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.

I object very strongly to the Wallarah 2 coal mine proposal .

My family home, where my family still lives, is directly above the proposed coal mine and I am very concerned for the subsidence to the home, sheds, fences, paddocks and driveways, as well as the increased risk of flooding.

Kores/Wallarah 2 cannot guarantee that there will be no damage to home, property and the water catchment area, so unless they are able to do exactly that, then this mine should not go ahead.

Furthermore, there should be NO MINES in any water catchment area or near urban areas, and there should be legislation put in place to protect those areas forever.

Mr O'Farrell should keep his promise of "no mines, guaranteed".

Dear Sir/Madam

The original application by Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture in 2010 was rejected by the previous NSW Government in March 2011 on grounds of unsustainability (ESD principles) and the Government's application of the Precautionary Principle. Nothing in the new application changes that
concept as essentially it is a reworking of the previous application.

The current NSW Government's "Aquifer Interference Policy" as intended should nullify the application at hand.

..The Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette No. 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950).
.. Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford Local Government Area rely upon this major
water catchment for their potable water. The recently completed Mardi-Mangrove pipeline also
relies upon the sustainability of the water catchment district to transfer water from this system
to the Mangrove Dam for water banking.
.. In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for water to travel downwards to the coal strata was evident and so bulk water would not be
impeded on its downward path.
.. Kores claim that there will be no effect upon the water supply due to impervious layers between the surface and the mine seam. Professor Phillip Pells, Senior Lecturer at the University of NSW, dismisses these claims. Kores do admit to a loss of water rated at 2ml per day per square metre of the mine surface area. This extrapolates over the whole mine area to approximately 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 Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) questions many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based.
.. Some 46 panels are to be mined, including in the Hue Hue Subsidence Area where 150 houses (Appendix H Map on page 240) mostly of modern brick design exist on subdivided acres and will be subjected to subsidence up to one metre but may well suffer further subsidence due to the existence of Awaba Tuff strata below the mine on which the remaining pillars are supported.

Much discussion within the application refers to the uncertain nature and caution needed re the soft bedded Awaba Tuff leading to a scenario of adaptive management as mining begins to proceed. This type of experimental mining should only be carried out in an outback remote location and not under modern homes within the expanding outer suburbs of Wyong.

The Department of Infrastructure and Planning should be alarmed by this and immediately inform the unsuspecting owners of the properties in the Hue Hue Subsidence District.
.. A total of 245 houses (Appendix H, Page 130) will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. A total of 755 Rural Building
Structures will be impacted (Appendix H, leading up to 179) and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree (Appendix H, leading up to 187). As can be seen the projected
damage inside the mining lease area would be catastrophic. The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents isolated from all directions.
.. Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications. New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades.
.. Nineteen species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China (CAMBA), Japan (JAMBA) and South Korea itself (ROKAMBA). The proposal directly affects these agreements. There are also flora species listed as threatened under the Act and local fauna species listed as endangered under the Act with the proposed mining area.
.. The Director-General's Requirements are extensive and in most areas Kores have failed to address these adequately. The proposal should be rejected outright as the long term damage to the coast's water, bio diversity, infrastructure, amenity and health is unacceptable. The addition of the result of burning this resource within the next ten years has not been evaluated upon damage to the earth's climate and will be wholly condemned as the trend to reject fossil fuels
gains momentum.

Yours

The multi-facetted impact of mining for coal on this scale (5 million tonnes per year) is overwhelming.
The long term consequences upon the water table, roads and infrastructure's impact on the landscape, pollution (in even the most carefully controlled situations) are all sufficient to disqualify this proposal.
It has already been rejected once by the State Government due to unacceptable impacts on water, ecosystems and heritage sites.
These objections should be supplemented by the consequences of coal burning globally and its polluting impact.
There is a point in time when we must place longer term outcomes above the more immediate ones.
We know now that the importance of securing arable land and quality water supplies for the future and pursuing alternatives to fossil fuel burning are of the highest importance.

I am and have been the owner of a residential property on Ruttleys Road Wyee Point (a location within the potential impact area associated with the proposal) for approximately 15 years and prior to that time was a very regular visitor to Wyong Shire. Over this period I have made a number of observations regarding the status of the area and changes that have occurred, particularly in terms of residential development and the ever increasing trend for the area to be a residential base for people who then travel elsewhere for employment due to the failure for employment opportunities to keep pace with residential growth.
For as long as I have been a visitor/ property owner in the Wyong LGA and from the literature, it has been and continues to be apparent that the area is relatively economically and socially disadvantaged when compared to the majority of LGAs within the State and exhibit unemployment at level significantly higher than the State average, issues specifically identified within the Department's Central Coast Regional Strategy (2011). The recent placement of the Mannering Colliery on care and maintenance and the decision by LMCC and the State Government to ban open cut mining in the Lake Macquarie LGA has only exacerbated this situation.
In that same strategy document, a growth target for the LGA of some 50% has been identified for the Wyong LGA for the next 20 years. However, without the development of significant new employment opportunities, including industries such as mining which not only employ large numbers of people during both construction and operational phases but also have significant flow-on benefits by way of enhanced existing and new local businesses, it is difficult to see the requisite employment opportunities developing and any meaningful change in the existing social and economic situation occurring.
I have read the Wallarah 2 Coal Project EIS in its entirety, looking at its content both from the perspective of a new development as well as the treatment of matters identified as the basis for its prior rejection, noting in particular that WACJV has designed the project to minimize impacts on all aspects of the environment through things such as longwall dimension variation, positioning to avoid significant features and orientation, and infrastructure placement.
As with ALL new developments, be they residential, commercial or industrial, there will inevitably be some impacts. However, even as a potentially affected person, I am of the opinion that the assessment is scientifically sound; the identified residual impacts can be readily managed through the adoption of the nominated mitigation and management measures, as well as through an adaptive management regime based on monitoring which reflects the nature of underground mining; are personally acceptable as well as within acceptable levels, and would satisfy reasonable community expectations. As a consequence, and in light of the obvious benefits in terms of the local social and economic environment; the future of the Shire as a dynamic area with a diverse economy and a place where people can both live and work, and the benefits to the State as a whole, it is my opinion that the impacts are justifiable and that the proposal should be supported at all levels and approved.

Wallarah 2 was rejected due to "unresolved concerns" regarding water impacts, important subsidence, ecological and heritage impacts.

According to the Department of Planning the "project was not considered consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development."

Meanwhile, the assessment commission said the mine posed no significant issues for the Central Coast water supply PROVIDED there were no major unidentified geological faults. However, the Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) QUESTIONS many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based. So the EIS offers no guarantee that our landscape (geology, water resources, etc) will not face a bleak outlook once panels go in.

The plans for Wallarah 2 are the same as those that were rejected once already. The risks are the same.The unsustainability of this project is the same.

I therefore strongly object to this project.

Threats to our local creeks. Our pristine Spring Creek and Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the Wallarah 2 Coal mine for the following reasons: 1. Threat to the water supply. Longwall coal mining has a history of ruining aquifers and the central coast relies on the Yarramalong and Dooralong Valleys for their water supply. In recent years our central coast water supply was reduced to almost 10% capacity. We have recovered for now but in this land of droughts we cannot afford to take our water supply for granted. We can live without coal royalties but we can't live without water. 2. Wallarah Creek are in danger of being polluted as they run through the mine site and then into Budgewoi Lake, Taking away the riparian vegetation from the catchment areas of these creeks will cause erosion and siltation of the creeks and Lake. The proposed coal stockpile will be located in the creek catchment. The stockpile would have to be constantly washed and turned over to prevent combustion and reduce dust. What happens to this filthy water? What happens when it rains? If the dirty water is kept in holding dams any flooding will cause it to overflow into creeks and downstream to the lake. In 2007 the central coast suffered major flooding, including Spring and Wallarah creeks. Climate change will ensure this kind of major flooding will occur more often. 3. On the subject of climate change, the coal from this proposed mine will produce hundreds of millions of tonnes of green house gases when burnt and contribute to global warming. 4. Threatened species. The following species which occur at Bushells Ridge are listed as vulnerable (high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium term future) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act: Tetratheca juncea, Angophora inopina, Cryptostylis hunteriana, Wallum Froglet, Large Footed Myotis, Little Bent Wing Bat, Black Bittern, Squirrel Glider, Glossy Black Cockatoo, Eastern Bent Wing Bat, Eastern Freetail Bat, Greater Broad Nosed Bat, Masked Owl. The following species which occur at Bushells Ridge are listed as endangered (very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future) under the EPBC Act: Genoplesium insignis, Acacia bynoeana, Eucalyptus parramattensis subspecies parramattensis. The Endangered Ecological Communities River Flat Eucalypt Forest and Swamp Sclerophyll Forest occur at Bushells Ridge as well as a 7G (locally critical) wetland. 5. The central coast already has a high incidence of respiratory illness without daily doses of coal dust. Blue Haven School and two child care centres are located within 3 klms of the proposed mine site and there would be many more in surrounding suburbs. 6. Noise. Blue Haven residents can hear noisy goods trains at night quite clearly. I have been told that the kilometres long coal trains will have to work in with passenger trains. I take this to mean that they will be running at night and machinery to load the trains will need to be running too. If they are anything like the coal loading machinery at Newcastle they are too filthy and noisy to be allowed to run near housing. 7. The proposed mine site is located too close to the Wyong Employment Zone. Clean industries, including food and beverage producers, will not want to be located close to such a dirty industry. 8. Aboriginal land. The proposed mine rail loop will have to be built over Darkinjung land. Personal communcation with a member of the land council has informed me that they will be allowing this to happen. Unfortunately there are greedy people who make these decisions but don't necessarily represent the wishes of the whole community.

I hope the good of the environment and the health of the people of the central coast will be put before dollars. I was at the meeting when Barry O'Farrell assured us that his government would not allow this mine to go ahead, yet here I am again having to explain the obvious to politicians. If you allow this to go ahead you are contributing to the loss of threatened species, the worsening of climate change, water and air pollution, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. If you have children or grandchildren then think about what kind of world you would like for them and whether you can hold your head up high and say you did your best to protect it.

I find it amusing that there is a provision that I must disclose any political donations or gifts. I would sincerely love to find out about Kores political donations or gifts. Is there somewhere I can find this information?

Regards, Sharon Salmi

Too much subsidence for populated areas

Too many risks - drinking water loss, deaths from coal dust, over populated area with a growing percentage of young families....Too many risks

Dear Minister,

I call on you to reject this project due to a number of wide ranging and serious factors. A summary of these is outlined below:

SUBSIDENCE
A total of 245 houses (Appendix H, Page 130) will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. A total of 755 Rural Building Structures will be impacted (Appendix H, leading up to 179) and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree (Appendix H, leading up to 187). As can be seen the projected damage inside the mining lease area would be catastrophic. The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents
isolated from all directions.

DUST and HEALTH
Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications.
New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades.

WATER SECURITY
The Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette No. 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950).

Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford Local Government Area rely upon this major water catchment for their potable water. The recently completed Mardi-Mangrove pipeline also relies upon the sustainability of the water catchment district to transfer water from this system
to the Mangrove Dam for water banking.

In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for water to travel downwards to the coal strata was evident and so bulk water would not be
impeded on its downward path.

Kores admit to a loss of water rated at 2ml per day per square metre of the mine surface area. This extrapolates over the whole mine area to approximately 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.

SPECIES IMPACTS
Nineteen species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China (CAMBA), Japan (JAMBA) and South Korea itself (ROKAMBA).Theproposal directly affects these agreements. There are also flora species listed as threatened under the Act and local fauna species listed as endangered under the Act with the proposed mining area.

Considering these impacts to the community and water supply, I strongly object to this proposal.

Sincerely,

Naomi Hogan