Dear Director Mining Projects

I wish to strongly object to the proposal made to construct a coal mine beneath the water catchment valleys of Wyong.

My reasons for this objection are briefly due to:

Air Quality

An aritcle in a Australian Mining Publication in November 2010 quoted the findings of a senior public health officer for the Central Coast Region, to the NSW Planning Dept, 'that air pollution had been underestimated by by Wallarah Coal and would produce increased respiratory systems and morbidity among residents.' The article further stated 'that air quality data from the Minors EIS was inadequate and pollution levels projected would cause harm.' It quoted 'that the coal dust would spread well beyond the boundaries of the proposed mine.'

Water Quality

These valleys which will be adversely affected (Dooralong and Yarramalong) account for approximately 68% of the water catchment for the entire Central Coast of NSW.

The community can see that this proposal has the potential to destroy the catchment river systems and the underground aquifers.

The river systems are two-thirds fed by these aquifers and to compromise their integrity is unacceptable.

Ecological Balance

This proposal has the potential to disrupt the ecological balance of bird, animal, aquatic and plant life, and endanger the estaurine habitat of endangered international migratory birds that are protected. Also, the proposal will compromise the beautification of our State Forest.

Conclusion

I am aware that governing agencies are looking for reassurance from Wallarah Coal that they will bear responsibility to remedy any adversity this coal mine will cause, however it is very hard to unscramble an egg and as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

On a personal note, I have recently undetaken much travel within Australia and the increase in mining activity I have seen within this county is concerning. It is very unappealing to the eye and devastating for the health and wellbeing of communities.

This area of the Central Coast of NSW is pristine..., please do not allow this development to progress.

Regards

Kimberly Bushnell
40 The Citadel
UMINA BEACH NSW 2257

I strongly object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project for the following reasons:

Science: Approval to this project was previously denied due to over 40 items relating to unacceptable damage or disturbance. The new EIS is essentially a revamped version of the previous one and doesn't address these issues (excessive subsidence, increasing flooding, water catchment reduction, air pollution...). I object to be submitted to stress and anguish whilst this project has no ground to be re-submitted.

Broken promise: Aware of the fact that my property was in a mine subsidence area, I acquired it on the basis of Mr B. O'Farrell's promise to ban mining in the Yarramalong and Duralong valleys if elected as premier.

Process: The process is designed in such a way that people concerned do not get an easy, user-friendly and timely access to information which will significantly and adversely affect their lives.

* The EIS is an extremely large and complex document which was put in exhibition for less than two months. That puts extreme pressure on working families like us to review the EIS.

* In the last week of May, I, received a letter dated "May 2013" from Wallarah 2 - the letter was not posted - no stamps - but delivered to my mailbox. My neighbours received the same generic letter on the same day. It announced the new release of the EIS (which happened a month prior to the day we received that letter!!!), and it broadly informed us that we should not worry about subsidence as the Mine Subsidence Board will compensate us. It's only upon digging into Appendix G (figure 5.6) and Appendix H (table D.01) that I learnt that I was in a 2.2m subsidence zone. A Kores spokesperson on ABC local radio (Gosford 17/6/13) said "people shouldn't be concerned, as this is a very long project, subsidence will only appear in over 10 years' time..." This is akin to saying: "you have a terminal illness, but do not be worried; you'll only die in 10 years' time...". The spokesperson went on: "in any case, once the project is underway we will come 2 years ahead of time to discuss the specifics with each resident concerned" I need to know NOW what remediation strategies will be offered for my assets, the water resources, the natural landscape, etc. Failing that, I can only but object this project.

* Why wasn't I (and the other 244 property owners in the Study Area) not contacted before that date and personally informed about subsidence specific to each case? This only left us less than three weeks to meet the submission deadline. Unacceptable.

For all the reasons stated above, I find this process dishonest.

Misleading information: Misleading information was published in the Press Release: "the mining area is predominantly situated underneath Wyong State Forest". This is purposely worded to lull people into thinking "Well, that mining project is OK then, it will not affect our lives directly as it lays mostly under bushland" This statement is untrue as only less than a quarter of the study area lays in the Wyong State Forest. Over three quarters of the study area are made of the State Conservation Area, farmland, expanding suburbs, rivers and streams.

Livelihood: My property is marked as one to sustain one of the highest levels of subsidence (2.2m). I am told that remediation by the subsidence board is a lengthy process and also that it covers only houses. Left out are: infrastructure such as dams, sheds, fencing, land... I acquired my property both as a residence and as an agricultural concern. What will happen to the income derived from that activity after a 2.2 metre subsidence destroys my fences and sheds, takes away my dams and who will pay to restore this infrastructure to its former state?

Safety: A point of great concern to my family. How can we predict with certainty when and where a subsidence of this magnitude will occur? Will we be crushed under our house, fall into a sinkhole or will the two 330kV Transgrid high-voltage lines crisscrossing our property fall on us (The towers are only tension towers).

Greater good: we have started working with the Catchment Management Authority and NSW Environment & Heritage Department (Land for Wildlife scheme) to establish a framework for our agricultural activity that will preserve water quality on Myrtle Creek, control weed infestation and maintain wildlife on the edge of the State Conservation Area. Longwall mining operations have too many cases-gone-bad scenario that permanently damaged and altered the natural processes on stream and rivulets. The government is taking great pride in protecting these natural assets and mining under them is in complete contradiction with those strategies.
The only justification for sacrificing pristine environments and valuable water catchments such as the ones found in the Yarramalong and Dooralong valleys would be, as a last resort, to address a pressing need of energy resources for Australia itself, definitely not to be squandered as export to a foreign power.

Peter & Tanya O'Neill
17 Holloway Drive,
Jilliby,
NSW 2259

19-6-13

Major Planning Assessments
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are residents of Jilliby and welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Mine proposal.

The proposed mining site will directly affect us and many, many other people in a variety of negative ways and should not be allowed to proceed. The health and well being of people, animals and the environment should come before money - no price can be put on health and once people are sick and the environment is dying, there will be no going back. It is an absolute disgrace that this proposal should even be considered, especially as it was previously unanimously rejected by politicians prior to the last State election due to its unacceptable impacts.

Health impacts will be severe and completely unacceptable. We should not be forced to breathe in coal dust nor drink it. The entire area relies on tank water and anything in the air will settle on our rooves, wash into our water tanks and then be ingested by us. We don't suffer from asthma or chronic lung disease and don't wish to have it induced due to mining. We also don't want our peaceful area to be subjected to the noise and huge increases in traffic (trucks in particular) that will be generated.

Subsidence will be a major problem. Roads, properties, dwellings and land in general will all be affected. We do not wish to drive along sunken roads and have our house and land sink, crack and become worthless and uninhabitable. This is our home. Trying to fix these problems, apart from being prohibitively costly, will be impossible due to the cause being under the ground and beyond our control.

Apart from these major impacts upon us personally, there will also be the impact on the beautiful environment both flora and fauna. Threatened and endangered species living here will also be subjected to the same health issues as the human population and have their habitat taken away and forever detrimentally altered.

The broader community will have their water supply affected also, with a huge percentage of the water catchment area being directly in the proposed mining area, as well as the largely unknown impacts on the area's groundwater.


Everything about this proposal is in conflict with human and environmental health and sustainability. It is in conflict with government policies and Australia's stance on being a world leader regarding these issues. Let our Governments show that we all stand for the important things in life and that the health and wellbeing of our fellow human beings, our communites, our fauna, our environment and our way of life are of the upmost importance and will not be compromised. This proposal should not be allowed to proceed.

Yours sincerely,

Peter & Tanya O'Neill

I write to object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project for the following reasons:

1. Water Catchment
Wyong Water Catchment is protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950. The water systems of the Dooralong and Yarramalong Valleys account for 50% of the water catchment for the entire Central Coast. Therefore I do not promote any mining operation in this area.

2. "No ifs - no buts - a guarantee"
The Liberal Party prior to the 2011 State Election promised in writing three times that if elected they would not allow the Wallarah 2 mine to proceed. They promised to introduce legislation into the Parliament to protect the water catchment area from coal mining. Barry O'Farrell stood up at a public rally in front of the electronic media and said, "the next Liberal/National Party Government will not allow mining to occur here... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee". The Liberal Party ran an election campaign on the Central Coast on the back on the anti coal campaign, reinforcing their absolute promise.

3. Collateral damage of a broken promise
Aware of the facts that Wallarah 2 had been refused based on unsustainability, and that Barry O'Farrell promised that no mining would occur under the Central Coast's water catchment, I went about purchasing a farm and land. I believed what the politician I had backed promised. We knew our property sat in a mine subsidence district but we acquired it on the basis of Mr. O'Farrell's promise to legislate and based on the government's common sense to reject the first application to Wallarah 2. What is new to us now is that we are predicted to sustain 2250mm of subsidence, a 25% probability to sustain a R1 or R2 impact, a 10% probability to sustain a R3 or R4 impact. I would never bet against those odds. I request that Mr. O'Farrell's promise is honoured.

4. Subsidence
* The extent of predicted subsidence is staggering (over 1000mm on average, 2000- 2250m for our farm - 245 homes, 420 dams, 755 farm structures) - this item of subsidence alone brings too many risks for the local community and the local environment. Too many remediation strategies will need to be devised at the emotional cost and the monetary cost of the local community and tax payers.
* The study area is crisscrossed with rivulets, dams, ponds, bogs, wetland and rivers, most are tributaries to the Jilliby Jilliby Creek and Wyong Creek. The risk to incur any subsidence underneath these water resources is far greater than what the Central Coast can take, and the predicted water loss is far greater than the recharge capacity or the JJC river flow. The Central Coast is in constant need for clean and nutritive drinking water. Risking pollution by gases or shortages due to seepage is not a risk I want my community to bear.
* The alluvial valleys are fertile because of ground and surface water storages. Many businesses and farms like ours depend on these natural passive water storages. Risking loosing or damaging these water resources because of this Project is not a risk that I want to take for the sustainability of my farm operations and that of my colleagues. I already have climate change to worry about and I invest a lot in building dams to store any precious water that fall on our roofs. I don't want to see those natural passive water storages nor our man-made water resources drain any single drop of water to mining.
* KORES spokesperson indicated in a recent interview with ABC Central Coast that remediation options will be discussed with each land owners two years before the panels go in. TWO YEARS? I don't accept such little time frame - this is nowhere near a guarantee to safeguard my assets, my farm operations, my future and that of my child's, and our safety.
* The press release announcing the new EIS is grossly understating the extent of the project: "the mining area is predominantly situated underneath Wyong State Forest". This statement is untrue as only between a fifth to a quarter of the study area is made of the Wyong State Forest. Over three quarters of the study area are made of the State Conservation Area, farmland, expanding suburbs, rivers and streams.

5. Flooding
Subsidence impact on flooding is of great concern to me. Figure 34 of "Impacts, Management and Mitigation" shows that the beginning of Beaven Lane and a large portion of Jilliby Road will flood, henceforth preventing access to us, other residents north of this area and to any medical or emergency teams. I am personally affected with a life-long illness that requires un-schedulable emergency hospitalisation. The fast route that is Jilliby road being cut off by flood caused by mine subsidence would require that I or any emergency medical team take the longer route through unsealed Durren Road. I cannot promote the Project for this reason.

6. 330 kV Transmission Lines
I am greatly concerned with Wallarah 2's opinion that Transgrid should reinforce the footings of the tension towers (especially those on our land and adjacent to it which span is of over 1km) as means to avoid coal sterilisation. The work required to replace those towers with other subsidence-proof tower (should they exist) as suggested by Wallarah 2 on page 100 of Appendix H will have enormous negative collateral impacts which are not assessed in theEIA. I cannot therefore promote this Project for these reasons as Wallarah 2 is not amiable to coal sterilisation, and is privileging profit over common-sense.

7. Bush Fires
The valleys are naturally wet. All the time. The forested hills are naturally wet too. Remnants of rainforest or rainforest regrowth are strong, healthy and thriving with life (fauna & flora) because they are wet. All the time. Our floodplains are wet. All the time. This humidity is possible thanks to a healthy recharge area from the forested hills down to the aquifers, ground storage and surface water storage. This humidity is a major damper to bush fires as confirmed to me by the SCA Park Management representative. This protects assets both public and private, this protects wildlife and this sustains the natural features of our coastal hinterland (pastures, farmland, estuary, etc). The EIS does not take into account the amount of work and resources the rural fire brigades will need to undertake when bush fires become more prevalent. I am not saying mining will cause bush fires. It will however gradually rob the ground of its natural moisture. And with climate change becoming more apparent every season, we need to increase our chances to protect our land and our assets. Thus I cannot promote this Project as it will undermine our land and our community's bush fire safety.

8. Touristic destination & economic value for the Central Coast
The scenic beauty of the Central Coast's forested backdrop is a major tourist attraction. Its pristine valleys, its rainforests, its wetlands and estuary are the pride of Central Coast residents and businesses. Both Wyong and Gosford Council are strongly promoting environmental protection of this natural backdrop along with the Tuggerah lakes and the beaches. Risking undermining their health and integrity as well as their related economic output because of subsidence, or pollution downstream or bad publicity is madness for the resiliency of the Coast and its touristic and economic vantage points. I cannot promote this project for this reason.

9. Drought damper
For the same reasons as outlined in my point number7, I cannot promote this Project which will rob our land of its water. The ground water is drought proofing our pastures, our farm operations, our economic farm output, our economic tourist output, etc.

10. Solidarity and integrity of our community
We are sustainable local employers. We are also parents of children to whom we are promoting the Central Coast as a place to live, work, play and raise their own family. We participate in the local economy. We contribute to our local community. Wallarah 2 however has not shown any of that so far, and I don't suspect it ever will. Instead, it's buying out our community with community grants here or there. It's dividing our community. Our community will see nothing of Wallarah 2's wealth made over our coal reserves. Our community will be left patching scars left by the mining operations. Wallarah 2's claim to create 1000 jobs over the length of the Project - that is 35 jobs a year! Woa! Big deal (not) for the Central Coast! I cannot support such project which will not sustainably our community.

11. Destruction of native ecosystems
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. Furthermore, 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. The EIS offers no guarantee that our landscape will not face a bleak outlook once panels go in. The native ecosystems that depend on those landscapes are to invaluable to risk slow death by subsidence or drying out.
12. Quarry
Our property is backed by a disused quarry. I scoured the EIA to find impact assessments related to this particular item. I found nothing. This is worrying and it gives me no guarantee that the EIA is comprehensive in its study. Should the quarry be mentioned in the EIA, I am still worried as I couldn't find it. This is once again showing that the EIA was not written for the intention of the public but mostly to satisfy a regulatory requirement. Once again, the community is not at the heart of Wallarah 2 Project proponents. So how will subsidence impact the the area since there is a quarry sufficiently large to be seen on satellite pictures and a 330kV tension line nearby?
13. Safety
I am greatly concerned about the behaviour of subsidence especially when they are predicted to reach 2.2 meters or more. Despite the fact that we sit on a proposed panel that is predicted to subside by 2.25m, we also do extensive bush hiking in the SCA and State Forest. We also walk our paddocks every day. We drive our cars and tractors through roads that are predicted to subside. We cross bridges that sit over subsidence area. Are we at risk of falling in a big hole on day? Will my living room disappear by 2.25m? The EIA doesn't address the predicted behaviour of subsidence of our specific geological landscape. I cannot support such Project that fails to address legitimate community concerns well before they were raised. Such a lack of common sense from the Wallarah 2 Project proponents is symptomatic of its lack of community concerns.

14. Pollution by dust, noise and emissions
I am concerned about the pollution that would enter our lungs from the Western ventilation shaft, and the Buttonderry stockpiles. The EIS has not addressed the issue of crystalline silica appropriately other than by quoting past studies done in other parts of the world. This is not good enough in my views.

15. Some last concerns:
The EIA is an incredibly indigestible and convoluted piece of document. I was made aware of it on the last week of May when I received a hand-delivered (there was not postal stamps) letter from Wallarah 2 dated "May 2013". This letter informed me that the EIS was on public display until Friday 21 June and that I was not to worry about subsidence as the Mine Subsidence Board will take care of everything. Why did I not receive it earlier? I am one of those time-poor over-worked mortgage-paying families that haven't time to read the papers, watch TV or log on to the Wallarah 2 website and read their newsletter. So this letter certainly did not encourage me to read the bulky EIA and it was very good at giving me a false sense of security. I decided to have a go at reviewing the EIS despite all odds and got a CD Rom copy from the library (the documents are too heavy to download from the internet and I didn't know I could get a free hardcopy from the Council Chambers) and I set myself up to read them. You'll excuse me if I cannot quote any data related to CO2 and methane release into the atmosphere as I haven't yet gotten to that part - if there is indeed a mention of this topic in the EIS. But common sense prevails and I suspect that if you take coal away from its natural underground storage and if you are to burn it to produce electricity (or bombs?), you are certainly releasing it into the atmosphere. So the Project is against any Climate Change mitigation strategies and lacks crucial amount of common sense.

I back the Government's initiative Caring for our Country. I do not back mining under our valleys.

Within the extraction zone there is 525.8 ha of Coachwood - crab apple rainforest. As there is so little rainforest left in Australia this section of rainforest would be irreplaceable and difficult to offset.

There would be quite a few animal species affected also - for example the Little Eagle and Freetail bats that studies show are evident in the rainforest. A lot more species would move through it but due to access these haven't been noted.

This is a significant area of warm temperate rainforest of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin to be affected and should be left insitu.

I am writing to submit my objection to the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project Application No. SSD-4974. The basis of my objection includes the following:

1) Health concerns as a result of the coal project including increased in respiratory problems including asthma and the long term effects that the fine airborne particles of coal dust may have on this and generations to come. These concerns are highlighted by the proposers own admission that there could be deaths resulting.

2) Concerns over the impact on our region's water supply and catchment areas as a result of the coal proposal.

3) The negative impact on local homes that will result from the project. It is anticipated that mine subsidence of 1 to 2m could result impacting many local homes.

I believe the long term damage to the Central Coast's water, infrastructure and health that would result from this proposal being approved cannot be ignored.

The original proposal back 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 same problems still exist and the devastating effect that this could have on our local environment and way of life should not be underestimated.

Coal dust in the atmosphere due to transporting in uncovered rail wagons. Exasperating air quality causing health problems

DUE TO OUR LACK OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND EQUIPMENT OUR FILE FORMAT WILL BE SUBMITTED VIA
EMAIL. PLEASE CORRELATE OUR PIECE MEAL SUBMISSION

I think the project should go ahead so as we have more employment for the younger people.

I support this coal mining project.or any mining in australia

To whom it SHOULD concern,

I am furious that the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine is being considered once again. This project was put to rest a couple of years ago, much to the relief of the environment and residents in the area, yet somehow it is now being considered again?! Exactly what has changed in terms of the impact this mine will have since last time the plan was looked at? I can answer that one for you, absolutely nothing!

Water quality WILL still be affected, and its not just humans and our drinking water, but all of the other ecosystems and species that rely on this water.

Airborne coal dust, yep it's still going to be a problem as well. Kores even admits this in their EIS, does that not concern you enough to reject this plan?

Subsidence caused by the mining is still going to happen as well, and is estimated to be up to 2 metres in some cases! How happy would you be to see your house or any part of your property sinking 2 metres into the ground? Pretty sure I could answer that one as well.

This plan must be put to rest, once and for all. We trusted you to look after the interests and future of the residents on the Central Coast, not to look after a Korean Coal Mining company and theirs.