Mandalong Southern Extension Project Review Report · The Mandalong Southern Extension Project is a proposed extension of the existing Mandalong underground coal mine, which is located

COMMISSION SECRETARIAT Level 13, 301 George Street SYDNEY, NSW 2000 GPO BOX 3415, SYDNEY, NSW 2001 TELEPHONE (02) 9383 2100 FAX (02) 9299 9835 [email protected]

Mandalong Southern Extension Project

Review Report

Joe Woodward PSM (Chair)

Robyn Kruk AM

Gordon Kirkby

April 2015

The Mandalong Southern Extension Project Review Report©

State of New South Wales through the NSW Planning Assessment Commission, April 2015.

NSW Planning Assessment Commission

Level 13, 301 George St Sydney NSW Australia

Telephone: (02) 9383 2100

Email: [email protected]

ISBN 978-0-9942315-1-2

Disclaimer

While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of

publication, the State of New South Wales, its agencies and employees, disclaim all liability to any person in

respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or

any part of this document.

The NSW Planning Assessment Commission advises that the maps included in the report are to give visual

support to the discussion presented within the report. Hence information presented on the maps should be

seen as indicative, rather than definite or accurate. The State of New South Wales will not accept

responsibility for anything, or the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the

mapped information.

Planning Assessment Commission 2015 Review Report on the i


Executive Summary The Mandalong Southern Extension Project is a proposed extension of the existing Mandalong

underground coal mine, which is located approximately 35km southwest of Newcastle in the Lake

Macquarie and Wyong Shire Council Local Government Areas. The proposal involves extending the

underground mine to the south and extracting up to 126 million tonnes of thermal coal over 25 years at

the existing rate of 6 million tonnes per year. The coal would be processed on-site using existing

(upgraded) facilities and transported by conveyor for domestic use or by rail to the Port of Newcastle for

shipment overseas.

On 17 December 2014, the Minister requested the Commission to conduct public hearings and review

the merits of the project paying particular attention to the potential subsidence related impacts. The

Commission was constituted by Mr Joe Woodward PSM (chair) with Ms Robyn Kruk AM and Mr Gordon

Kirkby. The Commission examined the documents referred to in the Terms of Reference, including the

Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) provided by the Department of Planning and

Environment (the Department). The Commission also received written submissions, held a public hearing,

visited the site and surrounds and met with the Applicant, Centennial Mandalong Pty Limited and the

Environment Protection Authority.

The Commission considers that the Department has prepared a rigorous PEAR, which has identified the

large majority of potential impacts. The Commission agrees with most of its findings and

recommendations. However, the Commission has also provided significant recommendations to enhance

the assessment of this proposal and to ensure that any potential impacts are avoided, minimised or

mitigated (summarised in Section 5 of this report).

The Commission considers the three key issues that require further consideration and assessment are

subsidence-related impacts on built infrastructure, water quality impacts from minewater discharge and

noise impacts during the construction phase. The Commission has also recommended a number of other

recommendations relating to traffic, land management and biodiversity.

In relation to subsidence, the Commission considers it important that the Department seeks further

advice from the MSB and Transgrid about the likely extent of repairs required on private residences and

electricity towers, prior to any determination. In relation to water quality impacts, the Commission has

recommended that further assessment of discharge on Muddy Creek is undertaken or alternatively, that

any consent requires that discharge is treated to ensure nil additional impact. In relation to noise

impacts, the Commission has recommended that alternative noise mitigation and management measures

are considered for exceptional cases during construction.

The Commission believes it important to view the proposal in the strategic context of a broader complex

of coal mines and power stations in the Newcastle Coalfield, including proposed new developments. The

Commission agrees with the Department of Trade and Investment that overall, the proposal would have

a positive contribution to the region and the state of NSW, particularly in relation to the local

employment opportunities and in maintaining coal production in the Newcastle region. In light of

changing economic circumstances, the Commission has also recommended that an updated economic

analysis be undertaken, including a peer review.

The Commission has carefully weighed the key areas of concern, including subsidence related impacts,

water impacts and noise impacts, against the significance of the resource and the socio-economic

benefits. The Commission is satisfied that the p oje t s benefits outweigh its potential impacts, and on

balance should be approved, subject to the recommendations outlined in this report.

Planning Assessment Commission 2015 Review Report


ii

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. I

GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................................. IV

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 CURRENT APPLICATION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 STRATEGIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 SECRETARY S PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ............................................................................. 4

2. THE COMMISSION’S REVIEW TASK .................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 PUBLIC HEARING AND SUBMISSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 DOCUMENTS, MEETINGS & SITE INSPECTIONS ......................................................................................................... 6

3. COMMENTS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 7

3.1 SUBSIDENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1.2 Timing of Longwall Extraction .................................................................................................................. 7

3.1.3 Accuracy of Previous Subsidence Predictions ........................................................................................... 7

3.1.4 Predicted Subsidence Impacts .................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.5 Residences Potentially Affected by Subsidence ...................................................................................... 11

3.1.6 Surface Infrastructure Potentially Affected by Subsidence ..................................................................... 12

3.1.7 Previous Subsidence Effects on Turf Farming ......................................................................................... 12

3.1.8 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................................................... 13

3.1.9 Summary of Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 13

3.2 WATER RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 14

3.2.2 Groundwater Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 14

3.2.3 Surface Water Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 15


3.3 BIODIVERSITY .................................................................................................................................................. 18

3.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 18

3.3.2 Subsidence Related Impacts ................................................................................................................... 18

3.3.3 Clearing and Biodiversity Offsets ............................................................................................................ 19

3.3.4 Aquatic Ecology Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 20


3.4 NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................ 21

3.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 21

3.4.3 The Interim Construction Noise Guideline .............................................................................................. 21

3.4.4 Construction Noise ................................................................................................................................. 22

3.4.3 Operational Noise ................................................................................................................................... 23


3.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ............................................................................................................................................ 23

3.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 23

3.5.2 Advice from the Department of Trade and Investment .......................................................................... 23

3.5.3 Economic Benefits .................................................................................................................................. 24

3.5.4 Social impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 25


3.6 OTHER ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................. 26

3.6.1 Traffic ..................................................................................................................................................... 26

3.6.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................................... 27

3.6.3 Land Management ................................................................................................................................. 27

4. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 27

5. RECOMMENDATIONS – CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 28

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 30



iii

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the Mandalong Southern Mine

Figure 2: Layout of the Mandalong South Surface Site

Figure 3: Proposed Mine Plan and Geological Constraints

Figure 4: Properties Potentially At Risk From Subsidence

Figure 5: Location of LDP001 on Cooranbong Entry Site

TABLES

Table 1: Depth of Cover and Proposed Longwall Widths and Thicknesses

Table 2: Predicted Subsidence Impacts

Table 3: Properties Affected by Subsidence

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of Speakers at the Public Hearing

Appendix 2: Summary of Presentations Made at the Public Hearing

Appendix 3: Summary of Meetings with Other Stakeholders

Appendix 4: Copy of Letter from Department of Trade and Investment dated 22 January 2015



iv

GLOSSARY

Applicant The Applicant under Part 4 of the EP&A Act 1979, in this report being Centennial

Ma dalo g Pt Li ited. Applicant i ludes the Applicant s EI“ o sulta ts.

ARI Average Recurrence Interval

BOS Biodiversity Offset Strategy

BSAL Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land is land with high quality soil and water

resources capable of sustaining high levels of productivity.

Commission Planning Assessment Commission constituted for this Review and public hearing,

Mr Joe Woodward PSM (Chair), Ms Robyn Kruk AM and Mr Gordon Kirkby

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

Secretary’s Requirements provided by the Secretary of the Department of Planning and

Requirements Environment for an environmental impact statement.

Department Department of Planning and Environment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPL Environment Protection Licence

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

LGA Local Government Area

Minister Minister for Planning

MSEP Mandalong Southern Extension Project

MSSS Mandalong South Surface Site

NOW NSW Office of Water

PSNL Project Specific Noise Level

PEAR Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report prepared by the Department of

Planning and Environment

ROM Run-of-Mine

RTS Response to Submissions

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

SSD State Significant Development

Proposal The subject of the application under Section 89C of the EP&A Act 1979, in this

report being the Mandalong Southern Extension Project (SSD-5144).

TOR Terms of Reference of the Mi iste s e uest fo the e ie of the p oje t ade

under Section 23D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and

Clauses 268R and 268V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation

2000.

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995



1

1. INTRODUCTION On 17 December 2014 the Minister for Planning requested the Planning Assessment Commission to

carry out a review of the proposed Mandalong Southern Extension Project including the holding of a

public hearing.

Ms Lynelle Briggs AO, chair of the Commission, nominated Ms Robyn Kruk AM, Mr Joe Woodward

PSM and Mr Gordon Kirkby to constitute the Commission for the review. Mr Woodward chaired the

Commission.

1.1 Current Application

The Mandalong coal mine is an existing underground coal mine located in the Lake Macquarie and

Wyong Shire Local Government Areas. The coal mine was approved in October 1988 following a

Commission of Inquiry. The approval allows for:

Extraction of up to 126 million tonnes (Mt) of high grade, export quality thermal coal;

Extraction at a rate of up to 6 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of run of mine (ROM) coal from

the West Wallarah and Wallarah-Great Northern seams using bord and pillar and longwall

mining methods until 2019;

Transporting coal by underground conveyor to the existing mi e s Coo a o g E t Site at a

rate of up to 4 Mtpa for processing of coal; and

Transporting by underground conveyor for nearby power stations or by rail for export market.

Underground longwall mining operations commenced at Mandalong in January 2005.

Figure 1 on the next page shows the location of the existing Mandalong mine and the proposed

extension area and their relationship with the nearby power stations and towns and villages.

The Applicant proposes to extend the existing underground mine operations, which would involve:

continuing the currently approved mining operations in Areas 1 and 2;

continuing the operation of the existing Mandalong Mine Access Site (MMAS), including

construction of four additional gas flares and gas engines with capacity to generate a total of 12

megawatts of electricity;

extending underground mining operations south of the existing mining domains through the

development of an additional 40 longwall panels, in an area known as the Southern Extension

Area;

extending the life of the mine for 25 years from the grant of a mining lease over the Southern

Extension Area;

continuing to extract up to 6 Mtpa of ROM coal from the West Wallarah and Wallarah-Great

Northern Seams (a total mineable resource of 126 million tonnes (Mt));

constructing the Mandalong South Services Site (MSSS), to service the Southern Extension area;

delivering up to 6 Mtpa of ROM coal from the mine to the Cooranbong Entry Site for processing

and delivery of up to 6 Mtpa of coal to the existing approved mine, via existing underground

conveyor systems;

transferring water inflows to and from the Borehole Dam at the Cooranbong Entry Site and

increasing the storage volume of the Borehole Dam; and

rehabilitating the MMAS and MSSS after mining has ceased.



2

Figure 1: Location of the Mandalong Southern Mine Source: EIS, September 2013.



3

Figure 2 below shows the layout of the proposed Mandalong South Surface Facilities Site (MSSS).

Figure 2: Layout of the Mandalong South Surface Site. Source: EIS, September 2013.



4

1.2 Strategic Context It is important to consider the proposal in the context of a broader complex of coal mines and power

stations in the Newcastle Coalfield. Centennial operates three other underground coal mines in the

area, including:

the Newstan coal mine, located adjacent to the north of Mandalong mine;

the Myuna coal mine, located to the north east in Wangi Wangi; and

the Mannering coal mine, located to the east in Mannering Park.

Centennial also has two other significant development applications underway, including the

Newstan Extension of Mining Project and the Northern Coal Logistics (NCL) Project. The NCL Project

aims to streamline all coal receiving, processing and transport functions for the above coal mines.

Relevantly, the NCL Project partially overlaps with the current application for Mandalong mine as it

includes the existing surface infrastructure and operations at the Cooranbong Entry Site, except for

the mine ventilation shaft and fan and the Borehole Dam, which remain as part of this application.

There are two power stations located in the area, including the Eraring Power Station (located at the

northern end of the project application area) and the Delta power station (located to the east of the

proposed Mandalong mine extension).

There is also currently an SSD application for an underground coal mine (the Wallarah 2 coal mine)

under assessment by the Department. The proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine would be located directly

adjacent to the south of the proposed Mandalong mine extension. The Wallarah 2 project is

u e tl suspe ded due to a dispute o e la do e s o se t. The Mandalong mine is one of several varying land uses in the area, including industrial uses (refer

to Figure 1), small scale cattle grazing properties and hobby farms. There are numerous smaller

settlements within and surrounding the existing and proposed mining area, including Cooranbong,

Bonnells Bay, Beauty Point, Lemon Tree, Dooralong and Jilliby. Large lot rural-residential

developments are located at Durren Durren and Kiar, southwest of the proposed Southern Extension

Area.

It is important to note that the price of coal has declined significantly over recent years from a price

of approximately US$140 dollars per tonne in 2011 to approximately US$65 dollars per tonne in

early 2015. This decline in the global coal market is likely to reduce the predicted profits of the

Mandalong mine and proposed socio-economic benefits.

1.3 Secretary’s Preli i ary E viro e tal Assess e t Report The Department has prepared a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) for the

project application, which has been considered by the Commission as part of the review process.

The Assessment Report considered the merits of the proposal, its strategic and statutory context,

public and agency submissions and the Applicant s espo se to su issio s. The report identified

the following key issues:

Subsidence impacts, particularly on built features;

Water impacts, particularly in relation to minewater discharges;

Biodiversity impacts;

Noise impacts; and

Socio-economic impacts.



5

The Department concluded that the proposal is consistent with the aims, objectives and provisions

of all ele a t lo al, egio al a d “tate pla i g i st u e ts a d that the project represents a

logical extension to the existing Mandalong Mine (PEAR, p.60). The Department also provided a

draft set of conditions.

2. THE COMMISSION’S REVIEW TASK

2.1 Terms of Reference The Mi iste s e uest as issued on 17 December 2014 under Section 23D of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clauses 268R and 268V of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Regulation 2000.

The Terms of Reference are as follows:

1. Carry out a review of the Mandalong Southern Extension Project, and:

a) Consider the EIS for the project, the issues raised in submissions, the formal response to

su issio s, the Depart e t of Pla i g & E viro e t s preli i ary assess e t report of the project, and any other relevant information provided on the proposed

development during the course of the review;

b) Assess the merits of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to the potential

subsidence related impacts of the project;

c) Apply all relevant NSW Government policies in those considerations and to that

assessment; and

d) Provide recommendations on any reasonable and feasible measures that could be

implemented to avoid and/or reduce the potential impacts of the project.

2. Conduct public hearings on the project no later than 30 January 2015.

3. Complete the review by 3 April 2015, unless the Secretary of the Department of Planning and

Environment agrees otherwise.

The “e eta s PEAR was received by the Planning Assessment Commission on 19 December 2014.

2.2 Public Hearing and Submissions Although the Terms of Reference required public hearings to be conducted by 30 January, the

Commission was conscious that the notification was over the Christmas holiday period and therefore

the public hearing was delayed to 12 February 2015. It was held at the Bonnells Bay Youth and

Community Centre. A total of 20 verbal submissions and 11 written submissions were made to the

Commission at the hearing, comprising employees of the Applicant, various local businesses, two

special interest groups and a number of individuals. A list of speakers at the public hearing is

provided in Appendix 1 of this report.

A summary of the issues raised at the Public Hearing and written submissions is provided in

Appendix 2 of this Report. Concerns related to ground and surface water impacts, the discharge of

water into local water catchments, traffic, land management, biodiversity and subsidence impacts.

Impact from noise, especially construction noise, was a significant concern to nearby residents.

Submissions made to the Department in response to the exhibition of the EIS have also been

referred to the Commission for its consideration as part of its review of the proposal.



6

2.3 Documents, Meetings & Site Inspections Through the course of the review the Commission accessed a wide range of documents including:

The Applicant s E i o e tal I pa t “tate e t; The Applicant s ‘espo se to “u issio s; The Applicant s ‘espo se to ‘T“ “u issio s; The Secretary s Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report and suggested draft

conditions; and

Submissions from government agencies and the public.

During the review, the Commission met with the Department of Planning and Environment (21

January 2015), the Applicant (12 February 2015) and the EPA (2 March 2015).

Records of these meetings are provided in Appendix 3 of this Report.

The Commission offered to meet with the Lake Macquarie, Wyong Shire and Gosford City Councils

who each directed the Commission to their previous written submissions to the Department.

The Commission also visited the site on Thursday 12 February 2015 with the Applicant (including the

underground workings) and travelled the area and road network and residences surrounding the

existing and proposed underground mine.



7

3. COMMENTS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Subsidence

3.1.1 Introduction

Detailed descriptions of conventional subsidence effects are available in earlier PAC review reports

on the Metropolitan Coal Project (May 2009) and Bulli Seam Operations Project (July 2010), in

Appendix F of the first PAC Review report on the Wallarah 2 Coal Project (Nov 2010) and in the

Secretary s PEAR for this project. Detailed descriptions of non-conventional subsidence can be found

in the PAC Review report on Bulli Seam Operations (July 2010) and the first PAC Review of the

Wallarah 2 Project (Nov 2010). The latter is relevant as it is adjacent to the proposed Mandalong

mine extension.

The EIS includes a Subsidence Impact Assessment (SIA) undertaken by Ditto Geotechnical Services

(DgS). The SIA utilises a hybrid of two subsidence models, including an empirical model developed

for the Newcastle Coalfield and an American analytical model used to determine underground

geological conditions. The Commission notes that a similar hybrid model was used for the Wallarah 2

mine proposal, which was deemed appropriate by the Commission in its review for that project.

However, the Commission notes that the DRE submission was not explicit about whether the

subsidence modelling was considered appropriate and therefore it sought further advice from DRE

about this. DRE informed the Commission that its subsidence experts have considered the DgS

hybrid model and were satisfied that it is adequate. Afte o side i g the EI“, ‘T“ a d D‘E s comments, the Commission is satisfied that the subsidence model used in the SIA is appropriate for

this project.

3.1.2 Timing of Longwall Extraction

The proposed Mandalong mine extension involves an additional 40 longwalls over a project life of 25

years commencing from the grant of a mining lease over the proposed extension area. While the

Commission accepts that the proposed extraction of 40 longwalls is achievable within a 25 year

timeframe, there is no specific timetable or plan in the EIS, RTS or other documentation illustrating

the expected timing of the longwall extraction over the life of the project.

The lack of a predicted timetable for longwall extraction has made the task of assessing the potential

subsidence impacts more difficult, particularly in relation to those impacts that are likely to occur in

the early stages of the project. The Commission believes that such a timetable enhances certainty in

decision-making and recommends that the Department require the Applicant to provide a proposed

timeline of longwall extraction, including a plan showing the progression of longwalls over the 25

year project life. The Commission notes that such a plan would be useful to the community,

particularly landowners with affected residences or other surface infrastructure.

3.1.3 Accuracy of Previous Subsidence Predictions

Before assessing the predicted impacts of the proposed mining extension, the Commission considers

it important to first analyse the accuracy of the subsidence predictions in already mined areas. The

PEAR states that the Applicant provided data for Longwalls 1 to 12 showing that 37 of the 39 (94.8%)

conventional vertical subsidence measurements were within predicted subsidence levels, and 34 of

39 (87.2%) conventional tilt measurements were within the predicted levels. While this illustrates

that subsidence predictions have generally been accurate in the previously mined areas, it still shows

that e e the ost o se ati e esti ates a e occasionally exceeded.



8

The Commission further notes that DRE has raised some concern about other uncertainties in the

subsidence predictions. Firstly, the variable panel widths of the proposed longwalls can lead to an

irregular subsidence profile, which increases the potential for concentrated tilts and strains.

Secondly, the areas that are likely to have subsidence effects on residences coincide with the areas

where there is less certainty about the geological conditions (as less boreholes have been drilled).

The Applicant advised the Commission that the exceedances of the predictions for Longwalls 1 to 12

were the result of anomalous geological conditions, including reverse faulting leading to reduced

overburden strength, and reduced conglomerate beam thickness due to bedding shear and partings.

The Applicant indicated these exceedances were unlikely to be the result of increased chain pillar

subsidence from the failure of the Awaba Tuff which forms the floor of the mine.

Regarding the uncertainties that were raised by DRE, the Applicant has advised the Commission that

based on its experience from the Mandalong Mine operations and other longwall mines in the Lake

Macquarie Area, it is likely that the development of subsidence would be reduced by the spanning

potential of massive conglomerate and sandstone units that exist within the overburden. The

Applicant has optimised the proposed width of the longwalls and pillars based on their experience to

date.

The Commission accepts the explanation that previous exceedances of subsidence predictions were

likely due to unexpected geological conditions, such as reverse faulting. However, given

uncertainties raised by DRE in relation to geological conditions in the Southern Extension Area, the

Commission believes that future operations and mitigation strategies must be structured in the

anticipation of further exceedances of subsidence predictions in that area, albeit probably minor in

nature. Overall, the Commission is satisfied that the majority of subsidence predictions are likely to

be accurate, however given the possibility of minor exceedances, it is essential that an effective

regime of adaptive management is implemented, which is discussed in detail in 3.1.7 below.

3.1.4 Predicted Subsidence Impacts

The depth of cover to the coal seam ranges from 185m in the north east up to 480m in the

southwest of the Southern Extension Area. The panel width and targeted seam thickness vary

depending on the depth of cover and surface features (see Table 1 on the next page). The

Commission considers it useful to conceptually divide the Southern Extension Area into 3 domains

(see Figure 3 on the next page), which reflects the timing of the extraction and the variable panel

geometry across the extension area:

The Western Domain includes 13 longwalls (LWs 25-37) and would be the first area mined. This

domain features the highest depths of cover, however it also contains the thickest targeted

seams. It includes a moderate amount of sensitive surface features (i.e. residences and

numerous lower order streams).

The Eastern Domain would be the next area mined and initially includes 17 longwalls (LWs 38-

54) in the south, followed by 7 longwalls (LWs 55-61) in the north. This domain features depths

of cover ranging from shallow to moderately deep, with narrower panels and thinner targeted

seams in areas of shallow depth of cover. It includes a large amount of sensitive surface features

(i.e. residences and numerous 3rd order streams).

The Northern Domain includes only 3 longwalls (LWs 62-64) and would be the final area mined.

This domain features fewer sensitive features and has longer, wider panels that run in a north-

south direction.



9

Domain Depth of cover (m) Panel width (m) Seam thickness (m)

Western (LWs 25-37) 270-480 180-200 3.4-4.6

Eastern (Stage 1 – LWs 38-54) 235-360 160-180 1.6-3.4

Eastern (Stage 2 – LWs 55-61) 185-360 160-200 1.6-3.4

Northern (LWs 62-64) 198-305 200 1.8-3.4

Table 1: Depth of Cover and Proposed Longwall Widths and Thicknesses Source: Subsidence Impact Assessment, DgS

Figure 3: Proposed Mine Plan and Geological Constraints Source: EIS, September 2013.



10

Conventional Subsidence Effects

Notwithstanding the greater depths of cover in the Western domain, Table 2 below clearly shows

that the most significant subsidence effects are likely to occur in this area, which is the first

proposed mining area. The predicted subsidence effects are generally much lower after this first

domain is extracted.

Domain Vertical

subsidence

(m)

Tilt

(mm/m)

Hogging

curvature

(/km)

Sagging

curvature

(/km)

Tensile

strain

(mm/m)

Compressive

strain

(mm/m)

Western (LWs 25-37) 1.34 20 0.92 0.91 7 9

Eastern (LWs 38-54) 0.83 8 0.44 0.56 4 6

Eastern (LWs 55-61) 0.91 13 0.47 0.60 5 6

Northern (LWs 62-64) 0.82 11 0.41 0.52 4 5

Table 2: Maximum Predicted Subsidence Impacts Source: Subsidence Impact Assessment, DgS

The Commission notes that the predicted tilts of up to 20mm/m and strains of up to 9mm/m in the

Western domain are equal to, or higher than, the observed subsidence effects in the already mined

longwalls at Mandalong mine (LWs 1-12) and could have significant impacts on any sensitive surface

features in the proposed extension area.

Consequently, it is essential that the impacts on any sensitive surface features are carefully

considered now, and that all appropriate mitigation and management measures are in place prior to

any mining commencing in the Southern Extension Area. The Commission does not consider that it

appropriate to take a t ial a e o approach to this proposal given that the highest levels of

conventional subsidence effects are likely to occur in the early stages of the project.

The most relevant impact that may result from these conventional subsidence effects is damage to

existing residences and other surface infrastructure. This is discussed in detail in 3.1.5 and 3.1.6

below.

Conventional subsidence can also cause fracturing of the surface, which may result in fractured

streambeds and potentially cause displacement of near surface water to deeper aquifers. However,

this is more common in the Southern Coalfield, where there are often stiff, thin layered surface

rocks. Previous mining at Mandalong mine has not shown any evidence of this and there has not

been any significant loss of surface water. Water impacts are discussed in detail in 3.2 below.

Non-Conventional Subsidence Effects

Non-conventional subsidence effects can occur in steep topography, especially in the presence of

high horizontal stresses, like those that occur in the Southern Coalfield. Non-conventional strains

generally only occur in the base of narrow valleys, which are not present in the Southern Extension

Area. The SIA in the EIS considers it unlikely that any non-conventional subsidence effects would

occur in the Southern Extension Area. The Commission is satisfied that this is true, however

recommends that the conditions of consent include an explicit requirement to monitor for any non-

conventional subsidence effects.



11

3.1.5 Residences Potentially Affected by Subsidence

There are 114 private residences located within the Southern Extension Area that would be

potentially affected by the proposed mining, which is significantly more than the number of

residences that have been affected by previous mining at the Mandalong mine.

Of the 114 residences that could be potentially affected:

24 are single or double storey brick structures on slabs;

90 are timber framed clad structures on strip and pad footings;

6 are potentially at risk due to slope instability and tensile cracking (see Figure 4 below); and

3 are potentially at risk due to flood impacts.

Figure 4: Properties Potentially At Risk From Subsidence Source: Response to Submissions, March 2014.

The predicted levels of subsidence on the 6 properties are shown in Table 3 below.

Lot/DP and ID number Tilt (mm/m) Curvature (km-1) Strain (mm/m)

59/755238 – 1 1.4 0.29 5.7

2/1001669 – 11 9.3 -0.17 -3.4

2/620993 – 81 2.3 0.21 4.2

2/620993 – 82 1.6 0.21 4.2

1/772871 – 67 6.2 0.05 1.0

201/855397 – 85 1.9 0.18 3.6

Table 3: Properties Affected By Subsidence Source: Response to Submissions, March 2014.



12

The Applicant considers that only minor repairs would be required to deal with subsidence impacts

on the 6 properties potentially affected by slope instability, and the Department has accepted this

position.

The proposed mining in the Southern Extension Area is located within the Mandalong Mine

Subsidence District (MSD), which was proclaimed in 1997 under the Mine Subsidence Compensation

Act 1961. The Commission acknowledges the safe, se i ea le a d epai a le ite ia of the Mi e Subsidence Board (MSB) for subsidence impacts on built features, as follows:

Houses after mining are left on a residual tilt of < 7 mm/m.

Houses are not subject to tensile or compressive ground strains > 4 mm/m.

The impacts to the buildings due to mine subsidence is not greater than Category 2 or Slight

Damage as defined in AS2870, 2011.

The Commission notes that there has been no submission received from the Mine Subsidence Board

(MSB). The Department has informed the Commission that a letter was sent to the MSB requesting

comments on the proposal, however none was received.

Given potential impacts to at least 6 properties a e eed the safe, se i ea le a d epai a le criteria and the concerns raised by DRE about the uncertainty of the subsidence predictions, the

Commission recommends that the Department seeks advice from the MSB about the likely extent of

repairs required prior to approval. The Commission notes that the MSB has previously raised

concerns (in relation to the proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine) about the difficulty and expense of

repairing damage of this nature.

3.1.6 Surface Infrastructure Potentially Affected by Subsidence

There are four TransGrid-owned power lines that traverse the Southern Extension Area supplying

330kV electricity to Sydney, as well as links between the Eraring and Vales Point power stations.

More specifically, there are five TransGrid tension towers along TL 24, one tower along TL25/26 and

three additional towers inside a 26.5o angle of draw of the proposed longwall panel limits.

The EIS states that predicted subsidence impacts on these towers would exceed tolerable limits and

would require tower relocation or mine modification. There are also 13 suspension towers that may

be subject to subsidence impacts that exceed tolerable limits and would require mitigation

measures. The PEAR concludes that the most appropriate means of avoiding impacts is a matter for

the Applicant and Transgrid to determine.

The Commission ag ees ith the Depa t e t s d aft o ditio s that classify the 330kV power lines

as ke pu li i f ast u tu e a d the need for strict performance criteria. However, the Commission

notes that Transgrid has not provided any submission to the Department about the potential

impacts on the power lines or towers. Consequently, the Commission recommends that the

Department seek confirmation from Transgrid that an appropriate level of consultation with the

Applicant has occurred and that the proposed draft conditions are suitable.

3.1.7 Previous Subsidence Effects on Turf Farming

The Commission received a late submission relating to purported subsidence-related impacts on turf

farming from previous mining at the Mandalong mine. The Commission notes that the turf farm is

located to the north of the Southern Extension Area and there are no potential impacts on the turf

farm from the proposed extension of mining. Consequently, the purported subsidence-related

impacts are not relevant to the current proposal, and the Commission does not consider it

appropriate to provide any recommendations on the issue in this report.



13

3.1.8 Adaptive Management

While there is inevitable uncertainty about the subsidence predictions, the Commission is satisfied

that they provide a sound basis for assessing the potential subsidence-related impacts of the project.

There is further scope to revise the predictions based on experience as the mine progresses and a

rigorous adaptive management regime can be imposed to ensure impacts and consequences remain

within the performance criteria in any consent.

In its review of the proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine, the Commission considered the utilisation of an

adapti e a age e t app oa h a d suggested that the Depa t e t should tighte its d aft conditions in that regard. In particular, the Commission recommended that the connections

between the performance criteria and the requirements of the Extraction Plan were more closely

linked. Given that the proposed Wallarah 2 project has stalled, the Commission considers this

proposal presents a sensible and necessary opportunity to adopt the same recommendations to

improve the conditions.

In the Wallarah 2 Review, the Commission noted that Adapti e a age e t has ee o side ed by the Land and Environment Court on several occasions and a summary of the key cases is included

in the PAC Review Report on Bulli Seam Operations (July 2010). In Newcastle and Hunter Valley

Speleological Society Inc. v Upper Hunter Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited [2010], the Court

defi ed adapti e a age e t i the follo i g te s:

Adaptive management is a concept which is frequently invoked but less often implemented

i pra ti e. Adaptive a age e t is ot a su k it a d see , trial a d error approa h to management, but is an iterative approach involving explicit testing of the achievement of

defined goals. Through feedback to the management process, the management procedures

are changed in steps until monitoring shows that the desired outcome is obtained. The

monitoring program has to be designed so that there is statistical confidence in the outcome.

In adaptive management the goal to be achieved is set, so there is no uncertainty as to the

outcome and the conditions requiring adaptive management do not lack certainty, but rather

they establish a regime which would permit changes, within defined parameters, to the way

the out o e is a hieved.

The Commission considers that there are substantial differences between the generalised

statements in the EIS, RTS, and, to a lesser extent, the PEAR, on the one hand and the specificity

required by the Court on the other. These conditions need to have clear outcomes that must be met

that are measurable and enforceable, assisted by an adaptive management system that monitors

and modifies operations in advance, based on predetermined triggers to achieve the outcomes.

3.1.9 Summary of Recommendations

1. That the Applicant provides a predicted timeline of longwall extraction, including a plan showing

the progression of longwalls over the 25 year project life for inclusion in the consent.

2. That appropriate monitoring of non-conventional subsidence effects should be included as a

requirement in any consent and that the relevant Extraction Plan is required to contain

appropriate measures to control the risks from non-conventional subsidence so as to ensure

that the environmental performance criteria are not exceeded.

3. That advice is sought from the MSB about the likely extent of repairs required, prior to

determination.

4. That confirmation is sought from Transgrid that an appropriate level of consultation with the




14

5. That a rigorous set of performance measures is included in any consent. Rigorous in this context

means able to be measured or assessed in a scientifically and legally sound manner and be

capable of enforcement. These performance measures must be supported by:

(i) a requirement that the Extraction Plan for each longwall contains revised subsidence

predictions based on experience from previous mining on the site and that these revised

predictions will not allow the performance criteria to be exceeded;

(ii) a requirement that the Extraction Plan for each longwall contains:

(a) appropriate triggers to warn of the development of an increasing risk of exceedance of

the performance criteria (e.g. the subsidence predictions themselves and/or other

relevant subsidence-related measurements);

(b) specific action plans to respond to increased risk of exceedance that will ensure the

criteria are not exceeded (e.g. cessation of mining, narrowing the longwall, altering seam

height, etc.); and

(c) an assessment of remediation measures that may be required if exceedance does occur

and the capacity to implement the measures.

3.2 Water Resources

3.2.1 Introduction

The EIS includes a Groundwater Impact Assessment by GHD, which was peer reviewed after

consultation with NOW and EPA. The EIS also includes a Surface Water Impact Assessment prepared

by GHD.

The Commission notes that the impact of the proposal on water resources has been raised as a

significant issue of concern by members of the local community. The key potential water impacts

that have been raised:

impacts on groundwater, including alluvial aquifers;

surface water impacts, particularly in relation to discharge of mine water off site;

flooding impacts, particularly along Mandalong Road; and

tunnel erosion.

A range of technical concerns were also raised by the NSW Office of Water (NOW) and the EPA

throughout the assessment process as the lead agencies in relation to water resources and

environment pollution licensing.

As discussed below, the majority of the public and agency issues have been subsequently resolved

through the Response to Submissions process and the submission of further information by the

Applicant.

3.2.2 Groundwater Impacts NOW initially raised concerns over the groundwater modelling assumptions and data used to assess

potential for fracturing. The EPA also raised concern that the use of average rather than maximum

fracture heights in the groundwater model may lead to an underestimation in groundwater take and

expected discharge requirements. However, the Commission notes that the Applicant provided

additional information on this matter in its RTS, and that both NOW and EPA are satisfied with the

assessment. The Commission further notes that a review of impacts will be undertaken under the

recommended Extraction Plan conditions. Accordingly the Commission is satisfied that this issue has

been adequately addressed.



15

Following review of the groundwater assessment, NOW requested the preparation of a

supplementary report to review the drivers for groundwater quality trends being observed in the

monitoring bore network. Specifically the report was required to assess whether such trends post a

isk of e eedi g the A uife I te fe e e Poli Le el i pa t fo a ate ualit ha ge of % per

activity in long-term average salinity in a highly connected surface water source at the nearest point

to the a ti it .

A supplementary groundwater assessment report was submitted by the Applicant and NOW advised

that, subject to amendments to the groundwater monitoring program, it was satisfied. As NOW is

the lead agency with responsibility for groundwater issues, the Commission accepts its advice that

the project is acceptable in terms of groundwater impacts subject to the above recommendation.

Accordingly the Commission recommends that the Department ensure that prior to determination

of the application, the groundwater monitoring program be amended to incorporate the

recommendations outlined in Section 6 of the report entitled Groundwater Quality response to

Submissions Support (Australian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd, September

2014).

In summary, the Commission is satisfied that:

i pa ts o allu ial g ou d ate a e ithi the A uife I te fe e e Poli s AIP i i al impact considerations and are unlikely to be greater than minor;

depressurisation is not expected to result in impacts to groundwater users as no bores extract

from the deeper groundwater resources;

groundwater quality will not reduce the beneficial use category (i.e. primary industry);

groundwater inflows are able to be stored until suitable for discharge within licence limits; and

groundwater monitoring and management is proposed to ensure impacts are identified and

mitigated.

3.2.3 Surface Water Impacts

Discharge into Muddy Lake

The EPA has residual concerns about the adequacy of the assessment of proposed site discharge

water quality and quantity impacts. The EPA has advised that the EIS and RTS do not adequately

address water quality and quantity at the proposed discharge point LDP001 (Licensed Discharge

Point) which discharges to Muddy Lake, a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 – Coastal

Wetlands (SEPP 14) wetland. Figure 5 on the next page shows location of the proposed LDP001 on

the Cooranbong Entry Site.

In particular, the EPA has raised concerns that the proposed discharge could lead to elevated levels

of salts and dissolved metals in this sensitive receiving environment and that to date no adequate

assessment has been undertaken or treatment measures proposed. The EPA concluded that it is

unable to provide recommended conditions of approval in respect of water in light of inadequacies

in the assessment of the proposal.

The Commission notes that the proposal seeks approval for water management activities associated

with the project, however it notably does not seek approval for the transfer of water from the

Borehole Dam to LDP001 and the subsequent discharge of up to a maximum of 8ML/day (average of

7.1 ML/day) over the life of the project to Lake Macquarie via Muddy Lake. These activities are

p oposed to e sepa atel assessed as pa t of Ce te ial s No the Coal Logisti s (NCL) Project.



16

The PEAR notes that site discharges are eventually intended to be regulated under the NCL Project,

however in the interim are intended to be regulated under the existing consent which provides for

an existing discharge of up to 5ML/day with an existing average of 1.59ML/day. Consequently, if the

project is approved as recommended by the Department, discharges would be limited to the existing

maximum of 5ML/day until such time as the NCL Project and an amendment to the EPL is approved.

Figure 5: Location of LDP001 on Cooranbong Entry Site Source: EIS, September 2013

The PEAR notes that as the water quality and other impacts of the proposed increased minewater

discharges are detailed in the EIS for the NCL Project, no conditions are considered to be appropriate

for the Mandalong South Extension Project.

The Co issio has oted oth the Depa t e t a d EPA s espe ti e positio s o this issue a d considered this matter in detail. It has also noted community concern regarding site discharge and

impacts on receiving waters and their ecosystems. The Commission considers that it is not

appropriate for the project to be approved pending determination of a separate application when it

relies upon that approval to operate. Accordingly, it recommends that prior to determination of the

project the Applicant undertake a detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed site discharge

both in terms of water quality and quantity on the receiving waters of Muddy Creek as part of the

current project.

Alternatively in the absence of such an assessment, it is considered that any approval should be

limited to comply with the existing EPL and should require that any additional discharge, over and

above the existing approved discharge, be treated to ensure nil additional impact. This treatment

should include removal of salts and dissolved metals from mine discharge waters to ensure nil

additional impact on receiving waters.



17

Increased Capacity of Borehole Dam

The Commission also notes that the PEAR does not provide details about the reasons why the

Applicant has proposed to increase the capacity of the Borehole Dam at the Cooranbong Entry Site.

This dam is used to store minewater prior to treatment and licensed discharge under the Appli a t s existing EPL. The location of the Borehole Dam is shown on Figure 5 on the previous page.

The Commission has raised the question whether the capacity of the dam should be increased given

that the EIS clearly states that the current capacity is sufficient to deal with the predicted increase in

minewater associated with the proposed mine extension.

The EIS states that the increased capacity may have benefits in reducing concentrations of salts and

metals in the discharge, as the minewater would spend more time in the dam. The Commission

notes that OEH and NOW had previously raised concern about the potential for increased levels of

contaminants resulting from increased discharge. In its responses to OEH and NOW, the Applicant

cited the increased dam size as a relevant management measure, and both OEH and NOW have not

raised any further concerns about this issue in subsequent submissions.

The Commission is satisfied that that increasing the dam size is appropriate as it would have benefits

in allowing longer retention time for minewater and potentially reducing levels of contaminants in

discharges. The Commission also notes that the proposed expansion of the dam would occur on land

that is already disturbed.

Flooding

Concern was raised in public submissions that the development of haul and access roads may result

in adverse impacts for adjoining properties during flood events. In particular a number of residents

were concerned that increases in flood levels would result in them being unable to access/leave

their properties due to higher water levels. While this issue has not been addressed within the

Depa t e t s P eli i a Assess e t ‘epo t, the Co issio o side s that the issue ould e mitigated through haul/access roads not being constructed adjacent to private properties or

alternatively by ensuring that their design does not hinder flood waters.

In addition concerns were raised that subsidence would result in increased flood impacts, and

associated evacuation risk, particularly along sections of Mandalong Road which are currently

subject to flooding in prolonged rainfall events. The Commission has reviewed the assessment of

this issue and notes that while flood levels will marginally increase at some locations, these areas are

already subject to flooding and the duration of affectation is not extended. Further, the Commission

notes as identified by the Department, that all affected properties will continue to be able to be

accessed from the south in flood conditions. Accordingly, the Commission is satisfied that the

proposal will not give rise to any unacceptable flood impacts.

Tunnel Erosion

A number of public submissions, and speakers at the public hearing, raised concerns that the impact

of tunnel erosion has not been adequately dealt with. Tunnel erosion occurs when surface water

moves into, and through, dispersive subsoils causing erosion. This erosion can lead to roof collapse

which in turn can result in potholes and gullies forming.

In relation to this issue, the Commission acknowledges that potential impacts would be largely

addressed through site rehabilitation requirements and through the required Extraction Plans of the

draft consent. Nevertheless, the Commission recommends that the proposed draft condition relating

to the Water Management Plan expressly includes mitigation measures to address tunnel erosion.



18

Other Surface Water Impacts

As discussed in 3.1.4 in respect of other surface water impacts, the Commission notes that the

proposal is not expected to result in any significant water quality or quantity impacts on other creeks

(including subsidence impacts) subject to management and mitigation measures and recommended

conditions of consent, including performance measures. The Commission notes that both NOW and

the Department agree with this conclusion.


1. That, prior to determination, the groundwater monitoring program is amended to incorporate

the recommendations outlined in Section 6 of the report entitled Groundwater Quality response

to Submissions Support (Australian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd,

September 2014).

2. That, prior to determination, the Applicant is required to undertake a detailed assessment of the

impact of the proposed site discharge at LPD001 both in terms of water quality and quantity on

the receiving waters of Muddy Creek as part of the current project. Alternatively, in the absence

of such an assessment, it is considered that any approval should be conditioned to comply with

the existing EPL and should require that any additional discharge, over and above the existing

approved discharge, be treated to ensure nil additional impact. This treatment is to include

removal of salts and dissolved metals from mine discharge waters to ensure nil additional impact

on receiving waters.

3. That the haul and access road are designed in a way that does not result in adverse flooding

impacts for adjoining properties.

4. That the proposed draft condition relating to the Water Management Plan expressly includes

mitigation measures to address tunnel erosion.

3.3 Biodiversity

3.3.1 Introduction

There were a number of concerns raised in submissions about potential biodiversity impacts,

including loss of hollow bearing trees, and ecology impacts resulting from loss of flows in

watercourses which feed groundwater dependent ecosystems. In addition, OEH has some residual

concerns about the proposed land management strategy and the need for biodiversity offsets

associated with the proposed land clearing for the MSSS. The Commission has considered these

matters in addition to other biodiversity impacts in detail as outlined below:

The Commission considers the three key potential biodiversity impacts are:

subsidence related impacts;

impacts from land clearing associated with the construction of the proposed Mandalong South

Services Site (MSSS); and

impacts on aquatic ecology.

3.3.2 Subsidence Related Impacts

The proposed Southern Extension Area underlies extensive tracts of native vegetation. However,

only one Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) is proposed to be undermined, the Lower Hunter

Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest EEC. This species consists of straight stemmed trees with a sparse to

moderate density shrub layer. It is not reliant on any groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs),

and there is not expected to be any surface cracking or surface water impacts in this area (as

discussed in 3.1.4). Consequently, the Commission is satisfied that it is unlikely to be impacted by

the predicted subsidence associated with the proposal.



19

OEH initially raised concerns regarding the potential subsidence impacts on the Tall Alluvial Moist

Forest community which it previously identified as potentially being characterized as the River Flat

Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Plain EEC. The Applicant has committed to monitoring this vegetation

community for 2 years prior to, and post, undermining as part of its proposed Biodiversity

Management Plan. OEH supports this approach. Further the Department has proposed a draft

condition of consent requiring that if unforeseen subsidence impacts occur to an EEC, which cannot

be remediated, an appropriate offset is to be provided to compensate for the impact (Schedule 4

Condition 2).

In addition to vegetation communities, three flora species listed under the Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) are located on the site: Grevillea parviflora Subsp. Parviflora (Small-

flower Grevillea), Melaleuca biconvexa (Biconvex Paperbark) and Tetratheca juncea (Black-eyed

Susan). The Commission is satisfied that subject to the Applicant s p oposed o it e ts a d relevant conditions of consent subsidence associated with the proposal will not adversely impact on

these species (refer to 6.3.3 below for land clearing impacts).

Concerns have been raised in public submissions that subsidence may also have adverse impacts on

groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). In relation to this potential impact the Department has

noted that the EIS predicts that proposed mining is unlikely to affect water levels in alluvial aquifers

in excess of natural fluctuations and that significant impacts to GDEs are therefore unlikely as a

result. The Applicant has also proposed regular monitoring of GDEs including changes to

groundwater levels and quality.

Notwithstanding the Appli a t s o it e ts, the Department has also recommended strict

subsidence performance measures which restrict connective cracking to alluvial groundwater

sources that feed GDEs and also to limit impacts to GDEs to ot g eate tha i o . The

Department also notes that further refinement of predictions to impacts on GDEs and the

monitoring program would be undertaken in each Extraction Plan. The Commission agrees with

these conditions and considers that subject to compliance the proposal will be unlikely to have an

adverse impact on GDEs.

In terms of fauna the Commission notes that the predicted subsidence levels as a result of mining

are unlikely to affect the habitat on any recorded or threatened fauna species.

3.3.3 Clearing and Biodiversity Offsets

The proposal incorporates the clearing of 19.2ha of land for the construction of the proposed MSSS.

Of this, 15.6ha comprises native vegetation (Coastal Foothills Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest) and

3.6ha is already cleared land or disturbed grassland. No EECs or species listed under the TSC Act are

proposed to be cleared.

To offset the impact of the proposed land clearing, the Applicant has proposed the establishment

and implementation of a Land Management Strategy for two parcels of land (Lot A DP 110119 and

Lot 902 DP 541065) comprising an area of 106.59ha. The Applicant notes that the land proposed to

be cleared does not incorporate an EEC and therefore held the view that formal biodiversity

offsetti g i a o da e ith OEH s Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects (2014) is not

required. The proposed Land Management Strategy would include enhancement of vegetation along

Morans Creeks and a conservation bond. However, the Applicant is currently proposing that the land

would remain available for grazing. The proposed approach would incorporate a site wide



20

biodiversity management plan, as well as nesting boxes to compensate for the loss of 9 hollow

bearing trees.

OEH has provided further advice that a biodiversity offset strategy is required in accordance with its

policy (at the time of exhibition of the EIS) as the land proposed to be cleared comprises threatened

species habitat. The Commission notes that OEH has advised that the 106.4ha site proposed by the

Applicant would largely meet the offset requirement (957 ecosystem credits) generated by the

development site if all of the land was secured and managed for conservation in perpetuity.

However, this is not what is currently proposed by the Applicant as the proposal is to continue

grazing on the land.

To resolve this matter, the Department has proposed a draft condition of consent requiring the

preparation of an appropriate biodiversity offset strategy in consultation with OEH, which is to

include the provision of a long-term secure offset area or other arrangements in accordance with

the Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects (2014) and a conservation bond. The Commission

supports the provision of a biodiversity offset to compensate for the proposed land clearing and

considers that the Depa t e t s recommended approach is appropriate.

The Commission notes that a number of specimens of Melaleuca biconvexa (Biconvex Paperbark), a

threatened species under the TSC Act, have been identified in the location of the proposed MSSS

access road crossing of Morans Creek. The Applicant has made a commitment that the final design

of the creek crossing would avoid clearing any Biconvex Paperbark trees. Further the Department

has i di ated that it is satisfied that the fi al desig of the M“““ ould app op iatel o sider

a oida e of this spe ies . Ho e e , the Co issio believes that a condition of consent should be

included to require that the MSSS access road is designed such that it does not impact on any

Biconvex Paperbark trees particularly in the location of the Morans Creek crossing.

3.3.4 Aquatic Ecology Impacts

The proposal will result in an increased discharge of mine water, over and above that of the current

mine, into the nearby Muddy Lake. The total groundwater inflow is predicted to increase from

approximately 3 megalitres per day in 2018 to 5.9 megalitres per day in 2035-36. The additional

groundwater inflow will be transferred to the Cooranbong Entry Site, which is part of the Northern

Coal Logistics Project, and discharged into an unnamed waterway that flows in to Muddy Lake.

The increased mine water discharge could potentially give rise to impacts on macroinvertebrate

diversity and aquatic vegetation within the Lake. The Commission has considered relevant

information, including the extended retention time resulting from the increased capacity of the

Borehole Dam, as well as it previous recommendation to require detailed assessment of site

discharges (see 3.2.3).

Consequently, the Commission has concluded that the mine expansion on its own is unlikely to have

a considerable additional effect on the aquatic health of receiving waters. It is satisfied that as the

rate of discharge would not significantly increase over the current rate in the interim period (while

the NCL Project is assessed and determined), the current conditions of consent appropriately

address and manage aquatic ecology impacts. The Commission has accepted the Depa t e t s advice in this regard and notes that further assessment of this matter will be included in the NCL

Project. It also notes that OEH has not raised any objection in relation to this impact.



21


1. That an additional condition of consent be included in Schedule 3 that requires the MSSS access

road be designed such that it does not impact on any existing Biconvex Paperbark trees

particularly in the location of the proposed Morans Creek crossing.

3.4 Noise

3.4.1 Introduction

The key noise issues raised by the community were out-of-hours construction noise and long term

operational noise from the proposed MSSS. Noise from the construction of the MSSS is the main

concern to many residents given the extended construction period (up to 78 weeks) and the close

proximity of the proposed works to existing residences.

The EIS includes a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solutions.

The NIA concluded that:

vibration levels from construction activities are predicted to be negligible at the nearest

residential receivers;

sleep disturbance is not likely to occur as a result of the operation of the proposed MSSS;

road traffic noise is predicted to meet the relevant criteria at the nearest residences to

Mandalong Road during the construction and operational phase of the project; and

some residents will be noise affected during the construction period.

The PEAR concluded that the project is unlikely to result in nose levels exceeding recommended

regulatory limits. The Department is satisfied that the Appli a t s proposed suite of mitigation

measures would minimise noise from all operations and there is little scope to further reduce

construction noise impacts. Conditions were recommended to require strict noise limits to apply, a

noise management plan be prepared and implemented and regular monitoring and assessment of

impacts, and noise performance reporting.

3.4.3 The Interim Construction Noise Guideline

Noise from industrial activities, including mining, is generally assessed against the Industrial Noise

Policy (INP). In recognition that construction activities normally only occur for a limited time and are

often noisier by their nature, the EPA released The Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) in

2009. The ICNG states clearly that it does not cover construction noise associated with quarrying

and mining.

Not ithsta di g the ICNG s e lusio of ining construction activities, the Noise Impact Assessment

report adopted the noise management levels in the ICNG for its assessment of construction noise

impacts from road construction and works on the Services Site on nearby residences.

The Commission sought advice from the Department in relation to the justification to adopt the

ICNG for the construction phase of the project. The Department identified a gap in the current NSW

noise policies in regards to construction activities undertaken on mine sites. The ICNG makes it clear

it is not applicable to mining project. The NSW Industry Noise Policy also states that it does not

include construction activities. In the circumstances, the Department has developed a flow chart to

determine whether noise from a mine site should be assessed as operational noise or construction

oise. The EPA a epts the Depa t e t s positio a d the p o ess to e tif the gap has egu . Both agencies agreed that where activities can be properly classified as construction work, the ICNG

should be referenced regardless of whether the activities occur at a mine site or elsewhere.



22

For the current proposal the Commission accepts the advice from the Department and the EPA that

the ICNG should apply to all construction activities except the sinking of the ventilation shaft as this

activity will occur for an extended period and is more appropriately assessed against the more

stringent INP noise criteria. The Department advised that this gap in the policy will be addressed in

the current review of the INP.

3.4.4 Construction Noise

The Commission agrees that the two key aspects of construction noise are those identified in the

PEAR:

rock hammering to create the access road; and

sinking of the ventilation shaft.

The NIA found that without mitigation measures in place, noise modelling predictions indicate that

oise affe ted le els du i g o st u tio of the a ess oad a d site e a ation would be exceeded

by up to 18dBA, particularly for residences located near the intersection of Mandalong Road and the

proposed access road. Notwithstanding the exceedances, the predicted noise levels would be below

the highl oise affe ted le el set i ICNG.

The Commission notes that the predicted noise levels for 7 properties would be 10dBA or more

a o e the oise affe ted le el , hi h is set at dBA a o e the ate a kg ou d oise le el. The

noise increase for these residences would be 20dBA above their background noise level. For

residences R24 and R25, that would be +28dBA and +27dBA respectively.

Given the predicted exceedances, the NIA recommended that efforts are made to minimise the

sound power level of construction equipment where possible and to utilise temporary barriers to

provide shielding to the nearest residences. The report found a noise barrier with appropriate

height and location could achieve up to 10dBA reduction at residences R24 and R25. However, it

recognised that a noise barrier in close proximity to the residence may not be acceptable to the

owners and therefore recommended negotiation with owners before commencement of

construction.

The Commission acknowledges that the mitigation and management measures outlined in the

Appli a t s o it e ts a d the Depa t e t s proposed draft conditions should address the

majority of noise issues. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that there has been successful

implementation of alternative mitigation and management measures for other mining projects,

including double glazing and subsidising residents to vacate during noisy periods. The Commission

also considers that special consideration should be given to residents who have existing medical

conditions that a prolonged noisy period may negatively impacts on their health. Furthermore, the

Commission emphasises that it is important that advanced consultation and notification of

significant noise events, monitoring of compliance and quick response to complaints occurs.

In relation to the sinking of the ventilation shaft, the Commission notes that only one marginal

exceedance was predicted in the NIA and that the Applicant has entered into an agreement with the

landowner to accept this exceedance. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with the Department

that the ventilation shaft sinking activities need to be closely monitored, particularly in periods

outside standard construction hours.

The Commission acknowledges that there would be a significant increase in road traffic noise during

construction and while temporary, it would be for an extended time, although the predicted noise

levels would be within the relevant road noise criteria.



23

3.4.3 Operational Noise

The NIA found that the predicted noise levels for the operational phase of the proposal are below

the relevant intrusive and amenity noise criteria and would comply with the project specific noise

levels (PSNLs). The existing noise from the mine was also found not to be a significant contributor to

ambient noise levels, and consequently further assessment of cumulative industrial noise is not

required.

Du i g this e ie , the Co issio oted a dis epa et ee the Depa t e t s recommended

sleep disturbance criteria and the EPA s recommendation. The Department has since explained that

there was a typographic error in the sleep disturbance noise metric in the proposed draft conditions.

The Department has corrected this error in a revised set of proposed draft conditions.

In relation to exploration drilling, the Commission agrees with the Department and the EPA that it

should comply with the operational PSNLs. The Co issio also ag ees ith the Depa t e t s conclusion that the implementation of mitigation measures for exploration drilling, including the

erection of temporary noise barriers around the drill rig and using water circulation drilling methods

instead of compressed air methods, would enable the project to control its noise to within the

operational noise limits. The Commission notes that these mitigation measures align with various

community comments that electricity pumps should replace the air pumps to reduce noise.


1. That alternative mitigation and management measures are considered for exceptional cases

during construction.

3.5 Socio-Economic

3.5.1 Introduction

The EIS includes an Economic Analysis undertaken by Aigis Group, which the Commission has

considered in detail in assessing the socio-economic impacts.

The Mining SEPP also requires that a consent authority must consider the significance of resource in

determining an application for consent for development for the purposes of mining. Specifically

under Clause 12AA the consent authority is to have regard to:

any advice from the DTI as to the relative significance of the resource in comparison with other

mineral resources across the State; and

the economic benefits, both to the State and the region in which the development is proposed

to be carried out, of developing the resource.

3.5.2 Advice from the Department of Trade and Investment

The Department of Trade and Investment (DTI) did not initially provide advice to the Department.

However, since the PEAR was submitted, DTI has belatedly provided advice to the Department,

which it forwarded to the Commission (see Appendix 4). The DTI advice takes into account a number

of factors, including:

the size, quality and availability of the resource;

the proximity to existing infrastructure;

the relationship of the resource to existing production facilities;

the dependency of other industries; and

coal royalties.



24

The DTI, in summary, supports the Project for its contribution to the region and the state of NSW,

particularly in relation to the employment of up to 420 workers. The DTI advice concludes that the

proposal contains a very significant resource based on three key reasons:

1. its importance in maintaining coal production in the Newcastle region;

2. its significant contribution to NSW energy security and affordability (as a major supplier to

two nearby power stations); and

3. its value on the export market, which is estimated at 4.3 billion dollars (in current dollars)

over the life of the project.

3.5.3 Economic Benefits

The project has a capital investment value of approximately $265 million and involves the extraction

of up to 6 million tonnes (Mt) of coal a year for 25 years and proposes an increase in employment

from 305 existing jobs to 420 permanent positions plus temporary jobs. The Economic Analysis

claims that the Mandalong Southern Extension Project would result in a range of significant

economic benefits to the Lake Macquarie local government area and the wider Central Coast region.

Direct economic benefits resulting from the project include an estimated $229 million in mining

royalties to the State and $134 million in Commonwealth taxes over the life of the project.

The PEAR identifies that NSW has a large and mature coal industry based around substantial coal

resources. Over the past decade, NSW coal production has grown steadily due to growing demand

from export markets in Asia. In particular thermal coal remains a high sought-after energy source in

Japan, China, Korea and India.

However, the PEAR also notes that following preparation of the economic analysis on which the

above economic benefits are based, a number of significant events have occurred which call in to

doubt the veracity of these estimates. These include:

the Mineral Resources Rent Tax and the Carbon Tax have been repealed

export coal prices have fallen, and

at least i e o ke s ha e ee ade edu da t a oss the “tate s oal i dust .

The Commission notes that the Applicant has indicated that the current proposal is not susceptible

to fluctuations in export coal prices as most of the coal produced at Mandalong is delivered to

domestic customers (i.e. the power stations) under a number of long-term fixed price contracts. At

the request of the Department, the Applicant provided an update indicating that the estimated

mining royalties associated with the project are in the order of $218 million (net present value). In

terms of flow on benefits, it also estimates economic benefits of between 2.1 and 4.4 times the

initial stimulus would accrue throughout the life of the project with an employment multiplier in the

range of 2.7 to 4.

The Economic Analysis identifies that the project will deliver a total economic benefit of in the order

of $958 million, while the eeconomic costs have been estimated at approximately $293 million. In

terms of a cost benefit analysis, the Economic Analysis estimated a net economic benefit of $665

million (NPV) representing a benefit-cost ratio of 3.3.

The Commission has reviewed all relevant documentation relating to the methodology used to

determine the economic costs and benefits of the project and has noted that the PEAR does not

include any mention of the economic costs of the project, notwithstanding that these were included

in the EIS. The Co issio s further notes that no peer review has been undertaken of the

Economic Analysis prepared by Aigis.



25

The Commission has raised concerns regarding cost-benefit analysis methodology and assumptions

used in mining projects in previous reviews. In particular it has been critical that Applicants have

consistently over estimated project benefits and have included the use of Input-Output modelling to

produce employment figures, failed to properly account for externalities and have included

estimates of social benefits of employment in calculations of project benefits. In light of these

concerns, the Commission is aware that the State government is giving consideration to the

introduction of an agreed methodology for the preparation of cost benefit analysis for EISs.

However in the interim, and in the absence of a standardised approach, the Commission considers

that it is appropriate for a project of this nature to be peer reviewed prior to determination to

ensure the veracity of its conclusions. Further, it considers that it is appropriate that the Applicant

should be required to provide an updated Economic Analysis, including a comprehensive sensitivity

analysis to provide a range of scenarios taking into account the current economic climate and, if

available, the Go e e t s agreed methodology for the preparation of cost benefit analysis for

EISs. The Commission notes that the Department had previously requested a sensitivity analysis,

however the Applicant only provided an update of the basic assumptions used to calculate the net

benefit of the proposal.

Notwithstanding the above comments, the Commission agrees with the views of the Department

and DTI that the proposal would result in a positive net economic benefit for the region and NSW.

The Commission does not consider that the issues raised above would substantially change this

broad conclusion, however it does impact upon the extent of the purported benefits.

3.5.4 Social impacts

A number of submissions have raised concerns that the existing Mandalong mine, and the project by

extension, has over time changed the social fabric of the community primarily through the

purchasing of properties affected by the mine. While the Commission is sympathetic to this issue, it

believes this concern must be considered in the context of the employment benefits offered by the

project and given that properties purchased by the mine are commonly made available for rent.

In terms of community benefits, the Commission notes that the Applicant has proposed to establish

a $500,000 fund to be administered by the Lake Macquarie Foundation for the purposes of funding

local community projects in lieu of a development agreement and to offset the social impacts of the

project. The Commission supports this commitment broadly, however notes that it should be

strategically staged and targeted at the local level.

The Community raised concern with the proposed social impact offset contribution of $500,000

being provided to the Lake Macquarie Foundation, an organisation which provides funding for

projects within the broader Lake Macquarie Council local government area. The concern raised was

that the greatest impacts from the mine will be felt by the Mandalong community but the funds

would be distributed more broadly throughout the Lake Macquarie LGA. The Commission

acknowledges these concerns and recognises that the proposed distribution by the Lake Macquarie

Foundation may result in a limited scope for any significant works to be undertaken in Mandalong,

and ultimately limited benefits to the Mandalong community.

The Commission considers that further consideration should be given to the amenity of residents of

Mandalong with the view to mitigating the immediate impacts of the project. The Commission

recommends that the staging of funds should be reviewed and amended to reflect that the impacts

on the Mandalong community that would occur early in the construction period. This could be



26

achieved through the provision of funds early in the project life for community infrastructure, such

as the development of a formed, shared pathway adjacent to Mandalong Road within the town of

Mandalong for general purpose use including horse riding, cycling and pedestrians. This would also

address concerns about traffic and safety, which is addressed in 3.6.1.


1. That the Appli a t s Economic Analysis is updated, prior to determination, to reflect the current

economic climate and include a sensitivity analysis to provide a range of scenarios.

2. That a peer review of the updated economic assessment is provided prior to determination.

3. That the staging of the $500,000 community fund should be reviewed and amended to reflect

that the direct impacts on the Mandalong community that would occur early in the construction

period. This may involve the provision of funds early in the project life for community

infrastructure, such as the development of a formed, shared pathway adjacent to Mandalong

Road within the town of Mandalong for general purpose use including horse riding, cycling and

pedestrians.

3.6 Other Issues

3.6.1 Traffic

The EIS includes Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), which assessed the impacts of the proposal on the

local road network in regard to network efficiency and safety. It states that the local road network

likely to be impacted by the proposal is Mandalong Road between the M1 Pacific Motorway

(formerly the F3 Freeway) and 700 metres south of Chapman Road.

The development of the MSSS would involve substantial construction works that the Applicant has

indicated are expected to occur over approximately 2.5 years. During construction of the MSSS, it is

predicted that there would be up to 79 vehicle trips per hour during peak times. The TIA states that

construction traffic during peak periods is likely to coincide with both mine employee traffic and

ordinary traffic on the local road network.

Significant concern was raised by local residents regarding the proposed increase in vehicle

movements along Mandalong Road (from the direction of the M1) which would result in potential

safety issues for the community of Mandalong. The community are of the view such a significant

increase in movements could endanger the safety of residents including pedestrians, cyclists, horse

riders and children during the morning and afternoon school bus runs particularly due to the lack of

a formalized footpath along Mandalong Road.

The Commission a k o ledges the o u it s o e s a d also otes that the e a e issues with safe sight distances, particularly to the south of the access location for the MSSS. The

Commission recommends that further consideration should be given to the amenity and safety of

local residents along Mandalong Road, particularly during construction. This may involve:

the Applicant consulting further with local residents about potential mitigation and management

measures;

providing a share shared pathway adjacent to Mandalong Road for general purpose use

i ludi g li g a d pedest ia s, hi h ould alig ith the Co issio s e o e datio s i 3.5.4 in relation to the proposed community fund; and

ensuring scheduled deliveries and construction vehicle movements occur outside of school bus

run periods.



27

3.6.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The Applicant has advised the Commission that 13 of the 113 known Aboriginal Heritage sites (12%

of the known sites) may be impacted by cracking and erosion damage by mine subsidence above the

proposed long walls. It is also possible that another 15 sites (13% of known sites) could also be

impacted by the proposed long alls, ith all othe sites o side ed u likel o e u likel to e affected by cracking or erosion damage.

The PEAR reflects the information provided in the EIS and cites the 113 Aboriginal heritage sites.

However, the Commission notes the Response to Submissions provides that 140 Aboriginal heritage

sites are located within the Southern Extension area and states these have been registered with the

Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS).

Notwithstanding the above, the Commission notes the OEH has not raised this issue in its submission

to the Department. Nevertheless, the Commission recommends that clarification is sought about the

number of Aboriginal sites located within the Southern Extension Area to ensure that there are no

additional impacts on items of Aboriginal heritage.

3.6.3 Land Management

The Commission notes that speakers at the public hearing were concerned that the Applicant was

not managing the land proposed to form the intended biodiversity offset area.

The two contiguous lots that are nominated as the biodiversity offset areas are currently leased to

provide for a continuation of sustainable land use activities so that the natural and agricultural value

of the land is maintained.

The Commission notes that there is some confusion regarding the management of these two lots.

While tenants run and maintain the properties, the Applicant oversees the environmental

management of the properties under the Land Management Plan, which provides for the protection

and continuation of sustainable land use activities on all of the Appli a t s rural holdings. The PAC is

satisfied that this process is appropriate to deal with the management of land owned by the

Appli a t s u al la dholdi gs i ge e al, ho e e , it e og ises that o e spe ifi e ui e e ts should be attached to the management of the lots proposed to be used for offsets.

In that regard, the Applicant has also proposed a Land Management Strategy, which specifically

relates to the two lots proposed to be used for offset purposes. The proposed Land Management

Strategy would outline management criteria for these two lots along with a conservation bond. The

Commission also supports the Appli a t s app oa h to dealing with these two lots, and notes that

the proposed draft condition regarding biodiversity offsets would ensure effective land

management, as discussed in 3.3.3.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS The Commission has carefully considered the proposal and the submissions made, including the

issues raised at the public hearing and the submissions made on the Environmental Impact

Statement, the Response to Submissions (RTS) report and the Applicant s Response to the RTS

report. The Commission also sought specific expert advice from the EPA and NOW on water impacts.

In addition to the specific issues to be considered in the Ministers Terms of Reference, the

Commission also considered water, biodiversity, noise, socio-economic, traffic, Aboriginal heritage,

land management and greenhouse gas impacts of the project.



28

The Commission found that the project would have a number of project specific impacts, but that

these can be managed to an acceptable level through stringent and robust conditions along with

careful management of operations on site. The Commission has made a number of

recommendations in this regard, particularly relating to the need for best practice management of

subsidence, water, noise and traffic management.

With these measures, and requirements for best practice management in place, the Commission is

satisfied that the project can be approved, subject to conditions.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS – CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY In considering the project and its potential impacts, the Commission has identified a number of

areas that require additional work by the Applicant or amendments to the proposed draft

conditions. The Commission has consolidated these recommendations from the various sections of

the report into this final consolidated list of recommendations on the project:

Subsidence

1. That the Applicant provides a predicted timeline of longwall extraction, including a plan showing

the progression of longwalls over the 25 year project life for inclusion in the consent.

2. That appropriate monitoring of non-conventional subsidence effects should be included as a

requirement in any consent and that the relevant Extraction Plan is required to contain

appropriate measures to control the risks from non-conventional subsidence so as to ensure

that the environmental performance criteria are not exceeded.

3. That advice is sought from the MSB about the likely extent of repairs required, prior to

determination.

4. That confirmation is sought from Transgrid that an appropriate level of consultation with the


5. That a rigorous set of performance measures is included in any consent. Rigorous in this context

means able to be measured or assessed in a scientifically and legally sound manner and be

capable of enforcement. These performance measures must be supported by:

(i) a requirement that the Extraction Plan for each longwall contains revised subsidence

predictions based on experience from previous mining on the site and that these revised

predictions will not allow the performance criteria to be exceeded; and

(ii) a requirement that the Extraction Plan for each longwall contains:

(a) appropriate triggers to warn of the development of an increasing risk of exceedance of

the performance criteria (e.g. the subsidence predictions themselves and/or other

relevant subsidence-related measurements);

(b) specific action plans to respond to increased risk of exceedance that will ensure the

criteria are not exceeded (e.g. cessation of mining, narrowing the longwall, altering

seam height, etc.); and

(c) an assessment of remediation measures that may be required if exceedance does occur

and the capacity to implement the measures.

Water Resources

6. That, prior to determination, the groundwater monitoring program is amended to incorporate

the recommendations outlined in Section 6 of the report entitled Groundwater Quality response

to Submissions Support (Australian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd,

September 2014).

7. That, prior to determination, the Applicant is required to undertake a detailed assessment of the

impact of the proposed site discharge at LPD001 both in terms of water quality and quantity on

the receiving waters of Muddy Creek as part of the current project.



29

Alternatively, in the absence of such an assessment, any consent should be conditioned to

comply with the existing EPL and should require that any additional discharge, over and above

the existing approved discharge, be treated to ensure nil additional impact.

8. That the haul and access road are designed in a way that does not result in adverse flooding

impacts for adjoining properties.

9. That the proposed draft condition relating to the Water Management Plan expressly includes

mitigation measures to address tunnel erosion.

Biodiversity

10. That an additional condition of consent be included in Schedule 3 that requires the MSSS access

road be designed such that it does not impact on any existing Biconvex Paperbark trees

particularly in the location of the proposed Morans Creek crossing.

Noise

11. That alternative noise mitigation and management measures are considered for exceptional

cases during construction.

Socio-Economic

12. That the Appli a t s Economic Analysis is updated, prior to determination, to reflect the current

economic climate, including a comprehensive sensitivity analysis to address a range of scenarios.

13. That a peer review of the updated economic assessment is provided prior to determination.

14. That the staging of the $500,000 community fund should be reviewed and amended to reflect

that the impacts on the Mandalong community that would occur early in the construction

period. This may involve the provision of funds early in the project life for community

infrastructure, such as the development of a formed, shared pathway adjacent to Mandalong

Road within the town of Mandalong for general purpose use including horse riding, cycling and

pedestrians.

Traffic

15. That consideration is given to the amenity and safety of local residents along Mandalong Road,

particularly during construction. This may involve:

(i) the Applicant consulting further with local residents about potential mitigation and

management measures;

(ii) providing a shared pathway adjacent to Mandalong Road for general purpose use including

horse riding, cycling and pedestrians; and

(iii) ensuring scheduled deliveries and construction vehicle movements occur outside of school

bus run periods.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

16. That clarification is sought about the number of Aboriginal sites located within the Southern

Extension Area to ensures that there are no additional impacts on items of Aboriginal heritage.



30

References

Centennial Mandalong. Mandalong Mine presentation, 12 February 2015.

Centennial Mandalong Pty Limited. Mandalong Southern Extension Project Response to Submissions,

March 2015.

Centennial Mandalong Pty Limited. Mandalong Southern Extension Project Response to RTS

Submissions, July 2015.

GSS Environmental Mandalong Southern Extension Project - Environmental Impact Statement,

September 2013.

Land and Environment Court, Newcastle and Hunter Valley Speleological Society Inc. v Upper Hunter

Shire Council and Stoneco Pty Limited [2010] NSWLEC 48.

NSW Department of Planning and Environment Preliminary Environmental Assessment Mandalong

Southern Extension Project (SSD-5144), December 2014.

NSW Government. Voluntary Land & Acquisition and Mitigation Policy, Gazetted 15 December 2014.

Planning Assessment Commission. Bulli Seam Operations Project Review Report, July 2010.

Planning Assessment Commission. Wallarah 2 Coal Project Review Report, June 2014.



31

APPENDIX 1

List of Speakers at the Public Hearing

Date & Time: 4.00 pm, Thursday, 12 February 2015

Place: Bonnells Bay Youth and Community Centre, 275 Fishery Point Road, Bonnells

Bay

1. Da id O Do d

2. Tanya Burke

3. Community Environment Network – Avril Lockton

4. Mandalong Community Association – Marton Marosszeky

5. Leonie Sweeny

6. Clint Allen

7. Peter Land

8. Mandy Allen

9. Mick Astles

10. Marton Marosszeky on behalf of Brian Byles

11. Phillip Hyde

12. Angela Besant

13. Steven Ostergarrd

14. Bridgette Murray

15. David Kearns

16. Louis Luca

17. Tracey Corkery

18. Dr Ian Wright

19. Colin Burzacott on behalf of Dr Philip Pells

20. Angela Astles on behalf of Dr David Hadley



32

APPENDIX 2

Summary of Presentations Made at the Public Hearing

Comments provided during the public hearing and in written submissions:

Employment

Mine will provide job security for employees

Employees income spent in local community

The mine pays royalties and employees pay tax

The Applicant is the largest employer in the area

The mine employees 9 apprentices

Subsidence

The project allows for subsidence and the mines existing operations are a quarter of that seen

on other underground mining operations

16 longwalls have been mined already with minimal impact showing the Applicant cares for the

environment

The mine will monitor operations to ensure there is no environmental impact from subsidence

Community

The Applicant supports local community groups including sporting clubs, meals on wheels etc

Passers-by do not even realise the existing mine is operating due to its environmental

awareness and low impact

The Applicant owns 46 properties in the local area and the tenants are not locals. This has

impacted on the cohesiveness of the local community through the decrease in community

members

The e isti g i e has esulted i the solastalgia i pa t The mine will result in a social impact for the community

Traffic Issues

The road network was designed to cater for rural traffic and vehicles, not for heavy vehicles and

high traffic movements

Children walk to the school bus stops along the road as there is no footpath. Truck movements

ill put hild e s li es at isk

Existing members of the community who are forced, due to the lack of a footpath, to use the

roadway for access such as horse riders, cyclists, pedestrians would not be able to use the road

with the numerous heavy vehicle movements

Mandalong Road will effectively become a mine haul road

Construction deliveries should be scheduled outside of school bus run periods

The existing roads are poorly maintained and the increased traffic and heavy vehicle

movements will require more frequent maintenance and/or the road should be upgraded

Construction vehicle movements should not be 24 hours a day and should be restricted to

minimise impact on the Mandalong community

A separate pathway for pedestrians and other users should be considered to offset the impact

from the increase in vehicle movements and to ensure the safety of the Mandalong community

Greenhouse Gas

The mine will result in increased CO2 emission levels which will compound sea level rise

concerns including for Lake Macquarie.



33

Water Related Issues

Dora Creek and Kariong are at risk of flooding

The area will be subject to increased flood levels. As a result Mandalong Road should be built up

so that access is maintained during flood events

Local water catchments will be contaminated as a result of the dewatering of the underground

workings into Muddy Lake which flows to Lake Macquarie

Local land rates have funded a special levy to clean Lake Macquarie which will be pointless if

the mine discharges into it

Surface water runoff from the mine site also ultimately runs into Lake Macquarie

The current rate of discharge, 1 Ml day, is increasing to 8 Ml day which will impact of waters

No discharge should be permitted during high rain fall events

Twice yearly toxin testing of Muddy Lake is inadequate – the mine should be checking Muddy

Lake at least 6 times a year

The area has become subject to ponding. The mine has failed to transparently report on

flooding impacts over the last 10 years

Local drain catchments should be cleaned

The projects existing Environmental Protection Licenced (EPL) relates to the Northern Coal

Logistics operations not the current proposal so any contaminated water discharges from the

site would not be covered by the EPL.

The EPL for the project only enables 3 pollutants to be released however multiple pollutants are

being discharged

Ponding has become an issue in more recent years and is a result of the underground mining

Contributions

The mine is supported, in principle, subject to the Mandalong community receiving

compensation for the impacts that will result from the project

The Applicant has reached an agreement for contribution to the Lake Macquarie Foundation

which means the contribution will be spent in areas other than the Mandalong community who

are directly impacted by the project

Tunnel Erosion

The area is subject to tunnel erosion which has not been considered adequately by the

Applicant or the Department of Planning and Environment

Noise

The service site will be visible and audible thereby impacting on the amenity of adjoining land

owners

The 24 hour construction noise will result in sleep disturbance for nearby residents

A condition should be imposed stating that noise should not be heard in any habitable room of

a house with the windows open/closed

Biodiversity

The relocation of the Transgrid infrastructure will impact on vegetation and should be

considered at the same time as the project

Property Values

The mine will adversely impact on property values as a result of mining operations



34

Economic Viability

An evaluation of the economic efficiency of the project can only be determined if all costs and

benefits are considered. The Economic Assessment for the project is only partial and does not

an adequate analysis for the project and therefore should be redone.

Sustainability

Australia should be moving to renewable sources of energy, not relying on fossil fuels

A number of documents were submitted at the public meeting and/or sent by email following the

meeting. All ele a t o espo de e is o the Co issio s e site at www.pac.nsw.gov.au.

http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/



35

APPENDIX 3

SUMMARY OF MEETINGS WITH OTHERS

Summary Notes of Meeting with the Department of Planning & Environment

Meeting note taken by: Rob Sherry Date: Wednesday, 21 January 2015 Time: 2.00 pm

Meeting place: PAC

Attendees:

PAC: Joe Woodward PSM (Chair);

Robyn Kruk AM;

Gordon Kirkby

Rob Sherry

Department: Oliver Holm (Executive Director);

Howard Reed (Manager);

Paul Freeman (Senior Planning Officer)

The purpose of the meeting is to brief the PAC on the extension project proposal.

The main points of discussion are outlined below:

Background

• The original project approval was the outcome of a Commission of Inquiry

Subsidence

• The longwalls commenced at 125 metres in width and are now 160 metres with the approval

providing up to 260 metres

Individual subsidence management plans are prepared for private properties

Longwall 5 was considered a subsidence issue however there have been no subsidence issues

with the mine currently at longwall 17

The Department is of the view that regardless of the fault issues with longwall 5 that subsidence

which occurred was still within the approved threshold

A number of properties pre-date the formation of the Mine Subsidence Board however the MSB

will address any damage caused and has actually re-built one dwelling

Rehabilitation/Biodiversity Offset Strategy

• The draft recommended conditions relating to biodiversity are a work in progress with further

revised conditions to be provided

Noise

There will be out of hours construction noise with the construction of the ventilation shaft

which will occur 24 hours a day

The use of the Industrial Noise Policy (INP) versus the Construction Noise Guidelines have been

under review for mine project assessments as the INP does not always address noise related

issues on private properties located within rural areas as rural precincts have not been subject

to the INP

The PAC queried whether cumulative noise impacts, i.e. ventilation stack, construction of roads

and infrastructure etc had been considered. The Department advised it would check the query

and respond accordingly



36

Water

Water which is being directed to the existing dam is being assessed noting the dam is being

increased in capacity

The project approval would only cover water discharged from the project to the dam, it does

not address water released from the dam to the discharge point

The water discharge is being considered separately under the Northern Logistics project

proposal.

The Department is working on the assumption the Northern Logistics project will be approved

within 2 years

The PAC indicated it was concerned that contaminated water from the project which is

discharged from the dam was not being considered as part of the current proposal.

The PAC sought clarification on the implications for the project should the Northern Logistics

project not been approved

The Department advised that it is of the view the dam is covered under an existing approval

regardless of the increase in size. The PAC requested clarification on whether the existing

approval covered the increased size of the dam. The Department advised it was irrelevant as

the dam was subject to an existing approval which could be amended to reflect any changes

required.

General items:

• Infrastructure (i.e. transmission lines) will need to be relocated

The Applicant has an active acquisition program purchasing properties it is not required to

under the approval

The Department advised that a property above longwall 1 (a turf farm operation) claimed

subsidence impacts had forced the closure of the business. The company is in discussions with

the property owner with a mediator engaged.

Documents provided: - N/A

Briefing finished at approximately: 3.00 pm



37

Summary Notes of Meeting with the Applicant

Meeting note taken by: Rob Sherry Date: Thursday, 12 February 2015 Time: 10.00 am

Meeting place: Mandalong Coal Mine, 12 Kerry Anderson Drive, Mandalong

Attendees:

PAC: Joe Woodward PSM (Chair)

Robyn Kruk AM

Gordon Kirkby

Rob Sherry

Mandalong Coal Mine:

John Turner (Mandalong Mine Manager);

Jeff Dunwoodie (Mandalong Environment & Community Coordinator);

Phil Enright (Mandalong Mining Approvals Coordinator);

Peter Cook (Project Manager);

Anna Walsh (Project Senior Mining Engineer);

James Wearne (Group Manager Approvals);

Mary-Anne Crawford (General Manager Environment & Approvals);

Greg Banning (Regional Projects & Technical Support Manager)

The purpose of the meeting is to brief the PAC on the extension project proposal and to provide for

a site inspection of the mine.

A general briefing of the underground operations was provided.

The main points of discussion and through the power point presentation are outlined below:

Subsidence

• Currently mining longwall 17

The project relies on engineered design techniques to minimise subsidence impacts

Studies have shown that there are no faults in the sandstone beam which overlies the project

and stops subsidence from occurring

Supporting pillars are larger and wider than normal to act as a long term management tool

The project is looking to extend the current 160 metre width operation with new longwall

support structures being sought

Rehabilitation/Biodiversity Offset Strategy

• Development of the Mandalong South Services Site will require clearing of 15.6 hectares of

Coastal Foothills Spotted Gum – Ironbark Forest

A Land Management Strategy is proposed to compensate for the removal including the

conservation of two parcels owned by the Applicant

The Applicant received comment from OEH the day prior to the PAC site visit. A response will be

prepared by the Applicant and issued to OEH, the Department and the PAC

The Applicant is of the view the two parcels being provided as offset are satisfactory as no EEC

is being removed as part of the project infrastructure development

The Applicant is looking to provide a positive covenant on the property title, not have the offset

parcels listed under a Biobanking Agreement

The Applicant is of the opinion the two parcels would show the community how land

conservation and agricultural use can work together



38

Noise

There will be out of hours construction noise however the Applicant is working with the

community to ensure minimal disruption occurs

Water

Water which is being directed to the existing dam is being assessed noting the dam is being

increased in capacity to cater for the additional capture

The water discharge is being considered separately by the Department of Planning And

Environment as part of the Northern Logistics project proposal

While cracking has occurred in the creek located under longwall 7, monitoring has shown that

there has been no loss of water and no connective cracking has occurred

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The Applicant indicated that, where possible, pillars have been located under areas where

Aboriginal artefacts are located

General items:

• There is an ongoing issue with the turf farm property above longwalls 1 and 2 however the area

was mined in 2005

Documents provided: - Copy of power point presentation.

Briefing and site visit finished at approximately: 3.00 pm



39

Summary Notes of Meeting with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

(via tele-conference)

Meeting note taken by: Rob Sherry Date: Monday, 2 March 2015 Time: 1.15 pm

Meeting place: PAC

Attendees:

PAC: Joe Woodward PSM (Chair)

Robyn Kruk AM

Gordon Kirkby

Rob Sherry

EPA: Mark Hartwell, Head, Regional Operations, Hunter Region

Natasha Ryan, Environment Protection Officer

The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss water management and discharge issues.

The main points of discussion are outlined below:

Noise

The EPA advised noise related concerns have been resolved and the EPA is satisfied with the

approach being taken by the Department

Water

The PAC advised it is concerned that contaminated water is being discharged from the site to

the Northern Logistics project and therefore would not be covered by any conditions for the

project the subject of the Review

The EPA advised it is concerned with the mixing zones and the level of metals present for both

this and the Northern Logistic sites

The PAC sought clarification on the implications for the project should the Northern Logistics

project not been approved. The EPA advised that the EPL for the Northern Logistics project

could be varied however the Applicant would need to show that the extension project had an

approval in place for the discharge of contaminated water

The EPA were of the view there has been a lack of assessment for example with the heavy

metals being discharged with the Applicant arguing that the issues would be addressed through

the Northern Logistics project

The PAC sought clarification of the implications post mining. The EPA advised that river systems

adjust to suit the change in environment so if mining stops then this in itself would create an

impact on the river system

The assessment could include a requirement for no increase in load in any discharge which

would require the Applicant to treat the water prior to discharging it

Treatment prior to discharge would also remove in the additional salt loading

The EPA advised it was of the view that prior to the determination of the extension project that

the Northern Logistics project should be determined as it is receiving the contaminated water

from this project. Alternatively, a Plan B, such as treating the water prior to discharge, should

be considered

There are heavy metals leaking into the eastern catchment of Muddy Lake. Any additional

loading needs to consider the cumulative impacts which have not been assessed to date

Documents provided: - N/A

Tele-conference finished at approximately: 1.50 pm



40

APPENDIX 4

COPY OF LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INVESTMENT

DATED 22 JANUARY 2015



41



42



43



44



45