andersonbaysandextractionpit environmentalmanagement …epa.tas.gov.au/documents/sattler...

J O H N M I E D E C K E & P A R T N E R S P L • J u n e 2 0 1 4

M r R i c h a r d S a t t l e r

Anderson Bay Sand Extraction PitENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

PLAN

Mr Richard Sattler

Anderson Bay Sand Extraction Pit

Development Proposal and Environmental

Management Plan

Final

June 2014

John Miedecke and Partners Pty Ltd 2 - 41 Tasma St North Hobart Tasmania 7000 0418130672 [email protected] Version 4.

FOREWORD

This Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) describes the proposed operation of a sand extraction pit on property owned by Mr Richard Sattler and environmental management practices for the pit.

Preparation of the DPEMP has been undertake in accordance with guidelines prepared by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). A Land Use Permit will be required from the Dorset Council for the proposal and this DPEMP provides information for the application.

The DPEMP fulfils the role of providing information on the proposed activities to other decision-making authorities and the public, who have the opportunity to make submissions on the proposal under Section 33 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act (LUPAA) (1993). Submissions may be lodged, as specified, under Section 38 of the LUPAA (1993) within 28 days of advertisements being placed in local newspapers.

In accordance with Section 39 of the LUPAA (1993), the Council will refer the application with any representations to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) for assessment under that Act.

Anderson Bay Sand Extraction Pit DPEMP SUMMARY

john miedecke and partners pty ltd

1

SUMMARY Introduction A group of Tasmanian and Sydney business people with interests in the Sydney construction materials market, have in recent years investigated the potential use of coastal sands for construction markets in Sydney and Melbourne. A suitable off-loading site in Sydney Harbour has been secured at Glebe Island.

The group in association with the landowner, Mr Richard Sattler proposes to extract sand from sand dunes on his property near Bridport in north-east Tasmania which are currently progressively encroaching on productive farm land (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 LOCATION NE TASMANIA – Source Google Map The sand will be recovered, screened on site and initially transported by road to Bell Bay where the sand will be loaded on small ships for transport to Sydney and possibly Melbourne. Longer term, as exports grow, an off shore sand loading facility is being considered. A capital investment of $15 to $18 million is expected.

Mt Sattler is the owner of the land and has applied for a Mining Lease over an area of his land with over 13 million cubic metres of sand.

The site is well located to provide construction materials being situated in close proximity to a major road, relatively close to Bell Bay and in an isolated area of private land well screened from residences and local views.

Project site



2

Sand Extraction Description A sand extraction pit will be established in the lease area, together with provision for the operation of mobile screening equipment in the active extraction area. As production increases, this equipment may be changed to a fixed plant of a similar nature. The material extracted is coastal sand, which only requires screening to be suitable for building works and civil construction.

Production will commence at a rate of approximately 280,000 cubic metres per year increasing to 500,000 cubic metres per year after the initial year and possibly increasing to a maximum of 950,000 cubic metres per year (depending on market demand).

Screened sand will be removed from the dunes and then loaded onto trucks and transported to Bell Bay Port and local markets. Longer term it is planned to construct an offshore loading facility (subject to another planning permit application). The pit will be developed through an existing blow through the dunes and then from the centre progressing north-eastwards.

Infrastructure will be limited consisting of an office/crib room facility, weighbridge, and product stockpile area located near the dune entrance. The workforce (including contractors and transport) is expected to vary between 50 and 60 at full capacity. On site it is expected that 5-10 persons would be employed. Operating hours may be 24/7 for sand processing with transport five and half days a week according to Quarry Code of Practice (7am to 7pm weekdays and 8am to 4pm on Saturday). Initial transport will be via Waterhouse Road and Bridport Main Road. The Dorset Council is currently working with DIER on a proposal that the State Government take over ownership of the portion of Agnes Street between the Flinders Highway intersection and the Waterhouse Road intersection, together with the section of Waterhouse Road between Agnes Street and the entry into Lost Farm. The proponents are consulting regarding ongoing road maintenance.

The location and design of the pit is sensitive to the location of wetlands of conservation significance and the presence of aboriginal sites. The pit design avoids these areas and provides a buffer zone which will be boundary fenced. Other considerations are to minimize discernible visual change from the east.

Pit designs have been developed within these constraints to provide for an initial 10 years with longer term operations possible. Figure 2 shows the extraction plan and site details.

Surrounding land use consists of Crown Land to the north and north-east, with the Waterhouse Conservation Area. Private land is to the east and south (Mr Sattlers land) and the world famous Lost Farm golf course adjoining to the west.

Environmental Issues and Management The extraction area is mobile sand dunes which has been migrating and covering productive farmland. This has been caused by modern European practices.. Nonetheless, the site supports some significant conservation values within dune swales and on the dune margins

Anderson Bay Sand Pit

2

SITE PLAN



3

The proposal is to establish a sand extraction pit in the mobile sand dunes leaving a protective barrier of dunes from the surroundings. The pit is located on the proponents private land and adjacent to the world famous Barnbougle and Lost Farm golf courses. Therefore, the construction and operation of the pit will be to the highest standards other-wise, their operation may be compromised.

The potential impacts from the sand extraction operations are well understood from studies of similar operations elsewhere. They will result from direct physical impacts on the proposed sand extraction site and limited off site effects. The 10 year plan presented in this report will disturb a total of approximately 50 ha over this period. There will also be small areas required for stockpile storage and access, however these will be minor (1-2ha). Long term it is currently intended that the site will be reformed and revegetated as a golf course similar to the adjoining world famous Barnbougle and Lost Farm courses.

Sand transport at least initially will be by truck and trailers carting to Bell Bay. The road network is adequate for the purpose. Residents will notice increased traffic movements on the transport route.

The mining lease area has vegetation and fauna that is rare and endangered in fringing wetland areas, as well as a number of Aboriginal heritage sites.

Based on the above, the key issues have been identified as:

Noise will be generated at the pit throughout all stages of the proposed development by the loading, screening and transport of sand. However, the assessment by Vipac is that the noise criteria will be met except when the screening plant etc are in full production. Moving the plant further into the dunes will reduce these noise emissions. Adopting other Vipac recommendations will further reduce noise levels and it is considered that it is unlikely that residences will be affected.

The consultants who have assessed the hydrogeology and geoconservation status of the site have concluded that transgressive dunefields at the site area are an unnatural anthropogenic derived landform feature and do not have geoconservation significance. The removal of the dune sands is expected to stabilise the dune and effectively stop its migration to the west and over productive farmlands.

The site is expected to be rehabilitated after sand removal as a golf course. Figure 3 shows a possible layout.

Flora and fauna of significance are present in wetlands on the edge of the dunes and these will be protected by buffer zones and fencing. Similarly, Aboriginal heritage sites have also been protected. Fringing wetlands to the west will cease being smothered by migrating dunes (at a rate of some 9.5m/year). Water quality will be protected by leaving a 1m sand cover above the groundwater table .

The pit will be required to operate in accordance with the Quarry Code of Practice,

• potential noise effects on residents;

• potential effects on dune geomorphology; and

• potential effects on flora and fauna habitat.

JOHN MIEDECKE AND PARTNERS PTY LTD


F IG . 3Date: May 2013

GOLF COURSE

TASI 11883

TASI 11884

TASI 11885

7A C A C I A L O N G I F O L I A C O A S T A L S C R U B

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18TEE

FAIRWAY

GREEN

BUNKER

DAM

PATHWAY

Scale approx.

0 500m

Par 3's = 3, 7, 13 & 18Par 4‘s = 1,2,4,5,8,10,11,14,15 & 16Par 5’s = 6, 9, 12 & 17

Total course par 72

Note: Par 3 max. distance 220Par 4 max. distance 430Par 5 max. distance 630

NATURAL WETLANDS (Protected)

SAC

DAC14

SAND

ABORIGINAL SITE

AC C E S S T O GOL F C OU R S E



4

the Permit conditions and prevailing regulations and standards.

Limited surface and ground water impacts are expected, however monitoring will be undertaken to protect these resources. The most significant effect is likely a change in dune profile from views from Waterhouse Road.

Conclusions The DPEMP has identified and assessed the potential impacts associated with the operations, in accordance with the DPEMP guidelines provided by EPA. It also demonstrates that appropriate operational and management measures have been identified and proposed to mitigate the potential impacts and to ensure minimal risk to the environment and human health.

The DPEMP demonstrates that the proposed activity will be compliant with Tasmanian Policies, Legislation and Regulations, and provides a monitoring program which will ensure compliance with standards and regulations.

Table of Contents

john miedecke and partners pty ltd June 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proponent – Richard Sattler .............................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose of DPEMP ........................................................................................... 3 1.4 Environmental Legislation and Approvals ....................................................... 4

1.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 State Approvals Required ......................................................................... 4 1.4.3 Other Tasmanian Legislation ..................................................................... 6

1.5 Consultation ...................................................................................................... 6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................ 7

2.1 Project Outline .................................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Location ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 General Description of the proposal .......................................................... 7 2.1.4 Markets ...................................................................................................... 8 2.1.5 Geology and Resource ............................................................................... 8

2.2 Extraction Pit Plans ......................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Design and Schedule ................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Extraction Plans ....................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Sand Screening Operations ...................................................................... 13

2.3 Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Support Facilities ..................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Water and electrical supplies ................................................................... 14

2.4 Transport ......................................................................................................... 15 2.5 Workforce ....................................................................................................... 15 2.6 Operating Hours .............................................................................................. 15 2.7 Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 16

2.7.1 Pit Location .............................................................................................. 16 2.7.2 Designs ..................................................................................................... 16

2.8 Occupational Health and Safety ...................................................................... 16 3.0 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ................................................ 17

3.1 Planning Aspects ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.1 Location and access ................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Land Use and Tenure ............................................................................... 17 3.1.3 Zoning (Dorset Interim Planning Scheme 2013) ..................................... 19

3.2 Physical Environment ..................................................................................... 25 3.2.1 Climate ..................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2 Geology, Soils and Land Capability ........................................................ 25 3.2.3 Surface and Groundwaters ....................................................................... 29 3.2.4 Geomorphology ....................................................................................... 32 3.2.5 Biological Environment Overview – Flora and Fauna ............................ 34

3.3 Social Environment Overview ........................................................................ 38 3.3.1 Socioeconomic setting ............................................................................. 38 3.3.2 Archaeology and Heritage ....................................................................... 39

Table of Contents


4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT ............. 43

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 43 4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 43 4.3 Noise from operations ..................................................................................... 43

4.3.1 Noise studies ............................................................................................ 43 4.3.2 Existing Noise Levels .............................................................................. 44 4.3.3 Sand Pit Noise Levels .............................................................................. 44 4.3.4 Noise Predictions ..................................................................................... 45 4.3.5 Noise Assessment .................................................................................... 46 4.3.6 Management ............................................................................................. 48 4.3.7 Assessment of impact .............................................................................. 48

4.4 Geoconservation ............................................................................................. 48 4.4.1 Assessment of Significance ..................................................................... 48 4.4.2 Management ............................................................................................. 49 4.4.3 Assessment of impact .............................................................................. 50

4.5 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Values ................................................ 51 4.5.1 Conservation values and effects ............................................................... 51 4.5.2 Management ............................................................................................. 52 4.5.3 Assessment of impact .............................................................................. 52

4.6 Aboriginal Heritage ....................................................................................... 54 4.6.1 Sites .......................................................................................................... 54 4.6.2 Management ............................................................................................. 54 4.6.3 Assessment of impact .............................................................................. 55

4.7 Dust (particulates) .......................................................................................... 55 4.7.1 Issues ........................................................................................................ 55 4.7.2 Emissions ................................................................................................. 55 4.7.3 Management ............................................................................................ 56 4.7.4 Assessment of impact .............................................................................. 56

4.8 Visual Effects .................................................................................................. 56 4.8.1 Visual Impacts ......................................................................................... 56 4.8.2 Visual Impact Assessment ....................................................................... 56 4.8.2 Management ............................................................................................. 59 4.8.3 Assessment of impact .............................................................................. 59

4.9 Roads and Traffic ........................................................................................... 59 4.9.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 59 4.9.2 Traffic Assessment ................................................................................... 61 4.9.3 Management ............................................................................................. 61 4.9.4 Assessment of Impact .............................................................................. 62

4.10 Surface and Groundwaters ............................................................................ 63 4.10.1 Issues ...................................................................................................... 63 4.10.2 Management .......................................................................................... 63 4.10.3 Assessment of Impact ............................................................................ 64

4.11 Wastes ........................................................................................................... 64 4.11.1 Liquid ..................................................................................................... 64 4.11.2 Solid Wastes ........................................................................................... 64

4.12 Greenhouse Gases ......................................................................................... 65 4.12.1 Emissions ............................................................................................... 65 4.12.2 Management ........................................................................................... 65

Table of Contents


4.13 Dangerous Goods ............................................................................................ 65 4.14 Fire risk ......................................................................................................... 66 4.15 Land use ........................................................................................................ 66 4.16 Environmental Management System ............................................................ 66 4.17 Progressive Rehabilitation and Decommissioning Plan ............................... 67

4.17.1 Progressive Rehabilitation .................................................................... 67 4.17.2 Final Closure .......................................................................................... 67 4.17.3 Weed Management ................................................................................ 67

5.0 MONITORING AND REVIEW ...................................................... 68 6.0 COMMITMENTS ............................................................................ 68 7.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 69 References

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure No Page No/after Section 1 1.1 General Location 2 1.2 Mining Lease Location 2 1.3 Planning Approval Process 5 Section 2 2.1 Mining Lease Detail Location 7 2.2 Site Plan 8 2.3 Resource Plan 8 2.4 Investigation Boreholes 9 2.5 Year 1 Initial Pit Development 9 2.6 Year 5 Pit Development 11 2.7 Year 10 Initial Pit Development 11 2.8 Final Use Golf Course 13 Section 3 3.1 Land Use 17 3.2 Land Tenure 18 3.3 Dorset Interim Planning Scheme Zones 20 3.4 Dorset Interim Planning Scheme Overlays 20 3.5 Average Monthly Climate Data 25 3.6 Wind Roses 26 3.7 Geology 27 3.8 Orthorectified Aerial Photograph From 1949 Illustrating Summary of Dune Migration Rate 27 3.9 Land Capability 28 3.10 1991 Orthophoto Showing Mining Lease Boundary and

Inferred Water Bodies And Mobile Dune Boundary 29 3.11 2011 Orthophoto Showing Mining Lease Boundary and

Inferred Water Bodies And Mobile Dune Boundary 30 3.12 Cross Section A Through the Site Illustrating the Water Table Surface on 4th December 2013Vegetation 32 3.13 Vegetation Communities, Weeds, And Threatened 35 Species 3.14 Green And Gold And Striped Marsh Frog Records 37 3.15 Dorset Municipality 38 3.16 Identified Aboriginal Sites 40 Section 4 4.1 Aerial View of Site and Surroundings 44 4.2 Noise Spectra For Sand Recovery – Nearby The Plant 45 4.3 Transport Route 60 4.4 Intersection Design 62

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table No Page No 2.1 Summary of 250 um Sieve Soil Sample Density from BH06 10 3.1 Compliance with relevant planning scheme use and development standards 23 3.2 Summary significance ratings for Aboriginal sites located during the survey 42 4.1 Background Noise Levels 44 4.2 Site Power Levels 45 4.3 Predicted Community Noise Levels – Adjusted For Character & Duration 46 4.4 Assessment Criteria For Sand Pit Noise 47 4.5 Assessment Summary 47 4.6 Possible Truck Movements 61 6.1 Summary Of Commitments 69

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendices ( separate documents) Appendix A DPEMP Guidelines Appendix B Quarry Code of Practice Appendix C Geo-Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd Reports; Hydrogeology

and Geomorphology Appendix D Traffic Report (Eaton) Appendix E North Barker Flora and Fauna Reports Appendix F Aboriginal Heritage Survey Appendix G Vipac Noise Report

Anderson Bay Sand Extraction Pit DPEMP


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Sand is essential for the manufacture of concrete and other pavement materials used in the building and construction industry. Sharp sand is free from clay and other contaminants and is primarily used in the manufacture of concrete, and Tasmania has an annual demand of some 600,000 tonnes per annum. These resources are currently filled by mainly beach sand deposits near Hobart and Launceston and small sand pits in other regional areas.

Mineral Resources Tasmania has highlighted concerns about long term supplies particularly in the southern metropolitan markets and sand extraction has in recent years commenced at 7 Mile Beach to supply the Hobart market with coastal dune sands.

Large quantities of coastal dune sands have been recognized in recent years on Tasmania North –East coast as a potential source of construction sands. In many cases these have been migrating inland over productive private farmland. In the mid 1960’s the State Government made many attempts to stabilize these dunes in order to prevent the sterilization of farmlands and the smothering of wetlands with conservation significance.

A group of Tasmanian and Sydney business people with interests in the Sydney construction materials market, have in recent years investigated the potential use of coastal sands for construction. These will supply potential construction markets in Sydney and Melbourne. The key to this has been to locate a suitable off loading site in Sydney Harbour and this has now been secured at Glebe Island.

The group, in association with the land owner, Mr Richard Sattler proposes to extract sand from sand dunes on his property which are currently progressively encroaching on productive farm land (Figure 1.1). The sand will be recovered, screened on site and initially transported by road to Bell Bay where the sand will be loaded on small ships for transport to Sydney and possibly Melbourne. Longer term, as exports grow, an off shore sand loading facility is being considered.

A capital investment of $15 to $18 million is expected.

Mt Sattler is the owner of the land and has applied for a Mining Lease over an area of his land with over 20 million cubic metres of sand (Figure 1.2).

The site is well located to provide construction materials being situated in close proximity to a major road relatively close to Bell Bay and in an isolated area of private land well screened from residences and local views.

1.2 Proponent – Richard Sattler The proponent for the sand extraction proposal is Mr Richard Sattler (ABN 85 336 173 583). Contact details are; Andrew MacGregor (Project Facilitator) Postal Address: PO Box 362, St Helens, TAS 7216. Mobile: 0419 894072

Email: [email protected]



2

FIGURE 1.1 LOCATION NE TASMANIA – Source Google Map

FIGURE 1.2 MINING LEASE LOCATION – Source The List Mr Richard Sattler is a local landowner and farmer who has farmed in the area for over twenty years. He is well known in business circles as the developer of the Old Woolstore Hotel in Hobart and more recently the Barnbougle and Lost Farm golf courses and resorts in NE Tasmania. Mr Sattler has a joint venture agreement with

Project site



3

North East Tasmania Sands Pty Ltd (NETS) who will deliver the sand into the Sydney market through Metro Environmental Logistics Pty Ltd. Metro Environmental Logistics Pty Ltd have a Heads of Agreement for the supply of sand with one of Sydney’s largest ready-mix suppliers as well as agreements with two of the other major ready-mix concrete companies for supply into Sydney and Port Kembla. Contracts for supply cannot be completed until the mining lease is approved and permits granted.

1.3 Purpose of DPEMP Mr Sattler is applying for a permit and Mining Lease for a sand extraction pit at the site.

This DPEMP has been prepared to supply the Dorset Council, Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT), the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), the Department of Primary Industry, Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE), Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER), other Government Departments, residents in the area and the general community with the following information:

• description of the proposal; • description of the area's environment; • the possible environmental impacts; and • the proposed environmental management controls for the project.

The guidelines issued by the EPA for the DPEMP are in Appendix A.

The project is not considered to require referral to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water Population and Communities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The continued operation of the sand extraction pit is expected to supply the building and construction industry market at a rate of up to 950,000 cubic metres per year. This classifies the proposal as a Level 2 activity under Schedule 2 Subsections 5(a) and 6(a) (ii) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) being;

5. Extractive Industries

(b) Extractive Pits: the extraction of sand or clay and producing 5 000 cubic metres or more of product per year.

6. Materials Handling

(a) Crushing, Grinding or Milling: processing (by crushing, grinding, milling or separating into different sizes by sieving, air elutriation or in any other manner) of – ii) rock, ores or minerals at a rate in excess of 1000 cubic metres per year.

The development and operation of the pit and plant will be in accordance with this Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) and will be controlled by the provisions of EMPCA (1994), the Mineral Resources Development Act, 1995 (MRDA), the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, associated Acts and Regulations, the terms and conditions of the Mining Lease and the Permit conditions.



4

The quarry code of practice (Quarry Code of Practice (June 1999) is the code which will be followed in sand extraction operations (Appendix B).

1.4 Environmental Legislation and Approvals 1.4.1 Introduction Sand extraction requires environmental and planning approvals from the State and Local Government in order to proceed with the operations. These are outlined in the following section.

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999 establishes a process for assessing actions that are likely to have impacts of national environmental significance. Such impacts include World Heritage Areas, RAMSAR Wetland sites of international importance, migratory species protected under international agreements, nuclear actions, the Commonwealth marine environment and nationally threatened species and communities.

The EPBC act is structured for self-assessment; the proponent must indicate whether or not the project is considered a ‘controlled action’, which, if confirmed, would require approval from the Commonwealth Minister.

One EPBC listed vulnerable frog species (Green and Gold frog) is known to occur on site (see Section 3.2.5). The vulnerable eastern dwarf galaxias, has a moderate to high potential of occurring on site.

With the proposed buffer zones and mitigation measures, the impact of the proposal was considered unlikely to cause a significant impact on one or any of the EPBC listed fauna, so a referral under the EPBC Act is not required.

1.4.2 State Approvals Required The Tasmanian environmental and planning assessment and approval process for a development application is shown in Figure 1.3.

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

The application for environmental approval is part of an application made to the local planning authority under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act (LUPAA). The environmental approval process centres on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be prepared by the Board of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under sections 73 and 74 of the EMPCA.

The Director of the EPA has advised Mr Sattler that the proposed Project development is considered a Level 2 activity in accordance with EMPCA Schedule 2, and guidelines for preparation of the DPEMP were provided (see Appendix A).

After submission of the planning permit application (which includes this DPEMP and supporting documentation) and its referral by the Planning Authority, i.e. the Dorset Council, to the EPA, the DPEMP is placed on public display. The EPA assesses the resulting public comments and, in conjunction with its own assessment of the document, prepares a report that is considered by the Board. The Board then notifies the Planning Authority of conditions that need to be incorporated in the planning



5

permit or directs the Planning Authority to refuse to grant a permit.

!"#$%&%

EIA Process for Class 2B/2C Assessments (where DPEMP is required)

Preliminary discussions between proponent, EPADivision and planning authority

Proponent submits Notice of Intent

DPEMP Project Specific Guidelines developed(may include public consultation for larger projects)

Proponent prepares draft DPEMP in consultation with EPA Division and planning authority

Permit application and referral to EPA Board (including final DPEMP)

Request for further information from proponent(if required)

Public and agency consultation on permit application(including DPEMP)

Proponent prepares DPEMP Supplement(if required)

Environmental Assessment Report prepared

EPA Board and planning authority determinations

Appeals (if applicable)

FIGURE 1.3 PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS

Mr Sattler has also made a Mining Lease Application (MLA) to Mineral Resources Tasmania (see Section 3). This covers the area of the proposed pit.

The key legislation is:



6

• Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). 1.4.3 Other Tasmanian Legislation In addition to the legislation governing the environmental and planning process, the following list of Tasmanian legislation has been assessed in the preparation of the DPEMP, and their relevant statutory or regulatory requirements as identified in this DPEMP have been or will be observed:

• Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. • Crown Lands Act 1976. • Dangerous Goods Act 1998 and Regulations. • Fire Services Act 1979. • Forest Practices Act 1985. • Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. • Inland Fisheries Act 1995. • Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993. • National Environment Protection Council (Tasmania) Act 1995. • National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002. • Nature Conservation Act 2002. • Regional Forest Agreement 1997. • Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. • Mineral Resources Development Act 1995. • Water Management Act 1999. • Weed Management Act 1999. • Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.

There are other state policies and strategies. These include the State Coastal Policy (2009) and the Policy on Water Quality Management (2009).

The most relevant, although it has no statutory basis, is the Quarry Code of Practice (DPIWE 1999). This document is designed to give guidance to the operators of quarries, sand pits and extractive pits.

1.5 Consultation Mr Sattler and his consultants during site studies and project planning have consulted widely with state and local government authorities, including MRT, DPIPWE, EPA, DIER, Dorset Council and local residents in proximity to the property. Dorset Council and DIER have been specifically consulted regarding Waterhouse Road and transport issues and these are continuing. Mr Sattler is well known in the area and regularly consults with adjoining landowners as fences are relocated due to sand movement (they have expressed support for the project). There have been widespread articles in local newspapers (at least two articles in the Examiner newspaper), television and radio. Community consultation with individual local residents along Waterhouse Road will occur immediately prior to the advertisement of the permit application and other consultation (including) meeting with stakeholders will be considered if needed.



7

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Outline 2.1.1 Location The proposed site for the sand extraction proposal and the Mining Lease is located on private land some 7km NE of Bridport just inland of Waterhouse Beach, on mobile sand dunes on private property (Figure 1.1). Access is via Waterhouse Road and an internal access road. Figure 2.1 shows the Mining Lease (ML) location off Waterhouse Road.

FIGURE 2.1 MINING LEASE DETAIL LOCATION – Source MRT 2.1.2 General Description of the proposal A sand extraction pit will be established in the lease area, together with provision for the operation of mobile screening equipment in the active extraction area. As production increases, this equipment may be changed to a fixed plant of a similar



8

nature. The material extracted is coastal sand, which only requires screening and is the fundamental component of concrete, which are required for building works and civil construction.

A more detailed location map (Google earth image) is shown in Figure 2.2. The pit will not be exposed to views from Waterhouse Road with vegetation screening plus dunes left as a visual barrier. Views are contained in every other direction. An office/crib room, workshop, weighbridge and product stockpile area will be located near the pit entrance. The access and road junction on Waterhouse Road will modified with turning lanes to meet the Department of Infrastructure and Resources design requirements and Australian road standards. Figure 2.2 shows the locations.

Production will commence at a rate of approximately 280,000 cubic metres per year increasing to 500,000 cubic metres per year after the initial year and possibly increasing to a maximum of 950,000 cubic metres per year (depending on market demand). It is planned to change the transport method from trucking to Bell Bay to an offshore loading method after the initial years. This will be subject to another planning permit application.

The extraction pit location and design has been constrained by the need to avoid disturbance to wetland areas on the perimeter of the dunes, which are habitat for the Green and Gold Frog and several aboriginal sites ( see Section 3).

Other considerations are to minimize discernible visual change and noise from the south (Waterhouse Road) and the nearest houses to the east.

While the location is potentially visible, the dune topography presents opportunities for effectively screening the extraction operations except for a short duration of limited extent in the first year. The proposed duration of the pit is approximately 10 years, with a potential for approximately 20 years within the lease area (Figure 2.3).

Extraction designs have been developed within these constraints to provide for 10 years of production. These are discussed in detail in Section 2.2.2.

Surrounding land use consists of native vegetation to the north and east, with grazing land to the south and south-east. The Lost Farm golf course (including club house, office, accomodation etc) is adjoining on the west (Figures 2.1 and 2.2).

2.1.4 Markets The primary market will be Sydney and possibly Melbourne with any local demand also supplied.

2.1.5 Geology and Resource A resource of over 13 million cubic metres of sand has been identified in the ML area (assuming a SG of 1.6 t/m3 - a total of approximately 21 million tonnes). This volumetric assessment has been made by registered surveyors and is based on interpreted ground contours and surveys of the sand surface. Figure 2.3 shows the survey results and resource outline on an aerial photograph.

The sand resource consists of wind blown sand dunes up to 16m high, covering an area of over 200 ha. A total of eleven (11) soil bores were drilled at the site within the


2.2

SITE PLAN

Original plan No.030812.dwg (3.8.12)JOHN MIEDECKE AND PARTNERS PTY LTD


F I G .2.3Date: May 2013

RESOURCE PLAN

Scale approx.

0 500m



9

FIGURE 2.4 INVESTIGATION BOREHOLES

Photograph 1: Drilling Rig on the Sand Dunes

initial 6 year ML area by Geo-Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd as part of the hydrogeology and geomorphology studies (Figure 2.4, and Figure 2.5). The reports are included in Appendix C.

STAGE 1

(YEAR 1)

SITEACCESS



F IG .2.5Date: Feb. 2014

Stage 1


ABORIGINAL SITE

DIRECTION OF EXCAVATION

MINING LEASE BOUNDARY (Approx.)

Scale approx.

0 250m

TASI 11883

TASI 11884

TASI 11885

BUFFER ZONE (minimum 25m)



10

The sand characteristics of the boreholes were logged (Appendix C) and soil particle sizing was conducted on the samples. Of these soils bores, six (6) had piezometers installed to monitor groundwater levels ( Section 3.2.3.2). Figure 2.4 shows the location of the boreholes.

Silty marsh deposits were intercepted in the base of boreholes BH04, BH05 and BH09 at 2.4, 3.2, and 4.0 m AHD respectively in the lower lying north western parts of the site (Appendix C)

The dune sand is fine to medium grained, relatively consistent, and comprises of various portions of calcareous shell fragments and quartz and feldspar. On the whole, the silica component dominates over the calcareous, although there are bands where the calcareous component dominates. The calcareous component largely diminishes beneath the water table which may be attributed to calcium carbonate dissolution. Table 2.1 below presents a summary of soil sample density for BH06. Soil density decreases with depth around BH06, depicting decreasing quartz to calcareous shell fragment ratio. In other parts of the deposit, the calcareous composition is expected to be more dominant towards the surface.

Table 2.1 Summary of 250 um Sieve Soil Sample Density from BH06

Sand sizing and analyses show that they are of suitable grading and quality for use for construction purposes and in particular the Sydney market.

The resource is sufficient to supply both the local and Sydney markets for many years, with significant other adjacent resources on the north east coast of Tasmania to provide long term security of supplies.

The sand extraction plans are discussed in the next section.

2.2 Extraction Pit Plans 2.2.1 Design and Schedule

As discussed in Section 1, extraction plans have been designed to consider:

• protection of wetlands with Green and Gold frog habitat; • protection of aboriginal sites; and • minimising visibility

The proposed sand extraction method is discussed in detail below.

It consists of:

• the construction of an access road along an existing track to the initial sand pit starting point on the South-Western side of the sand dunes;

• Installation of underground power from Waterhouse Road to the works area;



11

• initial development and limited advance to the North West to allow access through the dunes and create a visual barrier - Figure 2.5); and

• progressive pit development in the easterly direction advancing progressively to the final footprint (5-10 years - Figure 2.6 and 2.7).

• The southern pit is expected to have a life of at least 10 years, with potential for further development in the northern area on the lease. This will be after the Mining Lease is renewed and the Environmental Management Plan is reviewed and updated. It is noted that baseline environmental studies have been conducted over the entire lease area, but detailed plans are only presented for an initial 10 year period.

All activities will be undertaken in accordance with the Quarry Code of Practice, which has been developed by the Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment (now Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment - DPIPWE) and the quarry industry (Quarry Code of Practice, 1999).

The sand pit activities will involve the following:

• Works area site preparation (vegetation clearing, topsoil and overburden stockpiling);

• Access road construction through face of dune; • Sand removal using rubber tyred loaders and/or excavators; • Transport of sand to a mobile screen located initially at the entrance of the pit

and later in the pit area; • Sand screening of organic materials etc; • Stockpiling of sand near the pit entrance; and • Transporting of sand by truck to Bell Bay port and Tasmania markets.

2.2.2 Extraction Plans 2.2.2.1 Initial development (Figure 2.5)

The pit will be developed along an existing access road route from the main Lost Farm access area. This road will be reconstructed with imported base course and subgrade.

A works area will be cleared in existing farmland and a hardstand area created for site facilities (see Figure 2.2) near the dune entrance. This is fringed by existing vegetation/trees. These facilities may be relocated later in the project life to within the pit area.

2.2.2.2 Early Pit development (Year 1 Figure 2.5) The entrance to the dune will be via an existing blow and a road will be constructed through the face of the dune. Photograph 4 shows the dune entrance area. Sand extraction will be progressively advanced initially in a northerly direction with sand extracted from the dune faces and transported to the screening plants.

The design of the sand extraction has addressed potential visual and noise impacts by:

• Retaining as a screen existing vegetation on the edges of the dunes;

STAGE 2

(YEAR 5)

SITEACCESS




Year 5


ABORIGINAL SITE



Scale approx.

0 250m

TASI 11883

TASI 11884

TASI 11885


STAGE 3

(YEAR 10)

SITEACCESS




Year 10


ABORIGINAL SITE



Scale approx.

0 250m

TASI 11883

TASI 11884

TASI 11885




12

• Retaining the outside face of the dune s with sand extraction behind these as a visual barrier; and

Maintaining a visual vegetation screen between stockpile areas, office etc and Waterhouse Road.

Photograph 2: Access Road Route (dunes in distance)

Photograph 3: Proposed facilities area



13

Photograph 4:Proposed entrance via dunes

All aboriginal sites (Section 3.3.2) will be protected by a buffer zone and sand extraction will only be to within 1m of original surface and/or groundwater levels.

2.2.2.3 Longer term quarry development (Figure 2.6, 2.7) After the initial development (year 1) the face will advance to the east leaving an undisturbed area of fringing sand between the active sand extraction and the wetlands and aboriginal sites. Figure 2.7 shows the approximately 10year extraction plan. After sand extraction is completed in this area, sand extraction will continue in the remaining areas of the lease.

As discussed in Section 4.15, final land use is most likely to be a golf course to supplement the Barnbougle and Lost Farm courses. A conceptual design is shown in Figure 2.8.

2.2.3 Sand Screening Operations The operation will consist of a large rubber tyred wheel loader for winning sand and delivery to either of two mobile screening plants. A second similar wheel loader will be primarily for loading trucks from the stockpile.



F IG .2.8Date: May 2013

GOLF COURSE

TASI 11883

TASI 11884

TASI 11885

7A C A C I A L O N G I F O L I A C O A S T A L S C R U B

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18TEE

FAIRWAY

GREEN

BUNKER

DAM

PATHWAY

Scale approx.

0 500m

Par 3's = 3, 7, 13 & 18Par 4‘s = 1,2,4,5,8,10,11,14,15 & 16Par 5’s = 6, 9, 12 & 17

Total course par 72

Note: Par 3 max. distance 220Par 4 max. distance 430Par 5 max. distance 630


SAC

DAC14

SAND

ABORIGINAL SITE

AC C E S S T O GOL F C OU R S E



14

Photograph 5:Typical Mobile crushing and screening plant in operation.

The plants are fitted with water sprays to wet the sand feed and conveyor transfer points to minimise dust emissions if required.

Organic materials such as branches etc and other undesirable material removed by the screens will be returned to the pit bases and buried.

The sand product will be loaded onto highway trucks and dispatched from this area. See Section 2.6 for operation hours.

2.3 Infrastructure 2.3.1 Support Facilities These will be limited to an office/crib room facility, weighbridge, and product stockpile area located near the dune entrance (Figure 2.2). A 1,000 litre bunded diesel fuel tank will be located with screening plants and a semi stationary 5,000 litre bunded diesel fuel tank fully enclosed within a secured lube storage container. A second similar container will include workshop, spares, service equipment, lunch room, first aid and emergency (fire) facilities. Containers will be sand or green coloured.

2.3.2 Water and electrical supplies Water for use in the screening operations and for environmental management (e.g. dust suppression) will be obtained from onsite farm sources.

Rainwater tanks will be fitted to the office/crib room for potable use. Septic tanks will be provided.

Electricity will be supplied by Aurora via underground powerlines to the office etc. All screening plants etc will be diesel powered



15

2.4 Transport The various materials will be stockpiled on site after screening and loaded by a rubber tyred loader to highway trucks. Cartage will usually be truck and trailer. The trucks will be approximately 20m3 capacity 39.5 tonnes) in good condition and complying with appropriate legislation.

Access will be via the Waterhouse Road, (a Council Road) to Bridport and then the Flinders Highway (DIER) to Bell Bay. Entry to, and exit from the pit will be from Waterhouse Road via an upgraded road junction. This road could be considered as a rural sub-arterial link connecting between Gladstone, the Waterhouse primary production area, tourist facilities and the north-eastern coastal resort areas to Bridport and areas further west. It has been used as a heavy haulage route, providing heavy vehicle access to the wind farm development at Musselroe Bay.

The Dorset Council is currently working with DIER on a proposal that the State Government take over ownership of the portion of Agnes Street between the Flinders Highway intersection and the Waterhouse Road intersection, together with the section of Waterhouse Road between Agnes Street and the entry into Lost Farm. These sections of road are considered to be of state significance due to the tourism activities in the region, primarily the Barnbougle and Lost Farm Golf Course Resorts, agricultural development and the sand dune project on the Barnbougle property. NETS have facilitated a meeting between the Mayor of Dorset and DIER staff and this has been followed up by an assessment of the proposed road take-over by DIER. NETS have also submitted some preliminary concepts as to an appropriate regime for maintenance of the existing roads until such time that the State Government reconstructs the road to comply DIER guidelines.

A transport study has been completed by a traffic engineer (Terry Eaton) and this is enclosed in Appendix D and is discussed in detail in Section 4.8.

At Bell Bay the sand would be loaded from a stockpile to ships (approximately 25,000 to 35,000 tonnes capacity) and shipped direct to Sydney. Metro Environmental Logistics has negotiated with the NSW Government for facilities at Glebe Island in Sydney Harbour and these facilities have now been confirmed. North East Tasmania Sands and Mr Sattler have met with senior staff of TasPorts at the Bell Bay Port and have secured preliminary confirmation that a loading facility will be provided.

After 1-2 years of production, road transport is planned to be phased out and an off shore loading facility would be established close to the sand pit if feasible. This would be a separate planning permit application.

2.5 Workforce The workforce (including contractors and transport) is expected to vary between 50 and 60 at full capacity. On site it is expected that 5-10 persons would be employed.

2.6 Operating Hours As the pit is well shielded and isolated from residences, operating hours for the sand extraction and screening plants may require 24/7 operation. For road transport, operating hours will be those shown in the Quarry Code of Practice , these are:



16

• 7.00 am to 7.00 pm Monday to Friday, and • 8.00 am to 4.00 pm on Saturday.

Sand transport will be by local contractors and it is not possible to estimate the likely distribution throughout the day. Obviously contractors would try and evenly distribute the truck arrival/departure times at both the site and Bell Bay port to minimize downtime. Possible trucks numbers are discussed in Section 4.9. No operations or transportation of products can be conducted on Sundays or gazetted public holidays (except maintenance) without the prior approval of the regulatory authority (EPA).

On some occasions these operating hours may need to be extended to fulfill contracts and delivery to outlying areas with increased travel time and this will be with EPA approval.

2.7 Alternatives 2.7.1 Pit Location The proponents have looked at a number of alternative locations over the past few years. This site is the chosen site because of:

• Potentially large reserves ensuring a long life;

• Reasonable economical transport distance from the Bell Bay;

• Excellent road access with no houses close to site access road;

• Private property;

• A site with little conservation value and dunes encroaching on prouctive farmland; and

• Isolation from residences. 2.7.2 Designs A number of pit designs were considered. The proposed design has taken into account protection of aboriginal sites, wetlands of conservation significance and visibility.

2.8 Occupational Health and Safety The quarry operations are required to have a Health and Safety System in accordance with the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998. These policies will be developed.

The system includes documented relevant safe working procedures.

To achieve appropriate commercial and environmental outcomes and to maintain a safe and healthy work environment, persons engaged in the extractive industry need to possess appropriate competencies to perform the allotted work safely and effectively, or work under the supervision and direction of another person possessing relevant and appropriate competencies. For the extractive industry, the basis for these competencies is the Extractive Industries National Competency Standards.



17

3.0 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Planning Aspects 3.1.1 Location and access The Mining Lease is located some 7km NE of Bridport just inland of Waterhouse Beach on mobile sand dunes on private property owned by Mr Sattler (Figure 1.1). Access is via Waterhouse Road.

3.1.2 Land Use and Tenure 3.1.2.1 Land Use

Figure 3.1 is a aerial photograph that shows the land uses in the area.

FIGURE 3.1 LAND USE ( LIST aerial topography)

The lease area (private property) is adjoined to the North- North -West by sand dunes and Waterhouse Beach. To the North is the Waterhouse Reserve and to the East and South by private property and farmland. To the East is Waterhouse Road a major traffic route to the north east of the State. The nearest residences are located on the East near Waterhouse Road (approximately 1000m from the proposed works area -see Figure 3.1).

The area of the proposed extraction pit is all sand dunes (see Figure 2.2) located well behind Waterhouse Breach.

The beaches have aligned perpendicular to the prevailing north-westerly swell fronts and are backed by extensive modern day mobile and partially stabilised transgressive and parabolic dune forms. These dunes overprint a larger, older and more extensive longitudinal and crescent dune field complex at a time when sea levels were much lower and dune fields covered large tracts of Bass Strait.

The transgressive and parabolic dunes are pronounced within 1 km of the coastline in the back dune areas of Noland Bay, Andersons Bay and Ringarooma Bay which form



18

a combined area of over 100 km2. The 2.43 km2 mining lease at the site coverers a 3.3 km long portion of the 19 km stretch of the Andersons Bay dune system.

An aspect of the site which is clearly visible from aerial and satellite imagery is that the dune system is not stabilised by vegetation and as a result has been actively migrating inland. The majority of these dune systems were originally stable before human settlement. Land use practices between 1839 and 1955 had resulted in denudation of the vegetation and soils which covered the dune system (GEM Appendix C).

The Sand Dune Reclamation Unit (SDRU) was established by the Lands Department between 1955 and 2000 which implemented a reliable dune stabilisation programme for the northeast of Tasmania which included a marram grass revegetation program. A large part of the focus area is what now comprises the Waterhouse Conservation Area and surrounding lands including the site.

The SDRU successfully stabilised vast tracts of land both within and beyond Waterhouse Conservation Area. The marram grass was able to take hold over the majority of the modern dune system but isolated parts (including the site) could not be successfully stabilised. Over the last 60 years, dune systems at the site have been actively migrating at a rate of approximately 7 m per year and are encroaching on viable farming land to the west and local wetlands which are listed as threatened under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.

3.1.2.2 Land Tenure The land tenure and property boundaries are shown in Figure 3.2, with the mining leases. The proposed extraction site is on private land owned by Mr Sattler. Adjoining land to the East, South and South-West is all private land. Crown Land is to the North is the Waterhouse Conservation Area (WCA).

FIGURE 3.2 LAND USE ( LIST )

WCA

private land - yellow



19

The WCA is a reserve of 6,953 hectares which contains many wetland communities, including three major permanent deep-water lagoons - Blackmans Lagoon and Big Waterhouse and Little Waterhouse Lakes. Little Waterhouse Lake is listed under the Ramsar Convention as an internationally significant wetland. It also contains extensive, relict dune systems formed during the Ice Age which are also present in the Mining Lease area.

3.1.3 Zoning (Dorset Interim Planning Scheme 2013) 3.1.3.1 Planning Scheme Purpose

The stated purpose of the planning scheme is:

a) To further the Objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System and of the Planning Process as set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act; and b) To achieve the planning scheme objectives set out in clause 3.0 by regulating or prohibiting the use or development of land in the planning scheme area.

The vision for the Regional Land Use Framework is to make intelligent use of the region’s natural advantages to create an affordable and competitive future for all communities. The creation of opportunities for sustainable economic prosperity and enhancing the region’s attractiveness as a place to live, invest and visit is a priority.

The planning scheme seeks to further the principles and policies established in the Regional Land Use Framework.

3.1.3.2 Planning Scheme Objectives The scheme has a number of stated objectives. These include the following statement;

Encourage sustainable, innovative and diverse economic development through efficient deployment of resources and services, emphasising value-adding of agriculture and natural productive resources with minimal impact on environmental values and quality of life.

Encourage development which retains and attracts younger people and supports older residents

Ensure that use and development of resources contributes to the protection of biological diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and life-support systems within the Municipality; and

Protect the values of riparian and wetlands environments through assessment of impacts of development or proposed land use on wetlands and waterways, with the aim of protecting their water quality, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity

3.1.3.3 Planning Scheme Zones The Mining Lease is zoned Rural Resource under the scheme (see Figure 3.3). The land is adjoined by land zoned Rural Resource (yellow) in all directions (except for the beach area to the north –west and Waterhouse Reserve to the north, which are zoned environmental management (green).



20

FIGURE 3.3: DORSET INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME ZONES (2013)

In addition there is an overlay that cover the area. This shows “priority habitat areas”. These are shown in Figure 3.4. These are presumably wetland areas (green).

FIGURE 3.4: DORSET INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME OVERLAYS (2013)

Resource Development is a Permitted use in the Rural Resource zone which covers the property.

The purposes of the zone are to:

26.1.1 To provide for the sustainable use or development of resources for agriculture,



21

aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries, including opportunities for resource processing.

26.1.2 To provide for other use or development that does not constrain or conflict with resource development uses.

26.1.3 To provide for economic development that is compatible with primary industry activities, environmental and landscape values.

26.1.4 To provide for tourism related use and development where the sustainable development of rural resources will not be compromised.

3.1.3.4 State Policies State Policies are part of the Resource Management Planning System. Section 13 of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 prescribes that a State Policy overrides any planning scheme where there is any inconsistency between the Policy and a scheme.

It also prescribes that planning schemes must be amended to incorporate all those parts of the State Policy which are relevant to a planning scheme. Both the Tasmanian State Coastal Policy 1996 (revised 2003, 2009) and State Policy on Water Quality Management (Adopted 26 September 1997) are relevant policies.

3.1.3.4.1 State Coastal Policy

This policy applies to all land to a distance of one kilometre inland from the high-water mark. The extraction area is some 700m to 1.5km from the high water mark and therefore the policy applies to the nearest dunes to the coastline (refer Figure 2.2).

Principles

The policy principles are:

• Natural and cultural values of the coast shall be protected.

• The coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner.

• Integrated management and protection of the coastal zone is a shared responsibility.

Outcomes

Protection of Natural and Cultural Values

The areas to be disturbed (dune sand) have been identified as being mobile and not naturally occurring (a result of European occupation) (see Section 3.2.4). They contain no ecological, geomorphological and geological coastal features and aquatic environments of conservation value.

Aboriginal sites and areas of conservation values (wetlands) on the edge of the dunes have been identified and protected. There are no weeds on the site and these will be controlled in future. Water quality will be maintained by leaving a 1m base of dune sand above the water table. Monitoring and management procedures will be adopted to protect water quality and identify remedial measures if required.



22

That area is distant from natural coastal processes (1km) and is not at risk from these. The removal of the dunes will prevent the current movement of the sands and deleteriously affecting productive farm land.

Sustainable Development of Coastal Areas and Resources

The sand extraction proposal is subject to the environmental assessment process and this DPEMP includes strategies to avoid or mitigate potential adverse environmental effects. There are no competing developments or land uses. The area is private land and the Waterhouse Conservation Area to the north has well protected landforms and features which are similar to the site and with public use and access.

Sand extraction will be subject to the Quarry Code of Practice and environmental assessment as required by State legislation including the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. Rehabilitation shall be carried out after sand extraction. Sand extraction is in accordance with the zoning. Water quality will also be protected.

Shared Responsibility for Integrated Management of Coastal Areas and Resources All levels of government are responsible for effective coordination and management of the coastal zone. Public awareness and community participation is encouraged.

This DPEMP and the permit application via LUPA and EMPCA will facilitate public information and input.

Implementation, Evaluation and Review

Implementation of the State Coastal Policy is coordinated through the State Coastal Advisory Committee and the proponents will cooperate with any review.

3.1.3.4.2 State Water Quality Management Policy

The policy objectives are:

• Focus water quality management on the achievement of water quality objectives which will maintain or enhance water quality and further the objectives of Tasmania's Resource Management and Planning System;

• Ensure that diffuse source and point source pollution does not prejudice the achievement of water quality objectives and that pollutants discharged to waterways are reduced as far as is reasonable and practical by the use of best practice environmental management;

• Ensure that efficient and effective water quality monitoring programs are carried out and that the responsibility for monitoring is shared by those who use and benefit from the resource, including polluters, who should bear an appropriate share of the costs arising from their activities, water resource managers and the community;

• Facilitate and promote integrated catchment management through the achievement of objectives (1) to (3) above; and

• Apply the precautionary principle to Part 4 of this Policy.



23

3.1.3.5 Compliance with Objectives and Standards Extractive Industry is a Permitted Use in the zone. Extractive industry is defined as:

“use of land for extracting or removing material from the ground, other than Resource development, and includes the treatment or processing of those materials by crushing, grinding, milling or screening on, or adjoining the land from which it is extracted. Examples include mining, quarrying, and sand mining”.

8.7.1 A use or development must be granted a permit if:

a) the use is within a use class specified in the applicable Use Table as being a use which is permitted;

b) the use or development complies with each applicable standard and does not rely on a performance criterion to do so; and

c) the use or development is not discretionary or prohibited under any other provision of the planning scheme.

Use and development in this zone is to conform with the relevant planning scheme standards set out in sections 3 and 4 of the planning scheme. Table 3.1 shows a summary of compliance with the standards.

Table 3.1: Compliance with relevant planning scheme use and development standards

Issue Compliance Acceptable Solutions Performance Criteria 26.3 Standards for Use 26.3.1 Discretionary uses NA – Extractive industry is a permitted use 26.3.2 Dwellings NA - No dwellings to be constructed 26.4 Standards for Use 26.4.1 Building Location and Appearance

26.4 Standards for Development

26.4.1 Buildings Location and Appearance Acceptable Solutions Performance Criteria

A1 Buildings must not exceed 10 metres in height

Complies

A2 Buildings must be setback from boundaries in accordance with Table A2.2.

Set back of 50m

26.4.2 Subdivision Not applicable 26.4.2 House Excision Not applicable

CODES (applicable/ relevant only) E1.0 Bushfire Code Applies to buildings E1.5.2 Buildings must have protection zones

Already in place

E1.5.4 Roads and Fire Access Already in place. To be constructed to extraction area.

E1.5.6 Water supply Already provided with water storage tanks/ dams.

E4.0 Road and Railway Assets Code Traffic Impact Assessment has been



24

3.3.3.5 Attenuation Impacts and Attenuation Code The scheme has a new code relating to the possible location of sensitive uses (such as residences) near existing or approved uses, as well as the reverse (location of new developments near sensitive uses).

The purpose of this code is stated as:

a) ensure appropriate consideration of the potential for environmental harm or environmental nuisance in the location of new sensitive land uses; or

b) ensure the environmental impacts of new development are considered to eliminate, reduce or mitigate potential for environmental harm or environmental nuisance.

The code applies to:

a) sensitive use located within the attenuation distance of existing or approved uses with the potential to create environmental harm and environmental nuisance or within a buffer area shown on the planning scheme map; and

b) uses listed in E11.6.2 with the potential to create environmental harm or environmental nuisance.

Level 2 activities as defined by the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (ie this proposal) are exempt from the Code as they are approved and controlled by the Act.

The development will therefore be protected by a 750m zone.

completed (see Section 4.8) Using existing access Complies with site distance.

E 6.0 Car Parking Provided E7.0 Scenic Management Code Complies – unobtrusive, visually in-evident. E 7.0 Scenic Management Refer Section 4.7 regarding visual

management and effects E.8.0 Biodiversity Code Complies- vegetation and habitat to be

disturbed have no conservation values Areas of conservation values have been protected.

Refer Section 4.6 E9.0 Water Quality Code Applies to development within 50m of wetland or watercourse

Protected by buffer zone. Not in proximity of watercourse or wetland.

E11.0 Environmental Impacts and Attenuation Code

Will have protection from sensitive uses.. Refer Section 3.3.3.5

E14.0 Coastal Code Impacts of use within coastal environment

No impacts (see Section 3.1.3.4.1)



25

3.2 Physical Environment 3.2.1 Climate The area experiences a mild coastal maritime climate, but is windy, with prevailing winds varying from northwest to southwest. North easterlies are also quite common during the summer months. The annual rainfall is generally less than 800 mm, with rainfall occurring frequently throughout the year, with a slight winter maximum (Figure 3.5).

FIGURE 3.5 AVERAGE MONTHLY CLIMATE DATA

Maximum temperatures range between 14 and 21 degree Celsius. Solar exposure is greatest during November to January. Rainfall is reasonably evenly spread throughout the year but with more in winter months. Evaporation is likely to exceed rainfall from September to April approximately. In these periods runoff is therefore unlikely (except for storms) and dust generation is most common.

Wind directions for summer and Yearly averages for 9am and 3pm are shown in Figure 3.6. These indicate that at 9am winds are mostly from the north - west quadrant, but also from the east. Wind velocities also tend to be low at 9am.

At 3pm, the winds are mostly from the W-NW directions (almost 50%, with the strongest winds from the north-west and north.

3.2.2 Geology, Soils and Land Capability 3.2.2.1 Geology

An assessment of the geomorphology and hydrogeology of the site has been investigated by Geo-Environmental Solutions. There reports are included in Appendix C. This section summarizes their report.

The basement geology comprises of a medium to coarse grained Devonian to Carboniferous graniodiorite underlying Quaternary sands, silts, clays and organic matter. The graniodiorite is exposed 2.5 km to the south-east of the site. The older Pleistocene marine terrace deposits comprise shells, clay, silt and organic matter deposits. The terrace deposits rises up to over 10 m AHD inland of the site and dip down at an angle towards the coast where it is locally buried beneath the Holocene dune sands. (Figure 3.7).



26

.

FIGURE 3.6: WIND ROSES (Source BOM)



27

FIGURE 3.7: LOCAL 1:25,000 MRT GEOLOGY SHOWING SITE, MINING LEASE,

SHADED RELIEF, ROADS & RIVERS OVERLAYS. The Great Forrester River has eroded out parts of the marine terrace deposits to the south of the site and laid down more recent stream, alluvium and marsh deposits along the river course. The historical marsh deposits are noted to be associated with acid sulphate soils in the area. Provided that the water table is not lowered through groundwater extraction, acid sulphate soils are not considered a risk at the site.

Holocene dune deposits at the site comprise of:

• modern calcareous transgressive dunefield (Bowlers Lagoon Sand);

• marine sand deposits along the coastline (Barnbougle Sand); and

• parabolic dunes which back the marine sand deposits (Waterhouse Sand). Coastal marine transgression (inward movement of the coastline) occurred across the Bass Strait land bridge following the last glacial event as sea levels began to rise (Bird 2000). Large linear dunefields which stretched Bass Strait (Bowden 1983) and local river systems provided ample supply of sediment to the coast with marine transgression. Marine and lagoon deposits from the last interglacial (Stumpies Bay Sand) formed a base for Holocene deposits across the coastal plane. Beaches realigned to the prevailing swell directions and sand began to accumulate coastally over the recent half of the Holocene period as the coastline stabilised.

In Modern Holocene, the dunes have migrated inland, at least partly due to the effects of European occupation.

The Table in Figure 3.8 provides a summary of the dunefield migration distances and rates for each transect along the receding margin. It can be concluded that the average rate of dunefield migration ranged from 7.8 metres per year (1964 to 1978; and 1991 to 2011) to 12.5 metres per year (1964 to 1978).



28

FIGURE 3.8: ORTHORECTIFIED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM 1949

ILLUSTRATING SUMMARY OF DUNE MIGRATION RATES 3.2.2.2 Soils

Other than the small area affected by the access road and support area, there are no soils as the entire footprint of the extraction area is dune sands.

3.2.2.3 Land Capability Figure 3.9 shows the land capability of the area (source: The List). The land has very low land capability and is unsuitable for agricultural use.

FIGURE 3.9: LAND CAPABILITY (Source the List)



29

3.2.3 Surface and Groundwaters 3.2.3.1 Surface Waters

The transgressive and parabolic dune systems within the Lease (Figure 3.7) have an elevation range of approximately 2 m AHD to over 20 m AHD. The dune systems provide a contrasting relief to the relatively flat coastal plain topography in the region. Around the margins of the dune system and in other low lying parts of the coastal plain, the water table extends above the ground surface forming freshwater wetlands. Water levels in the wetlands tend to fluctuate by not more than 0.5 m seasonally, with the shallow water bodies partially drying out during the summer months.

Aerial orthophoto’s of the site (Figures 3.10 and 3.11 – and GES Appendix C) indicate that since 1948, the sand dunes have migrated up to 0.6 km in an east-south easterly direction from the coastline. The sand migration is anecdotally inferred to have been responsible for the obstruction of the Great Forester River near the river mouth in the late 19th century. As a result Adams Cut was excavated casing the river to flow 3.5 km east of the natural estuary. Mobile windblown sand deposits in the region continue to dynamically reshape the surface of the land as well as influence wetland distribution and surface drainage networks.

FIGURE 3.10: 1991 ORTHOPHOTO SHOWING MINING LEASE BOUNDARY AND INFERRED WATER BODIES AND MOBILE DUNE BOUNDARY (DASHED LINES - 1978)



30

FIGURE 3.11: 2011 ORTHOPHOTO SHOWING MINING LEASE BOUNDARY AND INFERRED WATER BODIES AND MOBILE DUNE BOUNDARY (DASHED LINES - 1991) To the north of the site in the Waterhouse Conservation Reserve, the Big Waterhouse Lake has become infilled with sand blow (GES Appendix C). It is documented that in 1964, the creek joining Big Waterhouse Lake flooded the lagoon following a high rainfall event. As a result a substantial volume of the lagoon was lost when the dune system holding in the water body gave way.

Similar but less dramatic dynamics are noted to be occurring at the site. The orthophoto series illustrates the changing nature of the site, showing the dynamic interplay between sand dune formation and water body occurrence.

Water bodies at the site along the south-eastern margin of the transgressive dunes have been and continue to be engulfed by lobate slip face and windblown sand sheet deposits (see photograph).

These wetlands have historically existed as small isolated water bodies along the prograding margins, and at present have retracted to two or three isolated wetlands. These wetlands are being partially supplemented with freshwater drainage from the dune and at the same time are being choked by dune infill. The wetlands to the south of the site along the prograding front (Photograph) were visibly noted to have prograded by more than 3 m over the one month period between site investigation dates.

Along the north western margins of the regressing dune system, the land surface was observed to have been deflated to below the water table which has resulted in the formation of dune slacks (wetlands).



31

Photograph: Windblown Sheet Sand Deposits Encroaching on Wetlands along Southern Margins

The extraction area is located totally within the dune system and there is no surface water drainage, as all rainfall infiltrates through the sand dunes. It is therefore effectively filtered by calcarerous sands.

3.2.3.2 Groundwater A total of six (6) piezometers (groundwater monitoring wells) were installed at the site in October 2013 at locations presented in Figure 2.4. A total of 11 soil bores were constructed all that intercepted groundwater (6) were converted to groundwater wells.

Monitoring well logs are presented in GES’s report (Appendix C). Results from the groundwater gauging on the 4th December 2013 indicate that groundwater depth ranges from 1.385 m (MW6) to 8.252 m (MW3) below ground surface (BGS).

The hydraulic gradient of the water table between MW6 and MW2 during the monitoring event was 0.13% to the north-west which is extremely low. Given the water table within the vicinity of MW6 is only marginally higher than the water table at MW3, it is apparent that the dune system shows little sign of groundwater mounding beneath the highest points. A cross section was generated for the site (with 4 x vertical exaggeration) which demonstrates the relationship between the site surface and the groundwater surface (Figure 3.12). The level is shown as Australian Height Datum (AHD) which is the height above mean sea level. The groundwater levels on this date were 5 to 5.5m above sea level.



32

FIGURE 3.12: CROSS SECTION A THROUGH THE SITE ILLUSTRATING THE WATER TABLE SURFACE ON 4TH DECEMBER 2013 (Source : Appendix C

Boreholes BH11 and BH08 are also illustrated on the cross section, indicating that BH11 may have been very close to the water table surface but never intercepted the groundwater, providing further evidence that groundwater mounding is not apparent at the site. The inferences in the hydrology section of water flowing from the south east to north west beneath the dunes is consistent with the hydrogeological findings. A likely control over groundwater flow in the local area is the Pleistocene marine terrace deposits which dip towards the coastline. The Holocene river, alluvial and marsh deposits are also anticipated to control groundwater flow towards the coastline.

The underlying alluvial and river deposits are expected to transmit water towards the coast where as the underlying marsh, clay and silt deposits are expect to restrict water flow, causing groundwater instead to travel through the overlying dune sand deposits. The water table was observed above the historic silt layer by 1.0 m in MW1, >1.8 m in MW2, >1.3 m in MW3, >1.4 m in MW4, 1.3 m in MW5, & >2.2 m in MW6. In many cases the underlying silt layer was not encountered (indicate by the > symbol). In MW6, there was a historical lagoon infill which has accounted for considerable thickness of the sand below the water table.

The groundwater is mildly acidic, with near neutral oxidation/reduction potential, and is fresh.

3.2.4 Geomorphology 3.2.4.1 Introduction

Geomorphology is the scientific study of landforms and the processes that shape them. The geomorphology of the site has been investigated by Geo-Environmental Solutions (GES) with the hydrogeology. Their reports are included in Appendix C. This section summarizes their report.

The aims of the assessment (based on EPA guidelines, Appendix A) included:

• To document the geomorphic and sedimentary characteristics of the mobile sand dune deposit at the site and to assess the geo-conservation values of the feature;

• To determine if the site is registered as having geo-conservation value and if not, what aspects of the surrounding landscape are considered of geo-conservation value and how this may relate to the site features;

• To assess the likelihood of other equivalent features of a similar geomorphic system being present in an undisturbed state elsewhere in the area, and assess



33

their likely conservation significance in relation to the Lost Farm site. 3.2.4.2 Field work

Field reconnaissance investigations included:

• A regional geomorphological assessment of mobile sand dune systems

• A detailed assessment of site geomorphology The southern parts of the site Mining Lease (the projected 5-6 year programme) was investigated with a 4wd mounded direct push drilling rig to depths of up to 12 m. The following were investigated:

• A total of eleven (11) boreholes were positioned around the perimeter of the dunefield and through the central parts of the dune to understand the landform characteristics.

• Sediment samples were collected for lithological interpretation and grain size characterisation

• A total of six (6) groundwater monitoring wells were installed for the hydrogeological assessment (assessed in detail in a separate report)

3.2.4.3 Geoconservation Assessment The assessment of the landforms at the site has been conducted by GES and they have concluded the following:

• Land use practices in the region are the likely cause of the disruption to the vegetation across the frontal dune system at the site and in the area between the late 18th and early 19th century.

• Planting of marram (an introduced plant, now considered a weed) grass in the mid-19th century by the sand dune reclamation unit had largely stabilised dunes across the Parks and Wildlife Service and Crown Land titles across the north east coast (including the Waterhouse Conservation Area)

• Sand at the site has remained largely unstable and has led to the development of a large transgressive dunefield.

• Farming land, wetlands and historical parabolic dunes have been buried as the mobile dunefield has transgressed inland.

• There is little intrinsic value in the transgressive dunefield given that it is not representative of natural landforms in the area.

• The large volume of sand lost from the frontal dune system as a result of this unnatural transgression has altered the natural parabolic dune building processes at the site, to the extent that the system is not representative of natural dune building processes in the area.

• Moreover, there is less value in preserving relict dunefields at the site given that relict dunes in conservation areas across the north east coast are playing an important role in shaping ongoing natural dune forming processes.

• There is strong value in protecting the interdune slacks along the receding margins of the dunefield to ensure that wetlands in the area are retained.

• It is more than likely that the calcified forests are repeated across the



34

landscape, particularly to the north in the Waterhouse Conservation Area. Comment cannot be made on the geoconservation significance of the calcified forests without knowing the regularity of the associated landforms throughout the region.

3.2.5 Biological Environment Overview – Flora and Fauna North-Barker Ecosystem Services (NBA) were engaged to investigate the flora and fauna conservation values in the Mining Lease and general area. Their report is attached in Appendix E. Additional studies and reports were commissioned after the endangered Green and Gold frog was discovered in the initial survey.

Six Tasveg mapping units (TASVEG) are present on site:

• DAC - dry Eucalyptus amygdalina coastal forest and woodland

• SAC – Acacia longifolia coastal scrub

• GHC – coastal grass and herbfield

• AHF – freshwater aquatic herbland – Threatened Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA)

• ASF – freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland - Threatened NCA

• OSM - Sand

Figure 3.13 shows the vegetation.

The study area covers around 350 hectares, a large proportion of which has been previously cleared for agriculture or is sand with only very low natural levels of vegetation cover. Nonetheless, the site supports some significant conservation values within dune swales and on the dune margins.

3.2.5.1 Threatened Vegetation Two wetland communities on site occupy swales. The communities ‘freshwater aquatic herbland’ and ‘freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland’, are both listed as threatened under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002.

3.2.5.2 Threatened Fauna Some of the wetland habitats were found to support the Green and Gold frog, which is listed as vulnerable under both the TSPA and the EPBCA. They also support and the striped marsh frog, which is listed as endangered under the TSPA. The other wetlands are potentially also suitable for these species.

The AHF wetland has the potential of supporting the eastern dwarf galaxy as which is vulnerable on both the TSPA and the EPBC.

A survey of the adjacent Waterhouse Conservation Area found that both frog species are widespread in similar habitats throughout (Figure 3.14). Nevertheless, avoidance and protection of the core habitat areas within the proposed MLA would mitigate the potential impact.



35

FIGURE 3.13: VEGETATION COMMUNITIES, WEEDS, AND THREATENED SPECIES OBSERVED ON SITE



36

Photograph: Green and Gold Frog

3.2.5.3 Threatened Flora The margins of the wetlands have the potential to support the tiny miterwort which is listed as rare on the TSPA. It was not recorded during survey.



37

FIGURE 3.14: GREEN AND GOLD AND STRIPED MARSH FROG RECORDS IN THE WATERHOUSE CONSERVATION AREA AND ADJACENT PRIVATE LAND



38

3.3 Social Environment Overview 3.3.1 Socioeconomic setting The proposed quarry is located in the Dorset Municipality. The closest urban centre is Bridport, Scottsdale is some 30km away where the council offices are located.

The Dorset municipal area is shown in Figure 3.15.

FIGURE 3.15: DORSET MUNICIPALITY

Bridport is the nearest urban centre. This beautiful and relaxed village by the sea overlooks the waters of Anderson Bay, Barnbougle Beach and the Furneaux islands and has a mild micro climate, and also offers good health services, a library and primary school. A growing retail sector serves an expanding population of retirees, young families and sea-changers. During the summer the population swells to over 6,000.

The municipality is also sustained by light manufacturing and service industries as well as commercial and residential development. Examples include ship building at Bridport, the Defence Science and Technology Research Centre, (DSTO) at Scottsdale and a number of small sawmills processing both native hardwoods and plantation softwoods

Hydro Tasmania has invested $450 million in the wind farm project at Cape Portland in the far north east. This is Australia’s largest windfarm with 56 wind turbines, with a generating capacity of 168 MW.



39

The Dorset region has the second largest area of public eucalypt plantations in Tasmania, (22,900ha or 12 per cent of the state’s total), and the largest area of public softwood plantation in Tasmania. (16,300ha or 34 per cent of the state’s total).

Bridport had a population of 1,248 in the 2011 census. This has declined from a population of 1327 in the 2006 Census. Median age in 2006 was 45 and this increased to 50 in 2011. In the Dorset Local Government Area (LGA), the population also declined from 7001 to 6827 in 2011 (2.5%) and median age also increased from 42 to 44. This is probably caused by the decline in employment opportunities.

In the 2011 Census in the LGA, 50.2% of the population were women and 49.2% men. This is lower than Tasmania as a whole, but with a higher percentage of women than Australia as a whole. Dorset (and Tasmania) have a higher percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than Australia as a whole, but a lot lower proportion of persons born overseas.

Compared with Tasmania and Australia as a whole, Dorset’s life stages that were proportionally larger were the oldest (70+ years), which had 0.1% and 1.6% more of the population respectively. The median age of 44 was higher than both Australia (37) and Tasmania (40). Dorset also had relatively fewer people in the birthing age (25–39 years) stage of life, with compared to Australia and Tasmania.

Dorset had significantly more residents than Tasmania and Australia who were married spouses (53.1%, 47.5% and 48.7%) and a higher proportion of single person households (19.8%, 17% and 15.9%). However the population has a much lower proportion of those with tertiary or university education (4.6%, 11.8% and 14.3%).

Median income is also lower - $393 per week versus, $499 (Tasmania) and $577 (Australia). Another difference from Tasmania was Dorset’s lower proportion of households with two vehicles.

Workforce participation rates were lower and unemployment higher compared to Tasmania and Australia. The main industries employing the workforce in 2011 were:

Sheep, Beef Cattle and Grain Farming 7.5% Dairy Farming 6.7% School Education 5.1%; Log sawmilling and Timber dressing 3.9% Road Freight Transport 3.5%

Therefore, the overall picture is of declining economy and employment opportunities. 3.3.2 Archaeology and Heritage 3.3.2.1 Aboriginal Heritage An Aboriginal heritage survey was conducted within the lease area by Aboriginal Heritage consultants, Cultural Heritage Management Australia (CHMA). A number of sites were found and the report is in Appendix F.

Registered Aboriginal Sites in the Vicinity of the Study Area

As part of Stage 1 of the assessment process, a search was undertaken of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI) to determine whether any registered



40

Aboriginal heritage sites are located within or in the general vicinity of the study area.

The search shows that there are five registered Aboriginal sites situated within a 2km radius of the study area. None of these five sites appear to be situated within the bounds of the lease area. The closest site to the study area is site TASI 8445. The complete results of the TASI search are presented in their report (Appendix F).

Summary Results of the Field Survey

The field survey was undertaken over a period of two days in October 2013. This was by walking a series of transects within the designated bounds of the study area, and in areas immediately adjacent to the study area boundaries. In total, 13.2km of transects were walked within and adjacent to the bounds of the study area.

During the course of the field survey assessment a total of six Aboriginal sites were identified. All six sites are classified as artefact scatters, which range in size from just two surface artefacts (site TASI 11886) through to over 200 artefacts (site TASI 11884). The detailed descriptions for these six sites are presented in Appendix F. Their location is shown in Figure 3.16. Some are shown in the photograph.

FIGURE 3.16: IDENTIFIED ABORIGINAL SITES

The six recorded sites are all located outside the bounds of the extraction area (to the north).

No Aboriginal sites were located within the main body of the sand dune system which will be the focus of sand extraction activity. This is not surprising, given that the dunes are up to 16m in depth, and that these sand deposits have mostly aggraded in the past 100 years, after the period of traditional Aboriginal occupation of the area.



41

Photograph: Sample range of stone artefacts from site TASI 11887

No Aboriginal sites were identified within the proposed sand processing/stockpile area, or along the proposed access road to the sand extraction area. Both these areas are situated on the low lying Great Forrester River flood plains to the south of the dune system. Although there were some constraints in surface visibility in these areas, there was still sufficient coverage to generate an impression as to the extent of Aboriginal heritage resources in these areas. The negative results are interpreted as an accurate reflection of the low level of Aboriginal sites in these areas. See Section 4.6 for proposed management of identified sites.

Significance Assessments

The six recorded Aboriginal sites have each been assessed and allocated a rating of significance. A five tiered rating system has been adopted for the significance assessment; low, low-medium, medium, medium-high and high. Table 3.2 provides the summary details for significance ratings for the six sites. A more detailed explanation for the assessment ratings are presented in the CHMA report (Appendix F).

3.3.2.2 European Heritage Sites There are no European heritage sites in the area of the quarry on the Tasmanian Heritage Register, National Estate Register, or EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool.



42

Table 3.2: Summary significance ratings for Aboriginal sites located during the survey TASI Site Number

Site Type Scientific Significance

Aesthetic Significance

Historic Significance

Social Significance

TASI 11883 Artefact Scatter

Medium Medium-High

N/A High


Medium-High

Medium-High

N/A High


Medium Medium-High

N/A High


Low Medium-High

N/A High


Medium Medium-High

N/A High


Medium Medium-High

N/A High



43

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT

4.1 Introduction The proposal is to establish a sand extraction pit on unstable and mobile sand dunes near Bridport in North East Tasmania. The sand would be screened and then initially transported by truck to Bell Bay where it would be shipped to markets in Melbourne and Sydney, as well as supplying local Tasmanian markets. Longer term, when production levels rise, the sand will be loaded directly to ships off shore.

The pit is to be established on private land by the owner and adjacent to the world famous Barnbougle and Lost Farm gold courses. Therefore the construction and operation of the pit will be to the highest standards other-wise their operation may be compromised.

The potential environmental impacts that may result from the ongoing sand extraction operations are discussed in this section, with the environmental management measures that have been developed to minimize or eliminate any measurable potential impacts. A prediction of likely residual impacts is also made. These have been used to identify specific commitments necessary for appropriate management of any issues.

4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts These are addressed in the following Sections, with other environmental issues which are considered to be more minor factors.

The potential impacts from the sand extraction operations are well understood from studies of similar operations elsewhere. They will result from direct physical impacts on the proposed sand extraction site and limited off site effects. The 10year plan presented in Section 2 will disturb a total of approximately 50 ha over this period. There will also be small areas required for stockpile storage and access, however these will be minor (1-2ha). Long term it is currently intended that the site will be reformed and revegetated as a golf course similar to the adjoining world famous Barnbougle and Lost Farm courses.

The mining lease area has vegetation and fauna that is rare and endangered in fringing wetland areas, as well as a number of Aboriginal heritage sites. Based on the above, the key issues have been identified as:

• potential noise effects on residents;

• potential effects on dune geomorphology; and

• potential effects on flora and fauna habitat

4.3 Noise from operations 4.3.1 Noise studies Vipac Consultants were engaged to assess possible noise impacts from the operations under normal operating conditions. Their report is enclosed in Appendix G.



44

4.3.2 Existing Noise Levels Vipac have identified the closest residential locations being likely to be affected as being approximately 1500m south east of the site (Figure 4.1).

FIGURE 4.1: Aerial View of Site and Surroundings (Source Vipac)

It is assumed that the noise level for the area is assumed typical for a rural area and the appropriate Australian Standard (AS1055) then used to define the existing noise level. The two area types that may be considered applicable here are R1 or R2 as detailed in Table 4.1. R1 is considered the most relevant.

TABLE 4.1: BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS – AS1055

4.3.3 Sand Pit Noise Levels Sound data for the processing plant and cartage trucks are based on previous measurements for a similar sand recovery operation. From those measurements the following observations were made:

• The sizing screen was the main noise, primarily due to loose debris on top of

House



45

the input screen “rattling” around. When sand was loaded onto the screens the screen noise reduced noticeably for a brief period.

• The sizing screen was perceived as a predominantly high frequency noise.

• The loaders were audible at distance due to a low frequency component.

• The truck was cruising at an estimated 30 km/hr for the measurement. The sound spectra for the loader and the Loader plus screen are shown in Figure 4.2, and confirm the observations of a low frequency loader component and higher frequency screen component.

FIGURE 4.2: NOISE SPECTRA FOR SAND RECOVERY – NEARBY THE PLANT

The sound power levels associated with each item of equipment are then listed in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2: SITE POWER LEVELS

Given the distance to the nearest residential dwelling, the processing plant noise sources are all grouped as a single point source for modelling purposes.

4.3.4 Noise Predictions To predict the noise levels at the residential location A in Figure 4.1, the ISO 9613 algorithms have been used. These account for sound attenuation with distance, air absorption, ground effects, and barriers. The modeling is based on essentially worst case conditions.



46

The predicted noises levels at location A are then shown in Table 4.3, with the following comments relevant.

• The processing plant completely dominates the continuous noise levels.

• The reverse beacon has a similar level, but is intermittent and will not effect the continuous noise level.

• When the plant recovery increases to 1.5 million tonnes, it may be assumed double the equipment modelled is used, and the noise emissions therefore increase by 3 dB.

TABLE 4.3: PREDICTED COMMUNITY NOISE LEVELS – ADJUSTED FOR CHARACTER & DURATION

4.3.5 Noise Assessment The sand pit is to operate 24/7, and so the assessment is conducted for the three time periods of day, evening and night. The assessment comprises determining an appropriate criteria and comparing the predicted noise levels against this. Prior to performing the comparison the predicted noise levels are adjusted for any annoying character they may contain (tonal, impulsive, low frequency etc.).

4.3.5.1 Criteria The relevant state policy for environmental noise levels is the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy 2009 (Noise), which requires that an individual be able to work or study without unreasonable interference from noise. To determine what might constitute unreasonable noise from the proposed sand pit, various regulations/policies/standards, both state and national, are referred to. The criteria are shown in Table 4.4. The reverse beacon noise on mobile equipment being intermittent and not affecting the Leq level is assessed by the sleep disturbance criteria, while the processing plant and cartage trucks are assessed by all criteria.

The intrusive criteria of Table 4.4 will be the tightest, given it is a rural area with no current commercial / industrial development. With the background noise quietest at night, and the sleep disturbance criteria only operating at night, it is the night time period that will control the assessment, and only this period is then assessed, with the assumption if it passes this period, it will pass all other time periods.



47

TABLE 4.4: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR SAND PIT NOISE

The background level from Table 4.1 is 30 dBA at night, and so the intrusive criteria would be 35 dBA.

The criteria used for the assessment are then:

Night Time Intrusive Noise 35 dBA

Sleep Disturbance 45 dBA

4.3.5.2 Assessment The sand pit noise assessment for favourable noise propagation conditions (ie. light wind source to receiver or a developed temperature inversion), is summarised in Table 4.5.

TABLE 4.5: ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

As per Table 4.3, the predicted noise levels are already adjusted for their character, and so the assessment merely compares the predicted level against the criteria. It is seen from the Table that the sand pit noise levels are below the criteria initially but may breach the criteria at full production. In considering this breach, the following is noted.

The noise levels are predictions not actual noise levels

If the processing plant operates behind the stockpiles or behind a section of the dune, acoustic screening will occur, and the noise emissions decrease significantly.



48

4.3.6 Management Vipac have recommended that:

• Broad Band reverse beacons be used in place of tonal ones on all trucks and loaders. This will dramatically reduce the reverse beacon noise by eliminating the tonal penalty, and reducing the predicted sound pressure level.

• In the site induction for truck drivers, stipulate engine brakes are not to be used on the access road or within suburban / urban areas.

• A noise survey be conducted once the plant is operating at its initial production rate, and again when the processing plant size has been increased to full production capacity. If the plant is audible and more than 5 dBA above the ambient, a commitment be made to operate the plant either behind the stockpile or a section of dune.

It is intended that after Year 1 or 2 the screening plant will be located behind the dunes which will act as an acoustic screen.

4.3.7 Assessment of impact Noise will be generated at the pit throughout all stages of the proposed development by the loading, screening and transport of sand. However, the assessment by Vipac is that the noise criteria will be met except when the screening plant etc are in full production.

By moving the plant further into the dunes will reduce these noise emissions. By adopting other Vipac recommendations set out above will further reduce noise levels and it is considered that it is unlikely that residences will be affected.

4.4 Geoconservation 4.4.1 Assessment of Significance GES have established that the formation of the mobile transgressive dunefields has had an undesirable effect on the overall landscape backing the coastline of Anderson Bay (Appendix C). The occurrence of the mass dune mobilisation is attributed to European land use practices possibly dating back to the late 19th century. Other bays including Noland Bay and Ringarooma Bay may have also been subject to similar pressure, although available literature has focused in on Anderson Bay, with the Waterhouse Conservation Area being the main focus.

GES has recommended that the transgressive dunefields at the site are an unnatural anthropogenic derived landform feature in the landscape and are not representative of surrounding parabolic dunefields in the area and therefore does not have geoconservation significance.

Although the transgressive dunefield has active processes occurring, GES believe that there is little intrinsic value in the transgressive dunefield given that it is not representative of natural landforms in the area.

It is discerned that there are some important natural values in the mining lease area. Important ecological niches are likely to have been buried as a result of migration of



49

the dunefield. This is likely to have resulted in forceful displacement of frog species. The distance between interdune slacks (wetland habitats) along the advancing boundary is notably broader across the transgressive dunefield front compared with the natural parabolic system. This may have had implication for frog migration in the area. Although the transgressive dunefield may have had adverse effects on existing habitats and wetlands, there is strong value in protecting the interdune slacks along the receding margins. In this case, natural processes of deflation should be encouraged rather than inhibited along the receding margins such that wetland expansion can proceed naturally to a point where there is adequate habitat area to sustain the endangered and vulnerable frog populations in the area.

The “Lost Farm’ transgressive dunefield features abruptly on the landscape and may be vividly seen by onlookers travelling along Waterhouse Road. As the dune system is on private land, it is out of bounds for recreation use other than by the land owners. Regardless, it may provide familiarity to some for providing a feeling of sense of place.

It has been established that historical parabolic dune forms underlie the transgressive dunefields at the site. Natural parabolic dune forming processes have been discussed in their report, and reference is given to the importance of vegetation in retaining the structure of these landforms. The trailing arm ridgelines are also an important feature of the landscape and are believed to play an important role in directing inland migration of the parabolic dunes. The dune systems in conservation areas presented in the inventory are discerned to be more representative of the natural parabolic systems across the landscape compared with the site.

An important aspect of the dune system at the site is the presence of calcified plant remains. GES consider there are two important factors which need to be considered to determine the geoconservation value of these calcified deposits:

• · How predominant are the landform features in the overall landscape?

• · What is the age of these calcrete deposits? ie. Pleistocene age and possibly linked to the linear dunefields which once dominated Bass Strait, or recent Holocene and linked to the more modern parabolic dune systems?

It is most likely that the calcified wood ridgelines are repeated throughout the Waterhouse Conservation Area. If this is the case, it needed to be determined if the calcified forests at the site are distinctly representative of similar landforms in the area to warrant geoconservation. Given that the site is largely degraded, the landforms are unlikely to be representative.

This was discussed with Jason Bradbury Geoscientist, Sustainable Landscapes Branch (DPIPWE) who has confirmed that the calcified debris is most likely a lag of rhizo-concretions. These are commonly found in eroding calcarenite dunes and do not appear to possess any particular geoconservation significance.

4.4.2 Management GES have recommended that natural processes of deflation should be encouraged rather than inhibited along the receding margins of the transgressive dunefield such that wetland expansion can proceed naturally to a point where there is adequate



50

habitat area to sustain the endangered and vulnerable frog populations in the area.

4.4.3 Assessment of impact 4.4.3.1 Introduction

As noted above GES has stated that transgressive dunefields at the site area are an unnatural anthropogenic derived landform feature and do not have geoconservation significance.

Due to alteration to the parabolic dunefield system at the site, ongoing natural processes cannot be maintained. Relict parabolic dunes in the area have an important influence of parabolic landform processes, however at the site, the relict dunes are unlikely to play any significant role in ongoing processes. The relict dunes at the site are no more of a notable landform feature compared with the relict dune forms which are broadly spread across the conservation areas across the eastern north coast.

4.4.3.2 Sediment Budgets Proposed sand extraction processes at the site will have negligible effect on system sediment budgets. The secondary dune system has become separated from the coastal hydrodynamic system and given the extent that the dune has migrated inland, will not be incorporated into the coastal system in the foreseeable future. Given the current mobilisation rates, the rate of dune migration is approximately 10 times faster than the worst case scenario recession rates of for heavily wave impacted beaches (Bruun Rule calculated at 1 metre per cm sea level rise). In summary, the site sediment budget is to comprise of existing sand volume minus sand extraction rates plus parabolic dune input from the coast.

Given the offsite migration of the dune system, the existing and proposed sediment budgets are very similar, with the only difference being the transportation mechanism (trucks vs wind).

The removal of the mobile sand dune will result in the cessation of the eastward migration of the dunes (at approximately 9m per year ) to an RL of approximately 5-6m. The gently undulating surface which will result, is expected to be relatively stable. To the North-West there are no unstable sand dunes as these have been stabilised by mostly native vegetation and wetlands have developed in the swales immediately behind the dunes to be removed. Therefore, no sand migration onto the site is expected.

Obviously the removal of the sand will result in the reduction in the sand volume in the extraction area and will not be replenished.

4.4.3.3 Sand Transportation Potential GES in their reports in Appendix C have provided detailed information on sand movements and it has been demonstrated that the sand dunes are migrating westward at a rate of some 9.5 m per year.

In the interim, whilst sand mining is occurring, deflations hollows will continue to migrate inland until stabilised by proposed regeneration processes.

During this interim period, removal of the upper parts of the dunes (to an RL of



51

approx 6m) will reduce this process very substantially as it will result in the lowering of the slopes on the leeward side (migrating face of dunes) and therefore transportation rates will reduce significantly.

After sand extraction, the RL of the surface will be approximately RL6-7m, and the area will be rehabilitated, possibly as a golf course, with swales, wetlands, vegetated greens etc. Sand movement potential will therefore be very low. Areas to the west and North West will be productive farm land with the sand movement halted.

4.4.3.4 Stability of the Interim and Final Landforms As noted above, the dunes proposed for extraction are currently not stable as they are migrating in a westerly direction at a rate of some 9.5m per year and sterilising farm land. Many attempts to stabilise these dunes have been made this century.

During sand extraction, sand will be removed from a level working area and the sand recovered by either a front end loader or an excavator. It is expected that the sand will rill from the upper surfaces and a steep face will progress in the extraction directions (refer Figures 2.5-2.7). After sand extraction, a gently undulating surface will be formed depending on the basement and groundwater levels. Westward progression of the dunes will be slowed and probably halted.

Post sand extraction a gently undulating surface will remain with the intent to construct a golf course (refer Figure 2.8 for a conceptual plan). This landform will be stable and revegetated.

On the north–eastern side wetlands are developing in the area behind (ie windward) of the migrating dunes (see GES Report Appendix C). These are at an RL of approximately 4m and these wetlands are not expected to be impacted. Groundwater levels around these interdune slacks are expected to remain high and may increase over time resulting in a more stable environment where native plants and animals can develop in natural succession. Wetlands to the west are currently being progressively infilled and this is expected to cease and the wetlands will remain insitu.

4.5 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Values 4.5.1 Conservation values and effects In November 2012 North Barker completed a flora and fauna habitat assessment of the mining lease area and surrounds. This survey was expanded in December 2012 to include the WCA, because of the presence of the endangered Green and Gold frog. Their report was completed in February 2013 and was used in project planning. North Barker identified that the wetland communities on site could be detrimentally impacted due to incursion of sand through erosion and or changes to the hydrology and/ or water quality.

Major changes were made to the pit extraction area following their report and the discovery of fauna habitat.

To avoid possible impacts noted above, all of the wetland areas identified have been provided with buffers of no disturbance. These are shown in the extraction plan Figures (Figures 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7).



52

The site is largely free from weeds and no evidence of Phytophthora cinnamomi was observed during the ground survey. However, the DAC community on site is highly susceptible to Phytophthora infestation.

4.5.2 Management 4.5.2.1 Flora and fauna

North Barkers recommendations regarding a buffer zone around the existing wetlands has been adopted and all will be protected by these zones of no disturbance. They will be marked by survey and boundary fencing (orange plastic barrier fence or similar).

Figures 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 show the minimum buffer zone of 25m around the existing wetlands (these are at an RL of approximately 4m). In most cases these buffer zones will be much greater as sand extraction will only proceed to an RL of approximately 6m (approx 1m above standing groundwater levels).

4.5.2.2 Weeds and Phytophthora Cinnamomi Protocols for appropriate hygiene have been developed and at the core of these guidelines are measures to reduce the introduction and spread of Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC) and weeds through such activities as:

• Wash-down of earth moving machinery working within the pit before entering the site.

• Avoiding pooling of water within the work area. • Periodic reconnaissance surveys by qualified persons for weeds and PC in

development areas. Any equipment used in the pit will include a requirement to conform to these guidelines for any earth moving machinery (excluding trucks) that enter the site. A designated washdown site will be established. Site managers will have training and awareness of best practice for weed and PC management as well as basic training in identification. Very few weeds have been identified within the current pit area. Weed management is discussed in Section 4.16.

4.5.2.2 Chytrid fungus This fungus is widespread in Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Frog Management Plan (DPIWE 2010) will be used as a guide to management of any risks. The hygiene measures discussed above will assist in this management. 4.5.3 Assessment of impact The change in extraction pit design and location has minimised the impact on the fauna values – in particular the wetlands of conservation value. There will be no disturbance or drainage into the wetlands as all sand extraction will leave 1m of sand above the natural surface or water table.

The removal of sand will result in the cessation of the progressive infilling and smothering of the wetlands and E. amygdalina community on the eastern (leeward) side of the dunes system (see photographs). The stabilization by vegetation is not practical as the dunes faces are too steep and high. Prioritizing the sand removal in the advancing dunes would be the only way to stop this infilling and this would require additional access and disturbance through the existing vegetation.



53

Wetlands are developing in the area behind (ie windward) the migrating dunes (see GES Report Appendix C). These are at an RL of approximately 4m and these wetlands are not expected to be impacted deleteriously as sand extraction will only be to a level at least 1m above groundwater levels and buffer zones are to be provided. Therefore, groundwater levels around these interdune slacks are expected to remain high and may increase over time resulting in a more stable environment where native plants and animals can develop in natural succession. It is noted that these wetlands are almost all not permanent and periodically dry out.

Photograph: Leeward wetlands being smothered by migrating dunes

Photograph: E. amygdalina community being smothered by migrating dunes

The final land use of a golf course will have a similar appearance to the Lost Farm course with wetlands established. These are expected to also be colonised by the frog species.



54

4.6 Aboriginal Heritage 4.6.1 Sites The six sites identified by the survey, are now all located outside the bounds of the extraction area (see Figure 2.2) and are therefore not under direct threat of impact through sand extraction activities. It has been recommended that these sites are conserved in-situ, and management recommendations have been put in place to ensure that the sites will not be accidentally impacted by any future development of the area.

No Aboriginal sites were located within the main body of the sand dune system which will be the focus of sand extraction activity. This is not surprising, given that the dunes are up to 16m in depth, and that these sand deposits have mostly aggraded in the past 100 years, after the period of traditional Aboriginal occupation of the area. There is therefore no present evidence to indicate that the sand mining activity will directly impact on known Aboriginal sites.

However, the findings of the field survey assessment has demonstrated that there is a high likelihood for Aboriginal heritage sites to be buried beneath the mobile sand dune deposits, at the interface with the grey paleo sand deposits.

Sand extraction activities will be focused within the central portion of the mobile sand dune systems, where the sand deposits are greatest, and that sand extraction will be selective, with a buffer zone established around some existing wetlands and a residual 1-2m depth of sand to remain across the extraction area. The retention of a 1-2m residual of modern sand dune deposits should be sufficient to ensure that any underlying Aboriginal heritage resources are not impacted by sand extraction activity

4.6.2 Management CHMA have made a number of management recommendations aimed at minimising the impact of any future sand mine development proposals on Aboriginal cultural heritage resources present within the study area.

CDMA’s preferred management option for the six sites is to conserve the sites in-situ, and to protect the sites from future development activity (whatever that activity may be). To this end, the following management strategies will be implemented.

• The location of each of the six sites will be plotted onto planning maps of the study area.

• A fence line along the northern boundary of the sand extraction area will be constructed around each site (also required to protect wetlands). This will ensure that equipment and personnel do not accidentally encroach on the site areas. The alignment of the fence will be determined in consultation with the project AHO (Vernon Graham).

• All site personnel, contractors and sub-contractors that are involved on site will as a part of induction will be made aware of the presence of these sites and informed that these sites are protected under state and federal legislation, and that these sites are not to be disturbed.



55

Within the sand extraction area, the working area will be periodically inspected by an Aboriginal Heritage Officer (AHO). The purpose of the periodic inspections will be monitor the extent of sand extraction activity, and to gauge as to whether any undetected sites have been unearthed through sand extraction activity. The inspection will be implemented once every two years.

The findings of each inspection should be compiled in a brief summary report which will be submitted to AHT.

If, during the course of any future sand extraction development in the lease area, previously undetected archaeological sites or objects are located, the processes outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be followed (see section 11 CDMA report).

4.6.3 Assessment of impact A change in extraction pit design and location has avoided the impact on the known sites. The recommendations of the heritage consultants have been adopted and there should be no adverse effects on Aboriginal heritage values.

4.7 Dust (particulates) 4.7.1 Issues Dust is more conventionally referred to as ‘particulates’ or ‘airborne particulates’. Airborne particulates are generated during sand extraction mainly by mechanical disturbances such as earthmoving and movement of road traffic on unsealed surfaces. Dust can also be generated by screening.

In dry and windy conditions, particles can be lifted from open or disturbed areas, resulting in visible dust emissions. Most airborne particles that originate from these sources are larger than 10 µm (PM10) and are associated more with nuisance than with public health problems. The larger particles tend to settle back to the ground within a short distance (<300 m) from the source.

The Quarry Code recommends that generally, the emission of visible dust should be confined within the boundary of the premises, except in remote areas. Dust produced by the operations or by transport, crushing and screening plant must be effectively controlled to the satisfaction of the EPA.

The degree of dust generation is a factor of the sand type and the degree of fines generated in handling, in stockpiles and when transported. The pit is located in an area well away from residences and will be surrounded by native vegetation and/or intact dunes in all directions. In addition, the prevailing wind directions in summer (when dust is generated) are away from the nearest residences for over 75% of the time (see Section 3.2.1).

4.7.2 Emissions The sand is all wind blown and uniform grain size so it not susceptible to wind transport. Therefore emissions from the sand extraction and screening is expected to be low. Dust is more likely to be generated on the access road.



56

4.7.3 Management No specific management measures are proposed due to the expected low emissions.

The degree of any dust generation will be monitored by management and a complaint mechanism. Specific dust monitoring will be conducted if complaints are received and can be verified and review of the causes will be examined and changes made to reduce further events of this nature.

A complaints register will be maintained which will record any dust complaints and the action taken in response. This will be monitored by the EPA.

If dust control is required this could include the following measures to be used as necessary:

• watering of the access roads;

• use of water sprays on the screening plants; and

• covering of truck loads.

4.7.4 Assessment of impact Dust generated from the operations is expected to meet prevailing standards at the nearest residence and not be noticeable. This is expected to be due to the separation distance, the nature of emissions and the prevailing wind directions.

4.8 Visual Effects 4.8.1 Visual Impacts The visibility of sand extraction activities has been a major part of the environmental management planning for the pit design and location. The site is located adjacent to the Lost Farm golf course (also owned and operated by Mr Sattler) and will share access. Therefore it is in the operators interests to minimize visibility (and indeed all impacts) of the operations. Only very limited views are from other residences.

GES have noted that the “Lost Farm’ transgressive dunefield features abruptly on the landscape and may be vividly seen by onlookers travelling along Waterhouse Road and it may provide familiarity to some for providing a feeling of “sense of place” (Appendix C).

4.8.2 Visual Impact Assessment 4.8.1.1 Methodology

The visual assessment was undertaken by traversing roads (Waterhouse Road) within a 2-kilometre radius of the site to identify vantage points or areas from which the extraction site could be seen. Photographs of the dunes from these sites were taken.

The extent to which the land that is the subject of this visual analysis can be seen from private properties is considered only to the extent possible by travelling on public thoroughfares. The development will be visible from some private residences (probably only one).



57

4.8.1.2 Visual Analysis Characteristics of the land

The land within the Mining Lease boundary is comprised of sand dunes up to 20m high, with fringing vegetation (mostly Eucalyptus amygdalina). This forest has an estimated average canopy height of 10-20 m.

The surroundings between the dunes is grazing land. Viewshed analysis

Fieldwork revealed that the dunes can be seen from extensive areas from the generally flat terrain. The major view field is from traffic on Waterhouse Road.

Three key factors will impact on the extent to which changes to the landscape, as a result of the development, are noticeable:

a) The relative elevation of the viewer in respect to the site.

b) The distance of the viewer from the quarry site.

c) Time of day.

Potential views of the quarry site from Waterhouse Road are constrained by fringing vegetation to the east. These filter the view so that only glimpses of the site are gained as the viewer moves through these areas.

The most obvious views will be near the access road entrance, from vehicles travelling eastward.

Example views to the site

These are shown below.

Photograph: View from Waterhouse Road travelling east (near entrance)



58

Photograph: View from Waterhouse Road travelling east (past entrance)

Photograph: View from Waterhouse Road travelling west (300m from entrance)

4.8.1.3 Conclusions The potential visual impact of the sand pit has been addressed through various design considerations. The major one has been to leave the eastern and southern sides of the dunes intact and access through an existing sand blow (see Figure 2.2)

Progressing the development of the pit from the east to the west within the dune



59

centre means that the close-proximity views (from Waterhouse Rd) into the pit will be effectively blocked by vegetation and the remnant dune face. This will also apply to the Lost Farm access road and golf course.

From more distant vantage points are also minimised due to the shape and progression of the pit.

4.8.2 Management The most critical issue from a visual management perspective in relation to the development of the pit is the retention of the outer face of the dunes. Longer term these could be lowered, but from the northern side.

The retention of a wide vegetative buffer along the Waterhouse Road is also important. As this is on Mr Sattlers land this can be readily maintained.

4.8.3 Assessment of impact It is concluded that the pit development is well planned from a visual perspective, Because of its location and its orientation, the pit and sand extraction operations will be in-evident from vantage points. Gradual changes in the dune topography may change over time, but these changes will be gradual over years and should also be in-evident.

4.9 Roads and Traffic 4.9.1 Existing Conditions

4.9.1.1 Access The pit has excellent road access to its markets via Waterhouse and then the Flinders Highway to Bell Bay and other markets. A traffic assessment was carried out by Terry Eaton an experienced traffic engineer and this report is included in Appendix D.

4.9.1.2 Road condition Waterhouse road could be considered as a rural sub-arterial link connecting between Gladstone, the Waterhouse primary production area, tourist facilities and the north-eastern coastal resort areas to Bridport and areas further west. Figure 4.3 shows the road layout through Bridport.

Waterhouse Road is generally constructed with a pavement width of some 6.0 metres, gravel shoulders some 0.6 metres wide, grass verges and earth side drains, the grass verges are some 5 metres wide. The road alignment from the site access to Bridport is a series of straights and curves with a relatively flat profile.

The road has been in use by large commercial vehicles carting to major projects further east (windfarm construction) and is considered satisfactory for that use. Indicative travel speed on Waterhouse Road is some 90 to 95 km/h.



60

FIGURE 4.3: TRANSPORT ROUTE THROUGH BRIDPORT

A review of the Dorset Council’s road asset management report indicates that the section of road required for cartage use is in fair to good condition. The condition assessment being based on the anticipated future use consistent with the present traffic demand.

Emily Street connects between Bridport - Waterhouse areas and Bridport Main Road. The road is constructed with a sealed pavement some 8.0 metres wide, is straight and relatively flat. Some 60% residual life is considered as a reasonable provision for future reconstruction timing.

Bridport Main Road (Flinders Highway) is a State maintained road classified as a Category 2 road in the Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy. The road is classified for use by heavy inter-regional and sub-regional freight movement. The proposed sand cartage is considered consistent with this road function.

4.9.1.3 Traffic Data Limited traffic data is available for Waterhouse Road and Emily Street but casual traffic counts suggests typical daily volumes at:

• Waterhouse Road - some 600 vehicles per day including some 80 commercial vehicles including 16 semi-trailers.

• Emily Street - some 1,100 to 1,200 vehicles per day including some 120 commercial vehicles including 20 - 25 semi-trailers.

Proposed Development

• Light vehicles - some 10 vehicles per day for sand extraction and loading

• Heavy vehicles – initial proposed use of a fleet of 7-11 vehicles carting 35 tonnes with 6 trips daily for a six day week, cartage at some 2,300 tonnes daily. As stated in Section 2.4, off shore loading is planned after year 2. Table



61

4.6 shows possible truck movements. Note that it is intended to change to an offshore loader close to the site and so the possible maximum production truck movements are unlikely to occur.

TABLE 4.6: TRUCK MOVEMENTS*

Year Production (m3/year)

No trucks Loads/day

truck movements

/hr 1 250,000 7 42 4

2-3 500,000 14 84 7 Max

production 950,000 26 156 13 * Assuming no off shore loading. Truck movement includes return trip. 4.9.2 Traffic Assessment

4.9.2.1 Access The continued use of the existing access route with improvements is recommended. Sight distance is adequate in both directions. Warning signs are recommended.

4.9.2.2 Traffic service Comparison between the predicted traffic use and the capacity indicates ideal traffic conditions for both Waterhouse Road and Emily Street (ie a comparison between traffic use and road capacity).

4.9.2.3 Pavement considerations Considering the load effect of the sand cartage indicates that the existing pavement life will be reduced by some 8 years for a 5 year cartage demand.

The asset management provision suggest the road pavement is adequate for accepting this additional heavy vehicle use except for one sector where pavement failure is indicated within the cartage period. This analysis indicates potential issues with pavement condition with the sand cartage and with some variance in the present pavement condition assessments.

4.9.3 Management The access road junction for two-way use will be upgraded with turn provisions as per Austroads design (see Figure 4.4).

To ensure a satisfactory maintenance regime is in place for the road over the cartage period a joint road condition assessment will be arranged by the Dorset Council and the proponents:

• prior to the commencement of the cartage; and

• at intervals should failures occur. As noted in Section 2.4, Dorset Council is currently working with DIER on a proposal that the State Government take over ownership of the portion of Agnes Street between



62

the Flinders Highway intersection and the Waterhouse Road intersection, together with the section of Waterhouse Road between Agnes Street and the entry into Lost Farm.

NETS have also submitted some preliminary concepts as to an appropriate regime for maintenance of the existing roads until such time that the State Government reconstructs the road to comply DIER guidelines.

Transport contractors will be required to obey all speed limits, road signs and also avoid transport when school buses are using the road.

4.9.4 Assessment of Impact A traffic assessment for the cartage route required for proposed sand extraction operation using Waterhouse Road has found no safety or traffic service issues associated with the proposal.

Local residents will notice increased traffic movements.

However, analysis of the existing roadway indicates the likelihood of some pavement works to ensure satisfactory road conditions are maintained for the ongoing use of the road. Protocols will be put in place to assess the road condition by qualified engineers and undertake maintenance work should such measures be required.

FIGURE 4.3: INTERSECTION DESIGN



63

4.10 Surface and Groundwaters 4.10.1 Issues The sand deposit comprises of a highly uniform fine to medium grained dominantly siliceous and calcareous windblown aeolian parabolic and transgressive dune system.

The older Pleistocene marine and aeolian deposits have some control on the morphology of the present day dune field as well as the hydrology of the site, which form the base below the dunes.

Since colonial settlement, land use practices and introduced animals have caused the primary beach dunes to destabilise due to vegetation disturbance. Inland water bodies (including major lagoons and rivers in the area) have become infilled as the dunes migrated in an east to south easterly direction at an annual rate of between 5 and 10 m per year. The dunes at the site have maintained their mobile form, resulting in loss of back dune (inland) farming land and wetland ecosystems. Vulnerable wetland habitats are beginning to establish along the receding margins of the dune system as older inland wetlands are being infilled.

The hydrology and hydrogeology of these habitats were assessed at the site in order to define how sensitive the hydrological system may be to human disturbance from the proposed mining operations.

In order to conduct this assessment, a desktop study has been undertaken as well as an invasive drilling programme combined with groundwater well installation and subsequent groundwater monitoring.

Results of the investigation indicate that the dune sand is mostly uniform in grain size but varies in grain density with depth. This may be attributed to variations in quartz and shell composition. Shell content was noted to decrease below the water table which may be attributed to chemical dissolution of the carbonates from surrounding and underlying acid sulphate soils and/or organic acids from nearby wetlands. Underlying silty marsh deposits were intercepted in some of the bores around the margins of the dune system. The water table was noted to be between 1 and > 2.4 m above the underlying silt layer. Pre-settlement, the original silt surface layer is likely to have stored more saline and acidic groundwater. Submersion of the deposit with the mobile sand has had a beneficial effect of causing the water table to rise. Fresh water percolation through the sands and groundwater recharge and storage have resulted in a fresh localised resource which has low salt content, of near neutral pH and mildly oxidising. Similar groundwater conditions have been noted in registered groundwater bores in the area.

4.10.2 Management The risk to receiving water quality in the wetlands from activities at the site is predominantly associated with surface water seepage, possible entrained particulate matter and possibly spilt fuels and oils. However, sand extraction will leave at least 1m of sand above the basement or groundwater table. The sands are calcareous and will have a natural filtering and neutralizing effect on rainfall falling on the site and seeping to groundwater.

GES have recommended that groundwater levels are accurately mapped at the site as



64

with the underlying surface which may comprise acid sulphate soils. Regular quarterly groundwater monitoring will be required initially until such time a confident decision can be made about potential impact to the ecosystem. The sand extraction activities are not expected to have any adverse impact on the wetland water quality and quantity.

The measures to be adopted to prevent any sediment or pollution can be summarised as follows:

• training during induction for all personnel;

• the floor will always have at least 1m of sand above the natural surface and/or groundwater table. Therefore any rainfall will flow direct to groundwater through a sand filter;

• there will be no onsite storage of chemicals in the pit area;

• all maintenance and refuelling areas in the pit will be bunded and any spillage will be cleaned up. Oil spill kits will be maintained on site; and

• periodic water sampling will be conducted in select wetlands will establish a baseline for comparison purposes.

If detrimental impacts are being revealed (and none are anticipated), mitigation measures will be taken to both identify the causes and identify appropriate measures to mitigate the impact. These may include as examples ; review of the extraction plan and boundaries; depth of sand removal; and additional safeguards for possible pollution incidents.

4.10.3 Assessment of Impact The sand extraction has very limited potential to affect surface waters as there is high infiltration and no surface runoff.

GES have concluded from this study that the groundwater characteristics of the site can be maintained, provided that the sand mining excavations are set back at least 1 m above the maximum seasonal groundwater levels at the site.

4.11 Wastes 4.11.1 Liquid

There will be only limited liquid wastes associated with the quarry activities.

A septic tank will be provided for the office/crib roo m and sited such that seepage does not flow to waterways. All used oils etc will be taken offsite for recycling or appropriate disposal by licensed contractors. Oil spill kits will be maintained on site. There are no current plans to store hazardous materials (ie chemicals etc) on site and refueling and maintenance will be within bunded areas. If fuel storage is required, it will be an above ground tank and bunded.

4.11.2 Solid Wastes The wastes generated at the site are those typically associated with machinery, office and crib rooms. Wastes are managed in accordance with the following hierarchy of waste management:



65

• waste avoidance; • waste recycling; • waste re-use; • waste treatment; and • waste disposal.

All wastes will be disposed of in animal proof containers (in the quarry area) and the contents disposed of to a licensed waste disposal facility on a weekly basis by licensed contractors.

4.12 Greenhouse Gases 4.12.1 Emissions Greenhouse gases are generated by the following quarry activities;

• combustion of fuels by mobile plant, equipment and onsite vehicles;.

Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated at 540 to 2160 t CO2-e per year, depending on production. This is approximately 0.125% of Tasmania annual emissions

4.12.2 Management Management measures to reduce greenhouse emissions will be based on a commitment to the National Greenhouse Challenge Plus; a voluntary and cooperative agreement with the Commonwealth Government. The program encourages staff participation both at work and at home.

Under this agreement measures that have been committed to include an undertaking to:

• progressively update to energy-efficient light fittings; • install intelligent controls (i.e. daylight and occupancy sensing or one-shot

timers) and task-based lighting; • shut down all non-essential equipment when an office is unoccupied; • ensure all new equipment purchases are of high energy-efficiency star rating; • implement a site energy audit; • ensure all replacement mobile plant equipment meets new emission standards; • improve fuel efficiency through smarter operational management (e.g. haul

road design, stockpile locations, machine efficiency); and • progressively replace the company truck fleet with new, more efficient

electronic engines and lighter tare weights. 4.13 Dangerous Goods There are no plans to apply for any dangerous goods licences at this stage. In the future a licence for the storage of diesel may be required.

The diesel tank would be a bunded above ground tank. All these materials are required to be stored and transported in accordance with the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, the Dangerous Goods Act 1998 and associated regulations.



66

4.14 Fire risk The operations will involve improving and extending the existing access road to the site. Improved access plus availability of mobile equipment (including a water truck) will provide an opportunity for improved fire management.

The proponents will cooperate with public land management agencies (Parks and Wildlife, Dorset Council, Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) etc) in the management of fire hazards. This will include assisting with emergencies.

4.15 Land use The pit is planned as a long term supply of sand and is expected to remain in operation for a minimum of 10 years.

Mr Sattler will continue to manage the property to maintain its natural values. The long term plan is to consider the return the area to a golf course (see Figure 2.8) with introduced grasses and native vegetation by progressive rehabilitation (where possible). The photograph below shows the Lost Farm course. This will depend on demand and feasibility. Other alternatives are to leave the area as bare sand dunes ( the original land use) and assist revegetation by native species ( coastal wattles), or return to productive farmland ( as it was before being covered by migrating dunes). It is noted that the land is not public but private land owned by Mr Sattler.

It is anticipated that this will considered in more detail in the next EMP review (3 years).

Photograph: Lost Farm golf course)

4.16 Environmental Management System Mr Sattler will minimise impacts to the environment and manage relevant aspects of their operation through the implementation of measures, which may include:

• maintaining an Environment Management System (EMS); • preparing and implementing an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for

the pit operation (incorporating parts of this DPEMP); • progressing rehabilitation planning (ongoing) ; • training site personnel and contractors in environmental requirements of their

work (ongoing);



67

• regular reporting of environmental performance to EPA (ongoing); and • continual improvement of environmental management measures implemented

onsite (ongoing). Mr Sattler seeks to abide by the environmental protection principles listed in the EMPCA Act through its strong commitment to environmental management at its operations.

4.17 Progressive Rehabilitation and Decommissioning Plan 4.17.1 Progressive Rehabilitation

The plan has four elements:

• Recovery of sand and leaving in place 1m of sand above the floor;

• Survey of floor levels;

• Possible progressive rehabilitation of floor as a golf course. This may be difficult until later in the operation, as a course cannot be designed until base contours are established. These are likely to be variable and will be considered at the three year EMP review; and

• Weed management.

4.17.2 Final Closure Final closure and rehabilitation plans for the planned pit is for a period after 10 years and have not been developed in detail as noted above.

However, it is anticipated that the construction of the golf course will involve the following;

• base survey and design; • construction of the course by grading and profiling, establishment of wetlands

and ponds, introduced grass greens etc and establish of native vegetation fringes (see Figure 2.8).

4.17.3 Weed Management A weed survey was conducted by North Barker in 2012. The survey area encompassed the lease area and surrounds. No introduced plants listed as ‘declared’ weeds under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were recorded on the property. One potentially problematic woody environmental weed was observed on site; the tree lupin Lupinus arboreus, was observed growing on the margins of the sand dunes.

This species, whilst not a declared weed, will be controlled in any golf course development or native vegetation revegetation.

The introduction of machinery and vehicles during quarry works presents an increased risk of introducing and/ or spreading weeds and plant pathogens.

The site is presently largely free from weeds and no evidence of Phytophthora cinnamomi was observed during the ground survey. However, the DAC community



68

on site is highly susceptible to Phytophthora infestation.

Given the low number of ‘declared’ and environmental weeds on site, there is a high value in eradicating and monitoring the present minor infestations in order to prevent spread around the property and potentially into the areas to which the sand will be transported. During sand extraction operations, weed and pathogen management will include the wash down of earth-moving machinery before leaving and entering the site in an approved area and an activities buffer around the DAC community. The site manager will be trained to have an awareness of the best practices for weed and Phytophthora management as well as basic training in their identification.

5.0 MONITORING AND REVIEW

An outline of the monitoring, review and reporting programme for the ongoing operation of the pit is set out below.

The programme is designed to meet the following objectives.

• Monitoring compliance with emission standards and other performance requirements identified in the DPEMP.

• Assessing the effectiveness of the performance requirements and environmental safeguards in achieving environmental quality objectives.

• Assessing the extent to which the predictions of environmental effects in the DPEMP have eventuated.

• Assessing compliance with commitments made in the DPEMP. The monitoring and review requirements for the pit are summarised below:

• The pit manager will keep a complaints register that will be made available to the regulatory authorities upon request to do so;

• The state of the wetlands and Aboriginal sites protection barrier fencing will be monitored;

• Groundwater levels and water quality samples will be conducted as required (water quality Quarterly: pH, TSS, conductivity, volatile suspended solids and TPH in waters near active extraction and processing. Annually : Metals (total);

• A weed survey and control program will be conducted in spring annually; • It is anticipated EPA will require a review of the DPEMP management plan,

on a regular basis after the approval of the project. This will include a review of any complaints; and

• Progressive golf course construction may be implemented as the extraction is progressing.

6.0 COMMITMENTS

The quarry will be operated in compliance with this DPEMP, the Quarry Code of Practice, Tasmanian State Policies and legislative and regulatory requirements.

It will also be operated in accordance with the planning and environmental conditions of the land use permit which will be issued by the Dorset Council and the EPA. The Mining Lease will also have conditions determined by MRT.



69

The specific commitments associated with the potential impacts and their management measures are summarised in Table 6.1.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

This development proposal and environmental management plan has been prepared to support a development application for the operation of the sand extraction pit at production rates of up to 950,000 m3 per year.

The pit will provide construction materials essential for social development without any significant adverse environmental effects. It is also well located to provide construction materials being in close proximity to a major road network and in an isolated area of private land and well screened from residences and most views.

The potential impacts from the ongoing operations are well understood and will be similar in nature to those experienced previously around other pits. They will result in direct physical impacts on at the proposed location and limited off site effects. The 10 year plan presented will disturb a total of approximately 55ha over this period.

The DPEMP has identified and assessed the potential impacts associated with the operations, in accordance with the DPEMP guidelines provided by EPA. It also demonstrates that appropriate operational and management measures have been identified and proposed to mitigate the potential impacts and to ensure minimal risk to the environment and human health.

The DPEMP demonstrates that the proposed activity will be compliant with Tasmanian Policies, Legislation and Regulations, and provides a monitoring program which will ensure compliance with standards and regulations.

Table 6.1:Anderson Bay Sand Pit - Table of Commitments


1

Potential Impacts

No. Management Measure Commitments Time-frame

General 1 Operate the pit in accordance with the Coastal Policy, the Quarry Code of Practice, the DPEMP, the Permit and Mining Lease conditions.

Ongoing

Residential amenity

2 3 4 5

Maintain a complaints register to record all complaints from the public. Restrict hours of operations to permit conditions; Restrict trucks to speed limits and limit use of engine brakes; Avoid truck movements at school bus hours.

As received Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

Roads and Transport

6 7

Upgrade road intersection; Maintain road surface (with DIER/Council);

Before operations Ongoing

Noise Emissions

– onsite

8 9 10

11

12

Maintain attenuation distances to neighbours; Maintain site vegetation, buffer zones; Maintain acoustic screen to east by retaining sand dunes; Maintain diesel motors and modify reverse beacons to minimise noise; Monitor noise at initial production rate.

Ongoing. First 3 months

Flora and fauna (wetlands)

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

Maintain a minimum 25m fenced buffer/exclusion zone around wetlands and native vegetation habitat; Implement a weed and disease management plan; Monitor and maintain exclusion fences; Induction of staff and contractors re location and function of exclusion zones; Routine water quality monitoring and reporting; If any known or potential deleterious impacts noted, investigate and take remedial action in consultation with the EPA and RMC Division and implement avoidance and/or mitigation measures to prevent further impacts. These may include as example; review of the extraction plan and boundaries; depth of sand removal; and additional safeguards for possible pollution incidents Final rehabilitation plan to include establishment of artificial wetlands.

Ongoing

Table 6.1:Anderson Bay Sand Pit - Table of Commitments


2

Potential Impacts

No. Management Measure Commitments Time-frame

Weeds and diseases

20

21 22

23

Implement a weed and disease management plan; Annual weed surveys/control; Ensure all machinery is washed in accordance with the wash down guidelines; Control lupins in revegetation/land use disturbed area.

Ongoing

Aboriginal heritage

24 25

26

Maintain buffer zone and fences; Monitor ever 2 years for new sites in pit area; Retain a min 1m base residual of modern sand dune deposits

Ongoing

Air Emissions

onsite

27 28

Watering of internal roads; Use of water sprays on the screening plants.

As needed

Air Emissions

offsite

29 Transport trucks will be tarpaulin covered if carrying dusty materials.

As needed.

Visual effects

30 31

Follow pit plan to minimise visibility; Maintain vegetation screen along Waterhouse Road.

Ongoing

Hydrogeology

32 33

34

Monitor water levels in bores; Maintain a minimum of 1m above groundwater level in pit floor; Monitor and report on wetlands water quality

Ongoing

Wastes 35 Minimise, recycle and dispose of wastes by licensed contractors.

Ongoing

Land use 36 Final rehabilitation plan to include establishment of artificial wetlands.

After review.

Rehabilit-ation

37 Leave 1m of sand above the natural surface Rehabilitate to golf course. Maintain weed management and lupins Existing lightly revegetated areas (ie to NE of extraction area) will be revegetated with native species

Ongoing



70

REFERENCES DPIWE 2010 : Tasmanian Chytrid Management Plan. DPIWE Tasmania 2010

Quarry Code of Practice, Dept of Primary Industries Water and Environment, 1999

WCAMP 2003). Waterhouse Conservation Area Management Plan 2003. Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania. Department of Tourism Parks Heritage and the Arts.

andersonbaysandextractionpit environmentalmanagement …epa.tas.gov.au/documents/sattler...

Documents