4 environmental values and management of impacts eis/final-eis...page 127 gold coast quarry...

25

Gold Coast Quarry Environmental Impact Statement

4 Environmental Values and Management of Impacts

4.1 Climate, Natural Hazards and Climate Change

4.1.1 Description of Environmental Values

The Climate, Natural Hazards and Climate Change Report for the Boral Gold Coast Quarry, prepared by Katestone Environmental, assessed the climate risks for the project and specifically addresses section 4.1 of the TOR (Appendix R). The scope of the natural hazards considered by the study was weather-related natural hazards.

The following figures are also of note:

> Figure 4-1 – Major Koppen Classification Groups of Climate Zones;

> Figure 4-2 – Major Rainfall Zones; and

> Figure 4-3 – Climate Zones.

4.1.1.1 Climatic Influences, Seasonal Conditions and Natural Hazards

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (“ENSO”) generally and its extremes, El Niño and La Niña, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (“PDO”) are the two regional climate patterns that are important to the understanding of the climate of the Australia/South West Pacific and which can have a significant influence on seasonal and annual weather patterns in this region.

El Niño periods are generally warmer and drier with below average rainfall.

La Niña conditions, which are broadly wetter and cooler with increased cyclone frequency, are likely to be more influential over the short to medium term. During a La Niña event, it is likely that more periods of intense rainfall will occur. Also, it is possible that strong winds and high temperature days would occur at a higher frequency than the historical averages suggest.

The Gold Coast climate is sub-tropical and tends to be cool and dry in the winter and warmer and wetter in the summer.

Although climate change will affect climatic conditions in the long-term, the variability associated with the ENSO and PDO phases is a more useful and significant consideration for the lifespan of the quarry. Queensland Government predictions for the future climate in South East Queensland suggest increases in annual average temperatures and reductions in rainfall and evaporation.

For further information on the vulnerability of the project area to seasonal conditions, extremes of climate and induced natural hazards, please refer to Section 2 of Climate, Natural Hazards and Climate Change Report for the Boral Gold Coast Quarry (Appendix R).

4.1.1.2 Climate Risk Assessment

Section 3 of Climate, Natural Hazards and Climate Change for the Boral Gold Coast Quarry Report provides a risk assessment of potential threats presented to the project by climate variability and climate change.

The risk assessment methodology applied to the project was based on Draft Australian Standard DR AS5334—Climate Change Adaptation for Settlements and Infrastructure.

Generally, extreme weather events, rather than long term changes in climate averages, provide the greatest sources of climate risk for the proposed quarry. The following representative local climatic conditions/weather events were addressed by the climate risk assessment:

> Intense rainfall;

> Cyclones;


> High temperatures;

> Drought;

> Strong winds (> 8m/s); and

> Damaging winds (> 25 m/s).

4.1.1.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

A summary of risk ratings determined for the potential impacts of anticipated climate conditions on the project is as follows:

Table 4-1: Potential climate change risks and impacts

Potential Impact Unmitigated Risk Mitigated Risk

Dust generation due to prolonged dry spells and wind Moderate Low

Water supply constraint for process use and dust suppression due to drought

Moderate Low

Uncontrolled discharge from storage dam and/or sediment pond

Significant Moderate

Flooding of quarry pit Moderate Low

Erosion or failure of slopes and haul roads in quarry Moderate Low

Loss of grid power to quarry operations Moderate Low

Section 3.4 of Climate, Natural Hazards and Climate Change for the Boral Gold Coast Quarry established a likelihood rating and consequence criteria level for each of the above potential impacts associated with unmitigated risk and details implementation measures for risk mitigation to achieve the mitigated risk levels stated above.

The following additional risks were identified but not evaluated in detail as part of the EIS. They are unlikely to be significant risks, but would warrant closer assessment or as part of the proponent’s normal risk management processes:

> Absence of suitable meteorological conditions for blasting (addressed separately in Blasting Impact – Gold Coast Quarry) (Appendix JJ);

> Loss of quarry product – washed or blown away;

> Product demand fluctuations due to severe weather events affecting customers’ projects;

> Bushfire (addressed separately in Bushfire Management Plan) (Appendix RR);

> Stresses on grid power or due to discontinuities in power supply;

> Loss of telecommunications/mobile phone network service; and

> Storm surge and sea level rise interference with local road network.

4.1.1.4 Energy sources

The Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the Gold Coast Quarry, prepared by Katestone Environmental, addresses the specific item in section 4.1 of the Terms of Reference relating to the required energy for the site and the ability to use renewable energies sources and technology (Appendix HH). The Greenhouse Gas Assessment recommends that on-site renewable energy generation should be considered to provide part of the load requirements for the operation of the quarry.


4.1.2 Flood Plain Management

4.1.2.0 Description of Environmental Values

The Water Resources and Flood Plain Management Report, prepared by BMT WBM addresses the requirements of section 4.1.1 of the Terms of Reference (Appendix CC). The following figures are also of note:

> Figure 4-4 – Approximate Extent of Receiving Environments;

> Figure 4-5 – Baseline 100 year ARI Flood Depths;

> Figure 4-6 – Baseline PMF Flood Depths;

> Figure 4-7 – Baseline 100 year FRI Flood Velocities; and

> Figure 4-8 – Climate Change Impacts on the 100 year ARI Baseline.

Hydrologic and hydraulic modelling undertaken as part of the EIS demonstrated that existing floods within the site are generally confined to the steep, narrow gullies. Flood extents do not change significantly with increasing flood magnitude. Sensitivity testing of climate change impacts on the existing (baseline) flood conditions indicates that local catchments are not highly sensitive to the additional rainfall (i.e. the changes in peak levels are generally less than 0.1 m). The modelling predicts that floods within the site will continue to be confined within the steep, narrow gullies and that downstream flooding will not worsen as a result of the proposed development, despite climate change.

State Planning Policy 1/03 – Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire and Landslide is applicable to proposed developments within areas defined as a Natural Hazard Management Areas which, in the case of flooding, is generally the extent shown by a ‘Defined Flood Event’ (DFE).

The Gold Coast Planning Scheme 2003 adopts a local Defined Flood Event (“DFE”) that is the Q100 flood event and is shown on Overlay Map OM17—Natural Hazard (Flood) Management Areas. Refer to Figure 29 in the Town Planning Assessment Report submitted in Appendix P.

The site is not subject to the local DFE as defined by the overlay. Therefore, the Flood Affected Areas Code of the planning scheme is not applicable to any proposed development on the land. The Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report has nevertheless addressed the key requirements of the code.

Existing (baseline) flood risk has been defined by hydrologic and hydraulic modelling undertaken for a range of design events from the 2 year average recurrence interval (“ARI”) to the probable maximum flood (“PMF”).

Figures 4-5 and 4-6 present the modelled existing (baseline) flood depths and extents for the 100 year and PMF events respectively. This figure shows that existing floods within the site are generally confined to within the steep, narrow gullies. As a result, flood extents do not change significantly with increasing flood magnitude.

Runoff exits from the proposed disturbance footprint via two existing flow routes: via the Northern Catchment and via the Mid Catchment. Two reference locations (TS1 and TS2) have been nominated at the downstream ends of these routes near the site boundary. At these two reference locations series information on flows has been extracted from the model and is presented in the following ways:

Table 3-4 summarises the peak flow observed in the baseline model at these two locations for all modelled flood magnitudes.

The hydraulic flows against time have been plotted as part of the technical assessment. These flows demonstrate that the catchments are typically responsive with flows rising and falling quickly during and immediately following the triggering storm.

Peak baseline velocities are presented in Figure 4-7 for the 100 year ARI event. It shows that velocities are typically 3 m/s in the lower reaches of the site although highly localised areas experience velocities in excess of this typical velocity.

For further information, refer to Section 3.6 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report.



The removal of material (overburden and quarry rock) from the site will likely increase the potential flood storage available which can then attenuate site runoff, leading to a reduced offsite peak flow. This attenuation may, however, potentially delay hydraulic aspects associated with various tributaries, thus increasing the overall peak runoff.

The early phases of the development, which are likely to have the greatest offsite flood impacts, but will generally have limited duration (in the order of months). Flood risk can be minimised by limiting the removal of vegetation and stripping of overburden to during the dry season as far as practicable. Vegetation removal should be undertaken outside of the wet season where practical up to and including Stage E3 of the proposed quarry.

Similarly, no flood protection levees are proposed.

No negative impacts were identified in terms of increased downstream flood levels, flows, velocities or duration for any of the other modelled phases. No further floodplain mitigation measures are therefore recommended.

4.2 Land Issues

4.2.1 Scenic Amenity


The Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Cardno Chenoweth provides an assessment of the scenic amenity considerations relevant to the project (Appendix S). It addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.2.1 of the Terms of Reference as they relate to scenic amenity. The following figures are also of note:

Figure 4-9 – Indicative Progression of Quarry Benches between Stages A4 & Q5 after non-terminal Bench Rehabilitation in Q1 – Q3;

Figure 4-10 – Regional Ridgelines and Valleys;

Figure 4-11 – Local Ridgelines and Side-valleys;

Figure 4-12 – Digital Surface Model with Vegetation & Built Form (LiDAR 2009);

Figure 4-13 – Landscape Character Types;

Figure 4-14 – Visual Exposure (VE) (GCCC 2010);

Figure 4-15 – Visual Exposure (VE) Based on LiDAR Surface Model;

Figure 4-16 – Sensitive Receptor Areas;

Figure 4-17 – Photopoint Locations (PP01-06);

Figure 4-18 – Viewshed South-West of Old Burleigh Town;

Figure 4-19 – Viewshed Validation for Old Burleigh Town;

Figure 4-20 – Quarry Cross Sections at Completion of Stages Q3, Q4 and Q5;

Figure 4-21 – Photopoint 01 Viewshed Fenton Drive (57m AHD), Old Burleigh Town (unmitigated);

Figure 4-22 - Photopoint 02 Viewshed Sky Royal Terrace Vacant Allotment (49m AHD), Old Burleigh Town (unmitigated);

Figure 4-23 – Photopoint 03 Viewshed Sky Royal Terrace (49m AHD) Residences (unmitigated);

Figure 4-24 – Photopoint 04 Viewshed Simpsons Road/ Gracilis Court (88m AH), Elanora (unmitigated);

Figure 4-25 – Photopoint 05 Viewshed Avocado Street (25m AHD), Elanora (unmitigated);

Figure 4-26 – Phase D4 Viewshed Analysis and Cross-section from Sky Royal Terrace (PP02);


Figure 4-27 – Phase D4 Detail Cross-section from Sky Royal Terrace (PP02);

Figure 4-28 – Phase D5 Viewshed Analysis and Cross-section from Sky Royal Terrace (PP02);

Figure 4-29 – Phase D5 Detail Cross-section from Sky Royal Terrace (PP02);

Figure 4-30 – Zone of Visual Influence – Development Phase D4;

Figure 4-31 – Zone of Visual Influence – Development Phase D5;

Figure 4-32 – Old Burleigh Town – ZVI Comparison of Existing and Proposed Quarries;

The technical report outlines the methodology that was undertaken in order to conduct the visual assessment. Overall, the completion of the visual assessment follows a structured approach, based on the Terms of Reference. The work that was completed included both a desktop assessment and field assessment, with a particular emphasis being placed on the visibility of each of the stages of the quarry establishment, development, construction and operation within the proposed disturbance footprint and its screening by existing landforms.

The desktop review included an analysis of the regulatory framework in the context of scenic amenity aspects. Primarily, this analysis has focussed on the relevant aspects that are detailed within the current version of the 2003 Gold Coast Planning Scheme.

4.2.1.1.1 Existing Visual Environment

Section 3 of the Visual Impact Assessment provides a detailed description of the existing visual environment (i.e. before the development of the proposed quarry development on Lot 105). That description can be summarised as follows:

> Reedy Creek / Tallebudgera Study Area

The surrounding coastal, urban and rural landscape is defined as the Reedy Creek / Tallebudgera Study Area for the purposes of the visual assessment.

Lot 105 is part of one of the southern Gold Coast ridges identified as Ridge ‘R3’ (R3) in Gold Coast City Council’s mapping of significant ridgelines. Ridge R3 extends from the Springbrook Range all the way to the coast at Burleigh Heads, and ranges in height and between 150m and 300m above sea level. This ridge is a significant landform feature in a local context, but not as high, steep or rugged as the Springbrook ranges further to the west.

Ridge R3 has scenic importance in southern Gold Coast, defining the Tallebudgera Valley and Burleigh Heads. The hillside bushland areas associated with Ridge R3 appear forested and natural when seen from a distance.

> Subject Site

Lot 105 is part of a complex group of ridges and intervening gullies, with several sub-catchments draining generally to the east. Lot 105 contains three (3) main ridgelines, described on Figure 4-11 as Ridge ‘I’, Ridge ‘J’ and Ridge ‘K’. Each of these ridgelines has secondary spurs and some steep slopes.

> Landscape Context

Lot 105 sits within a broader landscape context. That contextual setting is characterised by the following key features:

The geomorphology and size of the study area creates a diverse and attractive landscape, with a combination of rocky ranges and forested undulating hills, creeks and valleys and the long fringing beaches that help to define the scenic diversity of the Gold Coast and which also host the many different forms of urban development in the region.

A digital surface model has been prepared for the site on the basis of 2009 LiDAR data (which captures topography, tree canopy heights and buildings). This data details the tree canopy heights in the locality as well as the location and heights of the surrounding dwellings.


Within the study area, the interface between the developed (urban, industrial and quarry) and hinterland (open space, park living and bushland) character types is fragmented but identifiable in the area south-west of the M1 Pacific Motorway, and is visually dominated by Ridge R3.

Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) as a concept is discussed in Section 3.4.5 of the Visual Impact Assessment. VAC is the ability of landform and vegetation to visually absorb built form and earthworks scarring without significant changes to their landscape values, and is an important indicator of landscape sensitivity to change.

Most of the subject site comprises forested slopes with a Medium VAC, with Low VAC (higher sensitivity) on ridges and narrow strips of High VAC along the valley floors. VAC needs to be considered in relation to the height of built form and any vegetation clearing associated with development. Forested areas may be capable of absorbing low-rise buildings but not taller structures, and any removal of screening trees may lower the VAC of an area.

> Viewshed Analysis

Viewing distance affects viewer perceptions of the landscape extent and discernible features, in that relatively small areas are seen in foreground views but with fine details noticeable (e.g. structures, vegetation, water and soil type) whereas a greater area is seen at background view distances but with much less detail (overall shape, colours and smoothed textures are visually dominant). At midground distances, textures and colours are rougher and contrasts are more apparent. Developments, clearing and earthworks occupy a progressively smaller proportion of the visual landscape with greater viewing distance. Understanding the existing viewsheds assists with determining the external views of the quarry that could be obtained in the future.

Section 3.5.3 and Figure 4-16 define three viewsheds for Lot 115:

Reedy Creek View Sector (north-west);

Burleigh View Sector (north and north-east); and

Tallebudgera View Sector (south-east and south).

Within the viewsheds three ridges within and adjacent to Lot 105 largely screen views from external visual receptors into the disturbance footprint area. The combination of topography and vegetation in the quarry separation area and in surrounding areas, partly enclose the internal ridge and valleys, and screen them from most external views.

The visual assessment establishes that the only residential areas with potential views into the disturbance footprint area (through gaps between the ridges) are some elevated areas at Old Burleigh town (about 1 km to the east), some areas of Skyline Terrace (about 3 km to the north-east and at Simpsons Road (more than 4 km to the south-east). Figure 4-18 illustrates these locations.

The visual assessment establishments that to the west and south (including Kingsmore Estate, Observatory Estate, Tallebudgera Creek Road and Tallebudgera Connection Road and Tuesday Drive) will not have views into the disturbance footprint area. These residential areas are screened by the topography and vegetation on ridges R3 and I, in the separation area or external to Lot 105, and will not be visual receptors. Accordingly, these residential areas have not been subject to more detailed analysis by viewshed, sectional analyses, visibility modelling or visualisations.

Section 3.5.4 of the Visual Impact Assessment identifies six locations in the surrounding area subject to more detailed visual analysis. These nominated locations include three within Old Burleigh Town.

Desktop analysis and field assessment of the identified potentially sensitive viewpoints indicate that, without mitigation measures being implemented:

- in the Burleigh View Sector, the disturbance footprint area is likely to be visible at midground view distances (1 – 2 km) from approximately 67 residences, depending on local screening by vegetation or buildings, as well as possible opportunistic glimpses whilst driving; and


in the Tallebudgera View Sector, and primarily with Elanora Ridge, opportunities for views of the disturbance footprint area are limited and at greater distances (>4km), but are likely to be an element in background as seen from elevated residences and roads.

Section 4.3.4 provides an overview of other locations identified in the TOR with respect to the probability of views into the disturbance footprint area.


Section 4 of the Visual Impact Assessment provides an overview of the future visual environment as the development of the proposed quarry progresses.

Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) mapping, which is the reverse of viewshed mapping, has also been undertaken as part of the Visual Impact Assessment. The ZVI analysis confirms that the main external visual impacts will be on residences in elevated parts of Old Burleigh Town (in the Burleigh View Sector), such as Sky Royal Terrace and Fenton Drive, during both the Q4 and Q5 Phases of the project and for the periods in between. No residences to the west and north-west (in the Reedy Creek View Sector and including Chesterfield Drive, Observatory Drive and Cordyline Drive) are likely to have views of the quarry in either the Development or Quarrying Stages. Residences to the south in the Tallebudgera View Sector (including Tuesday Drive) also will not have any views of the quarry, although some residents on Simpsons Road and scattered houses in the valley will glimpse minor parts of the quarry faces or plant infrastructure from distances in excess of 3 km.

While both viewsheds and ZVI analyses identify locations which may experience views of the proposed quarry, they do not take account of the influence of elevation, view distance or viewing angle. In general, the proposed quarry will have more visual impact when seen from higher or similar elevations, at closer distances and ‘front-on’, rather than when seen from lower elevations, at greater distances or at a sharp angle. The views from the nearest sensitive visual receptors to the east (elevated parts of Old Burleigh Town at 49m - 57m AHD) are generally through the narrow view corridor of Valley V1 (as detailed on Figure 3-8) upward towards exposed faces at elevations of 62m AHD and higher, and some of the infrastructure (20m – 30m height) on the plant site platforms. Views from a greater distance, for example from the Elanora ridge (25m - 46m AHD, at (>4 km) expose slightly less of the quarry faces to view.

The proposed quarry will progressively change part of Lot 105 by converting internal wooded ridges, spurs and valleys into a quarry pit with rock faces and revegetated benches, as well as platforms with access roads, operating plant facilities and stockpiles. These changes have the potential to affect the visible landscape as seen from those places within view of the disturbance footprint area, especially where exposed rock faces could potentially be visible as highly contrasting scars on the hillside. The viewshed analyses have been combined with cross-sectional sightlines to assess the possible extent of visibility of quarry benches, rock faces and other development components.

Section 4.1.1 of the Visual Assessment Report details the progression of benches and faces as quarry operations transition through the Quarrying Stage from Phase Q3 to Q4 and Q5, including excavation back into the hillside. Cross-sections have been prepared which illustrate the visual screening measures, including the establishment of screening vegetation, that will be implemented over the development of the quarry. Visual screening may be implemented in those parts of the extraction area which remain in an interim state of development throughout particular phases of the project, as well as being implemented on extraction areas that have reached their final landform.

Because the extraction area will be developed in 12 m high working faces, the theoretical visual exposure to three levels of quarry working face represents a vertical height of 36m. The visual impression of such an expanse of bare rock would ordinarily be exacerbated if seen from a higher elevation (looking down into the quarry) in which case the exposed benches (each with a width of between 8 m – 20 m) would also be visible. However, the extent of the visual exposure is reduced in the case of this project. All views from Old Burleigh Town are upwards towards the exposed quarry faces, such that no bench will be visible. The angle of view will therefore allow lower faces to visually overlap with those above, thus reducing the extent of visual exposure.

On the basis of the above, viewsheds for the six locations identified in Section 3.5.4 of the technical report have been delineated for the purposes of the Visual Impact Assessment. The potential impacts of the proposed development on each of the viewsheds has been modelled and assessed. This viewshed modelling


indicates that, when unmitigated, the upper four or five south-east facing quarry faces at the western end of the proposed extraction area are only likely to be visible from parts of Sky Royal Terrace and Fenton Drive in Old Burleigh Town during Phases Q4 and Q5 of the development. Phases Q4 and Q5 of the operation are not expected to commence until around 20 years after the site is established.

Without mitigation, parts of the upper three quarry faces will also be visible in around 20 years (after establishment) from Simpsons Road and Avocado Street, in the background at a viewing distance of more than four kilometres. Similarly, parts of the upper three faces may also be visible from the second story of one or two houses on Skyline Terrace; however, any such view would be experienced at a sharp angle from which the quarry faces will occupy a very small proportion of the field of view.

Mitigating the potential visual impact of the upper faces of the extraction area has therefore been an imperative for the design of the project.

The Visual Impact Assessment, at Section 4.1.3, also details other areas of the proposed development that may be temporarily visible at some point during the Establishment Stage, Development Stage or Construction Stage of the project. Those areas include:

> The Plant Site platform (at average elevation of 35 m AHD), Stockpile Area platform (39m, rising to 55 m AHD) and the ROM Pad (50m AHD) will not themselves be visible, but operational infrastructure that will be constructed on these platforms may be visible. By way of example, some structures on the Plant Site may be up to 28m tall whilst the product stockpiles will vary in height but will not exceed 14m; and

> The main access road from Old Coach Road will include up to 15m high cut of approximately 200m in length, into the side of Ridge ‘K’,. Although this cut will be screened from Old Burleigh Town, it will be visible from Simpsons Road (>4km away) from initial establishment (Phase E2) and for the life of the quarry.

> The quarry dam and sediment pond will not be visible from any external sensitive visual receptor areas.

> Similarly, the acoustic barrier fence which will be erected 6 m south-east of the site boundary to The Observatory Stage 20 prior to commencement of the Quarrying Stage 4 will be visually screened by retention of existing vegetation and by supplementary planting. Reference is to be made to the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues for further details in relation to this acoustic barrier (Appendix II).

> Other acoustic barriers in the west constructed at Phase C2 are located within the development footprint and will not be visible, or will be screened by trees from possible long-range views (such as Chesterfield Drive).

4.2.1.2.1 Cumulative Visual Impacts of Development on Landscape Character

It is a relevant consideration that some of the Old Burleigh Town residences have views of the existing West Burleigh Quarry. An analysis was therefore undertaken to determine if those areas were likely to experience cumulative impacts associated with the concurrent operation of West Burleigh Quarry and the early stages of the Gold Coast Quarry during the transitional period between the two operations. Of the 407 existing houses in Old Burleigh Town, approximately 42 (10%) are currently within view of the existing West Burleigh Quarry. Only 18 of those 42 residences are likely to experience views into part of the proposed Gold Coast Quarry if not mitigated. Any such views will be a consequence of the latter quarrying phases and will therefore not be experienced for at least 20 years, by which time quarry operations at West Burleigh Quarry will have ceased. On this basis, no cumulative visual impacts are anticipated.

4.2.1.2.2 Impact Mitigation

Section 6 of the of the Visual Impact Assessment report details the measures which are proposed to mitigate any residual visual impacts of the proposed development. The mitigation measures can be broadly categorised into:

> quarry planning measures; and


> bench rehabilitation and temporary mitigation measures.

In terms of quarry planning measures, the disturbance footprint and proposed staging of the project have been formulated to avoid or minimise adverse visual impacts, principally by:

> retaining wide separation area buffers, which include the forested Ridge ‘I’ parallel to the southern boundary of Lot 105, restricting the disturbance footprint to an internal area (where most of the quarry will be below sight lines and only a few upper rock faces exposed) and effectively limiting all views from the south and south-west into the disturbance footprint;

> Retaining the eastern end of Ridge ‘J’ until Phase Q3, thereby screening most of the extraction area from views from the east (Old Burleigh Town and Elanora) and allowing long rehabilitation period for establishment of screening vegetation on the ‘temporary’ D4 benches on Ridge J;

> Excavation of ridge ‘J’ from the south, working northwards into the hillside, thereby progressively lowering the forested ridgeline with minimal exposure and retaining a forested skyline and backdrop of Ridge R3; and

> Progressive staggered transition between Phases (particularly between Q4 and Q5), such that no parallel series of rock faces will be exposed in a single plane, but will instead be a mosaic of bench widths and face alignments with rehabilitated vegetation of varying ages and heights.

In terms of bench rehabilitation measures, strategies for revegetation of quarry benches and partial-screening of the 12 m high exposed rock faces vary according to whether the benches are temporary (short-term or medium term) or permanent. Potentially visible benches likely to remain inactive for more than 2 years but less than 10 years before excavation in the next phase will be revegetated mainly with wattles and other fast growing native species. Final benches and those likely to be inactive for more than 10 years, will be revegetated with a mixture of native species, including trees capable of growth to at least 10M height.

Inactive quarry faces will require softening through use of non-vegetative approaches until planted vegetation screens or fragments views. Possible approaches under consideration include the use of draped coloured mesh or fabric (such as camouflage webbing) and/or painting of exposed faces to break up the visual impression of solid planes of exposed bare rock face, as seen from distances of 1 – 4 km’. The selection of the most effective technique or combination of techniques will rely on several criteria including:

> effectiveness of screening;

> effectiveness of various colours or colour combinations;

> durability of materials;

> safety of installation;

> safety to wildlife;

> fixing techniques;

> cost; and

> any disposal required.

The most effective technique or combination of techniques will be determined through trials during the Development and Construction Stages on temporary and terminal faces.

Although the rehabilitation strategy will apply to all parts of the quarry (including parts of the separation area and dam surrounds where revegetation is required), it is mainly the upper western faces of the quarry pit and that require rehabilitation or temporary measure to mitigate visual impacts. This area will require effective establishment and long term management (including monitoring, identification of gaps and selective replanting when necessary) to ensure that the vegetation retains its visual screening and softening effect. The Landscape Rehabilitation Plan prepared by Cardno Chenoweth (Appendix N) outlines the rehabilitation strategies which will be implemented to mitigate the potential impact of the upper western quarry faces.


In summary, the proposed quarry has been designed and staged to minimise visual impacts, with the majority of the footprint semi-enclosed by existing forested ridges to be retained in a wide buffering separation area, and part of an internal ridge retained for screening until late in the operational sequence.

The impact on visual amenity arising from the visibility of the upper exposed faces, as seen from a limited number of residences at viewing distances of 1- 4 km is considered to be relatively minor.

The proposed quarry development will unavoidably result in the change of use and landscape character of a an area of bushland, but will have limited visual impacts.


4.2.2 Lighting


The Lighting Report prepared by MultiTech Solutions provides an assessment of lighting impacts and the mitigation of identified impacts to meet relevant standards (Appendix T). The following figures are of note:

> Figure 4-33 – Isolux Drawing of Lighting Levels Around the Buildings; and

> Figure 4-34 – Isolux Drawing of Lighting Levels Around the Processing Plant.

Section 4.1 of the Lighting Report confirms that there are no existing light sources located in and around the site that could be utilised by the proposed quarrying operation. The project site is not currently illuminated; there is no street lighting located along the Old Coach Road frontage of the site and only small settlements nearby.


Sections 5 and 6 of the Lighting Report detail the proposed lighting for the project. Lighting is to be restricted to specific localised lighting around the buildings and on the processing plant.

During the Establishment Stage it is proposed to use mobile light towers to provide illumination to the specific areas of activity (during low light periods of the year). The control and timing of the operation of this lighting will be agreed to eliminate disturbance to neighbouring properties.

The lighting around the buildings and on the processing plant will be designed to category P8 defined in AS NZS 1158, with an average design level of 7 lux, which is considered to be sufficient to provide enough lighting for safe movement. Further, the proposed lighting design will pool downwards and locally, and not create spill that will generate nuisance to neighbouring persons or nocturnal fauna.

Based on the location of the buildings, isolux contours and level changes, no effects of lighting on fauna in the proposed buffer area are anticipated.

In the unlikely event that the proposed lighting generates complaints, then it will be possible to further mitigate impacts by equipment adjustments and / or timer switches in non-critical (or sensitive) areas.

The site operational hours will be 6.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday with maintenance occurring 24 hours Monday to Saturday and 8:00am to 6:00pm Sundays

To provide a sustainable solution it is proposed that a lighting control system be provided comprising photocell and time switch to control the external lighting on the site. The lighting control system will ensure that the lighting is turned off at a predetermined time to eliminate disturbance to neighbouring properties as well as conserve energy.


4.2.3 Topography, geology and soils


The Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design Report prepared by Groundwork Plus provides an assessment of the geological and geotechnical aspects associated with Lot 105 (Appendix Q). This technical assessment addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.2.3 as they relate to geotechnical and geological aspects. The following figures detailed within this particular technical report are of note:

Figure 4-35a – Geotechnical Risk Rating Map – Phase Q1;

Figure 4-35b – Geotechnical Risk Rating Map – Phase Q2;

Figure 4-35c – Geotechnical Risk Rating Map – Phase Q3;

Figure 4-35d – Geotechnical Risk Rating Map – Phase Q4;

Figure 4-35e – Geotechnical Risk Rating Map – Phase Q5;

Figure 4-36 – Aerial Photo and Topography;

Figure 4-37 – Regional Geology;

Figure 4-38 – Site Geology;

Figure 4-39a – Cross Section A-A;

Figure 4-39b – Cross Section B-B;

Figure 4-39c – Cross Section C-C;

Figure 4-39d – Cross Section D-D and Cross Section E-E;

Figure 4-39e – Cross Section F-F. Cross – Section G-G and Cross Section H-H;

Figure 4-40a – Overburden Isopach Map;

Figure 4-40b – Distinctly Weathered Isopach Map; and

Figure 4-40c – Slightly Weathered Isopach Map.

An Overburden Management Plan has also been prepared by Lambert & Rehbein that specifically addresses the relevant component in Chapter 4.2.3 of the TOR (Appendix V).

Lambert & Rehbein has also analysed the potential occurrence of acid sulphate soils as part their Contamination – Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation report. The report addresses the acid sulphate soils reference in Chapter 4.2.3 of the TOR, and is submitted at Appendix U.

4.2.3.1.1 Topography

The levels of Lot 105 range from between RL 10m AHD in the eastern portion of the property to approximately RL 150m AHD in the north-western portion of Lot 105. Figure 4-36 describes the existing topography of Lot 105.

4.2.3.1.2 Geology

The geological assessment indicates that approximately 315 million years ago, near the end of the Carboniferous period, the deep-water sediments present in the area of Lot 105 were compressed and crumpled from a squeezing together of the crustal plates after subduction ceased. They were folded (crumpled) and slightly recrystallised (or metamorphosed) to form steeply inclined strata of meta-sedimentary rocks. Eventually, they were thrust up above sea level, probably to form high mountainous terrain. These formations, named the Neranleigh-Fernvale Beds, are now exposed on the site and form the high ridgeline to the immediate west of the Gold Coast.

The four main rock types of the Neranleigh–Fernvale beds are listed below. They are hard, chiefly meta-sedimentary rocks and greenstone which are now folded and generally steeply inclined:

7


> Argillite (hardened and slightly recrystallised mudstone or shale). Dark grey to black, very fine grained, bedding or banding commonly visible, grades into an inferior type of slate. Closely fractured in many exposures, gives shallow pale soils. Some slate has been used for decorative walls on the Gold Coast.

> Greywacke (hardened and slightly recrystallised coarse-grained sediment of mixed composition). Dark grey, hard, with grains of quartz and feldspar and fragments of other rocks. Large angular fragments of black shale from surrounding sediments common in places. Forms thick bands with few traces of individual beds and, where exposed, has a blocky appearance, gives shallow, pale, rocky soils. It is an important source of crushed rock aggregate for construction uses.

> Quartzite (recrystallised chert). White to light grey, in places pink, very hard and tough, very fine grained. Where black and little recrystallised, could still be called Chert. Banded in places, massively blocky in others. Closely fractured, gives a reddish soil. It has been worked in quarries for road gravels.

> Greenstone (recrystallised basaltic volcanic rocks). Greenish-grey, fine grained, blocky appearance in exposures with few traces of original flows. Gives chocolate soils on weathering.

As detailed in Section 2.2 and on Figure 4-38 of the Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design Report, Lot 105 is dominated by meta-greywacke of the Neranleigh-Fernvale Beds. This geological unit hosts the majority of extractive industry resources in the area. The principal rock types on the site are meta-greywacke and argillite and both rock types area variably exposed in subcrop and sporadic outcrop across the site. By volume, greywacke accounts for approximately 85-90% of the extractive resource on site.

4.2.3.1.3 Results of Geological Investigations

Detailed geological investigations were carried out as part of the EIS investigations. Overall, the results of the drilling campaign, identified significant resources of meta-greywacke, which in a fresh to slightly weathered state, was hard, strong and durable. It was occasionally thinly interbedded with carbonaceous meta-siltstone and/or contained occasional small clasts of meta-siltstone. The total volume of argillite within the rock mass is estimated to be around 15% of the total rock mass.

A series of oblique cross-sections have been prepared across Lot 105 detailing the geology as well as the depth of the weathering profile. These cross-sections are detailed in Figure 4-39a to Figure 4-39e of the Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design report.

A petrological analysis, which is a study of rock mineral composition at hand specimen or microscopic scale, was completed for some of the rock samples collected from the drilling regime. The results of the petrology on the rock indicate that for engineering purposes, the main meta-greywacke resource on site may be summarised as:

> hard;

> strong;

> durable;

> finely re-crystallised;

> non-porous;

> essentially unweathered;

> lightly altered;

> variable secondary mineral content ranging between 10 and 30%; and

> suitable for use as most high specification quarry products including unbound pavement materials, asphalt and concrete aggregates.

For engineering purposes, the meta-greywacke when unweathered is interpreted to be hard, durable and of high or very high strength. In regard to the quality of the meta argillite rocks on Lot 105, this rock type is generally less suitable for use as high specification construction materials however, it will readily blend in with


the meta greywacke resource and, in some instances, will actually improve the characteristics of road base materials by increasing the plasticity and liquid limits of the road construction materials.

A program of laboratory testing was carried out on bulk drill core samples to assess the suitability of the rock for the manufacture of quarried products. The test results show excellent rock quality with little variation in engineering properties, when compared against both Australian Standards and the Department of Transport and Main Roads Standards.

On the basis of the rock formation on the site, it is viewed that the physical properties of the rock are suitable in the context of blasting activities that will be undertaken on the site. Furthermore, the Blasting Impact report prepared for the EIS demonstrates that compliance can be achieved with the regulatory parameters with respect to vibration.

Given that the operation of the proposed development will occur within the boundaries of Lot 105, it is not viewed as being necessary to undertake soil surveys of land adjoining the boundaries of Lot 105.

4.2.3.1.4 Acid Sulfate Soils

The investigations included as part of the Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design report did not specifically reveal the presence of acid sulphate soils.

As a result, a desktop analysis has been undertaken as part of the Contamination – Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation report. Section 7.0 of this particular technical report includes the following statements of note with respect to the potential presence of acid sulphate soils:

> State Planning Policy 2/02 – Planning and Managing Development Involving Acid Sulfate Soils (SPP 2/02) states that: “The SPP 2/02 was made under Schedule 4 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) and has effect when certain development applications are assessed. Within local government areas listed in Annex 1, the SPP applies to all land, soil and sediment at, or below, 5 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD) where the natural ground level is less than 20 metres AHD (SPP 2/02)”.

> Site survey information obtained via LiDAR 2009 data indicated that Lot 105 comprises deep gullies and steep hill sides with elevations ranging from approximately 14 m Australian Height Datum (AHD) in the eastern portion of the site where the main creek exits Lot 105, to approximately 147 m AHD on the ridgeline in the north-western portion of the site. No excavation will occur at the site below 5 m AHD and thus the SPP does not apply.

> Review of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (NR&M) Acid Sulfate Soils Map (Map 1, Tweed Heads to Redcliffe 1:100 000 NR&M-SEA-I-A0 3260) refers to the site as NA. This code represents the following information:

NA: Land Not Assessed for ASS as part of this survey. It may include non ASS land beyond the boundary established as the limit of Holocene, estuarine and sulfidic sediments but insufficient or no field testing was carried out.

> Review of the Gold Coast City Council’s “Planning & Development Online Map Search” with the constraint overlay OM14 – Acid Sulfate Soils indicates that Lot 105 appears to be located in an area not within an “Acid Sulfate Soil Hazard Area”. The areas of potential ASS depicted on this map are indicative only and are based on 5 m AHD.

Based on review of data from two (2) different sources, the results indicate a low risk of ASS and an ASS Investigation is not required under the SPP 2/02. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that there will be any issues associated with acid producing rock and the potential for acid mine drainage.

4.2.3.1.5 Overburden

The geological investigations found the depth and degree of weathering to be variable across Lot 105. The weathering profile of the resource has been modelled in three dimensions, and is based on drill hole information. To simplify the modelling process, the weathering classifications have been grouped into the following classes based on similar physical properties:

> Fresh or Unweathered


> Slightly Weathered

> Distinctly Weathered

> Extremely Weathered and Residual Soil (Overburden)

An Overburden Management Plan has been prepared and is submitted in Appendix V.

These classes are reflected in Section 4.0 of the Overburden Management Plan:

> Topsoil has been designated as, on average, the top 50mm of organic soil across the disturbance footprint. Topsoil will not be removed from the site, instead stockpiled for future reuse in rehabilitation.

> Overburden (on site) material is designated as the following two layers:

Soil/overburden (Residual soil)

Greywacke/Argillite (Distinctly weathered)

This material will be primary crushed on site and utilised within site for earthworks and filling requirements.

> Overburden (off site) material is designated as the following two layers:

Soil/overburden (Residual soil)

Greywacke/Argillite (Distinctly weathered)

This material will be primary crushed on site and exported off site as fill material. This material represents the surplus of the overburden required for the onsite earthworks.

> Rock suitable to produce quarry product for sale is designated as the following two layers:

Greywacke and/or Argillite (Slightly weathered)

Greywacke and/or Argillite (Fresh)

This material will be crushed on site and exported off site as both road base material and/or aggregates.

The following table details the volumes of topsoil and overburden that will be generated during the Establishment and Development Stages of the project.

Table 4-2: Material volumes during Establishment and Development

Phase Topsoil (t) Overburden

(Onsite)(t) Overburden (Offsite)(t)

Rock (Product)(t)

Est

ablis

hmen

t Phase E1 1,035 - 57,800 -

Phase E2 5,220 95,760 233,440 -

Phase E3 2,880 115,900 263,200 -

Dev

elop

men

t

Phase D1 8,640 - 768,099 279,005

Phase D2 - - 751,027 559,086

Phase D3 6,300 24,890 745,557 559,086

Phase D4 - - 213,828 540,434

Con

st’n

Phase C1 1,292 - 307,472 0

Phase C2 3,955 - 941,183 0

TOTAL 29,322 236,550 4,281,606 1,937,611


Both Overburden (off site) and Rock (product) will be exported from Lot 105, representing a total of approximately 6 million tonnes of exported material prior to the proposed quarry entering its Operational Stage.

4.2.3.1.6 Use of Overburden

Section 6.0 of the Overburden Management Plan provides a commentary on the anticipated uses for the overburden that will be extracted from Lot 105 which is summarised as follows:

> Topsoil

Topsoil will be stockpiled on site for future reuse. A general protocol for topsoil handling is detailed below:

The surface of the completed stockpiles will be left in a “rough” condition to help promote water infiltration and minimise erosion prior to vegetation establishment.

Topsoil stockpiles will have a maximum height of 3m in order to limit the potential for anaerobic conditions to develop within the soil pile.

Topsoil stockpiles to have an embankment grade of approximately 1V:4H (to limit the potential for erosion of the outer pile face).

Topsoil stockpiles will be seeded and fertilised.

Soil rejuvenation practices will be undertaken if required prior to respreading as part of rehabilitation works.

> Overburden (on site)

Overburden (onsite) will be used as controlled fill for the pads, embankments and dams required for the proposed quarry. This material will be processed and placed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards for Earthworks. General guidelines for fill placement are detailed below:

Fill material should be placed in near-horizontal layers of uniform thickness, deposited systematically across the fill area.

The thickness of each layer should be appropriate to the compaction equipment to be used and test procedures to be adopted.

The maximum particle size of any rocks or other lumps within the layer, after compaction, generally should not exceed two-thirds of the compacted layer thickness.

> Overburden (off site)

The general strategy for Overburden (offsite) may be:

Sale to market, dependent on market conditions.

Transport of material to another large fill project.

Transport of material to the West Burleigh Quarry for controlled filling activities.

During the initial development stage of the quarry, hard rock product will also be extracted in addition to the overburden. During this stage a significant quantity of rock is to be excavated to produce a flat crushing plant and support facilities platform. In total approximately 1.9 million tonnes of rock is expected to be processed (via mobile crushing plants) into road bases and aggregates suitable for engineering uses. This material will supplement or replace product traditionally supplied from the West Burleigh Quarry into the commercial market.


The following sections summarise the potential impacts of the project and the measures which are proposed to mitigate those potential impacts.


Slope Failure

The potential for the failure of a slope, namely a quarry bench, presents a potential risk.

Data was kinematically/stereographically assessed and then further modelled in three dimensions to confirm failure envelopes, planes of intersection and resultant failure mechanisms for each of the geotechnical domains identified. A total of eleven main geotechnical domains were identified in the proposed extraction area, whilst several minor domains were briefly assessed. The Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design report details that a standardised rock mass rating system (RMR/GSI) was utilised to provide a geotechnical risk rating map for the proposed development. This is detailed in Figure 3-21(a) to Figure 3-21(e) and Figure 4-35(a) to Figure 4-35(e).

The geotechnical domain/RMR map and risk rating maps (i.e. Figure 8 and Figure 10) clearly demonstrate that, while the proposed quarry development will have industry standard risks with respect to potential rock fall and other operational geotechnical issues, this project is of inherently lower risk when benchmarked against similar quarries in the Neranleigh-Fernvale rock mass. This is fundamentally because the rock is extremely strong, hard and durable and, while the rock mass is moderately to highly jointed, the joint conditions are generally good when unweathered.

In terms of failure mechanisms occurring in relation to the bench and batter designs, the main orientation of the bedding and other discontinuity sets will result in formation of small scale < 30 kilogram localised wedge, toppling, siding and step path failures in most bench areas, which will be adequately restrained by the nominated terminal bench thicknesses. From the proponent’s design experience in ‘blocky’ ground conditions, and when multiple failure types occur in each bench and batter configuration, the most effective geotechnical design and commensurately rock fall barrier and protection measure is adequate bench width. This is because the multiple failure types can then be managed as a rock mass rather than individual geotechnical features. To further improve bench performance it is recommended that bench clean-up work and scaling activities prior to bench rehabilitation are completed or alternatively smooth wall blasting techniques (i.e. pre splitting could be used). Minor rotational failures are likely to occur in the upper domain of the project area and this type of soft sediment failure will combine with minor discontinuities within the rock mass to produce small scale localised failures within upper bench areas. The geotechnical assessment confirms that the project has a low risk of large scale geotechnical failure.

Overall bench performance is expected to be good.

Section 7 of the Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design report provides further comments in relation to the risk analysis, while Section 8 provides an overview of the recommendations associated with minimising safety issues associated with the identified risks.

4.2.3.2.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Program

An Erosion and Sediment Control Program (ESCP) has been prepared by Lambert & Rehbein in response to Chapter 4.2.3 of the Terms of Reference (Appendix W)

The Erosion and Sediment Control Program serves to provide details of the erosion and sediment control measures which can be implemented during the Establishment Stage (Phases E2 and E3) and Development Stage (Phase D1) of the proposed quarry development on Lot 105.

The ESCP details that it will be in place until the permanent controls (i.e. the sedimentation pond) are established, after which the Stormwater Management Plan will take precedence. The Stormwater Management Plan is contained in Appendix EE. Overall, the Erosion and Sediment Control Program is clear and self-explanatory in terms of identifying and describing:

> Policies that are required to be adhered to as part of the ongoing sediment and erosion and sediment control program (Section 4.0);

> The performance requirements that are to be met, including the achievement of the water quality objectives identified in the Water Resource and Floodplain Management report (Appendix CC). These aspects are detailed in Section 5.0 of the ESCP.


> The process for adjusting performance indicators associated with erosion and sediment control, dust nuisance and complaint response (Section 6.0).

> The identification of the procedures that are to be implemented during the relevant establishment and development phases of the project (Section 7.0).

Section 8.0 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program details potential impacts that have been identified, which include:

> Dust nuisance control;

> Depositing of soil or other construction materials onto roadways from construction traffic activities;

> Public amenity with regard to haulage of transported earthworks; and

> Sediment infiltration into adjacent drainage waterways from site runoff or decanting of sediment basin.

Section 9.0 and Section 10.0 provide an overview of the best management practice strategies and actions that will be implemented in order to reduce the potential for the impacts identified in Section 8.0.

The on-going maintenance, monitoring and reporting aspects associated with the Erosion and Sediment Control Program is clearly detailed in Section 11.0 of the document.

In terms of the Stormwater Management Plan that will be implemented after Phase D1 of the project, the following is noted:

> The report addresses the methods to provide stormwater drainage, stormwater storage and sediment control from Phase D1 of the Development and Construction Stage and onwards. It determines the operational considerations for the control of stormwater during the operation stage of the project. Prior to Phase D1 sediment and erosion control is to be in accordance with the recommendations of the Sediment and Erosion Control Program produced for the EIS

> The site generally has three (3) catchment areas that will report to two (2) water release points, the exact extents of the catchments will vary as the pit progresses through its operational life – the catchments are:

Plant area catchment - the plant area catchment will free drain to the sedimentation pond for storage and potential release;

Pit area catchment – the pit area catchment will be pumped to the quarry dam for storage and potential release; and

Dam area catchment - the dam area catchment will free drain to the quarry dam for storage and potential release.

> The sediment control details are contained in Section 5.0 of the Stormwater Management Plan, which also includes detailed relating to the primary outlet and emergency spillway associated with the sedimentation pond.

4.2.3.2.2 Acid Sulfate Soils

No mitigation measures are required on the basis that the presence of acid sulphate soils is not anticipated.


4.2.4 Land contamination


The Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation – Contamination prepared by Lambert & Rehbein addresses the requirements of section 4.2.4 of the Terms of Reference (Appendix U).

A search of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Environmental Management Register (“EMR”) and Contaminated Land Register (“CLR”) indicates that Lot 105 on SP144215 and Lot 901 on RP907357 are not included on the EMR or the CLR.

Based on a site inspection and the past and present land uses of the site, the following potential contaminants of interest were identified across the site:

> Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (“TPH”) and possible Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (“PAH”) associated with the isolated drilling fluid leaks which occurred during the installation of the on-site groundwater monitoring wells and resource evaluation boreholes;

> Heavy metals and metalloids and TPH associated with isolated areas where vehicles, general rubbish, cans etc. have been incinerated;

> Asbestos sheeting associated with illegal dumping; and

> Organochlorine Pesticides (“OCP”) and Organophosphorous Pesticides (“OPP”) associated with the former nursery operation.

It is unlikely that the above contaminant concentrations would exceed the Health Based Investigation Levels for Commercial/Industrial Land use.

The following recommendations are made to manage the above potential contaminants of interest:

> Surface soil sampling be conducted at the potentially contaminated areas to characterise the material for off-site disposal (if required) and on-site land farming for the hydrocarbon contamination; and

> General rubbish and asbestos be transported off-site to a licensed facility.


The potential sources of contamination present during the Establishment, Development and Construction Stages for the proposed quarrying activities include:

> Wheel-wash and associated oil/water separator

> Spills and leaks associated with vehicle parking areas (HME parking) and limited vehicle maintenance

> Spills associated with refuelling activities

> Distillate Above Ground Self-Bunded Storage Tanks and associated spills during re-fuelling

> Excavators, loaders, dump trucks and hydraulic drilling rig blowing hoses

> Water Extenders added to the Water Truck

> Foam agent added into the crushing and screening process stream


> Package Treatment Plant

The potential sources of contamination during the Quarrying Operation Stage include:

> Bitumen Emulsion (e.g. pre-coated aggregates – Amine Plus) and associated oil-water separator system

> Distillate Above Ground Self-Bunded Storage Tanks and associated spills during re-fuelling

> Vehicle Workshop and associated waste oil sump

> Lubricant Oil Storage (engine oil, transmission oil) and associated waste oil sump/oil-water separator


> Waste Oil Filters

> Wheel-wash and associated oil/water separator

> Package Treatment Plant

> Oil Change area (1,000L lubricant) in the vicinity of the cluster of covered crushers (two x secondary and three x tertiary)

> Spills and leaks associated with vehicle parking areas (HME parking)

> Hydraulic Drilling rig blowing hoses

> Explosives

> Gas Tanks (bottles storage)

> Foam agent added into the crushing and screening process stream



The management strategies for the potential sources of contamination to be employed both during the pre-Quarrying Stages and the Quarrying Stage of the project are detailed below.

Table 4-3: Management strategies for contamination sources

source / Activity Management Strategy

Bitumen Emulsion (e.g. pre-coated aggregates – Amine Plus) and associated oil-water separator system

> Pre-coated aggregate will be stored under permanent roofing;

> Run-off (if any) will be controlled from the stockpiles by means of lined drains which drain into a sump an oil/water separator; and

> Stockpiles will be located on an impervious hardstand area.

Distillate Above Ground Self-Bunded Storage Tanks and associated spills during re-fuelling

Approximately 80,000 L of diesel storage will be required. Self-bunded above ground container will be utilised (Transtank). This means when being installed they do not require additional bunding as noted in A.S. 1940 the Australian standard used for the storage and dispensing of flammable and combustible products.

The tank will be double walled and built to contain product should there be a leak. The tanks will be independently designed and are fully certified to comply with all the design requirements including, overfill protection supplied with mechanical shutoff and audible / visual alarm.

The design of the tanks is based on international ISO container standards so the units can be shipped via conventional container lock systems. This allows for movement of the tanks should the need arise. Therefore making the tanks re-usable in other locations.

The tank will be complete and fully compliant with all standards. The tank will be complete with Boral’s required dispensing system.

The refuelling area in the vicinity of the Transtank should comprise an impervious hardstand area which drains into a sump to accommodate any spillage during refuelling. This sump should get pumped out by a licensed contractor on an “as need” basis.

Vehicle Workshop and associated waste oil sump

> The floor of the workshop shall be an impervious hardstand;

> The workshop will be covered;

> A designated hand-wash area within the vehicle workshop will drain into the waste oil sump and separator, and not be directed to Septic or Mains;

> Spills will be managed by an on-site spill kit whereby the resulting contaminated product will be scraped from the floor and placed in a clearly labelled designated bin for transportation off-site by a nominated licensed waste contractor; and

> The hardstand will be bunded (small concrete hump) at the open entry and/or exit sides of the workshop to contain any major spills. Any major spills within the workshop area will drain into a centralised sump and associated oil/water separator. It is estimated approximately 2,000 L will be removed by a licensed waste contractor every four (4) to six (6) weeks.

Lubricant Oil Storage (engine oil, transmission oil)

Approximately 10,000 L of lubricant oil storage will be required. A combination of bulk tanks will be utilised. Reticulated dispensing will include 3,000 L of engine oil storage and



and associated waste oil sump/oil-water separator

transmission oil. Approximately 1,000 L of hydraulic oil will be stored in plastic ISO containers.

> All engine oil, transmission fluid and grease will be supplied in 1,000 L reticulated ISO containers. These containers will be supplied on service exchange and recycled; and

> All ISO containers will be located in a bunded area whereby any spills will drain into a waste oil sump accompanied by an oil/water separator.

Waste Oil Filters Waste oil filters will be placed in nominated bins and transported off-site by a licensed waste contractor.

Wheel-wash and associated oil/water

separator

A wheel wash will be constructed to allow for contained water recycle and oil/water separation. Oil will be transported off-site by a licensed waste contractor on an “as need” basis.

An example of a cost effective innovative product is the SPEL PuraceptorTM. It is a full retention separator that treats all flows and is sized to contain more than the anticipated maximum oil spillage enabling it to be fully operational at all times. It has two chambers, a coalescer and is fitted with an automatic closure device specifically designed to treat and contain major spills thereby making it suitable for high risk applications. It achieves a water discharge quality of 5mg light liquids per litre complying with European Standard BS EN858.1.2006. This product is suitable for all areas on the site requiring oil/water separation devices.

Package Treatment Plant To mitigate any microbiological concerns pertaining to the package treatment plant, the plant will be constructed on an impervious hardstand which drains to a contained collection point.

Oil Change area (1,000L lubricant) in the vicinity of the cluster of covered crushers (two x secondary and three x tertiary)

> A 1,000 L double skin tank and bay will be utilised; and

> An impervious bunded hardstand area will be constructed.

Spills and leaks associated with vehicle parking areas (HME parking)

> A bunded area will be constructed to accommodate HME parking. The area will be designed so that it internally drains to a concrete sump and weir that comprises a hydrocarbon sock or similar to minimise the impact during a significant spill event; and

> The surface-water run-off from the HME parking area will not drain directly into the sediment pond, rather be managed in the immediate vicinity of the parking area.

General Spills and Leaks > Spill Kits will be placed at nominated areas across the site; and

> The resulting material will be placed in a in a clearly labelled designated bin for transportation off-site by a nominated licensed waste contractor

Hydraulic drilling rig/ excavator/ loaders/ trucks blowing hoses

> Spill Kits will be placed at nominated areas across the site; and

> The resulting material will be placed in a in a clearly labelled designated bin for transportation off-site by a nominated licensed waste contractor.

Explosives Excess explosives (down-hole) will be destroyed only by the provider of the explosives (Orica) in accordance with guidelines detailed in document Orica-exp-OM-3-0070.

Gas Tanks (bottled storage) Gas Tanks (O2 and CO2) will be stored in a dedicated ‘cylinder only’ area in accordance with AS4332 (2004) The storage and handling of gases in cylinders.

Full or empty compressed gas cylinders will be stored in a well-ventilated area, preferably in the open, with some weather protection.

The area on which cylinders are stored must be well-drained to prevent corrosion of cylinder bases. The location must be free from the risk of fire and well away from sources of heat or ignition.

Vertically stored cylinders must always be secured or under Boral’s direct control.

Within the storage area, oxidising gases such as oxygen must be stored at least three (3) metres away from fuel gas cylinders. The use of an appropriately fire rated wall may provide the required separation.

Full cylinders must be stored separately from the empty cylinders, and cylinders of different gases whether full or empty must be segregated from each other.

Where security is an issue, there is available a wide variety of Gas Cylinder Storage



Systems which satisfy the cylinder storage requirements of AS 4332.

Water Extenders added to the Water Truck

MSDS’s of all water extender products will be retained on site including:

> Heavy Water Dust Suppressant (Water extender & Compaction Aid);

> Hi-Foam, Foaming Dust Suppressant; and

> Total Ground Control Dust Suppressant/Erosion Control/Long Term Crusting Agent.

TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes

PAH = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

The proponent is aware of its responsibility under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to notify the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection when it becomes aware that the site has been or is being used for a notifiable activity or contaminated by a hazardous contaminant.

When a landowner notifies the Department that the land has been used for a notifiable activity the land is recorded on the EMR.

On cessation of quarrying activities, it is recommended that a Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation (“DSI”) be conducted to assess the contamination status of the site and provide recommendations pertaining to remedial requirements and removal of the site from the EMR.


4.3 Nature Conservation To address Chapter 4.3 of the Terms of Reference, Cardno Chenoweth have prepared the following technical assessment reports:

> Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X);

> Landscape Rehabilitation Report (Appendix N); and

> Koala Management Plan (Appendix Y).

Cardno Chenoweth has also prepared a Matters of National Environmental Significance Report, however this specifically relates to Chapter 11 of the EIS. It is noted that some of the discussion provided in the following sections have been informed by the Matters National of Environmental Significance Report.

FRC Environmental has prepared an Aquatic Ecology Assessment that specifically responds to Chapter 4.3.4 of the Terms of Reference, which is contained in Appendix BB.

The indigenous cultural heritage assessment completed for the EIS did not reveal any vegetation species on the subject site that would be considered to be of indigenous value. This is to be expected given that the majority of Lot 105 had been cleared of vegetation for agricultural purposes. Refer to Chapter 4.10.

This Chapter of the EIS summarises each of those respective technical assessments.

4.3.1 Sensitive Environmental Areas

4.3.1.1 Description of Environmental Impacts

The existing flora and fauna assemblages of the proposed Gold Coast Quarry site were investigated as part of the EIS. Investigations were primarily undertaken during both dry season and wet season sampling periods (June/August 2012 and November/December 2012) to allow for seasonal differences.

The technical report has identified the areas of environmental sensitivity that exist on and in proximity to the site.

Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 provide a detailed assessment of the environmental values on the site in terms of terrestrial fauna and terrestrial flora. The following Table 4-1 summarises the areas which have been identified as environmentally sensitive for the purposes of the EIS.

Table 4-1 also provides cross-references to the specific technical assessment report which provides a detailed assessment of each environmentally sensitive area.

Table 4-1: Overview of Results from Mapping and Field Investigations

Environmentally Sensitive Area Comment Relevant Technical Report

Areas regarded as sensitive with respect to flora and fauna have one or more of the following features and which should be identified and mapped

Important habitats of species listed under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) and/or the EPBC Act as presumed extinct, endangered, vulnerable or near threatened.

A total of 8 flora species and 2 fauna species were recorded on Lot 105 as being threatened. These recordings were confirmed as part of the on-site surveys.

Feeding resource trees associated with glossy black cockatoos were discovered on Lot 105.

Section 2.3.6.2, Section 3.5 and Section 3.7.1 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Regional ecosystems listed as 'endangered' or 'of concern' or ‘least concern’ under state legislation, and/or ecosystems listed as presumed extinct, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

Endangered and Least Concern regional ecosystems have been mapped on Lot 105.

Lot 105 does not contain any ecosystems listed as presumed extinct, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

Section 2.3.3 and Section 2.3.5 as well as Figure 3 and Figure 7 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Good representative examples of Lot 105 does contain remnant regional Section 2.3.5 of the Flora and Fauna



remnant regional ecosystems or regional ecosystems that are described as having ‘medium’ or ‘low’ representation in the protected area estate as defined in the Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD).

ecosystems that are of a ‘low’ representation.

Technical Report (Appendix X).

Sites listed under international treaties such as Ramsar wetlands and World Heritage areas.

No Ramsar wetlands or World Heritage areas are associated with Lot 105.

Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.1.3 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Appendix BB).

Sites containing near threatened or bio-regionally significant species or essential, viable habitat for near threatened or bio-regionally significant species.


Section 2.3.6.2, and Section 3.5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Sites in, or adjacent to, areas containing important resting, feeding or breeding sites for migratory species of conservation concern listed under the Bonn Convention, and/or bilateral agreements between Australia and other countries.

Lot 105 is utilised as a nesting site for the migratory, EPBC listed white-bellied sea eagle.

Lot 105 is not adjacent to any sites or areas containing important resting, feeding or breeding sites for migratory species.

Section 3.5.2.4 and Section 3.6 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Matters of Environmental Significance Report (Appendix UU).

Sites adjacent to nesting beaches, feeding, resting or calving areas of species of special interest, for example, marine turtles, dugong and cetaceans.

Lot 105 is not located adjacent to any nesting beaches, feeding, resting or calving areas for species such as marine turtles, dugong and cetaceans.

Sites containing common species that represent a distributional limit and are of scientific value or which contains feeding, breeding, resting areas for populations of echidna, koala, platypus and other species of special cultural significance.

Koalas are known to utilise Lot 105 for habitat / feeding purposes.

Though not identified during field surveys, it is expected that the echidna would also exist on Lot 105.

Koala Management Plan (Appendix Y

Section 3.5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Sites containing high biodiversity that are of a suitable size or with connectivity to corridors, including the Springbrook to Burleigh Heads bioregional corridor and to protected areas to ensure survival in the longer term; such land may contain:

Lot 105 is identified as being within the Burleigh Heads to Springbrook bioregional corridor.

Approximately 70% of Lot 105 will be retained as a vegetated buffer. This area will be rehabilitated and restored to assist with maintaining the existing corridor values. This work will focus on the restoration of the watercourse area south and south-east of the disturbance footprint.

Section 3.7.2 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Section 4.3, Section 6 and Section 8.2.3 of the Landscape Rehabilitation Report (Appendix N)

> Natural vegetation in good condition or other habitat in good condition (e.g. wetlands).

The largest patch of remnant 12.11.23 vegetation will be retained on Lot 105.


> Degraded vegetation or other habitats that still support high levels of biodiversity or act as an important corridor for maintaining high levels of biodiversity in the area.

Approximately 70% of Lot 105 will be retained as a vegetated buffer. This area will be rehabilitated and restored to assist with maintaining the existing corridor values.

Section 4.3, Section 6 and Section 8.2.3 of the Landscape Rehabilitation Report (Appendix N)

A site containing other special ecological values, for example, high habitat diversity and areas of high endemism.

Other than Lot 105’s inclusion in the Burleigh Heads to Springbrook bioregional corridor, the known threatened species and the white-bellied sea eagle’s nest, Lot 105 does

Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).



not contain any other special ecological values.

Ecosystems that provide important ecological functions such as:

> Wetlands of national, state and regional significance.

No wetlands of national, state and regional significance are situated within the disturbance footprint on Lot 105. However, there are man-made dams that support habitats for aquatic flora and fauna.

There are several State-mapped wetlands within approximately 2 km of the project area.

Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.1.3 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Chapter 4.3.4 of the EIS and Appendix BB).

> Riparian vegetation. Areas of riparian vegetation exist along the watercourses identified on Lot 105.

Section 4.2.3 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Appendix BB).

> Important buffer to a protected area.

Not applicable

> Important habitat corridor between areas.

Approximately 70% of Lot 105 will be retained as a vegetated buffer. This area will maintain habitat values for fauna.

Section 3.7 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X)

Declared fish habitat areas and sites containing protected plants under the Fisheries Act 1994.

Lot 105 is not identified as being within a declared fish habitat area, nor does it contain protected plants under the Fisheries Act 1994.

Section 2.2.4 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Appendix BB).

Sites of palaeontologic significance, such as fossil sites.

There were no sites of palaeontologic significance discovered on Lot 105 as part of the completion of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report or the Aquatic Ecology Assessment.

Sites of geomorphological significance, such as lava tubes or karst.

The geological work that has been completed for Lot 105 identified no areas of geomorphological significance.

Section 2.2 of the Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design report prepared by Groundwork Plus (Appendix Q).

Protected areas that have been proclaimed under the NC Act and Marine Parks Act 1982 or are under consideration for proclamation.

In terms of the Marine Parks Act 1982, there are no protected areas or areas under consideration for proclamation in relation to Lot 105.

With respect to the NC Act, there are no proclaimed areas of protection in the vicinity of Lot 105.

Section 2.3 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Appendix BB).

Areas of major interest, or critical habitat declared under the NC Act or high nature conservation value areas or areas vulnerable to land degradation under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VM Act).

No areas of major interest or critical habitat declared under the NC Act was discovered on Lot 105.

Section 2.3.5 and Section 2.3.6 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Areas of special sensitivity include:

The marine environment and wetlands.

Lot 105 does not contain, nor is it adjacent to any marine environments.

There are no wetlands within the disturbance footprint; however, there are man-made dams that support habitats for aquatic flora and fauna.

There are several State-mapped

Section 2.1.3, Section 2.1.6, Section 2.1.7 and Section 2.8 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Appendix BB).



wetlands within approximately 2 km of the project area

Wildlife breeding or roosting areas. Lot 105 is utilised as a nesting site for the migratory, EPBC listed white-bellied sea eagle.



Any significant habitat or relevant bird flight paths for migratory species.

Lot 105 is known to be a nesting site for the migratory White-bellied sea eagle

Other migratory fauna species that have been previously recorded on Lot 105.



Bat roosting and breeding caves, including existing structures such as audits and shafts.

No bat roosting and breeding caves were identified on Lot 105.

Section 3.5.2.1 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Habitat of threatened plants, animals and communities.


Section 2.3.6.2, and Section 3.5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).


The potential impacts of the project on sensitive environmental areas have been assessed. The proponent has designed the project sensitively and to directly avoid and minimise any potentially adverse impacts on sensitive environmental areas in the locality. Any residual impacts which cannot be avoided or minimised have been addressed with mitigation measures that ensure the project does not have an unacceptable impact on the values of environmentally sensitive areas.

The clearing of existing vegetation on Lot 105 is an unavoidable impact of the project. The project has been designed to minimise the extent of vegetation clearing that is required to only approximately 30% of Lot 105, leaving approximately 70% of the land area as a vegetated buffer. As detailed in Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3, rehabilitation, restoration and on-going management regimes will be undertaken within the buffer area to enhance the habitat and connectivity values of the site and mitigate the impacts of the necessary vegetation clearing.

The following table summarises the potential impacts of the project together with a general overview of the relevance of the impact identified in Section 4.3.1 of the Terms of Reference. It is to be noted that specific mitigation measures for the identified impacts are detailed within the technical reports identified in the table below. Furthermore, the responses Section 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of the Terms of Reference also provide specific comments in terms of mitigation measures.

Table 4-2: Overview of Identified Potential Impacts and Associated Mitigation Measures

Element Outlined in TOR Comment Relevant Technical Report

Impact of the project on species, communities and habitats of local, regional or national significance in sensitive environmental areas as identified.

The proposed quarry development will not result in the removal of any nationally significant flora species. The koala, white-bellied sea eagle, some bat species and the glossy black cockatoo are all fauna species that utilise Lot 105. The project involves mitigation measures that reduce potential impacts on these species and enhance the quality of habitat within the buffer area.

Some mapped remnant ecosystem vegetation will be required to be

Section 2.3.6.2, Section 3.5, Section 4 and Section 5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Koala Management Plan (Appendix Y).


Landscape Rehabilitation Report (Appendix N)



cleared in order to facilitate the proposed development. Flora species of local significance are also situated within the disturbance footprint.

An offset featuring rehabilitation and restoration works is proposed within the buffer area which will achieve an ecological equivalence.

Human impacts. The necessary clearing of vegetation is a direct human impact on the environmental values of Lot 105.

The extent of people on Lot 105 as a result of the development and operation of the quarry will not result in significant impacts on the natural environment. In any case, vehicles movements and human interaction could have an impact on fauna in particular.

In terms of the above, appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed within the identified technical reports. These measures are also discussed as part of responding to Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3 of the Terms of Reference..

Section 4 and Section 5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).

Section 9 and Section 10 of the Aquatic Ecology Report (Appendix BB).


Landscape Rehabilitation Report (Appendix N.

Vegetation Offset Proposal (Appendix Z).

Environmental Management Plan (Appendix TT).

Control of any domestic animals introduced to the area.

The project will not introduce domestic animals to the area.

Avoiding or minimising impact on areas of remnant vegetation and other areas of conservation value including listed species and their habitat.

The disturbance footprint of the proposed quarry will not result in the removal of any threatened flora species.

Koalas are known to utilise Lot 105. A net benefit to koalas will be achieved on Lot 105 as a result of rehabilitation and offset works.

Some mapped remnant ecosystem vegetation will be required to be cleared in order to facilitate the proposed development. A vegetation offset, which includes rehabilitation and restoration works, is proposed within the buffer area and will achieve ecological equivalence.

Section 2.3.6.2, Section 3.5, Section 4 and Section 5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).




Mitigating impacts through rehabilitation and restoration including, where relevant, a discussion of any relevant previous experience or trials of the proposed rehabilitation.

Approximately 70% of Lot 105 will be retained as a vegetated buffer.

Benches within the quarry are proposed to be progressively rehabilitated as part of the development. The Landscape Rehabilitation Report that has been prepared provides an outcome for how bench rehabilitation can be undertaken.

The proponent also has experience with rehabilitation as demonstrated on other quarry sites that are operated by the proponent throughout the State.


Measures to be taken to replace or offset the loss of conservation values

Environmental offsets are proposed within the buffer area to be retained on

Section 4.4 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Appendix X).



where avoidance and mitigation of impacts cannot be achieved.

Lot 105 to offset the clearing of ‘least concern’ and ‘endangered’ regional ecosystems, as well as koala habitat.

The proposed offset includes:

> a net benefit for koalas; and

> ecological equivalence for regional ecosystems


Landscape Rehabilitation Report (Appendix N).


Explain why the measures above would not apply in areas where loss would occur.

The requirement to clear vegetation is an unavoidable impact of the project despite the extent of clearing having been minimised as far as possible.

Given the nature of the proposed development, rehabilitation opportunities within the disturbance footprint will be minimal (with the exception of rehabilitating quarry benches). Vegetation preservation, rehabilitation and offset works are therefore proposed in the extensive buffer areas on the site.



Discuss the boundaries of the areas impacted by the project within or adjacent to an endangered ecological community, including details of footprint width. Where the project area would impact upon a threatened community, the discussion should include reasons for the preferred alignment and the viability of alternatives.

The disturbance footprint confirms the extent of development that will be undertaken on Lot 105. It is noted that the configuration of the disturbance footprint was based on the location of identified threatened species and ensuring that an appropriate separation distance could be achieved.

A small area of mapped endangered regional ecosystem will be required to be cleared in order to facilitate the proposed development. The clearing of this vegetation is necessary to provide vehicular access to the proposed quarry. Due to the configuration of Old Coach Road, this access point location represents the only viable option along the frontage of Lot 105.

The necessary clearing of vegetation will be offset by the rehabilitation and conservation works proposed within the buffer area.

The extent of development will not result in the removal of any individual threatened species of flora.



Address any actions of the project or likely impacts that require an authority under the NC Act, and/or would be assessable development for the purposes of the VM Act.

Lot 105 is covered by a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) which designates the majority of Lot 105 as non-remnant ‘Category X’ area.

The SPA provides an exemption from the need for development approval for clearing vegetation in a Category X area.

Clearing the small area of remnant vegetation on the site that cannot be avoided will require approval under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and the SPA.

Section 1.8 of the EIS



With respect to the NCA, approvals or licenses may be required with respect to the relocation of protected fauna and the clearing of protected flora. However, no threatened species were recorded within the disturbance footprint.

The provision of an environmental offset on the site is a key mitigation measure and a fundamental component of the project. A Vegetation Offset Proposal has been prepared as part of the EIS and is submitted at Appendix Z. The proposed offset has been formulated to respond to the requirements of the regulatory framework for environmental offsets in Queensland.

The regulatory framework for offsets in Queensland is multi-faceted and comprises the following offset policies:

> Offset for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy dated May 2010;

> Queensland Biodiversity Offset Policy (Version 1) dated 3 October 2011;

> Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (Version 3) dated 30 September 2011; and

> EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy dated October 2012.

The following table provides an overview of the respective offset polices and sets out their relevance to the project:

Table 4-3: Offset Policy Matrix

Policy Application Comments

Offset for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy

Not Applicable

Section 2 of the policy stipulates that it only applies when determining koala habitat offsets for applications for development assessed against requirements of the South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions where an offset is required under the provisions of the State Planning Regulatory Provision.

Lot 105 is outside the SPRP Koala Assessable Development Area.

Even though there is no requirement to, a net benefit for koalas has been achieved on Lot 105. Reference is to be made to the Koala Management Plan (Appendix Y).

Queensland Biodiversity Offset Policy (Version 1)

Not Applicable

Section 5 of the Queensland Biodiversity Offset Policy states explicitly that it does not apply to development that is a significant project declared under section 26(1) of the State Development Act.

Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (Version 3)

Applicable

Under the VMA, regional vegetation management codes and concurrence agency policy set out performance requirements for development applications for clearing native vegetation.

A land-based offset may be proposed by an applicant for particular development activities as a solution to meet specific performance requirements (PRs) that require a development to maintain the current extent of a particular regional ecosystem.

A Vegetation Offset Proposal has been developed (Appendix Z).

EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy

Applicable – but only if the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on protected matters.

Offsets are not required for all approvals under the EPBC Act. That is, they are not required where the


Policy Application Comments

The scope of the EPBC Offset Policy is set out in part 2. It applies to all protected matters under the EPBC Act and to offsetting requirements for land and aquatic (including marine) environments.

impacts of a proposed action are not thought to be Significant or could reasonably be avoided or mitigated.

In any case, and as demonstrated in the Matters of National Environmental Significance report, the proposed development does not have a significant impact on a protected matter. The Matters of National Environmental Significance report is submitted in Appendix UU.


4.3.2 Terrestrial Flora


The Flora and Fauna Technical Report prepared by Cardno Chenoweth provides an assessment of the existing flora assemblages of the proposed Gold Coast Quarry site. This technical report is submitted as (Appendix X).

> The methodology that was followed in conducting the on-site assessment of is set out at Section 2.2.2.5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report and can be summarised as follows:

> The Study Area covers 2.2km2, necessitating a minimum of 55 observations to map the entire area at a scale of 1:10,000.

> The methods prescribed to complete the 1:10,000 scale mapping include secondary and quaternary level sampling. The individual secondary and quaternary level samples represent individual observations.

> Table 2-9 in Section 2.3.3.1 confirms that a total of 101 observations were undertaken during the wet season (i.e. November / December 2012), while 76 observations were completed in the dry season (i.e. June / August 2012). Evidently, significantly more observations than the minimum required were completed.

> The secondary study areas consisted of a 50m x 10m plot located along the contour within vegetation communities that displayed homogeneity in terms of floristics, structure and age. Canopy cover was determined by extending the plot a further 50m to generate a 100m transect.

> Quaternary data primarily involved the recording of dominant canopy elements for locations recorded by the GPS that was utilised. The median canopy height was determined through ocular assessment at all quaternary study areas. Quaternary study areas were also utilised to record the presence of species previously not recorded elsewhere in the Study Area.

On the basis of the above, Figure 4-43 details the location of all of the secondary and quaternary observations that were completed within the Study Area. Attachment F of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report provides specific flora data associated with the secondary study areas, while Attachment G contains the data associated with the quaternary study areas.

The Flora and Fauna Technical Report includes the following maps that address the issues raised by the Terms of Reference:

Figure 4-41 – Regional Ecosystem Mapping;

Figure 4-42 – Biodiversity Planning Assessment Mapping;

Figure 4-43 – Flora Study Locations;

Figure 4-44 – Regional Ecosystems as Mapped at a Scale of 1:10,000;

Figure 4-45 – Threatened Flora Species;

Figure 4-46 – Proposed VMA Offset Area;

Figure 4-47 – Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) Map Extract;

Figure 4-48 – Staged Clearing Plan;

The mapping that has been completed for the purposes of Figure 4-44, Figure 4-45 and Figure 4-46 focuses primarily on the Study Area. Figure 4-41 and Figure 4-42 provide the context of the Study Area in relation to the surrounding area.

It is important to note that Lot 105 is subject to a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV). A copy of the PMAV for the site is submitted at Figure 4-47. The PMAV delineates an ‘Area that is subject to Certified Regional Ecosystem Mapping or other PMAVs’. That area largely correlates with the extent of vegetation that existed on the site in 1973. The balance of vegetation across Lot 105 is therefore considered to be non-remnant vegetation.


Figures 4-41, 4-42, 4-44 and 4-45 of the technical report provide vegetation mapping that describes the environmental values of the Study Area and addresses the particular requirements of Section 4.3.2 of the ToR. As a general overview, it is noted that a review of the aerial photography from 1973 confirms that much of Lot 105 was devoid of vegetation cover. Since 1973, vegetation has progressively regrown on the site.

The key findings of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report in response to the requirements of Section 4.3.2 of the TOR are summarised as follows:

> Section 2.3.1.1, Table 2-4 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report and Figure 4-41 describe and illustrate version 7.0 of the regional ecosystem mapping prepared by the Queensland Herbarium (2012) for the Study Area.

> Section 2.3.1.3 and Figure 4-42 describes the current extent (bioregional and catchment) of protected vegetation types of conservation significance within the protected area estate (i.e. national parks, conservation parks, resource reserves, nature refuges and conservation reserves under the Land Act 1991 (Qld)).

> Section 2.3.1.11 outlines Cardno Chenoweth’s review of the Gold Coast City Council Vegetation Community Representation Report. The regional ecosystems detailed in this report are reflected on Figure 4-41.

> Section 2.3.1.12 confirms relevant extracts of the 2003 Gold Coast Planning Scheme mapping delineating areas of ecological importance (i.e. Overlay Maps OM11—Natural Wetland and Waterway Areas and OM20—Conservation Strategy Plan) in the context of the Study Area.

> Section 2.3.3, Table 2-11 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report and Figure 4-44 (mapped at a scale of 1:10,000) identifies the regional ecosystems and associated areas. The Study Area was mapped as supporting areas of remnant and regrowth of ‘Endangered’, ‘Of Concern’ and ‘Least Concern’ regional ecosystems as well as areas of non-remnant vegetation. The assessment undertaken by Cardno Chenoweth confirmed the presence of all four (4) regional ecosystems previously mapped by the State;

> Section 2.3.5 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report outlines the representativeness of regional ecosystems confirmed within the Study Area at a scale of 1:10,000.

No national parks, conservation parks, resource reserves, nature refuges or conservation reserves under the Land Act 1991 within or adjacent to the boundaries of Lot 105.

The assessment completed by Cardno Chenoweth also confirmed the presence of eight (8) flora species scheduled as threatened under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and / or the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. These species include the:

> Silver leaf (Argophyllum nullumense)

> Long-leaved Tuckeroo (Supaniopsis newmanii)

> Ball-fruited walnut (Endiandra globosa)

> Slender milkvine (Marsdenia coronate)

> Birdwing butterfly vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa)

> Rhodamnia maideniana

> Durobby (Syzygium moorei) and

> Ribbon-root Orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri).

Significantly, none of these species were identified as occurring within the disturbance footprint. Reference is to be made to Section 2.3.6.2 and Figure 8 in the Flora and Fauna Technical Report.

The study also confirmed the presence of nine (9) species of local significance. Most species of local significance are located outside of the disturbance footprint. Where species of local significance occur within the disturbance footprint, they are represented elsewhere on Lot 105 and within the proposed buffer areas. The only exception to this is the occurrence of the otherwise common species, Coil Pod Wattle (Acacia


cincinnata) in a single location within the disturbance footprint. Attachment H of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report highlights the species of local significance discovered in the Study Area.

Section 2.2.4 outlines the methodology for identifying plant communities of cultural, commercial or recreational significance, while Section 2.3.6.3 and Attachment H identifies specific species of vegetation determined to be of cultural, commercial and recreational significance. The report indicates that there are a number of timber species commonly encountered within the proposed disturbance footprint including Eucalyptus carnea, E. microcorys, E. pilularis, E. siderophloia, E. tindaliae, Corymbia intermedia, C. henyri and Lophostemon confertus. Given the age and nature of the regrowth, the vegetation within the Study Area would not generally be suitable for commercial use.

Section 2.3.6.3 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report also details that no horticultural crops are located adjacent to the Study Area.

Section 2.3.6.4 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report specifically relates to weed species discovered in the Study Area as a result of the assessment. Field investigations identified 56 weed species occurring within the Study Area, and of these 9 were declared pests under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. These species are largely concentrated in areas of current or previous disturbance. Of particular note is the occurrence of the species Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Annual ragweed, a Class 2 weed under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002). Introduced plants observed within the Study Area are detailed in Attachment H of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report, while Attachment G indicates where these species were recorded in quaternary sites.

Table 4-4, Item C details the mitigation measures for dealing with weeds.


Section 4 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report details the potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with flora. Impacts will include those that are direct (specifically vegetation clearing) and those that potentially occur as an indirect consequence of clearing and/or operation of the project.

Overall, only approximately 30% of the total site area of Lot 105 will be cleared to facilitate the proposed quarry development. This clearing will be undertaken progressively in a staged approach over the life of the proposed quarry. The remaining 70% of Lot 105 will be maintained in a vegetated state. The buffer area will be subject to an on-going rehabilitation, restoration and management regime that will enhance the habitat and corridor values of the buffer area.

4.3.2.2.1 Impacts on Vegetation Communities

Direct impacts on vegetation communities will arise from the clearing of the proposed disturbance footprint to facilitate the quarry operations. Management access through the proposed vegetated buffer will be achieved through use of existing tracks and no additional clearing should be required for this purpose with the likely exception of a boundary track.

Parts of the proposed disturbance footprint comprise vegetation that will require offsetting for the purposes of the VMA.

Additional potential indirect impacts on remnant vegetation, and their predicted significance, are identified in Table 4-3 of Section 4.2.2 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report and include the following:

> over-clearing;

> increase in vegetation edges;

> movement of weed seed and/or introduction of new weeds on vehicles;

> introduction of new weeds or pathogens in construction materials and planting stock;

> poor construction techniques resulting in movement of sediment;

> uncontrolled public access to remnant vegetation;

> inappropriate burning regimes; and


> changes to groundwater.

4.3.2.2.2 Impacts on Significant Flora Species

Field studies identified the presence of significant flora species scheduled under the NCA and EPBC Act located both within and immediately surrounding the Study Area. No significant flora species were recorded within the proposed disturbance footprint and therefore the impacts of the project on significant flora species are likely to be indirect rather than direct.

Additional potential indirect impacts on significant flora species associated with the establishment and operation of the development, and their predicted significance, were identified. Those additional impacts are set out in detail at Table 4-4 of Section 4.2.3 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report and include:

> changes to the microclimate that supports threatened species;

> dust resulting from construction and operational activities;

> introduction of new weeds or pathogens in construction materials and planting stock;

> uncontrolled public access to remnant vegetation; and

> inappropriate burning regimes.

4.3.2.2.3 Impacts on Vegetation under Climate Change

Generally, climate change in the South East Queensland bioregion is expected to cause an increase in average temperature and evapotranspiration and a decrease in rainfall. As detailed in Section 4.2.4 of the technical report, for plants, water availability appears to be a more critical factor in causing plant death than an increase in temperature.

The vegetated buffer surrounding the proposed development footprint will allow for retention of habitat and migration of flora in response to climate change. Additional management measures including weed control will reduce the amount of stresses on natural ecosystems.

The Water Resources and Floodplain Management report prepared by BMT WBM identifies that no significant offsite impacts (offsite flood levels, flows, velocities or durations), including when accounting for potential effects of climate change, are predicted. It identifies that most residual impacts of surface water hydrology are low risk. There are two impacts that, pose a moderate risk after mitigation:

> The impact of increased volume and frequency of runoff and decreased base flow, altering hydrology of downstream waterways, impacting on waterway ecosystems and increasing erosion risk; and

> Changed hydrology of downstream areas impacting on aquatic ecosystems and increasing the risk of erosion.

The Water Resources and Floodplain Management report indicates that the above described potential impacts can be addressed by monitoring and responding appropriately (Appendix CC).

4.3.2.2.4 Mitigation Measures

The design proposal adopts a constraint-based approach to avoid areas of significance as much as practicable. Remnant vegetation will be conserved in wide buffers surrounding the proposed disturbance footprint, which accounts for 152ha of vegetation that will be retained and managed. Where the clearing of vegetation is unavoidable, it will be managed as to limit the overall extent. An offset is proposed to mitigate the residual impacts that arise from the unavoidable need to clear vegetation on the site as part of the proposed development.

Construction and operation will be staged, thus minimising the total area of vegetation clearing at any one time.

Specific mitigation measures for the above-mentioned potential indirect impacts on vegetation communities and significant flora species are detailed in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 on the following pages. Monitoring actions and an assessment of the residual impact for each item are also identified. The purpose of monitoring is not


only to measure the success of mitigation measures, but also to facilitate an adaptive management approach whereby there is continued improvement in the approaches utilised to mitigate impacts.


Table 4-4: Mitigation of Indirect Impacts on Vegetation Communities

Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Monitoring

a) Over clearing The following mitigation measures are proposed:

> During construction clearly delineate the edge of disturbance. Broad strategies to maximise retention and protect the health of retained vegetation in accordance with the proponent’s vegetation clearing procedures Standard Operating Procedure BCM-ENV-0013. Particularly vegetation is not to be removed or disturbed without prior approval of the site manager and regional environmental or project/development manager. The only vegetation removed should be that from an area approved for clearing and suitably marked in consultation with the Environment Manager. Vegetation removal will not occur until the protection measures have been implemented.

> Regular checks of clearing limits.

b) Increase in vegetation ‘edges’

Appropriate design and restoration will mean the residual impact will not be of significance. Specifically, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

> Manage edges of disturbance to minimise the impacts of edge effects on native vegetation communities (i.e. control weeds) in accordance with the Rehabilitation Plan (Cardno Chenoweth, 2012).

> Monitor in accordance with the Rehabilitation Plan (Cardno Chenoweth, 2012) and adopt an adaptive management approach

c) Movement of weed seed and/or introduction of new weeds on vehicles

Adequate vehicle hygiene and immediate control of any new occurrence of weed species will mean there will be no significant residual impact. To achieve this the following mitigation measures are proposed:

> Class 2 declared plants including Groundsel, Annual Ragweed, Giant Rat’s Tail Grass and Mexican Fireweed are controlled prior to commencement to earthworks.

> As part of the environmental management plan vehicle hygiene measures that aim to prevent the introduction and spread of weed seed during construction and operation are documented. Specifically these measures will include requirements for vehicle hygiene.

> All relevant staff trained in identifying environmental and declared weeds.

> Rehabilitate all disturbed surfaces with local native plants as per the prepared Rehabilitation Plan (Cardno Chenoweth, 2012).

> Efficacy of rehabilitation and weed control is monitored.

> A specific monitoring target is to determine the success of removal of Class 2 declared plant species – GA report

d) Introduction of new weeds or pathogens in construction materials

The following mitigation measures are proposed:

> Maximise use of materials sourced on site including topsoil and mulch generated from chipping of cleared vegetation.

> As part of the environmental management plan measures to manage the introduction of materials or planting stock are documented.

> Condition monitoring of vegetation communities.

e) Poor construction techniques resulting in movement of sediment

Adequate management of quantity and quality of water entering drainage lines will mean the residual impact on vegetation will be minimal. To achieve this outcome the following mitigation measures are proposed:

> Prepare and implement and erosion and sediment management plan.

> Monitor in accordance with the requirements of the erosion and sediment management plan

f) Uncontrolled public The following mitigation measures are proposed: > Regular surveillance



access to remnant vegetation

> Restrict access through fencing and other physical barriers.

g) Inappropriate burning regimes.


> Implement the Bushfire Management Plan.

> Monitor the health of vegetation adjacent to drainage lines

h) Changes to groundwater

Given none of ecosystems present within the Study Area are identified as communities that are dependent on groundwater, no mitigation measures are proposed

> No monitoring proposed

Table 4-5: Mitigation of Impacts on Flora Species


i) Threatened species were not recorded during the survey


> If located on site, the species is to be translocated to an equivalent location within the buffer area.

> If translocation is necessary then monitoring will be required to assess the success of translocation.

j) Changes to the microclimate that supports threatened species.

The design in part mitigates the potential indirect impacts by proving buffers to the Long-leaved Tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis newmanii), Birdwing butterfly vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa), Rhodamnia maideniana, Durobby (Syzygium moorei) and Ribbon root orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri) all of which are located along drainage lines and waterways. Buffers of >50m are provided to these species that are EPBC scheduled flora and >30m to those that are NCA scheduled flora.

It is proposed that planting stock is of Long-leaved Tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis newmanii), Birdwing butterfly vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa), Rhodamnia maideniana, Durobby (Syzygium moorei) and Black Walnut (Endiandra globosa) to be used on site for proposed restoration is limited to local provenance.

Monitoring is fundamental to determining whether a mitigation response is required. Natural systems are dynamic. By way of example, the current study documented the natural attrition of threatened plant species within the Mid Catchment Waterway. It will therefore be necessary to undertake monitoring over time and take into account climatic conditions to ensure it accurately charts changes that can be attributed to the proposed development. The following monitoring actions are proposed for species within drainage lines and waterways along with the appropriate mitigation response:

> Monitor the population of threatened species specifically within the Mid Catchment and Northern Catchment Waterways upon commencement of earthworks. Information attained prior to clearing will assist in establishing the baseline condition. Information collected will include the number of individual threatened trees, a description of the health and vigour of individual threatened trees, a count of the number of trees/shrubs on which the Ribbon root orchid occurs and an estimate of the overall Ribbon root orchid population.

> For threatened species in the Mid-catchment Waterway upstream of the proposed sediment pond and in the Northern catchment - if there is a decline in the health of trees or abundance of Ribbon root orchid over 5 successive years that can be attributed to quarrying activities (e.g. changes in hydrology) then implement the following mitigative steps (1) supplement flows in the waterway to

> In the case of the Ribbon Root Orchid, if translocation is necessary then monitoring will be required to assess the success of translocation

> Other monitoring outlined in the mitigation measures



mimic the pre-clearing state; (2) if Ribbon root orchid continues to decline translocate a limited number of specimens to the Southern Catchment waterway to establish a separate population.

> For threatened tree species in the Mid-catchment Waterway downstream of the proposed sediment pond - if there is a decline in the health of trees over 5 successive years that can be attributed to quarrying activities (e.g. changes in hydrology) then manage the volume of water received by the vegetation.

k) Dust resulting from construction and operational activities.


> An approximate 45m buffer is provided to the Slender milkvine (Marsdenia coronata), which represents the threatened species most proximate to the disturbance footprint.

> application of dust control measures as outlined in Katestone Environmental Air Quality Assessment 2013 will be used to control dust levels on site.

> Coincide monitoring with the periods outlined in (i) above.

> Monitor in accordance with Katestone Environmental 2013 air quality indicators, objectives and guidelines.

l) Introduction of new weeds or pathogens in construction materials and planting stock s


> Maximise use of materials sourced on site including topsoil and mulch generated from chipping of cleared vegetation.

> As part of the environmental management plan measures to manage the introduction of materials or planting stock are documented.

> Rehabilitate disturbed areas with plant species indigenous to the area. Local provenance planting stock is preferentially used.

> Condition monitoring of vegetation communities.

m) Uncontrolled public access to remnant vegetation


> Restrict access through fencing, site management and other physical barriers.

> Regular surveillance

n) Inappropriate burning regimes


> Implement the Bushfire Management Plan. Significant Environmental areas are delineated in the fire plan that incorporates fire sensitive vegetation/species.

> Monitor the health of vegetation adjacent to drainage lines


4.3.2.2.5 Offsets

While mitigation measures can manage the effect of indirect impacts, the residual impact of clearing remnant regional ecosystems regulated under the VMA necessitates the use of offsets to ensure a no net loss outcome in accordance with the Performance Requirements of Part Xa and Part S of the SEQ Regional Vegetation Management Code.

Under the Code there is a requirement to “maintain the current extent” of Endangered regional ecosystems, watercourse vegetation and Essential Habitat. This can be achieved through the provision of an offset in accordance with the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets Version 3 (30 September 2011). Amongst other things, this policy requires that the offset must achieve “ecological equivalence” to the area being cleared. To determine whether ecological equivalence can be achieved it is necessary to compare the proposed offset site with the area to be cleared against the criteria of the Ecological Equivalence Methodology Guideline Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets Queensland Biodiversity Offset Policy Version 1 (3 October 2001).

A Vegetation Offset Proposal has been prepared in accordance with this policy framework that demonstrates an offset of ecological equivalence can be accommodated within Lot 105.

Figure 4-46 illustrates the extent of assessable vegetation to be cleared along with the proposed offset locations. The following is a summary of the ecological equivalence assessment for both the proposed clearing and offset area:

> Regional Ecosystem 12.11.13

Ecological Equivalence Score for Ecological Condition

o Impact = 0.1989

o Offset = 0.54405

Ecological Equivalence Score for Special Features

o Impact = 0.153

o Offset = 1.267125

> Regional Ecosystem 12.11.5

Ecological Equivalence Score for Ecological Condition

o Impact = 0.64185

o Offset = 1.6059

Ecological Equivalence Score for Special Features

o Impact = 0.222

o Offset = 4.128375

This above demonstrates that the proposed offset exceeds ecological equivalence in all instances.

The Vegetation Offset Proposal prepared by Cardno Chenoweth provides further details in relation to the offset strategy that will be undertaken. Reference is to be made to Appendix Z in order to view this particular report.

4.3.2.2.6 Other Specific Measures

Section 5.0 and 6.0 of the Landscape Rehabilitation Report includes specific comments relating to the proposed strategy for rehabilitation and restoration of the buffer area and the extraction area, over and above the priorities of the offset. This includes how the benches within the proposed quarry will be rehabilitated and the types of vegetation species that will be included.

Section 11 confirms the weeds that are known to occur on Lot 105. This section also outlines how the weeds will be controlled and managed. In this regard, the following is noted:


> In general, glyphosate-based herbicides are most suitable for most of the weed species present on the Lot 105, but other non-residual herbicides may also be necessary to effectively control certain species. The volumes of chemicals applied in any area can be reduced by the addition of a surfactant, and by the use of marker dyes to indicate areas already treated thereby avoiding double-spraying.

> Within 10m of waterways, dams and drainage lines, only herbicides with proven lack of impact on aquatic organisms (such as Roundup Bioactive) should be used, and no spraying should be undertaken when and where water is present.

> Detailed daily records should be maintained when herbicides are utilised. At a minimum, these should record type of chemical and additives, mixing rates, volume applied, wind direction and speed, species treated and area treated.

Reference is to be made to Appendix N in order to view the Landscape Rehabilitation Report that has been prepared by Cardno Chenoweth.

The Koala Management Plan includes a staged clearing plan that is based on the various phases of the project’s establishment (refer to Figure 4-46). The extent of clearing is governed by the sequential clearing requirements specified in the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006. Reference is to be made to Appendix Y in order to view the Koala Management Plan prepared by Cardno Chenoweth.


4.3.3 Terrestrial fauna


The Flora and Fauna Technical Report prepared by Cardno Chenoweth provides an assessment of the existing terrestrial fauna that was identified on Lot 105 during the EIS studies. Section 3.3 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report outlines the methodology for the terrestrial fauna study. To support the review of background material, the following field survey methodology was followed:

> Dinurnal / nocturnal bird searches;

> Ground searches;

> Targeted herpetological and amphibian searches;

> Establishing four (4) transects in representative habitats whereby a series of different fauna traps were utilised;

> Spotlighting;

> SM2BAT bat detection;

> Camera trapping;

> She-Oak ort searches;

> Call playback; and

> Habitat assessment.

Overall, a dry season (i.e. July) and a wet season (i.e. November) survey were undertaken on Lot 105. Figure 9 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report details the location of all the targeted surveys that were undertaken on Lot 105. It is also noted that a targeted koala surveys were completed, whilst the detailed survey for amphibians was undertaken in accordance with SEWPaC’s Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened frogs (SEWPaC 2010b).

The following figures also address the issues raised in the Terms of Reference:

Figure 4-49 – Location of Significant Species and Habitat Assessment;

Figure 4-50 – Regional Distribution of Known White-Bellied Sea Eagle Nests; and

Figure 4-51 – Offset Area.

4.3.3.1.1 Species Diversity

Section 3.5.2 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report describes the terrestrial fauna assemblages recorded within the Study Area as a result of the field surveys. A number of mammals (including arboreal mammals such as the koala and bats), reptiles, amphibians and birds were recorded on Lot 105. A complete list of fauna species recorded in the Study Area is provided in Attachment I of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report.

4.3.3.1.2 Significant Species (Threatened and Migratory)

For the purpose of the study completed by Cardno Chenoweth, ‘significant’ fauna species are those scheduled under the EPBC Act or the NC(W)R. Otherwise, significant species are regarded as those that are listed as either ‘Priority Species’ or ‘Data Deficient Species’ in the South East Queensland Natural Resource Management Region Back on Track Actions for Biodiversity (DERM 2010) and those regarded as of City Wide Significance (CWS) by Gold Coast City Council.

Table 3-10 in Section 3.6 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report identifies threatened species that are known, or are predicted, to utilise the habitats of the Study Area and provides information on the abundance of each species in the Study Area and the current levels of protection/management afforded to the species. Of all the species listed, the only species physically recorded on Lot 105 that would be considered to be ‘rare’ or ‘threatened’ in the context of the TOR, were the koala and the glossy black cockatoo.


Table 3-11 in Section 3.6 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report identifies a summary of the migratory species that are known or are predicted to utilise the habitats of the Study Area. The White-bellied sea eagle is not listed as a rare or threatened species. As detailed in Table 3-11, it is known that other migratory birds have been recorded on Lot 105 has part of previous studies that have been completed.

With respect to threatened frog species, it is noted that dedicated searches were undertaken as part of the field surveys, however no species were recorded as being a confirmed inhabitant on Lot 105.

4.3.3.1.3 Glossy Black Cockatoo and White-Bellied Sea Eagle

Individual Glossy black cockatoos and feeding signs (orts) were recorded in the locations identified in Figure 10 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report. None of these recorded locations are within the disturbance footprint. Section 3.5.2.4 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report provides a further commentary in relation Glossy black cockatoos.

The existence of the White-bellied sea eagle nest on Lot 105 has been known since earlier fauna studies were undertaken in 2005. Site observations confirmed the nest was in use in 2012 and that it is probable that young were fledged based on the presence of down, egg fragments and feeding signs beneath the nest (refer to Table 3-9 of Section 3.5.2.4). Figure 11 details the known White-bellied sea eagle sites within the region. Further discussion on the White-bellied sea eagle is provided in Chapter 11 of this EIS and the Matters of National Environmental Significance Report that has been prepared by Cardno Chenoweth. The Matters of National Environmental Significance Report in contained in Appendix UU.

Further to these two species, an individual Star Finch was discovered during the field surveys. As indicated in Section 3.5.2.4 of the technical report, this occurrence is regarded as most likely being an aviary escapee.

4.3.3.1.4 Exotic Fauna

Section 3.8 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report provides a summary of the exotic fauna species that were recorded on Lot 105. A total of three (3) species of exotic mammal being the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), the Black Rat (Rattus rattus) and the House Mouse (Mus musculus) were identified during the field surveys. One (1) amphibian species, the toad, was also recorded.

Of the exotic fauna species identified during the EIS study, only one species, the European Red Fox, is listed under the Land Protection Act as a Class 2 pest. Table 4-6, Item F details the mitigation measures for dealing with exotic species.

4.3.3.1.5 Habitat assessment

Generally habitat values across Lot 105 are moderate to high with few areas assessed as very low to low value habitat. Low value habitat corresponds with areas that are cleared with little structural diversity and therefore support few habitat components of value to fauna.

Hollow-bearing trees were recorded in sclerophyll forests and in less disturbed areas. These areas provide nesting/roosting habitat for species of bird including kingfishers, arboreal mammals and microbats and have therefore been mapped as high to very high.

Section 3.7.1, Attachment J and Figure 10 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report provide information with respect to habitat assessments undertaken within the study area.

4.3.3.1.6 Movement corridors and connectivity

Section 3.7.2 of the technical report addresses movement corridors and connectivity. The key findings of the study are that:

> the Study Area is located within the 5km wide State Significant Burleigh Heads / Springbrook NP Terrestrial Corridor as illustrated in Figure 4-42.

> the southern half of the Study Area also falls within a 1km wide regionally significant buffer/corridor surrounding Tallebudgera Creek.

The corridor, sometimes referred to as the Springbrook to Burleigh Heads Bioregional Corridor, has been long recognised as an area of importance. There have been a number of studies that have investigated the


importance of the corridor in greater detail including CEPLA (2006), Conics (2009) and recently Greening Australia (2012a). All of these studies acknowledge the significance of the corridor, but also acknowledge the complexities associated with impaired linkages over the Pacific Motorway.


The Study Area falls within the State Significant Burleigh Heads to Springbrook NP Terrestrial Corridor. Therefore, the maintenance of wildlife movement is a priority. While the proposed disturbance footprint results in the removal of 63ha of vegetation that varies in integrity, a total of 152ha will be retained within the buffer area. Within the buffer area, 127ha of vegetation that is not remnant under PMAV will be rehabilitated.

With the exception of areas proximate to the site entry, the disturbance footprint is located between 100m to 560m from the Subject Area boundary. Movement opportunities will therefore remain within the proposed buffer.

The proposed disturbance footprint will result in the progressive loss of 63ha of habitat over the life of the quarry, which will be in excess of 40 years. Maintenance and restoration of the 152ha buffer and progressive rehabilitation of the disturbance footprint will in part mitigate this loss but it will be necessary to undertaken further actions to minimise direct and indirect harm to wildlife.

The potential indirect impacts on wildlife, including Koalas, White-bellied sea eagles and Glossy-black cockatoos, associated with the establishment and operation of the development and their predicted significance are identified in Table 5-2 at Section 5.2.2 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report:

> construction and operational related mortality;

> removal of hollow bearing trees and ground habitat features;

> construction and operational noise / vibration;

> alteration of water resources associated with dams and drainage lines;

> increase in road kill / traffic disturbance OR roads represent a barrier to wildlife movement;

> human - animal interactions;

> dust from construction and operational activities;

> construction and operation impacts on Koalas;

> construction and operation impacts on Glossy-black cockatoos; and

> construction and operation impacts the nesting of White-bellied sea eagles.

4.3.3.2.1 White-bellied Sea-eagle Nesting Site

Section 5.2.3 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report provides a discussion on the White-bellied sea eagle. Further discussion on the White-bellied sea eagle is provided in Chapter 11 of this EIS and the Matters of Environmental Significance Report that has also been prepared by Cardno Chenoweth. The Matters of Environmental Significance Report in contained in Appendix UU.

White-bellied sea eagles are known to be sensitive to human disturbance in the vicinity of their nesting sites. As a result, the proposed disturbance footprint was redesigned to increase the setback from the known nest site located in the Study Area. A horizontal distance of over 30m will be provided between the nest tree and the edge of disturbance in which a vegetated buffer will be retained. At the edge of the proposed disturbance footprint, a cut will ensure vehicle movements are set approximately 20m below the current natural ground level. Figure 13 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report illustrates that from this location there are no direct views into the proposed disturbance footprint from the nest. Minor views of the detention basin located 250m to the east of the nest are likely to occur.

4.3.3.2.2 Glossy Black Cockatoo Feed Sources

Section 5.2.4 of the technical report details that Glossy black cockatoos only consume a certain species of Allocasuarina.


The EIS studies confirmed that only 3 feed trees are located outside of the proposed disturbance footprint. Figure 7 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report details that black she-oaks exist throughout the Study Area and are abundant within the proposed buffer area as individuals or in patches.

4.3.3.2.3 Impacts on Fauna under Climate Change

Section 5.3 of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report indicates that invasive animal and plant control is regarded as important as a management strategy in the face of climate change. The technical report highlights the need for the maintenance of corridors under a changing climate. The Burleigh to Springbrook corridor represents a rare example of montane to coastal connectivity in the South East Queensland Bioregion. Therefore, the maintenance of the health of the proposed buffer will be an important action given the significance of the corridor in which the Study Area is located.

4.3.3.2.4 Mitigation Measures

The project adopted a constraint-based design approach to avoid areas of significance as much as practicable. Remnant vegetation will be conserved in wide buffers surrounding the proposed disturbance footprint, which accounts for 152ha of vegetation to be retained and managed.

Construction and operation will be staged, thus minimising the total area of exposure at any one time. The EMP document prepared by Lambert & Rehbein confirms how adjacent areas of vegetation will be protected during construction activities.

Specific mitigation measures for the potential indirect impacts on wildlife are detailed in Table 4-6 on the following pages. Monitoring actions and an assessment of the residual (mitigated) impact for each identified impact are also identified. The purpose of monitoring is not only to measure the success of mitigation measures, but also to facilitate an adaptive management approach whereby there is continued improvement in the approaches utilised to mitigate impacts.

Section 10.1 of the Landscape Rehabilitation Report outlines that glider poles and ramps will be provided in order to allow fauna movement across the access road associated with the proposed quarry development. Section 10.3 outlines that tree hollows will be moved into the buffer area if necessary during the vegetation clearing process while nesting boxes will be installed where practicable.


Table 4-6: Mitigation of Indirect Impacts on Fauna Species


a) Construction and operational related mortality

> Check trenches for fauna prior to back filling.

> Fauna spotter catcher present during tree clearing.

> Keep records of fauna moved or injured during construction.

b) Removal of hollow bearing trees and ground habitat features

> Remove large habitat logs during clearing and utilise in regrowth areas of the buffer as habitat in restoration areas.

> Requirements of fauna spotter/catcher will be described in the Fauna Management Plan.

> Records of numbers of hollows removed.

> Records of success of hollow transfer or nest box installation

c) Construction and operational noise / vibration

> As a general approach manage noise in accordance with regulatory limits. For Whitebellied sea-eagles refer to (j) below

> Monitor in accordance with compliance limits.

d) Alteration of water resources associated with dams and drainage lines

> Refer to mitigation measures for vegetation (Table 5-2 item (j)) > Monitor the health of vegetation adjacent to drainage lines.

e) Increase in road kill / traffic disturbance OR roads represent a barrier to wildlife movement

> Enforce restricted speed limits.

> Limit traffic to approved operational hours.

> Within the site entry include landscape features to enable fauna to traverse batter slopes.

> Within the site entry include gliding poles to facilitate movement of Squirrel gliders across the 30m wide road cutting.

> Record any road kill within the site.

> Monitor the success of wildlife movement at the site entry road.

f) Human - animal interactions

> Ensure designs of buildings are appropriate to exclude fauna.

> Instigate a waste management regime that prevents the access to rubbish by wildlife.

> Educate staff about feeding wildlife.

> Implement a pest management plan. Collaborate with Gold Coast City Council in relation to wild dog and European red fox management.

> Monitor buildings for signs of animal use.

> Monitor efficacy of preventing wildlife access to rubbish.

g) Dust from construction and operational activities

Application of dust control measures as outlined in Katestone Environmental Air Quality Assessment 2013 will be used to manage dust levels on site

Monitor in accordance with Katestone Environmental 2013 air quality indicators, objectives and guidelines.

h) Construction and operation impacts koalas

> Implement the recommendations for koala management and habitat net gain of the Koala Management Plan.

> Keep records of fauna moved or injured during construction.

> Monitor success of ‘net gain strategy

i) Construction and operation impacts

> 12 months in advance of clearing commence harvest of seeds from known Glossy-black cockatoo trees.

> Monitor Allocasuarina stands in advance of clearing to ascertain



Glossy-black cockatoos

> Propagate trees for use in restoration activities. Particularly, these trees will be a prominent component of quarry bench restoration.

which are feed trees.

j) Construction and operation impacts the nesting of White-bellied sea eagles

> The proposed setback limits views into the proposed pit, plant site and detention basin. It may be necessary to enhance the screening in the shrub and sub canopy layers through planting uphill of the nest tree.

> Reduce the likelihood of nest abandonment during a breeding season by adopting a similar strategy to that developed by Ecosure in the management of a White-bellied sea-eagle’s nest on Curtis Island. This involved covering the nest during the nesting season to discourage use for the period while construction activities are underway. Specifically, this would apply only to the period while the cut face immediately to the north of the nest site is being constructed during Phases D1-D4 (i.e. approximately potentially for 2 breeding cycles)

> Monitor health of nesting tree

> Monitor use of the nesting tree by White-bellied seaeagles. While it is acknowledged that disturbance will have a strong influence on continued use of the site care will be necessary in drawing this conclusion because as some nest sites that are free from human disturbance fail to fledge young and are sometimes abandoned So & Lee (2010).


4.3.3.2.5 Koala Management Plan

Section 4.3 of the TOR required the preparation of a Koala Management Plan. Cardno Chenoweth have prepared a Koala Management Plan as part of the EIS (Appendix Y).

Legislative Context

The koala is listed as a vulnerable species in the South East Queensland Bioregion.

Section 1.2 of the Koala Management Plan confirms that the South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions (SEQ Koala Conservation SPRP) which seek, in general terms, the achievement of a net benefit for koalas as part of development proposals in the South East Queensland region, do not apply to the project given its declaration as a coordinated project under the SDPWOA.

State Planning Policy 2/10 - Koala Conservation in South East Queensland (SPP 2/10) is also not applicable to Lot 105. Reference is to be made to Chapter 3.1 of this EIS and the Town Planning Assessment Report that has been prepared for further comments in relation to the applicability of the SPRP and SPP. The Town Planning Assessment Report is contained in Appendix P.

The identification of the project as a ‘Controlled Action’ by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water and Communities on 21 December 2010 predates the listing of the koala, where located in Queensland, as a vulnerable species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) on 2 May 2012. Section 158A of the EPBC Act is applicable in this instance, particularly as the Minister decided under Section 75 of the EPBC Act that the proposed action associated with the quarry development constitutes a controlled action. The date of 21 December 2010 represents a primary decision in this instance. Section 158A(3) provides that the validity of the primary decision, or any other approval process decision made in relation to the relevant action before the listing event (of a new species in this instance) occurred, is not affected by the listing event, nor can it be revoked, varied, suspended, challenged, reviewed, set aside or called in question because of, or for reasons relating to, the listing event.

Notwithstanding that the SPRP, SPP and EPBC Act do not apply to the project in respect of koalas, the proponent is committed to achieving a form of net benefit for koalas.

Provision of Net Benefit and Field Survey Findings

Section 1.3 of the Koala Management Plan outlines the methodology used to calculate a net benefit for koalas on the site. As the SPRP is not relevant to the project, the methodology set out in the associated ‘Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy’ is not applicable.

The Koala Management Plan indicated that an approach that has been historically acceptable to Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) has been to utilise the methods outlined in Policy 4 “Koala survey methodology for site assessment” and Policy 2 “Offsets for net benefit to koalas and habitat assessment” of the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016. The non-statutory ‘net benefit’ for the current project has been calculated generally in accordance with the approach outlined within these two policies.

As detailed in the Flora and Fauna Technical Report, no koalas were observed during the dedicated surveys that were undertaken on Lot 105. Despite this, individual koalas have been observed on four (4) separate occasions. Section 2.2 of the Koala Management Plan provides further discussion relating to the findings of the dedicated surveys.

The number of koalas located within the proposed disturbance footprint estimated to be between 0.63 and 6.3 koalas. This is based on the fact that 63 hectares of vegetation will be progressively cleared, and the carrying capacity has been estimated as ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 koalas per hectare (as described in Table 3-1 of Section 3 in the Koala Management Plan).

Impacts

The direct impact of the project on koalas is the loss of bushland koala habitat. Additional impacts associated with the project include the potential injury or death of koalas during clearing operations or as a consequence of vehicle collisions and an increase in wild dog activity within the Study Area. An improvement in land management may lead to a decrease in dog numbers.


Section 3 of the Koala Management Plan indicates that the proposed disturbance footprint, as a result of its central location on Lot 105, will not affect habitat connectivity.

Impact Mitigation

Section 4 outlines that mitigating the impacts highlighted in Section 3 of the Koala Management Plan can be achieved via:

> attaining a form of net benefit on Lot 105.

> rehabilitation. This mitigation measure is associated with the restoration of both the identified alluvial areas of the buffer (i.e. 5.44 hectares) and balance of the buffer area (i.e. 121.3 hectares).

> connectivity, which will be achieved through the restoration regime and removal of weeds

> considering koala welfare as part of the operations of the quarry is also paramount. The range of site management regimes that are detailed in Section 4.4 of the Koala Management Plan are not part of the net benefit package.

Overall, and as demonstrated in Table 4-1 of Section 4.1 of the Koala Management Plan, the proposed on-site response delivers a net benefit of 6.65 koalas. On the basis of a worst case impact of 6.3 koalas, this provides a 6% benefit to koalas within Lot 105.

The Koala Management Plan also includes a staged clearing plan that is based on the various phases of the project’s establishment. The extent of clearing is governed by the sequential clearing requirements specified in the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006.


4.3.4 Aquatic Ecology


4.3.4.1.1 Aquatic environment

The Aquatic Ecology Assessment, prepared by FRC Environmental, provides an assessment of the existing aquatic ecology aspects that were discovered on Lot 105. Section 3 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment outlines the methodology that was applied with respect to both the desktop review and the on-site field survey that was undertaken. The Aquatic Ecology Assessment confirms that the field survey was completed during the pre-wet season (i.e. October). Map 120315SM detailed the locations within Lot 105 that were subject to the field surveys.

The Aquatic Ecology Assessment includes the following maps that address the issues raised in the TOR:

> Figure 4-52 – EHP – Mapped Wetlands; and

> Figure 4-53 – Aquatic Ecology Sites Surveyed.

The Aquatic Ecology Assessment is submitted as to Appendix BB. It is noted that the Aquatic Ecology Assessment does not include a specific commentary with respect to riparian vegetation, birds, semi-aquatic mammals or amphibians. These matters are discussed in length as part of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report prepared by Cardno Chenoweth. The Flora and Fauna Technical Report is submitted as Appendix X.

Aquatic Habitat

Section 4 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment provides a description of the habitat associated with each of the surveyed locations depicted on Map 120315SM. Of the surveyed habitat areas, a total of four (4) were situated within the disturbance footprint (including an existing dam that will ultimately become the quarry dam), while another five (5) sites were selected within the boundaries of Lot 105. A further six (6) sites were surveyed outside the boundaries of Lot 105 for comparison. Overall, the surveyed habitat sites were found to be in moderate to good condition.

Amongst other aspects, environmental values are dictated by the ephemeral and intermittent nature of most of the waterways that were assessed. The Aquatic Ecology Assessment details that water quality measured in situ was poor with low pH and the percentage saturation of dissolved oxygen, and high turbidity and electrical conductivity. Biodiversity was relatively low, with a low percentage cover of aquatic plants and low species richness. Fish and macoinvertebrate communities were low in diversity and comprised species that are tolerant of varying and often harsh conditions.

Given that the waterways that were assessed, particularly those within the boundaries of Lot 105, are ephemeral and intermittent in nature, it is evident that tidal flows and common levels such as the highest astronomical tide and mean high water springs are of no consequence.

Fish, Crustaceans and Aquatic Invertebrates Species

Section 6 of the technical report provides information relating to the aquatic macroinvertebrates (fish, crustaceans and aquatic invertebrate species) that were recorded, which included:

> Macroinvertebrate communities (Section 6.1), four (4) dominant communities of which were recorded.

> Macrocrustaceans (Section 6.6), whereby a total of three (3) species were recorded during the surveys. The abundance of macrocrustaceans was zero to low at most surveyed sites with water. There was one location in the disturbance footprint that contained macrocrustaceans, however it is noted that this surveyed location is an existing man-made dam that will ultimately be developed into the main quarry dam.

Section 7.1 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment confirms that a total of seven (7) fish species were recorded during the field surveys. With respect to Lot 105, Table 7.1 in Section 7.1.2 details that only a common carp gudgeon (fish) and marbled eel were recorded in the dam that is situated within the disturbance footprint. Overall, the surveyed locations in Lot 105 revealed that there was a low abundance of fish compared to downstream survey locations.


In terms of all the sites analysed, and as outlined in Section 7.1.3 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment, the low number of fish species caught in the pre-wet season survey is indicative of the ephemeral nature of the waterways and the low interconnectivity with other waterbodies.

Section 7.1.5 confirms that there was one exotic, non-indigenous species caught at three (3) of the survey locations (not none of the survey locations within Lot 105). This particular species was the Mosquitofish, which is a declared noxious pest under the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 2008.

Section 7.1.6 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment confirms that no fish species listed under the EPBC Act or the NCWR were recorded in Lot 105.

Section 7.2.1 details that many of the fish species recorded during the field surveys are native to intermittent and ephemeral systems of South-East Queensland, and migrate up- and downstream, and between different habitats at particular stages of their life cycle. Fish migrations have generally been assumed in the Aquatic Ecology Assessment to take place during periods of high flow, when permanent waterholes that provide refuge for fish become reconnected to main river channels.

Table 7.2 details the range of water quality conditions in which the recorded fish species are known to occur.

Section 7.3 of the technical report confirms that one turtle was caught during the field surveys. This turtle was caught within the dam situated within the disturbance footprint, and the Aquatic Ecology Assessment details that this particular species is common throughout Queensland.

Section 8 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment indicates that the disturbance footprint on Lot 105 will have negligible effects on macroinvertebrate and fish communities.

Rare or Threatened Marine or Freshwater Species

Section 2.1.4 and Table 2.1 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment indicate that ten (10) threatened aquatic fauna species may occur within 5 km of Lot 105. Of these ten species, eight (8) species are marine and highly unlikely to occur within the immediate area of Lot 105 and would only occur downstream where the major creeks discharge into the Pacific Ocean. Two (2) species of freshwater fish are listed, but highly unlikely to occur near Lot 105. Section 7.1.6 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment provides further comments in relation to this aspect.

There are no threatened or endangered aquatic ecological communities within Lot 105

Section 2.4 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment outlines the endangered and vulnerable turtle species that are known to or may occur in the marine environments downstream from Lot 105. The Aquatic Ecology Assessment indicates that none of these listed species are occurring within or are in close proximity to Lot 105.

Aquatic Plants

A total of twenty (20) species of aquatic plant species were recorded as part of the field surveys. Six (6) of the surveyed sites contained no aquatic plant species (five (5) of which were situated within the boundaries of Lot 105, including the disturbance footprint).

Table 5.1 of Section 5 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment lists the aquatic plant species recorded as part of the field survey work. Of these 20 species, one (1) is a declared weed, while another three (3) represent species that were introduced to Lot 105. The declared weed was not recorded within Lot 105, while only one of the introduced species was identified in two of the survey locations within Lot 105. Section 5.4 of this technical report provides further comments on the exotic species that were recorded.

Section 5.5 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment confirms that no aquatic plants listed under the EPBC Act or the NCWR were recorded in Lot 105.


National, State and Regional Wetlands

Section 2.8 and associated Map 120315WL confirms the extent of wetlands of National, State or regional significance in relation to Lot 105. Palustrine (e.g. swamps) wetlands, riverine systems (e.g. river and creek channels) and estuarine wetlands have been mapped downstream of Lot 105.

There are no wetlands within the disturbance footprint; however, there are man-made dams that support habitats for aquatic flora and fauna. The dam at the northern end of the project boundary is to be incorporated as part of the water storage dam for the project, but it is not expected to be modified during construction phases.

Further to the above, a review of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection’s (DEHP) referable wetland mapping confirms that Lot 105 is not situated within or associated with wetland protection areas.

As Lot 105 is not identified as containing any lacustrine wetlands or marine environments, nor is Lot 105 immediately adjacent to any of these identified areas, the proposed quarry development will not have any adverse impact upon these water environments.

Section 2.8 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment indicates that referable and DEHP mapped estuarine wetlands do occur within 3km of Lot 105. The proposed development will not have an adverse impact on these particular wetlands on the basis of the mitigation measures that will be established to specifically address and reduce sediment loads.

Draft Tallebudgera Creek Catchment Management Plan (Oyster Creek)

The Draft Tallebudgera Creek Catchment Management Plan (Oyster Creek) was not able to be obtained from Gold Coast City Council and has therefore not been addressed as part of the EIS. It is noted that Council provided a copy of this document to the Coordinator General’s Office; however, was not to be released until had been endorsed by Council. As the Coordinator General’s Office has not formally released the Draft Tallebudgera Creek Catchment Management Plan (Oyster Creek) to the proponent, it is assumed that Council endorsement is still pending.

Section 2.6.1 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment provides further comments in relation to the Draft Tallebudgera Creek Catchment Management Plan.

Robina Lakes Management Plan (Reedy Creek)

The Robina Lakes Management Plan (2009) is available on the Gold Coast City Council’s website and the document relates to a man-made set of waterways that are located within the Merrimac floodplain. Section 2.2 and Figure 2.5 of the Robina Lakes Management Plan confirm the extent and areas of the catchments that are associated with the identified Robina Lakes. It is noted that Lot 105 is not situated within one of the identified catchment areas. As a result, the Robina Lakes Management Plan (2009) is not considered relevant to the project. Section 2.6.1 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment provides further comments in relation to the Robina Lakes Management Plan.

4.3.4.2 Potential impacts and mitigation measures

Section 9 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment identifies that the construction and operational activities associated with the proposed quarry development gives rise to the following potential impacts:

> spills of hydrocarbons and other potential contaminants such as litter and waste;

> increased suspended sediment levels (turbidity) and sediment deposition due to vegetation clearing and earthworks;

> impacts to water quality, such as an increase in the concentration of nutrients and contaminants;

> loss of catchment area;

> changes to flow regimes; and

> water quality issues with on-site dams.


Section 10 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment provides an overview of the mitigation measures that will be implemented in order to address the potential impacts of the project. Those measures can be summarized as follows:

Staged clearing of vegetation.

Controlled discharges from the quarry dam and sedimentation pond should coincide with natural flows, which may help to mitigate the impacts of a loss of catchment area and streams. Impacts may also be mitigated through long term remediation of the catchment, including rehabilitation.

Aquatic animals in the existing dam that will ultimately become incorporated into the quarry dam are not anticipated to be relocated before works commence on Lot 105. The existing dam will remain intact and if any of the existing dam wall is to be removed, further assessment and planning at the time of deconstruction will be required to confidently mitigate any potential harm to aquatic flora and fauna.

Where water will be released, either from the quarry dam or sedimentation pond, flows downstream may increase and alterations can be made so that flows are reduced. This can be achieved by rehabilitation works so as to assist with reducing flow velocity and provide habitat.

The existing and future dam wall will remain a physical barrier to fish passage, however no fishway is proposed. A fishway is considered to be unlikely to provide benefits to local and regional fish stocks due to the location of the dam in the upper catchment. There is only a first order stream upstream of the proposed quarry dam, as well as an off-stream existing dam that did not support any fish at the time of the field survey. It is also considered in the Aquatic Ecology Assessment that the amount of upper ephemeral stream habitat unavailable to fish passage as a result of the dam was relatively small, and there will still be opportunities for fish passage to ephemeral headwaters unaffected by the dam.


4.4 Water Resources


4.4.1.1 Surface Water / Stormwater

The Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report prepared by BMT WBM provides an assessment of the surface water, stormwater and floodplain characteristics of Lot 105 and addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4. The Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report is provided at Appendix CC.

The methodology undertaken to adequately describe the water resources included a combination of a desktop assessment and on-site inspections and assessments.

A detailed review of the relevant legislation formed the basis of the desktop assessment that was completed. This review of legislation has formed the foundation for identifying and describing the existing surface water regime while also providing a basis for the management of any potential impacts of sensitive aspects of the project. The overall assessment was based on present knowledge and an appreciation of potential future changes as a result of the proposed quarry development. Specifically, a range of water quality environmental values (EVs) and water quality objectives (WQOs) have been identified and considered. The legislative review that has been completed is contained in Section 2.2 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report.

Section 1.5 and Section 2.3 provides an overview of the methodology that was not only adopted for the approach to analysing the water resources in the context of the various phases of the quarry development, but also locations on Lot 105 that formed the basis for the site inspections and analysis.

Matters relating to flooding are addressed separately at Section 4.1.1 of the EIS.

4.4.1.1.1 Existing Water Resource Conditions

The Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report (Section 3) provides a detailed overview of the characteristics of Lot 105 and the condition of its existing water resources, which is summarised as follows:

> Climate (Section 3.2 of the technical report).

The climatic conditions associated with Lot 105 are influenced by both sub-tropical and temperate weather patterns. The surrounding region experiences moderate temperatures and an annual average rainfall of 1,491 mm/year, the majority of which falls in the wet season (December to February).

> Land Use (Section 3.3 of the technical report).

Historically, the site was used for rural purposes (particularly grazing), but with the cessation of rural activities, scattered to dense regrowth vegetation has re-established across most of the site. Patches of remnant vegetation also feature in a number of locations. Numerous four wheel drive (4WD) and off-road motorbike tracks currently traverse Lot 105 and, although most of the vegetation across the property remains unaffected by these unlawful uses, widespread damage to the Lot 105’s natural assets has occurred where tracks have been formed. Damage is most evident on steep slopes and in waterways particularly in the lower parts of the catchments on the northern part of Lot 105.

> Topography and Drainage / Water Quantity (Section 3.4 of the technical report).

Lot 105 is characterised by steeply undulating topography ranging between approximately 10 m AHD and 150 m AHD. There are three main catchments on Lot 105, including: the Northern Catchment which ultimately drains to a series of brackish lakes before discharging to the Nerang River; and the Mid and Southern Catchments which ultimately drain to Tallebudgera Creek. The Southern Catchment is not be impacted by the proposed disturbance footprint while direct and indirect impacts are expected to both the Northern and Mid Catchments.

Waterways occur in each of the three catchments on the site, all of which are typically dry, with flow only anticipated to occur during and following significant rainfall events.


The only sources of permanent water on site are a farm dam and an artificial perched lake, both of which are located in the Northern Catchment. The farm dam is the proposed location of the quarry water storage dam (which will be situated within the disturbance footprint).

> Water Quality (Section 3.5 of the technical report).

In terms of water quality, the downstream receiving environments including, the Nerang and Tallebudgera Estuaries, are generally in good to excellent health (i.e. ecosystem health values are met and functional ecological processes and intact habitats are present). Water quality monitoring of stormflow events on site was undertaken for a period of over eight months during the preparation of the EIS, and seven stormflow events were sampled during this period. The results demonstrated that stormflow concentrations of a number of water quality parameters typically fail to meet receiving water quality objectives (WQOs) under the existing site conditions.

The water quality monitoring results provide baseline water quality data against which the impacts of the project have been assessed. The results have also been used to inform the development of a further water quality monitoring program which will be implemented over the course of the project.

4.4.1.1.2 Waterways and Watercourses

Lot 105 contains a number of waterways. The distinction between a waterway and a watercourse, as that term is defined for the purposes of the Water Act 2000, is important in the context of the project and its regulatory framework. An assessment of all of the waterways on Lot 105 to determine the presence of defined watercourses was therefore undertaken by BMT WBM.

The assessment established that two (2) watercourses are present on Lot 105, as shown on Figure 4-1 below:

> an ephemeral, third order stream that traverses the site to the south of the disturbance footprint (southern watercourse);

> an ephemeral, second-order stream that traverses the site downstream of the northern limit of the disturbance footprint (north-eastern watercourse).

Figure 4-54: Watercourses (Source: BMT WBM, 2013)

The Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) has confirmed the findings of the Watercourse Determination report with respect to the watercourses that have been identified. The confirmation letter provided by DNRM is also contained in Appendix DD. The Watercourse Determination Report prepared by BMT WBM (Appendix CC) provides additional detail in respect of the two watercourses, and all of the other waterways, on Lot 105.


The disturbance footprint has been specifically designed and sited to preserve both the southern and north-eastern watercourses on Lot 105. The only points at which the disturbance footprint intersects with either watercourse are the discharge points to the respective watercourses.

4.4.1.2 Groundwater

The Groundwater Impact Assessment prepared by Australasian Groundwater & Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd provides an assessment of the groundwater aspects associated with Lot 105 and addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4 as they relate to groundwater. The Groundwater Impact Assessment is submitted at Appendix FF.

As detailed in Section 6.0 and Section 9.0 of the Groundwater Impact Assessment Report, a groundwater investigation program consisting of an initial site visit, installation of seven monitoring bores, falling head permeability tests and groundwater sampling and testing for baseline water quality was completed to inform the EIS. Figure 4-55 confirms the location of the monitoring bores that were installed on Lot 105.

4.4.1.2.1 Environmental Values

Groundwater is a natural resource that has a range of environmental values. Those environmental values are identified by the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (2009) and include the value of groundwater water to:

> the biological integrity of ecosystems;

> agricultural uses;

> aquacultural uses;

> primary industries;

> recreation purposes;

> aesthetic purposes;

> drinking water supply;

> industrial purposes; and

> cultural and spiritual significance.

The Groundwater Impact Assessment considered the particular environmental values of the groundwater in the project area. The value of the groundwater to the biological integrity of ecosystems, including communities of plants, animals and other organisms that are dependent on groundwater, was assessed. The detailed ecological assessment that has been carried out as part of the EIS confirmed that none of the ecosystems which are present within the study area are dependent on groundwater. On this basis, the groundwater in the project area is not considered to have environmental value in terms of sustaining the biological integrity of ecosystems.

The value of the groundwater to agricultural uses was also considered. Whilst there is no known agricultural use of groundwater presently occurring on Lot 105 or in the surrounding area, registered bores within the locality appear to be primarily used for domestic garden-watering. To the south east of the site, Registered Bore RN124068 is associated with the Gold Coast City Council’s Coplick Family Sports Park. The reported yield for Registered Bore RN124068 is 0.25 L/s which is considered inadequate for irrigation of the grounds at the Coplick Family Sports Park. The potential environment value of groundwater to agricultural uses is considered low but potentially relevant given the present absence of agricultural uses in the locality and the limited use of groundwater for domestic irrigation.

The other environmental values of groundwater are not relevant to the project.

Further detail is provided at Section 11.3 of the Groundwater Impact Assessment.


4.4.1.2.2 Geology

The geology of the Reedy Creek area is dominated by the Palaeozoic (Devonian to Carboniferous) aged Neranleigh-Fernvale Beds which generally consist of greywacke, argillite (shale and mudstone), arenite, jasper, chert, quartzite and greenstone. This geological unit forms the basement geology for the region.

Geological drilling investigations carried out during the EIS indicated that the main geological units within the proposed quarry are typically a fine to medium grained siliceous sandstone, which has undergone regional metamorphism and has been folded and fractured to a steeply inclined, meta-sedimentary strata sequence. The prime source rock is meta-greywacke which contains minor and sporadic inclusions of meta-argillite, ranging from pea-size to very large lenses up to several metres thick.

Further discussion and analysis of the geology associated with Lot 105 is provided in the Geological and Geotechnical Exploration Program, Resource Estimate and Conceptual Quarry Design report prepared by Groundwork Plus (refer to Appendix Q).

4.4.1.2.3 Aquifers

There are two broad aquifer systems that occur in the area surrounding the site:

> a fractured rock aquifer system of the Neranleigh-Fernvale Beds which extends under the entire site and is dominant in the surrounding area, consisting of an upper 10m to 20m weathered and open fracture zone (regolith) containing the prime groundwater resource, perched on fresh rock of very low permeability with a tight”\, sparse joint system.

> a restricted Quaternary alluvial system associated with the Tallebudgera Valley to the immediate south of the site.

The Neranleigh-Fernvale Beds can be described as an aquifer of very low to low permeability. This was confirmed by iron staining, indicating groundwater flow, on joints in the upper 10 metres to 20 metres and tight, non-stained joints, in the deeper fresher rock.

In summary it is concluded that the upper 10 metres to 20 metres weathered zone, where the fractures are open, has a hydraulic conductivity of about 2 x 10-6 m/s; the hydraulic conductivity decreasing from about 5 x 10-7 m/s to 5 x 10-8 m/s as the rock becomes fresher, harder and denser with depth. In plain terms, the groundwater in the upper 10 m to 20 m zone is essentially perched on the underlying fresh rock mass.

Further comments in relation to the above are provided in Section 10.2 of the Groundwater Impact Assessment.

4.4.1.2.4 Groundwater Flow, Recharge and Discharge

Section 10.3 of the Groundwater Impact Assessment Report provides an overview of the groundwater recharge, flow and discharge characteristics relevant to Lot 105.

The groundwater system identified within Lot 105 and the surrounding area depends primarily on rainfall for recharge. Based on anecdotal data from the West Burleigh Quarry, minor groundwater seepage is observed in the pit walls, generally after heavy rainfall and primarily in the upper 20m to 30m section, which includes the weathered zone and upper part of the fresher rock. However at depth, where the rock is fresh and the joints are tight, seepage is not observed.

The water table gradient is quite steep reflecting the low permeability of the rock mass and also that the regolith of the site is saturated after heavy rainfall. Groundwater in the regolith is essentially perched on the underlying fresh, very low permeability rock mass.

Groundwater flows from the ridge areas towards the creeks primarily through open fractures in the weathered material and along the interface with fresh rock. Groundwater discharge to the creeks (baseflow) maintains creek flow for some time. However, pools in the creek bed are reported to be ephemeral, indicating that the regolith drains reasonably quickly, as would be expected given the steep topography, and that discharge to the creeks and alluvium diminishes, and may stop, during drier periods.


4.4.1.2.5 Groundwater Quality

A groundwater monitoring program has been carried out as part of the EIS. Collection and analysis of groundwater samples that were collected from the monitoring bores indicate that the Electrical Conductivity (EC) is quite variable ranging from 1100 µS/cm in GCQ_MB7 on a highly elevated ridge line, to 3,770 µS/cm in GCQ_MB5 in the northern creek. The deeper groundwater is of lower EC value than the shallow groundwater where bores are nested. The technical report details that the shallow groundwater associated with the thin alluvium and extremely weathered greywacke in the creeks may have a higher EC as the minerals in the weathered zone are more readily dissolved with groundwater flow. The EC generally exceeds the ANZECC 99% protection trigger level for protection of aquatic ecosystems in lowland rivers of south-east Australia.

A pH range of about 7.13 – 7.94 is within the range nominated by the Australian Water Quality Guidelines. Concentrations of metal randomly exceed the trigger values for aquatic ecosystems with arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc exceeding the levels prescribed by the Australian Water Quality Guidelines in most of the bores. Metal concentrations are considered to be natural background levels.

Section 11.2 and Table 6 of the Groundwater Impact Assessment Report provide more detailed analysis of the existing groundwater quality.

4.4.2 Potential impacts and mitigation measures

4.4.2.1 Surface Water / Stormwater

The potential impacts of the project were assessed using a risk assessment approach. Chapter 4 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management report outlines the potential impacts of the project in respect of surface water and the mitigation measures which are proposed to ensure those impacts are avoided, minimised or managed.

The potential impacts of the project in relation to surface water fall into three categories:

> floodplain management impacts

> receiving water hydrologic impacts

> receiving water quality impacts

A project of this nature has the potential to adversely impact properties in the surrounding area by increasing the risk or impacts of flood events. Flood risk can be increased through changes to either the volume of surface water runoff generated at the site or the rate that surface water runoff leaves the site. The potential flood risk impacts of the project, together with the mitigation measures which are proposed to address and manage those impacts, are set out separately at Section 4.1.1. of the EIS.

Section 4.4 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report outlines that surface water runoff from the proposed development has the potential to impact receiving waters downstream from the site. The elements of the project which have the potential to generate adverse hydrologic or water quality impacts on receiving waters can be broadly categorised as:

> changes to the hydrologic characteristics of receiving waters, including:

the reduction of flows for all waterways downstream of the disturbance footprint within the Northern and Mid Catchments with the exception of waterways downstream of the quarry dam where flows are predicted to increase.

reductions in dry season flows downstream of the disturbance footprint, except immediately downstream of the sediment basin. With this reduction in flows, the duration of ‘low flow spells’ (i.e. when daily flow does not exceed the 50th percentile daily flow for the existing site) increases at these sites.

an increase in dry weather flows in waterways downstream of the sediment basin. The probability of low flow spells (relative to the existing case) will also decrease at these sites.

> vegetation clearing and mulching;


> earthworks associated with the construction of the plant site, access roads and quarry dam;

> earthworks including excavation and stockpiling of overburden and quarrying of rock;

> overflow or dewatering (controlled release) of the sediment basins and quarry dam;

> operation of the quarry and associated plant and equipment;

> potential wastewater overflows; and

> bushfire and vegetation management activities.

The Stormwater Quality, Hydrology and Water Cycle Management Plan presented at Appendix B to the Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report, together with Section 4.4. of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report, outline the mitigation measures which are proposed to address each of the potential hydrologic and water quality impacts on receiving waters. The potential impacts and mitigation measures are summarised below.

The project has adopted a management hierarchy approach which promotes avoidance as the most preferred management option and disposal as the least preferred management option. The management measures determined in accordance with the hierarchy aim to reduce the risk of each potential impact to an acceptable level. A demonstrated commitment to best practice is evident in all aspects of the design and operation of the proposed development that relate to the management of water quality and quantity. A summary of the key management measures according to the management hierarchy (shown in Figure 4-1 of the technical report) and best practice philosophy is provided in Table 4-1 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management report (replicated below):

Table 4-7: Summary of Management Measures

Management Option

Description of Key Management Measures

Avoid The proposed disturbance footprint has been designed so as to avoid approximately 155 ha (70%) of the site. This land is proposed to be voluntarily set aside, and not developed, as conservation area. Within this proposed conservation area, a range of offset rehabilitation activities are proposed to repair the land from historic agricultural use and damage from off road vehicles. The disturbance footprint also entirely avoids any impacts to one of the three catchments on the site.

Reduce Existing sediment loads are proposed to be reduced by rehabilitating the degraded waterways and tracks within the conservation area. A range of rehabilitation activities are therefore proposed to repair the land from historic agricultural use and damage from off road vehicles. These rehabilitation activities may be subject to further licencing approvals under the Water Act unless the nature and extent of works determines them exempt.

To reduce the volume of potential future sediment loads discharging from the site (and minimise flood risk), it is recommended that all vegetation and overburden removal is undertaken in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and, as far as practical, outside of the west season. Any disturbed areas which are not subject to extractive industry use should be stabilised in accordance with the ESCP, which has been prepared separate to this document (by others).

The proposed disturbance footprint has been designed so as reduce the direct impact of the proposed disturbance footprint on waterways.

Reference is to be made to Appendix W in order to view the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that has been prepared by Lambert & Rehbein.

Recycle, Reuse, Recover

The proposed quarry has a high water demand. Rather than using potable mains water to meet that demand, a recycle, reuse, recover philosophy has been adopted. Modelling has indicated that all site water demands for surface dust control, dust suppression and process water are predicted to be satisfied by the proposed water cycle management strategy. That is, 100% site water demands are expected to be met by recovery and reuse of stormwater. Any runoff of this water from the quarry pit is recycled back to the quarry dam to be reused.

Stormwater has therefore been treated as an important water resource rather than a waste steam.

Treat The treatment of sediment loads is a critical component of the proposed water management strategy for the site. Sediment loads will primarily be treated via a best practice Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) which will form part of the overall Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The treatment of sediment laden stormwater will by default also assist in the removal of a


Management Option

Description of Key Management Measures

range of other potential pollutants.

The water management strategy includes the following treatment measures:

> Pit storage – providing significant opportunity for the storage of stormwater flows from the quarry catchment, allowing suspended material to be settled (prior to pumping retained waters to the quarry dam).

> Quarry dam – providing a stormwater treatment function by allowing further settlement of suspended material and by harvesting stormwater flows (and pollutant loads) for subsequent use on site (e.g. for dust suppression).

> Rock channels – conveying flows from the plant area and providing some pre-treatment of flows prior to discharging into the sediment basin.

> Sediment basin – retaining stormwater flows to facilitate sediment removal, prior to discharging treated flows to the downstream waterway.

> Additional soil erosion and sediment control best management practices.

With the beneficial use of harvested flows (from the quarry dam catchment, and pumped flows from the quarry pit), stormwater pollutant loads within these harvested flows are prevented from discharging into downstream waterways thereby providing additional water treatment.

Dispose Disposal has been adopted as the least-preferred method of water treatment as dictated by the management hierarchy adopted for the site. The only water proposed to be disposed of includes:

> water which overtops the quarry dam during/ following major rainfall events.

> water which overtops the sediment basin during/ following major rainfall events.

> water which is treated in the sediment basin and control released.

> environmental flows in waterways which will not be impacted by the proposed disturbance footprint.

It is noted that due to the “avoid”, “reduce” and “reuse” strategies discussed in this table above, environmental flows are still maintained to the downstream receiving waterways so that there is not an over-use of water resources.

Where water is disposed (e.g. over-topping of quarry dam and sediment basin during major rainfall events), some sediments and associated pollutants within this water will also be disposed (and conveyed downstream). Nevertheless, the quarry operations will still be required satisfy relevant discharge requirements.

The integrated approach to water management adopted by the project includes preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Quantity Management Plan and a Stormwater Quality, Hydrology and Water Cycle Management Plan (refer to Appendix CC). The management plans have been prepared in accordance with the Gold Coast City Council’s Land Development Guidelines and Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines, together with the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, as appropriate..

Modelling has been undertaken as part of the EIS to assess the surface water pollutant loads that are predicted to leave the site under both the existing site conditions and the conditions of the proposed development.

The modelling assessed three phases of the project’s development: Phase C1 of the Construction Stage and Phases Q1 and Q5 of the Quarrying Stage. These three phases were selected for detailed assessment as they are suitably representative of the project, illustrate the diverse range of conditions that will exist over the course of the project and represent worst case scenarios in terms of potential impacts.

The pollutant modelling focussed on total suspended solids (TSS) loads because:

> TSS is likely to be the key pollutant from the site in its existing state and with the proposed quarry operations;

> TSS is readily modelled using existing software packages;

> TSS can be readily monitored pre-development as well as during construction and operation; and

> TSS is important from both ecological and social perspectives in downstream receiving waterways.

The modelling indicates that, because the project will implement a Stormwater Quality, Hydrology and Water Cycle Management Plan and a Stormwater Quantity Management Plan, no adverse impacts on humans, flora


or fauna as a result of sediment, acidity, salinity or other pollutants are likely to be generated by the project. In actual fact, the project is expected to decrease stormwater the pollutant loads discharging from Lot 105, thereby improving the quality of surface water from existing conditions.

Whist the potential for changes to the concentration of pollutants in downstream receiving waters is acknowledged, it is not considered necessary to include modelling of receiving water quality in the EIS given the expectation that stormwater pollutant loads will be reduced as a result of the project.

4.4.2.2 Monitoring Program

Section 5 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report recommends the implementation of a detailed monitoring regime for water quality. The monitoring program for water quality that has been proposed which involves two phases:

1. Phase 1 - Predevelopment (baseline) water quality monitoring designed to characterise the baseline (or background) water quality conditions in the receiving waterways prior to commencement of development activities.

2. Phase 2 - Construction / operational phase water quality monitoring designed to assess the effectiveness of management strategies for protecting water resources during the construction/operation phase of the project (in accordance with the requirements of the TOR).

For each of these above described phases, the monitoring program describes the objective of each phase, identifies monitoring sites and details the proposed monitoring methodology. The following table summarises the recommended Phase 2 monitoring program:


Table 4-8: Phase 2 Monitoring Response Matrix

Aims 1. To assess the effectiveness of management strategies for protecting water resources.

2. Ensure that any non-compliance with respect to water quality is identified.

3. Inform timely, responsive management practices when non-compliance is detected.

Design Objective 1. To establish a relationship between TSS and turbidity so that immediate management decisions based on site-based turbidity readings (rather than laboratory TSS values), can be made (see Section 5.1.3.2 for a further discussion on this issue).

2. To ensure that controlled discharges from the quarry dam and sediment basin (not including overflows), meet minimum concentration-based discharge criteria (see Section 5.1.3.2 for further discussion on discharge criteria).

3. To identify the degree to which discharges to receiving waterways are responsible for receiving water quality values that are inconsistent with baseline conditions.

4. To inform appropriate flocculation rates.

5. To ensure monitoring is undertaken in accordance with correct protocols.

Pre-developed Condition

The pre-developed condition is to be established via a baseline monitoring program in accordance with the details provided in this monitoring plan.

Required Design, Maintenance and Construction Phase

> All erosion and sediment control systems are required to be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with a detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and Staged Clearing Plan.

> This ESCP is required to be prepared by a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC).

> The plan is to include detailed monitoring requirements including methodology and monitoring locations.

> A suitably qualified person is to oversee all clearing/removal of topsoil and overburden.

> Monitoring is undertaken as specified in the ESCP and in accordance with ongoing site instruction of the CPESC/delegated Boral representative.

Performance Indicators

> The level of total suspended solids in any stormwater discharged from the site during the construction phase does not exceed the objectives in

> Table 2-6 or other more current best practice standards current at the time.

> Clearing is undertaken only on the stage/stages being developed within the timeframes specified in the Staged Clearing Plan.

Corrective Actions

In the event of exceedance of the nominated trigger values in discharge from the site, the following corrective actions should be undertaken within 24 hours:

> Inspect all relevant ESC measures within the catchment to determine where excessive sediment is being generated.

> Erosion and sediment control practices are to be reviewed and corrective actions undertaken immediately in accordance with the recommendation of the person responsible. These actions may include for example:

Install additional ESC measures (e.g. additional filter fences, check dams in drainage lines etc.).

Increase the maintenance frequency of relevant ESC measures to maximise their effectiveness in trapping sediments (e.g. de-silt sediment basin more frequently to increase their effective capacity).

> If required, undertake a program of flocculation of waters retained in sediment basin to settle out suspended sediments then dewater and remove accumulated sediment.


The program also identifies best practice water quality objectives for ensuring management strategies are effectively implemented. These strategies are described in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management report.

Section 5.3 of the technical report describes how the water quality monitoring regime is intended to be incorporated into the EMP. For the most part, the erosion and sediment control plan will describe how the key monitoring program recommendations will be incorporated into appropriate sections of the EMP. The Water Resources and Floodplain Management report does provide important advice to inform the erosion and sediment control measures thereby linking the monitoring program with the erosion and sediment control plan. It also provides recommendations for accounting for the link between changes in hydrology and potential impacts to downstream ecology.

The EMP prepared by Lambert & Rehbein is presented at Appendix TT.

4.4.2.3 Residual Impacts

A best practice approach to water management has been adopted by the project. However, the following residual impacts to surface water hydrology are anticipated:

> increased volume and frequency of runoff and decreased baseflow, altering the hydrology of downstream waterways, impacting on waterway ecosystems and increasing erosion risk.

> changed hydrology of downstream areas, impacting on aquatic ecosystems and increasing erosion risk (in areas receiving more flows than existing).

As both of the residual impacts relate to downstream receiving waters, and not the project area itself, the mitigation proposed is to monitor downstream receiving waters. In the event that impacts are observed, additional mitigation and management actions are proposed and will be implemented in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan for the project.

Additional information is provided at Section 6 of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management Report.

4.4.2.4 Hydrological Impacts on Ecological Aspects

The Stormwater Quality, Hydrology and Water Cycle Management Plan contained in Appendix B of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management report provides a discussion on potential impact on ecological aspects as a result of changes in hydrology:

> The Flora and Fauna Technical Report confirms that the risk to terrestrial species associated with the predicted changes to hydrology is moderate or medium risk level. This report also recommends monitoring locations along the drainage lines that support threatened plant species.

> It will be necessary to monitor the health of vegetation at selected locations to ensure that there is no significant drying of vegetation. It will also be necessary to assess whether there is any scour or significant increase in adjacent soil moisture.

> In the instance where there is scour and an increase in soil moisture, then water releases from the sediment basin may need to be reduced. Mitigating drying may require providing water upstream (e.g. water from the quarry pit sump), but this might only be triggered if the ecological values are under stress due to quarrying activities and beyond natural fluctuations.

> The Aquatic Ecology Assessment states that the project is unlikely to impact on any listed vulnerable or endangered aquatic species or ecological communities, as listed under State or Commonwealth legislation, or habitats of conservational significance, if appropriate mitigation measures are put in place.

The Flora and Fauna Technical Report and the Aquatic Ecology Assessment also address this issue. These reports are submitted in Appendix X and Appendix BB respectively.

4.4.2.5 Water Reuse

The Stormwater Quality, Hydrology and Water Cycle Management Plan contained in Appendix B of the Water Resources and Floodplain Management report provides an overview of the water cycle management process that will be implemented.


The proposed water cycle management strategy for the site includes the following:

> Construction of a new dam (the ‘quarry dam’).

> Quarry dam to be utilised to harvest runoff from the upstream catchment.

> Flows from the quarry pit (and catchment flowing into the quarry pit) will be collected in a sump at the invert of the quarry pit, and subsequently pumped to the quarry dam.

> Sediment basin utilised for stormwater treatment only. However, there is potential to utilise some stormwater flows retained in this pond to supplement non-potable water demands (e.g. dust suppression).

> Roof runoff from buildings within the processing and infrastructure areas will be collected in rainwater tanks and utilised for non-potable water usages (e.g. toilet flushing, vehicle washdown).

> Potable water demands (e.g. drinking, laboratory) will be satisfied by bottled water, delivered to the site.

Based on the modelling contained in the Stormwater Quality, Hydrology and Water Cycle Management Plan the following comments are provided with respect to the water cycle management strategy:

> All site water demands for surface dust control, dust suppression and process water are predicted to be satisfied by the proposed water cycle management strategy. Dam water levels/volumes are predicted to be below the dam lower limit (15% capacity) when process water would be reduced by 50% only very infrequently (three and two occasions for Stage Q1 and Q5 respectively in the 111-year period of historical climate data).

> Water levels within the dam are predicted to be at or near the dam crest level for the majority of the time.

> The majority of water inputs into the dam and pond are from surface flows. Surface flows pumped from the quarry pit catchment (and pumped to the dam) contributes the most inflow volume into the dam.

> Overflow from the dam is the largest output of water from the dam.

> Approximately half of all flow volume entering the sediment basin will be treated (through detention and settlement and/or flocculation) and discharged via pumping, with approximately half of all flows from the sediment basin overflowing into the creek.

> The water balance modelling predicts that (for the multiple ten year periods assessed), the quarry dam is anticipated fill to 15% capacity (sufficient to satisfy all quarry dam water demands for Stage C1) within less than a year following construction. The average time taken for the dam to commence over-flowing to the downstream environment was (for the periods assessed) was approximately three years.

It is noted in the Stormwater Quality, Hydrology and Water Cycle Management Plan that the results presented for the Q1 phase assumes that the infrastructure has been installed to pump water from the quarry pit (collected from a sump within the invert of the quarry pit) to the quarry dam. Water balance model results indicate that if this infrastructure is not installed, the ability to satisfy site water demands is significantly reduced. Furthermore, it is likely that this infrastructure will be required to prevent excessive inundation and overflows from within the quarry pit.

4.4.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Groundwater

The project is expected to have a minor impact on the regional groundwater system. Section 13.0 of the Groundwater Impact Assessment outlines the potential impacts on the groundwater regime as a result of the proposed quarry development. In summary, the potential impacts that are identified in the technical report include:

> Impacts on existing bores and wells.

The cone of depression in the water table is predicted will extend for up to 1.64km from the proposed quarry after 30-40 years. The closest registered bore is RN124068, located in the Gold Coast City Council sports field, approximately 0.8km to the south-east of the proposed quarry. The bore is shallow, low yielding and completed in the regolith which appears to form a perched aquifer on the fresh rock. The Groundwater Impact Assessment details that as drawdown from quarry dewatering will primarily be in the fresh rock there should be no or minimal impact on this particular bore.


The next closet bores are at the extremity of the radius of influence and should not be impacted as a result of the proposed quarry development.

> Impacts on creeks and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems (GDEs)

The prime source of groundwater discharge to the creeks is from the regolith aquifer which will be removed over the area of the quarry footprint. Removal of the regolith and lowering of the water table in the rock mass due to dewatering of the quarry pit has the potential to impact ecosystems along the creeks, both flora and fauna that are partially dependent on groundwater discharge. The Groundwater Impact Assessment details that the flora and fauna impact assessment has found that “none of the ecosystems present within the study area are identified as communities that are dependent on groundwater”. It can therefore be concluded that the potential impact on GDE’s is not an issue. Reference is to be made to the Flora and Fauna Technical Report for additional comments in relation to the flora and fauna communities investigated on Lot 105. This particular technical report is contained in Appendix FF.

During and post quarry operations groundwater discharge to the creeks will continue from the regolith in the catchments to the south, west and north of the disturbance footprint and therefore some groundwater discharge to the creeks should continue throughout and post quarry operations. In addition, pools in the creeks will continue to be maintained to some extent from surface runoff. It is therefore considered in the Groundwater Impact Assessment that although quarry operations will reduce groundwater discharge to the creeks, the pools and saturated alluvium will continue to exist, but as a result of the quarry operations may not last as long into the dry season. The potential for this is only within the predicted zone of influence, which is approximately 1.64 km around the pit.

As previously discussed, the pools in the creeks are ephemeral and therefore should there be any unidentified ecosystems associated with the pools, they are likely to be only partially dependant on groundwater discharge and can survive during dry conditions.

> Impact of Groundwater quality

During the Quarrying Stage groundwater within the depression zone will flow to the pit and any water that collects within in-pit sumps will then be pumped into the surface water management system. The data collected at the site indicates that the groundwater in the deeper fractured rock aquifer is fresh to slightly brackish with low levels of selected trace metals. The presence of the trace metals is expected to be due to dissolution of minerals in the aquifer matrix and the metals are therefore naturally occurring. It is expected that little if any groundwater will be stored in on-site storages as, rather than collecting in sumps at the base of the pit, most groundwater inflow will be evaporated from the pit walls due to the predicted slow rate of seepage. In summary it is assessed that there will be no impact on groundwater quality.

Section 14.0 of the technical report provides mitigation measures with respect to the potential impacts that are identified. The Groundwater Impact Assessment details the following:

> Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems (GDEs)

A mitigation measure that may be required should GDEs be identified in the future and they are being adversely impacted, would be to periodically release water into the creeks during the dry season from the on-site storage dam, particularly in sensitive areas.

> Other Groundwater Users

It is recommended that details of the GCCC bore located to the south of the site be collated prior to commencement of operations as this is the only bore that may be impacted, although as discussed, this is considered highly unlikely. Details and data obtained should include (but not necessarily be limited to) the status of the bore and it use, construction details, water level and a baseline water quality data set. The remaining existing groundwater bores within the predicted 1.64 km impact zone are at the extremity of the Q5 impact zone and are therefore unlikely to be impacted for an estimated 44 years. The impact in terms of drawdown, should it occur, would be minimal, that is within the natural range of groundwater fluctuation.

Section 15.0 confirms the groundwater management and monitoring measures that are proposed to be undertaken. These are detailed as follows:


> Groundwater Management

Based on anecdotal evidence from the West Burleigh Quarry and that the Neranleigh-Fernvale Beds are a very poor aquifer of low permeability and storage capacity, it is likely that there will be only minor groundwater seepage into the proposed quarry pit, most of which will be evaporated from the pit walls rather than collecting in the sump at the base of the pit. Management and storage of groundwater inflow during quarrying operations will therefore not be an issue.

> Groundwater Monitoring

A groundwater management and monitoring plan has not been designed as it is considered based on the studies undertaken that groundwater is not a significant resource on Lot 105 and immediate surrounding area on which groundwater users (human or GDEs) are dependent, and that the impacts of the quarry on the groundwater regime are minimal. The potential for groundwater related environmental or social impact to occur as result from the development is therefore considered in the Groundwater Impact Assessment to be negligible.


4.5 Air Quality


The Air Quality Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry prepared by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd provides an assessment of air quality issues, and particularly dust emissions, as they relate to the development and operation of the proposed quarry. The assessment that has been completed has included the establishment of the existing environment, particularly with respect to air quality and meteorology, prior to quantifying potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed quarry operation. The following figures are also to be noted:

> Figure 4-57 – Mean Maximum and Minimum Temperatures Recorded at Coolangatta Airport AWS;

> Figure 4-58 – Climate Classification – Seasonal Rainfall Classification System;

> Figure 4-59 – Average Monthly Rainfall at Coolangatta Airport AWS;

> Figure 4-60 – Mean 9am & 3pm relative Humidity at Coolangatta Airport AWS;

> Figure 4-61 – Annual Wind Speed (m/s) & Wind Direction () at the Project site;

> Figure 4-62 – Seasonal Wind Speed (m/s) & Wind Direction () at the Project Site;

> Figure 4-63 – Diurnal Wind Speed (m/s) & Wind Direction () at the Project site;

> Figure 4-64 – Diurnal Profile of Modelled Mixing Height at the Project Site;

> Figure 4-65 – Predicted Annual Average Ground-level Concentrates of TSP due to Project Operations in Isolation;

> Figure 4-66 – Predicted Annual Average Ground – level Concentrates if TSP to Project Operations and including a Background Level of 37 ug/m3;

> Figure 4-67 – Predicted 6th Highest 24-hour Average Ground-level Concentrates of PM10 due to Project Operations in Isolation;

> Figure 4-68 – Predicted 6th Highest 24-hour Average Ground-level Concentrates of PM due to Project Operations including a Background Level of 18.5 ug/m3;

> Figure 4-69 – Predicted Maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrates of PM2.5. due to Project Operations in Isolation

> Figure 4-70 – Predicted Maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrates of PM2.5 due to Project Operations and including a Background Level of 6.2 ug/m3;

> Figure 4-71 – Predicted Annual average ground – level concentrates of PM2.5 due to Project Operations in Isolation;

> Figure 4-72 – Predicted Annual average ground-level concentrates of PM2.5 and Including a Background Level of 5.5 ug,m3;

> Figure 4-73 – Predicted Monthly Maximum Dust Deposition Rates Due to Project Operations in Isolation;

> Figure 4-74 – Predicted Monthly Maximum Dust Deposition Rates Due to Project Operations and Including a Background Level of 37.8mg/m2/day;

> Figure 4-75 – Predicted Annual Average Dust Deposition Rates Due to Project Operations in Isolation;

> Figure 4-76 – Predicted Annual Average Dust Deposition Rates Due to Project Operations and Including a Background Level of 37.8 mg/m2/day; and

> Figure 4-77 – Predicted Annual Average Concentration of Respirable Crystalline Silica due to Project Operations in isolation.

The technical report addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.5 of the TOR and it is submitted in Appendix GG.


4.5.1.1 Regional Climate

The climate of the Gold Coast has been described from analysis of meteorological observations from the nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather monitoring station to the Project, located at Coolangatta Airport. Long-term climate data from this station has been used to characterise the conditions typical of the study area. The Coolangatta Airport automatic weather station (AWS) is located approximately 11 kilometres southeast of the Project site.

The characteristics of the regional climate are summarised below:

> Temperature and Solar Radiation

The annual average maximum daily temperature at Coolangatta Airport is 25°C. The annual average minimum daily temperature is 16°C. The warmest months in the region are the summer months. January is, on average, the warmest month with an average daily maximum temperature of 28°C. The coolest month on average, is July with an average minimum temperature of 10°C. This information is detailed on Figure 4.

> Rainfall

The region around the study area receives, on average, over 1,250 millimetres of rain each year with wet summers and low winter rainfall. This is based on the BoM standard 100 year analysis, from 1900 to 2000.

Only around 11% of the annual average rainfall occurs during the winter months (July to September). On average, September is the driest month, with an average total rainfall of 40 millimetres. This pattern is typical of subtropical locations in Australia. This information is detailed on Figure 5 and Figure 6.

> Relative humidity

The seasonal availability of moisture is another important factor in influencing the climate, by affecting the transfer of heat in the atmosphere through the balance between sensible and latent heat fluxes, and the occurrence of precipitation. Relative humidity is one of several measures used to describe the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, and is the ratio of the actual amount of moisture in the atmosphere to the maximum amount that could be held, at a given temperature.

The monthly averaged distribution of relative humidity at 9:00am and 3:00pm are detailed on Figure 7. The distributions show a slight decrease in 3pm relative humidity during the winter months, with 9am relative humidity showing little variation with the seasons. This pattern is typical of sub-tropical locations in Australia.

Reference is to be made to Section 6.1 of the Air Quality Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.5.1.2 Local Meteorology

Lot 105 is located in an area of relatively complex terrain. Key drivers of weather patterns on the Gold Coast include the coastline (land/sea interface) and the hinterland terrain (Great Dividing Range). Because there is no meteorological monitoring currently conducted at Lot 105, a three dimensional meteorological file was generated.

The meteorological modelling system incorporated hourly measurements of wind speed and wind direction from the BoM Coolangatta Airport during 2011 (that is 8,760 hour records of measured wind speed and direction) to ensure that the model predictions were representative of actual conditions, as far as practically possible. The modelling approach is consistent with industry accepted practice. The meteorological file generated for the study area is suitable for use in a dispersion model and represents the characteristics of the region surrounding the proposed Gold Coast Quarry.

Meteorological parameters that are important for the dispersion of air pollutants include wind speed and direction, atmospheric mixing heights and atmospheric stability. These parameters have been extracted from the meteorological modelling system at a location that represents the proposed Gold Coast Quarry site. These parameters are described below:


> Wind Speed and Wind Direction

Wind speed and wind direction are important meteorological parameters that will influence the emission rate and dispersion of dust from proposed activities at the Gold Coast Quarry. The annual, seasonal and diurnal variability in the wind speed and wind direction at Lot 105 will result in variation in the areas potentially affected by dust from the proposed quarry development as well as the intensity of any dust events.

The annual, seasonal and diurnal distributions of winds are depicted in a ‘wind rose’, which is a tool used to illustrate the frequency and intensity of a given wind speed and its direction at a chosen location. The wind roses detail:

- The influence of the Tallebudgera Valley channelling terrain-induced winds from high terrain in the south-southwest to the north-northeast. These winds occur for 25% of the year and are typically light to moderate, with 80% between 3 and 6 metres per second. Such winds occur most frequently during the early morning and during the autumn and winter months.

- The influence of the sea breeze during the afternoon. The diurnal wind rose clearly shows the onset of the sea breeze between midday and 6pm, when strong winds occur from the southeast sector.

- Overall, the predicted annul wind rose at the proposed Gold Coast Quarry site indicates, on average, emissions would most likely be dispersed in a north-northeasterly direction.

Wind speed is relevant because dust emissions can be generated through wind erosion of stockpiles and exposed surfaces by moderate to strong winds. Whereas under light winds, emissions are essentially zero and will remain so until the wind speed exceeds a threshold that is specific to the particular source, but is generally found to be above about five to six metres per second.

> Atmospheric Stability

Stability classification is a measure of the stability of the atmosphere and can be determined from wind measurements and other atmospheric observations. The stability classes range from A class, which represents very unstable atmospheric conditions that may typically occur on a sunny day, to F class stability, which represents very stable atmospheric conditions that typically occur during light wind conditions at night. Unstable conditions (Classes A to C) are characterised by strong solar heating of the ground that induces turbulent mixing in the atmosphere close to the ground. This turbulent mixing is the main driver of dispersion during unstable conditions. Dispersion processes for Class D conditions are dominated by mechanical turbulence generated as the wind passes over irregularities in the local surface. During the night, the atmospheric conditions are generally stable (often classes E and F).

Stability Class D is the most frequent at 52.3%.

> Mixing Height

The mixing height refers to the height above ground within which particulates or other pollutants released at or near ground can mix with ambient air. During stable atmospheric conditions (F class stability), the mixing height is often quite low and particulate dispersion is limited to within this layer.

Mixing height data shows that the mixing height increases from its overnight minimum at around 6am, reaching a peak between 1pm and 2pm. The mixing height then decreases from around 3pm to a minimum height during the night time.

Reference is to be made to Section 6.2 of the Air Quality Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry report for further information.

4.5.1.3 Existing Air Quality

The air quality impact assessment of the Gold Coast Quarry requires an ambient background concentration of each relevant air pollutant, which is representative of the likely concentrations experienced in the region. The background concentration is added to the predicted concentrations associated with the project. This is known as a cumulative assessment, and modelling demonstrates that the capacity of the airshed is sufficient to accommodate the proposed project.


Background concentrations can be determined from on-site measurements or selected from representative data.

The following comments provide an indication of the dust concentrations in the airshed.

> Existing Sources

The National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) is an initiative of the Australian Government that provides the community, industry and government with information about emissions of pollutants to air, water and land from industrial facilities across Australia. It has emissions estimates for 93 substances and the source and location of these emissions. Industrial facility operators are obliged to submit annual reports of their facilities emissions to the environment, if certain threshold criteria are exceeded.

A search of the NPI database indicates that there are a number of facilities reporting to the NPI in a 5 km radius of Lot 105. The annual dust emissions are monitored in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. It is noted that emissions from the exhausts of vehicles travelling along the Pacific Highway are not reported to NPI.

> Air Quality Monitoring

There are no air quality monitoring stations within a 15 km radius of Lot 105 with publically available data. The proponent conducts monitoring of PM10 and dust deposition rates around the boundary of the West Burleigh Quarry.

PM10 monitoring was conducted at West Burleigh Quarry for a period of two weeks in 2009. The purpose of the monitoring was to determine if PM10 limits prescribed within the Development Approval for West Burleigh Quarry were being exceeded at off-site properties. A High Volume (Hi-Vol) air sampler was used to measure PM10 levels at Phosyn Analytical, an industrial property less than 100 metres to the north of the West Burleigh Quarry. The results of the 2 week monitoring campaign showed that measured levels of PM10 were below the West Burleigh Quarry Development Approval limit of 150 μg/m³.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) operates ambient air quality monitors at Springwood and Arundel, approximately 62 km and 20 km to the north of Lot 105, respectively. The Arundel station, whilst closer to the site, has only been operational since October 2010, whereas the Springwood station has been operational since 1999. To provide an overview of ambient air quality, PM10 and PM2.5 data from the Springwood station has been extracted from the past five (2007 - 2011) annual monitoring reports released by DEHP.

The DEHP annual monitoring reports indicate that the majority of exceedances of the 24-hour average Air EPP objectives for PM10 and PM2.5 during the five years were caused by dust storms, bushfires or grassfires.

Reference is to be made to Section 6.3 of the Air Quality Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.


Section 2.2 of the Air Quality Assessment describes the potential air emissions that will be generated by the proposed quarry operation.

The primary focus of a quarry operation is the extraction and processing of hard rock into various products suitable for use in concrete, asphalt, road base and bricks and pavers. As such, particulate dust will be the primary air pollutant emitted from the proposed quarrying operation, considered as Total Suspended Particulates (“TSP”), PM10 and PM2.5.

Small quantities of air pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide may also be emitted from vehicle traffic associated with the quarry operation. The emission rates of these pollutants will be negligible compared to the emission rates of particulate matter from vehicle exhaust emissions generated by the thousands of vehicles that travel along the nearby Pacific Motorway. Therefore, there is a low risk associated with these emissions which, consequently, have not been assessed further for the purposes of the EIS.


Section 7 of the Air Quality Assessment, provides the following dust emissions inventory for each stage of the proposed quarrying operation:

Table 4-9: Dust Emissions Inventory (Source: Katestone Environmental)

Stage (Phase Emission Rate (g/s)

TSP PM10 PM2.5

Establishment 1 (E1) 0.52 0.10 0.01



Development 1 and 2 (D1/D2) 8.44 2.83 0.38

Development 3 and 4 (D3/D4) 11.72 3.82 0.50

Operation (Q1 – Q5)1 24.01 9.13 1.18

Table note: 1 Operation expected to last for 40 years at extraction rate of 2 Mtpa. These emissions are based on Operational Stage Q5 which is 2Mtpa extraction with full development of the pit

Section 2.2.5 of the Air Quality Assessment addresses measures to control dust, which is the primary air pollutant, during the establishment and operational phases of the project.

The dust emissions inventory provided at Table 4-9 confirms that the operational stage (Q5 stage with a production rate of 2 Mtpa and full pit development) has the largest dust emissions inventory, which is over double the inventories recorded for any other stage of the project.

The operational stage has been selected for the detailed impact assessment as it has the highest potential for causing off-site impacts.

Table 14 and Attachment A of the Air Quality Assessment provide a detailed breakdown of the emissions of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 from the different quarry activities that are expected to occur during Q5.

Section 9 of the Air Quality Assessment presents the results of the air quality dispersion modelling of dust emissions from the operation of the Gold Coast Quarry, with a production rate of 2 Mtpa and with the pit developed to phase 5 (Q5 - full pit development).

Section 2.2 of the Air Quality Assessment describes the potential types of air pollutants that will be emitted from the proposed quarry operation.

Blasting operations can cause fumes, primarily composed of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), if not properly managed. The blasting agents to be employed at the Gold Coast Quarry will be completely water repellent as water mixing with explosives can lead to an increase in NOx emissions during a blast. Blasting will occur intermittently, approximately once every seven days.

The proposed mitigation measures will ensure that NOx emissions from blasting at the Gold Coast Quarry will be minimised; hence, further assessment is not required.

The establishment and operation of the Gold Coast Quarry is not expected to generate any other toxic or odorous air pollutants. Emissions of these types of pollutants are not associated with quarry activities and have not been considered further in this assessment.

Potential off-site human health impacts associated with respirable crystalline silica are dealt with in Section 4.5.2.1.

Predicted ground-level concentrations and deposition rates of dust within the model area, and specifically at each identified sensitive receptor area, have been assessed against the EPP (Air) ambient air quality objectives and other relevant guidelines detailed in section 4.2 of the Air Quality Assessment.

Section 9 of the Air Quality Assessment presents the highest predicted maximum, average and minimum TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentration for each sensitive receptor area defined in section 5.2.


The predicted ground-level concentrations of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 due to the project are below the relevant EPP (Air) ambient air quality objectives in all residential areas and at all sensitive receptors assessed in isolation and cumulatively with regard to the background levels nominated in Table 15 of the Air Quality Assessment.

The predicted dust deposition rates attributable to the project are below the relevant objectives and assessment criteria in all residential areas and at all sensitive receptor areas assessed in isolation and cumulatively with regard to the background level nominated in Table 15 of the Air Quality Assessment.

The establishment and operational activities of the project are well-separated from adjacent existing road networks and sensitive receptor areas by the proposed vegetated buffer surrounding the proposed disturbance footprint.

Notwithstanding the above, Section 2.2.5 and Table 1 of the Air Quality Assessment deals with dust control treatments for project activities during the establishment and operational phases of the project.

Section 9.4 of the Air Quality Assessment identifies that the vegetated buffer areas located to the immediate south and north of the quarry are predicted to receive the highest dust deposition rates (above the guidelines for human amenity and nuisance impacts) due to the close location of activities and wind direction.

The majority of the vegetation buffer receives a relatively low dust deposition rate, particularly those areas located southwest and east of the quarry.

Small quantities of air pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide may also be emitted from vehicle traffic associated with the quarry operation. The emission rates of these pollutants will be negligible compared to the emission rates of particulate matter from vehicle exhaust emissions generated by the thousands of vehicles that travel along the nearby Pacific Motorway.

Section 2.2.5 of the Air Quality Assessment deals with dust control measures, including in relation to the use of internal and external road networks.

The internal access road from the Old Coach Road intersection to the car park will be sealed and a street sweeper will be employed to periodically sweep the internal roads and turnout areas to Old Coach Road.

Having regard to the road transport of quarry product to off-site locations, the main quarry access road (including the weighbridge and wheel wash area) will be sealed and all product despatch trucks will pass through the wheel wash before leaving the site.

4.5.2.1 Potential human health risks

The predicted ground-level concentrations of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 and dust deposition rates due to the project are below the relevant guidelines in all residential areas and at all sensitive receptor areas assessed in isolation and cumulatively with regard to the background levels nominated in Table 15 of the Air Quality Assessment.

The construction and operation of the Gold Coast Quarry is not expected to generate any other toxic or odorous air pollutants. Emissions of these types of pollutants are not associated with quarry activities and have not been considered further in this assessment.

4.5.2.2 Potential impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna

There is no statutory limit for protecting health and biodiversity of ecosystems. The Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection provides design guidance for dust deposition for the avoidance of dust nuisance, which is related to human perception.

The effect of dusts on vegetation is principally through interception of light by leaves and the consequential effects on the rates of photosynthesis and plant health and growth. However, there are no prescribed assessment criteria for dust loads on vegetation associated with reduced physiological activity.

Notwithstanding the above, deposition rates are relatively low and are unlikely to adversely affect the growth of vegetation.


4.5.2.3 Best practice mitigation measures

The predicted ground-level concentrations of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 and dust deposition rates due to the project are below the relevant guidelines in all residential areas and at all sensitive receptors assessed in isolation and cumulatively with regard to the background levels nominated in Table 15 of the Air Quality Assessment.

The design of the proposal has taken into account the potential for certain activities to generate more dust than others. The design of the stage plans for pit development have had specific regard to the terrain features and vegetation buffers of the land owned by the proponent in an attempt to balance the need to secure hard rock resources with the social and environmental consequences of extractive industries.

The fixed infrastructure will be designed with industry best practice that includes enclosing all crushing and screening process stages to control both noise and dust emissions.

Over the lifetime of the proposal, a number of dust controls will be rigorously implemented to ensure that site activities do not generate excess levels of dust that may lead to offsite nuisance and health impacts. The application of dust control measures will be included within the Environmental Management Plan for the project. Section 2.2.5 and Table 1 of the Air Quality Assessment details the proposed dust controls measures for each stage of the proposal.

The predicted ground-level concentrations of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 due to the project are below the relevant EPP (Air) ambient air quality objectives in all residential areas and at all sensitive receptor areas assessed in isolation and cumulatively with regard to the background levels nominated in Table 15 of the Air Quality Assessment.

The predicted dust deposition rates due to the project are below the relevant objectives and assessment criteria in all residential areas and at all sensitive receptor areas assessed in isolation and cumulatively with regard to the background level nominated in Table 15 of the Air Quality Assessment.

For further information regarding the results of the air quality impact assessment, please refer to section 9 of the Air Quality Assessment.

4.5.2.4 Respirable Crystalline Silica Assessment

Silica is a component of most forms of hard rock and overburden and is present in varying levels in both crystalline and non-crystalline forms. Silica dust can be created at any point during cutting, drilling, blasting or processing of hard rock and overburden. Silica dust can also be released by activities such as wheel-action on unsealed haul roads.

Epidemiological studies have indicated that a prolonged exposure to respirable crystalline silica at elevated levels may impact human health adversely. Note that this crystalline silica must be in the form of very fine particles in order to be drawn into the lungs (respirable). It is generally agreed that particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than three or four micrometres (μm) are respirable.

There are no air quality objectives in the EPP (Air) for respirable crystalline silica. Therefore, objectives from the Victorian Environmental Protection Agency (VIC EPA) have been adopted for this study, which is a practice accepted by the EHP.

The “Protocol for Environmental Management: Mining and Extractive Industries” contains an assessment criterion for protection of human health for respirable crystalline silica. This criterion is detailed below:

Table 4-10: Assessment criterion for respirable crystalline silica

Indicator Averaging Period Air Quality Objective

Respirable crystalline silica in the form of PM2.5 Annual 3 μg/m3

PM2. Annual 8 μg/m3

If respirable crystalline silica is produced by the activities of the Gold Coast Quarry, concentrations will be greatest in close proximity to the source of emissions. Hence, the risk of exposure to respirable crystalline silica will be greatest for those working in close proximity to dust producing activities. The proponent will


conduct routine monitoring of the exposure of its workforce to respirable crystalline silica throughout the lifetime of the Gold Coast Quarry.

Ambient air measurements can give an indication of the fraction of respirable crystalline silica in the form of quartz commonly found at extractive industry facilities. However, because the Gold Coast Quarry is a greenfield site historically ambient air measurements are not available. To determine a suitable respirable crystalline silica fraction the petrographic analysis reports that the proponent has undertaken on the hard rock deposits at the Gold Coast Quarry have been used to conservatively estimate respirable crystalline silica. The petrographic analysis of the Gold Coast Quarry hard rock indicates that the free silica content of the 7 samples ranged from 18% to 32%, with an average around 22% to 24%.

This assessment of respirable crystalline silica has used the maximum free silica content measured in the Gold Coast Quarry hard rock of 32% by assuming that 32% of respirable dust generated from the gold Coast Quarry is in the form of crystalline silica. This is a conservative assumption as not all dust sources from the quarry are from the hard rock deposit.

4.5.2.4.1 Crystalline Silica Results

Dispersion modelling of respirable dust (PM2.5) has been undertaken for the operation of the Gold Coast Quarry at 2 Mtpa, assuming pit phase 5 (full development). The predicted ground level concentrations of annual average PM2.5 are presented in the table below for the Project in isolation and with a background concentration of 5.5 μg/m³. The table also presents the predicted levels of respirable crystalline silica for the quarry operation in isolation, at each sensitive receptor area. The annual average respirable crystalline silica concentration has been determined assuming that 32% of the annual PM2.5 concentration is crystalline silica.

Contour plots of the predicted annual average ground-level concentrations of respirable crystalline silica is presented in Figure 27, due to the Project operations in isolation.

Table 4-11: Predicted annual average ground-level concentration of PM2.5 (μg/m³) and respirable crystalline silica

Receptor Area Maximum predicted annual average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 (μg/m³)

Annual average respirable crystalline silica due to project operation in isolation (μg/m³)

Isolation Cumulative Isolation

A 0.48 6.0 0.15

B 0.55 6.1 0.18

C 0.22 5.7 0.07

D 0.37 5.9 0.12

E 0.14 5.6 0.05

F 0.07 5.6 0.02

G 0.11 5.6 0.03

H 0.05 5.5 0.01

I 0.29 5.8 0.09

J_1 0.79 6.3 0.25

J_2 0.37 5.9 0.12

K 0.11 5.6 0.04

Background - 5.5 -

Guideline 8μg/m³ 3μg/m³

The results show the following:

> The maximum predicted crystalline silica concentration in a sensitive receptor area is 0.25 μg/m³ (Receptor J_1), or 8% of the EPA Victoria assessment criterion of 3 μg/m³


The potential for the operation of the Gold Coast Quarry to cause elevated levels of respirable crystalline silica has been evaluated based on the results of the dispersion modelling assessment of the quarry operating at 2Mtpa and the assumption that 32% of the respirable dust (PM2.5) would be in the form of crystalline silica. This assumption is based on hard rock petrographic surveys at the Gold Coast Quarry indicating a maximum free silica content of 32 %. The results suggest that concentrations of respirable crystalline silica at the nearest sensitive areas to the quarry are likely to be less that 10% of the EPA Victoria assessment criterion.

To evaluate the sensitivity of this finding to the assumed free silica content, an even more conservative assumption could be used that 100% of the respirable dust (PM2.5) emitted from the Gold Coast Quarry operations is crystalline silica. This would result in a predicted crystalline silica concentration at Receptor J_1 (highest) of 0.79 μg/m³. This is still only 26% of the EPA Victoria assessment criterion of 3 μg/m³.

The findings of this respirable crystalline silica assessment for the proposed Gold Coast Quarry show a similar result to the findings reported in the Mount Cotton Quarry Dust Investigation, conducted by the Queensland Government.

In 2009 the Queensland Government conducted a year long monitoring study of dust levels in the Mount Cotton region, specifically around the Karreman's Quarry (a 2.7 Mtpa hard rock quarry) and Barro Group Pty Ltd Quarry (a 0.5 Mtpa hard rock quarry). The study was undertaken following concerns raised by the local community about the impacts of air emissions from quarrying activities on the health and wellbeing of the surrounding community.

One part of the monitoring study determined the annual average crystalline silica concentration at two monitoring sites based on samples taken over seven day periods throughout 2009.

The findings of the Mount Cotton Quarry Dust Investigation in relation to respirable crystalline silica were:

"Annual average PM2.5 crystalline silica concentrations in the Mount Cotton community were very low, less than ten per cent of the Victorian EPA annual average guideline value. Crystalline silica was detected in 90 per cent of PM2.5 samples at Site 2 close to the quarry boundary, but this fell to less than 50 per cent of samples at a distance of 1.5 km from the quarry at Site 1.....

The results from this investigation conclude that the Mount Cotton community is unlikely to suffer any adverse health effects from particle and crystalline silica generated from quarrying activities in the Mount Cotton area".

The Queensland Government study and this assessment indicate that whilst silica may be generated from quarry activities, the levels that are produced do not pose a health risk to people who live in communities adjacent to extractive industries. Notwithstanding this, Boral is committed to the health and safety of its workforce and the health and wellbeing of the local community. Boral will ensure that management practices at the proposed Gold Coast Quarry are implemented throughout the lifetime of the project to ensure that emissions are minimal.


4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions


The Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry prepared by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd provides an assessment of greenhouse gas aspects, particularly with respect to determining the extent of emissions associated with the development and operation of the proposed quarry development. The following figures are also to be noted:

> Figure 4-78 – Source Contributions to total Greenhouse Gas Emission from the Gold Coast Quarry;

> Figure 4-79 – Carbon Emissions from Forest Clearing of the Gold Coast Quarry Site;

> Figure 4-80 – Source Contributions to total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Gold Coast Quarry including Forest Clearing; and

> Figure 4-81 – Illustration of differing Annual Green-house Gas Emissions from Truck Movements to Service Points of use from alternate Quarry Locations.

The technical report addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.6 of the TOR and it is submitted in Appendix HH.

The term greenhouse gases comes from the ‘greenhouse effect’, which refers to the process whereby greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb the radiation released by the Earth’s surface and then radiate some heat back towards the ground, increasing the surface temperature. The main greenhouse gases influenced directly by human activities and included in carbon accounting are:

> carbon dioxide (CO2);

> methane (CH4);

> nitrous oxide (N2O); and

> synthetic gases, such as sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

These gases vary in effect and longevity in the atmosphere, but scientists have developed a system called Global Warming Potential to allow the gases to be described in equivalent terms to CO2 called equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (CO2-e). It is noted that carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

4.6.1.1 Reporting Tools

The Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) monitors and compiles databases on anthropogenic activities that produce greenhouse gases in Australia. The DCCEE methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions is published in the National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors workbook and is based on Australian data.

The category in which emissions are reported, together with the emission factors that are used, are determined by whether or not an activity is within an organisation's boundary;

> direct emission factors are used to calculate Scope 1 emissions from activities within the organisation's boundary.

> indirect emission factors are used to calculate Scope 2 emissions from the generation of electricity purchased and consumed by an organisation.

There are also Scope 3 emissions that occur as an indirect result of an activity. For example, Scope 3 emissions are those that occur due to the production of fuel or the losses associated with the transmission of electricity. For this project, the determination of Scope 3 emissions is limited to those available in the NGA; electricity generation and fuel production.


4.6.1.2 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The project includes sources of greenhouse gas emissions. For the purposes of the EIS, those sources and the associated usage rates, are differentiated as follows:

> Site development and construction stage; and

> Operations stage.

4.6.1.3 Site Development and Construction Stage

Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Site Establishment, Development and Construction Stages of the project can be predominantly attributed to:

> vegetation clearing;

> fuel usage;

> electricity consumption; and

> blasting

Vegetation acts as a carbon sink and sequesters carbon. The removal of vegetation therefore results in the eventual return to the atmosphere of the carbon sequestered in the vegetation.

Table 4-12 provides a summary or emission sources and usage rates for the Development and Construction stage of the project.

Table 4-12: Emission sources and usage

Year Diesel Electricity

Petroleum based Oil

Acetylene Explosives

L MWh L m3 @ STP t

1 646,700 600 35,000 1,100 0

2 1,615,500 600 35,000 1,100 100

3 2,346,100 600 35,000 1,100 150

4 754,900 600 35,000 1,100 150

5 999,105 600 35,000 1,100 150

6 426,400 300 17,000 550 100

4.6.1.4 Operations Stage

The Operations Stage involves the full operation of the proposed quarry, including the extraction, processing and transport of hard rock to market.

Table 4-13 provides a summary of the expected diesel fuel, electricity consumption and explosives for each year of the project’s operation.

Table 4-13: Emission sources and usage

Source Units Usage

Diesel L / Year 900,000

Electricity MWh / Year 9,000

Maintenance Oils L / Year 35,000

Acetylene m3@STP / Year 1,100

Explosives t / Year 550

4.6.1.5 Methodology to Estimate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The methodology that was utilised in order to estimate greenhouse gas emissions are detailed as follows:


> Emission Factors

DCCEE has published greenhouse gas emission factors for a range of anthropogenic activities. The greenhouse gas intensity of each activity has been calculated using the simplified equation as follows:

GHG= E x EF

Where:

GHG: Annual greenhouse gas emissions in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2-e)

E: Annual energy use (GJ/yr or kWh/yr)

EF: Emission factors for CO2, CH4 and N2O (kg CO2-e/GJ or kg CO2-e/kWh)

> Carbon Storage

The Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM) software published by the DCCEE was used to estimate a worst-case quantity of carbon released to the atmosphere as a result of vegetation clearing during the site establishment and development and fixed plant construction phase of the project.

A footprint for the project was estimated from available information and the distribution of various vegetation types within this footprint was analysed.

Reference is to be made to Section 4 of the Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.6.1.6 Emissions Inventory

4.6.1.6.1 Project Greenhouse Gas Inventory

An emissions inventory, or ‘carbon footprint’, is calculated as the sum of the emission rates of each greenhouse gas multiplied by the global warming potential.

The greenhouse gas emissions estimated for each year of operation of the project, commencing with the initial phase of the Establishment Stage are summarised in the table below. These figures incorporate Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions, and are based on the assumption of constant year to year operations once the operational stage is established.

Table 4-14: Estimated greenhouse gas emission by year of operation (tCO2-e)

Year Annual Emissions Summary Total Emissions % of Total

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Scopes 1 and 2 Only

1 1,787 516 211 2,303 0.5%

2 4,418 516 410 4,934 1.1%

3 6,398 516 559 6,914 1.6%

4 2,105 516 234 2,621 0.6%

5 2,763 516 284 3,279 0.8%

6 2,471 4,128 762 6,599 1.5%

7-47 2,564 7,740 1,271 10,304 93.6%

TOTAL 122,500 316,310 53,310 438,810 100.0%

The following table details the percentage contribution of each emissions source to the total projected greenhouse gas emissions for the life of the project.

Table 4-15: Estimated greenhouse gas emission by emission source (tCO2-e)

Emission Source Emissions Summary Total Emissions % of Total


Diesel 116,664 - 8,846 116,664 27%


Emission Source Emissions Summary Total Emissions % of Total


Electricity - 316,308 44,136 316,308 72%

Petroleum based Oils 1,743 - 331 1,743 0%

Acetylene 199 - - 199 0%

Explosives 3,897 - - 3,897 1%

TOTAL 122,500 316,308 53,310 438,810 100%

The predicted annual emission rate of Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gases from the quarry is 10 ktCO2-e. This emission rate is not significant at either the state or national scale. The project’s emissions represent:

> 0.002% of Australia’s estimated greenhouse gas emissions for the year to March, 2012.

> 0.008% of Queensland’s annual greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1 and 2).

Reference is to be made to Section 5.1 and Figure 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry report for further discussion in relation to the predicted emission rate for the project.

4.6.1.6.2 Carbon Storage Emissions

The greenhouse gas emissions resulting from clearing vegetation within the disturbance footprint have been estimated using the FullCAM model.

The highest annual emissions of 11 ktCO2-e occur immediately following the clearing of the site. The total project greenhouse gas emissions associated with forest clearing are 67 ktCO2-e.

The overall contribution of land clearing to total project emission is approximately 13%.

Reference is to be made to Section 5.2, Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.6.1.6.3 Planned Burns

Planned burns will be utilised on site as an integral component of the Gold Coast Quarry Bushfire Management Plan to reduce the risk and severity of bushfires.

At present, there is ongoing discussion and conjecture concerning the net effect of prescribed burning of forest areas and the impact of the activity on carbon emissions. It has been suggested that in areas with a high risk of bushfires, prescribed burning activities will lead to a lower net emission of greenhouse gases, taking into consideration the higher rate of regrowth and soil carbon accumulation that occurs following a prescribed burning activity compared to a bushfire.

Emissions from planned burns associated with the project have not been included due to the uncertainty relating to the overall impact of planned burns on net carbon emissions.

4.6.1.6.4 Clean Energy Act Reporting

The proposed quarry development does not trigger the threshold for National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER), although emissions from the quarry will be captured through reporting obligation associated with the proponent as a corporation. Energy usage at the site may also be considered as part of proponent’s participation in Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO's).


There are many opportunities throughout the construction and operation of the project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In many instances, these measures would also have the potential to save capital and/or operational expenditure and compliment other environmental and business processes.

The following potential initiatives may mitigate or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. Their individual viability would vary and most require further analysis prior to adoption:


> Management Approaches

Review of existing environmental management system to ensure that it incorporates management strategies and targets for energy and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Set a project policy (e.g. on environmental management or sustainability) that incorporates commitment to minimising greenhouse gas emissions wherever cost-effective.

Communicate, induct and train project staff and contractors on energy and greenhouse priorities alongside other matters (e.g. safety, environmental management).

Ensure that energy management information including sub-metering and control systems are implemented with development of the infrastructure and buildings to track energy consumption to a level of detail that is useful. Assign responsibility for controlling energy use.

> Design and Operation

Develop an energy consumption model for all steps in the process from extraction of rock from the quarry to delivery of the aggregate product to the customer.

Hard rock processing can be an energy intensive activity. The degree of processing should be in line with delivery requirement to improve the efficiency of plant operations. This has the potential to reduce the electricity consumption related to the usage of secondary and tertiary crushing operations.

Optimise the movement of material onsite to reduce distances travelled and ensure optimal loading of mobile equipment.

Incorporate energy efficiency goals into procurement criteria for plant items such as crushers and conveyors.

Design all site buildings to provide adequate worker comfort and heat protection for equipment with minimum electricity requirements.

Consider on-site renewable energy generation to provide part of load requirements on land particularly for infrastructure buildings.

Ensure that water pumping operations are matched with usage requirements to minimise energy use.

Identify activities that can be carried out during off-peak periods to reduce peak demand, this will reduce costs and better utilise electrical infrastructure, an added benefit to electricity suppliers.

Implement recommended operation, maintenance and replacement regimes for assets and equipment (e.g. conveyors) to ensure that equipment continues to operate to design expectations for energy demand.

> Voluntary Good Management Practices

Match processing operations with demand for specific products to avoid over-processing of rock.

Consider staging equipment start-up to limit peak demand and associated electricity cost as an integral part of an electricity demand management program.

Maximise the efficiency of distribution operations through the optimisation of delivery schedules matched to vehicle capacity; including the use of articulated haul trucks where practical.

Ensure lighting is only turned on when necessary, and select energy efficient public lighting (considering whole-of-life costs including maintenance and energy consumption).

Incorporate driver training and awareness as part of operational requirements. This has been found (Carbon Trust, 2011) to lead to reduced idle time, improved maintenance regimes (e.g. tyre pressure), and improved haulage routes related to fuel efficiency.


4.6.3 Potential benefits

The transportation of quarry products is relatively costly, greenhouse gas-intensive activity. There are a range of benefits achieved if a quarry is located close to its markets. Locating a quarry close to market for the quarry materials avoids greenhouse gas emissions from truck diesel that would occur if the materials had to be transported further. Quarry products are dense, and their transport requires more energy compared to lighter payloads; that is, they require sturdier vehicles and consume comparatively more diesel. Hence, proximity to market is more advantageous in minimising greenhouse gas emissions than for less dense payloads.

The amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be avoided depends on the additional distance to be travelled, and the comparative process efficiency (regarding greenhouse gas emissions) of alternative sources of material and the fuel efficiency of the truck fleets. Greenhouse gas benefits would accompany multiple other benefits in minimising the distance between quarry and point of use, notably cost, safety and amenity.

The assessment carried out as part of the EIS has incorporated a quantitative comparison of alternative source quarries and possible markets for quarry products to investigate the potential greenhouse gas emissions benefits of a proximal quarry site. The locations of existing, operating quarries in the region were taken as alternative source quarries. Mudgeeraba, Reedy Creek and Palm Beach were selected as possible markets, based on Emerging Community areas identified in the Gold Coast City Council planning scheme, and an urban location (Palm Beach).

The following comments are provided with respect to the analysis that has been completed:

> The emissions calculations assumed 2 Mtpa of quarry product transported by trucks with a 28 tonne payload, burning 20 litres per hour and travelling 60 km in an hour.

> The analysis further assumed that there would be no differences in vehicle fleet, product characteristics or production efficiency among the alternatives.

> In the context of Lot 105, the next nearest source quarry, Nerang Hymix/Hanson, would have between double and five times (an additional 2,067 to 2,842 t/y CO2-e) the greenhouse gas emissions due to transport increases.

> Transporting quarry materials to these markets from Ballina would increase emissions by a multiple of 8 to as much as 25 times (between 10,979 to 12,918 t/y).

> Overall, the minimum annual savings would be 2,067 tonnes and the maximum savings could be 12,918 tonnes.

> Over 40 years, the total savings would range between 82,000 tonnes and 517,000 tonnes CO2-e.

Reference is to be made to Section 6 and Figure 4 of the Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Gold Coast Quarry report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.


4.7 Noise and Vibration

4.7.1a Noise: Description of Environmental Values

The Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report prepared by Acoustics RB Pty Ltd (Appendix II) provides an assessment of acoustic issues as they relate to the development and operation of the proposed quarry. The following figures are also to be noted:

> Figure 4-82 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Construction Activities at Phase E3. Calm Wind. No Barriers;

> Figure 4-83 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Establishment Activities at Phase E3. Calm Wind. 3m High Barrier to Sedimentary Pond plus 5m Moveable Barrier to Primary Crusher 2;

> Figure 4-84 – Alignment of 3m High Barrier to Sedimentation Pond at Phase E3. Shown in Bold Green;

> Figure 4-85 – Alignment of 5m High Moveable Modular Barrier to Second Primary Crusher at Phase E3. Shown in Bold Green;

> Figure 4-86 – Isometric View from Front of 3m high Moveable Barrier;

> Figure 4-87 – Isometric View from Rear of 3m High Moveable Barrier;

> Figure 4-88 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Construction Activities at Phase D3 – Calm Wind No Barriers;

> Figure 4-89 - Noise levels at Nearest Residences Construction Activities at Phase D3. Calm wind, 5m High Moveable Close in Barriers to Crushers;

> Figure 4-90 – Alignment of 5m High Moveable Modular Barrier to Primary Crushers. Shown in Bold Green;

> Figure 4-91 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Construction Activities at Phase C1. Calm Wind, 5m High Close-In Barrier to Crusher;

> Figure 4-92 – Alignment of 5m High Moveable Modular Barrier to Primary Crusher at Phase C1 Shown in Bold Green;

> Figure 4-93 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Construction Activities at Phase C2 – Calm Wind 6m High and 8m High Barriers;

> Figure 4-94 – Alignment of 6m High 111m Long Barrier Shown in Bold Green and 8m High 176m Long Barrier Combination Shown in Bold Red;

> Figure 4-95 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Quarrying Activities at Phase Q1 – Calm Wind No Barriers;

> Figure 4-96 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Quarrying Activities at Phase Q1 – 3m/s Downwind No Barriers;



> Figure 4-99 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Quarrying Activities at Phase Q5 – Calm Wind 6m High 150m Long Barrier to NW Boundary;

> Figure 4-100 – Alignment of 6m high 150m long Fixed Barrier Setback 6m from NW Boundary;

> Figure 4-101 – Noise levels at Nearest Residences Workshop Noise at Phase Q1 – Calm Wind No Barriers;

> Figure 4-102 – Façade_Corrected Noise Level at Nearest Residences due Road Traffic – No Quarrying at Phase Q1; and


> Figure 4-103 – Façade_Corrected Noise Level at Nearest Residences due Road Traffic – With Quarrying at Phase Q1;

> Figure 4-104 – Change in Façade_Corrected Noise Level at Nearest Residences due Quarry Traffic at Phase Q1.

The technical report addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.7 as they relate to acoustic aspects. This report is submitted in Appendix II.

4.7.1a.1 Proposed Hours of Operation

In responding to the Terms of Reference, the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report demonstrates that the following hours of operation for the quarry are appropriate in the context of the regulatory framework:

> Pre-Operational Phases

During the Establishment, Development & Construction Phases, the proposed development will be operated within the following hours:-

Access (general operations): 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Construction activities & site works* 6:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Sales and Dispatch: 6:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Mobile Crushing and Screening: 7:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Maintenance: 24 hours Monday to Saturday and 8:00am to 6:00pm Sundays

Blasting: 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday

* Operation of major items of noise-generating plant, specifically bulldozers, rock breakers and rock drills will not commence until 7:00am.

> Quarrying Phases

During the Quarrying Phases Q1 to Q5, the proposed development will be operated within the following hours:-

Access (general operations): 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Extraction: 6:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Sales and Dispatch: 6:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Crushing and Screening: 6:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday

Maintenance: 24 hours Monday to Saturday and 8:00am to 6:00pm Sundays

Blasting: 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday

4.7.1a.2 Description of Environmental Values

Environmental Protection Policy (Noise) 2008 presents a table of acoustic quality objectives which are “prescribed for enhancing or protecting the environmental value(s). ... It is intended that the acoustic quality objectives be progressively achieved as part of achieving the purpose of this policy over the long term.”

For residential dwellings, and having regard to the proposed hours of operation of the quarry, the acoustic quality objectives (measured using the most stringent noise level parameter, i.e. LAeq,adj,1hr) for satisfactory internal noise levels (together with equivalent external noise levels) would be as follows:

> 06:00-07:00: 30dBA internally (i.e. 37-40dBA free field externally with windows open)

> 07:00-18:00: 35dBA internally (i.e. 42-45dBA free field externally with windows open)

For completeness, and having regard to any subsequent Development Application that may be submitted, consideration has also been given to:

> the external acoustical quality objective of EPP (Noise);


> Clause 10 controlling background creep of EPP (Noise) 2008;

> the noise level limits set under conditions commonly imposed by DEHP for quarry applications; and

> constraints placed on noise from construction activities.

Presented below are examples of noise level limits for operational activities set in terms of each measured LAmax adj,T, component LAeq adj,T and measured LAeq adj,T:

Table 4-16: Various Noise Level Parameters specified in Table 1 of the Noise Schedule

Table 1 Limits set in terms of LAmax adj,T

Noise Level at a Noise Sensitive Place Measured as the Adjusted Maximum Sound Pressure Level LAmax adj,T

Period

Background noise level plus 5dBA 7am – 6pm

Background noise level plus 5dBA 6pm - 10pm

Background noise level plus 3dBA 10pm – 7am

Table 1 Limits set in terms of component LAeq adj,T

Noise Level at a Noise Sensitive Place LAeq adj,T Period




Table 1 Limits set in terms of measured LAeq adj,T

Noise Level at a Noise Sensitive Place Measured LAmax adj,T Period




Reference is to be made to Section 7.0 of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.7.1a.3 Background Noise Levels and Relevant Noise Level Limits

Sensitive receptor locations were located within 2km of the boundaries of Lot 105. The sensitive receptors are depicted in Attachment B of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report.

All nearby sensitive noise receptors are residential. There are no sensitive health, recreational or educational facilities located in close proximity to the subject site.

In terms of noise emission to the community, the locations of the likely most sensitive noise receptors will generally be those individual residential allotments located in close proximity to Lot 105.

4.7.1a.3.1 Ambient Noise Levels and Background Noise Levels

For the Establishment, Development and Construction Stages of the project, the operation of major items of noise-generating plant will not commence until 7:00am, Monday to Saturday. There will be no noise-generating activities conducted after 6:00pm, or on Sundays or public holidays.

For the operational phases of the proposed quarry, extraction, crushing and screening and sales will be conducted between 6:30am and 6:00pm Monday to Saturday.

Maintenance activities are proposed to be conducted 24 hours Monday to Saturday and 8:00am to 6:00pm on Sundays.

To quantify the ambient noise levels and background noise levels in the surrounding community as it is currently configured, unattended noise level monitoring was conducted continuously from the morning of Thursday 16 August 2012 to the morning of Thursday 23 August 2012 at five representative locations typical


of the likely most-sensitive noise receptors. All noise logging was conducted continuously over sequential 15 minute intervals.

The locations of the logging devises are depicted on the figure below:

Figure 4-81: Logger Locations (Source: Acoustics RB, 2013)

With respect to the above, Location D was chosen to be generally representative of the noise levels that currently prevail at the eastern extent of recently approved, but as yet undeveloped, Stage 20 of the Observatory Estate. Notwithstanding, it should be noted that because development has yet to take place over Stage 20, the noise levels measured at Location D will understate the actual noise levels expected to result after development has been completed.

When the proposed quarry is fully operational, extraction, crushing and screening and sales will be conducted between 6:30am and 6:00pm six days per week (i.e. Monday to Saturday). Eleven of these 11.5 hours of operations occur during the day time period (i.e. 7:00am-6:00pm). The first half hour, 6:30am - 7:00am, is part of the night time period.

From the results of the logging exercise, and noting the above comments, the Rating Background Level (RBL) for the day time period at each monitoring location has been calculated as the median value of the set of six (i.e. Monday to Saturday) 10 percentile levels recorded at each location. The resultant daytime RBL values are as follows:

> Location A = 40dBA

> Location B = 40dBA

> Location C = 30dBA

> Location D = 31dBA

> Location E = 37dBA

For the period between 6:30am and 7:00am, there is not sufficient data each day to be able to calculate the 10 percentile levels. Instead, and adopting a necessarily conservative stance, the Rating Background Level for this time period may be calculated as the median of the seven minimum daily values recorded during the full hour from 6:00am – 7:00am. The results are as follows:

> Location A = 44dBA


> Location B = 42dBA

> Location C = 32dBA

> Location D = 32dBA

> Location E = 41dBA

With respect to the above, given the very substantial distances of separation of the Skyline Terrace community from Lot 105, coupled with the presence of intervening residential developments and the Pacific Motorway corridor, it was deemed unnecessary to undertake noise level monitoring within this particular community. Notwithstanding, and adopting a conservative approach, it can be reasonably concluded that the average background noise levels in the rating background noise level for the Skyline Terrace community will be no lower than those determined for Stage 20.

In a similar manner, and giving due regard to the rural residential nature of both the Tuesday Drive community and the Chesterfield Drive community, it can be reasonably concluded that the average background noise levels in the two communities will be equivalent and the rating background noise level for each of these communities will be the same as well.


4.7.1a.3.2 Distilled Noise Level Limits

While there are a number of methods by which noise criteria may be set, the most conservative set of noise level limits can be distilled to be as follows:-

Table 4-17: Distilled Noise Level Limits

Location Pre-Operational Phases Quarrying Phases

A 43dBA 43dBA

B 43dBA 42dBA

C 33dBA 32dBA

D 38dBA 35dBA

E 40dBA 40dBA

Reference is to be made to Section 8.3 of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report for further discussion.


4.7.1b Vibration: Description of Environmental Values

The Blasting Impact Assessment report prepared by Blastechnology (Appendix JJ) provides an assessment of vibration and overpressure issues as they relate to the blasting regime associated with the development and operation of the proposed quarry. The following figures are also to be noted:

> Figure 4-105 – Areas with the Proposed Quarry Footprint at which Blasting Operations will be conducted within 300m of Residential Properties;

> Figure 4-106 – Vibration and Overpressure Contour for the Proposed Development Stage (Processing Plant Pad);

> Figure 4-107 – Vibration & Overpressure Contour for the Proposed Quarry Stage (Phases Q1 to Q5);

> Figure 4-108 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area A: Kingsmore Estate;

> Figure 4-109 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area B: Old Burleigh Town, NW;

> Figure 4-110 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area B: C01 Old Burleigh Town, SE;

> Figure 4-111 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area D:D01 Tallebudgera Creek Road;

> Figure 4-112 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area E: E01, Tuesday Drive;

> Figure 4-113 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area F: F05, Stockland Observatory Drive;

> Figure 4-114 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area I: I01, Stage 20 at the Observatory; and

> Figure 4-115 – Area by Area Impacts – Vibration & Overpressure. Area D: D13 (Maryville), Tallebudgera Creek Road.

> .The technical report addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.7 as they relate to vibration and overpressure. This report is submitted in Appendix JJ.

Two types of impacts are generated by blasting activities. The intensity of these impacts is controlled principally by the separation distance between the blasting activity and the sensitive receptor, and the size of the explosive charges. These impacts are described as follows:

> Overpressure

Air-borne vibrations, known as overpressure, include both audible and sub-audible (frequencies less than 20 Hz) components. While the audible component of air-borne vibration from blasting operations may be easily identified, the sub-audible component can manifest as shaking or rattling of windows or objects on shelves inside a residential structure. While the sub-audible component of overpressure is generally imperceptible outside a residence, it can be responsible for secondary noises inside a residence.

In accordance with Australian regulations and standards, overpressure is measured as a peak linear sound pressure level in decibels (dBL), though the levels should not be confused with A-weighted noise levels (dBA).

> Vibration

Ground-borne vibration radiates in all directions from the blast via the rock mass or soil, and is an inevitable consequence of the blasting process. Due to attenuation and scattering, vibration levels reduce with increasing distance from the source. In accordance with Australian regulations and standards, vibration is measured as a peak particle velocity (mm/s).

Overpressure and vibration levels are each affected by the blasting parameters as well as local geology or topography between the source and the receiver.

4.7.1b.1 Effects of Blasting

The effects of blasting can be considered in terms of the effect on the surrounding rock mass, and the effect on nearby people and structures such as houses.


> Effects on Rock Mass

The action of rock breakage by blasting in quarries is, by nature, a high energy process, designed to transform relatively massive and hard rock into a pile of relatively fine fragments for crushing and subsequent use in concrete and asphalt. The ability of the explosive to break rock, however, is limited in the case of typical Australian quarrying operations, to a small radius around the explosive charges, typically of the order of a few metres.

Blasting is the almost-universal means deployed for extracting hard rock for construction aggregate material, both in Australia and around the world, and quarries are usually located in quite close proximity to urban centres, to provide the essential construction materials at the most affordable prices. This requires that all aspects of quarrying activities be tightly controlled so as to minimise negative impacts on surrounding or nearby communities. The negative impacts from blasting relate to ground-borne vibrations, air-borne vibrations, and the potential for flyrock.

A summary of blasting-induced effects as a function of separation distance, for normal quarrying operations with 10 to 15 metre bench faces, is:

- Within 0 to 5 metres of charges – ability to crush and fragment fresh rock (vibration levels of the order of 5000 mm/s);

- to 20 metres – ability to create occasional light cracking and block dislodgement in the surrounding rock mass (vibration levels of the order of 1000 mm/s);

- Up to 200 metres – ground and air-borne vibration levels uncomfortable and disturbing (vibration levels up to 25 mm/s);

- 200 metres to 1000 metres – ground and air-borne vibration levels usually within limits considered by Australian Standards to be appropriate for Human Comfort (less than 10 mm/s);

- Greater than 1000 metres – ground and air-borne vibration levels generally close to human day-time perception levels (less than 1 mm/s).

Vibrations are an inevitable outcome of the use of explosives for rock breakage, and the intensity of both ground and air-borne vibrations decreases rapidly with the distance from propagation.

The Australian Standard (AS 2187.2: 2006), and the Ecoaccess 2006 Guideline are the most stringent of all known international standards regarding permissible levels of ground and air-borne vibrations, and address personal amenity. Vibrations which comply with AS 2187.2: 2006 and the Ecoaccess Guidelines are well below the levels capable of causing damage to residential structures.

> Effects on Personal Amenity

Vibrations are readily perceived by humans, with the threshold of perception commonly considered to be in the range 0.2 to 0.5 mm/s for short duration impulsive vibrations, such those generated by blasting. Various standards exist around the world to identify levels of impulsive, short-duration vibration considered acceptable by most people. These standards include the Australian Standard AS 2187.2: 2006, the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council (ANZEC) 1990, the Queensland Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008, and the Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency Ecoaccess Guideline (noise and vibration from blasting) 2006. Australian standards are considerably more stringent than all other known international standards for both ground-borne and air-borne vibrations from blasting.

The Environmental Protection Policy (Noise) outlines that ground-borne vibrations must not be more than 10mm/s and that air-borne vibrations must be less than or equal to 115 dBL for at least 4 out of any 5 consecutive blasts. The Ecoaccess Guideline 2006 goes beyond the Environmental Protection Policy (Noise) regulations and specifies that ground-borne vibrations must be less than or equal to 5 mm/s, and that air-borne vibrations must be less than or equal to 115 dBL, for at least 9 out of any 10 consecutive blasts.

It is therefore clear that vibration and overpressure levels generated by blasting activities must be considerably higher than the levels of human perception before they are considered unlawful or having a


significant negative effect on human health and well-being. Experience also shows that some people will find any level of perceptible vibration to be bothersome and unacceptable. While that concern sometimes reflects a fear that vibration must be causing damage to the structure inside which the vibration is perceived, a review of technical literature shows that acceptable limits for vibration and overpressure in Australia are well below levels capable of causing any level of damage to residential or commercial structures.

> Blasting Related Complaints

The proponent’s West Burleigh Quarry maintains an incident log in which all complaints received directly by the quarry or regulatory authorities are recorded. Over the period from November 2006 to November 2012, six complaints have been received relating to vibration and/or overpressure impacts. Over the same period of time, it is estimated that approximately 600 blasts have been fired in approximately 300 events (averaging two blasts per event, or two blasts within approximately 10 minutes on the same day).

The impacts from blasting at the proposed Gold Coast Quarry are expected to less than those from the West Burleigh Quarry due to the greater separation distances (to the sensitive receptors) afforded by the site.

In the event of a blasting related complaint being made, the complaint will be recorded in a complaints database and will be reported to the Administering Authority as required, along with a record of follow-up actions undertaken by the quarry operator.

> Effects on Structures

It has been repeatedly demonstrated, by all studies conducted on the topic, that the levels of vibration and overpressure required to cause even very light cosmetic damage (such as cracking of paint on plaster-board joins) are greater than the levels of human perception. Further, levels required to produce cosmetic damage such as cracking of paint are also higher than the levels recommended in AS 2187.2: 2008 and the Ecoaccess 2006 Guidelines.

Studies conducted in Australia showed that no damage occurs due to vibration until levels of around 70 mm/s are reached, and even these levels result in only minor damage such as crack extensions, hairline cracking and cracks around nail-heads in plasterboard.

If vibration levels induced by blasting activities comply with the levels of vibration permitted in the Ecoaccess 2006 Guidelines, the probability of even light, cosmetic damage to structures such as cracking of paint is very low.

Reference is to be made to Section 2 of the Blasting Impact Assessment report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.7.1b.2 Quarry Blasting Practices

Blasting is planned to be conducted on 12 metre benches using 89 mm diameter blastholes with a pattern that depends on proximity to private properties. The explosive is pumped into the blastholes and has an average density of approximately 1.2 g/cc, for a maximum charge per blasthole of around 75 kg. A column of inert aggregate material (stemming) of length 2.5 metres is loaded on top of the column of explosive, and acts to contain the high pressure gases generated by the detonating explosive. Typically, blasts will:

> Average around 140 blastholes.

> Generate an average of around 40,000 tonnes of broken rock.

> Be fired on average every 7 days.

> Will generate vibration and overpressure impacts for each weekly event for a duration of around 2 seconds.

The table below details how the above described aspects can be managed:


Table 4-18: Recommended Blast Parameters.

Design Parameter Distance > 450 m Distance 300 – 450 m Distance 240 – 300 m

Bench height 12 m 12 m 12 m

Blasthole diameter 89 mm 89 mm 89 mm

Spacing 3.3 m 3.1 m 3.0 m

Burden 2.7 m 2.5 m 2.2 m

Sub-drill 0.7 m 0.7 m 0.7 m

Top stemming 2.5 m 2.5 m 2.3 m

Explosive type Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion

No. of Decks 1 2 3

Max. charge wt. 75 kg 35 kg 20 kg

Powder Factor 0.71 kg/m3 0.72 kg/m3 0.73 kg/m3

All blasts fired at the proposed Gold Coast Quarry will utilise state-of-the-art electronic initiation, and single-hole firing. This means that no two holes in any blast will fire at the same instant, and the weight of explosive contributing to the peak vibration levels will be the maximum weight contained in any single blasthole within a pattern.


4.7.2a Noise: Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Environmental Protection Policy (Noise) 2008 details a management hierarchy for noise. In general terms, this hierarchy is as follows:

> Avoidance.

The strategy associated with this concept is to avoid locating noise generating activities close to residential premises.

> Minimisation.

The strategies associated with this concept include:

- Orientation of noise generating activities to face away from sensitive receptor locations; and

- Adoption of best available technology (i.e. best practice noise control).

> Manage.

The strategy associated with this concept is to adopt appropriate management techniques to minimise intrusiveness of noise emission.

The above described hierarchy has been applied to each stage of the quarry project, namely:

> Establishment Stage (Section 9.1 of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report);

> Development Stage (Section 10.1 of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report);

> Construction Stage (Section 11.1 of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report); and

> Quarry Operational Stage (Section 12.1 of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report).

For each of the above stages, and in accordance with the TOR, SoundPLAN noise contour plots were prepared for the likely worst-case operations. The process involved in preparing these noise contour plots and the significance of the resultant noise levels is discussed below. The methodology utilised to determine potential noise impacts was consistent for each of the Stages described above.


4.7.2a.1 Establishment Stage

For the Establishment Stage, Phase E3 was determined to be the likely worse-case. The results of the modelling exercise therefore are as follows:

Table 4-19: Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Levels and Noise Level Limits – Phase E3

Sensitive Receptor Area Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Level, LAeq adj,T

(dBA)

Applicable Noise Level Limit (dBA)

Meets Limit?

Kingsmore Estate 32 40 Yes

Old Burleigh Town (NW) 35 43 Yes

Old Burleigh Town (SE) 44 43 No

Tallebudgera Creek Road Rural Residential

38 43 Yes

Tuesday Drive Rural Residential

<25 33 Yes

Stockland Observatory Estate

<25 38 Yes

Skyline Terrace <30 43 Yes

Chesterfield Drive 30 33 Yes

Approved Stage 20 at the Observatory

39 38 No

The noise level contours associated with the above table are in Appendix E of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report.

4.7.2a.1.1 Requirements for Noise Control

From the results presented in the table above, it can be seen that the noise level limits will be met at all sensitive receptor areas other than in the Old Burleigh Town (SE) Sensitive Receptor Area and Sensitive Receptor Area I Approved Stage 20 at The Observatory where maximum noise levels 1dBA higher than the desirable target may be encountered.

While this is only a minor exceedance, it will be a relatively straight-forward matter to deal with this 1dBA departure.

From analysis of the noise source contribution rankings, it is apparent that the dominant source of noise emission to Old Burleigh Town (SE) is the mobile crushing plant to be located in the basin for the sedimentation pond. By erecting a 3m high acoustic barrier along the outer rim sedimentation pond, a net 4dBA reduction in the level of noise emission to the affected areas of Old Burleigh Town (SE) can be achieved.

At Sensitive Receptor Area I, the mobile crushing plant to be located at the northern end of the Phase E3 works area will be the dominant noise source. By installing a 5m high moveable acoustic barrier adjacent to and to the west of the northern mobile primary crushing unit, a net 3dBA reduction in the level of noise emission to the affected areas of Sensitive Receptor Area I is achieved.

With these barriers in place, together with applying management hierarchy for noise, the resultant noise levels throughout all of the community areas are expected to be fully compliant with the distilled noise levels that have been determined.

Due to the very minor nature of the earthmoving equipment to be utilised during Phase E1, the level of noise emission from Phase E1 will be very substantially less than that generated during Phase E3. For Phase E2, the plant utilisation will be similar to but still less intense than that proposed for Phase E3. Consequently, while it is reasonable to expect that compliance with the relevant noise levels will be generally achieved throughout during these earlier phases, it is still possible that, from time-to-time, the level of noise emission from the activities of the earthmoving equipment used during Phase E2 may also exceed the noise level limit


at some parts of Old Burleigh Town (SE) and/or Sensitive Receptor Area I. The magnitude of any exceedance, however, is expected to be very low: 1-3 dBA. The dominant noise source in such instances will again be the mobile crushing plant.

To ensure that the optimum level of attenuation is achieved from the movable barrier at all times, it is recommended that the barrier be constructed so that it can be readily moved to follow any relocation of the primary crushing unit. Typically, such portable barriers would be constructed as a set of 8-9 inter-linking barrier modules, each of which are constructed on steel skids which can be dragged behind a bulldozer or front end loader to allow the barrier modules to be readily relocated on-site. Details of the appropriate barrier module constructions can be developed during the detail design phase the project.


4.7.2a.2 Development Stage

For the Development Stage, Phase D3 was determined to be the likely worse-case. The results of the modelling exercise therefore are as follows:

Table 4-20: Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Levels and Noise Level Limits – Phase D3


(dBA)


Meets Limit?



Old Burleigh Town (SE) 46 43 No


37 43 Yes


<25 33 Yes


<25 38 Yes


Chesterfield Drive <25 33 Yes


35 38 Yes

The noise level contours associated with the above table are in Appendix F of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report.


From the results presented in the table above, it can be seen that the noise level limits will be met at all sensitive receptor areas other than in the Old Burleigh Town (SE) Sensitive Receptor Area where maximum noise levels 3dBA higher than the desirable target may be encountered.

While this exceedance is of greater magnitude than that predicted for Phase E3, it can still be dealt with using the same straight-forward noise control.

From analysis of the noise source contribution rankings, it is apparent that the dominant source of noise emission to Old Burleigh Town (SE) will be the two trains of mobile crushing plant for overburden processing. By installing a 5m high moveable acoustic barrier adjacent to and to the east of each of the mobile primary crushing units, a net 3dBA reduction in the level of noise emission to the affected areas of Old Burleigh Town (SE) can be achieved.


With these movable barriers in place, together with applying management hierarchy for noise, the resultant noise levels throughout all of the community areas are expected to be fully compliant with the distilled noise levels that have been determined.

For optimum results, it would be appropriate to implement the barrier control at the commencement of the Development Phases. To ensure that the optimum level of attenuation is achieved from the movable barriers at all times, it is recommended that each barrier be constructed so that it can be readily moved to follow any relocation of the primary crushing units. As was the case for the Establishment Phases,, such portable barriers would be constructed as a set of 8-9 inter-linking barrier modules, each of which are constructed on steel skids which can be dragged behind a bulldozer or front end loader to allow the barrier modules to be readily relocated on-site.


4.7.2a.3 Construction Stage

For the Construction Stage, both Phase C1 and Phase C2 have been analysed. The results of the modelling exercise therefore are as follows:

Table 4-21: Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Levels and Noise Level Limits – Phase C1


(dBA)


Meets Limit?


Old Burleigh Town (NW) <35 43 Yes

Old Burleigh Town (SE) 40 43 Yes


40 43 Yes


<30 33 Yes


<25 38 Yes




36 38 Yes

Table 4-22: Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Levels and Noise Level Limits – Phase C2


(dBA)


Meets Limit?





31 43 Yes


31 33 Yes


<25 38 Yes





36 38 Yes

The noise level contours associated with the above table are in Appendix G of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report.


From the results presented in the table above, it can be seen that the relevant noise level limits are both expected to be met in all sensitive receptor areas provided a 5m high moveable acoustic barrier is constructed in close proximity to the mobile primary crushing unit.

With this barrier in place, together with applying management hierarchy for noise, the resultant noise levels throughout all of the community areas are expected to be fully compliant with the distilled noise levels that have been determined.

For optimum results, it would be appropriate to implement the barrier control at the commencement of the Construction Phase C1. To ensure that the optimum level of attenuation is achieved from the barrier at all times, it is recommended that the barrier be constructed in the same manner as recommended for the Development Phases so that it can be readily moved to follow any relocation of the primary crushing units. Typically, such portable barriers would be constructed as a set of 8-9 inter-linking barrier modules, each of which are constructed on steel skids which can be moved by site equipment to allow the barrier modules to be readily relocated on-site. Details of the appropriate barrier module constructions can be developed during the detail design phase the project.

For Phase C2, the 5m high moveable barrier will need to be complemented with two additional fixed barriers. The fixed barriers would consist of a 8m high 176m long barrier / earth mound combination constructed along the high ground immediately to the west of western extent of Phase C2 together with a 6m high 111m long barrier / earth mound combination constructed along the northern edge of Phase C2.

The details of construction of the 8m high and 6m high barrier / earth mound combination can be prepared during the detailed design phase the project.

Reference is to be made to Section 11 of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.7.2a.4 Quarrying Operation Stage

For the Quarrying Operation Stage, Phase Q1, Phase Q3 and Phase Q5 have been assessed. Phase Q1, Phase Q3 and Phase Q5 have all been modelled without noise controls in place. Phase Q5 has also been modelled with noise controls in place.

The noise model for each of the Quarrying Phases comprised:

> nine point sources,

> 37 line sources; and

> 64 individual area sources.

This is a total of 110 noise sources. It should be noted that this degree of detail and rigour of acoustical analysis has seldom, if ever, been brought to bear on any quarry application previously lodged in Queensland. In view of this, it is reasonable to suggest that the degree of in the acoustical scrutiny placed on this particular project and the resultant accuracy of the predictions made represent a new standard for acoustical assessment for quarry projects.

The results of the modelling exercise therefore are as follows:


Table 4-23: Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Levels and Noise Level Limits without Noise Control – Phase Q1


(dBA)


Meets Limit?





39 42 Yes


<25 32 Yes


25 35 Yes




35 35 Yes



(dBA)


Meets Limit?





37 42 Yes


<25 32 Yes


<25 35 Yes




33 35 Yes



(dBA)


Meets Limit?





37 42 Yes



(dBA)


Meets Limit?


<25 32 Yes


<25 35 Yes




37 35 No

Table 4-26: Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Levels and Noise Level Limits with Noise Control – Phase Q5


(dBA)


Meets Limit?





37 42 Yes


<25 32 Yes


<25 35 Yes




35 35 Yes

The noise level contours associated with the above table are in Appendix H of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report.

4.7.2a.4.1 Effect of Drill Rig Operation

The noise contour plots include the operation of all sources of fixed crushing and screening plant and all earthmoving equipment, but do not include the short term operation of the “low noise” rock drill. The level of noise generated by the rock drill will be a function of its location relative to the residential premises being considered. In this instance, its location refers to its separation distance horizontally from the residence as well as the RL of the bench on which the rock drill is operating at the time.

Because the location of the rock drill will vary considerably over the life of the quarry and that there are a large number of individual residences to be considered on each occasion, it is impractical to attempt to quantify the combined extent of noise emission from the operation of fixed and mobile plant together with the operation of the rock drill by the simple preparation of noise contour plots. Instead, a series of noise level calculations has been undertaken to determine the expected degree of increase in the level of noise that will be generated as a result of the operation of the rock drill in concert with the rest of the quarry equipment.

From the results of this analysis, it has been concluded that under most operating conditions, the operation of the “low noise” rock drill, will result in an increase in the level of noise emission to the nearest residences in the range 0-14 dBA, with the greatest increase likely to occur at the residences already subjected to noise levels well below the relevant noise level limit.


While it is possible that the noise from the operation of the rock drill may result in noise levels exceeding the relevant noise level limits, it is important to put any potential exceedances into perspective.

The first point to be considered is the vertical location of the rock drill. The limited occasions when exceedances may arise will generally coincide with times when the rock drill is operating just below natural ground level, that is, at the top benches of the quarry. Over the life of the quarry, operations at this level will occur for a very minor portion of the total resource life, estimated to be in the order of 2% of the resource life. For approximately the remaining 98% of the time, the rock drill will be operating well below natural ground level and will be shielded by the lip of the quarry.

The second point to be considered is the duration of drilling. It should be noted that it is likely that once the quarry is in full production and extraction is being conducted on the lower benches, the rock drill will be operated for most of the day and for most of the six-day week. During the earliest stages of quarrying, however, particularly when the rim of the quarry is being extended and material is being extracted from the top benches, smaller shots requiring fewer drill holes will be set. Under these circumstances, the period of time the rock drill is in use will be significantly reduced.

The final point of note is the horizontal location of the rock drill. Unlike the enclosed crushing and screening plant which will not move during the life of the quarry and, to an extent, the mobile earthmoving plant which will maintain the same operational locations and movement paths for extended periods of time, the rock drill will move from one part of the bench to another and from one bench to another many times during any particular month. In view of this, the level of noise emitted by the rock drill to any particular residential location will change after a period of just a few days. That is, any minor exceedances of the noise limits will be apparent for only a brief period of time before the normal plan of extraction of material at the quarry dictates that the rock drill moves once more, which in turn, will result in a change to the level of noise emitted by the rock drill.

Notwithstanding, in circumstances where it is predicted in advance that the operation of the “low noise” drill rig may result in significant and sustained exceedances of the relevant noise level limits, it would be appropriate to ensure that appropriate noise control strategies are implemented. Primarily, such strategies will include:

> the construction and deployment of moveable barriers located at appropriate elevated positions between the operating drill rig and the nearest residences; and, if necessary,

> the deployment of a supplementary drill rig to reduce the duration of time over which any exceedances may occur.

Further details can be developed during the detail design phase and so that they can be implemented as part of the Noise Management Plan.

4.7.2a.4.2 Effect of Downwind Propagation

To date, the assessment of the extent of environmental noise emission from the quarrying activities has considered the impact of noise emission under calm wind conditions. This focus has been maintained because the highest degree of intrusiveness is usually generated under calm conditions.

Under downwind conditions, it is usual for the level of noise emission to increase, but for the intrusiveness to decrease. The reason for this is that the degree of increase in noise emission is quickly compensated for by an increase in ambient noise levels due primarily to wind-induced noise in trees.

In most commonly encountered situations, the elevation of the ambient and background noise levels due to wind effects is of a similar or greater magnitude than the increase in noise emission due to downwind propagation.

Under neutral wind propagation conditions, that is, when the direction of wind is normal to the line between the source and receiver, there is generally no increase in the level of noise emission, but a significant increase in the level of masking noise. A reduction of intrusiveness occurs as a result.

Under upwind conditions, the level of noise emission decreases while the level of ambient noise increases. A significant reduction in the level of intrusiveness results in these instances.


When preparing and comparing plots associated with upwind conditions and downwind propagation, it can be seen that, at the nearest affected residences, the level of increase is generally in the range 3.0-4.5dBA. From an examination of the ambient and background noise level data, the increase in rating background noise level under the same light wind conditions has been calculated to be 5dBA. That is, the increase in rating background noise level and, hence, the elevation of the corresponding noise level limit is of the same order as the increase in the level of noise emission, resulting in no change to the degree of compliance or otherwise with the acceptance criteria.

The comparison plots described above are submitted in Appendix H of the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report.


From the results presented in the tables above, it can be seen that the relevant noise level limits are both expected to be met in all sensitive receptor areas under Phases Q1 and Q3, and in the case of Phase Q5, at all sensitive receptor areas other than in Approved Stage 20 at the Observatory where maximum noise levels are 2dBA higher than the desirable target may be encountered.

From analysis of the noise source contribution rankings, it is apparent that the dominant source of noise emission to Approved Stage 20 at the Observatory will be the operations of plant and equipment in the Phase Q5 pit. By erecting a 6m high 150m long fixed acoustic barrier along a line parallel to and set back 6m from the common boundary with The Observatory Stage 20, the noise modelling has determined that a net 2dBA reduction in the level of noise emission to the affected areas of Approved Stage 20 at the Observatory, would be expected to be achieved.

With this barrier in place when necessary, together with applying management hierarchy for noise, the resultant noise levels throughout all of the community areas are expected to be fully compliant with the distilled noise levels that have been determined.

The details of construction of the 6m high barrier can be prepared during the detailed design phase of the project.


4.7.2a.5 Workshop Noise

As noted in Section 4.7.1a.1 above, the hours for operation of the workshop will be as follows:

> 24 hours Monday to Saturday, and

> 8:00am to 6:00pm Sundays

The most critical time in terms of controlling noise emission will be during the night-time period (between 10:00pm and 7:00am). For consistency with the method adopted above in Section 4.7.1a.3.2 above for setting limits for acceptable levels of noise emission, the appropriate limits for each of the nearby residential areas can be set by reference to the Rating Background Level (RBL) for the night time period at each monitoring location has been calculated as the median value of the set of six (i.e. Monday to Saturday) 10 percentile levels recorded at each location. The resultant night time RBL values are as follows:

> Location A: 28dBA

> Location B: 28dBA

> Location C: 21dBA

> Location D: 23dBA

> Location E: 27dBA

The resultant component LAeq adj,T noise level limits can be determined to be as follows:-

> Location A: 28dBA

> Location B: 28dBA


> Location C: 21dBA

> Location D: 23dBA

> Location E: 27dBA

It is recognised that the design of the workshop building has progressed no further than the determination of the external dimensions, and general positioning and orientation. Notwithstanding, it is understood that the major openings to the workshop will be in the western wall only, there will be no openings in the eastern or southern walls and thermal insulation will be installed to the underside of the roof cladding. Furthermore, to reduce reverberant build-up within the workshop and, hence, maximise hearing conservation and occupant comfort, a perforated foil facing will be fixed to the underside of the thermal insulation. The acoustical performance objective for the selection of the perforated foil faced insulation is NRC 0.95.

To evaluate the extent of noise emission from workshop activities carried out under likely worst-case conditions during the night-time period, the SoundPLAN noise model was reconfigured by removing the enclosed fixed crushing and screening plant and the mobile earthmoving plant and introducing the workshop as a series of planar area sources where the sound power level of each source was determined by reference to typical worse case internal noise levels. The results of the modelling exercise therefore are as follows:

Table 4-27: Highest Predicted Free Field Noise Levels and Noise Emission Targets Quarry Phases Q1-Q5 – Workshop Noise

Sensitive Receptor Area Highest Predicted Free Field Noise

Level, LAeq adj,T (dBA)


Meets Limit?





12 21 Yes

Tuesday Drive Rural Residential <10 23 Yes

Stockland Observatory Estate <10 23 Yes

Skyline Terrace 10 23 Yes

Chesterfield Drive <10 23 Yes


<10 23 Yes

It is noted also that while most maintenance during the pre-operational phases will be conducted during normal daytime operating hours, it is possible that breakdown repairs may need to be carried out during the evening and, possibly, during the night as well. In these circumstances, because the maintenance workshop would not yet have been constructed, any maintenance carried out would be conducted in the open.

At this stage, it is not appropriate to attempt to fully quantify the effect of the level of noise emission that may result from out-of-hours maintenance activities being carried out during the pre-operational phases. The number of variables is too large to allow any accurate qualification to be attempted. Instead, it is appropriate to ensure that control of noise emissions arising from such maintenance events is achieved by application of specific provisions within the Construction Noise Management Plan. Accordingly, it will be necessary for this management plan to include details of methodologies and mitigation measures to be adopted in the event of out-of-hours maintenance activities being necessitated.

4.7.2a.6 Discussion of Noise Impacts on Terrestrial and Aquatic Fauna

The TOR requests that impacts of environmental noise on terrestrial and aquatic fauna be considered.

This requirement has arisen from time-to-time in other TOR’s and Information Requests. In each instance, the answer has been the same. While the effects are likely to be more pronounced for nocturnal animals while foraging at night, the acceptance criteria are unknown, the evaluation parameters are unknown and, as a


result, the impacts cannot be quantified. In view of this, it is possible only to consider the impacts on terrestrial and aquatic fauna in general terms only and to ameliorate the effects of any impact by the application of Best Practice Noise Control.

For work during all the Stages descried above, Best Practice Noise Control will comprise all of the strategies and detailed noise control measures described above. With these measures in place, it can be reasonably concluded that the appropriate level of action has been taken to militate against any adverse effects on other terrestrial or aquatic fauna. Furthermore, the majority of activities that will be undertaken on the site will occur during the day time hours.

4.7.2a.7 Road Traffic Noise

The Terms of Reference do not identify a requirement to address the environmental noise emission from trucks on the haul route/s serving the quarry markets. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the noise from truck movements on the haul route/s is a matter that warrants attention as part of the EIS.

Because two alternative haul routes are currently under consideration and the final haul route has not yet been decided, it is appropriate to give consideration to the impact of noise from truck movements along each route.

Given the close proximity of Old Coach Road to residences at the eastern extent of Kingsmore Estate, it is clear that if there is to be adverse impact from introduction onto the public roads of road trucks serving the quarry, any adverse effects will be experienced at these residences and under circumstances when all truck traffic uses Old Coach Road (northbound), rather than the proposed new Bermuda Street link.

The analysis of the impact of the introduction of road trucks travelling to and from the quarry via Old Coach Road has been assessed by comparing the level of road traffic noise emission to the nearest affected residences under two scenarios:

> without any change to the road stream on Old Coach Road; and

> with the introduction of expected daily volume of road trucks onto Old Coach Road at the commencement of quarrying operations at Phase Q1, with all trucks travelling along the road link between intersection of the quarry access road with Old Coach Road and Kingsmore Boulevard.

The calculations also took account of the various site-specific variables and parameter settings which influence the level of road traffic noise emission onto the site.

Given the unknown nature of construction of any existing side or rear fences constructed along the Old Coach Road boundary of the nearest residences, (i.e. whether constructed to acoustical standard or not), the beneficial shielding yielded by any barriers has been ignored.

Having regard to both the Gold Coast Planning Scheme’s Constraint Code for Road Traffic Noise Management and the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ Road Traffic Noise Management: Code of Practice, the objective limit for road traffic noise intrusion is 63dBA L10(18hour) facade-corrected.

Considering the above in relation to the vicinity of Lot 105, it can be seen that the external noise levels at each of the residences located in close proximity to Old Coach Road will be as follows:-

> Without Quarrying: 64.5-66.9dBA

> With Quarrying: 64.8-67.2dBA

It is therefore apparent that the dominant source of road traffic noise intrusion onto these residences is traffic on the Pacific Motorway.

While the increase in the degree of road traffic noise intrusion onto the nearest residential properties can be quantified, it is clear that the objective criterion (i.e. 63 dBA) is expected to be exceeded as a matter of course irrespective of whether quarrying operations are conducted on the subject site or not. Furthermore, the degree of increase is very low and is within the expected tolerances for measurement of road traffic noise intrusion.

On this basis, it could be concluded that there is no warrant to implement any specific noise control actions to ameliorate the impact of road traffic noise intrusion onto these properties. Notwithstanding, it is recognised


that the predicted level of noise intrusion exceeds the relevant noise level limit. While introduction of the quarrying traffic will not precipitate this exceedance, a case could be made that an appropriate action to be undertaken by a good corporate citizen in such circumstances, it is to offer to erect a 1.8m high acoustical fence along the Old Coach Road boundary of seven identified residential properties adjoining Old Coach Road.


4.7.2a.8 Summary of Mitigation Measures

A summary of the mitigation measures to be implemented as a result of the noise modelling is detailed as follows:

> Pre-Operational Phases

Compliance with the relevant noise emission targets for the Pre-Operational Phases is fully expected to be achieved provided relatively straight-forward noise control measures are implemented. These measures comprise:

- The strategic placement of items of major noise generating plant to maximise the beneficial shielding provided by the retained high ground;

- The construction of a 3m high noise barrier along the outer rim of the sedimentation pond at Phase E3;

- The construction and deployment of 5m high moveable modular barriers close to the mobile primary crushers from the commencement of Establishment Phase E2/E3;

- The deployment of a 5m high moveable modular barrier located in close proximity to the mobile primary crusher throughout Phases C1 and C2;

- The erection a 8m high 176m long barrier / earth mound combination constructed along the high ground immediately to the west of western extent of Phase C2 together with a 6m high 111m long barrier / earth mound combination constructed along the northern edge of Phase C2; and

- Compliance with the requirements of the Construction Noise Management Plan, especially with regard to the selection, operation and maintenance of “low noise” plant and equipment.

> Quarrying Phases

Compliance with the relevant noise level limits for the Quarrying Phases is fully expected to be achieved provided relatively straight-forward noise control measures are implemented. These measures comprise:

- The full enclosure of all fixed crushing and screening plant, with openings let into the enclosures for the entry and passage of product and conveyors only;

- At the commencement of Phase Q5, the construction of a 6m high 150m long barrier fixed acoustic barrier along a line parallel to and set back 6m from the common boundary with The Observatory Stage 20;

- Rock drilling to be carried out using a “low noise” rock drill only which is to be operated for the minimum time feasible and, where necessary, screened using moveable modular barriers located at appropriate elevated positions between the operating drill rig and the nearest residences; and

- Compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Noise Management Plan, especially with regard to the selection, operation and maintenance of “low noise” plant and equipment.

4.7.2a.9 Noise Management Plans

From the results of the analysis presented in the Assessment of Environmental Noise Issues report, it has been concluded that compliance with the relevant noise level criteria applicable to the proposed development can be achieved by adopting relatively straight-forward noise control measures.


Notwithstanding, to ensure that the noise control measures are implemented and maintained, it is prudent measure to prepare and operate the facility under:

> a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) for the pre-operational phases; and

> an Environmental Noise Management Plan (ENMP) for the quarrying phases.

4.7.2b Vibration: Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

4.7.2b.1 Blasting Impacts

The impacts of the blasting operations at the proposed Gold Coast Quarry are those for ground vibration and air-borne vibration (overpressure). Since there is currently no quarry on Lot 105, the anticipated future impacts must be estimated based on assumed conditions such as those in AS 2187.2: 2006, or the conditions which are known to apply at the Boral West Burleigh Quarry. Since the latter provides the most conservative estimate they will be used for the purposes of the Blasting Impact Assessment report. This is because the vibration attenuation conditions at the West Burleigh Quarry produce higher assumed impact levels than those predicted by the Australian Standard.

The nearby sensitive receptor areas have been identified and the following table presents a summary of the range of separation distances between the nearest property within each receptor area and the location of production-scale blasting operations in the proposed quarry.

Table 4-28: Range of Separation Distances to Nearest Residential Structure

Sensitive Receptor Area Range of Separation Distances Measured from Quarry Pit Edge

Kingsmore Estate 690 – 1200 metres

Old Burleigh Town (NW) 420 – 1600 metres

Old Burleigh Town (SE) 620 – 1800 metres

Tallebudgera Creek Road 280 – 1300 metres

Tuesday Drive 1000 – 1500 metres

Stockland Observatory Estate 740 – 1200 metres

Stage 20 at the Observatory 240 – 1900 metres

In the case of Old Burleigh Town, the minimum separation distance increases to 800 metres once the Development Stage is completed, while for the Tallebudgera Creek area, the minimum separation increases to 450 metres after completion of the Development Stage.

The following analysis of expected blasting impacts is based on Environmental Licence Conditions generally consistent with those recommended in the Ecoaccess 2006 Guideline (i.e. 95% of vibration levels less than 5 mm/s and 95% of overpressure levels less than 115 dBL). While the Ecoaccess Guideline conditions refer to “9 out of 10 consecutive blasts”, such a condition is impossible to achieve in terms of design. Therefore, the analysis in the Blasting Impact Assessment report has been conducted on the basis that each blast will be designed at a 95% Level of Confidence to generate levels less than 5 mm/s, and 115 dBL. This is considered to be generally consistent with the objectives in the Ecoaccess Guidelines.

> Controlling Ground Vibration

Blast-induced ground vibration levels are affected primarily by a combination of the weight of explosive, and the distance between the nearest blasthole and the point of measurement.

The use of the 95 percentile values is consistent with best Australian practice, AS 2187.2: 2008, and the Ecoaccess 2006 Guidelines.

Vibration levels can be adjusted as required at any fixed receptor, by reducing the weight of explosive used in each blasthole. This is achieved by various means including the use of blastholes of reduced diameter, the use of multiple small and independent charges within each hole, or a reduction in the length of blastholes (i.e. a reduction in bench height).


Based on the analysis contained in the Blasting Impact Assessment report, the minimum distance between blasting and sensitive receivers for charges of 75 kg is 440 metres.

> Controlling Air-Borne Vibration (Overpressure)

Overpressure is any air-borne vibration produced by blasting, and includes both audible and sub-audible frequencies. The sub-audible frequencies are not detectable by people outside their houses, but may be detectable inside the house by a light rattling of loose windows, in the same manner that a light gust of wind can cause window rattling and secondary noises inside the house. Overpressure levels from blasting are affected primarily by a combination of the weight of explosive, and the distance from the blastholes, but also by local topography.

Peak overpressure levels can be adjusted as required at any fixed receptor, by reducing the weight of explosive used in each blasthole. This is achieved by various means including the use of blastholes of reduced diameter, the use of multiple small and independent charges within each hole, or a reduction in the length of blastholes (i.e. a reduction in bench height).

Based on the analysis contained in the Blasting Impact Assessment report, the minimum distance between blasting and sensitive receptors for charges of 75 kg is 430 metres.


4.7.2b.2 Controlling Flyrock

Since flyrock has the potential to cause injury and death, it is considered the most important factor over which total control is required. Flyrock can be eliminated through strict charging protocols, and it can be considered as any rock fragment which is projected from the blast area beyond the clearance zone. Such events are required by law to be reported, and are considered extremely grave. To date there has never been a flyrock incident (projection of rock beyond the quarry’s boundary) at the West Burleigh Quarry, and the practices to be adopted at the proposed Gold Coast Quarry will be heavily based on the very safe practices deployed at the West Burleigh operation over the past 20 years. Modelling suggests that with the charge configuration of 10.5 metres of explosive and 2.5 metres of stemming, an 89 mm diameter hole, and an explosive of density 1.2 g/cc, rock fragments will not be projected more than approximately 50 metres from any blast.

Blasting operations that occur within 300 metres of occupied structures or private land must deploy special procedures to ensure absolute public safety. The modelling completed as part of the Blasting Impact Assessment report two blasting zones that will be within this distance:

> There is a zone of sensitivity located in the southern section of the development pad that lies within 300 metres of the northern boundaries of 3 properties in the Tallebudgera Creek Road area. The affected zone represents approximately 10% of the total area of the development pad, requiring special procedures for only a small number of blasts. The proponent has demonstrated the ability to blast safely under even more stringent conditions (within approximately 80 metres of housing) at the West Burleigh Quarry. Furthermore, the sensitive receivers are located behind the affected area where flyrock risk is lessened. In other terms, the benches in this section of the quarry will be oriented such that rock movements from the bench faces will be directed away from the nearby properties.

> There is a zone of sensitivity located in the north-western section of the proposed quarry pit. This area lies within 300 metres of three allotments situated at the north eastern end of the Approved Stage 20 within the Observatory Estate. It is noted that no dwellings have presently been constructed as part of Stage 20. The affected area of the quarry pit also represents a small fraction of the proposed pit (less than 3%), and once again, benches in this section of the quarry will be oriented such that rock movements from the bench faces will be directed away from the nearby properties. The proponent has developed the procedures and demonstrated over the past 20 years at the West Burleigh Quarry its ability to blast safely at these distances from residential structures.

The protocols required in order to control flyrock include:

> Ensuring that every charged hole conforms to a minimum stemming length, such that rocks cannot be projected more than approximately 100 metres;


> Ensuring that every face hole is surveyed for hole deviation, and that all sections of the charge column for face holes conform to a minimum burden such that rock fragments cannot be projected more than approximately 100 metres; and

> Any uncharged holes in the pattern (e.g. blocked holes) are back-filled so that fragment projections cannot occur.

The high degree of control over flyrock is seen in the photographs contained in Appendix B on the Blasting Impact Assessment report.

4.7.2b.3 Impact Assessment

The blasting impacts that have been modelled and predicted in the Blasting Impact Assessment report relate to ground vibration and air overpressure. Both are unavoidable side effects from blasting, though best practices can minimise the two separate and largely-independent impacts.

When determining environmental blasting impacts, it is to be noted that the impacts will vary over time, according to the location of blasting activities. Therefore, at any particular time, the area affected by blasting is relatively small. To assist in understanding the impacts and how they vary over time, modelling has been conducted for the nearest property in each of seven nearest communities that surround Lot 105, for each stage of the quarry development, as well as over the full life of the project.

The results detailed in the following tables are presented in a form consistent with both AS 2187.2: 2006 and the Ecoaccess 2006 Guideline. That is, the tables report the 95 percentile vibration and overpressure levels. At no stage will peak vibration or peak overpressure levels exceed 10 mm/s and 120 dBL respectively at any private property boundary.

Table 4-29: Vibration impacts from blasting in different stages of development of the proposed Boral Gold Coast Quarry.

Receiver 95 Percentile Vibration (mm/s)

Development Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Life

A 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7

B 2.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

D1 2.9 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6

D2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0

E 0.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

F 0.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2

I 1.1 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5

Receiver A = A385, Kingsmore Estate, B = B213, Old Burleigh Town (NW), C = C01, Old Burleigh Town (SE), D1 = D01, Tallebudgera Creek Road, D2 = D13 (Maryville), Tallebudgera Creek Rd, E = E01, Tuesday Drive, F = F05, Stockland Observatory Estate, I = I01, Stage 20 at the Observatory.

The table above details that the proposed quarry can comply with the expected 95 percentile vibration limit of 5 mm/s throughout all stages of development of the proposed pit. It also shows a significant change in impacts at all receivers as the development works are terminated and the pit extraction commences. This is to be expected due to the separation of the Processing Plant pad and the pit.

Table 4-30: Overpressure impacts from blasting in different stages of development of the proposed Boral Gold Coast Quarry.

Receiver 95 Percentile Overpressure (dBL)


A 107 108 108 108 108 108 108

B 111 105 105 105 105 105 105


Receiver 95 Percentile Overpressure (dBL)


C 109 103 103 103 104 104 104

D1 113 108 108 108 108 108 108

D2 108 104 105 105 105 105 106

E 104 109 109 109 108 108 108

F 101 107 107 106 106 106 106

I 107 114 114 114 113 113 113

Receiver A = A385, Kingsmore Estate, B = B213, Old Burleigh Town (NW), C = C01, Old Burleigh Town (SE), D1 = D01, Tallebudgera Creek Road, D2 = D13 (Maryville), Tallebudgera Creek Rd, E = E01, Tuesday Drive, F = F05, Stockland Observatory Estate, I = I01, Stage 20 at the Observatory.

The table above details that the proposed quarry can comply with the expected 95 percentile overpressure limit of 115 dBL throughout all stages of development of the proposed pit. Special care will be required to ensure that levels of overpressure induced in Sensitive Receptor Area I (Stage 20 at the Observatory) remains compliant, especially once housing development commences. A factor likely to lead to lower levels of overpressure in the Stage 20 at the Observatory Estate than those estimated using simple regression is that the houses in that estate will be constructed on the north-western side of a rise, while the quarry pit extraction will occur approximately 30 metres lower on the south-eastern side. The topographical barrier is likely to assist in further reducing the peak overpressure levels.

Table 4-30 also indicates a significant change in impacts at most receivers as the development works are terminated and the pit extraction commences. This is to be expected due to the separation of the development pad and the pit.

Reference is to be made to Section 7 and Figure 8 and Figure 9 of the Blasting Impact Assessment report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.7.2b.4 Mitigation Measures

Separate mitigation measures will be required for vibration and overpressure compliance, since the two impacts are largely independent. The principal design strategies will be developed early in the Development Stage of the project, where the initial blasts will be used as trial blasts, and fully monitored for both ground vibration and overpressure at multiple locations.

4.7.2b.4.1 Vibration Mitigation

The principal factor affecting vibration levels induced by blasting is the maximum weight of explosive loaded into any hole of a pattern. The maximum weight is controlled by the diameter of the blasthole and the length of the charge within the blasthole. When blasting at large distances from sensitive receivers, a single charge column weighing approximately 75 kg will be loaded into each hole. Where this charge produces levels approaching 5 mm/s, the quarry will adopt one or more of the following mitigation actions:

> Two separate charges, separated by an inert stemming deck with each charge independently delayed, so that the maximum weight of explosive is approximately halved;

> The bench height can be reduced from 12 metres to 6 metres;

> The blasthole diameter can be reduced from 89 mm to 76 mm;

> Delay timing can be adjusted to produce destructive interference of vibration waves from different charges.

Trial blasting will be conducted during the early stages of work on the Processing Plant Pad, initially using small explosive charges monitored at different directions and distances. The small trial blast charges will be at least 430 metres from the nearest property boundary. This will provide an advanced opportunity to establish vibration attenuation conditions and to identify possible vibration anomalies. Since all blasts will be monitored at multiple locations, and the data used to update vibration attenuation trends, the blasting contractor will be


well-positioned to make adjustments to charge weights on a continuous basis well before production-scale blasting commences.

4.7.2b.4.2 Overpressure Mitigation

The principal factors affecting peak overpressure levels induced by blasting are the maximum weight of explosive loaded into any hole of a pattern, the amount of stemming loaded into each hole, and the amount of burden on the holes drilled to the free face. Where the normal charge of approximately 75 kg produces levels approaching 115 dBL, the quarry will adopt one or more of the following mitigation actions:

> Two separate charges, separated by an inert stemming deck with each charge independently delayed, so that the maximum weight of explosive is reduced from around 75 kg to around 35 kg;

> The bench height can be reduced from 12 metres to 6 metres;

> The blasthole diameter can be reduced from 89 mm to 76 mm;

> Stemming height and front row burdens can be increased to provide greater charge confinement.


4.7.2b.5 Blasting Controls

In order to ensure that blasting operations are 100% compliant with the Ecoaccess Blasting and Noise Guidelines (2006) limits, the following recommendations are made regarding blasting and monitoring practices at the proposed Boral Gold Coast Quarry:

> All blasts will be monitored at a minimum of 2 locations simultaneously. The closest residence in the two closest residential areas should be chosen for monitoring, though monitors should be moved from time to time to ensure that no residences in the area are exposed to impact levels outside ERA Licence Conditions. At least one roving monitor should also be used to address complaints or other locations of interest.

> Monitoring should be both proactive and reactive. In response to complaints, monitors should be deployed to the complaint area and monitoring conducted a sufficient number of times to establish impact levels. Otherwise, monitoring location should be chosen on the basis of the locations with the highest potential impacts.

> Where vibration or overpressure sensitivity requires it, the proponent should use two smaller explosive charges in each hole, instead of a single charge in order to ensure that impacts remain 100% compliant with Ecoaccess 2006 Guidelines. Alternatively, bench height or hole diameter can be adjusted.

> As much as possible, the proponent will avoid the firing of multiple small blasts where a single larger blast can be fired. Vibration and overpressure impacts are largely independent of size, and the reduced frequency of blasting achieved by firing larger blasts is expected to reduce public perception and complaint.

> The proponent will maintain the practice of requiring the Drill and Blast Contractor to adhere to strict blasting protocols, including the practice of surveying bench faces, surveying front row blastholes, logging the precise charge configuration of every blasthole, and obtaining a video record of every blast fired. Where predicted vibration levels approach maximum permitted limits, the Drill and Blast Contractor will be required to submit to the Quarry Manager a plan to ensure that the induced vibration levels never exceed permitted limits.


4.7.2b.6 Pre-Construction Surveys

The Terms of Reference detail that a scope and methodology for the undertaking of pre-construction surveys of surrounding dwellings / buildings is to be detailed. The TOR outlines that the proponent should undertake


any required pre-construction building surveys in the vicinity of the project prior to the commencement of any quarrying operations.

The purpose of pre-construction surveys are to identify changes in the condition of structures which may be considered attributable to the new quarrying activities and blasting in particular. The independent experts engaged by the proponent are of the view that pre-construction surveys are unnecessary for the following reasons:

> The proposed quarry will comply with the maximum vibration impact levels presented in the Queensland Government Ecoaccess Guidelines for Noise and Vibration, 2006, which state that vibration levels from blasting must not exceed a peak particle velocity of 5 mm/s for 9 out of any 10 consecutive blasts initiated. The Queensland Government Ecoaccess Guidelines for Noise and Vibration, 2006, are stated to represent human comfort criteria, and further state “People are able to detect vibration at levels much lower than those required to cause even superficial damage to the most susceptible structures.”

> All field studies conducted to investigate blast-induced damage have demonstrated that normal environmental fluctuations (amount of rainfall, temperature cycling, and humidity variability) induce considerably higher stresses in structures than occasional low-level vibrations from blasting. These findings signify that the contribution of blast-induced vibrations to structural deterioration is very small and probably insignificant.

> All structures deteriorate with time, commencing with cosmetic cracking and proceeding ultimately to structural failure. Periodic surveys of the condition of structures will therefore always identify some level of deterioration even in well maintained structures.

> Pre-construction surveys are most useful when the duration of the new activity is sufficiently short that changes in condition can unambiguously be attributed to the introduced activity, such as a new tunnel, road cutting or structural foundations. In the case of the proposed Gold Coast Quarry, the duration of the activities is of the order of at least 40 years.

> Compliance with the Queensland EcoAccess Guidelines is therefore considered to ensure that blast-induced vibration levels at all surrounding structures will be significantly lower than the levels capable of causing even cosmetic damage (such as paint cracking).

4.7.2b.6.1 Vibration Levels and Damage to Structures

Various studies have been conducted into the effect of blasting vibrations on damage (cosmetic through to structural) to residential structures. The studies, undertaken in the US, Sweden, UK, Germany and Australia, have included the effects of repeated blasting. In the case of the US study, involving more than 500 closely-monitored blast events, and even involving very large shakers to shake a test house for extended periods. The US study, conducted by the government-based United States Bureau of Mines (USBM), was the most detailed of all the studies, but the UK-based BS 7385 may be the most comprehensive in terms of the size of the database reviewed. The following is a summary of the main findings from these sources:

> The UK Department of Environment, Transport and Regions study showed that more than 30% of vibration-related complaints about blasting relate to a fear of damage to the occupants’ structures. The study also concluded that complaints from blasting are likely to commence as soon as the levels of induced vibration become perceptible (typically in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 mm/s).

> Cracking occurs naturally in structures, commencing even before the completion of construction, with typical cracking frequencies of around 0.3 new hairline or cosmetic cracks appearing per week in timber structures, and 12-13 cracks per year in concrete structures. This cracking continues for the life of the structure.

> If structures are exposed to vibration levels of around 1 in/s (25 mm/s), the appearance rate of new cracks increases from 0.3 to around 1.0 hairline or cosmetic cracks per week. Levels lower than 0.5 in/s (12 mm/s) appear to have an insignificant (immeasurably low) effect on the natural rate of appearance of hairline cracks;

> Cosmetic damage such as hairline cracking in paint and plaster joins is not expected to occur for vibration levels lower than 15 mm/s, even at very low frequencies of vibration (e.g. 4 Hz);


> Minor damage is not expected (and has not been substantiated) at levels of vibration less than 30 mm/s even for low frequency vibrations, and structural damage is not expected (has not been substantiated) at levels less than 60 mm/s even at very low vibration frequencies (e.g. 4 Hz);

> The British Standard BS 7385-2 advises that the guide values contained in that standard (minimum of 15 mm/s for cosmetic damage) “…… should not be reduced from fatigue considerations since no substantiated cases are known to have arisen from groundborne vibration.”

> The German Standard DIN 4150 states for cases where induced levels comply with recommended guidelines (minimum level of 5 mm/s for residential structures): “If, however, damage is found, it is to be assumed that other causes are responsible for this damage.”

While there is sometimes a perception that vibration must cause damage, there are no examples where damage from low-level vibrations has been substantiated. With human perception levels for vibration being around 0.5 to 1.0 mm/s, it is clear that humans are very vibration-sensitive, much more so than the residential structures in which they live.

4.7.2b.6.2 Recommended Approach

Notwithstanding the rationale detailed above and in accordance with the Terms of Reference, the proponent therefore proposes to offer building condition surveys to a limited number of houses in the immediately surrounding communities, prior to the commencement of construction activities currently scheduled for 2016. The Blasting Impact Assessment report recommends that the condition surveys be offered at the developed properties chosen on the basis of their proximity to the quarry’s proposed blasting activities. The suggested properties, which have been identified as a single, representative property in each of the surrounding residential areas, include:

> Old Burleigh Town NW, B213

> Old Burleigh Town SE, C213

> Tallebudgera Ck Rd, D01

> Tallebudgera Ck Rd, D13

> Tuesday Drive, E01

> Stockland Observatory Estate, F05

> Kingsmore Estate, A385

The property I01 in Stage 20 of the Observatory has not been included since there are no existing structures in this proposed development area. If residential structures are erected in this site prior to the commencement of construction activities, the nearest structure to the quarry would also be included in the survey offer.

The pre-construction surveys will only be conducted if the property owners provide consent for detailed internal and external surveys to be undertaken on all major structures. The surveys will be undertaken by competent and experienced structural engineers with a focus on identifying, photographing and classifying all obvious cracks and defects (cosmetic and structural) in houses, concrete driveways, swimming pools, and any other important structures which might be sensitive to the effects of vibrations from blasting. The structural surveys will also include an assessment of the soil characteristics in which the structures have been constructed, an assessment of drainage around the structures, and an assessment of structural foundations where possible.

Overall, it is suggested that if a condition be imposed as part of any future recommendation issued by the Coordinator General requiring the proponent to undertake a select number of pre-construction surveys. This proposed condition would also form part of any subsequent, future Material Change of Use approval issued by the Gold Coast City Council. The suggested condition reads as follows:

Prior to undertaking any blasting work on Lot 105, the proponent is to offer to undertake a total of three (3) baseline pre-construction surveys for an existing dwelling that is situated within any one of following residential estates / areas:


> Kingsmore Estate;

> The Observatory;

> Old Burleigh Town;

> Tuesday Drive; or

> Tallebudgera Creek Road.

The basis for nominating a total of three (3) dwellings from any one of the above areas will primarily be based on the recommendations of the Blasting Impact report that has been prepared for the EIS. It is recommended that, as a starting point, the closest three (3) existing dwellings to the quarry development be utilised for the pre-construction surveys. This distance is to be a lineal distance from the outer edge of the approved disturbance footprint area. Copies of any letter issued to the land owners are to be provided to the Coordinator General.

The pre-construction surveys are to cover dwellings, concrete driveways, swimming pools and any other structure that may be sensitive to vibrations from blasting. The surveys are also to include an assessment of the soil characteristics associated with the nominated property.

The proponent is to write to the three nominated owners of the dwellings seeking permission to complete a pre-construction survey. Each letter is to nominate a timeframe for the registered owner to respond back to the proponent in writing, the contact details for the proponent and a timeframe within which the pre-construction survey would be completed (if a favourable response is received).

If a favourable written response is received from a registered owner, then a formal arrangement for the completion of the pre-construction survey must be organised. A copy of any pre-construction survey completed for a dwelling must be provided to the Coordinator General. A map detailing the location of the dwelling subject of the pre-construction survey, in the context of the disturbance footprint is also to be provided.

If written consent is not provided by registered owner, or the timeframe for responding to the proponent’s request has lapsed, then the proponent is under no obligation to pursue another pre-construction survey offer in that particular area / estate.


4 environmental values and management of impacts eis/final-eis...page 127 gold coast quarry...

Documents