Before the Environment Court Between
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Decision No. [2013] NZEnvC Gti-- IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) BETWEEN WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK INC ("WCENT") (ENV-2011-CHC-000095) AND ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED ("Forest & Bird") (ENV-2011-CHC-000097) Appellants AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL AND BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondents AND BULLER COAL LIMITED ("BCL") Applicant Hearing Dates: 29-31 October, at Christchurch 1, 5-7 November 2012 at Greymouth 8-9 November 2012- site visit 26-3 0 November, and 3-7, 17-18 December 2012 at Christchurch Court: Environment Judge LJ Newhook Commissioner WR Howie Deputy Commissioner C M Blom Participants: Mr QAM Davies for WCENT PD Anderson for RFBPS HM van der Wal and FA Hughes for Respondent JM Appleyard, BG Williams and M Cayford for BCL TG Sumner for himself (s274) 2 INTERIM DECISION A. Consent indicated subject to some further inputs from parties and further work on draft conditions of consent. B. Costs reserved. Introduction [1] Buller Coal Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bathurst Resources Limited, proposes to establish and operate an open-cast coal mine called the Escarpment Mine Project ("EMP") on 157 hectares ofland at the southern end of the Denniston Plateau. That represents approximately 9% of the total area of the plateau. It plans to process the coal on the plateau and the total footprint of the infrastructure needed to move, process and transport the coal off-site is estimated by witnesses for the parties to this proceeding to be in the vicinity of 185.72 ha. 1 The land is in Crown ownership and held predominantly by the Department of Conservation, but with some held by Land Information New Zealand ("LINZ"). The consent of these bodies would be necessary for the mine to proceed. [2] Of relevance to the present proceeding, a variety of resource consents are required from the West Coast Regional Council and the Buller District Council. These were in fact granted in August 2011 after a joint hearing by independent commissioners. These consents have been appealed by two submitters, the Royal Forest and Bird Society of New Zealand and West Coast Environmental Network Incorporated. Mr Terry Sumner is also a party to this proceeding under s 274 of the Resource Management Act, opposed to the grant of consent. An appeal was also lodged by the Fairdown-Whareatea Residents Association, but that has been resolved in mediation and is no longer before the Court. 3 The principal issue [3] The proponents and opponents of the proposal agree to one extent or another that it will produce economic and social benefits for the Buller District. There is also common ground that there will be adverse effects on the landscape and ecology of the Denniston Plateau, some of them irreversible. The parties are significantly divided on the extent ofthe positive and adverse effects. Ultimately, the issue for the Court to determine in the light of the relevant statutory instruments and the overarching purpose of the Resource Management Act, is which of the various competing elements amongst those favouring consent and those favouring refusal, merits tfie more significant influence in the final outcome. The proposal, the site and the locality [4] We now describe the proposal in further detail, outline the various consents required, describe the environment affected by the proposal, and determine the effects of the proposed activity on the environment. We then consider those effects in the context of the relevant statutory instruments, have regard to any other matters relevant to our decision and the commissioners' first instance decision, and finally we test our conclusions in light of part 2 of the Act. [5] The coal to be extracted consists of a single seam between 1 and 9 m thick lying beneath overburden of a thickness varying from 20 to 60 metres in the southern part of the Denniston Plateau. It would be extracted from west to east, firstly from a block known as the Escarpment Block, and then from the Brazil block to the east. Between these blocks lies a narrow valley known as Barren Valley, where the initial overburden from the mine would be placed. Subsequently, overburden would be placed in an engineered land form ("ELF") behind the advancing coal face? Approximately 550,000 tonnes of coal is expected to be mined in the first year, with the remaining coal mined at approximately 1 million tonnes per annum thereafter. If the coal is won at this rate, the mine is expected to have a life of approximately five years. [6] BCL emphasised3 that it was targeting primarily high quality coking coal at Denniston, as opposed for instance to the lower quality lignite resources of Southland. 4 Coking coal is today a critical component in the manufacture of cement and steel, particularly the latter. It is the reductant properties of the carbon in this coal, rather than the thermal properties, that are of importance because the chemical composition (as in the EMP locality) is typically of low ash, high swell and fluidity, high fixed carbon, and mainly low in sulphur content. These qualities make this coal ideal for export to metallurgical markets such as the Asian steel markets. While issues about assessing quantities present in the ground were challenged in cross-examination on the basis of changing international guidelines (and in respect of which we were generally satisfied that BCL had approached the methodology with acceptable conservativism), there was little challenge concerning the quality of coal present, and we accept the evidence. [7] The coal won would be transported to a coal processing plant to the south of the area to be mined. There it will be either fed directly or stockpiled for eventual feeding into the processing plant where contaminants will be separated4 and the coal reduced to cobbles less than 50mm in size. After processing, the coal would be transported from the plateau by a slurry pipeline to a train load out and dewatering facility at Fairdown.5 The pipeline will consist of 7km of DN300 steel pipe to the escarpment edge and a further 2.5km ofDN250 pipe to the plant at Fairdown.6 [8] Water for transporting the coal via the pipeline, and also for some of the processes used in the coal processing plant, would be pumped from the Waimangaroa River at up to 140 litres per second. A storage reservoir of 73,000m3 would be created for use in periods of low flow. It is proposed that a submersible pump behind a weir in the Waimangaroa River would deliver 140 litres per second ("Lis") of water to a pumping station 150m back from the intake pump.7 From there it would be delivered to the freshwater reservoir through a pipeline with an external diameter of approximately 350mm. The majority of the pipeline would be laid on the surface of existing tracks. 8 The pipeline would consist of 6m long steel sections supported on 4 "contaminants" in this context refers to rubble and non-coal-bearing materials, arising largely from the pre worked area. (The very first area to be mined, west of Trent Stream, has not been mined previously and so little .,.,.- ~·~- if any washing is likely, and much of the material is expected to be trucked directly off the plateau). ''sU•L ()/"';..... 5 H Bohannan, Evidence-in-chief, paragraph [57] ~-..,..:f..<.-~-------., t/.~ \ 6 The location of the pipeline below the Kawatiri Energy Ltd weir was not in contention between the parties in the * ""'.. \ case. b:,~i \,iZ~) A~( \ .. ,\ 7 Mr McCracken, Ev~dence-~n-ch~ef, paragraph [217] !:p ~19·(~~~5f~;:~~(q ) ~~. \8 Mr McCracken, Evidence-m-chJef, paragraph [241] ~ ,,,~,~ ..,.t~.~}l ~,· '·-~o J :::; ·· ~:'J:t.rtVJ."('··:?' ,.J;"'"") ~ \l·.sJJ'·"·t·_j.o ,1,./ J ~~;'-) ('~ ~-i-/·1;\~"P!;\fr-:~.fi:{(i I li '; . % ~'"'li}..t-'>'VJ<t~ • \....., /~; /(·..)\ '/" '7VI_____ coU\{\ ,..\~~~/ 5 plinths 6m apart. There would be a 1OOmm gap under the pipeline, and every 50 metres an underpass 300mm x 300mm would be constructed for kiwi and weka.9 [9] The overburden material which would be removed to facilitate access to the coal contains minor sulphides which, in wet conditions, generate acid rock drainage ("ARD") and acid mine drainage ("AMD"). To prevent such run-off entering local waterways, it would be necessary to establish a system for collecting and treating run off from the mine. A draft condition of consent provides that mining operations are not to commence before a mine-influenced water treatment plant has been commissioned. [1 0] Buller Coal proposes to provide within the pit area a sump capable of holding 15,000m3 of mine-influenced water ("MIW"). That water would be pumped to a MIW surge sump, and from there to a water treatment plant, prior to discharge into the Whareatea River. 10 While the ELF remains unstabilised, surface run-off would drain directly into the pit sump or to drains which flow either to the pit sump or to the MIW water treatment plant. The surge sumps would be capable of holding 200,000m3 of water, and the treatment plant, when fully developed, of dealing with 350 L/s. It is estimated that would provide capacity for dealing with MIW for 95% of the time. 11 [11] Within the coal processing plant, nm-off would be directed to a recycle pond. Up to 370m3/hour of this water would be used either within the plant or in the slurry pipeline. The remainder would be directed to a recycle pond capable of holding 3 12 48,000m • This recycle pond would also receive run-off from the upper coal haul road and the amenities area.