Bulga Optimisation Project Review Report...The Bulga Optimisation Project PAC Report© ... Wednesday...

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

BulgaOptimisationProject

ReviewReport

Garry West (Chair) Alan Coutts

Gordon Kirkby

September 2014

The Bulga Optimisation Project PAC Report© State of New South Wales through the NSW Planning Assessment Commission, September 2014. NSW Planning Assessment Commission Level 13, 301 George St Sydney NSW Australia Telephone: (02) 9383 2100 Email: [email protected] ISBN 978‐0‐9871563‐4‐1 Disclaimer While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of publication, the State of New South Wales, its agencies and employees, disclaim all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document. The NSW Planning Assessment Commission advises that the maps included in the report are to give visual support to the discussion presented within the report. Hence information presented on the maps should be seen as indicative, rather than definite or accurate. The State of New South Wales will not accept responsibility for anything, or the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the mapped information.

Planning Assessment Commission Review Report on the Bulga Optimisation Project

ExecutiveSummaryBulga Coal Management Pty Ltd (BCM) a subsidiary of Glencore Coal Limited proposes to expand and continue the Bulga Open Cut mining operations to access 205 Mt of coal from seams within and beneath the existing open cut mine. The Proposal is to extend the life of the mine for an additional 11 years, while maintaining the current production rate of 12.2 Mtpa run‐of‐mine coal. The footprint of the mine does not substantially change with this proposal, and no previous unmined areas will be mined. The former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure requested the Planning Assessment Commission to carry out a review of the merits of the Bulga Optimisation Project and conduct public hearings during the review. The Terms of Reference for the review were assess the potential air quality, noise and blasting impacts; the merits of the Project; and any other potentially significant impacts of the Project. The Commission was constituted by Mr Garry West (Chair), Mr Alan Coutts and Mr Gordon Kirkby. The Commission examined the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report and other relevant documents, received submissions, held public hearings, inspected the site and met individually with representatives of the Proponent, Singleton Council, the Department of Planning and Environment and the neighbouring Mushroom Composters. The Environmental Impact Assessment was publicly exhibited from 3 May 2013 to 14 June 2013. There were 116 submissions received by the Department of Planning and Environment from this process which were forwarded to the Commission. The Commission held public hearings on Wednesday 25 June 2014 at the Singleton Heights Diggers Club, and received 17 verbal and 16 written submissions. The Bulga Coal Complex is located in the Upper Hunter Region and is adjacent to the Mt Thorley‐Warkworth Coal Complex. The villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale are within 3‐4kms of the Bulga Coal Complex. Cumulative impacts of noise and air quality are of concern to the local communities, given that the mines are adjacent to each other. Subsequent to the exhibition of the EIS, BCM prepared and submitted a Response to Submissions and Amended Project Application Assessment Report. The Amended Proposal included a number of changes to the Project to address the issues raised by the public and Government agencies. As the Project is not likely to involve an increase in mining or production rates, or a significant change to the current operations of the mine, or any increase in the coal trains, the dust emissions are likely to remain at levels similar to what currently exist. The Commission notes that BCM have implemented of a number of additional dust mitigation measures to further reduce dust emissions from the site. BCM has also updated its monitoring program to monitor the performance of the operations with the additional mitigation measures in place. The Commission acknowledges that although the community raised concerns regarding air quality, the assessment and independent peer review of the air quality impact assessment confirmed that the potential impacts are likely to remain below the NSW EPA assessment criteria. The Commission is satisfied with the Department’s assessment that the current dust mitigation, management and


ii

monitoring measures implemented by BCM and proposed for the Project is consistent with best practice and there is limited opportunity for further substantial improvement. With regard to the Mushroom Composters’ facility, there have been number of air quality studies and reviews undertaken to determine the air quality impacts on the Mushroom Composters from the dumping of material on the Eastern Emplacement Area. The Commission notes that the Mushroom Composters have residual concerns regarding the Draft Bulga Optimisation Project – Eastern Emplacement Area Management Framework (Draft Framework). These concerns will need to be addressed prior to any determination on this Project. Noise impacts were the second largest concern of the community during the EIS process. Noise including low frequency noise and blasting were all raised in the submissions. BCM is proposing to continue to mine in the same manner, with no increase in extraction rates. The difference with this Project compared to the existing consent is the placement of overburden in out‐of‐pit emplacements along the western and north‐eastern boundaries of the complex. The construction of the Noise and Visual Bund along the western boundary of the mine complex is however likely to generate additional noise. To minimise the noise generated from the construction, the Proponent is proposing that only the construction of the outer face will occur during day time periods. Placement of material outside of the day time period will be behind the outer face and in protected areas. The Commission is satisfied that the Proponent will be able to meet the reporting requirements of noise generated by the Project. The Commission understands that the community has concerns regarding cumulative noise impacts, which requires a co‐operative approach from all noise generators. The Commission is satisfied that the Project generated noise impacts can be mitigated and managed through the implementation of the management plan and the recommended conditions. The Bulga Mine Complex is located within the traditional homelands of the Wonnarua people. Extensive stakeholder engagement has been undertaken by the Proponent during this process. The Commission accepts the position of OEH that it is unable to support any proposed management recommendations until this impasse has been resolved. Whilst the EAR purports that there is substantial agreement the Commission is of the opinion that further consultation is required to resolve the impasse between several knowledge holder groups, regarding the relocation of the Loders Creek grinding grooves. The footprint of the Project is a total of 3,786 Ha, 2,156 Ha of this land has previously been disturbed by mining activities, of which 421 Ha has been rehabilitated. The footprint of impact of the amended Proposal has been reduced due to the amended designs of the Eastern Emplacement Area (EEA) and the Noise and Visual Bund. The Biodiversity Offset Strategy prepared by the Proponent, to manage the impacts on flora and fauna, outlines a number of land‐based offset areas and a financial contribution to the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Program. Two of the land‐based offsets are onsite offsets, and there is a large off‐site offset area, known as the Reedy Valley Offset Site. While it is preferable to have offsets located in the vicinity of the disturbance area, the Commission recognises that this is a challenge in the Upper Hunter region. The Office of Environment and Heritage, the lead agency in relation to management of offset areas, is satisfied with the total offset package. The Commission accepts the position of the Office of Environment and Heritage, and considers that the Biodiversity Offset Strategy will mitigate the impacts from the Project on flora and fauna.


iii

The rehabilitation strategy included in the Ecological Impact Assessment, aims to rehabilitate areas after mining, as soon as practicable once shaped areas are available. The rehabilitation will target endemic woodland species, and will be progressive and on‐going, and is likely to incorporate both temporary and permanent rehabilitation. The community is sceptical about the rehabilitation plan, given the Proponent’s past rehabilitation record. The Commission has recommended that in addition to the draft conditions from the Department that the Proponent should actively consult with and provide regular updates to the community in relation to the preparation of the rehabilitation management plan, the timing and location of temporary and permanent rehabilitation. The final land form and land uses will be detailed in the mine closure plan. The final land form includes a final void that will be progressively flooded over time as water levels rise. It is expected that it will take up to 500 years for the water level in the void to reach the maximum predicted level. The land around the void will be planted with woodland species as part of the rehabilitation program, noting that some of these will be inundated as the water level in the void rises. The Commission accepts that it is general practice that planning for the final land form and use does not commence until about five year before the closure of the mine. The Commission agrees with the community that the final land forms of the region’s mines should be tied into the surrounding areas to provide a productive and sustainable future for the region. In regards to water, the Project may have a number of impacts on water. These include potential impacts on surface water available to downstream uses, by a reduction in surface area and consequently runoff; impacts to water quality of both surface and groundwater potentially impacting on groundwater flows in subsurface aquifers, base flows to local streams, springs and groundwater dependent ecosystems. The Department highlighted in their assessment the impact to other users in the catchment particularly in extended dry periods, and has included a specific condition to address this issue. The Commission finds that the Department’s assessment is generally appropriate, and the recommended conditions are adequate to manage the potential impacts. The Commission has recommended that OEH be included along with NOW and the EPA as a consultation agency during the development of the Water Management Plan. As part of the EIS, an Economic Impacts Assessment and a Social Impacts and Opportunities Assessment were undertaken. The community has residual concerns regarding both of these assessments, and the updated economic assessment by Deloitte Economics Australia. The Commission notes that while the updated economic assessment is a more robust assessment of the potential impacts and opportunities, there is still community concern that the economic assessment does not fully account for the impacts to the community and the loss of environmental assets. While there were a large number of objections to the Project, there were also a number of submissions in support of the Project, and commended Glencore and BCM on their community engagement. The Commission recognises that there is a wide spectrum of views within the community, and that mining operations can divide communities. In other respects, the Commission is generally satisfied the mine plan is adequate. As with any open cut mine, the Project will have environmental impacts. Submissions to the Commission during the public hearings raised many concerns about the environmental impacts, but also indicated that mining has brought economic benefit to the region, and that the Proponent


iv

supports local community groups and activities. The Commission has considered the key impacts of the mine in this report and has found that on the whole the Project has merit. The Commission’s detailed recommendations are provided in full in the following section. In short the Commission recommends that with the specific management plans and conditions in place, the impacts of the Project can be adequately minimised and managed. Consequently, subject to detailed assessment by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Commission considers the Project could be approved subject to stringent conditions. Recommendations 1. Air quality The Draft Management Framework for the management of dust and air quality impacts on the Mushroom Composters needs to be further developed to take into account the deficiencies raised in the Todoroski review of 5 June 2014 and the Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology response of 15 August 2014 prior to the Departments final assessment of the Project. Prior to submission of the Project for determination the relevant parties need to be satisfied that the Draft Management Framework can be technically delivered in a way that satisfactorily addresses the need to adaptively manage air quality impacts at the Mushroom Composters facility. The Draft Management Framework should also incorporate a rigorous monitoring and enforcement regime and contain agreed triggers that enforce mitigation measures when exceedances are likely to occur. The Commission recommends the establishment of a technical committee which can oversight operations of the Draft Management Framework and should be conditioned to have power to propose mitigation measures as appropriate. Mitigation measures may include:

Placing of material at a lower rate;

Placing of material in a different location within the EEA;

Cease placement until weather conditions improve;

Temporary protection measures for the Mushroom Composters sites and workers, including a temporary enclosure; and

Acquisition. The Draft Management Framework should take into account the potential impact of proposed mitigation measures on the overall timing of the Eastern Emplacement Area and the potential for its construction to be extended. Acquisition should only be considered when the other immediate and medium term mitigation measures are unable to comply with the agreed criteria. The Draft Management Framework also needs to ensure that the proposed management and mitigation measures do not increase the potential for impacts to be transferred to other nearby receivers. The Department needs to ensure that the Proponent addresses the concerns raised by Todoroski Air Sciences and Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology regarding the Draft Management Framework, prior to submission of the Project for determination. The final determining PAC panel needs to be satisfied that the Draft Management Framework can be technically delivered and is amended to include the comments and recommendations provided by both Todoroski Air Sciences and Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology.


v

The management strategy for air quality needs to be amended to include the agreed management measures for the Eastern Emplacement Area. The conditions should therefore also be amended to include the management framework agreed for the Eastern Emplacement Area. The Commission further recommends that Condition 19(a) of Schedule 3 should be removed, as the requirements of Condition 19(a) need to be satisfactorily resolved prior to submission of the Project for determination. 2. Noise The construction of the Noise and Visual Bund is likely to cause some short term exceedances of the noise criteria for the mine. When constructed the Noise and Visual Bund will be an effective noise and visual barrier to the mining operations from the surrounding areas. To provide the community with confidence that the construction of the Noise and Visual Bund will be completed in the timeframe proposed by BCM, Condition 44 of Schedule 3 needs to be strengthened to specify it to be completed within the four years as indicated by BCM. Condition 44 of Schedule 3 is therefore amended to:

The Applicant shall design, construct and maintain the proposed noise and visual bund to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This bund must:

a) Be completed within four years after the commencement of development under this consent, unless a variation is approved by the Secretary; and

b) Be generally consistent with the concept plan in the EIS and the figure in Appendix 11.

Monitoring of compliance against the relevant noise, blasting and lighting criteria and regular reviews of the environmental management strategies and measures is of critical importance to ensure impacts on the community are minimised. 3. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage There has been extensive consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders regarding the Project and the potential relocation sites for the BMU1 and Loders Creek grinding grooves. In relation to the Loders Creek grinding grooves the Proponent needs to continue its consultation with the Plains Clans of the Wonnarua People, Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal Corporation and Wanaruah Local Aboriginal Land Council to finalise any agreement with regard to the relocation of the grinding grooves, to a site along Loders Creek. 4. Rehabilitation and Final Land Form Given the community’s scepticism surrounding the proposed rehabilitation program, and a general lack of confidence that the mine can be successfully rehabilitated, the Proponent should actively consult with and provide regular updates to the community. These updates should be in relation to the preparation of the rehabilitation management plan, the timing and area of temporarily rehabilitation and permanent rehabilitation. The Proponent also needs to consider the final land form of the mine in a holistic regional scale, given there are several mines in the vicinity of the subject mine, which need to be tied into each other to provide a continual final land form. In other words, strategic social and economic plans for the region post mining. 5. Water There are three key agencies that are responsible for the protection and management of water, and all three should be involved with the development of the Water Management Plan for this Project. Therefore, OEH should be included along with the EPA and NOW as consultation agencies during the development of the Water Management Plan. The Proponent should regularly review and update the existing IWMS in consultation with the relevant authorities during the life of the Project to


vi

ensure the environmental performance of the system and to meet the relevant performance criteria. 6. Crown Land Road closure The Commission notes that Mushroom Composters have maintained their objection to the proposed closure of their road access over the Crown Land Road. Prior to the submission for final determination this access needs to be resolved.


vii

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i

Figures ......................................................................................................................................... viii

Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... ix

1. Introduction and Terms of Reference ............................................................................. 11

2. Project Description ........................................................................................................ 12

2.1. Background and Historical Context ....................................................................................... 13 2.2. Current proposal ................................................................................................................... 13 2.3. Project surrounds .................................................................................................................. 17

3. Commission Activities .................................................................................................... 19

3.1. Public Hearings and Submissions .......................................................................................... 19 3.2. Documents, Meetings & Site Inspections ............................................................................. 19

4. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 20

4.1. Air quality impacts ................................................................................................................ 20 4.1.1. Peer Review .......................................................................................................................... 21 4.2. Health .................................................................................................................................... 23 4.3. Mushroom Composting Facility ............................................................................................ 23 4.4. Finding and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 28

5. Noise and Visual ............................................................................................................ 30

5.1. Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 30 5.2. Low Frequency Noise ............................................................................................................ 31 5.3. Noise and Visual Bund .......................................................................................................... 32 5.4. Blasting .................................................................................................................................. 33 5.5. Lighting .................................................................................................................................. 34 5.6. Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 34

6. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................... 36

6.1. BMU1 grinding grooves ........................................................................................................ 36 6.2. Loders Creek grinding grooves .............................................................................................. 36 6.3. Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 38

7. Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 39

7.1. Flora Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 39 7.2. Fauna Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 39 7.3. Biodiversity Offset Strategy .................................................................................................. 40 7.4. Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 47

8. Rehabilitation and Final Land Form ................................................................................ 48


viii

8.1. Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................................ 48 8.2. Final Land Form ..................................................................................................................... 49 8.3. Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 50

9. Water ............................................................................................................................ 52

9.1. Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 54

10. Economic and Social Issues ............................................................................................ 56

10.1. Economic Issues .................................................................................................................... 56 10.2. Social Issues .......................................................................................................................... 57 10.3. Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 58

11. Other Issues ................................................................................................................... 59

11.1. Diesel Contribution ............................................................................................................... 59 11.2. Mushroom Composter’s access ............................................................................................ 59

12. Commission Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 61

12.1. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 62

References .................................................................................................................................... 65

List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 67

FiguresFigure 1: Locality Plan ........................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: EIS Project Layout and Revised Project Layout ...................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................................ 18 Figure 4: Biodiversity Offset Strategy ‐ regional context ...................................................................... 42 Figure 5: Proposed Wollombi Brook Conservation Area ...................................................................... 43 Figure 6: Broke Road Offset Site ........................................................................................................... 44 Figure 7: Reedy Valley Offset Site ......................................................................................................... 45 Figure 8: Conceptual Closure Strategy .................................................................................................. 48 Figure 9: Catchments and Existing Monitoring Locations .................................................................... 52

TablesTable 1: Main components of the Project as amended ........................................................................ 14 Table 2: Summary of Predicted maximum 24‐hour average PM10 concentration due to the Project alone ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 3: Summary of days over 50 µg/m3 for Project‐only ................................................................... 21 Table 4: Comparison of Potential Dust Impacts on the Mushroom Composting Facility ..................... 24 Table 5: BCM Proposed Air Quality Management Strategies at the EEA ............................................. 27 Table 6: Summary of Proposed Preliminary EEA trigger levels............................................................. 27 Table 7: Summary of Proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy ................................................................ 41 Table 8: Summary of Public Benefit Contributions as part of the VPA ................................................. 57


ix

Glossary

BCC: Bulga Coal Complex

BCM: Bulga Coal Management Pty Ltd

BOS: Biodiversity Offset Strategy

BOP: Bulga Optimisation Project

Bund: Noise and Visual Bund

CAMM: Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology

CHPP: Coal Handling and Preparation Plant

CIC: Critical Industry Cluster, as identified in the Upper Hunter Strategic Regional Land Use Plan (DP&I, 2012)

Commission: Planning Assessment Commission constituted for this review and public hearing, Mr Garry West (Chair), Mr Alan Coutts and Mr Gordon Kirkby

Department: Department of Planning and Environment

DP&E: Department of Planning and Environment, formerly DP&I

EAR: Department of Planning and Environment’s Environmental Assessment Report

EEA: Eastern Emplacement Area

EA: Environmental Assessment

EP&A: Environmental Planning and Assessment

EPA: NSW Environment Protection Authority

HEL: Hunter Environmental Lobby

HVPA: Hunter Valley Protection Alliance

INP: NSW Industrial Noise Policy

IWMS: Integrated Water Management System

LGA: Local Government Area

NOW: NSW Office of Water

OEH: Office of Environment and Heritage, formerly DECCW and now incorporating NSW Heritage Office.

PAC: Planning Assessment Commission

PEL: Pacific Environmental

PCWP: Plains Clans of the Wonnarua People

PM10: Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 10 micrometres.

PM2.5: Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometres

ROM: run‐of‐mine

RTS: Response to Submissions and Revised and Amended Project Application Assessment Report

TAS: Todoroski Air Sciences


x

TSP: Total Suspended Particulates

The Proponent: The applicant under Part 3A of the EP&A Act 1979, in this report being Bulga Coal Management Pty Ltd. ‘Proponent’ includes the Proponent’s EA consultants.

The Project: The subject of the application under Part 3A of the EP&A Act 1979, in this report being the Bulga Optimisation Project.

WLALC: Wanaruah Local Aboriginal Land Council

WNAC: Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal Corporation

WTC: Wonnarua Traditional Custodians


11

1. IntroductionandTermsofReference On 16 May 2014 the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Honourable Brad Hazzard MP issued a request to the Chair of the Planning Assessment Commission in relation to the Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP). The Minister’s request was made under Section 23D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clauses 268R and 268V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. A copy of the terms of reference in the Minister’s request is provided in Appendix 1. The Terms of Reference are as follows: 1. Carry out a review of the Bulga Optimisation Project, and:

a) consider the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s assessment report of the merits of the Project;

b) consider the EIS for the Project, the issues raised in submissions, the formal response to submissions, the amended Project application report and any other relevant information provided on the Project during the course of the review;

c) assess the merits of the Project as a whole, paying particular attention to the air quality, noise and blasting impacts of the Project; and

d) recommend any further measures required to avoid, minimise, and/or manage the potential impacts of the Project.

2. Conduct public hearings during the review as soon as practicable after the Department of Planning and Infrastructure provides a copy of its assessment report for the Project to the Planning Assessment Commission.

3. Submit its final report on the review to the Department of Planning and infrastructure within 6 weeks of the public hearings, unless the Director‐General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure agrees otherwise.

Mr Garry West (Chair) with Mr Alan Coutts and Mr Gordon Kirkby constituted the Commission.


12

2. ProjectDescription Bulga Coal Management Pty Ltd (BCM) a subsidiary of Glencore Coal Limited proposes to expand and continue the Bulga Open Cut mining operations to access 205 Mt of coal from seams within and beneath the existing open cut mine. The footprint of the mine does not substantially change with this proposal, and no previous unmined areas will be mined. Figure 1 shows the locality of the Bulga mine.

Figure 1: Locality Plan


13

2.1. BackgroundandHistoricalContextThe Bulga Coal Complex (BCC) is located approximately 12 kilometres (km) south‐west of Singleton in the Hunter Valley. Bulga Coal Complex has been mining in this location since 1982, mining the coal using both open cut and underground techniques (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013c). The Bulga Coal Complex is the southernmost mining operation in the Upper Hunter coal fields (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). BCC currently operates, and will continue to operate, under two consents; one for the open cut mine and the other for the underground mine. While the consents cover different aspects of the mine, the mine is managed as a single integrated mine.

2.2. CurrentproposalThe current proposal for the BCC is to mine an additional 205 Mt of coal, from within and beneath the existing mine. The Proposal is to extend the life of the mine for an additional 11 years, while maintaining the current production rate of 12.2 Mtpa run‐of‐mine (ROM) coal. The main elements of the Project include:

Continuing the operations of the open cut mining operations at the current approved 12.2Mtpa of ROM coal;

Extracting the resource from three contiguous pits (Main Pit, South Pit and East Pit) and one smaller pit (Bayswater Pit);

Two new out‐of‐pit overburden emplacements; o A 712 Ha emplacement between the open pit and Charlton Road to the west (known

as the “Noise and Visual Bund”); and o A 319 Ha emplacement bund to the east of Broke Road (“Eastern Emplacement

Area”);

Realignment of infrastructure which is currently within the proposed footprint, including Broke Road and sections of the 330 kV electricity transmission line;

Processing the ROM coal at the existing Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP) and loading product coal onto trains at the Saxonvale Rail Loop for transport to Newcastle Port; and

Progressive rehabilitation of the site. The Project was amended following the exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The amendments were in response to concerns raised from the exhibition of the EIS, and include:

Reduction in the western extent of the proposed Main Pit and Noise and Visual Bund, to remove the need to realign Charlton Road (heritage issue) and avoid direct impacts on the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) and the Broke‐Fordwich Viticultural Critical Industry Cluster (CIC);

Reduction in the Eastern Emplacement Area (EEA) footprint, to no longer include the mushroom composting facility;

Reduction in the scope of the upgrades to the mining infrastructure area; and

Increase in the proposed biodiversity offset strategy. A summary of the main aspects of the Project (as amended) are highlighted in Table 1 and in Figure 2 below ( (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014).


14

Table 1: Main components of the Project as amended

Aspect Description

Mining & Reserves

Continued operation and deepening of the Bulga Open Cut Mine to extract an additional 175 Mt of ROM coal in addition to the remaining 30 Mt in the approved open cut min footprint (i.e. total of 205 Mt), at a rate of up to 12.2 Mtpa.

Coal Processing

Coal would be processed at the existing CHPP at a maximum rate of 20 Mtpa (includes both open cut and underground).

Coal Reject Management

Coarse rejects and tailings would continue to be disposed of underground and in tailings storage facilities, and in the Bayswater Pit once mining from that pit has ceased.

Product Coal Transport

Product coal would continue to be loaded onto trains at the existing coal loading facility for transport by rail to Newcastle Port for export.

Water Demand & Supply

The Project would require up to approximately 6,900 ML/yr of water which would be supplied via captured rainfall, groundwater inflows and licensed extraction from the Hunter River. The existing water management system would be augmented by the construction of a new 3,000 ML water storage dam (Northern Dam) north of the proposed Eastern Emplacement Area.

Project Life 21 years total operating life. The Project would extend the life of the current open cut operations by 11 years (to 2035).

Employment Continued employment for 700 operational staff plus 300 construction employees during the first 3 to 4 years of the Project.

Capital Value $368 million

Underground Infrastructure

Construction at the surface of new ventilation facilities and support infrastructure for the underground mining operations.

Infrastructure Infrastructure upgrades or changes associated with the Project include:

Realignment of Broke Road to accommodate mining in the East Pit and South Pit;

Realignment of sections of two 330 kV transmission lines and other 66 kV and 11 kV powerlines, and other changes to associated electricity infrastructure;

Construction of a rail siding capable of holding two additional trains;

Continued use and minor upgrade of the existing Mining Infrastructure Area (MIA); and

Relocation of infrastructure associated with the Broke Road realignment, including the Broke Fordwich Private Irrigation District (PID) water pipeline, Singleton Council’s Broke potable water supply pipeline and other services (such as telecommunications infrastructure).

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management

Implementation of measures to record, protect, salvage and relocate sites recorded in the Project Area, including:

Salvage and/or implementation of protective measures for the Loders Creek and BMU 1 grinding grooves; and

Extension of the Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Area from 53 Ha to 120 Ha, and establishing a Conservation Agreement (or similar) under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 for the area.


15

Aspect Description

Biodiversity Offsets and Rehabilitation

The Project would involve the disturbance (clearing) of an additional 1,630 Ha of land, including 611 Ha of native woodland and 1,000 Ha of native grassland. The proposed biodiversity offset strategy comprises approximately 1,484 Ha of existing native woodland vegetation plus 306 Ha to be regenerated (or 1,795 Ha in total), plus rehabilitation of the mine site to establish 2,500 Ha of Ironbark Woodland species and other native vegetation. Remaining areas of the site would be rehabilitated for agricultural use (grazing). The final void is predicted to fill with water in the long term (500 years) covering a maximum area of 500 Ha, which would be rehabilitated with Ironbark Woodland species on completion of mining operations.


16

Figure 2: EIS Project Layout and Revised Project Layout


17

2.3. ProjectsurroundsThe area surrounding the Bulga Coal Complex is characterised by a various land uses (see Figure 3), including mining, agriculture in particular viticulture, rural industries and the Singleton Military Training Area, which is located on the eastern boundary of the mine complex (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013c). Adjacent to the north of the BCC is the Mt Thorley – Warkworth (MTW) Coal Complex, which has approval to extract up to 28 Mtpa of ROM coal. Approximately 9km to the northwest is the Wambo open cut and underground mine complex, which has approval to extract up to 14.7 Mtpa of ROM coal. The Mt Thorley Industrial Estate (MTIE) is located approximately 3 km to the north of the mine complex, and provides various mining services for mines within the Hunter Valley. Located to the east of the mine complex is the mushroom composting facility. During the construction of the proposed Eastern Emplacement Area, the facility will be within less than 1 km of the mine operations. The mushroom composting facility access to Broke Road is via an unnamed crown road that is proposed to remain operational; a haul road bridge is proposed to be constructed over this road to provide mine vehicles access to the Eastern Emplacement Area. Within approximately 3‐4 kms of the Bulga Coal Complex are the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale, and numerous small rural residential properties. The Broke‐Fordwich Viticulture Sub‐region is located within the alluvial soils of the Wollombi Brook, to the west of Charlton Road. This area is mapped as part of the Hunter Valley Viticulture Critical Industry Cluster (CIC). Charlton Road to the west of the mine complex is the eastern boundary for this CIC (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). Within a 10 km radius of the mine complex, to the south‐east, south and the west there are a number of state forests and national parks including:

Pokolbin State Forest;

Yengo National Park; and

Wollemi National Park.


18

Figure 3: Surrounding Land Use


19

3. CommissionActivities

3.1. PublicHearingsandSubmissionsIn accordance with the Commission’s terms of reference, public hearings were held on Wednesday 25 June 2014 at the Singleton Heights Diggers Club. A total of 17 speakers provided verbal submissions to the Commission at the hearings, comprising the Proponent, Singleton Shire Council, many interest groups and effected individuals. All those seeking to be heard were heard. 16 written submissions, including presentations were provided to the Commission. A summary of the issues raised at the public hearing is provided in Appendix 2 of this Report. The submissions are publicly available and can be accessed from the Commission’s website, along with the speech notes and presentations that were provided to the Commission during the public hearing. A total of 127 submissions to the Department of Planning and Environment were provided to the Commission for consideration. This included additional comments from 11 parties (nine public authorities and two special interest groups) in response to the Proponent’s Response to Submissions (RTS).

3.2. Documents,Meetings&SiteInspectionsThrough the course of the review the Commission accessed a wide range of documents including:

The Proponents Environmental Impact Statement (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013c);

Submissions from government agencies and the public;

The Proponent’s Response to Submissions and Revised and Amended Project Application Assessment Report (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d);

The Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report

Independent review of the Pacific Environment Ltd Air Quality study, requested by the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E), undertaken by Todoroski Air Sciences;

Independent review of the air quality for the Mushroom Composter facility, requested by the DP&E, prepared by Todoroski Air Sciences;

o The Proponent’s response to the independent review; and o CAMM’s air quality modelling at the Mushroom Composters facility; and

Draft Bulga Optimisation Project – Eastern Emplacement Area Management Framework (Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd, 2014b).

During the review, the Commission met with representatives of Singleton Shire Council (3 June 2014) and with representatives from the Department of Planning and Environment (17 June 2014 and 7 August 2014).In addition, the Commission also met with representatives of the Mushroom Composters (25 August 2014), and with the Proponent (1 September 2014). Summaries of these meetings are provided in Appendix 3. The Commission visited the site on 4 June 2014 and met with the Proponent and its consultant for a briefing. A summary of this briefing is provided in Appendix 3. The Commission also visited publicly accessible local areas that may be impacted by the proposed development. The following sections of this report discuss the Commission’s findings and recommendations of the issues within the TOR and some of the issues raised in the submissions. Other impacts and issues raised in submissions have been assessed by the Department. The Commission considers the Department’s assessment of these issues generally as adequate.


20

4. AirQuality The Project is not proposed to involve an increase in mining or production rates, or a significant change to the current operations of the mine. The activities that are likely to generate high levels of dust include the placement of overburden, wind erosion of disturbed areas, traffic movement on haul roads and mining operations occurring close to the surface. The Project is also not proposing any increase in coal trains, therefore dust emission are likely to remain at levels similar to what currently exists. BCM has recently implemented a number of additional dust mitigation measures to further reduce dust emissions from the site and has updated its monitoring program to monitor the performance of the operations with the additional mitigation measures in place. The Department (2014) considers the current dust mitigation, management and monitoring implemented by BCM and proposed for the Project is consistent with best practice and there is limited opportunity for further substantial improvement. The BCM and Mt Thorley‐Warkworth (MTW) air quality monitoring network around the mines indicate that the annual average background PM10 remains well below the relevant EPA criterion of 30µg/m3. The monitoring data showed exceedance of the short term 24‐hour average PM10 of 50µg/m3, some of these exceedances were due to extreme weather events, such as dust storms and bushfires (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013a).

4.1. AirqualityimpactsAn air quality impact assessment (AQIA) was undertaken by Pacific Environmental Limited (PEL) as part of the EIS (Appendix 8). PEL modelled total suspended particulates (TSP), fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and deposited dust, for a number of scenarios representative of the proposed mine development (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). The AQIA (2013a) predicts that dust emissions generated by the Project alone would comply with the relevant operating criteria including TSP at the nearby residents. However, given that there are current exceedances of the 24‐hour average PM10 criterion, these are predicted to continue. Exceedances are likely to impact four receptors in the Bulga Village area, and are expected during the construction of the outer face of the Noise and Visual Bund. The receptors (307, 308, 311 and 317) are predicted to experience exceedances during Years 1, 3 and 6. In Year 3 these receptors are predicted to experience exceedances on seven, six, five and one days out of a year respectively. Once the construction moves away from these receptors, they will no longer experience exceedances of the 24‐hour PM10 criterion (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013a). Table 2 outlines the exceedances that are predicted at the four receptors.

Table 2: Summary of Predicted maximum 24‐hour average PM10 concentration due to the Project alone

Receptor ID Year 1 Year 3 Year 6 Year 13

Maximum 24‐hour Average PM10 (µg/m3)

Acquisition criteria = 50 µg/m3

307 60 66 55 46

308 54 62 53 46

311 a 51 58 48 40

317 39 51 42 36 a owned by AGL (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013a)


21

In response to the submissions received and due to the change in the proposed mine activities, in particular the location of the emplacement areas, a revised AQIA was prepared by Pacific Environmental Limited (PEL) in August 2013. This revised AQIA (Appendix 3 of the RTS) details the air quality impacts, based on the amended mine proposal. The revised mine plan reduced the size and the location of the outer face of the Noise and Visual Bund, and as a result the air quality impacts have also been reduced. The following table, Table 3, compares the original predicted maximum 24‐hour PM10 levels with the revised predicted levels for the four receptors (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013b).

Table 3: Summary of days over 50 µg/m3 for Project‐only

Bulga Optimisation Project (EIS) Revised Project

Receptor ID

Modelling Year

Maximum predicted 24‐hr

PM10 Concentration (Project‐only)

Predicated Days over 50

µg/m3 (Project‐only

Modelling Year

Maximum predicted 24‐hr

PM10 Concentration (Project‐only)

Predicated Days over 50

µg/m3 (Project‐only)

307 Year 3 66 7 Year 1 50 0

308 Year 3 62 6 Year 1 51 1

311 Year 3 58 5 Year 1 42 0

317 Year3 51 1 Year 1 40 0

(Pacific Environment Limited, 2013b)

It can be seen from this table that the reduction in the size and location of the Noise and Visual Bund has a significant impact on the air quality at these four receptors. The Noise and Visual Bund in the revised mine plan, is located on the eastern side of Charlton Road, so the distance between the outer face of the Noise and Visual Bund and these four receptors is greater than in the original mine plan. There is only one day of predicted exceedance during the construction of the outer face of the Noise and Visual Bund in the revised Project.

4.1.1. PeerReview

Cumulative impacts in the area around Bulga Village are a key community concern. The Department engaged Todoroski Air Sciences (TAS) to carry out an independent peer review of the AQIA assessment. Todoroski Air Sciences (2014a) outlined several key issues with the modelling undertaken as part of the EIS and the revised modelling. The errors that TAS identified, led to an overestimation of both the Project‐only and cumulative 24‐hour PM10 impacts (Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd, 2014a). These errors occurred in the base line (2010) modelling, have led to the overestimation of BCM’s impact on air quality. TAS conducted its own assessment of the 24‐hour PM10 criterion, as per the NSW EPA Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (Approved Methods), based on the revised modelling outputs (the amended mine activities) for Year 4 as provided by the Proponent. TAS (2014a) found that there were:

Two additional days of cumulative 24‐hour PM10 average impact above the trigger level, 50 µg/m3, for the base line modelled year of 2010, for receptors to the north‐east of the mine complex (PEL modelling predicted six to 11 additional days); and

No additional days for those receptors in Bulga Village (PEL modelling predicted two additional days).


22

TAS concluded that the impacts from the annual average PM10, annual average TSP and the 24‐hour PM2.5 are not likely to be significant. This is due to the modelling in the AQIA showing that the predicted values are within the relevant acceptable criteria, and these results are an overestimation due to the errors mentioned above. The NSW EPA in its submission considers that a detailed air quality management plan (AQMP) is essential to the management of the mine. The AQMP should include both pro‐active and reactive management elements. The EPA (2013a) considers that the AQMP must include the following, as a minimum:

“Key performance indicator(s);

Monitoring method(s);

Location frequency and duration of monitoring;

Record keeping;

Response mechanisms; and

Compliance reporting”. The Proponent proposes to “implement a reactive and pro‐active Air Quality Control System (AQCS) to assist in minimising the dust emissions through real‐time operation.” The Proponent also proposes to control the risks associated with the cumulative PM10 concentrations via managing and modifying operations at the Main Pit, during those adverse weather conditions, which would potentially have impacts on the north‐western receptors (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013b). The Department in their Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) are satisfied that the modelling of air quality impacts is suitable. The Department notes that TAS report predicted additional days of impacts for receptors to the north‐east of the mine. The Department (2014) recommends the five properties (four near Bulga Village, and the other to the north‐east of BCC) be entitled to additional air quality mitigation measures on request. The Department (2014) has recommended a number of conditions regarding air quality, including requirements for BCM to:

“Comply with contemporary air quality criteria;

Implement all reasonable and feasible ‘source‐based’ measures, to minimise dust emissions, off‐site odours and blast fumes from the site;

Develop a comprehensive Air Quality Management Plan, including continued implementation of a real‐time dust monitoring system to identify and manage potential exceedances;

Schedule activities at the Eastern Emplacement Area to minimise potential air quality impacts on the mushroom composting facility during its operating hours, to the greatest extent practicable;

Independently investigate air quality complaints and undertake applicable management measures;

Notify affected landowners (including tenants of mine‐owned properties) of the potential health‐related impacts associated with mine dust;

Respond effectively to enquiries or complaints;

Publicly report on its environmental performance; and

Co‐ordinate the air quality management on‐site with air quality management of nearby mines, to minimise cumulative air quality impacts”.

The Commission notes the position of the EPA regarding the development of a detailed AQMP. The Commission is satisfied that air quality can be managed to avoid and minimise potential exceedances of the air quality assessment criteria.


23

4.2. HealthConcerns were raised in the submissions to the PAC and at the public hearing, by a number of groups including Singleton Council, Hunter Valley Protection Alliance (HVPA), Hunter Environmental Lobby Inc. (HEL) and individuals regarding the impact of air quality on residents’ health. It is noted that the potential health impacts were only considered for the Mushroom Composters’ staff by the Department in its EAR. Concerns from the local community focused on the level of dust generated from the region’s mines, and the impact that this dust has on air quality, human health and impact on farms (animal health and grape quality). The air quality assessment criteria are designed to protect human against health issues associated with air quality and dust. The modelling and TAS’ peer review indicate that the concentration of Project‐only emissions are generally likely to remain below the NSW EPA assessment criteria (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013a) (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013b) (Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd, 2014a). NSW Health in their initial submission state, that “to date, epidemiological studies have been unable to identify a threshold below which exposure to particulate air pollution is not associated with adverse health effect. Therefore, should the Project be approved, it is important that the Proponent is required to implement all best practice measures to ensure particulate emissions are kept as low as reasonably practicable” (2013a). In their response to the revised modelling and Amended Project application NSW Health, have no outstanding issues with the Project. The Department is satisfied that the mitigation, management and monitoring of dust from the mine proposed by the Proponent are current best practice.

4.3. MushroomCompostingFacilityThe mushroom composting facility is located to the north‐east of the mine complex, and will be impacted directly by dust, during the construction of the Eastern Emplacement Area (EEA). “Mushroom Composters produces in the order of 100 tonnes of Phase 1 mushroom compost per week” (Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd, 2013). Mushroom Composters (MC) employs 12 staff, and is an outdoor enterprise, which produces the compost on “an open air slab with associated under‐aerated bunkers” (Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd, 2013). The initial Project layout had the EEA covering the entire Mushroom Composters site. This has been amended in the revised Project Plan, however the MC will be surrounded on three sides by the EEA, see Figure 2. To determine the air quality impact on the Mushroom Composters’ facility, a number of air quality studies have been completed. These studies have been prepared by:

Pacific Environmental Limited (PEL engaged by BCM – 2013);

Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology (CAMM engaged by Mushroom Composters – 2013); and

Todoroski Air Sciences (TAS engaged by the Department – 2014). Pacific Environmental Limited’s study The specific areas of impact that PEL focused on were:

Microbial impact assessment for the presence and concentration of pathogens in the soil;

Dispersion modelling for concentration of particulate matter and air‐borne bacteria;


24

Risk assessment to employees as the result of the above; and

Proposed mitigation and management measures to minimise dust at the Mushroom Composters (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014).

The PEL study, which included specialists from RMIT, OCTIEF and Klienfelder found that of the four pathogens of concern to the MC, two were detected in the topsoil on BCM land, adjacent to the MC facility. However, the concentrations of these pathogens, were orders of magnitude below those likely to cause harm to the compost, and would likely be destroyed by the heat generated during the composting process. Similarly, the concentrations of air‐borne bacteria are also low that they are unlikely to have a health impact on workers or the compost (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). A risk assessment was undertaken by Dr Greg Miller as part of the PEL study and concludes that while the depositional dust levels are expected to rise, they are predicted to remain within the acceptable criteria of 2g/m2/month (Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd, 2014a). The level of total air‐borne bacteria and fungi at the MC facility is also likely to rise. However the risk assessment indicates that the potential health risks to the Mushroom Composters’ workers due from bioaerosols and inhalable dust are low, and that the proposed control measures are likely to reduce the risk further. Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology’s review CAMM were engaged by Mushroom Composters’ to review the PEL modelling. CAMM was provided the raw data by BCM to allow for the review to occur. The modelling results generated by CAMM for Year 4 (when impacts are likely to be highest according to PEL) indicate a different outcome when comparing the results with PEL’s. The following table, Table 4, compares the results of the two reports for Project‐only emissions. The values vary, and exceedances of the Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (Approved Methods) criteria do occur.

Table 4: Comparison of Potential Dust Impacts on the Mushroom Composting Facility

Pollutant Cumulative Criteria PEL (Project‐only) CAMM (Project‐only)

Deposited dust 2 g/m2/month (Project only) 4 g/m2/month

1.6 to 2.6 g/m2/month

1.8 to 3.2 g/m2/month

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

90 µg/m3 112 to 143 µg/m3 102 to 145 µg/m3

Annual Average PM10 30 µg/m3 35 to 46 µg/m3 32 to 65 µg/m3

24‐hour PM10 50 µg/m3 121 to 150 µg/m3 116 to 313 µg/m3 (up to 187 days a year)

Further, Mushroom Composters’ requested that CAMM undertake modelling for a simulated scenario (Year 3), when material is being placed along the western boundary of the MC facility (Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd, 2014a). The simulated scenario is considered to be the ‘worst‐case’ scenario by the MC. The predicted results of this simulated scenario are:

Dust deposition range from 2.53 g/m2/month to 3.26 g/m2/month (no topsoil stripping included in these results);

Annual average PM10 levels will range from between 46.9 µg/m3 to 65.3 µg/m3 (well above the regulatory criterion of 30 µg/m3); and

24‐hour average PM10 levels will range from between 178.9 µg/m3 to 313.2 µg/m3 (these figures do not include background levels).


25

Todoroski Air Sciences’ technical review To further understand the management approach proposed by BCM to reduce the dust impact on the Mushroom Composters’ facility and workers, the Department engaged Todoroski Air Sciences to undertake a technical review of the PEL modelling. The review was limited to the technical aspects of the modelling assessment. TAS (2014b) concluded that while the proposed approach outlined by PEL represents a best practice approach for dust minimisation that could be practically applied, they note that there are deficiencies in the modelling that required closer examination. The areas that TAS outlined that required clarification or correction are:

Background dust levels are not considered;

Wind erosion (and potentially wheel generated dust from haul roads within the EEA) is omitted;

Only a subset of the dumping locations are assessed for the mitigated scenario;

There is no time series evaluation of the ‘triggered’ conditions;

Potentially faulty meteorological data appears to be used (as discussed in TAS peer review of the AQIA , see Section 4.1.1);

Data and assumptions are not provided to verify the veracity of the modelling analysis;

The basis for evaluating 24‐hour average impact is not clear;

Errors in the modelling and/or analysis are apparent;

Potential miscellaneous issues including: o The impacts of winds on the western dump, and impacts due to wind erosion; and o Analysis appears to be based on hour to hour and source point to receptor point, so

it is unclear how the dumps may operate as a whole; and

No conclusion is made in the PEL report about compliance. Due to these issues identified by TAS, the Department has concerns regarding the BCM’s claims regarding the management and mitigation strategies. The Department’s view (2014) is that “if BCM cannot demonstrate that it can achieve the claimed outcomes, it should be required to either reach a negotiated agreement with the Mushroom Composters to allow the elevated concentrations of dust or acquire the property at the request of the Mushroom Composters, in accordance, with the Department’s standard acquisition procedures.” The additional mitigation measures and strategies were raised in the submissions by MC and CAMM, who also called for an additional independent review of the proposed additional mitigation measures. CAMM (2014) in their submission to the PAC recommended that additional advice from TAS should include analysis:

Focused on likely impacts to the MC’s facility, including a ‘worst‐case’ scenario;

Incorporates a ‘precautionary principle’ when uncertainties are significant;

Is based on corrected meteorological data; and

Which clearly demonstrates the feasibility or otherwise of the ‘additional mitigation’ measures.

Since the public hearing was held the Department has provided the Commission with the Draft Bulga Optimisation Project – Eastern Emplacement Area Management Framework (Draft Management Framework) (Bulga Coal , 2014) for consideration. The Draft Management Framework, prepared by BCM, sets out mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the proposed air quality criteria. The proposed criteria and the proposed mitigation measures that are presented in the Draft Management Framework are discussed below.


26

Assessment Criteria Proposed by BCM BCM have previously argued that the NSW EPA Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (Approved Methods) should not apply to the Mushroom Composters’ site for the following reasons:

“The criteria in the Approved Methods are based on consideration of acceptable 24‐hour exposure at residential properties over 365 days a year, and should not be applied to a place of work where exposure would be limited to 8 hours a day;

The Approved Methods criteria also take into account the most vulnerable members of the community (e.g. children, elderly, those with chronic health conditions, etc), but the employees at the composting facility can reasonably expected to be fit and healthy individuals of working age;

The premise is an industrial facility where the nature of the activities on the site are not sensitive to elevated concentrations of dust and generate significant levels of dust in their own right;

The composting facility was approved on the site precisely because it is compatible with mining;

The proposed management measures would minimise the impacts, and the impacts would not occur over the entire Project life; and

There is no precedent for applying the criteria in the Approved Methods to industrial and/or agricultural businesses” (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014).

The exceedances of the Approved Methods vary depending of the modelled year, the location of dumping of overburden on the EEA and meteorological factors. BCM states that since the mushroom compositing facility is a place of work, and not a sensitive receptor, the Safe Work Australia criterion for inhalable dust, should be applied in this situation. The Safe Work Australia Time Weight Average criterion is 10 mg/m3 over eight hours (Safe Work Australia Time Weighted Average exposure standard for inhalable dust containing no asbestos and <1% crystalline silica) (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). This is much greater than the Approved Methods criterion for 24‐hour average PM10 50 µg/m

3. The inhalable dust criterion is not explicitly the same as the PM10 criterion, however nearly 80% of inhalable dust is of PM10 size (Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd, 2014b). BCM have proposed to be allowed to exceed the Approved Methods criteria at night, and on weekends, when the MC are not operational. During the operational hours of the MC, then the Approved Methods criteria would apply. The Department’s EAR raises the question of whether or not it is appropriate to deviate from the strict criteria, and whether or not this would set a precedence of allowing exceedances during different times of the day e.g. night time or weekends. This is currently still under consideration by the Department. The Commission shares the Department’s concern in regard to precedence but also understands the need for any outcome to be practical in application. Mitigation measures Proposed by BCM As part of BCM’s proposal to deviate from the Approved Methods criteria, BCM have proposed a range of strict monitoring and mitigation measures/strategies to manage the placement of overburden in the EEA. BCM has proposed to be able to exceed the 24‐hour PM10 criterion at the mushroom composting facility outside of the facility’s operating hours. The facility’s operating hours are 6am – 7pm Monday to Friday and 6am – 12 pm Saturday and Sunday. BCM proposes to manage the placement of overburden during these working hours to remain under the 24‐hour PM10 criterion. This would mean that for 13 hours of the day, on weekdays the air quality at the mushroom composting facility will be a 13‐hour average PM10 of 50µg/m

3 (Bulga Coal , 2014). These strategies are provided in Table 5 (Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd, 2014b).


27

Table 5: BCM Proposed Air Quality Management Strategies at the EEA

Use of dust management controls for the EEA as per all areas as discussed in the EIS.

Monitoring of the PM10 during the hours of 6am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 6am to 12pm Saturday and Sunday.

The existing Bulga Coal monitoring and response system would be expanded, including:

Additional PM10 monitoring at the compost facility;

Expansion of the existing dust surveillance system for the EEA; and

Use of meteorological forecasting to inform management of operations at the EEA.

During the noted hours the monitoring system would be used to modify operations, including use of alternate emplacement locations dependent on meteorological conditions.

Continued consultation with Mushroom Composters relating to co‐existence.

Additional compliance monitoring for private residential properties in the Mitchell Line Road area.

Update to the Air Quality Management Plan prior to emplacement activities at the EEA.

(Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd, 2014b)

To be able to demonstrate that BCM can manage the dust emissions at the EEA, BCM has drafted a set of criteria for each of the three areas that make up the EEA to ensure that they can maintain their proposed 13‐hr average PM10 concentration of 50µg/m

3. The criteria chosen by PEL (engaged by BCM) are provide in Table 6, is for a 1‐hour average PM10 concentration. Table 6: Summary of Proposed Preliminary EEA trigger levels

EEA Section Bulga Coal PM10 1‐hour average trigger level (µg/m3)

North 160

West 65

South 130

(Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd, 2014b)

The modelling undertaken by PEL for the Draft Management Framework, highlights that the placement of overburden in the western section of the EEA is the most likely to be impacted by weather conditions. This is likely to cause exceedances of the proposed 13‐hour average PM10 criterion. The Proponent would need to reduce the amount of overburden being placed on the western section to 30% of the maximum monthly amount, to ensure that they will not exceed their own proposed criterion in any weather conditions (Bulga Coal , 2014). The Department (2014) concludes that the proposed mitigation and management framework has merits and it is likely to reduce dust emissions at the Mushroom Composters’ facility, during the day. However, these mitigation measures including the 13‐hour average PM10 criterion are yet to be agreed upon. The Department (2014) has recommended that the PAC to consider this issue as part of the review. The Department’s position at this stage is to recommend the following be required of BCM:

“schedule activities at the Eastern Emplacement Area to minimise potential air quality impacts of the mushroom composting facility during its operating hours, to the greatest extent practicable; and

Prepare a detailed Air Quality Management Plan for the Project in consultation with the EPA and Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd”.

The Commission notes the Department’s position at this stage. Noting the Department’s position and the uncertainties surrounding the modelling, as raised by TAS and also by CAMM and MC in their submissions to PAC, the Commission sought an additional briefing with the Department to


28

discuss the Draft Management Framework proposed by BCM. This briefing was held on 7 August 2014, a record of the meeting is provided in Appendix 3. Mushroom Composters response to Proposed Draft Management Framework The Commission understands that the Draft Bulga Optimisation Project – Eastern Emplacement Area Management Framework was provided to the Mushroom Composters for their comments. Since then, there has been some communication between the Department and the MC providing comments on the Draft Management Framework and the TAS Draft technical review. The Commission met with a representative from MC and their air quality consultant on 25 August 2014 to discuss the Draft Management Framework, their comments on this document and their on‐going concerns regarding air quality at their facility. A record of this meeting is provided in Appendix 3. At this meeting the MC provided the Commission with their feedback on the Draft Framework and the TAS technical review, which MC had previously provided to the Department. The Mushroom Composters have a number of residual concerns relating to the Draft Management Framework proposed by BCM. These are:

That the Draft Management Framework only considers PM10 particles, and does not make mention of any increase in the total deposited dust levels;

That the Draft Management Framework does not discuss adverse effects on other neighbours from the dumping of material at night and associated increase in dust levels; and

That the duration of the construction of the EEA is now likely to take place over a six year period, instead of the four years discussed in the EIS and other documents.

CAMM has reviewed the Draft Management Framework and the TAS draft technical review on behalf of the MC, and has reiterated its position of the 16 June submission to the Commission that the additional advice that the Department sought from TAS should include an analysis of air quality impacts from emission scenarios that:

Focus on likely impacts to the MC’s facility, including a ‘worst‐case’ scenario;

Incorporates a ‘precautionary principle’ when uncertainties are significant;

Is based on an meteorological input file with appropriate configuration and inputs; and

Clearly demonstrates the feasibility or otherwise of the ‘additional mitigation’ measures, o To ensure that all air quality criteria provided in the Approved Methods are satisfied

at the MC facility, not just the 24‐hr average PM10 criterion; and o Do not result in adverse impacts elsewhere (Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd, 2014b).

4.4. FindingandRecommendationsThe Commission finds that generally:

Although concerns have been raised by the community, the assessment and independent peer review of the air quality impact assessment confirmed that the potential impacts are likely to remain below the NSW EPA assessment criteria.

The draft recommended conditions (Conditions 16 – 18 of Schedule 3) are satisfactory and have included the NSW EPA requirements.

The requirements of Condition 19(a) need to be satisfactorily resolved by the Department to the satisfaction of the final determining PAC.

In relation to the Mushroom Composters the Commission finds that the Draft Management Framework for the management of dust and air quality impacts on the MC needs to be further developed to take into account the deficiencies raised in the Todoroski review of 5 June 2014 and the CAMM response of 15 August 2014 prior to the Department’s final assessment of the Project.


29

Prior to submission of the Project for determination the relevant parties need to be satisfied that the Draft Management Framework can be technically delivered in a way that satisfactorily addresses the need to adaptively manage air quality impacts at the Mushroom Composters facility. The Draft Management Framework should also incorporate a rigorous monitoring and enforcement regime and contain agreed triggers that enforce mitigation measures when exceedances are likely to occur. The Commission recommends the technical review committee identified in the Draft Management Framework should be conditioned to have power to propose mitigation measures as appropriate. The Commission considers it is important that the technical review committee, which will oversight operations of the Management Framework should meet regularly and more frequently in the early development stage of the EEA to ensure appropriate technical inputs and reviews of the monitoring of the results of the management measures to adjust the management strategies as required. The Commission notes that the Department initially indicated it would be providing a supplementary report with its further assessment of the air quality impacts. In its absence the Commission recommends a number of agreed options be established with a set of trigger conditions to ensure that when exceedances are likely to occur agreed mitigation measures commence. These mitigation options may include:


Placing of material at a different location within the EEA;


Temporary protection measures for the Mushroom Composters site and workers, including a temporary enclosure; and

Acquisition. The mitigation measures to be implemented need to ensure that air quality is not compromised at other receivers in the locality. Acquisition should only be considered when the other immediate and medium term mitigation measures are unable to comply with agreed criteria and at the request of the MC as outlined in the EAR. The Commission finds that the draft recommended condition (Condition 18 (f) of Schedule 3) will need to be finalised by the Department following further consideration of the Management Framework proposed by BCM associated with the EEA. The Commission further recommends that Condition 19(a) of Schedule 3 should be removed, as the requirements of Condition 19(a) need to be satisfactorily resolved prior to submission of the Project for determination.


30

5. NoiseandVisual

5.1. NoiseBCM is proposing to continue mining in the same manner, with no increase in extraction rates. The difference with this Project compared to the existing consent is the placement of overburden in out‐of‐pit emplacements along the western and north‐eastern boundaries of the complex. This placement and the associated clearing, soil stripping, dumping of material and earthmoving activities have the potential for noise impacts and therefore impacts on amenity of the surrounding community (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). Noise modelling was carried out by Global Acoustics as part of the Environmental Noise Assessment (NIA) of the EIS (Appendix 6). The noise modelling considered the following aspects of noise from both the Bulga Mine Complex, but also the adjacent Mt Thorley‐Warkworth Mine Complex (Global Acoustics Pty Ltd, 2013a). To predict the worst case scenarios for noise, the modelling was undertaken for the five stages of the proposed mine development, being Years 1, 3, 6, 13 and 16. The modelling was conducted for Day and Evening/Night scenarios for Years 1, 3, 6 and 13. During the exhibition period a number of submissions were received concerning noise issues. The EIS notes that during community consultation, noise was the second largest concern among the community behind air quality (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013c). Submissions were received from NSW Department of Health, Singleton Council and the NSW EPA; along with nine community submissions including the Hunter Valley Protection Alliance. Concerns raised by government agencies included the assessment of what are acceptable noise impacts, and the mitigation controls to reduce these impacts; health concerns with regard to noise level; the need to clearly demonstrate that the community has been consulted regarding the predicted noise impacts and mitigation controls; and a complaint mechanism for residents should be included into the proposed noise management plan (NSW Environmental Protection Authority, 2013a) (NSW Health ‐ Hunter New England Local Health District, 2013a) (Singleton Council, 2013). Community concerns were broadly around background noise, noise levels including Project‐only and cumulative noise and the noise modelling – the NSW Industrial Noise Policy methodology versus the Broner methodology. In response to the concerns raised by government agencies and community groups, the Proponent has carried out additional noise modelling taking account for the amended Project Plan. Specifically the revised NIA considered the redesigned emplacement areas including the location of the Noise and Visual Bund, the timing of the construction of the emplacement areas and the modified location of some mine services (Global Acoustics Pty Ltd, 2013b). The NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP) sets out principles for determining background noise, and the background noise was derived in accordance with the NSW INP principles. The Proponent notes that the baseline noise levels used in the revised modelling is the background noise levels as per the NSW INP methodology (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The modelling that was undertaken during the EIS and for the revised Project Plan, used both the NSW INP methodology and the Broner methodology, and took into account the noise allowances for the MTW mine complex, including the proposed Warkworth Extension Project (Global Acoustics Pty Ltd, 2013a) (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). While the modelling considered adjacent mines and known future developments, such as the proposed Warkworth Extension Project, the noise


31

contours presented in the EIS and the revised Project Plan are for the Project‐only and not the cumulative noise levels. Community consultation was carried out by the Proponent who at a workshop in November 2012, provided attendees with predicted noise levels, shown as noise contours. It was communicated at this workshop that a small number of properties are predicted to experience noise levels above the adopted noise criteria, of 35 dB(A) during the construction of the Noise and Visual Bund. The modelling indicates that these noise levels would generally be less than the current approved levels, which are provided in Table 6 of DA 41‐03‐89 MOD 7. (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The Noise and Visual Bund is discussed further in Section 5.3 below. The Department (2014) recommends a number of conditions of consent and mitigation measures for noise to reduce the impact on the surrounding community. These include requirements of the Proponent to:

“Develop a comprehensive Noise Management Plan, including an early warning alert system to identify and manage potential exceedances;

Conduct monthly attended noise monitoring at representative receivers to demonstrate compliance with the operating criteria;

Independently investigate noise complaints and undertake applicable management measures; and

Consultation with the community, including publicly reporting all monitoring results, and effectively responding to enquiries and complaints.”

5.2. LowFrequencyNoiseTo predict the impacts of low frequency noise, Global Acoustics used two methodologies to model the low frequency noise; these are the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP) and the published method in A Simple Method for Low Frequency Noise Emission Assessment by Broner (Global Acoustics Pty Ltd, 2013a). The modelling results using the INP method found that 11 receptors had a C‐weighted minus A‐weighted result of greater than or equal to 15 dB, and an A‐weighted prediction greater than LAeq, 15 minute 30 dB. Low frequency noise was raised in a number of submissions, including by the NSW EPA. The NSW EPA in their original and supplementary submissions to the Department raised concerns regarding how the Proponent had assessed the low frequency noise, via the Broner methodology and not via the NSW INP. The EPA (2013b) in their submission also acknowledged “the issues associated with the assessment methodology used to assess low frequency noise impacts, however until such time as a new approach is accepted, the INP remains the government’s policy which defines the acceptable assessment methodology” . Further modelling using both the Broner methodology and the NSW INP methodology, was conducted as part of the Revised Project NIA. Although the EPA expressed concern with the methodology used in the modelling in its initial submission to the Department, its final advice to the Department indicated that it is satisfied that the assessment of low frequency noise has been adequately addressed. The Department (2014) is satisfied that there is unlikely to be any significant low frequency noise impacts, as a result of the Project, and for this reason the Department has not applied any low frequency noise modifying factor penalties in the noise assessment.


32

The Commission considered the EPA’s concerns regarding the use of the Broner Methodology as part of the low frequency noise assessment. The Commission further notes that the EPA understands that the NSW INP methodology can lead to abnormal results and that the EPA is working to address these issues with the methodology. As such, the EPA has left the determination of the suitability of the residual noise component up to the Department, and the Department is satisfied with the assessment, a position the Commission also accepts.

5.3. NoiseandVisualBundThe emplacement area along the western side of the Bulga Mine Complex is known as the Noise and Visual Bund (the Bund). This overburden emplacement is designed to shield the village of Bulga and other residents from the operational workings of the mine into the future. The outer face of the Bund will be constructed during the first few years of the proposal and should be completed by Year 4 (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). The original location of the Bund was to impact on the alignment of Charlton Road, and required the clearing of some of the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC. Charlton Road is part of the Great North Road that connected Sydney with Jerry Plains, and is one of the last remaining examples of Surveyor‐General Thomas Mitchell’s work. A number of submissions were received objecting to the relocation, due to the road’s heritage and historic significance (Heritage Council of NSW, 2013) (Hunter Valley Protection Alliance, 2013). Due to the objections regarding the location of the Bund and its impacts, the Proponent has redesigned the Bund so that it no longer impacts on the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC and no longer requires the relocation of Charlton Road (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). The construction of the outer face of the Bund will only take place during daytime hours, to reduce the noise levels on the surrounding community. The Proponent acknowledges that “during certain months, the frequency of elevated noise levels may be higher during this one‐hour period (6pm – 7pm) than during the day due to a higher probability of enhancing wind conditions in the evening period” (Global Acoustics Pty Ltd, 2013a). The Proponent acknowledged that it will need to carefully monitor and manage the noise emissions during these periods. Some of the community’s concerns regarding the Noise and Visual Bund include that the Bund is an emplacement area and not a mitigation measure; the majority of the noise will come from the construction of the Bund and that the benefits will be nullified during adverse wind and temperature inversion conditions. The Community also questioned the benefits of the Bund, as noise contour maps for the Project proceeding without the construction of the Bund were not available. In the Response to Submissions (RTS) the Proponent states that the use of bunding and barriers for noise retardation is commonplace within many industries including the mining industry. The Bund has been designed primarily for noise mitigation and visual screening of the mining operations. The Bund has been designed to be of similar height to surrounding mining landforms, and while it is not as high as the Charlton Ridge, it does not need to be, as it is located closer to the noise source (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The Bund will be constructed and shaped in stages, and the outer face being constructed during the first four years. While there will be some increase in noise during the construction phase, the construction of the outer face will be confined to the day period, to minimise the noise impact to the surrounding community. Year 1 of the modelling highlights the noise levels predicted during the construction of the bund (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d).


33

The modelling considered 195 different weather scenarios (including adverse winds and temperature inversions) to evaluate the possible impacts of noise across a wide range of scenarios. The results of the modelling indicate that the Bund will be effective at reducing operational noise levels to the surrounding community, even during adverse wind and temperature inversion conditions (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The Department acknowledges that in the short term, there are likely to be significant noise and visual impacts, due to the construction of the Bund. The Department finds that the longer term benefits of the Bund will provide a noise and visual barrier to the mine, shielding the community from the operations of the mine (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014).

5.4. BlastingA Blasting Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment (BIA) was prepared by Wilkinson Murray as part of the EIS (Appendix 7). The BIA notes that the blast program for the Project will be in accordance with the Proponent’s existing Blast & Vibration Management Plan (BVMP) (Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited, 2012).

Blasting operations will continue to be limited to periods between 9.00am and 5.00pm Monday to Saturday. Any blasting required outside of these periods will require approval from the NSW EPA prior to blasting operations occurring. The BIA (2012) states that each blast will be designed to maximise blast efficiency, minimise vibration and airblast impacts, and therefore will vary in size, the stemming procedure and the nature of the stemming material used. Singleton Council’s submission (2013) commented that best practice Blast Management Plan should be developed and implemented. Concerns have been raised in a number of submissions that blasting operations were a major source of community complaints between 2006 and 2012. The community is further concerned that while blasting is an issue for residents, the criteria have not been exceeded and therefore the criteria is not suitable, as it is not managing the impacts associated with the blasting. The following comments were made:

The existing vibration impacts experienced will be exacerbated to an unreasonable degree if this development were to be approved;

Blasting is proposed to occur between 9.00am – 6.00pm Monday to Saturday. As such, the noise, vibration and dust impacts will be significantly increased; and

Blasting activities (fume) may pose a health risk. The Proponent’s response to these concerns that the blasting periods will remain the same as currently approved, and that there is no proposed increase in blasting hours. The vibration impacts will continue to be managed through the existing BVMP, and the proposed blasting impacts will remain similar to the existing impacts. The Proponent’s Blast Fume Management Plan (BFMP) which outlines control measures to manage the potential health and environmental impacts from inefficient detonation or incomplete combustion. The BVMP will be updated to incorporate the Project’s blasting requirements (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The Department is satisfied that blasting impacts for this Project would be similar to the existing operation. Given the significant community concern and complaints about blasting impacts, the Commission communicated with the Department’s Compliance team in Singleton, who confirmed that a number of complaints were received between 2006 and 2012, with a spike in complaints over a blast on 30


34

May 2012. The blast had a high overpressure and exceeded at one monitor, however no action was taken due to the fact that it was an isolated incidence; and the Proponent has had a good track record on remaining within the relevant blasting criteria. This is further evident from the fact that no Penalty Infringement Notices have been issued to the Proponent.

5.5. LightingThe EIS notes the 24 hour operations of the mine, results in night time glow (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013c). The Proponent states that a number of mitigation measures are in place to reduce the impact of the lights on surrounding areas and communities, through the inclusion of significant planting of vegetation as part of the rehabilitation and roadside screening, the use of shields and directional lights. During the construction of the Noise and Visual Bund, particularly during the winter months, when day light hours are less, there is likely to be some impact from lights while the day shift construction continues. This will be managed through the use of shields as required and the placement of mobile lighting plants, by the Proponent to minimise impacts particularly to Charlton Road, while still providing a safe work environment.

5.6. FindingsandRecommendationsThe Commission finds that in relation to noise and low frequency noise that:

One of the key concerns to the community is the cumulative noise impacts from mining in the area.

Cumulative noise is an issue that requires a co‐operative approach from other noise generators, and the Proponent of this Project can only deal with the issue where its Project is concerned.

The proposal to place material only on the outer faces of the overburden areas during the day period and in protected areas at night period will reduce the noise impacts on the surrounding communities.

While low frequency noise is one of the key concerns of the community, the issue has been adequately addressed in the Department’s EAR.

The draft recommended conditions (Conditions 3‐6 in Schedule 3 and Appendices 6 and 7) are appropriate to mitigate noise, including low frequency noise. Monitoring of compliance is essential and follow‐up action should be carried out if breaches occur.

Condition 7 of Schedule 3 requires the preparation and implementation of a Noise Management Plan. A review requirement should be included, particularly following the finalisation of the management plan for the Eastern Emplacement Area.

The Proponent should continue to consult with the community on noise mitigation measures and on further developing and improving the noise complaints handling mechanism, as suggested by NSW Health.

The Commission agrees with the Department’s assessment that the Bund, when constructed, will be an effective noise and visual barrier to the mining operations from the surrounding areas. The draft recommended conditions in Schedule 3 in relation to the operation of the Project (Condition 6), visual screening (Condition 45), implementation of measures to minimise visual and off‐site lighting impacts (Condition 46) and the preparation and implementation of a Visual Impact Management Plan (Condition 47) are suitable conditions to minimise potential impacts on the community. The Commission recommends that Condition 44 of Schedule 3 (regarding the construction of the bund) be strengthened to specify it be completed within the 4 years as indicated by the company. Condition 44 therefore be amended to:



35

a) Be completed within 4 years after the commencement of development under this consent, unless a variation is approved by the Secretary; and


The Commission finds that in relation to blasting that:

although there were complaints from the residents about the impacts of blastings, the investigation found the blastings were within the performance criteria, except in the May 2012 instance;

the key concern from the community is blast fumes from inefficient detonation and incomplete combustion and the resultant potential health impacts;

the blasting program for this Project will adopt the management strategies and measures in an updated BVMP;

the Department is satisfied that the assessed blasting impacts would be similar to the existing operation; and

a number of draft conditions are recommended (Conditions 8‐15 of Schedule 3) to manage the potential impacts including the BVMP and BFMP.

Although the Commission considers that the draft recommended conditions (Conditions 8 – 15 of Schedule 3) are adequate to address the potential blasting impacts of BCC open cut operations, monitoring of compliance and regular review of environmental management strategies and measures is of critical importance to ensure impacts on the community are minimised. The Commission finds that a balance needs to be achieved between light intrusion and a safe work environment be provided for the mine workers. It is a standard requirement that all lighting should be shielded and directed away from residences as much as is operationally feasible. The draft recommended conditions relating to lighting (Conditions 46 – 47 of Schedule 3) are suitable; however compliance with the conditions needs to be monitored and enforced.


36

6. AboriginalCulturalHeritage The Bulga Mine Complex is located within the traditional homelands of the Wonnarua people. The site is part of the Wanaruah Aboriginal Land Council Boundary. As part of the Project development, the Proponent engaged Connect for Effect to undertake an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA – Appendix 13a). Oz Ark Environmental and Heritage Management (OzArk) were engaged to complete an Aboriginal Archaeological Values Assessment (AAVA – Appendix 13b). During the ACHA/AAVA development, consultation occurred across six stages, in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage’s (OEH) 2011 guideline. In excess of 60 Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) were consulted with, including:

Three Native Title claimant groups; o Plains Clans of the Wonnarua People (PCWP); o Wonnarua People (WP) represented by the Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal

Corporation (WNAC); and o Wonnarua Traditional Custodians (WTC).

Wanaruah Local Aboriginal Land Council (WLALC);

Two Aboriginal community organisations; and

Individual parties (Connect for Effect Pty Limited, 2013). The OEH administered Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) identifies 228 previously recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites within the Project Area (OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management Pty Limited, 2013). The majority of recorded artefacts are either scatters or isolated finds. Of particular note are the two grinding grooves (BMU1 and Loders Creek) and the single scarred tree (Connect for Effect Pty Limited, 2013). Both the Loders Creek and BMU1 grinding groove sites were assessed as having high archaeological significance (OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management Pty Limited, 2013). The protection of the grinding grooves has been of particular concern to both the Aboriginal and non‐indigenous communities. This was due to the Loders Creek grinding grooves being located within a previously declared conservation zone, which is now going to be impacted by the Project.

6.1. BMU1grindinggroovesFollowing the exhibition of the EIS further discussions were held with the WNAC and PCWP knowledge holder groups who confirmed that the preferred management options for the BMU1 grinding grooves is to:

“Relocate the grinding rooves to the proposed Wollombi Brook Conservation Agreement Area for teaching purposes and viewing of future generations. This process would require investigation and salvage of the site surrounds so that any associated artefacts are identified and relocated with the grooves; and

Cover the area with geo‐fabric or similar protective material to protect the grooves and leave in situ under the Noise and Visual Bund” (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013c).

The EAR confirms the BMU1 grinding grooves will be firstly 3D scanned, then covered with geofabric and a layer of sand and left in situ. The Bund will be constructed over the BMU1 grinding grooves.

6.2. LodersCreekgrindinggroovesThe proposed impact on the Loders Creek grinding grooves was objected to in numerous submissions, including a petition with 400 signatures (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014).


37

OEH (2013a) in their initial submission noted that there are unresolved issues regarding Aboriginal Heritage, and that no agreement has been reached, on the management of the BMU1 and Loders Creek grinding grooves. OEH strongly recommends that the Proponent maintains consultation with the RAPs and clearly demonstrates this consultation in the updated Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP), and that ongoing continuous consultation occurs for the life of the Project. OEH notes that there is “no assurance that this area (Wollombi Brook Conservation Agreement Area) will be accepted by OEH as a conservation area in accordance with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act” (Office of Environment and Heritage, 2013a). OEH recommends that the Proponent continues to investigate means to secure this land for conservation purposes in perpetuity. In response to the concerns raised about the relocation of the Loders Creek grinding grooves, the Proponent has consulted further with the Aboriginal Community, to reach a resolution for the protection and management of the grinding grooves. OEH provided a supplementary submission, based on the Revised and Amended Project Plan. In this supplementary submission OEH notes that the conservation of the Loders Creek grinding grooves requires further community consultation (Office of Environment and Heritage, 2013b). OEH notes that two knowledge holder groups (Plains Clan of the Wonnarua People (PCWP) and the Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal Corporation (WNAC)) do not object to the Loders Creek grinding grooves being relocated to the Wollombi Brook Conservation Agreement Area. However, two other knowledge holder groups (Wonnarua Traditional Custodians (WTC) and the Wanaruah Local Aboriginal Land Council (WLALC)) categorically object to the relocation of the grinding grooves, and any impact to the site due to mining. OEH (2013b) notes that “until such time as the impasse over this situation is resolved OEH is unable to support any of the proposed management recommendations for this site”. Further consultation has occurred between the Proponent and the three knowledge holder groups, being the PCWP, the WNAC and the WTC. The Commission understands that the WTC and the Proponent have negotiated for the relocation of the Loders Creek grinding grooves to a location outside of the mine impact zone still within Loders Creek, to maintain the connection to country. The Commission is not aware of any additional consultation with WLALC, PCWP or the WNAC, and their current positions on the relocation of the Loders Creek grinding grooves, to the site along Loders Creek. The Commission notes the Department (2014) is satisfied with the proposed management measures for both the BMU1 and Loders Creek grinding grooves notwithstanding the predicted adverse impacts on the grinding grooves due to the development of the mine. In addition to the proposed management measures for the grinding grooves, mentioned above, the Department has recommended a number of conditions to further minimise impacts on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, through the development of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP). The ACHMP must include:

“A detailed plan of management for the Loders Creek and BMU1 grinding grooves;

A salvage/relocation plan for other sites within the Project disturbance area;

A description of the management of the Wollombi Brook Conservation Management Area;

A description of measures that would be implemented for managing heritage items on site, managing the discovery of any previously unidentified Aboriginal objects on site; and


38

An ongoing consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders” (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014)

The ACHMP is to be developed in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders and OEH, and the consultation needs to be clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

6.3. FindingsandRecommendationsThe Commission finds that:

The Proponent has carried out extensive consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders and it is a complex and time consuming process.

The OEH is clear that it is unable to support any proposed management recommendations for the Loders Creek grinding grooves unless the impasse among the Aboriginal groups is resolved.

The Commission agrees that it is important to ensure the conservation management of the grinding grooves is accepted and agreed by all concerned parties before the site is disturbed.

The draft recommended conditions in the assessment report (Conditions 33 to 39 of Schedule 3) are appropriate in protection Aboriginal heritage items. These conditions deal with prohibition of disturbance to any human remains found on site, protection of heritage items including the Loders Creek Grinding Grooves, the establishment of the Wollombi Brook Conservation Area, and the preparation and implementation of heritage protection measures and management plan including monitoring and reporting.

To address the issue of relocation of the Loders Creek Grinding Grooves, the Commission recommends the Proponent to continue its consultation with the PCWP, WNAC and WLALC to finalise any agreement to the relocation. Condition 35 of Schedule 3 should be amended to include “in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders and OEH”.


39

7. Biodiversity The footprint of the Project is a total of 3,786 Ha, 2,156 Ha of this land has previously been disturbed by mining activities, of which 421 Ha has be rehabilitated. The footprint of impact has been reduced due to the amended designs for the Eastern Emplacement Area (EEA) and the Noise and Visual Bund (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The impacts to flora and fauna will be discussed in the following sections, and the mitigation and offsetting strategies, including the Department’s recommendations will be discussed in Section 7.3.

7.1. FloraImpactsWithin the Project footprint a total of 14 native vegetation communities were recorded. An additional seven communities were also recorded as being highly disturbed, exotic or non‐vegetated communities (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). The Ecological Assessment (EA – Appendix 9) by Umwelt, carried out in December 2009, March, May, June, July and October 2011 and March 2013 identified two endangered flora populations (Weeping Myall and Tiger Orchid) and one threatened flora species (Slaty Red Gum) within and outside of the Project disturbance area (2013a). The approximate numbers of each species identified are:

Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula) – across four locations 450 individuals (up to 400 mature or capable of reproduction) in the disturbance area, and approximately 2,000 (up to 350 mature) outside of the disturbance area;

Tiger Orchid (Cymbidium canaliculatum) – two were recorded, one within the disturbance area, and the other outside the disturbance area; and

Slaty Red Gum (Eucalyptus glaucina) – approximately 15 individuals were recorded at a single location outside of the disturbance area; and possibly up to 100 more individuals or hybrids may occur sporadically across this area. Within the Singleton Military Training Area a significant population exists, estimated to be in the order of 1 million individuals.

The amended Project will no longer impact on the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, which was raised as a concern in several submissions including OEH; Hunter Valley Protection Alliance (HVPA); the Hunter Environment Lobby (HEL) and by the community (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). Concerns in the submissions included the cumulative impacts of clearing of native vegetation across the Hunter Valley, and the lack of ‘like for like’ offsetting, and the long term protection of offsets. The key concern in relation to offsets is that if they are located outside of the immediate area, they will not provide protection for those species which may become locally extinct due to the mining operations within the region. The proposed biodiversity offsets and rehabilitation strategy will be addressed in Section 7.3 and Section 8.1 respectively.

7.2. FaunaImpactsFauna surveys specifically for this Project were conducted by Umwelt (2013a) during summer 2009, autumn 2011 and winter 2011. These built on the previous surveys which have taken place across the mine complex since 1999.


40

These fauna surveys identified 245 fauna species on the Project site, including 233 native species and 12 exotic species; comprising of 13 frog species, 18 reptiles, 169 birds and 45 mammals. A total of 21 threatened species, including 11 bird and 10 bat species, were recorded within the Project Area and were considered to be at risk of being impacted by Project (Unwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013a). The assessment undertaken by Umwelt recorded the brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus victoriae) immediately adjacent to the Project Area, during the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2011 annual surveys. Although remnant woodland which is brown treecreeper habitat is recorded within the mine complex, there were no recording of the brown treecreeper in the Project Area. Notwithstanding such recording, Umwelt (2013a) determined that this TSC Act listed species (listed as vulnerable) has the potential to be significantly impacted by the Project. OEH in its initial submission, raised concerns regarding the bird surveys being able to detect the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera Phrygia) and the Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolour). These species are extremely rare and nomadic, and are attracted to high nutrient woodlands, by local flowering episodes. The vegetation in the Project Area are attractive to both species, and OEH (2013a) recommended that a “revised assessment of the significant on the Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot, to take into account the local and regional extent of preferred habitat and impacts upon connectivity at a broader scale”.

7.3. BiodiversityOffsetStrategyAs part of the Project, the Proponent has provided an extensive Biodiversity Offset Strategy (BOS), to manage the impacts to flora and fauna (Unwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013a). The two land‐based offset sites were proposed as part of the BOS, these were:

One on‐site offset site of approximately 67 Ha; and

One offset site, located approximately 70 km north‐west of the mine’s location (known as Reedy Valley Offset Site (RVOS)), of approximately 1,363 Ha.

A number of concerns were raised by the community, Singleton Council and OEH regarding the BOS. Some of these concerns included:

Inadequate biodiversity offsets for impact on fauna species;

No ‘like for like’ offsets;

Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC;

Inadequate assessment of impacts – including lack of assessment of cumulative ecological impacts and impact on dependent threatened fauna species;

Inadequate study of flora in the area;

Significant impact on biodiversity;

Damage to Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs);

Project not consistent with the Recovery Plans for the Green and Golden Bell Frog, the Grey‐headed Flying‐fox, the Regent Honeyeater and the Swift Parrot;

Clearing of vegetation will have significant impact on birds foraging and nesting ability; and

Assessment ignored potential indirect impacts from mining operations. In response to these concerns, the Proponent amended the Project Plan and subsequently the BOS which incorporates elements from the original strategy and includes:

No impact on the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC;

Reduction in the direct impact on the Weeping Myall Woodland EEC and Endangered Population;


41

Increased area of ‘like for like’ offset for the Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC;

Increased area of ‘like for like’ habitat for threatened fauna species impacted;

Offset area for Slaty Red Gum;

An additional onsite offset site of approximately 251 Ha; and

An increase in the size of the RVOS by 123 Ha, totally 1,486 Ha. The final BOS is summarised in Table 7, and shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Table 7: Summary of Proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy

Offset location Area of Woodland/Forest

offset (Ha)

DNG/disturbed areas to be

Regenerated (Ha)

Other (water body, etc)

(Ha)

Total area offset (Ha)

On‐site Broke Road Offset 49 189 3 241 Wollombi Brook Conservation Area

37 29 2 68

Off‐site Reedy Valley Offset (70km NW of the site)

1398 88 ‐ 1468

Total 1484 306 5 1795 Note: DNG – derived native grassland. (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014)


42

Figure 4: Biodiversity Offset Strategy ‐ regional context


43

Figure 5: Proposed Wollombi Brook Conservation Area


44

Figure 6: Broke Road Offset Site


45

Figure 7: Reedy Valley Offset Site


46

The Proponent acknowledges the concerns regarding the limited ‘like for like’ offsetting of native vegetation. Since the exhibition of the EIS, the Proponent has been discussing ‘like for like’ offsets with both OEH and the Department. In OEH’s supplementary submission, it acknowledges the reduction in the development footprint, and the subsequent reduction in impacts on the Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC, the Weeping Myall endangered populations, and the nil impact on the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC (Office of Environment and Heritage, 2013b). However, OEH had residual concerns regarding the BOS, in particular the pathway the Proponent choose to use to quantify the biodiversity loss and gain, using the ‘Principles for the use of biodiversity offsets in NSW’, instead of the suggested BioBanking Assessment Methodology (2008). OEH’s (2013b) concern were “that the Proponent did not provide an adequate quantification of the impacts and benefits which took into account not just the areas of impact and types of ecological communities and habitats affected by also a quantifiable approach to connectivity, condition, management actions and level of security of offset (Principle 9)”. OEH (2013b) acknowledges that while the Reedy Valley Offset site is outside the immediate impact; it will provide a valuable contribution to the protection of lands within the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative. However it will not address the decrease in connectivity issues within the Project area or the loss of habitat for key grassy woodland birds, such as the Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot. OEH’s residual concerns where further discussed with the Department and the Proponent, and a supplementary contribution by the Proponent to the Regent Honeyeater National Recovery Program was agreed to by all parties. OEH is now satisfied with the total offset package. The final BOS package includes:

Two on site offset areas: o Broke Road Offset area totalling 241 Ha; o Wollombi Brook Conservation Area totalling 68 Ha;

One off site offset area: o Reedy Valley Offset (70km NW of the site) totalling 1468 Ha; and

Regent Honeyeater National Recovery Program contribution. The Department acknowledges that the Revised Project has avoided impacting the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC. The Department is satisfied that the final BOS will adequately address and mitigate the residual impacts that the mine will have on the native flora and fauna. The Department has recommended a number of conditions. These conditions require BCM to:

“Manage remnant vegetation on the site, and control weeds and pests;

Undertake progressive vegetation clearing and rehabilitation;

Maximize the salvage and reuse of environmental resources (e.g. tree hollows) in the disturbance area;

Undertake pre‐clearance surveys to minimise impacts on fauna; and

Contribute towards the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Program” (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014).

According to the Commonwealth Department of Environment’s website, it has granted a Controlled Action for the proposal which covers: Listed threatened species and communities (ss18 & 18A); Commonwealth Land (ss 26 & 27A); Migratory Species (ss 20 & 20A) and Water Resources (ss 24D & 24E).


47


It is a huge challenge to locate large offset sites close to the area of disturbance within the Hunter Valley.

The proposed offsets have been increased in response to public and agencies’ submissions.

The OEH, the lead agency in relation to management of offset areas, is now satisfied with the total offset package.

The draft recommended conditions (Conditions 26 – 32 of Schedule 3 and Appendix 8) are appropriate to manage and mitigate the impacts on biodiversity in the Project Area, particularly the requirement to provide long term security of the offset lands and the requirement for a conservation bond.


48

8. RehabilitationandFinalLandForm

8.1. RehabilitationThe rehabilitation strategy, as stated in the Ecological Impact Assessment of the EIS (Appendix 9) aims to rehabilitate areas after mining, as soon as practicable once shaped areas are available. The rehabilitation will target the following vegetation communities:

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC;

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC; and

Central Hunter Swamp Oak Forest (Unwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013a). The rehabilitation of the mine will be progressive and on‐going. The conceptual closure strategy is shown in Figure 8. This conceptual plan has been amended to accommodate the modifications in the mine Proposal after the exhibition period of the EIS.

Figure 8: Conceptual Closure Strategy


49

Some of the concerns raised by the community in relation to the rehabilitation strategy, included:

Mining land cannot be rehabilitated to what it was previously;

The record of Xstrata’s rehabilitation has been dismal; and

That there is no certainty regarding the timeframe for the construction the external face of the Bund, given that the three year timeframe, commencing at the beginning of the Project, may be extended.

The Proponent acknowledges that previous rehabilitation work has been slow to commence. This was because the area was subject to future mining (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). In response to community feedback the Proponent has implemented a number of measures for temporary rehabilitation until the area can be permanently rehabilitated. These measures include aerial seeding and the temporary reshaping of the overburden emplacement. For this Project the current temporary rehabilitation measures will continue to be employed. The rehabilitation strategy is to return as much of the Project Area to woodlands. The Proponent proposes to use endemic species, which would have historically occurred in the region. Where it is deemed appropriate for erosion and sediment control and to minimise dust impacts, exotic species may be used, while the native species establish themselves (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). Of the approximate 3,785 Ha of disturbance, the majority of this, approximately 3,300 Ha will be rehabilitated. The areas to be rehabilitated include:

A minimum of 2,500 Ha are to be revegetated to woodland, as part of the biodiversity offsets;

Approximately 250 Ha will be revegetated to Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest; and

The remaining area (≈ 500 Ha) to be revegetated with predominately Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d).

The Department is satisfied that the proposed rehabilitation strategy is appropriate and provides a balance between onsite rehabilitation and final land use, including agricultural land. The Department has recommended a number of conditions to ensure that the rehabilitation is undertaken in accordance with best practice standards. These conditions include:

“Complete the Noise and Visual Bund as quickly as possible;

Comply with a number of best practice rehabilitation objectives;

Provide for the progressive rehabilitation of the site; and

Prepare and implement a comprehensive Rehabilitation Management Plan” (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014).

8.2. FinalLandFormThe final land form and land uses will be detailed in the mine closure planning process that will commence at least five years prior to the mine closing (Unwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013a). Figure 8 shows the conceptual final layout and land form for the mine. The final land form and land use was raised in submissions by Singleton Council and by the Hunter Valley Protection Alliance. The issues included that the final landform and land use should be determined from a strategic and sustainability perspective, involving key stakeholders; that the assessing of potential impacts of the proposed final void on Wollombi Brook are poorly understood; it is not proven that the void water will not drain into Wollombi Brook; and that any assessment is


50

being left to late in the planning process (Singleton Council, 2013) (Hunter Valley Protection Alliance, 2013). The Proponent’s response is that the final land use options will be strategically considered in consultation with Singleton Council and key stakeholders. Options for the final land uses may include agricultural uses on the flatter grades, as indicated in Figure 8. The final void will be progressively flooded as water levels rise in the void, though it is expected to take up to 500 years to reach the maximum predicted level. The land around the void will be planted with woodland species as part of the rehabilitation program, noting that some of these will be inundated as the water level in the void rises (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The Groundwater Impact Assessment carried out by Mackie Environmental Research as part of the EIS (Appendix 11), indicates that the depth of water in the final void is likely to be around RL 17m AHD after 500 years (this is approximately 60m below the natural ground surface, and is unlikely to spill causing downstream water quality issues (Umwelt (Austraila) Pty Limited, 2013b). The pit lake is likely to be in excess of 200m deep. Groundwater modelling was completed as part of the EIS (Appendix 11), and groundwater modelling of the Revised Project was also undertaken (Appendix 6 – RTS). The subsequent modelling found a negligible change in the predicted impacts between the Original Project and Revised Project. The Revised Project has a larger final void catchment area, and as such the void lake is likely to fill slightly faster than originally modelled. The void area will still remain under the spill elevation after 500 years (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d). The Department has recommended a number of conditions to manage, monitor and mitigate water quality impacts associated with the final void. These measures are to be included into a Water Management Plan, that is to be developed in consultation with EPA and NOW.

8.3. FindingsandRecommendationsThe Commission finds that in relation to rehabilitation:

The community is sceptical about the proposed rehabilitation program given the Proponent past rehabilitation record.

The proposal to return as much of the site to endemic woodlands and meeting the set rehabilitation timeframe will be a challenge to the Proponent.

The community has no confidence on any consent conditions given the lack of enforcement of penalties for non‐compliance of the existing rehabilitation conditions.

The draft conditions recommended by the Department (Conditions 50 – 52 of Schedule 3) set out rehabilitation objectives to be achieved require progressive rehabilitation and the requirement to prepare and implement a rehabilitation management plan are suitable to address the issues in relation to rehabilitation of the Project Area.

Given the history of the rehabilitation of the existing mine, the Commission recommends that the Proponent should actively consult with and provide regular updates to the community in relation to the preparation of the management plan, the timing and area of temporarily rehabilitation and permanent rehabilitation. The Commission finds that in relation to the final land form:

The general practice is that the planning for the final land form and use does not commence until about five years before the closure of the mine.


51

The community considers the final land form and use of the site should be tied in with the surrounding areas to provide a productive and sustainable future for the region. The Commission agrees.

The draft recommended condition 50 of Schedule 3 provides an objective for the final void, which focuses on the design of the void as a long term groundwater sink. In terms of the final land form and use, the relevant objectives include: the final landforms to be designed to “be in keeping with the natural terrain features of the area and include micro‐relief” and “return at least 260 hectares of the land… to be suitable for agricultural use.”

Draft recommended condition 52(f) requires rehabilitation measures to address mine closure, final landform and final land use and 52(g) requires mine closure planning including measures to minimise socio‐economic effects due to mine closure to be conducted before the site being placed on care and maintenance.

These draft recommended conditions are standard conditions for all mining projects and are appropriate. However, the Commission also considers there is a need to consider the final land form and use in a holistic regional level given there are several mines in the vicinity of the subject mine. In other words, strategic social and economic plans for the region post mining.


52

9. Water The Bulga Mine Complex is located within the Wollombi Brook and Loders Creek catchments, and the broader Hunter River catchment. The Project has the potential to continue to impact on these catchments. Wollombi Brook has a catchment area of approximately 200,000 Ha, while Loders Creek catchment is much smaller, approximately 3,236 Ha (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). Figure 9 shows the catchments in relation to the Project Area.

Figure 9: Catchments and Existing Monitoring Locations


53

The main potential impacts are via:

Reduction in surface area and associated runoff into the catchments;

Reduction in water available for downstream users;

Affecting water quality in both surface water and groundwater; and

Impacting on groundwater flows in subsurface aquifers, base flows to local streams, springs and groundwater dependent ecosystems.

The BCM currently has an extensive water monitoring network, including monitors for surface water and mine water, and these can be seen on Figure 9 and an integrated water management system (IWMS) that covers surface water, groundwater and mine water, for both the open cut and underground mining operations (Umwelt (Austraila) Pty Limited, 2013b). The Department highlights in the EAR (2014), that of note are the impacts to water supply, particularly in extended dry periods, and the potential impact that this will have on the mining operations, but also on other water users within the Wollombi Brook and Loders Creek catchments. Loders Creek is an ephemeral system, and currently has periods of low or no flow. The Project is going to have a significant impact on the area of the Loders Creek catchment, so periods of low or no flow are likely to increase. Several submissions were concerned by the mine’s requirement for water during dry periods and the impact that would have on other water users within the surrounding community. Other submissions covered issues regarding:

The cumulative impacts of mining on downstream catchments;

BCM’s reliance on additional extraction license from the Wollombi Brook Catchment;

question the availability of licences in terms of the percentage of sleeper licenses in the catchments, and existing entitlements are almost fully allocated;

Water quality in streams – any mine related water should be monitored before it enters the catchment; and

Impact on groundwater via the deepening of the mining pits. Submissions were also received from the NSW Office of Water (NOW), OEH and the NSW EPA regarding water impacts. The NOW stated that the BCM already holds licences from the Hunter Regulated Water Source, Hunter Regulated Alluvial Water Source and the Lower Wollombi Brook Water Source, under the Water Management Act 2000 and the Water Act 1912. The NOW (2013) advised that the Proposal meets the minimal requirements of the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy and has provided conditions of consent, should consent be granted. OEH raised concerns regarding the estimate of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), stating that the EIS is lacking in detail the results of the PMF estimation for the flood extents and tabulated peak flows/heights for pre and post mining scenarios. OEH went on to state that due to the lack of this information, they were “unable to assess the impact of the development on residual risk to adjacent properties/infrastructure” (Office of Environment and Heritage, 2013a). To address its concerns, OEH recommends the Proponent undertakes a risk assessment in accordance with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines. The NSW EPA commented that the Project will increase the volume of mine water to be discharged under the HRSTS from the current 60 ML/day to a possible 627 ML/day. The NSW EPA (2013a) goes on to say that the “EIS makes no mention of the fact that water with an electrical conductivity of more than 400 µS/cm is defined as ‘saline water’ for the purposes of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme) Regulation 2002 and can only be


54

discharged via an authorised discharge point”. The NSW EPA has included draft recommended conditions for the location of monitoring/discharge points for the Project. Since the Revised Project Plan has altered the scale of the Noise and Visual Bund and the Eastern Emplacement Area, the IWMS was revised. This has resulted in some changes to the clean water diversion structures and sediment control structures. The key findings on the revised surface water assessment are that:

The impacts on water quality are likely to be similar to those mentioned in the EIS;

There will be an decreased impact on the catchment area, therefore a decreased impact on downstream flows; and

The Project will not increase the potential impact on base flows, downstream water users, riparian and ecological values or environmental flows, relative to the original Project (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d).

The potential groundwater impacts of the Revised Project Plan (Appendix 6 – RTS) have been addressed by Mackie Environmental Research (who prepared the initial Groundwater Impact Assessment for BCM). Mackie Environmental Research found a negligible change in the predicted impacts between the Original Project and the Revised Project, and that all three of the minimal harm criteria of the Aquifer Interference Policy are satisfied (Mackie Environmental Research Pty Ltd, 2013). In Response to the Revised Plan, OEH (2013b) has no further comments to make on issues relating to water. EPA (2013c) has no additional comments, and confirms that the recommended conditions provided in previous correspondence (27 June 2013) are still relevant. NOW would like to remind the Proponent that they need to ensure that they hold a valid water access licence to account for the predicted groundwater take of 130 ML/year from the Lower Wollombi Brook Alluvium. NOW acknowledges the Proponent’s commitments to the issues raised in NOW’s submission to the EIS, and considers that these commitments should satisfactorily address its issues (Department of Primary Industries, 2013). The Department noted (2014) the concerns regarding the use and availability of water in extended dry periods, and have responded to these concerns with a number of draft conditions requiring the Proponent to:

“ensure that is has sufficient water for all stages of the Project, and if necessary, adjust the scale of mining operations to match its available water supply;

Ensure that any discharges comply with its EPL, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 2007 and the requirements of the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme;

Comply with a number of water management performance measures; and

Update the existing Water Management Plan in consultation with NOW and the EPA. The Water Management Plan is to include a:

o Site water balance; o Surface water management plan and monitoring program; and o Groundwater management plan and monitoring program.”


The three key agencies responsible for the protection and managing the water resources are all satisfied with the assessment of the Project and have provided/recommended consent conditions if the Project were to be approved.


55

The Department noted potential issue may arise during extended dry periods and has recommended specific conditions to deal with the issue. “The Applicant shall ensure that it has sufficient water for all stages of the development, and if necessary, adjust the scale of mining operations to match its available water supply”. The Commission agrees with the recommended condition.

The Commission notes Condition 25 in relation to the preparation of a Water Management Plan requires the consultation with EPA and NOW. The Commission recommends that the OEH be included along with NOW and the EPA as a consultation agency during the development of the Water Management Plan, due to OEH’s concern and responsibility in water management. The Commission recommends that the existing IWMS should be regularly reviewed and updated in consultation with the relevant authorities during the life of the Project to ensure the environmental performance of the system and meet relevant performance criteria.


56

10. EconomicandSocialIssues

10.1. EconomicIssuesAn Economic Impacts Assessment (EIA) was prepared by Economics Consulting Services (ECS) for BCM, as part of the EIS (Appendix 18). A number of interest groups and community submissions were received regarding the EIA and the claimed economic benefits of the Project. Submissions were received from Singleton Council, Economists at Large, Hunter Environmental Lobby (HEL), Hunter Valley Protection Alliance (HVPA) and individuals. These submissions were largely critical of the EIA and the economic assessment of the Project. The submissions by the HEL and HVPA focused on the economic impact at the local level. HEL was critical that the cost of extinction debt was not addressed in the cost benefit analysis (Hunter Environment Lobby Inc., 2013). The HVPA (2013) comments included that externality costs are not clearly detailed in the operating and capital costs and the evidence does not support the claim that the economic benefits outweigh the social, environmental and economic costs to others in the community. In response to the concerns and criticisms about the economic assessment, an updated economic assessment was conducted by Deloitte Economics Australia (DEA), which includes an updated Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of the revised Project (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). The economic assessment of the Revised Project found:

“The Project has a net economic benefit when externalities (costs of environmental and social impacts) are considered as part of the costs of production. Reductions in the price of coal are unlikely to affect this conclusion;

The Revised Project will result in significant economic benefits. The economic contribution to the Hunter Region over the life of the Revised Project is predicted at approximately $4.88 billion. The total contribution to the State is estimated at $7.15 billion; and

The Revised Project is projected to result in significant employment. State‐wide employment related to the Revised Project is predicted to peak in 2019 with almost 1,400 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. Of this, approximately 1,260 are estimated to be in the Hunter Region” (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d).

This revised economic assessment was noted by a number of speakers at the Public Hearing, and they acknowledged that the DEA assessment “is a welcome improvement in standards of economic assessment of coal projects in NSW. Transparency around assumptions on coal prices, exchange rate, operating costs and capital costs is much improved on the previous assessment” (The Australia Institute, 2014).The Australia Institute still has concerns with how DAE calculated the royalties, and believes that the royalties presented by DAE are overstated. The Department’s assessment (2014) is that while “a cost‐benefit analysis is not precise science and dependent on valuing environmental and social externalities in monetary terms which may vary from one expert to another”, it does find that the revised CBA in this instance is robust. The Department believes that the economic benefit for the region and the State are significant.


57

10.2. SocialIssuesAs part of the EIS, a Social Impacts and Opportunities Assessment (SIOA) was conducted by Sheridan Coakes Consulting (Appendix 3). The SOIA found that the near‐neighbours, the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale, had different concerns than the wider community (Singleton LGA). The concerns of the neighbours include:

Social amenity – dust, visual and noise;

Impacts on village community sustainability;

Land conflicts between mining and agriculture; and

Impacts on housing (in terms of availability and affordability) with an estimated additional construction workforce of 300 (Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd, 2013).

As part of the development process, BCM and Singleton Council have reached an in‐principle agreement on the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). Table 8 highlights the public benefit contributions that BCM will be making as part of the VPA.

Table 8: Summary of Public Benefit Contributions as part of the VPA

Contribution Type Detail Amount

Local Community Development

Funding towards the development and implementation of a village master plan for the Broke and Bulga villages

$715,000

Village events $150,000

Local education $100,000

Local infrastructure planning (cycleway study) $20,000

Total Local Projects $985,000

LGA Projects Strategic Projects (to be determined in consultation with Council)

$790,000

Performing Arts Planning study $80,000

Replacement Mobile Preschool Vehicle $65,000

Contribution towards the Singleton Masterplan study $50,000

Total LGA Projects $985,000

Total $1,970,000 (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014)

A number of concerns were raised by Singleton Council, Hunter Valley Protection Alliance (HVPA), Hunter Environment Lobby (HEL) and individuals regarding the social impacts and the assessment of those impacts by BCM. The focus of the concerns was regarding:

Social impacts are inadequately addressed;

The Project will have a significant impact on the Broke‐Bulga area;

Cumulative loss of healthy residences has not been assessed from a social perspective; and

Disagree that the social impact will be a low‐risk for the community sustainability. Submissions supporting the Project were also received and these highlighted BCM’s contribution to the local community through financial support of:

The Hunter Valley Off Road Racing Association’s Milbrodale Mountain Classic; and

Broke Fordwich Wine and Tourism Association. In response to these submissions, and with the amendments to the Project, some of the areas of concern will be minimised. BCM notes the assessment of community sustainability was completed in the SOIA. The five key capital areas that are used to assess a community’s strength or vulnerability are: natural, human, social, economic and built/physical. While the assessment by Coakes predicted


58

that the Project would be unlikely to significantly reduce the five capital areas over time, BCM acknowledges that it is important for BCM to continue to:

“Effectively manage the impact of its operations and the Project (should it be approved);

Invest wisely in the local community in line with community needs and values (as identified in the Shire’s strategic plan and the Our Villages, Our Vision Project and through the development of an appropriate VPA for the Project;

Project and enhance area of ecological significant;

Respect the presence of other land uses in the area and further develop and support economic diversity; and

Work with key stakeholders and the community in developing appropriate mine closure scenarios” (Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2013d).

The Department (2014) considers that the terms of the proposed VPA are adequate to address the additional community service demands created by the Project. The Department is satisfied that the socio‐economic benefits of the Project outweigh the costs.

10.3. FindingsandRecommendationsThe Commission notes that while the updated economic assessment is a more robust document, there is still community concern that the economic assessment does not fully account for the impact to the community and the loss of environmental assets. Notwithstanding the community concern, the Commission accepts the Department’s assessment and conclusion and finds the residual economic benefits outweigh the residual impacts provided the mitigation strategies and measures are implemented to protect the community and environment. The Commission finds there is a wide spectrum of views within the community, and that mining operations can divide communities. Although a large number of submissions objected to the Project, there are also a number of submissions that commended Glencore and BCM on their community engagement and support of local community groups and activities and the job opportunity provided by the mine. The proposed VPA also provides additional public benefits to the community in general; not just addressing the demand generated by the proposed mine. The Commission agrees with the Department that the additional community service demands created by the Project are adequately addressed by the proposed VPA.


59

11. OtherIssues

11.1. DieselContributionConcerns were raised by a number of submitters about the volume of diesel being consumed each year by the region’s mines, and the impact that this would be having on human health, given that diesel fumes are carcinogenic. In the AQIA PEL compares five EPA monitoring stations for pollutants including Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and Carbon monoxide (CO). The hourly concentrations of NO2 SO2 and CO are below the EPA assessment criteria. The maximum hourly concentrations for NO2 was recorded at Muswellbrook (a recording of 94 µg/m3, the assessment criterion is 246 µg/m3). The maximum hourly concentration for SO2 was again recorded at Muswellbrook (a recording of 415 µg/m3, the assessment criterion is 570 µg/m3). The maximum hourly concentration at for SO2 at Singleton was 237 µg/m3 (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013a). These recordings would include fumes from vehicles, mine blasting and other additional sources. In the Hunter Region there is only one monitoring site that has CO data available. This monitoring site is in Newcastle. The 8‐hour rolling concentration of CO is well below the 10mg/m3 assessment criterion. The maximum value of 2.4 mg/m3 was recorded in August 2009 (Pacific Environment Limited, 2013a). The NSW EPA in their submission note that an assessment of NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 impacts from the use of diesel was completed. The EPA notes that no exceedance of EPA assessment criterion (of 246 µg/m3 of NO2) or the National Environment Protection Measure advisory criterion for PM2.5 is predicted (NSW Environmental Protection Authority, 2013a). TAS, in their review of the AQIA, agree with the Proponent that the air quality impacts associated with diesel fumes would be below the relevant NSW EPA criteria (Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd, 2014a). The Department’s EAR concludes that since the rate of extraction is not proposed to be increased, the volume of diesel emissions is also not likely to increase; it is satisfied that the current conditions are suitable to manage these emissions (Department of Planning & Environment, 2014). The Commission understands the concerns regarding diesel fumes raised during the EIS process and the public hearings. The Commission notes the assessment by the EPA, and that no exceedances of their criterion or the National Environmental Protection Measures advisory criterion. The Commission is satisfied that there is unlikely to be a significant impact caused by diesel fumes from the mining operations.

11.2. MushroomComposter’saccessIn addition to the air quality issues that require resolving between BCM and the Mushroom Composters, there is also the issue of BCM’s request to Crown Lands to close part of the road, which provides access to the mushroom composting facility. The request with Crown Lands is to allow BCM to construct a haul road across the Crown Road to access the northern section of the EEA. BCM has committed to providing access to the mushroom compositing facility, and to maintain access to services which are located within the road reserve, such as power and telecommunications.


60

The Commission notes that the Mushroom Composters has not agreed to an access easement on the site of the existing Crown Road which is proposed to be closed by BCM; this was confirmed by the MC in their documentation provided to the Commission on 25 August. The road access to the Mushroom Composters needs to be resolved together with the haul road bridge, so both activities can proceed simultaneously. This needs to be resolved prior to any determination of this Proposal, and ultimately is a decision for Crown Lands.


61

12. CommissionConclusionsandRecommendations The Commission has carefully considered the application, especially with regard to the terms of reference provided in the then Minister’s request for the review. In regard to the specific issues raised in the terms of reference, the Commission found that while the community voiced their concerns regarding the cumulative impact of air quality, noise and blasting, the Project is generally likely to meet the relevant Project specific criteria. Air quality, noise and blasting impacts of the Project would need to be carefully managed to prevent any breaches of the relevant criteria. Monitoring and compliance measures need to be clearly articulated, and acted upon if breaches occur. The timely release of monitoring results, including any mitigation works required, is an essential aspect of transparent management practices. With regard to the Mushroom Composters’ facility, there have been a number of air quality studies and reviews undertaken to determine the air quality impacts on the Mushroom Composters from the dumping of material on the Eastern Emplacement Area. The Commission notes that the Mushroom Composters have residual concerns regarding the Draft Bulga Optimisation Project – Eastern Emplacement Area Management Framework (Draft Framework). These concerns will need to be addressed prior to any determination on this Project. In relation to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage the Commission agrees with the Department and OEH that it is important to ensure that the conservation management of the grinding grooves is accepted and agreed to by all concerned parties, prior to the site being disturbed. The Commission considers that the environmental impacts to biodiversity, rehabilitation and final land form, water and economic and social issues can all be managed through the management plans and strategies that have been provided by the Proponent for these purposes. The Commission acknowledges that it is a huge challenge to locate large offset sites close to the area of disturbance within the Hunter Valley. The increase in area of the two on site offset areas, and the financial contribution to the Regent Honeyeater Program, in response to public and agencies’ concerns is a positive response on the part of the Proponent. The draft recommended conditions are considered appropriate to manage and mitigate the impacts on biodiversity in the Project Area, particularly the requirement to provide long term security of the offset lands and the requirement for a conservation bond. With regard to the planned rehabilitation of the mine, the challenge for the Proponent will be to meet the timeframe for rehabilitation and to successfully return as much of the site to endemic woodlands as proposed. The Commission acknowledges the community’s concerns, and considers that ongoing community consultation is an important aspect of planning associated with the closure of the mine. Water is an area of concern, and this is acknowledged by the Department particularly during extended dry periods when potential issues may arise. The Department has addressed this concern by the inclusion of a specific condition recommending that the Applicant ensures that it has sufficient water for all stages of the development, and to modify the scale of the mining operations to match the water available. The Commission agrees with this recommendation. An updated economic assessment was undertaken during this process, and it is largely accepted as an improvement on the initial economic assessment. There is still community concern that the economic assessment does not fully account for the impact to the community and the loss of


62

environmental assets. Notwithstanding the community concern, the Commission accepts the Department’s assessment and conclusion and finds the residual economic benefits outweigh the residual impacts provided the mitigation strategies and measures are implemented to protect the community and environment. There is a wide spectrum of views within the community, and the fact that mining operations can divide communities is acknowledged by the Commission. Although a large number of submissions objected to the Project, there are also a number of submissions which commended Glencore and BCM on their community engagement and support of local community groups and activities and the job opportunities provided by the mine. After careful consideration, and while acknowledging the environmental impacts of the Project, the Commission considers that overall, the Project has merit. The Commission’s recommendations are provided in full in the following section. Subject to these recommendations and detailed assessment by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Commission is satisfied the Project could be approved, subject to stringent conditions.

12.1. Recommendations1. Air quality The Draft Framework for the management of dust and air quality impacts on the Mushroom Composters needs to be further developed to take into account the deficiencies raised in the Todoroski review of 5 June 2014 and the CAMM response of 15 August 2014 prior to the Departments final assessment of the Project. Prior to submission of the Project for determination the relevant parties need to be satisfied that the Draft Management Framework can be technically delivered in a way that satisfactorily addresses the need to adaptively manage air quality impacts at the Mushroom Composters Facility. The agreed Framework should incorporate the establishment of a technical committee which can oversight operation of the Framework and propose intervention measures where necessary and appropriate. The Framework should also incorporate a rigorous monitoring and enforcement regime and contain agreed triggers that enforce mitigation measures when exceedances are likely to occur. During the development of this Draft Framework the establishment of a technical review committee should occur, as should the establishment of agreed trigger conditions that enforce agreed mitigation measures when exceedances are likely to occur. These mitigation measures may include:


Placing of material in a different location within the EEA;


Temporary protection measures for the Mushroom Composters sites and workers, including a temporary enclosure; and

Acquisition. The Draft Framework also needs to ensure that the proposed management and mitigation measures do not increase the potential impacts to be transferred to other nearby receivers. Acquisition should only be considered when the other immediate and medium term mitigation measures are unable to comply with the agreed criteria. The Department needs to ensure that the Proponent addresses the concerns raised by Todoroski Air Sciences and Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology regarding the Draft Framework, prior to submission of the Project for determination. The final determining PAC panel needs to be


63

satisfied that the Draft Framework can be technically delivered and is amended to include the comments and recommendations provided by both Todoroski Air Sciences and Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology. The management strategy for air quality needs to be amended to include the agreed management measures for the Eastern Emplacement Area. The conditions should therefore also be amended to include the management framework agreed for the Eastern Emplacement Area. The Commission further recommends that Condition 19(a) of Schedule 3 should be removed, as the requirements of Condition 19(a) need to be satisfactorily resolved prior to submission of the Project for determination. 2. Noise The construction of the Noise and Visual Bund is likely to cause some short term exceedances of the noise criteria for the mine. When constructed the Noise and Visual Bund will be an effective noise and visual barrier to the mining operations from the surrounding areas. To provide the community with confidence that the construction of the Noise and Visual Bund will be completed in the timeframe proposed by BCM, Condition 44 of Schedule 3 needs to be strengthened to specify it to be completed within the four years as indicated by the BCM. Condition 44 of Schedule 3 therefore is amended to:


a) Be completed within 4 years after the commencement of development under this consent, unless a variation is approved by the Secretary; and


Monitoring of compliance against the relevant noise, blasting and lighting criteria and regular reviews of the environmental management strategies and measures is of critical importance to ensure impacts on the community are minimised. 3. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage There has been extensive consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders regarding the Project and the potential relocation sites for the BMU1 and Loders Creek grinding grooves. In relation to the Loders Creek grinding grooves the Proponent needs to continue its consultation with the PCWP, WNAC and WLALC to finalise any agreement with regard to the relocation of the grinding grooves, to a site along Loders Creek. 4. Rehabilitation and Final Land Form Given the community’s scepticism surrounding the proposed rehabilitation program, and a general lack of confidence that the mine can be successfully rehabilitated, the Proponent should actively consult with and provide regular updates to the community. These updates should be in relation to the preparation of the rehabilitation management plan, the timing and area of temporarily rehabilitation and permanent rehabilitation. The Proponent also needs to consider the final land form of the mine in a holistic regional scale, given there are several mines in the vicinity of the subject mine, which need to be tied into each other to provide a continual final land form. In other words, strategic social and economic plans for the region post mining. 5. Water There are three key agencies that are responsible for the protection and management of water, and all three should be involved with the development of the Water Management Plan for this Project.


64

Therefore, OEH should be included along with the EPA and NOW as consultation agencies during the development of the Water Management Plan. The Proponent should regularly review and update the existing IWMS in consultation with the relevant authorities during the life of the Project to ensure the environmental performance of the system and to meet the relevant performance criteria. 6. Crown Land Road closure The Commission notes that Mushroom Composters have maintained their objection to the proposed closure of their road access over the Crown Land Road. Prior to the submission for final determination this access needs to be resolved.


65

ReferencesBulga Coal . (2014). Draft Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Eastern Emplacement Area Management

Framework. Singleton: Bulga Coal. Connect for Effect Pty Limited. (2013). Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Assessment, Appendix 13a, Environmental Impact Statement ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project. Forest Lake: Connect for Effect Pty Ltd.

Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology. (2014, June 16). Submission to PAC ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Air Qualtiy Assessment. Ashburton, Victoria.

Department of Planning & Environment. (2014). State Significant Development Assessment ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project (SSD 4960). Sydney: Department of Planning & Environment.

Department of Primary Industries. (2013, October). Bulga Optimisation Project (SSD‐4960) Comment on the Response to Submissions Report. Sydney.

Economists at Large. (2013). Bulga Extension Project Environmental Impact Statement: Appendix 18 Economic Impacts, a submission to the Environmental Impact Statement. Melbourne.

Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd. (2014a, January 31). Bulga Optimisation Proejct ‐ Additional Draft Condition Feedback. Singleton.

Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd. (2014b, March 28). Bugla Optimisation Project ‐ Eastern Emplacement. Singleton.

Global Acoustics Pty Ltd. (2013a). Environmental Noise Assessment ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project, Appendix 6, Environmental Impact Statement. Thornton: Global Acoustics Pty Ltd.

Global Acoustics Pty Ltd. (2013b). Bulga Optimisation Report ‐ Revised Project ‐ Noise Impact Assessment, Appendix 2, Response to Submissions and Revised and Amended Project Application Assessment Report. Thornton: Global Acoustics Pty Ltd.

Heritage Council of NSW. (2013, May 31). Heritage comments on Environmental Impact Statement currently on Public Exhibition for BUlga Optimisation Project (SSD 4960). Parramatta.

Hunter Environment Lobby Inc. (2013, June 14). Submission of Objection: Bulga Open Cut Extension Project (SSD‐4960). East Maitland.

Hunter Valley Protection Alliance. (2013, June 5). Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Broke Road, Broke SSD‐4960 ‐ Submission. Broke.

Mackie Environmental Research Pty Ltd. (2013). Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Prevised Project mine plan impacts on groundwater, Appendix 6, Response to Submissions and Revised and Amended Project Application Assessment Report. Bilgola: Mackie Environmental Research Pty Ltd.

Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd. (2013, June 6). Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Submission. Singleton. Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd. (2014a, January 10). Bulga Optimsation Project and Mushroom

Composters. Singleton. Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd. (2014b, August 25). Residual concerns regarding the Bulga

Optimisation Report. Singleton. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation. (2005). Approved Methods for the Modelling

and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Department of Environment and Conservation.

NSW Environmental Protection Authority. (2013a, June 27). Bulga Coal Mine Optimisation Project ‐ submission letter. Newcastle.

NSW Environmental Protection Authority. (2013b, July 25). Bulga Coal Mine Optimisation Project ‐ Noise Imapct Assessment. Newcastle.

NSW Environmental Protection Authority. (2013c, November 7). Bulga Coal Mine Optimisation Project ‐ Response to Revised and Amended Project Application Assessment Report. Newcastle.

NSW Health ‐ Hunter New England Local Health District. (2013a, June 13). Bulga Open Cut Extension Project ‐ Submission. Wallsend.


66

NSW Health ‐ Hunter New England Local Health District. (2013b, October 24). Bulga Open Cut Extension Project ‐ Response to Submissions. Wallsend.

NSW Office of Water. (2013, July). Bulga Optimisation Project (SSD ‐ 4960), Response to exhibition of Environmental Impact Statement. Sydney.

Office of Environment and Heritage. (2013a, June 14). OEH Submission for the Bulga Open Cut Optimsiation Project (SSD_4960). Newcastle.

Office of Environment and Heritage. (2013b, September 27). OEH Review of the Response to Submissions Report for the Bulga Open Cut Optimisation Project (SSD_4960). Newcastle.

OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management Pty Limited. (2013). Bulga Optimisation Proejct ‐ Aboriginal Archaeologial Values Assessment, Appendix 13b, Environmental Impact Statement ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project. Dubbo: OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management Pty Ltd.

Pacific Environment Limited. (2013a). Air Quality Imact Assessment, Appendix 8, Environmental Impact Statement ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project. Pacific Environment Operations Pty Ltd.

Pacific Environment Limited. (2013b). Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Revised Project Air Quality Assessment. Pacific Environment Operations Pty Ltd.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd. (2013, January). Social Impact and Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project, Appendix 3, Environmental Impact Assessment, Bulga Optimisation Project. Maitland: Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty LTd.

Singleton Council. (2013, July 1). Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Submission to NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Singleton.

The Australia Institute. (2014, June). Bulga Optimisation Project: Submission. Canberra. Todoroski Air Sciences. (2014b, June 5). Draft Technical review of air quality Bulag Optimisation

Project ‐ Eastern Emplacement. Eastwood. Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd. (2014a). Review of Air Quality Issues ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project,

Bulga Coal Mine. Sydney: Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd. Umwelt (Austraila) Pty Limited. (2013b). Surface Water Assessment ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project,

Appendix 10, Environmental Impact Statement, Bulga Optimisation Project. Newcastle: Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited. (2013c). Environmental Impact Statement Bulga Optimisation Project. Newcastle: Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited. (2013d). Response to Submissions and Revised and Amended Project Application Assessment Report. Newcastle: Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited.

Unwelt (Australia) Pty Limited. (2013a). Ecological Impact Assessment ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project, Appendix 9, Environmental Impact Statement ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project. Newcastle: Umwelt (Austalia) Pty Limited.

Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited. (2012). Bulga Optimisation Project ‐ Blasting Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment, Appendix 7, Environmental Impact Statement ‐ Bulga Optimisation Project. Crows Nest: Wilkinson Murry Pty Limited.


67

ListofAppendices Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference Appendix 2 – Speakers, Presentations and Submissions Appendix 3 – Summary of meetings with others


68

APPENDIX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

Request to the Planning Assessment Commission Bulga Optimisation Project

Section 230 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Clauses 26BR and 26BV of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000

I, the _Minister for Planning and Infrastructure request the Planning Assessment Commission to:

1. Carry out a review of the Bulga Optimisation Project, and: a) consider the Department of Planning and Infrastructure's assessment report of the

merits of the Project; b) consider the EIS for the Project, the issues raised in submissions, the formal

response to submissions, the amended Project application report and any other relevant information provided on the Project during the course of the review;

c) assess the merits of the Project as a whole, paying particular attention to the air quality, noise and blasting impacts of the Project; and

d) recommend any further measures required to avoid, minimise, and/or manage the potential impacts of the Project.

2. Conduct public hearings during the review as soon as practicable after the Department of

Planning and Infrastructure provides a copy of its assessment report for the Project to the Planning Assessment Commission.

3. Submit its final report on the review to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure

within 6 weeks of the public hearings, unless the Director‐General of the Department of Plannin and Infrastructure agrees otherwise.

The Hon Brad Hazzard MP

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure

Sydney 2014

1.6 JAN 2014


69

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF SPEAKERS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING

Meeting Schedule

9.00 am Opening Statement from the Chair – Mr Garry West

Registered Speakers:

1. Glencore Aaron Worley

2. Singleton Council Mark Ihlein, Director

3. Hunter Valley Protection Alliance John Krey

4. John Krey

5. Leslie Krey

6. Hunter Environment Lobby Inc. Jan Davis, President

7. Singleton Business Chamber Ryan Fitzpatrick, President

8. Wonnarua Traditional Custodians Warren Schillings William Smith Steven Griffin Kevin Taggert

9. Broke Fordwich Wine & Tourism Association Barbara Brown

10. Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd Dr Geoff Martin

11. The Lock the Gate Alliance Steve Phillips

12. Hunter Communities Network Bev Smiles

13. Judith Leslie

14. Alan Leslie

15. Dr Graeme Ross

16. Ian Hedley

17. Kristy Hedley

Meeting Closed


70

SUBMISSIONS AND PRESENENTATIONS MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING The broad topics that were raised through the submission to the PAC and at the Public Hearing included:

Air quality impacts including dust and health issues

Noise impacts including low frequency impacts

Blasting impacts

Biodiversity impacts

Water resources impacts

Land use and agriculture (the final land form and land use)

Transport/traffic and road realignment impacts

Cultural Heritage impacts

European Heritage impacts

Visual impacts

Social and economic impacts A summary of the issues that were raised under each of these broad topics are presented below. Air Quality

Should be an increase in air quality in the region, and not a decrease in the region’s air quality;

Cumulative impacts from the three local mines: o Hard to determine which mine the dust is coming from; o Each mine is assessed independently of the other mines; o Exceedances do occur, but from which mine?; and o Health impacts from fine particulate matter and diesel fumes.

Mushroom Composters: o Workers are outside for most their working day; o Can’t shut down the operations when weather conditions are adverse, unlike the

mine; and o Concerned that the dust won’t be successfully mitigated by the mine, and that they

will have poorer air quality. Noise

The construction of the noise and visual bund, will increase noise for the first four years of the Project, the noise levels will be higher than they currently are;

Noise criteria being exceeded currently;

Cumulative impact of noise on the communities from the adjoining mines, again it is difficult to determine where the noise is coming from;

Noise monitoring/compliance is inadequate;

Industrial Noise Policy (INP) methodology is flawed; and

Low frequency noise is a health issue, associated with sleep disturbance. Blasting

The criteria used to measure blasting impacts are inadequate, as it does not manage the impacts; and

Number of complaints about blasting noise, though the criteria were not breached. Biodiversity

The revised Project no longer impacts on the Warkworth Sands Endangered Ecological Community, which is positive;


71

The revised Project has less impacts on biodiversity than the original Project;

There is limited ‘like for like’ offsets being provided;

The Reedy Creek Offset site, is too far removed, and consists of different ecological communities, so it will not be providing suitable offsets;

Ratio change when excluding the land to be rehabilitated as part of the mine closure plan;

Funding provided for the Regent Honeyeater program is not suitable for providing habitat;

Cumulative impacts on biodiversity from mining in the area;

‘Protected’ areas provided previously are no longer protected; and

No guarantee that the biodiversity offsets will establish as designed – creating ecological communities.

Water Resources

The potential impacts on both surface water and groundwater as a result of the void in the final land form;

Potential impacts on any groundwater dependent ecosystems;

Potential impact of water availability for other users in the system;

No assessment of cumulative impact on water; and

The system is already close to the maximum allocated limited. Land Use and agriculture (final land form and land use)

The final land form needs to be considered in a strategic manner, and be planned in consultation with key stakeholders;

Rehabilitation in the past has been poor, will it get better into the future, especially the large area that will be required to be rehabilitated; and

Will the final land form, be woodland or a void? Transport/traffic and road realignment

Broke Road realignment; Council and the Proponent close to an agreement about the funding of the realignment.

Cultural Heritage

Loders Creek grinding grooves are culturally significant; and

Only agree to the removal of the grinding grooves if the mine is approved. European Heritage

Charlton Road is historically significant, and no should not be realigned. Visual

Four years is a long time to have a visual impact from the construction of the noise and visual bund; and

Light pollution and night time glow, impact on the surrounding communities. Social and economic

Economics did not cover externalities;

The indirect jobs created by the mine are overstated;

The revised assessment by Deloitte is better than the original economic assessment;

Social impact to the local communities not adequately addressed; and

Property values in the local communities have decreased, while property values with the Singleton local government area have increased.


72

APPENDIX 3 SUMMARY OF MEETINGS WITH OTHERS

MEETING NOTE

Meeting note taken by Naomi Cleaves Date: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 Time: 2:00pm

Project: Bulga Optimisation Project

Meeting place: Singleton Council Offices

Attendees: Mr Garry West, Mr Alan Coutts, Mr Gordon Kirkby & Naomi Cleaves (PAC) Mark Ihlein – Director Planning & Sustainable Environment Singleton Council

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Project with Singleton Council

Generally, Singleton Council has no further concerns regarding the Project, since the amendments were made, following the public submissions.

Charlton Road is no longer being relocated, which it was originally proposed to be.

The Proponent have remained within their noise limits, Council has had very little complaints and need for compliance inspections.

Air quality was discussed, particularly the potential issue at the Mushroom Composting facility.

The realignment of Broke Road will continue, and Council has no issue with the realignment. The Proponent is taking on board, Council’s request for a cycleway provision.

The VPA is progressing, and it largely complete. Council and the Proponent, just need to come to an agreement about the maintenance costs of the new section of Broke Road.

Council would like to get further details regarding the final landform, the water in the void (the high salinity content of the water) and the rehabilitation plan of the mine.

Council mentioned that they are running out of location for biodiversity offsets nearby.

Council commented that they would like to see the economic impact on the Singleton LGA, not just the aggregated benefit at the regional or state level. It’s hard to discuss offset agreements, when the economic impact at the local level is hard to determine.

Documents tabled at meeting: Nil

Meeting closed at 3:00pm


73

MEETING NOTE

Meeting note taken by Naomi Cleaves Date: Wednesday, 4 June 2014 Time: 8:15am


Meeting place: Bulga Mine

Attendees: Mr Garry West, Mr Alan Coutts, Mr Gordon Kirkby & Naomi Cleaves (PAC) Aaron Worley – Project Manager Glencore,

Tim Walls – Approvals Manager Glencore,

Ben Hiatt – Bulga Complex General Manager Glencore,

Geoff Kelly – Bulga Open Cut Operations Manager Glencore,

Paul Amidy – Bulga Open Cut Environment & Community Manager Glencore,

Ralph Northey – Bulga Complex Environment & Community Manager Glencore,

Brett Jenkins – Approvals & Cultural Heritage Manager Glencore,

John Merrell EIS Consultant Umwelt

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Project and to have a site inspection

The meeting consisted of a presentation about the Project, and was followed up with a site inspection, focusing on the key issues that were raised as part of the public submissions.

The primary driver for the development of the noise and visual bund was from the natural barriers to the west of the Project site, which provide current buffer to some residents.

The Project remains largely within the existing footprint; the mine continues to go deeper, instead on expanding towards Bulga village.

The culturally significant grinding grooves along Loders Creek, were raised as a concern during the submission period. The Proponent has advised that all parties have come to a resolution regarding the grinding grooves.

The Proponent acknowledge that they were lagging in the rehabilitation works of the overburden piles, and in 2012 tripled the budget for rehabilitation programs to catch up on the lag. Rehabilitation is now part of the mine planning, any area that will be untouched for 3 years within the mine plan, will be temporary rehabilitated to reduce dust and visual impacts.

The Proponent informed the Panel members that last month that they received the Controlled Action approval under the EPBC Act from the Commonwealth Department of Environment (dated 9 May 2014).

The Proponent has still been in discussions with a couple of surrounding landholders regarding their concerns regarding dust and noise.

The site inspection looked at the current mining operations; the proposed East Pit; the location of the Loders Creek grinding grooves; real-time monitoring & adaptive management of noise, dust, water and blasting; and the surrounding community view to the mine (external views).

Documents tabled at meeting: Bulga Optimisation Project – Presentation



74

MEETING NOTE

Meeting note taken by Naomi Cleaves Date: Tuesday, 17 June 2014 Time: 10:45am


Meeting place: PAC office

Attendees: Mr Garry West, Mr Alan Coutts, Mr Gordon Kirkby & Naomi Cleaves (PAC) Mike Young and Kane Winwood – Department of Planning & Environment

The purpose of the meeting is have a briefing from the Department

A number of issues were discussed at this meeting, there are presented below.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The relocation of the Loders Creek grinding grooves. The initial site chosen for the relocation was the Wollombi Brook Conservation Agreement Area.

Plains Clans of the Wonnarua People (PCWP) and the Wonnarua Nation Aboriginal Corporation (WNAC) agreed to the relocation to this site.

Wonnarua Traditional Custodians did not support the relocation or any impact to the grinding grooves.

The WTC have since agreed to the Loders Creek grinding grooves being relocated to a site downstream on Loders Creek.

Confirmation is required as to whether the PCWP and the WNAC are accepting of this relocation for the relocation of the grinding grooves.

Dust and Noise – Bulga

Under the existing consent there are 70 properties with noise/dust impacts.

Main concerns regarding dust and noise are during the construction of the noise and visual bund. Once the outer-face of the bund is complete, the community will be largely shielded from the mining operations.

It is likely that there will be less impacts with the proposed mine than under the current consent.

Construction of the noise and visual bund will only occur during daylight hours.

Background noise levels from the Bulga mine are 30dB(A). The mine will be able to comply with this noise level, given the attenuated fleet of mining vehicles and the noise and visual bund.

Mr & Mrs Rath

The Rath property is under the 35dB(A) noise limit.

The real-time noise logger that is located on an adjacent property cannot be used for compliance monitoring of noise levels, as there is no way to actually determine the cause of any noise source (car driving past etc).

Dust

The Department requested a peer review of the Air Quality Impact Assessment. This was done by Todoroski Air Sciences (TAS).

TAS stated that the approach taken was generally conservative, and it is more representative of a number


75

mines.

Cumulative dust would affect additional properties, while Bulga may not be the major contributor to the dust issues, given the mitigation measures that Bulga have in place, which are not covered by other mining consents.

Mushroom Composter

The EPA Approved Methods approach to calculating dust impacts as compared with the WH&S requirements that the composter has for the composting staff.

The composting facility is a sensitive receiver, however is in not a residential receiver. The staff are not living there 24 hours/day.

The facility is an intensive agricultural enterprise and not an industrial enterprise, so the criteria for industrial do not fit for this site. Discussion about what criteria are appropriate for this site as the health risk criteria is not suitable for this site.

Discussion around the Proponent’s suggestions of several management criteria, for different times of the day and days of the week. Essentially when the composting facility is not staffed.

The Department will be providing the PAC with a supplementary report which details the assessment undertaken by TAS specifically for the dust impacts from the mine on the composting facility.

Biodiversity offsets

Ironbark woodland EEC, there is the need for like for like offset. The Mt Owen site trail rehabilitation program is now trending towards the EEC, so there is some evidence that rehabilitation can be done to recover EECs.

Discussion around whether the mine should be given credits for the mine rehabilitation towards the overall offsets.

Derived Native Grassland is habitat for the Regent Honeyeater – OEH has asked for a $200 K contribution to the Regent Honeyeater fund.

Final Landform

There needs to be connectivity and corridors for habitat as part of the final landform.

The long-term protection of offsets is important.

Documents tabled at meeting/to be provided: The Department will be supplying a supplementary regarding the air quality issue at the Mushroom Composting Facility, and will include the Todoroski Air Sciences report and Glencore’s Management Plan for managing dust in the eastern emplacement area.



76

MEETING NOTE

Meeting note taken by Naomi Cleaves Date: Thursday, 7 August 2014 Time: 9:15am


Meeting place: PAC Office

Attendees: Mr Garry West, Mr Alan Coutts, Mr Gordon Kirkby & Naomi Cleaves (PAC) David Kitto, Director Mining – Department of Planning & Environment

Kane Winwood, Team Leader Mining – Department of Planning & Environment

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Bulga Mine’s Proposed Draft BOP – Eastern Emplacement Area Management Framework

The discussions during the meeting were round the reasonableness of the approach proposed by BCM; and that it is a good starting point for further work.

It may be suitable to allow higher dust levels at the EEA when workers are not on site at the Mushroom Composters’ facility. Though BCM will need to comply with the air quality criteria during the 13 hours that workers are on site at the Mushroom Composters’ facility.

There needs to be compliance triggers and management measures, if the air quality goes above the criteria during the day. There should be a number of options in place that range from immediate mitigation measures, to longer term measures. Acquisition of the Mushroom Composters should remain as one of the management measures, so that if all other mitigation measures are unable to provide compliance with the air quality criteria, then this is the final option.

The BCM proposed technical review committee (made up of representatives from BCM, Mushroom Composters and independent consultant/s (agreed upon by both parties), should meet regularly, particularly during the early stages of the dumping of material on the EEA. This committee should agree to the various mitigation options and trigger points to these mitigation options, prior to dumping commencing at the EEA.

Both the Department and the Commission agree that this needs to be resolved prior to determination of the Proposal.

Documents tabled at meeting/to be provided: NIL

Meeting closed at 9:45am


77

MEETING NOTE

Meeting note taken by Naomi Cleaves Date: Monday, 25 August 2014 Time: 1:00pm


Meeting place: PAC office

Attendees: Mr Garry West, Mr Alan Coutts, Mr Gordon Kirkby & Naomi Cleaves (PAC) Dr Geoff Martin – General Manager Mushroom Composters’

Dr Graeme Ross – Managing Director – Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology (CAMM)

The purpose of the meeting is discuss the Draft Bulga Optimisation Project – Eastern Emplacement Area Management Framework and the Mushroom Composters’ residual issues regarding the Crown Roads access to the facility

The discussions during the meeting were round Mushroom Composters’ concerns with the proposed Draft Management Framework.

The Mushroom Composters’ confirmed that the pathogens that were found in the soil that would be stripped as part of the EEA, would not pose a threat to the Compost. The composting process is robust enough to cope with the soil stripping.

The concerns that the Mushroom Composters’ have with the Draft Management Framework are:

It only looks at the 24hr average PM10 impact, and not the range of air quality impacts including total dust deposition

It does not consider the other neighbours, including the Gromor site along the Mitchell Line of Road To abide by the noise and dust criteria, the construction of the EEA would take 6yrs, instead of the 4yrs

predicted, since the western section of the EEA can only have material placed at a rate of 30% of the maximum placement rate, to ensure no impact on the Mushroom Composters’ facility regardless of the weather conditions

Prevailing winds in winter are from the N/NW and in spring the winds tend to be from the SE, when the weather is calm, there is limited vertical dispersion of dust

What are the trigger levels and the response to these trigger levels, what are the compliance requirements, given that the level of breaches are large and for a significant number of days during the year

Are these trigger levels and compliance requirements actually achievable?

Two briefing notes/letters were provided to the PAC, which had been provided to the Department providing feedback on the Draft Management Framework and the Todoroski Air Sciences’ technical review. Dr Ross discussed his concerns raised in these two documents. His concerns regarding the Draft Management Framework are:

The selection of the health based criteria for PM10 – why the 13-hr average PM10 instead of the 24-hr average PM10

Selection and specification of dust sources, some of the sources from the EEA are included, however the selection does not include a background component – underestimating the dust levels

Trigger points identified in the Draft Management Framework are based on these selected sources, and not all dust sources

There are a number of uncertainties and limitations with the modelling, that normally would be covered by a sensitivity analysis, but on such analysis has been done

The inconsistency of meteorology and source specifications (10m lifts in height of the EEA), will have a vertical dispersion component. What has been done is fine for far-field impacts, however it is not suitable for near-field impacts

Needs to be demonstrated that the proactive management is achievable, and will manage the dust


78

levels Need to consider the other air quality criteria, for example dust deposition, as the adverse weather

conditions for dust deposition may be different from the adverse weather conditions for PM10, this needs to be looked into

Dr Ross went on to raise some questions and discuss the TAS technical review:

Concerned that it is still a Draft technical, why has this not been finalised yet? Why is there no mention/reference of the TAS review in the Draft Framework, since the Proponent was

provided the Draft technical review? Dr Ross agrees with most of the points raised in the TAS technical review, including the 10 technical

deficiencies listed by TAS

Both the Mushroom Composters’ and Dr Ross are concerned that Bulga Coal have not demonstrated that they can achieve what they say they can in the Draft Management Framework.

Documents tabled at meeting/to be provided: Two briefing notes from CAMM to Mushroom Composters’ regarding the Draft Management Framework and the Todoroski Air Sciences’ technical review.



79

MEETING NOTE

Meeting note taken by Naomi Cleaves Date: Monday, 1 September 2014 Time: 8.30am


Meeting place: PAC Office

Attendees: Mr Garry West, Mr Alan Coutts, Mr Gordon Kirkby & Naomi Cleaves (PAC) Aaron Worley – Project Manager Glencore

Mike Carrucan – Director Project and Business Development

Scott Elliott– General Manager Projects

The purpose of the meeting is discuss the Commission’s view on the Draft Management Framework for the Eastern Emplacement Area

The meeting focused on the issues regarding air quality at the Mushroom Composters and the Draft Management Framework. There was also a brief discussion on the timing of the assessment process to date.

Timing of assessment process

Initially there were discussions that the Department would be providing the PAC with a supplementary report regarding air quality at the Mushroom Composters facility

Once the PAC had received the Draft Management Framework, it met with the Department to discuss a way forward

The PAC decided to finalise its review report, noting that no supplementary report had been provided by the Department, and acknowledging that there are some issues around air quality and the Mushroom Composters that would require resolution

Mushroom Composters

The PAC is supportive of the adaptive management plan proposed in the Draft Management Framework, though the PAC has suggested some potential mitigation measures be included in the Draft Management Framework, including a temporary enclosure

The final determining PAC needs to know that the Draft Management Framework can be technically delivered

o The Department and the PAC need to know that the technical aspects of the Draft Management Framework are feasible and the PAC suggests that the technical committee should be the body that provides the advice to the Department and the PAC on the feasibility of the technical aspects

The PAC is considering the wording of Condition 19 as it relates to the Mushroom Composters, as the Draft Management Framework needs to be agreed to prior to the final determination

Other discussions

After this the PAC briefly discussed the other sections of the review report, providing the Proponent with some thoughts on the other issues raised during the DA process, and how the PAC has dealt with the residual issues relating to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Water.

Documents tabled at meeting/to be provided: NIL

Meeting closed at 9:15am

Bulga Optimisation Project Review Report...The Bulga Optimisation Project PAC Report© ... Wednesday...

Documents

Transcript of Bulga Optimisation Project Review Report...The Bulga Optimisation Project PAC Report© ... Wednesday...