Paddy’s quarry – increased annual production Constructions... · Environmental Assessment...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Paddy’s quarry – increased annual production

Tarraleah

MSD Constructions Pty Ltd

Board of the Environment Protection Authority

3 March 2015

Environmental Assessment Report MSD Constructions Pty Ltd – Paddy’s quarry intensification of use, Tarraleah

I

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent MSD Constructions Pty Ltd

Proposal Intensification of use at Paddy’s quarry

Location Off Lyell Highway, Tarraleah

NELMS no. 9048

Permit application no. 2014/47 (Central Highlands Council)

Folder EN-EM-EV-DE-238591

Document. H337148

Class of Assessment 2A

Assessment process milestones

15/04/2014 Notice of Intent lodged

16/05/2014 EER Guidelines issued

9/12/2014 Permit application submitted to Council

23/12/2014 Referral received by Board

17/01/2015 Start of public consultation period

01/02/2015 End of public consultation period


II

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

EEPR Environmental Effects and Planning Report

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

MRT

MSD

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Mineral Resources Tasmania

MSD Constructions Pty Ltd

RMPS

QCOP

Resource management and planning system

Tasmanian Quarry Code of Practice 1999

SD Sustainable development


III

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of MSD Constructions Pty Ltd’s (MSD’s) proposed intensification of use of an existing quarry off the Lyell Highway, Tarraleah. The proposal involves intensification of use of ‘Paddy’s’ basalt quarry near Tarraleah township. Annual production is forecast to increase from less than 5,000m3 to a maximum of 20,000m3. Up to three blasts per year may be required. This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Environmental Effects and Planning Report (EEPR). Relevant government agencies and the public have been consulted and their submissions and comments considered as part of this assessment. Further details of the assessment process are presented in section 1 of this report. Section 2 describes the statutory objectives and principles underpinning the assessment. Details of the proposal are provided in section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the alternatives to the proposal. Section 5 summarises the public and agency consultation process and the key issues raised in that process. The detailed evaluation of environmental issues is contained in section 6. The report conclusions are contained in section 7. Appendix 1 contains the environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the EEPR. The environmental permit conditions in Appendix 1 are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing permit conditions for the level 1 activity.


IV

Table of Contents

1 Approval process ..................................................................................... 1

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

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

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

5 Public and agency consultation ................................................................ 8

6 Evaluation of environmental issues .......................................................... 9

7 Report conclusions ................................................................................. 23

8 Report approval...................................................................................... 24


1

1 Approval process

A Notice of Intent in relation to the proposal was received by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) on 15 April 2014. An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Central Highlands Council on 9 December 2014. The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under clauses 5(a) and 6(a)(ii), schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being an activity:

5(a) Extracting any rock or gravel and producing 5,000 cubic metres or more of rock or gravel per year; and

6(a)(ii) Crushing rock, ores or minerals at a rate in excess of 1,000 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 23 December 2014. The Board required that information to support the proposal be provided in the form of a Environmental Effects Report. MSD submitted an Environmental Effects and Planning Report (EEPR). Several drafts of the EEPR were submitted to the Department for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance on behalf of the Board. The final EEPR was submitted to Council with the permit application. The EEPR was released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on 17 January 2015. An advertisement was placed in The Saturday Advocate and a notice was placed on the EPA website. The EEPR was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. No public submissions were received.


2

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.


3

3 The proposal

The proposal is for the extraction of up to 20,000m3 per annum weathered basalt from Paddy’s quarry, Lyell Highway, Tarraleah. Basalt will be won by drilling, blasting, crushing and screening. This development is an intensification of use of an existing extractive and materials handling activity operated by MSD Constructions Pty Ltd (MSD). The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Parts B and C of the EEPR. Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics

Activity

Extraction of basalt by drilling, blasting, crushing and screening to a maximum of 20,000m3 per annum.

Location and planning context

Location Off Lyell Highway, Tarraleah, as shown in Figure 1.

Land zoning Forestry Purposes (Central Highlands Planning Scheme 1993).

Land tenure Crown

Mining lease 16M/1998, 1M/2015 (application stage)

Lease area 6Ha (16M/1998) and 13.6Ha (1M/2015)

Bond $10,000 (16M/1998) and under determination (1M/2015)

Existing site

Land Use Existing level one quarry in a forestry practices setting. The quarry is effectively embedded in a Permanent Timber Production Zone. Tarraleah township lies about 1.7km southeast of the quarry.

Topography The quarry is surrounded by native forest of various ages and structure, ranging from mature to regrowth. The local terrain’s gradient is relatively steep, especially directly east toward the Nive River. Land in the intended direction of extraction (west and northwest) has less intensive gradients.

Geology Tertiary basalt with a thin but humic rich clay‐loam soil derived from in situ weathering of the bedrock.

Soils Shallow, rocky and skeletal soils over moderate to steep slopes. Likely land capability class of 6-7.

Hydrology The quarry lies within two sub-catchments of the Nive River. These merge and flow into this river.

The quarry lies about 100m upstream from the confluence of the two sub-catchments. Vehicles traverse the larger tributary when accessing the quarry.

Stormwater from the quarry floor is directed southeast to a semi-formal sediment pond. This drains to a spoon drain and then into the tributary of the Nive River to the east of the access road [Figure 6b, EEPR].

Fauna An ecological assessment [EEPR, p11] of the local quarry area identified potential

habitat for threatened fauna species including spotted‐tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) and the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii).

No eagle nests are known to occur or have been recorded within 500m or a 1km line of sight of the existing and proposed mine lease areas.


4

Flora An ecological assessment [EEPR, p11] of the local quarry area did not identify any vegetation communities of conservation significance within the existing and proposed mine lease areas.

The assessment identified one threatened flora species, Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis

(slender rice‐flower) within the quarry footprint.

Local region

Climate Mean rainfall approximately 1,688mm per annum. Mean maximum temperature 18.7ºC and mean minimum temperature 6.3ºC.

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

The quarry is located essentially within a Permanent Timber Production Zone. A Water Conservation Zone lies about 1km northeast of the existing and proposed mine lease areas.

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment Dozer (Caterpillar D6H), excavator (SK250), wheel loader (Komatsu WA350), crusher mobile unit (Terex Pegson AX846), vibrating screen (RD90), 12-30t combination trucks.

Inputs

Water Water from the semi-formal sediment pond may be used to dampen access road, stockpile areas during periods of dry weather.

Energy Diesel for mobile plant.

Other raw materials

Explosives as necessary.

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Stormwater runoff from extraction and stockpile areas.

Atmospheric Dust.

Solid General refuse (e.g. packaging materials)

Machinery consumables.

Stripped soils and overburden will be used for rehabilitation purposes.

Noise From drilling, blasting, excavating, crushing, screening and stockpiling of material. Loading and dispatch of screened materials by truck will also emit noise.

Greenhouse gases

Quarry will be a minor GHG emitter, given small scale operation and nearby location(s) of end users.

Operations

Operating hours (ongoing)

0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday.

0800 to 1600 hours Saturday.

Closed on Sunday and public holidays.

http://weather.mla.com.au/climate-history/tas/tarraleah


5


6

Figure 2: Existing and proposed quarry layout, The Land [EEPR Figure 2]


7

4 Need for the proposal and alternatives

MSD anticipates an increase in business activity and seeks to raise the annual output of crushed and screened material to 20,000m3. This will allow MSD to tender and compete for medium scale projects with the knowledge that if successful Paddy’s quarry can supply materials without risk of exceeding its land use permit conditions. No alternatives to the quarry upgrade were proposed or considered.


8

5 Public and agency consultation

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

Department of State Growth (Mineral Resources Tasmania)

Department of State Growth (Transport Infrastructure Services) Central Highlands Council provided feedback concerning a number of aspects of the EEPR. The following Divisions/areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment also provided submissions on the EEPR:

Scientific Officer (Water), EPA Division

Regulatory Officer (Mining and extractive unit), EPA Division

Noise Specialist, EPA Division

Scientific Officer (Air unit), EPA Division

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT)

Policy Conservation and Assessment Branch (PCAB), Resource Management and Conservation


9

6 Evaluation of environmental issues

The environmental issues considered relevant to the proposal have been evaluated by the EPA Division. Details of this evaluation, along with the permit conditions required by the Board, are discussed below.


10

Issue 1: Flora, fauna and habitat

Description of potential impacts

The quarry is situated in wet to damp forest dominated by Eucalyptus delegatensis with a midstorey comprising notable rainforest species such as Nothofagus cunninghamii and Atherosperma moschatum in damp gullies or wet sclerophyll shrubs (e.g. Pomaderris apetula, Olearia lirata) on drier or more exposed slopes. Drier areas are characterised as Eucalyptus delegatensis forest with dry sclerophyll species and regrowth Acacia dealbata forest [EEPR Part C, p11].

The quarry’s current disturbed area is about 1.3Ha. This area and quarry faces are devoid of vegetation. MSD estimates that the disturbed area is likely to increase to around 3.5Ha over a ten year period.

An ecological assessment of the local quarry area identified potential habitat for threatened fauna species including spotted‐tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) and the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). No threatened flora communities were identified within the existing or proposed lease areas. One threatened flora species Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis was noted in several locations around the quarry perimeter. A number of plants will need to be removed as part of intensification of use.

Several declared weeds have been observed at the quarry site including Californian thistle, English broom and Montpelier broom. MSD maintains and implements a Weed Management Plan for the site.

No eagle nests are known to occur or have been recorded within 500m or a 1 km line of sight of the existing and proposed mine lease areas.

Uncontrolled disturbance or removal of vegetation has the potential to impact and degrade the biodiversity and natural values of the quarry site and surrounding area.

Management measures proposed in EEPR

MSD intends to continue to implement its Weed Management Plan as part of intensification of use [EEPR commitment 2].

Public and agency comment

PCAB acknowledged MSD’s observation that a number of specimens of the threatened plant Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis (slender rice-flower) occur on the mining lease. PCAB noted MSD’s intent to remove a small number (two) of these plants. PCAB indicated removal of this small number of slender rice-flower specimens could occur without detriment to the local population and confirmed it would accept an application to ‘take’ from MSD.1

PCAB also noted that while Lathamus discolour (swift parrot) had been sighted in the quarry area, the mining leases (existing and proposed) did not appear to contain suitable habitat for the species and no nests had been observed nearby. PCAB concluded the risk of impact of quarry operations on the swift parrot would be low and did not recommend any further action.

PCAB also supported the existence and implementation of MSD’s current Weed Management Plan.

Evaluation

The flora and fauna assessment conducted as part of the proposed quarry upgrade. With respect to threatened flora species Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis (slender rice-flower), MSD will need to apply to DPIPWE (PCAB) for a permit to remove a small number (two anticipated) of plants that occur in the future development area. As indicated above, PCAB has confirmed it will issue MSD with a permit to ‘take’ these plants should MSD lodge an application to do so.

1 Taking native flora by definition, for species listed on the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 includes, kill, catch, damage and collect (section 3) of any listed plant, plant part or product (such as seed, foliage, roots, bark, sap etc.).


11

PCAB’s advice concerning anticipated quarrying impacts on another threatened species observed in the mining lease area, the swift parrot, is accepted. Material impacts on the spotted-tailed quoll and Tasmanian devil are not anticipated due to ample surrounding habitat for these species and MSD’s modest intended clearing of vegetation.

As noted above, several species of declared weeds have been observed and recorded across the quarry site. MSD has prepared a Weed Management Plan for the site and will be required to comply with the Plan’s mitigation and control measures to reduce the prevalence of weeds on The Land and limit their ongoing introduction, spread and off-site transfer. This requirement is explicitly stated in standard permit condition FF1 (Weed Management Plan).

The Weed Management Plan includes a section about vehicle washdown protocols, extracted from the Tasmanian washdown guidelines for weed and disease control (Edition 1 April 2004). MSD will be required to comply with the complete guideline to minimise the weed and disease risk on The Land and accordingly standard permit condition FF2 (vehicle washdown) is imposed. Provided MSD heeds the above advice, the impact of quarry operations on threatened flora and fauna species and communities is anticipated to be minimal.

Conclusion

MSD will be required to comply with the following standard conditions:

FF1 Weed Management Plan

FF2 Washdown guidelines


12

Issue 2: Rivers, creeks and wetlands


The quarry lies about 100m upstream from the confluence of two sub-catchments of the Nive River. Vehicles traverse the larger tributary by bridge when accessing the quarry.

Stormwater from the quarry floor is directed southeast to a semi-formal sediment pond. This drains to a spoon drain, across an internal access track and then into the tributary of the Nive River east of the access road.

Ground disturbance from quarrying may mobilise and transfer sediments to local waterways in stormwater flows. These flows may also cause erosion and scouring of local waterways.


EEPR commitment 4 states that a void/ water collection area will be maintained in the quarry floor to allow water to pool prior to surface flow to the semi-formal sediment pond.

EEPR commitment 5 states that the required water retention capacity will be achieved by maintaining a water pooling area in the quarry floor and the existing semi-formal sediment pond.

EEPR commitment 6 outlines the maintenance regime for the semi-formal sediment pond.

Public, Council and agency comment

The EPA Division’s Regulatory Officer (Mining & Extractives Unit) found MSD’s proposal to use part of the quarry floor to capture and settle sediment was not an acceptable management solution, largely due to the substantial volume required to optimise settling conditions and minimise premature outflow to the semi-formal sediment pond. The officer also highlighted settling may be disturbed by vehicle movements through standing water in the quarry floor and suggested the (undersized) semi-formal sediment pond may receive relatively high sediment loads, which may in turn flow into the Nive River tributary. The officer also noted flow from the semi-formal sediment pond was across an internal track and recommended MSD undertake works to limit erosion and sediment transfer to local watercourses.

The EPA Division’s Scientific Officer (Water) indicated the water quality risks associated with the proposed quarry intensification appeared negligible. Given the low risk, the Officer did not find any justification to impose formal regulatory limits and monitoring regime.

The Officer also:

Supported the proposal to use part of the quarry floor to help retain sediments on site.

Recommended permit conditions to help preserve the riparian buffer zones for two watercourses located on or near The Land.

Council indicated MSD should consider measures to mitigate erosion when excluding stormwater from the quarry working area. Council also raised a number of matters about the ‘rainfall runoff volume and sediment capture assessment’ (EEPR Appendix 5), including:

How often/ when did MSD expect stormwater to flow from the quarry floor to the sediment pond

Level of detail concerning sizing of sediment storage (pond and floor), infiltration rate(s) and storage capacity at various stages of quarry development.

The above matters either do not materially affect the conclusions made in the ‘rainfall runoff volume and sediment capture assessment’ or can be effectively addressed with permit conditions.

Evaluation

The EEPR includes a ‘rainfall runoff volume and sediment capture assessment’ as Appendix 5. This assessment considers what sediment capture and control measures will be required at the quarry by year ten of intensified activity, assuming that the maximum extraction rate of 20,000m3 is achieved each year. For the existing open area of 1.3Ha about 1ML sediment retention capacity has been estimated, growing to about 2.8ML at year ten when an open area of 3.5Ha is anticipated. Retention capacity was calculated to accommodate flows anticipated from a 72hour 1 in 100 year rainfall event. The assessment concludes that all stormwater runoff not excluded


13

by cut off drains can be captured and treated by the existing 0.4ML sediment pond and the quarry floor (refer commitments 4 and 5 above). The stormwater and sediment capture assessment calculations appear sound. Furthermore, the anticipated run-off from the chosen rainfall event (72hour 1 in 100 years) will be considerably greater than one would expect from a 1 in 20 year rainfall event, the circumstance a proponent is typically required to consider. Consequently the run-off calculations are considered quite conservative.

It is agreed that the quarry floor is an integral part of sediment retention, provided that MSD creates and maintains a water pooling and collection area in the floor (e.g. as per commitments 4 and 5). The collection/ ponding area must not be subject to any vehicular movements in order to maximise settling of sediments. This is stipulated in site-specific condition E5. The fractured nature of the basalt floor should allow water to gradually percolate and the recovery of sediment. The latter will be crucial to maintaining adequate retention volume.

Standard conditions E1 (perimeter drains), E2 (stormwater) and E3 (maintenance of any sediment basin) are deemed suitable for stormwater exclusion, sediment control and pond maintenance at the quarry. These conditions should effectively bring about the desired outcome (i.e. on-site retention of sediments) of EEPR commitments 4 and 5.

The existing sediment pond is undersized and should be enlarged to at least cater for flows anticipated to arise from a 1 in 20 year rainfall event, based on a maximum disturbed area of land of 1.5Ha.2 Furthermore, the discharge path from the semi-formal sediment pond, where water passes over an internal track before entering a Nive River tributary, is not acceptable practice. Consequently Condition E4 specifies that:

MSD must ensure (by calculation and where necessary enlargement) the sediment pond can accept and treat run-off arising from a 1 in 20 year rainfall even; and

Implement measures to ensure non-polluted stormwater (captured in the quarry floor) is not directed over any internal tracks and only enters nearby watercourses at low velocity. Measures may include installation of appropriately sized and maintained culverts and drains.

These works must occur within three months of the date of issue of land use permit 2014/47.

Conclusion


E1 Perimeter drains

E2 Stormwater control

E3 Maintenance of sediment basin

MSD will also be required to comply with the following site-specific condition:

E4 Stormwater capture and discharge

E5 Stormwater retention and vehicular movements

2 Approximates the existing disturbed area of land, 1.3Ha.


14

Issue 3: Air emissions


Mobile plant, including crushing and screening equipment, will give rise to most of the quarry’s air emissions, namely combustion gases and dust. Drilling and blasting will also give rise to dust. The nearest sensitive receptors are located about 1.7km southeast of the quarry at Tarraleah township.

Dust emissions have the potential to cause environmental nuisance in the absence of suitable controls.


EEPR commitment 7 indicates that water from the sediment pond will be used to dampen dust prone areas at the quarry during periods of dry weather.


The EPA Division’s Scientific Officer (Air) was satisfied that Part D p17 (Air Emissions) of the EER dealt adequately with air issues associated with quarry operations. The Officer noted the local area’s high rainfall plus the use of a water truck on site should limit dust emissions. The Officer also highlighted the absence of any residences within 1km of the quarry, making any dust impacts off site highly unlikely.

Evaluation

It is accepted that conditions conducive to dust formation and distribution are not likely to routinely occur at the quarry given Tarraleah’s above average annual rainfall. Furthermore, the substantial (vegetated) buffer distance between the quarry and the Tarraleah township also means dust-related environmental nuisance is unlikely.

Vehicles that transport crushed and screened products from the quarry site must be covered or load dampened to limit spills of material and limit dust escaping. This requirement is specified in standard condition A1. Standard condition A2 requires MSD to control dust emissions to avoid environmental nuisance beyond the site boundary.

Provided that standard conditions A1 and A2 are observed then air emissions from this activity are unlikely to cause nuisance beyond the boundary of The Land.3

Conclusion


A1 Covering or load dampening of vehicles

A2 Control of dust emissions to limit environmental nuisance

3 The Land is defined as the area surveys within mining leases 16M/1998 and 1M/2015 (refer Figure 2 this

report).


15

Issue 4: Liquid effluent


There are no staff toilet or shower amenities currently on site. A portaloo will be provided during major extraction campaigns and removed at campaign conclusion.


EEPR commitment 8 states that a portaloo will be available on site during major extraction campaigns and its contents disposed of at an approved wastewater treatment facility.


Nil.

Evaluation

Provision of a portaloo during major extraction campaigns and transfer of its contents to an approved wastewater treatment facility is noted (EEPR commitment 8).

As no liquid discharges are anticipated, no specific conditions to manage liquid effluent are considered necessary.

Conclusion

No conditions are considered necessary.


16

Issue 5: Solid wastes


Materials stripped to develop and expand the quarry, including vegetation, will remain on site and be used either for rehabilitation purposes or road construction. All rock-based materials will be sold. No on-site servicing of mobile plant is anticipated. All other general solid wastes will be removed after each operational shift.

Solid wastes have potential to contaminate local soils and water resources (including groundwater) in the absence of, or poorly applied, preventative and control measures.


EEPR commitment 10 states that no servicing of machinery will occur at the quarry.

EEPR commitment 11 states that general refuse (e.g. lunch packaging) will be removed from the quarry each day.


Nil.

Evaluation

The measures for solid wastes as encapsulated by EEPR commitments 10 and 11 are deemed adequate and supported.

No specific conditions to manage solid wastes are considered necessary, given that:

All quarried material has a market value and use.

All stripped soils and overburden will be used for progressive rehabilitation.

Logs will be stored on site for rehabilitation purposes.

Other vegetation removed during quarry expansion, such as shrubs and smaller trees and limbs, will be mulched to use for site rehabilitation works.

Conclusion

MSD will be required to comply with EEPR commitments 10 and 11 stated above.

No other conditions are considered necessary.


17

Issue 6: Noise emissions (including blasting)


Drilling, blasting, crushing and screening of rock are expected to give rise to the majority of noise emissions from the quarry. A maximum of three blasts are expected each year. Vehicle movements will also contribute to noise emissions.

The EEPR [Part D, p18] lists the major pieces of machinery and equipment that are and will continue to be used at the quarry. The nearest sensitive receptors are located at Tarraleah township about 1.7km southeast of the quarry.

MSD believes blast events at the quarry would likely comply with air blast overpressure and ground vibration industry targets at the nearest sensitive receptor given the quarry and Tarraleah are separated by more than the Standard Recommended Attenuation Distance (SRAD) for blasts listed in the Quarry Code of Practice 1999 (QCOP).

Operating hours are listed in Part B, p8 of the EEPR.

Noise from extractive operations has the potential to cause environmental nuisance off-site if not properly managed at the source.


No explicit commitments have been detailed. A Blast Management Plan has been developed for the site [EEPR Appendix 4]. Its protocols are anticipated to be implemented for blast events.


The EPA Division’s Noise Specialist does not expect noise to be an issue and has recommended noise limits not be imposed. However, the requirement to monitor blasts and retain results for at least two years was recommended.

While MSD did not provide sound power levels for all major pieces of equipment (as per the guidelines), the Noise Specialist indicated the separation distance and relatively low average production rate would effectively mitigate against environmental nuisance due to noise.

Evaluation

The nearest sensitive receptors at 1.7km away lie well outside the SRAD for blasting (1km) and crushing-screening (750m). Substantial topographic screening between the quarry and Tarraleah township is also likely to effectively mitigate transmission of noise (including air blast overpressure) and ground vibration from quarry operations.

As indicated above, advice from the EPA Division’s Noise Specialist concludes that noise (and vibration) from quarry operations are very unlikely to cause nuisance at the nearest sensitive receptor. As such, specific conditions that set noise limits are not considered necessary. However, it is thought reasonable to specify when blasting must occur (B1), what airblast overpressure and ground vibration limits apply at the curtilage of any sensitive receptor in other ownership (B2) and that blast monitoring must be conducted for each event and records retained for a period of at least two years (B3). It is noted that these requirements, plus notification of nearby property owners and residents at least 24hrs prior to a blast, are also contained within the site’s Blast Management Plan.

The nominated operating hours are consistent with those stated in the Tasmanian QCOP. This observation, and the healthy separation of quarry and Tarraleah township mean the opportunity for noise nuisance (including from cartage operations) are slim. Operating hours are specified in non-standard condition N1. The EPA Division’s Noise Specialist also accepted that noise from regular quarry operations was not likely to overwhelm background ‘highway’ noise for extended periods.

Conclusion


B1 Blasting times

B2 Noise and vibration limits


18

B3 Blast monitoring

N1 Operating hours


19

Issue 7: Transport impacts


The following is included for noting only.

It is expected that the quarry will give rise to no more than 40 vehicle movements per day along the Lyell Highway. Typical quarry operations are more likely to generate between 20 and 30 vehicle movements per day [EEPR Part D, p22].

The anticipated transport arrangements were appraised against planning scheme criteria and in general judged to comply.

There is a single access point to the quarry fitted with a boom gate.

Cartage hours will align with the periods expressed in the Tasmanian QCOP.

Vehicle movements may reduce the acoustic and atmospheric amenity of the local neighbourhood without suitable controls.


No explicit EEPR commitments have been nominated.

Public, Council and agency comment

Transport Infrastructure Services (TIS; Department of State Growth) advised Central Highlands Council that the:

Quarry’s gravel access road is likely to need sealing for a minimum of 20m from the edge of the Lyell Highway.

Lyell Highway is likely to need an asphalt overlay for 30m centred on the quarry access road to ensure the pavement is able to handle any additional heavy vehicle movements. These requirements will be included in any (State Growth) issued permit for works within the State road reservation.

TIS also indicated it had no objection in principle to development application 2014/47, while noting MSD must comply with the Roads and Jetties Act 1935 Section 16, namely ‘…other works shall not be done in a State highway or subsidiary road without the consent in writing of the Minister.’

Council reported sight distance to the Lyell Highway, particularly to south west, was substandard. It suggested MSD consider measures (e.g. signage, civil works) to improve sight distance.


20

Issue 8: Hazardous substances and chemicals


Explosives will be handled, transported, stored and deployed by the blast contractor. No explosives will be stored at the quarry.

Diesel will be confined to a utility vehicle and machinery fuelled from there. No hazardous substances will be stored on site.

Potential for loss or spills of hazardous substances exists. Uncontrolled loss of hazardous substances such as hydrocarbons can infiltrate, contaminate surface and ground water and soil ecosystems.


EEPR commitment 13 states that fuel and oil containers will not be stored on site overnight.

EEPR commitment 14 states that fuel and oil containers will be stored at least 10m away from any watercourse, settling pond or water storage void and bunded to a capacity at least 1.5 times the volume of the container.

MSD also indicates that a hydrocarbon spill kit will be on hand at all times at the quarry.


Nil.

Evaluation

The blast contractor will be expected to adhere to its own operating terms and conditions. As explosives will only be onsite during a blast event, the potential for environmental harm is considered low.

EEPR commitment 13 is supported.

Since hazardous substances such as diesel will routinely be on site, standard condition H1 (storage and handling of hazardous materials) is applicable.

Provision of an on-site hydrocarbon spill kit is required by standard condition H2.

Provided that H1 and H2 are adhered to, then the likelihood of contaminating local water and land resources is considered very low.

Conclusion

MSD will be required to comply with EEPR commitment 13 as stated above.

MSD will also be required to comply with the following standard (generic) conditions:

H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials

H2 Provision of spill kit


21

Issue 9: Cultural heritage


The EER Project Specific Guidelines did not require a survey for Aboriginal heritage. Desktop analysis using the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index did not reveal any heritage sites within or nearby the existing quarry workings.

Extractive operations, particularly blasting, have the potential to damage or degrade items of heritage value if poorly planned and executed.


No explicit EEPR commitments have been nominated.


Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) advised the prospect of finding Aboriginal artefacts in the quarry’s local area was low, following its review of previous heritage investigations and the highly disturbed nature of the area.

Evaluation

The prospect that intensified quarrying operations will affect Aboriginal heritage is considered remote. No specific conditions are deemed necessary.

Conclusion

No conditions are proposed. Information about the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 will be included in the information schedules of PCE 9048.


22

Issue 10: Rehabilitation


The quarry will continue to be developed primarily to the west and northwest. Initial rehabilitation works are anticipated to occur in the eastern section of the existing quarry footprint. A preliminary rehabilitation plan is outlined in the EER [Part D, pp25-26]. With intensification in mind, MSD has requested Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) grant the quarry a total open area of 3.5Ha.

Unchecked or abandoned quarrying activities have potential to cause ongoing impacts to immediate and surrounding environment, including persistent contamination of surface and ground waters.


EEPR commitment 15 states that progressive rehabilitation will occur over areas that have been worked out or no longer needed or used for quarry operations.


MRT highlighted the EEPR lacked detail concerning:

Which areas MSD might target for progressive rehabilitation

Site layout, including direction/staging of mining, requirement for benches, hardstand area, overburden and topsoil stockpiles and progressive rehabilitation

MRT also noted the quarry’s full extent may be within 10m of the mining lease boundary. Under its mining lease(s), MSD must maintain a 10m buffer zone within the lease boundary. Activity within this area would constitute a non-compliance.

MRT stated it would request and evaluate the above information/ matters as part of its assessment of MSD’s new mining lease application.4

Evaluation

MSD’s commitment 15 to progressively rehabilitate worked out areas or disused parts of the quarry is considered appropriate and supported. A moderate increase to the total allowable area open at any one time is accepted, given the civil works necessary to develop new (additional) mine lease area. This maximum area of disturbance and requirement for progressive rehabilitation are explicitly stated in site-specific condition DC3.

Given the minimum anticipated quarry life of 20 years, it is considered appropriate to require a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan within 60 days of the Director being notified of cessation of the activity (DC5).

As indicated previously in this report, MSD intends to retain most stripped materials (e.g. soils and overburden) for rehabilitation purposes. This intention is explicitly expressed as standard condition DC2.

Other decommissioning and rehabilitation requirements considered necessary for this activity are standard conditions DC1 and DC4.

Provided that these conditions are compiled with, there should be little risk of material environmental harm from quarry closure.

Conclusion

MSD will be required to comply with the following conditions:

DC1 Notification of cessation

DC2 Stockpiling of surface soil

DC3 Progressive rehabilitation

DC4 Temporary suspension of activity

DC5 DRP requirements

4 Received mid-January 2015.


23

7 Report conclusions

This assessment has been based on the information provided by the proponent, MSD Constructions Pty Ltd, in the permit application, EEPR and in correspondence and discussion between the EPA Division and the proponent and the proponent’s representatives. This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by EPA Division scientific specialists and regulatory staff, other Divisions of DPIPWE and other government agencies. It is concluded that:

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

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

It is concluded that the proposed activity is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the objectives of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (the RMPS and EMPCS objectives) would be compromised, provided that the Permit Conditions - Environmental No. 9048 appended to this report are imposed and duly complied with, including commitments made by the proponent in the EEPR. The environmental conditions appended to this report are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing permit conditions for the level 1 activity.


25

9 References

Barnes R & McCoull C; Paddy’s quarry Tarraleah increased annual production-Environmental Effects and Planning Report (dated 10/12/2014), Van Diemen Consulting, New Town, Tasmania.


26

10 Appendices

Appendix 1 Permit conditions, includes Attachment 1 - EEPR commitments


Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Permit conditions - Environmental


Appendix 2

Paddy’s quarry – increased annual production Constructions... · Environmental Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of Paddy’s quarry – increased annual production Constructions... · Environmental Assessment...