Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached.

The Wallarah 2 coal mine should be rejected as surface and groundwater issues are fundamental issues that CAN NOT be left for later resolution or adaptive management.

This project was already rejected on the grounds of the precautionary principle, surface and groundwater issues, subsidence and coal dust issues. Nothing has changed.

The EIS states on page 143 that when 2 low points on jilliby road defined as d50 & d70 become flooded due to mining operations 198 properties will be cut off for 28 hours. What about those needing urgent medical attention or elderly people trapped in their homes or simply just people like me that need to get to work and cant afford to have a day off while the water subsides.

The EIS states on page 143 that a section of Jilliby Road that is defined as d50 currently experiences zero hours of flooding. Table 44 clearly shows that after mining this same section of road will become flooded for 31 hours. Is this acceptable that an entire community will be cut off for this length of time.??

The EIS states on page 144 "due to the magnitude of flooding in the dooralong valley, flood modification structures will be neither practical nor effective " This is scary that Kores admits mine related flooding will be so catastrophic in the Dooralong valley that they will be unable to control it. They plan to develop community readiness programs and have emergency evacuation procedures in place. This is an unacceptable risk to human and stock life in the valley.

The EIS states on page 145 that due to the magnitude of mining relating flooding the only options available are to raise the piers of homes to keep the floor above the flood waters, re build your house on a higher part of your property, build flood levees around your house or if you are lucky enough to be in one of the "high hazard areas" where property modification options are impractical they will offer some compensation.

The EIS states on page 145 that mining induced subsidence will drop road levels on Jilliby Road 2.3 metres. The solution by Kores is to raise 880metres of Jilliby Road to keep it above mining induced flood levels. While this is a ridiculous idea it says nothing of the fact that the surrounding land and paddocks are privately owned and what they are going to do to ensure these privately owned paddocks remain flood free for the enjoyment of their owners.

All of these excerpts taken from the EIS contradict their feel good newsletters that state the only impacts are on land suitably zoned or land owned by Kores.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT

The EIS is based on out of date information. My home appears as vacant land in the report although I have resided in the valley for several years. What other critical assumptions in the report are made on old information?
The map labeled "figure 34" shows that due to the subsidence from mining operations in my immediate area of the valley my property will be the subject of flooding once mining is in operation.
The executive summary states ;
- There will be subsidence up to 2.6 metres in the study area(see table 23)
- There will be a lowering of the aquifers
- There will be water seepage of 2,600,000 litres per day
- There will be odours from the ventilation shaft and the buttonederry site
- There will be 33 dwellings from 245 residences adversely impacted by flooding during mining operations (including mine)
- There is a risk of adverse impacts on air quality due to fugitive coal emissions from trains
- There will be vibration levels felt at private receivers due to the project

These are not irrational accusations from environmentalists or greenies but facts from Wallarah's own report on the impacts of mining in the water catchment of 350,000 people
Every assumption taken from the EIS is based on mathematical computer modeling and NOT real life examples. Real life examples of the negative impacts of long wall mining can be found by searching the words "long wall mining disasters"
Wallarah 2 coal project must by rejected

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached.

I am a resident of Wyong Shire for over 34 years (recently reside in E Gosford) and consider the Wallarah 2 proposal unacceptible from an environmental impact view, including: above ground mining infrastructure too close to urban areas (i.e. Blue Haven and Warnervale); and, possible damage to water tables in Wyong Valleys.





I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.
The site water management is inadequate because almost all management plans are merely observational. Some monitoring plans are not due to be created until two years into the operational life of the mine.
Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts.
The proponent has not made any substantial changes to their previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.
Threatened Species. The current EIS lists 37 recorded threatened and migratory fauna species and six vulnerable or endangered flora species within the project site. Many of these species are protected under state and federal legislation as well as international agreements. The key threats to these species include land clearing, change in habitat due to subsidence and alteration of water flow, wetlands and floodplains. All of these threats are possible effects of this project.
Climate Change. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached