Cullenswood No. 2 Open -Cut Mine -...

Cullenswood No. 2 Open-Cut Mine

Supplement to the Environmental Effects Report

For Cornwall Coal

April 2010 Revision 0

Project No: 458.086

F 100 05, Revision 13, 26 February 2010

Cullenswood No. 2 EER Supplement

458.086 Revision 0 Authorisation

REPORT ISSUE AUTHORISATION PROJECT: Cullenswood No. 2 EER Supplement Project No: 458.086 AUTHOR: Jacqui Allan Senior Environmental Scientist

Date Purpose of Issue/Nature of Revision

Rev Reviewed by

Issue Authorised

by 1 April 2010

Final Supplement for Submission to EPA

0 JA TM

This Report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services agreed upon between SEMF Pty Ltd (SEMF) and the Client. To the best of SEMF’s knowledge, the report presented herein represents the Client’s intentions at the time of printing of the report. However, the passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may result in the actual contents differing from that described in this report. In preparing this report SEMF has relied upon data, surveys, analysis, designs, plans and other information provided by the client, and other individuals and organisations referenced herein. Except as otherwise stated in this report, SEMF has not verified the accuracy or completeness of such data, surveys, analysis, designs, plans and other information. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose by third parties. This report does not purport to provide legal advice. Readers should engage professional legal advisers for this purpose. SEMF Pty. Ltd Level 2, 162 Macquarie Street, Hobart 7000: GPO Box 897 Hobart 7001 Tasmania Australia ACN 117 492 814 ABN 24 117 492 814 Telephone: (61 3) 6212 4400 Facsimile: (61 3) 6212 4475 Email: [email protected]


458.086 Revision 0 Contents

CONTENTS

1. SCOPE OF REPORT.........................................................................................1

1.1 GENERAL.....................................................................................................1

2. GROUNDWATER ISSUES ................................................................................2

2.1 GENERAL.....................................................................................................2 2.2 RESPONSE ..................................................................................................3

2.2.1 Geological Advice ...............................................................................3 2.2.2 Summary ............................................................................................3

3. FLOODING ISSUES..........................................................................................5

3.1 COMMENTS..................................................................................................5 3.2 RESPONSE ..................................................................................................5

4. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS ISSUES...................... ..................................7


5. HERITAGE ISSUES ..........................................................................................9


6. TRAFFIC ISSUES............................................................................................ 11

6.1 COMMENTS................................................................................................ 11 6.2 RESPONSE ................................................................................................ 11

Table of Figures Figure 3-1 Cullenswood No. 2 Mine Drainage and Sediment Basins ........................6 Table of Plans Plan 1 - Land Department Map dated 13-7-1928 showing the study area probably was located within the bounds of Lot 29 owned by Robert Vincent Legge. .............10 Appendices Appendix A - Geological Advice from McElroy Bryan Geological Services Pty Ltd Appendix B - Cullenswood No. 2 Mine Traffic Impact Assessment


458.086 Revision 0 Page 1

1. SCOPE OF REPORT

1.1 General

This document provides supplementary information to the Environmental Effects Report (EER) prepared in relation to the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 Open-cut Coal Mine. The EER was submitted by Cornwall Coal to the Break O’Day Council (‘the Council’) and the Environment Protection Authority (‘EPA’).

Following the submission of the EER, comments were received from the following referral agencies:

• Environment Division, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE);

• Heritage Tasmanian (DPIPWE);

• Inland Fisheries Service (DPIPWE); and

• Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Infrastructure Policy and Planning (DIER).

One representation was also received in relation to the advertisement of the EER.

In the process of preparing this Supplement, further information has been gathered to respond to the comments as comprehensively as possible as well as highlighting areas in the EER where these issues have been previously covered.



2. GROUNDWATER ISSUES

2.1 General

The following additional information was requested in relation to groundwater:

Representor:

“The representor considers that a groundwater study of the catchment within which the mine is located is necessary prior to the commencement of any works.”

“The proposal to carry out groundwater studies only upon intersection of significant groundwater flows is considered to not constitute best practice environmental management”.

“As the nature and extent of the groundwater system has not been determined and no provision made for protection of the system the representor does not consider that the proposal conforms to the objectives of the Tasmanian Resources Management and Planning System as set out in Clauses 1.2.2b and 1.2.3 of the Break O’Day Planning Scheme 1996 (the Scheme).”

“The representor considers that the proposal is inconsistent with the Scheme objectives detailed in Clause 2.1.1 [particularly part ’h’] as short-term interests [the proposal as opposed to protection of local water resources] should not override broader or longer term interests. Clause 2.1.1j also states that the precautionary principle should be applied where there is a lack of scientific information. This is not considered to have occurred.”

Environment Division:

“More detailed regional information on the groundwater system is required i.e. the quality and ecological use, human use and potential use of local aquifers, likely recharge and discharge zones and geological aspects of the region that provide any groundwater characteristics. As a minimum, a more detailed comparison of the geology of Cullenswood No. 1 and Cullenswood No. 2 to justify conclusions drawn in relation to groundwater should be carried out.

A risk assessment must be made of the likelihood and severity of impacts at a local and regional level resulting from the removal of groundwater of operational areas and discharge to surface settling ponds. The risk assessment should consider groundwater table draw down effects, risk to potential groundwater and surface water users and the risk to both surface and groundwater receiving environments.

Groundwater monitoring should be considered if it is determined that the risks of groundwater impacts and groundwater displacement to surface waters are potentially significant.”

“Unless more detailed information on likely groundwater flow rates is obtained, settling pond area should be increased to allow for a contingency groundwater pump out volume and retention time. Settling ponds must be designated to ensure sediment disturbed from large volumes of groundwater pumped to the settling pond resettles prior to any discharge to surface water.”



2.2 Response

2.2.1 Geological Advice

Dr John Bryan, Director of McElroy Bryan Geological Services Pty Ltd has provided the following information, dated 18 March 2010 (Appendix A ), in relation to groundwater issues raised above:

� “Recent exploration drilling at the Cullenswood No. 2 site has confirmed that the target seam (Seam E3) is the same as the target seam at Cullenswood No. 1 open cut, which has operated for some years.

� The geological strata encountered in the drilling at Cullenswood No. 2 are similar in all respects to those at Cullenswood No.1. The lithic sandstones and mudstones are typical of the Triassic coal measures in the Fingal Valley.

� The drilling at Cullenswood No. 2 did not provide data specifically on groundwater because the drilling was core drilling using water as a drilling fluid. During the drilling, every hole used water, sometimes at the rate of 500 litres per hour, indicating that the strata was not water bearing. There was no evidence of groundwater aquifers and indeed this would not be expected in the fine grained sandstones and mudstones that were drilled. The coal measures of the Fingal Valley do not include strata that have high porosity and high permeability, properties that are required for significant groundwater aquifers.

� The available geological information indicates that there is no evidence that aquifers exist in the strata at the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 open cut, and groundwater should not be an issue with respect to the operation of the proposed open cut”.

2.2.2 Summary

Based on the above professional comparison of the geology of Cullenswood No. 1 and Cullenswood No. 2, it is considered unlikely that aquifers exist in the strata at the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 open cut mine. Groundwater systems should not therefore be compromised as a result of the operation of the mine.

A precautionary approach has been nevertheless been adopted (consistent with Clause 2.1.1j of the Resource Management and Planning Scheme (RMPS)) and the sediment ponds described in the EER have been resized and redesigned to allow for additional capacity to accommodate both any unlikely additional groundwater pumping and flooding events (see Section 3 below for details of the proposed sediment pond). The additional capacity and sequencing of the ponds will also allow for greater infiltration of pump out water back into groundwater.

Furthermore, the EER provides the following management measure as a commitment: “should continuous pumping of groundwater be required during mining, a groundwater study will be completed and, if appropriate, mining techniques modified to minimise impact on local groundwater”.



Therefore, it is considered that the proposed mine is compliant with Clauses 1.2.2b and 1.2.3 of RMPS and does not constitute a land use that will over ride intergenerational interests (Clause 2.1.1h). Nor is it considered that the land use constitutes a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage (Clause 2.1.1j) given the professional advice provided by McElroy Bryan Geological Services Pty.



3. FLOODING ISSUES

3.1 Comments

Inland Fisheries:

“An assessment of the impact of flooding of the Break O’Day floodplain on the proposal site is required. In particular the following details are required:

� The security of operational areas and sediment control infrastructure in relation to flood events;

� The adequacy of proposed infrastructure to deal with any additional flow from mine dewatering that may be required as a result of flooding; and

� The potential for sediment release to the receiving environment, including the Break O’Day river, as a result of flooding and proposed mitigation measures.”

3.2 Response

In relation to flood events, a check of flood plain contours and mapped major flood levels for the Break O'Day river plus various feeder streams, shows that the mapped flood levels are 1.5km from the proposed development, and approximately 8-10m below the level of the proposed sediment basins. When considering that the development (with a life span of approximately 10 years) is situated in the upper reaches of the catchment, and considerable area is available as flood plain to the west as the river approaches the South Esk at Fingal some 15km from the site, it will require a rainfall and flood event of enormous magnitude, far in excess of the 1 in 100 year event used to plot the flood lines. Inundation of the sediment basins as a result of flooding of the Break O'Day river or its feeder streams in the vicinity of the development is not a probable event.

The attached drawing Figure 3-1 shows the development and its position relative to the feeder streams and mapped flood levels. Also indicated are site drainage lines proposed to separate the sediment basins from general upstream catchment run off, as well as drainage lines for the collection of "contaminated" or sediment carrying run-off.

To provide further certainty, the sediment basins will be provided with an additional high flow bypass to divert a portion of peak run off in events greater than 20 year ARI. The bypass weir and sediment basins are designed to accommodate first flush events for the site as well as routing long duration events through the basins. An additional 150m2 basin will also be provided to improve the removal of finer material, down to coarse silts.



4. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS ISSUES

4.1 Comments

The following additional information was requested in relation to wetlands and waterways:

Representor:

“Waterways in the vicinity of the site are described as “semi-permanent” or “ephemeral”. The representor is concerned that such waterways are likely to be more fragile to hydrological change, particularly when climate change is also considered.”

“Clause 18.3 of the Scheme [Break O’Day Planning Scheme] requires identification of waterways or wetlands on the development site or that may otherwise be affected by the development. The methods used to protect the values of these waterways and wetlands must also be described. The impact of the proposal on local waterways and wetlands has not been described.”

“The Scheme requires that the development not occur within 30m of a wetland. It is stated in the Planning Report that there are no wetlands within 30m. Plate 8 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment (Appendix E) shows land that appears to be a wetland as defined by the Scheme. This requires clarification.”

Environment Division:

“Stream sections and wetlands that may be impacted by the development, and their conservation value and management priority must be identified. This information can be obtained from the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values database located on the DPIPWE website under the ‘Water’ section. Information obtained from the database should be compared against ground observations.

An assessment of the impact of the proposal on the ascribed values of the identified streams and wetlands must be made and management measures to mitigate against any identified effects made.”

4.2 Response

Clause 18.3.1 of the Break O’Day Planning Scheme requires that: ‘It is the responsibility of applicants for use and development to which this code applies to identify;

a) any wetland or waterway on the development site; and b) any wetland or waterway not on the site but which may be affected by the use or development proposed for the site.



The Break O’Day Planning Scheme provides the following definitions:

“Waterway” means a natural depression carrying perennial or intermittent flows of surface water for part or all of most years, consisting of a defined channel, with banks and a bed along which water may flow.

“Wetland” means a depression in the landscape or areas of poor drainage that hold water derived from groundwater and surface water runoff and support plants adapted to full or partial inundation. Wetlands may be permanently or intermittently wet.

The drainage features within the Cullenswood proposed mine extension contain a few plant species that are adapted to full or partial inundation, however these species are common, ubiquitous and not specific to wet areas or aquatic habitats (ie. Juncus, Isolepis and Carex). Truly aquatic to semi-aquatic freshwater wetland species are absent, such as Villarsia, Triglochin, Potamogeton, Samolus, Ruppia and Vallisneria. Instead, the drainage features are dominated by pasture grasses, exotic herbs and non-woody weeds (mainly thistles) as the land has been managed as pasture for numerous years. The intermittent nature of water flow in the drainage features, combined with ploughing, fertilising and grazing stock is not conducive to the development and maintenance of a wetland ecosystem in the site. A flora and fauna assessment was completed by SEMF in March 2009 (Drs. McCoull and Barnes) and involved the conduct of a detailed on-ground field survey. The assessment found, using CFEV and TASVEG definitions and planning tools, that the study site contained native grassland and sedgeland, agricultural land and hardwood plantation. No wetlands were identified as being located on the site during this survey. No wetlands or wetland values have been identified by the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values program (CFEV, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment) within the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 site. While technically, some of the drainage flats within the site could be interpreted as ‘wetlands’, as defined by the Break O’Day Planning Scheme, they are not functionally, biologically or floristically ‘wetlands’ as would be defined under the State Government regulatory framework or planning process. Nor are any areas on the site listed in the State Government’s CFEV. Accordingly, it is not considered that the wet areas (as shown in Plate 8 of Appendix E of the Cullenswood No. 2 Mine EER) within the site represent ‘wetland’ vegetation, and consequently no protection or mitigation measures or any other restrictions on the development are warranted in this regard.



5. HERITAGE ISSUES

5.1 Comments

The following additional information was requested in relation to heritage:

Heritage Tasmania:

“A specific assessment of cultural heritage values, including cultural landscape values is required for the proposal site. Appropriate management commitments are required for any identified historic heritage values.”

5.2 Response

A field survey of the site was completed by Cultural Heritage Management Australia (CHMA) in August 2009 (Page 27 of Appendix E of the EER). That survey found that “no European (Non Aboriginal) heritage sites were identified within the bounds of the study area. These negative results are assessed as being an accurate reflection of the absence of historic heritage items within the bounds of the study area. It is acknowledged that the study area has been the focus of occasional European activity in the past associated with early exploration and mining activity, however, there are no visible remnants of this past activity present in the study area.” A desktop assessment of the site and further investigation of the Cullenswood Estate was completed by CHMA in March 2010 with the following findings:

“The study area is located on the Break O’Day Plains, within the south-east portion of the Fingal Valley, approximately 5km to the south-west of the township of St Marys. A search of the Lands Department records shows that in 1928, the study area was part of a rural property owned by Robert Vincent Legge. Legge owned several thousand acres of land in the area immediately south of the Break O’Day River. The study area appears to fall within the bounds Lot 29 which incorporated approximately 640 acres (See Plan 1). The study area was operated by the Legge family as a pastoral property, focusing on sheep and cattle production.”

“As part of stage 1 work, a search was carried out of the Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory (THPI) held at the offices of Heritage Tasmania, Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts. The search shows that the study area is possibly part of the Cullenswood Estate which is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (Registered Place #602). “Recently advice was received from Heritage Tasmania (Angela McGowan) that Heritage Tasmania had reviewed the mining proposal and had concluded that the works associated with the new mine site falls outside the part of the Cullenswood Estate identified in the Tasmanian heritage Register as the ‘Statement of Heritage Interest Area’. As a consequence, it was advised that the proposed mine work may be completed without the need to seek approval from the Tasmanian Heritage Council as it is evident that the prescribed scope of proposed works will not adversely affect the historic cultural heritage significance of the registered place (advice received on the 22-3-2010).”



Plan 1 - Land Department Map dated 13-7-1928 showing the study area probably was located within the bounds of Lot 29 owned by Robert Vincent Legge.

No further information was able to be located by CHMA in relation to the date on which the land was granted to the Legge family or the date on which the parcel of land that relates to the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 Mine was incorporated into the Cullenswood Estate. However, an internet search by SEMF found information provided by the St Patricks Head and Esk Valley Historical Society Inc relating to Robert Vincent Legge. The website1 states that:

“Robert Vincent Legge was the son of an Irish barrister. Along with his five sisters, he left Dublin in 1827 and boarded the ship Medway bound for Van Diemens Land. They arrived in Hobart Town on the 12th August of that year and Robert was immediately given a land grant of 1200 acres by Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur.”

1 http://www.fingalvalleyhistory.com/Cullenswood.htm



6. TRAFFIC ISSUES

6.1 Comments

The following additional information was requested in relation to traffic:

DIER:

“A traffic impact assessment is required in relation to the junction of the farm road from the proposal site with the Esk Main Road.”

6.2 Response

A Traffic Impact Assessment for the Cullenswood No. 1 open-cut mine (which shares the same intersection with Esk Main Road as the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 mine) was prepared in 2004 as part of the approval process for that mine. That TIA recommended the installation of signage (T-junction signs, Give Way sign, speed limit sign) and sealing the first 50 metres of the “Cullenswood Estate” farm road. These measures were implemented following approval of the Cullenswood No. 1 mine. No further measures were recommended in relation to the Esk Main Road itself.

The Cullenswood No. 2 mine will share the same peak traffic volumes as Cullenswood No. 1 mine despite the proposed increased production levels at Cullenswood No. 2 as transportation of coal is determined by supplemental coal requirements at the Duncan Washery rather than by production levels.

Cornwall Coal is also currently in the process of seeking the re-opening of the Huntsman No. 2 open-cut mine which, when operational, will provide a source of supplemental coal alternative to Cullenswood No. 2. In the longer term, trucks will be therefore be used to transport coal from underground mining operations, and both Huntsman No. 2 and Cullenswood No. 2 open-cut mines. This will potentially further reduce traffic movements to and from Cullenswood No. 2 mine.

A Traffic Impact Assessment in relation to the Cullenswood No. 2 mine was completed by SEMF in April 2010. The report was prepared in accordance with DIER Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines and the full report can be found at Appendix B . In summary, the SEMF TIA found that the development will have limited impact on local traffic as follows:

“….the traffic service level assessment shows that the road currently easily provides level of service A at all times. The proposed development will have no effect on the level of service.”

“The peak hourly contribution of Cullenswood No. 2 to the Esk Main Road traffic volume is assessed at 13.5% compared with Cullenswood No. 1 currently contributing 12.6% to the peak hour volume.”

“The proposed mine will generate a maximum of 97 heavy vehicle movements per day, compared to 86 at present. This corresponds to a change in the percentage of heavy vehicles on Esk Main Road from 13% to 13.8%.”



The TIA found that no road treatment was considered necessary due to:

� The road is a single property, no-through, private access road therefore right turning volumes are limited to the traffic associated with the mine and the land owner;

� Peak right turning traffic volume is low;

� The approach sight distance from the west and east to the intersection is 1.7 times the required sight distance. Furthermore, the required Safe Intersection Sight Distance of 250 m, which is the minimum standard which should be provided on the major road of any intersection, is also exceeded in both directions;

� The existing main road pavement is in reasonably good condition and provides a reasonable gravel/grass shoulder in cases of emergency;

� The proposed development of Cullenswood No. 2 is only increasing the AADT by approximately 0.8%;

� Only one additional truck per hour will be generated from the development during peak times compared to what is currently accessing Cullenswood No. 1;

� There is good signage already in place at the intersection. A Give-way sign is present on the mine access road where it meets Esk Main Road and T-junction signs are present on Esk Main Road on both sides of the intersection;

� The first 50 m of the mine access road has been sealed with bitumen; and

� The utilisation of 24 hour cartage will ensure that peak truck volumes will be kept to a minimum.


Appendix A

Appendix A - Geological Advice from McElroy Bryan G eological Services Pty Ltd

Level 1● 680 Willoughby Road ● WILLOUGHBY ● NSW 2068 ● p:(02) 9958 1455 ● f: (02) 9958 2181

● PO Box 34 ● WILLOUGHBY ● NSW 2068 ● e:[email protected] ● www.mbgs.com.au

McElroy Bryan Geological Services Pty Ltd ABN 52 053 807 926

Consulting Geologists

Notes on Groundwater at Proposed Cullenswood No. 2 Open Cut Fingal Valley, Tasmania

• Recent exploration drilling at the Cullenswood No. 2 site has confirmed that the target seam (Seam E3) is the same as the target seam at Cullenswood No. 1 open cut, which has operated for some years.

• The geological strata encountered in the drilling at Cullenswood No. 2 are

similar in all respects to those at Cullenswood No.1. The lithic sandstones and mudstones are typical of the Trissic coal measures in the Fingal Valley.

• The drilling at Cullenswood No. 2 did not provide data specifically on

groundwater because the drilling was core drilling using water as a drilling fluid. During the drilling, every hole used water, sometimes at the rate of 500 litres per hour, indicating that the strata was not water bearing. There was no evidence of groundwater aquifers and indeed this would not be expected in the fine grained sandstones and mudstones that were drilled. The coal measures of the Fingal Valley do not include strata that have high porosity and high permeability, properties that are required for significant groundwater aquifers.

• The available geological information indicates that there is no evidence that

aquifers exist in the strata at the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 open cut, and groundwater should not be an issue with respect to the operation of the proposed open cut.

Dr John Bryan Director McElroy Bryan Geological Services Pty Ltd Thursday 18th March 2010

Cullenswood 2 Supplement

Appendix B

Appendix B - Cullenswood No. 2 Mine Traffic Impact Assessment

Cullenswood No. 2 Mine

Traffic Impact Assessment

For Cornwall Coal

April 2010 Revision 0

Project No: 0458.086

F 100 05, Revision 13, 26 February 2010

Cullenswood No. 2 Open Cut Mine – Traffic Impact Assessment

0458.086 Revision 0 Authorisation

REPORT ISSUE AUTHORISATION PROJECT: Cullenswood No. 2 Mine Project No: 0458.086 AUTHOR: Patrick Marshall, Graduate Civil Engineer

Date Purpose of Issue/Nature of Revision

Rev Reviewed by

Issue Authorised

by 13/04/10 Report Issued 0

This Report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services agreed upon between SEMF Pty Ltd (SEMF) and the Client. To the best of SEMF’s knowledge, the report presented herein represents the Client’s intentions at the time of printing of the report. However, the passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may result in the actual contents differing from that described in this report. In preparing this report SEMF has relied upon data, surveys, analysis, designs, plans and other information provided by the client, and other individuals and organisations referenced herein. Except as otherwise stated in this report, SEMF has not verified the accuracy or completeness of such data, surveys, analysis, designs, plans and other information. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose by third parties. This report does not purport to provide legal advice. Readers should engage professional legal advisers for this purpose. SEMF Pty. Ltd Level 2, 162 Macquarie Street, Hobart 7000: GPO Box 897 Hobart 7001 Tasmania Australia ACN 117 492 814 ABN 24 117 492 814 Telephone: (61 3) 6212 4400 Facsimile: (61 3) 6212 4475 Email: [email protected]



CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................ 1 1.2 SCOPE OF THIS TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT .............................................. 2 1.3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .............................................. 2 1.4 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................. 2 1.5 CONSULTATION.............................................................................................. 2

2. EXISTING ROAD AND TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT............................................ 5 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT TRAFFIC ROUTES................................................ 5 2.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES.......................................................................... 5 2.3 ROAD CONDITION .......................................................................................... 7 2.4 ROAD PERFORMANCE.................................................................................... 7 2.5 ROAD CAPACITY ............................................................................................ 8 2.6 ASSESSMENT OF SIGHT DISTANCES ............................................................... 9

3. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................... 12 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 12 3.2 TRAFFIC GENERATION ................................................................................. 12 3.3 INTERSECTION DESIGN ................................................................................ 13

4. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 15

5. CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 16

6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 17



FIGURES Figure 1-1 Location of Existing Cullenswood Mine and Proposed Cullenswood No. 2 Mine .. 3 Figure 1-2 Proposed Mine Access Route ................................................................................ 4 TABLES Table 2-1 – Existing Volumes on Esk Main Road – 2010........................................................ 6 Table 2-2 – Past Volumes on Esk Main Road - 2003.............................................................. 7 Table 2-3 – Comparison of Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 7 Table 2-4 – Esk Main Road Accident Data.............................................................................. 8 Table 2-5 – Capacity Assessment of Esk Main Road Prior to Proposed Development .......... 8 Table 2-6 – Esk Main Road Sight Distances ........................................................................... 9 Table 3-1 – Truck Trip Times................................................................................................. 12 Table 3-2 – Impacts of Proposed Development .................................................................... 13 Table 3-3 – Vehicle Composition........................................................................................... 13

List of Abbreviations Used In This Report

Acronym Meaning AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic BAR Basic Right Turn LOS Level of Service pc/h Passenger cars per hour TIA Traffic Impact Assessment v/h Vehicles per hour



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Cornwall Coal currently operates several sites across the state to support the Tasmanian coal energy market. Cornwall Coal’s primary production comes from its underground operations, Duncan and Blackwood No. 4, located within the Fingal valley. Blackwood No. 4 is a relatively new mine and the Duncan colliery is coming to closure due to the exhaustion of its reserves.

Cornwall Coal operates open cut mines known as Kimbolton, west of Hamilton in the south of the state, and also Cullenswood No. 1 located within the Fingal Valley. Another open cut mine that has been mined previously with the potential for extension is the Huntsman reserve north of the Mt Nicholas range within the Fingal Valley. Open cut reserves are minimal and are therefore only used to supplement underground production shortfalls and for quality control.

Cullenswood No. 1 is an existing open cut mine located between Fingal and St Marys in north-east Tasmania. It is a strategic reserve for the underground operation rather than one of the main sources of run-of mine coal production. Mining commenced in 2001 and the mine is now close to becoming sub-economic. Therefore Cornwall Coal proposes to open a new open cut mine at a site approximately 2 km from the current Cullenswood mine that will be known as Cullenswood No. 2.

The coal deposit is a continuation of the currently mined seam segregated by faulting. It lies within the boundaries of the Cullenswood property which is privately owned and within the existing mining lease. Existing and new compensation agreements are in place between Cornwall Coal and the land owner for Cullenswood No. 1 and the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 site.

Access to the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 mine will be the same access used for Cullenswood No. 1 from Esk Main Road, 3.6 km west of St Marys and 435 m east of the Esk Main Road and Cornwall Road Junction. Modifications to an existing farm road to access the new mining area will need to be upgraded within the private property. These modifications within the private road are not part of this assessment. A plan showing the location of the existing Cullenswood No. 1 site and the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 site is provided in Figure 1-1.

A traffic impact assessment was previously completed for the expansion of the existing Cullenswood No. 1 open cut mine. It noted that the peak right turning traffic (turning right from Esk Main Road into the mine access road) volume was low. The assessment also concluded that it was unnecessary to widen the road to allow for an auxiliary lane, which would allow overtaking of right-turning vehicles, given the likely low volume of traffic accessing the mine. Widening and sealing of the entrance to the mine access road, along the installation of signage, was completed as per requirements from the previous assessment.



1.2 Scope of This Traffic Impact Assessment

This assessment looks at the traffic on Esk Main Road and the impact on Esk Main Road due to the proposed development of Cornwall Coal’s Cullenswood No. 2 open cut mine.

1.3 Traffic Impact Assessment Methodology

The following approach was utilised in undertaking this traffic impact assessment:

• Review of DIER’s Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines.

• Collection of existing truck movement data at Cullenswood No. 1.

• Collection of existing traffic data from DIER.

• Measurement of dimensions and locations of relevant roads and accesses from site visit.

• Development of traffic generation model.

• Identification and assessment of traffic impacts.

• Identification of management measures.

• Preparation of a written report including conclusions and recommendations.

1.4 Study Area

The study area includes Esk Main Road from Fingal to St Marys and the Cullenswood access road intersection. The locality plan is shown on Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2.

1.5 Consultation

Cullenswood truck movement data was provided by Terry Miller, Operations Co-ordinator, Supply Chain & Cornwall Coal, Cement Australia Pty Ltd.

Traffic count information was provided by Janina Murrell, Traffic Statistics Systems Officer, Asset Information Group, Transport Infrastructure Branch, Roads and Traffic Division, Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER).

Road accident data was provided by Susan Cure, Crash Data Manger, DIER.



Figure 1-1 Location of Existing Cullenswood Mine and Proposed Cullenswood No. 2 Mine



Figure 1-2 Proposed Mine Access Route



2. EXISTING ROAD AND TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Description of Relevant Traffic Routes

Trucks travel from the Duncan Washery, which is located just east of Fingal, to Cullenswood No. 2, along Esk Main Road, turning right to access the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 mine. Therefore, the majority of work vehicles and trucks will approach the site from the west making a right turn from Esk Main Road to enter the Cullenswood mine access road. Traffic leaving the site will predominately turn left to travel along Esk Main Road to the Duncan Washery located at Fingal.

Esk Main Road is a category 3 regional access road leading from the Midland Highway to the Tasman Highway. The route passes through Avoca, Fingal and St Marys. The speed limit of the road is 100 km/h.

The Cullenswood mine access road is a rural, single property private access, no through road.

No residential areas are affected by the coal cartage as both the Duncan Washery and Cullenswood are situated between St Marys and Fingal.

As the Cullenswood site is more than 3 km from the nearest town and Esk Main Road is a category 3 regional access road, there are very few if any pedestrians using the road.

2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing traffic data was collected from DIER. Two traffic counts are available in the vicinity of Cullenswood on Esk Main Road.

One point is located at the Malahide Creek Bridge near Fingal, which is 13.2 km west of the Cullenswood Estate.

The other point is 320 m west of Clive Street in St Marys, which is approximately 3.3 km east of the Cullenswood Estate.

The data collected at Fingal is east of the Duncan Washery so the data will include traffic travelling between the Cullenswood site and the Duncan site.



Table 2-1 – Existing Volumes on Esk Main Road – 2010

Traffic Survey Site Factor Vehicles Trucks % Trucks Fingal - 10m E of Malahide Creek Bridge AADT 1220/day 159/day 13.0% 11:00 to 12:00 Morning peak 104/hour 15/hour 14.8%

11:00 to 12:00 Morning peak eastbound 47/hour 7/hour 14.3%

11:00 to 12:00 Morning peak westbound 57/hour 9/hour 15.1%

16:00 to 17:00 Evening peak 111/hour 13/hour 11.7%

16:00 to 17:00 Evening peak eastbound 60/hour 6/hour 9.4%

16:00 to 17:00 Evening peak westbound 51/hour 7/hour 14.4%

St Marys - 320m W of Clive St AADT 1365/day 150/day 11.0% 10:00 to 11:00 Morning peak 125/hour 14/hour 11.4%

10:00 to 11:00 Morning peak eastbound 57/hour 9/hour 15.7%

10:00 to 11:00 Morning peak westbound 67/hour 5/hour 7.7%

15:00 to 16:00 Evening peak 126/hour 12/hour 9.7%

15:00 to 16:00 Evening peak eastbound 65/hour 5/hour 7.3%

15:00 to 16:00 Evening peak westbound 61/hour 7/hour 12.2%

Difference in AADT (Fingal to St Marys) -145/day 8/day 2.0%

Source: DIER Traffic Survey Data (DIER 2010)

The traffic recorded travelling past the Fingal site has a 2% greater volume of trucks than the St Marys site. This small difference is due to a combination of road users including the mining operations at Cullenswood No. 1 and Blackwood No. 4 and logging operational movements which access Esk Main Road at St Marys, Mt Nicholas Road and Valley Road.

Morning and evening peaks are relatively late and early respectively with a five hour space in between. The different directional flow at peak times is small, with a 55% westbound split in the morning peak being the maximum variation from equal two way flow.

We can also compare the 2010 data with the data collected from 2003.



Table 2-2 – Past Volumes on Esk Main Road - 2003

Traffic Survey Site Factor Vehicles Trucks % Trucks Fingal AADT 1021/day 72/day 7.1% St Marys AADT 1291/day 91/day 7.1%

Source: DIER Traffic Survey Data (DIER 2003)

Table 2-3 – Comparison of Traffic Volumes

2003-2010 Traffic Survey Site % change in AADT % change in trucks/day Fingal 16% 55% St Marys 5% 39% Difference (Fingal to St Marys) 11% 15%

The AADT through Fingal has increased by 16% over 7 years, compared to 5% in St Marys. As the Blackwood colliery was closed between September 2003 and the beginning of 2010, this difference isn’t solely related to Cornwall Coal’s mining operations. The 5% increase observed at St Marys could be seen as a general growth rate for the area over 7 years. The extra 11% observed at Fingal is most likely due to a combination of the increased mining operations at Cullenswood No. 1, logging and farm cropping operations in the area.

Data on truck movements at Cullenswood No. 1 was provided by Cornwall Coal. For the calendar year of 2009 the maximum number of truck movements in a day (two-way) was 86. The peak movements in an hour (two-way) was 8.

2.3 Road Condition

Esk Main Road has a sealed lane width of 3 m and a gravel shoulder of 1.5 m. The bitumen pavement is in reasonable condition. Esk Main Road is essentially level in both directions from the access site.

The Cullenswood mine access road is sealed for the first 50 m in accordance with the approvals granted for the Cullenswood No. 1 mine, with an initial width of 10 m tapering to approximately 5 m to become a single lane gravel road.

An unnamed creek is located less than 1 m to the west of the intersection with a large culvert and guideposts in place. There is an overhead power line across the main road on the western side of the intersection. A Give-way sign is present on the mine access road where it meets Esk Main Road and T-junction signs are present on Esk Main Road on both sides of the intersection. There is no street lighting present.

2.4 Road Performance

The Land Transport Safety Policy Branch of DIER maintains a database of all road crashes in Tasmania that result in personal injury. Only one accident has been recorded in the vicinity of the Cullenswood site on Esk Main Road.



Table 2-4 – Esk Main Road Accident Data

Date Type Severity

May 2005 Wrong side, head on collision Serious

Source: DIER Road Accident Data (DIER 2010)

This head on collision relates to lack of attention and cannot be associated with the performance of the road.

2.5 Road Capacity

Under ideal conditions, the capacity of a two-lane rural road is 2800 passenger cars per hour (pc/h) total for both directions of flow (Underwood, 1995). However, the capacity of a road under actual conditions will depend upon the terrain, sight distances, directional distribution of traffic, proportion of passenger cars to heavy vehicles, lane width and useable shoulder width.

Esk Main Road is assessed to be 0% with sight distance less than 450 metres, has a useable lane width of 4.5 metres being 3 m seal plus 1.5 m shoulder, level road with a design speed of 100 km/h.

Using the level of service concept, the maximum stable flow capacity of the relevant roads in the study area was calculated to be 279 at level of service A (LOSA) up to 2081 at level of service E (LOSE ) (Underwood, 1995). These figures are based on equal flow in each direction.

The level of service concept describes the quality of traffic service in terms of 6 levels, with LOSA representing the best operating condition (i.e. at or close to free flow) and level of LOSF representing the worst flow (i.e. forced flow). The level of service provided at different traffic volumes is provided in Table 2-5. This information is interpreted as at LOSD all drivers are severely restricted while at LOSA, individual drivers have freedom to select their desired speed and to manoeuvre in the traffic stream.

The existing peak on Esk Main Road is 126 vehicles per hour. Therefore the road currently operates at LOSA.

Table 2-5 – Capacity Assessment of Esk Main Road Prior to Proposed

Development Level of Service Esk Main Road (v/h) LOSA 279 LOSB 502 LOSC 799 LOSD 1189 LOSE = capacity 2081 LOSF N/A

Source: Road Engineering Practise (Underwood, 1995)



2.6 Assessment of Sight Distances

The Cullenswood intersection currently has very good sight distances, with 300 m of unobstructed view towards the intersection from both the west and east.

Table 2-6 – Esk Main Road Sight Distances Sight Distance Requirements Cullenswood Access Approach Sight Distance (ASD) 170 m Entering Sight Distance (ESD) 500 m Safe Intersection Site Distance (SISD) 255 m Actual Sight Distance East >300 m Actual Sight Distance West >300 m

Source: Guide to Traffic Engineering Practise – Part 5: Intersections at Grade (Austroads, 2005)

The approach sight distance from the west and east to the intersection is a minimum of 1.7 times the required sight distance.

The actual sight distances well exceed the safe intersection sight distance (SISD) of 250 m which is the minimum standard which should be provided on the major road of any intersection.



Photo 2-1 View of Esk Main Road to the west with intersection on the left

Photo 2-2 View of Esk Main Road to the east with intersection on the right



Photo 2-3 View of intersection

Photo 2-4 View of Esk Main Road with culvert immediately west of the intersection



3. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Description of Development

The proposed site of Cullenswood No. 2 is located on the Break O’Day Plains at the foot of the Fingal Tier, within the Fingal Valley. The site is located approximately 2.5 km from the Cullenswood Homestead and approximately 6 km from St Marys on agricultural land. The total size of the Cullenswood No. 2 extents is 660 ha.

Cornwall Coal is seeking to operate the mine from 6:30 am to 7 pm Mondays to Fridays and 6:30 am to 5 pm on Saturdays. Cornwall Coal is also seeking 24 hour cartage to ensure supply to the Duncan Washery.

Production is likely to be between 50,000 and 75,000 tonnes per anum but may peak at 150,000 tonnes per annum due to underground production shortfalls over the life the deposit, which is expected to be 5-10 years depending on actual production rates. There will be no seasonal variations in production but there will be variations in coal cartage.

Transportation associated with Cullenswood No. 2 mine will not be based simply on production levels but rather on operational requirements. Coal will be transported to the Duncan Washery predominately from Blackwood No. 4 underground mine. Coal will be carted from the proposed Cullenswood No. 2 mine to the washery to supplement production requirements. This transport will occur on a 24 hours per day basis during peak periods.

3.2 Traffic Generation

Traffic volumes will be limited by the availability of trucks from the Blackwood No. 4 mine. There is a maximum of three 42 tonne quad dogs and two 30 tonne semi trailers available to cart coal from Blackwood No. 4 and Cullenswood No. 2 to the Duncan Washery. Therefore during peak periods this will be the maximum trucks available to Cullenswood No. 2.

It takes one truck a minimum of 55 minutes to be loaded at Cullenswood, travel to the Duncan Washery, unload and then travel back to Cullenswood. Therefore each truck can complete 1 trip in an hour. As there is a maximum of 5 trucks available to Cullenswood, there can be a maximum of 5 trucks per hour one way.

This proposed rate is reinforced by looking at the load times. The load time for a truck at Cullenswood is approximately 15 minutes, with one truck being loaded at a time, therefore there can be a maximum of 5 trucks arriving per hour for the first hour but only 4 trucks can be loaded per hour after that.

Table 3-1 – Truck Trip Times

Load time 15 mins Travel time 15 mins Unload time 10 mins Travel time 15 mins Total trip time 55 mins



For the purpose of determining the average daily traffic it is assumed that the peak truck movements occur for 12 hours a day. On average there will be 4 trucks per hour (one-way) with 9 trucks per hour (two-way) in the first hour.

Table 3-2 – Impacts of Proposed Development

Trucks/hour Trucks/day One-way Two-way One-way Two-way

Additional trucks/day AADT % Trucks

% increase in AADT

4 8 49 97 11 1231 13.8% 0.8%

In addition there will be five full time mine operators transferred from Cullenswood No. 1 to Cullenswood No. 2. Each staff member will have a vehicle as does the land owner.

3.3 Intersection Design

Table 3-3 – Vehicle Composition Design Element VehiclesStaff 5 Land owner 1 Trucks 5/hour QR (max right turning) 11/hour QT (design hour volume) 111/hour QT + QR (total approaching) 137/hour

Based on the peak right turning and total approaching traffic volume given in Table 3-3, the mine access road intersection is classified as a Type BA (Basic) intersection layout in Austroads “Guide to Traffic Engineering Practise – Part 5: Intersections at Grade” (Figure 6.38, 2005) The minimum BAR (Basic Right Turn) treatment is shoulder widening of the left lane to provide sufficient width to permit passing of a right turning vehicle.

Photo 2-2 illustrates that there is unlikely to be sufficient pavement and shoulder width to allow a right turning vehicle to be passed comfortably. Due to the presence of a reasonably wide creek drained by large culverts under the road immediately west of the intersection, upgrading the road to provide adequate width is likely to be difficult as major modifications to the road and culverts would be required. The treatment is considered unnecessary given the following points:

• The road is a single property, no-through, private access road therefore right turning volumes are limited to the traffic associated with the mine and the land owner.

• As demonstrated in Table 3-3, peak right turning traffic volume is low.



• The approach sight distance from the west and east to the intersection is 1.7 times the required sight distance. Furthermore, the required Safe Intersection Sight Distance of 250 m, which is the minimum standard which should be provided on the major road of any intersection, is also exceeded in both directions.

• The existing main road pavement is in reasonably good condition and provides a reasonable gravel/grass shoulder in cases of emergency.

• The proposed development of Cullenswood No. 2 is only increasing the AADT by approximately 0.8%.

• Only one additional truck per hour will be generated from the development during peak times compared to what is currently accessing Cullenswood No. 1.

• There is good signage already in place at the intersection. A Give-way sign is present on the mine access road where it meets Esk Main Road and T-junction signs are present on Esk Main Road on both sides of the intersection.

• The first 50 m of the mine access road has been sealed with bitumen.

• The utilisation of 24 hour cartage will ensure that peak truck volumes will be kept to a minimum.



4. RECOMMENDATIONS The widening of the road to allow a right turning auxiliary lane is not considered to be needed given the type of roads involved, the existing traffic volume, the low right turning traffic volume and excellent existing site conditions including sight distances which exceed requirements.



5. CONCLUSION Traffic on Esk Main Road is controlled by a speed limit of 100 km/h. The traffic service level assessment shows that the road currently easily provides level of service A at all times. The proposed development will have no effect on the level of service.

The peak hourly contribution of Cullenswood No. 2 to the Esk Main Road traffic volume is assessed at 13.5% compared with Cullenswood No. 1 currently contributing 12.6% to the peak hour volume.

Road condition is generally affected more by heavy vehicles than cars. The total heavy vehicle AADT for Esk Main Road is 159 vehicles per day. The proposed mine will generate a maximum of 97 heavy vehicle movements per day, compared to 86 at present. This corresponds to a change in the percentage of heavy vehicles on Esk Main Road from 13% to 13.8%.

It is recommended that no right turn treatment for the intersection is needed due to the negligible increase in traffic generated by the development.



6. REFERENCES Austroads (2005) Guide to Traffic Engineering Practise – Part 5: Intersections at Grade, Austroads, Sydney

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (2007) A Framework for Undertaking Traffic Impact Assessments, DIER, Tasmania

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (2007) Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy, DIER, Tasmania

Underwood, R.T (1995) Road Engineering Practise, Macmillan Education Australia, South Melbourne

Date post:	28-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyennhi
View:	220 times
Download:	1 times

Cullenswood No. 2 Open -Cut Mine -...

Documents