for the conversion of an operating eel aquaculture ... eel... · the environment protection and...

Tasmanian Eel Exporters Pty Ltd ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS REPORT

FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN OPERATING EEL AQUACULTURE FACILITY

TO A FINFISH (SALMONID) BROODSTOCK FACILITY

9th October 2018

V5

Tasmanian Eel Exporters, Finfish Broodstock Facility, Bagdad: Environmental Effects Report (September 2018)

Table of Contents 1 Summary of Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 7

2 Environmental Legislation ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Commonwealth legislation ........................................................................................................ 8

2.2 State legislation ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 State Policies and Projects Act 1993 ..................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 .......................................................................... 9

2.2.3 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 .............................................. 9

2.2.4 Other state legislation applicable to the project ................................................................... 9

2.3 Local government .................................................................................................................... 10

3 Project Proponent..................................................................................................................... 10

4 Rationale for proposal .............................................................................................................. 10

5 Existing Activity ........................................................................................................................ 11

5.1 Current Production .................................................................................................................. 11

5.2 Wastewater Management....................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Ongoing Operations ................................................................................................................ 16

5.4 Complaints Received ............................................................................................................... 16

6 Description of Proposed Project ................................................................................................ 16

6.1 Location ................................................................................................................................... 17

6.2 Physical Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 19

6.3 Land Tenure ............................................................................................................................. 19

6.4 Proposed Production ............................................................................................................... 19

6.5 Access, Infrastructure and Equipment .................................................................................... 20

6.6 Water Supply ........................................................................................................................... 21

6.7 Power Supply ........................................................................................................................... 21

6.8 Wastewater ............................................................................................................................. 22

6.8.1 Wastewater Volumes .......................................................................................................... 22

6.8.2 Wastewater quality ............................................................................................................. 22

6.8.3 Domestic Wastewater (Sewage) ......................................................................................... 23

6.8.4 Stormwater .......................................................................................................................... 23

6.9 Solid Waste Production ........................................................................................................... 23

6.10 Traffic ....................................................................................................................................... 24

6.11 Off-site Infrastructure.............................................................................................................. 24

6.12 Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 24

7 Existing Environment ................................................................................................................ 25

7.1 Planning Aspects ...................................................................................................................... 25

7.2 Neighbouring Land Use ........................................................................................................... 26

7.3 Topography .............................................................................................................................. 26

7.4 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 26

7.5 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 28

7.6 Surface Water .......................................................................................................................... 31

7.6.1 Protected Environmental Values ......................................................................................... 31

7.7 Noise Environment .................................................................................................................. 35


7.7.1 Identification of Sensitive Noise Receptors ......................................................................... 35

7.7.2 Measurements..................................................................................................................... 39

7.8 Visual Amenity ......................................................................................................................... 39

7.8.1 Visible Proposal Elements ................................................................................................... 39

7.9 Natural Values ......................................................................................................................... 40

7.9.1 Vegetation Communities ..................................................................................................... 41

7.9.2 Flora ..................................................................................................................................... 42

7.9.3 Introduced plants ................................................................................................................ 43

7.9.4 Fauna ................................................................................................................................... 44

7.10 Heritage Values........................................................................................................................ 46

7.10.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................ 46

7.10.2 Historic Heritage .................................................................................................................. 46

7.11 Contaminated Land ................................................................................................................. 47

8 Potential Effects and Their Management ................................................................................... 47

8.1 Aqueous Emissions .................................................................................................................. 47

8.1.1 Sewage ................................................................................................................................. 47

8.1.2 Wastewater ......................................................................................................................... 47

8.1.3 Stormwater .......................................................................................................................... 48

8.2 Solid Waste Management ....................................................................................................... 48

8.3 Noise Impact ............................................................................................................................ 49

8.4 Transport ................................................................................................................................. 54

8.5 Air Emissions ............................................................................................................................ 54

8.6 Biosecurity ............................................................................................................................... 60

8.7 Natural Values ......................................................................................................................... 60

8.8 Hazardous Substances ............................................................................................................. 60

8.9 Heritage ................................................................................................................................... 61

8.10 Off Site Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 62

8.11 Contaminated Land ................................................................................................................. 62

8.12 Sites of High Public Interest ..................................................................................................... 62

9 Stakeholder Consultation .......................................................................................................... 64

10 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 64

11 Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................................... 64

12 State Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 64

13 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 64

14 Commitments ........................................................................................................................... 65

15 References................................................................................................................................ 66

List of figures

Figure 1 Existing RAS operation: approved layout plan ........................................................................ 13

Figure 2 TEE wastewater irrigation 1..................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3 TEE wastewater irrigation 2..................................................................................................... 15

Figure 4 Site layout ................................................................................................................................ 17


Figure 5 Regional location ..................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 6 Site location local context ....................................................................................................... 19

Figure 7 Internal layout ......................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 8 Soil type Bagdad area .............................................................................................................. 27

Figure 9 Soil classification ...................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 10 Five year wind rose for Melton Mowbray .............................................................................. 29

Figure 11 Jordan River catchment map: Land use for PEV Characterisation .......................................... 32

Figure 12 Bagdad golf course and proposed activity .............................................................................. 34

Figure 13 Air blowers ............................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 14 Potentially sensitive noise receptors ....................................................................................... 36

Figure 15 Site and measurement locations ............................................................................................. 37

Figure 16 Local topography and property boundaries ............................................................................ 38

Figure 17 Proposed site: from Lyndon Road heading north ................................................................... 39

Figure 18 Existing vegetation 2005 ......................................................................................................... 40

Figure 19 Existing vegetation 2009 ......................................................................................................... 40

Figure 20 Remnant vegetation ................................................................................................................ 41

Figure 21 Threatened vegetation communities within 500 m ................................................................ 42

Figure 22 Threatened flora species ......................................................................................................... 43

Figure 23 Weeds ...................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 24 Threatened fauna within 500 m of the site ............................................................................. 45

Figure 25 Raptor sightings ....................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 26 Noise trend at Location E ........................................................................................................ 50

Figure 27 One third octave sound spectra .............................................................................................. 50

Figure 28 Blower spectra narrow band ................................................................................................... 50

Figure 29 Location E: Blower noise compared to overall noise environment ........................................ 51

Figure 30 Blower enclosure conceptual .................................................................................................. 54

Figure 31 RAS building layout cross sections .......................................................................................... 56

Figure 32 RAS building layout plan view ................................................................................................. 57

Figure 33 Location of odour sources ....................................................................................................... 58

Figure 34 Reserves and public spaces ..................................................................................................... 63

List of tables

Table 1 Tenure details .......................................................................................................................... 19

Table 2 Wastewater generation ........................................................................................................... 22

Table 3 Predicted effluent quality ........................................................................................................ 23

Table 4 Use Table 16.2 : Village Zone ................................................................................................... 25

Table 5 Mean temperature and rain records for Melton Mowbray .................................................... 30

Table 6 Community noise levels ........................................................................................................... 39


Table 7 Noise assessment summary .................................................................................................... 51

Table 8 Acoustic environment indicator levels ..................................................................................... 52

Table 9 Dangerous goods register ........................................................................................................ 60

List of appendices

Appendix A Planning Permit

Appendix B Natural Values Report

Appendix C Aboriginal Heritage Search Report

Appendix D Veterinary Health Plan

Appendix E Baseline Noise Level Assessment Bagdad Hatchery

Appendix F Wastewater irrigation plan


7

1 Summary of Proposed Project

TEE are proposing to restock an existing Eel Recirculating Aquaculture Facility (RAS) inside an enclosed building and to use the tanks and wastewater treatment system therein as a salmonid brood stock facility. Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd (HA) has a commercial agreement with Tasmanian Eel Exporters Pty Ltd (TEE) to lease the facility once approved. HA have agreed to a three-year lease of the site, after which time the site would either return to its former use for eels or continue to be leased as a salmonid brood stock facility. The proposed operation will result in a reduction in biomass from a maximum annual biomass of 88,000 kg eels(maximum standing biomass of 36,000 kg) to a maximum annual biomass of 13,000 kg salmonids(maximum standing biomass of 13,000kg). Approximately comprising 2000 fish. Feed will also reduce from the current level of 102,300 kg per annum to a maximum annual feed input to 18,250 kg. These are based on maximum kg/m3 for each species of 225kg/m3 for eels and 80kg/m3 for salmonid broodstock. Wastewater will reduce from a current maximum discharge of 8,000 Litres per day to a planned 5,000 Litres per day at maximum discharge.


8

2 Environmental Legislation

An overview of legislation relevant to the project is given in the following sections.

2.1 Commonwealth legislation

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is unlikely to be triggered by this proposal. The project is situated on land used for an existing approved industrial operation and does not involve any clearing of vegetation or actions that should significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance (MNES), namely listed threatened species and communities.

2.2 State legislation

The Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) was established to achieve sustainable outcomes from the use and development of the state’s natural and physical resources. Several pieces of legislation embody the aims of the RMPS. Within the context of this development proposal, a number of statutes apply: State Policies and Projects Act 1993 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA).

2.2.1 State Policies and Projects Act 1993

The State Policies and Projects Act 1993 establishes the process to put in place state policies under the Tasmanian RMPS. State policies seek to ensure a consistent and coordinated approach and incorporate the minimum amount of regulation necessary to achieve their objectives of managing natural resources. State policies are implemented by being integrated into local government planning schemes. Currently there are three state policies: State Coastal Policy 1996 (Coastal Policy) State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (Water Quality Policy) State Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 (PALP).

2.2.1.1 State Coastal Policy 1996

The purpose of the Coastal Policy is to implement the sustainable development objectives of the RMPS in Tasmania’s coastal areas. The policy is based on three core principles that address these objectives: 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. The Coastal Policy is applicable to all Tasmanian state waters and land (excepting Macquarie Island) within one kilometre inland of the high-water mark. The Coastal Policy is not applicable to this proposal.

2.2.1.2 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

The purpose of the Water Quality Policy is to achieve the sustainable management of Tasmania’s surface water and groundwater resources by protecting or enhancing their qualities while allowing for sustainable development in accordance with the objectives of the RMPS. This proposal does not involve direct discharge to Tasmania’s surface water or groundwater resources.

2.2.1.3 State Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land 2009

The purpose of the PALP is to ‘conserve and protect agricultural land so that it remains available for the sustainable development of agriculture, recognising the particular importance of prime agricultural land’.


9

The main objective of the PALP is to ensure that the productive capacity of agricultural land is appropriately recognised and protected in the use and development of agricultural land. No agricultural land will be affected by this proposal.

2.2.2 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Under the LUPAA, councils are required to administer the development and use of land within their municipal boundary. Development and use will be assessed in accordance with the Southern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The proposal does not involve a change in land use and has a current Planning Permit (See Appendix A). The Southern Midlands Council (SMC) has advised that the proposal does not require a new Development Application.

2.2.3 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

The proposal will be assessed as a level 2 (a) activity under Schedule 2 of the EMPCA. The Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has issued guidelines for an Environmental Effects Report (EER) to be developed by the proponent and submitted to the EPA. This EER provides information about the environmental effects of the proposed activity that is to be assessed by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the EPA Board) under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (the EMPC Act).

2.2.4 Other state legislation applicable to the project

2.2.4.1 Aboriginal Relics Act 1975

The proposed operation is inside an existing industrial building. No additional land disturbance is planned. As consequence, it is believed that there is a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present and an even lower probability of impact to Aboriginal heritage values.

2.2.4.2 Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

The proposed operation is inside an existing industrial building. No vegetation or fauna habitat is known on the site of the proposed development. Some remnant flora is situated around the property boundaries. No impact on threatened or endangered species should occur as result of this proposed development.

2.2.4.3 Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995

The proposed operation is inside an existing industrial building. The site is not listed on the latest Tasmanian Heritage Register (5 January 2016).

2.2.4.4 Forest Practices Act 1985

A Forest Practices Plan is required under the Forest Practices Act 1985 for many activities where the clearing of forest in excess of 1 hectare or 100 tonnes of timber (in areas of ‘vulnerable land’ these thresholds are lower). No clearing is required for this development and consequently a Forest Practices Plan is not required.

2.2.4.5 Inland Fisheries Service fish farm licence

The Inlands Fisheries Service manages fish farming in Tasmania to ensure that adequate safeguards for the freshwater environment are implemented and maintained. All fish farming proposals go through a rigorous assessment procedure involving consultation and approvals from various government authorities. The site operator will need to obtain an Inland Fisheries Service fish farm licence for the Bagdad facility before salmonids arrive on site. A Fish Farm Management Plan is being prepared for this purpose.


10

2.3 Local government

The proposed development is located within the boundaries of the SMC. There is no proposed change to the existing land use which has previously been assessed in accordance with the Southern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2015. Planning Permit No DA 2015/129 was approved in 2015 (See Appendix A). SMC have advised that a new DA is not required to convert the existing approval from eels to salmon. The proposed development is solely within the Village Zone.

3 Project Proponent

Name of proponent (trading name) Tasmanian Eel Exporters Pty Ltd Registered address of proponent 10 Lyndon Road, Bagdad Postal address of proponent P.O. Box 62 Bagdad Tasmania 7030 ABN number 51 609 965 7371.6 Contact person’s details: Brad Finlayson Ph 0409 686 472 E mail [email protected] Rental Operator Huon Aquaculture Group Limited Level 13, 188 Collins Street Hobart Tasmania 7001 ABN number 86 067 386 109 Contact person’s details: David Mitchell Ph 0427353334 E mail [email protected]

4 Rationale for proposal

TEE opened the RAS as an Eel farm in August 2016 to on-grow captured Southern Shortfin Eels and sell the product into specialised markets in Korea and with the intention of developing the market in Australia. After a two-year period of operating it has become apparent the Australian market is not ready to take the volume of wild eels that TEE is producing and the facility has not achieved the economic viability to continue in its current form. Recent issues associated with overseas trade restrictions has made the operation unviable at least in the short to medium term.

mailto:[email protected]


11

The RAS is suitable for production of a multitude of accepted aquaculture species, including both saltwater and freshwater species, finfish and or crustaceans. If saltwater species were grown an acceptable method of disposal for saline effluent would need to be developed. TEE are however not in a financial position to continue to experiment with the establishment of new markets or trial a new species within the system. TEE is proposing to lease the current facility to a Salmonid producer for use as a Brood Stock Facility for production of Salmonid Eggs and HA has developed a commercial agreement with TEE to lease the facility for three years. After this time the site would either return to its former use or continue to be leased as a salmonid brood stock facility either to HA or another operator. The repurposing of the facility provides an economic return to TEE while providing risk mitigation for HA’s brood stock program and providing for an existing facility to operate as a Special Breeding Programme Brood Stock Facility for the improvement of their own stock. The lease agreement will lapse if approval cannot be obtained for the conversion from eels to salmonids.

5 Existing Activity

TEE opened the RAS as an Eel farm in August 2016 to on-grow captured Southern Shortfin Eels (Anguilla Australis) for specialised markets overseas and for the development of the market in Australia. The RAS operates in an enclosed shed. Figure 1 shows the approved layout plan for the eel farm. The eel grow-out operation is conducted internally in the RAS. Externally located plant and equipment to support this are:

An Electric pump for the waste water

Air blower for the waste water tanks which only runs once a day for a few hours

An air blower situated behind a barrier fence for the moving bed bioreactor which is inside the RA shed.

An air blower for the degas unit which is situated behind a barrier fence.

A chiller / heater

An air conditioning system.

Five 23500 l waste storage tanks, one for sludge and 4 for waste water Internally there are:

20 x 8,000 litre tanks for holding and growing brood stock.

20 oxygen cones for providing oxygen to the tanks

20 feeders for each tank

4 main pumps for pumping water around the internal fish tanks.

A 60um drum screen for removing waste feed and faeces and a back flush pump for removing the washings from the drum screen

A foam fractionator and ozone side stream treatment

UV tubes to treat water on each pass

Lighting

5.1 Current Production

The current production has a maximum annual Eel biomass of 88,000 kg and an annual feed input of 102,300 kg of salmon feed used to feed the eels. The RAS facility was commissioned in August 2016 with eels going into the tanks in October 2016.


12

The existing activity contains a series of 20 x 8,000 litre tanks which house eels plus a drum filter, biofilter and a sump. Water for the operation is sourced from TasWater mains supply and recirculates through the tanks and then after internal treatment in the drum filter and biofilter is recycled. Waste solids and liquid are removed, stored and transferred offsite with liquid transferred for irrigation at the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme (see Appendix F) and solids removed by an approved controlled waste transporter to an approved K100 compost facility. The RAS currently operates 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

5.2 Wastewater Management

The current facility generates a peak daily wastewater discharge of 8,000 litres and an average daily discharge of 6,000 litres with all wastewater sent offsite to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme. The effluent management plan for treated wastewater for the current operation is presented in Appendix F. The plan forecasts that treated wastewater supplied by TEE will be treated to a quality suitable to meet the classification of Class B Recycled Water based on microbial content. The effluent from the existing facility passes through a solids removal tank and then through a series of 5 tanks each of 23,500 litres capacity. The first tank is not aerated and settles out the solids for collection. The supernatant waste water moves through the following 4 tanks which are aerated and subsequently sent off site to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme. The recycled waste water is to be used as indicated in the existing site management plans for the properties, Glenquoin and The Ring which are party to the Development Plan and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) for the Brighton Reuse Scheme. Aerial images of these irrigation sites circa 13 November 2017 are provided as Figure 2 and Figure 3. An agreement between Ronald and Chris Gunn (the property owners and managers) and TEE was established to accept the effluent into existing dams approved for recycled water storage. The operators are aware that there is a 21 day withholding period for ruminant stock grazing on irrigated land. The maximum volume supplied by TEE was set at 3 ML per annum which is the equivalent of the peak daily discharge noted above applied for 365 days each year. This past annual use of recycled water on Glenquoin has been in the order of 120 ML and 140 ML on The Ring property. The augmentation with the TEE supply is only a small increase in irrigation capacity. As a result, the use of treated effluent from the existing operation has a negligible impact on overall irrigation quality and quantity applied.


13

Figure 1 Existing RAS operation: approved layout plan(for label detail see original document in Appendix A)


14

Figure 2 Brighton water reuse scheme – The Ring(shown on LIST map as 765 Back Tea Tree Road.Tea Tree)

Source: Google Earth image dated 13 November 2017.


15

Figure 3 Brighton water reuse scheme – Glenquoin

Source: Google Earth image dated 13 November 2017.


16

The effluent is transferred by tanker from the TEE operation and discharged into storage dams: at Glenquoin, volume 65 ML or The Ring, 60 ML. These can be seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3 The immediate dilution of the TEE wastewater is in the order of 10,000:1. For the irrigation of the existing wastewater only 1 ha of irrigable land area is required to sustainably apply the reuse water at an average inflow of 6 KL/day providing an agricultural productivity benefit during mean rainfall years with 1.3 ha required during a 1 in 10 wet year. Soils, groundwater and surface water at the receiving properties are monitored by TasWater for the Brighton Reuse Scheme as described in the Brighton Scheme DPEMP. There is no direct discharge to the Bagdad Rivulet or any receiving waters. The site is connected to the sewer with sewage discharged to the Municipal sewerage scheme.

5.3 Ongoing Operations

TEE will continue to operate their Wild Eel capture and export facility on the same property as the RAS location (Figure 4). This operation will not be associated with this proposal.

5.4 Complaints Received

Council officers requested a meeting with the proponent (and existing operator) in July 2017 at which time a verbal complaint about odour had been received. The issue was discussed and site procedures regarding the storage and removal of wastewater were improved by installing an air blower to aerate the storage tanks downstream of the sludge tank. This worked very well in reducing the odour by preventing the development of stagnant conditions and created the formation of waste scum that could be removed as a crust once floating. Regular scum removal from the trap was also implemented. There have been no complaints or issues raised since the improvements were implemented.

6 Description of Proposed Project

TEE wish to convert a currently operating Southern Shortfin Eel (Anguilla Australis) RAS to a Salmonid brood stock facility (SBF), primarily Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). The brood stock are to produce eggs which are then transferred to Huon Aquaculture’s hatcheries for incubation, hatching and on growing. The proposed operation will see a reduction from the present potential maximum annual biomass of 88,000 kg to a maximum annual biomass of 13,000 kg with Salmonids replacing eels. Feed will reduce from the current level of 102,300 kg per annum to a maximum feed input of 18,250 kg per annum. In aquaculture facilities, Eels and Salmonids are fed the same diet. Wastewater production will reduce from a current maximum of 8,000 litres per day to a maximum of 5,000 litres per day. The proposed operation is located approximately 32 km north of Hobart in the township of Bagdad. There will be no construction or modification to the currently utilised eel facility. The conversion of the site from eel production to finfish (Salmonid) production will occur without additional equipment or infrastructure required other than additional netting over the tanks and some additional lighting inside the building. The existing RAS building contains a series of 20 x 8,000 litre tanks with a drum filter, biofilter and sump (Figure 7).


17

Water from the facility is currently sourced and will continue to be sourced from TasWater’s mains supply. This will recirculate through the tanks and after use will be recycled for offsite irrigation at the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme as currently occurs. Wastewater will not be discharged to the surface waters. Sewage will be discharged to TasWater’s reticulated sewerage system via existing connections.

Figure 4 Site layout

6.1 Location

The proposed brood stock facility is located at Bagdad approximately 32 km north of Hobart (Figure 5).


18

Figure 5 Regional location

Figure 6 illustrates the relationship of the proposed operation with the township of Bagdad.


19

Figure 6 Site location local context

6.2 Physical Characteristics

The RAS site is situated to the north east of the “town centre” of Bagdad, approximately 30 m to the west of the Bagdad Rivulet, and 350 m east of the Midland Highway. The site of the proposed repurposed RAS brood stock facility is on relatively level ground which will also be used for the storage of wild caught eels.

6.3 Land Tenure

Table 1 provides the title details to the site. The property is freehold land. The site boundary can be seen in Figure 1.

Table 1 Tenure details

Name Detail

Property address 10 Lyndon Rd Bagdad TAS 7030

Property ID 2757330

Title reference 108275/1

Plan reference CPR2486

Owner’s name Tasmanian Eel Exporters Pty. Ltd.

Owner’s address Bagdad

6.4 Proposed Production

The proposed operation will have a maximum biomass annual capacity of 13,000 kg of Salmonids, primarily Atlantic Salmon. This will require a maximum feed input of 18,250 kg per annum and result in a maximum daily discharge


20

of treated wastewater of 5,000 litres. This will be a reduction from the present maximum annual biomass of 88,000 kg and a significant feed reduction from the current 102,300 kg per annum to a maximum feed input of 18,250 kg per annum. As the system will be operating below design capacity it is not envisaged that there will be any major internal water quality issues. Internal water quality will be measured daily and will be temperature, pH, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, alkalinity, CO2 and hardness. System adjustments can be made accordingly to flow, exchange, PH, aeration, oxygenation, ozonation, temperature, UV dose, feed rate, biomass, light level and photoperiod.

6.5 Access, Infrastructure and Equipment

Access to the site is via an existing paved roadway off Lyndon Road (Figure 4). The proposed plant and equipment includes:

20 x 8,000 litre tanks for holding and growing brood stock.

Pumps for pumping water around the internal fish tanks.

An electric pump for the waste water.

An air blower for the waste water tank.

An air blower for the Moving Bed Bioreactor which is situated behind a barrier fence.

An air blower for the degas unit which is situated behind a barrier fence.

A chiller / heater.

An air conditioning system. The internal plant layout of the RAS building is shown in Figure 7. The process flow is:- To the fish tanks from the main pump sump via a pump for each line of 4 tanks. Each tank has an oxygen cone to provide oxygen to the fish with tank turnover being 2.5 times per hour. The effluent leaves the tank through an overflow and returns to the 60um drum screen. This prevents large particles (waste food and faeces) passing through it. These are periodically washed off the screen with a backwash pump and are the main effluent stream from the unit continuing on to the settlement tanks. The main water flow enters a heavily aerated moving bed biofilter. It is here that the aeration removes CO2 and the bacterial biomass living on the media in the filter removes ammonia and some nitrite from the system. After the moving bed the water passes over a small weir for further degassing into the main sump. There is a side stream treatment in the main sump. This is a foam fractionator with ozone, this removes hydrophobic molecules and reduces organic colour and NO2 before being returned to the main sump. The water is then treated with UV before going into the main pumps for pumping back to the tanks. The back wash effluent enters the first of a series of 5 x 23500 l water tanks via a grease trap. The first tank is aerated to promote aerobic digestion. The solids are pumped from this tank for removal by an approved controlled waste transporter to an approved K100 compost facility. The supernatant overflows into the adjacent 4 tanks (with the last tank maintained as a safety buffer tank) from which the water is taken away by tanker to the water reuse scheme.


21

Figure 7 Internal layout(For label detail see original document in Appendix A)

6.6 Water Supply

The proposed operation is expected to use approximately 500 kl of water per annum. Mains water is to be sourced from Taswater as currently occurs.

6.7 Power Supply

The facility is currently serviced with mains power supply. The proposed operation will not require any additional energy management infrastructure.


22

6.8 Wastewater

The wastewater produced at the brood stock facility will be effluent from the RAS. Wastewater containing faeces and waste feed will be generated in the tanks. The facility has a comprehensive, state of the art internal water reuse/ treatment system designed to minimise wastewater generated from the facility. This internal water reuse system utilises:

Solids removal through a drum filter

UV disinfection

Ozone Treatment

Static biological filtration

Moving bed biological filtration

Nano bubble protein fractionation. The wastewater will pass through the drum filters where solids will be removed and the bulk of the water returned through the grow–out tanks after internal treatment. Eventually the wastewater and accompanying solids become unfit for internal recycling. This is primarily the washings from the drum filter that are pumped from the internal process systems to the wastewater storage tanks.

6.8.1 Wastewater Volumes

Table 2 shows the planned seasonal variation in production and consequent wastewater generation at the site.

Table 2 Wastewater generation

Month Biomass kg Wastewater L/day Wastewater L/month

January 7,180 1,651 51,181

February 8,070 1,856 51,968

March 9,071 2,086 64,666

April 10,196 2,345 70,350

May 11,460 2,635 81,685

June 1,500 345 10,350

July 1,965 452 14,012

August 2,818 648 20,088

September 3,779 869 26,070

October 4,200 966 29,946

November 5,242 1,205 37,355

December 6,217 1,430 44,330

The annual maximum wastewater generation is expected to be 502,001 L. The calculation above is based on a salmonid biomass that is feeding every day. In the month approaching spawning(April) appetite declines markedly and when spawning in May the brood stock stop feeding. This reduces nutrient load on the system and wastewater generation. This means the figures for April and May are likely to be over estimates.

6.8.2 Wastewater quality

A preliminary review of the operation of the RAS for salmonids compared to eels indicates that wastewater quality should improve significantly. This is based on the significant reduction in food input and the visual turbidity of the tank water for salmonids versus eels. This reflects the wild living conditions


23

of the two species: eels which burrow into muddy creek/dam bottoms whereas salmon prefer clean water. The change from, eels to salmon at a reduced fish biomass and reduced feed input (Section 6.4) will provide a significant reduction in nutrient mass loads, total and dissolved nitrogen, total ammonia, nitrite and nitrate, total and dissolved phosphorus commensurate with the reduction in biomass and food input. The same factors should also result in an improvement in organic loads and organic quality factors, BOD and thermotolerant coliforms. Under this rationale, physical factors such as Non Filterable Residue (NFR) should also improve. The above factors should result in quality improvements for the effluent prior to storage and irrigation. It is anticipated that the quality of effluent irrigated will met the standards for the use of recycled water in Tasmania which are typically managed in accordance with the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania, 2002 (DPIPWE, 2002), referred to hereon as the Tasmanian Recycled Water Guidelines (TRWG). Based on the predictions and commitments made in the current wastewater irrigation plan (Appendix F) and the above notes, the estimated effluent quality prior to irrigation is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Predicted effluent quality

Parameter TRWG Class B quality

Predicted quality (average concentration)

Thermotolerant coliforms (cfu/100ml)

<1,000 <1,000

BOD (mg/L) <50 <50

pH 5.5 – 8.0 6.5-8.0

Electrical conductivity

(S/cm)

<1,000 <1,000

Ammonia (mg/L) N/A <5

Total nitrogen (mg/L) N/A 15

Total phosphorous (mg/L)

N/A 5

Total potassium (mg/L) N/A 15

The reduction in wastewater volumes will mean that the dilution in the storage dams will be in the order of 43,000:1. The land required for irrigation in a 90% rainfall year will reduce to 0.3 ha.

6.8.3 Domestic Wastewater (Sewage)

Sewage will be discharged to TasWater’s reticulated sewerage system via existing connections.

6.8.4 Storm water

Rainwater from the roof of the facility will continue to be connected to the existing storm water reuse system which uses this uncontaminated water on site for gardens and lawns. The proposed production process will take place inside the RAS building on site and, as a consequence, potentially contaminated process wastewater will be kept separate from clean storm water runoff.

6.9 Solid Waste Production

The growth of brood stock will generate waste feed and faeces (sludge), which will be removed from the wastewater during water treatment and recycling operations. Eventually the wastewater and accompanying solids will become unfit for internal recycling. At this time, it is removed from the system at the drum screen and is pumped to the wastewater storage tanks (Figure 4). The solids settle out in the


24

first waste tank with the supernatant waste water continuing on to the next 4 tanks. The solids will be removed from site by an approved controlled waste transporter as required to an approved K100 compost facility. Some natural mortality of fish may occur and some culling and disposal of fish may be required. Average mortality would be expected to range from 0 to 5 fish per week. Natural mortalities will be stored frozen inside the facility in a 200l chest freezer for later disposal to a K100 approved compost facility. Natural culling and or disposal of fish is considered a planned event after spawning and an ensiling unit1 will be brought onto the site for the cull and removed within 24 hours. Ensiled fish will be removed from site by an approved controlled waste transporter to an approved K100 compost facility. A small amount of general solid waste will be generated at the proposed facility from packaging materials and wastes from the staff amenities. These will be managed with standard council collection services with additional hard rubbish removal as required.

6.10 Traffic

The following average vehicle movements and deliveries are proposed:

1 X 12 m truck delivery of feed every three months.

6 x trips on one day per fortnight for a tanker to move the wastewater to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme. This is in an 8,000 litre former water tanker.

1 x 12 m truck delivery of liquid Oxygen every three months.

1 x 12 m truck for delivery of new brood stock each year.

6 staff personal vehicles movements per day (estimate). This will reduce current vehicle movements associated with the facility.

6.11 Off-site Infrastructure

No additional off-site infrastructure facilities are required for the proposed development.

6.12 Personnel

It is anticipated that the facility will employ around 2.5 full-time staff along with associated maintenance staff. The proposed will involve:

A maximum of 5 employees on site at any one time

An on-site caretaker and 24 hour observation of the facility. The RAS will operate 24 hours per day 365 days per year. Staff will be expected to be onsite daily between the hours of 8am – 5pm. After hours, the RAS facility will be remotely monitored with staff only required to attend after hours’ if urgent issues arise.

1 The production of fish silage is a relatively simple, low technology process. Its simplicity removes the basic minimum economic size constraint making it ideal for small waste flows or those situated in remote areas. Ensiling does not require high energy inputs, odour or emission control of any sophistication nor any pre-process preparation. Supplementary materials are limited to formic acid. Ensiling units can range in size from 250 L to 2,000 L though in practice smaller sizes prevail. It is conducted on a widespread basis at a local farm and processor level. The majority of ensilers are situated at fish farm land-based sites to deal with 'routine' mortalities and minor epizootic events. Because they are mobile, ensiling units can be located close to the source of the raw materials thus eliminating the necessity for temperature controlled storage and transportation facilities. It is important with ensiling, as with all recovery processes, to aim for the freshest raw material possible. Stale or rotten fish inhibit the speed of the process. The end product has similar advantages, needing only to be kept in sealed containers, which can range from 50 L drums for morts to 30 tonne tanks or silos for process waste. The process has few stages. In the first the fish passes through a macerator. The resulting increase in surface area makes the enzymes in the viscera more available and speeds the liquefaction process. Without viscera the process takes longer. The next stage consists of pumping the macerated raw material to a mixing tank where it is mixed with formic acid at 3.5% to acidify it. The pH is kept at 4 or below which allows the fish offal to autolyze without spoiling. Finally the silage is pumped to a storage container (Huntington, et al 2004).


25

7 Existing Environment

7.1 Planning Aspects

The proposed development is located within the boundaries of the SMC. There is no proposed change to the existing land use which has previously been assessed in accordance with the Southern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The proposed development is solely within the Village Zone.

7.1.1.1 Southern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2015

The site is zoned Village under the Southern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The purpose of the Zone is:

To provide for small rural centres with a mix of residential, community services and commercial activities.

To provide for residential and associated development in small communities.

To ensure development is accessible by walking and cycling.

To allow for a small shopping precinct that may include supermarket, tourism related business and a range of shops and rural services.

To allow for office based employment provided that it supports the viability of the centre and the surrounding area and maintains an active street frontage.

To provide for the efficient utilisation of existing reticulated services in the serviced villages of Bagdad, Campania, Colebrook, Kempton and Tunbridge.

The development proposed is the operation of a RAS salmonid brood stock growing facility at an existing RAS eel growing facility. Under the Use Table at 16.2 of the Planning Scheme, ‘Resource processing’ is a discretionary use. Resource Processing is defined in the scheme as:

“use of land for propagating, cultivating or harvesting plants or for keeping and breeding of livestock or fish stock. If the land is so used, the use may include the handling, packing or storing of produce for dispatch to processors. Examples include agricultural use, aquaculture, bee keeping, controlled environment agriculture, crop production, horse stud, intensive animal husbandry, plantation forestry and turf growing.”

Table 4 Use Table 16.2 : Village Zone

No permit required

Use Class Qualification

Educational and occasional care

Only for home–based child care in accordance with a licence under the Child Care Act 2001

Natural and cultural values management

Passive recreation

Utilities Only if minor utilities

Permitted


Residential Only if a single dwelling or home–based business

Business and professional services

Only if fronting Main Street in Kempton

Only if fronting Reeve Street or Climie Street in Campania. Educational and occasional care

Only if a kindergarten, primary school, child care centre or day respite facility

Emergency services

Food services Only if fronting Main Street in Kempton

Only if fronting Reeve Street or Climie Street in Campania. General retail and hire Only if fronting Main Street in Kempton

Only if fronting Reeve Street or Climie Street in Campania. Visitor accommodation Only if bed and breakfast establishment, holiday cabin or holiday unit

Discretionary


26


Bulky goods sales

Business and professional services

Except if permitted

Community meeting and entertainment

Crematoria and cemeteries Only if for Cemeteries

Domestic animal breeding, boarding or training

Educational and occasional care

Except if permitted

Equipment and machinery sales and hire

Food services Except if permitted

General retail and hire Except if permitted

Hospital services

Recycling and waste disposal Only if a waste transfer station

Residential Except if permitted

Resource processing Except if abattoir or sawmilling

Service Industry

Sports and recreation

Tourist operation

Transport depot and distribution

Utilities Except if no permit required

Vehicle parking Only if a public car park

Visitor accommodation Except if permitted

Prohibited


All other uses Given the subject site sits with the Village zone and, and the proposed use and development is for growing salmonid brood stock, the proposal meets the qualification for the use class in the zone and therefore can be considered as discretionary.

7.2 Neighbouring Land Use

All adjacent buildings are within the Village zone. A search of aerial photos on google earth since 2005 shows encroachment of residential lots moving east from the Midland Highway towards Lyndon Road.

7.3 Topography

The site sits to the east of the Midlands Highway and is essentially flat. It is effectively in a narrow valley between Heston Hill approximately 4 km to the east and Stamford Hill 450 m to the west.

7.4 Soils

Figure 8 shows the mapped soil types for the proposed location and the surrounding area. The proposed development is located within the soil classification DE, soil code Bd1 with Pss to the north.


27

Figure 8 Soil type Bagdad area

Source: The List. https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map. Accessed 10 September 2018.

https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map


28

Figure 9 Soil classification

Source: The List. https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map. Accessed 10 September 2018.

7.5 Climate

In Bagdad, the climate is warm and temperate with a consistent low to moderate rainfall. The closest active Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather station to the proposed Bagdad site is at Melton Mowbray, 15.3 km to the north. Data was collected from 1996 to 2018. The 5 year wind rose for Melton Mowbray is presented in Fig 10. The average rainfall and temperature records for Melton Mowbray are shown in Table 5.



29

Figure 10 The 5 year wind rose for Melton Mowbray


30

Table 5 Mean temperature and rain records for Melton Mowbray

Statistic Element Jan Feb March April May June July August Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Mean maximum temperature (° C) 24 23.5 21.1 17.5 14.2 11.9 11.4 12.6 14.7 16.9 19.8 21.9 17.5

Highest temperature (°C) 40.1 37.6 37.2 30.2 25.1 18.6 17.2 22.8 26 31.6 33.6 37.8 40.1

Mean minimum temperature (° C) 10.4 10.2 8.4 5.9 4.4 2.2 2 2.5 4.4 5.6 7.5 9.1 6

Lowest temperature (° C) 0.4 0.4 -1.8 -4 -5.4 -7.1 -5.7 -6.3 -4.2 -3.9 -2 0.7 -7.1

Mean number of days of rain 9.4 8.6 10.5 10.8 12.5 12.5 14.7 15 15.9 15.4 12.7 12 150

Highest rainfall (mm) 69.2 93.2 81.6 61.4 97.6 101 89.4 101.6 104.8 81.4 99 85.8 597

Mean rainfall (mm) 32 31.6 32.3 27.5 36.3 35.9 34.7 50.2 49.6 40.4 41.9 40.8 450.5

Lowest rainfall (mm) 5.6 2.6 4 5.2 9.4 5 7.6 10.6 13.6 4.2 3.2 4 272

Highest daily rainfall (mm) 35.6 41 30.4 33 69.8 35.2 28.8 63.4 34 25 31 66.6 69.8

Mean daily evaporation (mm) 7.4 6.2 4.7 2.9 1.8 1.3 1.3 2 3 4.2 5.4 6.8 3.9


31

7.6 Surface Water

The Bagdad Rivulet flows into the Jordan River which in turn flows into the Derwent Estuary (Figure 11). The Jordan catchment occupies an area of approximately 124,600 hectares and the river is the outflow of Lake Tiberias. From Lake Tiberias, it flows in a north-westerly direction until Burnt Log Gully where it then flows in a southerly direction for about 80 km through Melton Mowbray, Broadmarsh and Brighton to enter the Derwent Estuary near Bridgewater (Figure 11). The Jordan catchment is characterised by an upper catchment that consists predominantly of native forest and a lower catchment that has a long history of agricultural use (North, 1999). In the lower reaches, North (1999) found that the riverbanks of the Jordan River and major tributaries are substantially degraded with few sections retaining intact native riparian vegetation with the extent of weed infestation, notably willows posing a significant management problem. The riparian vegetation of the middle to lower reaches of the catchment consists mainly of crack willow (Salix fragilis) and gorse (Ulex europaeus) with some remnant native vegetation. Many sections of the river are cleared of riparian vegetation with pasture grass adjacent to the riverbanks.

7.6.1 Protected Environmental Values

PEVs were established by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control under the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 for the Jordan River catchment. This includes the Bagdad Rivulet which flows into the Jordan River. The Jordan catchment lies within the driest region of Tasmania, where regional annual rainfall is often less than 500 mm. The PEVs for the Jordan River catchment for surface waters are based on land use (Figure 11).


32

Figure 11 Jordan River catchment map: Land use for PEV Characterisation

Source: https://epa.tas.gov.au/Pages/Document.aspx?docid=780


33

Figure 11 illustrates that the Bagdad Rivulet flows through Rural Agricultural land. This means that, as a minimum, the water quality shall be managed to provide water of a physical and chemical nature to support a healthy, but modified aquatic ecosystem from which edible fish are harvested; that is acceptable for irrigation and stock watering purposes; and which will allow people to safely engage in secondary contact recreation activities such as paddling or fishing in aesthetically pleasing waters. An AUSRIVAS assessment of the Bagdad Rivulet in 1999 noted that upstream of the golf course the river health was severely impaired in autumn by habitat degradation (Figure 12). In spring, river health is rated as significantly impaired by water quality, habitat degradation or both. This site is cleared of woody riparian vegetation and this may lead to increased runoff and sedimentation. Absence of overhead riparian vegetation would also increase light levels through a lack of shading and result in high water temperature in this reach during the summer months. The site is adjacent to the golf course and it is likely that fertilisation and watering of the greens leads to elevated nutrient levels in runoff water. The bore water used for watering course greens was found to be high in nitrogen and phosphorous (unpublished water quality data (DPIPWE, 2003).


34

Figure 12 Bagdad golf course and proposed activity


35

7.7 Noise Environment

Bill Butler from NVC measured noise emissions from the TEE facility on the 3rd September 2018 to define the noise emissions (See Appendix E). On the eastern side of the RAS building are three centrifugal air blowers (two for the biofilters and one for the degas unit) that provide air for aeration of the internal tanks (Figure 13). Of the external equipment (Section 5), these blowers comprise the noise sources associated with the facility. The site has been operating as a RAS system for a period of 2 years, most machinery and noise generating equipment related to this proposal is contained within the RAS building and has been operating throughout the period. The site has not generated a noise complaint during that time.

Figure 13 Air blowers

7.7.1 Identification of Sensitive Noise Receptors

The facility is on the NE outskirts of Bagdad on land that slopes gently up to the north. On its western and southern boundaries are residential dwellings, while to the east a nature strip along a creek separates the facility from more rural type dwellings. The nearest sensitive noise receptors are shown in Figure 14. Measurements were made using a Type 1 sound level meter and were made in calm conditions. Personally attended measurements were made both on and off site during the morning of the 3rd and then unattended, automated measurements, conducted over the next 24 hours. The measurement locations are indicated in Figure 15 with location E being used for the unattended measurements as this is the site where the facility was most audible. As noted in Section 6.3, residential lots have been encroaching on 10 Lyndon Road from the west during the last decade as previously vacant lands has been developed for residential living in the village zone. The nearby lots, shown with green boundary lines, which range from 630 m2 to 780 m2 can be seen in Figure 16.


36

Figure 14 Potentially sensitive noise receptors


37

Figure 15 Site and measurement locations


38

Figure 16 Local topography and property boundaries

Source: https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map



39

7.7.2 Measurements

The sound pressure levels recorded during the survey are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Community noise levels

Sound Pressure Level dB(A)

L10 L90 Leq

A day 43 36 40

B day 42 35 40

C day 44 37 41

E day 51 40 48

E 22.00 – 01.00 41 34 39

E 01.00 – 07.00 45 36 42

The following observations were made during the survey in relation to the measurements:

Typical noises for a semi-rural setting controlled the noise levels viz., birds were strong, traffic both locally and on the A1 highway, and dogs in the general area.

The facility was just audible due to the blower noise, perceived as a just perceptible tone at site E only. The facility was inaudible at site C.

Adjacent to the blowers, at site D, they were strongly tonal.

At night when the facility is not audible, the background noise is 36 dB(A).

7.8 Visual Amenity

7.8.1 Visible Proposal Elements

The proposed development site is on the eastern outskirts of Bagdad (see Figure 12) and is not visible from the town centre or the Midland Highway which runs through Bagdad. The property is screened from adjacent residences by vegetation around the property boundary and a wooden paling fence approximately 1.2 m high (Figure 17).

Figure 17 Proposed site: from Lyndon Road heading north

Source: Google Earth image dated June 2015.


40

7.9 Natural Values

The proposed location for the facility is within the village of Bagdad and was largely cleared for occupation more than 10 years ago. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the existing remnant vegetation in December 2005 and August 2009 respectively. The property boundary can be seen marked on Figure 20 with remnant vegetation on the western boundary and along the verges of Bagdad rivulet immediately to the east of the property. The background image in Figure 20 is from late 2009 and shows construction of the RAS facility slightly advanced from Figure 19.

Figure 18 Existing vegetation 2005

Source: google earth: image date 12 December2005.

Figure 19 Existing vegetation 2009

Source: google earth: image date 9 August 2009.


41

Figure 20 Remnant vegetation

7.9.1 Vegetation Communities

A Natural Values Atlas Report for the proposed site was generated on 28 August 2018 from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE) website for threatened vegetation communities and TASVEG 3.0 communities within 500 m of the proposed development site. This showed Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland as a threatened community along the banks of Bagdad Creek to the immediate east of the site and Bursaria acacia woodland and scrub approximately 530 m to the east of the property.(Figure 21 shows the Eucalyptus as green with diagonal lines and the Acacia as grey z’s ).


42

Figure 21 Threatened vegetation communities within 500 m

Source: NVA 28/082/186

7.9.2 Flora

No threatened flora has been recorded on the site. Lepidium hyssopifolium, soft peppercress was recorded at four locations along or close to the Midland Highway to the west and south of the property and at one location approximately 260 m to the south east in 1999 (Figure 22).


43

Figure 22 Threatened flora species

7.9.3 Introduced plants

A Natural Values Atlas (NVA) report for the proposed site was generated on 28 August 2018 from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) website for introduced weed species within 500 m of the proposed development site. This showed fennel, and gorse identified along the Midland Highway in January 1995 and blackberry in the same location in 2014 (Figure 23). This was approximately 330 m to the north west of the property.


44

Figure 23 Weeds

7.9.4 Fauna

A NVA report for the proposed site was also generated from the DPIPWE website for threatened fauna within 500 m of the centre of the proposed development site. The report showed two confirmed records for the Perameles gunnii, the eastern barred bandicoot in 1993 within 300 m to the north-east and east of the proposed site (Figure 24), again along the Midland Highway. Threatened fauna based on range boundaries are listed in Appendix B.


45

Figure 24 Threatened fauna within 500 m of the site

7.9.4.1 Raptors

A peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus was observed approximately 240 m to the north west of the existing RAS plant in 2011 (Figure 25). No nest ID was recorded.


46

Figure 25 Raptor sightings

7.10 Heritage Values

7.10.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The proposed development site and the land in its vicinity have been used for residential and industrial; purposes for decades. An Aboriginal heritage search on 29 August 2018 did not identify any registered Aboriginal relics or apparent risk of impacting Aboriginal relics within or close to the proposed development site (See Appendix C).

7.10.2 Historic Heritage

The site is not listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.


47

7.11 Contaminated Land

The proposed site is not known to have been used for activities other than residential. 10 Lyndon Road is situated on the eastern outskirts of the township of Bagdad. A check of aerial photos since 2005 (Figure 18 and Figure 19) shows no activity on the lands other than residential, the construction of the eel farm from 2009 to 2015 and the encroachment of residential lots moving east from the Midland Highway.

8 Potential Effects and Their Management

8.1 Aqueous Emissions

8.1.1 Sewage

Sewage is produced in office facilities on site

8.1.1.1 Environmental Aspect

Disposal of sewage.

8.1.1.2 Potential impact

Incorrect disposal could adversely impact on environmental values of receiving waters.

8.1.1.3 Management

Sewage produced on site will continue to be disposed of through the municipal sewerage system.

8.1.1.4 Additional Mitigation required

Nil.

8.1.2 Wastewater

Wastewater from the brood stock tanks is produced and treated on site inside the RAS shed (Section 6.8). Treated wastewater produced on site will continue to be transferred by tanker to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme. No wastewater will be discharged directly to the receiving environment. The tenets of the existing wastewater management plan (Appendix F) will apply to the proposed wastewater reuse. The mass loads of nutrients will reduce significantly however with the reduction in wastewater volumes may not result in a comparable nutrient concentration reduction. Organic and physical loads and concentrations are expected to be significantly improved versus the current operation. This is based on the significant reduction in food input and the visual turbidity of the tank water compared to a similar salmon breeding tank. The latter reflects the wild living conditions of the two species: eels which burrow into muddy creek/dam bottoms whereas salmon prefer clean water. The land requirement for irrigation will drop from 1.3 ha in a 1 in 10 wet year.


Disposal of wastewater.


Incorrect disposal could adversely impact on environmental values of receiving waters, whether directly of as a result of irrigation of effluent.

8.1.2.3 Management

Once the proposed development has been commissioned on the reduced biomass and with salmonids, the wastewater quality will be audited from the RAS discharge, to the storage tanks to the Brighton Reuse Scheme storage dams.


48

The current Wastewater Reuse Management Plan will be updated commensurate with the audited wastewater quality.


Nil. There is an opportunity with the reduced quantity of wastewater and the anticipated improved quality to develop a trade waste agreement and discharged directly to the TasWater sewerage system. This will be investigated and evaluated once the salmon operation has been commissioned and the forecast improvement in wastewater quality has been achieved.

8.1.3 Stormwater

Stormwater from the roof of the RAS shed and from the paved carpark reports to the lawns and garden on site (Section 6.8.4).


Management and disposal of stormwater containing contaminants.


The stormwater generated on site will be separate from all potential contaminants because:

The brood stock tanks are inside the RAS shed which is fully enclosed

Stormwater generated will be mainly “clean” roof runoff plus some runoff from the driveway and the carpark. This may acquire some hydrocarbon contamination as vehicles use the driveway and carparks, but less so than nearby roads.

8.1.3.3 Management

Stormwater produced on site will continue to be diverted across the lawns and gardens on site which will act as sediment traps, reduce runoff and increase infiltration.


Ensure that the driveway and carpark areas are cleaned free of any oils or hydrocarbon residues after use. Set up routine inspection procedures.

8.2 Solid Waste Management

Organic wastes (sludges produced during wastewater treatment), will be produced, stored in sealed tanks and removed from site as required. This will be removed from site by an approved controlled waste transporter as required to an approved K100 compost facility. Culled fish and morts will be produced in limited quantities (Section 6.9). A small amount of general solid waste will be generated at the proposed facility from packaging materials and wastes from the staff amenities. These will be managed with standard council collection services with additional hard rubbish removal as required.


Disposal of solid wastes.


Incorrect management and disposal or organic wastes could generate odours through anaerobic microbial decomposition. Poor management and disposal of general wastes could produce litter or adversely impact waterways.


49

8.2.1.3 Management

Organic wastes associated with wastewater will be stored in sealed tanks (5 x 23,99 L) and removed from site every 14 days in sealed tankers. Morts will be collected daily from tanks, placed in wax-coated cardboard boxes and frozen; then disposed of at a K100 approved compost facility. Culled fish will be ensiled in and disposed of at a K100 approved compost facility. General wastes will be stored in dedicated containers and disposed of in accordance with SMC requirements.


A preliminary assessment of the current operation indicates that while the facilities have been constructed to a high standard, the operation of the RAS plant and especially the wastewater treatment plant could be optimised when being downsized for the smaller salmonid biomass. Once the new operation commences, the WWTP operation will be formally reviewed and procedures developed to reduce effluent holding times, reduce sludge storage times, and improve the separation of sludge and effluent. These plans will be presented for EPA approval prior to implementation. The potential discharge wastewater directly to TasWater sewers would eliminate the potential for odour complaints from sludge storage.

8.3 Noise Impact

The potential noise impacts from the proposed development have been considered in the context of the sensitivity of nearby noise-sensitive receptors and the potential for changes in noise levels due to site works and operational requirements.


Noise impact on nearby sensitive receptors.


Noise from the operation could potentially impact on the environmental values specified in the Environment Protection Policy (Noise). The change from an eel facility to a reduced capacity salmonid operation is not expected to change the potential noise impact because the same blowers and pumps will operate in the same location for the same hours each day.

8.3.1.2.1 Assessment

The current and therefore the potential future impact with the proposed operation is summarised by the overall sound pressure level data in Table 6 and the daily trend shown in Figure 26. The following is noted:

The effect of vehicles in the local area noted in Figure 27 by the car and motor bike captions.

The blower tone is identified by narrow band analysis at 2801 Hz, and is dominant near the blowers and identifiable in the community at location E only (Figure 28).

Trending the sound level of the blower tone and comparing it to the overall level, indicates the blower is the dominant noise at location E between 1930 to 0045 hrs (Figure 29). During this period it is tonal. Whilst outside this period the noise is not tonal due to the increased background noise.


50

Figure 26 Noise trend at Location E

Figure 27 One third octave sound spectra

Figure 28 Blower spectra narrow band


51

Figure 29 Location E: Blower noise compared to overall noise environment

8.3.1.3 Assessment

The facility at present operates to the conditions specified in Planning Permit No DA 2015/129: Noise emissions measured at the boundary of the site must not exceed the following:

55 dB(A) (LAeq) between the hours of 8.00 am to 6.00 pm;

5dB(A) above the background (LA90) level or 40dB(A) (LAeq), whichever is the lower, between the hours of 6.00 pm to 8.00 am;

65dB(A) (LAmax) at any time. Measurement of noise levels must be in accordance with the methods in the Tasmanian Noise Measurement Procedures Manual, issued by the Director of Environmental Management, including adjustment of noise levels for tonality and impulsiveness. Noise levels are to be averaged over a 15 minute time interval. From the measurements in Table 6, at night when the facility is not audible, the background noise is 36 dBA and as a result the night time criteria is 40 dB(A). The day time criteria becomes 55 dB(A). Assessment of noise emissions is summarised in Table 7 and shows that with no changes, the night time noise emissions are excessive due to the blower noise being tonal at location E.

Table 7 Noise assessment summary

Day Night

Nose Level 40–48 (not facility) 47# (facility–blower) 42 ( not facility)

Criteria 55 40

Current Meets emission limit Does not meet emission limit

Installation of enclosure Meets emission limit Meets emission limit # tonal penalty of 8 dB(A) included

8.3.1.3.1 Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009

The Environment Protection Policy (Noise) (EPP) is a strategic framework document which provides principles and objectives to form a basis for reducing health risks and unreasonable interference with human enjoyment of the environment by the emission of noise.

"The environmental values to be protected under the EPP are the qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to:


52

the wellbeing of the community or a part of the community, including its social and economic amenity; or

the wellbeing of an individual, including the individual’s – health; and – opportunity to work and study and to have sleep, relaxation and conversation without

unreasonable interference from noise. "

The Noise EPP infers that environmental values will be protected for the majority of the human population where the acoustic environment indicator levels are not exceeded and there are no individual sources of noise with dominant or intrusive characteristics. The acoustic environment indicator levels from the Noise EPP, reproduced in full in Table 8, provide a reference for considering the condition of the acoustic environment and the effectiveness of noise control measures and strategies. The acoustic environment indicator levels specified in Table 8 are values presented in Table 1 of the World Health Organization publication Guidelines for community noise (Berglund, Lindvall & Schwela, 1999). They are indicative, not mandatory noise levels (DPIPWE, 2009).

Table 8 Acoustic environment indicator levels

Specific environment Critical health effect(s) LAeq[dB(A)]

Time base

[hours] LAmaxfast

[dB]

Outdoor living area Serious annoyance, daytime and evening

55 16 —

Moderate annoyance, daytime and evening

50 16 —

Dwelling, indoors Speech intelligibility & moderate annoyance, daytime & evening

35 16 —

Inside bedrooms Sleep disturbance, night-time

30 8 45

Outside bedrooms Sleep disturbance, window open (outdoor values)

45 8 60

School class rooms & pre-schools, indoors

Speech intelligibility, disturbance of information extraction, message communication

35 during class

—

Pre-school bedrooms, indoor Sleep disturbance 30 sleeping- time

45

School, playground outdoor Annoyance (external source) 55 during play

—

Hospital, ward rooms, indoors Sleep disturbance, night-time

30 8 40

Sleep disturbance, daytime and evenings

30 16 —

Hospitals, treatment rooms, indoors

Interference with rest and recovery

(1)

Industrial, commercial, shopping and traffic areas, indoors and outdoors

Hearing impairment

70

24

110

Ceremonies, festivals and entertainment events

Hearing impairment (patrons:<5 times/year)

100 4 110

Public addresses, indoors and Hearing impairment 85 1 110


53

Specific environment Critical health effect(s) LAeq[dB(A)]

Time base

[hours] LAmaxfast

[dB]

outdoors

Music and other sounds through headphones/ earphones

Hearing impairment (free-field value)

85(2) 1

110

Impulse sounds from toys, fireworks and firearms

Hearing impairment (adults) — — 140(3)

Hearing impairment (children)

120(3)

Outdoors in parkland and conservation areas

Disruption of tranquillity (4)

Notes: (1) As low as possible. (2) Peak sound pressure (not LAF,max) measured 100 mm from the ear.

(3) Existing quiet outdoor areas should be preserved and the ratio of intruding noise to natural background sound should be kept low. (4) Note that for the purposes of this table, “time base” means the period of time for the equivalent continuous sound pressure level LAeq.

The acoustic environment indicator levels in Table 8 allow a 16-hour external LAeq of 50 dB(A) causing moderate annoyance, daytime and evening. As noted above the current emission limits at the property boundary are: night time criteria 40 dB(A);. day time criteria 55 dB(A). If the current permit limits are met then the EPP implies that environmental values are being maintained. As Table 8 indicates, sleep at night-time is unlikely to be disturbed with a 16-hour LAeq of 30 dB(A) inside

a bedroom. Table 7 indicates that with an enclosure constructed around the blower motors, the night time noise outside the nearest residence will be an L90 of 40dB(A). When this is assessed in conjunction with the background community noise (Table 6), the acoustic environment indicator levels in Table 8 will be met.

8.3.1.4 Management

If the tonality component of the noise is removed, noise emissions will meet the specified limits under the Planning Scheme (Table 7). As such it is recommended an enclosure should be placed around the De gas and Bio filter blowers. As the frequency is high (2500Hz), an enclosure such as shown in Figure 30 should be sufficient.


54

Figure 30 Blower enclosure conceptual


A follow up noise survey after the installation of the blower enclosures after the commencement of operations should be undertaken to validate the management predictions.

8.4 Transport

Due to the reduced production volumes with the proposed operation, there will be a reduction in vehicle movements associated with the facility. Vehicle movements are described in Section 6.10.


Fleets of trucks moving product have the capacity to disturb neighbouring residents due to noise and dust impacts, particularly when vehicle movements occur before 06.00 or after 18.00.


Traffic movements, noise and dust.

8.4.1.3 Management

Large vehicle movements will be restricted to between 07.00 and 18.00.


Nil. Evaluation of the potential to discharge treated wastewater directly to the TasWater sewer would reduce vehicle movements by 156 each year.

8.5 Air Emissions

The production of wastewater and organise wastes is described in Sections 6.8 and 6.9 respectively.

8.5.1.1 Environmental Aspects

The driveway and car park areas are sealed. The surrounding grounds are well grassed and the climate provides regular rainfall (Table 5). As a consequence, fugitive dust emissions are unlikely to create


55

adverse impacts. The production, storage and handling of wastewater and organic wastes could, if not well managed lead to odour issues off site.

Potential impact and likelihood of impact

The RAS building is air conditioned and fully enclosed. The proposed activity will result in salmonids swimming and growing in open tanks inside the RAS building. This will generate a “fishy odour” akin to large aquariums. Organic wastes, sludges from wastewater treatment and the wastewater itself can create odours if the organic matter decomposes anaerobically. The potential for odours to escape from the RAS building is governed by the quality of the wastewater and the building openings which could allow the emanation of odours from the building. These are:

A door on north western end opening to the north

Two roller doors and two doors on the eastern wall

One door on the southern wall opening from the laboratory These are marked on Figure 31 and the doors are shown in Figure 32. Potential odour sources external to the RAS building are the solids collection sump on the south-western end of the RAS building which holds solids / sludges before they flow in enclosed pipes to the sealed wastewater storage tanks to the south of the RAS building. The solids collection sump can be seen marked as a waste collection pit in Figure 32. For convenience, all of these potential odour sources are marked on Figure 33. This is a larger scale depiction illustrating the locations in relation to adjacent residential buildings. The boundary lines in Figure 33 show the extent of residential lot encroachment and the potential proximity of future residential houses. The 5 year wind rose for Melton Mowbray shows a predominantly northerly wind(Fig 10) with the topography of the site at Bagdad modifying this to a calmer and more NW direction(pers comm Wayne Finlayson). There are potentially 2 residential properties down wind through vegetation and across a creek. To date there have been no odour complaints received from these 2 properties. Mortalities will be stored in a 200 litre freezer inside the RAS shed until removal off site. Culled fish will be ensiled during a specific planned program and disposed of at a K100 approved compost facility.


56

Figure 31 RAS building layout cross sections


57

Figure 32 RAS building layout plan view


58

Figure 33 Location of odour sources


59

The existing operation generates a peak daily wastewater discharge of 8,000 litres. The proposed activity will generate a peak daily wastewater discharge of 1,375 litres. Feed inputs to the operation will reduce from the current level of 102,300 kg per annum to a maximum feed input to 18,250 kg per annum. The proposed development is a fixed volume production operation. The amount of organic waste produced is limited by and relates to the biomass of salmon and the requisite feed inputs. If the proposed development is approved the approval will be conditional on a biomass limit which will in turn limit the volume of organic waste produced. The food reduction will be from 2,804 kg/day to 50 kg/day which will result in a significant reduction in the volume of organics solids produced. The growth of brood stock is carried out inside an enclosed building and so is not dependant on favourable weather conditions. The storage and transfer of wastewater is carried out in sealed tanks and sealed tankers respectively and as consequence, should not be impacted by adverse weather. The risks associated with the emission of odours relate to system failures due to power loss or a breakdown in filtration or disinfection systems. Routine maintenance which has the filters off line for short periods of time (~two hours per fortnight) reduces the risk of long term outages. In this event, replacement parts are available within 48 hours. Emergency disinfection systems can be developed by using venturi bleed lines from the ozone tanks can also be readily set up. In the event of long term power outages, emergency power can be supplied through readily available portable generators. A spare blower will be kept in stock that can be swopped in immediately in the event of any blower failure. In the event of long term wastewater treatment issues, the plant can be emptied and the wastewater transferred by tanker to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme. Given that the existing operation has not generated any odour complaints since tightening wastewater management procedures in mid-2017; no odour complaints or offsite odour issues are expected with the proposed operation.

8.5.1.2 Management

Management prescriptions to be implemented include:

Ensure all doors to the RAS shed are fitted with self-closing devices to keep the closed other than when people are moving in and out.

Ensure all doors and are well sealed around the edges and that the seals are well maintained.

Ensure that the solids sump / trap is fitted with a well sealing lid which is kept in place other than for inspection or maintenance purposes.

Ensure that traps are cleaned out regularly so that floating scums do not anaerobically decompose.

Ensure that wastewater is regularly and routinely removed to for reuse.

In the event that culling is required, a small portable ensiling unit will be brought in for the cull and removed within 24 hours. Ensiled fish will be removed from site by an approved controlled waste transporter to an approved K100 compost facility within 24 hours of silage production.

Once the above procedures have been updated for the reduced biomass, and for salmon species and fully implemented, no adverse air emissions are anticipated.


Once the facility has been commissioned with salmonids at the proposed reduced biomass and feed inputs, the timeframes for routine cleaning, maintenance and emptying of wastewater tanks and traps will be reviewed and documented.


60

The potential discharge wastewater directly to TasWater sewers will be evaluated once the salmon brood stock operation has been commissioned. If implemented this would eliminate the potential for odour complaints from sludge storage.

8.6 Veterinary Health Plan and Biosecurity

A Veterinary Health Plan is required for all aquaculture operations. If HA acquires the lease of the site and operates the facility it will incorporate biosecurity as a component of its Veterinary Health Plan (VHP) for all of its operations. Once the lease acquisition is formalised and before operations commence, HA will as site operator update its company VHP to include this facility and obtain approval from DPIPWE's Biosecurity Tasmania.

8.7 Natural Values

The proposed development site has been used for industrial purposes since 2015. Remnant vegetation exists on the perimeter of the proposed development area. No clearing of vegetation is proposed. No impact on current surrounding flora and fauna should occur.


Adverse impact on fauna or flora.


Disturbance of breeding or foraging habitat especially with regard to threatened or vulnerable species.

8.7.1.3 Management

No clearing of vegetation is proposed. No impact on current surrounding flora and fauna should occur.


Nil.

8.8 Hazardous Substances

A number of potentially hazardous substances will be utilised within daily site operations for cleaning, disinfection and wastewater treatment. The chemicals are listed in Table 9 below. Quantities will be minimal. Minor storages of hydrocarbons such as and oils and greases will be brought onto site when maintenance of fixed plant and equipment is required and removed afterwards.

Table 9 Dangerous goods register

Product Use Product Use

Acid solution HI 3811-0 Alkalinity test kit Chloride reagent salt

Alkali solution Water soluble base Chloride salt

Ammonia 23% Anhydrous ammonia Chloride test method Measure chloride

Amm. cyan reagent Measuring ammonia Citro Clean Cleaner

Ammonia no 1 Anhydrous ammonia Citrus 6000 Cleaner

Ascorbic Acid Reducing agent Decon 90 Cleaning agent

Bromothymol blue pH indicator Liquid oxygen Oxygen

Buffer pH 7 Buffer Nitrite test method Measuring nitrite

Buffer pH 4 Buffer Nitrite test strips Measuring nitrite

Buffer pH 6.88 Buffer Over Prim Roe inducer

Buffer colour code Buffer Phenol red Indicator


61

Buffodine Disinfectant Sodium bicarbonate Sodium bicarbonate

Calcium chloride Ionic salt Virkon R Disinfectant Expected list of dangerous goods to be stored on site

These chemicals are to be stored in a dedicated area in the RAS shed. This area will be bunded and managed according to the National Standard and National Code for Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals. The management of corrosive substances will comply with AS 3780–20085 Storage and handling of corrosive substances (safe handling) legislation. The proposed facility will be classed as a minor facility due to the small quantities of limited dangerous substances on site. The environmental and safety requirements for storage and handling for minor facilities are outlined in the National Code of Practice for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods [NOHSC:2017(2001). Hazardous substances on the site will be managed in accordance with the specifications as outlined in the National Code NOHSC:2017(2001).


Adverse impact on receiving waters.


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

8.8.1.3 Management

The following will be undertaken to mitigate effects from dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials: Spill kits will be made available when maintenance is being undertaken. Reagents associated with the RAS system will be stored in a secure bunded area in accordance with

the National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods (NOHSC 2001). Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) will be held for all chemicals used on site. MSDSs will be made

available to staff as required. Staff will be trained in the appropriate operation of the plant including use of reagents, and

appropriate safety information will be made available in worker and visitor site inductions. Where hazardous materials are required within the facilities operations, they will be stored in a chemical storage room that is bunded and managed according to National Standard and National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods.


Nil.

8.9 Heritage

There are no known or registered Aboriginal heritage or historic heritage sites on the property. Because the proposal does not involve any change to the existing land use or any clearing or excavation, the potential for impact on heritage values is negligible.


Because the proposal does not involve any change to the existing land use or any clearing or excavation, the potential for impact on heritage values is negligible.


Adverse impact to heritage values.


62

8.9.1.3 Management

The site operator will comply with the requirements of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. If any major disturbance of previously undisturbed land around the project footprint is planned, appropriate surveys will be commissioned and application made for appropriate permission prior to disturbance. In the first instance, an assessment will be carried out to determine whether disturbance can be avoided. Should Aboriginal relics be discovered during construction or operations, they will be left undisturbed and reported to the Director, Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, and to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council. Under no circumstances will Aboriginal or European artefacts be removed, destroyed or interfered with by the site operator’s employees, contractors or subcontractors. An Unanticipated Discover Plan will be incorporated into site management requirements.

8.10 Off Site Impacts

The location of the existing and proposed activity is described in Section 6.1 and shown in Figure 6 and Figure 34. The nearest school is located to the immediately south of Bagdad approximately 2.8 km south of the proposed activity. The nearest hospital or medical centre is located in Hobart 32 km south.

8.11 Contaminated Land

Section 7.11 notes that apart from the current activity, the only known use of the land has been for residential purposes.


Nil.


Not applicable.

8.11.1.3 Management

The management prescriptions specified in Section 8.8.1.3 are designed to prevent contamination of soils or water from the proposed activity and also apply here.


Nil.

8.12 Sites of High Public Interest

The proposed activity is located in an existing industrial operation (see Section 6.1 and Figure 6). The proposed development is not within or adjacent to a site of high public interest. Figure 34 below shows the existing and proposed operation in relation to existing reserves:

A public reserve under the Crown Lands Act along the western bank of Bagdad Rivulet.

Public space under the Local Government Act in the neighbouring residential development to the immediate west.

The amenity of each of these areas has not been compromised by the existing activity. The proposed activity is similarly not likely to adversely impact on the use of the reserves.


63

Figure 34 Reserves and public spaces


64

9 Stakeholder Consultation

No consultation has occured other than informal discussions with neighbouring residents and formal discussions with SMC officers and EPA staff.

10 Monitoring

Soil, groundwater and surface water at the receiving wastewater irrigation properties are monitored by TasWater for the Brighton Reuse Scheme as described in the Brighton Scheme DPEMP. The proponent does not propose direct emissions to ground or surface waters as a result of the proposed activity, the need for a detailed monitoring program, other than internal monitoring for product and quality control is limited. The following monitoring is proposed:

Water quality parameters of each batch trucked to the Brighton Reuse Scheme to measure EC, PH, SS, TAN, TN, Nitrate/Nitrite, TP, BOD and Thermotolerant coliforms.

Noise monitoring at boundary and at relevant sensitive receptor after formal noise complaint received.

Noise monitoring at boundary after major plant upgrade where any major noise emitting plant is replaced, including any pumps, or blowers located outside the RAS Building or after significant traffic changes such as the frequency or type of tankers used for removal of wastewater.

For quality control purposes an annual audit of wastewater irrigation operations will be conducted by TEE. This audit will examine the following:

Compliance with wastewater supply agreement and wastewater reuse environmental management plan.

Effluent volumes supplied for irrigation

Irrigation water volumes applied

Crop types to which TEE recycled waters are applied

Water quality data for recycled water supplied by TEE.

11 Rehabilitation

As the underlying tenure is freehold and the underlying zone is Village, the proponent proposes to return the land to a state compatible with these uses after the proposed activity ceases. The rehabilitation will also be aimed at the prevention of environmental harm from the site. This rehabilitation and closure plan has been developed in accordance with the following objectives:

to protect the environment, public health and safety by using safe and responsible closure practices

to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts as part of closure

to establish conditions which are consistent with the surrounding area and the pre-existing tenure and zone

to reduce the need for long-term monitoring and maintenance by establishing effective physical and chemical stability of disturbed areas. Rehabilitation and closure works proposed:

preventing the introduction of noxious weeds and pests by undertaking a wed survey and implementing weed control if applicable

reshaping disturbed land so that it is stable, adequately drained and suitable for the desired long-term land use

minimising any long-term visual impacts

meeting all statutory requirements

making the area safe

removing all plant, machinery, structures, facilities and equipment from the RAS building u

providing environmentally sound waste disposal at the site for all residual cleaning and testing products. It is envisaged that once the RAS building is free from plant and equipment associated with the proposed activity. It will be repurposed for storage or associated with residential uses subject to planning permission.

12 State Approvals

If HA acquires the lease of the site and operates the facility it will operate under the standards of:

The site environmental licence issued by Tasmanian EPA. This will necessitate the environmental licence being successfully transferred under Section 42W of the EMPCA.

Inland Fisheries Service, Fish Farm Management Plan (FFMP).

Biosecurity Tasmania – Biosecurity Management Standards

RSPCA – Aquaculture standards

TSGA – Aquaculture standards

An approved Veterinary Health Plan.

13 Conclusions

TEE are proposing to reconfigure an existing Recirculating Aquaculture Facility (RAS) inside an enclosed building and use the tanks and wastewater treatment system therein as a salmonid brood stock facility. HA has a commercial agreement with Tasmanian Eel Exporters Pty Ltd (TEE) to lease the facility once approved. HA have agreed to a three-year lease of the site, after which the site would either return to its former use or continue to be leased as a salmonid brood stock facility. The proposed development uses an existing facility which would otherwise be mothballed or closed. The proposed wastewater treatment and reuse that is envisaged with this proposed development includes a range of measures to minimise water usage and waste generation. Water from the facility is currently sourced and will continue to be sourced from TasWater’s mains supply. This will recirculate through the grow–tanks and after use will be transferred to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme offsite irrigation as currently occurs. Wastewater will be reduced from a current maximum discharge of 8,000 Litres per day to a planned 5,000 Litres per day at maximum discharge. Wastewater will not be discharged directly to surface waters. As a result, no adverse impact on surface waters is predicted. Sewage will be discharged to TasWater’s reticulated sewerage system via existing connections. Treated wastewater produced on site will continue to be transferred by tanker to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme. No wastewater will be discharged directly to the receiving environment. The tenets of the existing wastewater management plan will apply to the proposed wastewater reuse. The mass loads of nutrients will reduce significantly however with the reduction in wastewater volumes may not result in a comparable nutrient concentration reduction. Organic and physical loads and concentrations are expected to be significantly improved on the current operation. This is based on the significant reduction in


65

food input and the visual turbidity of the tank water compared to a similar salmonid breeding tank. The latter reflects the wild living conditions of the two species: eels which burrow into muddy creek/dam bottoms whereas salmon prefer clean water. A preliminary assessment of the current operation indicates that while the facilities have been constructed to a high standard, the operation of the RAS plant and especially the wastewater treatment plant could be optimised when being downsized for a lower biomass salmon brood stock facility. The existing operation generates a peak daily wastewater discharge of 8,000 litres. The proposed activity will generate a peak daily wastewater discharge of 1,375 litres. Feed inputs to the operation will reduce from the current level of 102,300 kg per annum to a maximum feed input to 18,250 kg. This is a reduction from 2,804 kg/day to 50 kg/day which will result in a significant reduction in the volume of organics solids produced. Given that the existing operation has not generated any odour complaints since tightening wastewater management procedures in mid-2017; no odour complaints or off site odour issues are expected with the proposed operation. Once the new operation commences operation, the WWTP operation will be formally reviewed and procedures developed to reduce effluent holding times, reduce sludge storage times, and improve the separation of sludge and effluent. These plans will be presented for EPA approval prior to implementation. The potential discharge of wastewater directly to TasWater sewers would eliminate the potential for odour complaints from sludge storage.

14 Commitments

No. Proposed measure Timeframe

1 Sewage produced on site will be disposed of through the municipal sewerage system.

During operations

2 No wastewater will be discharged directly to the receiving environment. During operations

3 Storm water will be kept separate from potentially contaminated areas. During operations

4 The driveway and car park areas will be inspected at least weekly and cleaned free of any oils or hydrocarbon residues using oil absorption pads if necessary.

Weekly during operations

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

During operations

6 The WWTP operation will be formally reviewed and procedures developed to reduce effluent holding times, reduce sludge storage times, and improve the separation of sludge and effluent.

Within two months of the commencement of operations

7 Once the proposed development has been commissioned on the reduced biomass and with salmon, the wastewater quality will be audited from the RAS discharge, to the storage tanks to the Brighton Water Reuse Scheme storage dams.

Within two months of the commencement of operations

8 The current Wastewater Reuse Management Plan will be updated commensurate with the audited wastewater quality and submitted to the EPA.

Within three months of the commencement of operations

9 Revised WWTP operational plans will be documented and presented for EPA approval prior to implementation.

Within three months of the commencement of operations

10 The potential to discharge wastewater directly to TasWater sewers will be evaluated

Within two months of the salmon brood stock operation being fully commissioned

11

Enclosures will be placed around the De gas and Bio filter blowers. Before the commencement of operations.

12 A follow up noise survey will be undertaken after the installation of the blower enclosures after the commencement of operations to validate the management predictions.

Within 30 days of commencement of operations.


66

15 References

ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2002. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC & ARMCANZ), Canberra. Berglund B, Lindvall T & Schwela DH, 1999. World Health Organization publication, Guidelines for community noise. Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. Matters of national environmental significance. Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 1997. State policy on water quality management 1997 (Water quality policy). Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 2002. Environmental guidelines for the use of recycled water in Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), 2003. Water Quality of Rivers in the Jordan Catchment. A Report Forming Part of the Requirements for State of Rivers Reporting Part 3 Dec 2003. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 2004. Noise measurement procedures manual, as amended in 2008. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), 2013. Natural values atlas report, accessed 28 August 2018: Mack, D., T. Huntington, C. Curr and J. Joensen, 2004. 'Evaluation of Fish Waste Management Techniques'. Report to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency SEPA. North, A.J., 1999. Jordan River Catchment: Assessment of biological conservation values and identification of management priorities. Consultancy Report, A.J. North and Associates, Hobart. Southern Midland Council, 2015. Interim planning scheme 2015. Tasmanian Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts,2009. Environment Protection Policy (Noise) Tasmanian Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, 2008. Noise measurement procedures manual.


67

Fig 7 on A3

for the conversion of an operating eel aquaculture ... eel... · the environment protection and...

Documents