Stratford Mine Extension

Dear DoP,
If you are not already aware, current carbon emissions are tracking at the high end of IPCC model predictions, with dangerous climate change almost certain at this point.
Expanding coal mines to feed coal power plants that have no clean coal capacity borders on the criminal.
This coal expansion, and all others in the state should be halted immediately.
Your EIS is laughable in its dismissal of climate change. It should discuss the end use of this coal and its emission to the atmosphere, and what the current trend is in global warming and how NSW coal projects, cumulatively, contribute to this.

We support the extention as it will provide employment for the local people and we are happy with the rehabilitation that has already been made with care to the sacred sites.

We object to the expansion of the Stratford coal mine.

Our situation: We, are Peter and Mary Ross, who have owned our Stratford180 acre property for over 12 years. The property is within 3 Kim's of the current coal site. We are regular weekenders ex Sydney and plan to build a new home in 2013 for retirement. Our predicament is that our building site has panoramic views of the Avon Valley - but what will we look at if this application is approved?


Our specific objections include;

1. Lighting.
Over the years we have physically seen more lights pointing west - our way. Whilst we have and continue to plant screening shrubs, they intrude into our residential space big time. With 3 new pits operating 24/7, lighting is only going to become a bigger and more unwelcome intrusion.
The Mine's proposal talks of lighting being within australian standards. This is disingenuous, as the standard doesn't address the application of lighting, such as the number, directions or time of use, etc.

2. Noise.
Already we often have a rumbling sound in the background, coming from trucks, washing plant and rail loading activities. The frequency depends on the wind and cloud cover, etc. Clearly, the expansion and extension to 24/7 will exacerbate this unwelcome and intrusive extra noise. Bund walls and truck noise suppression initiatives will only marginally mitigate the problem for us.

3. Dust.
We expect to be too far away to be affected by the extra dust from 24/7 activity, however we would be ropeable if we lived in the Stratford village. The new pits are 'in their face', and the mine should not be allowed so close to an established cluster of residences.

Our general objections include;

1. It conflicts with local community expectations.
This application is a piecemeal approach to planning that is incompatible with the Government's charter for facilitating co-existence of mining in & around communities.
The impact for us is major and unexpected, ie we bought our property 12 yrs ago in the public knowledge that the Stratford coal mine had a life of 10 yrs - to about 2008. That suited us as we would not relocate till it would be rehabilitated and all green - hence we made the lifestyle decision in 'good faith' to buy and plan to build a home for our retirement years. As you know, that has 'over shot' by about 5 yrs, and now we see the plan is for another 11 yrs! Please 'give the community a break'. Clearly, we might not have made this 40 year commitment if this was an open ended possibility. How can we, or anybody in the local community plan if such uncertainty is allowed by the community's guardian, your Department? We therefore submit that their application should be dismissed as it is inconsistent with the reasonable timeframe expectations of the community in which they operate.

2. A new 24/7 operation is not co-existence!
We submit that instead it's domination, and apparently for 11 years, at least. It is also hugely disrespectful to the community in which they propose to operate. Is that Government policy? I hope not. Surely, such an ambitious extension and expansion is an ambit claim? This 'over reaching' is met with jaw drops and disbelief by our neighbours.

3. It is incompatible with the agricultural and outdoor tourist land uses. If the reader knows the area, it has long been a Mecca for families looking for local affordable recreation alternatives to the Bali resorts, etc..

4. It is excessive development in the context of (yet) another coal mine and a CSG processing plant adjacent to the Stratford coal mine.


For these specific and general reasons we object to this Application. We are direct stakeholders at Stratford and trust that common sense will prevail and your Department concludes that it's 'over the top' and 'enough is enough'. Another 11 yrs of 24/7 coal mining so close to human activity is incompatible with a balanced approach of co-existence by Government to coal mining in NSW.

How close is too close???

The mine as it stands is already on the doorstep of the township of Stratford. The mine can be clearly heard from surrounding properties, including ours. We are situated on the Gloucester side of the township some distance from the the coal wash bay but can still hear the constant drone of the bulldozer at night as it pushes the coal around in the washbay. During the day the movements of heavy machinery can also be heard. Not to mention the explosions that sound likes cracks of thunder and the subsequent plumes of dust that rise into the sky. This is how it currently is. So what is it going to be like when the mine moves up to the eastern edge of Wheatleys lane?

We have been visited by representatives from Stratford Coal and clearly they just towed the corporate line and seemed like they were just ticking the boxes so that it could be added as another community consult to get them through the council planning requirements and progress to the next stage of the development process.

Our main concern is the health of our children, ourselves and the residents of Stratford. The company states THEY monitor the dust levels. Who is monitoring the company to ensure the levels are what they say? Is their any type of regulation. The company has produced wonderful colour maps which ouline dust levels and property owners with some form of "agreement" with the company. Yet it seems the company believes the that the township of stratford is at less risk even though it is much closer to the mine than some of the properties with these agreements.

Dust levels. What are the levels of carsongens in this dust? Our drinking water is rain water caught on our roofs washed into our tank with dust and anything contained in this dust. Not to mention the school at the end of our road which is also on tank water? How close do they have to come before this starts becoming dangerous?

Clearly the mine also believes the process is going to be noisey, restricting mining to daytime hours which vary from pit to pit. This doesn't assist shift workers like my husband who sleeps through the day?

We are reasonable people who understand and tollerate noise and dust. For example when a new house gets built next to you. Because you know it will only be for a short period. But up to eleven years of daily noise. Even the most patient person would not be able to tolerate this.

Who is producing all the data on dust levels and harm to the township of stratford? A company employed by Straford coal? Would it be a good idea for maybe the council to inlist the services of an indepentant company to ensure the levels of noise and dust stated by stratford coal are actually correct?

Not to mention the quality of water in creeks like the Avon river and avondale creek which would impact the drinking water of large propulations of people on the coast.

So as a concerned parent we strongly appose the extention of the mine in particular the Roseville west pit. I am concerned about the increase in noise and dust and subsquent health side effects on my family and families within the township of stratford.

Thank you.

See attached

See attached

The extension of this mine will drive another nail in the coffin of this beaut community. Having lived next to the Stratford mine in its present form I can attest to its utter nuisance value. Evan at five K distance the noise, dust and primevel night lighting is enough to send you nuts. This, and the suspiciously unchallenged (Minister Mc Donald's mates) Rocky Hill project next door are killing this community. Mining is the kiss of death for these attractive rural towns within reach of , Sydney and the cashed up tree-changers. For goodness sake go and hand have a look, have some sense and can this unnecessary and selfish extension.

GTCC's main concern regarding the proposed extension is the protection of the water quality of the Manning River. As a result GTCC supports the containment of all wastewater generated by the development on site and not released back into the river system. We also support greater assessment of the cumulative impacts of mining in the region and the need for more comprehensive monitoring of surface water quality. In particular, the monitoring of post-mining water quality should also be undertaken in order to adequately mitigate against any long-term impacts on the Manning River catchment.

I wish to object to the proposed extension to the Stratford Mine,
I oppose it for the following reasons

1. It will have a detrimental effect on water quality

2. It will create too much noise, especially if allowed to mine 24 hours

3 Air quality will be affected , causing people to suffer more breathing problems

4 It will have an adverse effect on tourism, reducing the community's ability to earn income


5. The mine was meant to be closing down , not expanding, this is unfair to those residents that have been waiting paitently for their peace and quite in life to be returnedto them as promised

6. It is affecting the quality of the tank water we drink and creating dust both inside and outside our homes

7. People are already suffering psychologically from the mining in the area and an expansion would only increase that.

Recommendations:
- The EIS should be rejected and Yancoal required to address its deficiencies.
- 24-hour mining should be rejected.
- The Noise & Blasting Assessment should be re-presented with a comprehensive assessment of noise characteristics that will be generated by the project including presentation of C-weighted data. The noise impacts should be identified in terms that a layperson can understand.
- The number and size of blasts should not exceed current consent conditions.
- There should be a health audit for Stratford residents.
- There should be compulsory monitoring for particulate matter of PM2.5 which is known to be the most dangerous to health.
- Household water should be tested for toxic pollutants.
- Yancoal should pay for regular cleaning of water tanks and replacement of filters.
- An integrated study should be undertaken to assess the cumulative ground and surface water impacts of the proposed coal and gas projects. No project approvals to be given until this study is completed and impacts assessed.
- Yancoal should be required to buy these properties if approached by the owner.
- Areas of identified and potential habitat of threatened species should not be cleared.
- The socio-economic justification for the project should be re-presented to (1) address the deficiencies identified in the two independent reports and (2) evaluate the impact of the project on tourism and the alternative economic model.

Comments:
The EIS is deeply flawed and hence inadequate for the purposes of enabling the Department to fully assess the merits of the application. Many of the impacts are understated and much of the proposed mitigation is either inadequate or overly ambitious.

The EIS is not truthful. It pretends that mining will cease at the conclusion of this project. Yancoal has previously revealed plans to continue mining at Stratford for many more years. Residents are being asked to support the continued and expanded operation of mining without being provided the full facts.

Intrusive noise disturbance from the Stratford mining complex is a significant problem for neighbouring residents. The concurrent mining of three widely separated pits will result in a substantial increase in the area potentially affected by intrusive noise. The proposed return to 24-hour mining operations will greatly exacerbate the noise disturbance.

24-hour mining is unacceptable. It is strongly opposed within the community on the basis of predicted effects, current experience of noise from existing mining operations, and past experience of 24-hour mining that was disallowed following completion of mining in the Stratford main pit.

Noise modeling used for the project is inadequate as it doesn't give sufficient weight to the low frequency components of noise that are characteristic of mining operations. This means that the noise impacts are most probably understated. They should be reassessed.

Blasting has the potential to cause physical damage to property and psychological harm to people.

The proposed expansion will bring mining too close to Stratford village. Residents are already impacted by noise from mining and blasting, dust and poor air and water quality. The health impacts arising from coal mining are now being more widely recognized and reported in the Hunter.

The adverse affects of coal dust are well recognized, but there is no reference or discussion of this in the EIS.

The cumulative impacts of successive mining approvals and proposed new mining projects have not been adequately considered. One of our biggest concerns is the impact on water. There needs to be a combined approach to the assessment and analysis of the ground and surface water situation and particularly, the impacts of the large groundwater extractions created by these projects. This should be implemented before any project approvals are considered.

The incremental expansion of mining operations has also caused a progressive whittling away and increasing fragmentation of native vegetation. The resultant cumulative impacts on native fauna and flora are significant and have not been adequately recognized. The proposed expansion will severely impact a number of threatened species. The mitigation measures proposed are inadequate.

Gloucester is well positioned to benefit from an alternative approach to regional economic development based on agriculture and food production. Tourism is already an established and important industry that relies on our scenic beauty and natural heritage. Mining expansion poses an enormous threat tourism and is likely to kill off the emergent food production potential.

Two independent studies have assessed the economic justification for the project. Both conclude that the social and economic assessment sections of the EIS are not suitable for decision making in their current form because they fail to clearly demonstrate the economic costs and benefits of the project. The local community will bear all the costs and receive very few of the benefits. The social costs will clearly outweigh the economic benefits of such a marginal project.

The EIS is incorrect, incomplete, untruthful, invalid.
Noise and vibration from mining and blasting, dust, contaminated air and water, are already significant problems to the surrounding communities. If expansion were to be allowed these impacts of these established problems can only increase.
If yancoal or any other mining company are given approval to expand their operations, they ought to be required to pay, without argument, full market value, at pre-mine value but adjusted to current dollar value, for any properties residents and owners need to sell to them.
The psychological impacts of noise at various levels has been well documented over many years. The current and potential future impact on residents has not been properly and satisfactorily explored or addressed. Neither has it been considered in relation to the quality of learning that will be possible for children and others who are and will be impacted by noise from mining related activities. This needs to be done at the expense of Yancoal, but by fully independent study.
Yancoals plans have very little if any social licence.
Blasting can cause damage to property as well as environment. The accumulated effect of repeated blasting, over time, can have immeasurably harmful effects. It has done so before and is likely to in the future, and in the Stratford/Duralie area. It ought to be required that the Noise & Blasting Assessment be presented again.It needs to include a comprehensive assessment of noise characteristics that will be generated by the project including presentation of C-weighted data. Also, the noise impacts should be stated in everyday terms which will be easily understood by most people.
It would be preferable if the number and size of blasts should be reduced from current consent conditions.
There ought to be recognition in the EIS of the now well-documented detrimental effects of coal dust inhalation and absorption.
There needs to be baseline health studies of all residents in the affected area. They need to be done independently of mining companies' influence. Also, this ought to be at the expense of other than local community.
Monitoring for particulate matter of PM2.5 which is known to be the most dangerous to health ought to be compulsory.
Household water should be tested for toxic pollutants.
Yancoal should pay for regular cleaning of water tanks and replacement of filters.
Before any approvals are even considered, the cumulative impacts of successive mining approvals and proposed new mining projects need to be adequately assessed. The impact on water is one of the biggest concerns is one of the most significant concerns for all Australians, and particularly for people in this area. There needs to be a combined approach to the assessment and analysis of the ground and surface water implemented, particularly the impacts of the large groundwater extractions involved in these projects.
An integrated study should be undertaken to assess the cumulative ground and surface water impacts of the proposed coal and gas projects. No project approvals ought to be given until this study is completed and impacts assessed.
The cumulative impacts of mining on native fauna and flora are significant. They have not been adequately recognized. The proposed expansion will severely impact a number of threatened species. There needs to be far better mitigation measures in place. In particular, areas of identified and potential habitat of threatened species should be protected and kept uncleared.
Mining expansion poses an hugely significant threat to tourism, which is already a well-established economically viable industry. Expansion is also likely to destroy the emergent food production potential. Both of these are areas of great potential growth as well as being current secure employers and sources of economic stability, both in personal and business terms. Two independent studies have assessed the economic justification for the project. Both conclude that the social and economic assessment sections of the EIS are not suitable for decision making in their current form because they fail to clearly demonstrate the economic costs and benefits of the project. The local community will bear all the costs and receive very few of the benefits. The social costs will clearly outweigh the economic benefits of such a marginal project. Further independent reliable study needs to be done.
The incalculable value of history, community, connections between land and people, established over years and generations is of the standard to be called national treasures and resources, and it would be impossible to ever fully compensate for such loss as would be likely to occur should the desecration of mining expansion be allowed, and impossible to reestablish sufficiently and satisfactorily elsewhere.
I absolutely object.

Hunter Environment Lobby Submission on STRATFORD EXTENSION PROJECT

Please see our reasons for objection and our recommendations.

1 The EIS is deeply flawed and hence inadequate for the purposes of enabling the Department to fully assess the merits of the application. Many of the impacts are understated and much of the proposed mitigation is either inadequate or overly ambitious.

2 The EIS it seems, is not truthful. It maintains that mining will cease at the conclusion of this project. Yancoal has previously revealed plans to continue mining at Stratford for many more years. Residents are being asked to support the continued and expanded operation of mining without being provided the full facts.

Recommendation:
- The EIS should be rejected and Yancoal required to address its deficiencies.

3 Intrusive noise disturbance from the Stratford mining complex is a significant problem for neighbouring residents. The concurrent mining of three widely separated pits will result in a substantial increase in the area potentially affected by intrusive noise. The proposed return to 24-hour mining operations will greatly exacerbate the noise disturbance.

4 24-hour mining is unacceptable. It is strongly opposed within the community on the basis of predicted effects, current experience of noise from existing mining operations, and past experience of 24-hour mining that was disallowed following completion of mining in the Stratford main pit.

Recommendation:
- 24-hour mining should be rejected.

5 Noise modeling used for the project is inadequate as it doesn't give sufficient weight to the low frequency components of noise that are characteristic of mining operations. This means that the noise impacts are most probably understated. They should be reassessed.

6 Blasting has the potential to cause physical damage to property and psychological harm to people.

Recommendations:
- The Noise & Blasting Assessment should be re-presented with a comprehensive assessment of noise characteristics that will be generated by the project including presentation of C-weighted data. The noise impacts should be identified in terms that a layperson can understand.
- The number and size of blasts should not exceed current consent conditions.

7 The proposed expansion will bring mining too close to Stratford village. Residents are already impacted by noise from mining and blasting, dust and poor air and water quality. The health impacts arising from coal mining are now being more widely recognized and reported in the Hunter.

8 The adverse affects of coal dust are well recognized, but there is no reference or discussion of this in the EIS.

Recommendations:
- There should be a health audit for Stratford residents.

STRATFORD EXTENSION PROJECT
Reasons for objection and recommendations

1a The EIS is deeply flawed and hence inadequate for the purposes of enabling the Department to fully assess the merits of the application. Many of the impacts are understated and much of the proposed mitigation is either inadequate or overly ambitious.

1b The EIS is not truthful. It pretends that mining will cease at the conclusion of this project. Yancoal has previously revealed plans to continue mining at Stratford for many more years. Residents are being asked to support the continued and expanded operation of mining without being provided the full facts.

Recommendation:
- The EIS should be rejected and Yancoal required to address its deficiencies.

2a Intrusive noise disturbance from the Stratford mining complex is a significant problem for neighbouring residents. The concurrent mining of three widely separated pits will result in a substantial increase in the area potentially affected by intrusive noise. The proposed return to 24-hour mining operations will greatly exacerbate the noise disturbance.

2b 24-hour mining is unacceptable. It is strongly opposed within the community on the basis of predicted effects, current experience of noise from existing mining operations, and past experience of 24-hour mining that was disallowed following completion of mining in the Stratford main pit.

Recommendation:
24-hour mining should be rejected.

3a Noise modeling used for the project is inadequate as it doesn't give sufficient weight to the low frequency components of noise that are characteristic of mining operations. This means that the noise impacts are most probably understated. They should be reassessed.

3b Blasting has the potential to cause physical damage to property and psychological harm to people.

Recommendations:
- The Noise & Blasting Assessment should be re-presented with a comprehensive assessment of noise characteristics that will be generated by the project including presentation of C-weighted data. The noise impacts should be identified in terms that a layperson can understand.
- The number and size of blasts should not exceed current consent conditions.

4a The proposed expansion will bring mining too close to Stratford village. Residents are already impacted by noise from mining and blasting, dust and poor air and water quality. The health impacts arising from coal mining are now being more widely recognized and reported in the Hunter.

4b The adverse affects of coal dust are well recognized, but there is no reference or discussion of this in the EIS.

Recommendations:
- There should be a health audit for Stratford residents.
- There should be compulsory monitoring for particulate matter of PM2.5 which is known to be the most dangerous to health.
- Household water should be tested for toxic pollutants.
- Yancoal should pay for regular cleaning of water tanks and replacement of filters.

5 The cumulative impacts of successive mining approvals and proposed new mining projects have not been adequately considered. One of our biggest concerns is the impact on water. There needs to be a combined approach to the assessment and analysis of the ground and surface water situation and particularly, the impacts of the large groundwater extractions created by these projects. This should be implemented before any project approvals are considered.

Recommendation:
- An integrated study should be undertaken to assess the cumulative ground and surface water impacts of the proposed coal and gas projects. No project approvals to be given until this study is completed and impacts assessed.

6 Many older residents who will be looking to sell because they can no longer manage a rural property will become trapped because there is no market demand for properties impacted by the mine. This is immoral.

Recommendation:
- Yancoal should be required to buy these properties if approached by the owner.

7 The incremental expansion of mining operations has also caused a progressive whittling away and increasing fragmentation of native vegetation. The resultant cumulative impacts on native fauna and flora are significant and have not been adequately recognized. The proposed expansion will severely impact a number of threatened species. The mitigation measures proposed are inadequate.

Recommendation:
- Areas of identified and potential habitat of threatened species should not be cleared.

8a Gloucester is well positioned to benefit from an alternative approach to regional economic development based on agriculture and food production. Tourism is already an established and important industry that relies on our scenic beauty and natural heritage. Mining expansion poses an enormous threat tourism and is likely to kill off the emergent food production potential.

8b Two independent studies have assessed the economic justification for the project. Both conclude that the social and economic assessment sections of the EIS are not suitable for decision making in their current form because they fail to clearly demonstrate the economic costs and benefits of the project. The local community will bear all the costs and receive very few of the benefits. The social costs will clearly outweigh the economic benefits of such a marginal project.

Recommendation:
- The socio-economic justification for the project should be re-presented to (1) address the deficiencies identified in the two independent reports and (2) evaluate the impact of the project on tourism and the alternative economic model.

see attached PDF

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached