Citizens concerned about the Charcoal factory could consider making a submission on the EIS. Submissions go to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning DUAP), who will decide whether or not to approve the development. The more submissions that are made, the better chance we have of persuading DUAP that this development should not be approved.
Your submission does not need to be long or detailed. A simple statement of objection to the plant, listing your reasons, is sufficient. Form letters are not appropriate.

A simple submission should include:

• Reference to: Wood Processing and Metallurgical Carbon Project Reference DA No. 317-11-2001-i
• The nature of your interest (eg local resident);
• A statement that you object to the development
• Your opinions on the project
• Your name and address, and date

Your submission must be received by planningNSW by the close of business, 16 January 2002. Send it to:

Scott Jeffries
Development and Infrastructure Assessment
planningNSW
GPO Box 3927
Sydney NSW 2001
Fax: (02) 9391 2151

If you would also like to send a copy to the Charcoalition, send it to:
PO Box 521 Batemans Bay NSW 2536
or email: mogocharcoal@bigpond.com

"The development is incompatible with the Nature Coast image that Bob Carr and the Eurobodalla Shire Council are promoting."

"I moved to this area to get away from industry and pollution."

"The forests in this area are a major part of what makes it such a wonderful place to live".

"We are trying to reduce air pollution in this shire, not increase it, particularly in the winter months."

"Section 6.5.1 (iii) of the EIS states '.. the facility will not adversely impact on the image of the Nature Coast', but there was no survey of either tourists or non-resident ratepayers to support this statement."

"I live here because I love the peaceful nights with my windows wide open. I don't want to have my peaceful nights disturbed by noises from a charcoal factory and trucks [charcoal trucks will operate at night]."

"Section 6.5.1 (v) of the EIS attempts to deal with land values. There is no conclusion made. No valuations were done, nor were there any surveys of land owners or estate agents. Yet the information booklet provided earlier by Australian Silicon categorically stated 'The Wood processing and metallurgical carbon facility will have no effect on land values'."

"Section 6.5.1 (iii) of the EIS compares industrial land uses in the immediate vicinity but does not indicate the small scale of these industries."

"I am concerned that impacts on land rates and taxes are not addressed in the EIS".

"Section 12.2.1 states "Waste water will be biologically treated on site ...", but there is no evidence provided that demonstrates that this biological treatment will work, and if so, how effective it would be."

"The impact on tourism and tourism jobs is not adequately addressed - no surveys of tourists were undertaken, and readily-available tourism statistics are not in the EIS "

"It would be irresponsible to allow more heavy vehicles to use the Kings Highway - a recent report on this Highway by the NRMA states:
(1) '... despite overall improvements, the crash and casualty rates along the route continue to be higher much higher than those experienced on other main routes in the region recently surveyed by NRMA.'
(2) 'The descent of the Clyde Mountain also continues to remain treacherous to motorists.''

"There has been no specific environmental study of the impacts of supplying the necessary wood."

"The impacts on catchments, wildlife, water quantity and water quality are likely to be significant."

"The impact of logging trucks on roads other than the Princes Hwy has not been included."

"The impact of the extra heavy vehicles on Mogo or other towns is not adequately addressed."

"Noise will be produced by the plant and the trucks, even with the mitigation measures in place. The environmental effect of this has not been adequately addressed."

"The cumulative impact on bushfire danger to surrounding areas has not been adequately addressed."

"The impacts of various pipeline routes for water or treated effluent, some through wetlands, has not been adequately addressed."

"The water balance for the site seems to be incorrect - more town water will be required and there will be more turbid run-off into SEPP14 wetland 186."

"Weather data came from an exposed coastal position and was used to calculate the effect of air emissions."

"Wage benefits to the regional economy are based on gross wages, and in any case there is no guarantee that all the transport workers and suppliers will be local."

"Important mapped corridors for threatened species were omitted from the EIS."