LYNWOOD QUARRY. Earth Bund Options Environmental Impact Analysis FINAL

Transcription

1 LYNWOOD QUARRY Earth Bund Options Environmental Impact Analysis FINAL October 2014

2 LYNWOOD QUARRY Earth Bund Options Environmental Impact Analysis FINAL October 2014 Prepared by on behalf of Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd Project Director: John Merrell Project Manager: David Holmes Report No. RO4/FINAL Date October 2014 Newcastle 75 York Street Teralba NSW 2284 Ph

3 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction Purpose of this Report Background Lighting Design Review Brief Land & Environmental Context Potential Bund Options Environmental Impacts of Bund Establishment Comparison of Options Summary of Analysis FIGURES 1.1 Locality Plan Bund Options Land Ownership D Model (Option A) Viewing Locations /R04/FINAL October 2014 i

4 Potential Bund Options 1.0 Introduction Holcim Australia (Holcim) was granted development consent on 12 December 2005 (DA ) by the then NSW Minister for Planning, for the construction and operation of Lynwood Quarry. The location of Lynwood Quarry is shown in Figure 1.1. The consent allows for some quarry operations on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis, however, most quarry operations will occur during daytime and evening periods. The quarry has a maximum approved sales volume of 5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa). The quarry and associated processing and product loading infrastructure is currently being commissioned, with operations scheduled to commence in January Holcim received a request from the Towrang Community Progress Group to consider construction of a large vegetated earth bund along the western boundary of the quarry to assist in screening the visibility of night lighting at the quarry from residences in the Towrang area to the west. (Umwelt) was commissioned by Holcim to undertake a preliminary analysis of the environmental and community aspects associated with establishing such a bund. Holcim has developed three potential options for an earth bund (refer to Figure 1.2), with the potential environmental and community impacts of these three options compared in this report. 1.1 Purpose of this Report The primary purpose of this report is to: provide conceptual details regarding the design and construction of each of the potential earth bund options; identify the environmental constraints and opportunities of each screening option; and provide a comparison of the bund options in terms of their environmental impacts and benefits relative to the currently approved operations. 1.2 Background On 20 February 2013 Holcim undertook testing of the newly installed electrical circuits for the access road and vehicle parking area lighting at Lynwood Quarry. This testing was designed to check the electrical systems, not the design of the lighting itself. The lights were not directionally positioned at the time and were not representative of future operations. Following this testing procedure several complaints were received by members of the community in regards to the lighting arrangement and visual amenity at night. Following these complaints Holcim issued an apology to the community and a detailed review of the lighting design was undertaken, including independent assessments of the lighting design. All lights have since been directionally positioning and adjusted in accordance with the detailed design specification. As part of ongoing community consultation Holcim received a request from Geoff Pearson on behalf of the Towrang Community Progress Group to consider establishing a large earth bund and ecological park buffer along the western boundary of the Project site. The intended purpose of the earth bund and ecological park buffer would be to eliminate any visible light from the Project for the Towrang community located to the west of the Project site. 3330/R04/FINAL October

5

6

7 Potential Bund Options Under the development consent for Lynwood Quarry, Holcim is required to minimise its impact on visual amenity and control lighting emissions as outlined below: Visual Amenity 49. The Applicant shall minimise the visual impacts of the development to the satisfaction of the Director-General. Lighting Emissions 50. The Applicant shall take all practicable measures to prevent and/or minimise any off-site lighting impacts from the development. 51. All external lighting associated with the development shall comply with Australian Standard AS4282 (INT) 1995 Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. The lighting associated with the quarry crushing and screening plant is yet to be commissioned. It is currently being installed by plant contractor Metso. Components of the access road lighting system have already been trialled. It is anticipated that this work will be finalised by Metso in the fourth quarter of 2014, providing approximately six months lead time before total site lighting is utilised for extended periods of time. This timeframe has been communicated to the community, Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E), Goulburn Mulwaree Council, Pru Goward NSW MP, & Angus Taylor, Federal MP by Holcim Lighting Design Review Two separate and independent reviews of the lighting design were undertaken in May 2014, by Mott MacDonald (2014) on behalf of Holcim and Webb (2014) on behalf of the Towrang Community Progress Group. Both reports confirm that the current lighting design is fully compliant with the Australian Standard AS4282 (INT) 1995 Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting as required by the consent. Mott MacDonald (2014) state: the lighting design is considered to provide sufficient lighting with regard to operations and safety and is fully compliant at all assessed residential properties with regard to AS4282. Webb (2014) state: No remedial works are required to achieve compliance with the obtrusive lighting recommendations of AS4282. Quarry lighting will be noticeable, but not significant when viewed from the proximity of the surrounding dwellings. AS4282 recommends limits on the levels of obtrusive light that may be applicable to various outdoor lighting installations, and does so, giving consideration to the ambient lighting existing in that environment. The values that are permissible by the Standard are more than zero, which means that some (limited) obtrusive light is permissible. The Standard accepts that some degree of tolerance by those affected may be necessary.in this case, there may be a perception of change in the amenity of the night time view relative to the ambience that existed prior to the installation of the quarry site lighting, however, this has been quantified and falls within the acceptable terms of the Standard. 3330/R04/FINAL October

8 Potential Bund Options Brief Land & Environmental Context Land Ownership The Project Area shown on Figure 1.3 corresponds to the approved development application (DA) boundary of DA Holcim owns all of the land within the Project Area with the exception of some small areas of Crown land, the Hume Highway, Main Southern Railway and the Country Energy Zone Substation. Holcim purchased land adjoining the western boundary of the Project Area in 2007 to provide a separation between the quarry and privately owned land (Figure 1.3). As part of the purchase agreement, the subject land was leased back to the original landowner for grazing purposes for a period of 100 years. Under the lease agreement, Holcim would not be able to construct an earth bund. The lease only permits access for Holcim to conduct environmental monitoring, associated with the approved development. Any proposal to construct an earth bund would need to be subject to negotiation and agreement of the holder of the lease. Topography A cross section of the topography of the land between Towrang and the Lynwood Quarry site is illustrated in Figure 1.2. The cross section is taken from a residence at 188 Narelle Lane, Towrang, to Dam E on the eastern side of the Lynwood Quarry infrastructure area, a distance of approximately 10 km (refer to Figure 1.2). Figure 1.2 also shows the height of two lights to be installed at the Lynwood Quarry on the access road and conveyor. As illustrated, based on topography alone and without any allowance for vegetative screening, the subject residence has a direct line of site to the quarry and without screening; both identified lights would be visible. Soils and Water The soils within the Project Area and surrounds are generally characterised as having a weak sandy loam material in the A1 horizon, with the subsoils being clayey in nature. These soils have a moderate to high concentrated and non-concentrated flow erodibility and a moderate to severe gully erosion risk, with gulley erosion present in many drainage lines in the Project Area. Some subsoils within the area are also dispersive. Soil fertility is low over the majority of the Project Area. Lower slopes are generally poorly drained with soils generally having moderate to high salinity. The plant available water holding capacity of the soils is moderate to low across the site. Once operational, Lynwood Quarry is predicted to have a tight water balance in low rainfall periods. The quarry is therefore unlikely to have available water for maintenance of plantings on additional revegetation areas should this be required. 3330/R04/FINAL October

9

10 Potential Bund Options Vegetation Communities Vegetation across the Project area and surrounds is predominately characterised by Tableland Low Woodland south of the Main Southern Railway, Tableland Grassy Box-Gum Woodland north of the Main Southern Railway and native and improved pasture. The vegetation has been heavily modified by past agricultural activities, resulting in fragmentation and degradation. The woodland communities are characterised by a canopy of Eucalyptus species averaging about 15 metres in height, an absent or sparse shrub layer and low sparse grassy ground layer. 3330/R04/FINAL October

11 Potential Bund Options 2.0 Potential Bund Options As part of investigating the request from the Towrang Community Progress Group to investigate the establishment of a bund and ecological park buffer, Holcim has identified three potential options for screening views of the Project s lights from the west: Option A a 41 metre high bund that provides full relief from site lighting once constructed. Full effectiveness of the bund would be achieved in approximately 8 years based on existing forecast extraction rates, following commencement of operations having regard to availability of overburden material. Option B a 30 metre high bund which provides relief once a dense vegetation canopy is achieved. This lower bund would achieve full effectiveness in approximately years post commencement; and Option C a 10 metre high bund constructed within the existing 50m wide vegetation buffer zone. This bund would only provide intermittent relief via vegetation, with maximum (but still intermittent) screening achieved in 25 to 30 years post commencement. For comparison purposes a fourth option, no bund, has been considered in this report. The primary objective of the vegetated earth bund would be to provide intervening topography between residents on Narelle Lane, Towrang Road and Carrick Road in the vicinity of Towrang and Lynwood Quarry to screen views of the lights. The required length of bund necessary to screen views is estimated to be 1.5km. To be fully effective in screening lighting impacts at the highest residence, the bund would need to be 41 metres above ground level at its highest point (696 mahd). The maximum batter on any bund that would be stable would be 1V:2H. Less steep batters would mean that the bund would take longer to construct and would have an increased footprint to achieve the same height. It is important to note that the bund options considered in this assessment do not provide any mitigation of lighting for residents to the south east and north east, all located closer to the Lynwood Quarry and light sources. The bund options are illustrated in Figure 1.2 with a three dimensional representation of the Option A bund presented in Figure 2.1. Table 2.1 lists various characteristics of each bund option including dimensions and estimated costs based on information provided by Holcim. 3330/R04/FINAL October

12 Potential Bund Options Table 2.1: Lynwood Quarry Visual Screening Options Option A Full Bund Option B Mid Term Bund Option C Long Term Bund Type Bund only Bund with screening vegetation Bund with screening vegetation Maximum bund height (bund 41m (696m AHD) 30m (685m AHD) 10m (665m AHD) crest RL) Screening Effectiveness Full Full Intermittent Estimated time to construct 8 Years 4 Years 12 Months earth bund Time to maximum effectiveness 8 Years years post construction years post construction Maximum bund width (1V:2H batter) 170m 120m 50m Approximate area occupied 25 ha 18 ha 8 ha by bund Volume of material m 3 (tonnes) 3,356,979 (7,721,105) 1,421,509 (3,269,400) 389,916 (896,907) Estimate bulk earthwork cost $28.5M $12.0M $3.3M As indicated in Table 2.1, due to the topography which is lower than the location of some of the quarry infrastructure, a very substantial earth bund would be required to provide effective screening. 3330/R04/FINAL October

13 Env. Impacts of Bund Establishment 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Bund Establishment The establishment of an earth bund designed to reduce lighting impact to the west of the quarry would result in various environmental impacts. The extent of impact would vary between the different bund options (refer to Section 4.0); however, each of the bund options would generally result in the following key environmental impacts: Aboriginal cultural heritage the bund area has not been comprehensively surveyed however, it is highly likely to contain Aboriginal sites based on the findings of the survey of Lynwood Quarry site which has similar landforms. Construction of the bund would impact any present Aboriginal sites and their associated cultural heritage impacts. Historic heritage there are no known historic heritage values in the area where the bund would be constructed, however, it has not been subject to systematic survey and therefore this possibility cannot be ruled out and would need to be investigated. Ecology the bund area is largely cleared grazing land so impacts would not be significant. Agriculture the bund area would be lost to agricultural production as the bund slopes would not be suitable for agriculture. Dust construction of the bund would require the disturbance of large areas of land and movements of very large volumes of overburden and soil. These activities would generate dust and it is expected that dust levels would increase at some surrounding residences, however, the extent of increase would need to be subject to detailed modelling. Noise the construction of the bund would be a substantial earthmoving exercise and due to the use of large mobile equipment would result in noise generation. The bund is located closer than other quarry operations to several surrounding residences and the noise impacts would need to be assessed through detailed modelling. Noise and Visual - the existing overburden emplacement areas at Lynwood Quarry were designed to result in noise and visual screening for nearby residents to the east. Prioritisation of overburden emplacement to establish a western visual bund in the shortest possible timeframe (approximately 8 years for Option A), would mean prioritising this bund over the currently approved bunds. This may result in additional noise and visual impacts for those residents to the east of the quarry, which includes the Marulan township. The potential extent of changes to noise and visual impacts would need to be assessed. Visual - the bund, whilst being designed to minimise night lighting impacts, would itself result in visual impacts. These impacts would be most significant for those closer to the quarry during the construction phase (up to approximately 8 years). This partially completed bund, consisting of bare earth (with some areas progressively revegetetated) and construction machinery would be visible over a long period of time. Once bund establishment was complete and revegetated, impacts would be reduced, however, it would be a substantial landform in and of itself and would remain visually prominent to some nearby residences. The long-term establishment of tree cover would somewhat mitigate this impact. 3330/R04/FINAL October

14 Env. Impacts of Bund Establishment Localised wind patterns - Noise and Dust the larger bund options, particularly Option A, would be a substantial landform and may result in localised changes to wind patterns sufficient to result in changes to dust and noise predictions from the quarry operations. The potential impact of these changes on the surrounding residences would need to be investigated. Surface water - The southern end of the bund would be in close proximity to Joarimin Creek and would result in changes to drainage and flooding patterns of the Creek. These would need to be assessed in detail to understand the implications of these changes. At the northern end the bund would be located over a section of a tributary of Lockyersleigh Creek. Again, changes in drainage and flooding patterns would occur and these would need to be assessed in detail. Erosion and Sedimentation as discussed above, the bund construction would be a substantial earthworks construction project disturbing large areas of ground. Comprehensive erosion and sediment controls would need to be implemented during bund construction and run-off from the bund would need to be managed carefully in the long-term due to the potential for erosion as a result of the bund slopes and the nature of the overburden material. The steepness of the bund batters to achieve the desired height add to this risk and the long-term water management system would need to be carefully designed to manage long-term stability and water quality risks. If the potential for bund establishment was to progress further, a detailed environmental survey and assessment covering the above, and any other relevant issues, would need to be undertaken so that the potential impacts could be assessed in detail. 3330/R04/FINAL October

15 Comparison of Options 4.0 Comparison of Options Table 4.1 contains an evaluation of the three potential bund options identified by Holcim. A fourth no bund option has been included in the comparison matrix. It should be noted that the information contained in the comparison matrix has generally been based on qualitative assessment of the available information and that no detailed modelling or environmental survey work has been undertaken. Such detailed modelling and survey work would be required should Holcim elect to proceed with further consideration of the earth bund. 3330/R04/FINAL October

16 Comparison of Options Table 4.1 Earth bund options comparison matrix Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund Option A would fully screen the access road and conveyor lights from the most residences to the west of the quarry including the four residents identified in Figure 4.1. The full bund at 41m in height would provide a direct line of sight screen for these residences. Option A would not provide any screening for the residents identified in Figure 4.1 located to the south west, south and east of the quarry as it would not be within the direct line of sight for these residences. Option B Mid Term Bund The Option B bund would be 30m in height and would not by itself provide screening of the access road and conveyor lights at all residences to the west of the quarry. Only following establishment of a dense vegetation canopy (assuming minimum height of approximately 11m) on the bund would screening be achieved for the four residents identified in Figure 4.1 to the west of the quarry. The effectiveness of the screening would depend upon the density of the vegetation / canopy cover established. The vegetation screen would require plants of different heights to provide an effective screen from the top of the bund up to a height of approximately 11m. The Bund would provide no screening for residences to the south west, south or east of the quarry. Approximately 4 years. Assumes prioritisation of the bund over other emplacement areas at the quarry. Option C Long Term The Option C bund would be 10m in height and would not by itself provide screening of the access road and conveyor lights at most residences to the west of the quarry. Establishment of a dense vegetation canopy (assuming tree height of approximately 20 m) on the bund would provide some screening for the four residents identified in Figure 4.1 to the west of the quarry but some views of lights at the infrastructure area and along the access road would remain visible.. The Bund would provide no screening for residences to the south west, south or east of the quarry. Option D No Bund Option D would not provide screening for any residents. Ultimate Screening Effectiveness Bund Construction Period based on existing forecast extraction rate Approximately 8 years. Assumes prioritisation of the bund over other emplacement areas at the quarry. Approximately 12 months. Assumes prioritisation of the bund over other emplacement areas at the quarry. N/A 3330/R04/FINAL October

17

18 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund Approximately 8 years for entire bund completion. Option B Mid Term Bund Approximately 10 to 15 years after the four year construction period. This is the estimate of time required for a dense vegetation canopy/cover to be established. Option C Long Term Approximately 25 to 30 years after the one year construction period. This is the estimate of time required for a dense vegetation canopy/cover to be established. It is noted that the native tree cover at Lynwood Quarry is typically approximately 15 metres high and therefore there is some considerable risk that the tree canopy may not reach the required 20 metres. Substantial time and machinery input required to establish bund. Effectiveness of bund would depend on ability to successfully establish and maintain vegetation cover. Construction would need to be limited to daylight hours to avoid additional lighting impacts and minimise potential noise impacts. Option D No Bund N/A Time Until Maximum screening Construction Constraints Extensive time and machinery input required to establish bund. Construction would need to be limited to daylight hours to avoid additional lighting impacts and minimise potential noise impacts. Significant time and machinery input required to establish bund. Effectiveness of bund would depend on ability to successfully establish and maintain vegetation cover. Construction would need to be limited to daylight hours to avoid additional lighting impacts and minimise potential noise impacts. None 3330/R04/FINAL October

19 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund Option A would have a maximum height of 41m, maximum width of 170m and length of 1.5km. The earth bund would form a substantial non-natural landscape feature within the local setting. The bund would be highly visible and prominent within the landscape for viewers/residents located within the local area and for travellers passing through the area. Within the local landscape the bund would be visible from the east, west, north and south of the quarry location. As Option A is the largest earth bund it would have the largest visual impact. Option B Mid Term Bund Option B would have a maximum height of 30m, maximum width of 120m and length of 1.5km. The earth bund would form a large non-natural landscape feature within the local setting. The visual characteristics of the bund would change over time as vegetation, likely to consist of groundcover, shrubs and trees, would be established and grow over a period of 10 to 15 years. Within the local landscape the vegetated bund would be visible from the east, west, north and south of the quarry location. This option would also result in a significant visual impact, however, the impact would not be as significant as Option A. Option C Long Term Option C would have a maximum height of 10m, maximum width of 50m and length of 1.5km. The earth bund would form a nonnatural landscape feature within the local setting. The visual characteristics of the bund would change over time as vegetation, likely to consist of groundcover, shrubs and trees, would be established and grow over a period of 25 to 30 years. The bund itself would not form a prominent feature within the landscape. Within the local landscape the vegetated bund would be visible from the east, west, north and south of the quarry location. This option would result in the lowest impact of the three bund options. Option D No Bund Option D would not result in any change to the existing visual environment. Visual Impact of Bund 3330/R04/FINAL October

20 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund The bund would be constructed progressively over approximately eight years. This would mean the partially completed bund, likely to consist of bare earth (with some areas progressively revegetetated) and construction machinery would be visible over a long period of time. The partially completed bund would be less visually appealing than the completed bund. Option B Mid Term Bund The bund would be constructed progressively over approximately four years. This would mean the partially completed bund, likely to consist of bare earth (with some areas progressively revegetetated) and construction machinery would be visible over a long period of time. The partially completed bund would be less visually appealing than the completed bund. Option C Long Term The bund would be constructed progressively over approximately six months. This would mean the partially completed bund, likely to consist of bare earth (with some areas progressively revegetetated) and construction machinery would be visible over a long period of time. The partially completed bund would be less visually appealing than the completed bund. Option D No Bund Option D would not result in any change to the existing visual environment. Visual impact during Construction 3330/R04/FINAL October

21 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund Option A would be located within an area identified in the original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as Derived Grassland. No threatened flora or fauna were identified in the vicinity of Option A in the original EIS. Due to the slope of the bund required to achieve the required height, revegetation of the slopes would need to be carefully managed and species selection may be constrained. The landform would also not be consistent with natural landforms occurring in the area. This may result in some of the desirable ecological outcomes not being achieved, limiting the habitat value of the bund area when compared to other habitat areas being established at Lynwood Quarry. Option B Mid Term Bund Option B would be located within an area identified in the original EIS as Derived Grassland. No threatened flora or fauna were identified in the vicinity of Option B in the original EIS. Option B would have the same revegetation and slope constraints as Option A, however, revegetation species selection would also be constrained by the need to select species that would provide good screening outcomes. These species may not be consistent with locally occurring native species which are typically woodland species which have a more sparse canopy cover than would be desirable for screening purposes. Therefore, some of the desirable ecological outcomes may not be achieved, limiting the habitat value of the bund area when compared to other habitat areas being established at Lynwood Quarry. Option C Long Term Option C would be located within an area identified in the original EIS as Derived Grassland. No threatened flora or fauna were identified in the vicinity of Option C in the original EIS. Option C would have the same revegetation and slope constraints as Option B. However, as the trees planted on the bund would need to grow to 20 metres, the species selection would be more constrained and locally occurring native species would be unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes. Therefore, the desired ecological outcomes would be unlikely to be achieved on the bund area itself. Option D No Bund Option D would not impact ecology. The ability of the area to regenerate and become a functioning habitat corridor would be highly likely as the natural landform and soil profiles would remain. The aim would be to return the area to its pre-agriculture condition. Ecology 3330/R04/FINAL October

22 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund Construction of the bund would take place over a long period of time, approximately eight years. Two residences approximately 1.3km to the south of the bund are already predicted to receive noise levels from the Quarry operations that are close to the project specific noise criteria. Equipment associated with construction of the bund is likely to increase noise impacts at these residences. If spoil is used to construct this bund as a priority over the eastern overburden emplacement between the quarry and Marulan, then there may be increased noise impacts for those residents that would obtain some benefit from the eastern overburden emplacement area. As this bund is the largest, highest and would take the longest time to construct, it would result in the largest noise impact of the three options being considered. Option B Mid Term Bund Construction of the bund would take place over several years. Two residences approximately 1.3km to the south of the bund are already predicted to receive noise levels from the Quarry operations that are close to or above the project specific noise criteria. Equipment associated with construction of the bund is likely to increase noise impacts at these residences. The duration of impacts would be shorter than for Options A. If spoil is used to construct this bund as a priority over the eastern overburden emplacement between the quarry and Marulan, then there may be increased noise impacts for those residents that would obtain some benefit from the eastern overburden emplacement area. This bund option would result in the second highest noise impact given its size, height and construction duration. Option C Long Term Construction of the bund would take place over approximately 12 months. Two residences approximately 1.3km to the south of the bund are already predicted to receive noise levels from the Quarry operations that are close to or above the project specific noise criteria. Equipment associated with construction of the bund is likely to increase noise impacts at these residences. The duration of impacts would be shorter than for Options A and B. If spoil is used to construct this bund as a priority over the eastern overburden emplacement between the quarry and Marulan, then there may be increased noise impacts for those residents that would obtain some benefit from the eastern overburden emplacement area. This bund would result in the lowest noise impact of the three bund options. Option D No Bund There would be no change to the noise environment from that currently approved. Noise* 3330/R04/FINAL October

23 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund There is the potential for dust generation during the construction of the bund. Based on the modelling results from the approved operations, it is unlikely that air quality at residences around Lynwood Quarry would increase to levels above relevant criteria however some increase in impacts could be expected relative to the approved operations at some residences over the eight year bund construction period. Option B Mid Term Bund There is the potential for dust generation during the construction of the bund. Based on the modelling results from the approved operations, it is unlikely that air quality at residences around Lynwood Quarry would increase to levels above relevant criteria however some increase in impacts could be expected relative to the approved operations at some residences over the four year bund construction period. Option C Long Term There is the potential for dust generation during the construction of the bund. Based on the modelling results from the approved operations, it is unlikely that air quality at residences around Lynwood Quarry would increase to levels above relevant criteria however some increase in impacts could be expected relative to the approved operations at some residences over the one year bund construction period. Option D No Bund Option D would not result in any change to air quality. Air Quality* Aboriginal Cultural Heritage The bund would be located outside of the area assessed in the original EIS. Further survey of the proposed bund area would be required and, based on the findings from the 2005 studies, there is potential for sites to be present in this area. As this bund has the largest footprint it has the largest potential for impacts. As per Option A, however, the potential for impact is somewhat reduced by the reduction in bund size. As per Options A and B, however, the potential for impact is reduced by the reduction in bund size. Option D would not have any additional impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. 3330/R04/FINAL October

24 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund The southern end of the bund would be in close proximity to Joarimin Creek. At the northern end the bund would be located over a portion of a tributary of Lockyersleigh Creek. Sediment controls would need to be implemented during bund construction and run-off from the bund would need to be managed carefully due to the potential for erosion as a result of the bund slopes and the nature of the overburden material. The bund would modify the natural catchment flows and flooding. As this bund option has the largest footprint it would result in the largest impact to surface waters. The bund would be located on land currently used for grazing. If constructed the bund would be vegetated to stabilise it but would not be suitable for grazing due to the slope of the batters. At least 25ha of land would be permanently removed from being available for agricultural production. Option B Mid Term Bund Same impacts as Option A, however, somewhat reduced as the overall footprint of the bund is smaller. Option C Long Term Same general impacts as Options A and B, however, the impacts of this option would be smaller as it has the smallest footprint. Option D No Bund Option D would have no additional impact on surface water quality or quantity. Surface Water Impacts Limitations on future land use The bund would be located on land currently used for grazing. If constructed the bund would be vegetated to stabilise it but would not be practical for grazing due to the slope of the batters. At least 18 ha of land would be permanently removed from being available for agricultural production. The bund would be located on land currently used for grazing. If constructed the bund would be vegetated to stabilise it but would not be practical for grazing due to the slope of the batters. At least 8ha of land would be permanently removed from being available for agricultural production. Option D would not limit any future land use. 3330/R04/FINAL October

25 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund The bund would be constructed over approximately eight years and would consist of a large construction site which represents some potential dangers to members of the public. The site is not on public land but would nevertheless need to be adequately controlled as a construction site. The final bund formation would have steep batters (1V:2H) but would be stable and not pose any significant risk to public safety. Option B Mid Term Bund As per Option A, however, the construction timeframe would be shorter (4 years). Option C Long Term As per Options A and B, however, the construction timeframe would be shorter (1 year). Option D No Bund There are no public safety issues associated with Option D. Public Safety 3330/R04/FINAL October

26 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Bund Option Option A Full Bund The Option A bund would not need to provide screening vegetation, however, would need to be vegetated to form a ongoing stable formation and to prevent erosion. Rehabilitation would need to be carefully managed to achieve a stable landform. Option B Mid Term Bund The Option B bund would need to provide screening vegetation and a groundcover to provide an ongoing stable formation and to prevent erosion. Revegetation species selection would be constrained by the need to select species that would provide good screening outcomes. These species may not be consistent with locally occurring native species which are typically woodland species which have a more sparse canopy cover than would be desirable for screening purposes. There is some risk that vegetation may not establish to the required height or density to achieve an effective screen. The desirable ecological outcomes may not be achieved, limiting the habitat value of the bund area when compared to other habitat areas being established at Lynwood Quarry. Option C Long Term The Option B bund would need to provide screening vegetation and a groundcover to provide an ongoing stable formation and to prevent erosion. As the trees planted on the bund would need to grow to 20 metres to achieve the required screening for this option, the species selection would be constrained and locally occurring native species would be unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes. This option would carry significant risk that the required vegetation height would not be achieved and that an effective screen would not be established. The desired ecological outcomes would be unlikely to be achieved on the bund area itself as local native species are unlikely to be suitable. Option D No Bund There are no constraints associated with Option D. Revegetation constraints 3330/R04/FINAL October

27 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint (not in order of priority). Long Term management liability Bund Option Option A Full Bund Holcim would be required to maintain the bund over the life of the project and beyond. Rebattering the bund on closure to minimise long tern erosion risks may be necessary to ensure longterm stability and this would result in the re-disturbance of the area (including clearing of established vegetation) and associated noise, air quality, visual and water impacts. Option B Mid Term Bund Option C Long Term Option D No Bund As per Option A. As per Option A. There would be no ongoing long term management liability associated with Option D. 3330/R04/FINAL October

28 Comparison of Options Aspect / Constraint Bund Option (not in order of Option A priority). Full Bund Approval/ Development consent would be Regulatory issues required for Option A. This would be an application for modification of the existing consent. The bund would result in additional environmental impacts that would require detailed assessment. The findings would be documented in an Environmental Assessment report prepared in consultation with the community and government agencies. Any construction works associated with the bund could not commence until development consent is obtained. For a project of this scale, the timeframe for the environmental studies and government approval process would take at least 12 months. If significant issues arose (e.g. Aboriginal sites that required permits to impact and salvage works), this would likely add up to another 12 months before construction could start. *Qualitative assessment only impacts not modelled. Option B Mid Term Bund Option C Long Term Option D No Bund As per Option A. As per Option A. There are no approval / regulatory issues associated with Option D. 3330/R04/FINAL October

29 Summary of Analysis 5.0 Summary of Analysis As a result of concerns raised by the community, Holcim has investigated three potential options to provide a vegetated earth bund to screen areas to the west of the Lynwood Quarry site from lights associated with the operation of the quarry. This preliminary environmental impacts analysis has identified that due to the large scale of the earth bund required, the construction of the bund would result in substantial environmental impacts. The smallest bund option, Option C, would result in the smallest environmental impact, however, it has the highest risk of failing to provide an effective screen. The analysis also indicated (based on bund construction information provided by Holcim) that it is likely that the minimum timeframe required to establish an effective screen would be 9-10 years allowing for environmental approvals and bund construction (Option A). Option B and Option C, which rely on vegetation screening as well as the earth bund, would take longer to result in an effective screen; in the order of 15 years for Option B and years for Option C. Both of these options also carry increased risk that an effective screen will not be established if growth of the planned tree screen is not sufficient. The proposed bunds would not address the visual impacts of night lights to the south west, south or east, with numerous residences occurring in these directions. As identified above, the environmental impacts associated with the construction of the bund are significant and some of these impacts would affect the surrounding community (e.g. dust, noise, visual impacts). These impacts would largely affect the nearby residents to the quarry and would occur for a period of up to 8 years, depending on which bund option was selected. These affected nearby residents, with one exception, would not benefit from any visual screening associated with the bund establishment and would continue to be affected by night lighting impacts. Holcim and the local community need to assess if the environmental impacts associated with bund construction are warranted, with further detailed assessment required to fully quantify these impacts if the option was to be further considered. However, based on the preliminary assessment findings outlined in this report, it would seem appropriate given the scale of potential impacts predicted, the timeframes for establishing an effective visual screen and the limited effectiveness in terms of surrounding residential locations, that Holcim prioritise investigation of alternative options to address community concerns about night lighting. The bund (Option A, B or C) would require development consent which would likely result in a range of community views which could have potential to impact existing site operations and community engagement. 3330/R04/FINAL October

30 Newcastle 75 York Street Teralba NSW 2284 Ph