I object to the proposed mine because it will have major unacceptable environmental impacts.

The forest proposed to be cleared has very high ecological values which will be completely lost in the short to medium term and will only be partially recoverable in the very long term if the forest is re-established from soil seed or other means. While mine revegetation has been improving over decades, we cannot be sure that a community with the same floristic composition will ever grow back, let alone the fauna. Changed subsoil conditions or weed invasion or localised loss of some key species may preclude complete recovery. The vertebrate wildlife that depend on this forest as habitat, particularly species dependent on hollows, are likely to be mostly lost - any that survive and reproduce due to the proposed offsets are unlikely to be sufficient to contribute to the long-term maintenance of local and regional populations in the way that this forest's biota currently can. The loss of this forest cannot be effectively offset. The threatened species and community will be significantly more threatened if the mine proceeds.

The Revised Environmental Risk Assessment (appendix E) revised downward the assessed risks of loss of biodiversity, disruption of threatened species and habitats and disturbance of federally listed species from "high" to "medium" risk. It claims that offsets and management of the development mean the risks are of likelihood D (unlikely/an event that does occur somewhere from time to time/expected once every thirty years) and of consequence III being "Serious but confined medium term environmental effects near the source". This is a serious misuse of the risk matrix. The disturbance will not just be equivalent to an occasional wildfire. Disturbance and disruption of the threatened species and habitats fits the "almost certain" likelihood so the overall risk should be rated as high - unacceptably high.

I am also concerned about many other likely adverse impacts of this mine, alone or with other adjacent mines if they continue/commence. These includes short and possibly longterm impacts on hydrology and aquatic ecosystems, stygofauna, and on the productivity of areas that are currently used for agriculture, and social impacts on some sectors of local communities. Water extractions from the Namoi should be decreased not maintained or increased. Whatever social benefits occur, they will mostly be shortlived whereas loss of soil productivity will have longer social consequences. Excessive water extraction already has adverse social and ecological effects way downstream which should be reduced. While water extraction may have localised social benefits in the Namoi area, change that reduces extraction may or may not involve social cost in this area but is more likely to be costly if one group has to decrease its use more in order to enable the mine to take water.

This site may include good quality coal but that does not mean it ought to be mined. Economic benefits can be obtained from different use of capital and other resources. There are much better choices, notably choices that enable reduction of world carbon emissions rather than increasing emissions.

Please refuse this development application.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kate Boyd

I object to the proposed mine because it will have major unacceptable environmental impacts.

The forest proposed to be cleared has very high ecological values which will be completely lost in the short to medium term and will only be partially recoverable in the very long term if the forest is re-established from soil seed or other means. While mine revegetation has been improving over decades, we cannot be sure that a community with the same floristic composition will ever grow back, let alone the fauna. Changed subsoil conditions or weed invasion or localised loss of some key species may preclude complete recovery. The vertebrate wildlife that depend on this forest as habitat, particularly species dependent on hollows, are likely to be mostly lost - any that survive and reproduce due to the proposed offsets are unlikely to be sufficient to contribute to the long-term maintenance of local and regional populations in the way that this forest's biota currently can. The loss of this forest cannot be effectively offset. The threatened species and community will be significantly more threatened if the mine proceeds.

The Revised Environmental Risk Assessment (appendix E) revised downward the assessed risks of loss of biodiversity, disruption of threatened species and habitats and disturbance of federally listed species from "high" to "medium" risk. It claims that offsets and management of the development mean the risks are of likelihood D (unlikely/an event that does occur somewhere from time to time/expected once every thirty years) and of consequence III being "Serious but confined medium term environmental effects near the source". This is a serious misuse of the risk matrix. The disturbance will not just be equivalent to an occasional wildfire. Disturbance and disruption of the threatened species and habitats fits the "almost certain" likelihood so the overall risk should be rated as high - unacceptably high.

I am also concerned about many other likely adverse impacts of this mine, alone or with other adjacent mines if they continue/commence. These includes short and possibly longterm impacts on hydrology and aquatic ecosystems, stygofauna, and on the productivity of areas that are currently used for agriculture, and social impacts on some sectors of local communities. Whatever social benefits occur, they will mostly be shortlived whereas loss of productivity will have longer social consequences.

This site may include good quality coal but that does not mean it ought to be mined. Economic benefits can be obtained from different use of capital and other resources. There are much better choices, notably choices that enable reduction of world carbon emissions rather than increasing emissions.

Please refuse this development application.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kate Boyd

Given the current global trend toward lowering carbon emissions, I feel it is counter-productive to allow both the clearing of a large area of forest and subsequent mining of coal. Not only will this produce greater carbon emissions through the burning of the coal, the clearing of so many trees will result in poorer re-absorption of carbon from our atmosphere.

Also, as a former resident of the Maules Creek area, it makes me shudder to think how this mine will destroy the peace and purity of the area. The noise alone would be enough to ruin it, but when you add the dust that the mine will inevitably inject into the atmosphere, and the irreversible damage the pit will cause to the water table, the area will no longer be as attractive as it once was.

I have been unable to attach the photos mentioned here since they are not pdf files. If you send an email to the above address I can forward these photos separately.

My overriding concern is that I don't believe the coal mining industry in general is being made to foot the real bill including all impacts of their activities on rural communities, environments, infrastructure and other agricultural industries.

Firstly I note in an article in the Newcastle Herald (1/10/2011) that the Upper Hunter Shire Council has been unsuccessful in securing Regional Development Australia Funding of $15 million to provide a railway overpass to aid traffic flow through the town. As you know the New England Highway crosses the rail line at a boom-gate level crossing at Scone (in addition to another level crossing on a major street within the CBD of Scone). My observations of rail traffic on that line as I travel the Highway are that its use for public transport pale into insignificance next to the number of kilometre-long coal trains (including the empty returns) that use it daily (see attached photo;) and this is before a proposed major expansion of the coal industry in the Gunnedah Basin (Aston Resources

FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATIVE FORESTS AND THE HABITATS OF ALL SPECIES THREATENED OR NOT IS APPALLING TO EVEN CONSIDER. WE HAVE SO LITTLE FOREST LEFT IN AUSTRALIA AND YET THIS PUSH TO COMPLETELY DESTROY WHAT IS LEFT SEEMS LIKE A MADNESS OVERTAKING A SUPPOSEDLY RATIONAL SOCIETY.

I strongly oppose this proposed development of State Forest land. Not only does it destroy an intact habitat, the drastically increased carbon emissions will make it even harder for Australia to achieve its carbon emissions target. Projects such as this will have long term effects on the health of the local residents and the habitat that will outlive the short-term gains of coal mining.
It is time the impact on the environment was the major consideration, not the financial gain.

I strongly object to further coal mine approvals and any expansion of the coal and coal seam gas industries because of impacts on the environment and on human communities and especially because of the enormous contribution to the pressing problem of global warming

I especially object to this Ashton Coal proposal because it involves clearing State Forest, which is absurd.

The Maules Creek Coal Mine will:

Clear a total of 1,665 hectares of native bush, taking the total clearing in the Leard Forest to over 3,500 hectares.

Clear 545 hectares of the White Box Grassy Woodland endangered community, taking the total clearing of endangered communities in Leard Forest to over 1,169 hectares.

Impact on habitat for up to 36 threatened species which are known or likely to occur in Leard State Forest, including Painted Honeyeater, Koala, Turquoise Parrot and Eastern Cave Bat.

Contribute to the destruction of the largest remnant of vegetation left on the heavily cleared Liverpool Plains.

Result in a final pit depth of 320m that will cause massive depressurisation of the water table and impact on springs and unique groundwater dependent ecosystems.

Result in a final void that will permanently deplete groundwater, interfere with aquifers and divert surface water.

Make an enormous contribution to global warming amounting to at least 25 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per annum from burning the coal that is produced. This is equivalent to more than 15% of all emissions from NSW annually.

Forever change the quiet rural community of Maules Creek into a giant industrial zone with impacts on health, air quality, noise and amenity.

Please do not approve this application.
1. Coal is dirty and polluting and we need to be moving away from it and towards renewables.
2. It will dig a pit so deep it will be below sea level.
3. It will pollute groundwater for hundreds of kilometres and hundreds of years.
Plus:
The Maules Creek Coal Mine will:

* Clear a total of 1,665 hectares of native bush, taking the total clearing in the Leard Forest to over 3,500 hectares.

* Clear 545 hectares of the White Box Grassy Woodland endangered community, taking the total clearing of endangered communities in Leard Forest to over 1,169 hectares.

* Impact on habitat for up to 36 threatened species which are known or likely to occur in Leard State Forest, including Painted Honeyeater, Koala, Turquoise Parrot and Eastern Cave Bat.

* Contribute to the destruction of the largest remnant of vegetation left on the heavily cleared Liverpool Plains.

* Result in a final pit depth of 320m that will cause massive
depressurisation of the water table and impact on springs and unique groundwater dependent ecosystems.

* Result in a final void that will permanently deplete groundwater, interfere with aquifers and divert surface water.

* Make an enormous contribution to global warming amounting to at least 25 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per annum from burning the coal that is produced.This is equivalent to more than15% of all emissions from NSW annually.

* Forever change the quiet rural community of Maules Creek into a giant industrial zone with impacts on health, air quality, noise and amenity.

Please do the right thing and say refuse approval.

Enough. It's time the NSW government put a halt to the increasing number of invasive coal mines which provide little benefit for the local community, especially in environmentally sensitive regions and regions which already have a well regarded agricultural base.
This huge deep open cut will cause massive depressurisation of the water table, deplete groundwater, interfere with aquifers and divert surface water.

I strongly oppose the proposed Maules Creek Coal Project on the basis of the environmental, social and ecological value of the existing landuse as state forest that includes EECs, as well as the impacts on groundwater.