arthur river road quarry expansion lardner... · (empc act), being the extraction of rock or gravel...

Environmental Assessment Report Mark Lardner– Arthur River Road Quarry Upgrade

I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Arthur River Road Quarry Expansion

Arthur River Road, Tasmania

Mark Lardner Board of the Environment Protection Authority

July 2015


II

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Mark Lardner

Proposal Arthur River Road Quarry Expansion

Location Arthur River Road

NELMS no. PCE No. 8987

Permit application no. 2015/013 (Circular Head Council)

Doc1 folder EN-EM-EV-DE-238493

Doc1 no. H414394

Class of Assessment 2B

Assessment process milestones

05/11/2013 Notice of Intent submitted

09/12/2013 DPEMP Guidelines issued

26/02/2015 Valid permit application submitted to Council

01/04/2015 Referral received by Board

18/04/2015 Start of public consultation period

18/05/2015 End of public consultation period


III

Acronyms

AHT

AMD

APCA

Board

dBL

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania

Acid and Metalliferous Drainage

Arthur Pieman Conservation Area

Board of the Environment Protection Authority

Decibels (Linear) – relates to noise levels or sound pressure

DPEMP Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan

DPIPWE

DRP

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EMPCS Environmental Management and Pollution Control System

EPBC Act

L

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

Litres

LUPA Act

mm/s

MRT

NCA

QCOP

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

millimetres per second – relates to sound vibration due to blasting

Mineral Resources Tasmania (Division of the Department of State Growth)

Nature Conservation Act 2002

Quarry Code of Practice 1999 (DPIWE, 1999)

RMPS Resource Management and Planning System

SD Sustainable development


IV

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of the proposed intensification of the Arthur River Road Quarry activity from the extraction and crushing of 5,000 cubic metres of rock and gravel per annum to 20,000 cubic metres per annum. The proposal also includes the construction of a stormwater management system to prevent acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD) being released from the site. This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP)1. Relevant government agencies and the public have been consulted and their submissions and comments considered as part of this assessment. Further details of the assessment process are presented in section 1 of this report. Section 2 describes the statutory objectives and principles underpinning the assessment. Details of the proposal are provided in section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the proposal, site and design alternatives. Section 5 summarises the public and agency consultation process and the key issues raised in that process. The detailed evaluation of key issues is in section 6, and other issues are evaluated in section 7 and Appendix 1. The report conclusions are contained in section 8. Appendix 2 contains details of comments made and issues raised in the consultation process. Appendix 3 contains environmental permit conditions for the proposal.

1 Environmental Services & Design (2015); Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan, Mark Lardner Excavations Unit Trust, Arthur River Road Quarry Expansion, Arthur River Road, Tasmania, prepared for Mark Lardner Excavations Unit Trust (dated January 2015).


V

Table of Contents

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

2 SD objectives and EIA principles .............................................................. 1

3 The proposal ............................................................................................ 2

4 Need for proposal and alternatives ........................................................... 7

5 Public and agency consultation ................................................................ 7

6 Evaluation of key issues ........................................................................... 8

6.1 Stormwater and Water Quality Management – Acid and Metalliferous Drainage (AMD) ... 8 6.2 Biodiversity & Natural Values .......................................................................................... 15

7 Other issues ........................................................................................... 19

8 Report conclusions ................................................................................. 19

9 Report approval...................................................................................... 20

10 References .......................................................................................... 21

11 Appendices ......................................................................................... 21

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues .............................................................................. 22 Appendix 2 Summary of agency submissions ..................................................................... 30 Appendix 3 Permit Conditions - Environmental .................................................................... 31


1

1 Approvals process

A Notice of Intent in relation to the proposal was received by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) on 5 November 2013. A valid application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Circular Head Council on 26 February 2015. The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under:

clause 5(a), Schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being the extraction of rock or gravel and producing 5000 cubic metres or more of rock or gravel per year; and

clause 6(a)(ii), Schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being the processing by crushing, grinding or milling of rock at a rate above 1000 cubic metres per year.

Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 1 April 2015. Guidelines were issued to the proponent on 9 December 2013 to assist in the preparation of a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP). Several drafts of the DPEMP were submitted to the EPA Division for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance. The final DPEMP was submitted to Council with the permit. The DPEMP was advertised and public submissions were called in respect of for a 28-day period commencing on 18 April 2015. Advertisements were placed in the Advocate newspaper and on the EPA website. The DPEMP was also referred at that time to relevant government agencies for comment. No public submissions were received.

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

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

The Board must undertake the assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles defined in Section 74 of the EMPC Act.


2

3 The proposal

The proponent intends to intensify the use of the level 1 activity, Arthur River Road Quarry, from the extraction and crushing of 5,000 cubic metres of rock and gravel per annum to the extraction and crushing of up to 20,000 cubic metres of rock and gravel per annum. The proposal also includes the construction of a stormwater management system to prevent acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD) being released from the site. The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Section 2 of the DPEMP. Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics

Activity

Extraction and crushing of a maximum of 20,000 cubic metres of rock and gravel per annum.

Location and planning context

Location Off Arthur River Road, Arthur River

Land zoning Environmental Management

Land tenure Crown Land

Mining lease 15M/2002

Lease area 4 hectares total and disturbed area not exceeding 1 hectare

Bond $7000 held by Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT)

Existing site

Land Use Level 1 quarry (part of Arthur Pieman Conservation Area)

Topography Low undulating hills.

Geology The quarry is located on the Rocky Cape Block of the Cowrie Siltstone formation, which can be described as dominantly dark, laminated, commonly pyritic siltstone and mudstone, with minor thin interbeds of cross laminated and oscillation ripple marked quartzarenite in places.

Soils The soil on site is well graded sandy gravel.

Hydrology The site drains to Cuffys Creek in the north of the lease, which is ephemeral in nature.

Fauna A desktop survey of the land and the surrounding (5km) region (Appendix 4 of the DPEMP) found records of the following threatened fauna species near the mining lease:

Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian Devil)

Dasyurus maculatus sbusp. maculatus (Spotted Tailed Quoll)

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle)

Tyto novaehollandiae Subsp. castinops (Masked Owl)

Oreisplanus munionga subsp. larana (Marrawah Skipper)

Neophema chysogaster (Orange Bellied Parrot)

Lymnodynastes peroni (Striped Marsh Frog)

According to the on-ground surveys (Appendices 5 and 6 of the DPEMP), no State or Commonwealth listed species were observed within the survey area and no evidence of the presence of threatened species (such as scats of Tasmanian Devils or Spotted-tailed Quolls) were observed.

Flora Vegetation on the land is mainly coastal heathland, with a small area of western wet scrub in the north east corner of the mining lease (section 3.2 of the DPEMP). No threatened vegetation communities are located on the land according to the


3

desktop study included as Appendix 5 of the DPEMP.

The desktop study indicates numerous threatened flora species within 5km from the main quarry workings. There are records of State and Commonwealth listed flora species Caladenia dienema (Windswept Spider-orchid), Caladenia patersonii (Patersons Spider-orchid) and Acacia uliciflolia (Juniper Wattle) within 600m to the north of the main quarry workings.

According to the Flora and Fauna surveys no State or Commonwealth listed species were observed.

Local region

Climate Rainfall is approximately 1,070 mm per annum (Marrawah Station). Wind direction predominantly westerly with south and south westerlies sub-dominant.

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

Coastal Heathland including the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area (Environmental Management zoning) and farmland (Rural Resource zoning)

Species of conservation significance

Quarry is located in the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area a reserve of 100,135 hectares declared in 1982, which includes vegetation communities and geomorphology of conservation significance (reference Arthur Pieman Conservation Area Management Plan 2002).

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment A mobile crushing plant, mobile drill rig, a 9 tonne (loading capability) Caterpillar 950H Loader and trucks for product dispatch.

Other infrastructure None

Inputs

Water None

Energy No on-site electricity. All onsite power is generated through diesel engines in the onsite equipment and generators.

Other raw materials None

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Stormwater runoff from extraction and stockpile areas.

Atmospheric Dust from internal and external traffic, materials handling and blow-off from stockpiles.

Solid General refuse including food scraps, paper and packaging.

Controlled wastes Potential spilled oil or fuel; contaminated soil.

Noise From blasting, screening equipment, loader and vehicles, including trucks, on site and travelling on and off the site.

Greenhouse gases Emissions from vehicles and equipment on site

Construction and operations

Proposal timetable Commencement on issue of planning permit

Proposed Operating hours (ongoing)

0600 to 1900 hours, Monday to Friday

0600 to 1800 hours Saturday

Other key characteristics

The proposal includes the construction of a stormwater system, including a settling pond, drainage channels and limestone cobbles to manage AMD.


4

Figure 1: Site Location (Figure 1 of the DPEMP)

Arthur River Road Quarry


5

Scale: 1:1,693

Figure 2: Site Plan showing mining lease and current quarry workings

Arthur River Road

North


6

Figure 3: Current quarry layout. Stockpiles and drainage lines are highlighted; light blue squares indicate pools of water. Water flow direction is highlighted by yellow arrows (Figure 4 of the DPEMP).


7

4 Need for proposal and alternatives

According to Section 1 of the DPEMP the increase in production is proposed in order to meet the demands for supply of material to DIER R40 specification (or other specifications) to be primarily used for roadways in the region. The increased production levels will allow for the proponent to undertake larger construction projects. No increase in employment is expected from the proposal, although Section 3.5 of the DPEMP notes that a further one employee may be considered in times of high demand. No alternatives to the proposal, including cessation of the activity, were proposed or considered as a result of financial and logistical constraints on the proponent.

5 Public and agency consultation

A summary of the government agency/body submissions is contained in Appendix 2 of this report. No public representations were received. The DPEMP was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

Mineral Resources Tasmania, Department of State Growth;

The DPEMP was referred to the Parks and Wildlife Service, including Crown Land Services, as land owners and managers of the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area. No response was received. The following Divisions/areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment also provided submissions on the DPEMP:

Policy & Conservation Advice Branch (Natural and Cultural Heritage Division)

Noise Specialist, EPA Division

Scientific Officer (Water), EPA Division

Scientific Officer (Air), EPA Division

Regulatory Officer, Mining and Extractive Industries, Environmental Operations Branch, EPA Division


8

6 Evaluation of key issues

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

Stormwater – Acid and Metalliferous Drainage (AMD)

Biodiversity and Natural Values

Each of these issues is discussed in the following subsections.

6.1 Stormwater and Water Quality Management – Acid and Metalliferous Drainage (AMD)

Description

The Arthur River Road Quarry is a current Level 1 activity (quarry) regulated by the Circular Head Council under a Land Use and Planning permit issued on the 19 April 2005. According to the DPEMP the quarry was operated by the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Roads (DIER) prior to becoming a private operation.

The quarry is located with the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area (APCA). The APCA has a long history of mining and extractive activities. The reserve status provides for extractive activities within the reserve, undertaken in accordance with the prescriptions of the APCA Management Plan (DPIWE, 2002). The Management Plan also provides for the assessment for an extractive proposal under the EMPC Act and the setting of conditions into a permit. The aim is ‘to ensure that exploration or any subsequent extraction and rehabilitation are undertaken in accordance with best practice to provide maximum environmental protection’.

Environmental management goals for surface waters in this area are contained in the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) document: ‘Environmental Management Goals for Tasmanian Surface Waters, Catchments within the Circular Head and Waratah/Wynyard Municipal Areas, January 2000’ and reflected in the APCA Management Plan.

The land is located within the Welcome River catchment and the Protected Environmental Values (PEVs) for the site are defined in the “Surface waters in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area” section of the document. Due to the size and ephemeral nature of the watercourse the PEV for Cuffys Creek is:

A: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems

(i) Protection of modified (not pristine) ecosystems

The APCA Management Plan notes that this PEV should have regard for the management objectives of Schedule 4 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (replaced by Schedule 1 of the Nature Conservation Act 2002). This schedule defines the objectives for management of reserved land. For conservation areas this includes the preservation of water quality and catchments, the utilisation of mineral resources and the rehabilitation of conservation areas following adverse impacts.

The Management Plan also notes the historical impact of mining and extractive industries on water quality in the APCA.

The most significant environmental risk of the proposal is the presence of geology which, as a result of extraction activities, has the potential to cause acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD). According to section 4.4(a) of the DPEMP, AMD is produced during extraction activities as the


9

acidity found interstitially in the rock is released as rock is exposed. Currently, drainage from the quarry flows north into Cuffys Creek. The release through drainage of AMD into Cuffys Creek has the potential to impact on the aquatic environment downstream of the quarry workings within the APCA.

Water quality sampling provides evidence of low pH levels and high levels of dissolved metals, including cobalt, aluminium, copper and zinc. This suggests downstream water quality in Cuffys Creek is already affected by AMD from current operations of the quarry. There is no evidence that the nature and extent of AMD has been defined or monitoring undertaken, prior to the assessment for the proposed increase in production.

The proponent has recognised that AMD is likely to be occurring at the quarry and potentially impacting Cuffys Creek downstream of the quarry workings. Management measures are proposed to reduce the potential for AMD to impact on the aquatic environment and maintain the PEV as part of the upgrade of the quarry’s activities.

Management measures

The proposed expansion of the quarry is to involve mitigation and management of current AMD and its ingress into Cuffys Creek. The proposed management strategy for the site is to centralise all drainage by constructing limestone lined drainage channels and re-contoured clay walls to a treatment pond lined with coarse limestone cobbles. The limestone channels are expected to increase the pH and allow metals to precipitate out of the water prior to discharge. By aerating the water as it moves over the limestone, the rate of neutralisation and precipitation should increase due to oxidation of the metals. The majority of these channels will be located through the access areas to ensure movement of vehicles over the cobbles prevents armouring.

It is proposed that the Site Manager will test the pH of the water in the treatment pond when on-site. If the pH is below 6.5 then the Site Manager will dose water with lime until a pH of 6.5 is achieved. Keeping bags of lime onsite whenever works are occurring forms commitment 7 of the DPEMP. After pH management in the treatment pond, water will then overflow into a retention pond. Here the water will settle for up to 5 days to allow metals further time to precipitate out prior to discharge to Cuffys Creek.

Due to the nature of the location of the retention pond, the pond inlet and outlet will be very close together, which reduces the pond’s ability to settle out particles through short-circuiting. To overcome this, a baffle will run through the middle of the pond to separate the inlet and outlet. This is expected to result in a far greater retention time in the pond. Water will discharge from the retention pond along another limestone channel and into Cuffys Creek. The limestone in the outlet channel will be agitated twice annually to prevent armouring (commitment 3 of the DPEMP).

Construction of the treatment and retention ponds as well as drainage modifications forms commitment 1 of the DPEMP.


10

Figure 4: Site Plan showing proposed drainage system modifications to manage AMD from the quarry. Direction of water flow is shown by yellow arrows. The treatment pond drains into the retention pond and the retention pond drains into the limestone channels (in black), discharging into Cuffys Creek.

Monitoring and Contingency Management

pH Monitoring

A pH limit of 6.5 was set in the DPEMP for the treatment pond to allow sufficient precipitation of metals into the treatment pond from the stormwater prior to discharge to Cuffys Creek.

The pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and temperature will be monitored and managed in the retention pond and at monitoring location QDP (see Figure 5 of the EAR) through the addition of lime by the Site Manager when working at the site. The pH of the treatment pond will also be sampled during the quarterly water quality monitoring event.

A contingency management plan has been developed (Appendix 10 of the DPEMP) to ensure measures are taken in the case of a pH trigger.

Quarterly Water Quality Monitoring

Ensuring water quality is within the “WQOs”2 established in the DPEMP is commitment 6 of the DPEMP. According to section 4.4(d) of the DPEMP this will be managed through the completion of quarterly water quality monitoring.

The “WQOs” or trigger values established for the site are detailed below and reflect the ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines, 2000, trigger values for fresh water with 95% protection limit for species:

2 The term ‘Water Quality Objectives’ (WQOs) is used by the consultant in the context of ‘trigger values’ for

water quality monitoring. The WQOs are not and have not been approved under the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.


11

Al As Be Cd Cr Cu Co Ni Pb Zn Mn Fe Se

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L

WQOs ID 24 ID 0.2 ID 1.4 ID 11 3.4 8 1900 ID 11

TSS TDS SO4 Chloride Alkalinity Ca Mg Na K pH EC

Units mg/L mg/L μg/L mg/L mg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L pH units

uS/m

WQOs NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL

ID = Insufficient Data, NL = No Limits

Undertaking quarterly water monitoring for the parameters stipulated in Section 5.0 of the DPEMP forms commitment 12 of the DPEMP. Section 5.0 of the DPEMP states that sampling will be undertaken in accordance with the AS/NZS 5667.1:1998: Water quality – Sampling – Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples. Lab analysis will be undertaken by an independent external NATA Certified laboratory.

Proposed water monitoring locations are shown in Figure 5 below (Figure 17 of the DPEMP).

Figure 5: Monitoring locations highlighting the direction of water flow. The yellow arrows indicate the direction of water flow, the blue lines indicate the creeks/drainage lines and the faint grey lines highlight the contour lines.

The following parameters will be monitored through quarterly sampling:

Lab parameters

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L)

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L)

Sulphate (mg/L)


12

Chloride (mg/L)

Alkalinity (mg/L)

Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K) (μg/L)

Total Metals (Al, As, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn) (μg/L)

Dissolved Metals (Al, As, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn) (μg/L)

Field parameters

pH

Temperature (C°)

Electrical Conductivity (EC) (μs/cm)

Completion of a quarterly monitoring report forms commitment 13 of the DPEMP. The report will include; lab results for total and dissolved metals, whether they have fluctuated from the previous monitoring round as well as highlighting any trends and triggers for the WQOs. The effectiveness of the treatment will be compared against the defined “WQOs” ensuring that PEVs are not compromised.

Section 5 of the DPEMP states that water testing parameters will be revised after 7 sampling events and the number of sampling parameters may be reduced. The revision of parameters will be in consultation with the EPA.

Section 4.4(d) states that ‘Any consecutive triggers at the downstream site (CC2) after the drainage modifications identified by the quarterly monitoring will result in the cessation of discharge from the quarry at the retention pond until contingency measures are put in place to ensure the risk of another trigger is minimised’. This forms commitment 14 of the DPEMP.

Construction Management

According to section 4.4(a) of the DPEMP, sediment produced during the construction of the limestone channels and ponds will be directed into a retention pond prior to discharge to prevent sedimentation downstream.

Public and agency comment and responses

Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) provided comment on the final DPEMP. AMD was MRT’s key issue and it considered the proponent’s proposed drainage modifications and construction of a retention and treatment pond should provide sufficient neutralisation of acidic waters.

In discussions with the assessing officer, MRT considered the proposed monitoring methods seemed to provide the most practical and appropriate means to monitor the performance of the recommended mitigation measures.

The EPA Division’s Water Specialist reviewed and commented on a number of versions of the DPEMP prior to it being accepted. The Water Specialist considered the pH minimum of 6.5 was likely to be appropriate for minimising AMD, and advised that due to the highly variable sulphate results, attributable to the infrequent campaign nature of the operation and variable rainfall/creek flows, a higher sulphate discharge limit of 400 mg/L may be more appropriate for regulation of the activity and potential downstream impacts.

Evaluation

The objectives of the conservation area defined under Schedule 1 of the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA) include preservation of water quality and catchments, the utilisation of mineral resources and the rehabilitation of conservation areas following adverse impacts. The current


13

operation is consistent with the uses allowed under the APCA Management Plan and its expansion is able to be assessed under the EMPCA Act.

The increase in production at the quarry must demonstrate sustainable development – that the use and development of physical resources, and the enabling of the proponent to provide for his own social and economic wellbeing, does not come at the detriment of natural resources and the conservation values of the ACPA.

The information contained in the DPEMP demonstrates that the activity is currently impacting on water quality downstream of the quarry workings through the production and discharge of AMD. The proponent argues that the current impact of these releases is limited in extent downstream and is unlikely to be having an impact on the overall conservation values of the APCA. A lack of data precludes the qualification or determination of the presence or extent of environmental harm beyond acknowledging the presence of AMD in Cuffys Creek downstream of the quarry workings.

The current permit for the quarry includes environmental conditions in relation to dust management only, and does not address AMD management. The proponent has committed to minimising the potential for future discharge of AMD into Cuffys Creek as part of the quarry expansion proposal, through the construction of treatment and retention ponds and drainage modifications. The proposed stormwater management works are intended to limit dissolved metals being discharged into Cuffys Creek and degrading downstream ecology and water quality by managing pH and retaining stormwater to allow precipitation of metals prior to discharge.

These works are considered appropriate to minimise the potential for AMD to be discharged to Cuffys Creek and impact on downstream water quality, preventing environmental nuisance or harm to the APCA. The proposed design reflects the quarry’s remote location, lack of services (including water and electricity) and the limited personnel working at site on an irregular basis. These actions are also consistent with rehabilitation of adverse impacts as required under the APCA Management Plan and the objectives of the EMPS to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants.

The proponent will be required to collect and treat stormwater prior to discharge, prevent the discharge of pollutants and retain solids on the land under condition E1. This condition is further supported by condition E2 which requires the installation of perimeter drains and is consistent with the proposed centralisation of the drainage system.

The treatment and retention ponds can be considered as settling ponds and will require maintenance. The maintenance requirements for these ponds are detailed in condition E3 and are consistent with the proposed maintenance commitments described in the DPEMP.

Conditions E1, E2 and E3 are consistent with the objectives of the EMPCS to impose regulation to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants and allow for a proponent to make progressive improvements in managing polluting activities.

To ensure the proposed stormwater management system is functioning and pollutants which may cause AMD are prevented from discharging from the land, the proponent will be required to ensure stormwater discharging into Cuffys Creek meets the discharge limits defined under condition EF1. These limits are consistent with the ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines, 2000, trigger values for fresh water with 95% protection limit for species and are intended to ensure the PEV defined for surface waters in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area3 is maintained. Conservative limits have been set due to a lack of data provided as part of the DPEMP. The discharge location is defined under condition EF1 and is consistent with sampling point QDP (see Figure 5 of this report).

Monitoring and reporting of water quality will be required through implementation of quarterly monitoring in accordance with condition M1. The requirements of this monitoring program, including sampling locations (see Figure 5 of this report) are generally consistent with those proposed by the proponent in section 5.0 of the DPEMP. Condition M1 provides the opportunity to

3 under the Environmental Management Goals for Tasmanian Surface Waters, Catchments within the

Circular Head and Waratah/Wynyard Municipal Areas (DPIPWE, January 2000)


14

re-assess the monitoring requirements based on data collected during the quarterly sampling events. This may include a reduction in sampling frequency or the suite of analytes based on collated data.

Dealing with samples obtained for monitoring is detailed in condition M2. Reporting and record keeping requirements, including the preparation and submission of a quarterly monitoring report to for review, is defined in condition M3.

Conditions EF1 and M1-M3 are consistent with the objectives of the EMPS to impose regulation to provide for monitoring and reporting.

The conditions proposed are expected to ensure that the activity is a sustainable development as well as meeting objective (e) of Schedule 1 of the Nature Conservation Act 2002, which provides for the controlled use of natural resources.

Conclusions

The proponent will be required to comply with the following standard (generic) conditions:

E1 Stormwater

E2 Perimeter Drains

E3 Maintenance of settling ponds

M2 Dealing with samples obtained for monitoring

The proponent will be required to comply with the following site-specific conditions:

EF1 Discharge limit

M1 Monitoring Requirements

M3 Monitoring reporting and record keeping


15

6.2 Biodiversity & Natural Values

Description

Inappropriate management of the quarry, including vegetation clearance, the spread of weeds and diseases and the creation and discharge of acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD), have the potential to impact on biodiversity and natural values at the site and in the surrounding area.

The land is located within the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area (APCA), a reserve of 100,135 hectares declared in 1982 which includes vegetation communities and geomorphology of conservation significance (DPIWE, 2002).

Vegetation Communities

According to Section 4.9(a) of the DPEMP, the land is predominantly a coastal heathland, with western wet scrub following Cuffys Creek to the north (as shown in Figure 13 of the DPEMP). A large area surrounding the main workings of the quarry was burnt in May 2013 and consequently there is little vegetation above the understorey. None of the vegetation communities identified by the desktop flora and fauna habitat values study (Appendix 5 of the DPEMP) within the land or in the immediate (5km) vicinity are threatened vegetation communities.

Flora

The desktop flora and fauna habitat values study found numerous records of Commonwealth and State threatened flora species within 5km of the main quarry workings. Caladenia dienema (Windswept Spider-orchid) – a State and Commonwealth listed species - and Caladenia patersonii (Patersons Spider-orchid) and Acacia uliciflolia (Juniper Wattle) – both Tasmanian listed species - had records within 600m to the north of the main quarry workings.

A field survey undertaken in July 2013 found no listed flora species, however it was noted the survey was conducted outside the flowering season which would make verification difficult. A subsequent survey was conducted in October 2013 which identified two individual plants of a Spider Orchid about 500 metres to the north of the mining lease, on a small rocky outcrop which had been subject to a low intensity burn during the earlier prescribed fire in the location.

The plants were identified as Caladenia dienema however the report noted this species is difficult to distinguish from Caladenia patersonii in the field. Caladenia dienema is listed as being endangered under both State and Commonwealth Acts whereas Caladenia patersonii is listed as being rare under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 only. The location approximates the location for the species recorded in 1995 on the Natural Values Atlas database. A number of other, non-listed species of native orchid were recorded during the survey. No threatened orchid species were identified within the mining lease.

Fauna

The flora and fauna habitat values desktop survey of the mining lease area and the surrounding (5km) region identified numerous records of Commonwealth and State threatened fauna species in the vicinity of the mining lease. These include the following State and Commonwealth listed species:

Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian Devil)

Dasyurus maculatus sbusp. maculatus (Spotted Tailed Quoll)

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle)

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castinops (Masked Owl)

Oreisplanus munionga subsp. larana (Marrawah Skipper)


16

Neophema chysogaster (Orange Bellied Parrot)

Lymnodynastes peroni (Striped Marsh Frog) (Tasmanian listed only)

The field survey conducted in July 2013 did not observe any State or Commonwealth listed fauna species within the field survey area. The field survey also found no evidence of the presence of threatened species such as scats of Tasmanian Devils or Spotted-tailed Quolls and no breeding or nesting habitat for listed species, including an absence of old growth trees with hollows that could be potential habitat for species such as the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax subsp. fleayi).

The flora species list for the field surveys indicates Carex appressa, the Marrawah Skipper (Oreisplanus munionga subsp larana)’s preferred food plant was not recorded within the survey areas. Although not stated in the report, it is inferred there is limited potential habitat for this species.

Aquatic Ecology

No aquatic flora or fauna surveys were undertaken as part of the DPEMP.

Weeds and Diseases

A single plant of the declared weed Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle) was observed during the field

survey conducted in July 2013 on the mining lease. Records of Rubus fruticosus (Blackberry), Erica lusitanica (Spanish Heath), Lycium ferocissimum (African Boxthorn) and Cortaderia sp. (Pampas Grass) were identified within a 5km radius from the quarry workings in the desktop flora and fauna habitat values survey.

A number of dead plants of Sprengelia incarnata (Pink Swamp Heath) and two dead Banksia marginata were observed during the field survey in October 2013 in the vicinity of the quarry workings. Records also indicate its presence within 1000 metres of the site. The consultant inferred that this may indicate the presence of Phytophthora cinnamomi which these species are susceptible to, however based on an absence of sampling and analysis its presence on the mining lease is unconfirmed.

Management measures

Section 4.9(d) of the DPEMP indicates impacts to vegetation communities and threatened flora species will be avoided as there will be no clearing of vegetation on the land. The existing screening vegetation along the Arthur River Road will also be maintained (commitment 10 of the DPEMP).

Section 3.2 of the DPEMP states the proposal is expected to have no impact on the APCA, as the mining lease occupies less than 0.05% of the total area of APCA.

Section 4.9(d) of the DPEMP identifies that AMD has the potential to impact the vicinity of Cuffys Creek downstream of the quarry and therefore the aquatic environment. It is proposed to mitigate this impact through the addition of limestone to the drainage lines and treatment pond, increasing the pH of any stormwater run-off and promoting precipitation of some metals to reduce the toxicity of run-off to aquatic fauna (refer to Key Issue 1 for further details). Construction of the treatment and retention ponds and drainage modifications forms commitment 1 of the DPEMP.

Section 4.9(d) of the DPEMP also details the spread of weeds and disease will be mitigated by:

Washing down all machinery which leaves the site as described in the Weed and Disease Management Plan (Appendix 9 of the DPEMP).

Using a wash down ledger to track potential external weed/disease sources.

Vehicles/machinery only using access roads and proper boundary control will be implemented.


17

Spot spraying weeds on a six monthly basis and maintain a weed control register (see Appendix 9 of the DPEMP).

Conducting further investigations if signs of dieback become evident.

None of these mitigation measures formed commitments in the DPEMP. Rehabilitation and vegetation of the site forms commitment 2 of the DPEMP.

Public and agency comment and responses

Policy and Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB) of DPIPWE reviewed the final DPEMP and advised that given there is to be no clearance of vegetation for the proposal and the lack of potential Wedge-tailed eagle nesting habitat in the vicinity of the site, it had no further requirements with regard to impacts on flora or fauna from activities within the mining lease.

PCAB noted the predicted traffic volume has doubled from that predicted in the Notice of Intent and the potential for impacts on roadkill on Tasmanian Devils is considered to be the most significant likely impact of this proposal and recommended a number of management measures.

Evaluation

Vegetation, Flora and Fauna

Native vegetation communities including coastal heathland and western wet scrub are located within the mining lease, but outside of the main quarry workings and access road. While these communities are not threatened vegetation communities they provide habitat for flora and fauna, including threatened species, and contribute to the conservation values of the APCA. This is supported by the findings of the field surveys which identified the presence of a listed orchid species Caladenia dienema within the survey area amongst the coastal heathland.

While the flora and fauna surveys identified a lack of potential habitat for threatened species on The Land, it is considered this reference is focused on potential breeding habitat for threatened species, such as a lack of growth trees for Wedge-tailed Eagle nests and no identified dens for the Spotted Tailed Quoll or Tasmanian Devils. However, the numerous records of threatened species within the vicinity of the quarry and the presence of high quality native vegetation communities within the land and surrounding area indicates potential for foraging habitat for threatened species including the Spotted Tail Quoll and Tasmanian Devil. Therefore impacts to non-cleared areas need to be minimised.

The DPEMP states impacts to vegetation communities and threatened flora and flora are unlikely as no vegetation clearance is proposed as part of the quarry expansion. This is considered appropriate to ensure protection of vegetation communities and potential threatened flora and fauna and is consistent with the objectives of a conservation area defined in Schedule 1 of the NCA and therefore the APCA Management Plan.

PCAB recommended that management measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of Tasmanian Devil road kill from an increased volume of traffic associated with the quarry expansion, including avoidance of night time use of the road, where practicable. Compliance with the operating hours imposed through condition N1 will ensure that quarry-related night time traffic on the road is limited for much of the year. These hours are consistent with the QCOP. Further possible management measures suggested by PCAB were considered, but are largely unrelated to operations on The Land, and may not be validly conditioned by the Board.

Rehabilitation of the quarry workings area will also be important to restore the native vegetation communities and conservation values within the quarry workings area, consistent with the APCA Management Plan. Rehabilitation is further discussed and conditions imposed under Issue 1 of Appendix 1.


18

Aquatic Ecology

The presence of Cuffys Creek and ephemeral pools within the working area of the quarry, as well as previous records of frog species including the threatened species L. peroni (Striped Marsh Frog) in the vicinity of the land, indicates the potential for habitat for aquatic fauna both within the quarry workings area as well as the broader mining lease.

Extraction activities on-site and the movement of vehicles have the potential to impact on the aquatic environment in Cuffys Creek and ephemeral pools. To minimise this risk the proponent will be required to minimise dust generation within the quarry workings and access road under conditions A1 and A2.

Section 4.4 of the DPEMP identifies that AMD is currently discharging from the quarry workings into Cuffys Creek (see Key Issue 1, Section 6.1 of this report for more details). The low pH and higher availability of metals in the aquatic environment has the potential to create toxic conditions for some aquatic species, reduce food available for higher chain species, such as frogs, and cause degradation of the ecosystem. The conditions that will be imposed on the proponent to manage and mitigate AMD, and therefore minimise impacts on the aquatic environment, are detailed in Section 6.1, Key Issue 1 of this report. These requirements are consistent with the objectives of the EMPCS to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants, allow the proponent to make environmental improvements and provide for monitoring and reporting of environmental quality. The actions are likely to allow the continuation and upgrade of the activity, while maintaining biological diversity and allowing rehabilitation of current adverse impacts, which is consistent with the objectives of conservation areas as defined in Schedule 1 of the NCA.

Weeds and Disease

Appropriate weed management is required as declared weeds have already been identified on the land and the increase in vehicular movements from the quarry expansion has the potential to increase the potential for introduction and spread of weeds and thereby impact on natural biological diversity of the APCA. To minimise these risks the proponent will be required under condition FF1 to prepare a Weed & Hygiene Management Plan and implement weed management in accordance with the plan. This Plan will consider appropriate management based on the location of the quarry and its access to equipment and services.

The presence of Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC) on-site has not been confirmed. However the presence of dead Banksia marginata within the survey area, a key indicator of the presence of PC, and the existence of records of PC in the vicinity of the land indicates the site requires management for this disease. This will be required through preparation of the Weed & Hygiene Plan dictated under condition FF1.

Conclusions


A1 Control of dust emissions

A2 Dust emissions from traffic areas

FF1 Weed & Hygiene Management Plan

Stormwater and AMD management measures and relevant conditions are addressed in Section 6.1, Key Issue 1 of this report. Rehabilitation is addressed in Issue 1 of Appendix 1 of this report.


19

7 Other issues

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

1. Decommissioning and Rehabilitation

2. Noise Emissions

3. Air Quality

4. Traffic Impacts

5. Dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials

6. Aboriginal Heritage

8 Report conclusions

This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit application, DPEMP and in correspondence and discussion between the EPA Division and the proponent and the proponent’s representatives. This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by EPA Division scientific specialists and regulatory staff, other Divisions of DPIPWE and other government agencies. This assessment has taken into account issues raised in public submissions. It is concluded that:

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

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

It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the Permit Conditions - Environmental No. 8987 appended to this report are imposed and duly complied with.


21

10 References

Environmental Services & Design (2015); Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan, Mark Lardner Excavations Unit Trust, Arthur River Road Quarry Expansion, Arthur River Road, Tasmania, prepared for Mark Lardner Excavations Unit Trust (dated January 2015).

Parks & Wildlife Service, DPIWE (2002), Arthur River Conservation Area Management Plan.

Rudman T (2005). Interim Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Guidelines. Nature Conservation Report 05/7, Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.

DPIWE, Forestry Tasmania & Agricultural Contractors Association of Tasmania (2004), Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control – Machinery, Vehicles and Equipment – Edition 1 (April 2004).

11 Appendices

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions Appendix 3 Permit conditions

Appendix 1


22

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues

Issue 1: Decommissioning and Rehabilitation

Description of potential impacts

According to Section 6 of the DPEMP rehabilitation will occur progressively on the worked out areas of the lease as stipulated in the Mine Plan and the Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (DRP) (Appendices 1 and 2 of the DPEMP).

Cessation of the activity has the potential to cause impacts to the environment if rehabilitation is inappropriate or unsuccessful.

Management measures proposed in DPEMP

There will be two main stages to rehabilitation of the site. Stage 1 will involve two parts;

1. the re-contouring of the slope to the north of the settling pond along with spreading with topsoil and reseeding with coastal heathland species; and

2. the revegetation of an area of historic works to the south east of the main pit.

Stage 2 of the rehabilitation will be undertaken upon the completion of the quarrying activities at the site. The settling pond and limestone drainage channels are intended to remain. The limestone drainage channels will need to be agitated annually, initially, to prevent armouring and ensure it continues to increase the pH of the drainage.

A preliminary rehabilitation plan is included in the Mine Plan in Appendix 1 of the DPEMP.

Section 4.15 of the DPEMP states that existing vegetation situated around the perimeter of the quarry will be maintained in order to shield the quarry operations from passing motorists. This forms commitment 10 of the DPEMP.

Public and agency comment

None

Evaluation

The quarry is located within the APCA, and although the reserve status provides for extractive activities within the reserve, activities must be consistent with the APCA Management Plan. One of the prescriptions of this plan is that rehabilitation ‘shall be carried out on all activities associated with mineral exploration and mining activity in the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area’.

Implementing progressive rehabilitation is considered appropriate to prevent significant environmental impacts in the event of unexpected or temporary cessation of the activity. This approach is required under condition DC2 and supported by the requirement to stockpile surface soil under condition DC1. The management of temporary cessation will be stipulated under condition DC6.

To ensure rehabilitation is appropriate to restore values consistent with the APCA Management Plan, the proponent will be required to prepare and submit for approval a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (DRP) under condition DC4. The plan can either be required after notification of cessation or earlier if it will support management and regulation of the site. Cessation of the activity must be reported to the Director, EPA under condition DC3 and implementation of the DRP following cessation will be required under condition DC5.

The DRP is likely to include requirements to monitor and manage post cessation of activity, including the agitation of the limestone armouring and water quality monitoring. This will ensure rehabilitation is successful and the quarry activity does not leave legacy environmental impacts, particularly in relation to water quality and aquatic habitat. These actions are considered appropriate to ensure rehabilitation is successful and maintains the conservation values of the APCA. These actions are also consistent with the QCOP, a requirement under condition G3. Compliance with the QCOP is a prescription under the ACPA Management Plan.

Conclusion

Appendix 1


23


G3 Quarry Code of Practice

DC1 Stockpiling of surface soil

DC2 Progressive rehabilitation

DC3 Notification of cessation

DC4 DRP Requirements

DC5 Rehabilitation following cessation

DC6 Temporary suspension of activity

Appendix 1


24

Issue 2: Noise Emissions


Noise emissions from blasting as well as equipment such as the mobile crusher, on-site loader and truck movements have the potential to impact on sensitive receptors.

According to Section 4.6(a) of the DPEMP blasting currently occurs twice a year. Desktop estimations of noise levels from a typical blasting event by Vipac Engineers and Scientists for the proponent (Appendix 11 of the DPEMP) found the ground vibration and air blast over pressure at the nearest residence (approximately 1.3 km to the north of the site) is predicted to be below 2 mm/s peak particle velocity and 110 dBL respectively. These levels are below appropriate limits under the Tasmanian Quarry Code of Practice 1999 (QCOP). The DPEMP states the amount and frequency of blasting at the site is not expected to increase with an increase in production.


Section 4.6(d) of the DPEMP states if there is to be an increase in blasting frequency and quantities of explosives used which could potentially exceed the limits specified in ANZEC 1990; Technical basis for guidelines to minimise annoyance due to basting overpressure and ground vibration and the QCOP, then a full noise and blasting plan will be undertaken. This forms commitment 8 of the DPEMP.

Commitment 4 of the DPEMP states if there is a complaint then the proponent will undertake a noise and blast survey. Maintenance of a complaints register forms commitment 5 of the DPEMP.


None

Evaluation

The proponent proposes to operate the activity 0600-1900 hours weekdays and 0600-1800 Saturdays, which are outside the hours specified in the QCOP. Compliance with the QCOP is a standard condition for quarry proposals assessed by the Board and defined under condition G3. Sufficient justification for the departure from the standard hours has not been provided by the proponent beyond a general comment that extended hours will allow the proponent to effectively meet demands for material. Compliance with the QCOP under condition G3 is consistent with the prescriptions of the ACPA Management Plan.

To ensure compliance with the Acceptable Standards of the QCOP the operating hours are stipulated in condition N1. It is not considered necessary to specific noise limits for the extended hours of operation beyond those defined in the QCOP as it is considered unlikely there will be an impact on the nearest sensitive receptors due to the distance of the quarry from the nearest residences, the low production levels and campaign based activity.

The implementation of a complaints register as required under condition G4 and the notification of any noise complaints to the Director within 24 hours under condition N2 are also considered appropriate to manage any potential noise impacts identified during operation of the quarry. Notification to the Director will allow consideration of the complaint and formation of an appropriate response, which may be a noise and blasting survey. The hours during which blasting can occur are restricted under condition B1.

Conclusion



G4 Complaints Register

N1 Operating Hours

Appendix 1


25

N2 Noise Complaints

B1 Blasting times

Appendix 1


26

Issue 3: Air Quality


An increase in production at the quarry has the potential to increase the production of dust within the quarry footprint and along the unsealed access road and onto Arthur River Road.

According to Section 4.1 of the DPEMP the sources of air emissions on site are limited to diesel fumes, gases from blasting and dust from quarrying activities.


No management measures are proposed in the DPEMP as air emissions produced are considered to be minimal.


None

Evaluation

No sensitive receptors are located within a distance likely to be affected by the movement of dust. However, dust is likely to be produced during the operation of the activity and transport of materials. Management measures are required to prevent impacts on and off-site, including onto Arthur River Road which is a popular tourist route.

The proponent will be required to control dust emissions, including in trafficked areas, as defined in conditions A1 and A2. The covering of vehicles leaving the land will be required under condition A3. These measures are considered suitable to manage dust emissions from the activity, particularly considering its remote location. A specific requirement to use water as a dust suppression method has not been imposed as the site has no access to water from storage or potable sources.

Implementing a complaints register as required under condition G4 is also considered appropriate to help resolve any dust issues reported during operation of the quarry.

Conclusion



A1 Control of dust emissions

A2 Dust emissions from traffic areas

A3 Covering of vehicles

Appendix 1


27

Issue 4: Traffic Impacts


Increased traffic to and from the quarry has the potential to increase noise and dust on and off-site.

According to Section 4.23 of the DPEMP there will be an increase in truck movements to and from the activity as a result of an increase in production. Traffic enters and exits the quarry directly onto Arthur River Road and then onto the Bass Highway, which according to the DPEMP are popular tourist routes.

According to Section 2.1.1 of the DPEMP the destination for trucks leaving the quarry is to the north west and western region of Tasmania to various farms and contractors requiring fill and road base. The material is transported offsite in twin trailer, 10m3 haul trucks with a proposed maximum of 18 truck movements per day.


No management measures are proposed in the DPEMP as it is considered Arthur River Road and Bass Highway will accommodate the increased traffic from the quarry.


PCAB noted the predicted traffic volume had doubled from that predicted in the Notice of Intent. It considered the potential for impacts to Tasmanian Devils (scavenging on road kill) to be the most significant likely issue of this proposal and recommended a number of management measures.

Evaluation

Most material is extracted from the quarry on a demand basis. Therefore the number and frequency of trucks to and from the quarry tends to be concentrated to relatively short periods of time. No sensitive receptors are located within a distance likely to result in impacts from dust and noise from traffic directly related to the quarry.

Implementing a complaints register as required under condition G4 is considered appropriate to manage any traffic related issues identified during operation of the quarry.

PCAB recommended a management measure for the proponent, namely to avoid use of the road at night time between 1 hour before sunset and 1 hour after sunrise) and reduce the volume of traffic at night where practicable. For the majority of the year this management measure is likely to be met by complying with the operating hours as required under condition N1.

Conclusion



N1 Operating Hours

Noise and dust management measures and relevant conditions are addressed in Issues 2 and 3, respectively. Biodiversity is considered further in key issue 2 (section 6.2).

Appendix 1


28

Issue 5: Dangerous Goods and environmentally hazardous materials


The activity has the potential to cause contamination of the site and nearby waterways from chemical or fuel/oil spills if not appropriately managed.

According to Section 4.8(a) of the DPEMP only minor amounts of dangerous goods are used onsite; namely diesel, oils and greases (10-20L). Explosives for blasting are taken onto the site when blasting is occurring and are removed when blasting is complete.

Diesel is stored in a 400L tank on a bunded trailer with spill kits kept onsite when works are occurring. There will be no fuels, oils or explosives permanently stored onsite as part of the production increase.


According to Section 4.8(d) of the DPEMP potential pollution incidents arising from the storage and usage of hazardous goods onsite will be avoided through regular maintenance of hazardous goods storage facilities to ensure they are at an acceptable standard for the containment of such goods. The maintenance of hazardous goods storage systems and keeping a spill kit on-site while the quarry is operating form commitment 9 of the DPEMP.

Furthermore, Appendix 7 contains the pollution incident response management plan (PIRMP) prepared for the site which will be stored with the hazardous materials. The PIRMP details the appropriate response to a pollution incident occurring onsite.

Section 4.8(b) also states that all dangerous and hazardous goods are to be stored onsite in accordance with the QCOP to minimise the risk of a spill event occurring.


None.

Evaluation

Not storing chemicals, fuels or oils at the quarry as detailed in the DPEMP will limit the potential for impacts from hazardous materials.

The requirements to appropriately manage hazardous substances and use a spill kit are reflected in conditions H1 and H2 and are considered appropriate to manage any fuels or oils stored onsite. These requirements are consistent with the QCOP, compliance with which forms condition G3.

Responding to an incident to prevent environment harm or nuisance is required under condition G5. Compliance with legislation in relation to the storage and handling of hazardous materials is also detailed in the legal obligations condition LO3 in the Schedule 3, Information section of the EPA’s permit conditions.

Conclusion



G5 Incident Response

H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials

H2 Spill Kits

Appendix 1


29

Issue 6: Aboriginal Heritage


The quarry expansion has the potential to impact on Aboriginal heritage artefacts and sites if not appropriately managed.


No management measures are proposed in the DPEMP. According to Section 4.10 of the DPEMP potential Aboriginal heritage on the lease will not be affected by the proposed expansion as no vegetation is being cleared. The DPEMP also indicates that the history of disturbance in the cleared areas is likely to have resulted in previous destruction and loss of any Aboriginal heritage.


A search of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index was undertaken by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) in December 2013 regarding the proposed quarry expansion. AHT advised there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within or close to the property. After reviewing previous reports and noting the highly disturbed nature of the area, AHT also indicated the area has a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present. Accordingly there was no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and AHT had no objection to the project proceeding.

Evaluation

The quarry is located within the APCA which contains significant Aboriginal heritage including many records of Aboriginal artefacts and sites. However information from AHT indicates there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within or close to quarry and a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present. As the risk to Aboriginal heritage is low no management measures or conditions are proposed. All Aboriginal heritage is also protected under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, which specifies the requirements in the event of Aboriginal Heritage be uncovered at the site. These responsibilities are detailed in condition LO4 under Schedule 3: Information.

Conclusion

No management measures or conditions required.

Appendix 2


30

Appendix 2 Summary of agency submissions

In the following tables, DPEMP means the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan, Mark Lardner Excavations Unit Trust, Arthur River Road Quarry Expansion, Arthur River Road, Tasmania dated 23 January 2015 prepared by Environmental Service and Design. A. Referral agency comments

Agency DPEMP section no.

Comment Further information required by EPA

PCAB 4.9 Given that there is to be no clearance of vegetation for the proposal and the lack of potential Wedge-tailed eagle nesting habitat in the vicinity of the site PCAB has no further requirements with regard to impacts on flora or fauna from activities within the mining lease.

It is noted however, that the predicted traffic volume has doubled from that predicted in the Notice of Intent and the potential for impacts on road-kill on Tasmanian Devils is considered to be the most significant likely impact of this proposal.

It is recommended that management measures be implemented to minimise this risk, suitable measures may include:

• Avoid night time (between 1 hour before sunset and 1 hour after sunrise) use of the road where practicable.

A number of other general management measures were recommended but were not considered applicable to regulation of the activity on the land.

None

MRT 4.4 The key issue for the site is the control of AMD from the site. The proposed drainage modifications and construction of a retention and treatment pond should provide sufficient neutralization of acidic waters.

In discussions with the assessing officer, the proposed monitoring methods appear to provide the most practical and appropriate means of monitor the performance of the recommended mitigations measures.

None

Water Specialist (EPA Division)

No Electrical Conductivity data in the DPEMP to assess the proposed EC regulatory limit of 500 micro-Siemens/cm.

I have checked sulphate concentration provided in the figure 22 of the DPEMP and confirm that sulphate levels at discharge point have at times been as high as 400 mg/L. It is understandable that sulphate results will be highly variable given infrequent campaign nature of the operation and variable rainfall/creek flows. Increase sulphate limit to 400 mg/L.

The pH min of 6.5 is good. Alkalinity must be added to minimise solubility of AMD metals.

None

Appendix 3


31

Appendix 3 Permit Conditions – Environmental

arthur river road quarry expansion lardner... · (empc act), being the extraction of rock or gravel...

Documents