See attached file

Please find submission attached.

I am writing to oppose the sand mine off Nelson Bay Road at Bobs Farm.
I believe the sand mine will adversely affect the immediate and
surrounding areas due to the impact of 180 truck movements a day on
Nelson Bay Road, the impact dredging 15 metres below sea level and the
loss of sensitive habitat.
My husband and I, and my children travel along Nelson bay road
frequently to get to Newcastle and I am concerned there will be a
greater risk of accidents due to a large number of trucks as well as
the degradation of the road surface as a result of the higher use.
The Port Stephens area is a sensitive koala area and the sand mine
will see the removal of 877 original hollow-bearing trees, which are
homes to other sensitive species as well. 25 ha of native forest will
be destroyed.
My major area of concern is 50 per cent of the sand would be dredged
from a depth of 15 metres below the water table, which is my drinking
water source.

Hunter Water has stated that's inconsistent with best practice - which
is one metre above the water table - a condition followed by all other
sand mines in the area. Hunter Water also states the company's plan to
create a lake from the final void was "implausible", and a "bad land
use planning outcome" that would result in 90 million litres of water
evaporation a year.

Port Stephens Council has also raised concerns that the environmental
plan for the sand mine contains a significant amount of
inconsistencies and inadequacies.

It says the report contains inadequate flora and fauna surveys for
vulnerable species, and an inaccurate representation of the extraction
footprint.

Another concern is with silica, the fine dust associated with the sand
being mined. According to Cancer Council Australia, silica dust is
harmful when inhaled into your lungs. As it is 100 times smaller than
a grain of sand, you can be breathing it in without knowing.

Exposure to silica dust can lead to the development of lung cancer,
silicosis (an irreversible scarring and stiffening of the lungs),
kidney disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is
estimated that 230 people develop lung cancer each year as a result of
past exposure to silica dust at work. Not all exposed workers will
develop cancer; cancer risk increases with long term or repeated high
level exposure.

Another reason to be considered, as stated in Statewide policy no. 1:
Policy and guidelines for construction and silica sand mining in
public drinking water source areas (Water and Rivers Commission 1999),
the major potential risks to public drinking water resources from sand
mining include: hydrocarbon
contamination; contamination from waste disposal
systems or activities; the loss of water through
evaporation; and the inadequate rehabilitation of
disturbed areas.
The threat associated with hydrocarbon contamination
in water supply areas is a key management issue.
Hydrocarbon contamination can result from leakage
from fuel storage tanks, spillage during refuelling and
inappropriate disposal of waste. There are serious
health considerations associated with this
contamination as benzene and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons, which are soluble constituents of fuel,
are recognised carcinogens. Remediation of
hydrocarbon contamination of groundwater is very
expensive, and in some cases impractical.
Waste disposal systems can cause contamination of
groundwater with nitrates, phosphates, organic
chemicals, metals, bacteria or viruses. Contamination
is most severe in areas where the water table is close to
the surface and where soils are sandy. These
conditions occur in the Underground Water Pollution
Control Areas throughout the metropolitan region.
The loss of significant quantities of groundwater can
occur through evaporation and inappropriate
rehabilitation. Direct evaporation of groundwater
increases when the water table is close to the surface.

I urge you to research closely how a sand mine, such as this will
negatively affect the surrounding areas, in particular, our precious
water and stop this sand mine from progressing.

See attached pdf objection