Mod 3 - Processing & Tailings Storage

Until recently I was a resident of the Eurobodalla Shire and I object to this third modification to the Dargues Reef Gold Mine Development Application.
This project poses unreasonable risk to those living in the Moruya River Catchment while ever Unity Mining makes the assumption that there will never be failures in the design or running of the proposed processing plant.
My objection is based on the following:

1. Wrong Site
* The site is on a hill above a village on a steep escarpment and at the headwaters of a significant river system.
* Pollution of the waterways would threaten the orchards and market gardens of the Araluen Valley, the water supply of the Eurobodalla Shire and wildlife living in this sensitive, biodiverse area.

2. Modification Unnecessary
* Unity Mining has stated that the Dargues Project is still
viable if this modification is refused.
* A small gain for Unity Mining could come at the risk of very large cost to residents, businesses and wildlife in the area.

3. Risks from Tailings Storage Facility (TSF)
* If this plant is approved, dangerous heavy metals and cyanide residues will be stored as waste in the TSF forever.
* The plant will be built on steep land above a vital waterway resulting in very high long term risk of contamination to water used for drinking and agriculture.
* Further assessment must be made of consequences of any spillages of heavy metal material into waterways and seepage from the TSF through the liner.
* Further details of likely chemical composition of tailings and impacts on groundwater and surface waters also needs to be added to the EA.
* Introduction of processing on site makes the composition of the tailings more poisonous and I agree with the EPA that a full risk assessment needs to be done which assesses all environmental risks associated with the TSF.
*I am appalled that Unity has rejected the option of relocating the TSF into the Greater Shoalhaven River Catchment because of an implied risk to the Sydney drinking water catchment yet are happy to impose that risk on the people of the Eurobodalla, having already acknowledged that the TSF might fail.
* A model of the consequences of such a TSF failure must be included given the number of precedents in Australia including at the Ranger Uranium Mine in the NT.

4. Effects of Failure of TSF
* The Unity estimates of the magnitude of stormwater levels are too low given the heavy rainfall events affecting the ridge on which the mine sits.
* Since there is no mechanism to divert spill water from the TSF it would flow into Spring Creek and the Majors Creek system. This is not acceptable.

5. Other Risks
* The EA fails to deal with chemicals other than cyanide used in the gold recovery operation. Details of the discharge concentrations of all these chemicals needs to be included.
* Unity implies that post mining management will be conducted indefinitely by them. This will not be the case and so any construction must ensure that the site will be safe without active and expensive ongoing management.

6. Is the Risk Worth it?
* The risk of failure at the site threatens more jobs and income than the operation would ever create.
* The Moruya River Catchment is dependent on the health of the soils, air and water for its economic survival, given its dependence on agriculture and tourism. Property and businesses worth millions of dollars are at risk. Who will pay for any damage?

7. Unity Mining has Poor Track Record
* The mining company has already had five pollution incidents from this site in six months. They were prosecuted and fined by the NSW Land and Environment Court in three of these cases.
* Unity cites its good record at the Henty Mine, but that site was constructed by a different company. The Dargues Reef Mine is the first test of their ability to develop a mine.
* In 2014 Unity Mining was fined by the EPA in Tasmania for spillage at Henty where there was no contingency plan to deal with it.
* Unity has failed to properly close down and remediate its Bendigo site.

In Conclusion
* The risks associated with onsite processing at the Majors Creek site far exceed any small benefit to the company from some savings.
*Unity claims this modification can be constructed and operated safely in a manner that would satisfy reasonable community expectations. However reasonable community expectations are that there be no risk of dangerous and permanent contamination and this cannot be guaranteed.
* Accidents do occur and already have at this site. Neither the Department nor the EPA can constantly monitor the operations to guarantee continuing safety to all dependent on the water in this catchment.

I am a resident of Majors Creek. I was the elected chairman of the village's original "Community Liaison Committee" maintaining open communication between the company and the community, working for best outcomes for the village in the period leading up to the original EA. I was then appointed by the department of Planning to be a Community Representative on the Dargues Community Consultative Committee(CCC). I also happen to be a shareholder as I felt that if it was going to come here and lower my land values, I wanted my Majors Creek wildlife refuge to get something out of it.
The mine, when initially approved, had managed to gain the cautious optimism of the community and so did have a Social Licence to Operate even though there was some scepticism and some reluctance by the local population to embrace it with open arms. This was ALL based on (among other things) there being no cyanide on site at all. Later, absolute watertight guarantees were made in public, and filmed, committing Unity to no cyanide on site. There have been two other modifications which, due to their fairly innocuous natures, have been "accepted" by the community and their reps on the CCC- the paste fill and the site layout.
Any moves at all towards introducing a cyanide component to the existing approved processing plant negates all and any Social Licence to Operate that Cortona and then Unity had or claims to have. It is an absolute undermining (pun intended), or even demolition of the entire foundation of the agreements between the companies, the authorities and most importantly, the neighbouring people, towns and villages. There has always been some locals strongly opposed to the mine but the Company did have strong support from a few locals and the somewhat suspicious and guarded support of many other locals prior to this application. The EPA decisions to fine them for inadequate safeguards, the announcement that they must have cyanide on site and that they need a much bigger dam (TSF) guarantees their social licence to operate a mine is gone. There is widespread community distrust if not contempt towards the mining company now. Left as it was, it could have been OK- the mine could have made some money and shared a little with the community as good corporate citizens do. Now, if the enlarged TSF and the cyanide plant go ahead against obviously strong community opposition, any donations towards community development will just look sleazy-like the company trying to buy support. I am sure this is not what would be intended but that is the "look" that will be there.
It is important to realise that many of the members of the community, while vehemently opposed to cyanide, are not opposed to the mine per se. I would suggest it is being "ant- Cyanide/ mine tolerant." Which is my stance. Please do not allow these modifications to be approve. Please just let the mine get on with it as originally planned. That is bad enough but I think we can live with it. We had already agreed to do so.
Bill Waterhouse. Majors Creek resident.

1. The proposed modification differs from the original application so significantly that it should be considered anew. The (now repealed) Part 3A process under which it was first approved should be abandoned if the applicant means to change their activities so significantly.

2. The original community acceptance of this mine was based on assurances that cyanide would not be used and deposited in the tailings storage facility. To ask to go back on this once-firm commitment is a betrayal to the community, and a relinquishing of the mine's social licence to operate.

I fully support the Dargues Gold Mine project being proposed by Unity Mining. This is a great opportunity for the local community in so many ways, the direct and indirect employment as a result of the mine going ahead will only strengthen in the short term through construction and then the ongoing operation stage. Local business will be a great benefactors with the increase in trade and give a much needed boost to what is a slowing economic period.
Unity Mining is a responsible and trustworthy operator which has been proven in other communities which it has operated.
This project with all the Government controls in place, which the operator must comply with can only be good for the area.

I feel that as long as the mining company follow all environmental rules in there operation at daruges reef , it should be aloud to open and the community and the mine will prosper This area need a business like Unity mine

.

To whom it may concern,

Having just purchased land on the Moruya River i was extremely distressed to hear that cyanide and other chemicals could potentially damage the water quality of the Deua/Moruya river system. I am a market gardener and plan to grow fruits, vegetables and herbs on the river flats on said land. My company currently produces around $30000 worth of chemical-free food annually with plans to expand with the acquisition of what is prime growing land. This quality of soil is the same on many agricultural businesses which are based on the river. If the river is poisoned, that will lead to food being poisoned, and eventually our customers. A rather daunting proposition really, don't you think? This could lead to potentially mutant humans. Could Unity Mining confirm this is not going to happen?
This obviously doesn't even consider the prospect of people becoming sick and contaminated from simply swimming in the river, let alone the effect it will have on the flora and fauna which habituate the valley.
The Moruya River provides drinking water for tens of thousands of families in the Eurobodalla shire. Post contamination, does that mean that all these people will need to purchase bottled drinking water? Rather scary thought...
The mine will obviously bring many jobs and much wealth to the Australian economy, which is great, but to potentially damage and/or destroy the livelihood and health of many humans is not. The use of cyanide in the processing is the real issue here, which was, as we all know, not included in the original conditions of approval. If Unity Mining can guarantee that cyanide will not be used, then by all means, go ahead with the project.
One cannot control the weather. More importantly, we have no control over seismic activity. In the event of an earthquake, and consequent uncontrollable and immeasurable damage to infrastructure on the site, how will Unity Mining guarantee that this is not going to happen.
The Eurobodalla shire is in a stage of returning to its former glory as a food producing hub. This was recently confirmed by the Sage Farmers Market being awarded the best farmers market in Australia two years in a row, courtesy of Delicious Magazine (The first time this has happened in history). If we want to continue this transformation, then we obviously need water that is clean and pure.
Thankyou for your time.
Please reconsider allowing the use of cyanide on the Dargues Reef Gold Mine, the irreparable damage to the water quality can and will force many humans away from this area.

EA FOR THE DARGUES REEF GOLD MINE MODIFICATION 3 MP_10 0054 July 2015

I object to the proposed THIRD extension & modification
to the Dargues Reef Gold Mine Development Application.

In considering this application the following must be front and centre:

1. Short to Medium term preservation of the quality of water in the catchment from Majors Creek to Moruya.
2. ANY risk of poisoning the flora & fauna that inhabitate this area is unacceptable
3. Human Error/Accidents do happen and have serious consequences -- Oops won't be good enough.
4. Will the mining company underwrite all risks to the rural economies in the catchment including the loss of production and employment associated, and for how long - NO.
5. Why a 3rd modification is needed. Will there be a 4th. Was this always the intent but too much to ask in prior applications? The whole application should now be re-considered in full.

My objection to Mod 3 is based on my personal interest in protecting the future of our environment and the positive relationships in our community.

It is clear from the environmental reports that there is not a question of "if" the cyanide and other heavy metals held in a tailings dam might cause a problem to the local environment, but a question of "when" it will.

I have heard the representative for the mine address the public and I do not have confidence in Unity's interest in providing an ongoing safe environment with Cyanide on site. Unity mentions jobs and financial growth. The jobs will be short lived and the effect of the toxic chemicals to our environment will be forever. The mining company will surely benefit financially from this Modification. Yet the community will not.

Throughout the Summer at least 75% of our family's food is provided by the Araluen valley, and to a lesser extent throughout the winter. I am concerned with what will happen to our food if the environmental impact to the the valley is detrimental, caused by Mod 3.

I attended the Extraordinary Council Meeting for Palerang and was overwhelmed by the community's response to Mod 3. Not one single local audience member supported the Modification.

Mines bring violence, greed, danger and hostility. If the Modification 3 proposal is accepted there will be an increase of all four into our otherwise peaceful community. I've watched this proposal tear apart the local community already and it is only in the discussion phase!

Unity Mining's plans for economic growth in this area do not benefit the local community. We cannot guarantee jobs will go to locals and we can guarantee that property values will plummet around and downstream of the mine. Why should local people who have lived here in excess of thirty years lose what they have worked for, for the benefit of a corporation from far away.

I also believe that the mine has the potential to take resources away from the local community. Our community has small and sufficient police, fire and ambulance resources for our needs. How will we cope with, for example, an accident at the mine, or a spill where people are injured? This would take away much needed resources from the town. Will the mine have it's own fire and ambulance crews on site..?

When the locals of Majors Creek found that they would have a mine in their community, there was an acceptance at the level of what was proposed at the time. Now Unity want to push further, make more money, and put the community in greater harm. This is an outright betrayal. If they are allowed to move forward with this modification, what is stopping them from adding another in a few months, and another, and another. The community wants none of this.

Put an end to anymore Modifications by showing that you respect and support the local community of Majors Creek, Braidwood, Araluen and all the way down to Moruya. We do not accept the Modification Proposal, and neither should the Government.

I oppose this application on behalf of the owners and operators of the Dargues Reef Mine. By their past actions and refusal to respond adequately to the EPA's requirements for the safe operation of their previous regime, they have proven themselves to be an unreliable and untrustworthy company. This application asks that the state now approves an even more dangerous mining regime on the part of a miner which has proved incapable of monitoring and managing properly a much simpler operation. I suspect that economic pressures on the mine's operators to yield a profit from a marginal reef has led them to cut corners in the past. This application further suggests that they are looking to see whether the government will now allow them to cut still more corners in the pursuit of profit and at the expense of the environment.

While not a local resident, we have for many years camped and enjoyed the company of local residents downstream of the mine in the Deua valley/region. Any discharge of heavy metals from inadequate mining and tailings infrastructure would have a devastating impact on this area's population and environment.

Unity is building an enterprise which will create jobs and build Australia's wealth. The company has experience in successfully operating a gold mine in an environmentally sensitive location.
The company should be allowed to pursue its goals and help grow the local, State and Australian economy.

As a 32 year resident of Braidwood I have watched with interest the developments surrounding the possibility of the operation of Dargues Gold mine..
Since the involvement of Unity Mining and their proposal to use Cyanide in the final extraction process I have taken a reasonably close professional interest as well as considering our local employment needs and any business which may support our local populace.(youth employment especially).
Yes, they intend to use cyanide in the final extraction process.
Yes, the oversight authorities will ensure that all risks are minimised in the operation.
The tailings waste storage is in its final state a lode of near solids.
Cyanide breaks down under UV.(hence basically nil residual in the solids tailings)
The water component of the waste storage is reused in the extraction process.
Comments as to the potential of a dam breakage are, in my mind, misguided.
The engineered drawings of the support wall are professional and well within risk parameters.
The use of cyanide in the goldmining business is commonplace.
The oversight of the operation will ensure near total safety.
Any risk will be managed and is minimal.
This mine could be defined as a boutique operation, well managed and certainly well monitored
The directors of unity mining have always been open and prepared to answer any and all questions put to them by any member of the community-including myself.
Our local council has decided NOT to support the application to use cyanide in the extraction process-I believe that the councillors should have undertaken more research into the process and its implication before such a decision was made.
I also believe, having read the DRAFT REPORT prepared by Dr. Beck that no one has time to review or make submissions on his draft. prior to the cut off date of Aug. 28th.
And, as only a draft report,ie.A version of something written that has or will have more than one version-we, as ratepayers will not see a completed report.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
As a professional in the bottled water industry for some 25 years I am well aware of care, process and risk in business.

Although we live in the Blue Mountains we also have a beach house near Moruya, which we frequently visit. We often travel via Braidwood and then down through the Araluen and Deua Valleys. Also our Canberra family often cycles around and through Majors Creek. So we know this area well.

Having a mine close by to a village is bad enough but for it to also process the gold ore on site using cyanide in such steep terrain is extremely dangerous - for those living closeby as well as all the people (and wildlife) downstream from the mine. Farmers as well - some of Australia's best stone fruit is grown in the Araluen Valley.

Sediment dams can easily fail (due to storms, heavy rain, flash flooding, over filling) - and I believe this has already happened.

This proposed development is far too risky to the people, their livelihoods, (and not forgetting the wildlife) in this most beautiful piece of Australian bush and valley countryside.

One major cyanide spill could be deadly to all who live there.

Yours sincerely
Hilary Hughes.

To whom it may concern
I am a strong supporter of the award winning Moruya / SAGE Fresh Produce Growers Market, where food is sourced from many farming areas on the Moruya and Deua Rivers. As such, I believe an application to include cyanide In the process of mining gold at the head of these rivers creates too high a risk factor for the downstream waterways, flora and fauna that would definitely be impacted by even the slightest of leaching or any accidents. A similar gold mine's tailings, the Gold King Mine in Colorado last week has had horrendous downstream impacts, killing flora, fauna and poisoning the drinking water. The Colorado Governor has declared this a Disaster. This is too big a risk to take on our fragile environment. I object as a member of the community that sees the livelihood of ourselves, our farms, our produce and thus our future in the Eurobodalla being out a t risk by this application.

I oppose the application because the mining company, even with greatest diligence and skill the mining company cannot guarantee that the enlarged tailings storage and chemicals used in processing will not at some time in the future contaminate the catchment of the Deua river and thence the water supply for the Eurobodalla Shire. I base my scepticism on contamination of the Molonglo River by tailings from the Captains Flat mines some 40 years ago and the very recent release of contaminants including heavy metals into a river in the US by EPA officers, the very people who are charged with protecting the environment from such "accidents".
As with airliner crashes, the risk is very small but the consequences are catastrophic and irreversible.

Submission on EA FOR THE DARGUES REEF GOLD MINE MODIFICATION 3 MP_10 0054
July 2015

As a resident of Moruya in the Eurobodalla Shire I want to state my strong objection to this third modification
to the Dargues Reef Gold Mine Development Application. I strongly object to the assumption that there will never be failures in the design or running of the proposed processing plant. Accidents have already happened in relation to this mine and it is in a catchment that provides the water supply for around 40,000 people. This application, as with the original application, does not refer to or assess any of the risks posed to this drinking supply.

It is clear to me that the proposed modification creates a pollution risk that is totally unacceptable for the following reasons.

This modification is not necessary. It is a cost cutting exercise as confirmed by the EA. Unity Mining has officially stated the project is viable without this modification. There are other alternatives rather than this high risk construction in an inappropriate site.

The Deua is one of the most pristine rivers in NSW, it is a biodiverse area and this modification would threaten the drinking water of wildlife as well as people. Failure over the years of the tailings storage facility (TSF) would threaten the Bateman's Bay Marine Park as well as the orchards and market gardens of the Araluen Valley

My greatest fear in relation to this modification are the tailings that will have to be safely stored forever. Dangerous heavy metals and cyanide residues left after the gold is extracted, will be stored forever as waste in an enlarged TSF. It will be built on steep land, subject to heavy rainfall and situated above a vital waterway. Any breach could result in downstream water used for drinking or agriculture becoming contaminated with dangerous heavy metals. There is insufficient information on seepage through the TSF liner and no assessment of the risk of heavy metals in the river system.

he proposed process makes the composition of the tailings more poisonous and I totally agree with the EPA that a full risk assessment needs to be done which addresses all environmental risks associated with the TSF. This should include consideration of moving the TSF to a more appropriate part of the site. Technical difficulties or additional cost should not be allowed to compromise safety. I was pretty shocked when I heard the excuse that "Construction of TSF in Greater Shoalhaven River Catchment was not considered in the original DA because this catchment forms a component of Sydney drinking water catchment and any proposal there would have imposed additional regulatory requirements." This treats me, a resident of the Moruya River catchment as a second class citizen and less worthy of protection.

A model of what could happen in a TSF failure needs to be included. The claim by Unity CEO that structures built in Australia do not fail because they are well built is incorrect. The Ranger's uranium mine tailings dam has spilled into the Magella Creek wetlands more than once. There have been various recent examples of such failures overseas.

As well as being a Moruya resident I also own a small piece of land in the Deua Valley. I am very aware of the torrential rain that can fall there and change a benign river into a raging torrent. Long term rainfall records for properties surrounding the site reveal that Unity estimates of magnitude of stormwater levels are too low. To date this local information has not been incorporated into the original climate model. This would indicate that the estimate of one or two spills per year from the TSF may be an underestimate.

I am concerned that there is no mechanism to divert spill water from the TSF and it would just flow into Spring Creek and the Majors Creek System. Since it is accepted that spillages can contain copper and mercury that exceed safe levels the build-up of these metals in the soil where crops are irrigated with contaminated water is a real possibility. It's also possible for build-up of these metals in the soil downstream over time.

The ongoing care and maintenance of the TSF is of special concern to me.The company will not operate at or care for the site indefinitely. Any construction must ensure that the site is safe without active and expensive ongoing management by the company and its successors or the NSW state government.

Much has been made by Unity of the six to ten million dollars per year it predicts will be added to the local economy. Keeping our water catchment and food production areas safe is worth far more than this. Local food production is increasing and providing increasing levels of employment and income. What are the economic costs of a series of small spills or a major spill? Who will pay the cost?

The auditors for Unity Mining have recently raised concerns about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. What will that mean for the company's ability to realise their assets and discharge their liabilities.

Apart from the economic uncertainty surrounding Unity Mining there is the matter of their operational record. I have been shocked at the number of accidents at the Dargues Reef site before mining has even begun. Their environmental record is woeful and I can find no reason to believe it will get better when they are dealing with far more dangerous chemicals.

There were 5 pollution incidents in the 6 months they operated. They were fined a total of $200,000 by the NSW Land and Environment Court. Those living downstream and close to the site had to repeatedly quarantine their water supply, dispose of polluted water safely and repair pumps damaged by grit. People in Bendigo are very unhappy with the way Unity has left its Bendigo mine site under care and maintenance rather than close it down properly and remediate it and I believe they were fined by the EPA in Tasmania for a spillage at their Henty site.

Another major fear I have is what comes next if this modification is allowed. There are other active gold mining leases in this region. Another modification would allow the Dargues processing plant to accept ore for processing from these mines. In his address to the AGM in 2014, the Chairman of Unity Mining said it would be irrational for unity to restrict use of its proposed plant to just one mine site.

In Eurobodalla we have this unique and precious catchment supporting endangered wildlife and incorporating parts of a marine park. It provides the drinking water for 40,000 people and is a productive food growing area. None of this should be put at risk to increase profits for a mining company that has already let this community down and for a little more gold. This community deserves better than to be left with a mining legacy that will forever pose a threat to our region.

Submission on EA FOR THE DARGUES REEF GOLD MINE MODIFICATION 3MP_10 0054 July 2015

As a resident of the Deua River Valley I vehemently oppose this third modification to the Dargues Reef Gold Mine Development Application proposed by Unity Mining. The risks associated with the modifications pose a life long threat to communities and the environment reliant on water from the Deua River system.
The fact that Unity has failed to assess or even consider these risks to downstream water users is appalling. CEO and Managing Director, Andrew McIlwain admitted, at a community consultation in Moruya, that there are risks and yet the EA fails to address the issue of accidents/failures or contingency plans if/when such an event should occur.
It is outrageous that downstream water users were never consulted in regard to the original DA and yet it is us(or generations to follow) who will suffer the potentially catastrophic consequences of a mine failure if this modification is approved.

RISKS
*Cyanide leaching results in waste material with toxic heavy metal content to be stored in a 16 hectare Tailings Storage Facility(TSF) located on a steep escarpment - the headwaters of the Deua River Catchment, and will remain there for ever. Any leakage from this dam, or breach in the bund wall would contaminate this catchment.
*The Environmental Protection Authority agrees that the use of cyanide processing significantly escalates the risk of environmental harm.
*Mine site located on Majors Creek Fault Line. Ground movement, whether activated by mining or not, would interfere with the stability of the entire mine site. The implications of which could be catastrophic.
*Toxic chemicals, explosives and cyanide leaching tanks on site pose an enormous risk in the event of a malfunction, accident, severe weather event or seismic activity. The recent explosion in China involving sodium cyanide is a prime example.
*Soil structure extremely susceptible to erosion, as evidenced by EPA breaches during construction during normal rainfall conditions. TSF bund wall and levee mounds to divert runoff are inadequate to withstand a heavy rainfall event, particularly if the ground is already saturated.
*Prolonged drought conditions would mean accessing large amounts ground water, thereby depleting precious water reserves essential to nearby landowners and environmental needs.
*Any incident resulting in toxic material escaping into the water catchment during a high rainfall event would not only effect water quality but would be deposited over all inundated land.
*Unity does not address issues relating to TSF failure or leakage in their EA. It is essential that downstream water users are notified before contaminated water is consumed or used for irrigation purposes.
*Accidents can and do happen!

AT RISK
*Community and environment surrounding mine site from air, noise and water pollution, as well as mine operation depleting groundwater supply during drought.
*Agricultural and domestic water users along Spring Creek, Majors Creek and Deua River.
*Water supply for Eurobodalla Shire residents - population 40,000. Increasing to 100,000 during tourist season.
*Batemans Marine Park where the river reaches the sea.
*Endangered and threatened flora, fauna and ecological communities.
*Environs of Deua National Park which the river runs through.
*Tourism in Deua River Valley - Holiday cottages, 3 NP camping grounds, fire trails popular with 4WD's & trail bikes, a marked route for push bike riders.
*Recreational use of river for canoeing, swimming, fishing etc.
*Livelihoods of residents(and those they employ) reliant on river water and fertile river flats for orchards, commercial vegetable farming, fodder crops and cattle grazing.
*The income of those employed by the above businesses.
*Property values as Dargues is even now seen as a threat to agricultural businesses along the river, as well as to the integrity of the natural environment that residents and visitors enjoy.
*Mine workers, particularly during a seismic event.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
*Unity predicts an annual contribution of 6 to 10 million dollars into the local economy - this being Braidwood and Majors Creek. However there is still great opposition to the mine in this area due to the associated risks.
To those downstream of the mine this figure is irrelevant. There are no benefits, only risks. The threat to tourism and the livelihoods of residents, those they employ and businesses in town that rely on their patronage will all be put at risk. The cost for us, both financially and intrinsically, far outweighs any benefits foreseen by Unity.
*State and Federal Governments will not receive any additional income from taxes, royalties or rates if this modification is approved.
*Unity Mining has stated that the project is still viable if the modification is refused.
*Unity is insisting on this site for commercial convenience while ignoring the enormous increase in risk.
*A high risk site such as Dargues should not be used for cyanide processing when there are viable alternatives.

UNITY MINING'S RECORD
*There have been 5 pollution incidents at the Dargues site so far, costing $200,000 in fines, even though mining has not yet begun.
*Unity uses the Henty mine as an example of their good record. However, this mine was constructed by another company as a showpiece. Dargues will be Unity's first real test of their capabilities.
*Unity was fined for a spillage at Henty which had no contingency plan to deal with it - something that is also lacking at the Dargues site.
*The community does not trust Unity. During the initial DA process, the CEO of Unity repeatedly assured the public that cyanide processing would never occur at Dargues.
Unity has also publically repeated that the Dargues mine will not be used for processing ore from other mines. However, the Chairman's Address to the AGM 2014, said that it would be irrational for Unity to restrict use of its proposed plant to just one mine.

CONSIDERING THE FUTURE
*The construction of a cyanide processing plant at Dargues will fundamentally change the economics of mining in this area.
*Other gold prospecting licences are active across the region, which means Dargues could be "modified" again and again to accommodate any new mines, extensions to Dargues to include other gold bearing lodes in the vicinity or processing of ore from other mines.
*What happens if Unity goes bankrupt, is bought out by another company or the price of gold falls dramatically? How can they be held accountable? Who becomes responsible for a clean up operation in the event of an accident, or remediation of the mine site if it ceases operation?
*Who will regularly monitor water quality once mining ceases and the TSF is left in situ for ever.
*What are the contingency plans if the catchment and Eurobodalla's water supply is contaminated?
*Will property owners and businesses be compensated in the event of the catchment being contaminated?


LEGISLATION
*In the Decision on Approval of Dargues Reef mine, in section 24, "Request for Variation of Plans, Programs or Activities by Proponent," it states that, "The Minister will not approve a varied plan, program or activity unless the revision would result in an equivalent or improved environmental outcome over time." With this modification the impact of the environmental risks would be more damaging, more widespread and extend far beyond the life of the mine.
*In "Barrick Australia Ltd v Williams(2009) NSWCA 275: Requests to modify Part 3A projects under s75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979(NSW)," the Court of Appeal recognised that the legislature intended s75W modifications to have limited environmental consequences beyond those already approved. It would seem that s75W cannot apply to the Dargues modification due to the escalation of environmental risks.
*Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes, stated in the Sydney Morning Herald recently that, "Compliance conditions are crucial to striking the balance between the significant benefits major projects can bring in terms of job creation and investment and minimising the likelihood of potential impacts on communities." In the case of the Dargues Modification, there are no significant benefits compared to the potential impact on communities if there was an accident at the mine site or if the TSF fails and we are left with a contaminated catchment and water supply for an entire shire.

Unity Mining will be the sole economic beneficiary from this modification as the environmental risks associated with the project far outweigh any financial gain to those living in the immediate vicinity of the mine or those relying on the Deua River Catchment. Property and businesses worth millions of dollars will be put at risk, not to mention the risk of irreversible damage to unique natural environments and they're inhabitants.
Even with constant and ongoing monitoring of the TSF, which would be cost prohibitive, there can still be no guarantee that leakages or a major collapse of the TSF bund wall will not occur during the mine life or in the future. In fact, it is a matter of `when' not `if'.

Unity Mining has not exercised responsible environmental stewardship to date at this site. The company has been convicted in the Land and Environment Court for three pollution events. This has led to a serious deficit of trust with the community.
With sediments dams already having failed on site previously, it is inappropriate for the company to process gold ore on site using cyanide.
There would be significant and negative effects on biodiversity, human health and the water catchment should a cyanide spill occur.
There are 23 rare, vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species dependent on this environment.
The precautionary principle should be applied and the company's application rejected.

Any chance of contamination to Majors Creek, the Araluen Valley and Deua River catchment is not worth the risk.
Unity Mining was fined for sediment contaminating Majors Creek 2 years ago in a high rainfall event. As well as cyanide they will use lead & Mercury. These do not break down. The company will take its gold & make its money. They don't care about what happens to the rivers & environment once they leave. I do. I have lived on the Deua River for most of my life. It's a magical place. And not worth risking for the 1% to profit from.
No dollar value can be put on our river. What would we do if the gold mine poisoned our river?

Dargues Reef Project Application 10 0054 MOD 3
My name is Jackie French. My property is approx. 4 km downstream on Major's Creek from the Dargues Project, and was repeatedly polluted by emissions from the Project for much of the six months that Unity operated there in 2013. Except during that period in 2013 our household uses the creek water domestically, for stock use, and, irregularly, for irrigation. We hold a water license.
The Dargues Project is approx. 300 metres above us on the steep escarpment, which means that any water borne emissions from the Project reach us in ten minutes at times of high, but not necessarily extreme, rainfall.
I am 2015 Senior Australian of the Year; 2015 NSW Senior Australian of the Year; the 2014-2015 Australian Children's Laureate, representing Australian publishing in Australia and internationally; patron of organisations across Australia promoting literacy and children's welfare, including Marymead's Books for Kids, ACT SPELD; QLD SPELD; DAGS (a SA dyslexia programme); Monkey Baa Theatre for Young People and the NSW YESS programme; ACT Children's week Ambassador; Director of the Wombat Foundation; author, with books translated into more than 32 languages and which earn in excess of $3 million per annum for the NSW economy from one publishing company alone (HarperCollins will make a submission on the economic value of my work, both as a writer and an advocate). The books and have won over 60 awards in Australia and internationally as well as appearing on the New York Times Best seller list. Several have been adapted for the stage, TV and radio broadcasts, and tour internationally.
I directly employ eight staff, but the flow on effect of my work employs many hundreds, including actors, directors, musical composers, choreographers, set designers, editors, books designers, booksellers and more. I write an average of six books a year, usually one substantial work as well as smaller works for children, except during the six months of pollution episodes in 2013 and this year, where time- and potentially millions of dollars for NSW - have been wasted responding an error ridden and inadequate proposal by a minor mining company with a local record of repeated broken promises.
More than 50% of my income is given to causes I support, with royalties increasingly contracted directly to those causes. Flood, with Bruce Whatley, raised over $110,000 in three months for the 2011 QLD Premier's Flood Appeal and still continues to raise money for those affected by natural disasters. My recent projects have been speaking on literacy in isolated regional areas across Australia. Most of these, like Kalgoorlie, Coolgardie and Port Headland, are mining based communities where I admire and respect the many mining companys' work, enterprise and community engagement. The current project is personally funding the inaugural "1,000 Magic Books Project", where a list of books is given for children in need or who have literacy problems, so they can select a book that we will give them to tempt them to read more complex works.
My husband and I run an orchard, with over 800 fruit trees, experimenting with 272 species and varieties of fruit and breeding cold-tolerant varieties of some subtropical and tropical fruits. I am also a gardening writer; award winning historian; and have worked on many published studies of the area's ecology in the past forty years, including work on the common wombat, local macropods, the habitat range of Eucalyptus kartzoffiana; monitor lizards; seasonal variations in the echidna diet, and many others. Unity Mining's representatives and those closely financially associated with the company are the only people who have ever queried my integrity, truthfulness, and my knowledge of this area.
In 2013 much of our property was donated to become the Neverbreak Hills Voluntary Conservation Area and was extensively surveyed by the NSW Department of Environment in 2012 and 2013. These studies corroborated the pristine value of both this Conservation Area and the adjacent Major's Creek Conservation Area directly below the Dargues site, as well as the existence of the endangered species and forest types listed in the points below.
Both Conservation Areas share species and ecological values, as one of NSW's major bird and animal migration corridors as well as being home to at least 23 endangered, critically endangered or vulnerable species.
It should not need stating that I am not anti mining; that I value my long and continued work with mining companies, and that it took a considerable number of broken promises from Cortona/Unity to change my attitude from one of support for the Dargues Project to attempting to improve the Conditions of Approval, to then, vainly, to have all those Conditions of Approval kept by the company.

Major Reasons for Objections
1.The design of the Tailings Dam Facility, bunded areas, and other construction work for this Modification is based on false figures for the Braidwood rainfall, including reducing the estimated rainfall by 36% or overestimating it at other times by 70% according to BOM figures published on their web site.
BOM figures also show that rainfall at Major's Creek is roughly 30% higher than at the Braidwood weather station. As Dargues is at Major's Creek, and as the Major's Creek figures are accurate and available, there can be no reason to refer to the Braidwood figures unless it is because Braidwood's lower rainfall would thus reduce the size, risk potential and cost of the designs in this Modification.
The EA also overstates monthly evaporation data at the Braidwood station by between 23% and 158%. The annual evaporation quoted in the EA is 1615mm. The BOM figure is 1003 mm. This is an overstatement of 61%.
Major's Creek, however, is frequently fog covered, unlike Braidwood. These fogs can occur at any time of year and may remain for three days. Major's Creek evaporation would thus be far lower than Braidwood's.
These errors are of such major significance that the entire project design is invalidated, from the size of the tailings dam to bunded areas and safety precautions.
I submit that the Modification be rejected and the project redesigned according to the accurate data provided by the BOM.
I further submit that the origin of the inaccurate EA data should be investigated.
In addition, the Australian public has been asked to comment on false data during the Exhibition period.
The Department of Planning has a duty of care. It may be reasonable to put EA with insufficient detail on public exhibition if the proponent demands it. Publishing inaccurate data of this significance for the Project design however needs an immediate and public retraction.
It also arguably invalidates submissions prepared on the basis of this data.
I request that, unless the Department feels that the magnitude of errors that support the project design in the EA deserves and immediate refusal of the Modification, that a further six weeks be given for public consultation, with the correct rainfall and evaporation figures included in advertisements in local papers, so that the public, independent experts and government authorities may assess the project using accurate data.

2. False and unsubstantiated figures for dilution rates after pollution discharges on site, caused by the refusal the company to take appropriate downstream samples in the major's Creek and Neverbreak Hills Conservation areas during the 2013 pollution events. Samples however were taken, as were expert evaluations, proving that in medium rainfall events, i.e. February 2013, pollution levels after the event can be higher in the creek bed 4 km downstream than they were at any stage below the site, as the pollution `settles out' as the land flattens, and becomes contained in drifts and fill the often vast pools of the Major's Creek Conservation area.
3. The EA claim of negligible risk to human life ignores the speed of sediment flow along Major's Creek and down the 300 metre escarpment during the 2013 discharges.
Measurements from the February 2013 Dargues Pollution event proves that cyanide or heavy metal pollution can reach our property within ten minutes, well within the period when cyanide may be lethal and undiluted by rainfall.
4. The lack of any practical means to contact nearby residents in case of catastrophic failure. This area has no mobile phone reception and our house, workshops, garden and orchard are next to the creek, where our grandchildren and other children swim. This Modification is thus a major risk to our lives, and the lives of family, friends and the over 1,000 visitors each year who attended workshops here.
5. Lack of sufficient data for expert evaluation. Expert independent reports such as those by Dr Peter Beck and others repeat the same observation: that the data in the EA is at times either absent or too sketchy to be able to draw valid conclusions. The company appears to believe it is acceptable to exclude even plans for air quality until after the submission has been approved.
6. The existence of conservatively several hundred tonnes of sediment from the 2013 Dargues pollution events still remaining on our property after two years in dunes along the creek and in the deep pools of the Major's Creek Conservation Area. This `larder of pollutants' means that if the next pollution down Major's Creek from Dargues is contaminated by heavy metal residues then it too may collect here. Eurobodalla's water supply would thus be at risk in high rainfall periods even when there no pollution is being emitted from the Dargues site.
7. The failure to assess any of the high conservation values directly below the site in both the Major's Creek Conservation Area and the Neverbreak Hills Voluntary Conservation, despite this being a Condition of Approval both prior to and during construction, and despite repeated requests for the company to do these surveys. Instead, Unity repeatedly describes of the land below their site as `degraded farmland'.
8. Five pollution events in the six months the company operated at Dargues; as well as structural collapses witnessed during on site CCC meetings, of which I am a member (Unity now denies any structural collapses).
9. Refusal to comply with all of the Conditions of Approval by the Land and Environment Court. PAC and Federal authorities, as well as claiming that the company has no duty to do so, but only to abide by the Department of Planning Management Plans, which the Department recently stated are merely part of the whole duty Compliance, and do not supersede the Conditions of Approval.
10. Repeated expressed contempt for regulatory authorities such as the EPA, and failure to follow their directives, including Unity's refusal in August 2013 to urgently contact downstream water users after the illegal use of an unregistered flocculent for more than two months. (Unity now claims the EPA did not contact them about this issue; however my phone call to the Unity Hotline the next day refutes that, as do records of ABC interviews by the EPA and the Company at the time, and articles and advertisements in the Braidwood Times.)
11. The repeated initial denial by the company of their responsibility for four of the five 2013 pollution events, and their subsequent admission and plea of `guilty' during their prosecution. According to the judge's report, this admission greatly reduced the fine which amounted to approx. $206,000 with costs.
12. The failure of the PAC process to protect the community from pollution, due to the inaccurate data provided to them and the public by the company, and the company's subsequent failures of Compliance.

Further and more detailed Objections

1. The EA states that the design of this project is based on Braidwood rainfall and evaporation figures. Braidwood rainfall is however approx. 30% lower that at the Dargues site at Major's Creek and the evaporation rate would be higher.
However according to the report by Dr O'Loughlin, the EA even uses incorrect figures for the Braidwood rainfall including reducing the estimated rainfall by 36% or overestimating it by 70% according to BOM figures published on their web site. BOM figures also show that rainfall at Major's Creek is roughly 30% higher than at the Braidwood weather station. The EA also overstates monthly evaporation data at the Braidwood station by between 23% and 158%. The annual evaporation quoted in the EA is 1615mm. The BOM figure is 1003 mm. This is an overstatement of 61%.
The extent of these discrepancies means that the entire design is invalidated. As Dr O'Loughlin states, this is an EA for an arid area project, not one subject to coastal flooding, fog, snow and hail.
The EA also excludes the irregular, highly localized extreme weather events the Dargues site is subject to. Monthly rainfall figures may be misleading if over 1000mls falls in a single day, with no rain falling on other days that month. Major rainfall events based on thunderstorms also frequently spill large amounts of water in a short time, but due to the dry compacted soil almost 100% of the water runs off. Rainfall of 50 mls would normally soak into the soil at Major's Creek, but in a drought, almost the entire amount may run over the slopes and into the creeks, causing a flash flood, leaving the land dry the next day.
Major's Creek's often low evaporation rate may also mean that the soil stays sodden for long periods even in years of average rainfall, , and on steep sites, such as Dargues, slumpages regularly occur after days of rainfall.
Unity's claims of one in a hundred year flood events do not fit the BOM data, nor the rainfall data collected here from 1974 onwards. The Hyland family's Araluen rainfall records, which I have read, go back to the 1880's.
These errors or falsifications mean that the entire design is based on a major underestimation of the necessary size for the Tailings Dam Facility, Bunded areas and sediment dams, and well as underestimating risks of slumpage, erosion, flash floods that may carry polluted material downstream and other events associated with a far higher rainfall than the EA states.
This error of such major significance that the entire project design is invalidated.
I submit the entire Development Application (DA) rests upon a design of the Tailings Storage Facility based on greatly underestimated rainfall and overestimated evaporation; a lack of any data to support their assessment of the dilution factor 1-12 km downstream to limit fatalities; and the false assumption that residents can - or will- be warned in sufficient time to prevent human casualties or use of polluted irrigation or household in a likely pollution event.
No risk assessment can be made until the tailings dam design has been redone to fit the actual and reliable data.
I submit that the Modification be rejected until such time as accurate data is provided and the project redesigned take that information into account.

I further request that the Minister use his powers to reject this Modification now. Taxpayers' money and Departmental resources should not be spent further evaluating a project with false underpinnings, nor should the local economy continue to suffer the financial uncertainties that followed the announcement of the possible Modification. It has cost the community over $3 million in lost income, fruit trees, investment, property values and much more, as well as community driven to breakdown because of their fear of the consequences of this proposal.
I submit that a company capable of so many errors with such wide implications, should not be regarded as fit to conduct a project with such potentially fatal effects on a steep and vulnerable slope at the top of a major watershed upon which over 100,000 people rely for household, business and irrigation water.

2. Implications of the inaccurate rainfall data
While it would take an engineering firm months to work out what the size and design of the tailings dam and bunded areas and sediment dams should be using the accurate data, it can be assumed that the TSF would need to be significantly larger to cope with the increased run-off, and might need a further Tailings dam below the first one to catch spillage.
It is also possible, given the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) request that the TSF be moved to a less vulnerable site (See GIPFO documents in appendix 3), that a TSF of an appropriate size and a secondary dam needed to catch spillage may be too large for the current Dargues Reef site.
This, however, is a subject for Knight Piésold to reassess when they have been provided with the correct rainfall and evaporation data.

3. Further Design Implications of the Inaccurate Falsified Rainfall Figures Used in the Design.
The Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is only designed to cope with a maximum 1500 mls of rainfall within a 72-hour period. The company states that if there is more rainfall than this, any polluted spillage will be diluted and therefore is negligible so there was no need to study the possible consequences.
Even without the rainfall underestimation error underpinning the entire design, and given the average rainfall data and given the nature of rainfall on the site, where the ridge on which the project sits is frequently subject to heavy rainfall that does not fall downstream - you can on occasion even see the curtain of rain that hangs above the site -¬ this is inadequate in the extreme.
Any adequate design must include an area where any spillage would be contained even when three times that amount can fall in a three-day period. 1250 mm can fall on that site alone, in a twenty-four hour period both as rain and hail, as happened on 1 January, 1983, with further rain falling more than an hour after a flash flood had swept down the dry creek bed. (Note: water was still contained in the State Conservation Area pools and on our property but the water in these pools did not impede nor dilute the flood debris, given the speed and height of the flash flood.)

It is reasonable to assume that the term 1:100 year flood means exactly that - the largest recorded or experienced rain episode in the area in the last hundred years. The company's estimates of the magnitude of possible storm water levels bears no relation to the history of the site. The company has been offered data about extreme events but has refused it, nor does their data cover the implications of the severe summer hail or winter snow fall and snow melt the site is subject to.
507 mls in a 77-hour period can occur five times in a three-week period - as it did in 1947, 1975, 1978 (six times in a three-week period), 1983 and others.
The report states that the spillway discharges will be diluted 10,000 times but gives no detail about how that is to happen. Where is the water to come from to dilute the contaminated water to this extent? It also ignores the danger of buildup in the soil downstream from even minor spillages over a period of years. In dry years Unity will have difficulty even providing compensatory water for that removed from groundwater and Spring and Majors Creeks.
As well as underestimating the regular and irregular rainfall of the site, Unity does not substantiate how their compensatory water dams can supply sufficient water in drought years.

4. Lack of sufficient data for expert evaluation.
This has been repeated in all the independent experts' reports. Given the company's history of poor design and compliance, it cannot be assumed that the designs, plans and data they have failed to put in the report are in any way adequate.


5. There is no model of what could happen in a tailings dam failure.
Instead, the company states there have never been such failures. This is not correct. A tailings dam failure does not need to be a complete failure to have catastrophic effects downstream. Nor has Unity demonstrated its ability to construct a site to common NSW standards in its six months of construction. Instead, in correspondence received under GIPFO, Unity repeatedly states it has the right to use the lowest construction standards of any operation in NSW, using each one as a precedent and expressing repeated contempt for any EPA request for a design that suits the site and the risk level.


6. The vulnerability of tailings taken to the tailings dam by pipe.
What if this pipe is damaged by equipment, earthquake or tremors? The site is on the Majors Creek fault zone. Pipes fail even more often than tailings dams.
While the pipe will be in a bunded area, this bund as currently designed will only contain 110% of the contents of the pipe and so relies on the swift response of staff.
The company has yet to demonstrate that it is capable of this sort of timely and appropriate response at the Dargues Reef site, as it has all too often failed to do so in the past. This design is also vulnerable to the flow on effect of the underestimated rainfall figures. and cannot be evaluated until the actual figures are used.

7. The Potentially Deadly Consequences of the EA's False and Misleading Dilution Figures
The danger to the public from a cyanide or heavy metal-rich spill from the site depends on the level, rate and speed of dilution. Unity states that any cyanide spill will be diluted by the time it reaches the confluence with Araluen Creek or within 24 hours.
Unity Mining, however, has refused, on repeated occasions, to follow the Land and Environment Court's Conditions of Approval and survey Majors Creek from Spring Creek to its confluence with Araluen Creek.
They have also refused to take any samples of polluted water from below the site to twenty kilometres below the site, where the pollution is diluted by Araluen Creek.
Unity's samples are taken below their site, on land that drops steeply to the valley, or twenty km downstream, where the pollution is diluted by Araluen Creek. This mean that Unity have no data for this vital 20 km stretch immediately below their site on which to base their claims of dilution. Luckily data exists, including photographs and expert's assessment.
Once pollution reaches the valley, the speed of the water drops as it reaches more level ground. Heavier material drops out of the stream. This is acerbated by the deep pools in the bedrock that are the only source of water for the more than 23 endangered, critically endangered and vulnerable species (see Appendix) of the Conservation Areas.
Instead of being diluted, the pollution settles in those pools, including the ones where tourists and family and friends swim, and other pools from which we take our household, business and irrigation water. Because of the deep pools in the bedrock - none of which have been surveyed at any stage by Unity despite requests and the provisions of the Conditions of Approval- the pollution can stay in those pools, undiluted, as fresh water flows over the heavier material at the bottom of the pools until a larger flood finally scours them clean, while lighter silt material is captured by the crevices in rocks and smaller, higher pools.
Evidence of the 2013 pollution events can still be seen in those pools, as there has not been a flood large enough to clean them out. But that material at the moment is the relatively benign sediment from the project's preliminary earthworks.
If instead if the material on our property and in the Major's Creek Conservation Area had been contaminated with heavy metals, either from a spill from the tailings dam, from a tear in the lining, from movement along the Majors Creek fault line on which the mine sits, from a break in the pipe carrying contaminated material to the tailings dam, from an overturned truck or from simple human error (which the work on the Dargues Reef site has already been prone to) then the scenarios might catastrophic, in the case of a truck containing cyanide overturning near the Major's Creek bridge in wet weather or when the road is patched with black ice in winter, or difficult to navigate in the areas impenetrable fogs.
A less immediately deadly but sadly probable scenario is a series of small spills containing heavy metals, at a time when the rainfall is not enough to carry the material down past Araluen Creek where greater water flow may dilute it.
This would mean an accretion of heavy metal tainted material, contaminating the water; any land that was irrigated by it; and greatly impacting human health for anyone who used bit or the children who swim in it.
While we can warn family and friends not to swim in the creek, the extent and many access areas where tourists walk down or up the creek, or camp on properties along the creek, not just at the camp site, means that it would not be possible to even signpost them all as dangerous' Do not swim' or `do not drink the water'.

The deliberate and repeated refusal to test pollution levels in the Major's Creek Conservation Area and our property means that Unity have no data about dilution rates.
Luckily the EPA did do such tests, as did we.
These tests show that while the water tested was diluted, in three of the four sediment events the long term pollution residues on the stream bed were far higher on our property than just below the site.
Indeed, the stream that was classified as a ` ... pristine rocky steam bed' by the Dept. of Environment in 2013 when we converted our property to a Voluntary Conservation Refuge is now solid with Dargues Reef silt. This material can still be tested and compared to the Dargues sediment, and was recognised as similar to material seen on site by Dr Beck on his inspection here, immediately after his site inspection of the Dargues site. (Unity now claims that Dr Beck did not do a site inspection of the Dargues site, despite an email exchange copied to CCC members, of whom I am one, arranging this inspection.)
At least 100 tonnes or more of sediment is still sitting in the upper reaches of Major's Creek in the Araluen valley from the 2013 pollution events. This sediment is not stable. It consists of banks of mud, silt and grit along the banks of the creek and filling up to a third the capacity of the deep pool in the two Conservation areas.
If this material were contaminated with heavy metals or cyanide residues they would be a vast reservoir of potential contamination for Eurobodalla's water system. Depending on the force of water it may betaken down river and washed out to season one major event, or, more dangerously, deposited along the riverbed, a series of `pollution time bombs' where it may be impossible to predict when they would reach Eurobodalla
There has been no major rainfall event or flood since the project in 2013, but when the next one hits, this silt will progress down to Deua to Moruya. A similar scenario with material containing heavy metals would mean disaster.

While heavy metal contamination is most likely, even using the inaccurate data in the company's EA, catastrophic events from cyanide cannot be ruled out, given the local road hazards of ice and fog, as Dr Beck's report points out.
Ten minutes or even twenty minutes is not enough time for cyanide to become volatile and cease to be dangerous or deadly to humans and animals. Nor is ten minutes enough time to warn us of an accident above us, even assuming the company would do so. (When the EPA requested that Unity tell downstream users to quarantine all water from Majors Creek in 2013 after the company had used an unregistered flocculent, Unity refused and continues to refuse to do so. In August 2013 the EPA were forced to call downstream water users at night, urgently warning them to stop using all water from the creek and to inform others as soon as possible. The EPA then took out public advertisements in local newspapers for those who had not been informed.)
Unity's track record of admitting errors or accidents is not just poor, but appalling. They have yet to admit that any household, business or area of the local environment, including the fish and frogs Major's Creek is rich in, might have suffered any harm from any of the events of 2013, nor offered any reason why throughout those incidents they refused to test water in the creek or water systems on our property beyond:
. You did not request it (See the appendix recording our many requests, which were followed up by repeated calls to the Unity Hotline, at those times it happened to be manned. I also publicly requested water testing on ABC radio, which eliciting the ` we respect your privacy' response which was followed by an incredulous comment by the presenter, Genevieve Jacobs: `But she is on air asking you to test the water on her property.')
Other reasons for not testing the pollution levels here have included:
. It is not cost effective
.it is not included in the Departmental Management Plans, which supersede Conditions of Approval.
. That is a special case and will not be discussed further
Given that the company crosses Major's Creek on our property, just opposite the house every three months, with our permission, to take water samples from their test bores on our property: and that we have on each pollution event have contacted the company repeatedly by email, phone, in person, at the Community Consultative Committee (CCC) and - as a last resort- on radio, to ask for water samples to be taken; and given that on at least two occasions Unity staff visited here during the sediment pollution events but refused to take samples either of the creek water or the water in our household tanks, is it possible that Unity prefers not to have data on pollution levels and effects in this area?
A risk of catastrophic pollution
Given the ten- twenty minutes needed for pollution from the site, or Major's Creek Road on the way to the site, to travel to our property after a rainfall of 72 mls over three days, there would be a major risk a lethal dose of cyanide or heavy metals in the event of a spillage of toxic material on site, or on the Major's Creek road leading to the site, for anyone on our property, in our house and in the orchard adjacent to the creek.
If we extrapolate Unity's pollution record, that would mean two potentially lethal events a year.
The very severity of this risk makes it difficult to assimilate - that any company could be allowed to propose something so dangerous, with no assessment of the land and water and inhabitants below the site, and where the have repeatedly refused to source the data.
Even small diluted amounts of heavy metal would settle and collect in the deep pools and then, in times of flood when a large part of the Araluen valley is under water which I witnessed in 1974, 1975, six times in January 1983 and in 1988, (although the worst and longest lasting flood was in 1947, when much of the valley was inundated for over three weeks after a freak snowstorm upstream).
Successive releases of small amounts of mercury and copper (as admitted in the EA) would build up in the soil. Unity have not admitted there may be traces of zinc, cadmium, lead and uranium also in the tailings that would otherwise have been trucked away for processing, but Unity's cavalier attitude to data does not inspire confidence.
The EPA has stated that the tailings dam should be moved to a safer site. They have had a long and close experience of the company's attitude to compliance, as well as their refusal to admit to and take responsibility for pollution events or test after them. I urge the Department to heed the advice of the EPA.


8. The Implications of the Potential Concentration of Pollution Immediately Downstream of the Dargues Site
The half-life of cyanide in water may be less than twenty-four days, as the EA states. It is not less than ten to twenty minutes, the time it takes for a flash flood to reach our water system - and that of others in the Majors Creek catchment.
It took only ten minutes in February 2013 for the sediment released in the first pollution event to reach us-I ran down to the creek as soon as Bill Waterhouse's email arrived stating that orange muck was issuing below the Dargues site, and his email was sent just as the sludge became visible. Even if it took him another five minutes to reach his computer, fifteen, twenty or even an hour might still have deadly consequences for our household or those swimming in the creek or playing or working beside it. (Our house and my study sits just above the creek, and my husband`s workshop sits within 20 metres of it.)
The company's report notes that a sixty-fold dilution factor would be needed to ensure that the cyanide-polluted water was remedied to drinking water standard. It is unlikely in the extreme that, given the way storms fall in the area, and the close proximity of houses and businesses that use that Major's Creek water, that a 60 fold dilution would occur before our household and others were affected, as there are no major dilution points downstream until the confluence of Major's Creek with Spring Creek.
Unity has made no study the water flow in the gullies, springs or even the terrain downstream of their site. They cannot in any way substantiate their desktop claim that a 60 fold dilute is possible, much less likely, before many of those below the site are affected.
Dargues Reef sits on Spring Hill, given its name `Spring' for good reason. It is at the end of the Monga Ridge and is subject to not just higher rainfall tallies but is also the site of snow and hail storms as well as thunder storms that the area downstream misses out on. (Araluen's rainfall figures are well below that of Majors Creek's.)
There is every chance a cyanide spill would still be at deadly concentrations by the time it reached out house and environs, north by the creek, or if I or students were in the Majors Creek gorge, where it takes a mere five minutes or less for the pollution to arrive.
There is an even greater likelihood that related small emissions would deposit heavy metals in the pools in Majors Creek, which contains the only water in dry times, and which is also a major corridor for migratory birds and wildlife between the Monga and Deua systems.

9. The True Risk of Cyanide Spillage Downstream to households to the junction with Araluen Creek
The Unity EA states Spring Creek is a small part of the overall Major's Creek Araluen catchment, and so any spillage would be greatly diluted. This is not true.
Spring Creek is the largest tributary until Major's Creek meets Araluen Creek approx. 20 downstream. The households and business on Major's Creek between Spring Creek and Araluen Creek will thus be subject to the full pollution load in the event of a sudden spillage occurring in the wake of a localised heavy rainfall event after a dry period when other creeks are not running. From 1993-2015 this occurred in (very) approximately 18% of rainfall events.

10 The Risk to Eurobodalla Water Users from Accumulated Pollution in the two Conservation Areas
The pollution risk to those downstream is not limited to times when pollution is emitted from the Dargues site.
There is now, conservatively, several hundred tonnes of sediment in the creek on our property and far more deposited in the Major's Creek Conservation Area above us, in sediment dunes at the edge of the creek, and in the formerly deep water holes up in the Major's Creek gorge.
The EPA can confirm that this material originated at the Dargues sites and came down in the pollution events of 2013. Although Unity repeatedly refused to test the pollution levels here or in the approx. 20 km from below their site to the confluence with Spring Creek where it becomes diluted, the EPA did do those tests.
Prior to 2013 this area was surveyed by the Department of Environment as part of the process of turning much of it into a Voluntary Conservation area. The creek was classified as ' a pristine rocky waterway.' No sand or sediment was visible, as 40 years of photos attest.
This sediment is not stable, and in high rainfall events is gradually carried down to Moruya. Much has already been washed down.
It does however show that the pollution levels below the steep Dargues site can be far higher here, where the valley floor levels or material in caught in the large polls, that just below the site.

The present sediment banks and pool deposits from Dargues are only sediment. Once however, material containing heavy metals and cyanide residue was deposited here, it would be a time bomb for Eurobodalla, moving gradually down river.

Relatively small pollution emissions might also collect here, and then suddenly move in dangerous amounts downstream during high rain events.

Unity's refusal to test pollution levels here means they don't have any data for the rate of dilution they rely on in the EA.

More importantly, Eurobodalla's water supply may be at risk during a high rain event even when there is no pollution from the Dargues site, as the (conservatively) hundreds of tonnes or more of previous pollution from previous pollution events becomes mobilised here.

This can all be substantiated:
The origin of the sediment on our property and in the Conservation Area from the Dargues site can be confirmed with the EPA Queanbeyan.
The previous rocky and pristine state of the creek can be confirmed by the NSW Department of Environment assessors report in the VCA agreement.
Copies of emails can substantiate our appeals for water testing and an evaluation of damage done.
The quantity of sediment still remaining after two years can be verified by observation.

11. The neglect to estimate the cumulative effect of a build up of cyanide affected heavy metal pollutants in adjacent soil, water, and deep pools of many small breaches in emissions standards, such as occur at Unity's Henty Plant. There, however, the exceedingly high rainfall usually measured in metres, not millimetres, dilutes it. This is not the case at the Dargues site.


12. Misleading data on contacting downstream users in the event of a spillage or leak or seepage or major breach, and the impossibility of doing so in an area with no or patchy mobile coverage.
In the EA the company claims that it has prepared a list of forty downstream water users, is adding to this number at meetings and has their emergency contact numbers. They also claim that they provide clean water in the event of further water pollution from the Dargues site.
None of these claims is accurate.

The company initially refused repeated requests for a register of downstream users to be established and maintained, on the grounds that there would be no pollution and so it was not necessary. At an angry meeting at Majors Creek the company agreed that those who wished to might give their names and contact details.
The company has made no effort to locate the many other downstream water users.
In four of the five pollution breaches that have already occurred, the company initially either failed or refused to contact downstream users, possibly because at the time the company was denying responsibility for the sediment, or claiming they has authority to pollute the creek as necessary as the project was never designed to be a nil emissions project.
In the fourth incident contact was made by email, and over an hour after the breach occurred. It would not have been read except by those checking their email at the time. In a rural community with no mobile phone coverage and so not ability to receive text messages, many residents check their emails irregularly and infrequently or are not on email at all.
The company has not only failed to provide water to those whose systems have been polluted by sediment from Dargues Reef, but has insisted that it has no duty to do so. This was backed up by the Department of Planning until two months ago.
The company is also liable for reparations if they do not supply clean water in the case of pollution events. They have made no response to claims for reparations. The matter rests with the Department now that they have finally admitted that the provision of clean water, and reparations if it is not supplied, are in the Conditions of Approval for surface as well as groundwater.
Notification: the only (belated) notifications by the company to downstream water users were by email. Few residents in a rural area are likely to be using their email accounts when a pollution event occurs. There is no mobile phone coverage for much of the area, and none at all for the area twenty kilometres downstream where the worst of the effects will be felt.
Even in the unlikely event that the company does change its behavior and responses and decides to contact downstream users if there is a pollution event, or becomes aware of it before it reaches residents up to six kilometres downstream, polluted material can reach to four kilometres downstream in only ten minutes at above average rainfall (e.g. 72 mls in a three-day period).
Our house sits next to the creek, as does my husband's workshop. Our employees work in the orchards by the creek. My grandchildren play in the creek - although this will not be possible if this Modification is passed.
If it took an optimistic five minutes for the record of downstream users to be located, that would leave them only five minutes to respond to a warning, even if there was any way that warning could be delivered to us if we are beyond the sound of the landline or not on email, five, or even ten, minutes is not enough time to get to safety, given the steep and narrow terrain of our property and the Majors Creek State Conservation Area where I frequently track and study animals and plants.
Given company's record, and the likelihood of an accident is almost 1005
By the company's own admission, there will be further pollution events and this, combined with the company's record of behavior in previous events and the near impossibility of timely notification of downstream water users, makes the chances of responsible management and response to an accidental release of contaminated water negligible. The company has refused to give the EPA their list of downstream water users so even the EPA may not be able to contact at least those further down the water catchment system. It would of course be far too late for us here.
The most compelling argument however against Unity's future timely notification to downstream water users- assuming that was technically possible, which in this area it is not, is the existence of this falsehood in the EA. If the company had at any time openly admitted they had made mistakes, apologized, residents are not litigious and likely to accept an apology in good faith.
Instead Unity continues with the falsehoods and to threaten in various ways those, like myself, who have attempted to have them comply with the Court-ordered Conditions of Approval. They repeatedly write in the Braidwood Times of the `lies' spread about their operation, without ever saying what those lies are- and so prevent any refutation of what those `lies' might be.
I do not lie, nor have any reason to in this case. Instead my work is based on the meticulous examination of primary sources, and obsessive accuracy. In this case I, and others, have collected and collated data that can be substantiated. But Unity may well be speaking about other's lies. Their claim of `lies' is as vague as large parts of the EA.


13. Unity's Lack of Construction Experience
Unity claims their Henty operation as evidence that they can construct a safe site. The Henty site, however, was constructed as a showpiece by the company that preceded Unity's ownership, Barrick Gold and the company Barrick Gold bought the site from. Unity has simply followed Barrick Gold's management criteria and, even then, was fined by the EPA in the last financial year for a major spill with no precautionary measures in place to deal with it. (Note: Unity denied this spill at the September 2014 CCC meeting, but a report by the Tasmanian EPA requested under Freedom of Information confirmed it, as well as their concern that Unity showed no preparedness for such a spillage.
Unity's Bendigo site is under care and maintenance rather than being properly closed down and remediated.
Knight Piésold provides superb work but their work can only be as good as the quality of the data they are given to work with. In this case the design is based on vastly inaccurate data.
The EA does not state that Knight Piésold will oversee the construction. After the catastrophic failure of a dam designed by Knight Piésold, in Canada, their report makes clear that they cannot be held accountable for failures on the part of the commissioning company, nor can they be held accountable if the commissioning company provides inaccurate rainfall and evaporation data .

14. All Tailings Dams Leak?
According to a mining engineer in Kalgoorlie this year, all tailings dams leak- it is a question of how much, how vulnerable the site and how trustworthy the operator is in containing those leaks.
In this case only 5 mm of matting with a life of between 35-300 years will protect the ground water from seepage. 5 mm is easily torn, by human accident, wombats, chemical damage or by rock movement in a seismically active area.
Unity has considerable experience of accidents, but not at admitting them or, as the Tasmanian EPA stated, at installing management practices to forestall them. If the lining is torn, there is little likelihood of the company admitting the problem until seepage becomes a major issue. By then Unity- or Big Island Mining- may no longer exist.


15. Unity Mining's distain for community concern
In the past three months Unity have publically stated in reply to concerns expressed by the community that:
There are no more heavy metals (lead, arsenic, zinc, uranium, copper and others) in their ore than in garden soil, and their ore is no more dangerous if washed down the creek. (A meeting at the Araluen Hall)
That there is cyanide in peaches and arsenic in strawberries (to Major's Creek residents)
That getting put of bed is dangerous. (ABC TV)
Further such trivializing comments can be quoted from local newspapers.
This demonstrates a deep contempt for residents concerns, and a campaign to deny or trivialize them.
This contempt is further illustrated when Unity states that it will not accept the EPA's recommendations of site-suitable design for the tailings dam and processing plant, but intends instead to use those applied at other sites in NSW - ones that are not on sites above steeply falling land, a major horticultural and agricultural area and a source of drinking water, as well as swimming holes that children and adults use, and rare and endangered species immediately below, including seven threatened species of fish, rock wallabies, and one of NSW's major migration corridors for both birds and animal species between the Deua and Monga National Parks.

16. Cherry Picking Data
Since 2012, Unity Mining have refused to:
. Take water samples after the five pollution events of 2013 from the Dargues Reef project, that led to their prosecution in the Land and Environment Court, on the first three of those events; and
. Take water flow measurements in the Majors Creek State Conservation Area or our adjacent property, the Neverbreak Hills Voluntary Conservation Area (VCA), to test how long it takes for pollution to travel from the Dargues Reef site to our property, the source of water for our household and 800 fruit trees, and a business that contributes more than $5 million dollars annually to the NSW economy.
They have placed the bores for testing the water quality and quantity of the Majors Creek catchment in the Araluen Valley in the catchments of Baines Gully and Rocky Gully - these gullies are completely separate from Majors Creek and collect water from farmland and bush that has no connection with Dargues Reef and the Majors Creek catchment.
Unity have repeatedly stated that the area downstream from their mine site is degraded from previous mining or farming, with no substantiation, declining to do the surveys required in the Land and Environment Court conditions of the 2013 judgment which required them to survey the creek upstream of the junction with Araluen Creek - not at the junction which is all that they have done, ignoring the twenty kilometres of creek between there and their site. Given that Araluen Creek has a larger flow than Major's Creek, and passes through disturbed land, this makes the testing there invalid, once again `cherry picking' data that will give false impression of the local ecology.
Unity has also refused to survey the endangered Araluen Grassy Scarp Forest in the above sites, although that too was a LEC Condition of Approval.
They have been given, but ignored, independent assessments by the NSW Department of the Environment showing that the Majors Creek State Conservation Area and the Neverbreak Hills VCA are areas of pristine rocky creek bed; of pools that never dry up even in a drought, the only source of water in dry periods for at least twenty-three endangered, critically endangered or vulnerable species, including rock wallabies see below as well as being one of NSW's most important corridors for migratory birds, as well as allowing species like quolls and powerful owls to move between the Monga and Deua National Parks, ensuring sufficient genetic diversity for the populations to survive.

17. Continued inadequate water management on site
The Dargues Reef site still has had insufficient capacity in its sediment dams to cope with last year's average rainfall and despite there having been no major rainfall events in the three years since the dams were constructed.
The site has unique geographic and rainfall challenges and to date Unity Mining has been unable to meet those challenges, using flocculent to clean water pumped from their present sediment dams.
It is of great concern that Unity Mining appears to believe that these dams are adequate, despite their need in a year of average rainfall to regularly pump water from them to maintain sufficient capacity for future rainfall events.
It is also of great concern that Unity Mining appears not to have a license to discharge this flocculent-treated water on site, despite requests by the EPA to do so. Although the company states is pumped onto grassland, and thus does not need EPA approval, the slope of the site means possible contamination of the Majors Creek/Deua River system, due to the sites unique combination of sudden severe storms, long periods of rainfall and poor soil porosity.
Of even greater concern is the fact that these inadequate sediment dam designs were approved by the Department and Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), and that they have not been enlarged sufficiently to cope with existing conditions on the site. If work of any kind is to recommence, these dams need to be redesigned to ensure their safe use, and the safe discharge of flocculent treated water should be a priority.
It is difficult to hide the sound of pumping at night, at a site next to the village of Majors Creek, nor the arrival of truckloads of flocculent. It appears that water is still regularly being pumped from the sediment dams but as, no license has been applied for, the company refuses to give figures for the amount of water pumped from these dams and how often.
This behavior is not indicative of a company that values openness, transparency and that is committed to ensuring that the area below the site is not polluted and, as seen below, the company denied any such pollution until taken to the Land and Environment Court by the EPA for the first three of their five pollution events in 2013 in the six months during which work was proceeding on site.
The EPA have stated the need for a new, adequate and comprehensive plan for managing the storm water basin, as
The company's continued refusal to accept EPA conditions for their site management implies that the company's chief objective is to minimize construction and operational costs, not to put into place best practice or practice necessary for the safe running of the site.
It is noteworthy that in 2014 the EPA in Tasmania, where the company also operates mining ventures, stated that the company did not have sufficient contingency plans for spillages and fined them for a spillage as well as for their lack of contingency plans.

18 False claims of compliance
Unity Mining claims a record of operation in NSW based on the periods when their site was mothballed, i.e. when no construction work occurred, rather than on their six months of operation when the area was free from pollution from sediment or unregistered flocculent for approximately five weeks.
Even during the mothballed period, Unity has been unable to manage the amount of water in the sediment dams, pumping regularly and using a flocculent. Despite the EPA request to apply for a license to discharge, Unity has refused to do so.
Department of Planning personnel have aided this appearance of compliance by refusing to admit that certain Approval Conditions existed; by refusing to enforce Conditions of Compliance; by their failure to even study the Conditions of Compliance to know what they were; and by accepting Unity's assurance that every complaint by the public was untrue. Not surprisingly, those in the local communities soon ceased reporting complaints to the Unity Hotline, especially after some who did so were abused or harassed. (Several local residents will give statements substantiating this if requested).


19. The company's record of contempt for truth and community relations.
See attachment 3 where for four of the five pollution events the company publically denied responsibility until, suddenly, when in court, they decided to admit to them and thus receive a smaller fine, totaling over $200,000 with costs, with the presiding judge stating that the fines would have been much higher if the company had not so readily admitted liability.

20. To Spill or not to Spill?

Unity's EA appears to allow for one to two spills per year, except where it states there will be no spills. The projected impact of these spills, however, is based on inaccurate rainfall data, severely underestimating the rainfall at the site (see Dr O'Loughlin's submission and the work of Roger Hosking', but this also tallies with the data collected by myself over a forty-two year period).
According to GIPFO documents EPA regards the original and present rainfall and climate modeling as insufficient to model the actual rainfall on site. This had been proved correct ever since work began on the project.

21. Failure to assess the risk of incremental build up of heavy metals on the Majors Creek, Deua River and Moruya River water catchments
The company has provided no risk assessment for the leakage of heavy metals from the dam on the grounds that this will not occur. Given the potential magnitude of the problem economically, environmentally and to human health, this is an extraordinary decision.
It also presumes there will be no accidental spillage, nor mistakes in construction, which given the company's record of almost constant pollution during their six months operation on the site cannot be justified.
Even if the tailings dam were to be designed and constructed to meet the inherent challenges of the site ¬ including topography and rainfall which are both neglected in the company's report ¬- this lack of any consideration for downstream businesses, people and is consistent with the company's previous actions.
At a minimum, assessment must be made of the consequences of small or large spillages of heavy metal material downstream of the site.
There also needs to be data on the speed of waterborne pollution from the site. As far as I am aware, I am the only person who has done this, despite repeated written and verbal requests to the company.

22. Lack of Disaster Management Strategies in the EA.
As Unity has mismanaged accidents both at Dargues and Henty and been reprimanded by the NSW and Tasmanian EPAs for their lack of strategies in dealing with spillages and other accidents, it is crucial that Unity provide comprehensive and detailed strategies for dealing with disasters, from an overturned truck spilling cyanide into Spring Creek, bushfire or human error.
The Modification assumes there is no need to consider the consequence of spillage of cyanide products or by-products, as they would be contained in bunds. It does not consider the measures that would need to be taken if there were to be a spillage outside the bunds i.e. on the way to the site or within the site but not within the bunded area. Given the steepness of the slope, the extreme rainfall events and the company's history, this is neglect of basic precautionary planning.

23.The company states it will comply with all Clean Air provisions but it does not state how it will do so.

The company needs to identify all potential sources of polluted air and comply with all the EPA requirements. It is noteworthy that the company has objected to this n documents obtained under GIPFO. The company stated it is unreasonable to provide details given their small-scale operation.
Air quality however is a major concern to residents given the strong prevailing winds and the `sink' which air can sit for days in the frequent event of a Majors Creek mist. The lack of data on this point is negligent and shows a major lack of concern for community health and respect for EPA expertise.

24. Failure to Evaluate Major's Creek's Katabatic Winds
There is no mention in the EA of Major's Creek's extreme and unusual katabatic winds, where hot air rising from the Araluen valley causes cold air to sink, thus creating local wind levels of up to 94 km an hour shortly before and after dawn in autumn and spring. These winds have the potential to blow a heavy metal contaminated material across the Major's Creek village and associated farm houses, as well as down into the Araluen valley, where many households use rainwater tanks using water from their roof as drinking water. It is impossible to measure the risk to air quality without at least a 12-month measurement of these winds, and a chart that shows not just average wind speed, but actual speeds achieved.

25. Lack of Bushfire Disaster Plan
The proposed cyanide smelter sits next to the village of Major's Creek. There is no data in the EA, nor evidence from CCC meetings, that Unity has in place a plan to manage out of control bushfire in their ore processing facility or storage area or along the route where trucks containing cyanide may be cut off by bushfire.
Given the high bushfire risk in the area, and the high incidence of fires at Major's Creek, as in all urban fringes, this is negligence. The recent fire with stored cyanide in China is evidence of the widespread damage such a fire might cause.
Fires travel fastest uphill. The Dargues site is almost at the top of the ridge, and the area has been burnt in at least three bushfires in the past century that I have data for. As I have made no specific study of this, there are likely to have been more. The site is particularly vulnerable with its areas of ribbon gum forest, where crown fires can leap from tree to tree, it's large area of flammable broom, and with the updraft from the Araluen valley adding to the speed at which the fire moves.

26. The need to substantiate creating 120 jobs
The number of promised potential jobs on the Dargues site has crept up from 20 to 40 to 120 with no stated increase in work to be done on site. The first increase came after locals pointed out that Robyn Clubb's orchards employ 26 people. If the 120 jobs includes flow on figures, or taking skilled local trades people from their current employment i.e. not creating new jobs, and putting additional strain on the local economy, this should me made clear.
27. The absence of any plan to consult with and remediate those affected by Dargues Pollution or accidents
The mine has not produced an accident plan. This is surely mandatory? The company has shown itself to be prone to accidents on the site, with five environmental breaches in the first six months of operation, three of which have resulted in hefty fines. A Google search shows how dangerous gold mining is and how this leaves desolation behind, especially in inhabited areas. Unity's mine in Bendigo is an example.

28.Absence of data from the Unity Community Survey of early 2015.
In early 2015 after several public enquiries the CCC were informed by email that Unity had commissioned a survey to gauge public attitudes to the Modification. CCC members were asked not to make this public so that responses would not be biased. A month after the survey period three community groups surveyed all households along Major's Creek, Araluen and Deua and Moruya Rivers as well as those in close proximity to the mine, all of whom could be reasonably be expected to have views on the Modification. None had been surveyed. Households as far north as Kiama and as distant from the mine as Reidsdale however had been surveyed.
While the methodology was questionable, surveying households unlikely to be affected by the development instead of those who were, it is curious that Unity have not given the results of the survey to justify their claims of public support.
Since the announcement of the cyanide ore processing, there have been no letters of support in the Braidwood Times apart from those with a personal financial connection to the project, or those who hope to have one. It is noteworthy that the district's largest employer, supermarket owner Jeremy Campbell-Davys, an initial enthusiastic supporter of Dargues Mine because of its then perceived employment potential, has put in a submission condemning the Modification.
At a Palerang Council meeting on Thursday, 20 August 2015 a packed National Theatre condemned the Modification. Thirty one members of the community spoke against it. Only the Unity spokesman and one other spoke in favour of it.
Like many communities, most people in the Palerang and Eurobodalla Shires have little interest in development issues unless they are next door, and possibly regarded the proposal to mine at Dargues with vague approval for the jobs it might create. This Modification however has elicited widespread anger and condemnation, not just because of the dangers of the Modification, but because of the company's broken promises and denials of responsibility for their pollution incidents. It is noteworthy that many previous enthusiastic supporters of the mining proposal have felt it necessary to state on their Facebook page their condemnation of this new proposal. It would be difficult to find an issue that has so united so many diverse areas of the community.
Many, or most of us in this area support mining, but this company's record of broken promise, sudden sackings of nearly all staff at Christmas time, failure to pay for the renovation of the recreation ground as promised and other behavior has turned public opinion. Mining: yes, but not by this company, on this site, with a Modification that uses cyanide, keeps heavy metals above a major water resource, and where the EA is based on incorrect data.
Unity has no social license whatsoever to develop the Modification.

29. Failure to Provide Data on Cyanide Transport Route
Unity states that as they have not confirmed the supplier they cannot confirm the route. However as there is only one commercial route, passing through Braidwood between the two schools and then out on the single road to Major's Creek past the site. Unity's reticence on this subject may be to prevent the inevitable protests about trucks containing cyanide travelling along a narrow school bus route, with sharp bends and blind corners, frequent fog at any time of the year, and, in winter, black ice.
While Cortona/Unity did promise the community that their trucks would not use the road in school bus times, this promise has also been broken.
The lack of other access roads also increases social and business difficulties if this single road is blocked by accident, especially if that accident involves toxic materials that may take days or weeks to secure safely, assuming the accident did not happen near one the many water courses between Braidwood and Dargues, where remediation might not be possible.

30. Unity's Perpetuation of their Myth of `Degraded Farmland.
The company states that the land downstream of the site is variably degraded agricultural land. On the contrary, the area downstream was classified as `pristine rocky waterway' in 2013 when the Neverbreak Hills VCA was declared by the Department of Environment which, unlike Unity, have actually surveyed and studied the land below the project site.
Lower down the Araluen Valley is one of NSW richest agricultural area+