Sutton Forest Sand Quarry

This brief submission is made on behalf of the Penrose Swamps
Conservation Group Inc. Our organisation operates in cooperation with
the Wingecarribee Shire Council, the Forestry Corporation of NSW and
the NSW Local Land Services. The Penrose Swamps Conservation Group
Inc. has made considerable efforts over many years to remove woody
weeds from the swamps and from the margins of the swamps in order to
protect the threatened species therein, especially Eucalyptus
aquatica.

The applicant's submission includes some false statements.

Of note, section 3.1 of the applicant's submission, in respect of
Commonwealth legislation, states that it is unlikely that the
operations would impact on any threatened species of flora or fauna.

This is false. The swamp system at Penrose is home to a number of rare
and endangered species, including invertebrates (such as the Giant
Dragonfly) and one of Australia's rarest eucalypts, Eucalyptus
aquatica. The nearest relative of this species is Eucalyptus camphora
which bears some similarities but grows in ecologically different
conditions. Eucalyptus aquatica grows in standing water in the various
Penrose swamps and has not been successfully been cultivated
elsewhere. It will therefore suffer extinction if there is a fall in
the water table or pollution of the the Paddy's River drainage basin.
My reasons for being concerned about the water table are well founded.
The applicant's EIS states that 33 megalitres of ground water will be
required to supplement the surface harvest of rainwater.

It is this organisation's concern that the mining operation will
obviously disrupt springs that drain from the aquifer and which feed
the surrounding endangered swamp habitats. As the water table is
lowered, the supply of water to the swamps will be diminished, and any
net drying out will diminish the swamps whilst any discharge of
effluent will damage them as well as affect the drinking water supply
to Sydney. If it is true that the applicant wishes to breach the water
table and indeed to dig as far as 40 metres below it, then the risk of
catastrophic drying of the swamps is increased. Of note, current local
sand mining operations do not breach the water table.

Good heavens - the water resources of the Southern Highlands are
already over-committed and it supplies high quality drinking water to
Sydney and Goulburn. Direct extraction of water from the water table
and any discharge of effluent will negatively impact upon the swamps.
Moreover, there may be inadequate water resources left to support this
request.

Of note in regard to section 3.2 of the applicant's submission, Long
Swamp, which is adjacent to the site of the sand quarry is
Commonwealth listed endangered ecological community. Long Swamp is is
listed in NSW amongst the "Montane Peatlands and Swamps". It is
therefore necessary to undertake the most searching assessment in
cooperation with the Commonwealth Government.

Conclusion: Eucalyptus aquatica and other species are at risk of
extinction if this proposal by Sutton Forest Quarries Ltd is
successful. It is very unusual for a proposal to be so intimately
linked to the demise of a species but it is unarguable that this risk
is present to a significant degree in this case. I do not believe that
any responsible state or Commonwealth minister could support the
proposal and this organisation urges that it be declined.

Having reviewed the EIS submitted by Sutton Forest Quarries Pty Ltd
regarding their proposed Sand Mine at 13302 Hume Highway Sutton
Forest, I am dismayed that such a poorly constructed report has been
put forward for such a major sand mine in extremely close proximity to
neighboring farms. The environmental and social impact of the project
is immense and yet so little of this is adequately addressed.

The EIS raises more questions than it answers given that it is
covering what would be one of the largest sand mines in Australia
located in close proximity to Long Swamp. The effects on the aquifer,
Sydney's Nepean water catchment and native vegetation, flora and fauna
and residents' amenity would be extensive and yet so much of this is
virtually brushed aside in the EIS.

There has been virtually no public consultation on this project and
little time to respond to the EIS. I feel the EIS does not even meet
the Government's own standards for such reports and is deficient in so
many ways, not least of all the amount of testing done to support
claims made in the document to support the project.

I therefore respectfully request that the EIS as tabled should be
rejected, further public consultation undertaken and opposing expert
commentary considered carefully before anything further happens with
this project.

Daria Ball
Moss Vale

Thank you for considering my submission.
I write on grounds of compassion. Your proposed operations site is
placed immediately next to a monastery. This site was obviously
selected for its peace and seclusion. Your operations will most likely
impact on this peace. Additionally, fears are held for the generation
of dust, run-off, and the possibility of any unknown chemicals
entering into the local air, ground and water that may affect the
health of the Pauline Fathers who live there, and of the thousands of
pilgrims who visit the site each year.
My family and I spend one week each year camping in the monastery
grounds with our school group and we are concerned about the impact
that this mine will have.
The Pauline Fathers have patiently built their monastery and shrines
through the donations of the generous pilgrims who visit. Evidence of
the reliance upon donations is seen through the unfinished projects on
the site (there is a new amenities block that hasn't progressed for at
least the last three years I have been visiting as there have been
inadequate donations for it to progress). There are monthly
pilgrimages to the shrines and there are daily worship services (Holy
Mass).
I recognise that you don't choose the location where mineral deposits
exist, and that a mine has to be economically viable to make it
worthwhile, but it is also a requirement that a mine cannot affect the
serenity of those who have legally pre-inhabited the vicinity. Please
consider the Pauline Fathers and the thousands of us pilgrims who
already use the neighbourhood when you consider the impact of this
mine. Thank you.

I object to this sandstone quarry going ahead based on the following
points :
1. It will drain resources from water aquifer which is vital for
agriculture in this area
2 it will increase traffic congestion in he area
3 it will increase noise pollution
4 it will increase dust pollution
5 it will negatively affect tourism
5 it will negatively affect property prices

I object because of the amount of extra large vehicle traffic in the
area:; potential environment damage in particular dust and water ;
increase in noise pollution ; high value farming land literally being
destroyed .

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sutton Forest Mine Proposal. This is an ill
conceived plan that is environmentally, socially and morally
irresponsible. This is not the place for a sand mine of this size and
every step should be made to protect this pristine native area.
Australia is a big, arid country. There is a lot of sand in remote
regions that will not be as environmentally fragile as this. Our water
supply, a precious commodity in our dry land, must remain clean. Our
flora and fauna must be protected. Destruction now is irreversible.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.'

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

I strongly OPPOSE the proposal to build a sand quarry at Sutton Forest
NSW. This is a quiet rural area, mainly consisting of small farms and
their residences, and state forests. The proposed extraction and
processing of sand will lead to widespread environmental damage,
impacting on the flora and fauna of the area, as well as significantly
impacting the lives of local residents and those in the greater
Southern Highlands region. This is not the place for a large sand
mine, and every step should be made to protect this pristine native
area.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

I am a local resident who is DEEPLY concerned with the proposal of this
mine Project Application: SSD 6334

My concerns include but are not limited to the following:

*The effect that a mine of this size will have on the natural Fauna
and Flora in this immediate Sutton Forest area. This Great Western
Wildlife Corridor is already at risk and approval of this mine would
further narrow the already compromised animal movement path- with
devastating effect on our rare and protected wildlife species -
including the KOALA population which is actually receiving much needed
focus and assessment at this time.

* ALREADY HEAVILY BURDENED local roadways would further be compromised
by the ensuing heavy truck traffic that comes with approval of this
mine increasing the `animal road injury and kill rates' of wallaby,
kangaroo, wombat and echidna populations

* This FURTHER TRUCK TRAFFIC will be HAZARDOUS and at the very least,
inconveniencing to other ROAD USERS- both local , tourist and through
traffic.

*The potential effects this development will have on the existing
AQUIFER LEVELS and inevitable CONTAMINATION of the same - to a water
supply that is CRITICAL to the locals for their very existance - as
well as very important to the greater Sydney area.

* My family, including grandchildren, suffer HEALTH ISSUES associated
with lung effects from dust and windborne debris. The inevitable
further contamination of air with SILICA DUST from a mine approx. 1km
away would create a distressing and hazardous reality for us.

*My understanding is that this will be a 24hr and 7 day per week
operation for many DECADES to come. This level of industry will
require not only a huge amount of local resources not restricted to
EXTREME WATER CONSUMPTION - but also the area will be FLOOD LIT
throughout the night as operations are around the clock.

*The effects of BLASTING is of enormous concern also.
Blasting is a destructive and unpredictable method of extraction and
has UNKNOWN effects at a deeper structural level of nature that are
very concerning to our family and residents in the area. This also
will effect the pristine water from the area.

* We know also that the Land fill brought in to replace what is to be
removed will not be keeping with the integrity of the area and will
have effects down the years and I am aware that the company who are
proposing the Sutton Forest mine have a established and well
documented HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION OFFENCES.

*I am concerned by potentially devastating long term effects on Long
Swamp.

*Other small established local industries of Agritourism as well as
tourists to the immediate area -including the 25,000+ visitors to the
Pauline Monestry annually- will also be unnecessarily disturbed by
this proposal.

This mine is NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE AREA BOTH NOW or MOVING
FORWARD.

This submission of objection is to appeal to the Planning and
Environment Department and Minister of Environment to PLEASE STOP THE
ADVANCEMENT OF THIS DESTRUCTIVE PROPOSAL AND PUT PEOPLE , ECOSYSTEMS,
NATURE AND BEST PRACTICE BEFORE GREED AND PILLAGE OF A RESOURCE THAT
CAN NOT BE REPLACED.

THANKYOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS APPLICATION
Sally McIntosh

as a tourist site the mine will impact the attitude to our otherwise
serene area.
we have concerns regarding noise pollution and dust from the site.
loss of acces to bore water, pack of filltering of water as a
consequence of sandstone removal.

Dear Sir, I object to this proposal on the following grounds;

1. the adverse impact on ground water levels for a deep pit
constructed below the groundwater table with inevitable adverse
impacts on surrounding farms, bores and surface runoff and streams.
2. adverse impact on water quality of the aquifer that feeds the
Sydney water catchment.
3. adverse impact of polluted water on the lower connected swamp due
to discharge from untested fill in the excavation pit.
4. adverse impact of 24 hour noise of excavation and grinding, light
pollution and truck movements on wildlife moving through the Western
Wildlife Corridor. A this point the Corridor is very narrow and would
be effectively closed by sand mining operations thus severing the
connection between the Morton and Blue Mountains National Parks.
5. The scale of proposed road truck movements places a huge and
unacceptable cost (damage to the road, accidents) on the taxpayer and
local community with no offsetting benefit.
6. Bio-offsets can not compensate for the destruction of 63 of native
bushland in the Wildlife Corridor.

kind regards,
Eric Savage

'I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.'

I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE SUTTON FORREST QUARRY PROJECT for the reasons
below;

The project suggests land owners, such as my family will have our
driveway removed so we will have to enter our property through the
mine's access way. The safety of our family, including many children
is in serious doubt when we have to share our driveway with the
constant flow of heavy trucks (averaging 300 trucks/day). It's
dangerous, negligent and unacceptable.

Sincerely,

The poor environment and people's homes that will be destroyed if this is
approved.

RE: In OPPOSITION to Sutton Forest Sand Quarry Project (SSD 6334)
To Whom it may Concern:

I am writing this email in OPPOSITION to the Sutton Forest Mining
Project. I am a citizen of the United States who has family in the
area of the proposed Sutton Forest Sand Quarry Project. My family,
most specifically my parents, had spent so much time over the years at
my Uncle's beautiful organic farm, in the beautiful Southern Highlands
and the verbal descriptions they would offer of the farm and the
surrounding area were breathtaking. I am greatly saddened that the
beauty of this sacred area will be destroyed and the environmental
impact on this area will threaten wildlife, vegetation, drinking water
and air quality.
My parents, both now deceased, would talk of the watching the
kangaroos using the wildlife corridor in the area around the Blue
Mountains and how fascinated they were with all of the wildlife they
were able to observe. My sister would speak of the beauty of the
Glossy Black Cockatoos. If this project moves forward, I fear the
damage to the area, clearing 63 hectares of native bush, will
adversely affect flora and fauna, and further harm endangered species.
The beauty that has been described to me all these years will be gone.
I am also very concerned about the potential contamination of the
water supply. The sandstone which will be removed provides a critical
biological role in filtering water. This will eventually affect the
Great Swamp and the local creek. Not only will wildlife be harmed, but
residents will not have access to clean drinking and disease will
surely follow. These residents include my family, who live there, and
run a farm there. Can anyone guarantee that my family will have access
to clean drinking water or contamination free water for their farm?
Additionally, the potential for adverse health effects due to air
pollution is substantial. The prevailing winds will carry the airborne
dust. There is no doubt that residents will suffer greatly, whether
from asthma, or fibrosis or even cancer. Noise, blasting and light
pollution will further destroy this critical habitat.
The Sutton Forest Mining Project is one more example of environmental
recklessness in this world. It offers no benefit to the Southern
Highlands community. It is infringing on the rights of landowners. It
will adversely affect wildlife, vegetation, drinking water and air
quality. It threatens the many residents, as well as the people from
all over the world who come to visit the sacred site of the Shrine of
Our Lady of Mercy to worship and pray. It is unconscionable to me that
this project would move forward. It is not only environmentally wrong,
it is ethically and morally wrong.
I remain strongly OPPOSED to The Sutton Forest Mining Project.

Wendy Fitzpatrick Peterson
U.S. Cousin (to Richard Fitzpatrick, owner of the Fitzpatrick family
farm abutting the Sutton Forest Mining Project)

To whom it may concern: Regarding the Sutton Forest Quarry Project.

I am a resident of southern metropolitan Sydney and familiar with the
area where Sutton Forest Quarries are proposing to quarry for sand. I
understand that the Applicant seeks approval to develop a 64 hectare
site adjacent to the Hume Highway and close to the catchment for local
water sources of Long Swamp Creek and Sting Ray Swamp, to situate a
quarry, stockpiling area, road infrastructure and processing area.

As a resident of Sydney who depends on the sources of water catchment
to meet my basic needs, I have a number of concerns about this large
and significant project as it has the potential to personally impact
my life.

1. Threat to current and future water supply:
This sand mine will be located in the NSW Southern Highlands area
which is a critical source for clean water that enters the waterways
that feed into Sydney's water catchment. It has grave potential to
permanently pollute the catchment which currently supplies water to
Australia's largest city, of five million people. The project is
proposed to operate for 30 years, extracting sand at a rate exceeding
one million tonnes each year. By 2048, when the project concludes,
Sydney's water catchment will service a projected population of nine
million people. I believe this project constitutes a grave threat to
the water security of millions of Australians.

2. Issues raised by the Environmental Impact Statement supplied by
applicant:
The applicant, Mr R Bush of Sutton Forest Quarries, has commissioned
an environmental impact statement from R W Corkery & Co, with
specialist consultant L Cook of Tumbi Umbi engaged to provide a
groundwater impact statement.
The applicant's own commissioned report notes that the project
a) risks contaminating groundwater and
b) will reduce the water availability for agriculture and domestic
use.
The proposals to mitigate these impacts are untested, and present - by
the admission of the applicant - threats to local water security, at
least, and potentially to the security of the Greater Sydney water
catchment.

3. Likely changes in climate which will gravely affect the water
catchment and will greatly exacerbate the impact of the quarry on
Sydney's water supply, are not accounted for in the EIS supplied:

The Applicant's EIS has examined historical rainfall records however,
the Adapt NSW South East and Tablelands Climate Change Projections
Data [http://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/~/media/762B5EBAE21C434FA9259E7EE823F39D.ashx]
contains significant evidence showing a projected reduction in annual
rainfall from 2020-239 for the South East and Tablelands region. This
is likely to be coupled with likely trends in response to changing
climate, as outlined by the Bureau of Meteorology [http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/australias-changing-climate.shtml]
which shows that large variability in extreme rainfall events from
decade to decade is evident, with very wet events often associated
with La Niña years. Australia's south-east is subject to greater
warming as the East Australian Current transports tropical waters
south and so will be disproportionately adversely affected by the
warming climate which allows air to hold larger amounts of moisture,
thus leading to a larger number of high-rainfall events in short
timeframes, likely to put extreme pressure on downpour mitigation.
The Bureau of Meteorology has released information [http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/australias-changing-climate.shtml]
showing that streamflow in Australia's southeast since the mid-1990s
is around half the long-term average, coinciding with rainfall
reduction over the period. Analysis of hydrologic stations with at
least 30 years of high-quality records shows a trend to lower
streamflows for southeast Australia. The well-supported,
highly-concerning trend to lower streamflow to Sydney's water
catchment will be exacerbated by this project at the same time that
population in the area expands.

Water scientist Dr Ian Wright from Western Sydney University who has
decades of experience in waterway contamination is on record as
stating that the proposed quarry proposes "substantial and
unquantified risks" to both the local hydrology and to Sydney's water
catchment.

I strongly urge the Department of Planning to reject this proposal and
to require a far more detailed and better-substantiated environmental
assessment. This would likely stop this project completely because the
threat it poses to water security is too great.