state significant development assessment warkworth

STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT Warkworth Continuation Project (SSD-6464)

Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report Section 89E of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Cover Photos – clockwise from the top: Warkworth mine looking northwest towards North Pit and West Pit, coal seams (photo sourced from Warkworth EIS), West Pit dragline mining. © Crown copyright 2014 Published November 2014 NSW Department of Planning and Environment www.planning.nsw.gov.au 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 agents and employees, disclaim any and 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.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/

Warkworth Continuation Project Environmental Assessment Report

NSW Government Planning & Environment

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Warkworth Coal Mine is located about 9 kilometres southwest of Singleton in the Upper Hunter Valley, and is owned by Warkworth Mining Limited (Warkworth), and managed by Coal & Allied Limited (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Coal Australia). The mine commenced in 1981, and is currently operating under a Ministerial development consent granted in May 2003. The Mt Thorley mine is located directly to the south of Warkworth and the two mines share a cross-linked ownership and management structure, and have been operated as an integrated mine complex since 2004 (known as the Mt Thorley-Warkworth (MTW) mine complex). Notwithstanding the integrated operations, the two mines operate under separate development consents. Under its 2003 consent, Warkworth is allowed to extract up to 18 million tonnes of coal a year from 5 open cut pits using dragline mining methods, and wash this coal on site at either the Warkworth or Mt Thorley Coal Preparation Plants, before railing it to Newcastle for export via the Mount Thorley Coal Loader. There are currently 1,300 people working at the MTW complex. Warkworth Continuation Project Warkworth’s existing consent lapses in 2021, but the mine will reach its approved extraction limits in 2015. Consequently, Warkworth is seeking approval for a large westward expansion of the mine. The expansion – which is known as the Warkworth Continuation Project - involves: • extending the existing open cut mining pit further west to extract a further 230 million tonnes of

coal over 21 years at a rate of up to 18 million tonnes of coal a year; • exporting coal, tailings and overburden to the Mt Thorley mine; • developing a range of ancillary infrastructure to support the extension; and • progressively rehabilitating the site. The project is classified as State Significant Development under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and requires the approval of the Minister for Planning. However, the project does not require any additional approvals from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment as the previous Warkworth Extension Project was granted approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in August 2012. The proposed extension of the Warkworth mine has had a long history. In 2010, Warkworth lodged a major project application under the former Part 3A of the EP&A Act to extend existing open cut operations to the west. The project – known as the Warkworth Extension Project – was approved in February 2012 by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), subject to stringent conditions. A local community group opposed to the mine extension, the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association, subsequently appealed against the merits of the Ministerial approval in the NSW Land and Environment Court. On 15 April 2013, the Court upheld the merit appeal and refused the Warkworth Extension Project. Warkworth subsequently appealed some of the legal technicalities associated with the Land and Environment Court’s judgment in the NSW Court of Appeal. The former Minister of Planning and Infrastructure joined Warkworth in its appeal because the outcome of the judgement had implications for the planning system that were broader than this particular project. This appeal was on matters of law, rather than on the merits of the project. On 7 April 2014, the NSW Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upholding the Land and Environment Court’s refusal of the project. Warkworth is now proposing to develop a modified version of the extension project, which seeks to address the issues raised in the Court’s judgment on the Warkworth Extension Project.



2

Under the EP&A Act, Warkworth is entitled to lodge a new application for the modified project despite the Court’s findings on the original Warkworth Extension Project, and the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) is legally obliged to accept the application and assess it on its merits. Consultation The Department exhibited the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project from 25 June until 6 August 2014, and received 1,926 submissions, including 7 from public authorities, 49 from special interest groups and 1,870 from the general public. Of these submissions, 1,638 supported the project and 281 objected to the project. Most of the objections were from nearby landowners and special interest groups (such as the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association) concerned about the potential noise, blasting, dust and visual impacts of the project, and the likely cumulative impacts of the project when its impacts were combined with the impacts of other nearby mining operations such as the Mt Thorley and Bulga mines. The submissions in support were primarily from people working in the mining industry or related businesses. Warkworth has provided a formal response to the issues raised in submissions, as well as a range of additional information to address matters raised by various public authorities. Assessment The Department has completed its preliminary assessment of the merits of the project. The project would increase the dust, noise, blasting and visual impacts of the existing Warkworth mine, as mining operations move further to the west. These impacts, combined with the impacts of other mining operations in the region, would increase the intensity of mining impacts on some privately-owned rural properties in the vicinity, particularly in the village of Bulga. For the purpose of this assessment, the Department has taken a conservative approach and assumed the full range of cumulative impacts would occur. The Department’s assessment has found that only 2 privately-owned properties would experience significant dust and/or noise impacts above the applicable acquisition criteria established by the NSW Environment Protection Authority, with one of these properties already entitled to voluntary acquisition rights under the nearby Wambo mine’s development consent. A further 15 residences would experience moderate noise impacts. The Department also notes that some additional properties may be subjected to elevated cumulative 24-hour average dust levels. The Department has sought additional information from Warkworth on the precise nature of these potential dust impacts, and at this stage, is unable to determine whether these impacts would be significant enough to warrant additional mitigation measures or voluntary acquisition of other properties in the vicinity of the mine. The project would also increase the visual impacts on the residents of Bulga Village and surrounds. Currently, many of these residents are exposed to direct views of the nearby Bulga and Mt Thorley mines, but have limited views of the existing operations at Warkworth due to topographic features such as Saddleback Ridge. As the mine progresses westward, and particularly as Saddleback Ridge is removed, the visual impacts on residents in Bulga would increase significantly. The visual assessment in the EIS indicates that there would be more than 50 residences that would experience moderate to high visual impacts as a result of the project. The Department has recommended that any resident with considerable direct views of the mining operations be entitled to landscaping treatments to mitigate these visual impacts. However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Department acknowledges that the residual visual impacts on some properties would remain high. Apart from the impacts on people living in the area surrounding the mine, the project would have impacts on the natural resources of the region as outlined below.



3

The project would clear 611 hectares of native vegetation, including 459 hectares of endangered ecological communities (EECs). The EECs primarily comprise Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland (365 hectares), but there is also 72 hectares of Warkworth Sands Woodland, an EEC that is unique to this part of the Hunter Valley. The impact on this community was a key reason for the NSW Land & Environment Court refusing the previous Warkworth Extension Project. To offset this impact, Warkworth proposes to conserve up to 2,800 hectares of land across four different sites in the region, with one located near Merriwa adjacent to the Goulburn River National Park (1,299 hectares), another known as the Bowditch property near the Manobalai Nature Reserve (520 hectares), and two local offsets known as the northern and southern biodiversity areas (1,008 hectares). The proposed offset areas contain a variety of high quality vegetation to account for the loss of the native vegetation on site, including 75.5 hectares of Warkworth Sands Woodland in the northern and southern biodiversity areas. In addition to the land-based offsets, Warkworth is proposing to: • rehabilitate the mine site with 1,600 hectares of suitable native woodland species; • restore Warkworth Sands Woodland on cleared areas within the northern and southern

biodiversity areas; • lodge a $1 million implementation bond with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage that

would be forfeited if the restoration of Warkworth Sands Woodland is unsuccessful after 15 years; and

• contribute $1 million towards the Saving Our Species – Regent Honeyeater conservation program.

The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage has certified that the proposed offset strategy is adequate, subject to the provision of a further land-based offset that is of equal or greater biodiversity value to the 72 hectares of Warkworth Sands Woodland that would be cleared as a result of the project. Although the project is close to a number of historic components in the region, it is not expected to significantly impact these heritage items. However, the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road would have some impact on the heritage values of the Great North Road. The project would also disturb 110 Aboriginal heritage sites. Detailed assessment suggests almost all (106) of these sites are of low to moderate archaeological significance. The remaining four sites are comprised of 3 scarred trees and a site with axe grinding grooves, all of which have high archaeological significance. Warkworth proposes to mitigate the impacts of the project by salvaging and managing all the Aboriginal sites in the disturbance area in consultation with the Aboriginal community. It is also proposing to establish a conservation area covering around 700 hectares on land near the mine which contains a number of highly culturally significant sites. The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage and the Department are satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures. While the project would use an average of 450 mega litres of water a year, this is not predicted to have a significant impact on the region’s surface or groundwater resources. This is primarily because there are no major watercourses on site and the groundwater modelling found that mining would only result in minor losses from the Wollombi Brook and Hunter River alluvial aquifers. The groundwater modelling also found that any groundwater drawdown at private bores in the area would not exceed the 2 metre minimal impact criteria under the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy. Further, Warkworth has demonstrated that it either holds or would be able to hold sufficient water entitlements to account for all the water it would take for the project. Warkworth proposes to rehabilitate most of the site back to woodland using suitable native species. Despite this, the project would result in the long-term sterilisation of some of this land, with 950 hectares scheduled to become part of the final void and the overburden dump having little beneficial use apart from being revegetated to woodland. In this regard, the Department has sought further justification from Warkworth to demonstrate that it has considered all feasible options to minimise the size of the proposed final void. It has also recommended that Warkworth be required to prepare a mine closure strategy at least 10 years before the end of mining that investigates further opportunities for minimising the size of the final void, integrating the final landform with the surrounding landscape, and introducing micro-relief as far as practicable to mimic the natural landscape.



4

The project would require the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road which is a local road that currently provides access between Broke and the Golden Highway. The Department considers that the closure of the road is a necessary consequence of the continuation of the mine. It also considers that because there are reasonable alternative routes available for the community, and because any realignment of the road would result in additional impacts on sensitive ecosystems and Aboriginal sites, there is little justification for re-constructing the road on an alternative alignment. Warkworth has agreed to enter into a voluntary planning agreement with Singleton Shire Council, which would include contributions for any local road maintenance generated by the project. However, the details of the agreement are still being negotiated with Council. In accordance with the recommendations of the NSW Roads and Maritime Services, the Department has recommended that Warkworth be required to contribute $1 million to upgrading the intersection of the Golden Highway and the Mitchell Line of Road. This would address the current capacity constraints on this intersection that are largely attributable to mining-related traffic. With the realigned Bengalla Link Road, contributions to the upgrade and maintenance of Thomas Mitchell Drive, and the local road maintenance contributions, the Department is satisfied that the project would not result in any significant impacts on the road network or Council’s ability to maintain this network to a suitable standard. Apart from increasing the use of the road network, the project itself is unlikely to significantly increase the demand for local infrastructure and services. The project would not increase the number of employees at the mine, and the Department considers that the contributions proposed by Warkworth under any Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council and the ongoing contributions of the NSW Government under schemes such as the Hunter Infrastructure & Investment Fund and Resources for Regions should be sufficient to cater for any additional demand created by the project. In this regard, the NSW Government has recently contributed almost $24 million for local infrastructure projects in the Singleton Local Government Area. To effectively avoid, minimise and/or offset the predicted residual impacts of the project, the Department has recommended conditions to ensure the project complies with relevant criteria and standards, and operates consistent with current best practice for the regulation of mining projects in NSW. Finally, the Department has weighed the residual impacts of the project against its social and economic benefits. This assessment has found that the project would result in significant social and economic benefits for both the local area as well as the State as a whole. These benefits include: • continued direct employment for up to 1,300 mine workers that work at the Mt Thorley

Warkworth complex; • increase direct and indirect spending in the region with a capital expenditure of around $715

million; • extracting a significant coal resource of up to 230 million tonnes from an area that has long

been earmarked as the most prospective area for mine expansions in the Hunter Valley; • generating around $567 million (in present value terms) of royalties for the State government,

which would be spent on providing infrastructure and services to the broader community; and • a net economic benefit to NSW of $1.34 billion (net present value). The Department has tested the sensitivity of these estimates to changes in key variables, such as the price of coal, and concluded that even if these variables change significantly over time, the benefits of the project would remain positive. The Department has concluded that the project would generate a number of positive benefits and that the predicted impacts can be effectively managed through the implementation of strict conditions. Consequently, the Department considers that the project is in the public interest and should be approved, subject to stringent conditions.



1

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Warkworth Mining Limited (Warkworth) operates the Warkworth mine, an existing open cut coal mine located approximately 9 kilometres southwest of Singleton and about 4 to 5 kilometres northeast of the village of Bulga in the Upper Hunter Valley (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of the Warkworth Coal Mine



2

The mine has been operating for more than 30 years, with mining operations commencing in 1981. It is one of several mines operating in the area, with others including Hunter Valley Operations and Wambo mines to the north, and Mt Thorley and Bulga mines to the south. The Mt Thorley mine is located directly to the south of Warkworth and the two mines share a cross-linked ownership and management structure, with both mines ultimately managed by Coal and Allied Ltd (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Ltd). Given this cross-linked structure, the two mines have been operated as an integrated mine complex since 2004 – known as the Mt Thorley-Warkworth (MTW) mine complex. Under these arrangements, the mines share employees and surface infrastructure, and connect via a series of haul roads (with bridges over Putty Road), conveyors and pipelines. The mines are also interdependent in an operational sense – with coal, overburden, tailings and water being moved between them. Notwithstanding the integrated operations, the two mines operate under separate development consents, with Warkworth currently operating under a Ministerial consent granted in May 2003 and Mt Thorley operating under a Ministerial consent granted in 1996. The approved operations of both mines is summarised in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 2. Table 1: Approved Operations Mt Thorley-Warkworth Mining Complex Aspect Warkworth Mt Thorley Company Warkworth Mining Limited Mt Thorley Operations Pty Limited Operations Commenced 1981 Commenced 1981 Consent DA 300-9-2002-I, which expires in 2021 DA 34/95, which expires in 2017 Remaining Life 7 years 3 years Mining Reserves 128 Mt remaining 29 Mt remaining Mining Areas 5 open cut pits (North, West, CD,

Woodlands and South) with mining operations moving to the west towards Wallaby Scrub Road

3 open cut pits (Loders, Abbey Green North & Abbey Green South), with mining operations moving west towards Charlton Road

Extraction Rate Approved: up to 18 Mt ROM coal a year Actual in 2013: 13.3 Mt

Approved: up to 10 Mt ROM coal a year Actual in 2013: 5.4 Mt

Coal Processing Coal is processed at the Warkworth CPP, which can process up to 13 Mt ROM coal a year, and the Mt Thorley CPP

Coal is processed at the Mt Thorley CPP, which can process up to 10Mt ROM coal a year, and the Warkworth CPP

Coal Transport Coal is transported to the: • Mt Thorley Coal Loader by haul road

and conveyor, and then railed to export markets

• Redbank Power Station by conveyor

Coal is transported to the Mt Thorley Coal Loader by haul road and conveyor, and then railed to export markets

Overburden In-pit emplacement behind advancing mining operations at the Warkworth mine

In-pit emplacement behind advancing mining operations at the Mt Thorley mine

Rejects Disposal • Coarse reject is placed in the in-pit emplacement areas at both the Warkworth and Mt Thorley mines

• Fine reject (tailings) is stored in tailings facilities on site

• Dewatered tailings is transferred to the Redbank Power Station by conveyor

• Ash from Redbank Power Station is transferred by pipeline to the tailings storage facilities at the Warkworth mine

Coarse reject and tailings are disposed of in the Abbey Green North and South pits

Infrastructure • Warkworth CPP • Site access roads, internal haul roads,

and three bridges over Putty Road (only two constructed)

• Conveyors to the Mt Thorley Coal Loader and Redbank Power Station

• Heavy vehicle workshops and washing facilities

• Bulk oil and fuel storages, general stores and workshop

• Coal stockpiles, storage hoppers and crushers

• Electricity supply infrastructure

• Mt Thorley CPP • Site access roads and internal haul

roads • Conveyor from Mt Thorley CPP to Mt

Thorley Coal Loader • Vehicle wash bays and water truck fill

points • Workshop, stores, and sewage

treatment infrastructure • Office building and parking



3

Aspect Warkworth Mt Thorley • Office building and parking

Water Management

Water management system including process water and sediment dams, pipelines and water sharing infrastructure with the Mt Thorley and Hunter Valley Operations mines

Water management system including process water and sediment dams, water and tailings pipelines and water sharing infrastructure with the Warkworth mine

Biodiversity Offsets

Offset areas to the west and north of the approved mining operations covering 1,646 hectares with: • 757 ha in 2 non-disturbance areas; • 889 ha in 3 habitat management areas.

None

Rehabilitation 2,299 ha on site rehabilitation comprising a combination of woodland, open woodland and pasture. 870 ha rehabilitated across MTW complex at the end of December 2013.

Rehabilitate site to well treed grazing land. 870 ha rehabilitated across MTW complex at the end of December 2013.

Employment 1,300 with the Mt Thorley mine 1,300 with the Warkworth mine In 2010, Warkworth lodged a major project application (09_0202) under the former Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to extend existing open cut operations to the west. The project – known as the Warkworth Extension Project – involved: • continuing the existing operations and extending the north and west pits further west, covering an

additional 750 ha, through Wallaby Scrub Road and Saddleback Ridge and through some of the green offset areas set aside under the 2003 development consent;

• extending the life of the mine by a further 11 years and extracting an additional 200 million tonnes of run-of-mine (ROM) coal; and

• matching existing production levels, processing and coal transport arrangements, and continued integration with Mt Thorley mine.

On 3 February 2012, the NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), as delegate for the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, approved the Warkworth Extension Project, subject to stringent conditions. On 9 August 2012, Warkworth was granted approval from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment for the extension project under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A local community group opposed to the mine extension, the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association (BMPA), subsequently appealed against the merits of the Ministerial approval in the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC). On 15 April 2013, the LEC upheld the merit appeal and refused the Warkworth Extension Project on the following key grounds: • that the project would likely have significant adverse impacts on biological diversity, including on

four endangered ecological communities (EEC), but in particular on the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, with the impacts not adequately mitigated by the project or the proposed conditions of approval;

• in relation to noise, that: o the noise criteria proposed in the conditions of approval are not appropriate; o the noise impacts would be intrusive and adversely affect the reasonable use, enjoyment and

amenity of the residents of Bulga and the surrounding countryside; o the noise mitigation strategies are unlikely to reduce noise impacts to levels that would be

acceptable, and that these mitigation strategies may result in greater social impacts; and o the approach of combining noise criteria and noise mitigation strategies for the MTW mine

complex is of doubtful legal validity and would make monitoring and enforcement difficult; • in relation to dust, that:

o no confidant conclusion can be drawn that air quality impacts, particularly dust emissions from the project, will comply with the proposed conditions of the project approval;

o the approach of combining air quality criteria and mitigation strategies for the MTW mine complex is of doubtful legal validity and would make monitoring and enforcement difficult; and



4

• The project is likely to cause adverse social impacts on individuals and the community of Bulga in that the project would exacerbate the loss of sense of place, and materially and adversely change the sense of community.

Warkworth subsequently appealed some of the legal technicalities associated with the LEC’s judgment in the NSW Court of Appeal. In summary, Warkworth argued that it had been denied procedural fairness by the LEC in respect of a number of factual matters relating to its application and that the LEC had erred in law by failing to have regard to certain matters. The former Minister of Planning and Infrastructure joined Warkworth in its appeal against the LEC’s judgement because the outcome of the LEC’s judgement had implications for the planning system that were broader than this particular project. This appeal was on matters of law, rather than on the merits of the project. On 7 April 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upholding the LEC’s refusal of the project. As a consequence of the Court’s judgments, the Ministerial project approval for the Warkworth Extension Project was replaced with the Court’s decision to refuse the project, and the Warkworth mine now operates within the confines of the 2003 development consent. It is noted that the Commonwealth approval for the extension project under the EPBC Act was not appealed, and remains valid. Warkworth is now proposing to develop a modified version of the extension project, which seeks to address the issues raised by the LEC in its judgment on the Warkworth Extension Project. The new project is also made following statutory planning changes that were implemented since the LEC’s refusal of the Warkworth Extension Project. The new project is referred to as the “Warkworth Continuation Project”. Under the EP&A Act, Warkworth is entitled to lodge a new application for the modified project despite the LEC’s findings on the original Warkworth Extension Project, and the Department is legally obliged to accept the application and assess it on its merits. 1.2 Location and Setting The MTW mine complex is located in an area that is dominated by large-scale and intensive mining operations, which have significantly altered the natural landscape since the late 1970s. The closest mining operations to the complex (see Figure 3) include the: • Bulga open cut and underground mine complex, which is located to the south of the MTW

complex and is allowed to extract up to 26.2 Mt of ROM coal a year; • Wambo open cut and underground mine complex, which is located to the northeast of the MTW

complex and is allowed to extract up to 14.7 Mt of ROM coal a year; and • Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) mine complex, which is located to the north of the MTW complex

and is allowed to extract up to 36 Mt of ROM coal a year.

A consequence of this mining and industrial activity is that most of the land in the vicinity of the MTW mine complex is owned by one mining company or another. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that large tracts of land surrounding these mining operations are used for a range of agricultural activities, with the land along the Hunter River and Wollombi Brook being used for intensive agriculture and the rest of the agricultural land being used primarily for grazing (see Figures 3 and 4). It is also important to recognise that one of the largest stands of remnant vegetation on the Hunter Valley floor is located immediately to the west of the complex (see Figure 4). This vegetation forms part of a fledgling vegetation corridor across the valley floor (which has been heavily cleared over the last century) between the Wollemi and Yengo National Parks to the southwest of the complex and the Barrington Tops National Park, which is located on the northern edge of the valley floor. It also contains one of the last stands of Warkworth Sands Woodland, an EEC that is unique to this part of the Hunter Valley.



5

Figure 2: Existing Operations

Redbank Power Station



6

Figure 3: Regional Setting



7

Figure 4: Land Ownership and Nearest Residences



8

The nearest settlement to the complex is the Bulga Village, which is located about 4 to 5 km to the southwest of the MTW mine complex. The Department notes that key matters raised in the LEC judgement related to the Warkworth Extension Project’s potential impacts on the Bulga Village. The Bulga village lies at the base of an escarpment of Wollemi National Park to the west, and the Wollombi Brook to the east (see Figure 4).The village has a population of about 358 residents, with a population growth rate of 11.5% between 2006 and 2011. The majority of residences are located off The Inlet Road, with residences at the western limit of the road being elevated and having direct views of the Bulga and Mt Thorley overburden dumps. Bulga Village also includes a range of public facilities including a pub, service station and café, police station and rural fire brigade. There are also several other rural-residential properties located in close proximity to the complex, including Mt Thorley to the east; Hambledon Hill, Wylies Flat and Gouldsville to the northeast; Warkworth to the northwest; and Putty Road to the west (see Figure 4). The site does not contain any Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land, or any Critical Industry Clusters (CICs) mapped under the Upper Hunter Strategic Regional Land Use Policy. The nearest equine CIC is more than 15 km southeast of the site. However, there is a viticulture CIC mapped in the area between Bulga and Broke, approximately 4 km south of the site, which comprises a number of wineries that are part of the Broke Fordwich Wine District. Key infrastructure in the area includes the: • regional road network, including two State Roads (the Golden Highway and Putty Road) and

number of local roads (Wallaby Scrub, Charlton and Broke Roads); • private rail spur lines linking the Bulga, Wambo and MTW mines to the Great Northern Railway to

the south of Singleton; • Mt Thorley Industrial Estate and coal loader, located directly to the east of the complex; and • Redbank Power Station, located directly to the north of the complex (see Figure 2).

2 PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 Warkworth Continuation Project Warkworth is proposing to continue and extend the existing open cut mining operations further westward, mining through Wallaby Scrub Road and some of the offsets established under the 2003 development consent. The proposal involves the extraction of an additional 230 million tonnes of ROM coal over a period of 21 years from the date of any consent (nominally until 2035). The project involves some changes to address the issues raised in the LEC’s judgment on the Warkworth Extension Project. These changes include: • a revised assessment of biodiversity impacts and a revised biodiversity offset strategy prepared

in accordance with new government policies; • a revised noise assessment, addressing concerns in regard to background noise levels; • a revised social and economic assessment; and • separation of the applications and assessments for the Warkworth and Mt Thorley mines. The project also involves a number of operational changes, including the following: • mining methods – a dragline tandem offset method is proposed, rather than a continuous dragline

operation; • Putty Road underpass – proposed as an option in lieu of the approved (unbuilt) third bridge over

Putty Road; and • South Pit open void – inclusion of a small void to facilitate access to potential underground mining

in the future. The major components of the Warkworth Continuation Project are summarised below in Table 2 and depicted in Figures 5 to 10. The project is described in full in Warkworth’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Response to Submissions (RTS) (see Appendices A and C).



9

Table 2: Major Components of the Project Aspect Description Project Summary

• Continuation of existing and approved development on site; • Extending approved open cut mining operations further west; • Developing a range of associated infrastructure to support this extension; • Maintaining maximum coal extraction rates at 18 Mt of ROM a year; • Exporting coal, tailings and overburden to the Mt Thorley mine; • Water sharing with other mines; and • Progressively rehabilitating the site.

Project Life 21 years Mining & Reserves

Extraction of an additional 230 Mt of ROM coal, taking the total reserves to around 360 Mt of ROM coal.

Mining Areas The project involves extending the north and west pits further west, covering an additional 698 ha.

Consent Boundary

Expanded to include an additional 63 ha area (previously approved for mining under existing the Mt Thorley consent) (see Figure 5).

Extraction Rate No change. The maximum extraction rate would remain 18 Mt of ROM coal a year. Coal Processing No change. Coal would continue to be processed at the Warkworth CPP (13 Mt a year)

and the Mt Thorley CPP (proposed to increase from 10 Mt to 18 Mt a year). Coal Transport No change. Product coal would continue to be transported by overland conveyor and

along internal haul roads to the Mt Thorley Coal Loader and transported by rail to export markets. Some product coal and beneficiated tailings would continue to be transported by conveyor to the adjoining Redbank Power Station.

Overburden Emplacement

Overburden would continue to be emplaced in-pit behind the advancing mining operations. In addition, overburden from Warkworth mine is proposed to be transferred to Mt Thorley mine for use in development of the final landform.

Rejects Disposal No change. Coarse rejects and tailings would continue to be disposed of in-pit and at tailings storage facilities at either Warkworth or Mt Thorley mines.

Infrastructure • Upgrade and augment existing surface infrastructure, including a services corridor located along the western extension boundary (i.e. access road, water management and power reticulation);

• Construct an underpass below Putty Road between the Warkworth and Mt Thorley mines, or construct the approved third bridge over the road; and

• Close Wallaby Scrub Road and construct an emergency vehicle access road between Putty Road and the Golden Highway (within the services corridor).

Water Management

Upgrade the integrated MTW water management system including: • extend the mine water management system to include the extension of mining; • design changes to the northern out-of-pit dam; and • water sharing between Bulga Coal Complex and Wambo Mine if required. Continued water sharing between the Warkworth mine, Mt Thorley mine, Redbank Power Station and Hunter Valley Operations mine complex.

Cultural Heritage Conservation

Establish the Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area, located west of the proposed extension area and adjacent to the Hunter River.

Biodiversity Offsets

The project would disturb 611 ha of vegetation, including 459 ha of EECs and 152 ha of EEC derived grassland. The 2003 Habitat Management Area and Non- Disturbance Area offsets would also be disturbed, therefore the impacts associated with the 2003 vegetation clearance have been re-offset using current standards. The proposed offset strategy includes the following land-based offsets: • Northern biodiversity offset area – 705 ha; • Southern biodiversity offset area – 303 ha; • Goulburn River National Park – 1,299 ha; • Bowditch property – 520 ha; and • Rehabilitation – 2,100 ha.

Rehabilitation Establish 2,673 ha of rehabilitated land, including at least 1,617 ha of EEC woodland at Warkworth mine (2,100 ha of EEC including the rehabilitated Mt Thorley mine) (see Figure 10).

Employment Approximately 1,187 long term full time positions (1,307 including Mt Thorley mine) Capital Value Approximately $715 million ($719 million including Mt Thorley mine) Royalties Approximately $567 million ($617 million including Mt Thorley mine)



10

Figure 5: Project Layout



11

Figure 6: Year 3 Mine Plan



12




13




14




15

Figure 10: Proposed Final Landform



16

2.2 Mt Thorley Continuation Project The Warkworth Extension Project sought to facilitate and formalise integration between the Warkworth and Mt Thorley mines, with the Warkworth mining operations proposed to continue using the Mt Thorley mine’s infrastructure and facilities following completion of open cut mining at Mt Thorley in 2017. Given that the LEC was critical of the integrated approach to mine complex management, Warkworth and Mt Thorley Operations Pty Ltd (MTO) are now proposing to maintain separate development consents for each mine, and have lodged separate development applications. The Mt Thorley Continuation Project is addressed under a separate report to this assessment report. Nonetheless, given the related nature of the mining operations, a summary of the Mt Thorley Continuation Project is provided below (see Table 3). In essence, the Mt Thorley Continuation Project involves the continuation of already approved mining operations at Mt Thorley and the ongoing transfer of overburden, tailings and reject between the Mt Thorley and Warkworth mines which would assist in rehabilitation of the mines (with this to continue for a period of 21 years). Table 3: Major Components of the Mt Thorley Continuation Project Aspect Description Project Summary

• Continuation of existing and approved development on site; • Maintaining maximum coal extraction rates at 10 Mt of ROM a year; • Receiving coal, tailings and overburden from the Warkworth mine; • Receiving overburden from the Bulga mine; • Water sharing with other mines; • Minor infrastructure upgrades; and • Progressively rehabilitating the site.

Project Life 21 years Mining & Reserves

No change. Extraction of remaining coal resource (about 29 Mt of ROM coal).

Mining Areas No change. Loders Pit and Abby Green North Pit. Consent Boundary

Minor amendment to exclude a 63 ha that would be included in the proposed Warkworth extension area (see Figure 5).

Extraction Rate No change. Maximum extraction rate would remain 10 Mt of ROM coal a year. Coal Processing No change. Coal would continue to be processed at the Warkworth CPP (13 Mt a year)

and the Mt Thorley CPP (proposed to increase from 10 Mt to 18 Mt a year). Coal Transport No change. Product coal would continue to be transported to the Mt Thorley Coal Loader

by haul road and conveyer, and transported by rail to export markets. Overburden Emplacement

Overburden would continue to be emplaced in-pit behind the advancing mining operations. In addition, overburden from Warkworth mine is proposed to be transferred to Mt Thorley mine for use in development of the final landform.

Rejects Disposal Coarse rejects and tailings would continue to be disposed of in-pit and at tailings storage facilities at either Warkworth or Mt Thorley mines. The integrated MTW tailings management system would be upgrade, including: • use of the northern part of Loders Pit as a tailings storage facility after completion of

mining; and • wall lift to centre ramp tailings storage facility to increase capacity.

Infrastructure • Upgrade the Mt Thorley CPP to facilitate an increased maximum throughput of 18 Mt of ROM coal.

• Potential upgrade and augmentation of existing surface infrastructure and mobile and in-pit facilities.

Water Management

Upgrade the integrated MTW water management system, including: • upgrade the approved discharge point, and increase the rate of discharge into Loders

Creeks from 100ML a day to 300ML a day via the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme (HRSTS);

• transfer and accept mine water from neighbouring mines including Warkworth, Bulga Coal Complex, Wambo mine and Hunter Valley Operations; and

• increase the storage capacity of the southern out-of-pit dam from 1.6 GL to 2.2 GL. Rehabilitation Backfill Loders Pit and establish at least 483 ha of EEC woodland on the rehabilitated Mt

Thorley mine (2,100 ha including the rehabilitated Warkworth mine). Employment Approximately 120 long term full time positions (1,307 including Warkworth mine) Capital Value Approximately $4 million ($719 million including Warkworth mine)



17

Whilst the Mt Thorley Continuation Project has been assessed under a separate application, it is noted that potential cumulative impacts associated with the Warkworth Continuation Project and the Mt Thorley Continuation Project have been considered as part of the assessment for each of the projects. This is consistent with the way the Department considers cumulative impacts for any surrounding mining and/or industrial activities. 2.3 Project Justification In considering the justification of the Warkworth Continuation Project, the Department has considered a range of matters, including the: • significance of the resource; • economic benefits of the project; and • extent to which the project has been designed to avoid, mitigate, and/or offset the impacts on the

environment and the amenity of the local community. Significance of the Resource NSW has a large and mature coal industry based around substantial coal resources. Over the past decade, NSW coal production has grown steadily due to growing demand from export markets in Asia. World energy demand is predicted to increase over at least the next 20 to 30 years, and thermal coal is likely to remain a key energy source over this period. The project would facilitate the extraction of more than 230 Mt of high grade thermal and semi-soft coking coal at a rate of 18 Mt of ROM coal a year over the next 21 years. Currently, NSW produces around 120 Mt of export coal a year, with almost 60% of this produced in the Hunter Valley. The project would produce at least 12 Mt of saleable coal a year, and would therefore produce around 10% of NSW’s total volume of export coal, and a significant proportion of the ongoing production of coal from the Hunter Valley. There are limited opportunities to develop new mines in the Hunter Valley region, and it is therefore important to maximise the extraction of coal from reserves located within or adjacent to existing mines, such as Warkworth. The project would also rely on the existing mining fleet and infrastructure, including the coal processing and rail loading facilities, which would facilitate the economic delivery of coal to the Port of Newcastle while minimising the environmental and other costs that would be associated with extracting the coal from another location. Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007, a consent authority must consider the significance of the resource that is the subject of an application, having regard to: • the economic benefits, both to the State and the region in which the development is proposed to

be carried out, of developing the resource; and • any advice from the NSW Department of Trade and Investment as to the relative significance of

the resource in comparison with other mineral resources across the State. In August 2014, the Department of Trade and Investment provided written advice to the Department about the relative significance of the resource compared with other mineral resources across the State (see Appendix B). This advice confirms that the project’s coal resource is significant, and forms part of an area to the southwest of Singleton where mining has been occurring for more than 30 years. It notes the value of the coal produced would be worth around $14.3 billion and that the additional royalty to the State would be in the order of $1.2 billion in direct revenue over the life of the project (or approximately $567 million in net present value). Currently, the Mt Thorley Warkworth complex is the third largest producing mine in NSW, and the Department of Trade and Investment considers that the project (if approved) would continue to make a substantial contribution to NSW coal exports. Given these considerations, the Department is of the view that the resource can be considered to be significant, and the extraction of the resource would deliver substantial economic benefits for the region and NSW as a whole.



18

Economic Benefits The project would generate a range of significant economic benefits for the region and for NSW as a whole. These benefits include: • direct capital investment of $715 million; • $567 million in royalties for the NSW Government; • continued employment for the 1,187 people that currently work at the mine; and • flow on benefits for employment and business turnover across the region. The EIS includes a detailed cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for the project, undertaken by BAEconomics, that has been prepared generally in accordance with applicable NSW Government guidelines. The analysis considers a comprehensive range of matters including environmental and social impacts, the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and the cost of rehabilitating the site. The CBA also includes a sensitivity analysis to account for changes to some of the fundamental inputs that may occur over time (such as the export price of coal). In summary, the CBA calculates that the project would have a total net economic benefit of approximately $1.34 billion (net present value). Even under a worst case scenario where coal price decreases by $10 a tonne and the Australian dollar appreciates to 97 US cents, the CBA indicates that the project would remain well above $1 billion in net production benefits. The Department accepts that cost-benefit analysis is not a precise science and dependent on valuing environmental and social externalities in monetary terms which may vary from one expert to another. To test the methodology and assumptions in the CBA provided by Warkworth against applicable NSW Government guidelines, the Department commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to review the economic assessment for the project. A report outlining the preliminary findings of the review was submitted to the Department on 7 November 2014 (see Appendix G). In summary, Deloittes concluded that the CBA provides a broadly robust coverage of the economic costs and benefits of the project to the region and NSW, and meets the majority of the requirements set out in the: • Guideline for economic effects and evaluation in EIA (Planning NSW 2002); • NSW Government guidelines for economic appraisal (NSW Treasury 2007); and • Guideline for the use of cost benefit analysis in mining and coal seam gas proposals (NSW

Government 2012). However, the review also identified a number of aspects of the assessment that should be improved to provide a more detailed assessment of the project-level cost and benefits as outlined in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Preferred Cost Benefit Analysis Structure



19

Deloittes believe this would assist with: • aligning the CBA with best practice; • ensuring consistency with applicable guidelines; and • allowing the disaggregation of the project-specific impacts from broader State and regional

benefits. The Department agrees with the concerns raised by Deloitte Access Economics, and has asked Warkworth to provide the additional data requested. However, the Department believes it is important to note the matters raised by Deloittes would not materially change the broad conclusion that the project would result in a significant positive net economic benefit for NSW. Mine Design Warkworth has designed certain aspects of the project to avoid, minimise and/or offset the potential environmental and amenity impacts, including: • avoiding extracting economic coal reserves to the north of the mine and inclusion of this area

within the southern biodiversity area to avoid further impacts on Warkworth Sands Woodland and Aboriginal heritage;

• closing Wallaby Scrub Road rather than relocating the road, which would avoid clearing around 30 ha of woodland (including some EECs);

• maximising the volume of overburden to be placed within the open cut pits to minimise the size of the out-of-pit emplacement areas;

• minimising the size of the final void, and creating a final landform that integrates micro-relief to mimic natural landforms;

• rehabilitating the mine with over 1,600 ha of native woodland species; and • a comprehensive biodiversity offset strategy incorporating over 2,800 ha of land-based offsets and

a range of supplementary measures to compensate for the 611 ha that would be cleared as a result of the project.

Warkworth also considered options for changing the mine plan to avoid areas of Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC to the north, and the removal of Saddleback Ridge to the south of the mine. The EIS and the RTS present a detailed justification of why both of these options have been rejected by Warkworth. In essence, both options would result in the sterilisation of significant volumes of coal, under-utilisation of the three draglines that operate on the site, and a reduction in the overall production at the mine. Further consideration is given to these matters in the biodiversity and visual impact sections of the report (see Section 5). Overall, the Department is satisfied that, given the location of the resource, there are limited opportunities for further changes to the mine plan that would materially reduce the potential environmental and amenity impacts of the project without significant implications for economic resource recovery.

3 STATUTORY CONTEXT 3.1 State Significant Development The proposed development is declared to be State Significant Development under Section 89C of the EP&A Act as it is ‘development for the purposes of coal mining’, which is specified in clause 5 of schedule 1 to State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. Consequently, the Minister for Planning is the consent authority for the development. However, the development application falls within the Minister’s delegation to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) dated 14 September 2011, because there were more than 25 public submissions in the nature of objections. Consequently, the PAC must determine the application. 3.2 Permissibility The zoning and permissibility of the project under the Singleton Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Singleton LEP) is summarised in Table 4. As indicated in Table 4, open cut mining is permissible with consent in the RU1 zone, however it is prohibited in the SP2 and RU4 zones.



20

Nevertheless, development for the purpose of agriculture may be carried out in all three zones, and consequently the entire project is permissible with development consent under clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (Mining SEPP). Table 4: Permissibility under Singleton LEP 2013 Zone Permissibility RU1 Primary Production Mining permissible with consent SP2 Infrastructure Mining prohibited RU4 Rural Small Holdings Mining prohibited

3.3 Environmental Planning Instruments Under Section 79C of the EP&A Act the consent authority is required to consider amongst other things the provisions of relevant environmental planning instruments (EPIs), including any exhibited draft EPIs and development control plans. The Department has considered the project against the relevant provisions of several EPIs (see Appendix D), as well as Warkworth’s consideration of these instruments (see Chapter 7 of the EIS). The key instruments include: • Singleton LEP 2013; • SEPP No.33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development; • SEPP No.44 – Koala Habitat Protection; • SEPP No.55 – Remediation of Land; • SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011; • SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP); and • the Mining SEPP. On 4 November 2013, the NSW Government amended the Mining SEPP to clarify the decision-making process for proposals for the mining of mineral resources, including coal. The amendment introduced a clear statutory requirement that the consent authority must consider the significance of the resource, both to the State and the region where it is located, as part of its decision-making process. While the amendment made clear that the significance of the resource is an important factor in the decision-making process, it is not the only factor, and environmental, social and economic impacts continue to be significant considerations. The Department has included careful consideration of the significance of the project’s coal resource (see Section 2.3 above). Based on its assessment of these instruments and its broader environmental assessment in Section 5, the Department considers that the Warkworth Continuation Project can be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the aims, objectives and provisions of these instruments. However, this is subject to a range of mitigation, monitoring and management measures, as outlined in Section 5. 3.4 Integrated and Other NSW Approvals Under Section 89J of the EP&A Act, a number of other approvals are integrated into the State Significant Development approval process, and consequently are not required to be separately obtained for the proposal. These include: • an authorisation under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 for the clearing of native vegetation; and • an Aboriginal heritage impact permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Under Section 89K of the EP&A Act, a number of other approvals are required, but must be substantially consistent with any development consent for the proposal. These include: • an extension to the existing mining lease (to cover the surface to 20 m depth required for the

proposal) under the Mining Act 1992; and • approvals for road works under the Roads Act 1993. Warkworth also requires other approvals for the project which are not integrated into the State Significant Development approval process, including: • approval under the Roads Act 1993 from Singleton Shire Council (as the responsible roads

authority) to permanently close Wallaby Scrub Road; and • certain water licences under the Water Management Act 2000.



21

The Department has consulted the relevant public authorities responsible for granting these integrated and other approvals, and considered the relevant issues relating to these approvals in its assessment of the project (see Section 4 and Section 5). 3.5 Site Verification Certificate Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and the Mining SEPP, applicants for new mining projects that are not located within an existing mining lease must determine whether the site contains biophysical strategic agricultural land (BSAL) prior to lodging a development application. If the site does contain BSAL, the development application must be accompanied by a gateway certificate issued by the NSW Gateway Panel, which may include recommendations for assessing and/or minimising impacts on BSAL. The Department has prepared broad level maps identifying potential BSAL in NSW, but applicants are still required to verify whether this or other land comprises BSAL (unless they elect to go straight to the gateway certificate process). In this regard, applicants may apply to the Department for a site verification certificate to certify that land does not contain BSAL. The proposed Warkworth extension area does not contain any mapped BSAL. Nonetheless, in May 2014, Warkworth lodged an application for a site verification certificate with the Department, prepared in accordance with the Interim Protocol for Site Verification and Mapping of Biological Strategic Agricultural Land. On 17 June 2014, the Department issued a Site Verification Certificate confirming that the site does not contain BSAL (see Appendix E), as the soils in the area do not meet the criteria for BSAL. Consequently, a gateway certificate for the project is not required. 3.6 Commonwealth Approvals The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment approved the westward extension of the Warkworth mine (as contemplated in the Warkworth Extension Project and proposed in the Warkworth Continuation Project) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 9 August 2012 (EPBC approval number 2009/5081). Unlike the NSW approval, the Commonwealth approval under the EPBC Act was not challenged in the courts and consequently the Commonwealth approval remains valid. As the disturbance and required biodiversity offsets associated with the proposal are covered by the 2012 Commonwealth approval and the proposal is exempt from the ‘water trigger’ approval requirements under the EPBC Act1, no further Commonwealth approvals are required under the EPBC Act. 3.7 PAC Review On 6 November 2014, the Minister for Planning asked the PAC to review the merits of the Warkworth Continuation Project and the Mt Thorley Continuation Project. Due to the level of interest in the projects, the Minister also requested that the PAC hold public hearings during the reviews. The terms of reference for the Warkworth Continuation Project PAC review are set out below (see Table 5). Note that the Terms of Reference are the same for both the Warkworth and Mt Thorley Continuation Projects. Once it receives the PAC’s review report, the Department will finalise its assessment of the merits of the project and refer the project application back to the PAC for determination.

1 Water resource approvals are not required because the project relates to an action approved by the Commonwealth Minister under Part 9 of the EPBC Act before 22 June 2013.



22

Table 5: Terms of Reference to the PAC 1. Carry out a review of the Warkworth Continuation Project, and:

a) consider the EIS for the project, the issues raised in submissions, the formal response to submissions, the Department of Planning and Environment’s preliminary assessment report of the project, and any other relevant information provided on the project during the course of the review;

b) assess the merits of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to the potential amenity, health and social impacts on the village of Bulga and surrounds;

c) apply all relevant NSW Government policies in those considerations and to that assessment; and

d) provide recommendations on any reasonable and feasible measures that could be implemented to avoid, reduce and/or offset the potential impacts of the project.

2. Conduct public hearings on the project no later than 12 December 2014. 3. Complete the review by 20 February 2015, unless the Secretary agrees otherwise.

3.8 Objects of the EP&A Act The Minister must consider the objects of the EP&A Act when making decisions under the Act. The objects of most relevance to the Minister’s decision on whether or not to approve the project are found in Section 5(a)(i),(ii),(vi) and (vii). They are: To encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment;

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land;

(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats; and

(vii) ecologically sustainable development.

The Department is satisfied that the project encourages the proper development of resources (Object 5(a)(i)) and the promotion of orderly and economic use of land (Object 5(a)(ii)), particularly as: • the project is a permissible land use on the subject land; • the coal resource has been determined by the Department of Trade and Investment to be

significant from a State and regional perspective; • the coal resource is located within an existing exploration licence for coal in a region that is

dominated by coal mining operations; • the project can be carried out using existing surface infrastructure; and • the project would provide considerable socio-economic benefits. However, the Department also recognises the potential impacts on natural resources (particularly some EECs) and other land uses (particularly Bulga Village). The Department has assessed the potential impacts on these resources and land uses in Section 5 of this report. Consideration of environmental protection (Object 5(a)(vi)) is provided in Section 5 of this report. Following its consideration, the Department considers that the project is able to be undertaken in a manner that would maintain or improve the biodiversity values of the region in the medium to long-term. The Department is also satisfied that the impacts to threatened species and habitats can be managed and/or mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions, including a precautionary approach to clearing of the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, and a detailed biodiversity offset strategy and rehabilitation strategy. The Department has considered the encouragement of ecologically sustainable development (Object 5(a)(vii)) in its assessment of the project. This assessment integrates all significant socio-economic and environmental considerations and seeks to avoid any potential serious or irreversible environmental damage, based on an assessment of risk-weighted consequences. Warkworth has also considered the project against the principles of ESD. Following its consideration, the Department considers that the project is able to be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the principles of ESD.



23

4 CONSULTATION 4.1 Exhibition Under Section 89F of the EP&A Act the Secretary is required to publicly exhibit the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project for at least 30 days. The Department: • publicly exhibited the EIS from 25 June until 6 August 2014 at the:

o Department’s Information Centre in Sydney; o Singleton Shire Council; o Nature Conservation Council’s office; and o Department’s website;

• notified relevant State government authorities and Council by email; • notified relevant roads authorities, in accordance with the Mining SEPP and Infrastructure SEPP;

and • advertised the exhibition in the Singleton Argus, Newcastle Herald, Daily Telegraph and Sydney

Morning Herald newspapers.

The exhibition was undertaken concurrently with the exhibition for the Mt Thorley Continuation Project. During the assessment process the Department also made other documents publicly available on its website, including: • the development application; • the Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements; • the EIS; • submissions received during the exhibition of the EIS; and • Warkworth’s response to the issues raised in submissions. 4.2 Submissions During the exhibition period, the Department received 1,926 submissions including: • 7 from public authorities; • 49 from special interest groups; and • 1,870 submissions from the general public. Since the exhibition of the EIS the Department has consulted further with Warkworth and several public authorities (including the NSW Office of Environment and the NSW Environment Protection Authority) and other stakeholders (including the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association) to discuss key issues. Departmental representatives have also visited the site and surrounds on several occasions. A summary of the issues raised in submissions is provided below. A full copy of the submissions is provided in Appendix B. 4.3 Public Authority Submissions None of the public authorities objected to the project. However most of the authorities raised concerns about the potential impacts of the project, and made recommendations as to how these impacts should be avoided, minimised or managed. Various agencies within the Department of Trade and Investment (DTIRIS) - including the Division of Resources and Energy (DRE), NSW Office of Water (NOW), Office of Agricultural Sustainability & Food Security (OAS&FS) and Crown Lands commented on the project. DRE raised concerns about the level of information provided in the EIS about rehabilitation, noting that Warkworth only provided general rehabilitation strategies and objectives. However, DRE accepted that these matters could be addressed through appropriate conditions of consent, and recommended detailed rehabilitation objectives that would have to be implemented by Warkworth. The Department has assessed the various environmental aspects associated with rehabilitation as part of its detailed consideration of the project, and is satisfied that there is sufficient information for the assessment of the project (see Section 5). The Department has recommended conditions consistent with DRE’s recommendations.



24

Additionally, DRE supported Warkworth’s reported coal reserve estimate of 358 Mt of ROM coal, and the proposed mine plan, which it believes optimises strike length, dragline utilisation and resource recovery. In regard to the proposed mine plan, DRE noted that mining at full strike length would be required to ensure economically viable production rates during a period of relatively low coal prices. NOW raised concerns in relation to licensing requirements and alluvial groundwater quality. In its RTS Warkworth provided additional information about its existing water licences, and confirmed that it would secure and comply with additional licence requirements before commencement of the project. Warkworth also committed to address NOWs residual concerns regarding groundwater quality by installing additional groundwater monitoring equipment. OAS&FS raised concerns about the potential impact that groundwater drawdown and decreased baseflow in watercourses may have on the nearby viticulture industry. In its RTS, Warkworth completed an assessment of these issues in accordance with the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy, which confirmed that the project would have a negligible impact on the viticulture industry. Crown Lands recommended conditions of approval requiring Warkworth to acquire a portion of land located within an existing disturbance area (mined under the 2003 consent). Warkworth noted that it was not required to purchase this land under its 2003 consent, and as such, does not agree with Crown Lands’ request. However, Warkworth has committed to consult further with Crown Lands regarding previously and/or potentially affected Crown Land. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) raised concerns related to noise and air quality, including Warkworth’s modelled scenarios for noise and air quality, as well as the projects potential low frequency noise and amenity impacts, and nitrous oxides and blasting impacts. Warkworth addressed these issues in its RTS, which included the provision of additional data, and justification of the modelling scenarios. Despite raising some concerns about Warkworth’s noise impact assessment, the EPA confirmed that it was satisfied, and could support the project based on the predicted noise levels in the EIS. The EPA also confirmed that Warkworth’s proposed noise mitigation measures represent current best practice, and the agency considers it unlikely that there are further reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented. Additionally, the EPA recommended a number of conditions of approval relating to noise, air quality and surface water that the Department incorporated in the recommended conditions. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) initially raised some concerns about the impact on biodiversity and the adequacy of the offsets. Warkworth provided additional information and OEH confirmed its satisfaction by certifying the proposed offset strategy in accordance with clause 14(3) of the Mining SEPP. OEH also made general recommendations relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage and flooding that have been included in the Department’s recommended conditions. The Heritage Council of NSW (Heritage Council) raised general concerns about the project’s potential impact on nearby heritage sites, including the Wambo Homestead, the Bulga WW2 RAAF Base and the historic Great North Road (the alignment of which lies beneath Wallaby Scrub Road). The agency requested additional information about Warkworth’s proposed heritage management measures and Warkworth provided additional information in its RTS. The Heritage Council confirmed that it was satisfied, and the Department has recommended conditions of consent to mitigate and manage the potential impacts on these sites. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) made general recommendations regarding the proposed third bridge crossing of Putty Road. RMS also requested that Warkworth close the Lydes Lane/Golden Highway intersection, and fund the upgrade of the Golden Highway/Mitchell Line of Road intersection (or undertake works to the value of $1 million). The Department considers that RMSs requests are reasonable and justified, and has recommended conditions of approval consistent with RMSs recommendations.



25

NSW Health raised a number of concerns about the potential noise, air quality and social impacts of the project on human health. In particular, NSW Health requested: • that proper consideration be given to ensure that all reasonable and feasible noise mitigation

measures are in place; • clarification of air quality impacts and management measures relating to occupied mine-owned

properties; and • clarification regarding key figures quoted in Warkworth’s social impact assessment. Warkworth responded to all of these issues in its RTS, and the Department has considered them in its assessment (see Section 5). Singleton Shire Council (Council) did not object to the proposal, but raised a number issues including: • Biodiversity:

o concerns about the adequacy of the proposed offset strategy; and o requested confirmation that Warkworth Sands grassland can be re-established as Warkworth

Sands Woodland; • Rehabilitation:

o concerns about the adequacy of the proposed progressive rehabilitation measures, particularly in relation to minimising air quality impacts; and

o requested that Council is consulted as the project progresses to ensure the final landform integrates with future land uses;

• Socio-economic: o concerns about the ongoing social sustainability of Bulga Village, the community perceptions

regarding the Amended Biodiversity Deed, and the potential economic impacts if community members leave the Village; and

o requires the development of a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Warkworth to offset social impacts;

• Noise: o raised concerns and requested additional information about the background noise levels

adopted in the EIS, the potential noise impacts associated with the removal of Saddleback Ridge, and the proposed noise monitoring measures;

• Air Quality: o raised concerns about the long term health impacts from dust emissions (particularly PM2.5); o requested that Warkworth be required to monitor and report on PM2.5; and o recommended that Warkworth contribute financially to a broader health impact study in

relation to particulate matter; • Traffic: raised concerns about the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road, and the provision of an access

track for emergency service vehicles; and • Visual amenity: requested Warkworth to undertake additional visual assessments for the elevated

residences in Bulga Village. Council also made general recommendations relating to the management of potential impacts on groundwater, surface water and heritage, and potential blasting impacts. 4.4 Special Interest Group Submissions Of the 49 special interest group submissions, 20 objected to the project. A list of the special interest groups and a summary of the issues raised in submissions is reported below. Submissions Objecting to the Project The key issues raised in submissions objecting to the project relate to potential biodiversity impacts, socio-economic impacts and amenity (noise, air quality and visual) impacts. The majority of submissions also objected on the grounds that the Warkworth Extension Project was refused by two courts.



26

Special interest groups that objected to the project include: • Armidale Branch National Parks Association of NSW; • Australian Conservation Foundation - Shoalhaven Branch; • The Australia Institute; • Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association (BMPA).; • Correct Planning & Consultation for Mayfield Group; • Doctors for the Environment Australia; • Friends of the Earth Australia; • Hunter Bird Observers Club; • Hunter Communities Network; • Hunter Environment Lobby Inc.; • Hunter Valley Protection Alliance; • Lock the Gate Alliance; • Mabrook Estate; • National Parks Association of NSW (Hunter Branch); • Nature Conservation Council; • Northern beaches Greens; • Port Stephens Park Residents Association; • Running Stream Water Users Association; • Stop Coal Seam Gas Blue Mountains; and • Tocomwall. The Department notes that many of the special interest group and community submissions objecting to the project acknowledged and supported the BMPA’s submission. Consequently, a summary of the BMPA submission is detailed below. Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Submission The BMPA produced a very detailed submission on the project supported by three reports/peer reviews of Warkworth’s EIS in relation to biodiversity, noise and social impacts. The BMPA’s principle objection is that the current application is largely the same as the 2012 extension project, which was refused by both the NSW Land and Environment Court and NSW Court of Appeal. The BMPA also asserts that the NSW Government changed government policy and legislation following these court refusals in order to assist Warkworth in expanding the mine. The BMPA’s submission also raises a broad range of concerns, many of which are the same as those raised in response to the Warkworth Extension Project, including: • Biodiversity:

o impacts resulting from the clearing of Warkworth Sands Woodland; o insufficient information to demonstrate that Warkworth Sands Woodland can be successfully

restored; o cumulative impact of land clearing in the Hunter region; o removal of the 2003 non-disturbance areas (NDAs) and habitat management areas (HMAs); o clearance of fauna habitat and impact on endangered fauna; and o the extent of Warkworth Sands Woodland mapped in the northern biodiversity area has been

exaggerated (compared to the LEC judgement definition of the EEC); • Noise Impacts on Bulga Village:

o credibility of background noise levels; o accuracy of low frequency noise modelling; o underestimation of noise impacts; o noise impacts would unduly disturb residents and are unacceptable; o removal of Saddleback Ridge which acts as a buffer; and o excluding noise mitigation measures due to the high cost of implementation is unacceptable;

• Socio-economics: o mental and physical health impacts are unaccounted for; o property market impacts are only considered for Singleton, and not Bulga; o proposed mitigation and management measures are insufficient; o economic benefits are overstated and costs are underestimated, particularly the costs relating

to the financial difficulties facing the coal sector. If the project is approved, but does not continue due to financial difficulties, then the environmental damage would be for nothing; and



27

o the coal reserve could be successfully extracted by alternative methods (i.e. underground mining);

• Air quality and health impacts: o requests an independent health study, particularly in relation to PM2.5; and o removal of Saddleback Ridge means there would be no physical barrier to mitigate impacts of

dust on Bulga Village; • Water resources:

o removal of Wollombi Brook catchment, which is a stressed river fully allocated under the relevant Water Sharing Plan;

o impacts on Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems due to increased salinity; o accurate quantities of pit water seepage have not been predicted; o long term impacts associated with the final void, and concerns about how the final void would

interact with the Wollombi Brook and alluvium; • Visual:

o the removal of Saddleback Ridge would result in significant visual impacts on Bulga Village, as views east towards the mine would be dominated by overburden dumps;

• Blasting: o the blasting assessment in the EIS is 4 years old, and should be updated to reflect current

measurements on the site; o impact of existing blasting operations are not managed properly, which has resulted in

damage to properties. Road closures associated with blasting appear to be random, and the community has no confidence that the proposed increase in blasting frequency would be managed properly;

• Traffic – closure of Wallaby Scrub Road: o the public has to travel further and incur the additional monetary expense to reach their

destination; o emergency vehicles traveling to Bulga would be delayed by having to take a longer alternate

route; • Archaeology and heritage:

o Aboriginal heritage sites would be destroyed as a result of the project; o destruction of Wallaby Scrub Road, which runs along the alignment of the historic Great North

Road, should be avoided because it is historically significant at a State level; and o impacts on the Bulga WW2 RAAF base should be avoided or mitigated due to its historical

significance. Submissions in Support of the Project The key reasons for support of the proposal relate to its employment and socio-economic benefits, and the belief that the environmental impacts of the project are manageable. The majority of these submissions were received from local and regional contractors or service providers to the mining industry. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union also made as submission supporting the project. Bulga Coal Management (BCM), the owners and operators of the nearby Bulga coal mine, made a submission with a range of comments, however BCM did not support or object to the proposal. 4.3 Community Submissions Most of the community submissions were received from residents of the Hunter region, including Singleton, Muswellbrook, Maitland, Cessnock and Newcastle. A number of these submissions were from residents living close to the mine, including Bulga Village, but there were also a number of submissions from the wider region, including Sydney. Of the 1,870 public submissions, 1,609 supported the project. Similar to the special interest group submissions, the key reasons for community support relate to its employment and socio-economic benefits (see Figure 12). The majority of these submissions were received from employees, local contractors or service providers to the Warkworth and Mt Thorley mines.



28

Figure 12: Key Reasons for Community Support

The remaining submissions objecting to the proposal cited a range of issues, with the key issues indicated in Figure 13 below. Of the 261 submissions objecting to project, approximately 21% came from residents of Bulga Village.

Figure 13: Key Issues Raised in Public Submissions



29

4.4 Summary of Key Issues Raised in Submissions Whilst a wide range of issues were raised in the submissions, the key issues include the following: • noise, vibration and dust – including amenity and health-related impacts on surrounding residents

and issues associated with the assessment methodologies (including background noise levels); • biodiversity – the adequacy of the biodiversity offset strategy and potential impacts on the

Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC; • heritage – the loss of, and/or impacts to, Aboriginal and historic heritage sites within and

surrounding the project site; • traffic – particularly impacts resulting from the removal of Wallaby Scrub Road; • visual amenity – including the removal of Saddleback Ridge and the impacts on the residents of

Bulga Village; and • socio-economics – particularly relating to the economic costs and benefits of the project, social

amenity, health and wellbeing, property values in Bulga Village and infrastructure and services. The Department has considered these and other issues associated with the project in its assessment of the project. 4.5 Response to Submissions On 10 November 2014, Warkworth provided a detailed response to the issues raised in submissions (see Appendix C), which was made publicly available on the Department’s website.

5 ASSESSMENT In its assessment of the merits of the project application the Department has considered the: • EIS, submissions, Response to Submissions, and additional information provided by Warkworth

and public authorities; • site verification certificate for the project; • relevant environmental planning instruments, policies and guidelines; • relevant provisions of the EP&A Act, including the objects of the Act; and • relevant documents related to the Warkworth Extension Project, including the Environmental

Assessment (EA), Department’s assessment report, PAC’s determination report, and conditions of approval, LEC judgement and the judgement of the NSW Court of Appeal.

5.1 Noise The EIS includes a noise impact assessment undertaken by EMM in accordance with applicable guidelines, including the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP) and the Road Noise Policy. Importantly, the EIS also addresses a number of key matters raised in the LEC judgement. The assessment was undertaken with reference to the predicted impacts on the local community in the vicinity of the Warkworth mine, including rural and rural residential properties surrounding the site, and residential properties within Warkworth and Bulga Villages. The assessment considers the operational noise, sleep disturbance and road traffic noise impacts of the Warkworth Continuation Project and the cumulative noise impacts from the Warkworth mine together with surrounding mines. Although the Warkworth mine has a different ownership structure, different consent, and different noise limits to the Mt Thorley mine, the two mines are operated as a single, integrated mining complex, sharing equipment, infrastructure and employees. This complicates the assessment of the potential noise impacts of the project. However, the noise impact assessment has treated the Warkworth project as a stand-alone operation. Consequently, as soon as Mt Thorley employees and equipment move onto the Warkworth mine they are treated as Warkworth noise sources and vice versa.



30

Background Noise Levels One of the key issues raised in the Land & Environment Court proceedings on the Warkworth Extension Project, and also in numerous submissions on this project, was the methodology for establishing accurate background noise levels for the surrounding area without the noise from the existing operations. This is important because under the Industrial Noise Policy the project specific noise levels (PSNLs or intrusive noise criteria) are generally set 5dB(A) above these background levels. So if background noise levels are set higher than they should be, then the PSNLs would be higher than they should be. The methodology used for establishing background noise levels for the project was comprehensive, and a significant extension on the general methodology outlined in the Industrial Noise Policy. To establish the background noise levels in Bulga, EMM has used six extensive data sets collected between 2011 and 2013 to establish the rating background noise levels. The sites were well dispersed across the Bulga area, and are considered to be satisfactorily representative of the major noise catchments in the area. The data sets containing noise and meteorological data were for durations of between 3 and 11 months, and included data collected from directional noise monitoring. A sensitivity analysis of the data supports EMM’s claim that noise from the existing Warkworth mine has been satisfactorily removed from the background data through the use of directional sound level meters. Despite recording night time background noise levels of up to 35 dB(A), the EIS has taken a conservative approach and has not sought to apply an increase on the levels presented in the 2002 EIS study which reported a maximum of 33 dB(A). To avoid large step changes in criteria where one residence may have an assigned background of 33 dB(A) and the neighbouring property is assigned a background of 30 dB(A), the EIS has conservatively transitioned the criteria in Bulga to 1 dB(A) steps using both monitoring data and modelling techniques. Both the Department and the EPA have examined EMM’s results closely, and are satisfied that accurate background levels have been established for the surrounding area. The assigned background noise levels are shown on Figure 14. While the submission from the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association included an acoustic report from Day Design, which questioned the background noise levels derived in EMM’s noise assessment, the Department’s independent noise expert (Dr Norm Broner) has identified a number of flaws in this report, including that it relies heavily on the data from a single unattended noise logger, and that this data contains various anomalies that are difficult to explain. Dr Broner will provide further advice on both the accuracy of EMM’s background noise levels, and the matters raised in the Day Design report in his final report, but in the interim both the Department and the EPA accept that the background noise levels adopted in the EIS are founded on a thorough and scientific basis. In areas outside Bulga (such as Hambleton Hill, Warkworth Village and Mt Thorley), EMM has used historic data to set levels which is considered to be a conservative approach to setting background levels in areas where these levels are likely to have gone up due to increased industrial activity, or adopted minimum background levels under the Industrial Noise Policy. Both the Department and the EPA are satisfied with the adopted background noise levels in these areas.



31

Figure 14: Assigned Background Noise Levels in Bulga Area

.



32

Saddleback Ridge Public submissions have raised the issue of Saddleback Ridge providing a noise buffer to residences west of the mine and claim that removal of the ridge could significantly increase noise levels in the Bulga/Milbrodale area. Whilst it is recognised that intuitively this concern has merit, there is no technical basis to support that substantial noise attenuation is achieved by the ridgeline. Detailed modelling has consistently shown that the ridge does not provide appreciable noise mitigation under adverse meteorological conditions, which neutralise any mitigation effect provided by the ridge. Noise Mitigation Measures To minimise the noise impacts of these operations, Warkworth is proposing to implement all reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures. Under the Industrial Noise Policy, these measures are grouped into three categories: • controlling noise at source, either by using:

- Best Available Technology Economically Available (BATEA); and - Best Management Practice (BMP), which includes restricting the use of equipment on elevated

areas at certain times, scheduling noisier activities during the day, and increasingly the use of real-time noise management);

• controlling the transmission of noise with bunds or buffer areas; and • controlling noise at the receiver. Warkworth’s noise assessment is based on a combination of the first two measures, and include: • relocation of haul trucks from high wall to in-pit haul routes; • reduction of mobile equipment operating at night on critical haul routes; • reduction of dozers operating on elevated overburden emplacement areas at night; • cladding of the Warkworth CPP; • placement of noise suppressed haul trucks on critical haul routes; and • noise suppression of the haul truck fleet. The Department has evaluated these measures and concluded that: • Warkworth is implementing best management practice on site, particularly through its real-time

noise management system. However, it acknowledges there are limits to the reductions that can be achieved through BMP, and while it is possible to stand equipment down and reduce noise impacts, there is a threshold where the costs of doing this may well outstrip any noise benefits gained;

• there are limits to controlling noise from the Warkworth mine through buffer areas and barriers, principally because the topography of the surrounding area does not lend itself to these mitigation measures, and large bunds are unlikely to reduce noise impacts by much during adverse weather conditions;

• the sound power levels of the equipment at Warkworth are higher than those at a number of other mining operations in the Hunter Valley. This is partly reflective of the age of the mine, however, reductions in these sound power levels would reduce the noise levels of mining operations on site appreciably.

Over the last few years Warkworth (together with Mt Thorley) has gradually been attenuating the key equipment on site, including haul trucks, dozers, excavators and drills. However, to date only 50% of the haul truck fleet is attenuated. Under the project, Warkworth is proposing to complete the attenuation of all of this fleet by the end of 2016 at a cost of around $50 million for the MTW complex. Warkworth claims it is not possible to introduce the attenuation quicker as there are constraints on the supply of attenuation packages at the moment. Warkworth has also implemented a proactive and reactive noise management system on the site, including: • the use of real-time weather data to guide mining and overburden emplacement activities; and • proactive mine planning to provide contingencies, such as during adverse weather conditions. In addition, Warkworth employs Community Response Officers who are able to respond promptly to noise complaints, make noise measurements and relay their observations back to the mine for appropriate action. The EIS presents real examples demonstrating how this system works in practice to manage noise impacts under adverse meteorological conditions.



33

The real-time noise monitoring system has also recently been enhanced by the addition of a Noise Compass directional monitoring system which further improves the ability of the mine to assess its compliance with its noise criteria. The Department has also considered other potential noise mitigation measures, including noise barriers and bunds, and infrastructure relocation. For barriers to be effective, they must be either very close to the noise source, or very close to the receiver. Warkworth’s noise management plan already has night time operations being conducted as much as practical behind dumps or low in the pit close to the high wall. It is proposed to continue this practice. As has been previously demonstrated with modelling of Saddleback Ridge, a barrier somewhere in between the source and the receiver provides no real benefit during noise enhancing meteorological conditions and only provides modest benefits during non-enhancing conditions, which are times when the mine comfortably complies with its noise criteria. Noise bunds close to residences are not a practical solution as residences are generally isolated and would require significant individual bunds. This option is also seen as less practical compared to the range of architectural treatments which the Department has recommended be afforded to all residences predicted to exceed the intrusive criteria by 3 dB or more (see below). Whilst the commissioning of any new infrastructure would be assessed with regard to minimising noise impacts, costs associated with relocating existing infrastructure are estimated to be in the order of $100 million and are not considered reasonable, particularly as they would only return a small noise benefit. Noise Predictions EMM’s noise predictions are based on the assumption that Warkworth would implement all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures on site, including the attenuation package by 2016. It also uses a range of conservative assumptions, including worst case weather conditions, to minimise the risk of under-predicting the impacts of the project. The predicted noise impacts of the project at privately-owned residences are summarised in Table 6. Table 6: Number of Properties verses Predicted Impact

PSNL ≤ PSNL + 1 – 2 dB + 3 – 5 dB > 5 dB 35 80 36 13 1 36 - 8 - - 37 2 15 - - 38 36 22 2 1

Total 118 81 15 2 Note: The table excludes properties in Mt Thorley with existing acquisition rights under the Mt Thorley mine consent. In interpreting these exceedances, it is important to consider the advice in both the: • Industrial Noise Policy, which says project-specific noise levels should not be “automatically

interpreted as conditions for consent, without consideration of other factors,” and “in many instances, it may be appropriate to set noise limits for a development above the project-specific noise levels”; and

• the Mining SEPP, which deems noise levels from specific projects to be acceptable provided they do not result in exceedances of the recommended amenity (or cumulative) criteria in the Industrial Noise Policy, which in this case is 40dBA over a 9-hour night time period (which equates to an LAeq(15min) level of approximately 43dB(A)).

Further, the NSW Government’s Voluntary Land Acquisition and Mitigation Policy gives guidance on how exceedances of project specific noise levels should be interpreted (see Table 7 below).



34

Table 7: Characterisation of Noise Impacts and Potential Treatments Residual noise exceeds INP criteria by

Characterisation of impacts Potential treatment

0-2dB(A) above the PSNL Impacts are considered to be negligible

The exceedances would not be discernible by the average listener and therefore would not warrant receiver based treatments or controls

3-5dB(A) above the PSNL in the INP but the development would contribute less than 1dB to the total industrial noise level

Impacts are considered to be marginal

Provide mechanical ventilation / comfort condition systems to enable windows to be closed without compromising internal air quality / amenity

3-5dB(A) above the PSNL in the INP and the development would contribute more than 1dB to the total industrial noise level

Impacts are considered to be moderate

As for marginal impacts but also upgraded façade elements like windows, doors, roof insulation etc. to further increase the ability of the building façade to reduce noise levels

>5dB(A) above the PSNL in the INP

Impacts are considered to be significant

Provide mitigation as for moderate impacts and provide voluntary land acquisition rights

Based on this guidance, of the 98 affected residences: • 2 are predicted to experience significant noise impacts: one of these residences (Property 34) is

located on the outskirts of Bulga and the other (Property 77) in Warkworth village to the north of the mine. Property 77 already has acquisition rights under the Wambo mine consent;

• 15 are predicted to experience moderate noise impacts: these residences are located in Bulga (5 residences) to the west, Gouldsville (5 residences) to the north-east and Hambledon Hill (5 residences) to the east; and

• 81 are predicted to experience negligible noise impacts, which would be indiscernible to most people. Most of these residences are located in Bulga, with lower numbers in other localities surrounding the mine.

In addition to impacts on privately-owned residences, the Voluntary Land Acquisition and Mitigation Policy provides that voluntary land acquisition rights should be considered where noise generated by a development exceeds the maximum recommended amenity noise levels in the Industrial Noise Policy over more than 25% of any privately-owned land (and a dwelling could be built on that land under existing planning controls). In the area surrounding the Warkworth mine, this translates to a night-time criterion of 45dB(A) LAeq(period). Warkworth’s assessment indicates that no privately-owned land would experience exceedances of this criterion. In considering the operational noise impacts on privately-owned properties, there are three further points that should be noted. First, the predictions are based on the change in noise levels relative to background noise levels that haven’t existed for many years, as the Warkworth mine has been part of the noise landscape for over 30 years now. Second, these predictions are worst case predictions under adverse weather conditions occurring in the most affected season in the most affected year, so actual impacts are likely to be lower than predicted. Finally, despite the predicted exceedances of intrusive noise criteria, cumulative noise levels (which includes the project and all other industrial sources such as the Mt Thorley and Bulga mines) would remain below the recommended amenity criteria for a rural area in the Industrial Noise Policy at all privately-owned residences surrounding the mine that do not have existing acquisition rights, and therefore below the non-discretionary standards in the Mining SEPP.



35

When this is taken into consideration with the social and economic benefits of the project, and the fact that Warkworth would be implementing all reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures, the Department considers the potential noise impacts of the project to be acceptable. The Department has recommended conditions to minimise the impacts of the project. These include: • granting voluntary acquisition rights to 2 landowners, 1 of which has voluntary acquisition rights

under the existing Wambo consent; • granting voluntary mitigation rights to 15 other landowners; • setting strict noise limits at all other privately-owned properties surrounding the mine; • requiring Warkworth to comply with a range of standard noise conditions, including implementing

all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the noise impacts of the project, implementing a real-time noise management system, carrying out regular monitoring of the noise impacts of the project to ensure compliance, and making these monitoring results available on its website; and

• preparing a detailed Noise Management Plan for the project. Low Frequency Noise Several submissions were critical of the noise impact assessment, saying it should have applied the penalties in the Industrial Noise Policy to the predictions to account for low frequency noise impacts. The Department’s independent expert has considered this criticism, and raised several important points. First, the penalty does not apply to general noise (or the predictions); it must be applied specifically to a noise source. Second, the EPA has acknowledged that the test in the Industrial Noise Policy for low frequency noise breaks down at larger distances from the source due to the natural attenuation difference between high and low frequencies leading to a very unbalanced spectrum at larger distances (which is common with coal mines). By default, this leads to the test for penalties being triggered even though the sound levels at these larger distances are relatively low and would not cause any annoyance. Finally, EMM carried out further analysis of the potential low frequency noise impacts of the project, in response to the criticisms in submissions, which supported earlier findings that the low frequency noise penalty should not be applied to the project. The Department accepts this advice. Sleep Disturbance The EIS includes an assessment of the potential for sleep disturbance associated with mining operations during the night-time period. The assessment indicates that the project would not exceed the applicable sleep disturbance criteria at any locations. Notwithstanding, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to comply with applicable sleep disturbance criteria at all residences, except those for which the Department has recommended conditions requiring acquisition upon request. Cumulative Noise Industrial noise impacts in the vicinity of the proposal are also influenced by adjoining industrial premises, including the Wambo mine, Hunter Valley Operations mining complex, Mt Thorley and Bulga mines. An assessment of cumulative noise in the area was undertaken with reference to the following documents: • the EIS for the expansion of Wambo Mine (Resource Strategies 2003); • the EA for the Hunter Valley Operations South Coal Project (ERM 2008); • the EIS for Mt Thorley Operations 2014 (EMM 2014); and • the EIS for the Bulga Coal Complex optimisation project (Umwelt 2013). In all cases it was shown that the intrusive noise criteria proposed for the present project would be more stringent than any measures developed to ensure that acceptable amenity levels were maintained. Consequently, no amenity criteria have been proposed for the project. Traffic Noise Changes to traffic noise associated with the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road was assessed against the EPA’s Road Noise Policy (RNP). Results indicate that existing levels of night-time traffic noise from Putty Road, Charlton Road and the Golden Highway is already above the night-time criteria. The closure of Wallaby Scrub Road would increase current noise levels in these locations by 0.3dB(A), which is within the allowable incremental increase of 2dB(A) in the RNP. Day-time traffic noise complies with the daytime RNP criteria for all receivers.



36

Rail Noise The project does not include any change to the quantity of product transported from the Mt Thorley Coal Loader and therefore there is not expected to be any change in noise levels associated with rail movements. Consequently, an assessment of rail noise has not been undertaken by Warkworth, and the Department is satisfied that the project would not increase existing rail noise levels. 5.2 Blasting Blasting has the potential to affect people, structures and private property in four ways, including: • annoyance and discomfort, or ‘amenity impacts’; • structural damage to homes, buildings and property improvements; • direct risks to the safety of people and livestock; and • blast fumes. The EIS includes a blast impact assessment undertaken by EMM. The assessment calculates the maximum instantaneous charge (MIC) able to be used in order to meet relevant amenity-based ground vibration and overpressure criteria at varying distances from the mine. Annoyance The criteria recommended by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council (ANZEC) to minimise annoyance and discomfort at residences are presented in Table 8. Table 8: Blast Criteria Blast Impact Amenity Criteria* Structural Damage Criteria**

Airblast Overpressure 115 dB (Lin) for 95% of blasts in any year 133 dB (Lin) 120 dB (Lin) for 100% of blasts

Ground Vibration 5 mm/sec for 95% of blasts in any year 10 mm/sec 10 mm/sec for 100% of blasts * ANZEC Technical Basis for Guidelines to Minimise Annoyance due to Blasting Overpressure and Ground Vibration ** Australian Standard AS2187.2-2006 Explosives – Storage, Transport and Use (houses and low-rise residential buildings) The EIS concludes that blast charges similar to current operations (i.e. up to 3000kg MIC) can continue to be used and that levels are predicted to satisfy blast and vibration criteria for residences. In accepting this argument, the Department has recommended a condition that requires Warkworth to meet amenity vibration and overpressure criteria at all private residences over the life of the project. Structural damage No specific assessment of compliance with structural damage criteria at privately-owned residences has been undertaken. The Department recognises, however, that if blasting is managed to meet the more conservative amenity-based criteria at residences, structural damage should not occur. Sensitive structures The EIS identifies sensitive structures surrounding the site, including Bulga Bridge and St Phillip’s Church in Warkworth Village. These structures are located at least 2.5 km from the project blast area. The assessment concludes that blasts well in excess of that typically used on site would be possible without causing damage to these structures. Therefore, the Department is satisfied that damage from normal blasting practices is highly unlikely. The Department notes that Wambo Homestead, a State listed heritage item located less than 3km from the project blast area, has not been specifically addressed in the blast assessment. The Department is satisfied, however, that given the outcomes of the assessment for closer heritage structures, that structural damage is unlikely and can be appropriately managed through the recommended Blast Management Plan and structural property inspections. As discussed in Section 5.6, the impacts of blasting on sensitive Aboriginal archaeological sites located within the proposed Wollombi Brook Cultural Heritage Conservation Area have not been assessed. However, the Department considers that any blast-related impacts on such sites can be



37

appropriately managed. The Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to ensure that blasting does not affect any of the Aboriginal and historic heritage sites. Safety The Department notes that all private properties are over 500 metres from the mining area, and therefore have a negligable risk of being affected by flyrock (i.e. rock projectiles). Putty Road and Wallaby Scrub Road are, however, located within 500 metres of the proposed mining area and therefore would require ongoing management to protect the safety of road users during blasting. Warkworth has not addressed this aspect in the EIS. However, the Department is satisfied that this can be readily managed, as it is at many other locations in the Hunter Valley, through temporary road closures. The Department has recommended conditions requiring a road closure management plan be prepared as part of the blast management plan for the project. Blast fumes The potential health impacts associated with blasting fumes is an issue that is regularly raised in community submissions on mines. There are currently no health based guidelines or criteria which control the emission of blast fumes and therefore a specific assessment of blast fumes has not been required or completed. Notwithstanding, the Department has considered the likely impacts of blasting on the generation of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in Section 5.3 and is satisfied that with appropriate management systems in place, these emissions could be managed to meet applicable EPA criteria. Further, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to implement best practice air quality management, including all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise offsite fume emissions. This is consistent with the standard approach taken by the Department to managing blast fume risks. Blast frequency Under the project, Warkworth is seeking to undertake blasting between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm, Monday to Saturday, and carry out a maximum of: • 3 blasts a day; and • 15 blasts a week, averaged over a 12 month period. While blasting between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm is consistent with the existing Warkworth mine, the Department notes that blast emissions tend to distribute further during the early evening period. In this regard and given that the project would be progressing closer to residences to the west, the Department believes that for the project, Warkworth should be required to undertake blasting no later than 5 pm, which is consistent with standard practice in the Hunter Valley. However, in the Department’s experience within the Hunter Valley, continuing to allow Warkworth to undertake blasts from 7 am would significantly increase the company’s ability to coordinate these blasts with favourable weather conditions. These additional periods of favourable weather would greatly assist in avoiding the situation where blast charges are left in the ground for long periods of time during adverse weather conditions and would therefore help to reduce the risk of blast fumes. With respect to blast frequency, the Department notes that the existing Warkworth mine undertook an average of 8 blasts per week during the 2008-2013 reporting periods. Given that the project would be moving closer to Bulga Village, the Department recognises that Warkworth would be required to undertake more frequent, smaller blasts in order to continue meeting the applicable amenity criteria. However, having reviewed contemporary standards for similar sized mining operations in the Hunter Valley, the Department has recommended that Warkworth be required to carry out a maximum of: • 3 blasts a day; and • 12 blasts a week, averaged over a 12 month period. These limits are reflective of current best practice in the Hunter Valley and would provide sufficient flexibility to undertake blasting during favourable weather conditions and minimise blasting impacts at nearby residences, without materially impacting the operational efficiencies of the mine. Summary of Blasting Impacts The results of the blast impact assessment indicate that there would need to be management of blast practices in order to meet amenity-based overpressure and vibration limits at all private residences. Warkworth has stated that blasting would be managed in accordance with existing blasting procedures



38

that consider overpressure and vibration limits, timing of blasts, blast design and restrictions due to weather. The Department accepts that blasting can feasibly be managed to meet the relevant criteria by reducing MICs and applying other blast management techniques. The Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to: • prepare and implement a Blast Management Plan that confirms the blast design and blast

management techniques to be used to manage blasting operations to comply with all relevant criteria at private properties;

• manage blasting operations to comply with all relevant criteria at private properties through appropriate blast design;

• limit blast frequencies and hours; • keep residences notified and up to date regarding blasting operations, and facilitate

feedback/complaint management; and • provide structural property inspections and investigations for private residences (upon request)

within 2 km of the project blast area. 5.3 Air Quality Introduction The EIS includes a specialist air quality impact assessment undertaken by Todoroski Air Sciences (TAS) in accordance with applicable guidelines, including the EPA’s Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW. This assessment modelled the likely total suspended particulates (TSP), fine particulate matter (PM10) and deposited dust impacts of the project under three representative mining scenarios (Years 3, 9 and 14), along with the cumulative impacts associated with the MTW complex (as modified by the project) and other nearby mining operations including the Wambo, HVO South, Bulga and Rix’s Creek mines. In recognition of recent concerns within the Hunter Valley community regarding the potential health impacts associated with PM2.5 fine particle matter, the assessment also modelled the likely PM2.5 impacts of the project under each of the three representative mining scenarios. It is important to note that there are currently no adopted Australian or NSW air quality criteria for PM2.5 impacts. However, in the absence of such criteria and for the purpose of this assessment, the Department has considered the provisional ‘advisory reporting standards’ of 8μg/m3

(annual average) and 25 μg/m3

(24-hour) developed by the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC). The Department recognises that air quality is one of the key concerns of the local community and is a recurring issue raised in public and special interest group submissions on the project. In particular, these submissions raised concerns with potential health impacts of the project, increased dust levels at nearby residences and cumulative air quality impacts from mining in the Hunter Valley. Background Levels Warkworth maintains an extensive air quality monitoring network of high volume air samplers (HVAS), tapered element oscillating microbalances (TEOM) and dust deposition gauges around the mine. Using this data, TAS identified that the PM10 background concentrations in the area around the mine remain well below the EPA’s 30 µg/m3 annual average criteria, with Warkworth’s monitors averaging between 17 µg/m3 (TEOM data 2010-2013) and 20 µg/m3 (HVAS data 2012-2013). These results are generally consistent with the EPA’s regional air quality monitoring network, which shows that PM10 levels averaged around 20 µg/m3 in the villages of Bulga and Warkworth and around 25 µg/m3 near the Mt Thorley Industrial Estate, between July 2012 and June 2014. In regard to short term dust, the TAS assessment identifies that the background PM10 concentrations in the surrounding region are already elevated and would be expected to result in exceedances of the 24-hour impact criteria, independent of any incremental impacts of the project. These results are also generally consistent with the EPA’s regional air quality monitoring network, which identifies that between July 2011 and June 2014, cumulative PM10 levels exceeded the 24-hour criteria on 3 to 4 days a year in Bulga and Warkworth and 20 days a year near the Mt Thorley Industrial Estate.



39

Meteorological Conditions The TAS assessment includes a detailed analysis of the local meteorological conditions surrounding the mine. This assessment identifies that the predominate winds in the area are from the south, southeast and northwest, meaning that the majority of dust impacts would be expected to occur in the southeast-northwest quadrant (i.e. parallel to the Bulga, Mt Thorley and Warkworth mines). Additional detailed information on the meteorological conditions surrounding the mine is provided in Appendix G to the EIS. Reasonable and Feasible Mitigation Measures Under the project, Warkworth is proposing to further improve its existing dust minimisation and management practices by implementing the majority of best practice dust control measures identified in the EPA’s NSW Coal Mining Benchmarking Study: International Best Practice Measures to Prevent and/or Minimise Emissions of Particulate Matter from Coal Mining (Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, 2010). Where possible, these measures have been incorporated into the TAS air quality modelling and include: • minimising disturbance areas; • watering of haul roads and coal stockpiles; • limiting the development of minor roads and rehabilitating disused roads; • revegetating topsoil stockpiles; • restricting blasting to only occur during favourable conditions; • minimising dragline and loading/dumping drop heights; • dust control systems on drill rigs (e.g. dust aprons, extraction systems and/or water sprays); • using adequate stemming in blast drill holes; • suspension of operations in adverse conditions; and • progressive rehabilitation of disturbed areas. The Department is satisfied that the proposed measures are generally consistent with the 2010 benchmarking study prepared by Katestone Environmental. As the measures in the Katestone study have been generally adopted by the Department and the EPA as representing current best practice in the mining industry, the Department believes that there is limited scope for Warkworth to further reduce or mitigate the predicted dust impacts without significantly down-scaling mining operations and compromising the economic recovery of coal. Further, the Department recognises that conservative air quality models cannot incorporate some forms of ‘active’ mitigation measures, such as the adoption of real-time dust monitoring and meteorological forecasting to guide the day-to-day planning of mining operations. These active air quality management systems are increasingly being used in the Hunter Valley and NSW, with results indicating that predicted impacts can be significantly reduced, especially when adopted in conjunction with appropriate preventative actions during adverse weather conditions. The Department is therefore confident that with the implementation of these predictive and ‘real-time’ mitigation measures, Warkworth could achieve lower short-term dust emissions in practice than those predicted in the modelling. This is the case with the majority of mines in the Hunter Valley, where realised impacts are significantly lower than those predicted in the original EIS modelling. Dust Impacts The project involves several dust generating activities, including an expansion of the approved open cut footprint, emplacement of additional overburden material at the Mt Thorley mine, and an extension to the overall duration of air quality impacts. These activities would be expected to shift dust emissions from the project marginally southwest in line with the progressing mine front, but would not significantly affect the total annual dust generation compared to the existing Warkworth operations. In this regard, the air quality modelling identifies that only one privately-owned residence is likely to be affected by dust impacts above the applicable EPA air quality criteria during the project. This residence (receiver 77) is located in the village of Warkworth and is already eligible for acquisition under the neighbouring Wambo mine’s development consent (see Figure 4 – arrow pointing to receiver 77). With the exception of this receiver, the project is predicted to comply with the applicable annual average 24-hour PM10, total suspended solids and dust deposition criteria under the Voluntary Land



40

Acquisition and Mitigation Policy, as well as the NEPC advisory guidelines for PM2.5, at all other privately-owned residences surrounding the project. Nevertheless, given that the project operating on its own would be expected to exceed the air quality acquisition criteria at receiver 77, the Department has recommended that Warkworth be required to acquire this residence, at the request of the landowner, should acquisition no longer be reasonably achievable under the approval for the Wambo mine. In effect, this condition ensures that this landowner maintains their existing acquisition rights for the duration of the project, irrespective of the operation of the neighbouring Wambo mine. Cumulative 24-hour PM10 In addition to the above, the air quality assessment predicted the cumulative 24-hour PM10 impacts likely to occur as a result of the project and other sources. This contemporaneous assessment modelled the incremental impacts of the project relative to the existing Warkworth mine, against known ambient (background) dust monitoring data to predict the cumulative dust impacts under the project. In summary, this assessment concludes that the incremental impacts of the project would not result in any additional exceedances of the 50 µg/m3 PM10 criteria near Bulga Village, but would increase the number of predicted exceedances by up to 6 days a year near Warkworth Village, 2 days a year near Knodlers Lane and 3 days a year near the Mt Thorley Industrial Estate. While this assessment indicates that the project is likely to result in some additional impacts to the north and east of the mine, at this stage the Department does not have sufficient information to determine whether any of the individual properties in these areas should be granted voluntary land acquisition or mitigation measures under the Voluntary Land Acquisition and Mitigation Policy. Consequently, the Department has requested that Warkworth undertake supplementary air quality modelling of cumulative 24-hour PM10 to allow the Department to consider the results against the criteria in the Voluntary Land Acquisition and Mitigation Policy. Once this information is received, the Department would be in a position to make a final recommendation on this matter to the PAC, including whether any additional properties should be afforded additional mitigation and/or acquisition rights. Mine Owned Properties In addition to privately-owned properties, a number of mine-owned properties in the area surrounding the Warkworth mine and to the east of the Bulga mine are predicted to be affected by dust above the applicable EPA air quality criteria during the project. While there is no set air quality limits applicable to mine-owned properties, NSW Health has raised concerns regarding air quality impacts for the tenants of these properties and recommended that tenants be informed of any potential health risks. In this regard, the existing Warkworth mine is already required to advise landowners and/or future tenants of the possible health and amenity impacts of the mine, and provide them with a copy of the NSW Health fact sheet entitled ‘Mine Dust and You’, which describes the potential health impacts associated with elevated dust concentrations. In addition, the existing conditions stipulate that tenants and landowners of affected mine-owned properties can request the installation of air quality mitigation measures (commensurate with the impact of the mine) and that any tenant of a property owned by Warkworth can reasonably terminate their tenancy agreement due to the impacts of the mine. Warkworth has committed to continue implementation of these measures under the project and to provide tenants of these properties with ongoing up-to-date information on air quality monitoring and potential health-related impacts. The Department believes that these measures appropriately address NSW Health’s concerns and has reflected these requirements in the recommended conditions. Other Air Emissions The TAS assessment also considered other emissions associated with the project, including carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) associated with diesel use, blast fumes and potential spontaneous combustion. This assessment concluded that the likely CO, SO2 and NOx emissions would be relatively minor and that the project would comply with, or could be managed to comply with, applicable EPA criteria. The Department notes that these results are consistent with a number of other assessments undertaken for similar projects in the Hunter Valley and is satisfied that these matters do not warrant further assessment.



41

Notwithstanding, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the generation of offensive odours and fumes on site. Greenhouse Gas Emissions TAS also assessed the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions of the project in accordance with relevant guidelines including the National Greenhouse Account (NGA) Factors (DCC 2008) and Australian National Greenhouse Accounts - National Greenhouse Accounts Factors (DIICSRTE 2013). This assessment indicates that the direct (i.e. Scope 1) annual average greenhouse gas emissions of the project would not materially change, compared to the existing Warkworth mine, but that the total emissions for the development would increase in line with the 14 year extension in mine life. Overall, the project would contribute about 1.04 Mt in direct and indirect (i.e. Scope 1 and 2) CO2 equivalent emissions a year, or about 0.18% of Australia’s annual average emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The assessment also indicates that the total indirect emissions (i.e. Scope 3) from the project would be around 39.45 Mt of CO2 equivalent a year, however much of this would not be accounted for in Australia’s emissions as product coal would be exported and used overseas. While Warkworth is currently required to implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the release of greenhouse gases, the Department notes that it is also in Warkworth’s financial interest to minimise the greenhouse emissions associated with the mine, particularly with regard to the quantities of diesel used by the mining fleet. In addition, the Department notes that the recovery of an additional 230 Mt of coal through the proposed extension would be far less greenhouse gas intensive than extracting an equivalent volume of coal from a new mine. In this regard, and given that the project would not change annual average emissions relative to the existing mine, the Department is satisfied the project could be managed to minimise greenhouse gas emissions to the greatest extent practicable and has included conditions to this effect. Conclusion Apart from one residence in Warkworth Village, the project is predicted to comply with applicable EPA criteria for total suspended particles annual average, PM10 and dust deposition and the NEPC advisory guidelines for PM2.5, at privately-owned residences. Importantly, the privately-owned residence in Warkworth Village predicted to exceed these criteria is already subject to acquisition by another mine. The Department considers that the amenity and health impacts of the project have been minimised as far as practicable and has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to acquire receiver 77, at the request of the landowner, should acquisition no longer be reasonably achievable under the approval for the Wambo mine. In addition, the Department has recommended a broad suite of contemporary conditions related to the mitigation and management of air quality impacts. In summary, these conditions require Warkworth to: • comply with the EPA’s air quality criteria; • implement all reasonable and feasible ‘source-based’ measures to minimise dust emissions; • acquire any privately-owned property, at the request of the landowner, if dust emissions exceed

the applicable land acquisition criteria; • develop a comprehensive Air Quality Management Plan, which includes the use of real-time dust

monitoring and meteorological forecasting to inform the operation of the mine and manage potential exceedances;

• notify affected landowners (including the tenants of mine-owned properties) of the potential health-related impacts associated with mine dust;

• undertake additional dust mitigation measures (i.e. provide air filters or air conditioning), at the request of tenants or landowners, at any mine-owned receivers predicted to be affected by dust impacts from the project above the EPA criteria;

• investigate air quality complaints and undertake applicable management measures; • publicly report on its environmental performance; and • co-ordinate the management of air quality for the development with air quality management at

nearby mines, to minimise cumulative air quality impacts.



42

With the implementation of these measures, the Department considers that the project should be able to minimise or adequately compensated for its predicted air quality impacts. Notwithstanding, the Department is currently awaiting further air quality modelling to inform its assessment of cumulative 24-hour PM10 impacts. Once this information is received, the Department would be in a position to make a final recommendation on this matter to the PAC, including whether any additional properties should be afforded additional mitigation and/or acquisition rights. 5.4 Biodiversity Introduction The project’s potential impacts on biodiversity is one of the key issues raised in submissions. It was also one of the key grounds for refusal of the Warkworth Extension Project in the LEC judgement. As outlined in Section 1.1 the Court found that: “the project would be likely to have significant adverse impacts on biological diversity, including on four endangered ecological communities (EECs), but in particular on the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, which impacts would not be mitigated by the project or the proposed conditions of approval”. The four EECs referred to in the judgment are: • Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland; • Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Forest; • Hunter Lowland Redgum Forest; and • Warkworth Sands Woodland.

The EIS for the Warkworth Continuation Project seeks to address the key issues raised in the Court’s refusal of the Warkworth Extension Project. In this regard, the EIS includes a specialist ecological assessment prepared by Cumberland Ecology. The assessment relies largely on the previous ecological surveys undertaken for the Warkworth Extension Project, although it does include data from additional flora surveys undertaken in 2012 and 2013. The results of these surveys are relatively contemporary, and because the ecological values of the area are unlikely to have changed significantly in the intervening period, OEH and the Department are satisfied that additional comprehensive surveys for the current project are not warranted. The ecological assessment also includes: • an updated literature review, including review of recent aerial photography to examine and update

(where necessary) previously mapped boundaries of vegetation communities; and • an updated consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures.

The key difference of the current assessment from the previous ecological assessment for the Warkworth Extension Project is a completely revised approach to the assessment and consideration of biodiversity offsetting measures to compensate for the residual flora and fauna impacts of the project. In this regard, biodiversity offsets for the Warkworth Extension Project were assessed largely using ‘offset ratio’ analysis, where land-based offset areas are proposed at a ratio that is a number of times greater than the area to be cleared for a project. Further discussion of these offsets for the Warkworth Extension Project is provided under a separate heading below, but that project provided a gross long term offset ratio of 9:1 (offset:clearing) for woodland. Since the Court’s refusal of the Warkworth Extension Project, the NSW Government has introduced a more detailed and quantifiable method for assessing biodiversity offsetting requirements for major projects. The new methodology also provides a more strategic approach to the identification and management of biodiversity offset sites, which have traditionally been identified by individual proponents on a project by project basis. This has led to a ‘patchwork’ of offset sites across the landscape.



43

The new policy is outlined in OEH’s Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects (2014), which is underpinned by the ‘Framework for Biodiversity Assessment’ (FBA) tool, which is used to calculate biodiversity losses (due to clearing) and gains (due to offsets). The policy is outlined in more detail in the following sections, but is based on 6 stated principles, namely: 1. Before offsets are considered, impacts must first be avoided and unavoidable impacts minimised

through mitigation measures. Only then should offsets be considered for the remaining impacts; 2. Offset requirements should be based on a reliable and transparent assessment of losses and

gains; 3. Offsets must be targeted to the biodiversity values being lost or to higher conservation priorities; 4. Offsets must be additional to other legal requirements; 5. Offsets must be enduring, enforceable and auditable; and 6. Supplementary measures can be used in lieu of offsets.

Warkworth is also proposing to use the Upper Hunter Strategic Assessment (UHSA) to address part of the biodiversity offsetting requirements for the project. The UHSA is a joint venture between the NSW and Australian Governments initiated in 2012. It seeks to provide a more coordinated approach to biodiversity offsetting for the Hunter Valley mines, particularly through identification by Government of ecologically significant or strategically important biodiversity offset sites that mining companies are then required to fund or contribute to. Further detail on the UHSA is provided in the following sections. Flora and Fauna Impacts The project would disturb approximately 698 ha of land, although 63 ha of this is already approved to be disturbed under the current consent for the Mt Thorley mine (see Figure 5, page 10), and 20 ha represents existing infrastructure and roads. Excluding these areas, the project would disturb a total of 611 ha of vegetation. A summary of the vegetation communities within the project disturbance area, and their conservation significance, is represented in Table 9 and shown on Figure 15. Table 9: Vegetation Community Impacts

Community Conservation Significance (TSC ACT)

Area to be Cleared (ha)

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC 365.5 Regenerating Central Hunter Grey Box – Iron Bark Woodland EEC 6.5 Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC 15 Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC 72 Sub-total Woodland EEC 459 Warkworth Sands Grassland 0.5 Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Derived Grassland 151.5 Sub-total Grassland 152 Total 611

Most of the vegetation within the project disturbance area constitutes regrowth of native woodland in areas that were previously cleared for agricultural land uses prior to the 1960’s (see Figure 16). Notwithstanding, the vegetation is of conservation significance, given the communities that it supports and the widespread cumulative clearing of native vegetation on the Hunter Valley floor for agricultural and mining land uses. This cumulative land clearing means that many of the Hunter Valley’s vegetation communities are now identified as threatened or endangered. A short description of the vegetation communities impacted by the project is provided below.



44

Figure 15: Vegetation with the Project Disturbance Area



45

Figure 16: Warkworth Sands Woodland Previously Cleared for Agriculture



46

Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland EEC The majority of the project disturbance area comprises Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland, or derived grassland from this community. Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland had a pre-settlement distribution of about 46,920 ha distributed across the valley floor, which has now been reduced to about 14,818 ha. Much of this remaining area is fragmented, and is poorly represented in conservation areas. The 365.5 ha of this EEC within the project disturbance area constitutes some 2.5% of the remaining area of the community. The EIS includes an assessment of significance of the proposed clearing of this community, which concludes that the project would have a significant impact on the EEC, in the absence of any mitigation or compensation measures. Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Forest EEC Relatively small areas of Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Forest are located in the south-eastern areas of the site, largely within NDA 1. Like Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland, Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box Forest was originally distributed across the valley floor, with a pre-settlement distribution of about 46,753 ha. Approximately 18,306 ha remained in 2006, much of which is fragmented and poorly represented in conservation reserves. The 15 ha within the project disturbance area represents less than 0.1% of the remaining area of this community. The EIS concludes that the loss of this area would not have any significant impact on this community as a whole. Warkworth Sands Woodland The clearing of Warkworth Sands Woodland was one of the key reasons for refusal of the Warkworth Extension Project in the LEC judgement. Warkworth Sands Woodland is a naturally restricted community, as it is only found on Aeolian (windblown) sand deposits near Singleton in the Hunter Valley. The Warkworth Sands, on which the community occurs, were formed from sand blown from riverine deposits, which formed localised sand dunal areas, similar to dunal areas on the coast except only in very restricted areas. The species found in Warkworth Sands Woodland are similar to those that are found in coastal dunal environments, and include Angophoras, Banksias, Acacias and Melaleucas. The pre-settlement distribution of Warkworth Sands Woodland is estimated at 3,038 ha, of which only 426 ha remains today. The 72 ha of Warkworth Sands Woodland within the project disturbance area represents 17% of the remaining area of this community. The EIS concludes that the clearing of this area would have a significant impact on the EEC, in the absence of any mitigation or compensation measures. Threatened Flora Species Whilst containing a large area of EEC, the project disturbance area (including the EECs) do not contain any identified threatened flora species. Whilst a small number of threated plant species occur in the wider area, or have some potential to occur on the site, the project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on threatened flora species. Threatened Fauna Species A total of 34 threatened fauna species have been either recorded on site (21 species) or identified as potentially occurring on site due to favourable habitat (13 species) – 23 of the species are birds, and 11 of the species are mammals. Of these species, 3 are listed as endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), with the remainder listed as vulnerable. The endangered species include: • 2 birds (Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot), both of which have been identified on the site; and • 1 mammal (Spotted-tail Quoll), which has not been identified on the site.



47

The EIS includes assessments of significance for each of these species, which concluded that in the absence of any mitigation or compensation measures the project could result in significant impacts on woodland birds, bats and mammal species. Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems Two groundwater dependant ecosystems are located within the Wollombi Brook alluvium to the west of the Warkworth mine, namely Hunter Lowlands Redgum Forest and River Red Gum Floodplain Woodland. Further, the Warkworth Sand Woodland EEC is considered to be groundwater dependent, sustained in part by the perched aquifer within the Warkworth Sand beds. As outlined in Section 5.5, the project is not expected to have any significant impacts on these groundwater dependant ecosystems, apart from the direct removal of the Warkworth Sands Woodland within the project disturbance area. Avoidance and Mitigation As outlined above, the first principle of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects requires that consideration be given to reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigation measures before any compensation or offsetting measures are considered. The LEC judgement was critical of these aspects for the Warkworth Extension Project, noting that the project included no avoidance measures, and little mitigation of impacts on EECs. The EIS for the Warkworth Continuation Project does not include any additional avoidance measures, acknowledging that open cut mining projects cannot readily avoid impacts where mineral resources are located beneath flora and fauna habitats. However, avoidance and mitigation measures for the project do include: • not mining in other areas of the mining lease despite the presence of economic coal resources; • closing Wallably Scrub Road, rather than relocating the road around the western side of the

expansion area, which would avoid clearing of approximately 30 ha of vegetation including EECs; • progressively clearing and rehabilitating the site; • undertaking pre-clearance surveys and vegetation clearing protocols; • salvaging and relocating habitat features; • seed collection and propagation; and • weed and feral animal control measures. The EIS also includes detailed consideration of potential additional avoidance measures, including the key measure of avoiding clearing of Warkworth Sands Woodland within the project disturbance area. Further consideration of this measure is provided below. But first, it is worth outlining which communities warrant particular consideration of additional avoidance. In this regard, as outlined in the previous section, without any avoidance, mitigation or offsetting measures, the project is likely to have significant impacts on: • the Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland EEC; • the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC; and • threatened woodland birds, bats and mammals. With regard to the Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland EEC, the Department accepts that this community is spread throughout the project disturbance area and wider mine lease area, and therefore there is little opportunity to avoid impacts on this community without having major implications for the mine plan. Accordingly, the Department accepts that avoidance of impacts on this community is not reasonable or feasible without affecting the viability of the project as a whole. With regard to the threatened fauna species, the Department notes that whilst the project disturbance area contains broad habitat for these species, it does not contain critical habitat or landscape features that might warrant specific avoidance. Consequently, the Department does not believe that it is reasonable to require additional avoidance of impacts on these species. The Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, on the other hand, does warrant closer examination, as avoiding impacts on the community within the extension area would appear to be feasible and would have considerable benefits for the community as a whole. In this regard, the Warkworth Sands



48

Woodland within the project disturbance area is located in a discrete area in the northern part of the extension area, which could conceivably be excised from the disturbance area relatively easily. The EIS includes consideration of retaining the Warkworth Sands Woodland in this area. The conceptual mine plan based on this avoidance is shown on Figure 17. As indicated on the Figure, avoiding the Warkworth Sands Woodland would necessitate the restriction of open cut mining for a relatively large area around the EEC, particularly in the lower seams, due to the benching requirements for the mine plan (as indicated by the red lines around the Warkworth Sands Woodland). Warkworth has discounted the mine plan avoiding the Warkworth Sands Woodland because: • it would sterilise over 30 Mt of ROM coal (worth around $2 billion); • it would reduce strike length in the North Pit by approximately 60% in some places, or down to

0.75 km at the shortest point. This would leave inadequate working room for the mine’s draglines; and

• it would affect production at the mine and increase operating costs, which would in turn affect long-term economic viability of the mine.

The economic viability argument relates in large part to the ‘strike length’ for the mine’s draglines, which require long continuous horizontal working distances in which to operate effectively. Warkworth has two draglines, and Mt Thorley has one. These operate much more effectively than truck and shovel mining operations, but each dragline typically operates effectively at a strike length of 2 km. If strike lengths drop significantly below this distance, the number of days in which they are ‘parked up’ (or left idle) increases significantly, therefore decreasing mining efficiency, increasing operating costs and affecting viability of the mine. The Department acknowledges these coal sterilisation and economic efficiency arguments for not avoiding impacts on the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, and accepts that the evidence indicates that avoiding mining of the Warkworth Sands Woodland would significantly affect the economic viability of the entire operation. However, the Department believes that the key consideration of whether the Warkworth Sands Woodland should be avoided is whether mining the Warkworth Sands Woodland would place the community at a significant risk of extinction over the medium to long term. This consideration is in part dependant on the proposed and potential offsetting measures for Warkworth Sands Woodland, which are considered below. Biodiversity Offset Strategy Warkworth has developed a biodiversity offset strategy for the project to compensate for the impacts of the project on EECs and threatened fauna species, and to compensate for the impacts to NDAs and HMAs established for the 2003 Warkworth extension. Under clause 14(3) of the Mining SEPP, the Department is required to consider any certifications made by the Chief Executive Officer of OEH. The Chief Executive Officer of OEH has provided certification under clause 14(3) of the Mining SEPP that the proposed measures to mitigate or offset the biodiversity impacts of the project are adequate. A copy of the OEH’s decision report is provided in Appendix F. The offset strategy includes land-based offsets and non-land based offset measures, and has been determined using the Biobanking Assessment Methodology (BBAM) and Biobanking Certification Assessment Methodology (BCAM) as modified by the Upper Hunter Strategic Assessment. The offset requirements (i.e. to offset the impacts of the development on biodiversity values) have been calculated using ‘biodiversity credits’. The biodiversity credit requirements calculated for the project include both ecosystem credits (including 3,043 ecosystem credits to offset the 72 hectares of Warkworth Sands Woodland to be impacted by the project) and species credit requirements for 3 threatened species (the Regent Honeyeater, Southern Myotis and Large-eared Pied Bat). Species credits were required for these species as the potential impacts would otherwise not be accounted for by the calculated ecosystem credit requirements.



49

Figure 17: Conceptual Mine Plan – Avoidance of Warkworth Sands Woodland



50

Biodiversity credits must be retired to offset the impact of a development on biodiversity values. The Department has recommended that these credits should be retired in accordance with the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects. Retirement of these credits may be achieved by: • acquiring or retiring credits under the Biobanking Scheme in the TSC Act; • making payments into an offset fund that has been developed by the NSW Government; or • providing supplementary measures. Land-Based Offsets As part of the proposed offset strategy to meet the biodiversity credit requirements, Warkworth proposes a number of direct land-based offsets, as summarised in Table 10 and shown on Figures 18 Table 10: Summary of Direct Land-based Offsets

Offset Area Size (hectares)

Northern Biodiversity Area 705

Southern Biodiversity Area 303

Goulburn River Biodiversity Area 1,299

Bowditch Biodiversity Area 520

Putty Road Biodiversity Area 94

2003 Warkworth Sands Woodland Area 159.8

Warkworth has agreed that within 3 years of commencement of the project it would establish conservation agreements under the Biobanking Scheme or an alternative in-perpetuity arrangement with OEH for each of the biodiversity areas listed in Table 10 above. These sites would be established under the relevant provisions of the TSC Act and to the satisfaction of OEH. At part of the establishment of the conservation agreements, Warkworth would be required to calculate the biodiversity credits available for each area. Therefore it is the Department’s expectation that Warkworth would be able to retire the available biodiversity credits at the time of establishment of the conservation agreements. Given that the Putty Road Biodiversity Area and the 2003 Warkworth Sands Woodland Area were existing offset requirements under the 2003 development consent, the Department considers that any biodiversity credits generated from these areas cannot be used to retire the biodiversity credit requirements of the project. The Department has recommended that any such credits be retired permanently upon the establishment of each conservation site and cannot be sold or used to retire any other credit requirements. Residual Credits Warkworth would be required to retire any remaining credits not achieved through the retiring of credits under the Biobanking Scheme through additional land-based offsets, other supplementary measures (described below), or via payment into the Upper Hunter Strategic Assessment Offset Fund, which would then be used to fund appropriate conservation initiatives in the region.



51

Figure 18: Proposed Land-Based Offset Areas



52

Figure 19: Location of the Southern Biodiversity and Northern Biodiversity Areas



53

Warkworth Sands Woodland Supplementary Measures The OEH’s decision report recommended that an additional land-based offset of equal or greater biodiversity value to the 72 ha of Warkworth Sands Woodland impacted by the project should be required. The Department agrees with OEH’s recommendation and has recommended that Warkworth should be required to establish an additional land-based offset of equal or greater biodiversity value to the 72 ha of Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC (to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive of OEH) prior to the clearing of any of this vegetation community to the west of Wallaby Scrub Road. This additional area would be required to be established as a conservation site and all credits generated from its establishment would be retired permanently at the time of establishment. The Northern and Southern Biodiversity areas also contain areas of Warkworth Sands Woodland Derived Grassland that have the potential to be regenerated to Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC. Although these areas would be covered by a separate Biobanking agreement or similar (as discussed above), the Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to develop performance criteria to the satisfaction of OEH for determining the successful regeneration of the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC in these areas, and to lodge a bond of $1 million with OEH. The purpose of the bond would be to serve as a penalty measure should regeneration fail to meet the established completion criteria. Warkworth has also committed to preparing an Integrated Management Plan for the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, which would be aimed at developing measures to co-ordinate management and recovery efforts for the EEC. Finally, Warkworth has also committed to contributing $1 million to OEH’s Saving Our Species – Regent Honeyeater conservation program. These commitments have been included in the Department’s recommended conditions for the project. With the implementation of the proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy, the Department and OEH are satisfied that the project would not result in the extinction of the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, given the occurrences of the EEC on the site and in the general locality. 5.5 Water Resources The project has the potential to affect surface water and groundwater resources in a number of ways, including: • affecting surface water flows in local and regional catchments (including Wollombi Brook and the

Hunter River) and water availability to downstream water users; • affecting groundwater flows in subsurface aquifers, and water availability to local groundwater

users and base flow recharge to nearby alluvial aquifers; and • affecting water quality in groundwater resources and downstream surface water resources. The EIS includes specialist surface water and groundwater assessments undertaken by WRM Water and Environment, and Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants respectively, with an additional peer review of the groundwater model by Dr Frans Kalf of Kalf & Associates. Catchment Context The project is located within the Hunter River and Wollombi Brook catchments. The key local watersheds within these catchments are shown on Figure 20 and include: • Loders Creek, draining east to the Hunter River; • Salt Pan Creek and Doctors Creek, draining west to Wollombi Brook; and • Longford Creek and Sandy Hollow Creek, draining north to Wollombi Brook and the Hunter River. Saddleback Ridge, which runs to the west of the current mining area, divides the catchments along a north-south alignment.



54

Figure 20: Local Catchments



55

Groundwater Aquifer Context Three main aquifer resources have been identified as occurring in the vicinity of the project area, namely the: • hard rock aquifer associated with the coal measures (Permian); • alluvial aquifer associated with the Hunter River and Wollombi Brook; and • aquifers of the shallow bedrock near the ground surface. Within the project area, there is also an ephemeral perched aquifer associated with the Aeolian (Warkworth) sand sheets, predominantly in the north western part of the application area. The existing groundwater environment has been affected by past and existing mining at the site. These impacts include depressurisation of the coal seams west of the mine and lowered groundwater levels, which are more pronounced near the active highwall. No measureable drawdown has been recorded in the Wollombi alluvium and the outcropping of the Permian strata west of the Hunter River has prevented drawdown in the Hunter River alluvium. Adjacent mines, including the Mt Thorley, Bulga and Wambo mines, extract similar coal seams and have caused cumulative impacts on groundwater pressures in the coal seams within the proposed project area. Impacts on Surface Water Resources The project has the potential to change flows in Wollombi Brook and the Hunter River due to capture and use of runoff. Both during and post-mining, less than 1% of the total area of the Wollombi Brook catchment to the confluence of the Hunter River would be captured as a result of the project. Post-mining, the Hunter River catchment would ultimately be restored to almost 100% of its pre-mining catchment area (excluding the Wollombi Brook catchment) by the final landform. The Department is satisfied that these changes in flows are unlikely to result in any significant impact to downstream surface water users or the environment. Warkworth’s existing integrated surface water management system includes: • an integrated management system that enables transfer of water between Mt Thorley, Warkworth

and Hunter Valley Operations mines; • an existing licensed discharge regime in accordance with the Hunter River Salinity Trading

Scheme (HRSTS); and • existing water supply allocations from the Hunter River, provided under the Mt Thorley Joint

Venture (MTJV) and licensed under the Water Act 1912. The primary aims of the integrated water management system are to minimise water extraction, maximise reuse, optimise pit workability (by maintaining dewatered pits) and manage off-site discharges. With regard to surface water quality, Warkworth currently operates the mine in accordance with a surface water management system which provides for standard best practice surface water management, including: • retention of dirty mine water on site in sedimentation dams; • diversion of clean surface water runoff away from disturbance areas; • management of runoff from disturbed areas, including overburden emplacements, through

collection and treatment in sediment basins, before release from site in accordance with the requirements of its EPL or reuse in the mine water management system;

• minimisation of water supply requirements from external sources by utilising on site water for dust suppression and coal processing; and

• a detailed surface water monitoring system. Warkworth proposes to augment the existing water management system including: • expansion of the existing mine water management system to include the extension of mining; • design changes to the northern out-of-pit dam to support a capacity of 740 ML and construction

and/or augmentation of sediment dams; and • water sharing with the Bulga Coal Mine and Wambo Mine if required.



56

The EIS water balance modelling predicted a low probability of pit inundation and no uncontrolled release (overflows offsite) from saline water storages. The Department is satisfied that the proposed surface water management system is consistent with best practice management standards and would enable the project to avoid any significant impacts on surface water resources. Although no uncontrolled releases from the site are predicted, the site water balance modelling indicates controlled discharges of additional volumes of excess saline water may be required for the project. This water would continue to be discharged into the Hunter River under the rules of the HRSTS. Bulga Coal Management (BCM) raised concerns about the potential for increased saline water discharges associated with the project to limit the ability of its mine operations to undertake similar discharges. BCM requested that Warkworth should be required to develop a joint management plan with BCM prior to increasing discharges to Loders Creek for the project. However, the Department is satisfied that any discharge allocations to Loders Creek would continue to be appropriately managed by the EPA under the rules of the HRSTS. Under the HRSTS, the EPA regulates the cumulative volume of allowable salinity discharges within the Hunter River catchment. Accordingly, the volume of saline water that each participant in the HRSTS can discharge is determined by the EPA in consideration of the number of tradeable salinity credits they hold, and reflected in the requirements of EPLs. Consequently, it would be up to BCM to purchase sufficient tradeable salinity credits on the open market to cover any discharges it proposes to make to Loders Creek. Nevertheless, and to avoid any doubt, the Department has recommended conditions to ensure that all discharges from the site comply with the: • discharge limits (both volume and quality) set for the development in any EPL; and • relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or Protection of the

Environment Operations (Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme) Regulation 2002. Flooding Flood modelling in the EIS indicates that the project would have no impact on flooding behaviour or geomorphology in Wollombi Brook for events up to and exceeding the 100 ARI flood event. As the project works are located to the west of the existing operations, the project would not result in any additional flood risk to infrastructure adjacent to the Hunter River to the east. The Department is satisfied that the project is unlikely to result in any material changes to flooding behaviour in the locality. OEH indicated in its submission that it is currently working with Singleton Council on the Wollombi Brook Flood Study. OEH indicated that the preliminary results of the study suggest the EIS may have underestimated the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability flood extent. OEH requested further details on the existing levee at the neighbouring Mt Thorley mine across Salt Pan Creek. In its RTS, Warkworth noted that potential flooding of Wollombi Brook and its interactions with this levee would not impact the Warkworth mine and that the existing levee is 5 metres above the modelled probable maximum flood (PMF, or Q100). However Warkworth has committed to reviewing the height of the levee in consultation with OEH as part of the Mt Thorley Continuation Project. Water Use The water balance modelling indicates that during typical climatic conditions, the likely average external water demand requirement (estimated at 450 ML per year) would be adequately met by existing water extraction entitlements of 1,012 ML per year provided under the MTJV water supply scheme. The water balance modelling predicts a worst-case maximum external water demand of up to 4,400 ML. Warkworth has several options to meet this demand, including (in order of preference): • water sharing with Mt Thorley and Hunter Valley Operations mines (existing arrangements); • potential water sharing with the Bulga Coal Mine and Wambo Mine, if required; and/or • purchase of additional allocation from the Hunter River (via the MTJV water supply scheme) or

Wollombi Brook.



57

The Department notes that, like any other significant water user in the State, access to adequate water supplies is a commercial risk for Warkworth. Like any other significant water user, if Warkworth is not able to secure enough water to meet its demands, its operations may need to be curtailed, or it may need to investigate additional water efficiency measures. This is consistent with the water sharing and water efficiency principles established under the Water Management Act 2000. To ensure that water use is effectively and efficiently managed, the Department has recommended that Warkworth should be required to: • ensure that it has sufficient water for all stages of the project, and if necessary, adjust the scale of

the operations to match its available water supply; • demonstrate that all necessary licences and contingencies are in place to account for any water

take from mining activities; and • prepare and maintain a detailed water balance for the project, including requirements to

investigate measures to minimise water use. In addition, the Department has recommended that the site water balance be updated annually and contingency plans be prepared to address any future issues regarding sources and security of water supply. Groundwater Impacts Alluvial aquifer The predicted drawdowns in the alluvium are shown on Figure 21. The EIS predicted the project would have minimal impacts on the Wollombi Brook alluvial aquifer, with: • predicted drawdowns in the alluvium of less than 1 m at the end of mining; • the maximum additional take from the Wollombi Brook alluvium estimated at 124 ML/per year

(0.34 ML/day); and • predicted maximum losses of baseflow in Wollombi Brook at the end of mining in 2035 (as a

result of the project) of 100 ML/per year (0.27 ML/day). Warkworth has also proposed to install three additional monitoring bores along Wollombi Brook and to develop trigger levels for these bores to monitor impacts as part of its groundwater monitoring program. The assessment predicted there would be no increase in salinity created in the alluvium and Wollombi Brook stream flow by the project. Conversely, the reduction in groundwater flow from the Permian strata to the Wollombi alluvium would reduce the amount of brackish/saline groundwater entering the alluvium and corresponding baseflow to Wollombi Brook. The predicted drawdowns for all privately-owned bores situated within the alluvium were all within the Level 1 minimal impact criteria (i.e. 2 metres or less) under the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy. The EIS predicted the project would have minimal impacts on the Hunter River alluvium, with: • predicted drawdowns of less than 1 m at the end of mining, with the exception of a narrow

isolated area that encroaches close to the mine, predicted to have a 5 m drawdown; • negligible impacts on Hunter River baseflow; and • the maximum additional take from the Hunter River alluvium estimated at 68 ML per year

(0.2 ML/day). In its submission, NOW recommended that Warkworth should be required to demonstrate it has sufficient licences to account for the predicted take from the alluvial aquifer systems and Permian coal measures (discussed below), prior to the commencement of works for the extension area. This requirement is reflected in the recommended conditions. Overall, given the small losses predicted, the Department considers the impacts of the project on the alluvial aquifers and water users to be minimal.



58

Figure 21: Predicted Groundwater Depressurisation in the Alluvium



59

Warkworth’s expert peer reviewer (Dr Kalf) has accepted the findings of the groundwater modelling and assessment. To provide further certainty in predictions, Warkworth has committed to assessing the validity of the groundwater model predictions every three years, which has been reflected in the Department’s recommended conditions. Bedrock aquifer The majority of the seepage predicted by the groundwater model would be derived from spoil (sourced from leakage from the tailings storage facility and rainfall recharge to spoil) and not groundwater removed from the aquifer systems. The EIS modelling predicted that groundwater seepage from the coal seam and bedrock aquifer to the open cut (required to be licensed) would peak at approximately 2 ML/per day in 2023, declining to 0.8 ML/per day a day at the end of mining (2035). In summary, a maximum of 736 ML/per year would be required to be accounted for as groundwater take from the Permian strata as required under the Water Act 1912. Drawdown in the Permian coal measures is predicted to be up to 150 m in proximity to the project open cut areas, gradually decreasing to the west towards Wollombi Brook. The EIS identified 12 bores within the predicted zone of depressurisation where drawdowns would exceed 1 metre in the Permian strata, 5 of which are privately-owned. The reduction in groundwater levels at these bores was considered unlikely to noticeably reduce the pumping yield and the predicted drawdowns were within the Level 1 minimal impact criteria (i.e. 2 metres or less) under the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy. Perched aquifer The water table formed at the base of the Warkworth Sands is perched and not in direct hydraulic connection with the underlying Permian fractured rock. The project is therefore not predicted to have any effect on the Warkworth Sands ephemeral aquifer. Notwithstanding, Warkworth proposes to expand the groundwater monitoring programme to include additional monitoring bores within the Warkworth Sands system, which would also be relevant for monitoring potential impacts on the Warkworth Sands Woodland identified as a groundwater dependent ecosystem (see below). Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems The groundwater assessment concluded that the project would not have any adverse impacts on GDEs. Specifically: • no predicted impact on the Warkworth Sands Woodland, as it is dependent on a perched

groundwater system that is not in direct hydraulic connection with the underlying Permian fractured rock that would be influenced by mine drawdown; and

• no predicted impacts on GDEs in the Southern Biodiversity Area (Hunter Lowlands Redgum Forest EEC and River Red Gum Floodplain Woodland EEC), as these vegetation communities are situated 2.5 km from the proposed mine extension in alluvium along the Wollombi eastern bank. These zones would not be influenced by mine drawdown.

Final Void Although the project would involve two open cut pits, hydrogeologically they are able to be assessed as a single final void. The final void would cover a combined area of approximately 950 ha, and would be up to 300 m deep. The final void is anticipated to act as a permanent groundwater sink, and would receive inflows through seepage, infiltration, rainfall and runoff. Modelling indicates that the water level in the void would recover slowly and reach equilibrium approximately 1,000 years post-mining. The water levels in the final void would stabilise well below the crest of the final void and the localised regional water table. This would prevent any poor quality water that develops within the pit from migrating into the surrounding groundwater system. (The Department has considered the acceptability of the size and depth of the final void in Section 5.10).



60

Conclusion Both the Department and NOW consider that the project would not have any significant impacts on surface water and groundwater resources in the locality, over and above the impacts associated with the existing approved project. To ensure ongoing management and protection of water resources in the vicinity of the project, the Department has recommended a broad suite of conditions to ensure that this occurs. These include conditions requiring Warkworth to: • ensure that it has sufficient water for all stages of the project, and if necessary, adjust the scale of

mining operations on site to match its available water supply; • ensure that all discharges from the site comply with the discharge limits (both volume and quality)

set for the development in any EPL and relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and requirements of the HRSTS;

• ensure that all surface water discharges of non-mine water from the site comply with the limits set in any EPL;

• provide compensatory water supplies to any private landowner whose supply is found to be adversely affected by the project, in the unlikely event that this occurs;

• comply with a range of water management performance measures and rehabilitation objectives; and

• prepare and implement a comprehensive Water Management Plan for the project, including a: o water balance; o surface water management plan and monitoring program; o groundwater management plan and monitoring program; and o a protocol to minimise any cumulative water-related impacts.

5.6 Heritage Introduction The EIS includes an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment undertaken by Central Queensland Cultural Heritage Management. The assessment considered the findings of surveys of the extension area as well as the results of previous archaeological assessments within the project area, including: • assessments undertaken for the 2002 Warkworth Extension EIS assessment; • archaeological excavations undertaken with permits/consents associated with these operations

(issued under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974); and • investigations undertaken as part of the Warkworth Sands excavations. The surveys, assessments and excavations to date have been undertaken in consultation with the Aboriginal community, with the more recent works (2005 onwards) being undertaken in consultation with the Cultural Heritage Working Group (CHWG) established in 2005. Consultation has included a number of meetings, provision of reports, site inspections, a workshop and an inspection of the Bulga Bora Ground (discussed further below). Both the Department and OEH are satisfied that the Aboriginal heritage assessment and consultation for the project has been undertaken in accordance with applicable guidelines, including the OEH’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (2010). A large number of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites have been identified and recorded on the site and in the surrounding areas as shown on Figure 22.



61

Figure 22: Aboriginal Heritage Sites



62

Aboriginal Heritage Impacts The archaeological assessment undertaken for the project identified a total of 110 extant Aboriginal sites (including two partially destroyed sites) within the project disturbance footprint that would likely be directly impacted by the project. The majority of the sites within the proposed disturbance area are isolated stone artefacts, with a smaller number of culturally modified (scarred) trees, areas of potential archaeological deposit (PAD) and an area containing grinding grooves. The identified sites are shown on Figure 22 and a summary of the sites and their proposed management is provided in Table 11. Table 11: Summary of Aboriginal Sites and Archaeological Significance (Proposed Management in Brackets)

Site type High significance

Moderate significance

Low significance

Number of sites

impacted Stone artefacts - - 103 (SC) 103 Stone artefacts/PAD - 3 (SC+E) - 3 Axe-grinding grooves 1 (R) - - 1 Scarred tree + artefacts 1 (RR+SC) - - 1 Scarred tree 2 (RR) - - 2 Total 4 3 103 110

Legend: SC – Surface Collection SC + E – Surface Collection and Excavation R – Detailed Recording & Attempted Relocation RR – Removal & Relocation In terms of cultural significance, the Aboriginal community claims that all land within the project area and surrounds is of high archaeological significance, with scarred trees and grinding grooves having been identified as being of particular significance. In addition, the Aboriginal community has clearly indicated the unique cultural value of the Bulga Bora ground (37-6-0056, 37-6-0055) situated within the proposed Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area. One grinding grooves site – ‘Site M’ (37-6-0163) – is of high archaeological significance would be directly impacted by the project. Three potential scarred trees (37-6-2307, 37-6-2369 and 37-6-2379) including one scarred tree with associated artefacts assessed as having high archaeological significance would also be directly impacted by the project. Additionally, three Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs) assessed as having moderate archaeological significance would also be directly impacted by the project. Warkworth Sands Previous archaeological assessments and excavations at the site have identified that the Aeolian (windblown) sand sheets (also referred to as the Warkworth Sands) in the locality have the potential to contain evidence of early Aboriginal occupation (Pleistocene) in the Hunter Valley. Comprehensive archaeological and geomorphological investigations of areas of the Warkworth Sands land system have subsequently been undertaken at the site and surrounds, including the Warkworth Sands Archaeological Project (2008) and the ‘Warkworth Sandsheet Sub-Area A’ archaeological test excavations (2012). The results of these investigations concluded there was little prospect for additional archaeological research to provide finer resolution or additional insights into questions of Pleistocene cultural materials being located within the Warkworth Sandsheet. Although containing areas of the Warkworth Sands Woodland landform, no additional or similar sandsheet or dune features considered as having the potential to contain in situ Aboriginal cultural heritage were identified in the project area. An area of potential interest in this regard has, however, been identified within the proposed Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area (see Figure 22). The area is the subject of the Hunter Valley Sand Bodies Research Study, initiated in 2011. The purpose of the study is to locate and evaluate sand bodies likely to contain evidence of early Aboriginal habitation (Pleistocene and early Holocene). The research design and action plan for the study was approved by the Department on 8 April 2013 under the conditions of the former Warkworth Extension Project approval and



63

Warkworth has retained a commitment to implement the study (focusing on possible Pleistocene occupation). The requirement to complete this study is reflected in the Department’s recommended conditions of consent. Management and Conservation Prior to disturbance, Warkworth proposes to undertake an archaeological salvage program for those sites within the project disturbance area, which would include: • surface collection (salvage) of stone artefacts; • removal and relocation of scarred trees; and • sub-surface testing/excavation of the three PADs (Aboriginal Heritage Information Management

System Site #37-6-2349, #37-6-2369 and #37-6-2364). With respect to the 110 sites likely to be impacted, while the Aboriginal community would prefer that no additional disturbance occur, the management options proposed for the project were considered acceptable for managing cultural heritage impacts associated with the project. Both the Department and OEH note there has not been any formal or informal opposition to the proposal expressed by any of the RAPs or CHWG stakeholders. The OEH has indicated its support for the management measures proposed. As a result of consultation with the RAPs, specific management measures were agreed for the grinding grooves Site M (37-6-0163) including detailed recording of the site and further investigations to determine options for potential relocation of this site. However, the Department is of the view that given the high archaeological significance of the site, Warkworth should be required to relocate the site, unless it is able to demonstrate that relocation is not reasonable or feasible based on the additional investigations. The Department notes there is substantial precedent for the relocation of grinding grooves for other mining projects, while acknowledging that the feasibility of doing so would depend on the geological constraints of the site. Overall, the Department is satisfied the project’s residual impacts are unlikely to have a significant impact on the Aboriginal heritage values of the region. To ensure this occurs, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to prepare and implement a comprehensive Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan. The plan would require: • ongoing consultation with the Aboriginal community and OEH; and • a description of measures to be implemented for:

o management of sites not impacted by the project; o third party review and management of potential scarred trees in consultation with the

Aboriginal community and OEH; o further geotechnical investigations, excavation and relocation of the grinding grooves Site

M (37-6-0163); o access arrangements for Aboriginal stakeholders; o managing the discovery of human remains or previously unidentified Aboriginal artefacts; o adequate training and induction of personnel; and o storage and management of salvaged items.

The Department has also recommended that Warkworth establish a blast monitoring regime to ensure that no damage occurs at the grinding groove sites located with the proposed cultural heritage conservation area (refer below) or Site M (37-6-0163) prior to its relocation. Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area The proposed Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area (WBACHCA) was previously identified as a component of the Warkworth Extension Project. For this project, Warkworth proposes to retain and expand the WBACHCA, which would cover an area of approximately 696 hectares (an additional 183 hectares from the area proposed for the Warkworth Extension Project) (see Figure 22). The proposed WBACHCA would be located within the Southern Biodiversity Area for the project. The proposed WBACHCA contains some 265 Aboriginal cultural heritage places that have been identified to date, including highly significant spiritual and ceremonial places. Most notably, the area includes a portion of the Bulga Bora Ground (a site identified as being of great significance to the Aboriginal community) and other highly significant features such an arrangement of three stone mounds (37-6-2315) and an earthen mound with the potential to contain burials (37-6-2555).



64

Warkworth has committed to the conservation of the WBACHCA in perpetuity, and has proposed to manage the WBACHCA in collaboration with the CHWG via a separate management plan. Warkworth’s longer term management objective is to establish a co-management regime for the WBACHCA in partnership with the Aboriginal community through the development of a community based and culturally appropriate governance structure. Both the Department and OEH are supportive of Warkworth’s commitments. To formalise and strengthen these commitments, the Department has recommended conditions requiring the conservation and enhancement of this area in perpetuity as well as development of a separate management plan for the area in consultation with the Aboriginal community and OEH. Acknowledging the cultural significance of the wider landscape, particularly the remaining portion of the Bora ground that lies outside the WBACHCA, this plan would require Warkworth to ensure collaborative management of the Aboriginal heritage values of the WBACHCA and the adjoining Wambo-owned land adjacent to the conservation area, in consultation with the owner of the Wambo mine. The Department notes that three grinding groove sites within the WBACHCA also have the potential to be indirectly impacted through vibration from blasting associated with the project. The Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to protect these sites. Historic Heritage The EIS includes a Historic Heritage Assessment undertaken by ERM Australia. Five historic heritage places were identified within the project area, four of which would be directly or partially impacted by the project. The identified sites are shown on Figure 23 and a summary of the key historic heritage items and assessment findings is provided in Table 12. Table 12: Historic Heritage Places

Item Significance

Impact Type ERM Heritage

Assessment Impact Findings Local State

Within Project Disturbance Area Former RAAF Base Bulga Complex

Partial Direct Impact Minor

Great North Road Complex

Partial Direct Impact Minor

P1 Huts #1 Direct Moderate P1 Huts #2 Direct Moderate Outside Project Disturbance Area Brick Farm House

Potential indirect impacts due to lack of maintenance

Minor

A number of other historic features within and in close proximity to the study area were also identified and considered in the assessment, given they could experience potential indirect impacts associated with mining activities such as exploration and blasting. Former WW2 RAAF Base Bulga Complex The Department notes the project would only affect a very small portion (approximately 1.75 per cent) of the RAAF Base Bulga complex, comprising an area of approximately 4.8 ha in an area of cleared ground situated beyond the end of the constructed runway. Warkworth’s RTS notes that the affected area would be largely incorporated within a 200 m wide infrastructure corridor that would not be mined. Warkworth has previously completed an archival recording of the RAAF Base Bulga complex and prepared a Conservation Management Plan for this site, which it proposes to update for the project. Warkworth has also committed to engaging a suitably qualified and experienced historical archaeologist to undertake further heritage interpretation works for the complex (including archaeological investigations of the eastern runway), to be undertaken in consultation with the Heritage Council.



65

Figure 23: Historic Heritage Sites within the Project Area and Surrounds



66

To formalise and strengthen these commitments, the Department has recommended that they be detailed in the Historic Heritage Management Plan for the project. The Department is satisfied that with the implementation of the proposed measures, the project would have minor impacts on the heritage values of the RAAF Base Bulga complex. Great North Road (Wallaby Scrub Road) The project would involve disturbance of a 5.4 km section of Wallaby Scrub Road, which forms part of the Great North Road alignment. Warkworth has indicated it is not possible to avoid this section of Wallaby Scrub Road, as the proposed mine plan requires access to the coal measures below the road to ensure the maintenance of strike length for the dragline operations. The historic heritage assessment concluded that in the context of the entirety of the Great North Road alignment (estimated at a total length of approximately 240 km between Sydney and Warkworth village), the proposed disturbance would have a minor heritage impact on the road. The Heritage Council of NSW initially raised a number of concerns regarding the assessed level of impact on the Great North Road, including potential cumulative impacts from other mining proposals in the Hunter Valley (specifically the Bulga Optimisation Project). The Department and the Heritage Council have considered the reasons cited in Warkworth’s RTS further justifying the level of assessed impacts on the road, specifically: • the general lack of integrity and intactness of the section of the road to be impacted as

compared to other surviving sections of the road elsewhere along its total alignment, particularly those sections which are listed on the World/National/State and local heritage registers/lists;

• previous disturbance to the road, resulting from 20th century road upgrades and maintenance activities (particularly over the last 40 years);

• previous survey findings presented in the conservation management plan for the road that assessed the integrity of the road to be low; and

• there are other portions of the Great North Road listed on the State heritage register (and assessed as being of State significance).

Within the 5.4 km section of the road that would be disturbed for the project, only a few (i.e. five) small areas of archaeological potential have been identified. Warkworth proposes to undertake further archaeological investigations of these sections of the road prior to disturbance, to be incorporated as part of a historical interpretation program to be developed for the road. Warkworth also identifies in its RTS that the only section of the roadway and alignment with viable and demonstrable integrity and intactness outside of the disturbance area would be incorporated within the adjoining WBACHCA to ensure its long‐term protection and conservation. As a result of further consultation undertaken by the Department, the Heritage Council indicated it is satisfied with the additional information provided in Warkworth’s RTS. Specifically, the Heritage Council indicated it no longer held concerns around the potential cumulative impacts on the road associated with mining operations in the area, as the Bulga Optimisation Project no longer proposes to disturb a 4 km section of Charlton Road, which is also part of the Great North Road alignment. Warkworth has committed to updating the existing Conservation Management Plan for the road and engaging a suitably qualified and experienced historical archaeologist to undertake further heritage interpretation works, including archaeological investigations of areas where there is potential for subsurface remains associated with the early road system. Warkworth has also committed to providing additional funding for heritage conservation works on significant surviving elements of the Great North Road located within the Singleton LGA (and potentially other areas). In its RTS, Warkworth has committed to contributing $200,000 for the establishment of the Mt Thorley Warkworth Great North Road Conservation Fund. Warkworth has proposed that this fund would be administered in consultation with Council, the CHAG, the Convict Trail Project and the Heritage Council. The Department also notes Warkworth’s commitment to include the provision of landscape features marking the original road alignment within the final landform design. To strengthen this commitment, the Department has recommended these measures be detailed in the Rehabilitation Management Plan for the project.



67

Other Two other heritage items (former WW2 army barracks or “P1 huts”) of local heritage significance were identified within the project disturbance area (P1 Huts #1 and P1 Huts #2). The cultural heritage impact of the project on these sites is predicted to be moderate due to their increasing rarity. Accordingly, the Department has recommended that Warkworth undertake further assessment of these items to determine the origin of these buildings and investigate potential opportunities for relocation and adaptive reuse of these buildings. The assessment noted the potential for minor impacts on the Brick Farm House due to a lack of occupancy/maintenance. The Department is satisfied these impacts can be managed via the existing Conservation Management Plan, to be updated in consultation with the Heritage Council. Potential impacts on other historic features or heritage items outside of the project area (including St Phillips Church and the Bulga Bridge) were assessed as negligible or minor. The Department notes the Wambo Homestead Complex (located approximately 3 km west of the project disturbance area) is managed separately by the owners of the Wambo Mine under a Conservation Management Plan that includes annual structural inspections, blast monitoring and associated reporting. The Department is satisfied no additional management measures are warranted as a result of the project. In addition to the specific measures identified above, Warkworth has proposed a number of other measures to avoid, minimise and/or mitigate the impacts on the heritage values of these sites and the broader area, including: • undertaking archaeological investigations of Well #2; • investigating opportunities for salvage of moveable heritage items; • implementing procedures in the event unexpected or previously unidentified heritage items are

discovered; and • developing a Conservation Management Plan for the Springwood Homestead. In its RTS, Warkworth has committed to contributing $500,000 for the establishment of the Mt Thorley Warkworth Historic Heritage Conservation Fund. Warkworth has proposed that fund would be jointly administered by Council and the CHAG. These commitments have been reflected in the Department’s recommended conditions, which require Warkworth to prepare and implement a comprehensive Heritage Management Plan for the project in consultation with the Heritage Council, Singleton Council, Coal and Allied Community Heritage Advisory Group (CHAG) and local historical organisations. The plan includes requirements for: • preparation and/or revision of the conservation management plans for the former RAAF Base

Bulga, Great North Road (Wallaby Scrub Road portion), Brick House and Springwood Homestead;

• further investigation, assessment and management of P1 Huts#1 and # 2; • engaging a suitably qualified and experienced person to develop a historical interpretation

programme (including archaeological investigations) for the Great North Road Complex and former RAAF Base Bulga Complex;

• establishing the Mt Thorley Warkworth Historic Heritage Conservation Fund and the Great Northern Road Conservation Fund; and

• a program/procedures for: o archaeological investigations for the Great North Road Complex, former RAAF Base

Bulga Complex and Well #2; o photographic recording of all heritage features identified at the site; o relocation and storage of moveable heritage items; o managing the discovery of any new heritage items during the development; o ongoing consultation and involvement of the relevant historical groups in the conservation

and management of historic heritage on the site; and o protecting other heritage features outside the project disturbance area.

The Department has also recommended conditions formalising Warkworth’s funding commitment of $700,000 – with $500,000 allocated to the Mt Thorley Warkworth Historic Heritage Conservation Fund and $200,000 allocated to the Mt Thorley Warkworth Great North Road Conservation Fund. With the implementation of these measures, the Department considers that the project would not result in any significant impacts on the historic heritage values of the locality.



68

5.7 Transport The EIS includes an assessment of the potential impacts of the project on the road and rail network by EMM. Roads The main roads in the vicinity of the project are the Golden Highway, Putty Road, Broke Road, Wallaby Scrub Road, Charlton Road, Mitchell Line Road and the Mt Thorley Road (see Figure 24).

Figure 24: Road Network



69

The primary access route for most of the mine-related traffic in the area is the Golden Highway east of Mt Thorley. Approximately 80% of the current and proposed traffic movements for the project would travel in this direction, either to or from Singleton, or Maitland and the other Hunter Valley townships further to the east. The main vehicular access routes to the mine facilities are via three intersections: • from Putty Road, at Lydes Lane, approximately 200 m west of the Mt Thorley Interchange

(west side); • from Broke Road, approximately 2 km south of the Golden Highway; and • from Mt Thorley Road, at the southern end, near the location of the Mt Thorley rail loop. Access to the mine is via a dedicated mine access road. This road provides access for the approved workforce and site deliveries. Approximately 80 heavy vehicle (truck) movements and up to 1,756 light vehicle movements per day are currently generated on public roads by the Warkworth and Mt Thorley mine operations combined. The Warkworth mine alone is estimated to generate a maximum of 1,400 light vehicle movements per day (i.e. approximately 80% of the estimated volume of light vehicle traffic generated by the combined Mt Thorley and Warkworth mines). The majority of this traffic (1,836 daily vehicle movements in total) is distributed over the surrounding road network to the east, with an estimated 42% of the total daily vehicle movements to and from the east via Singleton, and 38% of the total daily vehicle movements to and from the east via other routes. RMS is the relevant roads authority for the Golden Highway, Putty Road and Mitchell Line of Road, with the remaining roads under the jurisdiction of Singleton Council. Along with the continuation of operational traffic, the key potential traffic impact of the project is associated with the proposed closure of Wallaby Scrub Road at approximately Year 3 of the project. No changes are proposed to the existing average workforce, truck traffic or annual train movements. A number of additional coal mining operations, including Bulga and Wambo mines occur in close proximity to the Warkworth Mine. These mines all generate traffic on the local road network and have been incorporated into the cumulative impact assessment for the project. Intersection Performance The traffic assessment considered the potential impacts of future traffic generation during the project’s peak operational period on key intersections in the vicinity, in combination with predicted annual growth in traffic and the cumulative effects of surrounding mines (including the Bulga Optimisation Project) and other traffic generating industries. The traffic assessment found that the peak hour flows on the road network occur between 6:15am – 7:15am and 3:30pm – 4:30pm. All intersections were found to be currently operating at a relatively good level of service (LOS), ranging from LOS A to LOS C. Modelling was undertaken to assess the performance of the following key intersections during the peak operational periods: • Golden Highway/Putty Road and Mitchell Line of Road (herein referred to as the Golden Highway/

Mitchell Line of Road intersection); • Golden Highway/Broke Road; • Mt Thorley CHPP access/Broke Road; and • Warkworth Mine access/Putty Road (Lydes Lane intersection). The key intersections are shown on Figure 25.



70

Figure 25: Key Intersection Locations

The predicted impacts of the project on the level of service of local intersections was analysed and is presented in Table 13. Scenario 3 represents the worst-case scenario, accounting for the proposed closure of Wallaby Scrub Road and construction traffic from the Bulga Optimisation Project. The traffic assessment predicted that the performance of the key intersections would remain at acceptable levels (LOS A to LOS C). However the Department notes that the traffic modelling undertaken for the Bulga Optimisation Project (which included the Warkworth Extension Project traffic increases and proposed closure of Wallaby Scrub Road) conservatively estimated that the performance of the Golden Highway/Mitchell Line of Road intersection would fall to an unsatisfactory level (LOS F) during the morning period (6am). Although the Department is aware that this modelling is conservative (ie. as the modelling inputs for the Bulga Optimisation Project assumed an increase in employee numbers/traffic generation proposed under the former Warkworth Extension Project), the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road would still result in an increased volume of traffic being detoured via this intersection. RMS also indicated in its submission that it does not consider the Golden Highway/Mitchell Line of Road intersection to be performing satisfactorily, indicating that the left and right turn movements from the Mitchell Line of Road to Putty Road are currently experiencing significant delays during the morning peak hour. The Department notes that the traffic assessment identified the highest degrees of saturation occur at the Golden Highway/Mitchell Line of Road intersection and that this is associated with the ‘potentially limiting future capacity for the westbound left turn movement from Mitchell Line of Road during the morning peak hour’.



71

Table 13: Local Intersection Level of Service

RMS has recommended that Warkworth should contribute $1 million towards the upgrade of the Golden Highway/Mitchell Line of Road intersection. RMS has recommended that Warkworth should make this contribution in lieu of its previously conditioned requirement for the Warkworth Extension Project to contribute towards the upgrade of the Golden Highway/Broke Road intersection, as this was subsequently upgraded by RMS in 2012. In this regard, Warkworth acknowledges the benefits of the intersection improvement works at the Golden Highway/Broke Road intersection, which have substantially improved the peak hour traffic delays and level of service at this intersection such that this intersection no longer represents a capacity constraint on the road network in the locality. Notwithstanding, in its RTS Warkworth argues that it should not be required to contribute towards the upgrade of the Golden Highway/Mitchell Line of Road intersection as the transport assessment findings indicate minimal change in all of the intersection delay parameters at this intersection and that any changes are attributable to background traffic growth and not the existing or proposed project. Based on the information available and in the absence of further justification from Warkworth as to why it should not be required to contribute towards the upgrade, the Department’s preliminary view is that Warkworth should be required to contribute the $1M towards the upgrade of the Golden Highway/Mitchell Line of Road intersection as RMS’s recommendation. The Department has made this recommendation also in recognition of the long standing community concerns in relation to the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road and diversion of traffic along other routes (discussed separately in a sub-section below). RMS also recommended that the existing intersection of Lydes Lane and the Golden Highway be closed to maintain road safety and network efficiency. Warkworth has indicated that while closure of the intersection is unlikely to adversely affect accessibility to the mine, it would like to discuss



72

alternative traffic safety solutions with RMS. The Department considers that closure of the intersection is unlikely to cause a significant inconvenience to mine employees. In the absence of any suitable alternative at this stage, the Department’s position is to agree with RMS’s recommendation to close the intersection. Wallaby Scrub Road Closure The project would require the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road in order to access coal located beneath its current alignment. Relocation of the road is not proposed. As noted in the social impact assessment, feedback from the community and Singleton Council has indicated that closure of the road is of particular concern and that relocation should be considered. Warkworth has previously argued that the impacts of road relocation were greater than the impacts associated with closure, particularly in relation to the ecological and archaeological impacts and benefit cost considerations. Although relocation of the road is not proposed for this project, the Department has considered the feasibility of this option, having regard to the previous assessment of impacts undertaken for the Warkworth Extension Project. Wallaby Scrub Road carries approximately 875 vehicle movements per day. Of the vehicles using the road, the majority (60-70%) originate from Charlton Road to the south. The proposed closure of Wallaby Scrub Road would mean vehicles which would usually travel along Charlton Road and Wallaby Scrub Road would be diverted onto Broke Road and the Golden Highway (refer to Figure 23). Vehicles travelling to or from Bulga Village (an estimated proportion of around 25% of vehicles currently using Wallaby Scrub Road) would need to seek an alternate route, specifically to continue on Putty Road to the Golden Highway, travelling around the Warkworth Mine (refer to Figure 23). In regards to the potential alternative of relocating the road, the Department recognises there are significant ecological and archaeological constraints west and north of the proposed mining area, limiting relocation options. A comparison of the potential impacts associated with the closure versus relocation (as per the alignment considered for the Warkworth Extension Project) are summarised in Table 14. Table 14: Summary of Impacts of Closure or Relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road

Aspect Closure of Wallaby Scrub Road Relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road Increased Travel Time

• Additional 6 minutes when origin / destination Bulga Village (20% of road users)

• Additional 2 minutes

• Additional 4 minutes when origin / destination intersection of Broke Rd & Charlton Rd (80% of road users)

• Additional 2 minutes

Ecology • No additional ecological impacts • Clearing of 32.1 ha of EEC woodland, including 3.3 ha of WSW EEC

• Fragmentation and edge effects associated with proposed Southern Biodiversity Area

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

• No additional cultural heritage impacts • Potential impacts on Aboriginal heritage sites (refer to Figure XX)

• Impact on the proposed Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area (refer to Figure XX)

Construction Noise

• No additional impacts • Three residences likely to experience construction noise in excess of criteria

European Heritage

• Minor impact on former RAAF base runway (non-listed heritage item)

• Removal of a non-listed section of the Great North Road

• Impact over full extent of former RAAF base runway (non-listed heritage item)

• Relocation of a non-listed section of the Great North Road

Economics • Net cost compared to closure of $15.4M



73

The Department remains of the view that relocation of Wallaby Scrub Road to the west of the proposed mining area is not a feasible alternative based on the following key reasons: • additional and avoidable impacts on EECs, in particular the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC,

and impacts associated with fragmentation of the proposed Southern Biodiversity Area; • the level of road use is relatively low; • additional travel times associated with the closure are not significantly greater when compared to

additional travel times associated with relocation; • the costs associated with relocation (to both Warkworth, in terms of capital cost, and the

community in terms of ongoing maintenance), are unlikely to outweigh the benefits which would be gained by a small proportion of road users; and

• potential additional and avoidable impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and the proposed Wollombi Brook Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Area, and increased proximity to the highly significant Bulga Bora Ground.

As such, the Department is satisfied with Warkworth’s proposal to close Wallaby Scrub Road, rather than relocate it. The following mitigation and management measures relevant to the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road have been proposed by Warkworth: • preparation of a road closure implementation plan for Wallaby Scrub Road, in consultation

with emergency services, RMS and Singleton Council; • construction of an emergency access road between Putty Road and the Golden Highway prior to

the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road (see Figure 26); and • review of existing speed advisory and curve warning signs for all roads likely to be used by

detoured traffic (i.e. Putty Road, Broke Road and the Golden Highway) prior to the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road.

The Department acknowledges the concerns raised in submissions on this project and the Warkworth Extension Project relating to the potential impact on the travel times for emergency services, in particular, the Rural Fire Service, if Wallaby Scrub Road were to be closed. Warkworth has an agreement in place with the RFS to construct an appropriate emergency access track/trail between Putty Road and the Golden Highway, west of the proposed mining area (see Figure 26). Warkworth has committed to constructing the access trail in accordance with the RFS’s access standards, in consultation with emergency services. Warkworth has committed to provide access to other emergency service providers if required. The Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to fund the relocation of the Rural Fire Service to allow for quicker response times following the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road. Putty Road Underpass/Bridge Warkworth has proposed to construct either a new overpass bridge or an underpass for internal mine truck traffic at Putty Road. Should the bridge option be selected, RMS has recommended that Warkworth should be required to design and construct the bridge crossing in accordance with RMS guidelines, in consultation with RMS. Additionally, RMS recommended that a Works Authorisation Deed be executed prior to the commencement of any such works on the classified (State) road network. Warkworth has agreed to RMS’s recommendations, which have been included in the Department’s recommended conditions.



74

Figure 26: Proposed Emergency Access Track Corridor



75

Rail Traffic Impacts The product coal transport operations for the project would continue to use rail transport for export via the Port of Newcastle using the Mt Thorley (Whittingham) branch line. As the project is not seeking to alter the existing arrangements for the transport of coal (apart from extending its use for the life of the project) or increase the maximum number of laden train movements per day, the Department is satisfied that this aspect of the project would not result in any significant additional impacts on the rail network. The Department notes the potential amenity impacts of continued rail transportation have been considered separately above. Conclusion The Department is satisfied that the local and regional road network is capable of accommodating the traffic associated with the project, including the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road, subject to the identified upgrade. In this regard, the Department has recommended conditions requiring Warkworth to contribute towards the upgrade of the Golden Highway/Putty Road and Mitchell Line of Road intersection as required by RMS. 5.8 Visual Amenity and Landform Introduction The Department’s assessment of the visual impacts is based upon a specialist Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Integrated Design Solutions, the public submissions and Warkworth’s response to the submissions. The visual assessment determined the types of landscapes surrounding the mine. It also used a computer model and photomontages to determine the views of the proposed mining operations at Warkworth and Mt Thorley mines from Bulga Village using topographic data and predicted vegetation heights. Visual Context The proposed extension to Warkworth mine would occur in a landscape where open cut mining is a predominant feature (see Figure 27). The existing Warkworth, Mt Thorley and Bulga mines all adjoin and are aligned southeast to northwest over an area of approximately 50 km2 (or 5000 ha). The Wambo and Hunter Valley Operations mines are also located approximately 4 km to the northwest across Wollombi Brook. The major landscape features (other than mining) include (see Figure 27): • to the east floodplains associated with the Hunter River and to the west Wollombi Brook, which

are characterised by river flats and cropland; • rural hills with scattered woodland and dryland grazing; and • rural land on foot slopes of the western ranges, including Bulga Village. While there are a large number of residential dwellings on small rural lots to the north and northeast, including the few remaining privately owned residences at Warkworth Village, their available views would be of the existing operations (rather than the extension area) due to the distance, intervening topography and vegetation. The current view from Bulga to the north-northeast is of distant undulating forested hills and rural lands, while the views to the east-southeast are of the existing mining complex at Mt Thorley and Bulga. For elevated residences at Bulga Village the proposal would create distant views to the north-northeast of progressively expanding overburden emplacements as both pits progress. Avoidance and Mitigation Measures Warkworth is proposing to implement a suite of mitigation measures to minimise visual impacts, including: • installing lighting in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards to reduce night-time

lighting such as directional and sensory lighting; • constructing of small vegetated bunds and installation of screening at appropriate locations

along roads and around the site boundary to shield views of the mine; • implementing appropriate landscaping and screening upon request, for the residents of Bulga; • establishing grass cover on overburden emplacements to remove colour contrast; and



76

• shaping and rehabilitating emplacement and overburden areas and establishing trees and grasses to promote integration with the surrounding landscape in the long-term.

The Department supports these measures and has recommended conditions of consent to formalise them including conditions to limit visual impacts, night-lighting and implement landscaping and screening treatments at the request of landowners with significant direct views of the mining operations. Also the Department notes that there would be limited opportunities to establish grass cover on the western face of the overburden emplacements. This is because the pits are expanding westwards, and the overburden is being dumped behind the moving face. This means the western face of the overburden emplacements would remain active through the majority of the project life. Residual Visual Impacts The Department notes that a large component of the view shed from Bulga to the east and southeast are of the existing Mt Thorley and Bulga mines. Several Departmental officers have visited Bulga, and it is clear that mining dominates the landscape in this direction. The visual assessment identified residences in elevated areas along Inlet Road and within Bulga Village as potentially having moderate to high visual impacts as their current views are not dominated by mining operations at Mt Thorley or Bulga and they may have direct views of the proposed mining operations, depending on the orientation of the residence. It is important to note that the visible elements of the mining operations would be the overburden emplacements, which would be 4 to 5 km from Bulga Village. In some places the emplacement would be 190 m AHD, which is an increase of around 30 mAHD over existing heights. The Department notes that due to the undulating nature of the final landform the majority of it would be similar or lower than 160 m AHD, which is the current maximum approved height for the overburden emplacements. The Department’s assessment of the 2012 Warkworth Extension Project identified approximately 33 residences in the Bulga/Inlet Road area as potentially experiencing moderate to high visual impacts, with a further 24 residences in the Bulga/Putty Road region potentially subject to moderate impacts. Given the similarities between the projects it is likely the number of impacted dwellings would be the same. The analysis of the visible elements of the mining operations from Bulga is shown in Figure 28. This shows the progression of the areas that would be visible at different stages of the project. It shows the visibility of the emplacement areas increasing as they expand. The figure also shows the gradual loss of the intervening topographical feature of Saddleback Ridge. Figure 29 provides an example of the view shed from a highly impacted residence (29 Inlet Road, Bulga) for a worst-case scenario (i.e. un-vegetated emplacements at maximum size). This is a conservative representation as the emplacements would expand incrementally overtime and would be vegetated with fast growing grasses to reduce the visual contrast. Figure 29 also shows an example of landscaping and visual screening that may be installed, subject to the approval of the landowner. Warkworth proposes to offer all residences in Bulga the ability to request a site-specific visual assessment undertaken in consultation with the landowner to determine the severity of the visual impact, and the location and type of screening required to minimise the visual impact. While the Department considers Warkworth’s proposal to identify the appropriate mitigation measures for each residence has some merit, it does not consider it best practice to rely upon potentially impacted residences requesting a further assessment prior to any mitigation measures being implemented. Consequently, the Department has recommended conditions of consent allowing any owner of a residence with significant direct views of the proposed mining operations to request additional mitigation measures (i.e. landscaping treatments and vegetative screens) at any time during the life of the project. Warkworth would then be obliged to implement reasonable and feasible mitigation at or near the residence, in consultation with the landowner.

SSSaaaddddddllleeebbbaaaccckkk RRRiiidddgggeee



77

To ensure these measures are finalised quickly the Department has recommended a condition of consent allowing either party to make a referral to the Secretary within three months of a landowner requesting mitigation, to resolve any disagreements that may arise. The EIS argues that following the implementation of appropriate visual mitigation measures the visual impact for these residences would be reduced to low or acceptable levels. The Department agrees that the on-site vegetated screens and landscaping treatments, if well implemented, would reduce the visual impact of the proposal. However, whether this would reduce the impact for these receivers to low or acceptable levels is uncertain and subjective. As seen in in the photomontage in Figure 29, a comparison of the existing and mitigated views shows that while mining operations would be predominately screened, the existing distant view of wooded hills associated with Saddleback Ridge and other vegetated areas would be lost. Clearly, it would be important that the mitigation measure are implemented in close consultation with the landowner ensuring what they perceive as the greatest visual impact is appropriately addressed. This is likely to be a combination of the visual screening and landscaping treatments which are discussed in Appendix J of the EIS, such as partial and total screens to block the elements of the mining operations with the greatest impact while also allowing distant views where the landowner considers it appropriate. With regard to the feasibility of the mitigation measures, given mining operations at Warkworth would not mine through Saddleback Ridge until year 8 or 9, there is a considerable amount of time to ensure vegetation has grown to appropriate heights and densities before this occurs. Removal of Saddleback Ridge Saddleback Ridge is an elevated ridgeline that broadly forms a ‘L’ shape within the southern portion of the proposed West Pit. The ridgeline varies from approximately from 130 m to 165 m AHD and has one predominant ‘peak’ at 165 m AHD. The ridge is 650 m east of Wallaby Scrub Road and adjoins the existing operations. The ridgeline is located approximately 4.5 km northeast from Bulga. The ridgeline screens parts of the Warkworth operations from Bulga Village, the extent of the screening depends on the location of the residence. As seen in Figure 28, Warkworth would start removing the eastern sections of the ridge around year 3 of the mine life, and by year 9 the parts of the ridge that are located within the proposed extension area would be completely removed. Almost 10% of the submissions received raised concerns regarding the removal of Saddleback Ridge. The concerns relate to two issues, firstly the loss of a natural visual barrier and secondly the loss of a local landmark. The Department agrees that removal of the ridge would permanently change the visual landscape from Bulga village. Warkworth argues that keeping the ridge would adversely impact its mining design reducing the effectiveness of the dragline resulting in a large increase in costs and therefore making the project less viable. The Department considers that keeping the ridge would sterilise a very significant volume of coal, reduce the strike length of the dragline considerably, and result in a large reduction in the overall output of the mine. Warkworth claims these impacts on its operations would make the project economically unviable, although this has not been fully tested by the Department at this stage. It is also worth noting that even if the ridge was retained to provide topographic screening, the majority of the overburden emplacements at Warkworth would still be visible from Bulga to the northeast of the ridge.



78

Figure 27: Visual Catchment surrounding Warkworth Mine



79

Figure 28: Visibility of the Project from Bulga Village.



80

Figure 29: View northeast from 29 Inlet Road Bulga (see Figure 27 for location)



81

Residual Lighting Impacts A number of submissions from nearby residents raised concerns regarding night-time lighting. Section 6.14.3 of Warkworth’s RTS provides a comprehensive list of the proposed night-time lighting mitigations measures, which the Department has reviewed and considers consistent with best practice in the mining industry. A key measure that would reduce night-time lighting impacts would be the company’s requirement to meet its proposed night-time noise criteria. This would require operations at night to be limited and shielded as far as practical to minimise noise emissions, and would also reduce lighting impacts as plant and equipment would be located away from exposed areas. The Department has recommended conditions that all lighting be installed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and that all reasonable and feasible measures are implemented to reduce lighting impacts. Conclusion The Department recognises that the project would cause permanent changes to the landscape that would impact the visual amenity of surrounding residences. The Department also acknowledges that the existing mining complex and surrounding mining operations already impact many of these properties. To minimise the visual impacts of the project on receivers as far as practicable, the Department has incorporated the proposed mitigation measures into the recommended conditions and recommended additional conditions requiring Warkworth to: • implement all reasonable and feasible measures to reduce visual and night-time lighting

impacts; • notify land owners of their entitlement to site-specific landscaping treatments; • implement suitable landscaping treatments, in consultation with the affected landowner; • progressively rehabilitate the site; and • implement a final landform that is integrated into the surrounding landscape. Subject to the implementation of these measures the Department is confident that the visual impacts from the project would be reduced in the short to medium term for many of the impacted residents, in particular those on lower lying properties along the Inlet Road and Putty Road. However, even with the implementation of these measures, the visual impacts for some residents in the elevated parts of Bulga and surrounds would remain high. In the longer term, as the site is rehabilitated, these impacts would improve significantly. 5.9 Socio-Economics and Land Use The EIS includes an assessment of the social impacts and benefits of the project by EMM, and an economic assessment of the project by BAEconomics, which included a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). To test the methodology and assumptions in Warkworth’s CBA against the applicable NSW Government guidelines, the Department commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to review the economic assessment for the project. The outcomes of the review and CBA are discussed in Section 2.3. These assessments identify, assess and analyse the social and economic costs and benefits of the project. During the preparation of the EIS, the stakeholder perceived impacts and opportunities of the project, paying particular attention to Bulga Village, were determined. The BMPA’s submission (which largely reflects the community and special interest group submissions objecting to the project – see Section 4.4) raised a number of socio-economic matters predominately relating to amenity, the physical environment, health and wellbeing, the economy, infrastructure and services, and community engagement, relationships and governance. The BMPA also raised the issue of potential impacts on property values in Bulga. The Department has noted that many of the matters raised by the BMPA were the same as those raised in response to the Warkworth Extension Project, despite the project having been substantially modified in response to stakeholder concerns. Nevertheless, the Department has considered these matters further below.



82

Local Infrastructure and Services The key impact of the project is the continuation of operations and associated employment of 1,300 employees. Whilst there would be no direct impact in terms of increased demand for community services and infrastructure in the area, there would be a continuation of demand as a result of the project. Warkworth proposes to negotiate a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Singleton Council, which would include public benefit contributions that would be dedicated to maintaining and/or improving local facilities and services in Bulga, other local neighbouring communities and the Singleton LGA as a whole. Additionally, the Department notes that the primary responsibility for the provision of key community services resides with the State Government. The Department is aware of State Government initiatives in the Singleton LGA targeted at ensuring a proportion of the royalties from mining operations benefit local communities. Most recently, Council has received almost $24 million in infrastructure funding through NSW Government programs, including: • $5.7 million for the refurbishment of the Singleton “Gym and Swim” complex under the Hunter

Infrastructure and Investment Fund; and • almost $18 million for three projects under the Resources for Regions Program, to be directed

towards the renewal of the Singleton CBD, road upgrades and safety improvements and upgrades to the Singleton Livestock markets.

Social Impacts In considering the concerns raised particularly by the BMPA regarding social impacts on Bulga village (namely amenity and health), the Department notes that as for all major developments, the project would likely give rise to a number of indirect socio-economic benefits and costs, or 'externalities'. Such costs would include potential amenity impacts, which have been assessed throughout this report. From a social perspective, the Department notes that amenity impacts (dust and noise) on Bulga village would be limited, with only one property in the village located within the acquisition zone due to noise impacts from the project. However the Department acknowledges that the project would result in increased visual impacts for some residences in Bulga village and that options to mitigate these impacts would be limited (i.e. there would be some unavoidable residual impacts). In regards to the potential impacts of the project on property values in Bulga village, the Department notes that the issue of property valuation is complex and can be influenced by numerous factors. This complexity is compounded by the fact that whilst the continued demand for local housing in Bulga generated by MTW’s employees may push property values up, any subsequent shutdown of the mine could equally push property values down. The range of varying influences on property prices at any given time means it would be difficult to distinguish any one impact (either positive or negative) as being attributable to the project alone. Furthermore, the Department notes that there has been mining occurring in the area for more than 30 years, so the presence of mining and any potential influence on property prices is not new. The Department has considered these residual amenity impacts or costs against the likely social benefits that would arise from the project. The Department also notes that the majority of submissions (over 1,600) were supportive of the project, primarily due to the employment and socio-economic benefits. Most of these benefits would be attributable to the project enabling Warkworth (and MTO) to maintain 1,300 jobs over the longer term and for it to remain a major employer in the Singleton LGA. Warkworth has further argued that the potential social impacts of the project not proceeding would far outweigh any residual social impacts of the project, such as: • workers and their families would move away from the area; • workers and their families would be faced with unemployment and financial difficulties; • there would be reduced local spending and decreased local business; • potential decline in population; • reduced viability of services such as local schools; and • reduced community activities and participation.



83

Should the project not proceed, Warkworth would also no longer be able to continue its current socio-economic initiatives which it proposes to continue for the project including: • local community funding initiatives such as the Coal & Allied Community Development

Fund and the MTW Site Donation Committee; • preferential use of locally sourced contractors and service providers; • continued apprenticeship and graduate program intakes; • continued support of local schools; and • continued engagement in local community forums and near neighbour engagement program. Warkworth has also proposed to establish a Bulga and Near Neighbour Amenity Resource to support residents surrounding the operation and to develop a social impact management plan to guide the implementation of the community initiatives identified in the EIS social impact assessment. Overall, the Department is satisfied that the project would enable the significant benefits of the project to be realised, which would outweigh the residual costs of the project for the local community as a whole. The Department is also satisfied that subject to the provision of a suitable VPA with Council, together with the funds committed by the NSW Government for the Singleton LGA, for the continued demand for community services and infrastructure created by the project. 5.10 Other Issues The Department’s assessment of other issues is included in Table 15 below. Table 15: Assessment of Other Issues Issue Potential Impacts Consideration Agriculture • The project would disturb a relatively

small area of land, historically used for grazing on unimproved rain-fed pasture.

• Warkworth has committed to establish several extensive areas of rehabilitated grassland within the final landform, which could be used as productive grazing land post-mining to offset any impacts on agricultural resources in the local area.

• OAS&FS did not raised any concerns with the agricultural impacts of the project, provided the project does not impact water access rights for downstream agricultural users. In this respect, it is noted that the project is not predicted to have any significant impacts on the Wollombi Brook Alluvial Aquifer or downstream water users (see Section 5.5).

• Site verification undertaken for the project confirmed that the soil fertility within the project area was insufficient to meet the applicable criteria for Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land under the Upper Hunter Strategic Regional Land Use Policy.

• In addition, the project is located over 15 km southeast of the nearest mapped equine critical industry cluster (CIC) and does not contain any mapped viticulture CIC land. Further, the Department notes that while there are a number of vineyards in the area between Bulga Village and Broke, the project is unlikely to have any significant impacts on these operations.

• With respect to visual impacts, these vineyards are all located over 4 km from the site and while they may have distant

• In accordance with relevant criteria under the Mining SEPP, the Department is satisfied that the modification is unlikely to have a significant impact on CIC land resulting from surface disturbance, reduced access to support services, infrastructure and transport routes, or the loss of scenic and landscape values.

• The Department is also satisfied that the project is unlikely to significantly impact any Strategic Agricultural Land, and that any impact on grazing land would be appropriately compensated for through the establishment of significant areas of grassland within the rehabilitated mine site.

• The Department has recommended that Warkworth be required to prepare a detailed Rehabilitation Management Plan for the project, which would include performance objectives for establishing the areas of grassland on the final landform.



84

Issue Potential Impacts Consideration views of the project, the Department does not believe these impacts would be significant.

Rehabilitation and Final Landform

• Under the project, Warkworth is proposing to progressively rehabilitate the site and create a single contiguous final landform across the MTW complex (refer to Figure 10).

• This final landform has been designed in consideration of the existing Warkworth mine and incorporates micro-relief and variable dump heights, to provide a naturalistic final landform that is more sympathetic to the surrounding area.

• Importantly, this complex wide final landform would also integrate with the neighbouring Bulga coal mine and provide for a more complementary and naturalistic final landform across these three mining operations.

• The proposed rehabilitation of this final landform focuses primarily on maximising biodiversity outcomes, through the establishment of significant areas of woodland (see Section 5.4). However, this plan also provides for other future land uses including productive grazing land and the provision of access to future mining areas (e.g. using the southern void to access underground resources).

• With regard to final voids, the Department notes that the despite increasing the size of the final void at the Warkworth mine, the project would provide significant improvements to the long term landscape through the backfilling of an approved final void at the Mt Thorley mine.

• The Department also notes that Warkworth’s existing mining operations plan indicates that (depending on future land uses) the relatively shallow southern void could be shaped to integrate into the final landscape, prior to mine closure.

• The Department is generally satisfied that proposed final landform and rehabilitation strategy provides an appropriate basis for rehabilitation of the site and achieves a balance between final land use objectives (including conservation, agriculture and access to potential future resources).

• Overall, the Department accepts that this final landform has been generally designed to be sympathetic to surrounding topography, address relevant safety considerations (e.g. the stability of highwall batters), and provide for a range of future land uses.

• However, the Department believes that there are aspects of the final landform that could be improved.

• In particular, the Department considers that there may be opportunities for reducing the size and depth of the final void, partially filling the gap between the two main overburden emplacements, reducing the slopes of the final highwall, and /or incorporating additional micro-relief.

• To this end, the Department believes that Warkworth should be required to investigate whether there are feasible options for further refinements to the final landform for the site, prior to the determination of the application.

• Alternatively, the Department recommends that a condition be imposed that requires Warkworth to prepare a Mine Closure Strategy, at least 10 years prior to the completion of mining under this project, to further refine the mine plan to address these matter.

• Finally, the Department has recommended that Warkworth be required to comply with a number of best practice rehabilitation objectives for the site, and prepare and implement a detailed Rehabilitation Management Plan that describes how these objectives would be achieved.

•

6 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS The Department has prepared draft recommended conditions of consent for the project (see Appendix H). These conditions are required to: • prevent, minimise, and/or offset adverse impacts of the development; • set standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance; • ensure regular monitoring and reporting; and • provide for the ongoing environmental management of the development.



85

The Department notes that there are some aspects of the recommended conditions that have not been finalised, particularly in regard to identifying properties that may be entitled to voluntary land acquisition and for additional mitigation as a result of air quality impacts. Apart from these matters, the Department considers that its recommended conditions reflect current best practice for the regulation of coal mining in NSW.

7 CONCLUSION The Department has assessed the development application, EIS, Response to Submissions and submissions on the project in accordance with the requirements of the EP&A Act. The Department has also considered the independent expert review of the project’s economic assessment. The project involves expanding and continuing the Warkworth open cut mining operations to access 230 Mt of coal from seams to the west of the mine. Warkworth proposes to continue mining until 2035, an additional 14 years on current approved operations. The project would produce around 10% of NSW’s total annual volume of export coal, and a significant proportion of the ongoing production of coal from the Hunter Valley. The extraction of a coal resource of this size and quality would result in a range of very significant economic benefits to the Singleton LGA, the Hunter region and to the State of NSW, which must be given sufficient weight in assessing the development’s overall merits. These benefits include direct capital investment of $715 million, $567 million in royalties for the NSW Government, and continued employment for the 1,300 people that currently work at the MTW complex. With regard to the potential amenity impacts of the project, the Department acknowledges that the noise, air quality, blasting and visual impacts would increase as the mine progresses towards the village of Bulga. Conversely, the amenity impacts on local residents to the east of the mine would reduce to some extent compared to the current situation. However, the assessment predicts that Warkworth would be able to comply with applicable EPA criteria for dust, noise and blasting at all but 2 residences surrounding the mine (one residence in Bulga, and one residence in Warkworth which already has acquisition rights under the Wambo mine’s consent). That being said, the Department notes that additional information is required to complete its consideration of cumulative short-term PM10 concentrations against the NSW Government’s Voluntary Land Acquisition and Mitigation Policy. While many properties in the area already have views of the Mt Thorley and Bulga mines, the Department acknowledges that the westward progression of the Warkworth mine would appreciably increase the visibility of mining activities at many properties in Bulga Village and surrounds. However, given the location of the resource and the local topography, the Department considers that there are limited options for appreciably reducing these impacts. Nonetheless, the Department has recommended that affected residents be entitled to visual screening at their residences, which would reduce visual impacts to some extent. With regard to impacts on natural and cultural values, the project would disturb approximately 698 ha of land, including around 611 ha of native woodland which incorporates 72 ha of Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC and threatened fauna habitat. To offset these impacts, Warkworth is proposing a comprehensive biodiversity offset strategy that comprises over 2,800 ha of land-based offsets, rehabilitation of 1,600 ha of woodland on the mine site, and various supplementary measures to manage, enhance and restore areas of Warkworth Sands Woodland. Subject to the provision of an additional land-based offset to compensate for the impact on Warkworth Sands Woodland, OEH has certified that the proposed offsets are adequate. The Department has recommended that all the offset areas be protected and managed under biobanking agreements under the TSC Act. The project would also impact a large number of Aboriginal heritage sites, including three sites which are considered to have high archaeological significance. Warkworth has consulted thoroughly with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders to devise an acceptable recording, salvage and relocation program for these sites, and proposes to establish a conservation area covering around 700 ha and containing a number of highly culturally significant sites, including a portion of the Bulga Bora Ground, to conserve and protect Aboriginal heritage values in the area.



87

APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

See attached CD ROM



88

APPENDIX B: SUBMISSIONS

See attached CD ROM



89

APPENDIX C: RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

See attached CD ROM



90

APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

SEPP No.33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development The Department is satisfied that the project is not potentially hazardous or offensive, and that the proposal is generally consistent with the aims, objectives, and requirements of SEPP 33. SEPP No.44 – Koala Habitat Protection The Department is satisfied that the project site does not contain any areas of core Koala habitat, and that the proposal is generally consistent with the aims, objectives, and requirements of SEPP 44. SEPP No.55 – Remediation of Land The Department is satisfied that the project area does not have a significant risk of contamination, and that the project is generally consistent with the aims, objectives, and provisions of SEPP 55. SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 In accordance with clause 104 of the Infrastructure SEPP, the application was referred to RMS. The matters raised in RMS’s submission on the project were considered by the Department, and the Department has recommended conditions of approval in relation to the classified road network. SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 Under clause 7 of the Mining SEPP, the project is permissible with consent. Part 3 of the Mining SEPP lists a number of matters that a consent authority must consider before determining an application for consent for development for the purposes of mining, including: • the significance of the resource; • certain non-discretionary development standards in relation to noise, air quality, blasting and

aquifer interference; • compatibility with other land uses; • natural resource management and environmental management; • resource recovery; • transport; and • rehabilitation. On 4 November 2013, the NSW Government amended the Mining SEPP to clarify the decision-making process for proposals for the mining of mineral resources, including coal. The amendment introduced a clear statutory requirement that the consent authority must consider the significance of the resource, both to the State and the region where it is located, as part of its decision-making process. While the amendment made clear that the significance of the resource is an important factor in the decision-making process, it is not the only factor, and environmental, social and economic impacts continue to be significant considerations. The Department has considered the advice from the Department of Trade and Investment about the significance of the project’s coal resource in its assessment (see Section 2.3). Other matters have also been considered under the Mining SEPP in the Department’s assessment of the project (see Section 5). Based on its assessment of the development, the Department is satisfied that the project can be managed in a manner that is generally consistent with the aims, objectives and provisions of the SEPP. Singleton LEP 2013 The zoning and permissibility of the development under the Singleton LEP is addressed in Section 3.2 of this report. There are no other provisions of the LEP that substantially govern the development, and the Department is satisfied that the project can be managed in a manner that is generally consistent with the aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP.



91

APPENDIX E: SITE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE



92

APPENDIX F: OEH BIODIVERSITY OFFSET CERTIFICATION



93

APPENDIX G: ECONOMIC PEER REVIEW



94

APPENDIX H: DRAFT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

state significant development assessment warkworth

Documents