Download 1 (.pdf 509KB) - Environmental Protection Authority

Environmental Protection Authority 

Referral of a Proposal by the Proponent 

to the Environmental Protection Authority 

under Section 38(1) of the Environmental Protection Act. 

PURPOSE OF THIS FORM 

1 

EPA REFERRAL 

FORM 

Section 38(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) provides that where a 

development proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, a proponent 

may refer the proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a decision on 

whether or not it requires assessment under the EP Act. This form sets out the information 

requirements for the referral of a proposal by a proponent. 

Proponents are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the EPA‟s General Guide on 

Referral of Proposals [see Environmental Impact Assessment/Referral of Proposals and 

Schemes] before completing this form. 

A referral under section 38(1) by a proponent to the EPA must be made on this form. A 

request to the EPA for a declaration under section 39B (derived proposal) must be made on 

this form. This form will be treated as a referral provided all information required by Part A 

has been included and all information requested by Part B has been provided to the extent 

that it is pertinent to the proposal being referred. Referral documents are to be submitted in 

two formats – hard copy and electronic copy. The electronic copy of the referral will be 

provided for public comment for a period of 7 days, prior to the EPA making its decision on 

whether or not to assess the proposal. 

CHECKLIST 

Before you submit this form, have you 

Yes No 

Completed all the questions in Part A (essential) 

Completed all applicable questions in Part B 

Included Attachment 1 – location maps 

Included Attachment 2 – additional document the proponent wishes to 

provide (if applicable) 

 

Included Attachment 3 – confidential information (if applicable) NA 

Enclosed the CD of all referral information, including spatial data and 

contextual mapping but excluding confidential information. 

 

Following a review of the information presented in this form, please consider the following 

question. (A response is Optional) 

DO YOU CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL REQUIRES FORMAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT? 

PROPONENT

YES NO NOT SURE 

IF YES, WHAT LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT? 

ASSESSMENT ON PROPONENT INFORMATION 

PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

PROPONENT DECLARATION (To be completed by the proponent) 

I, Geoffrey Ross Ladyman declare that the information contained in this form is, to my 

knowledge, true and not misleading. 

Signature: 

Name (print): Geoffrey Ross Ladyman 

Position: Sole Director Company: Dumpna Pty Ltd 

Date: 10/1/2011 

2

PART A - PROPONENT AND PROPOSAL INFORMATION 

(All fields of this Part must be completed for this document to be treated as a referral) 

1.1 PROPONENT 

Name 

Joint Venture parties 

(if applicable) 

Postal Address 

Key proponent contact for the proposal 

Name 

Address 

Phone 

Email 

Consultant for the proposal (if applicable) 

Name 

Address 

Phone 

Email 

1.2 PROPOSAL 

Title 

Description 

3 

Dumpna Pty Ltd 

ACN 009 160 043 

NA 

PO Box 613 Cottesloe WA 6011 

Ross Ladyman 

Sole Director 

Dumpna Pty Ltd 

PO Box 613 Cottesloe WA 6011 

Mob. 0428 260 644 

Email ross.ladyman@bigpond.com.au 

Tony Smith 

Environmental Scientist 

Animal Plant Mineral Pty Ltd 

68 Westgrove Drive Ellenbrook WA 6069 

Ph. (08) 6296 5155 

Mob. 0437 849 147 

Email ems@animalplantmineral.com.au 

Yule River Sand Project 

Dumpna Pty Ltd has been granted mining 

lease M47/1438 on the Yule River in the Port 

Hedland area. It is proposed that the lease be 

progressively developed to mine sand and 

river shingle. The mining proposal contained 

herein is for the development of M47/1438 

and the project will be known as the Yule 

River Sand Project (YRSP). 

The project is approximately 52 km 

southwest of Port Hedland on the North West 

Coastal Highway. The lease, M47/1438, is 

within the boundary of the Town of Port 

Hedland. The lease is situated within the bed 

and banks of the Yule River, encompassing 

areas to the north and south of the Yule River 

Bridge. Access to the lease is from the North 

West Coastal Highway, approximately 600 m 

west-south-west of the Yule River Bridge. 

The sand is predominantly used for concrete 

manufacture for use in construction projects 

across the Pilbara, including Port Hedland, 

Karratha, Cape Lambert, Cape Preston, 

Newman and Tom Price. The volume of sand 

required by construction projects in the 

Pilbara is expected to be significant; this 

project would secure a moderate volume of 

sand for supply to these projects. 

Mining will be conducted on a campaign

4 

basis in the dry months, usually from July to 

December as the sand is more easily 

screened when the moisture content is not 

excessive. Sand and shingle will be 

excavated from suitable deposits within the 

river bed with a front-end loader. Mining will 

take place selectively in pockets that have 

little or no vegetation. These pockets will be 

excavated down to the clay river bed, 

approximately 0.8 – 1.2 m deep with a loader. 

This material will be loaded directly onto an 

articulated dump truck, which then carts the 

sand to the stockpile area west of the 

western river bank. 

Here the sand is fed directly into a screening 

plant that separates the raw sand feed into 

three different product sizes; 65 mm large stones and 

sticks. The oversize product that consists of 

>65 mm stones, sticks and plant material, is 

returned to the mined areas of the riverbed 

where it will blend with fresh sand brought by 

intermittent flooding. 

During the period of the mining lease it is 

proposed that approximately 50,000 t of sand 

will be extracted from the lease per annum. 

As evident from excavation activities on other 

sand mining leases in nearby rivers in the 

Pilbara region, refilling of excavation areas 

with alluvial sands occurs as a result of 

deposition from river flows associated with 

rainfall from cyclones and tropical lows. 

The tenement M47/1438 is wholly within the 

Yule River Water Reserve, which is a Priority 

1 Public Drinking Water Source Area 

(PDWSA). All aspects of the mining operation 

will be managed in order to avoid 

contamination of any surface or groundwater. 

Support infrastructure on M47/1438 will 

consist of an on-site donga to serve as an 

office, a weigh bridge and recording shed, a 

water tank, a sewerage tank and an 

evaporative-transpirational leach field and 

three sea containers: a sea container with 

attached Westarp shade area; and two 

bunded sea containers – one for fuel and oil 

storage, the other to contain a generator and 

it‟s fuel supply. 

The YRSP is expected to create seasonal 

employment for 3 employees, providing 

opportunities for local indigenous 

employment. 

The Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation, in 

conjunction with the Traditional Owners, the 

Kariyarra People, have undertaken a survey 

of the site and provided advice on areas that 

are able to be disturbed without impacting on 

Aboriginal heritage sites. No registered 

Aboriginal Heritage site is expected to be

Extent (area) of proposed ground disturbance 

Timeframe in which the activity or development is 

proposed to occur. (Include start and finish dates 

where applicable) 

Details of any staging of the proposal 

Is the proposal a strategic proposal? 

Is the proponent requesting a declaration that the 

proposal is a derived proposal? 

If so, provide the following information on the 

strategic assessment within which the referred 

proposal was identified - 

Title of the strategic assessment 

Ministerial Statement number 

Indicate whether, and in what way, the proposal 

is related to other proposals in the region. 

Does the proponent own the land on which the 

proposal is to be established? If not, what other 

arrangements have been established to access 

the land? 

What is the current land use on the property, and 

the extent (area in hectares) of the property? 

1.3 LOCATION 

Name of the Shire in which the proposal is 

located 

For urban areas – 

street address 

lot number 

suburb 

5 

disturbed as a result of the YRSP. 

Beneficial impacts anticipated to occur as a 

result of the YRSP will include increased 

opportunities for local employment and 

supply of much needed construction 

materials for the fast developing Pilbara 

region. Environmental effects from sand 

mining activities, such as clearing, dust 

generation, erosion, hydrocarbon storage and 

waste generation, will be managed to mitigate 

or minimise any impacts. 

40 hectares 

January 2012 - Project approvals 

April 2012 - Commence operations at site 

February 2032 - Project completion 

NA 

No 

No 

Dumpna owns other tenements at Turner 

River (M45/1193, M45/1173, M45/1174) also 

in the Town of Port Hedland. M45/1174 has 

commenced production of sand under 

approved Mining Proposal (Reg ID: 30541) 

and Works Approval (W4942/2011/1) 

/Registration to supply sand predominantly 

for concrete manufacture. 

Tenure is by grant of Mining Lease, 

M47/1438 under the Mining Act 1978. 

Currently the land is used for pastoralism. 

The extent of the Mining Lease M47/1438 is 

434 hectares. 

Town of Port Hedland

nearest road intersection 

For remote localities – 

nearest town 

distance and direction from that town to the 

proposal site 

Electronic spatial data - GIS or CAD on CD, georeferenced 

and conforming to the following 

parameters: 

GIS: polygons representing all activities and 

named 

CAD: simple closed polygons representing all 

activities and named 

datum: GDA94 

projection: Geographic (latitude/longitude) or 

Map Grid of Australia (MGA) 

format: Arcview shapefile, Arcinfo coverages, 

Microstation or AutoCAD 

1.4 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

Does the proponent wish to request the EPA to 

allow any part of the referral information to be 

treated as confidential? 

If yes, is confidential information attached as a 

separate document in hard copy. 

1.5 GOVERNMENT APPROVALS 

6 

Mining Lease M47/1438 approximately 

52km south-west of Port Hedland and 

straddles the North West Coast Highway at 

the Yule River Bridge. 

Enclosed: Yes 

Is rezoning of any land required before the proposal can 

be implemented? If Yes, provide details. 

Is approval required from any Commonwealth or State 

No 

Government agency or Local Authority for any part of the 

proposal? If yes, complete the table below - 

Yes 

Agency/Authority Approval Required Application lodged Agency/Local 

Yes / No 

Authority 

contact/s for 

proposal 

Department of Mines and 

Petroleum 

Mining Proposal 

Yes – Lodged 16/12/2011 (08) 9222 3333 

No 

Project Management Plan No (08) 9358 8001 

Native Vegetation Clearing Yes – approved (CPS Jessica Allen (08) 

Permit 

4370/1) 

9222 3102 

Department of 

Works Approval Yes – Lodged 16/12/2011 Fiona Esszig (08) 

Environment and 

9182 2036 

Conservation 

Licensing or Registration No – Unable to lodge until 

after completion of 

Department of Water 

construction. 

Yes - Submitted October Natalie Leach 

(DOW) Endorsement of mining 2011 – advice received 7 (08) 9144 0200 

proposal for conducting November 2011. 

mining activities in a Public Recommendations 

Drinking Water Supply accepted and addressed 

Area. 

in the Mining Proposal 

(Appendix 8).

Main Roads Western 

Australia (MRWA) 

Town of Port Hedland 

Licence to Extract 

Groundwater: Section 5C 

Rights in Water and 

Irrigation Act 1914. 

Licence to construct a bore: 

Section 26D Rights in Water 

and Irrigation Act 1914. 

Permit to access Yule River 

Mining Tenement from 

North 

Highway. 

West Coastal 

Building licences and 

approvals. 

Environmental Health 

approval for septic system. 

7 

No - Applications to be 

submitted imminently for 

5C and 26D licences. 

Yes - Conditionally 

approved 16/08/2011, see 

Appendix 7 of Mining 

Proposal. 

No 

DoW Karratha 

(08) 9144 0218 

Brendon 

Wiseman (08) 

9172 8836 

(08) 9158 9300

PART B - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT 

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Describe the impacts of the proposal on the following elements of the environment, through the 

questions below: 

(i) flora and vegetation #; 

(ii) fauna #; 

(iii) rivers, creeks, wetlands and estuaries; 

(iv) significant areas and/ or land features; 

(v) coastal zone areas; 

(vi) marine areas and biota #; 

(vii) water supply and drainage catchments; 

(viii) pollution; 

(ix) greenhouse gas emissions; 

(x) contamination; and 

(xi) social surroundings. 

These features should be shown on the site plan, where appropriate. 

For all information, please indicate: 

(a) the source of the information; and 

(b) the currency of the information. 

2.1 Flora and Vegetation 

* Do you propose to clear any native flora and vegetation as a part of this proposal? 

(A proposal to clear native vegetation may require a clearing permit under Part V of 

the EP Act (Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 

2004). Please contact the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) for 

more information. 

(please tick) Yes If yes, complete the rest of this 

section 

No If no, go to the next section 

How much vegetation are you proposing to clear (in hectares)? 

40 hectares 

* Have you submitted an application to clear native vegetation to the DEC (unless you 

are exempt from such a requirement)? 

Yes No If yes, on what date and to which office was the 

application submitted of the DEC? 

Submitted to Department of Mines and Petroleum Environment Branch, East Perth on 14 May 2011, 

and approved (CPS 4370/1). The permit is valid between 20 August 2011 and 31 August 2016. 

8

Are you aware of any recent flora surveys carried out over the area to be disturbed 

by this proposal? 

Yes No If yes, please attach a copy of any related survey 

reports and provide the date and name of 

persons / companies involved in the survey/s. (If 

no, please do not arrange to have any biological 

surveys conducted prior to consulting with the 

DEC.) 

Animal Plant Mineral (2011) Yule River Biological Assessment, Unpublished report for Dumpna Pty 

Ltd, Authored by Dr Mitchell Ladyman and Dr Chris Hancock. 

This appears as Appendix 1 of the Mining Proposal (support information). 

* Has a search of DEC records for known occurrences of rare or priority flora or 

threatened ecological communities been conducted for the site? # 

Yes No If you are proposing to clear native vegetation 

for any part of your proposal, a search of DEC 

records of known occurrences of rare or priority 

flora and threatened ecological communities will 

be required. Please contact DEC for more 

information. 

The search results appear in the Yule River Biological Assessment that appears as Appendix 1 of the 

Mining Proposal (support information). 

* Are there any known occurrences of rare or priority flora or threatened ecological 

communities on the site? # 

Yes No If yes, please indicate which species or 

communities are involved and provide copies of 

any correspondence with DEC regarding these 

matters. 

Three plants of conservation significance were identified in the survey. The priority one (P1) species 

Abutilon pritzelianum (ms) was identified, as were Fimbristylis ammobia and Minuria sp. nov which are 

considered of conservation significance because of a significant extension in range (Fimbristylis) and 

because they are poorly collected or described (Minuria). 

DMP has granted the clearing permit CPS 4370/1 and to ensure the protection of these plants has 

provided the following condition: 

6. Where Abutilon pritzelianum and Minuria sp. nov. have been identified and their written 

locations provided to the Executive Director, Environment, Department of Mines and 

Petroleum, the Permit Holder shall ensure that: 

a) no clearing of identified Abutilon pritzelianum and Minuria sp. nov. occurs and no clearing 

occurs within ten metres of Abutilon pritzelianum and Minuria sp. nov., unless approved by 

the Executive Director, Environment, Department of Mines and Petroleum. 

No TECs were identified during the site survey. 

* If located within the Perth Metropolitan Region, is the proposed development within 

or adjacent to a listed Bush Forever Site? (You will need to contact the Bush Forever 

Office, at the Department for Planning and Infrastructure) 

Yes No If yes, please indicate which Bush Forever site is 

affected (site number and name of site where 

appropriate). 

NA 

9

What is the condition of the vegetation at the site? 

2.2 Fauna 

Vegetation condition across the study area ranged from very good to pristine. There were no obvious 

disturbances from machinery or cattle, but infestations of Buffel Grass (*Cenchrus ciliaris) and Kapok 

Bush (*Aerva javanica) caused some sites lining the channel to be deemed „very good‟ as opposed to 

„excellent‟ or „pristine‟. The condition of most sampling sites was considered „excellent‟, but few sites 

within the river channel system were completely free from weeds and were deemed „pristine‟. 

* Do you expect that any fauna or fauna habitat will be impacted by the proposal? 


section 


No fauna are thought to be dependent on the habitats within M47/1438. For more information please 

refer to the fauna section of the Yule River Biological Assessment, Appendix 1 of the Mining Proposal 

(support information). 

Describe the nature and extent of the expected impact. 

Are you aware of any recent fauna surveys carried out over the area to be disturbed 

by this proposal? 

Yes No If yes, please attach a copy of any related survey 

reports and provide the date and name of 

persons / companies involved in the survey/s. (If 

no, please do not arrange to have any biological 

surveys conducted prior to consulting with the 

DEC.) 

* Has a search of DEC records for known occurrences of Specially Protected 

(Threatened) fauna been conducted for the site? 

Yes No (please tick) 

* Are there any known occurrences of Specially Protected (Threatened) fauna on the 

site? # 

Yes No If yes, please indicate which species or 

communities are involved and provide copies of 

any correspondence with DEC regarding these 

matters. 

2.3 Rivers, Creeks, Wetlands and Estuaries 

* Will the development occur within 200m of a river, creek, wetland or estuary? 

10


section 


* Will the development result in the clearing of vegetation within the 200 m zone? 

Yes No If yes, please describe the extent of the expected 

impact. 

The Yule River Sand Project proposed to clear up to 40 hectares in accordance with granted 

Vegetation Clearing Permit (Purpose Permit) CPS 4370/1 which is valid between 20 August 2011 and 

31 August 2016. 

A minimal amount of clearing (0.16 ha) will be undertaken in order to construct a trafficable ramp from 

the stockpile area to the river bed (within the 200 m zone). Remaining access tracks will be outside 

the 200 m zone (0.36 ha). 

The proposed mining areas (36 ha) are within the 200 m zone. It is proposed to mine areas that have 

little or no vegetation. Thus the clearing required is predominantly regrowth vegetation occurring in the 

river bed sand. The excavation will disturb the ground however flooding will refill and rehabilitate these 

areas with sand deposition and replenish the seed source. 

The remainder of the clearing area (hardstand and stockpile area of 3.5 ha) is outside the 200 m zone. 

Please see page 23 and 24 of the Mining Proposal (support information) for further description of 

clearing areas. 

* Will the development result in the filling or excavation of a river, creek, wetland or 

estuary? 


impact. 

Excavation of sand will take place from the alluvial deposits in the river. Excavation areas are 

interspersed about the mining lease so as to allow the excavated areas to quickly replenish during 

flood events and to minimise the effect the excavations may have on fauna movements. Pockets of 

sand will be excavated where there is little or no vegetation. 

* Will the development result in the impoundment of a river, creek, wetland or estuary? 


impact. 

* Will the development result in draining to a river, creek, wetland or estuary? 


impact. 

* Are you aware if the proposal will impact on a river, creek, wetland or estuary (or its 

buffer) within one of the following categories? (please tick) 

Conservation Category Wetland Yes No Unsure 

Environmental Protection (South West Yes No Unsure 

11

Agricultural Zone Wetlands) Policy 1998 

Perth‟s Bush Forever site Yes No Unsure 

Environmental Protection (Swan & Canning 

Rivers) Policy 1998 

The management area as defined in s4(1) 

of the Swan River Trust Act 1988/ 

Which is subject to an international 

agreement, because of the importance of 

the wetland for waterbirds and waterbird 

habitats (e.g. Ramsar, JAMBA, CAMBA) # 

2.4 Significant Areas and/ or Land Features 

12 

Yes No Unsure 

Yes No Unsure 

Yes No Unsure 

* Is the proposed development located within or adjacent to an existing or proposed 

National Park or Nature Reserve? 

Yes No If yes, please provide details. 

* Are you aware of any Environmentally Sensitive Areas (as declared by the Minister 

under section 51B of the EP Act) that will be impacted by the proposed 

development? 


* Are you aware of any significant natural land features (e.g. caves, ranges etc) that 

will be impacted by the proposed development? 


2.5 Coastal Zone Areas (Coastal Dunes and Beaches) 

* Will the development occur within 300m of a coastal area? 


section 


* What is the expected setback of the development from the high tide level and from 

the primary dune? 

* Will the development impact on coastal areas with significant landforms including 

beach ridge plain, cuspate headland, coastal dunes or karst? 


impact.

* Is the development likely to impact on mangroves? 


impact. 

2.6 Marine Areas and Biota 

* Is the development likely to impact on an area of sensitive benthic communities, 

such as seagrasses, coral reefs or mangroves? 


impact. 

* Is the development likely to impact on marine conservation reserves or areas 

recommended for reservation (as described in A Representative Marine Reserve 

System for Western Australia, CALM, 1994)? 


impact. 

* Is the development likely to impact on marine areas used extensively for recreation 

or for commercial fishing activities? 


impact, and provide any written advice from 

relevant agencies (e.g. Fisheries WA). 

2.7 Water Supply and Drainage Catchments 

* Are you in a proclaimed or proposed groundwater or surface water protection area? 

(You may need to contact the Department of Water (DoW) for more information on 

the requirements for your location, including the requirement for licences for water 

abstraction. Also, refer to the DoW website) 

Yes No If yes, please describe what category of area. 

Yes, the Yule River Water Reserve was proclaimed under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 

on 2 March 2001. 

* Are you in an existing or proposed Underground Water Supply and Pollution Control 

area? 

(You may need to contact the DoW for more information on the requirements for 

your location, including the requirement for licences for water abstraction. Also, refer 

to the DoW website) 


* Are you in a Public Drinking Water Supply Area (PDWSA)? 

13

(You may need to contact the DoW for more information or refer to the DoW website. 

A proposal to clear vegetation within a PDWSA requires approval from DoW.) 


DoW were consulted during October 2011, seeking their advice regarding the proposed Yule River 

Sand Project. DoW provided advice on the 7 th November 2011. The table (below) provides a summary 

of DoW issues and how they have been addressed in the Mining Proposal (support information for this 

referral). 

DoW comments on Draft Mining Proposal for development and operation of the Yule River 

Sand Project M47/1438 (This appears as Appendix 8 of the Mining Proposal) 

To address for protection of the Yule 

River Water Reserve 

Assessment of/comment on information in report 

1. Dry methods of sand extraction are to 

be used. No extraction activities shall 

take place below the water table. 

2. A minimum of three metres of 

undisturbed profile between the likely 

future maximum water table and the 

proposed final surface level is to be 

maintained. The Department may allow 

this to be reduced to two metres if the 

proponent can demonstrate there is no 

risk to the water source and approval of 

the Department is obtained. 

3. The proponent will be required to 

confirm local groundwater levels prior to 

the commencement of sand extraction. 

4. Best practice, appropriate surface 

water runoff management is used. 

5. Servicing of mechanical components 

of machinery particularly involving 

liquids such as - coolants, hydraulic oils, 

lubricants and brake fluids shall not be 

undertaken on site. (Refer to WQPN 28 

– Mechanical servicing and workshops; 

and WQPN 56 – Tanks for elevated 

chemical storage). 

6. A satisfactory fuel management plan 

is in place addressing: 

a. Fuel spill prevention at fuel storage 

areas; 

b. Details of fuel transport and 

refuelling; 

c. A contingency plan for dealing with 

fuel spillages; 

d. Contamination incidents should be 

reported immediately to the Water 

Corporation and the Department of 

Environment and Conservation (Refer to 

WQPN 56 – Tanks for elevated 

chemical storage). 

7. An application needs to be made to 

the Town of Port Hedland for the 

domestic wastewater treatment system 

proposed for use with a toilet at the site 

14 

Section 3.2 confirms that dry methods for extraction to be 

used; and as per comment on 2. Immediately below – no 

extraction below the water table in confirmed. 

The commitments in section 4.4 “Groundwater levels will 

be monitored from the groundwater monitoring bore. 

Excavation of sand will not occur below a zone 3 metres 

above the groundwater level and not below the clay river 

bed” are acknowledged. 

This may be done by appropriate location of the 

groundwater monitoring bore that has been committed to 

(Section 4.4) and/or other data considered reliable by the 

Department of Water. Please refer to DoW‟s Operational 

Policy No. 5.12 – Hydrogeological reporting associated 

with a groundwater well licence, for further information. 

1.3 Project objectives Table 4-4 and Section 4.3 satisfy 

this requirement. 

The Commitments Table and Section 4.8 Hydrocarbon 

management generally cover this. A specific statement 

needs to be made on it. 

Section 4.8 Hydrocarbon management satisfies this 

requirement. 

Table 3-1 and Section 4.7 refer to a “toilet septic system 

and transpirational leach field”. Accordingly, an 

application needs to be made to the Town of Port 

Hedland for this.

(use of these systems is administered 

by local government under the guidance 

of the Department of Health). (Refer to 

WQPN 70 – Wastewater treatment and 

disposal: domestic systems. 

8. Water Corporation having considered 

the proposal and the proponent 

addressing any issues that may be 

raised by the corporation. 

15 

Unaware of the status of this. DoW staff can assist with 

appropriate Water Corporation contacts if required. 

Dumpna has addressed the comments by DoW and made additions and commitments in the Mining 

Proposal to satisfy these requirements. 

With regard to 8 – Water Corporation were forwarded a Draft Mining Proposal on 14 th November 2011 

and are yet to provide comment. 

* Is there sufficient water available for the proposal? 

(Please consult with the DoW as to whether approvals are required to source water 

as you propose. Where necessary, please provide a letter of intent from the DoW) 

Yes No (please tick) 

With the current licensed water allocation for the Yule River Wellfield at 5 GL per annum, with potential 

to be increased to 6.5 GL per annum, Dumpna‟s water usage will have a minimal impact on the 

resources of the Yule River Water Reserve. 

* Will the proposal require drainage of the land? 

Yes No If yes, how is the site to be drained and will the 

drainage be connected to an existing Local 

Authority or Water Corporation drainage system? 

Please provide details. 

With the amount of fuel on site being limited as much as is practicably possible and any hydrocarbons 

on site being stored in the bund area; the potential for contamination of groundwater with hydrocarbons 

is extremely unlikely, especially with well designed spill response procedures in place. Nevertheless, 

as an extra precautionary measure, the fuel bund area has been designed so that any run-off from a 

rainfall event will drain into a sullage-fuel and oil trap pit (see Plans 4 and 5 of the Mining Proposal 

support information). The Bureau of Meteorology has calculated that a 20 year average return interval 

for a 72 hour storm event in this region is expected to yield 4.12 mm per hour, which totals 296.64 mm 

over the 72 hours. In the event of a significant rainfall event such as this, potentially contaminated 

water flows from the outer edge of the bund area which is raised approximately 4m, towards the 

polymer lined sullage-oil separator pit, which is only raised 3.5m. The edges of the pit are 1.2m high 

and there are two overflow pipes at the bottom of the pit to allow clean water to flow out, while the 

hydrophobic hydro-carbons float on the surface of the water and are trapped. See section 4.8.3 of the 

Mining Proposal (support information) for more information. 

* Is there a water requirement for the construction and/ or operation of this proposal? 


section 


What is the water requirement for the construction and operation of this proposal, in 

kl/year? 

280 kl/year

* What is the proposed source of water for the proposal? (eg dam, bore, surface water 

etc.) 

Bore 

2.8 Pollution 

* Is there likely to be any discharge of pollutants from this development, such as noise, 

vibration, gaseous emissions, dust, liquid effluent, solid waste or other pollutants? 


section 


* Is the proposal a prescribed premise, under the Environmental Protection 

Regulations? 

(Refer to the EPA General Guide for Referral of Proposals to the EPA under section 

38(1) of the EP Act 1986 for more information) 

Yes No If yes, please describe what category of 

prescribed premise. 

The proposed Yule River operations will involve the extraction, processing and transport of product as 

part of its operations. Following the feasibility stage of the project, a Works Approval application was 

developed to address the requirements of being a Prescribed Premises Type 12 „Screening etc. of 

material‟. The Works Approval application was submitted to DEC Karratha Industry Regulation on the 

16 th December 2011. 

* Will the proposal result in gaseous emissions to air? 

Yes No If yes, please briefly describe. 

* Have you done any modelling or analysis to demonstrate that air quality standards 

will be met, including consideration of cumulative impacts from other emission 

sources? 


* Will the proposal result in liquid effluent discharge? 

Yes No If yes, please briefly describe the nature, 

concentrations and receiving environment. 

Toilet facilities will comprise a septic tank capable of receiving approximately 200 L of effluent per day. 

The treated effluent will be passed into a polymer lined evaporative transpiration leach field. The lining 

will minimise potential seepage into the groundwater system and therefore ensure the Priority 1 

drinking water source remains of high quality. The whole system is completely sealed from the toilet, to 

the septic tank, to the leach field; though for precautionary purposes regular inspections will be 

undertaken for any leaks or maintenance requirements. More information is provided in the Mining 

Proposal (support information Plan 8 and section 4.7). 

* If there is likely to be discharges to a watercourse or marine environment, has any 

analysis been done to demonstrate that the State Water Quality Management 

Strategy or other appropriate standards will be able to be met? 

16

Yes No If yes, please describe. 

NA 

* Will the proposal produce or result in solid wastes? 

Yes No If yes, please briefly describe the nature, 

concentrations and disposal location/ method. 

General wastes, such as putrescibles which cannot be recycled, will be deposited in wheelie 

bins around the YRSP site and disposed at the South Hedland waste disposal facility. 

* Will the proposal result in significant off-site noise emissions? 


* Will the development be subject to the Environmental Protection (Noise) 

Regulations? 

Yes No If yes, has any analysis been carried out to 

demonstrate that the proposal will comply with 

the Regulations? 

Please attach the analysis. 

* Does the proposal have the potential to generate off-site, air quality impacts, dust, 

odour or another pollutant that may affect the amenity of residents and other 

“sensitive premises” such as schools and hospitals (proposals in this category may 

include intensive agriculture, aquaculture, marinas, mines and quarries etc.)? 

Yes No If yes, please describe and provide the distance 

to residences and other “sensitive premises”. 

* If the proposal has a residential component or involves “sensitive premises”, is it 

located near a land use that may discharge a pollutant? 

Yes No Not Applicable If yes, please describe and 

provide the distance to the 

potential pollution source 

2.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

* Is this proposal likely to result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions (greater than 

100 000 tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions)? 

Yes No If yes, please provide an estimate of the annual 

gross emissions in absolute and in carbon 

dioxide equivalent figures. 

* Further, if yes, please describe proposed measures to minimise emissions, and any 

sink enhancement actions proposed to offset emissions. 

17

2.10 Contamination 

* Has the property on which the proposal is to be located been used in the past for 

activities which may have caused soil or groundwater contamination? 

Yes No Unsure If yes, please describe. 

* Has any assessment been done for soil or groundwater contamination on the site? 


* Has the site been registered as a contaminated site under the Contaminated Sites 

Act 2003? (on finalisation of the CS Regulations and proclamation of the CS Act) 


2.11 Social Surroundings 

* Is the proposal on a property which contains or is near a site of Aboriginal 

ethnographic or archaeological significance that may be disturbed? 

Yes No Unsure If yes, please describe. 

A desktop review of archaeological and ethnographic sites was undertaken using a search of the 

Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System‟s Register of Aboriginal sites. Appendix 3 of the Mining Proposal 

(support information) contains the database searches including a description of the sites found and 

recommendations related to ensuring heritage sites are protected throughout any clearing and mining 

operations. 

The most significant finds in relation to Tenement M47/1438 were Site 7831 Moolkamudda Pool 1 and 

Site 7836 Moolkamudda Pool 3 which are both registered aboriginal sites within the meaning of section 

5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA). A heritage place, Site 6655, that relates to the Yule River 

itself and its traditional place name (Kakurka) was also recorded during the search, however, this is not 

a site within the meaning of section 5 of the AHA. 

This prompted an archaeological and ethnographic survey that has been completed for Dumpna Pty 

Ltd by the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation, Pilbara Native Title Service. Two surveys were 

conducted: the first field assessment was undertaken by Nayeli Torres-Montenegro 

(archaeologist/anthropologist), Kirsty Wissing (anthropologists) and five members of the Traditional 

Owners, the Kariyarra People; and the second survey undertaken by Madeleine Sjolander 

(archaeologist), Imogen Dexter (anthropologist) and two members of the Kariyarra People. 

Surveys were undertaken using a work program clearance method which allows for the survey to 

concentrate on specific areas of interest and determine if any heritage places would be adversely 

affected by the proposed works. Proposed infrastructure and mining areas on Tenement M47/1438 

were investigated for aboriginal heritage sites by the survey team. The Kariyarra Traditional Owners 

provided commentary on the importance of these two sites and the Yule River named site. It is 

expected that with appropriate management strategies in place, sand mining in the areas surveyed will 

not impact on the cultural significance of Yule River and the two registered aboriginal sites. The 

resulting reports appear as Appendix 4a and 4b of the Mining Proposal (support information). 

Correspondence with the Department of Indigenous Affairs indicated that a risk based assessment of 

proposed mining activities should be undertaken to minimise the potential for contravention of the AHA 

(Appendix 5 of the Mining Proposal (support information)). In accordance with the Department‟s advice 

18

and to ensure minimal impact of mining activities on the traditional place name of Yule River (Kakurka), 

and the complete protection of the two registered aboriginal sites within the meaning of section 5 of the 

AHA, an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan has been developed for the Yule River site. 

This appears as Appendix 6 of the Mining Proposal (support information). 

Dumpna Pty Ltd has undertaken to continue ongoing communication with the Kariyarra People 

regarding the clearing and mining operations and has developed a Mining Agreement with the 

Kariyarra Native Title Claimants for and on behalf of the Kariyarra People. Commitments made in the 

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan and the Mining Agreement with the Kariyarra People 

will enable the Traditional Owners continual access to recognised aboriginal heritage sites within the 

YRSP lease, throughout the life of the mine. 

* Is the proposal on a property which contains or is near a site of high public interest 

(for example, a major recreation area or natural scenic feature)? 


* Will the proposal result in or require substantial transport of goods, which may affect 

the amenity of the local area? 


3. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT 

3.1 Principles of Environmental Protection 

Have you considered how your project gives attention to the following Principles, as 

set out in section 4A of the EP Act? (For information on the Principles of 

Environmental Protection, please see EPA Position Statement No. 7, available on 

the EPA web.) 

1. The precautionary principle. Yes No 

2. The principle of intergenerational equity. Yes No 

3. The principle of the conservation of biological 

diversity and ecological integrity. 

4. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing 

and incentive mechanisms. 

19 

Yes No 

Yes No 

5. The principle of waste minimisation. Yes No 

Is the proposal consistent with the EPA‟s Environmental Protection Bulletins/Position 

Statements and Environmental Assessment Guidelines/Guidance Statements 

(available on the EPA web)? 

Yes No

3.2 Consultation 

Has public consultation taken place (such as with other government agencies, 

community groups or neighbours), or is it intended that consultation shall take place? 

Yes No If yes, please list those consulted and attach 

comments or summarise response on a separate 

sheet. 

20

Stakeholder 

Consultation 

Register - DUMPNA 

Pty Ltd M47/1438 

Yule River Sand 

Project Date 

Throughout 

2009 

Federal / State / Local Government 

Department or Company Person/s 

Comms. 

Method Topics Covered Issues Raised 

Native Title Claimants - Indigenous 

Consultation Agreement Meetings Native Title Agreement to mine 

01-Feb-10 Pastoralist Mundabullangana Station Letter 

23-Mar-10 

Pilbara Native Title Service, Traditional 

Owners/ Native Title Claimants 

PNTS and Representatives of 

the Kariyarra In person 

01-Jun-10 Department of Mines and Petroleum Phil Boglio Phone 

01-Jun-10 Department of Water Darryl Abbot In person 

01-Jun-10 

Grant of Mining Lease M47/1438 

to Dumpna Pty Ltd 

Culmination of 18 months of 

meetings with Kariyarra people 

regarding a Native Title 

Agreement relating to mining 

activities on Dumpna Pty Ltd 

Mining Leases. 

Initial advice and extent of 

information required for mining 

proposal 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation Reception In person Works Approval 

30-Nov-10 Department of Water, Karratha Natalie Leach Phone 

02-Dec-10 Department of Water, Karratha 

03-Dec-10 Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation 

10-Mar-11 Department of Mines and Petroleum 

Allison Bloomfield-Martin, 

Kevin Hopkinson Email 

Nayeli Torres-Montenegro, 

Tim Aldridge Phone 

Native Vegetation 

Assessment Branch 

Hand 

delivery 

15-Mar-11 Department of Water, Karratha Natalie Leach Phone/Email 

Requirements for mining within a 

Public Drinking Water Source Area 

(Water Reserve) 

Licence requirements in a PDWSA 

for groundwater bore 

Licence requirements in a PDWSA 

for groundwater bore 

Finalising Mining Agr 

Native Title Claiman 

People 

Guidelines for works 

Ladyman. 

Will get someone to 

licensing 

Ethnographic survey and report 

for mining tenements Final Report availabi 

Submission of Vegetation Clearing 

Permit Application. 

Provided overview of project to 

determine what requirements 

DoW have regarding the project in 

a PDWSA. 

Provided overview of project to 

Hydrocarbon storage 

containment, human 

location and details 

monitoring bores, st

03-Jul-11 Department of Indigenous Affairs Ryan Crawford Phone/Email 

16-Aug-11 West Australian Main Roads Andrew Pyke Letter 

21-Sep-11 Department of Water, Pilbara Region Chirs Parker Phone/Email 

Whether Aboriginal Heritage 

requirements had been 

sufficiently met by the work done 

to date. 

Conditional approval for accessing 

North West Coastal Highway from 

Mining Lease M47/1438. 

Licence requirements for bore 

construction and water extraction 

at YRSP. 

23-Sep-11 Department of Water, Pilbara Region Chirs Parker Phone/Email AHD Water levels 

10-Oct-11 Department of Indigenous Affairs Tanya Butler Email Mining Proposal area 

11-Nov-11 Department of Water Natalie Leach 

Phone/Email 

/Letter 

Yule River Sand Project Mining 

Proposal Endorsement 

22-Nov-11 Water Corporation George Jones Phone DOW advice re Water Corp 

24-Nov-11 

That an ethnographi 

agreement between 

People, and desktop 

heritage sites has be 

else required. 

Approval is condition 

met to ensure safe a 

Established via phon 

be required to const 

licence would be req 

groundwater. Quest 

is required to ‘interf 

banks in a proclaime 

in Water and Irrigati 

AHD water level at t 

Station 

Query on potential i 

identified places or o 

significance. 

Could DOW commen 

Proposal before sub 

Provided a letter to D 

Water Corp commen 

Will call in and see G 

He has handed issue 

branch in Perth. Ask 

will be glad to drop i 

project. 

Pilbara Native Title Service - Yamatji 

Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation Rodney Nicole Phone Short Meeting General update on P 

August- 

November Mundabullangana Station Michael Thompson Phone Calls Advising Michael of activities 

Several calls where l 

contact. Informed hi 

arranged meeting.

Download 1 (.pdf 509KB) - Environmental Protection Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?