Mount Calder quarry 1989P/M - EPA Tasmania Elliot, Mt Calder... · 2015. 8. 18. · Environmental Assessment Report Bryden Elliot– Mt Calder quarry, Runnymede 2 2 SD objectives

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Mount Calder quarry 1989P/M

RA 188 Montgomerys Rd, Runnymede Tasmania 7190

Bryden Elliot

Board of the Environment Protection Authority

August 2015

Environmental Assessment Report Bryden Elliot– Mt Calder quarry, Runnymede

I

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Bryden Elliot

Proposal Mount Calder quarry

Location RA 188 Montgomery’s Rd, Runnymede (1989P/M)

NELMS no. PCE 9185

Permit application no. 2015/00036 (Glamorgan Spring Bay Council)

Folder EN-EM-EV-DE-244054

Document. H348238

Class of Assessment 2A

Assessment process milestones

21/11/2014 Notice of Intent lodged

05/12/2014 EER Guidelines issued

03/03/2015 Permit application submitted to Council

19/03/2015 Referral received by Board

24/06/2015 Start of public consultation period

08/07/2015 End of public consultation period


II

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

BE Bryden Elliot

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 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

PCAB Policy and Conservation Advice Branch

QCOP Quarry Code of Practice 1999

RMPS Resource management and planning system

SD Sustainable development


III

Report summary

This report provides an environmental assessment of Bryden Elliot’s (BE) proposed development of Mount Calder dolerite quarry at Runnymede. The proposal involves the development of a commercial quarry with annual production of up to 20,000m3 crushed dolerite on mining lease 1989P/M at RA 188 Montgomery’s Rd Runnymede1. 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 details of comments made and issues raised in the consultation process. Appendix 2 contains the environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the EER.

1 Annual production is anticipated to be under 10,000m

3 for the initial several years, rising to a maximum of

20,000m3 if market conditions are favourable. BE has requested assessment at the latter annual figure.


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

A Notice of Intent in relation to the proposal was received by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) on 21 November 2014. An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on 3 March 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 an activity:

Under section 6(a)(ii) Crushing rock, ores or minerals at a rate in excess of 1,000 cubic metres per year.

Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 19 March 2015. The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board. Several drafts of the EER were submitted to the EPA Division for comment prior to its finalisation and acceptance by the Board. A copy of the final EER was submitted to Council with the permit application. The EER was released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on Wednesday 24 June 2015. An advertisement was placed in The Mercury and a notice was placed on the EPA website. The EER was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. One public submission was 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 extract, crush and screen up to 20,000m3 per annum weathered dolerite from a site at RA 188 Montgomery’s Rd, Runnymede. Dolerite will be won by excavator and most material crushed and screened for sale. The intended location of the quarry has previously been cleared. The quarry will largely be developed to the north and northwest. A ring road will be constructed around the quarry and a V-drain upslope to divert stormwater from the working area. A sediment pond will be constructed downslope (north) of the working face. 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 of dolerite (by excavator then crush and screen) to a maximum of 20,000m3 per annum.

Location and planning context

Location RA 188 Montgomery’s Rd, Runnymede, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Land zoning Rural residential (Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994). Extractive industry is a discretionary use within this zone.

Land tenure Private parcel CT166623/1

Mining lease 1989P/M

Lease area 5Ha

Bond $5,000 held by Mineral Resources Tasmania

Existing site

Land Use The property is maintained as a bush block and no agricultural activities occur on the property.

Topography The quarry site is situated on a north facing hill of approximate slope 15-20º.

Geology The quarry site and much of the local area is underlain by Jurassic dolerite.

Soils Podzolic (or duplex) soils developed on Jurassic dolerite bedrock and colluvium on rolling to steep (10-56%) land [Part B EER, p11]. Land capability mapping for the Nugent region suggests class 4 and 5 soils occur across the quarry site.

2

Hydrology The nearest watercourse, which is dry for the greater part of each year, is Nelsons Creek. At its closest point Nelsons Creek lies about 700m north-northwest of the quarry site.

After sustained rainfall, Nelsons Creek flows into the Prosser River approximately five kilometres east of the quarry site.

Fauna Marsupials (wallabies, wombats), reptiles (tiger snake, blue tongue lizard) and birds including fairy wrens, scarlet robins, black cockatoos and rosellas are commonly observed about the quarry site.

Flora The quarry is located in an area of unimproved dry sclerophyll forest with an understorey dominated by grasses (e.g. Poa labillardierei) and saggs (e.g. Lomandra longifolia).

2 http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Land_Cap_Report_Nugent.pdf accessed 20 January 2015.

http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Land_Cap_Report_Nugent.pdf


4

Local region

Climate Mean rainfall approximately 669mm per annum. Mean maximum temperature 22ºC (January) and mean minimum temperature 3.5ºC (July).

Surrounding land zoning, tenure and uses

The quarry site is located in a rural-residential zone (Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994). A quarry is a discretionary use within this zone.

Land surrounding the quarry site is also zoned rural-residential.

Grazing occurs on neighbouring properties and some forestry operations.

Species of conservation significance

A desktop analysis of the local quarry area using the Natural Values Atlas indicated that the following threatened flora and fauna species (under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; TSPA) may be represented within 5km of the site:

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolour) (also listed under EPBC Act);

Wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax subsp. fleayi) (also listed under EPBC Act);

Eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunni);

Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) (also listed under EPBC Act);

Juniper wattle (Acacia ulicifolia)

Lemon dogwood (Pomaderris intermedia)

Tall wallabygrass (Rytidosperma indutum)

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment 50 tonne Hyundai excavator, 20 tonne Hitachi excavator, Ford F700 tip truck, mobile crusher-screen as required

Inputs

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

Energy Diesel for mobile plant.

Other raw materials

None.

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

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

Operations

Operating hours (ongoing)

0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday.

0900 to 1600 hours Saturday.

Closed on Sunday and public holidays.

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


5

Figure 1: Quarry site in proximity to Montgomery’s Rd (Tasman Highway lies about 2km south of RA188 Montgomery’s Rd)


6

Figure 2: Mining lease 1989P/M (The Land).


7

4 Need for the proposal and alternatives

BE developed a small, non-commercial quarry on a property owned by Mr P Gillis to supply gravel to maintain road infrastructure on properties owned by Mr Gillis. Gravel was for the sole use of this landowner and a mining lease was not required. Initial work at this quarry revealed a large resource of weathered dolerite rock yielding gravel of excellent quality. Consequently BE determined to make gravel extraction a commercial exercise. No other alternatives to quarry location were proposed or considered.


8

5 Public and agency consultation

One public representation was received. The main issues raised in this representation included:

Truck movements along Montgomery’s Rd generating noise and dust

Traffic safety near intersection of Tasman Highway and Montgomery’s Rd3 The EER was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

Department of State Growth (Mineral Resources Tasmania)

Department of State Growth (Transport Infrastructure Services) 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 unit), EPA Division

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT)

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

Feedback from the above referral bodies has been incorporated into the discussion of environmental issues in the next section.

3 The Board has jurisdiction to impose conditions on the person responsible for the activity (on The Land) for

the purpose of limiting the potential for noise and dust nuisance from vehicle movements. However, the Board has no authority to assess or set conditions for traffic safety.


9

6 Evaluation of environmental issues

The environmental issues considered relevant to the proposal have been evaluated. 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 and wetlands. 3. Air emissions. 4. Solid wastes. 5. Noise emissions (including blasting). 6. Transport impacts. 7. Hazardous substances and materials. 8. Cultural heritage. 9. Rehabilitation.


10

Issue 1: Flora, fauna and habitat

Description of potential impacts

According to the EER, the quarry is located in an area of unimproved dry sclerophyll forest with an understorey dominated by grasses (e.g. Poa labillardierei) and saggs (e.g. Lomandra longifolia). The quarry’s working area is essentially clear of vegetation. Topsoil and overburden have been stripped back to expose the dolerite resource; these materials are stockpiled around the periphery of the quarry floor, particularly on the western and eastern sides. Further clearing (to the southwest) is anticipated over the next one to two years (~0.5Ha).

A desktop analysis of The Land4 and surrounds using the Natural Values Atlas (NVA) revealed several threatened flora and fauna species listed under the TSPA may be represented within 5km of the site, including:

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolour) (and EPBC Act)

Eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunni)

Wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax subsp. fleayi)

Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) (and EPBC Act)

Lemon dogwood (Pomaderris intermedia)

Juniper wattle (Acacia ulicifolia)

Tall wallabygrass (Rytidosperma indutum)

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

Management measures proposed in EER

EER commitment three states that BE will consult with Parks and Wildlife Service concerning how best to improve the local habitat for visitation by the swift parrot.

Public and agency comment

Given several threatened flora and fauna species have been observed within 5km of the proposed quarry site, and BE’s intention to disturb up to 0.5Ha standing vegetation within 18months of permit issue, PCAB recommended BE conduct a field survey in accordance with the Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys-Terrestrial Development Proposals (DPIPWE).

Council also recommended a Natural Values Assessment report be done for the proposal, with discussion about how its results may affect the proposal.

Evaluation

As noted above, desktop analysis using the NVA revealed records of a number of flora and fauna listed as threatened under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 within 5km of the quarry site. Most of The Land and immediate surrounds has been previously disturbed. Quarrying operations will be confined to this cleared area for at least the first 18 months. There is little suitable habitat on The Land or nearby for any of the fauna species listed above. The prospect of listed flora species being present on or near The Land is also considered low. However, PCAB has recommended BE conduct a ‘pre-clearance’ survey prior to opening up any new extraction area and a permit to take may be required if threatened flora species are identified. The requirement for a field survey is supported and is made explicit in non-standard condition FF1 (flora and fauna survey). This condition is necessary in order to ensure the survey is triggered at the appropriate time and thereby provides an opportunity for any threatened species to be identified and appropriate management measures implemented.

BE’s intent to improve the local habitat for visitation by the swift parrot is supported.

The relative absence of declared or other weeds at or near the quarry site is noted. Efforts to restrict the introduction and spread of weeds and disease at the quarry will be required under standard condition FF2, through adherence to the Tasmanian washdown guidelines for weed

4 The Land is defined as the area survey contained within mining lease 1989P/M.


11

and disease control: Machinery, vehicles and equipment Edition 1. Weed management is also specified in standard condition OP1 which requires BE to keep The Land substantially free of weeds to minimise the risk of spreading weeds via transport of quarried material from The Land.

Provided BE complies with conditions FF1 and FF2 it is anticipated the likelihood of causing environmental harm (i.e. species loss or damage) by operating the quarry will be low.

Conclusion

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

FF1 Flora and fauna survey

BE will also be required to comply with the following standard conditions:

FF2 Washdown guidelines

OP1 Weed management

BE will also be required to comply with EER commitment 3 as specified in OI1 (PCE9185 Information Schedule-Other Information-Commitments).


12

Issue 2: Rivers, creeks and wetlands


The quarry site is located on a north facing slope and drains generally south. The quarry lies within Prosser catchment and has an immediate catchment size of approximately five hectares. The nearest watercourse is dry Nelsons Creek which remains dry for the majority of each year. At its closest point this creek lies about 700m north-northwest of the quarry site.

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.


A V-drain upslope of the quarry site will direct stormwater away from the working area to disperse through low profile vegetation (grasses and sags). BE will develop a small (~150kL) sediment pond downslope (southern section) of the access point and direct internal flows here [EER Part C, Map 8 p 21].

No explicit commitments concerning water management have been given.


The Division’s Scientific Officer (Water) did not note any risks to water quality, given the low average annual rainfall and no direct discharges to waterways, as reflected by placing the settling pond at the quarry’s lowest point. The provision of a cut-off drain upslope of the quarry site and proposed end use of the quarry as a farm dam is also supported.

Council recommended BE commit to ensuring no transfer of silt/sediment from The Land.

Evaluation

BE’s intended measures to restrict and shed stormwater from the working area of the quarry are considered appropriate. Restricting inflows to the quarry’s working area will ensure clean stormwater is not directed to the sediment pond, reducing its capacity.

Discharges from the proposed sediment pond are likely to be rare given the proposed quarry’s dry (low rainfall) location and its very minor expected water use. The nature of the topography between the quarry site and Nelsons Creek will preclude any discharge reaching the creek. The substantial separation distance between the quarry site and this creek will also mean environmental harm to Nelsons Creek is most unlikely.

Standard conditions E1 (perimeter drains), E2 (stormwater) and E3 (maintenance of settling ponds) are deemed suitable for stormwater exclusion, sediment control and pond maintenance at the quarry.

Conclusion

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

E1 Perimeter drains

E2 Stormwater

E3 Maintenance of settling ponds


13

Issue 3: Air emissions


Mobile plant, including crushing and screening equipment and the movement of other vehicles will be responsible for the majority of the quarry’s air emissions, namely combustion gases and dust. The nearest sensitive use in other ownership occurs about 1.5km south of the quarry site. The landowner’s residence also lies to the south, about 1.8km from the quarry.

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


No explicit commitments concerning management of air emissions have been given.


The Division’s Scientific Officer (Air) considered the proposed quarry to be of low potential environmental impact in terms of air quality. The Officer noted off-site dust impact should be negligible, since the nearest sensitive use (in other ownership) is over 1km away and water sprays (on the crusher) should limit the likelihood of dust from the crusher.

One representation was received from a resident on Montgomery’s Rd. One of the concerns raised was noise and dust from vehicle movements along unsealed Montgomery’s Rd.

Evaluation

The nearest sensitive use (a rural property) at about 1.5km south of the quarry site lies well outside the Tasmanian Quarry Code of Practice’s (QCOP) Standard Recommended Attenuation Distance (SRAD) for crushing and screening operations (750m). It is also noted that the mobile crusher will be fitted with a spray unit to control dust. No routine drilling and blasting at the quarry is anticipated. Consequently the opportunity for the quarry’s dust emissions to cause environmental nuisance beyond the boundary of The Land is considered very low.

While the quarry is well removed from near neighbours, it is also recognised the quarry is situated in a low rainfall area and that hot and dry conditions are conducive to dust creation. Consequently, BE will be explicitly required to minimise dust emissions in order to limit environmental nuisance, as specified by standard condition A2.

Vehicles (e.g. truck-trailer combinations) that will travel on Montgomery’s Rd between the quarry site and the Tasman Highway are expected to pass a small number of rural dwellings. To limit the likelihood of environmental nuisance at these locations due to spills of quarried material 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 A1.

The opportunity for dust nuisance caused by vehicle movements along Montgomery’s Rd can also be managed by specifying hours of quarry operations, which includes cartage. This is made explicit in non-standard condition N1 (Operating hours).

Provided that BE observes standard conditions A1, A2 and N1 then air emissions from this activity (including dust from cartage) are unlikely to cause nuisance beyond the boundary of The Land.

Conclusion


A1 Covering of vehicles

A2 Control of dust emissions

BE will also be required to comply with the following non-standard condition:

N1 Operating hours


14

Issue 4: Solid wastes


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


Materials stripped to develop the quarry will remain on site and largely be used for rehabilitation purposes. Servicing of mobile plant will primarily occur off-site. Machinery consumables and redundant parts from any unscheduled on-site repairs will be collected and removed at the end of each repair job. All other general solid wastes will be removed after each operational shift.

No explicit commitments concerning management of solid wastes have been given.


Nil.

Evaluation

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

All quarried material has a market value and use.

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

Vegetation removed during quarry expansion to the southwest, such as shrubs and smaller trees and limbs, will be broken up with the excavator and stockpiled in a windrow to use for site rehabilitation works.

All machinery consumables and other general solid wastes will be regularly removed by either BE or Council during its regular rubbish service to RA 188 Montgomery’s Rd.

Conclusion

No conditions are considered necessary with respect to management of solid wastes.


15

Issue 5: Noise emissions (including blasting)


Crushing and screening of rock are expected to give rise to most quarry noise. 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 A (p4). The closest sensitive use in other ownership lies about 1.5km south of the quarry.

BE concludes noise emissions from usual quarry operations are very 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.


Operating hours will occur within those quoted in the Tasmanian QCOP.

No explicit commitments regarding measures to control noise have been nominated.


The EPA Division’s Noise Specialist indicated that noise was unlikely to cause nuisance at the nearest sensitive use given the significant separation distance and topographic screening. In the absence of drilling and blasting and given the substantial separation distance, the Noise Specialist did not recommend setting noise limits for quarry operations. However, the Noise Specialist did recommend including a condition of permit to allow the Director the discretion to approve occasional blasts.

The Noise Specialist noted and agreed with BE’s intent to exercise operating hours within those outlined in the Quarry Code of Practice 1999.

Evaluation

The nearest sensitive use (a rural property) at about 1.5km south of the quarry site lies well outside the SRAD for crushing and screening operations (750m). The EER also identifies another location to the south at around 1.1km from the proposed quarry site, a ‘potential future dwelling’. While this is a potential sensitive use into the future it again lies well outside the SRAD for crushing and screening operations (750m). Over this distance there is considerable standing vegetation and no clear line of site between quarry and this dwelling. Environmental nuisance arising from quarry noise is considered unlikely. In the absence of routine drilling and blasting and given the substantial separation distance, setting noise limits for quarry operations is not recommended. However, including a condition to allow the Director discretion to approve infrequent drilling and blasting is considered worthwhile, since during extraction striking very hard, competent rock on occasion cannot be ruled out. This requirement is specified in standard condition B1.

BE’s intent to exercise operating hours more restrictive than those outlined in the Quarry Code of Practice 1999 is appropriate and supported. Operational hours are explicitly stated in non-standard condition N1.

It is also considered appropriate to require BE to provide and maintain a complaints register, as per standard condition G6.

Conclusion


B1 No blasting without approval

N1 Operating hours

G6 Complaints register


16

Issue 6: Transport impacts


Council required BE to commission a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA).

Based on annual output of around 20,000m3, BE estimates the transport requirement may be up to 800 truck-trailer loads per year, or about sixteen truck-trailer loads per week. For the initial several years the transport requirement is likely to be about half these frequencies.

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

Cartage hours will be within the periods expressed in the Tasmanian QCOP.

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


No explicit EER commitments have been nominated.


Transport Infrastructure Services (TIS; Department of State Growth) noted a TIA had been conducted and submitted with the EER. TIS endorsed the recommendations made in the TIA, notably potential re-alignment/ re-location of the Montgomery’s Rd-Tasman Highway junction. Mineral Resources Tasmania also endorsed the TIA’s recommendations.

One representation was received from a resident on Montgomery’s Rd (an unsealed road). The issues raised concerned noise and dust from vehicle movements and traffic safety at the Tasman Highway-Montgomery’s Rd intersection.

Evaluation

With reference to the issue of noise and dust raised in the representation above; the low frequency of truck movements and at least 50m setback of the representor’s homestead (from Montgomery’s Rd) will limit the opportunity for environmental nuisance from vehicle generated noise and dust. Council is responsible for Montgomery’s Rd between the Tasman Highway and the southern boundary of RA188 Montgomery’s Rd. The road is a public carriageway.

The permit application requires conditions be applied to The Land to mitigate and manage potential environmental impacts. As discussed previously at Issues 3 and 5, conditions will be included which are also expected to mitigate and limit the likelihood of nuisance from vehicle movements along Montgomery’s Rd (namely A1 and N1). With reference to traffic safety; this is not within the Board’s purview. Matters relating to traffic safety will be assessed by Council.

Conclusion

As previously stated, conditions A1 (covering of vehicles) and N1 (Operating hours) will help limit the potential for transport-related dust and noise impacts at residences along Montgomery’s Rd.


17

Issue 7: Hazardous substances and chemicals


Diesel will be stored on-site in a 2,000L (bunded) tank. Machinery will be fuelled from this tank. No other hazardous substances will be stored on site.

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


No explicit EER commitments to manage hazardous substances have been nominated.


Nil.

Evaluation

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

While the risk of a diesel spill or leak is considered to be low, provision of an on-site hydrocarbon spill kit is considered warranted. This requirement is specified by standard condition H2.

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

Conclusion


H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials

H2 Spill kits

BE will also be obliged to comply with legal obligations concerning storage and handling of dangerous goods, explosives and dangerous substances as expressed by LO2 (PCE9185 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 explicit commitments concerning cultural heritage have been given.


Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) evaluated the mining lease application at RA188 Montgomery’s Rd and advised there were no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within or close to the property. AHT concluded the area has a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present.

Evaluation

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

Conclusion

No conditions are proposed. Information about the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 will be included in the information schedules of PCE 9185.

BE will also be obliged to comply with legal obligations concerning Aboriginal heritage as expressed by LO3 (PCE9185 Information Schedule-Legal Obligations).


19

Issue 9: Rehabilitation


The quarry will be developed as a series of 360º benches and faces, in line with its intended end use as a farm dam. A preliminary rehabilitation plan is outlined in Part C (p24) of the EER. Mineral Resources Tasmania has specified that the total area of land open at any time will be no more than 1.5Ha.

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


No explicit EER commitments for site closure and rehabilitation have been nominated.


Council recommended BE provide greater detail about its preferred end use (farm dam) for the quarry, including water source(s) and revegetation species.

Evaluation

The quarry’s proposed end use as water storage for agricultural activities, fire management and watering of local fauna is consistent with existing and future anticipated land uses.5 The site topography also suits development of water storage in a trough or valley between two hills. The landowner is agreeable to developing a farm dam within the exhausted quarry; this rehabilitation strategy has been applied on two previous occasions on the landowner’s properties.

Ongoing or progressive rehabilitation of a working quarry (to limit its disturbed area) is an expectation under the Tasmanian QCOP. The requirement to implement progressive rehabilitation and definition of the maximum allowable disturbed (or open) area at any one time are defined in condition DC3.

Given the minimum anticipated quarry life of 10 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).

As indicated previously in this report, BE 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


DC1 Notification of cessation

DC2 Stockpiling of surface soil

DC3 Progressive rehabilitation

DC4 Temporary suspension of activity

DC5 DRP requirements

5 The given proposal is for a quarry only. The draft Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (when

submitted) may include details about converting the exhausted pit to a farm dam.


20

7 Report conclusions

This assessment has been based on the information provided by Bryden Elliot, in the permit application, EER and in correspondence and discussion between the EPA Division and the proponent and the proponent’s representatives. This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by EPA Division scientific specialists and regulatory staff, other Divisions of DPIPWE and other government agencies. This assessment has taken into account issues raised in public submissions. 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. 9185 appended to this report are imposed and duly complied with.


22

9 References

Elliot B & Gillis P; Mt Calder quarry project - Environmental Effects Report (dated 2/03/2015), Bryden Elliot Building and Excavations Pty Ltd, Runnymede, Tasmania.


23

10 Appendices

Appendix 1 Summary of public and agency submissions Appendix 2 Permit conditions - environmental, includes Attachment 2 - EER commitments

Environmental Assessment Report Bryden Elliot – Mt Calder quarry, Runnymede

Appendix 2

Appendix 1 Summary of public and agency submissions


Appendix 1

Bryden Elliot – Mount Calder quarry, Montgomery’s Rd Runnymede

Summary of public representations and agency and Council comments

In the following tables, EER means Gillis P and Elliot B; 2 March 2015 Mount Calder quarry proposal EER A. Public representations

Representation No.

EER section / section no.

Issue Comment Further information required by EPA

Environmental

1 Part C Transport; p 22

Dust from trucks Representor concerned dust arising from vehicle movements along Montgomery’s Rd (associated with quarry operations) will affect their ability to open and ventilate their homestead

Nil.

Potential for traffic conflicts at Montgomery’s Rd-Tasman Highway junction

Representor concerned the Montgomery’s Rd-Tasman Highway intersection is not of a standard suited to safe entry/ exit of heavy vehicles associated with quarry operations. Representor concerned there may be traffic conflicts at the intersection if quarry is permitted to operate.

Nil.

Planning

1 Land sale Noise and dust

from truck

movements

Representor concerned noise and dust arising from truck movements along Montgomery’s Rd may reduce the opportunity to sell their land.

Nil.


Appendix 1

B. Referral agency comments

Agency EER section / section no.

Comment Further information required by EPA

Environmental

DPIPWE (Policy and Conservation Advice Branch)

Part C Flora and fauna

PCAB recommended Bryden Elliot conduct a field survey in accordance with the Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys-Terrestrial Development Proposals (DPIPWE) prior to opening up any new area for quarrying.6

Nil.

C. Glamorgan Spring Bay Council comments

EER section / section no.

Comment Further information required by EPA

Part C

Flora and fauna

Council recommended a Natural Values Assessment report be done for the proposal and how its results may affect the proposal.

Nil.

Part C

Liquid effluent

Council recommended Bryden Elliot commit to ensuring no transfer of silt/sediment from The Land.

Nil.

Part C Rehabilitation

Council recommended Bryden Elliot provide greater detail about his preferred end use (farm dam) for the quarry, including water source(s) and revegetation species.

Nil.

6 The initial quarry footprint will be developed on land already cleared.


Appendix 2

Appendix 2 Permit conditions - Environmental