Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.

Wallarah 2 coal project is a plus for the central coast

council ( ex Wyong Council ) it will provide much needed jobs for a lot of out of work coal miners who live local. This coal mine has had to jump numerous hurdles and rightly so, and has proved its worth over and over again We need to get this project up and running ASAP so the whole shire can start benefiting from it. :)

My family is a frequent recreational user of Jilliby Conservation Area. Our passion is horse riding but we meet others who bike ride, hike, run, walk dogs, ride trail bikes or travel in 4WD family groups. There is a good community spirit among users; motorbikes shut down their engines to let us past, drivers wave, people share directions and their knowledge of the trails. Everyone enjoys the natural beauty of this special place.

We are deeply concerned about the impact on this conservation area of mining directly underneath. The topography is dramatic with rocky ridgelines interwoven with creeks and rainforest gullies. The proposal suggests this area will subside over two metres. We have struggled to understand what this will do to the vulnerable landscape.

In researching the impact, I came across a paper by the NSW government's Office of Environment & Heritage on the effects on habitat of long wall mining. This paper examines the impact across NSW's major coal mining areas and examines related research. It raises some alarming points.

Subsidence sounds like something that would happen slowly but 90-95% occurs immediately following the advance of the coal workface. This means a 2.5m+ fall would occur sequentially across the terrain in the wake of the mining activity like a slow-motion, inverse tidal wave. Subsidence effects are worse on hilly terrain. The mining is destabilizing and can cause cliff collapse and rockfalls. These usually occur within months but can continue for decades. Subsidence is frequently associated with cracking valley floors and creeklines. Despite the operator's efforts, gases will escape and harm native flora and fauna. Experts acknowledge there are major issues in predicting subsidence in hilly terrain due to geological complexities. The proposer's predictions cannot be accurate because the knowledge is not available so we cannot effectively evaluate the potential risks and damage.

There are more points to takeaway from this report so I have included the details and some excerpts below for reference. My main concern is we do not comprehend the consequences of literally undermining our natural heritage. The predictions about subsidence, draconian as they are, could be underestimated. The damage such subsidence would cause on this type of terrain is being shamefully discounted. The proposer only offers to repair surface cracks if they appear in access roads to the conservation area. How does this address the personal danger to people of rockfalls or the ecological damage of cracked creek beds and poisoned water sources?

The Jilliby Conservation Area would be destabilized and hazardous for decades to come, both during the mining and during the subsidence afterwake. The damage to the landscape and wildlife would be largely irreversible. I urge the government officials assessing this application, the politicians representing our community and concerned community members themselves to go to this conservation area, ride, bike, hike along the ridgeline trails and ask yourselves shouldn't we be preserving it for future generations.

 
NSW Government: Office of Environment & Heritage `Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining - key threatening process listing. NSW Scientific Committee - final determination.'
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/LongwallMiningKtp.htm

Extracts (emphasis my own)

"The principal surface impact of underground coal mining is subsidence (lowering of the surface above areas that are mined) (Booth et al. 1998, Holla and Barclay 2000). The total subsidence of a surface point consists of two components, active and residual. Active subsidence, which forms 90 to 95% of the total subsidence in most cases, follows the advance of the working face and usually occurs immediately."

"The surface area affected by ground movement is greater than the area worked in the seam (Bell et al. 2000). In the NSW Southern Coalfield, horizontal displacements can extend for more than one kilometre from mine workings (and in extreme cases in excess of three km) (ACARP 2002, 2003)"

"Subsidence is also dependent on topography, being more evident in hilly terrain than in flat or gently undulating areas (Elsworth and Liu 1995, Holla 1997, Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001)."

"Mining subsidence is frequently associated with cracking of valley floors and creeklines and with subsequent effects on surface and groundwater hydrology (Booth et al. 1998, Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001, 2002, 2003)."

"Subsidence can also cause decreased stability of slopes and escarpments, contamination of groundwater by acid drainage, increased sedimentation, bank instability and loss, creation or alteration of riffle and pool sequences, changes to flood behaviour, increased rates of erosion with associated turbidity impacts, and deterioration of water quality due to a reduction in dissolved oxygen and to increased salinity, iron oxides, manganese, and electrical conductivity"

"Loss of native plants and animals may occur directly via iron toxicity, or indirectly via smothering. Long-term studies in the United States indicate that reductions in diversity and abundance of aquatic invertebrates occur in streams in the vicinity of longwall mining and these effects may still be evident 12 years after mining"

"Subsidence due to longwall mining can destabilise cliff-lines and increase the probability of localised rockfalls and cliff collapse (Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001, 2002). This has occurred in the Western Coalfield and in some areas of the Southern Coalfield (ACARP 2001). These rockfalls have generally occurred within months of the cliffline being undermined but in some cases up to 18 years after surface cracking first became visible following mining (ACARP 2001)."

"Mitigation measures to repair cracking creek beds have had only limited success and are still considered experimental (ACARP 2002)."

"Empirical methods have been developed from large data sets to predict conventional subsidence effects (ACARP 2001, 2002, 2003). In general, these models have proved more accurate when predicting the potential degree of subsidence in flat or gently undulating terrain than in steep topography (ACARP 2003). A major issue identified in the ACARP (2001, 2002) reports was the lack of knowledge about horizontal stresses in geological strata, particularly those associated with river valleys. These horizontal stresses appear to play a major role in the magnitude and extent of surface subsidence impacts. The cumulative impacts of multiple panels also appear to have been poorly monitored. The general trend in the mining industry in recent years toward increased panel widths (from 200 up to 300 m), which allows greater economies in the overall costs of extraction, means that future impacts will tend to be greater than those in the past (ACARP 2001, 2002)."

We object to this application because Coal mining in the Hunter needs to be phased out - not expanded, to allow for:

more sustainable agriculture - not unsustainable and destructive mining;

To protect our environment by:

minimizing and reducing Green House gases at the mining source,
and the transportation of Coal,
and the burning of the coal

I wish to offer my support for this project.
I am familiar with this project and believe it to be technically sound. It offers significant socio-economic benefits to the Shire and should not be judged on the grounds of political expediency.
As evident in the Statement of environmental effects documents the benefits of this project modification greatly outweigh any perceived negative impacts expressed by individuals or groups, who may oppose such projects based on a single agenda of opposition to mining or development in general.

The local community overwelmingly support this industry in their area, and look forward to seeing the NSW state government assist their region by supporting projects and operations such as this.

I write to support the Wallarah 2 Coal Project and believe that the project should be supported and approved because of the following.

1. The project is designed to create little or no environmental impact by the mining methods it proposes to use and the proposed location of infrastructure.
2. The location of this project, the workings and the surface infrastructure is located as such to create little or no impact for residential and rural neighbours.
3. There is existing infrastructure in the area and close by to support the project.
4. There is existing skilled labour amongst the local population to carry out the works required for the project and its ongoing operation.
5. There are many local suppliers of equipment, consumables and services to support the project and its on-going operation.
6. With many other similar coal mines closed recently in the area, this project could fill the void in resources and employment left by the other closures.
7. A business of this size entering the local economy will have a great flow on effect for the local community creating both direct and in-direct jobs.
8. We need to support employment and generale economic opportunities for our children, particularly in a region providing limited options.

I am writing in opposition to the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Mine.

I am vehemently opposed to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. The mines of the hunter are an eyesore, I personally don't want the area sullied by a huge industrial pit. Big miners don't interact well with adjoining landholders as history shows us. The mine will only become the first of many more.

2. The extraction of Fossil Fuels given our knowledge of climate change is outlandishly shortsighted

3. The Australian public is overwhelming in favour of action on climate change, with new mines being pushed only by business / lobby groups
4. There is room for so much more economic development in this area of the Central Coast; tourism, food based economies, rural escapes, agriculture. To sully these opportunities for the short term gain of fossil fuel extraction is proposterous, and really a blatant theft from future generations.

5. The area in question is the site of an up and coming grass based, ethical farming practice run by Shannon & Kylie Kelly .
Ethical, grass based farming unequivocally holds some of the keys to quickly reversing the effects of climate change by using grazing management methods that remove huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, whilst growing amazing forage and producing healthy, nutrient dense food - surely a win-win!

Given the legitimate public concern around fossil fuels and climate change, and the points raised above, I submit that the proopsed mine development should not be approved.

To Whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.

PREAMBLE
The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

POINTS OF OBJECTION
Costs/Benefits
.Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.

Employment
.Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.
. Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.

Dust and Health and Noise
.Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community
. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

.Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.
.Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014
.Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure,86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.

.The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.

."The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.

This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.

Yours faithfully,

Charlotte McCabe
35 Union St, Tighes Hill
0421 728 780

As this mine has not been approved under earlier assessment, and the issues of concern raised at that time have still not been addressed, how is this can be approved in its current form.

To approve the mine makes a mockery of the whole community engagement process as well as ignoring the issues raised under the EIS and other associated planning and assessment reports.It such a concern that the process chooses to ignore the questions raised in terms of the long term health of the water supply, rural and urban communities, as well as the ecological impacts.

Stop wasting money on this and put it towards safer, greener and renewable methods of production energy.
Coal has no future in this world.

I oppose this project for the following reasons:
- Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios - future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

- Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and and loading hopper. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

- Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

- Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"

- 5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. OEH have expressed concerns - the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear"

- The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)" is unacceptable.

- The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Also only the house itself is covered, while sheds,fences pools etc are exempt from claims.

- Wallarah 2 have failed continually to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project

I object to the development on the grounds that the environmental impact statement and assessment are both fundamentally flawed. The assessmet process does not take into account the effect that this additional amount of coal being dug up and burnt (from the Wallarah 2 mine) will have on climate change

1. Subsidence of 3 metres from this proposed long-wall mine project will have catastrophic consequences for capture, storage and distribution of potable water to the Central Coast, Without a guaranteed supply of fresh water this whole area or parts of it would have to be evacuated.
2. The proponents of Wallarah 2 are Kores which is an arm of the Republic of South Korea Government. Support which presumably means 'financial support' has been stated publicly to have been withdrawn. Therefore who is behind this proposal?
3. The roads, land, underground services and the $80 million water pipeline from Mardi dam, fed by the threatened Wyong River, will be severely affected by the three metre subsidence.
An example of this type and affect of tree metre subsidence can be seen at Mount Sugarloaf a few kilometres to the North of the proposed mine.

I wish to object to the current Amended DA (ADA) on exhibition for the Wallarah 2 Coal Project (Part 3A) and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself for the following reasons:

1. Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed 28 years of life of the mine is $200 million, which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and government concessional rebates, I believe this figure is inflated.

2. The NSW Government has removed the community's right to go directly to the Land & Environment Court and argue the case on Merit Appeal. This applies to every community fighting coal or gas proposals in NSW and has disenfranchised the very people affected by such plans.

3. Over the years this coal mine has been mooted for the Central Coast, the population has increased especially in the Blue Haven and Wyee areas which will have the mine encroach 200 to 400 metres respectively from their precincts. This will cause dust and noise pollution 24 hours a day from an overhead structure on the main rail line and a loading hopper. There are many schools within five kms of the facility which will be affected.

4. The proposal to have an air monitor installed at Wyee has been diverted to Wyong Racecourse, thereby distorting air quality readings for the affected region.

5. The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (Jilliby Creek/Wyong Creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern" is alarming.

6. The Mine Subsidence Board currently rejects three-quarters of all claims, and only the house itself is covered, not sheds, fences, pools, etc.

I am in support for the approval of the Wallarah 2 coal project.

The Central Coast needs change, it needs new businesses and industries to continue growing and moving forward.

The Wallarah 2 project will bring with it jobs for locals which will keep money on the Coast.

Coal is nothing to be scared of, mining, living and farming can all work together, just take the Hunter Valley for example.

Coal keeps Australia moving Australia needs to coal local businesses local families rely on coal. Save jobs. Save local businesses local families .

As a resident and land owner of Blue Haven, I can not support this proposal which will negatively effect my land value, my (and my children's) health, the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area,
flora & fauna, as well as introduce instability of the surrounding residential lands and structures.

I wish to object to the current Amended DA (ADA) on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself

Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated.
Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios - future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realized.
The NSW government has removed our right to go directly to the Land and Environment Court and argue our case on Merit Appeal. Premier Baird has removed that legal right from every community fighting coal or gas in NSW.
Confidential draft documents circulating through Planning Dept suggest "second workings" of coal seams meaning further and greater subsidence over time
Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and and loading hopper. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"
5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. OEH have expressed concerns - the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear"
The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)" is unacceptable.
The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Also only the house itself is covered, while sheds,fences pools etc are exempt from claims.
Wallarah 2 have failed continually to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project
Wallarah 2 have failed to bring to the public any concept drawing of the new conveyor system and loading facility near Blue Haven.
Only recently on the ABC was a program about how a coal mine was effecting neighbouring farmers. You can't control the wind or any weather, it is not safe to have close to homes and schools. Why put people at risk when coal is a dying resource any!

We need jobs for NSW, a big project like this with 300 direct jobs for 28 years is a big benefit for NSW. Also the in direct jobs this project will create is second to none.

A great opportunity for the wyong community as the size of this investment is a once in a life time for jobs, local upgrades and investment for the long term with little impact to the environment.

I objected to the previous proposal some time ago; I understand this amended proposal amends only the loading / transport
facilities and brings both loading and rail transport closer to the established residential area of Bluehaven.

I therefore wish to make this objection to the current amended DA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal.

Objections detailed in my previous objection include:

* Central Coast water supply catchment and rivers to be undermined and subsided.
* Aquifers are likely to be fractured and water lost.
* Fresh water is lik ely to be contaminated by saline waste water from the mine
* 245 homes and farms to be subsided.
* Predicted subsidence of up to 2.6m under the Central Coast water catchment, homes and feeder rivers.

The amended submission now adds, in summary form
* A 9 storey tower at the coal dump collecting coal off the conveyor.
* The coal dump and stockpile only 200m from Blue Haven's homes.
* An overland conveyor running from Jilliby to Blue Haven.
* Coal trains operating adjacent to homes 24/7.
* Coal trains slowing down / obstructing commuter trains on the Sydney - Newcastle line.

It has been well reported recently in local and Korean financial media that the proponent, KORES, is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive borrowing debt; future job generation, operation of the mine for 30 years and environmental rehabilitation would appear to be in real doubt.

There is a distinct possibility that Kores may simply on-sell an approval to another (unknown) entity, creating further uncertainty and risk.


Royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine are said to be ~ $200 million,
approx $7 million per annum. This is miniscule revenue in view of the potentially large potential costs of compensation / rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following
subsidence. One could easily imagine the costs TO the State may well exceed revenue TO the State.

Public Health
Dr Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast, has detailed the likely adverse impacts of the mine on public health. These predominantly relate to inhalation of dust-borne particles .. his medical speciality. The long-term cost to the State via public health ought be considered against the potential revenue.

It is significant that Dr Lewis believes there are greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region
should this project be approved; these are the two largest groups in the local population demographic, especially in Bluehaven which is home to many young families whose kids may well begin to show adverse symptoms only after projected closure of the mine.

Dust
Dust remains a real threat to health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage
of infrastructure. There appears to be no proposal to cover coal wagons, which will travel through the southern
suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has
been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal
dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions.

PM10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature
of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close
as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families
in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day. There are many schools, pre-schools and
establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

It is significant hat the air quality monitor for the northern Central Coast is located at Wyong Racecourse .. kilometres south of the proposed mine and against the prevailing wind direction. One could suspect location of this installation was purposeful and that the exclusion of particle monitoring PM2.5 may have been deliberative.

The Wyong air quality monitoring site is located on the northern apron of Wyong racecourse. It is situated within a residential/semi-rural area in the OEH's Central Coast region and was commissioned in December 2012 to measure the following air pollutants and meterological parameters:
* O3
* NO, NO2 & NOx
* CO
* SO2
* Fine particles (by nephelometry)
* Fine particles as PM2.5 using a Beta Attenuation monitor (BAM)
* Fine particles as PM10 using a tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM)
* Wind speed, wind direction and sigma theta
* Ambient temperature
* Relative humidity


Noise
Noise exceedances are predicted for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and
general noise 24 hpd for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issues of real concern.

Subsidence
It is unconscionable that Kores failed in its EIS to identify by address which homes would be affected by subsidence. It is deceptive that the affected homes were only identified by a number, not by address - clearly to minimise local residents' awareness of their potential disadvantage.

Government officials assessing this proposal should insist that every property potentially adversely affected ought be identified by address and that notification of the mining proposal ought be sent to each owner by certified mail. Further consideration of this proposal ought be deferred and the exhibition period extended until 3 months after notification has been made.

Subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure: 86 homes are predicted as likely to experience a 1m to 2.3 metres drop. The valley floor may suffer subsidence up to 1.8 metres with up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area. "Inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" was a PAC principal finding.

Regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the valleys area to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.

The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide
for subsidence does not offer certain protection residents, as claimed in the application.

Water
"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according
to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield".
The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to
massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.

The 'no net impact on potential catchment yield' seems to rely on pumping water in times of high flows from Wyong River via Mardi to Mangrove Dam. The water in Wyong River largely flows from the valleys .. if they subside or aquifers are damaged .. no-one knows with certainty what may happen to the flows.

There is also the risk that subsidence may damage the Mardi-Mangrove pipeline ... a ~$130m investment by the Federal government ($80m) and Central Coast residents (~$50m). Such critical infrastructure MUST NOT be put at risk.

Employment
Job creation predictions begin with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs.
This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment
and not the whole Project yet the job figures are included for the whole project.

The original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially
being the main thrust of this amendment proposal). This amendment misleadingly suggests creation of
an additional 1605 jobs which it does not. As in the original EIS, the job prospects are not defined and would appear to be highly inflated and misleading.

Rail transport
This project exacerbates the problem of congestion along the rail line toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community.
Whilst coal movements between Bluehaven and Newcastle could be said to have little impact on Central Coast residents, a significant number of trains which serve the Central Coast commence in Newcastle. If coal movements disrupt passenger services getting to Newcastle, there is an inevitable flow-on effect on passenger services from Newcastle via Central Coast to Sydney (AM peak services).

In summary, this Amendment, along with the original mining proposal, should be rejected using the precautionary principle in Planning Legislation. As detailed above, the risks are only partially identified and quantified ... however, are certain to occur (as found by PAC). The whole project ought be rejected due to many areas of certain but unquantified risk.