Karuah South Quarry

I am objecting against the Karuah South Quarry, as a nearby resident myself and my family has been subjected to noise, dust, water contamination, visual impact, loss of beautiful natural bushland, loss of wildlife, loss of peace and quite. When the submissions for the Karuah East Quarry were taking place Wedgerocks owner, Michael Kiely was the major objector to the project. Michael knows the local residents, and he knows what effects quarries has on the local residents. He stated at the community consultation meetings that the residents were affected by noise, dust, water contamination, health issues, such as young children suffering from bleeding noses, older residents suffering from respiratory problems. All residents continually have to breath in the dirty dusty air. It's not right that a person who knows what effects the quarry has on residents, then goes out to be a major objector against an extension of an existing quarry, then turns around and wants to start a quarry himself. There is something wrong here. The Karuah South is much closer to me than the existing quarry and the new east quarry. That can only cause an increase in the level of noise and dust to the local residents. Whenever they blast we can feel the ground shake the house vibrate, the south quarry is virtually at our front door one can only imagine the future effects when blasting occurs. This Karuah South Quarry can not be classified as a significant value to the state of NSW, with a huge quarry already operating in the area, this south quarry is a tiny meaningless version of the major Karuah east quarry. What is important to the area, local residents and the community is to keep our beautiful bushland intact, keep the old growth forest areas, give the wildlife a home and a opportunity to survive and start breeding again, stop polluting our pristine creeks and rivers with contaminated quarry waste waters. A major industry in Karuah is Oyster farming we need our waterways to be kept clean and free from pollution. Michael Kiely spoke to me about his proposed quarry, he told me that all his crushers would be enclosed and there would be no noise or dust coming from his quarry. At the community meeting on the 19th November 2018, W Corkery and Co informed the meeting that the crushers would not be enclosed. Michael has came my residence and has lied about his project. That's not the correct way to conduct a business. I informed RW Corkery of this at that meeting. There is a recommendation to remove the dust monitor from its current location to another location further away from all the quarries this would indicate to me that, if this is done you would not get the correct data of dust coming from the quarries. Why would someone even recommend this. Except to try to cover up the levels of dust that pours out of the quarries. In the best interest of the residents and the community, I and the fact that Michael Kiely knows personally of the effects on residents, and is a major objector against quarry development it would be in the best interest of all concerned not to approve the Karuah South Quarry. Thankyou Shane Emanuel

To the Dept of Planning. I just spent 90 minutes adding to my objection of the Karuah South Quarry, I was finished and reading over my objection when everything disappeared and a notice said my time had expired. What a joke, I am seriously trying to object, however the departments webpage wont let me, can you fix this up, so I can have my say without having to do the whole thing over again. do you want to hear what people have to say or not.

I would like to add more to my objection against the Karuah South Quarry. I object to Karuah South and all other Quarries from dumping their wastewater into our waterways, in particular Yalimbah Creek and Mosquito Creek, both creeks are Sanctuary zones attached to the Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine park. These creeks flow out into the Karuah River, Fishing and Oyster Farming is a major industry in Karuah, what effects does this wastewater from quarries have on the fishing industry and oyster farms. I attended a meeting last night 15052019 at the community hall, there were a number of oyster farmers in attendance concerned about their industry. I recently had renovating work done at my premises the council would not approve my work until I upgraded my septic wastewater system to a system with all the bells and whistles to meet todays standard, even though the system I had was approved and registered, this cost me a considerable sum of money but I did what I had to do. Now If I have to meet a standard so do the proposed and existing Quarries. I recommend that all wastewaters be trucked and taken to an authorised wastewater disposal depot. If they can load the gravel onto trucks, its just as easy to load the wastewater. I live near the quarries and my property backs onto Yalimba Creek, on recent inspections I have noticed the banks of the creek eroding at a very rapid rate. No one notices this as its private property and no one has access to it. If you continue to allow this to occur in a couple of years time you will have an environmental disaster on your hand. This practise has to stop immediately and definitely no further approval ever be allowed. Someone or some authority should have done an EIS on the effects wastewaters would have on the environment in particular Yalimba Creek. It’s not alright and everything along the creek is not in good condition. Yalimba creek is a pristine waterway which has remained untouched and remained in its natural state since the beginning of time, since the world began. Why are you allowing it to be destroyed now? We need to keep our environment as healthy as we can and do our best not to destroy it. I used to be able to walk to the creek with my kids and look at all the fish swimming in the creek, big ones little ones they would jump out of the water and make a big splash, we don’t see any fish anymore. My two boys attended the meeting last night, Amanda asked them would they like to fill out an objection form, they took the form went over to a table by themselves and made a few dot points, I am proud of what they wrote.

This proposal identifies two phases of hard rock extraction and transport to an undefined location.
This new quarry will add to the current load factors associated with other quarries in the Karuah area.
Our objection centres around the impact of truck movements needed to transport the crushed rock.
The attachment shows industry standards for load factoring using different formations.
We suggest that the impact of truck movements is understated in the proposal and recommend the rejection on that basis.
Truck movement calculations:
Step 1
What is actual cubic volume to be transported?
Planned volume of rock to be extracted will increase to 600,000 cubic metres by site volume.
On-site crushing increases volume by a factor 50% (See attachment)
Therefore, the actual volume to be transported will be 900,000 cubic meters
Step 2
How many trucks (Truck & Dog) units will be required?
Each Truck & Dog can load 15,000 m3
Therefore, it will require 900,000 divided by 15,000 m3.
This indicates that 60,000 outbound trucks will be required, per annum, for transport
These trucks will return to the site, doubling the truck movements to 120,000 per annum.
Step 3
What is impact?
If we consider there are 200 working days gazetted for NSW, this equates to 300 truck movements per day, or roughly one truck movement per minute.
The impact of this on traffic within the immediate area of the Pacific Highway will be unacceptable to both highway road user and residents.
The potential for accidents will increase dramatically.
Most of these trucks will travel south to distribute their loads to Sydney based depots therefore, the impact on locations, such as the Hexham Bridge, during business hours will be obvious.

The proposed new quarry by Hunter Quarries on the Western face of The Branch Lane will have an adverse impact on the fishing and tourism industries. In addition, the run off would have severe consequences for the oyster growing industries in the Karuah River and as far as Port Stephens. The current quarry has destroyed native habitat and any further expansion would have dire consequences for fauna and flora. Whilst the proposal might be considered a "major" project, there will be precious little remaining of this pristine area if approval were to be granted.
As the relevant consent authority, I strongly urge that approval be rejected.

I object to the Karuah South Quarry on the basis that:
9ha of native habitat will be destroyed which will accelerate the extinction of the Koala currently an endangered species under Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 No 63
It has the potential to pollute the Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park. It threatens aquatic nurseries within the mangroves. Therefore is not compliant with the Fisheries Management Act 2007
Is a threat to the iconic oyster industry by possible contamination of the Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park.
It is not an environmentally sustainable development. (ESD)

I am providing an attachment

I object to the project primarily based on the findings of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report.
The site contains:
PCT 1590: Spotted Gum - Broad-leaved Mahogany - Red Ironbark shrubby open forest;
PCT 1567: Tallowwood - Brush Box - Sydney Blue Gum moist shrubby tall open forest on foothills of the lower North Coast;
PCT 1527: Bangalow Palm - Coachwood - Sassafras gully warm temperate rainforest of the Central Coast;
PCT: 1550: Small-fruited Grey Gum - Turpentine - Tallowwood moist open forest on foothills of the lower North Coast;
Of the PCTs identified within the subject land, one PCT (PCT 1527), comprises an Endangered Ecological Community under the BC Act, namely 'Lowland Rainforest in the NSW North-Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions'. This vegetation also meets the definition of the 'Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia', Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) as listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Habitat for threatened species has been assessed in accordance with section 6 of the BAM.
One threatened species listed as Vulnerable under the BC Act and EPBC Act, Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), was recorded within the subject land and a species polygon has been determined for this species which includes all areas of native vegetation within the subject land.
I am also concerend about the runoff of waste and quarry water from the site and the possible negative effects of those sediments on the adjacent wetlands and tributaries into the KAruah river. The health of the river is particularly important for the Oyster industry.
The quarry will also be a significant visual impediment on the beautiful natural environment. It is likely to be visibile from the water travalling up on the Karuah river, and coming into town from the highway. The image of Port Stephens as a beautiful, healthy and natural environment will be diminished by a rock quarry occupying an area that is currently a beautiful vegetated hill.

This proposal identifies two phases of hard rock extraction and transport to locations within NSW.
From the EIS it appears the market for quarry products will be the Sydney Basin.

This new quarry will add to the current load factors associated with other quarries in the Karuah area.

My objection centres around the impact of truck movements needed to transport the crushed rock.

The attachment shows indicated industry standards for load factoring using Truck and Dog transport.
I suggest that the impact of truck movements is understated in the proposal and recommend the rejection on that basis.
Truck movement calculations:
Step 1
What is actual tonnage to be transported?
Planned volume of rock to be extracted is 600,000 metric tons by site extraction volume.
On-site crushing increases this volume by a factor 50% (ref attachment)
Therefore, actual volume to be transported is 900,000 tonnes per annum.
Step 2
How many trucks (Truck & Dog) units will be required?
Each Truck & Dog can load approximately 20 metric tonnes equivalent to 40 cubic metres.
Therefore, at full capacity this will require 900,000 divided by 20 tonnes per truck & dog.
This equates to 22,500 outbound trucks be required per annum for transport
These trucks will return to the site, doubling the truck movements to 45,000 per annum.
Step 3
What is impact?
If we consider there are 200 working days gazetted for NSW, this equates to approximately 225 truck movements per day, or roughly one truck two minute.
This traffic volume does not include allowances for maintenance, site personnel and general traffic in the area.
The impact of this on traffic within the immediate area of the Pacific Highway will be unacceptable to both road user and residents.
The potential for accidents will increase dramatically. This proposal will add another load to the M1, as the applicant has stated many of the loads will be to customers in the greater Sydney basin.
These trucks will travel south to via local roads, the Pacific Highway, through Heatherbrae, the Hexham Bridge and onwards to the M1. The impact on these locations will be obvious.

From the EIS it appears there are many items of legislation which impact of this operation. One of these is the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management Policy 2018).

My objection centres around the impact of the proposed operation on land and waterways identified in the Coastal Zone Management Maps (CZMM) for the subject land and, the legislation relating to Coastal Wetlands.
The attachment shows a copy of the CZMM for this application.
Coastal Wetlands:
This map shows (in blue) the gazetted Coastal Wetlands adjacent to the subject site.
The applicant proposes to discharge excess water from the site into a local creek leading to the gazetted wetland areas, flowing into the Karuah river and the Port Stephens estuary.
I believe this is unacceptable within current legislation.

The Port Stephens / Myall Lakes Estuary and Coastal Zone Consultative Committee should be advised of the intent of this proposal so that it may consider the impact of this proposal on their terms of reference.

I object to the project primarily based on the findings of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report.
The site contains:
PCT 1590: Spotted Gum - Broad-leaved Mahogany - Red Ironbark shrubby open forest;
PCT 1567: Tallowwood - Brush Box - Sydney Blue Gum moist shrubby tall open forest on foothills of the lower North Coast;
PCT 1527: Bangalow Palm - Coachwood - Sassafras gully warm temperate rainforest of the Central Coast;
PCT: 1550: Small-fruited Grey Gum - Turpentine - Tallowwood moist open forest on foothills of the lower North Coast;
Of the PCTs identified within the subject land, one PCT (PCT 1527), comprises an Endangered Ecological Community under the BC Act, namely 'Lowland Rainforest in the NSW North-Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions'. This vegetation also meets the definition of the 'Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia', Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) as listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Habitat for threatened species has been assessed in accordance with section 6 of the BAM.
One threatened species listed as Vulnerable under the BC Act and EPBC Act, Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), was recorded within the subject land and a species polygon has been determined for this species which includes all areas of native vegetation within the subject land.
I am also concerend about the runoff of waste and quarry water from the site and the possible negative effects of those sediments on the adjacent wetlands and tributaries into the KAruah river. The health of the river is particularly important for the Oyster industry.
The quarry will also be a significant visual impediment on the beautiful natural environment. It is likely to be visibile from the water travalling up on the Karuah river, and coming into town from the highway. The image of Port Stephens as a beautiful, healthy and natural environment will be diminished by a rock quarry occupying an area that is currently a beautiful vegetated hill.

I am writing to object to the proposed quarry.

It is unacceptable that the Department of Planning and the EPA are:

1. Permitting the destruction of trees and wildlife when materials can either be sourced from recycling activities, and/or when quarry activities can and should be undertaken in more remote areas with fewer trees and wildlife, and with less water required for dust suppression;

2. Permitting a private company to discharge water directly into the natural water system where there are reasons beyond their control. If there are reasons beyond their control, and there will be, and the water cannot be contained on site at all times, then this operating activity should not be permitted. The submission that this water will be treated prior to discharge should be dismissed. This treatment will effectively be self-regulated and you will not be in a position to control and monitor the level of sediment and any contaminants in the water, and if you do it will be after the event, and too late.

In Sydney companies are not permitted to discharge contaminated water directly into the ground. It is monitored before being discharged to sewer, with the water first being treated by licensed industrial services companies with controls on site that assess the water for contaminants. Individuals in turn are fined for cutting a single branch from a tree in their back yard, or shooting a single bird, and yet here is an application to knock down hundreds of trees, kill hundreds of animals and discharge potentially contaminated and/or sediment laden water directly into the river system.

I am surprised that this is even being considered given the fragile ecosystem in this country and it begs the question what exactly the role is of government when they permit the destruction of the environment simply because someone has sought permission to do so. The role of government should be to protect the environment and facilitate recycling. You rightly ask and enforce this on us as individuals and on other companies. The same should apply in this instance.

Thank you

Please find submission attached.