Forcett House quarry - EPA Tasmaniaepa.tas.gov.au/documents/tinning earthmoving pty ltd... ·...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Forcett House quarry

Lewisham Rd, Lewisham

Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd

Board of the Environment Protection Authority

March 2016

Environmental Assessment Report Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd – Forcett House quarry, Lewisham

I

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd

Proposal Forcett House quarry

Location Lewisham Rd, Lewisham Tas 7173

NELMS no. PCE 9293

Permit application no. 5.2015.171.1 (Sorell Council)

Folder EN-EM-EV-DE-244872

Document. H513689

Class of Assessment 2A

Assessment process milestones

18/08/2015 EER Guidelines issued

02/07/2015 Permit application submitted to Council

17/07/2015 Referral received by Board

30/01/2016 Start of public consultation period

13/02/2016 End of public consultation period


II

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

EER Environmental Effects Report

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EMPCS Environmental management and pollution control system

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

LUPA Act

QCOP

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Tasmanian Quarry Code of Practice 1999

RMPS Resource management and planning system

SD Sustainable development

Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd

TE


III

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd’s (TE’s) proposed Forcett House quarry. The proposal involves extraction (by ripping and pushing) then crushing and screening of weathered basalt at a location off Lewisham Rd, Lewisham, up to a maximum annual amount of 5,000 m3. No blasting is anticipated. The land intended for quarrying is unimproved pasture and currently used to graze livestock. This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Environmental Effects Report (EER). Relevant government agencies and the public have been consulted and their submissions and comments considered as part of this assessment. Further details of the assessment process are presented in section 1 of this report. Section 2 describes the statutory objectives and principles underpinning the assessment. Details of the proposal are provided in section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the alternatives to the proposal. Section 5 summarises the public and agency consultation process and the key issues raised in that process. The detailed evaluation of environmental issues is contained in section 6. The report conclusions are contained in section 7. Appendix 1 contains the environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the EER. The environmental permit conditions in Appendix 2 are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing permit conditions.


IV

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 Report conclusions ................................................................................. 20

8 Report approval...................................................................................... 21


1

1 Approval process

An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Sorell Council on 2 July 2015. The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under clause 6(a)(ii), schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being materials handling, namely processing (by crushing, grinding, milling or separating into different sizes by sieving, air elutriation or in any other manner) of rock, ores or minerals at a rate in excess of 1 000 cubic metres per year. Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The amended application was received by the Board on 17 July 2015. The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board. The Board required that information to support the proposal be provided in the form of an Environmental Effects Report (EER). Several drafts of the EER were submitted to the Department for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance on behalf of the Board. The EER was released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on 30 January 2016. An advertisement was placed in The Saturday Mercury and a notice was placed on the EPA website. The EER was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. No public submissions were received.


2

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

The proposal must be considered by the Board in the context of the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (RMPS), and in the context of the objectives of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control System (EMPCS) (both sets of objectives are specified in Schedule 1 the EMPC Act). The functions of the Board are to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act, and in particular to use its best endeavours to further the RMPS and EMPCS objectives. The Board must undertake the assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles defined in Section 74 of the EMPC Act.


3

3 The proposal

The proposal is to win, crush and screen up to 5 000 m3 per annum weathered basalt from mining lease 1998P/M. No blasting is anticipated. The land intended for quarrying is unimproved pasture and currently used to graze livestock. The quarry will be developed primarily to the east and northeast, away from Gordons Reservoir and Ramsar-listed Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon (Figure 1). The lagoon lies about 70m from the northwest boundary of the mining lease. The nearest sensitive use in other ownership is a rural property at about 670m southeast of the proposed quarry’s nominal centre. The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Part B of the EER. Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics

Activity

Extraction, crushing and screening of a maximum of 5,000 cubic metres of weathered basalt per annum.

Location and planning context

Location Off Lewisham Rd, Lewisham, as shown in Figure 1.1

Land zoning Rural (Sorell Planning Scheme 1993; Extractive industry discretionary use)

Land tenure Private ownership (CT 166029/1)

Mining lease 1998P/M

Lease area Seven hectares (7Ha)

Bond $5,000

Existing site

Land Use Currently a level one extractive activity.

Topography Relatively flat, low lying terrain with a maximum elevation of approximately 15m ASL.

Geology The quarry exposes Tertiary basalt through thin basaltic topsoil. The rock is highly fractured and easily won by ripping.

Soils Moderately to imperfectly drained black cracking soils developed on Tertiary basalt bedrock and colluvium.

Hydrology An artificial water impoundment, Gordons Reservoir, lies immediately south of the existing quarry. The eastern extent of the Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon lies about 70m from the northwest boundary of the mining lease.

Surface runoff from the quarry’s working area is directed to a sediment retention basin adjacent to the northern extent of Gordons Reservoir. Overflow from the basin may discharge into the reservoir. During periods of intense and sustained rainfall Gordons Reservoir may discharge to the eastern extent of the Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon.

1 Lewisham Rd at right hand bottom corner of figure.


4

Fauna A desktop analysis using the Natural Values Atlas identified records of 15 threatened fauna species (under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; TSPA) within 5km of the site.

A flora and fauna habitat survey (NorthBarker Ecosystem Services; EER, Appendix 1) found no evidence of threatened fauna species within the proposed quarry footprint and no communities with habitat potential for fauna. The assessment indicated aquatic herbland may be potential habitat for the green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis).

Flora A desktop analysis using the Natural Values Atlas identified records of 12 threatened flora species (under the TSPA) within 5km of the site. One of these species, the pale flaxlily (Dianella amoena) was also listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Control Act 1999.

A flora and fauna habitat survey (NorthBarker Ecosystem Services; EER, Appendix 1) found five species listed as threatened under the TSPA. The mining lease itself contains no viable habitat for four of these species and none were recorded within it. The fifth threatened species recorded, gentle rush (Juncus amabilis), occurs as a single plant within the mining lease and as a group of about 180 plants outside the lease.

Local region

Climate Rainfall is approximately 499 mm per annum. Mean maximum temperature is 17.5°C and mean minimum temperature is 8.1°C. Wind direction is predominantly north-westerly in the mornings and south-easterly in the afternoons.

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

The quarry site is located in a Rural zone (Sorell Planning Scheme 1993). A quarry is a discretionary use within this zone.

Land surrounding the quarry site is also zoned Rural under this Scheme.

Grazing occurs on the greater property and neighbouring properties. Forcett Lakes golf course, owned by the landowner on which lease 1998P/M is located (D & L Nominees), lies about 375m south of the proposed quarry.

Species of conservation significance

A single plant of gentle rush (Juncus amabilis) was recorded within the mining lease and a group of about 180 plants outside the lease area.

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment Komatsu D85 dozer; Komatsu WA320 wheel loader; ESBA horizontal impactor (crushing); Precision screen contractor (screening)

Inputs

Water None.

Energy Diesel for mobile plant.

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Stormwater runoff from extraction and stockpile areas.

Atmospheric Dust from ripping and pushing operations, crushing and screening and vehicle movements.

Solid General refuse (e.g. packaging materials).

Machinery consumables.

Stripped soils and overburden will be used for rehabilitation purposes.

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

Greenhouse gases

The quarry will be a very minor greenhouse gas emitter, given its small scale operation and nearby location(s) of end users.


5

Operations

Operating hours (ongoing)

0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday

0800 to 1600 hours Saturday


6

Figure 1 : Site plan for proposed intensification of use of Forcett House quarry, off Lewisham Rd, Lewisham (Figure 2 p8 EER).


7

4 Need for the proposal and alternatives

Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd (TE) currently operates a level one quarry off Lewisham Rd, Lewisham to source products for agricultural use associated with the family’s farm and some civil works associated with the family’s civil construction business. According to the EER the reason to intensify quarry operation to a level two activity is to recover some of the quarry’s initial establishment costs and keep TE’s earthworks business competitive by commercialising the quarry business. Another quarry (lease 1670 P/M) is located on the opposite side of the Arthur Highway not far from the Forcett House Quarry. According to the EER this quarry targets a sedimentary rock deposit and produces mudstone / sandstone derived gravels and aggregates, which have substantially different properties to the igneous rock products derived from Forcett House quarry. No other alternatives to intensifying the quarry operation at the given location were proposed or considered.


8

5 Public and agency consultation

The EER was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. A response was received from the following:

Department of State Growth

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

Scientific Officer (Water), EPA Division

Regulatory Officer (Mining and extractive unit), EPA Division

Noise Specialist, EPA Division

Scientific Officer (Air), EPA Division

Policy and Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB), Natural and Cultural Heritage Division


9

6 Evaluation of environmental issues

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

1. Flora, fauna and habitat. 2. Rivers, creeks, wetlands and estuaries. 3. Significant areas, coastal zone and marine areas. 4. Air emissions. 5. Noise emissions. 6. Transport impacts. 7. Hazardous substances and materials. 8. Cultural heritage. 9. Rehabilitation.


10

Issue 1: Flora, fauna and habitat

Description of potential impacts

The proposed quarry site has been cleared of native vegetation. Additional surface stripping is forecast to the northeast, east and southeast as shown in Figure 1. The predominant communities on and surrounding the site are exotic pasture, with a narrow fringe of native wetland herbland occupying the receding margins of Gordons Reservoir. Part of this herbland lies within lease 1998P/M.

As indicated in Table 1, a flora and fauna habitat survey identified within the mining lease a single specimen of the threatened species gentle rush (Juncus amabilis). The survey also found a group of about 180 plants outside the lease.

The habitat survey also identified a number of weed species at and around the proposed quarry site, including African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and horehound (Marrubium vulgare), all of which are listed as declared weeds under the Weed Management Act 1999.

Uncontrolled disturbance or removal of vegetation has the potential to impact and degrade the biodiversity and natural values of The Land2 and surrounding area.

Management measures proposed in EER

TE commits to preserving the single plant of gentle rush (Juncus amabilis) within The Land, pending resolution of its conservation status3 (Commitment 1). TE also commits to conducting weed management and control, particularly within The Land (Commitment 2).

Public and agency comment

DPIPWE’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Division (Policy and Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB)) recommended TE fence off the single plant of gentle rush and mark its location on all work maps, including the mine plan. PCAB also recommended TE:

Conduct a survey for the green and gold frog between September and mid-February by a suitably qualified person.

Act to rehabilitate an area of wetland (i.e. aquatic herbland) affected by existing quarry operations and avoid future works near the wetland.

Operate and manage quarrying operations to avoid contamination of or impact on nearby wetlands, such as provision of appropriate drainage and sediment retention.

Develop and implement a hygiene plan in accordance with DPIPWE’s Weed and disease planning and hygiene guidelines – Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania (2015).

Evaluation

As gentle rush (Juncus amabilis) is listed as threatened under the TSPA, TE will need to isolate and preserve the single plant which occurs on The Land (e.g. by fencing, high visibility tape) consistent with commitment 1 and PCAB’s recommendation. The requirement to protect gentle rush on The Land is specified in standard condition FF1 (protection of threatened plant community). The other incidence of this species, a group of about 180 plants, is outside The Land and will not be affected by quarrying operations.

The flora and fauna habitat survey noted a narrow fringe of aquatic herbland along the receding margins of Gordons Reservoir may be potential habitat for the green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis). The survey concluded the prospect of finding the frog on The Land was remote given the most recent recorded sighting within 5km of The Land was 1979 and there have been no sightings elsewhere in southern Tasmania in recent years. While it is accepted the likelihood the green and gold frog occurs on or near The Land is low, PCAB’s request for a field survey is considered appropriate given the frog’s vulnerable conservation status and the potential for

2 The Land is defined as the mining lease 1998P/M.

3 Gentle rush has been recommended for delisting by the TSPA Scientific Advisory Committee (Appendix 1).


11

suitable habitat to exist on or near The Land. In addition, PCAB notes Orielton Rivulet, which flows into Orielton Lagoon, provides habitat for the green and gold frog.4 Consequently TE is required to conduct a survey for the green and gold frog as specified in standard condition FF2 (green and gold frog survey).

The wetland area referred to by PCAB corresponds to an area at the southeast extent of the existing quarry workings, near the edge of the reservoir. It is agreed this area, identified as ‘freshwater aquatic herbland’ (TASVEG), has been disturbed by historical quarrying operations. It is also agreed this area should be targeted as a priority for future rehabilitation. However, there is no evidence to suggest environmental harm has or is occurring as a consequence of the disturbance. Therefore restoration of the small area of wetland should form part of the quarry’s overall rehabilitation plan (refer to Issue 9, this report) and there is no immediate need for TE to conduct rehabilitation work in this area.5

It is agreed TE must manage and operate the quarry to avoid contaminating or negatively affecting Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon. For the most part this will be achieved by confining quarry operations to the mining lease (The Land), implementing appropriate site drainage measures (refer to Issue 2, this report) and ensuring any hazardous materials are effectively managed. It is also agreed TE must control weeds, especially African boxthorn, on and near The Land (commitment 2). This requirement is specified in site-specific condition FF3 (hygiene plan).

Provided TE complies with conditions FF1, FF2 and FF3 the likelihood quarry operations will cause environmental harm (i.e. species or habitat loss or damage) is remote.

Conclusion

TE is required to comply with the following standard (generic) conditions:

G1 Access to and awareness of conditions and associated documents

G2 Incident response

G3 No changes without approval

G4 Change of responsibility

G5 Change of ownership

G6 Complaints register

G7 Quarry Code of Practice

FF1 Protection of threatened plant community

TE is required to comply with the following site-specific conditions:

FF2 Green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis) survey

FF3 Hygiene Plan

EER commitments 1 and 2 are noted, supported and included as part of Attachment 2 (Commitments).

4Jo Potter, Natural Values Assessment Officer (PCAB), personal comms., 4 February 2016.

5 Unless evidence of the green and gold frog is identified by field survey.


12

Issue 2: Rivers, creeks, wetlands and estuaries


An artificial water impoundment, Gordons Reservoir, lies immediately south of The Land. The eastern extent of the Ramsar listed Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon lies about 70m from the northwest boundary of The Land. The quarry site generally slopes south and east toward the reservoir.

Surface runoff from the quarry’s working area is directed to a sediment retention basin adjacent the northern extent of Gordons Reservoir and from here into the reservoir. During periods of intense and sustained rainfall Gordons Reservoir may discharge to the Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon.

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


TE commits to developing a swale drain on the perimeter of the product stockpiling area to intercept and direct stormwater runoff to the sediment retention basin (Commitment 3). No other commitments to control and manage surface water runoff have been proposed.


The EPA Division’s Scientific Officer (Water) remarked there should be no water quality impacts associated with intensification of use given the established sediment basin between the quarry and Gordons Reservoir and the relatively benign nature of the weathered basalt resource.

Evaluation

While the eastern extent of the Pittwater-Orielton lagoon lies relatively close to the northwest boundary of The Land (i.e. lease 1998P/M), surface runoff flows generally south and east away from the lagoon and toward the reservoir. Surface runoff from the product stockpile area, which may otherwise flow unchecked into the reservoir, will be diverted to the sediment basin by provision of drainage as per commitment 3 above. As shown in Figure 1, the quarry will be developed away from the lagoon, primarily to the north and northeast, which serves to enlarge the buffer distance between the lagoon and quarry operations. Provided quarrying operations are confined to The Land (1998P/M) then water pollutants such as sediments will be contained on The Land by the proposed site drainage and retention basin. Intensification of use is not anticipated to measurably affect the water quality of the lagoon during sustained or intense periods of rainfall, again largely due to the forecast directions of quarry development (away from the lagoon), topography (which generally sheds water away from the lagoon) and construction of cut off drains.

Though the risk of environmental harm to neighbouring waterbodies is considered remote, standard conditions E1 (perimeter drains), E2 (stormwater) and E3 (maintenance of settling ponds) are considered appropriate and necessary to exclude as much stormwater as practicable from quarry workings and to manage sediment at the quarry.

Conclusion

TE is required to comply with the following standard conditions:

E1 Perimeter drains

E2 Stormwater

E3 Maintenance of settling ponds

EER commitment 3 is noted, supported and included as part of Attachment 2 (Commitments).


13

Issue 3: Significant areas, coastal zone and marine areas


As described at Issue 2 of this report, the proposed quarry’s northwest boundary lies in close proximity to the eastern extent of the Ramsar listed Pittwater-Orielton lagoon. The EER states there will be no disturbance within this ‘strip’, since the quarry will be developed away from the lagoon, primarily to the north and northeast (Figure 1).

Ground disturbance from quarrying may mobilise and transfer sediments to the lagoon in stormwater flows.


Refer Issue 2 this report.


None.

Evaluation

Refer Issue 2 this report.

Conclusion

No conditions are considered necessary with respect to significant areas, coastal zone and marine areas.


14

Issue 4: Air emissions


The operation of mobile plant, including crushing and screening equipment, and the movement of vehicles on site will be responsible for the majority of the quarry’s on site air emissions, namely combustion gases and dust. The nearest sensitive use (rural dwelling) in other ownership is located about 675m southeast of the quarry site. TE concludes the intensified activity is unlikely to cause nuisance to neighbouring properties.

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


TE commits to applying measures, such as using a water cart, to suppress dust in the event a dust plume becomes visible from the Arthur Highway (commitment 5). Other measures TE intends to implement to limit dust emissions are outlined in the EER (p 14) and include implementing low drop distances when loading crusher and creating stockpiles, ensuring the access track and quarry working surfaces are well drained and employing low vehicle speeds on The Land.


The EPA Division’s Scientific Officer (Air) noted the EER satisfactorily addresses the issue of dust generation via on site management measures. The Officer concluded dust fallout is unlikely to be an issue given the proposed management methods and distance to the nearest residence.

Evaluation

At a distance of 675m, the nearest sensitive receptor (rural residence) occurs slightly within the separation distance recommended by the Tasmanian Quarry Code of Practice’s (QCOP) for crushing and screening operations (750m). Provided the proposed on site mitigation and management measures are applied, environmental nuisance due to dust is considered unlikely though the nearest dwelling lies marginally within the recommended separation distance. Nonetheless, standard condition A1 (control of dust emissions) will require TE to minimise dust emissions in order to limit environmental nuisance.

Commitment 5 (dust suppression measures) is considered appropriate and its intent is reflected by condition A1.

To limit the likelihood of environmental nuisance from transport of gravel products (due to spills and dust transfer), vehicles transporting crushed and screened products from the quarry site will need to be covered or load dampened. This requirement is specified in standard condition A2 (covering of vehicles).

Provided that TE complies with standard conditions A1 and A2 then air emissions from this activity (including dust from cartage) are unlikely to cause nuisance beyond the boundary of The Land.

Conclusion


A1 Control of dust emissions

A2 Covering of vehicles



15

Issue 5: Noise emissions


Crushing and screening of rock will generate the majority of noise emissions. Drilling and blasting are not anticipated. Vehicle movements will also contribute to noise emissions.

The major pieces of mobile plant expected to be used at the quarry are listed in the EER Part B (p4). The closest sensitive use in other ownership lies about 675m southeast of the quarry.

A desktop noise assessment conducted for the intensified activity (Pitt & Sherry; EER, Appendix 2) calculated a ‘worst case’6 noise level of 49dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor.

TE concludes noise emissions from usual quarry operations are unlikely to cause environmental nuisance at the nearest sensitive use in other ownership.

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


No commitments to manage noise levels are proposed. TE intends to operate the quarry consistent with the hours outlined in the QCOP.


None.

Evaluation

At a distance of 675m, the nearest sensitive receptor (rural residence) occurs slightly within the Tasmanian QCOP recommended separation distance for crushing and screening operations (750m). The EPA Division’s Noise Specialist concluded the desktop noise assessment conducted for the intensified operation was satisfactory and that environmental nuisance due to noise was unlikely at the nearest sensitive receptor.

Given extractive operations will not involve drilling and blasting and that TE will operate the quarry consistent with the hours outlined in the QCOP, explicit noise limits are not considered necessary. It is, however, considered appropriate to require TE to provide and maintain a complaints register, as per standard condition G6. The complaints register can be used as a basis for initiating noise investigations. Standard condition N1 requires TE to adhere to the QCOP operating hours to mitigate the potential for noise nuisance during night-time periods.

Conclusion


G6 Complaints register

N1 Operating hours

6 All machinery operating at the same time.


16

Issue 6: Transport impacts


Council did not require a Traffic Impact Assessment for the proposed intensification of use.

The EER states the annual cartage task is likely to be spread over 240 days, or about three vehicle (18 or 32 tonne truck) movements per day. On occasion (e.g. supplying a contract) up to eight vehicle movements per day is forecast. Vehicles will access the site using the existing gravel track from Lewisham Rd.

Cartage hours will occur within the periods outlined in the Tasmanian QCOP.

Vehicle movements to/ from quarry may degrade the acoustic and atmospheric amenity of the local neighbourhood without suitable controls.


No commitments relating to traffic have been proposed.


None.

Evaluation

The permit application requires conditions be applied to The Land to mitigate and manage potential environmental impacts. As discussed previously at Issues 4 and 5, conditions A2 and N1 are expected to help mitigate and limit the likelihood of nuisance from vehicle movements along the quarry’s immediate access route.

Conclusion

No further conditions are considered necessary.


17

Issue 7: Environmentally hazardous substances and materials


Fuel (diesel) will be supplied using a ute-mounted refuelling tank with a maximum capacity of 1,200L. Machinery will be fuelled from this tank. No diesel or any other hazardous substances will be stored on site. TE estimates 10L as the maximum hydrocarbon spill during refuelling.

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


No commitments concerning hazardous substances and materials storage and handling have been proposed. However, TE has indicated a hydrocarbon spill kit will be available on site to use in the event of minor fuel or lubricant spills.


None.

Evaluation

Since a hazardous substance (diesel) will routinely be handled on site, standard condition H1 (storage and handling of hazardous materials) is considered necessary.

While the risk of a diesel spill or leak is considered to be low, TE’s intent to provide an on-site hydrocarbon spill kit is considered appropriate and supported. This requirement is specified by standard condition H2 (spill kits).

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

Conclusion

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

H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials

H2 Spill kits

TE should note the legal obligations concerning storage and handling of dangerous goods, explosives and dangerous substances as expressed by LO2 (PCE 9293 Information Schedule-Legal Obligations).


18

Issue 8: Cultural heritage


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


No commitments concerning cultural heritage have been proposed.


Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) completed a search of the Aboriginal Heritage Register and advised there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within the proposed quarry footprint. AHT further noted that the quarry area is highly disturbed and as a result there is a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present.

Evaluation

Given AHT’s assessment above, the prospect that quarrying operations will affect Aboriginal heritage is considered low. No specific conditions are deemed necessary.

Conclusion

Information about the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 is included in the information schedule clause LO3 of PCE 9293.

TE should note the legal obligations concerning Aboriginal heritage as expressed by LO3 (PCE 9293 Information Schedule-Legal Obligations).


19

Issue 9: Rehabilitation


As illustrated in Figure 1, TE intends to develop the quarry primarily to the northeast, east and southeast. The EER states the end use of the quarry will be to increase the capacity of the reservoir. A preliminary rehabilitation plan is outlined in the EER (Part C p19). The total area of land open at any time has been proposed as no more than 4Ha.

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


TE commits to rehabilitate the quarry site largely in accordance with the methods and measures outlined in the Tasmanian QCOP (Commitment 7). No other commitments are given to manage site closure and rehabilitation.


None.

Evaluation

TE’s proposed end use to increase the volume of Gordons Reservoir (and continue to draw on the reservoir to irrigate agricultural land and the Forcett Lakes golf course) is consistent with existing and future anticipated land uses. The increase in volume is likely to be very minor given the existing reservoir volume is estimated as 400ML.

Ongoing or progressive rehabilitation of a working quarry (to limit its disturbed area) is an expectation under the Tasmanian QCOP. Progressive rehabilitation (commitment 7), with a maximum allowable disturbed (or open) area at any one time of 4Ha, is required by condition DC3.

Given the minimum anticipated quarry life of 20 years, it is considered appropriate to require a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan within 90 days of the Director being notified of cessation of the activity (DC5).

TE intends to retain all stripped materials (e.g. soils and overburden) for rehabilitation purposes. This intention is reflected in standard condition DC2.

Other decommissioning and rehabilitation requirements considered necessary for this activity are standard conditions DC1 (Notification of cessation) and DC4 (Temporary suspension of activity).

Provided these conditions are complied with, the likelihood of enduring material environmental harm from quarry closure is unlikely.

Conclusion

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

DC1 Notification of cessation

DC2 Stockpiling of surface soil

DC3 Progressive rehabilitation

DC4 Temporary suspension of activity

DC5 DRP requirements



20

7 Report conclusions

This assessment has been based on the information provided by Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd and its consultant (Integrated Land Management and Planning) in the permit application, EER, and in correspondence and discussion between the EPA Division and Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd and its representatives. This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by EPA Division scientific specialists and regulatory staff, other Divisions of DPIPWE and other government agencies. It is concluded that:

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

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

It is concluded that the proposed activity is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the objectives of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (the RMPS and EMPCS objectives) would be compromised, provided that the Permit Conditions - Environmental No. 9293 appended to this report are imposed and duly complied with, including commitments made by the proponent in the EER. The environmental conditions appended to this report are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing permit conditions.


22

9 References

Williams B; Forcett House quarry Environmental Effects Report (dated 01/12/2015), Integrated Land Management and Planning, Tasmania.


23

10 Appendices

Appendix 1 Permit conditions, includes Attachment 2 - EER commitments


Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Permit conditions - Environmental

Date post:	10-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Forcett House quarry - EPA Tasmaniaepa.tas.gov.au/documents/tinning earthmoving pty ltd... ·...

Documents