Final EIS (130417)v8 - Gold Coast Quarry EIS/Final-EIS-Consult… · Page 233 Gold Coast Quarry...

Gold Coast Quarry Environmental Impact Statement

4.8 Waste The Waste Management Plan prepared by Lambert & Rehbein provides an assessment of the waste that will be generated by the project along with establishing the appropriate regimes to deal with the envisaged waste streams. The management plan addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.8 and it is submitted in Appendix KK.

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 defines Waste as anything, that is:

> left over or an unwanted by-product from an industrial, commercial, domestic or other activity; or

> surplus to the industrial, commercial, domestic or other activity generating the waste.

Waste can be gas, liquid, solid or energy or a combination of any of them.

The Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 defines general waste as waste other than regulated waste. Regulated waste is defined as waste that is:

> commercial, industrial, construction or demolition waste, whether or not it has been immobilised or treated; and

> is of a type, or contains a constituent of a type, mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Regulation 2011 and includes – for an element – any chemical compound containing the element.

4.8.1 Waste Generation

4.8.1.1 Waste Sources

The following waste streams will be generated by the project:

> Establishment Stage, Development Stage and Construction Stage

- cleared vegetation;

- excavated waste (soil and overburden);

- scrap metal;

- paints and resins;

- waste oil and containers;

- general waste, including food waste, packaging and materials; and

- sewage treatment waste and sludge.

> Operational Stage

- pre-coat emulsions;

- pre-coated aggregates (not for sale);

- oily sludge, absorbent materials, degreaser, grease, oily rags, oil filters;

- waste oil and containers;

- scrap metal;

- general wastes – putrescible, organic and plastics;

- recyclable waste – paper, cardboard, plastics and glass;

- hydrocarbons, including diesel and solvents;

- hazardous waste paints, thinners and resins;

- tyres;

- vehicle batteries;

34


- regulated waste – sewage waste and sludge;

- crusher lubricants; and

- crusher wear liners.

The following tables detail the likely volumes of each identified waste stream. The tables also identify regulated wastes as well as outlining how each individual waste stream will be mitigated and managed. It is to be noted that the identified quantities for each of the waste streams depicted in the tables below are based on typical other quarry facilities operated by the proponent.

Table 4-31: Waste Types, Management and Quantities – Construction Stage

Waste Type Source/s Management Method Estimated Quantity

Cleared vegetation Clearing necessary for quarry, roads and site

Reuse vegetation waste on site for rehabilitation, landscaping and erosion control where possible.

Vegetation generated from all cleared and designated areas

Excavated waste (soil and overburden)

Excavation necessary for quarry, roads and site

infrastructure

Use soil as required for fill batter revegetation purposes. Stockpile excess soil at the designated topsoil as necessary.

Overburden used as fill on site or transported to another Boral site for use as fill.

Expected to be on average 6 to 10 metres deep across the site

Concrete Site infrastructure area

Minimise waste by producing or procuring only the amount required. All excess concrete will be returned to the point of supply.

Less than 5 m3 p.a.

Scrap metal Site infrastructure area

Segregation and collection on site. Transportation off site by a waste contractor for off-site recycling.

Variable.

Paints and resins

(Regulated Waste)

Site infrastructure area and workshop

Minimise waste by procuring only the amount required. Paint off site where possible. Collect on site and store in a segregated covered area. Transport from site by a licensed regulated waste transporter for disposal at a licensed facility.

Variable

Waste oil and containers

(Regulated Waste)

Workshop Collected, labelled and stored separately on site in a bunded tank. Transported from site by a licensed waste transporter to a licensed facility for recycling.

Variable

General wastes – putrescible and organic

Workshop and offices

To minimise the attraction of vermin and pests, putrescible waste will be stored in a sealed and covered bin and disposed of off-site on a weekly basis.

Less than one x 1m3 bin per week

General waste including plastics, packaging and materials

All site operations General waste will be taken off site for disposal at a GCCC waste facility. Collection and segregation of recyclable waste on site. Transportation from site by a licensed waste transporter to a licensed facility for recycling.

Approx. one x 3m3 bin per week

Sewage treatment sludge

(Regulated Waste)

All site operations Wastes will be treated in an on-site Package Treatment Plant with the produced waste sludge transported and disposed of at a landfill facility. Portable toilets are proposed prior to construction of the Package Treatment Plant. – waste to be removed from site by licensed contractor.

Variable depending on work force and system loading efficiency

Table 4-32: Waste Types, Management and Quantities – Operation Stage


Pre-coat emulsions

(Regulated Waste)

Stockpile areas Blend material into a useable product. If re-use is not possible the material must be disposed of as regulated waste. Oil Water separators on site to control run-off from stockpiles.

Variable



Pre-coated aggregates

(Regulated Waste)

Stockpile areas Blend material into a useable product. Pre-coated aggregates may be bio-remediated. Significant quantities must be disposed of as regulated waste. Oil / water separators on site to control run-off from stockpiles. Note: If only bitumen is left on the aggregates then it is not a regulated waste.

Variable

Oily sludge, absorbent materials, degreaser, grease, oily rags and oil filters

(Regulated Waste)

Workshop Collected on site then transported off site by a licensed regulated waste transporter to a licensed facility for recycling or treatment and disposal.

Variable

Waste oil and containers

Workshop Drained on site with collection drums transported off site by waste contractor for off-site re-use, recycling or disposal.

Approx. 20,000 litres per year

Scrap metal Site infrastructure areas

Segregation and storage on site in open storage bins. Transportation off site by a waste contractor for off-site recycling.

Variable

General wastes – putrescible and organic


To minimise the attraction of vermin and pests, putrescible waste will be stored in a sealed and covered bin and disposed of off-site on a weekly basis.

Approx. one x 3m3 bin per week

General wastes - plastics


Collection on site and stored in a segregated area.

Transportation from site to a GCCC waste facility.

Less than one x 1m3 per week

Explosives Quarry Pit No waste explosive produced on site. Nil (all used on site)

Recyclable waste - paper, cardboard, plastics, glass and aluminium cans


Collect recyclable products segregated according to Gold Coast City Council recyclable material collection arrangements in appropriate containers.

Variable

Diesel & solvents

(Regulated Waste)

Workshop Recycle through an approved licensed waste collection agency.

Variable

Hazardous waste paints and

resins

(Regulated Waste)

Workshop Collection on site and stored in a segregated area.

Transported off site by a licensed regulated waste transporter to a licensed facility for treatment and disposal

Variable

Tyres

(Regulated Waste)

Workshop Generally, but not always, truck tyres can be re-treaded.

Earthmover tyres can be re-used as bunding around the site.

Light vehicle tyres will be stored on site and transported from site by the original supplier or a licensed regulated waste transporter to a licensed facility for recycling or disposal.

Variable

Vehicle batteries

(Regulated Waste)

Workshop Dead batteries shall be removed from site by the battery supplier. Batteries not removed by the supplier shall be stored on site for collection and disposed of as regulated waste by a certified regulated waste contractor.

Approx. 20 per year

Sewage waste and sludge

(Regulated Waste)


Wastes will be treated in an on-site Package Treatment Plant with the produced waste sludge transported and disposed of at a landfill facility.

Approx. 3,200 litres per day (system inflow)

Crusher lubricants

(Regulated Waste)

METSO C160 Jaw Crusher

METSO GP500S

Collected on site then transported off site by a licensed regulated waste transporter to a licensed facility for recycling or treatment and disposal.




(EC)

METSO GP550 (MF)

METSO B9100 VSI (Barmac)

Heavy Mobile Equipment (HME) Lubricants

(Regulated Waste)

Atlas Copco F9

CAT D10T

CAT 992, 990, 988, 980, 777, 775, 773, 390 & 374

CAT740 (ADT)



Crusher wear liners (cast manganese steel)

(Regulated Waste)

METSO C160 Jaw Crusher

METSO GP500S (EC)

METSO GP550 (MF)

METSO B9100 VSI (Barmac)


Approx. 36 tonnes per year

Further information in relation to the management regimes described above are provided below in Section 4.8.2.

4.8.2 Waste management

Having regard for best practice waste management strategies and the Environmental Protection (Waste) Policy 2000 and the Environmental Protection (Waste) Regulation 2000, assess the potential impact of all wastes generated during construction and operation and provide details of each waste, including:

> identification of Regulated Wastes listed in Schedule 7 of the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008

> options available for avoidance/minimisation/recycling

> operational handling and fate of all wastes including storage

> on-site treatment methods proposed for any wastes

> methods of disposal proposed to be used for any trade wastes, liquid wastes and solid wastes (including the need to transport wastes off site for disposal)

> the potential level of impact on environmental values

> measures to ensure stability of waste storage areas and impoundments

> methods to prevent seepage and contamination of groundwater from stockpiles and/or storage areas and impoundments

> measures to minimise attraction of vermin, insects and pests

> options available for using recycled materials

> management of waste at truck waiting areas external to the site

> market demand for recyclable waste (where appropriate)

> decommissioning of the construction site.

4.8.2.1 Waste Management Hierarchy

Waste should be managed by following the hierarchy below (in order of priority):

> Waste avoidance;


> Waste reuse;

> Waste recycling;

> Energy recovery; and

> Waste disposal.

The project incorporates the following waste management measures:

> Waste Avoidance

Waste avoidance is the first hierarchical step in reducing the amount of waste produced at the quarry. The generation of waste can be avoided by:

- substituting inputs for those that generate waste;

- increasing efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water or land;

- re-designing processes or products; and

- improving the maintenance and operation of plant and equipment.

Careful quarry planning will ensure that the amount of material brought on-site for the construction and operating of the quarry is minimised, resulting in a cost saving and reducing the volume of waste generated. Any excess materials and used chemical containers will, where practical, be returned to the supplier or other local users. Concrete trucks are not permitted to wash-out or dump excess concrete on site. The proponent will also consider packaging issues when purchasing resources for the quarry and will encourage bulk purchasing to reduce the amount of packaging waste.

> Waste Reuse / Recycling

The appropriate management and storage of wastes will prevent on-site and off-site pollution and improve the opportunities for reuse. Waste will be sent for disposal to landfill only after all other options have been exhausted. Waste streams will be evaluated for potential reuse, prior to transport to an approved disposal facility.

The following are examples of how materials, identified as wastes, will be reused or recycled where possible:

- vegetation wastes from site clearing will be used in on-site landscaping where possible;

- topsoil from disturbed areas will be stored for use in future restoration activities on-site;

- where possible, recyclable materials will be purchased for use throughout the quarry;

- recovery of pre-coat emulsions and pre-coated aggregates; and

- Solvents, metals, oil, empty oil containers and empty truck wash chemical drums and reusing these.

> Waste Separation

Waste, where practicable and taking into account health and hygiene issues, will be segregated and collected on-site and stored in suitable containers for removal to approved facilities as agreed with the relevant local authorities prior to construction.

> Waste Disposal

Wastes generated by the quarry will be disposed of in a way that causes the least harm to the environment. Operational and construction solid wastes that cannot be recycled or reused will be disposed of by a commercial waste contractor at an appropriate facility, depending on the waste type. Appropriate facilities in the vicinity of the quarry include the Gold Coast City Council Reedy Creek (Commercial Only) waste and recycling centre.

Reference is to be made to Section 5.0 and Section 6.0 of the Waste Management Plan for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.


4.8.2.2 Waste Management Process

The waste management process that will be implemented for the project will involve the following elements:

> Waste Management Procedures

The Environmental Management System (EMS) for the quarry will address waste management with an aim to minimising the quantity of waste generated and improving on the waste disposal and management techniques adopted.

> Waste Monitoring

By monitoring waste management related activities for the proposed quarry, the proponent will be able to:

- Monitor and, if required, initiate actions to fulfil waste objectives and targets;

- Assess actual waste management results and comparing with predicted impacts and mitigation measures;

- Monitor potential environmental impacts; and

- Enable positive actions to be taken in the event of incidents or accidents.

> Waste Tracking

Under the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000, it is a requirement that the administering authority is provided with the relevant information required to manage the environmental risks associated with trackable wastes.

All regulated waste movement from the site will be tracked in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000.

Reference is to be made to Section 7.0 of the Waste Management Plan for further discussion in relation to the above aspects. The Environmental Management Plan is submitted in Appendix TT.

4.8.2.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Table 4-31 and Table 4-32 provide an overview of the mitigation measures that will be implemented for each of the waste sources that will be generated over the life of the project. The mitigation measures that will be implemented as part of the project are summarised below:

> Sewage Waste

Sewage will be generated throughout all stages of the project from Establishment Stage to the Quarrying Stage with a package treatment plant to be utilised to provide efficient effluent management. The package sewage treatment plant will be located on-site to treat the generated waste. Licensed contractors will be responsible for installation and maintenance of the packaged plant. Wastes will be treated in the package treatment plant with the produced waste sludge transported off-site by a regulated waste contractor to a regulated landfill facility. Effluent will be dispersed through subsurface dripper or sprayers into a landscaped area in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

The Site Infrastructure Report - Civil Engineering Infrastructure provides further detail in relation to the intended on-site sewage treatment regime.

> Construction Waste

The contractor will be required to report waste management performance on a regular basis.

> Putrescible Waste

The expected waste streams generated during the phases of the quarry will comprise unrecoverable waste streams associated with putrescibles. Putrescible waste will be generated through the day to day activities of the site office facilities and kitchen waste and amenities. As the quarry is within 15 kilometres of the Gold Coast Airport, the putrescible waste will be stored in sealed and covered bins to avoid attracting vermin and pests. The putrescible waste will then be disposed of off-site on a weekly basis.


> Decommissioning

Decommissioning of quarry components and infrastructure has not been planned at this early stage. However, decommissioning will be undertaken as and when required and will be done so in accordance with accepted industry practices, stakeholder and regulatory requirements.

Reference is to be made to Section 8.0 of the Waste Management Plan for further discussion in relation to the above aspects. The Site Infrastructure Report - Civil Engineering Infrastructure is submitted in Appendix L.

4.8.2.4 Waste Management Plan

The potential environmental impacts that may result from generation and disposal of waste will be effectively managed and reduced by the implementation of specific waste management procedures. The intent of the Waste Management Plan is to:

> Maintain due diligence to ensure compliance with legislation;

> Support waste minimisation through the avoid, reduce, reuse and recycle approach;

> Promote good housekeeping practices that remove potential health and safety hazards;

> Ensure appropriate removal, transport and disposal of regulated wastes;

> Ensure that employees, contractors and clients understand their obligations under the Waste Management Plan;

> Provide for continual improvement in waste management practices and processes; and

> Minimise any impact to future rehabilitation of the quarry site.

Wastes will be managed to avoid adverse impacts on environmental values including the life, health and well-being of people and the diversity of ecological processes and associated ecosystems surrounding the quarry.

Reference is to be made to Section 9.0 of the Waste Management Plan for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.


4.9 Transport The Road Impact Assessment prepared by Cardno Traffic and Transport provides an assessment of the project’s potential traffic impacts on the surrounding road network. A copy of the Road Impact Assessment is submitted at Appendix LL).

4.9.1 Introduction

4.9.1.1 Project Overview

The project involves the extraction and processing of hard rock for use in a variety of high grade construction products including concrete, asphalt, drainage material, road base and landscape supplies. Following the ramp up of operations, the project is anticipated to achieve a maximum production rate of two million tonnes per annum of quarry product over a 40 year plus quarry life.

Boral estimates that to enable fixed plant to be built on the site, approximately three million tonnes of overburden will need to be removed from the site during the first four years of the project. During this time approximately two million tonnes of quarry product will be processed and sold to clients. At the completion of each phase, rehabilitation activities will occur.

The project site is located south of Old Coach Road near Reedy Creek on the Gold Coast and is located within the Gold Coast City Council (GCCC) Local Government Area and within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Region of the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR).

4.9.1.2 Site Access

Access to the project site will be via an upgraded existing access intersection on Old Coach Road. Boral intends to control public vehicular access to the project site via a gate which will be located in close proximity to the access intersection.

4.9.1.3 Site Activity

For the purposes of the Road Impact Assessment (RIA) the project has been divided into two phases (i.e. pre-operations phase and operations phase). It is noted that all other consultants contributing to the EIS have termed these phases as the Establishment, Development and Construction Stage; and Quarrying Stage respectively. The pre-operations phase includes activities which typically occur prior to the full operation of the quarry and from a traffic engineering development assessment perspective, is often referred to as the ‘construction phase’ of the project. For the purpose of this RIA, the pre-operations phase (Establishment, Development and Construction Stage) has been assessed as including activities associated with:

> Site establishment (i.e. construction of buildings and permanent quarry plant on site)

> Removal of overburden material (i.e. development of the site)

> Construction of the permanent facilities

> Operation of the non-permanent (mobile) quarry plant and initial sales of quarry product

> The operations phase (Quarrying) activities consist of:

> Ongoing operation of the permanent quarry plant and ongoing sales of quarry product

It is noted that very limited activities may occur on site, prior to the pre-operations phase. These have not been considered further however as traffic volumes generated by these activities are expected to be very low.

4.9.1.4 Project Timing

Table 4-33 provides a summary of the proposed timeframe for both the pre-operations and operations phases.


Table 4-33: Project Timing

Phase Commencement Date Completion Year

Pre-operations January 2016 June 2020

Operations July 2020 ≈July 2060*

* Final completion date will vary depending on market demand for product.

4.9.1.5 Hours of Activity

The project is expected to operate 52 weeks a year, 6 days a week (i.e. Monday to Saturday), from 6:00am to 6:00pm, except for public holidays. Other key assumptions in relation to hours of activity on site are summarised below:

> Operational and production staff will work a single shift (i.e. 6:00am to 6:00pm - maximum)

> Construction and production staff arrive in first hour of operations (i.e. 6:00am to 7:00am)

> Only light vehicles (i.e. staff) and incoming (i.e. unloaded) heavy vehicles arrive in first half hour of operations (i.e. 6:00am to 6:30am)

> Haulage movements from the project site to West Burleigh Quarry (i.e. during the pre-operations phase) and the Asphalt and Batching Plant (i.e. during the operations phase) occur constantly throughout the day (i.e. 6:30am to 6:00pm)

> Haulage movements from the project site to clients (i.e. sales) occurs periodically throughout the day (i.e. 6:30am to 6:00pm)

> Construction and production staff depart in the final hour of operation (i.e. 5:00pm to 6:00pm)

> Some maintenance activities may occur during the night (i.e. 24 hour maintenance)

4.9.1.6 Project Workforce

Information related to the pre-operations and operations phase workforce has been sourced from Boral.

4.9.1.7 Pre-operations Phase

Boral has advised that during the pre-operations phase, the workforce will peak at 81 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff during quarter 3 of 2019 (2019 Q3), as outlined on Figure 1-1.

Figure 4-116: Project Workforce – Pre-operations Phase


4.9.1.7.1 Operations Phase

Boral has advised that the project’s operations phase workforce will consist of 24 FTE staff.

4.9.1.8 Project Haulage

4.9.1.8.1 Pre-operations Phase

Table 4-34 summarises the total amount of overburden and product forecast to be transported during the project’s pre-operations phase.

Table 4-34: Haulage Material – Pre-operations Phase

Haulage Material Total Haulage (T) Peak Annual Haulage (T)

Overburden 3,032,950 1,309,362

Product 1,937,610 968,806

Total 4,970,560 2,278,168

Figure 4-4 illustrates the quantity of overburden and product hauled during the pre-operations phase.

Figure 4-117: Haulage Material – Pre-operations Phase

Source: Lambert & Rehbein (29 November 2012)

It is important to note that Figure 4-4 represents a rolling annual quantity of haulage material (i.e. ‘2018 Q4’ represents the quantity of haulage material between 2018 Q1 and 2018 Q4, indicating that during that quarter, the amount of haulage is equivalent to approximately 2.2 million tonnes per annum).

4.9.1.8.2 Operations Phase

The project is anticipated to produce up to 2,000,000 tonnes per annum of product material requiring haulage, dependant on market conditions, over the 40 year plus quarry life.

4.9.2 Existing Conditions

4.9.2.1 Road Network

Key characteristics of the road network in proximity to the project site are summarised in Table 1-3. The location of each of the key roads in relation to the project site is illustrated on Figure 1-3.


Table 4-35: Key Roads

ID Road Authority KRA Route

Hierarchy Speed Limit (km/h)

Typical Form

A Pacific Motorway TMR No State Strategic Road 100 Four lane median divided

B Reedy Creek Road TMR No District Road 60 Four lane median divided

C Bermuda Street TMR Yes District Road 80 Four lane median divided

D Old Coach Road GCCC Yes Non Trunk Road 60 – 70 Two land median divided

E Stapley Drive GCCC No Non Trunk Road 60 Three lane median divided

F Scottsdale Drive GCCC No Non Trunk Road 60 Two land median divided

G Oyster Creek Drive GCCC No Non Truck Road 50 Two land median divided

Figure 4-118: Key Roads

Source: Google Maps

4.9.2.2 Study Intersections

Key characteristics of the intersections in proximity to the project site are summarised in Table 4-5. The location of each of the key intersections in relation to the project site is illustrated on Figure 4-5.

Table 4-36: Study Intersections

ID Intersection Authority Existing Form

1 Old Coach Road/Kingsmore Boulevard/Pacific Motorway Off-Ramp TMR Roundabout

2 Old Coach Road/Bridgeman Drive/Pacific Motorway On-Ramp TMR Traffic Signals

3 Old Coach Road/Gemvale Road/Stapley Drive TMR Traffic Signals

4 Stapley Drive/Pacific Motorway Off-Ramp TMR Traffic Signals

5 Stapley Drive/Scottsdale Drive/Bayswater Avenue GCCC Traffic Signals

6 Reedy Creek Road/Scottsdale Drive/Pacific Motorway On-Ramp TMR Traffic Signals

7 Hutchinson Street/Access Road/Bermuda Street GCCC/TMR Roundabout

8 Hutchinson Street/Endeavor Drive/Junction Road GCCC Roundabout


ID Intersection Authority Existing Form

9 Junction Road/Bermuda Street On and Off-Ramps TMR Roundabout

10 Oyster Creek Drive/Pacific Motorway On and Off Ramps/Bermuda Street TMR Roundabout

11 Reedy Creek Road/Southport-Burleigh Road/Bermuda Street TMR Traffic Signals

12 TMR Future Intersection – Old Coach Road/ Oyster Creek Drive n/a n/a

13 Old Coach Road/Gold Coast Quarry GCCC Priority

Figure 4-119: Study Intersections

4.9.3 Road Network Planning

TMR and GCCC are currently considering a connection linking the Pacific Motorway and Old Coach Road at the Bermuda Street Interchange (referred to herein as ‘TMR’s future Bermuda Street Connection’). These works have been included in GCCC’s ‘Draft Gold Coast City Transport Strategy 2031’. TMR has indicated that the connection is currently unfunded and therefore project timing is uncertain. It is important to note that TMR’s future Bermuda Street connection is not linked to the Gold Coast Quarry project and is a totally separate road improvement being investigated by road authorities. Bitzios Consulting has undertaken detailed microsimulation modelling on behalf of TMR to inform road network planning. Potential impacts of the project generated traffic on the surrounding road network were considered both with and without TMR’s future Bermuda Street connection.

4.9.4 Baseline Traffic Demands

4.9.4.1 Without TMR’s Future Bermuda Street Connection

For the ‘without TMR’s future Bermuda Street connection scenario’, surveyed traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were utilised as the basis to forecast future design demands, rather than traffic volumes obtained from the microsimulation models. This approach is appropriate as the microsimulation models were built specifically to test various configurations and to identify potential timing for upgrades at the Bermuda Street interchange. Therefore, the models are only considered to provide representative volume forecasts in proximity to the Bermuda Street interchange.


4.9.4.2 With TMR’s Future Bermuda Street Connection

For the ‘with TMR’s future Bermuda Street connection scenario’, traffic volumes obtained from the microsimulation models were utilised as they take into consideration the redistribution of trips as a result of additional motorway connectivity provided by the connection. However, to ensure that the traffic volumes extracted from the microsimulation models were appropriate to inform the RIA, a detailed review of the model inputs and assumptions was undertaken by Cardno prior to the use of these volumes.

4.9.5 Project Traffic Demands

4.9.5.1 Pre-operations Phase Traffic Demands

Project traffic demands generated by the project during the pre-operations phase have been summarised into four categories based on ‘trip purpose’, including:

> Haulage of overburden to WBQ (the distribution of overburden will ultimately be based on market demands)

> Haulage of quarry product to clients (i.e. sales)

> Staff movements to and from the project site

> Auxiliary movements to and from the project site (i.e. miscellaneous deliveries).

The peak haulage movements have been estimated based on the following parameters:

> The peak annual haulage quantities

> The weighted average payload of the haulage fleet

> The adopted haulage profiles

The peak staff movements have been estimated based on the following parameters/assumptions:

> The peak annual workforce

> All staff arrive in the first hour of operation and depart in the final hour of operation

> All staff movements occur by private vehicles

> A vehicle occupancy of 1.3 FTE staff/vehicle.

For the peak auxiliary movements, it has been assumed that up to five deliveries (i.e. 10 trips) would occur during each design period.

The resultant peak vehicular movements during the pre-operations phase is summarised in Table 4-37.

Table 4-37: Peak Vehicular Movements – Pre-operations Phase

Period Arriving (trips) Departing (trips) Total (trips)

AM Quarry Peak 86 24 109

AM Road Peak 32 32 64

PM Road Peak 25 25 50

PM Quarry Peak 17 80 97

Note: trips have been rounded to the nearest whole numeral

4.9.5.2 Operations Phase Traffic Demands

Project traffic demands generated by the project during the operations phase have been summarised into four categories based on ‘trip purpose’, including:

> Haulage of quarry product to WBQ

> Haulage of quarry product to clients (i.e. sales)

> Staff movements to and from the project site


> Auxiliary movements to and from the project site (i.e. miscellaneous deliveries).

The peak haulage movements have been estimated based on the following parameters:

> The peak annual haulage quantities

> The weighted average payload of the haulage fleet

> The adopted haulage profiles

> The peak staff movements have been estimated based on the following parameters/assumptions:

> The peak annual workforce

> All construction and production operational staff arrive in the first hour of operation and depart in the final hour of operation

> All staff movements occur by private vehicles

> A vehicle occupancy of 1.3 FTE staff/vehicle.

For the peak auxiliary movements, it has been assumed that up to two deliveries (i.e. four trips) would occur during each design period.

The resultant peak vehicular movements during the operations phase is summarised in Table 4-38.

Table 4-38: Peak Vehicular Movement – Operation Phase

Period Arriving (trips) Departing (trips) Total (trips)

AM Quarry Peak 36 17 53

AM Road Peak 32 32 63

PM Road Peak 20 20 39

PM Quarry Peak 7 26 33

Note: trips have been rounded to the nearest whole numeral

4.9.6 Project Traffic Distribution

Norling Consulting has undertaken economic analysis for the project to identify potential demand for the quarry product by broad catchment areas. The findings from the economic analysis have been utilised to inform traffic distribution assumptions for the project haulage movements. The traffic distribution assumptions for staff and auxiliary movements have been based on traffic engineering judgement.

4.9.7 Intersection Assessment

4.9.7.1 Study Intersections

The location of each study intersection has been reproduced on Figure 1-5 for ease of reference.


Figure 4-120: Study Intersections

Source: Google Maps


A road network scoping assessment was undertaken to determine the impact of the project generated traffic demands on the performance and safety of the road network. The intent of the assessment was to identify the locations at which traffic associated with the project has the potential to ‘significantly’ increase traffic demands to identify locations warranting detailed assessment. The results of the intersection scoping assessment utilising the ‘without TMR’s future Bermuda Street’ scenario are outlined in Table 4-39.

Table 4-39: Intersection Scoping – Without TMR’s Future Bermuda Street Connection

Intersection ID Scoping – Demands Greater than 5%

AM Quarry Peak AM Road Peak PM Road Peak PM Quarry Peak

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

Table 1-8 provides a summary of the potential impact of project traffic on the assessed study intersections. It identifies if project traffic demands exceed 5% of existing demands therefore warranting detailed assessment. It also outlines if each intersection meets acceptable performance thresholds. It details if project traffic


demands significantly bring forward (by more than one year) the year by which the acceptable performance thresholds are exceeded. Finally it identifies potential mitigation works where required.

It is noted that detailed intersection analysis and outcomes are outlined in the EIS report.

Table 4-40: Summary of Intersection Analysis

ID Does Project Traffic Exceed 5% of Existing Demands?

Does Intersection Meets Acceptable Performance Thresholds in Scenarios Where Project Traffic Triggers 5%?

Does Project Traffic Significantly Bring Forward the Need for Upgrade Works?

Potential Proponent Works

1 No works required

2 Short lane extensions

3 No works required

4 No works required

5 No works required

6 No works required

7 No works required

8 No works required

9 No works required

10 No works required


13 n/a Install turn lanes


The results of the intersection scoping assessment utilising the ‘without TMR’s future Bermuda Street’ scenario are outlined in Table 1-9.

Table 4-41: Intersection Scoping – With TMR’s Future Bermuda Street Connection

Intersection ID Scoping – Demands Greater than 5%


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Table 4-41 provides a summary of the potential impact of project traffic on the assessed study intersections. It identifies if project traffic demands exceed 5% of existing demands therefore warranting detailed assessment. It also outlines if each intersection meets acceptable performance thresholds. It details if project traffic


demands significantly bring forward (by more than one year) the year by which the acceptable performance thresholds are exceeded. Finally it identifies potential mitigation works where required. It is noted that detailed intersection analysis and outcomes are outlined in the EIS report.

Table 4-42: Summary of Intersection Analysis

ID Does Project Traffic Exceed 5% of Modelled Demands?

Does Intersection Meets Acceptable Performance Thresholds in Scenarios Where Project Traffic Triggers 5%?

Does Project Traffic Significantly Bring Forward the Need for Upgrade Works?

Potential Proponent Works



13 n/a Install turn lanes

4.9.8 Ramp Assessment

4.9.8.1 Study Ramps

A scoping assessment has been undertaken for the following on-ramps to the Pacific Motorway:

> Ramp 1: Pacific Motorway/Reedy Creek Road – Northbound On-Ramp

> Ramp 2: Pacific Motorway/Reedy Creek Road – Southbound On-Ramp

> Ramp 3: Pacific Motorway/Bermuda Street – Northbound On-Ramp

> Ramp 4: Pacific Motorway/Bermuda Street – Southbound On-Ramp.


The results of the ramp scoping assessment utilising the ‘without TMR’s future Bermuda Street connection’ scenario are outlined in Table 4-43.

Table 4-43: Motorway Ramp Scoping – With TMR’s Future Bermuda Street Connection

Ramp ID Scoping – Demands Greater than 5%


1

2

3

4

The ramp assessment indicated that the Reedy Creek Road southbound on-ramp (i.e. Ramp 2) currently operates adequately during each of the assessed design periods. The project generated traffic demands would have negligible impacts on the performance; therefore no proponent upgrading or contributions were considered warranted at this location.

In addition, the ramp assessment indicated that the Bermuda Street northbound on-ramp (i.e. Ramp 3) currently operates adequately during each of the assessed design periods. The project generated traffic demands would have negligible impacts on the performance; therefore no proponent upgrading or contributions were considered warranted at this location.


The results of the ramp scoping assessment utilising the ‘with TMR’s future Bermuda Street connection’ scenario are outlined in Table 4-44.


Table 4-44: Motorway Ramp Scoping – With TMR’s Future Bermuda Street Connection

Ramp ID Scoping – Demands Greater than 5%


1

2

3

4

The ramp assessment indicated that the Reedy Creek Road northbound on-ramp (i.e. Ramp 3) would operate adequately during the 2020 design horizon with TMR’s future Bermuda Street connection. The project generated traffic demands would have negligible impacts on the performance; therefore no proponent upgrading or contributions were considered warranted at this location.

4.9.9 Pavement Assessment

4.9.9.1 Spatial Extent of Pavement Assessment

The spatial extent of the pavement impact assessment was defined in accordance with the scoping methodology outlined in TMR’s Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of Development. That is, all surrounding State-controlled roads were considered to identify any road sections where the project is likely to result in an increase of 5% or more beyond existing pavement loadings.

The following roads were considered to determine if the project was likely to have an impact defined as significant:

> Pacific Motorway (TMR Reference 12A)

> Burleigh Connection Road (TMR Reference 102)

> Southport-Burleigh Road (TMR Reference 103)

> On/Off Ramps at the Reedy Creek Interchange

> On/Off Ramps at the Bermuda Street Interchange.


The pavement assessment identified that an upfront contribution of $29,622 (2013 base year) would fully off-set all significant pavement rehabilitation impacts associated with the project. A contribution of $0.0064/tonne (2013 base year) would fully off-set all significant pavement maintenance impacts associated with the project. The proponent has committed to pay the rehabilitation contribution to TMR at the start of the project and the costs of maintenance impacts at end of each year based on the material hauled over that year.


The pavement assessment identified that an upfront contribution of $4,963 (2013 cost) would fully off-set all significant pavement rehabilitation impacts associated with the project. A contribution of $0.0057/tonne (2013 base year) would fully off-set all significant pavement maintenance impacts associated with the project. The proponent has committed to pay the rehabilitation contribution to TMR at the start of the project and the costs of maintenance impacts at end of each year based on the material hauled over that year.

4.9.10 Project Impacts on Other Modes of Transportation

While bus and train services are available in general proximity to the site, the majority of project staff are likely to travel to site in light vehicles, particularly due to the early start and late finish times and the virtually unlimited available space for parking on-site. Due to the relatively small workforce during both the project’s pre-operations and operation phases, it is not expected that there will be a significant increase in demand for public or active transport modes. A proponent contribution towards such infrastructure is therefore considered unwarranted.


4.9.11 Schools

There are four schools located within proximity to the project site. Based on the haulage routes identified by Boral, it is not proposed that traffic will travel along the frontage of the identified schools, except for minor local deliveries. In addition, peak project traffic generation is anticipated to occur outside school operating hours. Therefore no further consideration of these impacts has been undertaken.

4.9.12 Road Safety

Crash data has been sourced for the full length of Old Coach Road which is planned to provide vehicle access to the project.

> Fatal crashes from 1 January 2005 to 31 July 2012

> Hospitalisation crashes from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2011

> Medical Treatment, Minor Injury and Property Damage Only crashes from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2009.

The supplied data indicates a total of 26 crashes occurred along the full length of Old Coach Road during the abovementioned time periods. The proposed construction of an upgraded intersection at the quarry access is expected to improve road conditions in proximity to the access.

4.9.13 Parking

The minimum number of spaces to be provided is 36, which includes provision for 19 staff spaces, 15 for visitors and 2 for disabled persons. All general spaces will be designed to AS2890.1:2004 User class 3 to provide flexibility in the usage of each space. It is noted that current plans indicate that 50 spaces will be provided on site. During the project’s pre-operations phase, temporary parking facilities will be provided within the development site which will accommodate all associated vehicles.

4.9.14 Disabled Access

Administration facilities will be designed in accordance with all relevant Australian design standards including those specifically addressing design of facilities for disabled persons. It is noted that facility design will be finalised during the detailed design stage. Car parking for disabled persons will also be provided, designed to relevant Australian design standards.

4.9.15 Oversized or Indivisible Loads

Typically this level of detail is not available at the EIS stage as it relies upon a precise understanding of the exact equipment and plant to be procured to support the projection. It is therefore recommended that details in relation to the volume, composition, timing and routes of oversized or indivisible loads would be best addressed in a future Road-use Management Plan (RMP) prepared after approval of the EIS.

4.9.16 Product-spills During Transport

Typically this level of detail is addressed during later planning stages. It is therefore recommended that details in relation to the nature and likelihood of product-spills during transport would be best addressed after approval of the EIS.

4.9.17 Traffic Management Plan

The detail required to inform a traffic management plan (TMP) is typically not known with sufficient certainty at the time of an EIS assessment is prepared. It is therefore recommended that a TMP would be best prepared after approval of the EIS.

4.9.18 Conclusion

The RIA has been undertaken in accordance with TMR’s Guidelines for Road Impacts of Development to identify if the proposed Gold Coast Quarry project has the potential to ‘significantly’ increase traffic volumes and/or cause ‘significant’ impacts on the safety and efficiency of the surrounding road network.


Regardless of whether TMR and the GCCC proceed with the construction of the future Bermuda Street connection, it is anticipated that the traffic generated by the project will have an insignificant impact on the safety and efficiency of the road network.


4.10 Indigenous Cultural Heritage

4.10.1 Description of Existing Indigenous Cultural Heritage Values

Jabree Limited and the proponent agreed to jointly prepare a chapter on Indigenous Cultural Heritage (ICH) for the EIS.

The development of appropriate ICH compliance takes into account the requirements of various legislation. As land tenure research indicated that native title had been extinguished in the project area, the minimum legislative requirement was the development of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP).

The project is within the external boundaries of the registered Gold Coast native title claim (QUD346/2006). The applicant for the native title claimants, who are the Aboriginal parties for the purposes of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (ACH Act), have authorised Jabree Limited as the registered Aboriginal cultural heritage body for the native title claim area.

During the EIS phase, a CHMP was developed pursuant to Part 7 of the ACH Act, and it has been approved by Director of Cultural Heritage on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs (DATSIMA) by letter dated 13 November 2012 (refer Appendix MM). In accordance with the CHMP, a cultural heritage survey, consisting of a desktop cultural heritage study, consultation, and assessment through fieldwork has been conducted, and a cultural heritage survey report prepared.

This chapter provides information on the CHMP, the outcomes of the cultural heritage survey, the findings of the cultural heritage survey report that the Aboriginal Party has agreed to make public, and appropriate management recommendations for ICH. In addition, it places the project area in its heritage context, and provides outcomes of searches of relevant registers and databases.

4.10.1.1 Legislative Framework

4.10.1.1.1 Commonwealth Legislation

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the key national heritage legislation and is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. The 2004 amendments to the EPBC Act established the Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists.

Following from the Burra Charter’s ethics (see below), Section 528 of the EPBC Act defines the ‘heritage value’ of a place as including the place’s natural and cultural environment having aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance, or other significance, for current and future generations of Australians. Section 10.03A of the EPBC Regulation defines nine Commonwealth Heritage criteria for evaluating, identifying and assessing the Commonwealth Heritage values of a place.

The Burra Charter 1999

In 1999, Australian ICOMOS defined a Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, which became known as the Burra Charter. Although not codified in law, the Burra Charter is the foundation document upon which Australian cultural heritage management best practice is based.

Using the Burra Charter as a reference base, scientific significance of an area or object is assessed according to its research potential and representativeness. Archaeological research potential refers to a site’s ability to provide information on past human activities, particularly everyday life, which more often than not is not available in documentary sources. Representativeness refers to the ability of one site or a sample of sites to represent as accurately as possible the range and frequency of site types in a particular area. The notion of representativeness is also related to the maintenance of site diversity: the rarer a site, the greater its significance.


Native Title Act 1993

The Native Title Act 1993 (NT Act) provides statutory protection for native title wherever it continues to exist over land or waters. It is a blanket protection created by rendering any activity affecting native title after 23 December 1996 invalid at law unless the activity is covered by one of the provisions in Part 2, Division 3 of the NT Act. The NT Act also contains a statutory process to enable the formal recognition of native title rights wherever they exist. That process involves a traditional owner group filing a native title claim with the Federal Court of Australia. Hence the claim process is a legal proceeding of the Court, albeit with a range of special features specific to native title proceedings. At the end of what can be a long and complex statutory process (the ‘claim process’), the Court may finally determine the extent of native title rights by deciding whether native title in respect of the claimed area exists or not and the extent of rights associated with it.

Where a traditional owner group makes a native title claim, the group is technically referred to as the ‘native title claim group’. At the beginning of the claim process, at the ‘authorisation meeting’, the native title claim group authorises specific persons from its number to be listed as the applicants for the claim, and who are to undertake the claim on the group’s behalf. For the purposes of the claim process, those persons are called the ‘applicant’. Under the NT Act, it is the task of the National Native Title Tribunal to consider at an early stage in the claim process whether the claim is to be registered, i.e., entered on the Tribunal’s register of native title claims. When a claim is registered, the claim is called a ‘registered native title claim’ and the applicant, when referred to in the context of native title, is technically called the ‘registered native title claimant’.

In the case of the project, native title has been extinguished by land tenure freeholded before 1993. However, in Queensland, the registration of a native title claim pursuant to the NT Act is used by the ACH Act to determine who the Aboriginal party is for an area of land. From this perspective, the NT Act remains relevant to the project. This is discussed in more detail below.

Australian Heritage Council Act 2003

The Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 provides for the establishment of the Australian Heritage Council, which is the principal advisory group to the Australian Government on heritage matters. This Act also provides for registration of places, including Indigenous areas, places and sites, considered of national significance on the Australian Heritage Places Inventory, the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1994

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act provides people with the ability to request the relevant Commonwealth minister to intervene in the protection of ICH, if required. The Commonwealth minister will take into account the extent to which the project that is the subject of concerns around potential harm to ICH has taken into account State relevant legislation.

4.10.1.1.2 State Legislation

In Queensland (with the exception of the Torres Strait and most Commonwealth land), the assessment of significance for ICH is guided by the ACH Act and its gazetted guidelines. The ACH Act acknowledges in its fundamental principles that ‘recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage should be based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge, culture and traditional practices’ (Section 5(a)) and that ‘Aboriginal people should be recognised as the primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage‘ (Section 5(b)). These principles are implied in the ACH Act’s definition of Aboriginal cultural heritage, which is defined as anything that is ‘a significant Aboriginal area in Queensland; or a significant Aboriginal object; or evidence, of archaeological or historic significance, of Aboriginal occupation of an area of Queensland’ (Section 8). A significant Aboriginal area or object is defined as an area or object of ‘particular significance to Aboriginal people’ because of Aboriginal tradition or the history, including contemporary history, of any Aboriginal party in the area (Sections 9 and 10).

A registered native title claimant is given special legal status as the party to be dealt with in respect of ICH, known as Aboriginal cultural heritage under the ACH Act, and is deemed by law to be the ‘Aboriginal party’ in respect of all land and waters within the external boundaries of the registered native title claim.


The application of significance is ultimately the responsibility of the Aboriginal party, who may have regard for ‘authoritative anthropological, bio-geographical, historical and archaeological information’ provided by a person with skills in that area. For this reason, the assessment of significance may be achieved by an amalgamation of both scientific and cultural approaches.

Under the ACH Act, ICH includes areas and objects where there may be no physical manifestation of human use, but that are culturally significant to Indigenous people. It also includes places of archaeological or historical significance. Notably, under the ACH Act, significant cultural places are not restricted to the period prior to contact with non-indigenous people and may include places and events that date from contemporary history. In particular, if such events relate to a specific place in the landscape, then that place (i.e. a site in archaeological terms, or an area or object in accordance with the ACH Act) may become significant to the Indigenous communities connected to it. Importantly, an assessment of the levels of scientific significance of a particular object or place is not always consistent with Indigenous people’s cultural evaluations, and as such, under the ACH Act, Indigenous cultural values of an area or object override other forms of significance assessment.

Sections 34 and 35 of the ACH Act describe the process by which the Aboriginal party may be defined. Specifically, these sections state that ‘a registered native title claimant for the area’ is a native title party (Section 34(1)(a)), and that a ‘native title party for an area is an “Aboriginal party” for the area’ (Section 35(1)). As the project is within the external boundaries of the registered Gold Coast native title claim (QUD346/2006), the native title party for that claim (known jointly as the applicant) is also the Aboriginal party for the purposes of the ACH Act. In the case of the Gold Coast native title claim, the native title party have authorised:

> Jabree Limited to be the Aboriginal cultural heritage body for the claim area;

> One of the people who jointly form the native title party to be their spokesperson for the development of cultural heritage agreements, including CHMPs and other cultural heritage arrangements.

4.10.1.2 Cultural Heritage Context

Very little academic based archaeological investigations have been undertaken in the Gold Coast hinterland to date, with the majority of work being privately commissioned as part of development projects. Information produced through these commissions is rarely available in the public realm. Despite this limited information, it is possible to build up a general picture about the Aboriginal occupation of the area.

The earliest evidence for Aboriginal occupation in south-eastern Queensland comes from Neal and Stocks 1986 investigations at Wallen Wallen Creek located on the west coast of North Stradbroke Island. Charcoal from this site, in association with cultural material, has been radiocarbon dated to 20,560 Before Present (BP). Other habitation sites in the sub-coastal region of the Gold Coast such as Christmas Creek (3,720 BP) (Bonica 1992) and Bushrangers Cave (9,270 BP) (Hiscock and Hall 1988; Hall 1999:172) also demonstrate long occupation sequences that encompassed a range of environments and resource bases.

Archaeological evidence from these sites record Aboriginal people were utilising a large range of raw materials for making stone tools. These stone tools also demonstrate a range of technological developments over time. Based on archaeological research, it is generally held that after 6000 BP the Queensland south-eastern coastal zones (which would by then have been similar to the modern coast line) were occupied more intensely and continuously than sub-coastal regions. A site such as the Broadbeach Burial Ground (1200 BP)(Haglund 1976) provides evidence for this.

The stone artefacts identified and recorded during fieldwork in this project area are important because they can contribute information regarding raw material procurement, use, manufacture and other technological aspects of Aboriginal life. Further, any clusters of artefacts can provide information on and insight into how the landscape was utilised by Aboriginal people.

A search of the DATSIMA Indigenous Sites Database identified twenty (20) locations which exhibited ICH. S. Davies reported these in 1995 (Davis 1995), as part of a cultural heritage assessment associated with a proposed residential development at Reedy Creek. These locations (also referred to as sites) were predominantly isolated artefacts (n=16) and scarred trees (n=4) as shown in Figure 4-8. The proponent provided Jabree Limited with a copy of the Davis (1995) report before commencement of their cultural heritage survey so that Jabree representatives were fully informed about previous cultural heritage finds.


Figure 4-121: GCQ disturbance footprint and location of 1995 surface finds

In addition, searches were also conducted of Commonwealth registers (i.e., World Heritage List and National Heritage Register). No sites or places were registered on Commonwealth registers.

Studies of the known state of environment (i.e., summary of known cultural heritage issues) were conducted by Archaeo (2005) and Converge (2008) as part of initial scoping work for project. These did not include cultural heritage surveys and consequently did not identify or report any further ICH sites within the project area.

4.10.1.3 Cultural Heritage Management Plan

As an EIS is being conducted for the project, the ACH Act requires that a native title agreement that includes management and protection strategies for ICH or a CHMP is developed. As native title in the project area has previously been extinguished by freeholded land tenure, the development of a native title agreement in accordance with the NT Act is not relevant. By implication the development of a CHMP was required.

Pursuant to Sections 91 and 93 of the ACH Act, the development of the CHMP commenced with written notifications being sent by the proponent on 16 November 2011 to the Chief Executive of DATSIMA (then the Department of Environment and Resource Management), relevant landowners, and Jabree Limited as the Aboriginal cultural heritage body for the Gold Coast native title claimants. Specifically, these notifications included: advice on the name and contact details of the proponent, as sponsor for the development of the CHMP; identification of and information about the project; a description of the plan area for the CHMP that identified its location in relation to the nearest town using bearings and approximate distances; and the proponent’s intention to develop a CHMP for the project. In addition, the notification to Jabree Limited also: advised that if it wishes to identify an Aboriginal party to take part in developing the CHMP, it must do so in a written response to the notification identifying the party and giving contact details; stated the notice day and the date by which the proponent should be given the written response to the notification; and advised that if Jabree Limited did not respond by the notice day, the proponent might choose not to endorse an Aboriginal party to take part in the development of the CHMP. The stated notice day was 21 November 2011 and the

7


date by which a response was requested was 21 December 2011, which gave the required 30-days’ notification period.

Jabree Limited responded to the notification on 20 December 2011, indicating that the Gold Coast native title claimants wished to take part in the development of the CHMP and that Wesley Aird, their authorised spokesperson, would be the Aboriginal party for these purposes. On 2 April 2012 the proponent then endorsed the Aboriginal party nominated by Jabree Limited.

In accordance with section 104 of the ACH Act, consultation then commenced between the parties through face to face meetings, telephone conferences, use of the internet and exchanges of correspondence. The proponent agreed to both the methodological approaches to cultural heritage management and a template for the CHMP agreement provided by the endorsed Aboriginal party. On 29 October 2012, the parties finalised and executed the CHMP agreement. The proponent then lodged a copy of the CHMP agreement with the Chief Executive of DATSIMA with a request for its approval. It was duly approved by the Director of Cultural Heritage on behalf of the Chief Executive by letter dated 13 November 2012.

By agreement between the parties, the CHMP includes the following components:

> A dispute resolution process;

> Agreed management and recording processes if currently unknown ICH is found during project activities (accidental finds process);

> Cultural awareness training and cultural heritage inductions for all staff associated with the project;

> Management processes for ICH found during the cultural heritage survey;

> Involvement of representatives of the Gold Coast native title claimants during the cultural heritage survey, all mitigation and management processes, and in the event of accidental finds during project activities; and,

> Communication channels between the parties.

In addition, the CHMP allows for the finalisation of cultural heritage management through a clearance certificate, which was provided by Jabree Limited to the proponent when all agreed actions had been completed.

4.10.1.4 Cultural Heritage Survey

As part of the development of the CHMP, the endorsed Aboriginal party requested, and the proponent agreed to, a cultural heritage survey of the project area. Jabree Limited facilitated all aspects of the work associated with the completion of the cultural heritage survey including fieldwork, technical reporting, community consultation and provision of clearance certificates.

Jabree Limited undertook an 11-day fieldwork program in November 2012, which involved a desktop review and standard and complex assessments of the project area. Jabree Limited then prepared a cultural heritage survey report that included outcomes of the fieldwork program, the desktop review, consultation and appropriate management recommendations.

During the standard assessment a total of 50 ICH were identified, representing 45% of the total assemblage recorded in 2012.

The ICH recorded during the 2012 cultural heritage survey consisted of:

> Thirteen (13) isolated stone artefacts consisting of individual find sites of a single artefact;

> Nine (9) stone artefact scatters incorporating a group of two or more artefacts which were located on the ground or sub-surface; and

> One (1) site complex which reflects a complex of stone artefact scatters and isolated artefacts.

No occupation sites, ceremonial areas, rock art, quarries, or Indigenous scarred trees were located within the project area during fieldwork. There was no impediment to the conduct of the cultural heritage survey, which was conducted with Traditional Owners present.


The cultural heritage survey documented a single site complex (B SC13) that is outside of the proposed disturbance footprint but within the project boundary.

The B SC13 site complex comprised 55% of the total assemblage (n=62). These sub-surface artefacts were discovered across 3 test pits and 15 shovel probes within a radius of approximately 700m2.

All previously recorded sites provided in the 1995 report (Davis 1995) were inspected during the 2012 cultural heritage survey fieldwork. While these sites were within the disturbance area as mapped in Figure 4-121, there was no evidence found in the 2012 cultural heritage survey of these or any other artefacts at any of the recorded locations. Further, the scarred trees were determined to be naturally occurring scars and not of Indigenous origin.

4.10.1.4.1 Environmental Values of the Cultural Landscape

The nature and distribution of many forms of ICH in a landscape are, in part, associated with biophysical factors such as geology, climate and landforms that affect the availability of plants, animals and water; the location of suitable camping places, and suitable surfaces upon which rock art could be made. Such environmental biophysical factors also affect the degree to which cultural remains have survived natural and human-induced processes. Non-Indigenous land-use practices, such as farming, 4WD and motorbike use also have the potential to disturb or destroy ICH within the project area.

The extent of vegetation and the nature of erosion and deposition regimes also affect the visibility of cultural remains and hence the chances of their detection during archaeological surveys. Likewise, non-Indigenous land-use practices can disturb ICH from its original context of deposition.

The isolated surface artefacts found during the November 2012 cultural heritage survey were not equally distributed across the project area. They tended to be concentrated around the perimeter of the project area and proximal to tracks where ground surface visibility (GSV) was highest. It is recognised that the correlation of where artefacts are found is determined by where it is possible to look for them and this is in part linked to GSV.

4.10.1.5 Significance Assessment

The assessment of significance for ICH in Queensland is guided by the ACH Act and the Burra Charter.

Under the ACH Act, the endorsed Aboriginal party has been delegated responsibility for assessing the level of significance of areas and objects of ICH. The assessment made has been guided by the results of the cultural heritage survey undertaken in 2012 and historical knowledge and information available to Traditional Owners concerning the archaeological, historical and anthropological value of the area.

The assessment undertaken by representatives of the endorsed Aboriginal party through Jabree Limited during the cultural heritage survey resulted in a single site being recorded and referred to in the cultural heritage survey report as B SC13. Aboriginal place B SC13 was defined as of high Aboriginal cultural significance and moderate scientific significance. This assessment was made on the basis of research potential, condition and content of the site complex, its artefacts and their representativeness.

4.10.1.5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Significance

Fundamental to the assessment of Aboriginal cultural significance is the tenant that the ‘recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage should be based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge, culture and traditional practices’ and that ‘Aboriginal people should be recognised as the primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage’ (sections 5(a) and (b) of the ACH Act).

In most situations, Aboriginal people clearly express their attachment to place and country through their cultural connections. These are expressed through their past, through to present kinship affiliations with country (i.e.: I belong to this country through my mother's father or through my fathers' mother’s brother or the like). In addition to this, Aboriginal people will refer to connections to particular places and sites of cultural importance within the country. All these factors provide a link to the past, the extension of which is that any artefact that is located in the landscape is a tangible link with an Aboriginal person who stood in that place and held that artefact.


Consequently a single artefact can be confirmation of an Aboriginal person’s connection with country; further it is confirmation of their connection with country in a way that is not easily understood by mainstream Australian society. Seen from this perspective, it is easy to understand why when asked about the cultural significance of an artefact or an Aboriginal place, that Aboriginal people will assert that the place or object is of high cultural significance to them. This significance can be further amplified when we consider that Aboriginal places are a finite non-renewable resource.

In recent years, Europeans and non-Indigenous Australians have developed significant parts of Australia without the need to undertake archaeological investigations. During this development Aboriginal cultural material contained within the developed areas was undoubtedly in existence and consequently harmed.

The application of Aboriginal cultural significance is ultimately the responsibility of the endorsed Aboriginal party, who has determined that B SC13 is of high Aboriginal cultural significance. It is the apparent subjectivity associated with this assessment that reiterates the importance of a site assessment as being an amalgamation of both scientific and cultural approaches and assessment statements.

4.10.1.5.2 Scientific (Archaeological) Significance

First adopted in 1979, the Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter) proposes a methodological framework that is generally adopted by heritage professionals. It establishes and defines the criteria of historic, social, scientific and aesthetic significance, each of which are applied when considering and defining significance.

As stated above, under the ACH Act the social significance assessment of Aboriginal places is the sole domain of Aboriginal people. Aesthetic and historic values are not usually assessed for Aboriginal places that existed before non-indigenous occupation, but may be relevant to Aboriginal places that came into existence after, or display elements pertaining to the historic period of Australia’s history (post 1788). The assessment of scientific significance of places is within the domain of professionals such as archaeologists, who in Queensland are often referred to as technical advisers or assessors.

The level of scientific significance of a site generally increases with, and correlates to its potential to provide information. For any given place, significance will be greater where evidence of its association with the event that created it survives in situ and undisturbed than where it has been changed or evidence of context does not survive. In the case of B SC13, the scientific significance has been assessed as moderate, as defined in table 1 below.

Table 4-45: Scientific significance of B SC13

Content Condition Representativeness TOTAL Scientific Significance

B SC13 2 1 3 6 MODERATE

Overall scientific significance rating is determined as follows:

> 1 - 3 low scientific significance

> 4 - 6 moderate scientific significance

> 7 - 9 high scientific significance

Each classification: content, condition and representativeness has been graded out of 3, with 3 representing the most significant end of the scale and 1 the least.

4.10.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Site complex B SC13 was identified as having high Aboriginal cultural significance and moderate scientific significance. This rating, and consideration of other known and potential ICH, guides the management recommendations detailed in the cultural heritage survey report.

4.10.2.1 Potential Impacts

As the proposed project is a quarry, extraction activities will clearly impact the landscape and consequently any ICH that is within the disturbance footprint. For this reason, the cultural heritage survey report provided


management recommendations that involve protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage where possible, and further mitigation measures where required.

In addition, the CHMP also manages aspects of ICH matters for the proponent. In this instance the CHMP verified mitigation measures for the discovery of human remains.

The combination of cultural awareness training mandated in the CHMP, and the completion of management recommendations provided in the cultural heritage survey report will provide an opportunity for the proponent’s staff and contractors associated with the project to become familiar with the potential impacts their work may have on new and existing Aboriginal cultural heritage.

4.10.2.2 Measures to Mitigate Impacts

Measures for the management of areas and objects of ICH include:

> Avoidance; and

> Total protection.

This can be achieved through a number of different mitigation methods that include the systematic recording, collection, removal and analysis of identified artefactual material from development areas. Much of this was done during the fieldwork undertaken in November 2012 for the cultural heritage survey.

Avoidance of direct impact and long-term protection comprise the preferred form of management for Jabree Limited, presenting the best way in which the Aboriginal and scientific significance of B SC13 can be preserved. As B SC13 is outside of the disturbance footprint, it is reasonable to presume that avoidance and protection of the areas and objects found during the cultural heritage survey is possible, particularly if the exclusion zone is observed and further cultural heritage assessment undertaken.

Jabree Limited recognises that those sites recorded in 1995 (for which no evidence could be found in 2012), will be destroyed during the proposed extraction operations. Further, it has been assumed that those isolated artefacts identified in 1995 were removed. As avoidance of this area is not possible, Jabree Limited feel strongly that further work in the south-west corner of the project area is warranted to investigate the extent and nature of BSC13. This further assessment will enable a more precise record of Indigenous occupation and land use within the project area. The combined results of the archaeological surveys will help clear patterns in site distribution to emerge which in turn enables more accurate statements about representativeness.

Jabree Limited recognises the protections afforded by the CHMP endorsed by all parties in October 2012.

4.10.2.2.1 Agreed Management Recommendations

On the basis of the findings of cultural heritage survey and the results of the surface and sub-surface investigations, Jabree Limited has advised the proponent that, pending the implementation of recommendations and receiving statutory approvals, the proposed works associated with the development of the project can proceed. The following recommendations form the basis for all further management of ICH in the project area:

> Within the area of the disturbance footprint inside Lot 105 on SP144215 (owned in freehold by the proponent) works proposed by the proponent can proceed in accordance with the CHMP and in accordance with the clearance certificate provided to the proponent by Jabree Limited. There is no requirement for attendance by a representative of the Aboriginal Parties in the ordinary course of proposed works at this location. However, if during works there is a find of ICH made, works should cease and Jabree Limited should be contacted immediately to advise on, and if required, to negotiate further mitigation works.

> Within the balance area (area outside of the disturbance footprint of the project) of SP144215, works proposed by the proponent can proceed in accordance with the CHMP and the clearance certificate provided to the proponent by Jabree Limited.

> The site complex identified during the cultural heritage survey as B SC13, which is outside of the disturbance footprint, is to be designated as a works and access exclusion zone at least until further


investigations are undertaken and results documented. The exclusion zone will extend 20 metres beyond the boundaries as per the site card provided to the proponent by Jabree Limited.

> The site complex B SC13 requires further investigation. Jabree Limited and the proponent will make a joint representation to Gold Coast City Council, which holds the land in trust, to conduct further investigations of the site complex.

> For the pocket of land to the south west of the fire trail, a further two days of cultural heritage surveying is recommended, to finalise a standard site assessment.

> Senior site workers will undergo a 30-minute induction, as provided for in the CHMP. Before commencement, the proponent and Jabree Limited will enter into an agreement to cover commercial arrangements associated with the provision of induction sessions.


4.11 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage

4.11.1 Description of Existing Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Values

The Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report prepared by Converge Heritage and Community provides an assessment of the non-indigenous cultural heritage values of the site and the project. The technical report addresses the relevant components of Chapter 4.11 of the Terms of Reference and it is submitted in Appendix NN. The methodology undertaken to complete the assessment included:

> a desktop assessment that included searches of statutory and non-statutory registers and databases, a review of the relevant legislation and other cultural heritage reports prepared in relation to Lot 105 and the surrounding area.

> consultation with relevant stakeholders.

> a field survey of Lot 105.

> preparation of a purposive archaeological sampling survey based on specifically targeted areas within Lot 105.

> archaeological assessments are informed by Ground Integrity (GI) and Ground Surface Visibility (GSV). GI measures the level of disturbance experienced by an area of land. This disturbance will affect the quality and nature of any archaeological material which may be identified, as well as informing the likelihood of finding archaeological material at all. Assessments of GSV provide an indication of how much of the ground surface can actually be seen. GSV is most commonly inhibited by vegetation but other inhibitors may include gravel and bitumen.

> Completion of a significance assessment based on documents such as The Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS and the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. The result of the significance assessment informed the impact assessment and management strategies outlined within the Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report.

Section 2.3 of the Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report provides further detail in relation to the above described methodology.

4.11.1.1 Review of Heritage Registers

Places of non-indigenous heritage value are often listed on one of a number of heritage registers maintained by government. A review of the current heritage registers for Lot 105 and its immediate surrounds was undertaken as part of the EIS. The results of those respective searches were:

> No sites were identified on the World Heritage List within Lot 105;

> No sites were identified on the National Heritage List or Commonwealth Heritage List within Lot 105;

> No historic or archaeological sites were identified on the Queensland Heritage Register within Lot 105; and

> No sites were identified on the Local Heritage Register within Lot 105.

There are other sources of heritage places or historic sites that are not listed on the statutory registers described above. These places are not afforded legislative protection. Nonetheless, places identified during these searches contribute to a better understanding of Lot 105 and often identify places that have been overlooked for entry on statutory heritage registers. This is particularly important when considering the regulations of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 with respect to archaeological places. In terms of the non-statutory registers, the following is noted:

> No sites were identified on the (former) Register of the National Estate within Lot 105.

> No sites were identified on the Queensland National Trust register within Lot 105.

> No historic mining sites were located within Lot 105 in terms of the Interactive Resource Tenure Map.


4.11.1.2 Consultation with Stakeholders

The work undertaken as part of the Social Impact Assessment process for the EIS revealed a landowner who advised of a historic cemetery that was situated in the vicinity of the ‘Maryville Homestead’; a dwelling that was constructed in the late 1800s. The Maryville Homestead is located on a property that adjoins the southern boundary of Lot 105, and the cemetery was said to contain 29 graves, including one military grave. As the Maryville Homestead property and potential cemetery is located outside the boundaries of Lot 105, field work has not been undertaken on the Maryville site.

The value and status of the potential heritage place adjacent to Lot 105 remains unconfirmed due to the heritage team being refused access to the property by the owner during the EIS studies. In addition to the homestead, the owner claimed that an historic cemetery was located on his property; however, this also could not be verified without a site visit. By examining the historic records and maps, it appears that a cemetery was gazetted close to Lot 105, though not on the Maryville property. Converge archaeologists attempted to examine the potential cemetery location (which is outside of Lot 105) but found it to be heavily wooded and flooded in parts. Evidence of grave sites was not found.

4.11.1.3 Background History

Based on the historical analysis completed for the Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report and previous work undertaken within Lot 105 and its surroundings, no historic buildings or other significant elements are known to exist within Lot 105.

It was determined, however, that a section of Old Coach Road, which is identified as the proposed entry road for the quarry, follows roughly the same alignment as it did in 1886. The significance of the historical road alignment is its forming part of the route established by Cobb & Co. Given the historic nature of the road and its significance to the development of the region, Old Coach Road has been included in the targeted field investigations

Reference is to be made to Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 of the Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report for further discussion in relation to the above aspects.

4.11.1.4 Results of Field Survey

By way of overview, the results from previous work and studies have concluded that Lot 105 does not contain any known and significant non-indigenous cultural heritage (NICH) sites and places. Old Coach Road has been found to exist immediately adjacent to Lot 105, and a targeted field survey was therefore undertaken. The Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report identifies the Old Coach Road ‘site’ as GCQ-01.

No additional non-indigenous cultural heritage was identified by the field work for the current assessment that was completed. Details for Old Coach Road are provided in the table below, including a brief description of the site, its current condition and level.

Table 4-46: Identified non-indigenous cultural heritage site

Site Name: GCQ-01 ‘Old Coach Road’

Type Historic road alignment

Location Old Coach Road, Reedy Creek

Description Old Coach Road is a two lane bitumen road, approximately four kilometres long. Old Coach Road is the main road that leads past Lot 105. The road is situated in a forested area, and undulates and curves with the valley landscape in this vicinity. No evidence of historic features were located in the vicinity of Old Coach Road, both within the area of Lot 105 and outside. Some archaeological potential (albeit low) exists for the vicinity.

Condition This area has been heavily modified by various road extensions and change in the vicinity of Lot 105. In particular the location of the proposed quarry entry, currently a dirt track, has been largely ‘filled’ in the area in which it intersects with the historic road alignment. The historic road alignment itself (Old Coach Road) however, appears to have been excavated from natural levels to facilitate the current road design, meaning that early road infrastructure is likely to have been removed in this location.

GI and GVI Old Coach Road in the vicinity of Lot 105, has been subjected to various changes associated with its continued use as a major road; including regular, busy traffic conditions and vegetation clearance. Much of the adjoining land has been subjected to a range of historical impacts including logging and clearing,


Site Name: GCQ-01 ‘Old Coach Road’

farming and pastoral activities.

Although the alignment of the road is consistent with the historic Coach Road, due to the extensive clearing and continuous use and upgrades to the road condition the GI of Lot 105 would therefore be Poor). The GSV around Lot 105 is Poor due to the dense vegetation which boarders either side of the road.

Reference is to be made to Section 5.1 and the associated figures within the Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report for further discussion in relation to the above.

4.11.1.5 Further Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Potential

Based upon research, consultation and general observations from the field survey, it is concluded that there is low potential for further historic places/items to exist within the boundaries of lot 105. If existent within Lot 105, potential non-indigenous cultural heritage sites are likely to relate to early settlement and agricultural activities such as blazed (survey) trees, domestic dumps and remnant boundary fence lines and road infrastructure.

It is important to note that in areas directly adjacent to, and near Lot 105, listed and potential heritage places are known to exist. These include three (3) Queensland Heritage Register listed places located within 3 kilometres of Lot 105; and two (2) potential sites that might threshold for local or State heritage listing. These potential sites include:

> Maryville Homestead, consisting of a 19C timber dwelling located directly adjacent to Lot 105; and

> A potential historic cemetery, located on Old Coach Road approximately 400 metres from Lot 105 (although the potential location of the cemetery, which is outside the site, is heavily wooded and shows no evidence of grave sites).

4.11.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The non-indigenous cultural heritage significance of Lot 105 was evaluated using recognised benchmarks such as the Burra Charter and the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. Levels of non-indigenous cultural heritage significance were assessed using the same definitions as for the individual ratings. These findings are summarised in the table below:

Table 4-46: Significance Assessment for Lot 105

Queensland Heritage Act 1992 Criteria

Significance Justification

Criterion (a) Historical Potentially Local

Old Coach Road adjacent to Lot 105 contains a historic road network, including Old Coach Road, which was used by Cobb & Co. in the 1880s.

Whilst the alignment itself follows the historic route, no physical evidence of early road infrastructure was located. A low potential for archaeological remains exists in the vicinity relating to the historic road alignment.

Criterion (b) Rarity N / A Lot 105 is not considered to have significant levels of cultural significance within this category.

Criterion (c) Scientific N / A Lot 105 is not considered to have significant levels of cultural significance within this category.

Criterion (d) Representative

N / A Lot 105 is not considered to have significant levels of cultural significance within this category.

Criterion (e) Aesthetic N / A Lot 105 is not considered to have significant levels of cultural significance within this category.

Criterion (f) Creative / Technical Achievement

N / A Lot 105 is not considered to have significant levels of cultural significance within this category.

Criterion (g) Social N / A Lot 105 is not considered to have significant levels of cultural significance within this category.

Criterion (h) Associative N / A Lot 105 is not considered to have significant levels of cultural significance within this category.


Reference is to be made to Section 6.0 of the Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report for further discussion in relation to the above.

4.11.2.1 Sites for Nomination to Queensland Heritage Register

No sites or places located and assessed within Lot 105 were found to contain levels of non-indigenous cultural heritage significance of importance to Queensland under Section 35 (1) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. Similarly, no places have been identified within Lot 105 to contain levels of archaeological material sufficient to warrant nomination under Section 60 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. Therefore, no sites are recommended by this assessment for entry to the Queensland Heritage Register.

4.11.2.2 Impacts

Potential impacts on identified and potential sites of non-indigenous cultural heritage by the project will generally be in the nature of removal of the ground surface and sub-surface disturbance, vegetation clearance related to the development of road and quarry infrastructure, and the consequential removal of elements which form or contribute to the non-indigenous cultural heritage of the area.

The Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report has considered the impact on identified and potential heritage values by the activities relating to the development of the quarry. The current development layout for the quarry, specifically the works proposed to the entrance road, is likely to directly impact on GCQ01 – Old Coach Road, which is potentially of local significance.

4.11.2.3 Mitigation Measures

GCQ01 – Old Coach Road is highly likely to be impacted as a result of establishing the access road associated with the proposed quarry development.

While the potential is low, there is a chance that currently ‘undiscovered’ sites of cultural heritage significance may exist within Lot 105. Table below provides specific recommendations in relation to known NICH, and general mitigation recommendations to manage unknown and unexpected NICH within, or in the vicinity of Lot 105 that may potentially be impacted.

Table 4-47: Mitigation Measures

Recommendation / Measure

Mitigation

Avoidance of Sites The best form of cultural heritage management is to avoid impact on sites and places of significance and this should be prioritised by the project. Potential sites and places of cultural heritage significance, including those outlined in Recommendation 6 of this report should also be considered.

The proponent has formulated the proposal in way which will avoid impact on potential heritage places.

Mitigation of Old Coach Road

Old Coach Road is a historic road alignment which exists within and beyond Lot 105, and was used by Cobb & Co. in the 1880s. Whilst the historic alignment of Old Coach Road (GCQ01) is not impacted by the project, it is recommended that the following activities occur for any works in the vicinity of the road alignment, including the proposed quarry entrance:

> All staff and contractors working in the vicinity of Old Coach Road should be informed of its cultural heritage significance with a brief ‘tool box talk’ prior to works commencing;

> An archaeologist should be appointed ‘on call’ for the duration of works in the area to manage an unexpected archaeological finds; and

> Any discovery or finds should be managed in accordance with the incidental finds procedure.

NICH Management of Lot 105

The policies and procedures for management of NICH or archaeological material uncovered during the project, which is set out in the Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage report, should be implemented.

Additionally, it is recommended that diligence be practiced during works conducted within Lot 105, particularly during any clearing or construction phases associated with initial preparation of the area. To facilitate this diligence, it is recommended that a NICH Induction Booklet be developed once all approvals for the project are in place but prior to ground disturbing activities, which can be incorporated into the General Site Induction. The NICH Induction Booklet should be prepared by a qualified heritage specialist and include the following:


Recommendation / Measure

Mitigation

> Specific instructions for crews regarding their obligations to look for and avoid impacting on NICH material until it has been properly assessed;

> Presentation of familiarisation material for work crews so that they are aware of what constitutes a NICH find;

> Provision of educational material to personnel informing them what archaeological material may look like, and provide clear instructions on what to do should any such material be found; and

> A process for the collection, transport and storage of any NICH items.

Archaeologist ‘On-Call’

Owing to the potential for archaeological finds existing across Lot 105, it is recommended that a historical archaeologist be appointed ‘on call’ during construction phases of the project, so that a call-out can be made should potential archaeological material be located.

Unexpected Finds Lot 105 has a low potential to contain further NICH material or places. Accordingly, the EMPs developed for the project should include a procedure for managing unexpected cultural heritage material or sites that may be encountered. This should include:

> All work at the location of the potential material or site must cease and reasonable efforts to secure the site should be made – a buffer zone of 20 metres around the find is suitable;

> Work can continue at a distance of 20 meters from a find area. Note that the material or site should not be removed or disturbed any further (barriers or temporary fences may be erected as a buffer around the find if required);

> The Site Manager should be notified. They will then notify the Historic Archaeologist appointed to the Project; and

> The Historic Archaeologist will provide management recommendations to the Site Manager and will liaise with the DEHP to ensure that the archaeological provisions of the QHA are followed.

These procedures should be integrated into the project’s procedures for impact assessment and site scouting, as well as any procedures for managing cultural heritage.

Potential Heritage Places

Potential heritage places exist within the vicinity of Lot 105 and any activities throughout all phases of construction and operation of the project should be managed to ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur as a result of the project. Potential heritage places located in the vicinity of Lot 105 include;

> Maryville Homestead, located directly adjacent to Lot 105; and

> A potential historic cemetery, located on Old Coach Road.

Providing the recommendations above are suitably implemented, this report finds the nature and level of impact by the project as acceptable.

Final EIS (130417)v8 - Gold Coast Quarry EIS/Final-EIS-Consult… · Page 233 Gold Coast Quarry...

Documents

Transcript of Final EIS (130417)v8 - Gold Coast Quarry EIS/Final-EIS-Consult… · Page 233 Gold Coast Quarry...