Dunmore Lakes Quarry (Mod 2)

these are my concerns
1. increase in the amount of airborne dust at my location, the quarry
extension is very close to our property and no amount of watering will
suppress the dust.
2. the noise from the machinery, 24hrs a day will impact on our sleep
and lifestyle.
3. The impact on the Minnamurra, swamp road intersection will be
unacceptable, this area is a dangerous hot spot for traffic incidents
and the added trucks is an unacceptable risk to the general public
using this intersection.

serious thought needs to be given to rejecting this DA.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on Dunmore Sand and
Soil's Application to extend sand mining to the eastern side of the
Prices Highway at Dunmore, as I understand most of the sand on the
western side of the highway at Dunmore has been removed.

My late father, Ken Glasson, was Associate Professor of Geology at
Sydney University and he made a submission to Shellharbour Council in
the 1980s objecting to a proposal to mine sand at Dunmore. Ken argued
that the sand acts as a sponge and absorbs a significant volume of
rainwater before there is any runoff, thus helping to minimise and
delay flooding. Obviously Shellharbour Council decided to ignore Ken's
submission and the sand has now been replaced with ponds and fill
which don't absorb rainwater, so any rain runs off immediately.

Accordingly I object to the proposed 5A extension alongside Riverside
Drive as once completed (with non absorbent fill and top dressed) it
will allow runoff to cut Riverside Drive at Dunmore during severe rain
events.

I also refer to the Community Briefing Presentation on Boral
letterhead dated 10 April 2019. Table 3 details vegetation zones over
the Proposed 5B extraction area and it is noted that Zone 1
(comprising 1.42ha) is described as Bangalay Sand Forest in Good
Condition and Zone 2 (comprising 3.11ha) is described as Bangalay Sand
Forest in Moderate Condition. Accepting these figures, over half of
the endangeredn Bangalay Sand Forest In the proposed 5B extraction
area is in Good to Moderate Condition and accordingly should not be
mined but retained as a Buffer Zone and possibly added to the existing
Coastal Wetlands Proximity Area.

I also note that the Bangalay Sand Forest is classified as an
Endangered Ecological Community in the NSW Threatened Species
Conservation Act and at Dunmore apparently comprises native Old-Man
Banksias. The 3.11ha classified as in Moderate Condition contains 8
hollow bearing trees which provide existing or potential homes to
native wildlife.

I also refer to Table 4 concerning Fauna survey methods in the
proposed 5B Zone detailing Target species however as there are no
results shown as to the species observed this is completely useless.

I am opposed to this proposal. The effects on wetlands and downstream
environments should be thoroughly investigated and considered. The
extraction of sand will cause sediments to be transported downstream
and negatively impact water quality. This could have serious effects
for sensitive aquatic biota.
The river and surrounding environment should be protected and
deleterious impacts on sensitive habitats avoided for the benefit of
the community and environment.

Submission for the proposed Boral sand extraction at Dunmore stages 5A
and 5B

20th May, 2019
Selwyn Holland

I support this Development Application.

I have been on the Boral Community Consultative Committee during the
development of Stages 2 and 3 and now watching them work towards
Stages 5A and 5B. I have also been a member of the Wollongong Model
Yacht Club now for 12 years, based in the Stage 1 area. This means I
have a solid understanding of the companies' attitude and processes
across all new and older areas of the sand extraction site.

I have taken the attitude in this submission that the Boral extraction
of sand at the Dunmore site has a solid record of doing the right
thing and I have not seen any evidence of it attempting to evade the
law, make shortcuts nor intentionally (or otherwise) harm the
environment beyond the normal material extraction processes they use
under approval from EPA and other government organisations. The
positive outcome after the extraction processes for the local
microenvironment cannot be seen as anything but positive for both the
Minnamurra River system and the local flora and fauna.

So, in summary, here are the key reasons I see for allowing 5A and 5B
site developments to proceed:

a. This proposal continues an important local business with the
associated employment and local flow on economic benefits.

b. They don't appear to be impacting on local traffic beyond minor
truck and site vehicle movement, especially when the time frame is
considered.

c. It is based on private not public land.

d. They are not doing anything different to what they have been doing
on the other sites over the last couple of decades or so. So there is
a history of extraction with no issues that I know of with their
mining and rehabilitation methods.

e. In the case of 5B, converting what is basically grass covered
grazing land that has already been severally impacted by earlier
clearing for farming techniques to an area with better soil, native
stock vegetation and a 6th pristine freshwater lake has to be a
positive for the local fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and
microorganisms.

f. A flood mitigation plan will be in place and a method of recycling
the water used for piped sand is also proposed to reduce the use of
ground water usage at the site to insignificant levels. The footprint
of extraction is outside the Minnamurra River environmental buffer
zone and they have a plan to strengthen and increase the biodiversity
at this site during and after mining activity.

g. Personally, I have been in the Minnamurra region since the 1970s
and therefore been around long enough to have observed the gradual
morphing of environmentally damaged farm land into what can only be
described as well maintained and developed fresh water lakes that are
a rarity in this region. I have seen the influx of water dependent
organisms, birds and other associated living things into these lakes
and cannot see anything but a positive for the continued
transformation.

h. Being on the community consultative committee at the Dunmore Quarry
site has allowed me to observe over a long period of time their
operations and I see no reason to believe that they would do anything
outside of what is necessary to extract the sand under their EPA and
mining guidelines. I have only ever seen openness, transparency and
inclusiveness for the consultative committee. The vast majority of
employees are locals, and in my opinion, always try to do the right
thing within the local area. They have to because they are so close to
a sensitive waterway (Minnamurra River) and a concerned and proud
urban area.

i. Let's make it clear, extreme weather conditions like floods and
dust storms from the drought affect all established infrastructure,
farms, homes, roads, river systems and the general environment. The
whole Jamberoo Valley suffers from adverse weather conditions from
time to time. It is clear that Boral has carefully thought through the
extreme conditions and put in place systems to moderate their affects
as far as possible. Their systems are far more complex than the local
farming community could hope to achieve with their activities,
particularly with water quality. I see 5A and 5B as a less radical
area to control excessive storm run off than the areas they are
working with right now.

j. The lower region of the Minnamurra River is a resilient open
brackish water way, flushed from the east by the tides and feed from
the west by a slow meandering rural stream. It has endured the
onslaught of clearing for farming, urban development, along with the
ongoing impact from the previously active Minnamurra dump site and the
deserted mansion. I understand the suspicion and desire to block this
new development because of these past actions and thankfully we have
in place buffer zones to protect what is left of the waterway and its
remaining flora and fauna.

k. However, we have a forks in the road opportunity here if we look a
few years down the track. Allow the development, assuming all care is
taken, and end up with another regenerated natural water way to add to
the remaining environment and new lakes, or just leave it as it is and
do nothing about the mostly degraded grazing land. I know what I want
for this lovely water way. I want to see some positive moves to
improve and expand the habitats rather than just leave it as it is.

l. The material being extracted is natural under burden (sand) and the
material used to regenerated the lake surrounds etc. is natural
overburden including a lot of the local overburden from the site
itself. No toxic materials are involved in the extraction and no toxic
materials that could harm the natural Minnamurra River system are
being introduced.

m. Finally, the availability of high quality sand for urban and
general infrastructure is essential for the continual growth of the
Sydney and near coastal regions. We all enjoy some of those facilities
virtually every day and natural products such as this sand should be
allowed to be extracted within the strict guidelines determined by the
EPA and other government agencies.

We should not lose the opportunity to regenerate these farming lands
wherever possible.

In conclusion.

I have no commercial ties to Boral in any way.

I see nothing but positive outcomes with this new development. I have
no lingering suspicion Boral will try to sneak things through that
they shouldn't. From my observations over a considerable time I see no
reason to try to block or even object to this development. I prefer to
look at the medium and long term benefits of the regeneration of the
site back to another rare freshwater environment paid for by
commercial activities rather than the tax payers.

Regards

Selwyn Holland

Minnamurra resident since 1979
Member of the Boral Community Consultative Committee at Dunmore
Member of the Minnamurra Progress Association
Retired Science teacher.

I object to this development and to any logistic and transport
consequences of its operation, including ancilliary operations
required in any adjacent Boral sites.
My concerns extend to the heavy road transport operations associated
with the importation of rehabilitation fill and distribution of
excavated materials from proposed new sites.
Access and amenity for local residents and tourists/visitors are
impacted by the growing proliferation of heavy haulage trucks
operating in this area including back fill operations for the Boral
Bombo Quarry. This proliferation of heavy trucks performing line haul
operations extending northbound and southbound along the A1/M1 and
will be in the context of existing traffic of many other operators (eg
PKCT).
Commute times Kiama - Wollongong - Sydney are lengthening. Major road
safety concern is hazardous consequences to all other road users of
slow trucks in lanes 1 and 2, Mt Ousley northbound negotiating slow
left hand curve blind spots.
I contend that DA MOD 2 be rejected in its proposed format and that
any future review would be subject to the provision of adequate rail
freight services as and when available.

The Illawarra Local Aboriginal Land Council has reviewed the report in
relation to the proposed Dunmore Lakes Sand Project - Stage 5. We
would like to record our objection to this development proceeding due
to the significant cultural and environmental damage that would occur.
We would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Aboriginal
community, and I am sure the wider community generally does not
believe that the destruction of this area through the expansion of the
sanding mining facility is in keeping with the expectations and values
we hold for this area. Furthermore, we would contest that the economic
impact which may be attributed to this project and its State
Significant Status does not align with the cost that will be borne by
the community in the future. It is our recommendation that this
development does not proceed and that all extractive industries are
restricted from further development in this environmentally and
culturally significant location.

I object to the proposal DA 195-8-2004 MOD 2 to establish two additional
extraction areas Stages 5a and 5b.

The reasons for my objection are:

1. The subject land is zoned RU2-Rural Landscape which does not permit
extractive industries.

2. Stage 5b is within the catchment area of the Minnamurra River and
it associated coastal wetlands and class 1 (major) Key Fish Habitats.

3. The risks in this sensitive area are great and given the short term
economic viability of the finite resource in this location the
application should be refused.

I have made no reportable political donations in the previous two
years.

Please find attached submission

This 'modification' is no modification at all. It brings sand mining to
the edge of the Minnamurra River for the first time and should be
rejected for a very wide range of reasons. I argue that the issues
that have not been addressed (and justify refusal of this) include but
are not limited to:

* The areas proposed in Modification 2 are physically separated from
those considered in the original approval and have a far greater
likelihood of causing environmental impact.

* Areas 5A and 5B are both located in very close proximity to the
Minnamurra River, and unlike the existing extraction areas, has the
potential to impact on ecologically important ecosystems such as
Coastal Wetlands and Bangalay Sand Forest, in addition to impacts on
tourism and the scenic amenity that is of very high value to the Kiama
Community.

* Area 5A is located opposite Kiama Municipal Council's Waste and
Recycling Depot and sand extraction in that location will potentially
impact upon groundwater hydrology, mobilising contaminated groundwater
with resultant impacts on the adjacent Minnamurra River. This
potential risk has not been sufficiently evaluated.

* The proposal appears to be inconsistent with the Objectives in Part
2 Section 6 of the Coastal Management Act 2016 (and the former SEPP
71)

* The potential impact on Flora and Fauna is likely to be significant
and has not been evaluated sufficiently. Area 5B is surrounded on
three sides by the Minnamurra River and coastal wetland containing
mangrove forests and salt marsh.

* Area 5B is very low-lying and council is concerned that the
extraction will impact on natural groundwater and surface water
(flood) flows with resultant impacts on the adjoining coastal wetland
ecosystems.

* According to the supporting documentation, 56% of Area 5B is made up
of Bangalay Sand Forest vegetation that is classified to be in either
moderate or good condition and it is proposed to remove completely
4.53 hectares of this ecologically endangered forest.

* Noise and dust pollution risk for the residents of The Village (part
of Minnamurra, off Riverside Drive), located within 500 metres of Area
5A.

* Increased heavy vehicle traffic on Riverside Drive to service area
5A (including proposed backfill at that site) will add a significant
traffic risk on the primary northern access road to the suburbs of
Minnamurra, Kiama Downs and Gainsborough and has not been adequately
addressed.

* The community has been provided access to Area 5B to allow
evaluation of the impacts of the proposed Modification and public
notification of this project has been so poor that even the
councillors at Shellharbour council hadn't heard of it last week (per
comm Kellie Mash)

I request the Department of Planning terminate the current assessment
process and consider this a new proposal, as Areas 5A and 5B are
distant from the current approved extraction areas and will have a
range of different impacts. Either that or reject this whole thing. I
fully support the Kiama council resolution to oppose this development
that was adopted unanimously last night.

I have a property across the Minnamurra river and believe that the
natural state of the site being considered is very special and should
not be mined.

The vegetation is bangalay forest growing in sand and would be
destroyed by mining the area. Also there are protected plants growing
that will be killed by mining the sand they are growing in.

This looks very much like a case of short term gain with long term
adverse ramifications and therefore should not be approved.
Regards,

a) the proposed expansion areas are some distance from the original
approved area
(especially 5B) and as such a modification of the approval without
full EIS is
inappropriate.
b) area 5A is directly over the road from a major landfill site.
Quarrying here could
mobilise contaminated groundwater (leachate) with resulting impacts on
the Minnamurra
River. This has not been modelled or properly assessed.
c) area 5B is very remote from the existing areas and brings sand
mining effectively to the
banks of the Minnamurra River for the first time. This river is
extremely important to the
Kiama community and tourism. The location is very close to significant
saltmarsh and
mangrove ecosystems. Impact of greater groundwater fluctuations on
these ecosystems
must be undertaken.
d) area 5B, should it proceed, will impact on residents of Dunmore
Lakes and residents
there have lodged a submission about noise and dust.
e) the Minnamurra Progress Association points out that the larger
trees on 5B are
important nesting sites incl for sea eagles.
f) this is NOT a modification. It brings the mining to new areas close
to our beloved river
for the first time.

I wish to object to Boral sand extraction proposal at Dumore on sites
referred to as 5A and 5B, a brief summary as follows;
Environmental damage to Flora and Fauna.
Likely hood of pollution to Minnamurra River.
Groundwater pollution problems related to contaminated water from old
Minnamurra tip and Rocklow creek.
Impacts on traffic from Highway along Riverside drive and directly
affecting residents of Minnamurra village, Minnamurra, Kiama Downs and
Gainsborough. The proposal is inconsistent with objectives in part 2
Section 6 of the Coastal Management Act 2016. The overall amenity to
the northern entrance to Minnamurra and Kiama Downs. Obstruction to
proposed Boardwalk and Cycleway currently in detail design process.
This is my personal submission however, i have successfully lodged a
Motion in my capacity as a Councillor to recent May Kiama Council
meeting that was unanimously supported by all Councillors that can be
viewed on Council Website under item 11.7 that outlines in more detail
the above mentioned points.
Frankly, this proposal is totally unsatisfactory and must not go
ahead!

I'm strongly opposed to the proposed new sand mining site at Dunmore.
I believe it will have negative affects on the river and don't believe
1 company's profits outweigh the risks to killalea and Minnamurra
river.

I strongly oppose Modification 2 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives (part2,section6)
of the Coastal Management Act 2016:
a) to protect coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests in their
natural state, including their biological diversity and ecosystem
integrity.
b) To promote the rehabilitation and restoration of degraded coastal
wetlands and littoral rainforests.
c) To improve the resilience of coastal wetlands and littoral
rainforests to the impacts of climate change, including opportunities
for migration .
d) To support the social and cultural values of coastal wetlands and
littoral rainforests.
e) To promote the objectives of State policies and programs for
wetlands of littoral rainforest management.
2. This is a prohibited development under Shellharbour Councils LEP
2013. Subject land is zoned RU2-Rural landscape which does not permit
extractive industries, which are not compatible with the objectives of
this zoning.
3. The Significant impact on the Flora and Fauna. Existing vegetation
in proposed Stage 5b includes listed endangered ecological community
(NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016). The site also contains plant
communities listed on the Commonwealth Environment protection and
biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 7 threatened fauna species have
been observed and recorded on this site.

4. The proposal will effect Ground Water and Aquifers. The former
Kiama Municipality Garbage Dump has an organic, toxic plume in the
same aquifer as proposed pit 5a. Council is monitoring and acting to
contain this plume. Any change to the hydrology or constructions on
the proposed site altering the surface water flow or groundwater
movement will have disastrous effects on the Minnamurra River and its
adjoining coastal wetlands ecosystems which are Type1 (highly
sensitive) and Class 1 (major) Key Fish Habitats (NSW Dept of Primary
Industries (Fisheries p55).
The risks are too great. No more environmental degradation! Please
refuse the Application.

I object to this proposal and below are the reasons:
1.The pit 5B is planned to be 27 meters deep over an area of 8
hectares and will be left as an open water body. To achieve this 7
endangered species of trees and vegetation will have to be removed.
2. Pit 5A is very close to the old Minnamurra Tip where there is a
very large toxic plume in the water table, beside the Minnamurra
River.Any movement could cause the pollution under the tip to move
into the Minnamurra River.
3.This plan will require transporting of 235,000 tons of fill pit
5A,and will bring thousands of truck movements onto the main local
road residents use to access the Motor way to travel north.

my concerns are the same as Richard Maitland , "If approved this will
have major ramifications for the biophysical environment along with
the built environment."The mining of this finite resource in the short
term ( 2-5 years depending upon market demand) in such an
environmentally sensitive area will have major long term impacts whose
cost will be borne by the community and the environment in the long
term.

The areas proposed in Modification 2 are physically separated from those
considered in the original approval and have a far greater likelihood
of causing environmental impact.
Areas 5A and 5B are both located in very close proximity to the
Minnamurra River, and unlike the existing extraction areas, has the
potential to impact on ecologically important ecosystems such as
Coastal Wetlands and Bangalay Sand Forest, in addition to impacts on
tourism and the scenic amenity that is of very high value to the Kiama
Community.
Area 5A is located opposite Kiama Municipal Council's Waste and
Recycling Depot and sand extraction in that location will potentially
impact upon groundwater hydrology, mobilising contaminated groundwater
with resultant impacts on the adjacent Minnamurra River. This
potential risk has not been sufficiently evaluated.
The proposal appears to be inconsistent with the Objectives in Part 2
Section 6 of the Coastal Management Act 2016 (and the former SEPP 71)
which are as follows:
(a) to protect coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests in their
natural state, including their biological diversity and ecosystem
integrity,

(b) to promote the rehabilitation and restoration of degraded coastal
wetlands and littoral rainforests,

(c) to improve the resilience of coastal wetlands and littoral
rainforests to the impacts of climate change, including opportunities
for migration,

(d) to support the social and cultural values of coastal wetlands and
littoral rainforests,

(e) to promote the objectives of State policies and programs for
wetlands or littoral rainforest management.

Please see attached submission

As a resident I am against continue sand dredging of th Minnamurra River.
I am a teacher with a passion for science and I consider further
dredging will do irrapairable damage to this fragile filtering
ecosystem. I request no further dredging be allowed to take place in
the Minnamurra catchments. This is essential to protect our
environment for future generations for b plants, animals and people to
enjoy! Protect the mangroves and the Minnamurra groundwater stop
selling it out from under the community for short term narrow minded
profit.
Our council needs to represent the community and the majority of our
community is strongly against it.

I object to DA 195-8-2004 MOD 2 ( ie. Dunmore Lakes Extraction Project -
Modification 2) including "Establish two new extraction areas (Stage
5); extract sand by excavator and dredge; construct a pipeline between
Stage 5 and Stage 2; pump extracted sand from Stage 5 to the Stage 2
processing area; pump processed water from Stage 2 to Stage 5;
partially backfill the Stage 5 ponds with VENM; and rehabilitate the
site."

My objection to this DA is on the basis:-
1. That the proposed two new sand extraction pits endanger 7
threatened fauna species and vegetation 'bangalay forest' listed as
endangered;
2. Proximity to Minnamurra Tip means the organic toxic bloom in the
water table threatens the ecology of the Minnamurra River;
3. Additional truck movements calculated at over 8000 related to this
proposal will negatively impact the already congested Albion Park Rail
traffic flow.

All in all, this proposal to construct 2 new sand extraction pits at
Dunmore is short-sighted and poses a significant threat to the
immediate environmental area and surrounds.

Thank you.