Community Information and Consultation Session Environment Effect - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Community Information and Consultation Session

Environment Effect Statement – draft Technical Studies Tuesday 17 July 2018

Welcome and Overview

Time Item Presenter / Lead 7.00 pm - 7.15 pm Welcome and Overview of Proceedings Stephanie Glue Victor Hugo, Kalbar 7.15 pm – 7.25 pm Study Context Erin Pears, Senior Associate Environmental Consultant, Coffey 7.25 pm - 7.40 pm Technical Presentation 1 - Air Quality Natalie Shaw, Principal Consultant – Air Quality, Katestone 7.40 pm - 7.55 pm Group Discussions All 7.55 pm - 8.10 pm Technical Presentation 2 - Biodiversity Aaron Organ, Principal Ecologist and Director, Ecology and Heritage Partners 8.10 pm - 8.25 pm Group Discussions All 8.25 pm - 8.40 pm Technical Presentation 3 - Socioeconomic Tasha Latham, Senior Associate and Social Consultant, Coffey 8.40 pm - 8.55 pm Group Discussions All 8.55 pm - 9.10 pm Technical Presentation 3 - Agriculture John Hamilton, Social and Economic Consultant & Director, Hamilton SierraCon 9.10 pm - 9.25 pm Group Discussions All 9.25 pm - 9.50 pm Panel Q &A Technical Presenters 9.50 pm – 10.00 pm Next Steps and Close Stephanie Glue

Study Context xt - EES Process and Study Program

EES Overview

July 2018

5

Contents

EES scope 1 EES process 2

6

7

01 Environment Effects Statement scope

EES scope

• Defined by EES Scoping Requirements, issued by Victorian

Government – EES process – Matters to be addressed in the EES – Evaluation objectives – Key issues – Priorities for characterising existing environment – Design and mitigation measures – Assessment of likely effects – Approach to manage performance

• https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/environment-

assessment/browse-projects/projects/fingerboards-mineral- sands

8

9

02 Environment Effects Statement process

EES process

10

Specialist studies

EES process

11

Define project (Project Description)

Specialist studies

Technical Reference Group review Prepare EES Chapter Address TRG comments

Brief Technical Reference Group on changes

Technical Reference Group review

Compile final EES

EES process

12

• Geology, landform and soils
• Traffic and transport
• Land use and planning
• Radiation
• Noise and vibration
• Cultural heritage
• Geomorphology
• Ecology
• Visual and landscape
• Agriculture
• Socioeconomic
• Air quality and greenhouse gas
• Surface water and groundwater (x 4)
• Rehabilitation

17 specialist studies being completed to inform the EES:

• Studies inform and are informed by other studies.
• This is an iterative process.
• EES chapters are then based on the specialist studies.

What’s in a specialist study

13

Objectives Regulatory requirements Method Existing environment Impact assessment Mitigation measures Project description

How are the findings used

14

• The EES brings together the findings of the specialist

studies in plain English.

• The EES provides an integrated analysis of the existing

environment, potential impacts of the project and how these will be managed.

• Specialist studies are exhibited to the public with the EES

document.

Technical Presentation 1 Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the Fingerboards Project

Preliminary Assessment

18 July 2018

Introduction

Katestone Environmental:

• Leading provider of expert air quality and meteorology

services in Australia since 1989

• Experts in Air Quality, Meteorology and Climate
• Clients include industry, state and local governments

and community groups

• Our experience:

– Atlas Campaspe Project, Cristal Mining – Yeelirrie Project, Cameco – Eastern Leases, South32

Introduction

• Emissions to air from mineral sands mining
• Air quality assessment requirements
• Baseline monitoring results so far
• Mitigation and management opportunities
• Work to be completed

Purpose of Study

• Describe the facility and its existing or proposed

activities

• Determine the influence of a facility on the local

and/or regional airshed (e.g. modelling)

• Assess against relevant criteria
• Deliver to approving authority

Purpose of Study

Particulate matter

• emitted from mining
• solid or liquid particles that may be suspended in the

atmosphere

• large particles generated by:

– Mechanical disturbance of soil material by bulldozing, scraping and trucks travelling on unsealed roads – Wind erosion of stockpiles and bare ground

• May affect human health and amenity depends on the size
• f the particles, the concentration of particulate matter in the

atmosphere and rate of deposition

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics)

Purpose of Study

• Other emissions include:

– Crystalline silica – Heavy metals – Combustion gases (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide) – Greenhouse gases

EES Scoping Requirements

• Environment Protection Act 1970
• Environment Protection Act 2017
• State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality

Management (SEPP (AQM))

• Protocols for Environmental Management Plans

(PEM)

• PEM for Mining and Extractive Industries
• National Environmental Protection Measure (Air

Quality)

Methodology Underpinning Study – PEM Level 1 requirements

12 months ambient monitoring

Continuous dust – PM10 and PM2.5 Crystalline silica Heavy metal content Meteorology

Management and controls

Best available technology

Dispersion modelling

EPA Approved Model Predict ground- level concentrations Assess against air quality

• bjectives

/criteria

Methodology Underpinning Study

• Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Scope 1 emissions

Diesel combustion:

• Heavy machinery

and site vehicles

• Processing

plants and equipment

• Diesel generators
• HMC transport

Land clearing

Scope 2 emissions

Electricity usage:

• Processing
• perations
• Lighting
• Offices and

amenities

Methods

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008 The National Greenhouse Accounts, July 2013 (DIICCSCRTE, 2013)

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Findings So Far: Baseline monitoring

2 x high volume air samplers

• 24 hour average PM10 (analysed

for heavy metal content)

• 24 hour average PM2.5 (analysed

for α-quartz content)

GRIMM

• 1 minute PM10
• 1 minute PM2.5

Partisol

• 24 hour average PM10
• 24 hour average PM2.5

E-BAM

• 1 hour PM10

BAM

• 1 hour PM2.5

Dust deposition gauge

Baseline dust monitoring

PM10 – all measurements below PEM objective

Baseline dust monitoring

PM2.5 – most measurements below Air NEPM and PEM objective

Baseline dust monitoring

Crystalline silica –measurements below PEM objective

Baseline dust monitoring

• Heavy metals - large range measured, including:

– Arsenic – Cadmium – Cobalt – Iron – Lead

• Arsenic measurements so far < 44% of PEM objectives
• Other heavy metals <7% of assessment criteria

Local wind patterns

• n-site meteorological monitoring station

Dust mitigation measures

• Haul material shortest possible distance
• Apply water to minimise dust:
• To exposed unrehabilitated areas
• Prior to dozing or scraping of material
• To haul roads
• Prior to grading of haul roads
• Construct haul roads out of material that isn’t dusty
• Transport ore in slurry form to minimise dust
• Progressive rehabilitation
• Use machinery that minimises dust

Greenhouse Gas – Best Practice Initiatives

• Ongoing monitoring and reporting GHG emissions

and identifying opportunities to reduce GHG emissions

• Fuel efficient equipment
• Load optimisation, production scheduling and

logistics planning including route optimisation

• Use of solar power to supplement electricity use

where practical

• Minimisation of grid electricity consumption through

power factor correction

Next Steps in the Study Process: Dispersion modelling

• Mathematical models that predict the change in

pollutant concentrations with time and distance

• Varying levels of complexity
• Can make predictions across any range of

times and at any location

• Can make predictions about sources that

haven’t been built yet

Next Steps in the Study Process: Dispersion modelling

• Develop meteorological data for the model based
• n ambient monitoring data
• Estimate emissions for construction and 3
• perational years (2024, 2027 and 2031)
• Emissions to be based on emission factors and site

specific sampling data

• Predict ground-level concentrations (incorporating

12-month ambient monitoring data)

• Assess predicted ground-level concentrations

against PEM objectives

Next Steps in the Study Process: Greenhouse Gas

• Estimate emissions for construction and all
• perational years

Group Discussion – Air Quality

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the study scope and / or

purpose?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the methodology used to

conduct the study?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the initial findings and

whether there is anything additional you think needs to be considered?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the next stage of the process,

including whether you believe there are any additional impact areas that need to be considered?

Technical Presentation 2 Biodiversity

www.ehpartners.com.au www.ehpartners.com.au

Community Session Presentation 17th July 2018

Biodiversity Impact Assessment

Fingerboards Mineral Sands Project, Glenaladale, Victoria

Aaron Organ Director / Principal Ecologist

www.ehpartners.com.au

Objectives of Study

Objectives:

• Define the relevant legislation, standards and guidelines
• Describe the survey methods
• Characterise the existing environment relevant to biodiversity
• Assessment of likely and potential direct and indirect impacts
• Against significant impact thresholds for significant species and ecological communities)
• Outline avoidance, mitigation and management measures to reduce the significance of

impacts

• State and Commonwealth biodiversity offsets under the relevant policy and EPBC Act

40

www.ehpartners.com.au 41

www.ehpartners.com.au

Desktop Assessment Methods

De Desktop Ass ssessment

• DELWP’s NatureKit Online interactive map
• Ecological Vegetation Class benchmarks
• The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas
• The Flora Information System
• Atlas of Victorian Wildlife
• The Department of the Environment and Energy’s Protected Matters

Search Tool under the EPBC Act

• Relevant listings under the FFG Act and DELWP’s Threatened Species

Advisory Lists

• The Planning Maps Online and Planning Schemes Online
• Aerial photography
• Previous ecological or other relevant assessments of the project area

42

www.ehpartners.com.au

Detailed Field Surveys

• Vegetation surveys completed over a five-day period in June

2016 and a three-day period in March 2018

• An Aquatic Ecology Assessment completed over a three-day

period in June 2016

• Terrestrial fauna surveys over a five-day period in October

2016 (excluding the subsequent collection of deployed remote cameras)

• Targeted flora surveys and updated vegetation mapping

completed over two five-day survey events in October and November 2016, and February 2018

43

www.ehpartners.com.au

Field Assessment Methods

Flo lora Survey

• >300 person hours surveying native vegetation, ecological

communities and listed flora species

• The targeted surveys were undertaken
• Areas of remnant native vegetation were traversed at five

metre intervals

• Hand-held GPS units were used to record the location of

any listed species

44

www.ehpartners.com.au

Field Assessment Methods

Fauna Survey Meth thods

• Terrestrial and aquatic fauna assessments were

undertaken within the project area during early winter and spring 2016

• >140-person hours undertaken
• Diurnal bird and herpetofauna surveys
• Spotlighting
• Stag-watching
• Call play-back surveys
• Opportunistic sightings of fauna and indirect evidence of

fauna activity, such as scats, diggings, scratch marks, etc;

• Anabat surveys
• Remote camera surveys
• Nocturnal frog call census surveys (e.g. targeted surveys

for Growling Grass Frog and Green and Golden Bell Frog)

45

www.ehpartners.com.au

Flora Results

Spec ecie ies div iver ersit ity

• A diverse assemblage of plants and animals, with 174 flora species (46 introduced) and 96 fauna species

(eight introduced) recorded during the field surveys

Rem emnant Veg egetation

• 163.0 ha of remnant vegetation represented by seven Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs):
• Lowland Forest
• Lowland Herb-rich Forest
• Valley Grassy Forest
• Plains Grassy Forest
• Plains Grassy Woodland
• Aquatic Herbland
• Plains Grassy Wetland
• 382 native scattered trees (mostly large eucalypts)

Lis Listed Ecol

• logical

l Co Communit itie ies

• 2.84 ha of the nationally significant (EPBC Act-listed) Gippsland Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp.

mediana) Grassy Woodland and Associated Native Grassland (GRGGW) ecological community

• 5.43 ha of the State significant (FFG Act listed) Forest Red Gum Grassy Woodland ecological community

46

www.ehpartners.com.au

Significant Flora

• No na

nati tionally si significant fl flora have been recorded within the project area (previously or during surveys)

• The potential occurrence of three na

nati tionally si significant fl flora species:

– Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre – Dwarf Kerrawang Commersonia prostrata – Gaping Leek-orchid Prasophyllum correctum

• The known occurrence of four St

State si signif ific icant fl flor

• ra species:

– Slender Wire-lily Laxmannia gracilis – Blue Mat-rush Lomandra glauca s.s. – Slender Tick-trefoil Desmodium varians – Sandfly Zieria Zieria smithii subsp. smithii

• The potential occurrence of additional St

State si signif ific icant spe species s within the project area

47

www.ehpartners.com.au

Fauna Results

Species div iversity

• A total of 96 species of fauna including 88 native

species and eight introduced species Fauna habitats

• Remnant forest, woodland, scattered trees,

drainage lines, farm dams, plantations and pasture

48

Fauna guild Species richness Native Introduced Birds 59 3 Mammals (non-bats) 6 5 Mammals (bats) 8

• Frogs

8

• Reptiles

7

• Total

88 8

www.ehpartners.com.au 49

www.ehpartners.com.au 50

www.ehpartners.com.au

Significant Fauna

Fau auna Sp Specie ies

• No natio

tionally sig significant fau auna a species have been recorded within the project area (previously or during surveys)

• Known occurrence of one St

State sig significant fau auna a species (Yellow- bellied Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus flaviventris

• Low likelihood of four fauna species of national significance:
• Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor
• Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta
• Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus
• Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus
• Potential occurrence of 12 St

State sig significant fau auna a species

• Known occurrence of two reg

egionally sig significan ant fau auna a (Emu and Eastern Long-necked Turtle) and the potential occurrence of an additional six regionally significant species

51

www.ehpartners.com.au 52

www.ehpartners.com.au

Impact Assessment

Ov Overall ll

Pre and post mitigation measures the impacts to these values at the Project Area (scale) are Moderate to High, whilst at the regional, State and national scales the project will have a very low (negligible) to low impact on biodiversity values

Di Direct Imp mpacts

• Vegetation removal and habitat loss (118 ha and 282 scattered trees)
• Approximately 2.82 ha of the nationally significant GRGGW ecological community
• 5.43 ha of the State significant Forest Red Gum Grassy Woodland ecological
• State significant flora species: Slender Wire-lily (33 plants), Blue Mat-rush (three plants)

and Sandfly Zieria (nine plants)

• Removal of known habitat for the following fauna species of State and regional

significance: – Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat - 283 scattered trees and 118 ha of remnant vegetation – Emu - Forest and woodland, wetland/ aquatic habitat and disturbed land – Eastern Long-necked Turtle - 0.87 ha of wetland/ aquatic habitat

53

www.ehpartners.com.au

Mitigation Measures

54

• Further avoidance of biodiversity values
• Pre-clearing significant species surveys
• Flora and fauna salvage/ translocation
• Water quality monitoring
• Reinstatement of fauna habitat
• Establishment of ‘no-go areas’
• Installation of nest boxes
• Dust, noise and light suppression / management
• Contingency measures to manage unexpected discovery of listed flora and fauna species

during construction and operation of the project

• Staff and contractor inductions

www.ehpartners.com.au

Management Plans

55

• Offset Management Plan
• Construction Environmental Management Plan
• Biodiversity Management Plan

– Protection measures – Pre and post construction monitoring

• Pest Animal and Plant Management Plan
• Restoration / Rehabilitation Plan

www.ehpartners.com.au www.ehpartners.com.au 56

Aaron Organ Director / Principal Ecologist

0425 873 159 aorgan@ehpartners.com.au

Group Discussion – Biodiversity

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the study scope and / or

purpose?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the methodology used to

conduct the study?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the initial findings and

whether there is anything additional you think needs to be considered?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the next stage of the process,

including whether you believe there are any additional impact areas that need to be considered?

Technical Presentation 3 Socioeconomic

Fingerboards Mineral Sands Project

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

July 2018

Introduction

Tasha Latham, Coffey Overview of the presentation:

• Environment Effects Statement Scoping Requirements for socioeconomic aspects
• Regulatory framework
• Purpose of study
• Method
• Preliminary findings on existing socioeconomic environment
• Socioeconomic values
• Next steps

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 60

Environment Effects Statement Scoping Requirements

• Characterise the social structure of the local communities (demographics,

employment, infrastructure, community groups, housing/accommodation availability, etc).

• Describe community attitudes, existing emergency response services and

industries in the vicinity of the project which could be affected by it.

• Assess the potential effects on communities living within or near the project

area.

• Assess the potential economic effects (beneficial and adverse) which could

result from the project, including opportunities for local workers and businesses.

• Outline measures to minimise potential adverse effects to local communities,

infrastructure and businesses and enhance potential benefits to local and regional businesses.

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 61

Regulatory framework

• Environment Effects Act 1978
• Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1986

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 62

Purpose of study

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 63

• Characterise existing social and economic conditions of areas potentially

affected by the project.

• Describe local landowner and community attitudes towards the project.
• Describe socioeconomic values, particularly those within proximity to the

project area.

• Assess potential socioeconomic impacts and opportunities associated with

the project.

• Propose measures to minimise potential socioeconomic impacts and

maximise potential opportunities associated with the project.

Method underpinning study

• Source and review a range of secondary

sources (e.g., Australian Bureau of Statistics census data) to understand: – Key socioeconomic characteristics – Living conditions – Key trends

• Draw on consultation to understand

community concerns and values

• Establish socioeconomic values
• Use of risk-based approach to assess

potential project impacts on socioeconomic values and opportunities

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 64

Findings so far: existing socioeconomic environment

Local and regional towns:

• Nine settlements and towns within 10 km radius of project area.
• Each with a distinct identity.
• Some residents with strong family history of farming, others moved to

area for lifestyle reasons.

• Residents involved in a range of community groups, clubs and

associations.

• Short-term accommodation e.g., in Fernbank and Lindenow.

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 65

Findings so far: existing socioeconomic environment (cont’d)

Broader area (East Gippsland and Wellington shires):

• Experiencing population growth, projected to continue
• Ageing population.
• Well-serviced by community infrastructure and services, but demand for health services

high.

• Property prices relatively low but trending upwards since 2000.
• Majority of short-term accommodation in popular tourist towns.
• Manufacturing, construction, real estate and agriculture, forestry and fishing significant to

East Gippsland economy (economic output).

• Mining, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and fishing and real estate services significant

to Wellington economy (economic output).

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 66

Socioeconomic values

Theme Socioeconomic value Health, safety and wellbeing Amenity and wellbeing Cohesive community Access and connectivity Healthy people Safe community Safe roads Infrastructure and services Basic community needs Well-serviced community

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 67

Socioeconomic values (cont’d)

Theme Socioeconomic value Connection to and use of the land Beneficial uses Landscape Connection to land Rural lifestyle Livelihoods Crops and livestock Livelihoods Local and regional economic growth

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 68

Next steps in the study process

• Review feedback from community and Technical Reference Group and update

report.

• Review findings and management measures in relevant technical studies once

available including findings on potential agricultural impacts.

• Complete impact assessment drawing on the above.
• Types of impacts and opportunities to be assessed:

– Health and safety – Reduced amenity and/or wellbeing – Disruption to community services – Loss of identity – Loss of crops (including horticultural crops) or reduced productivity – Housing / short-term accommodation affordability and availability impacts – Employment opportunities

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 69

Next steps in the study process (cont’d)

• Issue draft socioeconomic impact assessment report to the Technical

Reference Group.

• Address comments from the Technical Reference Group and finalise

study for public exhibition.

17 July 2018 A presentation to the community 70

Group Discussion – Socioeconomic

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the study scope and / or

purpose?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the methodology used to

conduct the study?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the initial findings and

whether there is anything additional you think needs to be considered?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the next stage of the process,

including whether you believe there are any additional impact areas that need to be considered?

Technical Presentation 3 Agriculture

Kalbar Resources Ltd. Fingerboards Project Agriculture Impact Assessment

Introduction

– About Hamilton SierraCon – This presentation outlines:

• The Study objectives and methods
• A brief overview of local agricultural activity and “values”
• Potential agricultural impacts that need to be addressed through the EES

2

EES Scoping Requirements

– Evaluation objective:

• “To minimise potential adverse social and land use effects, including on

agriculture, dairy, irrigated horticulture, …”

– Key issues:

• “The potential for dislocation due to severance causing reduced access to

farm land…”

• “Potential for adverse effects on the existing and future land and beneficial

uses, including agricultural, dairy, irrigated horticulture, forestry, tourism and local businesses”.

3

Purpose of the Study

–To describe:

• Agriculture in the Project Area and Region, including economic value
• Potential economic contribution of the Fingerboards Project
• Possible actions to reduce or avoid significant impacts on agriculture
• Possible actions to monitor and manage Project performance

– To assess the impact of the Fingerboards Project on current agricultural operations – Excludes environmental technical issues (covered by other studies)

4

Method of Study

• Review of available reports and data
• Consultation with:

–Four Project Area landholders –Two nearby landholders –Five Lindenow vegetable growers –Relevant local agencies and industry groups

• Collection of information about farm management practices, productivity and

employment

5

Findings so far: Current Agriculture

• Local Agriculture Region (Bruthen-Omeo-Bairnsdale):

– $169 million farm gate value – Vegetables - $ 50.4 million – Beef cattle - $42.4 million – Sheep and wool - $ 24.5 million

• Project Area (1,675 ha):

– Dryland grazing: sheep and beef – Blue gum and radiata pine – Remnant native vegetation

6

Findings so far: Current Agriculture

• 19 landholders: full-time, part-time, lifestyle
• Farming Challenges: Variable weather and prices, cost-price

squeeze, soil and animal health

• Local challenges: Maintaining prosperity and population, a lack of

local jobs, particularly for young people

• Feedback themes:

– “Peaceful”, “beautiful”, “attractive”, and “quiet” area – A great part of the world – Family heritage, a great place for families – A good farming area, positive vegetable industry outlook

7

Finding so far: Effects on Project Area Production

• 404 ha out of agriculture, with 5 year land removal
• Lost gross margin: $52,500 and $75,500 p.a
• Loss of employment: 0.39 to 0.58 staff and contracting
• Mitigation: minimise land take and progressive rehabilitation

8

Potential Impacts for Further Assessment

Consideration on the vegetable industry

– Risks: dust, sedimentation, water-borne contamination – Actual or perceived risks could impact on industry’s reputation – Thorough assessment: avoid/mitigate potential environmental impacts – Engagement with the vegetable industry, e.g. reference group – Investigate opportunities to support off-river storage infrastructure

9

Potential Impacts for Further Assessment

Success and assurance of land rehabilitation

– Concern of whether full rehabilitation is possible – Track record of rehabilitation of other mining projects – Explain rehabilitation through consultation – Test pit and early monitoring of rehabilitation – Safeguards and assessments for land hand back

10

Potential Impacts for Further Assessment

General disruption to agriculture, restriction on property sale and development

– Scheduling and procedures for best possible property access – As much information and certainty as possible – Landholder Compensation process and landholder lease agreements

11

Potential Impacts for Further Assessment

Loss of on-farm infrastructure, property severance:

– Road diversions, potential isolation, ability to access paddocks – Scheduling and procedures to provide best possible property access – Consultation to identify and avoid severance issues – Comprehensive landholder compensation and lease agreements

12

Potential Impacts for Further Assessment

Project traffic

– Traffic procedures considering farming traffic

Environmental issues and concerns

– “General feel of the local area”, noise, dust, worker influx – Environmental assessments, Environmental Management Plan and stakeholder engagement

13

Potential Impacts for Further Assessment

Farming community cohesion

– Feedback: many locals are upset and stressed about the Project – Some local relationships have been strained - a divisive issue – A desire for detailed Project information now – Stakeholder Engagement - explain the Project as much as possible – Opportunities for community investment

14

Possible Monitoring Measures

• Environmental monitoring
• Monitoring of land rehabilitation:

– Specific variables, e.g. pasture cover, soil health monitoring – Sign-off for the handover of rehabilitated land

• Stakeholder Engagement

– Point of contact for each landholder – Regular landholder communication about access and feedback – A grievance management system – Vegetable industry feedback

15

Group Discussion – Agriculture

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the study scope and / or

purpose?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the methodology used to

conduct the study?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the initial findings and

whether there is anything additional you think needs to be considered?

• Do you have any questions or comments regarding the next stage of the process,

including whether you believe there are any additional impact areas that need to be considered?

Panel - Q & A

Next xt Steps and Close