Mod 2 - Layout Changes

Big Island Mining under both Cortona Resources & Unity Mining have caused serious pollution problems that have and are placing our community and eco system under extreme risk.To allow any amendments to their original DA or environmental plan without a complete and comprehensive independent new EIS is totally unacceptable in light of the company's total incompetence in understanding and managing the site thus far. Previous serious pollution issues have not yet been dealt with so to allow further changes to an already flawed environmental assessment is not an option.

I strongly object to the proposed modification to the Dargues Reef Gold Project. The proposed changes appear significant enough to warrent the undertaking of a new, independent EIS along with further effective and open community consultation that is inclusive of all stakeholders in this massive development including the Shoalhaven and Eurobadalla Shires whose water security is threatened by the present minig activities. A more transparent and comprehensive submissions and consultation process is a priority if this undertaking is to proceed in a sustainable and safe manner.

My property borders the Majors Creek State Conservation Area approximately four kilometres from the Dargues Reef mining project. My business employs seven people directly and many hundreds indirectly.

I am a member of the Dargues Reef CCC. I initially supported this modification, but subsequent events have made me revise that position.

In the six months since the Dargues Reef project began I have been unable to use the creek water for household or farming purposes five times, due to mining accidents upstream.

Unity employees have refused on each of the events to test water here or to discuss remediation or compensation for damage and loss due to the contamination of my tanks, water system and equipment.

Up until his abrupt resignation, soon after the last meeting of the CCC, I discussed how to implement the conditions imposed on the project by the NSW Land and Environment Court with Matthew Grey, Environmental Officer of Unity Mining Ltd, the devolopers of Dargues Reef mine. Matthew Grey had agreed to do the survey of Eucalyptus kartzoffiana (a local rare and endangered species), the testing of species in the pools to the confluence with Araluen Creek and the other conditions that were meant to have been fulfilled before the project began, so that adequate baseline data could be available to determine any effects of the Project and to address the other conditions that were meant to been fulfilled before the project began in order to establish adequate baseline data to determine which environmental effects were a result of upstream mining and processing.
Matthew Grey stated at the CCC meeting that while `mistakes had been made in the past, every effort would be made to make sure they didn't happen in the future.' It appears that the company no longer endorses that statement.

Unity appears to have chosen test sites where pollution is least likely to be detected, where water runs swiftly or is diluted with other tributary flows, rather than the deep pools where sediment and pollution collect, especially in the slow-moving pollution events of four of the five events that have occurred in the last six months.

The EPA have, however, done a baseline survey of fish, amphibians and stygofauna (groundwater fauna) at two locations on our property. Two months ago fish and amphibians were in profusion, with several species detected. On their last survey, after the release of a flocculent known to be toxic to fish and frogs, although not to humans in dilute amounts, no fish, frogs or tadpoles were found. This has remained the case. We are still awaiting test results of the sediment washed down in the fourth pollution event, to see if the creek at these locations is capable of supporting fish and frog life.

Even without this, more than one metre of sediment has been deposited in the deep pools of the Majors Creek gorge. These are the pools that never dry up in droughts, and the only water available in dry times to the species in the State Conservation Area. This sediment build-up means that there may now be no water available for these species, including a population of endangered rock wallabies. The Conservation Area and our property contain twenty-two surveyed endangered, critically endangered or vulnerable species, as well as those listed in the Araluen Scarp Grass Forest.


Since Mr Gray's abrupt resignation, I have been informed that Unity Mining Ltd sees no need to fulfill those conditions and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will now monitor the species. The EPA denies that they have agreed to this role with Unity Mining.

Unity Mining has also informed me that their management plans override the conditions placed on them by the NSW Land and Environment Court. Legal advice indicates that this is not the case.



I request that no approval for modifications be given until:
. Big Island Mining Pty. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Unity Mining Ltd., complies fully with all conditions imposed on the Dargues Reef project by the NSW Land and Environment Court;
. Big Island Mining Pty. Ltd. complies with all the conditions set down by the EPA;
. a written agreement is made to test all water and soil that might reasonably be held to have been contaminated by the Dargues Reef mining project;
. a remediation process is determined and agreed to for those downstream residents and businesses affected by the project; and
. the company gives a written undertaking that ore will not be processed at the Majors Creek site, now that their plans for processing elsewhere seem to be in doubt. This undertaking should include a penalty if the undertaking is broken and if Unity Mining Ltd applies for a new modification in a few months time requesting permission for on-site processing.

Ref: Application No DA 10_0054 Mod 2 Dargues Reef Mine



I submit that approval should be delayed until the following issues are resolved:
1. Until the EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan in place. Given the history of this company non-compliant behaviour in its approach to surface water management and its responsibilities to the downstream environment and water users, it is requested that approval be delayed until the EPA Pollution Reduction Plan is agreed. In addition a close supervisory role by the EPA is also needed to ensure an improved performance in the future.
2. Until the company has responded to the repeated requests from downstream users to test their household water taken from the creek during the sediment events, or to survey the thick layer of sediment left by the four discharge, leaving more than a metre of sediment in the deep pools that are the only safe source of water for wildlife in dry periods for more than about twenty kilometres. This corridor is a vital migration corridor for birds as well as habitat for vulnerable species like the quolls, rock wallabies, green and gold bell frogs and 19 other vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species.
3. Until all conditions laid down by the NSW land and Environment Court are fulfilled, especially those that were set down to establish baseline conditions before commencement of the project. These are vital if impacts are to be measured.
4. Until the investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA are completed
5. That the company agree to test all water or soil where there is reasonable doubt that it may have been contaminated by work at the project.
It is difficult to understand how the approval process of modifications can proceed when the initial baseline conditions for start up have not been met. Given that once these works are in train future modifications will be less likely to be scrutinised to the extent the initial development proposal has been. I would query the technique employed by BIM in using the modification process to put in place an eventual plan that may be unacceptable.
Using repeated modification submissions (approval by stealth) rather than an open transparent discussion of the complete plan envisaged is of significant concern.
It should be noted processing ore with cyanide and the possible toxicity of the consequent heavy metal tailings at Major's Creek was roundly condemned by the public and once the proposal to process in Parkes was made, many fears were allayed.
Therefore before this or any other modification is approved I request that the company produce a detailed plan of where they plan to process ore. Processing at Parkes remains unresolved at this point and the Bendigo Plant has been sold as per BIM press release.
Without this assurance, it is possible the company plans to process the ore at the Major's Creek site, once again using a modification of their plan to achieve a result never scrutinised by the Court or the authorities that investigated and approved the project. "

Ref: Application No DA 10_0054 Mod 2 Dargues Reef Mine



I submit that approval should be delayed until the following issues are resolved:
1. Until the EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan in place. Given the history of this company non-compliant behaviour in its approach to surface water management and its responsibilities to the downstream environment and water users, it is requested that approval be delayed until the EPA Pollution Reduction Plan is agreed. In addition a close supervisory role by the EPA is also needed to ensure an improved performance in the future.
2. Until the company has responded to the repeated requests from downstream users to test their household water taken from the creek during the sediment events, or to survey the thick layer of sediment left by the four discharge, leaving more than a metre of sediment in the deep pools that are the only safe source of water for wildlife in dry periods for more than about twenty kilometres. This corridor is a vital migration corridor for birds as well as habitat for vulnerable species like the quolls, rock wallabies, green and gold bell frogs and 19 other vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species.
3. Until all conditions laid down by the NSW land and Environment Court are fulfilled, especially those that were set down to establish baseline conditions before commencement of the project. These are vital if impacts are to be measured.
4. Until the investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA are completed
5. That the company agree to test all water or soil where there is reasonable doubt that it may have been contaminated by work at the project.
It is difficult to understand how the approval process of modifications can proceed when the initial baseline conditions for start up have not been met. Given that once these works are in train future modifications will be less likely to be scrutinised to the extent the initial development proposal has been. I would query the technique employed by BIM in using the modification process to put in place an eventual plan that may be unacceptable.
Using repeated modification submissions (approval by stealth) rather than an open transparent discussion of the complete plan envisaged is of significant concern.
It should be noted processing ore with cyanide and the possible toxicity of the consequent heavy metal tailings at Major's Creek was roundly condemned by the public and once the proposal to process in Parkes was made, many fears were allayed.
Therefore before this or any other modification is approved I request that the company produce a detailed plan of where they plan to process ore. Processing at Parkes remains unresolved at this point and the Bendigo Plant has been sold as per BIM press release.
Without this assurance, it is possible the company plans to process the ore at the Major's Creek site, once again using a modification of their plan to achieve a result never scrutinised by the Court or the authorities that investigated and approved the project. "

I submit that approval should be delayed until the following issues are resolved:

1. Until the EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan in place. Given the history of this company non-compliant behaviour in its approach to surface water management and its responsibilities to the downstream environment and water users, it is requested that approval be delayed until the EPA Pollution Reduction Plan is agreed. In addition a close supervisory role by the EPA is also needed to ensure an improved performance in the future.

2. Until the company has responded to the repeated requests from downstream users to test their household water taken from the creek during the sediment events, or to survey the thick layer of sediment left by the four discharge, leaving more than a metre of sediment in the deep pools that are the only safe source of water for wildlife in dry periods for more than about twenty kilometres. This corridor is a vital migration corridor for birds as well as habitat for vulnerable species like the quolls, rock wallabies, green and gold bell frogs and 19 other vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species.

3. Until all conditions laid down by the NSW land and Environment Court are fulfilled, especially those that were set down to establish baseline conditions before commencement of the project. These are vital if impacts are to be measured.

4. Until the investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA are completed

5. That the company agree to test all water or soil where there is reasonable doubt that it may have been contaminated by work at the project.

It is difficult to understand how the approval process of modifications can proceed when the initial baseline conditions for start up have not been met. Given that once these works are in train future modifications will be less likely to be scrutinised to the extent the initial development proposal has been. I would query the technique employed by BIM in using the modification process to put in place an eventual plan that may be unacceptable.

Using repeated modification submissions (approval by stealth) rather than an open transparent discussion of the complete plan envisaged is of significant concern.

It should be noted processing ore with cyanide and the possible toxicity of the consequent heavy metal tailings at Major's Creek was roundly condemned by the public and once the proposal to process in Parkes was made, many fears were allayed.

Therefore before this or any other modification is approved I request that the company produce a detailed plan of where they plan to process ore. Processing at Parkes remains unresolved at this point and the Bendigo Plant has been sold as per BIM press release.

Without this assurance, it is possible the company plans to process the ore at the Major's Creek site, once again using a modification of their plan to achieve a result never scrutinised by the Court or the authorities that investigated and approved the project.

Ref: Application No DA 10_0054 Mod 2 Dargues Reef Mine



I submit that approval should be delayed until the following issues are resolved:
1. Until the EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan in place. Given the history of this company non-compliant behaviour in its approach to surface water management and its responsibilities to the downstream environment and water users, it is requested that approval be delayed until the EPA Pollution Reduction Plan is agreed. In addition a close supervisory role by the EPA is also needed to ensure an improved performance in the future.
2. Until the company has responded to the repeated requests from downstream users to test their household water taken from the creek during the sediment events, or to survey the thick layer of sediment left by the four discharge, leaving more than a metre of sediment in the deep pools that are the only safe source of water for wildlife in dry periods for more than about twenty kilometres. This corridor is a vital migration corridor for birds as well as habitat for vulnerable species like the quolls, rock wallabies, green and gold bell frogs and 19 other vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species.
3. Until all conditions laid down by the NSW land and Environment Court are fulfilled, especially those that were set down to establish baseline conditions before commencement of the project. These are vital if impacts are to be measured.
4. Until the investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA are completed
5. That the company agree to test all water or soil where there is reasonable doubt that it may have been contaminated by work at the project.
It is difficult to understand how the approval process of modifications can proceed when the initial baseline conditions for start up have not been met. Given that once these works are in train future modifications will be less likely to be scrutinised to the extent the initial development proposal has been. I would query the technique employed by BIM in using the modification process to put in place an eventual plan that may be unacceptable.
Using repeated modification submissions (approval by stealth) rather than an open transparent discussion of the complete plan envisaged is of significant concern.
It should be noted processing ore with cyanide and the possible toxicity of the consequent heavy metal tailings at Major's Creek was roundly condemned by the public and once the proposal to process in Parkes was made, many fears were allayed.
Therefore before this or any other modification is approved I request that the company produce a detailed plan of where they plan to process ore. Processing at Parkes remains unresolved at this point and the Bendigo Plant has been sold as per BIM press release.
Without this assurance, it is possible the company plans to process the ore at the Major's Creek site, once again using a modification of their plan to achieve a result never scrutinised by the Court or the authorities that investigated and approved the project.

I submit that modification to the Dargues Reef layout and plan be carefully considered alongside any agreements made between the community and the mine during the original community consultation. And that any approvals that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure consider granting are not granted until the following issues are resolved:

1. Until the EPA's sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan is in place. Given the history of this company's non-compliant behaviour in its approach to surface water management and its responsibilities to the downstream environment and water users, it is requested that approval be delayed until the EPA Pollution Reduction Plan is agreed. In addition a close supervisory role by the EPA is also needed to ensure an improved performance in the future.

2. Until the company has responded to the repeated requests from downstream users to test their household water taken from the creek during the sediment events, or to survey the thick layer of sediment left by the four discharge events, leaving more than a metre of sediment in the deep pools that are the only safe source of water for wildlife in dry periods for more than about twenty kilometres. This corridor is a vital migration corridor for birds as well as habitat for vulnerable species like the quolls, rock wallabies, green and gold bell frogs and 19 other vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species.

3. Until all conditions laid down by the NSW land and Environment Court are fulfilled, especially those that were set down to establish baseline conditions before commencement of the project. These are vital if impacts are to be measured.

4. Until the investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA are completed

5. That the company agree to test all water or soil where there is reasonable doubt that it may have been contaminated by work at the project.

It is difficult to understand how the approval process of modifications can proceed when the initial baseline conditions for start up have not been met. Given that once these works are in train future modifications will be less likely to be scrutinised to the extent the initial development proposal has been. I would query the technique employed by BIM in using the modification process to put in place an eventual plan that may be unacceptable.

Using repeated modification submissions (approval by stealth) rather than an open transparent discussion of the complete plan envisaged is of significant concern.

It should be noted processing ore with cyanide and the possible toxicity of the consequent heavy metal tailings at Major's Creek was roundly condemned by the public and once the proposal to process in Parkes was made, many fears were allayed.

Therefore before this or any other modification is approved I request that the company produce a detailed plan of where they plan to process ore. Processing at Parkes remains unresolved at this point and the Bendigo Plant has been sold as per BIM press release.

Without this assurance, it is possible the company plans to process the ore at the Major's Creek site, once again using a modification of their plan to achieve a result never scrutinised by the Court or the authorities that investigated and approved the project.

It is my view that mining in small towns only provides some jobs. And certainly not the majority of jobs. In particular the community of Braidwood has negotiated in good faith and has accepted the contribution of the mine to our economy but this mine is not the major job producing entity that it can often be perceived to be. As such most people would see it as duplicitous, deceptive and illegal to see modification approvals for things that were rejected in the original and negotated agreement between the Dargues Reef project and the community. Please do consider this modification request in the wider context of what was initially agreed between the community and the original mine owners plan.

My views are exactly the same as those expressed by Penny Hayman, President of AVPPECC...I strongly recommend her submission be seriously considered in all aspects...

My property is directly downstream from the Dargues Reef gold mine project. My household water has been contaminated five times in the past six months the mine has operated, four times by heavy sediment, the most recent of which left large amounts of sand and gravel behind, and once from possible flocculant pollution.
Unity Mining Ltd has refused my requests during and after each incident to test the creek water on my property or in my water tanks. Neither has the company notified me of the pollution until well after my water tanks and water systems have been filled with sediment and been rendered unusable. This has resulted in loss of time, income, and over $22,000 being spent on new tanks and pumps, as a direct result of the contamination of what was once a pristine stream according to the regular tests we had made of water quality over the preceding decades.

In addition, the following conditions from the NSW Land an Environment Court decision of February 2012 (Application no 10_0054) have not been met. No work should proceed nor modifications be considered until these basic conditions, and those of the EPA, are met.
The numbers below refer to the numbering on the Court's Conditions of Approval.

21. A maximum of 50 milligrams of suspended solids in any discharge of water from sediment collection ponds.
Note: This has not been met at least four times in five months operation.

23. The proponent shall provide a compensatory water supply to any landowner of privately-owned land whose water entitlement is adversely affected. An equivalent water supply must be provided (at last on an interim basis) within 24 hours of the loss or contamination being identified.
If the proponent is unable to provide an alternative long-term supply of water, then the proponent shall provide alternative compensation to the satisfaction of the Director-General.
Note: Downstream residents have repeatedly requested that their water be tested and remediation made, but have had no response. Copies of these requests can be provided.

29b. Establish stream health assessment criteria that include baseline surveys of aquatic life in Majors Creek, upstream and downstream from the confluence of Majors Creek and Araluen Creek prior to the commencement of construction, and annually thereafter until all mining and rehabilitation activities are completed.
Note: This includes a large stretch of creek on my property. The company has refused all requests to survey aquatic species. Given the devastating loss of species in the past three months, a meaningful baseline survey cannot be carried out until the area naturally rehabilitates.

30d. A program to monitor impacts on springs or groundwater-dependent ecosystems.
Note: These include the rock pools downstream from the project where the water appears to seep into them from the Majors Creek fault adjacent to the project site. Although agreement was reached with Mr Matthew Grey, the former Dargues Environmental officer, to test these pools, the company's most recent response has been to say that the EPA has accepted responsibility to do this testing. The EPA has denied that they have made this agreement.

31. Measures to mitigate or compensate potentially affected landowners in accordance with the compensatory water supply requirements in condition 23 above.
Note: We have repeatedly requested that our contaminated water be replaced and potable water provided during the times during which sediment or other substances in the water make it unfit to use as a direct result of the pollution events from the site. It should also be noted that we have diary, witness, water and sediment testing and photographic evidence that these sediment events came from the Dargues Reef site, and from no other entry point between our property and the site.

35. Assessment of the ground water impacts on the Araluen Grassy Scarp Forest. A large part of this forest is on my property. The company has refused all requests to survey the health and viability of the forest here, nor do they appear to have surveyed the areas of the Majors Creek State Conservation Area that are only easily reached through my property but that contain naturally occurring stands of Eucalyptus kartzoffiana. The surveyed forest areas appear to be only those along the roadsides, where the trees have been planted by landowners and Landcare groups and are not naturally occurring.

37. Aboriginal Heritage Plan
Note: The company was informed after the third sediment overflow that downstream sites of major indigenous significance may have been affected. The company refused requests to appoint a suitable archeologist to investigate.

Schedule 5.
1. Resolve any disputes that may arise during the course of the Project.
Note: The company's response is either to ignore requests, or to refuse to answer complaints using the web site. When an accident occurred during test drilling on our property, with sudden and extreme noise causing my wife's ear drum to burst, the company refused to provide the details of the noise levels requested by medical personnel, nor did they request any details of her injury. They simply marked the case as `investigated' and ` did not happen.' The company has shown a similar disregard for other complaints from the public, dismissing them as unfounded without investigation how they were substantiated.

2. Community Consultative Committee
Despite the orders of the Court, this does not include members of recognised environmental groups, including Coastwatchers, despite requests to the department.

3. Appendix 5.
4.8 Undertake attended noise monitoring at the residences most likely to be affected by noise generated by the project.
Note: Despite an agreement that noise would be monitored, monitoring was not done during test drilling on our property.

7.21 Ensure that all water with the potential to contain processing reagents... is contained within a bounded Contaminated Water Management Area.
Note: The company has failed to do this with the flocculent used after the fourth sediment overflow.

7.5 Ensure that sediment basins have a minimum of .6 metre of freeboard and a spillway that is sized and lined for stability in a 100-year annual recurrence interval (ARI) rain event.
Note: The sediment basins overflow after 31 mm of rain in a 24-hour period, and are far from capable of withstanding the 255 mm in an afternoon received on January 7, 2010.
Ensure that surface water flows are directed away from disturbed areas.
Note: The company has demonstrably failed to do this four times within a five-month period.


Socio-economic aspects
14.2. Direct the company to proactively and regularly consult with those residents most likely to be affected by the Project, particularly those in the Majors Creek and Araluen communities.
Note: The company has refused to discuss financial or other impacts with residents downstream from the mine site.

Surface water monitoring.
15.12. The Court directed that monthly surface water monitoring be taken `... at a range of locations downstream of the Majors Creek State Conservation Area.'
Note: The only site in Araluen that has been tested for sediment is one where the majority of flow is from other streams between that site and the Project. Despite requests, no sampling has been done on the approximately one kilometre stretch of creek on my property. (As the creek is not a straight line, it's length exceeds the length of my property). Mr Matthew Grey was negotiating to access the major's Creek Conservation Area through our property, as this is the only easy access. Since his abrupt departure, the company stated that no further sampling is necessary, and have refused to discuss the matter further.
The company only takes samples where the water is considerably diluted. The areas where the sediment pollution, and possibly other pollution, gathers are the deep pools on my property and in the Conservation Area. The company refuses to sample these pools, instead sampling only in areas where polluted water will either quickly pass, or is greatly diluted downstream.

I am increasingly concerned that the company repeatedly refuses to view or take samples when there is sufficient reason to believe that pollution and damage have occurred ie when the EPA have directed that a sediment overflow has occurred, and when their water sampling indicates that the pollution originated at the Project site.
The company has taken no responsibility to either test the impact of their spills, or even the view the results, nor will they reply to requests to discuss remediation.
I am also concerned that investigation of complaints is left to the company, with no independent assessment. I request that independent assessment of complaints is made a condition of any future approvals.

I further request that no modifications be approved until the company demonstrably meets the initial conditions of approval, and the EPA directives, as well as assessing and if necessary remediating the effects downstream of the four sediment episodes.
I also request that measures be put in place to enforce the initial conditions of approval, and measures to ensure a representative water sampling regime.
4.

Ref: Application No DA 10_0054 Mod 2 Dargues Reef Mine

Thank you for the opportunity to prepare a submission in response to an application by Big Island Mining Pty Ltd (hereafter `the Company') to modify the layout of the Dargues Reef mine.

I have lived in the Braidwood area, on a pastoral property, (now being re-vegetated) since 1991 and have observed a range of proposed long-term changes to the surrounding environment, including a proposal to construct a dam to supply Sydney with water, the Welcome Reef Dam. In each case, due process had been followed with generally favourable outcomes for the long-term safety of people and the living environment.

Like other concerned residents of this area, I am hoping that implementation of due process will again result in protection of the environment for the long term viability of plants, animals, clean and plentiful water supply, and respect for fragile geological structures below ground. I make this submission in the expectation that it will contribute to greater (that is complete) compliance by the Company with EPA requirements as well as compliance with the original conditions imposed by the Land and Environment Court. Without an improvement in both these areas there will be ongoing concern about the proper behaviour of the Company and about adequate protection of the environment.

I submit, therefore, that approval be dependent on the Company agreeing to accept and act on the points outlined below:

1. EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan to be implemented fully. In the space of under eight months there have already been spillages which have destabilized down- stream water through pollution and sediment. This is unacceptable and a breach of the original conditions.

2. That the EPA supervise compliance in this area and implement sanctions for non-compliance.

3. The company act on its obligation to test water taken from the creek during sediment events caused by the operations of the company and to rectify damage immediately.

4. All conditions laid down by the NSW Land and Environment Court to be fulfilled, especially those that were set down to establish baseline conditions before commencement of the project. These are vital if impacts are to be measured.

Finally, there is grave concern about transparency concerning decisions about the ore-processing site. Braidwood and district was assured processing would not occur here. However, no alternative site has been announced.
I therefore urge the Company to make a full disclosure about its plans for processing so that they can be publicly and openly assessed before any final decisions are made.

I am a resident of the Deua River Valley, I have spent six years working on a farm in Araluen. I am conerned about the impacts of the mine on the water system. In particular I ask that approval be delayed until the following issues are resolved:
1. EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan in place. The history of this company non-compliant behaviour in its approach to surface water management and its responsibilities to the downstream environment and water users, it is requested that approval be delayed until the EPA Pollution Reduction Plan is agreed. In addition a close supervisory role by the EPA is also agreed to ensure an improved performance in the future.
2. The company has responded to the repeated requests from downstream users to test their household water taken from the creek during the sediment events, or to survey the thick layer of sediment left by the four discharge, leaving more than a metre of sediment in the deep pools that are the only safe source of water for wildlife in dry periods for more than about twenty kilometres. This corridor is a vital migration corridor for birds as well as habitat for vulnerable species like the quolls, rock wallabies, green and gold bell frogs and 19 other vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species.
3. All conditions laid down by the NSW land and Environment Court are fulfilled, especially those that were set down to establish baseline conditions before commencement of the project. These are vital if impacts are to be measured.
4. The investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA are completed
5. That the company agree to test all water or soil where there is reasonable doubt that it may have been contaminated by work at the project.

Sincerely

Andrew Stojanovski

I feel that Big Island Mining Pty Ltd should be obliged to comply with all the conditions that both the EPA and the NSW Land and Environment court have already imposed on the project before they are granted a new and modified DA. Surveys should have been done before the commencement of mining activity to establish baseline environmental data so that any downstream effects can be recognised as being the result of the mining activity at Dargues Reef.
There have already been five water contamination events in the last six months and the company appears to be uninterested in complying with the court's requests and in addressing the concerns of downstream users and farmers.
No modifications of their existing DA should be processed until such time as the company has complied with existing orders and the establishment of baseline ecological data is paramount to any honest and reasonable assessment of the Project's impact on the downstream ecosystems.

Ref: Application No DA 10_0054 Mod 2 Dargues Reef Mine


I have considerable concerns in relation to the development application referred to above which seeks changes to the existing approval for works on the Dargues Reef Mine in Majors Creek New South Wales. Consequently I submit that no approval should be agreed to until the matters listed below have been rectified.

The underlying reason for my submission is that although the mine has only been in operation for some six months it is my understanding that there have been a number of events that have resulted in spills into Majors Creek, the latest of which involved the EPA advising downstream residents not to use the creek water for a time. At the point of writing it appears that frog and fish life has not returned to the creek following the most recent spills from the mine. I therefore submit that no approval should be given until the following matters have been resolved. That:

1. There is proven confirmation that the mine operators are complying with all conditions set on their operations by the NSW Land and Environment Court and the Planning Assessment Commission and with any requests made to them by the EPA including evidence that an EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan has been agreed to and set in place.

2. A system of monitoring has been set in place that enables the EPA to ensure on an ongoing basis that all conditions are being complied with and that the mine authorities are responding promptly to EPA requests. This especially relates to halting work while water quality and other environmental tests take place and that mine authorities are providing prompt advice to residents of any events likely to affect water quality.

3.That the mining company has assured the EPA that it will act promptly and fully implement requests made by the EPA and that there is some assurance from the government that the EPA will be provided with appropriate resources to monitor this project.

4. All current investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA have been completed.

5. The company has agreed to implement an open and transparent system of testing all water and soil quality in the case of any potential contamination resulting from work on the project site.

6. The precise nature of the requested changes to the current approval and the reason for them is clarified and made public and the company has made clear where it is proposing to process ore and has confirmed that no processing will take place at Majors Creek.

7. It has been made clear to the company that any new approvals given will not lead to on-going modifications which could lead to eventual approval of a far more extensive project than that to which original approval was given.

Ref: Application No DA 10_0054 Mod 2 Dargues Reef Mine


I have considerable concerns in relation to the development application referred to above which seeks changes to the existing approval for works on the Dargues Reef Mine in Majors Creek New South Wales. Consequently I submit that no approval should be agreed to until the matters listed below have been rectified.

The underlying reason for my submission is that although the mine has only been in operation for some six months it is my understanding that there have been a number of events that have resulted in spills into Majors Creek, the latest of which involved the EPA advising downstream residents not to use the creek water for a time. At the point of writing it appears that frog and fish life has not returned to the creek following the most recent spills from the mine. I therefore submit that no approval should be given until the following matters have been resolved. That:

1. There is proven confirmation that the mine operators are complying with all conditions set on their operations by the NSW Land and Environment Court and the Planning Assessment Commission and with any requests made to them by the EPA including evidence that an EPA sponsored Pollution Reduction Plan has been agreed to and set in place.

2. A system of monitoring has been set in place that enables the EPA to ensure on an ongoing basis that all conditions are being complied with and that the mine authorities are responding promptly to EPA requests. This especially relates to halting work while water quality and other environmental tests take place and that mine authorities are providing prompt advice to residents of any events likely to affect water quality.

3.That the mining company has assured the EPA that it will act promptly and fully implement requests made by the EPA and that there is some assurance from the government that the EPA will be provided with appropriate resources to monitor this project.

4. All current investigations and possible prosecutions by the EPA have been completed.

5. The company has agreed to implement an open and transparent system of testing all water and soil quality in the case of any potential contamination resulting from work on the project site.

6. The precise nature of the requested changes to the current approval and the reason for them is clarified and made public and the company has made clear where it is proposing to process ore and has confirmed that no processing will take place at Majors Creek.

7. It has been made clear to the company that any new approvals given will not lead to on-going modifications which could lead to eventual approval of a far more extensive project than that to which original approval was given.

The Unity statement on the ASX website of 28.8.2013 appears to state that previous processing plans have now been abandoned, and that instead the processing equipment will be moved to the Major's Creek Dargues Reef site. If this is the case, then the repeated promises and agreements with the communities and government authorities will have been broken, with processing chemicals and heavy metal concentrates stored on the steep slopes of the major Eurobodalla watershed.
it is not possible to attach this statement to this submission in the limited time available, as it was only released today, the final day that submissions could be made.
This statement and processing plans should be clarified before any further approvals are considered.

Uploaded

Peter Cormick
1670 Araluen Rd
Deua River valley NSW 2537

28 August 2013

SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
RE: MP 10_0054. MODIFICATION 2

I have no objection to the proposed changes to the layout of operations and note that the Proponent has assured the Department that "... no additional infrastructure or operations are being sort (sic) with this proposed modification" (page 1). I also note that the Dargues Community Consultative Committee (DCCC) unanimously endorsed these proposed changes. However, I cannot see that the DCCC endorsed the proposed changes to the conditions of the project

At page 17, the Proponent is proposing that the conditions set out in the Project Approval be only "generally" complied with. I object strongly to this diminution of the conditions of the project. And I am quite sure that had that amendment been put to the Land and Environment Court at the time of the appeal in early 2012, it would not have approved it. I contend that the qualification of "generally" is counter to the intention of the LEC as expressed in the Project Approval of 7 February 2012 and should therefore not be allowed.

I also support the EPA's request that the proposed modification incorporates the outcomes of the Pollution Reduction Program.


Peter Cormick
Ph 0418 495 455

See attached comments on our objection.

see attached submission