Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan...The proposed Joseph Cromy residential development immediately to the east of the quarry was the subject of an RPDC hearing

Stor noway Quar r y ing

John Miedecke & Partners Pty Ltd • December 2009

Raeburn Quarry

Development Proposal andEnvironmental Management Plan

Final

Supplement

Stornoway Quarrying Raeburn Quarry DPEMP Supplement _____________________________________________________________________

john miedecke and partners pty ltd

CONTENTS A. Public Submissions ................................................................................................................ 1 B. Referral Agency Comments ................................................................................................ 10 Appendix A Submissions Appendix B Terrock Letter report Appendix C Launceston airport agreement

Stornoway Raeburn Quarry DPEMP Supplement -


1

A. Public Submissions Three submissions were received from the public, two independently and an additional 24 were received in a report prepared by GHD. The same two submissions were also listed as representors in the GHD submission.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RAISED – GHD Submission Attenuation areas The DPEMP addressed attenuation areas in Sect 3.3.3.6, and included a map of areas proposed as attenuation areas around ALL quarries in the area which have been proposed as a planning amendment by the Northern Midlands Council.

Stornoway did not have any input into these proposed zones and is aware of the community concerns.

The specific blast vibration and noise studies which were carried out by Terrock and VIPAC and presented in the DPEMP were intended to provide information for proposed attenuation areas based on the effects of blasting and quarry operations. It is expected that NMC will use these zones in formulating modified zone boundaries. Noise and vibration modelling GHD requested additional information on a test blast carried out on 11 June 2009. The report on this blast is attached.

The blast was carried out at 14.05 on 11 June 2009. The test was specifically designed to provide site specific information from blasting on site so that anticipated ground vibration and airblast effect contours could be generated. 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.

Future ground vibration predictions GHD noted that the predicted contours of ground vibration at the Joseph Cromy property were not consistent with predictions presented in the RPDC hearings in 2008. These differences are due to the fact that the predictions presented at the RPDC hearings were NOT based on site specific information for blasting at the Stornoway Raeburn quarry. They were based on blasting effects from the BIS quarry and this was quite clearly stated at the Hearings. The test blast in June 2009 at the Stornoway quarry was specifically intended to provide the required site specific information required to generate the predicted contours. This has resulted in the revised contours presented in the Terrock report and the DPEMP. It is suggested that these could be adopted for appropriate attenuation zones around the quarry.

Future airblast predictions GHD also noted that the predicted contours of airblast at the Joseph Cromy estate were also not consistent. As noted above, this is due to the revised modelling from site specific blast information.



2

Prevailing wind conditions 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. Ignoring these effects will result in the adoption of conservative conditions. Sensitive use locations The test blast was specifically designed to test for ground conditions and blast effects in proximity to the blast site, in particular the closest EXISTING sensitive use, the Mount Oriel homestead. As noted in the DPEMP and the Terrock report, adjustment of the specified blasting specifications are required for blasts closer than 300m to this house to control air and ground vibration to the regulatory limits. This is specified as Stage A in Table 4.2 (the initial years 1-6 operations). In Stage B, there is a further need to adjust the front row burden for north facing blasts to achieve regulatory compliance. This will result in increased blasting cost.

GHD have suggested that the blast charges can also be reduced to allow for future residential development within the locality of the quarrying operation – presumably closer. This is not acceptable to Stornoway as there must be a clear distinction between existing conditions (and use rights) such as the Mount Oriel homestead and other existing houses, rather than possible future residential developments. The proposed Joseph Cromy residential development immediately to the east of the quarry was the subject of an RPDC hearing in 2008. The Commissioners heard considerable argument from the proponents, experts representing the quarry operators and government authorities. They decided to reject the proposed development, based on incompatible use and the strategic importance of the resource. As a result of the findings, (and a past history of allowing residences building permits within the attenuation zone of the planning scheme), the Northern Midlands Council are currently proposed an attenuation zone around the quarries (Mining Leases) in the area.

Stornoway have produced appropriate attenuation zone mapping around its proposed development, to allow for a reduced attenuation zone compared to the Council proposals, to assist other nearby landowners. However it will oppose any relaxation of these boundaries as shown in the DPEMP.

Land stability GHD maintain that land stability was not considered and in particular that the proposal may not comply with the Northern Midlands Planning Scheme provisions which prohibits development within Category V area in the Tamar Valley Landslip zone mapping. 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.

Visual impact The DPEMP Section 4.6 deals with visual effects. The DPEMP states “Currently, the quarry operations are virtually in-evident from the south, east and north, because of



3

the sunken nature of the pit. From the east, the only evidence is the slight change in profile, and when “fresh”, overburden and/or topsoil stockpiles as a typical basalt chocolate colour. This is similar to the BIS quarry stockpiles. The change in profile is not intrusive, as it fits into the landscape character.”

The visibility of the quarry from the south was raised an issue in the GHD submission, as well as several other public submissions. In particular, GHD stated that: “Vehicles travelling north along Old Hobart Road, north-west from the airport between the Translink Industrial Park and the Breadalbane Junction, as well as traffic proceeding to Launceston on the Midland Highway will view the site”. The visibility of the proposed quarry extension from these sites was reviewed and is discussed below, with photographs. There is an existing slight rise in topography that is the site of the quarry area which provides an indication of the quarry site. Photograph 1 shows the quarry pit located behind this rise. Quarry plans shown in Section 2 indicate that the next 15 years or so production will be located in this area with the quarry faces advancing to the south and west, with this “rise” removed. Bunds of topsoil and overburden will be constructed and revegetated at the edge of the excavation. Photograph 2 shows a revegetated bund.

The extremities of the excavation will be created in the next 3 years or so with the pit then being deepened to provide 15 years or so production (see Figures 2.5-2.6).

Views are considered from vehicles travelling north along Old Hobart Road (ie near Breadalbane), north-west from the airport between the Translink Industrial Park and the Breadalbane Junction and traffic proceeding to Launceston on the Midland Highway to the Breadalbane roundabout.

Views from Old Hobart Road near Breadalbane Road are restricted along it entire length and only glimpses are possible between gaps in trees and houses, The quarry site is not visible from north of the access road. Photo 3 shows a view just south of the junction, at the only site the “rise” can be seen in this area. Photo 4 shows a view from the southern end of Old Hobart Road and Photo 5 from the original Raeburn House. In all cases it can be seen that the “rise” is shielded to some degree and not on the skyline. In all cases views of the quarry will be in-evident. Photo 6 shows views on the road north-west from the airport between the Translink Industrial Park and the Breadalbane Junction. They are highly constrained by the foreground views of industrial buildings and trees and only brief glimpses of the rise are visible. Photos 7 and 8 shows a view from Highway 1 approaching the Breadalbane roundabout. Again views of the rise are constrained by the foreground views of the roadway, telephone poles, buildings and vegetation, and only brief glimpses of the rise are visible. These support the statements in the DPEMP.The proposed visual impact monitoring programme, involving photographs, will monitor changes and provide guidance for ongoing quarry development. If additional tree screening or other activities are required these can be reviewed and implemented at the EMP review periods.



4

Photograph 1: Existing quarry

Photograph 2: Revegetated bund (eastern side)

quarry operations

the “rise”

face advanced with topography as a shiel



5

Photograph 3: View from Old Hobart Road 100m S of access road junction

Photograph 4: View from Old Hobart Road 300m S of access road junction (near residence)

The “rise”

The “rise”



6

Photograph 5: View from near Raeburn House (off Old Hobart Road)

Photograph 6: View from near Translink area

The “rise”



7

Photograph 7: View from Highway 1 approaching Breadalbane Roundabout

Photograph 8: View from Highway at Breadalbane Roundabout

The “rise”

The “rise”



8

Regional tourism GHD also raised concerns regarding effects on regional tourism. Presumably because of landscape effects as there will be no other impacts on tourism. There is reference to a northern gateway at the confluence of the Launceston airport, Evandale Road, Hobart Road collector and Midland Highway arterial roads. These all converge at the Breadalbane Roundabout.

As noted in the DPEMP, and confirmed in the preceding section, the quarry operations will be virtually in-evident and there will be insignificant impact on regional tourism. Concrete batching plant No details were provided of a concrete batching plant as these are undecided. The appropriate Council building permits will be required before a plant is procured and constructed. Photograph 9 below shows a typical batch plant. As this will be constructed on the pit floor it will not be visible outside the pit.

Several submissions suggested that the concrete plant should be located in the industrial zone. This is possible, but would result in additional traffic as the coarse aggregate and crusher dust which makes up the largest part of the concrete mix, would require transport from the quarry. There would be dust and noise issues which would need to be addressed.

Photograph 9: Typical concrete batch plant



9

Operations Access and vehicle movements Access is via what is called Raeburn Road as it provides access to the Raeburn Property. This road is also known as Holly Mount Right of Way. Two residences on the Blyth property are close to the road. Quarry operations will result in a significant increase in production and these are discussed in the DPEMP and the accompanying Traffic Impact Assessment. DIER has indicated that they support the TIA conclusions and recommendations.

No account was made in the TIA for concrete production, as this was uncertain at the time the TIA was done and still is. The estimated increase in traffic discussed below. However, these were estimated in the DPEMP (Section 4.7) The TIA assessed the peak hour traffic of some 45 vehicles (per hour), or some 210 per day. Based on full quarry production, an average (ie over 300 days, 12 hr days etc) truck movement is 4 per hour (45 per day). Therefore, the peak estimate is some 10 times the average and is likely to be conservative.

The DPEMP states that the average traffic from the concrete production and recycling may be in the order of 7 truck movements per day. These have been recalculated and average is likely to be in the order of 12-14 per day (ie 1.5 to 2 per hour). Due to the nature of the concrete plant it is not possible to load more than one concrete truck at a time and therefore the impact on the stated peak hour movement of 45, is not significant.

These traffic movements are well under the road capacity, especially with the planned increase in road width and resealing of the roadway.

Stornoway will increase the road width to 6.5m and extend the sealed 100m past the Blythe residence. Verges will be grassed in this area.

Hours of operations The proposed operating hours are as set out in the quarry code of practice and Stornoway will comply with these hours, which are expected to be in permit conditions. Stornoway will place signs to indicate that trucks are not to enter the quarry before 6.30am and inform all drivers that they are to be considerate as regards noise impacts on neighbours and also turn off engine brakes. The quarry access gate will be locked until 630am Specific requests may be made for operations outside these hours.

For the concrete plant, it is proposed that these hours will be the same, except that it is requested that the hours can be expanded on request to take into account specific contracts. This is not unusual. Rehabilitation A comprehensive rehabilitation plan has been detailed in the DPEMP. However, the quarry plans which have been developed to minimise surface area disturbance, visual, noise and blasting effects result in a ‘pit’ being developed and advancing to the south. This limits the possibility of progressive rehabilitation until the pit(s) are worked out.

Progressive rehabilitation will be conducted as described on stockpiled soil and overburden.



10

Compliance Stornoway has undertaken to comply with the permit conditions and the Quarry Code of Practice. They will also assist with any site visits by the EPA and MRT and cooperate with directives/assistance in environmental management to be a good neighbour to other land users in the area. As the existing operations have a history of nil complaints this indicates a good corporate attitude.

Screen planting and vegetation management Stornoway have undertaken to construct bunds etc and operate the quarry to minimise visibility and any adverse effects. This will be reviewed as part of ongoing monitoring and additional screening, tree planting etc will be considered if required. However the use of the balance of the property for agricultural production cannot be ignored.

Atmospheric emissions These will be controlled as required by the permit conditions and the Quarry Code. Prevailing winds are away from residences.

Noise emissions Noise emissions will be monitored and any complaints addressed. The VIPAC assessment indicates that it will only long term operations that may generate significant noise levels.

It is noted that the area is located within the Launceston Airport ANEF noise zones and that regular air traffic is a major intermittent noise source. This includes freight services late at night and early morning. Property valuations There are many developments and changes in a neighbourhood which affect quality of life and property values, including planning and zoning. The quarry has been in operation for almost 25 years and predates many of the residences in the area. It is in an area which has other quarry operations and with good environmental practices will be in-evident to residences surrounding the quarry.

Two Private Submissions Independent representors (also listed in GHD submission) were made. Most of the issues raised are addressed in the preceding section. It is noted that both properties are for sale and may have been affected by the proposed Council attenuation areas. There were several allegations about truck movements as early as 0445am. These are refuted by the quarry manager, who has pointed out that the quarry is not manned before 6am and that the access gate is locked. Therefore, it is pointless for trucks carting material to use the road before these hours. Proposed operating hours and procedures are discussed on page 9.

Water usage has been raised and Stornoway will investigate the use of the treated wastewater from the WWTP owned by Ben Lomond Water.



11

B Referral Agency Comments Northern Midlands Council

Summary of key issues Two main issues were raised, these were water quality – relating to salinity and weed control.

Possible impacts on the quality of water entering the watershed and the water table.

Land salinity investigations are reported in Bastick and Walker, 2000 . (Bastick C.H and Walker M.G. 2000. Extent and impacts of Dryland Salinity in Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, 2000). This report describes the work carried out to quantify the extent and impacts of dryland salinity in Tasmania for the National Land and Water Resource Audit.This report detailed the findings of a site wide survey.

Given the district nature of salinity distribution in Tasmania, the emphasis was on reporting by land systems containing salinity which can be related in particular to Local Government Authority boundaries, as well as catchments. Levels of salinity were defined as;

The land systems containing areas of salinity are shown in Table 1

.The development is planned on the Breadalbane land system which is developed on tertiary basalt. This is not one of the land systems which is included in Table 1 and there is no evidence of any salinity in the area. Water analyses from water collected in the settling basin is shown in Table 2. This indicates that the waters are of low (very) salinity.

Based on the above it is therefore assumed that the area is not likely to be a significant salinity hazard.

However, this issue was discussed with DPIPWE staff and it is understood that there are some areas of both basalts and dolerites which can have saline waters in some areas. Regular water sampling (annually) is therefore proposed for the settling basins and any resource definition drill holes.



12

Table 2 Water Quality LOCATION Raeburn Quarry

Pit sediment

pond Date Flow standing PARAMETER Mar-09 pH units 6.9 Cond µS/cm 121 Alkalnity 25 TDS NFR (suspended solids) (mg/l) 192 Chloride mg/l Sulphate mg/l Ca mg/l 27 Oil and grease <1 Nutrients Nitrogen, Total mg-N/L 0.85 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg-N/L 0.54 Phosphorus, Total mg-P/L 0.315

Weed inspections and treatment, and weed identification training. Stornoway will liase with the Council regarding weed eradication. The reuse of recycled water from the Ben Lomond wastewater treatment plant will be investigated.



13

Roads & Public Transport (DIER)

The DIER submission supports the findings of the TIA and the proposed upgrades. Other issues raised are:

rail impact, in particular drainage

landslip and impact of blasting

Stornoway will consult with DIER regarding all their concerns. Drainage DIER are concerned that groundwater overflow from sediment basins will be directed across the rail alignment in two places and that this is contrary to the Rail infrastructure legislation. This states;

Firstly the proposed development does not adjoin the rail network.

Secondly, the sediment basins will not be collecting groundwater (the water table is deeper than the quarry floor) and the only water collected will be incident rainfall. As the water will be collected and used in the process (for dust control and concrete manufacture), there will as a result be less water (and lower peak flows as the flows will be retarded) flowing to the drainage than is already existing. Landslip The possibility of the quarry operations (presumably blasting) possibly reactivating an old slipe site was raised as a concern. Terrock Consulting Engineers were asked to comment on this possibility (together with blasting effects – see next section). There letter report is attached as Appendix B. They conclude that “the evidence is that there is a substantial factor of safety for the highest levels of vibration that any land slips will be exposed to from blasting in the quarry extension”.



14

Impact of blasting DIER are also understandably concerned about other possible blasting effects on their rail infrastructure and request that the rail line be considered a sensitive site and b subject to monitoring.

Terrock have commented on the NSW experiences and requirements for large blasts at coal mines in proximity to rail tracks.

Terrock state that typical ground vibration limits applied to ARTC infrastructure are 200mm/s on the rails and 0 -100 mm/s on culverts, embankments and cuttings.

As these are 80 times (ie 5mm/sec vs 200mm/sec) higher than the anticipated vibration levels it is concluded that there is minimal risk to the infrastructure from blast vibration. Ben Lomond Water Ben Lomond water have similarly raised issues with the effects of blasting on its infrastructure. The Breadalbane wastewater treatment plant is located to the south of the quarry and a water pipeline is located along the southern boundary. It is noted that this infrastructure is located closer to the BIS quarry than the Stornoway. They have requested that conditions be imposed which include:

• blast information be provide prior to blasting at each stage of the quarry development;

• that blasts be monitored; and • that any damage be rectified.

Stornoway are confident that the blasting effects will be well below any possible damage criteria. Table 3 shows the appropriate Australian Standard.

Ben Lomond have also advised that treated effluent from the Breadalbane wastewater treatment may be available. Stornoway will consider the use of this water if external water sources are required.

Table 3



15

Launceston Airport

The authority has no objections to the development, but have requested that an agreement is required to ensure that they are provided advanced notification of blasting. A copy of the agreement is attached in Appendix C.



16

Appendix A Submissions



17

Appendix B Terrock Letter report

JMP- 0903_261109.doc - 1 - Terrock

TERROCK Consulting Engineers

TERROCK PTY. LTD.

A.B.N. 99 005 784 841

P O Box 829

Eltham Vic 3095

Phone: (03) 9431 0033

Fax: (03) 9431 1810

URL: http://terrock.com.au

Email: [email protected]

Alan B. Richards B.Sc.(Tech), F.I.E.Aust., F.Aust.I.M.M.,F.I.Q.

Adrian J. Moore Dip.C.E.,B.E.(Min.), M.Eng.Sc., M.I.E.Aust.

11 December 2009

REVISION 1

John Miedecke

[email protected]

REF: STORNOWAY QUARRYING – RAEBURN QUARRY EXTENSION

BREADALBANE

Dear John,

Following your request for comment on the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources

letter to the Northern Midlands Council regarding the Raeburn Quarry extension in the matter of

Rail impact, I reply as follows:

The planned limit of extraction at its closest point is about 360m from the rails. The highest

ground vibration level that the rails will be subjected to, using conservative analysis is 4·3mm/s.

A ‘sensitive site’ as defined by the ANZECC ‘Technical Basis for Guideline to minimize

Annoyance due to Blasting Overpressure and Ground Vibration’ is a residence, hospital or

school. The 5mm/s limit is a limit to minimize annoyance to humans and is not a structure limit.

To put the issue of blasting near rail lines and any associated risk into perspective, we could

make a comparison with the Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited (ARTC) who is the body

for responsible for railway lines in N.S.W. There are many coal mines that have operated closer

than 200m to heavily trafficked rail lines in the Hunter Valley of N.S.W. For mines that regularly

use 229mm diameter blast holes containing 1 – 2 tonnes of explosives per blasthole in their over

burden blasts, ARTC requires that a Blasting Deed with the mine is entered into. Essential

elements of a typical Blasting Deed are:

Category A type blasting: - Blasting which is assessed as not posing a significant risk to ARTC

infrastructure operations or safety. Unrestricted blasting to within 500m of the rails providing a

visual inspection that the rail line is clear of trains within 2 km in either direction at the time of

the blast.

Category B type blasting: - Blasting which is assessed as posing a significant risk…..

Blasting is permitted to within 200m of the rail line during short notice possessions obtained

from ARTC at least 16 days prior to the blast. The mine shall take possession of the track by way

of an ARTC recognized Protection Officer for the blast.

Category B type blasting requiring engineering assessments and post blast inspection – Blasting

is permitted to within less than 100m of the rail line if a specific engineering assessment is

JMP- 0903_261109.doc - 2 - Terrock

conducted and if the track is inspected after the blast for flyrock, track damage and embankment

and cutting damage.

Typical ground vibration limits applied to ARTC infrastructure are 200mm/s on the rails and

80 - 100 mm/s on culverts, embankments and cuttings. The mine agrees to pay for all losses,

expenses etc. suffered by the ARTC which arises from blasting operations.

A similar Deed between the owners/managers of the rail line may be appropriate for Tasmania.

Regarding the sub heading Landslip, landslips do not result from ground vibration from quarry

blasts. They are usually caused by other mechanisms such as vegetation removal, ground water

and poor drainage issues. An appreciation of the possible effect of ground vibration on landslips

can be gained from the observational approach of Dowrick in “Modified Mercalli earthquake

intensity scale: revisions arising in Bulletin of the NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering”. The

observed effects of earthquakes are summarized in Table 1.

The comparison between earthquakes and ground vibration is considered to be conservative

because:

• Earthquakes have lower frequencies and therefore have larger

displacements for the same PPV’s

• Earthquakes have longer durations – minutes compared to seconds

• Earthquakes are often followed by aftershocks

The first observations of slope movement is at Modified Mercalli (MM) VIII which is the

approximate equivalent of 180mm/s, when ‘small to moderate slides in roadside cuttings and

unsupported excavations’ are noted. Professor Fell (et al) in “Geotechnical Engineering of

Dams” produced a similar table (Table 2) which lists ‘small slides and caving in along sand and

gravel banks’ at MM VII (90mm/s) and ‘cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes’ at MM VIII

(180mm/s). Therefore, it may be concluded that vibration at very high levels (90 – 180 mm/s)

may contribute to land slips and slope instability.

The evidence is that there is a substantial factor of safety for the highest levels of vibration that

any land slips will be exposed to from blasting in the quarry extension.

Hope this satisfies your request. Please ring to discuss if you have other concerns.

Regards,

Adrian Moore

JMP- 0903_261109.doc - 3 - Terrock

Table 1

Ref: Dowrick Table of Earthquake Response

JMP- 0903_261109.doc - 4 - Terrock

Table 2

Ref: Prof. Fell et.al. ‘Geotechnical Engineering of Dams’

Intensity Effects

I Not felt. Marginal and long period effects of large earthquakes.

II Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favourably placed.

III Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light

trucks. Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake.

IV Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks or

sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking the walls. Standing motor

cars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery

clashes. In the upper range of IV wood walls and frames creak.

V Felt outdoors, duration estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids

disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset.

Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clocks

stop, start, change rate.

VI Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk

unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books,

etc. off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned.

Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school).

Trees, bushes shaken (visibly, or heard to rustle – CFR).

VII Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects

quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks.

Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones,

tiles, cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments –

CFR). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with

mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large

bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.

VIII Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C, partial collapse.

Some damage to masonry B, none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and

some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks,

monuments, towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on

foundations if not bolted down; panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling

broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or

temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep

slopes.

IX General panic. Masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged,

sometimes with complete collapse; masonry B seriously damaged.

(General damage to foundations – CFR). Frame structures, if not

bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames cracked. Serious damage to

reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in

ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake

fountains, sand craters.

X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations.

Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious

damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown

on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally

on beacheads and flat land. Rails bent slightly.

XI Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service.

XII Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and

level distorted. Objects thrown into the air.



18

Appendix C Launceston airport agreement

NRFC 10790 RR

AIRSERVICES AUSTRAL IA

lnstruction Sheet

TO Brett Hoyle,Quarry Manager,Stornoway QuarryP. O. Box 196,Kings Meadows. TAS7249

FROM Rhonda Rowe,Documentation Services. Melbourne. Safetv and EnvironmentAirservices Australia.

SUBJECT Letter of Agreement 3104, Version 1, dated 2 Ju12009.'Blasting at Raeburn Quarry'.

Action Please find enclosed 2 copies of the above mentioned LOA,Required

l. Sign all copies in the space provided,

2. Fax the signed page of the LOA to (03) 9339 2623,

3. Retain a copy for your records,

4. Forward the rernaining LOA, as soon as possible to:

Rhonda RoweoDocumentation Services, MelbourneAirservices Australia,P. O. Box 10930Tullamarine. VIC 3043

Any queries? Please do not hesitate to call me on (03) 9339 2121 should you have anyquestions or require more information regarding the above.

II

tt

Document sent 16 Jun 2009Express Post lnstruction SheetPage I of I

AIRSERVICES AUSTRAL IA

Letter of Agreement 3104Version 1

Between Airservices Australia/Regional Services (Launceston Tower)Stornoway Quarrying

a

o

Subject Blasting at Raeburn euarry

validitv Period This-Letter of Agreanent shall be effective from 2 Jal2009 and will remainin effect until mutually amended or cancelled.

Signatories The following signatories have ratified this Agreement:

Barry SynottManager Regional ServicesAir Traffic ControlAirservices Australia

Brett HoyleQuarry ManagerStornoway Quarrying z'//4

Effective Date: 2 Jul2009Commercial-in{onfidence

Page I of4

Airseruices AustraliaLOA 3104 Version 1

Blasting at Raeburn euarry

Background Realuy Quany within the circuit area of Launceston airport. (Refer attachedmap) Blasting operations at these locations constitute a hazard.to aviation.

Blasting advice In order to ensure the safety of blasting operations (with regard to air traffic)procedure Stornoway must adopt the -followirg

p?*'"arres. Blasting shall not proceed if(Stornoway) contact cannot be made with the control Tower.

Shot minus 30minutes

Stornoway contacts tower to negotiate an approximate timefor the shot.

Shot minus 2minutes

Stornoway contacts tower to seek approval for the shot.Dependant upon traffic._disposition ui tt

" time along with

duty runway, Tower will eiJher grant approruf oipioriA" usuggested time to call back for approval.As soon as practicable after the shot, Stornoway contacts thetower to advise the shot has been completed and advise ,All

Affectedairspace

Blastingprocedure(LauncestonTower)

LauncestonTower contact

The airspace within I NM radius of the qualry from ground lever to500 FT AGL is to be avoided during blasling.

once Launceston Tower has provided approval for a blast until the timestomoway advice 'All clearf all aircraft movements shall te kept clear of theaffected airspace. To achieve this no aircraft will be cleared to depart offnrnways 32L,32Ror 36 or cleared to land on runways t+n, r+r or 1g.Aircraft may over fly the area at 1000 FT above ground lerrel.

Contact with the Control Tower is:

03 6391 6992 (recorded line

Stornoway

Quarry contactContact with Stornoway euarry is:

03 6391 93ll Divisional Office0409 175 530 Manager - Brett Hoyle03 6224 4774

Continued on next pqge

Effective Date: 2 Jul 2009Commercial-in-Confi de,nc e

Page 3 of4

LOA 3104 Version 1 Airservices Australia

Blasting at Raeburn Quarr!, continued

Blasting outside Outside the normal activation hours of LT TWR or when it is unmanned,Tower hours of Stornoway must contact CASA Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) onoperation 02 6217 ll77 (24 hour line). In these circumstances, no blasting shall be

conducted without the approval of CASA OAR.

If Stornoway staff are unsure if the tower is activated or not, or if there is noanswer from the tower, Stornoway staff may contact the MelbourneOperations Room Manager on 03 9235 7420 (24hour line) to ascertain thestatus of the tower.

Quarrylocation map

=- t .

f;

Page 4 of4 Effective Date: 2 Jul2009

Commercial-in{onfi dence

Documents

Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan...The proposed Joseph Cromy residential development immediately to the east of the quarry was the subject of an RPDC hearing