Rocky Hill Coal Mine

I oppose the development of the Rocky Hill Coal Project.

Based on:

It's proximity to Gloucester township

It's impact on groundwater, air quality and noise

It is not in the interests of the Gloucester community for this mine to proceed.

farms not coal!!!!

I oppose the Rocky Hill proposed mine.
This proposed development is ridiculous..
It is to close to houses, schools and farms. It will be noisy and dusty and damage the health of people in the valley. It will create noise, dust and visual pollution.
it should not proceed in any way, shape or form.
I have not made any reportable political donations.
Mark Howland

Please reconsider the public opinion on creating a coal mine in our area. Burning of fossil fuels is known to be harmful to the environment because of the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide this produces. This impacts on climate change. As a NSW secondary teacher of geography in NSW, the NSW Department of Education Geography curriculum includes content around this environmental issue. We are teaching our kids about renewable and non-renewable sources of energy. Why the heck aren't our elected politicians following the same view?
Spend money on renewable sources of energy like wind, sun, water and biofuels rather than taking coal just because it's there. Leave it there. It has a purpose where it is and the destruction of the environment is unnecessary and motivated by quick economical boost only - not the long term benefits of future generations.
Get real NSW govt. practice what you preach. Practice what your're educating our youth. Save the environment and find alternative sources of fuel.
You got voted in by he people. Not by mining company funds.

I object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project for these reasons (and many more that I do not have the time to cover).....

* The proposed mine is way too close to residential areas.

◦The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3km from Gloucester township. The impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents are simply unacceptable, and in no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.

* The health impacts are far too great ◦Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits. Particulate pollution from open-cut mining is known to lead to reduced respiratory health and increased death rates in surrounding communities. It is completely unfair and unjustified to expose the population of Gloucester to these health impacts.

* The mine threatens Gloucester's $50 million tourism industry. ◦Gloucester is a unique and beautiful town on the edge of the Barrington wilderness, and it has a thriving nature-based tourism industry. Open cut coal mining is completely incompatible with this important local industry, which must be protected.

* So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted. ◦The community has no reason to trust either commitments from the mining company made during its application, nor conditions imposed by the Planning Department if approval is given. We have seen elsewhere in Gloucester and the Hunter Valley that these conditions can be changed later, and usually are. Conditions regarding mine rehabilitation, night-time work hours, noise, blasting, and dust, and even the footprint of the mine are untrusted. It is known, for example, that there are plans for a "Stage 2" of the coal mine. The only acceptable outcome for the Rocky Hill application is to reject it outright.

This shire has been my home for many years, and the home of my parents for over 25years, and many of my friends and family are scattered across the countryside around Gloucester. An Open cut Coal Mine in pristine Gloucester Shire is inconceivable. This would be considered a lawful case to claim Ecocide, if this devastation of the Gloucester Land, Water, Air and Community is allowed to proceed.

Proximity to the town Centre is a major concern for me air and noise pollution the mountains that will be destroyed are unique the area a proposed to be mined runs into a natural floodplain back supports local economy through Taree and other farming practices the floodplain runs into the Avalon and Manning Rivers the only double Delta river in the southern hemisphere at this time I do not believe it is in the best interest of this Community

The Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156

I strongly object to this project:

1)No serious effort is made to describe the impact on global climate change via CO2 emissions from the combustion of coal mined at this site.

2)Local environmental impacts are potentially disastrous - As the Avon River has flooded 5 times in four years with two floods occurring in 2013 there is clearly the potential to pollute the Manning River catchment which provides drinking water to over 80,000 people.

3)The proposed coal mine is simply too close to a major regional town.
a)There could be significant impacts on health with most of Gloucester falling within the 5km Health Impact Zone of the mine, including the hospital and schools.
b)I believe the general tourist amenity of Gloucester will be severely impacted by the mine. As a tourist, I would specifically steer clear of any town with an open cut coal mine within 5km , being offended by the visual impact and potential health risk.

c)There will be an unacceptable loss of value to property in Gloucester as consequence of the mine being located so close to the town.

The health impacts will be significant if the proposed mine goes ahead. Open cut mining is known to distribute particulate matter that is damaging to the health of those living nearby. This proposed mine is situated near schools, hospitals and housing.

It should not be approved.

I came to the Gloucester district in 1995 to work at the Stratford coal mine and have worked also at Duralie. When I started there were locals already working at the mine who had never worked in the mining industry before and in the 20 years since my arrival locals have gained employment all the way along. Of course there have been those like myself who migrated here from other parts of the country and brought real estate and grew their families in this very community, mine expanded from 4 children to 5 also.
I look at all the Environmental Impact Statements that have been conducted over the last few years and I understand totally the vital significance and importance of these studies for they provide the restrictions and guidelines to operate a mine with minimal impact to the environment. I've seen and have ensured that they work and have been adhered to at the mines I have worked. I understand people's fears with how a mine will impact their environment or theirs or their children's health, I have the same fears but what I don't understand is their willingness to accept them. I do get the impression that they think that they're a bunch of lies. They may not totally allay people's fears but they can rest assured that there is a very proficient local workforce with proven track records for environmental mining.
Tourism I know we have it but at the scale some letters suggest I'm a bit sceptical about but maybe we could strive to exceed those millions of dollars by operating the mine in a way that will make tourists want to see a mine that surpasses the environmental regulations placed upon it.
I know with certainty that Gloucester has benefited from the mines being in the district and will continue to prosper if the Rocky Hill mine gets the go ahead, what is uncertain is if that prosperity will continue if it doesn't. The last mine is winding down to a finale leaving a lot of futures hanging suspended waiting to crash.

I wish to object to the approval of the Rocky Hill Mine proposed by GRS. This is for the following reasons:
1. Coal mining should no longer be approved on any grounds given the critical need to reduce the burning of coal in the face of Climate Change. It is essential that we move strongly and invest immediately in alternative energy sources. Approval of this mine will further delay this urgent need.
2. Environmental requirements are insufficiently addressed. I particularly wish to comment on the inadequate nature of the offsets designated for this proposal - for both the terrestrial area of the mine and the local creeks. I am aware of the presence of several threatened native species having been recorded in this area (including other mine sites such as Stratford) such as the New Holland Mouse. It is a fact that none of these proposals which include offsets and biobanking actually provide security for threatened species. The conservation of such species requires as a minimum that there be "no net loss" of habitat and populations but this is clearly not the result of these policies. Other direct issues include the lack of any options for disposal of salt remaining after the reverse osmosis treatment of the mine water and the discharge of minimally treated water into the Avon River.
3. GRL, in assessing the potential impact of its proposed mine, has been completely negligent in its consideration of the socio-economic impact within this region. While there may be talk of the opportunity for jobs in the region, none of this is proven, as is evident from the Stratford mine workforce which is sourced from a broad area well outside the region. Conversely the talk of jobs enables companies to avoid addressing the physical and economic impact on nearby residents. Their negligence is clearly evident from the fact that the company has not had the decency to meet with the residents of Forbesdale who are mostly between 900 and 1500m from the proposed development. All are within 2000m. In addition , the effect of the mine on the health of these residents and the loss of economic value for these predominantly retired residents is already in evidence.

In relation to my third key point the following are important considerations that have not been adequately addressed:
* The town of Gloucester and nearby Forbesdale all lie within the designated 5km health impact zone. This has not been effectively addressed in terms of the impact of dust, noise and vibration and mental stress at the loss of the visual beauty of this quiet rural area and the economic losses from real estate which are already evident.
*The limitation of working hours to 7am-6pm, Monday - Saturday is of little benefit when the residents will have to live with that noise all day for 6 days; similarly the noted amendment for the mine to not operate in the evening for the first 3 years is entirely questionable - why only for 3 years? What will change after that time? Is it assumed that the residents will have been forced to relocate of just survive with even more disturbance?
*The amphitheatre shape of the local topography, particularly in the Forbesdale area, will serve to exacerbate and amplify the noise and vibrations produced by the mine.
*Will GRS take appropriate responsibility for the deposition of the increased levels of dust in the water tanks of the local residents, particularly the Forbesdale residents?
*Will GRS take responsibility for the medical and mental health deterioration suffered by nearby residents? Has there been any assessment of this?

If the mine is, inappropriately, approved will GRS:
* Buy out the residents of Forbesdale who do not wish to continue living in a dramatically changed environment - at an appropriate pre-mine price?
*Pay for appropriate medical and mental assessments in consultation with the residents (ie using doctors of their choice etc)
*Undertake appropriate cleaning of water tanks and roofs at a frequency as required by the residents?
*Undertake appropriate regular consultation with this community and respond in a timely manner to the issues raised?

Further direct consultation with the local residents is essential and should have been carried out already.

The plan for an open cut mine at Rocky Hill:
[1] threatens the entire regional tourist industry and the jobs and businesses associated with it. If it goes ahead it will destroy that industry and those jobs, which unlike most of those in mining, are held by local people.
[2] threatens the local farming industry and the jobs associated with it. Profits will go off-shore and be of no benefit to the great majority of local people.
[3] Is a relic of the previous century. The future is in alternative sources of energy - that is why oil billionaires like Slim Pickins have sold their fossil fuel investments and moved them to wind and solar power.
On a personal note, I worked on offshore oil rigs for 10 years - I know the lies within the rhetoric of the fossil fuel industry and the way politicians support these projects and then later move onto the board of these companies.
Gloucester region does not need this obsolete polluting industry destroying our local industries and jobs and sending the profits offshore and into the pockets of politicians. It should be entirely rejected.

Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156

Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No SSD - 4966 MOD1

Dear Madam/Sir

As a regular visitor to the Gloucester (my family live in the area), and as a citizen concerned with the impact such activities have already had on prime agricultural land, the natural environment and on the health and well being of residence and visitors.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Mine modification.

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.

Impact on Tourism, worth $51M per annum to the Gloucester economy. An open-cut coal mine 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.

Environmental impact. 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 also impacts also on Agricultural land with food security being an immensely important consideration, and one of the great threats of the future.

This mine should not be approved.

Kind regards,
Katrina Pfister


*I have not made any reportable political donations and I do not belong to any political organisation.

Below is a summary of just some of the benefits of this project:
* There are few job opportunities for young people/school leavers in Gloucester other than the family farm. The Rocky Hill mine will provide both direct and indirect opportunities for employment
* Gloucester needs new developments if it is to survive. It will never become the food bowl for NSW because the land is generally poor, has acidic soils and is of low productivity. The absence of Class 1 and 2 land and the minimal class 3 land in the 100 or more square km of around the proposed mine site demonstrates this
* The Rocky Hill mine will provide education opportunities, trades and skills training and jobs which will encourage youth to stay in the local area and provide qualifications and experience which will be of benefit in a range of fields both during and after the mine ceases to operate
* Mining can be undertaken in a responsible manner which has minimal impact and provides massive benefits. Just look at West Wyalong and talk to Bland Shire representatives

I support this project. It will provide employment opportunities to the region (which has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in Australia).

We need jobs, training, and the opportunity to develop into contributing members in the community. The Rocky Hill Coal Project has the ability to deliver this.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine!!!

As a young family that has recently purchased a block of land at Gloucester and WAS excited in bringing up their family it had become a burden on our lives since finding out the mine may still go ahead, just think for a second, would you like an around the clock coal mine right on your front door? The pollution, the noise? Wrong mine wrong place!

I oppose the Rocky Hill mine extension.

I oppose the extension of the mine because the maps show that schools and hundreds of homes are within the 5km health danger zone of the project's first stage. I understand future expansion could be as close as 1km from the built up area of Gloucester.

Further I support a diverse and sustainable local economy and the expansion of mining in our area will have a negative impact on other industries, in particular agriculture and tourism.

I would like to make a submission in support of the Rocky Hill Project. I think this project will bring economic and employment benefits to the region. I believe that the revised EIS demonstrates the companies commitment to sustainable development and will be an asset to the region.

To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my horror at the fact a coal mine [quarry]would even be considered this close to a rural town like Gloucester . The noise impact alone on the people of Gloucester should be enough to warrant this applications cancelation.
The concerns I have are as follows:
Coal dust will be a health problem for the village , the prevailing southerly winds will blow any dust be it coal or dust from machinery directly over the township.
Noise , both from blasting and machinery will be detrimental to the people of the town and surrounding areas.
The mine is much to close to existing residences of the valley, the drop in land values and its effect on landholders alone can not be overlooked in this appraisal of the mine.
As a down stream resident and water user who relies on the manning river for clean water I am very concerned for the long term health of the river of which the Gloucester valley is part of the catchment for.
Lastly I would like to say that as a regular visitor to the area, my family and I often stay in the caravan park or camp in and around Gloucester and the approval of this mine would be a tragedy to the many people who come to explore the area . Lets not forget how much money is generated for the town by tourism, which will all but stop if this mine is approved.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I implore you to NOT approve this project in anyway if not for Gloucester for your own piece of mind in knowing that you did something to keep the beauty and health of this area in tact for generations to come.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you to object to the granting of permission to proceed with an open cut mine at Rocky Hill. My main reasons for objecting are:
1 :
- that existing residents will be subject to the devaluation of their land, homes, businesses with no compensation.
- that the beautiful outlook and views that they paid dearly for will be turned into an industrial wasteland, full of huge machinery, slag dumps (sorry, Interim Out-of-pit Overburden Emplacements).
- that their seems to be absolutely no minimum distance from an actual mining pit to a residential premises.
2:
My wife and I moved to Gloucester 6 years ago, primarily because of its natural beauty and farming potential we constantly appreciate how lucky we are to live here.
- This enjoyment will be severely reduced every time we drive into town (Gloucester), as it has already been done with the ongoing mine area at Wards River where, whilst providing artificial screening (which in itself is a blight on the landscape proclaiming "look at me I"m trying to hide something more hideous')
- Basically screening of any type be it natural (tree lines) or artificial is only partially effective.
- we are informed that the financial benefits to the town will be significant in the form of increased employment and local businesses will be able to expand and thrive. What happens when we have another downturn in coal prices and the mine has to reduce to minimum production levels and lay off staff and reduce the mine to an effectively standby situation.

These are my main concerns in regard to the granting of a mining license.

As a freelance journalist who has travelled often to Gloucester to cover the attempted establishment of an industrialised CSG mining facility in that basin, I object to the Rocky Hill proposal on many of the same grounds on which this was defeated.
Firstly, climate science, NASA and 99% of reputable scientists from around the world have demonstrated that to preserve our planet, no more fossil fuel installations or mining should be attempted. Secondly, the Gloucester Valley is geographically unsuited to mining - that is, if the water table is to be preserved and humans able to inhabit it. Thirdly it would destroy farming, tourism and living activities in the valley. And those three reasons should be enough for anybody.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I support the Rocky Hill Project to be approved because it will create number of jobs in the HV coal chain and cocking coal export. There is no substitute for cocking coal in the steel industry.