SSD 6395 - Bobs Farm Sand Mine Project

Typical government policy. Profits before people. Endangering lives
withnsilica dust, moe trucks than our poor road system can cope with,.
Decimating the land and lives of those whose farms, homes and school
live around this area.
Greedy mining companies who give kickbacks to get things like this
done. Shame on Council and the owners of this company who will reap
millions of dollars at the expense of the people of the Tomaree
Peninsular.

No to sand mining at Bobs Farm

My wife and I own a 25ha property at 3479 Nelson Bay Road which is
located at its closest point less than 300metres from the proposed
mining activities. We currently live at this property and last season
produced 800kg of organic blueberries, this season will total close to
1000kg when complete.
I strongly oppose the proposed sand mine and raise following concerns

1. 38ha mine footprint (p63)
Clearing of old growth forest similar to the habitat on our own
property will be cleared. Over the last 18 years residing at this
property, a diverse range of flora and fauna have been observed first
hand. The habitat in the Bobs Farm area will be further reduced and
place more pressure on the remaining bush. The legacy of this sand
mine will be permanent and irreversible damage to the ecological
character of the area.
Though the proponent will no doubt be required to purchase offsets for
this removal, these offsets will not benefit the specific area of
habitat being removed.
The area of the proposal contains preferred koala habitat and
supplementary habitat. This will be destroyed forever.
Proposed rehabilitation will be minimal. An artificial lake will in no
way represent the land in its current form. It cannot be stated that
rehabilitation will take place on the site because the whole site when
purchased around 19 years ago was bushland. At the conclusion of the
mine's life, the artificial lake will not allow the movement of land
based animals through the property. It will push them to the edges and
in particular toward Nelson Bay Road.
The proposal identifies the sand as part of the Stockton Bight
resource when in fact it is an ancient sand dune, quite separate to
the sand dune at the back of the Stockton Bight.

2. Illegally cleared land
A substantial area occupied by fig and olive trees has been illegally
cleared. An application to clear 14ha of the land to grow olive trees
was rejected by the Catchment Management Authority (2002). A
subsequent application to clear 1.95ha was refused by Council staff
but later approved when called to a Council meeting in October 2002.
In the period between 2002 - 2004 an area was cleared by the owner
(who is part Ammos Resources) to establish the olive grove
substantially without consent. The DECC was aware of this illegal
clearing but did not take action and did not report the matter to
Council. In 2010 council staff determined that 4.68ha of vegetation
had been removed without consent. This illegal clearing is allowing
the proponent to understate the habitat affected, claiming this area
as marginal and unproductive farm land.
The clearing undertaken was 3.4 times the approved area, 6.63ha of
vegetation cleared when only 1.95ha was approved. The history of this
site displays that the proponents have been willing to circumvent
designated authorities and disregard the parameters of approval
processes to achieve their own purpose.
The history of the proponent and the failure of the DECC to enforce
the law gives no confidence to me or the community that if approved,
this project will adhere to any conditions or guidelines imposed. This
project must be rejected.
The EIS nominates areas which "were highly altered and could not be
assigned a community"
"Orchard Cleared/Modified (9.6ha)" and "Grassland/Pasture (4.0ha)"page
63, total 13.6ha. Some of this land is an easement for electricity
transmission which will not be able to be excavated. A large
discrepancy (6.97ha) exists between the Council assessed clearing and
that stated by the proponent. Is the area of cleared vegetation stated
in the EIS correct?

3. Severe disruption to Bobs Farm Public School
Truck movements will pass within metres of the rear of the school. The
stated number of 200 trucks will most likely be concentrated in "peak
times" at the beginning, middle and end of the day. According to one
industry expert I spoke to, the likely flow of trucks will be every
sixty to ninety seconds. This will create noise, dust and diesel
emissions at an unacceptable level.
The proposed exit point for trucks is onto Marsh Road. This road has a
3t load limit and the exit point is within a designated 40kmph School
Zone.
The proponent has noted (p60) that the "site has direct access to a
major road" and has instead opted for multiple truck movements each
hour past a valued and viable local school.
The proposal will employ about 8 people on site (excluding
transportation). This is a similar number to those employed at the
school. If the school closes because of the mine's activities there
will be no gain in employment and the loss of a community treasure.
I have personally spoken to parents in the area who have chosen
another school in the area because of the mine proposal. The
commencement of this project will likely see parents withdraw children
from the school to the point where it will not be viable. This project
must be rejected.

4. Interference with groundwater
The groundwater is connected to the drinking water catchment. The land
adjacent to the site, to the south is designated as a Hunter Water
special area, specifically reserved for drinking water.
The proposal to excavate and dredge below the water table will likely
contaminate the aquifer. The presence of Acid Sulphate Soils has been
identified on the site. The depth of the proposed excavation is stated
as -15m AHD which is below sea level potentially allowing salt
contamination. The EIS has not satisfied concerns of contamination
from salt, Acid Sulphate or PFAS which affects nearby areas.
The groundwater in this area has a "flow" which can be observed as it
flows into Tilligery Creek. This aquifer has the effect of "charging"
the groundwater on the much lower ground in the Marsh Road area of
Bobs Farm. I have observed that the groundwater at the School site and
another property on Marsh Road is approximately one metre below ground
level. Most of the ground in this area is very close to sea level in
fact there are times when Marsh Road is inundated with sea water
during periods of high tides. The "charged" groundwater has the effect
of holding back the entry of sea water, allowing the area to be used
for agricultural purposes. It is vital that the flow of this aquifer
is not disturbed and the proposal should be rejected for this reason
alone.
Every property in Bobs Farm benefits from the groundwater. A spear
point (shallow bore) with an attached pump is essential to grow
anything in the sandy soil. Having established our farm from
"scratch", I know how important this water is to grow grass, trees,
fruit and vegetables.
The excavation of the site below the groundwater level will likely
affect the level of the groundwater. This level has been shown to be
approximately 2-3m AHD. I have monitored groundwater levels from June
2015 and observed a natural variation over the past few years of
1170mm. A drop below my measured lowest levels will require a new pump
to draw water. Any lowering of the water table as a result of this
proposal will place a financial burden on affected landowners to
replace equipment which is functional now but could be rendered
unsuitable. This proposal should be rejected because of the threat it
poses to the production of blueberries on my property.
Lowest depth measured was 9/1/18 - 6320mm.
Recent depth 23/1/19 - 6300mm.
Highest level measured 14/1/16 - 5150mm. (EIS measurements taken
22/08/13, 1/10/13, 9/01/14)
To my knowledge, no other sand mine in the area is permitted to
excavate below the groundwater. This condition is placed on mines at
Tanilba Bay, Anna Bay, Salt Ash and Cabbage Tree Road.

5. Access to property and infrastructure
The southern side of the site has an easement for electrical
transmission lines. Ongoing access to the poles and wires will no
doubt be required by Energy Australia. The EIS has not shown how this
will be managed.
An access point exist at 3679 Nelson Bay Road crossing through the
proposed sand mine. This road is a legal entitlement of Lot 521, to
the North of the proposed project. This road must be maintained as
public access at all times. The EIS has not addressed how this access
will be maintained or how traffic will be managed at the point where
fully laden trucks and machinery will cross this road.

6. Visual amenity "Gateway to the Bay", Nelson Bay Road
This proposal is in an inappropriate location. The location of the
site is considered the "Gateway to the Bay" by thousands of residents.
The presence of this Sand Mine in the proposed location will greatly
degrade the visual amenity of the area. The proposed screening/buffer
(15m wide) will not "hide" the works proposed. The mine will also be
clearly visible looking along the Electricity Transmission Easement.
Nelson Bay Road in this area is bounded by bushland in a Rural
Residential area. The eyesore of a large excavation will change this
area completely. Many sand mines exist in the area at the back of the
Stockton sand dunes. These mines "harvest" largely windblown sand from
unvegetated sites whereas this proposal will remove a large amount of
vegetation. It will also be visible to every person passing by the
site. This is the wrong location for this type of operation. The
proposal should be rejected.
The indicative cross section drawing of the mine excavation (Annex T)
indicates a batter angle which is the same angle above and below the
water level of the proposed lake. This angle under water seems
implausible and threatens to undermine Nelson Bay Road.

7. Work hours
The proposal for the site to operate 6 days a week (6am -6pm) is an
unacceptable impost on neighbours. The area is a residential area and
construction/operational noise and traffic should be limited to the
NSW Construction Noise Guidelines. Mon - Fri 7am-6pm, Sat 8am - 1pm,
no work on Sundays, limited hours on Public Holidays.
The Construction Noise Management Plan (Annex K) has been compiled
using "Standard Construction Hours" which are presumably the noise
guidelines set out by the Office of Environment and Heritage as shown
above. The proposed hours of operation conflict with the NSW
Construction Noise Guidelines.

8. Traffic
200 trucks each day exiting into a 3 tonne load limited road directly
into a 40km school zone, this is a ridiculous and audacious proposal.
The unstable nature of Marsh Road makes it unsuitable for heavy
vehicles. The potential conflict between heavy vehicles and parents
dropping off and picking up children represents an unacceptable risk.
The potential presence of children near this proposed exit should be
enough to reject this proposal.
The proposed exit of trucks left onto Nelson Bay Road and "U" turning
at the Port Stephens Drive roundabout will see travel of five
kilometres to the roundabout and five kilometres return. A number of
the linking roads (Bobs Farm to Salt Ash and Salt Ash to Williamtown)
are single lane roads already under great pressure from heavy
vehicles. The addition of two hundred additional trucks each day will
increase congestion and create two possible conflict points. As fully
laden trucks exit Marsh Road, with no acceleration lane present, they
will be moving very slowly into the path of traffic travelling at
80kmph. This exit point onto Nelson Bay Road should be rejected. In
addition, trucks "U" turning at Port Stephens Drive roundabout will
create additional unacceptable congestion.
Greater than 150 trucks a day on the internal haul road exceeds
acceptable noise levels in worst case weather situations. Who will
monitor these weather conditions and who will limit the trucks when
these conditions are present? (Annex J page 4)
It is highly likely that trucks will park/queue on the shoulder of
Nelson Bay Road waiting for the proposed 7am opening. This already
happens around other mines in the area. It is not acceptable for
trucks to be stopped outside residential homes, obscuring driveways
and traffic flow on the major link road in and out of the Nelson Bay
area.

9. Dust
Harmful silica dust is present in sand. Typically North-easterly winds
blow consistently at speeds of 20-30 knots (37-55kmph) throughout the
summer. This harmful and very small particulate matter will blow
directly toward my house. This proposal presents unacceptable health
risks for my family and I.
All my drinking water is harvested from my roof. My tank water will
potentially be contaminated.

10. Noise
The construction phase has been shown to exceed acceptable noise
levels for adjoining neighbours. The operational phase will also
present unacceptable noise levels for adjoining neighbours, in
particular for Bobs Farm Public School.

11. Property value
The uncertainty that this proposal has generated has been an
impediment to many people selling property in the area. Some residents
have been advised by local real estate agents that their property
value will be reduced by over one hundred thousand dollars. This type
of devaluation of property is unacceptable with no compensation for
local landowners.

12. Proposed future use of the site and rehabilitation
The proposal suggests a variety of uses for the site at the completion
of the project. These suggestions should be rejected as inconsistent
with the planned rehabilitation of the site. Full rehabilitation of
the site does not allow for any future use of the site other than to
restore some of bushland removed.
Rehabilitation, "the action of restoring something that is damaged to
its former condition" (Oxford Dictionary). The proposal to create an
artificial lake (approximately 25ha in size) on this site does not
allow for rehabilitation of this site. It will not resemble and could
never resemble its former condition. The proposal should be rejected
on the basis of unachievable rehabilitation and implausible future
uses.

13. Possible expansion
The proponent and his family/ associates currently own adjoining
property adding fuel to community speculation that if this proposal is
approved, it will expand.

14. Community Impacts
Adjoining neighbours, including some long term residents whose
families have resided in the area for generations have been placed
under great duress during the past four years.
Historically the Bobs Farm area has been a productive agricultural
area. Some would claim that it used to be the food bowl of Newcastle.
Some small scale agriculture and aquaculture still exists including
growing avocados, grapes, macadamia nuts, blueberries, barramundi and
figs/olives on the proposed development site. In addition to these
farms, many families grow their own vegetables and fruit trees. Today,
Bobs Farm is mostly small holdings where families want to live in a
semi-rural area with services nearby.
A number of tourist facilities and small businesses operate in the
area including a barramundi farm, shark and ray centre, go-karts, a
winery, a brewery, a café/bar and numerous other home businesses.

15. Scope of proposal
The size and value of this project has been grossly exaggerated by the
inclusion of sand below the water table. At least half of the stated
resource is below the groundwater level. It has been included with the
knowledge that no other sand mine in the area is able to excavate
below one metre above the water table.
The groundwater levels monitored are shown to range between 1.6 -3.17
AHD. If the current convention to protect the Hunter Water drinking
water catchment is applied the limit of the excavation on this site
would be 4.17m AHD. This would more than halve the stated resource.
If the total resource is halved it may fall outside State significant
levels. This proposal should be rejected, in my opinion the proponent
has attempted to avoid local scrutiny and a local approval process.

Conclusion
The benefits of this development proposal must be weighed against the
cost. It seems to me the benefits include supplying much needed sand,
creating a handful of jobs and rewarding a few people with a handsome
profit.
The cost of the proposal is far greater to local landholders and the
community. Loss of bushland, a threat to the local school including a
threat to jobs, potential contamination and loss of groundwater,
increased traffic, noise and dust with associated health risks for
hundreds of local residents.
The impact of this project will vary greatly to people in the
community. Close and adjoining neighbours will experience increased
noise at levels that are excessive and reduced property value.
Residents even three to four kilometres away will be affected by
excessive levels of airborne particulate matter. Every resident in the
Tomaree and Tilligery Peninsulas will be impacted by increased
traffic. Residents of the Tomaree Peninsula will be visually assaulted
by the sand mine site enroute to their home.
Whilst I strongly oppose this project and do not want to see it
approved, the following possible conditions have been highlighted in
other submissions. Port Stephens council has suggested that trucks
exiting Marsh Road be abandoned in favour of Nelson Bay Road. Hunter
Water has insisted that the excavation should be only above the water
table and that the proposed artificial lake will pose an unacceptable
amount of evaporation. The issues raised above show that this project
is not an ecologically sustainable development. If these possible
conditions are considered, the project resource will be reduced by at
least 50% and will not even resemble the current proposal. On this
basis the proposal for a Sand Mine at Bobs Farm should be rejected.

I want to express my opposition to this sand mine. It will harm the
native wildlife, vegetation and environment -- the very things people
who live here enjoy and that visitors come to see.
Granted, this mine will generate six jobs, but those will be gone when
all the sand is mined out. Those six jobs are insignificant compared
to the thousands of jobs that depend on tourism in the area.
Similarly, any income generated from this mine for the local and state
government pales into insignificance compared to the millions of
dollars in revenue from restaurants, hotels, facilities like horse
riding and boat excursions..
As more and more of Port Stephens's native forest goes and the koala
habitat lost, we lose the very things people come to see. And, equally
importantly, what local residents want to enjoy.

I object to the proposed Bobs Farm Sand Mine Project.

1.The position of the proposed Sand Mine is a major problem as it is
close to Bobs Farm School and will surely have an impact on the
students and teachers.

2.The amount of truck movements onto Nelson Bay is also a major
concern.

3. Negative impact on the water table.

4.Environmental impact on local flora and fauna.

I object to the Bobs Farm Sand Mine Project.

1. Horrific amount of truck movements onto Nelson Bay Rd.

2. Negative effects to the water table.

3.Negative impact on Bobs Farm Community, especially as it is so close
to a public school.

4. Environmental damage to the bush and it's flora and fauna.

I object to this sand mine on the grounds that it is too close to
residential properties and the local school . We live within 3.5
kilometers of this mine and will be adversly affected by wind blown
silica dust and also ground water disruption as we use groundwater for
irrigation of horse pasture and crops.The number of truck movements
using Marsh road and Nelson Bay road to Salamander way roundabout is
also an issue as it is already a busy section of road especialy during
hollidays.The southern end of Marsh road will also be affected in the
same way and make it dangerous to enter nelson bay road turning right
from Marsh road

The proposed sand mine at Bobs Farm cannot go ahead for a variety of
reasons.
Currently and especially in holiday time the traffic on Nelson Bay
Road is heavy enough without the addition of the extra truck movements
proposed. Even with road upgrades the amount of truck movements daily
will have a significant negative effect on traffic flow. Added to this
the trucks will be exceeding the load limit on Marsh Road. The noise
of the trucks must be taken into consideration. When a large truck or
a bus rumbles past the school, all teaching and learning activities
cease due to the noise and vibrations which have a disturbing effect
on our current technology screens. This is unacceptable as there will
be frequent truck movements adjacent to the school all day. Pollution
needs to be considered. Not only will this sand mine be responsible
for cancer causing silica dust being released into the greater Port
Stephens environment, more importantly it will be released directly
along the school boundary. Children, staff and visitors will
constantly be in harms way. The fence line of the truck access area
runs parallel to the schools only playground.
The proximity of truck movements right next door to the school will
have an adverse effect on safe access for school traffic. Visibility
to turn in and out of the school will be significantly impeded not to
mention the students who have to cross Marsh Rd which has no crossing
to access the bus stop. To some a small school may not matter but to
those who attend it means everything. For many many years students
have attended this little unique school for a great variety of reasons
including the unique family atmosphere, the friendliness, small class
sizes and the wonderful opportunities and activities larger schools do
not offer. Where will those students with anxiety, Autism Spectrum
Disorder, Social issues, Learning difficulties and a host of other
needs be schooled? Yes there are other schools but these families
specifically chose Bobs Farm!
Environmentally there are far too many factors to list as to why this
sand mine proposal is ludicrous. Endangered animal species,
desecration of traditional Worimi land, desecration of ancient sand
dunes, major interruptions to the water table having a direct impact
on farming families in the community and the simple fact that once
mined you cannot bring back the environment ruined.

This proposal will have a negative impact on the wider Port Stephens
community due to traffic implications, noise, jobs lost with the
possible closure of the school, environmental impacts on families
close by, families having to rethink alternative educational outcomes
for their children and most importantly the direct exposure to silica
which WILL cause cancer in the future! For this proposal to go ahead
would be nothing short of negligible!

Considering the detail I have added here from the Hunter Water's
submission, the proposal is indignant, irresponsible, lacking any
moral integrity.
Please see below..
"Hunter Water understands that the development proposes, the
extraction of 750,000 tonnes of sand per year over a 15 year period
through dry and wet extraction (dredging) methods, staged clearing of
approximately 39 hectares of vegetation, the construction of gravel
and sealed haul roads, a site operations shed, and operations area.
Further, the proposed development involves the extraction of
approximately 50% of the sand by dredging below the groundwater table
to a level of -15 metres AHD that would result in the creation of a
large water body with an area of approximately 25 hectares. Supporting
documentation states
that in addition to water to be used for operational processes, such
as washing, dust suppression and other requirements or losses; the
proposal is expected to result in the ongoing evaporative loss of
approximately 90 million litres of fresh water per year from the
proposed 25 hectare post-
extraction lake."

How much sand is enough. The truck movements on Nelson Bay Road is
already too many trucks, from 5am to after 7pm each day. This area
needs t be protected not exploited.

I feel that the planned sand mine is not warranted in this particular
area, there are hundreds of acres of sand available and this project
should not be allowed as it is next to a 100 year old primary school,
I believe the greed of a few people will destroy the hamlet of Bobs
Farm, the damage the old growth Forrest will destroy it and it also
cannot be replaced, a sand mine should be where sand in encroaching
onto roadways like Lavis Lane and James Patterson Street, if this mine
was to go ahead it would convince me that the whole system is corrupt
and rotten to the core and an inquiry or action by ICAC is warranted
and I will be pushing my local member for that to happen, I am sure
that something is wrong with this application and will protest until
it is dead and buried.

Destruction of natural formations is irreversible ,how many concrete
paths and edges do we need, alternatives need to be found,maybe
halting population growth to reduce the need for excessive use of
resources. Remember once Kurnell was a picturesque peninsula ,now it's
an industrial wasteland that was slowly removed one bucket at a time,
disgraceful . To build paths that nobody walks.

The location of this project is not suitable, The potential impact of
mining 15m below sea level directly adjacent to a much loved
destination (Stockton beach) which we are working hard to protect
through vehicle and camping regulations is a complete contrast and
doesn't make any sense.

Locals investing in eco-tourism projects in the area should be given
precedent over damaging propositions.

In a community that has just been devastated by the PFAS contamination
from activity by the defence department, a second blow like this will
mean property owners will never come back from it.

Dear Sir or Madam
I wish to express my objection to the proposed Sandmine at Bobs Farm,
in Port Stephens for the following reasons.
1. This development will involve the clearing of 36.1 hectares of
native bush which provides habitat for threatened species including
the koala.
2.If approved this development will involve the removal of 10million
tonnes of sand over 15 years. This will impact on air quality because
of the silica dust created and create potential health issues.
3. If approved sand will be excavated to 15 metres below the surface
which will affect water quality and disturb the natural water basin.
4. This development will create excessive truck movements and
noise with an additional 180 trucks on Nelson Bay Road.
5. This development is also in close proximity to Bobs Farm School.
I object to this development as it would create an environmental
disaster.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Warman

I oppose the proposed sand mine on three points.
1/ The impact that the extra trucks will have on traffic on both
Nelson Bay road and Marsh road. The intersection of Marsh Rd onto
Nelson Bay Rd, Nelson Bay end is bad enough now. We have businesses
already there that will be impacted by the noise and traffic from a
sand mine is not acceptable. I know first hand because I live with a
mine directly behind me at Anna Bay.
2/ What impact will this mine have on the marshland along Marsh road
that drains into the Tiligerry creek and the marine life along there
and in to Port Stephens waters.
3/ We already have three sand mines along Birubi beach how much sand
can be safely taken out of this area before the eco system is
permanently affected along with the water table that affects so many
people. We have already seen the furore over the Williamtown air base
and the effect their polluting of the water table has had. Do we want
to add to this?
Big business cannot be allowed to run roughshod over the community
concerns on safety and the environment.

I am making a submission to strongly object to the proposed sand mine at
Bobs Farm.
I have been a resident of Bobs Farm for over 30 years & have lived in
the BF Anna Bay area for most of my life.
My major objections are as follows:
: the impact of proposed 180 truck movements a day on Nelson Bay Road,
7am and 6pm ( one every 3 minutes). These trucks will pass next to the
Bobs Farm School, turning right onto Marsh Road, to single lane
secondary road, turn left towards Anna Bay and use the Port Stephens
Drive round about as a U turn bay to return in the Newcastle direction
along partial dual carriageway. This will eventuate in major road
degeneration, as well as being extremely dangerous to school students
& residents that currently use this subsidiary road. It will also
contribute to excess traffic movement on the main road, which is
already at capacity, especially during the tourist season.
Impact dredging 15 metres below sea level is of great concern to me.
This will impact on the water table for surrounding properties.
The proposed mine will include dredging 15m below sea level, once
completed it will leave a 24.5 hectare salt water dam. This should not
be allowed because of the delicate balance of the low lying wetlands
that adjoin the properties applying to mine this ecologically
sensitive area.
The Rose farm , established & running for many years on the Marsh Road
not far away from the site being proposed for intensive mining found
out the hard way that tampering with the water table & not
understanding the way the water works, had to do extensive soil
alterations to stop the water sucking back up the sand dunes. I have
spoken to a retired surveyor who was working for the company; he
mentioned the issue to me.
Where do they propose to get the salt water from, & how will this
effect surrounding fauna & flora & the ground water for neighbouring
properties & those land holders further afield that rely on boar water
for their crop irrigation. There are many small scale farmers in Bobs
Farm.
I am gravely concerned as there,there are already major flooding
issues relating to the Go Karts track directly at the bottom of the
property adjoining the proposed mine site , this property has an
ecologically sensitive area.

They will only revegetate approximately 7 hectares of the land mined.
Will this bordering land be also affected by the salt water body that
they propose to leave behind?
What measures have been taken to ensure that there will be adequate
finances and consequences for not adhering to any default by the
company to comply with the regulations set down prior to the
commencement of the proposed mine set aside by AMMOS to bring the land
back to it's original natural state. Extraction such an amount of soil
cannot be allowed .

I object to the fact that there will be substantial loss of ancient
sand dunes. I am of the understanding that this proposed rape of the
land by mining goes against the guiding principles of our First
Nations people. Are they fully aware of this?
Potential impact of the mine on existing businesses and residents need
to be given a high priority in the assessment process. I am concerned
that this has not been the case & that it has not been covered
adequately
To my knowledge, no members of the community have been contacted by
the developer to discuss any issues or social impacts to our
community. It's hard to believe that so many professional consultants
would forget to check with the adjoining landholders about how a mine
of this size could affect them.
Bobs Farm Public School, Kookaburra Farm Stay, Murrays Brewery,
Cookabarra Function Centre & restaurant, Irukandji Shark and Ray
Encounters are located nearby.
The potential closure of the local school, which recently celebrated
100years, is unfortunately possible, due to the treat of noise, dust,
land movement, & on health issues relating to air contamination from
Silica mining exposure.
Impacts to local farms, & farmers, growing tomatoes, capsicum,
eggplant, cucumber, pumpkins, melons, squash, zucchini, avocados,
macadamias, oranges, peaches, nectarines, figs ,spinach, kale,
beetroot, beans, peas, artichokes, bananas, mulberries, plums,
cabbage, blueberries grapes, garlic, lettuce, a large variety of
herbs, and much more are impacted bt air & water contamination.

I object to the impact of threatened flora and fauna and groundwater
dependent ecosystems
including, but not limited to threat to species such as koalas, owls
and gliders,
and the loss of sensitive habitat this proposed mine will create.

This development is going to destroy yet another important Koala
habitat. The EIS states that Koalas are considered to utilise the
study area. This site has Preferred Koala Habitat and evidence of them
utilising the site has been well documented by the Koala Preservation
Society. Is Port Stephens going to lose yet another important Koala
habitat?
The revegetation and rehabilitation of this site is totally
inadequate. Such a small proportion of the site will be rehabilitated
to vegetation. The majority of the site will be an artificial salty
lake. This cannot be permitted!

Social impacts to our community, division and major stress concerns,
especially to those property owners on the proposed mines boundaries
concern me greatly. We are a small close knit community & it is
already having adverse effects on the more vulnerable residents .
I object to being exposed to silica dust from the high grade white
silica sand deposits for making of glass manufacturing they propose to
extract. Contamination area is a 10 km radius, which encompasses a
great tract of land. Many of the residents are reliant on tank ( rain
) water as their sole source of water for drinking, washing & watering
the gardens. Silicosis is more serious for lung disorders than
asbestosis.
Please don't let this happen.

Concerns re the retention of a 24.5 hectare void/dam.
I am wondering how a logical or scientifically unbiased assessment of
the proponents EIS can be made if the developer is paying the
consultant to undertake the reports. Shouldn't the State Government be
making their own assessments of the proposal rather than relying on
information from consultants who are paid by the developer.
The environmental impact statement says "the groundwater operations
were not expected to adversely impact on groundwater used by adjoining
farming properties.
Groundwater levels on the site and at surrounding bores will not be
significantly altered as the proposed method of sand extraction below
the water table is via dredge and not likely to result in significant
groundwater drawdown."
The people of Port Stephens do not want another 180 trucks pouring
onto Nelson Bay Road every day, or more habitats being destroyed, or
more threats to the ground water and air quality. If we want to
continue to attract tourists, we can't have the gateway to Port
Stephens becoming a mining corridor.
I object to being subjected to being pushed into a corner by people
with large amounts of money , who feel it is their right to rape &
pillage for their own financial gain at the expense of small
communities with very little in the way of finances or tools , except
wording their opposition by submissions such as these.

Its absolutly ridiculous that a sand mine of this size is even being
considored in the middle of Port Stephens. Both my children go to Bobs
Farm Primary School, Silica dust is a major concern for the region and
the primary school which recently celebrated its 100 year anniversary.
My property has no town water & I rely heavily on bore water for our
gardens, disrupting the precious water table and the damage to the
local area makes me sick to my stomach, the proposed truck movements
is complelely outrageous, why this is even being considered is beyond
me.

As a practising geologist and one involved in hydro-geology, I wish to
make the following observations regarding the proposed sand mine at
Bobs Farm.

The proposed depth of sand extraction will intersect with the water
table to a depth of several metres. This will leave the water table
open to serious risk of contamination, putting at risk the health and
livelihoods of all those dependent on the water. Once contaminated,
any attempt at decontamination will prove extremely costly, if it is,
in fact, deemed possible. (In the event of the proposed mine being
approved, the approving authority should demand actual surety
significant to cover such a potentiality prior to any extraction
permission being given.)

The proposed end-of-life use of the resultant void is a further cause
for concern. To have the void continuing to intersect the water table
and to use that water table to fill the void for various forms of
recreational use will exacerbate the risk of contamination and cause
significant reduction in the volume of water available to end users.

I submit that for the two reasons given above, permission for the
establishment of the proposed sand mine be declined.

Christopher D.M. Freestone BSc (Earth Science); Th.Dip; Dip. Teach
(Tech)

I am absolutely appalled that this sand mine or any other would be even
considered.
I hope you are aware that there is currently abidbeinv proposed by The
Marine Parks Association where Port Stephens will be the only
designated World Heritage estuary and catchment in Australia. The
ecosystem will be dessimated by such a project which I'm sure other
submissions have highlighted.
Apart from this, the impact on Bobs Farm Public School is horrendous
and the unacceptable number of trucks in Nelson Bay Road. This being
the only road into the Tomaree Peninsula.
What about the Eco Cabins on adjacent land already approved in 2014
and ready for construction.