Lake Disappointment Potash Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LAKE DISAPPOINTMENT POTASH PROJECT EPA Assessment No. 2087 Environmental Review Document prepared by Reward Minerals Ltd 29 January 2019 Reward Minerals Limited Lake Disappointment Potash Project ERD Revision Revision date Reviewed by Details A 22/12/2017 DT/MR Draft submitted to OEPA for review & comment B 08/01/2018 DT Resubmitted to OEPA for review & comment 0 31/10/2018 DT Revised ERD incorporating results of additional technical studies and new content which seeks to address comments received from OEPA on draft RevB. 1 7/01/2019 LC Minor editorial revisions to ensure accuracy of referencing and correct grammatical and formatting errors. 2 29/01/2019 DT Editorial revisions to improve quality of graphics Reward Minerals Limited Lake Disappointment Potash Project ERD INVITATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) invites people to make a submission on the environmental review for this proposal. Reward Minerals Limited proposes to operate a solar evaporation Potash recovery facility at Lake Disappointment, located approximately 320 km east of the town of Newman, WA. The proposal would involve abstraction of approximately 60 gigalitres per year (GL/a) of potassium-rich brines from saline sediments associated with the Lake Disappointment playa, to produce sulfate of potash (SOP) by crude potash harvesting and crystallisation of SOP by means of solar evaporation of the harvested salts. The proposal includes the construction and use of associated mine infrastructure (evaporation ponds, water supply borefield, processing plant, offices, workshop, accommodation village and roads). Non- target salts, mainly consisting of sodium chloride, would be stored in stockpiles on the Lake Disappointment playa. Potash product would be transported by road to Newman and then to shipping facilities at Port Hedland or Geraldton. Reward Minerals has prepared an Environmental Review Document (ERD) in accordance with the EPA’s Procedures Manual (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2). The ERD is the report by the proponent on their environmental review which describes this proposal and its likely effects on the environment. The ERD is available for a public review period of 6 weeks from 4 February 2019, closing on 18 March 2019. Information on the proposal from the public may assist the EPA to prepare an assessment report in which it will make recommendations on the proposal to the Minister for Environment. Why write a submission? The EPA seeks information that will inform the EPA’s consideration of the likely effect of the proposal, if implemented, on the environment. This may include relevant new information that is not in the Environmental Review Document, such as alternative courses of action or approaches. In preparing its assessment report for the Minister for Environment, the EPA will consider the information in submissions, the proponent’s responses and other relevant information. Submissions will be treated as public documents unless provided and received in confidence, subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1992. Why not join a group? It may be worthwhile joining a group or other groups interested in making a submission on similar issues. Joint submissions may help to reduce the workload for an individual or group. If you form a small group (up to 10 people) please indicate all the names of the participants. If your group is larger, please indicate how many people your submission represents. Developing a submission You may agree or disagree with, or comment on information in the Environmental Review Document. When making comments on specific elements in the ERD, ensure that you: Clearly state your point of view and give reasons for your conclusions Reference the source of your information, where applicable Suggest alternatives to improve the outcomes on the environment. i Reward Minerals Limited Lake Disappointment Potash Project ERD What to include in your submission Include the following in your submission to make it easier for the EPA to consider your submission: Your contact details – name and address Date of your submission Whether you want your contact details to be confidential Summary of your submission, if your submission is long List points so that issues raised are clear, preferably by environmental factor Refer each point to the page, Section and if possible, paragraph of the ERD Attach any reference material, if applicable. Make sure your information is accurate. The closing date for public submissions is: 18 March 2019. The EPA prefers submissions to be made electronically via the EPA’s Consultation Hub at https://consultation.epa.wa.gov.au. Alternatively, submissions can be: • Posted to: Chairman, Environmental Protection Authority, Locked Bag 33 Cloisters Square WA 6850, or • Delivered to: the Environmental Protection Authority, Level 4, The Atrium, 168 St George’s Terrace, Perth 6000. If you have any questions on how to make a submission, please contact the EPA Services at the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation on 6364 7000. Reward Minerals Limited Lake Disappointment Potash Project ERD SCOPING CHECKLIST Task Required work Section No. EPA factor 1: Flora and vegetation 1 Undertake flora and vegetation surveys in accordance with the requirements of 4.5 the EPA Guidance Statement No. 51 and the Technical Guide - Flora and Appendix D Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment (EPA 2016k) in areas that are likely to be directly or indirectly impacted as a result of the proposal, including fringing samphires, groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE) and aquatic flora. This should include a description of the surveys undertaken, the baseline data collected, and the environmental values identified. Where prior surveys are included, provide a literature review and justification to demonstrate those surveys are relevant, representative of the current proposal and were conducted consistent with EPA policy. 2 Describe the existing flora and vegetation within the development envelope, 4.5.3 including its relevance within a wider regional context. 3 Include maps that illustrate the known recorded locations of conservation 4.5.3 significant species and communities in relation to the proposed disturbance and areas to be impacted. 4 Conduct a detailed analysis of vegetation communities to establish local and 4.3.5 regional conservation significance of each vegetation community. Identify 4.5.4 those communities which are likely to be groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE). Provide details of the methodology used in the identification and Appendix D mapping of vegetation communities. 5 Assess the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposal on 4.3.5 the flora and vegetation within the development envelope. This should be a 4.5.5 quantitative assessment that addresses numbers and proportions of individuals, populations and associations in the local and regional context; Appendix D especially those species and communities of conservation significance as defined in Guidance Statement No. 51. 6 Provide comprehensive mapping of vegetation units and significant flora in 4.5.3 relation to the proposed disturbance, including maps depicting vegetation Appendix D boundaries overlaying aerial photography. Figures should show the likely spatial extent of loss of vegetation units from both direct and indirect impacts, particularly altered hydrology and dust. 7 Provide a discussion of the proposed management, monitoring and mitigation 4.2.6 methods to be implemented demonstrating that the design of the proposal has 4.3.6 addressed the mitigation hierarchy in relation to impacts (direct and indirect) on flora and vegetation and consideration of alternatives. 4.5.6 8 Complete EPA Checklist for documents submitted for Environmental Impact Note 1 Assessment (EIA) on terrestrial biodiversity. 9 To the extent that significant residual impacts cannot be avoided, reduced, Note 2 mitigated, or subsequently restored – identify appropriate offsets. 10 Outline the outcomes/objectives, management, monitoring, trigger and 4.5.6 contingency actions, to ensure impacts (direct and indirect) are not greater than predicted. iii Reward Minerals Limited Lake Disappointment Potash Project ERD Task Required work Section No. 11 Provide a statement of how the proponent considers the EPA’s objective for 4.5.7 this factor has been addressed. EPA factor 2: Subterranean fauna 12 Conduct surveys within areas to be impacted and in surrounding areas in 4.7.3 accordance with EPA guidance. Appendix F 13 Present the results of the subterranean fauna surveys and discuss the direct 4.7.3 and indirect impacts to subterranean fauna species and habitat in accordance 4.7.4 with EPA guidance. Include figures (maps) and tables to summarise the results and illustrate the areas of impact in relation to subterranean fauna species and habitat. 14 Assessment of impacts (direct and indirect) to subterranean fauna taxa and 4.3.5 assemblages at a local and regional scale. For species which are likely to be 4.7.5 impacted, provide information including maps and figures to demonstrate habitat connectivity beyond the areas of impact. 15 Discussion of the proposed management, monitoring and mitigation methods 4.7.6 to be implemented demonstrating that the design of the proposal has addressed the mitigation hierarchy in relation to impacts on subterranean fauna. 16 Outline the outcomes/objectives, management, monitoring, trigger and 4.7.6 contingency actions, within environmental management plan(s), to ensure