Bylong Coal Mine

Objections to The Bylong Coal Project: SSD14_6367
Phyllis Setchell
PO Box 662
Mudgee 2850
6.11.2015
M:0427920887

1. This mine will destroy the prime agricultural land of the Bylong Valley.
* The proposed offsets and rehabilitation will not mitigate the long-term negative impacts
* The internationally renowned Tarwyn Park natural sequence farming processes will be destroyed.
* The mine footprint will disturb 2,875 ha of land including 440 ha of Bioregional Significant Agricultural Land (BSAL), 260 ha being destroyed in open cut, plus 700 ha of mapped Critical Equine Industry Cluster land. A significant area of prime agricultural land that will be destroyed.
* The proposal to replace the Bioregional Significant Agricultural Land at another location is untested and high risk.

2. The following significant groundwater and surface water losses are a concern:
* The highly connected alluvial aquifer system within the stressed Bylong River catchment will have predicted peak losses of up to 295 million litres per year (ML/yr).
* Loss of base flows to the Bylong River is predicted to be 918 ML/yr.
* The mine proposes to use up to 1,942 ML/yr which is over 75% of the annual rainfall recharge.
* The river system is over allocated and local farmers will lose important water supply.

3. The area impacted by this mine has very high biodiversity values:
* Nationally endangered species recorded in the area include the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, New Holland Mouse, Regent Honeyeater and Spotted-tailed Quoll.
* Three entirely new plant species have been recorded here.
* A significant area of critically endangered Grassy Box Gum Woodland will be destroyed which is habitat for 17 threatened birds and 7 threatened plants.
* the proposed offset arrangements will never mitigate the negative impacts .

4. The area has Aboriginal cultural heritage significance:
* 239 sites were recorded in the study area with 25 regarded as being of high local or regional significance (including an ochre quarry, grinding grooves and rock shelters)
* 144 sites have been identified at risk from mine impacts with 102 in the open cut area.

5. The social impacts on the Bylong community have already been devastating.
Further distress to the residents of the Bylong Valley will be felt with the destruction by the Open Cut Mine of the Catholic Church Cemetery, Upper Bylong Public School and a number of historic homesteads and farm buildings. All of which are important in the European heritage of the valley.

Dear Department of Planning
I object to the proposed coal mine in Bylong on the following grounds:

It does not make economic or environmental sense to destroy arable land to create a new coal mine on a greenfield site when there are existing mines for sale in the Hunter Valley, and the price of coal is low. Kepco could be required to purchase from existing coal stocks elsewhere, rather than digging up a fresh resource.

The project will require enormous amounts of water, and the risks to water security and groundwater quality are not acceptable. We should preserve precious water resources for long-term, sustainable use.

Several Aboriginal sites have been identified in the area that will be affected by the mine. These need to be protected and preserved.

We should be working hard towards discontinuing the use of coal to create energy because we have more efficient, more sustainable energy sources that are less water intensive and less environmentally destructive.

We need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and should therefore not grant planning permission for activities that will contribute to global emission levels.

Yours sincerely
Jennifer More
Kandos

The economic benefits of the coal mine have not been fully addressed in including the long term coal requirements
The impact of the royalty income compared to the previous income and employment opportunities of the existing land use have not been considered
The impact of the dust from the mine and the existing Wollombi pine which is growing in the wild nearby have note been considered
The impact of the water usage given the high variability in flow conditions has not been considered both for protection of the mine and the existing water reqirements

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to object to this project for many reasons, some of which are listed below. I would also like to note my objection to the short time-frame in which the community has to respond to the EIS which is so very long and complex and the company has had years, and experts, to prepare. The whole process needs to be looked at.

I have both General and Specific concerns.
My general concerns are around all new coal projects.
1. Too many scientists have said we need to leave coal in the ground to stop the impact on global temperature.
2. Other coal mines in the area are shutting down or reducing activity.
3. There is a growing global demand for food - it seems foolhardy to destroy any more good quality food producing land such as the Bylong Valley.
4. We are part of a global community and there is a justice issue here regarding the need to concentrate on renewables not continue with coal projects.
5. It has been seen time and time again the impact on small villages and communities when a mine has come and gone - it destroys them. Whereas farming has existed sustainably and can continue to do so for the foreseeable future.


Specifically about the Bylong project

1. The predicted long-term impacts on prime agricultural land and water systems in the Bylong Valley are unacceptable and will not be mitigated through proposed offsets and rehabilitation.

2. The renowned Tarwyn Park natural sequence farming processes will be destroyed and should be protected and utilised for other areas of Australia and the world.

3.. A significant area of prime agricultural land will be destroyed: the mine footprint will disturb 2,875 hectares (ha) of land including 440 ha of Bioregional Significant Agricultural Land (BSAL), 260 ha being destroyed in open cut, plus 700 ha of mapped Critical Equine Industry Cluster land. The proposal to replace BSAL at another location is untested and high risk.

4. Impacts on groundwater and surface water will be significant. The highly connected alluvial aquifer system within the stressed Bylong River catchment will have predicted peak losses of up to 295 million litres per year (ML/yr). Loss of base flows to the Bylong River is predicted to be 918 ML/yr. The mine proposes to use up to 1,942 ML/yr which is over 75% of the annual rainfall recharge. The river system is over allocated and local farmers will lose important water supply.

5. The mine disturbance area has very high biodiversity values that will not be mitigated through the proposed offset arrangements. Nationally endangered species recorded in the area include the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, New Holland Mouse, Regent Honeyeater and Spotted-tailed Quoll. Three entirely new plant species were recorded. A significant area of critically endangered Grassy Box Gum Woodland will be destroyed along with habitat for 17 threatened birds and 7 threatened plants.
Remediation post the mine's closure can NEVER return the land to its former state. We are the generation causing the extinction of thousands of species and we must stop it. We MUST protect our biodiversity.


6. The area has Aboriginal cultural heritage significance: 239 sites were recorded in the study area with 25 regarded as being of high local or regional significance (including an ochre quarry, grinding grooves and rock shelters); 144 sites have been identified at risk from mine impacts with 102 within the open cut area.

7. Important European heritage, including the Catholic Church Cemetery, Upper Bylong Public School and a number of historic homesteads and farm buildings will be destroyed in the open-cut. The social impacts on the Bylong community have already been devastating.
I have witnessed some of these social impacts and have been very concerned about the well being of community members. It is also the case that while the current area of the Village is intended to be maintained (shop, hall, Anglican church, sportsground) these are all maintained by local community members and the size of the local community has been decimated due to property purchase by Kepco. This jeopardises all these things and the general well being of those community members who remain.

8. As is seen in other developments of this nature, the majority of employees are likely to drive in from bigger centres such as Mudgee, Denman, and to a lesser degree Kandos/Rylstone. The travelling for these people is long and the journey, particularly at night, quite dangerous.

9. There are simple mistakes in the EIS that make one query what other mistakes have been made in the more technical aspects that are impossible for most lay people to address.

I am of supporter of the KEPCO Coal Project however would prefer to see it proceed without the inclusion of a mine workers camp.

Coal mining has been and continues to be a major contributor and employer in our local economy.

Recent growth and development of mining in our region has seen our towns grow and people within the community benefit as a result. Many have comparable regional centres have declined or stagnated without the benefit of this high employing industry.

Direct and indirect employment opportunities have meant that many younger people have been able to gain meaningful jobs and remain in the district.

As result of the regions prosperity we continue to attract a wider diversity of business and industry to the town continuing the spin-off benefits.

The recent slow down in mining has given us an insight into the effects on the community if mining was to be seriously impacted. Unemployment increased, families were forced to leave the area retail and other industries experienced slowdown and property vacancy rates increased dramatically impacting property value and adding mortgage stress.

I believe that with the stringent environmental guidelines that exist and continued monitoring of the project KEPCO offers our region the opportunity to continue to prosper well into the future.

This project will provide large employment opportunities in a region that over the past few years has seen jobs disappear and the people with them.

I would like to see the project proceed however believe that the inclusion of a mine workers camp is unnecessary and significantly impacts many of the spin-off benefits to the community that exist if the employees and construction workers live in the local towns.

Thank you for this opportunity to make a submission in relation to the proposed Bylong Project.

Many of the key concerns I have regarding the project have already been addressed in the submission made by the Bylong Valley Protection Alliance Inc.

This short submission is meant simply to highlight a couple of concerns of a more personal nature.


1. ROAD CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS

The planned closure of Upper Bylong Road and the first two kilometers of Woolleys Road sees a proposal to route access to our property via a gravel road which travels along the railway line, cutting across the floodplain (roughly in line with Tarwyn Park/Iron Tank property boundary) to join Woolleys Road at the start of what is now termed by the proponent as "Wallys Road".

In the 15 years we have owned our property there has been no point at which we have been flooded in. Our concern is that the proposed new route across the floodplain, if not properly constructed, will see us flooded in in periods of high rainfall. This is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

Also of considerable concern is potential interference of the road with the functioning of the Tarwyn Park/Iron Tank floodplain.


2. NOISE

Figure 15 of the Executive Summary provides Worst Case Predicted Noise contours for the project. Interventions - either mitigation measures or voluntary acquisition - depend entirely on these contours. Our home falls almost precisely on the 35dB contour (the dwelling marked on the northern boundary of the land parcel identified as #146).

There are two issues of concern to us. Firstly, is the proponent really maintaining the that their modelling is so accurate as to meaningfully distinguish, in any real terms, between a point falling precisely on versus fractionally inside the 35dB contour? Surely the contours themselves are subject to some margin of error estimation. As such, it seems impossible to justify exclusion from the offer of mitigation measures in our case. We expect some consultation in this regard and mitigation measure to be available to us if needed.

Secondly, we are concerned for what ACTUAL noise conditions might be like during mine construction and operation, especially as proposed open cut mining approaches its eastern-most extent within the proposed Eastern Open Cut. Models are one thing but the reality can be quite different (as the experience of other landholders in the Cumbo Valley, in the case of Wilponjong, can readily attest.) What provision will be made for on-ground validation/truthing of modelled outcomes and for ongoing monitoring that holds the proponent to account? We've heard far too many sorry stories of people being left to battle mines on the issue of noise to feel comfortable without some proactive, independent, enforceable monitoring in place.

(The same principles readily apply to air quality. The Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network should be extended to cover Bylong, Wollar and Moolarben/Ulan as a minimum.)


3. WATER

We do not irrigate but depend on well/bore water for stock and domestic use (all uses other than drinking water, which is from rainwater tanks). We are very concerned for the continued availability of well/bore water and seek iron-clad undertakings from the proponent that this will not occur. We are aware of too many stories of having to fight a mine over impacts to water to feel comfortable with mere assurances. What will be done to protect us?


Yours faithfully,



CRAIG SHAW (+ Paul Frost)
'Oakdale', Upper Bylong

1. No new coal mines should be allowed. There are mines that are 'mothballed' or stood down. Supply of coal should only be allowed from existing mines. It is essential to avert the consequences of climate change to reduce green house gas production and transfer energy sipply to renewables.
2. Prime agricultural land such as that in the Bylong valley should be protected by law from mining.

My name is Elizabeth Matheson and I strongly object to KEPCO's proposed project in Bylong Valley. My family have owned a property in Bylong for the past 40 years, I grew up on the amazing rich farm land Bylong has to offer. It is beyond belief that anyone would agree to allow a coal mine on such prime agricultural land. It is not a temporary hole, instead one that will destroy the valley forever and loose significant cultural and European history.
In regards to the statement proposed by KEPCO I object to the following points:
I object to the loss of significant European heritage that Bylong is home to, these include the Catholic Church Cemetery, Upper Bylong School and the historic homesteads, a majority of which are over 100 years old and tell the story of Bylong Valley back to the original settlers.
I also disagree with the mine disturbance areas effect on the endangered species that Bylong is home to, these include the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, New Holland Mouse, Regent Honeyeater and Spotted-tailed Quoll.
This list could go on and on as the detrimental effects of this project are endless.

I firmly object to the unsustainable and short sided project KEPCO has proposed. It is about time we started looking into the future and not the depth of today's pockets.

Yours Sincerely,
Elizabeth Matheson

My name is Annabelle Matheson and I am 14 years old. I strongly object to KEPCO's proposed project in Bylong as even though I do not live in Bylong my grandparents own a farm there and have owned it for nearly 40 years. I have made so many memories, had many different experiences, my cousins and I always had so much fun going on 'adventures' through the farm, yabbying, bushwalking and the view is always so breathtaking. Bylong is where I first learnt to ride a motorbike and learnt all about farming and weighing cattle, I am telling you all this as I believe that if KEPCO's project goes forward we will lose our farm, maybe not the memories but the land in which so many more experiences could be had, my children and grandchildren would have never got to have the experiences I had which simply isn't right, not to mention the amount of cultural aboriginal heritage that the valley holds and don't get me started on the impact the mining will have on the water. The valley is home to many recorded nationally endangered species include the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, New Holland Mouse, Regent Honeyeater and Spotted-tailed Quoll. Are you even thinking about what will happen to these animals once they get caught up in the mining? I sure am...these animals will end up becoming extinct! there already is 17 threatened birds and 7 threatened plants in the area which will without a doubt become extinct. Bylong Valley also has important European heritage including the catholic church cemetery, upper Bylong public school and various homesteads and buildings which will be eradicated! As a 14-year-old girl you probably won't think much of what I have said but I want you to think about this, If this was your home..or a significant part of your life, or even just some place you visited, I know you would have thought of this land as utterly breathtaking just as we do, would you really feel it necessary to take the beauty away just for money?
Don't sell our future!

I am a resident of Bulga in the Hunter Valley and I oppose the proposed Bylong Coal Project. for the following reasons:

1.We do not need more new coal mines. The science on the climate change is clear. Digging more coal in Australia and burning it in Korea will bring more carbon into the atmosphere and will come to haunt us in the form of droughts, floods, bushfires and wild weather.
2.The proposed new coal mines will destroy valuable agricultural land and associated underground aquifers. Under the current regulations all coal mines are allowed to expand - forever. To my knowledge, not a single coal mine in NSW has ever closed properly and restored the land to its original healthy condition.
3. The current environmental regulations give mines free hand in destroying irreplaceable ecological communities. The complex system of the environmental offsets is completely ineffective.
4. Coal mines in general and open cut mega-mines in particular, create dust and noise pollution that damages health of the local residents living in the neighbourhood. At the same time the mines own and run the dust and noise monitoring systems. Monitoring data are treated as a private property. Surely this is a conflict of interest!
5.Open cut coal mines destroy the value of the surrounding rural properties and yet the current regulatory system puts the mine management in charge of any compensation. Once again, a conflict of interest!
6.The social benefits of the coal mining, such as jobs and royalties, are vastly overstated while the mines enjoy many free subsidies. How else could you explain that we are at the tail end of the biggest mining boom in history and yet all the levels of the Australian government are broke?

The Bylong valley is an irreplaceable piece of land with prime agriculture, historical relevance and beautiful scenery. But more than that it's a home, it's memories, experiences, a place where so many opportunities are provided.

My grandparents property located in the Bylong valley has been able to provide a lifetime of memories and experiences but now is going to be completely destroyed for no good reason. It will mean that there will be nowhere near enough water for the cattle and jupkeeping of the property. It will mean that the natural sounds of the birds and the animals will be replaced with loud drilling. That's there will be no more star gazing at night, no more driving through the valley and enjoying the scenic surrounding, which are currently considered one of Australia's top ten drives.

Not only this, but the mining of the valley will also mean places of historical relevance and aboriginal culture will be lost and as a country that has already lost so much of its history and indigenous culture this should really mean something.

Loosing the Bylong valley won't just impact the people there right now it impacts Australia's history, it's culture and it's environment. Once we loose these things they will be gone for good and what is a country without culture and history? As someone who has travelled to many places I can say that it's these things that you go for so removing prime land to mining is not going to work in our favour. It's time that we stop destroying our land and start preserving it as Bylong valley of high relevance and importance and it would be important that it is preserved. To mine the Bylong valley is to destroy a part of Australia and it's people that can never be repaired.

Other important factors are included below:

1. The predicted long-term impacts on prime agricultural land and water systems in the Bylong Valley are unacceptable and will not be mitigated through proposed offsets and rehabilitation. The renowned Tarwyn Park natural sequence farming processes will be destroyed.

2. A significant area of prime agricultural land will be destroyed: the mine footprint will disturb 2,875 hectares (ha) of land including 440 ha of Bioregional Significant Agricultural Land (BSAL), 260 ha being destroyed in open cut, plus 700 ha of mapped Critical Equine Industry Cluster land. The proposal to replace BSAL at another location is untested and high risk.

3. Impacts on groundwater and surface water will be significant. The highly connected alluvial aquifer system within the stressed Bylong River catchment will have predicted peak losses of up to 295 million litres per year (ML/yr). Loss of base flows to the Bylong River is predicted to be 918 ML/yr. The mine proposes to use up to 1,942 ML/yr which is over 75% of the annual rainfall recharge. The river system is over allocated and local farmers will lose important water supply.

4. The mine disturbance area has very high biodiversity values that will not be mitigated through the proposed offset arrangements. Nationally endangered species recorded in the area include the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, New Holland Mouse, Regent Honeyeater and Spotted-tailed Quoll. Three entirely new plant species were recorded. A significant area of critically endangered Grassy Box Gum Woodland will be destroyed along with habitat for 17 threatened birds and 7 threatened plants.

5. The area has Aboriginal cultural heritage significance: 239 sites were recorded in the study area with 25 regarded as being of high local or regional significance (including an ochre quarry, grinding grooves and rock shelters); 144 sites have been identified at risk from mine impacts with 102 within the open cut area.

6. Important European heritage, including the Catholic Church Cemetery, Upper Bylong Public School and a number of historic homesteads and farm buildings will be destroyed in the open-cut. The social impacts on the Bylong community have already been devastating.

I wish to voice my objection to this proposed coal mine. I object primarily on the basis that the project will only fuel continuing and accelerated climate change. The state should be doing all it can to foster renewable energy rather than this century old energy source. I also however object on the basis that the project will have very large and non-reversible impacts upon a large list of threatened species.

The fact that the developer wishes to clear or disturb 217 hectares of endangered ecological community, with 135 ha of that critically endangered, should be enough to stop this mine in its own right. This vegetation also forms part of the overall matrix of 229 ha of Regent Honeyeater habitat. This is a species that is critically endangered both in NSW and nationally. This significant impact upon this species is of such importance that this alone should be enough for the mine to be refused. Further to this there are a host of threatened species to be affected by the proposal and the impact assessment undertaken for them is highly flawed. For example, the conclusion that the removal of 779 ha of habitat is NOT a significant impact upon a species such as the diamond firetail is professionally dishonest, to say the least. The dismissal

The ecology report makes the astonishing claim that:

"A total of 753 ha of woody vegetation and native grassland will be directly impacted by the Project; however a further 1,714 ha of similar vegetation, as well as cliff line vegetation, will undergo the impacts of subsidence at varying levels. Individually, these impacts may be considered insignificant if appropriate mitigation measures are put in place, with species likely to self relocate to adjacent areas of suitable habitat".

This claim, made so lightly in relation to cumulative impacts, is appallingly oversimplified for anybody claiming to be a professional ecologist. It completely ignores that similar areas may already be at carrying capacity or that the 'self relocation' of species into adjacent areas simply can't occur for plants, and even for animals this may be complicated by established territories in these areas, none of which are discussed in the report.

The cumulative impact section of the ecological assessment is extremely poor and seeks to brush over the very large and very serious cumulative impacts of large-scale coal mining in the Hunter Valley. The report devotes one single paragraph to the cumulative effect of multiple mines and does this only in the broadest possible qualitative sense. It then has the audacity to claim that "The long term impacts associated with the Project as well as other proximate mines will be offset by rehabilitation and appropriate conservation strategies", without daring to name any of these strategies or to make any credible scientific argument at all. This assessment does not satisfy the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements for "The cumulative impacts from all clearing activities and operations, associated edge effects and other indirect impacts on cultural heritage, biodiversity and OEH Estate need to be comprehensively addressed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This should include the cumulative impact of the proponent's existing and proposed development and infrastructure (such as access tracks etc) as well as the cumulative impact of other developments located in the vicinity. THis assessment should include consideration of both construction and operational impacts".

Should the project be approved then it will clearly be open to legal challenge on the basis that the SEARs were not adequately addressed within the proposal.

This development represents a clear case of 'death by a thousand cuts' and definitely warrants at least an attempt at a genuine quantitative cumulative impact assessment. Unless this is undertaken any decision undertaken by the NSW Government regarding the project's impacts must be held to be invalid on the basis of inadequate assessment.

The section 5a assessment for 'blossom-dependent birds' is unacceptable. It is not appropriate to assess Regent Honey Eater (NSW: critically endangered, Cth: critically endangered) alongside Black-chinned honeyeater (NSW: vulnerable,Cth: not listed), little lorikeet (NSW: vulnerable,Cth: not listed), painted honeyeater (NSW: vulnerable,Cth: not listed) and swift parrot (NSW: endangered,Cth: endangered) in one large grouping such as this when the potential impacts are so large. To further consider the mipact upon all of these as not significant is completely incorrect, particularly for Regent Honeyeater, as mentioned above. This is an area where this proposal may be subject to future legal challenge due to the inadequacy of the assessment. Added to this, the main body o fthe report indicates that the Regent Honeyeater would be significantly impacted by the project, though this is not reflected in the assessment of significance which appears to conclude no significant impact upon any of these species.

This assessment is clearly flawed and should be rejected outright, not only for the sake of the species and communities affected but for the ongoing health of the atmosphere.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission of Objection

I am deeply concerned with this proposal. Actually, words cannot express my dismay.

Australia is subject to extreme droughts and uncertain weather. Yet the Bylong Coal Project will destroy or disturb 440ha of Bioregional Significant Agricultural Land (BSAL), and 700ha of mapped Critical Equine Industry Cluster Land.

To say that this can be replicated or transferred to another location is unacceptable. Prime agricultural land exists where it is, and the Bylong Valley is recognised nationally for its horse studs.

It is distressing that the iconic Tarwyn Park property will be destroyed. The natural sequence farming processes developed here by Peter Andrews are a major addition to Australian agricultural practice. This property must be saved, not turned into a coal mine.

The groundwater and surface water systems will suffer a huge negative impact from this project. Kepco want to use 75% of the annual rainfall recharge. This is completely unsustainable on an already stressed water system, due to over-allocation of water licences.

The allluvial aquifers within the Bylong River catchment will be heavily affected by the loss of up to 295 million litres per year; the Bylong River is expected to lose 918 million litres per year. How farmers in recognised BSAL and the Critical Equine Industry Cluster are expected to survive and prosper in this situation beggars belief.

Taking into account Australia's droughts, and the scientifically accepted effects of climate change, the consequences to our nation of this proposal are significant. Food and water security is part of our national security and must be safeguarded. Proposed offsets and rehabiliatation are no substitutuion for what will be lost.

The Bylong Coal Project is completely unacceptable and must not be approved.

Kepco's proposal is as wrong as ever; we can only wonder why community data and facts are discounted.
If it is due to "jobs", then it can be easily seen that jobs were vacated to fill the mines which are there. Vacancies still exist, and people will not necessarily "lose jobs" with a refusal.
Instead, people will be able to recover their own or new jobs which are actively needed in a healthy society. These jobs give the miners themselves a chance to recover their health, meet their families again, fulfil community needs and gain satisfaction from all those aspects, which more than compensate for a drop in wages.
I denounce the false cry of "jobs" being used politically to favour bullying and dominating coal companies, whose countries of origin have even less care than our State Government for the well being and health of our people, our future, our agriculture, our water, our social cohesion and our landscape.
Please refuse the Kepco proposal to mine at all, let alone for 25 years. That would reach way past the date where intelligent countries will have given up producing and selling coal.
This submission reaches way past Bylong, and the content of it has received wide agreement from those assembled at a PAC Hearing recently.
Thankyou.

1. Biodiversity - Endangered species- Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, New Holland Mouse, Regent Honeyeater and Spotted-tailed Quoll. Three entirely new plant species were recorded. A significant area of critically endangered Grassy Box Gum Woodland will be destroyed along with habitat for 17 threatened birds and 7 threatened plants.


2.Global food security is a major issue and agricultural land everywhere needs protection.

3. Groundwater systems are not well understood. The inevitable disruption to the groundwater is bound to have unforeseen consequences. The Upper hunter has had relatively good seasons for nearly a decade, when things turn dry again competition for water will put everyone involved, agriculture and mine at risk.


4.The area has Aboriginal cultural heritage significance: 239 sites were recorded in the study area with 25 regarded as being of high local or regional significance (including an ochre quarry, grinding grooves and rock shelters); 144 sites have been identified at risk from mine impacts with 102 in the open cut area.

5. Bylong community and European heritage are also being destroyed.

The Bylong Valley is a highly productive agricultural area with high biodiversity. The development of the natural sequence farming system on Tarwyn Park has been highly acclaimed. The soils on Tarwyn Park are regarded as holding the greatest amount of organic carbon of any agricultural soils in NSW. The destruction of prime agricultural land will not be mitigated through proposed offsets and rehabilitation.

The Bylong Valley water sources are already under stress from over allocation. In times of drought, which are predicted to be more frequent in the future, local farmers will los their important water supply.

The biodiversity within the mine disturbance area is high, with endangered animal species such as brush-tailed rock wallabies, New Holland mouse, spotted tail quolls and regent honey-eaters having been identified within the area. Also three new plant species were recorded on the site, and a significant area of critically endangered grassy box gum woodland will be destroyed. Habitat for several threatened species such as speckled warbler, diamond fire-tailed finch and brown tree-creeper also will be lost. Habitat loss is the major process which is causing the local, state wide and national threats to native animals and plants, and even with the proposed biodiversity offset areas, there will be a net loss of habitat. So-called enhancement of offset areas will be totally ineffectual in increasing habitat as it will take too long to be established (100s to 1000s of years). As well, many of these endangered animals will be lost to the population through mortalities during the establishment of the mine, causing depletion of the total population.

The effects of this proposed mine have already been devastating for the Bylong Valley community, with many property owners being forced or coerced into selling their land to Kepco.

Aboriginal and European heritage in the area will be destroyed. Significant areas including an ochre quarry, axe grinding grooves and rock shelters will be impacted; along with the Catholic Church cemetery, the local public school and historic farm buildings.

Hi Matthew

I have reviewed the EIS for the Bylong mine. The following issues are of concern:

Appendix L: Surface water impact assessment.

Page 86

Sect 4.8 Product stockpile dam, receives runoff from product stockpile area, this is transferred back to Cal handling and preparation plant supply dam and any overflows enter the Bylong River. What is the anticipated quality of the water and will there be any notifications when these events occur?


Sect 4.9 Sediment dams 1,2,4,5&6, dewatered to open cut mine dam following rainfall events with overflows going into Lee Creek and Bylong River. Once again what impact will this have on the creek?


Sect 5.1 Receiving Waters: Bylong River receives storage overflows from underground mine dam, underground raw coal contact dam, products stockpile, fill point dam and sediment dam 8. Again there is no reference to the anticipated quality.


Appendix O, Air Quality and Green House Gas Impact statement covered all phases and included monitoring plans. Will there be any warnings for the community should air quality fall outside the anticipated quality?


Appendix M Ground Water Impact statement presents plenty of data and modelling and in sect 13.9, page 159 Management and mitigation strategies are discussed. I would like to see triggers for these actions described.


Still haven't identified what is going to happen to the sediment ponds on closure of mine.


I also picked up that there were going to be a number of exhumations and there was no mention of consultation with health on this matter. I have since sent an email and have entered into discussions regarding exhumations. (This has since been addressed)


I hope this assists . If further information is required please contact me. I understand that Wayne Smith from Health Protection attended a meeting regarding this IES and this was provided to him prior to the meeting.


Regards

Ingo Steppat

Coordinator Environmental Health Services

Western/Far Western NSW LHD

I enclose my submission on the Bylong Coal Project

Objection on behalf of Murrumbo Station, 9090 Bylong Valley Way.
Please see attached letter dated 15 October 2015.

Please see attached submission.