Environmental Effects - Cobar Shire€¦ · STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NYMAGEE RESOURCES...

Nymagee Resources Pty Ltd ABN: 37 154 131 138

Statement of

Environmental Effects

for the

Nymagee Pipeline

Project

Prepared for:

August 2019

R.W. CORKERY & CO. PTY. LIMITED

http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=37154131138

This page has intentionally been left blank

Nymagee Resource Pty Ltd ABN: 37 154 131 138

Statement of

Environmental Effects

for the

Nymagee Pipeline Project

Prepared for:

Nymagee Resources Pty Ltd ABN: 37 154 131 138 2 Corporation Place PO Box 7058 ORANGE NSW 2800

Telephone: (02) 6363 5200 Fax: (02) 6361 4711 Email: [email protected]

Prepared by:

R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty. Limited Geological & Environmental Consultants ABN: 31 002 033 712

Brooklyn Office: 1st Floor, 12 Dangar Road PO Box 239 BROOKLYN NSW 2083

Orange Office: 62 Hill Street ORANGE NSW 2800

Brisbane Office: Suite 5, Building 3 Pine Rivers Office Park 205 Leitchs Road BRENDALE QLD 4500

Telephone: (02) 9985 8511 Email: [email protected]



Ref No. 842/06 August 2019

Cover Photograph – Courtesy of AREA Environmental Consultants and Communication



NYMAGEE RESOURCES PTY LTD STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Nymagee Copper Project Report No. 842/06

ii

This Copyright is included for the protection of this document

COPYRIGHT

© R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited 2019

and

© Nymagee Resources Pty Ltd 2019

All intellectual property and copyright reserved.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright

Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any

means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission. Enquiries should be

addressed to R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited.

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NYMAGEE RESOURCES PTY LTD

Report No. 842/06 Nymagee Copper Project

CONTENTS Page

iii

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 THE APPLICANT ................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 PIPELINE ROUTE LAND TITLES ......................................................................................... 5

1.4 SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 5

1.4.1 Nymagee Mine .......................................................................................................... 5

1.4.2 Hera Mine .................................................................................................................. 6

1.4.3 Need for the Water Pipeline ...................................................................................... 6

1.4.4 Existing Approvals ..................................................................................................... 7

1.5 APPROVALS REQUIRED ..................................................................................................... 8

1.6 CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................... 9

1.7 MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................ 9

2. PROPOSED WATER PIPELINE ................................................................................................... 10

2.1 PIPELINE ROUTE ............................................................................................................... 10

2.2 PIPELINE DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 10

2.3 PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 10

2.4 PIPELINE OPERATION ....................................................................................................... 13

3. STATUTORY AND PLANNING CONTEXT .................................................................................. 14

3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 14

3.2 STATE LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ............................................... 14

3.2.2 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 ........................................................................ 14

3.2.3 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ...................................................................... 15

3.2.4 Pipelines Act 1967 .................................................................................................. 15

3.2.5 Roads Act 1993 ....................................................................................................... 16

3.2.6 Heritage Act 1977 ................................................................................................... 16

3.2.7 Water Management Act 2000 ................................................................................. 16

3.3 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES ............................................................ 17

3.3.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 .... 17

3.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 ..................................................................................... 17

3.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 .................................... 18

3.3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development ........................................................................................................... 18

3.3.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land ..................... 18

3.4 COBAR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN ......................................................................... 19

3.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 19

3.4.2 Land Zoning and Objectives ................................................................................... 19

3.4.3 Sensitive Land ......................................................................................................... 20



CONTENTS Page

iv

4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 22

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................. 22

4.1.1 Local Topography and Drainage ............................................................................. 22

4.1.2 Land Ownership and Land Use ............................................................................... 22

4.2 NOISE .................................................................................................................................. 22

4.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 22

4.2.2 Management and Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 23

4.2.3 Assessment of Impacts ........................................................................................... 23

4.3 BIODIVERSITY .................................................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 23

4.3.2 Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................... 23

4.3.3 Local Setting ............................................................................................................ 24



4.4 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE .................................................................................................... 27

4.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 27

4.4.2 Desktop Review ...................................................................................................... 27

4.4.3 Predictive Model ...................................................................................................... 28

4.4.4 Field Survey Methodology ....................................................................................... 28

4.4.5 Survey Results ........................................................................................................ 28

4.4.6 Potential Impacts and Management ........................................................................ 29



4.5 TRAFFIC .............................................................................................................................. 30

4.5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 30

4.5.2 Construction Impacts ............................................................................................... 30



4.6 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................ 31

4.6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 31

4.6.2 Existing Environment ............................................................................................... 31

4.6.3 Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................... 32



4.6.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 33

4.7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ............................................................................... 33

5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 35

5.1 SECTION 4.15(1) OF THE EP&A ACT ................................................................................ 35

5.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 35

5.1.2 Environmental Planning Instruments (Section 4.15(1) (a)(i)) .................................. 35

5.1.3 Proposed Instruments (Section 4.15(1) (a)(ii)) ........................................................ 36

5.1.4 Development Control Plans (Section 4.15(1) (a)(iii)) .............................................. 36

5.1.5 Section 7.4 Planning Agreement (Section 4.15(1) (a)(iiia)) .................................... 36

5.1.6 The Regulations (Section 4.15(1) (a)(iv)) ................................................................ 36



CONTENTS Page

v

5.1.7 Likely Impacts of the Development (Section 4.15(1) (b)) ........................................ 36

5.1.8 Suitability of the Site (Section 4.15(1) (c)) .............................................................. 36

5.1.9 Submissions in Accordance with the Act (Section 4.15(1) (d)) ............................... 36

5.1.10 The Public Interest (Section 4.15(1) (e)) ................................................................. 37

5.2 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 37

6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Application for Development Consent Form .....................................................................A1-1

Appendix 2 Government Agency Environmental Assessment Requirements .....................................A2-1

Appendix 3 Flora and Fauna Assessment ...........................................................................................A3-1

Appendix 4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment ..................................................A4-1

Appendix 5 Nymagee Dewatering Assessment ...................................................................................A5-1

FIGURES

Figure 1 Locality Plan ........................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 Pipeline Route ........................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 3 Land Zoning and High Biodiversity Sensitivity Areas ............................................................ 4

Figure 4 Land Ownership and Residences / Buildings ...................................................................... 11

Figure 5 Plant Community Types ....................................................................................................... 25

TABLES

Table 1 Pipeline Route ........................................................................................................................ 5

Table 2 Mineral Authorities ................................................................................................................. 7

Table 3 Existing Approvals, Licences and Authorities ........................................................................ 8

Table 4 Aboriginal heritage: desktop-database search results ......................................................... 27

Table 5 Other Environmental Issues, Potential Impacts and Management and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................. 34



vi

This page has intentionally been left blank



1

1. I N T RO D U C TI ON

1.1 SCOPE

This Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE) has been prepared by R.W. Corkery and Co.

Pty Ltd (RWC) on behalf of Nymagee Resources Pty Ltd (the Applicant) to support an

application for local development consent for the construction and use of a water pipeline to

service the Hera Mine (the Proposal). The proposed pipeline would transfer groundwater from

the historic Nymagee Mine workings, located immediately to the west of Nymagee township

and approximately 75km southeast of Cobar, to the existing Hera Mine, located approximately

4km south of Nymagee (Figure 1).

The application for development consent is being made in response to severe regional drought

conditions and specifically in response to reduced access to surface water supplies and reduced

inflows to the underground workings.

The Proposal includes the following key components (Figure 2).

• The construction of surface infrastructure to transfer water from a submersible

bore pump installed within an existing shaft located at the Nymagee Mine Site and

pumping of water to two existing storage tanks at the surface.

• The construction of a 160mm pipeline between the storage tanks at the Nymagee

Mine and an existing water pipeline within the Hera Mine site, including:

– approximately 250m of above ground pipeline within the Nymagee Mine Site;

and

– approximately 4.5km of below ground pipeline between the Nymagee Mine

site and the Hera Mine Site.

Further detail regarding the Proposal and associated environmental impacts is provided in

Sections 2 and 4.

The Applicant is seeking development consent for the construction and operation of the

proposed pipeline (the Nymagee Pipeline) under Division 4.3 of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The application is classified as follows.

• Non-designated, Local Development – as the Proposal does not meet the relevant

thresholds for Designated or State Significant Development.

• Integrated Development – as the following approvals under Section 4.46 of the

EP&A Act would be required.

– a permit under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 from Cobar Shire Council

for works within the Barton Street and Burthong Road/ Hartwood Street road

reserves; and

– amendments to the water access licence under the Water Management Act

2000.

The proposed Pipeline Route occupies areas which are zoned as RU1 – Primary Production and

RU5 – Village under the Cobar Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Cobar LEP) (Figure 3).

Water supply systems are permissible with consent in zones RU1 and RU5.



2

Figure 1 Locality Plan

Dated 14/05/19 Inserted 22/08/19



3

Figure 2 Pipeline Route

Figure dated 22/8/19 inserted on 22/8/19



4

Figure 3 Land Zoning and High Biodiversity Sensitivity Areas




5

1.2 THE APPLICANT

The Applicant, Nymagee Resources Pty Limited, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aurelia

Metals Limited (Aurelia). Aurelia is an Australian Securities Exchange listed exploration and

mining company based in Orange, NSW.

Aurelia operates the Hera Mine, an operation to which the Proposal would supply water, and

the Peak Mine, located immediately south of Cobar. In addition to operating the Hera and Peak

Mines, Aurelia holds the Mining leases for the Nymagee Mine and is also active in the

exploration for copper, gold and base metals on a number of tenements within NSW.

The company is managed by a highly experienced board with very extensive industry

experience. The Board is supported by a small, technically-focused management team based in

Orange and on-site.

Aurelia was previously known as YTC Resources Limited until June 2014, when it changed its

name to Aurelia Metals Limited.

1.3 PIPELINE ROUTE LAND TITLES

Pipeline Route comprises all land that is the subject of the application for development consent.

Figure 2 and Table 1 present the land titles within the Pipeline Route.

Table 1

Pipeline Route

Lot Deposited Plan

1 665073

1 588073

Road reserves associated with Barton Street, Hartwood Street and Burthong Road

1.4 SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

1.4.1 Nymagee Mine

The Nymagee Mine is located immediately west of the Nymagee township, with the mine

workings representing the groundwater source for the proposed pipeline. The Applicant holds

the mineral authorities that comprise the Nymagee Mine Site (see Section 1.4.4).

The Nymagee Mine commenced operations in 1880, with 13 shafts constructed and extensive

surface disturbance by 1890. A fire underground in 1920 resulted in closure of the Mine and

subsequent relinquishment of the Mining Leases by 1947.

On 24 December 1951, ML5295 and PLL847 were granted, with additional Mining Leases

granted in 1962 and 1975. During that period, unsuccessful attempts were made to recommence

mining operations, with all mining ceasing by 1975.

Since 1975, a range of exploration programs have been undertaken, with the Applicant

continuing to investigate options to develop the Nymagee Mine site.



6

The Nymagee Mine workings are estimated to contain approximately 265ML ± 30ML of

groundwater.

1.4.2 Hera Mine

The Hera Mine is located approximately 4.5km south of Nymagee township and represents the

receiver of water to be transported by the proposed pipeline. Hera Resources Pty Limited, a

fully owned subsidiary of Aurelia, holds the approvals, licences, and mineral authorities which

comprise the Hera Mine (see Section 1.4.4).

The Hera Mine earthworks, including vegetation clearing, construction of site buildings, and

development of a box cut, commenced in 2011 as part of a Category 3 exploration activity. The

Hera Mine received Project Approval (PA) 10_0191 on 31 July 2012, with ML 1686 being

issued on 16 May 2013.

Key construction and operational milestones for the Hera Mine include the following.

• Development of the Hera decline commenced in January 2013.

• The footprint of the waste rock emplacement was prepared in January 2013.

• Construction of the processing plant commenced in November 2013.

• Construction of the Tailings Storage Facility and power plant was completed in

January 2014.

• The first zinc-lead concentrate was produced on 24 August 2014 and the first gold

was poured on 12 September 2014.

• Mine operations are ongoing, with an application to modify the development

consent for the Hear Mine in progress at the time of preparation of this document.

1.4.3 Need for the Water Pipeline

The Hera Mine primarily relies upon groundwater sourced from its underground workings, as

well as the existing bore field within the Mine Site, (see Figure 2). An assessment undertaken

by Aquade Groundwater Services, referred to hereafter as Aquade (2015), indicated that,

between May 2013 when pumping commenced and July 2015, the total groundwater volume

extracted from the decline workings (300ML) represented more than double the volume

extracted from the production bores (120ML). However, it was also revealed that towards the

end of the reporting period extraction volumes from the decline workings and the borefield

were approximately similar and amounted to an average of between 0.35 and 0.4ML per day.

The results of aquifer pumping tests undertaken by The Impax Group to support the original

application for Project Approval for the Hera Mine indicated that the existing borefield had

capacity to extract 466ML per year. However, Aquade (2015) found that groundwater yields

had generally been less than that anticipated based on pre-mining investigations. Aquade (2015)

concluded that, without the installation of additional productive groundwater bores, the

maximum yield of the existing borefield would reduce slowly over time.

The current make up water demands for the Hera Mine are approximately 250ML per year. The

Nymagee Mine workings are estimated to contain approximately 235ML to 295ML of

groundwater (Aquade, 2017). An existing 63mm buried pipeline, following the same route as



7

the proposed pipeline, currently transfers water from the Nymagee Mine to the Hera Mine at an

approximate rate of 0.12ML per day (1.4 litres per second). This pipeline is inadequate to

supply the required volume of water to make up Hera Mine demand.

1.4.4 Existing Approvals

1.4.4.1 Water Resources

The Proposal would follow the same route as an existing water transfer pipeline from the

Nymagee Mine to the Hera Mine. The Applicant holds a Road Occupancy Licence, issued on

16 September 2011, which permitted the installation of a 2-inch poly pipe between “The Peak”

(the rural property name of the Hera Mine) and Nymagee Mine. The Road Occupancy Licence

was subject to the following restrictions.

• “Water line is to be located as far from the road as possible, with minimal

disturbance to existing vegetation.

• Water line is to be buried.

• Water line is to be marked every 150m.

• Any disturbed surface is to be restored as close as possible to its original

condition.”

The Applicant holds Water Supply Works Approval 85WA752816 for the extraction of water

from the Nymagee Mine and Water Access Licence (WAL) 30298 which permits the extraction

of up to 3ML of water per year from the Nymagee Mine. A temporary allocation of an

additional 20ML was also granted in the 2019 water year.

Hera Resources Pty Ltd holds Water Supply Works 85WA752586 for the extraction of water

within the Hera Mine Site. WAL28773 permits the extraction of up to 540ML of water per

year.

An application to amalgamate WAL30298 and WAL28773 was submitted on

23 November 2018.

1.4.4.2 Nymagee Mine and Hera Mine

Table 2 presents the Mineral Authorities held by the Applicant for the Nymagee Mine.

Table 2

Mineral Authorities

Number Act Grant Date Expiry Date Minerals Area (ha)

PLL847 1924 24 Dec 1951 31 Dec 2021

Bismuth, Copper, Gold, Lead, Silver, Zinc

12.7

ML5295 1906 24 Dec 1951 31 Dec 2021 0.3339

ML5828 1906 25 Oct 1962 31 Dec 2021 1.538

ML531 1973 30 Jul 1975 31 Dec 2021 4.867

ML90 1973 05 Nov 1975 31 Dec 2021 33.91

EL4458 1992 26 Nov 1992 26 Nov 20182 Group 1 4 units

Note 1: ML53 includes a surface exemption from the surface to a depth of 15m.

Note 2: Renewal sought.

Source: Minview – accessed 14 August 2019

Table 3 presents the existing approvals, licences, and authorities held by the Applicant for the

Hera Mine.



8

Table 3

Existing Approvals, Licences and Authorities

Issuing Authority Type Date of Issue Expiry Comments

Department of Planning & Environment

Major Project Approval (PA) 10_0191

31 July 2012 31 December 2022 (mining operations can be carried out onsite until this date)

Four modifications to this approval have been granted and a fifth modification application was in preparation at the time of preparation of this document.

This application was transitioned from a Part 3A project to Sate Significant Development on 31 August 2018.

Department of Planning & Environment -Division of Resources & Geoscience

Mining Lease (ML) 1686

16 May 2013 16 May 2034 For copper, gold, lead, silver and zinc.

ML1746 7 December 2016 7 December 2037 For copper, lead, zinc, gold and silver.

Exploration Licence (EL) 6162

26 November 2003 25 November 2018 Group 1 Minerals.

Renewed 7 December 2016.

Environment Protection Authority

Environment Protection Licence No. 20179

18 March 2013 Anniversary date: 18 March

Natural Resources Access Regulator

Water Access Licence (WAL) 28773

1 August 2012 - Permits extraction of up to 540ML per year.

WAL 30298 16 September 2013 - Permits extraction of up to 3ML per year.

1.5 APPROVALS REQUIRED

The proposed pipeline will require development consent under Division 4.3 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application would be classified as non-

designated, local development as it does not meet the relevant thresholds for Designated or

State Significant Development (see Section 3.2.1). The application for development consent is

presented as Appendix 1.

The Proposal is also classified as Integrated Development because a permit under Section 138

of the Roads Act 1993 will be required due to the necessity for works within road reserves

along the proposed Pipeline Route. The proposed route would require the pipeline to be

installed under both Barton Street and Hartwood Street before occupying the eastern section of

the Hartwood Street / Burthong Road reserve (Figure 2).

In addition, works approval 85WA752816 and Water Access Licence 30298 will be required to

be amended to permit extraction of the required volume of water for the Proposal. A controlled

activity approval will also be required for works required within waterfront land. As described

in Section 4.1.1, the Pipeline Route crosses unnamed, ephemeral, second Strahler order

watercourses at four locations.

Finally, the Applicant notes that the proposed Nymagee Pipeline would connect into an

existing, approved pipeline within the Hera Mine site. As a result, approval is sought only for

those sections of the pipeline as described in this SoEE.

Further information regarding the approval and assessment requirements for the Proposal is

contained within Section 3.



9

1.6 CONSULTATION

A letter outlining both the Proposal as well as a proposal to construct a pipeline between the

historic Great Cobar Mine and existing Peak Gold Mine, located immediately southeast of

Cobar and approximately 2km southeast of Cobar respectively, was sent to the following

agencies on 8 May 2019.

• Cobar Shire Council.

• NSW Department of Industry.

• NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

• Division of Resources and Geoscience.

• NSW Environment Protection Authority.

• NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

• Resources Regulator.

• Roads and Maritime Services.

Requirements for the proposal were received from the following agencies.

• NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

• NSW Environment Protection Authority.

• Natural Resources Access Regulator.

The Resources Regulator reviewed the project information and noted that they had no

additional requirements regarding the Proposal.

Appendix 2 presents the feedback received from the relevant agencies and an overview of

where each matter has been addressed within this document.

1.7 MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS

This SoEE has been prepared by Mr Jack Flanagan (B.Sc., M.Env.Sc.), Graduate

Environmental Consultant, with the assistance of Mr Caiden O’Connor (B.Sc (Geology))

Environmental Consultant, both with RWC. Internal peer review of the document was

undertaken by Mr Mitchell Bland (B.Sc (Hons), M.Econ.Geol, LLB (Hons)), Managing

Director/Principal of RWC.

Mr Jonathon Thompson and Mr Mark Williams of the Applicant provided information in

relation to the existing and proposed activities and reviewed and approved this document for

release.

A range of environmental investigations were initiated to identify the environmental constraints

associated with the Proposal. These studies were undertaken by a team of specialist consultants

managed by RWC including the following key individuals and companies.

• Biodiversity and Aboriginal Heritage – AREA Environmental Consultants &

Communications; Mr Phil Cameron (Principal Consultant).

• Groundwater – GHD; Malinda Kay (Senior Hydrogeologist).



10

2. P R OP OS E D WAT E R P I PE L I NE

2.1 PIPELINE ROUTE

The proposed Pipeline Route would follow that of an existing low pressure, 63mm pipeline

which currently supplies water from the Nymagee Mine workings to the Hera Mine. The

majority of the pipeline would be located within the road reserve adjacent to Hartwood

Street/Burthong Road, with shorter sections located on freehold land owned by the Applicant

and TJ and BF Ellison, as well as the road reserve associated with Barton Street. Figure 2

displays the proposed Pipeline Route and Figure 4 displays land ownership within and

surrounding the Pipeline Route.

2.2 PIPELINE DESIGN

The Proposal would include the following key components.

• The installation of surface infrastructure to service a submersible bore pump in an

existing shaft located within the Nymagee Mine Site and transfer of water to two

existing storage tanks within the Nymagee Mine Site.

• The construction of a 4.75km long, 160mm poly pipeline between the existing

storage tanks at the Nymagee Mine and the existing water pipeline within the Hera

Mine site, including:

– approximately 250m of above ground pipeline; and

– approximately 4.5km of below ground pipeline.

The pipeline has been designed to achieve a flow rate of 15L/s at a pressure of approximately

650kpa. The pipeline would have a pressure rating of 1250kpa (PN12.5). Notwithstanding the

design capacity of 15L/s, the pipeline would be operated at a rate that would ensure that

drawdown of the standing water level within the Nymagee Town Bore would be less than 2m.

GHD (2019) have determined that a pumping rate of 2.7L/s over a 3 year period would comply

with the identified impact criterion.

Power for the pumps would be provided by silenced portable diesel generators.

2.3 PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION

A Construction and Operation Management Plan would be prepared for the proposed pipeline.

The construction of the buried section pipeline would involve the following component tasks.

1. A comprehensive search of Dial-Before-You-Dig records would be undertaken

prior to the construction of pipeline.

The alignment of the pipeline would be marked out, taking into account the requirement to

avoid mature vegetation, with the required survey pegs offset from the centreline of the

proposed trench. The location of the centreline of the pipeline trench would be marked at

regular intervals on the ground to allow the contractor to identify the area to be trenched.



11

Figure 4 Land Ownership and Residences / Buildings




12

2. Soil would be excavated from the trench using an excavator, with the material

placed to one side.

3. The excavated section of the trench would be backfilled with bedding material.

4. Individual 12m pipeline lengths would be placed adjacent to the completed trench,

joined and tested. Once testing confirms the joined sections of the pipeline are

suitable for placement, the pipeline would be lowered into the trench and laid onto

the bedding material.

5. Once the placed pipeline is inspected and checked, bedding material would be

placed around and above the pipeline and lightly compacted. A grader would then

be used to backfill and lightly compact the remainder of the trench with the

compacted trench then covered with stockpiled soil.

6. All excess subsoil and any other materials not used would be loaded onto trucks

and transported to the Hera Mine Site for use and/or stockpiling.

7. Land disturbed during construction would be permitted to revegetate naturally.

The above component tasks would be varied, where necessary to reflect the specific locations

along the pipeline corridor. In particular, the following procedures would be implemented in the

following circumstances.

• Above ground section of pipeline.

The northern-most section of pipeline would be installed above groun, with

inspections and removal of any excess materials undertaken as described in

Points 5 to 8 above. Those sections of pipeline would be firmly attached to stakes

in the ground to prevent movement and clearly marked to prevent inadvertent

damage.

• Road crossings.

Where the pipeline is required to cross public roads, the Applicant would consult

with Cobar Shire Council to obtain all required approvals and consents prior to

any works being undertaken. The Applicant would ensure that trenching, pipeline

placement, backfilling and reestablishment of the road surface would be

undertaken in the shortest time possible to ensure the least disruption for the

travelling public.

• Sections of pipeline within waterfront land.

In order to ensure that construction operations do not adversely impact on

waterfront land and land likely to be the subject of overland flow following

rainfall, the following additional procedures would be implemented.

– Sections of the Pipeline Route within 40m of watercourses would be marked

on the ground using pegs.

– Work would not commence within the marked sections of the Pipeline Route

if the 7-day weather forecast included any day with more than 50% chance of

5mm rainfall or more.

– Steps 3 to 7 above would be completed within 7 days of commencement.



13

It is estimated that the water supply pipeline would be constructed over a period of

approximately 36 days, weather permitting.

Construction activities would occur within the following periods.

• Trenching and trench backfilling – 7 days a week, during daylight hours.

• Pipe placement – Monday-Friday, during daylight hours.

• Pipe joining – Monday-Friday, during daylight hours.

2.4 PIPELINE OPERATION

Water would be pumped from the workings by a submersible pump installed within an existing

shaft to two existing 20 000L storage tanks (total volume of 40 000L) within the Nymagee

Mine Site. A second pump would pump water from the storage tanks to the Hera Mine Site.

Each of the pumps would be electrically powered.

The following management measures would be implemented to ensure that potential discharge

of water from the pipeline is minimised to the maximum extent possible.

• The storage tanks would be fitted with automatic water level sensors that would

shut off or reduce the rate of pumping of the submersible pump when the tanks

approach full capacity. The sensors would also shut off the pump to Hera Mine

when the water level drops to levels that may damage the pump.

• The pipeline would be equipped with a pressure sensor to detect pressure loss

associated with a breach of the pipeline. The pump transferring water to the Hera

Mine Site would be automatically shut off and the valve from the storage tanks

closed in the event of a loss of pressure.

• Operation of the pipeline would be monitored by staff at the Hera Mine and, in the

event that sensors detect anomalies in the operation of the pipeline, staff would

remotely shutdown the pipeline and investigate the source of those anomalies.

Operation of the pipeline would not recommence until the Applicant was satisfied

that the pipeline may be operated without risk to the environment.

• The Applicant would ensure that all pumps and other equipment are inaudible to

residents within the village of Nymagee, including through the use of silenced

pumps and generators, locating equipment in locations that maximise acoustic

shielding and installation of noise suppression equipment.

• The Applicant would regularly inspect the pipeline route and pipeline (where it is

above ground) and would rectify any matters identified during those inspections.



14

3. S TAT U TO RY AN D P L A N NI N G CO N T EX T

3.1 INTRODUCTION

A number of Commonwealth, NSW, regional and local planning instruments or policies apply

to the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. A brief summary of each relevant

planning instrument is provided in the following subsections with the environmental aspects

requiring consideration identified.

3.2 STATE LEGISLATION

3.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) provides the framework

for the assessment and approval of development in NSW and is administered by the DPE.

The Applicant is seeking development consent for the construction and operation of the

proposed pipeline under Division 4.3 of the (EP&A Act).

Part 1(2)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Reg.)

states that development applications must be accompanied by “a statement of environmental

effects (in the case of development other than designated development or State significant

development).”

The Proposal is not considered State Significant Development under Schedule 1 of State

Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (see Section 3.3.1).

Additionally, the Proposal is not considered Designated development as it is not specified under

Schedule 3 of the EP&A Reg. as Designated Development.

The Proposal is considered Integrated Development under Section 4.46(1) of Division 4.8 of

Part 4 of the EP&A Act as it would require consent under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993

(see Section 3.2.5) and modifications to the existing water use approval and water management

work approval under the Water Management Act 2000 (see Section 3.2.7).

3.2.2 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

The purpose of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) is to maintain a healthy,

productive and resilient environment for the greatest well-being of the community, now and

into the future, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Section 6.3 of Division 1 of Part 6 of the BC Act describes the impacts on biodiversity values

which are subject to assessment under the biodiversity offset scheme as:

a) the impacts of the clearing of native vegetation and the loss of habitat; and

b) the impacts of action that are prescribed by the regulations.



15

For development under Part 4 of the EP&A Act, Section 7.7(2) of Division 2 of Part 7 of the

BC Act states the following.

“If the proposed development is likely to significantly affect threatened species, the

application for development consent is to be accompanied by a biodiversity

development assessment report.”

Section 7.2(1) of Division 1 of Part 7 of the BC Act states that development or an activity is

likely to significantly affect threatened species if:

c) “it is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological

communities, or their habitats, according to the test in section 7.3; or

d) the development exceeds the biodiversity offset scheme threshold if the

biodiversity offset scheme applies to the impacts of the development on

biodiversity values; or

e) it is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.”

Section 4.3 presents an overview of the assessment of anticipated biodiversity associated

impacts prepared by AREA Environmental Consultants and Communication Pty Ltd.

3.2.3 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NP&W Act) aims to manage and conserve nature,

objects, places and features that have ecological and/or cultural value. The NP&W Act is

administered by the Biodiversity Conservation Division.

Aboriginal places and objects are protected under the NP&W Act. The OEH holds a database of

information and records regarding Aboriginal objects whose existence and location have been

reported, known as the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS).

An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is generally required for consent to destroy,

deface or damage Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place.

Section 4.4 of this document describes potential impacts on Aboriginal heritage-related values

associated with the Proposal. In summary, as no objects of Aboriginal heritage significance

have been recorded or are considered likely to occur within the proposed Pipeline Route, an

AHIP would not be required for the Proposal.

3.2.4 Pipelines Act 1967

Section 5 of Part 1 of the Pipelines Act 1967 describes the applications of the act, the following

of which is relevant to the Proposal.

“Subject to Section 5A, nothing in this Act requires a person to hold a licence in

respect of:

(a) a pipeline constructed or to be constructed for the purpose of the supply of

water (including for irrigation), the drainage of land or the conveyance of

waste water, mine water, aqueous slurries of minerals, mineral concentrates

or mineral tailings.”



16

Section 5A of Part 1 of the Pipelines Act 1967 states that the Minister may require certain

pipelines to be licenced. As the Proposal is for a pipeline to be constructed for the purpose of

the supply of water and the conveyance of mine water, a licence is not required for the

Proposal.

3.2.5 Roads Act 1993

Section 138 of Division 3, Part 9 of the Roads Act 1993 states the following.

“A person must not … dig up or disturb the surface of a public road … otherwise

than with the consent of the appropriate roads authority.”

The Proposal would involve digging up and disturbing sections of public roads including

Barton Street, Hartwood Street, and Burthong Road. Consequently, the Applicant would require

a permit under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 prior to the commencement of pipeline

construction and installation works.

3.2.6 Heritage Act 1977

The Heritage Act 1977 aims to promote and protect the State’s heritage by preventing harm to

buildings, relics or places that are on the State Heritage Register.

Under the Heritage Act, approval is required to carry out development on land on which an

item listed on the State Heritage Register is located or that is subject to an interim heritage

order. A conservation management plan may be entered into with respect to conserving an item

listed on the State Heritage Register.

No listed places or objects would be disturbed by the Proposal.

3.2.7 Water Management Act 2000

An objective of the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) is the sustainable and integrated

management of the State’s water for the benefit of both present and future generations. The

WM Act provides clear arrangements for controlling land-based activities that affect the quality

and quantity of the State’s water resources. It relevantly provides for three types of approval,

namely:

• water use approval (Section 89) – which authorises the use of water at a particular

location for a particular purpose;

• water management work approval (Section 90) – which authorises the

construction and use of a specified water supply at a specified location; and

• controlled activity approval (Section 91(2)) – which authorises activities on or

under waterfront land, i.e. within 40m of waterfront land.

The Applicant holds Water Supply Works Approval 85WA752816 for the extraction of water

from the Nymagee Mine and Water Access Licence (WAL) 30298 which permits the extraction

of up to 3ML of water per year from the Nymagee Mine. A temporary allocation of an

additional 20ML was also granted in the 2019 water year.



17

These approvals would require modification to permit the proposed transfer of water from the

Nymagee Mine to the Hera Mine.

3.3 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

3.3.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

This State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) was gazetted on 28 September 2011 and

applies to all development applications made following that date which satisfy nominated

criteria.

Clause 5 of Schedule 3 of the SEPP outlines general criteria which apply to developments for

the purposes of pipelines. Development for the purpose of a pipeline is to be classified as State

Significant if:

a) “a licence is required under the Pipelines Act 1967; or

b) An application for a licence is made under that Act on or after the commencement

of this clause; or

c) A licence was granted under that Act before the commencement of this clause.”

As the Proposal does not require a licence under the Pipelines Act 1967, the Proposal is not

considered State Significant.

Under Clause 5(a) of Schedule 7 of the SEPP, development for the purpose of water supply

systems which has a capital investment value of more than $5 million is considered Regionally

Significant Development. As the proposal does not have a capital investment value of more

than $5 million, it is not considered Regionally Significant.

Based on the above, this SEPP is not considered further in the SoEE.

3.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007

Whilst Clause 10A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production

and Extractive Industries) 2007 (Mining SEPP) outlines additional exempt development for

land that is not within an environmentally sensitive area of State Significance. Exempt

development includes the following.

“This clause applies to development that is on land that is not within an

environmentally sensitive area of State significance.

Development for any of the following purposes is exempt development if it is of

minimal environmental impact and is on land that is the site of an approved mine,

an approved petroleum facility or an approved extractive industry:

(c) the installation, maintenance and use of infrastructure for the drainage of

water from the mine, petroleum production facility or extractive industry,

but only if the drained water is stored in, treated or otherwise managed by a

lawful approved facility.”



18

The Mining SEPP exemption does not apply to the Proposal as the proposed pipeline would not

be located entirely on land that is the site of an approved mine.

Based on the above, the Mining SEPP is not considered further in the SoEE.

3.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 66A (Division 12A, Part 3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

2007 SEPP (Infrastructure SEPP) indicates the following.

“Development for the purpose of a pipeline may be carried out by any person

without consent on any land if the pipeline is subject to a licence under the

Pipelines Act 1967 or a licence or authorisation under the Gas Supply Act 1996.”

As the proposal is not subject to a licence under the Pipelines Act 1967, the Proposal would

require development consent.

Additionally, Clause 66C (Division 12A, Part 3) of the Infrastructure SEPP defines land as

being located within a pipeline corridor if it is:

a) “Within the licence area of a pipeline for gas, or for petroleum or other

liquid fuels, licenced under the Pipelines Act 1967; or

b) Within 20m of the centreline (measured radially) of a relevant pipeline; or

within 20m of land the subject of an easement for a relevant pipeline.”

As the Proposal would not be located within the licence area of a pipeline or within 20m of

either a relevant pipeline or land the subject of an easement for a relevant pipeline, the Proposal

would not be located within a pipeline corridor.

Based on the above, the Infrastructure SEPP is not considered further in the SoEE.

3.3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development

Hazardous and offensive industries, and potentially hazardous and offensive industries, relate to

industries that, without the implementation of appropriate impact minimisation measures,

would (or potentially would) pose a significant risk in relation to the locality, to human health,

life or property, or to the biophysical environment.

As the Proposal is for a water pipeline and no hazardous materials would be used or stored

within the Pipeline Route, the Proposal is not considered to constitute hazardous or offensive

development and the SEPP is not considered further in the SoEE.

3.3.5 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires that a

consent authority not consent to development on any land unless:

a) “it has considered whether the land is contaminated; and



19

b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its

contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose

for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

c) of the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for

which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the

land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.”

Figure 2 shows those sections of the proposed pipeline which would be buried and which

would remain above ground.

Those areas of the Pipeline Route which would be subject to disturbance associated with

pipeline burial consist of land which is occupied by roads or table drains. The Applicant is

satisfied that no contaminated land occurs within those areas which will involve ground

disturbance.

A section of the proposed pipeline would be located above ground within the non-operational

Nymagee Mine site. Whilst this land has been subject to historic mining activities, the proposed

pipeline would be located above ground in this area and would therefore not involve the

disturbance of potentially contaminated land.

Based on the above, SEPP 55 is not considered further in the SoEE.

3.4 COBAR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

3.4.1 Introduction

The Cobar LEP was gazetted in 2012 and guides development in the local government area by

encouraging the proper management, development, and conservation of natural resources and

the built environment. The aims of the Cobar LEP include the following.

• “To protect, enhance and conserve agricultural land through the proper

management, development and conservation of natural and man-made resources.

• To encourage a range of housing, employment, recreation and community

facilities to meet the needs of existing and future residents of Cobar.

• To promote the efficient and equitable provision of public services, infrastructure

and amenities.”

3.4.2 Land Zoning and Objectives

Figure 2 displays the zoning of land within the Pipeline Route as outlined in the Cobar LEP.

The Pipeline Route is primarily located on land zoned RU1 – Primary Production. The

objectives of this zone are as follows.

• “To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and

enhancing the natural resource base.

• To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems

appropriate for the area.



20

• To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

• To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses

within adjoining zones.”

The Pipeline Route is also located on land zoned RU5 – Village. The objective of this zone is as

follows.

• “To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are

associated with a rural village.”

Development for the purposes of water supply systems is permissible with both these zones.

The proposed Modification would not limit the achievement of land use zone objectives for

either zone.

3.4.3 Sensitive Land

Clause 6.4 of the Cobar LEP identifies the maintenance of terrestrial biodiversity as an

objective to be achieved through:

• “protecting native fauna and flora; and

• protecting the ecological processes necessary for their continued existence,

and

• encouraging the conservation and recovery of native fauna and flora and

their habitats.”

A review of the Cobar LEP Terrestrial Biodiversity Map Sheet BIO_035 confirms that the

Pipeline Route is partially located on land identified as having “High Biodiversity Sensitivity”

(Figure 3).

Clause 6.4 further states the following.

“Before determining a development application for development on land to which

this clause applies, the consent authority must consider:

a) whether the development is likely to have:

i) any adverse impact on the condition, ecological value and significance of

the fauna and flora on the land; and

ii) any adverse impact on the importance of the vegetation on the land to the

habitat and survival of native fauna; and

iii) any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity structure,

function and composition of the land; and

iv) any adverse impact on the habitat elements providing connectivity on the

land; and

b) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the

impacts of the development.



21

Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this

clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any

significant adverse environmental impact, or

b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided by adopting feasible

alternatives – the development is designed, sited and will be managed to

minimise that impact, or

c) if that impact cannot be minimised – the development will be managed to

mitigate that impact.”

Section 4.3 provides information on biodiversity impacts associated with the Proposal and

identifies relevant management and mitigation measures.

The Cobar LEP does not identify areas of heritage value, groundwater vulnerability,

watercourses, or wetlands as occurring within or adjacent to the Pipeline Route.



22

4. E N VI RO N M E NTA L SE T TI N G A N D A SS ES SM E N T

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.1.1 Local Topography and Drainage

The proposed Pipeline Route occupies a relatively flat valley floor at approximately

305m AHD between two ridgelines reaching up to 519m AHD (Figure 3). The valley floor

slopes gently to the northwest, with the 4.75km length of the proposed pipeline including an

elevation change of less than 5m.

The proposed Pipeline Route is situated within the headwaters of Box Creek, the primary

drainage line within the vicinity of Nymagee. Box Creek merges with Sandy Creek

approximately 47km to the west of Nymagee. The proposed Pipeline Route crosses unnamed,

ephemeral, second Strahler order watercourses at four points (Figure 3).

4.1.2 Land Ownership and Land Use

Land ownership and land use surrounding the proposed pipeline are presented in Figure 4. The

proposed pipeline would be located above ground on land within the Nymagee Copper Mine

site leased under a perpetual lease by YTC Resources Limited. YTC Resources Limited is the

former name of Aurelia Metals Limited, the parent company of the Applicant. YTC Resources

Limited also leases the land within the Hera Mine site where the proposed pipeline would be

connected to an existing pipeline system.

Between the Nymagee Copper Mine site and the Hera Mine site, the proposed Pipeline Route

occupies land within road reserves associated with Barton Street, Hartwood Street, and

Burthong Road. This land is controlled by Cobar Shire Council. Between Barton Street and

Hartwood Street, the proposed pipeline would cross land owned by TJ and BF Ellison (see

landowner references 10 in Figure 4).

Land uses surrounding the proposed pipeline are shown in Figure 3 and include the following

• Village (RU5) – residences and structures associated with Nymagee township.

• Primary production (RU1) – primarily grazing undertaken on cleared, partially

cleared, or vegetated flat land.

• Mine Sites – historic Nymagee Copper Mine site and the active Hera Mine site.

• Nymagee Airfield – located immediately north of Nymagee township.

4.2 NOISE

4.2.1 Introduction

The standard working hours for the construction of the Proposal would be from 7:00am to

6:00pm, seven days per week. The Applicant anticipates that construction would last for a

period of approximately 36 days, weather permitting.



23

Primary sources of Proposal-related construction noise would include the operation of mobile

plant, including a semi-trailer, medium rigid truck, excavator, poly welding machines and

associated generators, and a grader. The Applicant anticipates that noise emissions would be no

greater than those associated with road works undertaken periodically by Cobar Shire Council.

Primary sources of noise during the operational phase of the pipeline would be from silenced

generators and an electric pump located in the vicinity of the storage tanks. The Applicant

anticipates that these noise emissions would be negligible.

4.2.2 Management and Mitigation Measures

The Applicant would implement the following noise-related management and mitigation

measures throughout the life of the Proposal.

• Strictly comply with the proposed hours of operation identified in Section 4.2.1.

• Ensure that all equipment used in the construction of the Proposal is appropriately

serviced to ensure minimal noise emissions.

• Maintain an open dialogue with the surrounding community and neighbours to

ensure any concerns over noise are addressed.

4.2.3 Assessment of Impacts

In light of the limited noise emissions associated with the construction of the pipeline, the

limited time during which construction operations would occur and the fact that they would be

limited to day-time only, the Applicant contends that construction-related noise impacts would

be negligible.

In addition, the Applicant contends that noise emissions during operation of the pipeline would

be negligible because the Applicant would ensure that pumps and related equipment would be

inaudible to residents within the village of Nymagee.

4.3 BIODIVERSITY

4.3.1 Introduction

AREA Environmental Consultants and Communication Pty Ltd (AREA) prepared a Flora and

Fauna Assessment report for the Pipeline Route. The resulting report, hereafter referred to as

AREA (2019a), is presented as Appendix 3. This subsection describes the biodiversity setting

of the Proposal, provides an overview of the Flora and Fauna Assessment, and describes the

management and mitigation measures to be implemented by the Applicant.

4.3.2 Assessment Methodology

The Flora and Fauna Assessment included both a desktop assessment component as well as a

site assessment undertaken on 21 March 2019.



24

The desktop assessment included a review of relevant databases describing known ecological

communities, vegetation classes, key habitat areas, and threatened flora and fauna species

within 500m of the proposed Pipeline Route. Additionally, mapped biodiversity values

protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC

Act) were assessed within a 1km buffer of the proposed Pipeline Route.

During the field assessment, the full length of the proposed Pipeline Route was inspected for

the presence of threatened plant species and opportunistic sightings of fauna species were also

recorded.

4.3.3 Local Setting

4.3.3.1 Vegetation

The following Plant Community Types (PCTs) were identified by AREA (2019a) as occurring

within a 500m buffer of the proposed Pipeline Route (Figure 5).

• PCT 103 - Poplar Box – Gum Coolabah – White Cypress Pine shrubby woodland

mainly in the Cobar Peneplain Bioregion.

• White Cypress Pine – Poplar Box woodland on footslopes and peneplains mainly

in the Cobar Peneplain Bioregion.

• PCT 174 - Mallee – Gum Coolabah woodland on red earth flats of the eastern

Cobar Peneplain Bioregion.

• PCT 105 - Poplar Box grassy woodland on flats mainly in the Cobar Peneplain

Bioregion and Murray Darling Depression Bioregion.

The proposed Pipeline Route would require the clearing of two shrubs, both Eremophila

longifolia, which occur north of the intersection of Priory Tank Road and Burthong Road.

These two shrubs are isolated and therefore do not form part of a native vegetation community.

Additional vegetation clearing required for the Proposal would be limited to sparse groundcover

occurring in road shoulders or table drains. Plates 3.3 to 3.8 of AREA (2019a) present views of

the Pipeline Route.

4.3.3.2 Waterways

The proposed Pipeline Route crosses four un-named, non-perennial, second Strahler order

waterways (Figure 3). All four waterways were dry at the time of assessment, with AREA

(2019a) indicating that their banks appeared highly disturbed and do not support either native

vegetation communities or aquatic habitat features.

No waterways mapped as Key Fish Habitat occur within 500m of the proposed Pipeline Route.



25

Figure 5 Plant Community Types




26

4.3.3.3 Threatened Species

AREA (2019a) notes that a total of 9 threatened flora species and 31 threatened fauna species

were predicted to occur within the Cobar Peneplain Bioregion – Nymagee subregion (filtered

by vegetation classes Western Peneplain Woodlands and Sand Plain Mallee Woodland).

Additionally, one Endangered Ecological Community, Myall Woodland in the Darling Riverine

Plains, Brigalow Belt South, Cobar Peneplain, Murray-Darling Depression, Riverina and NSW

South Western Slopes bioregions, was predicted to occur in the area.

No threatened species were expected to occur along the proposed Pipeline Route due to the

absence of virtually any vegetation or habitat values.

AREA (2019a) did not identify any threatened flora or fauna species during the inspection of

the proposed Pipeline Route.

4.3.3.4 Key Threatening Processes

AREA (2019a) notes that, as the proposed Pipeline Route is situated along existing roads, table

drains, and on the outskirts of Nymagee township, the Proposal is not expected to increase the

prevalence of any key threatening processes.

One high threat exotic weed species, Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), was identified

during the inspection of the proposed Pipeline Route at the intersection of Priory Tank Road

and Burthong Road.


The Applicant has designed the Proposal to minimise impacts on native species by firstly

avoiding and then mitigating potential biodiversity impacts. The layout of the proposed pipeline

has been designed to minimise disturbance and the clearing of remnant vegetation and, where

possible, to minimise impacts on native flora and fauna.

The Applicant would implement the biodiversity management and mitigation measures outlined

below to minimise the potential for unacceptable biodiversity-related impacts associated with

the Proposal.

• Ensure that all personnel are aware of areas of approved disturbance and the

legislative consequences of unapproved disturbance.

• Ensure that vegetation is removed in a manner that avoids damage to surrounding

vegetation (if any) and minimises soil disturbance.

• Limit construction activities to daylight hours only to avoid indirect impacts on

threatened flora such as vehicle strikes.

• Encourage natural regeneration of any bare soil or cleared areas through retention

and reuse of soil and any vegetation material on site.

• Implement the management measures identified in Section 2.3 related to pipeline

construction within waterfront land.

• Implement procedures to manage activities with the potential to cause bushfire and

ensure that firefighting equipment, including fire extinguishers, is available at the

worksite during construction operations.



27


Impacts to vegetation associated with the installation of the proposed pipeline would include

the clearing of two isolated, native shrubs (Eremophila longifolia), the removal of an identified

high threat exotic weed species (Tree of Heaven - Ailanthus altissimai), and the clearing of

sparse groundcover vegetation in limited areas.

Considering the above and assuming the management and mitigation measures outlined in

Section 4.3.4 are implemented, AREA (2019a) state that biodiversity impacts associated with

the Proposal would be negligible.

4.4 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

4.4.1 Introduction

AREA undertook an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment of the areas to be

disturbed by the proposed pipeline. The resulting report, hereafter referred to as AREA (2019b),

is presented as Appendix 4. This subsection describes the setting of the Proposal in the context

of Aboriginal heritage, provides an overview of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence

Assessment, and describes the management and mitigation measures to be implemented by the

applicant.

4.4.2 Desktop Review

The desktop database searches conducted by AREA (2019b) and a summary of the results are

presented in Table 4. In summary, the database searches did not identify or record Aboriginal

objects or sites in the vicinity of the Pipeline Route.

Table 4

Aboriginal heritage: desktop-database search results

Name of Database Searched Date of Search Parameters Comment

Aboriginal heritage Information Management System (AHIMS)

7 March 2019 Within 50m of proposed Pipeline Route

No sites recorded within 50m of the Study Area.

Cobar Shire Council LEP 2012 11 April 2019 Schedule 5: Environmental Heritage

No sites of Aboriginal heritage are on the database.

Native Title Vision 11 April 2019 NSW Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Wangaaypuwan and Wayilwan native title determination application – Lodged 14 March 2012 and covers the study area.

State Heritage Register 11 April 2019 Cobar LGA No sites of Aboriginal heritage are on the database near to the Study Areas.

Australian Heritage Database 11 April 2019 Cobar LGA No sites of Aboriginal heritage are on the database near to the Study Area.

Source: AREA (2019b) after Table 2-1



28

4.4.3 Predictive Model

The following factors would be expected to impact the potential for Aboriginal items or sites to

occur within the Study Area (AREA 2019b).

• Stone artefact sites are the most common site type and can occur anywhere.

• Culturally-modified trees may occur adjacent to the proposed Pipeline Route,

however no mature trees will be impacted by the Proposal.

• Stone quarry sites are possible where raw material outcroppings occur.

• Sites or ceremonial, spiritual, and cultural significance can occur anywhere and

may show no physical manifestation.

• Areas proximal to watercourses are more likely to contain Aboriginal

archaeological remains.

• Areas within 200m of watercourses which have been exposed to litter or no

previous disturbance are more likely to contain intact Aboriginal sites.

• Whilst the Proposal crosses four watercourses, all land assessed along the

proposed Pipeline Route has previously been subject to clearing and disturbance.

4.4.4 Field Survey Methodology

A field survey of the proposed Pipeline Route was undertaken on 21 March 2019.

The proposed Pipeline Route was searched for Aboriginal sites, including stone artefact

scatters, from a slow-moving vehicle. AREA (2019b) found this survey approach appropriate

due to the nature of the Study Area, with the dirt roads and table drains along the proposed

route representing highly disturbed areas with excellent ground surface visibility.

The survey method precluded the direct detection of sub-surface Aboriginal Sites, however

AREA (2019b) considers the likelihood of Aboriginal sites without surface manifestations

within the Study Area as being low.

4.4.5 Survey Results

No sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance were recorded during the field survey.

Additionally, AREA (2019b) notes that there is insufficient evidence to presume any

undetected sites are likely to occur within the Study Area. This result is consistent with

Aboriginal heritage survey results undertaken at the Hera Mine Site which did not detect any

objects of Aboriginal heritage significance.



29

4.4.6 Potential Impacts and Management

As no sites or objects of Aboriginal cultural significance have been recorded or are considered

likely to occur along the proposed Pipeline Route, the Proposal is unlikely to have a significant

impact on Aboriginal heritage values. Additionally, the following factors were noted to

contribute towards the low archaeological potential of the Study Area.

• The proposed Pipeline Route has been subject to previous soil disturbance.

• The proposed Pipeline Route has been cleared of all vegetation apart from two

shrubs.

• No natural features are present to suggest the presence of other Aboriginal site

types.

• The proposed Pipeline Route has been subject to ongoing surface impacts from

activities including road use, maintenance, and construction, in addition to

associated surface erosion.

Notwithstanding the low potential for any impacts on Aboriginal heritage, the Applicant would

implement the management and mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.4.7 in order to

further minimise the potential for any adverse impacts.


In the event that previously unrecorded or unanticipated Aboriginal objects are encountered

within the Pipeline Route, the Applicant would implement the Unanticipated Finds Protocol

presented as Appendix B of AREA (2019b). The unanticipated finds protocol includes the

following steps.

• All ground surface disturbance in the area of the finds should cease immediately

once the finds are uncovered.

• Contact the police if the finds are of suspected human remains.

• Seek verification of the finds from a suitably qualified person, such as a heritage

consultant.

• If the finds are verified or are very likely to be Aboriginal in origin, notify the

Biodiversity Conservation Division (or relevant authority) and the relevant local

Aboriginal community representatives.

• All finds should be professionally recorded and registered on the appropriate

databases.

• A management strategy would be required according to best practice and

consultation with the local Aboriginal community. All management will require

approval from the relevant determining authority.



30


As no objects of Aboriginal heritage significance have been recorded or are considered likely to

occur within the Pipeline Route, the Proposal is unlikely to have a significant Aboriginal

heritage-related impact. Additionally, as the proposed Pipeline Route occupies heavily

disturbed areas which have been cleared of virtually all vegetation, the potential for additional

archaeological finds to occur is considered to be low.

Considering the above, the Applicant contends that the impact of the Proposal on Aboriginal

heritage-related values is likely to be negligible.

4.5 TRAFFIC

4.5.1 Introduction

The proposed pipeline route would result in impacts upon the following roads.

• Barton Street – an unsealed, unmarked road with an approximate width of 6m.

• Hartwood Street – a sealed, unmarked road with an approximate width of 6m,

becoming Burthong Road to the south of its intersection with Prior Tank Road.

• Burthong Road – a sealed, unmarked road with an approximate width of 7m,

representing the primary access route for vehicles entering the Hera Mine.

4.5.2 Construction Impacts

4.5.2.1 Road Closures

Short term, partial road closures would need to occur on both Barton Street and Hartwood

Street where the proposed pipeline crosses those roads (see Figure 2). Each partial road closure

would last one to two days, allowing the Applicant to excavate the pipeline route, install the

pipeline, and reinstate the road surface.

Prior to any disturbance of the existing road surfaces, the Applicant would acquire the

necessary consent under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

During construction works along Hartwood Street and Burthong Road, it is anticipated that the

installation of the proposed pipeline would temporarily restrict access to Burthong Road from

several residences (see Figure 4). Consultation with residents would be undertaken prior to the

commencement of construction works in order to minimise impacts on residents.

4.5.2.2 Traffic Generation

During construction of the proposed pipeline, traffic would be generated by the following

activities.

• Construction staff movements.

• Pipe deliveries and other general deliveries during construction works.

• Movement of mobile construction equipment including a semi-trailer, medium

rigid truck, excavator, and grader.



31

An average of six light vehicle movements (3 in, 3 out) would be generated by the construction

of the proposed pipeline over the construction period of approximately 36 days.


The Applicant would implement the following traffic-related management and mitigation


• Any damage to road surfaces as a result of the Proposal would be repaired, as soon

as practicable, at the expense of the Applicant.

• Residents would be consulted prior to the commencement of road works in order

to minimise disruptions associated with temporary loss of access to private

properties.

• Construction activities would be scheduled such that road closures on Barton

Street and Hartwood Street do not occur simultaneously, minimising potential

road user inconvenience associated with detours.


The Proposal would result in only temporary disruptions to the existing road network, road

users, and residents of properties with access onto Hartwood Street and Burthong Road.

Assuming the above management and mitigation measures are implemented, it is considered

that the potential for significant traffic and road network impacts would be negligible.

4.6 GROUNDWATER

4.6.1 Introduction

An assessment of groundwater-related impacts associated with pumping of water from the

Nymagee Mine workings was undertaken by GHD. The resulting report is referred to hereafter

as GHD (2019) and is presented as Appendix 5.

4.6.2 Existing Environment

GHD (2019) identify that that the Nymagee Mine Site is located on the eastern margin of the

Cobar Basin within the NSW Murray Darling Basin Fractured Rock Groundwater Management

Area. Groundwater typically occurs within fractured rock aquifers and at the interface of the

near surface weathered material and underlying hard basement rocks.

Earlier studies by Impax (2011) at Hera Mine indicated that the aquifer has dual porosity, with

initial groundwater yields being relatively high and significant decrease in yield as the proximal

transmissive fractures become dewatered.

Groundwater recharge is via rainfall, with the rate of recharge dependent on the magnitude and

duration of rainfall events.



32

GHD (2019) undertook a search of surrounding groundwater users and identified three private

bores within 10km of the Nymagee Mine Site as follows (Figure 2).

• Nymagee Town Bore – an unregistered bore anecdotally used as emergency water

supply for the village of Nymagee.

• GW017385 - located approximately 2.9km south of the Nymagee Mine Site and

registered for stock and domestic use.

• GW017386 - located approximately 8.1km of the Nymagee Mine Site and

registered for stock and domestic use. This bore is located south of the Hera Mine

Site.

GHD (2019) stated that there are no known groundwater dependent ecosystems in the vicinity

of the Nymagee Mine Site.

The Applicant monitors four bores in the vicinity of the Nymagee Mine Site, namely WB014

NMWB003, NMWB004 and NMWB005 (Figure 2). Groundwater levels within the Nymagee

Mine Site are on average approximately 48m below ground level. Groundwater quality may be

summarised as follows.

• Electrical Conductivity – between 2.56 and 6.01 mS/cm. These conductivities

indicate a concentration of total dissolved solids of between 1 640ppm to

3 850ppm. Under the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy, these concentrations

classify the aquifer as a “less productive” source.

• pH – between 3.3 and 10.8, with average pH values typically near neutral for

bores NMWB003 and NMWB004, mildly acidic (pH = 5.3) in bore WB014 and

mildly alkaline in bore NMWB005 (pH = 8.4).

Finally, the Applicant estimates that the Nymagee Mine workings contain approximately

265ML ± 30ML.

4.6.3 Assessment Methodology

Based on work completed at the Hera Mine Site, GHD (2019) assumed the following aquifer

properties.

• Transmissivity – 1m2/day to 20m2/day, with a best estimate value of 5m2/day.

• Specific yield - 0.001 to 0.020, with a best estimate value of 0.010.

GHD (2019) used the analytical models of Marinelli and Niccoli (2000) and Theis (1935) to

estimate a production rate that would result in a drawdown of groundwater levels at the

Nymagee Town Bore of less than 2m. Section 3.4.2 of GHD (2019) provides an overview of

this methodology. In summary, however, the methodology assumes the Nymagee workings are

a cylindrical void with a radius of 21.4m and a depth of 238m.



33


Based on the best estimate values presented in Section 4.6.3, GHD (2019) determined that an

extraction rate of approximately 2.0L/s over a period of 4 years, or 2.7L/s over a period of 3

years would not result in drawdown of standing water levels within the Nymagee Town Bore of

less than 2m.


The Applicant would implement the following groundwater-related management and mitigation


• Ensure that water is pumped from the Nymagee Mine workings at an average rate

of 2.7L/s or less.

• Monitor groundwater levels within the following bores using an automated logger

downloaded at least quarterly.

– WB014

– NMWB003

– NMWB004

– NMWB005

– Nymagee Town Bore

– Nymagee Mine shaft

• Monitor groundwater quality at least quarterly within the above bores.

• Establish a baseline standing water level in the Nymagee Town Bore prior to the

commencement of pumping operations.

• In the event that standing water levels within the Nymagee Town Bore are

observed to have been reduced by 1.5m below the pre-existing water level,

increase the frequency of monitoring to monthly and engage the services of a

suitably qualified hydrogeologist to determine the likely cause for that reduction.

• In the event that the above assessment is determined to be associated with the

proposed groundwater extraction activities, reduce or cease pumping or negotiate

a suitable alternate water supply with Cobar Shire Council.

4.6.6 Conclusion

Based on the modelling of GHD (2019) and the Applicant’s commitment to monitor both the

Nymagee Town Bore and existing monitoring bores and cease or reduce pumping if required,

the Applicant contends that the Proposal would have a negligible impact on surrounding

groundwater users.

4.7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Table 5 describes potential impacts upon other environmental issues associated with the

Proposal, the management and mitigation measures which would be adopted by the Applicant

in order to address these impacts, and an assessment of the level of impact generated by the

Proposal.



34

Table 5

Other Environmental Issues, Potential Impacts and Management and Mitigation Measures

Issue Potential Impacts Management and Mitigation Measures

Impact Assessment

Surface Water

• Short term impacts on water quality if substantial rainfall occurs during pipeline construction.

• Impact on creek water quality due to disturbance and destabilisation of banks and bed.

• Undertake construction during forecast period of dry weather.

• Stabilise, as soon as practicable, areas of disturbance to watercourse banks and beds.

Negligible

Land Resources

• Soil erosion following pipeline construction disturbance.

• Reinstate ground surfaces to pre-disturbance state following pipeline installation.

• Allow groundcover to re-establish opportunistically.

Negligible

Air Quality • Dust generation during construction activities.

• Dust generation from exposed areas following construction.

• Actively manage dust generating activities with regard for weather conditions.

• Water soil stockpiles to maintain water content and minimise dust generation.

• Re-use extracted soil material to cover pipeline as soon as possible.

• Allow groundcover to re-establish opportunistically.

Limited

Visual Amenity

• Temporary impact on visual amenity associated with pipeline construction.

• Re-use extracted soil material to cover pipeline as soon as possible.

• Implement dust management and mitigation measures as above.

Negligible

Historic Heritage

• No known objects of historic heritage significance would be disturbed by the Proposal.

• None required. Nil

Public Safety and Hazards

• Potential impacts on road users associated with construction activities.

• Manage construction activities to minimise impacts on road users.

Negligible

Waste • Waste generated by employees during construction works (e.g. food scraps).

• Employees required to collect waste and transport it to the Hera Mine Site for disposal.

Negligible



35

5. C O N C L U SI O N

5.1 SECTION 4.15(1) OF THE EP&A ACT

5.1.1 Introduction

Section 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act sets out the matters for consideration by a consent authority

when determining an application for development consent.

(1) “Matters for consideration—general

In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into

consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development

the subject of the development application:

a) the provisions of:

i) any environmental planning instrument, and

ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public

consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent

authority (unless the Secretary has notified the consent authority that

the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely

or has not been approved), and

iii) any development control plan, and

iv) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4,

or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter

into under section 7.4, and

v) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the

purposes of this paragraph),that apply to the land to which the

development application relates,

b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on

both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts

in the locality,

c) the suitability of the site for the development,

d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

e) the public interest.”

The following subheadings provide an evaluation of the proposed modification against these

provisions.

5.1.2 Environmental Planning Instruments (Section 4.15(1) (a)(i))

The relevant environmental planning instruments include the following.

• State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.

• State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and

Extractive Industries) 2007.

• State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.



36

• State Environmental Planning Policy 33 – Hazardous and Offensive

Development.

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land.

All relevant environmental planning instruments, plans and regulations have been addressed in

Section 3. In summary, the proposed modification is permissible under the relevant local and

State environmental legislation and guidelines.

5.1.3 Proposed Instruments (Section 4.15(1) (a)(ii))

The Applicant is not aware of any proposed instruments that are relevant to the Proposal.

5.1.4 Development Control Plans (Section 4.15(1) (a)(iii))

Cobar Shire Council does not have a Development Control Plan for the Cobar Shire Local

Government Area.

5.1.5 Section 7.4 Planning Agreement (Section 4.15(1) (a)(iiia))

The Applicant as a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Cobar Shire Council in relation to the

Hera Mine. That agreement is currently under review. However, the Applicant contends that the

current Proposal is of a scale and nature that no Planning Agreement is required.

5.1.6 The Regulations (Section 4.15(1) (a)(iv))

The regulations, to the extent that they are applicable to the Proposal, have been reviewed in

Section 3.

5.1.7 Likely Impacts of the Development (Section 4.15(1) (b))

The likely impacts of the proposal, including environmental impacts on both the natural and

built environment, are assessed in Section 4 of this document.

5.1.8 Suitability of the Site (Section 4.15(1) (c))

The suitability of the Pipeline Route for the Proposal is discussed in Section 4 of this document.

5.1.9 Submissions in Accordance with the Act (Section 4.15(1) (d))

The Applicant anticipates that submissions related to the Proposal will be provided following

completion of the public exhibition and that it will be provided with an opportunity to respond

to those submissions at that time.



37

5.1.10 The Public Interest (Section 4.15(1) (e))

The Proposal would secure an ongoing water supply for the Hera Mine, securing the

employment and economic contributions that the operation makes to the local and wider

community. The Proposal would result in very minor environmental impacts which have been

mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. As a result, the anticipated benefits associated with

the Proposal would substantially exceed the anticipated impacts and the Proposal would,

therefore, be in the public interest.

5.2 CONCLUSION

The objective of the Proposal is to permit water to be transferred from the Nymagee Mine to the

Hera Mine to offset significant constraints on the operation of the Hera Mine as a result of the

current severe regional drought conditions, including reduced access to surface water supplies

and reduced inflows to the underground workings. The Proposal would help secure the

operation of the Hera Mine in the short term, thereby ensuring the ongoing employment of the

Applicant’s current employees and contractors, as well as the ongoing economic contributions

that the Mine makes to the economy of the Cobar LGA during a period of reduced agricultural

activity and associated economic challenges.

This document and the supporting specialist consultant studies have identified that the Proposal

is able to be undertaken with minimal impacts on the environment. As a result, the Proposal is,

in the opinion of the Applicant, in the public interest and should therefore be approved.



38

6. R E F E RE N C ES

Aquade Groundwater Services (2015). Hera Mine – Modification 3 – Environmental

Assessment Appendix 3 – Supplementary Assessment of Groundwater Availability

Aquade Groundwater Services (2017). Initial Groundwater Conditions and Monitoring,

Aurelia Nymagee Mine, NSW. November 2017

AREA Environmental Consultants & Communication (2019a). Flora and Fauna

Assessment, Hera Gold Mine to the Nymagee Copper Mine, 11 April 2019

AREA Environmental Consultants & Communication (2019b). Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Due Diligence Assessment, Proposed water pipeline – Hera Gold Mine to the

Nymagee Copper Mine, April 2019

GHD (2019). Nymagee Dewatering Assessment, August 2019

Impax (2011). Hera Project, via Nymagee – Groundwater Assessment. Volume 1, Part 2 of the

Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium

Marinelli, F and Niccoli, W (2000). Simple Analytical Equations for Estimating Ground

Water Inflow to a Mine Pit, Ground Water, vol 38, pp 311-314

Theis, CV (1935). ‘The lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and discharge of a

well using ground-water storage’ Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol 16,

pp 519-24

Date post:	18-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times

Environmental Effects - Cobar Shire€¦ · STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NYMAGEE RESOURCES...

Documents