Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

If approved Wallarah 2 Coal Project would cause irreversible environmental damage by releasing millions of tonnes of polluting coal & damaging another vitally important water catchment.



This submission must be rejected by the NSW Government.



Amongst the people I know the NSW Government won many votes on the back of promises to protect the environment on several issues & against coal mining in a water catchment area thanks.

I am writing because I am one of the people who are hating how the
Hunter Valley is being turned inside out by coal mining , the changes
in water tables in the Valley and wherever coal mining happens to
disrupt aquifers and the pollution of air by coal dust.

And - hunting in National Parks - what a bad idea THAT one is. The
government is being held by the short and curlies by a group who try to
talk up how they "respect the animals" but don't really - they just want
to shoot them. And if I hear another one say that "it's my culture" I'll
vomit.

National Parks should be for the protection of animals and feral numbers
are not effectively reduced by shooting - saw that when we lived in SA
and friends were shooters. A National Park would be closed while they
went in as a big group for two weeks and tried to get the goats and
pigs. They admitted it was fun but they were pretty useless and their
bag wasn't very impressive when they compared it to the numbers known to
be in the area. Feral reduction - furphy, sounds good in a sound bite,
not a real outcome.

American-style gun culture in Australia - coming to a National Park near
you. Shooter friends had better fun on properties where they developed a
good relationship with the owner, genuinely adopted safe practices,
didn't have a go at his stock and shot goats and pigs for meat. They
were the real quality amateurs with genuine pride in their workmanship.
Idiots with guns is another thing.

I wish to protest the possible approval of the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine in
Wyong.

This proposal would fly in the face of the Premier's promise "The next
Liberal-National Government will ensure that mining cannot occur ... in any
water catchment area .... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee."

The proposed mine clearly falls within the water catchment area of Wyong.

Any proposal to mine coal at this stage of the climate cycle is sheer
madness. It is clear from the vast majority of scientists specialising in
the relevant fields that the world is warming and our climate is changing
and that a high proportion of the change is attributable to anthropogenic
causes. A key aspect is the mining and burning of coal.

It is unconscionable therefore for NSW to perpetrate new mines for no other
reason than greed.

Thank you for your consideration.

The Wallarah 2 Coal Project site is located wholly within the Tuggerah Lakes Basin, the extraction area lies in the Jilliby Jilliby Creek catchment. The mine and rail link will impact on Crown land, land owned by the Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council, protected species habitat and historical and Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.


This project application has already been refused once. In March 2011, the previous NSW Government refused the Wallarah 2 Coal Project application on the basis that the proponent failed to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts.


The proponent, Kores Ltd, has not made any substantial changes to their proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be once again rejected.


Further the water supply of approximately 150,000 people residewho within the Wyong and Gosford area is threatened by this mine application.


Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements associated with the mine 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 EIS fails to adequately address these impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.


Short-term exposure to particulate matter pollution can lead to diminished lung function, damage and inflammation of lung tissue, increased mortality rates in children and young adults, aggravation of asthma symptoms, heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and other cardiovascular issues.


The current EIS lists 37 recorded threatened and migratory fauna species and six vulnerable or endangered flora species within the project site. Many of these species are protected under state and federal legislation as well as international agreements. The key threats to these species include land clearing, change in habitat due to subsidence and alteration of water flow, wetlands and floodplains. All of these threats are possible effects of this project.


Five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum represents a substantial contribution to NSW total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.


The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term investment in renewable energy sources has not been adequately investigated. The government should perform a cost benefit comparison of investing the equivalent amount in renewable energy sources.




The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts. The proponent has not made any substantial changes to their proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be rejected once and for all.

It concerns me greatly that another submission has been made for the Wallarah 2 coal project given it is essentially the same in content to a previous submission which was rejected by the previous government.



The development of such a coal project poses serious impacts to ground and surface water in the catchment which would directly affect the residents of the Wyong and Gosford area.

Site water management plans are inadequate since most are merely observational. Some monitoring plans are not due to be created until two years into the operational life of the mine.



Air quality will be degraded by mining dust impacting the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morrisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. Noise pollution will also increase to these areas. Exposure to particulate matter is detrimental to human and animal health and will increase the likelihood of health issues in populations affected.



The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsistence and heritage impacts. No substantial changes have been made in this current proposal and therefore the project is still against the public best interest. Premier O'Farrell promised during his election campaign "The next Liberal-National government will ensure that mining cannot occur ... in any water catchment area ... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee." It is time his government make good on this promise by rejecting this proposed coal project once and for all.



There are currently 37 recorded threatened and migratory fauna species and six vulnerable or endangered flora species within the project site. Many are protected under state and federal legislation as well as international agreements. Land clearing and change in habitat due to alterations to subsistence and water quality and flow affecting wetlands and floodplains pose clear threats to these vulnerable species and would be likely direct results of this project going ahead.



Five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum represents a substantial contribution to NSW total carbon emissions and is in direct conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to climate change. The government should conduct a cost benefit comparison investing the equivalent amount in renewable energy sources which in the longer term will likely be more economically AND environmentally sustainable.



It is now time to make policy which is in step with the modern age and not aligned with the thinking of the early industrial era of the 1900s. Natural resources including pure fresh water will be tomorrow's gold and will not survive short sighted decision making which compromises them.

It is folly to consider starting a new coalmine when we know that it's effect on human induced climate change will be dramatic. On top of that is the large scale impact on the water catchment area affecting rural communites and the considerable ecological damage.

This mine would result in the extraction of up to 5 million tonnes of polluting coal each year for 28 years, undermining several waterways north of Wyong. This project has already been refused once, by the previous government, due to unacceptable impacts on water, ecosystems and heritage sites.

This project should be rejected once and for all.

"The next Liberal-National government will ensure that mining cannot occur ... in any water catchment area ... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee."
Then Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell, 2009

Wyong Shire Ratepayers and Residents Association is strongly opposed to a proposal by Kores to undertake mining under the water catchments in the Wyong Valleys.


Known as Wallarah 2, this mining proposal has already been refused once, by the previous government, due to unacceptable impacts on water supply, ecosystems and heritage sites.


The O'Farrell government came to power promising to legislate against construction of this mine.




From documents prepared by Kores, we understand that



- Kores proposes to mine 36 longwall panels underneath the Wyong State Forest
- the proposed mine will operate for 25 years

- up to five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum will be extracted

- the site will require three years for construction
- the mine will run 24 hours a day once operational
- the project includes coal handling facilities, rail loop and loading infrastructure, ventilation shafts, gas and

water management facilities and maintenance and administration buildings.

Kores Ltd, the proponent, does not appear to have made substantial changes to their previous proposal which was rejected as being against the public interest.


PRINCIPAL objectionS:

UNKNOWN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS


The Central Coast (Wyong and Gosford LGAs) has a population of approximately 300,000 people - about the size of Canberra. Some 53% of the water catchment area supplying these residents is threatened by this mine application.

With $ 80m funding from the Federal Government, the two local councils have recently completed the $140 million Mardi-Mangrove pipeline - designed to transfer water from the river system to the Mangrove Dam during flood rains.



The catchment for the river system is located in the Wyong Valley area, inlcluding Jilliby .. under which Kores proposes its mine. The valleys above this mine regularly flood as Kores recognises in its submission.


Considerable subsidence can be anticipated ... under the catchment area and under existing houses. The effect on the valley floors and underground water catchments is unknown.


The EPA Act requires application of the precautionary principle where there is significant doubt regarding a development proposal.



AIR QUALITY AND DUST


Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will adversely impact on the established residential suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The EIS fails to adequately address these impacts.

The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
Short-term exposure to particulate matter pollution can lead to diminished lung function, damage and inflammation of lung tissue, increased mortality rates in children and young adults, aggravation of asthma symptoms, heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and other cardiovascular issues.
FAILURE TO ADDRESS PREVIOUS CONCERNS


The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts.



The proponent has not made any substantial changes to its proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be rejected.

Threatened Species


The EIS for the project lists 37 recorded threatened and migratory fauna species and six vulnerable or endangered flora species within the project site. Many of these species are protected under state and federal legislation as well as international agreements.



Key threats to these species include land clearing, change in habitat due to subsidence and alteration of water flow, wetlands and floodplains. All of these threats are possible effects of this project.

Climate change


Five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum represents a substantial contribution to NSW total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term investment in renewable energy sources has not been adequately investigated. The government should perform a cost benefit comparison of investing the equivalent amount in renewable energy sources.




WSRRA believes the proposal to undertake mining under the Central Coast water catchment is risky and ought be rejected using the precautionary principle as required under the EPA Act. In addition there are risks to human health, threatened species and endangered flora and fauna.



Whilst this mine may create some mining jobs and return some short-term revenue to the NSW government, expansion of coal mining is contrary to the Federal government efforts to reduce greenhouse gases to contribute to sustainability of the planet.

In 2009, a strong local campaign to protect the Central Coast's drinking water supply from coal mining prompted then Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell to offer this personal promise:


"The next Liberal-National government will ensure that mining cannot occur ... in any water catchment area ... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee."

Now in power, the O'Farrell government has totally failed to live up to that promise. The government is now considering a proposal for a long-wall coal mine in the water catchment area near Wyong.


We do not support or approve this action as it would result in the extraction of up to five million tonnes of polluting coal a year for 28 years, and undermine the area's drinking water catchment.


This mine, known as Wallarah 2, has already been refused once, by the previous government, due to unacceptable impacts on water supply, ecosystems and heritage sites. If the mine goes ahead, hundreds of homes, rural buildings and dams may be affected by subsidence damage.

We think that Premier O'Farrell should explain why he supports such projects and account for the continued expansion of coal mining in water catchments.

Why can't the premier stick to his promise does he only want one term

I would like to express my concern about the proposed development because of the negative impacts the project will have on the community and the environment. I encourage the planning minister to reject this proposal.



The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts. The proponent has not made any substantial changes to their proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be rejected once and for all.



The area concerned includes many threatened species. The main threats include land clearing, change in habitat and water flow.



The project will contribute to global climate change and not enough has been done to investigate and invest in renewable energy sources.



I thank you for considering my comments.

Where can I find out what has changed since the previous application which was quite rightly rejected by the previous Government? Why are schemes like this never properly 'advertised' to the public? I am overseas and only return on 21 June and wish I'd taken the time to contact you before I left, not that I have any expectations that this will even be read.

I would like to object the proposal of Wallarah 2 Coal Project for several reasons:
1) The mine is too close to major population centres. The air quality in the centres around the mine will be severely affected.
2) Water and coal mining do not mix. There is grave concern that the drinking water for Central Coast will be affected.
3) Climate Change. Australia and NSW should act more to reduce the impact of climate change and reducing coal export is one way of doing it.

I wish to protest vigorously against the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal
Project.

This proposal has been previously refused.

It is even MORE important to refuse permission again.

Mankind can live without many things, but he cannot manage without
clean water.

It is totally irresponsible to allow any project that has the
potential to negatively impact on water supplies.

It does not matter how much money could be made by allowing this mine
to go ahead - YOU CAN'T DRINK MONEY.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THIS COAL PROJECT.

Another coal mine? I don't think so. Such an idea is rather ludicrous when we consider that



· Premier Barry O'Farrell promised no coal mines in water catchments. The proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine would reinforce the public's strong impression that politicians are liars leading to a further undermining, so to speak, of confidence in our institutions. Not good for society.



· Emissions from burning coal are a major cause of climate change. The proposed coal mine would contribute to this disastrous state of affairs. We ignore climate science in favour of profits at our own peril.



· Australia's, indeed Earth's, biodiversity is continually diminished by a variety of human activities including coal mining. We depend on biodiversity for our survival as a species so the proposed coal mine will contribute to our species' eventual extinction. To think otherwise is sheer hubris.



The proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine should be canned. Quickly, before someone thinks it's a good idea.

Impacts of the proposed mine on State Forest, protected species habitat
and historical and aboriginal sites indicate to me that the costs are
far higher than the benefits of 25 years mining, which will only reduce
quality of life of residents along the rail corridor and add
significantly to NSW carbon emissions (which the Government has promised
to reduce!).

As this mine has been rejected once I don't see why it should be
approved this time, unless ALL the previous shortcomings have been
addressed to the satisfaction of those affected (which is definitely not
the case!).

Re promise before last election you should not even be considering long wall coal mining in the Wyong water catchment area. We have just spent $120 million on a pipeline that could be jepordised itself or the river or dam it takes water from and possibly the dam it takes water to. The many new residential houses in the northern Wyong shire could also be damaged by mine subsidence. Your government promised and logic should tell anyone this is not sensible

Please take the following issues into consideration when assessing the Wallarah 2 coal project submission





GROUND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Approximately 300,000 people reside within the Wyong and Gosford area and 53% of the water catchment area supplying these residents is threatened by this mine application.



The recently 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 recognised in the proponent's submission.



The site water management is inadequate because almost all management plans are merely observational. Some monitoring plans are not due to be created until two years into the operational life of the mine.


AIR QUALITY AND DUST

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 EIS fails to adequately address these impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.

Short-term exposure to particulate matter pollution can lead to diminished lung function, damage and inflammation of lung tissue, increased mortality rates in children and young adults, aggravation of asthma symptoms, heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and other cardiovascular issues.

FAILURE TO ADDRESS PREVIOUS CONCERNS

The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts. The proponent has not made any substantial changes to their proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be rejected once and for all.



Threatened Species

The current EIS lists 37 recorded threatened and migratory fauna species and six vulnerable or endangered flora species within the project site. Many of these species are protected under state and federal legislation as well as international agreements. The key threats to these species include land clearing, change in habitat due to subsidence and alteration of water flow, wetlands and floodplains. All of these threats are possible effects of this project.



Climate change

Five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum represents a substantial contribution to NSW total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.



The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term investment in renewable energy sources has not been adequately investigated. The government should perform a cost benefit comparison of investing the equivalent amount in renewable energy sources.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a resident of NSW and I have experience in Safe, Non-discriminatory, Happy, Healthy, Sustainable active lifestyle.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed policy.



My concerns on the SEPP draft amendment.

Key points of objection and recommendations:

GROUND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Approximately 300,000 people reside within the Wyong and Gosford area and 53% of the water catchment area supplying these residents is threatened by this mine application.

The recently 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 recognised in the proponent's submission.

The site water management is inadequate because almost all management plans are merely observational. Some monitoring plans are not due to be created until two years into the operational life of the mine.




AIR QUALITY AND DUST
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 EIS fails to adequately address these impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
Short-term exposure to particulate matter pollution can lead to diminished lung function, damage and inflammation of lung tissue, increased mortality rates in children and young adults, aggravation of asthma symptoms, heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and other cardiovascular issues.
FAILURE TO ADDRESS PREVIOUS CONCERNS
The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts. The proponent has not made any substantial changes to their proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be rejected once and for all.

Threatened Species
The current EIS lists 37 recorded threatened and migratory fauna species and six vulnerable or endangered flora species within the project site. Many of these species are protected under state and federal legislation as well as international agreements. The key threats to these species include land clearing, change in habitat due to subsidence and alteration of water flow, wetlands and floodplains. All of these threats are possible effects of this project.

Climate change
Five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum represents a substantial contribution to NSW total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term investment in renewable energy sources has not been adequately investigated. The government should perform a cost benefit comparison of investing the equivalent amount in renewable energy sources.

I am very concerned about the proposed Wallarah 2 coal project NW of Wyong. this mine would impact on the water supply of the area, and before the last NSW election you promised that there would be no mining in water catchments. I regularly use this area for tourism and recreation and these will be degraded by the vegetation clearing, mining works and transport of coal. This project was rejected by the former NSW Labor government on the grounds of negative impacts on water, ecosystem and heritage values.
I encourage the Minister for Planning to reject this proposal.

With reference to the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal proposal - in principle we have no fundamental objection to the execution of this project which I understand will extract coal from beneath our property on the central coast.

We have briefly reviewed the available EIS although I assume you will understand that due to its size, we have not been able to fully absorb all the detail. Our main concern with the proposed project is the potential impact of subsidence on storm water flows in the area. We have looked at the sections relating to Surface Water Impact Assessment. and Subsidence Predictions and Impact Assessments but I have not seen any information dealing with impact on storm water surface water flows through the low lying areas bounded by Parkridge Drive, Crestwood Road and Sandra Street.

Currently there is an easement between properties on the north side of Parkridge Drive and the south side of Crestwood Road which carries the main storm water flow/run-off from the elevation to west of the housing development, and eventually discharges this water into lower lying areas to the east of Hue Hue Road. In the present circumstances, during in periods of heavy rainfall, it is common to have water backing up and pooling along this channel. At the northern end of our property, depths of ~ 500 mm are seen typically 2 to 3 times/year due to insufficient flow capacity through this channel and into the area receiving this discharge. According to the predicted subsidence contour map, it is expected that existing fall gradients will be decreased by ~ 1000 mm west to east across a distance of ~ 1km through this easement/channel.

Accepting also the prediction that absolute 100 yr flood levels will still not affect this area after subsidence, nevertheless we are concerned that the reduced flow capacity during periods of heavy rainfall resulting in the increased back up of storm water, may potentially threaten property and structures on our housing development. From our experience living in this area over 15 yrs, we would anticipate properties towards the northern end of Brookfield Close to be most vulnerable to decreased flow capacity along this channel.