constructions pty ltd cates quarry supplement cates quarry ...constructions pty ltd cates quarry...

Constructions Pty Ltd Cates Quarry Supplement

Cates Quarry Resurrection Environmental Effects Report –

Supplement

INTRODUCTION

This Supplement responds to public submissions and agency comments on the Environmental Effects Report(EER) for production of up to 30 thousand tonnes per annum of gravel from the proposed Cates Quarry resurrection in the Lachlan Valley by MSD Constructions P/L(MSD). The EER was developed in consultation with the Environmental Protection Authority(EPA) Division following the departmental EER Guidelines for Project-Proponent and was made available in November 2010 to the public and copies forwarded to the EPA Division, Derwent Valley Council and Mineral Resources Tasmania.

When composing the original EER discussions took place with four Lachlan Valley business operators, three council officers and the three neighbouring properties in direct line of site of the proposed quarry. These parties were personally approached to inform them of the proposal and an opportunity to raise issues or concerns directly with MSD. As documented at the time of of the EER going to print MSD had received only one response and the consequent level of public interest was unanticipated

A Planning Application was advertised by the Derwent Valley Council in November and December 2010 for development of Cates Quarry requesting public submissions. Following the Public Notice 2 public meetings occurred at Lachlan Hall on the 6th and 23rd November 2010 to which MSD were not directly invited but were allowed to attended and participate. Public responses to the Application were collated by the EPA Division and a summary forwarded to MSD Constructions offering an opportunity to respond in January 2011. The following comments are provided by MSD Constructions in relation to the issues raised by the public, EPA Division, Heritage Tasmania, Mineral Resources Tasmania, DPIPWE – Resource Management & Conservation, DPIPWE – Noise Specialist and DIER – Infrastructure Policy and Planning.


of 18

CONTENTS

A. PUBLIC ISSUES ........................................................................................................................ 3

Environmental....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Noise and Dust ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Air Emissions ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Potential for Blasting .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Sustainability and Climate Change - Alternative Sites .......................................................................................... 6 Heritage ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Fauna................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Flora .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Water Emissions ...............................................................................................................................................10 Rehabilitation ...................................................................................................................................................10 Commitments ...................................................................................................................................................10

Planning ...............................................................................................................................................................11 Traffic Impact ....................................................................................................................................................11 Separation Distances .........................................................................................................................................14 Conflict of Interest ............................................................................................................................................14 Road Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................14

Alternatives..........................................................................................................................................................14 Visual ................................................................................................................................................................14 Amenity ............................................................................................................................................................15 Real Estate Prices ..............................................................................................................................................15

General ................................................................................................................................................................15 Inaccuracies ......................................................................................................................................................15 Support the Proposed Quarry............................................................................................................................15 Objections to the Quarry ...................................................................................................................................15 Public Consultation ...........................................................................................................................................16 Property Not Included .......................................................................................................................................16 Council Administration Ineptitude .....................................................................................................................16 Power Line Relocation .......................................................................................................................................16

B. REFERRAL AUTHORITY COMMENTS ............................................................................. 17

Environmental......................................................................................................................................................17 Heritage Tasmania ............................................................................................................................................17 Mineral Resources Tasmania .............................................................................................................................17 DPIPWE – Resource Management & Conservation ............................................................................................17 DPIPWE – Noise Specialist .................................................................................................................................18

Planning ...............................................................................................................................................................18 DIER – Infrastructure Policy and Planning ..........................................................................................................18


of 18

A. Public Issues

ENVIRONMENTAL

Noise

Issue 1 – Concerned about noise impacting on local environment (one representor especially concerned of excessive noise).

Response 1 – Estimated crushing operations to achieve 20,000 m3 would be 40 days per annum and NOT a continuous operation week in week out. MSD obtained permission on the 31 January 2011 from EPA Division to conduct a trial operation using the proposed crushing equipment in the actual proposed site and demonstrated actual noise levels. During trial operations on the 1 February 2011 Vipac Engineers and Scientists along with EPA Division conducted noise monitoring, see Attachment 2 Vipac Report No. 3897. Table 1 of this report shows the recorded maximum increase of background noise was 6dBA at both L10 and L90 with only a 3dBA increase at Leq which is well below the Quarry Code of Practice(CoP) 1999 recommendation of 10dBA at Leq.

Issue 2 – The EER states that “MSD have also through public consultation discussed concerns and proposed operating conditions with the nearest residences who accepted the proposed operation”. The representors consider that this is an inaccurate statement because not all residents were contacted regarding the quarry operations/proposal and even those consulted do not all accept the proposed operation.

Response 2 – Initial discussions with residents and locals did not reveal the lack of understanding of the proposed development and degree of concerns of the wider community. MSD has since attended two public meetings on the 6th & 23rd November 2010 to address the community issues and offered to personally discuss issues one on one after the meetings, to which no one took the opportunity. Invitations were issued to all neighbours and signage erected notifying the community of the trial operation organised on the 1st February 2011, MSD discussed issues with those who attended. MSD has also addressed the Derwent Valley councillors directly on the proposed quarry development and answered their queries.

Issue 3 – There are no quarry operations occurring at this given time in the Cates Quarry Resurrection, therefore the noise assessment is based on mathematical estimates. Proper noise assessments can only be proven scientifically when relevant machinery, crushers, dozers, trucks etc are working in a given location on an overcast day with light winds in order to reflect a worst case scenario. Request fully scientific assessment be undertaken in the proposed quarry site to fully assess impact on residences.

Response 3 – Noise assessments were done to EPA Division recommendations and the methods of prediction / assessment used complied with practices recommended by AS1055 Part 3, ‘Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise’, and the Tasmanian Noise Measurements Procedure Manual. As in Response 1 and under unfavourable conditions, i.e. cloud cover causing sound inversion, noise levels were below Quarry CoP 1999.

Issue 4 – Shape of valley means noise resonates up and down and already causes major issues and community complaints for other business activities. Cars at the Speedway on the Lyell Highway can be heard from 650 Lachlan Road.

Response 4 – Same as Response 1 and 3, demonstrated that noise levels will be below Quarry CoP 1999 and the quarry operating hours, unless otherwise approved by the Director(EPA); Crushing 7 am – 5 pm Monday to Friday, Cartage 7 am – 6 pm Monday to Friday, No crushing or extraction to occur outside Monday to Friday

During these hours there is less noise differential to the background and inversion conditions are less common.

Issue 5 – There is no mention of any processes that the Council or the EPA have in place to handle the community noise complaints.

Response 5 – No Response Requested

Issue 6 – Over last 10 years noise levels have gone up with new subdivisions and quarry will make it impossible for shift workers to sleep.

Response 6 – As for Response 1, demonstrated that noise levels will be below Quarry CoP 1999. MSD had consulted with residences in line of site of the quarry that were within the Standard Recommended Attenuation Distance (SRAD) of 750m as defined by the Quarry CoP 1999. The only concern raised by one resident, who is employed as a shift worker was that the quarry didn’t operate 7 days a week 24hrs a day. At that time once the proposed hours of operation were explained they accepted the proposed operation.


of 18

Issue 7 – At a public meeting held on 16 November 2010 Malcom Hill of MSD constructions stated to attendees of the meeting that, “MSD are working on the basis that the crusher noise level is equivalent to that of a farm tractor.” This is inaccurate because: When machinery is working at Cates’ Quarry No1, the Quarry noise levels are clearly heard. Noise levels generally go in an upwards direction and will affect residence up the Ringwood Gully. This home is within 450 metres of the quarry. Noise from Cate no 1 quarry is very audible at the residence “Ringwood”.

Response 7 – The topography of the proposed quarry is totally different to Cates no.1 quarry, Malcolm Hills was trying to give members of the public some indication as to the type and level of noise. As in Response 1 it has been demonstrated that noise levels will be below Quarry CoP 1999 for all residences in the valley.

Issue 8 – Truck haulage would occur over a period of 12 hours per day starting at 7am (potentially 6 am) including morning and afternoon school and commuter traffic and noise on a Saturday as well. One representation concerned about 7 day a week operation. Operating 6 days per week also till 7pm is unacceptable. Should be restricted to hours recommended by the Quarry Code of Practice i.e. 8am to 4pm.

Response 8 – The Quarry Code of Practice (1999) 6.2 Noise, 6.2.2 Acceptable Standard states; “… usually achieved by restricting operating hours of quarries in the vicinity of residential premises, to 0700 to 1900 hours, Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1600 hours Saturdays”. Following consultation with residents at a public meeting, MSD has resolved to alter hours of operation , unless otherwise approved by the Director(EPA) to; Crushing 7 am – 5 pm Monday to Friday, Cartage 7 am – 6 pm Monday to Friday,

The above restricts hours of cartage to 11 hours maximum per weekday.

Issue 9 – The report also states that the predicted quarry noise of: ‘ … 42 to 45 dBA adj is therefore below the criteria 45 to 50 dBA and is therefore determined as acceptable.” This level is too close to the criteria of 45 to 50 dBA and is significant enough for restrictions to be placed on the quarry operators.

Response 9 – The allowable noise levels MSD will adhere to for the proposed quarry operation will be determined by the EPA Division upon full review of the submitted noise level assessments. The actual noise measurements Table 1: Summary of Noise Levels Vipac Report 3897, Attachment 2 demonstrates compliance with the Quarry Code of Practice 1999 guideline that; “noise from activities in a quarry must not exceed 10 dB(A) above the normal ambient noise levels during daytime operations.” As in Response 1 Vipac Report No. 3897 demonstrates that measured operating noise levels are below the predicted noise levels of the initial assessment EER Appendix 7, Vipac Report No. 3792.

Noise and Dust

Issue 10 – Organisations such as Boral provide a fully enclosed plant and portable structures to minimize noise and dust emissions. Also wheel and vehicle washing systems for dust removal are available. Why is such leading edge and other technology not being considered?

Response 10 – To achieve maximum material production of 20,000 m3 per annum only forty days crushing will be required a year. Modern equipment to be used at the proposed quarry will innately minimise noise and dust generation and along with MSD’s commitments stated in the EER will adequately control dust generation. Also material is of a decomposed dolerite structure which requires less energy to crush, thus generating less noise and dust than at other quarries. As in Response 1 Attachment 2 Vipac Report No. 3897 demonstrates that measured operating noise levels will be below Quarry CoP 1999 maximum background noise increase of 10 dBA Leq, precluding the need for measures such as enclosing plant.

Air Emissions

Issue 11 – Dust pollution impacting on local environment (one representation concerned of dust on Saturdays).

Response 11 – As in Response 8 no crushing operations will occur on weekends and only forty days crushing per year will be required to complete the proposed maximum quantity of 20,000 m3 per annum of material. The trial demonstrated that during normal crushing operations only minimal amounts of dust were produced. As stated in the EER if conditions deteriorate, further methods of dust suppression such as; slowing feed rates, water sprinklers, water spray injection, water trucks, addition of covering of vehicles or compaction will be utilised to control dust emissions. Stockpiles and overburden will be kept in small windrows, dampened and seeded with grass to control both dust and erosion.


of 18

Issue 12 – MSD states that the topography will create a physical barrier to negate dust to the nearest buildings, however there is no topographical features between quarry and 365 Lachlan Road.

Response 12 – The proposed quarry site is in a gully and has a sporadic tree surround. From 365 Lachlan Road only the very top part of the existing quarry face can be seen as the quarry floor is hidden behind the hill contour, see View 1, Attachment 1 – Views of the Quarry. Even without any additional screening, as stated would occur in the EER the crushing operation cannot be sighted by any of the closest residents, see other views in Attachment 1 – Views of the Quarry.

Issue 13 – EER States that “the site Quarry Picture, appendix 11 shows no buildings within half kilometre radius of the quarry or impact on grazing within the topography creating a physical barrier between the quarry and the nearest dwellings”. This is a false statement because the Nicholson family residence is within half kilometre of the proposed development and would be impacted by quarrying and health concerns (asthma) and family well being. Dust from quarrying would affect the superfine Merino wool enterprise as it affects the wool fibre yield and buyers purchase on yield. Increased dust content is an economic loss to the producer who achieved top price for a superfine line at the Melbourne Wool sale in March 2010.

Response 13 – As stated in Response 10 proven dust mitigation measures are documented in the EER and will control dust generation. During the trial operation on the 1 February 2011, MSD representatives had a discussion with the owner operators of the property Ringwood about the lack of consultation and mistakes in the EER. MSD offered apologies and listened to their concerns and explained the dust control measures as viewed on the day outlined in Response 11. MSD stated that the windrows of soil and overburden to be used for rehabilitation would be reduced in height and seeded to reduce the risk of dust transferring to their property.

Issue 14 – States that” The wind rose for New Norfolk shows a prevailing a westerly wind direction which in the event of an extended dry period would normally push dust away from existing residences.” This is a false statement because the AD Nicholson’s residence, “Ringwood House” would be directly affected from dust levels. Prevailing winds blow away from three identified residences but westerly winds will carry dust directly towards Ringwood House which is under half a kilometre from proposed site. There are many days when wind will also blow towards residences to the east.

Response 14 – The wind rose was sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology which operates under the authority of the Meteorology Act 1955 which provides the legal basis for its scientific information of Australian weather and climate to the Australian community. The referenced wind rose shows that during the year conditions are calm 42%, Westerly 33%, NW 12%, SW 5% and evenly dispersed from other directions the other 8% of the year. For the 33% of the time when the wind is from the west effecting Ringwood house, 87% of that is less than 20kph. Dust dispersed in the prevailing direction would fall on the side of the ridge that provides a physical barrier to 300m between Ringwood house and the proposed quarry face, at 150m see 1:25000 Map Sheet inset of page 1 of EER Appendix 1. This topographical ridge barrier can be seen in Attachment 1, View 2 - Towards proposed quarry from 351 Ringwood Rd.

Issue 15 – The haul road and turnaround will be unsealed. Is water dust suppressant to therefore be used on Sundays and in the evenings (when gully winds occur)? Likely to be inadequate.

Response 15 – The access road to the quarry will be treated with “Dustmatt©” to suppress the particle release from the gravel surface. It is a conditioning agent that does not require constant application and will continue to suppress, 24hrs a day seven days a week. We have used this product for 2 years on high traffic volume roads (forestry logging and our business access road) and have found it extremely effective, see product references from the online manual in Attachment 4.

Issue 16 – Use of “Dustmatt” as a suppressant is only a partial solution, geochemical bonding agents assist in dust reduction but do not eliminate dust from wear and tear, or quarry processing. Is there supportive data?

Response 16 – MSD have been using Dustmatt© for over 2 years with successful results for Norske Skog and business access roads. Screen dumps of references from the online manual in Attachment 4.

Issue 17 – Provide a better dust suppression plan that specifies details and 24-hour operation)

Response 17 – The mitigation measures as presented in the EER for control of all environmental and safety controls are designed for annual management of the quarry, 24hrs a day, seven days a week.

Issue 18 – Concerned about rehabilitation, especially as trees will take time to grow. Concerned that that there are no examples of current rehabilitation at other MSD sites.

Response 18 – Planting of trees is not a rehabilitation plan for this site, as the intended end use will be returning the land to grazing pasture. Trees will be planted for additional screening in relation to sight and noise suppression only. EPA Division and the Mineral Resources Department will place conditions on a bond to guarantee occurance of progressive rehabilitation. If MSD fails to adhere to these conditions, then either of these parties has a legal right to use the bond monies to complete suitable rehabilitation.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/all/search/8D55157E388803BDCA2573520003F357


of 18

Potential for Blasting

Issue 19 – A geological report indicates that the quarry floor is extremely hard and incapable of penetration by machinery rip method. The potential for blasting clearly exists and was extensively used prior to closure in 1976 and there are two houses “Ringwood” and “Forest Hill” within the 1,000 metre attenuation distance set within the Quarry Code of Practice 1999. “noted that VIPAC Engineers undertook a Noise assessment and in the report state that no blasting is envisaged’. This does not state that it won’t happen. There should be very clear prevention of any blasting at this site.

Response 19 – The geological report mentioned is not relevant to modern current day extraction, crushing and screening methods. MSD has been in the extractive industry for the past twenty years and has extensive knowledge on gravel materials. The trial operation on 1 February 2011 using the proposed ripping and bulldozing extraction method demonstrated blasting will not be required thus the SRAD of 1,000m for blasting defined by the Quarry CoP 1999 has not been and will not be applied for. No blasting will be a condition adhered to and applied by the EPA Division and the Mineral Resources Department for quarry licence approval.

Sustainability and Climate Change - Alternative Sites

Issue 20 – Consideration of sustainable development must include development which avoids remedies or mitigates adverse impacts on the environment taking into account the precautionary principle. How is the Cates Resurrection quarry justified considering that other adjacent quarries are in the area and council needs for material may already be met? Report states that MSD indicates on page 14 that they already have a network of quarries.

Response 20 – The existing quarries in the area have a limited life span, specifically MSD’s quarry has been deemed unsuitable for further expansion due to environmental issues faced. Based on current demands if MSD are to continue supplying gravel material at a competitive rate in the district another site will have to be found. The proposed Cates Quarry will provide gravel to the area at a higher environmental standard, with a lower Carbon footprint as explained in the EER and provide the social benefit of lower financial cost to the community. Careful consideration has been given to sustainability when choosing this particular site; It is not a greenfield location, has a history of extraction as far back as the late 60s has never been under environmental control of a Regulatory Authority

The proposed site with approximately 3.9 hectares of exposed faces and quarry workings in its current condition is hazardous and environmentally dilapidated and will continue to deteriorate if left unattended. It is MSD’s intention to take responsibility and complete environmental rectification works allowing rehabilitation to usable pasture of a higher standard using earnings generated from extraction royalties.

Issue 21 – There is no data on hydrology of the area and detailed rainfall data for a quarry with its floor in a gully is lacking. The unpredictability of sudden downpours could create contamination problems from sediment in the Lachlan River. Groundwater has also not been mentioned. Installation of a network of piezometers to monitor groundwater should be considered.

Response 21 – The Lachlan Valley falls in a Permo-Triassic Sedimentary Rock area(DPIPWE, http://www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au) where dual porosity effects in pore spaces between sediment grains and interconnecting fractures will lead to uncertainty in groundwater movement. The nearest groundwater bores are located at Brookside, No’s 3247 and 3248 on the other side and in the vicinity of Lachlan River. These bores are mapped as similar geology, Mineral Resources Tasmania 1:25,000 Geology Map(http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au) to the proposed quarry location and reflect the unreliability of aquifers with depths of 48.8 and 91.5 meters respectively with only bore 3247 striking water at 42.7m. Groundwater as a component of the hydrologic or water cycle is understood to constantly move in and out of saturated pore spaces and fractures of soil and rock as the proposed quarry is over ½ km from the Lachlan River no control points are identifiable. The current exposed excavation into the hillside reveals no fissures and visual inspection of the surrounding landscape indicates no signs of localised communities of rushes or reeds that might indicate a spring from an underground water source. Quarrying at Nicholson's Quarry on the next hill 0.75 km east and Cates Quarry 0.75km west over the Lachlan River have been ongoing with no signs of aquifers appearing during excavation and are a reflection of similar geological structure. From surface investigations it is unlikely that the extraction taken to the depths planned will encounter groundwater. Evaluation of rainfall was considered in the original EER in Appendix 13, Sediment Retention Calculations and these were based on a 1 in 20 year rainfall event generating 680m3 of water in an hour which would be easily contained in the 1,500m3 catchment of the quarry drainage plan. From the Bureau of Meteorology website, http://reg.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_095015.shtml it can be seen that the mean annual rainfall for New Norfolk is 548.9mmPA with the highest mean rainfall of 55mm for the month of October which with the enhanced proposed water quality control ponds shown in Appendix 1 of the EER will prevent recharge of the existing groundwater and will manage water quality. Contamination of groundwater from soakage of contaminated site water is eliminated as no hazardous chemicals will be used or stored on site.

http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/


of 18

Heritage

Issue 22 – Attachment was provided by the representor mentioning that the adjacent property Ringwood was included in the preliminary Tasmanian Heritage register in 1979. Appendix 13 includes Heritage Tasmania’s register. However, seven Lachlan Properties are permanently listed on Tasmania’s Heritage Register. Five are listed within a kilometre of the quarry. Not all are included in appendices.

Response 22 – Only one of the 122 pages of the Heritage Report was included in the original EER and there should have been 2 pages to include all 8 properties in Lachlan. Appendix 3 of the EER is superseded by a full listing in Attachment 5 to include these properties which will not be affected by the proposed quarry.

Issue 23 – States that “an artefact or item of heritage significance was discovered during operations”. What is it, what item?

Response 23 – This sentence to be deleted as not applicable and Cultural Heritage Part C, 15) to be superseded with;

“Consideration for aboriginal artefacts and significant sites is currently under review and a Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI) Access Form has been lodged with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) to determine existence of sites or artefacts on site. A survey will be undertaken if required. A management plan based on the findings or recommendations of a survey would be developed.

No known heritage items of significance are known and a Tasmania Heritage search was with no listings on this site, see attached (Heritage Tasmania, 2010).

MSD will monitor progress of quarrying operations to prevent the unlikely event of an artefact/relic or disturbance of a historical site being disturbed. If an item was uncovered, operations would cease and MSD Heritage & Archaeology Conservation Instruction, OHSE-WI-25 implemented.”

Fauna

Issue 24 – None of the 10 fauna species identified by Van Diemen Consulting are threatened by the proposed quarry. However one endangered species, the wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audex fleayi) listed in the Natural Values Atlas report is cited as not being impacted. The wedge tailed-eagle has;

been sighted as recently as Sunday 2 January 2011 flying within the proposed quarry precinct.

A pair at the Cates quarry area have been sighted on numerous occasions around surrounding property. A study should be made of the pair to determine the nesting site and its proximity to proposed quarry.

Response 24 – Two eagle nests known to occur within the vicinity of the quarry and are shown in Figure 4 of Appendix 8 in the Ecological Report which have been accessed from the Raptor Database, a part of the Natural Values Atlas maintained by DPIPWE. Eagles are known to have large home ranges, cover large areas while seeking food and displaying during the breeding season. In highly modified natural ecosystems they will use open cleared areas to forage and seek refuge in paddock trees and are sensitive to disturbance during breeding season where the disturbance is near or adjacent to their nest. The quarry site is more than 3kms from the nearest known nest (Figure 4 of Appendix 8) and these nests are within gullies that face south-east to east which is away from the quarry site. No nests were found within 1km line of sight and within 500m of the proposed quarry despite searching within suitable habitat, a small south-east facing gully to the north-east of the quarry see EER - Appendix 8 Plates E and F . The two known nests are likely being used by the eagle pair that was observed in the area and with only 3 and 4.5kms respectively between the quarry and the nests it is unlikely that a new nest would be built by a pair entering the area as the home range would be of insufficient size to support another pair. There is however the possibility that one of the existing pair would build a new nest if existing nests experienced sufficient disturbance during the breeding season, e.g. nest desertion and then proliferation. The two nests have been known in their current locations for many years indicating the nests are in a relatively disturbance-free location. In Van Diemen Consulting’s knowledge of nests nothing would be gained by further studying within a 1km line of sight or within 500m of the quarry site and quarry operations would have insignificant impact on the breeding success of this species, nor its’ ability to forage and display in the local area in and around the Lachlan Valley.


of 18

Issue 25 – The statement made that the Eastern barred bandicoot will not be impacted should be reviewed as bandicoots are seen crossing the Lachlan Road at the access to the proposed site.

Response 25 – Eastern barred bandicoot was previously widely distributed in northern, central and south-eastern Tasmania with the subspecies most abundant in the south-eastern quarter of the State. Lower numbers are found in north-eastern and north-western coastal regions and are least abundant in the Midlands and eastern coastal areas. It is absent from the south-western regions including Bruny and the Bass Strait islands except for a single recorded specimen from Strahan and was introduced to Maria Island in 1969–1970 where it thrived till the late 1980s, current status unknown. It occurs in open habitats generally at mid to low altitudes, including woodlands and open forests with grassy understorey and in native and exotic grasslands. It is regarded as a ‘habitat generalist’, not unique to a specific habitat type or suite of habitat types and can even be found in high numbers in significantly modified natural ecosystems and man-made environments. The species requires understorey plants to provide shelter, nest sites and food. Nests are constructed on the ground generally under some form of vegetation cover which may include non-native species such as gorse, blackberry thickets and rank pasture grass areas associated with low stocked paddocks or drains. There are previous sightings of eastern barred bandicoot, see Figure 4 of Appendix 8 in the north, south-east, west and north-east areas of the study site. Several previously recorded locations near Lachlan, New Norfolk and Molesworth demonstrate the widespread occurrence of this species in the Lower Derwent Valley. The species occurs in the vicinity of the quarry and perhaps ventures into the quarry to forage and seek refuge, however there is no evidence to suggest that the species would be at greater or lesser risk of being killed through secondary impacts, i.e. deaths caused by quarry trucks and vehicles if the quarry is opened. Indeed, more animals of this species are probably killed by dogs, feral and domestic cats than would be as a result of road kill or direct habitat loss. In Van Diemen Consulting’s opinion it is very unlikely that the quarry development would have a negative impact to this species.

Issue 26 – No mention was made of the Spotted Quoll or the native flightless hen that were found at the eastern boundary of both properties in the ecological survey report.

Response 26 – The spotted-tailed quoll, Dasyurus maculatus, was not considered in Van Diemen Consulting’s ecological survey, Appendix 8 as the site was not identified by the Natural Values Atlas search as being within the potential habitat range of the species. The open grassy habitats and sparse dry woodlands within the site are considered not suitable for the spotted-tailed quoll. The Tasmanian flightless hen, Gallinula mortierii is not a listed threatened species on State or Commonwealth legislation, i.e. The Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In Van Diemen Consulting’s opinion the flightless hen is a ‘habitat generalist’ and should not be adversely affected by the quarry development.


of 18

Flora

Issue 27 – Clause 6.8.1 of Quarry Code of Practice discusses managing risk of Phytophthora cinnamomi. No evidence of testing or validation of the presence of significant pathogens and diseases such as Phytophthora and Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus) In the quarry. Vegetation surveys do not assist in identifying the presence or absence of Phytophthora because highly susceptible species are not present. There is no reference to either disease or proposed disease hygiene measures found in the report as a whole. Opening of the quarry may result in the spread of either diseases under the EPBCA Act 1999 and Threat Abatement Plans (TAPs) have been produced for these diseases. Repeat sampling for both pathogens should occur at a density agreed with State regulators and disease experts. If quarry is disease free then measures should be put in place to reduce the risk of infection. Costs should be included in the cost/benefit analysis for the quarry.

Response 27 – Sampling for chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) and root-rot fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi) is notoriously difficult and can only be achieved under specific circumstances. Root-rot fungus can only be positively tested for by sampling plants that appear to be infected, when the fungus is active in the soil and root interface. In this case, no root-rot fungus susceptible species were observed on the site, or within the study site as a whole, thereby making sampling for the fungus an impossible exercise. In Van Diemen Consulting’s opinion this situation is not likely to change with the opening of the quarry as the site would be progressively quarried and rehabilitated to pasture. Chytrid fungus can only be sampled from tadpoles or adult frogs, which requires a permit and animal Ethics Committee approval. It is an expensive analytical process that is only warranted in extreme cases of land management activities, such as the establishment of a walking track in the South-west Tasmanian World Heritage Area an area where the fungus is known to be relatively uncommon. In Van Diemen Consulting’s opinion the quarry poses little risk to spreading the fungus as it is transported by water and mud not processed rock substrates. The specific hygiene measures provided in the Ecological Report, Appendix 8 (page 5)of the EER will be integrated into the operational Management Plan to ensure that the site is kept ‘clean’in the form of weed control measures: ‘It is recommended that only clean construction machinery be allowed enter the quarry to minimise the

risk of spreading weed propagules from other sites to this, largely weed free, site. Machinery that arrives at the site should be ‘clean’ to the satisfaction of the site manager or construction

supervisor.’ These hygiene measures have been incorporated in the EER and along with existing MSD procedures will be included in a specific Quarry Management Plan for the proposal. The existing accredited disease & weed control procedures that will be included are; OHSE-PR-001 Risk & Hazard Control Procedure OHSE-PR-005 Environmental Incident Procedure OHSE-PR-017 Plant Washdown Procedure OHSE-PR-020 Environmental Procedure

Alternatives

Issue 28 – There are already 2 quarries in close proximity especially when existing Nicholson quarry meets Councils needs and Cate no 1 quarry meeting commercial needs. There must be abundant accessible site elsewhere which would have less impact.

Response 28 – The existing quarries in the area have a limited life span as explained in Response 19 above. MSD are committed, upon approval being granted for the proposed quarry to closing the existing Cates Quarry due to visual and environmental issues. Other sites have been assessed for viability but the proposed Cates Quarry site ticks all the boxes for a sustainable, commercially viable operation:

Large resource availability Cost effective extraction Strategically positioned Quality product Good environmental outcomes Cost beneficial to customers End use benefits Minimal long term impacts


of 18

Water Emissions

Issue 29 – Stormwater and flood run-off from quarry will be detrimental to surrounding area and a potential hazard to Lachlan River and a healthy river system.

Response 29 – Appendix 13 of the EER proposes and shows adequate controls for a 1 in 20 year 1 hour event with the proposed quarry over ½ km from the river. Having walked the entire length of the drainage line from its source to the Lachlan River there is no evidence of silt deposits or erosion having occurred and with the additional environmental controls as proposed in the water course EER Appendix 1 Land Survey Drawings, H01170D01-R2 sediment or contamination of the Lachlan River will not occur.

Issue 30 – The details on sediment filtration control are not sufficient as substantial land damage has occurred in the Lachlan River and its tributaries in 1943,1953, 1960, 1972 and 1995 (refer Leaman report 1993).

Response 30 – There are no silt deposits at the entry of the existing drainage line into the Lachlan River. MSD has based its sediment retention controls on standard scientific assessment methods. There is no evidence that states or documents specific land damage relating specifically to this site and MSD’s assessment to date can provide no visual or documented evidence to the contrary.

Rehabilitation

Issue 31 – How will quarry be rehabilitated. Considering rehabilitation at the nearby proponents Cate’s No.1 quarry has not occurred even after request by a member of the public to do so. Can the proponent demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation expertise?

Response 31 – MSD is the third or fourth quarry operator in the quarry referred to and has taken on responsibility for lack of rehabilitation by previous operators and a staged rehabilitation plan has been generated and submitted to the Mineral Resources Department. Extensive rehabilitation work carried out by MSD includes stockpiling of separated overburden and soil, construction of benches into the exposed face and revegetation. MSD have received no formal requests from a member of the public to carry out rehabilitation on this site and if so would have explained the rehabilitation plan. Clients MSD have successfully conducted rehabilitation for include; Hydro Tasmania, Parks and Wildlife, Central Highlands Council, Hobart City Council, Southern Water and Norske Skog. The Rehabilitation Management Units committed to in the EER will be a condition of the new site license ensuring the rehabilitation plan is adhered too.

Commitments

Issue 32 – Several of the comments made in the text do not appear in the management commitments section (ie 6am start for peak demand, sightline clearances etc.)

Response 32 – After attending two public meetings MSD had the opportunity to listen to the residents’ concerns on a range of issues. It was decided that an adjustment to the hours of operation would not affect the commercial viability and would better suit the residents. This change of hours will be added to the management commitments. Any comments about the operation of the quarry whether placed in the management commitments or written in the text are to be considered as MSD’s commitments to this proposal.


of 18

PLANNING

Traffic Impact

Issue 33 – Much concern and anxiety with the estimated 1,000 (3,000) truck movements weighing 42 tonnes each on Lachlan Road. Such as: The safety of community including school buses, pedestrians, cyclists and potential for fatality. Information provided

in submission 2 identified road deaths when there are road defects. Submission 23 provided crash data for Lachlan Road.

Load rating to handle traffic (including water tanks) and deterioration of road. Impact on ratepayers

Need for greater maintenance Impact on existing business such as the Agrarian Kitchen, Lachlan Valley food and wine and other businesses with

customers having to share with trucks.

Response 33 – 42 tonnes is the gross combination mass of the truck and trailer configuration. The proposed quarry will generate 1,070 loaded total truck/trailer movements per year with an average load of 28 tonnes and the corresponding number of unlaidened movements. Average daily truck generation is in the order of 4 to 5 laden vehicles per day and Midson indicate this will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic efficiency, road safety or existing road users, Appendix 9. Crash data was collected from DIER for a 5 year period, a DIER publication ‘A Framework for Undertaking Traffic Impact Assessments’ requirement for a length of 7.5 kilometres either side of the proposed access location. No fatalities are recorded in this area over this time frame. Further MSD has not been provided with any of the information relating to the road fatalities on Lachlan Road or crash data. MSD are keen to review all of the available crash data but to date we are unaware of any traffic accidents involving school buses or heavy vehicles. One accident that a director of the company is aware of was the fatality of a friend some years back and the circumstances surrounding this particular incident and the causes were not related to sub-standard road conditions or heavy traffic, it was a hit and run involving alcohol. Road maintenance is not relevant for MSD and the proposed submission. As mentioned in Response 19, suppling material from such a strategically located position to both local Council and rate payers will realise cost and social benefits. The road is not provided exclusively for the use of some businesses and not others, heavy vehicles of all types should have the same rights as any other road by complying to DIER Regulations.

Issue 34 – Current Traffic report in EER was based on 20,000 tonnes per annum, whilst the project description states 20,000 m3 PA. Increase traffic by a third with total of 1,500 truck movements at 12 truck movements per day over 240 day working period. Maximum daily figure could be higher as some days quarry is not open. Suggest “no go” limit on Lachlan Road for truck movements during school bus operating hours for morning and afternoon run, as well as midday run every Wednesday, plus a limit on truck movements per day.

Response 34 – For 20,000 m3 per annum the total truck movements would be 1070 trucks per annum, which is an average of 5 laden truck movements per day (rounded up from 4.45 trucks per day, and equate to 10. truck movements per day total).

At the first public meeting residents raised concerns with MSD re the safety of school buses and children in the local area. At the second public meeting MSD invited the operators of the school buses to attend the meeting to present their view point and answer any concerns raised. One operator was unable to attend due to illness but the larger bus operator did attend. He expressed no concerns in relation to safety and had found that current heavy traffic were both safe and courteous. MSD has offered to fit UHF radios to both buses and to set a protocol for communicating safe movement of this service. Both operators are prepared to work with MSD to increase safety standards.

Issue 35 – The current state of Lachlan Road is highly questionable and it is understood Mahoney Asset Management Systems (MAMS) has been engaged to undertake a road asset conditions survey for the Council. The final documentation from MAMS should be made available and considered as part of the approval process. It is understood by the representor that MAMS report describes the road as substandard.

Response 35 – The MAMS report is not available at this time. It is difficult to respond on a document that is not publically available. In general terms from Appendix 9 of the EER the Midson Report, Lachlan Road Quarry Traffic Impact Assessment considers the condition of Lachlan Road as acceptable. Ongoing maintenance of the road will be required by the road authority. Some localised upgrade will be performed by the developer near the proposed access, see EER Appendix 1 page 2.


of 18

Issue 36 – Lachlan Road is an arterial road for rural and residential properties and the only access to Lachlan

Response 36 – Lachlan Road also provides access to industrial and commercial properties along its length. The proposal does not alter the status of Lachlan Road as an arterial road to land uses in this area.

Issue 37 – “The increased risk of accidents at the intersection (noting the access sighting on the straight section coupled with adjacent road curve) and all along the Lachlan Road given its two lane, undivided, winding and obscured corners.

Response 37 – Appendix 9 of the EER, Traffic Impact Assessment found that the quarry development was not expected to have any significant adverse impact on road safety and specifically in regards to access: There did not appear to be a trend involving vehicles leaving driveway accesses, The increased traffic generation will not have any significant adverse impacts on the efficiency of the

transport network, The Safe Intersection Sight Distance(SISD) was found to be in excess of 200 metres in both directions,

well above the Austroads requirements of 175m for the speeds measured.

Issue 38 – Representor queries plan to “maximise available sightlines above required guidelines”. Firstly sightlines are a guideline and only a method of risk management, not risk elimination, and secondly there are no figures attached to this: What exactly does “maximise” mean? Is it removal of blackberries or earthworks and fence removal that impacts on sightlines during construction? Or does it mean earthworks and fence removal that will impact on the Lachlan Road during construction of these sight lines.

Response 38 – Sightlines relate to the available sight distance for vehicles approaching the proposed intersection on Lachlan Road, as well as vehicles exiting the proposed access onto Lachlan Road. Minimum sightlines, Safe Intersection Sight Distance(SISD) are required in accordance with Planning Scheme and Austroads requirements. Adequate sightlines are not a ‘risk management’ tool but an essential traffic engineering requirement for intersections and the design speed of the road determines the SISD amount. Midson concludes in Appendix 9 of the EER that in this case the level of sight distance is adequate for the design speed and removal of some vegetation can further improve safety through increasing sight distance.

Issue 39 – “existing Council run quarry that accesses Lachlan Road near the suite is scheduled to close in the near future. Whilst Council’s quarry is a smaller scale than that proposed. The truck generation associated with Cates quarry no. 2 will be offset to some extent by the removal of Council’s operations”. This statement in the EER is incorrect (quarry owner confirms) as Council in December 2010 have agreed to renewal of contract. Therefore the traffic report does not address the capacity of Lachlan Road to handle the additional heavy vehicles. The report assumes closure of one or both of the existing quarries, without any support for this assumption and should not be relied upon to indicate that the road has adequate capacity.

Response 39 – The relatively low traffic volumes (in the order of 1,500 vehicles per day – a volume of approximately 6,000 vehicles per day can be sustained by Lachlan Road in its current configuration) on Lachlan Road will not result in the road reaching capacity with the additional traffic generated by the proposed quarry. Cates Quarry does not rely on the closure of the Council operated quarry to have sufficient spare capacity in the surrounding road network. The statements relating to other quarries in the TIA were simply comments that provide background for truck movements in and around Lachlan Road.

Issue 40 – The Lachlan area has had a large number of subdivisions over the last 16 years but roads have not been maintained.

Response 40 – Maintenance is a matter for the road authority.

Issue 41 – The width of Lachlan Road and shoulders are inadequate for trucks. Shoulders already collapsing such as within 100 metres of entrance of quarry. Parking further reduces road width.

Response 41 – Maintenance is a matter for the road authority and is the proponents understanding the road in question meets state and local government standards.


of 18

Issue 42 – Council’s suggestion to reduce speed to 60km/h will not make road safe. However two representations preferred 60km/h to 80km/h with the need for more signage, a slip road, verge clearance and double white lines. Especially as side road entrances entering this stretch to the road to the Council Depot. The majority of side roads entering on the Lachlan Rd do not have stop or give way signs.

Response 42 – There is overwhelming national and international evidence that speed limit reductions reduce crash frequency and severity for all road users. Whilst a speed limit reduction is not considered necessary for this development, a reduction of speeds would most likely have road safety benefits. Any speed limit change would need to meet DIER guidelines and be approved by DIER. Double white lines are no longer installed by DIER. The equivalent line marking style is a single continuous line. A slip lane is not required for this proposed development, although localised road widening to enable trucks to pull out of the traffic lane was recommended at the access. Stop signs are only installed in specific circumstances when there is deficient sight distance. Give way signs are not always required in rural environments – the T-junction rule applies under these circumstances. It should also be noted that other junctions do not form part of the assessment of the proposed Cates Quarry. MSD is unaware of any Council suggestion to reduce the Lachlan road speed limit. At the second public meeting MSD put forward the suggestion to reduce the speed limit on the Lachlan road to 60kph for heavy road vehicles. This would require the approval of DIER and the local Council. Having consulted with operators of heavy vehicles that use this road the majority agreed that this speed would currently not be exceeded. Also at the public meeting it was suggested by a member of the public that a stop sign be placed at the entrance of the quarry road to Lachlan road. This suggestion was accepted by the proponent and we will make application to DIER and local Council. Also MSD has put forward the proposal to install two trucks entering signal signs either side of the entrance that flash amber warning lights when a truck is approaching the quarry Lachlan road intersection.

Issue 43 – Para 3 of report states “a design speed of 80km/h was selected as a conservative value”. This road is a DIER designated 80km/h road and is sign posted as such. Traffic report is poor.

Response 43 – The posted speed limit is 80-km/h. A small sample of vehicle speeds were obtained using a hand-held radar device. The 85th percentile speed from this survey indicated that the actual speeds past the proposed access was lower than 80-km/h (approximately 75-km/h). The value selected for sight distance assessment was taken to be 80-km/h as a conservative value, although a lower value might be more appropriate due to the actual prevailing vehicle speeds. The Austroads Guidelines use the ‘design speed’ for calculating sight distance requirements. The design speed is equal to the 85th percentile speed (which is the speed not exceeded by 85 percent of all vehicles) NOT the posted speed limit. Selecting the higher value of 80-km/h provides an increased level of safety, thus a conservative approach.

Issue 44 – If Glebe Road is used as the exit from New Norfolk, how will it cope? The road surface already is not properly maintained.

Response 44 – The traffic volumes on Glebe Road are well below the capacity of the junction to cope with the forecast increase in traffic volumes. Maintenance is the responsibility of the road authority.

Issue 45 – The Midson Traffic survey is misleading due to lack of data from Council. It is unlikely that the indicated 1,500 vehicles per day would currently travel on Lachlan Road past the proposed quarry. This figure has been inflated to justify further increase in trucks. Needs a proper traffic assessment.

Response 45 – There was no traffic data for Lachlan Road available. It is not clear how ‘inflating’ the traffic volume can be done to justify an increase in truck movements. The volume of 1,500 vehicles per day is considered to be relatively low for an arterial road. Under DIER classification Lachlan Road is capable of sustaining around 6,000 vehicles per day due to its rural arterial function.

Issue 46 – Closure of Council quarry would have minimal impact on improving traffic movements as has not been operating to anywhere near capacity.

Response 46 – The Traffic Impact Assessment indicates truck generation associated with the Council quarry is of a smaller scale than the proposed quarry.

Issue 47 – Based on the information contained in the traffic impact assessment (TIA) dated May 2010 undertaken by Midson Traffic Pty Ltd, DIER considers the traffic impacts of the proposal will be adequately dealt with by adopting the conclusions and recommendations of the TIA. It is noted that approval will be required through DIER under the Traffic Act 1925 for all signs and line marking arrangements required for the new access road junction.

Response 47 – Noted. Plans for the proposed access will be submitted to DIER for approval.


of 18

Separation Distances

Issue 48 – Clause 5.1.2 of Quarry Code of Practice 1999 advises that Council has a responsibility to require a separation of 750 metres for crushing which Appendix 11 indicates has not occurred.

Response 48 – Clause 5.1.2 is a sub-paragraph under the heading of “Site Selection”. It is headed up “Suggested Measures” and relates to guidelines for selecting suitable sites. This assessment has been based on the fact that the quarry operation will be under the suggested 750m exclusion zone. Suggested Measures of The Code of Practice addressed in the EER are; Disturbance will not occur within 40 metres of any watercourse, or within 10 metres of obvious drainage

lines, Location minimises visual dust & noise impacts on adjacent sensitive uses, i.e. residences, Manner of operation has minimal environmental impact, Nil impact on known heritage sites, No known aboriginal relics, Controls to prevent spreading of Phytophthora cinnamomi

Conflict of Interest

No Response Requested

Road Maintenance

Issue 49 – Community will not benefit from the quarry. Discussed benefit that Council will not need to travel as far to maintain roads but they are currently not maintaining road and this may not change even if quarry is approved.

Response 49 – Maintenance is a matter for the road authority.

The rate payers, as in members of The Community will benefit from this proposal as; MSD is currently supplying local gravel material for the purpose of maintaining both Council and private

roads. As the districts largest producer MSD can offer all suppliers, not only a quality product but the pricing benefits that come with economies of scale.

MSD having to compete on an annual basis for Councils gravel supply will remain a sustainable competitor.

Currently MSD employ 23 people and numerous sub-contractors whom are part of The Community and contribute to the economical well being of the district. Wages alone exceed 1 million dollars annually.

MSD support local businesses in the Derwent Valley and Lachlan community. By putting forward this proposal for consideration MSD are investing not only in the viability of MSD but also ensuring ongoing support in the community, long into the future.

ALTERNATIVES

Visual

Issue 50 – Will have visual impact from the arterial road in to the community. Especially once quarry surfaces are renewed being bright and white. Proposed vegetation screenings will not be comprehensive enough to block view.

Response 50 – The proposed quarry site is in a gully with a sporadic tree surround, currently without proposed additional screening the floor of the quarry where the crushing operation will be set up cannot be sighted by any of the closest residents nor from Lachlan Road, see Attachment 1 – Views of the Quarry. Existing and planned additional screening will only enhance this position and persons that attended the crushing demonstration on 1 February 2011 witnessed and commented on this fact. The EER referred to the fact existing exposed faces and workings are over 3.9 hectares in area and MSD will reduce this degraded area with progressive rehabilitation once operations are underway it has an opportunity to reshape the existing exposed faces thus enhancing the future visual appearance of the gully. This restricted working area and rehabilitation will be a condition of the license agreement with the Mines Department.


of 18

Issue 51 – Given the local area’s recent accolade as Tasmanian Tidy Town 2011 the quarry should be appropriately assessed for its impact upon the serene rural amenity ...

Response 51 – This site as proposed does not interfere with the aspects of serenity of the surrounding rural area as upon completion and during operation the current disturbed quarry site will be rehabilitated, providing a return to workable rural land. MSD have considered the cultural values of the community when evaluating plans for the proposed quarry. The proposed site forms part of the working rural landscape for which quarrying activity is allowed under current planning scheme land zoning. The quarry would not diminish the experience that clients of the nationally recognised Agrarian Kitchen receive. The location of this business is itself protected from any direct disturbance as the proposed quarry is over three kilometres in distance away. As previously stated the quarry floor operation cannot be sited from Lachlan Road. The concern about the removal of hedging is misunderstood. The intention is to remove blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg), a declared weed which has grown along the rural fence lines. Removal will improve both SISD as for Response 37 and a reduction of the declared weed species for this beautiful culturally rich area. Approval of the quarry would not contravene the Council’s current path of sustainable growth because as the community grows so does the demand for products that this quarry will provide. What we carry as a business is a responsibility to ensure it is managed to provide minimal impact and maximum benefit. This will in the long term enhance the natural beauty of the valley and preserve its cultural heritage.

Amenity

Issue 52 – Quarry will spoil the rural amenity of the area

Response 52 – As above

Real Estate Prices


GENERAL

Inaccuracies

Issue 53 – EER document is less than a true and honest statement and is replete with inaccuracies and falsehoods and provides “supporting” evidence which is grossly misleading and scientifically unsound.

Response 53 – No Response Requested

Issue 54 – EER states that “There is a mixture of cleared pastoral land and light bush area surrounding the site and this is used as either commercial rural or rural residential/hobby farm type use.” This is a false statement because property owners on the east and south are commercial and not hobby.

Response 54 – The statement as quoted in the EER state is the land is “commercial rural” so is not a false statement.

Support the Proposed Quarry


Objections to the Quarry



of 18

Public Consultation

Issue 55 – Should have been greater consultation. MSD failed to notify “Ringwood”.

Response 55 – Neither MSD nor THE EPA Division anticipated the level of public interest, the reason that the proposal was originally assessed as a 2a and not 2b EMPCA assessment. As mentioned in the introduction in the process of composing the initial EER discussions took place with business operators, council officers and residents of The Lachlan Valley. Since submission further consultation, communication and discussion of issues has occurred at two community meetings and a crushing day trial demonstrating actual operations. Further commitments as a result of this consultation are; 1. Reduce Hours of Operation – Crushing 7 am – 5 pm Monday to Friday, Cartage 7 am – 6 pm Monday to Friday, Reserving the right for removal of material on Saturdays in case of emergencies. Emergency examples

are, road slips, road closures, washouts, … No crushing or extraction to occur outside Monday to Friday.

2. School Bus Safety – Bus operators have agreed to fit, at MSD cost UHF radios in school busses. This will also mean all heavy

traffic on the road will have communication with the school buses, Reduce MSD’s heavy vehicles to speeds of 60 kph, Install automatically activated flashing indicators on truck signs as trucks approach access to Lachlan

road, warning drivers that truck is entering. It is MSD’s opinion that the misinformation and issues have been addressed indicated by the decrease in numbers from over 100 at the first community meeting to less than 50 at the second. MSD thank the organisers of these meetings for letting MSD attend. As noted in this Supplement the resident of “Ringwood“ who submitted several issues has now had individual consultation with the Managing Director of MSD.

Property Not Included

Issue 56 – Deals with distances to nearest residences. However property at Ringwood not included on either map.

Response 56 – Appendix 11 of the EER is superseded by Attachment 6, House Distances which includes Ringwood House distance to quarry lease boundary.

Issue 57 – Nicholson’s quarry was agreed to by Council at lower tan commercial rates and still has capacity. Why would council want to use a fully commercial service?

Response 57 – This proposal is not solely reliant upon supplying Council gravel requirements to remain commercially viable. Council by going to tender for their material supplies on an annual basis, reflect a desire to provide competitive supply arrangements that benefit all rate payers. MSD is entitled to compete for this supply.

Council Administration Ineptitude

Issue 58 – Concerned about Councils capacity to administer quarry considering Some adjoining landowners were not notified requiring further public advertising.

Further advertising did not identify the location and other details. Council administration placed site notifications in locations not reasonably placed for public attention. …

Response 58 – The Council have no jurisdiction over the quarry management, it is the responsibility of the EPA Division and Mineral Resources Department.

Power Line Relocation

Issue 59 – Power line relocation is an unnecessary cost on consumer.

Response 59 – Cost of moving power will be at MSD’s cost.


of 18

B. Referral Authority Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL

Heritage Tasmania

Issue 60 – … include an Unanticipated Discovery Plan that provides appropriate protocol for dealing with unexpected heritage finds on site. … replicate the outline in Heritage Tasmania’s Pre-Development Assessment Guidelines …

Response 60 – MSD as part of its JAZ-ANZ© Small Contractor Integrated Management System has an existing Work Instruction, OHSE-WI-25 Heritage & Archaeology Conservation Instruction that follows the protocols of the Heritage Tasmania’s Pre-Development Assessment Guidelines. The risks associated with heritage findings on site is assessed as part of the accredited Risk Management Procedure, OHSE-PR-001 Risk & Hazard Control Procedure and would be included in the specific Quarry Management Plan that would be issued for the site.

Issue 61 – Vibrations from the crusher plant may have some impact on historic structures, particularly masonry walls, chimneys, plaster ceilings, and windows where these places are located within 1 km of the plant. It is recommended that an assessment be conducted to determine the level and likely transmissions of vibrations resulting from the operations to ascertain the level of likely impact. It is further recommended that the test results be used to develop operating procedures that reduce the impact of transmission levels on ‘Ringwood’.

Response 61 – Attachment 3 Vipac Report 3933, April 2011 references Table 1 of DIN 4150 Part 3, 1986 for vibration impacts on heritage structures and that if ground vibrations are below 3mm/s peak particle velocity heritage buildings will not suffer cosmetic damage. The report found the maximum Peak Particle Velocity at the working quarry floor, Location 2 was 0.42mm/s which dropped at Location 1 to 0.12mm/s, 660 meters away towards the heritage listed property ‘Forest Hill’ at 365 Lachlan Road. The peak particle velocity measurements are well below levels expected to cause cosmetic damage.

Mineral Resources Tasmania

Issue 62 – This section should address the separation distances between quarry operations and sensitive uses, outlined in the Quarry Code of Practice (Section 5.1 Site Selection p5). There are three houses within the recommended separation distance of 750m for crushing. Whilst the noise assessment indicates that noise levels will be within acceptable limits at these houses, the EER should discuss these results with regard to the recommended separation distances.

Response 62 – The Quarry CoP 1999 does not eliminate the operation of quarries at less than 750m from residences and MSD considered in its’ proposal the SRAD of 750m for quarrying operations without blasting. Under the Quarry CoP 1999 if residences are less than the SRAD the quarry operator needs to demonstrate that it can be successfully operate at the reduced separation distance. As in Response 3 & 6, Table 1 of Attachment 2 Vipac Report No. 3897 demonstrates maximum Leq at all residences inside the SRAD is 3 dBA so the quarry will operate well below the 10 dBA recommended. When visually investigating the site and it’s surrounds no houses could be sighted from the proposed quarry floor, it was apparent the natural topography would provide further inherent noise attenuation and visual screening. It is MSD’s intention to enhance this position by way of pushing up the mounds and planting appropriate trees/shrubs. The topographical distance of the house over the hill to the east was considered to be outside the 750m SRAD zone, this was incorrect and has been updated in Attachment 6 House Distances. Further MSD personally approached and had discussions with three residences in the SRAD to obtain and address their concerns, no objections or views were presented to the contrary.

DPIPWE – Resource Management & Conservation

Issue 63 – It is recommended that a Weed Management and Hygiene Plan be developed for the quarry.

Response 63 – As part of maintaining MSD’s systems accreditation to JAZ-ANZ© a Quarry Management Plan(QMP) based on document OHSE-FO-018 Project Safety and Environmental Management Plan will be written and implemented. This plan will include all controls and Commitments included in both the EER submission and this Supplement. The QMP will reference MSD’s current accredited systems for managing, monitoring and controlling practices incorporating the following procedures referenced earlier; OHSE-PR-001 Risk & Hazard Control Procedure OHSE-PR-020 Environmental Procedure OHSE-PR-017 Plant Washdown Procedure OHSE-PR-021 Dust & Plant Emission Control Procedure


of 18

DPIPWE – Noise Specialist

Issue 64 – Given the area, it is likely that the noise limits would 45dB(A) at the nearest residence. On the basis of the level of public representation, it would be appropriate to provide some additional info on noise assessment:

Individual A-weighted and one – octave sound levels for the quarry equipment. dB(A) sound pressure level predictions for all residences within 1 km of the quarry, including the residence missed in

the original assessment.

A comment regarding noise from trucks on the access road impacting nearby residences. It may be beneficial to run a trial on site and measure the resulting noise levels.

Response 64 – The equipment octave band sound power levels, dBA obtained at the trial operation were;

Octave Band Centre Frequency, Hz 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k

screen 78 95 90 100 103 101 97 88 dozer 81 84 95 100 104 106 112 102 crusher 88 98 98 104 106 102 96 88 excavator 79 84 91 93 91 91 87 79 loader 67 88 91 99 100 97 92 84

Ten residences are within 1km of the quarry of which some may be grouped together as they are relatively close compared to the distance to the quarry. The groupings and the predicted / measured distance sound pressure levels give;

RESIDENCE DISTANCE

m SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL, dBA

Predicted Measured

225, 234, 240 Lachlan Road 800 33 32 22 & 34 Ironstone Road 850 32 - 35 Moores Road 970 37 33 9 Moores Road 715 34 - ‘Ringwood’ Ringwood Road 450 38 33 340 Lachlan Road 650 40 37 ‘Forest Hill’ 365 Lachlan Road 685 40 33

The quarry access road Figure 1, Attachment 2 Vipac Report No. 3897 shows it to be across essentially flat land and intersect Lachlan Road on the corner some 380m from the nearest residence, 9 Moores Road. The road will be maintained in good order, have a speed limit of 20 km/hr and trucks will be notified engine / exhaust brakes are not to be used. Trucks access will be limited to between 7am to 6pm weekdays with an average of 9 truck movements, one way per day. As movements will not occur at night, 10pm to 7am sleep disturbance can be eliminated as an issue and only average noise levels need be considered. Based on L10 data for a B double truck travelling up a slight incline and a single movement each 15 minutes, the Leq at the nearest residence would be 41 dBA. For a minor public road a typical planning noise level would be 50 to 55 dBA as a 1 hour Leq NSW DECC environmental criteria for road traffic noise. Further the Quarry CoP 1999 noise criteria at 10 dBA above Leq would indicate maximum noise level of 45 dBA. Vipac Engineers and Scientists therefore deem the truck noise is below both criteria and considered acceptable. The trial conducted on site on 1st February 2011 Vipac Report No. 3897 demonstrates this.

PLANNING

DIER – Infrastructure Policy and Planning

Issue 65 – Based on the information contained in the traffic assessment (TIS) dated May 2010 undertaken by Midson Traffic Pty Ltd, DIER considers the traffic impacts of the proposal will be adequately dealt with by adopting the conclusions and recommendations of the TIA.

Response 65 – It is noted that approval will be required through DIER under the Traffic Act 1925 for all signs and line marking arrangements required for the new access road junction. If the quarry proposal is accepted then approval will be sought through a DIER Access Works Permit Application – TI-11-A-01 which MSD will comply with to ensure DIER roadwork standards are complied to.


A. Attachments

1. Views of Quarry

2. Vipac Report No. 3897 ‘Lachlan Quarry – Operating Noise Levels’, 22/2/2011

3. Vipac Report No. 3933 ‘Addendum – Lachlan Quarry Operating Noise Levels’, 08/04/2011

4. Dustmatt© references http://www.mite.com.au/downloads/empiricalsoil.ZIP

5. Tasmanian Heritage Register ( Nov 2010, http://www.heritage.tas.gov.au/heritage_listed.html ) Supersedes Appendix 3 of EER.

6. House Distances. Supersedes Appendix 11 of EER.

7. Management Commitments Supersedes Management Commitments of EER

http://www.mite.com.au/downloads/empiricalsoil.ZIP

http://www.heritage.tas.gov.au/heritage_listed.html


Attachment 1 - Views of Quarry

Photos were taken at the locations indicated below;

Location and orientation of Quarry Views.

View 1 - towards proposed quarry from 365 Lachlan Rd


View 2 - Towards proposed quarry from 351 Ringwood Rd

View 3 – Towards Proposed Quarry from 340 Lachlan Rd

View 4 – Towards proposed quarry from roadside.


Attachment 2 - Vipac Report 3897

Lachlan Quarry Operating Noise Levels’, 22/2/2011

VIPAC ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTSVipac Engineers & Scientists Limited A.C.N. 005 453 627 A.B.N. 33 005 453 627PO Box 476, Rosny Park, Tasmania 7018 AUSTRALIATelephone (+61 3) 6244 5556, Facsimile (+61 3) 6245 9200, www.vipac.com.au

Melbourne • Sydney • Adelaide • Perth • Brisbane • Hunter Valley • Tasmania • Singapore • Hong Kong • Bangkok

MSD Constructions 22 February, 2011Magra, Tasmania 7140 3897.docAttention: Danny Hill

LACHLAN QUARRY – OPERATING NOISE LEVELS

A noise assessment has been conducted and reported on1 for the operation of a quarry off the corner ofLachan and Ringwood Roads, Lachlan. The assessment predicted the noise levels in the communitybased on the sound power levels of the equipment to be used. The sound power was determined frommeasurements on the actual equipment to be used but operating at Hayes. The opportunity arose tomeasure the noise emissions from the Lachlan quarry when the equipment was operating in it, andmeasurements were recorded on the 1st February during that operation.

This letter documents those measurements and the conclusions drawn from them.

1 LACHLAN QUARRY OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS

1.1 Operating Conditions

For the measurements the following equipment was operated in the quarry, and is shown in Figure 1:Dozer Caterpillar D7R XRWheeled Loader International 530Tracked Excavator Kobelco SK235SRVibratory Screen RD90Cone Crusher Terex Pegeson AX846

Figure 1: Quarry Equipment Operating

1 “Lachlan Quarry – Noise Assessment”, 8 September 2010, Vipac Report No. 3792

MSD Constructions

Lachlan Quarry – Operating Noise Levels

Reference: 3897.doc 23-Feb-11 Page 2 of 8Commercial-In-Confidence

The equipment operating times were:Off 0942 – 1025 hrs and 1204 – 1250 hrsOn 1028 – 1200 hrs

1.2 Measurement Equipment

The following equipment was used for the monitoring:Sound Level Meters Type 1, Svan 945 (2 off), Svan 957 (1 off)Acoustic Calibrator Larson Davis CAL200Wind Station Hobo Micro StationGround Vibrations Instantel Minimate Plus with Tri Axial Geophone

1.3 Measurement Locations

Figure 2: Measurement Locations

4

5

6

7

8

3

2

1

N

9

MSD Constructions



The measurement locations are indicated in Figure 2 and in detail were:1 On Fence Line 660m from quarry, 140m from house at Location 62 At quarry 30m from screen3 On fence Line with House, 585m from quarry, 65m from house4 240 Lachlan Rd, Brookside 880 m from the quarry5 340 Lachlan Rd 685 m from quarry6 365 Lachlan Rd, Forest Hill House 765m from Quarry, 35m from house7 Moores Road 1190 m from Quarry

The following measurements were conducted:Ground Vibrations Location 1 and 2Noise Measurements Locations 3 through to 7Wind Monitor Location 8

Noise measurements were made with the quarry off and on at locations 3 to 7.

1.4 Results

The weather conditions during the measurements were on average:Wind 0.75 m/s from the north (351 degrees).Temperature 220C,Atmospheric pressure 985hPa

The wind then was in general from the quarry up the valley, with the wind conditions in detail shown inFigure 3.

Figure 3: Wind Monitoring Trend

MSD Constructions



The following observations were made during the measurements:• At Location 3 birds and rural bush noise were the main noises. Traffic on Ringwood road was nil,

while traffic on Lachlan road was only faintly audible. When the quarry started up it was barelyperceived, a low frequency noise that was assumed to be the dozer was just noticed.

• At location 4 traffic was the dominant noise by far. The houses here are within 5 to 15m of theverge so well exposed to the traffic. A faint hum from the pole mounted transformer was clearwhen no traffic. The quarry was not audible.

• Location 5 is again on Lachlan road but the house is now some 30m from the verge. Traffic isstill the main noise source and the quarry is only audible on occasion due to the dozer, but wasnot clearly so.

• Location 6 again has traffic noise from Lachlan Road as the main noise source. The quarry wason occasion audible, but not consistently so, and not clearly.

• Location 7 was at some elevation to the quarry. Traffic noise on Lachlan road was dominant, anddue to the extensive view of the road, quite consistent. When the quarry started up is was notgenerally perceivable, a low frequency noise just audible if concentrating. This was againassumed to be the dozer.

The noise measurements are summarised by overall levels in Table 1 and then in Figure 4 to Figure 11by one third octave spectra. The data show:

• There is no significant difference between on and off data; differences are typically less than 2dBA.

• Location 5 shows the biggest difference, with the ON condition having an increase of 6 dBA• When ON most spectra show an increase in the 100Hz third octave band. This is likely due to the

dozer at the quarry.

Sound Pressure Level, dBA, 10 min.

L10 L90 Leq

Location 3 On 41 33 38Off 39 32 36

Location 4 On 59 32 63Off 61 31 63

Location 5 On 66 37 66Off 60 31 64

Location 6 On 51 33 47Off 48 30 44

Location 7 On 42 33 39Off 43 33 40

Table 1: Summary of Noise levels

The EPA installed a noise logger at location 9 for the period 1st to 9th February 2011. The EPA has madethat data available as 5 minute interval data which is summarised in Table 2. In the Table the data for theperiod 1030 to 1200 hours only, on each day is presented. In this manner the ON data is compared against

MSD Constructions



OFF data for other days during the same time. The data confirms those measured by Vipac, in that thequarry had no significant impact on the noise levels at that location.

Sound Pressure Level, dBAL10 L90 Leq

Feb 1st ON 44 34 42

2nd 42 35 393rd 47 37 444th 42 35 40

(Sat) 5th 43 35 40(Sun) 6th 44 34 41

7th 45 36 428th 41 33 399th 40 32 38

Avg.

OFF

43 35 41

Table 2: EPA Data Location 9, 1030 – 1200 hrs

Figure 4: Noise Trend at Location 3

Figure 5: Location 3 Spectra

MSD Constructions





Figure 8: Noise Trend at Location 6

MSD Constructions




Figure 10 Noise Trend at Location 7


MSD Constructions



1.5 Discussion

At all locations the quarry was either inaudible or just audible, while ambient noises such as traffic andbirds showed strongly varying noise levels. As such the L90 level (the level exceeded for 90% of thetime) will most accurately reflect the impact of the quarry operation. This is confirmed by:• observing the L90 data in Table 1 where the ON/OFF levels at each location reflect the observations

made during the measurements (small changes, low levels).• In the noise trends of Figure 4 and Figure 8 the only observable difference is in the change to the

noise floor (ie. the L90 level).

Based on this the following is noted:• quarry noise is 33dBA at all locations except location 5 where it is 37 dBA.• The quarry causes an increase of 2 dBA or less in the noise levels at all locations except location

5 where the increase is 6 dBA.

Where the quarry is audible it is the low frequency component of the noise that is heard, due to the dozer.

The initial noise assessment for the quarry was based on measured sound power levels for the equipmentwhen it was operating at Hayes. The sound pressure levels at the residences were then calculated based onspherical spreading and partial screening of the sources. Those calculations predicted quarry noise levelsof 41 to 44 dBA at location 5. This compares to the measured level of 37 dBA. The measured quarrynoise is then less than the assessment predictions. This is most likely due to the assessment calculationsnot accounting for air absorption, and only applying minimal topographical screening when in fact thescreening is more significant.

1.6 ConclusionsFrom noise measurements made during operation of the Lachlan quarry on 1st February 2011, thefollowing has been determined:

Quarry noise is between 33 to 37 dBA

The Quarry operations cause an increase in the background noise of 2 dBA or less except atlocation 5 where the increase is 6 dBA.

When the quarry is audible it is the dozer that is heard.

The measured quarry noise is less than the predicted noise levels used in the initial quarryassessment.

The measured operating quarry noise is well below the criteria indicated in the initial assessmentof 45 to 50 dBA.

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to call this office directly.Yours faithfully

VIPAC ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS LTDBill Butler


Attachment 3 - Vipac Report No. 3933

Addendum – Lachlan Quarry Operating Noise Levels, 08/04/2011

VIPAC ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTSVipac Engineers & Scientists Limited A.C.N. 005 453 627 A.B.N. 33 005 453 627PO Box 476, Rosny Park, Tasmania 7018 AUSTRALIATelephone (+61 3) 6244 5556, Facsimile (+61 3) 6245 9200, www.vipac.com.au

Melbourne • Sydney • Adelaide • Perth • Brisbane • Hunter Valley • Tasmania • Singapore • Hong Kong • Bangkok

MSD Constructions 8 April, 2011Magra, Tasmania 7140 3933.docAttention: Danny Hill

ADDENDUM - LACHLAN QUARRY OPERATING NOISE LEVELS

During operation of the quarry off the corner of Lachlan and Ringwood Roads, Lachlan, ground vibrationmeasurements were conducted in conjunction with noise measurements. The vibrations were not reportedon in the original document, and are addressed in this letter which is presented as an Addendum to theoriginal report1.

A1 VIBRATION MEASUREMENTS

A1.1 Measurement LocationsVibration data were recorded at Locations 1 and 2 as indicated in Figure 2 of the original report.

The tri axial geophone was mounted in the ground using the ground spikes supplied with the unit. Thelongitudinal direction of the geophone was oriented toward the quarry operations.

A1.2 Results

The results are summarised in Table 1 and Figure 1, and show The quarry has no effect on the ground vibrations at location 1. At the quarry (location 2) the ground vibrations are less than 0.5 mm/s as a peak particle velocity.

Quarry Status Peak Particle Velocity, mm/sAverage Maximum

Location 1 OFF 0.08 0.12ON 0.08 0.12

Location 2 OFF 0.12 0.27ON 0.25 0.42

Table 1

For heritage buildings, the DIN standard 4150 Part 3 1986 is applicable which states in Table 1 of it thatstandard that heritage buildings will not suffer cosmetic damage if ground vibrations are below 3mm/s asa peak particle velocity. Ground vibrations are below this level at the quarry, and well below distant fromthe quarry. The quarry does not cause excessive vibrations on this basis.

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to call this office directly.Yours faithfullyVIPAC ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS LTDBill Butler

1 “Lachlan Quarry – Operating Noise Levels”, 22 Feb 2011, Vipac Doc No. 3897

MSD Constructions

Addendum - Lachlan Quarry Operating Noise Levels

Reference: 3933.doc 8-Apr-11 Page 2 of 2Commercial-In-Confidence

Figure 1: Measurement Locations


Attachment 5 - Tasmanian Heritage Register(Nov 2010) http://www.heritage.tas.gov.au/heritage_listed.html

http://www.heritage.tas.gov.au/heritage_listed.html


Attachment 6 - House Distances

Distance from Quarry Lease Boundary to Surrounding Residences

Note: All distances as represented are approximated from Google Earth in meters


Attachment 7 - Revised Management Commitments (EER Part D)

General 1) Construct & implement Quarry Management Plan (QMP)

1. Flora and Fauna 2) Nil to negligible impact to threatened fauna species to be monitored.

3) Weed control by Washing and Cleaning Plant Procedures. 4) Monitor & manage weed propagation, including Blackberry biomass

& thicket number reduction. 5) Revegetate & monitor progressively during operations

2. Rivers, Creeks, Wetlands and Estuaries

6) Maintain separation of access road and drainage 7) Existing water course to the south to be enhanced including two

small dams 8) Divert overflow water currently passing through quarry with spoon

drains back into natural drainage line 9) Monitor surface water progressively, inspect monthly & clean

biannually

6. Air Emissions 10) Addition of ‘Dustmatt’© to gravel used on access roads. 11) Addition of water via nozzles to the crusher if required. 12) Slowing feed rates if required. 13) Water trucks if required. 14) Covering of vehicle loads if required. 15) Manage windrow surface area with compaction, sprinklers and

grassing.

8. Solid Wastes 16) Existing steel remnants left from former quarrying operations will be recycled.

17) Appropriate waste collection bins to be deployed and managed on site.

9. Noise Emissions 18) Use modern regularly maintained and serviced equipment, OHSE-PR-009

19) Maintain earth berm for noise attenuation. 20) Additional vegetation screening. 21) No blasting. 22) No rock breaking. 23) No operations on weekends or public holidays, unless an emergency

e.g. road slips, road closures, washouts, … 24) Operating hours, unless otherwise approved by the Director(EPA); Crushing 7 am – 5 pm Monday to Friday. Cartage 7 am – 6 pm Monday to Friday.

10. Transport Impacts 25) Upgrade access to quarry, including; i) DIER Access Works Permit Application – TI-11-A-01 ii) Slip lane

iii) Two automated flashing “trucks entering” signals either side of the entrance

26) Trimming & control of vegetation at access 27) Truck operating hours 7 am – 6 pm Monday to Friday, unless

otherwise approved by the Director(EPA) 28) The following Road signage erected and maintained;

i) 20 kph ii) PPE

iii) Quarry Operations iv) No Engine Brakes v) Trucks Entering

29) Fit UHF radios into two school busses that use Lachlan Road


11. Other Off-Site Impacts 30) Vegetation management of site to maintain skyscape 31) Additional natural vegetation screening 32) Services location to be carried out before all

construction/excavation, OHSE-PR-011 Work Permit Procedures.

12. Dangerous Substances and Chemicals 33) Not to be stored on site. Diesel and oil products will not be stored on site.

34) Environmental incident reporting and action as per QMP

13. Site Contamination 35) If discovered on site inform the appropriate authority and have the contamination removed as per regulations, OHSE-WI-27 Disposal of Prescribed Waste

14. Sustainability and Climate Change 36) Use modern regularly maintained and serviced equipment, OHSE-PR-009.

37) Recycle water for use in the quarry and adjoining livestock watering. 38) Selection of smaller fuel efficient plant.

15. Cultural Heritage 39) If an item of cultural or heritage value is suspected of being uncovered work would be stopped and OHSE-WI-25 Heritage & Archaeology Conservation Instruction implemented. This will require an investigation and a Heritage Management Plan to be developed.

17. Rehabilitation 40) Rehabilitate & monitor landform stability, contouring, backfilling and levelling progressively during operations

41) Full rehabilitation implemented returning land to pasture upon permanent closure

42) Ensure site access is locked when quarry not in operation and appropriate fencing and signage exists at the quarry.

43) Remove quarry-related buildings and storage facilities at permanent closure of the quarry.

constructions pty ltd cates quarry supplement cates quarry ...constructions pty ltd cates quarry...

Documents