Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan · Plan (ACHMP) for the inclusion in the Mandalong...

rpsgroup.com.au

REPORT

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan

For Mandalong LW25-31 Extraction Plan

Prepared by: RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD

Ground Floor, 241 Denison Street

Broadmeadow, NSW 2292

Australia

PO Box 428, Hamilton NSW 2303

Prepared for: CENTENNIAL COAL MANDALONG PTY LTD

12 Kerry Anderson Drive

Mandalong NSW 2264

T: +61 2 4940 4200 T: +61 2 4973 0943

E: [email protected] E: [email protected]

W:

Author: Tessa Boer-Mah

Reviewed: Darrell Rigby

Approved: Darrell Rigby

No.: 139123

Version: Final

Date: 20/8/2018

139123 | Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan | For Mandalong LW25-31 Extraction Plan | 20/8/2018

Page ii

REPORT

Document Status

Version Purpose of Document Authored by Reviewed by Review Date

2. Client Draft Tessa Boer-Mah /Dragomir Garbov

Tessa Boer-Mah 25/5/2018

Final Final Tessa Boer-Mah /Dragomir Garbov


Approval for issue

Name Signature Date

Darrell Rigby 20/8/2018

This report was prepared by [RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (‘RPS’)] within the terms of its engagement and in direct response to a scope

of services. This report is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and does not apply directly or indirectly and

must not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter. In preparing the report, RPS may have relied upon information

provided to it at the time by other parties. RPS accepts no responsibility as to the accuracy or completeness of information provided by

those parties at the time of preparing the report. The report does not take into account any changes in information that may have

occurred since the publication of the report. If the information relied upon is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or

incomplete then it is possible that the observations and conclusions expressed in the report may have changed. RPS does not warrant

the contents of this report and shall not assume any responsibility or liability for loss whatsoever to any third party caused by, related to

or arising out of any use or reliance on the report howsoever. No part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced

by any process without the written consent of RPS. All enquiries should be directed to RPS.

Final with Consultation Final Tessa Boer-Mah /Dragomir Garbov



Page iii

REPORT

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 6

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 7

1.4 Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 8

1.5 Authorship ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 10

3 RELEVANT FEATURES, SIGNIFICANCE, SUBSIDENCE PREDICTIONS AND IMPACTS ......... 13

3.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites ................................................................................................. 13

3.2 Significance Assessment ............................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Aboriginal Cultural Significance .................................................................................................... 16

3.3.1 Method of Assessing Cultural Significance ....................................................................................... 16

3.3.2 Structure of the Cultural Significance Assessment Table ................................................................. 17

3.3.3 Outcome of the Cultural Mapping Workshop .................................................................................... 17

3.3.4 Scientific (Archaeological) Significance Criteria ................................................................................ 18

3.3.5 Assessment of Archaeological Significance ..................................................................................... 19

4 SUBSIDENCE PREDICTIONS AND IMPACTS ............................................................................... 20

4.1 Review of Potential Subsidence Impacts and Environmental Consequences ......................... 20

4.2 Updated subsidence predictions ................................................................................................... 22

4.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 22

5 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Performance Indicators .................................................................................................................. 25

6 MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... 26

6.1 Monitoring Protocols for Structurally Sensitive Sites (Grinding Grooves & Rockshelters) ... 26

6.2 Monitoring Protocols for Artefact Scatters/Isolated Finds/Open Quarries ............................... 27

6.3 Monitoring Protocols for Scarred Trees/Carved Trees ............................................................... 28

7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 30

7.1 Centennial Coal Management Framework .................................................................................... 30

7.2 Adaptive Management Strategy for Mandalong Mine ................................................................. 30

7.3 Remediation / Rehabilitation of Potential Impacts ...................................................................... 31


Page iv

REPORT

8 CONTINGENCY PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 32

9 REPORTING AND NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 33

10 CONTINUAL REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................. 35

11 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 36

12 REFERENCE LIST ........................................................................................................................... 37

13 ACRONYMS AND UNITS ................................................................................................................. 38

Tables Table 1 Key Conditions of Development Consent SSD-5144 .......................................................................... 10

Table 2 Key Heritage Sites in Extraction Plan Area (GDA94, Zone 56) .......................................................... 13

Table 3 Cultural Significance Criteria (developed from the Burra Charter with Input by ATOAC and ADTOAC) ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 4 Cultural Significance Assessment Ranking Table ............................................................................... 17

Table 5 Cultural Significance Assessment of site types ................................................................................... 18

Table 6 Archaeological Significance Criteria .................................................................................................... 18

Table 7 Scientific Assessment Rating by Site Type and Characteristics ......................................................... 19

Table 8 Predicted Subsidence Effects at Aboriginal Heritage Sites Prepared for the EIS ............................... 20

Table 9 Impact Potential Criteria for Aboriginal Heritage Sites (EIS) ............................................................... 21

Table 10 Predicted Level of Impact on Aboriginal Sites ................................................................................... 21

Table 11 Updated Subsidence Predictions (Ditton 2018) ................................................................................ 22

Table 12 SSD 5144 Performance Measures for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ................................................. 24

Table 13 Approved and predicted Impact or Environmental Consequences ................................................... 24

Table 14 Reporting and Notification Requirements .......................................................................................... 33

Table 9 Consultation comments and outcomes ............................................................................................... 51

Figures Figure 1 Project Area .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2 Extraction Plan Area LW25-31 ........................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3 Heritage Sites in Extraction Plan Area ............................................................................................... 15

Figure 4 Project Area and subsidence predictions ........................................................................................... 23

Appendices Appendix 1 Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP)

Appendix 2 Legislative Requirements

Appendix 3 AHIMS Searches


Page v

REPORT

Appendix 4 Consultation


Page 6

REPORT

Executive Summary

RPS has been engaged by Centennial Coal Pty Ltd to provide an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management

Plan (ACHMP) for the inclusion in the Mandalong Mine Extraction Plan for second workings in Longwalls 25

to 31. The Extraction Plan Area (EP Area) is defined in detail in Section 1.2, Figure 1 and 2 of the ACHMP.

Development consent SSD_5144 for the Mandalong Southern Extension Project (MSEP) was approved in

October 2015. This Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) has been developed in

accordance with Condition 6 (l), Schedule 4 of SSD_5144 and the Guidelines for the Preparation of

Extraction Plans (DP&E and DRE, 2015). As there are no non-Aboriginal Heritage items within the EP Area,

this management Plan addresses only Aboriginal heritage sites/items within the EP Area as described

further below. This report is intended to fulfil all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, the statement

of commitments and recommendations in the EIS (SLR 2013). This report is also compliant with the

procedures and protocols from the overarching Northern Region Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management

Plan (RPS 2016).

Eleven (11) Aboriginal heritage sites/items are located inside the EP Area. These eleven Aboriginal heritage

sites/items are located within the mine workings area and thus may be impacted by subsidence.

Overall, it is assessed that 2 of the 11 sites (18.18% of known sites) are ‘possibly’ to be impacted by surface

cracking and erosion damage. The remaining 9 sites have been assessed as to be ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’

to be impacted; or in one case – to be subject to ‘negligible’ impact.

In order to address the subsidence predictions the Northern Region Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Management Plan outlines three monitoring phases: Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. Phase 1 baseline

recording to be undertaken on all archaeological sites prior to site undermining. Phase 2 monitoring will be

required on all archaeological sites on the EP Area. Phase 3 is to be undertaken approximately 8 months

after the mining activity has finished. Phase 3a may be required in cases where final subsidence is not

achieved until after a number of longwall extractions have taken place

In the event of unpredicted impacts or deviation in the mine conditions from normality, site personnel will

follow the corrective actions outlined in the Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP).

Whilst not expected, should any previously unidentified Aboriginal heritage sites/items be encountered,

Mandalong Mine will follow procedures outlined in Section 11 of the Northern Region Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Management Plan.


Page 7

REPORT

1 Introduction

RPS was commissioned by Centennial Mandalong Pty Ltd (Centennial Mandalong) to prepare an Aboriginal

Cultural Heritage Management Plan to support an Extraction Plan for the extraction of Mandalong Mine

Longwalls 25 to 31.

1.1 Background

Mandalong Mine is an existing underground longwall coal mining operation producing thermal coal that is

supplied to domestic and export markets. It is located approximately 35 kilometres south-west of Newcastle

near Morisset in New South Wales Figure 1. Mandalong Mine is 100 percent owned and operated by

Centennial Mandalong Pty. Limited (Centennial Mandalong), a subsidiary of Centennial Coal Company

Limited. Centennial Coal Company Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banpu Public Company Limited.

Mandalong Mine operates under Development Consent SSD-5144 which was granted on 12 October 2015

by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission under Part 4, Division 4.1 of the NSW Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) (NSW Government 1979), and provided for extension of the

mining area with a production limit of 6.5 million tonnes per annum of thermal coal from the West Wallarah

and Wallarah-Great Northern Seams.

The currently approved Mandalong Mine comprises the underground workings and surface infrastructure of

the following:

The Mandalong Mine Access Site, encompassing underground workings and associated surface

infrastructure near Morisset.

Delivery of run-of-mine coal from the underground workings to the Cooranbong Entry Site. The

Cooranbong Entry Site coal handling and processing facilities are approved under the Northern Coal

Logistic Project (SSD-5145).

Delivery of run-of-mine coal from the underground workings to the Delta Entry Site, located near Wyee at

the Vales Point Rail Unloader Facility. The coal handling facility is approved under DA35-2-2004.

Mandalong South Surface Site (MSSS), which is yet to be constructed, encompassing ventilation shafts,

ventilation fans and underground delivery boreholes located approximately 6 kilometres south-west of the

Mandalong Mine Access Site.

Centennial Mandalong has prepared an Extraction Plan to address the requirements of Schedule 4,

Condition 6 of SSD-5144 and has been prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for the Preparation of

Extraction Plans (NSW Department of Planning and Environment 2015).

1.2 Study Area

The Study Area for this Heritage Management Plan encompasses the 26.5 degree angle of draw around the

secondary extraction areas of Longwalls 25 to 31 as shown on Figure 2.

1.3 Purpose

This ACHMP was prepared to support an Extraction Plan for the extraction of coal from the Mandalong Mine

Longwalls 25 to 31. This Heritage Management Plan has been designed to identify the monitoring and

measures for heritage sites within the Study Area that are required to be implemented to demonstrate that


Page 8

REPORT

the relevant performance measures are achieved. Mitigation and management measures have been

proposed where relevant.

1.4 Scope

This Management Plan:

• Addresses specific requirements set by Condition 6 in Schedule 4 of SSD_5144, and related

regulatory requirements in accordance with Condition 2 and 4 of Schedule 6 as outlined in Section

4.

• Addresses the monitoring and management of potential subsidence-related impacts to Aboriginal

cultural heritage resulting from mine development within the EP Area at Mandalong Mine.

1.5 Authorship

RPS Heritage Manager Tessa Boer-Mah prepared this Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan with

input from RPS Newcastle Senior Heritage Consultant Dragomir Garbov. RPS Heritage Technical Director

Darrell Rigby has reviewed and approved this document.

.

Halekulani

ManneringPark

Morisset

Rathmines

San Remo

SummerlandPoint

AWABASTATEFOREST

OLNEYSTATEFOREST

HEATON STATE FORESTLegend

Development consentboundaryExtraction Plan Area LW25-31_26.5 AODState forest

Path: S:\Centennial\All Jobs\139123 Mandalong\10 - Drafting\Arcgis Map Documents\Arch\HMP Figures\139123 Figure 1 Locality HMPA A4 20180503.mxd

PR 137770DATUM: GDA94PROJECTION: MGA Zone 56FIGURE 1: LOCALITY PLAN

RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD (ABN 44 140 292 762)241 DENISON STREET BROADMEADOW PO BOX 428 HAMILTON NSW 2303T: 02 4940 4200 F: 02 4961 6794 www.rpsgroup.com.au

0 1 2 3 4 5 kmSCALE AT A4 SIZE

Date: 3/05/2018Technician: Natalie.Wood

Data Sources:RPS, ClientLand and Property 2015

CLIENT: CENTENNIAL COAL

LOCATION:

PURPOSE: JOB NO.:

LW25 TO 31MANDALONGHERITAGE

1:100,000

IMPORTANT NOTE 1. This plan was p repared fo r the sole pu rposes of the client for the specific purpose of producing a photographic overlay plan.This p lan is s trictly limited to the Purpose and does not apply directlyor indirectly and will not be u sed for any other application, purpose,use or matter. The plan is presented without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person (o ther than the Client) ("Third Party") and may not be rel ied on by T hird Party. 2. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd will not be liable (in negligence or otherwise) for any direct or indirect loss, damage, liability or claimaris ing ou t of or incidental to:a. a Th ird Party publishing, using or relying on the plan;b. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on information provided to it bythe Client or a Third Party where the information is incorrect,incomplete, inaccurate, out-of-date or unreasonable;c. any inaccu racies or other faults with information or data sourced from a Third Party;d. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on surface indicators that are incorrect or inaccurate;e. the Client o r any T hird Party not verifying information in this plan where recommended by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd;f. lodgment o f this plan with any local authority against the recommendation of RPS Aus tralia East Pty Ltd;g. th e accuracy, reliabili ty, suitab ility or completeness of any app rox imations o r est imates made or referred to by RPS AustraliaEas t Pty Ltd in this plan.3. Without limiting paragraph 1 or 2 above, this plan may not be copied, distributed, o r reproduced by any p rocess unless this note is clearlydisplayed on the plan.4. The aerial photography used in this plan has not been rectified. This image has been overlaid as a best fi t on the boundaries shownand posi tion is approximate only.

NEW_A4_Portrait 2017 Rev: A Produced:NWReviewed: NW Date: 15/08/2017

Cessnock

Gosford

Newcastle

Sydney

Wyong

Location

kN


Page 10

REPORT

2 Regulatory Requirements

Centennial Mandalong’s operations are conducted in accordance with applicable State and Commonwealth

environmental, planning, mining, safety, and natural resource legislation. Centennial Mandalong maintains a

register of relevant environmental legislative and regulatory requirements in a compliance database.

The Mandalong Southern Extension Project (MSEP) was granted Development Consent SSD_5144 on the

12th of October 2015. The consent provides the conditional planning approval framework for mining activities

to be addressed within an Extraction Plan and supporting management plans required by Condition 6 in

Schedule 4, as detailed in Table 1. Performance measures relevant to this management plan (as described

in Condition 2 in Schedule 6 of SSD_5144) are detailed separately in Table 1.

Table 1 Key Conditions of Development Consent SSD-5144

Condition Requirement Section Addressed

Schedule 4

Condition 6

(Extraction plan)

The Applicant shall prepare and Extraction Plan for all second workings on site to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Each Extraction Plan must:

l) include a Heritage Management Plan, which has been prepared in consultation with OEH and Registered Aboriginal Parties to manage the potential environmental consequences of the proposed second workings on both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage items and reflects the

requirements of condition 22 Schedule 3;

This document

o) Trigger Action Response Plans addressing all features in Tables 6 and 7, which contain:

• Appropriate triggers to warn of the development of an increasing risk of

exceedance of any performance measure;

• Specific actions to respond to high risk exceedance of any performance

measure to ensure that the measure is not exceeded;

• An assessment of the remediation measures that may be required if

exceedances occur and the capacity to implement the measures.

Appendix A

p) Include a Contingency Plan that expressively provides for:

• The adaptive management where monitoring indicates that there has been an exceedance of any performance measure in Tables 6 and 7, or where any such exceedance appears likely; and

• An assessment of the remediation measures that may be required if exceedances occur and the capacity to implement the measures.

Section 8

Condition 9

Schedule 4

(Grinding Groove Trial Mitigation)

Prior to the extraction of Longwall 25, the Applicant must undertake trial mitigation works at grinding groove sites RPS DF04 and RPS PS11, in consultation with Forestry Corporation of NSW, OEH and Registered Aboriginal Parties, and to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

Section 7.3


Page 11

REPORT

Condition Requirement Section Addressed

Condition 10

Schedule 4

(Grinding Groove

Trial Mitigation)

The Applicant must:

(a) Monitor the effectiveness of the trial mitigation works during and following the extraction of Longwall 25;

(b) Provide a report on the monitoring to the Secretary, OEH and Registered Aboriginal Parties; and

(c) Use the report to inform the impact avoidance, management and mitigation

strategies in future Extraction Plans covering other grinding groove sites,

To the satisfaction of the Secretary.

Section 7.3

Schedule 6

Condition 2

(Management Plan Requirements)

The Applicant must ensure that the management plans required under this consent are prepared in accordance with the relative guidelines, and include:

a) Detailed baseline data;

b) A description of:

• The relevant statutory requirements (including any relevant approval, Licence or lease conditions);

• Any relevant limits or performance measures/criteria; and

• The specific performance indicators that are proposed to be used to judge the performance of, or guide the implementation of , the

development or any management measures;

Section 2; Section 5; Appendix B

c) A description of the measures that would be implemented to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, limits, or performance

measures/criteria;

Section 5

d) A program to monitor and report on the:

• Impacts and environmental performance of the development; and

• The effectiveness of any management measures;

Section 6

e) A contingency plan to manage any unpredicted impacts and their consequences and to ensure that ongoing impacts reduce o levels below

relevant impact assessment criteria as quickly as possible;

Section 8

f) A program to investigate and implement ways to improve the environmental performance of the development over time;

Section 10

g) 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;

Section 9

h) A protocol for periodic review of the plan. Section 10

The relevant Acts and regulations protecting and managing cultural heritage in New South Wales are

detailed within the Centennial Coal - Northern Region Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan

(ACHMP) (RPS 2016) and summarised in Appendix 2.

OLNEY STATEFOREST LONGWALL 25

LONGWALL 31

LONGWALL 30

LONGWALL 29

LONGWALL 28

LONGWALL 27

LONGWALL 26

BYRONS GULLY

MORANS C

REEK

BINALONG WAY

CHAPMAN ROAD

MANDAL

ONG

ROAD

YAMBO FOREST ROAD

CURTIS ROAD

LITTLE VALLEY ROAD

REYNOLDS ROAD

174

120

98

78

6254

3836

140126

144136

134122

114106

150140

120

84

184162 1

72

130126108

96 82

48

60 50

726452 5446

96 64

88

78146

122

214186

9084

7864

190170

174 160

8680

10296

32282624

86

80

144142

42

40

170168

128

112110108

100

9692

88

84

76

74

70

66

58

56

50

132

118

116

114

106

104

102

100

98

96

178

134

132

116

114

106

104

62

124

232

198

172

102

100

76

72

70

66

62

54

52

98

86

98104

82

80

74

90

108

92

92

88

90

72

34

32

182

180

174

166

9492

88

82

32

30

28

24216 212

210202

208204

200196

190

186

182176

180

174

174

166

164

158

156

158154

154

150

152 148

146

136

128

132

130

126

120124

120

124

118

116

116

112

112

108

110

110

104102

10682

98

94

92

96

92

94

88

90

86

86

80

80

80

7874 78

7676

72

68 64

60

56

58

48

44

4642

36

32

30

26

28

28

24

LegendDevelopment consentboundaryExtraction Plan Area LW25-31_26.5 AODState forestCadastreProposed Longwalls2m ContoursDrainageRoadsTracks

Path: S:\Centennial\All Jobs\139123 Mandalong\10 - Drafting\Arcgis Map Documents\Arch\HMP Figures\139123 Figure 2 LW25-31 HMP B A4 20180510.mxd

PR 139123DATUM: GDA94PROJECTION: MGA Zone 56FIGURE 2: PROPOSED LONGWALL 25 TO 31 EXTRACTION AREA

RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD (ABN 44 140 292 762)241 DENISON STREET BROADMEADOW PO BOX 428 HAMILTON NSW 2303T: 02 4940 4200 F: 02 4961 6794 www.rpsgroup.com.au

0 100 200 300 400 500 mSCALE AT A4 SIZE


Data Sources:RPS, ClientLand and Property 2015


LOCATION:

PURPOSE: JOB NO.:

LW 25 TO 31MANDALONGHERITAGE

1:14,000

IMPORTANT NOTE 1. This plan was p repared fo r the sole pu rposes of the client for thespecific purpose of producing a photographic overlay plan.This p lan is s trictly limited to the Purpose and does not apply directlyor indirectly and will not b e u sed for any other application, purpose,use or matter. The plan is presented without the assumption of a duty ofcare to any other person (o ther than th e Client) ("Third Party") and may not be rel ied on by T hird Party. 2. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd will not be liable (in negligenceor otherwise) for any direct or indirect loss, damage, liability or claimaris ing ou t of or incidental to:a. a Th ird Party publishing, using or relying on the plan;b. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on information provided to it bythe Client or a Third Party where the information is incorrect,incomplete, inaccurate, out-of-date or unreasonable;c. any inaccu racies or other faults with information ordata sourced from a Third Party;d. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on surface indicators that are incorrect or inaccurate;e. the Client o r any T hird Party not v erifying information inthis plan where recommended by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd;f. lodgment o f this plan with any local authority against therecommendation of RPS Aus tralia East Pty Ltd;g. th e accuracy, reliabili ty, suitab ility or completeness of any app rox imations o r est imates made or referred to by RPS AustraliaEas t Pty Ltd in this plan.3. Without limiting paragraph 1 or 2 above, this plan may not be copied,distributed, o r reproduced by any p rocess unless this note is clearlydisplayed on the plan.4. The aerial photo graph y used in this plan has not been rectified.This image has been overlaid as a best fi t on the boundaries shownand posi tion is approximate only.


kN


Page 13

REPORT

3 Relevant features, significance, subsidence predictions and impacts

This section outlines the Aboriginal heritage sites/items in the EP Area.

3.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites

Eleven (11) Aboriginal sites were identified within the Extraction Plan Area. The sites fall within four site

categories: Grinding Grooves, Artefact Scatters, Culturally Modified (Scarred) Trees and Stone

Arrangements (Table 2; Figure 3). The majority of these sites were identified as part of the Heritage Impact

Assessment for the Mandalong Southern Extension Project (RPS 2013).

Table 2 Key Heritage Sites in Extraction Plan Area (GDA94, Zone 56)

AHIMS RPS Site Name Type Easting Northing

45-3-1223 Moran's Creek Artefact Scatter 352004 6329190

45-3-3469 RPS MAND STH AH03 Grinding Groove 352661 6330027

45-3-3490 RPS MAND STH CYL07 Grinding Groove 351021 6330514

45-3-3501 RPS DF03 Grinding Groove 350522 6330289

45-3-3502 RPS DF04 Grinding Groove 350470 6330285

45-3-3506 RPS MAND STH PS11 Grinding Groove 350536 6330234

45-3-3536 RPS MAND STH TBM29 Artefact Scatter 351914 6329290

45-3-3539 RPS MAND STH TBM31 Grinding Groove 352259 6329874

45-3-3540 RPS MAND STH TBM32 Stone Arrangement 352295 6329929

45-3-3541 RPS MAND STH TBM33 Modified Tree (Carved or Scarred) 352284 6329914

45-3-3542 RPS MAND STH TBM34 Grinding Groove 352084 6329803

To provide a coherent approach to the analysis the sites are grouped by site type and site characteristics

(such as numbers of artefacts or numbers of grinding grooves). Those site types, together with a description

are as follows:

Grinding Grooves

Grinding grooves are elongated narrow depressions in soft rocks (particularly sedimentary), generally

associated with watercourses, that are created by the shaping and sharpening of ground-edge implements.

To produce a sharp edge the axe blank (or re-worked axe) was honed on a natural stone surface near a

source of water. The water was required for lubricating the grinding process. Axe grinding grooves can be

identified by features such as a narrow short groove, with greatest depth near the groove centre. The

grooves also display a patina developed through friction between stone surfaces. Generally a series of

grooves are found as a result of the repetitive process.


Page 14

REPORT

Artefact scatters

Artefact scatters reflect accidental loss or intentional discard of stone artefacts, when numerous artefacts are

found it could reflect a campsite, a raw material procurement site or a quarry. There were nine artefact

scatters comprising 8% of the identified site types, this is in contrast to the majority of sites recorded in NSW,

with artefacts being the most common site type.

Culturally Modified (Scarred) Trees

Culturally modified trees include scarred and carved trees. Scarred trees are caused by the removal of bark

for use in manufacturing canoes, containers, shields or shelters. Notches were also carved in trees to permit

easier climbing. Scarred trees are only likely to be present on mature trees remaining from original

vegetation. Carved trees, the easiest to identify, are caused by the removal of bark to create a working

surface on which engravings are incised. Carved trees were used as markers for ceremonial and symbolic

purposes, including burials. Although carved trees were relatively common in NSW in the early 20th century,

vegetation removal has rendered this site type extremely rare. Modified trees, where bark was removed for

often domestic use are less easily identified. Criteria for identifying modified trees include: the age of the

tree; type of tree (the bark of many trees is not suitable, also introduced species would be unlikely subjects);

axe marks (with the need to determine the type of axe - stone or steel – though Aborigines after settlement

did use steel); shape of the scar (natural or humanly scarred); height of the scar above the ground

(reasonable working height with consideration given to subsequent growth).

Stone Arrangements

Stone arrangements include lines, circles, mounds, or other patterns of stone arranged by Aboriginal people.

These may be associated with bora grounds, ceremonial sites, mythological or sacred sites. Stone

arrangements are more likely to occur on hill tops and ridge crests that contain stone outcrops or surface

stone, where impact from recent land use practices has been minimal.

!(

#*

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

#*

!(

&:

&:

&:

OLNEY STATEFORESTLONGWALL 2

5

LONGWALL 31

LONGWALL 30

LONGWALL 29

LONGWALL 28

LONGWALL 27

LONGWALL 26

BYRONS GULLY

MORANSCREEK

45-3-122345-3-3536

45-3-3469

45-3-3490

45-3-350145-3-350245-3-3506

45-3-353945-3-354045-3-3541

45-3-3542BINALONG WAY

MANDALO

NG ROAD

YAMBO FOREST ROAD

CHAPMAN ROAD

CURTIS ROAD

LITTLE VALLEY ROAD

REYNOLDS ROAD

230210200

150120

100

140110

90 8070

50

180160130

1601501401

30120

8070

110100

60

180170

150 140 130 120

110

140 120 100 90 80 70 60

110

50

908070120 110

5040

90

80

190

170

60

90

100

40

100

170110

110

110

110100

30

2020LegendDevelopment consentboundary

Extraction Plan Area LW25-31_26.5 AOD

State forest

Proposed Longwalls

10m Contours

Drainage

Roads

Tracks

AHIMS!( Artefact Scatter

!( Grinding Groove

#*

Isolated Find

#*

Scarred Tree

!( Stone Arrangement

Ground Truthed 45-3-3502

&: Ground Truthed 45-3-3506

Path: S:\Centennial\All Jobs\139123 Mandalong\10 - Drafting\Arcgis Map Documents\Arch\HMP Figures\139123 Figure 3 AHIMS HMP C A4 20180607.mxd

PR 139123DATUM: GDA94

PROJECTION: MGA Zone 56FIGURE 3: PROPOSED LONGWALL 25 - 31 WITH AHIMS

RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD (ABN 44 140 292 762)

241 DENISON STREET BROADMEADOW PO BOX 428 HAMILTON NSW 2303

T: 02 4940 4200 F: 02 4961 6794 www.rpsgroup.com.au

0 100 200 300 400 500 m

SCALE AT A4 SIZE


Data Sources:

RPS, Client

Land and Property 2015


LOCATION:

PURPOSE:

JOB NO.:


1:15,000

IMPORTANT NOTE 1. This plan was p repared fo r the sole pu rposes of the client for the

specific purpose of producing a photographic overlay plan.This p lan is s trictly limited to the Purpose and does not apply directly

or indirectly and will not be u sed for any other application, purpose,

use or matter. The plan is presented without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person (o ther than the Client) ("Third Party") and

may not be rel ied on by T hird Party.

2. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd will not be liable (in negligence or otherwise) for any direct or indirect loss, damage, liability or claim

aris ing ou t of or incidental to:

a. a Th ird Party publishing, using or relying on the plan;b. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on information provided to it by

the Client or a Third Party where the information is incorrect,incomplete, inaccurate, out-of-date or unreasonable;

c. any inaccu racies or other faults with information or

data sourced from a Third Party;d. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on surface indicators

that are incorrect or inaccurate;e. the Client o r any T hird Party not verifying information in

this plan where recommended by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd;

f. lodgment o f this plan with any local authority against the recommendation of RPS Aus tralia East Pty Ltd;

g. th e accuracy, reliabili ty, suitab ility or completeness of any app rox imations o r est imates made or referred to by RPS Australia

Eas t Pty Ltd in this plan.

3. Without limiting paragraph 1 or 2 above, this plan may not be copied,

distributed, o r reproduced by any p rocess unless this note is clearlydisplayed on the plan.

4. The aerial photography used in this plan has not been rectified.

This image has been overlaid as a best fi t on the boundaries shown

and posi tion is approximate only.


kN


Page 16

REPORT

3.2 Significance Assessment

In order to develop appropriate heritage management outcomes, it is necessary for Aboriginal sites or areas

of archaeological sensitivity to undergo significance assessment. Aboriginal heritage can be significant for

cultural and/or scientific reasons. Aboriginal people are the best placed to assess cultural significance and

are therefore consulted in the Aboriginal heritage management process. Within the local Aboriginal

community, input on cultural significance may be obtained from Traditional Descendants / Owners or

Aboriginal / Indigenous people. The following extract from Ask First, produced by the Australian Heritage

Commission (2002:4), is used to define those representatives.

Traditional Owners are those people who, through membership in a descent group or clan, have

responsibility for caring for particular country and are authorised to speak for country and its heritage.

Authorisation to speak for country and heritage may be as a senior Traditional Owner, an elder, or, in more

recent times, as a registered Native Title claimant.

Other Indigenous people with interests are those who, through their personal or family history of involvement

with a particular place, have an interest in its heritage values. Such places could include, but are not limited

to, mission stations, places of Indigenous protest, and areas of land where people worked. Sometimes these

people are described as custodians, but this can mean different things in different areas of Australia. In some

areas custodians are responsible for looking after places and sometimes the stories and ceremonies linked

to these places. In other areas custodians are Indigenous people who look after a place on behalf of others.

Scientific significance is assessed according to the scientific criteria outlined in OEH heritage guidelines.

3.3 Aboriginal Cultural Significance

Archaeological field investigations are an effective way of determining the location of Aboriginal sites in the

landscape. However, the cultural significance of the sites and landscape can only be assessed by the

cultural knowledge holders, as they draw on knowledge from their ancestors and their own experiences.

Understanding the cultural significance of the landscape is an integral part of undertaking a cultural heritage

impact assessment in the Southern Extension Area.

All Registered Aboriginal Parties were invited to participate in cultural significance assessment workshops

conducted on 26, 27 and 30 April 2012. The intention was to ensure the Aboriginal Parties were given the

opportunity to discuss the significance of the sites as a group. The workshop also provided an opportunity for

this significance to be relayed to Centennial and RPS.

3.3.1 Method of Assessing Cultural Significance

Cultural significance is assessed according to the principals outlined in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS

1999) and the Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW (OEH

2011). In the Burra Charter (1999:12), cultural significance means the aesthetic, historic, scientific or social

value for past, present or future generations. Under NSW NPWS Heritage Guidelines (OEH 2011: 9), the

assessment of value and significance must consider the aesthetic, historic, social and scientific value that

the heritage item possesses. The representatives of ATOAC and ADTAOC, for the cultural significance

workshop, adopted some of criteria from the Burra Charter and the OEH guidelines (2011) in addition to their

own culturally determined criteria (Table 3).


Page 17

REPORT

Table 3 Cultural Significance Criteria (developed from the Burra Charter with Input by ATOAC and ADTOAC)

Criteria Description

Social: Ceremonial/Spiritual/Dreaming Connection

This criterion refers to any ceremonial, spiritual or dreaming connection that the site may have to the Traditional Owner Group/s. This criterion also considers its past teaching potential.

Rarity This criterion refers to how rare the site is in reference to location, site type, site integrity on a local and regional scale. Rarity is also assessed on its archaeological potential.

Inter-relatedness This criterion refers to whether the site is believed to be related or associated to another site in the landscape.

Historic and Teaching Potential

This criterion refers to any potential future and/or present use for educational purposes in the teaching of culture and history.

Aesthetic This criterion refers to the sites aesthetic qualities. Please note that the notion of visual appeal is a subjective concept.

Outlook Outlook refers to whether the site has an extensive outlook over ADTOAC and ATOAC country and/or if the area of the site has an attractive perspective to the Traditional Owners.

3.3.2 Structure of the Cultural Significance Assessment Table

At the commencement of the workshops, the Aboriginal Parties decided that the cultural significance ranking

would be gained through group consensus. The participants then assessed each site on the criteria provided

in Table 4 giving 1 to 5 points according to the level of cultural significance. The cumulative score then

provided a ranking for each site. Table 4 details the potential point/s given per site and the cumulative

potential score.

Table 4 Cultural Significance Assessment Ranking Table

Ranking System Points allotted Cumulative Points

High Cultural Significance 1 Point 1 to 6 Points

High to Very High Cultural Significance 2 Points 7 to 13 Points

Very High Cultural Significance 3 Points 14 to 20 Points

Very High to Extremely High Cultural Significance 4 Points 21 to 27 Points

Extremely High Cultural Significance 5 Points 28 to 30 Points

3.3.3 Outcome of the Cultural Mapping Workshop

The cultural mapping workshop resulted in the assignment of a cultural significance assessment. Table 5

provides an overall indication of the cultural significance ranking by site type.


Page 18

REPORT

Table 5 Cultural Significance Assessment of site types

Site type Ranking range

Grinding grooves 19-30

Rockshelter 23-30

Rockshelters with art 30

Rockshelter with PAD 26-30

Artefact scatter 19-30

Isolated artefact 19-30

Stone arrangement 30

Culturally modified tree 26-30

Water source 27

All site types assessed by the group, apart from the Water Source, were considered to have sites ranked at

30 points, Extremely High Cultural Significance.

3.3.4 Scientific (Archaeological) Significance Criteria

The following significance assessment refers only to those Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within the Study

Area.

Archaeological significance, also referred to as scientific significance, is determined by assessing an

Aboriginal heritage site or area according to archaeological criteria. The assessment of archaeological

significance is used to develop appropriate heritage management and impact mitigation strategies. Criteria

for archaeological significance have been developed in accordance with the principals of the ICOMOS Burra

Charter (Australia ICOMOS 2013). The following archaeological significance criteria have been used: rarity,

representativeness, integrity, connectedness, complexity, and research potential and are defined in Table 6.

Table 6 Archaeological Significance Criteria

Criteria Description

Rarity This criterion compares the frequency of the identified site types with others previously recorded in the local or regional landscape.

Representativeness

All sites are representative of a site type, however some sites may be in better condition or demonstrate more clearly a particular site type. Representativeness is based on the understanding of extant sites in the local or regional landscape and the purpose of this criterion is to ensure a representative sample of sites is conserved for future generations.

Integrity

This refers to site intactness. A site with contextual integrity can provide information relating to chronology, social systems, tool technology, site formation processes, habitation, and frequency of use, as well as other occupation indicators. Moderate to high levels of disturbance will generally result in low integrity.

Educational Potential This criterion is used to identify whether a site has the potential for education and learning about Aboriginal culture.


Page 19

REPORT

Research Potential This criterion is used to identify whether a site has the potential to contribute new information to the interpretation of Aboriginal occupation in the area.

The archaeological significance criteria are usually assessed on two scales: local and regional. In

exceptional circumstances State significance may also be identified. Archaeological significance criteria are

assessed in three levels and a score assigned: low (score = 1), moderate (score = 2), and high (score = 3).

A combination of these scores then enables an overall significance ranking of the site to be determined:

Low significance 5-7;

Moderate significance 8-12; and

High significance 13-15

3.3.5 Assessment of Archaeological Significance

The archaeological significance of the identified Aboriginal site types within the EP Area has been assessed

and is summarised in Table 7.

Table 7 Scientific Assessment Rating by Site Type and Characteristics

Site Type S

co

pe

of

Assessm

en

t

Rese

arc

h

Po

ten

tial

Rarity

Rep

resen

tativ

en

ess

Inte

grity

Ed

uca

tiona

l

Po

ten

tial

Lo

cal

sig

nific

ance

Reg

iona

l

sig

nific

ance

Sta

te

Sig

nific

an

ce

*

Artefact Scatter

(10 -14 artefacts)

Local 2 3 3 1 3 High Low N/A

Regional 1 1 1 1 1

Artefact Scatter

(5 -10 artefacts)

Local 1 2 2 1 2 Moderate Low N/A

Regional 1 1 1 1 1

Artefact Scatter

(2 - 4 artefacts)

Local 1 1 2 1 1 Low Low N/A

Regional 1 1 1 1 1

Culturally modified trees

Local 3 3 3 3 3 High Moderate N/A

Regional 2 2 3 2 3

Grinding groove cluster (small 1-5)

Local 2 2 2 3 2 Moderate Moderate N/A

Regional 2 2 2 3 3

Grinding groove cluster

(large 6-31)

Local 3 2 3 3 3 High Moderate N/A

Regional 2 2 2 3 3

Stone arrangements

Local 2 3 3 2 3

High High Nil Regional 2 3 3 2 3

State 1 1 1 1 1

*State significance was only assessed for sites with high regional significance


Page 20

REPORT

4 Subsidence Predictions and Impacts

Eleven Aboriginal cultural heritage sites were identified in the Project Area (Table 8). The effect of

subsidence on Aboriginal sites depends on the physical characteristics of the Aboriginal sites and on the

level of subsidence including tilts, tensile strains and vertical subsidence.

The subsidence predictions in the EIS were prepared by Ditton Geotechnical Services (2013) and an

updated subsidence assessment was undertaken as part of the Extraction Plan Ditton Geotechnical Services

(2018).

The EIS subsidence predictions including, tilt and horizontal strains for each Aboriginal site are presented in

Table 8.

Table 8 Predicted Subsidence Effects at Aboriginal Heritage Sites Prepared for the EIS

Site # Site Name Site Type Final Subsidence (m)

Tilt (mm/m)

Horizontal strain (mm/m)

45-3-1223 Moran's Creek Open Camp Site -0.96 2.8 -4.1

45-3-3469 RPS MAND STH AH03 Grinding Groove -0.01 0.4 0.4

45-3-3490 RPS MAND STH CYL07 Grinding Groove -0.03 1.4 1.3

45-3-3501 RPS DF03 Grinding Groove -0.82 8.3 -3.0

45-3-3502 RPS DF04 Grinding Groove -0.77 8.5 -2.4

45-3-3506 RPS MAND STH PS11 Grinding Groove -0.95 4.1 -4.1

45-3-3536 RPS MAND STH TBM29 Artefact Scatter -0.63 7.5 4.6

45-3-3539 RPS MAND STH TBM31 Grinding Groove -0.91 5.9 -3.2

45-3-3540 RPS MAND STH TBM32 Stone Arrangement -0.93 3.1 -2.5

45-3-3541 RPS MAND STH TBM33 Scarred Tree -0.95 1.5 -3.1

45-3-3542 RPS MAND STH TBM34 Grinding Groove -0.74 9.4 1.9

4.1 Review of Potential Subsidence Impacts and Environmental Consequences

The likelihood of damage occurring at the sites has been assessed based on the following impact parameter

criteria (Table 9) by Ditton Geotechnical Services (2013). The criteria consider the theoretical cracking limits

of rock of 0.3 to 0.5 mm/m and the ‘system’ slackness or strain ‘absorbing’ properties of a jointed and

weathered rock mass during subsidence deformation. The lack of measured observed impact (i.e. surface

cracking) due to measured strains of up to 2 to 3 mm/m above the Mandalong Mine is an example of the

difference between theoretical and in-situ rock mass cracking behaviour (Ditton Geotechnical Services

2013).


Page 21

REPORT

Table 9 Impact Potential Criteria for Aboriginal Heritage Sites (EIS)

Cracking Damage Potential - Indicative Probabilities of Occurrence

Predicted 'smooth profile' Horizontal Strain (mm/m)

Tensile Compressive

Very Unlikely (5

Erosion Damage Potential - Indicative Probabilities of Occurrence Predicted Surface Gradient Change or Tilt

Increase

Very Unlikely (30 mm/m)

Source: Ditton Geotechnical Services 2013

The subsidence report prepared for the EIS assessed the ‘Cracking Damage Potential’ is considered the

primary damage potential indicator and the ‘Erosion Damage Potential’ is an additional secondary criterion

that is relevant to features exposed to concentrated water flows along creeks or sites that have been

damaged by cracking. Therefore, for the cases where cracking is deemed ‘possible’ or ‘likely’ at a site, the

potential for erosion damage will also be considered ‘possible’ or ‘likely’ (Ditton Geotechnical Services

2013).The predicted level of impact on Aboriginal sites as assessed for the EIS is detailed in the table below

for the sites currently subject to this Extraction Plan.

Table 10 Predicted Level of Impact on Aboriginal Sites

Site # Site Name Site Type Impact

45-3-1223 Moran's Creek Open Camp Site Possible

45-3-3469 RPS MAND STH AH03 Grinding Groove V. Unlikely

45-3-3490 RPS MAND STH CYL07 Grinding Groove V. Unlikely

45-3-3501 RPS DF03 Grinding Groove Possible

45-3-3502 RPS DF04 Grinding Groove Unlikely

45-3-3506 RPS MAND STH PS11 Grinding Groove Possible

45-3-3536 RPS MAND STH TBM29 Artefact Scatter Likely

45-3-3539 RPS MAND STH TBM31 Grinding Groove Possible

45-3-3540 RPS MAND STH TBM32 Stone Arrangement Negligible


Page 22

REPORT

Site # Site Name Site Type Impact

45-3-3541 RPS MAND STH TBM33 Scarred Tree Possible

45-3-3542 RPS MAND STH TBM34 Grinding Groove Possible

4.2 Updated subsidence predictions

Centennial Mandalong has reduced the lengths of Longwalls 25 to 31 which has mitigated potential impacts

to Aboriginal sites due to subsidence. As a result subsidence predictions for eleven Aboriginal sites have

been revised (Table 11).

Table 11 Updated Subsidence Predictions (Ditton 2018)

Site # Site Name LW Subsidence (m)

Horizontal

Strain

(mm/m)

Tilt (mm/m) Cracking Damage Potential / Erosion

45-3-1223 Moran's Creek 31 -0.62 0.2 (4) 13.5 Possible/Possible

45-3-3469 RPS AH03 27 0.000 0.2 0.3 Very Unlikely/Very Unlikely

45-3-3490 RPS CYL07 25 -0.08 1.6 2.2 Unlikely/Very Unlikely

45-3-3501 RPS DF03 25 -0.07 1.2 3.3 Unlikely/Unlikely

45-3-3502 RPS DF04 25 -0.01 0.4 0.9 Very Unlikely/Very Unlikely

45-3-3506 RPS PS11 25 -0.09 1.3 3.9 Unlikely/Unlikely

45-3-3536 RPS TBM29 30 -0.64 4.2 9.6 Possible/Possible

45-3-3539 RPS TBM31 28 -0.87 -3.2 (3) 7.2 Unlikely/Unlikely



45-3-3542 RPS TBM34 28 -0.72 2(3) 8.5 Unlikely/Unlikely

4.3 Summary

The results in Table 11 indicate the following potential impacts to the Aboriginal Heritage Sites due to the proposed longwalls:

• One open camp site and one artefact scatter may be ‘possibly’ impacted.

Overall, it is assessed that 2 of the 11 sites (18.18% of known sites) are “possibly” to be impacted by surface

cracking and erosion damage.

!(

#*

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

#*

!(

&:

&:

&:

OLNEY STATEFOREST

4 3

LONGWALL 25

LONGWALL 31

LONGWALL 30

LONGWALL 29

LONGWALL 28

LONGWALL 27

LONGWALL 26

B YRONS GULLY

MORANSCREEK

45-3-122345-3-3536

45-3-3469

45-3-3490

45-3-350145-3-350245-3-3506

45-3-353945-3-354045-3-3541

45-3-3542

MANDAL

ONG

ROAD CHAPMAN ROAD

BINALONG WAY

CURTIS ROAD

LITTLE VALLEY ROAD

REYNOLDS ROAD

LegendDevelopment consentboundary

Extraction Plan Area LW25-

31_26.5 AOD

State forest

Drainage

Proposed Longwalls

Roads

Tracks

AHIMS!( Artefact Scatter

!( Grinding Groove

#*

Isolated Find

#*

Scarred Tree

!( Stone Arrangement

Ground Truthed 45-3-3502

&: Ground Truthed 45-3-3506

Subsidence Contours -Elevation-1.3

-1.2

-1.1

-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

-0.02

Path: S:\Centennial\All Jobs\139123 Mandalong\10 - Drafting\Arcgis Map Documents\Arch\HMP Figures\139123 Figure 4 Subsidence HMP C A4 20180607.mxd

PR 139123DATUM: GDA94

PROJECTION: MGA Zone 56FIGURE 4: PROJECT AREA AND SUBSIDENCE PREDICTIONS

RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD (ABN 44 140 292 762)

241 DENISON STREET BROADMEADOW PO BOX 428 HAMILTON NSW 2303

T: 02 4940 4200 F: 02 4961 6794 www.rpsgroup.com.au

0 100 200 300 400 500 m

SCALE AT A4 SIZE


Data Sources:

RPS, Client

Land and Property 2015


LOCATION:

PURPOSE:

JOB NO.:


1:15,000

IMPORTANT NOTE 1. This plan was p repared fo r the sole pu rposes of the client for the

specific purpose of producing a photographic overlay plan.This p lan is s trictly limited to the Purpose and does not apply directly

or indirectly and will not be u sed for any other application, purpose,

use or matter. The plan is presented without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person (o ther than the Client) ("Third Party") and

may not be rel ied on by T hird Party.

2. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd will not be liable (in negligence or otherwise) for any direct or indirect loss, damage, liability or claim

aris ing ou t of or incidental to:

a. a Th ird Party publishing, using or relying on the plan;b. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on information provided to it by

the Client or a Third Party where the information is incorrect,incomplete, inaccurate, out-of-date or unreasonable;

c. any inaccu racies or other faults with information or

data sourced from a Third Party;d. RPS Australia East Pty Ltd rely ing on surface indicators

that are incorrect or inaccurate;e. the Client o r any T hird Party not verifying information in

this plan where recommended by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd;

f. lodgment o f this plan with any local authority against the recommendation of RPS Aus tralia East Pty Ltd;

g. th e accuracy, reliabili ty, suitab ility or completeness of any app rox imations o r est imates made or referred to by RPS Australia

Eas t Pty Ltd in this plan.

3. Without limiting paragraph 1 or 2 above, this plan may not be copied,

distributed, o r reproduced by any p rocess unless this note is clearlydisplayed on the plan.

4. The aerial photography used in this plan has not been rectified.

This image has been overlaid as a best fi t on the boundaries shown

and posi tion is approximate only.


kN


Page 24

REPORT

5 Performance measures

Performance measures for Aboriginal Cultural heritage sites are provided for in Table 6 of Schedule 4 of the

SSD 5144 conditions of consent and summarized in Table 12 below.

Table 12 SSD 5144 Performance Measures for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Sites Performance Measures

Stone Arrangement RPS TBM 32 Negligible subsidence impacts or environmental consequences

All other Aboriginal sites/items at the site No subsidence impact or environmental consequence greater than the predicted in the documents listed in Condition 2(b) of Schedule 2.

Table 13 compares the predicted impact with the impacts predicted in the EIS.

Table 13 Approved and predicted Impact or Environmental Consequences

Site # Site Name Approved Level of Impact Predicted Level of Impact (EIS)

45-3-1223 Moran's Creek No greater than predicted Possible

45-3-3469 RPS MAND STH AH03 No greater than predicted V. Unlikely

45-3-3490 RPS MAND STH CYL07 No greater than predicted V. Unlikely

45-3-3501 RPS DF03 No greater than predicted Possible

45-3-3502 RPS DF04 No greater than predicted Unlikely

45-3-3506 RPS MAND STH PS11 No greater than predicted Possible

45-3-3536 RPS MAND STH TBM29 No greater than predicted Likely

45-3-3539 RPS MAND STH TBM31 No greater than predicted Possible

45-3-3540 RPS MAND STH TBM32 Negligible Negligible



“Negligible” is defined as per the SSD-5144 as “small and unimportant, such as not to be worth

considering” (SSD-5144, Page 4). For the purpose of this Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan,

negligible as referred to in this section is defined as:

In the longer term being small and insignificant and causing little or no impact. Short term impacts may be

greater than negligible but if they are of limited duration they may be negligible when considered over the

longer term.

Based on the predicted subsidence impacts (Ditton 2018), it is considered the performance measures for the

eleven Aboriginal heritage sites within the Extraction Plan Area will be achieved. A monitoring program will


Page 25

REPORT

be implemented to confirm if impacts remain within predictions and identify any management or mitigation

measures as required.

5.1 Performance Indicators

To establish compliance with the performance measures outlined in Section 5.1, Centennial Mandalong has

developed a TARP to work with the existing monitoring program established by the Northern Region

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan. Centennial’s approach to the monitoring program is

presented in Section 5 and the TARP in Section 6 and Appendix 1.


Page 26

REPORT

6 Monitoring program

The aim of the monitoring program is to identify whether there is a risk of harm to Aboriginal sites as a result

of mining activities and to identify appropriate mitigation strategies, if required. This monitoring program has

been developed in accordance with the principles of due diligence as defined by the NP&W Regulation 2009.

While the broad principles of the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the protection of Aboriginal Objects in

NSW (DECCW 2010) and the NSW Minerals Industry Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects (Minerals Council 2010) have been adopted; additional (and more specific heritage)

management protocols have been developed to manage the complexities of mining activities, the nature of

the Aboriginal sites present and the assessment of harm.

The monitoring program needs to record the condition of the site before mining (baseline survey and

baseline check) and the condition of the site after mining (post mining initial condition and post mining

secondary condition check) and thus has been separated into three phases.

Phase 1: Baseline recording (prior to site being undermined)

Phase 2: Post mining initial condition (immediately after undermining)

Phase 3: Post mining secondary condition (approximately 8 months after undermining)

Phase 3a: (Longwall Mining) - In instances where final subsidence is not achieved until after a number

of longwall extractions have taken place, then additional inspections by a qualified cultural heritage

consultant may be required to assess any risks to Aboriginal sites.

Phase 1, the baseline survey aims to record the condition of the site before mining (for example, has a

scarred tree tilted prior to mining as result of tree growth or natural cracking of a rockshelter site due to

weathering processes). Phase 2, the post mining initial condition check is to establish whether there has

been any change to site and if change has occurred whether it is from the effects of subsidence. The

purpose of Phase 3 - the post mining secondary condition check - is to identify whether there has been any

change to the site in the period since mining and to make an assessment on whether the ground surface

conditions have stabilised. If ground surface conditions have stabilised, then further monitoring should not be

required.

Note: Access to Aboriginal sites to undertake monitoring is subject to landowner approval. If landowner

approval is not obtained, no access can be granted to carry out the monitoring activities. In order to ensure

that sites which require monitoring are appropriately undertaken, monitoring protocols have been provided

below. Representatives of the registered Aboriginal Parties should be invited to participate in all three

phases of the monitoring process for Aboriginal sites.

The following monitoring protocols are relevant to the EP Area LW 25 – 31:

6.1 Monitoring Protocols for Structurally Sensitive Sites (Grinding Grooves & Rockshelters)

Once a grinding groove or rockshelter site has been assessed to be at risk of harm and it is not feasible for

Centennial to modify the mining footprint to eliminate the risk, then irrespective of whether the risk is related

to surface facilities and/or ground surface subsidence, the following protocol must be adopted.

Phase 1: In order to manage rockshelter/grinding groove site, a baseline recording must be undertaken

before the commencement of mining. This baseline recording must include the following:

Detailed archaeological recording,


Page 27

REPORT

Archival-quality photos; and

The designation of survey control points for monitoring.

The heritage consultant will be responsible for undertaking the detailed recording and taking photographs of

the site and observations of the rock morphology (surface) should be recorded. The archival-quality

photographs should be taken in accordance with OEH and Heritage Branch guidelines. A 3D terrestrial scan

of the rockshelter/grinding groove site(s) may also be considered if appropriate.

A minimum of six (6) control points should be nominated on the rockshelter/grinding groove site(s). The

recording of control points must be undertaken by a suitably qualified surveyor (appointed by Centennial or

heritage consultant) in consultation with the heritage consultant using a total station or better equipment if

available. The purpose of the control points is to provide points of reference on the rockshelter/grinding

groove in order to later monitor the effects of subsidence. The location of these control points should

preferably be tied to known surveyed points outside the zone of influence and/or other permanent points

such as electricity transmission towers.

Measures to reduce potential adverse impacts to sites at high risk as a result of mining activities to be

considered in consultation with the Aboriginal parties.

Phase 2: Within a reasonable timeframe after the completion of undermining, the condition of the site must

be reinspected and the condition of the site compared to the last documented results. Again, observations of

the rock morphology (surface) should also be recorded, particularly if there is widening of existing cracks

and/or development of new cracks. Signs of sheet erosion or exfoliation must also be recorded and archived.

This data must be compared to recorded information in Phase 1.

If the site is assessed to be at a greater risk of harm as a result of mining activities, Centennial’s

Environmental Team must notify and inform OEH (Enviroline: 131 555) that there is a potential for harm to

the site and follow the advice given by OEH

Phase 3: The post mining secondary check must be undertaken approximately 8 months after the mining

activity was finished. A final check of the six (6) control point measurements must be undertaken and

compared to previous results. If there are no changes to the rock surface morphology, widening of existing

cracks or signs of sheet erosion/surface exfoliation, then no further monitoring is required.

If there is a discrepancy from the baseline recording and determined to be as a result of subsidence,

Centennial must contact a suitably qualified cultural heritage consultant to assess the potential risk of harm

to the site. The appropriate mitigation measures provided by the inspecting heritage consultant must be

followed and implemented accordingly.

Phase 3a: (Longwall Mining) - In instances where final subsidence is not achieved until after a number of

longwall extractions have taken place, then additional inspections by a qualified cultural heritage consultant

may be required to assess any further risks to Aboriginal sites.

6.2 Monitoring Protocols for Artefact Scatters/Isolated Finds/Open Quarries

Once an open site has been assessed to be at risk of harm and it is not feasible for Centennial to modify the

mining footprint to eliminate the risk, then irrespective of whether the risk is related to surface facilities and/or

ground surface subsidence the following protocol must be adopted.

Phase 1: Immediately before the commencement of mining activity, a baseline check of the sites condition

must be undertaken. The purpose of this exercise is to document the condition of the site immediately before

mining related activities take place and gauge whether there are impacts to the site related to natural


Page 28

REPORT

processes rather than mining activities. Monitoring of the site should be undertaken using the following

documentation methods:

Digital photography (scaled as appropriate);

Field notes to record the current condition and status of the site;

GPS (using differential, preferably) to locate and confirm site location; and

Produce a site plan using baseline and offsets (tape measure), or GPS plotted polygons, as appropriate

During the due diligence inspection and baseline recording, the location of the site must be verified using a

GPS and the site dimensions and content must be confirmed. Photos of the site need to be taken so that the

overall condition can be documented.

If the site is determined by the archaeologist and representatives of the Aboriginal Parties to be at an

inappropriate risk of harm, consideration should be given to salvage the artefacts with the aim of returning

the objects to their original location after the completion of mining. This process would be subject to a

Section 90 application approval by OEH.

Phase 2: Within a reasonable timeframe after the completion of undermining, the condition of the site must

be reinspected and the condition of the site compared to the last documented results. If the level of harm to

the site becomes evident immediately post-mining, Centennial must endeavour to protect the site from

further harm for example, by using non-invasive barrier fencing to prevent erosion. The Centennial

Environmental Team must notify and inform OEH (Enviroline: 131 555) if that there is a potential for harm to

the site and follow the advice given by OEH.


activity has finished. The inspection is required to make an assessment on whether the ground surface

conditions have stabilised. If ground conditions have stabilised and no changes to site condition is observed,

then no further monitoring should be required. If noticeable amounts of erosion or disturbance is identified,

Centennial’s Environmental Team must also notify and inform OEH (Enviroline: 131 555) that there is a

potential for harm to the site and follow the advice given by OEH.




6.3 Monitoring Protocols for Scarred Trees/Carved Trees

Once a scarred/carved tree site has been assessed to be at risk of harm and it is not feasible for Centennial

to modify the mining footprint to eliminate the risk, then irrespective of whether the risk is related to surface

facilities and/or ground surface subsidence, the following protocol must be adopted.

Phase 1: A baseline recording of the site's condition must be ascertained and tabulated for future monitoring

purposes. The baseline assessment will involve recording the position and tilt of the tree prior to sub-surface

mining. The baseline recording requires the following measurements to be recorded:

Level of the tree (base);

V-notch (top) tilt measurement (as an easting and northing location);

V-notch (top) level;

V-notch (bottom) tilt measurement (as an easting and northing location);

V-notch (bottom) level; and


Page 29

REPORT

Degree of tilt.

Phase 2: The tilt and condition of the scarred/carved tree must be re-assessed immediately post mining.

During the monitoring, if it is identified that the tilt of the tree exceeds 10° from the baseline recording,

Centennial must endeavour to protect the tree from further tilting by erecting a non-invasive framework which

may be in the form of bracing or other exterior supports. In this instance, Centennial’s Environmental Team

must also inform and notify OEH (Enviroline: 131 555) that there is a potential for harm to the site. An AHIP

may be required to be obtained prior to attempting to protect the site.


activity has finished. The inspection is required to make an assessment on whether the ground surface

conditions have stabilised. If ground conditions have stabilised and no changes to sites condition is

observed, then no further monitoring should be required.

If it is identified that the tilt of the tree exceeds 10° from the baseline recording, Centennial must endeavour

to protect the tree from further tilting by erecting a non-invasive framework to prevent further tilt to the tree

where possible. Centennial’s Environmental Team must also inform and notify OEH (Enviroline: 131 555)

that there is a potential for harm to the site and follow the advice given by OEH.





Page 30

REPORT

7 Adaptive management

7.1 Centennial Coal Management Framework

An Adaptive Management Framework provides for flexible decision making, adjusted to consider

uncertainties as management outcomes are understood.

Through feedback to the management process, the management procedures are changed in steps until

monitoring shows that the desired outcome is obtained. The monitoring program has been developed so that

there is statistical confidence in the outcome.

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

conditions requiring adaptive management do not lack certainty, but rather they establish a regime which

would permit changes, within defined parameters, to the way the outcome is achieved.

The Centennial Coal Adaptive Management Framework is a process of ongoing testing, learning, monitoring

and managing and relies on:

Description of the environmental value and its role in the landscape, including aspects of an operation

that may result in a significant impact to the environmental value (not all aspects of a project will generate

impacts;

A model of the environmental response to certain management actions/decisions, supported by the

description of the environment;

Mechanisms to test the model;

Engagement with relevant stakeholders in the description of the environment and development of models,

model outcomes and management actions/decisions;

Identification of clear management objectives for each environmental value (including heritage);

– Monitoring the system using best available technologies and multiple lines of evidence to:

– Evaluate progress against objectives;

– Determine the status of the system;

– Increase our understanding of the system; and

– Refine the modelling where applicable.

7.2 Adaptive Management Strategy for Mandalong Mine

As the most effective form of management on the risk hierarchy, Mandalong Mine has gone through an

extensive mine design process specifically to eliminate risks and avoid potential impacts to surface features.

Progressive implementation and monitoring of mining within the approved mining zones during the mine

schedule affords further opportunity and flexibility for adaptive management if required.

The adaptive management approach at Mandalong Mine involves monitoring and evaluation against

performance measures and associated indicators in Trigger Action Response Plans (TARP) established for

the extraction plan and supporting management plans (refer Section 7 and Appendix 1). Where

performance indicators indicate increasing levels of risk (conditions green, amber then red being exceeded),

escalating adaptive management measures are engaged in accordance with the TARP. The process has

been successfully implemented in existing Extraction Plan areas at Mandalong Mine and has been updated


Page 31

REPORT

to reflect EIS commitments and consent requirements for the Mandalong Southern Extension Project,

including specific performance measures.

In accordance with Condition 8 (Adaptive Management) in Schedule 6 of SSD_5144, where any exceedance

of applicable criteria and/or performance measures has occurred, Centennial will at the earliest opportunity:

a. Take all reasonable and feasible steps to ensure that the exceedance ceases and does not reoccur

b. Consider all reasonable and feasible options for remediation (where relevant) and submit a report to

the Department describing those options and any preferred remediation measures or other course of

action; and

c. Implement remediation measures as directed by the Secretary, to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

Adaptive management measures would follow failure/root cause analysis where appropriate (including

review of any observed impacts in EP Areas for potential mining induced causes and would be undertaken in

consultation with relevant stakeholders, and involve review of this management plan.

7.3 Remediation / Rehabilitation of Potential Impacts

Mandalong Mine will undertake trial mitigation works at grinding groove sites RPS DF04 and RPS PS11 in

accordance with Condition 9, Schedule 6 of SSD_5144, monitor the effectiveness of the trial mitigation and

report on the monitoring in accordance with Condition 10, Schedule 6 of SSD_5144. The initial phase of the

mitigation works has been undertaken (RPS 2018).

Due to the minimal subsidence effects expected for the remaining Aboriginal archaeological sites, the need

to implement remediation/rehabilitation measures for potential impacts are considered unlikely. However, in

the event that remediation is required, Mandalong Mine will undertake remediation in accordance with:

Conditions 8a)-c) in Schedule 6 of SSD_5144 (refer details in Section 6.2 above), noting in particular the

requirement to submit a report to DP&E describing remediation options and any preferred remediation

measures or other course of action;

Any relevant actions prescribed in the Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) developed for relevant plans

of management;

The current Mining Operations Plan and Rehabilitation Management Plan;

Sections 7 and 8 of the Northern Region Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan; and

In consultation with key stakeholders including any affected land holders and relevant government

agencies.

A Response Strategy will be adopted if a significant impact to Aboriginal sites is detected as a result of

mining activities within the Extraction Plan area.


Page 32

REPORT

8 Contingency plan

A Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) has been developed using the performance indicators for

management of heritage (Appendix 1). The TARP applies only to the EP Area for Longwall 25 - 31.

The contingency plan where a performance indicator has been exceeded is outlined in the TARP. A trigger

will result in additional investigations to determine if the exceedance is related to non-mining-factors or is a

consequence of mining activity. The response to these exceedances will follow the TARP. Management/

corrective actions can be implemented where required to remedy these non-conformities and report

accordingly.


Page 33

REPORT

9 Reporting and notifications

Reporting is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of specific requirements of relevant approvals

and licences including SSD_5144 and generally in accordance with the Guidelines for the Preparation of

Extraction Plans ‘EP Guidelines’ (NSW Department of Planning and Environment 2015).

Centennial Mandalong will submit the following reports as detailed in Table 14 during the second workings

as relevant to management of heritage.

Table 14 Reporting and Notification Requirements

Report Triggers Requirements

Incident1, Reporting Any incident1 relating to heritage in accordance with consent condition 10 (Schedule 6), or as triggered by the TARP.

Secretary of DP&E, Lake Macquarie City Counci

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan · Plan (ACHMP) for the inclusion in the Mandalong...

Documents

Transcript of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan · Plan (ACHMP) for the inclusion in the Mandalong...