Mineral Hill Pty Ltd - Lachlan Shire

Mineral Hill Pty Ltd ABN: 61 626 082 155

Statement of Environmental Effects

for

Minor Change to Conditional

Requirements

related to the

Mineral Hill Mine

DA 2011/18 - Modification 3

January 2021

R.W. CORKERY & CO. PTY. LIMITED

Prepared by:

This page has intentionally been left blank

Mineral Hill Pty Ltd ABN: 61 626 082 155

Statement of

Environmental Effects

for

Minor Change to

Conditional Requirements

related to the

Mineral Hill Mine

DA 2011/18 - Modification 3

Prepared for:

Mineral Hill Pty Ltd PO Box 87 CONDOBOLIN NSW 2877

Telephone: (02) 6893 7219 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: Level 54, 111 Eagle Street BRISBANE QLD 4000




Ref No. 143/57 January 2021

MINERAL HILL PTY LTD STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Mineral Hill Mine Report No. 143/57

ii

This Copyright is included for the protection of this document

COPYRIGHT

© R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited 2021

and

© Mineral Hill Pty Ltd 2021

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 MINERAL HILL PTY LTD

Report No. 143/57 Mineral Hill Mine

CONTENTS Page

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ V

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

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

1.2 THE APPLICANT ................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 THE MINE SITE ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 EXISTING CONSENTS, AUTHORITIES AND LICENCES ................................................... 4

1.4.1 Consents and Approvals ........................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Existing Mineral Authorities ....................................................................................... 4

1.4.3 Licences .................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 APPROVED OPERATIONS .................................................................................................. 6

1.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6

1.5.2 Activities Approved Under the Mining Act Approval ................................................. 8

1.5.3 Activities Approved under DA 2000/36 ..................................................................... 8

1.5.4 Activities Approved under DA 2011/18 ..................................................................... 8

1.6 MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................ 9

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION ............................................................... 10

2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIATION ....................................................... 10

2.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10

2.1.2 Pre-2018 Biodiversity-related Issues ...................................................................... 11

2.1.3 Post-2018 Biodiversity-related Issues ..................................................................... 11

2.2 PROPOSED MODIFIED CONDITION OF CONSENT ........................................................ 12

3. CONSULTATION AND PLANNING ISSUES ................................................................................ 14

3.1 CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................. 14

3.1.1 Government Agency Consultation .......................................................................... 14

3.1.2 Landholder Consultation ......................................................................................... 14

3.2 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING CONTEXT ........................................................................ 14

3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 14

3.2.2 Commonwealth Context .......................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 New South Wales Context ...................................................................................... 15

3.2.4 Local Context .......................................................................................................... 16

4. ASSESSMENT OF KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ................................................................. 17

5. EVALUATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF THEPROPOSED MODIFICATION ............................ 18

5.1 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 18

5.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 18

5.1.2 Social Equity ........................................................................................................... 18

5.1.3 Conservation of Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity ................................. 18

5.1.4 Improved Valuation and Pricing of Environmental Resources................................ 19

5.2 SECTION 4.55(2) CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 19

5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 19

5.2.2 Minimal Environmental Impact ................................................................................ 19



CONTENTS Page

iv

5.2.3 Substantially the Same Development ..................................................................... 19

5.2.4 Notification of the Application .................................................................................. 20

5.2.5 Submissions Regarding the Proposed Modification ............................................... 20

5.3 SECTION 4.15(1) CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 20

5.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 20

5.3.2 Environmental Planning Instruments ...................................................................... 20

5.3.3 Development Control Plans (Section 4.15 (1)(A)(III)) ............................................. 21

5.3.4 Section 7.4 Planning Agreement (Section 4.15 (1)(A)(IIIA)) ................................... 21

5.3.5 The Regulations (Section 4.15 (1)(A)(IV)) ............................................................... 21

5.3.6 Likely Impacts of the Development (Section 4.15 (1)(B)) ....................................... 22

5.3.7 Suitability of the Site (Section 4.15 (1)(C)) .............................................................. 22

5.3.8 Submissions (Section 4.15 (1)(D)) .......................................................................... 22

5.3.9 The Public Interest (Section 4.15 (1)(E)) ................................................................. 22

5.4 OBJECTS OF THE EP&A ACT............................................................................................ 22

5.5 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT PROCEEDING ....................................................................... 24

6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Development Application Form ...........................................................................................A1

Appendix 2 Biodiversity Offset Strategy – Pre-2018 Disturbance .........................................................A2

Appendix 3 Biodiversity Offset Strategy – Pre-2018 Disturbance .........................................................A3

FIGURES

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

Figure 2 Mine Site and land Zoning ..................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3 Mineral Authorities ................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 4 Approved Mine Site Layout .................................................................................................... 7

TABLES

Table 1 Existing Mine Site Land Titles ............................................................................................... 4

Table 2 Mineral Authorities ................................................................................................................ 6

Table 3 Proposed and Actual Vegetation Clearing .......................................................................... 12

Table 4 Objects of the EP&A Act ..................................................................................................... 22



v

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BCS Biodiversity, Conservation and Sciences Division

BL Bore Licence

BOS Biodiversity Offset Strategy

DA Development Application

DECCW Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPL Environment Protection Licence

GIS GIS Environmental Consultants

KBL KBL Mining Limited

LEP Local Environment Plan

MLA Mining Lease Application

MOD1 Modification 1

RWC R.W. Corkery & Co Pty Limited

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

SoEE Statement of Environmental Effects

TSF Tailings Storage Facility

WAL Water Access Licence



vi




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 & Co.

Pty Limited (RWC) on behalf of Mineral Hill Pty Ltd (the Applicant) to support a modification

to DA 2011/18 for the Mineral Hill Mine (the Mine). The Mine Site is located approximately

60km to the north of Condobolin (Figure 1).

Approval is sought to modify Condition 9 of DA 2011/18 to better reflect changes to the

biodiversity offsetting scheme since granting of the original version of the DA 2011/18 by

Lachlan Shire Council (Council) on 31 October 2011 (the Proposed Modification).

The Proposed Modification, representing substantially the same development with minimal

environmental impact is made under Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

This document describes the need for the Proposed Modification and justifies the Proposed

Modification against the requirements of the EP&A Act and associated requirements.

The contents of this document reflect the administrative nature of the Proposed Modification

and those issues considered appropriate by RWC based on its experience with documentation

for similar projects throughout NSW.

Appendix 1 presents a copy of the application form to amend DA 2011/18.

1.2 THE APPLICANT

Mineral Hill Pty Ltd (formerly Quintana Resources Australia Pty Ltd) was incorporated in

May 2018 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Quintana MH Holdings LLC, which is a member

of the Quintana Minerals Corporation (Quintana) based in Houston, Texas. Quintana is a

private investment and operating group that finances, owns and operates high quality metals

and mining companies and assets globally. The Applicant acquired the Mine Site from the

receivers of KBL Mining Ltd in late September 2018.

Quintana has an experienced Australian-based management team, including the following.

• Philip Killen – Country Manager, Financial and Corporate, Australia.

• Geoff Merrell – General Manager, Mineral Hill Mine.

• Patrick Scott – Mining and Technical Consultant

1.3 THE MINE SITE

The existing Mine Site covers an area of 482.3ha (Figure 2) and incorporates the land titles

as presented in Table 1. The Applicant does not propose to modify the existing Mine Site

which is defined as the outer limit of all Mining Leases held for the Mine.



2

Figure 1 Locality Plan

A4/colour

Dated 21/03/19 Inserted 15/01/21



3

Figure 2 Mine Site and land Zoning

A4/colour

Figure dated 21/03/2019. Inserted 15/01/21



4

Table 1

Existing Mine Site Land Titles

Lot DP Lot DP

1 722357* 7300 1153817*

29 48513* 21 754019

25 257304 9 754019*

* Mineral Hill Road and unnamed Road Reserves

1.4 EXISTING CONSENTS, AUTHORITIES AND LICENCES

1.4.1 Consents and Approvals

Mining within the Mine Site was initially undertaken in in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In

1987 Triako, who then controlled the Mine Site, proposed to recommence mining. At the time

there was no environmental planning instrument in force within the Lachlan Local

Government Area. Consequently, the proposed activities did not require development consent.

However, approval of the then Minister for Mineral Resources was required under Part 5 of

the EP&A Act to vary conditions attached to Mining Leases within the existing Mine Site to

permit open cut and underground mining activities and construction and use of associated

mining-related infrastructure. The Minister directed Triako to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement to support its application. The application was granted on 26 February 1988

and is referred to hereafter as the “Mining Act Approval.”

Following the gazettal of the Lachlan Local Environment Plan 1991 on 20 September 1991,

Triako sought approval to construct and operate two Evaporation Ponds. Development

Consent DA 2000/0036 was granted for that purpose on 12 May 2000.

In 2011, Kimberly Metals Limited, who then controlled the Mine Site, proposed to construct

and use the Pearse Open Cut, Pearse Waste Rock Emplacement and the Tailings Storage

Facility 2 and associated infrastructure and to process ore from those operations within the

existing approved processing plant. Development Consent DA 2011/18 was granted on

31 October 2011. That consent has been modified twice as follows.

• Modification 1 (MOD1) - to permit the construction and use of the Pearse North

Open Cut and associated infrastructure was granted on 17 November 2016.

• Modification 2 (MOD2) - to permit the mining, reprocessing and rehabilitation

of TSF1 and ancillary activities was granted on 26 February 2020.

Section 1.5 provides a detailed description of the activities approved under each of the above

approvals.

1.4.2 Existing Mineral Authorities

The mineral authorities held by the Applicant over the Mineral Hill Mine Site are presented

in Table 2 and Figure 3.



5

Figure 3 Mineral Authorities

A4/colour

Figure dated 15/01/21. Inserted 15/01/21



6

Table 2

Mineral Authorities

Authority Grant Date Expiry Date Area (ha)

ML 6329 18 May 1972 14 Mar 2033 8.09

ML 6365 20 Dec 1972 14 Mar 2033 2.02

ML 5240 14 Mar 1951 14 Mar 2033 32.37

ML 5499 18 Nov 1955 14 Mar 2033 32.37

ML 5621 12 Mar 1958 14 Mar 2033 32.37

ML 5267 22 Jun 1951 14 Mar 2033 32.37

ML 5278 13 Aug 1951 14 Mar 2033 32.37

ML 5632 25 Jul 1958 14 Mar 2033 27.32

ML 332 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 22.36

ML 333 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 28.03

ML 334 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 21.04

ML 335 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 24.79

ML 336 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 23.07

ML 337 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 32.27

ML 338 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 26.30

ML 339 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 25.09

ML 340 15 Dec 1976 14 Mar 2033 25.79

ML 1695 7 May 2014 7 May 2035 8.78

ML 1712 28 May 2015 28 May 2036 23.92

ML 1778 07 Dec 2018 28 May 2036 29.05

EL 1999 4 Mar 1983 4 Mar 2020

(renewal sought)

5 100

Source: MinView (accessed 8 January 2019). *Area equivalent to 17 units.

1.4.3 Licences

Licences held by the Applicant include the following.

• Environment Protection Licence (EPL) 3151, which permits extraction and

processing of up to 500 000t/year of ore material.

• Water Access Licence (WAL 29058) for extraction of up to 630ML/year of

groundwater from the mine workings via Works Approvals 80WA715618.

• Bore Licence (80BL239088) for monitoring groundwater levels and quality.

1.5 APPROVED OPERATIONS

1.5.1 Introduction

As identified in Section 1.4.1, the Applicant and its associated predecessors have held multiple

approvals for the Mine. The Mine has been the subject of various phases of mining and related

operations since the late 1800s. Modern mining commenced at the Mine in 1988 with mining

operations expanding from the originally proposed single open cut and associated processing

plant, to include the activities listed in this subsection (Figure 4).



7

Figure 4 Approved Mine Site Layout

A4/colour

Dated 15/01/21/ Inserted 15/01/21

•



8

1.5.2 Activities Approved Under the Mining Act Approval

Activities approved under the Mining Act Approval granted on 26 February 1988 include the

following (Figure 4).

• Extraction of ore material using open cut mining methods from the Eastern and

5001 Pits. The 5001 Pit is now backfilled by the Pearse Waste Rock

Emplacement.

• Extraction of ore material using underground mining methods from the Southern

and Eastern Ore Zones, Jacks Hut, Ashes, Parkers Hill and Iodide deposits.

• Placement of ore material within the Main and 5001 Waste Rock Emplacements.

The 5001 Waste Rock Emplacement is now incorporated into the Pearse Waste

Rock Emplacement.

• Processing of ore material using floatation and cyanide leaching within the

Processing Plant.

• Placement of tailings material within the now completed TSF1.

• Use of the water management structures, including the Process Water Dam, Raw

Water Dam and the Creek A Diversion.

• Use of ancillary infrastructure, including the site offices, workshops, soil

stockpiles, core yards and haul roads and other tracks.

• Transportation of concentrate from the Mine Site to the Applicant’s customers

via public roads surrounding the Mine Site.

1.5.3 Activities Approved under DA 2000/36

Activities approved under DA 2000/36 include the construction and use of Evaporation

Ponds 1 and 2 (Figure 4).

1.5.4 Activities Approved under DA 2011/18

Activities approved under DA 2011/18, including MOD1 and MOD2 include the following

(Figure 4).

• Extraction of waste rock and ore material from the Pearse and Pearce North

Deposits using open cut mining methods.

• Construction and use of the Pearse Waste Rock Emplacement, including

backfilling and covering the 5001 Pit and 5001 Waste Rock Emplacement

footprint and establishment of an in-pit waste rock emplacement within the

Pearce Open Cut.

• Construction and use of a haul road from the proposed Pearse Open Cut to the

existing haul road in the vicinity of the 5001 Pit.



9

• Construction and use of TSF2, including for placement of reprocessed tailings

from TSF1.

• Construction and rehabilitation of a final landform that would be geotechnically

stable and suitable for a final land use of nature conservation, agriculture or light

industry.

• Extension of the Mine Site to include the full area of all Mining Leases, as well

as the area of MLA523 (now ML1778).

1.6 MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS

This document has been prepared by Mr Mitchell Bland (B.Sc (Hons), MEconGeol, LLB

(Hons)), Director/Principal Environmental Consultant of RWC.

Mr Geoff Merrell (BApSc (geology)) – General Manager – Mineral Hill Mine and Mr Phil

Killen, Country Manager – Australia provided information in relation to the proposed

activities and reviewed and approved this document for release.

Finally, Mr Simon Tweed, Team Leader Ecology, of Niche Environment and Heritage

provided input and recommendations in relation to the Proposed Modification.



10

2. D E S C RI P T I O N OF T H E P R OPO SE D M O DI F I C AT I ON

2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIATION

2.1.1 Introduction

DA 2011/18, as originally granted by Council included Condition 9. The purpose of

Condition 9 was to establish a suitable Biodiversity Offset to account for disturbance

associated with the activities approved under that consent, namely establishment of the Pearce

Open Cut, Waste Rock Emplacement and associated infrastructure. That Condition, as

originally drafted is as follows.

“9 - BIODIVERSITY

The applicant is required to develop a Biodiversity Offset Strategy and to be

implemented in accordance with the requirements of the general terms of

approval and in consultation with DECCW. The biodiversity loss associated with

the project must be assessed and an offset agreed to prior to the impact

occurring. Offsets should be designed to minimise ecological risks from time-

lags. The feasibility and in-principle agreements to the necessary offset actions

should be achieved prior to impact occurring. It is also required to enter into

legal commitments to the offset actions prior to the commencement of works.

A calculation of the impact and hence the type and size of offset which is

required should be done prior to commencement of works. A failure to collect

the required data prior to disturbance will not allow the full use of any metric

based offsetting tools and may lead to protracted post consent negotiations.

Therefore, provided the impact area is properly assessed (based on data

collected in the field) prior to any disturbance and agreement is reached with

the Office of Environment and Heritage on the size and type of offset required,

the securing of the biodiversity offset could alternatively occur within a specified

timeframe of the disturbance commencing (nominally 18 months as proposed

by the applicant). The applicant must implement the Biodiversity Offset

Management Actions as contained in attachment D to the GTAs as issued by

DECCW.”

The Applicant acknowledges that aspects of Condition 9 of DA 2011/18 have not been fully

satisfied. It would appear that while there was significant consultation with the Department of

Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), now Biodiversity, Conservation and

Sciences Division (BCS), DECCW’s approval of the biodiversity offset mechanism may not

have been fully documented/signed off.

While a preliminary survey of the proposed offset area was undertaken by GIS Environmental

Consultants (GIS) in 2013, which demonstrated that the proposed biodiversity offset area at

the “Bolwarra” property, located to the south of the Mineral Hill Mine Site, would likely meet

offsetting requirements under the Biobanking offsetting scheme applicable at the time, the

Applicant has no record of formal approval by DECCW. The Applicant advises the former

owner of Mineral Hill, KBL Mining Limited (KBL) was placed in receivership in 2016, and

through the receivership process, a number of key records appear to have been lost, and as

such are not available to the mine’s current owners.



11

The Applicant is therefore seeking a modification to Condition 9 above so that the Applicant

is able to resolve the following:

• Non-compliances resulting from actions of prior operators of the Mineral Hill

site (prior to September 2018).

• Non-compliances resulting from completed and future actions of the Applicant

(post September 2018).

Each class of non-compliances have been addressed separately below.

2.1.2 Pre-2018 Biodiversity-related Issues

In 2013, the then operator of the Mine, KBL engaged GIS to undertake a preliminary

Biobanking Assessment in accordance with the scheme applicable at the time. That

assessment would appear to have assessed impacts to 13.6ha of vegetation, whereas DA

2011/18 permitted disturbance of approximately 20.9ha of vegetation. That assessment also

assessed a proposed biodiversity offset area of approximately 160ha located on the

“Bolwarra” property to the south of the Mineral Hill Mine Site on land owned by Mr Jeff

Kirk. GIS determined that the proposed biodiversity offset area contained approximately

200% of the required credits for the assessed disturbance area. Niche Environment and

Heritage (Niche) (2020a) was commissioned in 2020 to outline an appropriate methodology

and approach to satisfy offsetting requirements. Niche state the following in relation to the

proposed biodiversity offset area.

“[I]t is evident that the selected offset area was of an appropriate size to cater

for the offset requirement generated by the proposal if a 20.9 hectare clearing

requirement is assumed”

Subsequently, in 2013 KBL entered into a deed with Mr Kirk in relation to the proposed

biodiversity offset area (see Attachment 2 of Niche (2020a)). That deed imposed on Mr Kirk

an obligation to manage the proposed biodiversity offset area for the purposes of biodiversity

conservation, including fencing the land. Fencing was completed in 2014.

Mr Kirk advises that prior to signing of the deed, a meeting was held on site with

representatives of KBL, (DECCW), now BCS. As stated above correspondence or minutes

from that meeting are not available.

As noted by Niche (2020a), the deed between the Applicant (as successor to KBL) and Mr

Kirk is broadly consistent with that required for a Biobanking Site at the time of

implementation. However, the deed in not an in-perpetuity arrangement and documentary

evidence that the arrangement was to the satisfaction of DECCW is not available. As a result,

the requirements of Condition 9 of DA 2011/18 have yet to be fully complied with in relation

to pre-2018 Biodiversity-related disturbance.

2.1.3 Post-2018 Biodiversity-related Issues

Since assuming control of the Mine Site in September 2018, the Applicant has undertaken or

proposes to undertake vegetation clearing activities to permit construction of the Western

Clean Water Pond and a Spillway from TSF2. The Applicant engaged Niche to undertake a



12

review of the actual and proposed disturbance associated with these activities (Niche, 2020b)

(Appendix C). Table 3 presents the vegetation communities and areas of proposed

disturbance.

Table 3

Proposed and Actual Vegetation Clearing

Area name Status Plant Community Type (PCT) Area (ha)

Western Clean Water Pond

Cleared September 2020

217 - Mugga Ironbark -Western Grey Box – cypress pine tall woodland

0.26

82 - Western Grey Box - Poplar Box - White Cypress Pine tall woodland

1.51

TSF2 Spillway Cleared prior to September 2018

176 – Green Mallee White Cypress Pine very tall mallee woodland

0.40

Proposed to be cleared

0.60

Total 2.77

`Source: Niche (2020b) – After Table 1

2.2 PROPOSED MODIFIED CONDITION OF CONSENT

In light of the above, the Applicant proposes to amend Condition 9 of DA 2011/18 to permit

the following.

• Retirement of biodiversity offset requirements associated with the pre-

September 2018 disturbance in accordance with the biodiversity offsetting

mechanisms that applied at the time of determination of the original application

for development consent on 31 October 2011. These requirements would be

completed within 18 months of the date of granting of approval for MOD3.

• Retirement of biodiversity offset requirements associated with the post-

September 2018 disturbance in accordance with the current Biodiversity

Assessment Methodology under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 prior to

the commencement of construction.

As a result, the Applicant proposes that the existing Condition 9 be replaced with the

following.

9 - BIODIVERSITY

(1) The applicant must finalise the Biodiversity Offset Strategy (BOS) for all

impacts of the development that occurred during the period in which the site

was developed by KBL Mining Limited (KBL), utilising the BOS developed

for the site by KBL prior to Mineral Hill Pty Limited (MH) taking over the

development in September 2018 (KBL period).

The final BOS must reflect the requirements of the legislation in force when

this development consent was granted on 31 October 2011 and must

deliver the outcomes that were provided for under that legislation.



13

The final BOS for the KBL period must be implemented in accordance with

the requirements of the general terms of approval issued on 6 August 2019,

and in consultation with the NSW Biodiversity, Conservation and Science

Directorate (BCS) within 18 months of the date of approval of

Modification 3.

(2) The biodiversity loss arising from that part of the project approved through

the grant of DA 2011/18 Mod 2, consisting of:

(a) the western clean water pond (approximately 1.77 hectares), and

(b) the spillway on the south-eastern side of Tailings Storage Facility 2

(up to 1 hectare)

must be assessed and retired by the applicant in accordance with the

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.



14

3. C O N S ULTAT I ON A N D P L A N NI NG I S S UES

3.1 CONSULTATION

3.1.1 Government Agency Consultation

The Applicant has discussed compliance issues associated with Condition 9 of DA 2011/18

on multiple occasions throughout 2020. Those discussions culminated in a meeting with

officers of BCS on 4 December 2020 and subsequent telephone and email correspondence on

23 December 2020 and 12 and 13 January 2021. The proposed wording for the modified

Condition 9 was provided by BCS on 12 January 2021.

The Applicant consulted with Council in relation to the proposed application pathway on

14 January 2021 and this document has been prepared in accordance with the instructions

provided by Council.

3.1.2 Landholder Consultation

The Applicant met with Mr Kirk to discuss the proposed amendments that may be required to

the 2013 Deed on 15 January 2021. Mr Kirk is supportive of both the modification and any

changes that may be required with the existing deed.

3.2 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING CONTEXT

3.2.1 Introduction

A range of Commonwealth and NSW Legislation, policies and guidelines may be relevant to

the Proposed Modification. These documents were reviewed to identify any environmental

aspects requiring consideration in the Statement of Environmental Effects. A brief summary

of each relevant piece of legislation and planning instrument is provided in the following

subsections.

3.2.2 Commonwealth Context

The key Commonwealth legislation relating to the Proposed Modification is as follows.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) covers

‘matters of national environmental significance’. Relevant matters of national environmental

significance include:

• listed threatened species and ecological communities; and

• listed migratory species protected under international agreement.

‘Actions’ are defined under the EPBC Act to include projects and developments. Actions

which would or would be likely to have significant impacts on matters of national

environmental significance, or which might significantly impact on Commonwealth land, are

‘controlled actions’. The Minister for the Environment determines whether a proposed action

is a controlled action for the purpose of the EPBC Act. The carrying out of controlled actions

are prohibited, unless approved by the Minister.



15

The Proposed Modification would not change the existing disturbance footprint of the Project

Site and therefore there would be no additional impact on matters of National Environmental

Significance. The Proposed Modification is not required to be referred under the EPBC Act.

3.2.3 New South Wales Context

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The EP&A Act aims to protect and conserve the environment through ecologically sustainable

development. This is achieved through managing development to conserve resources,

including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, and towns with the purpose

of promoting social and economic welfare of the community and an enhanced environment.

The Applicant contends in light of consultation with Lachlan Shire Council, that the Proposed

Modification is “substantially the same development” and would have “minimal

environmental impact” when compared with the DA 2011/18 as originally approved. As a

result, it can be assessed as a modification under Section 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act (see also

Sections 5.3 and 5.4).

SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (Mining SEPP)

The Mining SEPP specifies matters requiring consideration in the assessment of any mining-

related development. As the Proposed Modification is administrative only and would not

result in changes to disturbance areas or approved activities, this SEPP is not considered

further.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP)

The Infrastructure SEPP identifies, amongst other things, the matters to be considered in the

assessment of development adjacent to particular classes of infrastructure.

The Proposed Modification would not affect or be undertaken adjacent to any of the classes

of infrastructure identified in the Infrastructure SEPP. As a result, this policy does not apply

to the Proposed Modification.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development (SEPP 33)

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 Proposed Modification is administrative only and would not result in changes to

disturbance areas or approved activities, this SEPP is not considered further.



16

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

consent for any development cannot be granted unless the consent authority has considered

whether the land is contaminated.



State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

The aims of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 (Rural Lands

SEPP), as considered relevant to the Proposed Modification, are to:

(a) facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for

rural and related purposes;

(c) implement measures designed to reduce land use conflicts;

(d) identify State significant agricultural land for the purpose of ensuring the

ongoing viability of agriculture on that land, having regard to social, economic

and environmental considerations;



3.2.4 Local Context

The Mine Site occurs within the Lachlan Local Government Area and permissibility of

development is governed by the Lachlan Local Environment Plan 2013 (Lachlan LEP). Under

the Lachlan LEP, the Mine Site falls under Zone RU1 - Primary Production (Figure 2). The

Lachlan LEP identifies the objectives of Zone RU1 as:

• “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.

• To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

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

adjoining zones.”

Open-cut mining with development consent is permissible with consent within this zone.



17

4. A S SE SS M E N T O F K EY E NVI RO N M E NTA L I SS UE S

As the Proposed Modification would not result in additional surface disturbance or

modifications to approved activities, the Applicant contends that there would be no

environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Modification.



18

5. E VA L UATI O N A N D J U S TI F I CATI O N O F T H E P RO PO SED MO DI F I C AT I O N

5.1 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

5.1.1 Introduction

The principles of ecologically sustainable development include:

• the precautionary principle;

• the principle of social equity;

• the principle of the conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity; and

• the principle for the improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources.

As the Proposed Modification would not result in additional disturbance of land or

modification of the approved activities, the precautionary principle does not apply. However,

the remaining principles are relevant to the Proposed Modification.

5.1.2 Social Equity

Social equity embraces value concepts of justice and fairness so that the basic needs of all

sectors of society are met and there is a fair distribution of costs and benefits to the community.

Social equity includes both inter-generational (between generations) and intra-generational

(within generations) equity considerations.

The Proposed Modification reflects the Applicant’s commitment to ensuring that already

implemented biodiversity offsetting measures are appropriately secured to ensure that the

benefits associated with those measures are preserved for future generations.

The Proposed Modification would also ensure that measures to offset post September 2018

disturbance are appropriately implemented and secured, also ensuring that ensure that the

benefits associated with those measures are preserved for future generations.

5.1.3 Conservation of Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity

The protection of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological processes and systems are

central goals of sustainability. It is important that developments do not threaten the integrity

of the ecological system as a whole or the conservation of threatened species in the short- or

long-term.

There would be no additional disturbance associated with the Proposed Modification. As a

result, the Proposed Modification would have no potential increased impacts on threatened

flora and fauna (and native vegetation and fauna habitats generally).



19

5.1.4 Improved Valuation and Pricing of Environmental Resources

The issues that form the basis of this principle relate to the acceptance that all resources are

appropriately valued, cost-effective environmental stewardship is adopted and the adoption of

user pays prices based upon the full life cycle of the costs.

In line with these objectives, the Proposed Modification would ensure that all disturbance

associated with DA 2011/18 is appropriately offset in accordance with the relevant legislative

requirements applicable at the time.

5.2 SECTION 4.55(2) CONSIDERATIONS

5.2.1 Introduction

Section 4.55 of the EP&A Act sets out the requirements to be met for a consent authority to

modify a consent. The following subsections provide an evaluation of the Proposed

Modification against the provisions of Section 4.55(1A).

5.2.2 Minimal Environmental Impact

Section 4.55(1A)(a) of the EP&A Act 1979 nominates that “A consent authority may…modify

the consent if:

a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental

impact”.

The Proposed Modification is administrative in nature and would not result in disturbance of

additional land or modification of approved activities. As a result, it would not result in

additional environmental impacts and would therefore satisfy this subsection.

5.2.3 Substantially the Same Development

Section 4.55(1A)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 nominates that “A consent authority may…modify

the consent if:

b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is

substantially the same development as the development for which consent was

originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified

(if at all)”.

As identified in Section 5.3.2, the Proposed Modification is administrative in nature and would

not result in disturbance of additional land or modification of approved activities. As a result,

the modified development would be as per the development approved under MOD2. Council

has previously determined that MOD2 satisfied this subsection.



20

5.2.4 Notification of the Application

Section 4.55(1A)(c) of the EP&A Act 1979 states that “A consent authority may…modify the

consent if:

a)“it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulation so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has

made a development control plan that requires the notification or

advertising of applications for modification of a development consent”.

The Applicant notes that this is a matter for Lachlan Shire Council. However, the Applicant

anticipates that Lachlan Shire Council will notify relevant parties in accordance with

Clause 118 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

5.2.5 Submissions Regarding the Proposed Modification

Section 4.55(1A)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979 states that “A consent authority may…modify

the consent if:

a) it has considered any submissions made concerning the Proposed Modification

within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development

control plan, as the case may be”.

This is a matter for Lachlan Shire Council to consider, however, the Applicant will respond

to any submissions received by Council during the assessment process.

5.3 SECTION 4.15(1) CONSIDERATIONS

5.3.1 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. The following subsections provide

an evaluation of the Proposed Modification against the provisions of that section.

5.3.2 Environmental Planning Instruments

Lachlan Local Environment Plan 2013

The Mine Site occurs within the Lachlan Local Government Area and permissibility of

development is governed by the Lachlan LEP 2013. Under the Lachlan LEP 2013, the Mine

Site falls under Zone RU1, Primary Production. Clause 9 of the Lachlan LEP 2013 identifies

the objectives of Zone RU1 are:

• 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.



21

• To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

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

adjoining zones.

Open-cut mining with development consent is permissible with consent within this zone.

SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007

The Mining SEPP specifies matters requiring consideration in the assessment of any mining

development, as defined in NSW legislation. As identified in Section 3.2.3, as the Proposed

Modification is administrative only and would not result in changes to disturbance areas or

approved activities, this SEPP is not relevant.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The Infrastructure SEPP identifies, amongst other things, the matters to be considered in the

assessment of development adjacent to particular classes of infrastructure.

As identified in Section 3.2.3, as the Proposed Modification is administrative only and would

not result in changes to disturbance areas or approved activities, this SEPP is not relevant.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development (SEPP 33)

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 identified in Section 3.2.3, as the Proposed Modification is administrative only and would

not result in changes to disturbance areas or approved activities, this SEPP is not relevant.

5.3.3 Development Control Plans (Section 4.15 (1)(A)(III))

No Development Control Plans are relevant to the Proposed Modification.

5.3.4 Section 7.4 Planning Agreement (Section 4.15 (1)(A)(IIIA))

No planning agreement or draft planning agreement has been entered into under Section 7.4

of the EP&A Act.

5.3.5 The Regulations (Section 4.15 (1)(A)(IV))

Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 provides the

procedures and provisions relating to development applications. Division 12 of Part 6 is

relevant to applications for modification to existing development consent.

This document satisfies the requirements of Clause 115 (Application for modification of

development consent).



22

5.3.6 Likely Impacts of the Development (Section 4.15 (1)(B))

As the Proposed Modification would not result in additional surface disturbance or

modifications to approved activities, the Applicant contends that there would be no

environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Modification.

5.3.7 Suitability of the Site (Section 4.15 (1)(C))

The Mine Site is currently the subject of multiple Mining Leases (Section 1.5.2) which

authorise mining and processing of ore within the existing Mine Site. As a result, the site

remains suitable for use as a mining operation.

5.3.8 Submissions (Section 4.15 (1)(D))

It is anticipated that Council will take any submissions into consideration during the

assessment of this application.

5.3.9 The Public Interest (Section 4.15 (1)(E))

Given that the Proposed Modification would provide for the securing of required biodiversity

offsets in accordance with relevant legislation, it is considered that the Proposed Modification

is in the public interest.

5.4 OBJECTS OF THE EP&A ACT

Modification to DA 2011/18 is being sought under Section 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act and

must therefore satisfy the objects of the EP&A Act. Table 4 identifies the objects of the EP&A

Act and confirms that each has been satisfied by the Proposed Modification and this SoEE.

Table 4

Objects of the EP&A Act Page 1 of 2

Object Coverage

a) to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources;

The Proposed Modification would provide for the securing of required biodiversity offsets and would ensure conservation of biological resources in accordance with relevant legislation. As a result, it is considered that this Objective is satisfied.

b) to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment;

On the basis that the Proposed Modification would have no additional residual impacts on the biophysical environment and would result in the securing of required biodiversity offsets in accordance with relevant legislation, it is considered that this Objective is satisfied.

c) to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land;

The Proposed Modification would result in the securing of biodiversity offsets in accordance with relevant legislation. As a result, it is considered that this Objective is satisfied.

d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing;

Not applicable to the Proposed Modification.



23

Table 4 (Cont’d)

Objects of the EP&A Act Page 2 of 2

Object Coverage

e) to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats;

The Proposed Modification would not involve additional disturbance areas and as such will not involve significant additional impacts to threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats. Additionally, the Proposed Modification would result in the securing of biodiversity offsets in accordance with relevant legislation. As a result, it is considered that this Objective is satisfied.

f) to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage);


g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment;


h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants;


i) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State;

The relevant environmental planning legislation has been reviewed in Section 5. It has been concluded that the Proposed Modification would meet the requirements of all relevant legislation and would not constrain the ability of different levels of government in the State to exercise their functions.

j) to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment.

The Applicant anticipates that this application will be made publicly available by Council and that the public will be encouraged to make submissions.



24

5.5 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT PROCEEDING

The consequences of not proceeding with the Proposed Modification include ongoing

difficulty and uncertainty in relation to securing the required biodiversity offsets for the

Mineral Hill Mine.

It is therefore considered that the benefits of proceeding with the Proposed Modification far

outweigh the minor impacts on the environment that would result.



25

6. R E F E RE N C ES

Niche Environment and Heritage Pty Ltd (Niche) (2020a). Biodiversity Offset Strategy –

Pre-2018 Disturbance

Niche Environment and Heritage Pty Ltd (Niche) (2020b). Biodiversity Offset Strategy

Approach – Post-2018 Disturbance



26




27

Appendices

(Total No. of pages including blank pages = 30)

Appendix 1 Development Application Form (6 pages)

Appendix 2 Biodiversity Offset Strategy – Pre-2018 Disturbance prepared by Niche Environment and Heritage Pty Ltd (10 pages)

Appendix 3 Biodiversity Offset Strategy – Post-2018 Disturbance prepared by Niche Environment and Heritage Pty Ltd (12 pages)



28




A1-1

Appendix 1

Development

Application Form




A1-2




A1-4



A1-5



A1-6



A2

Appendix 2

Biodiversity Offset Strategy – Pre-2018 Disturbance

prepared by

Niche Environment and

Heritage Pty Ltd




A2


2 December 2020 Samantha Wynn Senior Team Leader NSW Biodiversity, Conservation and Science Division North West Dear Samantha,

Re: Biodiversity offset strategy approach for the Mineral Hill Mine

1. Background Niche was commissioned by GHD on behalf of Mineral Hill Pty Ltd, the owners of Mineral Hill Mine, to outline an appropriate methodology and approach to satisfy offsetting requirements associated with vegetation clearing as part of the Tailings Re-Processing Project (the Project) for Mineral Hill Mine.

The Project was approved by Lachlan Shire Council (LSC) as a modification (MOD 2) to Consent No. 2011/18 and subsequent modification MOD1 with consolidated conditions of consent issued that included conditions applicable to vegetation clearing and biodiversity offset requirements (refer Attachment 1).

The Project includes clearing of vegetation for the Western Clean Water Pond (WCWP), located along the south-western edge of Tailings Storage Facility 2 (TSF2) (refer Figure 1).

2. Quantification of clearing Two sub-contracted qualified ecologists from AREA Environmental Consulting and Communications in Dubbo, including an accredited NSW Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) practitioner, undertook ecological fieldwork at and around the site recently cleared by Mineral Hill Pty Ltd, being the WCWP - an area of 1.77 ha. Another area, on the south-eastern side of TSF2, may require a total of one hectare to accommodate a proposed spillway (refer Figure 1). Approximately 0.4 ha of the 1 ha proposed spillway area was cleared historically, prior to Mineral Hill Pty Ltd acquiring the Mineral Hill Mine. Mineral Hill Pty Ltd proposes to clear the remaining 0.6 ha to accommodate the proposed spillway, subject to design refinement to attempt to reduce clearing requirements. Note that the air photograph basemap in Figure 1 is dated and shows the Western Clean Water Pond (WCWP) and 0.4 ha of cleared spillway area as still being vegetated.

As noted above, areas summarised in Table 1 and shown on Figure 1 were assessed on the 18th and 19th of November 2020 by accredited assessor Addy Watson (BSSA 19066) and a second ecologist. NSW Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) plots were completed where vegetation was still present in the spillway vegetation, and within analogous sites for the recently cleared WCWP area, to quantify credits required for offsetting purposes. The BAM was used as it is the endorsed assessment method under current NSW legislation and allows for payment into a State Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund (BCT fund) to satisfy an offset requirement. Desktop and field assessments were used to ensure the plots were placed in representative vegetation likely affected by clearing.

Table 1 provides a summary of the affected areas and includes plant community type (PCT) as assessed and offsetting credits required. The total affected area is 2.77 hectares, requiring 90 BAM credits.

Table 1: Areas recently cleared or requiring clearing at the Mineral Hill Mine Site

Area Name Status Plant Community Type (PCT) Area (hectares) BAM Credits required

Western clean water pond

Recently cleared 217 - Mugga Ironbark - Western Grey Box - cypress pine tall woodland

82 - Western Grey Box - Poplar Box - White Cypress Pine tall woodland

0.26

1.51

10

53

Spillway Previously cleared

Proposed for clearing



0.40

0.60

11

16

Totals 2.77 90

3. Proposed offsetting approach It is proposed that the 90 BAM credits shown in Table 1 be retired via payment into the BCT fund and/or via purchase and retirement from existing Biodiversity Stewardship Sites or Biobanking Sites - pending any required credit conversion.

The BAM methodology is generally associated with higher offset ratios than its predecessor, the BioBanking Assessment Methodology (BBAM). Given the timing of the Development Application, BBAM is recommended as an appropriate method of calculating an offset requirement, noting that BBAM data was collected in concert with BAM data from site during the recent field survey. Clarification that BBAM is suitable for calculating the offset liability is sought from the Biodiversity, Conservation and Science Division (BCSD). If approved, Niche will calculate the required BBAM credits for credit conversion to BAM credits by BCSD to facilitate credit retirement should BBAM credits be unavailable.

4. Timing The timing of credit retirement will be negotiated between the proponent and the BCSD, noting the BCSD’s preference that offset obligations be satisfied prior to clearing. However, it is noted that the original consent conditions provided some flexibility in the timing of offsetting.

The original consent allowed for an 18-month period between vegetation clearing and retirement of offsets. However, this timing was contingent on appraising areas prior to clearing. Mineral Hill Pty Ltd therefore wish to clarify the timing for retirement of offset credits.

Our client, Mineral Hill Pty Ltd, seeks your guidance that the work carried out is appropriate in dealing with this issue and has your support. We understand that Mineral Hill Pty Ltd is keen to continue with site works, which have been temporally suspended while this matter is addressed.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Tweed Team Leader (Ecology) Accredited BAM Assessor Niche Environment and Heritage

References GIS Environmental Consultants (2013) Preliminary BioBanking Assessment for the Proposed Pearse Mine and Offset Area in the Lachlan LGA.

R.W. Corkery & Co Pty Ltd (RWC) (2011). Pearse Open Cut Project Mineral Hill Environmental Impact Statement.

Figure Figure 1: Vegetation (cleared or to be cleared) and Plot Locations

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

PCT 217

PCT 176

PCT 82

PCT 82

PCT 217

PCT 176

© Department of Customer Service 2020

499000

499000

6394

000

6394

000

6395

000

6395

000

Vegetation (cleared or to be cleared) and Plot Locations

0 50 100m

Draw

n by:

<>

GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery: (c) LPI 2013

Plot locationsVegetation (plant community type)!( PCT 176 - Green Mallee - White Cypress Pine very tall mallee woodland!( PCT 217 - Mugga Ironbark - Western Grey Box - cypress pine tall woodland!( PCT 82 - Western Grey Box - Poplar Box - White Cypress Pine tall woodland

1500m_buffer_recently_clearedApprox area clearedVegetation (current or former status)

176 - Green Mallee - White Cypress Pine very tall mallee woodland176 - Green Mallee - White Cypress Pine very tall mallee woodland (to be cleared immediately)217 - Mugga Ironbark - Western Grey Box - cypress pine tall woodland82 - Western Grey Box - Poplar Box - White Cypress Pine tall woodland

Mineral Hill Mine Offset AssessmentFIGURE 1

Date:

11/23

/2020

Proje

ct Ma

nage

r: <>

Proje

ct Nu

mber:

< >

T:\Sp

atialW

orking

\a633

9 Mine

ral H

ill Mine

\6339

_work

ingv2

.mxd

N

Attachment 1 (Applicable conditions of consent) There are two parts of the conditions of consent relating to offsetting requirements relevant to the project, being Condition 9 and the General Terms of Approval – Biodiversity. Each are reproduced below for ease of reference.

Condition 9:

“The applicant is required to develop a biodiversity offset strategy and to be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the general terms of approval and in consultation with DECCW. The biodiversity loss associated with the project must be addressed and an offset agreed to prior to the impact occurring. Offsets should be designed to minimise ecological risk from time-lags. The feasibility and in principle agreements to the necessary offset actions should be achieved prior to impact occurring. It is also required to enter into legal commitments to the offset actions prior to the commencement of works.

A calculation of the impact and hence the type and size of offset which is required should be done prior to commencement of works. A failure to collect the required data prior to disturbance will not allow the full use of any metric based offsetting tools and may lead to protracted post consent negotiations. Therefore, provided the impact area is properly assessed (based on data collected in the field) prior to any disturbance and agreement is reached with the Office of Environment and Heritage on the size and type of offset required, the securing of the biodiversity offset could alternatively occur within a specified timeframe of the disturbance commencing (nominally 18 months as proposed by the applicant). The applicant must implement the Biodiversity Offset Management Actions as contained in attachment D to the GTAs as issued by DECCW

REASON: To comply with the general terms of approval issued by the DECCW and to ensure the impact of the development on biodiversity is properly assessed. Section 79 C (1) (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.”

General Terms of Approval (biodiversity)

Whilst it is OEH's preference that the full impacts of a development be considered up front (and prior to issue of consent), OEH agrees with the proponent's proposal to adequately assess and offset the impacts of the project on biodiversity through the development of a Compensatory Habitat Strategy and establishment of biodiversity offset areas as a condition of consent. The proponent has proposed that the Compensatory Habitat Strategy will be developed within 12 months of the receipt of development consent and will be implemented within a further 6 months. The following information must be considered in development of a biodiversity offset strategy to ensure impacts of the project on biodiversity are adequately assessed and adequately offset and to ensure the development does not have a significant effect on threatened species or their habitat.

• Calculation of the impact, and hence the type and size of offset which is required, should be done prior to works occurring. A failure to collect the required data prior to disturbance will not allow the full use of any metric-based offsetting tools and may lead to protracted post consent negotiations.

• Biodiversity offsets must be managed primarily for biodiversity conservation. To maximise the biodiversity values of the offset the covenant must include the management actions outlined in Attachment D.

• OEH encourages inclusion of management practices for conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage values. Consultation should occur on the appropriate management of any matters of cultural significance to those Aboriginal people with a cultural association with the land.

• The offset must be secured in perpetuity via an appropriate mechanism such as establishment of a biobanking site or via other conservation mechanism such as a Conservation Agreement, Trust Agreement or Properly Vegetation Plan (PVP). OEH is willing to discuss the best option to secure the offset site further with the proponent. it is important that these discussions and decisions take place prior to the commencement of additional disturbance works.

• The offset must be sufficient in size to offset the loss and be consistent with the principals for the use of biodiversity offsets in NSW.

• The offset strategy should include details of the relative condition and values of communities (including quantum) Of the offset site in comparison to those to be impacted.

• it is recommended that the minimum area of the offset be determined in consultation with OEH. Proposed offset ratios should be supported by a suitable metric such as the Biobanking Assessment Methodology or other scientific methodology (supported by relevant information justifying the quantum of the proposed offset); and

• Adequate funding to manage the offset must be provided.




A3

Appendix 3

Biodiversity Offset Strategy – Pre-2018 Disturbance

prepared by

Niche Environment and

Heritage Pty Ltd




A3


2 December 2020 Samantha Wynn Senior Team Leader NSW Biodiversity, Conservation and Science Division North West Dear Samantha,

Re: Biodiversity offset strategy approach for the Mineral Hill Mine

1. Background Niche was commissioned by GHD on behalf of Mineral Hill Pty Ltd, the owners of Mineral Hill Mine, to outline an appropriate methodology and approach to satisfy historic offsetting requirements associated with vegetation clearing as part of the Pearse Open Cut Project for Mineral Hill Mine. Mineral Hill Pty Ltd purchased the mine in 2018 from the Receivers following the prior owners (KBL Mining Ltd) having gone into Receivership.

The Project was approved by Lachlan Shire Council (LSC) (Consent No. 2011/18), along with subsequent modifications (MOD1 and MOD2), for which consolidated conditions of consent were issued including conditions applicable to vegetation clearing and biodiversity offset requirements (refer Attachment 1). Mineral Hill Pty Ltd is currently progressing MOD 2 which deals with the reprocessing of gold tailings at the mine site.

A deed was historically completed (active since December 2013) between the previous mine owner (KBL Mining Limited) and the owner of the nearby “Bolwarra” property (Jeffery Kirk). On purchasing the property from the Receiver, Mineral Hill Pty Ltd assumed the assignment of this deed. The deed outlined compensatory habitat practices over an offset area of approximately 160 hectares, established for the purposes of offsetting vegetation clearing at the Mineral Hill Mine (refer Attachment 2). Mineral Hill Pty Ltd advises that the biodiversity offset area which was fenced in 2014 remains secured, and the respective compensatory payments to Jeffery Kirk have been paid since inception and are up to date.

The offset site was subject to a preliminary Biobanking assessment by GIS Environmental Consultants (2013), who reported that the site possessed equivalent vegetation types to areas proposed for clearing. The area was considered to cater for approximately 200% of the overall offset requirement under the Biobanking scheme, which was the main mechanism for offsetting at that time. It is understood that the Bolwarra property has been managed as an offset site since the deed was put in place.

The preliminary assessment of the of the offset site as reported by GIS Environmental Consultants (2013) was reviewed by Niche as part of this commission. There appears to be some inconsistency between the areas outlined for clearing within the Pearse Open Cut Project EIS for Mineral Hill Mine (RWC 2011), which references up to 20.9 hectares of native vegetation clearing (Section 5, Table 5.10 of the EIS), and the preliminary offset assessment which refers to 13.6 hectares of native vegetation clearing.

Based on mapping within GIS Environmental Consultants (2013), Niche assumes that the analysis accounted for only the proposed waste rock emplacement and open cut areas. Regardless, it is evident that the selected offset area was of an appropriate size to cater for the offset requirement generated by the proposal if a 20.9 hectare clearing requirement is assumed. Mineral Hill Pty Ltd has been advised by Jeffrey Kirk that a meeting including representatives of KBL Mining Ltd, the (then) NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) and LSC was held at the proposed biodiversity offset area to consider the proposed offset strategy mid to late-2013, prior to the deed being put in place.

The deed is an arrangement between the landholder, their successors and the owner of the Mineral Hill Mine, rather than an accepted in-perpetuity conservation mechanism, and expires upon permanent closure of the mine.

2. Information Mineral Hill Pty Ltd advises that during the later stages of KBL Mining operating the mine, and through the receivership process, a number of key records appear to have been lost, and as such are not available to the mine’s current owners. This includes correspondence and minutes of meetings held with the DECCW, LSC and KBL Mining Ltd’s environmental advisors. Mineral Hill Pty Ltd is trying to recover any available information.

3. Compliance Upon review, and despite measures to improve and conserve habitat at the Bolwarra property, it is evident that some of the consent conditions have not been fully satisfied though the establishment of the deed within the Bolwarra property.

With regard to Condition 9, it would appear that while there was significant consultation with DECCW and LSC, DECCW’s approval of the biodiversity offset mechanism may not have been fully documented/signed off, which Mineral Hill Pty Ltd is now looking to resolve. While a preliminary survey of the proposed offset area did occur (GIS Environmental Consultants 2013), which demonstrated that the offset area at the Bolwarra property would likely meet offsetting requirements under the Biobanking offsetting scheme, Mineral Hill Pty Ltd has no record of formal approval by DECCW.

Niche has also considered the general terms of approval, whereby it would appear that a number of terms have not been fully satisfied. Notably, the present offset site has not been established to provide in-perpetuity conservation using an accepted offsetting mechanism. The current deed is an arrangement between the landholder (and its successors) and KBL Mining Ltd (and its successors), rather than an accepted conservation mechanism. We note that the deed also expires upon permanent closure of the mine. The deed does however provide for amendments lawfully required to give effect to the Offset Strategy Requirements.

The conditions and commitments of the deed are broadly consistent with that of a Biobanking site. Therefore, provided that management of the site has been consistent with the commitments of the deed, there will have been conservation gains over the offset area since 2013. The site would, however, need to be formalised as an offset site via a suitable mechanism to satisfy the conditions of consent with regard to

in-perpetuity conservation unless other agreements between KBL, DECCW and LSC were previously made which negated the requirement for an in-perpetuity conservation requirement.

4. Proposed offsetting approach It is suggested that the offset strategy be discussed with LSC and the NSW Biodiversity, Conservation and Science Division (BCSD) and available options considered. Mineral Hill Pty Ltd’s expressed preference is that the existing deed with Jeffery Kirk be modified to a standard acceptable to BCSD, bearing in mind that the associated clearing was undertaken in 2013-16. As stated above, the deed is written such that changes can be accommodated.

5. Timing Mineral Hill is looking to resolve this historical issue and seeks guidance from BCSD as to what constitutes an acceptable path forward.

As it has been highlighted that the present deed may not fully comply with relevant consent conditions, The Company believes that the 2.77 ha of clearing associated with its current tailings project (as considered in a separate accompanying letter) may not have been fully offset. As offsetting for the 2.77 hectares requires immediate consideration, a separate offset strategy for that area has been proposed which is expected to allow for a more rapid resolution.

Mineral Hill Pty Ltd confirms that no other proposed clearing at the site (beyond the 2.77 hectares) is required for the Tailings Retreatment Project.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Tweed Team Leader (Ecology) Accredited BAM Assessor Niche Environment and Heritage

References GIS Environmental Consultants (2013) Preliminary BioBanking Assessment for the Proposed Pearse Mine and Offset Area in the Lachlan LGA.

R.W. Corkery & Co Pty Ltd (RWC) (2011). Pearse Open Cut Project Mineral Hill Environmental Impact Statement.

Attachment 1 (Applicable conditions of consent) There are two parts of the conditions of consent relating to offsetting requirements relevant to the project, being Condition 9 and the General Terms of Approval – Biodiversity. Each are reproduced below for ease of reference.

Condition 9:

“The applicant is required to develop a biodiversity offset strategy and to be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the general terms of approval and in consultation with DECCW. The biodiversity loss associated with the project must be addressed and an offset agreed to prior to the impact occurring. Offsets should be designed to minimise ecological risk from time-lags. The feasibility and in principle agreements to the necessary offset actions should be achieved prior to impact occurring. It is also required to enter into legal commitments to the offset actions prior to the commencement of works.

A calculation of the impact and hence the type and size of offset which is required should be done prior to commencement of works. A failure to collect the required data prior to disturbance will not allow the full use of any metric based offsetting tools and may lead to protracted post consent negotiations. Therefore, provided the impact area is properly assessed (based on data collected in the field) prior to any disturbance and agreement is reached with the Office of Environment and Heritage on the size and type of offset required, the securing of the biodiversity offset could alternatively occur within a specified timeframe of the disturbance commencing (nominally 18 months as proposed by the applicant). The applicant must implement the Biodiversity Offset Management Actions as contained in attachment D to the GTAs as issued by DECCW

REASON: To comply with the general terms of approval issued by the DECCW and to ensure the impact of the development on biodiversity is properly assessed. Section 79 C (1) (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.”

General Terms of Approval (biodiversity)

Whilst it is OEH's preference that the full impacts of a development be considered up front (and prior to issue of consent), OEH agrees with the proponent's proposal to adequately assess and offset the impacts of the project on biodiversity through the development of a Compensatory Habitat Strategy and establishment of biodiversity offset areas as a condition of consent. The proponent has proposed that the Compensatory Habitat Strategy will be developed within 12 months of the receipt of development consent and will be implemented within a further 6 months. The following information must be considered in development of a biodiversity offset strategy to ensure impacts of the project on biodiversity are adequately assessed and adequately offset and to ensure the development does not have a significant affect on threatened species or their habitat.

• Calculation of the impact, and hence the type and size of offset which is required, should be done prior to works occurring. A failure to collect the required data prior to disturbance will not allow the full use of any metric-based offsetting tools and may lead to protracted post consent negotiations.

• Biodiversity offsets must be managed primarily for biodiversity conservation. To maximise the biodiversity values of the offset the covenant must include the management actions outlined in Attachment D.

• OEH encourages inclusion of management practices for conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage values. Consultation should occur on the appropriate management of any matters of cultural significance to those Aboriginal people with a cultural association with the land.

• The offset must be secured in perpetuity via an appropriate mechanism such as establishment of a biobanking site or via other conservation mechanism such as a Conservation Agreement, Trust Agreement or Properly Vegetation Plan (PVP). OEH is willing to discuss the best option to secure the offset site further with the proponent. it is important that these discussions and decisions take place prior to the commencement of additional disturbance works.

• The offset must be sufficient in size to offset the loss and be consistent with the principals for the use of biodiversity offsets in NSW.

• The offset strategy should include details of the relative condition and values of communities (including quantum) Of the offset site in comparison to those to be impacted.

• it is recommended that the minimum area of the offset be determined in consultation with OEH. Proposed offset ratios should be supported by a suitable metric such as the Biobanking Assessment Methodology or other scientific methodology (supported by relevant information justifying the quantum of the proposed offset); and

• Adequate funding to manage the offset must be provided.

Attachment 2 – Compensatory Habitat Establishment and Management Deed

Documents

Mineral Hill Pty Ltd - Lachlan Shire