Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

I am a concerned resident of Wyong Shire. I am so astounded that we are still having to fight against the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Mine. Barry O'Farrell, before he was elected as NSW State Premier, stated this mine would never go ahead if they were in power. The former Labour NSW Government turned down the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine proposal due the serious concerns over water quality issues, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts. Yet these facts don't seem to concern the money grabbing O'Farrell Government.

My concerns are:



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.
How and why would we trust the Korean owned Kores mining company to look after the land, flora & fauna, wetlands, water catchment, residential and business properties and the health and well being of the people who live in this beautiful area? Sadly, it seems we can't trust our state government to do the right thing by the Wyong Shire community either.

I am writing to express my Objection to the proposed WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT. I firmly Object to this project as it will have too much negative impact on the natural environment. It concerns me a great deal that the Government is only looking at short term solutions to energy or even just making money. I ask you if the mine was to be dug under your or your children's homes would you still be happy to go ahead with the project. I don't think so. The site is wholly within the Tuggerah Lakes Basin. I see signs from the Government saying Tuggerah catchment area, Love our living lakes. Seems like one thing is said, yet another is being proposed. You cannot in your right mind go ahead with this project.



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.



If the Government really cares about its people and the environment then this Project cannot go ahead. I ask you that for the sake of all of us and yourselves and your children that the WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT is declined and is rejected once and for all.

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.

. 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.

My husband and I are residents of the Central Coast and we are extremely
concerned about the Wallarah 2 coal mine proposal. The risks associated
with any mining under existing rivers and creeks which form part of our
precious water catchment are just too great for the proposal to be
considered seriously.
We saw how attractive and healthy the Cataract River was before long
wall coal mining was undertaken hundreds of metres below it, and how the
subsequent cracking of the rocks in and around the river have
drastically reduced its flow and resulted in considerable unsightly
pollution. No one in their right mind would want this result for the
waterways in the Central Coast area. Our water supplies and a healthy
ecosystem around the rivers must be preserved at all costs. Once the
rivers are damaged, like the Cataract River, remediation is almost
impossible. The damage there seems permanent and irreparable.
A previous government rightly rejected this proposed mine and we believe
that the only environmentally responsible action is to once again reject
this proposal completely.

The Wallarah II proposal poses an unacceptable risk to the catchment for much of the Central Coast's water supply and would have unacceptable impacts on development in the area.



The Government rightly rejected original application by Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture because it could not be shown to be without serious risk to the water supply. The current application does not provide significant new information to support the proposal and therefore cannot be approved.



I strongly support the following points made by the Australian Coal Alliance:



<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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 theWyong 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 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 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.



<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->The Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) questions many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geologicalmodelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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.



<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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 ofInfrastructure 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 (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.



<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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. Theproponent 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 consideredbased on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades.



<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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).The proposal 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.



<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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, bio diversity,infrastructure, amenity and health is unacceptable. The addition of the result of burning this resource within the next ten 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 believe the risks posed by the proposal show that there can be no justification for approving the application.

The 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. That is sufficient reason to refuse it.

We must have no continued expansion of coal mining in our water catchments.

The government is currently accepting submissions on the Wallarah 2 coal project.

This proposal puts the narrow interests of the mining industry above the interests of the people who depend on the Central Coast catchments for their drinking water.

The NSW Government it must abandon this destructive proposal once and for all.

As a resident of Wyong Creek, I am very concerned that the NSW Government is considering the proposal for Wallarah 2 Coal Project.


The proposed mine was refused by the previous government and it appears little if anything has changed from the first proposal.


What also remains unchanged is the threat this mine poses to the environment and residents of Wyong Shire and Central Coast.


Kores Ltd in its proposal has failed to adequately address the issues of water quality, land subsidence, and air quality.


The proposal should be rejected again.


I strongly believe it's quite simple really, that whenever there is a threat to water supply, a mine should not even be considered. This mine is in a water catchment area for the Central Coast, therefore Wallarah 2 Coal Project should be rejected.


Air quality will be compromised with the dust created from the mining, stockpiling and transporting of coal. The long term impact on the health of exposed residents and the already stretched health dollar is immeasurable.


There is also the threat to local flora and fauna (many already endangered) due to habitat destruction and changes in water flow and land subsidence.




This project has been rejected before and I urge this government to reject it again.


I also urge the government to put measures in place to prevent any future applications for mining in water catchment areas.

I am writing to express my concern about the Government considering,
again, the proposal for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. This project has been
rejected previously and should be rejected once and for all.

The first application for this coal mine was rejected because issues of
water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage had not been
adequately addressed. Nothing has changed in this new proposal.

There are flora and fauna species that are under threat if this proposal
goes through because of the land clearing and alteration of water flow,
wetlands and flood plains. Australia has the uneviable reputation of
more plants and animals becoming extinct than any other country in the
world. Coal mining and destruction of habitats is not the right thing
to do.

More importantly there is the concern about the amount of carbon that
will be released if this mine's coal is extracted and burned. The option
of renewable energy has not been fully investigated or even considered.
If the World Bank is now warning of th dangers of climate change due to
the burning of fossil fuels, then the most responsible action for this
Government to take would be to reject definitively this proposal.

My wife and I are residents of the Central Coast and object strongly to the proposed establishment of mining operations so close to a major residential area, housing over 300,000 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.

We, Susan and Kelvin Wynn, oppose the Wallarah 2 Coal Project on the following grounds.

The project has the potential to affect 53% of the Gosford-Wyong potable water which currently supplies approximately 300 000 residents and a projected further 70 000 people within the next 20 years.

Professor Philip Pells, Senior Lecturer, University of NSW, states that the mining company admits that water loss in the valley "may be 0.74 Megalitres a day" to begin with but will escalate to 2.5 Million litres per day between the next 20 and 40 years. This is greater than the capacity of the annual average rainfall to replenish it. 740 thousand litres will be lost, initially, every day, regardless of flood or drought even through severe droughts.

The Wyong Water Catchment is protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950. (Gazette No. 153 of the Local Government Act 1919, 1950). No damage to our water supply should be entertained.

The conclusions in the leaked version of the Australian Rail Track Corporation's (ARTC) `Particulate Emissions from Coal Trains' report dated 24 May contradict those in the released version of 31 May and indicate coal trains are much more polluting than the government claims. The ATRC's leaked report clearly shows that uncovered coal trains pollute the air and put resident's health at risk particularly lung disease and more severe asthma and according to Wallarah 2's own information will increase morbidity and cause deaths.

The Wallarah 2 Coal Mine, proposed for the Jilliby Valley, will have a massive coal stockpile near Blue Haven and the F3 and will be extracting 5 million tonnes of coal per annum. Coal will be loaded there onto uncovered trains, heading for terminals in Newcastle. This stockpile and the trains will produce dust over the northern part of the Coast, similar to the dust levels Hunter residents have been suffering for 20 years.

Dr Peter Lewis, Director of Public Health for the Central Coast and North Sydney, wrote a report strongly critical of the original Wallarah 2 proposal, concerned about the increase in lung complaints from the rise in air particulates. Kores (the foreign owners of the mine) admit in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that there will be deaths from the increase in fine airborne particles of coal dust. This is clearly unacceptable to our community, one death is one death too many. (Wallarah 2 Coal Project Executive summary pp 9-17) The spread of these fine particulates will take the dust over much of the northern part of the Shire which also contains three coal fire burning power stations, their associated coal stockpiles and ash dams as well as coal mines in a 20 km radius. The Central Coast community has one of the highest incidences of asthma and poor respiratory rates in the world. This project does not take in to account the cumulative effects of all of these emission sites. The emissions will particularly affect the immune supressed, those with pre-existing respiratory conditions and the very young that are extremely vulnerable. The mine must not proceed.

Subsidence to housing will be another real issue. Using the Wallarah 2 Coal project's own data there are up to 245 homes that will be affected by subsidence of up to 2.6m. This does not include farm sheds, dams, weirs, pump stations, roads and other Council infrastructure. Residents in the north of the Wyong Shire have no faith in the mine subsidence board, which is an arm of government, after the Chain Valley Bay subsidence disaster, 25 years for claims to be settled, and then, unsatisfactorily.

The Wallarah 2 Coal Project will damage our water supply, diminish our air quality, causing morbidity and unacceptable mine subsidence. Three strikes and you're out. The mine is an unacceptable risk, the development must not proceed under any circumstances.

I am a resident of Wyong Creek. I am an engineering graduate with concerns for the detrimental effects of human activity on the environment.

I would like to see greater detail covered in the EIS and tighter restrictions on proposed projects that will contribute to climate change.



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.

Please accept my submission on the abovementioned proposal. I am using the template below because I agree with its contents. I have briefly looked at the documents on display and I believe that the long term ecological impacts from this proposal far outweight the short term financial benefits to NSW. Rather than having the significant impacts on our flora and fauna, our communities and on our climate that this proposal would clearly have, we should be investing in renewable sources of energy. We are one of the few countries in the world in a position to make that choice. Please have the foresight to see that the impacts of this proposal are far too great to allow it to go ahead. Have the strength to reject this damaging proposal (as did past governments).



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 with strong objections to the proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine, planned for underneath my family home, one of the 245 homes directly affected according to the Wallarah 2 EIS.


I have already made another submission but write here today, on the last day that submissions are due, directly to the committee assessing these submissions and to ask for common sense to prevail.


I could write a lot about what is in the EIS submitted by Wallarah 2 however it is clear to me the local residents do not want the mine here, the local council and others in town do not want the mine here, that health and medical and environmentally experienced people have raised valid objections - and have done so for some years with the various mine and gas proposals - and it all seems to be falling on deaf ears.


I am very concerned that the panel assessing the submissions will be full of mining folk or those which may be inclined to favour a coal mine in this region and not be truly independent. It bothers me that two mining applications have been "okayed" in the past prior to a Labor Minister putting a stop to the first Wallarah mine at the last minute prior to the last State election - regardless of the reports, reviews, multiple submissions and objections.


I do not understand why this mine would be really that much different to other mines before it. At public meetings I have attended in recent years, there have been residents of other regions affected by mining, speaking about their homes and livelihoods which have been damaged by mining and who are still waiting on compensation, years later, some more than two decades. It appears that the residents concerned have had to prove it was the mine which damaged their homes, instead of the mining company ensuring things were fixed promptly. If this mine were to go ahead, what guarantees would Kores/Wallarah 2 provide to ensure that did not happen in this instance? Would local residents have to wait the full length of the mining lease (40 or so years) before the compensation process could begin, and then would it be up to those residents to prove it was the mine which caused the damage?


I would prefer Jilliby Jilliby and Little Jilliby Jilliby creeks to remain as creeks and not dried up creek beds with a couple of ponds here and there as has been advised by the mining company. Native animals drink from and take safe harbour in the areas close to the creeks and would be affected by water loss and/or contamination.


I have been told to my face in the Kores/Wallarah office in Tuggerah, by a company geologist in the presence of at least six other Kores employers and employees, that there will be subsidence and that I should be grateful it won't be "spiked" or "peaked" subsidence but a type of undulating subsidence. That wasn't a very satisfactory response to my questions, nor a satisfactory and appropriate attitude to take with a concerned local resident.


I would like to, in turn, look each and every mining employee at every level of the business in the eye and ask them how they and their families would feel and respond should a similar mine be proposed for underneath or beside their own homes. I suspect if they were to speak truthfully, they would give a very different response to the glossy, positive words they are trying to convince us with.

Just today, the last day for submissions to be sent, a flood watch alert has been issued for the Wyong Valley region over the weekend, here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDN36501.html


What would our valleys be like in a flood situation after the mine had been through?


How would our valleys be impacted if an earthquake should occur like it did in nearby Newcastle some years ago? With damage to the earth underneath our feet due to mine subsidence, the resulting additional damage could be catastrophic to homes, human beings and the natural environment. What allowance has Wallarah 2 made for this possibility?


It is clear there will be subsidence, damage and health and environmental issues however the coal company cannot guarantee our water and the natural environment will be safe and I propose for that reason alone, the mine should not go ahead.

However, it seems we should even be sceptical of guarantees after NSW Premier Mr Barry O'Farrell promised no mining in water catchment areas with his "no ifs, no buts, a guarantee" at a meeting in a local park myself and many others attended, just prior to being elected.


I would like to see this mine proposal rejected and legislation put in place immediately to stop any mining company, now and forever, being able to mine in our precious and fragile water catchment regions (any and all of them) and urban areas.




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 resident of Wyong Creek I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine.

The Wallarah 2 Coal project has been refused before and it is my understanding that very little has changed with the current application. Kores has failed to adequately address the impact this mine will have on the water catchment area, land subsidence and the local flora and fauna. The process of mining will have a huge impact on the health of affected residents and I do not believe these health risks and the long term health dollar costs have been addressed in the current application.

I therefore strongly object to the proposal and ask it be rejected as it is against public interest and poses a significant threat to the environment.





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.

Dear Sir,


I am a resident in a mining affected area and therefore I have some understanding of the impacts of coal mining on communities. I believe the reckless expansion of mining in NSW, and indeed across all of Australia is irresponsible. I believe that generations to come will curse us if this expansion does not stop.



I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal poses risks to the water catchment area that supplies 53% of the residents of the Central Coast. Longwall mining induced subsidence is difficult to predict and in this case almost all management plans are merely speculative with some monitoring plans are not due to be created until two years into the operational life of the mine. This is totally unacceptable in terms of responsible stewardship of public water resources.

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. Coal particulate pollution is increasingly linked with health damage, including pulmonary and cardiac disease. The Dept of Planning should be reducing the public's exposure to coal dust, not increasing it.

Climate Change. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions. This is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change. the next decade will be crucial for reducing GHG emissions worldwide. Australia needs to do its part.

Please see attached.

Please see attached.

Please see attached.

I support the approval of Wallarah 2

Our company supports the approval of Wallarah 2