Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303
South Deposit Tailings Storage Facility
Savage River
Compliance Report August 2015 to July 2016
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 2 of 48
Table of Contents
1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 3
3 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Environment Protection Notice / Permit Conditions Environmental Requirements .................... 4
3.2 EPBC Act ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Compliance with Conditions of approval – DoE Approval EPBC 2012/6303 ................................. 4
Protection of EPBC Species Conditions ........................................................................................... 4
Table 1: Water Quality Monitoring Sites Savage River ........................................................................... 9
4 Key Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 28
5 Appendicies ................................................................................................................................. 29
5.1 Appendix 1 – Disturbance and Inundation Area .......................................................................... 29
5.2 Appendix 2 – Grange EPBC Induction .......................................................................................... 30
5.3 Appendix 3 - Induction Register Example .................................................................................... 39
5.4 Appendix 4 - EPBC Register ......................................................................................................... 40
6 Document Control ....................................................................................................................... 48
List of Figures
Figure 1: Surpac Three Dimensional Representation of SDTSF and South Deposit July 2016 ........... 5
Figure 2: Actual Work Area July 2016 Filter Face at around RL 253 .................................................. 6
Figure 3: View of Upstream Face Looking South from B Dump ......................................................... 6
Figure 4: Log graph of results against specified limits South Deposit - Metals ............................... 13
Figure 5: Log graph of results against specified limits MCbSD - Metals .......................................... 15
Figure 6: Log graph of results against specified limits SRaSR - Metals ............................................ 17
Figure 7: pH SRaSR ........................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: Monitoring Camera Image Example 1 .............................................................................. 24
Figure 9: Monitoring Camera Image Example 2 .............................................................................. 24
List of Tables
Table 1: Water Quality Monitoring Sites Savage River ........................................................................... 9
Table 2: Summary of threshold values for South Deposit development .............................................. 11
Table 3: Table of results for South Deposit against specified limits - Metals ....................................... 12
Table 4: Table of results for MCbSD against specified limits – Metals ................................................. 14
Table 5: Table of results for SRaSR against specified limits - Metals .................................................... 16
Table 6: Dissolved Nutrients ................................................................................................................. 18
Table 7: Turbidity .................................................................................................................................. 19
Table 8: AX Record of Payment............................................................................................................. 25
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 3 of 48
1 PURPOSE
To comply with condition 16 of DoE Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303.
2 SCOPE
This compliance report addresses compliance with all conditions of the DoE Approval EPBC 2012 /
6303.
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 4 of 48
3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION NOTICE / PERMIT CONDITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is Tasmania's principal regulator of potentially polluting
activities. The EPA imposes conditions attached to the planning permit issued by the planning
authority. These conditions are issued in the form of an Environment Protection Notice (EPN) or
Permit Conditions Environmental (PCE) accompanying the planning permit and set the environmental
conditions for the operations.
3.2 EPBC ACT
In applying to construct the South Deposit Tailings Storage Facility (SDTSF), Grange was required to
obtain approval from the Federal Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act. This approval was
required due to a number of threatened species that can be found in the areas that the tailings dam
is intended to be built or downstream of the operation for aquatic species.
The approval from the Federal Minister has attached conditions. These conditions are listed in the
following section.
3.3 COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – DOE APPROVAL EPBC 2012/6303
Protection of EPBC Species Conditions
1. The clearing of native vegetation for the construction and the operation of SDTSF must not
exceed 168 hectares and be contained within the vicinity of the action. As amended 28 July
2015.
Grange Compliance:- Current clearing of vegetation does not exceed the allowed area of
168 hectares.
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 5 of 48
Figure 1: Surpac Three Dimensional Representation of SDTSF and South Deposit July 2016
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 6 of 48
Figure 2: Actual Work Area July 2016 Filter Face at around RL 253
Figure 3: View of Upstream Face Looking South from B Dump
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 7 of 48
2. The approval holder must develop, implement and maintain an environmental induction
training and awareness program that instructs staff, contractors and visitors on the
requirement to protect EPBC species in the vicinity of the action. The program must:
a. Include appropriate workplace training and awareness sessions, prominently
displayed posters and provision of glovebox guides;
b. Include clear images and simple descriptions (including distinguishing features) to
aid in the identification of EPBC species;
c. Include instructions on how to avoid or reduce incidences of roadkill;
d. Include protocols for dealing with putrescible waste and other sources to avoid
attracting EPBC species to the site;
e. Include protocols for dealing with injured EPBC species, including;
I. Animal welfare considerations;
II. Initial response provisions;
III. Expert care provisions;
f. Provide information on roles and responsibilities, including recording and reporting
obligations for staff, contractors and visitors who observe EPBC species (dead or
alive) and provide any template documents used in these requirements;
g. Include reference to the penalties imposed on any staff, contractors and visitors
found causing harm to EPBC species while in the vicinity of the action.
Grange Compliance:- The induction program has been provided to all staff, contractors and
visitors since the Action commenced. A copy of the induction program is provided at 5.1. An
example of Grange’s Skills Register showing records for EPBC Training is provided at 5.2.
Note that this only a snapshot of the record.
3. The approval holder must adopt and implement a plan for the progressive identification and
decommissioning of Tasmanian devil and spot-tailed quoll dens in the vicinity of the action,
in consultation with DPIPWE and in accordance with any relevant Tasmanian regulatory
requirements. The plan must be in place prior to any clearing or inundation and must be
implemented.
Grange Compliance:- The Tasmanian Devil and Spotted-Tail Quoll Pre-clearance Survey and
Monitoring Plan was approved by the Minister on the 16 June 2014 and has been
implemented. To date no dens have been decommissioned.
4. For the better protection of EPBC species and particularly the Tasmanian azure kingfisher
and the Australian grayling, the approval holder must engage a suitably qualified or
experienced expert to prepare a water quality monitoring and remediation plan in relation
to waste produced in association with South Deposit Pit Stage 2 mining. The plan must:
a. Identify groundwater and surface water resources influenced, or expected to be
influenced, by South Deposit Pit as a result of the action;
b. Identify sites for the monitoring of groundwater and surface water that will be able
to detect changes in groundwater and surface water that may affect EPBC species
under all reasonably foreseeable meteorological and operational circumstances;
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 8 of 48
c. Identify qualitative and quantitative parameters to be monitored at the sites
identified pursuant to b. above in accordance with ANZECC Water Quality
Guidelines. Parameters must include as a minimum: flow rate, pH, alkalinity, total
suspended solids, turbidity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus,
ammonia, chloride, fluoride, total and dissolved metals (aluminium, cadmium,
calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel,
potassium, sodium, zinc), dissolved sulphate as well as biological surveys and
toxicological assays of fresh water algae, macro-invertebrates, crustaceans and fish;
d. Define the methodologies for (including use of NATA accredited laboratories and
real time sampling), and frequencies of, monitoring parameters identified pursuant
to c. above that are capable of capturing routine and non-routine events (such as
pumping, rainfall and emergency discharges);
e. Define thresholds in relation to the parameters identified pursuant to c. above that
will safeguard the short and long term health of EPBC species in accordance with the
ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines for protection of freshwater aquatic ecosystems
(upland rivers) at no less than an 80% level of protection and must account for
potential buffering by calcium and magnesium. Any departure from ANZECC Water
Quality Guidelines must be justified;
Note: ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines allow for moderation of trigger levels and
recognise natural background levels (site specific) of metals and other parameters,
as part of their integrated approach for determining local water quality targets.
Note: The water quality monitoring and remediation plan may make reference to
the SRRP or other existing documents in support of any discussion.
f. Describe reporting and remediation measures to be adopted in the case of any
exceedances of thresholds defined pursuant to e. above;
g. Describe strategies for dealing with the collection, handling, processing, transport
and disposal of semi-solid wastes (sludge);
h. Describe measures to ensure that discharge into receiving waters including Main
Creek and Savage River does not cause scouring and does not dominate the
receiving waters in qualitative and quantitative terms;
i. Describe any additional existing regulatory responsibilities, including EPN’s relevant
to the management of water in association with South Deposit Pit Stage 2 mining.
South Deposit Pit Stage 2 mining may not proceed until the water quality monitoring and
remediation plan has been approved by the Minister. Once approved, the plan must be
implemented.
Grange Compliance:- The water quality monitoring and remediation plan was approved by
the Minister on 19 June 2014 and duly implemented.
In the Water Monitoring and Remediation Plan, Grange proposed to monitor water quality
at three sites, South Deposit, Main Creek below South Deposit (Q1/MCbSD) and Savage
River at Smithton Road (SRaSR), these sites were chosen as they were the most relevant in
determining the impacts of the activity on the receiving environment and they fit with the
SRRP’s and Grange’s existing water quality monitoring program. The extent of Grange’s
water quality monitoring can be seen in Table 1, this includes the sites listed above and sites
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 9 of 48
specific to the South Deposit Tailings Storage Facility (as approved by the EPA during the
SDTSF approval).
In the approved Water Quality Monitoring and Remediation Plan, Grange proposed water
quality threshold values for the development of South Deposit and the new tailings storage
facility, these thresholds are summarised in Table 2 below, they are also specified in the
approved plan (Table 10 in the plan);
Table 1: Water Quality Monitoring Sites Savage River
Savage River Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Site Acronym Online Quarterly Weekly Monthly Comments
Savage River at Smithton Road
SRaSR While Pumping from South Deposit
Bottles Required
Main Creek Tails Dam
MCTD
Bottles Required
Savage River at Pump Station
SRaPS
Bottles Required
South Lens SLO
Bottles Required
Broderick Creek BCbWRD
Bottles Required
South Deposit SDO
Bottles Required
Main Creek below South Deposit
Q1, MCbSD
Bottles Required
Big Duffer Creek Q2
Bottles Required
Coarse Rock Flowthrough on Main Creek
Q5 / SDTSF Toe Seepage
Bottles Required
Little Duffer Creek Q3
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 10 of 48
Bottles Required
Unnamed Stream Q4
Bottles Required
Monitoring and Analysis
Online Ph, Conductivity, Turbidity and Flow
Daily Turbidity and Flow
Weekly 1 Ph, Conductivity, Turbidity, Sulphate, TSS
Weekly 2 pH, Conductivity, Turbidity and Flow
Monthly Weekly plus Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K), Total and Dissolved Metals (As, Al, Mn, Fe, Cu, Ni, Zn, Co, Cd, Hg, B, Se, Pb), Alkalinity, Acidity, Anions (SO4, Cl, F)
Quarterly Hydrocarbon in Water TPH and BTEX
Sample Bottles
500 ml Plastic Bottle Blue General Label Alkalinity, Acidity, TSS, Anions (SO4, Cl, F)
250 ml Plastic Bottle Red Metals Label Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K), Total and Dissolved Metals (As, Al, Mn, Fe, Cu, Ni, Zn, Co, Cd, Hg, B, Se, Pb),
250 ml Plastic Bottle Green Nutrients Label
Total Phosphorous and Ammonia
1000 ml Glass Hydrocarbon in Water Bottle
TPH and BTEX
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 11 of 48
Table 2: Summary of threshold values for South Deposit development
Site Threshold Values Comment
South Deposit Pit point source
discharge
1. ANZECC values for
physico-chemical thresholds
2. ANZECC 80th percentile
protection level for metals
Main Creek below South
Deposit
1. 95th percentile values of
present water quality
conditions
2. Annual median values
within 20th to 80th percentile
range of existing condition
Existing condition is based
on 2009 – 2014 monthly
monitoring results
Savage River at Smithton Rd 1. Copper threshold linked
to calcium and based on
site-specific toxicological test
work;
2. Threshold pH >6.5
3. ANZECC values for
physico-chemical thresholds
4. 95th percentile values of
present water quality
condition for remaining
dissolved metals
5. Annual median values
of remaining dissolved
metals within 20th to 80th
percentile range of existing
condition
Existing condition is based
on 2009 – 2014 monthly
monitoring results
Long-term goal of SRRP
is to achieve 80th percentile
ANZECC values for all
parameters
Since the activity commenced in July 2014, Grange has analysed the results received against the requirements specified above, it must be noted that dewatering of the main water body in South Deposit was completed in April 2015. Sampling of the Pit Water continues to be problematical due to access issues during blasting, mining and benching. With no further impacts likely, other than to occasionally dewater the sump at the bottom of the pit, this
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 12 of 48
water will be monitored according to the permit conditions in EPN 8748/4. It must be noted that some of the proposed thresholds in Table 2 are below the detection capability/limits of the lab equipment used to analyse the sample. For example this is the case with Cadmium, Chromium and Lead, where the lab results for all samples taken in the period were below the detection level of the lab equipment (0.002mg/L for Cd and Cr and 0.01mg/L for Pb). Some of the specified limits in the Water Monitoring and Remediation Plan were an order of magnitude lower than the detection limits due to changes in testing/analysis equipment at Analytical Services Tasmania (AST) over a number of years. Since December 2015 the AST Laboratory has been able to lower detection limits in some waters dependent on overall metal concentrations resulting in the following lower detection limits (0.0001 mg/L for Cd, 0.001 mg/L for Cr and 0.0005 mg/L for Pb). These elements continue to be below detection levels under the new testing limits.
South Deposit
The majority of samples taken at South Deposit have returned dissolved metals values that
are below the detection limit of the lab analysis (as denoted by the shaded cells in the table).
Therefore all the samples taken to date are below the ANZECC 80th percentile value for the
protection of marine species. The only metal that was close was cadmium, but 0.002 mg/l is
the detection limit, so actual concentrations may have been lower.
Table 3: Table of results for South Deposit against specified limits - Metals
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 13 of 48
Figure 4: Log graph of results against specified limits South Deposit - Metals
Iron and Cobalt don’t have defined trigger values as there is insufficient data.
Main Creek below South Deposit
Dissolved metals were all below the 95th percentile, except Chromium and Lead due to the
detection level limits as discussed above. Besides cadmium, chromium and lead which were
at detection limits, all other metals recorded results below the 80th percentile for all months,
some results fell below the 20th percentile for the site representing improved water quality at
this site.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Al Cd Cu Cr Mn Ni Pb Zn Co Fe
CO
nce
ntr
atio
n in
mg/
L (L
og
scal
e)
South Deposit
22/08/2014 29/09/2014 30/10/2014 29/01/2015 25/03/2015
26/08/2015 7/01/2016 26/04/2016 26/05/2016 80th Percentile
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 14 of 48
Table 4: Table of results for MCbSD against specified limits – Metals
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 15 of 48
Figure 5: Log graph of results against specified limits MCbSD - Metals
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Al Cd Cu Cr Co Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n in
mg/
L (L
og
scal
e)
Main Creek Below South Deposit
16/07/2014 29/09/2014 22/10/2014 18/11/2014 19/12/2014
21/1/2015 26/02/2015 25/03/2015 9/04/2015 21/05/2015
30/06/2015 29/07/2015 26/08/2015 29/09/2015 5/11/2015
26/11/2015 16/12/2015 7/01/2016 10/02/2016 22/03/2016
10/05/2016 26/05/2016 20th Percentile 80th Percentile 95th Percentile
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 16 of 48
Savage River at Smithton Road
A similar story as above, with dissolved metals were all below the 95th percentile, except
cadmium, chromium and lead due to the detection level limits. Besides cadmium, chromium
and lead which were at detection limits, all other metals recorded results below the 80th
percentile for all months. Recent analysis for the SRRP has shown that lower detection limits
for cadmium, 0.0001 mg/L, Chromium, 0.001 mg/L, and Lead, 0.0005 mg/L are achievable with
alternate instrumentation however the analysis shows that for this site these elements are
still at the new detection limits. These detection limits correspond to the 20th percentile values
below.
Table 5: Table of results for SRaSR against specified limits - Metals
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 17 of 48
Figure 6: Log graph of results against specified limits SRaSR - Metals
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Al Cd Cu Cr Co Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn
CO
nce
ntr
atio
n in
mg/
L (L
og
scal
e)
Savage River at Smithton Road
23/07/2014 13/08/2014 26/09/2014 21/10/2014 18/11/2014
22/12/2014 21/01/2015 5/02/2015 26/02/2015 25/03/2015
9/04/2015 14/05/2015 11/06/2015 15/07/2015 25-Aug-15
28-Sep-15 05-Nov-15 26-Nov-15 16/Dec/15 6/Jan/16
11/Feb/16 22/Mar/16 30/Apr/16 26/May/16 20th Percentile
80th Percentile 95th Percentile
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 18 of 48
Dissolved Nutrients
Table 6: Dissolved Nutrients
Thresholds from Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Volume
1, The Guidelines, Table 3.3.2
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 19 of 48
Turbidity
Table 7: Turbidity
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 20 of 48
pH in the Savage River
Figure 7: pH SRaSR
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
pH
pH at SRaSR
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 21 of 48
Summary of compliance
Generally Grange has demonstrated compliance with the approved Water Monitoring and
Remediation Plan. Metals concentrations at all 3 sites have been adequately managed and
fall within or have bettered the approved ranges (lower than the 20th percentile), this is
despite the presence of legacy pollution for which Grange is not legally responsible.
However it was anticipated the construction of the South Deposit Tailings Storage Facility
and the alkaline rock flow-through would improve water quality in Main Creek up stream of
the Main Creek below South Deposit monitoring site and therefore improve water quality
downstream in the Savage River.
pH at Smithton Road has exceeded 6.5 throughout the period, even in high flow scenarios,
as background west coast waters in Tasmania have a pH of ~5.5. Turbidity and total
suspended solids (TSS) have been within acceptable tolerances when measured during
routine monthly monitoring (Table 2). Waters from South Deposit are now pumped to the
disused Centre Pit South prior to eventual discharge to the Savage River via South Lens. This
means that high turbidity and TSS values measured in the pipeline from South Deposit are
negated by settlement in Centre Pit South. Grange has seen elevated levels of ammonia in
South Deposit waters compared to the ANZECC thresholds . Levels of ammonia drop away
very quickly from the pit and are generally close to the ANZECC guideline in Main Creek and
in the Savage River.
5. Tailings and wastewater associated with the SDTSF must be managed in accordance with the
conditions listed under the ‘General’, ‘Effluent’, ‘Monitoring’ and ‘Waste Management’
headings in EPA permit 8808.
Grange Compliance:- No Tailings have been discharged into the SDTSF during the first year
of construction.
6. Decommissioning and rehabilitation of SDTSF must be undertaken and managed in
accordance with the conditions listed under the ‘Decommissioning and rehabilitation’
heading in EPA permit 8808.
Grange Compliance:- No decommissioning or rehabilitation has been required during the
first year of construction.
Protection of EPBC species from traffic Impacts
7. The approval holder must ensure that new roads constructed as part of the action are built
and maintained in a manner that minimizes the potential for EPBC species roadkill, through
deterrence and increased visibility, including in particular:
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 22 of 48
a. The use of light coloured aggregate;
b. Sign-posted speed limits of no more than 40 kilometres per hour;
c. Active management of vegetation within 5 metres of road edges to maximise fauna
visibility;
d. Installation of table drains to minimise pooling of water and vegetation growth;
e. Removal of roadkill at least daily.
Grange Compliance:- Grange continues to construct roadways from the lightest coloured
rock it has available. Blanket speed limits of 40 kilometres per hour apply to all mine
roadways. Signage has been installed to remind operators. Grange continues to maintain
vegetation and water control systems to assist operators with visibility. Grange removes
roadkill on a report basis and always within one shift of the report. Evidence of carcass
removal is contained in the EPBC Register at 5.3.
Monitoring and reporting
8. Prior to commencement of the action, the approval holder must establish an EPBC species
register on their website that includes all records of sightings of EPBC species (dead or alive)
in the vicinity of the action. This register must be updated at least monthly until completion
of the action (including decommissioning and rehabilitation). The following details of each
sighting must be recorded at the earliest opportunity and included in the register:
a. Species;
b. Condition;
c. Date;
d. Time;
e. Location / coordinates;
f. Any noteworthy circumstances including circumstances of injury or death where
relevant and known;
g. The fate of the carcass, if relevant.
Grange Compliance:- Grange has maintained an EPBC Species Register on the Grange
Resources Website since the commencement of the Action. Requirements of the register are
communicated by the induction program. Note that Grange chooses to also record all
siting’s of relevant fauna including the reporting of carcasses’ and their removal through this
Register. A copy of the Register is provided at 5.3. Note that Grange reports internally on a
calendar year basis and therefore the provided Register is a combination of existing yearly
Registers. All carcasses’ of non-protected species are taken to a ramped access pit in a safe
area away from roads to reduce the likelihood of scavenging in trafficked areas.
9. Within fourteen (14) days of any request from a Commonwealth or Tasmanian Government
agency or the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program, the approval holder must make available
any raw data collected regarding the Tasmanian devil and DFTD.
Not Applicable:- No request for this information has been received.
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 23 of 48
10. The approval holder must engage a suitably qualified or experienced expert to prepare a
Tasmanian devil monitoring plan for the vicinity of the action. The plan must:
a. Be consistent and compatible with any relevant strategies of the Commonwealth or
Tasmanian Governments or the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program;
b. Provide for the placement and maintenance of at least five (5) infrared monitoring
cameras at locations relevant to the action;
c. Include measures for the prompt detection and reporting of DFTD;
d. Include protocols for regular data retrieval and recording;
e. Be supported by adequate funding and other resources.
Commencement of the action must not occur until the plan has been approved by the
Minister. Once approved, the plan must be implemented.
Grange Compliance:- The Tasmanian devil monitoring plan was approved by the Minister on
16 June 2014 and implemented. Grange has also installed, as per the approved plan, 5
wildlife monitoring cameras, these cameras have been in the field for 12 months. The
cameras, in the wet and windy environment of Savage River, have had limited success. The
damp environment tends to obscure the lens with moisture (making the photos blurry or
hazy) and water has at times got into the cameras and rendered them ineffective until they
could be dried. The wind also sets the cameras off with trees and grasses moving in front of
the lens which shortens the expected battery life. Despite some operational difficulties, the
cameras have largely had an uninterrupted run for more than 24 months. There has been
limited capture of MNES on the cameras, with only a few images capturing devils and there
have been no confirmable images of quolls on the cameras. Of non MNES species, wallabies
have featured prominently, with one wallaby having been captured many times on the Main
Creek below South Deposit camera. Also a Swan’s visit to Savage River proved to be a
surprise.
Based on the performance so far, it is unlikely that the cameras could be relied upon to
detect the presence of the Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD). In the handful of quality
images featuring the devil, the animal is on the move or too far in the distance to clearly see
any tumours. Examples of photos are below.
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 24 of 48
Figure 8: Monitoring Camera Image Example 1
Figure 9: Monitoring Camera Image Example 2
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 25 of 48
Compensation for unavoidable impacts
11. To compensate for unavoidable impacts on the Tasmanian devil through loss of 168
hectares of habitat, the approval holder must contribute no less than $160,000 (GST
exclusive) in funding to the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program, in accordance with any
current, publicly available Tasmanian devil recovery plan (whether draft or approved) and
explicitly for the purpose of maintenance of the Tasmanian Devil insurance population.
At least 50% of this sum must be contributed within twelve (12) months of commencement
of the action, and the balance within two (2) years of commencement of the action.
Note: It is acknowledged that the details of how the funds will be spent will be decided, within the
parameters specified by these conditions, by the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program. There is no
objection to the approval holder discussing the specific direction of these funds with the program.
As amended 28 July 2015.
Grange Compliance:- Grange has completed payment of the second $80,000 to the Save the
Tasmanian Devil Program through the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment. In table form below is a transaction record from Grange’s AX
Transactional Accounting System detailing the second payment of $80,000.
Table 8: AX Record of Payment
Document
date
Tax
Invoice
Amount in
transaction
currency Balance Date
Due
date
Closed
date
Last
settlement
4/04/2016 90634049 80,000.00 0.00 18/05/2016 31/05/2016 05/2016 31/05/2016
Contingency conditions
12. In the event of the following EPBC species roadkill deaths over any twelve (12) month period
recorded in accordance with condition 8, occurring in the vicinity of the action, the following
associated contingency compensation response must be undertaken:
a. For each Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle death beyond zero (0), the approval holder
must contribute to regional or statewide Tasmanian wedge tailed eagle monitoring
strategies as agreed by the Department;
Note: The contribution can be expected to be in the order of $20,000.
b. For each spot-tailed quoll death beyond zero (0), the approval holder must fund a
three (3) month program of feral cat trapping and / or shooting;
c. For each Tasmanian devil death beyond zero (0), the approval holder must
contribute an additional $48,000 (GST exclusive) in funding to the Save the
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 26 of 48
Tasmanian Devil Program, explicitly for the purpose of maintenance of the
Tasmanian Devil insurance population.
Grange Compliance:- There have been no known roadkill deaths in accordance with
condition 8. Grange however did report to the relevant agencies a deceased Tasmanian
Devil found adjacent to the camp accommodation area. It is believed that the Devil was
struck on the Corinna Road.
Administrative conditions
13. Within fourteen (14) days after commencement of the action, the approval holder must
advise the Department in writing of the actual date of commencement.
Grange Compliance:- Grange advised the Department via email on 10 July 2014 of
commencement of the project. This advice was acknowledged the same day.
14. The approval holder must notify the Department of any non-compliance with these
conditions of approval (or any subordinate management documents) within two (2) days of
becoming aware of the non-compliance, along with the proposed remediation response
where appropriate. Once agreed with the Department, any response must be implemented.
Grange Compliance:- Grange has had no non-compliances during the period.
15. The approval holder must maintain accurate records substantiating all activities associated
with or relevant to these conditions of approval, including measures taken to implement
management documents required by these conditions of approval, and make them available
upon request to the Department. Such records may be subject to audit by the Department
or an independent auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify
compliance with the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the
Department’s website. The results of audits may also be publicised through the general
media.
Grange Compliance:- Grange maintains all required records relevant to the conditions of
approval.
16. Within three (3) months of every twelve (12) month anniversary of commencement of the
action until completion of the action, the approval holder must publish on their website, and
provide the Department with, a report addressing compliance with these conditions of
approval since the previous report, including but not limited to the following:
a. An extract for the reporting period of the EPBC species register established under
condition 8;
b. Details of progress against all actions and payments (including documentary
evidence) required under these conditions;
c. Information on compliance (and non-compliance ) with any management
documents required under these conditions of approval;
d. Details of any other incidences of non-compliance with these conditions along with
any associated remedial action undertaken, underway or proposed.
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 27 of 48
Grange Compliance:- This Compliance Report satisfies the requirement of condition 16.
17. Upon the direction of the Minister, the approval holder must ensure that an independent
audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is conducted and a report submitted to
the Minister. The independent auditor must be approved by the Minister prior to
commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be agreed to be the Minister and the audit
report must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the Minister.
Not Applicable:- No direction has been given.
18. If the approval holder wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in accordance with any
management document required under these conditions of approval, the approval holder
must submit to the Department for the Ministers written approval a revised version of that
management document. The varied activity shall not commence until the Minister has
approved the revised management document in writing. The Minister will not approve a
revised management document unless the revised management document would result in
an equivalent or improved environmental outcome over time. If the Minister approves the
revised management document, that management document must be implemented in place
of the management document originally approved.
Grange Compliance:- The only change since the commencement of the Action has been the
approved increase in the area in the vicinity of the Action from 148 hectares to 168 hectares.
This variation was approved on 28 July 2015.
19. If the Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of EPBC
species to do so, the Minister may request that the approval holder make specified revisions
to a management document required by these conditions of approval and submit the
revised management document for the Minister’s written approval. The revised approved
management document must be implemented. Unless the Minister has approved the
revised document, then the approval holder must continue to implement the management
document originally approved, as specified in the conditions.
Not Applicable:- There has been no request for any revision from the Minister.
20. If at any time after the five (5) years from the date of the approval, the approval holder has
not commenced the action, then the approval holder must not commence the action
without the written agreement of the Minister.
Not Applicable:- Action has commenced.
21. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Minister, the approval holder must publish and
maintain all approved management documents required by these conditions of approval on
their website within one (1) month of being approved.
Grange Compliance:- All required documents are available on the Grange Resources
Website.
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 28 of 48
4 KEY DEFINITIONS
Key definitions that need to be understood as part of this procedure are listed below, a more detailed
section for other definitions is listed at the end of this document, or alternatively within the SEMS
Glossary of terms located within SharePoint.
DoE – Department of Environment
DFTD – Devil Facial Tumour Disease
DPIPWE – Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmania)
EMPC Act - means the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
EPBC Act – means the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
EPA – the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Authority
EPN - means an Environment Protection Notice (as defined in the Environmental Management and
Pollution Control Act 1994).
MNES – means Matters of National Environmental Significance.
NEPM - means a national environment protection measure within the meaning of the National
Environment Protection Council (Tasmania) Act 1995.
Surpac – means a mining dimensional software program.
The Minister – means the Federal Environment Minister.
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 29 of 48
5 APPENDICIES
5.1 APPENDIX 1 – DISTURBANCE AND INUNDATION AREA
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 30 of 48
5.2 APPENDIX 2 – GRANGE EPBC INDUCTION
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 39 of 48
5.3 APPENDIX 3 - INDUCTION REGISTER EXAMPLE
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 40 of 48
5.4 APPENDIX 4 - EPBC REGISTER
Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303 Compliance Report 2015 /2016
Print Date: 16-Nov-16 Page 48 of 48
6 DOCUMENT CONTROL
Version Date Description Author Approved
Version
1
Oct 2015 Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303
Compliance Report 2014 / 2015
T Ferguson GC for BM
Version
2
Oct 2016 Approval EPBC 2012 / 6303
Compliance Report 2015 / 2016
T Ferguson GC for BM