Breadalbane Stornoway Quarrying · wetlands in the vicinity of the quarry. The nearest sensitive receptor in other ownership is the Mount Oriel homestead, 250m north of the quarry,

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Raeburn Quarry Expansion

Breadalbane

Stornoway Quarrying

Report and recommendations of the EPA Division Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority January 2009

Environmental Assessment Report – Raeburn Quarry Expansion

I

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Stornoway Quarrying

Proposal Expansion of existing quarry and construction and operation of a concrete batching plant

Location 835 Hobart Road, Breadalbane

NELMS no. 7776

DA number P09-297

File 111392

Document

Class of Assessment

G:\EEO_Enviro_Ops\EAS_Assessments\EAS_Projects\Stornoway Raeburn

2B

Assessment process milestones

26 November 2008 Notice of Intent submitted

12 January 2009 DPEMP Guidelines issued

30 Sept 2009 Permit application submitted to Council

8 October 2009 Application received by Board

17 October 2009 Start of public consultation period

16 November 2009 End of public consultation period

18 December 2009 Supplementary information submitted to Board

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

DPEMP Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

SD Sustainable development


II

Report summary

This report contains an environmental assessment and recommendations to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority in relation to Stornoway Quarrying’s proposed quarry expansion, and construction and operation of a concrete batching plant at their existing Raeburn quarry, located four kilometres south of Launceston.

The proposal involves an intensification of extraction of material. The proponent has sought approval to extract and crush up to 200,000 cubic metres of rock per annum. This will require blasting approximately 12 times per annum. Approval is also sought for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant to produce up to 20,000 cubic metres of concrete per annum. It is also proposed to recycle up to 10,000 cubic metres of construction material (concrete bricks etc) and 2,000 cubic metres of soil (clays and topsoil) per annum.

This report has been prepared by the Environment Division of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment based on information provided by the proponent in the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) and DPEMP Supplement. The advice of relevant Government Agencies and the public has also been sought and considered as part of this assessment.

On 27 November 2009, the Director requested that the applicant submit supplementary information to address public, government agency (including DPIPWE) and Council comments on the DPEMP. The applicant submitted the DPEMP supplementary information on 18 December 2009.

Background to the proposal and details of the assessment process are presented in Section 1 of this report. Section 2 describes the context of this assessment. Details of the proposal are contained in Section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the project, site and design alternatives. Section 5 summarises the public and Agency consultation process and the key issues raised in that process. The detailed evaluation of key issues is contained in Section 6. Section 7 identifies other environmental issues and the report conclusions are contained in Section 8.

Appendix 1 contains a tabular evaluation of other environmental issues referred to in Section 7. Appendix 2 contains a summary of issues raised in the consultation process. Appendix 3 contains recommended environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the recommended permit conditions contains the table of commitments from the DPEMP.


IV

Table of Contents

1 Approvals process ..................................................................................... 5

2 SD objectives and EIA principles .............................................................. 5

3 The proposal ............................................................................................. 6

4 Need for proposal and alternatives ......................................................... 10

5 Public and agency consultation ............................................................... 10

6 Evaluation of key issues .......................................................................... 11

6.1 Noise .................................................................................................................... 11 6.2 Blasting ................................................................................................................. 17

7 Other environmental issues ..................................................................... 25

8 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 26

9 References .............................................................................................. 27

10 Summary of appendices ....................................................................... 27


5

1 Approvals process

An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Northern Midlands Council on 30 September 2009.

The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under Schedule 2 Subsection 6(a)(ii) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being materials handling (crushing and screening of rocks). Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 8 October 2009.

The Board required that additional information to support the proposal be provided in the form of a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) prepared in accordance with guidelines jointly issued by the Board and Northern Midlands Council. The final guidelines were issued to the proponent on 12 January 2009.

A draft of the DPEMP was submitted to the Department for comment prior to its formal submission. A final DPEMP was submitted to Council with the permit application. The DPEMP was released for public inspection for a 28-day period commencing on 17 October 2009. Advertisements were placed in the Examiner newspaper and on the EPA web site. The DPEMP was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. Three public submissions were received.

On 27 November 2009, the Director requested that the proponent prepare a DPEMP Supplement to address public, government agency (including DPIPWE) and Council comments on the DPEMP. The proponent submitted the DPEMP Supplement on 18 December 2009.

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

The proposal must be considered by the Board in the context of the sustainable development objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (RMPS), and in the context of the objectives of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control System (EMPCS) established by the EMPC Act. The functions of the Board are to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act, and in particular to use its best endeavours to protect the environment of Tasmania, and to further the RMPS and EMPCS objectives.

The Board must undertake the assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles defined in Section 74 of the EMPC Act.


6

3 The proposal

The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Section 2 of the DPEMP.

Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics

Characteristic Description/quantities

Activity description Expansion of an existing gravel quarry from 58,000 cubic metres to 200,000 cubic metres per annum. The proponent has also requested approval for the construction and operation of a concrete batching plant, and the recycling of construction materials.

Location Off Hobart Road, Breadalbane

Land zoning The Stornoway property is privately owned and all zoned Rural General under the Northern Midlands Planning scheme. Extractive Industry is a Discretionary Use.

Land tenure The Stornoway property is privately owned and had operated under mining leases 1747P/M and 1863P/M. The proponent applied to Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) to have these two leases consolidated. This has now been granted as 1874P/M.

Site overview The quarry is located at the top of a small hill surrounded by open farmland. To the east the land falls off relatively steeply, to Relbia Road, while to the west and south it remains relatively flat. On the eastern side the Hobart to Launceston railway line passes within 600 metres east of the quarry. Another large quarry (BIS) is located 1,000 metres to the south and the Launceston airport is 2,000 metres to the south. The Midland highway is 2,000 metres to the west (Figure 1). A development including a residential subdivision was proposed within 1000 metres to the east of the quarry. The Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC, now Tasmanian Planning Commission) rejected the proposed changes required to the Northern Midlands Planning Scheme to allow the development to proceed.

Surrounding area overview

The area is surrounded by agricultural properties. There are no reserves or wetlands in the vicinity of the quarry. The nearest sensitive receptor in other ownership is the Mount Oriel homestead, 250m north of the quarry, while an additional five residential dwellings are located within 1,000 to 1,500m from the quarry.

Major equipment Concrete batching plant, crushers, screens, dozer, loaders and excavator.

Other infrastructure none

Inputs

Water Stormwater will be used for dust control and the concrete batching plant. The proponent will investigate the possibility of reusing treated water from the Breadalbane wastewater treatment plant.

Energy Diesel for mobile plant. Electricity for the concrete batching plant.

Other raw materials

Wastes

Liquid Stormwater and effluent from the batching plant.

Atmospheric Particulate matter generated by material handling, crushing/screening and truck movement within the pit, and from concrete batching plant stockpiles. A water cart is used when required.

Solid Rubbish is removed weekly.


7

Characteristic Description/quantities

Noise Crushing, screening and mobile equipment are considered the major sources of noise on-site. The proposed concrete batching plant will also generate noise. Trucks entering and leaving the site are a source of off-site noise. The proposed blasting and drilling (approximately 12 times a year) is also a source of noise.

Operating hours The proponent requested that the quarry hours of operation for crushing, screening etc be restricted to between the hours 0700 to 1900 hours weekdays and 0800 and 1600 hours on Saturday, and that loading of product be allowed from 0630 hours. The proponent requested that the hours of operation for the concrete batching plant be restricted to between the hours 0600 to 1900 hours weekdays and 0800 and 1600 hours on Saturday.

Project timetable Construction of the concrete batching plant will occur after the relevant approvals have been granted. The quarry development is to be conducted in stages over a 70 year period (Figure 2).

Other key characteristics Recycling of materials such as bricks, concrete, clays and topsoils. It is proposed that some of the topsoils and clays would be used for rehabilitation, while the remainder would be incorporated into product for sale.


8

Figure 1 location (from Figure 2.1 of the DPEMP)


9

Figure 2: Site plan (From Figure 2.3 of the DPEMP).


10

4 Need for proposal and alternatives

The purpose of the proposed activity (expansion of an existing quarry, construction and operation of a concrete batching plant, and recycling building materials) is to supply likely future demands. It was decided to place the concrete batching plant in the quarry site to reduce transport impacts, because coarse aggregate and crusher dust, which makes up the largest part of the concrete mix, are produced at the site. Locating the plant on site also reduces the visual impact (it is to be located on the quarry floor). The DPEMP stated that the plant to be used would be typical of other plants used in Tasmania.

5 Public and agency consultation

The DPEMP was advertised seeking public comment for a 28 day period. A summary of the public representations and government agency/body submissions is contained in Appendix 2 of this report. The applicant’s response is contained in the DPEMP Supplement. According to the DPEMP, consultation has been carried out by the proponent with state and local government authorities, including Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT), Department of Primary Industries Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), Northern Midlands Council and local residents in proximity to the quarry. Three representations were received. One of those representations was from a consultant planner (referred to as GHD in this report) in which the names of individuals from 24 different residences surrounding the quarry were included as an appendix. Advice was sought from the Solicitor General as to whether this should be treated as one or twenty-five representations. The Solicitor General advised that it should be treated as one representation. Many of these representations related to issues that the Council will consider (such as traffic, attenuation zones etc). The key issues relating to issues pertaining to the Land raised in the representations included:

Blasting Noise Criticisms of past operations, Concrete batching plant

The DPEMP was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

Northern Midlands Council Ben Lomond Water Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER)

o Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) o Transport Division

Workplace Standards Tasmania The following Divisions/Areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment also provided submissions on the DPEMP:

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania Resource Management and Conservation

Noise Specialist , Environment Division


11

6 Evaluation of key issues

The key environmental issues relevant to the proposal that were identified for detailed evaluation in this report were:

Potential noise effects on surrounding residences associated with the operation of the proposal;

Airblast over pressure and ground vibration effects on surrounding residences and

infrastructure associated with blasting activity; These issues are discussed individually in the following Sections. The table of commitments from the DPEMP is included as Attachment 2 in Appendix 3 (proposed permit conditions) of this report.

6.1 Noise

Description

The quarry is located in a rural setting. However, another large quarry is located to the south, while another smaller operating quarry is to the west. The quarry is also under the flight path for the Launceston airport and the Midlands Highway is approximately two kilometres to the west of the quarry. Vipac Consultants were engaged to conduct a noise assessment for the proposed quarry expansion. Their report was attached to the DPEMP as Appendix I. Their assessment entailed measuring the sound power levels of machinery currently on site, and background noise levels. The ambient noise levels surrounding the quarry were measured at several locations (Figure 3) on 16 October 2008, and 23 and 25 March 2009. Additional machinery is proposed to be used in the quarry. Of most importance as regards noise levels is a jaw crusher that is not currently used on site (Table 2). Sound power levels for this, and a cement batching plant were obtained from other quarries in Tasmania. These data along with topographical data were used as inputs to the noise modelling software program SoundPLAN, in order to predict noise level contours around the quarry resulting from quarry operations apart from drill rig noise (see below). The model was run for a range of situations over the lifetime of the pit, and for a light wind blowing from source to receiver (worst case).

Table 2 current and future mobile equipment needs (From Table 1 of AppendixoI)

Item Quantity Presently on site Future

Crusher, Cone 1 2 Crusher, Jaw - 1 Sizing screens 2 4 Dozer 1 1 Loaders 3 3 Excavator - 1

The highest noise levels were determined to be at Stage 3 of the quarry (20-30 years). The noise contours for those levels are provided in Figure 4.


12

Figure 3 Monitoring locations (From Figure 4.6 of the DPEMP)


13

Figure 4 Predicted sound levels – worst case, stage 3 (20-30 Years) (From Figure 4.8 of the DPEMP) Vipac examined different criteria that can be used to set noise limits (Table 3). It was proposed that the noise criteria (permit condition limits) should be 55 dB(A) at locations 1-4 and 49 dB(A) for other locations (Table 4). Using those criteria, the quarry is predicted to remain within the proposed limits under worst case conditions (light wind at Stage 3). Vipac suggested that, considering the existing background noise levels, the quarry would be just audible when there is no wind, but clearly audible when the receiver is downwind of the quarry. Table 3 References for various noise criteria (From Table 4.9: of the DPEMP)


14

Table 4 Predicted quarry sound levels (excluding drill rig noise) – worst case Stage 3

(From Table 4.8 of the DPEMP)Location (refer Figure 3) Sound Pressure Level, dB(A)

Predicted Proposed limit 1 43 55 2 40 55 3 Tara House 40 55 4 Raeburn House 51 55 5 26 49 6 Mt Oriel Homestead 46 49 7 25 49

Additional information relating to noise levels from drilling was requested from the proponent after the Supplement had been accepted. That information was provided by Vipac and is summarised in Table 5 below. Vipac stated that the drilling would be intermittent (2-3 days per month) and that worst case scenarios refer to worst weather conditions and the drill rig operating at the start of the stage when the first bench is being developed (i.e. at the top of the quarry with minimal or no attenuation from topography). After the first bench is developed, the noise levels would be reduced because the rig would be operating below the top of the quarry edge.

Table 5: Predicted drill rig noise levels – neutral and worst case weather conditions (From Table 1 supplementary noise data).

Sound Pressure Level, d(BA) Stage Receiver 4* Receiver 6* Neutral Worst case Neutral Worst case 1C Drill 1 at RL 170 37 47 44 54 1C Drill 2 at RL 170 42 51 2E Drill at RL 160 38 48 41 51 3E Drill at RL 153 56 65 42 51

*Refer Figure 3 for locations

Management measures On-site

Maintain attenuation distances to neighbours (Commitment 6). Maintain material stockpiles as buffers (Commitment 6). Maintain acoustic screen adjacent to operating all equipment (including concrete batch

plant) (Commitmento6). Maintain diesel motors in good order to minimise noise (Commitment 6).

Off-site

Limit hours of operations to permit conditions (Commitment 7). No transportation on Sundays or gazetted public holidays (Commitment 7). 40 km/h truck speed limit on Raeburn Road (Commitment 7).


15

Submissions

No submissions were received that specifically related to noise generated by quarry equipment. Several submissions related to noise from blasting. One representation (GHD) suggested that the hours of operation for the concrete batching plant should be the same as for the quarry operation (from 7-00AM weekdays and 8-00AM Saturdays). Another public representation related to noise from trucks entering and leaving the site prior to 7-00AM.

Evaluation

The Division noise specialist considered that the methods used for the modelling of general quarry noise and drill rig noise were appropriate. The computer modelling that was used to predict the noise levels in the vicinity of the quarry assumed a worst-case scenario. The worst case scenario for noise from quarry operations (excluding drilling) was 51 dB(A) at one existing residence. The proponent’s consultant suggested that different permit condition levels could apply for various residences based on the existing background noise levels and adding 10 dB(A) (primarily based on the Quarry Code of Practice). At Location 4 (Raeburn House), this would have resulted in a noise limit of 59 dB(A). Vipac suggested this should be reduced to 55 dB(A) along with locations 1, 2, and 3. In relation to drill rig noise, Vipac assumed a sound power of 124 dB(A) based on recent experience with a drill rig in Tasmania. Australian Standard AS 2436 gives a range of 118 to 129 dB(A) and British Standard BS 5228 gives a range of 113 to 120 dB(A) for sound powers of blasthole drill rigs. Therefore, the 124 dB(A) is at the upper range of sound power levels for drill rigs. The Division noise specialist also advised that it is relatively easy to decrease the noise from an unsilenced drill rig by 5 dB(A) using acoustic curtains, and that the Vipac modelling was conservative. Therefore, the noise specialist is of the opinion that the noise levels from drilling operations can be managed so that they should not exceed the recommended noise limits for the first thirty years of operation. The modelling predicted noise levels up to 65 dB(A) at Raeburn House under worst case conditions after 30 years. Clearly this will require additional management measures, including acoustic attenuation, choice of drill rig type and quarry development to meet the proposed limits. The Division noise specialist recommends that the noise limit should be 50 dB(A) during the daytime (between 0700 and 1900 as per recommended hours in the Quarry Code of Practice). This level (as opposed to 51 or 55 dB(A) as suggested by Vipac) is recommended because the predicted 51 dB(A) is considered worst case and predicted to occur in a 20-30 year timeframe. The Division noise specialist is of the opinion that within the next 20 years there will be sufficient improvements in noise abatement for quarry machinery, and management practices, that 50 dB(A) at the nearest sensitive receptor (which is a typical limit for a quarry of this size in this setting) should be able to be met. The recommended noise limits (N1) are:

50 dB(A) between 0700 hours and 1800 hours (Day time); and 40 dB(A) between 1800 hours and 2200 hours (Evening time); and 40 dB(A) between the hours of 0600 and 0700 (early morning period); and 35 dB(A) between 2200 hours and 0600 hours (Night time).

The proposed operating hours for quarry activities are 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800-1600 hours Saturdays (addressed in condition N2, and requested in the DPEMP).. Operations at the batching plant would be restricted to 0600 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800-1600 hours Saturdays (addressed in condition N3). The morning shoulder period limit of 40odB(A) between 0600 and 0700 is consistent with noise limits that the Division would


16

recommend for industrial premises in locations such as this. The Division noise specialist is confident that it is possible to meet the limits, and that the limits are reasonable. The proponent was provided with a draft copy of the proposed permit to provide comment. The proponent requested that they be allowed to load product from 0630 hours. It is the recommendation of the Division that this not be allowed because of the potential nuisance to neighbours from empty gravel trucks using the access road prior to 0630 hours, and the loading of product into trucks. It is the opinion of the Division that empty concrete trucks would not be expected to generate the same degree of nuisance.

In order to demonstrate compliance with these proposed conditions it is recommended that the proponent be required to maintain a record of noise generating activities (N4), Conduct annual noise surveys (N5) and provide reports of those surveys to the Director (N6).

Recommendations Relevant management commitments outlined in the DPEMP and summarised above should be included in the permit. Standard conditions for the operation of a quarry, as routinely issued by the Director, should be included as follows. N2 Operating hours N4 Record of noise generating activities N6 Noise survey report requirements In addition, several non-standard conditions should be included: N1 Noise emission limits N3 Batching plant operating hours N5 Noise survey requirements


17

6.2 Blasting

Description

To date, the quarry operation has not required blasting because the basalt resource has been weathered (can be quarried using machinery). According to the DPEMP, blasting (using either Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil mixture (ANFO) or gel) would typically occur once a month, but may be more frequent at times (depending on stage of pit development). The aim is to decrease the number of shots required by increasing the size of shots. This blasting will result in noise (airblast) and ground vibration. The standard recommended attenuation distance (SRAD) where blasting occurs is 1000 metres. The proponent commissioned Terrock Consulting Engineers (Terrock) to advise on blast design and appropriate buffer zones to ensure that quarry operations meet the appropriate airblast (noise) and ground vibration standards. Terrock undertook a test blast on 11th June 2009 at the quarry to provide data on expected airblast and ground vibration impacts. The blast site was 393m from the nearest sensitive receptor, which is known as Mt Oriel Homestead (Figure 2). Terrock’s report was included in the DPEMP (Appendix H).

The results of the blast (Table 6) were used for modelling the predicted vibration and airblast contours over the life of the quarry to determine whether the proponent could meet the typical limits placed on quarries in Tasmania (which are based on ANZECC guidelines to minimise annoyance due to blasting). These limits are: for 95% of blasts, air blast over pressure must not exceed 115dB (Lin Peak); air blast over pressure must not exceed 120dB (Lin Peak); for 95% of blasts ground vibration must not exceed 5mm/sec peak particle velocity; and ground vibration must not exceed 10mm/sec peak particle velocity.

Table 6: Test Blast Monitoring Results (from Table 4.1 of the DPEMP) Station Distance (m) PPV (mm/s) (Ground

vibration limit 5mm/s PAV (dBL)(Air blast vibration limit 115 dBL

A (House) 393 1.95 100.5

B (West) 485 0.6 100.9

C (South) 273 2.0 104.2

In order to meet the limits typically imposed in permits at Mt Oriel homestead, Terrock recommended that the blasting charge would have to be reduced for the first six years of blasting, and that attention also needed to be given to the direction of the blast. It was recommended that the charge for the first six years be reduced from 48 kg to 45.5 kg. The results of the modelling for ground vibration for years 0-6 (using reduced charges), and years 7-70 years are presented in Figures 5 and 6 respectively. The results of the modelling for airblast for years 0-6, and 7-70 years are presented in Figures 7 and 8 respectively. Note that the contours in Figures are 7 and 8 influenced by the direction of quarry development, indicated by the small arrowheads.


18

Figure 5: Predicted ground vibration (ppv) for years 0-6 (from Appendix 2A of Appendix H)


19

Figure 6: Predicted ground vibration (ppv) for years 7-70 (from Appendix 2B of Appendix H)


20

Figure 7: Predicted airblast contours (dBL) for years 0-6 (from Appendix 3A Of Appendix H)


21

Figure 8: Predicted airblast contours (dBL) for years 7-70 (from Appendix 3B of Appendix H)


22

The modelling predicted that the highest ground vibration would be approximately 5mm/sec at the Mt Oriel Homestead in years 0-6 (Figure 5). Reduced explosive charges would be used during this period to limit vibration and airblast. For the remainder of the quarry life (7-70 years) existing houses adjacent to the quarry would experience ground vibration between 2-5 mm/sec (Figure 6). For airblast, the modelling predicted that the highest level would be 115 dBL at the Mt Oriel homestead for the 0-6 years (Figure 7) and 110 dBL for the 7-70 years (Figure 8). Terrock concluded (Appendix H of the DPEMP) that

Planning permit vibration limits can be met subject to compliance with the specifications and recommendations from Terrock.

Residents within the range of perceptible ground vibration will experience both air and ground vibration from blasting for less than four seconds on about 12 occasions per year, depending on the blast size.

It is predicted that peak ground vibration will remain below the 5mm/s limit at the nearest house and thereby all neighbouring houses for the life of the quarry.

Airblast can generally be controlled to the 115 dBL limit at the nearest house using current blasting practice for the life of the quarry and observance of the blast directions shown in figures 7 and 8 (of this report).

Management measures

Advise all residents within a 1km radius, (or as agreed) 24 hours in advance (Commitment 2) Monitor blasting at Mt Oriel Homestead to ensure compliance with standards

(Commitmento2) Modify blasting practices if required (Commitment 2)

Submissions

One public representor raised concerns about the impact of blasting on pregnant mares at their horse stud located approximately 1,500 metres away from the quarry.

One public representor queried the need for blasting, and the potential for damage to their “non-steel solid concrete house”

One public submission (GHD) queried the consistency between vibration modelling included in the DPEMP and the modelling presented to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC, now Tasmanian Planning Commission) in 2008 with regard to the quarry. It was also stated that another consultant (from GHD) who was monitoring blasts on that day did not record any vibration. It was also suggested that the effects of topography and meteorology had not been taken into account for the modelling of vibration. This representor noted that the DPEMP suggested that blasting within 160 metres of the Mt Oriel Homestead could be managed, and therefore the proponent should be required to manage blasting in the same way across the whole site in order to protect amenity. It was also stated that the development site is affected by Category V landslip which was not mentioned within the DPEMP.

DIER raised concerns in regard to the impact of blasting on adjacent rail infrastructure through reactivation of a landslip, and/or direct impact through ground vibration on the rail infrastructure.

Ben Lomond Water raised concerns in regard to the impact of blasting on the Breadalbane wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and a water pipeline to the south of the quarry.

Launceston Airport suggested a simple formal agreement was required to manage the notification of blasting to the airport control tower.

The supplement included a letter report from Terrock in response to the representations. The proponent responded that:


23

If GHD were monitoring the blast it is highly likely that their instrument did not trigger as they were outside the mapped 1mm/s effect contour.

The differences in data/modelling presented to the RPDC are due to the fact that the predictions presented at the RPDC hearings were based on blasting effects from the BIS quarry, while the modelling predictions in the DPEMP were based on the results of the test blast conducted on the Stornoway quarry.

Modelling did not take into account any effects of topography or of prevailing wind effects, as these do not affect low frequency noise and vibration from blasting significantly. In any case, ignoring these effects will result in the adoption of worst case conditions.

In response to the suggestion that the blast charges can also be reduced to allow for future residential development within the locality of the quarrying operation, the proponent stated that this was unacceptable because there must be a clear distinction between existing conditions (and use rights) such as the Mount Oriel homestead and other existing houses, and possible future residential developments.

As regards landslip, the zone is shown in Figures 2.3 and discussed in Section 3.1.3 of the DPEMP. There is no development proposed on Class V land and the development of any quarrying close to this zone will be subject to geotechnical analysis. By definition any land which is liable to landslip, cannot be hard rock and as such would not be a quarry product in any case.

Launceston Airport

Stornoway have entered in an agreement with Launceston Airport as to notifying the control tower prior to blasting (Agreement attached to Supplement as Appendix C).

Ben Lomond Water

The Breadalbane WWTP is closer to the BIS quarry than to the Stornoway quarry; and

The proponent was confident that the blasting will be well below any possible damage criteria.

DIER

The Terrock letter report commented on the potential for damage to rail infrastructure. In their opinion, the blasting would be very unlikely to cause a landslip to occur with resulting damage to the railway. The report also stated that railway infrastructure adjacent to coal mines in NSW are subjected to vibration levels over 80 mm/sec, and that the highest conservative level that the railway adjacent to the Stornoway quarry would be 4.3 mm/sec.

Evaluation

The modelling provided by Terrock to the proponent was based on data obtained from a blast carried out at the quarry in June 2009, and results from blasts conducted in the adjacent quarry. The Division noise specialist considers that the methods used were appropriate and the predictions are therefore reasonable. The modelling suggested that the standard limits for airblast and ground vibration can be met. These standard limits are; for 95% of blasts, air blast over pressure must not exceed 115dB (Lin Peak); air blast over pressure must not exceed 120dB (Lin Peak); for 95% of blasts ground vibration must not exceed 5mm/sec peak particle velocity; and ground vibration must not exceed 10mm/sec peak particle velocity. According to Terrock, if blasting is carried out as recommended by Terrock in their report (Appendix H of the DPEMP), the proponent should not exceed the proposed conditions (B2) relating to airblast and ground vibration. For several years this will require reduced explosive charges to prevent exceedances of airblast and ground vibration at Mt Oriel homestead.


24

Compliance with vibration and airblast limits would be determined through compliance with an approved Blast Monitoring Plan (B4). This plan (to be submitted to the Director for approval prior to any blasting on the Land) would include the location of all monitoring points, the parameters to be measured, and the frequency of the monitoring. As noted by Terrock, if recorded vibration or airblast levels are approaching the recommended limits, a reduction in levels can be attained through modification to the blasting procedure. These modifications would mean an increase in the cost of blasting to the proponent through requiring more drilling and increased number of blasts. The proposed vibration and airblast limits allow one blasting event in twenty to exceed the limits (up to 10 mm/sec and 120dB (Lin Peak) respectively). Considering that the modelling in part was based on monitoring a blast at Mt Oriel homestead, it is considered unlikely that experienced blasting consultants would exceed these levels at this site. Monitoring the first blast would provide additional data to ensure that the levels for further blasts are within the proposed limits. In the event that a blast exceeds 5 mm/sec peak particle velocity and/or 115dB (Lin Peak) air blast over pressure, the Director must be notified within seven days of the results being measured (N5). In relation to the representation from DIER, the Supplement provided data that suggested that ground vibration from blasting should not have an impact on rail infrastructure. The highest ground vibration level that the rails will be subjected to, using conservative analysis is 4·3mm/s. Typical ground vibration limits applied to rail infrastructure in the Hunter Valley coalfields (NSW) are 200mm/s on the rails and 80 - 100 mm/s on culverts, embankments and cuttings. Based on those data, it is considered highly unlikely that the predicted vibration levels would impact the rail line. In addition, the distance from the rail line to the proponent’s quarry is similar to the distance between the rail line and the BIS quarry, where blasting currently occurs. The Supplement also noted that the Ben Lomond Water WWTP was closer to the BIS quarry and that presumably the WWTP has not been damaged by that blasting to date. In relation to the water pipeline, it is a 63omm plastic pipe located to the south of the lease area. It is considered highly unlikely that ground vibration from blasting on the quarry would damage the pipeline (e-mail comm. Catherine Thomas, Ben Lomond Water). One public representor raised concerns in relation to the impact of blasting on the health of their horses. Their property is located approximately 1,500 metres from the quarry. This is a similar distance from their property to the Launceston airport and the BIS quarry where blasting has been conducted on approximately a monthly basis for many years. The representor did not state whether any horse had miscarried to date. The representor’s property is predicted to experience approximately 1omm/sec vibration and 105 dBL airblast during years 7-70 under worst case conditions. These levels are considered low with respect to human perception. Considering the existing noise etc from the airport and associated flight path, and blasting currently conducted at BIS quarry, it is considered that the proposed blasting will not add significantly to the noise levels currently experienced in this area. Another representor (GHD) suggested that because blasting within 160 metres can be managed, the proponent should be required to manage blasting in the same way across the whole site in order to protect amenity. There are existing residences within 1000 metres of the quarry (which is the SRAD for blasting). However, SRADs are a guideline, and “not intended to be automatically used as prohibition zones” (DELM, 1996). In addition to the distances, the topography of the area and actual noise and vibration level data should be considered. The modelling conducted by the proponent predicts that limits for blasting typically applied in Tasmania can be met at the existing houses through modifying blasting practices (at increased cost to the proponent) and modifying the direction that the quarry is developed in. These predictions are based on not causing environmental nuisance to the existing residences within the 1000 metre SRAD. Another public representor raised concerns about the impact of ground vibration from blasting on their concrete house that is not reinforced. The predicted vibration levels at their residence are less than 1 mm/sec for the first six years and less than 2 mm/sec thereafter. According to Appendix J of


25

the Australian Standard (AS 2187.2, Explosives – Storage and use, Part 2 Use of explosives) it would be extremely unlikely that even cosmetic damage would be caused at the predicted levels. The Division considers that it is appropriate that proponents must be responsible for ensuring that their operations do not impact on existing residences. However, the Division is also of the opinion that new residential developments should not be allowed within SRADs unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the residence would not be unreasonably impacted by the approved quarry operation. In the opinion of the Division, blasting impacts can be managed through compliance with the proposed blasting times, between 1000 hours and 1600 hours Monday to Friday (B1) and the airblast and vibration limits (B2), which are; for 95% of blasts, air blast over pressure must not exceed 115dB (Lin Peak); air blast over pressure must not exceed 120dB (Lin Peak); for 95% of blasts ground vibration must not exceed 5mm/sec peak particle velocity; and ground vibration must not exceed 10mm/sec peak particle velocity. It is also recommended that the proponent be required to notify residents within a 1,000 metre radius of the quarry at least 24 hours prior to each blast (B3). It is also recommended that the proponent be required to monitor blasts. This monitoring should be based on a blast monitoring plan which details methods, locations and frequency and has been approved by the Director (B4), and be required to report exceedances of the limits for 95% of blasts (5 mm/sec vibration and 115 dB for airblast) to the Director within seven days (N5).

Recommendations Relevant management commitments outlined in the DPEMP and summarised above should be included in permit. Standard conditions for the operation of a quarry, as routinely issued by the Director, should be included. B1 Blasting times B2 Blasting noise and vibration limits B3 Notification of blasting In addition, two non-standard conditions should be included: B4 Blast monitoring plan B5 Reporting of exceedances of noise and vibration limits

7 Other environmental issues

In addition to the key issues, the following environmental issues are considered relevant to the proposal and have also been evaluated.

1. Aboriginal heritage;

2. Atmospheric emissions (dust);

3. Flora and fauna;

4. Hazardous materials;

5. Off-site traffic

6. Rehabilitation;

7. Solid waste management;


26

8. Water management; and

9. Weed and pathogen management;

Details of this evaluation, along with recommended permit conditions, are contained in Appendix 1.

8 Conclusions

The Environment Division is of the view that:

(i) the RMPS and EMPCS objectives have been duly and properly pursued in the assessment of the proposal; and

(ii) the assessment of the proposal has been undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles; and

(iii) the recommendations set out in this report accord with the Board’s responsibilities in relation to these objectives and principles.

This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit application, DPEMP and DPEMP Supplement.

This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by Divisions of DPIPWE in relation to a number of key issues.

It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the recommendations made in this report are satisfactorily implemented, including the commitments made by the proponent in the DPEMP and DPEMP Supplement.


27

9 References

ANZECC, Technical basis for guidelines to minimise annoyance due to blasting overpressure and ground vibration, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. DELM, 1996. Environmental Assessment Manual, Department of Environment and Land Management, January 1996. John Miedecke and Partners, September 2009. Stornoway Quarrying Raeburn Quarry, Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan. John Miedecke and Partners, December 2009. Stornoway Quarrying Raeburn Quarry, Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan Supplement.

10 Summary of appendices

Appendix 1 Assessment of other environmental issues

Appendix 2 Summary of issues raised by public and agency submissions

Appendix 3 Proposed permit conditions, includes DPEMP Commitments at Attachment

Appendix 1 Assessment of other environmental issues

Issue

Aboriginal heritage

Description of potential impacts

The loss of heritage features within the Mining Lease area.

Management measures proposed in DPEMP

An Aboriginal Heritage survey was conducted and the report included in the DPEMP (Appendix G). The report stated that no sites were found within the Mining Lease area.

Public and agency comment

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) responded that a review of previous reports for the area and of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI) indicated that the likelihood of Aboriginal sites being present was low. AHT therefore had no objection to this development.

Evaluation

The advice of the AHT appears appropriate considering no sites were found.

Recommendation

Standard information on provisions of Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 regarding material encountered during construction or operation to be included in Schedule 3 of the permit.


28

Issue

Atmospheric emissions (dust)


The potential sources of dust from quarry operations are from drilling, blasting, crushing, screening, and loading trucks. Dust could also be generated from the operation of the concrete batching plant and dust from the transport of material offsite (off-site roads and uncovered loads).


Operate water sprays on crushing equipment (Commitment 3) Minimise surface disturbance (Commitment 3) Progressive rehabilitation of disturbed areas (Commitment 3) Watering of internal roads (Commitment 3) Maintain quarry roads routinely (Commitment 3)


One public representor suggested that the access road should be sealed, and that some form of dust monitoring should be required because they had seen dust being blown from the quarry in November 2009.

Evaluation

The nearest residence to the screening equipment is approximately 300 metres to the north. Management of dust emissions from extractive industry is generally achieved by maintaining adequate separation distance between these activities and sensitive use sites and compliance with standard permit conditions (see below). The SRAD for crushing is 750 metres but this distance is more in relation to noise rather than dust because particulate matter generated in the crushing and screening of rock will generally settle out of the atmosphere within 300 metres of its point of generation. One residence (Mt Oriel) is within 750 metres of the quarry. However, the owner of this residence has advised officers of the Division during a site visit that he is supportive of the operation and has not experienced unacceptable impacts from the quarry operation to date. The proposed management methods (Commitment 3) are considered appropriate. The other methods available to control dust are the requirement to cover vehicles (A1), controlling dust emissions from plant such as crushers and screens (A2) using methods such as water sprays etc, and a requirement to control dust emissions from the quarry in general (storage heaps, internal roads etc) (A3). These proposed conditions are standard for quarries, and in the experience of the Division, compliance with these conditions will minimise the likelihood of impacts from dust. In relation to the suggestion that dust monitoring should be required, it is the opinion of the Division, that such monitoring in an agricultural setting is likely to generate highly ambiguous results and should not be required, unless it is demonstrated that dust is causing an environmental nuisance. To date the Division has not received any complaints in relation to this quarry. It is not recommended that the proponent be required to monitor dust fallout.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit conditions A1 (covering of vehicles), A2 (control of dust emissions from plant), and A3 (control of dust emissions), and the non-standard condition G6 (commitments)


29

Issue

Flora and fauna habitat


Impacts on natural values within the Land.


According to the DPEMP, the mining lease has been classified as having no endangered species. No management measures were provided in the DPEMP.


Advice from Resource Management and Conservation (RMC), a Division of DPIPWE is that it is considered unlikely that the proposal would have a significant impact on natural values within the site.

Evaluation

A survey was conducted by the consultants North Barker to assess the likelihood of pathogens such as Phytophthora cinnamomi, and weeds being present on the site. It could be assumed that if any threatened flora had been present, the consultants would have reported their presence.

Recommendation

There are no recommendations relating to protection of natural values.

Issue

Hazardous materials


Contamination of surface and groundwater, and the Land.


According to the DPEMP:

Aboveground fuel and chemical additive storage areas will be sealed with an impervious material and bunded to contain spills and leaks; and

All used oils etc are stored and taken offsite for appropriate disposal; and oil spill kits are maintained on site.


No issues were raised in relation to hazardous materials.

Evaluation

The management methods proposed for storage areas are considered appropriate. It is recommended the applicant be required to maintain spill kits on site and comply with the undertakings in the DPEMP and best practice environmental management (BPEM).

Recommendation

It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit conditions H1 (storage and handling of hazardous materials), G2 (compliance with EMP and BPEM), and G9 (provision of spill kits).


30

Issue

Off-site traffic

Description of potential impacts Dust and noise impacts resulting from the increase in traffic along the access road (Raeburn Road, also known as Holly Mount Right of Way) to the quarry relating to the increase in production from 58,000 m3 to 200,000 m3 gravel. Management measures proposed in DPEMP Hours of operations to permit conditions (Commitment 7).No transportation on Sundays or gazetted public holidays (Commitment 7). 40 km/h truck speed limit on Raeburn Road (Commitment 7). Public and agency comment

One public representor raised concerns about dust generation related to increased truck movements along Raeburn Road. According to the Supplement, Stornoway will increase the road width to 6.5m and extend the sealed section 100m past the Blythe residence and verges will be grassed in this area.

Evaluation

The access road to the quarry is approximately 800 metres long between Hobart Road and the site boundary. According to the DPEMP, the proponent maintains this road. There are two residential properties adjacent to the access road. One, the Blyth property (with two residences) is adjacent to Hobart Road and the road is sealed in front of the property. Another property is several hundred metres past this property and the road is unsealed. The access road to Mt Oriel homestead is off this road. The increase in traffic along the access road would be expected to lead to an increase in dust during dry periods. The traffic impact study commissioned by the proponent (Appendix C of the DPEMP) suggested that vehicle movements associated with the quarry could increase to 210 movements per day. This traffic would merge with the 2600 vehicle movements on Hobart road. While the Division has not received any complaints in relation to this quarry to date, it is proposed that the proponent should be required to ensure that quarry traffic does not cause environmental nuisance to residences adjacent to this roadway (G11). This condition should be able to be met through the management measures. In addition, the proponent has the option of using water carts to manage dust. Another option, in the event that environmental nuisance is being caused, is for the proponent to seal additional parts of the road. It is also proposed that trucks should be required to cover their loads (A1). After discussion of this issue at the Board, EPA meeting, The Board directed that an additional clause be added to condition G11 (Access road). This clause is G11(2) and states “The access road must be sealed and maintained, to the satisfaction of the Director, at least one hundred metres either side of the residence located at 805 Hobart Road Breadalbane, PID 1904386)”.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard permit conditions A1, and non-standard condition G11 (Access road) and G6 (commitments).


31

Issue

Rehabilitation


Erosion and visual impact


According to the DPEMP, the quarry plan involves lowering the quarry floor to form a pit, which makes progressive rehabilitation difficult until that section is worked out and the quarry advances to the south (in approximately 20 years time). Long term, the quarry will be rehabilitated by dozing the walls to a gradual slope and replacing overburden and topsoil. Consultants prepared rehabilitation guidelines for the proponent (AppendixoE).

Strip and stockpile topsoil and overburden as per the guidelines (Commitment 12) Revegetate disturbed areas progressively (Commitment 12) Ongoing weed control (Commitment 12)


One public representation suggested that rehabilitation of the site must be adequately managed to ensure successful rehabilitation. The Land Conservation Branch (RMC) suggested that measures were required to control declared weeds on the site.

Evaluation

Declared weeds were recorded on this site and have been controlled through spraying. It is recommended that the control of weeds be part of the proposed condition requiring the submission and approval of a rehabilitation plan (R6). The Division accepts that the proponent will not be able to progressively rehabilitate the quarry until the quarry floor has been dropped. However, the proponent has stated that the boundaries of the pit can be rehabilitated. This part of the rehabilitation should be undertaken as early as possible to provide visual screening and to assist in managing dust from the Land. In the opinion of the Division, issues relating to rehabilitation can be managed through compliance with the following standard conditions. R1 requiring notification of cessation, R2 requirement for a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan within 30 days of notification of cessation, R3 detailing requirements for the stockpiling of surface soil, R4 rehabilitation on cessation, and R5 Suspension of activity. It is recommended that the proponent be required to report on the success of rehabilitation as part of the five yearly reporting required under condition G10

Recommendation

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard permit conditions R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5, G10, and non-standard condition R6, and G6 (commitments)


32

Issue

Solid waste management


Contamination of surface and groundwater, and the Land.

Management measures proposed in DPEMP According to the DPEMP, Wastes are managed in accordance with the waste management hierarchy, all solid wastes will be disposed of in animal proof containers (in the quarry area) and the contents disposed of to a licensed waste disposal facility on a weekly basis. Public and agency comment

No issues were raised in relation to solid waste.

Evaluation

The management measures are considered appropriate. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with the waste management hierarchy (WM1).

Recommendation

It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit conditions G2 (compliance with EMP and BPEM), and WM1 (waste management hierarchy).


33

Issue

Water management


The potential impacts on off-site surface waters, or groundwater are from contaminated stormwater (such as suspended sediment or hydrocarbons), and effluent from the concrete batching plant.


According to the DPEMP water will be managed on site by:

Directing all surface drainage into the pit itself, then to existing settling basins (to provide storm surge capacity and reduce flow rates);

When the floor is no longer free draining to the ponds (through lowering the pit floor), water will then be pumped to the sediment dams, or other storages for reuse.

All maintenance and refueling areas in the quarry will be bunded and any spillage will be cleaned up. An oil spill kit will be maintained on site.

Sediment ponds will be sized to manage 1 in 50 year recurrence interval storm (1hr).

Maintain existing settling ponds and improve as necessary (Commitment 9).


DIER (Rail Section) raised concerns that stormwater discharge from the settling ponds under the railway line could undermine that infrastructure.

Ben Lomond water suggested that the use of effluent from the Breadalbane wastewater treatment plant should be investigated.

Northern Midlands Council (NMC) suggested that groundwater needed to be sampled to measure water quality.

One public submission queried where the water would be sourced from for the concrete batching plant.

The proponent responded in the Supplement that water collected in the settlement ponds would be used for dust suppression and the concrete batching plant. Therefore less water would be discharged from the site than presently. The proponent also stated they would investigate the use of treated wastewater from the Breadalbane WWTP.

Evaluation

The most significant impact from discharge from the site relates to effluent generated within the concrete batching plant area. This type of effluent can be turbid and very alkaline and therefore have a significant impact on the pH of any receiving waters. It is recommended that the proponent be required to submit a construction plan for the concrete batching plant (CN1) which details the management of water from this area. It is suggested that this area should be bunded and all effluent directed to a dedicated dam. Proposed condition EF1 would prevent discharge from that dam to any area off the Land. In the opinion of the Division, impacts from stormwater and batching plant effluent can be managed through the measures above, and compliance with these proposed conditions and standard conditions E1 (requirement for perimeter drains), E2 (water quality requirements for stormwater discharged from the Land), and E3 (maintenance of settling ponds). When these measures are complied with, there is minimal potential for pollution of groundwater.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with non-standard permit conditions CN1 and EF1, and standard permit conditions E1, E2, and E3.


34

Issue

Weed and pathogen management


Spread of weeds and pathogens, on the Land, and off the Land through recycling of soil material, and truck movements.


No management measures were provided as regards the potential spread of weeds and pathogens via the recycling of soil material.


The Northern Midlands Council (NMC) submission suggested that weed inspections should be conducted quarterly. The Land Conservation Branch (RMC) recommended that a weed and hygiene plan was required to manage the potential impact of weed transfer.

Evaluation

The comments from the NMC and Land Conservation Branch appear appropriate. The frequency of weed inspections can be dealt with through the proposed condition requiring a rehabilitation plan (R6). The spread of weeds and pathogens can be managed through a Weed and Plant Pathogen Management Plan (FF1). It is considered that compliance with these approved plans, and the commitments above, should be adequate to manage this issue.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with non-standard permit conditions FF1 (Weed and Plant Pathogen Management Plan), R6 (rehabilitation plan) and G6 (commitments).


35

Appendix 2 Summary of issues raised by public and agency submissions

Northern Midlands Council requested the following information from the proponent during the advertising period.

Chapter Section Page Comment 4 4.7 50-52 Request that the traffic impact assessment includes an

assessment of the traffic generated by the concrete batching operation.

4 4.8.1 54 Request estimate of the amount of water required by the concrete batching operation from external water supply.

A. Public Submissions Three public representations were received and issues raised were: Issue Relates to:

E: Environment C: Council

Action required by proponent

Attenuation Areas: Considered that attenuation areas described in DPEMP are not Council policy.

C Address

Noise and vibration modelling: Inconsistency between data presented in the DPEMP and that presented to RPDC at a previous hearing.

E Address

Blasting: Impact on adjacent residences. E Address Land stability: Not enough reference to presence of Category V land.

E and C Address

Visual impact: Insufficient information relating to the visual impact of the proposed operation.

C Address

Regional tourism: Impacts on regional tourism not considered.

C Address

Concrete batching plant: Insufficient information provided. Suggest that hours of operation should be same as that for the quarry operation (i.e. 7-00AM start). Suggestion that plant should be located in a commercial/industrial precinct.

E Address

Operations: Suggested that truck movements associated with the batching plant have not been considered. Access road should be sealed to minimise dust. Stated that operation is non-compliant with permit (trucks removing product from quarry at 5-30AM, when operating hours are 7-00AM to 7-00PM). Consider that traffic impacts are unacceptable.

E Address

Rehabilitation: Consider that rehabilitation of quarries in the area to date have been lacking. What guarantees can be provided that progressive rehabilitation will take place.

E Address

Property valuations: Considered that the proposal (including proposed attenuation zones) will have a negative impact on surrounding property values, and potential uses.

C Address


36

B. Referral Agency Comments Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources

Issue Relates to E: Environment C: Council


Protection of rail infrastructure from blasting/landslip E Address Roads: noted that monitoring of traffic volumes will be necessary in order to predict timing for need of a right turn auxiliary lane.

C

C. Other Agency Comments Agency/Issue Relates to

E: Environment C: Council


Launceston Airport The proposed development is located beneath protected airspace.

C Address

Ben Lomond Water: Require assurance that their infrastructure (pipelines and Breadalbane wastewater treatment plant) will not be damaged as a result of blasting.

E Address


37

Appendix 3 Proposed permit conditions

Documents

Breadalbane Stornoway Quarrying · wetlands in the vicinity of the quarry. The nearest sensitive receptor in other ownership is the Mount Oriel homestead, 250m north of the quarry,