Rocky Hill Coal Mine

SUBMISSION ON EIS FOR ROCKY HILL COAL PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER SSD-5156

BY

JEFFREY KITE



1248 Thunderbolts Way
Bowman (Gloucester) NSW 2422
[email protected]

THIS SUBMISSION

I'm a retired water resources engineer. I'm a member of Groundswell Gloucester, and I'm President of the Gloucester Environment Group. However, this is my personal submission. As my background is in groundwater, my submission mostly relates to this area.

INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT

I strongly object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project. I live with my wife in the Gloucester Shire. Our 4 hectare property is about 10km north-west of Gloucester, so we are not directly affected by current developments and plans to the south of Gloucester. However, we chose the Gloucester area for our retirement as the minute we drove into the town, having also looked in the south coast, the southern highlands and the Hunter valley, it felt right. After talking to people who were living in Gloucester and looking at more information about the town, it felt even better. Now having lived here for 6 years, our hunch was right and we love living in this beautiful place. Gloucester has what has been called "a sense of place".

Why does Gloucester have a sense of place? Largely because of its location and beauty. It's in a narrow valley between two magnificent small ranges, the Bucketts and Mograni. It has four significant rivers which confluence closeby then flow into the Manning River. These rivers all have their sources and flow from the Barrington Tops World Heritage Area and surrounding forests. The land surrounding Gloucester is beautiful grazing country that is green most of the year and at its greenest in summer. The drive to Gloucester from any direction is beautiful, with the main road from the Pacific Highway largely following a valley with parallel hills which join up to the Bucketts and Mograni ranges. It passes through beautiful towns and villages with Stroud being the most beautiful.

The beauty of the Gloucester Vale and it's sense of place has been recognised the National Trust.

So why under any circumstances would anybody want to put Rocky Hill coal mine, Yancoal coal mine and a huge AGL coal seam gas wellfield right in the middle of it?

It just does not make any sense.


PROBLEMS WITH ROCKY HILL COAL MINE

Groundwater Issues

Groundwater is addressed in Section 4.6 of the main EIS document. The details of the Groundwater Assessment for Rocky Hill by Australasian Groundwater and Environment Consultants (AGE) are located in Volume 2, Part 4.

1. Analysis of the issue

The environmental impacts of the Rocky Hill Mine on groundwater and groundwater related issues are of major concern. Groundwater is a key issue in most coal mining and coal seam gas projects and this project is no exception. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) states that the impacts of developing this mine on groundwater related issues will effectively be negligible. To illustrate this, the Groundwater section of the Executive Summary states that the groundwater assessment "concluded that:
* no surrounding groundwater users would be impacted...;
* there would not be any reduced availability to the shallow groundwater system;
* there would be no impacts to any groundwater dependent ecosystem;
* there would be no measurable impact on flows within Waukivory Creek or the Avon River; and
* groundwater levels would recover within approximately 15 years after mine closure."

The Executive Summary also:
* acknowledges that "the existing habitats and aquatic communities in........the Avon River system as a whole is significant..."
* makes "commitments to protecting water quality within Waukivory Creek and the Avon River" and "would ensure the existing aquatic ecology would not be adversely impacted"

However, there are major problems with the EIS that strongly question these categorical statements. Many of the assumptions made in the groundwater model that most of these statements are based on, are highly questionable. For instance the analysis is based on average rainfall over a short period. The critical time for groundwater systems is during drought conditions especially in a series of drought years and these have not been assessed in the EIS. At these times the Avon River and Waukivory Creek "ceases to flow". Water table levels in the alluvial aquifers will also fall and will inevitably fall more with the Rocky Hill mine operating than in average years, possibly leading to major impacts on riverine vegetation.

The EIS quickly dismisses any impacts of drawdowns on current groundwater users because it says there are only a small number of bores close to the mine. This is because GRL and AGL have purchased most of the properties in the area that have wells. Although current use of water from private bores and watercourses is relatively small, this could change considerably in future years. The quality of water discharging from the "post closure landform" is not known but is also of significant concern. The basic right of landholders to be able to access good quality water for domestic and stock purposes must be maintained as is the protection of water for public water supply in the lower Manning with 70,000 plus users.

The cumulative impacts of Rocky Hill's operation at the same time as AGL's gas abstraction have not been adequately addressed. Nor has the inevitable future proposals to expand mining in other areas close to Gloucester within GRL's exploration leases.

2. Concerns/problems/issues

The EIS identifies a number of risks that could result from the proposed mine in section 4.6.1.and. These risks are as follows:
* Reduction in baseflow in Waukivory Creek and the Avon River;
* Discharge of poor quality groundwater from the post closure landform;
* Impact on groundwater (alluvial) biota;
* Reduced water in groundwater systems
* Noticeable reduction in base flow regimes in Waukivory Creek and the Avon River, with impacts on downstream aquatic ecology and other users.
These issues have been assessed by AGEC as low to medium risk. Another critical issue in relation to groundwater is the:
* Cumulative impacts of Rocky Hill and Gloucester Gas operating at the same time and the cumulative impact of future expansion of the Rocky Hill mine.

Section 4.6.4 identifies other related "potential environmental impacts". The issues associated with the proponent's identified risks above and potential environmental impacts, as well as other issues not specifically listed by the proponent, are addressed below, but not in the same order.

It is inevitable that, if this project goes ahead, Rocky Hill will apply to expand mining in other areas close to Gloucester within GRL's exploration leases. The Environmental Impact Assessment process in NSW does require consideration of cumulative impacts from future expansion at the time of initial consent and proponents like Rocky Hill are very careful not to provide any detail or even make any reference to future stages except for the requirement for ongoing exploration. This is the `leg in the door' approach which was used by Stratford Coal and appears to be supported by Government. However in reality, this is a very deceitful approach used by the mining industry.


2.1 Complex Hydrogeology & Groundwater Modelling

The modelling package used by AGE can couple groundwater flow with surface water flow. This is touted as a major strength of the package by the consultants (see ES page 4-11 and sections 4.6.5, 10.3.1 and 10.3.6). However in section 11.5, it is stated that "the groundwater model should not be used to assess the flow reductions to the surface water system." This is due to the over simplifications assumed in the model design which are necessary because of the highly complex hydrogeology. However, the assessment of the interaction of groundwater abstraction on surface water base flows is one of the fundamentally important concerns in assessing environmental impacts and this has not been done.

Section 10.4.3 on Transient Calibration of the model goes states that "The hydrographs show what is considered a good match, and whilst the absolute values of the predicted model do not match, they are all less that 3m different to the observed values, and more often less that 1m different." When we are looking at impacts on groundwater levels in the alluvium and also in base flows and river pools, this level of accuracy is unacceptable. Modelling of water level accuracy can be greatly improved by having a much larger number of cells in key potential impact areas such as the alluvium and the river/river pools.

The modelling uses average rainfall to calibrate its steady state condition. For transient calibration, it used the period March 2011 to February 2012. This is a very short period for such a calibration. Predictive simulations were then run for Year 2 to year 14 at quarterly intervals even though the mine application is for 21 years. It's not clear what was used for rainfall data. As stated above, the critical time for groundwater systems is during drought conditions especially during a series of drought years. The EIS does not address periods of drought by using the long rainfall records available for Gloucester. This is not acceptable.

The model does not allow for faults. The approach is that if reasonable calibration can be maintained without considering faults, then all is OK. AGE go on further to say in section 10.2 "that there has been no reported incidence of increased groundwater flow or influence on potentiometric levels associated with mapped fault zones. This is not your average mine. The mine area includes a major reverse fault that strikes in a north-south direction. There are also other smaller normal and reverse faults and a major basalt intrusion. GRL has admitted it has not completed sufficient exploratory drilling and mapping to define the location of these geological and structural features. How then can these major features be properly accounted for in the groundwater modelling. Again, this is not an acceptable situation.

2.2 Impacts on Water Table & Cumulative Impacts

The modelling for this project predicts very small drawdowns except immediately adjacent to the pits. Even with the AGL Gas Project operating, the drawdowns in the alluvial flood plains are shown as minimal, except very close to the CSG wells. This is markedly different to the predictions modelled in the Stratford Extension Project, which indicates much greater drawdowns. Which consultant is right? This further emphasizes the need for a basin wide groundwater and surface water model. No approval for Rocky Hill or any further approvals for the coal/coal seam gas projects should be given until this model is up and running and providing reliable predictions and the analysis of cumulative impacts completed.

2.3 Reduction in baseflow in Waukivory Creek and Avon River

It has been said that there are no free lunches when it comes to removing water from natural water systems ie all abstractions will have some impact downstream. It is very difficult to accept that, given the large quantity of groundwater to be abstracted by GRL and the reductions in the catchment areas for Waukivory Creek and the Avon River, that the reduction in baseflow will be negligible as claimed.

With respect to protecting riverine ecosystems, the worst conditions are similar to what is being experience right now (October 2013). The Avon River stopped flowing 3 to 4 weeks ago. The river is now just a series of shallow pools. These pools and dependent vegetation provide critical habitat to many fauna species possibly including the platypus. Any reduction in surface and/or groundwater flow at these times will be critical for riverine ecosystems but this is not acknowledged in the EIS and no real mitigation is proposed, However in the Surface Water section page 4-184 it states that water from sediment dams "would be returned to the creek/river to maintain environmental flows". Poor quality water is not acceptable for such releases and any flow released must mirror typical natural flow regimes. However none of these aspects has been assessed in the EIS.

Table 4.46 presents a "Checklist against Water Sharing Plan for the Lower North Coast Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources". Item 5 Rule 67 provides for "...restrictions on the management of groundwater connectivity which apply to the Avon River Water Source whereby aquifer access licences are subject to the same `cease to pump requirements' as river access licence. In effect this means that pumping from alluvial bores must cease:... where there is no visible flow....". The applicants response is "These restrictions are noted." What does this response mean? It would seem GRL have made is no commitment to agree with this rule

GRL want to convert their surface water licences to groundwater licences to provide water for the operation of the mine. Therefore if there is no flow in the Avon, GRL would not be able to pump any water to operate the mine. It is not clear how this would apply to dewatering pumps as they are also likely to be capturing water discharged from the alluvial aquifer into the pits. There should be no exception to these rules which means that the project is not likely to be viable from a water management perspective. This potential reduction in base flows should be considered a high risk issue.

2.4 Impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems

The EIS states a number of times (eg section 11.6) that the riverine vegetation consists mainly of "River Oak, Cabbage Gum and Broad-leaved Apple. River Oaks are understood to be similar to River Red Gums and these species are likely to rely on groundwater from underlying formations." This is a highly significant comment, as although River Oak communities in the region are not threatened, they play very important roles in all riverine systems where they occur. They provide key habitat in rivers where riverine vegetation has already been impacted by clearing. They also greatly assist with bank stability. The deaths of the River Oaks as a result of low groundwater levels and reduced flows recharging the alluviums, could have a devastating impact on stream stability and the riverine ecosystems including aquatic ecosystems. On the other hand, any loss of riverine vegetation in the Oakey Creek system will cause major flood damage when the increased "clean water diversion" flows increase water velocity and volumes as predicted. These impacts on riverine and groundwater dependent ecosystems needs to be considered a high risk issue.

2.5 Inflow of saline groundwater into pits and subsequent management.

This area is covered in more detail in sections 2.3 and 2.4 on Surface Water. GRL's proposal is that saline groundwater will mix with poor quality surface water and be stored on-site or be allowed to discharge treated water into the Avon River. There is real concern about GRL's capacity to store this water. There should be no approvals given to release any mine water into the Avon River system. However if any water is allowed to discharge into the Avon River it needs to be treated to meet NSW Water Quality Guidelines for salinity and the usual physio-chemical requirements as well as for metals and organic toxicants.

Projects such as this that are planned to make large financial gains should not have the right to just discharge poor quality water into local rivers, especially when they are in a public water supply catchment area. No costs associated with the disposal of such water should become a burden to taxpayers. This should be considered a high risk issue.

2.6 Discharge of poor quality groundwater when mine is closed
The concept that groundwater levels and salinities will stabilise after 15 years is unacceptable because the data for the Stratford pits is that it would take hundreds of years. The Stratford pits do not have the amount of uphill runoff flowing into the pits that will be the case for Rocky Hill and hence Rocky Hill will probably overflow onto the floodplain. The concept proposed in the Rocky Hill EIS that by filling the voids the hole will be able `absorb' or `process' the 39,000tonnes of salt is not substantiated in the EIS and has not been demonstrated in other mines where in-pit disposal of pollution is practised.

2.7 Trigger Points
As for Surface Water, there are no specific trigger points indentified in the section on Groundwater that would cause action to be taken if the water quality or water levels reach unacceptable levels. This should have been done as part of the EIS.

2.8 Summary of Groundwater Issues

The proponent has not adequately addressed groundwater and related issues in the EIS.

The groundwater model is over simplified largely because of the great complexity of the hydrogeology makes modelling extremely difficult. It is calibrated coarsely using minimal data. It does not provide sufficient precision to analyse the impacts on Waukivory Creek and the Avon River and their associated ecosystems. Specifically it does not address what happens to water levels during drought sequences which are the critical periods.

The modelling outputs show very small drawdowns in watertables which is very different to the Stratford Coalmine Extension EIS particularly when the cumulative impacts of having the AGL Gloucester Gas Project operating at the same time was considered.

There is inadequate consideration of the risk of impacts of water table drawdown on groundwater dependent ecosystems, particularly the River Oaks, which are fundamental in protecting the stability of rivers and riverine ecosystems

There is inadequate consideration of how the proponents will manage groundwater that is saline and other poor quality water.

Social and Economic Issues

The mine is located far too close to the residential areas of Gloucester and will have major negative impacts on the town's amenity as well as on individual property values. If the mine was to go ahead:

* Surrounding rural and rural residential properties will be made unsaleable
* Long-established agricultural activities are being displaced
* Long-established agricultural activities will continue to be displaced
* No cost-benefit analysis of the project has been presented
* Potential royalties to the State appear to be greatly overestimated
* The net employment increase for Gloucester residents will be small (based on other mines, significantly less than claimed) which will be outweighed by the negative effects on the Gloucester community
* Noise from the mine - especially intrusive low-frequency noise - will affect large numbers of residences in and around Gloucester, especially in the Forbesdale, Avon and Thunderbolts residential estates
* Mine noise will commonly exceed the regulatory limits on winter nights and proposed compensations for residents affected by noise are inadequate
* Dust from the mine would have health and nuisance effects on hundreds of residents
* The scenic values that the important tourism industry depends on would be seriously degraded
* Road traffic to and from the mine would be far greater than the existing local traffic, and would put unacceptable pressure on the Shire Council's road maintenance resources.
* The mine is located on a floodplain in the catchment of the Manning River, which supplies drinking water to major towns downstream.

Ecological Issues

* As indicated in my section on Groundwater, it is likely that River Oak is a groundwater dependent tree when there is no surface water flow in watercourcses. Drawdowns due to dewatering by the Rocky Hill mine in conjunction with abstraction of produced water by AGL is likely to lead to tree deaths of this species which is fundamental to riverine ecosystems and bank stability.
* The mine would result in the clearing of remnants of dry rainforest, which is recognised as a vunerable ecological community
* The mine would have impacts on threatened birds and mammals, and would be likely to result in the complete loss of the populations of squirrel gliders and grey-crowned babblers currently in the proposed mine area.

Cumulative Impacts

As indicated in the introduction and the section on groundwater, the cumulative impact of Rocky Hill, Yancoal's Stratford and Duralie Mines and AGL's Gloucester Gas Project are huge and come with all the problems that are normally associated with a heavy industrial zone.

The impact when all these projects continue with their inevitable incremental expansions would be devastating for the Gloucester - Stroud valley and the people that live here.


Jeffrey Kite B.E.(Civil) Grad Dip Nat Res MIEAust CPEng (Retired)

I am appealing against the Rocky Hill Coal Project. I urge you to consider the drastic effect this will have on many local businesses in the area including farm stays, organic produce farming, tourism, agriculture, as well as the effect of air pollution to the health of many.

THe local council is opposed to this development as it is not in the spirit of the existing community, especially those with small land holdings close to the Project whose property prices will plummet. Many of these people are self funded retirees who have invested in small acreages, that will lose value with this project.

Gloucester has for many years worked to develop awareness of alternate fuel sources for sustainable living and a coal project so close to the township will be detrimental to their culture.

we wish to object to the Rockey Hill Coal Project as this is in direct wind direction from our home of 4 year and we have moved here after being pushed out of a mining town in qld, to what we thought was a beautiful valley, with the dust now comming from the expansion to the Stratford open cut mine we feel that this is only going to get worse and the land values will be unresaleable with the noise and extra activity that this we include ,, we would be only to happy to speak to GRL in regards to reloacating after compensation were reached until then we will oppose this mine everyway possible regards David

When a previous state government virtually shut down the timber industry in this district, they said that tourism would be expanded and would replace the loss of jobs and revenue to the local community.
The location of this Rocky Hill open cut coal mine and its infrastructure will be highly visible from the Bucketts Way (the only route providing access to Gloucester from the Hunter Valley, where most of our tourism originates) for many kilometres. This will discourage tourists from travelling to Gloucester.
There will be a large "levee" on the flood plain and adjacent the Avon River to prevent inundation of the mine. It will also provide an unnatural form in a beautiful landscape. This will not only discourage tourists, but also have a huge impact on the farms and rural residential properties whose outlook is across the Avon River to the Mograni range of hills to the east.
Furthermore, there will be many adverse affects including:(i) a reduction in the health of those people living nearby; and (ii)the adverse effects of dust, noise and lighting on the lives and livlihood of dairy farmers, graziers, retirees and treechangers living nearby.
I strongly oppose this mine, primarily due to its close proximity to Gloucester and the Bucketts Way.

I am opposed to the Rocky Hill Project for the following reasons:

It is too close to Gloucester Town
It is in an area that was originally set aside as a "mining free area" or scenic protection zone because of its beauty and proximity to Gloucester. The last labor state government inserted "mining" as an allowable activity in this zone in the LEP, much to the dismay of the majority of Gloucester community.
The mine would significantly impact on the amenity of the area
The mine will result in people choosing not to move to the Gloucester area for a lifestyle choice - no one wants to live in a town with a mine on its doorstep
Residents at Forbesdale have been significnatly impacted by the proposal with an inability to move or sell their houses.
The majority of residents do not want this mine to go ahead
I would not have relocated my family to Gloucester from Sydney had I known that this mine were going ahead
Dig the coal up somewhere else where an entire community will not be stuffed up
Coal dust is full of toxins and this dust will be blown across residential areas affecting many residents
This mine has impacted and will continue to impact the three residential estates (Forbesdale, Thunderbolt Estate, Avon River Estate) making it very difficult to sell property here.

Major Projects
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001



28th October, 2013

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: OBJECTION TO THE ROCKY HILL COAL PROJECT SSD-5156

The Wilderness Society Newcastle would like to object to this project on the following grounds:

* The ecological impacts of a new open cut mine at the foothills of the Barrington Tops National Park, including clearing of habitat and foraging vegetation of nine threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act, plus one Vulnerable Ecological Community (Lower Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest), noise and dust impacts from general mine operations and blasting as well as disruption to the ground and surface water systems impacting on downstream aquatic ecology. The site also provides known habitat for four threatened species, namely the Squirrel glider, the Grey crowned babbler, the Eastern bent wing bat and the Large footed myotis. The proposal will clear vulnerable ecological community totalling 4.3ha will be removed.
* High risk of saline water overflow into the Manning River Catchment and negative impact of saline water flows to the local creeks and streams and the groundwater table from the soakage zone. The Avon River is known for it's capacity to flood and taking into consideration altered rainfall patterns including - `wetter wets' putting the storage dams at this open-cut coal mine at high risk of overflow. The excavation of coal will also disrupt local drainage patterns altering the flow regime of local creeks and streams.
* Risk of seepage from the saline water zone of salt, heavy metals and other contaminates associated with water run-off from coal mines. The Gloucester Valley has an extremely complex hydrogeology due to high levels of faulting making it extremely difficult to predict the impacts of disturbance to the natural flow regime.
* The mass expansion of coal mines in the Hunter Valley will have serious implications for the climate in the acceleration of global warming, changing rainfall patterns as well as public and ecological health.
* Massive health implications for the residents of Gloucester with regards to noise, coal dust, blast plumes and mental health. Some family homes are only 900 metres from the proposed pits and most of the Forbesdale homes are within 1 to 1.5 kilometres from the proposed mine site.

This ecological and public health impacts of the Rocky Hill coal mine are far too great in the already heavily mined landscape of the Hunter Valley.

This EIS fails to adequately detail the areas being direct and indirectly impacted by this development and fails to identify `like for like' offsets. In addition there is no cumulative health study on the impacts of noise, blasting, coal dust particle pollution and fugitive emissions from the other coal mines and proposed coal seam gas development or the mental health impacts from this development on local communities.

Should you have any questions regarding this submission please contact me on the details provided below.


Yours sincerely,
Prue Bodsworth
(02) 4929 4395
The Wilderness Society Newcastle

I wish to express my opposition to the Rocky Hill mine project on the following grounds:
1. the close proximity to residential areas and the impact of dust, noise and loss of visual amenities. I live in the Hunter Valley and are exposed to the impacts of dust and the risks to health from the Hunter Valley mines.
2. The location of the Rocky Hill mine is on the Avon River flood plain and in the water catchment of area of the Manning River which supplies drinking water to over 80,000 people.
3. If approved, the Rocky Hill coal mine is not operating in isolation in the Gloucester area. To not consider the cumulative impacts of the mining is reckless and irresponsible.
Your faithfully
M Edwards
East Maitland 2323

see attached PDF.

I am distressed that the Rocky Hill project is again being promoted, by a company that is mainly owned by offshore entities.The profits of this mine will not stay in Australia, and there will be a net loss of jobs in the valley because Gloucester's viable tourist and agricultural industries will be compromised.
The world is turning away from coal because it is too damaging to the environment and to allow this unnecessary mine to ruin a valuable asset such as the Gloucester valley is nothing short of vandalism.
I lived in Gloucester until recently and the anxiety I observed in the residents of that town was distressing to see. They feel trapped and powerless and as a pharmacist working in Gloucester I observed a high degree of depression in those who face twenty years of disruption. In many cases that will be for the rest of their lives.
Please do not approve a mine that will pollute the Avon River and ruin the amenity of the valley for those who live there.
I moved twelve months ago to Port Macquarie for personal reasons but I am nevertheless distressed at the thought of this NEEDLESS mine being approved.

The proposed Rocky Hill coal project is contrary to the best interests of all Gloucester residents and will be vigorously opposed. An open cut mine so close to residential areas, schools and the hospital can only have serious negative impacts on the community and is hard to justify. The inevitable pollution from this ill-considered venture is to be deplored. At a time when clean energy options need to be implemented this mine is an offence to public interest and a poor reflection on an industry which considers only profit at the expense of community welfare. The residents of Gloucester will take all avenues of protest to stop this project.

I am totally opposed to the Rocky Hill Mine.
There are numerous valid reasons why Rocky Hill Mine should never get approval.
The most blatantly obvious is its close proximity to the township of Gloucester and the negative impacts the township people would be subjected to.

I object to the Rocky Hill project due to it's proximity to my local town of Gloucester.

Nicole McGregor
1402 Booral-Washpool Road
Stroud NSW 2425

Attn: Director - Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No. SSD-5156


Dear Sir/Madam,


I am totally opposed to the Rocky Hill Coal Project.
I am opposed to any more mines in the Gloucester area. The Rocky Hill mine will be the
beginning of the end for our wonderful town.
Various groups in Gloucester, including Groundswell Gloucester, Environment Group and Forbesdale Residents Action Group will be lodging submissions against this mine. I totallysupport the content of these submissions.

Despite GRL's statement that there will be no negative health impacts from Stage 1 of their mine, I cannot see how the evidence in the public domain regarding health impacts from opencut coal mining can be ignored. I refer to: Drs for the Environment and Dr Au of Singleton.

I am horrified that the proposed mine is to be built within 900metres of 30 homes and families. Why is the health of these people dismissed? I know some of those families and I know that the mental health impacts have been devastating. Why are these people considered collateral damage?

The visibility barriers are not aptly named. The barriers, erected to hide the mine workings, arein themselves, an eyesore. The steepness of the barriers will not allow vegetation to grow successfully but rather will be eroded by rain or create dust storms when it is windy.

GRL's claim that the mine will bring local employment is exaggerated and misleading. The Stratford mine had 60% of its workforce as DIDO's and the township did not reap the monetary rewards as promised.

The application for the Rocky Hill mine should be refused.

Investment in Renewables would be more appropriate - e.g. Broken Hill Solar - allowing farmers as hosting solar farms and wind would be much more appropriate. There is absolutely no need to be digging up coal and leaving the landscape an eyesore - if Mining companies love mining so much then they should live in the houses and farms close to their mines so that they closely feel the impacts of them and how great they are - why is that these people never seem to be anywhere near these locations but live in other cities totally removed from the destruction. I want alternatives to this fuel I want to use solar and I wind and I am sick of being forced to pay more for it because governments and decision makers keep approving the status quo if you love open cut mines so much live next to them...... if you love seeing rivers destroyed and smelling rotten egg gas buy next to them. Having farms become worthless live next to them. I cannot believe you will allow for Gloucester to be destroyed by one mine approval and greed, and the irony being that the coal isn't even being bought. Gloucester was saved from CSG but now you're going to to do to it what you've done to Bulga and approved some shitty mine for a group of short sighted individuals.

Yours faithfully
Nicole McGregor
I have not made a reportable political donation

Please Delete my personal information before publication

Director - Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No. SSD-5156
Dear Sir/Madam
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project on the following grounds:
1. Proximity to residential areas
The mine is proposed only 900metres from the residential area of Forbesdale. These residents
will carry an unacceptable burden and will be impacted by dust, noise and loss of amenity,
resulting in risks to their health and loss of property value.
2. Impacts on Health
Health impacts from open-cut coalmines are well documented. With most of Gloucester
township, including the hospital and schools, falling within the 5km health impact zone of the
Rocky Hill mine, this places a large percentage of the population at risk. Those most affected by
the health impacts are the very young, the elderly and the sick.
3. Impact on Tourism, worth $51M per annum to the Gloucester economy
An open-cut coalmine within 5km of Gloucester and within sight of the Bucketts Way will have
an impact on the visual amenity of the area. The mine will risk the jobs of hundreds employed in
the tourism industry.
4. Environment
The proposed mine is on the Avon River floodplain and in the catchment area of the Manning
River, which supplies drinking water to over 80,000 people. The Avon River has flooded 5 times
in 4 years, with 2 floods occurring in 2013. There is definite potential for contamination of the
water in the catchment.
This mine should not be approved.
Yours faithfully
I have not made a reportable political donation

Dear Sir/Madam,
I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine proposal because a coal mine built so close to Gloucester will cause;
i)Coal dust to adversely affect the health of the townspeople.
ii)A reduction in interest in the area from the tourist industry which is a big economic driver in Gloucester.
iii)Visual degradation of the area. I moved to the area in 2011 due in part to its natural beauty. I speak to many people who also enjoy this in the Gloucester region.
iv)substantial reduction in land value of properties near the mine, the owners of which receive inadequate or no compensation.
v)more industrial noise and light in the area which is highly undesirable to me and people I talk to who enjoy the natural beauty of the Gloucester region.
vi)ongoing concern from townspeople with the likely requests for increase in operating hours and expansion of operating areas.
vii)the increase of truck and transport movements will damage the roads and cause more road accidents

I grew up in Gloucester and my parents are local farmers growing FOOD to feed our country. This is personal, and I am furious about the current proposal for the for more coal mining in Gloucester.
This is a no brainer. An open cut mine so close to the township of Gloucester is not an option in any way, shape or form.
It already has 2 revolting open cut coal mines destroying prime agricultural land supplying food to the major eastern seaboard population - for what ? Short term profit to overseas multinationals.The N.S.W government are culpable for allowing such improvident industrial development in prime agricultural land. The almost complete annihilation of the lower Hunter valley is a big enough price to pay for Big, Dirty Coal and it can, and never be rehabilitated because this cost is remarkably, and conveniently, left out of any planning equation.
For the sake of future generations, please put an end to any new destructive fossil fuel development right here and now. Ensure that the beautiful Gloucester valley remains a a tourist destination rather than an industrial wasteland.The residents of Gloucester deserve to be able to enjoy the peace and quiet of their homes without the health risks coal mining poses on their doorstep. I'm sure those making the decision about this coal mine would not rest for a minute if such a proposal was made for their own backyard...

It is unforgivable that any government could consider a mining that is so destructive to the environment..documented evidence suggests major major problems with disturbing our environment on this level will detrimentally affect future generations...we must nurture our land gently and with great consideration...DO NOT ALLOW FRACKING OF ANY SORT IN AUSTRALIA...

I wish to express my objection to the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine.

1. Coal must start phasing out.
Now is the wrong time to be opening up any new coal mines. There is a global glut of coal, oil and gas now that new renewable energy sources are coming on line at a faster rate than ever before, while energy efficiency measures and consumer consciousness of energy wastage combine to drive down demand.

We now fully understand the dangers of the climate emergency and the need to rapidly decarbonise our global economy. Opening new coal mines is not only economically dubious, it is extremely reckless in a time of rapid global warming.

2. Community objections
The proposed coal mine is too close to residential areas. The dangers of coal dust to people's health is well understood. The noise and vibration from explosions will damage buildings and quality of life. This is a particularly beautiful part of Australia with some valuable agricultural land. Risking the local agricultural industry and tourism by ruining this lovely part of the world with a coal mine is equivalent to vandalism. The community will rightly oppose this mine as there is very little value in it for them, but they have much to lose.

3. Coal mining is a loser for the community
Mining is not a big employer in Australia and as an industry in systemic decline, is not a good investment. A lot of mining operations are increasingly mechanised and mining jobs are becoming more casualised and less well paid than they once were. In short, a mine does not create very many good, long term jobs in proportion to the environmental cost. Coal mining contaminates water, damages habitat, pollutes the air with coal dust and uncovers a source of carbon that the world cannot safely burn. All this is done for the profit of shareholders, many of them foreign.

Mining expansion should be ceased in Australia and public and private resources redirected to creating a clean renewable energy industry while supporting sustainable agriculture and nature based tourism in the region. This will be far more beneficial to the people of Gloucester, and Australia, in the long term and it is the interests of these people which must be protected first and foremost, ahead of the interests of mining corporations. Indeed, by stopping the expansion of coal mining, governments will save some mining companies from themselves, by avoiding creating stranded assets. The LNG industry is already discovering what happens on the downside of a boom - billions of dollars wasted, shares plummeting and irreparable environmental damage done all for nothing.

Gloucester and the Northern Rivers is not the place for a new coal mine. In fact there should be a moratorium on new coal mining Australia wide.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine.
It makes no sense to destroy the most beautiful productive parts of our country as well as the lives of good people with coal mining. This project is driven by big business with no regard for the environment or the lives of Australians.
Australia should be using renewable energy. Stop digging up our land and polluting our water and treating people like sheep.
Under no circumstances should this coal mine go ahead.

I strongly object to this mine.
These are NOT resources, they are the land onwhich we live, work survive and enjoy.
A greedy land grab for out of date resources is wanton stupidity.
I strongly object.