Rocky Hill Coal Mine

Please do not publish my details
I have not made any political donations

Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No. SSD 5156
Stratford Coal Extension Project No. SSD 4966 MOD1

Gloucester is my home town. I was born and raised in Gloucester. I attended preschool, primary and High school in Gloucester, NSW Australia. My mother, father, brothers and grandmother still live in Gloucester. I visit every year at Christmas to see my family. I fear for their health and wellbeing. This community has suffered for years and I have watched as my parents have fought hard to fend off the extractive industries from their doorsteps. It has taken its toll. Time too say no and tell GRL to leave. There presence and previously AGL have created a nasty division within the once harmonious cohesion within the community. Time for this to stop. Time to protect the people of this town. That is the job you have to do. Please reject these applications.

I oppose Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Coal Extension Project for the following reasons.
Closeness to homes
Adverse impacts on health. The first case of black lung from an open cut coal mine has been confirmed in Australia https://www.cfmeu.org.au/news/first-confirmed-case-black-lung-open-cut-mine
Impact on Tourism
Environment

Thank You

13 -10-2016

To the Director Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Dept. of Planning and Environment

Submission of Objection to the Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No. SSD-5156 and the Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No. SSD-4966 MOD 1

Dear Sir/Madam

I oppose the proposal to proceed with the Rocky Hill Coal Project (RHCP) and the Stratford Coal Extension Project (SCEP) on environmental, economic and social grounds.

The proximity of the RHCP to residential areas and the impacts on climate change, health, tourism, water and environment is unacceptable and should be rejected as the toxic proposal that it is.

One would have to ask, why would the NSW Government justify a green field coal mine just 900metres from a residential area. Gloucester is an area of rural beauty, with sustainable industries of tourism, dairies and cattle farming. Not the place for a coal mine.

As a resident of Great Lakes, I am extremely opposed and concerned about the RHCP.
MidCoast Water's main water supply is provided by the Manning scheme.

This scheme serves 90 per cent of their water customers in areas such as Taree, Wingham, Forster, Tuncurry, Pacific Palms, Nabiac, Dyers Crossing, Harrington, Coopernook, Halliday's Point and Lansdowne. Water is pumped from the Manning River and stored in Bootawa Dam, near Wingham. This dam supplies water for the entire scheme.

The proposed Rocky Hill coal mine is in the Avon River catchment, which is a tributary of the Manning River. The Rocky Hill Environmental Impact Statement suggests the likelihood of discharge and pollution of the Avon Valley tributaries to the Manning River is possible with medium consequences. Risks regarding polluting a river, which is the drinking water for thousands of residents, is unacceptable.

Tourism is a vital industry in our region. Gloucester attracts thousands of tourists a year, with a benefit of $51M to the community. Tourists will not visit a town with a coal mine on its doorstep.

Gloucester is an area of stunning natural beauty, of long established sustainable primary production and of ever increasing eco-tourism based opportunities. The proposal to develop new coal mining ventures and to expand the activities of existing mines for some very limited and short-term economic gains shows a lack of foresight, a disregard to the long-term development of the local economy and nothing short of negligence towards the residence of the area, most of whom have chosen to live in the area for the "clean green" lifestyle and peace that it offers.


Globally the coal mining industry is clearly an industry in decline. This proposal appears nothing more than a desperate grab for the last, rapidly diminishing revenue to be milked from this destructive industry. From available information, at best this new mine will only raise a little over $3M per annum in revenue and a similar amount in taxes while the majority of profits (if any) will go offshore.

Even coking coal is not in demand around the world. There is enough stockpiled to adequately supply the steel making industry. Coal mining is not a sustainable industry, with fluctuating prices and worker layoffs.

The benefit to the NSW Government and the people of NSW is debatable. GRL will pay $63M in revenue and $60M in taxes. The life of the mine is 16 to 20 years. That means the company is paying just over $3M a year for revenue and taxes. Most of the profit from this company will go overseas.

The NSW Government needs to invest in renewables, particularly in rural areas where employment is low. Towns, like Gloucester could be embracing the new world of solar, thermal solar, biomass, wind and hydro. So many options with huge benefits, like, reduced carbon emissions, lower power bills, regional economic development and stable job creation.

Gloucester could be the new renewables hub instead of following an out dated industry like coal. Isn't it about time we followed the rest of the world into the 21stcentury?

The NSW Government needs to abandon its plans to develop and expand this rapidly declining, unsustainable and dirty industry. It must stop sacrificing areas of natural beauty, sustainable primary production and community well-being on the altar of a limited number of relatively short-term jobs.

Further, with the state government currently flushed with cash from "selling off the farm" it must make a serious investment into a truly sustainable "future fund" based on establishing a renewable energy industry which will not degrade the environment and lifestyle of rural areas such as Gloucester and will go on producing revenue and jobs indefinitely.

Yours Sincerely

Linda Gill

Object to this submission because I think is unacceptable to have a coal mine so close to a residential area. Also this are attracts a lot of tourists which brings in substantial income.
Coal mining will affect the water and air quality and therefore health of human, animal and plant life in the region
Thank you for considering my comments

My wife and I are in our 80s and strongly object to the Rocky Hill Coal Project. The proposed project is far too close to the residential area and Gloucester township and we are very concerned for the health of the community and for the future of our grandchildren and great grandchildren. There are many more reasons for objecting which have been detailed elsewhere by Council and other organisations.

I have not made a reportable political donation.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project for several reasons.

Gloucester and its surrounding areas is one of those rare pieces of Australia that contains the beauty of rolling farmlands, majestic mountains and forests, and unique ecology (some of which is endangered); its buildings and close community hold echoes of previous eras, and it is a wealthy source of recreational pleasures.

The Rocky Hill Coal Project threatens all of these strengths. Not only are the benefits far outweighed by the downfalls of the project, the benefits are short lived and are extremely limited for residents.

Increased employment opportunity is the most used enticement for having local communities agree to a mining project. There is little else to entice a community with. However, the reality is that the activity of mining does not directly have a high employment rate, and much of this work is not given to local residents. In fact, there has been a trend for mining companies to outsource cheaper overseas labour. Most employment is in mine construction. This is not long term and secure employment.

Based on the outcomes and reality of coal mines in nearby towns, it is dubious that mining companies can be held accountable to reassurances they give that are aimed at how they will reduce impact on local communities. Both of these mines (Stratford and Duralie) only needed approval before they started seeking extensions and changes to their agreed operations.

Furthermore, coal mining does not have a secure future. Coal prices are declining globally particularly with weaker demand from China. In addition, other energy sources are making coal obsolete due to their greater ability to deliver power efficiently, cleanly and more cheaply - especially with the recent rapid developments in these technologies. These newer and more future focussed technologies will also need employees to build and maintain infrastructure.

However, the residents of Gloucester are likely to find employment in restoring the damage and cleaning up the unused outputs of the mine (as other Australian towns have experienced), but they will also have to pay for it as the company will be long gone.

In the meantime, a few people - unrelated to the Gloucester area (in fact, unrelated to Australia given that over 80% of the company proposing the mine is owned overseas) - will benefit from a quick financial gain before the industry collapses all together, and the strengths that make Gloucester a unique home for residents and tourist attraction will be eroded.

In addition, I am highly concerned about the well being of residents. The negative impact on the physical health, mental health and social well being of residents living in communities surrounding coal mines is well researched (e.g., Colagiuri R, Cochrane J, Girgis S. Health and Social Harms of Coal Mining in Local Communities: Spotlight on the Hunter Region. Beyond Zero Emissions, Melbourne, October 2012 - University of Sydney). Therefore, the mine's planning should also include how it will address the increased rate of health problems and mood disorders in the area given the copious research.

Gloucester is a beautiful and unique place to visit, and the community is able to build upon this strength to supplement local farming income with tourism profits. A coal mine in its midst will greatly undermine this steadily growing industry. I do not recall any positive tourism statistics for mining townships.

Furthermore, the unique ecosystems (including rivers and ground water) and agricultural land of Gloucester - gateway to World Heritage areas - will sustain damage from the acid leakage, heavy metals and other pollutants that are unavoidable in coal mining.

On a personal level, I live half an hour from Gloucester, and it is often where my family and I go to relax on the weekend - breakfast at one of the lovely cafes, purchases from the IGA for picnic items, and then heading up into the mountains to enjoy the views and pristine environment. We have managed without any form of coal power in our home for 20 years. For me, this project is a tragedy.

The Rocky Hill Coal Project would be an embarrassing and tragic stamp on Gloucester of short-sightedness. It has short term benefits for a very few, and long term negative consequences that will affect generations into the future. It undermines Gloucester's potential to develop itself as a growing stable community and tourist attraction. It ignores the reality of the energy industry. I am therefore strongly opposed to the Rocky Hill Coal Project.

SUBMISSION REGARDING THE ROCKY HILL COAL MINE AND THE STRATFORD COAL MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO: SSD-4966 MOD 1

SUBMISSION FROM:

Christine and Terry Stanton
25 Washington Street
Tinonee 2430


We oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine and the Stratford Coal Modification Application No: SSD-4966 MOD 1. Our reasons are as follows:

Health Concerns

1. Open cut coal mines have been operating in Australia for a considerable number of years. There is ample evidence which shows there is an increased risk of heart and respiratory diseases because of the fine dust particles which get into the lungs. The World Health Organisation supports the conclusion that there is NO THRESHOLD AT WHICH IT IS SAFE TO BREATHE COAL DUST. This applies, not only to coal mine workers, but also to the wider community. The proposed close proximity of the Rocky Hill Mine to the Gloucester Township will mean that many residents will be exposed to fine particulate coal dust, especially when the wind blows the dust towards their home. Any Government which approves this application will be approving the future ill-health of anyone in Gloucester, whether they live there permanently, or are just visiting. Approval under those circumstances will be a reckless act.

2. Low frequency noise is also a major concern as a result of work on an open cut coal mine. Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira from Lisbon's Lusofona University recommends an exclusion zone of 10kms from sources of low frequency noise at open cut coal mines. There should be an urgent review of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. No-one should be forced to tolerate the noise which emanates from an open cut coal mine which operates for long hours during the day and into the night. Low frequency noise can invade the sub-conscious and cause lack of sleep and anxiety. How can people be expected to go to work when they have their sleep affected in such a way?

3. There is a lot of concern by Government because of the amount of money which is spent on Medicare. What is the point of complaining about that when approving the Rocky Hill Mine and Stratford Coal Modification Applications will cause an increase in sick people? You only have to go to other places in the Lower Hunter to see the effect which open cut coal mining has had on the health of the residents. This must lead to an increase in demand on the Medicare system. Surely Governments want to see their taxpayers healthy rather than sick?


Environmental Concerns

1. Australia is supposed to be working towards minimising our pollution. There is no need to dig up the coal at Gloucester to export it to places like China and India. Both those countries are endeavouring to reduce their carbon emissions and renewable energy is becoming more and more important to them. The destruction of the environment in and around Gloucester is not worth the short term financial gain which, presumably, will go to the company and the New South Wales Government.

2. The headwaters of the Manning River are in the Gloucester Basin. We are deeply concerned about the effect on our water supply because of the coal dust which will undoubtedly fall into our water catchment. There is also a risk that mining will damage underground aquifers and surface water which support our water supply. Coal dust contains many heavy metals. How will this be removed? Who will pay for that removal if Midcoast Water cannot do it? Will GRL keep our water clean? Will the Government expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for cleaning up our water? There are approximately 75,000 downstream users of water which comes from the Manning catchment. Does this Government want to risk ill-health to them too?

Tourism

1. The argument that the applications are good for jobs is false since those jobs will only be for the short term. Why risk jobs for those who work in the tourist industry in and around Gloucester? Many people will be reluctant to holiday in an area where there is noise pollution day and night and they won't want to risk subjecting themselves to inhaling coal dust.
2. Most mining companies prefer to employ fly-in, fly-out workers, since they do not want their workforce to live in the area they themselves are polluting. When the workers do live there they and their families as dissatisfied with the lack of quality of life and the unhealthy conditions. That will do nothing for employment prospects in the Gloucester Basin and the Manning Valley


Conclusion

The Rocky Hill Coal Mine and the Stratford coal modification should not be approved for the reasons stated above. There is also a serious conflict of interest within the New South Wales Government. In 2011 the State Government produced a report entitled "Gloucester Community Economic Transition Scheme." The scheme was supposed to prioritise "community driven strategies and actions to create a sustainable community." How can a coal mine in close proximity to Gloucester create a "sustainable community" with all the problems which will come with an open cut coal mine?

The report also states that the scheme would "increase the quality of life in Gloucester aiming for a healthier, happier and more empowered community". Approval of the coal mine would make a mockery of that statement and that reveals the conflict of interest within the Government.

The report goes on to state that "Enterprise opportunities for the area include: Electricity from renewable sources, local food security and value adding, eco-tourism, waste recycling and community health care."

Has the State Government abandoned pursuing all of those opportunities in the pursuit of money from the mining industry in the form of royalties? Who does the State Government put first, the people they serve or the rich?


Christine and Terry Stanton
25 Washington Street
Tinonee 2430

14th October 2016

I am totally opposed to this proposed Rocky Hill development. My home is within audible distance and I will see the glare of the lights in the sky at night. The dust, particulates and material from explosion plumes will impact the amenity of my farm and impact my health. I am very disturbed to see that Black Lung has now been confirmed in an open cut mine worker in Queensland. Stop this kind of development on the doorsteps of peoples homes. This mine is in the wrong place. Too close to town, jeopardising people's health.
Please do NOT approve this Rocky Hill Proposal under any conditions. The conditions have a dreadful way of being modified and we do not want to be tricked by this as others in the Hunter Valley have been lulled into believing what was initially told them about no mine extensions or expansions or conditions changes. We have lost faith in assurances of any kind.
Please, NO Rocky Hill Coal Mine under any conditions whatsoever.

SUBMISSION REGARDING THE ROCKY HILL COAL MINE AND THE STRATFORD COAL MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO: SSD-4966 MOD 1

SUBMISSION FROM:

Christine and Terry Stanton
25 Washington Street
Tinonee 2430


We oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine and the Stratford Coal Modification Application No: SSD-4966 MOD 1. Our reasons are as follows:

Health Concerns

1. Open cut coal mines have been operating in Australia for a considerable number of years. There is ample evidence which shows there is an increased risk of heart and respiratory diseases because of the fine dust particles which get into the lungs. The World Health Organisation supports the conclusion that there is NO THRESHOLD AT WHICH IT IS SAFE TO BREATHE COAL DUST. This applies, not only to coal mine workers, but also to the wider community. The proposed close proximity of the Rocky Hill Mine to the Gloucester Township will mean that many residents will be exposed to fine particulate coal dust, especially when the wind blows the dust towards their home. Any Government which approves this application will be approving the future ill-health of anyone in Gloucester, whether they live there permanently, or are just visiting. Approval under those circumstances will be a reckless act.

2. Low frequency noise is also a major concern as a result of work on an open cut coal mine. Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira from Lisbon's Lusofona University recommends an exclusion zone of 10kms from sources of low frequency noise at open cut coal mines. There should be an urgent review of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. No-one should be forced to tolerate the noise which emanates from an open cut coal mine which operates for long hours during the day and into the night. Low frequency noise can invade the sub-conscious and cause lack of sleep and anxiety. How can people be expected to go to work when they have their sleep affected in such a way?

3. There is a lot of concern by Government because of the amount of money which is spent on Medicare. What is the point of complaining about that when approving the Rocky Hill Mine and Stratford Coal Modification Applications will cause an increase in sick people? You only have to go to other places in the Lower Hunter to see the effect which open cut coal mining has had on the health of the residents. This must lead to an increase in demand on the Medicare system. Surely Governments want to see their taxpayers healthy rather than sick?


Environmental Concerns

1. Australia is supposed to be working towards minimising our pollution. There is no need to dig up the coal at Gloucester to export it to places like China and India. Both those countries are endeavouring to reduce their carbon emissions and renewable energy is becoming more and more important to them. The destruction of the environment in and around Gloucester is not worth the short term financial gain which, presumably, will go to the company and the New South Wales Government.

2. The headwaters of the Manning River are in the Gloucester Basin. We are deeply concerned about the effect on our water supply because of the coal dust which will undoubtedly fall into our water catchment. There is also a risk that mining will damage underground aquifers and surface water which support our water supply. Coal dust contains many heavy metals. How will this be removed? Who will pay for that removal if Midcoast Water cannot do it? Will GRL keep our water clean? Will the Government expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for cleaning up our water? There are approximately 75,000 downstream users of water which comes from the Manning catchment. Does this Government want to risk ill-health to them too?

Tourism

1. The argument that the applications are good for jobs is false since those jobs will only be for the short term. Why risk jobs for those who work in the tourist industry in and around Gloucester? Many people will be reluctant to holiday in an area where there is noise pollution day and night and they won't want to risk subjecting themselves to inhaling coal dust.
2. Most mining companies prefer to employ fly-in, fly-out workers, since they do not want their workforce to live in the area they themselves are polluting. When the workers do live there they and their families as dissatisfied with the lack of quality of life and the unhealthy conditions. That will do nothing for employment prospects in the Gloucester Basin and the Manning Valley


Conclusion

The Rocky Hill Coal Mine and the Stratford coal modification should not be approved for the reasons stated above. There is also a serious conflict of interest within the New South Wales Government. In 2011 the State Government produced a report entitled "Gloucester Community Economic Transition Scheme." The scheme was supposed to prioritise "community driven strategies and actions to create a sustainable community." How can a coal mine in close proximity to Gloucester create a "sustainable community" with all the problems which will come with an open cut coal mine?

The report also states that the scheme would "increase the quality of life in Gloucester aiming for a healthier, happier and more empowered community". Approval of the coal mine would make a mockery of that statement and that reveals the conflict of interest within the Government.

The report goes on to state that "Enterprise opportunities for the area include: Electricity from renewable sources, local food security and value adding, eco-tourism, waste recycling and community health care."

Has the State Government abandoned pursuing all of those opportunities in the pursuit of money from the mining industry in the form of royalties? Who does the State Government put first, the people they serve or the rich?


Christine and Terry Stanton
25 Washington Street
Tinonee 2430

14th October 2016

I have friends in the Gloucester area whom I visit regularly. I object to the proposed mine because it is too close to the town and will have intolerable noise, dust and visual amenity impacts on the residents and the environment of the Gloucester Valley.

Madame/ Sir
I am a living near Gloucester since 1978 and really love this rural and peaceful setting and wish to continue to live here for as long as possible.
However, the prospect of having the Rocky Hill Open Coal Mine right close to the town deeply disturbs me as I have seen the impact coal mines have on residential towns in the Hunter Valley and elsewhere.
I strongly object to this possible development and as a High School Teacher I also very much fear the impact on my student's and colleagues health due to the coal and explosive particles that will absolutely certainly pollute our town's air, water and soil. The water catchment from Gloucester flows towards the coast and will be polluted and affect drinking water for 70 plus thousand citizens in Taree and the Great Lakes area and of course the fishing and oyster and tourist industries
Furthermore, I am very concerned about the noise pollution and the Diesel fuel fumes that will blow all over our beautiful town and district and totally destroy the quality of all our life's.
Please also consider the fact that our hospital and all aged care facilities are only a few kilometres away from the proposed mining activities, and since the beauty of our region attracts a large number of visitors and tourists, the mining will definitely have a huge impact on that very important and sustainable industry for which many have worked extremely hard to develop.
Another aspect to consider is, of course, the fact that the farming industry will be very badly affected and damaged, and with the prices of cattle rising sharply, the livelihood of many will stop, as coal and farms just do not mix at such close proximity.

Thanking you for your consideration, and remember that even the NSW government appointed Great Lakes administrator Mr J. Turner does not endorse this development.

Max Hemmerle

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Rocky Hill Coal projects.
I am dumbfounded that this is not only so close to a residential area, but also that it is happening at a time when Gloucester is promoting itself as a tourist destination. As you may be aware, tourism is a strong and growing industry in the Gloucester region. It provides long term jobs and sustainable economic growth. In the face of an already declining fossil fuel industry, this is an extremely shortsighted move that will put future growth in the region in both tourism and farming at risk.
I implore you to reject these applications for the sake of a healthy and sustainable future for our children .
Yours faithfully,
Liza Pezzano

I have never made a reportable political donation

M Perry
NEWCASTLE NSW 2299

12 October 2016
Director Â- Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

RE: Submission for the Rocky Hill Coal Project Â- Application No SSD-5156 Stratford Coal Extension Project Â- Application No SSD Â- 4966 MOD 1

Dear Sir,

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine and the Stratford Coal Modification Applications as listed above.

I oppose the mines for the negative impacts (previously documented and proven) on the following qualities, of both local and global significance:
· Beauty (if you have never been to the Gloucester/Taree (down river) region, go now, drive there/around for a few hoursÂ...you will Â"get itÂ" immediatelyÂ...seductive mountains ranges, fields and rivers)
· Economic benefit (big hole in ground for little return to key stakeholders and employees on global or local scale Â- short term view, not strategic, no matter how much pre-investment has already been doneÂ...let go!)
· Water (pollutionÂ...canÂ't drink money or coal or grow food from it)
· Health (particles causing immediate short term and long term related illnesses)
· Industry (short sightedÂ...tourism is sustainable and farming is necessary for your food)
· Town and community stability (I detest driving past Singleton even more lately as the mines rub against the town boundariesÂ...getting personal though imagine that in your suburb/ estate or for your family, or any responsible personal investment choices)
· Ethics (GRL has proven association/reputation with unethical and corrupt leadershipÂ...do not align Gloucester or current government with their outdated and unacceptable practices)

In summary, whether aesthetic or economic reasons it does satisfy strategic goals of any viable organisation or forward viewing government in 2016 or onwards.

The Minister should maintain its faith with the communities that these mines most affect over the profiteering interests of GRL or any other mining company in the future. Release Gloucester from theses constant threats to what it values. The world market does not even value coal any more.

The transient/insecure mining workforce do not belong in a stable long term community such as Gloucester, where people often retire to or holiday in. The mining key stakeholders and yourself do not live next door to a mine nor breath its particles nor drink its water nor have to witness the irrevocable damage/scar this mine will leave on Gloucester Â`foreverÂ'Â...there is no turning back, so donÂ't begin.

I request you reject these applications just as the mining project application was rejected in Margaret River, Western Australia (for the same arguments and evidence). Close this option once and for all.
Â'Do no harmÂ'.

Yours sincerely
M Perry (I have not made a reportable political donation)

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

The primary reason is because it does not make sense. I understand the position of many people, friends on mine, who work in the coal industry and at mines around Gloucester. These are harworking Australians who want a decent lifestyle and a future for the kids. The multi-national Coal industry is another story. The people who make decisions, like whether this mine will go ahead, have probably never worked a day of their life in a coal mine. Coal is an outdated, unhealthy, unsafe and downright expensive source of energy.

As an engineer, I'm reminded of Ove Arup's advice that we need to get our energy from the sun and stop trying to dig it out of the ground. Australia was an innovative country, a world leader in many ways, but most of the people i graduated with are all finding their skills obsolete because they have worked for too long on mining projects that are no longer relevant in a changing economy. Just like the people driving trucks, trains and working the floors of these companies, they're all expendable.

The economics don't stack up for Australians, and the cost to the Avon and Manning valley's will be exceptional. That is without even considering the risks. It's time the government did what it is supposed to do "represent the will of the people". This mine must not go ahead.
Why not take a leaf out of AGLs book and take the Millions of dollars intended and put them into some sort of development that makes sense for more than a few executives and shareholders. There's an infinite number of ways for Australian's to put our wits and where-with-all to good use, we just need some leadership to help make it happen. I challenge this government to demonstrate some of that leadership and quite coal as part of a broader strategy and plan for our future.

I oppose Rocky Hill Coal Mine. We have been visiting the area for years and find many tourists enjoying the beauty of the area. With this coal mine development, tourists will stop visiting due to the dust, the noise, the mine traffic and the destruction of the visual amentity.
Council should not allow this development, this would be short term money for long term destruction with no long term gain for the community.
Where ever coal mines are there is massive noise, dust, water usage, heavy traffic use on local roads that are not designed for this use.
For all these reasons and hundreds more this development must not go ahead.

Submission to the Rocky Hill Coal Mine at Gloucester
Author: Bruce Robertson
Address: Bo-Warra
111 Latimores rd
Burrell Creek
NSW 2429

I Object to the Rocky Hill Coal Mine and urge the Department of Planning to REJECT the proposal in entirety.

My Business
I am a down river beef farmer and am deeply concerned for the quality of water that will affect not just my enterprise but a water catchment for the municipal supply for the mid- north coast. Mid Coast water gets 90% of its water out of the Manning River downstream from the Rocky Hill Coal Project.

Objections
I note that the Manning River is relatively unique as a municipal water supply as the intake is low in the catchment. Mid Coast water supplies 75,000 people on the mid north coast with domestic water and also supplies local industries such as Wingham Beef Exports.

90% of Mid Coast Waters supply comes from the Manning River. There is no alternative water supply that is adequate.

The water is pumped out of the Manning River into a holding dam at Bootawa.

Any problems at Rocky Hill will be a disaster for our region both for businesses and for domestic consumers.

Key Water issues not adequately addressed in the EIS

1. Use of 1 in 100 year flood level
I note that for planning purposes the 1 in 100 year flood level has been used.
This is an outdated planning measure and is not suitable for a mine in a water catchment.
We know that climate change will lead to more severe weather events ie higher floods.
Locally we have already experienced this with floods at Dungog that broke the 1 in 100 level.
This level is insufficient in a changing climate. It is unscientific to use such an historical measure in a climate that is demonstrably changing.

2. Lack of integrity of Dams
Gloucester is a high rainfall area with a history of large floods.
We have seen mine dams fail in the Hunter. The Hunter is a lower rainfall area.
The effects of these mine dam failures was restricted as they were not in a municipal water catchment.

The integrity of these mine dams is inadequate in the conditions that prevail at Gloucester

3. Lack of evidence of lessons learned in the AGL experience

AGL found the geology of the Gloucester valley very problematic.
The valley is highly faulted.
There was evidence displayed of some connectivity between deeper coal seams and surface water.
Fracking Chemicals were found in surface waters.
There is a higher than normal probability that this mine will contaminate surface water due to the difficult geology of the area and the mines proximity to named water courses.

Key Health Issues
1. Black Lung

The Rocky Hill mine is too close to existing dwellings.
There is recent evidence in Australia that the Black lung disease is now starting to be found in open cut coal miners.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-11/black-lung-disease-has-now-spread-to-open-cut-mine-worker/7921702?pfmredir=sm

There is a clear pattern that this disease has been under diagnosed and more people affected by it are sure to be found. The Rocky Hill coal mine is in a narrow valley with swirling winds. The Health impacts on local residents is real.

2. Diesel fumes

Again the narrow nature of the valley and the swirling winds experienced there will exacerbate the well known carcinogenic impacts of all the diesel being used at Rocky Hill. Diesel haulage trucks are being used and diesel use is very high at the mine.

The NSW Government is well aware of diesel as a carcinogen:
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/HealthImpactsOfDieselEmissionsChristineCowie.pdf

6% of lung cancer deaths are diesel related:
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/2013/11/diesel-lung-cancer-deaths/





Summary

The departments assessment of the mine application is unscientific as it uses the out dated 1 in 100 year flood level.
Risks of inundation and dam failure are understated. Engineering specifications for withholding dams do not take account of increased risk of flood with climate change. This is poor planning and will lead to failure of dams and pollution of a water supply for 75000 people and a number of downstream industries that rely on clean water for their existence.

The costs to the downstream community are large and unquantified in the EIS if such a pollution event were to occur.

There has been no appreciation of the complex local geology and the increased risks to ground and surface water pollution that this presents.

The local wind conditions, narrow nature of the Gloucester valley and proximity residents mean that the health effects of coal dust and diesel fumes and particulate matter are real.

The human health costs of the mine are simply too high both in a raw dollar cost and also in social costs.

I urge the minister and the department to reject the Rocky Hill project in entirety.

I live downstream from this coal mine, directly affected by the proposal.

The Rocky Hill coal mine is too close to residents at Gloucester.

Ongoing health problems and the disruption to individuals, community and existing industry will ensure this mine will attract volumes of negative publicity for the entire project.

The economic benefit to the region I understand was calculated at $89 million dollars. Given the fact that the coal mine will impact on the billion dollar tourism industry, plus small manufacturing and agriculture, I conclude that the coal mine is a net loss venture. This project will only lose more money during the global structural decline in the coal market.

Planning laws are enacted to protect existing land usage, especially residential from inappropriate development applications. The Rocky Hill coal mine is inappropriate for Gloucester.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and Stratford Mine modification on the following grounds:

It will damage the scenic values and tourism potential of the Gloucester region.

It will risk long term environmental damage to the region, including risk to water resources. The proposal is in the catchment from which some 80,000 people, including the town where I live, Tuncurry, draw their water.

This mine should not be approved.

Dust, noise and traffic will seriously impair the quality of life of those living in the area, including the residential area of Forbesdale less than a kilometer from the proposed mine;

The potential benefits to the people of NSW, in royalties and taxes, are far too low to justify the potential harm and reduced quality of life of the people in the area.

I consider it is outrageous to even consider opening up a new coal mine might be appropriate with our current trajectory of carbon emissions and global warming.

Is the Department of Planning ever going to be able to operate in the public interest?

The proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project is particularly galling. It is wrong to expect the people of Gloucester to suffer the health impacts from noise and air pollution from blasting. The risk to water pollution in the catchment is absolutely not worth taking; the incursion of industrialisation in to the tourism and agriculture rich Gloucester Valley is no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.

I ask you to reject this development application, it is simply not worth it.

I strongly object to the approval of the open cut Rocky Hill coalmine at Gloucester due to the proximity of residential homes, the interference with the multi million dollar tourist industry, the harmful affects on people & animals health & pollution from the mine. And finally, the destruction of fertile, beautiful Australian countryside.

My main objection to the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine is the impact it will have on the environment and people if the mine goes ahead. The area to be mined is very close to township of Gloucester and the residents of the Forbesdale estate. I am concerned about noise and dust pollution, health issues, as well as the visual impact of the proposed mine. If mining goes ahead, tourists will be less likely to visit the region and Gloucester will become less attractive to retirees and others as a place to move to and make their home.