EIS 1509
AA06791 6
Griffith City Council Tharbogang Landfill - Quarry development,
Griffith, NSW. I NSW IEPI PRIMARY~~J J INISTRIES L 7°? [ AA06791 6
I
I GRIFFITH CITY COUNCIL
THARBOGANG LANDFILL QUARRY DEVELOPMENT
I Griffith, NSV I
I AWL6409/1 -EA I 1 August, 2001 I I I I I
I I I I GeotechrcaI I Resources I Environmental I Technical I Project Management I
I AWL6409/1-EA AE:MH-C 1 August, 2001
I Griffith City Council PG Box485 I GRIFFITH NSW 2680 I Attention: Mr Peter Higgins, Civil Infrastructure and Waste Manager I Deer Sir, 1 RE: THARBOGANG LANDFILL - QUARRY DEVELOPMENT This letter serves to present supplementary information for the Envtronrnentai Impact Study carr:ed out I by Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd for the above project. (refer AWL6409/1-BH dated 5 September, 2000).
I F:47do/CehaIf of COSCIENCES PTY LTD I
I P EDWARDS Manager I I I I I I
I uni: 1 /15 1 Wytrra Orve North Albury NSW 2640 Australa 60 Box 803 Albury NSW 2640 Austraha Telephone +61 2 6040 3847 I FacsmiIe +61 2 6040 3861 Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd AON 056 335 516 EmaP albury©coffey.com no I
AWL6409/1 -EA I 1 August, 2001 I TABLE OF CONTENTS I I INTRODUCTION RESOLUTION OF ISSUES RAISED I 2.1 Speedway Club Lease 2.2 Noise Impact Study I 2.3 Vegetation Clearing & Visual Aspects 2.4 Groundwater Quality 2 2.5 Flora and Fauna Impacts 2 2.6 Site Justification 2 2.6.1 General 2 2.6.2 Quarry Materials 2 2.6.3 Landfill 3 2.6.4 Environmental Considerafions 3
APPENDICES
A Minutes of the Planning Focus Meeting
B Noise Impact Statement
C DSB Landscape Architects Visual Assessment Report
D DLWC Correspondence
E NSW NaUonal Parks & Wildlife SeHce Letter
C 'W SOF F I CEN1 N WOR MEJ SJHAR BOGA N GJharboga ng-Quarry.A6409ea, Dot
I I AWL6409/1 -EA I 1 August, 2001 I INTRODUCTION I Following submission to Council in September 2000 of the Environmental Impact Study carried out by Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd, a planning focus meeting was held at the Griffith City Council Chambers on 18 December, 2000 to discuss the study with council members, interested government agencies and the Griffith I Speedway Club. Minutes of the meeting are included in Appendix A of this supplementary report. The main issues of concern that arose from the meeting include:
The impact of the development on the Griffith Speedway Club in terms of their length of lease; I The EPA requested that a noise impact study be carried out to support the assumptions made in the EIS report; Murrumbidgee Irrigation (Ml) expressed concern that the extent of 'clearing' may compromise regional targets; Department of Land and Water Conservation (D.L.W.C) suggested that the existing groundwater quality issue should be subject to a risk management strategy that would either justify natural I attenuation or provide options for remediation; The EIS should be reviewed against the McPherson Range Landscape Report proposed by DSB Landscape Architects (DSB); I NSW N.P.W.S be contacted to confirm that they are satisfied which the conclusions of the EIS in respect to threatened species; and I Further justification was needed to show why it was not practical or economical to look at further sites.
2. RESOLUTION OF ISSUES RAISED I 2.1 Speedway Club Lease It was agreed that the staging of the landfill/quarry operation could be managed to ensure the Speedway Club I could continue to operate on its present site for at least a further twenty (20) years. The Speedway club representatives were satisfied that this was an acceptable period for their future planning.
2.2 Noise Impact Study
I A noise impact study was carried out by Noise and Sound Services of Sydney. The study took into consideration the existing and proposed development of the landfill and quarry operation and concluded that "The EPA noise criteria will be met for the continuous noise from the proposed expansion hence no noise impact is predicted from plant within the site. The on-road truck noise will not exceed EPA Road Traffic Criteria. The noise and vibration from blasting will also be met provided charge weights are restricted to those I given in this report". A copy of the noise impact statement is enclosed in Appendix B. 2.3 Vegetation Clearing & Visual Aspects
This issue is addressed in part by the DSB Landscape Architects review of the EIS (Appendix C).
I The concerns raised by Ml and' DSB in respect to the density and maturity of vegetation needed to provide safe haven and access for native fauna and to appease the visual aspect of the development from the Lake I Wyangan Direction can be addressed with good forward planning and planting. In some areas this may require planting of adolescent trees rather than seedlings to overcome past I indiscriminate clearing of vegetation. I I AWL6409/1-EA 2 1 August, 2001 I Where tree planting alone may not meet the visual expectations of the Lake Wyangan residents the construction of laterally orientated and vegetated soil mounds could be carried out and exposed rock faces in I the quarries could be mulched/sprayed to soften the visual impact.
2.4 Groundwater Quality I After discussion and correspondence with the Department of Land and Water Consewation it was agreed that the issue of remediation of groundwater contamination from the past landfill activities should not form pad of the EIS but be addressed as a separate council issue.
I A copy of the relevant D.L.W.0 correspondence on the matter is enclosed in Appendix D.
2.5 Flora and Fauna Impacts I A copy of the NSW NP WS response to the EIS review is enclosed in Appendix E. I 2.6 Site Justification 2.6.1 General
This issue was addressed in part verbally by Mr Peter Higgins of the Council during the focus meeting. Mr I Higgins presented his view on the economic advantages that were derived by incorporating the landfill and quarry operation.
The EIS concluded that the irrigation areas of the M.l.A were generally environmental unsuitable for the I establishment of a landfill as a consequence of a relatively high water table and economically not viable due to the potential value of the area of the land that would be required. I Similarly the EIS concluded that looking at other areas within the McPhersons Range for a suitable gravel source and landfill area would be unacceptable based on the recommendation of Griffith City Council Environmental Study 1991 which classified the area as environmentally sensitive on the basis of flora, fauna, 1 scenic and heritage values. 2.6.2 Quarry Materials 1 Currently the City uses about 60,000 tonnes of road base annually from the Tharbogang quarry. The approximate cost to the council of winning crushing and screening of the rock to road base standard is $5.80 per tonne. The nearest optional source of road base material of similar quality is Wumbulga!' quarry on the I Leeton to Yenda Road approximately 20kms from the Griffith CBD. The current price of road base from this source is $17.60 per m3 ($11.00 per tonne) at the quarry. Haulage of the road base to the Griffith CBD area would add approximately $5.00 per tonne.
I The haulage of road base from Tharbogang landfill to the Griffith CBD based on the same haulage rate would ' add about $2.00 per tonne to the unit rate.
Delivered to CBD ex 'Tharbogang' $7.80 per tonne;
Delivered to CBD ex Wumbulgal' $16.00 per tonne. I The cost saving to the council in operating the Tharbogang quarry as a road base source is therefore about $492,000 per annum. I
I AWL6409/1-EA 3 I 1 August, 2001 I 2.6.3 Landffll I If the current landfill site was converted into a recycling and waste transfer station and the waste was then transferred to a site beyond the influence of the irrigation area the annual cost based on a projected waste mass of 16.400 tonne per annum and a conservative haulage distance of 20kms would amount to an d additional annual cost to the council and ratepayers of approximately $82,000. While the lining of the cells at a new site could be expected to be similar to that of the Tharbogang site the cost of rehabilitation at Tharbogang can be viewed as about half as the cost is shared with the quarry 1 operation. The value of the airspace generated by the quarrying operation has been estimated based on the likely option of having to excavate cells at a new site which we would expect to cost about $4.00 per m3. Based on a I combined volume of excavation in proposed stages 2 and 3 of the Tharbogang quarry of 2,200,000m3 over fifty (50) years (44,000m3 per year) the annual saving to the council would be in the vicinity of $176,000.
I 2.6.4 Environmental Considerations The raised topography of the Tharbogang site allows for relatively easy management of surface water and I leachate collection from lined cells. This is deemed to be a significant benefit in terms of protecting the quality of natural surface and subsurface waters.
In terms of potential disturbance of flora most of the ground surface proposed for the landfill and quarry I extension has been disturbed and modified when the site was used in the past as a source of surface gravel. The rehabilitation plan as proposed and when completed will restore the native vegetation over the site to essentially its natural composition and density. I The Tharbogang site is relatively close to the source of generated waste and areas requiring road base. In considering more remote locations for the disposal of waste materials and as a source of road base gravels it is seemingly inevitable that greater impacts on the environment will result. Such impacts would include I increased traffic and consequential road maintenance, increased carbon monoxide gas emissions and potentially increased roadside litter from transporting vehicles, etc. 1
YFan behalf of
EOSCIEN CES PTY LTD
I RDS I I I I I AWL6409/1 -EA 1 1 August. 2001
I APPENDIX A I , F. 436 KT:WK GRIFFITH CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING FOCUS MEETING TO DISCUSS THE THARBOGANG LANDFILL & QUARRY EXPANSION PROPOSAL HELD ON MONDAY, 18 DECEMBER, 2000 I AT 10.00 AM IN GRIFFITH CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I Attendees: Tony Edwards Coffey David Tull Griffith City Council Peter Higgins I Satwinder Sandhu Helen Brill Kelly Tyson I Metissa Daniher Environment Protection Authority Rob Kelly Murrumbidgee Irrigation Phil Green Department of Land & Water Conservation Jennie & Neil Carter Griffith Speedway Club I Phoebe Harrison Griffith Built and Natural Environment Group I Rhonda Miranda Apologies: CAA Dept Mines and Energy I NP&WS Greening Australia
I 1. A brief introduction and overview of the proposal was given.
2. Neil and Jennie Carter outlined their concerns that the landfill/quarry expansion may I adversely impact on the speedway. Their concerns are: The club had no finances for relocating and redeveloping at another site. The staging plan was confused and would compromise renegotiation of their Ieae with I Council. . They had no separate access to the speedway and all traffic had to enter via the I weigh bridge If forced to relocate they would like the Council to pay for the relocation and redevelopment of the speedway. This is particularly in view of the fact that the current site I was agreed to by Council after an 8 year search for appropriate land and they have significantly improved the site over the last 16 years. Their expansion plans had been withdrawn because of the leasing/future uncertainty.
I The Speedway Club may put a request in writing for renegotiation of the lease, after ' speaking to the Mayor, Helen Brayne. It was pointed out that the issue of the Speedway Club's tenure on the site would be a consideration at the time the Council decided on the whole DA proposal. Peter Higgins later said that in all likelihood the speedway would be affected in the penultimate stage of the development.
I Melissa Daniher advised that a noise impact assessment would be required. After some discussion with Tony Edwards it was agreed that the EPA may accept a statement identifying the criteria and acceptable noise limits which must be complied with in the quarry/landfill I operations. The EIS needed to show the location of affected or nearby residences. David Tull indicated that blasting historically had been carriedoUt only once every few months.
. Murrumbidgee Irrigation had no major concerns with the proposal. The EIS needed to 1 identify the extent of clearing as regional targets may be compromised. I Minutes of the Planning Focus Meeting - 18 December 2000
I Page 2
DLWC advised that they had no major concerns with the EIS. The groundwater situation needed to be considered in line with a risk management strategy. Any reliance on "natural attenuation" needed to be justified. Erosion and sediment control plans could be required at Construction Certificate stage with various stages to be approved by the Catchment Manager at Narrandera. There is good remnant habitat and there needs to be identification of significant habitat areas. The EIS should indicate which areas must be protected from development. Tony Edwards pointed out that existing trees could be poisoned by methane gas even if left standing. Planting trees in disturbed and subsequently rehabilitated areas was not desirable in the short term as trees would in all likelihood be stressed and die from methane gas poisoning, only shallow rooted shrubs would be suitable for,initial establishment. The landscape corridor areas through the site would be landscape with local native trees to assist 1 in mitigating visual impacts. He also explained that there is an emerging awareness that capping and isolating individual cells may not be as sustainable as allowing complete I breakdown of areas through the profile. There was significant discussion on the visual and landscape impacts associated with the 9. proposal. The EIS needed to address the dsb landscape report and growth strategy 1 recommendations for the McPherson Range. It was later agreed that cross sections and elevations would be prepared showing the finished view from the north and also showing where the treeline would project on the finished suace within the landscape buffer corridors. 1 This would assist in identifying the extent of visual impact and the adequacy of proposed landscaping strategy. The impact of tree clearing in the Lake Wyangan basin needed to be quantified as 70% of 10 the site would be cleared. Tony Edwards clarified that 'the eastern part of the site" suggested not to be developed by EttamOgah consultants was the site in the vicinity of the speedway to the east and south east reserve area.
Because NPWS were not present, Tony Edwards was asked to confer directly with them 11 regarding the adequacy of the section dealing with threatened species and the 8 part test I and the conclusions suggesting that no species impact statement would be required. I. The EIS needed to have more discussion on the alternative sites section. There needed to 12 be more justification of why it was not practical or economic to look at other sites. Regard should be had to the growth strategy submission identifying another site in the vicinity of Quarry Road. The benefits of a regional landfill site should also be discussed. Peter Higgins explained that the proposed landfill and quarry are reasonable when considering the merits in tandem as opposed to separate iand uses. One use supports the other. He also discussed where Council was heading in relation to the waste minimisatiOfl and recycling strategy targets. The user pays principle was being adopted and the proposed operational measures were in line with best practice and a significant improvement to the existing operation where no leachate control systems or other similar positive operational measures were in place. On receipt of the addiflonal information the EIS will be publicly exhibited and the formal consultation process commenced.
I The meeting concluded at 1215pm.
DEVELOP ENLE LANNING MANAG
I Wc,,,n.P'.fl''Q F M*il2I OC I Minutes of the Planning Focus Meeting — 18 December 2000 I AWL6409/1 -EA 2 1 August, 2001
APPENDIX B Li1 I
Prepd for Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd i Nort:h Albury, NSW 2640 1 April 2001
Report No nss20179 ri II
I
I
I
' NOISE AND SOUND SERVICES Specialists in Noise and Vibration Assessments Control and Training Spectrum House, 1, Elegans Avenue, St Ives, NSW 2075 Tel: (02) 9449 6499. Fax: (02) 9402 5849. Mob: 0411 648153 ' E-mail scanneliQnverrietcom.au WorkCover Accredited Trainer No. 86/676/602531 ABN: 7277 134 9599 I I I CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY 1
1: INTRO1)UCTION 2
2. SITE AND EXPANSION DESCRIPTION 2
2.1 Site Description 2 2.2 Expansion Description 3
3. CRITERIA
3.1 Industrial Noise Policy 3.2 EPA Criteria for Road Traffic Noise 9 3.3 Blasting Criteria 10
4. NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND SOURCE NOISE LEVELS ii
4.1 Existing Background and Ambient Noise Measurements ii 4.2 Source Noise Levels 13
5. NOISE GOALS 14
5.1 Intrusive Noise Goals 14 5.2 Noise Amenity Goals 15 5.3 Overall Project Specific Goals 15
6. NOISE MODELLING AND ASSESSMENT 16
6.1 Noise Modelling Specification 16 6.2 Basic Noise Modelling Equations 16 6.3 Prediction of Plant Noise 17 6.4 Assessment of Plant Noise 17 6.5 Prediction of Road Traffic Noise 18 6.6 Prediction of Vibration from Blasting 19 6.7 Prediction of Overpressure from Blasting 20
7. CONCLUSIONS 20
APPENDIX A - Existing Background and Ambient Noise level Results 21 Report ns20 179 FinI NIS Aprfl 2001 - 1ee 1
SUMMARY I This Noise Impact Statement considers a proposed expansion of the existing I landfill and quarry operations at Tharbogang. near Griffith. NSW. The site of the proposed expansion is bordered by existing orchards ranging in distance from 450 metres to 1500 metres. The proposed expansion includes the use of plant such I as: a mobile crusher. rock drill, excavators, loaders. compacters and trucks. The noise from blasting has been predicted and assessed. I Noise criteria provided by the Environment Protection Authority. NSW (EPA) have been considered. These are the Industrial Noise Policy (2000) and, for blasting, the EPA Environmental Noise Control Manual (1994). The assessment procedure covers both I controlling intrusive noise impacts and mamta nling noise level amenity. The existing acoustical climate has been assessed using a noise logger at the most I sensitive dwelling to the proposed expansion. The existing background noise levels (L \ ) ere found to be 50 dBA in the day time. The existing ambient noise levels (L) were found to be 69 dBA in the day time.
A noise goal (L at the nearest residential properties has been set in accordance with I EPA criteria. This is 50 dBA in the day time. Acoustical modelling for the proposed expansion has been carried out. This uses methods I given in the International Standard ISO 96 13-2 (1996). The EPA noise criteria will be met for the continuous noise from the proposed expansion Hence no noise impact is predicted from plant within the site. The on- I road truck noise will not exceed the EPA Road Traffic Criteria. The noise and vibration from b1astiig will also be met provided charge weights are restricted to I those given in this report.
1 I 1 I I I Report nss20 179 - Final NIS Apni 2001 Page 2
I I. INTRODUCTION
Noise and Sound Services was requested by Coffey Geoscience Pty Ltd. Albury, to carry out a Noise Impact Statement (NIS) for a proposed expansion of an existing landfill and quarry operations at Tharbogang. NSW. This NIS is in line with the requirements of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (letter I reference 598/01561 /Zl dated 1 May 2000) and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) (letter reference 235214/Al/GFF23 I dated 11 April 2000) This I NIS is part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the expansion. The issues addressed in this NIS are the future noise emissions from plant and on- I road traffic from the landfill and planL on-road traffic and blasting from the quarry
2. SITE AND EXPANSION DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location site for the proposed expansion and provides a detailed description of the proposed working activity of the expansion.
2.1 Site Description
It is proposed to expand the existing landfill and quarry at Tharbogang to provide for the projected needs for the disposal of waste and the supply of crushed rock for Griffith City and the surrounding area for the next fifty years. The existing I landfill and quarry were originally established at the site in 1984 and 1991 respectively. The City of Griffith currently produces an estimated 55,000 tom-tes of I waste per annum and uses approximately 60000 tonnes of crushed rock road base for the construction and maintenan ce of its roads. Based on current waste generation and road base usage the current landfill and quarry have life I expectations of only 2 and 3 years respectively.
The surrounding area of the proposed expansion is a quiet rural (forest) zone and is surrounded by orchards and farmland. There is also a speedway on the site. The speedway is infrequently used and the noise for these events is not considered relevant to this NIS. There is also a caretaker's cottage on site but it is understood that this is not used during the daytime and is likely to be emolished in the quarrv expansion it is not considered further in this NIS. The neighbouring residential properties and the approximate distances from the proposed expansion I are shown in Figure 1 below:- I I I I
I Report nss20 179 - Final NIS April 2001 Nec 3 I Site Boundan I EE 21 700 in
I S peedwav I 500 rn 450 iTi \ Slopes Road
lisp I I w Lakes Road I Backgrofind Nois Monitoring Kidman Way To Griffith
I Hillston Road
I Figure 1. Site Plan. Background t'/oise Surveys were carried out at the Nearest Reside,ice to the Site- Tony Sergi's Property (TSP). Not to Scale.
I Strong \vind patterns do exist in the area. In the summer months, these are commonly south-westerly in the afiernoons and prevailing north-easterly to I easterly in the mornings. In the winter months winds are commonly influenced by westerlies ranging from south-west to north-west. Temperature inversions are likely to occur between May and October with an average of six per month. The I highest recording of surface temperature inversions has been 15 days in July 1987. The landfill and quarry are to be in operation only in day time and hence, in line I with EPA's policy, temperature inversions are not considered further. I 2.2 Expansion Description The proposed expansion is a Landfill/Quarry site which will be in operation only I between the hours of 07:00 hours and 17:15 hours weekdays with occasional work on Saturday. I I I I I Rcporinns20 179 Final NIS April 2001 PaOe 4
I 2.2. 1 Land III Operation I The Landfill operation typically involves the use of- excavator compactor loader trucks (usually 610 7).
2. 2.2 Oi.icirrv Operation
The Quarry operation typically involves drilling and blasting. hydraulic rock breaking. crushing. stockpiling and dispatching of the road base. The daily operations generally involve 2 or 3 personnel on the site and the road base is transported from the site by truck.
Equipment used on site usually includes:-
a mobile crushing plant (which comprises of a primary jaw crusher. second arv gxratory crusher and screening unit), rock drill excavator (with hydraulic hammer) loader trucks (usually 310 4).
2.2.3 Mobile Plant Movements
The majority of the raw product delivered to the landfill site is via Council garbage trucks. although waste disposal contractor trucks and members of the public using I utilities or cars with trailer bins also use the landfill site. Typical movements currently for weekdays are 28 trucks per day (hence 56 heavy vehicle movements per day) and 93 utilities or cars per day (hence 186 light vehicle movements per I day). It is expected that utilities and cars visits increase on weekend days when there is more public use the site. It is likely that a 5% increase in traffic flows I could occur at the site.
The quarry presently produces about 50,000 tonnes of material each year. This is I likely to increase to about 75.000 tonnes of material each year which is transported in 20-25 tonne trucks. The total number of trucks per day (assuming I weekday movements only. ie 250 days per year) will be approximately 12 (hence I I Rep ii nss20 170-Final NIS April 2001 Page 5
24 heavy vehicle movements per day or day time 3 day time mm ements per day time hour). I 3. CRITERIA
I Noise criteria are provided by the Environment Protection Authority. NSW (EPA) which are generally in line with criteria given in other States of Australia and many Countries of the World. This includes the EPA Environmental Noise Control rn Manual (1094) and the Industrial Noise Policy (2000). These cover noise in urban. suburban and rural areas. Although specific local conditions can affect the criteria. U convincing justification must be given for any variation to EPA guidelines.
3.1 Industiial Noise Policy
The assessment procedure for industrial noise sources given in the EPAs Industrial Noise Policy (2000) has two components:-
Controlling intrusive noise impacts; and Maintaining noise level amenity;
In assessing the noise impact of industrial or commercial noise soui-ces all components must be taken into account for residential receivers, but. in most cases. only one will become the limiting criterion. The proecl-specific noise goals reflect the most stringent noise level requirement. It is derived from intrusive and amen1tv criteria and this is used to set a benchmark against which noise impacts and the need for noise rmtigation are assessed.
3. 1. 1 Intrusive Noise Impacts
The Environment Protection Authority. NSW (EPA) in their Industrial Noise I Policy (2000) states that: - The intrusiveness ol an industrial noise source may genera/I).' he considered acceptable if the equivalent continuous energy- average) A-weighted level of noise ftom the source ('represented by the L.ieq I descriptom) measured over a 15 minute period, does not exceed the background noise level measured in the absence of the source by more than 5 dB. Thus. when considering the environmental consequence of noise from a specific source, I any increase above the background sound pressure l\'el. which exceeds 5 dB. may be offensive. I I I Report ns2O 179 Final NIS Aprtl 2001 P'age 6
The perception of noise and its level of offensiveness depends greatly on the I broader situation within which it occurs. Noise that might intrude into a resting or sleeping place may be found offensive whereas the same noise occurring in a market place or noisy working area may pass unnoticed. The concept of 'background 5 C/B' derives from this consideration.
The EPA state that where the existingbackground noise level at the receptor is less than 30 dBA. as may occur in a quiet suburban or rural area, then 30 dBA should be assumed to be the existing background noise level
Where the noise source contains characteristics such as prominent tonal impulsiveness. intermittency, irregularity or do miriant low-frequency components, content adjustments to the measured level are applied to allow for the increase in the annoyance value.
3. 1.2 I'rolecling Noire Amen i/v
In the EPA's Industrial Noise Policy it is stated that 'Ta I/in/i continuing increases in noise levels, the max/alum ambient noise level within an circa from I industrial noise sources should not normally exceed the acceptable noise levels sper;ifiecl in Table 2.1.
I The relevant parts of the EPA recommended levels are given in Table 1 below:- I I
I I I I I Pge 7 Report nss20 179 - i:iial NIS April 2001
• NOISE SOURCES.
Noise I Indicative Recommended LAeq Type of Receiver Noise Amenity Time of Level (dRA) Area I Day Acceptable Extreme I Residence Rural Day 50 55 Evening 45 50 Night 40 45 I Residence 1 Suburban Day 55 60 Evening 45 50 Night 40 45 Residence Urban 60 65 Evenrng 50 55 Night 45 50 Residence Urban/Industrial Day 65 70 Evening 55 60 I existing Night 50 55 situations only ComIercII1terfacfor All 5en in 65 70 I premises use Indirial All \\en in 70 75 I ernises use
Hence the acceptable noise level ANL (LAeq) for rural areas is 50 dBA day time. 45 dBA evening time and 40 dBA night time. Day time is defined as 07:00 to 100 hours. evening is 18:00 to 22:00 hours and night time is defined as 22:00 I hours to 07:00 hours. Modifications are made to the ANL to account for the existing level of in dustrial noise. These are shown' in Table 2 be1ow:
I
I
I
I
III I Report ns.s20 179 Final NIS April2001 Page 8
TABLE 2. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVEL TO I ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING LEVEL OF INDUSTRIAL NOISE.
I Total existing Leq noise level from Maximum LAeq noise level from new Industrial sources, dBA sources alone, CIBA Acceptable noise level plus 2 Existing_noise level minus 10 I Acceptable noise level plus 1 Acceptable noise level minus Acceptable noise level Acceptable noise level minus Acceptable noise level minus I Acceptable noise level minus 6 I Acceptable noise level minus 2 Acceptable noise level minus 4 Acceptable noise level minus 3 Acceptable noise level minus 3 1 Acceptable noise level minus 4 Acceptable noise level minus 2 Acceptable noise level minus 5 Acceptable noise level minus 2 Acceptable noise level minus 6 4Acceptable noise level minus 1 - I Acceptable noise level minus 6 Acceptable noise level I 3. 1.3 Modiing Pcictor .4clfris!men is I Where a noise source contains certain characteristics, such as tonality, impulsiveness. intermittency. irregularity or dommaiit lov-frequencr content, there is evidence to suggest that it can cause greater aniiovance than other noise at I the same sound pressure level. A correction should he applied to both the intrusive and the amenity measurement before a comparison is made with the criteria. An I abbreviated version of the correction factors is shown in Table 3 below:- I 1 I I I I I I I I
I Report nss20 179 - Final NIS April 2001 Page 9 I TABLE 3— MODIFYING FACTOR CORRECTIONS
Factor Assessment! When to Correction Comments I Measurement Apply Tonal Noise One-third octave Lovel of one third + 5 dB Narrow hand
hand or narrow octave band exceeds frequency analysis
1 hand analysis the level of the may be required to
adjacent hands by 5 precisely detect I did or more (above 400 occurrence l-lz ) Low Measurement of C- Measure/assess C and + 5 dB C-weighted is 1 Frequency weighted and A- A-weighted levels designed to be Noise \veighted Level over same time period. more responsive Correction to he to low frequency I applied if the noise difl9rence between the
two is 15 dB or more
I Impulsive Time \veightmng If the difl9rence in the Apply the Impulse time Noise fast and impulse A weighted maximum diffrrence in weighting is 1 levels between 'Out' measured levels eharacterised by a and impulse are as the correction short rise time
greater than 2 did up to a maximum (dSnisec) compared I of 5 dB to I 2imsec for last'. Intermittent Subjectively Level varies by + 5 dB Adjustment to I Noise Assessed more than 5 dB he applied for night_time only I I 3.2 EPA Criteiia for Road Traffic Noise The EPA has produced criteria for road traffic noise irivironmenial Criieriaj!r Road Traf/Ic Noise (May 1999). This provides criteria for land use expansions I with potential to create additional traffic on local roads. Here the criterion is 55 LAcq, liar for day time (7:00 hours until 22:00 hours) and 50 LAeq, 1h, for night time (22:00 hours until 07:00 hours). In all cases, traffic arising from the expansion I should not lead to an increase in existing noise levels of more than 2 dB. I I I I Reporl nss20 I 70 Final NIS April 2001 Page 10
3.3 Blasting Criteria
The EPA provides guideline criteria for the control of blasting impact at I residences in chapter 154 of the Environmental Noise Control Manual (1994). This states that:-
I Blasting operations should, in most easer, be confined to the periods Monday to Satrirdcn', 9 elm to 3 pm. Blasting outride of those times .rhould he approved
0/7/V where blasting during the pretcered times is clear/v impracticable, and I should he limited in nwnher. Blasting at night should he avoided unless it is cib rout ic/v a ecessarv",
I The limiting criteria for the control of blasting impact at residences are shown in I Table 4 below, TABLE 4. THE LIMITING CRITERIA FOR THE CONTROL OF I BLASTING IMPACT AT RESIDENCES. Blast Ground Vibration Time of Blasting Overpressure Level Peak Particle I (dB(lincar)) Velocity (min/s) 950/o 1001vo 95% I 100% I Monday to Saturday, 9am to 115 1 120 5 10 3 pm Monday to Saturday, 6 am to 105 120 2 10 I 9 am and 3 pm to 8 pm Sunday. Public Holiday, 6 am 95 120 1 10 I to 8 pm Any Day, 8 pm to 6 am
I Similar criteria are given in the Australian Standard AS 2187 Explosives -- I S'torcige, transport and use -Part 2 Use of explosives. I I I I I I I Report ns20 179 - Fuial NIS April 2001 Page 11
4. NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND SOURCE NOISE LEVELS
I 4.1 E'isting Background and Ambient Noise Measurements
This section describes the instrumentation used for the existing background and I ambient noise measurements, the measurement procedure and the results. The measurement location is shown in Figure 1 and it was chosen to be representative I of the nearest residential properties for the proposed extension to the site.
4. 1. 1 I/7SI/'l.liflCflIClIiOfl
The instrumentation used during the noise survey consisted of an Acoustic I Research Laboratories Ptv Ltd' - Type 1 Environmental Noise Logger.
This logger conforms to Australian Standard 1259 Acoustics - Sound Level
I Meters. (192) as a type 1 precision sound level meter and has an accuracy suitable for field use.
I The logger calibration was checked before and after the measurement period with a Bruel and k]ar acoustical calibrator model 4230. No significant system drift I occurred over the measurement periods.
1 4. 1.2 Mecisi.ii'cmcn( Procedure
The measurements commenced on Wednesday 7 March 2001 and finished on
I Wednesday 14 March 2001. The full results are sho\vn in graphical form in Appendix A. The fast' time weighting and A' frequency weighting were used. All measurements were taken at a height of approximately 1.2 metres. The results I are necessarily a snapshot of the noise levels on the particular days of the survey. Noise levels can vary, with time due to different weather or traffic conditions. also low level measurements can be affected by animal or insect noises. I However, during the noise survey it was understood that the noise levels were ' typical and the weather did not have an adverse effect on the measurements. It is normal practice to mount loggers away from trees where wind in the leaves can affect background levels. However, this site is predominantly orchards and forest areas and all properties relevant to the landfill and quarry are in very close vicinity
I to trees. It is recognised that the background measurements are affected by the noise of wind blowing through leaves, but, in this case (houses in orchards), this is considered to be part of the normal background acoustic climate. I
I RcpoiI nss20 179 -- Final NIS April 2001 P%ge 12
-1. 1. 3 !vIec,,surcmen! Results
The assessment background noise level ABL (LA90) is determined by the tenth percentile method for each period (ie day, evening and night) and for each day is Sho\\ n in Table 5 below. The rating background noise levels RBL (L.'))) over the monitoring period is found from the median ABL value for the day time, evening time. and night time respectively. This is shown in Table 6 overleaf together with the logarithmic average of the existing ambient noise (L/\eq).
TABLE - EXISTING NOISE LEVELS - Tony Sergi's Property, Slopes Rd, Tharbogang.
Date Time ofDav Assessment Background Existing Ambient Noise Noise Levels (L sgn) Levels (L.seg) 7/63/01 Dcv 47 63 7/03/01 Evenine 48 62 7-8/03/01 Night 38 30 8/03/01 Day 49 65 8/03/)1 Evening 56 39 8-9/03/01 Niolit 43 56 9/03/01 Day 55 66 9/03101 Evening 56 60 9-10/03/01 Night 43 38 0/03/01 Dcv 46 63 0/03/Cl Evening 49 60 10-11/03/01 Night 46 54 11/03/01 Day 55 63 11/03/01 Evening 57 60 11-12/03/01 Night 45 56 12/03/01 Day 52 76 12/03/01 Evening 48 62 12-13/03/01 Night 40 50 13/03/01 Day 51 64 13/03/01 Evening 43 58 13-14/03/01 Night 38 51 14/03/01 Day 48 62
Note - all levels rounded to the nearest whole decibel
The full statistical noise measurement results are shown in graphical form in Appendix A. I
I Report n ss20 179 - Final NI S April 2001 Page 13 I TABLE 6— SUMMARY OF EXISTING NOISE LEVELS. Time of Day Rating Background Noise Log Average Existing I Levels (L190) Ambient Noise Levels (L e ) Day 50 69 I Evening 49 61 Night 43 54 - I 4.2 Source Noise Levels
This section provides typical sound levels from the Noise and Sound Services
database. These are in terms of octave band sound power levels in decibels re 10 9 Watts. the A frequency weighted sound power levels in decibels re and the A frequency weighted sound pressure levels in decibels re 20 Pa at a distance of 7 metres.
4.2.1 La/i 2111/
The source noise levels for the landfill are shown in Table 7 below
TABLE 7— NOISE LEVELS OF LANDFILL SOURCES
Sound Power Levels Sound Sound Soiit ce (dB re Watts) Po%%ex Pi essure Octave Band Centre Frequency (Hz) Level Level at re io Nv 7 metres 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k dBA dBA CAT 119 115 111 113 115 116 112 106 121 96 Excavator Compactor 117 115 109 110 108 103 97 93 112 37 CAT 123 122 119 114 110 107 104 100 117 92 Loader Truck I iS 112 107 107 99 96 93 90 107 82 Reversing - - - - 117 117 - - 120 95 Alaii I I I I I I I Report ns20 179 - Final NIS April 2001 Pe 14 I .1.2.2 Quarty The source noise levels for the quarry are shown in Table 8 below.
TABLE 8— NOISE LEVELS OF QUARRY SOURCES
Source Sound Power Levels (dB) Sound Sound Power Pressure Octave Band Centre Frequency (Hz) Level Level at 7 metres 63 125 F250 1 500 1k 2k 4k 8k dBA dBA Primary 125 123 120 119 112 111 102 95 120 95 Crusher _ Secondary 118 120 119 118 116 116 108 100 122 97 Ciii she r Air Track 111 111 106 108 113 117 116 108 122 97 Drill CAT 119 115 111 113 115 116 112 106 121 96 Excavator CAT 123 122 119 114 110 107 104 100 117 92 Loader Truck 115 112 107 107 99 1 96 93 90 107 82 Reversing - - - - 117 117 - - 120 95 Alarm
5. NOISE GOALS
It is important to note that the goals given below are for the noise level solely from the facilities in question and do not include extraneous noise from other sources.
5.1 Intrusive Noise Goals
For intrusive noise the goal is 5 dB plus the background noise level (LA90) and these are shown in Table 9 below. Note - No night time work is to be carried out but the goals ara include for completeness. I
I Rcporl nss20 179-- Final NIS April 2001 Page 1 I TABLE 9— INTRUSIVE NOISE GOALS
Time of Day Rating Background Noise Intrusive Noise Level I Levels (LA90) Goal (LAeg ) 55 -- Day 50 - - Evening 49 54 I Night 43 48 I 5.2 Noise Anienity Goals
1 For the amenity noise the goal is dependent upon the existing ainbient noise level (L\eq) from other industrial sources. As there are no other industrial sources in the immediate area the RuraY amenity criteria apply. These are sho\vn in Table 10 I below. I TABLE 10 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING NOISE LEVELS - All Locations L Time of Day Amenity Noise Level Goal (LAIq ) I Day 50 Evening 45 40 I - Night
I 5.3 Overall Project Specific Noise Goals In summary, the pro ject specific noise goals are as shown for all relevant locations I in Table 11 below:- I TABLE 11— OVERALL PROJECT SPECIFIC NOISE GOALS Period _IntrusiveCriterion AmenityCriterion 50dB I Day 55d13 LAe5 15minutes (50+5) LAe4 11a1 Evening 54 d13 LAeg 5minutes (49 + 5) 45dBLAeg,Evening Night 1 48d13 LAeiI5minutes (35 +5) 40dB LAeg _Night I Nole: The goals in hold app lv. I I I I I Report nss20 179 -Final NIS April 2001 Poe 16
6. NOISE MODELLING AND ASSESSMENT
This section provides details of the noise modelling procedure and gives an assessment of the predicted noise levels.
6.1 Noise Modelling Specifications
The source noise has been modelled using the International Standard ISO 9613-2 (1996(E)) Acou.rtic Attenuation of sound during propagcltlon outdoors Part 2 c;eneral method of calculation This Standard specifies methods for the description of noise outdoors in community environments. The method described in the Standard is general in the sense that it may be applied to a wide variety of noise sources. and covers the major mechanism of attenuation. The method allows for downwind propagation conditions namely: -
wind direction within an angle of± 45° of the direction connecting the centre of the dominant sound source and the centre of the specified receiver region with the wind blowing from source to receiver, and
wind speed between approximately 1 rn/s and 5 rn/s measured at a height of 3 rn to 11 m above the ground.
6.2 Basic Noise Modelling Equations
The equivalent continuous downind sound pressure level (L eq) at each receiver point has been calculated for each point source using the equation below:-
LAeq = L, + D - A
Where: L. is the sound power level of the noise source: D is directivity correction: and A is the attenuation that occurs during the propagation from source to receiver.
The attenuation term A in the equation above is given by:-
A = Ajj, + Aat,n + Agr + Abar + Anitc. I Repor nss20 179 Final N1S April 2001 asge 17
Where: I Acil, is the attenuation due to geometric divergence A is the attenuation due to atmospheric absorption I is the attenuation due to the ground effects: A is the attenuation due to a barrier: and I is the attenuation due to miscellaneous other effects. With quarries and landfill sites the noise attenuation due to barriers (Ahar) is a variable and is dependent upon the stage of the works. It can range from almost I zero where a direct line of sight is applicable to 15 dB or even as much as 20 dB where plant is in operation near to the lower parts of the quarry or landfill.
I The last term generally refers to miscellaneous propagation through foliage, industrial sites and areas of houses. Only 'foliage' of the miscellaneous terms I (Aia) is applicable for the site in question and the other factors are not applied in this NIS. I 6.3 Prediction of Plant Noise
I The assessment results for constant operation of the proposed plant, at the nearest residential receivers are shown in Table 12 below.
I TABLE 12 - PREDICTED DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS AT THE I NEAREST RESIDENCES FOR QUARRY AND LANDFILL PLANT Bairiei Effect Noise Goal Piedicted Sound Pressure Le%el Sound Pressure at 450 metres (dBA) I Level (dBA) Landfill Quarry None 42 46 50 I 15dB 27 31
I 6.4 Assessment of Plant Noise
It can be seen from Table 12 above that the EPA industrial noise goal (L.rq. of I 50 dBA will be met at the site. This takes into account all plant in operation simultaneously (even thought this is unlikely). The reversing alarms are weighted by 5 dB in line with modifying factor corrections given in Table 3 above. However I it should be noted that, due to the character of reversing alarm noise it could be annoying even if the sound levels are well below the existing background level. I P 1 Report nss20 179 - Final NIS April 2001 - Page 18
Alternative, low noise, systems such as close circuit television, radar or sonar should be investigated provided that thev meet on-site safety requirements.
I 6.5 irediction of On-Road Traflic Noise
This section gives predictions of noise level from road trailic. using Slopes Road, applYing formulae given in the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise from the UK Department of Transport and Welsh Office (1988). I
6. 5.] Land/ill Road 7 mc
The aNerage daily traffic entering the landfill site is 121 with 30% heavy vehicles (based on the Scott Wilson Report. page 3). This gives a predicted noise level of 51 dBA at 15 metres. This compares with a predicted day time existing noise level
(LAcq Ihr) of 54 dBA from traffic flows of 14 per hour with 30% heavy vehicles I (based on traffic using Slopes Road and an AADT 255 from Scott Wilson Report, page 4). I 6.5.2 Quaurv Road 7ci//ic
I I Based on the reported 75.000 tonnes of material per year which results in an average of 3 truck movements per hour (ccc section 2.2.3 Mobile J'iant 1 Movements above). For 3 truck movements per hour gives noise levels (LAeq Ihx) of 51 dBA at 15 metres (this assumes a vehicle speed of 40 km/hr and a small I gradient). I 6.5.3 Assessment Road traffic from both the landfill and the quarry is predicted at 51 dBA at 15 metres. Combining both gives 54 dBA. The existing traffic noise is 54 dBA which includes current landfill and quarry traffic. Excluding current landfill and quarry traffic the noise level would be 51 dBA. Taking the 5% predicted increase in road traffic the predicted noise level from all traffic will be 55 dBA, an increase of 1 dB on the existing level and within the EPA guidelines for road traffic. I I I I Report ns.s20 179 Final NIS April 2001 Proc 19
6.6 Prediction of Vibration from Blasting I ' The vibration from blasting is normallypredicted in terms of peak particle velocity in units of millimetres per second (mm/s). The independent variables involved include the energy released by the explosion (per delay) which is dependant upon the charge \\eighl per delay W. the distanìce from the explosion (range) R': the I seismic velocity of the rock mass and the density of the rock mass. Since the density for a rock mass does not vary by more than 20% and the seismic velocity does not vary more than a factor of 2. the variation in '\V' and R are much more significant than the density and the seismic velocity. The peak particle velocity is proportional to \V and inversely proportional to 'R'. When both W and R' vary scaling of distance is necessary to predict peak particle velocity. The two I most popular approaches are square root (RiW) scaling and cube root (R/W 3) scaling. Square root scaling produces higher predicted vibration magnitudes than cube root scaling at the distances under consideration in this assessment. I Therefore only square root scaling is considered in further detail.
Equations for predicting peak particle velocity (PPV) from square root scaling have been developed in the United States by Hendron and Oriard (1972). The equation is:- I PPV= a
There are many systematic causes of scatter in plots of peak particle velocities. The most important of these are type of explosive, geometry of the shot, stemming. direction of blast initiation, delay-time variations, burden in front of the I first row of holes, spacing of holes, and free surface reflection. It has been shown in practical results from blasts that the factor 'a' in the above equation can
I therefore vary between approximately 125 and 1250. Therefore a statistical approach to the prediction of PPV is required. The 95% confidence approach is normally adopted giving a prediction of the PPV that will not be exceeded for 95 I out of 100 blasts and is given by the equation below:-
PPV= 1125 (.111.57 I Based on a maximum distance of 45() metres between and residential property and the blast position the charge weight must be limited to 205 kg to meet the EPA I vibration criterioh for 95% of the blasts.
I
I
I
I Report ns20 179 - Final NIS AprO 2001 Page 20 I 6.7 Prediction of Overpressure from Blasting The overpressure from blasting is normally predicted in terms of pressure in units I of pascals (Pa) or on the decibel scale (dB(linear)). ' Equations for predicting overpressure (p) from cube root scaling have been developed in the United States by Hendron and Oriard (1972). The equation is
p = a
This suggests that the charge weight should be limited to 60 kg on a calm day when the wind is insignificant and there are no temperature inversions. Where I winds are significant (ie over 3 km/hr and in the north northeast or northwest directions) the charge weight must be restricted to 45 kg for winds between 3 km/hr and 5 km/hr. The charge weight must be restricted to 7 kg for winds over 5 I kin/hr and up to 10 km/h. No blasting should take place when winds in the north northeast or northwest directions exceed 10 kmhr. No blasting should take place I at night and hence temperalure inversions are not considered further.
7. CONCLUSIONS I It can be seen from the assessment results that:- the EPA noise criteria will be met for the on site plant noise from the proposed expansion (based on an existing day time background noise level of 50 dBA).
,- the EPA noise criteria for road traffic from the proposed expansion will be met I for the future traffic using Slopes Road.
,- the EPA noise criteria for blasting at the proposed expansion will be met 1 providing charge weights of explosives given in section 6.6 and 6.7 above are adhered to.
P It is, therefore concluded that all EPA noise criteria will not be exceeded for the proposed extension to the landfill and quarry at Tharbogang. I [ Date Prepared b: Status 29 March 2001 Ken Scaimel! MSc MAAS MIOA MAES Draft I 30 April 2001 Ken Scannell MSc MAAS MJOA SIAES Final I I I I
I Report nss20179 - Final NIS April 2001 Pirge 21
I APPENDIX A
Existing Ambient and Background Noise Level Results Measured at the I Tony Sergi Property, Slopes Rd, Tharbogang, I Wednesday 7 March 2001 I - 90 80
70 ai LAI 60 I CU LAiD 50 LAeq —L490 40
I 30 0 20 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 1 Time Of Day I
I Thursday 8 March 2001
—.90 Co I 80 70 T A— LLA1 I ! E LAeq 30 0 I '20 - 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 I Time Of Day I I I I I I I I Repoit nss20 179 J:j a l NIS April 2001 Page 22 I I Friday 9 March 2001
100
I Co 90 4
80 ...4•4, --.—LA1 70*. ---.' . 4.. 1 60 LAeq
40 I 30
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 I Time Of Day I I I Saturday 10 March 2001
90 ......
I 80 1 70 I&ij 0 LAeq E F 30 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 Time Of Day I
I Report nss20 179— Final NIS April 2001 Page 23
1 Sunday 11 March 2001
I 80 t , + 70 1 LA1 * A * CU •'f 60 I -LAeq
::
j I 30 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 I Time Of Day I
1 Monday 12 March 2001 .. I 70 .—LA1 * / LAb
I Un :
-o 40- ------I 0 ___ 1 ______00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 I Time Of Day I I I I I I I I
I Report nss20 179 - Final NIS April 2001 Page 24
I Tuesday 13 March 2001
.90
I 80
70 ,A P r -.-- LA1 I
40 I o 30 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 I Time Of Day I
I Wedesday 14 March 2001
Co 80 01 {\ ____ 70 / LA1 0 60 - LAeq
40
Lo 30 ---- 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 Time Of Day AWL6409/1 -EA It 1 August, 2001
APPENDIX C I'
I
I
I
I
I Tharbogang Landfill Visual Assessment Report I June 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I DSB Landscape Architects I I 1 I I I Tharbogang Landfill Visual Assessment Report I SCOPE This report addresses and responds to Item No.9 of the minutes of the focus meeting 18 December 2000 and Item No. S by K. Tyson, March 6, 2001. These items were raised in I response to the Environmental Impact Study carried out by Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd for the proposed extension and long-term management of the city's waste disposal and I quarry facilities at Tharbogang, NSW, dated 5 September 2000. METHOD
I The following address these items: I We provide sections through the site to further demonstrate the proposal at various stages of use and re-vegetation.
I Through the use of photographs we show the visual effect of the proposal from four key viewing areas. -
I We outline the recommendation made in our report McPherson Range Visual Assessment and Wildlfe Corridor Stua'v, 1999, and how this relates to the quarry and r landfill proposal. We review the EIS and the analysis above; from these we draw conclusions and make recommendations.
ITEM NO 9 OF MINUTES OF THE FOCUS MEETING, 18 DECEMBER 2000
I 'Item 9. There was significant discussion on the visual and landscape impacts associated with the proposal. The EIS needed to address the DSB Landscape rep&t and growth strategy recommendations for the McPherson Range. It was later agreed that cross DJ sections and elevations would be prepared showing the finished view from the north and also showing where the tree line would project on the finished surface within the landscape buffer corridors. This would assist in identifying the extent of visual impact I and the adequacy of proposed landscape strategy.' I ITEM NO.5, MARCH 6, 2001 'Item 5. Visual Impact Assessment - note the drawings you have submitted should be supported by written comments identifying clearly what the drawings represent and I assessing and concluding on the visual impact of the proposal. Reference needs to be made to DSB landscape assessment for the McPherson Range. The schematic contour I three dimensional drawings need to be indexed and clarified as to what they depict.' I I H I RESPONSE I Walter Burley Griffin's design vision for the city uses the McPherson Range as a treed ridge backdrop for the city. The implementation of his vision is affected by the proposals for the quarry and landfill within the visual catchment of City of Griffith residential areas I and the aircraft that use the Griffith Airport.
As indicated on the plans and section (figures 1 to 3) significant areas of the north face of the Range are affected by the proposed quarry and landfill. The Tharbogang Landfill Environmental Impact Statement, Coffey Geosciences Ply Ltd, 2000, states there have been no complaints from the public about the current quarry and landfill. However the current area being used for these purposes is well concealed by the topography. This is not the case with much of the areas proposed for future operation. Quarry stages 2 and 3 involve quarrying the northern faces of the Range that form the ridgeline. It is highly conceivable the Council will receive complaints once quarry activity commences in these areas.
I The northern and southern sides of the McPherson Range presently provide a high visual quality vegetated backdrop to the city and residential areas. Suburban development is continuing to spread to the north side of the Range at a rapid rate, and therefore, it is I equally important that the northern face of the range is preserved as a native treed range as the southern face. Since our visual assessment study in 1999 there have been many new areas of housing construction commenced to the north of the range near Lake I Wyangan. The increase of housing in this area reinforces the need to protect the range from uses that degrade the visual amenity. Besides housing, the Griffith population uses the area around Lake Wyangan for recreation, thus, the visual surroundings of the area I are sensitive. Figures 4 to 8 include a plan and photomontage of views from four key viewing areas near Lake Wyangan. i I The sections, (figures 2 & 3) and photomontages, (figures 5 to 8) show the visual impact of the proposed quarry and landfill. These visual replications show that the topography of this site, which is land sloping toward the viewer, makes the quarry more visible and I difficult to screen from view.
Quarrying and landfill activities produce marked colour contrast with the olive green of I the native vegetation of the Range. The removal of trees, the cut earth and rock within the quarries, the piles of rubbish and the light green to straw colours of native grass will greatly contrast with the native trees. The overall appearance of this side of the Range I will be affected by the broad patches of light colour introduced by the proposed activity - for anextended period of time.
- The proposed landscape buffer screening for the proposed quarry and landfill involves preserving the current vegetation in minimum 20m wide strips around the perimeter of the site and bands of planting of varyingidths w between the stages. Due to the I sparseness and eventual height of existing tree and shrub cover, the current trees and shrubs that are to be preserved as screening are inadequate in many areas to screen the I I quarry or the landfill. Forward tree planting is proposed along the northeastern boundary, however, the landscape buffer zones are narrow and even with dense planting of these I buffers the areas of cleared land will be visible through the openings in the vegetation and above the height of the trees. Also, the plantings will require time to grow. The quarry and landfill operations will remove vegetation from large areas and these areas I will be visible from many parts of the Lake Wyangan area. The rehabilitation and re-vegetation proposed in the EIS includes planting of native I grasses, shrubs and trees. The EIS is not clear about the timing of the tree and shrub planting, and states 'Tree and shrub planting will be progressively carried out over the site as areas have deemed to have stabilised in terms of settlement and gas venting.' I Grass cover as opposed to shrub and tree cover would contrast with the treed areas of the McPherson Range. Thus the length of time when the landfill areas will be without tree cover is critical to the length of time of the visual impact of the proposed quarry and I landfill operations. The visual outcome of rehabilitation in the long term is dependent on the success of the I tree and shrub planting. It is desirable that endemic species of the site be planted to rehabilitate the area. The success of the proposed native species in landfill conditions should be tested in trials early, to ensure the desired affect is achievable. Additional I research to identify suitable plant species and to identify the best methods of rehabilitation is desirable. I The airport is located 7km from the site of the landfill and quarry. Throughout the time the quarry and landfill are operating, and then for as many years as required for the rehabilitation work afterwards this site will be highly noticeable from the air. As people fly in and out of Griffith airport they will see open scars while the quarry areas are in operation and then extensive areas of grass during rehabilitation.
I In the McPherson Range Visual Assessment and Wildlife Corridor Study, 1999, we recommend that the landfill and quarry be relocated away from the ridge and the land be I rezoned 7(v). This recommendation is still valid.
CONCLUSION
The McPherson Range is a valuable visual asset to the Griffith community and provides a I high quality visual backdrop to the city. The visual impact of the quarry and landfill operation on the ridge will be considerable from the Lake Wyangan area as shown in the photos and sections. The topography of I this site, land sloping toward the viewer, and the contrasting colours of quarry and landfill activity make the proposal visible and difficult to screen from view. F I I It is probable the Council will receive complaints from residents and visitors of the Lake Wyangan area in regard to the quarrying and landfill activity once operations commence in areas on the face of the Range and the ridgeline.
As in the McPherson Range Visual Assessment and T'Vildlfe Corridor Study, 1999, we recommend that the current and future quarry and landfill be relocated away from the Range and the land be rezoned 7(v). This recommendation is reinforced by the findings in this report.
Based on the likely visual impact we recommend alternative sites be further assessed for quarry and landfill uses and the quarry and landfill be removed from the McPherson Range. I I I I
VIEW 1 Current view from Lakes Road near Lake Wyangan (South). From this view point the current quarrying and landfill operations (Stages I and 2) are concealed by topography. The clearing around Blue Dot Speedway can be clearly seen despite tree and shrub plants in front of the speedway.
sR
Al
i VIEW I The same view as above showing the proposed quarry and landfill. The photo montage shows the extent of clearing required for all stages of the quarry and landfill operations. The timing and Success 1 of the tree and shrub rehabilitation planting is critical in reducing the visual impact in the long term.
Figure 5 lb
VIEW 3 Current view from Boorga Rd near the turn oftto Nericon. The cucrent quarry and landfill operations can be seen as an area cleared of vegetation extending from the ridge line down between the hills. Generally the range appears as a continuous treed backdrop.
VIEW 3 The same viewpoint as above showing the extent of the proposed quarry and landfill. The photo montage shows all stages prior to tree and shrub rehabilitation plantings. The continuity of the McPherson Range is affected by the extension of the quarry and landfill Figure 7 VIEW 4 Current condition viewed from a new subdivision area on Boorga Rd. McPherson Range provides a continuous treed backdrop to the area and provides some natural harmony to an altered landscape.
VIEW 4 The same view as above showing the extent of the proposed quarry and landfill prior to tree and shrub rehabilitation planting. The visual impact of extending the quarry and landfill is clearly visible on the horizon.
Figure 8 2 4 ------s_li A ------ tE w
LANDSC
Kai
---- ---- — I 0 4" .0 140
CT
— A. 5NN\ SAGE 4 ; \ 7 ( \ r.oLLNDFILL — TAGE 2.A '7 - 0 I A'41DFjJ P L.tL h4 \
VAMMEX \ \" 30 N Oil
E.ASC.APE SUFFER ZON 7 N LA(DSCAPE BUFFER ZONE Ij4
STAGE S
//L I\LANDFILI. ' -' ( ------
E 1
QUARRY \ I /j -,- (PROPOsAL). 4/ .q "y- (PR0I OSAL) 6 7 LAMSTl1 ' 155 -- STAGE 3 1 T 1'1
iiiTIi - - 'T- 7 I LEGEND NOTE: irs'€o I STOCEE TO 0 BEJTOTTO WHE, STocE lB IS 0 BE RE,-.o2oJtATtO 'o- Ar OSoCE 2.o IS DCoELoEO' F?44O0 sucocA -BT0B%O _____ ET?.0E 0 TO BE REl0JlArTO W'( SToCE 2E IS OEHELOOD, 130 0000.. 5T?.CE A ..oc S TO BE REAAB.JTArEDWI9I OT S 10 0ToPIrr55) .00 0? ino C S. ISSuME 10 CLoT UBEB R0UIROD. OOIOTTLL TO 55'-I105 O ROCo A°9OO 0A?4OFU PSTOAlETER ?5 TO BE BTO000000 B'0EB OLoTEBIOLT RTOOERMASFZP TTTD- AT SToT*C,. oPoo-.n' rn COASt 'BIEN SToCO So L?OF1U C OENCEO DESSEWENT 10HTR 'S 0-\10.o"So 'C'Fi BCS0TlO-CE TO BE RESOOVTO 4BEN STAtE 0 LNOHL COA&SPOCOS unu5o 0OTEBWTBE OCMStS - O L?SlU EFICT A 0000A TO BE 000ABAI TO 00011 TREE F8.%BB ZcBE 20.- oO0' .7.0 COE AORLA&I .By$T'ACO TO ROOST F044 0.0 r C0SST 0LATE7A S O',S,T Fo IBOS' LBv000 Al-BY BE OSEAM000 s2800O.ACO 0L0040,Tt - At DCFERB.I400 AT THE Tilk By THE ooxi.cl— (084,81 lAS7 RTES) I' L.o'ArO AtO 501411011 DIAlS TO BC 000 C00?REClEv BEFORE COROTRUOT0 N. STOATER CAT.ROBT LISO 'D.A00 'TO 80 LfrlQT 81101 0.. DEPTH ('F Coot ______--)------_ 5.o7o,1' (01010 TO HOBO PVWP OUT FACSJBTI55 TO SPRAY 1R10,CoTE B..C,< OvEp L11E%0u IEB'.7S
o.irg Title AC 2600 THARBOCAI.1G LANDFILL PROPOSED REHABILITATION
_ 100? 60t3815 Sooil0,oø 0 OlFeni 8/01 50880 Oo. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS GRIFFITH CITY COUNCIL 1505 LANDSCAPE BUFFER
EL I IU!N /-LJ\ I VSLN
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONE
LJN L)L)
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONE STA3E 1 LANDFILL
LLThON CL
LEGEND
EXISTING GROUND LEVEL
GROUND LEVEL AT COMPLETION OF REHABILITATION
EXTI.NT OF DUARRY EXCVATION - CLAY LINER
Pr01.cl THAREOGAI4G LANDFILL CTIONS AA BB C
SOUL FOR APPROVAL CUenF AMEWONENL / ISSUE LANDSCAPE ARCH rrECTs GRIFFITH CITY COUNCIL 1505-QZA
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONE
II U_,)IN LJL_
B
LL I FLJ]N LL
LEGEND - -
EXISTING LEVEL
GROUND I AT (OMPLE1ION OF PEHAB!LITATION
EXTENT 0 cuAEX 1101 UNEp nf
SECTJONS DO THARBOGAC & EE L
A I OM ISSUE POA LANDSCAPE COUNCIL 1505-G3 ACTS GRIFFITH C 3
U-
: -' --S..--
I I
(
PTOJe ct DTonq liCe - D.sT ACT ?€OO THARBOGANG LANDFILL VIEW POINTS
SCALE 1:50,0 Sheet NO D,9No 4 LANDSCAPE GRIFFITH.CITY COUNCIL SSUE FCR APPROVAL ARCHITECTS I AWL6409/1 -EA 4 I 1 August, 2001 I I I
I
I
I I I I I A P Edwards LAND GWATER Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd C0SERVATI0N P0 Box 803 ALBURY NSW 2640
Our File: 0006424
5 February 2001
Dear Sir
Re: THARBOGANG LANDFILL EIS, GRIFFITH
Thank you for your letter of 23 January 2001 which suggested that the issue of remediation of contamination from past landfill activities should not form part of the EIS.
We agree that the details of how any contamination from the existing landfill will be remediated need not be included in the EIS for the new landfill. Such information could be included in a subsequent plan, aer further testing has established the extent of the problem.
I would be happy to discuss this matter further, if you wish.
Yours faithfully
Phil Gre 1 Environmental Officer for Regional Director, Murrumbidgee
I I AWL6409/1 -EA 5 1 August, 2001
APPENDIX E I I NSW I NATIONAL PARKS AND Tony Edwards WILDLIFE I Coffey GeoscienceS Pty Ltd SERVICE P0 Box 803
I Report;97/0291 Our reference: I Your reference: EnquireS: ileidi henry 1 Phone: (02) 6883 5327 4 December 2000 I Dear Tony,
I RE: En i'ironin ental Impact A ssessin ent, Extemision of Tharhogang JVaste Disposal and Quarry Facilities
I I refer to your letter dated 2861 November 2000 requesting comments on the above project. Please accept our apologies for the delay in our response.
I Based on the information provided, the Service has no comment to make on the proposal at this stage. The Service assumes that the proposal has adequately considered the requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment I Act (1979) and the Service's areas of responsibility (eg. flora, fauna, cultural heritage and threatened species, populations and ecological communities and their habitats). Please note that if subsequent information indicates that areas I within the Service's responsibility require further investigation, the Service may provide future input.
I The Service would be willing to comment on any further plans and proposals that Western Directorate Please do not hesitate to contact Jeanette Schwarz you are involved with. Level 1 Environmental Planning Officer on (02) 6883 5323, if you require further 48-5 2 Wingewarra S I information. Dubbo NSW PO Box 2lll Yours sincerely Dubbo NSW 2830 I Fax: (02) 6884 8675 Tel: (02) 6883 5330 J/( Head Office 1 Jeanette Schwarz 43 Bridge Street Environmental Planning Officer, Hurstvdle NSW • Conservation, Assessment and Planning Australia U P0 Box 1967 . Hurstville 2220 Fax: (02) 9585 6555 I T 1 (02) 9585 6444 Australian-made 100% recycled paper I Ovemwas I Australian Capital Territory Queensland Indonesia Canberra Brisbane Jakarta 265 Canberra Avenue 53B Fairlawn Street Level 12 Wisma Bank Dharmala I Fyshwick ACT 2609 Nathan OLD 4111 JL Jenderal Sudirman Kay 28 Telephone ±61 2 6280 4732 Telephone +61 7 3274 4411 Jakarta 12910 Indonesia Facsimile +61 2 6280 6650 Facsimile +61 7 3274 4977 Telephone +6221 523 9290 Facsimile +6221 523 9287 I Canberra Testing Services Maroochydore 265 Canberra Avenue Unit 4/8 Kelly Court Malaysia Fyshwick ACT 2609 Maroochydore OLD 4558 Kuala Lumpur I Telephone +61 2 6280 4261 Telephone +61 7 5443 5922 50A Jalan USJ 10/18 Facsimile +61 2 6280 6650 Facsimile +61 7 5443 5895 47600 UEP Subang Jaya . Canberra City Townsville Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia I Coffey MPW Pty Ltd 1/46 Pilkington Street 732 4513 Suite 2 Northhourne Chambers Garbutt OLD 4814 Telephone +60 3 54 Northbourne Avenue Facsimile +60 3 732 4253 Telephone +61 7 4775 4500 Canberra City ACT 2601 Facsimile --61 7 4775 5497 Philippines I Telephone +61 2 6248 7366 Manila Facsimile +61 2 6248 7157 South Australia 10th Floor Strata 100 Building Adelaide New South Wales Emerald Avenue, Pasig 1 4B Henley Beach Road I Albury Metro Manila Philippines Mile End SA 5031 151 Wytarra Drive Telephone +63 2 636 8287 Telephone +61 8 8352 1744 North Albury NSW 2640 Facsimile +63 2 638 3542 Facsimile +61 8 8234 0932 I Telephone +61 2 6040 3847 Hong Kong Facsimile ±61 2 6040 3861 Tasmania Hong Kong Hobart Alstonville Suite 2207-9, Tower Two, Lippo Centre 289-291 Liverpool Street u Unit 1/38 Kays Lane 89 Queensway, Hong Kong Hobart TAS 7000 Russellton Park Telephone +852 2530 8816 Telephone +61 3 6234 9955 Aistonville NSW 2477 Facsimile +852 2530 8116 Facsimile +61 3 6234 9577 I Telephone +61 2 6628 3224 Facsimile ±61 2 6628 3224 Victoria Melbourne Gosford 16 Church Street 1 42 Hills Street Hawthorn VIC 3122 Gosford NSW 2250 Telephone +61 3 9853 3396 Telephone ±61 2 4323 3585 Facsimile +61 3 9853 0189 I Facsimile ±61 2 4323 6477 Newcastle Western Australia 13 Mangrove Road Perth P Sandgate NSW 2304 33 Walters Drive Herdsman WA 6017 Telephone +61 2 4967 6377 Facsimile +61 2 4967 5402 Telephone +61 8 9446 7888 Facsimile +61 8 9446 7999 I Sydney 142 Wicks Roads North Ryde NSW 2113 I Telephone +61 2 9888 7444 Facsimile ±61 2 9888 9977
Taree I Unit 1/4 Douglas Avenue Tuncurry NSW 2428 Telephone +61 2 6555 8554 I Facsimile +61 2 6555 7849 Wollongong Unit 1/222 Berkeley Road I Unanderra NSW 2526 Telephone +61 2 4272 6071 I Facsimile +61 2 4272 6075 I