Mod 4 – Changes to Mining & Water Supply

I am very concerned about the trucks size, amount, loads and frequency travelling through the main street of Trundle. This will cause a significant safety risk. The recommendation of a heavy vehicle bypass would solve this problem and would ensure the residents and visitors safety.

To Whom it May Concern
I am writing in my capacity as Coordinator of the Trundle Main Street Rejuvenation to express my concerns regarding the high volume of traffic that will pass through Trundle as part of the Sunrise Nickel/Cobalt Project at Fifield particularly trucks.
Trundles Main Street is an icon with the widest Main Street in NSW, the second longest Hotel balcony in Australia and the highest concentration of heritage buildings in the Parkes Shire. Since 2011 the local community has raised $90,000 to aid the restoration of the Main Street and 95 volunteers have contributed 1500 hours of labor. We have carried out landscaping to improve the look and feel of the Main Street. We are currently carrying out upgrades to the Memorial Hall including a new park/ stop over point for caravaners and have just been successful in gaining funding to complete the restoration of the Trundle Hotels balcony. As direct result of all this great work by the local community five new businesses have opened. However all this good work would be utterly destroyed by high volume of traffic generated by the Sunrise project particularly trucks. Having this high volume of traffic running through the middle of Trundle also creates many safety risks. The proposed route goes through a School zone. Trundle also has over thirty residents dependent on mobility scooters who would struggle with the traffic volume.
I don't believe that any consideration has been given to the fact that during even the most minor floods water crosses the Northern and Southern entrances to Trundle. During the 2016 floods the Northern entrance to Trundle was under water for almost three months.
The high volume of traffic would also severely affect the Trundle Abba Festival. The Festival which is based in the Main Street attracts over 5000 visitors to Trundle and injects over 1.4 million every year into the local economy. The Main Street has to be closed for the Festival.
It would be easy to bypass Trundle. Trucks could turn off to the right just before town and go around Trundle via the Ravenswood Lane Bruie Plains Roads or turn off to the left and go straight out the Condobolin Road then down the Feltonwood Lane straight to the Mine.
I fully support the mine however the high volume of traffic proposed to go through the middle of Trundle via the Main Street is totally unacceptable to the local community. A bypass around Trundle will be essential.

I object strongly to the mining traffic through Trundle disrupting the safety, feel and soundscape of our main street.
A Bypass is the ONLY SOLUTION for our town.

I am writing to express my concern regarding the increase in vehicle movement through the main street of Trundle due to the Sunrise Nickel/Cobalt development. An increase of up to 182 vehicles per hour through the main street EVERY HOUR will impact our population and town greatly. There is an alternative to routing the larger vehicles (trucks, equipment carriers etc) through our main street - if the larger vehicle use the Ravenswood Lane option to the east of the village it will lessen the impact and also increase the safety and livability of Trundle. We pride ourselves on being an alternate route for caravans and campers to head north/south, instead of the Newell Highway option which is heavily impacted by heavy vehicles all through the year. If our seasonal tourist traffic is impacted by this development, it will not take long on the tourist grapevine before we have no tourist traffic visiting our small towns and villages on the Bogan Way.
Ravenswood Lane is used at harvest time by many local producers, including myself, to reach the Trundle Graincorp Silos, instead of taking heavy vehicles through the centre of town. It makes good sense to reduce the possibility of spillage and accidents as well.
Please consider the impact that this will have on our town centre. I am very keen to see the positives that this development will bring to our area in employment and improved access to services - I am equally not keen to see our main street and town suffer by becoming a freight corridor instead of the centre of our vibrant community.
Thank you for accepting my submission.

I am a long term resident of Trundle and over the years I have witnessed many changes.My concern at the moment is the prospect of the increased traffic which will be travelling down the main street of Trundle when the Clean Teq Sunrise mine is developed near Fifield.
The development of the mine in itself is a great thing however the main street of Trundle is iconic in a sense and provides a tourist attraction combined with the a history of why it is the way that it is. We are proud about it and it is a pity to destroy this and that is why a detour is important. The width of the main street as well as the states longest pub verandah is a talking point and many tourists take photos on their journeys of it.
The traffic volume anticipated is staggering over a 24 hour period. Has it been considered that Trundles population consists of alot of aged people as well as many children. There needs to be a consideration that the safety of residents in crossing this wide road as well as the fact that the main central school is on the main road and that we have another school and a Children's Centre within close proximity also. The elderly often come from the nursing home on their gophers uptown and young ones venture around before and after school.
The lighting in the mainstreet is inadequate to ensure people's safety as well as the fact that there are no pedestrian crossing.
Road maintenance is going to be a huge factor also. At the public meeting it was discussed that they will be using different vehicles. Yes this will lessen the number of vehicles however the weight will be increased. This factor combined with the fact that after significant rainfall the roads disintergrate with potholes forming as well as the edges of the roads crumbling away. This is both dangerous and inconvenient . Trundle becomes isolated very quickly after heavy rainfall are these trucks going to break up our roads and the increased light vehicle traffic destroy what is left?
Another major concern is the content of the trucks passing through the town. Sulphur, Hydochloric Acid and caustic Soda should be transported by rail not road. The Limestone trucks are also not acceptable down the main street.
Road Maintenance is a factor which we need assurance that will be done . At the moment our roads even though classified as a B-Double route is clearly not. Harvest time is dreaded when big machinery needs to be moved but has thought been given to the store owners as well as the residents of our little town to have the volume as anticipated .
A Bypass of the main street perhaps on the other side of the railway line could solve this problem.

Dust From Open Cut Is Amplified By Predominately West Wind Already Takes Paint Off Car
Offers No employment To Town 1/3 Retired 1/3 Working Already 1/3 Would Fail Zero Drug Test.
No Passenger Carriages Added To Trains Going To City For Aging Population.
Noise Of Mining Trains & Trucks Especially At Night.
Everything Could Be Done By Rail Instead Of Roads Which Already Stuffed By Trucks.
We gain No Advantage Because Politicians Removed Rail Station . This Needs Rebuilding For Employees To Get Through Flood Waters.Aging Population Has No Public Transport.

My concern is the amount of traffic that is proposed to go through our main street. We are a small rural community with a historic main street that attract tourists to our town. Our facilities are limited & it is not uncommon for our elderly to have to walk from the hair salon across our main road to the pub to use the facilities. Our children cross our main road from the school to the local library. For all of these reasons I fear that the projected increase to our traffic as listed in Mod 4 page 43 of the Road transport section table 6.3 is of great detriment to our small town. I cannot envisage any great benefit to our town, community or people for the increase of traffic through our main street ie any major increase in our economy. I would like you to consider a by-pass for the traffic to the mines to save our main street, heritage, community and enjoyment of the rural atmosphere of our town Trundle.

I am very concerned with regards to the number of trucks and other vehicles associated with the proposed mine travelling through the town of Trundle. There are a large number of children in the town and also elderly. The town is not suited to the volume of vehicles proposed and the frequency. I believe there is extremely high of a road accident. Also the noise and pollution that will have negative effects on the town.
I believe an alternative route is required for the vehicles associated with the mine. Mine vehicles should not have access through the main street of Trundle.

We have major concerns regarding the proposed mining project at Fifield known as Clean TeQ Sunrise Project.

1. No provisions made for stock & machinery crossing on road S.R.64
2 .High noise & pollution levels at my resident 210m off S.R.64
3. Unacceptable level of traffic through the township of Trundle.
We have resided at "Reas Falls" which is 3.5km west of the proposed rail siding and 1.2km east of the proposed limestone quarry for the past Forty Seven Years.
We now own 1407ha of which 755ha is south of road SR64 and 652ha north of road SR64 all of which is Farming & Grazing country.
All necessary infrastructure such as shearing shed, sheep yards, silos, machinery sheds, workshop as well as our residence is situated south of S.R.64.
Our farming enterprise has both cropping, wool & fat lamb production. Our concern is how we could possibly move stock and machinery across S.R.64 when it is estimated that approximately 500-600 vehicle passes per day on this road. We hold a stock travelling permit for movement of sheep on S.R.64 and have done so for many years.
Shearing time and lamb marking time we may need to cross S.R.64 some 5-10 times a day.
As a lifetime resident of Trundle I think it is most unacceptable to have an estimated 204 trips a day through the main street of Trundle.

Trundle is desperate need of a by pass. As a grandparent of 3 children who live on the eastern side of Forbes Street I am concerned for their safety in crossing Forbes Street to get to and from school. The Central school is on the western side of Forbes Street parents, students, staff and buses will have to contend with this increased traffic in trying to access the school. Just for Trundle citizens to be able to maintain their everyday life it will be made hard by this large increase in traffic. This is going to greatly impact the town of Trundle. We have seen Trundle thrive in the past few years and we don't want to see it decline again. SOS

I object to this project because of the risks associated with the transport and use of sulphur and sulphuric acid.

Sulphuric acid and it's associated mist can causes irritation of eyes and skin, damage to teeth, lung and respiratory tract infection and may also cause cancer.

I am not against the progress of our village, I am writing this submission out of concern for the Trundle Community.

The safety of our resident s is a major concern. Could you please confirm estimated numbers of vehicles, including trucks, between 7am and 7pm also between 7pm and 7 am?

Many elderly residents use walking aids/mobility scooters to do shopping. The main street is extremely wide (approx 80 metres). Older people will become confused with extra traffic/trucks on the road. Has this been taken into consideration?

All traffic passes the school, with children coming and going twide daily with a speed limit of 40kph during these times. Several school buses pick up or drop off twice daily. Has this situation been taken into consideration?

Who are you relying on to respond to an emergency?

What is your emergency response plan?

Have you considered an alternative route? It would be much safer to have the increased traffic use an alternative route. What will you put in place for safety in the main street?

There are no passing lanes on the Trundle/Parkes road. This can cause impatience and hazardous driving. Have you any plans to rectify this?

Regards water use. The Lachlan River is already depleted. Could you give me the number of water trucks to be used during construction of the pipeline? When will construction begin and when will it finish?

What consideration has been given to the problems of noise and air pollution? Transporting hazardous products through the town is major concern Has consideration been given to overcome this situation?

I ;look forward to receiving answers to there questions.

If this mining and processing plant goes ahead as currently proposed the village of Trundle will:

Experience massively increased numbers of heavy vehicle movements throughout the day and night, 7 days per week. This will be an overwhelming change to the communities lived experience and will take away the one year round attraction for tourists that Trundle's reputation hangs on; that of a quiet village where travelers can get respite from the trucking route of the Newell Highway.

Quiet amenity for villagers will also be shattered, particularly by night movements. Pedestrians, most of whom are elderly or children will be endangered when crossing the exceptionally wide street.

A bypass was planned for Fifield in an early iteration of the approval process. My question is why wasn't Trundle given the same consideration?

This project is justified as a State Significant Development on the basis of job creation and economic opportunity. Some have even made the argument that truck drivers will "stop for a cup of tea" or workers will use the facilities in Trundle, thus creating an economic justification for Trundle.

This is a nonsense as Clean Teq's stated aim is to wherever possible house workers on the mine site and provide meals etc. Trucks traveling from Parkes, a mere 40 minutes away, will have no incentive to stop in Trundle as they are only 20 minutes from the mine site. And no doubt the drivers will on tight contracts which won't allow for any leisurely stops on route.

The mining industry is one of the top contenders for shedding jobs into the future due to automation, so the few jobs that do remain will most likely be taken by qualified and skilled remote workers.

Therefore my second question is: where is the demonstrable benefit to the village of Trundle to offset the loss of amenity and threat to the steady and sustainable economic development of tourism and lifestyle?

It is this sustainable future that goes well beyond the life of the Clean Teq project.

There area lot of old people in this town as well as young children. They are enthusiastic users of the main street services and I don't think it is right that they should be disadvantaged by the number and volume of traffic predicted to flow from this mining and processing operation.

We have two schools here and one school is located at the beginning of the main street and it will become dangerous for pedestrians.

How will our street festivities that Trundle is know for survive? What will be the fate of Anzac Day, the Light Horse re-enactment, ABBA and other events including the Tractor Pull that attracts huge numbers to Trundle?

Trundle has for some time now been increasingly seen as a quiet destination for grey nomads, mainly because of our unique streetscape and the minimum traffic disturbing the atmosphere of the town. This growing sector will no doubt be stopped in its tracks with this kind of heavy and light traffic.

The planning process has previously included a bypass for Fifield. Why can't t there be by pass for Trundle?

I am extremely concerned at the proposed volume of mine-related traffic for Trundle main street. Having viewed your projections, the suggestion is to have ~150 trucks going through town every hour by 2027. Without your mine traffic, all traffic is projected to be around 52 vehicles an hour. The noise, dust and other risk associated with carriage of mining-related materials alone should require a diversion away from town centre. IN fact - why are you not using and enhancing existing rail infrastructure to avoid the cost and damage to the roads and danger to the residential and visitor population? Why no vehicle bypass as has been done in Fifield?
This town is not a main road or an unimportant piece of bitumen between one mine site and associated destinations. Trundle is a community which holds a number of significant tourism-attracting events throughout the year which will be endangered by your proposed traffic. There are a number of elderley people and two schools whose children regularly need to cross the very wide main street. How is that going to work with > 2 trucks every minute of the day? How are tourists going to be attracted to a town that never sleeps due to traffic noise? The people who live here have invested an extraordinary amount of effort (mostly volunteer) in keeping the town alive - your plan has the potential to undo all that work.

To Whom It May Concern

In the first instance I state that I am not opposed to the mine and accept the fact that it will go ahead however, I do have concerns with regard to the township of Trundle.

1. Economic Impact
My perspective is that the mine will have a negative economic impact on Trundle, my concerns are;
i) Basically only those who are currently employed will get jobs in the mine so no new money coming in however, the transfer of supplying services to the town by tradies, trucking contractors, civil engineering contractors etc to the mine will make sourcing these services for Trundle residents more difficult and expensive eg having to pay for tradies to come from further afield. Clean TeQ has already indicated it requires a specialist skilled workforce which most likely would be drawn from the unemployed in Trundle so no real positive economic growth on that front.
ii)The property market in Trundle is already under supplied with essential service employees eg school teachers living outside the township due to lack of availability of properties to buy or rent in Trundle. An influx of new residents would put upward pressures on property prices and rents. I see that this upward pressure would impact mostly on low income households and employees of essential services ie those most likely to rent property. With little or no space currently earmarked for residential development I foresee an unwanted property bubble and loss of good quality employees of essential services.
iii)Trundle is town which has and continues to work hard to be a tourist destination. It is on the Bogan Way far from the madding Newell Highway. I believe that the significant increase (on existing traffic conditions) of heavy vehicle traffic will mean that the Bogan Way will no longer be an attractive alternative to the Newell. Trundle's famous Main Street will no longer be a stopping off point for photos etc because there will be trucks all day every day ruining the shot. Trundle really wants the tourists to stop as they currently do and there really is a low expectation that loss of tourist trade will be replaced by the many truck drivers stopping for food and beverages.

2. Other Impacts
i) Mod 4 refers to upgrading the Trundle Fire Brigade, my concern here is that there is more than one brigade in the district and these brigades are currently staffed by volunteers. I believe that the increased risk of fire and the type of fire management eg chemical vs grass fire should not become the burden of the Trundle District community but be managed by a separate mine brigade.
ii) Whilst I believe that Clean TeQ will manage air quality to EPA standards clean TeQ is yet to divulge details with regard to impacts on vulnerable members of the community eg elderly and those with existing respiratory health issues. I think Clean TeQ should provide information with regard to negative impacts so community members can make informed decisions with regard to remaining in the district.
iii) I would like to see more information with regard to the viability of water supplies both from the river and aquifer particularly with regard to support of native environment. We all know these supplies are not limitless and I expect draining of the river and aquifers will negatively impact the natural habitat.

Currently the main concern for the Trundle Community is the increase in heavy vehicle traffic. Given that I do not perceive too many positives for the community I kindly request you "give a dog a bone" and put in place a bypass.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

Kind regards

I object to the greatly increased heavy vehicle traffic that will be using Trundle's main street (Forbes Street). We choose to live in Trundle because of the great quality of life here.
The main street is beautiful, wide open, easy to negotiate and is an integral part of our little country town way of life.
With road trains and the like driving through every few minutes, the whole character and amenity of our town will be changed - 24/7, for the rest of our lives (for many of us).
The noise of these vehicles can often be heard all over town, so there will never be any peace for Trundle residents.
Trundle is not Terra Nullius - we live here!
I do not object to your mine - just the loss of our town's peaceful main street.
Light vehicles should be ok - big trucks not.

Our business objects to the greatly increased heavy vehicle traffic that will be using Forbes Street Trundle - Trundle's main street.
Currently the main street is a safe and peaceful area for locals and visitors to utilise the local businesses in Trundle.
Community groups often have events in the street eg Trundle Abba Festival. People can stop and talk, do their shopping, sit in an eating place or the hotel and socialise.
The main street of Trundle is an important part of Trundle's identity and social interaction.
This will be greatly compromised by frequent noisy trucks constantly travelling through the town.
Currently all residents, even the elderly, children and disabled can easily negotiate the main street. This would change with increased heavy vehicle traffic.
I request a heavy vehicle bypass around the town of Trundle if this mine eventuates.

I have major concerns for the safety of all residents of the small community of Trundle, we have a lot of elderly residents that have lived in Trundle there whole lives. we do not live on Parramatta road and never want to. The proposed mine is telling us that they will be bringing 182 vehicles per hour through or Main Street . That is NOT acceptable. the noise pollution alone will affect all residents in trundle. It will definitely stop all the tourist from coming out to our Quiet little town.
I have farms on both sides of the trundle/fifield road and cross it with both stock and Machinary up to 10 times a day I have not been given any assurances or indications as to what they will be doing to ensure my business remains safe, and viable.
I have major concerns about the disruption and ongoing pollution both traffic and noise that this project will bring to my life and the towns existence

In an effort to reduce the number of trucks travelling through the townships of Trundle and Bogan Gate, I propose the following:- The lime and other products required by the Mine to be transported by roadrailer (a roadrailer is a highway trailer, or semi-trailer, that is specifically equipped for use in rail road intermodal service). The prime mover could deliver the trailer to say, Gunningbland Siding, and then return to the lime site. After the arrival of the train to the Fifield Siding, another prime mover could take the truck from there to the Mine.

This type of transportation is done in various countries around the world. I am sure a second thought could be given to this - given that this Mine is focused on the future Ie: electric cars and new-age batteries, it is hoped that this vision has not forgotten the "here and now" of community and it's lifestyle along the way.

This proposal would utilize the existing rail corridor, reduce fuel costs for the Mine and running costs of the prime mover, while reducing the impact on the local roads and local community.

Thanking you for the time taken in considering this proposal .