lnfrastructure - Major Projects - NSW Government

Planning &lnfrastructure

M AJ O R P ROJ ECT ASSESSME'VTMaules Creek Coal Project(10_0138)

Director-General'sEnvironmental Assessment ReportSection 751 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979August 2012

Cover Photo: Aerial view looking to the west across the northern part of Leard State Forest (20'l 1).

@ Crown copyright 2012Published August 2012NSW Department of Planning and lnfrastructurewww.plannlno.nsw.qov.au

Disclaimer:While every reasonable effort has been made toensure that this document is correct at the time ofpublication, the State of New South Wales, itsagents and employees, disclaim any and atl liabilityto qny person ln respect of anything or theconsequences of anything done or opitted to bedone in reliance upon the whole or any part of thisdocument

Maules Creek Coal Project Env i ron mental Assessmenf Reporf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Aston 2 Pty Limited (Aston), a wholly owned subsidiary of Whitehaven Coal Limited, is proposing toestablish a new open cut coal mine within and adjoining the Leard State Forest about 1B kilometres(km) northeast of the town of Boggabri in the Narrabri Shire Local Government Area (LGA). Theproposed mine - known as the Maules Creek Coal Project - is located within an existing miningprecinct that includes the existing Tarrawonga Coal Mine and Boggabri Coal Mine.

The Maules Creek Coal Project involves the extraction of a 240 million tonne coal resource over 21years, at an extraction rate of up to 13 million tonnes of run-of-mine (ROM) coal a year. The projectinfrastructure includes an overburden and coal extraction haulage fleet, a coal handling andpreparation plant, mine access roads, a rail load-out facility, an 8 km raif spur line to link into a sharedrail spur line being constructed for the Boggabri Coal Project, and other ancillary infrastructure. Theproject would employ a maximum of 470 operational staff and a peak construction workforce of 340.

The project is a 'major project' under the now-repealed Part 3A of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The project remains a'transitional major project'under the Act, andconsequently requires approval from the Minister for Planning and lnfrastructure. However, under theMinister's existing delegations, the project application must be determined by the PlanningAssessment Commission (PAC) due to the number of objections received to the project. The proposalis also a 'controlled action' under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999, and will therefore require approval from the Commonwealth Minister forSustainability, Environment, Water Population and Communities.

The Department exhibited the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project from 30 August 2011until 1 1 October 2011, and received 1 10 submissions: 12 from government authorities, 13 from specialinterest groups and 85 from the general public. Most of the public submissions objected to the project,with key issues relating to impacts on Leard State Forest (biodiversity) and surface and ground water.Concerns were also raised by the Maules Creek Community Council and local rural residents overhealth and amenity impacts from dust and noise and local and regional social impacts. Cumulativeimpacts, including from the existing and proposed Boggabri and Tarrawonga Coal Mines, were alsoraised. Other issues related to noise and vibration, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, trafficimpacts and impacts on agricultural productivity and enterprises.

Leard State Forest is an area included in hhe Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation AreaAct 2005 (BNCCA Act). The BNCCA Act provides for permanent conservation of approximately350,000 hectares (ha) of land within the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar Bioregions while alsoclearly recognising the socio-economic benefits of the resources sector. The existing mineral interestsand mining approvals within Leard State Forest were carefully considered by the NSW Government inthe development of the BNCCA Act. Under the BNCCA Act, Leard State Forest is zoned 4 for thepurposes of forestry, recreation and mineral extraction. The Zone 4 category for Leard State Forestacknowledges the existing mining interests and approvals over the land and was an outcome ofbalancing conservation and economic development potential.

Given the level of public interest in the project and potential for cumulative impacts with the adjoiningBoggabri Coal Project, the Minister directed the PAC to undertake a public hearing and review of theproject. ln accordance with its terms of reference, the PAC review also focused on biodiversity, air andnoise impacts, and surface water/ groundwater including cumulative impacts. The PAC completed itsreview in March 2012, concluding that the project has merit and could be approved subject to stringentconditions. The PAC made 21 recommendations, which have been substantially adopted by theDepartment in its recommended conditions for the project.

The Department has assessed the project application, EA, submissions on the project, Aston'sresponses to submissions, additional information provided during the assessment period and thePAC's review report in accordance with the objects of the EP&A Act and the principles of ecologicallysustainable development.

The Department acknowledges that the project would require the clearing of a large area of goodquality native vegetation within and surrounding Leard State Forest, including 545 ha of Box GumWoodland EEC and habitat for a large number of threatened species, particularly birds and bats. The

Maules Creek Coal Project E nviron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

recently approved extension of the Boggabri Coal Mine would also lead to a significant cumulativeimpact in Leard State Forest. However, after considering the PAC's review and its recommendations,the Department is satisfied that these biodiversity impacts are able to be mitigated and/or offset suchthat the project may improve or at least maintain biodiversity values over the medium to long term. Toassist in achieving this outcome, the Department has recommended that Aston provide an additional1,000 ha of offset area in moderate to good condition to enhance Aston's proposed core offset areasof 7,665 ha (including 5,031 ha of Box Gum Woodland EEC and associated derived nativegrasslands). The core offsets are to be supplemented through strategic inclusion of up to 1,669 ha ofpoorer condition land as a buffer and for provision of movement corridors in the landscape. Successfulrestoration of the overall biodiversity offset and rehabilitation of the disturbed area is essential to meetthis outcome. Consistent with the PAC's Boggabri Coal determination, the Department also supportsthe PAC recommendation for the development of a regional biodiversity strategy to provide anintegrated framework for the management, monitoring and security of offsets in the area.

The other key biodiversity issue is the retention of a 500 metre (m) biodiversity corridor centred aroundthe coal lease boundary between the Boggabri and Maules Creek Coal Mines. Flexibility in thelocation of this corridor between the two mines has been provided in the Department's recommendedconditions, which is consistent with the PAC's Boggabri Coal determination. This approach potentiallyallows the significant economic benefits associated with coal extraction within the project boundary tobe realised without compromising the ecological benefits that could be provided through alternativebiodiversity corridors maintained through the mine life.

The Department is satisfied that the groundwater impacts are localised and largely confined to thePermian hard rock aquifers, with no significant impact predicted on irrigation bores that draw waterfrom high quality alluvial aquifers. The Department is also satisfied that the project has been designedand can be managed on a zero discharge basis for mine water and that downstream users would notbe significantly impacted. The Department has recommended conditions largely consistent with thePAC recommendations and included standard conditions requiring preparation and implementation ofa water management plan and, if required, provision of compensatory water supplies to landownerswhose water entitlements are adversely affected by the project.

However, the Department has not supported the PAC's recommendation for conditions requiringbackfilling the mine's final void to ensure that no pit lake develops. Given the significant coalsterilisation (up to 84 million tonnes), very high capital costs (between $388 million and $813 million),identified future mining potential beyond the 21 year project life (which would change the location ofthe final void) and environmental impacts associated with re-disturbance of emplaced spoil toundertake backfilling operations, the Department does not believe that filling the final void is anappropriate strategy to require at this early stage of the mine's life. Conditions have instead beenrecommended to require Aston to minimise the size and depth of the final mine void as far aspracticable and to:. achieve comprehensive rehabilitation objectives, including ensuring that any final void is safe,

stable and non-polluting, and minimises the size, depth and drainage catchment of the final voidas far as is reasonable and feasible;

e prepare and implement a comprehensive Rehabilitation Management Plan; ando prepare and implement a Final Void and Mine Closure Plan that provides for a comprehensive

plan to minimise the long term groundwater effects of the project.

The Department has also recommended that its standard noise policy should apply for the project. lnparticular, the Department has recommended conditions for noise acquisition rights where the noiselevels exceed the project specific noise levels (PSNL) by more than 5 dB(A), ie greater than 40 dB(A),at residential receivers or over more than 25Yo of a landholding. On this basis, the Department hasincluded 4 privately-owned landholdings with acquisition rights at the request of the landowner in itsrecommended conditions. ln addition, the Department has recommended that noise generated fromrail movements along the rail spur line (outside the rail loop and loading area) should be assessed andregulated against the draft Rail lnfrastructure Noise Guidelines, rather than as "project noise".

The air impact assessment predicted that there would be significant impacts on two private propertieswhere more than 25o/o of the area was predicted to be impacted above the Department's standardvoluntary acquisition criteria, with one of these properties already identified as being significantlyimpacted by noise and the other already with acquisition rights.as a result of predicted impacts from

NSW Government 2Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me nta I Assessmenf Reporf

the Boggabri and Tarrawonga Coal mines. The Department has recommended conditions that aregenerally consistent with the PAC Report and its recent determination of the Boggabri Coal Project,including strengthening of conditions for tenants on residences of mine-owned land. The Departmentalso recommends that Aston implement all 'reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigationmeasures to comply' with air quality criteria at all privately owned residences.

ln summary, the Department's assessment has found that the project would have a number ofadverse environmental impacts, including:. clearing of 2,079 ha of native vegetation, including 545 ha of Box Gum Woodland Endangered

Ecological Community, predominantly within Leard State Forest, with consequent impacts onthreatened fauna species due to habitat loss;

o significant noise impacts on 4 privately-owned landholdings;o signif¡cant air impacts on 2 privately-owned landholdings;. impacts on 40 identified Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, including 6 sites identified as having

high scientific significance; and impacts on the cultural heritage value of the overall Leard StateForest landscape;

. localised impacts on water resources through capture of surface runoff, groundwater ingressinto the mining void and reduction of groundwater recharge to alluvial aquifers;

. local road impacts during construction and operations; ando local and regional social/amenity impacts from demands on infrastructure and services.

The Department is satisfied that these impacts can be adequately mitigated, managed, offset and/orcompensated for through implementation of a number of commitments made by Aston and additionalconditions recommended by the PAC and the Department. These include:. a significant offset strategy, involving the protection and enhancement of a minimum of 8,665 ha

of land for ecological benefit, and up to a further 1,669 ha of land for corridor enhancement andbuffers to enhance core offset areas; and a rehabilitation strategy targeting restoration ofwoodlands;

o noise and dust mitigation measures, including predictive meteorological forecasting and real-time dust and noise monitoring to provide adaptive management and mine planning;

. a substantive planning agreement with Narrabri Shire Council to provide communityenhancement and infrastructure funding over the life of the project; and

o development of regional strategies to manage the cumulative impacts from mining operations onbiodiversity, noise, blasting, air and water.

The Department has recommended a broad range of stringent conditions to ensure these measuresare effectively implemented and to appropriately manage the ongoing mining operations.

The Department acknowledges that the project represents a logical extension to existing miningoperations in the Leard State Forest mining precinct and that it would make use of sharedinfrastructure and facilities (particularly the Boggabri Rail Spur Line). The Department also recognisesthat the project would provide major economic and social benefits for the New England North Westregion, in particular Narrabri and Gunnedah LGAs and to NSW generally, including:o direct capital investment of $798 million in the mine;¡ direct employment for up Io 470 operational and 340 construction personnel and associated

indirect employment; ando direct revenue for the State Government from coal resource royalties.

On balance, the Department considers that the project's benefits outweigh its residual impacts andthat it is in the public interest and should be approved, subject to stringent conditions.

NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

3

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal Assessment Reporf

1. PROPOSED PROJECT

1.1 Project HistoryOn 12 June 1 990, the then Minister for Planning approved the Maules Creek Coal Mine (DA 85/181 9),within and adjoining the Leard State Forest about 18 kilometres (km) northeast of the town ofBoggabriin the NarrabriShire Local GovernmentArea (LGA, see Figure 1).

The approval allowed the development of an open cut and underground coal mine with a productionrate of 9 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of coal, and development of associated infrastructureincluding a rail loop and spur line, coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP) and other ancillaryinfrastructure (see Figure 2).

This development consent was triggered with the construction of a development dam in 1995 andremains a valid consent as the approval contains no lapsing date. However, coal extraction andproduction has never commenced under this existing approval. A valid mining lease (CL375) remainsover the project area.


4

Maul€sCræk5

^3¿16

I

G@rÈ¡ C€lEL 7435

Þ--

Baa

t

ItItI I

___---t

- - B*dadd4

-¡- i94sCßÉ\ Mrnnglámdls

- - oÉMhgTúd4b I 14r r.r,r H .rl. /

¡\S l'( )-\Regional Local¡ty

Figure 1 Locality

Maules Crøek Coal Project


E nviron me ntal Assessment Reporf

Figure 2: Approved Mining Qperations under DA 85/1819

5

-

F¡G-É68¡6

-

¡tãr¡(¡xlb rRa|q@ lxlc¡ìêfÈlsFr-lt¡ç

¡-I[GI

Rtr-()UltcÉs

¿ASTON

Cd Flr: filllc-drg tl*:25-lF-f I fkm:GP õ

Maules Creek Coal Project Envìron me ntal Assessmenf Repod

1.2 Project DescriptionAston 2 Pty Limited (Aston), a wholly owned subsidiary of Whitehaven Coal Limited, is now proposingto develop a different mine plan in the project area, which would replace (and subsume) the existingmining approval. The proposal - known as the Maules Creek Coal Project - is summarised in TableI and depicted in Figures 3 to I below. The project is described in full in Aston's EnvironmentalAssessment, which is attached as Appendix l.

Table 1: Key Components of the Maules Creek Coal ProjectAspect Descríption

Development an open cut m ng¡ extracting up to 1 3 Mtpa of ROM coal for 21 years;. constructing and operating infrastructure including a Goal Handling and

Preparation Plant (CHPP), rail spur line and loop;¡ employing up to 470 operational employees;c 24hou¡ operations; anda rehabilitation of all disturbed areas.

Project Life 21 yeaßMining and Reserves Extraction of 240 million tonnes (Mt) of ROM coal to produce about 220 M¡. of

product coal, to be transported by rail to the Port of Newcastle for export over a21-year period.

Coal would be extracted from 15 separate coal seams down to the Templemoreseam at excavated depths of up to approximately 320 metres (m). Average stripratio is 6.4 bank cubic metres (bcm) of overburden per tonne of ROM coal.

Total open cut coal reserves in the mining lease are estimated at 362 Mt withmarketable reserves of product coal estimated 329 Mt, indicating potentialexhaction beyond the proposed 21-year approval life.

Coal Processing & Transport Coal would be sized on site then sent to the CHPP within the infrastructure area.Product coal would be transported by rail to the Port of Newcastle for export.

Overburden Emplacement Up to 1,450 million bank cubic metres (Mbcm) of overburden would be moved and20 Mt of coal reject would be produced. Approximately 410 Mbcm of overburdenwould be placed into a northern outof-pit overburden emplacement area (OEA)followed by in-pit emplacement.

lnfrastructure On-site infrastructure would include:o 200,000 t ROM coal stockpile area;. crushing and sizing plant;. Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP);. coal reject tailings drying beds;o 750,000 tonne product coal stockpiles;. rail load out facility;o mine access roads;r communications and power reticulation;o explosives storage facility;. water management structures and systems;o administration and support facilities;o mine infrastructure; andr pipeline from Namoi River.

Employment 470 operational staff and 340 construction workersCapital value $798 million capital investment valueRehabilitation and Biodiversity Offsets The project would clear 2,079 hectares (ha) of native vegetation including

1,665 ha of woodland and 414 ha of native grasslands. This area also includes544 ha of ecologically endangered communities (EECs), predominantly Box GumWoodland listed under both NSW and Commonwealth legislation.

The biodiversity offset strategy proposed by Aston incorporates a total of7,665 harof native vegetation, including 6,047 ha of woodland and 1,6't8 ha ofnative grasslands. This also includes a total of 5,031 ha of Box Gum WoodlandEEC incorporating 3,545 ha woodland and 1,486 ha of derived native grasslands.Aston has also committed to provide up to 1,669 ha of poorer condition native andexotic grasslands to provide buffers around and connectivity between core offsetareas.

ln addition, the project disturbance area would be progressively rehabilitated (towoodland). Ultimately (through offsets and mine rehabilitation) the project wouldorovide for the conservation of over I 0,000 hectares of vegetation.

r The Department has also recommended the inclusion of an additional 1,000 ha of moderate to good condition nativevegetation to enhance the proposed offset.NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

b

Maules Creek Coal Project

NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnftastructure

Environ mental Assessmenf Reporf

Figure 3: Maules Creek Coal Project - proposed mine layout

lndicative Project Layout

huÉl

-

WffiffibMui,üÉlRùãy-E HSFfdL@p

-

ls¡pordyÁ@Rd

-

UmksRoad

-

Iq[sn L@p Rd

I Heneen Beiley ¡

Prcpod BoggùælÈrsp(rdlq ¿

ASTONßESOURCES@sttr6{tustuiÞru.410.

Apelæ

^ã¡ Êlb'ñÂtÂô\, tu¡Ã

7



Envi ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

8

3D2

r)

I

l

-'\ I

ùol

,.-. -340' -\..

a1ù

.go

\

Conceptual Project I nfrastructure

-EI

Propcl Bo¡ndaryPrciect Distubance BordarylfiæAcæ[email protected] Rq¡tæR"ilSgrrÐd Læ9Talings A¡F:Waþr str¿gelifp Wats DamRaw Waler Dam

Yær 2 l Rehabfril¿tim

Rt5()L¡RCL5TEin Lord Ort B¡n btË:g!Ñqhr

E O\€burdstEn$aærnRehotittalim

¿ASTON

#a

lndcatiw ill¡æ lnffiuctuE Aræ

Henserr Beiley

TemRelE¡¡litâfdDB¡n4eCotectiil Dr¡¡n

Cad File: 06975G drvg Date: 08 02 I 1 Dnm: CP I

I

Figure 4: Project Site lnfrastructure



E nvi ron me n tal Assessmenl Reporf

SO¡t-G

tI

-

/ii

0

Conceptual Year 5 Mine Plan

Prclect Eo!1dr')Ro¡d6lil¡Ê bG Rô;dH3L Ra(t¿6Rail Spur ¡¡C :ÐpT¡l hgr 3t 19.fe¡niler S:€geLllnel¡i¡ÞrDJnR3tJ'À¡ler Dã1

Il-JI ,\ST()}'I

lldE¿:lte l/ he Infß5UucùElt'e¡

lnt I lrr, r:r r ' [¡' l, r,.¡/lll!e Hlrl9ReFsÞl LrLon

lnr - or4ìJg+

+- Col:ctonoElC¡d Fle: 06g0iE dwg D¡Þ: 08 0: t f DÊr¡n CP 10

i'AULES GREEK GOAL PROJEGT

o

Figure 5: Year 5 Mine Plan



Env i ron me nta I Assessmenf Reporf

fq

b

- Ð

I

J

t

tDstx

2Bf¡ -'

. '-'\L

F-- '-.--!tto\-

O

I

I(

\¿

rJL

,/1 ,

¡

I

Jtt'

-l

ConceptualYear 10 Mine Plan

--)'-- ontnage lìL)ìrl lil¡\+ CdledonOß¡n

lndGüve vtæ ltrllõùlBülE AË¡

lnu I lur tuci r Bcll,¡y

¿AST(-)N

- - P OfliltJry

-

R€dE

^¡Ë,re Mlnlf4

RelàÞ1rbll onPrevlfl6 Reh&llltilon

on

Cad File: 0{190õÊ dng D¡te:09 02.1 I Dawn: CP 11

MAULES CREEK GOAL PROJECT


10



Envi ron me n tal Assessmenf Reporf

300

]

I

3w'

I

)

? ì

:'årj -

32o

ìJ

ConceptualYear 2l Mine Plan

Prclecl6mdrtRodsßllæÄffiRo¡dH¡I' RflÞ6R¡ll Ður and LæpTJllhgE Orylng AÆW¡ter eMt[e tv¡ùerOÐRd V{atÊr Oh ---.>-- Ord¡¿qe Llt\rrl tltÌ\

+ c¡ilecüonoãn :ìf^*

lill€!rc lltne l.flrtrùuÉtJfe ÆeaE ¡¡1 I lurrrc'r Ellilcy

¿ASTT)N

Aß{ve MlIlngRêtl¡ùrilti¡üonPEvh{E Reta¡¡[Þ!on

on

C¡d File: 06908E dwg Datë:08 (n.1I oEm: cP 13Fþuæ

MAULES GREEK COAL PROJEGT


11

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

Figure 8: Conceptual Final Landform at 21 year project life (showing Boggabri mine final concept tandform)


(-i?7

Conceptual Final LandformDaßRehaba¡lÂtionEstatr¡dìed Rðhôbi¡lal¡dlndløüw Fhâl VoldsPolentbl Fulúre Open C!l Mn¡ng D¡slorbâE

r -

Fìqed Bdndsry

Hôneen BBiley

lìl:sotrR(-EsGlÑéq+^Bqe5

5cs6 &r2010

¿ASTON-

AccsRoad

-

Rå¡lspürandLoop

Cad Fil€: 07070E-dvrg Date: 04 07-1 1 Dram: JD

FrguEu

12

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ron m e n ta I .Assessment Reporf

1.3 Project SettingLeard Forest Mining PrecinctThe Maules Creek Coal Project is located within an existing mining precinct centred within and aroundLeard State Forest. As shown in Figure 1, there are two other existing coal mining operations andadditional coal exploration titles close to the project. Collectively, these mines and potential miningproposals are termed the Leard Forest Mining Precinct within this report.

The Boggabri Coal Mine, operated by Boggabri Coal Pty Limited, is an open cut coal mine locateddirectly south of the Maules Creek Coal Project. Until very recently, its approval allowed for extractionand transportation up to 3.5 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of run-of-mine (ROM) coal. On 1B July2012, the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) (as the delegate of the Minister for Planning andlnfrastructure) approved the Boggabri Coal Project, which involves an extension of the existing mine,to produce up to 7 Mtpa of ROM coal for 21 years. This application was the subject of a merit reviewby the PAC.

The Tarrawonga Coal Mine to the south is an existing coal mining operation with approval to extract2 Mtpa of ROM coal until 2017.Iarrawonga Coal Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Whitehaven Coal, hassubmitted a project application for an extension of open cut mining operations with an increasedproduction rate to 3 Mtpa of ROM coal for a further 17 years from 2013 to 2030. The Departmentexhibited this application from 24 January 20121o 29 February 2012, and the application is currentlyunder assessment.

ln addition, there is an exploration licence held by Goonbri Coal to the east of the proposed BoggabriMine extension. At this stage, no details of any future mining project application within the Goonbriexploration licence area have been provided to the Department.

Leard State Forest is an area included in lhe Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation AreaAct 2005 (BNCCA Act). The BNCCA Act was the outcome of a comprehensive forestry assessment ofwestern NSW that included representatives from all key Government agencies and extensiveconsultation with the forestry industry, peak environmental groups, Aboriginal stakeholders, mineralsand gas industry and also extensive public consultation. The Act provides for permanent conservationof approximately 350,000 ha of land within the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar Bioregions whilealso clearly recognising the socio-economic benefits of the resources sector. The Act dedicatedexisting State Forest, Crown land and national park estate into 4 different zoning categories.

Leard State Forest itself has a total area of some7,472 ha. The nearby Leard State ConservationArea has an area of approximately 1,176 ha, making a total of 8,648 ha of land under BNCCA Acttenure in the Leard Forest Mining Precinct area.

The existing mineral interests and mining approvals within the Leard State Forest were carefullyconsidered by the NSW Government in the development of the BNCCA Act. ln the second reading ofthe BNCCA Bill the Minister for the Environment clearly identified the importance of the resourcessector in the region stating "The Government's decision will preserve the fult economic potentiat of theregions by ensuring the local coal and gas reserves can be accessed by the mining industry..."

Under the BNCCA Act, Leard State Forest is within Zone 4 for the purposes of forestry, recreationand mineral extraction, and is identified as Leard CCA4. Zones 1 to 3 provide for conservation areasfor biodiversity and Aboriginal heritage, with Zone 1 reserved as national parks, Zone2 reserved asAboriginal areas and Zone3 reserved as State recreation areas (now State conservation areas). TheZone 4 category acknowledged the existing mining interests and approvals over the land and was anoutcome of balancing conservation and economic development potential (subject to meritassessment).

Under Part 4 of the BNCCA Act, a Community Conservation Area Agreement was required to bedeveloped with the purpose to provide a co-ordinated framework for the management of all land inZones 1,2,3 and 4 in consultation with the community of the Brigalow and Nandewar area. TheCommunity Conservation Council approved the Brigalow and Nandewar Community ConservationArea Agreement on 1 1 June 2009, for a 5-year period until 10 June 2016.


13

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

Despite the significant regional conservation outcomes of the BNCCA Act, the Department and theOffice of Environment & Heritage (OEH) both considered that any further approval for mining withinLeard CCA4 would require appropriate assessment of biodiversity impacts with due consideration ofmeasures to avoid, mitigate and offset any residual impacts so as to maintain or improve regionalbiodiversity values in the medium to long-term. That is, agencies are of the view that the BNCCA Actdoes not provide any exemption from the standard policy framework that applies to any other coalmining development in the State.

Surroundinq Land UsesApart from the existing mining, forestry and conservation land uses, surrounding land use in the areais predominantly agriculture. lrrigation and dryland farming enterprises comprise a large componentof surrounding land use with high quality productive alluvial aquifers, associated with the Namoi Riverto the west, Maules Creek to the north and Bollol Creek catchment to the south, providing water forcropping, stock and domestic uses.

Urban centres in the locality comprise the rural township of Boggabri approximately'18 km to thesouthwest, and the village of Maules Creek located approximately 6 km north of the proposed minealong Harparary Road. Boggabri is located on the Kamilaroi Highway between the larger rural townsof Narrabri approximately 57 km to the north-west, and Gunnedah located 40 km to the south-east.

Figure 9 below depicts land ownership within and surrounding the project area, including the mineaccess road and rail spur line. The closest rural residential receivers to the proposed open cut arelocated to the north of the mine. A number of these residential receivers and associated landholdings(Properties 118, 120, 126, 134 and 236) have been acquired or else are currently subject toacquisition agreements with Aston. Residential receivers 61 and 281 have also been acquired byother mining operations in the Leard Forest Mining Precinct.

$

r3&

æ

5

2

¡ $ r@

rs

tt

ru

rt9Ðñ

lta

ç)

æ

"\'"

n Þt

(.)

(

2ó

ä 2É

a2ù¡!t

8 I

,It

6l

II

I ø5

LI

Land Ownership

Cro*Î ' SÊeoal Leåe

L=erd Slalc Cônseradon Ae¡

Pdøl¿ Fre.hcld ReæiverBoggãú¡ Coâl RêæierWlaêhare Coal Ræeiver

Ecqgabn Co3lPryLmil.d

^hilehrwn Coãl V,nin9 Lrnitd

Agff Coal 2 Ry Lld & ldenilaBogs¡!r Co;lPlyLd

H¡rr rs:r r Ela e,l

IEo ASTON

- r PfcjedBo0ndåry

--_ äeÍisCreek lotluru,ndi Raiiwry

Cad Frle 06909F d!,/g Dår6 09 02 1 1 Drâv/n JD 2

MAULES CREEK COAL PROJECT

Figure 9: Land ownership and receiversNSW GovernmentDepariment of Planning and lnfrastructure

14

Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron m e ntal Assessrnenú Reporf

Kev lnteractions with the BoooabriCoal MineA key issue for consideration is management of cumulative impacts as a result of existing andproposed mining operations in the Leard Forest Mining Precinct. ln addition, the Department isseeking to ensure that the mine plans and mining operations for each of these adjoining and nearbymines can be integrated as far as practicable, in order to:

co-ordinate monitoring efforts to assess cumulative impacts;utilise shared mining infrastructure wherever possible;link proposed biodiversity offset strategies;improve the design of final landforms; andminimise final voids.

ln this regard in May 2011, the Department requested additional consideration of a strategic mineplanning approach by both Aston and Boggabri Coal, taking into account possible mine life extensionsbeyond the 21-year approval periods being sought by each. Figure B shows the extent of additionalpotential open cut resources outside of the two mines' current 21-year project proposals (shown inbrown shading on the figure).

Maules Creek has additional identified mineable resources towards the northeastern and easternboundaries of CL375, which provides for an indicative overall 30 year mine plan. The triangular areain the northwest corner of the Boggabri project area has also been identified as having potential for afurther 7 years of mine life beyond lhe 21 years covered by the current Boggabri Coal Project. Thesetwo areas, while identified for the purposes of informing the EAs, do not form part of the currentproject applications for either the Maules Creek or Boggabri mines, and would have to be subject tofuture environmental impact assessment and approval.

The two separate mine plans currently retain a coal barrier between them (see Figure B). This barrieris a minimum of 100 m in width at the northeastern end of the Boggabri mining lease, widening out to1 km at the western end of the lease boundary. Whilst the proposals do not involve mining this area,both companies have committed to use their best endeavours to develop a Coal Barrier ExtractionAgreement by the end of Year 5 of their mining operations. This agreement would seek to establishthe most appropriate strategy for mining the barrier coal, and for integrating the final landform designsfor the two mines to minimise final void size and depth, and increasing mine life.

As part of the additional strategy assessment, Boggabri Coal and Aston have also committed to theshared use of a common section of the Boggabri Rail Spur Line (see Figure 10). This replaces theiroriginal proposals for two separate rail lines with separate crossings over the Namoi River, andreflects a strong Departmental position regarding the overall value to both the proponents and thecommunity of shared infrastructure. A joint venture arrangement has been executed between the twocompanies for the construction and operation of the Boggabri Rail Spur Line across the Namoi Riverto link with the main Mungindi - Werris Creek rail line.

The Maules Creek Rail Spur Line is proposed as a branch line to the Maules Creek Mine from theshared spur line, which would be used by both the Boggabri and Maules Creek Mines. The BoggabriCoal project approval provides for the construction of the Boggabri Rail Spur Line, including theshared spur line. Accordingly, the shared spur line has not been separately assessed as part of theMaules Creek project application.

The Tarrawonga Coal Mine Extension project, if approved, is also seeking to use the Boggabri CoalRail Spur Line and shared spur line, and its current project application includes transferring its currenttruck haulage to the Gunnedah coal loading facility to rail haulage on the Boggabri Rail Spur Line.


15

Maules Creek Coal Project Environ me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

.f¡ml @l.rlÐ rÈ¡@ll1 æ{t.F¡úx),stffi ¡tv L1ú- fên. d.f e

Figure 10: Maules Creek Rail Spur Line linking into Shared Spur Line (Red)

2. STATUTORY CONTEXT

2.1 Major ProjectThe proposal was declared to be a major project under Part 3A of the EP&A Act because itconstituted development for the purposes of coal mining, and therefore met the criteria in clause 5 ofSchedule 1 of the former State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005.

Although Part 3A of the EP&A Act was repealed on 1 October 2O11, the project remains a 'transitionalPart 3A project' under Schedule 6A of the Act. Consequently, the Minister for Planning andlnfrastructure is the approval authority for the project application. However, the project falls within theMinister's delegation to the PAC dated 14 September 2011, because there were more than 25 publicsubmissions in the nature of objections. Consequently, the PAC must determine the application.

2.2 PermissibilityThe subject land is located within the Narrabri LGA and is zoned 1(a) (Rural 'A'Zone) under theNarrabri Local Environmental Plan 1992. Mining is a permissible use in this zone. Mining is alsopermissible with development consent under State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, PetroleumProduction and Extractive lndustries) 2007, which makes open cut mining permissible on any landwhere agriculture may be carried out. Consequently, the project is permissible and the PAC maydetermine the application.

2.3 lntegrated ApprovalsUnder Section 75U of the EP&A Act, a number of other approvals have been integrated into the Part3A approval process and are not required to be separately obtained for the project. These include:o heritage related approvals required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the

Heritage Act 1997; and. some water related approvals under the Water Management Act 2000.


EKIENT OF WORKS

8AAÌt¡ BAA

KAMTLARo*rwy I ,r*

7

=çvó=á

EOGGÂBRf

¡hnpnrunnv

ç-'z

a-+.a

@

@COAI-

I^.:e

5

€o

LEÂRD SfAFOREST

16

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ro n m e n ta l'Assessmenf Reporl

Under Section 75V of the Act, a number of further approvals are required to be obtained, but must beapproved in a manner that is consistent with any Part 3A approval for the project. These include:o environment protection licence (EPL) under lhe Protection of the Environment Operations Act

1997;¡ variations to existing mining leases under the Mining Act 1992; and. approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for road upgrades and disturbance to public

roads.

2.4 Other ApprovalsAston also needs to obtain several other approvals for the project, which are not integrated into thePart 3A approval process, including:. approval under the Crown Lands Act 19Bg for any works on Crown land, such as construction

of the rail spur line, access roads and water pipeline through Crown reserves;. an approval under the Roads Act 1993 from Narrabri Shire Council (as the responsible roads

authority) to close unformed 'paper' roads within the proposed project area;. relevant approvals under the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 2002 in relation to co-disposal of

rejects and tailings within emplacement areas;. approval for construction and operation of a substation and electricity transmission line from the

Kamilaroi Highway to the infrastructure area; ando water licences from the NSW Office of Water (NOW) under both the Water Act 1912 and the

Water Management Act 2000.

The Department has consulted with the relevant public authorities responsible for granting theseintegrated and other approvals, and considered the relevant issues relating to these approvals in itsassessment of the project (see Section 4 below).

2.5 Commonwealth ApprovalsAston also needs to obtain an approval from the Commonwealth Minister for Sustainability,Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) under hhe Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), because the project is a 'controlled action' under thatAct due to the potential for significant impact to listed threatened species and communities and listedmigratory species.

SEWPaC has accredited the Part 3A approval process for the Maules Creek Coal Project. Thismeans that assessment of both State and Commonwealth matters has been integrated into a singleassessment process. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the Commonwealth Ministermaintains an independent approval role for the project, and is expected to undertake thisdetermination following the PAC's determination.

2.6 Exhibition and NotificationUnder Section 75H(3) of the EP&A Act, the Director-General is required to make the EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) for the project publicly available for at least 30 days. After accepting the EA for theproject, the Department:. made the EA publicly available from 30 August 2011 until 11 October 2011 at the:

o Department'slnformationCentre;o Narrabri Shire Council offices;o Gunnedah Shire Council offices;o Gunnedah Library;o BoggabriMemorialRSL;o Nature Conservation Council's office; and on theo Department's website;

. notified relevant State government authorities and the Shire Councils by letter; ando advertised the exhibition in the Narrabri North West Courier, the Gunnedah Namoi Valley

lndependent and the Sydney Morning Herald newspapers.

This satisfies the requirements of Section 75H(3) of the EP&A Act.

During the assessment process the Department also made a number of documents available forviewing or download on its website. These documents included the:


17

a

a

a

a

Maules Creek Coal Project Env i ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporl

project application;Director-General's environmental assessment requ irements ;

EA; andAston's response to issues raised in submissions (the Response to Submissions), which alsoincludes a response to subsidiary submissions.

2.7 Planning Assessment Commission Merit ReviewOn 16 August 2011, the Minister asked the PAC to review the merits of the Maules Creek CoalProject. Due to the level of public interest in the project, the Minister also requested that the PAC holdpublic hearings during the review.

Due to the extensive interactions between the Maules Creek and Boggabri projects, the similarity ofthe merit issues and the significant level of public interest in both projects, the Department believedthere was considerable value in requesting the PAC to also review the Boggabri Coal Projectconcurrently with its review of the Maules Creek Coal Project, with similar terms of reference. On 14September 2011, the Minister also requested that the PAC undertake a merit review of the BoggabriCoal Project and hold associated public hearings.

The terms of reference for the Maules Creek Coal Project PAC review are provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Terms of Reference for the PAC's Maules Creek Coal Review

The PAC asked for public submissions on the project and held a public hearing at the Boggabri GolfClub on 23 Novembe¡ 2011. Six written submissions were provided and eight verbal presentationswere made during the PAC's public hearings.

The PAC Review Report on the Maules Creek Project (the PAC Report) concluded that the projecthas merit and could be approved subject to stringent conditions. The Report's 21 recommendationsincluded:. development of regional strategies to manage cumulative impacts;. requirements for improved monitoring and reporting of performance;. maintenance of a 500 m ecological corridor/groundwater barrier between the Maules Creek and

Boggabri mines;. final landform designed with capacity to drain to the natural catchment to prevent the formation

of a final lake void and surface salt scalding;. stringent requirements for air, blasting and dust management and compliance limits; and. requirements for Aboriginal cultural heritage, traffic, socio-economic and community

consultation.

The key findings and recommendations of the PAC Report are discussed and incorporated in therelevant assessment sections of this report. The full PAC Report is included as Appendix F. Asummary of the Department's consideration of the PAC's recommendations and how these havebeen incorporated into recommended conditions of approval is provided in Appendix B.


a. takes into consideration the environmental assessment for the project, issues raised in public and agencysubmissions and any other information provided during the review process;

b. assesses:o the potential cumulative dust, noise, blasting and water impacts of the project;o the potential biodiversity impacts of the project;. the merits of the mine plan, paying particular attention to the proposed overburden dump and

future rehabilitation of the project; and. aîy other potentially significant impacts of the project.

c. recommends appropriate measures to avoid, minimise and/or offset these impacts; andd. provides advice on the merits of the project as a whole.

2. Conduct public hearings during the carrying out of the review.

3. Submit its final report on the review to me by 't6 December 201 1, unless the Director-General of the Department ofPlanning and lnfrastructure agrees otherwise.

m1. Carry out a review

18


2.8 EnvironmentalPlanninglnstrumentsUnder Section 751 of the EP&A Act, the Director General's report is required to include a copy of, orreference to, the provisions of environmental planning instruments (EPls) that substantially govern thecarrying out of the project.

The Department has considered the project against the relevant provisions of several EPls (seeAppendix E) as well as Aston's consideration of these issues (see Section 4 of its EA), and is satisfiedthat none of these instruments substantially govern the carrying out of the project.

2.9 Objects of the EP&A ActThe Minister is required to consider the objects of the EP&A Act when making decisions under theAct. The objects of most relevance to the Minister's decision on whether or not to approve the projectare found in Section S(a)(i),(ii),(vi) and (vii). They are:

To encourage:(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial

resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, foresfs, minerals, water, cities, townsand villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of thecommunity and a better environment;

(i¡) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economlc use and development ofland;

(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of nativeanimals and plants, including threatened specr'es, populations and ecologicalcommunities, and their habitats; and

(vii) ecologically sustainable development.

The Department is satisfied that the project encourages the proper use of resources (Object s(aXi))and the promotion of orderly and economic use of land (Object s(aXii)).

A full consideration of environmental protection (Object s(aXvi)) is provided in Section 4 of this report.Following its assessment and based on the PAC's merit review, the Department is satisfied that theproject is able to be undertaken in a manner that would maintain or improve biodiversity values in thelocality in the medium to long term. The Department is satisfied that the environmental impacts onthreatened species and habitats can be managed and/or mitigated via the imposition of appropriateconditions, including the requirement to provide a comprehensive biodiversity offset.

The Department has also fully considered the encouragement of ecologically sustainabledevelopment (ESD, Object s(a)(vii)) in its assessment of the merits of the project application inSection 4 below, and sought to integrate all significant economic and environmental considerationsand avoid any serious or irreversible damage to the environment, based on an assessment of risk-weighted consequences. The Department has also considered both Aston's and the PAC'sassessment of these matters, including the EA's assessment of the alternatives of not proceedingwith or using underground rather than open cut mining methods. Based on this consideration, theDepartment is satisfied that the project can be carried out in a manner that is consistent with theprinciples of ESD.

2.10 Statement of GomplianceUnder Section 751 of the EP&A Act, the Director-General's report is required to include a statementrelating to compliance with the Director-General's environmental assessment requirements for theproject. The Department is satisfied that the environmental assessment requirements have beencomplied with.


19


3. CONSULTATION

Environme ntal.,Assessmenf Reporf

The Department rece¡ved a total of 1 10 submissions on the project, including. 12 from public authorities (including one from SEWPaC);. 13 from special interest groups; and. 85 submissions from the general public.

A summary of the issues raised in submissions is provided below. A copy of the submissions isprovided in Appendix H.

Aston provided a formal response to the issues raised in these submissions in a Response toSubmissions dated December 2011. Following comments on this response made by SEWPaC, EPA,Namoi CMA and the Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC), Aston also provided an additionalresponse in a report lifled "Maules Creek Coal Projecf - Response to Subsidiary Submissions, March2012." Both these Aston documents are provided in Appendix G.

During the assessment process, Aston also provided a range of additional information (see AppendixC) to the Department and other public authorities to clarify or expand on matters in the EA andResponse to Submissions.

3.1 Public AuthoritiesOf the 12 public authority submissions, none objected to the project, however key concerns wereraised with ongoing support based on Aston satisfactorily addressing these concerns in its Responseto Submissions and Statement of Commitments and in appropriate conditions of approval beingrecommended by the Department.

The Division of Resources and Energy (DRE) within the Department of Trade and lnvestment,Regional lnfrastructure and Services does not object to the application but commented on the need toensure all mining leaseg are in place for the development; and recommended conditions to prepareand implement a Rehabilitation Management Plan in accordance with relevant guidelines, inconsultation with stakeholders and addressing all aspects of mine closure; and ensure a revisedMining Operations Plan is submitted for approval.

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Environment Protection Authority (EPA) donot object to the project, however raised concerns in relation to:¡ Norse - ensuring that construction and operations meet proposed noise criteria in accordance

with the lndustrial Noise Policy and sleep disturbance criteria, adequate assessment of impactsof rail noise on the public network, and development of a real-time noise monitoring system;

. Air Quality - the need to develop site-specific best management practices to minimise impactson air quality, with implementation of a reactive dust management strategy; development of aregional air quality management plan to manage cumulative impacts; installation of a PMlqmonitoring network; concerns over the representativeness of the meteorological data,particularly in relation to frequency of northerly winds; and potential for increased dust impactsduring drier years due to reduced water supply;

o Biodiversity - concerns over assessment of indirect impacts, classification of low-diversityderived native grasslands, the quantum and justification of biodiversity offsets, and the need tofully present mechanisms for in-perpetuity security of offsets;

o Rehabilitation - the need to minimise the final void and preferably remove the final void from thelandscape;

. Aboriginal heritage - the need to meet statutory requirements for care and control of Aboriginalobjects, registration of Aboriginal sites, and issues related to reinstatement of artefacts backonto rehabilitated landscapes; and

o Monitoring - the need for a rigorous monitoring regime for all environmental impacts to ensurethe proposed environmentalobjectives and targets are met.

The NSW Office of Water (NOW) does not object to the project subject to the Department includingconditions to address the following tssues:


20

a

a

a

a


a Water Licensing / Security - ensuring that the mine has correct and up{o-date water licencesfor the water being captured and used by the mine, including interception of surface water andinflow of groundwater into the mining operations,Water Supply - scale of mining operations must be adjusted to match water supply for allstages of the mine development;Surface Water - further geomorphological assessment of tributaries of Back Creek to form thebasis of design of surface water diversions throughout the project life and for final landformdesign;Groundwater - development of a schedule of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) andprovision of monitoring and mitigation strategies for impacts on GDEs and on other water usersas a result of drawdown of aquifers;Surface / Groundwater Monitoring - ensure the mine develops an extensive surface andgroundwater monitoring plan in consultation with NOW; targeted towards aquifers of highdependency, quality and yield; with regional groundwater monitoring incorporating trigger/response programs; andFinal Void / Landform - consultation with NOW in development of the final void and fínallandform, particularly regarding long term impacts on groundwater sources.

Department of Primary lndustries - Fisheries (DPl Fisheries) does not object but provided anumber of recommended conditions including provision of best practice pump screening technologyfor extraction from the Namoi River; need for consultation regarding design and construction of roadand rail access crossings over creeks; and provision of compensatory habitat to offset potentialimpacts on aquatic or riparian habitats.

Department of Primary lndustries - Gatchments and Lands (DPl Catchments & Lands) does notobject but recommended conditions requiring that Aston obtain appropriate approvals under theCrown Lands Act 1989 for relevant project activities required on Crown land, including biodiversityoffset areas, and that movement of stock along travelling stock routes are not impeded.

Department of Primary Industries - Agriculture and Forestry (DPl Agriculture & Forestry) doesnot object to the project and indicated that there were no specific concerns with respect to agriculturallands or production.

Namoi Catchment Management Authority (Namoi CMA) does not object but raised concernsregarding a range of issues. These included lack of consideration of the Namoi CMA CatchmentAction Plan (CAP) and its policies on extractive industries and biodiversity, and concerns over thebiodiversity assessment; adequacy of offsets and security arrangements; surface water andgroundwater - particularly reduction in surface flows to Back Creek and development of a final voidlake; rehabilitation and final landform; and assessment and management of soils. The Namoi CMAalso asked to be consulted during preparation of a number of the project's proposed environmentalmanagement plans. The Namoi CMA also made a separate written submission to the PAC that wasconsidered in its merit review.

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS, formerly the Roads and Traffic Authority) does not objectto the project subject to Aston and/or conditions of approval addressing a number of issues. RMSsought upgrade of the intersection of Manilla Road and the Kamilaroi Highway; development of aformal shuttle bus parking area in Boggabri; and works agreements, maintenance, decommissioningand provision of financial bonds in relation to shared infrastructure with Boggabri Coal for theproposed shared rail spur line overpass over the Kamilaroi Highway. RMS also advised that itsproposed replacement bridge for Manilla Road over the Namoi River (lron Bridge) has not beendesigned for heavy vehicles associated with the mine.

The Heritage Branch of OEH does not object to the project and advised that the proposedcommitments by Aston in managing non-indigenous heritage adequately address its concerns.

Narrabri Shire Gouncil (NSC) does not object, however raised a number of issues to be consideredeither at a strategic level or the project level. The strategic issues included the need for theGovernment to consider cumulative impacts of mining development within the Gunnedah Basin,particularly the need to further develop regional infrastructure; provide affordable housing; improvechildcare services; further develop rail infrastructure to Newcastle (including mitigate impacts fromNSW Government 21Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

a

Maules Creek Coal Project Environ me ntal Assessmenf Report

increased rail activity); upgrade Manilla Road as part of Regional Road Grants; improve compliancemonitoring and enforcement; and develop a regional air quality monitoring network. NSC also raisedconcerns and recommended conditions in relation to Aston providing community enhancementcontributions towards the Narrabri airport and finalising a Voluntary Planning Agreement with NSC.NSC also made a separate written submission to the PAC that was considered in the PAC's meritreview.

Gunnedah Shire Council (GSC) does not object to the application however it raised concernsregarding socio-economic impacts on employment and housing; impacts on soft infrastructure - suchas education, childcare and health services; impacts on groundwater; importance of developing aregion-wide dust monitoring network to monitor cumulative impacts; rail noise and dust impactsthrough Gunnedah and Curlewis; and provision of community contributions via a Voluntary PlanningAgreement. GSC also made a separate written submission to the PAC that was considered in themerit review.

Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations andCommunities (SEWPaC) raised concerns in relation to biodiversity, specifically in relation to the EAproviding clearer identification and discussion of impacts upon EPBC-Iisted threatened species andadditional information on management of the Joint Venture Property proposed to be used for offsets.

3.2 Community and lnterest GroupsOf the 98 submissions from the special interest groups and general public, 96 objected to the projectand 2 supported the project. The main grounds for objection were due to the potential biodiversityimpacts, greenhouse gas emissions, social impacts and water impacts of the project.

A summary of the main issues raised by the 13 special interest groups is provided below.

Maules Creek Community Council lnc (MCCC)The MCCC is a local community group created by local landholders and residents to the north of themining operations, which opposes the project as an open cut coal mine. The MCCC submission is acomprehensive review of the EA and raised the followrng concerns:o Destruction of Leard Sfafe Foresf - impacts on critically-endangered White Box Grassy

Woodland and the removal of habitat that would force migration of native animals to adjacentlands;

. Rehabilitation - ability of proposed rehabilitation to return Leard State Forest to its pre-miningland capability with significant loss of soil resource and water holding capacity; and concernsthat the final landform includes a lake void;

. Biodiversity Offset - concerns the offset is not representative of the vegetation being cleared.Additional concerns over placing farming land into the conservation offset and the impact thiswould have on the social and economic vitality of the farming community in the district. MCCCalso recommended the implementation of a Leard Forest Environmental Trust to compensatefor the loss of ecosystem services;

. Air Quality - impacts on health, agricultural productivity and social impacts due to reduced airquality arising from dust and blast fumes. MCCC also raised concerns regarding the selection ofair quality models used in the assessment and submitted a list of principles to guidedevelopment of an extensíve regional air quality monitoring network;

o Health impacts - as a result of dust, noise and rainwater tank water quality; and the need for abaseline health survey to be undertaken;

o Groundwater and Surtace Water - reduced availability of groundwater and surface water forfarming and environmental purposes due to extraction and interception of water by mining;water quality impacts arising from mobilisation of salts and other contaminants; and impacts onGDEs and the stygofauna that may reside within aquifers;

o Groundwater Modelling - concerns over the calibration and validation of the groundwater modeland therefore the accuracy of the modelled predictions;

. Aboriginal Heritage - potential destruction of Aboriginal heritage sites within Leard State Forest;o Noise - operational noise and blasting would have significant impacts on fauna and

neighbouring properties;o Social impacts, Rural Amenity and Property Values - air, noise and water impacts would reduce

the rural amenity of the area and subsequently reduce property prices; social impacts including


22

a

a

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ro n m e nta I Assessmenf Reporf

housing affordability; and a recommendation for a Maules Creek Community Fund to provide anet benefit to the local community;Greenhouse Gas Emrssions - the project is expected to a make a significant contribution toNSW greenhouse gas emissions impacting on national targets under the Kyoto Protocol; andEconomic Evaluation - issues with the economic evaluation methodology for accounting ofexternalities associated with the project and evaluation of project alternatives.

The MCCC also made a separate submission to the PAC that was considered in its merit review.

The Nimbin Environment Centre, LIVE, Birds Australia, NationalParks Assocìation (A,rmidale Branch)and the Hunter Bird Observers Club - oppose the project, with the key issues being the impacts of theproject on biodiversity, particulady on threatened species, and the high biodiversity values of LeardState Forest in the regional landscape. Concerns from some of these groups were also raised overimpacts on climate change, groundwater and surface water, the health and amenity of the localcommunity, cumulative impacts arising from regional developments including coal seam gas, andrequests for a moratorium on exploration licences or approval of mining projects until strategicregional assessments such as the NamoiWater Study are completed.

Colong Foundation for Wilderness - opposes the project and raised concerns regarding impacts onbiodiversity, especially endangered ecological communities and threatened species; use of publicly-owned forests contrary to conservation and recreational objectives and requirements for sustainableuse of State forests; impacts on GDEs as a result of operations and the final void; climate change;and social and amenity impacts on rural communities. The Colong Foundation also considered thatunderground mining would be a more reasonable proposal to reduce impacts.

The Rafions Exchange Technical Resource Unit - lodged a submission on behalf of the 14 LocalAboriginal Land Councils of the Northern Region, including Red Chief, Nungaroo, Walhallow andWanaruah Land Councils. Key issues raised included insufficient consideration of the social andspiritual aspects of Aboriginal cultural heritage and consultation with knowledge holders; concernsover survey coverage and lack of sub-surface investigations; impacts on the entire forest landformwhich provides an example of living Aboriginal culture; loss of research and interpretationopportunities; salvage and management of Aboriginal artefacts; the need for a comprehensive andwell-funded 'keeping place', including adequate resources for salvage and preservation of scar treesand carvings, research, education and cultural tourism; need for avoidance of impacts where feasible;and lack of cumulative impact assessment. ln addition, concerns were raised over the socio-economicdisadvantage of Aboriginal communities; the need for a strategic approach between Government, theLand Councils and industry to address this disadvantage; and that Aston had only provided limitedsocio-economic opportunities for Aboriginal people

Namoi Water - a peak industry group for irrigated agriculture in the Peel, Upper and Lower Namoicatchments, which was mainly concerned over impacts on groundwater and surface water resourcesand agricultural productivity. Namoi Water commissioned a peer review of the EA's groundwaterimpact assessment. Key issues included a request for a moratorium on mining approvals until theNamoi Water Study was completed; reduction in recharge rates to groundwater in Maules Creek/Back Creek; concerns over the calibration and validation of the groundwater modelling; need formonitoring of pit inflows and water accounting; potential impacts of blasting on aquifer transmissivity,connectivity and storage; cumulative impacts from current declining water levels in the alluvial aquifersystem; and risks associated with salinisation of low-lying areas from increased recharge arising fromvegetation clearing. Namoi Water also made a separate submission to the PAC that was consideredin its merit review.

The Country Women's Assocraúion - Maules Creek Branch - opposes the project and raisedconcerns over the impact of the project on health, social impacts on the local community and servicesincluding emergency services, and overall impacts on the environment.

Rising Tide Newcasf/e - a community-based climate action group opposes the project due toanticipated impacts on climate change from burning of coal; impacts along the coal transport chainfrom the mine site to Newcastle; impacts on biodiversity including threatened species; and health andamenity impacts.


23

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal Assessøenf Reporf

Northern lnland Council for the Environment (NICE) - opposes the project due to the impacts onbiodiversity including threatened species. NICE raised concerns including: the value of Leard StateForest as an irreplaceable remnant in a highly cleared landscape which provides drought and climaterefuge and source habitat; the inadequacy of proposed biodiversity offsets; greenhouse gasemissions, including removal of Leard State Forest as a carbon sink; use of a public forest for privategain with loss of ecosystem services; social, amenity and health impacts on the local community;impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems including stygofauna; impacts on surface andgroundwater; cumulative impacts of mining operations in the Leard State Forest area; and lack ofassessment of alternative mining operations such as underground mining. NICE also made aseparate presentation to the PAC that was considered in its merit review.

Ihe Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) - supports the project, citing jobopportunities and economic benefits to the regional community and facilitation of the development ofNSW resources.

3.3 Submissions SummaryTable 3 below provides an overall summary of the key issues raised in the 98 public submissions.

Table 3: /ssues Ralsed in Public Submrssions

Biodiversity andThreatenedSpecies

loss of major remnant Box Gum Woodland in the Liverpool Plains sub bio-region, where therehas already been significant clearing;impacts on habitat for >30 threatened flora and fauna species, predominantly woodland birds

concerns over calibration and validation of groundwater modelling and therefore uncertaintiesregarding predicted impacts;need to follow Water Sharing Plan rules and account for all take of water in line with Water Act1912 and Water Management Act 2000- including groundwater inflows to mining void, deficitwater requirement in dry years and net loss of flow to alluvial aquifers;concerns over impacts on bores used for stock and domestic or irrigation purposes;concerns over final landform, which is proposed to include a water-filled void, which would be apermanent evaporative sink for groundwater and result in depressurisation of aquifers;harvesting of stormwater runoff from disturbed areas - reduction in catchment flows andrecharge and beneficial flooding to downstream aquatic environments, particularly Back Creekand Maules Creek;concerns over pumping from Namoi River on aquatic ecology; and

and bats;(Raised in o offsets cannot meet a 'maintain or improve' outcome due to extent of clearing proposed - thereapproximately 71%o would be a significant net loss of habiiat that is effectively irreplaceable; propõsal does not meetorsubmrssrons)

:""x",¿ï'"i':ïJii,"::T:liîJ::,i"ï,."#å?îffiHg":iå?"iil"io,Jlì;.-,*", patch size,perimeter-to-edge ratio, habitat types, fragmentation, loss of hollows and geomorphology;

. concerns raised over the statutory objects of the Forestry Act 1 91 6 and BNCCA Act;

. impacts on GDEs including stygofauna and riparian forests;

: :TiìHi'',""";i""::'.i:i,Tì:åffi1ü[ii?,-ffåffJ'.[::".'åH:i::"ffiï""'dl1o," to ,oss ofsoil (reduction in available water holding capacity); lack of habitat features such as hollows; andreducllon in land capability.

Groundwater andSurface Water

(Raised in 54% ofsubmrsslons)

o

a

a

o

a

a independent monitoring requested, but to be funded bv mininq companres.Greenhouse GasEmissions

o

o

a

o

not supportive of coal mining due to greenhouse gas emissions;support for renewable energy sources;loss of Leard State Forest as a carbon sink; andimpacts on inter-generational equity.(Raised in 53% of

submrsslons)Rural Amenity -Noise and Visual

a need to demonstrate that all reasonable and feasible noise mitigation options have beenincorporated into mine planning and management;further details required for noise source locations and low frequency / tonality sources;cumulative impacts of noise from Boggabri, Maules Creek and Tarrawonga mines;need for real{ime noise management systems (meteorological forecasting and real-time noiseloggers);blasting impacts including infrastructure damage and health impacts; andnight-time noise and sleep disturbance from the rail spur line and mining operations.

(Raised in 36% ofsubmrsslons)

a

a

o

o

o

Air Quality andHealth

(Raised in 33% ofsubmlsslons)

. impacts from finer dust particles (PMro and PM2 5), particularly due to presence of inversions andlocal topography leading to trapping of particulates;

o concerns over air quality model and input data selected for assessment;. cumulative impacts from adjoining mining operations, particularly concerns over cumulative

24-hour PMle impacts;o independent air monitoring requested with involvement by OEH and community access and


24

Maules Creek Coal Project Environ me n tal Assessrnenf Reporf

Aspect lssue

a

a

mental health concerns in agricultural communities;impacts on residents with existing health problems and need for a baseline health study; and

(Raised in 23% ofsubørsslons)

a

a

o

a

for ctive and model and real{ime airdislocation of local community due to conversion of agricultural land to mining and offset areasand potential health and amenity impacts on rural lifestyles;businesses of remaining landowners outside zone of affectation may be significantly impacted,including loss of property and business enterprise values;need for compensation for broader impacted community through provision of a community fundand need to extend area ofzone ofaffectation;direct and cumulative impacts on local infrastructure and services - housing, rental, medical,local businesses, employment, rural fire services, upgrade of rail crossings, local airportfacilities;additional funding for community enhancement for the locality and region, in both Narrabri andGunnedah Shires;need for increased training opportunities and skills development for local and regional residents;employee availability ¡mpacts on other businesses;social issues with a fly-in/fly-out workforce and need to encourage workers to reside in the localor regional area;use of a State forest (ie a public good) for private use;lack of assessment of underground mining as a viable alternative;externalities not properly accounted for - biodiversity, heritage, noise and social impacts suchas increased rental prices, rates and costs of goods and services; and impacts on surroundingagricultural enterprises;ecosystem and habitat values not adequately assessed in the EA's economic evaluation, withrecommendation for an environmental trust to compensate / offset the impacts;distr¡bution of net benefits - benefìts should be distributed towards local communities due toreduction in property values, biodiversity impacts and health ¡mpacts. Foreign ownership leadsto distribute benefits overseas; and

o oooortunitv costs related to i

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

for net benefit to NSWAgriculture

(Raised ín 11% ofsubmrssions)

need for minimising impact on agricultural land, particularly from biodiversity offsets andmaintaining agricultural productivity on land acquired by Aston;impacts on surrounding agricultural enterprises including property devaluation and reduction inbusiness investment;increased pressure from noxious weeds and feral animals due to vegetation clearing: and

and water secu should beheavy vehicle access routes via unsealed roads and associated road safety issues;potent¡al for mine traffic to use access roads not identified in assessment;coal transport ¡mpacts on rail infrastructure and rail crossings.(Raised in <5% of

submrssions)AboriginalHeritage

(Raised in <5%o ofsubmrsslons)

a

a

a

a

key Aboriginal stakeholders oppose any impact on cultural heritage values and identify theentire landscape (not just artefacts) as an important resource;NSW Government should provide compensation to the Aboriginal commun¡ty from royaltiesreceived from mining;cultural and social ¡mpacts, such as employment and business opportunities, need to beconsidered, not just archaeology;Aboriginal stakeholders would like to have ongoing involvement and constiltation inmanagement of Aboriginal artefacts impacted by the project; andwhile a keeping place isare included for losses to

for salvaged artefacts, no conservation or offset outcomesheritaqe.

4. ASSESSMENT

ln its assessment of the merits of the project application the Department has considered the:. EA, submissions, Response to Submissions and additional information provided by Aston;o PAC Report;. the existing development consent;. information relating to the Boggabri Coal Project and Tarrawonga Coal Project;. relevant environmental planning ¡nstruments, policies and guidelines; and. relevant provisions of the EP&A Act, including the objects of the Act.

4.1 Biodiversity

IntroductionAs outlined in Section 1, the Maules Creek Coal Project is centred within Leard State Forest andadjoining remnant vegetation. The impact on biodiversity, including threatened species, was the mostcommon concern raised in submissions, and is a key consideration for the Departmènt.NSW Government 25Department of Planning and lnfrastructure


The EA includes flora and fauna asséssments undertaken by Cumberland Ecology. The assessmentsinclude a review of previous studies undertaken within the project area, as well as targeted flora andfauna surveys. ln addition, the assessments include consideration of the biodiversity impacts of theproject on threatened and endangered species.

The EA's assessment was supplemented with additional information provided in the Response toSubmissions, including:o additional field surveys, including fauna and flora assessments within the proposed biodiversity

offset areas;e Çuântitative assessment of the ecological condition of project impact and offset areas;o preparation of a draft biodiversity offset management plan; ando additional information on classification of Box Gum Woodland and associated derived native

grassland as listed Endangered Ecological Community (EEC).

As described above, the Minister requested that the PAC undertake a merit review of the project. Theimpacts on biodiversity and cumulative impacts within Leard State Forest and surrounding remnantvegetation were one of the key components of this review. The outcomes of the PAC's reviewregarding biodiversity impacts have been fully taken into account in the subsections below.

Proiect Disturbance and Cumulative DisturbanceThe project would clear a total of 2,079 ha of native vegetation, largely within Leard State Forest orareas immediately adjacent. As stated in section 1, the Leard Forest Mining Precinct has a total areaof some 8,648 ha of land under BNCCA Act tenure.

ln addition to the project disturbance, the EA (and additional information) included consideration of thecumulative clearing within Leard State Forest incorporating the Maules Creek Coal Project, theBoggabri Coal Project and the proposed Tarrawonga Coal Mine expansion. The total proposedclearing of remnant native vegetation from these three projects, both within and surrounding LeardState Forest, is shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: of Additional Native - Leard Forest Precinct MinesRemnant nativewoodland ha)

native Tota I n ati ve ve g etatÍ onMine grassland (ha) ¡na)

Boqqabri 1.358 27 1,385Maules Creek 1,665 414 2,079Tarrawonqa 369 28 397

TOTAL 3Note: There component of double counting of and Maules Creek where shared

rail con¡dor is included in both developments

A number of submissions argued that there was substantial opportunity to avoid or mitigate thebiodiversity impacts of the project. ln particular, the option of underground mining had not beenproperly considered. The MCCC made a comprehensive submission canvassing the option ofunderground mining and highlighting the significant reduction in environmental impacts (includingfrom dust and noise and on biodiversity) but also from an economic perspective, based on a netbenefits assessment.

The option of underground mining was comprehensively assessed by the PAC, with expert inputprovided by Emeritus Professor Jim Galvin. The PAC concluded that there were insufficient groundsto require further consideration of the underground mining option for the project, with concerns raisedin relation to safety and financial risks associated with underground mining, particularly asunderground mining would extract less than 10% of the coal resource compared to open cut mlning.The Department accepts the PAC's findings in relation to the underground mining option.

For open cut mining, there.is clearly very limited ability to reduce the area of surface impact within theactual mining footprint. However, alternative locations can be considered for surface infrastructureand out-of-pit waste emplacements. While Aston indicated that the northern emplacement arealocation was destgned to avoid impact on Box Gum Woodland EEC, the Department notes that this

469


26

Maules Creek Coal Project E nviron me ntal Assessment Reporf

area of EEC has also been identified for coal extraction under the possible future continuation ofmining from Year 21 to Year 30, which would be subject to future assessment and approval.

Aston has identified and committed to a range of mitigation measures during construction andoperations to minimise direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity. The measures identified includedevelopment of a land disturbance protocol and implementation of a flora and fauna management andmonitoring program. The Department is satisfied that Aston has appropriately assessed avoidanceand mitigation options for the project.

Flora lmpactsThe flora assessment identified 5 broad vegetation associations on the project site, and broke thesedown further into 20 separate native vegetation communities. Table 5 below provides a summary ofproject impacts on the 5 broad vegetation associations and EECs. Figures 11 and 12 below depict the20 individual vegetation communities and EECs within the project area.

Table 5: Native Associations and Communities - Disturbance Areas(including EECs)

lronbark Forests. EEC - Nil

1,053

Riparian Forests 12o EEC - Box Gum Woodlandl 10

White Box, Yellow Box, Blakely's Red Gum Woodlands SS3o EEC - Box Gum Woodlandl 416

Belah Associations 47o EEC - Box Gum Woodtandl 32

TOTAL Forest / Woodland 1,665

- Box Gum Woodtandl414

458

. EEC - Box Gum Woodlandl asREMNANT VEGETATIO

. Total EEC2,079

87

545Nofes;

Lrsled as EEC under NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) as'White Box - Yellow Box -Blakely's Red Gum (Box Gum) Woodland' and listed as Critically Endangered Ecotogical Community (CEEC)under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as'WhiteBox - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grasstand', together termed withinthis report as'Box Gum Woodland'.

2. lncludes 327 ha of low diversity derived native grasslands, areas of lower native species diversig as a result ofpast clearino. practices and exploration and mininq activities.

As indicated in the table, the project would disturb a total of 545 hectares o'f Box Gum WoodtandEEC, which is listed as an endangered community under the NSW TSC Act, and a criticallyendangered community under the Commonwealth EPBC Act.

The assessment did not identify any threatened flora species during its field surveys. However anumber of threatened species are considered to have a high likelihood of occurrence in the projectarea based on the habitat type and historical survey information. These include Pultenaea sefu/osa(Bush Pea) listed under the EPBC Acl, Pomaderris queenslandica (Scant Pomaderris) listed underthe NSW TSC Act, and Lepidum ascherson¡i(Spiny Peppercress) listed under both Commonwealthand NSW legislation.

Tests of significance undertaken in the EA indicate that the project, in the absence of any mitigationand offsetting measures, would likely result in a significant impact on the Box Gum Woodtand EEC.To offset these impacts, Aston is proposing to implement a comprehensive biodiversity offset strategyfor the project. The proposed offsetting measures for the project are discussed under a separateheading below.

Low Diversitv Derived Native GrasslandsThe flora assessment identified 327 ha of low diversity derived native grassland within the projectdisturbance footprint, of which 210|:'a was identified as deriving originally from Box Gum Woodland.The flora assessment determined that these low diversity grasslands were not CEEC (usingCommonwealth EPBC Act application methodology). However, the PAC conservatively included thisadditional 210 ha as EEC as there was a question over its status under the TSC Act.


27



Env i ron m ent a I Assessmenf Reporf

IhFr! ftd Gm ¡úùrdDrt rÈRdGùa-¡d¡tFoàrdì,¡¡Ð{Ènd ffi¡t - Wtò CrFÉ PiE ftóty F tuÉSåã+rd¡uM lËütEùrd

RÉRdGuñiEirffidtuIeEiFi¡iqËtWh¡t Bd - &¡.ltlr tu tu - xa*r¿ liEùq frÉ

RFEhmqbCñrd æ ThatÉ (RtnfdEnSF*¡¡

VniÞBor-YcSrEo(Sdy¡sRedGmWoorEl(lsÍrh 8d-r{õH lEÊ* -l¡l}-CtfrËr PiÞgE toFüldÉìtlÈ Bd-rûÐM ffi -WtÈClFËs FrÊ*ÉÐ.?alñi¡Wtù Bd - WfÈ G'P6 Pin gEift Éd

B.drdHPaea Sd - Pqb Bd - Wh ClFt¡s Piþ gElt !D.í !od-d$ù- 8d-¡tt¡-B.Hr Gtu

t'!i.d f¡¡¡. ÞGÞd Gr DaBft - hrb¡f lvod¡rd)lrli*d tEir GG¡údDrild r¡rto G6H (Lr lri6fr-WliÊ Ed l¡IoÉ¡d,lrsiÉd lt¡¡cG.õbrd ltEDirss¡y-dr $tud Þ8dE|Edi erõbd

[ (0 r0rT(umrnrulhT.Sû¡Ë ¡D{.O 2tl0 æF

cæ10 CìGlsfd¡rq¡hnT¡O2010 t\¡*lt

Veg€talÍ¡r Collmilþg

YùK-

wwffi

Ir.-=lr

Itrrffi

I

ta.¡¡ìatt\

WûSt+

BGfúAsiqliß

G6danò

CuIint¡ß

FID{È[ turEÈ

C€l HrùE -d Pæ!¡ig PÊll

Uimk-Rh-

RoJ

dl--l eo¡.ae*øy

[-]]! m'i¡r*'-re"."*y

PropGed MheklffiuctuE

-

Pir.¡r

-

tfüFR¡sF dlq

-

AbÉiFRe¡Àtdffi

CrA H o bãlìrd (rú *d Pod- 8ot ¡E,fliârFd(tr¡ced LuÉ3ìE)CrÐ bd d r*r.a (Ér $tud Wü Sd)WñERlËr s'H PÈ8orhÉ)

Figure 11: Vegetation within the project boundary28



E nv i ron me nta I Assessmenf Reporf

N

'R.tl* *¡l ËEfãnr EÈiG Cl¡+.3'e rT9d ry PrgË S.i.rtrHl ffi ñt Li ã1O-nËldù.t¡tdhdrdæFri

ì¡{.S@ht Oãlto G.oEF

O2010 CGtSÞd bgqìl-r O¿r0 oii$bùa

III

l-r¡

CmmlÜút¡cs

l(0106r

tecerd

l]l e.¡-e"..ay

i---j ttqræe.rayErDittuffi,

-Rd

-RÈ

ìl(ütrrrlilDtl

EdÈûìid(CÉEcfh lt*! Grõrhd(CEEC)PúE Grad FEECr

Figure 72: Endangered Ecological Communities w¡thin the proiect boundary

29

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ron me ntal Ássessmenf Reporf

Aston provided additional assessment in the Response to Submissions which argued that naturalregeneration of these grasslands to EEC is unlikely, due to a lack of canopy trees, a highly disturbedground-layer and soil profile and a depleted native seed bank. Based on this information, theDepartment and OEH have both accepted that the low diversity grassland is not Box Gum WoodlandEEC under the TSC Act.

Fauna lmpactsA desktop assessment was undertaken by Cumberland Ecology, based on recorded survey andavailable habitatwithin a 10 km radius of the project area. ln addition, comprehensivefield surveyswere completed between 2008 and 2010 and additionalsurveys were undertaken in 2011in proposedbiodiversity offset areas. Table 6 below summarises the threatened species that were identified ashaving a high likelihood of occurrence within the project area, based on either recorded surveyinformation or available habitat.

Table 6: Summary of Threatened Fauna Species Potentially lmpacted by the Project

Birds (23) Brown Treecreeper V - Y YHooded RobinBlack-chinned HoneyeaterPainted HoneyeaterGrey-Crowned BabblerSpeckled WarblerDiamond FiretailVaried SittellaWhite-browed WoodswallowSpotted HarrierLittle LorikeetLittle EagleSwift PanotSquare-tailed KiteTurquoise ParrotBarking OwlMasked OwlRegent HoneyeaterFork Tailed SwiftWhite Throated NeedletailRainbow Bee-eaterSatin FlycatcherBlacked Neck Stork

E

E

E

E

EMMMM

Y

I

Y

Mammals (7) Eastern False PipistrelleGreater Long-eared BatYellow-bellied Sheath{ail BatEastern Cave BatEastern Bent-wing BatLittle Pied BatKoala

I

Nofes;1. V =vulnerable; E=endangered; M = migratory; Y=Yes2. Specles recorded ¡n at least one survev undertaken in Leard Sfafe Foresf or surrounding area since 1979.

The fauna assessment included a comprehensive survey for the presence of Koalas with no sightingsor evidence of the presence of Koalas. However, prior surveys have indicated the occasionalpresence of Koalas and it was concluded that there was potential for a very low density population ofKoalas within Leard State Forest and surrounding habitat. Secondary feed tree species for Koalas arepresent within the impact area. The impacts on Koala habitat have been considered by Aston indevelopment of the overall mitigation and offset strategy for the mine, including rehabilitation andrestoration of Koala habitat including feed tree spectes.

Tests of significance undertaken in the EA indicate that the project, in the absence of any mitigationand offsetting measures, would likely result in a significant impact on 19 of the threatened faunaspecies including 15 bird species (mainly woodland and nectivorous species due to loss of roostingand foraging habitat) and 4 hollow-dependent bat species (due to the loss of available habitat,particularly the loss of hollow bearing trees).

Proposed measures to offset these impacts are discussed under a separate heading below.


30


Proiect Biod iversitv Offset StrateovAston has proposed a biodiversity offset strategy to compensate for the biodiversity impacts of theproject and ensure that the project maintains or improves biodiversity values in the region over themedium to long term. The EA identified an offset strategy broadly divided up into the followingcomponents:o Northern Offset - located approximately 17 km northeast of the project boundary, on the

properties'Mt Lindesay' and'Wirradale';. Easfern Offset - located immediately north of the project boundary, largelywithin areas in the

mine's zone of affectation identified for acquisition at the request by the landowner;. Western Offset - located southwest and west of the project boundary, within areas of the mine's

zone of affectation identified for acquisition at the request by the landowner; and. Joint Venture Property Offsef - located west of the Kamilaroi Highway on land owned jointly

with BoggabriCoal.

Figure 13 depicts the location of these proposed offset properties, along with the offset areasproposed for the Boggabri Coal Project. The Northern Offset provides the largest offset area and islocated adjacent to Kaputar National Park. The overall strategy of the Eastern and Western Offsets isto provide an east-west corridor from the Nandewar Range to Leard State Forest and from the foresttowards the Namoi River. At the Department's request, tñis strategy was developed to integrate withand complement Boggabri Coal's offset strategy. The linkages áre proposed as a combination ofcontinuous vegetated corridors and 'stepping stone' vegetation patches within the cleared landscape,particularly targeting more-mobile species such as woodland birds that are identified as beingsignificantly impacted by clearing of vegetation within Leard State Forest.

Table 7 provides a summary of the proposed biodiVersity offset strategy.

Table 7: of OffsefOffset Area EEC

DerivedNative

Grassland

PasturelOther

Box GumWoodland

BoxWoodlandGrassland

Total

Northern Offset 4,286 58 5 14 2,976 4Eastem Offset 527 0 14 296 296Westem Offset(inc. 50Yo of joint

1,234 148 524 1,906 274 900

ventureTotal I 9Offset Ratios 4.5

As outlined in the table, Aston's proposed offset strategy provides for the long term conservation of atotal of 9,334 hectares of land, which equates to a gross offset ratro of 4.5 hectares of offset land forevery hectare of land disturbed by the project. ln terms of EECs, the offset strategy provides for theconservation of a total of 5,032 hectares of Box Gum Woodland EEC (including Box Gum Woodlandgrassland), which equates to a gross offset ratio of 9.2:1.

The majority of the proposed offsets are within properties that are currently owned by or undercontract to Aston, but others (approximately 1,604 hectares) are located on a limited number ofproperties that are within the mine's predicted zone of affectation due to noise and/or dust impacts.Further, the total offset area includes some 1,669 hectares of poor condition low diversity derivednative grassland and cultivated and/or improved pasture.

More detailed offset tables, including consideration of these non-Aston owned properties and lowquality lands, are provided in Appendix D.

Aston proposed that these non-mine owned and low diversity areas are included in the offsets toprovide buffers and to develop strategic connectivity between patches of remnant vegetation andriparian areas, predominantly in the Western and Eastern Offsets. However, OEH raised concernsover the inclusion of the low diversity/pasture lands in the offset areas because of the difficulty inrestoring groundcover and understorey due to the level of soil disturbance and soil nutrient status.

1 396

364

1


31


NSW GovemmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

E nvi ron me nta I Assessrnenf Report

Legend

f] erc¡eaeænoary

flf urungrffitrtBorndaryN€ighbouñng r¡SnlngTmflenls

E rrøneÞonnatlonm CÆæNatlonmdtuEslØRre

I Tox,n

-

Road

NorüËm Offset Propertþs

N !ffie'*emorca,\ltñ PotmüdWesGmOüæts\\s Pfop€r1i6

N snateoo¡tsetProperty

ñSSN BoggabricodOís€ts

wlldllñCorrlrlG

f (0l0er(üilrRlilD

hEg.OTlO Dltùlcb.3 æ1O tuEpd hrgÊ

r¡ìltt\

¡E"SüE:hEÊ C 2û10 G6EF

eê)CüfdrlinkagePalial corldorlnkage

Figure 13: Proposed biodiversity offset areas for Maules Creek and Boggabri Coal Pro,jects

32

Maules Creek Coal Project Environ me ntal,Assessmenf Repoñ

The Department shares these óoncerns, and is also concerned at the potential reduction in availableagricultural land due to proposed conversion to conservation land use. However, the Department alsosupports the use of buffers between moderate{o-good cond¡tion remnant vegetation and agriculturallands, while noting that (wherever practicable) such buffers should not adversely affect oi steriliseagriculture or highly productive soil types. The PAC in its review also recommended that Aston shouldmaximise the amount of agricultural land that remains in production on acquired properties.

The Department also notes that 327 ha of similarly low diversity derived native grassland is within theproposed project disturbance area. lf these lands are excluded from both the area of projectdisturbance and the proposed offsets, then the total offset ratio for all vegetation communitiesdecreases by a minor amount (ie. from 4.5:1 to 4.4:1).

The Department considers that the inclusion of the low diversity grassland, improved pasture andcultivated land as part of the offset as buffers or corridor enhancement areas should be subject tofurther assessment and consideration regarding combined biodiversity and feasible agriculturaloutcomes. The Department has included conditions that require further assessment of these areas aspart of the development and implementation of a revised offset strategy and Biodiversity ManagementPlan, which is also required to take into account the proposed Regional Biodiversity Strategyrecommended by. the PAC.

OEH also raised concerns regarding the use of grazing as an ecological tool within the biodiversityoffset areas to manage weeds, biomass and to manipulate species. ln particular, OEH recommendeãthat the use of such management tools should be undertaken in a controlled way and be auditable toclearly demonstrate the benefits of grazing and to apply adaptive management approach to maximisebiodiversity outcomes. The Department has included specific reference for a detailed assessment ofthe suitability of grazing to be included in the recommended Biodiversity Management Plan.

Adequacy of Proposed OrTsef PackageThe Department has carefully considered concerns raised by OEH over the adequacy of proposedoffset package for the project, particularly with regard to the proposed inclusion of poorer conditionland within offset areas. ln its Response to Submissions, Aston compared its proposed offsets tothose of the Boggabri Coal Project and other recent mining approvals, which have overall offset ratiosranging between 3.3 and 5.6. However, the Department notes that the Boggabri Coal Project offsetratio identified did not include corridor enhancement areas (that is poorer condition land forbiodiversity conservation) which was an additional component of the offset design to provideconnectivity and buffer between core offset areas.

The PAC Report also stated "The Commission f¡as carefulty examined the regionat scate biodiversityconservation measures proposed by the proponent and considers that they have the potentiat to beexpanded fo address specific rssues raised by OEH and ensure that the biodiversity values andfunctions are maintained or improved in the medium to long term."

The Department has assessed the inclusion of the lower condition land in both the impact and offsetareas and the conservation status of the low diversity grassland and the intent of the PAC Reportcomments above and considers that additional offset area should be included in the offset package.The Department has recommended that Aston's proposed offset package is supplemented by ãnadditional 1,000 ha of moderate to good condition native vegetation, targeting woodland andrestoration of derived native grassland to improve habitat for threatened fauna and flora species. Theinclusion of the additional 1,000 ha would provide an overall ratio of approximately 5 to 1 based ondisturbance of 1,752 ha of native vegetation (excluding lhe 327 ha of low diversity grassland) andoffsets of 8,665 ha of moderate to good condition land, further supplemented by the proposed i,669ha of poorer condition land. This provides an outcome which is consistent with the offset strategy forthe Boggabri Coal Project. The Department is satisfied with Aston's proposed offset ratio lor Boi Gumwoodland EEc (9.2). This is at the higher end of approved offset ratios for EECs.

Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs)The EA identified that, while considered unlikely, that there was potential tor project-related impacts onthe Melaleuca Riparian Forest community along Back Creek. This may occur if there was pioject-related drawdown of perched groundwater along Back Creek. Aston has proposed additionalgroundwater monitoring bores to assess potential impacts on this community. The potential forpresence of and impacts on stygofauna was also raised in submissions.NSW Government 33Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal Assessmenl Reporf

The Department has included recommended conditions that would require Aston to develop a watermanagement plan that includes the monitoring of GDEs with a requirement to undertake a survey andmonitoring program of the Melaleuca Riparian Forest community and local stygofauna. Aston wouldalso be required to develop trigger levels for investigating adverse groundwater impacts.

Belah WoodlandThe project would clear approximately 4 ha of Belah Woodland, which is the entirety of the BelahWoodland community located within the project area. The Namoi CMA requested thai the proposedoffset include additional restoration of Belah Woodland on 'Velyama'. This recommendation has beenspecifically included in recommended conditions of approval.

Re q i o n a I Biod iver sitv StrateqvAs with its merit review on the Boggabri Coal Project, the PAC has recommended that a RegionalBiodiversity Strategy should be developed and implemented within one year of any approval fór theproject. ln particular, the PAC recommended that the Department commission a biodiversity workinggroup to prepare the strategy, funded by the coal mining companies operating in the Leard ForestMining Precinct. The findings and recommendations of the regional strategy would then be used byAston and these other mining companies, as their projects are developed, to prepare and implemeniproject-specific Biodiversity Management Plans.

The Department supports the PAC recommendation in relation to the development of a RegionalBiodiversity Strategy and has recommended the development of a Leard Forest Mining précinctRegional Biodiversity Strategy. However, the preparation and completion of the Sirategy iscomplicated by the three mines in the Precinct being at varying stages of development assessment,while noting that the initiation and overall timelines of the strategy will now be driven by the recentapproval of the Boggabri Coal Project. The Department also agrees with the PAC that funding for theStrategy's development should be on the basis of the mines' proportionate clearing oi nativevegetation (see Table 4).

ln this regard, and to be consistent with the recent approval for the Boggabri Coal Project, theDepartment has recommended that a Stage 1 scoping report be prepared by January 2O13 (ie in linewith the timing for the similar condition on the Boggabri mine), with the Strategy then developed (asStage 2) by January 2014, and that the Strategy is then reviewed after 5 years as recommended'bythe PAC.

A six month scoping study would allow adequate time to finalise the terms of reference, scope andobjectives of the Strategy; the geographic extent of the Strategy; membership r,oles and functions ofworking group members; project management plan and schedules; equitable funding arrangements(pending project determinations); and a consultation/communications plan. The De[artmentrecommends that the Strategy itself (ie Stage 2)would then be prepared over the following 12 monthperiod. Recommended conditions require that a Strategy co-ordinator reporting directly to theDepartment and a chairperson for the working group are both funded directly by Asion and the otherLeard Forest Mining Precinct mining operations.

This proposed timeframe also allows Aston adequate time to identify and secure the additional offsetareas subject to successful negotiation with landowners of properties within the mine's zone ofaffectation and the additional 1,000 ha required to be incorporated into the offset strategy underrecommended conditions of approval. The Department considers it necessary that these lands arefully taken into account in developing the Regional Biodiversity Strategy, and adequate time to identifyand secure them (or else identify and secure appropriate alternatives) is essential.

The Department also recommends that, in addition to the agencies identified by the PAC, theproposed working group should also include SEWPaC, which has an approval role for EPBC Actrequirements. Other key land managers and approval bodies for the offset and rehabilitation areasincluding Forests NSW (land manager of Leard State Forest) and DPI Catchments and Lands (landmanager for Crown reserves) would also need to be consulted regarding the scoping anddevelopment of the Strategy.


34

Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron me ntal Assessøenf Reporf

Biod iversitv M a n aqe me nt Pl anThe Department also generally supports the PAC recommendations in relation to the preparation of aproject-specific Biodiversity Management Plan. The Department has therefore recommendedconditions for a Biodiversity Management Plan to be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction ofthe Director-General, and in consultation with key agencies including Namoi CMA, DRE, SEWPaC,OEH and the mine's Community Consultative Committee (CCC).

However, the Department has also recommended that the initial Biodiversity Management Plan isprepared prior to commencing coal extraction, and that a revised biodiversity offset strategy andBiodiversity Management Plan are then prepared within 6 months of the completion of the RegionalBiodiversity Strategy. This would allow the mine to operate under an approved management planwhile the Strategy is being finalised, with this plan then revised to reflect the findings andrecommendations of the Strategy.

500 metre Biodiversitv CorridorThe PAC recommended that a vegetated buffer corridor with a minimum width of 500 m is maintainedbetween the open cut pits of the Maules Creek and Boggabri Coal Projects, which is consistent withadvice from OEH for the retention of an adequate regional biodiversity corridor within Leard StateForest. The PAC also made a similar recommendation for the Boggabri Coal Project, with the generalintention that each mine should contribute 250 m of non-cleared land on their shared mining leaseboundary to provide the proposed minimum corridor of 500 m.

As outlined in Section 1 .3, the Maules Creek and Boggabri 21-year mine plans, when viewed together,currently propose a minimum 100 m corridor at the northeastern end of the Boggabri mining lease,widening out to 1 km at the western end of the lease boundary (see Figures 8 and 14).

Fìgure 14: Barrier Configuration

Boggabri Coal accepted the PAC's recommended condition as the barrier coal would only beintercepted later in the project life and a large proportion of the lease boundary is not within the current21-year project application. However, Boggabri Coal has also indicated the potential to mine this areabeyond this 21-year þeriod.

Aston, on the other hand, has stated that the PAC's recommendation as applied to Maules Creek isneither reasonable nor feasible. Of particular concern to Aston is that the PAC's recommendationwould sterilise 38.6 Mt of coal, with a value of approximately $3.15 billion, from its proposed mineplan, which is over 16% of lhe 240 Mt resource on which its project economics have been based. ltwould permanently sterilise a further 39 Mt from within the current setback from its lease boundary,which might otherwise be accessible through the Coal Barrier Extraction Agreement proposed to bedeveloped with Boggabri Coal by the end of Year 5 of each mine's operations. Aston has estimatedthat, together with the 44.3 Mt of ROM coal estimated to be present in the adjacent portion of thebarrier within Boggabri Coal's mining lease, a total of 121.9 Mt of ROM coal would be sterilised by a500 m corridor which was aligned along the boundary of the two mines' mining leases. This coal hasbeen estimated to yield 99.6 Mt of product coal, worth a total of $9.96 billion at current values, whichwould provide royalty income to the State of around $817 million.


rl

-=.:i:.:=- trntlrn iì tnrrn\t

Barrier Coal Corridor under Current Mine Plans Barrier Coal Corridor - PAC recommendation

35

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ro n m e ntal Assessmenf Reporf

Further, the Maules Creek mine plan reaches the barrier coal in Year 10 and, if approval to extract thebarrier was not in place at that time, Aston claims it would be uneconomic for it to go back and extractit at a later date. Even if Boggabri Coal were to extract the barrier by later accessing it from its lease,then the stripping ratios would be uneconomic (13.5:1 as opposed to 8.5:1 for mining from MaulesCreek).

Aston has also argued that the additional ecological values of the barrier corridor as a regional corridorare questionable, compared to the values of the corridor which it proposes to develop. The barriercorridor is intended predominantly as a movement corridor for fauna. However, since the threatenedspecies present in the Forest are winged species (ie birds and bats), Aston suggests that the corridoris not essential for their mobility. lt also considers that its proposed east-west biodiversity offsetcorridor, together with associated rehabilitation of the Maules Creek and Boggabri mine sites, wouldprovide a more effective regional corridor from the Nandewar Range in the east to the Namoi River inthe west. Less convincingly, Aston also argues that the existing coal barrier between the two mineplans has an average width of around 500 m and contains 221 ha of native vegetation, which iscomparable to the PAC's recommendation of a uniform width of 500 m containing a total area of 331ha (see Figure 14).

Since the PAC's review report, the PAC has included conditions in the Boggabri Coal Project approvalwhich allow some flexibility in the exact location of the 500 m barrier vrs a vls the lease boundary (thatis, under the Boggabri project approval, the barrier need not be 250 m width on each side of the leaseboundary, as long as it is 500 m in total width to provide for effective biodiversity movement). This is asubstantial opportunity for the two mines, since the deeper seams proposed to be mined at MaulesCreek contain nearly double the amount of coal which can be recovered on the southern side of thelease boundary.

Nonetheless, the Department has continuing concerns that the effectiveness of the proposed 500 mcoal barrier as a wildlife corridor has not been established, and that no detailed comparison betweenthe assessed ecological value and the value of the contained coal resource has been undertaken (ie ithas not been subject to an adequate cost benefit analysis). However, for most of the mines' lives, thisminimum 500 m biodiversity corridor is able to be achieved based solely on the progression of the twomines. Although the Maules Creek mine would near the lease boundary in or around Year 10, theBoggabri mine would still be well away from the lease boundary at this time (approximately 1 km).lndeed, the Boggabri mine would not come within 500 m of the boundary until Years 17-18. Thisprovides a considerable amount of time to assess and quantify the effectiveness of the proposed S00m corridor and allow both mines to begin to establish an alternative east-west biodiversity corridor,through implementation of their proposed biodiversity offset strategies and/or mine rehabilitation.

Accordingly, the Department is satisfied that the intent of the PAC's recommendation can easily besatisfied for many years. The Department has recommended a condition restricting Aston fromclearing any land within 250 m of the lease boundary, except with the approval of the Department andthe OEH, and where justified by an alternative east-west native vegetation corridor with a minimumwidth of 500 m, with equivalent or better ecosystem value. This would allow for an agreement betweenBoggabri Coal and Aston over the most efficient location for the proposed 500 m corridor. Any changeto this condition, to gain approval for extraction of the proposed coal barrier, would require amodification to the project approvals for both mines.

Mine Site RehabilitationWhile Aston has not formally counted mine site rehabilitation as part of the project's biodiversity offset,the Department recognises that rehabilitation can still make a major contribution to the overallpotential medium to long term recovery of regional biodiversity, particularly canopy cover. Theproposed rehabilitated area of 2,078 ha (depending on the final configuration and size of the finalvoid), together with the total combined offset (including restoration of native grasslands), wouldtogether deliver more than 10,000 ha of woodland to be set aside/regenerated/established by theproject over the medium to long term.

A concern raised in submissions, particularly from Namoi CMA and MCCC, was that the soil resourcesoverlying the proposed open cut pit (both top soils and subsoils) would not be adequately salvagedand incorporated back into the rehabilitated landscape. ln particular, the water holding capacity valuesof in-situ soils, particularly associated with the more fertile soils underlying Box Gum Woodlanct EEC, ifnot adequately conserved, may constrain the medium to long term success of rehabilitation efforts.NSW Government 36Department of Planning and lnfrastructure


The Department considers that where subsoils are identified as a suitable resource for enhancingbiodiversity conservat¡on outcomes, the salvage of this resource should be maximised. The suitabilityof the subsoils for use as an intermediate layer in rehabilitated landscapes should be subject todetailed evaluation and assessment prior to soil stripping and stored and applied consistent with anapproved Biodiversity Management Plan and Rehabilitation Management Plan.

The Department also notes that the level of soil survey within the mine disturbance area is fairlylimited. Further detailed soil surveys prior to campaign soil stripping would need to be undertaken toallow development of a detailed soil inventory for use in the mine plan and rehabilitation effort. TheNamoi CMA has recommended that further detailed soil assessments and soil balances beundertaken to inform soil suitability, availability, rehandling, stockpiling and management. TheDepartment supports these recommendations and has recommended that they be incorporated in thedevelopment of the relevant management plans, in consultation with Namoi CMA and the CCC.

The Department also notes that the current CCA4 zoning of Leard State Forest is for the purposes offorestry, recreation and mineral extraction. lf the rehabilitated landscape within Leard State Forest is tobe principally managed for biodiversity conservation, then the current zoning (particularly forsustainable forestry) may need to be reviewed. This issue should be further considered during thedevelopment of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy.

ConclusionThe Department acknowledges that the project would require the clearing of a large area of goodquality native vegetation within and surrounding Leard State Forest, including 545 ha of Box GumWoodland EEC and habitat for a large number of threatened species, particularly birds and bats.

However, after considering the PAC's review and its recommendations, the Department is satisfiedthat these biodiversity impacts are able to be mitigated and/or offset such that the project may improveor at least maintain biodiversity values in the area over the medium to long term. As indicated above,the successful restoration of the proposed biodiversity offset and rehabilitation of the disturbed area isessential to meet this outcome.

To achieve this goal, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to:o provide funding towards the development of a Regional Biodiversity Strategy;o prêpare and implement a revised project biodiversity offset strategy within 6 months of the

completion of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy incorporating the recommendations of theStrategy and identifying an additional offset area of at least 1,000 ha;

. develop a comprehensive Biodiversity Management Plan and Rehabilitation Management Planto provide for the detailed implementation of the offset and rehabilitation strategies and preparerevised plans following the completion of the Regional Strategy;

o cor"rlnìission an independent ecological audit, initially in 2017 and then every 5 years after that,to assess the success of mine site rehabilitation and restoration within offset areas againstcompletion criteria;

o usê the audit outcomes to evaluate the success of the rehabilitation and restoration efforts anddetermine whether additional measures are required to augment the offset strategy;

. provide for the long term conservation (ie in perpetuity) of the offset areas; and

. lodge a substantial conservation and biodiversity bond to ensure that the offset areas areestablished and maintained to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

4.2 NoiseThe EA includes a noise impact assessment (NlA) undertaken by Bridges Acoustics in accordancewith applicable guidelines, including the NSW lndustrial Noise Policy (lNP), the lnterim ConstructionNoise Guideltne (ICNG), the Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Norse (ECRTN) and the tnterimGuideline for the Assessmenf of Norse from Rail lnfrastructure Projects.

The NIA is based on Aston adopting a number of mitigation measures, including:. using sound attenuated trucks and water carts;. undertaking dumping in higher exposed areas only during the daytime, and within protected

lower areas during the night time period, where practicable in adverse weather conditions;o restricting tracked do4er speeds, particularly in exposed locations;. using low noise-impact vehicle warning devices (eg reversing alarms, horns);


37

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal.Assessmenf Reporf

. implementing noise mitigation on the rail spur (including large diameter curves, concrete bridgesand/or vibration isolation material);

. using noise suppress¡on on the conveyor system; and

. transporting workers to the site via buses to reduce traffic noise.

The NIA found that these mitigation measures would reduce noise by between 3 and 6 dB(A) atreceiver locations when compared to a base case with no noise controls. Aston also considered someadditional controls, including attenuating the whole equipment fleet. Howevel the NIA found thatthese measures would only achieve minimal additional noise mitigation (approximately 1 dB(A)) atsignificant additional cost (approximately $167 million) and reduced equipment efficienóy, and'wóuldnot significantly reduce the identified noise impacts on surrounding privately-owned properties. TheDepartment is satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures represent reasonabie and feasiblenoise mitigation for the project.

Aston is also proposing to prepare and implement a real-time noise monitoring and active day-to-daymanagement system for all operations, and to prepare a detailed Noise Management Plan. Noisemodelling for the project has not taken this into consideration (and is not able to using currentmodelling methods). Nonetheless, the Department believes that such a system would allow Aston toavoid or at least reduce many of the predicted noise impacts ouflined below.

Proiect Operational NoiseThe NIA includes modelling of operational noise emissions and compares these against applicableproject specific noise levels (PSNLs). This assessment includes modelling of noise emissions frommining activities as well as rail-related noise on the Maules Creek Rail Spur Line and Boggabri SharedRail Spur Line. Relevant PSNLs are 35 dB(A) for the day, evening and night periods. Tñe modellingalso assumes worst case wind and temperature inversion enhancement, as these are considered tóbe features of the area (under the INP).

The NIA indicates that the project, after applying the relevant noise mitigation measures, wouldexceed the PSNLs at a relatively small number of privately-owned properties surrounding the mine.Worst case noise contours are shown in Figure 15, and predicted exceedances are shown in Table 8.

It is noted that Aston has purchased a number of properties since the EA and the PAC Report. Thefollowing analysis is based on the residual privately-owned land at the date of this report.

Table 8: of Norse Exceedances at Private tnPSNL (dBA L¡eq(tsn¡ù ) Worst Case Noìse Prediction

Niqht

>25%

42 + +

41

Residences256-263 residences1 08-1 09

110-114123-1141-148't4g-1 4

<35 35

1 Additional privately-owned properties where more than 25% of the tand significantty exceeds the criteria (ie by morethan 5 dB(A)). The noise level identified is the maximum noise level over more than 25% of the land area.

Table 8 indicates that only four remaining residences on two privately-owned rural landholdings areaffected by predicted noise emissions that exceed the PSNLs. Six properties are affected by preãlctednoise emissions > 5 dB above the PSNLs over at leas|23% of the overall landholding. Most of theseproperties are located to the north of the mine and are affected by operational mine noise. Howevertwo properties (Properties 256-263 and 240) are located to the south and southwest, and would onlybe affected by train noise on the rail spur, but not by operational mine noise or train loading noise átthe rail loading facility and loop.

35

35+

M42<35


3B



E nviron me nta I Assessmenl Reporf

t6roG

t,râm:C?Dsb:07-6.11

lndicative Noise Contours(Worst Case Envelope All Years)

C6d Flc 0i0!l7Lórg

,=-I

_f

¿ASTONRESOURCES

Heneen Ba¡ley- - Prqd8@rdry CM -Sp.ólLG.

NSWS& FalCt*d Süb Co.6¡ldr k

E Bogg.ôdcEdRr.dË¡ Wlüdl¡ü[email protected]Ë

-

¡bb Corûr¡! tÁôq (f 5 úrl


Figure 15: Predicted Worsf Case Norse Levels - All Years

39


The Department's and EPA's longstanding policy with regard to noise exceedances is shown in Table9 below. This policy has been developed and refined over many years in close consultation with thenoise policy branch of the EPA, which is the section of the EPA which developed the INP and laterguidance notes for its implementation. The land acquisition element of this policy predates even thelNP. lt was developed by a Joint Technical Working Group of the Department and the EPA during1998 and 1999 in response to the Mount Pleasant Commission of lnquiry, and has been applied inevery coal mine development proposal since. The jointly agreed position paper on land acquisitionwas also reflected in (and quoted in) the EPA's lNP, which was published in 2000.

Table 9: on Nolse andIVoise required at this level of

exceedanceMarqinallv Affected Residences (1-2 dB exceedance) Noise mitiqation , if possibleModeratelv Affected Residen ces (3-5 dB exceedance) Noise mitigation, includinq mitioation at residence

Affected Residences dB exceedance onAffected Land dB exceedance uisition on

1 Where more than 25%o a property is

The Department considers that its policy remains in full accordance with both the specificrequirements and intent of the lNP. For example, a critical element of its policy is that acquisition ofprivately-owned properties is only required of project proponents where predicted noise emissions are>5dB above PSNLs. This is fully consistent with the INP's position that:

"1.4.8 Land acquisitionThe noise criteria contained in this document [ie the PSNLS/ have not been derived for the purpose ofland acquisition. As previously stated they are designed to protect againstinfrusiyeness and to preserveamenity, and drive a process of applying all feasible and economically reasonable avoidance andmitigation measures. ...

Resolving noise problems through land acquisition is viewed as an option of last resoft. ... Thedetermination of when projected norse /evels are so hígh and intractable that circumstances warrantland acquisition will depend on a range of factors. ...

The various assessed levels of impact around an industrial noise source could be described as a zoneof affectation, characterised by annoyance. Within this zone could tie a much smaller zone closer into the source where impacts were greater and justified acquisition of resrdences. The border betweenthe annoyance and acquisition zones would be represented by a noise level well above both thebackground level and fhe fPSNLSJ. " (Section 1.4.8 INP, emphasis added)

Thus the Department's policy of requiring noise mitigation at residênces within a zone of affectation,characterised by annoyance, and requiring acquisition on request in a much smaller, inner zone, isbased on the lNP. The INP contains nothing to suggest that acquisition should be introduced wherenoise levels are predicted to exceed the PSNLs by a minimal amount (which cannot be discerned), oreven where'annoyance' is predicted to result. Acquisition is to be offered where noise levels are'highand intractable' and'well above' the PSNLs.

The INP also defines a measurable non-compliance with a noise condition as being a monitored noiselevel >2dB above the statutory noise limit (section 11.1.3). The reason for this is the difficulty ofconfirming that a measured noise level derives solely from the licensed source (as against otherbackground noise). ln addition, most human ears cannot discriminate between noise levels that areonly 2-3 dB apart. lt is for these reasons that the Department does not require noise mitigation wherepredicted noise levels are only 1-2 dB above the PSNLs. Noise mitigation is to be offered atresidences where the reasonable expectation is 'annoyance', ie 3-5 dB above the PSNLs. TheDepartment considers that its conditions of approval requiring noise mitigation are a codified andstandardised form of negotiated agreement between developers and affected members of thecommunity, also required under the lNP.

The Departrnent also notes that the INP states:

"lf, after all feasible and reasonable mitigation measures are applied, the resultant nolse emrssrbnsexceed the project-specific noise levels, then the residual level of impacf needs to be balanced againstany social and economic benefits derived from the source of the noise. Negotiation between theregulatory/consent authority, the communíty and the proponent fo estab/lsh achievable noise timits. ...


n

n

40


ln many tnsfances, it may be appropriafe fo sef noise limits for a development above the [PSNLs]"(Secfions 1.4.6 and 1.4.7, lNP, emphasrs added).

As also appropriate under the lNP, the Department has considered the particular environmental anddemographic circumstances of the Maules Creek Project. As indicated above, the Department issatisfied that all reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures have already been applied to theproject design. lt also considers that there is nothing unique or unusual about the:o proposed noise emissions of the project;o physical characteristics of the receiving environment (ie topography, winds and other

meteorological conditions); or. social, demographic or land use characteristics of the receiving environment,which justify departure from the Department's standard policy or from the specific content andprinciples of the lNP.

Finally, the Department has given further consideration to its '25% rule', ie its policy of requiringacquisition of broader landholdings, if more hhan 25% of the area of the overall property is predicted tobe significantly impacted by either noise or dust. This policy is also longstanding, and has beenapplied by the Department for many years not only in more closely-settled areas of the State (such asthe Hunter Valley), but in agricultural and grazing areas in the Gunnedah Basin and the miningprecinct centred on Ulan, north of Mudgee. lt reflects and acknowledges that where a project ispredicted to have a significant impact over a significant portion of a landholding (determined to be atleast 25%), that impact would have a significant impact on the development potential and/or privateproperty rights of the landholding (including subdivision potential), which ought to be compensated for.It also addresses circumstances where a large portion of a landholding is predicted to be affected butwhere the residence, due to its location, is not affected (eg elongated lots with a residence at thefarthest point from the mine).

The Department has received a number of representations from landowners surrounding the MaulesCreek mine arguing that removal of the 25% rule (as occurred in the PAC's approval of the BoggabriCoal Project) would impact the development potential of their landholdings, with landowners varìouslyclaiming that they:. did/do have genuine plans to develop/subdivide their landholdings, with these plans curtailed by

the proposed mine; ando believe that the landholdings affected by the Maules Creek Project are predominantly 'lifestyle'

farming operations, rather than broad-acre farming operations.

The Department also notes that some of the affected landholdings have been identified by Aston ascontaining biodiversity values which it wishes to include within its overall offset package (679 ha ofAston's proposed offset land is within the zone of affectation subject to acquisition rights). lf this landwas no fonger subject to acquisition rights under the project approval, then Aston may still purchasethe land for offset reasons, but presumably only at 'market price' (or less, in the case of a pressuredseller), rather than at the 'market price as if unaffected

'by mining, plus all costs of sêlling and

resettling, plus disturbance' formula provided by the Department's proposed approval conditions.

For these reasons, the Department affirms its continued support for the acquisition of landholdingswhere more than 25% is affected by significant noise and/or dust impacts, for the Maules CreekProject. However, the Department acknowledges the PAC's comments on the 25% rule in itsdetermination of the Boggabri Coal Project, and intends to review the policy (particularly the minimumpercentage of affected area) in reviewing the lNP, which is proposed under the draft Neuv EngtandNorth West Strategic Regional Land Use P/an (SRLUP).

Subsequently, the Department's recommendation is that its standard noise policy should be applied atMaules Creek. ln making this recommendation, the Department has given careful consideration to thePAC Reports for both Maules Creek and Boggabri, and to the PAC's project approval for Boggabri,which have adopted a different position. ln particular, the PAC has proposed that the two differentnoise affectation (or moderately affected) and noise acquisition (or significantly affected) zones shouldbe collapsed into a single zone, and that acquisition and mitigation strategies should then both beequally available to any residence in that zone (ie any residence where predicted noise emissionsexceed the PSNL by 1 dB or more). As stated above, it has also notapplied lhe'25% rule'regardingacquisition of affected land.


41


Proiect (or'On-Site'l Rail NoiseThe OEH recently released a draft Rail lnfrastructure Noise Guidetine (RING) for consultation whichprovides rail noise criteria (similar to the previous lnterim Guideline for the.Assessment of Noise fromRail lnfrastructure Proiects). Whilst the draft or the interim guidelines do not explicitly apply toprivately-owned rail spurs, the Department is currently discussing with OEH the potential for theguidelines to apply to private rail spurs in limited circumstances.

The Department view is that in some cases, it is reasonable and appropriate to separate rail noise onprivately-owned rail spurs from other operational noise sources, particularly where the rail spur:. is well separated from the operational mine notse sources;o gênerates intermittent and relatively low number of train movements; andr gênerates significant environmental and socio-economic benefits by transport of coal via rail,

rather than transport by road.

ln addition, the differences between a private rail spur and the publicly-owned rail network areincreasingly blurred. Each may carry locomotives and rolling stock (together by far the greatestsources of noise) which are owned either privately or in a public-private partnership. State-ownedcorporations may pay dividends to shareholders (ie the Government), but be in competition withprivate entities (and therefore subject to Competition Policy). The goods themselves (which in anycase, are carried for profit by the responsible entity) may be either privately or publicly-owned. ln thecase of the Maules Creek Project, lhe Mining Act 1992 makes clearthatthe coal resource is publicly-owned, with its extraction effectively'licensed'to a private entity and a royalty payable to the State.

Further, inappropriate complexities and inequities may arise where private rail spurs meet the publicly-owned rail network, in that existing impacts from the public network (which accrue no liability forcompensation) may exceed those from a new private spur line, which may nonetheless lead to a needto mitigate or even acquire residences for a lesser impact than they currently experience. And from thereceiver's perspective, there is no difference between noise from trains on a publicly-owned line, asagainst noise from trains on a private rail spur - noise ts notse.

It seems unreasonable that the same locomotive and wagons may carry the same freight (whethercoal or some other commodity) on a privately-owned rail spur and then the publicly-owned network atthe same speed, and yet be subject to vastly-different noise emission criteria and requirements tomitigate and/or acquire. The applicable criteria for assessing rail noise impact on a new publicly-owned rail line, under the draft RING, are shown in Table 10 below. lt should be noted that thesecriteria are averages which.are applied over the period in question (ie 60 dB(A) averaged over the 11hours of the day period, and 55 dB(A) averaged over the t hours of the Night peliod). tf projectoperational noise criteria were to be applied instead, then under the Department's standing policy, anexceedance of a0 dB(A) for any 15 minute period at any time of the Day, Evening or Night would leadto acquisition on request. Under the PAC's proposals (as included in the recent approval for theBoggabri Coal Project), then predicted noise emissions exceeding 35 dB(A)forany 15 minute periodat any time of the Day, Evening or Night would lead to acquisition on request. Clearly, these are vaslydifferent outcomes.

Table 10: Ral Nolse Limits under draft Rail lnfrastructure Noise Guideline - New Rail LinesCriteria

DaylEvening (7am-1 ùpm)dBA La¿q¡p¿¡6¿¡

Night (1Opm-Tam)dBA La¿qø¿¿¿¿¡

At Any TimedBA La¿q¡,nat¡

All receivers 60 55 80

For these reasons, the Department considers that it is both reasonable and appropriate to consirjerthe impacts of trains travelling on the Maules Creek Rail Spur Line and the Boggabri Shared Rail SpurLine separately to the mine's operational noise and the noise of loading these trains at the mine site.

Although not specifically modelled in the EA, noise at the two properties affected by rail noise (ieProperties 256-263 and 240) would comfortably comply with the criteria in Table 10.


42


The Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to acquire on request the foursignificantly-affected properties where operat¡onal noise impacts are predicted to exceed the PSNLsby t 5 dB(A), excluding train noise on the rail spur (ie the four properties to the north of the mine).

The owner of the two moderately-affected residences on Property 256-263 would also be able toobtain noise mitigation measures (such as double glazing, insulation, and/or air conditioning) at theresidence on request. lt should be noted that this property has also been provided with the right ofacquisition on request under the PAC's Boggabri approval.

The Department has also recommended a number of other measures to address rail noise, asdiscussed under separate sub-heading below.

Sleep DisturbanceThe NIA includes an assessment of the potential for sleep disturbance caused by the project duringthe Night period. Excluding recently acquired properties, the assessment indicates that the sleepdisturbance criterion of 45 dB(A) L¡¡¡1¿x would only be exceeded at the two residences on Property256-263. However, as with operational noise this exceedance is associated only with train noise onthe Maules Creek Rail Spur Line. As established above, noise levels at these residences (locatedapproximately 600 m and 1,000 m from the rail spur) would comfortably comply with the rail noisecriteria, which the Department considers to be most relevant.

Construction NoiseThe NIA includes an assessment of the potential for noise impacts associated with construction of theproject. The main non-mining construction activities associated with the project include the TherribriRoad upgrade works and construction of the Maules Creek Rail Spur Line and Namoi River waterpipeline.

Excluding recently acquired properties, the construction noise assessment indicates that the projectwould exceed applicable construction noise criteria at 4 residences, comprising those located on:o Properly 256-263 (2 residences) - associated with the rail spur;¡ Property 225 - associated with the rail spur and pipeline works; and. Property 264 - associated with the Therribri Road upgrade works.

The key source of construction noise is construction of the proposed rail spur line and rail bridgeacross the Namoi River. Construction of the rail spur bridge may include pile driving, which ispredicted to generate sound power levels of up to 130 dB(A). With consideration of noise modifyingfactors such as tonality, it is predicted that noise levels up to 50 dB(A) could be received at theresidence on Property 256 and 45 dB(A) at the residence on Property 259 if this activity is undertaken.It is recommended that construction noise limits be set at these levels for these two properties, duringstandard construction hours. The Department also recommends that the ICNG's requirements applyto construction of the rail spur line, given its shorter duration, its location outside the active mining areaand its impacts being similar to those of construction of other transport infrastructure. The Departmenthas included construction noise limits to apply during standard construction hours, as defined underthe ICNG. lf work is proposed to be undertaken outside these hours, then an out-of-hours-work(OOHW) strategy would need to be developed and applied, consistent with the requirements of theICNG. The ICNG includes guidance for consultation with potentially affected receivers in developingappropriate noise mitigation strategies.

The Department is satisfied that construction noise impacts on the other two properties would beunlikely to be significant, given the temporary and linear nature of these works, which would mean thatthe modelled worst-case construction noise would only occur for a relatively short period of time. TheDepartment has also recommended conditions requiring Aston to prepare and implement acomprehensive Noise Management Plan prior to any construction works, which would manageconstruction of the pipeline and road upgrade works, as well as the rail spur.

Downstream (or'Off-Site't Rail NoiseAs set out above, rail noise on the Maules Creek Rail Spur Line (including the shared section of theBoggabri Rail Spur Line) was assessed in the EA as part of the project's operational noise. However,after careful consideration, the Department has recommended conditions based on the view that railnoise on the spur should be considered separately to noise generated by the project at either the mine


43

Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron me ntal Assessmenl Reporf

or ¡ts rail loading facility and rail loop, and that the draft RING's rail noise criteria should be applied, inthis case, to rail noise on the private rail spur.

However, the NIA also includes an assessment in respect of rail noise on the Werris Creek toMungindi railway line. The rail noise criteria in the draft RING applicable to this and other existing raillines are 65 dB(A) during Day and Evening, 60 dB(A) for Night, and a maximum pass-by of 85 dB(A).

The assessment indicates that the project would increase average train movements on the WerrisCreek to Mungindi railway from 27 movements to 37 movements between Boggabri and Gunnedah,and from 33 movements to 43 movements between Gunnedah and Curlewis (ie an increase of 10movements on average above baseline levels).2 The assessment found that these additionalmovements would increase noise levels at a nominal distance of 30 m from the track by up to1.3 dB(A) LA"qz+r'n On a busy day (with up to the proposed maximum of 20 train movements a dayfrom the project), a further noise increase of I dB(A) would be expected. The Department notes that,on this type of day, this noise increase would likely be at least partly offset by a commensuratereduction in train movements from other mines using the railway.

The PAC recommended that Aston should be required to schedule/restrict train movements tominimise sleep disturbance impacts for residents along the 'entire rail corridor'3 and that Aston berequired to select rolling stock to minimise noise.

The Department notes that rail scheduling and the selection of rolling stock would both largely bebeyond the control of Aston, with the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) and other bulk freightcarriers being the entities which are responsible for the haulage and timing of coal delivery on thewider public rail network. The approval authority (ie the PAC acting as the Minister's delegate) doesnot have the power to include conditions in a project approval that place requirements on a third party,such as ARTC. However, the Department has recommended conditions consistent with the intent ofthe PAC's recommendation, including requiring Aston to:. ensure that the project only uses locomotives that comply with the noise limits in ARTC's EPL,

granted by the EPA;. use its best endeavours to ensure that rolling stock are selected to minimise noise; ando implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise rail noise associated with the

project.

Off-site Road Traffic NoiseThe NIA includes an assessment of off-site road traffic noise, which indicates that the project wouldcomply with applicable road traffic noise criteria at all receivers. The Department notes that theoperational traffic noise assessment is based on most employees being transported to the site byshuttle bus. The Department has recommended conditions formalising Aston's commitment in thisregard (see Section 4.8).

Cumulative NoiseThe NIA includes a cumulative noise assessment which assesses the impact of the project togetherwith all nearby existing mines and the proposed expansion of the Boggabri mine. The NIA does notinclude the proposed expansion of the Tarrawonga mine; however the Department is satisfied thatadditional cumulative noise impacts of the Tarrawonga mine expansion can be adequately consideredduring assessment of that project.

The NIA considered cumulative noise at representative receiver locations to the north (Property 120),northeast (Property 168), east (Property 186) and south (Property 61) of the project area. Since theEA was finalised, Aston has purchased both Properties 120 and 61.

The NIA found that the representative receiver locations would comply with the most relevantcumulative (or amenity) noise criterion (ie 40 dB(A) for the Night period) for mining operations.However, Property 61 would be affected by cumulative train noise from the rail spur. With regard toother receiver locations apart from these representative properties, the cumulative assessment foundthat any exceedance of amenity noise criteria would only occur on properties that are predicted to be

'These movements are lower than the average 14 additional movements assessed in the traffìc impact assessment (seeSection 5.8).3

Whil" the intended extent of this recommendation is not clear, ¡t may extend as far as the Port of Newcastle.NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

44

Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

significantly affected by project-specific operational noise (and have therefore been included in theacquisition area for either project).

The Department is satisfied that the project would not result in any significant cumulative noiseimpacts on the surrounding area. Notwithstanding, the Department has recommended a number ofconditions to manage potential cumulative noise impacts, including requirements on Aston to:. comply with applicable cumulative (amenity) noise limits;. acquire any property (in conjunction with other relevant mines) if cumulative noise emissions

exceed the applicable criteria by more than 5 dB(A), if requested by the landowner; ando prepare and implement a regional Noise Management Strategy in consultation with other

surrounding mines in the locality.

The recommendation to comply with the INP amenity criteria is consistent with the PAC Report'srecommendation. However, the Department notes that the PAC, in its determination of the BoggabriCoal Project, applied more stringent criteria (ie 40 dB(A) for day, evening and night periods).Longstanding Departmental policy applies cumulative noise criteria in accordance with the relevantamenity criteria under the lNP, which for this project are the 'recommended acceptabte'rural areacriteria of 50 dB(A) day, 45 dB(A) evening and 40 dB(A) night. Cumulative noise acquisition criteriaare equivalent to the 'recommended maximum'rural area amenity levels under the lNP, namely 55dB(A) day, 50 dB(A) evening and 45 dB(A) night.

The INP amenity criteria are based on detailed scientific analysis for maintaining the amenity ofvarious land use settings. Different amenity criteria apply for rural, suburban, urban andurban/industrial settings, with the rural area having the lowest amenity criteria. The Department doesnot consider that the project's locality is particularly different to many other rural areas of NSW, and assuch does not believe that departure from the INP amenity criteria is warranted for the project.

ConclusionThe Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to:. âcÇuire on request those four properties where operational noise impacts are predicted to

exceed the PSNLs by t 5 dB(A);. implement noise mitigation measures (such as double glazing, insulation, and/or air

conditioning) on request at two moderately-affected residences;. comply with contemporary operational noise limits (based on its predicted mitigated noise

emissions);. comply with contemporary rail noise criteria for train movements on the rail spur, in accordance

with the criteria for publicly-owned rail lines under the drafl Rail Infrastructure Noise Guidetine;. develop a detailed Noise Monitoring Plan, including real-time noise monitoring and an activemanagement system to identify and manage potential exceedances as they occur;

. prepare and implement a regional noise management strategy (identified as the Leard ForestMining Precinct Noise Management Strategy), in consultation with neighbouring mines;

. independently investigate noise complaints and implement applicable corrective and othermanagement measures; and

¡ Gorlìnìunicate regularly with the community, including publicly reporting all monitoring results,and effectively responding to enquiries and complaints.

With the implementation of these measures, the Department is satisfied that the project's operationaland rail noise impacts can be adequately minimised, managed and compensated for.

The recommended conditions are generally consistent with the recommendations of the PAC's review,with one main exception. ln this regard, the PAC recommended that operational noise emissions fromthe mine (including rail noise on the spur) should not exceed the PSNLs (ie 35 dB(A) Lneq(rs min¡ âîd45 dB(A) Lnrlr

'in¡) at any privately-owned residence, unless Aston has the written agreement ót tne

owner of the property. The Department believes that such a condition would 'be inconsistent with

established procedures under the INP as applied for many years by the EPA, various consentauthorities and the Department across the State. Whilst the Department acknowledges the PAC'sdesire to protect the amenity of the Maules Creek community in reflection of the low existingbackground noise levels, the Department does not believe that a departure from longstanding State-wide policy is warranted for a number of reasons, including: '


45

a

a

a

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ron m e n tal Assessmenl Reporf

the Department and the EPA are satisfied that Aston has adopted all reasonable and feasiblemitigation measures to minimise noise impacts from the project;2 of the 4 affected residences are predicted to only be moderately affected by train noise on therail spur, and not noise from mining operations themselves;the train noise on the rail spur would be intermittent (ie up to 10 train movements a day fromMaules Creek) and would easily comply with established rail noise criteria;the INP specifically provides for exceedances of PSNLs when setting noise limits, and statesthat acquisition should only be considered where the noise level is 'well above'the PSNLs;a criterion of 35 dB(A) is low in real terms, and well below the established amenity criteria in thelNP, which are based on comprehensive scientific studies using dose-response relationships todetermine appropriate noise levels to safeguard communities;the project is predicted to comply with the applicable cumulative amenity criteria at all properties;anda strict interpretation of the PAC's recommended condition could significantly constrain miningoperations and/or coal transport from the mine, if a landowner were not prepared to enter into anagreement.

4.3 Blasting and VibrationThe project involves blasting to facilitate removal of both overburden and coal, with up to 160 blastsproposed per year, or approximately 3 to 4 per week. Blasting has the potential to affect people,structures or private property in a number of ways, including:. annoyance and discomfort, or'amenity impacts';¡ structural damage to homes, buildings, property improvements and infrastructure;¡ direct risks to the safety of people and livestock due to rock projectiles, or'flyrock'; and¡ blast fumes.

The EA includes a blast impact assessment undertaken by Bridges Acoustics. Blast fume-relatedimpacts are addressed separately in the air quality assessment (see Section 4.4).

Annovance and Structural DamaoeThe relevant blast criteria for both amenity and structural impacts are shown in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Blast and Structural CriteriaBlast Structural Criteria*Airblast Overpressure 1 15 dB for 95% of blasts in any year

133 dB120 dB for 100% of blasts

a

a

Ground Vibration 5 mm/sec for of tn

10 mm/sec lor 100o/o of blasts10 mm/sec

- ANZECC Technical Basis for** Australian Standard AS2187Guìdelines to Minimise Annoyance due to Blastìng Overpressure and Ground Vibration.2-2006 Explosives - Sforage, Transport and Use (houses and low-rise residential buildings).

The blast assessment indicates that the project would comply with the applicable amenity andstructural damage criteria at all surrounding residential receiver locations for the full range of blasts¡zes, except for the nearest three residences if throw blasting techniques were coupled with thehighest maximum instantaneous charge (MlC) size. ln practice, blast design and MIC size would bemanaged to comply with the relevant crite¡'ia at all off-site receiver locations.

SafetvThe Leard State Forest is currently publicly accessible and, as noted by the PAC, public access to theForest would need to be progressively restricted as mining operations expand. To manage safety risksassociated with flyrock, the Department has recommended conditions restricting blasting to no closerthan 500 m of any privately-owned land or other land not owned by Aston, unless the company has:. a written agreement with the landowner to allow blasting to be carried out closer to the land; or. demonstrated to the Department's satisfaction that the blasting can be carried out without

compromising the safety of people or livestock, and updated the mine's Blast Management Planto include the specific measures that would be implemented to ensure this.


46

Maules Creek Coal Project Env i ro n m e nta I Assessmenf Reporf

Heritaoe StructuresThe blast assessment includes consideration of the potential blasting and vibration related impacts onheritage structures in the vicinity of the project area. The assessment indicates that the project wouldnot impact on any of these heritage items, noting that:o blasting would comply with applicable amenity criteria at the nearest heritage structure (the

Warriahdool Hut), which would experience max¡mum vibration of 4.4 mm/sec and maximumoverpressure levels of 111 dB; and

. train movements on the Maules Creek Rail Spur would not cause any vibration impacts onheritage structures, the nearest being the 'Velyama' shearing shed located approximately 280 mfrom the rail spur.

ConclusionThe Department is satisfied that blasting and related operations can be readily managed to meet theapplicable amenity and structural damage criteria at all surrounding private residences, structures andheritage items, subject to implementation of strict blast management measures. To ensure thisoccurs, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to:. manage blasting operations to comply with all relevant criteria at private properties;. limit blastfrequency and hours, and coordinate blasting operations with neighbouring mines;. keep residences notified and up to date regarding blasting operations, and facilitate feedback

and complaint management;o provide for structural property inspections and investigations on request;. repair any structural damage to buildings or infrastructure caused by the project;. manage blasting operations to avoid fly-rock related safety risks; ando develop a comprehensive blast management plan.

4.4 Air QualityThe EA includes a specialist air quality impact assessment (AOIA) undertaken by PAE Holmes Pty Ltdin accordance with applicable guidelines, including OEH's Approved Methods for the Modetling andAssessment of Air Pollutants ,n NSt4/. The AQIA includes consideration of total guspendedparticulates (TSP), fine particulate matter (PM1e and PMzs) and dust deposition, with reference torelevant 24-hour, monthly and annual air quality goals.

The AQIA does not include consideration of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NO*)associated with diesel use, blast fumes and potential spontaneous combustion. However, based onassessments undertaken for similar projects and the distance to sensitive receivers, the Department issatisfied that SOz and NO* emissions would be relatively minor and not warrant further assessment.Notwithstanding, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to implement allreasonable and feasible measures to minimise off-site odours and fumes.

Mitiqation MeasuresThe modelling of dust emissions in the AQIA takes into account the adoption of a number of mitigationmeasures that Aston has committed to implement, including:. minimising haul road distances and disturbance areas, and progressive and/or temporary

rehabilitation;¡ spray systems for coal stockpiles and transfer points;. using water carts and/or dust suppressants on all active haul roads;. dust suppression on the conveyor system; and. monitoring and management of spontaneous combustion.

Further, Aston proposes to implement a real-time air quality monitoring and management system (inconsultation with the Boggabri and Tarrawonga mines) to guide day-to-day operations, including PM2.5monitoring. As with real-time noise management and modelling (see Section 4.2), fhe dust controlbenefits of such a system has not been (and is not able to be) included in the air quality modelling.

Some submissions raised concerns about dust emissions from train wagons, recommending thatAston be required to cover wagons (in a similar manner to truck covers). This potential mitigationmeasure is addressed in detail in the PAC Report. Citing studies undertaken for QR National, thePAC notes that while coal trains are not generally thought to be a major source of dust, someemissions are generated and proprietary covers are available and used in some parts of NorthAmerica (although largely to protect the coal from weather rather than reducing dust emissions).NSW Government 47Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Maules Creek Coal Project Environ me n tal Assessmenú Repoñ

Whilst the PAC did not recommend that the rail wagons be covered, it did recommend conditionsrequir¡ng Aston to implement measures to minimise rall coal dust. The Department agrees with thisposition and has recommended conditions in this regard.

Predicted lmpactsThe AQIA includes a quantitative consideration of the incremental increase in ambient dust levelscaused by the project. For TSP, annual average PMls and dust deposition, this quantitativeconsideration includes emissions from the Boggabri Coal Mine (including its approved expansion) andthe Tarrawonga Coal Mine (existing approved operations only).

A summary of the predicted dust impacts of the project is shown in Table 12 and predicted worst-casedust contours are shown on Figure 16. Aston has purchased a number of additional properties sincethe EA and the PAC Report and Table 12 therefore only shows impacts on land which remainsprivately-owned land as at the date of this report. Table 12 shows that the project is not predicted tohave significant dust impacts on any privately-owned residences. However, 2 privately-ownedlandholdings would be affected over more than 25% of their area for more than 5 days/year. Theaffected properties are located both in the rural area north of the mine (Property 110-114) and to thesouth (Property 279-280). Property 279-280 is already within the acquisition area under the existingTarrawonga mine consent, and is also impacted by the Boggabri mine. lt should also be noted that theAQIA contained information suggesting that l5 private properties would be affected by the 25o/o rule;however it was later clarified that 13 of these are predicted to be subject to 24-hour PMle exceedancesfor 5 days or fewer in any year of the project life.

Table 12: of Affected PrivateReceiverIVo.

TSP DusfYear

Criterion 2 (max 4

Residences

Annual/

NoneAdditional Private >2596 Affected'

Year 10%of

>25% >5area above criteria

110-11279-280' YearS -35%

Nofes;1 Additional privately-owned propefties where more than 25% of the land exceeds the criteria (but where any residence is

not predicted to be significantly affected).2 This residence ( 1 1 a) is also predicted to be significantly affected by noise.3 This property already is within the acquisition area for the existing Tarrawonga mine and Boggabri mine.

The project is also predicted to have moderate dust impacts on 3 other private residences (Properties108a, 1 16 and 122), which are predicted to experience 24-hour PMle levels above the air quality goalon 5 days a year or less. These residences are all located in the Maules Creek area north of the mine.

The Department notes that there are currently no adopted Australian or NSW air quality criteria forPM2.5, although the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC)^has developed provisional'advisory reporting standards' of B pg/m3 (annual average) and 25 Vgtm3 1Zl-nour). The air qualityassessment includes modelling of PMz5 and the PAC was satisfied that, when considered on aproject-only basis, the project would not exceed these advisory levels at any residence. Based on theassessment, and assessments undertaken for similar projects, the Department is satisfied that PM2.5impacts would be directly related to PMle impacts, and therefore is satisfied that further particularconsideration of PM2,5 is not necessary.


48



E nv i ron me ntal Assessmenf Report

l5Ddn:JDtÞE0q0zÍ

lndicative A¡r Quality Contours(Worst Case Envelope All Years)

Cad Fïo:07(x3F-ù,9

--F--

T

- - PDj{rdBoudoy

-

Rd8

-

ìll¡bñs CÈk b illurBhdl RdlwyE Addcær2PtylrdI I BoæâbicoCRyumibd

ffi vnrelmn Cod Mntqg L¡nrbdE4El!ü Adñ C@|2 Pty Ìrd A lúmÈr

Bqgãbri C@l Pty Lld

f com

IEt

C¡w -SFidL@NSW Strb FordLrsd Sbb Coffiüo AÆUntlmfth/d€ Fræhold RêcdÉrBoggsbrl Cod R6lsWhiÞfw*hlRæ'E

¿ASTONRESOURCESffisÊAshS

hbh6@úl

I Heneen Beiley ]

-

TSPAnrud ($uortrÐ Cmtlåd@

PEid Alæ

P¡dslAmPüto MEI AEr¡g€ (3018ff)O¡mddtv€


Figure 16: Predicted Worst Case Dusf Levels - All Years

49

Maules Creek Coal Project Environ me ntal Assessøenf Report

Cumulative 24-Hour PM1 6 I mpactsWhilst the AQIA's quantitative assessment includes cumulative analysis for TSP, dust deposition andannual average PM1s, the analysis of Z4-hour PMls impacts is based on a project-only basis, ascumulative assessment of 24-hour PMro is problematic for a number of technical reasons (includingthe large variance in background 24-hour PMle levels).

To address cumulative 24-hour PMle impacts in some manner, the AQIA includes an assessment ofthe probability of cumulative 24-hour PMls levels exceeding the applicable 50 pg/m, goal for fourselected scenarios, based on available data. This assessment indicates that the residences mostlikely to experience 24-hour PMle impacts are generally those already predicted to be affected by theproject alone (ie Properties 108a, 111a, 116 and 122). However, there are 6 additional residenceswhere the probability of cumulative impacts is greater than 1o/o for one or another of the assessedscenarios. These residences are Properties 53, 104, 105, 106, 123 and 108b.

However, there is no certainty that the modelled scenarios would arise, or that other scenarios are notreasonable. Consequently, this element of the assessment, although notable, is not of sufficientreliability for the Department to use it to determine property acquisitions. The Department considersinstead that the risks of dust emissions exceeding criteria at all properties where moderate project-related impacts are predicted or where cumulative impacts may become a problem should bemanaged using the project's proposed real-time air quality management system, and an appropriateair quality monitoring regime focusing on the nearest receivers.

Additional Cumulative lmpacts with Proposed Tarrawonga Extension and Goonbri Mine ProjectsThe AQIA also íncludes an additional qualitative cumulative assessment taking into consideration theproposed southern extension to the Tarrawonga coal mine (publicly exhibited in January/February2012), and the potential Goonbri coal project (exploration stage only), located to the south anãsoutheast of the proposed Maules Creek mine, respectively. The assessment indicates that anyadditional cumulative impacts are expected to be most significant at properties to the east and soutñof the Tarrawonga mine, with Maules Creek's contribution to cumulative dust levels minor compared tocontributions from the Tarrawonga and Goonbri projects.

Although expressing caution over this assessment, the PAC acknowledged that cumulative dust levelsin these areas would be subject to further modelling and analysis as part of the assessments of theTarrawonga and Goonbri projects.

The Department is satisfied that Maules Creek's contribution to additional cumulative dust levelswould be relatively minor, and that the full range of potential cumulative impacts would be adequatelyassessed during the assessments of the Tarrawonga and Goonbri projects. Notwithstanding, theDepartment has recommended a number of conditions to minimise and manage cumulative dustlevels, as detailed below.

Consideration and Conclu sionThe Department acknowledges that the project is predicted to result in significant dust impacts on twoprivately-owned rural properties (without residences) in the surrounding area, but also recognises thatthere is limited scope to reduce or mitigate these impacts further through 'traditional' mitigationmeasures without significantly down-scaling mining operations or sterilising significant coal resources.

The Department also acknowledges that the project is predicted to result in moderate dust impacts ona further 3 privately-owned rural residences, and potentially an additional 6 residences whencumulative 24-hour PMle impacts are considered.

However, the Department notes that the modelling has not taken into consideration (and is not able tousing current modelling methods) a key contemporary mitigation measure that can significantly reducethe identified air quality exceedances, namely the adoption of a real{ime dust management system.This uses a combination of real-time dust monitoring and weather forecasting to guide the day-to-dayplanning of mining operations, and prevent air quality impacts during adverse weather conditions.

Such 'active' management systems have been used in the Hunter Valley with some success, withresults indicating that predicted impacts (particularly short-term impacts) are able to be significanflyreduced or eliminated. As outlined above, Aston has committed to the implementation of ãn activómanagement system, in consultation with the neighbouring Boggabri and Tarrawonga mines.NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

50

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal Assessmenl Reporf

Given the predicted project-specific impacts and the potential for wider cumulative impacts, theDepartment has recommended conditions requir¡ng Aston to develop and implement an active dustmanagement system for the Maules Creek mine, as part of a comprehensive Air Quality ManagementPlan for the mine. With such a system, the Department believes that Aston should be able to avoid orat least reduce many of the predicted 24-hour PMls impacts.

Consistent with the PAC Report's recommendations, the Department has also recommendedconditions requiring Aston to prepare and implement a regional air quality management strategy(identified as the Leard Forest Mining Precinct Air Quality Management Strategy), in consultation withneighbouring mines. The Department has also recommended a broad suite of other contemporaryconditions to mitigate and manage air quality impacts, including requiring Aston to:. comply with contemporary air quality criteria, for properties outside the predicted significantly-

affected area;. acquire the 2 properties predicted to be significantly affected, if requested by the landowner;. acquire any additional residence or property if dust emissions exceed the applicable land

acquisition criteria, if requested by the landowner;. undertake additional dust mitigation measures (such as air filters or air conditioning) at privately-

owned or mine-owned residences predicted to be significantly or moderately affected, or at anyother residence if dust emissions exceed the applicable criteria, if requested by the landowner(or the tenant of any mine-owned residence);

. develop a comprehensive Air Quality Management Plan, including a real-time dust monitoringprogram and an active management system which includes an early warning alert system toidentify and manage potential exceedances;

. indePendently investigate air quality complaints and undertake applicable managementmeasures;

. notify the affected landowners and tenants of the potential health-related impacts associatedwith mine dust;

. allow tenants of affected mine-owned residences to terminate tenancy agreements withoutpenalty;

. respond effectively to enquiries or complaints; and

. publicly report on its environmental performance.

These measures are generally consistent with the PAC Report and EPA recommendations. The onlydepartures are similar to departures that the Department also recommended in respect of the recently-approved Boggabri Coal Project. The main departures relate to the PAC's recommendations that:. dust levels from the project and other sources must not exceed the applicable criteria at any

residence, regardless of land tenure; and. the project does not contribute to any exceedance of the PM25 goal, and any PM25 criteria

(when this is finalised nationally and/or at a State level) at any occupied residential property,regardless of land tenure.

With regard to the first point, it is noted that the PAC, in its determination of the Boggabri Coal Project,subsequently amended this recommendation to apply only to privately-owned properties (withconditions included as above to notify and keep tenants of mine-owned properties well informed aboutpotential dust impacts). The PAC's conditions on the Boggabri Coal Project require Boggabri Coal to'comply' with the air quality criteria at all privately-owned properties other than those predicted to besignificantly affected, which would be subject to acquisition rights (amongst other mitigation measuresas described above).

The Department's standard conditions regarding compliance with air quality goals require Aston toimplement all 'reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigation measures to comply'with the criteriaat all privately-owned properties, apart from the identified significantly-affected properties, which areprovided with acquisition rights and a range of other mitigation measures. This 'reasonable andfeasible' rather than 'absolute' approach is applied because the air quality criteria are cumulative (withthe exception of dust deposition, for which one criterion is cumulative and one is incremental). That is,they include dust from all sources - background, pastoral activities, climatic events, other mines anddevelopments - as well as the project itself. Accordingly, the PAC's conditions in the Boggabri CoalProject approval essentially require Boggabri Coal to comply at all times with criteria which may wellnot be entirely within its control.


51

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal.Assessmenf Reporf

Further, the Department notes that some residences and privately-owned land are predicted to bemoderately affected by dust associated with the Boggabri Coal Project (that is, the properties arepredicted to experience exceedances of the criteria on a small number of occasions). The PAC'sconditions on Boggabri do not acknowledge these exceedances.

For these reasons, the Department recommends maintaining its standard 'reasonable and feasible'approach to compliance with the criteria, subject to other recommended conditions, to ensure thatAston manages mining operations, and adjusts the mining operations if necessary, to comply with theair quality criteria at privately-owned land.

Notwithstanding the above, the Department acknowledges the intent of the PAC's recommendation,and notes that the draft New England North West Strategic Regional Land Use P/an inoludes anaction for NSW Health, the Department and OEH to prepare a development assessment guideline forimpacts from dust which would include maximum thresholds for incremental and cumulative dustemtsstons.

With regard to PM2 5, the Department notes that the PAC amended its recommendation in determiningthe Boggabri Coal Project, having concluded that it was difficult to impose a condition requiringcompliance with an 'advisory standard' which is still subject to review and has not been adopted asGovernment policy. Accordingly, the PAC required that Boggabri Coal monitor PMz s, and provide forsubsequent action if a national PM25 standard is finalised, via a requirement to manage PM2.5 inaccordance with the mine's EPL. The Department agrees with the PAC's revised approach to PM2 5management, and has recommended similar conditions for the Maules Creek Project.

Further consideration of the PAC's air quality recommendations is provided in Appendix B.

4.5 Greenhouse Gas EmissionsThe EA includes a greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment, undertaken by PAE Holmes. Theassessment was undertaken in accordance with applicable GHG guidelines, including theCommonwealth Government's National Greenhouse Accounts Factors, 20 1 0.

The assessment calculates direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with the project, including'Scope 1'emissions (ie direct GHG emissions from sources controlled by Aston), 'Scope 2'emissions(ie indirect emissions associated with the import of electricity) and 'Scope 3' emissions (ie otherindirect emissions, such as those associated with the downstream combustion of product coal). Theassessment indicates that 99% of the total GHG emissions generated as a consequence of the projectare those associated with the downstream burning of the product coal at power stations and in steelmaking (see Table l3). The main sources from on-site mining activities (ie Scope I and 2) arereported as:. dieSel use (76%);. electricity use (20%);. fugitive methane from the coal seam (3%); and. explosives use (1%).

Table EmlssionsGHGlndirectandDirect31

GHGprojectaveragesource(s)GHG(TCOze)etnrssronscarbon(tonnesetntssrons

056 903,32950e ectr citvmUpstrea2ScopeScope 3 Downstream coal use,

downstream transport of29,780,359 625,387,548

Total 30,028,092 630,589,940

The average annual GHG emissions arising as a consequence of the project (ie including coalcombustion) represents approximately 0.001% of annual global GHG emissions.

The Department acknowledges the impacts posed by global warming/climate change, but does notbelieve that the threat posed by global warming/climate change should necessarily preclude the

NSWGovernment 52Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron mental Assessmenú Reporf

approval of this project. Rather, the consideration of the project application with regard to GHGimpacts needs to be balanced with consideration to:

the scale of the project's contribution to global warming/climate change;whether refusing the project would reduce global GHG emissions;the need for the project;the benefits of the project, including job creation and its contribution to the NSW economy;the objects.of the EP&A Act, including the encouragement of ESD; andavailable GHG impact mitigation measures.

Following this consideration, the Department is satisfied that the project's contribution to global GHGemissions, even when assessed on a full life cycle basis (ie including downstream GHG emissions),would be very small. lt must also be noted that, if the project was not allowed to proceed, the resultantgap in the coal supply would almost certainly be filled by another coal resource, sourced fromelsewhere in NSW, Australia or overseas. ln other words, removing the GHG emissions from theproject would be unlikely to result in any decrease in global COz emissions. This point illustrates thereality that the key response to the issue of global warming/climate change needs to be made at apolicy or strategic planning level, outside and above the NSW project assessment process.

The need for the project is discussed in Section 4.10. Based on this consideration, the Department issatisfied that there is a clear need for the development of new coal deposits in NSW, at least for theforeseeable future, to meet the global population's basic energy needs. The socio-economic benefitsof the project are also discussed in Section 4.10. The Department is satisfied that the project wouldhave considerable socio-economic benefits.

The objects of the EP&A Act are outlined in Section 2.8, and these objects have informed andunderpinned the Department's assessment of the project. With regard to the Act's object ofencouraging ESD, the Department acknowledges that global warming/climate change presents threatsof serious or irreversible environmental damage, as well impacting on intergenerational equity and theconservation of biological diversity. However, it must also be acknowledged that the downstreamenergy and other socio-economic benefits generated by the project would also benefit both existingand future generations, particularly through the provision of national and international energy needs.

Aston has also committed to a number of GHG mitigation measures, including:contributing to research and promotion of low emission coal technologíes;improving energy efficiency in its operations;consideration of alternative fuels;minim ising double-handling of materials;minimising unnecessary lighting and heating;ensuring the mining fleet is properly maintained; anddeveloping targets and monitoring programs for GHG emissions and energy use on site.

To formalise these commitments and appropriately manage GHG emissions, the Department hasrecommended conditions requiring Aston to prepare and implement a detailed Greenhouse GasManagement Plan for the project, including requirements to implement all reasonable and feasiblemeasures to mitigate greenhouse gases.

The Department does not accept that it is reasonable to apply other requirements on Aston throughthe NSW planning system to significantly reduce Scope 3 GHG emissions associated with thedownstream burning of the product coal. Any such impost - for example a COz levy on product coal -would unfairly penalise Aston and its ability to compete in the energy industry. The Departmentbelieves that such an ad hoc approach to the issue of global warming/climate change is not in thepublic interest.

The Department is satisfied that much more effective measures have been, and are continuing to be,planned and implemented at the State, national and international levels to combat globalwarming/climate change. ln particular, the Commonwealth's Clean Energy Legislative Packageimplemented carbon pricing from I July 2012 to provide a nationwide response to GHG management.


53

Maules Creek Coal Project Envìron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

4.6 Water ResourcesThe project has the potential to affect water resources in a number of ways, including:. directly removing local creeks, affecting surface water flows and quality in local and regional

catchments, and affecting surface water availability to downstream water users;. affecting groundwater flows and quality in sub-surface aquifers, and groundwater availability to

local groundwater users; and. affecting flood behaviour.

The EA includes specialist surface water and groundwater impact assessments, undertaken by WRMWater and Environment and Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants. Theassessments include consideration of baseline water flow and quality conditions and modelling toassess the impacts of the project on water quality and flows.

As outlined in the PAC Report, a number of submissions raised concerns that the project was beingconsidered ahead of the findings and recommendations of the Namoi Catchment Water Study,initiated by the NSW Government in 2010. Following its review, the PAC was satisfied that theoutcomes of the study were not vital to its consideration of the water impacts of the project. The finalNamoi Water Study was publicly released on 31 July 2012.

Water BalanceThe main water supplies available for the project include:¡ catchment run-off from within the mine water management system area (ie disturbed areas);r grout'tdwater inflows to the open cut pit; and. make-up water supply from the Namoi River, via pipeline.

The main water demands would include water lost throughcoal handling and processing (ie coalwashing);dust suppression;evaporation from dams;pumped outflows from highwall dams and overflows from raw water dams and sediment dams;vehicle washdown; andpotable water use.

Based on these supplies and demands, the water balance modelling in the EA indicates that watersupplies available to the mine would adequately cater for the maximum water demands. ln wet years,the modelling indicates that all water demands would be met from local supplies (ie no water wouldneed to be drawn from the Namoi River entitlements). ln other years, supplementary water would bedrawn from the Namoi River at rates of up to:o 1,800 megalitres (ML) in average rainfall years;r 2,500 ML in dry years; ando 2,730 ML in the driest year modelled.

Aston already holds high security entitlements from the Namoi River equivalent to approximately 3,000ML/year.

NOW acknowledged that the modelling predicts that Aston has sufficient water for the operationalrequirements of the project, but noted that the modelling does not account for the interception oflicensable surface and groundwater affected by the project (eg groundwater seeping into the pit).Aston responded stating that the volume of water intercepted by the project'would unlikely exceed itssurplus water supplies, and that as a result the project would not adversely impact the net wateravailable in the Namoiwater management area.

The PAC and the Department are satisfied that the internal and external water sources available to theproject (based on historical data) should satisfy all water demands of the project, and that the projectwould not have a significant impact on water availability and water sharing in the locality. Further, theDepartment is satisfied that the project water supply is able to be managed in a manner that isconsistent with the water market established under the Water Management Act 2000.

o Modelling indicates that the project would intercept up to 146 ML/year of groundwaterNSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

54

Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron me ntal Assessmenf Report

To ensure the appropriate management of water supplies, the Department has recommendedconditions requiring Aston to:. ensure that it has sufficient water for all stages of the project, and if necessary, adjust the scale

of mining operations to match its available water supply; and. maintain a detailed wate' balance for the project, including requirements to investigate

measures to minimise watel use by the project.

Surtace WaterThe project is located mainly within the catchment of Back Creek, an ephemeral stream north of themine site, which flows into Maules Creek, a tributary of the Namoi River. Some areas in the southernpart of the project site (eg the rail spur) drain south directly to the Namoi River floodplain.

The project would remove some relatively minor tributaries of Back Creek, and capture flows (in thedisturbance area) that would otherwise flow to the creek. This captured'area would change over timeas the mine progresses, increasing to a maximum oÍ 25o/o of the Back Creek catchment in Year 5 ofthe project, before gradually reducing lo 18% in Year 21, and 14%following final rehabilitation (withthe long term reduction based on the area captured by the extent of the final void proposed in the EA).The maximum capture area represents about 2% of the Maules Creek catchment, and a negligiblecomponent of the Namoi River catchment.

ln response to concerns raised in submissions about the potential impacts of catchment loss andconsequent downstream surface water loss from Back Creek, Aston provided additional assessmentindicating that, while the frequency of moderate flows in Back Creek would be slightly reduced, theduration of low flows would actually be increased as a result of the project, due to Aston's pumping ofdiversion water collected in the high wall dams back to Back Creek following rainfall events.s

Given this outcome, and the ephemeral nature of Back Creek which limits its regular use, theDepartment is satisfied that the project would not significantly impact downstream surface water usersor the environment. However, the Department has recommended condltions requiring Aston to providecompensatory water supplies to any landowner whose water entitlements are adversely affected bythe project.

The PAC noted that, during very wet periods, there is some potential for excess water from the mine'sdirty water management system to be discharged to the Back Creek catchment due to overtopping ofthe mine's dams. The PAC recommended that Aston be required to provide contingency storagewithin the mining pit to ensure that the dirty water management system can be maintained on a zerodischarge basis at all times.

Aston responded by stating that the project has been designed to ensure no uncontrolled spillages ofdirty water system based on the last 111 years of rainfall data, with excess water storage capacitydesigned into the mining pit, but that it could not provide absolute certainty regarding the potentialfuture need for discharge of (treated) water after very extreme events beyond recorded data.

The Department is satisfied that the project has been designed and can be generally managed on azero discharge basis, but accepts that excess water arising from unforeseen or extreme events couldbe discharged following treatment to acceptable standards, without causing significant environmentalimpact. lndeed, returning such (treated) water to the system would have some benefits to thedownstream environment, as long as any discharge is appropriately managed. To ensure this occurs,the Department has recommended conditions requiring any mine water discharges, in the unlikelyevent that they are required, to conform with the water quality limits in an EPL granted by the EPA.

The PAC and the Department are satisfied that other surface water impacts associated with theproject can be adequately minimised and managed, subject to the implementation of standard bestpractice water management practices. To ensure this occurs, the Department has recommendedconditions requiring Aston to prepare a comprehensive Water Management Plan for the mine,including a detailed:r surface water management plan, including a program to monitor flows and quality against

contemporary surface water and stream health impact assessment criteria; and

5 The site topography restricts some clean run-on water from being diverted around the mine via gravity, and Aston proposes tocollect this water in dams above the mine high walls before pumping it to Back CreekNSW Government SbDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

Maules Creek Coal Project Environ mental Assessmenl Report

surface water response plan, to manage any identified exceedances of the impact assessmentcriter¡a.

FloodinqThe project is outside the 1 in 100 year flood level for Back Creek and flood modelling in the EAindicates that the project would have no adverse affects on flood flows, velocities and levels in theBack Creek catchment.

The proposed mine access road, pipeline and rail spur line would be constructed on or in the vicinity ofthe Namoi River floodplain. The Department is satisfied that this infrastructure can be constructed andmaintained to avoid flooding impacts, and has recommended conditions to ensure this occurs.

It is noted that, while Aston proposes to share Boggabri Coal's Rail Spur Line where it crosses theNamoi River, the flooding section in the EA refers to an alternative crossing alignment on the basisthat sharing of the Boggabri rail spur is not possible. The PAC recommended that Aston should notbe allowed to pursue this alternative crossing of the Namoi River without considerable additionaljustification. The Department notes that the EA contains scant information on this alternative, andAston has since confirmed that the alternative crossing does not now form part of its project. TheDepartment has recommended a condition that confirms that the alternative spur and crossing is notapproved as part of the project.

GroundwaterThe groundwater impact assessment indicates that there are 3 key aquifer systems in the area,including aquifers associated with the:. alluvium of the Namoi River and its tributaries (including Maules Creek and Back Creek);. regolith (soils and weathered bedrock) near the ground surface; and. Permian coal measures.

Groundwater in the alluvial aquifers is fresh, high yielding and widely used in the region (for irrigation,domestic and stock use), while the regolith and coal measure aquifers are lower yielding with quitegood water quality varying from fresh to slightly brackish.

Groundwater modelling undertaken for the EA included cumulative impacts associated with theneighbouring Boggabri and Tarrawonga mines. The assessment found that the Maules Creek projectwould increase the existing depressurisation (or drawdown) of the regional coal seam aquifers, withthe area of affectation extending for distances of between 5 and 7 km from the mining area.

The project-specific drawdown area remains largely outside the alluvial aquifer areas of the NamoiRiver and its tributaries, except for a small area to the southwest of the project area. The cumulativedrawdown area extends the zone of affectation further, as indicated on Figure 17.

ln total, maximum predicted groundwater losses attributed to the mine are around 146.5 Ml/year,comprising 128 ML leakage or recharge loss from the alluvial aquifers and 18.5 ML baseflow loss fromsurface drainage systems. There are a total of 27 registered groundwater bores within the zone ofinfluence, however most of these are owned by mining companies and no bores are registered forirrigation. There are I privately-owned bores registered for stock and domestic purposes. Noirrigation bores that draw water from the high quality alluvial aquifers would be affected by the project.

NOW does not object to the groundwater-related impacts of the project, and recommended conditionsregarding groundwater monitoring and response programs (including monitoring and management ofgroundwater dependent ecosystems), as well as accounting for water losses in accordance with therelevant Water Sharing Plans and lhe Water Management Act 2000.

As part of its review, the PAC engaged Dr Col Mackie to provide expert assistance in reviewing thepotential groundwater impacts of the project. With the exception of the coal barrier, final void and finallandform issues addressed in the following subsection; Dr Mackie, the PAC and the Department aregenerally satisfied that the groundwater impacts associated with the project can be adequatelym inimised andior managed.


56

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me nta I Assessmenf Reporf

Figure 77: Groundwater Drawdown Area

To ensure these outcomes, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to:o provide compensatory water suppl¡es to any landowner whose supplies are adversely affected

by the project;o prepare and implement a detailed Groundwater Management Plan, including agreed impact

assessment criteria and including the testing and monitoring requirements specified in theindependent groundwater review (which are aimed at characterising short and long termimpacts); and


a

Groundwater Depressu risation Zones

I eir,",rr."-r- "¡-------^,',¡rL, !Lì,ì.-c,

a Ê.,..r¡r*\r ,-. .--n RJrluvtc,l^ri: e:J !f /r

I c, "ur..rr..:r- ú,,;,1;;l à;t-;!", ¿g.il,l*,.1'""",,.. ¿\ST()Ni:;i,':i:)i1,,",,,. rr \.r Li( r::!:':; i:.t;.:,i:,, .:'.::::i;iri"í"1:':

t¡ -ó Û!! Li r¡J'tad Rr.^r/âv.J tnf,Ld,L¡\rl1rUli.c: ttúirs ir

rL,L 'l

U'l!rdúil-'lr rdrì -,l...]T r.rJr,?-D'[.r1 e.i Pdrù,la A, G -Jl.!li s, r-r.

-

rL.,/.o'.'rù,J' frù,' rr

- E F!!1Doj,l,ry

-

R,rar 'JL

!¡.

Cad Filc:07087H dwg Datc 05 07 1 1 DEwn CP 3l


57

Maules Creek Coal Project Envì ron me ntal Assessmenf Repof

prepare and implement a regional water management strategy with other mines in the locality tominimise and manage cumulative water impacts of the mines.

Coal Barrier, FinalVoid and Final LandformDr Mackie and the PAC expressed significant concerns in relation to the project's proposed finallandform, and its potential implications for longterm groundwater management and quality. Based onthese concerns, the PAC made three recommendations in relation to groundwater that reflected DrMackie's input and would have significant implications for the proposed mine plan, including that:. the PAC's recommended 500 m biodiversity corridor between the Maules Creek and Boggabri

mines should be kept intact as a solid coal barrier to impede exchange of containedgroundwaters between the two mining pits;

. a mine closure plan should be prepared that provides for a final landform that does not generatea pit lake within the final void, with the void's surface draining freely to the downstreamenvironment (as opposed to being a permanent groundwater sink); and

. all coal reject materials or potentially acid forming (PAF) material should be emplaced within thepit shell at low enough elevations to avoid contaminated leachate migration.

These recommendations are similar to the PAC's recommendations in its review of the Boggabri Coalproject. ln that case, Boggabri Coal accepted the PAC's recommendations as:o the mine plan only reached the barrier coal towards the end of the project life, therefore the

limitation did not affect the mine plan significantly for many years;o the topography of the Boggabri mine allows the mine to be designed with a final landform that is

able to drain freely to the external environment; and. the established nature of the Boggabri mine allows it to dispose of reject materials and PAF

materral within its current pit shell.

Aston, on the other hand, has stated that the PAC's recommendations as applied to the Maules Creekmine are not reasonable or feasible.

With regard to the barrier coal issue, Aston notes that its mine plan reaches the barrier coal from Year10, and that the recommendation would sterilise approximately 121.9 Mt of coal (with a value ofapproximately $tO billion) between the two mines, of which nearly two thirds is within the MaulesCreek mine. Aston's views on the barrier coal issue are set out in detail in the relevant subsectionunder Section 4.1.

The Department notes that since the PAC Report on Maules Creek, the PAC has amended itsequivalent recommendation for a biodiversity corridor/coal barrier for the Boggabri Coal Project toallow some flexibility in the exact location of the 500 m corridor on the lease boundary (that is, thecorridor/barrier need not be 250 m on each side of the lease boundary, as long as it is 500 m in total toprovide for effective biodiversity movement).

The Department has addressed this issue in detail in Section 4.1 above. ln summary, the Departmenthas recommended a condition requiring Aston to ensure that there is a minimum functional 500 meast-west corridor throughout the project life. The Department has also recommended a conditionclarifying that the removal of the remaining coal barrier between the Maules Creek and Boggabri leaseboundaries does not form part of the current approval (ie it would require separate planning approval).

With regard to the final landform and final void issue, the PAC's recommendation is based in part onthe EA's groundwater assessment, which describes the following two options for the final void:. Option 1: Open Final Void - involving leaving the final void generally as is at the end of mining,

at a maximum depth of RL 240m. The void would gradually fill to form a pit lake, reachingequilibrium after about 1,000 years at about RL 225m. The pit lake would be below the regionalgroundwater level, therefore the pit would continue to act as a permanent groundwater sink withthe depressurisation zone extending between 5-7 km from the void. Salinity in the lake tocontinue to rise over time due to evaporation; or

. Option 2: Backfilled Final Void - involving backfilling the final void above the pre-mininggroundwater levels, to about RL 310m. Under this scenario, the void would achievegroundwater equilibrium after about 420-875 years at about RL 307-309m. This scenario wouldnot create a permanent groundwater sink, with groundwater salinity remaining relatively low.

a


58


Whilst the EA's attached specialist groundwater impact assessment identifies and considers these twooptions, the main text of the EA is generally silent on the preferred option, although the projectdescription chapter does mention a pit lake and does not seek approval for backfilling. lmportantly,the EA also notes that there are considerable known open cut coal reserves beyond the 21 yearproposed project life, and that the 'final' landform of the proposed project would therefore not be theactual final landform after the completion of all anticipated (as against 'project'-related) mining.

However, based on the options discussed in the groundwater impact assessment, Dr Mackie and thePAC expressed a clear preference for Option 2, given that it would have considerable long termenvironmental advantages over Option 1.

Dr Mackie stated that Option 2 could still result in a shallow (perhaps ephemeral) pit lake forming atthe base of the void, which could cause salt scalding as the temporary lake fills and evaporates.Accordingly, Dr Mackie suggested that Option 2 could be modified further by additional backfilling ofthe void to approximately RL 340m, at which point contained groundwater would spill naturally to theBack Creek catchment (rather than remaining withi r the pit shell).

Based on Dr Mackie's views, the PAC recommended that a mine closure plan is prepared for theproject that provides, in particular, that lhe "...long term landform should not generate a pit (void) takeor salt scalding. Emplaced spo/s shou/d have a capacity to drain to the natural catchment . . .".

Aston has responded stating that the PAC's recommendation - or Option 2 in general - is neitherreasonable nor feasible for the Maules Creek mine. Aston's response includes additional assessmenton the implications - in terms of coal sterilisation and capital cost - associated with the final voidoptions, with reference to 2 additional final landform options based on the PAC's recommendations,namely:. Option 3: Backfilled Final Void with Drain - involving foregoing coal below the Braymont Seam

from Year 15 and backfilling thefinal void to RL 310m, and constructing a drain tothe north toallow a free-draining landform; and

o Option 4: Additional Backfilled Final Void - involving foregoing coal below the Braymont Seamfrom Year 15 and backfilling the final void to the spill point at RL 340m.

The additional assessment indicates that the various options would have the following implications:. Option 2 - No significant coal sterilisation, however the backfilling (which would be sourced from

the in-pit emplacement) would have a capital cost of some $423 million;¡ Option 3 - Coal sterilisation of some 84 Mt (with a value of some $8.4 billion), and a capital cost

of some $3BB million; ando Option 4 - Coal sterilisation of some 84 Mt (with a value of some $8.4 billion), and a capital cost

of some $813 million.

The Department notes that large scale backfilling of end-of-mine voids is generally only undertakenwhere the particular topography of the mine facilitates it (as may be the case for the Boggabri mine),or where a neighbouring mine is able to use the mine void for emplacement following mine closure.These opportunities only occur in a small number of cases; hence most mines inevitably end up with along term mine void.

Given the significant coal sterilisation, the very high capital costs, the future mining potential in thelease area beyond the 21-year project life and the environmental impacts associated with re-disturbance of emplacements (including ongoing dust emissions) to undertake the backfillingoperations, the Department does not believe that backfilling the final void for the Maules Creek projectis either reasonable or feasible.

However, the Department acknowledges the intent of the PAC's recommendation, and believes thatAston should be required to minimise the size and depth of the final mine void as far as practicable. lnthis regard, the Department has recommended a condition requiring Aston to:. achieve comprehensive rehabilitation objectives, including ensuring that any final void is safe,

stable and non-polluting, and minimises the size, depth and drainage catchment of the final voidas far as is reasonable and feasible;

6 Alternatively, the mine plan could be modified to reduce the spill point.NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

59

a

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ron me ntal Assessmenf Repoñ

prepare and implement a comprehensive Rehabilitation Management Plan that addresses theseobjectives (amongst other things); andprepare and implement a Final Void and Mine Closure Plan that provides for a comprehensiveplan to minimise the long term groundwater effects of the project.

It is recommended that a draft of the Final Void and Mine Closure Plan must be prepared by the endof December 2020 (ie relatively early in the project life), and a final plan must be prepared andsubmitted by the end of December 2026 (well before the planned end of project life in 2033). lt isrecommended that both versions of the plan:o be subject to independent review and verification by suitably qualified, experienced and

independent person/s (including a groundwater expert) whose appointment has been approvedby the Director-General;

. identify and consider:- options for continued mining beyond current project life;- interactions with the final landform of adjoining mines (including any direct or indirect

interaction between final voids);- opportunities for integrated mine planning with adjoining mines to minimise environmental

impacts of the mines' final landforms;- all reasonable and feasible landform options for the final void (including filling);- predicted stability of the proposed landforms; and- predicted hydrochemistry and hydrogeology (including longterm groundwater recovery

and void groundwater quality);. include a detailed proposed landform design; and. demonstrate that the proposed final landform.

- satisfies the relevant rehabilitation objectives;- minimises the extent of any resulting pit lake;- avoids salt scalding;- maximises the capacity of emplaced spoil to drain to the natural environment; and- ensures that drained waters do not adversely affect the downstream environment.

Finally, with regard to the coal reject and PAF material emplacement issue, the Department acceptsthat Aston is not able to strictly comply with the PAC's recommendation3 during the early years of theproject, when all emplacement would be out-of-pit (ie prior to the pit being sufficiently developed toallow in-pit emplacement). However, the Department supports the intent of the PAC's recommendation- namely to minimise leaching of coal reject and PAF material to the external environment - and hasrecommended conditions requiring Aston to:. ensure that coal reject and PAF material is emplaced where it cannot promote acid or sulphate

generation and migration beyond the pit shell or emplacement areas; ando include detailed plans, objectives and performance criteria for coal reject and PAF material

emplacement, as part of the groundwater management plan.

4.7 HeritageAboriqinal HeritaqeThe EA includes a specialist Aboriginal Cultural Heritage lmpact Assessment (ACHIA) undertaken byAECOM. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the assessment and consultationmethodologies outlined rn the Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Culturat Heritage and lmpactAssessment and Community Consultation, 2005 and the tnterim Community ConsultationRequirements for Applicants, 2004. Consultation was also undertaken in accordance with therequirements of OEH's revised consultation guidelines, which were updated in 2010. A total of 1BAboriginal stakeholders registered an interest in the project, with representatives from 16 stakeholdergroups participating in site surveys.

Apart from the surveys completed for the project, the assessment included a detailed analysis of priorheritage studies, including those completed for the adjacent Boggabri Coal Project. A total of 78separate Aboriginal sites were identified within the project area and an additional 19 sites identifiedoutside the project area largely on land owned by Aston. A number of identified sites are also withinthe project area for the Boggabri Coal Shared Rail Spur Line near the Namoi River, and areaddressed under the Boggabri Coal Project assessment.


60

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ron me nt al Assessmenf Reporf

A total of 40 sites have been identified which would be directly or potentially impacted. A summary ofthe 97 sites across the project area is provided in Table 14 below.

Table 14: Summarv of Surveyed Aboriginal Sites

Site Type

OpencuUemplacements

Rail Spur/HaulRoad

lnfrastructurelother disturbance

area

Sifes - no impact orneed to be managedfor índirect impacts

Number of known sites potentially impacted - area ofdisturbance

Artefact scatter

lsolated find

Scarred Tree

Grinding Grooves

Rock Shelter

TOTAL

I0

1

2

0

7

7

4

0

0

18

2

6

4

26

14

15

I

1

57

0

0

11

0

11

4

Sites classifiedas having high

scientificsiqnificance

t5

Significance of Aboriginal Slfes and Consultation with Aboriginal StakeholdersAn assessment of significance was undertaken by AECOM which identified 21 sites of high scientificsignificance, only 6 of which would be impacted by the project. The significance assessment wasbased on larger artefact scatter sites (>25 artefacts and/or scatter sites possessing unique or rareartefact types); scarred trees with well formed or rare scar shapes; unique or rare isolated finds andgrinding grooves.

Three large artefact scatter sites have been identified by Aston for salvage excavation. One site,located within Leard State Forest and identified as Leard SF AS1 (also known as Lawler's Waterhole),has 320 identified artefacts. The other two sites are located along the proposed Maules Creek RailSpur Line (MC13 with 55 artefacts and MC14 with 249 artefacts).

Nine of the registered Aboriginal stakeholder groups provided comments to AECOM on the draftAboriginal Cultural Heritage lmpact Assessment, with most of these stakeholder groups generallyagreeing with the accuracy of the content. However a number of stakeholders advised that, while theywould like to be involved in ongoing consultation and management of Aboriginal heritage, they did notsupport the destruction of Aboriginal artefacts and cultural heritage values.

Aston has also committed to the following mitigation and management measures:o preparation of a detailed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan, developed in

consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and OEH and subject to periodic reviews;. management prior to salvage of sites to be impacted and ongoing management of sites outside

the disturbance area;. detailed salvage methodologies to be developed in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders

and salvage carried out prior to impact;. protocols for monitoring of earthworks to be developed as required;¡ location and procedure for care and control of salvaged artefacts to be identified;. funding and constructing a 'keeping place' for storage of artefacts which would be accessible by

appropriately trained representatives during the project life;. training for one member of each registered Aboriginal stakeholder group in relation to site

recording and artefact recording and basic analysis; and. an Aboriginal representative to sit on the CCC.

Public exhibition of the EA led to a submission on behalf of the 14 Local Aboriginal Land Councils ofthe Northern Region, including Red Chief, Nungaroo, Walhallow and Wanaruah Land Councils. The

NSW Government 61Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ro n me n t a I Assessøenf Reporf

submission made significant criticisms of the project and the ACHIA, including insufficientconsiderat¡on of the social and spiritual aspects of Aboriginal cultural heritage and consultation withknowledge holders; concerns over survey coverage and lack of sub-surface investigations; impacts onthe entire forest landform which provides an example of living Aboriginal culture; loss of research andinterpretation opportunities; salvage and management of Aboriginal artefacts; the need for acomprehensive and well-funded 'keeping place', including adequate resources for salvage andpreservation of scar trees and carvings, research, education and cultural tourism; need for avoidanceof impacts where feasible; and lack of cumulative impact assessment. ln addition, concerns wereraised over the socio-economic disadvantage of Aboriginal communities and that Aston had onlyprovided limited socio-economic opportunities for Aboriginal people. These matters are discussed inthe subsections below.

Commitment to a Keeping Place and Aboriginal Heritage ConservationAston has committed to providing funding towards a keeping place in consultation with the other minesin the Leard Forest Mining Precinct, the Aboriginal community and OEH. The PAC also recommendedthat Aston should explore options to establish a regional keeping place to house artefacts salvagedfrom this project.and the others within the Leard Forest Mining Precinct.

The Department considers that, while a keeping place provides some mitigation of direct impacts onAboriginal cultural heritage, Aston has not provided a fulsome commitment to enhance or conserveAboriginal cultural heritage values in the Leard Forest Mining Precinct. Accordingly, the Departmenthas recommended a condition requiring Aston to prepare an Aboriginal Heritage ConservationStrategy, in consultation with the Aboriginal community and OEH. This Strategy would need toconsider a range of potential options inclúding:r enhancing existing commitments to a keeping place, including provision of long term funding

and training arrangements;. enhancing Aboriginal cultural heritage values (other than salvage and storage of artefacts), such

as provision towards development of a cultural heritage centre;. investigating, protecting and enhancing Aboriginal cultural heritage values in the proposed

biodiversity offset areas and other lands owned by Aston;¡ investigating, protecting and enhancing other Aboriginal cultural heritage values within the Leard

Forest Mining Precinct and broader landscape that are of high cultural heritage significance tothe Aboriginal community; and

¡ co-ordinating a strategic approach with other existing and proposed mining operations in theLeard Forest Mining Precinct.

The successful development and implementation of the Strategy may also require Aston to provideadequate assistance and resources to the Aboriginal community. lt may also require a program offacilitated workshops run by an independent and experienced facilitator.

Cumulative lmpactsA key issue for the Department is the potential cumulative impacts from all mine proposals in theLeard Forest Mining Precinct. There is opportunity for a strategic approach for enhancing orconserving Aboriginal cultural heritage values with co-ordination between mining proponents. ln thisregard, the conditions of approval have allowed for flexibility for the development of joint initiativesbetween the Leard Forest Mining Precinct mines.

Care and Control AgreementsOEH in its submission identified that, under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, a care andcontrol agreement (CCA) is required for transfer of Aboriginal objects to a keeping place, withdemonstrated consultation with and support from the Aboriginal community. There is also a furtherrequirement under this Act for notification of the location or site of known Aboriginal objects, with thisinformation then registered in OEH's Aboriginal Heritage lnformation Management System (AHIMS).

OEH also identified that a key issue for Aboriginal communities is that they are not restricted in theirability to care and control for Aboriginal objects transferred to them. That is, appropriate funding,training and design and maintenance of the artefact storage environment is a key consideration inOEH's decision for issue of a care and control permit. The ability to have adequate resources tomanage, provide training and cultural education for the keeping place was also identified by thesubmission on behalf of the Northern Region Local Aboriginal Land Councils.


62

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ro n me n ta I Assessrnenl Reporf

OEH also indicated that the long-term intention for management of salvaged objects was not clearlyidentified in the ACHIA, for example whether there was any intention for relocation of objects back intoa rehabilitated landscape, which may pose access and protection issues depending upon future landtenure and land use. The issues raised by OEH will need to be addressed by Aston following furtherconsultation with OEH and Aboriginal stakeholders in the preparation and implementation of therecommended Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Strategy and Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

Monitoring, Salvage and Excavation MethodologyAston has made a commitment to developing a salvage methodology incorporating excavation. TheDepartment has included requirements in conditions to prepare and implement a salvage methodologyin consultation with localAboriginal stakeholders and OEH.

The ACHIA recommended that further sub-surface investigations should be undertaken at the 3directly impacted artefact scatter sites identified as having high scientific significance - Lawler'swaterhole and the 2 artefacl scatter sites identified along the Rail Spur Line. The submissions arguedthat the extent of the proposed survey effort and salvage excavation was inadequate, based on thefindings of the Boggabri Coal assessment that recommended that salvage methodology includefurther assessment of distribution of artefacts in Leard State Forest to assess Aboriginal occupationwithin the forest. The key concern expressed was of impacts on sites not discovered during the sitesurveys, particularly the possibility of higher density Aboriginal artefacts within 100-200 m of drainagelines and additional scar trees within Leard State Forest.

The Department agrees that there is opportunity for Aston to undertake additional monitoring andsurvey for Aboriginal artefacts as part of its pre-clearing protocols - particularly targeting drainagelines and scar trees. The Department notes that Aston has committed to developing protocols formonitoring earthworks. ln addition, the Department considers that there is opportunity to integratesalvage methodologies across the Leard Forest Mining Precinct mines, including appropriatelytargeted research questions to assist in revealing greater information concerning Aboriginaloccupation in the regional landscape.

The Department also considers that, given the 21-year life of the mine, salvage of Aboriginal objectsshould be undertaken in a staged manner, so as to retain Aboriginal cultural values in situ as long aspossible prior to disturbance. This would require ongoing management and protection of any sitesprior to disturbance from mining (or pre-mining activities such as drilling programs) and co-ordinationwith NSW Forests where objects are still retained within areas managed by that agency.

Aboriginal Community - Socio-Economic lmpactsRed Chief Aboriginal Land Council recommended that, if the project is approved, the Governmentshould compensate Aboriginal communities through provision of a component of mining royalties forprovision of assistance and facilities for education and training, health, land management and housing.This request is a broader NSW Government policy issue rather than a project-specific issue.

Aston has included commitments to enhance employment opportunities within the Aboriginalcommunity, including provision of apprenticeship and scholarship opportunities. The Department hasrecommended that a Social lmpact Management Plan is developed in consultation with Aboriginalstakeholders, including monitoring and reporting of Aston's proposed mitigation measures.

Historic HeritaqeThe EA identified 5 historic heritage items associated with house and farming infrastructure acquiredfor the project. There is also a burial ground on the property 'Velyama'. None of these would bedirectly impacted by the project.

Management and mitigation measures have been proposed by Aston, including ongoing care andprotection of heritage items on Aston's land, and a proposal to undertake oral history reports withlandowners on any properties acquired by Aston.

The Department also considers that there is potential for historic heritage items at the Lawler'swaterhole site and salvage excavation proposed to be undertaken for Aboriginal heritage should beextended to cover historic heritage items as well.


63

Maules Creek Coal Project E nviron mental Assessmenf Reporf

Heritaøe Manaqement PlanThe Department has recommended conditions that would require the preparation and implementationof a Heritage Management Plan to cover both Aboriginal and historic heritage. For Aboriginal heritage,the plan would require:. consultation with the local Aboriginal community, OEH and other mines in the Leard Forest

Mining Precinct;. a detailed plan for the implementation of the Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Strategy; and. a description of measures to be implemented for:

o management of sites not impacted by the project;o access arrangements for Aboriginal stakeholders;o managing the discovery of human remains or previously unidentified Aboriginal artefacts;o adequate training and induction of personnel; ando strategy for storage and management of salvaged items.

For historic heritage; the plan would require measures for the management of heritage items onAston's property to maintain or enhance heritage values.

With the implementation of these measures, the Department is satisfied that the proposed miningoperations would avoid and/or mitigate impacts on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage as far asreasonable and feasible. The development and implementation of the proposed Aboriginal HeritageConservation Strategy allows for improved conservation outcomes outside the area being disturbed.

4.8 TransportThe EA includes a specialist transport impact assessment (TTIA) undertaken by Hyder Consulting.The assessment considers potential impacts on transport infrastructure associated with:. increased traffic on public roads due to construction activity, ie access to site by contractors and

heavy vehicles;o increased traffic on public roads due to operational activity, ie additional employees, contractors

and services deliveries; ando increased rail transport to Newcastle.

The EA determined that there would be a peak construction workforce of 340 construction workersand a peak operational workforce of 470 employees. The traffic assessment was undertaken on thebasis that 90% of these workers would be transported by shuttle bus to the site with the remaindertravelling to the site by car. The bus would travel from a drop-off and pick-up location in Boggabri viathe Kamilaroi Highway and then on to Manilla Road to access the site, with limited traffic predicted toaccess the site via the partly-unsealed Barbers Lagoon Road - Braymont Road - Blue Vale Road routefrom Gunnedah. Figure 1B below shows the key access traffic routes surrounding the mine site,although not entirely accurately or comprehensively.

The level of service (LOS) at all key local intersections was forecast to continue to perform at a goodto satisfactory level. However, RMS raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the right-hand{urnlane when travelling north on the Kamilaroi Highway into Manilla Road (formally known as RangariRoad) as a result of inadequate deceleration and storage length. The PAC also recommended thatAston "undertake road upgrades and maintenance to the satisfaction of [NSC and the RMS]'.

While the Department generally supports this recommendation, it notes that the responsibility formaintenance of State roads rests with the RMS. Consequently, the requirement for Aston to contributeto State roads should only extend to any necessary road intersection upgrades, including upgradingthe intersection of Manilla Road and the Kamilaroi Highway to provide a channelised right turn inaccordance with Austroads guidelines, rather than to also maintain these roads. Accordingly, acondition has been recommended that requires Aston to meet the requirements of the RMS for roadintersection upgrades on RMS roads used in respect of the project.

ln the early stages of construction, access to the mine site would be via Manilla Road to Leard ForestRoad and the East Link Road and Northern Ring Road, both of which are located within the forest.However the EA is based on the assumption that the proposed mine access road from Therribri Roadwould be constructed as soon as possible, such that the majority of construction traffic would accessthe site via this sealed access road (see Figure 18)


64

Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

Figure 18: Road Network

The Department notes that the EA's assumption that 90% of the workforce would travel by bus to thesite has a key influence on assessment of impacts, therefore the Department has included conditionsto ensure that access to the site is predominantly by bus in accordance with these commitments.

A key constraint on implementation of this commitment is that the project does not include anidentified bus pick upi drop off location and associated car parking facilities in Boggabri, which wouldrequire additional assessment under a separate approval process. The Department, however, notesthat the MAC group lodged a development application with NSC in September 2011 for an 850 bedminers' accommodation village at Boggabri. Aston has also advised that it is in the final stages ofreaching an agreement with MAC which would require MAC to provide car and bus parking to enablethe shuttle bus system to transport employees to the mine site.

Road Traffic Network lmpacts - Heavv Vehicle AccessDue to load constraints on lron Bridge over the Namoi River, the EA's proposed heavy vehicle routefor construction and ongoing services delivery is proposed to be from the south via Blue Vale Road,NSW Government 65Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

IO?vi[age

Ua¡6

t--- -

ro!B,ih.

ge

K¡lometres

0 I

Traffic Network

- ' -

oòsñ.r!ÌFñ.Ê

-

Ed6 ró Crs!r r r wsneqxrÞluryrá

I l¡rlscrr Ear!Èv

ASTONtl _rrl ilr t\

a rEtaa"€rñ*r

-- r.nwry ÁÐ* Ró!

-

s õ! &ar; RdH Fb üø1E d{ ble æ 0211 hmÐ


Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron m e n tal Assessmenf Reporf

Braymont Road and Barbers Lagoon Road. This route includes approx¡mately 16.5 km of unsealedroads, and the generation of dust from this unsealed road is a key concern for the Department duringconstruction activity. Dust impacts may also be exacerbated during early morning or evening inversionconditions. The Department is aware of recent complaints due to road dust generation, potentiallycaused by existing traffic movements around shift change from existing mining operations.

The Department notes that Tarrawonga Coal Mine is serviced by a sealed private haul road (notshown on Figure 1B) from Blue Vale Road, which crosses Manilla Road. Aston has recently advisedthat it has in-principle agreement with Tarrawonga regarding the use of this road as a preferred heavyvehicle access route. lt is noted that there would still be an approximate 4 km section of Manilla Roadthat is unsealed between the private haul road and Barbers Lagoon Road that would need to bemanaged to minimise dust impacts.

The Department considers this unsealed section of Manilla Road is a key infrastructure component forthe Leard Forest Precinct Mines that requires upgrade and sealing in accordance with the designrequirements of RMS, which is the appropriate roads authority (although NSC maintains this Stateroad by agreement). Tarrawonga Coal Mine has commenced negotiations with NSC to providefunding towards the upgrade of this 4 km section as part of its proposed mine extension project.However, the Department considers that that this section of road should be upgraded prior to anysubstantial volume of heavy vehicle construction traffic accessing the Maules Creek Coal Project,unless potential dust impacts are adequately controlled. The Department has recommended acondition requiring the sealing of this section of road to RMS's satisfaction, prior to substantial accessby heavy vehicles to the site, except with the Director-General's approval subject to demonstration ofadequate dust minim isation.

Road Safetv AuditThe TTIA included a road safety impact assessment (or audit) along the key road transport routes tobe used for the project. The audit identified a number of safety concerns on both local and regionalroads and recommended a number of upgrades. These upgrades will be implemented through acombination of:¡ the proposed upgrade by Aston of Therribri Road to the proposed mine access road and the

upgrade of the intersection of Manilla Road and the Kamilaroi Highway; and. funding provided to NSC as part of the negotiated Voluntary Planning Agreements for both

Boggabriand Maules Creek Coal Mines.

Other road safety recommendations identified in the EA are a combination of short and longer termactions on public roads including upgraded or new signage, provision of or upgrades of safety barriers,removal of identified trees, installing reflective tape, additional line marking and road maintenance.Aston has also committed to working with neighbouring mine operations and the relevant roadsauthorities in managing the identified safety concerns on the public road network. Both NSC and RMSare affected, as the roads authorities responsible for the upgrade and maintenance of local andregional roads, respectively. The PAC recommended conditions that require that road upgrades andmaintenance be undertaken to the satisfaction of RMS and the Council. The Department supportsthese recom mendations.

The audit also identified safety concerns along access routes within Leard State Forest on the EastLink and Northern Ring Roads to access mine infrastructure area in the early stage of the project. Theproposed safety upgrades and maintenance of these forestry roads, together with appropriate safetyupgrade measures at the intersection with Leard Forest Road, are directly the responsibility of Astonto ensure safe access for construction vehicles to the mine infrastructure area.

The Department has recommended a condition requiring Aston, as part of its Traffic ManagementPlan, to include a program for implementing the findings of the road safety audit. The TrafficManagement Plan would be required to be submitted for approval by the Department prior tocommencement of construction and to be prepared in consultation with RMS, NSC and GSC.

The PAC also made a recommendation to ensure that traffic from the project minimises traffic impactsat school pick up/drop off times. The Department has included this as a component of therecommended Traffic Management Plan.


66

Maules Creek Coal Project Environme ntal,Assessmenf Reporf

Kamilaroi Hiqhwav OverpassConstruction of the Boggabri Shared Rail Spur Line has been assessed and approved under theBoggabri Coal Project application. This shared infrastructure includes an overpass of the KamilaroiHighway. As a joint venture agreement has been negotiated between Boggabri Coal and Aston forconstruction of the shared rail spur, the Department has recommended a condition to ensure thatAston also constructs, operates and maintains the rail bridge to the satisfaction of the RMS, and toprovide funding on an equitable basis with Boggabri Coal, including decommissioning costs of thebridge.

lncreased RailTrafficBased on a 10.8 Mtpa production rate, the TTIA proceedeld on the basis that the project would requirean average of 7 trains (ie 14 train movements) per day.'The TTIA also considered rail movementsfrom the proposed Boggabri Coal Mine extension (an additional average 3.4 trains per day).Cumulative rail impacts were assessed using an additional 11 trains per day (ie 22 movements) fromthe Boggabri Shared Rail Spur Line onto the public rail network. The Department also notes that theNarrabri Underground Coal mine (already approved) will have an average of 5 trains per day at fullproduction. The proposed Tarrawonga Coal Mine extension is also seeking approval to utilise theBoggabri Rail Spur Line, however these impacts will be assessed in a separate approval process.

Hyder assessed the traffic impacts at key rail crossings in Boggabri, Gunnedah, Curlewis and Breeza,with one rail crossing over the Kamilaroi Highway at Curlewis. The traffic assessment was undertakenon the basis of a total of 19 trains per day (38 movements) at the Curlewis crossing by 2020. Thisassessment identified deficiencies at 3 rail crossings - Hogarth Street, Breeza; Marquis Street,Gunnedah; and New Street, Gunnedah; with these deficiencies related to short stacking risks (queuesextending into other roads or intersections). A number of recommendations were made for mitigatingthese risks, including actuated movement restriction signs and pavement markings and signage.

GSC also raised concerns with the ongoing and cumulative impact of trains through Gunnedah andCurlewis. GSC highlighted the need for contributions to be made consistent with the needs of aGunnedah Traffic Study currently being finalised. The approval conditions for the Boggabri Coal Minerequire consultation with GSC regarding the outcomes of this Study, with Boggabri's contributionstowards recommended upgrades to be negotiated on an equitable basis with other mines whosehaulage impacts on these crossings. A similar condition has been recommended for the Maules CreekCoal Project. The PAC in its merit review supported this approach, but also highlighted the need for astrategic assessment of rail traffic impacts along the entire rail network to the Port of Newcastle. Thedraft New England North West SRLUP has also highlighted this issue and has included as an actionthe preparation of an infrastructure plan for the region. This approach would provide a co-ordinatedframework for addressing infrastructure upgrades and funding sources.

ConclusionFollowing its assessment, the Department is satisfied that the project can be managed to ensure that itwould not have a significant impact on local or regional traffic and transport. ln summary, theDepartment has recommended conditions that require Aston to:r provide funding for road and intersection upgrades (including sealing a 4 km unsealed section of

Manilla Road and upgrade of the intersection of Manilla Road and the Kamilaroi Highway toprovide a channelised right turn) for State roads to the satisfaction of RMS, and for local roadsto NSC through the required voluntary planning agreement;

¡ construct, operate and maintain the rail bridge over the Kamilaroi Highway for the sharedBoggabri Rail Spur Line to the satisfaction of RMS, and make appropriate contributions to thecosts associated with construction, maintenance and decommissioning of this bridge to thesatisfaction of the Director-General;

o prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan for both construction and operational stages;. ensure that dust impacts from construction traffic on unsealed roads is minimised;. ensure that construction and operational workers travel predominantly to the site by shuttle bus,

in accordance with the commitments in the EA; and¡ liaise with GSC regarding the recommendations of the Gunnedah Traffic Study, and provide

contributions on an equitable basis with other mining operations towards implementing

t However, the noise impact assessment was restricted to an average of 10 train movements per day, and a maximum of 20.NSW Government 67Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Maules Creek Coal Project E nvi ron me ntal Assessmenl Reporl

recommended options for mitigating impacts on road safety and congestion, to the satisfactionof the Director-General.

4.9 Visual Amenity and Lighting

VisuallmpactsThe EA includes a specialist visual impact assessment undertaken by lntegral Landscape Architectureand Visual Planning. The assessment defines project visual impacts as the interaction between visualeffect (a measure of the contrast and integration of the project within the existing landscape) on aviewing location and the visual sensrtivity of that viewing location.

The visual sensitivity is derived from the land use type and distance from the receiver to the nearestvisible project elements. For example, the assessment considered that there was a high visualsensitivity for rural residences up to 7.5 km from the mine. The assessment incorporates a number ofphoto montages to demonstrate the extent of visual impact from the project.

The key project components with potential to have significant visual effects are the open cut pit, OEAsand mine infrastructure area, with other components such as the rail spur line and mine access routeslikely to have a lower visual effect. The assessment concluded that the open cut pit would only bevisible to distant, elevated receivers at distances greater than 25 km - such that the visual sensitivitywould be low.

The OEAs would cause the highest visual effect due to the level of colour contrast of emplacedmaterials, until rehabilitation effectively reduces this contrast with grass and tree cover. Theassessment considered visual impacts from the northern out-of-pit OEA and the western and easternin-pit OEAs. The northern OEA is proposed to be substantially completed by Year 5 with progressiverehabilitation being undertaken over this time. However an additional lift is proposed in Years 5-10,and visual impacts could therefore occur for a 1O-year period. ln addition, final rehabilitation on thewestern and southern faces would not be completed until the end of project life, which wouldexacerbate impacts to the west. The eastern and western OEAs would not be fully rehabilitated untilYears 15-21, which is towards the end of project life.

The assessment identifies that visual impacts would primarily occur from the mine to the eastern,northern and western viewing sectors. The primary viewing area of these sectors is identified in Figure19 below. The southern viewing sector is largely shielded by the Willow Tree range and only includesa smaller area of mining operations which would have a low visual effect on receivers to the south. Asummary of the predicted visual impacts of the project is shown in Table 15.

Visual Mitiqation MeasuresTo mitigate visual impacts, Aston proposes to implement a range of mitigation measures, including thefollowing on-site and off-site measures:

revegetating disturbed areas as soon as practicable after mining;progressive rehabilitation and revegetation of OEAs;using compatible tones for building and cladding colours; andproviding a site specific visual assessment, on request, for landowners within 7.5 km of themining area, and then applying reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

The assessment highlights the project's reliance on limiting the extent of pre-rehabilitated OEAs andtimely rehabilitation in order to minimise visual impacts. The Department has recommendedconditions requiring effective and timely rehabilitation over the life of the project, and annual reportingof the progress of rehabilitation works.

The Department recognises that the project would result in some permanent changes to the visuallandscape and that there would be impacts on surrounding residences, around Maules Creek Villageand some local roads. To minimise the visual impacts of the project on receivers as far as practicable,the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to:. implement additional visual mitigation measures to reduce the visibility of the mine operations on

privately owned receivers that have significant direct views of the rnining operations, at therequest of the landowner;


68

a


notify relevant land owners of their entitlement to additional site-specific visual assessment andlandscaping treatments; andimplement all reasonable and feasible measures to reduce visual impacts.

a


J

å'

¡¿

I

a

Iå

I

MIPark

¡)

&

il-ãtlr'l

Maules Creek Vlllage

tl)E\l 'JË,t:luit

Coal ¡

1

\

¡ç.

t- - --

Z!\JÍÊJli)

Leard

Coal MlneCL 368

i+,.\t

*

í!

+¡,

fa

Ëearo St$Conselatigf*

aÍ

r-á;ri Ji:¡lc' Íp;L

tAraa

i'l 3zùÍ91tËíIJJ\¡ {

rô

_.-f¡/

0 4 I

Vo!þ! Creek lilnhg TelcrflithrUnh€ TtreÌenb

Wúrl! rjrcck ro llu.qlEl Ralk¿yRþæ [ C.æ¡s

vI

--t

Àcilo UoFg -Ycr 21

Spdl- Yea-21Ref¿hIìill$ -YÈ¿r ?1 tvloRo2-986-VAL,dÐg 0Blei 09.02,11

Prlmary Visual Catchment andPhotomontage Locations

Orawni DP

Fl0û¡e

17

MAULES CREEK GOAL PROJEGÎ

Figure 19: Visual Catchments

69

Maules Creek Coal Project E nviron mental Assessmenf Reporf

Table 15: Visual lmpact Summarv

View Shed Assessmenf View Locations Pote nti at Vi s u al I m pactl

EasternView Sector

Location 1 - Leard Forest Road High2 to moderate prior to rehabilitation of OEAs.

Rural residences located within 7.5 km of project features,mainly along eastern section of Harparary Road

NorthernView Sector

Location 2 - Harparary Road atMaules Creek

Location 3 - Maules CreekVillage

Location 4 - Middle Creek Road

High2 to moderate prior to rehabilitation of emplacementareas.

Potential high/ moderate impacts on rural residenceslocated within 7.5 km of northern OEA, particularly along

Harparary Road, Trantham Road, Ellerslie Road andTeston Lane.

WesternView Sector Location 5 - Harparary Road

West

High2 to moderate prior to rehabilitation of emplacementareas

Potential high/ moderate impacts on rural residenceslocated within 7.5 km of northern OEA, particularly along

Harparary Road, Therribri Road, Trantham Road, EllerslieRoad and Teston Lane.

SouthernView Sector

No assessment location - lowvisual effect with project features

largely blocked due to localra

Where views of the Maules Creek OEAs are availablePotential high visual impact at rural res¡dences within 7.5 km ofthe OEA dependent on localised screening around residences and screeningfrom vegetation in middle ground to foreground views.

Liohtinq lmpactsThe Department considers that the locations w¡th potentially higher night lighting impacts are verylikely to correlate with the areas of potent¡al high day{ime visual impacts, as discussed above.Lighting impacts are commonly managed through compliance with relevant Australian Standards andongoing management of operational light sources. The Department has recommended conditions toensure that these standard mitigation measures are implemented, including ensuring that outdoorlighting sources do not shine above the horizontal.

ln addition, the generation of dust from mining operations can exacerbate the impacts of lighting. TheDepartment has recommended conditions that would require Aston to apply best pract¡cemanagement practice and reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to minimise dust generation.

The Department also notes that the mining operations are located approximately 120 km from theSiding Springs Observatory. The recommended conditions would also mitigate potential impacts onthe observatory's observations close to the horizon, particularly recommended conditions related tomitigation of dust and not directing outdoors light sources above the horizontal.

4.10 Socio-economiclmpactsThe EA includes a socio-economic assessment and an economic assessment, undertaken by HansenBailey and Gillespie Economics respectively, which attempt to identify, assess and analyse theproject's socio-economic costs and benefits. The project would generate a large number ofconstruction and operational jobs and inject considerable capital investment into Narrabri and thebroader Gunnedah region. While these changes would lead to a range of benefits, they may also putpressure on public services and facilities.

Proiect Need and AlternativesThe Department recognises that society (both at a domestic and international level) is heavily relianton coal to meet its basic energy needs. Coal provides around 90% of NSW's electricity needs, 75% ofAustralia's electricity needs and 40% of the world's electricity needs.

Access to energy remains a critical development need, particularly for the one{hird of the world'spopulation without electricity. As living standards and development in developing countries increase, itis expected that the demand for coal will continue to rise to satisfy increasing energy requirements.The Maules Creek Project would contribute to supplying this rising annual international coal demand.Therefore the ultimate need for the project is driven by both domestic and international markets to


Low - views impeded by Willow Tree Range, with onlysmall area exposed to southern receivers.

70

Maules Creek Coal Project Env i ron me nta I Assessmenf Reporf

meet current and future energy needs. The Department is satisfied that there is a demonstrable needfor the project in terms of meeting society's need for adequate, reliable and affordable energy.

At the local level, the Department notes that the proposed area of coal extraction is within an existingcoal mining precinct, is subject to an existing mining approval, and would generate efficiencies throughthe shared use of mining-related infrastructure (particularly the Boggabri Shared Rail Spur Line). lnthis regard, the Department acknowledges that the project represents a reasonable amendment to theapproved mine plan on the site, and a logical expansion of coal mining activities in the Leard ForestMining Precinct.

As set out in Section 4.'1, some submissions raised concerns that the alternative of undergroundmining had not been properly considered and that this option would substantially reduce the impactsof the project (especially biodiversity impacts). The PAC examined this issue in detail, including inputfrom independent expert Emeritus Professor Jim Galvin. Prof Galvin concluded that the undergroundalternative was not a reasonable or feasible option for the project, particularly as underground miningwould extract less than 10% of the coal resource compared to open cut mining. The Departmentagrees with the PAC's conclusion that underground mining is not a reasonable option for the project.

lmpacts on Strateoic Aqricultural Land and Other Aqricultural LandThe Department is satisfied that the project is unlikely to have a significant impact on BiophysicalStrategic Agricultural Lands (BSAL) identified in the draft New England North West SRLUP. Asindicated on Figure 20, the project site is not in the vicinity of any BSAL mapped under the draft plan.

-.llGo ì'irr/-^Áï)

\\

0Þ .(¿t n3æ

Èa

-tt

'Fþt BOGGABRI

F

Existing exploration licence:potential for new open cut and/orunderground mine

Existing mining t¡tle: opencut and/or underground

Wn Biophysicats\l

National Parks

¿4 BARRABA

F?

wêqrÊ

L.-t,1

r ÍIIANILI-A')\.\j

fr

NGA

tb

{a

Figure 20: Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Lands

However, as detailed in Section 4.1, some submitters and the Department have raised concernsregarding the inclusion in the proposed biodiversity offset area of some low diversity derived nativegrasslands, cultivated land and improved pastures; and the consequent potential reduction inagricultural land use due to conversion to a permanent conservation land use.

NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastruciure

Maules Creek Tenements

71

Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessmenl Reporf

These areas have been included in the offset strategy to provide a buffer and strateg¡c connectivitybetween patches of remnant vegetation. While the Department supports this buffer in principle, itbelieves that the impact on agricultural lands used for cultivation on soils with higher productivityshould be minimised as far as practicable. The PAC also recommended that Aston should maximisethe amount of agricultural land that remains in production on acquired properties.

To address this issue, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to revise itsbiodiversity offset strategy (as discussed in Section 4.1), including undertaking an agriculturalsuitability assessment of the offset properties, and to use its best endeavours to ensure that theagricultural productivity of project related lands (including agricultural land remaining on propertieswithin the biodiversity offset areas) is maintained or enhanced.

Demand on Local lnfrastructure and ServicesThe EA includes an assessment of the impact of the project on public services and facilities in Narrabriand Gunnedah Shires, assuming an employment split based broadly on 2OYo local recruits and B0%non-local recruits. Based on this split, the assessment considers 2 opposing scenarios:. Scenario 1 - assuming that all non-local operational employees would relocate to the area; and. Scenario 2 - assuming that all non-local operational employees would reside in the MAC Village

proposed to be constructed at Boggabri.

The proposed MAC Village at Boggabri would be a purpose-built temporary accommodation facility forfly-in fly-out (FIFO) workers. MAC Villages has lodged a development application with NSC for a 350bed facility at Boggabri, and another application to expand the existing MAC Village in Narrabri to 900beds was approved in early 2012.

Although the EA modelled these 2 scenarios above to provide a worst case assessment, the EA alsonotes that it is expected that approximately 50% of the operational workforce would relocate to thearea over approximately 5 to 10 years.

With regard to local community services and facilities, the assessment found that:. residential housing availability and affordability is a current issue (as it is for large areas of NSW

and Australia), however there is ample land supply available in the Narrabri and GunnedahLGAs, including in Boggabri itself, to accommodate the expected demand;

o health services have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project, however these serviceswould be strained with the cumulative development of mines in the region;

. education facilities (including pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary schools) are likely tohave sufficient capacity to accommodate the project, but would also be strained with cumulativedevelopment in the region;

o skilled labour is an issue for the region (hence the expected demand for FIFO workers); and. Narrabri Airport is able to support the project (including FIFO workers), however the project

would significantly increase the demand for flights.

To mitigate the potential impacts, Aston proposes to undertake a range of measures, including:. working with stakeholders to facilitate development of the proposed MAC Village;o working with MAC Villages to introduce social responsibility rules for FIFO and other employees,

and to develop community facilities (eg function room, training facility and gym);. encouraging FIFO employees to relocate to the region (especially to Narrabri LGA), using

incentives;o contributing toward the upgrade of NarrabriAirport;. implementing strategies to improve skilled labour and local employment opportunities;¡ contributinq to health facilities in the region, as well as $20,000 per year towards local services

in Boggabñ;8o contributing approximately $100,000 per year towards local bushfire and emergency services;eo providing ongoing assistance to Fairfax Public School at Maules Creek; ando monitoring and reporting on housing affordability and availability.

t These contributions are in addition to the VPA.n These contributions are in addition to the VPA.NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure

72

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ro n m e nta I Assessmenf Reporf

To formalise the applicable measures above, and to provide additional contributions towards localinfrastructure and serv¡ces, Aston has offered to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA)with NSC. Following a number of iterations to the offer, Aston and NSC agreed on a comprehensivecontributions package for the project in August 2012. The contributions package totals approximately$30 million in local infrastructure contributions, including:

$6 million towards the upgrade of local roads and infrastructure;$5 million towards the upgrade of NarrabriAirport (as mentioned above);$1.075 million towards community projects in Maules Creek and Boggabri;$1.25 million towards CBD upgrades in the Narrabri Shire;$100,000 towards local environmental projects; and$0.075 per tonne of product coal (amounting to some $16.5 million in todays money over the lifeof the project)toward local infrastructure and environmental projects.

The Department believes that Aston's offer for contributions to NSC would adequately compensate forthe demand generated by the project on community infrastructure and services. The Department hasrecommended a condition formalising the VPA.

ln its submission, GSC argued that the project would also result in cumulative impacts oninfrastructure and services in the Gunnedah LGA, and that Aston should be required to makeadditional contributions to Gunnedah Council to address these impacts. The PAC considered thisissue and concluded that the project's benefits in Gunnedah would outweigh any costs, and did notaccept that additional contributions to GSC are warranted.

The Department also believes that the project's considerable economic benefits to the broaderregional economy would benefit and stimulate the orderly growth of community services in bothNarrabri and Gunnedah Shires by the public and private sectors. To appropriately manage socio-economic impacts, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to prepare andimplement a Social lmpact Management Plan and a Construction Workforce AccommodationManagement Plan.

Reqional Economic and Socio-economic lmpac.tsThe assessments indicate that the project would provide considerable socio-economic benefits for theregion and the State, including:

At the mine:. 340 direct jobs during operation;. 470 direct jobs during construction; and. $798 million in initialcapital investment;

For the Regional Economy:. $1.9 billion in annual direct and indirect business turnover;. $1.0 billion in annual direct and indirect value added to the gross regional product;. $54 million in annual household income; and¡ 753 direct and indirect jobs;

For the NSW Economy:. $2.8 billion in annual direct and indirect business turnover;. $1.6 billion in annual direct and indirect value added to the gross State product;. $303 million in annual household income; and. 4,029 direct and indirect jobs.

Cost Benefit AnalvsisThe economic assessment also includes a cost benefit analysis (CBA) which seeks to calculate a netbenefiUcost associated with the project based on its full range of environmental, social and economicimpacts and benefits. These are illustrated in Table 16 below.


73

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ron m e n t a l,Assessmenf Reporf

Production

Table 16: Cosfs and Benefits of the

. Opportunity cost of land required for the project

. Opportunity cost of capital. Mining and infrastructure capital costs. Mine operating and rehabilitation / decommissioningCOSTS

. Sale value of coal

. Residual land value and capitalat project end

PotentialExternalities

Air qualityGreenhouse gasesNoise and vibrationEcologyGroundwater and surface waterTraffi c and transportationAboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritageVisual impacts

. Economic and social benefits ofdirect and indirect employment

The assessment calculates that the project would have a net benefit to society of some $8.6 billion,including consideration of externalities. Taxes and royalties over the project life would amount tosome $2.8 billion.

Some submissions raised concerns about components of the cost benefit analysis methodology,claiming that the analysis may have overstated the benefits and underestimated the costs. The CBAalso does not include consideration of costs and benefits associated with downstream burning of theproduct coal (the major¡ty of which would accrue within various overseas markets). Nonetheless,based on the CBA undertaken for the project (and other similar CBAs undertaken for other coal minesin the region and elsewhere in NSW), the PAC and the Department are both satisfied that the project'sbenefits to society (especially to the State and region) would significantly outweigh its costs, includingexternalities.

ConclusionThe Department is satisfied that there is a demonstrable need for the project, that it would notsignificantly impact on other land uses in the region including strategic agricultural land, that thedemands on local infrastructure and services can be adequately addressed, and that the project wouldresult in a considerable net benefit to the region and to NSW. To appropriately manage the socio-economic impacts of the project, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Aston to:o enter into a formal planning agreement with NSC to provide contributions toward local

infrastructure and services;. maintain or enhance the agricultural productivity of non-mining related mine-owned land; ando prepare and implement a Social lmpact Managernent Plan and a Construction Workforce

Accommodation Management Plan.

5. RECOMMENDED GONDITIONS

The Department has prepared recommended conditions of approval for the project (see Appendix A)These conditions are required to:

prevent, minimise, and/or offset adverse impacts of the project;ensure standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance;ensure regular monitoring and reporting; andprovide for the ongoing environmental management of the project.

Appendix B provides a comparison of the 21 PAC recommendations and how these recommendationshave been addressed in the Department's recommended conditions of approval. The Departmentbelieves the conditions reflect current best practice for the regulation of coal mines in NSW. Theseconditions have been reviewed and accepted by Aston.


74

Maules Creek Coal Project Env i ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

6. CONCLUSION

The Department has assessed the project applicat¡on, EA, submissions on the project, Aston'sResponse to Submissions and the PAC Report, in accordance with the objects of the EP&A Act andthe principles of ecologically sustainable development.

This assessment has found that the project would have a number of adverse environmental impacts,including:. the clearing of 2,079 ha of native vegetation, including 545 ha of Box Gum Woodland EEC,

predominantly within Leard State Forest, with consequent impacts on threatened fauna speciesdue to habitat loss;

¡ significant noise impacts on 4 privately-owned landholdings;o significant air impacts on 2 privately-owned landholdings;. impacts on 40 identified Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, including 6 sites identified as having

high scientific significance and the overall Leard State Forest landscape;. localised impacts on water resources through capture of surface runoff, groundwater ingress

into the mining void and reduction of groundwater recharge to alluvial aquifers;o local road impacts during construction and operations; and. local and regional social/amenity impacts from demands on infrastructure and services.

However, the Department is satisfied that these impacts can be adequately mitigated, managed, offsetand/or compensated for through implementation of the project design and commitments made byAston and additional conditions recommended by the PAC and/or the Department. These include:. a significant offset strategy, involving the protection and enhancement of a minimum of 8,665 ha

of land for ecological benefit, and up to a further 1,669 ha of land for corridor enhancement andbuffer:s to enhance core offset areas; and a rehabilitation strategy targeting restoration ofwoodlands;

. no¡se and dust mitigation measures, including predictive meteorological forecasting and real-time dust and noise monitoring to provide adaptive management and mine planning;

. a substantive voluntary planning agreement with NSC to provide community enhancement andinfrastructure funding over the life of the project; and

¡ development of regional strategies to manage the cumulative impacts of mining operations onbiodiversity, noise, blasting, air and water.

The Department has recommended a broad range of stringent conditions to ensure these measuresare effectively implemented and to appropriately manage mining operations.

The Department acknowledges that the project represents a reasonable amendment to the previously-approved mine plan on the site, and a logical expansion to existing mining operations in the LeardForest Mining Precinct. The Department also recognises that the project would provide majoreconomic and social benefits for the New England North West region, in particular Narrabri andGunnedah LGAs, and to NSW generally, including:. direct capital investment of $798 million;. a considerable net benefit to society based on cost benefit analysis (some $8.6 billion);. direct employment for up to 470 operational and 340 construction personnel and associated

indirect employment; and¡ direct revenue for the State Government from coal resource royalties (some $2.8 billion).

On balance, the Department considers that the project's benefits outweigh its residual impacts andthat it is in the public interest and should be approved, subject to stringent conditions.


75


RECOMMENDATION

E nvi ron m e n ta I Assessmenf Reporf

7

It is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Assessment Commission. considers the findings and recommendations of this report;. approves the project application, subject to conditions; and. signs the attached instrument of project approval (see Appe ndix A

WroÆ,,^ ¡¡.ß.t¿

DavidDMini Projects

L?, a ILRichard PeaDeputy Di eneralDevelopment Assessment and Systems Performance


Chris WilsonExecutive DirectorMajor Projects Assessment

*Áo'*aovrtSam Haddad --Director-General

(^*

,4nluø

76

Maules Creek Çoal Project

APPENDIX A:REGOMMENDED PROJECT APPROVAL

Envi ron me ntal Assessmenf Report


As delegate of the Minister for Planning and lnfrastructure, the Planning Assessment Commission of NSWapproves the project application referred to in schedule 1, subject to the conditions in schedules 2 to 5.

These conditions are required to:. prevent, minimise, and/or offset adverse environmental impacts;. set standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance;. require regular monitoring and reporting; ando provide for the ongoing environmental management of the project.

Member of the Gommission Member of the Gommission

Svdnev 2012

Application Number:

Proponent:

Approval Authority:

Land:

Project:

SCHEDULE 1

10 0138

Aston Coal2 Pty Limited

Minister for Planning and lnfrastructure

See Appendix 1


NSW GovernmentDepañment of Planníng and lnfrastructure

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEFINITIONS

ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS

Obligation to Minimise Harm to the EnvironmentTerms of ApprovalLimits on ApprovalSurrender of Existing Development ConsentStructural AdequacyDemolitionProtection of Public lnfrastructureOperation of Plant and EquipmentStaged Submission of Strategies, Plans and ProgramsCommunity Enhancement

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS

Acquisition Upon RequestAdditional Noise and Air Quality Mitigation Upon RequestNoise and VibrationBlastingAir Quality and Greenhouse GasMeteorological MonitoringSoiland WaterBiodiversityHeritageTransportVisualBushflre ManagementWasteRehabilitationSocial

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES

Notification of Landowners/Tenantslndependent ReviewLand Acquisition

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, REPORTING AND AUDITING

Environmental ManagementReportingAuditingAccess to lnformation

APPENDIX 1: SCHEDULE OF LAND

APPENDIX 2: PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN

APPENDIX 3: GENERAL TERMS OF PLANNING AGREEMENT

APPENDIX 4: LAND OWNERSHIP PLAN

APPENDIX 5: STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS

APPENDIX 6: PLANNINc ASSESSMENT COMMTSSTON - GROUNDWATER

APPENDIX 7: BIODIVERSIry OFFSET STRATEGY

APPENDIX 8: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE STTES


3

5

55566ooþ66

7

777

11

1315161823252626262728

30

303031

33

33343535

36

41

44

46

47

51

52

58

2

Counc

Annual reviewARTCBCABiod iversity offset strategy

Blast misfireBoggabri rail spur line

cccCHPPConditions of this approvalConstruction

DepartmentDIDODirector-GeneralDPIDRE

EA

EEC

EPAEP&A ActEP&A RegulationEPLEveningExecutive Director Mineral Resources

Feasible

FIFOHeritage item

lncident

Land

Leard Forest mining precinct

Material harm to the environment

Maules Creek rail spur line

NSW GovernmentDepañment of Planning and lnfrastructure

DEFINITIONS

The review required by condition 4 of schedule 5Australian Rail Track CorporationBuilding Code of AustraliaThe conservation and enhancement strategy described in the EA,required by condition 37/38 of schedule 3 of this consent and depictedconceptually in the figures in Appendix 7The failure of one or more holes in a blast pattern to initiateThe railway line between the Narrabri-Werris Creek railway line andthe Boggabri coal mine, as depicted in Figures 1 and 3 in Appendix 2Community Consultative CommitteeCoal handling and preparation plantConditions contained in schedules 1 to 5 inclusiveThe construction works for the project as described in the EA.Construction work does not include surveys, acquisitions, fencing,investigative drilling or excavation, minor clearing, minor accessroads, minor adjustments to services/utilities, works which allowisolation of the site so that access for construction can be provided(including service relocations) and establishing temporary facilities forconstruction (including for example an offlce and amenitiescompounds, temporary water and communications, constructioncompounds, materials storage compounds, maintenance workshops,testing laboratory or material stockpile areas).Narrabri Shire CouncilAustralian Bureau of Statistics Consumer Price lndex (General)The period from 7am to 6pm on Monday to Saturday, and 8am to 6pmon Sundays and Public HolidaysDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructureDrive in drive outDirector-General of the Department, or delegateDepartment of Primary lndustriesDivision of Resources and Energy (within the Department of Tradeand lnvestment, Regional lnfrastructure and Services)Environmental Assessment titled Maules Creek Coal ProjectEnvironmental Assessment dated July 201 1 (5 volumes), includingthe Response to SubmissionsEndangered ecological community, as defined under the ThreatenedSpecres Conservation Act 1995Environment Protection AuthorityEnvironmental Planning and Assessme nt Act 1 979Environmental Planning and,Assessment Regulation 2000Environment Protection Licence issued under the POEO ActThe period from 6pm to 1OpmThe Executive Director of Mineral Resources within DRE, orequivalent positionFeasible relates to engineering considerations and what is practical tobuild or carry outFly in fly outAn item as defined under the Heritage Act 1977, and/or an AboriginalObject or Aboriginal Place as defined under the Natíonal Parks andWldlife Act 1974A set of circumstances that:. causes or threatens to cause material harm to the environment;

and/or. breaches or exceeds the limits or performance measures/criteria

in this approvalAs defined in the EP&A Act, except for where the term is used in thenoise and air quality conditions in schedules 3 and 4 of this approvalwhere it is defined to mean the whole of a lot, or contiguous lotsowned by the same landowner, in a current plan registered at theLand Titles Office at the date of this approvalThe area incorporating the existing and proposed coal miningoperations centred around Leard Community Conservation Area(CCA) 4, including the Maules Creek Coal Mine, Boggabri Coal Mineand Tarrawonga Coal MineActual or potential harm to the health or safety of human beings or toecosystems that is not trivialThe railway line from the Boggabri rail spur line to the Maules Creek

cPtDay

3

Mine Water

Mining operations

MinisterMinorMitigationNegligibleNight

NOWOEH

PACPOEO ActPrivately-owned land

ProjectProponent

Public infrastructure

Reasonable

Rehabilitation

Response to submissions

RFSRMSROM coalSEWPaC

SiteStatement of commitmentsTSC ActVPA

NSW GovernmentDepaftment of Planning and lnfrastructure

coal mine as depicted in Figures 1 and 3 in Appendix 2Water that accumulates within, or drains from, active mining areas,coal reject emplacement areas, tailings dams and infrastructureareas, synonymous with dirty waterlncludes the removal of overburden and extraction, processing,handling, storage and transportation of coal on siteMinister for Planning and lnfrastructure, or delegateNot very large, important or seriousActivities associated with reducing the impacts of the projectSmall and unimportant, such as to be not worth consideringThe period from 1Opm to 7am on Mondayto Saturday, and 1Opm to8am on Sundays and Public HolidaysNSW Office of Water within the Department of Primary lndustriesOffice of Environment and Heritage within the Department of Premierand CabinetPlanning Assessment CommissionProtection of the Environment Operations Act 1997Land that is not owned by a public agency or a mining company (or itssubsidiary)The development as described in the EAAston Coal 2 Pty Limited, or any person who seeks to carry out thedevelopment approved under this approvalLinear and related infrastructure that provides services to the generalpublic, such as roads, railways, water supply, drainage, sewerage,gas supply, electricity, telephone, telecommunications, etc.Reasonable relates to the application of judgement in arriving at adecision, taking into account: mitigation benefits, cost of mitigationversus benefits provided, community views and the nature and extentof potential improvementsThe restoration of land disturbed by the project to a good conditionand for the purpose of establishing a safe, stable and non-pollutingenvironmentThe Proponents responses to issues raised in submissions titledMaules Creek Coal Projecf Response to Submrssions datedDecember 2011 (2 volumes), and Maules Creek Coal ProjectResponse to Subsidiary Submisslons dated March 2012Rural Fire ServiceRoads and Maritime ServicesRun-of-mine coalCommonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,Populations and Communities.The land described in Appendix 1

The Proponent's commitments in Appendix 5Threatened Species Conseruation Act 1995Voluntary Planning Agreement

4

2.

SCHEDULE 2ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS

OBLIGATION TO MINIMISE HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT

1. ln addition to meeting the specific performance criteria,established under this consent, the Proponent shallimplement all reasonable and feasible measures to prevent and/or minimise any material harm to theenvironment that may result from the construction, operation, or rehabilitation of the development.

TERMS OF APPROVAL

The Proponent shall carry out the project generally in accordance with the:(a) EA;(b) statement of commitments; and(c) conditions of this approval.

Nofes;c The general layout of the project is shown in Appendix 2; ando The statement of commitments is reproduced in Appendix 5.

lf there is any inconsistency between the above documents, the most recent document shall prevail to theextent of the inconsistency. However, the conditions of this approval shall prevail to the extent of anyinconsistency.

The Proponent shall comply with any reasonable requiremenVs of the Director-General arising from theDepartment's assessment of:(a) any reports, strategies, plans, programs, reviews, audits or correspondence that are submitted in

accordance with this approval; and(b) the implementation of'any actions or measures contained in these documents.

LIMITS ON APPROVAL

Mining Operations

5. The Proponent may carry out mining operations on the site until the end of December 2034.

Note: Under this approval, the Proponent is required to rehabilitate the sìle and carry out additìonal undeftakings to thesatisfaction of bolh the Director-General and the Executive Dìrector Mineral Resources. Consequently, this approvat w¡tlcontinue to apply in all other respects - other than the right to conduct mining operations - until the rehabilitation of thesite and these additional undedakíngs have been carried out satisfactorily.

Goal Extraction

The Proponent shall not extract more than 13 million tonnes of ROM coal from the site in any calendaryear.

Vegetated Buffer Corridor

The Proponent shall not clear native vegetation from any land within 250 metres of the adjoining BoggabriCoal Mine mining lease boundary, except with the approval of the Director-General, following endorsementby OEH.

Nofes:a The purpose of this condition is to ensure that a 500 metre wide native vegetation conidor is maintained

between the open cut pits of the project and the adjoining Boggabri Coal Project. However, alignment of thiscorridor directly along the lease boundaries may not be ifs mosf efficient location, from either an environmentalor economic perspective. Consequently, with the endorsement of OEH, the Director-General may approvesubstitution of an alternative native vegetation corridor of at least 500 metres width and equivatent or betterecosystem value, within the general vicinity of the lease boundary. See a/so condition 43 of schedule 3.The project does not propose, nor does this approval allow, the removal of the entire coal banier between theMaules Creek and Boggabri mines. Any future proposal to remove the barrier would be subject to separateapproval.

Goal Transport

The Proponent shall only transport coal from the site by rail.

Note: All coal is to be transpofted from site via the Maules Creek rail spur line, and the shared portion of the BoggabriCoal rail spur line. The separate rail crossing over the Namoi River, as mentioned in at ieast one pad of the EA, doesnot form part of the project and is not approved under this project approval.

The Proponent shall not:(a) transport more than 12.4 million tonnes of product coal from the site in any calendar year; and


3

4.

6.

7

I

9.

a

5

(b) dispatch more than 7 laden trains from the site in a day when averaged over a calendar year; or(c) dispatch more than 10 laden trains from the site in a day.

Note: For the purposes of this condition, a day refers to the 24 hours from midnight to midnight the next day.

SURRENDER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT

10. By the end of 2013, or as othen¡vise agreed by the Director-General, the Proponent shall surrender theexisting development consent (ie. DA85/1819) for mining on the site in accordance with Section 1044 ofthe EP&A Act.

Prior to the surrender of this development consent, the conditions of this approval shall prevail to theextent of any inconsistency with the conditions of the development consent.

STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY

11. The Proponent shall ensure that all new buildings and structures, and any alterations or additions toexisting buildings and structures, are constructed in accordance with the relevant requirements of theBCA.

Nofes;

12.

c Under Part 4A of the EP&A Act, the Proponent is required to obtain construction and occupation ceftificates forthe propçsed building works; and

c Paft B of the EP&A Regulation sefs ouf fhe requirements for the ceñ¡f¡cation of the project.

The Proponent shall ensure that the Maules Creek rail spur line and ancillary infrastructure are designedand constructed in accordance with the relevant requírements of the current ARTC infrastruõturestandards, or as otherwise approved by the Director-General.

DEMOLITION

13. The Proponent shall ensure that all demolition work on site is carried out in accordance with AustralianStandard AS 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structure,Ð or its latest version.

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

14. Unless the Proponent and the applicable authority agree othenrise, the Proponent shall:(a) repair, or pay the full costs associated with repairing, any public infrastructure that is damaged bythe project; and

(b) relocate, or pay the full costs associated with relocating, any public infrastructure that needs to berelocated as a result of the project.

OPERATION OF PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

15. The Proponent shall ensure that all the plant and equipment used on site, or to transport coal from the site,is:(a) maintained in a proper and effìcient conditign; and(b) operated in a proper and efficient manner.

STAGED SUBMISSION OF STRATEGIES, PLANS AND PROGRAMS

16. With the approval of the Director-General, the Proponent may submit any strategy, plan or programrequired by this consent on a progressive basis.

Nofes;c While any strategy, plan or program may be submitted on a progressive basþ f/re Proponent wilt need to

ensure that the existing operations on site are covered by suitable strategies, plans or programs at all times;and

c lf the submission of any strategy, plan or program is fo öe staged, then the relevant strategy, ptan or programmust clearly descrÌbe the specific slage fo which the slrategy, plan or program applies, the retationship of thisstage to any future stages, and the trigger foi updating the strategy, plan or program.

COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT

17. By the end of March 2013, unless the Director-General agrees othenruise, the Proponent shall enter into aplanning agreement with Council in accordance with:(a) Division 6 of Part 4 of the EP&A Act; and(b) the terms of the Proponent's offer in Appendix 3.


o

2

SCHEDULE 3ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS

ACQUISITION ON REQUEST

Upon receiving a written request for acquisition from an owner of the land listed in Table 1, the Proponentshall acquire the land in accordance with the procedures in conditions 8-9 of schedule 4.

to

Acquisition Basis Land

Noise & Air 110-114

Noise 123-124, 141-148, 1 49-1 55

Air 279-280

Nofes:To interpret the locations referred to ín Table 1 see the applicable figure(s) in Appendix 4.The Proponent is only required to acquire property 279-280 if the owner of the land no longer has acquisitionrights under any planning approval for the Boggabri mine and/or Tarrawonga mne.

ADDITIONAL NOISE AND AIR QUALITY MITIGATION UPON REQUEST

Upon receiving a written request from the owner of any residence on the land listed in Table 1 or the landlisted in f abJe 2, the Proponent shall implement additional noise and/or air quality mitigation measures(such as double glazing, insulation, air filters, a first flush roof water drainage system and/or airconditioning) at the residence in consultation with the owner. These measures must be reasonable andfeasible and directed towards reducing the noise and/or air quality impacts of the project on the residence.

lf within 3 months of receiving this request from the owner, the Proponent and the owner cannot agree onthe measures to be implemented, or there is a dispute about the implementation of these measures, theneither party may refer the matter to the Director-General for resolution.

Table 2: Land to additional noise and/or air ,neasures

Mitigation Basis Land

Noise & Air 108-'109

Air 1 '15-1 16, 121-122

To interpret the locations referred to in Table 2, see the applicable figure(s) in

NOISE AND VIBRATION

Construction Noise and Vibration Griteria - Maules Creek and Boggabri Shared Rail Spur Lines

3. During the hours of:(a) 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Fridays, inclusive;(b) I am to 1 pm on Saturdays; and(c) at no time on Sundays or public holidays,noise from activities associated with the construction and/or upgrade of the Maules Creek rail spur line andshared section of the Boggabri rail spur line shall meet the criteria in Table 3.

Table 3: Rail line construction noise cr¡teria

LocationPropert¡¡llD

Construction Noise CrlteriaDay

256

259 45

Allother ed residences 40interpret the locations referred to in Table 3, see fáe applicable figure in Appendix 4.

Vibration from activities associated with the construction andior upgrade of the Maules Creek rail spur lineand shared section of the Boggabri rail spur line shall comply with the following:(a) for structural damage, the vibration limits set out in the German Standard DIN 4150-3: Structural

Vibration - effects of vibration on structures; and


50

4

7

5

(b) for human exposure, the acceptable vibration values set out in the Environmental NolseManagement Assesstng Vibration: A Technical Guidetine (Department of Environment andConservation, 2006).

lf the Proponent proposes to undertake any construction works associated with the Maules Creek rail spurline (and shared section of the Boggabri rail spur line) outside the hours specifìed above, then theProponent must prepare and implement an Out of Hours Work protocol for these works to the satisfactionof the Director-General. This protocol must be prepared in consultation with the EPA and the residentswho would be affected by the noise generated by these works, and be consistent with the requirements ofthe lnterim Construction Noise Guideline (Department of Environment and Climate Change, 200g). TheProponent shall not carry out any out of hours construction works before this protocol has been approvedby the Director-General.

Note: For areas where construction noìse from the Mautes Creek rait spur líne and shared section of the Boggabri raitspur line is predicted to be at or below 35 dB(A) and/ or below operational noise criteria at senslflve recepfors, ffils rslikely to provide sufficient justification for the need to operate outside of recommended standard hours as specified inthe ICNG.

Noise Criteria

6 Except for the noise affected land in Table 1, the Proponent shall ensure that noise generated by theproject (excepting operational rail noise and the construction of the Maules Creek rail spur line and sharedsection of the Boggabri rail spur line) does not exceed the criteria in Table 4.

Table 4: Noise criteria dB

Land Night

Residence on privately-owned land

1 08-1 09

All other privately-owned residences

Other land - 25% of property area

121-122

246-247,254-255

1 68-1 70

227

156-167, 173-174,175

236,250-251

106-107,115-116

244-245

All other privately-owned landNoles;c To interpret the locations referred to in Table 4, see the applicable figure in Appendix 4.. Noise generated by the project rs to be measured in accordance with the relevant procedures and exemptions

(including certain meteorological conditions) of the NSW lndustrial Noise Policy.. ln this condition, rail noise refers to rail noise generated on the Maules Creek rail spur line outside the rait loop

for the project and on the shared poriion of the Boggabri rail spur líne.

However, these noise criteria do not apply if the Proponent has an agreement with the owner/s of therelevant residence or land to generate higher noise levels, and the Proponent has advised the Departmentin writing of the terms of this agreement.

Rail Noise

7


45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

The Proponent shall ensure that the noise generated by railway activities on the Maules Creek rail spurline (excluding the project's rail loop) and the shared portion of the Boggabri rail spur line does not exceedthe criteria in Table 5 at any existing residence on privately-owned land.

Table 5: Noise criteria Limìts -Land At any time

Leø"r)All privately-owned land

Nofe; criteria new rail lines as currently set in theoEH 2012.

DaylEveningLa*ns-rnl

NightLe*ns^¡nt

35 39

35 35

40 40

35 35

38 38

35 36

37 37

35 35

36 36

35 35

35 35

Day NightLn"cþ.¡o¿) Laeq ûterlo¿)

60 55

Resrdences

Draft for

80

B

However, these criteria do not apply if the Proponent has a written agreement with the relevant landownerto exceed the criteria, and the Proponent has advised the Department in writing of the terms of thisagreement.

Noise Acquisition Griteria

8. lf the noise generated by the project causes sustained exceedances of the criteria in Table 6 at anyresidence on privately-owned land or on more than 25 per cent of any privately-owned land, then uponreceiving a written request for acquisition from the landowner, the Proponent shall acquire the land inaccordance with the procedures in conditions 8-9 of schedule 4.

Table 6: Noise Criteria

Land

All privately-owned land 40Nofe: Norse generated by the project is to be(i n cl u d i ng ce ¡f ai n meteorological con d itio n s)

in accordance with the relevant procedures and exemptionsof the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

Cumulative Noise Criteria

o Except for the land listed in Table 'l , the Proponent shall implement all reasonable and feasible measuresto ensure that the noise generated by the project combined with the noise generated by other mines doesnot exceed the criteria in Table 7 at any residence on privately-owned land or on more than 25 per cent ofany privately-owned land.

Table 7: Cumulalive noise criteria

Land Night

All privately-owned land 40

Note: Cumulative noise is fo be measured with the relevant requirements, and exemptions (includingcertain meteorological conditions), of the NSW lndustrial Noise Policy.

Cumulative Noise Acquisition Griteria

10. lf the cumulative noise generated by the project combined with the noise generated by other mines causessustained exceedances of the criteria in Table I at any residence on privately-owned land or on more than25 per cent of any privately-owned land, then upon receiving a written request from the landowner, theProponent shall, together with the relevant mines, acquire the land on as equitable basis as possible inaccordance with the procedures in conditions 8-9 of schedule 4.

Table 8: Cumulative noise criteria

Land

All privately-owned land

norse is to be measured in accordance with the relevant requirements, and exemptions (includingceñain meteorological conditions), of the NSW lndustrial Noise Policy.

Attenuation of Plant

11. The Proponent shall:(a) ensure that:

. all mining trucks and water carts used on the site are comm¡ssioned as noise suppressed(or attenuated) units;

. ensure that all equipment and noise control measures deliver sound power levels that areequal to or better than the sound power levels identified in the EA, and correspond to bestpractice or the application of the best available technology economically achievable;

. where reasonable and feasible, improvements are made to existing noise suppressionequipment as better technologies become available; and

(b) monitor and report on the implementation of these requirements annually on its website.

12 The Proponent shall:(a) conduct an annual testing program of the attenuated plant on site to ensure that the attenuation

remains effective'(b) restore the effectiveness of any attenuation if it is found to be defective; and(c) report on the results of any testing and/or attenuation work annually on its website.


Night

45

9

Day Eveníng

50 45

Day Evening

55 50

Maules Greek Rail Spur Line - Noise impacts

13. The Proponent shall:(a) commission suitably qualified and experienced person/s to review the design of the Maules Creek

rail spur line, and determine whether it incorporates all reasonable and feasible noise mitigationmeasures, including suitable measures to minimise low frequency noise;

(b) implement the recommendations of this acoustic review;(c) undertake commissioning trials of the spur line to determine the optimal train speed to minimise

noise impacts; and(d) following commissioning of the spur line, undertake targeted noise monitoring to determine the

accuracy of predicted acoustic impacts and effectiveness of any noise reduction measures,including monitoring during adverse inversion conditions,

to the satisfaction the Director-General.

Operating Gonditions

14. The Proponent shall:(a) implement best management practice to minimise the construction, operational, low frequency,

road and rail traffic noise of the project;(b) operate a comprehensive noise management system on site that uses a combination of predictive

meteorological forecasting and real-time noise monitoring data to guide the day to day planning ofmining operations and the implementation of both proactive and reactive noise mitigation measuresto ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of this approval;

(c) maintain the effectiveness of noise suppression equipment on plant at all times and ensuredefective plant is not used operationally until fully repaired;

(d) ensure that noisê attenuated plant is deployed preferentially in locations relevant to sensitivereceivers;

(e) minimise the noise impacts of the project during meteorological conditions when the noise limits inthis approval do not apply;

(f) ensure that the Maules Creek rail spur line is only accessed by locomotives that are approved tooperate on the NSW rail network in accordance with the noise limits in ARTC's EPL (No. 3142);

(S) use its best endeavours to ensure that the rolling stock supplied by service providers on the railspur line is designed, constructed and maintained to minimise noise;

(h) ensure any new rail rolling stock manufactured specifically for the project is designed, constructedand maintained to minimise noise; and

(i) co-ordinate the noise management on site with the noise management at other mines within theLeard Forest Mining Precinct to minimise the cumulative noise impacts of these mines,

to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Noise Management Plan

15. The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Noise Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction ofthe Director-General. This plan must:(a) be prepared in consultation with the EPA, and submitted to the Director-General for approval prior

to the commencement of construction;(b) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure:

. best management practice is being employed;¡ the noise impacts of the project are minimised during meteorological conditions when the

noise limits in this approval do not apply; and¡ compliance with the relevant conditions of this approval;

(c) describe the proposed noise management system in detail;(d) include a risUresponse matrix to codiff mine operational responses to varying levels of risk

resulting from weather conditions and specific mining activities;(e) include commitments to provide summary reports and specific briefings at CCC meetings on issues

arising from noise monitoring;(f) include a monitoring program that:

. uses a combination of real time and supplementary attended monitoring to evaluate theperformance of the project;

. adequately supports the proactive and reactive noise management system on site;

. includes a protocol for determining exceedances of the relevant conditions of this approval;

. includes monitoring of inversion strength at an appropriate sampling rate to determinecompliance with noise limits;

. evaluates and reports on the effectiveness of the noise management system on site; and.e provides for the annual validation of the noise model for the project; and

(S) includes a Leard Forest Mining Precinct Noise Management Strategy that has been prepared inconsultation with the other coal mines in the Precinct to minimise the cumulative noise impacts ofall the mines within the precinct, and includes:


10

. a description of the measures that would be implemented to ensure that the noisemanagement of the mines is properly co-ordinated to ensure compliance with the relevantnoise criteria;

. a suitable monitoring network for the precinct;

. protocols for data sharing; ando procedures for identifying and apportioning the source/s and contribution/s to cumulative

noise impacts for the operating mines and other sources, using the noise and meteorologicalmonitoring network and appropriate investigative tools.

Note: The Leard Forest Míning Precinct Noise Management Strategy can be developed rn sfages and will need to besubiect to ongoing review dependent upon the determination and commencement of other mining projects in the area.

BLASTING

Blasting Criteria

16. The Proponent shall ensure that the blasting on the site does not cause exceedances of the criteria inTable 9.

Table 9: criteria

Location Allowableexceedance

0o/o

Residence onprivately owned land

All publicinfrastructure

NSW GovernmentDeparlment of Planning and lnfrastructure

5% of the total numberof blasts over a period

of 12 months

0%

However, these criteria do not apply if the Proponent has a written agreement with the relevant owner orinfrastructure provider/owner, and the Proponent has advised the Department in writing of the terms of thisagreement.

Blasting Hours

17. The Proponent shall only cany out blasting on the site between 9 am and 5 pm Monday to Saturdayinclusive. No blasting is allowed on Sundays, public holidays, or at any other time without the writtenapproval of the Director-General.

Blasting Frequency

18. The Proponent may carry out a maximum of:(a) '1 blast a day; unless an additional blast is required following a blast misfìre; and(b) 4 blasts a week, averaged over a calenda( yearifor the project.

This condition does not apply to blasts that generate ground vibration of 0.5 mm/s or less at any residenceon privately-owned land, or to blasts required to ensure the safety of the mine or its workers.

Note: For the purposes of this condition, a blast refers to a single blast event, which may involve a number of individuatblasts fired in gulck successlon in a discrete area of the mtne.

Property lnspections

19. lf the Proponent receives a written request from the owner of any privately-owned land within 2 kilometresof the approved open cut mining pit on site, for a property inspection to establish the baseline condition ofany buildings and/or structures on his/her land, or to have a previous property inspection report updated,then within 2 months of receiving this request the Proponent shall:(a) commission a suitably qualifìed, experienced and independent person, whose appointment is

acceptable to both parties, to:o establish the baseline condition of any buildings and/or structures on the land, or update the

previous property inspection report; and

AirhlastoverpnessureØBLin PeaH)

Ground vibration(mm/s)

120 10

115 5

50(or alternatively a specific

limit determined to thesatisfaction of the Director-General by the structural

design methodology in AS2'187.2-2006, or its latest

version)

11

20

. identify any measures that should be implemented to minimise the potential blasting impactsof the project on these buildings and/or structures; and

(b) give the landowner a copy of the new or updated property inspection report.

lf there is a dispute over the selection of the suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, or theProponent or landowner disagrees with the findings of the independent property investigation, then eitherparty may refer the matter to the Director-General for resolution.

Property Investigations

lf the owner of any privately-owned land claims that the buildings and/or structures on his/her land havebeen damaged as a result of blasting on site, then within 2 months of receiving this claim in writing fromthe landowner the Proponent shall:(a) commission a suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, whose appointment is

acceptable to both parties, to investigate the claim; and(b) give the landowner a copy of the property investigation report.

lf this independent property investigation conflrms the landowne/s claim, and both parties agree with thesefindings, then the Proponent shall repair the damages to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

lf there is a dispute over the selection of the suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, or theProponent or landowner disagrees with the findings of the independent property investigation, then eitherparty may refer the matter to the Director-General for resolution.

Operating Conditions

21 During(a)

(b)

(c)

mining operations on site, the Proponent shall:implement best management practice to:. protect the safety of people and livestock in the sunounding area;. protect public or private infrastructure/property in the surrounding area from any damage;

and. minimise the dust and fume emissions of any blasting; and. minimise blasting impacts on heritage items in the vicinity of the site;co-ordinate the timing of blasting on site with the timing of blasting at other mines within the LeardForest Mining Precinct to minimise the cumulative blasting impacts of these mines; andoperate a suitable system to enable the public to get up-to-date information on the proposedblasting schedule on site,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

22. The Proponent shall not undertake blasting on-site within 500 metres of:(a) any public road without the approval of Council; or(b) any land outside the site that is not owned by the Proponent, unless:

o the Proponent has a written agreement with the relevant landowner to allow blasting to becarried out closer to the land, and the Proponent has advised the Department in writing ofthe terms of this agreement, or

¡ the t'"5il*t"iåìåo ,o ,n" satisfacrion of the Director-Generat that the btasting can be

canied out closer to the land without compromising the safeÇ of the people orlivestock on the land, or damaging the buildings and/or structures on the land; and

' updated the Blast Management Plan to include the specific measures that would beimplemented while blasting is being carried out within 500 metres of the land.

Blast Management Plan

23. The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Blast Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction ofthe Director-General. This plan must:(a) be submitted to the Director-General for approval prior to undertaking any blasting activities on the

site;(b) be prepared in consultation with the EPA and interested members of the local community

potentially affected by blasting operations;(c) propose and justify any alternative ground vibration limits for public infrastructure in the vicinity of

the site;(d) describe thè measures that would be implemented to ensure:

. best management practice is being employed; and¡ compliance with the relevant conditions of this approval;

(e) include a road closure management plan for blasting within 500 metres of a public road, that hasbeen prepared in consultation with Council;

(Ð include a specific blast fume management protocol to demonstrate how emissions will be minimisedincluding risk management strategies if blast fumes are generated;

NSWGovernment 12Deparlment of Planning and lnfrastructure

25

(S) include a monitoring program for evaluating the performance of the project including:o compliance with the applicable criteria; and¡ minimising fume emissions from the site; and

(h) include a Leard Forest Mining Precinct Blast Management Strategy that has been prepared inconsultation with the other mines within the Leard Forest Mining Precinct to minimise thecumulative blasting impacts of all the mines within the precinct.

Note: The Leard Forest Mining Precinct Blast Management Strategy can be developed Ìn stages and wìtl need to besubiect to ongoing review dependent upon the determination of and commencement of other mining projects in thearea.

AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS

Odour

24. Unless othen¡vise authorised by an EPL, the Proponent shall ensure that no offensive odours are emittedfrom the site, as defined under the POEO Act.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Proponent shall implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the release ofgreenhouse gas emissions from the site to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Air Quality Assessment Criteria

26 Except for the air quality affected land in Table 1, the Proponent shall ensure that all reasonable andfeasible avoidance and mitigation measures are employed so that particulate matter emissions generatedby the project do not cause exceedances of the criteria listed in Tables 10, 1 1 and 12 at any residence-onprivately-owned land or on more than 25 percent of any privately-owned land.

Table 10: criteria for matter

Pollutant d Cr¡terion

Total suspended particulate (TSP) matter a 90 ¡lg/m3

Particulate matter< 10 ¡rm (PMro) a 30 pg/m3

Table 11 : Short-term criterìa for matter

Pollutant d Criterion

Particulate matter < 10 ¡lm (PMro) a 50 pg/m3

Table 12: criteria for dusf

Pollutant total depositeddust level

c Deposited dust a 4 g/m2lmonth

to Tables 10-12:a Total ¡mpact (Ìe incremental increase ¡n concentrat¡ons due to the project ptus background concentrations due to altother sources);b lncremental impact (ie incremental increase in concentrations due to the project on its own);c Deposited dusf ls fo be assessed as insoluble so/lds as defined by Standards Australia, AS/NZS3580.10.1:2003: Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air - Determination of Pañicutate Matter - DepositedMatter - Gravimetrìc Method.d Exctudes extraordinary events such as bushflres, prescribed burning, dusf slorrns, sea fog, fire incidents or any otheractivity agreed by the Director-General.

Mine-owned Land

27. The Proponent shall ensure that all reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigation measures areemployed so that particulate matter emissions generated by the project do not exceed the criteria listed inTables 10, 11, and 12 at any occupied residence on any mine-owned land (including land owned byadjacent mines) unless:(a) the tenant and landowner has been notified of health risks in accordance with the notification

requirements under schedule 4 of this approval;


Averaging Period

Annual

Annual

Averagíng Períod

24 hour

Averaglng Period Maximum inc¡ease indeposíted dust level

Annual b 2 g/m2lmonth

13

28

(b) the tenant on project owned land can terminate their tenancy agreement without penalty, subject togiving reasonable notice, and the Proponent uses its best endeavours to provide assistance withrelocation and sourcing of alternative accommodation;

(c) air mitigation measures such as air filters, a fìrst flush roof water drainage system and/or airconditioning) are installed at the residence, if requested by the tenant and landowner (where ownedby another mine other than the Proponent);

(d) particulate matter air quality monitoring is undertaken to inform the tenant and landowner ofpotential health risks; and

(e) monitoring data is presented to the tenant in an appropriate format, for a medical practitioner toassist the tenant in making an informed decision on the health risks associated with occupying theproperty,


Air Quality Acquisition Criteria

lf particulate matter emissions generated by the project exceed the criteria, or contribute to an exceedanceof the relevant cumulative criteria, in Tables 13, 14 or 15, at any residence on privately-owned land or onmore than 25 percent of any privately-owned land, then upon receiving a written request for acquisitionfrom the landowner the Proponent shall acquire the land in accordance with the procedures in conditions8-9 of schedule 4.

Table 13: term land criteria for matter

Pollutant d cr¡terion

Total suspended particulate (TSP) matter " 90 pg/m3

Particulate matter < 10 pm (PMro) " 30 ¡rg/m3

Table 14: Shoñ term land criteria for matter

Pollutant o cr¡terron

Particulate matter< 10 pm (PMro) " 150 pg/m3

Particulate matter < 10 pm (PMro) b so pg/m3

Table 15. term land criterìa for dusf

Pollutant Maximum totaldust level

'Deposited dust " 4 g/m2lmonth

Noles fo Tables 13-1 5:a Total impact (ie incremental increase in concentrations due to the project plus background concentrat¡ons due to altother sources);b lncrementat impact (ie incremental increase ¡n concentrat¡ons due to the project on its own);c Deposited dusf ls fo be assessed as insotubte so/lds as defined by Standards Austratia, AS/NZS3580.10.1:2003: Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air - Determination of Pañiculate Matter - DepositedMatter - Gravimetric Method;d Excludes extraordinary evenls such as bushflres, prescribed burníng, dust sforrns, sea fog, fire incidents, or any otheractivity agreed by the Director-General.


29. The Proponent shall:(a) implement best management practice to minimise the off-site odour, fume and dust emissions of

the project, including best practice coal loading and profiling and other measures to minimise dustemissions from coal transportation by rail;

(b) operate a comprehensive air quality management system on site that uses a combination ofpredictive meteorological forecasting, predictive and real time air dispersion modelling and real-timeair quality monitoring data to guide the day to day planning of mining operations andimplementation of both proactive and reactive air quality mitigation measures to ensure compliancewith the relevant conditions of this approval;

(c) manage PMz s levels in accordance with any requirements of an EPL;(d) minimise the air quality impacts of the project during adverse meteorological conditions and

extraordinary events (see note d above under Table 12);(e) minimise any visible off-site air pollution;(f) minimise the surface disturbance of the site generated by the project; and(S) co-ordinate the air quality management on site with the air quality management at other mines

within the Leard Forest Mining Precinct to minimise the cumulative air quality impacts of the mines,

NSWGovernmenl 14Depaftment of Planning and lnfrastructure

Avenglng period

Annual

Annual

Averaging period

24 hour

24 hour

Averaging period Maximum inc¡ease indeposited dust level

Annual b 2 g/m2lmonth

30

to the satisfaction of the Director-General

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan for theproject to the satisfaction of the Director-General. This plan must:(a) be prepared in consultation with the EPA, and be submitted to the Director-General for approval

prior to the commencement of construction;(b) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure:

. best management practice is being employed;

. the air quality impacts of the project are minimised during adverse meteorological conditionsand extraordinary events; and

r compliance with the relevant conditions of this consent.(c) describe the proposed air quality management system;(d) include a risUresponse matrix to codify mine operational ,responses to varying levels of risk


arising from air quality monitoring;(f) include an air quality monitoring program that:

. uses a combination of real-time monitors and supplementary monitors to evaluate theperformance of the project;

. adequately supports the proactive and reactive air quality management system;

. includes PMz.s monitoring;

. includes monitoring of occupied project-related residences and residences on air quality-affected land listed in Table 1, subject to the agreement of the tenant and/or landowner;

¡ evaluates and reports on the effectiveness of the air quality management system; and¡ includes a protocol for determining any exceedances of the relevant conditions in this

approval; and(S) includes a Leard Forest Mining Precinct Air Quality Management Strategy that has been prepared

in consultation with other coal mines in the Precinct to minimise the cumulative air quality impactsof all mines within the Precinct, that includes:. systems and processes to ensure that all mines are managed to achieve their air quality

criteria;. a shared environmental monitoring network and data sharing protocol;¡ control monitoring site(s) to provide real time data on background air quality levels (ie not

influenced by mining from the Leard Forest Mining Precinct and representative of regionalair quality);

. a shared predictive and real time air dispersion model covering the Leard Forest MiningPrecinct to be used for assessment of cumulative impacts, optimising location of the sharedreal time monitoring network, validation of air predictions and optimising mitigationmeasures; and

o procedures for identifying and apportioning the source/s and contribution/s to cumulative airimpacts for both mines and other sources, using the air quality and meteorologicalmonitoring network and appropriate investigative tools such as modelling of post incidentplume dispersion, dual synchronised monitors and chemical methods of sourceapportionment (where possible).

Nofesro The requirement for regionally based control sites can be further rèviewed if a regíonal air monitoring network is

implemented and operated by the EPA as recommended in the draft Strategic Regional Land l/se Ptan for NewEngland North West.

o The Leard Forest Mining Precinct Air Quality Management Strategy can be developed rn sfages and will need tobe subject to ongoing review dependent upon the determination of and commencement of other mining projectsin the area.

o The management plan should be consrsfenf with the EPA's guidance on Best Management Practice reportingan d Re active P aft i cu I ate M an age me n t Sfrategies.

METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING

For the life of the project, the Proponent shall ensure that there is a meteorological station in the vicinity ofthe site that:(a) complies with the requirements in the Approved Methods for Sampling of Air Pottutants in New

South Wales guideline; and(b) is capable of continuous real-time measurement of temperature lapse rate in accordance with the

NSW lndustrial Norse Policy, unless a suitable alternative is approved by the Director-Generalfollowing consultation with the EPA.


31

15

30

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan for theproject to the satisfaction of the Director-General. This plan must:(a) be prepared in consultation with the EPA, and be submítted to the Director-General for approval

prior to the commencement of construction;(b) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure:

. best management practice is being employed;

. the air quality impacts of the project are minimised during adverse meteorological conditionsand extraordinary events; and

¡ compliance with the relevant conditions of this consent.(c) describe the proposed air quality management system;(d) include a risUresponse matrix to codiñy mine operational responses to varying levels of risk


arising from air quality monitoring;(f) include an air quality monitoring program that:

. uses a combination of real-time monitors and supplementary monitors to evaluate theperformance of the project;

. adequately supports the proactive and reactive air quality management system;¡ includes PMz s monitoring;. includes monitoring of occupied project-related residences and residences on air quality-

affected land listed in Table 1 , subject to the agreement of the tenant and/or landowner;r evaluates and reports on the effectiveness of the air quality management system; and¡ includes a protocol for determining any exceedances of the relevant conditions in this

approval; and(S) includes a Leard Forest Mining Precinct Air Quality Management Strategy that has been prepared

in consultation with other coal mines in the Precinct to minimise the cumulative air quality impactsof all mines within the Precinct, that includes:. systems and processes to ensure that all mines are managed to achieve their air quality

criteria;. a shared environmental monitoring network and data sharing protocol;¡ control monitoring site(s) to provide real time data on background air quality levels (ie not

influenced by mining from the Leard Forest Mining Precinct and representative of regionalair quality);

. a shared predictive and real time air dispersion model covering the Leard Forest MiningPrecinct to be used for assessment of cumulative impacts, optimising location of the sharedreal time monitoring network, validation of air predictions and optimising mitigationmeasures; and

r procedures for identifying and apportioning the source/s and contribution/s to cumulative airimpacts for both mines and other sources, using the air quality and meteorologicalmonitoring network and appropriate investigative tools such as modelling of post incidentplume dispersion, dual synchronised monitors and chemical methods of sourceapportionment (where possible).

Nofes;t The requirement for regionally based control sites can be fuñher reviewed if a regional air monitoring network is

implemented and operated by the EPA as recommended in the draft Strategic Regional Land lJse Plan for NewEngland North West.

. The Leard Forest Mining Precinct Air Quality Management Strategy can be developed rn sfages and will need tobe subiect to ongoing review dependent upon the determination of and commencement of other min¡ng projectsin the area.

. The management plan should be consrsfenf with the EPA's guidance on Best Management Practice reporiingand Reactive Particulate Management Sfrafegles.

METEOROLOGIGAL MONITORING

31 . For the life of the project, the Proponent shall ensure that there is a meteorological station in the vicinity ofthe site that:(a) complies with the requirements in lhe Approved Methods for Sampting of Air Pottutants in New

South Wales guideline; and(b) is capable of continuous real-time measurement of temperature lapse rate in accordance with the

NSW lndustrial Norse Policy, unless a suitable alternative is approved by the Director-Generalfollowing consultation with the EPA.

NSW GovernmentDepaftment of Planning and Infrastructure

15

32.

SOIL AND WATER

Note: Under the Water Act 1912 and/or the Water Management Act 2000, the Proponent is required to obtain thenecessa4/ water licences for the project.

Water Supply

The Proponent shall ensure that it has sufficient water for all stages of the project, and if necessary, adjustthe scale of mining operations on site, to match its available water supply to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Compensatory Water Supply

33. The Proponent shall provide a compensatory water supply to any landowner of privately-owned landwhose water supply is adversely and directly impacted (other than an impact that is negligible) as a resultof the project, in consultation with NOW, and to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

The compensatory water supply measures must provide an alternative long-term supply of water that isequivalent to the loss attributed to the project. Equivalent water supply should be provided (at least on aninterim basis) within 24 hours of the loss being identifìed.

lf the Proponent and the landowner cannot agree on the measures to be implemented, or there is adispute about the implementation of these measures, then either party may refer the matter to the Director-General for resolution.

lf the Proponent is unable to provide an alternative long-term supply of water, then the Proponent shallprovide altemative compensation to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Surface Water Discharges

The Proponent shall ensure that any surface water discharges of mine water from the site comply with thedischarge limits (both volume and quality) set for the project in any EPL.

Note: The project ¡s based on a zero discharge basis for mine water in all modelled meteorological events, however theDepartment acknowledges that discharge of treated water may be required to be undeñaken following veryextraordinary events outside modelled data, if approved under an EPL.


The Proponent shall:(a) develop a detailed soil management protocol that identifles procedures for

¡ comprehensive soil surveys prior to soil stripping;. assessment of top-soil and sub-soil suitability for mine rehabilitation; and. annual soil balances to manage soil handling including direct respreading and stockpiling;

(b) maximise the salvage of suitable top-soils and sub-soils and biodiversity habitat components õuchas bush rocks, tree hollows and fallen timber for rehabilitation of disturbed areas within the site andfor enhancement of biodiversity offset areas;

(c) ensure that coal reject or any potentially acid forming interburden materials must not be emplacedat elevations within the pit shell or out of pit emplacement areas where they may promote acid orsulphate species generation and migration beyond the pit shell or out of pit emplacement areas;and

(d) ensure that the coal barrier between the final void and any future surrounding mining operationsminimises exchange of any contained groundwaters in the pit shell.

Water Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Water Management Plan for the project to the satisfactionof the Director-General. This plan must be prepared in consultation with OEH, NOW and Namoi CMA, bysuítably qualified and experienced person/s whose appointment has been approved by the Director-General, and be submitted to the Director-General for approval prior to the commencement ofconstruction.

ln addition to the standard requirements for management plans (see condition 3 of schedule 5), this planmust include:(a) a Site Water Balance, that:

. includes details of:o sources and security of water supply, including contingency for future reporting

periods;o water use on site;o water management on site;

34

35.

36.


16

o any off-site water discharges;o reporting procedures, including the preparation of a site water balance for each

calendar year;o a program to validate the surface water model, including monitoring discharge

volumes from the site and comparison of monitoring results with modelledpredictions; and

. describes the measures that would be implemented to minimise clean water use on site;(b) a Surface Water Manaoement Plan, which includes:

. detailed baseline data on surface water flows and quality in the water-bodies that couldpotentially be affected by the project;

. detailed baseline data on hydrology across the downstream drainage system of the NamoiRiver floodplain from the mine site to the Namoi River;

. a detailed description of the water management system on site, including the:o clean water diversion systems;o erosion and sediment controls (dirty water system);o mine water management systems;o discharge limits in accordance with EPL requirements;o water storages;o mine access road and Maules Creek rail spur line;

¡ detailed plans, including design objectives and performance criteria for:o design and management of final voids;o design and management for the emplacement of reject materials, sodic and

dispersible soils and acid or sulphate generating materials;o design and management for construction and operation of the rail spur line and mine

access road;o reinstatement of drainage lines on the rehabilitated areas of the site; ando control of any potential water pollution from the rehabilitated areas of the site;

. performance criteria for the following, including trigger levels for investigating any potentiallyadverse impacts associated with the project:o the water management system;o downstream surface water quality;o downstream flooding impacts, including flood impacts due to the construction and

operation of the rail spur line and mine access road, and flooding along Back Creek;and

o stream and riparian vegetation health, including the Namoi River;. a program to monitor:

o the effectiveness of the water management system; ando surface water flows and quality in the watercourses that could be affected by the

project;o downstream flooding impacts; and

. reporting procedures for the results of the monitoring program;

. a plan to respond to any exceedances of the performance criteria, and mitigate and/or offsetany adverse surface water impacts of the project; and

(c) a Groundwater Manaqement Plan. which includes:. detailed baseline data of groundwater levels, yield and quality in the region, and privately-

owned groundwater bores including a detailed survey/schedule of groundwater dependentecosystems (including stygo-fauna and Melaleuca riparian forest communities), that couldbe affected by the project;

. the monitoring and testing requirements specified in the PAC recommendations forgroundwater management as set out in Appendix 6;

. detailed plans, including design objectives and performance criteria, for the design andmanagement of:o the proposed final void; ando coal reject and potential acid forming material emplacement;

r groundwater assessment criteria including trigger levels for investigating any potentiallyadverse groundwater impacts;

. a program to monitor and assess:o groundwater inflows to the open cut mining operations;o the seepage/leachate from water storages, emplacements, backfilled voids and the

final void;o interconnectivity between the alluvial and bedrock aquifers;o background changes in groundwater yield/quality against mine-induced changes;", "3",íiîiå[iüdjl,!TiJgrç;#:xiæîrî.r*,,

mpac,s .n s,ys..raunaand Melaleuca riparian forest communities) and riparian vegetation;


17

. a program to validate the groundwater model for the project, including an independentreview of the model every 3 years, and comparison of monitoring results with modelledpredictions; and

. a plan to respond to any exceedances of the performance criteria; and(d) a Leard Forest Mininq Precinct Water Manaqement Strateov that has been prepared in consultation

with other mines within the Precinct to:r minimise the cumulative water quality impacts of the mines;¡ review opportunities for water sharing/water transfers between mines;. co-ordinate water quality monitoring programs as far as practicable;¡ undertake joint investigations/studies in relation to complaints/exceedances of trigger levels

where cumulative impacts are considered likely; ando co-ordinate modelling programs for validation, re-calibration and re-running of the

groundwater and surface water models using approved mine operation plans.

Note: The Leard Forest Mining Precinct Water Management Strategy can be developed rn sfages and will need to besubiect to ongoing review dependent upon the determination of and commencement of other mining projects in thearea.

BIODIVERSITY

Leard Forest Mining Precinct Regional Biodiversity Strategy

37. The Proponent shall commission and fund the preparation of a Leard Forest Mining Precinct RegionalBiodiversity Strategy, jointly with all other coal mines within the Precinct. The Strategy shall be co-ordinated through the Department (refer condition 38 below) and prepared by suitably qualifìed,experienced and independent person/s whose appointment has been endorsed by OEH and subsequentlyapproved by the Director-General, in the following stages:

Stagel-ScooinoStaqeA scoping report for development of the Strategy must be submitted, by the end of January 2013, forendorsement by OEH and subsequent approval by the Director-General. The Director-General may extendthis period with the agreement of OEH. The scoping report must:(a) include terms of reference, scope and objectives for the Strategy, including recommendations for the

Strategy's geographic extent;(b) identify the ongoing functions and members of the working group (see condition 38 below);(c) include a project management plan of the Strategy, with a time schedule, indicative dates for working

group meetings, review and milestones for completion;(d) include a funding program for the development of the Strategy, including provision of adequate

resources forthe participation of working group members; and(e) include a consultation/communications program forthe Strategy.

Note: The broad terms of reference must be guided by the Planning,Assessment Commission (PAC) nerit reviews forthe Boggabri Coal Mine (February 2012) and Maules Creek Coal Mine (March 2012) - Recommendation 1 for thedevelopment of a regional biodiversity strategy.

Staqe 2 - Strateqv DevelopmentThe Strategy must be developed in accordance with the approved Scoping Stage report and be submitted,by the end of January 2014, lor endorsement by OEH and subsequent approval by the Director-General.The Director-General may extend this period with agreement of OEH.

Staqe 3 - Strateqv ReviewThe Strategy must be reviewed by the end of December 2018, following completion of audits of therehabilitation and Biodiversity Offset Areas required to be undertaken under approvals for coal mineswithin the Precinct. The review shall be conducted by suitably qualified, experienced and independentperson/s whose appointment has been endorsed by OEH and subsequently approved by the Director-General. Any modifications to the Strategy arising from the review must be endorsed by OEH prior toapproval by the Director-General.

38 The Strategy shall be prepared in collaboration with a working group containing (subject to the outcomesof the Stage 1 -Scoping Stage) representatives of the Department, OEH, DRE, NamoiCMA, CouncilandSEWPaC and the other Leard Forest Mining Precinct mines; which shall be chaired by a suitably qualified,experienced and independent person whose appointment has been approved by the Director-General.

39. The cost of preparing the Strategy, including the independent chairperson and a co-ordinator to beemployed by the Department shall be shared equitably between the coal mines in the Leard Forest MiningPrecinct on the basis of the approved clearing of remnant vegetation (including native grassland) by themines, based on the following arrangements:(a) Stage 1 is to be initially funded by Boggabri Coal, with appropriate adjustments made following the

determination of the Maules Creek Coal and Tarrawonga Coal Projects and as per approvedfunding arrangements fìnalised under the Stage 1 Scoping Report;

NSW Government 18Depañment of Planning and lnfrastructure

(b) Stage 2 is to be funded by all Leard Forest Mining Precinct mines based on the arrangementsapproved under the Stage 1 Scoping Report; and

(c) Stage 3 is to be funded by all Leard Forest Mining Precinct mines based on recommendations inthe approved Stage 2 Leard Forest Mining Precinct Regional Biodiversity Strategy.

Note: Based on predicted clearing of native vegetation provided in the EA documents for the three projects within theLeard Forest Mining Precinct, the proposed funding split would equate to total contributions of 36% from Boggabri(clearing of 1,385 ha), 54% from Maules Creek (clearing of 2,079ha) and 10% from Tarrawonga (ctearing of 397 ha).This funding arrangement may change depending upon the determination outcomes of individual projects and can befurther refined in f/re Stage I Scoplng Stage.

Biodiversity Offset Strategy

40. The Proponent shall implement the biodiversity offset strategy described in the EA, summarised in Table16 and shown conceptually in Appendix 7, to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Table 16: of the Offset

Area Minimum Size

Northern OffsetArea currentlyowned or underoption byProponent

5,756

Eastern OffsetArea currentlyowned or underoption byProponent

190

Westem OffsetArea including50% Joint Ventureproperty currentlyowned or underoption byProponent

1,039

NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure

Offset Type

Existing woodland / forest of 4,286 ha to be protected andenhanced.

Additional vegetation to be established with the restoration of atleast 1,470 ha of derived native grassland including 1,396 ha ofderived native grassland Box Gum Woodland EEC as listedunder the TSC Act.

Additional targeted restoration of up to 58 ha of low diversityderived native grassland, pasture improved and cultivated landto provide buffer to offset and connectivity between remnantvegetation.

Note: the final area of restoration of low diversity derived nativegrassland, pasture improved and cultivated land is subject to completionof the revised offset strategy required in condition 41 .

Existing woodland / forest of 190 ha to be protected andenhanced.

Additional targeted restoration of up to 319 ha of adjacent lowdiversity derived native grassland, pasture improved andcultivated land to provide buffer to offset and connectivitybetween remnant vegetation.

Note: the final area of restoration of low diversity derived nativegrassland, pasture improved and cultivated land is subject to completionof fhe revised offset strategy required in condition 41.


Additional vegetation to be established with the restoration of atleast 148 ha of derived native grassland including 90 ha ofderived native grassland Box Gum Woodland EEC as listedunder the TSC Act and existing 7ha of Belah Woodland onproperty 'Velyama' to be enhanced with restoration of at leastSha of surrounding derived native grassland to Belah Woodland

Additional targeted restoration of up to 368 ha of adjacent lowdiversity derived native grassland, pasture improved andcultivated land to provide buffer to offset and connectivitybetween remnant vegetation.

Note: the final area of restoration of low diversity derived nativegrassland, pasture improved and cultivated land is subject to completionof the revÌsed offset strategy requìred in condition 41.

19

Area Minimum Size(hectares)

Eastern OffsetArea identifìed inthe zone ofaffectation

336

Western OffsetArea identified inthe zone ofaffectation

343

Additional offsetareas required tobe included by theProponent -

1,000

RehabilitationArea. 2,O78

(less the area ofthe minimisedvoid approved

under theclosure plan

required underthis approval)

Revised Biodiversity Offset Strategy

41 . The Proponent shall prepare and implement a revised biodiversity offset strategy forthe identified offsetareas in Table 16 to the satisfaction of the Director-General. The revised Strategy must:(a) not reduce the size or quality of the proposed offset areas;(b) be consistent (as far as is possible) with the recommendations and objectives of the Leard Forest

Mining Precinct Regional Biodiversity Strategy;(c) be prepared in consultation with OEH, Namoi CMA, Forests NSW, DPI Catchments and Lands and

SEWPaC;(d) identify the additional low diversity derived native grassland, cultivated land and pasture improved

land to be included in the offset to provide a buffer and connectivity between core remnant habitat;(e) identify the additional offset land within the zone of affectation in the Eastern and Westem offset

areas that has been secured by the Proponent and where properties have not been securedidentify substitute areas that would provide an equivalent increase in biodiversity values;

(f) avoid inclusion of any strategic agricultural land (as defined in the final New England North WestStrategic Regional Land Use Plan)in the offset areas, unless it is demonstrated that the inclusionwould not have any adverse impacts on agricultural production;

(S) identify a minimum additional 1,000 ha of offset area targeting habitat for threatened speciesaffected by the project which includes restoration of habitat to provide an improvement inbiodiversity values; and

(h) be submitted to the Director-General for approval within 30 months of the date of this approval, orwithin 6 months of the approval of Stage 2 of the Leard Forest Mining Precinct RegionalBiodiversity Strategy (whichever is sooner) for endorsement by OEH and subsequent approval bythe Director-General.

NSW GovernmentDepadment of Planning and lnfrastructure

Offset Type


Additional targeted restoration of 768 ha of adjacent low diversityderived native grassland, pasture improved and cultivated landto provide buffer to offset and connectivity between remnantvegetation.

Note: the final area of restoration of low diversity derived nativegrassland, pasture improved and cultivated land ís subject to completionof the revised offset strategy required in condition 41.


Additional targeted restoration of 156 ha of adjacent low diversityderived native grassland, pasture improved and cultivated landto provide buffer to offset and connectivity between remnantvegetation.

Note: the final area of restoration of low diversity derived nativegrassland, pasture improved and cultivated land is subject to completionof the revised offset strategy required in condition 41.

Additional remnant native vegetation of moderate to goodcondition native forest i woodland and derived native grasslandto provide habitat for impacted threatened species, targetingEEC or highly cleared vegetation communities impacted by theproject.

Note: Location and type of offset subject to final approval as part ofrevised Biodiversity Strategy to be prepared by Proponent undercondition 41 .

Except for the area of the minimised flnal void, pre-mining nativevegetation communities to be re-established (including 544 ha ofBox Gum Woodland EEC) for a biodiversity conservation landuse objective, with the area subject to fìnalisation of therehabilitation management plan as required under this approval.

Note: the final mix and area of native vegetation communities subject toapproved Biodiversity Management Plan and RehabilitationManagement Plan.

20

Agricultural Production in Offset Areas

42. Offset areas are to be managed primarily for the purposes of compensating for biodiversity impacts of theproject, and improving regional biodiversity outcomes. However, to the extent that agricultural productionon the lots purchased for offsets is compatible with these objectives, the Biodiversity Management Planand other conditions of this approval, the Proponent shall:(a) include in the Biodiversity Management Plan (see condition 48 below) an agricultural suitability

assessment of surplus land on the offset properties, in particular for proposed corridorenhancement zones; and

(b) maintain the agricultural productivity of the surplus areas.

Vegetated Corridor between Boggabri and Maules Creek Goal Projects

43. For the vegetated buffer corridor required to be retained and protected under condition 7 of schedule 2 ofthis approval, the Proponent shall:(a) use its best endeavours to work cooperatively with the Proponent of the Boggabri Coal Project to

enhance the functioning of the area as a biodiversity corridor; and(b) include in the Biodiversity Management Plan (see condition 48 below) the details as to how impacts

on the corridor are to be minimised,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Threatened Species

44. For the White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland Endangered EcologicalCommunity the Proponent shall:(a) ensure that the Biodiversity Offset Strategy and site Rehabilitation Strategy is focused on protection

rehabilitation, re-establishment and long-term maintenance of viable stands of this community;(b) investigate in consultation with OEH and the Namoi CMA, all factors likely to enhance or impede

the effective long term restoration of degraded remnants of this EEC in offset areas or regenerationof this EEC on disturbed areas (both offset areas and the site);

(c) within 24 months of the date of this approval (and if possible in conjunction with Stage 2 of theLeard Forest Mining Precinct Regional Biodiversity Strategy), submit a report of this investigationand provide an implementation plan to maximise the prospects for rehabilitation and regeneration ofthis EEC on the offset areas and the site, for approval by the Director-General; and

(d) incorporate the approved implementation plan into the revised Biodiversity Management Plan,required under condition 48.

45. For all threatened species on site, the proponent shall ensure that the Biodiversity Offset Strategy andRehabilitation Strategy are focused on protection, rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of viablestands of suitable habitat for these species.

46. The Proponent shall:(a) investigate, in consultation with OEH and the Namoi CMA, all factors likely to enhance or impede

the effective long term provision of suitable habitat(s) for threatened species identified in the EA tobe significantly impacted;

(b) within 24 months of the date of this approval (and íf possible, in conjunction with Stage 2 of theLeard Forest Mining Precinct Regional Biodiversity Strategy), submit a report of this investigationand provide an implementation plan to ensure delivery of suitable areas of viable habitat for thespecies included in (a) above, for approval by the Director-General; and

(c) incorporate the approved implementation plan into the revised Biodiversity Management Plan,required under condition 48.

Aquatic habitat

47. Prior to the design and construction of the permanent Namoi water pipeline and pump station, theProponent must consult with DPI Fisheries regarding the general operation and design of the pump stationand screens to minimise entrainment of fish. The Proponent must implement all reasonable and feasiblerecommendations from DPI Fisheries to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Biodiversity Management Plan

48. The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Biodiversity Management Plan for the project to thesatisfaction of the Director-General. This plan must:(a) be prepared in consultation with OEH, SEWPaC, Forests NSW and the Namoi CMA, and be

submitted to the Director-General for approval prior to commencement of construction;(b) describe how the implementation of the biodiversity offset strategy would be integrated with the

overall rehabilitation of the site;(c) describe the short, medium, and long term measures that would be implemented to:

. manage the remnant vegetation and habitat on the site and in the offset area/s (if and whenapplicable); and

NSWGovernment 21Depañment of Planning and lnfrastructure

49

. implement the biodiversity offset strategy (if and when applicable), including detailedperformance and completion criteria;

(d) include detailed performance and completion criteria for evaluating the performance of thebiodiversity offset strategy, and triggering remedial action (if necessary);

(e) include ä detailed description of the measures that would be implemented including the proceduresto be implemented for:. enhancing the quality of existing vegetation and fauna habitat;¡ restoring native vegetation and fauna habitat on the biodiversity areas and rehabilitation

area through focusing on assisted natural regeneration, targeted vegetation establishmentand the introduction of naturally scarce fauna habitat features;

¡ maximising the salvage of resources within the approved disturbance area - includingvegetative, top and sub-soils and cultural heritage resources - for beneficial reuse in theenhancement of the biodiversity areas or rehabilitation area;

. collecting and propagating seed;¡ minimising the impacts on fauna on site, including undertaking pre-clearance surveys;. improving the connectivity and corridor function of the offset areas to provide an easUwest

corridor to the Namoi River and demonstrating that this corridor is enhanced andmaintained;

. managing any potential conflicts between the proposed restoration works in the biodiversityareas and any Aboriginal heritage values (both cultural and archaeological);

. managing salinity;¡ controlling weeds and feral pests;o controlling erosion;. managing grazing and agriculture on site, including detailed assessment of the suitability of

grazing for conservation management outcomes;. controlling access; and. bushfire management;

(f) include a seasonally-based program to monitor and report on the effectiveness of these measures,and progress against the detailed performance and completion criteria;

(S) identifrT the potential risks to the successful implementation of the biodiversity offset strategy, andinclude a description of the contingency measures that would be implemented to mitigate againstthese risks; and

(h) include details of who would be responsible for monitoring, reviewing, and implementing the plan.

Note: The Biodiversity Management Plan and Rehabilitation Management PIan need lo be substantialty integrated forachieving biodiversity objectives for the rehabilitated mine-site.

The Proponent shall revise the Biodiversity Management Plan within 30 months of the date of this approvalor within 6 months after the completion of Stage 2 of the Leard Forest Mining Precinct RegionalBiodiversity Strategy, whichever is sooner. The revised plan must:(a) be prepared in consultation with OEH, SEWPaC, Forests NSW, DPI Catchments and Lands and

the NamoiCMA;(b) demonstrate consistency with the findings of Leard Forest Mining Precinct Regional Biodiversity

Strategy;and(c) include any implementation plans arising from the studies required under conditions 44 and 46 of

this approval,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Long Term Security of Offset

The Proponent shall make suitable arrangements to provide appropriate long-term security for the offsetareas:(a) by the end of December 2014, unless othen¡vise agreed by the Director-General, for the offsets in

Table 16 that are not subject to final approval as part of the revised Biodiversity Offset Strategy;(b) within 12 months of the approval of Stage 2 of the Leard Forest Mining Precinct Regional

Biodiversity Strategy, unless otherwise agreed by the Director-General, forthe offsets in Table 16identified as subject to final approval as part of the revised Biodiversity Offset Strategy; and

(c) by the end of December 2034, unless otheruise agreed by the Director-General, for theRehabilitation Area identified in Table 16,


Unless othen¡rise agreed by the Director-General, the security shall be provided via a conservationagreement or agreements pursuant to section 698 of Ihe National Parks and Wldlife Act 1974, recordingthe obligations assumed by the Proponent under the conditions of this approval in relation to these offsetareas, and registration of the agreemenus pursuant to section 69F of hhe National Parks and Witdlife Act1974.The conservation agreemenUs must remain in force in perpetuity.

Note: The Depañment acknowledges that the Proponent is investigating the potential to transfer some lands directty tonational park estate.

50

NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure

22

52

Gonservation Bond

51 . Within 36 months of the date of this approval, or within 6 months of the approval of the revised BiodiversityManagement Plan required under condition 48 above (whichever is sooner), the Proponent shall lodge aConservation and Biodiversity Bond with the Department to ensure that the biodiversity offset strategy isimplemented in accordance with the performance and completion criteria of the BiodiversiÇ ManagementPlan. The sum of the bond shall be determined by:(a) calculating the full cost of implementing the biodiversity offset strategy (other than land acquisition

costs); and(b) employing a suitably qualified quantity surveyor to verify the calculated costs.

to'the satisfaction of the Director-General.

lf the offset strategy is completed generally in accordance with the completion criteria in the BiodiversityManagement Plan to the satisfaction of the Director-General, the Director-General will release the bond.

lf the offset strategy is not completed generally in accordance with the completion criteria in theBiodiversity Management Plan, the Director-General will call in all or part of the conservation bond, andarrange for the satisfactory completion of the relevant works.

With the agreement of the Director-General, this bond may be combined with rehabilitation security depositadministered by DRE.

Note: Alternative funding arrangements for long term management of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy, such as provisionof capital and management funding as agreed by OEH as paft of a Biobanking Agreement or transfer to conservationreserve estate can be used to reduce the liability of the conseruation and biodiversity bond.

Biodiversity Audit

By the end of December 2017 and then every 5 years, unless the Director-General agrees othenruise, theProponent shall commission suitably qualified, experienced and independent person/s, whose appointmenthas been approved by the Director-General, to undertake an audit of the revegetation of the rehabilitationarea, management and restoration within the Biodiversity Offset Strategy areas to the satisfaction of theDirector-Genéral. This audit must:(a) include consultation with OEH, Namoi CMA, DPI Catchments and Lands, Forests NSW, SEWPaC,

CCC and DRE;(b) assess the performance of the revegetation in the rehabilitation area completed to date against the

completion criteria in the Rehabilitation Management Plan;(c) assess the performance of management and restoration in the off-site Biodiversity Offset Strategy

areas completed to date against the completion criteria in the Biodiversity Management Plan;(d) identify any measures that should be implemented to improve the performance of rehabilitation,

management and restoration within the rehabilitation and biodiversity offset areas; and(e) if the completion criteria have not been met, or are not adequately trending towards being met,

determine the likely ecological value of the rehabilitation and restoration once completed, andrecommend additional measures to augment the Biodiversity Offset Strategy to ensure that itadequately offsets the project's impacts on biodiversity.

lf the audit recommends the implementation of additional measures to augment the Biodiversity OffsetStrategy in accordance with (e) above, then within 6 months of the completion of the audit the Proponentshall revise the Biodiversity Offset Strategy, in consultation with the Department, OEH and SEWPaC, andto the satisfaction of the Director-General.

HERITAGE

Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Strategy

53. The Proponent shall prepare and implement an Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Strategy for the projectand the Biodiversity Offset Strategy areas to the satisfaction of the Director-General. This Strategy mustenhance and conserve the Aboriginal cultural heritage values (both cultural and archaeological) andprovide for their long-term protection and management. The Strategy must:(a) be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced person/s whose appointment has been endorsed

by the Director-General;(b) be prepared in consultation with OEH, the local Aboriginal community and other mines within the

Leard Forest Mining Precinct, and submitted tothe Director-General forapproval within 18 monthsfrom the date of project approval;

(c) identify the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy areas;(d) identifu areas of high Aboriginal cultural heritage significance within both the site and the Leard

Forest Mining Precinct;(e) identify a range of options for enhancing and conserving Aboriginal cultural heritage values, with

specific consideration of the potential for the long-term protection and management of significant


23

sites within either the site, the Biodiversity Offset Strategy areas or other lands within the LeardForest Mining Precinct identified as having high cultural heritage significance to the Aboriginalcommunity; and

(0 consider cumulative impacts and potential for developing joint initiatives with other mines within theLeard Forest Mining Precinct for enhancing and conserving Aboriginal cultural heritage values.

Notes: Known Aboriginal sites are shown on the plans in Appendix L

Heritage Management Plan

54 The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Heritage Management Plan for the project to thesatisfaction of the Director-General. This plan must:(a) be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced person/s whose appointment has been endorsed

by the Director-General;(b) be prepared in consultation with the OEH, Namoi CMA and the local Aboriginal stakeholders (in

relation to the management of Aboriginal heritage values);(c) be submitted to the Director-General for approval prior to any development that may impact

heritage items, unless the Director-General agrees otherwise;(d) include the following for the management of Aboriginal heritage:

. a detailed plan for the implementation of the approved Aboriginal Heritage ConservationStrategy;

. a detailed archaeological salvage program for Aboriginal sites/objects within the approveddistu rbance area, incl udi ng methodology and procedu res/protocols for:o sub-surface testing;o staged salvage, based on anticipated míne planning;o if relevant, historic heritage salvage at the Lawler's Waterhole site;o pre-d¡sturbance monitoring;o site assessment and reporting;o research objectives to inform knowledge of Aboriginal occupation;o protection, storage and management of salvaged Aboriginal objects;o addressing relevant statutory requirements under the National Parks and Wldlife Act

1974; ando long term protection of salvaged Aboriginal objects;

. a description of the measures that would be implemented for:o protecting, monitoring and managing Aboriginal sites on the site which are outside of

the approved disturbance area;o maintaining and managing reasonable access for Aboriginal stakeholders to heritage

items on the site and within the Biodiversity Offset Strategy areas;o managing the discovery of any human remains or previously unidentified Aboriginal

objects on site, including (in the case of human remains) stop work provisions andnotification protocols;

o ongoing consultation of the local Aboriginal stakeholders in the conservation andmanagement of Aboriginal cultural heritage both on-site and within any Aboriginalheritage conservation areas;

o ensuring any workers on site receive suitable heritage inductions prior to carrying outany activities which may disturb Aboriginal sites, and that suitable records are kept ofthese inductions;

. a strategy for the storage and management of any heritage items salvaged on site, bothduring the project and long term;

(e) include the following for the management of historic heritage:. a detailed plan of management measures for maintaining or enhancing the heritage values

of heritage items on project-related land which are outside of the approved disturbance area;. a description of the measures that would be implemented for:

o managing the discovery of human remains or previously unidentifìed heritage itemson site; and

o ensuring workers on site receive suitable heritage inductions prior to carrying out anydevelopment on site, and that suitable records are kept of these inductions.

Note: The Department acknowledges that the initial Heritage Management Plan may not include a detailed ptan for theimplementation of the Aboriginal Heritage Conseruation Strategy. lf this occurs, the Proponent witt be required toupdate the plan as soon as practicable following the Director-General's approval of the Aboriginat HeritageConseruation Strategy.


24

TRANSPORT

Road Upgrade and Maintenance

Note: Under the Roads Act 1993, the Proponent may require separate approvats from RMS, NSW Forests and/orCouncil as the appropriate roads authorities pr¡or to construction of, closure of or conducting m¡n¡ng operations wÌthìnpublic roads.

55 The Proponent shall construct, operate and maintain the rail bridge over the Kamilaroi Highway for theshared section of the Boggabri rail spur line to the satisfaction of RMS, and shall make all necessarycontributions to the costs associated with construction, maintenance and decommissioning of this bridge tothe satisfaction of the Director-General.

56

Nofe; a// cosfs should be shared on an equitable basis with the proponent of the Boggabri Coal Project.

The Proponent shall meet RMS's requirements for road intersection upgrades for all State roads used bythe project, including upgrading the intersection of Manilla Road and the Kamilaroi Highway to provide achannelised right turn in accordance with Austroads guidelines.

Note: Any upgrades should be undedaken on an equitable basis with the proponent of the Boggabri Coat Project.

57. The Proponent shall upgrade and seal the unsealed section of Manilla Road between its intersections withthe Tarrawonga Coal mine access road and Barbers Lagoon Road, to the satisfaction of RMS.

58. The Proponent shall ensure that there is no substantial access of heavy vehicles for construction activity tothe site prior to the upgrade referred to in condition 57 above, to the satisfaction of the Director-General.However, the Director-General may approve heavy vehicle access to the site prior to or during thisupgrade, subject to the Proponent demonstrating that dust impacts can be minimised in accordance withan approved Traffic Management Plan.

Shuttle Bus System for Gonstruction and Mine Workers

59. The Proponent shall ensure that construction and operational employees are predominantly transported tothe site by shuttle bus, consistent with the assumptions used in the traffic study undertaken for the EA.

Note: The EA assumed that 90% of construction employees and g0% of operational workers based on peak travelmovements would be transpoñed to the site by shuttle bus from Boggabri township. However, the shuttle bus servlcecould also operate from Gunnedah and Narrabri.

Traffic Management Plan

60. The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan for the project to the satisfactionof the Director-General. This plan must:(a) be prepared in consultation with the RMS, Council and Gunnedah Council;(b) be submitted to the Director-General for approval prior to the commencement of construction;(c) propose an appropriate program and schedule for works required under conditions 55 - 57 above;

and(d) include:

. a code of conduct for drivers of heavy vehicles;¡ nominated heavy vehicle access routes for construction and operational stages, including

details on volumes and nature of heavy, over size and/or over mass vehicles;. measures to minimise traffic impacts at school bus pick up and drop off times;. consideration of measures to minimise dust from unsealed roads that may be used for

access to the mine site;o proposed program for implementing the findings of the road safety audit identifìed in the EA;

and. a monitoring program to audit vehicle movements against predictions in the EA.

Monitoring of Goal Transport

6'1 . The Proponent shall:(a) keep records ofthe:

. amount of coal transported from the site (on a monthly basis); and

. date and time of each train movement generated by the project; and(b) make these records available on its website at the end of each calendar year.

Rail Transport

62. Within 12 months of the completion of the Gunnedah Traffic Study, the Proponent shall


25

63.

(a) liaise with Gunnedah Shire Council regarding the study recommendations, including mitigatingimpacts of coal transportation by rail on road safety and congestion in the Gunnedah LGA due toclosures of rail level crossings; and

(b) provide a report of the outcomes of this liaison and identify reasonable and feasible proposalsrecommended by the Proponent and/or the Gunnedah Shire Gouncil towards implementing theStudy's recommendations,


Note: Any contribution by the Proponent should be on an equitable basis with other coal project rail users.

VISUAL

Operating Conditions

The Proponent shall:(a) implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the visual and off-site lighting impacts

ofthe project;(b) ensure no outdoor lights shine above the horizontal;(c) wherever possible, ensure that mobile equipment is appropriately designed and/or retrofltted to

prevent light being directed above the horizontal;(d) ensure that all external lighting associated with the project complies with Austratian Standard

454282 (INT) 1997 - Controlof Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting or its latest version;(e) provide for the establishment of trees and shrubs and/or the construction of mounding or bunding:

. along the access road to the mine site;

. along the Maules Creek rail spur line;

. around the water storage dams; and¡ at other areas identified as necessary for the maintenance of satisfactory visual amenity;

(f) ensure that the visual appearance of all buildings, structures, facilities or works (including paintcolours and specifications) is aimed at blending as far as possible with the surrounding landscape,


Additional Visual lmpact Mitigation

Upon receiving a written request from the owner of any residence on privately-owned land which has, orwould have, significant direct views of the mining operations and infrastructure on site during the project,the Proponent shall implement additional visual impact mitigation measures (such as landscapingtreatments or vegetation screens) to reduce the visibiliÇ of these mining operations and infrastructure fromthe residences on their properties.

These mitigation measures must be reasonable and feasible, and must be implemented within areasonable timeframe.

lf the Proponent and the owner cannot agree on the measures to be implemented, or there is a disputeabout the implementation of these measures, then either party may refer the matter to the Director-Generalfor resolution.

Nofes:a The additional visual impact mitigation measures must be aimed at reducing the visibility of the mining

operations on site from significantly affected resldences, and do not require measures to reduce the visibility ofthe mining operations from other locations on the affected propeñ¡es.The additional visual impact mitígation measures do not necessarily have to ínclude the implementation ofmeasures on the affected property itself (i.e. the additional /neasures could involve the implementation ofmeasures oufside the affected property boundary that provide an effective reduction in visual impacts).Except in exceptional circumstances, the Director-General will not require additional visual impact mitigation tobe unde¡taken for residences that are more than 7.5 kilometres from the mining operations.

BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT

65. The Proponent shall:(a) ensure that the project is suitably equipped to respond to any fires on site; and(b) assist the Rural Fire Service, NSW Forests, emergency services and National Parks and Wildlife

Services as much as possible if there is a fìre in the surrounding area.

WASTE

66. The Proponent shall:(a) implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the waste (including coal reject)

generated by the project;(b) ensure that the waste generated by the project is appropriately stored, handled and disposed of;

and

64

a

a


26

(c) monitor and report on the effectiveness of the waste minimisation and management measures inthe Annual Review.

REHABILITATION

Rehabilitation Objectives

67 The Proponent shall rehabilitate the site to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Mineral Resources.This rehabilitation must be generally consistent with the proposed Rehabilitation Strategy described in theEA and comply with the objectives in Table 17.

Table 1 7: Rehabilitation

Mine site Safe, stable and non-polluting

Constructed landforms drain to the natural environment.Final void Minimise the size and depth of the final void as far as is

reasonable and feasibleMinimise the drainage catchment of the final void as far as isreasonable and feasible

Surface infrastructure To be decommissioned and removed, unless the ExecutiveDi rector Mi neral Resou rces agrees othen¡yise.

Other land Restore ecosystem function, including maintaining orestablishing self-sustaining ecosystems comprised of:. local native plant species (unless the Executive

Director Mineral Resources agrees othenruise); and. a landform consistent with the surrounding

environment.Community Ensure public safety

Minimise the adverse socio-economic effects associated withmine closure

Progressive Rehabilitation

The Proponent shall rehabilitate the site progressively, that is, as soon as reasonably practicable followingdisturbance. All reasonable and feasible measures must be taken to minimise the total area exposed fordust generation at any time. lnterim rehabilitation strategies shall be employed when areas prone to dustgeneration cannot yet be permanently rehabilitated.

Nole: /f rs accepted that some parts of the site that are progressively rehabilitated may be subject to fuñher disturbanceat some later stage of the development.

Rehabilitation Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Rehabilitation Management Plan to the satisfaction of theExecutive Director Mineral Resources. This plan must:(a) be prepared in consultation with the Department, Forests NSW, NOW, OEH, Namoi CMA and

Council;(b) be submitted to the Executive Director Mineral Resources within 6 months from the date of this

approval;(c) be prepared in accordance with any relevant DRE guideline;(d) describe how the rehabilitation of the site would be integrated with the implementation of the

biodiversity management plan;(e) include detailed performance and completion criteria for evaluating the performance of the

rehabilitation of the site, and triggering remedial action (if necessary);(f) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure compliance with the relevant

conditions of this approval, and address all aspects of rehabilitation including mine closure, finallandform, and fìnal land use;

(S) include interim rehabilitation where necessary to minimise the area exposed for dust generation;(h) include a program to monitor, independently audit and report on the effectiveness of the measures,

and progress against the detailed performance and completion criteria; and(i) build to the maximum extent practicable on the other management plans required under this

approval.

Note: ln pañicular the Biodiversity Management Plan and Rehabilitation Management Plan need to be substantiattyintegrated for achieving biodiversity objectives for the rehabilitated mine-site.


68

69

27

70

Final Void Design and Glosure

The Proponent shall prepare and implement an updated Final Void and Mine Closure Plan (as acomponent of the overall Rehabilitation Management Plan required under condition 69 of schedule 3) tothe satisfaction of the Executive Director Mineral Resources, following consultation with the Director-General. A draft plan must be prepared and submitted to the Executive Director Mineral Resources by theend of December 2020, and a fìnal plan must be prepared and submitted to the Executive Director MineralResources by the end of December 2026. Each version of the plan must:(a) be subject to independent review and veriflcation by suitably qualified, experienced and

independent person/s (including a groundwater expert) whose appointment has been approved bythe Director-General;

(b) identify and consider:. options for continued mining beyond current project life;. interactions with the final landform of adjoining mines (including any direct or indirect

interaction between fìnal voids);. opportunities for integrated mine planning with adjoining mines to minimise environmental

impacts of the mines'fìnal landforms;. all reasonable and feasible landform options for the final void (including filling);o predicted stability of the proposed landforms; andr predicted hydrochemistry and hydrogeology (including long-term groundwater recovery and

void groundwater quality);(c) include a detailed proposed landform design; and(d) demonstrate that the proposed final landform:

. satisf¡es the relevant objectives in Table 17;

. minimises the extent of any resulting pit lake;¡ avoids salt scalding;¡ maximises the capacity of emplaced spoil to drain to the natural environment; and. ensures that drained waters do not adversely affect the downstream environment.

soctAL

Agricultural Property on Project Owned Land

71. The Proponent shall use its best endeavours to ensure that the agricultural productivity of land that isproject related (including remaining agricultural land on properties forming the biodiversity offset area) ismaintained or enhanced.

Note: This does not include land where disturbance is permitted under the conditions of this approval, or land that formspart of the biodiversity offset area. However, the additional low diversity derived native grassland, cultivated tand andpasture improved land that forms part of the Biodiversity Offset Area for conidor enhancement witt need to be fudherassessed for agricultural suitability and management may include both agricultural and conseruation outcomes identifiedas part of an approved biodiversity management plan.

Agricultural Production on land acquired due to ¡mpacts on residential receivers

72. The Proponent shall ensure that any properties primarily used for agricultural production that are acquiredby the Proponent due to impacts on residential receivers continue to be operated and maintained forsustainable agricultural production, unless they have been incorporated into an approved biodiversityoffset area. This condition ceases to have effect if the Proponent disposes of the property.

Gonstruction Workforce Accommodation

73 Prior to construction activities commencing, the Proponent shall prepare and implement a ConstructionWorkforce Accommodation Plan, in consultation with Council, and to the satisfaction of the Director-General. The plan must:(a) provide details of the construction workforce numbers throughout all stages of construction

including local vs. non-local hiring; and(b) demonstrate that the construction workforce can be suitably housed in approved accommodation

facilities.

Social lmpact Management Plan

74. The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Social lmpact Management Plan for the project to thesatisfaction of the Director-General to manage the potential impacts of the project. This plan must;(a) be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced person/s whose appointment has been endorsed

by the Director-General;(b) be prepared in consultation with Council, Gunnedah Shire Council, the CCC, Aboriginal

stakeholders and other relevant Government agencies and service providers, other mine operatorsin the Leard Forest Mining Precinct and submitted to the Director-General for approval within 12months of project approval;

NSWGovernment 2gDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure

(c)

(d)

take into consideration relevant actions related to social impacts identified in the Strategic RegionalLand Use Plan for New England North West;identify the social impacts resulting from the various stages of the project (including construction,operational and decommissioning stages) in both the local and regional context, including but notlimited to:¡ soft infrastructure such as housing, medical, education, childcare and emergency services;. hard infrastructure such as local and regional roads and rail;. economic/business development;¡ workforce demand/supply factors, such as training needs; and. labour availability impacts on other sectors, such as agricultural enterprises;identify proposed initiatives for promoting workforce opportunities for residing in the arealregion asopposed to FIFO/DIDO;include a management and mitigation program to minimise and/or mitigate social impacts which ata minimum incorporates the socio-economic mitigation initiatives identified in the EA, and '

include a monitoring program, incorporating key performance indicators and a review and reportingprotocol, including reporting in the annual review.

(e)

(f)

(s)


29

SCHEDULE 4ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES

NOTIFICATION OF LANDOWNERS/TENANTS

Within 3 months of the date of this approval, the Proponent shall:(a) notify in writing the owners of:

(b)(c)

r the land listed in Table 1 of schedule 3 that they have the right to require the Proponent toacquire their land at any stage during the project;

. any residence on the land listed in Table 1 and 2 of schedule 3 that they have the right torequest the Proponent to ask for additional noise and/or air quality mitigation measures to beinstalled at their residence at any stage during the project; and

. aîY privately-owned land within 2 kilometres of the approved open cut mining piUs that theyare entitled to ask for an inspection to establish the baseline condition of any buildings orstructures on their land, or to have a previous property inspection report updated;

notify the tenants of any mine-owned land of their rights under this approval; andsend a copy of the NSW Health fact sheet entitled "Mine Dust and You" (as may be updated fromtime to time) to the owners and/or existing tenants of any land (including mine-owned land) wherethe predictions in the EA identi! that dust emissions generated by the project are likely to begreater than the relevant air quality criteria in schedule 3 at any time during the life of the project.

2 Prior to entering into any tenancy agreement for any land owned by the Proponent that is predicted toexperience exceedances of the recommended dust and/or noise criteria, or for any of the land listed inTable 1 that is subsequently purchased by the Proponent, the Proponent shall:(a) advise the prospective tenants of the potential health and amenity impacts associated with living on

the land, and give them a copy of the NSW Health fact sheet entitled "Mine Dust and You" 1as -may

be updated from time to time);(b) advise the prospective tenants of the rights they would have under this approval; and(c) request the prospective tenants consult their medical practitioner to discuss the air quality

monitoring data and predictions and health impacts arising from this information,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

3. As soon as practicable after obtaining monitoring results showing:(a) an exceedance of the relevant criteria in schedule 3, the Proponent shall notify the affected

landowner in writing of the exceedance, and provide regular monitoring results to each of theseparties until the project is complying with the relevant criteria again; and

(b) an exceedance of the relevant air quality criteria schedule 3, the Proponent shall send to theaffected landowners and/or existing tenants of the land (including the tenants of any mine-ownedland)a copy of:. the NSW Health fact sheet entitled "Mine Dust and You" (as may be updated from time to

time);and. the monitoring data, in an appropriate format so that a medical practitioner can assist the

resídent in making an informed decision on the health risks associated with occupation ofthe property.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Landowners

lf an owner of privately-owned land considers the project to be exceeding the criteria in schedule 3, thenhe/she may ask the Director-General in writing for an independent review of the impacts of the project onhis/her land.

lf the Director-General is satisfied that an independent review is warranted, then within 2 months of theDirector-General's decision, the Proponent shall:(a) commission a suitably qualified, experienced and independent expert, whose appointment has

been approved by the Director-General, to:. consult with the landowner to determine his/her concerns;¡ conduct monitoring to determine whether the pro.¡ect is complying with the relevant impact

assessment criteria in schedule 3; andr if the project is not complying with these criteria then:

i. determine if the more than one mine is responslble for the exceedance, and if so therelative share of each mine towards the impact on the land;

ii. identify the measures that could be implemented to ensure compliance with therelevant criteria; and

(b) give the Director-General and landowner a copy of the independent review.

5. lf the independent review determines that the project is complying with the relevant criteria in schedule 3,then the Proponent may discontinue the independent review with the approval of the Director-General.

NSWGovernment 30Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

4

lf the independent review determines that the project is not complying with the relevant criteria, and thatthe project is primarily responsible for this non-compliance, then the Proponent shall:(a) implement all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures, in consultation with the landowner and

appointed independent expert, and conduct further monitoring until the project complies with therelevant criteria; or

(b) secure a written agreement with the landowner to allow exceedances of the relevant criteria,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

lf the independent review determines that the project is not complying with the relevant acquisition criteria,and that the project is primarily responsible for this non-compliance, then upon receiving a written requestfrom the landowner, the Proponent shall acquire all or part of the landowneds land in accordance with theprocedures in condition 8-9 below.

lf the independent review determines that the relevant criteria are being exceeded, but that more than onemine is responsible for this exceedance, then together with the relevant mine/s the Proponent shall:(a) implement all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures, in consultation with the landowner and

appointed independent expert, and conduct further monitoring until there is compliance with therelevant criteria; or

(b) secure a written agreement with the landowner and other relevant mine/s to allow exceedances ofthe relevant impact assessment criteria,


lf the independent review determines that the project is not complying with the relevant acquisition criteriain schedule 3, but that more than one mine is responsible for this non-compliance, then upon receiving awritten request from the landowner, the Proponent shall acquire all or part of the landowne/s land on asequitable a basis as possible with the relevant mine/s, in accordance with the procedures in conditions B-9below.

Biodiversity & Heritage

7. lf a person has good reason to believe the Proponent is not implementing the biodiversity and/or heritageconditions in schedule 3 satisfactorily, then he/she may ask the Director-General in writing for anindependent review of the matter.

lf the Director-General is satisfìed that an independent review is warranted, then within 2 months of theDirector-General's decision, the Proponent shall:(a) commission a suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, whose appointment has

been approved by the Director-General, to:. consult with the person and/or any relevant agencies;. investigatetheperson'scomplaints/claims;¡ review the environmental performance of the Proponent;¡ determine whether the Proponent s performance is satisfactory or not; and if necessary. recommend measures to improve the Proponent s performance; and

(b) give the Director-General and complainant a copy of the independent review.

LAND ACQUISITION

8. Within 3 months of receiving a written request from a landowner with acquisition rights, the Proponent shallmake. a binding written offer to the landowner based on:(a) the current market value of the landowne/s interest in the land at the date of this written request, as

if the land was unaffected by the project, having regard to the:¡ existing and permissible use of the land, in accordance with the applicable planning

instruments at the date of the written request; andr prêsênce of improvements on the land and/or any approved building or structure which has

been physically commenced at the date of the landowne/s written request, and is due to becompleted subsequent to that date, but excluding any improvements that have resulted fromthe implementation of the additional mitigation measures required under condition 2 ofschedule 3;

(b) the reasonable costs associated with:¡ relocating within the Tamworth, Narrabri, Gunnedah or Moree local government area, or to

any other local government area determined by the Director-General; and. obtaining legal advice and expert advice for determining the acquisition price of the land,

and the terms upon which it is to be acquired; and(c) reasonable compensation for any disturbance caused by the land acquisition process.

However, if at the end of this period, the Proponent and landowner cannot agree on the acquisition price ofthe land andlor the terms upon which the land is to be acquired, then either party may referthe mattertothe Director-General for resolution.


31

9

Upon receiving such a request, the Director-General shall request the President of the NSW Division of theAustralian Property lnstitute to appoint a qualified independent valuer to:¡ consider submissions from both parties;. determine a fair and reasonable acquisition price for the land and/or the terms upon which the land

is to be acquired, having regard to the matters referred to in paragraphs (a)-(c) above;r prepare a detailed report setting out the reasons for any determination; andr provide a copy of the report to both parties.

Within 14 days of receiving the independent valueis report, the Proponent shall make a binding writtenoffer to the landowner to purchase the land at a price not less than the independent value/s determination.

However, if either party disputes the independent value/s determination, then within 14 days of receivingthe independent value/s report, they may refer the matter to the Director-General for review. Any requestfor a review must be accompanied by a detailed report setting out the reasons why the party disputes theindependent value/s determination. Following consultation with the independent valuer and both parties,the Director-General will determine a fair and reasonable acquisition price for the land, having regard tothe matters referred to in paragraphs (a)-(c) above, the independent value/s report, the detailed report ofthe party that disputes the independent value/s determination and any other relevant submissions.

Within 14 days of this determination, the Proponent shall make a binding written offer to the landowner topurchase the land at a price not less than the Director-General's determination.

lf the landowner refuses to accept the Proponent's binding written offer under this condition within 6months of the offer being made, then the Proponent's obligations to acquire the land shall cease, unlessthe Director-General determines otherwise.

The Proponent shall pay all reasonable costs associated with the land acquisition process described incondition 8 above, including the costs associated with obtaining Council approval for any plan ofsubdivision (where permissible), and registration of this plan at the Office of the Registrar-General.


32

2

SCHEDULE 5ENVIRON M ENTAL MANAGEM ENT, REPORTING AND AU DITING

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Environmental Management Strategy

1' The Proponent shall prepare and implement an Environmental Management Strategy for the project tothe satisfaction of the Director-General. The strategy must:(r) be submitted to the Director-General for approval prior to the commencement of construction;(b) provide the strategic framework for environmental management of the project;(c) identify the statutory approvals that apply to the project;(d) describe the role, responsibility, authority and accountability of all key personnel involved in the

environmental management of the project;(e) describe the procedures that would be implemented to:

. keep the local community and relevant agencies informed about the operation andenvironmental performance of the project;

o receive, handle, respond to, and record complaints;¡ resolve any disputes that may arise during the course of the project;. respond to any non-compliance;. respond to emergencies; and

(Ð include:. copies of any strategies, plans and programs approved under the conditions of this

consent; and. a clear plan depicting all the monitoring to be carried out in relation to the project.

Adaptive Management

The Proponent must assess and manage project-related risks to ensure that there are no exceedancesof the criteria and/or performance measures in schedule 3. Any exceedance of these criteria and/orperformance measures constitutes a breach of this approval and may be subject to penal$ or offenceprovisions under the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation.

Where any exceedance of these criteria and/or performance measures has occurred, the Proponentmust at the earliest opportunity:(a) take all reasonable and feasible steps to ensure that the exceedance ceases and does not

recur ;

(b) consider all reasonable and feasible options for remediation (where retevant) and submit areport to the Department describing those options and any preferred remediation measures orother courses ofaction; and

(c) implement remediation measures as directed by the Director-General,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Management Plan Requirements

The Proponent shall ensure that the management plans required under this consent are prepared inaccordance with any relevant guidelines, and include:(a) detailed baseline data;(b) a description of

¡ the relevant statutory requirements (including any relevant consent, licence or leaseconditions);

. any relevant limits or performance measures/criteria;¡ the speciflc performance indicators that are proposed to be used to judge the

performance of, or guide the implementation of, the development or any managementmeasures;

(c) a description of the measures that would be implemented to comply with the relevant statutoryrequi rements, I imits, or performa nce measures/criteria(d) a program to monitor and report on the:. impacts and environmental performance of the p@ect;. effectiveness of any management measures (see c above);(q) a contingency plan to manage any unpredicted impacts and their consequences;(f) a program to investigate and implement ways to improve the environmental performance of theproject over time;

(S) a protocol for managing and reporting any:¡ incidents;. complaints;. non-compliances with statutory requirements; and. exceedances of the impact assessment criteria and/or performance criteria; and


3

33

4

(h) a protocol for periodic review of the plan

Annual Review

By the end of March each year, the Proponent shall review the environmental performance of theproject for the previous calendar year to the satisfaction of the Director-General. This review must:(a) describe the development (including any rehabilitation) that was carried out in the past calendar

year, and the development that is proposed to be carried out over the current calendar year;(b) include a comprehensive review of the monitoring results and complaints records of the project

over the past year, which includes a comparison of these results against the:¡ relevant statutory requirements, limits or performance measures/criteria;. monitoring results of previous years; andr relevant predictions in the EA;

(c) identify any non-compliance over the last year, and describe what actions were (or are being)taken to ensure compliance;

(d) identifll any trends in the monitoring data over the life of the project;(e) identify any discrepancies between the predicted and actual impacts of the project, and analyse

the potential cause of any significant discrepancies; and(0 describe what measures will be implemented over the next year to improve the environmental

performance of the project.

Revision of Strategies, Plans and Programs

5. Within 3 months of the submission of an:(a) annual review under condition 4 above;(b) incident report under condition I below;(c) audit under condition 10 below; or(d) any modification to the conditions of this approval,the Proponent shall review, and if necessary revise, the strategies, plans, and programs required underthis approval to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Nofe; Ihrs rs fo ensure the strategies, plans and programs are updated on a regular basis, and incorporate anyrecommended,neasures to improve the environmental performance of the project.

Management of Cumulative lmpacts

ln conjunction with the owners of the nearby mines in the Leard Forest Mining Precinct, the Proponentshall use its best endeavours to minimise the cumulative impacts of the project on the surrounding areato the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Community Consultative Committee

The Proponent shall establish and operate a Community Consultative Committee (CCC) for the projectto the satisfaction of the Director-General. This CCC must be operated in general accordance with theGuidelines for Establíshing and Operating Community Consultative Committees for Mining Projects(Department of Planning, 2O07, or its latest version), and be operating within 6 months of the date ofthis approval.

The CCC must include at least one member representing the Maules Creek community, one memberfrom Aboriginal stakeholder groups, and seek to include some joint membership with CCCs for otheroperating coal mines within the Leard Forest Mining Precinct, unless othenruise agreed by the Director-General.

Nofes;The CCC is an advisory commiftee. The Department and other relevant agencies are responsible forensuring that the Proponent complies with this approval; andln accordance with the Depaftment's guideline, the CCC should be comprised on an independent chair andappropriate representation from the Proponent, Council, recognised environmental groups and the localcommunity.

REPORTING

Incident Reporting

The Proponent shall notify, at the earliest opportunity, the Director-General and any other relevantagencies of any incident that has caused, or threatens to cause, material harm to the environment. Forany other incident associated with the project, the Proponent shall notify the Director-General and anyother relevant agencies as soon as practicable after the Proponent becomes aware of the incident.Within 7 days of the date of the incident, the Proponent shall provide the Director-General and anyrelevant agencies with a detailed report on the incident, and such further reports as may be requested.

b

7

a

I


34

Regular Reporting

9. The Proponent shall provide regular reporting on the environmental performance of the project on itswebsite, in accordance with the reporting arrangements in any plans or programs approved under theconditions of this approval.

AUDITING

lndependent Environmental Audit

10. By the end of June 2015 and every 3 years thereafter, unless the Director-General directs othen¡vise,the Proponent shall commission and pay the full cost of an lndependent Environmental Audit of theproject. This audit must:(a) be conducted by a suitably qualified, experienced and independent team of experts whose

appointment has been endorsed by the Director-General;(b) include consultation with the relevant agenctes;(c) assess the environmental performance of the project and assess whether it is complying with

the requirements in this approval, and any other relevant approvals, relevant EPL/s and/orMining Lease (including any assessment, plan or program required under these approvals);

(d) assess whether the Proponent is implementing best noise, blasting and air quality managementpractice;

(e) investigate and report on the measures taken to minimise the noise and air quality impacts ofthe project during meteorological conditions and/or extraordinary events when the relevantnoise and air quality limits in this approval do not apply, including:. the effectiveness of these measures in maintaining impacts within the relevant criteria in

this approval and/or the limits in the relevant EPL; and. any additional measures available to mitigate impacts under such conditions;

(Ð review the adequacy of any approved strategy, plan or program required under theabovementioned approvals; and

(S) recommend measures or actions to improve the environmental performance of the projectand/or any strategy, plan or program required under these approvals.

Note: This aud¡t team must be led by a suitably qualified auditor, and include expeñs in noise, air quality, ecotogyand any other fields specified by the Director-General.

11. Within 3 months of commissioning this audit, or as othenruise agreed by the Director-General, theProponent shall submit a copy of the audit report to the Director-General, together with its response toany recommendations contained in the audit report.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

12. The Proponent shall:(a) within 3 months of the date of this approval, make the following information publicly available on

its website:¡ the EA;. all current statutory approvals for the project;. approved strategies, plans and programs required under the conditions of this consent;. a comprehensive summary of the monitoring results of the project, which have been

reported in accordance with the various plans and programs approved under theconditions of this consent;

. a complaints register, which is to be updated on a monthly basis;¡ minutes of CCC meetings;. the last five annual reviews;. añy independent environmental audit, and the Proponent's response to the

recommendations in any audit;. any other matter required by the Director-General; and

(b) keep this information up to date,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

Online Communication of Onsite Activities and Monitoring of Noise and Air Quality

13. The Proponent shall ensure that the noise and air quality risUresponse matrices required to bedeveloped in the Noise and Air Quality Management Plans and validated real time monitoring data areavailable on-line and includes;(a) timely publication of validated monitoring data in a cleady understandable form;(b) identification of mine operational responses to monitoring data and weather forecasts; and(c) provision for on-line input /response by members of the community and real time engagement

with regionally-based regulatory compliance staff,to the satisfaction of the Director-General.


35

APPENDIX 1

SGHEDULE OF LAND

Lot DP Lot DP7001 94069 76 754948156 455004 105 755470

1 622375 85 7554752 622375 159 7554751 748046 262 7554752 748046 263 7554753 748046 264 7554753 754924 7002 1051146

65 754924 7001 105258757 754940 7300 1 1439395B 754940 1 11479359 754940 Werris Creek Mungindi Railway60 754940 Kamilaroi Highway61 754940 Namoi River

39 754940 Therribri Road40 754940 NSW State Forest41 754940 Undefined Road 1

42 754940 Undefined Road 2


59 754948 Undefined Road 460 754948 Undefined Road 5


Notes:1. The cadastral information for the lands to which the Project Application applies was sourced

from the NSW LPI records database in June 2010.

NSW GovernmentDeparfment of Planning and lnfrastructure

36

4

Land Within Project Boundary-

Mad6cæe* Bqndary

I LortwitrinMarlæcræt ctBdrdaryClm CoîEdled PLù¡c Road

LGI Gdffit Coflùo[ed Pub¡c Road

St¡te Ra¡l of NSl,tV

Hensen Beiley

RESCIURCES

¿ASTON

Cad F¡lq 0ef25A.drrg Date: l9-ft1-12 Drm:JD I

MAULES CREEK GOAL PROJEGT


37

I.OTÐo¡¡geo

P¡AJCßfiAD

utr2Êtæ?.ÍÉiÐã

Lqf rsF¡6ml

LOfææ78úft5

_ ofrrnrEXIrtDIflB

u¡cf-6ffifoüln(lrÞ

ÉxtLOfrur

FlU@æ

tof !æ?1ir't

PIEEgru

STAIENN¡LX'TTNfTYoFtg Gf,ûç'

cof¡nfll-ÐPIE¡CROâO

t¡'cJr-oñftR(I.tEDFrE¡cm


38

Rf¡ID

NSW GovernmentDepañment of Planníng and Infrastructure

39

aßt¡a1

ÍTRIIEEVR


N66200t

40

APPENDIX 2PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN


-rkÉHbl{ñtrt-

G Ri$srrl.ç

-

r;?øtbb

-

t-r¡€fu

-

t¡bl5tçb:2lYr5¡tH

F¿¡ÊrftÀET-¡¡ûti¡aE Htngen ElBileyçttugÞæMcdR¡Sfudlq ¿

ASTONEE-.T

r -

ÊltréEÉt- - A!¡ÉUrtuSo¡tt

C¿dEs fÈE(ElEll Drur:CP 7

Figure l: Mine Site Location

41

/)

Conceptual Project lnfrastructure

Hensen Berley

R É i (I T R T L J

Eæry

D Rd*h¿

ASTONa

Yê¡r2tR*tu

- - Pqdgdryft++thM

Dßht¿kboD--T.* Lsd Ctut gh

hplædRffih

Cad Fþ: fxig75cdrlr DdË.0€[email protected] O"J*rr CP I


Figure 2: lnfrastructure Area

42

Ð(ÍENTOFWORKS

Bml oql-bú@1 Þü.rÊ{Bi ffi Fly Lfl - rñr.: -a

Figure 3: Maules Creek Coal Mine Rail Spur Line connecting into the shared spur line (in red) and Boggabri Coal Mine RailSpur Line.

NSW Go:vernmentDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure

43

APPENDIX 3GENERAL TERMS OF PLANNING AGREEMENT

AMOUNÏ TIMELINE FOR PAYI\,IENT DESCRIPTION

$6.000.000 $3,000,00 3 months after reco¡pt 0f all

necessary approvals to comm€nce

conslruction of the mine

$1,500,000 12 months afier he lrst payment

$1,500,000 24 months aner tìe lrst payment

'Note: Maules Creek Coal will comm¡t funds

out 0f the frst $3,000,000 to the upgrade of

Thenibri Road.

Funds to be utjlised on the upgrade of¡nfrastructure and roed including Therribri

Road and Tanioro Bridge.

$5,000,000 $1,000,000 3 months afier roce¡pt of all

nec€ssary approvals to commsnce

construction of the mine

Each l2 months hereafter $1,000,000

Funds to be utilised on the upgrade of tìeNanabri Airport-

$800,000 To be distributed in consultation with

Narrabri Sh¡re Council (NSC) and the

Boggabri Community. 'lhe turds will be

whers poss¡ble EUally distributed over a 3

year period commencing 3 months after

receipt of all necegsary approvals to

commence construcl¡on of lhe mine.

Funds to be utilised on various projecß

within he township of BoggabrÍ and ¡ts

surounds

s275,000 T0 be distributed in consultaùon with

Narabri Sh¡re Council (NSC) and lhe

Maules Cre€k Community- The funds will be

wlìere poss¡ble equally d¡sûibuted over a 3year period comfiEnc¡ng 3 morìths afier

receipt of all necessary appmvals to

commence construction of he mine.

Funds to be contributed to he Maules

Cre€k Commun¡ty.

91,250,000 $250,000 3 monhs after rece¡pt ofall

necessary approvels to commence

cons on of he m¡ne.

$500,000 12 ironüÉ after he frst payment

$500,000 24 itonths after üm frst pa t

Funds lo be ut¡lised on CBD upgrades in

the Narabri Shire

9100,000 At Aston's discrelbn. Funds to be h€ld in ùust for "Envimnent"

proieds and 10 be adm¡nislered by he

The aim is to set up a'pool offunds'wiúrall cürent and future mines be¡ng

compelled to conùibute $100,000 æ aonce only uptront fee to cofrfiEnæ ÜE

tund.

The Counc¡l through ga¡ning a ConsuñEr

Pice lndex (CPl) ¡ncreese on the tonnes

produc€d will allocâte l:5% of he increase

each and every year to supdernenl üle

tund.

The Council and MCC will work broughthe CCC to adm¡n¡ster he funds wih the

øiteria to support a grant appl¡catÍon to be

completed by he 304 June 2013. The fißtround of applications will b€ called ¡n the

frnaro,al yeat 2013114

$0 075 per saleable

tonne + CPf

The cents per saleable tonne to m¡ror the

calculation per saleable tonne paid to heNSW State Govemment and peyable

monthly.


44

The eents, Þ€r saleable þnng b@mnþncs forfi $o dart of Bfoduotíon and

h be uliliæd on infrastructuro prûJeob

(¡ndüding gnvjronmental) at Councfl's

dr¡rcr€tirin:

The Consumer Price lnrþx i9 to be

oaleulated as bllws:

Pdæ lndo<es publish€d Þythe AtÅetElisn

Bw€au of ShübüGs (¡.BS)

CPI to bo based upon ho weþhted

avofago of eighl @pihl dÙ€s for lhep¡evfous 12 monfr an.d to æmrpnoetom the stfit of produdÍon.

Th€ lirctreview to b€ undortaksn andapplÍed in fto fEt in$an0€ and bêsêd on

hepiø12 monhs OPl.

45

ÞesØQ<4^IHo=5(lio!ìõ

(oa)

+0)ø

o

ð Þ!!mzg=Èt-ÞzgoãzÍt7q,:E!

2Drawn: JDO6te: 09 02 1 1

ts

tg

a

IE

16

ttc

r99

!04

T$r

¡J

97 !6

Û!

ÃI

tm

05

ltâ

iet83

!m

lr9tT

tût

!u

l12

Land Ownership

Cãd Filo: 06909F dwg

lü

t69

6

t2t

242

1æ

t1I¡

¡

at

¡a

t4

TO¡Ð

¡

rt

arn

1l

l!!

t9

t!tu

l¡

1!e

?la

pg

I

t3

I

r30

2la

¡t

a

u

tì

(

(

I

v

/--

t0

ü

0

1¡0

ld

!¡

0ô

66ó!

6!

¡o

¡6!

2ø

r'

21

¡¡

ls

Is

!1

rq

1s

¡t1

25

¡r.0

zg

2U

ruË

tat

2.

zt

a

0

æt

Ë

42

tt

A'

2ô24

I

2ta"\-

t!

:¿1

I

?11

¿0å

!il

,¡¡

2

CrM - Spôclal LossNSW St¡to FmstLê¡rd Stôlê Con!.rynbon Âraô

Þnvstê Freêhold ReærvúrBogg¿ûr Co¡l Rô6Brrlltìlåhåvôn tosl RecålEr

El c,*

Hanse¡¡ Ba lev

lìL\\ìl l(( L:ao!d,!,o:rrú' vrli¡7rE;'

ASTC)N

- - Projcd g@ndsry

-

Wbfrrs Cra6k to fvungindi Rârlw¡y

-

Roåd!Aslon Coål 2 Pry Ltd

Boggebf, Cosl PtyLfn¡ldVVIìtâh¡En Co¡l Mrnrng !mt6dAsrú coal 2 Ry Ltd & ldenìlrsuBegEbn Co¡l PlyLld

MAULES GREEK COAL PROJECT

Ào

APPENDIX 5STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS

MAULES CREEK COAL PROJECTCONSOLIDATED STATEM ENT OF COM MITM ENTS

ln addition to conditions of Project Approval, Maules Creek Coal commits to the operationalcontrols outlined in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for all activities associated with theProject. The below consolidated Statement of Commitments (SoC) summarises the major aspectsof the Project as described throughout the EA dated July 2011, the Response to SubmissionsReport dated December 2011 and the Response to Subsidiary Submissions Report dated March2012 and summarises the key proposed management and mitigation measures.

The aim of this SoC is to ensure that any potential environmental impacts resulting from the Projectare minimised and managed by implementing relevant environmental management, mitigation andmonitoring strategies.


Ref Commitment Section

Mining Operations

Maules Creek Coal will extract coal at a rate of up to 13 Mtpa for 21 years, generally inaccordance with this EA.

Section 3 oî the

Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

2 Maules ereek Coal will seek the appropriate licences and approvals as relevant to the Projectand listed in Table 9.

Section 4.8 of the

Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

3. Maules Creek Coal shall surrender its existing development consent DA 85/1819 following thegrant of the Project Approval.

Section 4 of the

Maules Creek Coal

Project EA:nr¡irana¿¡l¡l l,

4. The proponent will develop a staged EMS in consultation with relevant regulators (and theAboriginal community where relevant) to the approval of DP&l which shall comprise:

o Environmental ManagementStrategy;

o Environmental Monitoring Program (incorporating air quality, noise, blasting, ecology,Aboriginal heritage, surface water and groundwater);

. Construction Management Plan;

. Air Quality Management Plan;

o Noise Management Plan;

. Flora and Fauna Management PIan (including Land Disturbance Protocol);

¡ Biodiversity Offsets Management Plan;

o Rehabilitation Management Plan;

o Aboriginal Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management Plan;

. Water Management Plan (including groundwater and surface water);

o Traffic and Transport Management Plan;

o Bushfire Management Plan; and

¡ Hazardous Materials Management Plan.

Section 7 of the

Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

5. Maules Creek Coal will continue to consult w¡th the Namoi CMA in relation to the preparation

and implementation of the environmental management plans for the Project.Section 4.4.2 of lhe

Response to

Submissions Report

Air

6. Maules Creek Coal will utilise leading practice technologies and initiatives as required to seekto achieve the air quality outcomes described in this EA.

Section 7.1.4 of the

Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

47

Ref Gommitment Section

7 Maules Creek Coal will undertake regular monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions and energyefficiency initiatives to ensure that Scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of productcoal are kept to the minimum practicable level.

Section 7.2.4 oÍ theMaules Creek Coal

Project EA

8. Maules Creek Coal will install a real time air quality monitoring network in consultation withOEH. Consultation will also occur with Boggabri and Tarrawonga Coal Mines in an attempt todevelop an holistic network for the region.

I Maules Creek Coal will install a real time meteorological monitoring system with predictive airquality modelling software capabilities at locations selected in consultation with OEH.Consultation will also occur with Boggabri and Tarrawonga Coal Mines in an attempt todevelop an holistic network for the region. The monitoring component of this system willinclude a PMz s monitor at a location representative of the receivers located within the MaulesCreek Community.

Section 7.1 .4 of the

Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

Noise and Blasting

10. Maules Creek Coal will implement the necessary noise control and management measures asrequired to seek to ensure that the EA predicted noise levels at private receivers as listed in

Table 23 are not exceeded.


Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

11 Maules Creek Coal will install a real time noise monitoring system at locations selected in

consultation with OEH. Consultation will also occurwith Boggabri and Tarrawonga Coal Minesin an attempt to develop an holistic network for the region.

Section 7.3,4 of the

Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

Visual

12 Should a landholder within 7.5 km of the active mining area consider they are experiencinghigh visual impact as a result of the Project, Maules Creek Coal will carry out a specifìc visualassessment from the residence and develop any management and mitigation measuresrequired in consultation with the landholder and DP&|.

13 Night time operations will be undertaken behind barriers, part¡cularly in exposed areas toreduce direct night lighting impacts to neighbounng recetvers.

14 lnfrastructure lighting will consist of horizontal lights with hoods and louvers in elevated andexposed areas utilising low brightness lights to the level necessary for operational and safetyrequirements to minimise adverse night lighting impacts.


Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

Ecology

15. Maules Creek Coal will design and construct the CHPP, MIA and water storages with¡n theProject Disturbance Boundary to minimise impacts upon CEEC within the constraints of costeffective engineering practicality.

16. Maules Creek Goal will progressively rehabilitate mined areas with a focus on thereestablishment of existing forest and woodland communities.


Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

17 Maules Creek Coal will establish the Biodiversity Offset Strategy as described in this EA toinitially maintain and ultimately improve the ecological values of the Bioregion.

Section 7.7 of lheMaules Creek Coal

Project EA

Aboriginal Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

18. The salvage and the protection of all known Aboriginal objects within the Project Boundary willbe managed in accordance with an Aboriginal Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ManagementPlan to be developed in consultatio¡ with the local Aboriginal community and OEH.

19. Maules Creek Coal will consult with Boggabri Coal Mine and contribute to the establishmentand ongoing funding of a keeping place for the purpose of housing salvaged Aboriginalartefacts from the local area.

20. Maules Creek Goal will provide the opportunity for one representative of the Aboriginalcommunity to be a member of the Maules Creek CCC.


Maules Creek Coal

Project EA


4B

Ref Gommitment Section

21 Maules Creek Coal will offer training packages to members of the Red Chief Local Aboriginal

Lands Council in relation to site record¡ng, artefact recording and basic analysis.

Non lndigenous Heritage

22 Maules Creek Coal will compile an Oral History report for any landowners which are identifiedto be adversely impacted by the Project and who are acquired in accordance with conditions ofProject Approval.

23 Maules Creek Coal will ensure that the Heritage items located on its landholdings will beadequately managed and preserved in accordance with the requirements under the HeritageAct.


Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

Water Resources

24 Maules Creek Coal will continue to monitor groundwater ingress and impacts on surroundingprivately owned bores. ln the unlikely event that it is demonstrated that water levels in existinglandholder bores decline as a consequence of the Project, leading to an adverse impact onwater supply, the supply will be substituted by Maules Creek Coal in consultation with thelandholder either by deepening the bore, construction of a new bore or providing comparablewater from an external source.

25. Maules Creek Coal will use reasonable endeavours to, in consultation with Boggabri Coal Mineand Tarrawonga M¡ne, develop a groundwater monitoring network to mon¡tor the predictedgroundwater impacts from mining.


Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

26. Maules Creek Coal will conduct water quality monitoring of the seepage / runoff from theOEAs.


Maules Creek Coal

Project EA

27 Maules Creek Coal will use reasonable endeavours to obtain water access licence allocation toaccount for the capture and use of water from the various Water Sharing Plans that apply tothe Project in accordance with the provisions of the WM Act and its Regulations.


Response to

Submissions Report

¡a^^hâñ¡^â

28. PAF coal rejects materials and the roof and floor of these PAF coal seams will be co-disposedwith overburden in pit or within encapsulated cells within the Northern OEA.

Section 7.12.4 of theMaules Creek Coal

Project EA

Traffic

29. Reasonable endeavours will be made to ensure that Project related traffic does not utilise thefollowing public roads unless they are travelling to a specific destination along that route (such

as residence, monitoring location, near neighbour etc.): Harparary Road from Leard ForestRoad to the Kamilaroi Highway; Leard Forest Road between Northern Loop Road andHarparary Road; Therribri Road between the Mine Access Road and Harparary Road and theentire length of Browns Lane.

Section 7.14.4 of lheMaules Creek Coal

Project EA

30. Maules Creek Coal will use reasonable endeavours to work with other Gunnedah Basin coalprojects and the relevant roads authorities in managing safety issues on the road networkrelated to mining within the Nanabri and Gunnedah LGAs.

Section 7.14.4 of lheMaules Creek Coal

Project EA &


Response to

Submissions Report

31 Maules Creek Coal will use reasonable endeavours to work with other Gunnedah Basin coalminers and the ARTC to encourage management strategies to ensure that the rail network cancontinue to handle the forecast additional rail movements.

Section 7.'14.4 of lheMaules Creek Coal

Project EA


32 Prior to the construction of the rail spur overpass within the easement of the KamilaroiHighway, Maules Creek Coal will consult with all relevant regulatory authorities and will

Section 7.14.4 of theMaules Creek Coal

49

2

APPENDIX 6PLANNING ASSESSMENT COMMISSION - GROUNDWATER

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER AND HYDRO.CHEM¡CAL MONITORING

The proposed 17 additional monitoring bores be equipped with water level or pore pressuremonitoring transducers installed at vertical separations such that the future impacts of stratadepressurisation can be adequately measured and mapped.

Core tests to be conducted to assess the distribution and variability of hydraulicconductivities of (unfractured) interburden at sufficient number of bore locations to quantifyporous groundwater flow and storage contributions associated with interburden.

XRD-XRF analyses to be undertaken on core samples obtained at a sufficient number ofbore locations to establish mineralogy of interburden likely to be exposed to pit re-saturation.

Hydrochemical modelling to be undertaken in order to determine the long term void waterquality. This study should include batch reaction (full saturation) trials on waste interburden(spoils) to confirm hydrochemical modelling outcomes.

3

4


51

trtGÐCÐ

-':.î-¡Ê-iI-é-Þ

9.ë Frr{I E

Ë3åióÕÕaoñ=9

- gFã- Ê9

APPENDIX 7BIODIVERSITY OFFSET STRATEGY

Figure 1: Proposed biodiverslfy orTsef slrafegy propefties

ËoaeÈ

oÞPoØ,'.''

t):,

.& e.3

E -ËE

d ^Yi

s FsF EEE E!z us

è€;çÞoo- c E:€ PgqE õEblc65õ Ê 6 9Eõ o r õ>

- Æ* 5 Ë åJ Ë Þ

süi][ N. l

fl2

I5{9E

õ7

9s

J)

Øn


52

?.1'

ttêrÊ¡

a-raeó-

I¡

I

E

I_i?É!è!¡åJå¡II

õa

I¡

i¡!1TË¡à

IIIC

tI5

I!

3tlir;! lð

lå ¡i

iiåå

TT

tIåtìt¡

rlåi¡¡É¿¡¡tååtlilt

Iai

i¡¡tlå

ft

¡Þ¡álII

IIEI!

¡,96tÉå¡L¡t

TIF

E

åt

Figure 2: Vegetation Communities on Nofthern Offset Propefties


53

?.ap'--<:t-.

-r¡E

;ù

i!:. ,t, Iri 4 i:t i ,i¡,ì,

r,e ,3¡ ¡ ¡ i¡: !: ! Ë ?

iá lt r I : i!l Di :ì ( : i.lt .qi ; ,*, i i

E EI IE

!¡:ì-"íßùi ¡¡¡ i r i.- -ì ir i i; , i : i 4'il, i i i ti i ' t i i iì: : : i e; "t ! ¡ I ì loIt 5 i i . :; ã Ë i I î î:r; -j ä ì ¡ .:, i ¿ \ t ? t"'

ii { } i i ul * i i ii ; ;iF.

' , i r. : l-Þù¿i.'ê"',:Ít.iJí.LII I IIffi E fl [

tv., 't. -- irj r_ i f

r ,r ¡i i!; I q

¡ i i i¡ ii i Í. L ! v\i T ii Ër Êi i ii ! ; ;l É -'i ^:ì i åi

T;;Ì Ë;;;i Ë¡ iiË ii[r ir r r H

Figure 3: Vegetation communities Eastern and Western Offsef Areas


54

t,

i

Ë

I

¡

IiIt.

tte(Ð

i;t,I

i.I

¡i

IìI

I

t:

:.î'

itIt¡È ¡l

I

I

I

¡E

¡

å

fIËs

Eliaâ

--ae--

Figure4: ldentified OrTset,Areas within Eastern and Western Offset Properlies


55

Table 1: Summary of Vegetation Communities by Proposed Offset Propefties

ä1!

0-f365.5:

ùd16S2i

ti7709&-gs.37

4æ-s,1 r.t5

t& 32

234 g7

10m2ÆA111 I

o-la

ffis13iI-59t-1(2&

0-ü

7æ-&69 61

æ.€1

2161 _{1ffi-1!

639-6r

2X1 7a

4746tffi01

1935.11

sð.74ß$.7¡

503l.',

G7Å

8r-E

æg

AZ4176g

65(

015

fr

13A 5

0.0(

ñ_õ9,1(

r&zrs 1:

e61426 1(

6il9919.1!

ilatl3S.77

l@.¡Í

€g

tu12

00c4lö-12

142i6 79

34942

211 &3_5f

s7¡

9/ß¡:

00c

16S

i6gr01¿1

5t 14

a12219n

12293&å3lnJt

8241

23.t!

21,{

a-f

¿-9{

1325

0.ü

oü

ft_9(17-Sßl-l!

0fl,15.0t

0.0{

ãg

UA

n

3am

t51.1t

ùz

aü

r8&7t

ûm

ûd

27t1!2m.ltg8!

I 5l-ltil3fi

I5l.O

il{

SI

WómPqdhá

271&11.8

16d

9.01

UZg)

0-(x

0.d?212

13¡(31

1S¡&,(ßzliG

ga

t6.¡¡

lmür00.ü

sd

9Ñry

1r.0€

æ¡3

tõ 7:

10 ?f

æ4:

42.$

0.0c

o.m

2.4

2.U7n.!7

11.09

Ð1t3J{

9.fl

¿l93t

üû2,¡5 S5

46r

63 6l

2322

Brtrpfr226-75

69 6r

69.6r

146 {)74.q

16¡(879

87.S¿

¡ailcl729ð.G1

JS.C

23Ït.7r

æfi

t82!

Èotu PÞFrlh¡

hLh-ry

133_6f

t0rô4.9

259

w,7:ts2,

ofi577S

ffi.*

rst 9t

lSt.g2&2-f72G.du75l2ß5.&

*0

9e5'

sÍ

0-7!

rÀu

1211

9tt

oq

ûoa

¡4_8ì

682 11

76r gt00tlì1ß/IzliL

G{¡n

a1!

as.r:

er,

ff5!

531

161.6.

s27

00¿

m

o.oc

0fi0{

1471 60

t472.03

t65:t.u1f2.Sp:l

9t¿9

a3(

6,(,4:

t4ñ

4{oot

175

r6q

aa

qfl

td694

224.1e

299,6{

S,ao.1Z

21*t03.1

tt ls

n380.10

6 r8

lo2:oü

4.7{

B.O

ofl

0.o(

51 õ

t70-,m-1290-t€-G

20{5

t.lrÐ.t

$.ü

cù&

2_6t

$$

9.fl

o.ü

0.0trßG

rs_1s

2le222t.9lrgt

t5.9!

*91

s32

Er&m hoÉldð

bbr

9(X

rsË

2X

3t-q

0m

0.m

æ2(xæ2.0!

z2t0!zLol

121 lai

2t.ct

17fi

$.41

mrbEo¡- lgllw.ffi Lmbsd-WhiÞCrsPiE gryWlû6tffib Box - 8bk6ttÈ Rd q¡m - 1údúu6 .iNÐ fd

DriEd Ì.¡{h G.asbd (Low OiË¡ty - Bd Gw !ìloodl¡rd)

fdhQffinln.¡d¡ Pldlh!!

qfrtgyÞû- eþYs M tu gæyoF ÍrH;Fpvto¡t - ggtclVs Rd Gum Jrrutùv oM bÉ

&nE Gm - Ydbr Bo¡ - B¡ðkoys Rd cm wn bd

ìrub&dÂ¡dc - B¡ddv\ R€d Gm ri'd¡Ð oñffi

ç!b Box - whl6 CyN P¡æ oñ wdbnd

ìqlffi-miÞqrrc$ÊÈ

fûtk

tøtndfr

)*yds R€d Gh ¡mdhnd

llí¿nd @ IhcrÊb (tuirld Spdes)

,¡ð¡ûid rübrt - B.wn Blodì.@d - nñte Ch¡K Aro grubbv @n bùst{¡Ét€€d lmbork - ltlito Ct?.* Pim $úby oF fægtuË Fhd G¡h @En ¡¡@dhndsad f@ds

Ah¡b 8or - ¡èlt]6ôd lubtr- Whþ CÆ Piñ tubby W bÉ

lüB Bq - Pophr Bôr - WtúÈ Cry€s Êru gry (F dbd

thb 8o¡ - ûiqffi gæy s@dbnd

hÊW- vW!UfshN9l6yW(W€ffi)

/6lbr Bor - Bl¿¿tôYs R€d Gh gry FodanófdC Fd rÉ llrdìd

fd¡ Drri.d Nldþ eEdúd

bw t¡dy l.¡¡ùvdÉdE G.ð$l'rd td OrlttuIddOkeæ¡rú

fôl .tÈ ôrlvcd ndE glulrrdl h 6ßñ¡llool¡lMtZdBfbl[1ûlv.atlbnbbGmdllm.É Ed)ê lûl Bd Gm WoodLd (ffi Eg6bn rÈ òdvld trdE gÉl¡n4 b b cggil.d


56

S{bTûl (h.l

mt

534

ær 51

sg

t31 6:

50t-t

35C

129.2

109,{

81-4

s5!

efl0.m

s.7(

151.9

hbm Prqlrrbs

2-1t

lC,af

Sòr¡d

râ4 71

o.d

g

rs2r

GC

ãntn

ttrmhoFtu

377.3

17-51

20:15.&

ã11

{{sut7-1!

nGf

t.!

5g

1¿G

sg

C!tuPÞFnf6

9Û

21e

ùd lLñ Dkdñ- brùmWddì

MffiAElo-BbGlÈ Gum dffin oæv

Ë b¡ - trQEb¡ - whÞ Llprs æ qå9@ ffi

tþr-gqttdqwM

ðÉ æftdcb (hlrut Smiãì

: tu - B8kcüc Rd Gm - ]¡lddG@ rNi6fl bñ

rÐdhnbftMhytdbnd

WÈH&m-lqròa*wþodld

lwn-mrbulîßæ

ffi

'iÞ Ed - Waoa - Aelá roodard

,ædo6lmud-

ffiù Box- Nàmffi hbd -ffi ib (ìæ tu útusv ffi lær

Notes:

Properties Teston North, Tralee, Waniahdool, Louenville, Olivedeen, Teston South, Velyama and Shared (Joint Venture) Property owned or under option by Proponent

- if not secured by Proponent additional offset areas will be required as part of development of the Revised Biodiversity Offset Strategy as required under the approval.

offset area for conidor enhancement and connectivity in the Eastern and Western Offset areas.


57

APPENDIX 8ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITES

Aboriginal Heritage Sitesoaoa

æd Boûd¡y aro€dofubæSohdr|, ab¡óñ& ñd C6*. aW.nb CÉd( b Mqghdl R.Ìú,qrOonmrdty Coti¡lbñ ll ltrp66dSdver Eþ6tbrSle to b.la6dlr&c'ld Ouño sfuóbòffiFYúár '

Rffivdol S6rpd læSufÞCffiotArt6d Hene€rn tjetleyf¡o lnp.d

Rf,S()URCËS

¿ASTON

hhs¡h¡åÉEd-h tu Rlc 06Ð721.d$rg Dalq 12.07.11 Dram CP


58

SCIEMTIFIC

SIGNIFICA¡¡CEMANAGEMEI{TPROJECT IMPACTS]TE NAMESfTE TYPE

û,

Leard SF AS I

MCt3

MCI4

Manila MC2l

MC5

Leard 5F AS2

Teston AS3

Teston ASó

Teston AS I

3

MCr I

MC8

MC7

Manila MC l5

n AS2

MCt0

HIBack Creek AS I

Back Creek 452

Back Creek AS3

Back Creek

Creek AS5

Back Creek

MC23

MC24

vlc4MCó

MC2

MC3

n

MC)2

MC25

Ìw445

lw47

I5

N AS4

n AS5

Vel ASI

Vel AS2

Vel AS3

VelyamaAS4

Velyama AS5

HiCh

Hrgh

Hich

Moderate

Moder¿te

Low

Low

Low

Low

Moderae

Moder¿te

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moder¿te

Hich

Low

HiCh

Low

Moderate

Lor¿

Low

Low

Moderate

HiCh

Low

Low

Lo¡¡

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Open Pit

Rail Spur

Rail Spur

Open Pit

Overburden Area

Open Pit

Overburden Area

Overburden Area

Project Dinu ce Boundary

Rail Spur

Rail Spur

Rail Spur

Rail Spur Option

Open Pit

Proiect Disturbance Boundary

Rail Spur

Rail Spur Oflion

Not lmpa

Not lm d

Not lmpa

Not lmpaCed

Not lm

Not lmpacted

Rail þurRail Spur

Not lmpaaed

Not lmpacted

Not lmpaaed

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpaaed

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not fmpaaed

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpaded

Not lmpacted

Not lm

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Salvage Excavation

Salvage Excavation

Sahrage Excavation

Surface Collectior¡ of Artefacts

Surface Collection of Artefacts

Surface Collection of cts

Surface Collection of cts

furface Collection of cts

furface Collection of Artefacts

furface Coll of Artef¿cts


furhce Collection of Artefads

Sitelo be ed

Site to be

Site to be fenced

Site to be fenced

Site to be

Site to be d

Siteto be ed

Sitetobe ed

Site to be

furface Col of Artefacts

furface Col ofArteåcb

furåce Col ofArtefacts

furhce Col of Artefacs

No lmpact - No further Reguirements

No lmpact- No fu Reguirements

No lm - No funf¡er Reguirements

No lmpact - No er Requiremens

No lmpact - No further Requiren¡ents

No lmpact - No further Reguiremens

No lmpact - No Further Requiremer¡ts

No lmpact - No Further Requirernens

No lmpact - No furtfier Requirements

No lmpact - No further Requirements

No lmpact - No further Requiremens

No lmpact - No Further Requiremens

No lmpact - No Fur$er Requiremens

No lmpact - No Further Requirements


No lmpact - No further Requirenrents


No lmpact - No Furber Requirements


59

scrEr{frFtc

SIGNIFICANCEMATIAGEMEMTPRNECT IMPACTSITE NAMESTTE TYPE

l¡ohtsd

GilndlngGloove

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

l'4oderate

HiCh

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

TBD

HiCh

High

Hrgh

HiCh

H¡Ch

HiCh

HiCh

Moderate

HiCh

High

High

H¡Ch

H¡Ch

Moderate

HiCh

HiCh

Moderate

Velyama ASó

Velyama AS7

MCI2

MC9

Leard SF lAl

Leard SF 4

Leard SF lA2

Teston l,A2

Teston lA3

Teston lA4

Teston lA5 (l)Leard SF 3

Teston [Al

n lAó

n lA7

Back Creek lAl

B¿ck Creek lA2

Teston lA5 (2)

IAB

n lA9

Velyanr,a lAl

Velyarna lA2

Velyama lA3

Vel lA4

Velyama lA5

sT2

Leard SF 5T I

Leard SF 5T2

n STI

You STI

Watsons 5Il7

4

Namc¡i r TSR 5T3

Namci River TSR ST5

Namci r TSR 5T6

N¿mci River TSR

Namcf River TSR ST8

6

Namci River STI

Namoi River TSR STI

Namc¡i r TSR ST2

N¿moi River TSR ST9

Velyama STI

6

Teston Grindstone I

N GG2

n GGI

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Open Pit

Oerburden Area

Overburden Area

Overburden Area

Overburden Area

Overburden Æea

rburden Area

Proþct Disturbance Boundary

Project Disturlcance Boundary

C Disturbance Boundary

Project Distu ce Boundary

Not lm d

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacæd

NotlmNot lm d

Not lmpacted

Ncil lm d

Not lmpacted

Not lm d

rburden Area

Open Pit

Open Ft

Rail Spur

Oerburden Area

Rail Spur

Rail Spur Opion

Pipeline

r Pipeline

Pipeline

Pipeline

Pipeline

fipeline

Not lm d

Not lm

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lmpacted

Not lm d

Not lm d

Rail Spur

Rar'l spur Option

Rail spur Option




No lmpact - No Furúrer Requirements


Sulace Collection of Artefacts

furface Collection of Artefacts




Surface Collection of Artef¿cts

Surface Collection of Arte

Surface Collection of Arte

furface Collection of Art


Site to be fenced

Site to be fenced

No lmpact - No furüer Requirements

No lmpact - No further Requirernents

No lmpact - No further Requirernens

No lmpact - No further Requirenrents

No lmpact - No furúer Requirernents

No lm - No further Requirements

No lmpact - No further Requirernents

No lmpaa - No further Requirernents

Removal ofSca lree

Removal ofSca

Removal ofScarred

Removal o{Scarred

Removal ofSca

Remoyal ofSca

lnspeAjon during safuage to determine exteÍt

Site to be fenced

Siteto be ed

Siteto be ed

Siteto be ed

Site to be fenced

Site to be fenced

Site to be fenced

No lmpact - No furtier Requiremer¡ts

No lmpact - No furúrer Requirements




No lmpact - No further Reguirements

No lmpact - No furber Requirements

furface Colle<tron of Art

furface Collection of Art

CommunÇ Consultation if lmpacted

NSW GovernmentDeparfment of Planning and lnfrastructure

60

Maules Creek Coal Project Envi ronme ntal Assessmenf Reporf

APPENDIX B:GOMPARISON BETWEEN PAG MERIT REVIEWRECOMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDEDGONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

PAG recommendation Incorporation into assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

1. Regional Biodiversity Strategyln view of the regional nature of the biodiversity issuesraised by this proposal and the regional scale of themeasures proposed to minimise adverse impacts, theDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure shouldcommission a biodiversity working group to prepare aRegional Biodiversity Strategy. The group shouldcomprise independent experts as well as representativesfrom all levels of government, including the Office ofEnvironment and Heritage, the Office of Resources andEnergy, the Namoi CMA and Narrabri Shire Council.

The proponent for this project and the mining companiesseeking to mine other parts of the Leard State Forestshould be required to pay for the preparation andimplementation of the regional biodiversity conservationstrategy, on a pro rata basis according to the proportionof land to be cleared by each company.

The strategy should:. be prepared in consultation with the local

community, the Aboriginal community, local landcaregroups and the mining companies and operators;

¡ set out an appropriate framework for the strategicconservation of the biodiversity values and functionslikely to be impacted by the mining of land within theLeard State Forest and surrounds;

. include options for strategic additions to the publicreserve system;

o set out the measures to be used to secure areas ofprivate land into the long term;

¡ set out the management regime for the conservationlands, including details of the funding mechanismsand management responsibilities to be implementedto ensure the ongoing maintenance of the land in thelong term, including after the completion of mining.

The Regional Biodiversity Strategy should be completedto the satisfaction of the Director-General of theDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure, within oneyear of any new approval of mining within the LeardState Forest.

The Department generally supports the PAC'srecommendation.

To address this issue and ensure that the RegionalBiodiversity Strategy is implemented in a timelymanner, the Department has recommendedconditions that require the Proponent, jointly with allother coal mines in the Precinct, to engage a suitablyqualifìed, experienced and independent person(s)whose appointment has been approved by theDirector-General to co-ordinate, prepare and developa Regional Biodiversity Strategy. The funding mustprovide for a co-ordinator position reporting directlyto the Department.

The strategy would be required to be developed inclose consultation with the Department and agenciesidentified by the PAC. The Department has alsorecommended that SEWPaC is included in theproposed working group, as approvals are requiredunder the EPBC Act. There would also need to beclose consultation with Forests NSW and DPICatchments and Lands as they have ongoing landmanagement or approval roles in the management ofeither rehabilitated land or biodiversity offset lands.

The proposed timeframes are: by the end of January2013* to complete Stage 1 (the Scoping Stage) todevelop the terms of reference, objectives,geographic extent, project management plan, andconsultation program; Stage 2 is development of thestrategy itself, to be completed by the end of January2014*; and Stage 3 is review of the strategy after 5years, following a detailed audit of management ofthe rehabilitation and offset areas.

The Department supports the principle of equitablefunding between mines in the Leard Forest MiningPrecinct.

Reference: Schedule 3 Conditions 37-39

* Timing designed to be consistent with similar conditionson the Boggabri mine.

ne Biodiversity Management PlanThe proponent must also prepare a biodiversitymanagement plan to cover the offsite areas to berehabilitated and conserved, as well as the biodiversityon site (both remnant and rehabilitation areas). TheDepartment's standard conditions relating to biodiversitymanagement and rehabilitation, could be adapted to fulfilthis purpose, but would need to also include:

The Department supports the PAC'srecommendation and has recommended conditionsof approval that require the Proponent to:- prepare a Biodiversity Management Plan prior to

the commencement of mining operations; andprepare a revised project Biodiversity Offset

Strategy and revised Biodiversity ManagementPlan within 6 months of completion of theRegional Biodiversity Strategy.


Reference: Schedule 3 Conditions 41,48-4978

PAC recommendation Incorporation into assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

. the Namoi Catchment Management Authority in thelist of agencies to be consulted during the preparationof the plan; and

¡ requirements to describe the measures to beimplemented to ensure the connectivity and corridorfunction fulfìlled by the exclusion zone corridor ismaintained; and

. requirements to demonstrate consistency with theRegional Biodiversity Strategy and consider anyfindings and recommendations within the strategy.

The mine specific Biodiversity Management Plan wouldneed to be in place before the mine commencesexporting of coal from the site.

lncluded in recommended conditionsReference: Schedule 3 conditions 41 , 48-49

lncluded in recommended conditions

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 48.

lncluded in recommended conditions

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 49.lncluded in recommended conditions


The proponent should be restricted from clearing anyland (or establishing and/or intensifying any dams, roadsor other infrastructure) within 250 m of the southernlease boundary, to ensure that a viable biodiversitycorridor can be maintained through the vicinity of theLeard State Forest.

3. er GorridorThe Department accepts the intent of the PAC'srecommendation (ie to maintain a 500 m bufferbetween the Maules Creek and Boggabri mines toprovide east-west connectivity), but believes thatthere should be some flexibility in the definition of the500 m corridor (ie the 500 m minimum could beachieved by greater or lesser setbacks on each ofthe 2 mines, as opposed to a strict 250 m setback onboth sides, as included in the PAC's Boggabri projectapproval). Further, the Department notes that, whilea future modiflcation application may seek approvalfor removal of the barrier, the recommendedconditions for the current approval do not permit acorridor of less than 500 m in width.

Reference: Schedule 2 condition 74. Dust Control MeasuresAll measures for control of air pollution should deliver airquality outcomes that are equal to or better than the airquality outcomes identified in the EA and that correspondto best practice and the application of best availabletechnology. This must include best practice coal loadingand profiling, to minimise dust emissions from coaltransportation.

The Department supports this recommendation. Thestandard operating condition requiresimplementation of best management practice andhas been modified to specifically reference coalloading and other measures to minimise dustemissions from coal transportation.



5. Gomp ance with the air quality standardsThe cumulative dust levels from the mine and any othersources must not exceed the national and state airquality standards at any occupied residential property,regardless of land tenure.


Environme ntal Assessmenl Reporf

The Department supports the PAC'srecommendation for properties outside the identifiedarea of affectation for the project and hasrecommended conditions requiring Aston to:- comply with contemporary air quality criteria;- implement all reasonable and feasible dust

mitigation measures to meet regulatory airquality criteria - on a cumulative impact basis;and

- implement best management practice tominimise dust emissions.

For properties within the affectation areas, theDepartment is satisfied that Aston has adopted allreasonable and feasible mitigation measures tominimise impacts on these properties and notes thatthe recommended real-time and active managementsystem (the results of which are not able to bemodelled with confidence) should reduce impactsfurther. To manage impacts on these properties, theDepartment recommends:- acquisition rights where significant impacts are

predicted at privately-owned residences;- notification rights for landowners and tenants;- ability for tenants to be released from tenancy

agreements on project owned land;

79



Envi ron mental Assessmenf Reporf

PAG recommendat¡on lncorporation ¡nto assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

The proponent must ensure that the project does notcontribute to any exceedence of the PM2.5 goal, and anyPM2.5 criteria (when this is fìnalised nationally and/or ata State level) at any occupied residential property,regardless of land tenure.

ln the event that any air quality standards are exceeded,the mine should be required to immediately shut down(where dust levels cannot be brought into compliance),or scale back activities on site (if this is sufficient toquickly bring dust levels down to within the criteria).Proactive management would be required to achievecompliance in variable weather conditions.

requirement for Aston to provide assistance inrelocation of tenants;representative air quality monitoring at tenants'residences and landowners who have acquisitionrights; andprovision of air mitigation measures at tenantsand landowners where impacts are predicted.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 26-30 andschedule 4.The Department notes that analysis for this projectand other mining projects indicates that the area ofPMz.s affectation is similar to the area of PMleaffectation. Therefore compliance with PMlo criteriawould also achieve compliance with the PMz sadvisory goal.

It also notes that the Upper Hunter Valley dustmonitoring network includes monitoring of PMesmainly for research purposes and to providebackground data ahead of the likely finalisation of acompliance standard for PMz.s by the NEPC. TheDepartment also notes that the draft New EnglandNorth West SRLUP includes an action for NSWHealth, the Department and OEH to prepare adevelopment assessment guideline for impacts fromdust which would include maximum thresholds forincremental and cumulative dust emissions.

The Department therefore believes it is pre-emptiveto require compliance with the PMzs advisory goalwhich is still subject to research and finalisation. TheDepartment has recommended conditions requiringAston to assess its performance and implement bestpractice measures towards achieving the advisoryPM2.5 Qoal and undertake monitoring of PMz s.

The air quality monitoring data required to becollected by Aston should provide furthef informationon the relationship between PMro and PMzs fromcoal mining in the Leard Forest Mining Precinct suchthat, if and when an ambient standard is introducedat a national and state level, Aston and regulatorswould be in a position to assess compliance againstthis standard and determine what if any additionalmitigation measures could be applied.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 29-30.The Department generally supports the PAC'srecommendation and has recommended conditionsrequiring Aston to ensure that all reasonable andfeasible avoidance and mitigation measures areemployed so that particulate emissions generated bythe project do not exceed the air quality criteria onprivately-owned land not subject to acquisition rights.Reasonable and feasible measures include scalingback activities and ceasing dust generating activitiesthat are contributing to any exceedance. Theimplementation of a real-time monitoring systemwould allow the Aston to proactively manage dustemissions to meet cumulative ambient air qualitycriteria.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 26-27,29

80

PAC recommendation lncorporation into assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

6. Regional Strategy and Project Specific Air QualityManagement Planln order to prevent exceedence of the air qualitystandards, the proponent, in collaboration with theBoggabri and Tarrawonga mines (and any other mines tooperate in the area) should develop and implement botha regional strategy and a project specific Air QualityManagement Plan to ensure air quality standard (andgoals) are achieved. The strategy and/or managementplan should include:¡ A shared environmental monitoring network and

data sharing protocol between the proponent andthe neighbouring mines, setting out the systems andprocesses to be implemented to ensure all miningoperations are managed to achieve appropriate airquality standards.

¡ Monitoring and management arrangements thatprovide for:

o A predictive, reactive and collaborativemanagement system, using state-of-the-arttechnology to ensure the mine avoids, reducesand/or ceases activities as required.

o Comprehensive, real-time monitoring for TSP,PMro, PMzs and deposition, both locally andregionally; and

o Apportionment of emissions from the proponentsoperations using a combination of dualsynchronized monitors and meteorologicalinstruments, supplemented by elemental orchemical methods of source apportionment, asappropriate.

¡ Commitments to provide summary reports andspecific briefings on issues arising from themonitoring at the Community ConsultativeCommittee meetings.

¡ Provisions to ensure there are ongoingimprovements to the management systems,reporting provided and response mechanismsimplemented, to maintain best practice over time.

The Department supports the PAC'srecommendation and has recommended conditionsrequiring Aston to develop a project-specific AirQuality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan andto contribute to a Leard Forest Mining PrecinctRegional Air Strategy.



The Department does not believe that real-timemonitoring of TSP is warranted as the criterion is anannual average and it is not a health-basedstandard. Dust deposition is monitored on a monthlybasis and the approved method does not allowsampling in real-time to provide meaningfulinformation for proactive daily management ofoperations.

The Department supports real-time monitoring ofPMro as the primary air parameter, supplemented byPMz s monitoring.



Reference: Schedule 3 condition 29-30 andSchedule 5 (environmental audit).

7. Online communication of onsite activities andmonitoring of dust

A risldresponse matrix should be developed to clearlycodify mine operational responses to varying levels ofrisk resulting from weather conditions and specific miningactivities in sensitive locations. The risk/response matrixand real-time monitoring data should be made availableonline and include:

timely publication of monitoring data in a clearlyunderstandable form;identification of mine operational responses tomonitoring data and weather forecasts; andprovision for online inpuVresponse by members ofthe community and real-time engagement withregionally based regulatory compliance staff.

a

a

a

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 30 and Schedule 5condition 13.

supports the PAC'sThe Departmentrecommendation.


8. Noise Gontrol MeasuresAll equipment and noise control measures should delivernoise levels that are equal to or better than the levelsidentified in the EA and that correspond to best practiceor the application of best available technology. Allequipment must be selected to minimise noise and mustinclude state of the art noise attenuation or suppression.

E nv i ro n me n ta I Assessmenf Reporf

The Department generally supports the PAC'srecommendation, but accepts Aston's proposal tolimit attenuation to all trucks and water carts, giventhat attenuation of additional equipment is notexpected to provide significant additional benefit.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 11-14


81



E nv i ron m e n ta I Assessmenf Reporf

PAG recommendation lncorporation ¡nto assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

9. Gompliance with the lndustrial Noise PolicyThe noise levels from the mine must not exceed thenoise levels prescribed underthe lndustrial Noise Policy,ie 35 L¡gq115 min¡ âîd 45 L¡r(t m¡n), at any privately ownedresidential receiver, unless the proponent has the writtenagreement of the owner of the property.

The Department supports the PAC'srecommendation for all privately-owned propertiesother than those predicted to exceed these levels inthe EA, and has recommended conditions requiringAston to:- comply with operational noise criteria of 35 dB;- continually demonstrate that all reasonable and

feasible noise measures are being undertaken;- appropriately attenuate plant and equipment;- implement best practice real-time monitoring and

active management systems; andprepare and implement a comprehensive Noise

Management Plan.

With regard to privately-owned properties predictedin the EA to exceed the 35dB noise criteria, theDepartment is satisfied that Aston has adopted allreasonable and feasible mitigation measures tominimise noise impacts, and notes that therecommended real-time monitoring and activemanagement system (the results of which are notable to be modelled with confidence) should reduceimpacts further. The Department also notes that theINP provides for exceedances of the 'PSNL' criteria.To appropriately manage residual impacts on theseproperties, the Department has recommendedconditions requiring Aston to:- acquire "significantly affected" properties (ie

those exceeding the 35 dB PSNL by >5 dB); and- undertake additional noise mitigation measures

on significantly and moderately affectedproperties.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 1-15The cumulative no¡se levels from the mine and any othersources must not exceed the amenity criteria at anyprivately owned residential property.

The Department notes that the amenity criteria arepredicted to be met at all remaining privately-ownedreceivers apart from receivers which are predicted tobe affected on a project-only basis.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 9-1010. Measures to Minimise Transport NoiseThe rolling stock used to transport the coal should beselected to minimise noise.

The loading and movement of trains (both on and offsite)should be scheduled and/or restricted to minimise sleepdisturbance impacts for residents along the entire railcorridor.

The Department generally supports the PAC'srecommendation and has recommended conditionsrequiring Aston to:- undertake its best endeavours to ensure that

service providers use rolling stock thatminimises noise; and

- ensures that any new rail rolling stockmanufactured specifically for the project isdesigned, constructed and maintained tominimise noise

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 14.The Department generally supports the PACrecommendation but notes that the movement oftrains outside of the site would not be under Aston'sdirect control. The Department is not able to placerequirements on third parties under a condition ofapproval (in this case the ARTC as the freightoperator on the public rail network).

The Department notes that on-site rail loading hasbeen considered as part of the operational noiseassessment. However, the Deoartment has

82



E nv i ro n m e n tal Assessmenf Reporf

PAG recommendation Incorporation ¡nto assessment andrecommended conditions of approvalrecommended conditions requiring Aston to onlyallow locomotives that meet the locomotive noiselimit in ARTC's Environment Protection Licence toaccess its rail spur.

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 14.11. Regional Strategy and Project Specific Noise

Management Planln order to prevent exceedence of the noise criteria theproponent, in collaboration with the Boggabri andTarrawonga mines (and any other mines to operate inthe area), should develop and implement both a regionalstrategy and a project specific Noise Management Planto ensure that both the project specific noise levels and asatisfactory amenity are achieved on neighbouringproperties. The strategy and/or management plan shouldinclude:. A shared environmental monitoring network and

data sharing protocol between the proponent andthe neighbouring mines, setting out the systems andprocesses to be implemented to ensure all miningoperations are managed to achieve appropriatenoise criteria.

. Monitoring and management arrangements thatprovide for:o A predictive, reactive and collaborative

management system, using state-of-the-arttechnology to ensure the mine avoids excessivenoise, reducing and/or ceasing activities asrequired.

o Comprehensive, real-time monitoring of noiseand weather conditions, including real-timemonitoring of inversion effects.

¡ Commitments to provide summary reports andspecific briefings on issues arising from themonitoring at the Community ConsultativeCommittee meetings.

o Provisions to ensure there ate ongoingimprovements to the management systems,reporting provided and response mechanismsimplemented, to maintain best practice over time.

The Departmentrecommendation.

supports the PAC's

A condition has been included for a NoiseManagement Plan that includes a Leard ForestMining Precinct Noise Management Strategy to bedeveloped in consultation with all mining companiesoperating in the Precinct.

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 15.Reference: Schedule 3 condition 15.

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 14 (operatingconditions); Schedule 3 condition 15 (NoiseManagement Plan); Schedule 3 condition 31(meteorological monitoring).

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 15

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 14 (operatingconditions); Schedule 3 condition 15 (managementplan); Schedule 5 condition 10 (environmental audit).

12. Online communication of onsite activities andmonitoring of noise

A risldresponse matrix should be developed to clearlycodify mine operational responses to varying levels ofrisk resulting from weather conditions and specific miningactivities in sensitive locations. The risUresponse matrixand real-time monitoring data should be made availableonline and include:. timely publication of monitoring data in a clearly

understandable form;¡ identifìcation of mine operational responses to

monitoring data and weather forecasts; and. provision for online inpuUresponse by members of

the community.

The Departmentrecommendation.

supports the PAC's

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 15 and schedule 5condition 13.

13. Construction Noise Management PlansThe construction noise management plans must:. be prepared in consultation with nearby residents

and document the preferences of the local residents(in terms of construction hours, etc);

. ensure construction noise impacts are minimisedand managed both in terms of the intensity of thenoise impact and the duration of the impact;

¡ sêt out the schedulino and timinq of the various

The Department supports the PAC'srecommendation and has recommended a conditionrequiring Aston to prepare a Noise ManagementPlan which manages noise and vibrationmanagement for construction of the rail spur line.


83

PAG recommendation Incorporation into assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

construction works and demonstrate how theproposed scheduling would minimise impacts andhow local resident's preferences would beaccommodated.

14. BlastingStandard conditions relating to blasting should beadapted to cover the current proposal.

The Blast Management Plan should also:. be prepared in consultation with the local

community; and. include measures to ensure that:

o there are consistent blasting protocols for allmining operations in the area; and

o blasting is coordinated to minimise disruptionsto the community.

As with the recommendations for dust and noise aRegional Blasting Management Strategy may also beappropriate.

supports the PAC's

The Blast Management Plan includes a requirementto consult with the CCC and interested members ofthe local community potentially affected by blasting.ln addition, there is a requirement to develop a BlastManagement Strategy in consultation with othermines in the precinct.


The Departmentrecommendations.


The proponent should not be allowed to pursue thealternative rail bridge over the Namoi River, unlessfurther justification and detailed plans and assessmenthave been provided and appropriately assessed by theDepartment of Planning and lnfrastructure.

Along with the standard conditions relating to water, theconditions should also require:. The proponent to be prohibited from discharging

mine and contaminated water off site and should berequired to ensure there is capacity to accommodatesurplus mine and contaminated water in the minepit, without impacting on operational andemployment cömmitments, including during extremeweather events;

The proponent to ensure that the project does notimpact on the flood plain or flood dynamics alongBack Creek;

Environme ntal Assessøenf Report

Aston has informed that the altemative rail bridgedoes not form part of the application. TheDepartment has recommended a condition clarifyingthis.

Reference: Schedule 2 condition I

The Department is satisfied that the project has beendesigned and can be managed essentially on a zerodischarge basis, but accepts that excess water as aresult of unforeseen or very extreme events could besuitably discharged from the mine followingtreatment to acceptable standards, without causingsignificant environmental impact. To ensure thisoccurs, the Department has recommendedconditions requiring Aston to undertake anydischarges, in the unlikely event that they arerequired, in accordance with an EnvironmentProtection Licence granted by the EPA.


The Department is satisfied that the project wouldnot result in significant downstream flooding, and hasrecommended a condition requiring Aston to monitordownstream flooding.


lncluded as condition for groundwater monitoringprogram.

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 36 and Appendix 6.

a

. The proposed 17 additional monitoring bores to beequipped with water level or pore pressuremonitoring transducers installed at verticalseparations such that the future impacts of stratadepressurisation can be adequately measured andmapped;

. Core tests to be conducted to assess the distributionand variability of hydraulic conductivities of(unfractured) interburden at a sufficient number ofbore locations to quantiñ7 porous groundwater flowand storage contributions associated withinterburden.

. XRD-XRF analyses to be undertaken on coresamples obtained at a sufficient number of bore


84



Environ me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

PAG recommendat¡on lncorporation into assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

a

locations to establish the mineralogy of interburdenlikely to be exposed to pit re-saturation.Hydro-chemical modelling to be undertaken in orderto determine the long term void water quality. Thisstudy should include batch reaction (full saturation)trials on waste interburden (spoils) to confirm hydro-chemical modelling outcomes.That reject materials or any potentially acid forminginterburden materials must not be emplaced outsidethe pit shell or at elevations within the pit shell thatare likely to promote acid or sulphate speciesgeneration and migration of such leachate beyondthe pit shell at any future time;

Any coal barrier between the pit shell and any futuresurrounding mining operations must remain intact inorder to impede exchange of any containedgroundwaters in the Maules Creek pit shell.

A mine closure plan to be prepared prior to miningYear 14 (at least 7 years before closure). Animportant part of this plan must address futurestability of the proposed landform, long termgroundwater recovery and void water qualitycharacteristics to the satisfaction of the DirectorGeneral. ln particular the long term landform mustnot generate a pit (void) lake, or salt scalding.Emplaced spoils should have a capacity to drain tothe natural catchment and drained waters must notadversely impact upon the downstreamenvironment. The hydrochemistry, hydrogeology andhydrology components of the mine closure planmust be subject to independent review andverification.

a

a

As detailed in Section 4.6 of this report, Aston is notable to comply with this requirement during earlyyears when there is insufficient room for in-pitdumping. The Department is satisfied that bestpractice containment can effectively isolate coalreject and PAF material in these early out-of-pitemplacements, and has recommended a conditionrequiring Aston to ensure that coal reject or PAFmaterial is not emplaced where they may promoteacid or sulphate species generation and migrationbeyond the pit shell or out-of-pit emplacement areas.


The Department accepts the PAC's recommendationthat the removal of the coal barrier between theMaules Creek and Boggabri mines should not beapproved as part of the current application, and hasrecommended a condition in this regard.

Reference: Schedule 2 condition 7 and Schedule 3condition 35.

The Department supports the PAC'srecommendation for a mine closure plan and hasrecommended a condition in this regard. However,given the significant coal sterilisation, the very highcapital costs, future mining potential in the leasearea beyond the 21-year project life andenvironmental impacts associated with re-disturbance of emplacements to undertakebackfilling, the Department does not believe thatbackfilling the final void is either reasonable orfeasible. However, the Department acknowledgesthe intent of the PAC's recommendation, andbelieves that Aston should be required to minimisethe size and depth of the final mine void as far aspracticable. ln this regard, the Department hasrecommended a condition requiring Aston to:. achieve comprehensive rehabilitation objectives,

including ensuring that any final void is safe,stable and non-polluting, and minimises thesize, depth and drainage catchment of the finalvoid as far as is reasonable and feasible;

. prepare and implement a comprehensiveRehabilitation Management Plan that addressesthese objectives; and

. prepare and implement a Final Void and MineClosure Plan that provides for a comprehensiveplan to minimise the long term groundwatereffects ofthe project.

Reference: Schedule 3 7016. Aboriginal cultural heritageStandard conditions relating to Aboriginal culturalheritage should be adapted to cover this proposal.

ln addition to these standard requirements the proponent


supports the PAC's

Requirement to develop an Aboriginal Heritaqe

85



E nv i ro n me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

PAG recommendation Incorporation ¡nto assessment andrecommended conditions of approval

should be required to explore, with other mine ownersand in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and theOffice of Environment and Heritage, options to establisha Regional Keeping Place to house artefacts salvaged aspart ofthe project.

Conservation Strategy, Heritage Management Planand Archaeological Salvage Program in consultationwith other mines in the Leard Forest Mining Precinct,OEH and local Aboriginal community. Further, Astonhas committed to the establishment of a keepingplace, in consultation with Boggabri Coal.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 53-54, App 5.17. Greenhouse Gas EmissionsThe Department of Planning and lnfrastructure shouldinclude suitable conditions to reflect Greenhouse GasEmissions policy at the time the assessment is finalised.


supports the PAC's

Standard conditions for greenhouse gas emissionshave been applied.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 25 and 30.18. LightingThe conditions should include a requirement to ensurethat, wherever possible, moving equipment isappropriately designed and/or retrofitted to prevent lightbeing directed above the horizontal.


supports the PAC's

Existing standard condition modified to includerecommendation.

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 63.19. Socio-EconomicConditions should include requirements to maximise theamount of agricultural land that remains in production onthe properties acquired by the proponent.

Council and the proponent should work together to planfor the socio-economic adjustments that would need tooccur in the long term.


supports the PAC's

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 71-72requirement to ensure that agricultural productivityon project related land is maintained or enhanced;and Schedule 3 condition 42 - requirement toundertake an agricultural suitability assessment ofoffset properties, in particular proposed corridorenhancement areas.Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 73-74construction worker accommodation, andrequirement to prepare and implement a socialimpact management plan in consultation withCouncil with ongoing review.

20. TrafficConditions should include:. requirements that the proponent minimise traffic

impacts along the school bus route;

requirements to undertake road upgrades andmaintenance to the satisfaction of Narrabri ShireCouncil and Roads and Maritime Services;

a

a requirements that all coal is transported from the sitebv rail.


supports the PAC's

Reference: Schedule 3 condition 60 (TrafficManagement Plan).The Department generally supports the PAC'srecommendations. However, the responsibility formaintenance of State Roads rests with the RMS.Consequently, the requirement for Aston tocontribute to State roads should only extend to anynecessary upgrades, rather than to also maintainthese roads.

Reference: Schedule 3 conditions 55-57 toundertake road works to the satisfaction of RMS.Schedule 2 condition 17 and Appendix 3 -community enhancement, road funding included inplanning agreement.Reference: Schedule 2 condition 8.

21. Community Consultative CommitteeThe Community Consultative Committeesneighbouring mines should include somemembership, includinq the chair if possible.

forjoint


supports the PAC's


86


APPENDIX C:ADDITIONAL IN FORMATION

E nv i ro n m e ntal Assessmenf Reporf

ID DATE

1 2Mar 2012

2 2A.pr20123 13 Apr2012

4 24 Apr2012

5 21 July 2012

DESCRIPTION

Additional submission from Maules Creek Community Councilto the PlanningAssessment CommissionAston Resources - Response to PAC Review ReportResponse from Proponent to Additional Submission from MCCC to PlanningAssessment CommissionResponse from Proponent - Clarification of Noise and Air lmpactAssessmentsLetter from Proponent - Draft Project Approval Conditions and AdditionalMatters

See attached CD-Rom with additional correspondence.


87

Maules Creek Coal Project Env i ron me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

APPENDIX D:DETAILED BIODIVERSITY OFFSET TABLES

Table D.l:

EASTERN

of Offset AreasTotal remnant foresVwoodland vegetation

Aston

grasslandremnant Box Total Box

Gum Woodland Woodland de¡ivednatìve

140258

RN

0148

Areas owned or under contract

TOTAL 1 I

6,986 haAston has identified an additional 74 ha oÍ low

condition or unknown classification landl

Total area 7 730ha

4,859 haTotal Box Gum Woodland plus derived native

grassland EEC

Areas identified zone offset are as i d e ntifi ed Aston156EASTERN 0 0

WESTERN 343 0 16 0TOTAL 679 0 172 0

679 haAston has identified an additional 925 ha of

low condition or unknown classification landr

172 haTotal Box Gum Woodland plus derived native

grassland EEC

Total area 1,604haTOTAL OFFSET AREA AS PROPOSED BY ASTONTOTAL 9,334 ha 5,031 ha

including a total of 1,669 ha low condition orunknown classification land 1

Total Box Gum Woodland plus derived nativeEEC

Note: 1) Ihese areas grass/andg improved pasture, cultivated land and'unknown

Table D.2:

Land Tenure andVegetation Quality

of Offsef Raflos b Aston Area tovegetation communities

Total disturbance 2,079 haincluding

ha woodland and 414 haoverstorey

derived nativegrassland

Box GumTotal disturbance 624 ha

including458 ha woodland and 86 ha

overstorey and Intact overstorey overstoreyderived native

grass/and

Area (ha)/offset ratio Area (ha)/offset ratio Area (hd/offset ratio Area (ha)/offset ratio

Land owned or undercontract by Aston

5,368 / 3.2 ô,986 / 3.4 3,373 I 7.4 4,859 / 8.9

Plus 679 ha of offset landidentified within the zone ofaffectation subject toacquisition rights bylandowner

6,047 t3.6 7,665 I 3.7 3,545 17.7 5,031 t9.2

Plus 1,669 ha low diversityderived native grassland,cultivated land, improvedpasture or unknownclassification

6,047 t3.6 9,334 t 4.5 3,545 I 7.7 5,031 t9.2


88

Maules Creek Coal Project E nv i ron me n tal Assessmenf Reporf

APPENDIX E:CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNINGINSTRUMENTS

SEPP No. 33 - Hazardous and Offensive DevelopmentThe Department is satisfied that the project is not potentially hazardous or offensive, and that theproposal is generally consistent with the aims, objectives, and requirements of SEPP 33.

SEPP No. 44 - Koala Habitat ProtectionThe Department is satisfied that the project is unlikely to significantly affect core Koala habitat, notingthat there is potential Koala habitat within the project area due to presence of feed tree species suchas White Box. The project is generally consistent with the aims, objectives, and requirements of SEPP44. Fauna surveys did not identify any Koalas or signs of Koala activity in the project area, howeverKoalas are known to occasionally be present in the vicinity of the project site. Accordingly, the resultsof the fauna surveys indicate that Koala density in the area is very low and that recordings of Koalasmost likely represent transient individuals. The proposed biodiversity and rehabilitation strategyincludes rehabilitation strategies targeting regeneration of White Box and providingconnectivity/vegetated corridors between Leard State Forest and surrounding vegetation.

SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of LandThe Department is satisfied that the project area does not have a significant risk of contaminationgiven its historical land use, and that the project is generally consistent with the aims, objectives, andprovisions of SEPP 55.

SEPP (lnfrastructure) 2007ln accordance with clause 104 of the SEPP, the application was referred to the RMS. The mattersraised in the RMS's submission were considered by the Department and conditions of approval inrelation to approvals under the Roads Act 1993 have been recommended by the Department.

SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive lndustries) 2007Under clause 7 of the Mining SEPP, the project is permissible with consent.

Part 3 of the SEPP lists a number of matters that a consent authority must consider beforedetermining an application for consent for development for the purposes of mining, including

compatibility with other land uses;natural resource management and environmental management;resource recovery;transport; andrehabilitation.

However, these matters do not require consideration for Part 3A project applications. Nonetheless, theDepartment has considered these matters generally in its assessment of the project. The Departmentis satisfied that the project is able to be managed in a manner that is generally consistent with theaims, objectives, and provisions of the Mining SEPP.

Narrabri Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1992Under the provisions of the Narrabri LEP the proposed development is permissible with developmentconsent as it would meet the objectives and permissibilities of the 1(a) (General Rural) zone.


89

APPENDIX F:PLANNING ASSESSMENT COMMISSION REVIEWREPORT

NSW Gove¡nmentDepartment of Planning and lnfraskueture

90

APPENDIX G:RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

See attached CD-ROM with reports titled:Maules Creek Coal Projecl, Response to Submissions, December 2011 Volumes 1 and 2.Maules Creek Coal Proþct, Response to Subsidiary Submissions, March 2012.

NSW GovernmentDepartment of Flanning and lnfrastructure

91

APPENDIX H:suBtt,ilsstoNs

92

lilaules Creek Coal Prcject E nvlran me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

APPENDIX I:E NVI RON M ENTAL ASSESS M ENT

See attached CD ROM with report lifled "Maules Creek Coal Project EnvironmenfalAssessment, July2011"


93

Date post:	24-Apr-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

lnfrastructure - Major Projects - NSW Government

Documents