SLIDE 1
2
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
OVERVIEW
- Factors affecting Yield
- Dust on crops
- Copper
- Uranium
- Potential health impacts on stock
- General
- Summary points
23 AUGUST 2017 IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN FARM PERSPECTIVE OVERVIEW - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
23 AUGUST 2017 IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN FARM PERSPECTIVE OVERVIEW - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
FARMERS MEETING - PETERSVILLE IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN FARM PERSPECTIVE 23 AUGUST 2017 IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN FARM PERSPECTIVE OVERVIEW Factors affecting Yield Dust on crops Copper Uranium Potential
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
3
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
FACTORS EFFECTING CROP YIELD
- A. Genetic Factor
Field crops - Yield potential is determined by genes of the plant. A large part of the increase in yield over the years has been due to hybrids and improved varieties. Other characteristics such as quality, disease resistance, drought hardiness are determined by the genetic makeup.
- B. Environmental Factors
All external conditions and influences affecting the life and development of an organism. The following are regarded as the most important environmental factors: · Temperature · Moisture supply · Radiant energy · Composition of the atmosphere · Soil aeration and soil structure – tilling method · Soil reaction - pH · Biotic factors – weeds, insects, disease etc. · Supply of mineral nutrients – NPK, Ca, Mg, S. Cu, Co, Mn, Zn, B, Mo etc. · Absence of growth-restricting substances – dust, wastes
SLIDE 4
4
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
DUST ON CROPS
There are no applicable Australian Standards for dust impact on crops
- r vegetation.
Rex has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), under the Clean Air Act of 1963 as set out by the United States Environmental Protection Authority (US Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 40 part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment has been used. The Clean Air Act of 1963 provides secondary standards for PM10 which includes potential damage to crops and vegetation. This secondary standard for PM10 is 150μg/m3 which is not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years. All areas outside of the proposed mine footprint have predicted PM10 levels below 150μg/m3 at all times. Therefore the predicted PM10 level shows that there will be no impact on crops. PM10 levels will be monitored at surrounding residential receptors to demonstrate compliance with the NEPM Standard (50μg/m3). No monitoring proposed of PM10 for crop impacts will be undertaken as dust deposition will be monitored using monitors located at agreed adjacent landowner locations.
SLIDE 5
5
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
COPPER
Copper in Plants Copper is an essential micro nutrient required for the growth of wheat(Brown & Clark) with crucial roles throughout the plant including chlorophyll formation, enzymatic reactions and pollen formation. Cu in Soil Copper present in soluble forms(hydroxyl & carbonate) & insoluble forms(oxide & sulphide) with soluble form differing in its availability to plants dependent on other soil properties – soil pH, clay content and presence of organic matter. Cu micro nutrients Copper very similar to Zn, three different types of fertiliser; seed dressing, fertiliser applied to soil and foliar fertiliser. Brennan conducted a study adding 6 amounts of copper to soil prior to sowing in WA over 32 years - up to 4.75kg Cu/Ha in form of copper sulphate
SLIDE 6
6
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
COPPER
Cu in Animal Feed The currently authorised maximum copper content (CAMC) in complete feed (in mg Cu/kg complete feed; 15 for bovine before the start of rumination, 35 for
- ther bovine, 15 for ovine, 25 for fish, 50 for crustaceans, 25 for other animal
species). The minimum Cu requirement in beef cattle diets has been set at 10 mg/kg with a maximum tolerable level of 100 mg/kg (NRC 2000). Forage diets with <10 mg Cu/kg may not meet an animal’s needs because Cu in forage is less available than from inorganic sources. Hillside Operation Hillside deposit has some oxide, however is predominately sulphide copper in the form of chalcopyrite (92.7% of which is recovered to the copper concentrate for sale), very fine grained copper within the tailings is not readily bio-available (locked particles)
SLIDE 7
7
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
COPPER
Hillside Grain Quality Calculated Maximum(at dust limit every month for every year) total Cu from dust over 13 years;
- if no processing treatment is 2.84grams/Ha;
- with processing is 6.24milligrams/Ha.
Crop Cu mg/kg Typical Hillside Barley 5 3 Canola 4 2 Lentils 13 7 Wheat 6 3 Peas 9 Other Beef 21 Mushrooms 19 Oysters 65
SLIDE 8
8
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
COPPER
Hillside Grain Quality DSD sought technical advice from SARDI who advised that the defined Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) for copper in grain is 10mg/kg. Hillside Operation – Measurement/Leading Indicator Criteria Copper in grain is 10mg/kg – Trigger point 8mg/kg for wheat and barley
SLIDE 9
9
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
URANIUM
The average concentration of uranium in the Hillside Mine WRDs is expected to be 16 ppm, which is comparable to the concentration of uranium within some naturally occurring granite’s on Yorke Peninsula (14 ppm). There are several factors that affect uranium migration, the most important being redox status, pH, chemical form (carbonate, fluoride, sulphate, phosphate, and dissolved carbon) concentrations, aluminium/iron-oxide mineral concentrations and uranium concentrations (EPA 1999). For inorganic chemical forms, the strongest affinity is obtained with those with the highest charge as follows: CO2
− 3 > HPO2 − 4 > SO2 − 4.
Uranium in some superphosphates; The reported U levels in phosphate fertilizers globally, vary in the range of 3 to 580ppm, depending on the origin of the rock phosphate and the type of fertilizer.
SLIDE 10
10
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
URANIUM
Root uptake Uranium concentrations in plants are generally several orders of magnitude lower than in soil. Although uranium has not been shown to be essential or beneficial to plant growth many plants will absorb uranium and translocation
- ccurs within plants.
Distribution in plants Several studies have examined the distribution of uranium in plants and show that transport within plants is limited, with higher uranium content in the roots than other plant parts (Sheppard and Evenden 1988, have suggested that uranium binds strongly to cell walls limiting translocation). Sheppard et al (2005) found no consistent differences between concentration ratios measured at contaminated sites compared with those at control sites with natural background levels of uranium.
SLIDE 11
11
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS ON STOCK
Stock There is significant evidence of successful grazing and bloodstock activities in close proximity to large scale mining sites across Australia. In Australia the examples include the Hunter Valley and Bowen Basin regions which contain
- perations such as Ravensthorpe, Cadia, Northparkes and Woodlawn.
The grazing of livestock is also known to occur next to airports, under airport flyways, railways and adjacent to highways which are subject to vibration and
- verpressure from sources such as planes and trucks. To put this in context, a
plane flying overhead emits approximately 100 dB. A road train passing on a highway emits approximately 90 dB when standing in a paddock 50 m away The Hillside operation will be monitored and controlled to human comfort standards and therefore it is expected that there will be no measurable consequences to livestock from any mining or related activities at Hillside
SLIDE 12
12
GENERAL
- 1. Schedule 6, condition 3: no impacts on agricultural productivity during
construction, operation and post mine completion. Includes:
- Reduction in crop yield
- Reduction in grain quality
- Adverse health impacts on stock
Performance indicators (addressed previously) Measurement techniques - (dust & noise measured as per ML requirements and described in management plans, grain quality as per agreed independent laboratory) What types of monitoring - (Dust, noise, grain quality) Commencement of monitoring – start of construction? (yes – some baseline now) Monitoring frequency - (discuss independently with respective farmers, frequency will depend on crop type) Rex strategies if problems identified - (discuss any issues independently with respective farmers) What compensation/remedial action taken to fix the damage caused - (discuss any issues independently with respective farmers) IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE
SLIDE 13
13
SUMMARY POINTS
IMPACT AND MONITORING PLAN – FARM PERSPECTIVE Key summary points:
- No impact on surrounding land from basement saline groundwater drawdown
- Surface water flows to be managed and designed to prevent any impacts
from floods on surrounding land
- Dust deposition – gauges to be located at planned permanent dust monitoring
sites
- Willing to discuss the installation and monitoring of additional dust deposition
gauges in liaison and discussion with adjacent landowners
- The dust modelling undertaken, planned control measures and allowable dust
limits indicate there will be no impact on agriculture on adjacent land or beyond
- We wish to work with individual landowners to discuss their particular location
and situation, assess and agree any relevant additional monitoring
- We are willing to discuss non-dust outcomes also – eg grain quality sampling
– while recognising that these have multiple factors affecting them
SLIDE 14