Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

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 36 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 715 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.
. 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.

I'm really concerned about plans to mine for coal in a project called Wallarah 2 - I can't state strongly enough that I believe we should leave all coal in the ground as a result of its massive impact on carbon dioxide levels (when it is burnt) in our atmosphere at present, it's a simple equation really - we have already passed 400 parts per million of C02 in our atmosphere and continue to head upwards. Australia needs to lead the way in turning its back on coal and creating a clean and renewable future, there is no place for coal mines in Australia, this type of project is dangerous, foolhardy and has massive risk to Australia and the rest of the planet - please do not go ahead with this coal mine, leave it in the ground and use the funds to build a solar thermal plant or a bunch of wind turbines, it really is that easy - for the sake of my community and yours don't proceed with this crazy coal project.

it appears that this coal project - a long wall coal mine in the watch catchment area near wyong -

is going to put the interests of the mining industry above all other interests.



for example the area's drinking water catchment will be affected with some certainty.



and the mining will with some certainty cause subsidence damage to surrounding structures.



please seriously reconsider this project in a rational manner.

Background:



The Wallarah 2 Coal Project will be located within the Wyong Local Government Area, on the Central Coast of NSW, just north-east of Sydney and south of Newcastle.



The site proposes to mine 36 longwall panels underneath the Wyong State Forest. It will operate for 25 years extracting up to five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum. The site will require three years for construction and will run 24 hours a day once operational. The project will also include coal handling facilities, rail loop and loading infrastructure, ventilation shafts, gas and water management facilities and maintenance and administration buildings.



Whilst the 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.





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.



Please do not proceed with this project.

I have lived on the Central Coast for over 22 years and recognise the importance of the Wyong valleys as part of our drinking water catchments. The Central Coast has experience drought with water levels dropping to dangerous levels. This highlights the importance of protecting our drinking water catchments above all else.

In addition, Barry O'Farrell and the Liberal party made a promise leading up to the last State government election that they would reject mining in the Wyong Valleys. Now in government, Premier O'Farrell must stand by this promise to our community.



The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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. Nothing has changed to make this proposal any more acceptable.
Climate Change. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change. The Climate Commission has indicated that it is critical that we take action on climate change.
The proposal is not in the public interest
Again, I call on Premier O'Farrell to stand by his promise and reject mining in the Wyong valleys.

I am a home owner in the Wyong Shire and a member of the Community Environment Network. I am concerned about the proposed Wallarah coal project in the area northwest of Wyong.



I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. Half of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused because of the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 most recent proposal is not substantially different to the previously rejected one and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

I am a resident on the Central Coast and I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed policy



I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

This is an objection to the Wallarah 2 Coal project proposal. As a public health practitioner who has worked for many years on health programs in Australia and more than 30 other countries l strongly object to this proposal on public health and environmental grounds. It is my understanding that NSW Government is considering this proposal for the second time, following initial refusal due to significant impacts on water, ecosystems and heritage sites. In terms of the larger global picture the governments persistence in opening new coal mines despite the considerable evidence of the impact of carbon on global warming shows short term thinking. Although the mine may financially benefit a few mining magnates and the odd corrupt politician these developments, being located so close to Wyong, are not in the interests of the wider community. The mine is predicted to extract up to 5 million tonnes of polluting coal each year for 28 years in an area north-west of Wyong, undermining several waterways.



As a local resident of the central coast who is very concerned about quality of life issues the increasing coal dust pollution on the central coast/Newcastle, resultant carbon emissions of burning coal and its impact on the environment, l voice my agency's strongest objections with the government persisting with this quest for this cheap but ultimately destructive fossil fuel. Rather than digging more black holes in our communities it would be better to put the NSW governments energy into supporting renewables.

I would like to object to the proposal for Wallarah 2 Coal Project Application No. SSD-497.
I am a member of CEN.... the Community Environment Network which does a wonderful job of helping to protect the Central Coast. I love the Central Coast, having lived here since 1973.
I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
* We must protect our Central Coast water supply. Mining would affect our water catchment area. We can live without mining but we can't exist without a safe water supply.
I was living on the CC when Mangrove Creek Dam was built and remember the years when the dam held such a low percentage of water because of catchment area. The population of the CC has grown fast over the years and we cannot risk our water supply.
* We must protect our healthy lifestyle here on the Central Coast. Mining causes air and noise pollution. We don't want our health put at risk from the mining, stockpiling and transportation of coal.
Before moving to the Coast in 1973, I experienced first-hand the devastation caused by coal mining in the Hunter Valley as I taught in Quirindi and Tamworth and regularly drove home to Sydney through Singleton. I'll never forget the changes which occurred in the Lake Liddell area. What happened to the NSW township of Ravensworth because of coal mining must never be forgotten.
The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once. It must be refused again. Please don't turn the Central Coast into another Ravensworth.

I would like to have my concerns about this project noted.

It was a risky idea regarding the impact on waterways, ecosystems and
heritage sites the first time it was proposed: it still is. Kores Ltd
has made few changes and the proposal is still not in the public
interest and ought to be rejected.

The damage from longwall mining is well known and evidenced south of
Sydney. Water is too valuable, especially with such a large population
as here. To threaten over half the catchment for coalmining is not to
be considered.
The project should also be refused based on the health risks
associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and
transporting coal. As a Hunter coalfields resident I know only too
well the damage it does. Having grown up on the Central Coast I would
hate to see its population similarly impacted.



Please reject this mine once and for all.

What is the point of Government finding out about threats to nature if they really do not care about it. Tribal elders use to look after the people and the land, now the rivers and forests are destroyed for short term gain. I feel anger and pain about the blatant destruction of so much of our natural world. You are a community elder do your job.


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. What is the point of protection if Government is not going to do that.


I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

I am a resident of Wyong Shire and this mine will effect my health and financial status. I work in Real Estate and already clients do not want to buy in the area based on the proposal alone. If the proposal is approved, our property values will suffer, and a lot of residents need the values of their properties for their retirement. I do not agree with taking away our quality of life, quality of ground water, quality of fresh air, just to satisfy other country's need for fuel and the federal Government's need for money. Tax dollars from coal in this area will only mean more tax dollars being spent to bring us water, tax dollars being spent on Medicare funded health care for all the subsequent health issues and tax dollars being spent on supporting us in retirement when our properties values decline to the point of no longer being a viable source money. How can anyone feel that is an acceptable trade off?



I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed policy



I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

I am a resident of the Dooralong Valley and also farm our property which is a major source of our income.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed policy.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.
It would also appear from my reading of the Kores submission and data based there on that at best the "experts" are only guesstimating what will be the effects if the mine goes ahead. Who is to say the effects will not be many times worse that estimated. It is human nature to guess on the conservative side.
Kores only wants our coal and they obviously do not care of the consequences such as destroying our homes, property and environmkent. As a resident we will receive nothing but grief and a land value far less that it should be.
I make a living off the land in our valley at present as a beekeeper. My work, which I have spent many years building up, will be at risk. As you would appreciate, bees need flowering flora to get the necter to make honey, what will be the result when the water table is interferred with and land starts to drop. Flora only flowers when conditions are right for them which is tricky enough with our present climate conditions. Add other indefinte variables such as water table, sub surface soil changes to name just a few and my honey business will be finished. Will Kores pay me a compensatory salary for my loss of business AND a compensatory amount for the devaluation of my house and property? I doubt it.
I am also concerned about the effect the mine dust and noise will have on my bee population. Bees are very sensitive creatures and collect pollen. Pollen as you would know comes from within the flower head and any coal dust in the air would settle in the flower head and would coat the pollen. Pollen is used in the hive to breed baby bees. What mutant breeds will be produced when fed coal dust as part of their diet. Whilst I am on the subject of coal dust, also from the depths of the flower the nectar is gathered for the honey, what effect will coal flavoured nectar have on the bees, they use the nectar / honey as a food source within the hive, or the general public, that's if I am permitted to market my coal flavoured honey.
· As you can see my business is at serious risk and the health of my bees and us as residents is also at risk.

I am concerned that this Government has decided to reconsider this development. It has promised to ensure there would be no mining in water catchment areas. and guaranteed the Central Coast community that there would be no mining in the Wyong water catchment.


This is in an important water catchment and the proposed Long wall mine was previously rejected because its impact, not only on the water system but also the ecosystem and heritage sites, was totally unacceptable.


This reconsideration is just a devious stratagem to get a back door entry for approval.


This must not be allowed to happen. The proposal must be rejected and the Premier must honour his promise to the people.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

As a long time resident of Dooralong I am dismayed that Kores may eventually destroy the ecosystem existing in this valley. Just because they have bought one property and based much of their argument for mining on the data they have retrieved from this property, [Honeysuckle Park] does not mean they have conducted thorough and non biased conclusions regarding the long term affects on the water table, aquifers, wildlife and ecology of this area. We have platypus, echnidnas, wombats, wallabies, etc., all relying on these tributaries which eventually flow into Jilliby Jilliby Creek. This wildlife will all be at risk. Who will guarantee their safety?

We all know that fossil fuel burning is contributing to climate change, no matter where in the world it happens, why allow mining of coal under the water catchment area of the Central Coast after you have just spent millions to build the Mardi to Mangrove Dam pipeline?

It just don't add up!

Yours most sincerely,

Carolyn and Brett Huntley,

365 Jilliby Road,

Jilliby 2259

N.S.W.

Australia





I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
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.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

I write in regard to the proposal to mine coal in the Jilliby/Dooralong/Yarramolong areas on the Central Coast, NSW, and to register my objection.
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.
I purchased property in Jilliby just over 2 years ago, having assurance that coal mining activity would not proceed in this area, as promised by Barry O'Farrell in one of his Election promises.
I am very concerned about the impact any mining will have on the environment (air, water, land, wildlife, infrastructure, humans, etc.) that would affect, not only my property and family, but many others in this area.
Additionally, looking at the bigger picture, I believe the detrimental impact on the world environment that mining and burning coal has is irresponsible for the future of our world and all of mankind.
Please note my strong objection to any mining activity.

I am a resident of Tuggerawong and have been such since May 1990. I have seen many changes take place on the Central Coast over the last 23 years. I do not believe that a coal project wihcih will create coal dust emission which will impact on people and their breathing, the quality of drinking water and water in general use, also water tables, the environment both flora and fauna and the actual land resulting in subsidence is a worthwhile project for the benefit of the people of the Central Coast. Immediate money should not outweigh the hazardous and long term effects of mining.not only on the immediate community but that of communities in the years to come.





I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The water will be affected both surface and loss of water will result as it will be unuseable and this will restrict the overall water levels which have only just increased to an extent where restrictions are not needed. Also those with dams and tank water run the risk of the water catchments on their properties becoming fouled and therefore unuseable. What do they do then for their crops, cattle and daily lives< As the deposits build up on the soil and leech below the water table becomes contaminated and then we have a huge problem which then impaccts on the flora and fauna..
What plans are in place now to ensure that the water problem will be kept at minimum levels and therefore the company can be proactive and management is in place as operations start. I dont think so and so the damage is done.. They leave take the coal and Australian soil is corrupted forever and lives, fauna and flora lost forever because of a so called profit margin.
Dust and noise. People do not need to be subjected to noise and dust - those with any sort of lung or asthma associated run high risk of permanent damage and noise is going to impound on peoples lives and ability to rest this is not tenable. Once again profit margins before people. What controls are in place now to stop noise and dust emissions ...
The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, why then would you suggest that the dangers have lessened or did someone offer to up the price. People on the Central Coast are entitled to a healthy lifestyle, clean water and free from pollutiona nd nosie.. They have paid to live here and do not need to be endangered...
The proponent has not made any substantial changes to their previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
Threatened Species. Mines means that flora and fauna will die and in some instances cannot be replaced as the land that is so badly impinged on that it cannot recover. So money will replace endangered species I dont think so once they are gone they are gone... Think before you act.
Climate Change. Yes all the talk about climate change and carbon emissions and can we believe that there are people who would for money risk the future of all by place a mining project in and around where we live and subject us to all the contaminants that come with it and also emissions that will not only endanger our lives but those of future generations. Sanity would suggest that the coal stay in the ground and the company goes elsewhere ....

I am seriously concerned about the proposed long-wall coal mine, Wallarah 2. The mine will pollute the drinking water catchment in the Wyong area, and put at risk ecosystems and heritage sites. Furthermore, it is not in the public interest to approval extraction of millions of tonnes of coal which will directly contribute to air pollution and global warming.