Appendix B SITE PLAN ARDGLEN QUARRY EXTENTION Lot Layout Figure 1.2 Legend Boundary of Existing Quary Boundary of Proposed Extention Lot Proposed Extention Area Project Application Area Water Collection Point Creek Line Lot 218 Railway Line D.P 751028 5m Contour Interval 1m Contour Interval Haul Roads Infrastructure Sump Lot 1 D.P 1001734 ¹ 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 125 Metres Scale: 1:5,000 (when printed at A4) PROJECT ID 60155622 LAST MODIFIED C.F.S 19-Jul-2010 FILE NAME 60155622_WIS_002 Roads, Rivers etc - © 2009 MapDataSciences ESRI World Topo Map © 2010 AECOM does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. AECOM shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information. Appendix C GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY RESPONSES TO DRAFT EMS From: Lindsay Fulloon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 3:21 PM To: Gabriel, Colin Cc: Robert OHern; Stephen ODonoghue Subject: FW: Ardglen Quarry Air and Noise monitoring programs - DECCW review Importance: High Colin Further to our discussions by phone the other day, please find below our comments on the draft plans as requested: Air Quality Management Plan: Page 8, Table 10, last 2 rows – Wet suppression is missing as a control measure for materials handling, crushing and screening, dumping and loading, drilling and blasting etc. Much of the plant involved in these activities has wet suppression controls and the use of these is considered best practice and therefore these measures should be incorporated. Page 11, Table 13, last row – Monitoring for visible air pollution. The frequency of this monitoring has been signalled as weekly. The requirement to minimise dust (a standard condition of our Environment Protection Licences) applies at all times and as such we believe this should be an ongoing and continuous responsibility of the quarry supervisor. Page 12, section 6.4.1 – second paragraph – Again the frequency of visual air pollution monitoring is set down as weekly via a site inspection process. This is not considered regular enough and should be and ongoing and continuous responsibility of the quarry supervisor. Noise Monitoring Program The noise monitoring program does not make provision for monitoring at receptors following complaints to determine whether the acquisition or mitigation criteria defined in the consent have been exceeded. The additional noise mitigation investigations listed in section 3 are listed in the Statement of Commitments associated with the project approval. This means essentially that they are not optional and need to be implemented before the expansion proceeds to minimise noise impacts. Page 4 – reproduced condition 41 of project approval – is missing some words. This condition should incorporate the words “in any 12 month period”. Page 6 – as per comment for Page 4. Page 11, section 5, Noise monitoring program – You should consider specifically targeting train loading activities out of hours and the 0630 to 0700 hours period when the quarry is open for loading product but not processing. These activities can occur during the ‘night’ period defined within the NSW Industrial Noise Policy and there is therefore potential for sleep disturbance impacts. It would be good to have data specific to these times to quantify impacts. Blast Monitoring Program This document does not incorporate any protocols for monitoring and managing blast fume emissions. Given the recent attention this issue has received in the Hunter, we would recommend that you incorporate measures to minimise fume (e.g. use of low fume explosives, cover drill holes prior to loading to prevent surface water ingress etc.) and monitor (e.g. post blast sentries for each blast) so that emergency procedures can be initiated if blast fume does not disperse and threatens to drift towards surrounding receptors/sensitive locations. Hope this assists you in finalising the plans for approval by DoP. Kind regards Lindsay Fulloon | Regional Operations Officer | Environment Protection and Regulation Group Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water PO Box 494 (85 Faulkner Street) | ARMIDALE NSW 2350 Phone: (02) 6773 7000 | Fax: (02) 6772 2336 Mobile: 0419 418 577 | E-mail: [email protected] From: Lindsay Fulloon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 1:53 PM To: Gabriel, Colin Cc: Stephen ODonoghue; Robert OHern Subject: RE: Ardglen Quarry Air and Noise monitoring programs - DECCW review Hi Colin I have reviewed the Ardglen Quarry SWMP as requested. Generally it would appear sound and I only have a couple of comments (see below):- I have not been able to determine from the SWMP whether uncontrolled/untreated discharges are ever likely to occur from the site. This is largely due to the apparent interaction of the existing quarry void, the proposed sediment basin (through pumping) and occasional flooding of the quarry floor/operational area. Generally speaking at premises such as this, DECCW would apply a licence discharge concentration limit for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) of 50 mg/L which would be disengaged when the relevant Blue Book volume 2E criteria (see Table 6.1) are exceeded (i.e. when an event greater than the 95th percentile 5-day storm is received at the site in this instance). The SWMP should demonstrate that uncontrolled discharges will not occur as a result of events that do not exceed these criteria provided the sediment pond levels are maintained/managed appropriately. Section 4.2.3 page 19 – The SWMP should commit Buttai Gravel to the installation of a permanent marker within the sed pond which indicates where the maximum sediment volume of 8 cubic metres is relative to the bottom of the pond. The observation of sediment levels relative to this marker should then form part of a regular site inspection and be documented formally on a regular inspection record sheet (e.g. weekly or monthly). Similarly it would help if supernatant levels (volumes) were recorded weekly so that Buttai Gravel can demonstrate (in the event of a large rainfall event culminating in an uncontrolled discharge) that it had been managing water levels in the sediment pond appropriately. Section 4.3.2, page 22 – Last paragraph – If the function of the sed pond cannot be sustained post rehabilitation without pumping, then DECCW would suggest that it’s removal and rehabilitation should be considered once the main quarry area has been successfully rehabilitated. With regard to rehabilitation, I assume the detailed biodiversity offset plan required by statement of commitment no. 14 (which commits to fully integrating the Rehab with the offset strategy and its maintenance) will be addressed separately outside the auspices of the SWMP. The SWMP does not appear to deal with runoff from the rail spur and loader and the stockpile area to the east of the rail spur in the far north eastern part of the site. I understand that this area at least partially drains to an existing sed pond. For the sake of completeness the SWMP should encompass these areas and assess the adequacy of the existing controls relative to Blue Book Volume 2E. Kind regards Lindsay Fulloon | Regional Operations Officer | Environment Protection and Regulation Group Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water PO Box 494 (85 Faulkner Street) | ARMIDALE NSW 2350 Phone: (02) 6773 7000 | Fax: (02) 6772 2336 Mobile: 0419 418 577 | E-mail: [email protected] From: Stephen ODonoghue [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 7 June 2010 10:32 AM To: Isaac Mamott Cc: Colin Phillips; Robert Taylor; Lindsay Fulloon Subject: Ardglen Revised Biodiversity Offset Strategy Isaac, I have had some feedback from DECCW Environment and Conservation Programs Group in Dubbo regarding the revised offset strategy. The key comments are: Overall proposed offset takes a very minimalist approach ie focus is on natural regeneration and no rehab in the ground layer. Natural regeneration is only going to occur in a small radius (less than 40m) around a tree. Given there are large areas that are mostly treeless this will not achieve re-generation throughout for a long period. However, it is noted that assisted regeneration is proposed to be undertaken after 3 years depending upon success of natural recruitment. It is proposed ploughing and planting trees in rows if natural regeneration doesn’t work. This should not be carried out. A better strategy would be to burn (which is part of the proposed strategy), but not when very young regenerating trees are present, and/or spray and then sow seed after good rainfall at a time of year when seed would be naturally available. It is proposed to burn in evening/ night time periods – this is likely to cause greater air impacts due to potential inversion conditions – should be timed, that is when there is good dispersion during day time period and wind away from sensitive receptors to avoid impacts on the Ardglen township and highway. Any proposed burning to manage biodiversity will also need to consider the requirements under the Protection of the Environment (Clean Air) Regulation 2002 Part 2A “Control of Burning” – an approval to burn may be required. The understorey should be spot sprayed to get rid of competition before the seed is spread. Trees in lines should be avoided. The Greening Australia “whole of paddock rehabilitation” approach (without the grazing being reimposed after tree establishment and without trees in lines) could be looked at for details (and staff approached to get advice). This includes use of shrubs that die out later but help prepare the soil for understorey plants. For the understorey the minimum that should be undertaken is sowing of native grass seed mixes after burning or spot spraying.