Karuah East Quarry - EPBC 2014/7282hunterquarries.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/... · Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd. The scope of services was

Karuah East Quarry - EPBC 2014/7282

EPBC Act Assessment Report

Prepared for

Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd

October 2014

K ar u a h E as t Q u ar r y ( E P B C 2 0 14 / 72 8 2 ) – E P BC Ac t As s e s sm e nt R e p or t

© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 2

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Item Detail

Project Name Karuah East Quarry (EPBC 2014/7282) – EPBC Act Assessment Report

Project Number 13SYDFED-0001

Project Manager David Bonjer

02 8536 8600

Prepared by Andrew Palmer-Brodie, Gordon Patrick, Jack Talbert

Reviewed by Brendan Dowd

Approved by David Bonjer

Status FINAL

Version Number 2

Last saved on 31 October 2014

Cover photo Left: Tetratheca juncea (Karuah East, Gordon Patrick), Top right: Asperula asthenes (Gordon

Patrick) Bottom right: Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora (Karuah East, Gordon Patrick).

This report should be cited as „Eco Logical Australia 2014. Karuah East Quarry EPBC 2014/7282 –

EPBC Act Assessment report’ Prepared for Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd.‟

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Karuah East

Quarry Pty Ltd.

Disclaimer

This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Karuah

East Quarry Pty Ltd, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on

the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should

obtain up to date information.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this

report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific

assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 08/05/2014



Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Proposed action ............................................................................................................................ 8

1.2 Designated Proponent .................................................................................................................. 8

1.3 Assessment process .................................................................................................................... 8

1.3.1 Commonwealth assessment process ........................................................................................... 8

1.3.2 State assessment process ........................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Purpose of this report ................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Reliability of information ............................................................................................................... 8

2 Description of the action ......................................................................................................... 14

2.1 General details ........................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Location and footprint ................................................................................................................. 14

2.3 Ecological sustainable development .......................................................................................... 17

2.4 Economic and social impacts ..................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1 Public consultation ...................................................................................................................... 18

2.4.2 Projected social and economic costs and benefits .................................................................... 24

3 Understanding of the project environment ............................................................................ 37

3.1 Desktop review ........................................................................................................................... 37

3.2 Ecological values present on site based on literature ................................................................ 37

3.3 Gap Analysis and Additional field survey ................................................................................... 38

3.3.1 Field survey methodology ........................................................................................................... 38

3.3.2 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 40

4 Potential impacts of the proposed action .............................................................................. 44

4.1 Potential construction phase impacts ......................................................................................... 44

4.1.1 Dust deposition ........................................................................................................................... 44

4.2 Potential operational impacts ..................................................................................................... 45

4.3 Potential decommissioning impacts ........................................................................................... 46

4.4 Consideration of cumulative impacts .......................................................................................... 46

4.4.1 Approach .................................................................................................................................... 46

4.4.2 Actions considered ..................................................................................................................... 46

4.4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 46

5 Mitigation and management .................................................................................................... 48

5.1 Mitigation of hydrological impacts .............................................................................................. 48

5.2 Dust management ...................................................................................................................... 49

5.3 Translocation of Tetratheca juncea ............................................................................................ 50



5.4 Vegetation clearance .................................................................................................................. 50

5.5 Construction generated impacts ................................................................................................. 51

6 Assessment of impacts to MNES ........................................................................................... 53

6.1 Black-eyed Susan (Tetratheca juncea) ...................................................................................... 53

6.1.1 Species overview ........................................................................................................................ 53

6.1.2 Pollination ecology and mycorrhizal associations of Tetratheca juncea .................................... 53

6.1.3 Occurrence within the project area ............................................................................................. 54

6.1.4 Impacts of the project to Tetratheca juncea ............................................................................... 56

6.1.5 Mitigation and management measures ...................................................................................... 56

6.1.6 Residual impacts and outcome .................................................................................................. 57

6.2 Trailing Woodruff (Asperula asthenes) ....................................................................................... 58



6.2.3 Impacts of the project on Asperula asthenes ............................................................................. 58



6.3 Small Flowered Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora) .............................................. 62



6.3.3 Impacts of the project on Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora ................................................. 64


6.3.5 Residual impact and outcome .................................................................................................... 64

6.4 Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) .................................................................................................. 65



6.4.3 Impacts of the project on the Koala ............................................................................................ 67



7 Offset package .......................................................................................................................... 68

7.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 68

7.1.1 Required offsets ......................................................................................................................... 68

7.2 Proposed offset area .................................................................................................................. 70

7.2.1 Geology and landforms .............................................................................................................. 70

7.2.2 Site context ................................................................................................................................. 70

7.2.3 Land use zoning ......................................................................................................................... 71

7.2.4 Site condition .............................................................................................................................. 71

7.3 Management of the offset site .................................................................................................... 73

7.3.1 Fire management ....................................................................................................................... 73

7.3.2 Access management .................................................................................................................. 73



7.3.3 Weed control............................................................................................................................... 73

7.3.4 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 73

7.4 Providing a conservation outcome ............................................................................................. 73

7.4.1 Time to achieve conservation gain ............................................................................................. 74

7.4.2 Level of certainty of conservation gain ....................................................................................... 78

7.4.3 Conservation in perpetuity .......................................................................................................... 78

7.5 Net biodiversity outcome ............................................................................................................ 78

8 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 89

References ............................................................................................................................................. 90

NSW Approval .................................................................................................................. 91 Appendix A

Preferred Project Report ................................................................................................. 91 Appendix B

Public and indigenous consultation .............................................................................. 91 Appendix C

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Report ............................................................................... 91 Appendix D

List of figures

Figure 1 Project area ................................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 2 Regional context ....................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 3 MNES values of the project area ............................................................................................... 43

Figure 4 Consideration of cumulative impacts ......................................................................................... 47

Figure 5 Tetratheca juncea translocation receiving area ......................................................................... 52

Figure 6 Tetratheca juncea within the quarry footprint and offset areas .................................................. 55

Figure 7 Asperula asthenes within the quarry footprint and offset areas ................................................. 60

Figure 8 Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora within the offset areas ..................................................... 63

Figure 9 Koala habitat within both the quarry impact area and the adjacent offset areas ....................... 66

Figure 10 Proposed offset site ................................................................................................................. 69

Figure 11 Threatened species recorded within the offset site ................................................................. 72



List of tables

Table 1 Summary of additional information provided ............................................................................... 10

Table 2 Principles of ecologically sustainable development .................................................................... 17

Table 3 Letters of Support Prior to Formal Public Exhibition Period ........................................................ 20

Table 4 Multipliers .................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 5 Employee Expenditure ................................................................................................................ 25

Table 6 Initial Annual Economic Impacts of Construction Employee Expenditures ................................. 26

Table 7 Impacts of Expenditures on Materials and Equipment during Construction ............................... 27

Table 8 Proposed Quarry Annual Wages ................................................................................................ 28

Table 9 Annual and life of project economic impacts of operational employee expenditures ................. 29

Table 10 Annual and project Life Economic Impacts of Expenditures on Materials and Equipment – Non

labour ........................................................................................................................................................ 30

Table 11 Total Operating Spend For Project Life..................................................................................... 31

Table 12 Total Spend For Project Life – Construction And 20 Years Operations ($Millions) .................. 31

Table 13 Estimated Number of Jobs Generated by the Project ............................................................... 31

Table 14 Vegetation Communities on site ............................................................................................... 37

Table 15 Threatened flora habitat area based on literature ..................................................................... 38

Table 16 Summary of Asperula asthenes records ................................................................................... 58

Table 17: Approximate management required per management zone.................................................... 75

Table 18: Applicable attributes to the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy for Tetratheca juncea ..... 79

Table 19: Applicable attributes to the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy for Asperula asthenes .... 82

Table 20: Applicable attributes to the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy for Koala ........................ 85



Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

APZ Asset Protection Zone

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DECC Department of Environment & Climate Change (now OEH)

DGR Director General‟s Requirements

DotE Commonwealth Department of the Environment

DP Development Plan

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

GIS Geographic Information System

GLC Great Lakes Council

GPS Global Positioning System

KEQ Karuah East Quarry

LGA Local Government Area

LEP Local Environmental Plan

OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage



1 Introduction

1.1 Proposed action

The proposed action is the development of the Karuah East Hard Rock Quarry, located at lots 12 & 13

DP 1024564, Pacific Highway, Karuah, New South Wales, hereafter referred to as „the project.‟

1.2 Designated Proponent

The designated proponent for the project is Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd.

1.3 Assessment process

1.3.1 Commonwealth assessment process

A referral under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

regarding the project was lodged with the Department of the Environment (DotE) on the 29 July 2014.

On the 25 August 2014 the project was determined to be a Controlled Action under the EPBC Act

requiring further assessment subject to the controlling provision „listed threatened species and

communities‟ (sections 18 and 18A). DotE advised that the proposed action would be assessed by

preliminary documentation and requested that the documentation address the issues identified in Table

1 below. The details of the preliminary documentation required to be submitted were discussed with

DotE (Scott Laidlaw & Nathan Harris) and the proponent and representatives of the project team

including ADW Johnson and Eco Logical Australia on 16 September 2014.

1.3.2 State assessment process

The project was subject to a state assessment under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The Preferred Project Report Environmental Assessment is provided

as a separate document. The project was approved by the Planning Assessment Commission on the 17

June 2014 subject to conditions (provided as Appendix A).

1.4 Purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to provide (in combination with the referral previously submitted)

preliminary documentation with regards to the project specifically in relation to impacts to Matters of

National Environmental Significance (MNES) listed under the EPBC Act. The MNES which were

identified as requiring further assessment are:

Tetratheca juncea (Black-eyed Susan) – Vulnerable;

Asperula asthenes (Trailing Woodruff) – Vulnerable;

Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora (Small-flower Grevillea) – Vulnerable; and

Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) – Vulnerable.

This report seeks to provide information in a manner which is appropriate to support DotE in their

decision making process and provides the following additional information as requested (Table 1). This

report does not relate to the state assessment of the project under the NSW EP&A Act.

1.1 Reliabil ity of information

Information utilised in the preparation of this report has been prepared by suitably qualified and

experienced consultants, peer reviewed journals or prepared and reviewed by state or commonwealth



government. The information utilised in this document is considered to be fit for purpose and of a

nature appropriate for the assessment of impacts relating to Karuah East Quarry.



Table 1 Summary of additional information provided

Information request Section addressed

General

Provide a description of the relevant impacts, including:

a topographical map showing the landform of the proposal site and surrounding area; Section 2.1

a description of the potential and likely short-term and long-term impacts of the action on matters of national

environmental significance, including quantities of habitat likely to be impacted. This description must detail direct,

indirect, and cumulative impacts;

Section 6

maps showing any areas of disturbance overlayed with the potential habitat for EPBC Act listed threatened species

and ecological communities within and in the vicinity of the proposed site. Section 6

a statement, if applicable, detailing whether any relevant impacts are likely to be unknown, unpredictable or

irreversible; Section 4

an analysis of the potential magnitude of the relevant impacts; Section 4

any technical data and other information used or needed to make a detailed assessment of the relevant impacts;

and Section 4

information on the scientific reliability of investigations and conclusions drawn, including the degree of certainty or

statistical confidence where appropriate. This must include any assumptions or limitations of any models used to

make predictions.

Section 1.1

Impacts on listed threatened species and communities

The following species, including but not limited to the list below, are either known or likely to occur within the referral area and will be

potentially impacted by the proposed action:

Tetratheca juncea (Black-eyed Susan) – Vulnerable Section 6.1

Asperula asthenes (Trailing Woodruff) – Vulnerable Section 6.2

Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora (Small-flower Grevillea) – Vulnerable Section 6.3

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) – Vulnerable Section 6.4




Please provide a more detailed assessment of direct and indirect impacts for the above listed threatened species including, but not limited to:

the direct, indirect and consequential impacts (associated with all stages of construction, operation and (if relevant)

decommissioning of the action) to the listed threatened species as a result of the proposed action, including short-

term and long- term impacts (including or referring to relevant maps);

Sections 4, 5, 6

a description of proposed avoidance and mitigation measures to deal with relevant impacts of the action, including

mitigation measures required by State/Territory and/or local governments;

assessment of the expected or predicted effectiveness of the avoidance and mitigation measures for each species,

and the on-ground benefits to be gained through each of these measures. Where an impact on a species is avoided

this should be stated;

any statutory or policy basis for the mitigation measures; and

the cost of the mitigation measures.

Notes: In providing this advice, please take into account relevant agreements and plans that take into consideration listed threatened species

and communities, such as recovery plans and conservation advices.

Where surveys are proposed prior to construction, information must be provided around how survey results will inform construction activities

(for example, placement of infrastructure) to avoid, mitigate or manage impacts. Impacts to habitat must be quantified for these species. This

information should also include analysis of the longer term impacts of the proposed project area through direct clearing and the medium to long

term viability and recovery of species and/or communities within an area already highly fragmented.

The Department also requests that the potential impacts on Tetratheca juncea (Black-eyed Susan) consider relevant reports on its pollination

ecology, and its dependence on mycorrhiza fungi. For example, those outlined in the Preferred Project Report (2014) prepared by ADW

Johnson Pty Ltd. The Department notes this 2014 report was not contained in the EPBC Act referral package.

Section 6.1.2

Translocation

Provide details on any proposed translocation of listed threatened species and communities. This information must

be supported by mapping of the proposed translocation area in relation to the proposed site and surrounding area,

be based on scientific reliability derived from investigations and that includes the degree of certainty or confidence of

success rates. Details of any consultations with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) will need to be

included.

Section 5.3




The Translocation of Listed Threatened Species – Assessment under Chapter 4 of the EPBC Act Policy Statement

provides further guidance regarding translocation and is accessible from:

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/c0463a3b-cf06-44a7-a7c6-76b488321561/files/epbc-act-

policy-translocation.pdf.

Offsets

Provide specific details around any proposed offsets for any residual significant impacts on listed threatened species

and communities. This information must include arrangements proposed to secure the offset areas in the long-term

(such as a formal conservation covenant or other legal mechanism).

Section 7

Notes: This information should also include details of surveys confirming the populations of listed threatened species within the proposed

offset areas, noting the referral package does not provide survey presence/absence data on part of the proposed offset area, particularly Lot 5

(see Figure 4).

Offsets must comply with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy (October 2012)

and accompanying Offsets assessment guide, accessible from: www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/environmental-offsets- policy.html

Section 3.3

Section 7

Economic and Social Impacts

The economic and social impacts of the action, both positive and negative, must be analysed. Matters of interest may include:

details of any public consultation activities undertaken, and their outcomes; Section 2.4.1

details of any consultation with Indigenous stakeholders;

projected economic costs and benefits of the project, including the basis for their estimation through cost/benefit

analysis or similar studies; and Section 2.4.2

employment opportunities expected to be generated by the project (including construction and operational phases). Section 2.4.2

Notes: Economic and social impacts should be considered at the local, regional and national levels.

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/c0463a3b-cf06-44a7-a7c6-76b488321561/files/epbc-act-policy-translocation.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/c0463a3b-cf06-44a7-a7c6-76b488321561/files/epbc-act-policy-translocation.pdf



Ecological Sustainable Development

Please provide a description of the proposed action in relation the principles of ecologically sustainable development, as defined in the EPBC

Act:

the long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;

Section 2.3

the precautionary principle which states that a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for

postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation where there are threats of serious or irreversible

environmental damage;

the principle of inter-generational equity which states that the present generation should ensure that the health,

diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-

making; and

improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

Presentation

Preliminary documentation should be bound or collated in a single volume and must be accompanied by an index identifying what documents are included. Information must

be presented using language that is intelligible to the general reader and be accompanied by maps, figures, tables, etc where appropriate.



2 Description of the action

2.1 General detai ls

The proponent is proposing a new stand-alone hard rock quarry on land adjacent to an existing quarry

in Karuah NSW to secure a long term supply of hard rock resource (known as andesite). The proposed

quarry has three components:

a quarry pit

new infrastructure to accommodate the quarry works

progressive rehabilitation of the quarry

Andesite has a variety of uses including road base material, construction aggregate, aggregate used in

concrete batching, drainage works, fill, landscaping and various other uses. The project will allow

andesite material to be made available for critical infrastructure projects in the lower Hunter area for an

extended period of time. Accordingly, the project is considered essential to the delivery of major

infrastructure projects of state and national significance.

The project will involve the extraction of up to 1.5 million tonnes of andesite per annum (excluding

overburden material) from a total resource of approximately 29 million tonnes over a 20 year extraction

period.

A detailed description of the action was provided in the referral (EPBC 2014/7282).

2.2 Location and footprint

The project is located at 5887 Pacific Highway, Karuah, 2324 comprising Lot 12 and 13 DP 1024564,

within the Great Lakes Local Government Area, and covers an area of 31.63 ha.

The project is located adjacent to an existing quarry to the north of the Pacific Highway. The footprint of

the project (project area) is outlined in Figure 1 below and provided in context of the surrounding region.



Figure 1 Project area



Figure 2 Regional context



2.3 Ecological sustainable development

The principles of ecological sustainable development are defined under the EPBC Act and should be

considered for any project proposed. A statement against the principles for the project is provided

below.

Table 2 Principles of ecologically sustainable development

the long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations

The project has considerable short and long term economic

and social implications for the local region which are further

detailed in section 2.4 of this report. Environmentally

sensitive features within the project area have been

considered throughout the planning process for the project,

and the project layout has been altered to minimise impact

to ecologically sensitive features including MNES.

the precautionary principle which states that a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage

A precautionary approach has been taken with regards to

the impact assessment for this project. To minimise

impacts, a range of mitigation and management measures

have been proposed, and a substantial offset is being

provided to compensate for any residual impact resulting

from the project.

the principle of inter-generational equity which states that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations

A substantial offset site is being provided which contains

habitat and known populations of MNES. The offset site will

be protected in perpetuity to ensure the site is maintained

and enhanced for the future.

the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; and

Environmentally sensitive features within the project area

have been considered throughout the planning process for

the project, and the project layout has been altered to

minimise impact to ecologically sensitive features including

MNES.

improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

The costing of mitigation measures including offsets has a

real affect on the project and has led to the redesign of the

project to minimise impacts to MNES.



2.4 Economic and social impacts

2.4.1 Public consultation

GSS Environmental (now SLR Consulting), on behalf of the proponent, undertook a stakeholder and

community consultation plan to ensure that:

Project decisions were made with an understanding of how they may affect the local

community, including their social well-being, environment and economy;

All key project stakeholders had an opportunity to participate in the process; and

Stakeholder issues and concerns were addressed in the Environment Assessment Report (EA

report), January 2013 and Preferred Project Report (PPR), July 2013.

The consultation plan identified all stakeholders, including government agencies, community groups,

environmental groups, land management groups and surrounding residents, that may be influenced by

or have an interest in the project. It nominated the most appropriate means of consultation and

provided a register to record all consultation activities and any outcomes.

The following was undertaken in relation to public consultation:

Newsletters

Following receipt of the NSW Director General‟s Requirements (DGRs) on 25 November 2011,

newsletters were circulated to all stakeholders, including local residents by way of a letter box drop. The

newsletters were distributed to the community on the 1st March 2011. The information provided in the

March 2011 newsletter included project background, proposal overview, project status, environmental

assessment and approval requirements. A second Newsletter was distributed in February 2012 and

provided an outline of the key issues addressed as part of the Environmental Assessment. The

newsletters also identified how interested stakeholders/individuals could obtain further information or

submit comments on the project, by including phone numbers and e-mail addresses for the key project

contacts. Copies of the newsletters are attached within Appendix C.

Community Information Days

Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd held two (2) open public forums at the Karuah Community Hall on 19 March

2011 and 22 March 2013.

Community Open Day 19 March 2011

Stakeholders were invited to attend the forum through the distribution of the March 2011 newsletter with

subsequent newspaper articles being published to inform the community when it was being held. The

open forum included personnel from Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd, GSS Environmental and ADW

Johnson. At the forum a number of visual aids (plans and aerial photographs) were used to explain the

project. Representatives from the project were on hand to answer any specific questions that were

raised by community members. In addition, feedback forms were provided and the people attending the

forum were encouraged to complete them and leave them or return fax, post or e-mail any concerns or

comments for consideration in the EA Report process.

A total of 13 people attended the Public forum, with two (2) feedback forms being returned see attached

Appendix C (note name and contact details have been removed from the forms). The following outlines

the key issues raised in the feedback forms:

Form 1



o Visual Impact of the proposal;

o Trucks turning onto Branch Lane from the Pacific Highway; and

o Trucks travelling along Branch lane to the north of the existing Hunter Quarries hard rock

quarry.

Form 2

o Supports the proposal as it will generate local employment opportunities.

o The key issues verbally raised by attendees at the public forum included the following:

o Visual impact of the proposed quarry;

o Flora and fauna impacts;

o Cumulative dust / air quality impacts; and

o Water quality management.

Each of the matters raised during the Public forum and within the feedback forms received were

addressed. Flora and fauna, air quality, and water quality management were also addressed further

within the Preferred Project Report dated 30 July 2013.

Community Open Day 22 March 2013

A second community open day was held on 22 March 2013 to coincide with the public exhibition period

of the Major Project application (15 March 2013 – 19 April 2013).

Similar to the previous open day held, the forum included personnel from Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd,

SLR Consulting and ADW Johnson. A number of visual aids (plans and aerial photographs) were used

to explain the project and representatives from the project were on hand to answer any specific

questions that were raised by community members.

Details of how to lodge a submission with the NSW Department of Planning in relation to the project

during the public exhibition period was provided and submissions were encouraged to be made by the

Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd representatives.

11 members of the public attended the open day (note name and contact details have been removed

from the forms).

Site Tours of an Existing Operation Quarry

In addition to the Public Forums, Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd management offered all interested

stakeholders a tour of the nearby operating Hunter Quarries hard rock quarry in order to show what

activities could be expected at a working quarry. On two occasions, stakeholders took up the offer of a

tour.

On the 25th March 2011, representatives from Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd completed a site inspection

with residents from Hunter View Road following an approach from a resident to look at an active quarry.

Following the inspection the participants travelled back to Hunter View Road to look back across the

proposed quarry site to consider potential visual impacts. Visual impacts were satisfactorily addressed

in Section 6.8 of the EA Report.

One on One Meeting

On 13 May 2011, SLR Consulting and two representatives from the North Arm Cove Residents

Association met to discuss the project. At the meeting, SLR outlined the project and provided the

representatives with an information pack to take away and present at their next meeting. In addition,



Andrew Hutton of SLR advised that he would be happy to attend a future meeting to discuss the project

further should it be required.

The key matters raised by the representatives of the North Arm Residents Association included the

following:

Noise and blasting impacts;

Air quality impact; and

Visual impact.

Each of these matters were addressed within Section 6 of the EA Report and Air Quality was also

addressed in further detail the Preferred Project Report.

Letters of Support – Prior to Formal Public Exhibition Period (15 March 2013 – 19 April 2013)

The Karuah East Quarry received a significant level of support from local residents, Sporting Clubs,

Community Groups and Businesses. A number of letters of support were received prior to the formal

exhibition period of the application and these are supplied within Appendix C. All letters received

acknowledge the financial support and employment opportunities Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd provide to

the immediate and broader community. A summary of the major reasons for support are summarised in

the below table:

Table 3 Letters of Support Prior to Formal Public Exhibition Period

NAME CLUB/ BUSINESS COMMENTS

Rev. Ian F

Johnston

Tahlee Ministries

Incorporated

Hunter Quarries has generously donated a number of truck loads of

crusher dust for the flooring of servant‟s quarters building.

Hunter Quarries are also committed to help in the future with other

projects.

Hunter Quarries is a community based company, and have helped a

number of organisations, groups and clubs. The proposed expansion

will allow the company to expand its business and in turn benefit the

community.

Tahlee Ministries are grateful for Hunter Quarries assistance and

support their proposal.

Mr. Alan Walker North Arm Cove

Tennis Club

Hunter Quarries have provided the club concrete and gravel to make

the surrounds of the tennis courts safe and useful, it provided an

area where people could sit whilst waiting to play and where children

could play safely.

Hunter Quarries have offered to help with the development of a new

concreted area.

Hunter Quarries have made a significant difference to the way the

courts are used and the Tennis Club Management want the NSW

DoPI to be aware of the significant contribution to the local

community Hunter Quarries have made.




Mr. M Denko Karuah Men‟s

Bowling Club

Hunter Quarries helped to subsidise new designed shirts, jackets and

hats for 42 members of the club which brought great pride and a new

identity.

Hunter Quarries has committed to 3 years sponsorship of the club,

with a commitment for long time support.

In talking to Hunter Quarries Mr Denko amazed at how many projects

they have helped in the surrounding districts.

Hunter Quarries have supported the club through hard financial

times.

Mr. Gary Gooch Bulahdelah Show

Society

Incorporated

Over the last 3 years Hunter Quarries has provided sponsorship in

the form of materials (crushed gravel) at minimal cost to the Society,

to be used in various projects undertaken on the showground, as well

as sponsoring the Campdraft section at our show.

A major drainage works program has begun and Bulahdelah Show

Society have been able to extend the job due in part to savings on

material costs from Hunter Quarries.

Bulahdelah Show Society look forward to continuing their relationship

with Hunter Quarries and support their proposal.

Mr. Ken Baker Karuah Motor Yacht

Club Incorporated

Over the last 12 months and over the previous 8 years, Hunter

Quarries has supplied the club with a large amount for the

development of an access road.

Four years ago they also provided gravel as a donation for

foundation fill when they built an awning extension.

Hunter Quarries have indicated that they would like to continue to

support the club into the future.

Hunter Quarries employs a number of local people from the local

community and is a highly respected company, which is a supporter

of local businesses, sporting clubs and community groups.

The Karuah Motor Yacht Club fully supports Hunter Quarries

Application with the NSW DoPI.

Mr. Dave

Feeney

Karuah Local

Aboriginal Land

Council

Hunter Quarries has been a great help supplying footpath soil and

the Aboriginal Community is grateful for their help.

Indicated they are looking forward to continued assistance from

Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd in the future.

Mr. Ray

Howells

Karuah and District

Golf Club

Hunter Quarries is the major sponsor of the club and provides much

needed ongoing support, corporate days and have supplied road

base material for the car park and pathways which is greatly




appreciated.

It is the club‟s belief that Hunter Quarries is the largest employer in

the Karuah region and the proposed expansion will create more jobs,

which is extremely crucial to the region.

The club strongly supports the company philosophy and ideas of

being involved and supportive to the community.

It is with the full support of our members that the club we endorse

their applications and certainly commend them for their continuing

support of local community groups.

Mr. Tim Boland -- Hunter Quarries over the past four years have been helpful in letting

them know in advance each time they are blasting, so that they are

able to prepare their home and plan their young children‟s sleeping

times around the blasts.

Believe that the expansion of the quarry would be an asset to the

Karuah District and would create jobs.

Mr. Darren and

Mrs Tanya

Hardes

DL & TC Hardes

Haulage

Contractors

Have used top quality products from the Hunter Quarry for the last 7

years.

Support the expansion of Hunter Quarries as it will mean more jobs

for the area, and continued support for the local community.

Mr. Steve

Locke

Bulahdelah Soccer

Club

Assisted with planning and completion of a drainage project for fields,

that have seen the fields become one of the best in the zone, which

has seen increased use of ovals, leading to increased profits for the

club through canteen and BBQ.

Hunter quarries provided the gravel below cost and delivered it for

free, and works could not have been completed without their

assistance.

Have indicated that they are willing to assist with more projects in the

future, committing to help with shed extensions, drainage projects

and concrete work for the club.

The club supports Hunter Quarries because they support us. They

don‟t dig a hole and take profits away. They feed back into the

community. Anything that keeps them working, employing and

supporting in our region has the clubs support.

Public Consultation Undertaken as Part of Part 3A Major Project Assessment

The Karuah East Quarry proposal was publicly exhibited by the NSW Department of Planning for 30

days between 15 March 2013 to 19 April 2013. During this time a number of public submissions were

received. The following is noted:



60 public submissions were received in total.

Of the 60 submissions, 58 were objections. Of the 58 objections, there were a total of 8 different

submissions, as 52 of the submissions received were duplicates signed and submitted

separately by members of the public.

2 submissions were received in support of the proposed Karuah East Quarry.

Of the submissions received 12 were from residents within a 4km radius of the subject site.

A Response to Submissions dated 12 June 2013 was prepared by ADW Johnson on behalf of Karuah

East Quarry Pty Ltd to respond to the matters raised. In addition to the Response to Submissions,

Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd prepared and submitted a Preferred Project Report (PPR) to the NSW

Department of Planning on 30 July 2013. The purpose of the PPR was to supply an amended design

layout that responded to commentary from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and

also a number of the public submissions received during the exhibition period. In particular the

amended design significantly reduced the potential impact on both Tetratheca juncea and Grevillea

parviflora subsp. parviflora.

Following assessment of the application by the NSW Department of Planning, the application was

referred to the NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) for determination. A PAC public meeting

was held at the Karuah Community Hall on 20 May 2014 and 20 speakers registered to speak at the

meeting (including ten speakers in support).

Consultation with indigenous stakeholders

A Cultural Heritage Assessment was prepared by RPS Australia to accompany the EA Report and is

provided within Appendix D of this submission. The Cultural Heritage Assessment included an

assessment of both Aboriginal and non – Aboriginal heritage as prescribed by the DGRs for the project.

The assessment included significant consultation with the Aboriginal community in accordance with

relevant NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) Guidelines. Furthermore, provided in Appendix 2

of the Cultural Heritage Assessment is a full consultation log.

In summary, the initial consultation and survey was conducted in January 2010 and March 2010 in

accordance with the guidelines of the then Department of Conservation and Climate Change and Water

(DECCW) Interim Community Consultation Requirements (2005) with the Karuah Local Aboriginal Land

Council participating in the project. The DECCW is now known as the Office of Environment and

Heritage (OEH) with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010

replacing the Interim Community Consultation Requirements (2005). As the project commenced under

the 2005 requirements that process remained in place.

An advertisement was placed in The Port Stephens Examiner (15 January 2010) and the Great Lakes

Advocate (15 January 2010). Letters in accordance with OEH Interim Community Consultation

Guidelines were mailed (15 January 2010) and the Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC)

responded registering an interest in the project.

The Karuah LALC were consulted with in relation to the project and participated in the archaeological

field survey. The survey was conducted on 30 March 2010 by representatives from RPS Australia and

Colleen Perry and Kyron Simms representing the Karuah LALC. A second survey was conducted on 3

August 2011 by representatives from RPS Australia in conjunction with Ron Tisdell from Karuah LALC.

In accordance with OEH Guidelines, the Karuah LALC were given the opportunity to review and provide

input into the draft Cultural Heritage Assessment prior to its finalisation (see Appendix 5 of the Cultural

Heritage Assessment). Input was received, addressed and the report was finalised in June 2012.



Overall, the Cultural Heritage confirmed:

A search of the NSW OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS)

revealed no listed sites inside the immediate study area and the pedestrian survey revealed no

Aboriginal cultural heritage items;

No evidence of Aboriginal cultural heritage was found during the field survey. The lack of

mature trees and the presence of introduced weeds such as lantana would indicate that

sometime previously the area has been cleared or logged; and

Consequently, the potential for undisturbed and in situ Aboriginal cultural material is considered

to be unlikely

2.4.2 Projected social and economic costs and benefits

The key economic benefits of quarrying can include direct and indirect employment, flow on spending or

multiplier effects, tax revenues to government for reinvestment and improved availability and

competitive pricing of local building materials.

The proposed Karuah East Quarry delivers all these benefits. The below text (taken from Section 6.12

of the EA Report, July 2013) identifies the nature, extent and distribution of those benefits as well as

identify strategies to enhance these benefits. It is perhaps the strategic importance of the quarry‟s

product that is key: it is vital to the delivery of major infrastructure projects of state and national

significance.

The key economic costs of quarrying can include the displacement of existing and potential economic

activities, reduction in the viability of neighbouring uses, and deflationary pressures on property. The

potential for these negative impacts and any amelioration strategies are discussed below. Fortunately

these are minimal in this case.

The below text will rely on quantitative assessments using multiplier analysis for matters such as

employment, direct and indirect economic flow, and more qualitative discussion on wider issues and

impacts.

Multiplier Analysis

Multiplier analysis is a standard tool of economic assessment used to calculate the flow-on effects on

income, investment and employment of a proposed net autonomous investment. The multiplier effect

operates because the initial investment requires the purchase of labour, goods and other services and

these purchases generate further flow-on expenditure. At each round of investment and expenditure

the effect diminishes until a final total increase in the economy can be calculated. It is the ratio of the

value of the final impact across the economy to the initial investment that is termed the multiplier.

Expenditure by employees engaged in ongoing operations of the quarry as well as in the construction of

all the associated facilities also has multiplier effects at many levels of the economy. Expenditure on

weekly items such as food, fuel, household items, motor vehicles, housing, entertainment, health and

education are mostly made in the local area and have flow on or ripple effects through the local

economy. The actual mechanics of deriving multipliers is based on the use of transactions tables.

These transaction tables show the linkages between industries in terms of the purchases of goods and

services by each, and from each industry of the economy.

The size of the multiplier ratio depends on several factors including the particular economy‟s ability to

supply the goods needed. If a large proportion of goods are imported from outside of the region, the

multiplier will be reduced. This also holds if goods are provided from outside the state or nation.



Multipliers can be estimated for a local area economy, a state or a national economy. The size of the

multipliers will always increase as the analysis moves from local to state to national levels as at each

level the economy provides a more diverse range of goods and services. The more equipped a local

area, region or state is to provide the required goods and services the greater the local benefit.

The transaction tables used in this analysis are based on those developed at the national level by the

Australian Bureau of Statistics. This means that some value judgements and relativities have needed to

be to determine relevant estimates for the state and local levels. This analysis leans on similar analysis

for quarries across Australia. It makes judgements and calculation based on the best knowledge at the

time supplied by the company.

The multipliers estimated are for economic output and employment. An employment multiplier is similar

to an output multiplier and indicates the way in which the project generates further jobs throughout the

local and wider economies. Multipliers have been estimated in this analysis for the ongoing quarrying

and for the construction activities, and for the expenditures by employees.

Table 4 Multipliers

For ongoing operations activities these multipliers are:

Output Employment

Local 1.75 2.55

State 2.09 3.62

Australia 2.59 3.81

For construction activities the multipliers used in this analysis are:

Output Employment

Local 1.67 1.86

State 1.85 2.69

Australia 2.25 3.40

The multipliers used for employee expenditures are similar to those for operational expenditure, except

that they are a larger, especially for the local region:

Table 5 Employee Expenditure

Employee Expenditure

Local 2.31

State 2.37

Australia 2.61



The ABS also have also developed input output tables (1996-1997 Publication 5209.0) to help estimate

the construction industry jobs directly created for every $1 of construction output/investment. This

equated to 1 employee for every $111,111 of construction. The current or most up to date available

rate (December 2008) is $178,000 per employee. This data can be used to estimate the direct jobs

generated during the construction phase.

During the construction phase of 12 months benefits will flow to the local economy from both the net

injection of new wages and spending of those wages and from the spending on non wages resources

for construction such as plant and equipment, material, supplies and management/investigation. Each

of these will have both direct and flow-on or multiplier effects at a local, state and national level. There

may also be some leakage to international markets particularly during construction when plant and

equipment is purchased from overseas.

Employees of construction companies along with the operational workforce engaged in construction will

have an economic impact from their expenditure of weekly earnings. This will have a beneficial effect

on the local, state and national economy.

Based on its experience the company estimates that there will be in excess of 40 people employed

during the 12 month construction phase. The quarry itself will employ two project management and

coordination staff. Contract construction workforce will be sourced locally and from the wider region

and state. It is estimated that 90% will come from the local and regional community (within a 70kms

radius) and the remainder from other NSW. Wages and contracts to be paid to construction workers

are estimated at $4 million.

Expenditure by local/regional construction workers from their wages will largely occur in the town where

they reside and in nearby towns. Therefore, of the total construction wages 90% or $3.6m will be

earned and spent within the region. Construction workers who reside locally on a temporary basis for

the duration of the project will spend only a part of their income locally, as they have permanent

residences and families elsewhere. In this analysis it is assumed that their local expenditure is at rate

equal to 20 per cent of that of a permanent local employee. That accounts for $80,000 local spending

by these „remote‟ employees.

Table 6 Initial Annual Economic Impacts of Construction Employee Expenditures

Initial Annual Construction Employee Spend ($Millions)

Direct Multiplied

Local towns $3.68 $8.50

NSW $4.0 $9.48

Australia $4.0 $10.44

Imported $0 $0

Overall Total $4.0 $10.44

The local and regional employee spend during the 12 months of construction of $3.6 million has a

multiplier effect for the local and regional towns, generating a further $4.82 million of local and regional

expenditure. The workers coming from other parts of NSW will generate benefits outside the region to

other parts of NSW. A further $320,000 will be expended in other parts of NSW, and the total

expenditure across NSW including local towns generates a multiplier effect across the State of an



additional $980,000. This gives a total impact of $9.48million across NSW $10.44 million across

Australia.

Economic Impact of Expenditure Material and Equipment During Construction

A second significant impact on the local economy from construction phase comes from expenditure on

materials and equipment by the quarry - everything other than expenditure on labour. The generic term

“materials” is used to cover items including equipment and materials for site preparation, earth moving

equipment, contractors, transport and marketing, repairs and replacement parts during construction,

consumables such fuel and explosives. In the case of the Karuah East quarry construction material and

equipment will be applied both on site and off site to included required road works and associated

drainage etc which are all essential to the project.

The total expenditure on equipment and materials is estimated at $6million during the 12 months of

construction. The expenditure on materials during construction phase is often spread more widely than

expenditure by employees. This is because specialised skills, materials and equipment will need to be

sourced from outside of Karuah and surrounding towns, and perhaps outside of NSW. However, given

the strong mining and resource sector in the Hunter Valley there is less leakage to other economies

than some other areas. Because of the large component of road works to be completed as part of the

project and the need to source these from outside the surrounding towns it is not unreasonable to

expect that the bulk of the multiplier effect of construction expenditure is experienced outside of the

local area. NSW should gain 100% total economic activity generated by spending on materials during

construction. It is envisaged that the only expenditure outside the region would be the purchase of

crushing equipment from Sydney.

Table 7 Impacts of Expenditures on Materials and Equipment during Construction

Initial Project Construction Spend Material And Equipment – Excluding Labour ($Millions)

Direct Multiplied

Local towns $1.1 $1.84

NSW $6 $11.10

Australia $6 $13.50

Imported $0 $0

Overall Total $6 $13.50

Combined Total Construction Value Employee Spend And Material And Equipment($Millions)

Employee Spend Materials Overall

Direct Multiplied Direct Multiplied Direct Multiplied

Local

towns $3.68 $8.50 $1.1 $1.84 $4.78 $10.34

NSW $4.0 $9.48 $6.0 $11.10 $10.0 $20.58

Australia $4.0 $10.44 $6.0 $13.50 $10.0 $23.94



Overall

Total $4.0 $10.44 $6.0 $13.50 $10.0 $23.94

Economic Impact During Operational Phase

Operational employees working at the Karuah East quarry will have an economic impact through

expenditures from their weekly earnings. This will have a beneficial direct and flow on effect on the

local and regional economies. The existing Karuah Quarry workforce is drawn from within a 32km

radius from places such a Pindimar, Karuah, Tea gardens, Medowie, Raymond Terrace and Thornton.

It is assumed this will continue to be the case following establishment of the Karuah East Quarry.

During operations, the annual payment to wages and salaries will initially be $1.78million. This is based

on the estimated employment, wages and over time defined in Table 8 below.

Table 8 Proposed Quarry Annual Wages

Position $ Staff Wages OT@30% Total

Truck Driver $47,000 7 $329,000 $98,700 $427,700

Loader Drivers $47,000 4 $188,000 $56,400 $244,400

Dumper loader

drivers

$47,000 6 $282,000 $84,600 $366,600

Administration

Clerk

$36,000 1 $36,000 0 $36,000

Weighbridge

Operator

$46,000 1 $46,000 $13,800 $59,800

Maintenance

Supervisor

$46,000 1 $46,000 $13,800 $59,800

Quarry Manager $90,000 1 $90,000 0 $90,000

Production

Supervisor

$50,000 1 $50,000 $15,000 $65,000

Fitter/Boilermaker $50,000 2 $100,000 $30,000 $130,000

Sales Rep $78,000 2 $156,000 0 $156,000

Lab Technician $65,000 1 $65,000 $19,500 $84,500

Accountant $55,000 1 $55,000 0 $55,000

Total 28 $1,443,000 $331,800 $1,774,800

Notes: Above wages are based on a 38 hour week.

Most of these earnings will be expended in local towns. Every dollar that is spent by households has a

multiplier effect through the local and more distant economies. As discussed above, the multipliers for



any local area are smaller than for a more widely defined area. This means that the expenditure will

have flow-on impacts beyond the local towns, into the rest of NSW and across Australia.

Table 9 Annual and life of project economic impacts of operational employee expenditures

Operational Employee Spend ($Millions)

Annual Life of Project (20years)

Direct Multiplied Direct Multiplied

Local towns $1.78 $4.11 $35.6 $82.24

NSW $1.78 $4.22 $35.6 $84.37

Australia $1.78 $4.65 $35.6 $92.92

Overall Total $1.78 $4.65 $35.6 $92.92

Expenditure from wages paid during operations has a more significant impact locally than does

expenditure from construction wages. Although smaller on an annual basis than construction wages,

operations wages will have a larger impact across the state because they continue for much longer.

Operations expenditure from wages is entirely local but it has flow on benefits beyond the local area.

The total annual impact of expenditure by operations employees is $4.65 million across Australia, of

which $4.22 million (91 per cent) is captured within NSW and $4.11 million is captured in local towns.

These annual contributions can be added to give a total figure for the full course of the project which is

20 years, assuming constant wages (this is therefore an underestimate of long term impact should

production increase). This analysis shows that the expenditure by employees will directly inject $35.6

million into the economies of Karuah and other local towns over the life of the project (Table 7 above).

When account is taken of the multiplier impacts, expenditure by operational wage earners at the quarry

will generate significant economic benefits to the local and more distant economies. The total benefit in

terms of increased expenditures for the local towns is estimated at $82.24 million over the course of the

quarry life. The full impact on the economy of NSW is $84.37 million and for the whole Australian

economy it totals an estimated $92.92 million.

Economic Impact of Spending on Materials and Equipment During Operations

As with construction, a second significant impact is generated from ongoing operational expenditure on

materials and equipment by the quarry. Again this involves plant and equipment, supplies, and external

services that are not employee wages. The total annual quarry expenditure on materials is estimated at

$13.3 million. This is ongoing for the 20 years of the project. Compared with construction phase a

higher percentage of non wage material and equipment spending will be from businesses within the

local area, with little leakage to the state and no international leakages.

In fact, during operations some 99% of materials are expected to be sourced from within the local area,

1% from elsewhere in NSW, with no purchases from other parts of Australia or internationally. This

does not confirm however that product would have been originally sourced from other countries or parts

of Australia but the direct purchases will be within the local and regional economy.

This significant local and regional spend can be attributed strength of the regional mining and extractive

industries sector in the Hunter, this is not as extreme as in other locations in Australia and demonstrates



the local advantages of vertical integration and clusters of like businesses. For example, repairs and

maintenance of quarrying equipment which is estimated at almost $3m is sourced entirely from within

the region. Similarly blasting materials and drilling which accounts for $0.5 million and fuel valued at

$0.8 million per year are locally sourced.

While a significant proportion of expenditure on materials during construction occurred outside the

region during operations, the situation is different with more of the economic benefit being gained

locally. So, of the total economic activity generated ($34.4 million a year), some 81% ($27.8 million) is

captured in NSW and 67% ($23.1 million) is captured by Karuah and other regional towns each year.

Table 10 Annual and project Life Economic Impacts of Expenditures on Materials and Equipment – Non labour

Project Operational Spend Material And Equipment – Excluding Labour ($Millions)

Annual Life of Project (20years)


Local towns $13.17 $23.1 $263.4 $462.0

NSW $13.3 $27.8 $266.0 $556.0

Australia $13.3 $34.4 $266.0 $688.0

Imported $0 $0 $0 $0

Overall Total $13.3 $34.4 $266.0 $688.0

These annual impacts, from expenditure on materials and equipment, can be added to give a total

figure for the economic impacts from the operation of the quarry over 20 years which is the anticipated

economic life of the quarry (Table 10). This analysis shows that the expenditure on materials, services

and equipment will directly inject $263.4 million into the economies of Karuah and other regional towns

and $266 million into the economies of NSW and Australian over the course of the project.

When account is taken of the multiplier effects, the full impact on the local economy is estimated to be

$462 million. There is an estimated overall impact of $556 million for the economy of NSW, and $688

million for the whole Australian economy.

Economic Impact of all Expenditure Activities for both Construction and Operations for the Life of the

Project

The total combined direct spending during those 20 years on labour, material and equipment in the local

and regional economy is $299 million. When the impacts of the multipliers are included the total value

to the regional economy of operations over 20 years is in excess of $544 million. The total direct

operating value over 20 years to the national economy is $301.6 million and a total multiplier effect of

$780.92 million.

Table 11 provides the accumulated impacts of the project, over its full economic life, including

construction and operating phases on the local, State and Australian economies. It shows that the

quarry will bring direct expenditures in the local economy totalling $303.78 million, and for the NSW

economy totalling $311.6 million. The multiplier effects of these direct expenditures are estimated to



generate a total impact on the local economy of $554.58 million, and on the NSW economy of $660.95

million. The value to the Australian economy is estimated at $804.86 million when account is taken of

direct and multiplier effects.

Table 11 Total Operating Spend For Project Life

Total Operating Spend For Project Life – Labour And Materials ($Millions)

Material Labour Overall 20 years


Local $263.4 $462.0 $35.6 $82.24 $299.0 $544.24

NSW $266.0 $556.0 $35.6 $84.37 $301.6 $640.37

Australia $266.0 $688.0 $35.6 $92.92 $301.6 $780.92

Overall Total $266.0 $688.0 $35.6 $92.92 $301.6 $780.92

Table 12 Total Spend For Project Life – Construction And 20 Years Operations ($Millions)

Total Spend For Project Life – Construction And 20 Years Operations ($Millions)

Construction Operations Overall


Local $4.78 $10.34 $299.0 $544.24 $303.78 $554.58

NSW $10.0 $20.58 $301.6 $640.37 $311.6 $660.95

Australia $10.0 $23.94 $301.6 $780.92 $311.6 $804.86

Total $10.0 $23.94 $301.6 $780.92 $311.6 $804.86

Jobs Created by the Project

The workforce during the construction period can be calculated using ABS data. The ABS Australian

National Accounts: Input-Output Tables 1996-1997 (ABS Pub: 5209.0) shows 9 construction industry

jobs directly created for every $1 million of construction output. This equated to 1 employee for every

$111,111 of construction. The current rate (December 2008) is estimated to be $178,900 per

employee. This would suggest that some 56 direct jobs would be generated during the construction

phase based on a total construction spend of $10 million. It is expected that the 30 of the 56 jobs would

be filled by local people and the remaining 26 positions being drawn from other NSW. This is perhaps

an underestimation of the ability to draw construction employees from the local market but reflects the

competition for skill staff in the construction industry. The direct employment of an estimated 56

employees during construction will generate a total multiplier employment effect in the local and

regional community of 56 jobs (annual equivalent) and a total national impact of 150 jobs for this period.

Table 13 Estimated Number of Jobs Generated by the Project



Number Of Jobs Generated

Construction Operation Annual


Local towns 30 56 28 71

NSW 56 150 28 101

Australia 56 150 28 107

Overall Total 56 150 28 107

Source: ECS (September 2009)

The operational workforce at the existing Karuah Quarry is currently 23 and all of these are currently

residents within Karuah and local towns in a 30 to 40km radius of the quarry. The workforce at the

proposed Karuah East Quarry is expected to be 28. Employment at this level is expected to be

maintained for the economic life of the quarry. The employment multiplier for the operations phase is

significant. The direct employment of 28 quarry staff will generate an additional 43 jobs in the local

community (total 71) and an additional 79 nationally (total 107).

The job numbers for operations do not include jobs in the transport activity i.e. haulage of the rock to

market/construction sites, which are not a part of the quarry, but are integral to the overall operation.

The existing Karuah Quarry has haulage contracts with ten local businesses. Some of these are one

operator family businesses and other local operators of national brands. Each day there is at least one

truck and driver operating from each business (10) and there can be up to 30 trucks/driver during peak

times. These transport jobs are estimated to average at 17 drivers per day per year. These transport

jobs are not included in the multiplier analysis and add to the employment impacts.

Impacts on Government Finances

The impacts of the prolonged life of the quarry on government finances will take a number of forms, and

will accrue to the Commonwealth and State Governments as well as to local governments in the form of

increased rates for residential and commercial properties.

From a NSW Government point of view, the most significant impact on government finances will come

in the form of payroll tax. In NSW the rate of payroll tax is currently 5.45% on all salaries paid above a

threshold of $678,000. The company structure and taxation liabilities for the Karuah East quarry are not

known but our advice is that the total wages bill, no threshold, will be subject to payroll tax. Payroll tax

is not applied, in the current analysis, to payments during the construction phase as this work will be

done either entirely or largely by contractors. Annual payroll of $1.78 million will generate annual

payroll tax of $97,000 and over the 20 year life of the project $1.94 million revenue to the NSW

government. In addition the quarry will pay the NSW government an annual licensing fee of

approximately $59,000 and annual road haulage charges of $33,000. These combined over 20 year will

generate $1.84 million to the NSW treasury.

From a Commonwealth point of view there will be tax generated as both a direct and indirect

consequence of construction and operations of the quarry. The Commonwealth Government will gain

from the following tax streams:

Personal income tax on annual salaries of $1.78m;



Personal income tax from 10 to 30 contract truck haulage drivers;

Annual Medicare levies on those salaries;

GST payment on goods and services purchased during construction and operation both direct

and indirect (GST on $13.3 million annual operational spend on material and equipment is

estimated at $1.33m);

Tax derived from revenue flow from projects or businesses that a generated as a result of this

project (multiplier impacts); and

Company tax on this business and flow on businesses transactions. These have not been

estimated as there are too many unknowns to make a realistic independent estimate. However,

they should not be discounted as inconsiderable.

As time progresses the value of the land will increase as extractive industry is approved. In NSW rates

paid to local councils by land owners are based on land value. Any increases in land values generate

additional income for Council. The prospect of increased and sustained employment will also help

underwrite the value of residential land in surrounding communities again being reflected over time in

maintained or increasing land rates paid to Council.

Discussion of Other Issues and Impacts on the Local and Regional Economy

Scenario Analysis

In terms of the existing Karuah Quarry operator, the Karuah East Quarry proposal is for a replacement

of an existing quarry. While it is likely that the existing Karuah Quarry will continue to operate under the

applicable approval, this will only be for a short period of time given that the resource available has

been almost entirely exhausted (estimated 1 – 2 years supply) and the land is leased, not owned.

There are three possible scenarios in this context:

Existing Karuah quarry closes and no new quarry (Karuah East) opens if approval is not

achieved;

Both the existing Karuah Quarry and the proposed Karuah East Quarry operate simultaneously

once approval is achieved (for a short period of time); or

The existing Karuah quarry closes and proposed Karuah East quarry opens after approval.

The economic impacts identified in this report can be used to identify the net loss of benefit (the cost to

the economy) and to employment should option 1 above eventual.

The operation of both quarries, option 2, albeit for a short timeframe only, will mean a net benefit in

addition to the benefits already generated by the existing Karuah quarry. The existing Karuah quarry

has a licence for the extraction of 500,000 tonnes of andesite per annum and the proposed Karuah East

Quarry application is for the extraction of 1.5 million tonnes on andesite per annum. Again this report

identified those benefits.

Option three is a better than status quo option as it provides the benefits associated with the

construction phase while the operational benefits are greater than those of the existing Karuah Quarry

operation on the basis of increased extraction tonnage and resultant increases in operating cost,

haulage and product to market.

Economic Infrastructure

The new road and intersection works proposed don‟t provide additional operational or community

benefits to the wider community other than those identified already as they are specifically and



exclusively designed for the function of the proposed Karuah East quarry. They do however ensure the

continued safe and efficient operating of the Pacific Highway in this location. These works are in effect

an amelioration strategy for what otherwise may have been an economic cost associated with traffic

management/hazard at this point of the Pacific Highway. There is no operational or economic net

benefit or cost (outside the flow on from investment) of these works.

Australia, NSW and the Hunter has in large part been successful in riding out the recent GFC and

insecurities of the global financial markets because of its strong and ongoing investment in resource

exploration, extraction and processing and projects associated with these in term of major

infrastructure. Product delivered from the proposed quarry is in high demand form exactly these

projects. The continued viability and timely delivery of these projects in part relate to the availability of

hard rock supplies from regional quarries. While the multiplier impacts in this report focus on numeric

benefits the reality of benefit is far greater in a strategic context. Hard rock quarried for local residential

community projects while delivering flow on jobs and spending in the economy the supply of this

product to strategy infrastructure is intuitively more important and influential.

Sustainability of Rural Communities

Because most quarries, like this one, are often situated in rural areas, often characterised by lower

incomes and limited job opportunities, declining populations, declining sustainability of farm income the

direct and flow on contribution of the industry to the local economy is particularly valued. This is

certainly the case in the Karuah are and surrounding towns.

Potential Negative Economic Impacts

Quarries in general can generate negative impacts which can be costed as having an impact on a local

and wider economy. If for example the proposed Karuah East quarry would negate the potential of an

adjacent site being developed for a tourist facility the relative economic benefits would need to be

assessed and considered in comparison to determine the relative merits. The site is well isolated from

proposed and potential urban and tourist development and such trade-offs and comparisons are not

required in this case.

Another economic impact related to a deterioration of „quality of life indicators” is the potential for the

depreciation in land values of surrounding properties. Given the minimal impact and the operation of a

very similar quarry on adjoining land this is not considered to be a likelihood.

Similarly some quarries cause economic costs to the operations of local roads either in terms of

decreased operational efficiency or safety. The proposal will increase traffic volumes if both mines

operate but will not have a significant net impact if it replaces the existing Karuah quarry operating on

adjoining land. Section 6.5 of the EA Report explores this matter in detail and concludes that there will

be no appreciable decline in service levels on the Pacific Highway as a result of the quarry and

therefore no net economic cost derived from the project.

Loss of productive land is also identified as a potential cost of new quarry operations. The land on

which this project is proposed is has not been and is not currently used for productive purposes. Section

6.2.1 of the EA Report discusses the findings of the Soil Survey & Land Resource Assessment. The

reporting confirms that the site is not particularly suitable for any extensive productive purposes with

parts of the site being identified as unsuitable for rural production.

Amelioration Strategies



Issues typically covered in social impacts assessments which impact on quality of life of local residents

such as disturbance from noise, dust and traffic etc. already been covered by this EA Report and will be

minimised as part of the environmental management outcomes of the proposal. However it is worth

recognising that in some locations these impacts need to be costed due to the relatively close proximity

of residential or tourist communities. In the case of this quarry there are no significantly sized

communities living within close proximity of the site. Calculation of a cost associated with this proposal

is not therefore relevant and normal environmental amelioration methods should be used.

Benefit Maximisation Strategies

One of the most significant issues in Karuah and surrounding communities is the availability of ongoing

employment for current residents, teens approaching working age, possible new residents and those

who require new opportunities. The issue of providing sustainable employment is at the root of many

other issues including the loss of youth to other locations, declining variability of local services and lack

of new investment. The proposed quarry delivers and sustains much needed employment. Strategies

to maximise the ability of the local community to capture the flow on spending and employment benefits

should be considered. These include:

Consideration should be given to the „after use‟ of the quarry to maximise the potential of

ongoing benefit after closure;

Remediation should ensure that the potential of other unplanned long term uses on adjacent

lands is not compromised;

The quarry should have a proactive policy of recruiting staff as much as possible from the local

area;

The quarry could investigate the potential to source as much of its supplies locally as possible

and work with local businesses to develop vertical and horizontal commercial relationships and

networks; and

Information should be provided to staff on relevant twining that would enhance the opportunity

for internal promotions.

Employment Opportunities expected to be generated by the Project (including construction and

operational phases)

Based on the above commentary, employment opportunities to be generated are as follows:

56 direct jobs would be generated during construction.

30 of the 56 jobs are anticipated to be filled by local contractors. The remaining 26 would be

drawn from elsewhere in NSW.

The direct employment of an estimated 56 employees during construction will generate a total

multiplier effect (ie. including construction suppliers) in the local and regional community of 56

jobs; and a total national impact of 150 jobs during this period.

Operational workforce direct is 28 employees (annual). This will have multiplier effects of 43

jobs in the local community annually and an additional 79 nationally – a total of 107.

Plus an additional 17 drivers per day per year (outside of the above numbers).

To summarise, the following employment opportunities will be generated:

Construction (Direct Employment) – 56 positions.

Construction (Multiplied) – 150.

Operation Annual (Direct Employment) – 28 positions.

Operation Annual (Multiplied) – 107.



Additionally, an average of 17 drivers employed per day per year.



3 Understanding of the project environment

3.1 Desktop review

A desktop review was undertaken by RPS Australia East to identify those species which have the

potential to occur within the project area. An assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of EPBC listed

species within the project area is presented in the referral (EPBC 2014/7282).

3.2 Ecological values present on site based on l iterature

An Ecological Assessment for the project was undertaken by RPS Australia East comprising a detailed

literature review as well as baseline and targeted flora and fauna surveys in 2010 through to June 2013.

The following vegetation communities were identified within the project area. None of the vegetation

communities identified on site are listed as Threatened under the EPBC Act.

Table 14 Vegetation Communities on site

Vegetation Community Area (Ha)

Spotted Gum-Grey Ironbark-Grey Gum-White Mahogany Moist Sclerophyll Forest 20.38

Smooth barked Apple-Red Bloodwood – Brown Stringybark Dry Sclerophyll Forest 7.31

Grey Myrtle Dry Rainforest 0.4

Cleared Lands 3.55

Total 31.64

Targeted searches for threatened flora and fauna species were also undertaken in the project area in

accordance with the „Draft Threatened Species Survey Guidelines (Dec 2004) and included surveys for

the following EPBC listed species between 2010-2012 (RPS, 2014).

Tetratheca juncea (Vulnerable)

Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora (Vulnerable)

Asperula asthenes (Vulnerable)

Angophora inopina (Vulnerable)

Cryptostylis hunteriana (Vulnerable)

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) – Vulnerable

The field surveys recorded the presence of three threatened flora species listed under the EPBC Act,

these being Tetratheca juncea, Grevillea parviflora subsp parviflora and Asperula asthenes. A

summary of habitats, population sizes and areal extents for the three species is provided in Table 15.



Table 15 Threatened flora habitat area based on literature

Species Recorded habitat Population size Area extent

(hectares)

Tethratheca juncea

Smooth barked Apple – Red

Bloodwood – Brown

Stringybark Dry Sclerophyll

Forest (Nerong Volcanics)

6,567 „clumps‟ (clump =

mass of suckering stems).

Includes 243 clumps in

the project area or 3.7%

of the total site sub-

population.

3.8

Grevillea parviflora

subsp parviflora

Smooth barked Apple – Red

Bloodwood – Brown

Stringybark Dry Sclerophyll

Forest

9 patches totalling 100

suckering stems.

No stems recorded within

the project area

Extent outside of

project area is

unconfirmed

Asperula asthenes

Backhousia myrtifolia Dry

Rainforest along Yalimbah

Creek

One individual was

recorded by RPS (2013)

within the project area on

Lot 12 DP 1024564.

<0.001

Targeted fauna surveys were also undertaken and did not record the presence of any species listed as

Threatened under the EPBC Act.

3.3 Gap Analysis and Addit ional f ield survey

A Gap Analysis was undertaken in 2014 which identified that additional field surveys were required to

provide information on the following to support the preparation of this report:

Targeted flora survey of habitat for the threatened flora species, Asperula asthenes in the

proposed offset area

Searches for evidence of Koalas and Koala usage of the impact area

Confirmation of the distribution of Koala habitat within the impact area

Confirmation of the distribution of Koala habitat within the proposed offset

Additional supplementary surveys were not carried out for Grevillea parviflora subspecies parviflora or

Tetratheca juncea as current survey information was considered as adequate.

A summary of the field survey methodology and results is provided in the following sections

3.3.1 Field survey methodology

Asperula asthenes

Asperula asthenes has previously been recorded from the offset area Lot 13 and also Lot 5 in 2013 by

ELA, although the full extent of the populations at these locations was unknown. Additional searches

for Asperula asthenes to establish the size of the population in the offset areas were carried out by two

experienced ELA ecologists on 14 October 2014. These surveys involved traversing areas of known

observations for the species and areas considered as having high quality habitat with potential for the

species to be present.



The two surveyors walked, as far as practical, in a series of parallel line traverses through specific

habitat areas for the species. Where an individual plant or group of plants were observed the location

and number of plants was recorded by a hand held GPS. As the species is considered as being

rhizomatous, plants were delineated from one another in a similar fashion to Tetratheca juncea. Counts

were not based on individual stem numbers, but were counted as individual plants when located a

distance of 40 cm or greater apart. Habitat for the species was primarily confined to the riparian and

near riparian areas of the offset sites. Due to the previously recorded occurrence of the species in Lot

13, the majority of effort was concentrated in this area. Additional surveys were not undertaken on Lot

5 as part of this study.

Note that the survey method is conservative and has the potential to underestimate the size of the

Asperula asthenes population by up to 20%.

Koala

The additional surveys for Koalas within the quarry impact area were based on the Spot Assessment

Technique (SAT) as proposed by Phillips and Callaghan (2011). This methodology is currently

considered the best technique of detecting Koala presence and activity within areas of known or

predicted habitat.

Based on previous mapping (RPS 2011, 2013) the vegetation type considered to have the best habitat

value for Koalas was identified and targeted to carry out the SAT surveys. The community type

targeted was Corymbia maculata – Eucalyptus paniculata subsp. paniculata – Eucalyptus propinqua –

Eucalyptus acmenoides Moist Sclerophyll Open Forest, as the community contained moderate numbers

of both Primary and Secondary Koala feed trees as defined in the NSW “Approved Recovery Plan: The

Koala” (DECC 2008). Koala feed trees, as per, identified in the quarry impact area and the adjacent

proposed offset areas included:

Primary food tree species:

o Eucalyptus microcorys

Secondary food tree species:

o Eucalyptus canaliculata (Large-fruited Grey Gum

o Eucalyptus propinqua (Small-fruited Grey Gum)

The SAT method involved choosing a “centre tree” at each of the six survey locations within identified

koala habitat and recording its location with a hand held GPS unit. For the purpose of this study each

centre tree was either a Primary or Secondary Koala feed tree. From the centre tree the survey

radiated out to other trees in a circular fashion selecting trees with a DBH of 100 mm or greater. A

minimum of 30 trees were inspected at each survey site.

Each tree surveyed was checked for the following attributes:

Presence or absence of Koala individuals

Presence of Koala faecal pellets / scats – searches for scats in a 1 to 2 m radius from the

trunk base of each tree inspected were carried out visually and also via raking back leaf

litter for a minimum of two minutes

Presence of scratches on trees



3.3.2 Results

Asperula asthenes

A total of 59 individuals were recorded in the proposed impact area and a further 112 individuals were

recorded along the riparian and near riparian areas in the northern section of Lot 13. These plants

were present primarily within the Brush Box – Turpentine shrubby open forest community. An additional

8 plants have previously been recorded from the same vegetation type, to the north along the same

water course in Lot 5 (ELA, 2013).

Habitat for the species has been mapped with 2.47 ha present within the quarry impact area. A total of

15.69 ha of known and potential habitat is present within the proposed offset areas in Lot 5 (5.52 ha),

Lot 13 (4.93 ha) and Lot 14 (3.71 ha).

The population within the project area is part of a broader population with over 200 plants known to

occur on the adjacent lot 12.

Koala

Overall, a total of 185 trees from the six survey sites were assessed and surveyed for evidence of Koala

use within the habitat areas of the quarry impact footprint using the SAT method. As part of the survey

a total of 99 trees inspected were considered as either Primary Food trees (29 x Eucalyptus microcorys)

or Secondary Food trees (60 x Eucalyptus propinqua and 10 x Eucalyptus canaliculata), in the NSW

North Coast region, as per the NSW “Approved Recovery Plan: The Koala” (DECC 2008).

No Koalas were observed during the additional surveys for the species, additionally no distinctive scats

/ faecal pellets were found. Numerous trees (primarily Eucalyptus canaliculata or Eucalyptus propinqua

Grey Gums) contained evidence of scratching (Plate 1), although the scratching is likely to be attributed

to other species such as Brush-tailed Possums, Gliders and Lace Monitors. Typical Brush-tailed

Possum scats were located on several occasions during the Koala survey and individuals have

previously been observed during surveys by RPS 2011, 2013 and ELA 2013.

Plate 1 Typical scratching observed on Eucalyptus propinqua within the study area



As part of the Koala habitat assessment process an EPBC Act referral assessment has been carried

out as follows.

The koala habitat assessment tool (DotE, 2013) was applied to the study area to assess if the study

area constitutes habitat critical to the survival of the koala. The study area scored a habitat score of 6

and results of this assessment are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Koala habitat assessment tool results

Attribute Score Assessment criteria (coastal) Assessment details

Koala

occurrence +1 (medium)

Evidence of one or more koalas

within 5 km of the edge of the impact

area within the last 5 years.

Anecdotal record from the quarry site

manager of a Koala killed by vehicle

collision along the Pacific Highway,

within 5 km of the study area in

2014.

Vegetation

composition +2 (high)

Has forest or woodland with two or

more known koala food tree species

in the canopy.

A SAT assessment was undertaken,

which involved assessing 185 trees

from six survey sites. Of these, 99

trees were either primary or

secondary food trees (DECC, 2008).

Primary food tree: Eucalyptus

microcorys

Secondary food trees: Eucalyptus

propinqua and Eucalyptus

canaliculata

Habitat

connectivity +1 (medium)

Area is part of a contiguous

landscape < 500 ha, but ≥ 300 ha.

Vegetation contiguous with study

area is approximately 400 ha. This

patch is joined to additional

vegetation patches via linear

vegetation along drainage lines.

Key existing

threats +1 (medium)

Evidence of infrequent or irregular

koala mortality from vehicle strike or

dog attack at present in areas that

score 1 or 2 for koala occurrence.

Koala mortality due to vehicle strike

have been recorded along the

Pacific Highway.

Recovery

value +1 (medium)

Uncertainty exists as to whether the

habitat is important for achieving the

interim recovery objectives for the

relevant context, as outlined in Table

1.

The study area is part of a large,

connected area of koala habitat.

However, there is uncertainty

surrounding the use of the study

area to support breeding koalas. No

evidence is available on the genetic

diversity or disease risk of koalas

associated with the study area.

The assessment on adverse effects on habitat critical to the survival of the koala was then undertaken

(DotE, 2013) and is outlined below:



Does your impact area contain habitat critical to the survival of the koala (habitat score ≥ 5)?

YES

Do the area(s) proposed to be cleared contain known koala food trees? YES

Are you proposing to clear ≤ 2 ha of habitat containing known koala food trees in an area with a

habitat score of 5? NO

Are you proposing to clear ≥ 20 ha of habitat containing known koala food trees in an area with

a habitat score ≥ 8? NO

Referral may be required. Assess characteristics that contribute to adverse effects to habitat

critical to the survival of the koala. These have been listed below as either high (contributing to

adverse effects) or low (reduce adverse effects)

o A larger area of koala habitat is being cleared (high)

o The habitat score is lower (low)

o The density of koalas is considered to be ≤ 0.01 koalas per ha (low)

o The clearing is fragmenting the habitat (high)

o The method of clearing is clear-felling (high).

The outcome indicated that a referral is recommended. An assessment of impact is provided within

section 6.4 of this document.



Figure 3 MNES values of the project area



4 Potential impacts of the proposed action

If left unmanaged, the proposed action has the potential to result in impacts to ecologically sensitive

features including MNES during construction and operation of the quarry. Impacts associated with each

phase of the project are outlined below. Further discussion of mitigation measures that will be

implemented to minimise impacts are outlined in section 5, and further discussion of impacts to specific

MNES is provided in Section 6 of this report.

Impacts resulting from the proposed works have been broadly grouped into the following categories:

Hydrological impacts

Vegetation clearance

Construction generated impacts (dust, noise, vibration etc)

4.1 Potent ial construct ion phase impacts

If not appropriately mitigated, the construction phase of the project is likely to result in impacts to

ecologically sensitive features of the environment primarily through vegetation clearance and works

associated with the establishment of the quarry. Potential impacts expected or likely to occur as a

result of the construction phase of the project include:

Altered hydrology

Dust

Noise & vibration

Weeds

Fragmentation of habitat

Vegetation clearance

Loss of habitat

Sedimentation

Alteration of pollinator pathways

Fragmentation of population and habitat

Vegetation loss, fragmentation of habitat and populations is considered likely to be a permanent impact

as a result of the project. Dust, noise and vibration while temporary in nature are considered to be

ongoing impacts which will require management during the construction and operation of the quarry.

Further discussion of the potential impacts of dust is provided below.

4.1.1 Dust deposition

Hunter Quarries currently maintain 3 dust deposition gauges to the south of the existing Karuah Quarry.

Between January 2007 and December 2010, all gauges measured dust deposition values of less than

1.5 g/m2/month (averaged over the 4 year period) with a maximum of 2 g/m

2/month measured at the

DDG2 location in 2009 (refer SLR Air Quality Assessment 2013, Section 7). The NSW OEH criterion

for dust deposition is 4 g/m2/month representing a total impact which is not to be exceeded. When

examining the impacts of any new proposed projects without the impacts of surrounding activities, a

criterion of 2 g/m2/month is applicable to that proposal.

The measured dust deposition levels are a result of operations at the existing Karuah Quarry and also

include the influence of all other sources of dust in the area. The existing Karuah Quarry operates well

within the criteria for dust deposition.



It is assumed that the measured dust deposition levels are representative of the environment

surrounding the existing quarry.

SLR performed an Air Quality Impact Assessment that accompanied the Preferred Project Report (SLR,

2013), the aim of which was to identify whether the proposed Karuah East Quarry could operate

alongside the existing quarry and all other sources of dust in the area, without exceeding the

4 g/m2/month criterion, or when assessed alone, exceeding the 2 g/m

2/month criterion. The

assessment used the existing dust deposition values measured to the south of the existing quarry as a

representation of current air quality, although a further level of assessment was performed to identify

the probable impact of the current Karuah Quarry on these deposition values. This approach

represents a conservative assessment as the impacts due to the existing Karuah Quarry are already

represented within the existing dust deposition values.

The findings of the Air Quality Assessment indicated that:

Current dust deposition levels surrounding the Project are less than 2 g/m2/month and

represent all sources of dust (existing quarry, dust storms, bush fires etc.). This represents

50% of the relevant criteria.

Annual average dust deposition levels resulting from the operation of the existing Karuah

Quarry were modelled to be 0.1 g/m2/month at all locations assessed (Table 32 of SLR, 2013).

Annual average dust deposition levels resulting from the operation of the proposed Karuah East

Quarry were modelled to be less than 0.7 g/m2/month at all locations assessed (Table 32 of

SLR, 2013).

Based on the dispersion modelling assessment, current dust deposition levels are not

dominated by the existing quarry activities which represent approximately 5% of the measured

values at the locations assessed.

Predicted dust deposition levels due to the proposed quarry operation, including the current

dust deposition environment would represent approximately 25% of the measured and

predicted values at the locations assessed.

It is predicted that both current and future dust deposition levels would be dominated by non-

Project related activities.

4.2 Potent ial operat ional impacts

The project has the potential to result in ongoing indirect impacts to ecologically sensitive features as a

result of the continued operation of the quarry. These impacts are likely to be of low intensity and

magnitude but may have a cumulative effect on the environment within the area immediately adjacent to

ongoing works. Potential ongoing impacts as a result of the project which will require management are

considered likely to include:

Dust

Noise & vibration

Weeds

Sedimentation

Rubbish

Management measures which will be implemented by the proponent to minimise these impacts are

outlined in Section 5.



4.3 Potent ial decommissioning impacts

On decommissioning of the quarry, a Rehabilitation Management Plan will be implemented. As the

extraction progresses through the resource, 15m wide benches will be left every 15m of depth to

provide a horizontal platform on which native flora species will be established. Benches will be deep

ripped to promote infiltration of water. The pit floor will be reshaped and revegetated with wetland plant

species to form a free draining wetland. Biodiversity and water quality monitoring of the void and quarry

surrounds will be undertaken.

4.4 Consideration of cumulative impacts

4.4.1 Approach

The cumulative impact of the proposed action has been considered within the context of the local and

regional area.

The local context has taken into consideration the cumulative impact of the project in conjunction with

the approved and current quarries on adjacent lots.

4.4.2 Actions considered

There is one other quarry which is in operation on the neighbouring lot. The adjacent quarry is owned

and operated by Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd (Lot 11, EPBC 2004/1358).

Also on Lot 11, Wedge Rock Pty Ltd had previously proposed to construct a quarry (Kiely‟s Quarry).

The project was referred to the Commonwealth for assessment in 2012 and determined to be a non-

controlled action (EPBC2012/6600). Under the state planning system, „Kiely‟s Quarry‟ was to be

subject to assessment under the then Part 3A of the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act

1979. Director Generals Requirements for the project were issued, however, the project was

subsequently withdrawn. The project does not have a current approval under the NSW planning

system and as such has not been considered further in the cumulative impact assessment.

4.4.3 Conclusion

The project is to be located within close proximity to an existing quarry within a large contiguous patch

of vegetation situated to the north of the Pacific Highway. The patch is approximately 400 ha in size.

The surrounding regional landscape is characterised by cleared agricultural land interspersed with large

remnant patches of vegetation particularly to the north-west, north-east and south of the project area.

The project area is situated within a moderate sized remnant which is separated somewhat from other

larger patches of vegetation by agricultural land and the Pacific Highway to the south. There is

evidence of a degree of connectivity across the landscape with linkages between very large patches of

remnant vegetation in the form of vegetated creek lines and stepping stones of smaller patches of

vegetation scattered throughout the landscape.

The development of the project will result in the cumulative loss of approximately 46 ha of vegetation

from this large patch which represents ~10% of the patch. The development of the project will result in

the effective isolation of a patch of vegetation bordering the Pacific Highway to the west of the project

area. This patch of vegetation is approximately 40 ha in size.

The isolated patch of vegetation is known to contain a number of MNES including habitat for Koala,

Asperula asthenes, and Tetratheca juncea, as well as species listed under the NSW Threatened

Species Conservation Act 2005.



Figure 4 Consideration of cumulative impacts



5 Mitigation and management

Prior to referral, the project under-went numerous alterations to minimise the impact of the proposed

works on the environment. These changes involved amendment to the layout of the proposed plant,

processing and stockpile areas within Lot 13 DP 1024564. The design amendments resulted in the

reduction of the proposed disturbance area from 34.96ha to 31.63ha, and resulted in a substantial

reduction in the potential impact of the project on Tetratheca juncea and Grevillea parviflora subsp.

parviflora both listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act as outlined in the Preferred Project Report

(Appendix A). The amendments resulted in:

90% reduction in the direct impact to Tetratheca juncea

Avoidance of all direct impacts to Grevillea parviflora subspecies parviflora

Detailed discussion regarding mitigation and management measures proposed for the project is

provided in the Preferred Project Report (ADW Johnson, 2013), refer to Appendix A. The proponent

has made a commitment to prepare a number of plans to minimise the impact of the proposed works on

the environment including the preparation of:

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);

Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The EMP will ensure that the commitments made

in the EA Report and Preferred Project Report and the requirements under subsequent

approval and license conditions are fully implemented. The EMP will confirm who is

responsible and when the commitments associated with the mitigation and monitoring

strategies should be implemented/undertaken;

Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR);

Noise Management Plan

Blasting Management P

Air Quality Management Plan

Construction Traffic Management Plan

Closure and Rehabilitation Plan

Waste Management Plan

Pre clearing survey;

Vegetation Management / Monitoring Plan;

Conservation Management Plan;

Soil Management Plan;

Groundwater Monitoring Plan;

Surface Water Management Plan (including erosion and sediment control and monitoring);

Discussion of mitigation and management measures to reduce impacts relevant to MNES is provided

below.

5.1 Mitigation of hydrological impacts

The only disturbance to directly occur to the local drainage system will be in the upper reaches of the

northern most drainage line in Lot 12 which is a tributary of Yalimbah Creek. The extraction area of the

quarry when at its maximum disturbance footprint will extend into the upper reaches of this drainage

line, which is an ephemeral first order drainage line. The length of channel which will be disturbed as a

result of excavation of the quarry is located in the upper reaches of the catchment with no clearly



defined bed or banks. Therefore the impact on the wider catchment as a result of disturbance to the

upper reaches of this drainage line is not anticipated to be significant. Notwithstanding this, a number

of mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that impacts are minimised, particularly as there

is a moderately sized population of Asperula asthenes located down-stream of this area. Mitigation

measures are as described below.

A sediment fence will be installed along the downstream side of the entire southern face of the quarry

as a sediment control measure to minimise the transport of any sediment into the remaining section of

the first order drainage line to the south of the extraction area. The sediment fence will be maintained

on a regular basis, particularly after rainfall events.

It is proposed that this drainage line be reinstated as close as possible to its original path following

completion of extraction activities at the quarry as part of the final rehabilitation of the site. The

rehabilitation program would seek to achieve a long-term enhancement of the ecological value of the

drainage line through the restoration of natural hydraulic conditions and appropriate revegetation of a

riparian corridor. The Site Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Karuah East will include full details on

the drainage line rehabilitation works.

The principle objective of surface water management at the quarry will be to segregate clean and dirty

water flows and to minimise surface flows across disturbed areas and impacts to ecologically sensitive

features located downstream. Further detail on the proposed mitigation measures for hydrological

impacts are provided in Appendix C of the preferred project report (ADW Johnson, 2013), refer to

Appendix A of this document.

5.2 Dust management

As part of the Air Quality Assessment, NSW Department of Planning required that an assessment of

Best Practice Particulate Management was performed. The assessment examined the most effective

dust management measures which could be implemented as part of the Karuah East Quarry to reduce

offsite dust impacts. A Dust Management Plan will be implemented that contains the following

mitigation measures:

Sealing of roads between the quarry and the Pacific Highway which includes the internal haul

road from the entry point to the crushing plant

Use of hygroscopic salts on haul roads

Use of a water cart on unsealed roads and areas and spraying of stockpile areas

Enclosure of the crushing plant to minimise emissions

Use of 4m high wind breaks around stockpiles

Implementation of vehicle speed restrictions around the site

Use of geotextile fabric dust barrier curing construction to restrict dust migration offsite

A detailed dust management plan and an erosion and sediment control plan.

The proposed sealing of internal haul roads and enclosure of the crushing plant is considered likely to

substantially reduce potential indirect impacts to MNES through dust deposition. This is particularly

relevant to those MNES located within close proximity to the proposed haul roads and the plant

infrastructure (e.g. Tetratheca juncea).

Following the application of mitigation and management measures, it is considered that dust is likely to

have a minimal impact to ecological values of the surrounding areas.



5.3 Translocation of Tetratheca juncea

A translocation program is proposed to be implemented for Tetratheca juncea. It is acknowledged that

translocation is not a mitigation measure and is considered as a supplementary action due to low

certainty of success. However, in this instance, translocation is being proposed as an additional

measure to gain a better biodiversity outcome. Translocation of the individuals to be impacted to the

offset site will assist in protecting the genetic diversity of the population. Translocation has been

successfully undertaken for Tetratheca juncea previously at other sites with a moderate survival rate of

27% after 5 years (Lake Macquarie City Council, 2013). Residual impacts to Tetratheca juncea as a

result of the project are being offset in accordance with the Commonwealth Environmental Offsets

Calculator (refer to Section 7).

The translocation program will comprise the careful excavation of the Tetratheca juncea individuals from

the impact site and translocation into pre-prepared „beds‟ within the proposed offset site. An area of

2,500m2 to 3,000m

2 has been identified in lot 14 as the receiving area as shown on Figure 5. The

receiving area has been selected to ensure that an appropriate vegetation community and aspect would

be provided. Plants will be individually identified and their location recorded using GPS. Notes will be

taken on each individual which may include number of ramets, overall condition, presence of flowers

etc. Each individual will be placed within an appropriate microclimate to ensure that translocation

success is as high as possible, and replicates the source environment as much as practicable.

Translocated plants will be carefully moved to ensure minimal disturbance and will be cleaned of any

weed species prior to removal. The translocated individuals will have a large root ball which will include

soil from the source area. This will assist in ensuring that any mycorrhizal fungi present within the soil

that may be necessary for the species is also transported to the receiving site. Following planting, each

individual will be watered in, and will receive follow up watering to ensure establishment (subject to local

weather conditions and requirements).

Translocation will be timed to ensure minimal stress from environmental conditions is experienced.

Translocation will be undertaken during a period when the species is not actively flowering or fruiting to

ensure that the individuals have enough resources available to re-establish at the receiving site.

Translocation is proposed to be undertaken early morning to ensure that moisture and heat stress is

minimised, and that the root balls do not dry out during translocation.

Follow up monitoring on the success of the translocation will be undertaken 1 month after translocation,

and then will be undertaken annually during the peak flowering period of the species for a period of 5

years.

The salvage program will require a Section 91 licence from the NSW Office of Environment and

Heritage (OEH). As such a detailed Salvage Plan will be prepared by the proponent (and endorsed by

the NSW Department of Planning and Environment) prior to commencement of the works.

5.4 Vegetat ion clearance

Vegetation clearance will be undertaken in a manner which is as sensitive to the ecological values of

the area as practicable. Strict clearing limits will be delineated to ensure that no over clearing occurs.

Individuals of Tetratheca juncea will be translocated prior to vegetation clearance occurring to ensure

no additional stress is placed on the individuals.

Vegetation which contains hollow bearing trees (HBTs) will be cleared in a progressive manner in

accordance with a hollow bearing tree clearance protocol to minimise potential impacts to hollow

dependent fauna. A suitably qualified ecologist will be on site during any vegetation clearance in

ecologically sensitive areas (including areas containing MNES) as well as during the clearance of HBTs.



A pre-clearance protocols is provided in the preferred project report (ADW Johnson, 2013, section

3.2.1.4). The pre-clearing protocols will avoid seasons when hollow-dependent mammals are typically

inactive (June-August). The protocol also involves threatened fauna searches one week prior to tree

removal; small mammal trapping; protocols for tree removal, hollow retrieval and placement in adjoining

bushland; supervision by an ecologist, a nest box program and provision of aerial fauna crossings.

5.5 Construction generated impacts

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be implemented to minimise potential impacts to proximate

gullies which support the Threatened Asperula asthenes population and associated habitat. All erosion

and sediment control measures will be maintained in a functioning condition until individual areas have

been deemed to be “successfully” rehabilitated. Structural soil conservation works will be inspected

after high intensity rainfall so that de-silting and prompt repairs and/or replacement of damaged works

can be initiated as required.



Figure 5 Tetratheca juncea translocation receiving area



6 Assessment of impacts to MNES

A likelihood of occurrence assessment was undertaken for the project, and is provided in the referral

(EPBC 2014/7282). The field surveys identified the presence of three flora species listed under the

EPBC Act (refer to Section 1.4). These species as well as the Koala were identified as requiring further

assessment. The following sections provide additional information on the impacts, mitigation measures

and proposed offsets for these species.

6.1 Black-eyed Susan (Tetratheca juncea)

6.1.1 Species overview

Tetratheca juncea is a small perennial shrub which is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The

species is characterised by its hanging purple flowers and growth form consisting of multiple stems

rising from a single rootstock.

Tetratheca juncea has a range of approximately 110–125 km north-south from Wyong north to

Bulahdelah, and inland 50 km east-west to the edge of the Sugarloaf Range (the Department 2014e).

The species is currently found in the local government areas of Wyong, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle,

Port Stephens, Great Lakes and Cessnock, with North Wyong and Lake Macquarie appearing to be the

strongholds of the species. The current extent of occurrence is estimated to be between 1,594 and

1,861 km² (TSSC 2005be).

The total population size of Tetratheca juncea is difficult to estimate accurately due to the species

rhizomatous growth form resulting in the plant forming „clumps‟. Plant clumps are commonly counted

during survey work and used as a substitute for individual plants.

6.1.2 Pollination ecology and mycorrhizal associations of Tetratheca juncea

Pollination is fundamental to the existence and persistence of plant species and their associated

communities with the vast majority of flowering plants relying on animal pollination (Williams & Winfree,

2013). Habitat loss and fragmentation has been shown to effect on the pollination success, visitation to

flowering plants by pollinators and pollinator community composition (Williams & Winfree, 2013).

The body size of pollinators has been demonstrated to be directly correlated to their potential foraging

distance, with larger bees foraging further than smaller bee species (Greenleaf et al, 2007). The data

presented by Greenleaf et al (2007) indicates that the maximum foraging distance for the majority of

bee species was around 1km, with some species substantially less.

The floral structure of Tetratheca juncea requires the flowers to be pollinated by species of native bee

which are capable of “buzz-pollinating” to vibrate the pollen out of the anthers (Gross et al, 2003). Self-

fertilisation within Tetratheca juncea is low for this reason accounting for only 2% of seed set under

laboratory conditions. Tetratheca juncea is known to be buzz-pollinated by small species of native bee

approx. 6mm in size (Driscoll, 2003), approximately ½ the size of the European Honeybee (Apis

mellifera). Based on studies by Greenleaf et al (2007) it would be expected that given the small size of

the Bee species known to pollinate Tetratheca juncea, that they would have a relatively small home

range, as small pollinators are known to travel a maximum of several hundred metres (Williams &

Winfree, 2013). It is suggested by Driscoll (2003) that pollinators for Tetratheca juncea would likely

travel a maximum of 500m between populations of the species.



The number of Bees observed to be pollinating Tetratheca juncea were very low across two studies

each comprising more than 100 hrs of observation (Gross et al, 2003, Driscoll, 2003). Documentation

of pollinators is poor across the whole Tetratheca genus and is considered poorly understood (Gross et

al, 2003). Gross et al (2003) suggests that as Tetratheca juncea produces nectar-less flowers, that the

species requires a diversity of other flowering plants within the local area to increase the chances that it

is visited by suitable pollinators. Gross et al (2003), consider that Tetratheca juncea is for this reason

susceptible to disruption of pollination services as a result of land clearance and habitat fragmentation.

Tetratheca juncea like a large number of Australian flora species is thought to be dependent on a

mycorrhizal association to thrive, due to the poor viability of plants grown under laboratory conditions

Bartier et al, 2001. The specific mycorrhizal association is currently unknown.

6.1.3 Occurrence within the project area

The species has been recorded extensively within Lots 13 & 14 during surveys undertaken by RPS and

subsequently by ELA (2014) as detailed in the referral. The species is also present on Lots 12 and Lot

5 (ELA, 2014). The population is considered to be an important population as defined under the

Referral guidelines for the species (SEWPAC, 2011) as it comprises 6,324 clumps. Tetratheca juncea

is well known within the local area with numerous records in the vicinity of Swan Bay, Wallaroo Nature

Reserve, Karuah Nature Reserve, Tahlee and Girvan. The sub-populations in the north (Karuah to

Bulahdelah), of which this population forms a component, are considered disjunct to the core population

in the Lake Macquarie area. Habitat and known locations for Tetratheca juncea within both the quarry

footprint and the offset areas is presented in Figure 5.



Figure 6 Tetratheca juncea within the quarry footprint and offset areas



6.1.4 Impacts of the project to Tetratheca juncea

The project will result in a direct impact to 2.2 ha of known habitat for the species which contains 243

clumps of Tetratheca juncea. This represents approximately 3.7% of the population within lots 13 & 14.

The species is locally abundant and a large number of individuals comprising approximately 24% of the

population on site are distributed within 50m of the proposed footprint of the quarry and associated

infrastructure areas. Indirect impacts to these individuals as a result of dust deposition, alteration of

habitat characteristics such as light and edge effects may occur, but are considered likely to be minor

following the application of mitigation and management measures discussed in this document.

Impacts associated with dust deposition

Impacts to vegetation associated with the deposition of dust are variable and dependent on the

individual tolerance of the particular species, as well as the specific nature of the dust being deposited

(Farmer, 1993). A review of the effects of dust on vegetation was undertaken by Farmer (1993) which

identified a number of possible impacts to vegetation as a result of dust deposition including:

Blocked stomata

Reduced fruit set

Reduced growth

Lower drought tolerance

The specific impacts to Tetratheca juncea as a result of dust deposition are largely unknown, however

the floral structure of the species (downward facing flowers) may limit the amount of dust which can

actively settle onto the reproductive organs of the species and reduce the risk of clogging.

Current dust deposition levels surrounding the Project are less than 2 g/m2/month and represent all

sources of dust (existing quarry, dust storms, bush fires etc.). Annual average dust deposition levels

resulting from the operation of the existing Karuah Quarry were modelled to be 0.1 g/m2/month at all

locations assessed (Table 32 of SLR, 2013), which represents approximately 5% of dust deposited with

the majority of dust deposition resulting from non-project related sources.

The species is known to grow successfully in close proximity to dust generating activities such as the

existing quarry on the adjacent lot which is also an andesite quarry. One sub-population of Tetratheca

juncea identified in 2003 by HWR Ecological (referred to as sub-populations 1 & 2), which is located

adjacent to the active quarry area was revisited as part of this study. The study identified 26 Tetratheca

juncea clumps which were all noted as being in flower and some in the early stages of seed set. This

population is isolated as an “island” due to the surrounding quarry gravel roads and other infrastructure,

but is within 50 to 100 m from other stands of intact native vegetation. Exact numbers of clumps

recorded at this location by HWR Ecological are not known, but as the sub-population appears to have

persisted in regard to the adjacent disturbances, than this provides an indication that the species is able

to tolerate some degree of longer term disturbance.

Given that the species is known to persist within close proximity to an andesite quarry, and that the dust

deposition levels within the local environment are vastly dominated by non-project activities, it is

considered that any impact to Tetratheca juncea from dust deposition is likely to be minor in nature only.

6.1.5 Mitigation and management measures

The effects of dust deposition on the species are expected to be minor following the implementation of

mitigation and management measures. A Dust Management Plan will be prepared and implemented to

assist in minimising the potential impacts of dust to the species. Dust control measures to be

incorporated into the Dust Management Plan include:



vehicle speed restrictions

watering dust prone surfaces

use of hygroscopic salts

use of larger vehicles rather than smaller vehicles to minimise the number of

vehicle movements

incorporation of wind breaks

Stockpiles will be subject to water spraying and protected by the installation of

wind breaks of 4 m in height.

the crushing plant will be enclosed

Installation of pre-construction “no-go areas” with fencing and signage

a Water Management Plan to ensure no changes to the surrounding hydrology

a Conservation Management Plan for the conservation area

translocation measures

Specifically, the sealing of haul roads and enclosure of the crushing plant is expected to substantially

reduce the volume of dust generated by the project. The dust generated by the project is expected to

be minor and in keeping with the dust depositional rates of the local environment.

Other mitigation measures such as no-go areas will be implemented to minimise the likelihood of

additional impacts to the species occurring. Broad site scale mitigation and management measures are

outlined in section 5 of this document.

A translocation program will also be implemented to try and minimise the loss of genetic diversity from

the population present on site. Details on the translocation program are provided in Section 5.3.

6.1.6 Residual impacts and outcome

The project will result in a direct impact to 2.2 ha of Tetratheca juncea habitat, which is 3.7% of the

population on site, and may result in minor indirect impacts to up to 24% of the population. Following

the application of mitigation and management measures outlined above, the residual impact to the

species as a result of the project is expected to be minor only.

To compensate for residual impacts to the species as a result of the project, an offsets package has

been developed to conserve and enhance land containing Tetratheca juncea and its habitat. The

proposed offset site contains 6,324 Tetratheca juncea clumps and 29.83 ha of known and potential

habitat for the species including a proposed translocation area. The proposed offset (further outlined in

Section 7) will be secured in perpetuity and will be appropriately managed to ensure that a conservation

outcome is achieved for the species, and adequately addresses the requirements of the EPBC

Environmental Offsets Calculator. While it is acknowledged that translocation is not considered an

appropriate mitigation measure, salvage translocation is proposed, and will provide an important

opportunity to trial translocation of a threatened species and gain a better understanding of its

requirements and management.



6.2 Trai l ing Woodruff ( Asperula asthenes)


Asperula asthenes (Trailing Woodruff) is a small trailing perennial herb restricted in distribution to the

lower north coast of NSW. The species is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

Asperula asthenes primarily occurs between the Karuah / Bulahdelah area in the south and north to

Kempsey, with an outlier to the north near Coffs Harbour. The species has a range of approximately

100 - 150 km north to south, but is generally restricted to the near coastal fringe. Asperula asthenes is

found in habitats that are generally in association with alluvial riparian habitats along small creeks and

watercourses, often in vegetation having rainforest and paperbark forest elements. The species can

also be found in and adjacent to stands of swamp forest which are periodically inundated.

Asperula asthenes occurs sporadically within areas of potential habitat within its known range. The

species is known from a few locations in the surrounding area (15 – 20 km), namely Girvan, The Branch

and Bulahdelah.


Asperula asthenes is known to occur within the project area. One individual of this species was

originally recorded within the development area by (RPS 2013). An additional 59 individuals were

recorded within the project area during follow up surveys conducted by ELA for the purposes of this

report (ELA, 2014). As part of targeted surveys for Asperula asthenes, a total of 112 plants were

recorded from known riparian and near riparian habitat along a small watercourse within the proposed

offset area (Lot 13) (ELA 2014). An additional 8 individuals are known from Lot 5, located further

upstream of the population in Lot 13 (ELA 2013).

The species has also previously been recorded within the adjacent conservation areas in two locations

along Yalimbah Creek Lot 12 (RPS 2013). Habitat and known locations for Asperula asthenes within

both the quarry footprint and the offset areas is presented in Figure 6.

Table 16 Summary of Asperula asthenes records

Location No. of individuals

Impact area 60

Offset area (owned) – Lot 13 112

Offset area (option) – Lot 5 8

Outside project area - Lot 12 200+

Total 380+

The species records are distributed across two drainage lines, each within a separate sub-catchment.

The two drainage lines do not intersect. It is considered that the population on site is likely to be a

component of a meta-population of individuals spread across small patches of habitat.

6.2.3 Impacts of the project on Asperula asthenes


individual plants of Asperula asthenes. This represents approximately 33% of the known population

within the project and offset area, but less than 15% of the population thought to occur within the local

area.



Indirect impacts to the individuals retained on Lot 13 and Lot 5 as a result of dust deposition, alteration

of habitat characteristics such as light and edge effects are unlikely to occur due to the habitat for the

species being within riparian areas with dense overstorey and positioned over 50 m away from any

infrastructure of the proposed quarry.

The proposed action will result in the modification of the upper reaches of a tributary of Yalimbah Creek

which provides known habitat for the species. Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise the

downstream impacts to this species. Any indirect impacts to the species as a result, are considered

likely to be minor following the application of mitigation and management measures discussed in this

document.

The biggest threat to the species within the local environment relates to the currently uncontrolled

encroachment of the woody weed Lantana camara within the Asperula asthenes habitat areas in Lot 5,

Lots 13 and 14.



Figure 7 Asperula asthenes within the quarry footprint and offset areas




The species is not known to occur within close proximity to the proposed quarry infrastructure (> 50 m

from the boundary). As such, indirect impacts associated with edge effects as a result of the project are

unlikely to affect this species on the proposed offset areas. Due to the implementation of the proposed

mitigation and management measures, as indicated above for Tetratheca juncea, the effects of dust

deposition on the conserved Asperula asthenes are expected to be minor.

To minimise indirect impacts to the species as a result of upstream works along a tributary of Yalimbah

Creek, a sediment fence will be installed along the downstream side of the entire southern face of the

quarry to minimise the transport of any sediment into the remaining section of drainage line to the south

of the extraction area. The sediment fence will be maintained on a regular basis, particularly after

rainfall events. Once extraction in this area has been completed, the drainage line will be reinstated as

close as possible to its original path as part of the final rehabilitation of the site.

The rehabilitation program would seek to achieve a long-term enhancement of the ecological value of

the drainage line including the maintenance of the Asperula asthenes population located downstream.

The Site Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Karuah East will include full details on the drainage line

rehabilitation works.

Prior to construction all areas regarded as “no-go areas” will be fenced and have signage erected to

reduce the potential for any adverse impact to Asperula asthenes and its habitat, beyond the project

disturbance footprint.

A Conservation Management Plan will be prepared for the conservation areas, including those that

contain Asperula asthenes, to guide the implementation of the management actions within the

conservation area.



individual plants of Asperula asthenes. This represents approximately 33% of the known population

within the project and offset area but less than 15% of the population thought to occur within the local

area. Following the application of mitigation and management measures, the residual impact to the

species as a result of the project is expected to be minor only. To compensate for residual impacts to

the species as a result of the project, an offsets package has been developed to conserve and enhance

land containing Asperula asthenes and its habitat. The proposed offset site contains a 120 Asperula

asthenes individuals and a known and potential habitat area of 15.69 ha. The proposed offset (further

outlined in Section 7) will be secured in perpetuity and will be appropriately managed to ensure that a

conservation outcome is achieved for the species, and adequately addresses the requirements of the

EPBC Environmental Offsets Calculator.

The number of Asperula asthenes individuals within the offset sites is expected to increase with the

implementation of management actions. If weed control activities, targeting Lantana camara and other

highly invasive species are carried out in the riparian and near riparian habitat areas for Asperula

asthenes, it is likely that the species will increase in individual numbers as a result of reduced

competition for resources. Lantana is known to impact native species through smothering, as well as

producing toxins which exclude other plants (Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2009). It is

considered that following the implementation of control measures, that the species will (in time)

recolonise previous habitat areas that are currently dominated by Lantana camara.



6.3 Small Flowered Grevi l lea (Grevil lea parvif lora subsp. parvif lora)


Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora distribution is known from as far south as the Camden and Appin

areas south of Sydney, to the Kurri Kurri / Cessnock district in the west and Karuah in the north, a north

south range of approximately 225 km and 40 km east-west (DoE 2014d). The population located at the

subject site is near or at the species northern limit of distribution. Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora is

found on crests, upper slopes or flat plains in low-lying areas of the Lake Macquarie LGA and Lower

Hunter Region. The species grows in sandy or light clay soils over thin shales, often with lateritic

ironstone gravels. Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora often occurs in open, slightly disturbed sites,

including tracks and easements (the Department 2014d).

The species is known to have substantial populations conserved in Werakata National Park, near Kurri

Kurri 60 km south-west in the lower Hunter Valley (NPWS 2002) and some smaller populations in the

Sugarloaf State Conservation Area in the Awaba - Ryhope area of western Lake Macquarie. Locally,

the species has also been observed in Karuah Nature Reserve (RPS 2013).


No individuals of Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora were observed within the project footprint,

however the species was recorded on adjacent land, and potential habitat for the species occurs within

the project footprint. At least eight populations of Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora have been

recorded in 10 km of the site with approximately 500 populations identified across the species

distribution in NSW.

The habitat for the species within the project area primarily comprises the Angophora costata –

Corymbia gummifera - Eucalyptus capitellata Dry Sclerophyll Open Forest community, which covers an

area of 7.31 ha in the subject site. The location of Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora in relation to the

project area is presented in Figure 8.



Figure 8 Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora within the offset areas



6.3.3 Impacts of the project on Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora

No individuals of Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora are located within the proposed construction area.

The project footprint has been realigned to avoid any direct impact to this species.

Approximately 100 stems occur within the area surrounding the project area, and may be subjected to

indirect impacts associated with dust deposition, alteration of habitat characteristics such as light and

edge effects may occur but are considered likely to be minor following the application of mitigation and

management measures discussed in this document.

Impacts associated with dust deposition

Impacts to vegetation associated with the deposition of dust are variable and dependent on the

individual tolerance of the particular species, as well as the specific nature of the dust being deposited

(Farmer, 1993).

The specific impacts to Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora as a result of dust deposition are unknown,

however, the species currently persists within proximity to the existing andesite quarry which has

reduced dust suppression management than is proposed as part of the new quarry.

Current dust deposition levels surrounding the Project are less than 2 g/m2/month and represent all

sources of dust (existing quarry, dust storms, bush fires etc.). Annual average dust deposition levels

resulting from the operation of the existing Karuah Quarry were modelled to be 0.1 g/m2/month at all

locations assessed (Table 32 of SLR, 2013), which represents approximately 5% of dust deposited with

the majority of dust deposition resulting from non-project related sources.

Given that the dust deposition levels within the local environment are vastly dominated by non-project

activities, it is considered that any impact to Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora from dust deposition is

likely to be minor in nature only.


A Dust Management Plan will be implemented to assist in minimising the potential impact of dust on

Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora.

Prior to construction all areas regarded as “no-go areas” will be fenced and have signage erected to

reduce the potential for any adverse impact to Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora and its habitat,

beyond the project disturbance footprint.


contain Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora, to guide the implementation of the management actions

within the conservation area.

6.3.5 Residual impact and outcome

The project will result in the loss of approximately 2.2ha of potential habitat for the species; however, no

individuals were recorded within the project footprint. Avoidance measures have been implemented to

ensure that no direct impact occurs to this species as a result of the project.

The project is not considered likely to have a significant impact on this species as no individuals will be

directly impacted, and any indirect impacts resulting from the project are expected to be minor in nature

only.

The proposed offset on Lots 13 and 14 contains a population of Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora

which will be protected in perpetuity and managed for conservation. It is considered that the project will

deliver an improved conservation outcome for this species.



6.4 Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)


Koalas are associated with a wide range of temperate, tropical and sub-tropical forests as well as semi-

arid communities. The Koala has a fragmented distribution throughout eastern Australia from north-

east Queensland to the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. They feed almost exclusively on leaves of

Eucalyptus species, although they have been known to forage on other genera as well (DotE 2013).

Koalas have large overlapping home ranges with larger home ranges present in areas of poorer quality

habitat (recorded up to 135 hectares in central Queensland) (DotE 2013).

In NSW the Koala mainly occurs on the central and north coasts with some populations in the west of

the Great Dividing Range. It was briefly historically abundant in the 1890s in the Bega District on the

south coast of NSW, although not elsewhere, but it now occurs in sparse and disjunct populations.

Koalas are also known from several sites on the southern tablelands (OEH 2013). Distribution and

population size has varied, with population size believed to have sharply dropped between 1930 and

1980 due to hunting, predation by the European Fox, widespread ringbarking of eucalypts and wildfire.

The most recent Draft EPBC Act referral guidelines from DotE (2013) identify a number of threats which

could substantially interfere with the recovery of the Koala. The following are considered to be of

relevance to the project:

Adversely affecting habitat critical to the survival of the Koala

Creating a barrier to movement within or between habitat critical to the survival during

construction

Increase in potential for vehicle-strikes during construction

Introduction or spread of disease or pathogens during construction and maintenance


The Koala is known extensively from the Great Lakes area including Karuah and Myall Lakes National

Parks. The species has previously been recorded on land adjacent to the project area particularly to

the west where swamp forest vegetation is present – dominated by species such as Eucalyptus

tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) which are highly regarded

as primary food tree species.

The site is currently fragmented from other areas of potential and identified Koala habitat by the Pacific

Highway in the south, as well as existing quarry areas to the west. It is possible that Koalas in low

numbers may utilise the site on an infrequent basis. The site does contain some tenuous links with

other offsite areas to the north extending across The Branch Lane, although portions of this habitat are

unlikely to contain large stands of Koala habitat.

The impact area contains approximately 24 ha of intact vegetation that is defined as habitat critical to

the survival of the species based on the Koala habitat assessment tool (DotE 2013). Using the tool, it is

estimated that the proposed offset site contains 86.29 ha of habitat critical to the survival of the species.

Figure 9 illustrates the areas of Koala habitat in the quarry development footprint and in the adjacent

offset areas.



Figure 9 Koala habitat within both the quarry impact area and the adjacent offset areas



6.4.3 Impacts of the project on the Koala

While no individuals of the species have been observed recently within the impact site or surrounding

lands, the proposed action will result in the loss of 24 ha of habitat which meets the criteria for

consideration as habitat critical to the survival of the species.

The proposed action will result in the fragmentation of habitat critical to the survival of the species

through vegetation clearance, and the isolation of an area of habitat. The development of the quarry

may also increase the chance of vehicle strike as any Koalas moving through the area attempt to cross

the quarry access road.


The species was not recorded to occur in the impact area during surveys undertaken despite the

presence of potential habitat for the species. Prior to construction all areas regarded as “no-go areas”

will be fenced and have signage erected to reduce the potential for any adverse impact to Koala habitat,

beyond the project disturbance footprint.

In addition, contractors on site will be advised that the project is occurring within close proximity to

Koala habitat during on site inductions. Contractors will be advised to exercise caution when driving on

access roads and to be aware of the potential for Koalas to be crossing the road on occasion.

Appropriate signage will be erected to this effect.


contain Koala habitat, to guide the implementation of the management actions within the conservation

area. Within these areas the management actions will include weed removal so that the integrity of the

habitat is maintained and improved.


The project will result in the loss of approximately 24 ha of habitat which meets the definition of habitat

critical to the survival of the species. However, no individuals were recorded within the project footprint

during surveys undertaken. The proposed offset on Lot 5 as well as Lots 13 and 14 contains over 86 ha

of identified Koala habitat which will be protected in perpetuity and managed for conservation.



7 Offset package

7.1 Overview

To compensate for impacts to Tetratheca juncea, Asperula asthenes and the Koala as a result of the

project, a comprehensive biodiversity offset package been developed which meets the requirements

estimated using the EPBC Environmental Offsets Calculator (EOC). The proposed offset package is

comprised of lands including Lot 5 DP 838128 and parts of Lot 13 and Lot 14 DP 1024564 (refer to

Figure 10). Lots 13 and 14 are owned by the proponent and an option to purchase Lot 5 is currently

under negotiation. In accordance with the Part 3A major Project Approval in the event that Lot 5 is

unable to be secured by the proponent, an alternate offset site, which combined with lot 13 and 14 will

provide a total biodiversity area to the satisfaction of the NSW Department of Planning and

Environment. In this event the alternate offset site would also be secured to the satisfaction of the

Commonwealth Department of Environment. The proposed offset package will deliver substantial

conservation benefits by securing 135.57 ha of land including 129 ha of forest containing threatened

flora and suitable habitat for threatened fauna.

The proposed offset site will be managed in a manner which provides for conservation gains and will be

secured in perpetuity. Further information is provided in the following sections.

7.1.1 Required offsets

The project will result in the loss of 243 clumps of Tetratheca juncea, 60 individuals of Asperula

asthenes and up to 24.04 ha of Koala habitat. No individuals of Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora will

be impacted as part of this proposal. This impact is required to be offset in a manner which is

consistent with the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (2012). The proposed offset will also meet

the offset requirements under the NSW Biobanking methodology to compensate for residual impacts to

species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 2005.



Figure 10 Proposed offset site



7.2 Proposed offset area

The site is located on the Lower North Coast of NSW primarily on lands owned by Karuah East Pty Ltd

situated adjacent to proposed quarry (lots 13 & 14). The proposed offset also includes Lot 5 over which

an option to purchase is currently being negotiated by the proponent. Refer to Figure 10.

7.2.1 Geology and landforms

The site is overall undulating, but varies in slope and aspect considerably. Numerous steep, sometimes

rocky, slopes and creek gullies are evident, particularly in the southern and central portions of Lot 5.

The site has generally much lower relief in the southern section (Lots 13 and 14) which is generally

sloping toward the Pacific Highway in the south with a more meandering watercourse and drainage line

system. One main geology type occurs within and surrounding the site. The site is situated on the

Nerong Volcanics which is dominated by rhyodacitic ignimbrite and comprises ignimbrite interbedded

with tuffaceous sandstone and conglomerate. This soil landscape is characterised by colluvial (steeper

slopes and ridgelines) and alluvial (lower elevations and watercourses) areas. The distribution of the

dominant vegetation types supported in the site is closely related to the distribution of these two soil

landscapes.

7.2.2 Site context

The site provides part of a contiguous patch of vegetation that provides as an important habitat corridor

and habitat area to the north of and adjacent to Karuah Nature Reserve. The linkages are disturbed in

the south by the upgraded Pacific Highway and to a lesser extent in the north and west by The Branch

Lane. Vegetation links to the east are present although the remnant vegetation is fragmented through

the presence of pastures for grazing, although remnant vegetation is present along major watercourses.

Several drainage lines also intersect the site, generally flowing either from north to south-east in the

southern portion of site and from south to north in the northern section of site (Lot 5).

Site history and land use

The site was previously subject to logging / timber getting and cattle grazing regimes, although both

practices have ceased on all three lots. Lots 13 and 14 are currently owned and managed by Karuah

East Quarry, with Lot 5 currently in separate private ownership. Lots 14 and 5 both have residences

with vehicle access to adjacent roads. Lot 5 also contains a power easement servicing the residence

near The Branch Lane, running north-south and bisecting the lot. A network of old logging and fire trails

are evident across all lots.

The site is bounded by rural grazing properties to the north and east, where much of the remnant native

vegetation has been removed, leaving primarily vegetation dominated by pasture grasses. To the south

the upgraded Pacific Highway borders the site with Karuah Nature Reserve and other vegetated

properties located beyond. Adjacent to the west is the existing Karuah hard rock quarry on Lots 11 and

21 (DP 1024341). Lot 21 is owned by KEQ and Lot 11 is privately owned rural property. To the

northwest privately owned and naturally vegetated land is present on both sides of The Branch Lane.

The vegetation in the site provides habitat connectivity to other patches of native vegetation.

Regional significance

- Large patch of contiguous vegetation within a cleared landscape

- Connectivity to other remnants

- Large population of threatened flora species



7.2.3 Land use zoning

The land use zoning of the proposed Offset site is RU2 (Rural Landscape) under the Great Lakes Local

Environmental Plan (LEP), 2014. Within the RU2 zone, the following uses are proposed to be permitted

with consent:

Agriculture; Airports; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments; Backpackers‟

accommodation; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds;

Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cellar door premises; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism

boating facilities; Child care centres; Community facilities; Crematoria; Depots; Dual occupancies

(attached); Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational establishments; Environmental

facilities; Environmental protection works; Exhibition homes; Extractive industries; Farm buildings;

Farm stay accommodation; Flood mitigation works; Forestry; Hazardous storage establishments;

Helipads; Heliports; Home-based child care; Home businesses; Hotel or motel accommodation;

Industrial training facilities; Industries; Information and education facilities; Jetties; Kiosks;

Landscaping material supplies; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Neighbourhood shops;

Offensive storage establishments; Open cut mining; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries;

Public administration buildings; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation

facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres;

Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural industries; Rural supplies; Secondary

dwellings; Sewerage systems; Signage; Timber yards; Transport depots; Truck depots;

Veterinary hospitals; Water recreation structures; Water supply systems; Wharf or boating

facilities

7.2.4 Site condition

The site comprises part of a partially contiguous patch of vegetation that is an important habitat corridor

and habitat area to the north of and adjacent to Karuah Nature Reserve. The linkages are disturbed in

the south by the upgraded Pacific Highway and to a lesser extent in the north and west by The Branch

Lane. Vegetation links to the east are present although the remnant vegetation is fragmented through

the presence of pastures for grazing, although remnant vegetation is present along major

watercourses. Several drainage lines intersect the site, generally flowing either from north to south-east

in the southern portion of site and from south to north in the northern section of site (Lot 5). Large

habitat and hollow-bearing trees are scattered across the site, particularly along the larger watercourses

where large stags with hollows are evident. Larger hollows in living trees and stags were more

commonly encountered in Lot 5 than in the Lots 13 and 14. Fallen trees and timber are relatively

common across all parts of the combined site, providing high quality habitat for ground-dwelling fauna.

A higher abundance and diversity of weed species occurs in the eastern portion of the site (mainly

pasture grasses) adjacent to the neighbouring grazing lands. Weed species also occur in high densities

along the north-south power easement alignment and along some vehicle tracks. Other woody weeds

(e.g. Lantana camara) are generally widely, but sporadically disbursed across the site, although at times

becoming more dense in gullies and within and adjacent to watercourses. No obvious evidence of use

of the site by feral animals was observed, although it is anticipated that species such as rabbits and

foxes may be present in the vicinity.

Fauna habitat features

Hollow-bearing trees are scattered across the site, particularly along the larger watercourses where

large hollows are evident. Larger hollows in living trees and stags were more commonly encountered in

Lot 5 than in the other two lots. Fallen trees and timber are relatively common across all parts of the

combined site, providing high quality habitat for ground-dwelling fauna.



Figure 11 Threatened species recorded within the offset site



7.3 Management of the offset site

Management of the site includes actions required to initially bring the site to a maintenance level, as

well as those actions that will be required in future years, including ongoing monitoring and

maintenance.

The site will be fenced to exclude inappropriate activities such as rubbish dumping, grazing and vehicle

access. Information signs at all entry points to the site will provide information on the use of the site as

an Offset site. Other initial management tasks may include weed control (particularly in and adjacent to

watercourses), minor drainage line restoration, native vegetation planting (if appropriate), fire trail

upgrades and Asset Protection Zone (APZ) slashing near existing residences.

Ongoing management costs address site maintenance (weed control, feral animal control, trail

maintenance, APZ maintenance, rubbish removal and ecological burns) as well as monitoring

(vegetation condition, ecological burn results and feral animal abundance).

A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared for the site to guide the implementation of

the management practices. The plan will include the restrictions and limitations to the existing two

residences on Lot 5 and Lot 14 and will likely need to have specific information and work priorities

updated on a three to five year interval as a minimum.

7.3.1 Fire management

Fire, as a management tool, across portions of suitable drier open forest habitats of the offset areas is

anticipated to be included as part of overall site management and will form part of the CMP.

7.3.2 Access management

Fencing (including access gates) will need to be maintained to reduce the potential impacts from

grazing stock entering the site as this can be quite destructive the environment and additional cost may

arise to address the issue and damage. Fencing and associated signage will also be necessary for the

control of human access for dumping and destructive recreation purposes (e.g. trail bike riding).

7.3.3 Weed control

The major ongoing management issue at the offset site will include the management and control of

invasive weed species, in particular woody weeds (almost exclusively Lantana camara) and pasture

grasses (Setaria sp.). Pasture grasses are particularly evident in the power easement running north to

south and in the east where the site abuts grazing properties.

7.3.4 Monitoring

Flora and fauna monitoring across the habitats of the offset site will be undertaken on an annual basis

as part of a reporting commitment to the NSW OEH. Results of the annual monitoring will be utilised to

inform ongoing management actions.

7.4 Providing a conservation outcome

The proposed offset will achieve a conservation outcome for the threatened flora species in particular

Tetratheca juncea and Asperula asthenes through the application of conservation management

practices to improve the quality of habitat for the species within the offset site through a range of

management actions. In addition, the offset provides certainty of protection for the species on site

through the application of a Conservation Agreement.



7.4.1 Time to achieve conservation gain

The offset site has been split into management zones to estimate the management actions required.

Indicative timing and cost estimates are provided below in Table 17.



Table 17: Approximate management required per management zone

MANAGEMENT ACTION REQUIRED ESTIMATE OF WORK REQUIRED (DAYS*)

ZONE VEGETATION TYPE (NSW BIOMETRIC) AREA

(HA) ACTION SPECIES

CONTROL

TECHNIQUE YEARS 1-5 YEARS 5-10 YEAR 10 +

1

Blackbutt - Turpentine - Tallowwood shrubby

open forest of the coastal foothills of the

central North Coast

28.17

Weeds and

Maintained

fencing

Scattered

patches of

Lantana,

pasture grass

invasion from

east

Manual removal/ cut

and paint with

Glyphosate

5 3 2

1a Brush Box - Turpentine shrubby open forest

of the coastal ranges of the North Coast 2.60 Weeds

Scattered

patches of

Lantana

Manual removal/ cut

and paint with

Glyphosate

4 2 2

2

Smooth-barked Apple - Red Bloodwood open

forest on coastal plains on the Central Coast,

Sydney Basin

23.71

Weeds and

Maintained

fencing

Scattered

patches of

Lantana,

pasture grass

invasion from

east

Manual removal/ cut

and paint with

Glyphosate

4 2 2

2a

Smooth-barked Apple - Red Bloodwood open

forest on coastal plains on the Central Coast,

Sydney Basin

3.02 Weeds

Invasion by

pasture

grasses -

Setaria and

Cut and paint with

Glyphosate 2 1 1





(HA) ACTION SPECIES

CONTROL


Whiskey

Grass. Minor

patches of

Lantana

3

Spotted Gum - Grey Ironbark open forest on

the foothills of the Central Coast, Sydney

Basin

67.03

Weeds and

Maintained

fencing

Scattered

patches of

Lantana,

pasture grass

invasion from

east and also

along power

easement

Cut and paint with

Glyphosate. Spray

grasses in dense

areas

10 8 6

4

Spotted Gum - Grey Ironbark open forest on

the foothills of the Central Coast, Sydney

Basin

0.83 Weeds

Invasion by

pasture

grasses -

Setaria and

Whiskey

Grass. Minor

patches of

Lantana

Cut and paint with

Glyphosate. Spray

grasses in dense

areas

2 2 2





(HA) ACTION SPECIES

CONTROL


5

Sydney Peppermint - Smooth-barked Apple

shrubby open forest on coastal hills and

plains of the southern North Coast and

northern Sydney Basin

3.96

Weeds and

Maintained

fencing

Scattered

patches of

Lantana

Manual removal/ cut

and paint 3 2 2

Total 30 20 17

Indicative annual labour cost (team of 4 (@$2000 / day) $60,000 PA $40,000 PA $34,000 PA

Material costs Fence maintenance, Herbicides and baits as

required

* Note that work days required are based on one day = team of four bushland regenerators.



7.4.2 Level of certainty of conservation gain

The proposed management measures are standard measures which have delivered conservation gains

across a broad range of offset sites. Key to achieving a conservation gain on the proposed offset is the

management of woody weed species and invasion by exotic grasses. Management of woody weed

species has been shown to be highly effective and there is a high degree of certainty around the

outcome of the management action when coupled with appropriate follow up maintenance and on-going

monitoring with revisions to management actions on a regular and as required basis.

An adaptive management approach will be taken to ensure that the results of the annual monitoring are

incorporated into the management of the site and that the actions applied are fit for purpose and

achieving the desired outcomes.

7.4.3 Conservation in perpetuity

The conservation of the offset area will be secured via a Conservation Agreement (CA) under Part 4,

Division 12 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The CA will be negotiated with the NSW Office

of Environment and Heritage for the approved project under the state process. The CA is registered on

title and will apply to the current owner of the properties and all successors in title. The CA will be

registered under the Real Property Act 1990.

The CA will provide for continued occupation of the two dwellings currently location on lot 5 and lot 14

and the maintenance of the small area of cleared land surrounding the dwellings and the access tracks

(approx. 6.5 ha).

7.5 Net biodiversity outcome

The EPBC Act environmental offsets policy outlines the Australian Government‟s approach to the use of

environmental offsets under the EPBC Act. The policy acts as a decision support framework in order to

normalise judgements associated with determination of proposed offsets for a given impact. The end

goal of the offsets policy is that suitable offsets deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or

maintains the viability of the aspect of the environment that is protected by national environment law

and affected by the proposed action.

The EPBC Act environmental offsets policy provides a tool to assist in determining the suitability of an

offset proposal. Using the guide and policy, a range of parameters were required to calculate the

suitability of the offset. These parameters have been based on comprehensive field work undertaken

by ELA (2013, 2014) and RPS (2012) on both the impact and proposed offset sites.

The offset package has been developed such that it satisfies the requirements of the EPBC Offset

Assessment Guide. The proposed offset package will provide for the conservation of a large population

of Tetratheca juncea, as well as populations of Asperula asthenes and Grevillea parviflora subsp.

parviflora. Additionally, there will be a large area of identified Koala habitat incorporated into the

conservation areas. The proposed offset package will be secured on title in perpetuity through a

conservation agreement, and will be managed effectively under a conservation management plan to

ensure that the habitat characteristics required for MNES are maintained and improved.

Analysis using the EPBC Offset Assessment Guide shows that the proposed offset is sufficient to

compensate for residual impacts to MNES associated with the development of the proposed action.

Table 16 and Table 17 provide justification of the proposed offset strategy in accordance with the EPBC

Offsets Calculator.



Table 18: Applicable attributes to the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy for Tetratheca juncea

IMPACT CALCULATOR

ATTRIBUTE IMPACT CALCULATOR INPUT JUSTIFICATION

Threatened species Tetratheca juncea

Tetratheca juncea is a small perennial shrub which is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

The species is characterised by its hanging purple flowers and growth form consisting of

multiple stems rising from a single rootstock.

Number of individuals

impacted 243


clumps of Tetratheca juncea. This represents approximately 3.7% of the population within lots 13 & 14

(additional individuals have been observed from Lot 5 but exact numbers are as yet unknown).

Field validation of Karuah East Quarry vegetation and Tetratheca juncea clump counts were conducted

by ELA (2013). Initial surveys for the species were carried out by RPS between 2011 and 2013.

Total Quantum of Impact

(individual plants) 243 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator 2012

Proposed offset Offset area containing 6,324

Tetratheca juncea individuals

To compensate for residual impacts to the species as a result of the project, an offsets package has been

developed to conserve and enhance land containing Tetratheca juncea and its habitat. The proposed

offset site contains 6,324 individuals. The proposed offset will be secure in perpetuity and will be

appropriately managed to ensure that a conservation outcome is achieved for the species. The proposed

offset site is comprised of lands that include parts of Lot 13 and Lot 14 DP 1024564 and potentially

including Lot 5 DP 838128.

Risk related time horizon

(years) 20

Considering that the risk related time horizon value is the number of years that the offset is expected to

be in place, the maximum time of 20 years was chosen. The project will result in the permanent loss of

243 individuals, with the cleared area to be used for Karuah East Quarry. As the impact represents a

permanent loss, the risk to the species will remain greater than 20 years.

Start value

6,324 Tetratheca juncea individuals

The species has been recorded extensively within Lots 13 & 14 during surveys undertaken by RPS

(2011, 2013) and also additional clumps on Lot 14 and Lot 5 by ELA (2013) as detailed in the referral.

The population is considered to be an important population as defined under the Referral guidelines for

the species (SEWPAC, 2011) as it comprises a large population of 6,324 clumps. Tetratheca juncea is



IMPACT CALCULATOR


well known within the local area with numerous records in the vicinity of Swan Bay, Wallaroo Nature

Reserve, Karuah Nature Reserve, Tahlee and Girvan. The northern sub-populations of Tetratheca

juncea (Karuah / Bulahdelah area), of which this population forms a component, are considered disjunct

to the core population in the Lake Macquarie area.

Future value without

offset 6,124

Highly invasive weed species such as annual grasses and Lantana are prolific species which have the

capacity to out-compete Tetratheca juncea for space and resources if not managed appropriately.

Currently Setaria sp. and Lantana camara impacts at various levels on approximately 5% of Tetratheca

juncea habitat in the proposed offset areas, with substantial infestations present along drainage lines in

some instances. Based on observations taken during the field surveys, it is evident that where dense

weed invasion is present, Tetratheca juncea is unable to persist (ELA, 2014). As such, if no

management (primarily weed control) is carried out in the offset areas then the available habitat for the

species within the offset site is expected to be reduced over time as the cover of invasive species

expands. The number of Tetratheca juncea within the offset sites would be expected to decline in

response to the increased competition for space and resources. It is considered likely that the

Tetratheca juncea population has the potential to decline to around 6,124 individuals using a

conservative estimate if no action was taken. This represents a decline of only 3% of the population,

however, if some of the highly invasive species present on site are not controlled, the actual impact to the

species could be substantially higher.

The permissible uses within the land zoning (RU2 Rural Landscape) include many that would have a

significant impact on habitat including dwellings, shops, open cut mining, etc

Future value with offset 6,424

If weed control activities, targeting species such as Setaria sp. and Lantana camara are carried out in the

habitat areas for Tetratheca juncea, the population of the species will increase over time. Reduced

competition from these invasive species would provide additional resources and increase the area of

available habitat for Tetratheca juncea. It is considered that the number of Tetratheca juncea clumps

within the offset sites could be expected to increase by 100 individuals with the implementation of

management actions. This is a conservative estimate of the potential population increase and only

represents an increase in population size of 1.5%. A conservative estimate of the potential population

increase was taken due to the species low fecundity. With appropriate management, the species will



IMPACT CALCULATOR


recolonise previous habitat areas that are currently dominated by weed species over time.

Raw gain 300 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator

Confidence in result

(%) 90

A conservative approach has been taken when considering the effect of the proposed management

actions on the population of Tetratheca juncea. It is considered that with appropriate management, the

species is highly likely to re-establish areas where they have previously grown but have become out-

competed by weed species in the manner described above.

Adjusted gain 270 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator

Net Present Value 259.42 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator

TOTAL % Residual

Impact offset 106.76%



Table 19: Applicable attributes to the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy for Asperula asthenes

IMPACT CALCULATOR


IMPACT SITE

Threatened species Asperula asthenes

Asperula asthenes (Trailing Woodruff) is a small trailing perennial herb restricted in distribution to

the lower north coast of NSW. The species is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

Number of individuals impacted

60

The project will result in a direct impact to 2.47 ha of known habitat for the species which contains

60 individual plants of Asperula asthenes recorded within the impact site during surveys undertaken

by ELA (2014) and RPS (2011, 2013).

Total Quantum of Impact

(individual plants) 60 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator 2012

OFFSET SITE

Proposed offset Offset area containing 120 Asperula

asthenes individuals

To compensate for residual impacts to the species as a result of the project, an offsets package has

been developed to conserve and enhance land containing Asperula asthenes and its habitat. The

proposed offset site contains a minimum of 120 individuals and a known and potential habitat area

of 15.69 ha. The proposed offset will be secured in perpetuity and will be appropriately managed to

ensure that a conservation outcome is achieved for the species. The proposed offset site is

comprised of lands including Lot 5 DP 838128 (minimum of 8 individuals), and, Lot 13 (112

individuals) and Lot 14 DP 1024564 (potential habitat).


(years) 20

Considering that the risk related time horizon value is the number of years that the offset is

expected to be in place, the maximum time of 20 years was chosen. The project will result in the

permanent loss of 60 individuals, with the cleared area to be used for Karuah East Quarry. As the

impact represents a permanent loss, the risk to the species will remain greater than 20 years.

Start value

120 Asperula asthenes individuals The species has been recorded within the proposed offset area at two locations along a small

watercourse in conservation lands on Lot 5 and Lot 13 (ELA 2013). In total 120 Asperula asthenes



IMPACT CALCULATOR


individuals were recorded within the offset areas in Lot 5 (8 individuals) and in Lot 13 (112

individuals).

Future value without offset 100

Riparian and near riparian areas provide the core habitat for Asperula asthenes within the offset

site. However, these areas are under threat from continued invasion by woody weeds such as

Lantana camara (Lantana). Currently Lantana camara impacts on approximately 25% of the

Asperula asthenes habitat present within the proposed offset. Based on observations taken during

the field surveys (ELA, 2014), in areas of substantial Lantana infestation (where projected foliage is

> 50%) Asperula asthenes is generally absent or appears stressed and in poor condition. Similar

observations were made of species known to co-occur with Asperula asthenes such as Doodia

aspera and Carex longebrachiata.

Lantana is a prolific species, and without management can be expected to increase in abundance

and distribution within the proposed offset site. Based on the proportion of the site currently

impacted by Lantana, and the potential for spread, without any management being undertaken the

number of Asperula asthenes within the offset sites could be expected to decline to 100 individuals.

This represents a decrease in population size by approximately 17%. Given that 75% of the

available habitat for Asperula asthenes is currently not invaded by Lantana, it is considered that this

is likely to be a conservative estimate of the potential impact on Lantana on the species if left

unmanaged.

The permissible uses within the land zoning (RU2 Rural Landscape) include many that would have

a significant impact on habitat including dwellings, shops, open cut mining, etc

Future value with offset 180

If weed control activities, targeting Lantana camara and other highly invasive species are carried out

in the riparian and near riparian habitat areas for Asperula asthenes, it is likely that the population of

the species will increase. The removal of Lantana will result in an increase in the availability of

habitat and reduction in competition for resources such as light. Asperula asthenes is expected to

recolonise previous habitat areas that are currently dominated by Lantana once it has been

removed and the suppressive nature of the species is no longer influencing the local environment.

The number of Asperula asthenes individuals within the offset sites is expected to increase to within

the order of 180 individuals with the implementation of management actions. This represents an



IMPACT CALCULATOR


increase in population size by 50%. Asperula asthenes can be locally abundant and populations of

the species on adjoining lands have been observed in excess of 200 individuals. As such, it is

considered likely that populations of this size will be able to establish and persist once limiting

factors have been removed.

Raw gain 80 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator

Confidence in result (%) 90

It is considered that with appropriate management, that Asperula asthenes is highly likely to re-

establish areas where they have previously grown but have become out-competed by weed species

in the manner described above.

Adjusted gain 72 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator


TOTAL % Residual Impact

offset 115.30%



Table 20: Applicable attributes to the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy for Koala

IMPACT CALCULATOR


IMPACT SITE

Threatened species habitat Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

Field validation of habitat was conducted by ELA (2013). The community type targeted was

Corymbia maculata – Eucalyptus paniculata subsp. paniculata – Eucalyptus propinqua – Eucalyptus

acmenoides Moist Sclerophyll Open Forest, as the community contained moderate numbers of both

Primary and Secondary Koala feed trees as defined in the NSW “Approved Recovery Plan: The

Koala” (DECC 2008). Koala feed trees identified in the quarry impact area and the adjacent

proposed offset areas included:

Primary food tree species:

o Eucalyptus microcorys

Secondary food tree species:

o Eucalyptus canaliculata (Large-fruited Grey Gum

o Eucalyptus propinqua (Small-fruited Grey Gum)

The habitat identified on site meets the criteria for consideration as habitat critical to the

survival of the species (DotE, 2013).

Area of impact (ha)

24 The impact area contains approximately 24 ha of intact vegetation that is defined as habitat critical

to the survival of the species based on the Koala habitat assessment tool (DotE 2013).

Current quality of habitat 6 Using the Koala habitat assessment tool the vegetation of the impact area recorded a score of 6.

Total Quantum of Impact (ha) 14.4 Adjusted hectares as per EPBC Offsets Calculator 2012



OFFSET SITE

OFFSET CALCULATOR

ATTRIBUTE

OFFSET CALCULATOR INPUT

(PROPOSED EHE ONSITE

OFFSET AREA)

JUSTIFICATION

Proposed offset 86.29 ha of potential Koala habitat

A Conservation Management Plan will be prepared for the conservation areas, including the 86.29 ha

that contain Koala habitat, to guide the implementation of the management actions within the

conservation area.


(years) 20

Considering that the risk related time horizon value is the number of years that the offset is expected

to be in place, the maximum time of 20 years was chosen. This is because the impact consists of

removal of the 24 ha of Koala habitat in perpetuity, with the cleared area to be used for quarry

development; therefore the risk will remain greater than 20 years.

Time until ecological benefit

2

Conservation gains will be achieved over both the short term and the long term. The proposed offset

will be established and would be expected to provide security of habitat for the Koala within 2 years of

implementation.

Start quality of offset 6

Koalas have not been recorded within the impact area or the adjacent areas, including the proposed

offset areas, despite recent survey effort over several years, however, anecdotal evidence suggests

the species is still present with the local area. The study area is part of a large, connected area of

koala habitat. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the use of the study area to support

breeding koalas. No evidence is available on the genetic diversity or disease risk of koalas

associated with the study area.

It is considered possible that Koalas in low numbers may utilise the site on an infrequent basis.

The site is currently fragmented from other areas of potential and identified Koala habitat by the

Pacific Highway in the south, as well as existing quarry areas to the west. The site does contain

some tenuous links with other offsite areas to the north extending across The Branch Lane, although

portions of this habitat are unlikely to contain large stands of Koala habitat.

Future quality without offset 5 Without the inclusion of the offset area and the resulting conservation management actions, there is a

high probability that the available habitat for Koalas in the lands adjacent to the quarry footprint will be



reduced in area and likely that a reduction in quality of the habitat will also occur, through unmanaged

and incidental actions by others (e.g. wild dog attack, weed encroachment, etc.).

Future quality with offset 6

The proposed offset will secure 86.29 ha of Koala habitat as a conservation reserve. The reserve will

be actively managed for biodiversity conservation and provide a refuge for species such as the Koala

in an increasingly disturbed landscape. Proposed management actions will maintain the quality of the

Koala habitat present within the study area in perpetuity through protection of a substantial area of

feed trees and potential habitat. The proposed management actions will also result in an increase in

the overall condition of the offset through weed and feral animal management, and this is will provide

an overall positive outcome for the Koala.

Risk of loss without offset (%) 50

There are substantial risks related to the potential for further development in order to exploit the

Andesite resource present within the local area. In addition, there are likely to be pressures from

infrastructure agencies to develop the site with easements (i.e. electricity, gas) and road widening.

The permissible uses within this zone include many that would have a significant impact on habitat

including dwellings, shops, open cut mining, etc

Risk of loss with offset (%) 0

The risk of losing the potential Koala habitat at the proposed offset area is effectively Zero given the

proponent is to be bound by a conservation agreement to provide management in perpetuity. Should

approval be conferred, this vegetation will form the proposed conservation area and be managed

appropriately in terms of maintaining suitable fuel loads and ensuring appropriate fire regimes, as well

maintaining appropriate fencing and signage to limit access, removal of weeds, and assisted

regeneration.

Raw gain 2.00-12.00 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator

Confidence in result (%) 90

A high degree of confidence in conservation outcomes is achieved through the proponent‟s track

record of environmental responsibility and stewardship, and the security provided by the proposed

agreement between the proponent and the Minister for the Environment.

Adjusted gain 0.9-38.75 as per EPBC Offsets Calculator


TOTAL % Residual Impact 182%



offset



8 Summary

The proposed Karuah East Quarry will provide a resource of andesite of importance to the local,

regional and state economy in terms of construction material and flow-on economic benefits. The total

combined direct spending during 20 years on labour, material and equipment in the local and regional

economy is $299 million. When the impacts of the multipliers are included the total value to the regional

economy of operations over 20 years is in excess of $544 million. The total direct operating value over

20 years to the national economy is $301.6 million and a total multiplier effect of $780.92 million.

The site is strategically located with excellent access to major development centres such as Newcastle,

Port Stephens and the greater Hunter region. The site is isolated from any significant urban

development and the project will directly create 56 positions of local employment during construction

and 28 positions during operation with multiplied employment of 150 positions (construction) and 107

(operation) respectively.

The proposal will generate a positive social and economic impact to Karuah and the broader Hunter

region.

The site contains Matters of National Environmental Significance including two species of vulnerable

flora and habitat for koala. The project has undergone significant design changes to avoid impact to

MNES where possible. As a result, impacts to Tetratheca juncea have been reduced to around 3% of

the local population. The vast majority of the population of this species will be protected and managed

under a conservation plan. The conservation area will also provide in perpetuity protection of habitat

and known population for Asperula asthenes as well as potential koala habitat.

Comprehensive assessment of these impacts has also been undertaken and approval provided by the

NSW Government under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The consent

requires a comprehensive suite of management plans for surface water, dust management, flora and

fauna management and long term management of the offset area which will be implemented by the

proponent.



References

DECC, 2008 Approved Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) NSW. Prepared by the

DEC NSW.

DotE, 2013, Draft EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable koala (combined populations of

Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory). Prepared by DotE, ACT.

Driscoll C, 2003, Pollination ecology of Tetratheca juncea (Tremandraceae) finding the pollinators,

Cunninghamia (8:1), pp. 133-140.

Farmer A, 1993, The Effects if Dust on Vegetation – A Review, Environmental Pollution (79) pp. 63-75

Greenleaf SS, Winfree R, 2007, Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size, Oecologia

(153), pp. 589-596.

Gross CL, Bartier FV, Mulligan DR, 2003, Floral Structure, Breeding System and Fruit-set in the

Threatened Sub-shrub Tetratheca juncea Smith (Tremandraceae), Annals of Botany (92), pp. 771-777

HWR Ecological, 2004 Ecological Assesment for Proposed Extension of Hard Rock Quarry Lot 21

(DP1024341) and Lot 11 (DP1024564) Pacific Highway, Karuah. Prepared for Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd.

Lake Macquarie City Council, 2013, Draft Lake Macquarie Tetratheca juncea Planning and

management guidelines, Prepared by: Lake Macquarie city council.

Williams NM, Winfree R, 2007, Local habitat characteristics but not landscape urbanization drive

pollinator visitation and native plant pollination in forest remnants, Biological conservation (160), pp. 10-

18.

Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2009. “Lantana Best Practice Manual and Decision

Support Tool” Weeds of National Significance. Produced through the cooperative efforts of the

Australian Government and the Queensland and New South Wales state governments.



NSW Approval Appendix A

Preferred Project Report Appendix B

Public and indigenous consultation Appendix C

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Appendix DReport



HEAD OFFICE

Suite 4, Level 1

2-4 Merton Street

Sutherland NSW 2232

T 02 8536 8600

F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEY

Level 6

299 Sussex Street

Sydney NSW 2000

T 02 8536 8650

F 02 9264 0717

ST GEORGES BASIN

8/128 Island Point Road

St Georges Basin NSW 2540

T 02 4443 5555

F 02 4443 6655

CANBERRA

Level 2

11 London Circuit

Canberra ACT 2601

T 02 6103 0145

F 02 6103 0148

NEWCASTLE

Suites 28 & 29, Level 7

19 Bolton Street

Newcastle NSW 2300

T 02 4910 0125

F 02 4910 0126

NAROOMA

5/20 Canty Street

Narooma NSW 2546

T 02 4476 1151

F 02 4476 1161

COFFS HARBOUR

35 Orlando Street

Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450

T 02 6651 5484

F 02 6651 6890

ARMIDALE

92 Taylor Street

Armidale NSW 2350

T 02 8081 2681

F 02 6772 1279

MUDGEE

Unit 1, Level 1

79 Market Street

Mudgee NSW 2850

T 02 4302 1230

F 02 6372 9230

PERTH

Suite 1 & 2

49 Ord Street

West Perth WA 6005

T 08 9227 1070

F 08 9322 1358

WOLLONGONG

Suite 204, Level 2

62 Moore Street

Austinmer NSW 2515

T 02 4201 2200

F 02 4268 4361

GOSFORD

Suite 5, Baker One

1-5 Baker Street

Gosford NSW 2250

T 02 4302 1220

F 02 4322 2897

DARWIN

16/56 Marina Boulevard

Cullen Bay NT 0820

T 08 8989 5601

F 08 8941 1220

BRISBANE

Suite 1 Level 3

471 Adelaide Street

Brisbane QLD 4000 T 07 3503 7191 F 07 3854 0310

1300 646 131 www.ecoaus.com.au

http://www.ecoaus.com.au/

Documents

Karuah East Quarry - EPBC 2014/7282hunterquarries.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/... · Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Karuah East Quarry Pty Ltd. The scope of services was