Mod 3 - Airly Coal

Mining and Industry Projects
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission as an Objection - Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3
Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate

The 1991 development consent is out-of-date and inappropriate as it lacks the necessary environmental safeguards for coal mining in a State Conservation Area, therefore this modification proposal to extend the consent should be either refused or varied to specify almost undetectible levels of surface movements, that is mine subsidence.
Subsidence under the 1991 development consent of 1.8m is totally unacceptable - there must be no exceptions to following limits: vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m.
The historic Oil Shale Ruins are of special significance and is one of the best preserved heritage sites of its kind in NSW, I oppose any coal mining that does not fully protect these historical Oil Shale Ruins from any form of coal pillar extraction.
I agree with the World Heritage Advisory Committee that the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining has been completed.
Visually prominent waste and product heaps must be appropriately screened and landscaped to blend in with surrounding parks and popular tourist destinations in the Capertee Valley, such as Pearsons Lookout .
I am concerned about the failure to consider downstream impacts on the World Heritage Area in the Modification 3 proposal, operations proposed under Modification 3 can discharge water pollution into Airly Creek. Such discharges would impact on the Gardens of Stone National Park, part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Reverse osmosis water treatment of the effluent from Airly Colliery to remove all salts and dissolved metals must be required for any discharge to a World Heritage listed property.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,

- See more at: http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/node/539#sthash.FIJxYzij.dpuf

Mining and Industry Projects
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission as an Objection - Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3
Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate

The 1991 development consent is out-of-date and inappropriate as it lacks the necessary environmental safeguards for coal mining in a State Conservation Area, therefore this modification proposal to extend the consent should be either refused or varied to specify almost undetectible levels of surface movements, that is mine subsidence.
Subsidence under the 1991 development consent of 1.8m is totally unacceptable - there must be no exceptions to following limits: vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m.
The historic Oil Shale Ruins are of special significance and is one of the best preserved heritage sites of its kind in NSW, I oppose any coal mining that does not fully protect these historical Oil Shale Ruins from any form of coal pillar extraction.
I agree with the World Heritage Advisory Committee that the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining has been completed.
Visually prominent waste and product heaps must be appropriately screened and landscaped to blend in with surrounding parks and popular tourist destinations in the Capertee Valley, such as Pearsons Lookout .
I am concerned about the failure to consider downstream impacts on the World Heritage Area in the Modification 3 proposal, operations proposed under Modification 3 can discharge water pollution into Airly Creek. Such discharges would impact on the Gardens of Stone National Park, part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Reverse osmosis water treatment of the effluent from Airly Colliery to remove all salts and dissolved metals must be required for any discharge to a World Heritage listed property.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,

- See more at: http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/node/539#sthash.vICcG4NT.dpuf

Submission as pdf attached. Haydn Washington

Mining and Industry Projects
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission as an Objection - Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3
Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate

The 1991 development consent is out-of-date and inappropriate as it lacks the necessary environmental safeguards for coal mining in a State Conservation Area, therefore this modification proposal to extend the consent should be either refused or varied to specify almost undetectible levels of surface movements, that is mine subsidence.
Subsidence under the 1991 development consent of 1.8m is totally unacceptable - there must be no exceptions to following limits: vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m.
The historic Oil Shale Ruins are of special significance and is one of the best preserved heritage sites of its kind in NSW, I oppose any coal mining that does not fully protect these historical Oil Shale Ruins from any form of coal pillar extraction.
I agree with the World Heritage Advisory Committee that the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining has been completed.
Visually prominent waste and product heaps must be appropriately screened and landscaped to blend in with surrounding parks and popular tourist destinations in the Capertee Valley, such as Pearsons Lookout .
I am concerned about the failure to consider downstream impacts on the World Heritage Area in the Modification 3 proposal, operations proposed under Modification 3 can discharge water pollution into Airly Creek. Such discharges would impact on the Gardens of Stone National Park, part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Reverse osmosis water treatment of the effluent from Airly Colliery to remove all salts and dissolved metals must be required for any discharge to a World Heritage listed property.

Please preserve this location.

I object to this proposal foe an extension of 162/9 on the grounds that this would threaten the Outstanding Universal Value of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

I object to this proposal foe an extension of 162/9 on the grounds that this would threaten the Outstanding Universal Value of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

I object to this proposal foe an extension of 162/9 on the grounds that this would threaten the Outstanding Universal Value of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

I object to this proposal foe an extension of 162/9 on the grounds that this would threaten the Outstanding Universal Value of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

Name to be Withheld
As owners of significant farm land and infrastructure investment circa 700 acres of grazing and improved pasture in the Capertee Valley we register our objection to the extension of the current mine license for Centennial Coal for a further 12 months on the following grounds:
* the mining represents a major threat to the water supply to Emu Creek and other tributaries to which our property adjoins
* we rely on bore water for stock and domestic purposes to maintain a stud cattle breeding program
*there appears to be a complete lack of compliance with current consent orders with mounds of coal visible from the Capertee Valley Way in contravention of current consent orders.
*as one of the truly unique and growing areas for tourism within 3 hours drive of Sydney the Capertee Valley will deliver vital tourism revenue to both the local community and towns such as Rylstone and Kandos for many years to come
*the urban spread that is currently under way in Western Sydney combined with the improvement in roads and access from Sydney over the Blue Mountains will bring both increased tourism and rural investment to the valley and it's environs. This can not be threatened nor damaged.
* there are many fragile and important sites and native species that surround Airly and the Capertee Valley that must be preserved to ensure this future is not put at risk
*Centennial Coal has displayed very little concern for the community and it's environs in the past and hence can not be trusted to improve in the future.
* Centennial has also displayed contempt for the provision of more time when requested to respond to issues by the community and as such no further time should be granted to Centennial.
* The legacy of coal mining at Airly by Centennial Coal will be the destruction of a pristine and historically important geographical, farming and tourist area with no long term benefits to the communities and landholders that will be left with the devastation for future generations to rue.

Mining and Industry Projects
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission as an Objection - Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3
Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate

The 1991 development consent is out-of-date and inappropriate as it lacks the necessary environmental safeguards for coal mining in a State Conservation Area, therefore this modification proposal to extend the consent should be either refused or varied to specify almost undetectible levels of surface movements, that is mine subsidence.
Subsidence under the 1991 development consent of 1.8m is totally unacceptable - there must be no exceptions to following limits: vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m.
The historic Oil Shale Ruins are of special significance and is one of the best preserved heritage sites of its kind in NSW, I oppose any coal mining that does not fully protect these historical Oil Shale Ruins from any form of coal pillar extraction.
I agree with the World Heritage Advisory Committee that the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining has been completed.
Visually prominent waste and product heaps must be appropriately screened and landscaped to blend in with surrounding parks and popular tourist destinations in the Capertee Valley, such as Pearsons Lookout .
I am concerned about the failure to consider downstream impacts on the World Heritage Area in the Modification 3 proposal, operations proposed under Modification 3 can discharge water pollution into Airly Creek. Such discharges would impact on the Gardens of Stone National Park, part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Reverse osmosis water treatment of the effluent from Airly Colliery to remove all salts and dissolved metals must be required for any discharge to a World Heritage listed property.
Thank you,
John Brady

My submission is uploaded as a pdf.

It is my understanding that any proposed extension will be based on the conditions and standards imposed in or prior to 1991.
One would hope that in the ensuing 23 years we have become more aware of the consequences of "getting it wrong" and trusting those with vested interests to look after both our natural environment and, perhaps more importantly, our water resources.
I believe that the terms of the 1991consent allow for 1.8m subsidence as a result of mining activity.
It frankly beggars belief that in these enlightened days we would consider acceptable such an impact and the potential interference on underground water supplies.
I would urge that the proposed extension be denied and that the mining company be required to resubmit their proposal based on current legislative requirements.

I'm a local resident and owner of a property in Capertee Valley .Capertee Valley is of huge value of local ,regional national and international visitors .The whole Capertee Valley should be added to the World Heritage Area.Capertee valley should not be compromised by mine subsidence.This fragile area should be protected.!! Intensive mining will cause cliff collapses and subsidence.There is a serious risk that bores creeks,rivers will be affected. Water impacts will affect and distroy agriculture, tourism and the life of the people who live in the Capertee Valley . I OBJECT TO ANY KIND OF MINING IN THE CAPERTEE VALLEY AREA . !!!

I am a retired civil engineer and groundwater hydrologist. I am also a member of the Blue Mountains Region NPWS Advisory Committee and in that role have become very familiar with the background to the declaration of the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area and the development of the draft plan of management for that area.
The major understanding underpinning the SCA was that Centennial Coal would only remove 50% of the coal, thereby ensuring that subsidence would be minimal and the World Heritage class pagoda formations would not be significantly impacted. Centennial was much praised by the conservation community for its environmentally progressive undertaking.
Acceptance of the company's undertaking now appears naïve. The Company is turning the undertaking on its head by asking to continue under the terms of its old consent. Subsidence of 1.8 metres will adversely affect pagodas, the hydrology and possibly the historic ruins. World class formations will be destroyed forever and deep cracking may render some areas unsafe for recreational walking. The SCA will be greatly devalued, and the whole process by which the SCA was created will justifiably be ridiculed by the public.

I object to Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3.

Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate
*The 1991 development consent is out-of-date and inappropriate as it lacks the necessary environmental safeguards for coal mining in a State Conservation Area, therefore this modification proposal to extend the consent should be either refused or varied to specify almost undetectable levels of surface movements, that is mine subsidence.
*Subsidence under the 1991 development consent of 1.8m is totally unacceptable - there must be no exceptions to following limits: vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m.
*The historic Oil Shale Ruins are of special significance and is one of the best preserved heritage sites of its kind in NSW, I oppose any coal mining that does not fully protect these historical Oil Shale Ruins from any form of coal pillar extraction.
*I agree with the World Heritage Advisory Committee that the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining has been completed.
*Visually prominent waste and product heaps must be appropriately screened and landscaped to blend in with surrounding parks and popular tourist destinations in the Capertee Valley, such as Pearsons Lookout .
*I am concerned about the failure to consider downstream impacts on the World Heritage Area in the Modification 3 proposal, operations proposed under Modification 3 can discharge water pollution into Airly Creek. Such discharges would impact on the Gardens of Stone National Park, part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
*Reverse osmosis water treatment of the effluent from Airly Colliery to remove all salts and dissolved metals must be required for any discharge to a World Heritage listed property.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,
Carolyn Williams

Submission as an Objection - Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3
Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate

Of key concern is the fact that although Centennial Coal state they adopt subsidence criteria that would result in minimal subsidence impact, they are applying for a simple time extension of DA162/91 which has consent conditions that allow for subsidence of up to 1.8m. This is totally unacceptable. Should Mod 3 be approved it must be with altered consent conditions of maximum tilts and strains that align with Centennial's stated adopted practice as specified on page "i" of the executive summary and on page 29 in section 6.1 of the EA. There must be no exceptions to vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m.

Other concerns are
* No mention of possible impacts of discharge water downstream in the nearby World Heritage Area;
* No mention of screening visually prominent waste and product heaps. These are an eyesore especially from Pearsons Lookout, a major tourist attraction and one of the most spectacular look outs in NSW. Such screening must be made a condition of consent;
* No mention of top sealing coal waste piles to prevent contamination of groundwater resources through heap leaching. Such leaching leads to more or less permanent source of downstream pollution. Such top sealing should be made a condition of consent.
* Appears the camping area in Mugii Murrum-ban SCA will be undermined, though this area is not marked at all on Centennial's map. Not a nice thought to think one day as someone hammers in a tent peg, they get swallowed into a sink hole!

In addition there are a number of inaccuracies in the EA:
* P.6: under Land Use and Ownership there is no mention of tourism which is a growing industry within the area.
* p.12 states no change to employment of 120 personnel when in fact currently there are only 59 employed (information from Centennial's payroll office on 3/7/2014).
* P.33 mentions placing longer term employment options for a recently employed workforce at risk. The "recently employed" workforce is in fact largely a long term Centennial workforce relocated from Centennial's Charbon mine. In addition such concern appears a little hypocritical given Centennial had no compunction in laying off truly "recently employed" workers (2009 when Airly commenced operations) after only three years when the mine was placed into care and maintenance in Dec 2012. That move enabled Centennial to relocate their long term workforce from Charbon when that mine's underground operations closed in March 2014, something that had been long planned.
* P.26 states No European heritage sites have been identified in the proposed mining area for this Modification, even thought the EA mentions protecting a stone cottage which is marked on Figure 6: Surface Sensitive Features. However this same Figure 6 does not mark the very significant heritage sites of the old Torbane Colliary workings and the New Hartley Shale mine workings. Given Modification 3 is for extension of the original DA one would think some mention of these very important and sensitive sites should be made. These sites are an important attraction within the within Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area and are accessible to almost everyone via the track now known as the Tramway Trail. They are an asset of huge value to the local community. They must be protected and conserved for future generations.

Finally, I agree with the World Heritage Advisory Committee recommendation that the Airly-Genowlan mesas should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining has been completed.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,

Nearby resident

Australia's economy can survive without digging big holes in the surface of our great landscape, destroying precious water systems and adding to the level of carbon spewing into the air by digging up carbon stores (coal) and burning them (air pollution).

Despite the intense damage mining for coal has caused to Australian river systems, aquifers, native animal habitat, iconic landscapes and the like, all of which cannot be repaired and are permanently damaged; the case for coal mining still goes on. How very un-Australian.

Let's not kid ourselves here that this project like every other coal mining project is about anything other than making a buck despite the costs. The notion that loggers or coal mining "adds" value to the conservation of Australia's landscape is ludicrous as the notion that there is no such thing as climate change.

The majority of profits from this will go overseas and not to the local economy, natural resources will be permanently destroyed and all of this in response to a directive from our Prime Minister "approve everything at all costs, we need the dollars pumped into our economy".

If this coal mining project didn't plan to:
> rip up pagoda landscape
> provide jobs that bolstered the longevity of the local area instead of short-term ones
> cause vertical subsidence
> destroy the New Hartley oil shale ruins
> mine under the Airly Village which is protected for heritage reasons
> negatively impact the water quality on the nearby World Heritage Area
> Dig up million year old carbon stores
> Add to the global issue of climate change
> negatively impact Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area, including the public's access to it.....
... I might consider its value.

However, it will do all of these and many more, and it simple provides no long-term value to anyone or anything, including the local economy, the local environment or the local community. Everything about this proposal will provide very long-term and permanent damage and only supply a very short-term resolution to local job and other economic issues.

The DoPI might consider doing its job here and approve this application purely based upon its merit only; and if it did that whole-heartedly, it would never be give such an approval.

"Submission as an Objection- Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3 Existing Consent Conditions Inappropriate"

I am a long term resident of the Blue Mountains and undertake regular bush walks in the Blue Mountains and surrounding areas. I am concerned that mining activity by Centennial Coal will adversely affect the surrounding area, Mt Airley, the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area and the Capertee valley.
Subsidence likely to be caused by this activity would be destructive and irreversible.
The risk to watercourses and underground water sources is unacceptable.
The visual impact of mining activity is detrimental to any area, particularly so in an area such as this.
This consent should lapse, and a new Development Application should be submitted by Centennial Coal for the entire operation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

DEREK FINTER

Mining and Industry Projects
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Submission as an Objection - Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3
Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate
*The 1991 development consent is out-of-date and inappropriate as it lacks the necessary environmental safeguards for coal mining in a State Conservation Area, therefore this modification proposal to extend the consent should be either refused or varied to specify almost undetectible levels of surface movements, that is mine subsidence.
*Subsidence under the 1991 development consent of 1.8m is totally unacceptable - there must be no exceptions to following limits: vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m.
*The historic Oil Shale Ruins are of special significance and is one of the best preserved heritage sites of its kind in NSW, I oppose any coal mining that does not fully protect these historical Oil Shale Ruins from any form of coal pillar extraction.
*I agree with the World Heritage Advisory Committee that the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining has been completed.
*I am concerned about the failure to consider downstream impacts on the World Heritage Area in the Modification 3 proposal, operations proposed under Modification 3 can discharge water pollution into Airly Creek. Such discharges would impact on the Gardens of Stone National Park, part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
*Reverse osmosis water treatment of the effluent from Airly Colliery to remove all salts and dissolved metals must be required for any discharge to a World Heritage listed property.
This is a remarkably beautiful area and needs to be protected.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,

Submission as an Objection - Airly Colliery DA 162/91 Modification 3 Existing Consent Conditions are Inappropriate
This consent should lapse and a new DA be submitted by Centennial for the entire operation.
I live in Rylstone and travel often to Sydney and admire the view from Pearsons lookout every time. It is a spectacular sight and immediately communicates to any visitor the specialness of this area. Walks through the valley also reward me, and any visitor, with its specialness.
Agriculture and tourism need to take centre stage. The future of the region depends on both these factors for its development. And by development I mean where people live, and can live, because it is a thriving community with plenty of visitors to support local tourism businesses, and farms to provide food. Visitors will not come if the area is damaged. It is a moral responsibility to take a step back, rethink, and allow the current consent to lapse.
Further mining will destroy this spectacular area with its thousands of pagodas, dramatic cliffs, interesting and historic villages, unique flora and fauna. It is a fragile area and I do not believe the current proposal has taken into account the myriad of factors which make this area unique, spectacular and irreplaceable.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.