EAR Template 2BC - epa.tas.gov.au

Environmental Assessment Report Gadtech Materials – Quarry Expansion, Dromedary

I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Quarry Expansion

720 Boyer Road, Dromedary

Gadtech Materials Pty Ltd Board of the Environment Protection Authority

March 2017


II

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Gadtech Materials Pty Ltd

Proposal Quarry Expansion

Location 720 Boyer Road, Dromedary

NELMS no. PCE No. 9570

Permit application no.

DA 2016/00156 (Brighton Council)

Doc1 folder EN-EM-EV-DE-249586

Doc1 no. H621643

Class of Assessment

2B

Assessment process milestones

17 August 2016 Permit application submitted to Council

12 September 2016 Referral received by Board

19 September 2016 DPEMP Guidelines issued

17 December 2016 Start of public consultation period

23 January 2017 End of public consultation period

20 February 2017 Supplementary information submitted to Board


III

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DPEMP Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EMPCS Environmental management and pollution control system

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

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

NC Act Nature Conservation Act 2002

QCoP Quarry Code of Practice (DPIWE, 1999)

RMPS Resource management and planning system

SD Sustainable development

TSP Act Threatened Species Protection Act 1999


IV

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of Gadtech Material Pty Ltd’s proposed quarry expansion at 720 Boyer Road, Dromedary. The proposal involves an increase in production of a current level 2 quarry (regulated as a section 5(a) under Schedule 2 of the EMPC Act), from 5,000 cubic metres per annum to 20,000 cubic metres per annum and the addition of materials handling by crushing and screening of up to 20,000 cubic metres per annum. Extraction will now include blasting of up to 2 events per year. This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) and Additional Information in the form of a Supplement to the DPEMP. Relevant government agencies and the public have been consulted and their submissions and comments considered as part of this assessment. On 17 February 2017, the Acting Section Head, under delegation, requested that the proponent submit additional information to address public, government agency (including DPIPWE) and Council comments on the DPEMP and to meet other information requirements. Satisfactory additional information was submitted by the proponent on 20 February 2017. Further details of the assessment process are presented in section 1 of this report. Section 2 describes the statutory objectives and principles underpinning the assessment. Details of the proposal are provided in section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the proposal, site and design alternatives. Section 5 summarises the public and agency consultation process and the key issues raised in that process. The detailed evaluation of key issues is in section 6, and other issues are evaluated in section 7 and Appendix 1. The report conclusions are contained in section 8. Appendix 2 contains details of comments made and issues raised in the consultation process. Appendix 3 contains environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the DPEMP. The environmental permit conditions in Appendix 3 are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing permit conditions.


V

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

6 Evaluation of key issues ........................................................................... 9

6.1 Noise and Vibration .......................................................................................................... 9 6.2 Biodiversity and Natural Values ...................................................................................... 17

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

8 Other Issues ........................................................................................... 21

9 Report conclusions ................................................................................. 22

10 References .......................................................................................... 23

11 Appendices ......................................................................................... 23

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues .............................................................................. 24 Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions .................................................... 33 Appendix 3 Permit Conditions – Environmental No. 9570 .................................................... 42


1

1 Approvals process

An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Brighton Council on 17 August 2016. The proposal is defined as two ‘level 2 activities’ under clauses 5(a) and 6(a)(ii), Schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being a quarry extracting rock and gravel and producing 5000 cubic metres or more per year and crushing, grinding or milling rock, ores or minerals at a rate in excess of 1000 cubic metres per year. Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 12 September 2016. The Board required that information to support the proposal be provided in the form of a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) prepared in accordance with guidelines issued by the Board on 19 September 2016. Several drafts of the DPEMP were submitted to the EPA for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance on behalf of the Board. The DPEMP was released for public inspection for a 28-day period commencing on 17 December 2016, and extended accordingly to comply with relevant day exclusions pursuant to s27K of the EMPC Act and LUPA Act 57(5AA). Advertisements were placed in The Mercury and on the EPA website. The DPEMP was also referred at that time to relevant government agencies for comment. Sixteen (16) public submissions, including a petition of 45 persons, were received. On 17 February 2017, the Acting Section Head, under delegation, requested that the proponent submit additional information to address public, government agency (including DPIPWE) and Council comments on the DPEMP and to meet other information requirements. Satisfactory additional information was submitted by the proponent on 20 February 2017.

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

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

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


2

3 The proposal

The proposal will expand a current level 2 quarry located in the Brighton Municipality. The application relates to mining lease 1999 P/M and the access road as defined in the DPEMP.

According to the DPEMP, the expanded quarrying operation will include the following activities:

surface site preparation by tree‐felling and stockpiling;

soil removal and stockpiling;

excavation and ripping of rock and gravel material;

rock drilling and blasting by licensed contractor and rock removal by excavator;

crushing of some rock material to reduce material size;

stockpiling of material (processed and unprocessed) in quarry area;

loading trucks with wheel loader from stockpile area in quarry; and the

transport of materials by truck with/without trailer.

Extraction areas are to be prepared by removing and stockpiling the topsoil away from the working quarry. Rock will be liberated by ripping and blasting. 1 to 2 blasts are proposed per annum. The blast fragmented rock will be removed using an excavator and loaded into a crusher with attached screen. Material won by ripping will be screened only. The crushed and screened rock and gravel material will be stockpiled and loaded, as required, into trucks using a front loader.

The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Part B of the DPEMP. Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics

Activity

Extraction, including blasting, and materials handling in the form of crushing and screening of a maximum of 20,000 cubic metres of rock and gravel per annum.

Location and planning context

Location 720 Boyer Road, Dromedary (Certificate of Title 134041/1) as shown in Figure 1.

Land zoning Rural Resource

Land tenure Private freehold

Mining lease 1999 P/M

Lease area 9 hectares

Bond Currently $7,500. MRT have advised that a bond of $10,000 will apply on transfer of lease.

Existing site

Land Use The quarry has operated since 1999. The remainder of the certificate of title is used for sheep grazing.

Topography The quarry is located along the eastern face of a valley adjacent to a tributary of Dromedary Creek.

Geology Jurassic dolerite

Soils Clay‐loam


3

Hydrology The catchment of the quarry drains into Dromedary Creek which is fed by several

un‐named tributaries. Dromedary Creek reports to the Derwent River.

Fauna The ecological survey found potential habitat for seven threatened fauna species of conservation significance:

Spotted‐tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) – medium to low quality foraging and denning habitat;

Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) – medium to high quality foraging and denning habitat;

Eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii gunnii) – high quality foraging and nesting habitat;

Eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus) – high quality foraging and denning habitat;

Tasmanian wedge‐tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) – medium quality foraging habitat only;

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) – medium quality foraging habitat only;

White‐bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) – medium quality foraging habitat only; and

Masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae castanops) – moderate to high quality foraging habitat only.

Flora Ecological survey identified four native forest communities and one non‐forest native communities (Figure D-6 of the DPEMP). Two native vegetation communities listed on Schedule 3A (Threatened native vegetation communities) of the Nature Conservation Act 2002 occur on the Land:

Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL); and

Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest and woodland on sediments (DTI).

One plant species listed as rare on the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 was

observed within the Land ‐ Yellow riceflower (Pimelea flava ssp. flava).

Three plant species listed as a Declared Weed on the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 or as a Weed of National Significance on the Commonwealth

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were recorded ‐

blackberry (Rubus fruticosus);

Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense); and

slender thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus).

Local region

Climate Dromedary has a typically warm summer and cold winter climate pattern. Rainfall peaks in winter and spring (June to October) and annual average rainfall is about 700mm (Mt Dromedary).

Winds are from the west, and to a lesser degree the north‐west (wind roses – New

Norfolk). Winds during summer are typically strong from the north‐west and with

weak south to south‐easterly winds associated with sea breezes.

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

Environmental Living and Rural Living surrounding the quarry, mostly private freehold. Land is used for residential and some agricultural/farming and forestry plantations.


4

Species of conservation significance

Yellow riceflower (Pimelea flava ssp. flava) was identified within the survey area.

Other species recorded in the region include the spreading knawel (Scleranthus fasciculatus), curly sedge (Carex tasmanica) and matted pentachondra (Pentachondra ericifolia). No individuals of these species were identified during the survey for the DPEMP.

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment

The equipment used at the quarry is as follows:

Excavator: 2014 Doosan DX225LC

Crusher: 2006 Metso LT1110

Loader: 2009 Doosan DL250

Dozer: 2003 Komatsu D87E‐2

Drill Rig: As per contractor

Other infrastructure

Upgrades to the access road for stormwater management and sealing to reduce noise and dust impacts

Inputs

Water Sediment pond or supplementary water cart truck.

Energy None

Other raw materials

Fuel and oil for refuelling as required. Chemicals for weed management. Explosives for blasting.

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Stormwater runoff from extraction and stockpile areas.

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

Solid General refuse including food scraps, paper and packaging.

General inert wastes such as metal waste to be collected periodically.

Controlled wastes

Waste engine oil; contaminated soil.

Portable chemical toilet to be used during high operational periods.

Noise From ripping and blasting, crushing and screening equipment, excavator and loader on site, and vehicles on site and going to and from the site.

Greenhouse gases

Increase of emissions from additional use of equipment and the introduction of crusher and screen.

Operations

Proposal timetable

Commencement on issuing of a valid permit.

Predicted life span of 20-25 years subject to the rate of extraction.

Operating hours (ongoing)

Operating: 0700 to 1900 hours, Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1600 hours Saturday

Blasting: 1000 to 1600 hours, Monday to Friday

Crushing: 0800 to 1700 hours, Monday to Friday

Haulage: 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1600 hours Saturday

Other key characteristics

Blasting events are proposed 1-2 times per year


5

Figure 1: Proposed location, shown as ‘Mining Lease’ (Figure A-1 of the DPEMP)


6

Figure 2: Quarry Layout at year 5 (Area 1) and maximum extent, including Area 3 (Figure B-1 of the DPEMP).


7

4 Need for proposal and alternatives

According to section A.5 of the DPEMP, the products from the quarry will continue to supply a part of the local market for gravel and rock products for construction related works including, but not limited to, road base for private property road works, driveway gravel, fill for concrete slab construction and public road works. No alternatives were described or considered in the application. The Supplement to the DPEMP identified that off‐site processing was considered in the initial stages of developing the project however it was ‘found to add considerable and unjustifiable cost to the activity and the product generally’. As the noise assessment indicated no conflict with current land uses the proponent did not consider alternatives further.

5 Public and agency consultation

A summary of the public representations and government agency/body submissions is contained in Appendix 1 of this report. 16 representations, including a petition of 45 persons, were received. Brighton Council has advised that all persons listed in the petition have an appeal right under the LUPA Act. The main issues raised in the representations are listed below and are separated into matters considered in this report and matters which are outside the Board’s responsibilities. Environmental matters considered by the Board:

Impacts to listed species, including wedge tailed eagles and white bellied sea eagles

Noise from quarry operations including crushing, blasting and traffic movements

Dust impacts through air and contamination of water sources

Health impacts associated with noise and dust

Impacts to water quality through sedimentation in Dromedary Creek

Proposal does not meet objectives of the EMPC Act

Other matters:

Non-compliance with current permit conditions

Traffic safety

Restrictions on future use and development

Property devaluation

Impacts to residential amenity

Restrictions on assessing under planning scheme that should be considered by the Board

Possibility of future expansion

Proposal not consistent with the planning scheme

Not a valid application

Increased bush fire risk

Visual amenity impacts

Landslide risk issues

Impacts to Aboriginal heritage


8

Consultation concerns

The DPEMP was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

Mineral Resources Tasmania (Department of State Growth);

Brighton Council.

The following Divisions/areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment also provided submissions on the DPEMP:

Regulator, Extractive Unit, Industrial Operations Branch, EPA Tasmania

Noise Specialist, EPA Tasmania;

Air Specialist, EPA Tasmania;

Water Specialist, EPA Tasmania;

Policy and Conservation Advice Branch, Natural and Cultural Heritage Division.

Further comment was sought from the Environmental Health Services section of the Department of Health and Human Services in relation to health concerns associated with noise and dust raised in representations. The Additional Information prepared by the proponent provided a response to information required by the Board to consider the environmental issues raised by the public and government agencies/bodies. According to the ‘Foreword’ of the DPEMP, the proponent has also undertaken its own public consultation process involving the issuing of more than 45 letters to residents/landowners in the Dromedary area of the proposed quarry expansion in January 2016. They have also engaged directly with the owners of houses and vacant land along Boyer Road.


9

6 Evaluation of key issues

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

Noise and Vibration

Biodiversity and Natural Values

Each of these issues are discussed in the following subsections.

6.1 Noise and Vibration

Description

Noise from quarry operations including extraction by ripping and blasting, crushing and screening and the movement of heavy vehicles has the potential to cause environmental nuisance, particularly to nearby residences. Vibrations from blasting have the potential to cause structural damage if not appropriately managed. The quarry is located in an area which allows for residential development. The zoning surrounding the quarry mining lease and access road is either Environmental Living or Rural Living. There is one residential dwelling within 1 km of the maximum quarry extent (see Figure 3 below). This dwelling (site 3) is located on Church Road (a road to the east of the quarry access road) and was considered in the DPEMP to be shielded from the quarry activity by topographic relief. The noise assessment focused on potential impacts to the residence at site 10 in Figure 3 below. This house is located just over 1 km from the southern maximum extent of the quarry and is approximately 150 metres from the access road, which according to the DPEMP is also attenuated by topography. The DPEMP identifies the major noise sources from the expanded activity as:

drill rig and associated blasting operations;

more frequent ripping;

crushing and screening; and

more frequent on‐site use of ancillary equipment; excavators, loader and truck movements.

The QCoP recommends ‘With the exception of blasting where permitted, noise from activities in a quarry affecting residential premises, must not exceed 10 dB(A) above the normal ambient noise levels during daytime operations’. The noise study undertaken for the DPEMP took noise measurements at the boundary of site 10, at a distance of 1,266 metres from the proposed crusher location. The ambient noise levels were found to be 41.5 dB(A). The noise level of quarry operations measured when crushing was not occurring was Leq A = 44.7 dB(A). When crushing the noise level at site 10 was Leq A = 45.3. The noise study notes that quarry tests included crusher, screen and excavator operating at the time of noise data collection.


10

Figure 3: Residences surrounding the quarry and access road (Figure D-3A)

The noise study estimated drill rig noise levels at the house located at site 10 to be 52.2 dB(A), based on known sound pressure levels for a drill rig. This value did not take into consideration ‘excess noise attenuation due to the ground, the ground cover, the atmospheric absorption and natural noise barriers due to topography’. It was also expected that the absence of a direct line of sight to the drill would reduce the sound power level by at least 5 dB. The study concluded that noise impact at the residence from the drill rig was unlikely. The QCoP states “Blasting must be carried out such that, when measured at the cartilage of the nearest residence (or sensitive use) in other occupation or ownership, air blast and ground vibration comply with the following:

a) for 95 % of the blasts, air blast overpressure must not exceed 115 dB(Lin, peak); b) air blast overpressure must not exceed 120 dB(Lin, peak)at all and


11

c) ground vibration must not exceed 5 mm/s peak particle velocity”. Potential impacts from blasting were also assessed in relation to the quarry expansion. Airblast overpressure was calculated to be 104.8 dB(Lin, peak) and the ground vibration was calculated to be 0.44 mm/s at a distance of 1,388 metres, at the house at site 10. These results complied with the QCoP and the report therefore concluded that noise and vibration impacts from blasting were unlikely. The access road for the quarry (as shown in Figure B‐3 of the DPEMP) enters on the land owner’s farm property from Boyer Road. The junction is shared with two current residences. Three current and one proposed residence (application with Council) are located in the vicinity of the junction as shown in Figure 3 above. The DPEMP highlights that most material will be extracted on a demand or campaign basis and consequently the number and frequency of truck movements to and from the quarry with be concentrated in short periods. The quarry will also maintain a constant lower production to cater for smaller operations such as minor road maintenance. According to the DPEMP, between 2 and 3 truck movements per hour are predicted to occur during campaigns. The noise study included the collection of noise data from the passing of trucks at 30 metres from the access road. It calculated that at site 10, the nearest residence to the quarry, the noise level from 4 truck movements would be Leq = 29.4 dB(A). This was compared to the estimated noise level from the movement of trucks along Boyer Road and it was determined that noise levels from the proposed quarry truck movements would be unlikely to constitute a noise nuisance. The DPEMP states that the houses south of Boyer Road have not been assessed in detail by this application as they occur on the main road and have major pre‐existing noise impacts from this road. The proponent was made aware of a proposed subdivision at 757 Boyer Rd (see Figure E-4 of the DPEMP) during the assessment period, providing the opportunity to address potential noise concerns. The proponent amended the DPEMP to include a qualitative assessment of potential noise impacts on the proposed subdivision (which has since been approved by Council). It identified that the Land is 1,035 m to the northern extent of the closest area of Building Envelope 2. This building envelope is further away from the location of rock extraction and crushing. As the noise study found noise levels of houses closer to this location to be acceptable for both the quarry operations and truck movements it was considered that the quarry was unlikely to have an impact on the proposed subdivision and current known building envelopes. The DPEMP noted that any future residence would require assessment and approval by the Planning Authority.

Management measures

Commitment 7: Machinery will be well maintained to minimise the risk of generating excessive noise emissions. Commitment 8: Operating hours will be those in Table 1 as detailed below:

Operating hours Blasting Crushing Haulage

0700 to 1900 hrs Monday to Friday; 0800 to 1600 hrs on Saturday; and Closed on Sunday and public holidays (those gazetted Statewide)

1000 and 1600 hrs Monday to Friday only.

0800 to 1700 hrs Monday to Friday only.

0700 to 1900 hrs Monday to Friday; and 0800 to 1600 hrs on Saturday.


12

Commitment 9: Recycled asphalt product will be used to provide a firm seal to [a portion of] the existing gravel surface as shown in Figure E‐2. The DPEMP also states that the drilling and blasting operations will be undertaken in accordance with a Blast Management Plan which will ensure the following tasks are undertaken:

drilling is carried out as specified by a blast contractor;

noise and vibration standards are met and reduced where possible (both drilling and blasting activities);

all close neighbours are notified at least 24 hours in advance of blasting activities;

blasting activities are safe and meet all workplace health and safety requirements; and

blasting is adequate for rock fragmentation for extraction by excavator and crushing.

The DPEMP also states that any misfires or delayed firings will be reported to the EPA Director and surrounding relevant landowners.

Section E.4.6 of the DPEMP states ‘the slow movement of the vehicles entering and leaving the access road when reconstructed will also minimise any undesirable noise emissions’.

Public and agency comment and responses

Four representations queried why alternatives to crushing and blasting on-site had not been considered or sufficiently addressed. The proponent was requested to discuss this matter in the Supplement to the DPEMP. The proponent response states that off‐site processing was considered in the initial stages of developing the project, however it was ‘found to add considerable and unjustifiable cost to the activity and the product generally’. As the noise assessment indicated no conflict with current land uses, alternatives were not considered further. The majority of representations raised concerns in relation to the potential impacts of noise from quarry operations and blasting on surrounding residences and businesses. A number considered that the noise assessment was not sufficient to consider the potential impacts. One representation raised concerns that the noise may impact on the health of a child with sensory processing issues and Autism in the surrounding area. This representation and the DPEMP were forwarded to the Department of Health and Human Services for comment. They considered that:

All of the issues relating to health raised in the representations are addressed by relevant codes and standards applied by the EPA through the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. Compliance with those standards will generally mitigate any potential public health impacts.

DHHS also noted that the limited number of blasting events and notification of residents were appropriate mitigation measures. Comments from Brighton Council identified two applications for residences in the vicinity of the proposed quarry expansion. Details of these applications were provided to the proponent to allow them to address potential impacts from the application on these potential sensitive receptors. The Supplement to the DPEMP indicates that the applicant for the residence adjacent to the entrance to the quarry, at 710 Boyer Road was aware of the proposed expansion at the time of purchase of the property and has submitted a representation in favour of the application. The proponent considers that the upgrade to the quarry entrance and sealing of a portion of the access road will mitigate noise and dust issues at this location.


13

In relation to the application for a residence at 757 Boyer Road, Dromedary, which is located 615 metres to the south west of the quarry, the proponent has provided additional noise assessment information. Council also raised concerns in relation to the form of notification. The proponent confirmed that notification of residents within 1 km of the quarry would be in person with a note or letter left at the front door or in letter box in the event that the residents were not at home. EPA Tasmania’s Noise Specialist reviewed the DPEMP, Supplement to the DPEMP and representations and recommended that a noise limit of 45 dB(A) at any noise sensitive use should be applied to the activity. They considered that this limit could be achieved at the proposed house at 615 metres, as long as appropriate attenuation is provided for both the crusher and drill rig. Compliance with this limit is expected to be achieved at all known existing residences. They also noted that there are no outstanding issues for ground vibration and airblast overpressure and it is expected that both can comply with normal limits of 5mm/sec and 115 dB(lin) at the proposed house at 615 metres and at all known existing houses.

Evaluation

Three permit applications were received by Brighton Council during the environmental assessment, as follows:

Subdivision, 757 Boyer Road, Dromedary (CT 167426/1)

Residence, 710 Boyer Road, Dromedary (CT 133972/1)

Residence, 757 Boyer Road, Dromedary (CT 172558/1).

The subdivision application at 757 Boyer Road was considered in the context of the approved building footprints. These building footprints and the residential application at 710 Boyer Road are at locations where it has been sufficiently demonstrated that noise from the activity is unlikely to cause environmental nuisance. They are not considered further in this assessment. The application for the residence at 757 Boyer Road, Dromedary is considered further based on its location and the potential for an application to be granted by the Planning Authority.

The proponent has applied for operating hours (excluding crushing and blasting) consistent with the QCoP. These hours are considered appropriate for managing the operation and its potential impacts on the surrounding environment and are defined under condition N1.

Crushing and screening hours will be restricted under conditions N2 to minimise potential noise nuisance from these activities, consistent with the hours proposed in Table 1 of the DPEMP.

A number of representations raised concerns that the noise assessment was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines for the application or that the assessment was not sufficient to consider potential impacts. The proponent argued that noise modelling and the preparation of contours as detailed in the guidelines would impose a significant financial burden that was unnecessary to demonstrate noise impacts from the proposal.

As an alternative approach, the DPEMP provided predictions of noise levels at specific locations only, based on data collected during operation of current and some proposed equipment. EPA Tasmania’s noise specialist considered the information sufficient to determine the potential for noise nuisance on the nearest sensitive receptors in the context of the existing environment and current land use.

The location of the residence at 757 Boyer Road is 615 metres to the south west of the quarry, making it the closest sensitive receptor, should a permit take effect. Additional noise assessment results provided by the proponent indicate that noise from the rock drill may be at a level above that


14

considered acceptable under the QCoP, with the noise level greater than 10 dB(A) above the ambient as provided in the DPEMP.

The noise limits of 35 dB(A), 40 dB(A) and 45 dB(A) for night time, evening and day time, respectively are to be imposed under condition N3 to ensure that noise levels from the quarry operations, excluding blasting do not cause an environmental nuisance to any existing or approved residence in the vicinity of the activity. It should be noted that the definition of Noise Sensitive Premises in the permit is intended to apply to the ‘residential zones’ (e.g. General, Inner and Low Density Residential Zones) rather the than the ‘living’ zones under the planning scheme.

The day time limit of 45 dB(A) at any noise sensitive premise in other ownership, recommended by the Noise Specialist, is also consistent with the recommendation of the QCoP for noise levels to be within 10 dB(A) of ambient levels. The noise study in the DPEMP indicates ambient levels as approximately 35 dB(A) based on measurements at the nearest location to the house proposed at 615 metres from the quarry.

The noise level at the house located just over 1 km from the quarry (Site 10 Figure D-3A of the DPEMP) while crushing was found to be 45.3 dB(A), most of which is noise from Boyer Road. Given the distance and topography, the Noise Specialist considers it highly likely that the 45dB(A) limit will be achieved at this residence while crushing.

The proposed residence at 615 metres from the quarry has a calculated noise level during crushing of 47.8 dB(A). However, the Supplement does note that this calculation is considered to be a worst case scenario, without the consideration of topographic screening or other mitigation measures. As such, there is the potential for mitigation and management measures to be implemented to ensure that the noise limit of 45 dB(A) is maintained at this residence while crushing.

Conservative noise levels for drilling as detailed in the DPEMP and Supplement to the DPEMP were:

52.2 dB(A) for the house at just over 1 km; and

57.2 dB(A) for house at 615 metres from the quarry.

The Noise Specialist reviewed the calculations for noise levels for the drill rig and considered that noise levels were more likely in the region of 53 dB(A) at the house 615 metres from the quarry, noting the potential lack of ground effect attenuation.

The DPEMP and Supplement note that these levels are expected to be mitigated by an additional 5 dB(A) where there is no line of sight. This reduces the predicted noise level at the house at just over 1 km to 47.2 dB(A). The information in the Supplement to the DPEMP indicates that there may be line of sight to the residence at 615 metres and therefore no further attenuation is provided.

The Supplement notes that mitigation of drill rig noise by shrouding can provide further attenuation. The Noise Specialist considers this would allow for compliance of the 45 dB(A) limit at the residence located 615 metres from the quarry.

The limits in condition N3, and in particular the day time level of 45 dB(A), are therefore considered justified and reasonable to ensure that the activity operates in a manner that prevents noise nuisance and addresses the concerns raised in representations.

The noise data provided indicates that noise levels from the operation of the drill rig have the highest potential for noise nuisance, particularly in the event of the development of the house at 615 metres from the quarry. To ensure the activity meets the imposed emission limits in relation to drilling, the proponent will be required to prepare and implement a Noise Monitoring Plan (condition N4). The plan will dictate a methodology for monitoring noise levels against the noise emission limits during operation of drill rig(s) for this activity. The plan will also a provide a contingency framework in the event that non-compliance with the limits is identified.

The limits also provide a framework for compliance management, particularly in response to any noise complaints that may be received. Complaints will be managed through the requirement to


15

implement and maintain a complaints register under condition G7 and the requirement to notify the Director of any noise complaints within 24 hours under condition N5.

The proponent intends to carry out 1 to 2 blasts per year. The noise study demonstrated that noise and vibration from blasting are unlikely to impact on the residence just over 1km to the south of the quarry (Site 10 Figure D-3A of the DPEMP). The Supplement indicates that levels recommended in the QCoP will also be met at the potential residence located 615 metres to the south west of the quarry.

To ensure that ongoing blasting events do not cause airblast overpressure impacts the proponent will be required to comply with standard blasting conditions. Blasting times will be restricted to between 1000 hrs and 1600 hrs Monday to Friday, consistent with the DPEMP and the QCoP, under condition B1.

Under condition B2, all residents within a 1km radius of the activity must be notified on each occasion prior to blasting. The condition stipulates the notification must be given at least 24 hours before blasting is due to occur, allowing residences to take all necessary precautions to minimise potential disturbance. The proposed method of notification as detailed in the Supplement to the DPEMP is supported. Based on the limited blasting events per year and the noise study data, impacts at a distance greater than 1 km are considered unlikely, and therefore an expanded notification area is not considered warranted.

Blasting must comply with vibration and airblast overpressure limits as defined in condition B3. To ensure that these limits are met, blast monitoring is required under condition B4. In the event that ground vibration and/or air-blast over pressure exceeds specified limits, notification to the Director, EPA is required within 24 hours under condition B5.

The commitment to a Blast Management Plan is supported and will be required under condition B6. The management plan is expected to ensure compliance with the blasting conditions as described above.

It should also be noted that the requirement to take all reasonable and practicable action to minimise any adverse environmental effects from an incident is dictated under condition G2. Notification in relation to an incident is required under section 32 of EMPC Act and information on how to meet these requirements is provided in the Information Schedule.

Conclusions

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

G2 Incident Response

G7 Complaints Register

B1 Blasting times

B2 Notification of blasting

B3 Blasting – noise and vibration limits

B4 Blast monitoring

B5 Ground vibration

N5 Noise complaints

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

N1 Operating hours

N2 Operating hours (crushing and screening)

N3 Noise emission limits


16

N4 Drilling Noise Monitoring Plan

B6 Blast Management Plan


17

6.2 Biodiversity and Natural Values

Description

Inappropriate clearance or disturbance has the potential to impact on threatened flora, fauna or vegetation communities and result in the introduction and spread of weeds and diseases.

An ecological study was conducted for the DPEMP of the current mining lease and along the access road as shown in Figure 6 of the DPEMP. The study identified four native forest communities and one non‐forest native community, as well as Agricultural land (FAG) and Extra‐urban miscellaneous (FUM).

Two native vegetation communities listed on Schedule 3A (Threatened native vegetation communities) of the Nature Conservation Act 2002 were identified:

Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL); and

Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest and woodland on sediments (DTI).

The survey also located a number of individuals of the Yellow riceflower (Pimelea flava ssp. flava) along the western boundary of the mining lease within Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL). This species is listed as rare under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act). Three other threatened flora species have previously been recorded in the vicinity of the mining lease. Declared weeds as well as other pasture and environmental weeds were also recorded during the study (reference Table 1).

The study also identified potential habitat for 8 threatened fauna species, listed under State and Commonwealth legislation, by reference to vegetation communities and habitat characteristics.


18

Figure 4: Vegetation communities identified in the ecological study (Figure D-6 of the DPEMP).

Management measures

Commitment 13: A Weed and Pathogen Management Plan will be developed and implemented as part of the quarry operation.


19

Commitment 14: ‘Progressive rehabilitation’ will apply at the quarrying operation for those areas that have been quarried and are no longer needed or used for the operation of the quarry. The Executive Summary of the DPEMP states ‘The Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest and woodland on sediments community…will be retained in a state undisturbed by the quarrying activity’.

Public and agency comment and responses

Fauna

Four representations raised concerns in relation to potential impacts of the activity on Wedge-tailed eagles and white bellied sea eagles. Five representation raised concerns on other listed species. Four (4) representations and comments from Council also raised concerns of noise on native species.

PCAB provided comment that there is a known eagles nest approximately 2.5 km from the mining lease and there appears to be suitable habitat within a 500m radius and 1km line-of-sight radius of the quarry. They did not support the statement on page 46 of the DPEMP that ‘The Survey Area lacks nesting potential habitat because of frequent disturbance levels to areas (quarry, roads, houses etc) or the slopes (where they support larger trees) are exposed to high wind. Eagles have been known to nest in close proximity to these types of activities.

As a result, the proponent was required to undertake an eagle nest survey as part of Additional Information. A detailed assessment was provided in response which found no eagle nests within the survey area.

PCAB recommended that clearance of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL), be avoided during swift parrot breeding season (September to January) if the species is breeding in the area. This community is potential foraging habitat for Swift parrots (Lathamus discolor) listed as endangered under the TSP Act and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

PCAB also recommended that if any potential den sites for the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) are found to exist within the site and are likely to be impacted by the proposal, these should be monitored in accordance with the Tasmanian Devil Survey Guidelines and Management Advice for Development Proposals (the Devil Guidelines). They noted that any dens that cannot be avoided will require a permit to take under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NC Act).

The property also supports potential habitat for several other threatened fauna as listed in Table 1. PCAB commented that the quarry activities are unlikely to significantly impact upon any of these species.

Flora and Native Vegetation

PCAB noted that the ecological report states that 4 individuals of Pimelea flava ssp. flava listed as rare under the TSP Act were observed on the property. They recommended that all individuals be flagged to avoid accidental impacts.

PCAB recommended that the DTI community be flagged to ensure its protection. The proportion of DGL to be cleared is not considered to be significant by PCAB, however, the mitigation measures for swift parrots are recommended when clearing this vegetation type.

One representation raised concerns of an increased risk of introducing Phytopthora cinnamomi as a result of the activity.

PCAB supported the commitments in the DPEMP to implement a weed and hygiene management plan and the intent to rehabilitate the property as the quarry progresses.


20

Evaluation

Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL) community is listed under the NC Act, however the advice from PCAB on the limited area of clearance and the absence of breeding habitat for the swift parrot or Tasmanian Devil identified in the DPEMP negates the need for current mitigation or management of this community.

The DTI community’s extent is limited and it is located within an area that is protected from clearance under the conditions of the mining lease. The proponent’s intent to retain this area in an undisturbed state is supported. No further conditions are proposed.

As eagles were identified as a potential issue during the assessment, a subsequent eagle survey was carried out, in accordance with PCABs recommendation. The Survey identified no eagle nests within a 500 metre radius or 1 km line of sight radius from the extent of the quarry. Without evidence of the potential for an impact on the breeding of wedge-tailed or white bellied sea eagles no specific mitigation or management conditions are considered necessary.

It should be noted that where the activity will result in the direct disturbance of a species listed as threatened under the TSP Act a permit to 'take' will be required, this includes the rare species Pimelea flava subsp flava. In addition, any Tasmanian Devil dens that cannot be avoided will require a permit to take under the NC Act.

PCAB considered that the DPEMP had adequately addressed mitigation and management of other threatened species and therefore no further conditions are considered necessary.

To ensure that there is appropriate mitigation and management in relation to weeds and diseases the proponent will be required to prepare and submit for approval and weed and disease management plan and must implement the plan under condition FF1. This condition is consistent with commitments in the DPEMP and should address the concerns raised by the representation.

Conclusions


FF1 Weed and Disease Management Plan


21

7 Other environmental issues

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

1. Air Emissions

2. Surface Water Management

3. Waste and Environmentally Hazardous Materials Management

4. Decommissioning and Rehabilitation

8 Other Issues

The following issues that have been raised during the assessment process are discussed in Appendix 1, Section B. These are issues which are not the Board’s responsibility under the EMPC Act, or issues which are more appropriately addressed by another regulatory agency.

1. Heritage

2. Traffic Management

3. Future residential development and other planning issues


23

10 References

Van Diemen Consulting (2016); Dromedary Quarry, Boyer Rd, Dromedary, Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (dated 5 December 2016); Van Diemen Consulting, Managalore, Tasmania.

Van Diemen Consulting (2017); Dromedary Quarry, Boyer Rd, Dromedary, DPEMP Supplement (dated 19 February 2017); Van Diemen Consulting, Managalore, Tasmania.

11 Appendices

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

Appendix 1


24

Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues

Section A - Assessment of other issues assessed by the Board

Issue 1: Air Emissions

Description of potential impacts

Air emissions in the form of dust have the potential to cause environmental nuisance or harm beyond the boundary of the Land if not appropriately mitigated or managed. The DPEMP identifies the following potential sources of dust from the quarry operation:

The blasting, drilling and ripping of rock during dry windy conditions (especially in the summer months);

The removal of vegetative cover and the stripping of topsoil;

The movement of rock and gravel within the quarry by machinery;

Crushing of rock material;

Road (gravel) use in and next to the quarry; and

Stockpiled gravel and fines.

The nearest sensitive receptors from the quarry operations and access road are shown in Figure 3 of this report.

Management measures proposed in DPEMP

Commitment 1: Standard industry practice for dust control, which will be applied at the activity, is to dampen material prior to crushing and/or to also have installed sprayers on the output chute to minimise dust emissions from an otherwise dry product.

Commitment 2: General measures that will be used to suppress dust if it does occur include the following industry environmental practices for quarries:

Watering of internal roads as required during dry and windy conditions;

Retention of vegetation along the access road corridor where possible;

Retention of native vegetation around the quarry working area to reduce the likelihood of strong winds

liberating fine particles into the air;

Covering of trucks with tarpaulins and/or load dampening; and

Minimising the geographic extent of areas of exposed soil.

Commitment 9: Recycled asphalt product will be used to provide a firm seal to the existing gravel surface as shown in Figure E‐2 – reducing potential noise emissions compared to that of a gravelled surface.

Appendix 1


25

Public and agency comment

Five representations were concerned that dust would have impacts on businesses, land uses and hobbies.

Two representations raised concerns that the proposed mitigation measures were inadequate and didn’t consider the high winds experienced at the site.

EPA Tasmania’s Air Specialist considered that if the management strategies committed to in the DPEMP are applied it is unlikely that dust will impact on the nearest residences.

Three representations considered that dust would increase health risks associated with asthma and other lung conditions. One representation was concerned about the potential for silicosis.

Four representations raised concerns that the dust would contaminate water tanks and drinking water, impacting human health and livestock.

Representations raising concerns in relation to health impacts from dust were referred to the Department of Health and Human Services for comment. They considered silicosis to be related to unmitigated and long term exposure to dust. More often exposure to dust could be associated with common conditions such as asthma and bronchitis. Their responses stated:

All of the issues relating to health raised in the representations are addressed by relevant codes and standards applied by the EPA through the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. Compliance with those standards will generally mitigate any potential public health impacts.

They further commented that adherence to dust mitigation measures outlined in the DPEMP will minimise any potential risk associated with dust.

Evaluation

The distance of the quarry from the nearest residences and the topographic and vegetative barriers between them, as well as the proposed mitigation measures, limits the potential for impacts from dust emitted from the quarry operations. To ensure that suitable mitigation and management of dust is implemented the proponent will be required to prevent dust causing environmental nuisance beyond the boundary of the Land under condition A1.

The sealing of a portion of the access road to reduce dust emissions near residences in proximity to the access road is supported. The requirements under condition A1 include the access road as it forms part of the Land. Dust management on the access road is further supported by condition A2, which requires dust to be controlled in traffic areas. The proponent must also manage dust emissions from the transport of material under condition A3. The proponent will also be required to maintain a complaints register under condition G7, which includes any matters relating to dust.

These conditions support the implementation of the mitigation measures and commitments of the DPEMP and should address the concerns of the representations in relation to dust. The conditions imposed are considered appropriate to ensure that dust does not cause environmental nuisance or harm beyond the boundary of the Land.

Conclusion


G7 Complaints Register

A1 Control of dust emissions

A2 Dust emissions from traffic areas

A3 Covering of vehicles

Appendix 1


26

Issue 2: Surface Water Management


Inappropriate management of stormwater has the potential to cause the movement of sediment and other contaminants impacting waterways which may provide potential habitat for threatened flora and fauna species or are water sources for human and agricultural uses.

According to the DPEMP, the catchment within which the quarry is located (including access road) is drained by Dromedary Creek which is fed by several un‐named tributaries. The lower 500m of Dromedary Creek, near its confluence with the Derwent River, is dominated by weeds (mainly willow) and agricultural lands. There are several dams on the creekline. The upper catchment is mainly native forest and scrub vegetation with cleared areas associated with residential developments on Church Road, which intersects the catchment about 2.2 kms distant from the quarry.

The access road from the intersection with Boyer Road is an on-farm (property) road used to access both the quarry and remainder of the property (eg pasture at the front and plantation/forestry at the rear). The surface of the access road is gravel. Culverts and a roadside drain (eastern side) on the access through the forested sections of the property have been installed at relevant locations, with culverts from the road directed underneath the road surface towards the creek. Drainage passes through vegetation, especially grasses and other ground cover shrubs/herbs. No modifications or drainage improvements are proposed.


Commitment 4: A sediment pond of at least 970 m3 (0.97 ML) will be formalised in the location shown in Figures B‐1 and E‐1 of the DPEMP.

Commitment 5: Sediment accumulation rates in the sediment pond will be monitored and the maintenance program revised as required. Accumulated sediment will be reused as part of the saleable product or for application onto disused areas as part of site rehabilitation.

The DPEMP also states that ‘a metal grid will be installed at the entrance to the pit to direct water into a drain system which is then directed to the sediment pond’.

The DPEMP also commits to the construction of a bund/spoon drain at the top side of the quarry face to direct water away from the face and into natural drainage line to the north‐west of the quarry. The DPEMP states that ‘the drain/bund will not be fully constructed to the drainage line, a 10m buffer will be applied, so as to allow native vegetation to capture and filter any sediment that may be transported in the water flowing from the drain/bund’.

Appendix 1


27


One representation considered the proposed sediment containment methods to be insufficient, potentially impacting the surrounding environment, including farms that rely on water resources.

One representation had witnessed siltation coming down the creek and attributes it to the quarry.

One representation was concerned that there would be downstream contamination of Dromedary Creek and the Derwent River, and potential impacts to stock and crops.

Two representations and Council were concerned that water quality and sedimentation controls have not been implemented as per existing permit requirements on the current activity. They were also concerned there was no current understanding of the impacts to water quality.

Council considered water quality as a matter for the Board’s consideration, that the current water quality sampling requirements should form part of the commitments of the DPEMP, and that sampling up- and down-stream should be undertaken to demonstrate there is no current impact from the quarry.

EPA Tasmania’s Water Specialists commented that the tributary of Dromedary Creek in the gully below to the quarry was unlikely to have high environmental values. They considered that sediment run-off from the quarry during storm events would be minimal compared to the natural landscape and other land uses in the catchment. The pond needed to be appropriately designed for its location and the system should develop over the lifetime of the activity.

Evaluation

The development of an appropriate drainage system is supported. The DPEMP considers the stormwater system over the life of the quarry and that drainage system will need to be modified to ensure that stormwater continues to be directed to the sediment pond.

In addition to the culvert and drain information provided in the DPEMP, it should be noted that according to EPA Tasmania files two narrow sediment ponds were constructed below the quarry working area adjacent to the access road, under the requirements of the permit for the existing quarry. The existing sediment ponds are not appropriately located or designed for the expansion of the quarry.

The proponent will be required to design and maintain a sediment pond for the quarry expansion to ensure that water is retained and treated prior to discharge under condition SW2. The construction of perimeter drains to support the proposed quarry layout and ensure that water and sediment are captured in the sediment pond will be required under condition SW1.

It is expected that the proposed sediment pond (Figure 2) will be developed and maintained consistent with the details provided in the DPEMP, including commitments 4 and 5. It is noted that the pond location is inconsistent with the recommendations of the QCoP to prevent disturbance within 40 metres of a water course and for a 40 metre filter strip of undisturbed native vegetation to be adjacent to all watercourses to protect water quality. Nevertheless, maintenance of the pond structure is expected to minimise the risk of sediment discharge to the creek. This is supported by the requirement to periodically clean out the pond under condition SW2.

Condition SW3 will also be imposed to ensure that all reasonable measures are implemented to prevent water quality impacts to Dromedary Creek.

Appropriate design and maintenance of the sediment pond is likely to ensure that water quality impacts to the creek are prevented and as such water quality monitoring, as recommended by the Council, is not considered necessary.

In the event of an incident, including the discharge of untreated water from the quarry, Condition G2 requires immediate and practicable action to be taken in relation to any incidents to minimise any adverse environmental effects. The responsibility to notify of incidents is dictated under section 32 of EMPCA as detailed in OI2 of the Other Information Schedule of the environmental conditions.

Appendix 1


28

Undertaking progressive rehabilitation and limiting the disturbed area as detailed in Issue 4 of the EAR is also likely to contribute to minimising potential issues from stormwater. These conditions and restrictions are considered appropriate to prevent impacts from surface water on water quality in tributary of Dromedary Creek.

Conclusion


G2 Incident response

SW1 Perimeter drains

SW2 Design and maintenance of sediment ponds

SW3 Stormwater

Appendix 1


29

Issue 3: Waste and Environmentally Hazardous Materials Management


The inappropriate use and storage of waste and hazardous substances has the potential to cause environmental nuisance or harm through discharge to the land or nearby waterways.

The DPEMP states that there will be no fixed toilet or other amenities provided on site. Machinery related wastes, such as oil filters, are not expected to be produced as machinery servicing will not occur in the quarry (except for emergency repairs or service requirements).

Fuel and oil will be used in the quarry to operate and maintain functional machinery. There will be no permanent built storage of fuels, oils, lubricants or any other dangerous good in the quarry. The only chemicals that will be in the quarry will be those for weed spraying.


Commitment 3: No chemicals, fuels or oils will be stored on site overnight, and refuelling of quarry equipment will be carried out using a mobile bund.

Commitment 6: During periods of high use, a ‘portaloo’ will be provided on‐site and removed after the campaign has been concluded or usage no longer justifies the provision of the portaloo. The contents of the portaloo will be disposed of at an approved sewage processing facility.

Commitment 10: No machinery servicing, except for emergency repairs or service requirements, will be conducted within the quarry. Wastes generated from machinery repairs will be disposed of in an appropriate bin located near the site office for future disposal at a permitted refuse disposal site.

Commitment 11: Waste generated by workers from general refuse (eg lunch wrappers) at the quarry will be collected in waste bins provided on‐site for general refuse. These will be emptied at least once per fortnight and the material disposed of at a permitted refuse disposal site.

The management measures for environmentally hazardous materials as stated in the DPEMP are:

Weed spraying chemicals will be handled, used and disposed of in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions and relevant regulations;

When in the quarry, fuel and oil containers will be stored at least 10 m from any drain or sediment pond and are bunded (moveable bunds) to a capacity at least 1.5 times the volume of the container; and

One hydrocarbon spill kit will be stored at the quarry to use in the event of a spillage. Staff will be trained in how to use the kit and the kit will be replaced as and when required.

The DPEMP also states that:

The storage, handling and transport of dangerous goods, explosives and dangerous substances must comply with the requirements of relevant Stale Acts and any regulations.

The transportation, storage and handling of explosives is conducted by the Blast Contractor in accordance with the Australian Explosives Code (1999), the Australian Code for the transport of explosives by road and rail (Third edition ‐ 2009) and Australian Standard 2187 Explosives – Transport, storage and Use (parts 1 and 2).’


None

Appendix 1


30

Evaluation

No explosives or fuels and lubricants are to be permanently stored at the site, and explosives are only brought onto site during blasting activities, limiting the potential for environmental impacts from the in appropriate use or storage of these materials.

Environmentally hazardous materials will be used on-site during the operation of the activity and have the potential to cause environmental nuisance or harm, including the potential for impacts to waterways if not appropriately managed. The proponent will therefore be required to comply with the requirements for storage and management of these materials under condition H1 and spill kits will be required under condition H2.

In the event of an incident the proponent will be required to respond appropriately under condition G2.

Conclusion


G2 Incident Response

H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials

H2 Spill kits

Appendix 1


31

Issue 4: Decommissioning and Rehabilitation


Cessation of the activity has the potential to cause on-going impacts to the environment if rehabilitation is unsuccessful.

Proposed disturbance area at any one time is 2.5 hectares. It is proposed to return the quarry to native forest vegetation once closed. Progressive rehabilitation is to occur in those areas that have been quarried and are no longer needed or used for the operation of the quarry. This includes the stabilisation of the landform and revegetation.

The benches and slopes are to be formed in consideration of the QCoP and a likely bench plan is provided in the DPEMP. The plant species used for rehabilitation works will be limited to those listed in the Ecological Assessment Report of the DPEMP, but excluding those species which are listed as introduced. Weed control and management will also be implemented.


Commitment 14: ‘Progressive rehabilitation’ will apply at the quarrying operation for those areas that have been quarried and are no longer needed or used for the operation of the quarry.

Commitment 15: In the event of permanent closure of the facility prior to complete extraction of the resource a detailed Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan will be developed and submitted to the EPA for approval.


None

Evaluation

The requirement to maintain a disturbed area of 2.5 hectares will form part of the progressive rehabilitation condition DC2.

Progressive rehabilitation is likely to support stormwater management over the life of the quarry as well as support successful rehabilitation on final cessation. Stockpiling of surface soil as required under condition DC1 will facilitate progressive and final rehabilitation.

Management requirements during temporary cessation will be stipulated under condition DC3. The proponent will be required to notify of cessation under condition DC4.

The proponent must prepare a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (DRP) for approval on proposed cessation of the activity (condition DC5). Rehabilitation must be implemented in accordance with the approved DRP (condition DC6). Development and implementation of a DRP is consistent with commitment 5 of the DPEMP and the QCoP.

Conclusion

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

DC1 Stockpiling of surface soil

DC2 Progressive rehabilitation

DC3 Temporary suspension of activity

DC4 Notification of cessation

DC5 DRP requirements

DC6 Rehabilitation following cessation

Appendix 1


32

Appendix 1, Section B - Other issues

Heritage One representation raised concerns that no Aboriginal Heritage survey had been completed and there is anecdotal evidence of middens in the area. EPA Tasmania consulted with AHT during the assessment process and they advised that an Aboriginal heritage survey was not required for the application and AHT had no objection to the project proceeding. The proponent has committed to have an Unanticipated Discovery Plan on site during ground disturbing works (Commitment 12). All Aboriginal Heritage is protected under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, which specifies the requirements in the event Aboriginal Heritage is uncovered at the site. The responsibilities under this Act are detailed in condition LO3 under Schedule 3: Information. Traffic Management This report considers the potential noise and air emission impacts from the movement of vehicles to and from the Land. Other matters related to traffic management will be considered by Brighton Council and/or Department of State Growth (DoSG) as required under the relevant statutory requirements. Future residential development and other planning issues The Board assesses potential environmental impacts on the existing environment. Noise and dust have been considered in relation to the potential impacts on existing and approved uses within the vicinity of the activity as well as in the context of the quarry’s location in its environment. The potential impacts of the proposal on future use and development are a matter for the Planning Authority. Issues associated with: residential amenity, whether the location is appropriate for the development, visual amenity, Landslide risk and bush fire risk are not matters for the Board’s assessment but may be considered by the Planning Authority under the relevant legislation and planning scheme requirements.

Appendix 2


33

Appendix 2 Summary of public and agency submissions

TABLE 1: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE EPA BOARD

Representation No./ Agency

DPEMP section no.

DPEMP Page no.

Comments and issues Additional information required

PCAB D7.5 &

E.11

45-47

66-67

There is a known eagles nest approximately 2.5 km from the mining lease and there appears to be suitable nesting habitat within 500m/1km line-of-sight of the quarry.

PCAB does not support the statement on page 46 of the DPEMP that The Survey Area lacks nesting potential habitat because of frequent disturbance levels to areas (quarry, roads, houses etc) or the slopes (where they support larger trees) are exposed to high wind. Eagles have been known to nest in close proximity to these types of activities.

An eagles nest survey must be undertaken of all suitable habitat within a 500m radius and 1km line-of-sight radius of the mining lease.

Rep 3, 4, 7, 14 D7.5 &

E.11

45-47

66-67

Observations of Wedge Tailed and White Bellied Sea Eagles on the neighbouring ridge and concerned the potential impacts have not been appropriate assessed.

Appendix 2


34

TABLE 2: OTHER MATTERS RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIOD

Representation No./ Agency

DPEMP section no.

DPEMP Page no.

Comments and issues Further Info requested [yes/no]

EPA Comments

Noise & Blasting

Rep 3, 4, 13, 16 E.4 56-59 & Attachment 2

Alternatives to crushing and blasting have not been sufficiently addressed.

Yes Discuss why alternatives to crushing and blasting, including avoidance of use of blasting and off-site processing, have not been considered.

Rep 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

Concerned noise will impact on current businesses, land uses and hobbies, particularly in relation to animals becoming distressed from noise and blasting.

No No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider noise impacts on the existing environment, including sensitive receptors

Rep 3, 4 The methods of sampling and estimating noise levels has not taken into account site-specific topography and were not located appropriate to represent actual levels of noise currently or likely to experience by surrounding residents.

Rep 3 Measurement of ambient noise levels at existing residences and any residences approved but not yet built within 1 km of the quarry footprint has not been conducted.

Rep 14 Blasting would result in a considerable and unacceptable level of noise.

Rep 15 Considers that the impacts at their residence has not been sufficiently considered and they do not have the hill side to reduce or filter the noise impacts of increased activity.

Rep 16 Noise measurements were not taken at their property and incorrect assumptions made as to the potential noise nuisance.

Appendix 2


35

Rep 4 Noise from blasting and crushing will impact on health of child with sensory processing issues and Autism in the surrounding area.

No No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider blasting impacts on existing environment in relation to nearest sensitive uses.

Rep 2, 5 Blasting is likely to increase risk of damage to structures and buildings.

No No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider blasting impacts on existing environment in relation to nearest sensitive uses.

Rep 2 Increased heavy vehicle traffic on Boyer Road will increase noise pollution.

No No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider noise impacts on existing environment in relation to nearest sensitive uses.

Rep 3, 14 Heightened landslide risk in the area is likely to increase the risks of structural damage from blasting. Mitigation has not been sufficiently addressed.

No No further information required. The Board will consider vibration impacts based on the information provided.

Council will consider the application against the requirements of the Planning Scheme and relevant planning matters, including the Landslide Code.

Rep 3 Noise studies should be considered against a baseline of silence.

No Noise studies take into consideration measured ambient noise levels.

Rep 3, 15 Concerned about increase in operation hours to 6 days a week.

No The assessment is based on the application submitted to the Planning Authority.

Current operating hours are 0700-1800 weekdays and 0800-1700 on Saturdays.

Council Concerned that residents with 1km will not receive appropriate notification if done through postal service.

Yes Confirm how surrounding residents will be notified of an intended blast event at the quarry.

Air Emissions

Rep 1,2, 3, 4, 5 E.1 53 Concerned about dust impacts on current businesses, land uses and hobbies.

No No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider dust impacts on existing environment in relation to nearest sensitive uses. Rep 3, 4 Dust containment proposed considered

inadequate, particularly due to high winds experienced at the site.

No

Appendix 2


36

Rep 3, 7, 14 Dust will increase health risks including asthma and other lung and respiratory health issues as well as the potential for asthma related medical emergencies on nearby residents.

No No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider dust impacts on existing environment in relation to nearest sensitive uses.

DHHS – Environmental Health Services ‘considers adherence to dust mitigation measures outlined in the DP&EMP will minimise any potential health risks associated with dust’.

Rep 3 Dust will increase the potential for silicosis.

Rep 3, 5, 6, 7 Dust will impact on rain water tanks and drinking water supplies impacting human health and livestock.

Water Quality

Rep 3 E.2 54-55 Proposed sediment containment methods are insufficient, potential impacting the surrounding environment including farms who rely on water resources.

No No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider stormwater management and water quality impacts.

Rep 6 Representor has witnessed siltation from the quarry and is concerned it will get worse.

Rep 7 Concerned there will be downstream contamination of Dromedary Creek and Derwent River and potential impacts to stock and crops.

EPA The location of the proposed sediment pond is inconsistent with recommendations of the Quarry Code of Practice and pond wall failure or overflow has the potential to result in sedimentation of the creek, causing impacts to downstream users and the environment.

Reps 4, 13, Council

E.2 54-55 Water quality and sedimentation controls have not been implemented in accordance with current requirements.

No This a matter for the current regulatory framework.

The Board considers the potential environmental impacts of the application submitted to the Planning Authority, including water quality.

Council Considers water quality matters to be the responsibility of the EPA.

No The Board considers the potential environmental impacts of the application submitted to the Planning Authority, including water quality.

Appendix 2


37

Council Believe that current water quality conditions should be formal commitments of the DPEMP.

No The requirements of the current permit for the quarry are a matter for the regulatory framework.

The Board considers the potential environmental impacts of the application submitted to the Planning Authority, including water quality.

Reps 4, 13 There is no current understanding of impacts to water quality.

No Based on current information including site inspections and an absence of complaints in relation to this matter means there is insufficient justification for a requirement to undertake sampling to demonstrate the current status of water quality.

The potential future management of the quarry in relation to water quality will be considered by the Board based on the information provided in the application, including the DPEMP.

Council Consider that water quality sampling should be undertaken upstream and downstream to demonstrate there is no current impact from the quarry.

No

Council Considers that a clear commitment of the DPEMP should be the removal of sediment from the 970m3 sediment pond at least 4 times per year and monitored and increased if necessary.

No The Board considers the potential environmental impacts of the application submitted to the Planning Authority, including water quality.

The adequacy of proposed sediment ponds size and maintenance will be considered.

Biodiversity

Rep 1, 3, 4, 7, 14

E.11 66-67 Impacts on listed species, including Tasmanian devils, swift parrots and spotted tailed quolls.

No The DPEMP has been reviewed by PCAB in relation to these listed species matters. No further information required.

Rep 3 Increased risk of the introduction of P. cinnamomi.

Would like a management plan to mitigate risk. No Plant diseases are considered by the Board. No

further information required.

Rep 1, 3, 5, 14, Council

Native animals, pets and livestock will be disturbed by noise from quarry activities.

No The DPEMP has been reviewed by PCAB in relation to listed species matters. No further information required.

No further information required. Information provided sufficient for the Board to consider noise impacts.

Appendix 2


38

Traffic

DoSG (Traffic Engineering (South))

B.5 & B.6 & E.17

21-24 & 68-70

The Boyer Secondary Road has suitable capacity to accommodate the additional traffic expected to be generated by the quarry expansion without adversely affecting the efficiency of this road.

However, to accommodate the increase in traffic movements at the access, the Department of State Growth expects the developer to provide road and access improvements prior to the commencement of level 2 operations.

No Matter outside the Board’s responsibilities for assessment of the application. This will be managed by DoSG under the application legislation and relevant processes.

Rep 2 Increased heavy vehicle traffic on Boyer Road will increase risk of accidents.

No Matter outside the Board’s responsibilities for assessment of the application. Council and Department of State Growth to consider traffic issues in accordance with legislative requirements.

Rep 7 Concerned there will be increased traffic passing within 100 metres of houses on Boyer Road.

No The Board considers the potential impacts of noise and air emissions associated with the movement of vehicles from the activity.

Other traffic matters are likely to be considered by Council or the Department of State Growth under their relevant legislative responsibilities.

Other matters

Rep 13 & Council

Two applications for residences, are currently being considered by Council at:

710 Boyer Rd, Dromedary (CT133972/1

757 Boyer Rd, Dromedary (CT172558/1)

Yes Consistent with the Guidelines, information should be provided that discusses potential impacts of the quarry on these potential sensitive receptors.

Rep 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 15

Devaluation of properties No Matter outside the Board’s responsibilities for assessment of the application.

Rep 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Quarry will change/restrict/prevent the potential for future use and development on surrounding properties as a result of the application of the attenuation code.

No Matter outside the Board’s responsibilities for assessment of the application.

Council Consideration of the attenuation code for this application is exempt under the Planning Scheme

No The Board considers potential noise impacts on the existing environment, including nearby

Appendix 2


39

and therefore consideration of the impact of the increased Attenuation area on existing and future sensitive uses falls solely on the EPA.

Council requires amendments to the DPEMP consistent with considering potential impacts associated with the future application of the attenuation code.

sensitive receptors. The Board will take into consideration applications submitted during the assessment process.

Council The rezoning to Rural Resource has resulted in Council being able to adequately consider the impact of the proposal on Residential amenity for current and future uses and consider the DPEMP should be updated to address issues associated with the Zone Purpose Statements and Use Standards.

No The Board considers potential noise impacts on the existing environment, including nearby sensitive receptors. The Board will take into consideration applications submitted during the assessment process.

Rep 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 16

Impacts to residential/rural amenity and the rural aspect of the area, from noise and dust pollution including increased activities and traffic.

No The Board considers the impacts of noise and air emissions on the existing environment, including nearby sensitive receptors.

Rep 2 Possibility of further expansion of the activity. No The assessment is based on the application submitted to the Planning Authority.

Rep 3 Proposed activities and associated noise levels are inconsistent with current zoning and Brighton’s Structure Plan.

No The Board considers potential noise impacts on the existing environment, including nearby sensitive receptors.

Rep 3 The proposal conflicts with existing agricultural uses on surrounding properties.


Rep 14, 16 Area too populated and residential for such a business proposal.


Rep 7 Proposal will lead to further industrialisation of the rural area.


Rep 3 Proposal increases the bush fire risk. No Matter outside the Board’s responsibilities for assessment of the application.

Rep 3 No evidence and Aboriginal Heritage survey has been completed and there is anecdotal evidence of middens in the area.

No EPA Tasmania has consulted with AHT during the assessment process and they advised that a Aboriginal heritage survey was not required for the application.

Appendix 2


40

Rep 3, 4, 13, 16 Dissatisfied with consultation and notification process.

No The DPEMP provides details of public consultation undertaken by the proponent.

The public consultation period administered under LUPAA provides the opportunity for statutory representations to be made in relation to a proposal and the issues considered in the subsequent environmental and planning assessments.

Rep 3 The Planning report and EPA Guidelines were not made publicly available as required under LUPAA.

No The Planning Authority is responsible for the advertising of the application. Advertising includes making the Development Application and DPEMP available for review and comment.

Rep 3 Believes the application does not meet the objectives of Schedule 1 of EMPCA.

No The Board undertakes its assessment in accordance with the provisions of EMPCA and takes into consideration the objectives of the RMPS and EMPCS.

Rep 3, 6, 7 Current quarry operations have not complied with current permit conditions.

No This a matter for the current regulatory framework.

The Board considers the potential environmental impacts of the application submitted to the Planning Authority.

Reps 8, 9, 10, 11

Support the proposal and the improved drainage management and access upgrades.

No No further information required.

Rep 13 The Guidelines do not include any planning issues No The Guidelines dictate the information to be provided for the Board’s assessment of environmental impacts. The Development Application and any additional information requested by Council forms the basis for the assessment of the application against the planning scheme. The DPEMP may provide further information for this assessment.

Rep 13 The DPEMP does not address all aspects of the DPEMP Standard Guidelines

No No further information required. Sufficient information received for the Board’s consideration in relation to the matters raised in the representation.

Appendix 2


41

Rep 13 Contends the application is not a valid application. No Matter outside the Board’s responsibilities for this assessment.

Rep 13 Application does not indicate extent of extraction to the SE and any extraction in this direction would lead to greater visual impact.

No The assessment is based on the application submitted to the Planning Authority.

Visual amenity is outside the Board’s responsibilities for this assessment.

Rep 13 The planning report focuses on the site of operations and not on the surrounding area as requested by the DPEMP.

No No further information required. The Board considers the impacts of noise and air emissions on the existing environment, including nearby sensitive receptors.

Rep 15 Raises concerns that separation distances have not been considered appropriately

No The Board considers the potential impacts on the existing environment nearby sensitive receptors within a reasonable distance and in consideration of the QCoP.

Council Has identified that the proposal is within a Landslide Hazard Area classed as medium and as such a landslide risk management report is required under the planning scheme and should form part of the DPEMP.

No The DPEMP is for the purpose of the Board’s assessment of environmental impacts. While it may contain information on planning matters, it does not specifically address the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

Council is responsible for considering the application against the requirements of the Planning Scheme and informing applicants of any requirements in accordance with the statutory process.

Appendix 3


42

Appendix 3 Permit Conditions – Environmental No. 9570

EAR Template 2BC - epa.tas.gov.au

Documents

Transcript of EAR Template 2BC - epa.tas.gov.au