Rocky Hill Coal Mine

The proposed coal mine is too close to Gloucester township. It will create negative impacts on the physical, mental and economic wellbeing of the town.
There are known risks to residents living, working or going to school within 5km of a coal mine. These include respiratory disease, cancers, decreased IQ, of school children and a range of impacts ascribed to noise pollution.
The proposal to ban night-time operations for the first three years is little comfort in terms of the likely conditions for the following 13 years of the proposed lifespan.
The impacts on the local river system have not been properly investigated. Monitoring of river health, mitigation measures and compensation for downstream users need to be based on long-term independent studies, lacking from the current EIS.
Health impacts are likely to be exacerbated by the wind conditions and inversion layers in this bowl-shaped valley. No amount of monitoring will prevent unacceptable impacts to the people and animals living in the valley.
The NSW department of health issues warnings about closing windows and doors when a blast fume is visible. This coal mine proposal does not consider how staff and students of schools will be able to comply with the Dept of Health's instructions when the mine is blasting and they are trying to teach and learn. It is entirely unreasonable to introduce an industry that at times produces emissions so toxic that, according to the dept of health, people cannot be outside. Low level industrial noise can also have an impact on learning and the position of Gloucester primary school is particularly problematic in terms of noise impacts. It is unjust to make students and staff suffer both acute and long term impacts for an industry that will also reduce the amount of productive farmland available for long-term sustainable agricultural production.
Existing industries in Gloucester currently providing long term employment such as agriculture and tourism are likely to be heavily impacted - losing millions from the local economy and destroying many longterm jobs. Loss of productivity for beef and dairy farmers due to health impacts on their animals should also be monitored and compensated for. Meanwhile, if these losses, pus the health costs, plus (albeit unlikely) remediation were added together and subtracted from potential profit for the NSW government, is it unlikely that this mine will represent any benefit at all to the people of NSW.
The suggested figure of 70% of mine jobs going to locals seems particularly far-fetched considering the minimal percentages of locals who held positions at previous mines in the valley. Even if the promise of jobs was kept, with coal nearing its international end, it would irresponsible to damage or, in the case of affected farms, destroy, longterm businesses in favour of this volatile short-term industry.
When the global impacts of the coal industry were relatively unknown, in the distant past, governments may have been excused for accepting the easy royalties and inflated employment figures. Now the science is clear, the impacts on both local and distant populations is established and the environmental impacts of continuing fossil fuel extraction are proven. There is no excuse now.

To whom it concerns, considering the repercussions on peace of mind of residents affected and from intrusion in living environment on top of the negative influence of loss of value of property; not to mention that every scientist or person of prominence with either direct or indirect interest in anthropological climate change effect will support the assertion that no new coal mines should be developed, I appeal to you to halt the development of said Rocky Hill project.

Uploaded

I would like to express my opposition to the construction of the Rocky Hill coal mine near Gloucester.
When climate scientists tell us we need to leave 80% of known coal reserves in the ground to avoid dangerous climate change (1) it is irresponsible to build a new coal mine, no matter how comparatively small the mine or where the coal is burnt.
In addition, if that is not enough reason, this dirty, noisy and unhealthy (2) (3) (4) (5) mine will be an unpleasant and divisive intrusion into the lives of the nearby residents. Previous submissions in 2013 overwhelmingly demonstrate this.
The current environmental laws may not be strong but eventually the crime of ecocide could possibly be enforced. A proponent who knowingly disregards the adverse effects of coal should keep this in mind.

1. The Climate Institute, 2013. Unburnable Carbon: Australia's carbon bubble. Available at: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/Unburnable_Carbon_Australia's_ Carbon_Bubble_finalreport.pdf.
2. Castleden WM, Shearman D, Crisp G and Finch P (2011) The mining and burning of coal: effects on health and the environment. The Medical Journal of Australia, 195
3. Coal's Assault on Human Health, A Report from Physicians for Social Responsibility Alan Lockwood,et al (2009)
4. Costello, A et al. 2009.Managing the health effects of climate change. The LANCET, 373 (9676), pp 1693-1733
5. WHO, 2015 Climate change and human health. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/en/

Attached document

Please see attached document

Please see attached

please see attached

Submission attached in PDF

Please ban the proposed open cut coal mining venture into the Gloucester Valley, it is too close to the township for the health and safety of the residents. Coal is yesterday's fuel, stop wrecking our countryside for a dying fuel that will cost us the earth.

see attachment

see attachment uploaded

I object in the strongest possible terms to this proposal. Not only is the proposal to commence any new coal mine an environmental crime, to propose a coal mine in this place is beyond comprehension. It must not be allowed to proceed. If however it is approved I will join with the people of Gloucester to oppose, by whatever means necessary, the operation of this mine.

The reasons for my objection are set out in the attached letter.

We strongly support this project.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project for the reasons set out in my attached document

I support the Rocky Hill Coal Project going ahead because it will create an opportunity for economic investment in an area that badly needs it. With the state of unemployment and the weakening economy I would think that the potential fiscal benefits from a $6.5 million dollars injection for the local community can only be a great gain for the area. Also the council itself stands to reap a massive 520% increase in financial returns for the land when compared to leaving it as farm land.

I cannot see any evidence to support a claim suggesting that the mine will jeopardise the Manning catchment and drinking water. Additionally, so far as air quality and health is concerned and given the conservative approach to air quality modelling adopted, there is no reason to dispute the findings.

see attached

see attached

see attached