Watermark Coal Mine (Consent Surrendered)

As a long time resident of the Hunter Valley, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposal for Shenhua Watermark to develop an open cut coal mine on the Liverpool Plains.

As a rich agricultural area, as the Hunter Valley once was, growing a diversity of agricultural crops, the Liverpool Plains are crucial to the food security of not only Australia, but the area's contribution to global food security.

It is common knowledge that water supply is essential to food production, and that the black soils of the Liverpool Plains and the underlying aquifers are far too precious to put at risk.

With the introduction of the Strategic Regional Land Use Polciy, and the state wide Aquifer Interference Policy, both of which I applaud, it is just common sense that digging a huge open cut coal mine in the middle of a critical food and fibre producing area is a bad idea.

The entire Hunter Valley is paying for the rush to rape the earth - prime agricultural land ruined, water quality ruined, communities fractured, a beautiful rural landscape transformed into a naked moonscape, and physical and mental health problems through poor air quality, where dust pollution levels well exceed national pollution standards.

It makes economic , social and food security sense to permanently protect the rich black soil plains of the Liverpool Plains and to halt mining permanently in this crucial agricultural region. Approval of the Shenhua Watermark project would represent a significant policy failure.

I visited and inspected the Watermark project and surrounding area in November 2012 and noted on the visit the project area does not cover any of the valuable Liverpool Plains Agricultural Land. The land is outside the areas designated Stratgeic Agricultural Land. The project land is to be used for mining puposes and is hilly and sandy in nature and not used or suitable for cropping or food generation. The land is suitable for a mining operation and is well located near existing rail and port infrastructure which needs to be fully utiliised to pay for the huge investment made in this states future.

With 3 children approaching adulthood I support the Watermark Project as a future long term employer in the area as well as the provider of valuable export income. The proponent has addressed all the areas required in the Environmental Assessment and is committed to developing a sustainable open cut mining operation that will be able to compete with other such operations elsewhere in the world. An approval of the project will also help to repair NSW's damaged reputation in the international investment community due to recent, politically motivated, project refusal's. NSW needs to be seen as being open for business depsite what the delusional, illogical minority say in the mass media.

I support the project and the proponents plans and urge the NSW Dept of Planning and Infrastructure to approve the project so that investment can continue in this State and my children may have the same opportunities I have had for full and meaningful employment.

Our family are members of the Caroona Coal Action Group and are Liverpool Plain's landholders. I am writing on behalf of my family and we object to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW.

Firstly I would like to say that we are not totally against coal mining but we are, however, against coal mining in the wrong area. The productive Liverpool Plains is totally the wrong area to even consider coal mining. This project, if allowed to proceed without the most stringent of enforceable guidelines, will have an irreparable impact on our community and region as we know it today. The history is there, right before our eyes to take heed of. Look at other regions that have been subjected to coal mining, for example the NSW Hunter Region and the NSW Illawarra Region. Listen to the residence of these regions - why would we pretend that `our precious' region would end up any differently.

Some of the impacts to the Liverpool Plains if mining is approved include:

Water Resource - The fertile NSW Liverpool Plains is known worldwide for its abundance of water and fertile volcanic soils. The underground streams or aquifers are the lifeblood of this magnificent agricultural region. The landowners that farm this fertile country will be able to continue to produce food for the world while ever they have their available water resource. If mining were to proceed there is a very real risk of some of these aquifers being damaged or contaminated by underground gases and minerals - once damaged they can never be repaired to their former pristine condition. There is a risk of contaminated water being released from sediment dams during rainfall events where its capacity is exceeded. With our unpredictable rainfall events this situation is considered most probable and the releasing of contaminated water across the black soil plains and into our ground water systems is unacceptable.
The proposal states:
- there is a potential for the reduction of catchment flows to surrounding waterways including the Mooki River, Watermark Gully, Native Dog Gully and Lake Goran with 25% loss at Watermark
- groundwater levels are predicted to largely recover rapidly
- a reduced rate of upward flow from the Permian to the alluvium is predicted
These predictions and forecasts by the Proponent are of great concern to our community.

Vegetation - A total of 4,084 ha of vegetation will be removed progressively over the life of the project. This is a very large loss of vegetation and most certainly not allowed under any other circumstances. Landholders in the past have been prosecuted in the Courts for `illegal', yet in most cases responsible clearing of their land. How is it that a mining company can clear or decimate the countryside as they see fit? Mining companies appear to operate under a completely different set of rules. Hand in hand with vegetation removal is our regions very important Koala population. Under any other circumstance the Koala population of our region is number 1 and should be protected at all costs, however, when it comes to mining the Koalas are second rate and will be removed just like the vegetation. The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) disputes the number of koalas located in the local government area and feel there are a lot less than stated. AKF are opposed to the translocation of the koalas from the Shenhua area.

Future Expansion - It is stated in the EIS that a final void will remain in the Western Mining Area and will cover an area of approximately 100 hectares having a maximum depth of 80 metres below the natural ground surface. This is the outcome that is recommended by the mining company as it is the most cost effective method plus it allows opportunity for future access to coal resources. This raises concerns for our community as we are not talking about a one off mine but an opportunity for future expansion with further risk to water resources, agricultural land and people's health. The health or rather decline of health in mining communities has been well documented. Lung and breathing problems, allergies, weight and fitness concerns, increased gambling addictions plus the community fabric alters or changes to an unhealthy, unrecognisable shadow of what once existed - especially through the advent of fly in, fly out workforces. Our North West towns of Gunnedah, Curlewis, Breeza, Werris Creek & Quirindi are all fiercely proud communities, made up of caring like minded citizens, so willing to help out and build that un-buyable community spirit.

Noise - the proposed mine is to be located near the village of Breeza in Northern NSW which is a quiet rural area. Infrasound/low frequency noise (ILFN) produced by machinery is known to be a problem in these types of areas due to the lack of background noise. ILFN is known to cause cardiovascular disorders, psychological problems and stress. It is of great concern to the community that Shenhua is not completing any assessment on low frequency noise as stated in the EIS "Acoustics Impact Assessment 4.6 Low Frequency Noise - no separate assessment of low frequency noise levels is required".

Heritage - The project will destroy significant Aboriginal heritage sites. Throughout the entire world today, the quest to protect significant history and heritage sites from past generations is of upmost importance - yet again mining companies operate to their own benefit - just relocate it. They have no real connection with our land, our region, our history - their only interest is in making money for the life of the mine. The relocation of any significant object from its natural environment is not recommended due to the potential damage that can occur.

Increased Train Movement - All towns and properties along the rail line will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements. Our land will be vulnerable to the increase in coal dust deposits emitted from the trains - we can't see any benefit at all in pasture or grain crops coated in coal dust.

If the Government approves this project, they are knowingly approving the detrimental impacts of this mine at the cost of the regions landholders, community, and the entire country - Australia itself. Once the mine starts, you cannot stop or mitigate the impact to the water resources, the system enters a new state and is changed forever. To render the fertile Liverpool Plains region a possible waste land for generations to come is unthinkable and should be avoided at all cost. This proposed Shenhua Watermark coal mine is showing greed at its worst; coal companies and Government prepared to put at risk a large portion of this country's most fertile agricultural land for the chance to reap 20 to maybe 30 years of fossil fuel income. This is so ridiculous and nonsensical when we now have a compulsory `Carbon Tax' to apparently help reduce our `carbon footprint'. Leaving the coal in the ground and looking to more sustainable forms of energy would do far more to improve our `carbon footprint' than ripping our country apart and selling off the minerals at a break neck pace. This is a very short-sighted approach as we all have children, grandchildren and their children again that will one day inhabit this land. You and I have a responsibility to leave it in the very best condition possible - just as a father would leave his farm for his son to take over - the very best condition possible.

I am a resident of Breeza and have been since 1969 and I object to the proposed shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW.

This project will have significant impact on the Breeza community and region. Some of these impacts include:
1. Air quality - We strongly disagree with the Shenhua air quality modelling results because the village is west of the area to be mined and our prevailing winds and storm paths are westerly. To my knowledge Shenhua based its modeling on a single dust monitor situated on the east side of the Breeza hill just inside the village boundary. The assessment does not give an accurate indication of wind and storm born particulate fallout. This is unacceptable. Further studies need to be carried out with extra monitors placed in and around the village before mining commences.

2.l Health- the adverse effects of mining on the health of populations close to the mine sites has been documented and yet no study done on the health of the people of Breeza. Given that we are so close to the proposed mine site and the risk to our health is great there needs to be a health monitoring program agreed to by Shenhua and the Government before mining commences. We need a guarantee of compensation in case of a worst case scenario event.

3. Water - there is a high risk of coal dust contamination to the rain water tanks in Breeza, this is the only source of household water for most of the residences in the village. There are no contingency plans in place either by the Government or Shenhua if this was to occur. A water supply plan must be agreed by the Government, Shenhua and the residents of Breeza before mining commences.

There is a risk of contaminated water being released from the sediment dam during rainfall events where it exceeds the capacity. With the With the unpredictable rain fall events this situation is considered most probable and the releasing of contaminated water across the black soil plains and into our ground water systems is unacceptable. It is stated in the proposal that:
-there is a potential for the reduction of catchment flows to surrounding waterways including the Mooki River, Watermark Gully, Native Dog Gully and Lake Goran with 25% loss at Watermark
-groundwater levels are predicted to largely recover rapidly
-a reduced rate up upward flow from the Permain to the alluvium is predicted.
These prediction and forecasts by the Proponent are of great concern to our community.

4. Blast Damage- the adverse effects of underground tremors known as the ripple effect to damage residential structure, graves and dead stones has been known to occur at other mine sites. To ;my knowledge there are no contingency plans in place if such an event should occur in Breeza. We need a guarantee from Shenhua that monitors will be placed around the village and if damage occurs because of blasting Shenhua will meet all cost involved to repair all structures, graves and headstones.

5. Koala - The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) disputes the number of Koalas located in the local government area and feel there are a lot less than stated in the report. AKF are opposed to the trans-location of the koalas from the Shenhua area.

6. Ecology- A total of 4,084 ha of vegetation will be removed progressively over the life of the project. This is a very large loss of vegetation and most certainly not allowed under any circumstances.

7. Future Expansion - It is stated in the EIS that a final void will remain in the Western Mining Area and will cover an area of approx. 1200 hectares. It will have a maximum depth of 80 meters below the natural ground surface. This is the outcome that is reccommended by the mining company as it is the most cost effective method plus it allows opportunity for access to coal resources. This raises concerns for our community as we are not talking about a one off mine but an opportunity for future expansion with further risk to eater resources agricultural land and people's health.

8. Noise - The proposed mine is located near the village of Breeza in Northern NSW which is a quiet rural area. Infra-sound/low frequency noise (ILFN) produced by machinery is known to be a problem in these types of areas due to the lack of background noise. ILFN is known to cause cardiovascular disorders, psychological problems and stress. It is of great concern to the community that Shenhua is not completing any assessment on low frequency noise as stated in the EIS Acoustics Impact Assessment 4.6 Low Frequency Noise - no separate assessment of low frequency noise levels is required".

9. Heritage - The project will destroy significant Aboriginal Heritage sites. The relocation of any significant object from its natural environment is not recommended due to the potential damage that can occur.

10. Increased Train Movement - All towns and properties along the rail line will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.
If the Government approves this project, they are knowingly approving the detrimental impacts of this mine at the cost of the landholders and the community. Once the mine starts, you cannot stop or mitigate the impact to the water resources the system enters a new state and is changed forever.

Martin Salvador
"Penryn" Breeza NSW 2381

My family originated from Breeza and my Great Grandfather William Johnson was born at Pullaming Station in 1877 and lived in Breeza all his life, he died in 1960. My Grandmother and her Children resided in Breeza and I myself now live in Breeza therefor I have strong connection to Country and am very concerned that this project will have significant impact on the Breeza community and region. Some of these impacts include:

Air Quality - I strongly disagree with the Shenhua air quality modelling results because the village is West of the area to be mined and our prevailing and storm paths are westerly. To my knowledge Shenhua based its modelling on a single dust monitor situated on the east side of the Breeza Hill just inside the village boundary. The assessment does not give an accurate indication of wind and storm born particulate fallout. This us unacceptable. Further studies need to be carried out with extra monitors placed in and around the village before mining commences.
Health - The adverse effects of mining on the health of populations close to the mine sites has been documented and yet no study done on the health of the people of Breeza. Given that we are so close to the proposed mine site and the risk to our health is great there needs to be a health monitoring program agreed to by Shenhua and the Government before mining commences. We need a guarantee of compensation in case of a worst case scenario event.
Water - There is a high risk of coal dust contamination to the rain water tanks in Breeza, this is the only source of household water for most of the residences in the village. There are no contingency plans in place either by the Government or Shenhua if this was to occur. A water supply plan must be agreed by the Government, Shenhua and the residents of Breeza before mining commences. There is a risk of contaminated water being released from the sediment dam during rainfall events where it exceeds the capacity. With the unpredictable rainfall events this situation is considered most probable and the releasing of contaminated water across the black soil plains and into our ground water systems is unacceptable.
It is stated in the proposal that:
-there is a potential for the reduction of catchment flows to surrounding waterways including the Mooki River, Watermark Gully, Native Dog Gully and Lake Goran with 25% loss at Watermark.
-ground water levels are predicted to largely recover rapidly
-a reduced rate of upward flow from the Permain to the alluvium is predicted.
These predictions and forecast by the Proponent are of great concern to our community.
Blast Damage - the adverse effects of underground tremors known as the ripple effect to damage residential structure, graves and head stones has been known to occur at other mine sites. To my knowledge there are no contingency plans in place if such an event should occur in Breeza. We need a guarantee from Shenhua that monitors will be place around the village and if damage occurs due to blasting Shenhua will meet all cost involved to repair all structures, graves and headstones.
Koala - The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) disputes the number of koalas located in the local government area and feel there are a lot less than stated, AKF are opposed to the trans-location of the koalas from the Shenhua area.
Ecology - A total of 4,084 ha of vegetation will be removed progressively over the life of the project. This is a very large loss of vegetation and most certainly not allowed under any circumstances.
Future Expansion - It is stated in the EIS that a final void will remain in the Western Mining Area and will cover an area of approx. 100 hectares. It will have a maximum depth of 80 metres below the natural ground surface. This is the outcome that is recommended by the mining company as it is the most cost effective method plus it allows opportunity for access to coal resources. This raises concerns for our community as we are not talking about a one off mine but an opportunity for future expansion with further risk to water resources, agricultural land and people's health.
Noise - The proposed mine is located near the village of Breeza in Northern NSW which is a quiet rural area. Infrasound/low frequency noise (ILFN) produced by machinery is known to be a problem in these types of areas due to the lack of background noise. ILFN is known to cause cardiovascular disorders, psychological problems and stress. It is of great concern to the community that Shenhua is not completing any assessment on low frequency noise as stated in the EIS "Acoustics Impact Assessment 4.6 Low Frequency Noise - no separate assessment of low frequency noise levels is required".
Increased Train Movement - All towns and properties along the rail line will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.
Heritage _ The project will destroy significant Aboriginal heritage sites, 55 sites have been identified within the boundary of the project area 51 of those are new sites and 29 of those sites will be directly impacted within the boundary area, included in the 29 that are to be impacted, are three Grinding Grooves, very significant to the Aboriginal people and any attempt of removal from its natural environment will cause potential damage. Many threats and social problems are associated with environmental change increasing demand on our water resources and changing environmental management systems.
Loss of ecology and ritual knowledge amongst community s is a social change that confronts every clan or family group.
Water places are the core of cultural landscapes and the heart of keeping the country healthy and give life to our land.
If the Government approves this project, they are knowingly approving the detrimental impacts of this mine at the cost of the landholders and the community. Once the mine starts, you cannot stop or mitigate the impact to the water resources, the system enters a new state and is changed.

I am a landholder in Breeza. I strongly object to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW.

This project will have significant impact on our community and region. Some of these impacts include:

1. Negative impact on koala populations. The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) disputes the number of koalas located in the local government area and feel there are a lot less than stated. AKF are opposed to the translocation of the koalas from the Shenhua area. The Gunnedah area is known for the local Koala population, relocation of these koalas will devastate local populations. This in turn will have an impact on tourism, with the claim to being a "koala capital' becoming a lie.

2. Contamination of water sources. Rainfall events where the capacity of the sediment dam is exceeded will lead to a high risk of contaminated water being released into local water sources and the black soil plains. This situation is considered highly probably as the occurrence of unpredictable rainfall events have increased in recent years. The releasing of contaminated water across the black soil plains and into our ground water systems is unacceptable. The local agricultural industry relies on groundwater for irrigation of crops. If this is contaminated, productivity will be seriously inhibited and farmers' livelihoods at risk. I have a bore on my property for domestic use. If this water is contaminated, a highly probably event, or the water level falls too far due to mining activities, I will have no water on my property for household use. This will present a significant financial burden of having to purchase water for the foreseeable future.
It is stated in the proposal that:
- there is a potential for the reduction of catchment flows to surrounding waterways including the Mooki River, Watermark Gully, Native Dog Gully and Lake Goran with 25% loss at Watermark
- groundwater levels are predicted to largely recover rapidly
- a reduced rate of upward flow from the Permian to the alluvium is predicted
These predictions and forecasts by the Proponent are of great concern to our community.

3. Removal of vegetation. - A total of 4,084 ha of vegetation will be removed progressively over the life of the project. The removal of this amount of vegetation will have a significant impact on local populations of flora and fauna. This will lead to a marked decrease in biodiversity, leading to significant changes in the local biology of the area. In addition to the effect on biodiversity, the loss of vegetation will lead to a reduction of ground cover and a large increase in dust in the environment. The impact of increased dust settling on crops will be significant. The dust will inhibit crops' growth and have a large impact on productivity, affecting the local economy. The local community relies on tank water and bore water for domestic use. The dust will settle on roofs and will contaminate our water. This is a very large loss of vegetation and most certainly not allowed under any circumstances. Although revegetation will be a future solution, it will not change the amount of dust in the environment at the time, which will have immediate negative effects.


4. Future Expansion - It is stated in the EIS that a final void will remain in the Western Mining Area and will cover an area of approx. 100 hectares. It will have a maximum depth of 80 metres below the natural ground surface. This is the outcome that is recommended by the mining company as it is the most cost effective method plus it allows opportunity for access to coal resources. This raises concerns for our community as we are not talking about a one off mine but an opportunity for future expansion with further risk to water resources, agricultural land and people's health.

5. Noise - the proposed mine is located near the village of Breeza in Northern NSW which is a quiet rural area. Infrasound/low frequency noise (ILFN) produced by machinery is known to be a problem in these types of areas due to the lack of background noise. ILFN is known to cause cardiovascular disorders, psychological problems and stress. It is of great concern to the community that Shenhua is not completing any assessment on low frequency noise as stated in the EIS "Acoustics Impact Assessment 4.6 Low Frequency Noise - no separate assessment of low frequency noise levels is required".

6. Heritage - The project will destroy significant Aboriginal heritage sites. The relocation of any significant object from its natural environment is not recommended due to the potential damage that can occur.

7. Increased Train Movement - All towns and properties along the rail line will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements. The train line is already under frequent use. An increase in this use will negatively impact the living standards in the village of Breeza as the level of dust and noise will become intolerable.
8. Negative impact on agriculture. As previously mentioned, activities of a mine will produce conditions that will significantly decrease the productivity of the local agricultural industry. The Liverpool Plains produce 46% of the state's sunflowers and 45% of the state's sorghum. The Liverpool Plains only represent in area 1.5% of NSW. Such a high level of production in relation to land area is significant to the local and state's economy.

If the Government approves this project, they are knowingly approving the detrimental impacts of this mine at the cost of the landholders and the community. Once the mine starts, you cannot stop or mitigate the impacts to the water resources, the system enters a new state and is changed forever.

My partner and I are landholders in Breeza. I strongly object to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW.

This project will have significant impact on our community and region. Some of these impacts include:

1. Negative impact on koala populations. The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) disputes the number of koalas located in the local government area and feel there are a lot less than stated. AKF are opposed to the translocation of the koalas from the Shenhua area. The Gunnedah area is known for the local Koala population, relocation of these koalas will interfere with the local populations and have a negative impact on breeding. This in turn will have an impact on tourism, with the claim to being a "koala capital' becoming a lie.

2. Contamination of water sources. Rainfall events where the capacity of the sediment dam is exceeded will lead to a high risk of contaminated water being released into local water sources and the black soil plains. This situation is considered highly probably as the occurrence of unpredictable rainfall events have increased in recent years. The releasing of contaminated water across the black soil plains and into our ground water systems is unacceptable. The local agricultural industry relies on groundwater for irrigation of crops. If this is contaminated, productivity will be severely inhibited and farmers' livelihoods at risk. We have a bore on our property for domestic use. If this water is contaminated, a highly probable event, or the water level falls too far due to mining activities, we will have no water on our property for household use. This will present a significant financial burden of having to purchase water for the foreseeable future.
It is stated in the proposal that:
- there is a potential for the reduction of catchment flows to surrounding waterways including the Mooki River, Watermark Gully, Native Dog Gully and Lake Goran with 25% loss at Watermark
- groundwater levels are predicted to largely recover rapidly
- a reduced rate of upward flow from the Permian to the alluvium is predicted
These predictions and forecasts by the Proponent are of great concern to our community.

3. Removal of vegetation. - A total of 4,084 ha of vegetation will be removed progressively over the life of the project. The removal of this amount of vegetation will have a significant impact on local populations of flora and fauna. This will lead to a marked decrease in biodiversity, leading to significant changes in the biology of the local area. In addition to the effect on biodiversity, the loss of vegetation will lead to a reduction of ground cover and a large increase in dust in the environment. The impact of increased dust settling on crops will be significant. The dust will inhibit crops' growth and have a large impact on productivity, affecting the local economy. The local community relies on tank water and bore water for domestic use. The dust will settle on roofs and will contaminate our drinking water. This is a very large loss of vegetation and most certainly not allowed under any circumstances. Although revegetation will be proposed as a future solution, it will not change the amount of dust in the environment at the time, which will have immediate negative effects. Revegitation may return some of the flora and eventually fauna to our area, but the land will be forever scarred.


4. Future Expansion - It is stated in the EIS that a final void will remain in the Western Mining Area and will cover an area of approx. 100 hectares. It will have a maximum depth of 80 metres below the natural ground surface. This is the outcome that is recommended by the mining company as it is the most cost effective method plus it allows opportunity for access to coal resources. This raises concerns for our community as we are not talking about a one off mine but an opportunity for future expansion with further risk to water resources, agricultural land and people's health. If the mine does go to a maximum depth of 80 meters below the natural ground surface, this will put it approximately 15 meters below our bore. Logically then, the mine will have to pump out water to continue operations, which will significantly lower the water table.

5. Noise - the proposed mine is located near the village of Breeza in Northern NSW which is a quiet rural area. Infrasound/low frequency noise (ILFN) produced by machinery is known to be a problem in these types of areas due to the lack of background noise. ILFN is known to cause cardiovascular disorders, psychological problems and stress. It is of great concern to the community that Shenhua is not completing any assessment on low frequency noise as stated in the EIS "Acoustics Impact Assessment 4.6 Low Frequency Noise - no separate assessment of low frequency noise levels is required".

6. Heritage - The project will destroy significant Aboriginal heritage sites. The relocation of any significant object from its natural environment is not recommended due to the potential damage that can occur.

7. Increased Train Movement - All towns and properties along the rail line will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements. The train line is already under frequent use. An increase in this use will negatively impact the living standards in the village of Breeza as the level of dust and noise will become intolerable.
8. Negative impact on agriculture. As previously mentioned, activities of a mine will produce conditions that will significantly decrease the productivity of the local agricultural industry. The Liverpool Plains produce 46% of the state's sunflowers and 45% of the state's sorghum. The Liverpool Plains only represent in area 1.5% of NSW. Such a high level of production in relation to land area is significant to the local and state's economy.

If the Government approves this project, they are knowingly approving the detrimental impacts of this mine at the cost of the landholders and the community. Once the mine starts, you cannot stop or mitigate the impacts to the water resources, the system enters a new state and is changed forever.

I dale james or 5454 Kamilaroi hwy breeza 2381 object against watermark coal mine (ssd-4975)
would like to also add I received a letter from paul Jackson project manager of watermark coal mine (ssd-4975) dated 25 march 2013 stating there EIS indicates that at this stage my property my be in the projecs zone of affectation and may experience DUST NOISE OR OTHER PROJECT IMPACTS I only get waster from my rain water tanks and anything going on my roof will end up in my tanks also my wife and sun suffer from asthma I once again OBJECT against this mine going ahead

thanks dale james

attention director mining and industry projects

my name is dale james i live at 5454 kamilaroi hwy breeza 2381
i live right on the rail way line between the hwy and rail.the coal trains has been getting worst every week and there is a bypass lane right next to my house i dont no why thay would ever put it next to a house with all the land thay have anyway i got a pamphlet in the mail yesturday about the watermark project and in it thay plan to put in a loop rain to join the rail west of breeza that runs past my house? why cant thy find a way to join it on the east side of breeza i put up with so much noise all the time from trains as it is and the speed thy go is way to fast past my house thay is why i dale james OBJECT to the project of the watermark mine as it will make mine and my familys life unberable.i moved to this town for the peace and quiet not for the mines to run trains all day evey day

thank you
dale james

I am fortunate enough to be living and working in the exceptional, unique prime agricultural region on the Liverpool Plains in NSW where our family have farmed this area for well over 100 years.

Our farming enterprise produces wheat, sorghum, canola, oats, chickpeas, sunflowers, barley and beef cattle and will continue doing so for generations if this region is safeguarded from the impacts of extractive industries such as coal and coal seam gas mining.

I would like to state from the start that I am emphatically opposed to any mining of coal, coal seam gas or any other extractive industry as this is one of the most highly productive agricultural regions in Australia and therefore should not be compromised to "co-exist" with mining activities but be set aside for the growing of food.
I am also a member of the Caroona Coal Action Group and the SOS Liverpool Plains Group with our mission statement stating:-
"We must ensure mining does not destroy our environment, agricultural production, people's livelihoods, health and attachment to the land."

These are some of my reasons why I want this region protected for the growing of food and fibre.
I would like to briefly mention:-
1. Soils
2. Water
3. Rail and transport issues




1. SOILS

The Liverpool Plains of NSW is one of the most productive areas for crop production in Australia and possibly the world.
The 3 reasons for this high productivity are:-
1. The chemical and physical fertility of the unique self-mulching basalt soils which make this region extremely fertile.
They are most importantly soils that have a high water holding capacity due to their high clay content.
2. The region has good natural rainfall (600-800 mm/annum) which, along with our quality aquifers provides an ideal climate for plant growth allowing for crop yields of up to 40% above the national average.
3. The access to groundwater for irrigation.

Our wheat yields are up to 7t/ha (3t/ha elsewhere in Australia)
Canola yields up to 3t/ha (1.5t/ha elsewhere)
Sorghum yields up to 10t/ha (2.5t/ha elsewhere)

These factors alone should be reason enough not to allow open cut mining on this highly valuable land which has strategic importance worldwide for food production.

How fortunate are we as a nation to have hold of this national treasure!!
Our land and our soils are a valuable resource for Australia, and the world, for generations to come so need to be set aside and protected!!
With climate change and food security becoming increasingly issues of this century, surely it is mere madness to compromise these highly productive agricultural regions by considering huge areas to be dug up for open cut coal mining?
If this project goes ahead, future generations will look back in horror at the way our governments have mishandled this basic human right of all Australians to clean food and water.

With the increases of urbanisation onto highly productive agricultural land, global warming and climate change issues plus the ever increasing expanding global population growth predictions, one would expect our governments to prioritise and protect this unique food bowl for our future needs.

The rhetoric that we hear of the world's need for coal for our energy needs is misguided to say the least.
With the solar energy capabilities and improved technologies that exist today there is no need for the government to consider coal as we go into a brighter and cleaner renewable future.
Coal and coal seam gas mining are outdated and we should be embracing the new age of renewable technologies for that future.
A future where there will be substitutes for energy production but not for clean food and water.
What we need is the political will in this country to achieve this



2.WATER

The issues of the effect of mining to our groundwater and aquifers has been studied and researched through the Namoi Valley Water Study.
The concerns raised in this study highlight there would be impacts and in particular, raised alarm bells as to the uncertainty surrounding the potential cumulative impacts of multiple developments. (BHP Billiton have intentions of longwall mining in the region plus coal seam gas companies have also been conducting exploratory drilling in the area.)
This is of great concern to the farming enterprises on the Liverpool Plains as water is an absolute essential element in our ongoing agricultural businesses.
There has been an almost complete lack of science into groundwater ecosystems and the potential impacts from mining developments.
Also there seems to be a lack of environmental baseline monitoring prior to approval of major developments such as this Shenhua Watermark Project.

Shenhua's "policy of minimisation of impacts on local and regional groundwater and surface water systems" is not good enough. If the company cannot guarantee "zero harm" then they should not be given the green light to proceed.
The EIS Agricultural Impact Statement put out by the Shenhua Watermark company states; "The groundwater impacts directly associated to the Project are limited to a 30 year mine life and approximately 15 years thereafter."
So in their own words, they are saying that there will be impacts on the groundwater for the next 45 years.
Without a continued supply of clean reliable water the farmers on the Liverpool Plains are unable to grow the food to feed this nation and provide food for export.
It is, in fact, agriculture's life blood!!




3. RAIL AND TRANSPORT.

In the Shenhua EIS Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment 2.3 Existing Rail Network Conditions (Page 21) it states:-
"Product coal from the Project will be transported to the Port of Newcastle via the Werris Creek-Moree Railway Line."
At present we have an increasing number of coal trains on this line causing problems with traffic, noise and an increase in coal dust from these uncovered coal wagons.
What will be the additional potential cumulative impacts of multiple developments all using the same rail system to take their coal to port?
Already we have unacceptable levels of coal dust blowing out across the countryside and through our towns and cities as these uncovered coal trains travel to port.
Matthew Kelly, Environment Reporter for the Newcastle Herald wrote in his newspaper article in July, 2012 under the heading, "The great coal cover-up":-
"If annual throughput at the Port of Newcastle reaches 330 million tonnes as predicted in 2022, resulting in 54,000 loaded-train movements, an estimated 37 tonnes of coal dust would be emitted per kilometre every year along some sections of track."
"Significant work needs to be done to reduce dust pollution if the health of large numbers of people is not going to be compromised, especially the most vulnerable, including children, the elderly, and those with existing health problems," University of Newcastle public health expert Associate Professor Nick Higginbotham said.
Singleton Shire councillor Lyn MacBain said coal dust was among the most complained-about issues in the local government area." (Newcastle Herald 24 July 2012)
What are the health impacts on the general population?
"We know open cut mining produces dust particles at several stages in production. Both the size of the particle and the content are critical to causing health damage." (Dr Dick van Steenis, UK industrial air pollution expert)
Dr van Steenis visited coal communities and lectured in Gloucester, Liverpool Plains, Singelton, Muswellbrook, Newcastle and in Sydney.
Dr Steenis recommends monitoring of the very fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns that can travel several hundred metres from its source.
At present the mining companies are `self monitoring' and can place the dust monitors in a position that is favourable for them and the monitors do not even measure these very fine particles!!
In a summary of his talk Dr van Steenis says,
"Professor Mike Hendryx has shown the costs from health damage from coal in the USA is five times the value of the coal.
In Australia a recent report by Tom Bieger et al titled "The Hidden Cost of Electricity" similarly highlights some of the enormous burden coal imposes on this country's health economy-an increase of $2.6 billion per year."
Dr Van Steenis frequently made the point that long term water availability, sustainable food production and good health should be our Government's priority."

The Shenhua Watermark Project EIS also states :-
"The traffic and transport impact assessment has acknowledged that there are potential impacts on movement of agricultural products that need to be carefully managed as part of the Project." (Watermark Coal Project Environmental Impact Statement Volume 10 AB Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment)
How exactly does the company propose to do this? (The Project is approx 282 kms by rail from the Port of Newcastle.)
Not only is our ability to grow our agricultural products at risk from mining but also it seems from the above statement, that any crops we are lucky enough to produce will be at risk from further "potential impacts" on the movement of these products to port.
Is this what is referred to as mining and agriculture "co-existing'?



CONCLUSION

May I also bring to your attention that the initial granting of the Shenhua Watermark Coal licence EL 7223 was by the former Labor NSW Minister for Mineral Resources, Ian Macdonald , in 2008. May I remind you that Mr Macdonald is at present appearing before the ICAC.
After Mr Macdonald's removal the NSW Minister for Mineral Resources, Paul McLeay was publicly removed from office due to scandal involving inappropriate behaviour and misconduct.
Also from Dec 2009-Mar 2011 the then Minister for Planning, Minister Kelly was involved in a controversy which led to a subsequent appearance before ICAC in July 2011.
Therefore, I feel the whole integrity of the granting of this licence should be investigated and scrutinised to provide any degree of confidence to the communities in the Liverpool Plains that this has been a fair, just and open process from the start.

In the Local Government Association of NSW's Submission to the Legislative Council Inquiry (General Purpose Standing CommitteeNo.5.) into Coal Seam Gas in September 2011 it states:-
"Communities have developed a greater recognition of the issues that have the potential to affect them, as a result of increased public knowledge, awareness and concern about environmental, food security, health and climate change risks. This has lead to the need for higher levels of social and community interaction at the development and planning stages of both exploration and mining assessments. Local Government would like to see processes put in place at the outset to ensure that mining and exploration companies undertake a complete assessment of proposals prior to commencing their activities, to identify not only the impacts on towns but also the impacts on individuals, their lifestyles and their futures." (Page 4)
"Successive NSW governments have not identified the areas of the state that should be protected from mining activity, nor have they identified the value of agricultural land and the production capacity of the land for food production, stocking or industrial cropping. Local Government backs other stakeholders in calling for recognition of the importance of food security and the protection of the productive agricultural land and water resources.
The reservation of high quality agricultural land must be a major priority of any long term strategy to manage the expansion of coal mining and gas extraction industries. A process needs to be established-most appropriately this would be part of the strategic regional land use planning process-to explore mechanisms to identify areas of high agricultural potential and value and establish criteria that ensure productive agricultural land is not compromised by mining or gas development." (Page 5)



In conclusion, if the Government gives this Shenhua Watermark Project approval to open cut mine on the Liverpool Plains, I believe they will be doing so in a deliberate and intentional way despite all the scientific data they have gathered through their studies and known impacts highlighted in the Namoi Water Study. Along with the expertise scientists have provided to submissions raising concerns to this Shenhua Watermark EIS I feel there would be no confidence in the integrity of the government if this project was approved.
Therefore, I see the legal implications, class action and just compensation cases falling heavily on the government's shoulders as they have been misleading and negligent from the start in the granting of this exploration licence and the process has been faulty from the outset.
I do hope the compensation issues have been factored in to the future costs of this project, costs that the governments of this country may have to consider for many years to come.
This Shenhua Watermark Project EIS is stated as being an application for State Significant Development consent under Division 4.1 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Surely any project of this size and scale must be assessed to be in the interest of the people of NSW.
Realistically, how will a mine of this size `co-exist' with the agricultural sector?
How will a mine of this size and location benefit the residents of NSW ?
How will the profits of this mine going to overseas interests benefit NSW?
I hardly think most people would see this Project to be in the best interests of NSW!!
Or is this Project going to result in yet another financial disaster for the taxpayers of NSW leaving our food growing land, water, fauna and flora irreparably damaged or destroyed for our future generations.

I wish to convey my concerns in this submission about the harm that a mine of this magnitude can do to underground water. In particular water quality, water quantity and the fragility of the acquifer. Polluted discharged mine water into the Mooki River will have catastrophic consequences for the river system and the acquifer given their close connection. Any changes to recharge zones for the acquifer in the mine site could have major impacts on the acqufer and water quantity. The other main concern is my reliance on my irrigation water to grow crops to pay off debt. I have purchased two irrigation farms in recent years, one in 2002 and another in 2008 on the eastern side of Breeza and am currently heavily reliant on the farms and the pristine water to produce crops. Any harm to this water resource will devastate my livelihood and any chance I have to repay borrowings. Once more I cannot express my concern more for my precious irrigation water (and everybody elses) given the close proximity that my farm is to this proposed mine

I oppose the mine for the following reasons:
* The closure of the roads around the area such as the Dip Rd. This road has been used by residents for many years coming from Goran lake area to Breeza, but how does Shenhua have the right or capacity to force council to close it. I have read about the alternative route they will build but this will be a dry weather route only. If a farmer in that area wanted to shut a road he would not be allowed but a mining company can.
* Land clearing- I believe that Shenhua is required to plant trees for every one it knocks down but now they are buying land for carbon offsets and are going to use the trees on these properties instead of planting new ones. This is not on, landowners have to abide by gov't regulations in regards to tree clearing, but a foreign owned mining company can side step those same regulations.
* koloas - in relation to moving these animals, who polices the way they are moved and relocated? Also Shenhua said in the EIS that there will be no dogs allowed on the site, but who polices this? What happens if a member of the public sees a dog on site, who do we call? Shenhua, police or the council. What a joke!
* Water- how can this commodity be trated in such away that a mine can inter fear with it, the report that was commissioned for them, would have to also be favourable for them. I would like independant studies into water in this area done before any mine operations commence.
Finally I would like the govermnent to look past the royalties they are going to get in the short term and look into the impact this mine will have on the surrounding enviroment in the future. Once the soil structure is pulled apart, that cannot be fixed. Farmers who have not been given a blank cheque by Shenhua will have to live and raise kids next to this mine, I'm sure any politician would not like to live there.
It is so disappointing that our gov't is allowing our resources and fertile farming land to be abused for short term monetary gain, but long term detremental unreversable pain.

I am a member of the Caroona Coal Action Group and a Liverpool Plains landholder. I object to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW.

This project will have significant impact on our community and region. Some of these impacts include:

1. Koala - The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) disputes the number of koalas located in the local government area and feel there are a lot less than stated. I support AKF's opposition to the translocation of koalas from the Shenhua area;

2. Water - there is a risk of contaminated water being released from the sediment dam during rainfall events where it exceeds the capacity. This situation is almost inevitable and the releasing of contaminated water across the black soil plains and into our ground water systems is unacceptable.

It is stated in the proposal that:
- there is a potential for the reduction of catchment flows to surrounding waterways including the Mooki River, Watermark Gully, Native Dog Gully and Lake Goran with 25% loss at Watermark;
- groundwater levels are predicted to largely recover rapidly; and
- a reduced rate of upward flow from the Permian to the alluvium is predicted

These predictions and forecasts by the Proponent are of great concern to our community. In particular the assertion that groundwater levels are predicted to largely recover rapidly suggests groundwater levels will not recover rapidly;

3. Ecology - A total of 4,084 ha of vegetation will be removed progressively over the life of the project. This is a very large loss of vegetation and should not allowed under any circumstances. Should this be approved it makes a mockery of the approval process individual landholders are required to negotiate for the removal of insignificant numbers of trees/regrowth;

4. Future Expansion - It is stated in the EIS that a final void will remain in the Western Mining Area and will cover an area of approx. 100 hectares. It will have a maximum depth of 80 metres below the natural ground surface. This is the outcome that is recommended by the mining company as it is the most cost effective method plus it allows opportunity for access to coal resources. This raises concerns for our community as we are not talking about a one off mine but an opportunity for future expansion with further risk to water resources, agricultural land and people's health;

5. Noise - the proposed mine is located near the village of Breeza in Northern NSW which is a quiet rural area. Infrasound/low frequency noise (ILFN) produced by machinery is known to be a problem in these types of areas due to the lack of background noise. ILFN is known to cause cardiovascular disorders, psychological problems and stress. It is of great concern to the community that Shenhua is not completing any assessment on low frequency noise as stated in the EIS "Acoustics Impact Assessment 4.6 Low Frequency Noise - no separate assessment of low frequency noise levels is required";

6. Heritage - The project will destroy significant Aboriginal heritage sites. The relocation of any significant object from its natural environment is not recommended due to the potential damage that can occur;

7. Increased Train Movement - All towns and properties along the rail line will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.

If the Government approves this project, they are knowingly approving the detrimental impacts of this mine at the cost of the landholders and the community. Once the mine starts, you cannot stop or mitigate or reverse the impacts to the water resources both locally and cumulatively across the whole water system/basin.

I understand a further submission being prepared for the Caroona Coal Action Group (CCAG) by Earth Systems has been granted a two week extension to submit in relation to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW as a consequence of illegible water data provided by Shenhua in their EIS. I understand CCAG members wanting to rely on this submission have also been granted a two week extension and I reserve the right to resubmit on this basis. In the interim I understand inadequacies have been identified in relation to insufficient sampling of overburden and potential leaching impacts from overburden stacks.

I am a member of the Caroona Coal Action Group and a Liverpool Plains landholder.
We are Irrigation & dryland farmers on the Liverpool Plains. We farm one property `Wyamera', listed # 34 on Fig 4 `Landownership Map' in Appendix Z. `Agricultural Impact Statement'. `Wyamera' is less than 4kms NE of Breeza Village Hall. (5.0kms from the proposed mine site). We also farm 13.5kms south of the proposed mine operations at `Wombalong and Gunnadilly'. In total we farm over 3000 hectares on the Liverpool Plains.

We object to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW.

This project will have significant detrimental impact on agriculture and water. These impacts include:

The Liverpool Plains must be one of, if not the best, farming areas in Australia. Where else do you get the combination of such good climate, such good soils, and such good irrigation water.

1. Ground Water. Very good irrigation water is easily and presently sourced inexpensively, compared to other areas. The quality of the water is extremely good. Our fear is with open cut mining there will be irreparable damage to the aquifers which are interconnected and the water pouring into the mines from these damaged aquifers will have to be pumped out in huge quantities. The drawdown of water in the valley will be substantial. This water may, or may not be, mixed with other aquifers as result of the mining which we fear will be detrimental to water quality and then the environment (riparian). This vacated water will require drainage directly to the Mooki River affecting stock water and aquatic life. The drawdown will firstly affect livestock farmers on the valley sides, then the irrigation farmers on the valley floor. The proposal to reduce impacts with a 150metre buffer on black soil plains is certainly not adequate, due to the connectivity values Kv & Kh of the adjacent region and is not going to minimise or prevent impact to the black soils and the associated aquifers.

2. Surface Water. The substantial storms which occur regularly in the area; e.g. 4 - 10 inches of rainfall within couple of days will not be coped with by the mine. The inevitable runoff from the mines during these times of extreme rainfall into the river will have an adverse effect on river water quality and riparian life. Question: Will there still be YABBIES and fish in the Mooki in the future? ........ see evidence in Quipolly Creek thought to be from local mine.

3. Farming problems:
Dust. The farm is 5 kms NE of the mines and downwind of the prevailing winds. Dust from the mines and especially the effects of explosions will easily be carried to our farm. Are we going to have crops affected, and rejected? E.g. Cotton contaminated and downgraded, we going to find a severe limitation on our farm cropping opportunities in the future.
Water. Fear of stock waters being damaged, is a concern with the predicted dropping of the water table as mentioned before, and the aquifers being deleted and or contaminated due entirely to the mine.

If history repeats itself, any farming economic problems so caused will not be remedied. If any act of farming affected were to effect the mine there would be demanded immediate redress. There seems to be two sets of laws acting here. Did the miners write the laws?

4. Mining Extension. When, with all mines, a secondary stage occurs; e. g. in the Hunter Valley all too often extensions has been granted and further exploitation of the resources has taken place in the form of long wall mining. When this occurs and they go underneath the aquifers and the river there will be subsequence consequences. Should there be an extension to this mining proposal, fissures (cracks) in the strata will cause water to flood the panels and huge amounts of water will have to be pumped out. This will have a disastrous effect on irrigation up steam and downstream in the valley, possibly from the Liverpool Range to Gunnedah and beyond. At the surface the present level farming country will be effected by the subsidence; flood irrigation and other irrigation will no longer be possible and severe erosion will take place.
How efficient is long wall mining in obtaining a good percentage of total coal? Where there are multiple seams above, as here, but ignored, they presumably are irreparably damaged by the subsidence and become irretrievable in the future. What percentage of the coal seam is actually achieved? I suspect, though efficient for the mining company, there is a low percentage of coal obtained compared to the total available. Is this, "first in, best dressed"? With present technology if this wastage of Australia's national asset occurs, would it not be more sensible to delay exploitation until such technology is developed to achieve a higher proportion with less waste. It will not go away, or deteriorate if left!

5. Rateable Values. If the mines move in to this region, do the local councils plan on dropping the council rates of the farms and householders effected when the saleable values go down? It would seem only equitable to do so. Will the local towns' people have their rates increased to make up the shortfall? Are they not the beneficiaries of the mines, as we are so told?

6. Blot on the landscape. Have those persons making these decisions been to the Liverpool Plains to see for themselves this very fertile and attractive area? Part of one of Australia's most beautiful and picturesque regions is about to scarred forever. The mines in the Hunter Valley are testimony to this. Why do Qantas flying from Tamworth to Sydney seem to get directed via Newcastle, rather than directly over the Hunter Valley; and, in so doing avoid seeing the appalling scars now prevalent over what was once a very pretty valley. In the Hunter Valley It seems only the areas seen from the main roads are actually reclaimed and revegetated.

7. Granting of Exploration Licenses. This is a unique farming area with such good soils, climate, and irrigation potential, yet the mines seem to be still coming. At the outset when ELs were granted, (was it a Mr McDonald involved?) was there any way that the community could have stopped what seems to be an inevitable progression of this devastation. Any form of consultation from the EL stage onwards would seem to be entirely a waste of time. Decisions were already made. What happened to the principles of law and democracy?

If the Government approves this project, they are knowingly approving the detrimental impacts of this mine at the cost of the landholders and the community. Once the mine starts, you cannot stop or mitigate the impacts to the water resources. This will then `progress' to having a huge adverse impact on the Liverpool Plains, an area which some say should be world listed to safe guard it from such disasters.

Water: I am so concerned at the impact the mine will have on the water supply around the liver pool plains. i beleive that the information supplied in the EIS should be checked as the data they supply does not add up to the information that other groups claim.

put forward a submissions concerning the Shehua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW, near Gunnedah.

This mine proposal is environmentally destructive and fiscally irresponsible. Wouldn't you rather the NSW Government spent this money on schools, health and public transport?
I had put in a last submission concerning Cobbora Coal Mine and coal to six large coal fire stations.
Concerning my last submission for Cobbora coal mine, if built, will provide heavily subsidised coal to six large coal fired power stations, locking in decades of carbon pollution, and delaying investment in clean, renewable energy.
Also, according to what was shown on 12th April 2010 on ABC Four Corners, the coal mine in the Hunter Valley region is causing serious health problems to the community and workers which is having devastating effects.


Also, reported on ABC News on 16/4/20210, approval was given to coal mine Camberwell in the Hunter region which will ruin the lovely landscape and creek. The Dooralong Valley in the Wyong region, shown on 18/4/10 on ABC News, will also be devastated, having a serious impact on the environment with its significant picturesque atmosphere. This is totally unacceptable suffering for the residents and their children with asthma. I was so horrified to see what harm this is causing to the community. This is going to cost a lot more in the long-term on medical treatment and for residents who need to shift elsewhere.


There is no way that a coal mine should be allowed to harm the environment especially with concerns about Climate Change. We have to think about sustainability; there needs to be a phase out of the coal industry and for it to be taken over with "Green Collar" industry plus renewable energy.

We can't afford to ruin the location and must think in the long-term for a sustainable future.


We must respect the tourist attractions of the environment.

I have grave concerns about the greenhouse gas emission that is mostly resulting from the coal burning that is having a devastating impact on the environment.

I am also concerned about your approval for new coal fire powered stations near Lithgow and the Hunter region. According to what I heard on ABC 702 am 27/4/10 that the Blue Mountain National Park near Lithgow is being destroyed from coal mine doing serious harm.


I had put a previous submission when Nathan Rees was Premier concerning the threat to close railway lines by helping to re-open railway lines for more passenger train service. I had also put a previous submission when Morris Iema was Premier to help save Anvil Hill from a coal industrial zone plus the rally I particiapted in June 2007.


I look forward to your response.

Please notify me what action will be taken to help these issues to be resolved.


Yours Sincerely,

Paul Vonwiller

I am a member of the Caroona Coal Action Group. I object to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW. I have reviewed the submission prepared by Earth Systems for the Caroona Coal Action Group (CCAG) and I am writing in support of the CCAG submission.

I am a member of the Caroona Coal Action Group. I object to the proposed Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine at Breeza NSW. I have reviewed the submission prepared by Earth Systems for the Caroona Coal Action Group (CCAG) and I am writing in support of the CCAG submission.

Attention Director Mining and Industry Projects NSW Government Planning &infrastructure GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

I wish to make a submission in response to the application by Shenhua Watermark Coal Ltd to apply for a Licence to mine the EL 7223 in the valley known as the Breeza plains on the ridges known as Watermark located southeast of Gunnedah and north west of Quirindi N.S.W. 2343 .Project No.SSD -4975 .My name is Patricia Duddy my husband is Clive Duddy, I reside on the property known as Rossmar Park ,Rossmar Park Road, Caroona 2343 . This property is located to the south of the EL and significant parts of its productive lands will be heavily impacted by the plans laid down in the Hansen and Bailey application to the Government for a mining Licence.Our family conducts a highly productive farming and grazing enterprise,we grow cotton wheat sorghum barley oats beef and produce thoroughbred horses These enterprises have been conducted by this family since the early 1930's and my family settled in the Quipolly district,at the headwaters of the Mooki River in the 1860 ,so any observations of the possible impact of this Developement on this area and it's surrounds does not come from any casual observations .We are also members of the Caroona Coal Action group ,at it's earliest inception have overviewed the Independant review of the environmental Impact Statement for the Watermark Coal Project as presented by Earth Systems , am also a member of the Community Consultative committee for Watermark and am regularly invited to attend presentations on behalf of BHP Billition at their community consultations .our understanding of the coal project has been exposed to the anticipated plans by the Shenhua staff since the very early days and unfortunately our original disquiet has not be placated. Now though with the advent of the water study ,a jointly funded Commonwealth Industry project ,the cumulative impacts of the proposed projects in the Namoi Catchment Area have not only been identified but also regarded as being permanently detrimental. We have significant underground and surface waters Namely the Mooki River Gooran Lake Native Dog Creek Watermark Gully Yarraman Overflow ,all of which provide significant overland flows which contribute to the extraordinary productivity of our alluvial black soils .the location of a significant opencut mine which is mooted to be active for at least thirty years,providing 10Mtpa ROM for thirty years progressive rehabilitation of ALL DISTURBED AREAS closure of feeder agricultural roads for mine access rail loading and other facilities close proximity to the village of Breeza surrounded by some of the most highly productive and fertile lands certainly creates a Developement with all the warning flashing lights .How can this Developement comply with all the relevant environmental laws and policies when they themselves cannot clearly state what they will do to satisfy water quality management .This surface water that we regard so highly and they call dirty water if contaminated and I say if when we know it is when , is one of the arteries of the renewable character of our valley,to have it impacted, contaminated, reduced, is of such significance to the productivity and equity of the land and landowners,quite apart from those who reside in the towns and villages. The watermark project comments on adverse impacts on quality of surface runoff, from disturbed areas,adverse impacts on downstream water quality, loss of catchment areas interference to flood flow ,need for extra water to meet with requirements of mining ,capturing of runoff to on site storage all these requirements in an already stretched water environment. The areas of high impact zone 3 , 7 , 8 in the immediate vicinity and with at least 35 bores predicted to experience groundwater reduction within 10 Klm of the project and four adjacent to the southwest at least one metre to two metre ,the areas impacted just get more and more and with an anticipated void in the final stage will it just act like a big bath plug and keep on drawing water from the rest of the valley water? Water is our life blood it comes in big hits, it comes in abnormal events it comes in such quantities it makes light of high wall of exposed scree ,buffer zones and 150 meters of black soil protection .A 65.7 t p.a of salt introduced into our environment is an interesting side effect,a new industry perhaps.There appeared little understanding of the peculiar weather events that allow us to grow two crops a year and also include sorghum as well as wheat into our farming activities because we are subjected to both the influence of the southern rains in the winter and thenorthern monsoons in summer,these events while providing dexterity in production also come with enormous overland flows which would stress the containment dams considerably it is interesting to see where a levee is proposed to prevent flooding of the mine ,reduce the storage of the Mooki River floodplainby 235 ml
> And by reason of the location of the overburden in the disturbance boundary immediately impact on the NEVER TO BE ENTERED flood plain. Whatever you look at in the E.I.S there is no guarantee that either the water, be it ground or alluvial, be available in either the quantity or quality of its present form, not be impacted,damaged reduced or interfered with ,the conduits in which it travels naturally will be reduced, realigned and in some cases become inaccessable as they become absorbed by the mine surely in this day and age an antiquated method of energy extraction totally unrenewable situated in an enviable agricultural zone, should not be given the green light . To take the overview, air to be damaged. Acoustics impacted. Blasting unequivicable damage, visual try flying over it in another ten years,Ecological creatures probably never even named because of it unique and ancient character,Koala Plan ship them out, National Environmental significance ,an ancient unique ridge rising out of a floodplain providing shelter, climate, alternate agricultural pursuits by reason of its geography and terrain ,Aboriginal ArchaeologyValuesheritage and impacts ,significant finds ancient beyond belief, to be REMOVED and RELOCATED.Historic Heritage Impact. At least 45 families already paid out and relocated,an endangered species to be declared farming and grazing families so much for inter generational equity.Groundwater impacts ,considerable and irreversible enough to change the agricultural activities of the immediate surrounds, soils and land, soils certainly never to be the same again ,rehabilitated, unlikely ,a small tree does not house a rare bat, a sulfur crested cockatoo population ,etc, it takes eons of time to build the environment back again ,over sixty five species of birds on this ridge alone,what is on the watermark ? Agricultural Impact, try the busy road syndrome, 600 extra workforce on the naive roads we call highways,large numbers on shift work in large pop up villages on the outskirts of our settled populations.We are a settled people undertaking settled activities in an agricultural environment of enormous productivity ,we have good soils, quality water beautiful landscape,rare and endangered species,both flora and faunaWe as the Liverpool Plains have an iconic presence which with the advent of an open cut mine of the proportion envisaged in the watermark application will be changed and damaged in perpetuity.The Minister who made this decision is now in disgrace, do not let the ongoing saga of the two mines and their exploration Licences and promises of further bounty to the State if they move to the granting of a mining Licence be a further reprehensible step in this ongoing sorry tale of the watermark,the Mooki and the Liverpool Plains

Patricia Duddy Rossmar Park,
Rossmar Park Road Caroona 2343 N.S.W. 9 th May.2013 ..