When do we stop?. Do we stop?. What do we really want?. More jobs, more money, a stronger economy?. Or do we hold on to what we have before we totally destroy it? I know it is an old quote but sometimes the simple things in life are often the best.

We have enough holes underneath us already; not to mention the one that we will all end up in......so let us enjoy what we have; some of us need it.

Humans are always discussing the effects of the wild pig upon our land, the kangaroos, the wild horses, the rabbits etc.

My argument is and always will be the animal that is destroying our land the most is ourselves.

With the negatives there are always positives, i.e. employment, improved economy etc......but if we don't start putting our foot down we will have nothing left to put our feet upon.

I object to Wallarah2 coal mine for many reasons.
Primarily because coal mining must cease. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the resultant global warming is already at a dangerous level. Burning fossil fuels has to be arrested.
This proposal already failed to gain clear approval on environmental grounds it makes absolutely no sense to now approve it.
Increased risk to the Central Coast water supply should not be taken.
Subsidence impact on the forest and endangered ecosystems should not be risked. The owl records within the project area reflect the high conservation value of this habitat. Biodiversity of the Central Coast needs increased protection not greater threats and further loss of habitat.

I object to the proposal for coal mining under the catchment of the Wyong River and its tributaries. My principal objection is because this catchment provides water which is then pumped into the Gosford-Wyong Water Supply System.

The earlier study by Professor Pell has shown that the underground mine will interfere with the aquifers and result in diversion of the groundwater that feeds into the Wyong River and its tributaries. It is understood that Professor Pell has estimated that the coal mine will divert about 8 Ml of water per day from the water catchment.

The Gosford-Wyong Water Authority reports on its web site that it pumped 10,200 Ml through the Mardi-Mangrove Pipeline between the start of 2013 and 16 June, approx. 170 days. This is equivalent to about 60 Ml per day being pumped from the Wyong River catchment.

The proposed Kores mine, therefore, could cause the loss of 8 Ml or 13% of the water currently being collected for the Gosford-Wyong Water System. The Federal Government and the two Councils have invested $120 million of taxpayers' funds in this Mardi-Mangrove Pipeline to ensure security of water supply for the Central Coast.

It would be a grossly irresponsible decision to approve a private development that causes the loss of 13% of the water currently collected in the Wyong River drinking water catchment and, consequently, reduces the viability of public infrastructure that cost $120 million. Gosford and Wyong Councils have borrowed $40 million to fund their share of the pipeline, so the ratepayers of the Central Coast will be paying additional water charges for many years to pay for the pipeline.

Furthermore, prior to construction of the Mardi-Mangrove Pipeline, the NSW Government placed a cap on new residential development on the Central Coast because of the lack of a secure water supply. If the viability of the pipeline is undermined by the Kores proposal, the NSW Government decision to proceed with the development proposed in the North Wyong Structure Plan will be severely at risk. The Government, therefore, needs to take into consideration the potential loss of housing opportunities for up to 50,000 people as a result of the proposed coal mine.

Prue Bodsworth
The Wilderness Society Newcastle
90 Hunter St
NEWCASTLE 2300

Director, Mining Projects
Development Assessment Systems & Approvals
Dept. Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001
www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/on-exhibition
21st June, 2013
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT APPLICATION NO. SSD - 4974
The Wilderness Society objects to the Wallarah 2 proposal as it is the same project that was rejected in 2011 because of its unacceptable risks to water resources and risks to wildlife. The state government in early 2011 rejected Wallarah coal mine because of:
* uncertainty around subsidence;
* unacceptable impacts on surface water quality;
* uncertainty around ecological impacts; and
* uncertainty around heritage impacts.
Then Planning Minister Tony Kelly in March 2011 concluded that the project was "not consistent with the principles of ecological sustainable development, including the precautionary principle, and as a consequence is not in the public interest".
Nothing in the new application changes that concept as essentially it is a reworking of the previous application.
We firmly believe that water catchments must be afforded the highest level of protection from pollution. Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette no 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950). The now extinguished Part 3a of the EPA Act overrode this Statute, so effectively the original protective measure should now be in place.
The valleys above this mine regularly flood as agreed in the proponent's submission posing a huge risk to water quality and ultimately public and environmental health. Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford LGA's rely upon the 53% of their potable water emanating from these critical valleys.
Kores claim that there will be no effect upon the water supply due to impervious layers between the surface and the mine seam. However, this is not possible there is no such thing as an `aquiclude' rather `aquitards that whilst slow down the flow of water between layers do not stop it. There is a serious lack of data about the hydrogeology of the region.
In addition, Phillip Pells, Senior Lecturer at the University of NSW dismisses these claims. Kores do admit to a so-called tiny loss of water rated at 2ml per day per square metre. This extrapolates over the whole mine area some 8 megalitres per day or 3000 megalitres each year once mining is complete. The professional uncertainties characterised within the Kores submission paint a very tentative picture for protection of the coast's natural potable water supply.
The Wilderness Society is particularly concerned about the impacts from the mine and risks to water and air quality, noise and blasting on the 19 species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China,(CAMBA) Japan(JAMBA) and Korea itself(ROKAMBA). The proposal directly affects these agreements.
In addition to risks to the water catchment the project is likely to:
* cause a reduction of baseflow into local streams
* cause subsidence resulting in potential damage to houses
* high levels of air-pollution in local towns of Blue-Haven and Wyee and also Newcastle
* contribute unacceptable levels of GHG emissions both the fugitive methane emissions from the open-cut as well as the burning of the coal at a coal fire powered station
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
Regards,
Prue Bodsworth
The Wilderness Society Newcastle
[email protected]

I wish to state my support for the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project, with particular interest to see it be approved so that there will be the potential for significant new jobs in the Wyong area and Central Coast generally.

As a regular visitor to the Central Coast I appreciate that it is important that adequate environmental protection is undertaken to maintain the qualities of the area. I have looked at the very large environmental impact report by Kores and consider to be very thorough indeed. It is very clear that they have taken a lot of care in the mine plan and project generally. I am aware that the mine has already been carefully assessed and recommended to be approved, as often noted by the Mayor Eaton. The people who prepared the document are clearly among the best in the field in Australia.

I have some familiarity with mining and coal mining areas, and am very confident that a modern, well planned, deep underground coal mine that is proposed will have minimal impacts. I have seen and heard the grossly exaggerated claims by some in the local area and I consider that such alarmism is unwarranted. there are many people like me in the community that are tired of rantings of uninformed people who really have their own agenda and who are just opposed to coal mining without understanding that nearly all our electricity comes from coal.
I only chose to make a submission after hearing a ranting Alan Jones on the radio today about this project and it is clear that he is very biased and doesn't know anything about the real way that coal mining now looks after the environment and what has been done on this project to protect houses and the water catchment.

I write with strong objections to the proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine, planned for underneath my family home, one of the 245 homes directly affected according to the Wallarah 2 EIS.

I have already made another submission but write here today, on the last day that submissions are due, directly to the committee assessing these submissions and to ask for common sense to prevail.

I could write a lot about what is in the EIS submitted by Wallarah 2 however it is clear to me the local residents do not want the mine here, the local council and others in town do not want the mine here, that health and medical and environmentally experienced people have raised valid objections - and have done so for some years with the various mine and gas proposals - and it all seems to be falling on deaf ears.

I am very concerned that the panel assessing the submissions will be full of mining folk or those which may be inclined to favour a coal mine in this region and not be truly independent. It bothers me that two mining applications have been "okayed" in the past prior to a Labor Minister putting a stop to the first Wallarah mine at the last minute prior to the last State election - regardless of the reports, reviews, multiple submissions and objections.

I do not understand why this mine would be really that much different to other mines before it. At public meetings I have attended in recent years, there have been residents of other regions affected by mining, speaking about their homes and livelihoods which have been damaged by mining and who are still waiting on compensation, years later, some more than two decades. It appears that the residents concerned have had to prove it was the mine which damaged their homes, instead of the mining company ensuring things were fixed promptly. If this mine were to go ahead, what guarantees would Kores/Wallarah 2 provide to ensure that did not happen in this instance? Would local residents have to wait the full length of the mining lease (40 or so years) before the compensation process could begin, and then would it be up to those residents to prove it was the mine which caused the damage?

I would prefer Jilliby Jilliby and Little Jilliby Jilliby creeks to remain as creeks and not dried up creek beds with a couple of ponds here and there as has been advised by the mining company. Native animals drink from and take safe harbour in the areas close to the creeks and would be affected by water loss and/or contamination.

I have been told to my face in the Kores/Wallarah office in Tuggerah, by a company geologist in the presence of at least six other Kores employers and employees, that there will be subsidence and that I should be grateful it won't be "spiked" or "peaked" subsidence but a type of undulating subsidence. That wasn't a very satisfactory response to my questions, nor a satisfactory and appropriate attitude to take with a concerned local resident.

I would like to, in turn, look each and every mining employee at every level of the business in the eye and ask them how they and their families would feel and respond should a similar mine be proposed for underneath or beside their own homes. I suspect if they were to speak truthfully, they would give a very different response to the glossy, positive words they are trying to convince us with.

Just today, the last day for submissions to be sent, a flood watch alert has been issued for the Wyong Valley region over the weekend, here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDN36501.html

What would our valleys be like in a flood situation after the mine had been through?

How would our valleys be impacted if an earthquake should occur like it did in nearby Newcastle some years ago? With damage to the earth underneath our feet due to mine subsidence, the resulting additional damage could be catastrophic to homes, human beings and the natural environment. What allowance has Wallarah 2 made for this possibility?

It is clear there will be subsidence, damage and health and environmental issues however the coal company cannot guarantee our water and the natural environment will be safe and I propose for that reason alone, the mine should not go ahead.

However, it seems we should even be sceptical of guarantees after NSW Premier Mr Barry O'Farrell promised no mining in water catchment areas with his "no ifs, no buts, a guarantee" at a meeting in a local park myself and many others attended, just prior to being elected.

I would like to see this mine proposal rejected and legislation put in place immediately to stop any mining company, now and forever, being able to mine in our precious and fragile water catchment regions (any and all of them) and urban areas.

I object very strongly to this proposed coal mine.

The community here, and the people of the Central Coast, have been working for many years to have it stopped for a multitude of reasons and we believed it had been, by the State Labor Government just prior to the election which they subsequently lost. Prior to that election, Mr Barry O'Farrell promised to not allow the mine to go ahead (and signed a paper stating so) if his party won, but it seems he has changed his mind. This is an outrageous move to make after such a public promise.

The environmental impacts of this mine are too great to consider going ahead with such a plan. My family and I live directly over the proposed mine area and it will also run under the nearby creek, which feeds into Wyong River and helps to provide water for many, many people on the Central Coast.

To risk the creeks drying up, the roads, our homes, driveways and paddocks to sink and dip with the subsidence that Wallarah 2 company representatives told me directly would occur (up to 2 metres at least, or more), is too great.

The community doesn't want the mine, Wyong Council does not want to see it here, and local businesses are against it.

It's time to look to renewable energies and other means of providing energy needs, and phase out coal. The coal mined in this proposed plan would not be for our country either, it would be destined for Korea. The number of people they expect to employ is not that great and the annual revenue to the State Government would eventually run out, leaving a scarred landscape and scarred community.

Other communities in Australia have suffered similar "developments" and are damaged and still awaiting compensation many years later. Compensation to home and land owners and farmers is one thing but spare a thought for the birds and animals which drink from the local waters and find food and safety in the forests around, as their homes will be damaged as well.

I haven't even begun to address the issues pertaining to residents further north of here who would have to contend with noise and coal dust.

The Wallarah 2 coal company cannot guarantee that there will be no damage to the people, land and environment and until or unless they can, then all plans for a mine in this fragile water catchment area should immediately be scrapped.

In fact, I believe there should be NO mining in or near a water catchment area, and NO mining in or near a residential or semi rural area AT ALL, anywhere in Australia, and call on the State Government to disapprove this mine application.

I am a resident from around the area of impact from the mine and 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.

The rewards do not outweigh the risks to our water and our human life

My family home is directly above the proposed mine site and 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.

I am most disturbed that this mine has been refused in the past and Mr O'Farrell is going back on his promise, made prior to being elected, to not have any mines in a water catchment region. At the time he was talking to a large group of local valley residents and it was a public meeting directly related to the Wallarah 2 coal mine proposal. Mr O'Farrell said "no ifs, no buts, a guarantee", so he should honour his promise.

At the same time, legislation should be introduced to permanently protect each and every water catchment region and to ensure mining of any type is not approved close to urban regions.

My family home is in the area being mined and I object very strongly to the mine going ahead.

There should be no mining in water catchment areas whatsoever.