MAJOR PROJECT ASSESSMENT Cobbora Coal Project (10_0001)

Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report Section 75I of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 February 2014

Cover Photos, Clockwise from top left: Laheys Creek cemetery; Spring Ridge Road crossing Laheys Creek; Sandy Creek semi- permanent pool; Pit B near Dapper Road looking west to east.

© Crown copyright 2014 Published February 2014 NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure 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.

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cobbora Holding Company (CHC), a public trading enterprise owned by the NSW Government, is seeking approval for a new open cut coal mine on land located near the towns of Gulgong and Dunedoo, about 60 kilometres (km) east of Dubbo. The proposed mine – known as the Cobbora Coal Project, has potential to provide thermal coal for Central Coast and Hunter Valley power stations and/or for export markets.

The Cobbora Coal Project involves the extraction of 392 million tonnes of coal over 21 years, at an extraction rate of up to 20 million tonnes of run-of-mine (ROM) coal a year. The project infrastructure includes a coal handling and preparation plant, a rail load-out facility, a 28 km rail spur line to link into the Dunedoo-Gulgong Railway, a 26 km water pipeline, temporary construction accommodation village, and other ancillary infrastructure. The project also involves the closure and realignment of local public roads including Spring Ridge Road and Dapper Road. The site is located within the Mid- Western, Warrumbungle, and Wellington Local Government Areas. The City of Dubbo is also identified as a key employment source for the project workforce.

The Government has announced its intention to sell or lease the project, if it is approved. The recent large land acquisition program by CHC to support development of the mine, coupled with the Government’s decision to sell or lease the mine with consequential delays in project commencement, have raised concerns over socio-economic impacts, particularly on Dunedoo and the surrounding district. These concerns have been recognised by the Government through the implementation of the $20 million Cobbora Transition Fund, separate to the Department’s consideration of the project’s impact.

Under transitional arrangements, the project is being assessed as a ‘major project’ under the now- repealed Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and requires the approval of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, under the Minister’s existing delegations, the project application must be determined by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) due to the number of public objections to the project. The project is also a ‘controlled action’ under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . This means it also requires approval from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment.

The Department exhibited the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project from 5 October until 16 November 2012, and the Preferred Project Report (PPR) for the project from 15 February 2013 until 8 March 2013. In total, the Department received 401 submissions on the project: 31 from government authorities, 42 from special interest groups and 328 from the general public. Most of the public submissions objected to the project, with key issues being the justification of the project and impacts on air quality. Concerns were also raised over water impacts as a result of water use from the Cudgegong River, impacts on biodiversity, Aboriginal heritage, agricultural productivity, and transport and noise impacts.

Given the level of public interest in the project, the Minister asked the PAC to review the merits of the project, and to hold public hearings during the review. In accordance with its terms of reference, the PAC review focused on the proposed mine plan and potential health, amenity, biodiversity, water, and social and economic impacts of the project. The PAC completed its review in April 2013, concluding the project had merit and should be approved subject to stringent conditions. Overall, the PAC made 26 recommendations, most of which have been incorporated into the Department’s recommended conditions for the project.

In August 2013, CHC further modified its project to address the recommendations made by the PAC and submitted a revised PPR to the Department. In particular, changes were made to the mine plan by reducing the number of operating pits and final voids, with a consequent reduction in the area of disturbance at any one time. The modifications also reduced the impacts on biodiversity including threatened flora and fauna species. The revised PPR was placed on the Department’s website and attracted further submissions.

The revised project involves the supply of up to 220 Mt of thermal coal mainly for electricity generation at domestic power stations over its 21 year operational life.

1 Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

The Department considers this to be a significant coal resource, which would provide a secure supply for the domestic market for some time. It is also satisfied that substantial benefits would flow from the project to the local, regional and State economies, including direct and indirect employment opportunities for rural communities with up to 590 operational and 550 construction personnel required. There would be a capital investment over the life of the mine of around $1.3 billion with more than $407 million in direct revenue for the State Government from coal royalties. These are substantial benefits, which should be given significant weight in assessing the project’s overall merits.

The Department has assessed the EA (including the PPR and revised PPR), submissions on the project, the PAC’s review report and CHC’s response to the PAC recommendations. Based on this assessment, the key areas of concern surrounding the project are the potential biodiversity, land management, amenity/health, water and socio-economic impacts of the project.

With regard to biodiversity impacts, the Department is satisfied that the revised mine plan has been designed to avoid impacts on threatened species as far as reasonable and feasible, particularly when a range of other constraints - such as the location of the most economic coal resource on site, operational costs, competing land-use for agricultural land and environmental impacts associated with longer haulage distances – are taken into consideration. Furthermore, a significant biodiversity offset strategy is proposed, including: • protection and enhancement of a minimum of 8,827 ha of land for conservation: • supplementary offsets towards threatened species research and programs including $500,00 funds towards research or measures to assist the recovery of threatened cave roosting bats, Fuzzy Box and Grey Box Endangered Ecological Communities; • translocation and propagation trials for threatened flora species; • additional biodiversity restoration through the ILMP including a minimum of 185ha restoration to improve woodland connectivity to the north of the mine; and • a rehabilitation strategy targeting restoration of both agricultural lands and woodlands.

With regard to land management, the Department notes that CHC has acquired in the order of 45,800 ha of landholdings for the project, including land required for biodiversity offsets. The Department notes the concerns of the local community, in particular submissions from Warrumbungle Shire Council on socio-economic impacts associated with this acquisition, such as loss of local landowners and subsequent economic impacts - particularly on Dunedoo. The Department supports the PAC recommendation for the preparation and implementation of the ILMP to ensure the landholdings are appropriately managed for either biodiversity conservation or ongoing agriculture enterprises. The Department has recommended that this plan be developed in consultation with the relevant local councils and key Government agencies. A key objective of the ILMP is to provide an employment, training and skills development program.

While the PAC were generally satisfied with the project’s proposed rehabilitation strategy (subject to further consideration of issues raised by their expert Dr Mark Burns), residual concerns were raised by the Department of Primary Industries on the ability to successfully rehabilitate land back to Class III and Class IV land capability. In addition, concerns were raised regarding management of soils, need for detailed performance and completion criteria, weed management and monitoring of agricultural productivity. The Department is satisfied that these concerns can be suitably managed through the proposed Rehabilitation Management Plan and ILMP, and has recommended that these plans be developed in consultation with Agriculture NSW.

With regard to amenity and health (noise, dust, visual and lighting) impacts, the Department notes that the land acquisition program by CHC has created a substantial buffer to most receptors. In regards to noise impacts, mine operational noise limits have been set at 35dB(A) at all privately-owned residences surrounding the project. This is the lowest possible limit under the Industrial Noise Policy. Furthermore, all receptors along the private rail spur line are predicted (with noise barriers as mitigation measures at two receptors) to meet the noise levels specified in the recently published Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING).

With regard to air quality impacts, the revised mine plan has significantly decreased the level of disturbance with up to a 55% reduction in disturbance area in any one year (compared to the mine plan in the PPR) as a result of reducing the number of operating pits from 3 down to 2 or 1. This

NSW Government 2 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

means the project is unlikely to cause any exceedances of the relevant air quality criteria at privately- owned residences around the mine, apart from the short term cumulative PM 10 criteria. While predictions suggest the project could contribute to a single exceedance of the recommended short term PM 10 criteria at up to 4 private residences over the 20 year life of the project, the Department believes such exceedances are unlikely to occur, and could be avoid with the implementation of best management practice on site, including a real-time air quality management system.

Nevertheless, in considering the cumulative amenity impacts of noise, dust and visual impact, the Department has recommended that one landowner (property 3108) be granted acquisition rights. This property is close to both the rail spur and mine and would be subject to a combination of noise, dust and visual impacts that would significantly reduce the overall amenity of the project.

With regards to water, the project’s impacts have been comprehensively assessed and peer reviewed by experts engaged by the PAC and the Department. The PAC concluded that water impacts of the project could be managed, subject to preparation and implementation of a comprehensive water management plan. A key concern raised in submissions and considered in the PAC review was the take of water from the Cudgegong River to supplement water shortfalls. The PAC recommended that a number of measures be considered to minimise this water take, including de-watering of tailings slurry, installation of de-watering bores ahead of mining and use of chemical dust suppressants.

Following further review of dewatering technologies by CHC – considering environmental, cost and operational risks - the Department is satisfied that the proposed use of tailings emplacements is justified, subject to best practice design and operation. However, CHC has also committed to further review of dewatering technologies, and this review may result in changes to the way tailings are management on site over the life of the project. Concerns were also raised by NSW Office of Water over the use of de-watering bores ahead of mining, as there is some uncertainty about the drawdown effects of this dewatering. The Department has recommended conditions requiring that further groundwater modelling be undertaken of the revised PPR mine plan prior to the commencement of any mining operations on site, including the proposed use of de-watering bores, and the results of this modelling would be used to inform any decisions on whether the proposed dewatering should be allowed to proceed. In addition, both NOW and the Department are satisfied that CHC has demonstrated that it would have sufficient water licenses to be able to account for any water that it is required to take for the project, including any predicted groundwater inflows to the pit and final void.

With regards to socio-economic impacts, CHC has offered to enter into planning agreements with the four affected councils. The Department is satisfied that this offer would more than cover any expenses associated with satisfying any demand the project may have for local infrastructure and services. In addition, the Department notes that the $20M Cobbora Transition Fund will provide a separate source of funding for Councils and landowners to address any social or economic impacts associated with the purchase of large landholdings for the project, and any potential delay in the commencement of the project.

Essentially, the Department is satisfied that the residual impacts of the project can be suitably managed to ensure an acceptable level of environmental performance, and has drafted a comprehensive set of conditions to ensure this occurs. These conditions can broadly be grouped into three categories: requirements to meet strict limits or performance measures; requirements to prepare various management plans to minimise, monitor and publicly report on the environmental performance of the project; and requirements for regular review and auditing of the project’s environmental performance.

Overall, the Department has carefully weighed the substantial economic benefits associated with extracting this large coal resource against the residual impacts of the project. On balance, the Department has concluded that the project’s benefits outweigh any costs, and that it is in the public interest. Consequently, it believes the project should be approved subject to strict conditions.

NSW Government 3 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

1. PROPOSED PROJECT

1.1 Introduction Cobbora Holding Company (CHC), a public trading enterprise owned by the NSW Government, proposes to develop an open cut coal mine, known as the Cobbora Coal Project, on land located near Gulgong and Dunedoo, about 64 kilometres (km) northwest of Mudgee and 60 km east of Dubbo (see Figure 1). The proposal is located mainly within the Warrumbungle Local Government Area (LGA) with some project components also located within the Wellington and Mid-Western LGAs. The regional centre of the City of Dubbo would also provide a large, nearby labour pool for the project.

The Cobbora Coal Project was proposed to be developed by the previous Government to provide a secure coal supply for NSW electricity generators located in the Upper Hunter Valley and Central Coast. All State-owned coal mines were privatised in 2002. However, as a result of increased export demand for coal and expiring long-term supply coal contracts for domestic coal-fired power stations, the then-Government considered that an alternative coal supply for domestic electricity generation was required to provide supply security and price stability. Consequently, CHC was formed as a public trading enterprise to develop the project. On 1 July 2013, the Treasurer announced the current Government’s intention to sell or lease the Cobbora Coal Project, and that the coal supply agreements between CHC and the electricity generators would be terminated.

The project layout and design has evolved throughout the assessment process. The original project submitted in support of the project application was exhibited in November 2012. CHC made a number of changes to the project in response to the issues raised during the public exhibition period. The changes were accompanied by a Preferred Project Report (PPR) for the project.

In April 2013, the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) completed a review of the Cobbora Coal Project and made a number of recommendations. These included revisions to the mine plan to reduce impacts on biodiversity and the overall extent of the disturbance area by reducing the number of pits operating simultaneously. CHC subsequently revised various aspects of the project and submitted a Revised PPR in August 2013. The Department’s assessment is based on the project layout as described in the Revised PPR. Table 1 describes the key project changes through the assessment process with figures in Appendix A depicting these key mine changes.

Table 1: Revisions to Key Project Parameters Aspect EA PPR Revised PPR Open cut pits operating 3: Pits A, B, C 3: Pits A, B, C 1 or 2: Pits A and C followed by Pit B simultaneously operating concurrently operating concurrently Final voids (number) 3 3 1 Final void/ high wall area (ha) 165 143 118 Mining Area (ha) 3,950 4,130 3,765 Tailings emplacements 2 in-pit 6 in-pit 3 in-pit 1 out-of-pit 2 out-of-pit 1 out-of-pit Tailings volume (Mbcm) 69.3 69.3 35.9 Disturbance Area (ha) 4,300 4,540 4,230 Mine Infrastructure Area • Minor boundary changes • Relocated next to CHPP and rail (MIA) load out • Footprint of MIA and CHPP reduced • Use of Mechanical Stacker and Reclaimer at CHPP to reduce mobile fleet Other Infrastructure • Changes to local road • Re-aligned water pipeline and realignments transmission lines • Castlereagh Highway realignment and rail • Dewatering bore-field underpass • On-site sewage disposal – • Temporary workers village relocated application to land • Raw water dam relocated • Realigned rail spur line • Clean water dams included • Re-aligned water pipeline and transmission lines

NSW Government 4 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 1: Project Locality

1.2 Project Description The project is summarised in Table 2 and depicted in Figures 2 to 4 below. Appendix B includes figures showing the proposed mine sequence. The project is described in full in CHC’s Environmental Assessment (EA), Preferred Project Report (PPR) and Revised Preferred Project Report (Revised PPR) which are attached as Appendix C, D and E, respectively.

NSW Government 5 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Table 2: Key Components of the Final Project Aspect Description Project Summary Development of a multiple pit open cut coal mine, involving: • extracting up to 20 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of run-of-mine (ROM) coal for up to 21 years; • constructing and operating mine infrastructure including a Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP), 28 km rail spur line and loop, 26 km water pipeline, transmission lines and ancillary services infrastructure; • construction and operation of coal tailings emplacement areas; • road closure and realignment of local public roads; • employing up to 590 operational employees with peak construction workforce of 550 people; • 24 hour operations; and • disturbance of up to 4,230 ha of land with progressive rehabilitation of all disturbed areas. Project Life 2.5 years construction stage, followed by 21 years mining operations to mid 2036. Mining and Reserves Extraction of 392 million tonnes (Mt) of ROM coal to produce about 222 Mt of product coal. Coal would be extracted from 3 separate coal seams down to the Lower Ulan Seam. Average strip ratio is 2.96 million bank cubic metres (Mbcm) of overburden per Mt of ROM coal. Production Rate 20 Mtpa ROM coal, and up to 12 Mtpa product coal Coal Processing & Transport Coal would be sized on site then sent to the CHPP within the infrastructure area. Product coal would be transported by rail via the Australian Rail Track Corporation’s (ARTC’s) Gulgong to Muswellbrook rail line to the power stations located in the Upper Hunter Valley, Newcastle Port for export coal or onto the RailCorp line from Woodville junction to the Central Coast power stations. No coal would be transported along rail networks south to Lithgow. Overburden Emplacement Based on an average strip ratio of 2.96, up to 1,318 Mbcm of overburden would be moved, either in-pit or into 3 out-of-pit emplacement areas. Reject and Tailings The CHPP would produce up to 8 Mtpa of coal reject material (approximately 160 Mt over the life of the mine) comprising 70% coarse reject and 30% tailings. Coarse reject would be co-disposed with overburden and inter-burden within waste rock emplacements. Tailings would be pumped as a slurry to one out-of-pit and 3 in-pit tailings emplacement areas. Infrastructure On-site infrastructure would include: • 500,000 tonne ROM coal stockpile area; • crushing and sizing plant; • CHPP; • coal tailings emplacement areas; • 1.0 Mt product coal stockpiles; • rail load out facility and locomotive provisioning facility; • rail spur line; • mine access road; • temporary construction accommodation village; • communications and power reticulation, including transmission line; • explosives storage facility; • water management structures and systems; • administration and support facilities; • mine infrastructure; and • pumping station and pipeline from Talbragar River. Employment Peak of 590 operational staff and 550 construction workers Capital value $1,315 million capital investment value Biodiversity Offsets The project would clear 3,039 ha of native vegetation, including 1,773 ha of woodland and 1,266 ha of native grasslands. This area includes 216 ha of endangered ecological communities (EECs), comprising Box Gum Woodland (28 ha) and Inland Grey Box Woodland (41 ha) listed under both NSW and Commonwealth legislation, and Fuzzy Box Woodland (9 ha) and Derived Native Grasslands (138ha) listed under NSW legislation only.

The biodiversity offset strategy proposed by CHC incorporates a total of 8,827 ha of native vegetation, including 7,822 ha of woodland. This also includes a total of 1,294 ha of the three Woodland EECs incorporating 1,184 ha woodland and 110 ha of derived native grasslands.

NSW Government 6 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 2: Project Area, including Rail Spur Line and Water Pipeline Routes

NSW Government 7 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 3: Mine Site Area

Figure 4: Mine Infrastructure Area

NSW Government 8 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

2. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

2.1 Land Use and Land Ownership The Cobbora Coal Project is located approximately 20 km southwest of the village of Dunedoo and about 30 km northwest of Gulgong. The project is located within an outlier of the southwestern portion of the Gunnedah Basin Coalfield and west of the Western Coalfield, where a number of open cut and underground mines have been developed in the area around Ulan.

The project is reasonably isolated from urban areas and land use is predominantly pastoral enterprises used for grazing and some cultivation. A number of State forests and conservation areas, including the Tuckland State Forest and Goodiman State Conservation Area, are located in the vicinity of the proposal. The project site is mainly located within Class IV agricultural land with some Class III land suitable for cultivation adjacent to Sandy Creek and within the pipeline, road re- alignment and rail spur line corridors.

Figure 5 shows land ownership within and around the project area. Over 70% of the land within the project application area is now owned by CHC. There are 90 residences within the project application area. 68 of these are now owned by CHC and a further 27 residences surrounding the application area have been acquired to minimise the likelihood of potential air quality and noise impacts. CHC has also acquired additional land for biodiversity offsets in the locality and region.

The total landholding area owned by CHC around the mine, including offset areas, is in the order of 458 km 2 or 45,800 ha, predominantly within the Warrumbungle LGA. CHC is therefore a very significant landowner in the locality. Submissions on the project have highlighted issues associated with land management practices on these properties, social impacts associated with loss of local landowners and economic impacts on the township of Dunedoo. This was also a key issue identified by the PAC in its review of the project.

2.2 Natural Environment The project is located within the NSW Central West at the eastern edge of the Murray-Darling Basin. The Talbragar River is located immediately north of the project application area and the Cudgegong River to the south (see Figure 1). Both rivers are tributaries of the Macquarie River and form part of the Macquarie-Bogan River catchment. The mine site is mainly located within the Sandy Creek sub- catchment of the Talbragar River, which also includes Laheys Creek, Blackheath Creek and Fords Creek. There are also several key aquifer systems within and surrounding the project application area, including alluvial aquifers associated with the Talbragar River and its tributaries.

The project area also includes regional woodland corridors. In particular, the northern and eastern extents of the site encroach on woodland that includes threatened flora species and habitat for a range of threatened fauna species. This encroachment and options for avoidance, mitigation and offsetting of impacts on this corridor has been a key consideration for the PAC and the Department.

2.3 Built and Statutory Environment The Golden Highway, located just north of the project application area, links Dubbo with the Hunter Valley and Newcastle. The Castlereagh Highway, in the east of the project application area, links Gilgandra and Dunedoo with major towns such as Mudgee and Lithgow. Spring Ridge Road and Laheys Creek Road are the main local roads in the application area and service the rural properties around the local towns of Dunedoo and Gulgong. The project area contains the Dapper Union Church and the Laheys Creek Rural Fire Service. Other community facilities and services are available in Dunedoo and Gulgong.

The Dunedoo to Gulgong Railway is located in the east of the project area. The Dunedoo - Gulgong line connects with the Gulgong-Sandy Hollow Railway, providing a link from the site through Ulan to the Port of Newcastle. The section of rail line up to the Ulan mine cluster is infrequently used so the project’s contribution to increased rail movements through this section of the line would be particularly noticeable to any residents in this area.

NSW Government 9 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

A key feature of the project is its location within or near four LGAs and regional centres. This complicates predictions and assumptions regarding employment sources, migration into the LGAs and the extent of social impacts.

Figure 5: Land Ownership and Receivers

NSW Government 10 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

3. STATUTORY CONTEXT

3.1 Major Project The proposal was declared to be a major project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) because it constituted development for the purposes of coal mining, and therefore met the criteria in clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the former State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005.

Although Part 3A of the EP&A Act was repealed on 1 October 2011, the project remains a ‘transitional Part 3A project’ under Schedule 6A of the Act. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is the approval authority for the project application. However, the project falls within the Minister’s delegation to the 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 site is located within the Warrumbungle, Wellington and Mid-Western LGAs. The land is zoned 1(a) (General Rural) under the Coolah Local Environmental Plan 2000 , RU1 Primary Production under the Wellington Local Environmental Plan 2012 , and RU1 Primary Production and R5 Large Lot Residential under the Mid-Western Regional Local Environmental Plan 2012. Mining is a permissible use in all these zones. Mining is also permissible with development consent under State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 , which makes open cut mining permissible on any land where agriculture may be carried out. Consequently, the project is permissible with consent and the PAC may determine the application.

3.3 Integrated Approvals Under Section 75U of the EP&A Act, a number of other approvals are integrated into the Part 3A assessment and approval process and are not required to be separately obtained for the project. These include: • heritage-related approvals required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the Heritage Act 1997; and • some water related approvals under the Water Management Act 2000.

Under Section 75V of the Act, a number of further approvals are required to be obtained, but must be approved in a manner that is consistent with any Part 3A approval for the project. These include: • environment protection licence (EPL) under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ; • mining leases under the Mining Act 1992 ; and • approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for road upgrades and disturbance to public roads.

3.4 Other Approvals CHC also needs to obtain several other approvals for the project, which are not integrated into the Part 3A approval process, including: • approval under the Crown Lands Act 1989 for any works on Crown land, such as construction of the rail spur line, access roads and water pipeline through Crown reserves; • approval under the Roads Act 1993 to close roads within the proposed project area and connect new roads to the classified road network; • relevant approvals under the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 2002 in relation to co-disposal of rejects and tailings within emplacement areas; and • water licences from the NSW Office of Water (NOW) under both the Water Act 1912 and the Water Management Act 2000.

The Department has consulted with the relevant public authorities responsible for granting these integrated and other approvals, and considered the relevant issues relating to these approvals in its assessment of the project.

NSW Government 11 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

3.5 Commonwealth Approvals In addition to any State approvals, CHC needs to obtain an approval from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) because the project is a ‘controlled action’ under that Act due to the potential for significant impacts to listed ‘matters of national environmental significance’, including listed threatened species and communities and listed migratory species. In September 2013, the Commonwealth indicated that the Cobbora Project would also be assessed under the new ‘water trigger’ under the EPBC Act.

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE) (formerly the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) has accredited the Part 3A approval process for the Cobbora Coal Project. This means that the assessment of both State and Commonwealth matters has been integrated into a single assessment process. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the Commonwealth Minister maintains an independent approval role for the project, and is expected to undertake this determination following the PAC’s determination.

3.6 Environmental Planning Instruments Under Section 75I of the EP&A Act, the Director General’s report is required to include a copy of, or reference to, the provisions of environmental planning instruments (EPIs) that substantially govern the carrying out of the project.

The Department has considered the project against the relevant provisions of several EPIs (see Appendix F ) as well as CHC’s consideration of these issues (see Chapter 4 of its EA), and is satisfied that none of these instruments substantially governs the carrying out of the project.

3.7 Objects of the EP&A Act The Minister should 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 use of resources (Object 5(a)(i)) and the promotion of orderly and economic use of land (Object 5(a)(ii)). A full consideration of environmental protection (Object 5(a)(vi)) is provided in Section 6 of this report. Based on its assessment of the merits of the project, the Department is satisfied that the project is able to be undertaken in a manner that would maintain or improve biodiversity values in the locality in the medium to long term. The Department is satisfied that the environmental impacts on threatened species and habitats could be minimised via the imposition of appropriate conditions and adequately offset by proposed biodiversity offset strategy.

The Department has also fully considered the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD, Object 5(a)(vii)) in its assessment of the merits of the project application in Section 4 below, and sought to integrate all significant economic and environmental considerations and avoid any serious or irreversible damage to the environment, based on an assessment of risk-weighted consequences. In doing this, the Department has also considered both CHC’s and the PAC’s assessment of these matters, including CHC’s assessment of the alternatives of not proceeding. Based on this consideration, the Department is satisfied that the project can be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the principles of ESD.

NSW Government 12 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

3.8 Statement of Compliance Under Section 75I of the EP&A Act, the Director-General’s report is required to include a statement relating to compliance with the Director -General’s environmental assessment requirements for the project. The Department is satisfied that the environmental assessment requirements have been complied with.

4. CONSULTATION

Under Section 75H(3) of the EP&A Act, the Director-General is required to make the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project publicly available for at least 30 days. After accepting the EA for the project, the Department: • made the EA publicly available from 5 October 2012 until 16 November 2012 at the: o Department’s Information Centre; o Dunedoo Library; o Warrumbungle Shire Council offices; o Mid-Western Regional Council offices; o Wellington Council office; o Dubbo City Council office; o Dubbo Regional Library; o Nature Conservation Council’s office; and on the o Department’s website; • notified relevant State government authorities and the four Councils by email; and • advertised the exhibition in the Mudgee Guardian, Dubbo Daily Liberal, Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Telegraph newspapers.

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

The Department received a total of 232 submissions during the exhibition of the EA, including: • 18 from public authorities; • 27 from special interest groups; and • 187 submissions from the general public.

Under Section 75H(6) of the EP&A Act, the Director-General requested CHC to submit a Preferred Project Report (PPR) and Response to Submissions (RTS) for the project. CHC provided a PPR and RTS in February 2013 (see Appendix D) . After accepting the PPR and RTS, the Department: • made the documents publicly available from 15 February 2013 until 8 March 2013; • notified all individuals and special interest groups that made a submission on the exhibition of the project by letter or email; • notified relevant State government authorities and the four Councils by email; and • advertised the exhibition in the Mudgee Guardian, Dubbo Daily Liberal, Dunedoo District Diary, Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Telegraph newspapers.

The Department received a total of 169 submissions during the exhibition of the PPR and RTS, including: • 13 from public authorities; • 15 from special interest groups; and • 141 submissions from the general public.

A copy of all the submissions received in response to the exhibition of the EA and the exhibition of the PPR and RTS are attached as Appendix G .

During the assessment process, CHC also provided a range of additional information to clarify and expand on matters in the EA, PPR and Revised PPR. This additional information is included in Appendix H . This Appendix also includes responses to the Revised PPR from key agencies.

NSW Government 13 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

The Department made a number of documents available for viewing or download on its website during the assessment process. These documents included the: • project application; • Director-General’s environmental assessment requirements; • EA; • PPR and RTS; and • Revised PPR.

The Department also conducted a number of site visits, attended the PAC Hearing on the project (see Section 5), and met with CHC and its consultants on numerous occasions to discuss various elements of the Project.

4.1 Submissions The Department received a total of 401 submissions during the exhibition period of both the EA and PPR. These included: • 31 from public authorities; • 42 from special interest groups; and • 328 submissions from the general public.

Of the 370 submissions from special interest groups and the general public, 352 objected to the project. A summary of the issues raised in all submissions is provided below.

Public Authorities Of the 19 public authorities that made submissions (refer Table 3 below), none objected to the project. However, key residual concerns are summarised below.

Biodiversity • the need to provide indirect offsets (such as research funding and translocation/ propagation trials) to supplement shortfalls in the direct biodiversity offsets and that the project conditions adequately allow for the monitoring and assessment of the performance of these indirect offsets; • additional targeted baseline surveys be required in the offset areas and project landholdings managed for biodiversity outcomes as a requirement of post approval management plans; and • monitoring and adaptive management of indirect impacts (such as light spill and dust) and effectiveness of fauna movement structures.

Water Resources • uncertainty over drawdown impacts related to the use of groundwater de-watering bores ahead of mining; • the need for a comprehensive aquatic monitoring strategy with implementation of contingency and compensatory protocols for impacts on semi-permanent pools and threatened catfish populations; • requirement to hold licences for the predicted maximum water take at the commencement of the project, including licences where relevant for clean water dams that exceed harvestable rights;

Heritage • management of indirect impacts, such as erosion and creek stabilisation and mine traffic, on Aboriginal heritage sites associated with riparian areas within the project boundary;

Amenity • setting of operational noise limits to meet a noise criterion of 35dB(A) with the application of the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) for assessment of noise along the private rail spur line; • Standard construction hours should apply subject to further assessment and consultation in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (ICNG); • site specific best management practice assessment to minimise dust emissions be undertaken as an input into the proposed Air Quality Management Plan.

NSW Government 14 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Rehabilitation and Land Management • ensuring appropriate management and separate treatment of top soils/ subsoils, including weed management (Sifton bush) of soil stockpiles; • the rehabilitation plan will need to consider management of sodic soils and flexibility in grazing management in biodiversity conservation areas; • request to undertake trials, linked to detailed monitoring, performance and completion criteria, demonstrating successful rehabilitation of land to Class III and IV land capability; • monitoring/ recording the agricultural productivity on land owned by CHC with ongoing evaluation to demonstrate productivity is maintained and maximised where possible.

Social Impacts • Warrumbungle Shire Council is dissatisfied with the offer from CHC for community enhancement contributions during the construction stage and infrastructure contributions for water supply upgrades; • concerns that the agreed and publicly exhibited VPAs (with Dubbo City Council, Mid Western Regional Council and Wellington Council) were not accurately reflected in the recommended conditions; • request for extensive consultation with Councils on the development of the ILMP.

Further discussion on these residual issues is provided in the relevant sections of chapter 6 below. A summary of the key issues raised in individual Government agency submissions is provided in Appendix I-1.

Community and Special Interest Groups Key issues raised in community and special interest group submissions during exhibition of the EA related to the project justification, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity, agriculture, water and Aboriginal heritage impacts of the project. The key issues raised during exhibition of the PPR and RTS were similar. However, additional issues were raised, including increased water use and increased biodiversity impacts under the revised project and rail noise and transport impacts. Of the 141 public submissions, 110 were from members of the community who had not previously made a submission during the exhibition of the EA. A total of 33 special interest groups and organisations made submissions to the project as identified in Table 3 below.

Approximately 49 submissions were received from residents living close to the project or residing within the Dubbo, Warrumbungle, Wellington and Mid-Western LGAs. The key issues raised in these submissions included: • inadequate water supply available from the Cudgegong River; • impacts to aquifers and access to groundwater; • dust and noise impacts from trains along the proposed rail spur line and existing railway lines; • frequency and length of trains and their impacts on railway crossings; • dust impacts on rural-residential properties including contamination of rainwater collection; • inadequate medical services to service an increased population; • inaccurate weather data does not adequately reflect the prevailing north to north-westerly winds; and • increased travel distances as a result of local road diversions.

The number of times each issue was raised in submissions on both the EA and PPR is shown in Figure 6 below. A summary of the key issues raised in all community and special interest group submissions is provided in Appendix I-2.

NSW Government 15 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 6: Issues raised by the Community and Special Interest Groups

Table 3: Submissions from Government Agencies and Special Interest Groups Government Agency and Local Government Special Interest Groups/ Organisations • Australian Astronomical Observatory (AAO) • Big Volcano Tourism Marketing and Media • Central West Catchment Management Authority • CBD Energy • Commonwealth Department of the Environment • Central West Environment Council (DoE, formerly DSEWPaC) • Coastwatchers Association • Department of Primary Industries (DPI), • Coolah Windfarms including • Cudgegong Valley Water Committee - NSW Fisheries • Dubbo Field Naturalist & Conservation Society Inc - Catchments & Lands • Goulburn River Stone Cottages - Office of Agricultural Sustainability and • Economists at Large Food Security (OASFS) • Greens NSW - NSW Office of Water (NOW) • Hunter Bird Observers Club • Division of Resources and Energy (DRE) of the • Humane Society International Department of Trade and Investment, Regional • Hunter Environment Lobby Infrastructure and Services • Ironstone Community Action Group • Dubbo City Council (DCC) • Inland Rivers Network • Environment Protection Authority (EPA) • Kenjarhy Aboriginal Mining Services • Heritage Branch • Leo Fardell Heavy Haulage and Earthmoving • Mid-Western Regional Council (MWRC) • Lighting Analysis and Design • NSW Health • Mudgee District Environment Group • NSW Rural Fire Service • Mudgee Golf Club • Office of Communities – Aboriginal Affairs • Murong Gialinga Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation • Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) • National Parks Association of NSW • Transport for NSW (TNSW) – including Roads • Nature Conservation Council of NSW and Maritime Services (RMS) • Northern Illawarra Sustainability Alliance • Warrumbungle Shire Council (WSC) • Orange Field Naturalists and Conservation Society • Wellington Council (WC) • ORIN Working Party • Regional Enviroscience Pty Ltd • Rivers SOS • Regional Development Australia • Roylances Automotive Industrial Earthmoving and Mining • Running Stream Water Users Association • Scott’s Head Protection Group • Wilderness Society Newcastle

5. PAC REVIEW

5.1 Terms of Reference On 23 October 2012, the Minister asked the PAC to review the merits of the Cobbora Coal Project. Due to the level of public interest in the project, the Minister also requested that the PAC hold public hearings during its review. The terms of reference for the PAC’s review of the Cobbora Coal Project are shown below.

NSW Government 16 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Terms of Reference for the PAC’s Cobbora Coal Project Review

1. Carry out a review of the Cobbora Coal Project, and: a) consider the Environmental Assessment of the project, all issues raised in the submissions on the project, and any further information provided during the course of the review; b) assess the merits of the project as a whole, playing particular attention to the: • proposed mine plan and final landform, and in particular the proposal to operate three open cut pits concurrently, the management of tailings and waste rock, and the design of the final voids; • health and amenity impacts (noise, blasting, air quality and visual) of the project on the surrounding population; • biodiversity impacts of the project; • water impacts of the project; and • social and economic impacts of the project; c) recommend appropriate measures to avoid, minimise and/or offset these impacts.

2. Conduct public hearings during the review.

5.2 Process The PAC asked for public submissions on the project and held a public hearing at Jubilee Hall in Dunedoo on 11 December 2012. The public hearing consisted of 24 verbal submissions from councils, special interest groups and the general public. The PAC also received 5 written submissions for consideration.

On 11 February 2012, the PAC requested that the Director-General extend the deadline for the completion of the review. The Director-General subsequently approved an extension of time until 15 April 2013.

5.3 Advice The PAC Review Report on the Cobbora Coal Project (the PAC Report) concluded that the project had merit and should be approved subject to stringent conditions. The report’s 26 recommendations included: • development of an Integrated Land Management Plan (ILMP) to facilitate the regeneration of biodiversity offset areas and maximise agricultural production from CHC’s landholdings; • refinements to the proposed mine plan, including relocation of waste rock and tailings emplacements and pits to reduce impacts on threatened flora and fauna; • resolution of biodiversity conservation issues raised by agencies which included consideration of additional offsets; • stringent requirements for management of noise, blasting and air quality impacts and their related compliance limits; • requirements for water management including consideration of alternative measures for tailings treatment; and • requirements for lighting, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, socio-economic and community contributions.

The key findings and recommendations of the PAC Report are discussed and incorporated into the relevant assessment sections of this report. The full PAC Report is included as Appendix J .

6. ASSESSMENT

In its assessment of the merits of the project application, the Department has considered the: • EA, submissions, RTS, PPR, Revised PPR and additional information provided by CHC; • PAC Report; • relevant environmental planning instruments, policies and guidelines; and • relevant requirements of the EP&A Act, including the objects of the Act.

The Department’s assessment of the project focuses on key residual concerns raised by the PAC in relation to land management, biodiversity, noise, air and water impacts. As outlined in the Revised PPR, CHC has accepted the majority of the PAC’s recommendations. These have either been included in CHC’s final Statement of Commitments or in the Department’s recommended conditions for the project. Appendix K provides a summary of the PAC’s recommendations and how these have been incorporated into the recommended conditions or CHC’s Statement of Commitments. Where

NSW Government 17 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

any PAC recommendation has not been adopted in full, further justification is provided in the relevant sections below.

6.1 Biodiversity The project would affect: • terrestrial flora and fauna including threatened species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the Commonwealth’s EPBC Act; and • aquatic habitat and species, including groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and threatened species listed under the TSC Act.

Flora Impacts The project would clear a total of 1,911 ha of moderate to good condition native vegetation comprising 10 different native vegetation communities, as summarised in Table 4 below. This area includes 216 ha of EECs. The project would also progressively clear a further 1,128 ha of native grasslands in poor condition which have low diversity as a result of past and current agricultural practices. Figure 7 shows vegetation communities within the mine disturbance area.

The project would also directly impact on four recorded threatened flora species, with potential impacts on the habitat of a further 4 species not recorded during surveys, as summarised in Table 5 and depicted in Figure 8. A significant impact is predicted on 3 of the recorded species as a large percentage of the local population would be removed as a result of the project. In particular, 100% of the local population of Tylophora linearis would be removed, with the location of this population within Pit B (see Figure 8).

Table 4: Native Vegetation Communities – Disturbance Areas Vegetation Community Total (ha) Blue Leaved Iron Bark Woodland – including 405 ha regrowth 1,324 Cypress Pine Woodland 171 Dwyer’s Red Gum Woodland 65 Red Stringybark Woodland 23 Scribbly Gum Open Forest 5 Slaty Gum Woodland 107 Endangered Ecological Communities 1 Fuzzy Box Woodland – including 9 ha derived native grassland (DNG) 18 Grey Box Woodland – including 38 ha of DNG 79 Box Gum Woodland (Blakely’s Red Gum / Yellow Box) – including 91 ha of DNG 107 Box Gum Woodland (Blakely’s Red Gum/ Rough Barked Apple) 12 TOTAL EEC 216 SUMMARY TOTAL Woodland 1,773 TOTAL Derived Native Grassland 138 TOTAL Moderate to Good Condition Native Vegetation 1,911

Table 5: Summary of Threatened Flora Species Impacted by the Project Species TSC Act 1 EPBC Act Number Removed Significant Impact Ausfeld’s wattle V - 200 individuals in 1 sub-population – 5% of No known local occurrence 2 Homoranthus darwinioides V V 127 individuals in 1 sub-population – 30% of Yes known local occurrence Ingram’s zieria E E 480 individuals in 8 sub-populations – 38% of Yes known local occurrence Tylophora linearis V E 9 individuals in 2 sub-populations – 100% of Yes known local occurrence Philotheca ericifolia - V Not recorded – removal of potential habitat No Pine Donkey Orchid V - Not recorded – removal of potential habitat No Rulingia procumbens V V Not recorded – removal of potential habitat No Scant pomaderris E - Not recorded – removal of potential habitat No Notes: 1. V = vulnerable; E = endangered; 2. Local population surveyed within the project area. Additional populations identified in the proposed offset areas.

1 The Grey Box was identified as an EEC under both the EPBC Act and TSC Act. Box Gum Woodland was identified as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) under the EPBC Act and as an EEC under the TSC Act. Fuzzy Box and its DNG are listed as an EEC under the TSC Act.

NSW Government 18 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 7 : Vegetation within the Mine Disturbance Areas

Figure 8: Threatened Flora Species within the Project Boundary

NSW Government 19 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Fauna Impacts A total of 43 threatened species were either directly recorded in the project area (21 species), or else suitable habitat for them was recorded in the project area (22 species).The majority of recorded species are threatened woodland birds, with the EA predicting a significant impact on 10 such species as a result of clearing foraging and breeding habitat. In addition, a significant impact was predicted on 3 bat species as a result of clearing foraging, breeding and roosting habitat, including the loss of 14 km of cliff line providing roosting and breeding habitat. DoE concluded that there would be significant impacts on a further four species, as identified in Table 6.

Table 6: Summary of Threatened Fauna Species Significantly Impacted by the Project Group Species (Common Name) TSC Act 1 EPBC Act 1 Recorded Birds (13) Barking Owl V - Yes Brown Treecreeper V - Yes Diamond Firetail V - Yes Glossy Black Cockatoo V - Yes Grey Crowned Babbler V - Yes Hooded Robin V - Yes Masked Owl V - Yes Powerful Owl V - Yes Regent Honeyeater 2 CE E,M No Speckled Warbler V - Yes Superb Parrot 2 V V Yes Swift Parrot 2 E E No Varied Sittella V - Yes Mammals (4) Large-eared Pied Bat V V Yes Southern Long-eared Bat V V Yes Spotted Tail Quoll 2 V V No Yellow-bellied Sheath-tail Bat V - Yes Notes: 1. V = vulnerable; E = endangered; M = migratory; CE- critically endangered, 2. The EA assessed that there would be no significant impact on these species, however DoE advised that there was potential for significant impact to occur due with 1,127 ha impact on Regent Honeyeater habitat, 1,196 ha on Swift Parrot habitat and 167 ha on Spotted Tail Quoll habitat. 1,192 ha of Large-eared Pied Bat habitat, 1,340 ha of Southern Long-eared bat habitat, 304 ha impact of Superb Parrot habitat and 9 ha of Australasian Bittern habitat will also be impacted.

Aquatic and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) The riparian zones of the Talbragar River and the creek systems within and surrounding the project area are part of the Lowland Darling River aquatic EEC, listed under the Fisheries Management Act 1993 (FM Act). GDEs potentially impacted by the project include 6 semi-permanent or persistent pools maintained by groundwater during dry periods and 4.5 ha of woodland terrestrial habitat characterised by alluvial sediments and a watertable less than 3 m below the ground surface.

One threatened fish species, the Freshwater Catfish, was recorded in two pools in Laheys Creek and Sandy Creek within the project area. There is potential habitat for a further 5 threatened fish species; 2 however these have not been recorded in the creek systems of the project boundary. A significant impact is predicted on the local threatened Catfish population as a result of changes to the hydrology in the creek system, in particular the predicted drawdown in groundwater levels in 4 of the semi- permanent pools. This is further discussed in section 6.5 below.

Avoidance of impacts The PAC recommended that CHC refine its mine plan to reduce impacts on biodiversity, including reducing the extent of clearing within the northern woodland corridor, the eastern out-of-pit emplacement area required for Pit B, and on the Tylophora linearis population. The Revised PPR reduces the direct impacts on native vegetation, including habitat for threatened flora and fauna species, as summarised in Table 7.

Table 7: Avoidance of Impacts on Biodiversity following PAC Recommendations Biodiversity Aspect (units) PPR Revised PPR Reduction (unit & %) Native Woodland (ha) 1,960 1,773 181 (9%) Endangered Ecological Communities (ha) 238 216 16 (7%) Homoranthus darwinioides (individuals) 227 127 100 (44%) Ingram’s Zieria (individuals) 727 480 247(34%) Cliff line (km) 16 14 2 (12%)

2 Including the Trout Cod and Murray Cod (both listed under the EPBC Act); and Southern Purple Spotted Gudgeon, Olive Perchlet and Silver Perch (all listed under the FM Act).

NSW Government 20 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Northern woodland The PAC was particularly concerned that the footprints of Pits A and C were proposed to extend substantially into the woodland corridor to the north and east of the project area (see Figure 7) and recommended that the mine plan be refined to avoid or minimise these impacts. The PAC also recommended that mining in a limited section of this corridor (indicatively shown as up to Year 8 of the PPR’s mine plan) should only proceed if the Director-General was satisfied that rehabilitation of the mine and restoration of woodland habitat on CHC landholdings demonstrated that there was a ‘real prospect’ of providing habitat for threatened species impacted by the project. That is, any mining in this corridor should not proceed until after Year 8.

Figure 9 shows the proposed encroachment of the original mine plan (as shown in the PPR) on the woodland corridor (light green and pink edge) and completed mining up to Year 8 (dark green and blue edge) compared with the mine plan shown in the Revised PPR. The original mine plan encroached into about 936 ha of the woodland, with 341 ha cleared by Year 8. In comparison, the Revised PPR’s mine plan affects around 829 ha of the woodland – a reduction of 107 ha or 11%.

Original Mine Plan

Revised PPR Mine Plan Figure 9 : Comparison of Mining Footprint within the Northern Woodland Corridor

NSW Government 21 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

However, in balancing the PAC’s other key recommendations to minimise the number of active pits and out-of-pit disturbance areas, together with its operational requirements to maintain production schedules, CHC has not been able to keep constant or reduce the rate of clearing in the woodland corridor prior to Year 8. Simply put, CHC’s anticipated production schedules and mining costs require production of a certain quantity of coal. If none is to be produced from a third pit, then more must be mined from Pits A and C. On this basis, clearing in the woodland would increase to 581 ha by Year 8.

CHC therefore considers that it cannot meet the key PAC recommendation of demonstrating effective restoration within the offset areas and its other landholdings prior to mining within the woodland corridor, so long as it also must achieve the other key PAC recommendations of reducing active mining pits from 3 to 2, and minimising out-of-pit disturbance.

Further, CHC argues that the PAC recommendation to substantially reduce or avoid impacts on the northern woodland corridor cannot be met for the following reasons: • the coal resources in Pits A and C are the project’s lowest-cost mining reserves, with lower strip ratios (waste rock removed to ROM coal extracted) compared to Pit B, with an average strip ratio of 2.2:1 compared to 6:1 for replacement areas west of Pit B; • the amount of ROM coal within the woodland corridor (beyond the Year 8 disturbance limit) is approximately 85.6 Mt coal, or around 21% of the proposed resource. The loss of 21% of the resource would substantially affect the economics of the overall project; • to retain required production levels, replacement coal could only be sourced to the west of Pit B, with additional overburden removal and haulage costs estimated at $16.7/tonne of product coal. This area is also largely within Class III agricultural land and closer to Sandy Creek; • the coal quality west of Pit B is not as well defined with current information indicating splitting of seams and higher ash content; and • the higher strip ratio would also substantially increases the size of the out-of-pit emplacement area, with an estimated threefold increase in land area disturbed by out-of-pit emplacement areas.

The 11% reduction in woodland corridor disturbance proposed by CHC (in response to proposals put forward by the Department) is focused in the northern parts of Pits A and C, in sub-pits 120 and 121 (see Figure 9). Figure 10 shows this area in more detail.

Figure 10 : Mine Footprint Changes: Pits A and C

NSW Government 22 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

The intention is to maintain a viable biodiversity corridor through a part of the woodland that would have otherwise been severed, by reducing the extent of clearing by a lateral distance of between 100- 300 m. This would be supplemented by natural and focussed assisted restoration of native vegetation in 185 ha of cleared Class IV and Class V grazing land between the mine and the Golden Highway. Following restoration, this would provide a biodiversity corridor with a width of between of 900-1,170 metres.

This north-western corner of the previously-proposed mining area contains biodiversity hotspots. Figure 10 shows that the proposed biodiversity corridor would protect three small stands of Grey Box EEC and two stands of Box Gum EEC. It is also the site of a number of threatened fauna recordings, including Glossy Black Cockatoo, Grey-crowned Babbler, and Little Pied Bat. The revised mine plan would protect around half of a population of 179 individuals of the threatened plant Ingram’s Zieria.

The Department also notes that the commencement of mining operations could be delayed for a number of years. This would provide additional time for restoration of woodland within the offset areas, northern woodland corridor and other landholdings managed for biodiversity conservation identified in the ILMP, and give some indication of the likely success of the creation of the proposed biodiversity corridor before the remnant vegetation in the Northern Woodland is cleared for mining.

Out-of-pit emplacement areas Four options were reviewed by CHC to give effect to the PAC’s recommendation that the overall disturbance area of the out-of-pit emplacement area B-OOP E be relocated or reduced to minimise impacts on biodiversity. These options were qualitatively ranked based on physical constraints, environmental and financial impacts. There are significant constraints for suitable waste emplacement locations within a reasonable distance from mining operations due to proximity of water courses, remnant vegetation (including EEC), project infrastructure requirements and amenity/agricultural impacts.

The Revised PPR proposes a 33% reduction in disturbance area of the out of pit emplacement from 453 ha to 306 ha, with its footprint also including the tailings dam to further reduce impacts. Capacity of this emplacement area has been reduced from 75 Mbcm down to 40 Mbcm, with the diverted material now proposed to be emplaced to an increased height in the northern mining and emplacement areas.

Following consideration of the additional assessment and ranking of the alternative waste emplacement locations, the Department is satisfied that there are limited options for further reducing or replacing the B-OOP E in the revised mine plan in such a way that the benefits would outweigh the impacts. The alternative locations are also constrained by remnant vegetation (including EEC), longer haulage distances with consequent increases in greenhouse gas and dust emissions, relocation of drainage lines, increased emplacement heights and also increased operational costs.

Tylophora linearis populations The two Tylophora linearis populations are located well within the proposed footprint of Pit B (see Figure 8). CHC has argued that avoiding impact on these populations (including appropriate buffer areas) would sterilise 11.6 Mt of ROM coal. Replacing the coal with alternative resources to the west of the project footprint is feasible, however at a higher unit cost and with associated environmental impacts with increased strip ratios, increased haulage lengths and encroachment on Class 3 agricultural land as discussed above.

The Department notes that, since the PAC recommendation was made, additional surveys have been undertaken and two local populations (with 45 and 9 individuals) of Tylophora linearis have been found within the proposed offset areas. While not in the offset areas, a further population of 25 individuals has also been found on road reserves near Yarrobil National Park. While there is still a shortfall in the population numbers in the offset area (based on OEH’s Biobanking calculator), there is opportunity through further survey effort on the offset properties and translocation and propagation trials to identify and increase these local populations. The Department also notes that the offsets for Tylophora meet DoE’s minimum target for direct offsets, based on the Commonwealth offsetting calculator. That is, supplementary offsets such as research programs and translocation trials are an appropriate mechanism to make up shortfalls in direct offsets.

NSW Government 23 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

In considering the additional costs of replacing or sterilising the coal resource, the Department is satisfied that with the appropriate management of the Tylophora linearis populations within the offset areas, along with recommended conditions to undertake translocation and propagation trials, that the intent of the PAC recommendation could be met without unnecessarily sterilising coal resources.

Mitigation of impacts In addition to the avoidance measures outlined above, CHC has committed to a number of measures to mitigate impacts within disturbance areas. These include: a two stage clearing protocol; salvage of soils for rehabilitation; weed and feral animal management, erosion control; and provision of fauna rescue personnel during clearing. These and other appropriate mitigation measures outlined in the EA will form part of the Biodiversity Management Plan required under the recommended approval conditions.

Biodiversity Offset Strategy CHC has proposed a biodiversity offset strategy to compensate for the residual biodiversity impacts of the project. A key aim of the offset strategy is to provide extensions to the regional national park estate. The offset strategy comprises six groupings of landholdings as identified in Table 8 and Figure 11.

Since the PAC Report, there has been a substantial increase in the size of the project’s offset area from a total of 5,667 ha to 7,934 ha of moderate to good condition remnant native vegetation. Also included in the offset area is a further 894 ha of low-condition native grasslands which are also being targeted for restoration.

Table 8: Summary of Proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy Offset Area Native vegetation (hectares) moderate to good condition Non EEC EEC EEC EEC Native Total offset area Woodland Woodland Grassland Total Total pasture low condition Southern 1,085 200 82 282 1,367 610 1,977 Eastern Link 708 89 0 89 797 78 875 Ziera Patch 43 0 0 0 43 0 43 Cobbora 1,727 374 28 402 2,128 153 2,281 Adelyne 278 109 0 109 387 26 413 Goonoo 2,798 412 0 412 3,210 27 3,238 Total 6,639 1,1 84 11 0 1, 29 4 7,934 894 8,827 Offset Ratios 3.9:1 15.2 :1 0.8:1 6:1 4.2 :1 4.6:1

While being generally satisfied with CHC’s proposed offset strategy, OEH and DoE made a number of recommendations to further enhance the offset package, including: • prioritising methods for securing offsets in perpetuity – with emphasis on dedication of land in national park estate or as Biobanking sites; • provision of indirect (non-land based) offsets for threatened species where a ‘Tier 3 mitigated net loss outcome’ only is achieved, 3 in particular funding of a regional study to identify critical habitat for cave-roosting bats; • undertaking additional targeted base-line surveys in the offset areas; • inclusion of propagation and translocation trials for threatened flora species in the Biodiversity Management Plan and ILMP; and • monitoring and adaptive management of indirect impacts on biodiversity values within offset land, national park estate and other CHC-owned land managed for biodiversity outcomes.

The Department considers that these are reasonable recommendations and has included conditions where relevant in addressing them. In particular, it is recommended that CHC provide $500,000 towards indirect offsets such as research projects, in consultation with OEH and DoE, with a particular focus towards priority actions for cave roosting bats, Grey Box and Fuzzy Box EEC woodland.

3 Based on OEH’s interim guidance document on assessing and offsetting biodiversity impacts.

NSW Government 24 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 11: Proposed Biodiversity Offset Areas for Cobbora Coal Project

NSW Government 25 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Conclusion The Department has given careful consideration to the PAC’s recommendations to reduce impacts on remnant woodland areas and threatened flora. The Department is satisfied that CHC’s revised mine plan, together with its enhanced offset strategy and its assisted restoration of 185 ha of grasslands to the north of the woodland corridor, has reduced these impacts so far as reasonably and feasibly practical, and that the intent of the PAC’s recommendations has been met. The Department is also satisfied that biodiversity impacts are able to be mitigated and/or offset such that the project may improve or at least maintain biodiversity values in the area over the medium to long term.

The Department has recommended conditions requiring CHC to: • develop a comprehensive Biodiversity Management Plan and Rehabilitation Management Plan to provide for the detailed implementation of the offset and rehabilitation strategies; • provide additional funding of $500,000 towards indirect (non-land based) offsets, with a particular focus on a regional study on habitat for cave-roosting bats; • develop an ILMP that includes further requirements for biodiversity conservation on CHC-owned land, in particular restoration of 185 ha of cleared land to enhance the northern woodland corridor; • provide for the long-term conservation (ie in perpetuity) of the offset areas; and • lodge a substantial conservation and biodiversity bond to ensure that the offset areas are established and maintained to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

6.2 Land Management

Integrated Land Management Plan (ILMP) The PAC Report highlighted community concerns around ongoing management by CHC of its extensive landholdings and the subsequent rehabilitation of disturbed areas. The PAC recommended that an ILMP be prepared and implemented to ensure that these landholdings are appropriately managed for both maintaining and improving agricultural productivity 4 and for targeted restoration of biodiversity to improve habitat for threatened species and connectivity in the landscape. In addition, the PAC considered that the ILMP should provide some local economic stimulus and be adequately funded through a dedicated trust fund.

The Department notes that CHC has commenced preparing the ILMP and has instigated a process for the consolidation and management of its landholdings. The Department supports the PAC’s recommendation with some minor variations. These include: • rather than setting up a dedicated trust fund for the ILMP, that the ILMP should instead specify its proposed funding arrangements; • riparian restoration works undertaken on CHC landholdings should contribute towards offsets for the project’s impacts on aquatic ecology and should also seek to reduce existing erosional impacts on Aboriginal heritage sites; and • CHC should consult with WSC, MWRC, WC, OEH and Agriculture NSW during the development of the ILMP.

Cobbora Transition Program The PAC Report identified community concerns that the project is already having significant socio- economic impacts on the local economy, particularly businesses in Dunedoo, as a result of CHC’s extensive land acquisitions. Since the PAC review was completed, the Treasurer announced that the Government now intends to sell or lease the project, rather than develop the site to provide coal to domestic electricity generators. This may lead to delays in the project’s commencement.

In recognition of the concerns held in the local community, the Government announced a $20 M Cobbora Transition Program, to provide funding towards infrastructure projects in the four local Government areas impacted by the project. 5 The Department considers that this Transition Program is well placed to address the broader socio-economic impacts of both the project and any delays in its commencement and to provide local economic stimulus separate from, and additional to, project approval conditions targeting social impacts and local infrastructure needs.

4 The PAC in its review identified that there was opportunity to improve land management practices on the CHC landholdings noting areas of poor soil structure, overgrazing and soil erosion. 5 Announcement by the NSW Treasurer on 3 September 2013.

NSW Government 26 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Rehabilitation of the Project Disturbance Footprint The project’s disturbance footprint would directly impact on approximately 427 ha of land with Class III Rural Land Capability (mainly used for cropping) and 1,991 ha of Class IV land (used for mixed grazing and woodland). CHC proposes to rehabilitate disturbed land back to the same area of Class III land, suitable for cropping, and 2,526 ha of Class IV land to be used for a mix of grazing and woodland conservation outcomes (see Figure 12). In the Revised PPR, the final void area has been reduced from 143 ha to 118 ha with the proposed complete backfilling of voids in Pits A and C.

OASFS raised concerns in its submissions regarding the ability to successfully rehabilitate back to Class III and Class IV land for cropping and grazing activity and made a number of recommendations regarding management of sodic soils, provision of detailed performance and completion criteria, long term research trials, ‘hold points’ prior to proceeding with mining on agricultural land and development of long-term monitoring protocols. The PAC was generally satisfied with the project’s proposed rehabilitation strategy, subject to CHC giving detailed consideration to the recommendations of the PAC’s consultant rehabilitation expert, Dr Mark Burns. The Department has included conditions requiring consideration of the PAC’s and OASFS’s recommendations by CHC in preparing and implementing a project Rehabilitation Management Plan.

Conclusion The Department considers that implementation of the ILMP, in conjunction with the Rehabilitation Management Plan will ensure that CHC’s landholdings would be maintained and/or progressively restored to productive agricultural enterprises. Strategic restoration of selected native grasslands on CHC’s landholdings, in addition to the proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy and rehabilitation program would provide additional habitat for threatened species impacted by the project.

Figure 12: Conceptual Final Land Use

NSW Government 27 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

6.3 Noise The EA includes a noise impact assessment (NIA) undertaken by EMM in accordance with applicable guidelines, including the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP), the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG), the Road Noise Policy and the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) . The Department has considered the operational noise impact from two separate sources: • mining operations, mine infrastructure activities and rail load out and shunting operations on the rail loop; and • movement of trains along the mine’s privately-owned rail spur line.

The reason for this approach is that, following completion of the PAC’s review, the EPA released the final RING for assessment of noise on both public and private rail networks. The RING replaced the previous Interim Guideline for the Assessment of Noise from Rail Infrastructure Projects. A key change in the RING is that rail noise from private rail lines, including those associated with mining operations, should be assessed against the recommended amenity noise criteria in the INP.

The NIA for the revised mine plan establishes the Project Specific Noise Level (PSNL) under the INP as 35 dB(A). The EA and PAC report identified 14 receptors where operational noise would exceed the relevant noise criteria based on the INP. Of these 14 receptors, two have been acquired by CHC (ID 3057 and 5023); three (ID 1178, 1198 and 1199) are predicted to be impacted by mine operational noise only, one (ID 3108) is predicted to be impacted by both mine operational noise and noise from rail spur line movements; and the remaining eight receptors are predicted to be impacted by noise along the private rail spur line.

Project Operational Noise from Mining Activity Alone – Assessed under the INP Year 8 was selected for assessment in the revised PPR mine plan as representing the worst-case impact year for residents in the vicinity of the northern parts of Pits A and C, and Year 20 representing the worst-case for residents in the vicinity of the southern parts of Pit B. As a result of mine operations alone, the PSNL of 35 dB(A) is predicted to be exceeded at residence 3108 by 1 dB(A). The PSNL is predicted to be met at all other privately-owned residences. The predicted noise contour for Year 20 for inversion conditions is depicted in Figure 13.

Figure 13 : Predicted Noise Contours (Mining Activity Only, Inversion Conditions) for Year 20

NSW Government 28 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

The Department is satisfied that CHC could avoid any exceedances of the PSNL at the residence on property 3108 with the implementation of best management practice, including using real-time noise monitoring and applying adaptive management strategies such as relocating or suspending some the mobile fleet under adverse conditions. Accordingly, it is recommended that the PSNL of 35 dB(A) apply at all privately-owned residences around the site, including the residence on property 3108.

Construction Noise The NIA includes an assessment of potential noise impacts associated with project construction.

It is the Department’s usual practice to assess all construction activity at the mine site (for example the CHPP, MIA and rail loop) under the INP. Therefore the operational noise criteria and 24/7 operating hours would apply to these activities. Some on-site construction activities are predicted to exceed the operational PSNL of 35 dB(A) under adverse inversion conditions at night. To comply with the operational noise criteria, CHC would need to either restrict or reduce these activities, or implement additional reasonable and feasible mitigation measures under adverse weather conditions.

The main off-site construction activities are associated with linear infrastructure, including the water pipeline from the Cudgegong River, transmission lines, the rail spur line and the re-aligning of public roads. The Department considers that construction activity associated with linear infrastructure, which is akin to civil construction activities, should be assessed under the ICNG. The construction noise assessment indicates that the project would exceed the applicable construction noise criteria of 40 dB(A), during standard construction hours, at 31 privately-owned residences, mainly associated with the rail spur line construction.

CHC has requested that standard construction hours are defined as including the hours of 7 am to 6 pm and also include Sundays and public holidays. 6 CHC has also identified some construction activities that it wishes to undertake during the night-time period. The Department does not support a change to standard construction hours as defined in the ICNG. However, it accepts that there may be benefits to receptors in reducing the overall construction timeframe and that some activities require 24-hour operations (for example tie-in to the public rail network and concrete pours).

For work undertaken outside these hours, the Department proposes that an out-of-hours work protocol is developed and applied, consistent with the ICNG’s guidelines for consultation with potentially-affected receivers in developing appropriate noise mitigation strategies. The Department also considers that, where construction noise impacts are predicted to be at or below 35 dB(A), then there is no need for them to be undertaken solely within the ICNG’s standard hours.

Project Noise from the Private Rail Spur Line – assessed under the RING Table 9 provides a summary of predicted impacts at the residential receivers nearest to the private rail spur line. The assessment is based on 7 train movements during the day and 3 movements in either the evening or night-time period.

Table 9: Noise Impacts along the Cobbora Private Rail Spur Line Receiver Noise Impacts Based on RING Criteria Day dB(A) Evening dB(A) Night dB(A) Evening/ Sleep LAeq(period) LAeq(period) LAeq(period) Night Disturbance dB(A) LAeq Lmax (period) with barrier attenuation Applicable criteria 50 45 40 45/40 - 3062 45 45 45(+5) 1 43/40 42 2 3108 50 51(+6) 42(+2) 42/38 57 2 5001 41 42 38 n/a 54 3021, 3022, 3024, n/a 30-39 30-39 30-38 38-50 3035, 3041, 3043, Notes: 1. Level of exceedance from noise criteria in brackets; 2. Maximum predicted levels as indicated in the PPR/ RTS reduced as a result of barrier attenuation.

6 The ICNG defines standard construction hours as Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm, Saturday 8am to 1pm, with no work on Sundays or public holidays.

NSW Government 29 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

The noise levels due to train movements along the rail spur line would exceed the RING’s acceptable noise criteria during the evening and/or night-time period at 2 receptors if no further mitigation was applied. However, installation of earthen barriers to reduce noise at receptors 3062 and 3108 would lead to compliance with the RING’s criteria (see Table 9). The Department notes that there is a proposed rail overpass on Laheys Creek Road adjacent to receptor 3108 which may exacerbate predicted noise impacts that would therefore need to be taken into account in detailed design.

The Department has recommended conditions that require further review of mitigation options during detailed design of the rail spur line and restriction of evening and night-time train movements to 3 movements.

Sleep Disturbance The NIA determined that there would be no sleep disturbance impacts as a result of mining activities alone. While the RING does not provide any specific maximum noise criteria for sleep disturbance on private rail lines, the Department is satisfied that noise levels would be well below the sleep disturbance criteria of 80 dB(A) LMax for new public rail lines, and generally below 60 dB(A) LMax , While maximum levels could reach 65 dB(A) LMax at the residence on property 3108, this is unlikely to occur if suitable mitigation measures are included in the design of the new railway. The Department has recommended conditions to ensure this occurs.

Acquisition and Noise Mitigation The Department does not recommend that any remaining private receptors should be granted acquisition or noise mitigation rights, based solely on predicted noise impacts. However, the Department recommends that receptor 3108 is granted acquisition rights due to the combined impacts of operational noise, rail noise, air, visual (rail infrastructure) and social impacts. It should be noted that CHC in its Statement of Commitments has committed to acquiring properties where noise criteria are exceeded, or to provide acoustic treatment at the residence where acquisition is not accepted. These commitments form part of the recommended project conditions.

Off-Site Rail Noise The NIA assessed rail noise on the public rail network against the RING criteria for existing public rail lines of 65 dB(A) during the day and evening periods, 60 dB(A) during night-time, and a maximum pass-by of 85 dB(A). The assessment was based on both planned and peak train movements with 5 laden trains (10 movements) per day leaving the site. During the more sensitive night-time period, 3 planned movements and 6 peak movements were considered. The Department considers that the planned movements are a reasonable basis for assessing cumulative impacts, as it is likely that any increase in train movements for one mine would be offset by reductions in other mines to ensure that overall rail corridor capacity is not exceeded.

Table 10 provides a summary of predicted rail noise impacts for the night-time period on four sections of the public rail line, including predicted cumulative impacts as coal transport from other mining operations increases. The most significant project-related increase in noise (4-6 dB(A) LAeq 9hr ) occurs along the Tallawang to Ulan section where there is a low number of existing movements. Under the 3 planned movements, there are 6 receptors located within 30 m of the rail corridor impacted by exceedances, increasing to 11 receptors within 50 m under the peak of 6 movements. Most receptors are located on larger allotments or rural residential property around Gulgong. The Department also notes CHC’s advice that it is committed to managing noise levels at receivers where a 2 dB(A) LAeq 9hr increase is predicted on the Tallawang to Ulan section. CHC identified construction of acoustic barriers and architectural treatment to dwellings as potential mitigation measures to reduce internal noise. CHC would continue to negotiate with ARTC to determine appropriate actions and responsibilities. The project-related increase in noise is 1-2 dB(A) LAeq 9hr from Ulan to Muswellbrook reducing to 0.5 dB(A) LAeq 9hr south of Muswellbrook.

NSW Government 30 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Table 10: Noise Impacts along the Public Rail Network – Night-time Movements Train Movements Receptors 1 exceeding RING Night-time Criteria

Rail Section Non project- Additional Project % Non-project Including Incremental related Project increase in related project trains increase in movements by Train 2021 rail Planned / peak noise level 2021 2 Movements movements over LAeq Planned/ Planned/ (period) Peak Peak Tallawang to Ulan 23 3 / 6 150%/ 300% 0 6 / 11 4-6 dB(A) Ulan to Bengalla 14 3 / 6 27%/ 55% 14 up to 31 1-2 dB(A) Bengalla to Muswellbrook 21 3 / 6 17%/ 33% 5 up to 7 1 dB(A) Muswellbrook to Antienne 43 3 / 6 7%/ 14% 86 up to 86 <0.5 dB(A) Notes 1. Receptors were identified in the EA as including indeterminate structures and houses; some of these structures may be non-residential and would need site verification. 2. Non-project-related movements are based on the Hunter Valley Corridor 2012 to 2021 Capacity Strategy and include existing, contracted and prospective coal train movements to 2021. 3. Existing rail movements for Tallawang to Ulan were based on 2 movements over a week, however for the purposes of the assessment both were assumed to occur in one assessment period.

The Department considers that the EPA is best placed to regulate and develop noise abatement strategies for the public rail network, for example through the implementation of Pollution Reduction Programs (PRPs) on ARTC’s EPL.

Off-site Road Traffic Noise The NIA includes an assessment of off-site road traffic noise which indicates that the project would comply with applicable road traffic noise criteria at all receivers during construction and operation. The PAC recommended that heavy vehicle movements on public roads be restricted to specific hours (avoiding evening and night-time periods and with restrictions on weekends and public holidays). The Department has recommended a condition restricting the hours of heavy vehicle access to and from the site in line with the PAC’s recommendation.

Conclusion The Department has recommended conditions requiring CHC to: • comply with operational noise limits (based on predicted mitigated noise emissions); • comply with rail noise criteria for train movements on the private rail spur, in accordance with the RING’s applicable noise criteria; • develop a detailed Noise Management Plan, including real-time noise monitoring and an active management system; • independently investigate noise complaints and implement applicable corrective and other management measures; • ensure locomotives and rolling stock used by CHC comply with noise limits in ARTC’s EPL and apply best practice at-source controls to minimise noise on the private and public rail network; • communicate regularly with the community, including publicly reporting all monitoring results, effectively responding to enquiries and complaints; and • prepare and implement an out-of-hours work protocol for off-site construction activity;

With the implementation of these measures, the Department is satisfied that the project’s construction, operational and rail noise impacts can be adequately minimised, managed and/or compensated for.

6.4 Air Quality The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) includes a quantitative assessment of dust impacts caused by the project. This assessment included the Revised PPR’s proposed increases to the maximum heights of waste rock emplacements AC-OOP and B-OOP W and alterations to the mine plan and sequencing. The AQIA’s modelling of dust emissions applies a number of mitigation measures that CHC has committed to implement, including: • using water carts and/or dust suppressants on all active haul roads; • limiting vehicle travel speed on haul roads to an average of 40 km/hr; • progressively rehabilitating emplacements; • using spray systems for coal stockpiles; and • dust suppression at loading and unloading points.

NSW Government 31 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

The PAC’s key recommendations with regards to air quality impacts were that: • CHC should revise the mine plan to minimise dust impacts, by reducing the land area exposed at each stage of mining; • any project approval’s air emission limits should ensure the air emissions are equal to or better than the EA’s predictions and, where air quality criteria are predicted to be exceeded, then acquisition or mitigation rights should be provided; and • CHC’s commitment to not lease out mine-owned residences affected by air quality exceedances should be formalised in any project approval.

Revision of the Mine Plan to Minimise Dust Impacts A key issue for the PAC was to reduce the land area exposed at any stage of mining. CHC’s key mine plan revision is its reduction in the number of operating pits and associated changes to mine sequencing, which would affect the area of disturbance (leading to wind erosion) and haul road distances (leading to dust from haulage on unsealed roads). Table 12 summarises the changes in the active mining areas, including emplacements under rehabilitation but excluding areas where rehabilitation is established. Table 11 shows that a significant reduction in disturbance area and consequent dust generation from windborne sources is achieved by moving from a 3-pit mining operation to a 2-pit operation, followed by a 1-pit operation.

Table 11: Disturbance Areas within the Mining Footprint (Subject to Windborne Erosion) Year Disturbance area - PPR Disturbance area - % Reduction in (ha) Revised PPR (ha) disturbance area 1 888 885 0% 4 1,821 1,249 31% 12 2,864 2,301 20% 16 2,759 1,930 30% 20 2,744 1,228 55%

The overall effect of these changes is to concentrate dust emissions more to the north (Pits A and C) in the first 12 years or so of the mine life, and then to the south (Pit B) in the mine’s later years. As a result, the location of receptors predicted to be affected has changed from 6 residences to the west of the mine (with 4 of these already acquired by CHC) to 4 receptors to the south and southwest of the mine, as identified in Table 12 below. Nonetheless, predicted air quality impacts on the remaining privately-owned receptors would be low and could be effectively managed by applying best practice management to comply with ambient dust criteria.

3 Table 12: Private Properties Predicted to Exceed the 24-hour PM 10 Standard (50 µg/m ) Receiver ID Year Project Alone Max cumulative 24- Days exceeded (Incremental) hour PM 10 Level (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) 1178 Year 20 31.9 51.0 1 1198 Year 20 39.1 54.0 1 1199 Year 20 38.1 52.2 1 3108 Year 20 40.4 54.2 1

Exceedance of Air Quality Ambient Criteria The AQIA concluded that the project is unlikely to result in any significant impacts of the TSP, dust deposition and annual average PM 10 criteria at any privately-owned residences surrounding the mine. However, it could contribute to exceedances of the cumulative 24-hr PM 10 criteria as shown in Table 12, with marginal exceedances at 4 privately-owned residences predicted for 1 day only in the Year 20 model run.

The Department considers the predicted exceedances to be minor, and well within the margin of modelling error for such predictions. Further, the Department believes these exceedances are unlikely to occur if CHC is required to implement best management practice on site, including the use of a real-time dust management system.

NSW Government 32 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Consequently, the Department has recommended conditions requiring CHC to implement all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to ensure there are no exceedances of the relevant ambient air quality criteria at any private-owned residences surrounding the site.

Air Impacts at Mine-Owned Properties CHC has acquired 16 properties where project-alone emissions are predicted to exceed the air quality criteria for more than 5 days per year. CHC has committed to not leasing out any residence where the air quality criteria are likely to be exceeded. The Department has also included its standard condition for managing impacts on mine-owned land.

Dust from Coal Train Wagons Some submissions raised concerns about potential dust emissions from coal train wagons, recommending that CHC be required to cover all coal wagons. However, the PAC noted that laden coal trains are not recognised as producing higher concentrations of dust than un-laden coal trains, citing studies undertaken by ARTC. The PAC also noted that further work may be required to develop conclusive findings on this issue. Whilst the PAC did not recommend that rail wagons be covered, it did recommend conditions requiring CHC to implement measures to minimise rail coal dust. The Department has incorporated this recommendation into the recommended conditions.

Dust Impacts at Siding Springs Observatory The Department notes dust from the project could affect operations at the Siding Spring Observatory, in particular the ability to carry out observations at low angles in the night sky. To minimise these potential impacts, the Department has recommended conditions requiring CHC to implement best management practice on site.

Conclusion The Department is satisfied that the project would not result in significant dust impacts on nearby privately-owned properties.

Consistent with the PAC’s recommendations, the Department has recommended conditions requiring CHC to prepare a detailed Air Quality Management Plan for the project, in consultation with the EPA. The Department has also recommended a broad suite of other contemporary conditions to ensure best management practice is implemented on site to minimise any dust impacts, including requiring CHC to: • comply with contemporary air quality criteria; • acquire any additional residence or property upon request if dust emissions exceed the applicable land acquisition criteria; • develop a real-time dust monitoring program and an active management system which includes an early warning alert system to identify and manage potential exceedances; • independently investigate air quality complaints and undertake applicable management measures; • notify and keep affected landowners and tenants informed of the potential health-related impacts associated with mine dust; • respond effectively to enquiries or complaints; and • publicly report on its environmental performance.

6.5 Water Resources The project is mainly located within the catchments of Sandy Creek and Laheys Creek, ephemeral watercourses that flow north to the Talbragar River, which is also ephemeral (refer Figure 14 below). The Sandy Creek sub-catchment forms approximately 8% of the Talbragar River catchment and contributes around 11% of the Talbragar River’s mean daily flow near its confluence and around 1% of the Macquarie River’s catchment at its confluence with the Talbragar River. The project’s impacts also extend to the north into the Flyblowers Creek catchment, with proposed diversion of flows from Sandy Creek catchment into this catchment, which also flows into the Talbragar River. Surface waters within these areas are managed under the Lower Talbragar River Water Source.

NSW Government 33 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 14: Surface Water Catchment System

The rail spur line traverses the catchments of Blackheath and Fords Creeks (tributaries of Laheys Creek) with further creek crossings eastwards within the Tallawang Creek catchment, including a substantial rail crossing over Tallawang Creek itself. The water supply pipeline traverses north from the Cudgegong River, predominantly within the catchment of Mebul Creek, to the MIA. The project includes water transfers from the Cudgegong River under existing high-security water allocations, managed under the Macquarie and Cudgegong Regulated Rivers Water Source Water Sharing Plan.

There are 2 key aquifer systems that could be affected by the project: the alluvial aquifers associated with the localised alluvium of Sandy Creek and Laheys Creek, and the porous rock aquifers associated with the coal sequence and overlying and underlying sandstones. Both these aquifers are managed within the Gunnedah Oxley Basin Water Source within the Water Sharing Plan for the Murray Darling Basin Porous Rock Groundwater Source.7

Expert and Merit Reviews The project’s impacts on water resources have been comprehensively assessed. This assessment first included the specialist surface water and groundwater impact assessments by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) within the EA and PPR, including peer review of PB’s groundwater assessment by Dr Noel Merrick. The PAC obtained expert advice on surface water impacts from Dr Steve Perrens.

7 The Talbragar River’s alluvium is also managed under the Water Sharing Plan for the Macquarie Bogan Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources. The EA predicted that there would be no direct take of groundwater from this source.

NSW Government 34 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

The Department also engaged both Dr Perrens and Dr Frans Kalf to review the surface water and groundwater impacts, respectively. In addition, MWRC engaged Gilbert & Sutherland to undertake peer review of the surface water and groundwater modeling in the early stages of the assessment process. Both the PAC and Department considered the findings of this review.

Finally, DoE received advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) on the potential water impacts of the project. DoE has advised subsequently advised the Department that the concerns raised by the IESC have been satisfactorily addressed by CHC.

Assessment of the Revised PPR Mine Plan The water resources assessment included comprehensive modelling of the different mine plans, as presented in the EA and PPR. However, the mine plan submitted for the Revised PPR was assessed using a ‘high-level screening assessment’ and review of mine water demands, simply to demonstrate that the impacts were likely to be reduced or consistent with the detailed water modelling previously undertaken for the PPR. Additional water balance modelling of the final void was also undertaken to confirm that it would continue to operate as a groundwater sink.

The Department, NOW, Dr Perrens and Dr Kalf are all satisfied with this approach, subject to more- detailed surface water and groundwater modelling of the Revised PPR’s mine plan being undertaken prior to the commencement of mining operations on site. The primary purpose of this additional modelling would be to confirm the predictions of the screening level assessment and to provide input into the detailed design of the mine’s water management infrastructure.

Residual Concerns – PAC Review The PAC concluded that the water impacts of the project could be suitably managed, subject to the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive water management plan to address a number of residual concerns. These concerns were to: • minimise the take of water from the Cudgegong River – with a recommendation to implement technology for dewatering of tailings, installation of dewatering bores and use of chemical dust suppressants; • avoid any discharge of mine water offsite from the pit and active mining areas; and • control discharges from sediment dams to ensure they would meet the relevant water quality discharge criteria.

Water Take from the Cudgegong River CHC currently holds water entitlements to extract up to 3,311 megalitres per year (ML/year) of high security water from the Cudgegong River. While the Department acknowledges concerns in submissions regarding the transfer of this water entitlement from agricultural or other uses, these transfers were separately assessed and approved by NOW in respect of licences issued under the Water Management Act 2000 , including assessment of environmental and down-stream user impacts.

Water balance modelling was undertaken for CHC to assess and optimise the performance of the project’s water management system, including the adequacy of water supply in drier years and management of excess water in wetter years. Modelling for the PPR mine plan indicated that, in wet years, the majority of the project’s water demands would be sourced on-site from groundwater ingress and captured surface flows. In other years, supplementary or make-up water would be required. The predicted average annual requirement for make-up water over the mine life is 1,270 ML/year, with a peak demand of 2,400 ML in dry years and a predicted maximum take of 2,920 ML in the driest year on record over 111 years.

Since that modelling, the Revised PPR mine plan has incorporated additional water saving measures including: • reducing haul road lengths and associated dust suppression requirements (with estimated peak water demand reduced from 1,651 ML/year to 1,290 ML/year); • reducing the life-of-mine water demand to pump tailings from 36.2 gigalitres (GL) to 29.6 GL; • installing a dewatering bore-field ahead of mining to reduce evaporative losses from mine seepage at the coal face; and • using dust suppressants during dry periods, with an estimated net water demand decrease of up to 325 ML/year.

NSW Government 35 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Despite the water savings benefits of the proposed dewatering bores, the Department’s experts and NOW raised concerns that dewatering ahead of mining may increase the overall drawdown effects. The Department has recommended that additional groundwater modelling be undertaken prior to the commencement of mining operations. The results of this modelling will be used to determine whether the benefits of this dewatering outweigh its potential costs.

Dr Perrens also considered in detail the likely peak make-up water demand for the revised mine plan. He concluded that peak annual supplementary water demand for both the PPR and Revised PPR mine plans would be similar (2,400 against 2,458 ML), and that the water savings inferred by CHC may be overstated.

The Department notes that CHC still proposes to use emplacement of tailings slurry rather than mechanical dewatering options as recommended by the PAC. However, the predicted volume of tailings has been substantially reduced (from an estimated life-of-mine total of around 70 million m3 to 35.3 million m3) following further sizing, thickener and rheological testing.8 Consequently, the number (2 down to 1) and area of the out-of-pit tailings emplacement areas (TEAs) has been substantially reduced. The remaining out-of-pit TEA would be located entirely within the disturbance footprint of out-of-pit emplacement area B-OOP E. The number of in-pit TEAs has also been reduced from 6 to 3.

CHC also undertook further review of tailings slurry emplacement vs dewatering technologies, based on water savings, GHG emissions, technology risks and costs (ie Net Present Value). The review concluded that tailings slurry emplacement, implementing best practice design, is the best option.

Average net annual water savings from the use of dewatering technologies would range from 156 ML/year using secondary flocculation up to 699 ML/year for solid bowl centrifuge technology. Increased GHG emissions for the dewatering options (based on an 8 to 308% increase in energy use) should be offset against the water savings (14 to 61% reduction in water use). Tailings slurry emplacement is preferable based on Net Present Value, and carries fewer technical and operational risks.

Dr Perrens concluded that the consideration of options is ‘finely balanced’, with an adequate argument provided by CHC for the use of conventional slurry tailings disposal. The Department accepts CHC's justification for disposal of the tailings slurry in emplacements noting that CHC has committed to undertaking a feasibility study of alternative mechanical dewatering options prior to commencement of in-pit disposal. This study may lead to changes to the way tailings are managed on site over the life of the project.

Water Take from Local Surface Water and Groundwater Apart from water that is directly captured in mine water dams and sediment dams, the project would indirectly capture surface water as a result of increased seepage through the base of creeks in the Sandy Creek sub-catchment, due to drawdown effects and also from enhanced recharge through rehabilitated overburden emplacements. It is predicted that there would be a peak of around 800 ML of water take from the Lower Talbragar River Water Source, with post-mining take estimated to be 280 ML/year. This compares to an existing licence allocation of 1,780 ML/year for three existing dams located on CHC properties, noting that the larger Woolandra West dam is proposed to be decommissioned after project construction. The Department is satisfied that there are sufficient existing surface water allocations to account for the take of surface water as a result of the project.

The modelling undertaken for the PPR predicted that peak annual groundwater take required to be licensed would be in the order of 2,200 ML, with average take of 1,270 ML/year over the life of the mine. As discussed above, based on the screening level assessment, the Revised PPR mine plan groundwater take is predicted to be of a similar magnitude. CHC currently holds or is in the process of acquiring 1,174 water licence units and recently received an additional allocation from NOW under a broader controlled allocation order. Consequently, the Department is satisfied that CHC has acquired sufficient groundwater licence allocations to account for the predicted operational and long- term groundwater take of the project.

8 Additional testing indicates that less water would be needed to keep the tailings slurry flowing in its pipeline, with an average target of 40% by mass of tailings required.

NSW Government 36 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Impacts on Local Surface Water Flows and Refuge Pools Following the PAC review, EMM further investigated the combined impacts on local watercourses of loss of base-flow due to groundwater drawdown and changes in surface water runoff. Sensitivity assessment on the amount of seepage losses from the creeks was undertaken to account for their ephemeral nature. Table 13 shows the indicative likely impact on annual flows for dry, median and wet years for the Sandy Creek sub-catchment and Talbragar River.

Table 13: Predicted Changes in Annual Flows Catchment Baseline (ML/year) % Change in Annual Flow Post-mining during mining recovery Dry Median Wet Dry Median Wet Sandy Creek 575 1,852 26,088 -54% -11% 5% 4 to 12% Talbragar River 5,227 16,836 237,164 -6% -1% 0% 0 to 1%

The predicted flow losses are largely attributable to induced seepage losses and increased infiltration of surface flows to groundwater due to drawdown, rather than reductions in stormwater runoff. This is also demonstrated after post-mining recovery, where there is a predicted net increase in annual flows largely due to the proposed decommissioning of the existing Woolandra West dam. Runoff from this dam’s catchment area of 1,034 ha would provide surface water runoff which would more than offset surface water losses from the 301 ha catchment of the final void.

Up to 4 of the 13 semi-permanent pools in the Sandy Creek sub-catchment may be impacted by groundwater drawdown. Contingency measures have been identified by CHC, including: • an aquatic monitoring strategy; and • formation of a River Monitoring Committee to review monitoring data and provide input into adaptive management measures, such as release of water of adequate quality to recharge pools and alluvial aquifers.

However, two of these pools are upstream of the confluence of Laheys Creek and Sandy Creek and therefore gravity-fed recharge to them may not be effective. CHC has therefore committed to providing pipeline or truck-based recharge as necessary. Dr Perrens also recommended that the proposed monitoring strategy considers water quality and temperature requirements, in order to maintain aquatic ecology, and also the potential to shandy available water with supply from the Cudgegong River. NOW supports the proposed development of an aquatic monitoring strategy, subject to development of triggers to implement contingency measures and providing compensatory protocols. NSW Fisheries recommended that an operational adaptive management strategy is prepared with particular reference to the endangered Freshwater Catfish populations.

The Department has referenced and strengthened CHC’s commitments with the requirement to prepare and implement the project Water Management Plan. The ILMP also provides an opportunity to improve erosional sources within the riparian zone, including stock access restrictions, which could lead to improved aquatic habitat. The Department has recommended that this be considered in the preparation and implementation of the ILMP.

Water Quality Impacts There is potential for the project to impact on local surface water quality within the Sandy Creek sub- catchment as a result of discharges from sediment dams, mine infrastructure dams and mine water dams. CHC has committed to ensuring that there are no discharges to receiving waters from mine water storages and sedimentation dams contaminated by minewater (ie runoff from the MIA and coal stockpiles and water pumped from the mine pits). The Department is satisfied that the project has been designed and can be managed on a zero-discharge basis for mine water and has recommended a condition that no off-site discharges of mine water can occur. Any proposal to discharge would need to be subject to further environmental assessment and a modification to the project approval.

Dr Perrens also raised concerns over the potential impacts associated with the management of water in the out-of-pit TEA during rainfall events and over a sequence of wet years. He recommended that

NSW Government 37 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

CHC be required to demonstrate that the TEAs would not pose a risk of overtopping during the project prior before they are constructed.

The project water balance has been calculated on the basis that there would be uncontrolled discharges from the dirty water system (ie sediment dams) where the design storm criteria are exceeded, and controlled discharges otherwise where water quality discharge limits are met. The EPA has recommended interim discharge limits for the sediment dams, to be reviewed following further assessment of ambient water quality monitoring data in order to enable site-specific water quality objectives, based on the ANZECC Guidelines, to be set. The Department supports this approach and has recommended conditions requiring sediment dam discharges to conform to water quality limits in any EPL granted for the project. It also proposes a comprehensive ambient water quality monitoring program which must be implemented prior to mining commencing, to ensure there is adequate baseline data to determine these site-specific water quality objectives.

Dr Perrens made a number of recommendations proposing detailed review of sizing, management and transfer of water between mine-water storages, including sediment dams associated with runoff from the MIA and coal stockpiles (which may be contaminated with coal fines, sediment and salt) and sediment dams receiving runoff from disturbed areas. He also recommended that the operating rules for mine water management and transfers be clearly specified in the Water Management Plan. The Department has incorporated these recommendations into the recommended conditions.

There is potential for water quality impacts on surface and groundwater due to migration of pollutants from potentially acid-forming (PAF) waste rock and tailings materials. Additional geochemical testing of materials undertaken by CHC indicated that <1% of the overburden and interburden material would be PAF, with <10% low-capacity PAF, and tailings likely to be non acid-forming. Following EPA recommendations, CHC has committed to preparing a Waste Rock Management Plan in consultation with EPA to ensure that PAF materials are adequately managed, with management measures to include ongoing geochemical assessment and deep in-pit burial and encapsulation. This is in addition to standard requirements in the Water Management Plan and performance objectives specified in the project conditions for preventing or minimising the migration of pollutants from the pit shell or from waste rock emplacement areas and TEAs.

Management of Mine Water during Wetter Periods The Department notes that the proposed change in the mine plan to a 1-pit operation from Year 14 (Pit B) would restrict CHC’s ability to store excess mine water in pit for lengthy periods. CHC has indicated that there is capability to mine multiple coal seams within Pit B, but also acknowledges that mining of the lower coal seam (Lower Ulan) may be restricted for extended periods. Dr Perrens noted that the Water Management Plan would need to consider additional mine-water storage contingencies during such periods.

Drawdown Impacts and Final Voids The EA predicted that the project’s maximum 1 m drawdown contour would extend up to 5.5 km to the south and 6 km to the west of the mining pits, leading to a > 2 m drawdown in the water table (including the alluvium) at 3 privately-owned bores. While there would be a gradual recovery of drawdown post mining, Dr Kalf raised concerns that the modelling approach may have underestimated the likely drawdown impacts, as the Sandy Creek sub-catchment streams were modelled as providing a constant head or recharge to underlying groundwater systems, rather than episodic recharge from an ephemeral stream.

A very conservative sensitivity run, assuming no recharge from surface flows, was therefore undertaken. This predicted that a further 2 private bores could be impacted, with increased drawdown in all privately-owned bores and up to 9 m drawdown predicted ( vs 5 m drawdown at the same bore assuming constant head recharge). Since some recharge from creek flow would occur, this extreme case is unlikely to occur. These bores are used for stock and domestic use, and not for irrigation. CHC has committed to providing mitigation or make-good provisions where groundwater drawdown occurs outside the range of natural variability.

At the end of mining, the final void would act as a permanent groundwater sink, with predicted groundwater inflow balancing runoff to form a pit lake, stabilising approximately 6.5 m below the pit

NSW Government 38 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

shell spill point. Dr Perrens recommended that further modelling of the final void lake be undertaken to incorporate the long term effects of climate change and the effect of increased salinity on evaporation rates to confirm that the void would continue to act as a groundwater sink and that adequate freeboard would always remain to prevent discharge to the natural environment. The Department supports these recommendations and has included conditions for the additional groundwater and surface water model runs to be completed prior to the commencement of mining operations.

Conclusion The Department is satisfied that the project’s groundwater and surface water impacts can be adequately minimised and managed, subject to the implementation of standard best-practice water management. To ensure this occurs, in conjunction with the commitments already made by CHC, the Department has recommended conditions requiring CHC to: • ensure that it has sufficient water for all stages of the project, and if necessary, adjust the scale of mining operations to match water availability; • meet strict water management performance measures; • undertake further detailed surface water and groundwater modelling of the Revised PPR mine plan to confirm the screening level predictions and provide design and operating rules for management and transfer of water across the mine site; • prepare a comprehensive Water Management Plan for the project incorporating recommendations from the PAC’s Report, the Department’s expert reviews and submissions from EPA and NOW; • ensure that all water discharges comply with limits set in any EPL – noting that discharges of mine water to surface waters is explicitly prohibited; and • provide compensatory water supplies to any private landowner whose supply is found to be adversely affected by the project.

6.6 Transport The EA includes transport impact assessment (TIA) reports on road and rail undertaken by EMM. The assessment considers potential impacts on transport infrastructure associated with: • increased traffic on public roads due to construction activity, ie access to site by contractors and heavy vehicles; • increased traffic on public roads due to operational activity, ie additional employees, contractors and deliveries; • public road closures and realignments; and • increased rail transport of coal to the power stations and to Newcastle Port.

Road Network Traffic Impacts - Construction and Operational Workforce The EA determined that there would be a peak construction workforce of 590 workers and a peak operational workforce of 550 employees. Due to its central location between the major centres of Mudgee, Dubbo and Wellington, with closer proximity to the smaller towns of Dunedoo and Gulgong, there are a number of potential access routes to the mine site that were considered in the TIA. Table 14 identifies these main access routes for construction and operational traffic. Table 14 and Figure 15 show the proposed road and intersection upgrades required to maintain the required level of service and safety standards.

Table 14: Summary of Primary Road Access Routes and Infrastructure Upgrades Route Use New Infrastructure /Upgrades Golden Workforce from • Upgrade and widening of 9.7 km of existing Spring Ridge Road from Golden Highway to Dubbo, Warrumbungle Highway to the Mining Construction Camp and MIA for construction traffic; mine site and Wellington LGAs • upgrade of existing Golden Highway / Spring Ridge Road intersection; • 19 km road realignment of Spring Ridge Road for operational traffic access Heavy vehicle route to to mine and through traffic from Laheys Creek Road to Golden Highway, mine site including bridge crossings of both Sandy Creek and Laheys Creek; and • 4 km private mine access road from realigned Spring Ridge Road includes 2 bridge crossings of Laheys Creek and Sandy Creek to MIA. Cobbora Road Workforce from • Upgrade of Golden Highway / Cobbora Road intersection; (MR353) Wellington LGA • sealing of 3 unpaved sections of Cobbora Road; • safety upgrade of Saxa Bridge on Cobbora Road; and • deflection testing on a 52 km length of Cobbora Road.

NSW Government 39 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Laheys Creek Workforce from Mid- • Upgrade of Castlereagh Highway / Laheys Creek Road intersection; Road Western Regional • upgrade of Laheys Creek Road – Spring Ridge Road and speed limit LGA reduction for 14.7 km within Mid-Western Regional LGA boundary; • upgrade of Laheys Creek Road – Spring Ridge Road and speed limit reduction for 8.5 km within Warrumbungle LGA boundary; and • upgrade of 2.5 km of Spring Ridge Road – Laheys Creek Road as southern access to MIA for mine operational light vehicle traffic only. Castlereagh Cobbora Rail Spur • Realignment and upgrade of Castlereagh Highway, with rail-under-road Highway Line crossing of configuration. Castlereagh Highway Local road Local traffic only • Closure of entire length of Dapper Road and Danabar Road and sections of network Spring Creek Road, Spring Ridge Road and Sweeneys Lane, to be replaced around the by realigned Spring Ridge Road; mine site • closure of sections of Sandy Creek Road, to be replaced by realigned Spring Ridge Road; • realignment of Brooklyn Road incorporating road-over-rail bridge and road overpass; and • realignment of Suzanne Road.

Figure 15: Road Upgrades Proposed by CHC around the Mine Site

The PAC accepted that the project’s impacts on the local road network could be managed by implementing CHC’s proposed road upgrades. However, the PAC recommended that the program and timing of these works be specified in the approval conditions. Some of these works form part of proposed Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) with particular Councils (see section 6.7) and are referred to in the relevant conditions. The Department has also proposed conditions identifying all required road infrastructure works and the timeframes for their completion. All road infrastructure works would need to be undertaken in accordance with relevant Austroad guidelines, and in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate roads authority.

Heavy Vehicle Access The TIA identified that the primary heavy vehicle access route to the mine during both construction and operations is via the existing or realigned Spring Ridge Road from the Golden Highway north of the mine site. CHC has committed that no heavy vehicles would access the site along two other routes, during either construction or operation. These routes are Laheys Creek Road – Spring Ridge Road from the south (a more direct route from Gulgong and Mudgee) and Tucklan Road, south from the Golden Highway at Dunedoo. CHC has stated that it would use contractual arrangements to

NSW Government 40 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

ensure that this commitment is met. However, the Department has also recommended conditions that restrict heavy vehicle movements on these routes.

Car Pooling The TIA was undertaken on the assumption that there would be a reasonably high level of car pooling for the mine’s operational employees, with around 2 workers per car. A car-to-driver ratio target of 50 - 60% for the operational workforce has been proposed by CHC. The PAC recommended that a workplace travel plan be included in the project’s Traffic Management Plan. As the TIA is based on a high assumed level of car pooling, the Department has recommended that CHC implement measures to maximise the use of buses and car pooling across its workforce (ie shift workers plus management staff).

Rail Infrastructure and Safety Impacts The PAC review made no specific recommendations regarding rail safety and infrastructure impacts and mitigation measures for rail transport of coal. A key change since the PAC review is the termination of contractual arrangements requiring delivery of coal to the power stations in the Hunter Valley and Central Coast. Consequently, the Revised PPR considered a scenario where all product coal was sent to the Port of Newcastle for export. The Revised PPR concluded that there was sufficient system capacity for Cobbora’s proposed 5 daily laden coal trains to all be delivered to Newcastle, when compared to around 104 coal trains otherwise expected to be delivered daily to Newcastle by 2021. The Department notes that any increase in the export market for coal would reduce the possibility of any coal being dispatched along the capacity-constrained Railcorp line from Woodville Junction for supply of coal to the Central Coast power stations.

A study recently undertaken for the ARTC in the Gulgong area recommended upgrades to 5 level crossings on public roads. The EA also identified safety risks at an additional 5 level crossings on public roads (Springwood Park Road, White Horse Road, Puggoon Road, Jacksons Lane and the Golden Highway at Denman) that require further review and assessment for safety improvements. The proposed upgrades to the 6 level crossings identified by ARTC are listed as required infrastructure upgrades in CHC’s agreed VPA with MWRC. The Department has recommended conditions requiring the completion of these safety upgrades and further investigation and implementation of required safety upgrades (if necessary) for two of the crossings associated more directly with increased train movements in the vicinity of Gulgong.

The EA identified 6 additional rail movements per day through the Clyde Street and Adamstown crossings in Newcastle, in the event that 3 laden coal trains were dispatched daily to the Central Coast power stations. On this basis, there would be an increase in road traffic waiting times of approximately 40 minutes per day (an increase of around 9%) at each crossing. The Department notes that traffic delay mitigation measures at the Adamstown crossing were identified in the draft NSW Freight and Ports Strategy, however funding was not allocated. The PPR identified that these mitigation measures would need to be implemented prior to additional coal train movements from Cobbora on this section of line. The Department considers that Railcorp and TNSW are best placed to determine the funding arrangements from users of the network and timing for upgrades at these crossings.

Conclusion Following its assessment, the Department is satisfied that the project can be managed to ensure that it would not have a significant impact on local or regional road traffic. In summary, the Department has recommended conditions that require CHC to: • provide funding for regional and local road and intersection upgrades and rail crossing safety upgrades; • restrict commencement of rail movements until required safety upgrades to level crossings are completed; • restrict heavy vehicle routes and access times to the mine and associated construction works; • undertake and implement a road safety audit; and • prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan for both construction and operational stages.

NSW Government 41 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

6.7 Socio-Economic Impacts The EA includes social impact and economic assessments, undertaken by EMM and Gillespie Economics respectively, which assess the project’s socio-economic costs and benefits. The project would generate a large number of construction and operational jobs and inject considerable capital investment into the local, regional and State economies. As discussed in section 6.2, social impacts are already occurring as a result of the land acquisition program for the project.

Resource Significance The Mining SEPP was recently modified to require consent authorities to consider the significance of the resource when considering the merits any mining proposal, as well as the economic benefits to the State and region of any such proposal. While these provisions of the Mining SEPP do not strictly apply to the project application (because it is a transitional Part 3A project), consistent with longstanding practice the Department has considered these matters fully in its assessment of the merits of the proposal.

This assessment has concluded that the coal resource is highly significant based on: • its large size (around 220 Mt product coal) and 21 year operational life; • suitability as a source of domestic thermal coal to NSW power stations, providing competition in the supply chain; • lower production costs due to low stripping ratios; and • substantial benefits accruing from the development of the resource to the local, regional and State economies, including direct and indirect employment opportunities for rural communities.

Project Need and Alternatives The Department recognises that society (both at a domestic and international level) is heavily reliant on coal to meet its basic energy needs. Coal provides around 90% of NSW’s electricity needs, 75% of Australia’s electricity needs and 40% of the world’s electricity needs. Access to energy remains a critical development need, particularly for the one-third of the world’s population without electricity. As living standards and development in developing countries increase, it is expected that the demand for coal will continue to rise to satisfy increasing energy requirements, for some time at least.

The Cobbora Coal Project was initially proposed to provide up to 9.5 Mtpa of product coal for NSW’s domestic energy supply, largely due to the increasing cost of thermal coal on the open market, with a smaller 2.5 Mtpa export component. A key proposed benefit for NSW energy consumers was the project’s ability to provide a supply of cheaper coal through fixed term coal supply agreements.

The PAC review concluded that NSW Treasury was best placed to determine the costs and benefits of the project at the State level, noting the potential decision (since made) by the Government to sell or lease the mine. The proposed sale or lease of the mine would provide greater flexibility in supply of coal to either domestic or export markets – noting that the quality of coal is such that blending of coal to meet customer export specifications is likely to be required. CHC also highlighted that the Government has made a substantial investment in the project to date and is now seeking a financial return to NSW through the sale or lease of the mine.

Therefore the ultimate need for the project is driven by both domestic and international demand to meet current and future energy needs. The Department is satisfied that there is a demonstrable need for the project in terms of meeting society’s need for adequate, reliable and affordable energy.

Demand on Local Infrastructure and Services The EA includes an assessment of the project’s impacts, during both the construction and operational stages, on public services and facilities in the four surrounding LGAs. Key assumptions for this assessment included: • impacts on services during construction would be primarily managed by on-site construction of a workers’ village accommodating 60% of the construction workforce (peak 550), who would access the site on a fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) or drive-in/drive-out (DIDO) basis, with the remainder living in local accommodation spread across the four LGAs; • that there is no FIFO or DIDO component in the operational workforce (peak 590), with the existing local labour pool providing 50% of the workforce and remaining operational workers relocating from outside the region;

NSW Government 42 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

• a substantial reliance on training programs to up-skill the locally available workforce; and • the local workforce being predominantly drawn from the more populous Dubbo LGA (60%), with the remainder from the other three LGAs.9

The Department notes that there remains some uncertainty about what proportion of the workforces (either construction or operational) would be drawn from each of the 4 surrounding LGAs.

Submissions from the 4 Councils each argued that a larger percentage of the workforce would be drawn from its area, and so a larger percentage of contributions should be provided to that Council. To account for this, CHC has offered to provide annual funding to each Council based on the actual proportion of the operational workforce residing in each LGA, as summarised in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Proposed Contributions to Surrounding Local Government Areas, Based on Employee Numbers Construction Personnel Operational Personnel • $1,000 per employee/year, split equally between all 4 • $1,000 per employee/year, with each Council Councils. receiving 15% ($150/employee) and remaining • Assumed minimum workforce of 400 employees residing 40% ($400/employee) distributed based on at the on-site workers accommodation village. number of employees residing in each LGA • Additional workers above 400, additional contributions • Assumed minimum workforce of 400 people distributed to which LGA workers reside in. • CPI indexed • CPI indexed Minimum total payment to all Councils = $400,000/year Minimum total payment to all Councils = $400,000/year

Payment based on peak workforce = $550,000/year Payment based on peak workforce = $590,000/year

Minimum payment to each Council per year = $100,000 with Minimum payment to each Council per year = $60,000 with up to additional $150,000 divided between LGAs based on up to additional $160,000 to $350,000 divided between workforce residential location. LGAs based on workforce residential location. Minimum total contribution over the construction and operations stages of the mine life = $9.2 M, with indicative contribution

based on employee workforce development in the order of $12 M,10 (not including increases due to the CPI). CHC also proposes additional contributions of $1,000/employee during mine rehabilitation, split equally between all 4 Councils.

It should be noted that these contributions are in addition to the road infrastructure and rail crossing upgrades outlined in Table 14.

Three of the four Councils have accepted CHC’s offer. However, Warrumbungle Council has argued it should get a larger share of the contributions because most of the mine is in its LGA.

The Department has considered Warrumbungle Council’s arguments carefully and concluded that neither the mine itself not the temporary construction village would generate any significant demand for local infrastructure or services (apart from the demand for local road upgrades and maintenance, which have dealt with separately). Consequently, it does not accept that Warrumbungle should necessarily get a larger share of the contributions.

Further, it believes that CHC’s offer would more than cover the costs associated with providing any local infrastructure or services for the project. Consequently, it has included a condition requiring CHC to formalise its offer in a voluntary planning agreement with each of the Councils.

Finally, the Department notes that the $20M Cobbora Transition Fund would provide a separate source of funding for Councils and landowners to address any social or economic impacts associated with the purchase of large landholdings for the project, and any potential delay in the commencement of the project.

9 The EA also included a sensitivity analysis, which assumed a lower operational workforce component sourced from Dubbo LGA (40%), 30% sourced from Mid-Western Regional LGA; with the remaining 30% evenly split between Warrumbungle and Wellington LGAs. 10 Based on estimates in the EA that the operational workforce would commence in Year 1 at 300, increase to 470 by around Year 5 and further increase to 590 between Years 11 to 14.

NSW Government 43 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Regional Economic and Socio-Economic Impacts The EA indicates that the project would provide considerable socio-economic benefits for the region and the State, including up to 550 direct jobs during operation, 590 direct jobs during construction and $1.096 billion in initial capital investment for establishment and construction. In addition there would be significant direct and indirect benefits for the regional and NSW economy.

Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) The economic assessment includes a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of the project. This CBA calculated that the project would have a Net Benefit to Australia in the order of $1.9 to 2.1 billion.

The proposal to now sell or lease the mine would change the distribution of benefits that was originally calculated for the project, with royalties to the NSW Government over the project life likely to increase significantly from a previous estimate of $407 M (or $158 M as net present value).11 Company tax would also accrue to the Commonwealth. However, the previous direct benefits to NSW electricity consumers through a cheaper, contracted coal supply to NSW power stations would not accrue, with domestic thermal coal prices instead subject to market supply and demands.

Some submissions raised concerns about components of the BCA methodology, claiming that the analysis may have overstated benefits and underestimated costs. The Department notes that it is common for people to argue about the assumptions used in any CBA, and commonly carries out its own sensitivity testing of these assumptions during any merit assessment.

In this instance, however, the Department is satisfied that even if substantial discounts were made to the CBA calculations (to account for various criticisms), the project would still result in a substantial net benefit for both NSW and Australia.

Conclusion Overall, the Department believes that the project would generate substantial economic benefits for the State and region. It is also satisfied that there is a demonstrable need for the project; that it would not significantly impact on other land uses in the region, including agricultural land; that any demands it may generate for local infrastructure and services can be adequately addressed; and that the project would result in a substantial net benefit for NSW.

6.8 Other Issues The Department’s assessment of other issues relating to the project is outlined in Table 16.

Table 16: Summary of Other Impacts of the Proposal Issue Assessment Conclusion and Recommendation Greenhouse Approximately 99% of the project’s total GHG The PAC recommended that appropriate conditions be Gas emissions are those associated with transport and imposed to ensure that best management practices for Emissions downstream burning of the product coal at power minimising GHG emissions are adopted, and mine stations (ie Scope 3 emissions). Annual average buildings and equipment are energy efficient. In GHG emissions from Scope 1 and 2 emissions are addition, management plans should include GHG around 365 Kt CO 2-e per year predominantly from monitoring and reporting requirements. the consumption of diesel fuel and on-site use of electricity. To formalise and strengthen CHC’s commitments and in accordance with the PAC recommendations, the CHC has committed to a number of GHG mitigation Department has recommended conditions requiring measures, including consideration of alternative preparation and implementation of a project Air Quality fuels; minimising vehicle travel distances; using Management Plan, including requirements to alternative energy sources wherever practicable; implement all reasonable and feasible measures to designing buildings for high energy efficiency; and mitigate GHG. ensuring the mining fleet is properly maintained. Visual Visual impacts would occur at 7 privately-owned The Department is satisfied that the visual impacts of residences, with the impacts identified as slight to the project can be effectively mitigated by on-site moderate based on visual sensitivity and magnitude mitigation measures and has recommended conditions of change. They would also occur along certain to ensure that residual visual impacts are as low as viewing locations along public roads with views of reasonably and feasibly possible. the northern mining and overburden emplacement areas from the Golden Highway.

11 The royalty estimate of $407 million was based on the lower contract sale price to the domestic power stations. Based on free-on-board export coal prices and spot pricing, royalty estimates would likely be significantly higher.

NSW Government 44 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Issue Assessment Conclusion and Recommendation The PAC was satisfied that with the mitigation These include ensuring progressive rehabilitation, measures proposed by CHC, including the Spring requiring buildings/structures to blend as far as Ridge Road diversion and appropriate landscape practicable into the landscape and tree planting and treatments, there would be no significant visual landscaping. impact. However, the PAC cautioned that any roadside plantings should complement the existing Furthermore, the conditions require additional visual landscape, rather than be undertaken as bulk impact mitigation measures to be implemented at screen plantings. receptors with significant direct views on request.

Lighting A key issue raised in submissions and considered The Department has strengthened the PAC’s by the PAC were the potential impacts from stray recommendation and requires a Light Management light on the world-renowned Siding Springs Plan to be prepared prior to construction commencing, Observatory, located approximately 100 km from in consultation with representatives of WSC, the the mine site. Australian National University and the Australian Astronomical Observatory. The Department supports the PAC’s recommendation that a comprehensive lighting In addition, lighting impacts are commonly managed assessment is undertaken prior to commencement through compliance with relevant Australian Standards of operations, in consultation with representatives and ongoing management of operational light sources. of the Observatory. The Department has recommended operating conditions to ensure that these standard mitigation measures are implemented, including ensuring that fixed outdoor lighting sources do not shine above the horizontal, and that mobile lighting rigs do not shine about the pit wall. Blasting and The blast impact assessment indicates that the The Department’s standard conditions allow blasts Vibration project would comply with the applicable amenity causing ground vibration at private residences of <0.5 and structural damage criteria at all surrounding mm/s to not be considered in assessing frequency of privately-owned residences for the full range of blasts. Accordingly, the Department has blast sizes, up to a Maximum Instantaneous recommended that blasting is restricted to one blast Charge (MIC) of 3,500 kg. per day and 5 blasts per week averaged over a calendar year, which provides adequate flexibility for The PAC recommended that the frequency of the proposed blasting of waste rock and would also blasting is reduced from the proposed 600 blasts require CHC to carefully manage its smaller coal per year. CHC has since reduced the total number blasts. of blasts down to a maximum of around 400 blasts per year, made up of around 220 larger waste rock CHC has provided additional justification for retaining blasts and significantly smaller coal blasts with a the proposed re-alignment of Sandy Creek Road. In MIC of up to 300 kg. It is predicted that these particular, the 500 m encroachment would only occur smaller coal blasts would result in ground vibration in Year 21 of the project, with the closest point being at the nearest receptor of <0.2mm/sec, which are 410 m. Furthermore, CHC has estimated that there unlikely to be perceived. would be in the order of a total of 6 blasts within 500 m, and has committed to having no more than 12 such The PAC also recommended that the Sandy Creek blasts. Road realignment (to become part of Spring Ridge Road) be modified to ensure that there is a In addition, realignment of the road further from the minimum of 500 m from proposed blasting during mine footprint would bring the road traffic closer to mining operations. non-project-related receptors. The Department is satisfied that there would be minimal impacts on road The blasting assessment considered heritage traffic along the realigned Sandy Creek Road as a structures and considered that there may be result of blasting over the life of the mine and that vibration impacts at Laheys Creek Cemetery. there is no reasonable justification for further However, this could be managed through blast realignment of this road. pattern design and progressive reduction of the MIC to ensure blast limits are met. The Department is satisfied that blasting at the project can be readily managed to meet the applicable A number of Aboriginal rock shelters with Potential amenity and structural damage criteria at all Archaeological Deposits (PADs) were identified. surrounding private residences, structures and Blast design would need to ensure no impacts on heritage items; subject to implementation of strict blast these shelters if they are determined to be management measures including the preparation and Aboriginal heritage sites. implementation of a blast management plan. Heritage A total of 229 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites The PAC review supported CHC’s proposed were identified within the project boundary with the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage impacts majority located close to watercourses or on valley and recommended that the standard conditions of floors. The mine plan was developed to avoid or approval for mining projects are included. It also minimise impacts along Sandy and Laheys Creeks emphasised that RAPs should be consulted in and as such a large number of these sites would preparing the Cultural Heritage Management Plan. not be directly impacted. OEH in its submission considered that the overall Within the project boundary 1,830 ha has been assessment and proposed mitigation measures were identified as being archaeologically sensitive, with adequate. However, OEH recommended that CHC: 243 ha of this area located within project • provide adequate resources and opportunity for

NSW Government 45 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Issue Assessment Conclusion and Recommendation disturbance areas. 71 known sites would be RAPs involvement in cultural heritage research; directly impacted, including 5 sites having high • undertake mitigation measures at scientific significance. These 71 sites would be archaeologically sensitive areas along creek lines managed through a combination of surface currently at risk from erosion; collection, collection and set aside, or salvage • incorporate mitigation measures to manage excavation. impacts in archaeologically sensitive areas due to traffic (such as haul roads); and Concerns were raised in submissions about the • fund and undertake further research of cultural proposed on-site office location for storage of heritage values in biodiversity offsets to contribute Aboriginal artefacts, and recommended instead towards Aboriginal landscape knowledge. that the nature of the Keeping Place and its location be developed in conjunction with The Department has included conditions requiring Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs). further consultation with RAPs and OEH regarding management of collected artefacts at a suitably Submissions also raised the potential for returning located Keeping Place and the long-term objects to the landscape following completion of management of Aboriginal objects following mining mining. operations .

The EA identified 13 historic heritage items of local The Heritage Council considered that the proposed significance within or adjoining the project area, mitigation measures would adequately manage the including 6 houses and 7 other features. These impacts on historic heritage. include Laheys Creek cemetery and the Dapper Union Church, which is a possible Cobb & Co The Department notes that the EA’s assessment of stopping place. There would be no direct impacts the locally-significant residence ‘Yukon Paradise’ on any of these heritage items if the proposed does not include a commitment to maintaining its avoidance and mitigation measures are current good condition, with archival recording and implemented. demolition proposed if it is unable to be tenanted or used by CHC. The Department does not support this approach and has included a requirement in the Heritage Management Plan to ensure that management measures are undertaken to maintain or enhance the current condition of mine-owned residences of local heritage significance, including ‘Yukon Paradise’.

The Department has recommended conditions that would require preparation and implementation of a Heritage Management Plan covering both Aboriginal and historic heritage, in consultation with the RAPs and OEH. The Department’s standard requirements are supplemented by the recommendations of OEH and the PAC. Subject to implementation of these measures, the Department is satisfied that the project would avoid and/or mitigate impacts on heritage as far as is reasonable and feasible.

7. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

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

CHC has reviewed and accepted these recommended conditions.

NSW Government 46 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environ me ntal Assessmenf Reporf

8. CONGLUSION

The Department has assessed the merits of the project following a comprehensive assessment process, which included a PAC review and public hearings.

Based on this assessment, the Department has concluded that the project would generate substantial economic benefits for both the State and region. ln this regard, it would extract a significant coal resource, which would provide a secure supply for the domestic market for some time. lt would also generate direct and indirect employment opportunities for rural communities with up to 590 operational and 550 construction personnel required. There would be a capital investment over the life of the mine of around $1.3 billion with more than $407 million in direct revenue for the State Government from coal royalties.

While concerns were raised during the assessment process about the potential biodiversity, dust, noise, water and socio-economic impacts of the project, the Department is satisfied that CHC has addressed many of these concerns by purchasing large landholdings in the area, making revisions to the mine plan, and making commitments to implement a range of measures to minimise the impacts of the project.

The Department is also satisfied that any residual impacts could be suitably managed to ensure an acceptable level of environmental performance, and has drafted strict conditions to ensure this occurs. These conditions can broadly be grouped into three categories: requirements to meet strict limits or performance measures; requirements to prepare various management plans to minimise, monitor and publicly report on the environmental performance of the projects; and requirements for regular review and auditing of the project's environmental performance.

Overall, the Department has carefully weighed the substantial economic benefits associated with extracting this large coal resource against the residual impacts of the project. On balance, the Department has concluded that the project's benefits outweigh any costs, and that it is in the public interest. Consequently, it believes the project should be approved subject to strict conditions.

9. RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Assessment Commission: o considers the findings and recommendations of this report; . approves the project application, subject to conditions; and . signs the attached instrument of project approval (see Appendix L)

últilü t3/2/t+ David Kitto Director Min

J6. z -" uÞ

Chris Wilson Executive Director Development Assessment Systems & Approvals

NSW Government 47 Department of Planning and lnfrastructure Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX A: REVISIONS TO MINE PLAN

MINE PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NSW Government 48 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

MINE PLAN – PREFERRED PROJECT REPORT

NSW Government 49 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

MINE PLAN – REVISED PREFERRED PROJECT REPORT

NSW Government 50 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

MINE PLAN (REVISED PPR) – EXTRACTION SEQUENCE BY YEAR 8

REVISED PPR YEAR 8 PITS EA AND PPR YEAR 8 PITS

NSW Government 51 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX B: FINAL MINE PLAN SEQUENCING

Year 4 Mine Plan Year 8 Mine Plan

Year 12 Mine Plan Year 16 Mine Plan

NSW Government 52 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Conceptual Landform end Year 21 Year 20 Mine Plan

NSW Government 53 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

See attached CD-ROM with report titled “Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment, September 2012”

NSW Government 54 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX D: PREFERRED PROJECT REPORT AND RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

See attached CD-ROM with report titled Cobbora Coal Project, Preferred Project Report and Response to Submissions, February 2013.

NSW Government 55 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX E: RESPONSE TO PAC RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVISED PPR

See attached CD-ROM with report titled “Response to Recommendations of the Planning Assessment Commission Review Incorporating a Revised Preferred project Report, August 2013”

NSW Government 56 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX F: CONSIDERATION OF 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 is unlikely to significantly affect core Koala habitat, noting that there is potential Koala habitat within the project area due to presence of feed tree species such as White Box. Fauna surveys did not identify any Koalas or signs of Koala activity in the project area. The proposed biodiversity and rehabilitation strategy includes rehabilitation strategies targeting regeneration of White Box. The project 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 given its historical land use, 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 SEPP, the application was referred to RMS. The matters raised in RMS’s submission were considered by the Department and conditions of approval in relation to approvals under the Roads Act 1993 have been recommended by the Department.

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 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: • significance of the resource; • non-discretionary development standards for mining; • compatibility with other land uses, including mining, petroleum production or extractive industry; • natural resource management and environmental management; • resource recovery; • transport; and • rehabilitation.

However, these matters do not require consideration for Part 3A project applications. Nonetheless, the Department has considered these matters generally in its assessment of the project. The Department in particular notes the significant size of the resource and is satisfied that the project is able to be managed in a manner that is generally consistent with the aims, objectives, and provisions of the Mining SEPP.

Coolah Local Environmental Plan 2000 The proposed development is permissible with development consent as it would meet the objectives and permissibilities of the 1(a) (General Rural) zone.

Wellington Local Environmental Plan 2012 The proposed development is permissible with development consent as it would meet the objectives and permissibilities of the RU1 Primary Production zone.

Mid-Western Regional Local Environmental Plan 2012 The proposed development is permissible with development consent as it would meet the objectives and permissibilities of the RU1 Primary Production and R5 Large Lot Residential zones.

NSW Government 57 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX G: SUBMISSIONS

See attached CD-ROM with submissions provided during the public exhibition period of the EA and PPR and RTS .

NSW Government 58 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX H: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

ID DATE DESCRIPTION 1 4 Mar 13 Memo – Response from Parsons Brinckerhoff – issues raised by Kalf & Associates Groundwater Modelling 2 16 May 13 Report “Supplementary Information February to May 2013, Cobbora Coal Project, May 2013” 3 11 Jun 13 Additional representation Bev Smiles regarding water issues 4 15 Aug 13 Response to queries on construction noise impacts and blasting impacts on Laheys Creek cemetery 5 20 Aug 13 Errata to figures in Table 7.1 Revised PPR and PAC response report 6 21 Aug 13 Additional information of grassland types within Biodiversity Offset Areas 7 23 Aug 13 Email from CHC clarifying disturbance area in northern woodland corridor and coal resources sterilised 8 23 Aug 13 Errata to revised mine plan report 9 23 Aug 13 Maps indicating extent disturbance in northern woodland corridor and woodland affected 10 30 Aug13 Advice from DPI - OAS&FS on revised PPR and response to PAC recommendations report 11 2 Sep 13 Advice from DRE on revised PPR and response to PAC recommendations report 12 2 Sep13 Advice from OEH on revised PPR and response to PAC recommendations report 13 4 Sep13 Email from CHC – clarification on construction noise, blasting and noise affected landholdings 14 6 Sep13 Advice from DPI on revised PPR and response to PAC recommendations report 15 6 Sep13 Memorandum offsets – additional information for SEWPaC 16 6 Sep13 Response from EMM on OEH issues on revised PPR 17 9 Sep13 Revised Land Ownership Map (Figure A.1) and Table from EA 18 9 Sep13 Response from EMM on DPI - NSW Office of Water issues on revised PPR 19 10 Sep13 Revised Appendix G: Table B.1 Biobanking Calculations (from revised PPR and PAC recommendations report. 20 10 Sep13 Advice from EPA on revised PPR and response to PAC recommendations report 21 11 Sep13 Additional information on planned train movements along the public rail network and maximum noise levels 22 12 Sep13 Response from EMM on EPA issues on revised PPR and Response to PAC recommendations 23 23 Sep13 Additional advice from EPA on noise limits for mining activity 24 23 Sep13 Advice from SEWPaC on revised PPR and response to PAC recommendations report 25 26 Sep13 Additional advice from EMM on NSW Office of Water – turkeys nest dam and construction water 26 30 Sep13 Final expert advice Kalf and Associates – groundwater review 27 2 Oct 13 Letter from NSW Office of Water – Final advice on revised PPR and Response to PAC recommendations 28 15 Oct 13 Final expert advice Evans & Peck – surface water review 29 20 Dec 13 Letter from EMM – minor revisions to biodiversity offset strategy and errata (15 and 22 January 2014 ) 30 Dec 13-Jan 14 Submissions from councils and agencies on the recommended draft conditions

See attached CD-Rom with additional correspondence

NSW Government 59 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX I: KEY ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS

I-1 Summary of Community and Special Interest Group Submissions Issue Aspect Mine Plan and • The mine would cost the NSW tax payer approximately $3.4 billion and would be Project run at a loss. justification • Justification for the project is based on an increased energy demand; however there has been reduction in demand due to excess supply and availability of more (Raised in 74% efficient power supplies . of submissions) • The project would undermine competition in the market and give an unfair competitive advantage over renewable energy. • The Government should invest in sustainable renewable energy sources. • Preference should be to source coal from supplies closer to the power stations to reduce transport impacts from dust and additional rail congestion. Air Quality, • Not supportive of coal mining due to GHG emissions. Health and • The PPR does not assess dust impacts of increasing the height of overburden Greenhouse emplacements by 20 m. Gas Emissions • The air quality assessment and predicted impacts are based on inaccurate data and monitoring. (Raised in 60% • Concerns over the dust impacts of rail transport through the town of Gulgong, of submissions) including the impacts on rainwater collection. • No assessment has been undertaken for cumulative dust impacts in the Hunter Valley rail corridor. • Renewable energy alternatives should be developed, rather than Government investment in coal mining which would increase greenhouse gas emissions. • The poor quality of coal and high ash content has potential to impact human health. Biodiversity • Significant impacts on threatened flora and fauna species not justified and cannot and Threatened be adequately offset, particularly the loss of 1,867 ha of woodland and a 16 km Species ridgeline, and impacts on threatened woodland birds and microbats. • The PPR would increase the area of destroyed woodland by 92 ha, including an (Raised in 56% additional 11 ha of EECs. of submissions) • Possible extinction of up to 12 local populations of threatened species. • Regent Honeyeater has been recently detected in the Tallawang area, and is likely to use habitat at the mine site despite not being recorded. • Impacts on semi-permanent pools and riparian aquatic environment associated with the Lowland Darling River aquatic EEC. • The biodiversity offset has not been subject to public comment and the level of security and protection of offsets has not been finalised. • Proposal to provide a Tier 3 offset package (mitigated net loss outcome) would not adequately mitigate the level of impact and would not meet proposed objectives. Groundwater • The use of high-security licensed water from the Cudgegong River is unacceptable, and Surface and would threaten the wine and agricultural industries and the long-term security Water of urban water supply from Windamere Dam. • The PPR does not justify the increase in water demand for mining operations from (Raised in 53% the previous prediction of 3,700 ML/year up to 4,349 ML/year. of submissions) • Change in hydrology in downstream ephemeral streams only assessed on average flow conditions. Further assessment is needed on impacts under a range of flows, particularly dry weather and effects on downstream users. • Potential impacts on downstream sensitive environments due to flow changes, particularly the Ramsar-listed Macquarie Marshes. • Impact on semi-permanent pools due to reduction in groundwater base flow. • Impact of groundwater drawdown and loss of flows during drought would have a significant impact on aquatic ecology in Laheys Creek, Sandy Creek and the Talbragar River. Agriculture • The mine would destroy agricultural potential of rural holdings as a result of CHC owning 68 of the 90 affected properties in the area. The loss of farming community (Raised in 27% and food production as a result of these purchases has not been adequately of submissions) assessed. • Agricultural productivity on CHC-owned land outside of mine disturbance and offset areas should be maintained.

NSW Government 60 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Issue Aspect • Final landform would sterilise 165 ha of land in the form of highwalls and a large salt water void. • The EA contains conflicting figures on the area of agricultural land to be replaced post-mining. • Unfair competition for water would threaten the viability of local agricultural industries. Aboriginal • Unacceptable impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage, including the loss of at least Heritage 79 sites. • The EA inadequately identifies Aboriginal cultural areas and items of significance (Raised in 23% including rock shelters. of submissions) • Request for a single Keeping Place for all salvaged items. • Items of significance should be salvaged over a 12 month period to minimise impacts and ensure appropriate mitigation. Transport and • Under-estimation of traffic volumes travelling from the south to the mine via Laheys Traffic Creek Road – Spring Ridge Road due to existing skilled mining labour pool residing in Mid-Western Regional LGA. (Raised in 15% • Increased travel distance as a result of the Spring Ridge Road realignment. of submissions) • Increased train movements along Hunter Valley rail corridors would adversely affect communities. • Further assessment of cumulative rail movements requested. • Assessment of impact of rail delays at crossings on emergency services is required. • The issue of train length on the Ulan line has not been addressed, as identified in the ARTC 2012 – 2020 Rail Corridor Capacity Strategy. • Inability to safely cross stock over rail lines due to increased rail traffic. Noise • Noise impacts on rural residential receivers. Noise predictions understate the possibility of excessive noise generated by simultaneously mining three pits. (Raised in 15% • The proposal to apply the draft Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline would of submissions) disadvantage local residents affected by noise from the proposed rail loop. • Monitoring should occur at nearest affected receptors, fully funded by CHC. • No further modelling has been carried out as a result of increasing the height of overburden emplacements as specified in the PPR. Socio - • Additional workforce modelling is required to confirm labour sources and impacts Economics on infrastructure. • VPAs should include repair and maintenance of roads and intersections, general (Raised in 13% community enhancement, administration and compliance costs and impacts on of submissions) waste landfill sites. • Health, education and childcare services currently inadequate to support the proposal. • The discounting of social and cultural costs to ‘negligible’ in the economic evaluation is not justified and the costs are not mitigated as indicated. • Economic assessment is misleading, in using a coal price of $77/tonne to derive benefits when the contract rate of coal supply to power generators is much lower. Other • Concerns that the PAC hearings were held shortly after close of exhibition, with no prior opportunity for the public to review the RTS. (Raised in less • Need for Bushfire Risk Management Plans within relevant RFS Zones. than 5% of • Weather baseline data, including prevailing wind information, is inaccurate. submissions) Assessment of impacts is inadequate and does not consider the impacts of north- westerly winds.

NSW Government 61 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

I-2 Summary of Government Agency Submissions

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) did not object to the project, subject to CHC addressing a number of issues and the inclusion of a number of conditions.

With regards to the potential water impacts of the project, the EPA requested minimum permeability standards for construction of contaminated water storages and tailings storage dams; setting of interim discharge limits for discharges from sediment dams (subject to further in-stream monitoring and validating site specific water quality objectives); ensuring detailed erosion and sediment control and operational water management plans are prepared and implemented; site contamination assessments be undertaken for two decommissioned piggeries; and that a Waste Rock Management Plan be prepared prior to commencement of mining operations. CHC revised its Statement of Commitments to include most of EPA’s recommendations. These form a component of the recommended project conditions, which also require the preparation of a water management plan and CHC to comply with strict water quality performance measures.

With regards to the potential amenity impacts of the project, the EPA requested that a Coal Mine Particulate Matter Control Best Management Practice review be undertaken and subsequently incorporated into the Air Quality Management Plan. Furthermore, the EPA has advised that it is satisfied with applying a noise limit of 35dB(A) at all private receptors for mine operational noise and that the criteria as outlined in Appendix 3 of the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) are appropriate for assessing noise impacts for receptors along the private rail spur line. It has also recommended that restrictions be applied to the hours of access and egress of heavy vehicles from the site, and that construction hours be confined to standard hours, in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG). These recommendations have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) raised a number of residual concerns following review of the revised PPR. In particular, that there was still a shortfall in direct biodiversity offsets for a number of threatened flora and fauna species. OEH recommended that indirect or supplementary offsets should be provided in addition to direct offsets, particularly for cave roosting bats and two endangered ecological communities (Inland Grey Box and Fuzzy Box Woodland EEC). Furthermore, recommendations were made regarding the proposed translocation program and need to ensure that there is appropriate management and monitoring of the program linked to performance measures. The Department has included conditions requiring the preparation and implementation of translocation and supplementary offset programs to be detailed in the Biodiversity Management Plan, in consultation with OEH.

OEH also recommended that indirect impacts on remnant biodiversity areas (including national park estate, offset properties and other CHC owned land managed for biodiversity conservation be monitored and further mitigation measures implemented if necessary.

With regards to the potential Aboriginal cultural heritage impacts, OEH supported the inclusion of conditions to investigate and document cultural values in biodiversity offset areas. Furthermore, it recommended that CHC be required to stabilise creek lines to reduce potential impacts on sensitive Aboriginal sites located along riparian areas. The recommended conditions require this to be dealt with in the preparation and implementation of the Heritage Management Plan for the project.

The Heritage Branch of OEH did not object to the project and advised that the proposed commitments to manage non-indigenous heritage were adequate.

The Australian Astronomical Observatory (AAO) did not object to the project but recommended a number of conditions including implementation of an approved mitigation program to minimise dust and lighting impacts on the Siding Spring Observatory. These recommendations have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

The Western NSW Local Health District (NSW Health) did not object to the project but raised a number of concerns regarding air quality, including potential dust impacts to drinking water and the lack of consideration for cumulative impacts from rail transport through the Hunter Valley.

NSW Government 62 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Transport for NSW (TNSW) and the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) did not object to the project but raised issues in relation to rail and road impacts. TNSW requested commitments from CHC regarding the number of trains operating on the Railcorp network and that trains would not be split at Newcastle. TNSW also highlighted the need for infrastructure upgrades to facilitate additional train paths. RMS recommended a condition requiring the preparation of a Traffic Management Plan.

The Department of Primary Industries - Catchments and Lands (Catchments & Lands) did not object but recommended conditions requiring that CHC obtain appropriate approvals under the Crown Lands Act 1989 for relevant project activities on Crown land and Crown roads.

The Department of Primary Industries – Office of Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security (OASFS) raised a number of residual concerns following review of the revised PPR. These included: ensuring appropriate management of soils and subsoils; weed control on soil stockpiles; undertaking trials for rehabilitation of Class III and IV land capability based on detailed performance and completion criteria and trigger levels for remediation. The Department has recommended conditions requiring these issues to be addressed in the preparation and implementation of the project’s Rehabilitation Management Plan in consultation with Agriculture NSW.

More broadly, OAS&FS raised concerns that agricultural productivity be monitored and maintained and maximised where possible over CHC’s landholdings. The Department notes that the recommendation for the preparation of the ILMP largely addresses OAS&FS’s concerns including requirements for monitoring and development of detailed performance measures.

The Department of Primary Industries - Fisheries (Fisheries) did not object but provided a number of recommended conditions including development of an Aquatic Management Strategy to monitor and manage impacts on the ecology of Sandy and Laheys Creeks, and consultation regarding the design and construction of pump intakes and structures at the Cudgegong River. CHC has agreed to prepare and implement an aquatic monitoring strategy (to be consistent with an approved Water Management Plan), and establish a River Monitoring Committee comprising a representative from Fisheries NSW.

The Department of Primary Industries - NSW Office of Water (NOW) did not object but provided a number of recommended conditions including a requirement for CHC to prepare Construction and Operations Water Management Plans and implement measures to offset impacts to third party bores that exceed the Level 2 minimal impact considerations of the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy.

Following the submission of the revised PPR, NOW raised a residual concern regarding the use of groundwater de-watering bores ahead of mining with potential to increase drawdown impacts. These concerns are discussed further in Section 6 of the report.

The Office of Communities Aboriginal Affairs supported the project on the basis that it would provide employment opportunities to Aboriginal communities.

The Division of Resources and Energy (DRE) within the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services supported the project but recommended the preparation of a Rehabilitation Plan.

The Central West Catchment Management Authority (Central West CMA) did not object but raised concerns regarding a range of issues. These included lack of consideration of the Central West Catchment Action Plan (CAP); insufficient assessment of impacts to permanent and semi-permanent pools; and availability of groundwater water access licences. Central West CMA also recommended that all offsets be secured prior to approval; offsets be protected via dedication to the NSW reserve network; and preparation of an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan, including provisions for Aboriginal employment and training. These issues were considered further by CHC in the response to submissions, response to PAC recommendations and revised PPR. In particular, all direct offsets have now been acquired by CHC and water licences acquired to meet water take requirements.

NSW Government 63 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Mid-Western Regional Council (MWRC) did not object to the project but raised concerns about the potential, road and rail traffic, water, and community impacts of the project. These concerns have either been addressed by CHC during the assessment process, or via the recommended conditions.

Wellington Council did not object to the project but raised concerns about the potential, road and rail traffic, water, and community impacts of the project. These concerns have either been addressed by CHC during the assessment process, or via the recommended conditions.

Dubbo City Council (DCC) did not object to the project, but raised concerns various aspects of the project, which were addressed during the assessment process.

Warrumbungle Shire Council (WSC) did not object to the application but raised concerns regarding traffic impacts and road upgrades; inadequate assessment of potential impacts on hard and soft infrastructure; ability for CHC to provide local employment opportunities; underestimated impacts on traffic; and labour demands of the project. WSC highlighted the need for CHC to enter into a VPA with it and also requested preparation of an Agricultural Management Plan.

WSC has not accepted the planning agreement offer from CHC, and sought further contributions. This matter is discussed further in Section 6 of the report.

The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) did not object to the application but provided a number of recommended conditions including the preparation of a bushfire management plan; establishment of asset protection zones around the temporary accommodation village and infrastructure areas; and adequate access for fire fighting vehicles to infrastructure buildings and facilities. These recommendations have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE) raised a number of residual concerns following their review of the revised PPR incorporating the revised offset strategy. DoE considered that there were shortfalls in the direct offsets for threatened flora species that could be supplemented by indirect offsets – in particular a well targeted and monitored propagation/ translocation program. A condition has been included requiring the preparation and implementation of a threatened flora translocation program with the detailed program to be prepared as a component of the Biodiversity Management Plan.

NSW Government 64 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX J: PLANNING ASSESSMENT COMMISSION (PAC) REPORT

See attached CD-ROM with report titled “Cobbora Coal Mine Project, Review Report, April 2013.”

NSW Government 65 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX K: COMPARISON PAC RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Recommendation Incorporation into recommended conditions of approval 1. Integrated Land Management Plan A condition has been included to prepare the ILMP largely in accordance with the PAC ’s (ILMP) recommendation. The key revision includes removal of the recommendation for demonstrated success of restoration in biodiversity offset areas by Year 8 of the mine plan, as this is not reasonable or feasible under the revised mine plan. The recommended condition instead requires that restoration works are fast-tracked in the biodiversity offset areas and 185 ha of cleared land in the northern woodland corridor and that it is trending towards completion criteria by year 8 of the mine life. It should be noted that due to potential delays in the commencement of the project, there may be 8 years of restoration within CHC owned land prior to disturbance within the main woodland corridor.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 1 and Statement of Commitments (SOC) 32-37. 2. Funding for Land Management The Department has recommended that , rather than a specific fund for land management being set up, the ILMP identify the proposed funding arrangements, following consultation with key stakeholders, and be submitted for approval by the Director-General. A separate $20 M Cobbora Transition Fund has also been established by the Government to provide funding to stimulate the local economy and provide infrastructure projects in the surrounding 4 LGAs.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 1 and SOC 36. 3. Appointment of an experienced land No separate condition has been included . CHC is required to implement the ILMP to the manager satisfaction of the Director-General, and should have the discretion to decide how this can be achieved. In addition, CHC has included this recommendation in their SOC which forms part of the conditions of approval.

Refer to SOC 38. 4. Mine plan refinements The mine plan has been revised and optimised in consideration of the PAC ’s multiple key objectives. Key changes include: • reducing impacts on threatened species by reducing the area of the overburden dump and TEA and proposed encroachment on the northern woodland corridor; • operating 1 or 2 pits only, reducing the overall level of disturbance and area exposed at each stage of mining and reducing haul road lengths; • final void area reduced from 143 ha to 118 ha, with complete backfilling of 2 of the 3 final voids. The Department is satisfied that, given environmental, technical and financial constraints identified in the revised PPR, the final mine plan meets the intent of the PAC’s recommendations so far as is reasonable and feasible. 5. Best practice standards Standard conditions are included to apply best management practice.

Refer to Schedule 3 conditions 9, 10, 16, 18, 23 and 24. 6. Air quality control measures Conditions include a requirement for incorporating best practice and application of best available technology, including coal loading, and implementation of real-time predictive and reactive air quality management systems.

Refer to Schedule 3 conditions 23 and 24 and SOC 66-71. 7. Air emissi on limits Standard conditions have been included requiring CHC to implement all reasonable and feasible measures to ensure compliance with the relevant air quality criteria.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 20 8. Provisions for landholders affected by air No significant air quality impact is predicted on private receptors due to project -alone emissions emissions. One land owner (ID 3108) has been provided with acquisition rights based on combined operational noise, rail noise, visual and air impacts. In addition, acquisition rights have been included based on exceeding standard air quality criteria, based on actual performance and air quality monitoring results. In addition, CHC has offered to acquire privately-owned residences where air quality criteria are predicted to be exceeded.

NSW Government 66 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Recommendation Incorporation into recommended conditions of approval

Refer to Schedule 3 conditions 2 and 22; SOC 74. 9. Mine -owned residences where air quality CHC has included a commitment to not lease houses if health based air quality criteria criteria are exceeded are likely to be exceeded.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 21 and SOC 65. 10. Minimise blasting Further clarification has been provided by CHC on types of blasting , which identified larger overburden blasts and smaller coal blasts. The revised mine plan has reduced the overall number of blasts from 600 to below 400. The conditions include a requirement restricting the number of blasts that exceed a ground vibration of 0.5 mm/sec to 1 blast per day or an average of 5 per week, noting that the smaller coal blasts are predicted to have a ground vibration of 0.2 mm/sec.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 13 11. New roads constructed outside blast The realigned Spring Ridge Road would still be within 500 m of blasting , which may buffer zones require the closure of the road. However CHC has advised that closure would only occur in the final year of mining. The Department is satisfied that road closure impacts would be minimal over the life of the mine.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 40. 12. Noise control measures Standard conditions have been included requiring the application of best management practice.

Refer to Schedule 3 conditions 9 and 10; SOC 76. 13. Provisions for landholders affected by No privately -owned landowners are predicted to exceed the PSNL for the mine site or noise emissions private rail spur line, following the implementation of noise mitigation measures. However one receptor has been provided with acquisition rights due to combined noise, air, visual and social impacts. CHC has also committed to acquiring or providing mitigation at privately-owned properties where noise levels are predicted to exceed criteria.

Refer to Schedule 3 conditions 2, 5 and 6; SOC 77-78. 14. Noise limits Noise limits have been recomme nded in accordance with Government policy using the PSNL based on the INP for mine operational noise and the RING for the private rail spur.

Refer to Schedule 3 conditions 2, 5 and 6. 15. Heavy vehicle movement restrictions CHC has included commitments for restricting the delivery of goods or materials by heavy vehicle and waiting on local roads. The Department has also recommended a condition restricting heavy vehicle movements to and from the premises.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 43; SOC 60-61. 16. Lighting A condition has been included requiring a Light Management Plan to be prepared and implemented in consultation with the operators of Siding Springs Observatory. CHC has also committed to a number of management measures to minimise lighting impacts.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 47; SOC 83-87. 17. Biodiversity Conservation The Department, OEH and DoE are satisfied that the additional land -based offsets , in conjunction with a supplementary offset of $500,000 targeting cave roosting bat species and Fuzzy Box and Inland Grey Box EEC and a condition requiring translocation of threatened species would adequately mitigate and offset the project’s biodiversity impacts.

Refer to Schedule 3 Conditions 32, 33 and 34.

Additional survey work has found Tylophera linearis populations in the proposed offset areas. This, together with the proposed translocation of threatened species and the preparation and implementation of the Biodiversity Management Plan, has addressed the PAC’s concerns.

Refer to Schedule 3 Conditions 32, 34 and 35. 18. Rehabilitation of pits The Rehabilitation Management Plan condition include s a requirement to consider the specialist advice from Dr Mark Burns to the PAC. CHC has also provided specific commitments regarding rehabilitation.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 52; SOC 28-32.

NSW Government 67 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

Recommendation Incorporation into recommended conditions of approval 19. Water management : CHC provided a detailed response to the water management issues identified in the PAC Report. Dr Perrens has provided a further detailed review and provided recommendations that have been incorporated into the requirements for the project. The Department is satisfied that slurry disposal of coal tailings is appropriate and that suitable conditions are in place to ensure water take from the Cudgegong River is minimised as far as reasonable and feasible.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 29, 30 and 31; SOC 7-26. 20. Employment and training CHC has developed training packages in consultation with TAFE , undertaken consultation with Aboriginal groups, and committed to promoting ongoing employment with the Aboriginal community.

Refer to SOC 91. 21. Voluntary Planning Agreements and A $20 M Cobbora Transition Fund has been established by the Government to provide economic stimulus through local funding to stimulate the local economy in the short term until the mine is developed. The infrastructure projects Department has recommended conditions requiring CHC and the four Councils to enter planning agreements incorporating community enhancement and infrastructure upgrades.

Refer to Schedule 1 condition 16 and Appendix 4 (VPAs); SOC 94, 95. 22. Program of infrastructure works A road infrastructure works program has been identified in the conditions and cross referenced to the VPAs, which provide details on the timing and funding arrangements.

Refer to Schedule 1 condition 16 and Appendix 4 (VPAs) and Schedule 3 condition 40; SOC 55-59 23. Traffic Management Plan The Traffic Management Plan requires measures to be implemented to maximise the use of buses and car pooling by the workforce.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 44; SOC 58. 24. Requirements of the Rural Fire Service Conditions have been included requiring CHC to prepare a Bushfire Management Plan and support to the local fire brigade including measures to maintain or enhance the capacity of the RFS in the region to respond to bushfires in the local area. CHC has also committed to funding the relocation of the Dapper Fire Brigade Shed.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 48; SOC 51-54. 25. Consultation on Aboriginal heritage Standard condition included that requires consultation with the Aboriginal community in management plan the preparation of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

Refer to Schedule 3 condition 39; SOC 87. 26. Minimise, monitor and report on Standard conditions included that require all reasonable and feasible measures to be greenhouse gas emissions undertaken to minimise GHG emissions; to implement best management practice; and to prepare and implement an Air Quality Management Plan.

Refer to Schedule 3 conditions 23 and 24; SOC 73-75.

NSW Government 68 Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report

APPENDIX L: RECOMMENDED PROJECT APPROVAL

NSW Government 69 Department of Planning and Infrastructure