Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

To whom it may concern

I am deeply concerned to learn that the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine project is back on the agenda. After having avoided the potentially catastrophic consequences of such a plan a couple of years ago, thanks to the intelligence and forward-thinking of a previous State government, I find it incredibly upsetting that once again, we need to spend so much time and effort convincing this State government of the dire outcomes that such a plan is likely to produce.
To be specific, I am extremely concerned about the following impacts:
1) AIRBORNE COAL DUST PARTICLES: the effect this will have on the respiratory systems of residents in the area is of grave concern. Kores admits in their EIS that deaths will result. How is this acceptable?
2) SUBSISTENCE: some estimates put this at up to 2 metres in certain areas. How is it ok to have ordinary Australians' assets put at risk like this?
3) WATER QUALITY: the proposed mine will be situated beneath the Central Coast's major water catchment area. According to an expert in this area, Professor Philip Pells, this would have catastrophic implications for the quality and quantity of our drinking water as well as broader biodiversity issues for our waterways.

Please do not allow this to go ahead. Why should we suffer so that a foreign company can tear apart our beautiful surrounds in order to further pollute the world? You have been elected because we trust you to make intelligent decisions that protect the public from the greedy interests of groups such as Kores. I urge you to make the right decision for the residents of the Central Coast and NSW - and that means shutting down this proposal once and for all.

Thank you for considering this submission.

I strongly object to the application and feel it is also wrong that residents need to continually 'fight' to have security of their homes due to these continual applications.
My husband owns a home in the Wyong area and I do not agree with the proposal.
Our water needs to be protected not put at risk.

I object to the proposed mining lease being granted because it not only affects water security, but also will add to CO2 emissions.
The report said yesterday 60% of fossil fuels should stay in the ground. Alternative sources of energy need to be used.

Dear Sir/Madam
My home is just a few hundred metres from the Buttonderry Site of this proposed Coal Mine which, if approved, will extract coal from beneath my home and cause the land to subside. Most of the homes in my area are not connected to the town water supply or sewerage system. We rely on the rainwater collected on our roofs and stored in tanks of substantial capacity for all our requirements. All liquid waste is treated by on-site Aerated Waste Water Treatment plants. Air pollution and dust from the proposed mine will contaminate the air I breath, my drinking water, damage my roof and degrade the efficiency of my solar PV panels and solar hot water unit. Subsidence may cause damage to the house, tanks, pipes and Treatment Plant. Also the intention of storing detonators, explosives, 55,000 litres of fuel, 15,000 litres of Hydrochloric Acid plus hydraulic oil and chemicals so close to so many residents is of great concern. (See Appendix AB, Preliminary Hazard Analysis).

Some years ago at Chain Valley Bay (Lake Macquarie) there was serious land subsidence due to coal mining which damaged houses, flooded residential land and bushland causing many mature trees to die. A similar disaster could easily happen in Jilliby and Dooralong Valley on a far greater scale.

The original application by Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture (WAJCV), Kores P/L, in 2010 was rejected by the previous NSW Government in March 2011 on grounds of unsustainability (ESD principles) and the Government's application of the Precautionary Principle. Nothing in the new application changes that concept as essentially it is a reworking of the previous application.The current NSW Government's "Aquifer Interference Policy" as intended should nullify the application at hand.

. The Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette no 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950). The now extinguished Part 3a of the EPA Act overrode this Statute , so effectively the original protective measure should now be in place.
. Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford LGA's rely upon the 53% of their potable water emanating from these critical valleys. Recently the completed $80 million Mardi-Mangrove pipeline was funded by the Federal Government specifically to transfer water from this system to the Mangrove Dam on the escarpment during flood rains. The valleys above this mine regularly flood as agreed in the proponent's submission.

. In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for water to travel downwards to the coal strata were evident and so bulk water would not be impeded on its downward path.
. Kores claim that there will be no effect upon the water supply due to impervious layers between the surface and the mine seam. Professor Phillip Pells, Senior Lecturer at the University of NSW dismisses these claims. Kores do admit to a so-called tiny loss of water rated at 2ml per day per square metre. This extrapolates over the whole mine area some 8 megalitres per day or 3000 megalitres each year once mining is complete. The professional uncertainties characterised within the Kores submission paint a very tentative picture for protection of the coast's natural potable water supply.

.The Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) questions many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based. For instance (page 258, Appendix H) indicates...
.../2
"Page 73.- a similar issue of semantics occurs when discussing changes to stream alignment. MSEC states that there will be no significant changes, but what is regarded as significant? Can this be quantified at all?" ..and.. again.. "Page 74..(part).In discussion of valley floor closure and upsidence, it is noted that such behaviour is expected to occur in a number of valleys, but will be masked by overlying alluvium. It is noted that small zones of increased permeability might develop in the top few metres of the rock head beneath the alluvium, but due to the saturated overlying alluvium, these increased permeability zones will not result in any impact on surface water levels. This conclusion may be correct, but is it not possible that some conditions may exist due to localised geological changes, and changing climatic conditions such that the alluvium is not always saturated and some loss of water level in the streams may occur? "....

. Some 46 panels are to be mined, including in the Hue Hue Subsidence Area where 150 houses (Appendix H Map on page 240) mostly of modern brick design exist on subdivided acres and will be subjected to subsidence up to one metre but may well suffer further subsidence due to the existence of Awaba Tuff strata below the mine on which the remaining pillars are supported. Much discussion within the application refers to the uncertain nature and caution needed re the soft bedded Awaba Tuff leading to a scenario of adaptive management as mining begins to proceed. This type of experimental mining should only be carried out in an outback remote location and not under modern homes within the expanding outer suburbs of Wyong. The Department of Infrastructure and Planning should be alarmed by this and immediately inform the unsuspecting owners of the properties in the Hue Hue Subsidence District.

. A total of 245 houses (Append.H Page 130) will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. A total of 755 Rural Building Structures will be impacted (Append. H >page 179) and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree (Append.H>page 187). As can be seen the projected damage inside the mining lease area would be catastrophic. The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents isolated from all directions.

. Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications. New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades.
. 19 species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China,(CAMBA) Japan(JAMBA) and Korea itself(ROKAMBA). The proposal directly affects these agreements.
.../3
The Director-General's Requirements are extensive and in most areas Kores have failed to address these adequately. The proposal should be rejected outright as the long term damage to the coast's water,infrastructure , amenity and health is breathtaking. The addition of the result of burning this resource within the next 30 years has not been evaluated upon damage to the earth's climate and will be wholly condemned as the trend to reject fossil fuels gains momentum.

An article in The Sydney Morning Herald (June 17, 2013) states "Most of Australia's coal reserves will have to be left unburned if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming, according to a report from the federal government's climate commission". This is the message from the report - The Critical Decade 2013 - Climate change science, risks and responses. We need to heed the warning, be responsible and not add to the problem.

If the committee members have not visited the Jilliby/Dooralong area I would urge them to do so and see what we could lose if this mine is approved.

To whom it SHOULD concern,

I am furious that the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine is being considered once again. This project was put to rest a couple of years ago, much to the relief of the environment and residents in the area, yet somehow it is now being considered again?! Exactly what has changed in terms of the impact this mine will have since last time the plan was looked at? I can answer that one for you, absolutely nothing!

Water quality WILL still be affected, and its not just humans and our drinking water, but all of the other ecosystems and species that rely on this water.

Airborne coal dust, yep it's still going to be a problem as well. Kores even admits this in their EIS, does that not concern you enough to reject this plan?

Subsidence caused by the mining is still going to happen as well, and is estimated to be up to 2 metres in some cases! How happy would you be to see your house or any part of your property sinking 2 metres into the ground? Pretty sure I could answer that one as well.

This plan must be put to rest, once and for all. We trusted you to look after the interests and future of the residents on the Central Coast, not to look after a Korean Coal Mining company and theirs.

I support this coal mining project.or any mining in australia

I think the project should go ahead so as we have more employment for the younger people.

Coal dust in the atmosphere due to transporting in uncovered rail wagons. Exasperating air quality causing health problems

DUE TO OUR LACK OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND EQUIPMENT OUR FILE FORMAT WILL BE SUBMITTED VIA
EMAIL. PLEASE CORRELATE OUR PIECE MEAL SUBMISSION

I am writing to submit my objection to the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project Application No. SSD-4974. The basis of my objection includes the following:

1) Health concerns as a result of the coal project including increased in respiratory problems including asthma and the long term effects that the fine airborne particles of coal dust may have on this and generations to come. These concerns are highlighted by the proposers own admission that there could be deaths resulting.

2) Concerns over the impact on our region's water supply and catchment areas as a result of the coal proposal.

3) The negative impact on local homes that will result from the project. It is anticipated that mine subsidence of 1 to 2m could result impacting many local homes.

I believe the long term damage to the Central Coast's water, infrastructure and health that would result from this proposal being approved cannot be ignored.

The original proposal back in 2010 was rejected by the previous NSW Government in March 2011 on grounds of unsustainability (ESD principles) and the Government's application of the Precautionary Principle.

Nothing in the new application changes that concept as essentially it is a reworking of the previous application. The same problems still exist and the devastating effect that this could have on our local environment and way of life should not be underestimated.

Within the extraction zone there is 525.8 ha of Coachwood - crab apple rainforest. As there is so little rainforest left in Australia this section of rainforest would be irreplaceable and difficult to offset.

There would be quite a few animal species affected also - for example the Little Eagle and Freetail bats that studies show are evident in the rainforest. A lot more species would move through it but due to access these haven't been noted.

This is a significant area of warm temperate rainforest of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin to be affected and should be left insitu.

I write to object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project for the following reasons:

1. Water Catchment
Wyong Water Catchment is protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950. The water systems of the Dooralong and Yarramalong Valleys account for 50% of the water catchment for the entire Central Coast. Therefore I do not promote any mining operation in this area.

2. "No ifs - no buts - a guarantee"
The Liberal Party prior to the 2011 State Election promised in writing three times that if elected they would not allow the Wallarah 2 mine to proceed. They promised to introduce legislation into the Parliament to protect the water catchment area from coal mining. Barry O'Farrell stood up at a public rally in front of the electronic media and said, "the next Liberal/National Party Government will not allow mining to occur here... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee". The Liberal Party ran an election campaign on the Central Coast on the back on the anti coal campaign, reinforcing their absolute promise.

3. Collateral damage of a broken promise
Aware of the facts that Wallarah 2 had been refused based on unsustainability, and that Barry O'Farrell promised that no mining would occur under the Central Coast's water catchment, I went about purchasing a farm and land. I believed what the politician I had backed promised. We knew our property sat in a mine subsidence district but we acquired it on the basis of Mr. O'Farrell's promise to legislate and based on the government's common sense to reject the first application to Wallarah 2. What is new to us now is that we are predicted to sustain 2250mm of subsidence, a 25% probability to sustain a R1 or R2 impact, a 10% probability to sustain a R3 or R4 impact. I would never bet against those odds. I request that Mr. O'Farrell's promise is honoured.

4. Subsidence
* The extent of predicted subsidence is staggering (over 1000mm on average, 2000- 2250m for our farm - 245 homes, 420 dams, 755 farm structures) - this item of subsidence alone brings too many risks for the local community and the local environment. Too many remediation strategies will need to be devised at the emotional cost and the monetary cost of the local community and tax payers.
* The study area is crisscrossed with rivulets, dams, ponds, bogs, wetland and rivers, most are tributaries to the Jilliby Jilliby Creek and Wyong Creek. The risk to incur any subsidence underneath these water resources is far greater than what the Central Coast can take, and the predicted water loss is far greater than the recharge capacity or the JJC river flow. The Central Coast is in constant need for clean and nutritive drinking water. Risking pollution by gases or shortages due to seepage is not a risk I want my community to bear.
* The alluvial valleys are fertile because of ground and surface water storages. Many businesses and farms like ours depend on these natural passive water storages. Risking loosing or damaging these water resources because of this Project is not a risk that I want to take for the sustainability of my farm operations and that of my colleagues. I already have climate change to worry about and I invest a lot in building dams to store any precious water that fall on our roofs. I don't want to see those natural passive water storages nor our man-made water resources drain any single drop of water to mining.
* KORES spokesperson indicated in a recent interview with ABC Central Coast that remediation options will be discussed with each land owners two years before the panels go in. TWO YEARS? I don't accept such little time frame - this is nowhere near a guarantee to safeguard my assets, my farm operations, my future and that of my child's, and our safety.
* The press release announcing the new EIS is grossly understating the extent of the project: "the mining area is predominantly situated underneath Wyong State Forest". This statement is untrue as only between a fifth to a quarter of the study area is made of the Wyong State Forest. Over three quarters of the study area are made of the State Conservation Area, farmland, expanding suburbs, rivers and streams.

5. Flooding
Subsidence impact on flooding is of great concern to me. Figure 34 of "Impacts, Management and Mitigation" shows that the beginning of Beaven Lane and a large portion of Jilliby Road will flood, henceforth preventing access to us, other residents north of this area and to any medical or emergency teams. I am personally affected with a life-long illness that requires un-schedulable emergency hospitalisation. The fast route that is Jilliby road being cut off by flood caused by mine subsidence would require that I or any emergency medical team take the longer route through unsealed Durren Road. I cannot promote the Project for this reason.

6. 330 kV Transmission Lines
I am greatly concerned with Wallarah 2's opinion that Transgrid should reinforce the footings of the tension towers (especially those on our land and adjacent to it which span is of over 1km) as means to avoid coal sterilisation. The work required to replace those towers with other subsidence-proof tower (should they exist) as suggested by Wallarah 2 on page 100 of Appendix H will have enormous negative collateral impacts which are not assessed in theEIA. I cannot therefore promote this Project for these reasons as Wallarah 2 is not amiable to coal sterilisation, and is privileging profit over common-sense.

7. Bush Fires
The valleys are naturally wet. All the time. The forested hills are naturally wet too. Remnants of rainforest or rainforest regrowth are strong, healthy and thriving with life (fauna & flora) because they are wet. All the time. Our floodplains are wet. All the time. This humidity is possible thanks to a healthy recharge area from the forested hills down to the aquifers, ground storage and surface water storage. This humidity is a major damper to bush fires as confirmed to me by the SCA Park Management representative. This protects assets both public and private, this protects wildlife and this sustains the natural features of our coastal hinterland (pastures, farmland, estuary, etc). The EIS does not take into account the amount of work and resources the rural fire brigades will need to undertake when bush fires become more prevalent. I am not saying mining will cause bush fires. It will however gradually rob the ground of its natural moisture. And with climate change becoming more apparent every season, we need to increase our chances to protect our land and our assets. Thus I cannot promote this Project as it will undermine our land and our community's bush fire safety.

8. Touristic destination & economic value for the Central Coast
The scenic beauty of the Central Coast's forested backdrop is a major tourist attraction. Its pristine valleys, its rainforests, its wetlands and estuary are the pride of Central Coast residents and businesses. Both Wyong and Gosford Council are strongly promoting environmental protection of this natural backdrop along with the Tuggerah lakes and the beaches. Risking undermining their health and integrity as well as their related economic output because of subsidence, or pollution downstream or bad publicity is madness for the resiliency of the Coast and its touristic and economic vantage points. I cannot promote this project for this reason.

9. Drought damper
For the same reasons as outlined in my point number7, I cannot promote this Project which will rob our land of its water. The ground water is drought proofing our pastures, our farm operations, our economic farm output, our economic tourist output, etc.

10. Solidarity and integrity of our community
We are sustainable local employers. We are also parents of children to whom we are promoting the Central Coast as a place to live, work, play and raise their own family. We participate in the local economy. We contribute to our local community. Wallarah 2 however has not shown any of that so far, and I don't suspect it ever will. Instead, it's buying out our community with community grants here or there. It's dividing our community. Our community will see nothing of Wallarah 2's wealth made over our coal reserves. Our community will be left patching scars left by the mining operations. Wallarah 2's claim to create 1000 jobs over the length of the Project - that is 35 jobs a year! Woa! Big deal (not) for the Central Coast! I cannot support such project which will not sustainably our community.

11. Destruction of native ecosystems
In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for water to travel downwards to the coal strata was evident and so bulk water would not be impeded on its downward path. Furthermore, the Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) questions many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based. The EIS offers no guarantee that our landscape will not face a bleak outlook once panels go in. The native ecosystems that depend on those landscapes are to invaluable to risk slow death by subsidence or drying out.
12. Quarry
Our property is backed by a disused quarry. I scoured the EIA to find impact assessments related to this particular item. I found nothing. This is worrying and it gives me no guarantee that the EIA is comprehensive in its study. Should the quarry be mentioned in the EIA, I am still worried as I couldn't find it. This is once again showing that the EIA was not written for the intention of the public but mostly to satisfy a regulatory requirement. Once again, the community is not at the heart of Wallarah 2 Project proponents. So how will subsidence impact the the area since there is a quarry sufficiently large to be seen on satellite pictures and a 330kV tension line nearby?
13. Safety
I am greatly concerned about the behaviour of subsidence especially when they are predicted to reach 2.2 meters or more. Despite the fact that we sit on a proposed panel that is predicted to subside by 2.25m, we also do extensive bush hiking in the SCA and State Forest. We also walk our paddocks every day. We drive our cars and tractors through roads that are predicted to subside. We cross bridges that sit over subsidence area. Are we at risk of falling in a big hole on day? Will my living room disappear by 2.25m? The EIA doesn't address the predicted behaviour of subsidence of our specific geological landscape. I cannot support such Project that fails to address legitimate community concerns well before they were raised. Such a lack of common sense from the Wallarah 2 Project proponents is symptomatic of its lack of community concerns.

14. Pollution by dust, noise and emissions
I am concerned about the pollution that would enter our lungs from the Western ventilation shaft, and the Buttonderry stockpiles. The EIS has not addressed the issue of crystalline silica appropriately other than by quoting past studies done in other parts of the world. This is not good enough in my views.

15. Some last concerns:
The EIA is an incredibly indigestible and convoluted piece of document. I was made aware of it on the last week of May when I received a hand-delivered (there was not postal stamps) letter from Wallarah 2 dated "May 2013". This letter informed me that the EIS was on public display until Friday 21 June and that I was not to worry about subsidence as the Mine Subsidence Board will take care of everything. Why did I not receive it earlier? I am one of those time-poor over-worked mortgage-paying families that haven't time to read the papers, watch TV or log on to the Wallarah 2 website and read their newsletter. So this letter certainly did not encourage me to read the bulky EIA and it was very good at giving me a false sense of security. I decided to have a go at reviewing the EIS despite all odds and got a CD Rom copy from the library (the documents are too heavy to download from the internet and I didn't know I could get a free hardcopy from the Council Chambers) and I set myself up to read them. You'll excuse me if I cannot quote any data related to CO2 and methane release into the atmosphere as I haven't yet gotten to that part - if there is indeed a mention of this topic in the EIS. But common sense prevails and I suspect that if you take coal away from its natural underground storage and if you are to burn it to produce electricity (or bombs?), you are certainly releasing it into the atmosphere. So the Project is against any Climate Change mitigation strategies and lacks crucial amount of common sense.

I back the Government's initiative Caring for our Country. I do not back mining under our valleys.

Peter & Tanya O'Neill
17 Holloway Drive,
Jilliby,
NSW 2259

19-6-13

Major Planning Assessments
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are residents of Jilliby and welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Mine proposal.

The proposed mining site will directly affect us and many, many other people in a variety of negative ways and should not be allowed to proceed. The health and well being of people, animals and the environment should come before money - no price can be put on health and once people are sick and the environment is dying, there will be no going back. It is an absolute disgrace that this proposal should even be considered, especially as it was previously unanimously rejected by politicians prior to the last State election due to its unacceptable impacts.

Health impacts will be severe and completely unacceptable. We should not be forced to breathe in coal dust nor drink it. The entire area relies on tank water and anything in the air will settle on our rooves, wash into our water tanks and then be ingested by us. We don't suffer from asthma or chronic lung disease and don't wish to have it induced due to mining. We also don't want our peaceful area to be subjected to the noise and huge increases in traffic (trucks in particular) that will be generated.

Subsidence will be a major problem. Roads, properties, dwellings and land in general will all be affected. We do not wish to drive along sunken roads and have our house and land sink, crack and become worthless and uninhabitable. This is our home. Trying to fix these problems, apart from being prohibitively costly, will be impossible due to the cause being under the ground and beyond our control.

Apart from these major impacts upon us personally, there will also be the impact on the beautiful environment both flora and fauna. Threatened and endangered species living here will also be subjected to the same health issues as the human population and have their habitat taken away and forever detrimentally altered.

The broader community will have their water supply affected also, with a huge percentage of the water catchment area being directly in the proposed mining area, as well as the largely unknown impacts on the area's groundwater.


Everything about this proposal is in conflict with human and environmental health and sustainability. It is in conflict with government policies and Australia's stance on being a world leader regarding these issues. Let our Governments show that we all stand for the important things in life and that the health and wellbeing of our fellow human beings, our communites, our fauna, our environment and our way of life are of the upmost importance and will not be compromised. This proposal should not be allowed to proceed.

Yours sincerely,

Peter & Tanya O'Neill

I strongly object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project for the following reasons:

Science: Approval to this project was previously denied due to over 40 items relating to unacceptable damage or disturbance. The new EIS is essentially a revamped version of the previous one and doesn't address these issues (excessive subsidence, increasing flooding, water catchment reduction, air pollution...). I object to be submitted to stress and anguish whilst this project has no ground to be re-submitted.

Broken promise: Aware of the fact that my property was in a mine subsidence area, I acquired it on the basis of Mr B. O'Farrell's promise to ban mining in the Yarramalong and Duralong valleys if elected as premier.

Process: The process is designed in such a way that people concerned do not get an easy, user-friendly and timely access to information which will significantly and adversely affect their lives.

* The EIS is an extremely large and complex document which was put in exhibition for less than two months. That puts extreme pressure on working families like us to review the EIS.

* In the last week of May, I, received a letter dated "May 2013" from Wallarah 2 - the letter was not posted - no stamps - but delivered to my mailbox. My neighbours received the same generic letter on the same day. It announced the new release of the EIS (which happened a month prior to the day we received that letter!!!), and it broadly informed us that we should not worry about subsidence as the Mine Subsidence Board will compensate us. It's only upon digging into Appendix G (figure 5.6) and Appendix H (table D.01) that I learnt that I was in a 2.2m subsidence zone. A Kores spokesperson on ABC local radio (Gosford 17/6/13) said "people shouldn't be concerned, as this is a very long project, subsidence will only appear in over 10 years' time..." This is akin to saying: "you have a terminal illness, but do not be worried; you'll only die in 10 years' time...". The spokesperson went on: "in any case, once the project is underway we will come 2 years ahead of time to discuss the specifics with each resident concerned" I need to know NOW what remediation strategies will be offered for my assets, the water resources, the natural landscape, etc. Failing that, I can only but object this project.

* Why wasn't I (and the other 244 property owners in the Study Area) not contacted before that date and personally informed about subsidence specific to each case? This only left us less than three weeks to meet the submission deadline. Unacceptable.

For all the reasons stated above, I find this process dishonest.

Misleading information: Misleading information was published in the Press Release: "the mining area is predominantly situated underneath Wyong State Forest". This is purposely worded to lull people into thinking "Well, that mining project is OK then, it will not affect our lives directly as it lays mostly under bushland" This statement is untrue as only less than a quarter of the study area lays in the Wyong State Forest. Over three quarters of the study area are made of the State Conservation Area, farmland, expanding suburbs, rivers and streams.

Livelihood: My property is marked as one to sustain one of the highest levels of subsidence (2.2m). I am told that remediation by the subsidence board is a lengthy process and also that it covers only houses. Left out are: infrastructure such as dams, sheds, fencing, land... I acquired my property both as a residence and as an agricultural concern. What will happen to the income derived from that activity after a 2.2 metre subsidence destroys my fences and sheds, takes away my dams and who will pay to restore this infrastructure to its former state?

Safety: A point of great concern to my family. How can we predict with certainty when and where a subsidence of this magnitude will occur? Will we be crushed under our house, fall into a sinkhole or will the two 330kV Transgrid high-voltage lines crisscrossing our property fall on us (The towers are only tension towers).

Greater good: we have started working with the Catchment Management Authority and NSW Environment & Heritage Department (Land for Wildlife scheme) to establish a framework for our agricultural activity that will preserve water quality on Myrtle Creek, control weed infestation and maintain wildlife on the edge of the State Conservation Area. Longwall mining operations have too many cases-gone-bad scenario that permanently damaged and altered the natural processes on stream and rivulets. The government is taking great pride in protecting these natural assets and mining under them is in complete contradiction with those strategies.
The only justification for sacrificing pristine environments and valuable water catchments such as the ones found in the Yarramalong and Dooralong valleys would be, as a last resort, to address a pressing need of energy resources for Australia itself, definitely not to be squandered as export to a foreign power.

Dear Director Mining Projects

I wish to strongly object to the proposal made to construct a coal mine beneath the water catchment valleys of Wyong.

My reasons for this objection are briefly due to:

Air Quality

An aritcle in a Australian Mining Publication in November 2010 quoted the findings of a senior public health officer for the Central Coast Region, to the NSW Planning Dept, 'that air pollution had been underestimated by by Wallarah Coal and would produce increased respiratory systems and morbidity among residents.' The article further stated 'that air quality data from the Minors EIS was inadequate and pollution levels projected would cause harm.' It quoted 'that the coal dust would spread well beyond the boundaries of the proposed mine.'

Water Quality

These valleys which will be adversely affected (Dooralong and Yarramalong) account for approximately 68% of the water catchment for the entire Central Coast of NSW.

The community can see that this proposal has the potential to destroy the catchment river systems and the underground aquifers.

The river systems are two-thirds fed by these aquifers and to compromise their integrity is unacceptable.

Ecological Balance

This proposal has the potential to disrupt the ecological balance of bird, animal, aquatic and plant life, and endanger the estaurine habitat of endangered international migratory birds that are protected. Also, the proposal will compromise the beautification of our State Forest.

Conclusion

I am aware that governing agencies are looking for reassurance from Wallarah Coal that they will bear responsibility to remedy any adversity this coal mine will cause, however it is very hard to unscramble an egg and as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

On a personal note, I have recently undetaken much travel within Australia and the increase in mining activity I have seen within this county is concerning. It is very unappealing to the eye and devastating for the health and wellbeing of communities.

This area of the Central Coast of NSW is pristine..., please do not allow this development to progress.

Regards

Kimberly Bushnell
40 The Citadel
UMINA BEACH NSW 2257

Dear Minister,

I call on you to reject this project due to a number of wide ranging and serious factors. A summary of these is outlined below:

SUBSIDENCE
A total of 245 houses (Appendix H, Page 130) will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. A total of 755 Rural Building Structures will be impacted (Appendix H, leading up to 179) and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree (Appendix H, leading up to 187). As can be seen the projected damage inside the mining lease area would be catastrophic. The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents
isolated from all directions.

DUST and HEALTH
Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications.
New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades.

WATER SECURITY
The Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette No. 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950).

Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford Local Government Area rely upon this major water catchment for their potable water. The recently completed Mardi-Mangrove pipeline also relies upon the sustainability of the water catchment district to transfer water from this system
to the Mangrove Dam for water banking.

In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for water to travel downwards to the coal strata was evident and so bulk water would not be
impeded on its downward path.

Kores admit to a loss of water rated at 2ml per day per square metre of the mine surface area. This extrapolates over the whole mine area to approximately 8 megalitres per day or 3000 megalitres each year once mining is complete. The professional uncertainties characterised within the Kores submission paint a very tentative picture for
protection of the coast's natural potable water supply.

SPECIES IMPACTS
Nineteen species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China (CAMBA), Japan (JAMBA) and South Korea itself (ROKAMBA).Theproposal directly affects these agreements. There are also flora species listed as threatened under the Act and local fauna species listed as endangered under the Act with the proposed mining area.

Considering these impacts to the community and water supply, I strongly object to this proposal.

Sincerely,

Naomi Hogan

Too many risks - drinking water loss, deaths from coal dust, over populated area with a growing percentage of young families....Too many risks

Too much subsidence for populated areas

Threats to our local creeks. Our pristine Spring Creek and Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the Wallarah 2 Coal mine for the following reasons: 1. Threat to the water supply. Longwall coal mining has a history of ruining aquifers and the central coast relies on the Yarramalong and Dooralong Valleys for their water supply. In recent years our central coast water supply was reduced to almost 10% capacity. We have recovered for now but in this land of droughts we cannot afford to take our water supply for granted. We can live without coal royalties but we can't live without water. 2. Wallarah Creek are in danger of being polluted as they run through the mine site and then into Budgewoi Lake, Taking away the riparian vegetation from the catchment areas of these creeks will cause erosion and siltation of the creeks and Lake. The proposed coal stockpile will be located in the creek catchment. The stockpile would have to be constantly washed and turned over to prevent combustion and reduce dust. What happens to this filthy water? What happens when it rains? If the dirty water is kept in holding dams any flooding will cause it to overflow into creeks and downstream to the lake. In 2007 the central coast suffered major flooding, including Spring and Wallarah creeks. Climate change will ensure this kind of major flooding will occur more often. 3. On the subject of climate change, the coal from this proposed mine will produce hundreds of millions of tonnes of green house gases when burnt and contribute to global warming. 4. Threatened species. The following species which occur at Bushells Ridge are listed as vulnerable (high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium term future) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act: Tetratheca juncea, Angophora inopina, Cryptostylis hunteriana, Wallum Froglet, Large Footed Myotis, Little Bent Wing Bat, Black Bittern, Squirrel Glider, Glossy Black Cockatoo, Eastern Bent Wing Bat, Eastern Freetail Bat, Greater Broad Nosed Bat, Masked Owl. The following species which occur at Bushells Ridge are listed as endangered (very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future) under the EPBC Act: Genoplesium insignis, Acacia bynoeana, Eucalyptus parramattensis subspecies parramattensis. The Endangered Ecological Communities River Flat Eucalypt Forest and Swamp Sclerophyll Forest occur at Bushells Ridge as well as a 7G (locally critical) wetland. 5. The central coast already has a high incidence of respiratory illness without daily doses of coal dust. Blue Haven School and two child care centres are located within 3 klms of the proposed mine site and there would be many more in surrounding suburbs. 6. Noise. Blue Haven residents can hear noisy goods trains at night quite clearly. I have been told that the kilometres long coal trains will have to work in with passenger trains. I take this to mean that they will be running at night and machinery to load the trains will need to be running too. If they are anything like the coal loading machinery at Newcastle they are too filthy and noisy to be allowed to run near housing. 7. The proposed mine site is located too close to the Wyong Employment Zone. Clean industries, including food and beverage producers, will not want to be located close to such a dirty industry. 8. Aboriginal land. The proposed mine rail loop will have to be built over Darkinjung land. Personal communcation with a member of the land council has informed me that they will be allowing this to happen. Unfortunately there are greedy people who make these decisions but don't necessarily represent the wishes of the whole community.

I hope the good of the environment and the health of the people of the central coast will be put before dollars. I was at the meeting when Barry O'Farrell assured us that his government would not allow this mine to go ahead, yet here I am again having to explain the obvious to politicians. If you allow this to go ahead you are contributing to the loss of threatened species, the worsening of climate change, water and air pollution, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. If you have children or grandchildren then think about what kind of world you would like for them and whether you can hold your head up high and say you did your best to protect it.

I find it amusing that there is a provision that I must disclose any political donations or gifts. I would sincerely love to find out about Kores political donations or gifts. Is there somewhere I can find this information?

Regards, Sharon Salmi

Wallarah 2 was rejected due to "unresolved concerns" regarding water impacts, important subsidence, ecological and heritage impacts.

According to the Department of Planning the "project was not considered consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development."

Meanwhile, the assessment commission said the mine posed no significant issues for the Central Coast water supply PROVIDED there were no major unidentified geological faults. However, the Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) QUESTIONS many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based. So the EIS offers no guarantee that our landscape (geology, water resources, etc) will not face a bleak outlook once panels go in.

The plans for Wallarah 2 are the same as those that were rejected once already. The risks are the same.The unsustainability of this project is the same.

I therefore strongly object to this project.

I am and have been the owner of a residential property on Ruttleys Road Wyee Point (a location within the potential impact area associated with the proposal) for approximately 15 years and prior to that time was a very regular visitor to Wyong Shire. Over this period I have made a number of observations regarding the status of the area and changes that have occurred, particularly in terms of residential development and the ever increasing trend for the area to be a residential base for people who then travel elsewhere for employment due to the failure for employment opportunities to keep pace with residential growth.
For as long as I have been a visitor/ property owner in the Wyong LGA and from the literature, it has been and continues to be apparent that the area is relatively economically and socially disadvantaged when compared to the majority of LGAs within the State and exhibit unemployment at level significantly higher than the State average, issues specifically identified within the Department's Central Coast Regional Strategy (2011). The recent placement of the Mannering Colliery on care and maintenance and the decision by LMCC and the State Government to ban open cut mining in the Lake Macquarie LGA has only exacerbated this situation.
In that same strategy document, a growth target for the LGA of some 50% has been identified for the Wyong LGA for the next 20 years. However, without the development of significant new employment opportunities, including industries such as mining which not only employ large numbers of people during both construction and operational phases but also have significant flow-on benefits by way of enhanced existing and new local businesses, it is difficult to see the requisite employment opportunities developing and any meaningful change in the existing social and economic situation occurring.
I have read the Wallarah 2 Coal Project EIS in its entirety, looking at its content both from the perspective of a new development as well as the treatment of matters identified as the basis for its prior rejection, noting in particular that WACJV has designed the project to minimize impacts on all aspects of the environment through things such as longwall dimension variation, positioning to avoid significant features and orientation, and infrastructure placement.
As with ALL new developments, be they residential, commercial or industrial, there will inevitably be some impacts. However, even as a potentially affected person, I am of the opinion that the assessment is scientifically sound; the identified residual impacts can be readily managed through the adoption of the nominated mitigation and management measures, as well as through an adaptive management regime based on monitoring which reflects the nature of underground mining; are personally acceptable as well as within acceptable levels, and would satisfy reasonable community expectations. As a consequence, and in light of the obvious benefits in terms of the local social and economic environment; the future of the Shire as a dynamic area with a diverse economy and a place where people can both live and work, and the benefits to the State as a whole, it is my opinion that the impacts are justifiable and that the proposal should be supported at all levels and approved.