degassing of carbon dioxide

• Pumping

• De nitrification

• Phosphorus removal

• Oxygenation

• Cooling/heating

• pH control

• Automation and monitoring This process operates continuously, keeping the water clean and providing a healthy environment for the fish. A description of the RAS process is as follows:

• Fish tanks


14

70 cubic meter tanks are used for rearing the smaller fish up to 10 grams, larger 300 cubic meter tanks are used to raise fish from 10 grams up to 600 grams. The tanks are designed to provide optimal health conditions for the fish. Feeding, lighting, oxygen, water flow and velocity are all tailored to optimise the fish’s welfare and growth. The tanks are designed to be self-cleaning, with the flow of water carrying faeces and uneaten feed out of the tank and onto the filtration system. Any mortalities are also removed from the tanks and deposited on a screen for daily removal by staff.

• Mechanical Filtration The water exiting the tanks flows through pipes to the filtration system. Mechanical filtration is accomplished with Hydroflux rotating drum screens. The drum screens have a mesh size of 40 and 60 microns (start feed and smolt).

The solids captured on the drum screens are periodically removed with a high-pressure water spray. The wash water and solids flow to a plate separator which concentrates the solids. The concentrated solids will be pumped to the hatchery discharge solids removal plant. The wash water exits the back of the plate separator and is returned to the system for further processing.

• Biological filtration Following mechanical filtration, the water reports to either moving or fixed-bed biofilters. The biofilters are filled with plastic media which provide a surface for nitrifying bacteria on which to live. The nitrifying bacteria oxidise the dissolved ammonia (produced by the fish) to nitrite and finally nitrate. Without this biological filtration the ammonia would quickly build to toxic levels. The resultant nitrate is less toxic by several orders of magnitude. The biofilters also assist in trapping fine suspended solids. These solids build up on the plastic media and are removed regularly by cleaning the biofilter. This is achieved by isolating the filter from the flow of water by closing gates and valves then agitating the media using compressed air. Pumping the hatchery discharge water and solids away to the solids removal plant then refilling the filter with new water and putting it back online.

• Disinfection Ozone gas is used to partially disinfect the recirculated water. This prevents any pathogens or unwanted bacteria proliferating. It also helps to maintain water clarity by destroying humic/fulvic compounds and oxidising any residual nitrite to nitrate. As ozone can be toxic to fish and humans, its use will be controlled though the use of REDOX probes in the water and ozone and in air sensors in the room.

• Degassing Degassing is done to remove the carbon dioxide that the fish have respired into the water. Blowing large quantities of air through the water achieves this.

• Pumping Pumps provide the motive force to circulate the water through the tanks and filtration system. The pumps are selected for efficiency and reliability.

• Denitrification


15

The biological filtration of ammonia eventually leads to a build-up of nitrate. Once nitrate levels exceed 100 milligrams per litre the denitrification system is started. This system relies on bacteria to complete the biological filtration of the nitrate. The denitrification filter is similar in design to the fixed bed biofilter but differs in that it operates under low flow and anoxic conditions. Methanol is also added to the influent water stream and provides a carbon and energy source for the bacteria. Under the anoxic conditions, specific bacteria use the nitrate to oxidise the methanol. This results in the nitrate being consumed and exiting the system as nitrogen gas.

• Phosphorus removal A small proportion of the mechanically filtered water will be mixed with ferric chloride to precipitate out reactive phosphorous and colloids. The floc from this reaction will be captured in a baffled clarifier and routinely pumped out to the solids removal plant. The filtrate will be returned to the system.

• Oxygenation To provide optimal growing conditions for the fish additional oxygen is added to the water. The oxygen is sourced from either a liquid oxygen storage tank or from pressure swing adsorption (PSA) oxygen generator. The oxygen is dissolved into the water prior to introduction to the tanks using a pressurised cone.

• Cooling/Heating To maintain optimal conditions for the fish, cooling and heating of the water is required. Eggs are kept at 2-8 degrees Celsius. Fry, parr and smolt are kept at 8-16 degrees Celsius. Three large chillers and heat exchangers will accomplish this.

• pH control The action of the biological filter slowly makes the water acidic. Hydrated lime is added to the water to maintain the pH between 7 and 8.

• Automation A standalone programmable logic controller (PLC) / supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA) will be responsible for the monitoring of essential parameters in the RAS system and tanks (e.g. pH, temperature, redox, oxygen, tank levels). It will have the ability to generate alarms to alert staff and provide historical records of parameters.


16

Figure 4 Schematic of intake water treatment and RAS process


17

Hatchery discharge water treatment

Hatchery discharge water generated by the RAS comprises solids captured on the drum screens, solids removed from the bio-filters, and the floc from reactive phosphorus filtration. These are all pumped from the hatchery to the solids removal plant as a 0.05-1 % w/v (weight/volume) solution and treated as follows (Figure 5):

• Aeration/mixing The reuse water reports to 2 x 300 cubic metre tanks where it is aerated and mixed.

• Polymer dosing A pump transfers the reuse water to a polymer contact tank (1 cubic metre). Here a suitable polymer is added by dose pump to flocculate the suspended solids together.

• Dewatering The pumped mix of flocculated solids and clean reuse water is sent to a belt screen (120 micron) at a rate of 35 cubic metres per hour where the flocs are separated from the reuse water and dewatered by gravity. The resultant sludge will be deposited into a 70 cubic metre holding tank and emptied 2-5 times per week (depending on total biomass) by a licensed waste transport contractor who will transport it to an approved composting facility.

• Filtrate Filtrate from the belt screen is directed to the reuse water dam.


18

Figure 5 Schematic of treatment of hatchery discharge water and irrigation of reuse water


19

Reuse water irrigation

Treated (reuse) water discharged from the Hatchery’s solids removal plant (approximately 158 mega litres per year) will report to a purpose-built reuse water dam to be constructed adjacent to the Hatchery. Water stored in the dam will be mixed (shandied via a pipeline between the dam and the irrigation pivots) with freshwater from Lake Meadowbank and used to irrigate 90 hectares of adjoining agricultural land under a permanent (centre pivot) irrigation scheme. This will be the subject of a legal agreement between Tassal and the owners of the adjoining land who are experienced land managers, committed to sustainable grazing of sheep and cattle on irrigated pastures. Details of the management of reuse water are outlined in an Irrigation and Environmental Management Plan prepared by Macquarie Franklin (Appendix B) and Section 6.5.1 Effluent (Waste Management).

Reuse water dam

The reuse water dam will have a surface area of approximately 27,442 square metres and a capacity of 120 mega litres (approximately 126 mega litres including borrow embankment fill) at a full supply level of 101.5 metres AHD (Australian Height Datum). The dam is an off-stream storage, with a 10 metre high zoned earthen fill embankment. Details pertinent to the proposed storage dam are detailed in the dam consequence category assessment prepared by Macquarie Franklin in July 2019 (Appendix C). The assessment assigned the proposed dams consequence category of ‘Low’. In accordance with the Water Management Act 1999, a dam works permit will be required for the construction of the dam. Tassal will apply for a permit from the Water Management Branch of DPIPWE. A pre-construction report and associated geotechnical investigations is currently being finalised and will be submitted with an application for dam works to the Water Management Branch. Preliminary results of geotechnical investigations show a deep (>4 metre) depth of medium to heavy clays with very low permeability across the dam impoundment area. The dam design will include a keyway underneath the embankment for dam stability and as a mitigation measure against seepage flow. The construction of the dam will be completed using an experienced contractor with appropriate earthworks equipment. Supervision of construction and witnessing key hold points will be carried out by a Class 1 dams engineer. All clay required for the dam construction is likely to be obtained from excavations of the dam site borrow area with any necessary additional clay likely to be sourced from excavations for the Hatchery building. Construction of the dam will be managed in accordance with an approved CEMP that will address any potential environmental impacts such as surface water runoff, noise and dust, as well as the sourcing of any additional material. The dam will be managed to operate up to 80% of finished surface level (FSL) (108 mega litres at reduced level (RL) and 100.8 metres AHD). Contingencies triggered once 80% storage capacity is reached are:

1. Reduce the water exchange rate within the hatchery, thereby reducing daily inflows of reuse water to the dam. A reduction in water exchange can be achieved through the following methods:


20

- Lower water temperature to slow fish growth (resulting in less feed which inturn results in less exchange).

- Modifying the production schedule by accelerating the smolting process of the salmon and move the fish to sea earlier at a smaller size which results in less feed which inturn decreases exchange rate.

- Transfer any excess fish to other facilities (SALTAS or Tassal’s Russell Falls or Rookwood hatcheries) to reduce biomass.

2. Removing water directly from the hatchery via water truck and disposing of it at an approved

offsite facility.

If Tassal plans to increase the nominal water exchange rate for the Hatchery, it will trigger an

investigation into additional contingency measures including the suitability of utilising existing

freshwater storage dams on the Hatchery site and neighbouring land for emergency storage and

identifying additional irrigation areas. Changes will not be made to the water exchange rate until the

outcome of these investigations is confirmed.

Preliminary hydrology of the dam catchment shows minor inflows (up to 6 mega litres) in the storage dam in a rare 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) rainfall event. Operating the dam to 80% of FSL will ensure rainfall inflow is maintained within the surcharge area (approximate 20 mega litres volume) minimising the risk of discharge of reuse water to Lake Meadowbank. The dam design will include an emergency spillway to ensure overall dam safety. The sizing of the spillway has been completed to a 1% AEP rainfall event, inline with the Australian National Committee of Large Dams (ANCOLD) guidelines. Due to the dam having almost not external catchment other than its own surface area, a spill event would likely coincide with high local rainfall and associated overland flow with dam spillage occurring once the storage level reached RL 101.5 meter AHD (126 mega litres storage volume). If spillage was to occur, the water would be directed to a drainage line directly downstream of the dam towards Lake Meadowbank. A photograph of the proposed site of the dam shown in Figure 6.


21

Figure 6 Site for the proposed reuse water dam, viewed from the left abutment toward the impoundment area

Domestic wastewater (sewage) treatment and irrigation

Domestic wastewater will be generated by amenities at both the Hatchery and staff residence. It is proposed to be treated using an on-site aerated wastewater treatment system (AWTS) to a secondary standard (a higher standard than septic tanks and composting toilets) so that the effluent can be used for irrigation via a mulch-covered surface drip in an approved Land Application Area (LAA) on-site. A suitable LAA has been identified and the design of the AWTS will be in accordance with the Building Act 2016: Directors Guidelines for On-Site Wastewater Management Systems (Department of Justice, 2017a) and recommendations provided in Site and Soil Evaluation Report and System Design for Domestic Wastewater Management (Cromer, W. C., July 2019) (Appendix D).

Fish husbandry

The Hatchery will grow Atlantic salmon eggs from Tassal’s broodstock facilities at Russell Falls and Saltas all the way through to up to 600 grams fish ready for sea input. The following is a description of the fish husbandry:

• Incubation – taking Atlantic salmon eggs in April/ May each year and growing them through to fry stage where fish start feeding on their own. The eggs will be incubated at different temperatures to control the speed of development. Fish at later stages of development may also be sourced from other Tassal hatcheries (i.e. Rookwood and Russell Falls).

• Startfeed – fry is moved from the incubation room to the start feed tanks at around 0.2 grams and grown to smolt stage of between 5-20 grams in size.


22

• Smolt – smolt are transferred to tanks that can take stock from 5 grams, potentially up to 100-

600 grams.

• On-grow – between 150-600 grams fish will be transferred to sea via smolt trucks.

Production capacity

The proposed production at the Hatchery will reflect the fish growing process (Section 2.1.2.7). Examples of two different modelled scenarios are as detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Potential production scenerios for the Hatchery

Scenario 1 – Smaller size fish

Batch Commencement of start feed

Approx. number of

Fish

Approx. weight of

fish (grams)

Transportation of smolt to sea

1 August

4 million

120-150

March-April

2 November July-August

3 March November-December

Scenario 2 – Larger size fish

1 March 1-2 million 400 March

2 July 1-2 million 400 July

3 January 1.5 180 October

The maximum the Hatchery will be capable of holding is a standing biomass of approximately 750 tonnes across startfeed and smolt systems with a maximum annual production of around 1,400 tonnes. In practice, the maximum potential biomass will be rarely met due to staggered production cycles, smolt requirements for sea sites, and the need to proactively manage hatchery discharge levels to meet water reuse scheme objectives. Being multipurpose, the Hatchery will have the ability to produce either smaller (100 grams) or larger (up to 600 grams) smolt depending on each year’s production plan. Production plans will vary year to year. Annual production plans and stocking practices will proactively consider reuse scheme limitations to ensure compliance is maintained. An example of standing biomass on a monthly basis is outlined in Table 2. Table 2 Example of monthly biomass for the Hatchery

Month Estimated maximum biomass

(tonnes)

January 279

February 393

March 523


23

April 379

May 253

June 363

July 516

August 213

September 271

October 354

November 271

December 212

Raw material requirements

Gravel

Doleritic material is required for construction of the:

• Internal access road between Lyell Highway and the Hatchery (bitumen).

• Internal road network providing circulation and loading/unloading facilities around the Hatchery building (bitumen).

• Rural road to access the intake water pump (compacted crushed rock).

• Onsite parking of up to 23 cars (compacted crushed rock).

• Various compacted fill and subgrade works for building works Tassal is investigating suitable sources for the Hatchery requirements.

Clay

Clay will be required for construction of the reuse water dam. Clay availability was assessed by William C. Cromer Pty Ltd in August 2019 (Appendix E). The assessment concluded clay of sufficient quantity and suitable permeability is likely to be present near the proposed site of the dam.

Concrete

Concrete will be required for the construction of the hatchery building, staff residence and other associated infrastructure. Tassal is currently investigating concrete supply options as part of finalising the Hatchery construction design. Due to the distance of the Hatchery site from Hobart and the volumes required (estimated 2,000 cubic meters based on preliminary designs) it may be necessary to mix concrete onsite via a temporary concrete batching plant. This is considered common practice and if this option is required, the temporary plant will be managed under the CEMP for the site.

Vehicle movements

A traffic assessment was undertaken by Midson Traffic in May 2019 (Appendix F). The number of vehicle movements forecast to be generated by Hatchery operations is outlined in Table 3. All vehicles, both light and heavy, will enter and exit the Hatchery from Lyell Highway with the majority coming and going from the direction of Hamilton.


24

Table 3 Forecasted vehicle movements associated with the Hatchery operations

Vehicle type Purpose Approx. frequency per

year

Approx. frequency per week

Light vehicles Staff, visitors, and delivery of consumables

7,300 vehicle movements (two-way)

140 vehicle movements (two-way) Or 20 vehicle movements (two-way) per day

Truck Delivery of feed 52 1

Truck Solid waste removal by environmental contractor

270 5

Truck Delivery of consumables

150 2-3

Converted tanker trucks

Transport of smolt to sea

675

55 trucks per week for around 12 weeks of the year

Hours of operation

The Hatchery will operate 24 hours per day and 7 days a week to maintain continuous fish health and growth. The site will be manned 24 hours a day with onsite accommodation for provided for key staff. However, normal working hours for staff will be between 7 am and 6 pm. Smolt transfer operations will result in periodic extended working hours for staff.

Construction

It is estimated major construction works will be complete within eighteen months from commencement. A detailed breakdown of the construction phases and associated timeframes is outlined in Table 4. The timeframe is anticipated and may change based on contractor availability, the length of time to procure equipment, weather conditions etc. Construction will be undertaken in accordance with a CEMP to be developed by Tassal and the Contractor completing the works. Tassal will monitor construction activities to ensure compliance with the CEMP. The CEMP is discussed in further detail in Section 6.14.2.


25

Table 4 Key construction phases and timeframes

Item Description Start Finish Duration

1.0 Early Works

• Commence construction

• Establish boundary fencing

• Property and construction site access road

• Construction site compound

• Temporary services, power and water

• Environmental controls and run off management

Wk 1 Wk 12 11 weeks

1.1 Intake Water System

• Excavation and foundation work

• Pipework

• Tank install including auxiliary systems

Wk 1 Wk 22 21 weeks

1.2 Bulk Excavation

• Mobilise

• Bulk works for access

• Building bulk excavation

• Excavation for auxiliary service hardstand

Wk 1 Wk 40 39 weeks

1.3 Foundation Works

• Underground service

• Trimming and compaction

• Underground recirculation and fish handling pipes

• Floor drainage

• Footings

Wk 6 Wk 70 54 weeks

2.1 Tank Room Base Works - Tank Room 1 to 4

• Construct tanks

• Install pipe works

• Water testing

• Backfilling and compaction

• Slab preparation and pour

Wk 5 Wk 54 49 weeks

2.2 Tank Room Structure and Cladding

• Steel frame construction

• Roof cladding

• Wall cladding

• Doors

Wk 16 Wk 60 44 weeks

2.3 Tank Room Fit Out

• Line tanks

• Above ground service racks

• Above ground pipes

• Tank fit out including furniture and pipes

• Electrical fit out

• Feed system install

• Curtains

• Wet commissioning



26

2.4 Switchboards and Grading

• Foundation works

• U/G services

• Footings and slab

• Structure and wall panels

• Electrical panels

• Service racks

• Power and data cables


3.0 Dam Works

• Bulk excavation

• Install pipes, keyway and drainage

• Construct new dam wall

• Construct shed foundation


3.1 Irrigation System

• Install of pump station 01

• Install of pump station 02

• Install of irrigation pipe network

• Install of pivot irrigators

• Power and data supply

• Commissioning


4.0 Office Area and Feed Room


• U/G services


• Structure and concrete panel construction

• Roof structure

• Internal fit out of office

• Feed system install


4.1 Incubation Rooms


• U/G services


• Structure and wall panels

• Install of recirculation system and culture units


• Commissioning

Wk 5 Wk 40 35 weeks

4.2 Biofilter Construction


• U/G pipe works

• Install precast panels

• Pour slabs

• Wall structure, roof structure and cladding

• Mechanical fit out

• Electrical fit out

• Water testing

• Wet commissioning

• Disinfection

Wk 9 Wk 75

66 weeks


27

• Biological start up

4.3 Mechanical Plant

• U/G services

• Foundation and slab work

• Structure and cladding

• Install compressed air, oxygen, O3, methanol, firefighting plant

• Service racks


• Commissioning


4.4 External Infrastructure

• U/G Services


• Install U/G service conduits to and from the hatchery

• Install external mechanical plant o Liquide oxygen o Genset o Cooling system o Truck fill o Solids removal o Fire fighting


• Commissioning


5.0 External Final Works

• Compaction and surfacing of roads

• Line marking

• Landscaping

• Site clean

• Demobilising major contracts


Commissioning

The Hatchery will be commissioned in two stages. During the later stages of construction, the hydraulic, electrical and mechanical components will be commissioned by the relevant contractor and Tassal staff as they are built or installed. Once completed functional commissioning will commence. During this time, staff training will occur in all aspects of the systems operation.

Hydraulic, electrical and mechanical commissioning

This process will be documented and signed off by a Tassal representative.

• Low pressure underground water pipe work will be filled with water and leak tested.

• High pressure water lines will be filled, capped and pressure tested.

• Gas pipe work will be pressure tested with an inert gas.

• Concrete tanks will be filled with water to test for leaks.


28

• Pumps and electric motors will be direction tested.

• Probes and sensors will be calibrated, and function verified.

• Complex pieces of plant/equipment such as ozone generators, chillers, and air compressors will be commissioned by the supplier/installer according to the recommendations set out in the manuals.

Functional commissioning

This process is expected to take 6-8 weeks for each of the RAS systems, including the time to condition the biofilters. Several RAS systems may be commissioned concurrently. The process for all the RAS systems in the facility will be very similar, as follows:

• Systems will be filled with water.

• Pumps will begin to circulate water through tanks and filtration equipment.

• Operational functionality will be tested on all pumps, valves, sensors, gates, filters etc.

• The automation/SCADA system will be tested.

• All alarms for levels will be set and confirmed through the PLC system.

• Leaks in the system will again be assessed by monitoring the water level over several days.

• Disinfection of the system will be achieved by raising the pH to above 11 for 24 hours. Sodium hydroxide will be used to do this.

• After the disinfection period all system water will be discharged to waste, if there is insufficient water in the reuse water dam to dilute the high pH water, acid will be added.

• The system will be refilled with new water and circulation recommenced.

• The biological filter will require seeding with appropriate strains of bacteria. This will be likely sourced from Tassal’s Rookwood hatchery.

• Once cleared, approximately 100L of biofilter inoculum will be added to the system.

• Ammonia (in the form of ammonium chloride) will be added to the system water to maintain

a total ammonia level of between 2-5 milligrams/litre.

• The biological filters purpose is to metabolise the ammonia to nitrate, with nitrite being an

intermediate. These nitrogenous compounds will be regularly measured in the system water

to confirm function of the biofilters.

• It is expected that the biofilter will take 4-6 weeks to establish sufficient nitrifying bacteria

to cope with the ammonia produced when fish are introduced.

• The RAS system commissioning is now considered complete.

• Fish can now be added in a staged approach to avoid large increases in feed/ammonia

overwhelming the biological filters.


29

General location

The location of the Hatchery will be the eastern portion of 56 Woodmoor Road, Ouse. The boundaries of the site are adjacent to the Lyell Highway in the north, Meadowbank Lake in the south, and private agricultural property in the west and east. 56 Woodmoor Road is in the process of being:

1. Amalgamated with 90 Woodmoor Road; and 2. Subdivided into two lots (Lots 1 and 2).

The current land title and ownership of 56 and 90 Woodmoor Road is as follows: Title Address Area (hectares) Owner

CT36657/2 56 Woodmoor Road 140.1 Triffett Holdings Pty Ltd

CT251957/1 90 Woodmoor Road 57.5 Tassal Operations Pty Ltd

The proposed Lot 1 (58.8 hectares) is the site of the proposed Hatchery and will be owned by Tassal. The proposed Lot 2 will be the remaining portion of 56 Woodmoor Road (86.2 hectares) and the adjoining 90 Woodmoor Road (57.5 hectares) and will be owned by Triffett Holdings. Plans showing the current tenure of the land and the proposed Lots 1 and 2 are at Figure 7 and Figure 8.

A legal agreement between Tassal and Triffett Holdings has been executed to formalise the amalgamation and subdivision of the subject land. A development application for the subdivision was approved by the Central Highlands Council in April 2019. The formal issuing of the Certificates of Title is currently being progressed.


30

Figure 7 Tenure of 56 and 90 Woodmoor Road, Ouse


31

Figure 8 Proposed Lots 1 & 2 of 56 Woodmoor Rd, Ouse


32

Site plans

A series of detailed property and site plans (A3 size) showing the building and compound layout, building floor plans and elevations, areas for irrigation, topography, drainage, pavement material and traffic turning areas, waterway protection and landslide hazard are at Appendix G. The footprint of the Hatchery and associated infrastructure, including the reuse water dam, is approximately 7.8 hectares located in the north eastern portion of the 58.8 hectare site (Lot 1) (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

A further 90 hectares will be used to irrigate reuse water (Figure 11).

This land comprises parts of:

• Lot 2 (to be owned by Triffett Holdings).

• The property adjoining Lot 2, known as 56 Woodmoor Road (CT 36657/5) (owned by Triffett Holdings).


33

Figure 9 Location and layout of the Hatchery and its infrastructure


34

Figure 10 Layout schematic of Hatchery building and ancillary infrastructure arrangement


35

Figure 11 Schematic of proposed areas identified for reuse water irrigation (for coordinates of property boundaries refer to Figure 7)


36

Services and off-site infrastructure

Hatchery operations require the following services and off-site infrastructure.

Water supply to the Hatchery

The supply of water to the Hatchery will be from Meadowbank Lake. Tassal has an interim licence to take water from the Lake and to use and access an existing pipeline and water intake pump station located on the proposed Lot 2 (currently 90 Woodmoor Road). A new licence is in the process of being issued to Tassal by Hydro Tasmania through a Water Transfer Agreement. The existing pump station will be replaced with a new intake pump station, capable of supplying up to 650 mega litres of water per annum, via a rising main of nominally 300 mm diameter. Hatchery operations are expected to use an average of 0.4 mega litres water per day, with a maximum daily demand of 2 mega litres. The annual water use is expected to be less than 160 mega litres.

Potable water supply for staff amenities

Two options are currently being investigated for the supply of potable water to staff amenities within the Hatchery and the staff residence as follows:

• Water to be taken from the treated Meadowbank Lake supply or roof collected rainwater and further treated to ensure it is of a safe standard for human consumption; or

• Water to be supplied via the Central Highlands main supply. Domestic usage is estimated to be less than 2 kL per day.

Power supply

Augmentation will be undertaken to establish a 2,500 kVA high voltage electricity connection to the Hatchery. Tassal is working with TasNetworks to progress the design, with power to be supplied by power lines along the Lyell Highway. Finalisation of the power supply design and relevant approvals will be obtained prior to construction.

Reuse water dam and irrigation scheme

The following reuse water and irrigation infrastructure will be located off-site on land owned by Triffett Holdings (Figure 11):

• Intake water pump (Lot 2).

• Portion of the reuse water dam (approximately 11,540 square metres surface area of the total 27,442 square metres) (Lot 2).

• Main pump station (Lot 2).

• Irrigation pipelines (Lot 2 and land adjoining Lot 2, known as 56 Woodmoor Road (CT36657/5)).


37

• Three separate fixed pressure-controlled centre pivot irrigators (Lot 2 and land adjoining Lot 2, known as 56 Woodmoor Road (CT36657/5)).

A legal agreement between Tassal and Triffett Holdings, granting Tassal the right to access and manage the dam and associated infrastructure on land owned by Triffett Holdings, is currently being finalised. An access licence and an easement on the title of land owned by Triffett Holdings will be registered to secure these rights and grant Tassal control of water input and output of the reuse water dam. A restrictive covenant will also be registered on the title of land owned by Triffett Holdings to prevent them taking/using water in the dam without Tassal consent. The restrictive covenant will also make the Triffett land subject to limitations, due to the dam emitting odour units above the prescribed odour unit criterion requirements under the Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 at the boundary of the land (which intersects through the reuse water dam). The restrictive covenant is registered on the Certificate of Title and its terms pass with the title if the land is ever sold. Tassal will provide a copy of all the legal documentation relating to the agreement between Tassal and Triffett Holdings to EPA Tasmania when finalised.

Access

Access to the Hatchery will be via the Lyell Highway (A10) directly opposite the existing access to Kimbolton Coal Mine. The Lyell Highway is a Category 3, Regional Access Road, used by both heavy freight and passenger vehicles. A new traffic junction on Lyell Highway will be required. The detailed junction design has been finalised and approved by the Department of State Growth (Access Works Permit # SA20-19) as outlined in the traffic impact assessment by Midson Traffic Pty Ltd (Appendix F).


38

3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

To meet increasing national and international demand for salmon products Tassal considered the following options to expand its freshwater production capacity:

1. Increase smolt numbers (i.e. more “RAS” type facilities with incubation, start-feed & smolt stages).

2. Increase broodstock security and potential for altered spawning season profile.

3. Increase the size of fish that are put to sea at specific marine leases (i.e. large smolt RAS facility).

The proposal to construct and operate a RAS hatchery with the capacity to produce increased numbers of standard size smolt or to increase smolt size combines two of the three options (i.e. a ‘multi-purpose RAS’) RAS technology has significant advantages compared to ‘open’ or flow-through hatcheries as outlined below:

• RAS systems recycle water meaning there is less water used per tonne of fish produced.

• Because there is minimal water exchange with the environment RAS systems improve fish welfare allowing improved growth and health. The production of larger smolt will reduce grow-out times at sea, reduce risk, and see environmental and biosecurity benefits associated with extended time at the proposed Hatchery.

Facilities using RAS technology have become a key sector in Australia’s aquaculture industry, with no greater amenity or environmental impacts than any other general industrial use, and often less amenity or environmental impacts than other types of aquaculture. In practice, most RAS hatcheries resemble sheds and associated dams or water holding structures, which are both commonly found in rural areas. An alternative to the construction of a RAS Hatchery is the establishment of a flow-through Hatchery for smolt production. Flow-through hatcheries use the natural flow of a waterway (fresh) to supply and renew water in the fish growing tanks. The water is treated (generally settlement ponds, solids removal and bioremediation) then discharged back to the waterway. Flow-through hatcheries tend to be water intensive and water treatment is expensive and can be problematic due to volumes of water required for the process. The selection of a suitable site was considered critical to the proposal. As a first step Tassal identified the desired characteristics of an ideal site. These characteristics considered operational, economic, social, and environmental factors including:

• Reasonably flat cleared land of suitable topography (i.e. not prone to flooding).

• Size adequate to incorporate a: o building footprint of approximately 200 metres x 150 metres o buffer of 50 metres or more to allow for the planting of trees to reduce the visual

impacts from the Hatchery o suitably sized dam.

• Availability of crucial services (i.e. freshwater supply, +5MVA HV power supply).

• Approximately 90 hectares of land suitable for irrigation within a 3-kilometre radius.


39

• Suitable road access for trucks.

• Cost of acquisition.

• Neighbour and community acceptance.

• Ability to employ and retain staff.

• Ability to avoid or minimise environmental harm. Over a 3-year period Tassal considered fourteen discrete sites. Based on the number of characteristics present at each site, they were ranked as follows:

A = Promising site, no “show stopper”. Progress to detailed due diligence.

B = Potential site, but with significant disadvantages or unknowns. Continue enquiries.

C = Significant disadvantages and/or show stoppers. No further action. Based on an initial assessment, eight of the fourteen sites displayed significant disadvantages and were not pursued. Four were rated B and two were rated A. Investigations were undertaken to determine the feasibility of these six sites, with the eastern portion of 56 Woodmoor Road, Ouse (agricultural land) identified as meeting the desired characteristics. The advantages of locating a land-based aquaculture system in a rural area include:

• Unlikely to have a significant impact on the surrounding environment or sensitive receptors (i.e. adjoining residences).

• Unlikely to impact on, or conflict with, existing rural activities or commercial enterprises.

• Large lot sizes present opportunities to 'buffer' the impacts of the Hatchery from neighbouring properties (setbacks, landscaping etc.).

• Opportunities for multiple, and sometimes symbiotic, farming activities to take place on-site (for example, hatchery discharge water can be used to irrigate pasture).

• Greater likelihood of access to natural water sources, including streams/rivers or suitable water catchment areas.


40

4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Tassal recognises that early engagement with the local and wider community leads to better outcomes for all parties. A Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) (Tassal, August 2019) (Appendix H) has been developed by Tassal following identification of the preferred site for the Hatchery. The SEP provides the foundation for a strategic and coordinated approach to stakeholder engagement throughout the Hatchery’s design, approval, construction and operation phases with the aim of:

• Facilitating engagement with local stakeholders, including residents.

• Facilitating engagement and collaboration with key governing and regulatory bodies.

• Supporting the approvals processes for the Hatchery.

• Informing interested parties and the broader community about the proposal.

• Managing and mitigating any risks or impacts to the local community.

Stakeholders identified and engaged by Tassal to-date are listed in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5 Stakeholder engagement to-date

Consultation Topic Stakeholder

Meeting

Meadowbank Lake Access to mains water

TasWater

Meetings Description of the Project Adjoining landowners

On site visit Description of the Project Aboriginal Heritage Assessment

Aboriginal Heritage

Meetings Briefing Development Application process

Central Highlands Council

Email correspondence

Description of the Project Crown Land Services

Meeting On site visits Phone/email correspondence

Assessment and approvals process Environmental Impact Statement

Department of Environmental Protection

Phone/email correspondence

Description of the Project Access permit

Department of State Growth

Phone/email correspondence

Description of the Project Water licence agreement

Hydro Tasmania

Onsite visit Phone/email correspondence

Description of the Project Discussion around existing water channel

Lawrenny Water Trust

Email correspondence

Description of the Project BirdLife Tasmania

The general reaction of stakeholders to the proposal to-date has been one of helpful co-operation, support and positivity. Tassal has met on numerous occasions and continues to meet with the owners of properties adjoining the Hatchery (Table 6). In each of the meetings the following topics were discussed:


41

• Reason for the proposal.

• Proposed facility and location.

• Application and approvals process, including the EIS.

• Key considerations for the local community.

• Initial thoughts on the proposal from the property owners.

• Information session (date to be confirmed) to be held in Hamilton for broader community

consultation.

Table 6 Meetings with landowners adjoining the Hatchery

Date Consultation Stakeholder 3 July 2019 Meeting Neighbour located to the east of the Hatchery

4 July 2019 Neighbour located to the east of the Hatchery

11 July 2019 Neighbour located to the west of the Hatchery

1 August 2019 Neighbour located to the north of the Hatchery

Common issues raised by the adjoining landowners have been addressed in relevant sections of the EIS or are being addressed as part of ongoing discussions. These issues include:

• Odour from the facility.

• Light from the facility (at night).

• Noise from truck movements and the operation of the Hatchery.

• Water quality and environmental health of Meadowbank Lake.

• Road safety awareness and professionalism of truck drivers.

• Vehicle safety when entering and exiting the site during fog events.

• Visual amenity.

• That the proposal will be environmentally sound and granted approval by the EPA.

Several stakeholders also expressed their interest in employment opportunities at the Hatchery as

they would like young people to reside in the community.

Tassal’s current and future engagement plans with stakeholders is described in Table 7.

Table 7 List of current and future engagement with stakeholders

Category Activity

Individual meetings Residents surrounding the proposed Hatchery site have been offered meetings with a project representative.

Site visits to Rookwood RAS Hatchery

Site visits to Tassal’s Rookwood RAS Hatchery have been and will continue to be offered to interested residents and other key stakeholders for comparative purposes.

Advertisements during the public consultation period

During the public consultation period advertisements providing a contact telephone number, contact email address and an invitation to a public-meetings will be published in the Mercury and Examiner on a Wednesday and Saturday newspaper edition.

Community feedback A mailing address and an email address will be publicised for submission of written feedback and comment on the EIS.


42

Public forum A public forum will be scheduled during the public consultation stage.

Briefings to local, State and Federal politicians

Briefings will be offered to councillors and politicians on a needs basis to ensure they are abreast of the proposal and local community views.

Communication material A fact sheet including frequently asked questions will be available throughout the project.


43

5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Planning aspects

Land zoning and use

A development application (DA) to the Central Highlands Council and consequent permit (subject to compliance with the relevant acceptable solutions or performance criteria) will be required for the proposal. A DA was submitted to Council on 6 September 2019. The proposal for the purposes of the DA includes the Hatchery development, associated irrigation scheme and onsite staff residence.

The site for the proposal is zoned as ‘Rural Resource’ under the Central Highland Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (Planning Scheme). All components of the proposal were assessed and determined to be either No Permit Required or Permitted uses in the Zone. The full assessment of the proposal against the Planning Scheme is provided as Appendix I.

Land tenure

As discussed in Section 2.4, the proposal (including the Hatchery and irrigation scheme) will be located within the property boundaries of 56 Woodmoor Rd, Ouse. Currently, 56 Woodmoor Road is in the process of being (1) amalgamated with 90 Woodmoor Road and (2) subdivided into two lots (Lots 1 and 2). The current land title and ownership of 56 and 90 Woodmoor Road is as follows: Title Address Area (hectares) Owner

CT36657/2 56 Woodmoor Road 140.1 Triffett Holdings Pty Ltd

CT251957/1 90 Woodmoor Road 57.5 Tassal Operations Pty Ltd

A legal agreement between Tassal and Triffett Holdings has been executed to formalise the amalgamation and subdivision of the subject land. A DA for the subdivision was approved by the Central Highlands Council in April 2019 (Planning Permit DA 2019/00025).

Neighbouring land use

The proposed Hatchery site is adjoined by farmland properties to the south, east and west and the Lyell Highway to the north. Individual residences are located on the eastern property adjoining the Hatchery site and on the western properties adjoining the irrigation areas. The location of these residences can be seen in Figure 11.

Lake Meadowbank, managed by Hydro Tasmania, adjoins the property to the south.

Other required approvals

Other approvals required as part of the proposal include:

• A dam works permit from the Water Management Branch of DPIPWE for the construction fo the proposed reuse storage dam.


44

• A water licence in the form a ‘Water Transfer Agreement’ with Hydro Tasmania to take freshwater from Lake Meadowbank.

• A fish farm licence obtained from Inland Fisheries to operate the Hatchery.

Environmental aspects

Topography

The proposed site area including the proposed hatchery building, associated infrastructure and dam is essentially flat with elevations ranging from 110-100 m above sea level. To the south of the proposed site area topography gently slopes down to 90 m above sea level before rising into a ridgeline incorporating Tent Hill which has an elevation of 176 m. Beyond Tent Hill the topography steadily drops down 80 m to the banks of Meadowbank Dam.

Meteorology

The closest active Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather station to the proposed site is at Ouse Fire Station, 10 kilometres to the west. The climatic records including mean temperature, total rainfall, relative humidity and wind speed at 9am and 3pm recorded by the weather station are outlined in (Table 8 and Figure 12) . Table 8 Climate data (temperature and rainfall 1998-present)

Climate Parameter Climate Average

Mean Maximum Temperature (hottest month) 25.6°C (January)

Annual Mean Maximum Temperature 18.5°C

Mean Minimum Temperature (coolest month) 1.1°C (July)

Annual Mean Minimum Temperature 5.6°C

Mean Annual Rainfall 526.3 mm

Mean Monthly Rainfall (wettest month) 67.4 mm (September)


45

Figure 12 Long-term (1998-present) climate statistics from the BoM weather station at Ouse Fire Station: 095048.

Geology & soils (including erodibility and acid sulphate soils)

Geology

The geology of the Ouse/Hamilton district primarily comprises Triassic sedimentary rocks (sandstone, siltstone and mudstone with minor coal) intruded by Jurassic dolerite. Both bedrock types are overlain by younger Quaternary/Tertiary sediments and Tertiary basalts (Figure 13). The Tertiary materials occupy a small graben and may be 40–50 metres thick. At and near the Hatchery site, unconsolidated sediments of inferred Tertiary-age are the dominant rock type (Appendix J) with smaller areas of dolerite on Sendace Hills to the south, and Triassic sandstone along the eastern property border. The Tertiary sediments are dominantly clay and claystone in the near-surface, with minor sands and weakly cemented sandstones. The clays and claystones are locally fractured, with subvertical defects trending approximately 2,300 total depth, and a second sub-horizontal set dipping approximately 3,000 total depth.

Soils

Soils on Tertiary sediments in the general area are weakly duplex, and typically comprise grey-brown silty clay or clayey silt topsoil, over cloddy, brightly-coloured high plasticity clay subsoil up to about a metre thick (Appendix E) and grading vertically to Tertiary clay or claystone.

At the proposed site of the Hatchery, the topsoil is grey silty sandy gravel or gravelly sand up to approximately 0.5 metres in thickness (Figure 14).


46

Figure 13 Map of the geology of the Ouse/Hamilton District


47

Figure 14 Photograph of one of the test pits illustrating the soil profile at the proposed Hatchery site

As an indicator of soil erodibility, dispersion testing of pairs of samples from different depths in seven test pits (Appendix E) in Tertiary sediments over the HRAS site showed:

• No sample had an Emerson Class Number of 1 (severely dispersive).

• Five of eight samples in the surface 0.5 metres had Emerson Class Numbers of 2 or 3 (moderately to slightly dispersive).

• In the 0.5 – 1.0 metre depth range, one of seven samples had an Emerson Class Number of 3, and the remainder were 4-5-6 (non-dispersive after remoulding), or 7 and 8 (non-dispersive).


48

Acid sulphate potential

A desktop search indicated no known acid sulphate soils in the area of the proposed Hatchery (LISTMap, 2019). The nearest acid-sulphate soils are mapped in Meadowbank Lake. The Lake is classified as “extremely low probability of occurrence” (1-5% of mapping unit) due to subaqueous material in lakes as described in Appendix A. The proposed development will have no impact on the lake-bed material. Additionally, the Tasmanian Acid Sulphate Soils Management Guidelines (DPIPWE, 2009) does not identify land in the proposed hatchery irrigation area as potentially having acid sulphate soils.

Natural Processes

Vulnerability of the site to Natural Hazards

Earthquake Risk

According to the Earthquake Hazard Risk Contour Map (Geoscience Australia, 2000) the risk of seismic activity at the Hatchery site is low. The Hatchery and associated infrastructure had been designed by appropriately qualified engineers and potential seismic activity is accounted for in the proposed design.

Flood Risk

Due to the elevation and terrain of the Hatchery site the risk of flood is considered to be low. Drainage and stormwater management is described in detail in the relevant sections of this document.

Fire Risk

The site is located in a defined Bushfire-Prone Area as it is within 100 metres of contiguous native vegetation (grassland) as defined under the Director’s Determination – Requirements for Building in Bushfire Prone Areas (Department of Justice, 2017b). Tassal therefore commissioned Enviro-dynamics to conduct a Bushfire Hazard Assessment. The full report, Bushfire Hazard Report (Enviro-dynamics, August 2019) is at Appendix K. It outlines a number of conditions that Tassal will address in the design and construction of the Hatchery. Implementation of the recommended conditions will enable Tassal to achieve the requirements of the Department of Justice (2017b). Bushfire management is described in further detail in the Section 6.12.

Landslide Risk

Under the Derwent Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015 areas across Tent Hill in the southwest portion of the Hatchery site are identified as Low to Medium landslide hazard areas. This information has been considered in the location of the habitable buildings.

Natural Process required for maintaining the Natural Environment

The natural environment at the Hatchery site has been heavily modified for agricultural purposes. It is for this reason that neither flooding or bushfire is considered to be of importance for maintaining the existing environment, which is predominately farmland pasture.


49

Natural Values

A botanical survey and fauna habitat assessment at the Hatchery site was undertaken by Enviro-dynamics in May 2019. This assessment outlines the natural values occurring on and adjacent to the site and provides an assessment of the potential impacts on those values. A summary is provided in the following section with the detailed report at Appendix A.

Vegetation communities

Tasmanian Vegetation Map (TASVEG 3.0) (DPIPWE, 2013). There are also two areas mapped as Unverified Plantations for Silviculture (FPU) which relates to areas on the site that have been revegetated (Figure 15). No vegetation areas of conservation significance are present within the site.

Large areas mapped as Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest and woodland on sediments (DTO) occur on the western side of Meadowbank Lake (approximately 6 kilometres to the south east) with small remnants of the same community on the western side of Tent Hill. DTO is listed as a threatened vegetation community under Schedule 3A of the Nature Conservation Act 2002.

The nearest land under a conservation covenant is 5 kilometres to the south west, near Ellendale.


50

Figure 15 Natural values identified for the proposed Hatchery site


51

Agricultural Land (FAG)

The land at the proposed site has been cleared of native vegetation and is dominated by exotic grasses and herbs (Figure 16) including cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), bent grass (Agrostis sp.), oat (Avena sp.), canarygrass (Phalaris aquatica), barley grass (Hordeum sp.), rape (Brassica sp.), buckshorn plantain (Plantago coronopus), cats ear (Hypochoeris radicata), storks bill (Erodium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), wireweed (Polygonum sp.), fat hen (Chenopodium album), dock (Rumex sp.) and thistle species including spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), variegated thistle (Silybum marianum), sowthistle (Sonchus sp.) and slender thistle (Carduus sp.). Scattered blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) and African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) plants also occur across the site with large boxthorn plants along fence lines.

Unverified Plantation (FPU)

There are two areas mapped as FPU on the proposed Hatchery site, as per DPIPWE (2013). These sites are areas of revegetation around two farm dams, which have only partially established. Due to the low establishment rate and the removal of fences the areas have largely reverted to agricultural land. There are some scattered eucalypts (E. ovata and mainland eucalypts) and wattle trees (Acacia dealbata) around the upper dam close to the Lyell Highway and along the drainage line below the lower dam. Shrub species Melaleuca gibbosa and M. pallida were also recorded in the drainage line below the lower dam as well as Juncus species. Woody weeds including briar rose (Rosa rubiginosa), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackberry and African boxthorn occur amongst the fenced revegetation area below the dam.

Flora Values

The natural values survey of the development site found a limited number of native species due to the highly modified nature of the land. The native species recorded were restricted to the revegetation areas and included black gum (Eucalyptus ovata), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), slender honeymyrtle (Melaleuca gibbosa), bottlebrush (M. pallida) and isolated herb species such as climbing saltbush (Einadia nutans). No threatened flora species listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were recorded on the proposed site of the Hatchery site during the field survey. A search of the Natural Values Atlas showed that three threatened flora species have been recorded within 500 m of the proposed hatchery site. The nearby threatened species recorded are for prickly woodruff (Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia), woolly new holland daisy (Vittadinia gracilis) and midland wattle (Acacia axillaris). Prickly woodruff and the woolly new-holland daisy have been recorded along the road verge adjacent to the site and a midland wattle record is from the edge of a farm dam on the property. The midlands wattle was not recorded on the site and the record is likely to be associated with a revegetation project that has not persisted. See Appendix A for full list of these species and a comment on their likelihood of occurring on the site. No threatened flora species will be impacted by the Hatchery. However, the access road from the highway requires further survey work in spring/summer to search for the species recorded on the road verge.


52

Figure 16 Photograph of the typical vegetation currently covering the proposed Hatchery site

Fauna Habitat

The lack of intact native vegetation on the proposed site means habitat for fauna species is limited. The open pasture provides some foraging habitat for raptor species and mammals, and the farm dams provide habitat for waterbirds such as swans and ducks. No significant habitat such as trees with hollows, den sites or nesting habitats for threatened fauna species is present on the site. No threatened fauna species or significant fauna habitat for species listed under Schedule 3, 4 or 5 of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 were recorded during the field survey. A Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE, Version 3.8.0) search revealed that one threatened fauna species has been recorded within a 500 metre radius of the site. These relate to two roadkill records of Tasmanian devils on the Lyell Highway.

Other values and risks

Geoconservation Values

A search of the Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE, Version 3.8.0) revealed that there are no geoconservation values within 5 kilometres of the site.

Freshwater Ecosystem Values

A Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE, Version 3.8.0) search identified all drainage lines that traverse the site or are adjacent to the site as having low conservation management priority and low naturalness.


53

Meadowbank Lake, however, is classified as having very high conservation management priority. The Hatchery and its water reuse system is therefore designed to prevent any impacts on the freshwater values of the Lake. There is no recorded wetland, saltmarsh, estuarine or karst values within 1 kilometre of the site.

Weed species

Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus), African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) and slender thistle (Carduus sp.) were all recorded on the site (Figure 17). African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are recorded from the adjacent roadside (Figure 17). These species are all declared weeds under the Weed Management Act 1999 with blackberry and African boxthorn also listed as Weeds of National Significance (WoNS).

The EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (Geoscience Australia, 2015) report run for the site also identified willow, gorse, boneseed and broom as invasive species occurring in the area, although of these species only gorse is recorded within 5 kilometres and is not present on the site.


54

Figure 17 Map of declared weed records at the Hatchery site from the Natural Values Atlas


55

Groundwater

There are no known groundwater bores within the proposed development site and groundwater was not observed as part of the test pits conducted on the site area (see Appendix L). According to the Groundwater Information Access Portal (DPIPWE, 2017) there are no recorded domestic or agricultural water bores within several hundred (>500) metres of the proposed site. However, an abandoned coal exploration bore is located a hundred metres or so east of the proposed hatchery.

Drainage and surface water

A search of the Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE, Version 3.8.0) identified all drainage lines that transverse the site or are adjacent to the site have low conservation management priority and are of low naturalness. The proposed hatchery building and associated infrastructure will not be sited over any existing drainage lines or watercourses. There is no recorded wetland, saltmarsh, estuarine or karst values within 1 kilometre of the site. The proposed new reuse water dam and access road will be sited within two existing ephemeral tributaries/streams. However, these are natural surface drains that only flow following substantial rain events occurring long enough to produce surface runoff (i.e. flood flows). For both the dam and access road a diversion or pipeline will be created to divert existing drainage lines around or under the dam/road to then realign with the natural surface drainage line. The only major waterway in the nearby vicinity of the proposal is Meadowbank Lake, which is classified as having a very high conservation management priority. The Hatchery proposal is not considered to have any direct impact upon the freshwater values of Meadowbank Lake given appropriate management controls will be implemented to ensure no water discharged from the Hatchery will drift or runoff to the Lake. These management controls are detailed in the Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (IEMP) (Appendix B).

Heritage values

Tassal engaged Cultural Heritage Management to undertake an Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Appendix M) for the proposed Hatchery. No Aboriginal sites were identified during the field survey and a search of the Aboriginal Heritage Register showed no registered Aboriginal sites located within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed hatchery footprint area. It was also assessed that there is a low potential for undetected Aboriginal heritage sites to be present.

No heritage properties, sites and/or values as listed on the National Heritage List, Register of the National Estate, Tasmanian Heritage Register or the Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory exist in the area of the proposed site.

However, if any unanticipated discoveries of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (such as sites and objects) occur during any construction or excavation activities, then Tassal will follow the guidelines included in the Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania Unanticipated Discovery Plan as it relates to cultural heritage items or skeletal material.


56

Socio-economic aspects

The proposed Hatchery is located on the Ouse/Hamilton boundary. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) State Suburb (SSC) of “Hamilton” was chosen for this analysis as it covers the immediate community closest to the site. While the following statistics are a snapshot in time, they provide an indicative social composition of the neighbouring community. According to the ABS Census 2016, the SSC of Hamilton comprised 211 people and had a median age of 50 years, the Tasmanian average. The extent of the SSC of Hamilton and its location relative to Hobart is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18 Suburb of Hamilton, Tasmania (source: Google Maps, 2019)

The top five countries of origin reported in 2016 in Hamilton were English, Australian, Irish, Scottish and German. In 2016, over 88% of residents of Hamilton reported being born in Australia. The next most common countries of origin were England and Thailand. In 2016, over 76% of people from Hamilton reported that both their parents were born in Australia. In 2016, the workforce comprised 74 people with 50% working full time and 33.8% working part time. The unemployment rate for the same year was 9.5%, markedly higher than the national average for the same year. In Hamilton in 2016, the most common occupations included Managers 20.5%, Labourers 19.2%, Machinery Operators and Drivers 16.4%, Professionals 13.7% and Sales Workers 11.0%. The most common industries of employment were Dairy Cattle Farming, State Government Administration, Sheep Farming, logging and smelting and refining. This is broadly consistent with a rural workforce and service sector supporting it. In 2016 in Hamilton there were 61 families. Of these families 25.4% were couple families with children, 47.6% were couple families without children, and 22.2% were one parent families. The average

Proposed site of Hatchery

N


57

number of children per family was 2.1. The median household income was $784 per week, which was well below the Tasmanian and Australian averages for the same year. In Hamilton in 2016, there were 123 private dwellings with an average of 2.1 people per household. 76.1% of private dwellings were occupied and 23.9% were unoccupied. These were low occupancy rates compared to Tasmanian and Australian averages. This likely indicates a shrinking population, which is common in rural areas.


58

6 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Air Quality

Tassal engaged Dr. Alex McLeod of Tarkarri Engineering to conduct an air emission assessment for the Hatchery. Dust emissions generated during construction of the Hatchery and odour generated during operation of the Hatchery were identified as having the most likely potential to impact air quality. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the Air Emission Assessment provided at Appendix N.

Existing conditions

There are no known significant sources of odour or dust emissions in the area surrounding the Hatchery site other than that produced by general agricultural activity, seasonal vegeation burn-off and a nearby open cut coal mine approximately 950 m to the north-east of the proposed Hatchery.

Performance requirements

Air emissions from the proposed operation must comply with the following:

• Tasmanian OHS requirements (Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 2012)

• Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004

• Tasmania Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 – Environmental nuisance provisions

• Central Highlands Council Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Potential impacts

Dust Emissions

There is the potential for the generation of dust during the construction of the Hatchery and as such Tassal will implement suitable measures to prevent dust emissions from causing environmental harm or nuisance. These measures are outlined in Section 6.1.4 below. The generation of dust associated with the operation of the Hatchery is expected to be low. This is due to the small volume of traffic, enclosed material storage and the majority of the operations being conducted within the hatchery building. Odour Emissions The key sources of potential odour from the Hatchery were identified as the solids removal plant and the reuse water dam. As described in Section 2.1.2.3, hatchery discharge water generated by the RAS comprises solids captured on the drum screens, solids removed from the bio-filters, and the floc from reactive phosphorus filtration. These are all pumped from the hatchery to the sludge removal plant as a 0.05-1 % w/v (weight/volume) solution where they are treated and dewatered. This results in the production of:


59

• Sludge, which will be deposited into a 70 cubic metre holding tank and emptied 2-5 times per week (depending on total biomass) by a licensed waste transport contractor who will transport it to an approved composting facility.

• Filtrate, which is directed to the reuse water dam. These potential sources of odour were sampled from the following locations at Tassal’s existing Rookwood RAS Hatchery in June 2019: Solids Removal Plant

• Equalisation tank (full and empty)

• Dewatering belt

• Sludge storage tank Reuse Water Dam

• Clear water surface

• Algal surface The resulting emission rates were subsequently used to model odour emissions from the proposed Hamilton RAS Hatchery. Dispersion modelling of odour emissions from the Hatchery identified the predicted 99.5th percentile ground level concentrations (glc) of odour at both discrete boundary receptors (northern and southern boundaries) of the Hatchery site and at six discrete residential recepors surrounding the site.

Figure 19 provides a visual representation of the modelled results. The 2 odour unit (OU) contour (aqua in colour) is the criterion level of the Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004. It was found not to extend beyond the boundary of the land or to the six discrete residential receptors. It is important to note that the western boundary of the land is excluded from the assessment. This is due to a legal agreement (currently being finalised) between Tassal and the owners of the western boundary (Triffett Holdings), which incorporates a restrictive covenant to make the Triffett land subject to limitations, due to the dam emitting odour units above the prescribed odour unit criterion requirements under the Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 at the boundary of the land (which intersects through the reuse water dam). The restrictive covenant is registered on the Certificate of Title and its terms pass with the title if the land is ever sold. Due to this agreement the land on the western boundary (intersecting the reuse dam) is not considered sensitive with regard to odour emissions. The highest predicted odour level at the land boundary (i.e. at discrete receptors along the northern and eastern boundaries) is 0.68 OU (Table 9) and odour levels do not not exceed 0.29 OU (Table 10) at Site R1a (proposed residence – DA 2019/00043). Odour emissions from the site are likely to be dominated by the reuse water dam with upwards of 95% of received odour levels at the boundary and residential receptors originating from this source. However, an almost threefold increase in odour emissions from the dam over modelled emissions would be required before breaches of the 2 OU criterion would begin to occur at the sensitive


60

boundaries of the land. As comparison, odour emissions from the solids removal plant would require an increase in the order of X65 on modelled emissions before breaches are likely to occur.

Overall, modelling of odour emissions from the solids removal plant and reuse water dam indicates that environmental nuisance or environmental harm is highly unlikely. Table 9 Predicted odour emissions at discrete boundary receptors

Discrete boundary receptor predicted odour emission glc’s (OU)

Boundary Receptor UTM coordinate (zone 55) glc

Easting Northing

480674 5288978 0.23

480734 5289082 0.31

480788 5289151 0.38

480793 5289192 0.44

480867 5289242 0.52

480940 5289293 0.55

480985 5289277 0.47

481036 5289321 0.47

481108 5289388 0.49

481171 5289446 0.56

481244 5289507 0.68

481316 5289574 0.61

481390 5289648 0.45

481454 5289690 0.33

481488 5289746 0.26

481558 5289776 0.19

481508 5289845 0.24

481416 5289969 0.27

481325 5290082 0.23

481201 5290196 0.18

481088 5290247 0.18

480936 5290307 0.15

480757 5290339 0.12

480582 5290350 0.10

480435 5290380 0.08

Table 10 Predicted odour emissions at discrete residental receptors

Discrete residential receptor predicted odour emission glc’s (OU)

Receptor UTM coordinate (zone 55) glc

Easting. Northing

R1 481829 5289339 0.07

R1a 481478 5289524 0.29

R2 481880 5289646 0.06

R3 482520 5289010 0.03

R4 480007 5289470 0.16

R5 479753 5289861 0.15

R6 479784 5290401 0.08


61

Figure 19 Aerial view of dispersion modelling of odour emissions from the Hatchery site (shows predicted 99.5th percentile 1-hour average ground level concentrations odour emission contours in odour units)


62

Avoidance and mitigation measures

Dust Tassal will implement the following measures to ensure the genertion of dust is prevented or kept to a minimum:

• A CEMP will be implemented during construction to mandate the use of water carts and damping down of material stockpiles as necessary to prevent dust migration past the boundary of the property;

• Use of long-term stockpiles on site will be avoided wherever possible unless they perform the function of visual or noise screening.

• Access to the site from the Lyell Highway will be sealed up to the proposed development location minimising dust entrainment from vehicles travelling to and from the site.

• Exhaust emissions will be minimised by ensuring that all equipment is properly maintained; only reputable contractors with well-maintained equipment will be used on-site.

Odour The air emission assessment identified the following processes and scenarios with the potential to increase odour emissions from the Hatchery above those modelled:

• Seasonal increase in emissions as a result of higher Summer air temperatures.

• Loss of power to and/or equipment failure at the solids removal plant.

• Anerobic breakdown in stored sludge.

• Venting of putrid air from transport vessel during sludge collection.

• Blue-green algal blooms on the reuse dam surface. The following list describes the management measures that Tassal will implement to prevent or minimise the potential effects of odour emissions as a result of the above scenarios:

• All waste material generated by the construction activities will be stored in appropriate containers and removed from site, either for disposal at an appropriately authorised facility or transported directly to an authorised recycler/re-user.

• Higher air temperatures during the summer months have the potential to increase emissions of some sources, particularly the reuse water dam and sludge holding tank. The odour sampling conducted at the Rookwood RAS Hatchery for this project occurred in Winter (i.e. June 2019). Tassal will commit to conducting an odour sampling survey at the Hamilton RAS Hatchery during the first Summer operational period with survey results used to remodel with seasonal variations in emission rates.

• Backup power generators installed and maintained to prevent any down time to the treatment of Hatchery discharge water due to power loss.

• Retention of spare Hatchery discharge water processing equipment to allow prompt replacement upon failure and minimise downtime.

• Should emissions from sludge storage increase significantly due to the development of anaerobic processes, Tassal will explore the implementation a mixing system to maintain oxygen levels.


63

• All organic wastes processed through the solids removal treatment plant will be stored for no more than 7-days and disposed of via a licenced waste transporter to an approved composting facility. Mitigation of odour emissions from the collection process to be agreed with the licenced waste transporter.

• Develop and implement a blue-green algae management procedure.

Water Quality (Surface and Discharge)

Liquid emissions will be generated during the construction and operational phases of the proposed hatchery.

The potential primary sources of liquid emissions include:

• Stormwater runoff;

• Storage and use of fuel, oils, grease and chemicals;

• Seepage from storage of mortalities and sludge;

• Hatchery reuse water stored in the Water Reuse Dam; and

• Irrigation of reuse water

Existing conditions

The relevant receptors considered in this section are surface waters described in Section 5.2.7, particularly the downstream environment encompassing Meadowbank Lake.


The performance requirements for water quality management (surface and discharge are defined in the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997. The Waterway and Coastal Protection Code (E11.0) is discussed in the context of potential marine and coastal impacts is Section 6.8.

State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

The management and quality of liquid emissions associated with the proposed hatchery operations must comply with the following:

• Water Management Act 1999

• Tasmanian State Coastal Policy 1996

• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

In April 2003, protected environmental values (PEVs) were established by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control under the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 for the Derwent River Catchment. Point source pollution should be managed to protect the PEVs by implementing best practice environmental management in conjunction with emission limits set by the regulatory authority.

A: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems

(ii) Modified (not pristine) ecosystems

(a) From which edible fish are harvested


64

B: Recreational Water Quality & Aesthetics

(i) Primary contact water quality

(ii) Secondary contact water quality

(iii) Aesthetic water quality

C. Raw Water for Drinking Water Supply

(ii) Subject to coarse screening plus disinfection

D. Agricultural Water Uses

(i) Irrigation

(ii) Stock watering

E. Industrial Water Supply - Aquaculture, pulp and paper mill, hydro-electricity generation

The PEV goes onto state that as a minimum, water quality management strategies should seek to provide water of a physical and chemical nature to support a healthy, but modified aquatic ecosystem from which edible fish can be harvested; that is suitable for raw water for drinking water supplies at offtakes for town water supplies, subject to course screening plus disinfection (Bothwell, New Norfolk-Illa Brook, Derwent River-Bryn Estyn, Gretna, Ouse, Ellendale, Hamilton); that is acceptable for irrigation and stock watering purposes; which will allow people to safely engage in primary contact recreational activities such as swimming (at specific sites) and secondary contact recreation activities such as paddling or fishing in aesthetically pleasing waters; and which is suitable for aquaculture, pulp and paper mill production and hydro-electricity generation.

Potential impacts

Stormwater

Construction phase

Sediment movement from the construction area during significant rainfall and periods could result in accumulation of sediments in runoff water flowing to surface water.

Operational phase

During the operational phase of the facility, stormwater will be primarily generated from operational infrastructure areas (such as hardstands, roads, car parks and building rooves and drains). Without adequate stormwater management controls stormwater runoff has the potential to flow to surface water and to the downstream environment. Potential contaminants of the stormwater runoff include sediments, fuel, chemicals and oil and greases.

Storage and use of fuel, oils and chemicals

Any loss of fuel, oils or chemicals has the potential to contaminate surface water and reduce water quality of the natural waterways.


65

Loss of fuel, oil or chemicals during construction and operation may occur due to spills and leakages caused by inadequate containment, inadequate handling procedures or equipment failure.

Seepage from storage of mortalities and sludge

Inadequate storage and handling of sludge (produced from the discharge water solids removal plant) and mortalities from the Hatchery may result in potential contamination to surface water and the downstream environment. A primary concern regarding this type of contamination is the transfer of pathogens to the surrounding waterways and to other facilities.

Hatchery discharge water (not treated)

Inadequate storage and handling of sludge (produced from the discharge water solids removal plant) and mortalities from the Hatchery may result in potential contamination to surface water and the downstream environment. A primary concern regarding this type of contamination is the transfer of pathogens to the surrounding waterways and to other facilities.

Reuse Water (treated)

Seepage from the Reuse Dam and runoff from the reuse irrigation areas post irrigation are potential contamination sources to surface water in the surrounding area. If Reuse Water was to enter the surrounding surface water it would potentially increase nutrient loads, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and decrease dissoloved oxygen (DO).


Stormwater management

Construction phase

A CEMP will be prepared prior to construction that will monitor and manage stormwater during construction. Sediment controls including catchment basins, silt fences and haybales shall be used to protect natural waterways and fuels and chemicals are to be stored in accordance with AS1940:2017 the storage and handling of flammable and combustible material and Tassal’s hazardous substances and chemicals management procedures. The CEMP is discussed in detail in Section 6.14.2. Operation phase

Prior to release to the surrounding environment stormwater will be directed through appropriate pollutant removal and velocity reduction features to minimise impacts on the receiving environment. A preliminary design of stormwater management infrastructure can be seen in Appendix G. The detailed design will be reviewed and approved by an appropriately qualified engineer and will comply with the stormwater management controls contained in the Central Highlands Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The key stormwater management controls that will be implemented are listed below:

• The Reuse dam will have a swale drain constructed around the upstream perimeter to direct runoff water towards the existing natural watercourse;

• All new hardstand runoff will be directed to existing dams, as shown on the drawings;

• Stormwater drainage shall comply with AS/NZS 3500:2003; and


66

• Stormwater pipes will be sized to manage the requisite AEP storm event.

Storage and use of fuels, oil and chemicals

The storage and handling of fuel, oil and chemicals at the Hatchery will be in accordance with AS1940 and the performance requirements detailed in Section 6.6 Dangerous Goods and Environmentally Hazardous Materials. Tassal has existing procedures for the management of dangerous goods and hazardous materials that includes labelling, signage, segregation, storage, handling and inspection requirements and procedures. The management of hazardous materials at the Hatchery will be integrated into these procedures.

A Spill Procedure for the Hatchery will be developed and spill kits and materials will be placed and maintained at appropriate locations.

Seepage from storage of mortalities and sludge

Mortalities removed from the fish growing tanks are stored in sealed bins and frozen before transportation to the Tassal Triabunna Rendering Facility for processing. The mortality bins are held inside the Hatchery until the time of transport.

Sludge produced from the discharge solids removal plant will be stored in a holding tank on a concrete hardstand. The holding tank will be emptied regularly (2-5 times a week depending on total biomass) by an approved licensed waste transport contractor and sent to an approved composting facility for reuse as compost. Disposal management of the hatchery sludge will be undertaken in accordance with an approved sludge management plan that will be developed for the proposed hatchery prior to operation.

Hatchery discharge water (untreated)

As described in Section 2.1.2.3, all hatchery discharge water will be processed through an onsite solids removal treatment plant, with treated reuse water reporting to the Reuse Dam for irrigation. The solids removal plant will be situated on a concrete hardstand and operated through the site SCADA system by dedicated and training operators. Level alarms for the treatment tanks will be programmed into the SCADA system to prevent overflow. If overflow was to occur, it would report to the site drainage system and ultimately to the Reuse Dam.

Reuse water in Reuse Dam

Macquarie Franklin have completed a Consequence Category Assessment and have been commissioned to undertake a pre-construction report for the proposed Reuse Dam. The potential impacts of dam failure were assessed to be low (the assessment includes potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems and downstream users). The Reuse Dam will be constructed with a clay liner to seal the dam and prevent seepage. Clay availability and permeability at the site was assessed by William C Cromer and sufficient clay of suitable permeability is readily available near the site of the dam. Water quality monitoring of the reuse water held in the dam will be undertaken on a monthly basis.

No groundwater was observed during test pit investigations. If groundwater is observed during construction of the dam groundwater monitoring bores will be installed for monitoring potential seepage from the dam. Groundwater assessment and dam construction are described in detail in Section 6.3.


67

Irrigation of Reuse water

The quality of the generated reuse water from the proposed hatchery will be treated to meet the quality definition of Class B recycled water (as described by the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania, 2002). Results obtained from water quality monitoring will be assessed to confirm compliance with the guidelines prior to irrigation being undertaken.

Hatchery production planning will include consideration of impact on the reuse scheme and will be undertaken such that the reuse scheme remains in compliance either by limiting the number of fish in the tanks, by reducing feeding levels or by increasing the percentage of water recycled within the RAS system, or a combination of all three of these measures.

All reuse water production and re-use models have been designed to ensure that there will not be a need to discharge any hatchery reuse water directly into Meadowbank Lake. Irrigation areas and scheduling have been designed to prevent runoff to surrounding surface water.

A full description and assessment of the hatchery discharge water management and associated irrigation management scheme can be found in Section 6.5.1 and as Appendix B.

Assessment of residual impacts

The measures outlined above should ensure that any potential liquid emissions during the

construction and operation phases are properly controlled, monitored and managed and present a

low risk to the environment, particularly the PEVs of Meadowbank Lake.

In particular, these measures will ensure that the reuse scheme remains compliant in its operation.

Groundwater

William C Cromer was commissioned by Tassal to assess and report on groundwater in the vicinity of the Hatchery (Appendix L) and to identify appropriate locations for groundwater bores (Appendix O). Key information from these reports is detailed below.

Existing conditions

Groundwater occurs in all rock types in the Hamilton district, including in the:

• Triassic sedimentary rocks, and the Jurassic dolerite, where it appears in fractures in the rocks as unconfined groundwater; and

• Tertiary sediments, which largely underlie the Hatchery site, and are seemingly intergranular aquifers.

Based on historical data from groundwater bores in the Hamilton area, those drilled into Triassic rocks obtained yields of up to about 3 litres per second from depths of about 30 metres or greater; a single 60 metre deep bore in dolerite returned a yield of 1.9 litres per second; and bores drilled in Tertiary basalt returned yields in the range of 0 – 0.19 litres per second from bores 15 - 41 metres deep. A search of the DPIPWE (2017) Groundwater Information Access Portal found no recorded domestic

or agricultural water bores within several hundred (>500) metres of the Hatchery site. Groundwater


68

was not, however, observed in the eleven test pits that were dug on-site in May 2019 to depths of up

to 4 metres (see Appendix E).

A conceptual hydrogeological model for the district (see Figure 20) which transverse the Hatchery site has been prepared by Cromer (Appendix L). The main components of the model are as follows:

• Shallowly east-dipping Triassic sedimentary rocks intruded by Jurassic dolerite as sills and dykes (both rock types are fractured hard rock aquifers with moderate – high prospectivity).

• A Tertiary graben (down-faulted block) comprising intergranular low – high prospectivity sediments. On the Hatchey site these are inferred to be mainly clays with minor interbedded sand and possibly gravel and are thought to be lacustrine in origin related to a possible ancestral course of the Derwent/Ouse Rivers.

• The Tertiary graben is probably quite shallow, and a thickness of perhaps 40 – 50m of Tertiary sediments is inferred. It is underlain by Triassic rocks and Jurassic dolerite.

• Groundwater in the Triassic rocks moves in a south westerly direction towards Lake Meadowbank.

• Groundwater may not be present in the Tertiary rocks, which probably act as an aquiclude locally confining the groundwater in the underlying bedrock.


69

Figure 20 Hydrogeological model for the Hatchery site (see Figure 20 for the location of cross section A – B) (Appendix L)


70

Figure 20 Published geology and the location of cross section A – B for the hydrogeological model at Figure 19 (Appendix L)


71


Activities that have the potential to impact on groundwater must comply with the following:

• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

• Water Management Act 1999

• Groundwater Act 1985

Potential impacts

The following activities at the Hatchery have the potential to impact groundwater:

• Storage of reuse water in the proposed dam.

• Irrigation of reuse water on adjacent land.


Reuse water in storage dam

Tassal proposes to construct a new dam to store reuse water from the Hatchery. The new dam and dam wall will be constructed using high plasticity clay from the Hatchery site (Lot 1) and the adjoining land (Lot 2). It is expected that the low permeability of the clay will significantly limit vertical infiltration through the dam base and walls. However, as part of the dam construction, the dam inundation area will be scarified and roller compacted to form a natural clay compacted liner to further mitigate against seepage. The dam will be constructed and lined to be in accordance with ANCOLD guidelines. To confirm if groundwater is present at the dam location, Tassal will conduct groundwater drilling. If groundwater is found to be present, two groundwater monitoring bores will be installed at the proposed dam – one upgradient and one downgradient. Both will be constructed as nested pairs so groundwater can be monitored in the Tertiary sediments, and in the deeper fractured rock aquifer.

Irrigation areas

Test pits that were dug on-site in May 2019 on the proposed reuse water irrigation areas (see Figure 11 for map of irrigation areas) showed the land to be underlain by the same high plasticity Tertiary clay as found at the Hatchery site.

Vertical infiltration of the irrigated reuse water is considered to be minimal due to the low permeability of the clay. However, to assess any potential impact, groundwater monitoring bores will be installed upgradient from, downgradient from, and within the proposed irrigation areas. The bores will be monitored quarterly for at least one year after commencement of hatchery operations and then reduced to biannually once parameters have stabilised. Figure 21 illustrates the location of the proposed groundwater monitoring bores.


72

Figure 21 Proposed groundwater monitoring bore locations (Appendix O)


73


Groundwater is not expected to be intercepted, used or adversely impacted by the proposed development. Potential impacts on groundwater quality will be controlled, monitored and managed during the construction and operation phases of the project.

The measures outlined above will ensure that any potential impacts on groundwater quality during the construction and operation phases are properly managed and present a negligible risk to the environment.

Noise emissions

A Noise Impact Assessment was carried out by Dr Steve Carter of Environmental Dynamics who is a Tasmanian based environmental engineer and physicist (degrees and PhDs in both fields). Steve has over 40 years international expertise in noise work and has carried out hundreds of noise assessments and mitigation projects including expert witness work in many planning hearings.

The noise assessment (provided in Appendix P) considered all noise sources associated with the hatchery and predicted noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, namely the nearest residences, including a recently approved dwelling that is proposed to be built on the property “Sendace”, located to the east of Lot 2. The noise assessment included an examination of on-site smolt tanker noise and the noise of traffic on the Lyell Highway.


Noise emissions from the proposed activities must comply with the following overarching documents:

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 – Environmental nuisance

• Environment Protection (Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations 2004

• Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009

Noise from the hatchery

More specifically, the EPA has advised that it expects to specify the following noise level limits:

Day (7 am to 6 pm) 45 dBA Evening (6 pm to 10 pm) 37 dBA Night (10 pm to 7 am) 32 dBA

These noise level limits are more stringent than the standard limits that the EPA usually specifies for a new industry in a rural area and are being considered because of the low background noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed hatchery. This assessment assumes these more stringent limits.

Compliance is assessed at the nearest noise sensitive usages (here residences) and the noise level limits refer to total noise from the industry, not including other noise sources such as traffic noise. A penalty adjustment may apply if the noise contains intrusive characteristics such as tonalities or modulation, calculated using the methodology set out in the Tasmanian Noise Measurement Procedures Manual, July 2008.

Design noise level. The design noise level target is 25 dBA at night at the nearest residences, based on Tassal’s considerable experience of operating facilities in areas of low background noise. It will ensure


74

good compliance with the EPA’s 32 dBA night-time noise level limit and hence further reduce the risk of noise nuisance.

Noise from traffic

The Tasmanian State Road Traffic Noise Management Guidelines (2015) are used by the Department of State Growth to manage traffic noise on State roads in Tasmania. The target noise levels are:

L10 (18 h, 6am to midnight) 63 dBA Leq (8 h, 11pm to 7am) 45 dBA

Considering noise level targets set by other jurisdictions, the NSW Road Noise Policy (2011) specifies a night-time noise level target of Leq (1 h, 10pm to 7am) = 50 dBA for existing residences affected by additional traffic on existing roads.

Noise from construction work

Construction work will comply with the Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change, 2009). These guidelines are widely used and are accepted as Best Practice in Tasmania. The Australian Standard AS 2436-2010 Guide to noise and vibration control on construction sites is also relevant, as discussed in the noise assessment (Appendix P).

Existing conditions

The vicinity of the proposed hatchery is subject to noise from traffic on the Lyell Highway, noise from land-based farm operations and noise from the Kimbolton coal mine on the north side of the highway.

The nearest existing residences are “Sendace” and “Kimbolton”, both about 750m east of the east side of the hatchery’s main building. Noise levels at these residences are mainly due to traffic noise but the area in general is characterised by background noise levels that are often quite low, and traffic noise levels are also low in the hours around midnight.

On 20 August 2019 the Central Highlands Council approved a development application for a new residence to be built near the west boundary of the “Sendace” property about 440m east of the proposed hatchery’s main building and 185m from the Lyell Highway.

Noise levels away from the highway

A noise logger was deployed for seven days starting on Wednesday 10 April 2019 at a location near the 56 Woodmoor Road residence, about 1km west of the proposed hatchery site and far enough from the highway that traffic noise was inaudible. The goal was to understand the diurnal variation of noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed hatchery, but away from the highway.

Figure 22 shows the L90 (5 min) noise levels recorded by the noise logger. The L90 noise levels are about 5 dB below the Leq noise levels and are interpreted as the background noise levels. The median L90 noise levels were 36 to 38 dBA during the day and at night decreased to about 20 dBA. These noise levels are low compared to some rural areas, although there are many examples around Tasmania of areas with similar low background noise levels.

Noise levels near the highway

A noise logger was also deployed a short distance west of the proposed location of the hatchery access road, 53m from the middle of the highway, from Tuesday 4 June to Friday 7 June 2019 inclusive. The


75

goal was to understand the diurnal variation of noise levels close to the highway, which impact the nearest residences. Figure 23 shows the Leq (1 h) and L90 (1 h) noise levels recorded by the noise logger.

The L90 (1 h) noise levels vary from 20 to 40 dBA and are similar to the L90 noise levels recorded by the noise logger near the 56 Woodmoor Road residence. This means the traffic on the highway is light enough that there is no vehicle noise for at least 10 percent of the time.

The Leq (1 h) noise levels vary from just over 40 dBA at night to just under 60 dBA during the day.

Figure 22 L90 (5 min) noise levels (dBA) recorded in April 2019 at a location near the 56 Woodmoor Road residence. A 5-point running mean has been applied to clarify the diurnal pattern of noise levels.


76

Figure 23 Leq (1 h) and L90 (1 h) noise levels (dBA), top and bottom plots respectively, recorded by the noise logger located 53m from the middle of the Lyell Highway near the site of the proposed hatchery.

The residence “Sendace” is set back by about 100m from the highway. Analysis of the traffic noise data found:

• L10 (18 h) noise levels were about 57 dBA at 53m on all three days, equating to 53 dBA at 100m, in good compliance with the L10 (18 h) noise level target of 63 dBA.

• Leq (8 h) noise levels between 11pm and 7am were about 51 dBA at 53m on all three nights. This equates to 47 dBA at 100m which is slightly above the target night-time Leq (8 h) noise level of 45 dBA.

• Leq (1 h) noise levels between 11pm and 7am were between 41 and 55 dBA at 53m with a median of 49 dBA. There were 8 hours x 3 nights = 24 measurements. This equates to a range of 37 to 51 dBA at 100m with four of the Leq (1 h) noise levels being slightly over the target night-time Leq (1 h) noise level of 50 dBA. The median noise level of 45 dBA at 100m is in reasonably good compliance with the target night-time Leq (1 h) noise level.

Analysis of the traffic noise further showed that the Lyell Highway traffic at present has quite a high component of heavy vehicle traffic and there are enough heavy vehicle movements at night to explain why the Leq (8 hour) noise levels are elevated (see above, second dot point).

The median number of heavy vehicles per hour at night was four between 10pm and 7am. The early part of the night has less traffic, with two heavy vehicles per hour between 10pm and 1am and three between 1am and 4am. Heavy vehicle traffic is higher after about 4am, with six heavy vehicles per hour between 4am and 7am. During the day, the median number of heavy vehicles per hour was six between 7am and 11am.

Leq

L90


77

Potential impacts and mitigation measures

Construction work noise Noise will be generated by earthmoving plant and construction machinery during the construction phase of the project. Construction will utilise conventional methods and materials, and no high-noise activities such as pile driving, or blasting are anticipated. Typical construction vehicles including delivery trucks, cranes, graders and excavators will be used. Some hand tools may be used, but upon completion of the initial structure, most work will occur inside.

Tassal will take every reasonable and practicable step to minimise the noise impact on the nearest sensitive receptors.

As noted, construction work will comply with the Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change, 2009). The guidelines recommend construction work hours: Monday to Friday from 7 am to 6 pm; and on Saturday from 8 am to 1 pm. From a noise impact point of view, construction work that is not noisy can be carried out at other times. The guidelines also recognise that construction work outside the recommended work hours is sometimes necessary.

Noise mitigation measures and associated procedures will be stipulated in the CEMP. The CEMP will also contain details on the type of construction activities occurring, the types of equipment being used, hours of operation and how community members can contact Tassal. Estimating noise levels from construction work is straightforward. AS 2436-2010 Guide to noise and vibration control on construction sites provides typical noise levels from construction equipment and there are numerous other sources of information.

The construction noise management level is 85 dBA at 10m (see the assessment in Appendix P for details of how this is calculated). 85 dBA is the threshold for wearing hearing protection, so if some construction activity is expected to produce noise levels that would require workers to wear hearing protection within 10m of the activity, then it is sufficiently noisy to require noise mitigation measures to avoid causing nuisance at the nearest residences.

It is expected that hatchery construction work will be completed before the new residence is built 440m east of the new hatchery’s main building. If this not the case, then construction work noise at the new residence will be about 5 dB higher than noise levels at the existing residences. The revised construction noise management level will then be 80 dBA at 10m.

Hatchery noise sources

The hatchery’s design will be similar to the Rookwood II hatchery located near Huonville, but about 1.5 times larger. Noise from some hatcheries in Tasmania has triggered complaints of nuisance, but the Rookwood II hatchery is designed to minimise noise emissions and is very quiet. It has not caused noise nuisance at the nearest residences, several of which are less than 350m from the hatchery.

The hatchery will operate 24 hours per day, but the standard working hours will be between 7 am and 6 pm, which aligns with the EPA’s definition of day-time. The site will be manned 24 hours a day with on-site accommodation for staff to attend to issues that may arise in regard to fish health after hours.

All the noise sources associated with the hatchery are well understood. Noise level predictions for the new hatchery are mainly based on noise level measurements taken at the Rookwood II hatchery, including 1/3rd octave band noise level measurements. Noise levels for smolt tankers were taken from a detailed study of a New Zealand facility, and agreed with heavy vehicle noise level measurements taken at the location of the proposed hatchery. The hatchery has two principal noise sources: noise


78

breakout from the biofilter & oxygenation & water treatment rooms through the building’s colorbond envelope; and noise from chiller fans located outside the building.

The sound power levels (dBA re 1pW) of the principal on-site noise sources associated with the hatchery are listed in Table 11. Vehicle system/aeration generators are assumed to be quiet, given Tassal’s commitment to this goal. Smolt tankers will take less than a minute to travel on the access road at 20 km/h between the hatchery and the highway, so their noise is considered to be traffic noise.

Table 11 Sound power levels (dBA re 1pW) of the principal on-site noise sources.

Hatchery 101 dBA

Chiller fans (three basic 3602 units) 102 dBA

Smolt tankers idling (two vehicles) 94 dBA

The nearest residences are just over 750m east of the hatchery, and Table 12 lists the Leq noise level (dBA re 20µPa) predictions at this distance. These are baseline predictions before consideration of noise mitigation and assume sound from the hatchery spreads out isotropically in a hemisphere over ground that is flat, hard and reflects noise. The adjusted noise levels take into account noise reduction due to sound energy absorption by the atmosphere and other factors, as explained in the noise assessment in Appendix P. Table 12 Noise level predictions of identified noise sources to the nearest residence

--------------Baseline-------------- Adjusted

10 m 750 m 750 m

Hatchery 73 36 32

Chiller fans 74 37 32

Smolt tankers idling 66 29 26

Hatchery noise levels following mitigation

Hatchery building - The hatchery building has a quiet side and a noisy side. The quiet side is the side containing the smolt tanks and the noisy side is the side containing the biofilter, oxygenation and water treatment equipment. The quiet side of the building will face east towards the nearest residences, which means the acoustic middle of the building is about 50m further from the residences than the 750m used for the predictions, and the quiet side of the building acts as an acoustic barrier. The result is that the noise level of the main hatchery building will be less than the basic prediction of 32 dBA at the nearest residence. The resulting noise level is not known because the reduction due to the hatchery acting as an acoustic barrier is not known but is likely to be close to (and probably less than) 25 dBA.

If noise from the main building needs to be further reduced, this can be done after the hatchery is commissioned by installing sound absorbing material inside the hatchery. This is explained in the noise assessment (Appendix P).

In addition to these mitigation measures, the building design will be similar to the Rookwood II hatchery, incorporating best practice noise management measures:


79

• All roller doors will have no gaps at the top and doors to the biofilter and oxygenation rooms will always be kept closed (to the extent possible).

• Ventilation louvres serving the biofilter and oxygenation rooms will be designed to reduce noise breakout.

Chiller fans - The chiller fans will be located on the west side of the main hatchery building. This means the distance to the nearest residences is about 100m more than the 750m used for the predictions, and the main hatchery building will act as an acoustic barrier. In addition, Tassal has decided to use a low-noise version of the chiller fans that will reduce noise levels by 4 dB compared to the chiller fans used at the Rookwood II hatchery.

The noise levels of the chiller fans will therefore be much lower than the basic prediction of 32 dBA at the nearest residence. The noise level is not known because the reduction due to the hatchery acting as an acoustic barrier is not known but is confidently expected to be less than 20 dBA.

Smolt tankers – From Table 12, the sound power level of two smolt tankers idling will be about 94 dBA re 1pW, assuming Tassal’s commitment to quietening down the smolt tank aeration motors.

Tankers will wait to be loaded on the west side of the hatchery building so they will be about 100m further from the nearest residences than the 750m assumed by the above prediction, and the building will act as a large acoustic barrier, so tankers waiting to be loaded will not be significant noise sources.

A single tanker idling while being loaded will have a sound power level of about 91 dBA re 1pW, which equates to a noise level (i.e. sound pressure level) of Leq = 23 dBA re 20µPa at 750m, the nearest existing residences. Tankers are expected to be loaded on the east side of the hatchery, and the line of sight to the nearest residences will be blocked by a solid fence and/or an earth embankment. A noise specialist will provide guidance on this mitigation measure at the detailed design stage, but the resulting noise level at the nearest existing residences will be well under 20 dBA at 750m.

Hatchery noise levels at existing residences

The worst-case noise levels are at night during a smolt loading operation, in which case the noise of smolt tankers is added to the normal noise of the hatchery. The total noise at the existing residences

will be about 25 (hatchery) + 20 (chiller fans) + 20 (smolt loading) 27 dBA, probably a little less, close to the design noise level target of 25 dBA and in good compliance with the 32 dBA night-time noise level limit.

If sound absorbing material installed in the biofilter / water treatment / oxygenation parts of the hatchery then the total noise will be further reduced to 20 (hatchery) + 20 (chiller fans) + 20 (smolt

loading) 25 dBA. Environmental Dynamics (Dr Carter) has advised that this should not be required, but it can be installed after the hatchery is commissioned if need be. It is standard practice for the EPA to require a post-commissioning noise level survey to determine whether there is a need for additional noise mitigation measures.

Hatchery noise levels at proposed residence

Noise levels at the proposed residence will be about 5 dB higher than noise levels at the nearest existing residences. Considering the worst-case noise levels, at night during a smolt loading operation,

the total noise at the proposed residence will be about 27 + 5 32 dBA, probably a little less, above the design noise level target of 25 dBA but in compliance with the 32 dBA night-time noise level limit of. If sound absorbing material installed in the hatchery then the total noise at the proposed residence will be reduced to 30 dBA. Environmental Dynamics (Dr Carter) has advised that these predictions are


80

conservative, so it is still appropriate to wait for the results of a post-commissioning noise level survey to determine whether there is a need for additional noise mitigation measures.

Night-time noise from smolt tankers

The Lyell Highway has significant night-time heavy vehicle traffic at present, consisting of a wide mix of vehicle types, so the present night-time noise levels at residences near the Lyell Highway are sometimes just above the Leq (8 h, night) noise level target of 45 dBA set by the Tasmanian State Road Traffic Noise Management Guidelines (2015) but in borderline compliance with the Leq (1 h) noise level target of 50 dBA set by the NSW Road Noise Policy (2011).

There will be 40 to 50 smolt loading days per year and loading operations usually start at night, currently at about 4am at other hatcheries. The very unlikely worst-case situation is that smolt loading will happen all night long. It takes about 30 minutes to load a smolt tanker, so there will be an additional four heavy vehicle movements per hour on the Lyell Highway during a smolt loading operation (i.e. two empty tankers arriving and two loaded tankers leaving each hour).

Data from the noise logger deployed near the Lyell Highway allow the impact of these additional heavy vehicle movements to be calculated. Details are provided in the noise assessment (see Appendix P) but for the present smolt loading timetable, which starts loading at about 4am, the present Leq (1 h) night-time noise levels will increase by about 1 dB and the Leq (8 h, night) noise levels will increase by less than 1 dB.

If smolt loading is carried out all night long the Leq (8 h) noise levels will increase by about 3 dB. The calculation for the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights that the noise logger was deployed were 2.9, 3.4, and 3.1 dB respectively.

These predicted changes in the Leq (1 h) night-time noise levels and the Leq (8 h, night) noise levels are conservative because they are based on the measured noise levels of heavy vehicles travelling at 100 km/h on the highway. In fact, the smolt tankers will be travelling at lower speeds as they approach or leave the hatchery, and Tassal will implement a noise management protocol for heavy vehicle movements during operations at night, encompassing directives including:

• Avoid use of engine brakes and accelerate/decelerate slowly.

• Entry/exit speeds of vehicles onto and from the Lyell Highway.

• Type of vehicle used (low noise vehicles).

• Maintenance regime.

Day-time vehicle noise

The traffic study to support the proposed hatchery (see Appendix F) has found the Lyell Highway has about 1,200 vehicles per day, with a peak of about 130 vehicles per hour.

L10 (18 h) noise levels were measured to be 57 dBA at 53m on three consecutive days, equating to an estimated 53 dBA at 100m (“Sendace”), in good compliance with the L10 (18 h) noise level target of 63 dBA set by the Tasmanian State Road Traffic Noise Management Guidelines. If highway traffic were to double it would only increase the L10 (18 h) noise level by 3 dB.

It is understood that heavy vehicles serving the Kimbolton quarry only operate during the day and it is reasonable to assume a maximum of four heavy vehicles per hour from the quarry. On smolt loading


81

days, the day-time traffic profile will be increased by four smolt tankers per hour from 7am to about 11am, which will increase the present noise levels at the nearest residence by no more than 1-2 dB.

The proposed residence will be about 185m from the highway, about twice the distance of the existing residence “Sendace”. Peak noise levels (Lmax) from passing vehicles will be about 6 dB lower than at the existing residence. Average noise levels (Leq) will also be lower than at “Sendace” although the proposed residence may have line of sight to a greater stretch of highway.


Adherence to the mitigation measures and management protocol, as outlined above, will ensure that any noise effects from construction and operation of the Hatchery will be kept to acceptable and compliant levels. As a result:

• Noise impacts from equipment and from the development will meet the requirements of the EMPCA 1994 – Environmental nuisance provisions

• Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009

and the occupational health and safety requirements of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998 will be met.

Waste Management

Hatchery Discharge Water

Reuse Water Generation and Management

Reuse water volumes

The Hatchery has been designed to operate at a minimum water exchange rate ratio of 50 litres of water per every kilogram of food fed to fish per day. Exchange rates (L/kg feed) will tend to be higher at lower feed inputs. Overall, Tassal anticipates the water exchange rate ratio will average 70 litres of water per kilogram of feed over the year, and this is consistent with water exchange rates experienced at Tassal’s Rookwood II Hatchery. In addition, Tassal’s experience has been that RAS hatcheries may need to increase water exchange rates periodically to address fish health issues. It is anticipated that fish health performance will improve at Tassal’s hatcheries due to the POMV vaccination program and as such increases to water exchange rates will be unlikely. Any increases to water exchange at the hatchery will trigger investigations into additional reuse water management controls. For the purposes of the EIS and to incorporate a conservative projection, Tassal has calculated reuse water volumes based on 90 litres of water per kilogram of feed. This ratio is considered to be highly conservative and allows for any potential additional system waste (i.e. water generated from backwashing and flushing of pipework) and also any fluctuations in daily hatchery operations. Applying the 90 litres of water per kilogram of feed ratio (and an additional 10 per cent buffer) the maximum annual hatchery reuse water volume produced will be approximately 158 mega litres. This equates of an average of 400 kilolitres per day.


82

The reuse water produced for irrigation will fluctuate across the year depending on the production plan scenario and the total biomass of smolt within the facility. Figure 24 shows the maximum monthly reuse water volumes expected using the 90 litres of water per kilogram of feed ratio under a ‘worst-case’ production plan scenario.

Figure 24 Maximum monthly reuse water volumes generated from the Hatchery

Peformance Requirements

A detailed IEMP has been prepared in accordance with the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (DPIPWE, 2002). This is attached at Appendix B.

6.5.1.1.2.1 Reuse water quality requirements

Water quality supplied for irrigation will be required to meet the quality definition of Class B recycled water as described by the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (DPIPWE, 2002) and nominated salinity controls. Currently, reuse water generated at Tassal’s Rookwood Hatchery meets the Class B definition and it is anticipated the water quality from the proposed Hatchery (which will be subject to the same treatment process) will be of similar quality. Table 13 describes the anticipated Hatchery reuse water quality based on data from the reuse water dam at the Rookwood Hatchery.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Re

cycl

ed

wat

er

(ML)

Maximum monthly recycled water volumes (ML)


83

Table 13 Anticipated reuse water quality for the Hatchery (based on data from Tassal’s Rookwood Hatchery) against proposed maximum limits for irrigation

Parameter Unit Anticipated quality (at reuse

water dam)

Class B limit Salinity control limit (to be achieved by shandying)

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

mg/L 8 < 50

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 20.5

Thermotolerant Coliforms cfu/100ml 20 < 1000

Total Nitrogen (as N) mg/L 51~

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.2

Nitrite mg/L 2^

Nitrate mg/L 68^

Total Phosphorus mg/L 1.9

Electrical Conductivity (EC) µS/cm 1782# 1000

pH 7.9 5.5 – 8.5###

Oil & Grease mg/L 2

Sodium adsorption ratio 28.16^^ <12

* based on median data from Rookwood Hatchery January 2017 – May 2019 ~ calculated from median data from Rookwood Hatchery August 2018 – May 2019 ^ calculated from median data from Rookwood Hatchery January 2019 – May 2019 ^^ calculated from median data from Rookwood Hatchery January 2017 – May 2019 # calculated from data from Rookwood Hatchery June 2018 – May 2019 ### proposed pH limit of 8.5. DPIWE (2002) nominates a maximum pH limit of 8.0, but soil conditions will not be adversely impacted by pH up to 8.5.

Reuse water quality will initially be measured, by laboratory analysis, at the reuse water dam and in the irrigation shandied supply. Once trends (and reuse water treatment efficiency) are understood, ongoing analysis of shandied supply will be the critical indicator of reuse water quality. Irrigation area and volumes are determined by a number of factors including nutrient loading of the reuse water. Median data (from the Rookwood Hatchery reuse water) has been used for these calculations as this will provide the most accurate estimate of irrigation area and volume requirements. Data that is not representative of the proposed reuse water quality will result in an over-estimate of irrigation area required, nutrient loads and the potential to not be able to irrigate sufficient volumes on the irrigation areas. Appendix H in the IEMP shows the Rookwood reuse water data used for this EIS.

Irrigation management is an adaptive process where water quality is continuously monitored and irrigation management is reviewed on an annual basis. This allows for adjustments to the IEMP and for the identification of management actions such as securing additional irrigation areas, soil treatment and application of a leaching fraction when required.

As described in the IEMP the key water quality risk relates to salinity impacts on soil. Rookwood water quality data has been used to inform the EIS and predicted water quality. Measured salinity levels


84

from Rookwood’s reuse water quality are elevated, this is due to the addition of salt to the fish growing tanks. Salt is used as a prophylactic treatment at Rookwood on a continual basis. It is anticipated that this treatment method will not be implemented at the proposed Hatchery and hence, the reuse water quality should not have elevated levels of salinity. However, a freshwater shandying system is to be implemented on the irrigation scheme to ensure that reuse water conductivity is maintained below 1,000 micro Siemens per centimetre. Shandying will be achieved through the installation of a conductivity meter in the reuse water dam which will trigger dilution to ensure the irrigation salinity level is maintained below 1,000 micro Siemens per centimetre. This process will be automated and built into the irrigation system design with a safety mechanism. The safety mechanism consists of the main pump station having a control valve and metering monitoring system. This will allow control of the output water to 1,000 micro Siemens per centimetre. The interaction of the pumps and valves will be overseen by a PLC to measure and act on the conductivity of the water entering the pump station from the dam. There will be a fail-safe conductivity meter on the output of the pump station which will be control to the pump start system. This will shut the system down and alert staff should the defined limit be exceeded. Shandying will also control the sodium absorption ratio (SAR) which is important for maintaining soil structure and productivity. The IEMP also includes a nutrient balance based on irrigation for red meat production pasture (Table 14) which determined that reuse water nutrients will benefit productivity but that supplementary phosphorous and potassium will be required to maximise pasture production. The forecast excess of reuse water nitrogen is not anticipated to create unacceptable levels of nitrogen in the soil (and therefore increase risk of transfer to watercourses or groundwater) as it is typically taken up by natural environmental processes (volatilisation, ammonification and soil biological activity) and/or transferred offsite through increased opportunistic grazing that will result from improved pasture. Table 14 Estimated nutrient removal rates for pasture production in a livestock system

Typical Removal (kg/ha)

N P K

Nutrients applied in recycled water stream (1.8 ML/ha) 92 3.6 19.8

Nutrient removal as liveweight gain (consuming 9 t DM/ha) (Nutrimatch©, 2013)

30 8 2

Soil factor 46* 15 25

Total losses 76 23 27 Nutrient balance +16 -19.4 -7.2 *typically, 50 % of nitrogen applied in an agricultural setting.

A detailed soil monitoring program (initially biannual) will provide ongoing data and review of soil nutrient and salinity status.

6.5.1.1.2.2 Water Balance, Reuse Water and Storage Requirements

The IEMP includes a land capability assessment for irrigation and design of an irrigation scheme that exceeds requirements of the water balance assessments. Water balance assessments were developed based on several production scenarios. As described in Section 2.1.3, the water balance was ultimately based on highest fish numbers (worst case scenario) at 90 litres of water per kilogram of feed. This ratio is considered to be highly conservative and allows for any potential system water (i.e. generated from backwashing and flushing of pipework) and also any fluctuations in daily hatchery operations.


85

The water balance utilised to inform the design of the reuse water irrigation footprint and storage dam adopted 90th percentile rainfall values (for Hamilton) and assumed twelve consecutive months of 90 percentile rainfall conditions (a very unlikely scenario). A water balance for the highest recorded rainfall year was also developed for comparison. This resulted in lower rainfall than the 90th percentile calculation that was utilised to determine the reuse water storage and irrigation footprint. Volumes of hatchery discharge water from the hatchery, and reuse water irrigated under each pivot, will be metered and recorded. Water balance assumptions will be reviewed as part of the annual reuse water audit which will be completed 12 months post commencement of the irrigation scheme.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Key potential impacts associated with the reuse water irrigation scheme, and mitigation measures document in the IEMP, are summarised as follows: Reuse water salinity impacting on soil salinity and sodicity

To be mitigated by a freshwater shandying arrangement that ensures electrical conductivity of irrigated water is maintained below a sustainable limit of 1000 micro Siemen per centimetre. Soil salinity will be part of a soil monitoring program (initially biannually) and additional salinity risk mitigation includes the potential application of a freshwater leaching fraction in low rainfall periods.

Run off or spray drift to Meadowbank Lake

Will be managed by adherence to nominated buffer zones and irrigating only when soil moisture conditions are suited to irrigation. Anemometers will also be installed to prevent spray drift into sensitive areas. These will be programmed to shut down irrigation if set wind direction and/or wind speeds are met.

Insufficient reuse water storage capacity

Water balance modelling indicates that 120 megalitres of storage will be required in a 90th percentile rainfall year. This water balance is conservative as it assumes that every month in a 12-month cycle receives 90th percentile rainfall. A water balance assessment using highest rainfall recorded in one year for the region determined that a storage capacity of 113 megalitres would have been required in that year. 126 megalitres of storage is proposed, with contingency actions in place (once the dam reaches 80 percent capacity) to avoid any risk of discharge to Meadowbank Lake.

Groundwater nutrient contamination

To be mitigated via professionally run irrigation (matching irrigation to soil/crop moisture requirements) and monitored via a detailed groundwater monitoring program.

The IEMP includes the following commitments to mitigate these potential impacts:

• Reuse water will meet Class B recycled water standards as described by the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (DPIPWE, 2002). Reuse water will be shandied with freshwater to maintain conductivity (as a measure of salinity) below 1,000 micro Siemen per centimetre. A conductivity meter will be installed on the irrigation to inform freshwater shandying ratios.


86

• A soil monitoring program will be implemented to track soil salinity and nutrient trends in irrigated areas.

• Installation of groundwater bores in the irrigation areas, and below the reuse water storage dam with implementation of a groundwater monitoring program.

• Flow metering equipment, to track of both reuse water production and irrigation volumes by irrigation areas, will be installed at time of construction.

• Installation of gauge boards on the reuse water dam. When the dam reaches 80 percent capacity contingency management activities (documented in the IEMP) will be initiated. These include reducing the hatchery water exchange, and/or tankering reuse water to an approved location.

• Surface water above the reuse water dam will be diverted to minimise dam inflow. The reuse water dam will also be fenced (to prevent stock access).

• Irrigation advice, water quality interpretation and agronomic support to be provided by Tassal (or their representatives) to land/irrigation operators. This will ensure productivity, and utilisation of reuse water nutrients, is maximised.

• Nominated irrigation buffer zones to prevent impact on identified sensitive receptors (including Meadowbank Lake) will be adhered to.

Monthly water quality monitoring of reuse dam water will also be undertaken. This will allow for the continual assessment of irrigation water quality and for the identification of any potential issues.

Additionally, if Tassal plans to increase the nominal water exchange rate for the Hatchery, an

investigation into additional contingency measures will be triggered which includes the suitability of

utilising existing freshwater storage dams on the Hatchery site and neighbouring land for emergency

storage and identifying additional irrigation areas. Changes will not be made to the water exchange

rate until the outcome of these investigations is confirmed.

Therapeutants and chemical use

As the reuse water from the Hatchery will be irrigated rather than discharged to surface water, the risk of impacts from therapeutants and chemical use in the Hatchery is considered to be minimal. The reuse water has been assessed against Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (2002) which are the requisite and relevant standards for the reuse water quality. Therapeutant use in the Hatchery will be minimal and generally restricted to the addition of salt to the water if required.

Risks to human health

Risks to human health from irrigation of the Hatchery Reuse water are considered to minimal. The reuse water is Class B under the Environmental Guidelines for the use of Recycled Water in Tasmania 2002 and thermotolerant coliforms levels are predicted to be less than the 1000cfu/100mL limit for Class B water. The IEMP defines a number of controls to be implemented to ensure the protection of human health, these include:


87

• Signage at the reuse dam and irrigation areas;

• PPE requirements;

• Buffer zones to protect surrounding surface water;

• Stock withholding periods post irrigation; and

• Regular monitoring of thermotolerant coliform levels in the reuse water.

It is important to note that the irrigation is not on a crop for human consumption.

Impacts of excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)

Nitrogen is an essential nutrient in plants. Applications of large amounts of nitrogen can, however, result in soil acidification; groundwater contamination through leaching and surface water contamination if there is run-off from the site. Surplus phosphorus may be transported off-site in dissolved or particulate form may produce oxygen-depleting or toxic algal blooms in surface waters.

As described in the IEMP, the irrigation areas tend to be nutrient deficient and it is unlikely that excess nutrients will be applied. Irrigation application calculations account for the soil nutrient requirements and irrigation area buffer zones will prevent runoff and spray drift to surface waters.

Assessment of net impacts

Agronomic assessment undertaken as part of the IEMP development (including soil survey and nutrient budgeting) indicates that irrigation with reuse water will be beneficial to productivity. Ongoing soil monitoring will inform good decision making in terms of fertiliser use and grazing/pasture production processes.

Solid Organic Waste (Waste Management)

Solid and organic waste sources generated from the proposed Hatchery include:

• sludge (waste feed and faeces).

• fish mortalities.

• general solid waste.


Solid and controlled waste from sites must comply with the following:

• Tasmanian Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulation 2016.

• The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy (Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, June 2009).

• Tasmanian Biosolids Reuse Guidelines (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 1999).

• Approved Management Method for Biosolids Reuse (Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment, 2006).


88

Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Waste material can cause environmental nuisance or harm if it is not contained and disposed of appropriately. Inappropriately managed solid waste has the potential to contribute to surface and groundwater pollution.

Sludge (solids from solids removal plant)

As described in Section 2.1.2.3, hatchery reuse water will be treated via an onsite solid removal plant, where reuse water and coagulated solids (sludge) will be separated through a dewatering process. The resultant sludge will be conveyed along a belt filter before being delivered to a 70 cubic metre holding tank. The quantity of sludge produced by the Hatchery will fluctuate across the year depending on the total biomass of smolt within the Hatchery, and consequently the level of production. Annually, the expected organic waste volume will be about 2,650 cubic metres. During periods of peak biomass the maximum sludge volume will be approximately 90 cubic metres a week (averaging 12-13 cubic metres per day). The holding tank will be emptied regularly (2-5 times a week depending on total biomass) by an approved licensed waste transport contractor and sent to an approved composting facility for reuse as compost. Disposal management of the hatchery sludge will be undertaken in accordance with an approved sludge management plan that will be developed for the Hatchery prior to operation. Based on screening data of biosolids from Tassal’s Rookwood Hatchery it is expected that the sludge from the proposed Hatchery will be within the contaminant acceptance concentration thresholds for Grade B (as described in the Tasmanian Biosolids Reuse Guidelines (DPIWE, 1999). As part of the sludge management plan for the Hatchery, initial screening of sludge will be undertaken to confirm contaminant acceptance levels.

Fish Mortalities

The risk of large-scale fish mortality arises for two main sources:

1. Pathogens entering the facility and causing an epidemic disease outbreak with high mortality rate; or

2. Failure of life support equipment in the facility due to accident, or error, or equipment failure. The risk of pathogen entry is managed through biosecurity measures. These biosecurity measures are designed to prevent pathogen entry into the facility or spread within the facility. Biosecurity measures and procedures relevant to Tassal’s hatcheries are set out in a Freshwater Fish Health Management Plan, which will be up-dated to include the proposed Hatchery. The main pathways for pathogen entry are movement of animals and vermin into the facility, water taken into the facility, equipment used in the facility, feed provided to the fish, personnel and visitors gaining entry to the facility. The Freshwater Fish Health Management Plan and associated standard operating procedures (SOPs) address all these pathways and cover:


89

Site specific measures

• Site specific production and operational details

• Site specific water treatment processes

• Site security

• Control zones

• Critical control points

• Protocols

• Cleaning and disinfection

• Visitor biosecurity protocol Standard measures applied across all freshwater facilities

• Hatchery environment and biosecurity

• Water quality monitoring

• Quality and weight checks

• Fish movements

• Potential impacts of poor smolt quality

• Fish handling

• Fish health procedures

• Fish health records

• Incident reporting

• Fish types

• Disease recognition and monitoring

• Disinfection

• Medication and treatment records In summary, the risk pathways are mitigated in the following ways: Animal pathway: egg disinfection processes; pre-transfer examination, health testing, risk assessment and mitigation. Water pathway: all incoming water will be disinfected to international RAS standards before being used to hold fish. Equipment pathway: Cleaning and disinfection processes will be enforced before entry into or movement between zoned areas of the facility. Feed pathway: Only commercially produced heat extruded feed will be used. Personnel and visitor pathway: Procedures will be enforced that assess risk of visitors or contractors and specify appropriate measures. Site specific clothing will be used and all persons entering the facility will have to pass through a foot bath and wash and disinfect their hands. Vermin pathway: Doors will be kept closed when not in use, buildings will be vermin proof and a pest management programme will be established. With respect to risk from equipment failure, this will be addressed through design, monitoring systems, alarm systems, redundancy and contingency procedures, documented processes, and staff training.


90

In the unlikely event of a large-scale mortality Tassal has disposal systems in place to cater for the biomass held in the facility, which are:

• Fish dying as a result of equipment failure or disease would be sent to Tassal’s rendering facility at Triabunna for rendering to fish meal and oil. This process employs high temperatures for extended periods and produces a microbiologically safe product.

• If for any reason the rendering plant was unavailable, the mortalities would be consigned to either land-fill or composting. Landfill would bury and retain all carcases, whilst composting achieves elevated temperatures across a timeframe in the weeks, which again produces a product which is microbiologically safe from an aquatic pathogen perspective.

Dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials

Fuel and oil will be bought onto the site as required for construction activities. There will be no bulk storage of fuel, oil or chemicals on the constructions site.

Ongoing operations at the Hatchery requires the storage and use of chemicals and hazardous substances for cleaning, maintaining water quality in the fish growing tanks, discharge water treatment and maintenance activities. The hazardous materials listed in Table 15 are expected to be utilised within site operations.

Table 15 Hazardous materials expected to be used and/or stored at the Hatchery site

Expected list of dangerous goods to be stored on-site Acetone BOC Acetylene F10SC Veterinary disinfectant

Aerosol Cold Gal BOC Argon, Compressed Ferric chloride

Ethanol Denatured BOC liquid oxygen, medical Hydrochloric acid

Reagent Alcohol BOC oxygen, compressed Phosphate test kit, reagent P-1A

Formaldehyde Solution BOC R134A Methanol

Alclean 5032 Kerosine Nitric acid

Amare Diphoterine Regular Unleaded Petrol (91) Sodium bicarbonate (all grades)

Ammonium bicarbonate Sodium Chloride (salt) Ovadine

Anguimonas Chloramine-T Oxalic acid dihydrate

Intervet Anguimonas Chlorform Ozone

Aqui-S Chlorine Sodium hypochlorite 12.5%

Automotive Diesel Fuel Citric acid monohydrate Sodium nitrite

Benzocaine Commercial propane VWR Virkon Aquatic

BernzOmatic butane Virkon-S Methylated Spirits

Lubricant oil Degreaser

In addition to these substances, some fuel and oils will also be stored and used on-site for machine maintenance operations.


Management of dangerous goods and hazardous materials must comply with the following statues, regulations and codes:

• Work Health and Safety Act 2012


91

• Australian Dangerous Goods Code, 7th edition

• National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC). Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Substances, 3rd Edition, October 2004.

• NOHSC:1015 (2001): National Standard for Storage and Handling of Dangerous Goods

• NOHSC:1005 (1994): National Model Regulations for the Control of Workplace Hazardous Substances

• NOHSC:2017 (2001): National Code of Practice for Storage and Handling of Dangerous Goods

• AS 1940-2004: The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 – Environmental nuisance or harm provisions

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulation 2016

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010

Potential impacts

Incorrect storage and handling of dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials could potentially result in land and water contamination. Incorrect storage and handling of fuels and chemicals can also result in health and safety implications including explosions, fire and exposure of personnel to dangerous liquids or fumes.


Construction

Construction work at the site will comply with the CEMP developed by Tassal. The CEMP will capture management of dangerous goods and hazardous substances during the construction phase. The CEMP is described in detail in Section 6.14.2 of this report. Construction tenders will be required to address and comply with the CEMP and its associated site management procedures. At a minimum the following controls will be implemented:

• Hazardous substances and chemicals are to be stored in correctly labelled and appropriate containers;

• Hazardous substances and chemicals are to have appropriate containment and meet requisite segregation requirements;

• Material Data Safety Sheets are to be available for all chemicals and hazardous substances at the construction site and disposal instructions are to be followed;

• Spill kits are to be provided at appropriate locations; and

• A Spill Management Procedure is to be developed and communicated to the contractor(s).

Operations

Tassal has existing procedures for the management of dangerous goods and hazardous materials. The procedures encompass labelling, signage, segregation, storage, handling and inspection requirements and procedures. The management of dangerous goods and hazardous substance at the Hatchery will be integrated into these procedures.

The volumes of liquid oxygen and methanol to be stored at site exceed the threshold limits in Schedule 11 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012. Notification will be provided to Work Safe


92

Tasmania and the site manifest will be maintained by the Tassal Work Health and Safety (WHS) Department.

All chemicals will be stored in a bunded area and managed according to the National Standard and National Code for Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals. The management of corrosive substances will comply with AS 3780-20085 Storage and handling of corrosive substances (safe handling) legislation. Tassal will manage hazardous substances on the site in accordance with the specifications as outlined National Code of Practice for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods [NOHSC:2017(2001)].

The following will be undertaken to mitigate effects from dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials:

• Spill kits will be made available and maintained in appropriate locations;

• A Spill Procedure will be developed and communicated to site personnel;

• If there is any residual contaminated soil evident after a spill and clean-up, it will be taken for disposal or treatment at an appropriately licensed facility;

• Refuelling and lubrication will be undertaken away from freestanding water;

• Reagents associated with the facility will be stored in a secure bunded area in accordance with the National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods (NOHSC 2001);

• All chemicals and hazardous substances must be approved by the Tassal WHS Department before being brought onto a site. The approval process requires a risk assessment to be conducted for the substance and includes consideration of potential environment impacts as well as the possibility of substitution with a less hazardous alternative;

• An inventory of chemicals will be maintained for the site using ChemWatch software;

• Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) will be held for all chemicals used on-site. MSDSs will be made available to staff as required;

• Hatchery staff will be trained in the appropriate operation of the plant including use of reagents, and appropriate safety information will be made available in worker and visitor site inductions;

• Regular inspections of storage areas will be undertaken and recorded;

• Where hazardous materials are required within the facilities operations, they will be stored in a chemical storage room that is bunded and managed according to the National Standard and National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods.

• A site Emergency Management Plan will be developed and maintained. The Plan will include a procedure encompassing potential incidents involving the loss hazardous substances or chemicals.

Assessment of residual effects

The measures outlined above should ensure that potential effects from dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials are properly controlled, monitored and managed, and present a low risk to the environment.


93

Biodiversity and Natural Values

Vegetation and Flora

Existing conditions

The Hatchery and staff residence will be developed in a cleared site amongst farming land. The proposed site contains very limited natural values due to the highly modified nature of the land.

The property is dominated with modified land classified as Agricultural Land (FAG) as per TASVEG 3.0. There are also areas mapped as Unverified Plantations for silviculture (FPU) which relates to areas on the land that have been previously revegetated.

The land at the site has been cleared of native vegetation and converted to pasture for sheep and cattle grazing. It is dominated by exotic grasses and herbs including cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), bent grass (Agrostis sp.), oat (Avena sp.), canarygrass (Phalaris aquatica), barley grass (Hordeum sp.), rape (Brassica sp.), buckshorn plantain (Plantago coronopus), cats ear (Hypochoeris radicata), storks bill (Erodium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), wireweed (Polygonum sp.), fat hen (Chenopodium album), dock (Rumex sp.) and thistle species.

The site contains modified land only and has no vegetation communities of conservation significance. Due to the modified nature of the site, a limited number of native species were recorded on the site. Native species are largely restricted to the revegetation areasand include black gum (Eucalyptus ovata), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), slender honeymyrtle (Malaleuca gibbosa), bottlebrush (M. pallida) and isolated herbs species including climbing saltbush (Einadia nutans).

No threatened flora species listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were recorded at the site as part of the Natural Values Assessment for this EIS.

A search of the Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE Database) report for the proposed site revealed three threatened flora species have been recorded within 500 m of the site along the side of the Lyell Highway amongst more intact grassland that has not been intensively grazed. However, no threatened flora species or vegetation communities were recorded or are likely to occur on the proposed site.

Declared weeds found on the proposed site included blackberry, African boxthorn and slender thistle. Two other declared weeds recorded within 500 m of the site include African lovegrass (Eragostis curvula) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).


Flora management must comply with the following statues:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

• Nature Conservation Act 2002

• Weed Management Act 1999


94

Potential impacts

Threatened vegetation communities and flora species

The proposed development will have no impacts on native vegetation. The Hatchery and staff residence will be developed in a cleared site amongst farming land. The proposed site contains very limited natural values due to the highly modified nature of the land. The field survey conducted in May 2019, revealed no threatened flora species to be present on the site, nor are they considered likely to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat and highly modified nature of the land.

Threatened flora species (Prickly woodruff (Asperula scoparia) and woolly new-holland-daisy (Vittadinia gracilis)) are known to occur from the roadside verge immediately adjacent to the site. These species were not recorded on the site and are unlikely to occur due to the extensive modification of the land and prolonged grazing. The proposed access to the hatchery site is nearby to records of these species, however no plants were recorded during the May 2019 survey.

Declared weeds and pathogens

The proposed construction works for the Hatchery build have the potential to translocate new weeds or pathogens onto the site or spread existing invasive weed species to new areas. These risks will be managed through the use of wash down procedures prior to entry/exit from the site, use of clean fill material and by the control of declared weeds in impact areas prior to and post construction. Detailed weed management will be outlined in the CEMP.



To minimise any potential impacts on the prickly woodruff (Asperula scoparia) and woolly new-holland-daisy (Vittadinia gracilis), the following mitigation measures will be implemented:

• an additional survey will be conducted in spring to determine the presence of the species on the roadside;

- if found to be present, the location of the recorded species will be marked on maps in the CEMP to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage;

- if found to be present and damage unavoidable, Tassal will arrange for a ‘permit to take’ through the Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch of DPIPWE.


The risk of introducing weeds and/or plant diseases to the site or transporting weeds and/or plant diseases from the site is greatest during the initial construction phase, when earthmoving equipment is transported. Once the project is operating, works will generally be undertaken by Tassal’s own machines, which will remain on-site, and there will be very little requirement to bring external equipment onto the site.


95

Weed management will form part of the general environmental management of the site to prevent the spread of weed species into the site, manage any existing weed species and prevent recruitment in other areas.

6.7.1.4.2.1 Weed hygiene measures

With a single dedicated entrance to the Hatchery site from the Lyell Highway, the implementation of a weed hygiene plan to prevent the spread of weeds into or out of the site should prove effective. Tassal will maintain a weed-free buffer zone between the hatchery building and the entrance to the property. All weeds will be cleared prior to construction. The zone will be inspected by site personnel on a monthly basis with the presence of any weeds triggering immediate action to remove the weeds.

The following plant hygiene measures will be implemented during the construction and operation of the proposed development. The hygiene plan covers, but it not limited to:

• vehicle, machinery and equipment hygiene

• wash down protocols which may be necessary when travelling between clean and contaminated areas and also when vehicles are entering clean or leaving contaminated sites

• location and management of wash down areas and facilities, including management of wash water

• maintaining logbooks, detailing adherence to hygiene protocols for all contractors

• ensuring that any sourced material (soils, gravel, plant materials etc.) are obtained from low risk (i.e. Phytphthora) quarries

• material hygiene (soils, gravel, plant materials etc.) ensuring that no materials contaminated with weed propagules (seeds, propagative vegetation material) are imported into the study area.

• appropriate hygiene protocols, including wash down procedures for weeds, will be maintained on the site during construction. Protocols will be consistent with the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control, Edition 1 (Forestry Tasmania: Agricultural Contractors of Tasmania; Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment).



Potential impacts to threatened flora species will be restricted to the construction of the access road to the site. No residual impacts to threatened flora will occur as a result of the hatchery operation.

Adherence to the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above will ensure that that any potential impacts to flora species will be kept to a minimum, if found to be present.


Adherence to the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above will ensure that the likely spread of weeds and disease to and from the site will be kept to a minimum.


96

Fauna

Existing conditions

The lack of intact native vegetation on the site means that habitat for fauna species is very limited. The open pasture of the site provides some foraging habitat for raptor species and mammals, with the farm dams providing habitat for waterbirds such as swans and ducks. No significant habitat such as trees with hollows, den sites or nesting habitat for threatened fauna species is present on the site.

A Natural Values Assessment Report generated for the site and the field survey conducted in May 2019 revealed no threatened fauna species or significant fauna habitat have been recorded on the site.


Fauna management must comply with the following statutes:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

• Nature Conservation Act 2002

• Forest Practices Act 1985

• Crown Lands Act 1976

Potential impacts

No threatened fauna species or significant fauna habitat was found on the Hatchery site. The site does provide some marginal habitat for the following species:

• Raptors (including Wedge-tailed eagle, white-bellied sea eagle and masked owl) – these species are likely to forage over the site however, there is no nesting habitat present (such as hollow bearing trees) within the site. The nearest known nest for the wedge-tailed eagle and white-bellied sea eagle is over 5 km and over 2.7 km (respectively) from the site. Strike risks from overhead power lines is a potential risk for these species. Tassal will install any existing or new overhead powerlines with bird diverters.

• Green and gold frog – there is a record of this species from the Clyde River to the south of the proposed site and older records from some farm dams. The farm dams onsite provide potential habitat for the species however lack of fringing vegetation makes the habitat marginal and reduces the likelihood of the species occurring. Tassal will not be modifying this dam or using it for any operational purpose, hence no impact to this species is considered to occur (if it was present).

• Eastern barred bandicoot, Tasmanian devil, Eastern quoll and spotted tailed quoll – these species have been recorded along the Lyell Highway and in remnant vegetation to the south and west of the Hatchery site. All these species are considered likely to forage across the site however there is no den or shelter habitat present. According to the Survey Guidelines and Management Advice for Development Proposals that may impact on the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) an increase of traffic movements by more than 10% at night (including one hour before dusk and one hour after dawn) may increase the risk of roadkill for these roadside scavenging species. According to the traffic assessment conducted for the proposal


97

the expected increase in traffic movements will be less than 10%. Tassal expects any potential impact on these species from traffic generated by the Hatchery to be low to negligible.

• Giant freshwater crayfish – there is a record of this species from the Clyde River approximately 4 km to the south of the Hatchery site. This record is listed in the Protected Matters Report as a relocation record. The species requires intact streams within undisturbed, well-vegetated stream catchments and high-water quality (clear of sediment). The Hatchery site contains no suitable habitat for this species and no records of the species have been recorded in Meadowbank Lake. Therefore, the potential impact on the giant freshwater crayfish from the proposal is considered negligible.

• EPBC Listed Species and Communities - no Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) will be impacted by the proposed development.


As indicated the section above (Section 6.7.2.3), it is unlikely that the proposal will result in adverse impacts to fauna. Nevertheless, the following mitigation measures will be implemented:

• For any overhead powerlines required, bird diverters will be installed as part of the network connection process to minimise any potential strike risk to foraging birds such as raptors. In addition tailored perches will be installed on top of powerpoles to encourage raptors to perch on infrastructure where there is a much lower risk of electrocution.

• Speed restrictions will be enforced along the private road from the entrance on the Lyell Highway to the Hatchery facility. See Section 6.4.3 for more details on this protocol. It is expected that these measures will reduce any potential roadkill risk to foraging scavenger species such as the Tasmanian Devil (Sacrophilus harrisii).

• Tassal will instal perimeter fencing around the Hatchery access road, buildings and dam. This will further reduce any potential impact on scavenger species by preventing/reducing access of the species into these areas.


The residual impact of the proposed project to fauna species following the avoidance and mitigation measures is considered low to negligible.

Marine and Coastal

The proposed hatchery is over 50 km from the nearest coastline or marine waters. However, the proposed site does contain designated Waterway and Coastal Protection Areas along the drainage lines that feed the existing farm dams. These areas are designated under the Central Highlands Interim Planning Scheme 2015 ‘To ensure that buildings and works in proximity to a waterway, the coast, identified climate change refugia and potable water supply areas will not have an unnecessary or unacceptable impact on natural values’.

Works within the drainage lines on the site will be limited to the construction of a road crossing for access to the hatchery and the construction of the reuse water storage dam. Under the Waterway and Coastal Protection Code (E11.0) any works that occur within a waterway area must meet the following performance criteria under E11.7.1 P1. Each criteria is addressed in turn below.


98

Performance Criteria - P1

Building and works within a Waterway and Coastal Protection Area must satisfy all of the following:

(a) avoid or mitigate impact on natural values;

The waterway area will only be traversed for an access road to the proposed hatchery. No natural values occur within the Waterway and Coastal Protection Area. The construction of the new proposed dam will have no impacts on natural values.

(b) mitigate and manage adverse erosion, sedimentation and runoff impacts on natural values;

A soil and water management plan will be developed for the proposed site to prevent any erosion or sedimentation entering the drainage line from the road crossing and the new dam construction.

(c) avoid or mitigate impacts on riparian or littoral vegetation;

There is no riparian vegetation within the Waterway and Coastal Protection Area along the drainage line.

(d) maintain natural streambank and streambed conditions (where it exists);

There is no streambank or streambed in the drainage line.

(e) maintain in-stream natural habitat, such as fallen logs, bank overhangs, rocks and trailing vegetation;

Not applicable

(f) avoid significantly impeding natural flow and drainage;

The road construction across the drainage line will include piping to ensure there is no impediment to water flow. The construction of the new dam will not alter the current flow regime.

(g) maintain fish passage (where applicable);

Not applicable

(h) avoid landfilling of wetlands;

Not applicable

(i) works are undertaken generally in accordance with ‘Wetlands and Waterways Works Manual’ (DPIWE, 2003) and ‘Tasmanian Coastal Works Manual’ (DPIPWE, Page and Thorp, 2010), and the unnecessary use of machinery within watercourses or wetlands is avoided.

Not applicable

Overall, the natural values under the Waterways and Coastal Protection Areas will not be significantly

or adversely impacted upon by the proposed development or associated dam and access road.

Greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances

Tassal reports its energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to the Commonwealth Government annually. Quantifying this data enables Tassal to meet its obligations under the National


99

Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act 2007. It also identifies areas for improvement, which provides Tassal with opportunities to reduce operating costs, enhance environmental performance, and reduce its demand on Tasmania’s energy and fuel supplies.

Potential impacts

Greenhouse gases (predominantly carbon dioxide) will be generated during the construction and operational phases of the Hatchery.

During construction, fuel use by vehicles, machinery and generators will be the predominant source.

During the Hatchery’s operation, the RAS will require ongoing use of hydro electricity from the Tasmanian grid. Energy demand will be dependent on production and total biomass within the Hatchery. Diesel and petrol will be consumed during the transportation of products and consumables to the site and of waste products from the site. A small amount of oils and greases and refrigerants will also be consumed.


No ozone depleting substances will be used or generated during the construction and operation of the project. All equipment, machinery and vehicles will be well maintained in order to minimise the generation of greenhouse gases. Tassal is developing a tool to assist reporting under the NGER Act and to identify priorities for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. This will be applied to the Hatchery including any initiatives for the reduction of energy use.

Socio-economic issues

Estimated Capital Investment

The total capital cost of the proposal is anticipated to be $46 million. Tassal will ensure that local communities and business benefit from the development and ongoing operations. First preference for employment and project contracts will be given to Australian businesses with a preference to Tasmanian companies. This project is clearly economically, socially and locally significant to the Central Highlands region. From a social perspective, these investments are complemented by a strong community engagement fund. Tassal launched its first “Better Together: Community Grants Program”, inviting community-minded organisations to apply for financial or in-kind support in 2017. Tassal intends to support programs, partnerships and community initiatives which align to our Community Foundation pillars (health & well-being; education; environmental stewardship and social inclusion). Tassal acknowledges that our operations are predominantly in fragile socio-economic regions and that stable employment and local suppliers generate a healthier economy. This is matched by regional trade training and skills institutes.


100

Tassal is seeking to make a long-term partnership in investment in the Central Highlands that adds to the socio-economic fabric of region. Adding another Aquaculture facility to the jobs and regional growth platform for the town and region will broaden the economic base and provide an element of protection from the boom and bust cycles that affect communities reliant upon single sectors for jobs and growth. The operating costs of the RAS is expected to be in the order of $9.5 million per year. This cost includes expenses associated with:

• Landowner fees

• Council fees

• Insurance costs

• Regulatory compliance costs

• Electricity costs

• Wages

• Water costs

• Fish feed

• Operation and maintenance costs for the infrastructure.

Local and state labour markets, skills and training

During the feasibility and construction phases of the Hatchery, Tassal’s direct incremental employment is projected to be 150 employees with the majority of the work performed by local contractors and consultants. During the construction period, the Hatchery will provide a steady pipeline of opportunity for local and Tasmanian businesses to build and maintain employment. The skills Tassal require in the feasibility and construction phase will include environmental management and planning, construction and project management, workplace health and safety and general administration. During the operating phase, Tassal’s direct employment is projected to peak at 14 employees. The breadth of skills required to operate the hatchery will require the business to forge strong relationships with schools, trade associations, tertiary institutions and other groups. Tassal’s experience in regional employment is that for every direct job created there is a multiplier of a further indirect 5 jobs being created in the community. As such our projected peak employment will translate into an estimated total employment of approximately 70 community jobs. In terms of the ongoing operational benefits for employment, the Hatchery will result in increased and higher skilled employment in the fish husbandry and industrial services fields.

Source of raw material

Where possible, Tassal will endeavour to source local raw materials. It is noted that some specialist equipment will need to be sourced from other areas such as the recirculatory system.

Community infrastructure effects and opportunities

No negative impacts are anticipated on recreational, health or sporting facilities and services within the area.


101

The Hatchery is positioned outside the limits of the Meadowbank Lake Buffer Zone and there is no overlap between the Hatchery operations and the Lake. Recreational users of the Lake will not be impacted.

Community demographic effects

Any impact on the community demographic is likely to be minimal. This is supported by consultation that been undertaken to-date. There will be an increase in local employment opportunities during the construction phase, and ongoing operations will result in increased and higher skilled employment in the fish husbandry and industrial services fields. Visible pathways for new industries and diversification of industries operating in the region will provide new opportunities and support the retention of local people.

Land values and demand for housing

The Hatchery will be developed on existing agricultural land and is not anticipated to have an impact on the demand for land or housing in the area. The Hatchery will be located in an area with very low population density and in an agricultural location framed by a hillside. It will be surrounded by planted native trees. As such, the proposal is unlikely to result in a reduction of property values. The increase in economic activity in the area that is facilitated by the Hatchery will likely have a positive impact on property prices. Currently, housing exists adjacent to the site and as such, assessments have been undertaken regarding potential amenity impacts in terms of noise, odour and visual considerations and general environmental impact. These assessments include consideration of a recently appoved development application by the owner of the property “Sendace” (located to the east of Lot 2) for the property owner’s existing residence to be used as visitor accommodation and for the property owner to construct a new dwelling. Overall, the Hatchery has been designed with these issues in mind and commitments made to minimise impacts on amenity throughout construction and operation.

Local, Regional, State and National Economies

The Hatchery will benefit the economy of the local municipality, particularly during the construction phase. Those benefited include local civil works contractors, local accommodation providers and retailers, such as food outlets and vehicle service stations. Once the Hatchery is operating, the local municipality will benefit from employment opportunities, Tassal’s financial contribution of rates to the Central Highlands Council and the use of local services for some maintenance activities. The Hatchery will not affect State or the Federal Government Tax revenue other than paying the normal taxes on company profits.


102

The financial model for the Hatchery is based on Tassal’s Rookwood RAS Hatchery. No royalties are paid to the State Government. More broadly, the Tasmanian salmon farming runway is mature and steady for the industry. Tasmanian farmed salmon is considered a quality nutritious product and attracts a high price in global markets. As the largest fish producer in Australia, Tassal has many opportunities to grow the industry into the future. Australia imports almost 70% of the seafood it consumes, so projects of this nature contribute significantly to reducing imports in favour of Australian made products. To ensure Tassal’s long-term success, it is important to remain globally competitive from a biomass growth perspective. Tassal must retain its competitiveness with a consideration to cost, sustainability and the communities in which we operate. The proposed Hatchery will serve to reinforce the company’s current position and will provide the opportunity to establish and maintain competition within the global market. The Hatchery will assist in reducing the cost of production of Tassal’s final harvest product and minimise the potential loss of small fish by growing larger smolt, which will require less time at sea. Tassal’s growth plans are aligned to meet Australia’s market requirements. In order to continue meeting the Australian demand and ensure global cost competitiveness, it is necessary to expand operations. Without expansion, competition from other sources, such as operators in Chile and Norway, may be sought. By meeting Australia’s market requirements and ensuring global cost competitiveness, Tassal can improve Australia’s position in the global fish market.

Hazard analysis and risk assessment

Tassal conducted preliminary assessments to identify key environmental aspects associated with the proposed Hamilton hatchery. Assessment of the environmental aspects was informed by operational experience at the Rookwood Hatchery and from the findings detailed in the specialist reports commissioned for the EIS process. A risk assessment was then carried out for each of the expected aspects to assess potential impacts from the operation and then to assess the risk once they have been mitigated by design features or management protocols.

Risk assessment

The risk assessment was conducted in accordance with Tassal’s risk assessment procedures which aligns with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018, Risk Management Guidelines.

Identifying the hazards

The potential hazards and the potential modes of occurrence were identified by a workshop process that was informed by the following:

• discussions with operational and environmental personnel to evaluate emissions and associated environmental hazards;

• desktop review of available information; and

• site inspections. Further review and additions to the assessment progressively undertaken as specialist reports were received.


103

Risk ranking

Methodology

The objective of the assessment was to evaluate the environmental risks associated with the proposed operation on semi-quantitative basis. The risk is scored using a numerical scoring system that combines objective estimates of the likelihood and consequences of a hazard in the context of existing and proposed control measures. The risk analysis provides a ranking system that can be used to compare and prioritise risks associated with each hazard.

The evaluation of likelihood and consequence involves assessing the identified hazards by assigning a consequence and likelihood of occurrence by using predetermined criteria. The following tables (Table 16 and Table 17) define the assessment criteria.

Table 16 Consequence of hazard

Ranking Description

1 Insignificant Low impact with only temporary measurability

2 Minor Contained minor incident with short term reversible impact

3 Moderate Uncontained impact able to be rectified in medium term. Not affecting ecosystem function. Ecosystem will recover quickly without intervention

4 Major Extensive hazardous impact with long term recovery time. Relatively widespread with some impairment to ecosystem function

5 Catastrophic Uncontained hazardous impact resulting in loss of ecosystem structure and function. Long term, widespread effects. Remediation required

Table 17 Likelihood of occurrence

Ranking Description

1 Rare <10% chance of occurrence per annum

2 Unlikely 10% up to 35% chance of occurrence per annum

3 Possible 35% up to 65% chance of occurrence per annum

4 Likely 65% to 90% chance of occurrence per annum

5 Almost certain 90% or greater chance of occurrence per annum

The ranking for likelihood and severity are combined in a matrix to establish an overall risk ranking as shown in Table 18.


104

Table 18 Risk ranking matrix

Likelihood Rating

Consequence Rating

1 Insignificant

2 Minor

3 Moderate

4 Major

5 Catastrophic

5 Certain 5 Low 10 High 15 High 20 Extreme 25 Extreme

4 Likely 4 Low 8 Mod 12 Mod 16 High 20 Extreme

3 Possible 3 Low 6 Mod 9 Mod 12 High 15 High

2 Unlikely 2 Low 4 Low Low 8 Mod 10 High

1 Rare 1 Low 2 Low 3 Low 4 Mod 5 High

Each risk category requires a defined level of control(s):

• Low-risk hazards: the potential hazard or impact should be acceptable and no additional

management controls should be required. The hazard needs to be periodically monitored to

assess whether the status of the hazard has altered.

• Moderate-risk hazards: should only need to be mitigated through administrative change such

as ongoing management protocols. Some treatment works may be required.

• High-risk and extreme hazards: when neither the consequence nor the frequency of the

hazard or impact can be appropriately managed, the risk needs to be engineered to reduce or

remove the hazard.

Hazard risk evaluation

Table 19 summarises the outcome of the environmental hazard identification and risk evaluation study as outlined above. It should be noted that the values of likelihood and consequences that have been assigned in this table are based on subjective interpretation and experience. In addition, the consequences of the hazard are based on the most sensitive environmental receptors. Hence, in some cases, the environmental receptor may be people, while in other cases it may be ecological species, aesthetic issues or amenity.


105

Table 19 Hamilton Hatchery Environmental Risk Assessment

Item Environmental aspect

Description Controls

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Like

liho

od

RISK Summary of action required

1 Liquid Emissions

1.1 Treated hatchery effluent

The hatchery will produce discharge water as the smolt grow. When the water filtration system is cleaned and flushed, discharge water containing faeces and waste feed will be generated. Treated discharge water is expected to be of similar quality or better than the Rookwood Hatchery due to the similarity of design. Water held in the Reuse Dam will be used for irrigation. Potential impacts include contamination to land and waterways.

Effluent quality will be within Grade B recycled water category. Water balance calculations have used a conservative ratio (90 L/kg of feed) to ensure adequate capacity of the proposed onsite storage dam. No discharge to the Lake Meadowbank. The Hatchery solids removal plant will be operated via the Hatchery SCADA system (CITECT). The system is programmed to maintain the system at designed levels and incorporates alarms and alerts. Dedicated and trained personnel will operate the SCADA and Hatchery solids removal plant. The Hatchery solids removal plant will be inspected and maintained as part of the Hatchery’s preventative maintenance system.

3 2 Moderate - 6 Implement annual review process of the IEMP. Implement soil and water quality monitoring program as described by the IEMP. Develop and implement a Reuse Water Management Plan for the Hatchery. Ensure the Hatchery solids removal plant is sufficiently incorporated into the Hatcheries preventative maintenance program. Continue investigations for additional irrigation area to ensure further contingency for reuse water. Any additional areas will be included in an updated IEMP which will be submitted for EPA approval.


106

Reuse Water Dam Capacity is 120ML. This is designed to manage water volumes based on 90%ile rainfall year plus 7ML of buffer. Use of reuse water through irrigation scheme on neighbouring property rather than discharge. The IEMP has assessed the estimated reuse water quality as suitable for irrigation to the land. The IEMP includes soil and reuse water quality monitoring program.

1.2 Poor quality treated hatchery discharge water

Poor quality discharge water produced during commissioning resulting in short-term high nutrient and BOD load discharge into receiving storage dam. Potential impacts to land and waterways.

The operation of the solids removal plant at Rookwood provides Tassal with confidence that few commissioning problems will be encountered. If commissioning problems occur and discharge water is not within Grade B recycled water standards, the storage dam will have adequate capacity to store reuse water during the commissioning phase. Pump reuse water from the storage dam back through the

2 2 Low - 4 Communicate to site personnel that irrigation is not to occur before reuse water analysis has been undertaken and the results meet Class B recycled water standards. Pump reuse water from the storage dam back through the waste treatment plant to provide additional treatment. Review solids removal plant operation by waste treatment specialist to determine if further treatment of discharge water is required.


107

solids removal plant to provide additional treatment. Review solids removal plant operation by waste treatment specialist to determine if further treatment of discharge water is required.

1.3 Runoff from irrigation pastures

Runoff of hatchery reuse water from irrigation areas into waterways (i.e. Meadowbank Lake).

The IEMP for the proposal incorporates appropriate management protocols to minimise runoff of irrigation into Meadowbank Lake.

3 1 Low - 3 Ensure management of irrigation is in accordance with IEMP, incorporating appropriate buffer zones, application rates and regular monitoring.

1.4 Release of reuse water from storage dam (via seepage or overflow)

Reuse water from the onsite solids removal plant will be stored in a dam (onsite) for reuse via irrigation on neighbouring property. There are potential impacts to land and groundwater via seepage or overflow of the Dam.

Dam design storage capacity has been informed by a calculation of ‘worst-case’ water balances (including input of reuse water from hatchery and 90%ile rainfall periods). Dam has been designed by an appropriately qualified engineer and has been designed to prevent seepage. Dam will be surveyed periodically by an appropriately qualified engineer. Discharge water quality is expected to be similar to the Rookwood Hatchery and potential contamination would be minimal.

2 2 Low - 4 Develop and implement a Reuse Water Management Plan for the Hatchery. Undertake Dam survey at required intervals. Recommendations from the survey are to be implemented.


108

A Reuse Water Management Plan will be developed and will detail dam management measures, including hatchery exchange rates and dam level maintenance.

1.5 Stormwater Site run-off from Hatchery area and operations. Potential contamination to land and waterways.

Minimal hazardous substances onsite and all used within buildings. Sealed hardstand areas will be provided around the site building and infrastructure. Stormwater design for the proposed hatchery will include appropriate pollution removal and velocity reduction features to minimise impacts on receiving environment. Storm water management infrastructure (i.e. pits, drains etc) will be incorporated into the preventive maintenance inspection schedule.

2 1 Low - 2 Review stormwater management controls for adequacy prior to construction. Incorporate storm water management infrastructure into preventative maintenance schedule.

1.6 Domestic wastewater

Domestic wastewater from personnel onsite and the manager’s dwelling has the potential to contaminate water and land as well as potential impacts to human health.

Domestic wastewater system designed in accordance with Directors Guidelines for On-Site Wastewater Management Systems. Suitable ground for Land Application Areas for disposal of

2 1 Low - 2 Obtain appropriate approvals for the AWTS’s. Manage wastewater system in accordance with the Directors Guidelines for On-Site Wastewater Management Systems.


109

domestic wastewater has been identified. Domestic wastewater will be treated to secondary levels in onsite aerated wastewater treatment systems (AWTS’s) and discharge disposed of via mulch-covered surface drip irrigation.

2 Air Emissions

2.1 Odour emissions Odour emissions from the operation of smolt tanks has the potential to impact sensitive receptors.

No apparent odour has been observed from the fish tanks in the Rookwood Hatchery. Fish tanks are contained within the hatchery buildings.

1 1 Low - 1

2.2 Odour emissions due to plant failure.

Breakdown of solids removal plant causes anaerobic conditions and increased levels of odour emissions causing a potential impact to sensitive receptors.

The design of the solids removal plant provides for redundancy in the event of plant failure. The Hatchery solids removal plant is contained within the Hatchery building. The Hatchery solids removal plant will be operated via the Hatchery SCADA system (CITECT). The system is programmed to maintain the system at designed levels and incorporates alarms and alerts. Dedicated and trained personnel operated the SCADA and Hatchery solids removal plant.

1 1 Low - 1 Ensure the Hatchery solids removal plant is sufficiently incorporated into the Hatcheries preventative maintenance program.


110

The Hatchery solids removal plant will be inspected and maintained as part of the Hatchery’s preventative maintenance system.

2.3 Odour emissions from the Reuse Water Dam and solids removal plant

Odour emissions not meeting the Air Policy Limit of two odour units at the boundary of the property and causing a potential impact at sensitive receptors. The main sources of odour emissions outside of the Hatchery Building are sludge removed from the Hatchery solids removal plant and the Reuse Water Dam.

Experience at Rookwood Hatchery is that odour emissions are low. No complaints have been regarding odour have been received at the Rookwood Hatchery. Odour monitoring, and modelling has been undertaken for the proposed operation of the Hatchery. The location of the Reuse Water Dam has been chosen to achieve compliance with the Air Policy Limit. Sludge will be managed in accordance with an approved Sludge Management Plan to be developed post commissioning. The Plan will encompass storage requirements, transport frequency and transport method. Tassal maintains a Complaints Register that ensures complaints are recorded, investigated and actioned.

2 2 Low - 4 Develop and implement a Sludge Management Plan post commissioning. Ensure any complaints received at the Hatchery and entered into the Tassal Complaints Register and appropriate follow up actions are assigned and implemented.


111

2.4 Dust emissions from road use and during construction

Dust emissions from vehicle movements on the Hatchery access road. Dust emissions from construction activities.

There is a considerable distance to off-site receptors. Speed limits will be implemented on the access road and in the construction area. Dust control will be included in the CEMP. Water carts will be utilised if necessary.

1 2 Low - 2 Implement speed limits on the access road and in the construction area. Include dust control in the CEMP.

3 Noise Emissions

3.1 Noise emissions from construction

Equipment, machinery and vehicle noise during site construction works may have a potential impact on sensitive receptors. Potential for temporary, short-term, moderate but not serious annoyance at outdoor living areas during the construction phase.

Noise emissions will be encompassed in the CEMP. Contractor(s) undertaking construction activities are to maintain equipment and machinery in good working order. Construction to occur only between 7 am to 6 pm (Mon-Fri) and 8 am to 1 pm (Sat). No work on Sun or public holidays (unless otherwise approved). Monitor noise during construction to confirm predictions.

2 2 Low - 2 Ensure noise emissions are included in the CEMP. Communicate requirements to construction contractor(s).

3.2 Noise emissions from Hatchery operations.

Noise breakout from hatchery building, chiller fans and idling trucks during smolt loading may have a potential impact on sensitive receptors. Noise survey undertaken at Rookwood to model impact at proposed Hamilton hatchery and

Commissioning of post-construction noise survey to confirm noise level predictions. Tassal is committed to building earth embankments and/or installing silencers or additional acoustic cladding if the post

3 1 Low - 6 Commissioning of post-construction noise survey to confirm noise level predictions. Implement mitigation if necessary. Ensure any complaints received at the Hatchery and entered into the Tassal Complaints


112

compare to EPA limit levels. The survey indicates the proposed hatchery operations will be compliant with EPA noise level limits so impact on sensitive receptors is considered low. Line of sight to noise sources from nearest sensitive receptors (residences) will be blocked by terrain and/or earth embankments to significantly reduce noise nuisance.

construction noise survey demonstrates that it is necessary. Tassal maintains a Complaints Register that ensures complaints are recorded, investigated and actioned.

Register and appropriate follow up actions are assigned and implemented.

3.3 Noise emissions from vehicles

Noise emissions from vehicles at night may have potential impacts on sensitive receptors.

Noise survey undertaken to determine noise levels from heavy vehicles used for smolt transport. Movement towards using converted milk tankers for smolt transport operations providing higher capcity per truck hence reducing overall truck numbers. At night, smolt tankers will adhere to noise management protocol for entering and leaving the proposed hatchery. Tassal maintains a Complaints Register that ensures complaints are recorded, investigated and actioned.

2 2 Low - 4 Commissioning of post-construction noise survey to confirm noise level predictions. Implement mitigation if necessary. Document and communicate noise protocol to tanker operators. Ensure any complaints received at the Hatchery and entered into the Tassal Complaints Register and appropriate follow up actions are assigned and implemented.

4 Natural Values


113

4.1 Impact to threatened or vulnerable fauna

Potential impact from construction and operation to threatened or vulnerable fauna in the area.

Natural Values Atlas search showed one threatened fauna species recorded within a 500 m radius of the proposed site, however no species have been recorded on the proposed site. No significant habitat exists within the proposed development footprint however, site has potential to be foraging habitat for scavengers. The proposed site is already modified in nature and has very limited habitat for threatened fauna species. Include presence of the species in the site induction process. Installation of bird diverters on any necessary overhead powerlines for the proposed hatchery. Security fencing surrounding the proposed hatchery compound, access road and dam. Speed restrictions on the access road from the entrance on the Lyell Highway to the hatchery.

2 1 Low - 2 Implement speed restrictions. Construct fencing as per design. Ensure site induction describes the presence of the species.


114

4.2 Impact to threatened or vulnerable flora

Potential impact from construction and operation to threatened or vulnerable flora in the area.

The proposed site contains very limited natural values due to the highly modified nature of the land. No threatened flora species or vegetation communities were recorded or are likely to occur on the proposed site. Prickly woodruff (Asperula scoparia) and woolly new-holland-daisy (Vittadinia gracilis) are known to occur along the roadside verge immediately adjacent to the site. Field survey recorded no presence of Prickly woodruff (Asperula scoparia) and woolly new-holland-daisy (Vittadinia gracilis) on adjacent roadside. No impact is expected.

1 1 Low - 1 Conduct spring survey of roadside to determine presence of Prickly woodruff (Asperula scoparia) and woolly new-holland-daisy (Vittadinia gracilis). If present, the location of the recorded species will be marked on maps in the CEMP to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage; OR If found to be present and damage unavoidable, Tassal will arrange for a ‘permit to destroy’ through the Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch of DPIPWE.

5 Solid Waste

5.1 General waste and organic wastes from fish tanks

The production of smolt will generate waste feed and faeces sludge which will be removed from the hatchery discharge water by the solids removal plant. General solid waste including papers, food materials and empty bottles, and materials from routine minor machinery.

Solid and controlled waste from sites will comply with the Tasmanian Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management Regulations 2000). All waste will be segregated and stored in a dedicated and properly contained area. Waste

2 2 Low - 4 Develop and implement a Sludge Management Plan that encompasses:

- Contractor licencing requirements;

- Final destination; - Staff and contractor

training; - Storage and transport

requirements; and


115

Organic wastes from hatchery operations could present a risk to aquatic ecosystems due to the potentially high organic loads leading to reduced dissolved oxygen and/or high nutrient concentrations, if not treated, handled and disposed of correctly.

will be stored in enclosed containers provided by the waste contractor. General waste will be disposed of in a licensed landfill. Waste will be removed and transported by licensed contractor at an appropriate frequency. Organic waste will be sent to an approved composting facility for reuse as compost and will be managed in accordance with an approved Sludge Management Plan. A site Waste Management Plan will be developed for the Hatchery.

- Reporting.

6 Greenhouse Gases

6.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from LPG use, refrigerants and waste management.

Energy usage and Greenhouse Gas emissions are tracked and reported to the Australian Energy Regulator through NGERS. Direct emissions from the operation of a RAS hatchery are minimal as the main source of energy is hydro-electricity.

1 3 Low - 3

7 Biosecurity

7.1 Spread of disease pathogens to

Spread of disease pathogen within the Hatchery may result in

Tassal has an extensive and effective biosecurity

3 1 Low - 3 Implement the Biosecurity Management Plan at the


116

hatchery smolt or other fish farming operations

increased mortality or a large- scale mortality event. Spread of disease pathogens to waterways or other facilities may result in increased mortality or a large-scale mortality event to other operations within the industry.

management system that will extended to include the proposed Hamilton hatchery. Key controls include;

- Disinfection procedures - Site entry restrictions

(i.e. cannot visit site on the same day as visiting a processing facility)

- Mortality management procedures

- POMV vaccination

Biosecurity at the Hatchery will be managed by dedicated and qualified fish health personnel.

Hatchery. Requirements of the Plan are to be included in the site and contractor induction.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - HAMILTON RAS HATCHERY

117

Environmental aspects high risk

There are no high-risk hazards associated with the proposed Hamilton hatchery.

Environmental aspects moderate risk

Moderate risk hazards:

• Potential impacts to land from the irrigation of treated water.

Fire risk

Existing conditions


The legislative and regulatory framework for the preliminary Fire Response Plan is outlined below:

• Fire Services Act 1979

• relevant Australian Standards

• Central Highlands Council Interim Planning Scheme 2015 requirements.

The building fire risk will be assessed against (and will comply with) the relevant provisions in the Building Code of Australia and to the requirements of the insurers. The building will also comply with the relevant requirements of the Fire Services Act 1979 and the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.

Potential impacts and avoidance/mitigation measures

Construction phase

Ignition sources associated with the construction phase are limited to use of machinery, vehicles and fuels. All vehicles and machinery will be kept in good working order to minimise the potential for fires onsite. Any fuels required during the construction phase will be limited in quantity and will be stored in appropriately bunded facilities.

Appropriate fire fighting equipment will be kept on-site during the construction phase and site staff trained in emergency procedures and use of fire fighting equipment.

The full detail of fire management (including emergency response procedures) during the construction phase will be outlined in the CEMP.

Operational phase

The two key aspects of fire prevention and control during operation relate to:

• Fire generated on the site, causing internal damage or migrating off the site into the surrounding area; and

• the potential for wildfires to enter the site from surrounding areas.


118

Operation of the facility poses little fire risk, with the main ignition source being an electrical fault. All buildings will be designed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and an Emergency Response Plan for the Hatchery will be developed which will include (amongst other scenerios) the event of a fire. Fire detection and firefighting equipment will be located on the site including smoke detectors, alarm systems, fire hydrants, hose reels and extinguishers in accordance with relevant Australian Standards. Additionally, maintenance manuals will include all necessary inspections and testing required to reduce (and keep) the risk of fire to minimum levels.

The proposed hatchery site is located within a defined Bushfire-Prone Area as it is within 100 m of contiguous native vegetation (grassland). Due to its location, the Hatchery will be built to satisfy the requirements of the Bushfire-Prone Area Code (PD5.1) for a bushfire attack level rating of 12.5 as outlined in the Bushfire Hazard Report (Appendix K). Additionally, a bushfire management plan will be developed for the Hatchery, which will include bushfire protection measures and emergency response procedures in the case of a threat of bushfire to the site.

Infrastructure and off-site ancillary facilities


The Lyell Highway is a State road and as such all accesses, works and activities affecting the road are required to comply with the relevant Austroads Guidelines, DIER Code of Practice and relevant Australian Standards including AS 1742.3.

Construction impacts and mitigation measures

Traffic Impacts

There may be minor impacts such as small delays to road users on the Lyell Highway resulting from the construction of the access junction of the Hatchery road. This will be discussed further in a CEMP to be produced prior to the commencement of construction.

Impacts on Power Supply

There will be minimal impacts to the local power supply during construction of the proposal. Appropriate approvals will be gained, and service checks will be conducted prior to any construction activities.

Operational Impacts and mitigation measures

The operation of the proposed hatchery will result in off-site impacts including:

• Increased traffic;

• Increased power usage; and

• Increased demand for freshwater.

The extent and nature of these impacts are outlined below.


119

Traffic Impacts

The following is a summary of the findings of the Traffic Impact Report which is provided in Section 6.16 and Appendix F.

• Impact on Traffic Efficiency

The proposal will add less than 3% to the traffic volumes to the Lyell Highway. As such, this increase will not affect the capacity of this road and therefore will not impact on traffic efficiency of the surrounding road network.

• Impact on Site Access

It is proposed to access the Hatchery site via a new road junction off the Lyell Highway. The access location has been selected to maximise available sight distances and junction design will meet Austroad requirements.

• Impact on Intersections

As part of the access for the Hatchery: - A Basic Auxiliary Left turn lane from the Lyell Highway into the Hatchery access road will

be constructed; and

- Design at the intersection is in accordance with relevant Australian Standards, Austroads Guidelines and Central Highlands Planning Scheme.

• Impact on Road Safety

There are no significant detrimental road safety impacts foreseen for the Hatchery development based on the following: - The surrounding road network is capable of absorbing the relatively insignificant amount

of traffic generated by the Hatchery operation;

- The existing road safety performance of the Lyell Highway near the subject site does not indicate that there are any current road safety deficiencies that might be exacerbated by the proposal;

- Adequate sight distance is available at the site access on the Lyell Highway in relation to the prevailing vehicle speeds; and

- The nature of the traffic generated by the Hatchery is consistent with nearby land uses and therefore traffic/truck movements into and out of the Hatchery site will not be seen as an uncommon event by other motorists.

Impacts on Power Supply

As mentioned in Section 2.6.3, augmentation work will be undertaken to establish a 2,500 kVA high voltage electricity connection to the Hatchery. Finalisation of the power supply design is being undertaken by Tassal in conjunction with TasNetworks. As part of the design process, impacts on


120

existing power supply for the area is being considered to ensure no undue pressure is applied to the existing networks and all infrastructure will be sufficient to supply power to the Hatchery and other uses.

Environmental Management Systems

Management system description

The ongoing environmental management of the proposed Hatchery will be integrated into Tassal’s systems and procedures. The systems include but is are limited to:

• Identification of environmental risk and controls.

• Development and implementation of documented procedures for operational control.

• Appointment of a specific management representative who has a defined role for environmental management of the site.

• Development of competency, training and awareness program for employees associated with the environmental performance of the site.

• Development and implementation of an environmental monitoring program (with documented procedures).

• Development and documentation of an Emergency Response Plan.

• Development and implementation of an incident management system.

• Development and implementation of an auditing program.

At a minimum management plans and procedures will be developed for hatchery discharge water management and irrigation, sludge management and for the occurrence of blue green algae in the Reuse Dam.

Tassal maintains a dedicated environmental compliance team and adequate resources will be allocated for environmental management at the proposed Hatchery. Trained and experienced operational personnel will responsible for day to day environmental management at the Hatchery with ongoing support and guidance from the Tassal Environment Department.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Contractor(s) engaged by Tassal will undertake the construction phase of the proposal. Tassal will prepare and implement a CEMP prior to construction of the project. The Contractor will be required to nominate an Environmental Representative, with responsibility for ensuring that the needs of the CEMP are met. The CEMP will be reviewed by the Contractor to ensure completeness and to account for specific management requirements of the contracting company.


121

The CEMP will encompass the relevant issues identified in throughout the EIS and will include, but not be limited to the following key elements: Site Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage entry and exit from the site and to ensure that works do not egress outside the contract site. The site management procedures will include:

• Development and implementation of an induction program to be provided to all construction workers.

• Clearly identifiable boundary delineation fence.

• Clearly identifiable and manageable site entry and exit location(s).

• Clearly identifiable delineation around significant features within the site that will require protection such as large trees, heritage sites, endangered species and material stockpiles.

Erosion Management

The site earthworks design will include development and implementation of an erosion management protocols. The erosion management procedures will include:

• Identification of proposed site drainage patterns.

• Construction techniques and proposed work programme to minimise the amount of exposed ground subject to potential erosion problems.

• Construction techniques to divert uncontaminated stormwater away from the site to reduce the amount of contaminated runoff.

Hazardous Materials Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage the delivery, storage, use and disposal of all hazardous materials used during the works. The hazardous materials management procedures will include:

• An inventory of all hazardous materials used during the works, including delivery date, quantity, storage location, date and method of disposal.

• A file, stored in an easily locatable area, containing the most up-to-date Hazardous Substances Material Safety Data Sheets for each hazardous material stored on-site.

• A system for storing all hazardous substances on-site, including temporary bunding, warning signs and access restrictions.

• A system for loading, unloading and using hazardous substances that minimises safety and environmental risks.

• Emergency procedures for containing and cleaning up any spillages of hazardous substances. Dust Management

Development and implementation of a system to minimise dust generation during construction works, including transport of materials to and from site. The dust management procedures will include:


122

• Identification of areas within the works that may be prone to dust emission under certain climatic conditions.

• Development of dust control systems to minimise the emission of dust from identified potential sources.

• Development of processes to ensure dust emission is minimised from vehicles delivering or removing materials from site.

• Development of a monitoring programme (if required) of dust mitigation measures throughout the site during works.

The management of dust emissions from the site may include measures such as:

• Wind reduction.

• Tarpaulins or other similar covers.

• Wet suppression.

• Paving.

• Chemical stabilisation.

• Programming of works.

• Management of traffic within the site.

Noise Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage and control noise emissions. All equipment and machinery will be supplied and installed in accordance with the requirements of Part 3, Division 3: “The exposure standard for noise” of the Tasmanian Workplace Health and Safety Regulations as follows: The construction contractor will be required to minimise environmental noise from the construction works according to the following methods by ensuring that all equipment utilised on-site complies with recommended noise levels specified in Australian Standard 2436-201: Guide to Noise and Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Sites. Maintenance and Demolition Sites Construction to occur only between 7 am to 7 pm Monday to Friday and 8 am to 5 pm on weekends. Monitoring of noise emissions during construction will be undertaken to confirm emission level predictions. Traffic Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage traffic on-site during the works. The traffic management procedures will include:

• Management of works around public roads and access ways.

• Control of vehicle movements into, out of and within the site.

• Prevention of mud leaving the site and being carried to adjacent roadways via the wheels, tracks or body surfaces of all vehicles leaving the site.

• Notification of affected landowners or business operators.


123

Fire Management

Development and implementation of a system to prevent and control the escape of fire during the works. The fire management procedures will include:

• Identification of all tasks that may create a potential fire hazard.

• Preparation of the site to minimise the potential escape of any fire to the surrounding environment.

• Minimisation of potential fuel on-site (including natural fuels).

• Development of fire-fighting and emergency notification procedures.

• Provision of fire-fighting equipment such as extinguishers, blankets and water pumps.

• Development of monitoring and fire risk minimisation procedures for works that may provide a fire risk to the site (e.g. flame cutting).

Waste Disposal Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage the storage and disposal of all waste materials created during the works. The waste disposal procedures will include:

• Identification of potential waste materials generated during the works.

• Identification of statutory requirements.

• Provision of storage facilities and procedures for waste generated.

• Identification of suitable off-site disposal for waste generated.

• Implementation of recycling procedures where practicable.

• Monitoring the site to minimise the escape of waste material during certain climatic conditions.

Flora and Fauna Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage the protection of rare/endangered vegetation communities and fauna identified at the site. These procedures will include:

• Systems for flagging vegetation communities and fauna habitat of conservation significance.

• Development of work plans to avoid the above areas.

• Development of practices for weed and disease control.

Cumulative and interactive impacts

Environmental aspects identified as having the potential to contribute to cumulative and/or interactive impacts are air emissions (odour), irrigation of reuse water to land, traffic, and pathogen transfer (biosecurity management). Each of these has been considered in detail in the relevant sections of this EIS, including potential cumulative impacts with existing (ambient) conditions. There are no known pending developments in the region that would contribute to cumulative impacts of these aspects.


124

The use of a RAS at Tassal’s Rookwood Hatchery has shown that freshwater intake levels can be minimised and discharge to surface water can be avoided, significantly reducing stream and catchment issues. Technology also allows smolt leaving the hatchery to potentially be bigger in size than those that are grown in existing Tassal Hatcheries. The ability to grow larger smolt results in a reduced period that the fish are grown in the marine leases. This will be beneficial to marine farm stock management and environmental outcomes in marine lease areas. A potential cumulative impact is the emission of greenhouse gases from electricity and fuel usage. Energy usage at the Hatchery will comprise of electricity usage required for the operation of the RAS with small amounts of diesel and LPG usage for ancillary vehicles and equipment. As the electricity is sourced from Tasmania’s hydro electric grid the emission factor for CO2-e is significantly less than the emission factor for fossil fuel electricity generation. Tassal is developing a tool to assist reporting under the NGER Act and to identify priorities for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. This will be applied to the Hatchery including any initiatives for the reduction of energy use.

Environmental Impacts of Traffic

A traffic assessment was undertaken by Midson Traffic in May 2019 (Appendix F). Access to the Hatchery will be via a new approved access junction on the Lyell Highway (A10) directly opposite the existing access to Kimbolton Coal Mine. The Lyell Highway is a Category 3, Regional Access Road, used by both heavy freight and passenger vehicles. The access road will be part of an internal road network that will provide circulation and access to loading/unloading facilities around the Hatchery building. Traffic generated by the proposed Hatchery will be a combination of light and heavy vehicles (trucks) consistent with traffic currently utilising the Lyell Highway. The majority of vehicles will enter and exit the Hatchery from the direction of Hamilton. The number of vehicle movements forecast to be generated by Hatchery operations is outlined in Table 3. With respect to truck movements there are anticipated to be an average of 1,147 per year with an average of four per day. The anticipated maximum number of truck movements is twenty per day and eight per hour (peak). The majority of light vehicle movement will occur during the morning and evenings, aligned with the start and end of staff shifts. Other vehicle movements will occur early-late morning, including trucks transporting smolt. Noise impacts and the proposed mitigation from truck movements is detailed in Section 6.4. As the access and internal road for the hatchery and highway are sealed roads, dust generation from vehicle movements is unlikely to occur. Traffic generated by the proposed Hatchery is considered unlikely to result in impacts on the environment.


125

Visual Amenity

The proposed Hatchery site currently exists as farmland pasture. Tassal has considered the visual impact of the proposal and where possible will undertake the following:

• Choosing a colour scheme to blend in with the rural background

• Planting screening trees (native species suited to the local conditions) along the east, west

and northern (along Highway) boundaries

• Constructing berms with excess cut material from the Hatchery build

• Using non-reflective material

To understand the potential visual impact Tassal commissioned Environmental Dynamics to conduct a visual impact assessment (Appendix Q) and Gandy and Roberts to develop 3D images (Figure 25, Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28, Figure 29, Figure 30 and Figure 31) of the Hatchery from different perspectives. It is considered that the while the proposal will create a change in the visual landscape, the change is not adverse or negative.

The visual impact assessment by Environmental Dynamics includes consideration of a recently approved development application by the owner of the property “Sendace” (located to the east of Lot 2) which enables the property owner’s existing residence to be used for visitor accommodation and for the property owner to construct a new dwelling. The Hatchery is hidden from view of observers at this location and overnight visitors are generally less sensitive to the visual impact of a rural facility than residences.


126

• Lyell Highway

Figure 25 View of proposed Hatchery from Lyell Highway (from west to south-east)

Figure 26 View of proposed Hatchery from the Lyell Highway (from west to east)


127

• Nearest residence to Hatchery on eastern boundary (including proposed new residence)

Figure 27 Elevated view of the proposed Hatchery and nearest eastern residence


128

Figure 28 Ground level view of the proposed Hatchery from the nearest eastern residence

Figure 29 Ground level view of the proposed Hatchery from the nearest proposed eastern residence


129

• Nearest residence – north-east of hatchery (opposite side of Lyell Highway)

Figure 30 Elevated view of the proposed Hatchery and nearest north-eastern residence (i.e. residence on northern side of the Lyell Highway)

Figure 31 Ground level view of the proposed Hatchery from the nearest north-eastern residence (i.e. residence on northern side of the Lyell Highway)


130

7 MONITORING

Table 20 (below) provides a summary of the environmental monitoring requirements for the proposed hatchery:

Table 20 Environmental Monitoring Requirements

Description Reference/ Guidelines

Location Parameters Frequency

Water Quality Reuse Dam pH

Electrical Conductivity (us/cm)

Ammonia (mg/L)

Nitrate + Nitrate (mg/L)

Thermotolerant coliforms (cfu/100ml)

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

Total Phosphorus (dissolved) (mg/L)

Total Phosphorus (mg /L)

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Alkalinity HCO3 (mg/L)

BOD mg/L

Chloride (mg/L)

Total Kjeldahl (mg/L)

Sodium (mg/L)

Magnesium (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)

Sodium Adsorption Ration

Monthly

Soil Monitoring (Irrigation Areas)

Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in

To be determined (see IEMP)

As per IEMP Biannual or as specified in the IEMP


131

Tasmania, 2002

Tassal Hamilton Hatchery Recycled Water Irrigation and Environmental Management Plan 2019, Macquarie Franklin (IEMP)

Groundwater (Irrigation areas and Reuse Dam*)

EPA Victoria Groundwater Sampling Guidelines, 2000

IEMP

Tassal HRAS Hatchery Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Bores for Irrigation Area 2019, William C Cromer

Up and down gradient of the irrigation areas and reuse dam*

As per Tassal HRAS Hatchery Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Bores for Irrigation Area 2019, William C Cromer

Quarterly for 12 months and then biannually.

Sludge Tasmanian Biosolids Reuse Guidelines (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 1999

Hatchery Discharge Solids Removal Plant

Contaminant grading monitoring as per guidelines

Monthly for 3 months, monthly for 12 months for analytes above contaminant acceptance threshold and then annually.

Noise Assessment Environmental Protection Policy (Noise) 2009

Sensitive Receptors Within 6 months of commissioning

* Groundwater monitoring bores will be installed at the Reuse Dam if groundwater is encountered during construction of the Reuse Dam.


132

All monitoring will be undertaken by appropriately qualified and trained personnel. Sample analysis will be conducted by a NATA accredited laboratory. Water quality monitoring procedures will be developed and training will be provided for site personnel, the procedure will detail the quality control requirements for sampling, storage and delivery.


133

8 DECOMMISSIONING AND REHABILITATION

The design, construction and operation of the Hatchery is currently, and will continue to be, developed with a long-term future in mind. There are no current plans for its decommission.

In the unlikely event that the facility is decommissioned, Tassal will develop and implement a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan, which will include stabilisation of any land surfaces that may be subject to erosion; removal or mitigation of all environmental hazards or land contamination that might pose an on-going risk of causing environmental harm, and decommissioning of any equipment that has not been removed.


134

9 MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Table 21 Summary of management measures for the Hatchery

# Management Measures When EIS Section

MANAGEMENT PLANS

A Develop a Construction Environmental Management Plan in accordance with Section 6.14.2, that addresses as a minimum:

• Site management

• Soil and erosion

• Water

• Hazardous materials

• Air quality

• Noise

• Traffic

• Fire

• Flora and fauna

• Waste disposal

• Visual

• Incidents and complaints

• Audit and reporting

Prior to construction

2.1.2.5, 2.1.4.3, 2.2, 6.1.4, 6.2.4.1, 6.4.3, 6.6.3, 6.7.1.3.2, 6.7.1.4.1, 6.11.4, 6.12.3 and 6.13.2.

B Develop a Reuse Water Management Plan, that details management measures for the Hatchery reuse water storage dam including (at minimum):

• Description of reuse water production, volumes and quality;

• Compliance requirements;

• Accountabilities;

• Irrigation communication procedures;

• Irrigation management procedures in accordance with the IEMP;

• Monitoring and reporting requirements;

• Incident and contingency management procedures; and

• Personnel training requirements.

Prior to operation

6.11.4

C Develop a Sludge Management Plan, that details management of sludge from the Hatchery solids removal plant including:

• Contractor licencing requirements;

• Final disposal destination;

• Storage and transport requirements

• Reporting requirements

Prior to operation

6.2.4.3, 6.5.2.2.1, and 6.11.4.

D Develop an Emergency Management Plan for the Hatchery which includes procedures for emergency scenarios including (at minimum):

• Medical emergency

• Fire or explosion

• Hazardous material spill

• Hazardous material exposure

Prior to operation

6.6.3


135

• Bomb threat

• Security breach/civil unrest

• Motor vehicle accident

• High wind emergency

E Develop a Bushfire Management Plan for the Hatchery which includes (at minimum):

• Hazard reduction and maintenance requirements

• Firefighting resources

• Bushfire Emergency Plan

Prior to operation

6.12.3

ODOUR

1 Avoid the use of long-term stockpiles onsite (wherever possible) unless they perform function of visual or noise screening.

During construction and operation

6.1.4

2 Ensure access to the site from the Lyell Highway is sealed up to Hatchery to minimise dust entrainment from vehicles.

During construction

6.1.4

3 All equipment is to be properly maintained to minimise exhaust emissions and only reputable contractors with well-maintained equipment will be used onsite.


6.1.4

4 Odour sampling survey will be conducted during the first summer operational period with survey results used to remodel with seasonal variations in emission rates.

During operation (of first summer period)

6.1.4

5 Retention of spare Hatchery discharge water processing equipment to allow prompt replacement upon failure and minimise downtime.

During commissioning and operation

6.1.4

6 All organic wastes processed through the solids removal treatment plant will be stored for no more than 7-days and disposed of via a licenced waste transporter to an approved composting facility.

During commissioning and operation

6.1.4

7 If odour emissions from the sludge storage increase significantly due to the development of anaerobic processes, Tassal will explore the implementation of a mixing system to maintain oxygen levels.

During operation (if found to be necessary)

6.1.4

8 Backup power generators will be installed and maintained to prevent Hatchery discharge water processing downtime due to power loss.

During operation 6.1.4

9 All waste materials generated by the construction activities will be stored in appropriate containers and removed from site, either for disposal at an appropriately authorised facility or transported directly to an authorised recycler/re-user.

During construction

6.1.4

10 Develop and implement a blue-algae management procedure for the Hatchery reuse dam.


WATER QUALITY


136

11 Install sediment controls such as catchment basins, silt fences and haybales to manage stormwater.

During construction

6.2.4.1

12 Installation of appropriate pollutant removal and velocity reduction features on stormwater drains. All drainage will also comply with AS/NZ 3500:2003 and be sized to manage the requisite AEP storm event.

During and operation

6.2.4.1

13 All new hardstand runoff will be directed to existing dams on the site.

During operation 6.2.4.1

14 Installation of a swale drain around the upstream perimeter of the Reuse dam to direct runoff water towards existing natural watercourses.


6.2.4.1

15 All fish mortalities will be removed from tanks on a daily basis and stored in sealed bins and frozen before transportation to Tassal’s Triabunna Rendering Facility.

During operation 6.2.4.3

16 Installation of level alarms in the Hatchery’s solids removal plant treatment tanks to prevent overflow.

Prior to operation

6.2.4.4

17 Water quality monitoring of the reuse water held in the Reuse water dam to be undertaken monthly (with quality required to meet Class B recycled water as described by the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania, 2002).

During operation 6.2.4.6 and 6.5.1.1.3

18 Annual production plans and stocking practices will proactively consider reuse scheme limitations to ensure compliance is maintained.

During operation (if/when necessary)

2.13 and 6.2.4.6

GROUNDWATER

19 Dam inundation area will be scarified and roller compacted to form a natural clay compacted liner to mitigate against seepage.

During construction

6.3.4

20 Conduct groundwater drilling at the reuse storage dam site to determine groundwater presence

During construction

6.3.4

21 Install groundwater monitoring bores in irrigation areas (and at the reuse storage dam if groundwater found)

During construction

6.3.4

NOISE

22 Restriction on work hours during construction phase – 7am-6pm (Mon-Fri) and 8am-1pm (Sat) or as otherwise approved.

During construction

6.4.3

23 All onsite equipment (utilised in the construction phase) will comply with recommended noise levels specified in the Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change, 2009).

During construction

6.4.3

24 Ensure all roller doors have no gaps at the top. During construction

6.4.3


137

25 Ensure doors to biofilter and oxygenation rooms kept closed at all times (to the extent possible).


26 All noise-emitting equipment will be placed on the western side of the Hatchery building to provide barrier between noise sources and nearest residences.

During construction

6.4.3

27 Construct/install terrain blocking and earth embankments around the Hatchery to create further natural acoustic barriers (if necessary).

During construction

6.4.3

28 Undertake a post-commissioning noise assessment of Hatchery operations.

Within 6 months of operations commencing

6.4.3

29 Develop and implement a noise management protocol for heavy vehicles used for Hatchery operations during night-time hours.


WASTE MANAGEMENT

30 Implement the management measures as outlined in the approved IEMP. Measures including:

• Reuse water will meet Class B recycled water standards as described by the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (DPIPWE, 2002). Reuse water will be shandied with freshwater to maintain conductivity (as a measure of salinity) below 1000 micro Siemen per centimetre. A conductivity meter will be installed on the irrigation to inform freshwater shandying ratios. • Implementing a soil monitoring program to track soil salinity and nutrient trends in irrigated areas. • Installation of groundwater bores in the irrigation areas, and below the reuse water storage dam with implementation of a groundwater monitoring program. • Installation of flow metering equipment, to keep track of both reuse water production and irrigation volumes by irrigation areas. • Installation of gauge boards on the reuse water dam. • Installation of an electrical conductivity meter in the reuse dam which will trigger dilution to ensure the irrigated salinity levelt is maintained below 1000 µS/cm. • Regularly monitoring dam levels, with quarterly review incorporating: (1) calculations of remaining number of days storage (based on current water exchange rate); (2) review of long-term weather conditions to estimate when irrigation is likely to resume.

During operation 6.5.1, 6.11.4 and the IEMP


138

• Initiating an internal contingency plan if dam storage level reaches 80% capacity. Plan include (but not be limited to):

- reducing the water exchange rate within the Hatchery (reducing daily flow into the dam); or

- tankering reuse water off-site to an approved facility. • Diverting surface water above the reuse water dam to minimise dam inflow. The reuse water dam will also be fenced (to prevent stock access). • Irrigation advice, water quality interpretation and agronomic support to be provided by Tassal (or their representatives) to land/irrigation operators. This will ensure productivity, and utilisation of reuse water nutrients, is maximised. • Adherence to nominated irrigation buffer zones to prevent impact on identified sensitive receptors (including Meadowbank Lake) will be adhered to.

• Anemometers will be installed to prevent spray drift into sensitive areas. These will be programmed to shut down irrigation if set wind direction and/or wind speeds are met.

• Annual evaluation and application (if required) of freshwater leaching requirement to recycled water irrigation areas.

• Development and implementation of irrigation procedures and task breakdowns.

• Annual audit and review of all aspects of the reuse water irrigation system and provision of a written report.

31 Engage suitably qualified consultants to undertake all monitoring (with provision of a quarterly up-date), the annual audit and annual review of the IEMP.

During operation 6.5.1 and IEMP

32 Any plan to increase the Hatchery water exchange rate will trigger an investigation into additional contingency measures (for the increase in reuse water) including:

- suitability of utilising existing freshwater dams on the Hatchery site and neighbouring land for emergency storage; and

- identifying additional irrigation areas.

Outcomes of these investigations are to be confirmed prior to any change (increase) in the Hatchery water exchange rate.

During operation 2.1.2.5, 6.5.1.1.3 and 6.11.4

33 Sludge holding tank will be emptied regularly by an approved licensed waste transport contractor and sent to an approved composting facility.

During operation 6.2.4.3 and 6.5.2.2.1


139

34 Undertake initial screening of biosolids to confirm contaminant acceptance levels.

During operation 6.5.2.2.1

35 Disposal management of sludge must be in accordance with an approved sludge management plan.

During operation 6.2.4.3, 6.5.2

36 Update Tassal’s Freshwater Fish Health Management Plan to include the proposed Hatchery. Management of large-scale fish mortality events and disease biosecurity will be in accordance with this Plan.

Prior to operation

6.5.2

37 Ensure the Hatchery solids removal plant is sufficiently incorporated into the Hatcheries preventative maintenance program.

Prior to operation

6.11.4

38 Any additional irrigation areas will be included in an updated IEMP which will be submitted for EPA approval.


39 If commissioning issues occur and reuse water is not within Grade B recycled water standards, then water is to be pumped from the reuse dam back through the solids removal plant to provide additional treatment.

During commissioning

6.11.4

40 A waste treatment specialist will be commissioned to review the solids removal plant operation to determine if further treatment of discharge water is required.

During commissioning

6.11.4

DANGEROUS GOODS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

41 Integrate the management of dangerous goods and hazardous materials for the Hatchery including labelling, signage, segregation, storage, handling and inspection requirements into Tassal’s existing procedures.

Prior to operation

6.2.4.2

42 Develop a Spill procedure and ensure spill kits and materials are kept and maintained onsite

Prior to construction and during operation

6.2.4.2 and 6.6.3

43 Chemicals will be stored in a bunded chemical storage room or area in accordance with the National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods (NOHSC 2001).


44 Residual contaminated soil evident after a spill and clean-up will be taken for disposal or treatment at an appropriately licensed facility.


45 Tassal WHS department to conduct a risk assessment for any new chemical or hazardous substance and provide approval prior to being bought onsite (including consideration of potential environmental impacts as well as possibility of substitution with alternative).


46 Maintain inventory of chemicals stored/used onsite using ChemWatch software.



140

47 Maintain MSDSs for all chemicals on-site. During operation 6.6.3

48 Conduct regular inspections of storage areas where dangerous goods and hazardous material are kept


49 Ensure appropriate staff training and inductions in the use of reagents during operational activities


FLORA & FAUNA

50 Commission a spring/summer survey near the access to the Hatchery to determine presence of the species prickly woodruff (Asperula scoparia) and woolly new-holland-daisy (Vittadinia gracilis). If found to be present, area will be marked on maps in CEMP or a ‘permit to destroy’ will be submitted to Policy and Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB).

Prior to construction of Hatchery access

6.7.1.4.1

51 Implement a weed hygiene plan that includes (but is not limited to):

- vehicle, machine and equipment hygiene; - wash down protocols; - location and management of wash down areas and

facilities; - maintaining log -books, detailing adherence to protocols

by contractors; - material hygiene (soils, gravel, plant materials, etc.)

ensuring that no materials contaminated with weed propagules (seeds, propagative vegetation material) are imported into the site;

- appropriate hygiene protocols, including wash down procedures for weeds, will be maintained on the site during construction. Protocols will be consistent with the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control, Edition 1.

Prior to construction

6.7.1.4.2.1

52 Maintain a weed-free buffer zone between the Hatchery building and entrance to the property by conducting a monthly inspection within the zone for weeds. If found, trigger immediate action to remove the weeds.

During operation 6.7.1.4.2.1

53 Install bird diverters on any overhead powerlines within Hatchery property boundaries. Install tailored raptor perches on top of powerpoles

During construction

6.7.2.4

54 Enforce speed restrictions and signage on the Hatchery access road to reduce any potential roadkill of scavenger species (particularly during night-time hours).


6.7.2.4

55 Installation of perimeter fencing around Hatchery building, access road and reuse storage dam to prevent access of native scavenger species and other neighbouring domestic animals (i.e. cattle).


6.7.2.4


141

GREENHOUSE GASES

56 Keep all equipment, machinery and vehicles in well maintained in and serviceable order to minimise generation of greenhouse gases.


6.9.2

57 Incorporate the proposed Hatchery into the Tassal’s tool (currently under development) to assist with NGER’s reporting and to identify priorities/initiatives for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Prior to operation

6.9.2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT

58 Incorporate stormwater management infrastructure into the Hatcheries preventative maintenance schedule.

Prior to operation

6.11.4

59 Appropriate approvals for the AWTS’s are to be obtained. Prior to operation

6.11.4

60 The domestic wastewater systems will be managed in accordance with the Directors Guidelines for On-Site Wastewater Management Systems.


61 Ensure any complaints received at the Hatchery and entered into the Tassal Complaints Register and appropriate follow up actions are assigned and implemented.


6.11.4

62 Incorporate the Hatchery into Tassal’s Biosecurity Management Plan and ensure requirements of the Plan are included in site and contractor inductions.


FIRE MANAGEMENT

63 Ensure all vehicles and machinery are kept in good working order to minimise potential for fires onsite.


6.12.3

64 Any fuels required during the construction phase will be limited in quantity and will be stored in appropriately bunded facilities.

During construction

6.12.3

65 Appropriate firefighting equipment will be kept onsite and site staff will be trained in emergency procedures and use of firefighting equipment.


6.12.3

66 Maintain compliance of fire detection and firefighting equipment within the Hatchery.


67 Maintain bushfire protection measures as outlined in an approved bushfire management plan for the Hatchery.



142

10 CONCLUSION

The construction and operation of a freshwater recirculating aquaculture system hatchery (the Hatchery) on freehold land near Hamilton, Tasmania is proposed to meet the increasing national and international demand for salmon products.

Freshwater recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) exhibit significant advantages compared to ‘open’ or flow-through hatcheries in that they are capable of recycling water, which results in less freshwater used per tonne of fish produced. Because there is minimal water exchange with the environment, these systems improve fish welfare allowing improved fish health and size, which in turn reduces grow-out times at sea, improves fish health, and gives rise to biosecurity and other environmental benefits associated with extending fish growth at the Hatchery. The key environmental issues considered in this EIS include:

• Hatchery discharge water treatment, storage and reuse.

• Odour emissions from the Hatchery.

• Noise emisions from construction and operation of the Hatchery.

• Spread of pathogens to hatchery smolt or other fish farming operations (biosecurity). The potential impacts from each of these, and other environmental aspects, have been assessed and

mitigation measures proposed to reduce the residual risk significantly. In most instances the

potential impacts of the development can be significantly mitigated, resulting in a relatively small

residual social and environmental impact. Any such residual impacts will be the subject of rigorous

monitoring programs with further controls applied if necessary.


143

11 REFERENCES

Australian Standard 2436-201: Guide to Noise and Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Sites.

Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (June 2009) The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy.

Department of Justice (2017a) Building Act 2016: Director’s Guidelines for On-Site Wastewater Management Systems.

Department of Justice (2017b) Building Act 2016: Director’s Determination – Requirements for Building in Bushfire-Prone Areas.

Department of Primary Industries, Water and the Environment (DPIWE) (1999) Tasmanian Biosolids

Reuse Guidelines.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) (2009) Tasmanian

Acid Sulphate Soils Management Guidelines.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) (2002) Environmental Guidelines for the use of Recycled Water in Tasmania.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) (2013) The Tasmanian

Vegetation Map (TASVEG) (Version 3.0).

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) (2017) Groundwater

Information Access Portal (Version 1.1).

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) (Undated) Natural

Values Atlas (Version 3.8.0).

Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment (DTAE) (2006) Approved Management Method for

Biosolids Reuse.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2019) Guidelines for Preparing an Environmental Impact

Statement.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2019) Environmental Impact Statement Project Specific

Guidelines for Tassal Group Limited: Hamilton Recirculatory Aquaculture System (RAS) Hatchery

(HRAS) Ouse, Tasmania.

Geoscience Australia (2000) Earthquake Hazard Risk Contour Map.

Geoscience Australia (2015) Protected Matters Search Tool.

LISTMap (2019) https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map (accessed 21 May 2019).

https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map

Documents

Tassal Operations Pty Ltd - epa.tas.gov.au Operations Pty Ltd - Hamilt… · ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand AWTS Aerated Wastewater