Deep Creek Quarry

I oppose the Deep Creek Quarry because it provides NIL benefits for the local community.

The development of a quarry in this area will ensure that the residents are met with many negative experiences and a huge loss in their quality of life. Below I have listed some negative points that will no doubt be felt widely by those in the area:
- a huge loss of natural fauna and flora, worsening an already horrible situation for Australia's wildlife
- loss of the quiet enjoyment of property, through incessant and persistent noise and dust
- far increased traffic congestion at the Buckett's Way / Pacific Highway intersection, which is already at times unbearable
- deterioration of the Buckett's Way as it is not designed for HR vehicle use

How can the Gov reconcile these negative, disastrous consequences with the opportunity to mine gravel. It truly would be a complete injustice.

I am strongly opposed to the proposed Deep Creek quarry development for many reasons, including the formation of dust and air pollution and the likely accumulation of these in our water tanks and drinking water, the lifestyle impacts of noise and vibrations from heavy machinery, truck movements and blasting, the inevitable impacts to, and destruction of, valuable flora and fauna, safety concerns around the proposed heavy vehicle movements on Bucketts Way, reduced water quality entering into the Karuah River and Port Stephens catchment, and the effect on the local economy due to decreased local property prices and likely decline in value of existing ecotourism and accommodation businesses. Whilst many of these issues are purported to be address in the EIS, in reality most of these issues are brushed over and deemed to be of little concern. I was moved to take the time to write these objections to demonstrate that these matters are, in fact, of great concern to myself and to many of my friends and neighbours.


I have been a resident of Limeburners Creek for over 10 years, and originally moved to this area for the peaceful surrounds and numerous recreational activities provided by the local waterways and bushlands. My partner and I each commute in excess of 90mins return each work shift to be able to live in this area, and are horrified to think that we will now be subjected to noise and air pollution here in our haven. In addition, due to the nature of being shift workers, we will be home in the day trying to sleep during some of the peak noise generating activities.

I also have significant concerns surrounding the potential for dust and airborne particulate matter to settle on our rooftops and be washed in to our water tanks and thus drinking water. Although there was some attempt to address the issue of dust in the EIS, in reality it will likely prove impossible to adequately suppress the dust without using large amounts of water (from which source? Surely not just the small dam outlined on the plans).

There seems to have been inadequate attention given to the potential impacts and safety hazards inherent in the proposed truck movements along The Bucketts Way. Despite the findings of the EIS that this road is in good condition, it takes only a short drive along its length to uncover that there are numerous sections that are severely degrade and riddled with pot holes after any rain event. There is no conceivable likelihood that up to 110 laden truck and dog vehicles (so 220 return trips) per day will not have a detrimental impact on The Bucketts Way road surface and cause further breakdown. The traffic hazards then caused by this degradation, ie traffic swerving out into oncoming traffic while attempt to avoid pot holes, are already encountered regularly by the local community, and will only occur with more frightening regularity if these truck movements become a reality. This is in addition to the danger of the trucks themselves, particularly at narrow choke points such as the Limeburners Creek bridge. The Bucketts Way intersection with the M1 Pacific Highway has its own existent safety issues, which were in no way mitigated by the recent upgrade. The impact of adding up to 220 heavy trucks per day into this intersection has again been brushed over in the EIS as likely to be solved by the (at that time) current road works. This has not eventuated. All possible affected lanes have either no, or insufficient, turning lanes and merging lanes and it seems likely the trucks will cause heavy delays at this intersection contributing to frustrated and reckless driver behaviour.

The environmental impacts caused by habitat destruction, noise, air and water pollution are another area in which the proposed quarry will have only negatives outcomes. There are numerous threatened species of flora and fauna located within the development foot print including koalas, as well as valuable mature trees with the nesting hollows so vital for our local birdlife. These flora and fauna will be directly impacted by the proposed clearing, as well as indirectly affected over a much larger area due to the above-mentioned pollutants and due to the movements of displaced wildlife. The water runoff from the proposed quarry site will enter Deep Creek, and from here flow on into the Karuah River and Port Stephens. Large areas of this waterway in the vicinity of the quarry are listed as Habitat Protection Zone and Karuah River Sanctuary Zone as part of the Great Lakes Marine Park. Any deterioration in water quality entering the creek will adversely affect the waterways and marine park enjoyed by many, not to mention endangering the likelihood of local oyster farmers.

In summary, I have many and varied concerns regarding the proposed Deep Creek quarry development, and nothing I have read in the EIS has addressed or alleviated these concerns. We in the local community are distraught to be faced with this proposed development which is entirely out of keeping with the activities of other land holders in the area, and can only hope reason will prevail during the assessment of this project.

My first issue is consultation as from my knowledge there has been one letterbox drop only within 2kms of the proposed quarry and one meeting during work hours on a weekday with minimal notice which would have made it difficult for normal working residents to attend. That would be regarded as pretty poor consultation at best. My next issues with this quarry are several matters of safety. I believe this quarry will negatively affect all the residents that use the Bucketts Way with the extra 100+ truck movements along a road that is usually in varying states of disrepair causing further damage to this poorly kept road. I also believe the residents will be negatively affected due to the extra dust and noise these trucks will produce on a daily basis. Another safety concern is the residents having to turn onto the Bucketts way from private driveways and roads that have poor visibility that could cause possible multiple fatalities with the extra 100+ trucks moving along the road at 90km/h daily. My main safety concern is the extra trucks turning across the flow of traffic at the Bucketts Way/Pacific Highway turn off. As we all know the Pacific Highway is an extremely busy road with traffic moving at 100km/h. The risk of serious injury or death would be significantly higher with the extra 100+ truck movements using the Bucketts Way/Pacific Highway turn off in it’s current format. An example of this situation is the New England Highway/Range Road turn off just south of Singleton where there have been many accidents causing serious injury and in some cases fatalities. Will the quarry mobile machines and processing plants have to be sound and dust suppressed to keep the noise they produce to the lowest possible level having the least amount of impact on the surrounding wildlife and residents? Not to mention the negative affects to the surrounding residents property values. Who would want to live near a noisy, dusty hard rock quarry? The positives of this quarry for a select few if any don’t seem to out weigh the negative impact it will have on the surrounding environment and residents of the Bucketts Way.

Attached objection letter and map.

Because of the voluminous size of the EIS and its technical nature, I requested an extension to the submission cutoff date. I now understand that no extensions will be granted but have been told that I can make more formal, more considered submission updates after the cutoff date of 17/12/2021 if I complete and submit this online submission. I request this opportunity to make submission updates after 17/12/2021 as I study the EIS more closely.

Being a landholder that stands to be affected by a number of the potential impacts of the proposed project, I wish to object to the project based on these main points (reserving the right to address these and others at a later date.)

It should be noted that most of us that move to rural areas such as this do so for the amenity afforded by the peace and quiet, and a clean natural environment (in particular air quality), apart from the wish to pursue rural activities. Most would not contemplate moving to this area if they knew a mine was to established close by. In fact one neighbour in particular moved from a mining area because he developed a hypersensitivity to diesel fumes and particles. This particular neighbour is one that will be most affected by the quarry proposal - in particular the access road route.

Air quality.

The EIS would seem to conclude that in regards air quality, the project will have no adverse effects on surrounding residences. There are any number of examples of mines / quarries in NSW that cause local significant dust and air quality issues. The EIS relies entirely on "models" to reach their conclusions. "Models" are simply computer simulations of what "may be" and any algorithm and/or input data errors or bias will render the output misleading or totally useless. I simply do not agree with the conclusions in the EIS - I submit that the "model" data may be wrong and needs to revisited. We are simply asked to “trust” the model predictions.

The EIS also does not make any study of the impacts of silica dust (below 2.5 microns) on adjacent landholders. Silica dust can be as small as 0.01 microns, can remain in the air for some 12 days and travel some 3km (with wind speeds of 5km/h). Silica dust can pose serious health hazards. Exposure to respirable silica dust, which is fragmented crystalline silica, can lead to silicosis, lung cancer, and COPD. Rhyolite (the main target of the quarry) is the most silica rich of volcanic rocks. It is inconceivable that silica dust will not be a major issue associated with the quarry operations.

We all totally rely on rain water in this area. The EIS only mentions silica dust in section 4.2 and only then states "The quarry manager will be responsible for ensuring that the silica dust levels are in line with the WHS regulations" - silica dust is simply included generally in dust mitigation without being specifically addressed. Silica impacts are not addressed in the EIS to any degree of satisfaction, especially as it will be potentially the main dust of concern.

Another issue with air quality is with the proposed route of the access road. This will affect the neighbour (referenced above) who suffers serious and life threatening hypersensitivity to diesel fumes and related particle matter. However, the EIS dismisses this impact out of hand and the issue must be readdressed to establish the credibility of the EIS. The proposed access road route will severely affect the amenity and lifestyle of the this resident and prevent him from using the whole southern section of his property as the proposed road runs along his boundary.

In the community interest, I suggest that the access road route be reconsidered. There are at least two alternatives, one has been discounted in the EIS, the other not yet considered.

One alternative is the use of an existing public road (Deep Creek Road) that currently gives full current access to the project site. The proposers discount this on the basis that using that route will adversely affect one resident (although they have no issue with adversely affecting another with their current proposal). I submit that this alternate route be reconsidered. This route will also remove the issue of heavy vehicles having to merge with The Bucketts Way traffic before crossing Deep Creek bridge going south.

The other alternative is shown in an attachment (extracted from the EIS and the proposed route highlighted in white) and utilises existing gravel sealed tracks through the same 3rd party properties that are allowing the current proposed access road route. This proposed route generally follows a track through the properties, part of which is gravel sealed presently allowing limited heavy truck use, meeting the EIS proposed route to the west of the boundary of DP 1/615302. Anecdotal objection to the alternative was that there will insufficient "acceleration lane length" on The Bucketts Way before the Deep Creek bridge going south. The obvious solution being to widen Deep Creek bridge - a significant expense, but if the proposers do not wish to use the public road already available to them, and use a 3rd party property for access, the additional cost would be simply part of the overall development costs. This alternate would alleviate the diesel related health concerns of my neighbour at DP 1/615302, and also move the access road further from my property at DP 2/615302 helping to reduce any noise and dust concerns.

It should be noted that the EIS map (the attachment) is not correct - the boundary for DP 1/507807 was moved further north as to that shown (ref sub certificate number SC 2021/0050, endorsed 6/8/2021 and registered 30/9/2021). This boundary change would alleviate the above alternate route having to cross DP 1/507807. The owners of DP 552/1238818 and DP 551/1238818 have already made arrangements with the quarry proposers to allow the access road to be established across their properties. The alternative shown in the attachment simply moved the route such that it alleviates the issues with the owners of DP 1/15302 albeit requiring work on Deep Creek bridge.

2. Water

All water in the project area drains via Deep Creek to meet the Karuah River.

The EIS details considerable planning to mitigate and attempt to control contamination of groundwater and runoff water into Deep Creek. However, no matter what mitigation attempts are made, all water excess to natural trapped groundwater will end up draining via Deep Creek, especially in times of heavy rainfall.

The problem being that Deep Creek discharges into the Port Stephens - Great Lakes Marine Park area of the Karuah River - right into the "Habitat Protection Zone" section (DPI map of July 2019)

To allow mine (quarry) water to flow into any marine park "Habitat Protection Zone" is obviously unconscionable. It makes a mockery of the regional council considerations included in the Midcoast Council Rural Strategy "Rural Waterways Background Report version 5 of June 2020".

3. Noise

The EIS "models" again deem that there is no ongoing excess noise issues to surrounding residences. Again I question the validity of these "models" - we have little or no knowledge of these "models" and therefore cannot verify or discredit how they are applied. I can only look at the outcomes of other mines and quarries and how they affect local residences as to noise impacts. Quarry operations into the weekend is one aspect that ought to be curtailed entirely - at least give us some respite.

4. Traffic

Unbelievable, again there has been deemed no significant traffic impact to the Bucketts Way. I live here and know the impact of holiday traffic alone to the Bucketts Way not only damage to the poor quality pavement, especially in wet weather, but to the significant delays at the Highway intersection. I submit that local residents see the problems in real time - not as the "models" would tell us.

Modelling or not, it is obvious that 100 to 200 heavily laden trucks per day or more, 5.5 days per week every week will have a major impact on The Bucketts Way traffic. Attempting to cross the highway at The Bucketts Way/highway intersection in holiday times in particular can be a nightmare - the highway traffic often leaves very few gaps to allow safe passage. Much slower and much larger trucks with bogies can only exacerbate this problem with their much slower acceleration and greater length

5. Biodiversity

The EIS details in great length the potential effects on the flora and in particular the fauna in the proposed quarry site and surrounds.

I agree - my property and those in the immediate vicinity extend along ridge lines to the proposed quarry area and seems to act as a wildlife corridor - we have observed koalas, echidnas, many species of parrots, and even a dingo in the area - too many for my property alone. The EIS even acknowledges that “the vegetation within the Development Site constitutes Potential Koala Habitat as defined under the SEPP”.

It is impossible, regardless of care taken as proposed, that there will be no or little adverse effects on this regions biodiversity - the fauna will not just “hang about and observe”, they will move on. Some of course cannot.

No mining operation can coexist with the natural wildlife - mining simply destroys everything, sometimes permanently.

I live here partly because of this amenity, I certainly do not want a quarry that may afford wealth to a very select few to take this away.

Koala population degradation is currently very topical - here is a great chance to help by preventing this development (I use the word development in a cynical sense).

6. Quarry expansion

I am very concerned that if this proposal goes ahead it will inevitably expand to a much larger quarry or mine. Adjacent to the proposed quarry area is a small mountain “Ironstone Mountain” that has been the subject of proposed magnetite extraction a number of times over many years. Magnetite is understood to be

Because of the voluminous size of the EIS and its technical nature, I requested an extension to the submission cutoff date. I now understand that no extensions will be granted but have been told that I can make more formal, more considered submission updates after the cutoff date of 17/12/2021 if I complete and submit this online submission. I request this opportunity to make submission updates after 17/12/2021 as I study the EIS more closely.

Being a landholder that stands to be affected by a number of the potential impacts of the proposed project, I wish to object to the project based on these main points (reserving the right to address these and others at a later date.)

It should be noted that most of us that move to rural areas such as this do so for the amenity afforded by the peace and quiet, and a clean natural environment (in particular air quality), apart from the wish to pursue rural activities. Most would not contemplate moving to this area if they knew a mine was to established close by. In fact one neighbour in particular moved from a mining area because he developed a hypersensitivity to diesel fumes and particles. This particular neighbour is one that will be most affected by the quarry proposal - in particular the access road route.

Air quality.

The EIS would seem to conclude that in regards air quality, the project will have no adverse effects on surrounding residences. There are any number of examples of mines / quarries in NSW that cause local significant dust and air quality issues. The EIS relies entirely on "models" to reach their conclusions. "Models" are simply computer simulations of what "may be" and any algorithm and/or input data errors or bias will render the output misleading or totally useless. I simply do not agree with the conclusions in the EIS - I submit that the "model" data may be wrong and needs to revisited. We are simply asked to “trust” the model predictions.

The EIS also does not make any study of the impacts of silica dust (below 2.5 microns) on adjacent landholders. Silica dust can be as small as 0.01 microns, can remain in the air for some 12 days and travel some 3km (with wind speeds of 5km/h). Silica dust can pose serious health hazards. Exposure to respirable silica dust, which is fragmented crystalline silica, can lead to silicosis, lung cancer, and COPD. Rhyolite (the main target of the quarry) is the most silica rich of volcanic rocks. It is inconceivable that silica dust will not be a major issue associated with the quarry operations.

We all totally rely on rain water in this area. The EIS only mentions silica dust in section 4.2 and only then states "The quarry manager will be responsible for ensuring that the silica dust levels are in line with the WHS regulations" - silica dust is simply included generally in dust mitigation without being specifically addressed. Silica impacts are not addressed in the EIS to any degree of satisfaction, especially as it will be potentially the main dust of concern.

Another issue with air quality is with the proposed route of the access road. This will affect the neighbour (referenced above) who suffers serious and life threatening hypersensitivity to diesel fumes and related particle matter. However, the EIS dismisses this impact out of hand and the issue must be readdressed to establish the credibility of the EIS. The proposed access road route will severely affect the amenity and lifestyle of the this resident and prevent him from using the whole southern section of his property as the proposed road runs along his boundary.

In the community interest, I suggest that the access road route be reconsidered. There are at least two alternatives, one has been discounted in the EIS, the other not yet considered.

One alternative is the use of an existing public road (Deep Creek Road) that currently gives full current access to the project site. The proposers discount this on the basis that using that route will adversely affect one resident (although they have no issue with adversely affecting another with their current proposal). I submit that this alternate route be reconsidered. This route will also remove the issue of heavy vehicles having to merge with The Bucketts Way traffic before crossing Deep Creek bridge going south.

The other alternative is shown in an attachment (extracted from the EIS and the proposed route highlighted in white) and utilises existing gravel sealed tracks through the same 3rd party properties that are allowing the current proposed access road route. This proposed route generally follows a track through the properties, part of which is gravel sealed presently allowing limited heavy truck use, meeting the EIS proposed route to the west of the boundary of DP 1/615302. Anecdotal objection to the alternative was that there will insufficient "acceleration lane length" on The Bucketts Way before the Deep Creek bridge going south. The obvious solution being to widen Deep Creek bridge - a significant expense, but if the proposers do not wish to use the public road already available to them, and use a 3rd party property for access, the additional cost would be simply part of the overall development costs. This alternate would alleviate the diesel related health concerns of my neighbour at DP 1/615302, and also move the access road further from my property at DP 2/615302 helping to reduce any noise and dust concerns.

It should be noted that the EIS map (the attachment) is not correct - the boundary for DP 1/507807 was moved further north as to that shown (ref sub certificate number SC 2021/0050, endorsed 6/8/2021 and registered 30/9/2021). This boundary change would alleviate the above alternate route having to cross DP 1/507807. The owners of DP 552/1238818 and DP 551/1238818 have already made arrangements with the quarry proposers to allow the access road to be established across their properties. The alternative shown in the attachment simply moved the route such that it alleviates the issues with the owners of DP 1/15302 albeit requiring work on Deep Creek bridge.

2. Water

All water in the project area drains via Deep Creek to meet the Karuah River.

The EIS details considerable planning to mitigate and attempt to control contamination of groundwater and runoff water into Deep Creek. However, no matter what mitigation attempts are made, all water excess to natural trapped groundwater will end up draining via Deep Creek, especially in times of heavy rainfall.

The problem being that Deep Creek discharges into the Port Stephens - Great Lakes Marine Park area of the Karuah River - right into the "Habitat Protection Zone" section (DPI map of July 2019)

To allow mine (quarry) water to flow into any marine park "Habitat Protection Zone" is obviously unconscionable. It makes a mockery of the regional council considerations included in the Midcoast Council Rural Strategy "Rural Waterways Background Report version 5 of June 2020".

3. Noise

The EIS "models" again deem that there is no ongoing excess noise issues to surrounding residences. Again I question the validity of these "models" - we have little or no knowledge of these "models" and therefore cannot verify or discredit how they are applied. I can only look at the outcomes of other mines and quarries and how they affect local residences as to noise impacts. Quarry operations into the weekend is one aspect that ought to be curtailed entirely - at least give us some respite.

4. Traffic

Unbelievable, again there has been deemed no significant traffic impact to the Bucketts Way. I live here and know the impact of holiday traffic alone to the Bucketts Way not only damage to the poor quality pavement, especially in wet weather, but to the significant delays at the Highway intersection. I submit that local residents see the problems in real time - not as the "models" would tell us.

Modelling or not, it is obvious that 100 to 200 heavily laden trucks per day or more, 5.5 days per week every week will have a major impact on The Bucketts Way traffic. Attempting to cross the highway at The Bucketts Way/highway intersection in holiday times in particular can be a nightmare - the highway traffic often leaves very few gaps to allow safe passage. Much slower and much larger trucks with bogies can only exacerbate this problem with their much slower acceleration and greater length

5. Biodiversity

The EIS details in great length the potential effects on the flora and in particular the fauna in the proposed quarry site and surrounds.

I agree - my property and those in the immediate vicinity extend along ridge lines to the proposed quarry area and seems to act as a wildlife corridor - we have observed koalas, echidnas, many species of parrots, and even a dingo in the area - too many for my property alone. The EIS even acknowledges that “the vegetation within the Development Site constitutes Potential Koala Habitat as defined under the SEPP”.

It is impossible, regardless of care taken as proposed, that there will be no or little adverse effects on this regions biodiversity - the fauna will not just “hang about and observe”, they will move on. Some of course cannot.

No mining operation can coexist with the natural wildlife - mining simply destroys everything, sometimes permanently.

I live here partly because of this amenity, I certainly do not want a quarry that may afford wealth to a very select few to take this away.

Koala population degradation is currently very topical - here is a great chance to help by preventing this development (I use the word development in a cynical sense).

6. Quarry expansion

I am very concerned that if this proposal goes ahead it will inevitably expand to a much larger quarry or mine. Adjacent to the proposed quarry area is a small mountain “Ironstone Mountain” that has been the subject of proposed magnetite extraction a number of times over many years. Magnetite is understood to be

Because of the voluminous size of the EIS and its technical nature, I requested an extension to the submission cutoff date. I now understand that no extensions will be granted but have been told that I can make more formal, more considered submission updates after the cutoff date of 17/12/2021 if I complete and submit this online submission. I request this opportunity to make submission updates after 17/12/2021 as I study the EIS more closely.

Being a landholder that stands to be affected by a number of the potential impacts of the proposed project, I wish to object to the project based on these main points (reserving the right to address these and others at a later date.)

It should be noted that most of us that move to rural areas such as this do so for the amenity afforded by the peace and quiet, and a clean natural environment (in particular air quality), apart from the wish to pursue rural activities. Most would not contemplate moving to this area if they knew a mine was to established close by. In fact one neighbour in particular moved from a mining area because he developed a hypersensitivity to diesel fumes and particles. This particular neighbour is one that will be most affected by the quarry proposal - in particular the access road route.

Air quality.

The EIS would seem to conclude that in regards air quality, the project will have no adverse effects on surrounding residences. There are any number of examples of mines / quarries in NSW that cause local significant dust and air quality issues. The EIS relies entirely on "models" to reach their conclusions. "Models" are simply computer simulations of what "may be" and any algorithm and/or input data errors or bias will render the output misleading or totally useless. I simply do not agree with the conclusions in the EIS - I submit that the "model" data may be wrong and needs to revisited. We are simply asked to “trust” the model predictions.

The EIS also does not make any study of the impacts of silica dust (below 2.5 microns) on adjacent landholders. Silica dust can be as small as 0.01 microns, can remain in the air for some 12 days and travel some 3km (with wind speeds of 5km/h). Silica dust can pose serious health hazards. Exposure to respirable silica dust, which is fragmented crystalline silica, can lead to silicosis, lung cancer, and COPD. Rhyolite (the main target of the quarry) is the most silica rich of volcanic rocks. It is inconceivable that silica dust will not be a major issue associated with the quarry operations.

We all totally rely on rain water in this area. The EIS only mentions silica dust in section 4.2 and only then states "The quarry manager will be responsible for ensuring that the silica dust levels are in line with the WHS regulations" - silica dust is simply included generally in dust mitigation without being specifically addressed. Silica impacts are not addressed in the EIS to any degree of satisfaction, especially as it will be potentially the main dust of concern.

Another issue with air quality is with the proposed route of the access road. This will affect the neighbour (referenced above) who suffers serious and life threatening hypersensitivity to diesel fumes and related particle matter. However, the EIS dismisses this impact out of hand and the issue must be readdressed to establish the credibility of the EIS. The proposed access road route will severely affect the amenity and lifestyle of the this resident and prevent him from using the whole southern section of his property as the proposed road runs along his boundary.

In the community interest, I suggest that the access road route be reconsidered. There are at least two alternatives, one has been discounted in the EIS, the other not yet considered.

One alternative is the use of an existing public road (Deep Creek Road) that currently gives full current access to the project site. The proposers discount this on the basis that using that route will adversely affect one resident (although they have no issue with adversely affecting another with their current proposal). I submit that this alternate route be reconsidered. This route will also remove the issue of heavy vehicles having to merge with The Bucketts Way traffic before crossing Deep Creek bridge going south.

The other alternative is shown in an attachment (extracted from the EIS and the proposed route highlighted in white) and utilises existing gravel sealed tracks through the same 3rd party properties that are allowing the current proposed access road route. This proposed route generally follows a track through the properties, part of which is gravel sealed presently allowing limited heavy truck use, meeting the EIS proposed route to the west of the boundary of DP 1/615302. Anecdotal objection to the alternative was that there will insufficient "acceleration lane length" on The Bucketts Way before the Deep Creek bridge going south. The obvious solution being to widen Deep Creek bridge - a significant expense, but if the proposers do not wish to use the public road already available to them, and use a 3rd party property for access, the additional cost would be simply part of the overall development costs. This alternate would alleviate the diesel related health concerns of my neighbour at DP 1/615302, and also move the access road further from my property at DP 2/615302 helping to reduce any noise and dust concerns.

It should be noted that the EIS map (the attachment) is not correct - the boundary for DP 1/507807 was moved further north as to that shown (ref sub certificate number SC 2021/0050, endorsed 6/8/2021 and registered 30/9/2021). This boundary change would alleviate the above alternate route having to cross DP 1/507807. The owners of DP 552/1238818 and DP 551/1238818 have already made arrangements with the quarry proposers to allow the access road to be established across their properties. The alternative shown in the attachment simply moved the route such that it alleviates the issues with the owners of DP 1/15302 albeit requiring work on Deep Creek bridge.

2. Water

All water in the project area drains via Deep Creek to meet the Karuah River.

The EIS details considerable planning to mitigate and attempt to control contamination of groundwater and runoff water into Deep Creek. However, no matter what mitigation attempts are made, all water excess to natural trapped groundwater will end up draining via Deep Creek, especially in times of heavy rainfall.

The problem being that Deep Creek discharges into the Port Stephens - Great Lakes Marine Park area of the Karuah River - right into the "Habitat Protection Zone" section (DPI map of July 2019)

To allow mine (quarry) water to flow into any marine park "Habitat Protection Zone" is obviously unconscionable. It makes a mockery of the regional council considerations included in the Midcoast Council Rural Strategy "Rural Waterways Background Report version 5 of June 2020".

3. Noise

The EIS "models" again deem that there is no ongoing excess noise issues to surrounding residences. Again I question the validity of these "models" - we have little or no knowledge of these "models" and therefore cannot verify or discredit how they are applied. I can only look at the outcomes of other mines and quarries and how they affect local residences as to noise impacts. Quarry operations into the weekend is one aspect that ought to be curtailed entirely - at least give us some respite.

4. Traffic

Unbelievable, again there has been deemed no significant traffic impact to the Bucketts Way. I live here and know the impact of holiday traffic alone to the Bucketts Way not only damage to the poor quality pavement, especially in wet weather, but to the significant delays at the Highway intersection. I submit that local residents see the problems in real time - not as the "models" would tell us.

Modelling or not, it is obvious that 100 to 200 heavily laden trucks per day or more, 5.5 days per week every week will have a major impact on The Bucketts Way traffic. Attempting to cross the highway at The Bucketts Way/highway intersection in holiday times in particular can be a nightmare - the highway traffic often leaves very few gaps to allow safe passage. Much slower and much larger trucks with bogies can only exacerbate this problem with their much slower acceleration and greater length

5. Biodiversity

The EIS details in great length the potential effects on the flora and in particular the fauna in the proposed quarry site and surrounds.

I agree - my property and those in the immediate vicinity extend along ridge lines to the proposed quarry area and seems to act as a wildlife corridor - we have observed koalas, echidnas, many species of parrots, and even a dingo in the area - too many for my property alone. The EIS even acknowledges that “the vegetation within the Development Site constitutes Potential Koala Habitat as defined under the SEPP”.

It is impossible, regardless of care taken as proposed, that there will be no or little adverse effects on this regions biodiversity - the fauna will not just “hang about and observe”, they will move on. Some of course cannot.

No mining operation can coexist with the natural wildlife - mining simply destroys everything, sometimes permanently.

I live here partly because of this amenity, I certainly do not want a quarry that may afford wealth to a very select few to take this away.

Koala population degradation is currently very topical - here is a great chance to help by preventing this development (I use the word development in a cynical sense).

6. Quarry expansion

I am very concerned that if this proposal goes ahead it will inevitably expand to a much larger quarry or mine. Adjacent to the proposed quarry area is a small mountain “Ironstone Mountain” that has been the subject of proposed magnetite extraction a number of times over many years. Magnetite is understood to be

This project does not pass the test of benefits versus detriments and I have outlined the reasons for my objection in the attached document.

I am a regular visitor to the area for Respite. I have a debilitating disease that requires me to seek a place where I can rest for extended periods of time. I found that place on a neighbouring property of Deep Creek. If this quarry goes ahead it will take that away from me.
On my visits to the area I have found the rural lifestyle intoxicating. I have observed wildlife in the area that I know will not be able to cohabitate with a quarry.
I also believe that there are small businesses that will be adversely affected by a quarry, the likes of Farm style accommodation, Karuah Oyster farmers.

I am writing to provide a formal submission on the proposed new hard rock quarry in the Limeburners Creek area titled Deep Creek Quarry (SSD- 11591659).
We have been regular visitors to the Limeburners Creek locality, staying in holiday accommodation. We go there to experience and enjoy the peaceful surrounds and natural environmental of the locality. We have also recently looked and enquired to purchase land and property within the locality to specifically enjoy the intrinsic nature
of this quiet and beautiful region, including the potential to establish conservation areas in the form of a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) in accordance with the NSW BC Act. We were horrified to find out that the proposed hard rock quarry was looking to be established within the proximity of this locality.

Our principal concerns with the proposal are;

• Grossly inappropriate development within the context of the local environment and with the potential to significantly impact and cause solastalgia to the local community. These impacts are not addressed or considered within the EIS, nor is the potential irreversible change to the community, environment and feeling of this secluded valley typified by the natural environment.
• The impacts of the proposal including a proposed stockpile placement within close proximity of the 4th order stream, Deep Creek, includes multiple incursion into the designated riparian buffer and corridor, including the proposed removal of remnant riparian vegetations and significant risk of downstream impacts. These are inadequately assessed and/or mitigated. The riparian corridor and designated buffers in accordance with regulator guidelines should be maintained and restored throughout the proposal. Adequate demonstration that all proposed mitigation will result in the retention and protection of Deep creek is required.
• The proposed survey effort for the threatened species Thesium australe and Rhizanthella slateri includes dates outside of the species specific flowering period and is not in accordance with the threatened species guidelines.
• The site will impact on significant hollow tree resources that are habitat for a range of threatened species with potential breeding within the proposal footprint. It is unclear of what the extent and coverage of hollow trees surveyed for potential breeding habitat was completed across the site. Were all hollow bearing trees stag watched during breeding season? The presence of breeding habitat for a number of these species should only be discounted through detailed surveys and if present should be avoided.
• The assessed impacts of the proposal on the Koala, Callistomon and Tetratheca juncea are restricted to direct impacts only. There is inadequate consideration of indirect impacts of the proposal associated with edge effects of an open cut quarry and lighting noise and dust that are likely to further reduce the quality of habitats for these species beyond the assessed footprint.
• There is inadequate consideration of the impacts of the 2019-2020 bushfires on effected fauna habitat by the proposal.

We strongly believe the proposal is an inappropriate development for the context of the locality and will result in irreparable damage to the local environment.

Sincerely, Melanie Pegg

My concerns are related to turning grazing area into an industrial area with noise and dust issues during 6 days of every week. I love the area for its clean unpolluted environment far from industrial background noise and dust.

The proposal is to clear some 30 hectares of natural vegetation. 30 hectares does not sound much but when put into terms of 300,000 square meters of the existing bushland being destroyed, along with the associated wildlife that call this home, and arguably gone forever (it will take many tens of years to recover if ever), it greatly concerns me.

The wildlife in the surrounding area will inevitably be also adversely affected - the frogs, lizards, snakes, birds, koalas, possums, quolls, kangaroos, and all other animals that call this home.There will be many homes destroyed and animals killed when the bulldozers start.

The noise and dust from up to 250 trucks per day, diesel machinery, crushing and screening plants, and from blasting will affect all residences in the area, made worse by the fact that we are all reliant on rainwater tanks for all water use. I understand that no prior warning will be given before blasting which is somewhat disrespectful to local residents.

Another concern is that Deep Creek which is adjacent to the quarry, drains all surface water under The Bucketts Way and through a National Forest area into the protected marine environment of the Karuah River.

I am concerned about the operational hours of the quarry proposed to be operational from 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and 6am to 1pm Saturday, with maintenance to be at any time day or night. This shows little consideration again for local residents. Other quarries in the area have more reasonable hours of 7am to 4pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12 noon Saturday.

My concern is the number of trucks in and out of the quarry - up to 125 loaded trucks leaving per day with a 32 ton load - in the order of 50 ton total load with an added loaded trailer. A potential total of 6250 ton, plus the load of the empty trucks returning, per day along The Bucketts Way with no overtaking lanes and narrow bridges that obviously was not intended to handle this heavy traffic load. The Bucketts Way is in very poor condition now and the additional quarry traffic will make things much worse.

I object to this quarry proposal. No one wants a quarry in their "back yard". Land values would also be expected to decrease - these properties are sometimes our only asset. I also worry that in sometime in the future, the quarry will be allowed to expand including mining Ironstone Mountain which would be a disaster for me and other close by residents.

Jim Costello

Because of the voluminous size of the EIS and its technical nature, I requested an extension to the submission cutoff date. I now understand that no extensions will be granted but have been told that I can make more formal, more considered submission updates after the cutoff date of 17/12/2021 if I complete and submit this online submission. I request this opportunity to make submission updates after 17/12/2021 as I study the EIS more closely.

Being a landholder that stands to be affected by a number of the potential impacts of the proposed project, I wish to object to the project specifically on the main points below, or at least raise objections and possible alternatives (reserving the right to address these and others at a later date)

It should be noted that most of us that move to rural areas do so for the amenity afforded by the peace and quiet, and a clean natural environment (in particular air quality), apart from the wish to pursue rural activities. Most would not contemplate moving to this area if they knew a mine was to established close by. In fact one neighbour in particular moved from a mining area because he developed a hypersensitivity to diesel fumes and particles. This neighbour will be the most affected by the quarry proposal - in particular related to the access road route.

The complete submission with my main points is included as an attachment as it exceeds the allowable size.

Paul Spiller

I understand that I can make more formal, more considered submission updates after the cutoff date of 17/12/2021 if I complete and submit this online submission. I request this opportunity to make submission updates after 17/12/2021 as I study the EIS more closely.

Being a landholder that stands to be affected by a number of the potential impacts of the proposed project, I wish to object to the project specifically on the main points below, or at least raise objections and possible alternatives (reserving the right to address these and others at a later date)

It should be noted that most of us that move to rural areas do so for the amenity afforded by the peace and quiet, and a clean natural environment (in particular air quality), apart from the wish to pursue rural activities. Most would not contemplate moving to this area if they knew a mine was to be established close by.

My full submission is included as an attachment as it exceeds your allowable character count.

Jennifer Spiller

The quarry will have a positive impact on the current shortfall of materials in the nominated region. Current boom on infrastructure projects in the area requires the need for cost effective materials that will provide a benefit to the community as a whole.

I have read the summary EIS and cannot understand how many issues have been so lightly dismissed. This is a brief submission because of the short time frame; ideally I would like to get responses to my concerns before this quarry is approved:
1. The number of heavy truck movements is utterly inappropriate for this road. The lanes are narrow, and the road pavement, especially the edges, will not withstand the wear and tear from the truck loads and number of trips that are proposed. The Bucketts Way is a notoriously dangerous road, and it defies belief that 25 trucks an hour for 7 hours a day in considered OK.
2. Why is any “wastewater” being discharged into the river? This water flows directly into a National Park and a Marine Reserve. No waste water should be allowed at all, given the proximity to recreational and aquaculture water uses. If wastewater must be discharged, the onus should be on the quarry to treat it to a high standard first.
3. Clearing of koala habitat. The EIS states this land contains core koala habitat. Given the plight of koalas in NSW which on the verge of being declared an Endangered species, no clearing of known Core Koala Habitat should be permitted. Additionally, the noise and vibration from the quarry operations will disturb them and the other Threatened Species that were identified with the survey.

The road infrastructure cannot handle 100 extra truck movements per day. There is no suitable exit or entry to/ from the bucketts way into the new site. The bucketts way intersection joining the pacific highway requires a flyover ( overpass) at a minimum to ensure safety and to ensure continuous traffic flow.
The intersection at bucketts way and pacific highway is now more dangerous since they completed their upgrade in 2021.
As a business owner we support local business and jobs. And as a trucking company that regularly travels on the buckets way, we again cannot emphasise enough of the dangers of exiting the bucketts way. It’s not a question of IF, but WHEN there will be a major fatality occur at this intersection. The intersection already cannot handle the current traffic let alone the Holiday period trafffic.

1. The connection to the Bucketts Way will remove a valuable opportunity for overtaking slower traffic. There is already a lack of overtaking opportunities on this road & drivers regularly take risks to overtake illegally. Alternative overtaking opportunities in proximity to the proposed development (in both directions), paid for by the proponent, should be made a condition of consent. Some years ago, 3 sites for overtaking lanes on the Bucketts Way were announced, but only 2 have been constructed.
2. It will become even more difficult to turn right onto the the Pacific Highway from the Bucketts Way with the additional heavy vehicles hauling from the quarry. With the increases in traffic since the Highway was reconstructed about 30 years ago, it is very difficult to access the Highway at holiday times and even during the year when traffic is heavy. I am aware that a grade separation was proposed at that time, but not accepted by the RTA at that time. Although I understand that an announcement has already been made regarding major improvements to this intersection (not the small improvement recently completely), the proponent should be made to contribute to its construction AND not be permitted to commence operations until the intersection is upgraded.

I object to the proposed Deep Creek Quarry due to the detrimental impacts that this will have on the local environment and community, including a significant reduction in air quality and overall living conditions. On a personal level the reduction in air quality will be severely detrimental to my father, who lives directly adjacent to the proposed site and haul road and has a diagnosed serious medical condition relating to a hyper-sensitivity to diesel particulate. His health condition will be severely exacerbated as a result of the increase in diesel fumes and exhaust. The approval of this project will see the deterioration of my father's health condition and his ability to live freely in his own home. It is pertinent that the Department of Planning listen to the voices of the local community and consider the impact that such a disturbance to the natural environment will have on the health and wellbeing of the residence of the area.

I am writing a brief objection to the Deep Creek Quarry at Limeburners Creek. From an ecological viewpoint, the quarry is being constructed in a very rich area, with known threatened species and EECs, with at least two threatened species listed under both state and federal legislation. One of these is the koala, which we know draws huge public attention, and the other is Tetratheca juncea, which has a very small known range.

From a social viewpoint it is ridiculous to funnel even more trucks down the Bucketts Way, which is already congested and extremely dangerous.

This project is irresponsible on a number of levels.

Cheers
Philippa

I wish to claim submitters rights as an objector for the Proposed Quarry SSD-11591659
Please attach any further documentation that I send to the above project by end of January 2022.

Regards

Ian Hill