Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Bulga Coal Management Pty Ltd

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Bulga Coal Management Pty Ltd

Prepared for

Bulga Coal Management Pty Ltd

January, 2013

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd

WA Suite 6, 315 Railway Road, Shenton Park WA 6008 Tel: 08 9226 5388  Fax: 08 93813140

NSW Suite 6, 500 High Street, Maitland NSW 2320 Tel: 02 4933 2188  Fax: 02 4933 2588

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.coakesconsulting.com

ABN: 29 085 257 709

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Limited 2012

All intellectual property and copyright reserved

Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 2

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 3 Glossary ...... 11 1.0 Executive Summary ...... 12 1.1 Methodology ...... 13 1.1.1 Scope of the SIA for the Project ...... 13 1.1.2 Community Engagement and Consultation ...... 14 1.2 Social profile ...... 18 1.2.1 Geographic context ...... 18 1.2.2 History ...... 18 1.2.3 Governance ...... 19 1.2.4 Socio-economic linkages between the BCC and communities in the region ...... 20 1.2.5 Community Capitals Analysis ...... 24 1.2.6 Regional Issues, Community Values and Aspirations ...... 27 1.2.7 Local Community Values and Aspirations ...... 32 1.3 Perceived Issues and Opportunities of the Project...... 34 1.3.1 Local Community Consultation ...... 34 1.3.2 Regional Stakeholder Consultation ...... 37 1.4 Risking and Assessment of Social Impacts ...... 39 1.5 Management and enhancement strategies ...... 44 1.6 Social Impact Monitoring ...... 47 1.7 Conclusion ...... 47 2.0 Introduction and Project Description ...... 48 2.1 Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) ...... 49 3.0 Methodology...... 50 3.1 International Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment ...... 50 3.2 SIOA Methodology: Bulga Optimisation Project ...... 51 3.3 Participants / Stakeholders in the SIOA ...... 55 4.0 The Bulga Coal Complex: Operations ...... 58 4.1 Socio-economic Linkages between the BCC and Communities in the Region ...... 58 4.2 Method ...... 58 4.2.1 Estimation Techniques and Associated Limitations ...... 59 4.3 Results: Employees & contractors ...... 60 4.3.1 Profile ...... 60 4.3.2 Town of Residence ...... 62 4.3.3 Income and Household Expenditure ...... 65 4.3.4 Household participation in community groups and activities ...... 69

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 3

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.3.5 Use of Community Services ...... 71 4.4 Results: Suppliers ...... 73 4.4.1 Office Location ...... 73 4.4.2 Location of Suppliers’ Employees...... 74 4.4.3 Business Income and Expenditure ...... 76 4.4.4 Suppliers’ Business Dependency on Mining and Bulga Coal ...... 77 4.5 Summary of Findings ...... 80 5.0 Social Profile ...... 83 5.1 Geographic and Historical Context ...... 83 5.1.1 Geographic Context ...... 83 5.1.2 Historic Context...... 84 5.2 Governance ...... 87 5.2.1 Local Government ...... 87 5.2.2 State Government ...... 88 5.2.3 Federal Government ...... 88 5.3 Community Capitals ...... 89 5.3.1 Overview ...... 89 5.3.2 Natural Capital ...... 90 5.3.3 Economic Capital ...... 92 5.3.4 Human Capital ...... 97 5.3.5 Physical Capital ...... 110 5.3.6 Social Capital ...... 119 5.3.7 Summary of Community Capitals ...... 124 5.4 Regional Issues, Community Values and Aspirations ...... 125 5.4.1 Regional Issues and Opportunities ...... 125 5.4.2 Singleton LGA Issues and Opportunities ...... 128 5.4.3 Local Community Issues ...... 131 5.4.4 Local Community Values ...... 131 5.4.5 Local Community Aspirations ...... 134 5.4.6 Profile Summary ...... 139 6.0 Perceived Issues and Opportunities of the Project ...... 141 6.1 Issue Themes – Neighbouring Landholders and Local Community Groups (Broke/Bulga) ...... 142 6.1.1 Air Quality ...... 146 6.1.2 Noise ...... 147 6.1.3 Visual Amenity ...... 148 6.1.4 Mine Life and End Land-Use ...... 149 6.1.5 Community Sustainability ...... 150

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 4

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.6 Community Engagement ...... 151 6.1.7 Industry Reputation and Cumulative Impacts ...... 152 6.1.8 Water ...... 153 6.1.9 Roads and Transport ...... 154 6.1.10 Individual and Community Health ...... 155 6.1.11 Company Reputation ...... 156 6.1.12 General Environmental Issues ...... 156 6.1.13 Blast Vibration ...... 157 6.1.14 Other Issues ...... 158 6.2 Perceived Opportunities ...... 159 6.3 Regional Stakeholder Perspectives ...... 161 6.4 Issues and Opportunities Summary ...... 163

7.0 Risking of Social Impacts ...... 164 7.1 Impact Plotting ...... 164

8.0 Assessment of Social Risks ...... 167 8.1 Risk Assessment Approach ...... 167 8.2 Assessment and Management of Social Risks ...... 173 8.2.1 Impacts of Population Change ...... 173 8.2.2 Impacts on Recreation ...... 179 8.2.3 Impacts on Community Infrastructure and Services ...... 180 8.2.4 Impacts on Social Amenity ...... 195 8.2.5 Health and Wellbeing Impacts ...... 201 8.2.6 Sense of Community and Cohesion ...... 210 8.2.7 Economics ...... 215 8.2.8 Environmental Impacts ...... 218 8.2.9 Community Sustainability and Intergenerational Equity ...... 219 8.2.10 Cumulative Impacts ...... 223 8.2.11 Project Impact Summary ...... 225 9.0 Monitoring of Social Impacts...... 231 10.0 Conclusion ...... 232 11.0 References...... 233 Appendix A Detailed Summary of Relevant Xstrata/Bulga Coal Policies and Plans ...... 241 Appendix B Media Review ...... 251

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 5

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Employee / contractor place of residence (estimated based on survey data) ...... 21 Figure 1.2 Employees' annual household expenditure (estimated based on survey data) ...... 22 Figure 1.3 Key Issues and Opportunities identified by neighbouring residents ...... 35 Figure 1.4 Impact Spectrum, Key Issues and Opportunities by Location ...... 36 Figure 1.5 Force Field Analysis Perceptions of Mining in the Singleton Community ...... 38 Figure 1.6 Social Impact Plot for the Project ...... 40 Figure 4.1 Employee / contractor place of residence (estimated based on survey data) ...... 63 Figure 4.2 Employees' annual Household expenditure (estimated based on survey data) ...... 68 Figure 4.3 Community participation by employees and families (e.g. Community groups, sporting clubs) .... 70 Figure 4.4 Use of health and education services by employees and their families by location ...... 72 Figure 4.5 Suppliers' employees' towns of residence ...... 76 Figure 4.6 Suppliers' self-assessment of size of contract with Bulga Coal ...... 78 Figure 5.1 Location of the Bulga Coal Complex (inset of Broke and Bulga State Suburbs) ...... 84 Figure 5.2 Community Capitals framework© ...... 89 Figure 5.3 Recreational/Natural Assets Map for Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale ...... 91 Figure 5.4 Industries of Employment, Singleton LGA 2001-2011 ...... 93 Figure 5.5 Occupations of Employment 2011 ...... 95 Figure 5.6 Population Change (%) 2006-2011 ...... 98 Figure 5.7 Population Change (%) Singleton, Hunter Region and NSW, 2001-2011 ...... 99 Figure 5.8 Singleton LGA Population Projections, 2006-2036 ...... 101 Figure 5.9 Health Risk Factors, 2007-08 ...... 103 Figure 5.10 Premature Mortality Indicators, 2007-2008 ...... 104 Figure 5.11 Early Childhood development: AEDI 'Developmentally on track', 2009 ...... 105 Figure 5.12 Health Practitioner Service Levels (2009-2010)...... 106 Figure 5.13 Median Rental Costs (from end June Quarter) Singleton LGA, 2003-2012 ...... 116 Figure 5.14 Median Sales Prices (from end December) Singleton LGA, 2002-2011 ...... 117 Figure 5.15 Number of Singleton Establishments (hotels, motels and serviced apartments), 2006-2011 ... 117 Figure 5.16 Room Occupancy Rates (hotels, motels and serviced apartments) 2009-2011 ...... 118 Figure 5.17 Number of people not married in Singleton (aged 15 years and over) LGA, 2001, 2006, 2011 122 Figure 5.18 Number of people employed in the mining industry Singleton, 2001, 2006, 2011...... 123 Figure 5.19 Economic Assets Map for Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale ...... 132 Figure 5.20 Social and Community Asset Map Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale ...... 133 Figure 5.21 Physical values map Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale ...... 134 Figure 6.1 Key Issues and Opportunities identified by neighbouring residents ...... 143 Figure 6.2 Impact Spectrum Key Issues and Opportunities by Location ...... 144

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 6

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 6.3 Top Three Issues from each Location ...... 145 Figure 6.4 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Air Quality Issue ...... 146 Figure 6.5 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Noise Issues ...... 147 Figure 6.6 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Visual Amenity Issues ...... 148 Figure 6.7 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Mine Life / Final Land Use Issues ...... 149 Figure 6.8 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Community Sustainability Issues ...... 150 Figure 6.9 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Community Engagement Issues ...... 151 Figure 6.10 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Industry Reputation and Cumulative Impact Issues ...... 152 Figure 6.11 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Water Issues ...... 153 Figure 6.12 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Roads and Transport Issues ...... 154 Figure 6.13 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Health Issues ...... 155 Figure 6.14 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Company Reputation Issues ...... 156 Figure 6.15 Impact Spectrum, Perceived General Environmental Issues ...... 157 Figure 6.16 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Blast Vibration Issues ...... 157 Figure 6.17 Impact Spectrum, Other Issues ...... 158 Figure 6.18 Force Field Analysis: Perceptions of Mining in the Singleton Community ...... 162 Figure 7.1 Social Impact Plot for the Project ...... 165 Figure 8.1 Proposed Approximate Workforce Figures for Project Construction Activities over time ...... 174 Figure 8.2 Estimated workforce levels comparing Project and a no development option ...... 175 Figure 8.3 Land use type - XCN owned, managed and/or leased land ...... 178 Figure 8.4 BCC complaints data (2011-2012) ...... 198 Figure 8.5 BCC complaints by complainant ...... 199 Figure 8.6 Determinants of health ...... 202 Figure 8.7 WHO social determinants of health ...... 203

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 7

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Summary of social assessment and engagement methods ...... 15 Table 1.2 Project SIOA consultation summary ...... 17 Table 1.3 Summary of results for key locations of interest ...... 22 Table 1.4 Summary of direct employment impacts and associated indirect household expenditure impacts 23 Table 1.5 Summary of Community Capitals ...... 25 Table 1.6 Summary of Key Regional Issues and Opportunities ...... 28 Table 1.7 Issues and Opportunities, Singleton LGA ...... 30 Table 1.8 Summary of mitigated social impacts for the Project ...... 41 Table 1.9 Summary of strategies to address project related impacts ...... 45 Table 2.1 DGRs Addressed in the SIOA ...... 49 Table 3.1 Summary of social assessment and communications used ...... 51 Table 3.2 Summary of Social Assessment Methods ...... 53 Table 3.3 Project SIOA Consultation Summary ...... 56 Table 4.1 TRC Sample Characteristics ...... 59 Table 4.2 Characteristics of Employees and Contractors (survey data) ...... 61 Table 4.3 Employee Town of Residence (includes contractors) ...... 62 Table 4.4 Employee Town of Residence - Comparison of Data Resources ...... 64 Table 4.5 Employee and Contractor Income ...... 65 Table 4.6 Household expenditure by location ...... 67 Table 4.7 Employee Household Expenditure by Type ...... 68 Table 4.8 Location of community groups / activities ...... 69 Table 4.9 Number of employees' children attending school by location of school ...... 71 Table 4.10 Number of times health services were identified as being used by employees and their families by location...... 72 Table 4.11 Location of suppliers' main offices ...... 73 Table 4.12 Suppliers' employee location (town of residence) ...... 75 Table 4.13 Location and amount of suppliers' expenditure (sample only ...... 77 Table 4.14 Estimates of suppliers' business expenditure that is directly reliant on Bulga Coal (sample only) 79 Table 4.15 Suppliers' business expenditure estimates location ...... 80 Table 4.16 Summary of results for key locations of interest ...... 81 Table 4.17 Summary of direct employment impacts and associated indirect household expenditure impacts ...... 82 Table 5.1 Singleton LGA Councillors ...... 87 Table 5.2 Industries of Employment 2011 ...... 92 Table 5.3 Labour Force Indicators, Singleton LGA, Hunter Region and NSW, 2001-2011 ...... 96 Table 5.4 Median Incomes and Housing Costs, 2001-2011 ...... 96

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 8

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.5 Herfindahl Index, 2006 ...... 97 Table 5.6 Population of Broke, Bulga, Singleton LGA and NSW 2011 ...... 98 Table 5.7 Age Distribution, Broke, Bulga, Singleton LGA, Upper Hunter Region and NSW (2001,2006, 2011) ...... 100 Table 5.8 Post-school educational attainment in Broke, Bulga, Singleton LGA, Upper Hunter and NSW (2011)...... 102 Table 5.9 Key Indicators of Children's Health, 2007-2008 ...... 104 Table 5.10 Indicators of at-risk groups Singleton, Hunter and NSW, 2006 and 2011 ...... 107 Table 5.11 Summary of key risks, issues and areas of need in the local Aboriginal community ...... 108 Table 5.12 Public amenity / utility capital, Singleton LGA ...... 111 Table 5.13 Built Infrastructure Capital, Singleton LGA ...... 113 Table 5.14 Community Services Capital, Singleton LGA ...... 114 Table 5.15 Key Housing Indicators, 2001-2011 ...... 115 Table 5.16 Housing Market Indicators ...... 116 Table 5.17 Indicators of mobility, 2011 ...... 119 Table 5.18 Volunteering Rates, 2006-2011 ...... 120 Table 5.19 Crime rankings within the Singleton LGA (2006-2010) ...... 121 Table 5.20 Indicators of cultural diversity, 2011 ...... 122 Table 5.21 Community capitals assessment summary ...... 124 Table 5.22 Summary of Key Regional Issues ...... 126 Table 5.23 Issues and opportunities, Singleton LGA ...... 129 Table 5.24 Visioning Themes and Opportunities, Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale ...... 136 Table 6.1 Summary of stakeholders involved in the consultation by group and geographic region ...... 142 Table 6.2 Summary of perceived opportunities - Community Suggestions ...... 160 Table 8.1 Social Consequence Definitions ...... 168 Table 8.2 Social likelihood definitions ...... 171 Table 8.3 Social Risk Ranking Matrix ...... 172 Table 8.4 Summary of project impact - Impact of construction workforce on local population ...... 175 Table 8.5 Estimated workforce and household population size for BSO ...... 176 Table 8.6 Summary of project impact - Impact of operational workforce on local population ...... 177 Table 8.7 Summary of project impact - Impact of mining project acquisition on local population ...... 179 Table 8.8 Summary of project impact - Impact on recreational values, areas and amenities ...... 180 Table 8.9 Project Construction workforce residential scenarios...... 183 Table 8.10 Summary of project impact - Impact on housing and accommodation ...... 184 Table 8.11 Summary of project impact - Impact on road infrastructure ...... 187 Table 8.12 Summary of project impact - Impact on public utilities ...... 188 Table 8.13 School data - Broke and Milbrodale Public Schools...... 189 Table 8.14 Summary of Project Input - Impact on Education Services ...... 190

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 9

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.15 Summary of project impact - Impact on health services ...... 192 Table 8.16 Summary of project impact - Impact on social community services...... 193 Table 8.17 Summary of project impact - Impact on emergency services ...... 194 Table 8.18 Summary of project impact - Visual impacts (social amenity) ...... 196 Table 8.19 Summary of project impact - Dust emissions (social amenity) ...... 196 Table 8.20 Summary of project impact - noise (social amenity)...... 200 Table 8.21 Summary of project impact - Traffic (social amenity) ...... 201 Table 8.22 Summary of project impact - OHS of employees ...... 205 Table 8.23 Summary of project impact - Traffic impacts on community health and wellbeing ...... 206 Table 8.24 Summary of project impact - Increased drug and alcohol mis-use in the workforce ...... 208 Table 8.25 Summary of project impact - Impact of increased exposure to nitrogen dioxide ...... 209 Table 8.26 Summary of project impact - Impact of dust emissions on community health and wellbeing ..... 210 Table 8.27 Summary of project impact - Impact of population change on sense of community ...... 211 Table 8.28 Summary of project impact - Impact on local heritage and places of community value ...... 213 Table 8.29 Summary of project impact - Impact on land use conflict ...... 214 Table 8.30 Summary of estimated economic project impacts ...... 215 Table 8.31 Summary of TRC results for key locations of interest ...... 217 Table 8.32 Summary of direct employment impacts and associated indirect household expenditure impacts ...... 217 Table 8.33 Summary of project impact - Impact on land use conflict ...... 219 Table 8.34 Summary of project impact - Community sustainability ...... 222 Table 8.35 Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue - Key Project Summary ...... 224 Table 8.36 Summary of mitigated social impacts for the Project ...... 226 Table 8.37 Summary of strategies to address Project related impacts ...... 229

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 10

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Glossary

AEDI Australian Early Development Index ANOA Aboriginal Needs and Opportunities Assessment BCC Bulga Coal Complex BCM Bulga Coal Management Pty Ltd. BSO Bulga Surface Operations BUO Bulga Underground Operations DIDO Drive in - Drive Out DP&I Department of Planning and Infrastructure EIS Environmental Impact Statement IAIA International Association of Impact Assessment LGA Local Government Area PHIDU Public Health Information Development Unit SIOA Social Impact and Opportunities Assessment SRLUP Strategic Regional Land Use Plan TIA Traffic Impact Assessment XCN Xstrata Coal New South Wales

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 11

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.0 Executive Summary

This report documents the outcomes of a Social Impact and Opportunities Assessment (SIOA) undertaken by Coakes Consulting on behalf of Bulga Coal Management (BCM) Pty Limited (hereafter referred to as BCM), as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Bulga Optimisation Project (hereafter referred to as the Project). BCM is seeking approval for the Project under Part 4 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The Bulga Optimisation Project is a proposed continuation of the existing open cut operations within the Bulga Coal Complex (BCC), to enable mining to continue for a further 22 years (around 10 years beyond the existing Bulga Surface Operations development consent expiry date). This will allow approximately 200 million tonnes (Mt) of run of mine (ROM) coal to be mined by open cut methods from land that is largely within the existing BCC disturbance footprint; combined with the existing approved open cut reserves, of approximately 30 Mt ROM coal. Approximately 230 Mt ROM coal will be extracted during the life of the Project from the extended Bulga Surface Operations (please see the EIS Main Report for a detailed Project description).

The SIOA program has been designed to identify, assess and address potential social impacts of the Project on neighbouring and local communities, and more specifically to:

 Identify potential social impacts and opportunities, including cumulative impacts  Identify relevant management and enhancement strategies to address social impacts  Ensure effective integration of study outputs with other environmental assessment studies to inform broader Project planning and design  Address the specified Director General’s requirements for the social component of the Project, namely to: . Assess the impacts on recreational use, with particular reference to the Broke-Fordwich area . Assess potential impacts on local and regional communities, including:  Increased demand for local and regional infrastructure and services (such as housing, childcare, health, education and emergency services), and  Impacts on social amenity . Provide a detailed description of the measures that would be implemented to minimise the adverse social and economic impacts of the project, including any infrastructure improvements and or voluntary planning agreements or similar mechanisms.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 12

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.1 Methodology

As defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), social impact assessment involves:

“… the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment.” (IAIA, 2003)

Social impacts, as defined by Vanclay (2008), are those impacts that affect directly or indirectly:

 People’s way of life, that is: how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day to day basis  Their culture, that is: their shared belies, customs, values and language or dialect  Their community, that is: its cohesion, stability character, services and facilities  Their political system, such as: the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of democratisation that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose  Their environment, such as: the quality of the air and water people use, the availability and quality of the food they eat, the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to, the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources  Their health and wellbeing, where health is considered a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity;  Their personal and property rights, particularly whether people are economically affected or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties  Their fears and aspirations, that is: their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children.

As is the case with any type of change, some individuals or groups within the community may benefit, while others may experience negative impacts. If negative impacts are predicted, it is the role of the SIOA to determine how such impacts may be addressed effectively to reduce the degree of social disruption to those affected or to enhance the positive benefits associated with the proposed change – which in this case involves the continuation of the existing Bulga Surface Operations.

1.1.1 Scope of the SIA for the Project

The phases of the SIOA developed for the Project have been staged to build a well-evidenced assessment of social impacts by:

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 13

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

2. Identifying the impacts and opportunities associated with the Project through engagement and consultation with near neighbours, village residents and regional stakeholders within the Singleton LGA. This information has been used to inform Project planning and design in a proactive way and to ensure that issues of relevance to the community are considered adequately in the EIS for the Project.

3. Assessing and predicting the significance of impacts associated with the Project through the application of a ‘risk-based’ approach; integrating both perceived and technical assessments of risk. Where available, relevant data sets have been used to inform the assessment of impacts associated with the Project and to explore perceptions raised in consultation with the community. The application of this approach is relatively new within the SIOA field; it affords greater integration with the broader environmental assessment work and ensures that impacts of relevance to technical specialists and community members are adequately discussed and considered in the impact assessment process.

4. Developing strategies that address and manage the predicted social impacts associated with the Project and which may enhance opportunities in a manner that values existing community aspirations and assets.

5. Identifying what will require monitoring should the Project be approved and any unanticipated social impacts that may result from the Project.

1.1.2 Community Engagement and Consultation

Engagement with the community has been a key component of the SIOA program at key phases of the assessment, namely in the scoping of Project issues and impacts and the development of appropriate strategies to address and/or enhance impacts.

The BCC has an established relationship with near neighbours, village residents and community groups surrounding the operations, as well as broader regional stakeholders; and consequently, engagement has been a key component of BCM’s activities.

The following table summarises the social assessment and consultation / engagement mechanisms specifically utilised during each phase of the SIOA program. This consultation has been further complimented by engagement undertaken by the broader project team with Government agencies and other key stakeholders in the course of other operational and assessment activities.

A detailed operational situational analysis has also been undertaken to document the social and economic linkages and associations that currently exist between the BCC and communities in the region.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 14

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 1.1 Summary of social assessment and engagement methods

Methodology/Approach Description/Detail

Assessment Methods Phase 1 Program Planning Development of a tailored stakeholder engagement strategy for the Project. The Development of Stakeholder strategy was informed by previous consultation activities, existing data on Engagement Strategy perceived issues and opportunities and preliminary social risk rankings undertaken in the pre-feasibility Project phase. Phase 2 Community Profiling Assessment and analysis of ABS Census data and other relevant social and Community Capitals Analysis community indicators and data sets to develop a detailed social profile of the (socio-demographic analysis) communities of interest. Areas of existing community resilience and vulnerability have been identified through a community capitals analysis. Historic and contemporary Review and analysis of historical accounts of the region and local media sources to issues and opportunities understand historical and emerging issues and opportunities within the community. Operational situational analysis Documentation of the social and economic linkages between the BCC and the and Township Resource community at a micro level through employee and supplier surveys. Review of Cluster Analysis (TRC- corporate and operational standards, policies and programs relevant to the SIOA. Analysis) Personal interviews with key regional stakeholders to identify challenges and Regional and cumulative issues opportunities for the Singleton LGA in relation to community service provision and analysis capacity.

Aboriginal Profile Review of socio-economic statistics relevant to the Aboriginal community.

Phase 3 Scoping of Issues and Opportunities Personal interviews with near neighbours of the BCC to identify perceived issues Local community issues and opportunities relating to the Project. Ranking of perceived issues and analysis opportunities by relative frequency. Review and analysis of existing Facilitation of local community barbecues (existing mechanism of the BCC) to company consultation present information relating to the Project and to obtain an understanding of mechanisms i.e. Community perceived issues and opportunities in relation to the Project from residents within Barbecues the local communities of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. Phase 4 Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities Assessment of mitigated technical social risk associated with the Project through Social Risking review of relevant social and environmental consequence and likelihood ratings. Prediction of social impacts associated with the Project. Phase 5 Prediction of Impact and Strategy Development Plotting of impacts (perceived and technical) utilising the Social Impact Plot© Social Impact Plot© method to prioritise social risk rankings (technical and perceived) and guide management strategy development. Identification and development of appropriate strategies to address predicted Social Impact Management and Project impacts. Minimisation of high and medium social risks through commitment Residual Risk Ranking to relevant management and enhancement strategies.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 15

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Methodology/Approach Description/Detail

Commissioning of a separate study to develop a collective community vision/roadmap for the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. The ‘Our Villages, Our Vision’ Project was developed to identify existing values of importance to community members and to document aspirations for the future. Given community concerns regarding sustainability of the respective villages and issues relating to the alignment of social investment in their localities, the work was commissioned prior to the completion of the Project SIOA program. Outcomes of this work have ‘Our Villages Our Vision’ therefore been utilised in various sections of the SIOA, particularly in defining Community Project existing community values in the profiling section and in documenting community aspirations regarding opportunities for improved impact management and enhancement within the respective localities. The project involved consultation with a range of community residents and groups through personal and community group meetings, a Photovoice study with local children enrolled at the Broke and Milbrodale Primary Schools and development of a Vox Pops Facebook page to identify youth perspectives and shopfront feedback sessions at Broke and Bulga local stores. Consultation and Communication Methods Personal meetings with near neighbours to outline Project aspects and obtain Near neighbour meetings feedback on perceived issues and opportunities associated with the Project. Community group briefings and Project briefings to local community groups in Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. consultation Personal meetings with key regional stakeholders drawn from across key Regional stakeholder community service sectors within the Singleton LGA i.e. local government, consultation education, health, transport, housing and accommodation, emergency services. Government briefings and Briefings and personal meetings with relevant government representatives (local, consultation state and federal) to present the Project and obtain feedback on Project aspects. Development of a series of community information sheets summarising key aspects of the Project and progress/outcomes of the environmental and social assessment Community information sheets program – distributed to neighbouring community residents and relevant stakeholders. Facilitation of local community BBQs in Broke and Bulga (existing mechanism of the BCC). BBQ forums have provided the opportunity to present the Project and Community BBQs document perceived issues and opportunities of residents residing within the local communities of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. Hosting of small focus groups and personal meetings on key issues identified by key stakeholders in phase 2 of the SIOA program. In-focus sessions were held on the following key topics: In-focus Series  Visual impacts and bund design  End land use  Noise Community Hall Information Presentation of Project and EIS outcomes to the communities of Bulga and Broke Sessions through community information sessions in the local village halls. Summary of the key outcomes of the EIS for the Project distributed to all Project EIS Summary Booklet households in the local villages and key stakeholders on the project database. Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

As part of the SIOA program for the Project, a wide range of stakeholders have been identified and involved in the program. These stakeholders have been grouped as follows:  Near neighbours – landholders and residents residing in proximity to the current mining operations in the neighbouring villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 16

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

 Village community groups and organisations (community groups within the surrounding villages)  Aboriginal stakeholders  State and Commonwealth Government agencies  Local Government representatives  State and Federal Elected Representatives  Local business and business chambers/groups  Industry stakeholders (other mining operations, businesses in other industry sectors e.g. equine, viticulture)  Community groups (within the broader Singleton LGA)  Environmental groups (interest, advocate and research groups in the area)  Cultural and heritage groups (associated with the area)  Service providers (education, health, emergency services, employment and training, community services)  Sport and recreation groups  Local media  Other relevant Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and Not For Profit organisations (NFPs)  BCC Open Cut Employees and Contractors  BCC Suppliers and Consultants.

Table 1.2 provides an overview of the number of stakeholders consulted across each stakeholder group category. A total of 408 stakeholders participated in the consultation process. The consultation mechanisms utilised as part of the SIOA varied and, where possible, were matched to stakeholder groups to facilitate participation in the assessment program. Table 1.2 Project SIOA consultation summary Stakeholder Category Number of Participants Neighbouring Landholders / Local Residents 100 Singleton Council Administration Representatives and Local Councillors 14 Broke and Bulga Community groups 39 Business Chamber and local business owners 9 Singleton community groups 5 Cultural and heritage groups 5 Education Providers 4 Emergency Services 3 Health Service Providers 2 Sports and Recreation Groups 2 Aboriginal stakeholders and service providers 25 BCC Open Cut Employees and Contractors 104 BCC Suppliers 96 Total 408 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 17

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.2 Social profile

A baseline social profile gathers knowledge of primary and secondary data sources to increase understanding of the existing social environment in which a project is proposed. According to the IAIA SIA Guidelines (2003), a baseline social profile provides: documentation and analysis of the local historical setting; relevant data to enable the evaluation and audit of social impacts and associated management strategies; and a more complete picture of the local cultural context as well as a greater understanding of local values.

1.2.1 Geographic context

The BCC is located in the Singleton Local Government Area (LGA) in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW). The Hunter Region also includes the LGAs of Newcastle, Maitland, Cessnock and Muswellbrook.

The BCC neighbours the villages of Broke (the closest township), Bulga and Milbrodale, and is located approximately 12 kilometres south of the township of Singleton. Newcastle is the main regional services centre and is located on the coast to the south-east of the Project area.

The BCC is one of several mines in the area including the Mount Thorley Warkworth (Coal & Allied) to the northern boundary and Wambo (Peabody Energy) mines which are located further west and north of the village of Bulga.

The main local communities of focus for the purposes of the SIOA are the neighbouring villages, the LGA and the broader region in which the BCC is located. These geographical areas form the basis of the analysis for the social profile.

1.2.2 History

The Hunter Region has a wealth of Aboriginal history which precedes the arrival and settlement of the area by European immigrants. The region has sites, places and landscapes of sacred and spiritual significance to Aboriginal peoples.

The Hunter Region also has an extensive European history which has been characterised by a long history of exploration, settlement and industrial activities. Indeed, the Singleton area has had a long and varying presence of a range of industries – e.g. agriculture, defence, and mining – with booms and busts in these industries driven by changes in government policy, technology and international economic markets.

Within the locality there remains a strong identification with primary industries (e.g. agriculture and mining), and values traditionally associated with these sectors (e.g. connection to the land, physical labour). What is evident from this documented history is resilience to change and transition, and a regional distinctiveness in the history of co-existence of a range of industries over time. (Hunter History Consultants 2012).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 18

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.2.3 Governance

1.2.3.1 Local

As highlighted above, the BCC is located within the Singleton Local Government Area (LGA). Singleton Council recently changed its council structure for the 2012 election in September, switching from three four-person wards to an elected Mayor plus nine councillors elected at large across the LGA. The new mayor is John Martin who is an Independent.

In January 2012, Singleton Council released a long term Community Strategic Plan: ‘Our Place: A Blue Print for 2022’. The plan involved consultation with over 800 community residents across the LGA during 2011. The plan focuses on four key areas: community, places, environment and leadership through which to deliver a range of visions.

To date, Singleton Council has had a range of involvement with the mining industry in the Singleton LGA. Issues commonly identified by Council in relation to the presence of mining include: housing and accommodation (the Council is currently developing a housing plan); increased cost of living; presence of a drive-in / drive-out (DIDO) workforce; health / community impacts of mining shift work; loss of community / demise of villages; stress on infrastructure and services; and the distribution of benefits and costs of mining projects (Singleton Council 2012c).

1.2.3.2 State

The BCC falls in the Upper Hunter State Electorate which has been represented by National Party Member George Souris since 1998. Since March 2011, George Souris has also been acting as the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts.

Recent NSW State Government legislation, strategies and plans which are of relevance to the region and the Project include:

 Strategic Regional Land Use Plan (2012): Upper Hunter Regional Land Use Plan  A New Planning System for NSW: Green Paper (2012)  Aquifer Interference Policy (2012)  Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011  Upper Hunter Economic Diversification Project (2011)  Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (2006).

These policies are at varying stages of development and implementation.

1.2.3.3 Federal

The Singleton region is represented by Joel Fitzgibbon (Australian Labour Party) in the Federal seat of Hunter. The Federal Labour party is currently in minority government with the support of key independent and minority party members.

There are several key pieces of current federal legislation that may have an influence on social perceptions of the Project due to their current prominence in the media, namely the Carbon Pricing Scheme and the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 19

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.2.4 Socio-economic linkages between the BCC and communities in the region

Using a technique known as Town Resource Cluster Analysis or TRC Analysis (see Fenton, Coakes and Marshall, 2003), it is possible to assess the socio-economic linkages that exist between natural resource projects and communities through direct contributions (e.g. employment) and indirect contributions (e.g. employee household expenditure and use of services)of the operation . Often these contributions or impacts are experienced in areas some distance away from an operation. For example, communities in capital cities or other states may experience some benefit from a mining operation through indirect flow on effects, such as employee household expenditure (e.g. spending occurring in regional centres) or employment by suppliers to the project (e.g. if a large supplier has its main office and employs many staff in another location).

Below is a brief summary of the results of such an analysis, applied to Bulga Coal Management’s Bulga Surface Operations (BSO), which describes some of the direct and indirect socio-economic contributions of BSO through BSO employees’ locations of residence, employees’ wages and household expenditure, and employees’ participation in community groups and use of health and education services. Furthermore, it describes some of the direct and indirect socio-economic contributions of Bulga Coal more generally, through Bulga Coal’s suppliers’ office locations, employees’ towns of residence, and business expenditure (including estimates of business expenditure that are reliant on the Bulga Coal Complex).

Major resource projects can make significant social and economic contributions to communities that extend far beyond the communities in which a particular operation is based. For instance, the presence of an operation can provide economic contributions to communities through indirect impacts such as employees’ household expenditure. Furthermore, employees (and their families) that are supported by their employment on a project may contribute to communities through their participation in community groups and activities, or through their use of health and education services. Likewise, indirect benefits may be experienced in communities where suppliers’ head offices are located or where suppliers’ business expenditure is undertaken. Therefore, understanding the direct and indirect socio-economic benefits is complex, and the value of Town Resource Cluster analysis is that it can assist in locating and quantifying these benefits.

Over the course of the analysis, a few key towns emerged as likely to be significantly associated with the BSO, these included Maitland, Singleton, and Cessnock. These locations tended to be where large numbers of employees lived, and consequently where most employee household expenditure and use of local services also occurred. The following figures and tables summarise the key outputs.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 20

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 1.1: Employee / contractor place of residence (estimated based on survey data)

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 21

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 1.2 Employees' annual household expenditure (estimated based on survey data)

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Table 1.3 Summary of results for key locations of interest

Maitland Singleton Cessnock Newcastle Bulga Broke Number of BSO employees / 147 140 112 49 7 - contractors (estimated) Employees’ annual household $22.3 mil $13.9 mil $11.0 mil $6.4 mil - $0.1 expenditure (estimated) mil Use of schools (as a percentage of 30% 23% 14% 6% - - employees’ children) Use of health services (as a 28% 25% 17% 8% - - percentage of services used by employees and their families) Percentage of suppliers’ employees 8% 9% 4% 18% <1% <1% Supplier’s business expenditure $1.2 mil $5.2 mil $0.1 mil $7.2 mil - - (annual) with direct reliance on Bulga Coal contracts (estimated) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 22

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 1.4 summarises all of the data in relation to the direct employment impacts of BSO, and the associated employee household expenditure that occurs for each town.

In summary, the workforce at the BSO can be characterised as largely full-time employees working on average around 46 hours per week. A high proportion (74.3%) has been employed in other industry sectors, other than mining, previously. The majority of the workforce (66.3%) has a mortgage or own their property (15.8%) and have lived in their respective communities on average 16 years. Most are in a couple (73%) rather than single (26.9%) with fifty-five per cent having children. Use of education and health services by employees and their family members is highest in the localities of Maitland and Singleton and to a lesser extent Cessnock and Newcastle; and employees also participate in a range of community groups and organisations.

The presence of the BCC in the locality affords a range of local economic benefits to key communities across the region and more broadly, with such workforces also contributing to the human and social capitals within these various localities. The contribution from the BSO alone totals around $64 million, just in annual employee household expenditure (as detailed in the table below), much of which is expended within the Hunter region; and business expenditure of suppliers associated with BCC contracts is also significant across the region.

Table 1.4 Summary of direct employment impacts and associated indirect household expenditure impacts

Estimated BSO employees / Estimated household contractors expenditure Maitland 147 $22,308,442.02 Singleton 140 $13,865,495.27 Cessnock 112 $10,980,338.79 Branxton 63 $817,890.37 Not specified 56 $392,844.98 Newcastle 49 $6,337,040.10 Lake Macquarie 35 $3,026,838.23 Greta 35 $534,526.73 Kurri Kurri 21 $2,659,753.65 Central Coast 14 $1,159,214.67 Jerrys Plains 14 $193,202.42 Port Stephens 7 $644,008.14 Wollongong 7 $547,406.93 Bulga 7 - Muswellbrook - $354,204.51 Northern NSW - $193,202.42 Sydney - $193,202.42 Broke - $96,601.21 Tamworth - $64,400.81 Pokolbin - $32,200.40 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 23

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.2.5 Community Capitals Analysis

The development of a social profile should identify those key community assets which are imperative to ensuring community resilience over time and address how community capacity can be enhanced to enable a community to better manage its key capitals and assets - so that robust adaptive capacities may be developed against sudden shocks, changes or threats to community way of life.

According to a number of sustainable society experts there are five key capital areas that should be assessed to define levels of community resilience (e.g. Beckley et al. 2008; DFID 1999; Ellis 2000; Hart 1999). The five key capital areas – natural, economic, human, physical and social – form the basis of the socio-economic analysis undertaken as part of the SIOA, in which a range of data sources are drawn upon to develop a comparative profile at relevant local, regional and state levels.

Table 1.5 provides a summary of the key indicators collected as part of the capitals analysis while Table 1.6 summarises the key strengths and vulnerabilities of the assessment area.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 24

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 1.5 Summary of Community Capitals

Broke Bulga Singleton LGA Upper Hunter SED NSW

2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend Economic Capital Employed full- 30% 60%  38% 64%  63% 65%  61% 62% – 72% 60%  time Employed part- 15% 26%  17% 23%  27% 25%  28% 27% – 16% 28%  time Unemployed 4% 5%  5% 3%  4% 3% – 6% 4%  6% 6% –

17% 18% 17% 23% 20% 25% 17.90% 15.90% 10% 12%

Agricult Agricultu Healthc Top Industry of ure,   re, are & Employment Manufact forestry Mining Mining Mining Mining Mining forestry Mining Social uring and and Assista fishing fishing nce Median household $1,105 $1,537  $1,366 $1,882  $1,258 $1,692  $810 $1,196  $1,036 $1,237  income ($/weekly) Median rent $150 $265  $140 $200  $180 $260  $130 $200  $210 $300  ($/weekly)

Median mortgage repayment $1,112 $1,950  $1,767 $2,200  $1,408 $2,000  $1,083 $1,733  $1,517 $1,993  ($/month)

Human Capital Population size 6,549,17 6,917,6 538 636  321 358  21,939 22,694  61,640 72,463   (persons) 8 58

Indigenous 1% 1% – 2% 8%  3% 4% – 5% 5% – 2% 3% – population

Family household 80% 78%  89% 95%  79% 77%  72% 72% – 72% 72% –

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 25

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Broke Bulga Singleton LGA Upper Hunter SED NSW

2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend 2006 2011 Trend Lone person 18% 17% – 8% 5%  19% 21%  26% 25% – 24% 24% – household Group household 2% 4%  3% 0%  2% 3%  2% 3% – 4% 4% – Highest year of schooling – Year 34% 39%  28% 24%  24% 31%  26% 29%  31% 49%  12 Highest post- school 0% 2%  1% 1% – 1% 1% – 6% 7% – 3% 4% – qualification – Bachelor Degree

Highest post- school qualification – 35% 31%  34% 28%  30% 33%  26%% 30%  24% 26%  Certificate and/or Diploma Physical Capital Fully owned 41% 34%  35% 31%  34% 31%  40% 36%  36% 34%  Being purchased 35% 41%  39% 47%  40% 40% – 28% 34%  33% 34%  Rented 20% 23%  26% 23%  26% 28%  28% 29% – 30% 31% – Social Capital Single parent 6% 5% – 6% 5% – 6% 9%  15% 10%  9% 9% – families Volunteers out of population aged 18% 22%  19% 18% 25% 21%  24% 21%  17% 17% 15 years and – – above Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Note: Changes 1% were considered stable. Changes of 2% or greater are represented with an arrow. Where the data is unable to be compared the cell is blank.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 26

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.2.6 Regional Issues, Community Values and Aspirations

In addition to the assessment of relevant statistics, an analysis of key regional planning documents and studies (see ACCSR, 2011; DP&I, 2012) highlight some central challenges and issues that can be identified for the Hunter Region for the future. These issues are summarised in Table 1.7 and are grouped into key theme areas including: land use, resource development and the natural environment; economic development and employment; housing and accommodation; services and infrastructure; health; and, community amenity and heritage.

Many of the issues identified under these themes align with indicators of strength and vulnerability highlighted in the community capitals profile above, are reflected in the media analysis, and support the findings of the SIOA consultation.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 27

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 1.6 Summary of Key Regional Issues and Opportunities

Theme Strategic Regional Land Use Plan ( DP&I 2012) Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue (ACCSR 2011)

Land Use, Balancing conflicting land uses – CSG, mining, agricultural, viticulture, tourism Balancing conflicting land uses and protecting strategic areas – e.g. viticulture, Resource Maintaining and enhancing opportunities for the future of environmentally farming Development and responsible mining and agriculture Addressing key impact areas of mining: environment, air, health, noise, the Natural Protecting strategic agricultural land, conservation lands, and lands of high cumulative water impacts, rehabilitation (integrated), coal trains (covered), Environment biodiversity value including corridors blasting Developing and applying appropriate management measures to control and Addressing negative perceptions of the mining industry as a whole mitigate impacts on the environment Enhancing relationships with individual companies Developing renewable energy opportunities Linking SRLUP with local and other state government plans Ensuring high value rehabilitation Economic Addressing land use conflicts Enhancing employment and training opportunities Development and Balancing supply and demand for labour and employment land / areas Ensuring employment and training opportunities for local people Employment Developing economic diversification and resilience Housing and Ensuring adequate land supply for housing Addressing cumulative impacts of mining on the affordability and accessibility Settlement Addressing housing mix and affordability of housing in the region Promoting liveable communities Services and HVCC and rail network capacity issues Cumulative impacts on existing services and infrastructure Infrastructure Regional and cumulative impacts on existing infrastructure Supporting regionally significant infrastructure – both industry and government Impacts on local community from mining infrastructure Provision and funding for infrastructure to support new housing and development Health Impacts of air and noise pollution on community and ensuring relevant / Cumulative impacts on air quality and associated health risks stringent conditions Exploring opportunities for health risk assessments Community Land use conflicts and impacts on community Ensuring industry and community work together Amenity and Visual amenity impacts Protecting European and Aboriginal heritage Heritage Ongoing, relevant and appropriate community consultation Addressing impacts of shift work on families Impacts of air and noise pollution on community amenity Sources: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 28

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

For the Singleton LGA, some more specific issues and opportunities can be identified. Table 1.7 aligns each capital area and relevant findings from the profile against the issues identified by regional stakeholders as part of consultation undertaken for the SIOA (see also Section 6.3). Opportunities to address these issues are also listed, as identified in the Singleton Community Strategic Plan (Singleton Council 2012a).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 29

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 1.7 Issues and Opportunities, Singleton LGA

Human Ageing population Addressing local skills shortages Create spaces and tools to keep community connected Lower than average schooling and Lack of diversity in education and training options including education and training programs post-school education levels Better assessment of health impacts Inform, consult, involve, collaborate, empower our High rates of road traffic deaths due to community for effective decision making car accidents Lead, govern and regulate transparently, equitably and Limited access to specialist health and ethically through development of appropriate plans, mental health services policies and frameworks Presence of relatively few ‘at-risk’ Support and enable Singleton as a learning community groups e.g. educational support, grants, initiatives

Physical Reliance on private car transport with Stress on existing infrastructure and services Offer a range of cultural, sport and recreational facilities limited public transport, rail etc. Addressing safety and capacity of transport/road networks Plan for a sustainable and safe community e.g. education Increasing issues with accessibility and Developing more education and training services / programs, development of Sustainability Strategy affordability of housing opportunities Partner to improve our road and infrastructure systems Limited services in culture and the arts Enhancing youth, aged, mental health and Aboriginal- e.g. plans, VPA agreements with mining companies and community service provision, such focused services / support programs Improve transport options within the community and as youth services, childcare and Need for accessible and affordable housing region e.g. through Transport Plan emergency services Provision of accommodation for mining employees Revitalise community spaces and places e.g. Singleton Addressing homelessness and provision of emergency CBD Masterplan

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 30

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Issues Stakeholder-Identified Issues Opportunities Capitals Analysis Outcomes Singleton Stakeholder Consultation Singleton Community Strategic Plan 2022: Strategies housing Development of a Plan to consider the past, present and a sustainable future for the locality e.g. review DCP / LEP Promote village living and lifestyle e.g. service provision, entry statements (branding) Social High and increasing proportion of single Enhancing investment, communication and engagement Provide a range of activities and events to encourage persons, particularly males between mining companies and community community participation e.g. CBD Masterplan, community Higher than average population mobility Addressing impacts of shift work on families and events rates in Singleton enhancing opportunities for mining families Offer a range of cultural, sport and recreational facilities to Generally increasing key crime Addressing impacts on sense of community (e.g. mobility, meet the needs of our diverse community e.g. offenses mining workforce, volunteering) Recreational Needs Study, park upgrades Developing Aboriginal cultural heritage awareness, Provide and promote services and facilities that meet the support programs and events needs of our community through various stages of life e.g. Acknowledging key community values including: local Housing Strategy, Ageing Strategy villages; rural lifestyle; social / community and recreation Revitalise community spaces and places e.g. Place facilities and events; traditional community and family Making Strategy and consultation, arts, cultural and sports values; strong sense of history, culture and heritage events Sources: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 31

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.2.7 Local Community Values and Aspirations

The issues identified in regional studies and in the media are reflected in the core values of communities in the region. The most recent summary of the values of importance to the Singleton community is outlined in the Singleton Council’s community Strategic Plan, which involved consultation with over 800 community residents across the LGA during 2011. Values identified as important to local Singleton residents included:

 Rural heritage and lifestyle  Access/proximity to services and regional/capital cities  Community-minded people  Tradition and family  A strong economy

Further definition of community values has also been undertaken at a more localised level through the Our Villages, Our Vision community visioning project. The visioning project involved consultation with over 100 stakeholders across the villages of Bulga, Broke and Milbrodale to identify key values and visions for the future of these communities. Values mapping was one technique used as part of the consultation process to identify a range of economic, social/community, and physical values across their respective village landscapes. In summary, community members identified agriculture, viticulture, tourism, the military base, mining and local enterprise (e.g. Cockfighter Tavern and Broke Village Store), as creating economic value in their respective communities, through direct and indirect associations. Places of particular value included and places of historic and heritage value which were important to community identity, and community meeting places (e.g. community halls, churches, Broke Village Store, War Memorial, Broke and Milbrodale Public School, Broke and Bulga Rural Fire Stations) as they afforded the opportunity for people to come together as a community.

As part of this Project, community members were also asked to identify their aspirations for the future. The aspirations they identified focused particularly on social and economic aspects, including improved community services and infrastructure for the local villages, maintenance of existing local community meeting places, support for community events, community groups and local programs, provision of recreational infrastructure and support for the continued diversification and prosperity of the local economy. Suggestions were also raised in relation to the protection and restoration of the environment (e.g. clean-up of Wollombi Brook) and improved governance (e.g. planning around coexistence of industries).

In summary, from the profiling work, it is possible to identify a number of key issues and opportunities for the Singleton area, as listed below:

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 32

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

 Information sharing between the community, government and industry  Developing Aboriginal cultural heritage awareness, support programs and events, employment/training and business mentoring / support programs  Protecting key community values including: local villages; rural lifestyle; social / community and recreation facilities and events; traditional community and family values; sense of local history, culture and heritage.

The issues identified within the Singleton LGA span the breadth of community capitals – natural, social, human, physical and economic – with development in certain capital areas e.g. physical capital, providing the opportunity to further build and develop other capital assets e.g. economic, social, human capital. Consequently, discussions regarding investment and community development within the LGA should be focused on those strategies that produce the greatest return across the community’s collective capital assets, while enhancing local community values and aspirations.

At a local level, community residents of the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale have articulated a desire to see the local heritage of their villages valued, their rural and social amenity protected and physical capital developed to better facilitate social, economic and recreational activities.

Whereas at a regional level, stakeholder identified issues relating to physical capital development appeared more salient e.g. addressing stress on existing infrastructure and services, addressing safety and capacity of transport/road networks, developing more education and training services/opportunities, enhancing youth, aged, mental health and Aboriginal-focused services/support programs, addressing a diversity of housing issues – affordability, availability and diversity.

Given perceptions of dependency on the mining sector, there was also a desire for greater economic diversification through development and attraction of other industry and business sectors, and a desire for relevant stakeholders to work together more cooperatively to address land use conflicts and cumulative impacts e.g. workforce mix, community participation, skills shortages, associated with the presence of a prominent industry sector within the locality.

As part of the NSW planning process, DP&I utilise developer contributions such as a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) or other contributions. This allows the benefits of industry activity to be shared and impacts of development to be identified and appropriately managed at local and more regional levels. Through targeted social investment, administered through such agreements, impact management and further community enhancement can be undertaken to facilitate development across a community’s key capital areas, whether that be at a localised village level or at the broader LGA level.

The profile section has highlighted issues of relevance across the locality through a review of a range of sources, including consultation with key stakeholders at local and more regional levels. In order to address the impacts and needs identified, the following points list those areas considered to be the most salient:  Redeveloping and promoting Singleton CBD  Village beautification: entry statements, greening  Environmental education and partnership programs  Local employment, economic development and diversification strategies  Further development of community events, sport/recreational and cultural facilities

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 33

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

 Planning to improve road, infrastructure and transport systems  Regional housing needs assessment and facilitation of sustainable and mixed housing development  Coordination and facilitation of engagement and collaboration forums and programs between government, mining companies, and community, particularly in relation to cumulative mining impacts, social investment and land use conflict  Cultural heritage programs and facilities to build awareness of local Aboriginal cultures  Developing infrastructure and services, enhancing youth, aged, mental health, allied health and Aboriginal-focused services/support programs.

1.3 Perceived Issues and Opportunities of the Project

A key component of the SIOA is the process of understanding, from a community perspective, community values and uses associated with the assessment area, and specifically the impacts and opportunities associated with the Project.

In this phase, consultation was undertaken with approximately 400 stakeholders including landholders residing in proximity to the Bulga Coal Complex, representatives from local community groups in Broke and Bulga, local Councillors, service providers and key regional stakeholder groups, in order to:  identify perceived issues / impacts associated with the Project  identify perceived issues / impacts associated with cumulative mining development in the region  identify strategies for management and opportunities for enhancement of perceived Project issues/impacts.

1.3.1 Local Community Consultation

Overall as shown in Figure 1.3 the perceived issues identified as most important across the stakeholders consulted were air quality (15.4%), followed by noise (13.3%), visual impacts (11.6%) and community sustainability (11.3%). Issues less frequently raised included vibration from blasting (2.2%), general environmental issues (2.9%), and BCM’s reputation (referred to as Xstrata/Bulga in the community) (3.1%).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 34

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 1.3 Key Issues and Opportunities identified by neighbouring residents

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Both Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4 outline the perceived importance of these issues across the differing geographic locations, as issues may vary by area due to topography and proximity of residences to the BSO operations.

The localities closest to the mine e.g. those located in the village of Bulga, placed greater emphasis on direct mining impacts, including air quality, visual impacts and noise. For landholders and community members of Bulga, noise (17%) was the most recurring and consistent issue of concern, and for the Fordwich / Charlton Road area it was visual impacts (19%).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 35

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 1.4 Impact Spectrum, Key Issues and Opportunities by Location

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

For those residents located in and around Broke Village, community engagement was the key issue (16%), with residents providing positive comments on the engagement approach of BCM to date. Air quality and visual impacts were also identified as issues of concern.

Residents located in the viticultural area around Milbrodale Road discussed themes relating to community sustainability (16%) and mine life and land use (13%). These latter issues were also expressed by stakeholders in the Mt Thorley and Mitchell Line area, while Wollombi Road residents identified air quality (33%), impacts on water (27%) and health impacts (13%) as their key issues of concern.

For local community group representatives (including local government representatives), the key issues identified included air quality (21%), noise (12%) and community sustainability (12%).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 36

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

In summary, of most concern to the local communities in proximity to the BCC are issues relating to air quality, noise and visual amenity from the existing operations; with concerns that further mining activity will only exacerbate these issues at the community level. Longer- term issues of mine life and end land-use, and issues relating to the ongoing sustainability of these small localities were also key concerns for stakeholders. Issues relating to surface and ground water, roads and transport, health, company reputation, general environmental issues and blasting were also discussed, but to a lesser extent.

1.3.2 Regional Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation was also undertaken with a range of stakeholders at a regional Singleton LGA level. These stakeholders were drawn from across key community sectors i.e. local government, education, health, transport, housing and accommodation; emergency services. Such an analysis provides a greater context in outlining some of the broader, cumulative impacts of relevance to stakeholders within the locality.

When regional stakeholders were asked to share their perceptions on mining activity within the LGA broadly, a number of issues emerged (see Figure 6.18).

These perceptions have been presented as a force-field analysis that illustrates factors that may facilitate positive development in the community in relation to the presence of mining and factors that may inhibit community development, from the perspectives of those consulted.

As the analysis shows, impacts have both positive and negative aspects: while the presence of mining in Singleton can have positive influences such as increasing employment, improving household incomes and providing community investment; negative aspects may also result e.g. inability of local business to compete with high mining wages for staff, community investment not always being directed to the greatest community needs, and loss of identity as a rural community.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 37

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 1.5 Force Field Analysis Perceptions of Mining in the Singleton Community

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 38

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.4 Risking and Assessment of Social Impacts

In order to prioritise the identified social impacts, a risk-based framework has been adopted. Traditionally, the technical risk assessment process has not been greatly amenable to the inclusion of social impacts and consequently, a risk based approach to SIA has been adopted in the current assessment that acknowledges both technical and perceived stakeholder risk. This decision was taken to reflect best practice methods used in Australia and to afford a more seamless EIS document.

As shown in Figure 1.6, a broad-brush and integrated assessment is used to plot the technical impacts against stakeholder perceived impacts. As noted above, these impacts are the mitigated impacts posed by the Project. Prioritising impacts in this integrated manner allows for appropriate assessment and mitigation strategies to be developed that not only address impacts that may require technical management but also those impacts that are perceived by stakeholders as of high risk / importance / concern. These perceived concerns are just as important to manage as technical risks as they have the potential to result in elevated levels of community concerns, complaints and grievances if not addressed appropriately.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 39

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 1.6 Social Impact Plot for the Project Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Each of these impacts is assessed in detail as part of the overarching risk-based framework using a consequence and likelihood framework i.e. assessing the consequence of a given social impact factor (e.g. catastrophic, major, negligible) against the likelihood that it will occur (e.g. almost certain, likely, possible), which determines the overall risk assessment of the social impact as ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’. Specific definitions have been developed for both the consequence and likelihood of the identified social impacts, guided by social assessment practice, best practice research findings and relevant government agency guidelines, including the IAIA (2003) guiding principles of social impact assessment.

Table 1.8 provides a summary of the predicted impacts associated with the Project. It should be noted that certain impact themes i.e. economic and environmental have not been risked given that these studies have been technically assessed as part of the broader environmental assessment.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 40

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 1.8 Summary of mitigated social impacts for the Project

Stakeholders Mitigated technical Perceived Project Aspect Time Geographic scope impacted risk stakeholder risk

Population change impacts Construction Workforce (population Construction Singleton LGA and Near Neighbours Low Low change) broader community

Reduction in capacity of road due to Construction Broke, Bulga and Mt Road users of the sub- Medium Medium construction workforce Thorley regional network Relocation of Broke and Charlton Life of Mine Broke and Bulga Road users of Broke Medium Medium Roads and Charlton Roads Reduction in capacity of utilities Life of mine Broke and Bulga Asset owners Low Low Utility users Construction and operational workforce Life of mine Broke and Bulga Broke and Milbrodale Medium (Positive) Low (Positive) use of education services Public Schools Construction and operational workforce Construction Singleton LGA Health care providers Low Medium use of health care services and users

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 41

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Stakeholders Mitigated technical Perceived Project Aspect Time Geographic scope impacted risk stakeholder risk

Construction and operational workforce Construction Singleton LGA Social and community Low Low use of social and community services service providers and users

Construction and operational workforce Construction Broke and Paynes Broke, Bulga and Low Low use of emergency services Valley regions Paynes valley residents

Road relocation (impact on emergency Construction Broke and Paynes Broke, Bulga and Medium Low response) Valley regions Paynes valley residents

Impacts on social amenity

Visual Impacts Life of mine Broke and Bulga Broke and Bulga Medium High Community Residents Wider community Dust emissions Life of mine Broke and Bulga Local Residents and Medium High business owners Noise emissions Life of mine Broke and Bulga Local Residents and Medium High business owners Construction traffic travelling through Construction Broke Village Residents of Broke Medium Medium Broke (amenity) Village Health and wellbeing impacts OHS of employees/contractors Life of mine Singleton LGA Employees and families Medium Low Health care providers and users Construction traffic during construction Construction Broke and Bulga Construction workforce High Medium and road relocations (road safety) Permanent Road users Workforce drug and alcohol misuse Construction and Singleton LGA Construction workforce Medium Low operations Health care providers Wider community

Dust emissions (impact on respiratory Life of mine Broke and Bulga Local Residents Low Medium health) Health care providers and users

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 42

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Stakeholders Mitigated technical Perceived Project Aspect Time Geographic scope impacted risk stakeholder risk

Increased exposure to nitrogen dioxide Operation Broke and Bulga Broke and Bulga Low Low (orange blast plumes) Residents Surrounding road users

Impacts on sense of community and cohesion Population Change (impact on sense Life of mine Broke and Bulga Wider community Low Low of community) Singleton LGA

Impacts on local heritage and places of Permanent Broke and Bulga Heritage stakeholders Low Low community value Local Residents Impact of project and ongoing Life of mine Broke and Bulga Other land users Medium High operations on land use conflict Environmental impacts Ecological impacts Life of Mine Broke and Bulga Wider community Medium (EIS) Low Singleton LGA Impacts on water Life of Mine Broke and Bulga Wider community Low (EIS) Medium Water Users Greenhouse gas emissions Life of mine and Singleton LGA Globe Low (EIS) Low beyond Impacts on community sustainability Impact of project and ongoing Life of mine Broke and Bulga Wider community Low High operations on community sustainability Singleton LGA

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Note: Wider community is defined as all people who may reside, work, govern or have connection to the locality. Negative risks are written in normal font, positive opportunities in italics

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 43

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.5 Management and enhancement strategies

To address the Project impacts identified, a range of strategies are proposed to mitigate and/or enhance Project impacts. BCM is currently implementing a number of strategies and initiatives that relate specifically to each of the impacts identified and/or the broader more regional and cumulative issues identified through the social profiling and community consultation phases of the SIOA program.

Table 1.9 summarises the key strategies that BCM has committed to undertaking to address the key impacts associated with the Project. These strategies can be categorising according to the following types of approach, namely:

 Project design – e.g. the Noise and Visual Bund development, road relocations  Operational management – e.g. noise and dust modelling and management  Engagement and communication  Social and technical research e.g. Social Impact and Opportunities Assessment  Community development e.g. Our Villages Our Vision Project  Social investment and contribution  Social monitoring and evaluation.

It should be noted that given the SIOA commenced early in the Projects planning phase, outcomes of the SIOA program have been integrated in Project planning and mine plan design on a continuing basis as the Project has developed. This approach has endeavoured to address community issues are an integral component of the assessment and planning process.

The strategies identified will be further detailed in the operations Social Involvement Plan to guide implementation and evaluation of the social aspects of the Project.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 44

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 1.9 Summary of strategies to address project related impacts Impact(s) Project Aspect Strategies (to reduce / enhance Project impacts / opportunities) Population change Construction  Utilisation of local contracting companies where practical and development of appropriate protocols to manage Community Service Use Workforce contractor activities (Influx)  Capacity of road Development of a dedicated Construction Traffic Management Plan, elements to include: infrastructure . Consult with Singleton Council/RMS in relation to the potential for Broke village traffic mitigation measures including .e.g. Traffic Impacts o Installation of speed humps to slow traffic and reduce traffic through back streets of Broke Road Safety o Speed signage o Contractor and employee training program –focus on road safety and village amenity o Provision of appropriate parking and vehicle access points for staff at each mine infrastructure area, consideration of car-pooling / bussing of contractors to site Capacity of road Road Relocations  Establishment of a Project Development Working Group – group to be developed to address project construction infrastructure (Charlton and aspects e.g. for the period of road relocation and include key stakeholders from the Broke and Bulga communities. Traffic (safety) Broke Roads) Key objectives of the group to provide information regarding road relocation construction program and assist in the scoping of visual mitigation and roadside beautification programs Emergency Services  (response times) Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Contribution to address road infrastructure and maintenance issues with the Singleton Council Sense of Community –  Heritage Values Great North Road interpretation strategy – to include historical and archaeological investigation and development of acknowledgment of the historical road alignment in consultation with the Convict Trail Project and OEH - Heritage Branch Visual Noise and Visual  Development of noise and visual bund Noise Bund Development  Continued communication regarding development of the noise and visual bund. Dust  Monitoring and management of noise and air quality (Social Amenity)  Village beautification programs Sense of Community Property  Replanting of Vere Vineyard historical cabernet clone Land Use Conflict Acquisition  Continued utilisation of buffer lands for residential and complementary land uses where practical Community Sustainability  Community Planning forum to involve village stakeholders, local government and mining industry representatives and facilitated to prioritise projects identified in the Visioning project and to identify areas for further provision of support, such as: . Upgrades and further development of local recreational areas . Upgrade and beautification of local amenities . Development of Village entry statements . Development of community infrastructure/facilities  Continued provision of support to the Broke-Fordwich Wine and Tourism Association

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 45

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Impact(s) Project Aspect Strategies (to reduce / enhance Project impacts / opportunities)  Continued support for local village events and festivals  Ongoing facilitation of community engagement program in line with the Social Involvement Plan for the Complex e.g. BBQ’s Intergenerational equity Ongoing  Commitment to comprehensive SIA as part of closure planning Community Sustainability Operations  Review of post mining land use options Environment Social Licence  Continued preference for employment of local residents and procurement of local small and medium enterprises (SME’s)  Monitoring of social indicators  Continued support for local primary schools – Broke and Milbrodale  See also community programs above Cumulative Impacts Ongoing  Continued engagement in key regional and LGA forums e.g. UHMD, Singleton Housing Strategy, Council initiated Operations committees Social Licence  VPA contribution to address identified LGA issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 46

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

1.6 Social Impact Monitoring

A key aspect of any social impact assessment is the development of a framework to monitor a project’s impact over time. It is recommended that social data be collected to monitor commitments made in the social impact assessment namely:

 Key areas of predicted project impact, namely major construction activities e.g. origin of construction workforce, intended residence of construction workers in the locality/region, use of local services  Key regional issues, through collection of relevant census and social indicator data  Social and economic contributions of the operation in the community through recurring implementation of workforce and supplier surveys for example TRC-Analysis or similar  Actions and investments arising from the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the project.

BCM has an existing Social Involvement Plan and it is suggested that outcomes of the SIA be integrated into this document to inform future management of social impacts and operational planning.

1.7 Conclusion

The SIOA has identified a number of social and economic impacts for BCM to manage as part of the proposed Project. Given limited extension of the mine footprint and mine plan design, the social impacts of the project have been largely minimised. The key impacts of relevance largely include impact of the proposed construction workforce (approximately 300 workers) on housing and accommodation in the area, given current shortages in the region, impacts on road capacity and road safety as a result of proposed road relocations (Broke and Charlton Roads), impacts on social amenity (as a result of visual, air quality, noise and traffic impacts), and health and well-being impacts associated with the presence of the construction workforce.

Of particular concern to community stakeholders consulted as part of the SIA program, were the social amenity issues and impacts on village community sustainability, largely as a result of the expansion of mining in the local area. Land use conflict was also perceived as ‘high’ from a stakeholder perspective, particularly among key groups with a stronger opposition to further mining and industry development in the area.

The SIA program has also provided a detailed context for the project, including discussion of regional issues relating to mining, documentation of the social and economic linkages and associations between the BSO and the community and has also highlighted the key values that residents of the local villages hold, in proximity to the BSO, and their desire to see further improvements in their respective localities across the differing community capital areas – natural/environmental, physical, social, human and economic.

A number of initiatives, strategies and programs have also been recommended to assist with the management of social impacts in relation to the Project. BCM also has a range of existing strategies in place to address and enhance project impacts and these and any further commitments will be summarised in the Social Involvement Plan for the operation.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 47

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

2.0 Introduction and Project Description

The Bulga Optimisation Project is a proposed continuation of the existing open cut operations within the BCC, to enable mining to continue for a further approximately 22 years (around 10 years beyond the existing Bulga Surface Operations development consent expiry date). This will allow an additional approximately 200 million tonnes (Mt) of run of mine (ROM) coal to be mined by open cut methods from land that is largely within the existing BCC disturbance footprint; combined with the existing approved open cut reserves, of approximately 30 Mt ROM coal. Approximately 230 Mt ROM coal will be extracted during the life of the Project from the extended Bulga Surface Operations (please see detailed Project description in the EIS).

BCM is seeking approval for the Project under Part 4 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The SIOA program has been designed to identify, assess and address potential social impacts of the Project on neighbouring and local communities, and more specifically to:

 Identify potential social impacts and opportunities, including cumulative impacts  Identify relevant management and enhancement strategies to address relevant social impacts  Ensure effective integration of study outputs with other environmental assessment studies to inform broader Project planning.

Engagement with the community has been a key component of the program at key phases of the assessment, namely in the scoping of project issues and impacts and the development of appropriate strategies to address and/or enhance impacts.

The phases of the SIOA developed for the Project have been staged to build a well- evidenced assessment of social impacts by:

1. Developing a profile of the social and economic context in which the Project is located, at a local and regional scale to highlight key community capital strengths and vulnerabilities and summarise key social/community issues of relevance to the Project. It is important to note that the Project involves the continuation of an existing operation and while the Project is occurring within a broader social and economic context, impacts of the Project (and the associated change) need to be specifically identified. 2. Identifying the impacts and opportunities associated with the Project through engagement and consultation with near neighbours, village residents and regional stakeholders within the Singleton LGA. This information has been used to inform Project planning and design in a proactive way and to ensure that issues of relevance to the community are considered adequately in the environmental assessment for the Project. 3. Assessing and predicting the significance of impacts associated with the Project through the application of a ‘risk-based’ approach; integrating both perceived and technical assessment of risk. Where available, relevant data sets have been used to inform the assessment of impacts associated with the Project and to explore perceptions raised in consultation with the community. The application of this approach is relatively new within

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 48

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

the SIOA field; it allows for greater integration with the broader environmental assessment work and attempts to address impacts of relevance to technical specialists and community members are adequately discussed and considered in the impact assessment process. 4. Developing strategies that address and manage the predicted social impacts associated with the Project and which may enhance opportunities in a manner that values existing community aspirations and assets. 5. Identifying what will require monitoring should the Project be approved and noting any unanticipated social impacts that may result from the Project.

2.1 Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs)

As part of the approval process for the Project, a number of Director-General’s Requirements were provided from the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) outlining a terms of reference that specify what must be addressed in the EIS. The DGRs require:

 An assessment of issues specific to the Project and potential impacts  Specification of technical assessment guidelines relevant to the Project  Consultation with Local Government, State and Federal Government agencies and the local community.

Table 2.1 outlines the relevant DGRs for the SIOA component of the Project and where in the SIOA document these requirements have been addressed.

Table 2.1 DGRs Addressed in the SIOA

Page DGRs Relevant Section Number  Assess the impacts on recreational use, with  Section 5.1 Defining the 83 particular reference to Broke-Fordwich Assessment Area

 Section 8.0 Assessment and Management of Social Risks 167  Assess potential impacts on local and regional communities, including:  Section 8.2.3 Impacts on community infrastructure and  Increased demand for local and regional 180 infrastructure and services (such as housing, services childcare, health, education and emergency services)  Impacts on social amenity  Section 8.2.4 Impacts on social amenity 195

 A detailed description of the measures that may  Section 8.0 Assessment and be implemented to minimise the adverse social Management of Social Risks 167 and economic impacts of the project, including  Section 9.0 Monitoring of Social any infrastructure improvements or contributions Impacts 231 and/or  Voluntary planning agreement or similar  Section 8.0 Assessment and mechanism Management of Social Risks 167

Source: Department of Planning and Infrastructure (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 49

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

3.0 Methodology

SIOA is an approach of assessing and predicting the likely consequences of a proposed action in social terms. While economic assessment emphasises the monetary effects of an action or proposal, social impact assessment is concerned with assessing benefits and costs in non-monetary terms. This involves understanding impacts from the perspectives of those involved in a personal, community, social or cultural sense. Social assessment processes work together to provide a complete picture of potential impacts and their context and meaning.

3.1 International Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as:

“ the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment.” (IAIA, 2003)

The IAIA guidelines adopt Vanclay’s (2008) classification of social impacts as issues affecting, directly or indirectly:

 People’s way of life, that is: how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day to day basis  Their culture, that is: their shared belies, customs, values and language or dialect  The community, that is: its cohesion, stability character, services and facilities  Their political system, such as: the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of democratisation that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose  Their environment, such as: the quality of the air and water people use, the availability and quality of the food they eat, the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to, the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources  Their health and wellbeing: health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity  Their personal and property rights: particularly whether people are economically affected or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties  Their fears and aspirations, that is: their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children.

As is the case with any type of change, some individuals or groups within the community may benefit, while others may experience negative impacts. If negative impacts are predicted, it is the role of the SIOA to determine how such impacts may be addressed effectively to reduce the degree of social disruption to those affected. If positive impacts are predicted, the aim of the SIOA is to utilise these opportunities and identify how these impacts might be further enhanced. Monitoring and evaluation is also a key component of an SIOA process to monitor impacts over time and identity any unanticipated impacts that may arise as a result of the Project.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 50

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

3.2 SIOA Methodology: Bulga Optimisation Project

The IAIA guidelines outlined in the section above have been integrated as part of the Project SIOA during the development of the Project.

Commissioning of the SIOA early in the Project and regular meetings with the Project team throughout the assessment program have provided opportunities to effectively align assessment outcomes with the broader EIS process, undertaken by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), to inform project planning and mine plan design.

Table 3.1 summarises the activities that have been included in the SIOA and their alignment with the IAIA guidelines.

Table 3.1 Summary of social assessment and communications used IAIA Guidelines Relevant Phase of the Project Page SIOA /SIOA Report Number

Phase 1 – Program Planning

 Participate in the environmental design of the  Section 2.0 – Introduction and Project 48 planned intervention Description  Section 6.0– Perceived Issues and Opportunities of the Project 141

 Identify interested and affected peoples  Section 3.0 – Methodology 50

 Assist in evaluating and selecting alternatives  Section 2.0– Introduction and Project (including a no development option) 48 Description  Section 8.0 – Assessment and 167 Management of Social Risks

 Assist in site selection  Section 2.0– Project Description 48

Phase 2 – Community Profiling  Document and analyse the local historical  Section 5.0 – Social Profile setting of the planned intervention so as to be 83 able to interpret responses to the intervention, and to assess cumulative impacts  Collect baseline data (social profiling) to allow  Section 5.0 – Social Profile evaluation and audit of the impact assessment 83 process and the planned intervention itself  Give a rich picture of the local cultural context,  Section 5.0 – Social Profile and develop an understanding of local  Section 6.0 – Perceived Issues and 83 community values, particularly how they relate Opportunities of the Project to the planned intervention 141

Phase 3 – Scoping of Issues and Opportunities

 Facilitate and coordinate the participation of  Section 3.0 – Methodology 50 stakeholders  Section 6.0– Perceived issues and opportunities of the Project 141  Identify and describe the activities which are  Section 6.0 – Perceived Issues and 141 likely to cause impacts (scoping) Opportunities of the Project Phase 4 – Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities  Predict (or analyse) likely impacts and how  Section 8.0 – Assessment and 167 different stakeholders are likely to respond Management of Social Risks

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 51

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

IAIA Guidelines Relevant Phase of the Project Page SIOA /SIOA Report Number  Describe potential conflicts between  Section 8.0 – Assessment and stakeholders and advise on resolution Management of Social Risks 167 processes Phase 5 - Predictions of Impact and Strategy Development

 Recommend mitigation measures  Section 8.0 – Assessment and 167 Management of Social Risks  Assist in the valuation process and provide  Section 8.0 – Assessment and 167 suggestions about compensation (non-financial Management of Social Risks as well as financial)  Develop coping strategies for dealing with  Section 8.0 – Assessment and 167 residual or non-mitigatable impacts Management of Social Risks

 Contribute to skill development and capacity  Section 8.0 – Assessment and 167 building in the community Management of Social Risks

 Advise on appropriate institutional and  Section 8.0 – Assessment and 167 coordination arrangements for all parties Management of Social Risks  Assist in devising and implementing monitoring  Section 9.0 – Monitoring of Social 231 and management programs Impacts Source: IAIA (2003)

Engagement with the community has been a key component of the SIOA program at key phases of the assessment. The BCC has an established relationship with near neighbours, village residents and community groups surrounding the operations, as well as broader regional stakeholders; and consequently engagement has been a key component of BCM’s activities.

To address the guidelines noted in Table 3.1 above, a participatory approach to the SIOA has been undertaken, involving local landholders/residents and local and regional stakeholders in the scoping of Project issues and identification of strategies to address and enhance Project impacts. A detailed operational situational analysis has also been undertaken to document the social and economic linkages and associations that currently exist between the BCC and communities in the region.

Table 3.2 provides a summary of the assessment and consultation / engagement mechanisms specifically utilised during each phase of the SIOA program. This consultation has been further complimented by engagement undertaken by the broader project team with State Government agencies and other key stakeholders in the course of other operational and assessment activities. Further detail of the extent of consultation undertaken for the Project is summarised in the EIS document.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 52

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 3.2 Summary of Social Assessment Methods

Methodology/Approach Description/Detail

Assessment Methods Phase 1 Program Planning Development of a tailored stakeholder engagement strategy for the Project. Development of Stakeholder The strategy was informed by previous consultation activities, existing data on Engagement Strategy perceived issues and opportunities and preliminary social risk rankings undertaken in the pre-feasibility Project phase. Phase 2 Community Profiling Assessment and analysis of ABS Census data and other relevant social and Community Capitals Analysis community indicators and data sets to develop a detailed social profile of the (socio-demographic analysis) communities of interest. Areas of existing community resilience and vulnerability have been identified through a community capitals analysis. Review and analysis of historical accounts of the region and local media Historic and contemporary sources to understand historical and emerging issues and opportunities within issues and opportunities the community. Operational situational Documentation of the social and economic linkages between the BCC and the analysis and Township community at a micro level through employee and supplier surveys. Review of Resource Cluster Analysis corporate and operational standards, policies and programs relevant to the (TRC-Analysis) SIOA. Personal interviews with key regional stakeholders to identify challenges and Regional and cumulative opportunities for the Singleton LGA in relation to community service provision issues analysis and capacity.

Aboriginal Profile Review of socio-economic statistics relevant to the Aboriginal community.

Phase 3 Scoping of Issues and Opportunities Personal interviews with near neighbours of the BCC to identify perceived Local community issues issues and opportunities relating to the Project. Ranking of perceived issues analysis and opportunities by relative frequency. Review and analysis of Facilitation of local community barbecues (existing mechanism of the BCC) to existing company consultation present information relating to the Project and to obtain an understanding of mechanisms i.e. Community perceived issues and opportunities in relation to the Project from residents Barbecues within the local communities of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. Phase 4 Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities Assessment of mitigated technical social risk associated with the Project Social Risking through review of relevant social and environmental consequence and likelihood ratings. Prediction of social impacts associated with the Project. Phase 5 Prediction of Impact and Strategy Development Plotting of impacts (perceived and technical) utilising the Social Impact Plot© Social Impact Plot© method to prioritise social risk rankings (technical and perceived) and guide management strategy development. Identification and development of appropriate strategies to address predicted Social Impact Management Project impacts. Minimisation of high and medium social risks through and Residual Risk Ranking commitment to relevant management and enhancement strategies.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 53

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Methodology/Approach Description/Detail

Commissioning of a separate study to develop a collective community vision/roadmap for the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. The ‘Our Villages, Our Vision’ Project was developed to identify existing values of importance to community members and to document aspirations for the future. Given community concerns regarding sustainability of the respective villages and issues relating to the alignment of social investment in their localities, the work was commissioned prior to the completion of the Project SIOA program. Outcomes of this work have therefore been utilised in various sections of the ‘Our Villages Our Vision’ SIOA, particularly in defining existing community values in the profiling section Community Project and in documenting community aspirations regarding opportunities for improved impact management and enhancement within the respective localities. The project involved consultation with a range of community residents and groups through personal and community group meetings, a Photovoice study with local children enrolled at the Broke and Milbrodale Primary Schools and development of a Vox Pops Facebook page to identify youth perspectives and shopfront feedback sessions at Broke and Bulga local stores. Consultation and Communication Methods Personal meetings with near neighbours to outline Project aspects and obtain Near neighbour meetings feedback on perceived issues and opportunities associated with the Project. Community group briefings Project briefings to local community groups in Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. and consultation Personal meetings with key regional stakeholders drawn from across key Regional stakeholder community service sectors within the Singleton LGA i.e. local government, consultation education, health, transport, housing and accommodation, emergency services. Briefings and personal meetings with relevant government representatives Government briefings and (local, state and federal) to present the Project and obtain feedback on Project consultation aspects. Development of a series of community information sheets summarising key Community information aspects of the Project and progress/outcomes of the environmental and social sheets assessment program – distributed to neighbouring community residents and relevant stakeholders. Facilitation of local community BBQs in Broke and Bulga (existing mechanism of the BCC). BBQ forums have provided the opportunity to present the Project Community BBQs and document perceived issues and opportunities of residents residing within the local communities of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale. Hosting of small focus groups and personal meetings on key issues identified by key stakeholders in phase 2 of the SIOA program. In-focus sessions were held on the following key topics: In-focus Series  Visual impacts and bund design  End land use  Noise Community Hall Information Presentation of Project and EIS outcomes to the communities of Bulga and Sessions Broke through community information sessions in the local village halls. Summary of the key outcomes of the EIS for the Project distributed to all Project EIS Summary Booklet households in the local villages and key stakeholders on the project database. Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 54

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

3.3 Participants / Stakeholders in the SIOA

Social impact assessment involves the cooperation and coordination of a number of “social partners” or “stakeholders”. As Burdge (2004) outlines, stakeholders may be affected groups or individuals that:

 Live nearby the resource/project  Have an interest in the proposed action or change  Use or value a resource  Are interested in its use and/or  Are forced to relocate.

As part of the SIOA program for the Project, a wide range of stakeholders have been identified and involved in the program. These stakeholders have been grouped as follows:

 Near neighbours – landholders and residents residing in proximity to the current mining operations in the neighbouring villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale  Village community groups and organisations (community groups within the surrounding villages)  Aboriginal stakeholders  State and Commonwealth Government agencies  Local Government representatives  State and Federal Elected Representatives  Local business and business chambers/groups  Industry stakeholders (other mining operations, businesses in other industry sectors e.g. equine, viticulture)  Community groups (within the broader Singleton LGA)  Environmental groups (interest, advocate and research groups in the area)  Cultural and heritage groups (associated with the area)  Service providers (education, health, emergency services, employment and training, community services)  Sport and recreation groups  Local media  Other relevant Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and Not For Profit organisations (NFPs)  BCC Open Cut Employees and Contractors  BCC Suppliers and Consultants.

Table 3.3 provides an overview of the number of stakeholders consulted across each stakeholder group category. A total of 408 stakeholders participated in the consultation process. The consultation mechanisms utilised as part of the SIOA varied and, where possible, were matched to stakeholder groups to facilitate participation in the assessment program.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 55

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 3.3 Project SIOA Consultation Summary

Stakeholder Category Number of Participants

Neighbouring Landholders / Local Residents 100 Singleton Council Administration Representatives and Local Councillors 14 Broke and Bulga Community groups 39 Business Chamber and local business owners 9 Singleton community groups 5 Cultural and heritage groups 5 Education Providers 4 Emergency Services 3 Health Service Providers 2 Sports and Recreation Groups 2 Aboriginal stakeholders and service providers 25 BCC Open Cut Employees and Contractors 104 BCC Suppliers 96 Total 408 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

To track community attitudes and perceptions in relation to their operations, XCN also undertake a regular survey. Initially undertaken in 2006 (Viewpoint Program report, Coakes Consulting 2006), the survey is now implemented by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation (HVRF) and has been administered in 2009 and 2012. The survey provides a means for XCN to evaluate its social and environmental performance by keeping track of community issues, informing targeted engagement mechanisms to be employed across operations and providing a means of identifying areas of community need.

The survey is undertaken across six main areas in which XCN operates within NSW and involves parallel telephone surveys of landholders and local community residents, local and state government representatives and community group representatives. Main findings of the survey undertaken in 2012 (HVRF, 2012) within the Bulga area (which relates to the operations of the BCC, Beltana and the United mining operation) are summarised below:

 A high level of awareness of Xstrata coal mines in the local area among all stakeholder groups, particularly local landholders and residents  Dust issues and related health concerns, noise from vehicles/machinery and vibration from blasting were seen as the main negative impacts of Xstrata’s activities in the Bulga area  Increased employment opportunities and the company’s contribution to the local economy were identified as the main positive impacts on the local community  Local residents who had received information from Xstrata were generally satisfied with all aspects of the information they had received, outlining a preference for information to be provided at least quarterly and to focus on the company’s negative impacts and its future plans in the area  Preferences for communication were for direct and personal contact with a company representative for local landholders and newsletters/information sheets for other stakeholders

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 56

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

 Local residents that had had contact with their local mine in the last twelve months were positive about the process of contact, but more critical in their ratings regarding the outcomes of the contact  There was a lack of awareness of the company’s Corporate Social Involvement (CSI) Program, but a desire to see this program continued and more support to be directed towards the following areas in order of importance: Environmental Projects, Job Creation and Training, Health Services, School and University Education Programs, Community Support Services and Arts, Music and Cultural Activities.

In general, the survey affords the tracking of a number of key indicators relating to the company’s social and environmental performance and, as has been highlighted, provides an evaluation of the approach the operations have adopted in relation to stakeholder engagement and consultation.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 57

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.0 The Bulga Coal Complex: Operations

This section provides an overview of existing operations at the BCC to provide an operational context for the Project. Information has been sourced from:

 A review of relevant company documents and reports  Interviews with XCN personnel across the areas of occupational health and safety (OHS), community engagement and sponsorship, land management and human resources (HR)  Surveys of the BSO employees and contractors  Surveys of BCC suppliers.

4.1 Socio-economic Linkages between the BCC and Communities in the Region

Using a technique known as Town Resource Cluster Analysis or TRC Analysis (see Fenton, Coakes and Marshall, 2003), it is possible to assess the socio-economic linkages that exist between natural resource projects and communities through direct contributions of the operation (e.g. employment) and indirect contributions (e.g. employee household expenditure and use of services). Often these contributions or impacts are experienced in areas some distance away from an operation. For example, communities in capital cities or other states may experience some benefit from a mining operation through indirect flow on effects, such as employee household expenditure (e.g. spending occurring in regional centres) or employment by suppliers to the project (e.g. if a large supplier has its main office and employs many staff in another location).

This section summarises the results of such an analysis, applied to Xstrata’s Bulga Surface Operations (BSO), and describes the following direct and indirect socio-economic contributions of the operation:

 Number of employees and contractors by town of residence  Household expenditure undertaken by employees/contractors, by town  Number of employee/contractor family members attending schools, by town  Number of health services identified as being used by employees/contractors and their families, by town  Location of suppliers’ main offices  Number of suppliers’ employees (all), by town of residence  Business expenditure undertaken by suppliers, by town  Estimates of suppliers’ business reliance on BCC.

4.2 Method

The data for undertaking the analysis described above was obtained via two surveys. One was a paper-based survey of employees and contractors distributed via mail, while the other was an online survey of suppliers distributed via email.

It should be noted that the employee survey was distributed to employees of BSO, but the supplier survey was distributed to suppliers with an existing relationship with Bulga Coal (not necessarily BSO specifically). Therefore all data referring to employees describes employees of BSO, while all data referring to suppliers describes suppliers of Bulga Coal generally.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 58

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Mailing lists for both surveys were provided by Xstrata. Surveys were open for completion for three weeks. The surveys achieved reasonably high response rates (approximately 15% for employees and contractors, and 12% for suppliers), given mail surveys generally generate lower response rates. As shown in Table 4.1, both surveys achieved samples of around 100 (104 employees and contractors, and 96 suppliers) which provide samples that deliver less than 10% error at 95% confidence. While the samples can be considered reasonably reliable overall, some individual questions (e.g. questions relating to income) had lower response rates (which might be expected due to sensitivities in answering personal income questions).

Table 4.1 TRC Sample Characteristics

Sample Population Representation Error level (actual number) (95% confidence) Employees & Contractors 104 700 14.9% 8.87% Suppliers 96 799 12.0% 9.39% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: Figures for population size are based on information provided by Xstrata.

4.2.1 Estimation Techniques and Associated Limitations

There are some limitations of the analysis that should be noted when interpreting the TRC results. First, a key assumption is that characteristics of the sample (e.g. employees that responded) are the same as characteristics of the population (e.g. all employees). Obviously, this may not be true and is dependent on the sample size (which as discussed above, is reasonably good for both surveys).

Second, throughout the analysis, there are cases where values for non-respondents (people in the populations that did not respond to the survey) were estimated by assuming that the characteristics of survey respondents are identical to non-respondents. This method of estimation occurs whenever survey data is presented as percentages; however, for the purposes of this report, many of the relevant values are absolute numbers (e.g. number of people living in a town, or number of dollars spent). Therefore, to estimate the absolute numbers for an entire population, based on sample data, the sample data was multiplied by an appropriate factor (based on the representation percentages in Table 5.1). Specifically, these multipliers were 6.7308 for employees and contractors (700 divided by 104) and 8.3229 for suppliers (799 divided by 96). Therefore, if survey sample data showed 100 employee/contractor respondents lived in ‘town X’, then we can assume if all employees and contractors answered the survey, there are 673 employees and contractors living in ‘town X’.

Given this method has the potential to produce approximate figures for the ‘true’ populations of interest, all analyses have adhered to a principle of caution in order to avoid ‘over- claiming’ the contributions of the operation. For example, some questions had lower response rates than others. This means that if half the sample responded to a question, then there would be an argument for doubling the multiplier (described above) when estimating values for non-respondents. However, in the interests of maintaining conservative estimates, this estimation calculation was not undertaken. Similarly, as will be explained, lower figures were used when estimating income and expenditure – for example, supplier business expenditure was analysed while assuming all businesses’ earned $2.25 million in income (which was the median business income), even though the average business income was closer to $18 million. Therefore, even though the analysis relies on assumptions and estimates, wherever possible the lower values have been used so as to ensure estimates for project benefits are conservative.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 59

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.3 Results: Employees & contractors

4.3.1 Profile

At BSO, two different types of employment exist. Direct employment is where a person is directly employed by BSO (full time, part time, or casual), and for the purposes of this report, such a person will be referred to as an ‘employee’. The other type of employment is through a third party company, with the individual fulfilling a role as if they were a direct employee (otherwise known as a full-time equivalent (FTE) contract or Category 3 contractor). For the purposes of this report this type of employee will be known as a ‘contractor’. For most of the following analysis, these two types of employees have been grouped together, unless stated otherwise.

Table 4.2 summarises key characteristics of BSO’s employees and contractors, based on survey data. Sixty-nine per cent of the sample were employees, compared to 31 per cent that were contractors. Figures supplied by Xstrata indicate that 84 per cent of the actual workforce is employees, and 16 per cent are contractors.

Most employees and contractors were employed full time (95%), and the average hours worked per week was estimated at 46 hours.

A slight majority of workers have children (55%). Approximately three quarters of employees (73%) said they lived in a couple family (with or without children).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 60

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.2 Characteristics of Employees and Contractors (survey data)

Employee Profile Survey % / Number Employment type Employee 69.2% Contractor 30.8% Employment status Full time 95.1% Casual 4.9% Length of time working for Bulga Coal Mean (years) 4.8 Hours worked per week Mean (hours) 45.7 Weeks worked per year Mean (week) 43.7 Employed previously in other industry sectors (not mining) Percentage 74.3% Highest level of school education Year 8 1.0% Year 9 5.0% Year 10 42.0% Year 11 13.0% Year 12 39.0% Additional qualifications Missing / not specified / none completed 25.0% Trade / TAFE certificate 50.0% Degree / Diploma 25.0% Home ownership Renting 17.8% Has a mortgage 66.3% Owns the property 15.8% Length of time in town or suburb of residence Mean (years) 16.2 Median (years) 12 Family structure Single 26.9% In a couple 73% Have children (may include single-parent families) 55% Aboriginal / Torres Strait Islander status Aboriginal 4.0% Torres Strait Islander 1.0% Neither 95.0% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 61

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.3.2 Town of Residence

BSO’s employees and contractors live in a number of communities surrounding the operation (see Table 4.3). The operation is located close to Broke and Bulga. However, these communities are small and more remote and so a majority of employees live in nearby towns of Maitland, Singleton and Cessnock (57%).

The survey data (based on 104 employees and contractors) was also used to estimate the number of employees and contractors residing in each town (see final column of Table 4.3). These estimates were calculated by multiplying the total number of employees and contractors (700, as provided by Xstrata) by the observed percentages for each town (based on survey data).

Table 4.3 Employee Town of Residence (includes contractors)

Response frequency Response frequency Estimated number of (count) (%) employees (population) Maitland 22 21% 147 Singleton 21 20% 140 Cessnock 17 16% 112 Branxton 9 9% 63 Not specified 8 8% 56 Newcastle 7 7% 49 Greta 5 5% 35 Lake Macquarie 5 5% 35 Kurri Kurri 3 3% 21 Jerrys Plains 2 2% 14 Central Coast 2 2% 14 Bulga 1 1% 7 Port Stephens 1 1% 7 Wollongong 1 1% 7 Total 104 100% 700* Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: These figures are based on TRC survey data. *The figures for estimated number of employees have been rounded. The total of 700 was calculated prior to rounding.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 62

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 4.1 Employee / contractor place of residence (estimated based on survey data) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

To complement the survey data, Xstrata provided information about employee’s town of residence, based on human resources (HR) data for 433 employees. This data is presented in Table 4.4, along with survey data (from Table 4.3) to enable comparisons. As shown, there appear to be close similarities between the survey sample and the HR data obtained. For example, the percentages in Maitland, Newcastle, and Singleton are similar, as are the percentages for many of the communities in which there are few employees. However, Cessnock and Lake Macquarie appear under-represented in the survey sample.

Apart from what might normally be expected due to survey sampling error, the slight differences between HR data and survey data may reflect differences between employees and contractors. The HR data covers 433 employees, but does not include contractors. The survey data, on the other hand, included contractors (31% of the sample).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 63

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.4 Employee Town of Residence - Comparison of Data Resources

Location HR data Survey data Count Percentage Count Percentage Bathurst - - - - Branxton 25 6% 9 9% Broke 6 1% - - Bulga 4 1% 1 1% Central Coast 4 1% 2 2% Cessnock 84 19% 17 16% Dubbo 1 0% - - Greta 9 2% 5 5% Jerrys Plains 2 0% 2 2% Kurri Kurri 5 1% 3 3% Lake Macquarie 18 4% 5 5% Lochinvar 2 0% - - Maitland 104 24% 22 21% Mudgee - - - - Muswellbrook 13 3% - - New South Wales (other) 5 1% - - Newcastle 26 6% 7 7% Not Specified - - 8 8% Port Stephens 7 2% 1 1% Queensland 1 0% - - Singleton 107 25% 21 20% Stroud / Dungog 7 2% - - Sydney 1 0% - - Wollongong 2 0% 1 1% Total 433 100% 104 100% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 64

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.3.3 Income and Household Expenditure

Salary

Employees and contractors were asked to indicate their approximate salary using a number of income brackets as response fields. As shown In Table 5.4, the most common income range was $120,000 – $129,000 (24%), followed by less than $90,000 (15%) and $130,000 - $139,000 (14%).

Table 4.5 Employee and Contractor Income

Employee gross salary Response frequency (%) Less than $90,000 15.3% $90,000 - $99,999 6.1% $100,000 - $109,999 7.1% $110,000 - $119,999 6.1% $120,000 - $129,999 24.5% $130,000 - $139,999 14.3% $140,000 - $149,999 6.1% $150,000 - $159,000 1.0% $160,000 - $169,999 7.1% $170,000 - $179,999 2.0% $180,000 - $189,999 1.0% $190,000 - $199,999 3.1% $200,000 - $209,999 1.0% $210,000 - $219,999 0.0% $220,000 - $229,999 1.0% $230,000 - $239,999 0.0% $240,000 - $249,000 1.0% More than $250,000 3.1% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: based on 97 respondents.

Household income per annum

Survey respondents were asked to estimate their total household income. Estimates for total household income ranged between $70,000 and $320,000. The average household income was $175,372 (standard deviation = $57,875), while the median estimate was $165,000.

Despite a low response rate for this question (39 respondents), the 95% confidence interval around the mean estimate was reasonably narrow ($156,611 – $194,133). This suggests the mean estimate of $175,372 per household per year is fairly reliable.

Household expenditure by location

Survey respondents were asked to identify the locations in which they spend money on household goods and services, and then estimate the proportion of their spending that occurs in each town. Using this information, combined with household income data

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 65

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

described above, it was possible to estimate the amount of employee household expenditure (in dollar terms) occurring in each location.

To calculate household expenditure per location, the percentage of total household income spent on goods and services first had to be estimated based on secondary data, as survey respondents were not asked to estimate this value themselves. The 2009-10 household expenditure survey released by the ABS provides information that can be used to estimate this value.

Based on ABS data, the weekly income for the highest income quintile in NSW is $4,025, and the weekly spending on household goods and services by this group is $2,196. This suggests that the percentage of income spent on household goods and services is 54.6 per cent for this particular income category.

The highest income category was used for two reasons. First, this high income bracket seemed appropriate given employees and contractors reported an average yearly household income of $175,372 (which is comparable to the $209,300 per annum earned by members of the high income bracket from the household expenditure survey). Second, high income earners spend less money on household goods and services as a proportion of their overall income, relative to those in lower income categories (e.g. when all income categories are considered, the percentage of income spent on household goods and services is 73%). Using a lower figure for this percentage is preferred, as this means estimates made in relation to total spending per town will be more conservative in nature.

Having estimated the proportion of income spent on household goods and services, respondents’ estimates of the percentage of spending occurring in each town were then used to calculate total expenditure on household goods and service per town, in dollar terms (see Table 4.6 Household expenditure by location). The first column indicates the amount of expenditure occurring per town based on sample data only, while the second column provides estimates of total expenditure if employees and contractors that did not respond to the survey are taken into account. This was achieved by assuming the pattern of spending for non-responding employees and contractors is identical to the pattern of spending reported by survey respondents. This method of estimating missing data is subject to a number of limitations and should be interpreted with a high degree of caution (see Section 4.2).

As shown in Table 4.6, household expenditure by employees and contractors was highest in Maitland, Singleton, Cessnock, and Newcastle, which together accounted for slightly more than $7.9 million or 83 per cent of all spending. Table 4.7 provides some estimates in relation to spending by product type, based on the ABS household expenditure survey.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 66

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.6 Household expenditure by location

Location Household expenditure (sample) Household expenditure (estimated) Maitland $3,314,397.10 $22,308,442.02 Singleton $2,060,016.44 $13,865,495.27 Cessnock $1,631,364.62 $10,980,338.79 Newcastle $941,503.10 $6,337,040.10 Lake Macquarie $449,701.68 $3,026,838.23 Kurri Kurri $395,163.40 $2,659,753.65 Central Coast $172,226.18 $1,159,214.67 Branxton $121,515.14 $817,890.37 Port Stephens $95,681.21 $644,008.14 Wollongong $81,329.03 $547,406.93 Greta $79,415.40 $534,526.73 Not Specified $58,365.54 $392,844.98 Muswellbrook $52,624.67 $354,204.51 Jerrys Plains $28,704.36 $193,202.42 Northern NSW $28,704.36 $193,202.42 Sydney $28,704.36 $193,202.42 Broke $14,352.18 $96,601.21 Tamworth $9,568.12 $64,400.81 Pokolbin $4,784.06 $32,200.40 Total $9,568,120.95 $64,400,814.09 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: Findings reported above are based on respondents’ estimates of expenditure patterns (i.e. location and percentage household expenditure), as provided by 100 survey respondents. Figures provided in third column are estimated based on a multiplier of 6.731 (which assumes data for the missing 85% is the same as for 15% that responded to survey). See text for a full discussion.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 67

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 4.2 Employees' annual Household expenditure (estimated based on survey data) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Table 4.7 Employee Household Expenditure by Type

Percentage of Household expenditure spending ($) Current housing costs (selected dwelling) 17% $10,948,138.39 Domestic fuel and power 2% $1,288,016.28 Food and non-alcoholic beverages 15% $9,660,122.11 Alcoholic beverages 3% $1,932,024.42 Tobacco products 1% $644,008.14 Clothing and footwear 4% $2,576,032.56 Household furnishings and equipment 4% $2,576,032.56 Household services and operation 6% $3,864,048.85 Medical care and health expenses 5% $3,220,040.70 Transport 17% $10,948,138.39 Recreation 13% $8,372,105.83 Personal care 2% $1,288,016.28 Miscellaneous goods and services 11% $7,084,089.55 Total goods and services expenditure 100.00% $64,400,814.09 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: Percentage of spending based on highest income quintile from ABS Household Expenditure Survey 2009-2010.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 68

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.3.4 Household participation in community groups and activities

Employees and contractors were asked to identify whether anyone in their household participated in any social, sport, hobby, or local community groups and activities. Approximately 66 per cent of respondents indicated that at least one member of their household did participate in such activities or groups. These respondents were then asked to identify the nature and location of these activities.

In total, 115 activities (and their locations) were identified by 63 respondents that answered the question. The towns in which these 115 activities were located are summarised in Table 4.8 below. As shown, most activities and groups were located in Maitland and Singleton.

Table 4.8 Location of community groups / activities

Location Number of groups / Percentage of all activities activities Maitland 31 27% Singleton 31 27% Cessnock 16 14% Lake Macquarie 6 5% Newcastle 6 5% Branxton 5 4% Kurri Kurri 5 4% Greta 3 3% Central Coast 3 3% Lochinvar 2 2% Port Stephens 2 2% Jerrys Plains 1 1% Muswellbrook 1 1% Pokolbin 1 1% Stroud 1 1% Not specified 1 1% Total 115 100% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 69

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 4.3 Community participation by employees and families (e.g. Community groups, sporting clubs) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 70

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.3.5 Use of Community Services

Schools

Employees and contractors were asked to indicate whether any of their family attended schools, and to identify the location of any schools. Sixty-nine respondents (or 66% of the sample) said they had children using schools. In total, 83 children were using schools from these 69 families, and the locations in which they were attending school are shown in Table 4.9 below. Most children attend school in either Maitland or Singleton.

Table 4.9 Number of employees' children attending school by location of school

Location Number Percentage Maitland 25 30% Singleton 19 23% Cessnock 12 14% Branxton 5 6% Greta 5 6% Newcastle 5 6% Lochinvar 4 5% Wollongong 3 4% Central Coast 2 2% Kurri Kurri 1 1% Lake Macquarie 1 1% Sydney 1 1% Total 83 100% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: Based on 69 respondents. Numbers represent the number of people (within respondents’ families) that go to school in these locations

Health services

Employees and contractors were also asked to indicate the locations in which they access health services. Maitland, Singleton, and Cessnock tended to be the areas in which most respondents accessed health services.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 71

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.10 Number of times health services were identified as being used by employees and their families by location

Location Number Percentage Maitland 57 28% Singleton 50 25% Cessnock 34 17% Newcastle 16 8% Lake Macquarie 13 6% Branxton 10 5% Kurri Kurri 9 4% Central Coast 5 2% Greta 3 1% Port Stephens 2 1% Not specified 2 1% Stroud/ Dungog 1 0% Wollongong 1 0% Total 203 100% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Note: Based on 96 respondents. Numbers represent the number of times respondents identified a health service in that location that their families use. Respondents could identify more than one health service per town (meaning towns could be counted as a location of health service more than once).

Figure 4.4 Use of health and education services by employees and their families by location Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 72

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.4 Results: Suppliers

As noted in Section 4.2, the supplier data presented below is based on a survey distributed to suppliers of Bulga Coal, not just BSO.

4.4.1 Office Location

Suppliers were asked to indicate the town in which their business’ main office was located. As shown in Table 4.11, the most common locations were Newcastle, Singleton, Brisbane, or Maitland.

Table 4.11 Location of suppliers' main offices

Number of suppliers’ offices Percentage of Location (sample) suppliers (sample) Newcastle 26 25% Singleton 23 22% Brisbane 12 12% Maitland 10 10% Sydney 8 8% Western Australia 7 7% Northern Queensland 6 6% Wollongong 6 6% Lake Macquarie 4 4% Victoria 4 4% Broke 3 3% Queensland 3 3% Cessnock 2 2% Muswellbrook 2 2% Port Stephens 2 2% Bathurst 2 2% International 2 2% Branxton 1 1% Central Coast 1 1% Dubbo 1 1% Mudgee 1 1% South Australia 1 1% Tamworth 1 1% New South Wales 1 1% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Note: Multiple responses permitted.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 73

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

4.4.2 Location of Suppliers’ Employees

The average number of employees per supplier (including full time, part time, and casual) was 106 employees and the median was 14 employees.1 The distribution was skewed given there was a small number of large employers (maximum 4,500 employees), meaning the median is a more reliable estimate of the ‘typical’ number of employees. The average number of employees per supplier being used (at time of the survey) was nine employees, and the median was three employees.2

Suppliers were asked to indicate the towns in which their employees lived, including the number of employees living in each town (see Table 4.12). Some major employers (with workforce sizes in the hundreds or thousands) chose to answer this question by only referring to employees that were being used on work relating to Bulga Coal’s operations (as opposed to all of their employees). For instance, a respondent representing a supplier based outside NSW with several thousand employees only provided town of residence data for four of its employees. Consequently, some of the figures in Table 4.12 may be inaccurate, but as it was generally the very large employers that answered the question incorrectly, the raw employment numbers per location are likely underestimated rather than estimated. Indeed, the most significant major employees that answered the question incorrectly were based in Brisbane, Singleton, Newcastle, and Maitland. As such, the underestimation of employees in these towns does not significantly affect the actual order of towns in Table 4.12.

1 Based on 89 respondents. 2 Based on 75 respondents.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 74

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.12 Suppliers' employee location (town of residence)

Location Number of employees Percentage of total Brisbane 573 21% Newcastle 495 18% Singleton 244 9% Maitland 224 8% Not specified 218 8% International 163 6% Cessnock 99 4% South Australia 102 4% Western Australia 97 4% Sydney 90 3% Bathurst 44 2% Branxton 46 2% Central Coast 52 2% Lake Macquarie 60 2% Wollongong 48 2% Kurri Kurri 15 1% Muswellbrook 27 1% Northern Queensland 24 1% Port Stephens 32 1% Victoria 27 1% Broke 11 0% Bulga 4 0% Dubbo 7 0% Greta 10 0% Lochinvar 1 0% Mudgee 3 0% Northern NSW 1 0% Northern Territory 2 0% Queensland 9 0% Stroud 1 0% Tamworth 2 0% Total 2731 100% Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: The analysis above is based on 90 respondents to the questions on employee town of residence.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 75

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 4.5 Suppliers' employees' towns of residence Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

4.4.3 Business Income and Expenditure

Business income

Fifty-eight respondents reported their business income for the past financial year, with estimates ranging between $50,000 and $300,000,000.

The average income was $17,861,879. However, income estimates were not distributed normally. As such, the median income of $2,250,000 has been used in the following analyses.

Location of business expenditure

Respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of their business income that is spent on goods and services relating to their business activities (excluding wages), and then to identify where this money is spent (and the proportion spent in each location). Based on that information, total business spending by town has been estimated for suppliers that responded to the survey (see Table 4.13)

As shown in Table 4.13, most business spending by suppliers occurs in Newcastle, Sydney, Singleton, and Brisbane. It should be noted that this business spending relates to all business expenditure, and not business expenditure directly related to Bulga Coal (which is estimated in the sections to follow). This explains why large amounts of expenditure occur in capital cities such as Brisbane and Sydney, where suppliers may have larger offices and more significant expenses in those locations.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 76

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.13 Location and amount of suppliers' expenditure (sample only

Location Business expenditure ($) Newcastle $ 9,274,500.00 Sydney $ 7,464,375.00 Singleton $ 6,732,000.00 Brisbane $ 3,193,875.00 Not specified $ 2,040,750.00 Victoria $ 1,995,750.00 Maitland $ 1,568,025.00 International $ 1,305,000.00 Muswellbrook $ 1,297,125.00 Western Australia $ 1,242,000.00 Wollongong $ 1,036,125.00 Mudgee $ 427,500.00 Lake Macquarie $ 378,000.00 Central Coast $ 219,375.00 Northern NSW $ 164,250.00 Cessnock $ 157,500.00 South Australia $ 139,500.00 Tasmania $ 123,750.00 Tamworth $ 112,500.00 Northern Queensland $ 101,250.00 Pokolbin $ 45,000.00 Total $ 39,018,150.00 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012). Note: The analysis above is based on 44 respondents that provided sufficient information relating to (a) percentages of expenditure, by town, and (b) an estimate of goods and services expenditure, as a proportion of overall business income. Income for all businesses was assumed to be the median business income, based on an earlier question with 58 respondents.

4.4.4 Suppliers’ Business Dependency on Mining and Bulga Coal

Suppliers were asked to describe the size of their contract with Bulga Coal as either “small”, “medium”, or “large” (see Figure 4.6). Most respondents regarded their contract as “small” (70 per cent).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 77

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 4.6 Suppliers' self-assessment of size of contract with Bulga Coal Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Suppliers were also asked to comment on the percentage of their income that is (a) dependent on the mining industry, and (b) dependent on Bulga Coal specifically. On average, suppliers indicated that 69.6 per cent of income was dependent on the mining industry (median = 80%), and that 9.3 per cent of income was dependent on Bulga Coal specifically (median = 5%).

Business expenditure with a direct reliance on Bulga Coal

Business expenditure that is directly reliant on Bulga Coal was estimated using the business expenditure figures in combination with estimates of business dependence described above.

Specifically, business expenditure estimates for each town were multiplied by 9.3 per cent, which was the average estimate of business dependency on Bulga Coal. The results are presented in Table 4.14.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 78

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.14 Estimates of suppliers' business expenditure that is directly reliant on Bulga Coal (sample only)

Business expenditure Location ($) Newcastle $862,528.50 Sydney $694,186.88 Singleton $626,076.00 Brisbane $297,030.38 Not specified $189,789.75 Victoria $185,604.75 Maitland $145,826.33 International $121,365.00 Muswellbrook $120,632.63 Western Australia $115,506.00 Wollongong $96,359.63 Mudgee $39,757.50 Lake Macquarie $35,154.00 Central Coast $20,401.88 Northern NSW $15,275.25 Cessnock $14,647.50 South Australia $12,973.50 Tasmania $11,508.75 Tamworth $10,462.50 Northern Queensland $9,416.25 Pokolbin $4,185.00 Total $3,628,687.95 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

The estimates of suppliers’ business expenditure presented in Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 were then used to estimate business spending for all of Bulga Coal’s suppliers (including those that did not respond to the survey). To achieve this, suppliers that did not respond to the survey (88%) were assumed to have identical spending patterns as those that did respond (12% of suppliers). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.15 Suppliers' business expenditure estimates location, Newcastle, Sydney, and Singleton were the main locations of suppliers’ business expenditure. As discussed earlier, some major cities such as Brisbane appear high on the list of Bulga Coal related business expenditure, despite their distance from Bulga. This is explained by the fact that some of Bulga Coal’s suppliers (that responded to the survey) have a significant presence in some of Australia’s capital cities and undertake expenditure in those locations to support their operations related to Bulga Coal. Some suppliers, for instance, had hundreds or even thousands of employees in locations such as Brisbane, and although wages are excluded from the expenditure analysis, supporting these employees would require other expenses.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 79

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.15 Suppliers' business expenditure estimates location

Population (estimated for 799 Location Sample only (96 suppliers) suppliers) Bulga Coal related All business All business Bulga Coal related business expenditure expenditure business expenditure ($'000s) ($'000s) expenditure ($'000s) ($'000s) Newcastle $9,274.50 $862.53 $77,190.89 $7,178.75 Sydney $7,464.38 $694.19 $62,125.37 $5,777.66 Singleton $6,732.00 $626.08 $56,029.87 $5,210.78 Brisbane $3,193.88 $297.03 $26,582.36 $2,472.16 Not specified $2,040.75 $189.79 $16,984.99 $1,579.60 Victoria $1,995.75 $185.60 $16,610.46 $1,544.77 Maitland $1,568.03 $145.83 $13,050.54 $1,213.70 International $1,305.00 $121.37 $10,861.41 $1,010.11 Muswellbrook $1,297.13 $120.63 $10,795.86 $1,004.02 Western Australia $1,242.00 $115.51 $10,337.06 $961.35 Wollongong $1,036.13 $96.36 $8,623.58 $801.99 Mudgee $427.50 $39.76 $3,558.05 $330.90 Lake Macquarie $378.00 $35.15 $3,146.06 $292.58 Central Coast $219.38 $20.40 $1,825.84 $169.80 Northern NSW $164.25 $15.28 $1,367.04 $127.13 Cessnock $157.50 $14.65 $1,310.86 $121.91 South Australia $139.50 $12.97 $1,161.05 $107.98 Tasmania $123.75 $11.51 $1,029.96 $95.79 Tamworth $112.50 $10.46 $936.33 $87.08 Northern $101.25 $9.42 $842.70 $78.37 Queensland Pokolbin $45.00 $4.19 $374.53 $34.83 Total $39,018.15 $3,628.69 $324,744.81 $30,201.27 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Note: Figures provided in final columns (“population”) are estimated based on a multiplier of 8.3229166 (which assumes data for the missing 88% is the same as for 12% that responded to survey).This estimation method is likely to have underestimated expenditure, because of the 12% that responded to the survey, only around half provided data on expenditure. Therefore the multiplier is significantly lower than what it would be if it also accounted for non-response to the specific expenditure questions.

4.5 Summary of Findings

This analysis has described some of the direct and indirect socio-economic contributions of BSO through BSO employees’ locations of residence, employees’ wages and household expenditure, and employees’ participation in community groups and use of health and education services. Furthermore, it has described some of the direct and indirect socio- economic contributions of Bulga Coal more generally, through Bulga Coal’s suppliers’ office locations, employees’ towns of residence, and business expenditure (including estimates of business expenditure that are reliant on Bulga Coal).

Major resource projects can make significant social and economic contributions to communities that extend far beyond the communities in which a particular operation is

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 80

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

based. For instance, the presence of an operation can provide economic contributions to communities through indirect impacts such as employees’ household expenditure. Furthermore, employees (and their families) that are supported by their employment on a project may contribute to communities through their participation in community groups and activities, or through their use of health and education services. Likewise, indirect benefits may be experienced in communities where suppliers’ head offices are located or where suppliers’ business expenditure is undertaken. Therefore, understanding the direct and indirect socio-economic benefits is complex, and the value of Town Resource Cluster analysis is that it can assist in locating and quantifying these benefits.

A summary of key results of the TRC analysis presented in this section is provided in Table 4.16. Over the course of the analysis, a few key towns emerged as likely to be significantly associated with the BSO, which were Maitland, Singleton, and Cessnock. These locations tended to be where large numbers of employees lived, and consequently where most employee household expenditure and use of local services also occurred. In addition, Table 4.17 summarises all of the data in relation to the direct employment impacts of BSO, and the associated employee household expenditure that occurs, for each town.

Table 4.16 Summary of results for key locations of interest

Maitland Singleton Cessnock Newcastle Bulga Broke Number of BSO employees / 147 140 112 49 7 - contractors (estimated) Employees’ annual household $22.3 mil $13.9 mil $11.0 mil $6.4 mil - $0.1 expenditure (estimated) mil Use of schools (as a percentage of 30% 23% 14% 6% - - employees’ children) Use of health services (as a 28% 25% 17% 8% - - percentage of services used by employees and their families) Percentage of suppliers’ employees 8% 9% 4% 18% <1% <1% Supplier’s business expenditure with $1.2 mil $5.2 mil $0.1 mil $7.2 mil - - direct reliance on Bulga Coal contracts (estimated) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 81

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 4.17 Summary of direct employment impacts and associated indirect household expenditure impacts

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 82

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.0 Social Profile

A baseline social profile gathers knowledge of primary and secondary data sources to increase understanding of the existing social environment in which a project is proposed. According to the IAIA SIA Guidelines (2003), a baseline social profile provides documentation and analysis of the local historical setting; relevant data to enable the evaluation and audit of social impacts and associated management strategies; and a more complete picture of the local cultural context as well as a greater understanding of local values.

For the purposes of this assessment, the following components have been assessed in the development of the social profile for the Project, namely:

 Geographic and historical context: identification of the communities of interest relevant to the current assessment and an overview of the Aboriginal and European history of the area  Governance: summary of relevant structures of governance at local, state and federal levels  Community capitals / assets: assessment of community capitals to identify areas of vulnerability and resilience across the communities of interest  Community values, issues and concerns: documentation of shared values, and current community issues in the region and aspirations for the future.

Data sources utilised in the preparation of this profile section include:

 ABS Census (ABS, 2006; 2011); Social Health Atlas (PHIDU, 2011) and other social indicator datasets  Local and State Government reports  Existing Environmental Assessments (relevant to the area)  Relevant research reports and publications (e.g. HVRF 2011)  Review of relevant media  Review of relevant regional studies (e.g. ACCSR 2011; Coakes Consulting 2012a, b, c)  Consultation with key service providers in the Singleton LGA.

The social profile is a necessary component of the SIOA, to provide a foundation from which impacts associated with the Project may be predicted.

5.1 Geographic and Historical Context

5.1.1 Geographic Context

The BCC is located in the Singleton Local Government Area (LGA) in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW) (see Figure 5.1).

The BCC neighbours the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale, and is located approximately 12 kilometres south of the township of Singleton. Newcastle is the main regional services centre and is located on the coast to the south-east of the Project area.

The BCC is one of several mines in the area including the Mount Thorley Warkworth (Coal & Allied) and Wambo (Peabody Energy) mines which are located further west and north of the village of Bulga.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 83

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.1 Location of the Bulga Coal Complex (inset of Broke and Bulga State Suburbs)

Source: ABS (2011) and Umwelt (2011)

The main local communities of interest for the purposes of the SIOA are the neighbouring villages, the LGA and region in which the BCC is located. However, it is necessary to align these areas of interest with the ABS Census and other social indicator datasets through further refinement of these geographical areas, as outlined below:

 Broke (State Suburb, which includes Milbrodale)  Bulga (State Suburb, which includes Fordwich)  Singleton (Local Government Area)  Upper Hunter Region (State Electoral Division).

These geographical areas form the basis of the analysis for the social profile.

5.1.2 Historic Context

5.1.2.1 Pre-European History

The Hunter Region has an abundant Aboriginal history which precedes the arrival and settlement of the area by European Immigrants (as detailed in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment).

In brief, the Traditional Owners of the Singleton region are the Wonnarua people (also known as Wanaruah and Wonnaruah), whose traditional lands span the Singleton, Muswellbrook and Upper Hunter LGAs (DoL, 2007).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 84

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

James Miller (1985) provides an account of pre-European Wonnarua life in his paper ‘About the Wonnarua’, an extract from his book Koori: A Will to Win. Miller describes a hunter gatherer lifestyle guided by spirituality and defined gender roles. Predominant food sources included kangaroo, emu, dingo, wallaby and fish as well as bush fruits, yams, roots and waterlilies. Miller (1985) also describes the Wonnarua as heavily connected to sprits born of the dreaming. These beliefs heavily influenced all facets of Wonnarua life including birth, death, marriage and everyday understandings of the world around them. Throughout the Hunter Valley there are a number of listed historical Aboriginal places reflecting traditional Wonnarua life. However, more sites, places and landscapes of sacred and spiritual significance to Aboriginal peoples are virtually unknown to the general community and embody a rich cultural heritage in this region.

5.1.2.2 Regional and Local European History

The Hunter Region also has an extensive European history, with the first free European immigrants leaving Newcastle to explore the Hunter Region in 1793, with the aim of creating further settlements. From 1817, John Parr, John Howe and Benjamin Singleton undertook a number of expeditions to discover an in-land route between Sydney and the settlement of Singleton, then known as Patrick Plains. The trio eventually achieved success in 1820 when the track, now known as the Putty Road, was created. The track connected the Hunter via Cockfighter Creek (now known as Wollombi Brook), ascended the Bulga Range and exited the range at Windsor. This new route triggered the subdivision of land in the Broke and Milbrodale areas, with the majority of allotments forming large, wealthy estates (Hunter History Consultants, 2012).

During this time a more accessible transportation route was also being developed through the ranges; now known as the Great North Road. The construction of the Great North Road was commenced in 1826 by Major Thomas Mitchell. The road was designed to be a major transport route for the region, however, with the introduction of a Sydney to Newcastle steamship service in 1831, it was not utilised to the extent to which it had been designed for. Despite this, the road is still considered an “extraordinary feat of engineering”, and throughout the 19th Century, continued to be used for droving stock, particularly in the Broke-Fordwich district (Hunter History Consultants, 2012).

European settlers were initially drawn to the Singleton area due to the quantity and the quality of viable land. The area comprised many different forms of industry throughout its history, which have driven the growth of the region. Key industries have included agriculture, dairy, manufacturing, military operations (i.e. Singleton Military Area) and the mining and energy industries.

Dairy farming was one of the dominant industries during the 1900s and grew rapidly as a result of technical advancements in the late 1880s that included road transportation, refrigeration and cream separators. Growth in the industry was also further encouraged as a result of decreasing wool prices and profits during the 1890s depression, which forced wool farmers into other modes of production. The early 1900s saw the opening of the Singleton Central Co-Op Dairy Company, which supplied a strong demand from local and international markets for butter and other dairy products. Milk was transported from the farms, including those in the Broke region, to the Singleton Dairy Co-Op via horse and cart until a motorised milk truck service was introduced. The milk was then transported by bulk tankers to markets (Hunter History Consultants, 2012).

During the 1960s, there were a number of government policy revisions focusing on specialisation and amalgamation of the dairy industry, which resulted in a decline in the viability of dairying in the Hunter. The introduction of bulk milk quotas, regulations, and new standards, at the same time as regular and long-running droughts, meant that many small

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 85

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

dairy farms could no longer afford to operate and some were purchased and amalgamated by the more established dairy operations. The number of dairy farms in NSW halved between 1970 and 1976 and by 1990, there was just one dairy farm remaining in Broke (Hunter History Consultants, 2012).

In more recent times, the Broke region has become well known for viticulture and winemaking, with the Hunter Valley widely acknowledged as one of the oldest wine regions in Australia. A vast amount of early settlers planted grape vines, although James Busby is said to be the father of viticulture in the Hunter (Hunter History Consultants, 2012). In 1820, Busby founded Kirkton estate, creating a vineyard that utilised 300 cuttings he had collected in Europe. Other early Hunter vignerons included Dr Henry Lindeman, George Wyndham, Edward Tyrrell, Joseph Drayton and the Wilkinson, Tulloch and Elliot families. The 1970s witnessed a boom in the Hunter Valley wine industry particularly in the Pokolbin area. The popularity of Hunter Valley wines has also encouraged an increase in tourism in the area, which has more recently expanded to the vineyards of Broke and Bulga (Hunter History Consultants, 2012).

One of the other key industries which have played an important part in Singleton’s history is mining. Coal was first discovered in the area in 1850, with mining commencing in the 1860s. By the start of the 20th Century there were approximately 16 mines in the area. Post-World War II saw the demand for coal increase, as did demand for energy and electrical power (NSW Minerals Council, 2001). Broken Hill Propriety (BHP) began operation of the Saxonvale Mine outside of Broke in 1982. In 1989, Xstrata Coal purchased the mine from BHP and renamed it the Bulga Coal Complex (BCC). Underground mining commenced at the South Bulga segment of the complex in 1994, and at the Beltana underground in 2003.

The Hunter Valley Coal Chain, as it is now described, contains 35 separate mines, owned by 14 operators (HVCCC, 2011). These Hunter Valley mines contributed to over 108 million tonnes of coal exports from the Newcastle Port during the 2010/2011 financial year (NPC, 2011).

The Singleton area has had a long history and varying presence of a range of industries – e.g. agriculture, defence, and mining – with booms and busts in these industries led by changes in government policy, technology and international economic markets.

By examining the historical changes in the Singleton community it can be concluded that Singleton strongly identifies with primary industries (e.g. agriculture and mining), and holds values traditionally associated with these sectors (e.g. connection to the land, physical labour and industry). This history would also indicate an ongoing experience with managing impacts and responding to national and international events (e.g. demand for agricultural products, mining booms and busts, government policy decisions, military service and action). What is evident from this documented history is resilience to change and transition, and a regional distinctiveness in the history of co-existence of a range of industries over time.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 86

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.2 Governance

5.2.1 Local Government

As described above, the Project lies within the Singleton Local Government Area (LGA). Singleton Council recently changed its council structure for the 2012 election in September, switching from three four-person wards to an elected Mayor plus nine councillors elected at large. The results of the election are detailed below (Table 5.1) which resulted in the appointment of a new mayor – John Martin (Independent).

Table 5.1 Singleton LGA Councillors

Role Councillors Mayor John Martin Deputy Mayor Godfrey Adamthwaite Councillors Gary Lowe Val Scott Ruth Rogers Tony McNamara Sue Moore Bob Keown Tessa Capsanis Hollee Jenkins Source: Singleton Council (2012d)

In January 2012, Singleton Council released a long term Community Strategic Plan: ‘Our Place: A Blue Print for 2022’. The plan involved consultation with over 800 community residents across the LGA during 2011. The plan seeks focuses on four key areas: community, places, environment and leadership through which to deliver a range of visions (discussed further in Section 5.4).

To date, Singleton Council has had varying involvement with the mining industry in the Singleton LGA. Issues commonly identified by Council in relation to the presence of mining include: housing and accommodation (the Council is currently developing a housing plan); increased cost of living; presence of a drive-in / drive-out workforce; health / community impacts of mining shift work; loss of community / demise of villages; stress on infrastructure and services; and, the distribution of the benefits and costs of mining projects (Singleton Council 2012c).

In relation to the latter point, the Council commissioned a socio-economic impact assessment of the recent Mount Thorley Warkworth (MTW) mine extension (Deloitte 2012). The report concluded that although the proposed project offered a net benefit, the distribution of costs and benefits will be highly unequal, particularly between the regions (Bulga, Singleton, Hunter Valley, Australia and global). The report also highlighted that numerous economic and social impacts of significance to the community were not captured in cost and benefit estimates to date.

These issues closely reflect some of the key near neighbour issues identified in Section 6.1 and the regional issues later outlined in Section 6.3.

To assist in the management of issues relating to mining development, the Council has appointed Mark Ihlein, Director, Planning and Regulatory Services as the Chair of a Coal

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 87

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Resources Planning Committee. The aim of the committee is to assist the Council to review coal mining projects and expansions, and work on key mining-related issues such as final land use, ecology, and social impacts. The project team has held a number of meetings with this Committee during the development of the Project assessment.

5.2.2 State Government

Key NSW State Government legislation, strategies and plans which are of relevance to the region and the Project include:

 Strategic Regional Land Use Policy (2012): Upper Hunter Regional Land Use Plan  A New Planning System for NSW: Green Paper (2012)  Aquifer Interference Policy (2012)  Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011  Upper Hunter Economic Diversification Project (2011)  Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (2006).

These policies are at varying stages of development and implementation, but are detailed, where relevant in Section 5.4.

5.2.3 Federal Government

The Carbon Pricing Scheme was passed in November 2011 and forms part of the Commonwealth Government’s ‘Securing a Clean Energy Future Plan’ (2011). The Scheme proposes a tax on every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted for around 500 of the largest emitters, which took effect from 1 July 2012. Assistance packages to help households and businesses adjust to associated costs forms part of the scheme, but there remains debate as to the impacts of the proposed legislation on the economy, industry and employment, particularly within the coal-dominated Hunter Region.

The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill (2012) (MRRT) was introduced in July 2012. The objective of the act is to allow for the Australian community to receive an adequate return for its taxable resources, mainly coal and iron ore. The amount of tax the miner is liable to pay is dependent on its liabilities for each mining project for that year (Minerals Resource Rent Tax Act, 2012). As a result, this bill is intended to reduce the after tax earnings of coal producers in the Hunter Region.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 88

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3 Community Capitals

5.3.1 Overview

Considerable research has been undertaken to consider what makes a community strong and resilient to change (see Coakes and Sadler, 2011). The potential of a community to adjust to and manage change is usually referred to as its resilience or its adaptive capacity.

An appropriate social profile for the Project should identify those key community assets which are imperative to establishing community resilience over time and address how community capacity can be enhanced to enable a community to better manage its key capitals and assets, so that robust adaptive capacities may be developed against sudden shocks, changes or threats to community way of life.

According to a number of sustainable society experts there are five key capital areas that should be assessed to define levels of community resilience (e.g. Beckley et al. 2008; DFID 1999; Ellis 2000; Hart 1999). These include human, social, economic, built/physical and natural capitals (as detailed below in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2 Community Capitals framework©3 Source: Coakes and Sadler (2011)

The five key capital areas – natural, economic, human, physical and social – form the basis of the following socio-economic analysis in which a range of data sources are drawn upon to develop a comparative profile at relevant local, regional and state levels. Data from the ABS Census and a range of other government and non-government sources has been obtained and analysed for the state (NSW), regional community (Hunter Region), local community (Singleton LGA) and neighbouring communities (Broke SS and Bulga SS) of BCC (see definitions of geographical areas in Section 5.1.1).

3 In the context of SIOA practice, the Community Capitals Framework has been developed by Coakes Consulting to assess community sensitivity/vulnerability to change.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 89

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.2 Natural Capital

Natural capital refers to natural assets and resources that contribute to community strength and sustainability. Natural capital can include use of resources such as minerals, productive agricultural soil, presence of oil and gas and forests which provide commercial and practical benefit to the community. Natural capital can also include other environmental assets which generate tourism or provide other social, cultural, and recreational value, such as waterways or lakes.

The abundance of coal in the Hunter Region is an obvious example of the strong natural assets within the Singleton LGA. It is reported that approximately 12% of the Upper Hunter’s regional lands is currently available for coal mining (DP&I, 2012). The presence of coal in the region has provided employment and driven significant economic growth in the area.

The Singleton LGA also has sizable amounts of rural land utilised for agriculture. The most active forms of agriculture in the area are beef cattle grazing, dairying, viticulture, horticulture and equine workings (DP&I, 2012). The Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s (DP&I) recent strategic regional land use plan defines approximately 18% of the Upper Hunter’s regional lands as prime agricultural areas or ‘strategic industry clusters’ (i.e. viticulture and equine industry clusters).

The Hunter Valley is also considered one of Australia’s most famous wine-growing regions. The industry produces around 39 million litres of wine annually valued at $270 million. The wine produced in the region is distributed to over 50 countries worldwide (HVWIA, 2011). Around 2.8 million tourists also visit the wine-growing area each year, generating over $560 million worth of related income (HVWIA, 2011).

The Singleton LGA also has a number of natural recreational assets. For example, Lake St Clair is an especially popular area for residents and tourists for camping, boating, water- skiing, picnicking, barbecuing and fishing. Other natural recreational assets valued by residents and tourists include the Yengo, Mt Royal and Wollemi National Parks which are often used for bushwalking and riding. These National Parks are all World Heritage-Listed areas (Visit NSW, 2011).

The local villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale also identify with a range of natural capital assets which are particularly valued in these communities. Outputs of a recent community visioning project, Our Villages Our Vision (see Coakes Consulting, 2012b), commissioned by BCM, identified a number of natural capital values which were important to local residents, particularly in relation to natural recreational assets. These included areas for bike riding, fishing, horse riding, swimming and walking in and around these local villages. These values and activities are further detailed in a ‘values map’ produced as part of the community visioning project and shown below in Figure 5.3.

The diversity of natural capital within the Hunter region and the varied land uses and values associated with this natural capital has created many opportunities for communities but has also been the source of much conflict within the region, particularly between the mining and agricultural and equine industries.

DP&I, in its development of the Upper Hunter Strategic Regional Land Use Plan (DP&I, 2012), has attempted to establish a framework to support growth and protect the environment of the region, whilst responding to competing land uses and land use conflicts. The plan represents the most recent structured attempt by the NSW State Government to manage the conflicts that exist over the use of the Upper Hunter’s natural capital and to

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 90

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

facilitate the improved coexistence of agriculture, mining, tourism and other industry sectors in the region.

Figure 5.3 Recreational/Natural Assets Map for Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

5.3.2.1 Summary of Natural Capital  Coal mining in the region provides employment and is a significant driver of economic growth  Agriculture, beef cattle grazing and dairying as well as viticulture, horticulture and equine workings are also key industries in the region  There are a number of natural recreational assets that enhance the area – e.g. Lake St Clair, Wollemi National Park, Wollombi Brook – which are valued by local residents and tourists, and used for recreational activities including bushwalking, horse riding, fishing, swimming, and motor biking  The diversity of natural assets provides many opportunities for the region, yet can also raise difficulties due to potentially conflicting land uses – this can present significant challenges in balancing the costs and benefits to differing stakeholders.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 91

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.3 Economic Capital

Examining a community’s economic capital involves consideration of a number of indicators, including industry and employment, workforce participation and unemployment, income levels and cost of living pressures, such as weekly rent or mortgage repayments.

5.3.3.1 Industries of Employment

The main industries of employment in the Singleton LGA in 2011 included mining (24.6%), retail (8.2%) and manufacturing (7%) (see Table 5.2). Accommodation and food services (6.6%) and construction (6.2%) were also prominent industries of employment in the locality. Public administration & safety was another key industry of employment (5.3%), which is largely comprised of those employed at the Singleton Army Base as part of the Australian Defence Forces.

Mining has seen a growth in all localities excluding NSW where the percentage has remained constant.

In contrast to the broader Singleton LGA, the main industries of employment in Broke are mining (18.3%) agriculture, forestry and fishing (12.3%), manufacturing (10.7%), and accommodation and food services (9.1%). In Bulga, the main industry of employment is mining (22.5%) followed closely by construction (10.1%)

Table 5.2 Industries of Employment 2011

Upper Singleton Broke Bulga Hunter NSW LGA SED Agriculture, forestry & fishing 12.3% 5.1% 3.9% 10.9% 2% Mining 18.3% 22.5% 24.6% 15.9% 1% Manufacturing 10.7% 5.1% 7.0% 6.5% 8% Electricity, gas, water & waste services 1.9% 3.4% 2.3% 2.5% 1% Construction 4.4% 10.1% 6.2% 6.8% 7.3% Wholesale trade 2.8% 7.3% 3.0% 3.0% 4% Retail trade 8.2% 0.0% 8.2% 8.7% 10% Accommodation & food services 9.1% 7.9% 6.6% 6.5% 7% Transport, postal & warehousing 3.2% 2.2% 3.1% 3.7% 5% Information media & telecommunications 0.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 2% Financial & insurance services 1.3% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 5% Rental, hiring & real estate services 3.2% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 2% Professional, scientific & technical services 3.5% 5.1% 3.6% 3.6% 8% Administrative & support services 3.2% 1.7% 3.5% 2.7% 3% Public administration & safety 0.9% 7.3% 5.3% 4.8% 6% Education & training 6% 7% 5% 6% 8% Health care & social assistance 3% 7% 6% 8% 12% Arts & recreation services 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% Other services 5% 0% 5% 4% 4%

Source: ABS (2011 a, b, c, d. e)

Since 2001, there have been some key changes in the industries of employment within Singleton LGA (see Figure 5.4 Industries of Employment, Singleton LGA 2001-2011

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 92

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Administration and support services, rental, hiring and real estate services, agriculture, forestry and fishing and retail trade, experienced the most significant decreases. Employment in construction has remained relatively the same while mining employment has increased from 16 per cent in 2001 to 25 per cent in 2011.

Figure 5.4 Industries of Employment, Singleton LGA 2001-20114 Source: ABS (2001c, 2006c, 2011c)

4 Data for the categories of professional, scientific and technical services and public administration and safety is not available for 2001 due to category changes in the ABS census.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 93

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.3.2 Occupations of Employment

The main occupations of employment in the Singleton LGA in 2011 included machinery operators and drivers (19.0%), technicians and trades workers (18.8%) and professionals (12.4%). Broke also has a high proportion of managers (21.5%), followed by technicians and trade workers (14.8%), and machinery operators and drivers (14.5%). Similarly, Bulga demonstrates a similar occupational profile—machinery operators and drivers (19.6%), labourers (19.0%), and technicians and trade workers (17.9%).

All localities have higher numbers of labourers, technicians and trade workers, and machinery operators and drivers, than NSW averages across these occupational categories. These figures are indicative of the dominance of mining, agriculture, forestry and fishing and manufacturing in the area; with a smaller proportion of the population working in administrative, clerical or professional roles.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 94

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.5 Occupations of Employment 2011 Source: ABS (2011a, b, c, d, e)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 95

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.3.3 Labour Force Participation, Household Income and Cost of Living

Over the last two census periods, the unemployment rate in Singleton LGA and the Upper Hunter region has fallen (see Table 5.3 Labour Force Indicators, Singleton LGA, Hunter Region and NSW, 2001-2011). The unemployment rate in Singleton has remained under the NSW average throughout this period.

The labour force participation rate has seen a growth from 2001 to 2011 in the Singleton and Upper Hunter Region localities and across NSW as a whole. However, it is important to note that from 2006 to 2011 there was a decline in the labour force participation rate in Singleton. Both the Singleton and Upper Hunter rates are higher than the state average.

The unemployment rate has remained constant from 2006 to 2011 for the Singleton LGA and NSW. However, the Upper Hunter Region has seen a decreased rate (from 7% to 4%). (see Table 5.3 Labour Force Indicators, Singleton LGA, Hunter Region and NSW, 2001- 2011).

Table 5.3 Labour Force Indicators, Singleton LGA, Hunter Region and NSW, 2001-2011

Singleton LGA Upper Hunter NSW

2001- 2001- 2001- 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 2011 2011 2011 Labour force participation 64% 69% 67%  58% 59% 62%  59% 59% 60%  rate Unemployment 6% 3% 3%  8% 6% 4%  7% 6% 6%  rate Source: ABS (2001, 2006, 2011 c, d, e)

Another strong indicator of economic health in the region is the recently released Census figures on income. Median household weekly incomes have increased significantly in Singleton LGA and the Hunter Region; and weekly household incomes in the Singleton LGA are above the NSW average.

It is important to note here however, that housing costs have also increased significantly over this time. Housing loan repayments in Singleton LGA have increased and are slightly above the NSW average. Rental costs have also increased in Singleton LGA but remain below the NSW averages.

Table 5.4 Median Incomes and Housing Costs, 2001-2011

Singleton LGA Hunter Region NSW

2001- 2001- 2001- 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 2011 2011 2011 Median household 1000 1257 1692  690 887 1196  826 1034 1237  income ($/weekly) Median housing loan 800 1408 2000  867 1300 1733  867 1073 1993  repayment ($/monthly) Median rent 100 180 260  135 180 200  170 210 300  ($/weekly) Source: ABS (2001, 2006, 2011c, d, e)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 96

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.3.4 Economic Diversity

Communities experience differing levels of economic resilience. This is demonstrated through a measure known as the Herfindahl Index, which considers economic diversity and industry concentration on a scale of zero to one. The closer the scale is to zero, the greater the competition and diversity in the economy; the closer the scale is to one, the less competition and diversity in the marketplace. Consequently a high score on the Herfindahl Index is indicative of a more vulnerable economy, dependent on fewer industries (Bradley and Gans, 1998).5

Not surprisingly, the Bulga, Broke and the Singleton LGA experience higher levels of economic vulnerability when compared to the Hunter Region and NSW economies broadly, with Bulga demonstrating the least diverse economy with a score of 0.045 (see Table 5.5 Herfindahl Index, 2006).

Table 5.5 Herfindahl Index, 2006

Bulga Broke Singleton Hunter NSW LGA Region Herfindahl Index 0.045 0.033 0.035 0.009 0.008

Source (ABS 2006a, b, c, d, e / Coakes Consulting 2012) Note: Index scale of 0 to 1. A score closer to 1 indicates a more dependent and vulnerable economy. Herfindahl data only available for 2006.Hunter Region is based on the ABS classification of Hunter Statistical Region not SED.

5.3.3.5 Summary of Economic Capital  Singleton has relatively strong economic capital overall, with high levels of workforce participation (67%) and low levels of unemployment (3%)  Mining is the main industry of employment in Singleton LGA (24.6%), followed by retail trade (8.2%), manufacturing (7%) and construction (6.2%)  In Broke, mining is the key industry of employment (18.3%), followed by manufacturing (10.7%), agriculture, forestry and fishing (12.3%), and accommodation and services (9.1%)  In Bulga, mining is the key industry of employment (22.5%) followed by construction (10.1%).  These key industries of employment are reflected in occupations for the region with higher levels of labourers, technicians and trade workers, machinery operators and drivers, than NSW averages  Indicators of limited economic diversity suggest higher levels of economic vulnerability in the Singleton LGA  Household incomes are increasing across the Singleton LGA and are above state averages, as are housing costs (i.e. weekly mortgage repayments).

5.3.4 Human Capital

The status of a community’s human capital is assessed by considering population size, age distribution, education and skills, general population health and the prevalence of at-risk groups within the community.

5 The Herfindahl Index score is achieved by squaring the market share of the various economic inputs and then summing those squares.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 97

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.4.1 Population and Age Characteristics In 2011, Broke and Bulga had a combined population of 994 people (636 and 358 respectively), comprising around four per cent of the total Singleton LGA population of 22,694 (see Table 5.6).

Table 5.6 Population of Broke, Bulga, Singleton LGA and NSW 2011

Region Population (number of persons) Broke 636 Bulga 358 Singleton LGA 22,694 Upper Hunter SED 72,463 NSW 6,917,658 Source: ABS (2011a, b, c, d, e)

The population change between 2006 and 20116 varied between the areas. In Broke, the population increased by 15 per cent over this period, while in Bulga the population decreased by 23 per cent. Across the Singleton LGA, there was an overall population increase of 3 per cent.

Figure 5.6 Population Change (%) 2006-2011 Source: ABS (2006a, b, c, 2011a, b, c)

Between 2001 and 2011, the population change in the Singleton LGA (11%) is broadly reflective of the change across NSW as a whole (9%). However, the growth in the Hunter Region is more moderate at 5 per cent, tempered by population loss in some of the smaller rural areas of the region (e.g. Bulga).

6 ABS Data is not available for 2001 Broke and Bulga State Suburbs.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 98

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.7 Population Change (%) Singleton, Hunter Region and NSW, 2001-2011 Source: ABS (2001, 2006, 2011c, d, e).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 99

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

The age profile for the selected communities shows some distinctive trends. The Broke and Bulga communities have a higher proportion of their populations aged between 0 and 14 years and 55 to 64 years, and lower levels in the 20 to 24 years and the 65 years and over cohort, when compared to the Upper Hunter and NSW averages. These figures may be indicative of the largely rural characteristics of these areas that include more limited higher education and employment opportunities for young adults, as well as more limited local health and aged care services.

The Singleton LGA community also has a higher than average proportion of the population in the 0 to 14 year old age group, although this disparity has been decreasing since 2001. Similarly, Singleton LGA has lower than average levels of the 65 years and over age cohort. Overall, the population trends between 2001 and 2011 for the Singleton LGA would indicate an ageing population which is consistent with regional and state trends.

Table 5.7 Age Distribution, Broke, Bulga, Singleton LGA, Upper Hunter Region and NSW (2001,2006, 2011)

Broke Bulga Singleton LGA Upper Hunter SED NSW

Age 2006- 2006- 2001- 2001- 2001- 2006 2011 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 (years) 2011 2011 2011 2006 2011 0-14 19% 21%  24% 20%  25% 24% 22%  23% 22% 21%  21% 20% 19%  15-19 5% 6%  8% 8% - 8% 8% 8% - 7% 7% 7% - 7% 7% 6% - 20-24 6% 4%  2% 6%  6% 6% 7% 5% 5% 6% - 7% 7% 7% -

25-34 12% 12% - 13% 8%  14% 13% 13%  12% 11% 12% - 15% 14% 14%  35-44 12% 15%  13% 14%  16% 16% 15%  15% 14% 14% - 15% 15% 14%  45-54 17% 12%  18% 17%  14% 14% 14% - 14% 14% 14% - 13% 14% 14%  55-64 18% 18% - 13% 16%  8% 10% 11%  11% 13% 13%  9% 11% 12%  65+ 10% 12%  9% 13%  9% 9% 10%  13% 15% 15%  13% 14% 15%  Source: ABS (2001, 2006, 2011a, b, c, d, e) Note: Changes of one per cent were considered stable, changes of two per cent or greater indicated by arrow; N/A indicates data not available for the locality for that year, could be due to changing suburb boundaries

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 100

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

The population projections for the Singleton LGA are for growth in the medium-term. The Singleton LGA population projections from 1996 to 2036 show that by the year 2036 it is expected that the population of Singleton will reach around 31,800 (DP&I, 2010). It should be noted here, that the projected population for 2011 was overestimated by 1506 people (24,200 estimated compared to 22,694 counted).

Figure 5.8 Singleton LGA Population Projections, 2006-2036 Source: ABS (2011c); Department of Planning (2010). Note: Population numbers are for 30th June of the year shown. Annual average growth rate over the five year period ending 30th June of the year shown.

5.3.4.2 Education and Skills

Levels of education in the community can be a key determinant of overall health and wellbeing as well as social cohesion. A well educated population across all levels of an economy and society are indicators of a more sustainable and resilient community. In a 2007 OECD report, Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning, it was stated that the key outcomes for an individual and society as a result of increased years of education can include:

 Enhancement of health and wellbeing (individual, community and intergenerational)  Improved knowledge and experience that facilitate civic and social engagement  Cultivation of values, attitudes, beliefs and motivations which encourage civic and social engagement  Improved employment and higher income opportunities.

Post- school educational attainment across all localities is slightly less than the NSW average. Those with post-school qualifications most frequently hold a Certificate III or IV educational qualification. Notably, the number of skilled people working in trades and holding related qualifications is higher than the NSW average in these localities.

Those embarking on undergraduate and postgraduate courses from these localities report lower than average completion rates, with Singleton demonstrating figures that are less than half the NSW average. Such findings are consistent with high levels of employment for tradesman and technicians and lower levels of employment in professional, health care, community and personal service worker categories.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 101

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.8 Post-school educational attainment in Broke, Bulga, Singleton LGA, Upper Hunter and NSW (2011)

Singleton Upper Broke Bulga NSW LGA Hunter Postgraduate Degree 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Bachelor Degree 11% 8% 8% 7% 14% Advanced Diploma and Diploma 7% 7% 6% 6% 8% Certificate nfd 2% 0% 2% 2% 2% Certificate III & IV(c) 21% 21% 23% 21% 15% Certificate I & II(d) 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% Level of education inadequately described 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% Level of education not stated 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% No post-school qualification 44% 50% 48% 49% 43% Source: ABS (2011a, b, c, d, e)

5.3.4.3 Health Status

A community’s health is determined through a review of a range of indicators such as the rate of premature death, status of childhood health, rates of chronic illness, levels of self- assessed and general community health as well as the extent and quality of aged care and medical services in the locality.

Singleton LGA residents generally rate themselves as having ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ health, with only a small proportion giving themselves a ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ health rating (PHIDU, 2011). The LGA also has relatively low rates of reported behavioural, mood and mental problems when compared to the Hunter, Country NSW and NSW averages, and also has higher levels of private health insurance (53%) than NSW (48%), which are all indicators of resilience.

Health risk factors such as high levels of alcohol consumption, obesity and smoking are strongly correlated with poor health outcomes for a population. The rates of high risk alcohol consumption are slightly higher in Singleton LGA (9.2) than the rates for the Hunter (6.8) Country NSW (7.7) and NSW (5.7), as are rates of smoking (see Figure 5.9)

Rates of physical inactivity and obesity are slightly lower than NSW and Country NSW averages. Overall, Singleton LGA has less people with more than one of four health risk factors than the Hunter, Country and NSW.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 102

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

70 60 50 40 30 Singleton 20 LGA 10 Hunter

Rate perpopulation 100Rate 0 Region (persons (persons (persons (persons (persons 18+yo) 18+yo) 15+yo) 18+yo) 18+yo) Smoke Consume Physically Obese ≥1 of 4 tobacco alcohol at inactive major high risk health risk levels factors*

Figure 5.9 Health Risk Factors, 2007-08 Source: PHIDU (2011). Note: *Major health risk factors comprise smoking, harmful use of alcohol, physical inactivity, and obesity

Rates of chronic illness in Singleton LGA are below state averages for circulatory disease, high cholesterol and Type Two diabetes (PHIDU, 2011). From 2007 to 2008, Singleton LGA also reported reduced rates of asthma and respiratory diseases when compared to Country NSW averages. These findings are supported by the Hunter New England Area Health Service’s 2010 report on Respiratory and Cardiovascular diseases and cancer among residents in the Hunter New England Area Health Service (HNEH, 2010). The study found that presentations of all respiratory illnesses (including asthma) in the Muswellbrook and Singleton emergency departments ranked below those of Tamworth, Gunnedah and Cessnock in all age groups. However, Singleton LGA and the Hunter Region appear to have higher than average rates of musculoskeletal disease, arthritis and osteoarthritis (PHIDU, 2011).

The population within the Singleton LGA demonstrates relatively good results in regards to rates of premature death (see Figure 5.10) The LGA is characterised by lower levels of death due to cancer, respiratory and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and suicide than NSW Country averages. However, there are quite high rates of road fatalities due to car accidents in Singleton (9.7) when compared to the Hunter (6.2) and Non-Metro NSW (7.6) (rate per 100,000).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 103

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.10 Premature Mortality Indicators, 2007-2008 Source: PHIDU (2011)

Child health often reveals different issues than the broader health of the community. The Australian Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU) draws on a number of indicators to assess children’s health (see Table 5.9 Key Indicators of Children's Health, 2007-2008)

A review of this dataset indicates that children in Singleton LGA appear to have relatively good health, with lower rates of infant death, fewer low weight births and higher levels of fruit consumption and immunisation.

Table 5.9 Key Indicators of Children's Health, 2007-2008

Singleton Hunter Country NSW LGA Region NSW % of immunised children (2008) 93.50 93.00 91.60 91.40 Usual daily intake of two or more serves of fruit (synthetic prediction), persons aged 5 to 17 years (2007-2008) (Rate per 100) 60.20 58.50 57.39 58.58 % of low birth weight babies (2006-2008) 6.00 7.00 6.50 6.20 Average Infant deaths (2003-2007) (Rate per 1000 live births) 4.80 6.10 5.90 4.70 Source: PHIDU (2011)

The PHIDU data also looks at Early Childhood Development according to the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) percentile scoring system. Children that score higher than the 25th percentile are classified as ‘developmentally on track’, children that score lower than the 25th percentile are deemed as ‘developmentally at risk’ or ‘vulnerable’. Singleton children are reported as having slightly lower developmental skills across all areas compared to Hunter Region, County NSW and NSW. However, Singleton still remains above 70 per cent ‘developmentally on track’ in all areas (see Figure 5.11).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 104

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.11 Early Childhood development: AEDI 'Developmentally on track', 2009 Source: PHIDU (2011)

5.3.4.4 Access to Health Services

Access to health services is a key determinant of overall health and wellbeing. The Singleton LGA and, to a lesser extent, the Hunter Region has significantly lower levels of access to some types of health practitioners, although they have better access to GP services and occupational therapists than the wider Hunter Region, Country NSW and NSW broadly (see

Figure 5.12 Health Practitioner Service Levels (2009-2010)). For instance, Singleton LGA has:

 less than half the number of social workers compared to Country NSW  approximately half the number of psychiatrist and psychologist services compared to the Hunter Region and Country NSW  better access to GP services than the Hunter Region and Country NSW and significantly better than NSW averages  better access to occupational therapists than the Hunter Region and Country NSW.

In contrast to general health services, the Singleton LGA also appears to have higher than average levels of aged care services, with higher community care, residential aged care and low level care places than all other regions. Consequently, Singleton is better positioned than many other similar rural regions to meet the needs of its ageing population (PHIDU, 2011).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 105

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.12 Health Practitioner Service Levels (2009-2010)

Singleton LGA Hunter Region Country NSW NSW (per 100,000) (per 100,000) (per 100,000) (per 100,000) Total GP services (MBS and 548,428 551,303 541,959 618,282 DVA) Better Access Program - 199 404 416 557 Psychiatrists Better Access Program - 5,340 11,666 11,946 13,395 Psychologists

Better Access Program - Social 181 548 717 725 Workers Better Access Program - 92 65 72 183 Occupational Therapists Source: PHIDU (2011)

Overall, as demonstrated in the review of health indicators, the Singleton LGA appears to have good levels of health demonstrating, in some cases, better health outcomes than country and NSW averages with lower levels of death due to cancer, respiratory diseases and circulatory diseases. High rates of musculoskeletal disease and mortality (due to road deaths) are some of the more significant health risk factors as is limited access to mental health practitioners and social workers.

In line with these statistics, it was noted by some service providers that the level of health service provision in the LGA is generally good (see Section 6.3). However, others also held the view that such services, particularly local GP’s and hospital emergency departments were coming under increasing pressure from the drive-in, drive-out transient workforce accessing the Singleton LGA daily. It was also noted by health care providers, that the implementation of Employee Assistance Programs, provided by mining companies, along with incentives that encourage private health care, were good initiatives in helping to alleviate the demand on public health services.

5.3.4.5 At-risk Groups

An over representation of at-risk groups can indicate a community which may require differing levels of community assistance. In reviewing specific social indicators within the Singleton LGA, there are lower than average levels across many groups that can be considered ‘at-risk groups’, when compared to NSW. The exception is those without a post- school education (see Section 5.3.4.2 above) and Indigenous groups, which are higher in the Singleton LGA and the Hunter Region than in NSW (see following discussion).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 106

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.10 Indicators of at-risk groups (2006, 2011)

Singleton Upper Broke Bulga NSW LGA Hunter No post-school qualification (2011) 44% 50% 48% 49% 43% Indigenous population (2011) 1% 8% 4% 5% 2% Profoundly or severely disabled (2006) - - 3% 5% 4% Aged 65 years and over (2011) 12% 13% 10% 15% 15% Unpaid carers providing assistance to persons with a disability (2011) 10% 12% 9% 1% 10% Source: PHIDU (2006), ABS (2011 a, b, c, d, e) Note: PHIDU data is Hunter Region not Upper Hunter region.

In considering the Indigenous community specifically, a review of relevant socio-economic data was undertaken. This review was structured around the Close the Gap framework to allow easy comparison across other work being undertaken in the community (FaHCSIA, 2011). Table 5.11 provides an overview of the key findings of the profile work.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 107

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.11 Summary of key risks, issues and areas of need in the local Aboriginal community

Close the Gap Socio-economic indicators of risk Identified issues Assessment of key areas of need Focus Areas High unemployment Developing sustainable and skilled employment Long-term, supported and sustainable Low labour force participation opportunities locally (target groups include employment Dominance of unskilled occupations youths and mothers returning to work) Skilled employment and training Economic Lower income levels but equivalent median rent Business mentoring (targeting small business) Business mentoring and support participation and household repayments Providing traineeships / apprenticeships Short-term, ad-hoc and overlapping nature of Cultural Heritage fieldwork

Lower levels of reading, writing and numeracy Driving training School retention Lower rates of Year 12 attainment School retention Post-school qualifications Lower participation in full-time education Education and Below average level of post-school qualifications training

Elevated rates of hospitalisation for chronic Physical activity, sport and recreation Healthy lifestyles –sport and recreation, healthy diseases, cardiovascular disease and stroke Dental health eating, dental health Lower levels of healthy lifestyle indicators Aged services and facilities Minimising risky behaviours – drugs, alcohol, Higher risky health indicators smoking Healthy lives Drug and Alcohol Support (adults and youths) Lower levels of self-assessed health Mental health Appropriate aged care Facilitating access to health services – transport Mental health Transport services

Overcrowding and larger household size Housing access and affordability (including Housing availability and affordability Lower rates of housing purchase and ownership access to home loans) Homelessness and emergency housing Higher rates of private and housing authority Provision of affordable housing, social housing Home and rentals and emergency housing Housing Higher rates of homelessness Stressed regional housing market

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 108

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Close the Gap Socio-economic indicators of risk Identified issues Assessment of key areas of need Focus Areas Higher fertility rates Maternal and child health and education – Prenatal and antenatal education and support Higher rates of teenage pregnancy particularly for young mothers School-based education programs Higher rates of premature birth and low birth Adequate childcare Maternal health weight and early child development

Higher rates of domestic violence Youth facilities, services and programs Culturally sensitive education and social support Increased reporting of child abuse and neglect Men’s education and support programs for men, women and youth – focus on Higher rates of female victimisation Women’s health and well-being domestic violence and self-esteem Safe and Attendance at community events declining Cultural renewal and awareness programs and Cultural awareness and education programs supportive and events communities cultural events (including within industry) Community conflict

Management of some local / regional / state Regional service provision stressed – funding, Improved governance Indigenous governance bodies and programs facilities, staffing Review of Cultural Heritage employment Overlap between local / regional / state Aboriginal governance and service provision practices and approach Governance and governance bodies and service providers Cultural heritage procedures resulting in leadership increased economic dependence and group conflicts

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 109

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.4.6 Summary of Human Capital  The population of Singleton LGA is generally growing and expected to reach 31,800 people by 2036  Although a sizable segment of the population is in the 0-14 year age range, overall, the population trend indicate an ageing population, which is consistent with regional and state figures  Singleton LGA demonstrates below average levels of post-school education and tertiary completion, however, the region has comparatively high levels of Certificate (III & IV) completion  Singleton LGA residents generally rate themselves as having ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ health – this is confirmed by lower levels of health-risk indicators and incidences of chronic illness  There are higher than average rates of road traffic deaths due to car accidents in the Singleton LGA  Singleton LGA generally has good access to GPs and aged care support, although it lacks some other specialist health services particularly mental health services  There are low levels of ‘at-risk’ groups in the community – except for those with no post- school education and the local Indigenous population.

5.3.5 Physical Capital

Physical or built capital includes provision of infrastructure and services to the community. Within this capital area, it is important to consider the type, quality and degree of access to public, built and community infrastructure (including amenities, services and utilities) and housing and accommodation.

A sound level of physical capital is vital to ensuring social health and well-being. For example, a highly remote community that lacks access to basic services is likely to lack the capacity to enhance its local human skills base. However, in a city most aspects of physical capital are developed to an extent that supports the development of opportunities for further industry and economic growth.

The following tables (Table 5.12, Table 5.13 and Table 5.14) summarise the status of physical capital in the Singleton LGA across three key infrastructure areas:

 public amenities / utilities  built infrastructure, and  community services.

5.3.5.1 Public infrastructure

As would be expected in a regional community, much of the physical capital in the area is located in the regional centre of Singleton. Most of the public utilities (see Table 5.12) are provided by Singleton Council, including waste services, potable water and sewerage; however some rural areas, such as Bulga, are serviced by on-site water and septic tanks.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 110

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.12 Public amenity / utility capital, Singleton LGA

Public amenities / utilities Water supply Potable water is supplied by Singleton Council to the towns of Singleton and other villages such as Broke from dams such as Glennies Creek, located in the north of the LGA. Some smaller areas, such as Bulga, rely on water tanks for their potable water. Wastewater Singleton Council provides town sewerage services to residential areas which are processed at the waste treatment plant south of the Singleton township. For the most part, rural properties rely on on-site septic systems. Waste management Singleton Council services Singleton and the urban villages (including Broke and Bulga) with a weekly domestic general waste collection service and fortnightly recycling collection services. Singleton Council also manages the Singleton Waste Depot, located north of Singleton town, annual bulk waste collection and quarterly e-waste collections. Electricity Energy for the Singleton LGA is provided by Ausgrid.

Gas supply Singleton does not have reticulated natural gas available to properties. Telecommunications The LGA is serviced by all the major telecommunication companies, however rural areas experience varying degrees of coverage. Transport Singleton LGA has limited public transport options, with four bus services provided by Hunter Valley Buses and limited (four) train services connecting to Maitland, Newcastle and Sydney. There are no public transport options connecting the rural areas of the Singleton LGA, however, twenty-four school bus routes are provided to some rural areas. Singleton also has six taxi operators and one community transport service. The closest major airport is Williamtown Airport, Newcastle. Singleton has two major national highways running through the LGA; New England Highway and the Golden Highway. There is a large rail system throughout the LGA that largely services the coal industry. Source: Country Transport (2011), Singleton Council (2012).

Transport Infrastructure

There is a significant network of road and rail infrastructure within the Singleton LGA and Hunter Region which allows for transport and trade both domestically and to access global markets (some of which is listed above in Table 5.12 Public amenity / utility capital, Singleton LGA).

The region relies heavily on private road transport (with some bus transport). Over 70 per cent of employed persons who reside in Singleton LGA travel to work by car (65% as a car driver and 7% as a car passenger) (ABS, 2006c).

The Singleton LGA is traversed by two main national highways: the New England Highway, which links Sydney to Brisbane; and the Golden Highway, which links Newcastle to the Western Region of NSW via Dubbo. The Federal and State Governments are currently undertaking a $1.7 billion upgrade to the highway network through the development of the Hunter Expressway which will effectively by-pass the towns of Maitland, Greta and Branxton with a dual carriage freeway (RTA, 2011). The Hunter Expressway is expected to decrease journey time between Newcastle and Singleton by 28 minutes, reducing the number of vehicles travelling through Maitland, Branxton and Greta by 15,000 to approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. The expressway is also expected to provide a more efficient route for heavy vehicles travelling between the Hunter Region and the Port of Newcastle (RTA, 2011).

Consultation with service providers and community groups in the Singleton LGA identified that there is a level of community concern that the above improvements will worsen traffic conditions through the Singleton LGA, in combination with increasing travel-to-work traffic flows from the mining industry creating further bottle necks at Singleton (Goffet, 2011; see

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 111

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

also Section 6.3). As a result of these issues, the RMS is currently undertaking a feasibility study for a Singleton by-pass to commence construction in 2014 (NSW Parliament, 2011).

The towns of Broke and Bulga have six main roads that link with other regions, which are maintained by Singleton Council:

 Putty Road to the north and south linking Bulga and Milbrodale to Singleton and Sydney  Mount Thorley Broke Road, linking Broke to Singleton and Sydney  Cessnock Road linking Broke to Pokolbin and Cessnock  Wallaby Scrub Road / Golden Highway linking Bulga to Jerry’s Plains and Muswellbrook  Charlton Road and Milbrodale Road linking the towns of Bulga and Milbrodale with Broke.

The region has a large rail network servicing the coal mines, with rail passenger services available within key towns within the region. The Australian Rail and Track Corporation (ARTC) owns significant rail infrastructure throughout the Hunter region, including within the Singleton LGA, connecting mines and other industries with the Port of Newcastle. The ARTC uses the Hunter Valley Corridor Capacity Strategy to predict and manage the needs of the coal chain and other industries (ARTC, 2011).

The ARTC is committed to the transfer of 135 Mtpa of coal in 2011, however, this is predicted to increase to 216 Mtpa by 2015 (ARTC, 2011). Most of the coal is transported by rail from mines located throughout the Hunter Region (including the BCC), to the coal terminals located in Newcastle. This demand is serviced by a double track ‘coal line’ between the Port of Newcastle and Maitland, with an extra line between Maitland and Muswellbrook currently under construction. Increasing demand is also expected to be met through increasing the size of wagons, increasing length of trains, improving the efficiency of Port loading and improving existing rail lines including reconfigurations, passing lanes and axles load increases (ARTC, 2011).

Xstrata Coal owns and operates its own fleet of engines and wagons through the Hunter Valley, including servicing at the BCC.

5.3.5.2 Built Infrastructure

The built infrastructure outlined in Table 5.13 below is well developed for a regional area with a wide range of recreational and open spaces, a number of schools and a well-resourced library. Community halls are plentiful around the region, while the Civic Centre and Library act as prominent community hubs in town.

There are a number of opportunities to diversify physical capital, particularly in relation to culture and the arts. Currently, the region has no dedicated cultural space. However, the locality of Pokolbin does provide local residents and visitors to the Hunter region with a range of cultural and recreational type pursuits with ongoing events such as ‘Art in the Vines’ and ‘On the Green’ music performances.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 112

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.13 Built Infrastructure Capital, Singleton LGA

Built infrastructure Hospital Singleton Hospital provides health services for the Singleton LGA including emergency department, obstetrics, dialysis and basic operative procedures. The Hospital is supported by the larger regional hospitals of Maitland and the John Hunter (Newcastle). Culture and arts The Singleton LGA has limited cultural and arts facilities, serviced only by a Civic Centre, which is used for a variety of uses including performing arts. Although Singleton has no art gallery, it does have two museums: the Singleton Museum and School of Infantry Museum. There are also a number of community halls. Libraries The Singleton LGA is serviced by the Singleton Public Library, which has a range of collections including children’s, fiction, non-fiction, local studies and electronic resources. Schools The Singleton LGA has one major high school (Singleton High School), three town- based primary schools and five rural primary schools. Private schooling is also available at St Catherine’s College (Kindergarten to Year 12) and Singleton Christian College (Kindergarten to Year 12) and at the Hunter Valley Grammar School located in Ashtonfield, East Maitland. There are primary schools located at Milbrodale and Broke. Recreational areas The Singleton LGA has nine separate parks dedicated to sport; a Council operated and Community Swim and Gym complex and the Lake St Clair complex for camping and water Facilities sports. There is also a dedicated Singleton Youth Centre, Senior Citizens Centre, Bowls Club and Golf Club. Private organisations also provide recreational activities such as the cinema and a bowling alley. Open spaces Within the Singleton LGA there are eighteen public reserves as well as the Mount Royal, Yengo and Wollemi World Heritage Listed National Parks. There is also public access to the waterways along the Wollombi Brook, Hunter River and at Lake St Clair. Source: Singleton Council (2009), Singleton Council (2009a)

5.3.5.3 Community Infrastructure

Table 5.14 Community Services Capital, Singleton LGA shows that the Singleton LGA has a good level of community infrastructure and service provision. Areas requiring further support, as identified through consultation with service providers, include youth services, childcare (given growing number of dual parents working) and emergency services (particularly given reliance on voluntary participation).

Singleton also has limited multicultural services, reflective of the low levels of diversity in the population compared to the Hunter Region and NSW averages (i.e. 8 per cent of the population in Singleton are born overseas, compared to 26 per cent in NSW, see Section 5.3.5).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 113

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.14 Community Services Capital, Singleton LGA

Community services Safety and Serviced by police, fire, SES, the Westpac Rescue Helicopter and mine rescue emergency services. The School of Infantry is located at Singleton Army Base. Health Presence of a hospital and other medical centres available to the public.

Specialised/allied Access to a limited number of more specialised health practitioners including health mental health. Childcare Nine preschools and kindergartens throughout the LGA and fourteen playgroups.

Education A number of Primary and Secondary Schools as well as a TAFE and a Community College. Aged services Two nursing homes and two aged hostels, as well as other aged services such as Home and Community Care (HACC), Community Transport, Meals on Wheels and the Senior Citizens Centre. Indigenous and Ungooroo Aboriginal Corporation provides key services and artist programs. multicultural Singleton High School also has the Ka-Wul Centre which supports young Indigenous students. Other Aboriginal groups include the Wonnarua Nation and the Wannaruh Local Aboriginal Land Council. Youth services The Singleton Youth Centre provides a range of Youth Programs as does the Singleton Police Youth Citizens Club (PCYC).

Source: AIHW (2011), Singleton Council (2012), Singleton Argus (2011).

Those regional service providers consulted as part of the SIOA supported the view that levels of physical infrastructure were generally adequate in the LGA. However, there was still a perception among some of those consulted that there remains a disjunct between community expectations regarding infrastructure and service provision and government’s ability (particularly local government) to meet these needs (see Section 6.3).

5.3.5.4 Housing and Accommodation

Housing and accommodation are a vital component of physical capital. At the last census, the majority of people residing in the Singleton LGA were living in separate houses (94%), with a small increase of those living in semi-detached terraces / townhouses or flats / units. The proportion of people who fully owned their property decreased between 2006 and 2011 in Singleton LGA, while the proportion of those purchasing a property remained the same. Those renting had increased marginally (2%) over this period within Singleton LGA. Generally, however the proportions of people within Singleton that fully owned their property or were renting were lower than the NSW average, while those purchasing their property was higher than the state average.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 114

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.15 Key Housing Indicators, 2006-2011

Singleton LGA Upper Hunter NSW 2006 2011  2006 2011  2006 2011  Separate house 95% 92%  89% 94%  78% 53%  Semi-detached, row 2% 4%  6% 2%  9% 19%  or terrace house, townhouse Flat, unit or 2% 3% - 5% 2%  13% 28%  apartment Other dwellings 1% 1% - 1% 1% - 1% 1% - Fully owned 34% 31%  39% 36%  36% 34%  Being purchased/ 40% 40% - 33% 34% - 33% 34% - Owned by a mortgage Rented 26% 28%  27% 29%  30% 31% - Source: ABS (2006, 2011c, d, e) Note: Changes of one per cent were considered stable, changes of two per cent or greater indicated by arrow; N/A indicates data not available for the locality for that year, could be due to changing suburb boundaries

It is also important to look at housing availability and affordability as these are important indicators of differences between housing market supply and demand, and can indicate vulnerability to population change and cost of living pressures within a community. A study and housing analysis conducted by the NSW Department of Housing (see Table 5.16 Housing Market Indicators) concluded that Singleton has a number of factors that contribute to housing and accommodation stress including; decreasing amounts of available rental properties and low levels of diversity in accommodation. These factors have forced people (particularly singles) into housing stress through low levels of affordability in both rental and house purchase markets (NSW Department Housing, 2007).

A review of relevant statistics identifies that only 39.2 per cent of low income earners are able to afford rental properties in the Singleton LGA compared to the NSW average of 70 per cent. Housing stress for people purchasing dwellings is also an identified issue in the region with almost half of low and middle income earners who have purchased in the Singleton LGA said to be experiencing housing stress. The NSW Department of Housing report (2007) concludes that single people, including aged persons, are the most likely to be under stress in the housing market.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 115

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.16 Housing Market Indicators

Singleton Change since Change since NSW LGA last census last census Private dwellings (2011) 8638 19% 2736637 18% Occupancy Rate (2006) 2.87 - 1% 2.53 - 3.8% Rental Properties (percentage of private 27% 1% 30% N/A dwellings) Proportion of rentals affordable to lower 39.2% N/A 70% N/A income earners (2006) Number of people living in caravan parks 83 people -7% 13,222 people -21% or manufactured homes (2011) Houses available for private purchase for 4.8% -17.0% 18.8% N/A 40th percentile of median income (2006) Proportion of low and moderate income households who have purchased who are 48% + 14.6 % 43% N/A in housing stress (2006) Proportion of government housing (2011) 18.06% -2.25% 16.96% -0.99% Source: ABS (2011c, e); NSW Department of Housing (2007, 2011)

Figure 5.13 show that median rents and median sales prices in the Singleton LGA have increased significantly over this period, albeit with a small decrease in 2008. In the last five years, the median rent for a 3-bedroom property has increased in Singleton from $265 per week to $430 per week, an increase of approximately 60 per cent. Purchase prices have risen to a lesser extent, with an increase from $345,000 to $378,000 in the last five years.

Figure 5.13 Median Rental Costs (from end June Quarter) Singleton LGA, 2003-2012 Source: NSW Department of Housing (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012). Note: Median rent prices for 2003-2004, and 2007-2012 were not available

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 116

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

450,000

400,000 378,000 369,000 364,000 345,000 350,000 322,000 321,000 310,000

300,000 280,000

Dollars Dollars ($) 248,000 250,000

193,000 200,000

150,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 5.14 Median Sales Prices (from end December) Singleton LGA, 2002-2011 Source: NSW Department of Housing (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011)

There has been a decrease in the number of hotels, motels and serviced apartments in Singleton from 10 in 2006 to 8 in 2011. Further data from Singleton Council, which includes other forms of accommodation (e.g. bed and breakfast, lodge accommodation) indicates that there were a total of 20 temporary accommodation providers as at December 2011, with seven of these providers being listed in the Broke, Milbrodale, Fordwich and Bulga localities (Singleton Council, 2011a).

Figure 5.15 Number of Singleton Establishments (hotels, motels and serviced apartments), 2006-2011 Source: ABS (2009, 2010, 2011)

In relation to establishments only (i.e. hotels, motels and service apartments), there has been a rise in occupancy rates (see Figure 5.16). The occupancy rate has increased by approximately 10 per cent in Singleton in just one year from 2010 to 2011, and is 5 per cent higher than the NSW average (as at 2011). It could reasonably be assumed that these occupancy rate increases would also be reflected in other forms of accommodation (e.g. bed

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 117

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

and breakfasts, lodge accommodation). These figures indicate a low availability in short-term accommodation in the region.

Figure 5.16 Room Occupancy Rates (hotels, motels and serviced apartments) 2009-2011 Source: ABS (2009, 2010, 2011). Note: Room occupancy is expressed as a percentage of total capacity available during the survey period (i.e. the number of room nights occupied divided by the room nights available, multiplied by one hundred).

Overall, there are a range of indicators that suggest potential issues related to the affordability and availability of housing in the region. These issues were also commonly raised by regional service providers consulted as part of the SIOA (see Section 6.3). There was a view that lack of affordable housing was resulting in increased levels of homelessness; ‘couch surfing’ or people moving away from the area; and that housing options required to address the issues were diverse ranging from temporary and emergency housing, to more permanent housing for singles, families, disabled and aged persons.

Housing has also been raised as a key governance issue by local government and as part of the Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue (see further discussion in Section 5.4). The Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue (UHMD), as part of the Social Impacts and Infrastructure Workshop, highlighted housing availability and affordability through targeted consultation sessions. The outcome of this process was a series of recommendations for further action focusing on a regional approach to managing key issues including a regional housing research program and steering group. Singleton Council is currently progressing the development of a Housing Plan, which includes feedback from industry and residents of the LGA, including from the UHMD. The focus of the plan is on providing more diverse housing stock, particular smaller, cheaper accommodation (ABC, 2012).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 118

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.5.5 Summary of Physical Capital  The Singleton LGA generally has a high level of physical capital for a rural regional centre, with good public infrastructure, facilities and services provided largely by the Singleton Council  Consultation identified opportunities to diversify physical capital, particularly in relation to culture and the arts and community service provision, such as youth services, childcare and emergency services  The area of physical capital that is likely to present the greatest challenge for the Singleton LGA is decreasing housing affordability, availability and diversity  Appropriate road infrastructure is also a key issue of community concern  There are efforts underway to better plan for provision of community services and infrastructure, particularly in relation to housing and transport.

5.3.6 Social Capital

Various indicators can be used to examine social capital. Such indicators include the level of volunteering, population mobility, crime rates, the demographic composition of the community e.g. percentage of people born overseas, language proficiency. The influx of visitors to an area and the extent of a transient workforce population can also contribute to varying levels of social capital and resilience within a community.

5.3.6.1 Mobility

Table 5.17 shows that the mobility of the resident population in Broke and Bulga is below the NSW average. However, mobility in the Singleton population is slightly higher that the state average.

Table 5.17 Indicators of mobility, 2011

Singleton Upper Broke Bulga NSW LGA Hunter Mobility – % of individuals with a 12% 9% 15% 14% 14% different address one year ago Mobility – % of individuals with a 31% 23% 35% 34% 34% different address five years ago Source: ABS (2011a, b, c, d, e).

The issue of mobility was also raised through consultation with service providers (see also Section 6.3), with a view expressed that the Singleton community has an increasingly transient population, with an increasing short-term mining workforce and a large number of drive-in, drive-out (DIDO) workers accessing the LGA daily. This workforce influx is perceived to contribute to growing traffic congestion on main arterial roads e.g. New England Highway, Golden Highway; increased ‘rat running’ on back roads such as Maitland Vale Road and Hermitage Road; and diminished road safety. There was also a perception that completion of the Hunter Expressway may further increase DIDO activities, thus exacerbating existing traffic issues.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 119

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.6.2 Volunteering

Volunteering by those aged 15 years and over in Singleton is 4 per cent higher (21%) than the NSW average (17%), however the percentage in Singleton and Upper Hunter has decreased since 2006 (see Table 5.18). In Broke, volunteering is particularly high with 22 per cent of the population over 15 years volunteering (5% higher than the NSW average). In Broke, there has been an increase in volunteering from 2006, however in all other areas there has been a decrease.

Table 5.18 Volunteering Rates, 2006-2011

Broke Bulga Singleton LGA Upper Hunter NSW

2006 2011 ↑↓ 2006 2011 ↑↓ 2006 2011 ↑↓ 2006 2011 ↑↓ 2006 2011 ↑↓

Volunteers out of population aged 15 years 18% 22%  19% 18%  25% 21%  24% 21%  17% 17% - and above (%) Source: ABS (2006, 2011a, b, c, d, e).

Consultation with service providers did indicate the importance of voluntary participation in organisations such as the Rural Fire Service (RFS), sporting groups etc., and highlighted the difficulties faced by such organisations. There was also a perception among some of those interviewed that workplace arrangements e.g. shift work, limited the ability of mine workers to participate voluntarily within their respective communities.

However, in consultation, service providers within the LGA also highlighted the contribution made by mining companies to the community through voluntary participation of company employees and social investment initiatives. The TRC analysis outlined in Section 4.0 also indicates that there is strong participation in community groups by BSO employees and contractors, with 66 per cent of respondents indicating that they or one of their family members participate in a community group. In small communities in particular, it was acknowledged that such contributions often ensure the survival of an organisation/group and /or its programs.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 120

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.6.3 Crime

Crime rates can also be an indicator of levels of social capital. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) Ranking Dataset ranks 154 NSW LGA’s from 2007 to 2011. If there is an increase in rank this is a positive change, which indicates that the particular offence type has not been committed as often. Where there is a decrease in rank this is a negative change as this means the offence type has worsened.

Motor Vehicle Theft (MVT) has increased in rank from 2007 to 2010 quite dramatically (see Table 5.19 Crime rankings within the Singleton LGA (2006-2010)). In 2010 Singleton LGA’s MVT was ranked 11th out of 154 LGA’s. In 2011 MVT has improved substantially from 2010 (rank 11 to 56) however, it is still worse than the 2007 ranking.

Liquor offences have improved from 2007 to 2010. Both liquor offences and offensive language improved substantially in 2009 but declined again in 2010 and 2011.

Overall, the majority of offences have decreased in ranking from 2007 to 2011. This shows that crime in Singleton is generally increasing over this period. There was also a large difference for some offences between 2010 and 2011, particularly an increase in; robbery, break and enter offences non-dwelling and stealing from a dwelling.

Table 5.19 Crime rankings within the Singleton LGA (2006-2010)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Offence Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank  Domestic Violence 106 92 98 99 93  Assault 118 87 90 80 82  Sexual Offences 74 65 69 86 71  Robbery 103 90 88 77 84  Break and Enter Dwelling 109 99 63 53 59  Break and Enter Offenses (non-dwelling) 85 66 43 17 38  Motor Vehicle Theft 85 42 14 11 56  Steal from a Motor Vehicle 108 71 49 86 37  Steal from a retail store 71 76 90 96 63  Steal from a dwelling 54 50 52 28 46  Offensive Language 96 100 113 90 85  Liquor Offenses 50 81 115 96 91  Source: BOCSAR (2011)

5.3.6.4 Social Cohesion and Wellbeing

The proportion of the population not born in Australia is well below the NSW average (26%) in Singleton LGA (8%), as well as Broke (11%) and Bulga (10%), which is also reflected in very low to nil proportions of people who do not speak English well / not at all (see Table 5.20 Indicators of cultural diversity, 2011). Generally, this lack of cultural diversity is characteristic of a rural / regional town.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 121

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.20 Indicators of cultural diversity, 2011

Broke Bulga Singleton Upper NSW LGA Hunter English language – % of individuals 0% 0% 2.9% N/A 12.3% born overseas that speak English "not well" or "not at all" Immigrants – % of population not born 11% 10% 8% N/A 26% in Australia Source: ABS (2011a, b, c, d, e).

Many rural areas are also known for the social support and cohesion that exists within the community. Interviews with service providers, however, noted growing conflicts around land use in the area, with further mining activities perceived by many residents as ‘at odds’ with viticulture and other agricultural land uses. Many stakeholders reported a sense of loss and grief in the community at the decline in the rural landscape, including the loss of European and agricultural heritage (see Section 6.0).

There was also a perception among some of the interviewees that the nature of the community was changing with an increase in the number of single men residing in the community as a result of employment in the mining industry, a greater prevalence of single or blended families, and increasing levels of disposable income associated with higher than average mining wages (see previous Table 5.4). These perceived trends were often associated with an increasing divide in the community between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’, and the ‘mining’ and ‘non-mining’ community.

Census data from 2001 to 2011 indicates an increase in the number of single people (i.e. those not married) within the Singleton LGA, particularly males (see Figure 5.17)

Since 2001, the total number of people not married has increased by just over 20 per cent, with the number of not married males increasing by 27 per cent, compared to a 20 per cent increase in females. Overall, people who were not married represented 48.6 per cent of the population of Singleton (aged 15 years and over, as at 2011), which is less than in NSW (51% not married).

Figure 5.17 Number of people not married in Singleton (aged 15 years and over) LGA, 2001, 2006, 2011 Source: ABS (2001, 2006, 2011c)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 122

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

These trends are also reflected in figures for employment in mining, which as shown in Figure 5.18 Number of people employed in the mining industry Singleton, 2001, 2006, 2011

is dominated by males (83% in 2011). It should be noted however, that the trend for females is slowly changing, with 76 per cent more females (113 to 475) employed in the mining industry between 2001 and 2011.

Figure 5.18 Number of people employed in the mining industry Singleton, 2001, 2006, 2011 Source: ABS (2001, 2006, 2011c).

A regional longitudinal well-being study, known as Wellbeing Watch (see HVRF, 2011), collects data on a range of indicators of well-being including a person’s capacity to cope, flourish and have a sense of life fulfilment and satisfaction. In 2011, the HVRF Wellbeing Watch found, that Hunter Region residents felt relatively positive about their lives, with an overall well-being score of 4.07 out of 5 which was higher than the rest of NSW and had increased from the 2007 score. Respondents with highest well-being scores felt very happy and satisfied with their life achievements, extremely valued by others, very satisfied with their standard of living, extremely optimistic about their future, and very satisfied with their lives as a whole.

In relation to social cohesion, service providers interviewed noted strong networks amongst service agencies and groups within the LGA, noting a number of collaborative committees e.g. Singleton Liquor Accord, Singleton Sports Council, Singleton Chamber of Commerce, Singleton Disability Committee.

5.3.6.5 Summary of Social Capital  The Singleton LGA has good levels of social capital, although there are indicators of slightly higher than average mobility which can affect community cohesion  Higher than average proportions of the populations in Singleton, Broke and Bulga were involved in volunteering activities. Other than Broke, all localities have seen a decrease in volunteering; however rates remain higher than the average.  There were higher rates of certain crimes, most particularly break and entry offences  Overall, Singleton residents felt happy, were satisfied with their lives and standard of living and were optimistic about their future.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 123

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.3.7 Summary of Community Capitals

The following summarises the findings of the capitals assessment which shows the strengths and vulnerabilities of Singleton LGA, including where relevant the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale.

Table 5.21 Community capitals assessment summary

Capital Singleton LGA Area Strengths Vulnerabilities Natural Diversity and abundance of natural resources Potential for land use conflict Natural recreational assets Economic Mining is key industry of employment Dependency on mining – key industry of High labour force participation rates employment Low levels of unemployment Increasing home loan / rental costs Higher than average household incomes Human Population increasing Ageing population Good performance against key health Lower than average schooling and post-school indicators education levels Relatively good access to health services High rates of road traffic deaths due to car High levels of private health insurance accidents Good indicators of child health Limited access to specialist health and mental Lower than average rates of chronic illness and health services premature death Presence of relatively few ‘at-risk’ groups Physical Good provision of utilities Reliance on private car transport with limited Provision of telecommunications (although public transport, rail etc. access does vary in more remote areas of the Increasing issues with accessibility and LGA) affordability of housing Limited services in culture and the arts and community service provision, such as youth services, childcare and emergency services Social High and generally increasing rates of High and increasing proportion of single community participation and involvement persons, particularly males (volunteerism) Higher than average population mobility rates in High levels of self-assessed well-being – Singleton satisfaction, happiness and optimism Generally increasing key crime offenses Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 124

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.4 Regional Issues, Community Values and Aspirations

This section utilises a number of data sources to build a picture of community issues, values and aspirations at the regional level, the Singleton LGA level and at a local village level. Data utilised in this section has been sourced from the:

 NSW Strategic Regional Land Use Plan: Upper Hunter (DP&I, 2012)  Our Place a Blueprint for 2022: Singleton Community Strategic Plan (Singleton Council, 2012a)  Outcomes of the Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue (see ACCSR 2011)  Local, regional and state media (refer to Appendix B)  Our Villages, Our Vision Community Project (Coakes Consulting, 2012)  Outcomes of the Community Capitals Analysis (detailed in Section 5.3).

5.4.1 Regional Issues and Opportunities

An analysis of key regional planning documents and studies (see ACCSR, 2011; D&PI, 2012) highlights some central challenges and issues that can be identified for the Hunter Region for the future. These issues are summarised in Table 5.22 and are grouped into key theme areas including: land use, resource development and the natural environment; economic development and employment; housing and accommodation; services and infrastructure; health; and, community amenity and heritage.

Many of the issues identified under these themes align with indicators of strength and vulnerability highlighted in the community capitals profile (see Section 5.3) and consultation findings (see Section 6.0). Some of the key issues for the broader Hunter Region include:

 Balancing the impacts and economic benefits of mining for the region in the long-term  Addressing land use conflicts more effectively and developing coordinated approaches to land management and rehabilitation  Enhancing infrastructure, housing and service provision and improving planning for these for a growing region (e.g. roads / transport; housing accessibility, affordability and mix; health services)  Addressing mining-related health concerns (e.g. air quality and dust, health research and assessments)  Ensuring employment and training opportunities for local people  Protecting the environment and natural capital of the area  Improving information sharing between the community, government and industry.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 125

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.22 Summary of Key Regional Issues

Theme Strategic Regional Land Use Plan (DP&I 2012) Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue (ACCSR 2011)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 126

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Many of the issues and challenges identified above are reported in media that focus on the assessment area.

The media provides a key source of information on the social context, including details about community opinion, political actions, economic and industry development. Consequently, a media analysis was undertaken as part of the SIOA for the Project, in order to identify key topics and issues of relevance in the assessment area in 2011/2012 (see Appendix B for full media review).

The articles were sourced mainly from regional media – The Newcastle Herald and The Singleton Argus, ABC News and The Muswellbrook Chronicle, with a small percentage of articles drawn from free online specialist publications, such as Mining Australia and metropolitan media such as The Sydney Morning Herald. A representative selection of key media items were summarised from the commencement of 2011, and the following key themes have been identified:

 Mine approvals and related opposition: the local community have been opposed to a number of recent mine approvals including Ashton Coal and the Mount Thorley Warkworth Extension Project due to the direct and cumulative impacts on the community, environment and aboriginal culture and heritage.  Royalties for regions: there is increasing pressure on the NSW government from groups such as the Association of Mining Related Councils, to return mining royalties to the local mining areas such as Singleton.  Land use issues and conflicts: increasing community concern (including from farmers, vignerons, environmentalists and stud breeders), particularly in relation to coal mining and coal seam gas exploration, has led to the introduction of Strategic Land Use Strategies by DP&I (as detailed above).  Air quality (dust) and health related issues: air quality and dust related health issues have been of increasing concern to the community, including the impacts of orange fumes from blasts and dust from coal mines in potable water tanks. Dr Tuan Au, a local GP, has sought to undertake a respiratory health impact study in the region and CSIRO has been contracted to review Hunter air samples for potential toxins.  Opposition to AGL and Coal Seam Gas industry: Opposition to coal seam gas exploration is strong, particularly in the Broke and Bulga communities. This has resulted in the formation of the Hunter Valley Protection Alliance and the holding of several public demonstrations opposing CSG activities, particularly those undertaken by AGL.  Increased housing and accommodation stress in Singleton: there is increased concern regarding the price and availability of all types of accommodation in Singleton. This issue is largely attributed to the increased demand and incomes from the mining community as well as poor planning by Government. Housing and accommodation forums are currently being staged by Singleton Council to seek expert and community advice on the issue with a view to developing a strategic housing plan.  Strong coal and employment markets across the Hunter Region: Several reports suggest continued strong coal markets resulting in strong levels of employment and investment, though more recent media reports have seen job losses as a result of market reductions in coal pricing.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 127

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.4.2 Singleton LGA Issues and Opportunities

The issues identified in regional studies and in the media are reflected in the core values of communities in the region. The most recent summary of the values of importance to the Singleton community are outlined in the Singleton Council’s community Strategic Plan, which involved consultation with over 800 community residents across the LGA during 2011. Values identified as important to local Singleton residents included:

 Rural heritage and lifestyle  Access/proximity to services and regional/capital cities  Community-minded people  Tradition and family  A strong economy  Provision of community facilities.

For the Singleton LGA, some more specific issues and opportunities can be identified. Table 5.23 aligns each capital area and relevant findings from the profile against the issues identified by regional stakeholders as part of consultation undertaken for the SIOA (see also Section 6.3). Opportunities to address these issues are also listed, as identified in the Singleton Community Strategic Plan (Singleton Council 2012a). Further opportunities for alignment with these key issues in the Singleton LGA are outlined in the summary in Section 5.4.6.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 128

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.23 Issues and opportunities, Singleton LGA

Issues Stakeholder-Identified Issues Opportunities Capitals Analysis Outcomes Singleton Stakeholder Consultation Singleton Community Strategic Plan 2022: Strategies Natural Potential for land use conflict Addressing impacts on local environment: air quality and Collaborate to protect, enhance and improve our health, noise, water impacts environment e.g. partnerships, education and leadership Promoting world leading rehabilitation and land programs management Improve waste management for the community Balancing conflicting land uses Partner with industry to create Singleton as an alternate Protecting strategic land uses e.g. viticulture, farming energy hub Protecting local villages Promote sustainable building practices e.g. guidelines Greening of community places and spaces Economic Dependency on mining – key industry Enhancing economic growth and development and Develop an economic diversification strategy in of employment ensuring long-term sustainability of economy conjunction with Upper Hunter Councils and NSW Increasing home loan / rental costs Developing leadership and coordination between sectors Government e.g. Upper Hunter Economic Diversification Developing long-term and sustainable employment Strategy action plan opportunities for Aboriginal community including training Deliver a brand/ identity for Singleton which represents and business mentoring / support the diversity of our community Human Ageing population Addressing local skills shortages Create spaces and tools to keep community connected Lower than average schooling and Lack of diversity in education and training options including education and training programs post-school education levels Better assessment of health impacts Inform, consult, involve, collaborate, empower our High rates of road traffic deaths due to community for effective decision making car accidents Lead, govern and regulate transparently, equitably and Limited access to specialist health and ethically through development of appropriate plans, mental health services policies and frameworks Presence of relatively few ‘at-risk’ Support and enable Singleton as a learning community groups e.g. educational support, grants, initiatives Physical Reliance on private car transport with Stress on existing infrastructure and services Offer a range of cultural, sport and recreational facilities limited public transport, rail etc. Addressing safety and capacity of transport/road networks Plan for a sustainable and safe community e.g. education Increasing issues with accessibility and Developing more education and training services / programs, development of Sustainability Strategy affordability of housing opportunities Partner to improve our road and infrastructure systems Limited services in culture and the arts Enhancing youth, aged, mental health and Aboriginal- e.g. plans, VPA agreements with mining companies and community service provision, such focused services / support programs Improve transport options within the community and as youth services, childcare and Need for accessible and affordable housing region e.g. through Transport Plan emergency services Provision of accommodation for mining employees Revitalise community spaces and places e.g. Singleton Addressing homelessness and provision of emergency CBD Masterplan housing Development of a Plan to consider the past, present and a

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 129

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Issues Stakeholder-Identified Issues Opportunities Capitals Analysis Outcomes Singleton Stakeholder Consultation Singleton Community Strategic Plan 2022: Strategies sustainable future for the locality e.g. review DCP / LEP Promote village living and lifestyle e.g. service provision, entry statements (branding) Social High and increasing proportion of single Enhancing investment, communication and engagement Provide a range of activities and events to encourage persons, particularly males between mining companies and community community participation e.g. CBD Masterplan, community Higher than average population mobility Addressing impacts of shift work on families and events rates in Singleton enhancing opportunities for mining families Offer a range of cultural, sport and recreational facilities to Generally increasing key crime Addressing impacts on sense of community (e.g. mobility, meet the needs of our diverse community e.g. offenses mining workforce, volunteering) Recreational Needs Study, park upgrades Developing Aboriginal cultural heritage awareness, Provide and promote services and facilities that meet the support programs and events needs of our community through various stages of life e.g. Acknowledging key community values including: local Housing Strategy, Ageing Strategy villages; rural lifestyle; social / community and recreation Revitalise community spaces and places e.g. Place facilities and events; traditional community and family Making Strategy and consultation, arts, cultural and sports values; strong sense of history, culture and heritage events Sources: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 130

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.4.3 Local Community Issues

The Singleton Community Strategic Plan also identifies a number of specific issues of importance as identified by residents of the Broke and Bulga communities through consultation undertaken as part of the Council’s strategic planning process. For the Broke community the main issues of concern included:

 The impacts of coal seam gas, including concerns about extraction methods, impacts on water, air pollution, increased traffic, safety, sustainability of the industry  Protecting and conserving the local environment  Access to services.

Similarly concerns were identified in the Bulga community, including:

 The impact of road safety  Mine expansions  Protecting and conserving the local environment  Condition of local facilities.

In relation to coal mining specifically, there are number of additional key issues of community concern. A review of recent public submissions for neighbouring mine projects has identified the following as key issues for local communities (which are also reflected in consultation findings, see Section 6.0, namely:

 Air quality – impacts on social amenity and health  Noise - impacts on social amenity  Ground and surface water  Traffic and roads – particularly the relocation of local roads  Impacts on flora and fauna  Aboriginal Cultural Heritage  Community sustainability.

In response to such issues, residents and groups within the communities of interest have become more mobilised and networked at a regional, state and national level, in an attempt to influence project assessment outcomes and government decision making processes. Consequently this desire for greater involvement brings to the forefront the importance of appropriate and participatory environmental and social assessment.

5.4.4 Local Community Values

Further definition of community values has also been undertaken at a more localised level through the Our Village, Our Vision community visioning project. Values mapping was undertaken as part of consultation with over 100 stakeholders across the villages of Bulga, Broke and Milbrodale. Ranges of economic, social/community, physical and natural values were identified by participants across their respective village landscapes as outlined below:

 Economic values: the key economic assets identified for the villages included the industries of mining, viticulture and dairy farming, and tourism. Despite this economic diversity, conflicts regarding the uses of land for these differing purposes were discussed openly.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 131

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

 Social / community values: included community events, community meeting places and services, places of historic significance, and indigenous culture and heritage. The sense of community was also commonly identified as a valued feature of the villages, in particular the rural amenity and natural beauty of the area, its community spirit (sharing, volunteering, togetherness), and sense of place.

 Physical assets: included facilities and services valued by the local community such as transport infrastructure, schools, recreational facilities and historical landmarks and sites.

Figure 5.19 Economic Assets Map for Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 132

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.20 Social and Community Asset Map Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 133

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 5.21 Physical values map Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

In summary, community members identified agriculture, viticulture, tourism, the military base, mining and local enterprise (e.g. Cockfighter Tavern and Broke Village Store), as creating economic value in their respective communities, through direct and indirect associations.

Places of particular value included community meeting places (e.g. community halls, churches, Broke Village Store, War Memorial, Broke and Milbrodale Public School, Broke and Bulga Rural Fire Stations) as they afforded the opportunity for people in the community to come together as a community and were places of historic and heritage value important to community identity.

5.4.5 Local Community Aspirations

In addition to community values, there are number of community aspirations that can be identified in these areas that seek to build on core values and enhance the character and sustainability of these communities. The Singleton Strategic plan outlines a number of aspirational themes for the broader community including: a safe, healthy, smart and united community; sustainable, accessible, affordable and adaptable places; an enhanced, protected, balanced environment; collaborative, informed, efficient and engaged leadership (see Section 5.4.1).

At a localised level, a key component of the Our Villages, Our Vision project was to capture community residents’ and groups’ aspirations for their villages. In order to consider project

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 134

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

outcomes in light of the Singleton Community Strategic Planning process, the community aspirations identified have been organised under the key themes of social, environment, economic and governance, to align with the Council’s framework. The community aspirations identified focused particularly on social and economic aspects, including improved community services and infrastructure for the local villages, maintenance of existing local community meeting places, support for community events, community groups and local programs, provision of recreational infrastructure and support for the continued diversification and prosperity of the local economy. Suggestions were also raised in relation to the protection and restoration of the environment (e.g. clean-up of Wollombi Brook) and improved governance (e.g. planning around coexistence of industries), as outlined in Table 5.24.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 135

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 5.24 Visioning Themes and Opportunities, Broke, Bulga, Milbrodale

Social Opportunities Community Services / Infrastructure Roaming GP and specialist health services provided at appropriate local community service points in Broke, Bulga, Improved service delivery and outreach to villages Milbrodale e.g. local halls or schools Schools as community hubs Local schools to host / facilitate events, markets, services etc. as central meeting points for community Mobile preschool Mobile preschool to visit local ‘schools as community hubs’ e.g. Milbrodale and Broke Public School Gas connection throughout Broke Improved provision of utilities and services Provision of public phones and roadside emergency telephones at key points along the Putty Road Upgrade of Putty Rd, Broke Rd, Charlton Rd, Wallaby Scrub Rd including traffic management and safety measures, Road maintenance, upgrade and safety measures ongoing maintenance and clean-up ‘Arrive safe’ work bus to transport mine employees to and from local mine sites Improved local transport Local bus service to connect villages to key services and regional centres e.g. Singleton, Cessnock Community involvement and volunteering Mining company support for greater participation of mining workforce in local community / volunteer groups Community events Amphitheatre for events including movies in the park, music concerts, plays, opera, ballet – designed on a more Outdoor amphitheatre intimate scale than other Hunter Valley venues, located in an accessible area and with scenic surroundings Music festival Attract a music festival for youth to be held at amphitheatre (described above) Farmers markets Markets to be held at local 'schools as community hubs' e.g. Broke and Milbrodale Public School Local sports competitions Develop and promote local village and regional sports competitions using local facilities e.g. tennis, football, cricket Recreation Safe dual lane walk / cycleway linking Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale:  Dedicated track separated safely from road traffic and including a horse-friendly trail  Includes greening and general beautification of track Walking / Biking track  Includes where possible key local sites, tourist attractions and places of historic significance  To also be used for tours, educational tours, historic tours, horse-back tours  Includes detailed signposting of sites of Aboriginal and European significance developed through an appropriate cultural heritage consultation and research process Skate Park Skate park to provide more youth facilities e.g. located at existing recreation area in either Broke or Bulga Broke Recreation Ground Upgrade – particularly tennis court, netball court, cricket grounds, playground area, picnic tables and shelter Bulga Recreation Area Upgrade – particularly toilets, trees and shelter, playground, tennis courts, clubhouse

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 136

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Community Spaces Upgrade and beautification of community halls Broke – general upgrade Bulga – air-conditioning, fencing, disabled toilets Broke Cemetery Maintenance required Maintenance required – particularly repairs to the church building and general maintenance of the surrounding Bulga Church graveyard and gravestones Bulga Memorial Gates Maintenance required Bulga Scout Hall Maintenance required Bulga Bridge Maintenance and repairs required – important part of local heritage RFS Bulga Upgrade of RFS control centre, investigate access to mine weather data, investigate access to landing strip Economic Planning and Investment Economic development and diversification Further development of local industry sector alliances and partnerships including between local mining companies Future trust fund for the region sponsored by mining companies to compensate for current mining impacts and to Trust fund support future planning and investment for the region post-mining (e.g. investment in alternative energies, R&D) Tourism Entrance statements for each village – promoting village characteristics and key sites Beautification of main streetscape in Broke and Bulga – including greening, road realignment, improvement of public Main street and streetscape beautification facilities, parks etc. Signposting of key local heritage, recreation, and tourist sites Development of ‘McNamara Park’ (existing camping area) into a dedicated camping ground – including paid entry, powered camp sites, coin-operated showers, upgrade of toilet facilities, tables / chairs and access to Wollombi Brook Development of the ‘Cockfighter Rest Area’ (existing reserve area near Bulga Bridge) – including parking, toilet Tourist facilities facilities, playground, shelter and tables / chairs, general clean up, greening, signage and access to Wollombi Brook National parks – improved access where possible, signage, camping facilities, walking, bike and horse riding trails Visitors Centre Broke – possibility to redevelop existing historic building as a Visitors Centre, need to include resources for ongoing staffing of the centre ‘Convict trail’ signposted and developed – including historical artefacts and sculptures School-based heritage education programs – including site tours for school children Cultural heritage tourism Heritage tours / day trips – possibility to combine with local vineyard tours Aboriginal Education Centre – developed through an appropriate consultation and research process with Aboriginal communities to document the rich Aboriginal heritage of the local area including Baiame Cave

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 137

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Mine tours – including viewing platforms and displays at key points around local mine sites Mine tourism Integrated ‘Mine-Wine’ tours to showcase regional industry specialisation Local Business Development Diversification and upgrade of Broke business precinct including upgrade of Broke Store, new pub for Broke and inclusion on local tours Preserve and support existing business precinct of Bulga including tavern, service station / general store and Developing local business opportunities inclusion on local tours Promotion of wedding tourism e.g. use of local historic churches for weddings, with receptions held at local vineyards Support for agricultural enterprises – orange farms, mushroom farm, vineyards through inclusion in tours, and at local farmers markets Environmental / Natural Wollombi Brook Clean up, along and in Wollombi Brook to facilitate tourism, camping, swimming, fishing Air Quality Monitoring Network Expand monitoring sites included in the Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network Involvement of local environmental groups, schools, mining companies and employees to support appropriate land Local environmental partnerships and programs management education and practices Coordination of mining impact management via an alliance between local mines in the area to address key impacts of Coordinated impact management alliance noise, dust, lighting and visual amenity – with the aim of reducing overall cumulative impacts and providing a more coordinated, regional level response to impacts across the mining industry sector Governance Clear delineation and protection of existing industry critical clusters (i.e. viticulture, equine) as defined in the NSW Strategic land use zoning Government's Strategic Regional Land Use Policy (2012) Strategic planning undertaken through a partnership between local mining companies, Singleton Council and state government with involvement from community and business around final post-mining land use (considering key Strategic post-mining land use planning issues such as rehabilitation, industry and employment, agricultural lands, final voids) – with the aim of producing a Strategic Post-Mining Land use Plan for the Singleton LGA Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 138

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

5.4.6 Profile Summary

Data collected from a variety of different primary and secondary data sources e.g. ABS statistics and review of other relevant social indicators, regional reports, government strategic plans, media reporting and consultation with key stakeholders, has provided a solid foundation and understanding of the social context in which the Project is located. This data presents some of the issues of concern and challenges facing communities in the locality and has been used as a basis, where possible, to assess the social impacts of the Project on the neighbouring communities of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale and the broader Singleton LGA. The use of an evidence and risk based approach for the prediction of social impacts is further detailed in Section 7.0.

From this review, it is possible to identify a number of key issues and opportunities for the Singleton area, as listed below:

 Balancing the impacts and economic benefits of mining for the region in the long-term  Protection of strategic land uses e.g. viticulture, farming  Improved post-mining land management and rehabilitation  Infrastructure, housing and service provision and improved planning of these for a growing region (e.g. roads / transport; housing accessibility, affordability and mix; health services)  Developing more and diverse employment, education and training services / opportunities for local people  Addressing mining-related health concerns (e.g. air quality and dust, health research and assessments) and impacts on sense of community (e.g. mobility, mining workforce, volunteering / shift work)  Protecting the environment and natural capital of the area  Information sharing between the community, government and industry  Developing Aboriginal cultural heritage awareness, support programs and events, employment/training and business mentoring / support programs  Protecting key community values including: local villages; rural lifestyle; social / community and recreation facilities and events; traditional community and family values; sense of local history, culture and heritage.

As has been highlighted above, the issues identified within the Singleton LGA span the breadth of community capitals – natural, social, human, physical and economic – with development in certain capital areas e.g. physical capital, providing the opportunity to further build and develop other capital assets e.g. economic, social, human. Consequently, discussions regarding investment and community development within the LGA should be focused on those strategies that produce the greatest return across the community’s collective capital assets, while enhancing local community values and aspirations.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 139

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Aboriginal-focused services/support programs, addressing a diversity of housing issues – affordability, availability and diversity.

However, as the TRC analysis summarised in Section 4.0 clearly indicates, the presence of the mining industry in the locality does afford a range of local economic benefits to key communities across the region and more broadly, with such workforces also contributing to the human and social capitals within these various localities. The contribution from the BSO alone totals around $64 million, just in employee household expenditure, much of which is expended within the Hunter region. This is in addition to the direct and indirect economic benefits associated with the Project itself and continuation of the operations.

As part of the NSW planning process, DP&I utilise the Voluntary Planning Agreement mechanism to ensure that benefits of industry activity are shared and that impacts of development are identified and appropriately managed at local and more regional levels. Through targeted social investment, administered through such agreements, impact management and further community enhancement can be undertaken to facilitate development across a community’s key capital areas, whether that be at a localised village level or at the broader LGA level.

 Redeveloping and promoting Singleton CBD  Village beautification: entry statements, greening  Environmental education and partnership programs  Local employment, economic development and diversification strategies  Further development of community events, sport/recreational and cultural facilities  Planning to improve road, infrastructure and transport systems  Regional housing needs assessment and facilitation of sustainable and mixed housing development  Coordination and facilitation of engagement and collaboration forums and programs between government, mining companies, and community, particularly in relation to cumulative mining impacts, social investment and land use conflict  Cultural heritage programs and facilities to build awareness of local Aboriginal cultures  Developing infrastructure and services, enhancing youth, aged, mental health, allied health and Aboriginal-focused services/support programs.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 140

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.0 Perceived Issues and Opportunities of the Project

The aim of this section is to provide a more complete description of community perceptions of the Project from the perspectives of those involved, in a personal, community, social and cultural sense.

This phase of the SIOA program has three main objectives:

 To identify perceived issues / impacts associated with the Project  To identify perceived issues / impacts associated with cumulative mining development in the region  To identify strategies for management and opportunities for enhancement of perceived project issues/impacts.

These objectives were achieved through consultation with:

 Landholders residing in proximity to the Bulga Coal Complex (N=100)  Representatives from local community groups in Broke and Bulga (N=39)  Local Ward Councillors (N=4)  Singleton Councillors (N=10)  Service providers and key regional stakeholder groups (N=30).

Participants were identified through a review of:

 BCC’s existing databases  Local community service directories  Media analysis  Snowball sampling i.e. contacts made from initial sources providing contact details for additional stakeholders to be consulted.

Local landholders were drawn from the localities surrounding the BCC including the Broke and Bulga Villages, residents of Fordwich/Charlton Road, Milbrodale Road and Mt Thorley/Mitchell Line Road. There are also a number of active community groups at the local level e.g. Hunter Valley Protection Alliance, Broke Fordwich Wine and Tourism Association, Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association, so representatives of these groups were also contacted to be involved in the consultation program.

Other key stakeholders consulted were more regionally based and included service providers across the areas of childcare, education, health, sports and recreation, emergency services, housing and infrastructure, heritage and cultural groups, local government representatives and also local business owners and organisations. A further 100 community members were consulted as part of the Our Villages, Our Vision project, bringing the total of participants that have been involved in the social assessment to 508 participants.

The data gathered to inform the SIOA was obtained through personal interviews, participation in community group meetings, surveys of local residents at organised operational community forums e.g. community BBQs and through focus groups.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 141

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

For the purpose of the current analysis, stakeholders have been organised into two main groupings, firstly local landholders and local community group representatives (N=149); and secondly, broader stakeholders within the Singleton LGA (N=34). This categorisation of stakeholders is necessary given that local stakeholders, residing in proximity to the Bulga Coal Complex, may have quite different issues/impacts to stakeholders that live further away or are more regionally based e.g. service providers and regional community groups. The following provides a breakdown of the number of local residents / stakeholders involved in the consultation program undertaken for the SIOA, by group and geographic region.

Table 6.1 Summary of stakeholders involved in the consultation by group and geographic region

Geographic Region Number of Participants

Broke Village Residents 15

Bulga Village Residents 29

Fordwich/Charlton Road Residents 21

Milbrodale Road Residents 29

Mt Thorley/Mitchell Line Residents 2

Wollombi Road Residents 4

Regional Stakeholders 49

Total 149

Source: (Coakes Consulting, 2011)

A number of perceived impacts, both positive and negative, have been identified in association with Bulga Coal’s existing operations and the proposed Project. Outcomes of the assessment are presented in the sections below based on key themes (e.g. noise, air quality). Throughout the consultation, stakeholders were asked to identify aspects of most importance to them and/or their respective community/organisation/business. It should be noted that when asked to identify issues in relation to a proposed change, stakeholders will naturally tend to focus on negative issues/impacts associated with a project; however it is this information which is important to understand at the onset of a project, to enable social issues/impacts to be fully integrated in project assessment, planning and design.

6.1 Issue Themes – Neighbouring Landholders and Local Community Groups (Broke/Bulga)

This section provides a review of perceived impacts / issues, identified through consultation with neighbouring landholders and residents and local community group representatives.

Overall as shown in Figure 6.1, the perceived issues identified as most important across the stakeholders consulted were air quality (15.4%), followed by noise (13.3%), visual impacts (11.6%) and community sustainability (11.3%). Issues less frequently raised included vibration from blasting (2.2%), general environmental issues (2.9%), and Xstrata and/or Bulga Coal’s reputation in the community (3.1%).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 142

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 6.1 Key Issues and Opportunities identified by neighbouring residents Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Figure 6.2, Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.3 outline the perceived importance of these issues across the differing geographic locations, as issues may vary by area due to topography and proximity of residences to the BSO operations.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 143

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 6.2 Impact Spectrum Key Issues and Opportunities by Location Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

For those residents located in and around Broke Village, community engagement was the key issue (16 per cent), with residents providing positive comments on the engagement approach of Bulga Coal to date. Air quality and visual impacts were also identified as issues of concern.

Residents located in the viticultural area around Milbrodale Road discussed themes relating to community sustainability (16%) and mine life and land use (13%). These later issues were also expressed by stakeholders in the Mt Thorley and Mitchell Line area, while Wollombi Road residents identified air quality (33%), impacts on water (27%) and health impacts (13%) as their key issues of concern.

For local community group representatives (including local government representatives), the key issues identified included air quality (21%), noise (12%) and community sustainability (12%).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 144

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 6.3 Top Three Issues from each Location Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

To provide further detail on these key identified issues/impacts, the sections below address each issue/impact area individually.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 145

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.1 Air Quality

In relation to air quality, dust from existing operations and the potential for increased dust as a result of the Project, were common concerns. Some stakeholders raised concerns around the trustworthiness of dust monitoring undertaken by the company. Only a small number of stakeholders raised concerns around the impacts of dust on health (this issue is further discussed as part of the section relating to health issues/impacts), despite this being a prominent issue in the local media.

Overall, stakeholders from Bulga raised the issue of air quality most frequently (5% of total responses), followed by stakeholders in the Milbrodale Road area (4% of total responses).

Figure 6.4 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Air Quality Issue Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Stakeholder quotes:

“Dust is bad enough now, so it will only get worse (with the new project).”

“Shut down operations more on windy days.”

“We can wipe something down and by the afternoon there's dust on it again.”

“Take dust samples off roofs and water tanks.”

As highlighted in the latter quote, some strategies for assessing and managing dust impacts were noted by those consulted, such as a desire to see more regular sampling of dust experienced at people’s homes and filters installed on water tanks. The Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network has also been established to provide cumulative monitoring data in community locations and to make air quality reporting more transparent to the community.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 146

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.2 Noise

The second most frequently identified issue was noise. Once again, responses obtained related to existing noise impacts from the BSO (7%) and potential impacts of Project noise (5%) as a result of the Project (see Figure 6.5 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Noise Issues

Again, the trustworthiness of monitoring data relating to noise was noted (1%); but by far the issue of noise was most salient for residents of the Bulga community (6%), followed by stakeholders residing in the Milbrodale Road area (3%).

Stakeholders also provided feedback on timing of operational activities to reduce noise e.g. limiting operations during nights and on weekends.

Figure 6.5 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Noise Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Stakeholder quotes:

“Four or five times a week it is so loud - like the army is coming over the hill. You can

feel and hear the gears changing, the booms of loading and dumping.”

“Provide the results of real-time monitoring on the internet.”

“We can tell which drag line worker is working each night. It sounds like a dinosaur. The

noise channels up the valley, it’s a massive issue.”

“We don't want to shut ourselves away because you guys are operating.”

“Use trucks with noise controls.”

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 147

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.3 Visual Amenity

Visual amenity was the third most frequently identified perceived impact associated with the Project and covered a range of different sub-issues (see Figure 6.6 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Visual Amenity Issues

Again, stakeholders raised the existing landform as one of their main concerns (4% of total responses), followed by comments around the impacts associated with the proposed bund (3%). Existing concerns with lighting were also raised (2%), as were general visual impacts associated with existing operations (1%) and the Project (1%). Concerns regarding visual impacts were most pronounced in the Bulga area (5%of total responses) and around Milbrodale Road (3%).

Although the majority of comments relating to visual impacts were negative, a number of stakeholders described the proposed bund as a positive outcome (23% of all comments made about the bund), and two stakeholders suggested that they actually like to be able to see the mine operations.

Figure 6.6 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Visual Amenity Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Stakeholder quotes:

“The bund is a good idea but the landscaping and rehabilitation needs to

be done properly or it will look terrible”.

“When you drive up Milbrodale Road you can see the top of that. It is terrible. It is not pretty – the existing dump. It shocks people.”

“We don’t have square hills (naturally).”

“It’s a never ending sunset.”

“The impact I find most annoying is the light at night. We know you still have to work safely. We're not complaining. We're just impacted.”

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 148

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.4 Mine Life and End Land-Use

Mine life and end land-use were also identified as key concerns through the community consultation, and again included a range of sub-issues. One of the most frequently identified concerns was around existing rehabilitation practices (4% of total responses), followed by a number of queries regarding end land-use and use of the final void (2.5%) (refer to Figure 6.7). In this regard, stakeholders appeared to want greater clarity as to what would remain once mining ceased in the area. Stakeholders in Bulga and Milbrodale Road raised these issues most frequently (4% of total responses respectively), particularly the need for more effective rehabilitation.

A number of stakeholders also raised concerns around the scale of the mine footprint (2%), and noted that the Project would mean that the mine life of the complex would be extended (2%). Issues regarding safety of the mine post closure were also noted (1%).

Figure 6.7 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Mine Life / Final Land Use Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Stakeholder quotes:

“What will you leave to our children in terms of landscape?”

“It's simple, in 30 years’ time; people will want an environment that is comfortable to live in, green trees…”

“What's the mine's responsibility when mining is finished? Does it fall onto the tax payers? What if it collapses after you’ve finished…?”

“Leave and green everything and make it nice. You're on notice. Make it best practice”

“What do you do with the big hole in 25 years’ time?”

“You won't have a rubbish dumping ground here!”

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 149

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.5 Community Sustainability

A number of differing social issues emerged during the consultation, which have been categorised under the heading ‘Community Sustainability’.

The issue most frequently identified in this theme, was the perceived negative impact the Project may have on land values (3%of total responses) (see Figure 6.8).

Other potential impacts of the Project included impacts on the wine and tourism industry (2%) and impacts on quality of life (1.6%). Several stakeholders requested acquisition of their properties (0.9%); however, a number of stakeholders recognised that the Project could positively contribute to the community through additional employment (1.2% of total responses).

A few community members also discussed the emerging social divide between the communities of Broke and Bulga, and a changing sense of community generally. Several community members also outlined their concerns regarding the sustainability and viability of their communities into the future, given the large extent of land holdings and residential properties owned by mining companies in the area and based on experiences with mining projects in other parts of the Hunter Region e.g. Camberwell. There was a desire expressed by some to obtain greater certainty regarding where mining could/could not occur and for differing industry sectors to work together more cooperatively for the common good.

Figure 6.8 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Community Sustainability Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 150

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Stakeholder quotes:

“Create a viewing platform for tourists to see the operations."

“Undertake mine tours for tourists and locals”

“We need to help brand the wine and accommodation side of the town.”

“We (Wine and Tourism industries) don't have certainty. If [the project] goes up Charlton Road that is the viticulture area. These are world recognised areas for winegrowing. If you go into these areas then there's a precedent that you can mine in these areas.”

“If you are changing our lifestyle and our income and our investment - then you are having an impact.”

“I want to live in the rural area, but this isn't my dream anymore.”

“Create a centre for the community which includes Broke Hall and sporting facilities.”

“We want to sell and people come here and say we don't want to be so close to a mine."

“Does this (the project) mean an increase in employment for the people here?"

6.1.6 Community Engagement

A number of stakeholders provided feedback regarding the community engagement undertaken by operations and in relation to the Project (see Figure 6.9). Approximately 62 per cent of the feedback provided was positive, with approximately 38 per cent suggesting that improvement was needed. Most of the feedback related to communication and consultation activities (6% of total responses). A number of people also felt that the company was seeking to understand the community better and their concerns (1%). A number of suggestions regarding mechanisms to improve communication and consultation were proposed for operations but also for the assessment process e.g. provision of greater access to consultants in the preparation of the assessment work. This suggestion was adopted by the project team in the second round of consultation.

Figure 6.9 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Community Engagement Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 151

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Stakeholder quotes:

“Have a night at the local hall, that way no one will have a chance to say they didn't know."

“We like email and the BBQs as techniques. Keep it personal rather than public.”

“Work with other mines to address problems.”

“Follow through on your commitments – do what you say you will.”

“Give the public access to the consultants doing the technical studies.”

“Have a dedicated community consultation contact point which can be accessed day-to-day.”

"Develop a Broke Notice Board."

6.1.7 Industry Reputation and Cumulative Impacts

A number of people raised concerns in relation to cumulative mining impacts, with the majority of this feedback centred around the cumulative impacts of environmental issues, e.g. noise and dust (3% of total responses) (refer to Figure 6.10).

A number of people suggested that they possess low levels of trust in the mining industry generally; with others (1.4% of total respondents) clearly articulating their opposition to open cut mining. The majority of these statements came from stakeholders in the Bulga area, who have three different mining operations as neighbours.

Figure 6.10 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Industry Reputation and Cumulative Impact Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 152

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Stakeholder quotes:

“Cumulative effects are a problem. Hopefully the computer modelling can handle this.”

“We have four coal mines in close proximity”

“You guys keep getting bigger and bigger and there's more and more mines in the area.”

6.1.8 Water

Water impacts and issues were raised relatively frequently throughout the consultation process (see Figure 6.11). The majority of discussion in relation to water focused on impacts on ground and surface water during operations and also post-mine life (4%of total responses). Some people also discussed their concerns relating to impacts on water quality, mostly in regards to salinity (1%). Impacts on the Wollombi Brook were also noted. A number of stakeholders questioned whether the opportunity existed to use any mine water storage as irrigation for surrounding properties. All areas were relatively equally represented across these issues, indicating that water is a general community concern across the local area.

Figure 6.11 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Water Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Stakeholder quotes:

“What will be the acidity of the water? What will the quality of water be? Where will the salty water go…into the aquifer? If it’s too salty, there will be a problem.”

“Fish won't want to live in that water.”

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 153

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.9 Roads and Transport

Stakeholders also identified issues associated with roads and transport (refer to Figure 6.12). To facilitate mine planning, the Project is proposing to realign sections of Broke and Charlton Roads. Concerns in this regard included:

 Increased travel time (1.2% of total responses), including school buses  The potential environmental impact of road re-alignment (1%)  Loss of European heritage (0.5%)  General concerns regarding realignment of Charlton Road (0.4%).

Some existing issues were also raised in regard to safety, particularly in relation to:  The extent of mine traffic through the villages (0.7% of total responses)  The long term safety of roads (0.7%)  Existing issues regarding road subsidence (0.2%).

Figure 6.12 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Roads and Transport Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Stakeholder quotes:

“So, how much of the conservation area will you impact [with the road realignment]?”

“Thomas Mitchell built Charlton Road. There's heritage value there. It's the only convict built road left. It's traditional to Mitchell's style — a straight line.”

“What happens if something goes wrong with the roads, with subsidence? Years after the mine has gone, what happens then? Is there some type of insurance?”

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 154

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.10 Individual and Community Health

The perceived direct impacts from mining operations on human health were also identified, often discussed in the context of air quality (see Figure 6.13). Arising from the consultation, four main areas of health concern for community members were identified including:

 Health impacts related to the fumes from blasting (also referred to as the ‘orange plumes’) (1.2% of total responses)  Health implications of dust in potable water tanks (1.2%)  General health impacts of mining (1.0%)  Dust related health issues (0.2%).

The majority of the comments relating to dust were from the Bulga community, particularly in relation to dust in water tanks, given that the Bulga community is not part of a town water scheme, as is the case with Broke Village. The more southern localities of Broke Village and those residing in the area of Wollombi Road were also more concerned about the impacts on health of blast fumes from current blasting practice.

Figure 6.13 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Health Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Stakeholder quotes:

“I came to give our kids a better life, a healthy life, and our kids are breathing in dust.”

“We drink the water from the tanks!”

"Monitor fine dust to check for health impacts.”

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 155

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.1.11 Company Reputation

As the Project is a brownfield project, building on years of existing operations, there are reputational issues associated with the existing mine which also impact on perceptions of the Project (see Figure 6.14). Some stakeholders (2% of total responses) expressed a poor opinion and lack of trust in the company. Some stakeholders noted the poor behaviour of company employees and/or contractors, particularly when working in the community (0.48%), particularly issues relating to traffic movements and noise. Others however, felt the company was doing a good job, particularly when compared to other operations.

Figure 6.14 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Company Reputation Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Stakeholder quotes:

“People forget the good things you do”

“I don't want to understand the profit needs of a Swiss company.”

“I know there are only 20 residents directly affected/involved - so when it comes to number- crunching it won't matter to Xstrata.”

“Your workmen don't care about noise and speed limits.”

6.1.12 General Environmental Issues

A number of stakeholders raised concerns in relation to other environmental impacts such as weed and animal/pest management (1%). General impacts on the natural environment were also raised (1.7% of total responses). One stakeholder also identified inadequate property management practices (refer to Figure 6.15).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 156

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 6.15 Impact Spectrum, Perceived General Environmental Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Stakeholder quotes: “The environment is becoming really important to people. Environmental impacts are another thing our clients are interested in. We try to use and provide eco-friendly products and then this just goes against it all.”

“What about a kangaroo fence along the new road?”

6.1.13 Blast Vibration

A number of stakeholders raised concerns in relation to the impacts of blast vibration; both in the context of existing operations and the potential for further impacts as a result of the Project (see Figure 6.16).

These concerns mostly related to the impacts vibration may have on private property and infrastructure through movement and subsequent cracking. Most of these concerns were raised by residents in the Bulga area and, to a lesser extent, those located in the Fordwich/Charlton Road and Milbrodale Road areas.

Figure 6.16 Impact Spectrum, Perceived Blast Vibration Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 157

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Stakeholder quotes:

“Our biggest problem is vibration – it causes us no end of problems.”

“I didn't think much of them. I feel them all the time (blasts).”

“Our windows rattle when you blast. I document the dates.”

6.1.14 Other Issues

A number of stakeholders also raised issues that do not relate directly to the Project, but are in response to broader community issues relating to mining practices and legislation. These concerns centred around:

 General community opposition to coal seam gas (CSG)  Uncertainty regarding the changes to the Part 3A legislation (NB: Part 3A has now been repealed) (See Figure 6.17).

Most of the concerns in relation to CSG came from the Broke and Milbrodale Road communities, while most of the discussion around changes to Part 3A legislation came from Bulga.

Figure 6.17 Impact Spectrum, Other Issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Stakeholder quotes:

“No one sees it from here. It's over the hill. It's not intrusive. Not like coal seam gas.”

“But, the 3A you just mentioned has been abolished. So, what does that mean for you?”

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 158

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

6.2 Perceived Opportunities

Although the consultation revealed many concerns of neighbouring communities, a number of stakeholders also identified opportunities to address concerns and/or enhance community well-being. The below table provides a summary of the perceived opportunities identified by stakeholders by issue theme.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 159

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 6.2 Summary of perceived opportunities - Community Suggestions

Theme Perceived Opportunity – Community Suggestions Improve dust management practices Air Quality Increase water to long haul truck routes Improve provision and sharing of results of environmental monitoring on the website Improve communication around decision-making Develop a community consultation spot for regular engagement Improve management of Broke cemetery (given mining lease boundary covers this area) Better understand community issues and respond to them – not just have good Community Engagement 'PR'

Create a focal point for the towns of Broke and Bulga (e.g. Broke hall, cricket fields) to increase local networks and interaction Keep the community engagement approach personal Provide public access to consultants to help the community understand the EA process and its outcomes Install a community notice board in Broke Increase site tours of the mine operations Assist Bulga in becoming a tourism destination Support the ongoing sustainability of the villages Community Sustainability Protect European heritage Plan for future dependency on mining Plan for the long term socio-economic effects post closure e.g. unemployment Employ more local workers, particularly young people from the area General Environment Establish new fire management plans to minimise risks of fire Revegetate the Wollombi Brook Individual and Community Undertake regular testing of dust samples Health

Research impacts of changing landforms Mine Life and Land Use Improve rehabilitation practice – make it ‘best practice’ Investigate use of final void e.g. irrigation, garbage disposal, entertainment area Provide clear boundaries to delineate where mining can / cannot occur Alter operational activities to reduce impacts e.g. limiting weekend / night-time operations Noise Double glaze windows of all properties impacted by noise

Attenuate trucks Change reverse alarms on mobile equipment

Other issues Develop a regional strategy that provides greater certainty over land uses

Visual Amenity Create a visual barrier - e.g. bund Create more natural landforms

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 160

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

As has been summarised in the previous table, a number of opportunities or improvements have been suggested in relation to the Project. These centred around improvements to community engagement (e.g. hold further community BBQs, develop a community notice board) and mining operations (e.g. improve dust management practices, minimise noise impacts through bund development and off site strategies such as double glazing at impacted properties).

Moreover, many stakeholders suggested that improvements could be made in the area of visual amenity through development of more natural landforms and increased rehabilitation of mining areas. Additionally, community members identified a number of opportunities for BCC to contribute to ongoing community sustainability through more focused partnerships and community investment, particularly support for further economic diversification in the region.

6.3 Regional Stakeholder Perspectives

As has been highlighted earlier in this section, consultation was also undertaken with a range of stakeholders at a regional Singleton LGA level. These stakeholders were drawn from across key community sectors i.e. local government, education, health, transport, housing and accommodation, emergency services.

A total of 34 stakeholders were consulted through personal and small group meetings to better understand the general challenges and opportunities facing the Singleton community, issues and opportunities in relation to mining within the region and to document any perceived issues in relation to the project specifically.

General regional issues and challenges for the Singleton community and broader LGA have been documented in Section 5.0. Where relevant, these identified issues have been triangulated with the perceptions of regional stakeholders outlined below.

When regional stakeholders were asked to share their perceptions on mining activity within the LGA, a number of issues emerged (see Figure 6.18).

As the analysis shows, impacts have both positive and negative: while the presence of mining in Singleton can have positive influences such as increasing employment, improving household incomes and providing community investment; negative aspects may also result e.g. inability of local business to compete with high mining wages for staff, community investment not always being directed to the greatest community needs, and loss of identity as a rural community.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 161

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 6.18 Force Field Analysis: Perceptions of Mining in the Singleton Community

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 162

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

When asked to comment on the company and the project specifically, the feedback received was generally positive; with key stakeholders recognising Xstrata’s efforts in community investment and support. Many stakeholders also noted that the company was seen in the community ‘as one of the better mines’, particularly in relation to its impact management, engagement and community contributions.

6.4 Issues and Opportunities Summary

Through consultation with neighbouring landholders and local and regional community group representatives, a number of perceived issues and opportunities in relation to the project have been identified. Of most concern to the local communities in proximity to the BCC are issues relating to air quality, noise and visual amenity from the company’s existing operations; with concerns that further mining activity will only exacerbate these issues at the community level. Longer-term issues of mine life and end land-use, and issues relating to the ongoing sustainability of these small localities, were also key concerns for stakeholders. Issues relating to surface and ground water, roads and transport, health, company reputation, general environmental issues and blasting were also discussed, but to a lesser extent.

Having identified the perceptions of key stakeholders as part of the assessment, the proceeding sections of the report involve further technical social assessment of these perceived issues, prediction of the likely social impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, and documentation of the strategies that may be implemented to mitigate negative impacts and where possible enhance positive impacts to achieve improved outcomes for all parties.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 163

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

7.0 Risking of Social Impacts

This section provides a risk ranking of those social impacts identified during the scoping phase of the SIA (outlined above in Section 6.0). The aim of the SIOA is to assess the proposed change to the current baseline social environment (of which current BCM operations are a part), as a result of the Project proceeding. The SIOA has utilised data from a number of sources to develop a layered picture of the potential social impacts arising from the Project; however these need to be ranked in terms of the extent / severity of the risk they pose.

In order to prioritise the identified social impacts, a risk-based framework has been adopted. Traditionally, the technical risk assessment process has not been greatly amenable to the inclusion of social impacts and thus an alternate approach was required. Therefore, a risk based approach to SIA has been adopted in the current assessment. This decision was taken to reflect best practice methods used in Australia and to afford a more seamless EIS document.

One of the key adaptations of the approach is that both technical ratings and stakeholder perceptions of impacts are assessed. This approach is consistent with Sandman’s risk equation (Risk = Hazard + Outrage) (Sandman, 1997). This approach acknowledges the low correlation between a risk’s technical ‘hazard’ (how much harm it’s likely to do) and its ‘outrage’ (how upset it’s likely to make people). Outrage and stakeholder perception then is considered an independent and no less valid component of risk. The integration of the outcomes of the technical ranking with stakeholder perceived ranking of impacts thus affords a true integration of expert and local knowledge in impact assessment, and enables both types of risk to be addressed in the development of impact mitigation, amelioration and enhancement strategies.

This integrated risk-based framework comprises two staged methods: impact plotting and prioritisation, as outlined in the sections below and risk assessment (undertaken in the subsequent Section 8.0).

7.1 Impact Plotting

Firstly, the scoping of key issues and opportunities associated with the Project (Section 6.0) is further refined through the development of a preliminary impact plot©7. The impact plot is used as a way of prioritising unmitigated impacts based on a broad-brush ranking of technical and stakeholder perceived impact (both using a scale of ‘low, ‘medium’, or ‘high’). This process allows the range of identified impacts and opportunities to be refined into a list of those potentially high impact risks to be assessed (from both a technical and stakeholder perspective).

As shown in the following figure, a broad-brush and integrated assessment is used to plot the technical impacts against the stakeholder perceived impacts. As noted above, these impacts are the mitigated impacts posed by the Project. Prioritising impacts in this integrated manner ensures that appropriate assessment and mitigation strategies can be developed that not only address impacts that may require technical management but also those impacts that are perceived by stakeholders as of high risk / importance / concern. These perceived concerns are just as important to manage as technical risks as they have

7 Social Impact plots are a methodology developed by Coakes Consulting (2009) as a means of integrating social and technical perspectives of risk/impact in project development.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 164

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

the potential to result in elevated levels of community concerns, complaints and grievances if not addressed appropriately.

Figure 7.1 Social Impact Plot for the Project Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

The figure clearly illustrates there are a number of social impacts associated with the Project. These impacts require prioritisation for assessment and management/enhancement due to either their technical and/or perceived risk ranking.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 165

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

These impacts can be categorised under the following key social factors:

 Population change  Changes in demand or capacity for community infrastructure and services  Recreation  Social amenity  Health and wellbeing  Sense of community  The economy  The environment  Community sustainability and intergenerational equity  Cumulative impacts.

Each of these impacts is assessed in detail as part of the overarching risk-based framework in the following section (excluding impacts associated with the economy and environment which are only briefly summarised due to their technical assessment in the EIS). It should also be noted that social impacts are often not mutually exclusive, with higher order impacts such as population change resulting in second order impacts such as impacts on sense of community and service provision.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 166

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

8.0 Assessment of Social Risks

This section outlines the detailed risk assessment across the social impacts ranked through impact plotting and prioritisation (outlined above in Section 7.0). The assessment is undertaken using a consequence and likelihood framework i.e. assessing the consequence of a given social impact factor (e.g. catastrophic, major, negligible) against the likelihood that it will occur (e.g. almost certain, likely, possible), which determines the overall risk assessment of the social impact as ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’.

8.1 Risk Assessment Approach

To facilitate the risking of social impacts, specific definitions have been developed for both the consequence and likelihood of the identified social impacts.

First, consequence definitions were developed for each social impact factor (e.g. population change, sense of community) across a range of ‘degrees of consequence’ (e.g. catastrophic, massive, major etc.). Second, a series of broad-brush likelihood definitions were established (e.g. almost certain, likely, possible). The development of both of these definition-sets was guided by social assessment practice, best practice research findings and relevant government agency guidelines, including the IAIA (2003) guiding principles of social impact assessment.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 167

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.1 Social Consequence Definitions

Social Consequence Definitions Social Impact Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 Catastrophic Massive Major Moderate Minor Negligible Population Change Greater than 15% Greater than 10% Greater than 5% Temporary population Temporary but Negligible population permanent permanent population permanent population change in a local area insignificant population change in a local area population change change in a region change in a local area of less than 20 % or change in a local area in a region Permanent population change in a local area of less than 5% Community Permanent and Temporary but Permanent and Permanent but Temporary but No measureable Infrastructure and significant reduction significant reduction to significant reduction to insignificant/temporar insignificant reduction impacts on capacity of Services to the capacity of the capacity of the capacity of local y but significant to the capacity of local local community regional community regional community community services reduction to capacity community services services and services and services and and infrastructure, and of local community and infrastructure, and infrastructure, and infrastructure, and infrastructure, and existing local housing services and existing local housing existing housing and existing regional existing regional and accommodation infrastructure, and and accommodation accommodation stock housing and housing and stock existing local housing stock accommodation accommodation stock / accommodation stock stock

Recreation Permanent loss of Permanent loss of Permanent loss of Permanent loss of Temporary loss of No measurable ability to use all ability to use 20% or ability to use all local ability to use 20% or ability to use less than impacts on local recreational areas more of recreational recreational areas more of local 20% of local recreational uses within a region areas within a region recreational areas recreational areas Social Amenity Permanent and Temporary but Permanent and Permanent but Temporary but No measurable significant reduction significant reduction in significant reduction in insignificant or insignificant reduction impacts on social in social amenity in social amenity in a social amenity in a temporary but in social amenity in a amenity in a local area a region as a result region as a result of local area as a result significant reduction in local area as a result as a result of dust / air of dust / air quality, dust / air quality, noise, of dust / air quality, social amenity in a of dust / air quality, quality, noise, visual noise, visual visual impacts, traffic noise, visual impacts, local area as a result noise, visual impacts, impacts, traffic impacts, traffic congestion traffic congestion of dust / air quality, traffic congestion congestion congestion noise, visual impacts, traffic congestion

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 168

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Social Consequence Definitions Social Impact Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 Catastrophic Massive Major Moderate Minor Negligible Health and Well- >1 fatality or 1 fatality or No fatality and 1 No fatality and no No fatality and no No fatality and no Being >5 permanent 2-5 permanent permanent disability or permanent disability permanent disability permanent disability disabilities or disabilities or Non-permanent and non-permanent and non-permanent and no non-permanent Non-permanent Non-permanent injuries requiring injuries requiring injuries requiring injuries requiring injuries requiring injuries requiring hospitalisation for >1- hospitalisation for 1- hospitalisation for 1-5 hospitalisation and no hospitalisation for hospitalisation for 2- 2% of population at 2% of population at persons or acute health effect 5-10% of population 5% of population at risk or risk or No acute health effect requiring at risk or risk or Acute health effect Acute health effect requiring hospitalisation and no evacuation or Acute health effect Acute health effect requiring requiring hospitalisation) and no requiring requiring hospitalisation for >1- hospitalisation for 1- evacuation or No chronic health hospitalisation for hospitalisation for >2- 2% of population at 2% of population at Chronic health effect effect requiring >5-10% of 5% of population at risk or risk and no evacuation requiring medical medical treatment or population at risk or risk or Evacuation is or treatment for about 0- < $100k of health cost Chronic health Chronic health effect necessary or chronic Chronic health effect 1% of population at- due to hazard or effect requiring requiring medical health effect requiring requiring medical risk or Demand exceeds medical treatment treatment for 5-10% of medical treatment for treatment for 1-2% of $100k - $500k of capacity of health for 10-15% of population at-risk or 2-5% of population at- population at-risk or health cost due to services by 0-1% population at-risk or >$5m - $10m of health risk or >$500k - $1m of hazard or >$10m of health cost due to hazard or >$1m - $5m of health health cost due to Demand exceeds hazard or cost per hazard or Demand exceeds cost due to hazard or capacity of health Demand exceeds capacity of health Demand exceeds Demand exceeds services by >1-10% capacity of health services by >30-40% capacity of health capacity of health services by >40% services by >20-30% services by >10-20% at any point of time Sense of Community Permanent and Temporary but Permanent and Permanent but Temporary but Negligible change in significant reduction significant reduction in significant reduction in insignificant reduction insignificant reduction sense of community in sense of sense of community sense of community in sense of community in sense of community due to negligible community due to > due to > 10% due to > 5% due to <5% permanent due to temporary but population change in a 15% permanent permanent population permanent population population change in a insignificant population local area or population change change in a region or change in a local area local area or change in a local area Negligible /no impact in a region or Serious and/or long- or Temporary but or on items and/or places Severe and/or term impact to items Moderate and/or significant reduction in Very minor and/or of community value or permanent damage and/or places of medium-term impact to sense of community short-term impact to Negligible /no impact to items and/or community value or items and/or places of due to temporary but items and/or places of on other land uses– places of Serious and long-term community value or significant population community value or agriculture, viticulture,

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 169

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Social Consequence Definitions Social Impact Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 Catastrophic Massive Major Moderate Minor Negligible community value or impact on other land Moderate and/or change in a local area Minor and/or short- tourism, residential, Irreversible, severe uses– agriculture, medium-term impact or term impact on other industry, natural or impact on other viticulture, tourism or on other land uses– Minor and/or short- land uses – Negligible community land uses – Community members agriculture, viticulture, term impact to items agriculture, viticulture, disputes agriculture, are in serious and tourism or and/or places of value tourism or viticulture, tourism prolonged dispute Community disputes or Community disputes or Community occur Moderate and/or short- unlikely members are in term impact on other prolonged dispute land uses – and legal action agriculture, viticulture, tourism or Possibility for community disputes Sustainability and Long-term and Long-term and Long-term and Short-term but Short-term and No change in capacity Intergenerational significant decrease significant decrease in significant decrease in significant decrease in insignificant decrease across community Equity in capacity across 3 or more community 2 or less community 3 or more community in 2 or less community capitals or all community capitals or capitals or capitals or capitals or No loss of industry / capitals or Permanent loss of >1 Permanent loss of >5 Permanent loss of <5 Temporary loss of businesses in the local Permanent loss of industry in the local businesses in the local businesses in the local businesses in the local area >1 industry in the area area area area region Source: Coakes Consulting (2012); Coakes and Askew (2012). Note: The technical assessments of economic and environmental impacts are undertaken as part of the EIS (please refer to the relevant sections of the EIS for further detail).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 170

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Using this framework, the risk assessment process involved four main steps:

1. Determining the consequence. The risking approach adopted for this SIOA requires the determination of the worst-case (but reasonable), consequence of a Project factor. For some impacts it may be a negative consequence, while for others it may be a positive consequence (positive risk rankings are delineated in italics). These consequences are assessed against the impact-specific consequence ranking table (see Table 8.1). It is important to note that economic and environmental impacts are not included in the definitions of social consequences as these are assessed as part of the technical assessments of the EIS. Consequences are categorised as ‘catastrophic’, ‘massive’, ‘major’, ‘moderate’, ‘minor’ or ‘negligible’.

2. Determining the likelihood. To understand the risks presented by a Project factor, the magnitude of a consequence must be cross-referenced with the likelihood of it occurring. The table below presents the broad-brush likelihood definitions that were used to assess the likelihood of social impact consequences associated with the Project, categorised as ‘almost certain’, ‘likely’, ‘possible’, ‘unlikely’, or ‘rare’ (see Coakes and Askew, 2012).

Table 8.2 Social likelihood definitions

Likelihood Category Definition Almost certain Common repeating occurrence, ongoing Will occur in most circumstances Will probably occur in most circumstances Likely There is at least a 50% chance that it may happen Might occur at some time Possible Could occur but not often 5% chance it could happen Unusual occurrence Unlikely Unexpected May occur only in exceptional circumstances Rare Unheard of in the industry Source: Coakes Consulting (2012); Coakes and Askew (2012).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 171

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

3. Assessing the technical risk. To assess the overall risk, the consequence determined in step one is cross-referenced with the likelihood determined in step two to determine an overall risk assessment rating (i.e. low, medium, high) (see Table 8.3 Social Risk Ranking Matrix). For some impacts, this risking assessment involved referencing the respective technical reports of the EIS (e.g. heritage, economic), however most impacts have been assessed through the social risking process. It is important to note here, that the technical risk ratings represent ‘residual risk’, that is, the risk remaining after management measures are applied. As a result, mitigation, management and enhancement strategies are outlined and discussed where relevant throughout the risk assessment (see below Section 8.2).

Table 8.3 Social Risk Ranking Matrix Consequence category 6 5 4 3 2 1 Slight/ Cata- Minor Moderate Major Massive Negligible strophic

1. Almost certain Medium Medium High High High High

2. Likely Low Medium Medium High High High

3. Possible Low Low Medium Medium High High

4. Unlikely Low Low Low Medium Medium High Likelihood category 5. Rare Low Low Low Low Medium Medium

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

4. Ranking the stakeholder perceived risk. An important component of the SIA has been the integration of technical results with the perceived risk ranking of a Project factor or impact by various stakeholders. Consequently, stakeholder ratings of risk were determined by assessing impacts identified through the scoping phase of the SIOA. The perceived ranking (i.e. low, medium, high) is determined by the frequency that an issue was raised by a particular stakeholder group (e.g. wider community, landholders, specific community group) throughout the consultation process. The justification for each ranking is highlighted in the discussion within each respective impact section. It should be noted that community perception risk rankings are not ‘residual risk’ rankings as they do not reflect the management measures a proponent will put in place.

In line with the process defined above, the following section assesses the technical and perceived risk in relation to a number of social impacts that can be categorised according to the following key social factors, namely:  Population change  Changes in demand or capacity for community infrastructure and services  Recreation  Social amenity  Health and wellbeing  Sense of community  The economy  The environment  Community sustainability and intergenerational equity  Cumulative impacts.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 172

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Where relevant, existing and potential management and enhancement strategies employed to manage the predicted risks are outlined. At the conclusion of each impact theme, a table is presented which summarises the Project aspect, the timeframe of the impact, the geographic scope, impacted stakeholders, mitigated technical risk (i.e. the risk remaining after management measures are applied) and perceived stakeholder risk.

8.2 Assessment and Management of Social Risks

8.2.1 Impacts of Population Change

Changes to population are a fundamental impact within SIOA, given that the size, diversity and behaviours of a community are underpinned by its population and characteristics. Population change is usually described as a first order social impact which has the potential to create a number of second order social impacts e.g. impact on community infrastructure and services, change in sense of community, social cohesion etc. The following section will examine the potential impacts of population change as a result of the Project.

In order to consistently and objectively assess potential population change impacts, this assessment utilises population change consequences adapted from Burdge (2004). These consequence definitions and their associated categories are cross-referenced with appropriate likelihood definitions (see Table 8.2).

It has been determined that the Project could influence population change in three main ways:

 As a result of an influx of construction workers  As a result of a change to the current operational workforce  As a result of acquisition of residential land in proximity to the operations.

These three types of impact are considered below.

8.2.1.1 Construction workforce

The presence of a construction workforce can often have different impacts on a community than a permanent, operational workforce. Usually a construction workforce is temporary and transient in nature, residing in a location due to its proximity to a particular project, before moving on to the next project. Because of the temporary, transient nature of construction work, families often do not accompany the worker, preferring to live in one permanent location while the worker travels away.

In relation to the Project construction workforce, it has been estimated that the Project will have a peak workforce in in year one of approximately 300 workers. Construction is estimated to commence in year one and be completed year three to four (see to Figure 8.1). To understand the potential (reasonable) worst case scenario for population change the following assumptions have been made:

 Due to the temporary nature of the workforce, the families of the workforce will not relocate with the worker  The workforce will want to temporarily reside as close as possible to the Project, i.e. the Singleton LGA  All other factors will remain proportionally the same over the construction period.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 173

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 8.1 Proposed Approximate Workforce Figures for Project Construction Activities over time Source: BCM (2012).Note: Mine Infrastructure Area (MIA), CHPP (coal handling and preparation plant)

The percentage of population change that will occur as a result of the influx of the construction workforce can be estimated using the peak workforce figure of 300 persons. As shown below, the estimated Project construction workforce would create around a one per cent change in population.

Total existing Singleton LGA population (2011) 22, 694

Estimated Project peak construction workforce 300

Percentage change 1.32%

Consequently, the population change due to the influx of a Project construction workforce in the Singleton LGA is assessed as a ‘negligible’ consequence (temporary but insignificant population change), with a likelihood rating of ‘likely’, resulting in an overall mitigated technical risk ranking of ‘low’ (see Table 8.4).

The level of community concern in relation to population change associated with the presence of the Project’s construction workforce, as identified through consultation with key stakeholders, was perceived to be ‘low’ (see Table 8.4).

While the influx of a construction workforce has the potential to influence population change, this change will be temporary in nature (over a 1-2 year period). The Project will require up to 300 contractors during its peak construction period, but given the existing construction workforces within the region that are working on other development projects i.e. Hunter Expressway, Ravensworth North Project; it is anticipated that as these projects come to a close, such workforces will be readily available to the Project.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 174

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

In addition, the SIA profile (see Section 5.0) highlights significant capacity in this sector, with 12.9 per cent employed in this sector within the Hunter Region, (this is higher than the state average of 11.7%) (ABS, 2011).

Where possible, BCM will utilise locally based contracting firms and provide preference to local businesses to tender for construction related works and activities.

Table 8.4 Summary of project impact - Impact of construction workforce on local population Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Construction Construction Singleton LGA Wider community Low Low Workforce and broader community

8.2.1.2 Operational Workforce

It is predicted that there will not be a requirement for any significant change in operational workforce as a result of the Project. The Project, however, will extend the peak operational mine life for approximately a further 17 years, and then gradually reduce workforce numbers towards planned closure in 2035 (refer to Figure 8.2 below).

Figure 8.2 Estimated workforce levels comparing Project and a no development option Source: BCM (2012).Note: These figures are only a representation of the closure workforce timeframes. In practice, closure workforce gradients may vary.

Consequently two potentially different mine closure scenarios may be considered:

1. A no development scenario (closure in 2018) 2. Project scenario (closure in 2035).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 175

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Should the project not be approved, a ‘no development’ scenario would see completion of the operation occurring by 2018, with the associated withdrawal of employees. The second development scenario would delay this impact by approximately seventeen years.

To understand the impacts of potential population change across these two scenarios, population modelling was undertaken. Table 8.5 provides an analysis of the potential worst case population change scenario, based on the following assumptions:

 Each employee has a dependent or semi-dependent household, the same size as the relevant SS or LGA household average  As a result of losing employment at the BSO, the employee and their family would need to relocate to another location to find gainful employment  All other factors remain proportional to existing conditions.

Table 8.5 Estimated workforce and household population size for BSO Estimated Average Total BSO Total Percentage of number of household related Population of BSO related BSO size of locality population locality population employees (family #) within the who currently locality reside in locality (#) Branxton 63 2.8 176 1826 9.66% Bulga 7 3.1 22 358 6.06% Jerrys Plains 14 2.7 38 688 5.49% Greta 35 2.8 98 2483 3.95% Singleton 140 2.7 378 13665 2.77% Cessnock 112 2.6 291 13673 2.13% Kurri Kurri 21 2.5 53 5772 0.91% Maitland 147 2.7 397 67478 0.59% Lochinvar (SS) 2 2.7 5 941 0.57% Wollongong 7 2.5 18 8318 0.21% Newcastle 49 2.4 118 148535 0.08% Lake Macquarie 35 2.5 88 189006 0.05% Port Stephens 7 2.5 18 64807 0.03% Central Coast 14 2.5 35 312184 0.01% Not specified 56 - - - - Total 700* - 1735 829734 0.2% Source: ABS (2011), Coakes Consulting (2012), BCM (2012).

As highlighted in the table above, even in a worst case, the consequences of either scenario on population change are ‘negligible’. Furthermore given that the technical social risk from operational workforce change is ‘likely’ in all areas across the Hunter; the overall mitigated technical risk has been assessed as ‘low’ (see Table 8.6 below).

Population changes associated with the Project operational workforce were not raised by stakeholders as a key issue and have therefore been categorised as a ‘low’ perceived stakeholder risk (see Table 8.5).

While impacts to the population of operational workforce change are low, a potential social impact of the presence of the existing operation and the proposed project (should it be

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 176

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

approved), is the population change associated with the eventual closure of the mining operation.

While the Project will extend the current life of mine until around 2035, the current Xstrata Coal Social Involvement Policy recommends that social impact assessments be conducted as a component of closure planning 5 years prior to the end of the mine life. It has been assumed, as a part of normal company procedure, that BCM would undertake a social impact assessment to better understand and manage the impacts on the community of operational closure, further minimising population change impacts. This planning will involve consultation with local and regional stakeholders and would explore the potential for future land uses of the site.

The mine plan for the Project indicates that employment will reduce gradually over the operation’s proposed seventeen years of production, thus minimising the impact of workforce and population change. Employees will be supported and assisted in the transition from their current work roles into new employment opportunities, either within Xstrata Coal, other mining companies, or into other sectors.

Table 8.6 Summary of project impact - Impact of operational workforce on local population Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Operational Operation and Hunter Region Wider community Low Low Workforce closure

8.2.1.3 Acquisition

Consultation with local community stakeholders indicated there is a ‘medium’ level of perceived risk around the ongoing sustainability of small rural localities due to property purchase by mining companies and consequent population attrition. There was a perception among stakeholders that a large number of properties were being purchased by mining companies, either opportunistically or as a result of properties falling within defined acquisition zones.

As a result of the Project, approximately 2-3 property acquisitions are predicted to be required as a result of noise and air quality impacts, in addition to those with existing rights in the current development approval. Consequently population change associated with the Project is categorised as a ‘low’ technical risk (possible with a consequence of slight/negligible), however from a stakeholder perspective, is ranked as a ‘medium’ risk (see Table 8.7).

The mine plan for the Project has been designed to maintain existing levels of production with effective management of existing environmental impacts predicted e.g. noise, dust on neighbouring communities. The development of the noise and visual bund for example, has been proposed to reduce visual and noise impacts on neighbouring properties, with noise levels predicted to decrease over the life of the operation.

BCM has acquired a small number of local properties during the development of the Project proposal; however these have been non-compulsory acquisition purchases with willing vendors. Some properties in proximity to the existing operations currently have development consent conditions for acquisition on request, as part of existing underground and open cut approvals. In some of these cases, landholders have nominated to remain in the area, on

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 177

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

their land and have entered into established private agreements with BCM regarding acquisition and/or management of impacts on their respective properties. It is predicted that approximately two properties will fall within the noise acquisition zone for the Project, but it should be noted that both these properties have acquisition rights under the current BSO consent.

While the Project will have minimal impact on the local population as a result of additional property acquisition; Xstrata Coal NSW does own considerable areas of land in the Hunter region and across NSW more broadly, with approximately 63,000 hectares, utilised for a range of land uses across NSW. As illustrated in Figure 8.3.

Tthese land holdings include olive groves, vineyards and pastoral lands. Many of these properties are managed to their pre-acquired land uses by Xstrata Coal’s pastoral company, Colinta Holdings, or by former owners or local landholders, which employ a local workforce.

Source: XCN (2012)

Figure 8.3 Land use type - XCN owned, managed and/or leased land Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

The majority of the Project area is mine owned land. BCM is currently in negotiations with the remaining landholders to secure the remaining land for the Project. Further details on land ownership and land negotiations can be found in the EIS Main Report Section1.4 and Section 4.6. Only one residential property is contained within the Project area. This property has existing acquisition rights under the current development approval.

Residences located on Xstrata owned land also are often leased back to the community. The company currently has approximately 40 properties in the Singleton area rented to the community.

The Vere Vineyard will be affected by the Project and some of the vintage root stock that was considered of high importance is being re-grafted and replanted to another vineyard

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 178

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

owned by Xstrata, at the company’s cost. As shown in Figure 8.3 many local properties owned by Xstrata Coal have been maintained as agricultural properties in line with pre- existing land to assist mining to co-existence with other industries and maintain local values, identity and culture. Also shown in Figure 8.3 Xstrata Coal lands have also been set aside to maintain other values, such as for conservation purposes.

Table 8.7 Summary of project impact - Impact of mining project acquisition on local population

Project Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived Aspect scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Acquisition Construction Neighbouring Winder Low Medium Community Community Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.2 Impacts on Recreation

As discussed in the social profile (see Section 5.0), there are a range of recreation facilities, services and groups within the Singleton LGA. At a local level, community residents in the villages of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale valued highly the recreational areas and amenities in their respective communities including sporting and recreation grounds, community halls etc.

A range of recreational activities in the local area are also centred on the viticulture industry and its local vineyards, attracting tourists to the local area to participate in tourist and recreational pursuits. Table 8.8 lists the consequence definitions used to assess impacts on recreation.

It has been determined that the Project could impact on recreation largely through the presence of the construction workforce and the changing demand for, and capacity of, recreation service providers to accommodate an increase in recreational activities.

It is assumed that if there were to be impacts on recreation from the temporary construction workforce, such impacts would be focused on recreational infrastructure and services close to where the workforce will reside i.e. key towns such as Singleton. It is also assumed that due to the largely temporary nature of this workforce, the recreation activities in which the workforce would engage would also be independent and/or more temporary in nature (i.e. gym attendance rather than participation in local sporting teams). Consultation with recreational service providers indicates there is capacity for such services to accommodate an increase in participation/usage.

At the local level, the small numbers of properties to be acquired and/or operational activities associated with the Project are not expected to impact recreational activities and/or access to recreational areas in the Broke/Bulga area. Given that the BCC has been resident in the locality for a considerable number of years, and that Project activities will remain largely within the existing mine lease footprint; the continued ability of residents and visitors to recreate in the area is not likely to be impacted as a result of the Project.

Interviews with tourist accommodation providers did however identify the need for BCM to continue to effectively manage environmental impacts from their operations, particularly noise, given the area is considered a tourist destination and a number of tourist accommodation providers are located in the villages of Broke and Bulga. This issue is further discussed in Section 8.2.4 on social amenity.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 179

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Therefore it has been assessed that the Project is ‘possible’ to present a ‘negligible’ impact on recreation in the locality, resulting in a ‘low’ technical impact (see Table 8.8). This issue has also been ranked as ‘low’ from a perceived stakeholder perspective.

Despite the low impact rankings for this factor, BCM and XCN have a strong commitment to supporting recreational programs, activities and amenities in the local community. Outcomes of both the community visioning project and the most recent HVRF survey of community residents in the Broke and Bulga area indicate a further desire to see improvement in the area of recreation (as outlined in Table 8.7). Relevant community projects related to recreation, identified in the community visioning work, include:

 Upgrades and further development of the existing recreational areas in Broke and Bulga  Upgrade and beautification of both village community halls  Main street and streetscape beautification programs  Development of skate parks for youth  Development of walking/cycling track connecting the villages  Development of an outdoor amphitheatre to accommodate cultural and music events.

Support for local recreational events and activities have been a focus of the BCC, evidenced in their support of local events such as the Broke Fair, Little Bit of Italy Festival, Spirit of the Vine etc. At a broader LGA level, XCN’s corporate social involvement program also provides support to a number of recreational programs including Singleton Junior Sport and Youth venues.

As part of the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the Project, BCM will consider support for a number of the projects identified through the community visioning project. These will need to be further developed with relevant members of the local community and the Singleton Council.

Table 8.8 Summary of project impact - Impact on recreational values, areas and amenities

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical Stakeholder risk risk

Construction workforce Life of Mine Singleton LGA Wider Low Low impacts on recreational community facilities

Project footprint – Life of Mine Local Villages Near neighbours Low Low impacts on recreational use and activities in the Visitors to the locality area Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Note: Wider community is defined as all people who may reside, work, govern or have connection to the locality. Negative risks are written in normal font, positive opportunities in italics

8.2.3 Impacts on Community Infrastructure and Services

A project’s impacts on community infrastructure and services are often one of the more tangible social impacts of a project and are considered a secondary order impact largely influenced by population change. For example, a community may have reduced access to infrastructure as a result of a project; may experience increased costs for services; or may

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 180

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

result in a change in the levels of demand for a service, such as longer waiting times. Project factors that can impact community services and infrastructure include:

 Changing demand due to an increase in population  Changing behaviours of users, such as workforce rosters determining patterns of peak service utilisation  Direct impacts on physical infrastructure during project construction and/or operation.

Coakes Consulting has developed consequence definitions to measure the potential impacts on community services and infrastructure (see Table 8.1).

It has been identified that the Project has the potential to impact on a range of community infrastructure and services. The following section describes the Project’s potential impact on:

 Housing and accommodation  Road infrastructure and transport  Utilities  Education services  Health services  Social and community services  Emergency services.

8.2.3.1 Housing and Accommodation

Current and relevant data on the housing and accommodation situation in the Singleton LGA is difficult to source, due to limited housing and accommodation studies undertaken within the LGA. To rectify this situation, outcomes of the UHMD, as part of the Social Impacts and Infrastructure Workshop, addressed housing availability and affordability and recommended a regional approach to managing key issues including the need for a regional housing research program and steering group. Singleton Council is also currently progressing the development of a Housing Plan, which includes feedback from industry and residents of the LGA, including from the UHMD. The focus of the plan is on providing more diverse housing stock, particularly smaller, cheaper accommodation (ABC, 2012). In addition, a new housing development site at Huntlee – located in Branxton and straddling the Singleton and Cessnock LGAs – involves the creation of 7500 housing lots to house about 20,000 people over 25 years. Although not yet approved, it has been subject to significant debate over its planning and ensuring adequate provision of infrastructure and services for the new population.

From the data that is available (as presented in Section 5.3), the Singleton LGA has been experiencing conditions that demonstrate decreased housing availability (particularly rentals and short-term accommodation), increased housing costs and issues of affordability and housing stress, particularly for single people. The housing and accommodation issue has also been noted in the NSW Government’s Strategic Regional Land Use Plan.

Anecdotally, consultation with real estate agents in the locality indicated that current tenants will give around three weeks’ notice of intent to vacate and the rental will be filled immediately from an existing waiting list. It was also noted that houses rented by companies for their contract workers usually housed a number of occupants, due to issues of availability and cost.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 181

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

In relation to temporary accommodation, data obtained to inform the social profile indicates that there are approximately 20 temporary accommodation providers in the Singleton LGA (as at December 2011), with seven of these providers located in the Broke, Milbrodale, Fordwich and Bulga regions. The majority of the accommodation facilities located in Broke and Bulga are more tourist-focused, with the majority of trade occurring on weekends.

Consultation with accommodation providers in Singleton indicated that many of the hotels/motels in the town accommodate mining employees and contractors, with many rooms sold out during the week and bookings secured several weeks in advance. An examination of occupancy rates for establishments only e.g. hotels, motels, serviced apartments, revealed that such rates are rising, and have increased by approximately 10 per cent in Singleton in just one year (2010 to 2011), with a rate that is five per cent higher than the NSW average.

It has been identified that Project may have an impact on housing and accommodation in two main ways:

 As a result of the need for the construction workforce to utilise local housing and temporary accommodation  Due to acquisition and/or management of properties (as a result of project development) and the subsequent need for local residents to relocate within the area.

Construction Workforce Impacts

As discussed in Section 8.2.1.1, the Project has a construction workforce that is estimated to peak around year one, at approximately 300 workers. Construction is expected to commence in year one and will be complete by year three to four.

Three different scenarios have been developed to assess the housing and accommodation impacts associated with the influx of a construction workforce for the Project, as outlined in Table 8.9 below.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 182

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.9 Project Construction workforce residential scenarios

Workforce from Existing Residential other regions, Scenario Workforce requiring short-term accommodation A The workforce can be sourced from the 100% 0% existing contractor workforce balance in the Hunter Region, requiring no new or temporary accommodation. B The workforce can be mostly sourced from the 50% 50% existing contractor workforce balance in the Hunter Region, however a certain percentage will need to be sourced external to the region, thus requiring some short term/temporary accommodation. Percentages have been estimated from an understanding of the presence of existing contactor workforces (i.e. approximately half are residential to the Hunter Region with the other half sourced from outside the region). C The workforce is entirely sourced from other 0% 100% regions, with the whole construction workforce requiring short term/temporary accommodation. Source: BCM (2012), Coakes Consulting (2012)

In assessing the impacts on housing and accommodation, a number of assumptions have been made:

 Due to the temporary nature of the construction schedule, families associated with the workforce will not relocate with the worker  The workforce will most likely be accommodated close to the project, i.e. within the Singleton LGA  All other factors will remain proportionally the same over the construction period.

Due to the limited capacity of the housing and accommodation market only Scenario A will have no impact. It is predicted that with no mitigation or management, if Scenario B or C were to occur, it is ‘possible’ that the Project would create a temporary but significant impact in the area on housing and accommodation, which is categorised as a ‘moderate’ consequence. However, as has been previously highlighted; while the Project will require approximately 300 contractors during its peak construction period, given the existing presence of construction workforces within the region i.e. Hunter Expressway, Ravensworth North Project, it is anticipated that as these projects come to an end, such workforces are likely to be readily available to the Project. This coupled with a strong construction sector within the locality serves to reduce impacts of the construction workforce influx and associated housing and accommodation requirements in relation to the Project. Housing and accommodation may also potentially be sourced in neighbouring LGA’s in proximity to the Project e.g. Maitland, Cessnock, Newcastle. Consequently, this would result in a mitigated ‘medium’ technical risk (see Table 8.10).

General housing and accommodation issues, particularly housing affordability and availability, were the second most discussed issue amongst Singleton regional stakeholders. As a result the perceived risk is ranked as ‘high from a stakeholder perspective (see Table 8.10).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 183

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

XCN is an active participant in the Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue Social Investment and Infrastructure Working Group and has been involved in housing workshops with other regional stakeholders and in the Singleton LGA Housing Summit. BCM acknowledge the importance of this issue to the community and should Scenario B or C eventuate, monitoring of construction workforce impacts will be undertaken to plan for any unanticipated impacts that may arise. Residential Land Acquisition

As has been previously noted, the majority of the Project area is mine owned land and BCM is currently in negotiations with the remaining landholders to secure the remaining land for the Project. Further details on land ownership and land negotiations can be found in the EIS Main Report Section 1.4 and Section 4.6. Only one residential property is contained within the Project area. This property has existing acquisition rights under the current development approval.

Given the above, the Project is ‘likely’ to have ‘negligible’ impacts on housing and accommodation as a result of land acquisition; the resulting technical risk ranking is ‘low’ (see Table 8.10).

The acquisition of property and relocation of local residents was considered an issue of ‘medium’ importance by the community generally. However, in the context of the impact of acquisition on housing and accommodation in the locality (due to relocation of local residents), the issue was considered a ‘low’ risk by local community stakeholders (see Table 8.10).

Table 8.10 Summary of project impact - Impact on housing and accommodation

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Construction Construction Singleton LGA Wider Medium Medium workforce (1-2 years) community impacts on housing and accommodation

Land acquisition Life of Mine Broke and Wider Low Low impacts on Bulga community housing (due to relocation) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012) Note: Wider community is defined as all people who may reside, work, govern or have connection to the locality. Negative risks are written in normal font, positive opportunities in italics

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 184

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

8.2.3.2 Impacts on Transport (Road and Rail)

As discussed in Section 5.3.5, road and rail are two main types of transport infrastructure in the Singleton LGA and Broke/Bulga localities. The following section discusses the potential social impacts arising from project changes on these aspects.

Changes in Road Usage and Capacity As part of the EIS, XCN commissioned a specific Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to understand the impacts on road capacity and demand due to:

 Operational workforce movements  Construction workforce movements  Heavy vehicle movements  Relocation of Broke Road  Relocation of Charlton Road.

The technical assessment concluded that:

 The Project will not create any additional demand during operations due to similar levels of production until 2035 and the subsequent reduction in workforce after this time  The realignment of Broke Road will not lead to a change in traffic route within the sub- region network  The realignment of Broke Road, and to a lesser extent Charlton Road, will marginally increase the travel time between Broke Road and the Golden Highway, and Broke Road and the Putty Road  Construction traffic generation associated with the Project will be temporary  The intersections of both Putty Road and Charlton Road and Putty Road and Wallaby Scrub Road will continue to operate a high level of service as a function of minor traffic flow demands  The closure of Wallaby Scrub Road in 2017 (due to the Warkworth Extension), will result in fewer trips on Charlton Road, and therefore increase capacity at the Broke Road/Charlton Road intersection  The intersection of Payne’s Crossing Road and Singleton Street in Broke will continue to experience high levels of traffic flow due to additional, low, short-term demands with lower vehicle speed restrictions  The short-term generation of additional trips during construction will not alter the existing level of service in Broke Road  The intersection of the Golden Highway and Broke Road currently operates at satisfactory operating conditions; previously it had been operating at a poor level of service. During the Projects busiest year, the intersection will have adequate capacity and will operate at a satisfactory level. There is a commitment (as part of the Warkworth Extension) to undertake a $1 million upgrade of this intersection. Currently the RMS has no formal proposal to upgrade the intersection at this time; this will be reviewed if maintenance is required. The analysis indicates that short term traffic increases associated with the construction of the Project does not contribute to the need for any future upgrade at the intersection.  The capacity of the left turn Mitchell Line of Road to Putty Road intersection will be significantly reduced in the short term by factors not associated with the Project, and specifically through the introduction of additional Warkworth Extension traffic and moderate annual traffic growth. BCM will prepare and implement a construction Traffic Management Plan prior to commencement of construction activities. The plan will enable

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 185

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

BCM to respond to future network conditions to ensure the Project does not have a significant impact on this intersection.  The intersection of Broke Road and Charlton Road operates at a good level of service, but has a poor crash record, which is at least partially attributable to the existing sight distance constraint between vehicles turning from Charlton Road and vehicles approaching from the south in Broke Road. Further to recent discussions between BCM and Council, it has been agreed that BCM will prepare design plans for a future intersection that would remove the existing sight distance constraint. The funding and timeframe for the implementation of such a design is to be the responsibility of Council in consultation with the RMS.

Based on the outcomes of the TIA it is assessed that the Project will have a number of different impacts on the capacity of sub-regional road infrastructure in the locality.

From a social perspective, it has been assessed that mitigated the Project presents the following social risks:

 Short-term increase in traffic from construction workforce that will ‘likely’ have a temporary but insignificant reduction to the capacity of subregional roads (‘minor’ consequence) which equates to a ‘medium’ technical risk (see Table 8.11)  The relocation of Broke Road is ‘likely’ to have a permanent but insignificant reduction to travel times on Broke Road (‘moderate’ consequence) resulting in a ‘medium’ technical risk (see Table 8.11)  The relocation of Charlton Road is ‘likely’ to have a permanent but insignificant reduction to travel times on Charlton Road (‘moderate’ consequence) which equates to a ‘medium’ technical risk (see Table 8.11)  The relocation of the proposed roads has the potential to reduce heritage value associated with the Great North Road (this issue is addressed in Section 8.2.6.2). Construction Workforce Impacts on Road Capacity

During the Project’s construction period, there will be some increased road traffic load, however the TIA has indicated that the existing and proposed intersection design is capable of handling the additional traffic load. However, a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan will be developed for the construction period with RMS and Singleton Council.

Road traffic impacts around the sub-regional network was a relatively low concern for local and regional stakeholders; however, the wider traffic congestion issues experienced in the Singleton LGA through corridors such as the New England Highway were of high concern. Because of this, the stakeholder perception around the Project’s impact on road capacity is ranked as ‘medium’. Given this concern, the Construction Traffic Management Plan may consider the development of strategies e.g. provision of appropriate parking and vehicle access points for staff at each mine infrastructure area, car-pooling, bussing of employees to site, to further reduce impacts of construction traffic on the local and regional road network. Social Impacts of Road Relocation

Stakeholder perceptions regarding the relocation of Broke and Charlton roads in the first round of consultation were considered ‘low’, however, concerns have been raised by community residents in the Bulga village relating to the potential closure of the Wallaby Scrub Road proposed as part of the Mount Thorley/Warkworth project extension, with a number of community submissions raised in this regard.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 186

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

As highlighted above, the road relocation will result in a marginal increase in the travel time between Broke Road and the Golden Highway, and Broke Road and the Putty Road. However, such relocations are necessary to contain mining activities to the east and to afford the development of the noise and visual bund designed to shield the operations from the Broke area. Such project elements have been designed to reduce social amenity issues, but will result in temporary impacts to the community during construction (refer to Section 8.2.4 for further discussion of social amenity issues).

To address stakeholder concerns, a portion of the VPA contribution to Singleton Council will be dedicated to maintenance of local roads re-aligned by the Project. The new roads (Broke and Charlton roads) will be constructed to appropriate 100km/hour standards and will connect to the existing road network. At the request of Singleton Council a cycle track will also be provided on the new re-aligned section of Broke Road.

Consultation with key stakeholders’ e.g. emergency service providers has also identified the need for effective consultation and communication through design and construction phases (e.g. safety protection on road bends, visible signage, and design of gates for bushfire management). Adequate information provision e.g. advertisement and signage will be developed to minimise the social impact on the community during the relocation/construction phase.

The establishment of a Project Development working group may be beneficial during this period to allow for appropriate information provision and exchange between all relevant parties. During consultation BCM committed to undertake a design for an upgraded Charlton- Broke Road intersection. These plans have now been forwarded to Singleton Council.

Table 8.11 Summary of project impact - Impact on road infrastructure

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Reduction in Construction Broke, Bulga Road users of Medium Medium capacity of road and Mt Thorley the sub-regional due to network construction workforce

Relocation of Life of Mine Broke and Road users of Medium Medium Broke and Bulga Broke and Charlton Roads Charlton Roads

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Social Impacts Related to Changes in Rail Infrastructure

It is not expected that there will be any significant changes to rail transport required as a result of the Project. Social impacts associated with rail transport were also not discussed by stakeholders during consultation.

As part of the project, the development of a rail siding is proposed to be constructed parallel to the Bulga Saxonvale rail spur, to improve management of train traffic. The siding will be of sufficient length to enable two trains to be parked off the main line. Parking off the main

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 187

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

line will assist in the management of congestion on the main rail network and allow trains to move to BCC during periods when there is reduced demand on the rail network.

8.2.3.3 Public Utilities

As part of the Project, a number of key community utilities need to be relocated. These include:

 330kV Lines  30kV, 66kV and 11kV transmission lines  Broke town water supply  Private irrigation district (PID) pipelines  Telecommunications services.

The Project is required to consult with the various utility asset holders (e.g. PID Board, Singleton Council, Telstra, Ausgrid, TransGrid) before they can proceed with any planned relocation of public utilities.

Impacts of the Project on utilities were not raised during consultation, and for this reason it has been assessed that it is ‘likely’ the Project will have no measurable reduction in the capacity of local utilities (‘negligible’ consequence), resulting in a ‘low’ mitigated technical risk and ‘low’ perceived stakeholder issue (see Table 8.12 Summary of project impact - Impact on public utilities).

The Project will also result in some positive benefits as a result of the replacement of ageing infrastructure.

Table 8.12 Summary of project impact - Impact on public utilities

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Reduction in Life of mine Broke and Asset owners Low Low capacity of Bulga public utilities Utility users Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.3.4 Education Services

As discussed in Section 4.0, it is understood that employees of the BCC and their families access a range of education services across the Hunter Valley including preschool, primary and secondary school, TAFE and university. Given that minimal change is expected in the operational workforce for the Project, there will be no anticipated increase in demand on existing education institutions. Equally, it is expected that the Project will require approximately the same number of apprentices and graduates currently utilised by the company, therefore not creating any further increase in demand on TAFE or University services.

There are two primary schools located in the neighbouring communities of Broke and Milbrodale. Current data for these two primary schools is provided in Table 8.13 below.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 188

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.13 School data - Broke and Milbrodale Public Schools

Broke Public Milbrodale Public School School

2011 2012 2011 2012

Number of Enrolments 55 62 3 11

Teaching Staff 3 3 1 1

Full-time equivalent 3.6 3.6 1.2 1.3

Source: Personal Communication and My Schools Website

Note: A full-time equivalent (FTE) staff count is a representation that measures the total level of staff resources used, where full-time staff are counted as 1.0 and part-time staff are represented as a proportion of the full-time load. For example, a staff member who teaches half-time is counted as 0.5 FTE. FTE figures are presented for teaching and for non-teaching staff.

It is not expected that the Project will negatively impact the capacity of these schools to deliver primary school education services to the local community. In contrast, the extended life of the open cut operations could further benefit these services given current operational support of these primary schools. BCM regularly supports both primary schools through donations and sponsorship of infrastructure and personnel (e.g. funding of a teacher’s aide) and it would be reasonable to assume similar types of support will continue. For this reason it is assessed that it is ‘possible’ that the Project will have a permanent and significant impact on the capacity of neighbouring education services (‘major’ consequence), resulting in a ‘medium’ positive social impact (see Table 8.14).

The positive community contributions made by BCM were recognised by community stakeholders during consultation. Such contributions have included:

 Financial assistance with the provision of a speech pathologist and teachers aid  Provision of swimming lessons for the Broke and Milbrodale Primary Schools.

Discussion with representatives of the primary schools indicated that these contributions are welcomed and assist the schools in delivering their respective educational services. Impacts on education (positive and negative) were only rated as a ‘low’ perceived stakeholder issue.

The company’s broader social involvement program also supports a number of education programs including:

 Singleton District Primary Schools Information Technology Program: provision of information technology equipment e.g. interactive whiteboards/smartboards, iPads, Wi-Fi and short throw projectors.  Power of Music Program: to develop and enhance school instrumental programs in schools across Scone, Denman, Muswellbrook, Singleton, Jerry’s Plains, Kirkton and Mudgee areas. The program includes the Power of Music Spectacle and the Xstrata Coal Rising Stars Program, which provides one-on-one tuition for students. In 2011, the program was expanded to include a youth drama stream to allow for broader student participation in the program and enhance the Annual Power of Music Spectacle.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 189

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.14 Summary of Project Input - Impact on Education Services

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Construction Life of Mine Broke and Broke and Medium Low (Positive) and operational Bulga Milbrodale (positive impact workforce use Public Schools due to of education Broke and continued services Bulga company Community utilisation and Residents support) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.3.5 Health Services

It has been determined that there are a number of Project factors which may impact on the capacity of health care services in the assessment area. These primarily include:

 Population change (due to any proposed operational workforce change)  Workforce demand on health services as a result of work-related health and wellbeing issues  Changing community levels of health and wellbeing.

As discussed in the social profile, a number of health services are provided in the local Singleton area and BCC employees / contractors and their families’ access health services across the Hunter Valley, in particular in the regional centres of Singleton, Maitland, Cessnock and Newcastle.

It is not expected that the Project will create any population change as a result of its operational workforce, and therefore will not place any additional demand on local and regional health services. It is possible, however, that there will be some extra demand created from the influx of a short-term construction workforce. As construction workers are only likely to be residing in the locality for a short period time, the type of demand placed on local health services is likely to be quite specific (e.g. use of GPs for minor ailments, minor injuries).

The Singleton LGA, and to a lesser extent the Hunter region, have significantly lower levels of access to some types of health practitioners, although they have better access to GP services and occupational therapists than the wider region, Country NSW and NSW broadly (PHIDU, 2011). Despite these findings, health service providers consulted as part of the social assessment did identify some limitations on the current capacity of Singleton Hospital (e.g. emergency department) and specialist health care providers (e.g. mental health, allied health) to service the current population. Some service providers expressed that particular services e.g. local GPs and the hospital, were experiencing extra demand from mine workers who worked at operations in the Singleton LGA or transient workers, that were not permanently residing in Singleton. For this reason the perceived impacts on health service demand has been ranked as ‘medium’ from a stakeholder perspective (specific to health service providers) (see Table 8.15).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 190

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Consequently, it is expected that in a worst case scenario, the Project may create a temporary but insignificant reduction in the capacity of local health care services (‘minor’ consequence); however this consequence is seen as ‘unlikely’, providing an overall mitigated, technical risk ranking of ‘low’ (see Table 8.15).

BCM will aim to select construction contractors and sub-contractors that demonstrate compatible Health, Safety and Environment work cultures and standards during the pre- qualification process. Work programs i.e. SafeCoal and SafeBuild are established on site with a range of health related inductions an integral component of standard work practice. The operations also have qualified first aiders and equipment, a helicopter-pad and mine ambulances and emergency teams on hand.

At a corporate level the company’s social involvement program also sponsors and supports a range of programs in the health area. These have recently included:

 John Hunter Trauma Education and Research Program: a research program to assist trauma units in the region to build capacity. XCN’s funding covered three main areas:  Trauma Education Program – this travelling program ensures that up to date information about trauma management is rolled out across the region and that skills development required for trauma care is delivered by experts directly to staff in hospitals located in regional and rural areas across NSW.  Trauma Hotline – a unique resource that provides clinicians a direct link to expert trauma advice 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to support staff and patients.  Trauma Research Project – research program to support the continued improvement of trauma service delivery and education.  John Hunter Children’s hospital neo-natal intensive care unit: purchase of medical equipment to assist the hospital NICU to provide world class medical care and treatment to the region’s critically ill babies. A further 5 MP70 monitors were purchased in 2012 to take XCN’s total compliment to 41 monitors – one for every bed in the NICU. Upgrade of the ECHO (heart scan) machine that XCN helped purchase 4 years ago. This machine assists in further research into the treatment of infants in addition to assisting NICU staff how to view infant circulation.  Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital Surgical Capacity Equipment: Calvary Mater Newcastle is the Hunter regions premier cancer treatment and care hospital. The project is a matched funding project between the Calvary Mater Newcastle Auxiliary and XCN to assist in the provision of medical equipment purchases. The purchase of intubating bronchoscopy and video bronchoscopy equipment will increase the capacity of cancer treatments at the hospital. The purchase of the STERIS system 1 express sterilizing unit allows for the Calvary to sterilise their own bronchoscopy equipment which currently must be sent to the John Hunter hospital for sterilisation. All equipment reduces capacity restraints currently being experienced by the hospital as well as increasing accuracy of diagnosis.  Hunter Institute of Mental Health: this project seeks to build on an existing pilot project called "Foundations" that commenced with funding from XCN in 2009. The Foundations Project involves the preparation and distribution of a professional development resource on Mental Health for Early Childhood Workers in the form of a magazine with short, easy- to-read, evidence-based articles. The response to the Foundations magazine, from centre directors, staff, and early childhood experts has been so positive to date that the HIMH is looking to expand the project by:  Increasing the number of editions of Foundations to four per year to increase the impact of the magazine by keeping the awareness of social and emotional wellbeing to the forefront of staff discussion and personal reading throughout the year; and

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 191

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

 Extending the distribution of Foundations magazine to every staff member in every childcare centre and preschool in NSW. In this way the whole of the children’s services workforce in the state will benefit from the information, suggestions, connections and resources that are contained in each edition of Foundations. The Project will involve the development of significant partnerships with NSW Health who have responded positively to the Project. The Program has also received interest nationally.  Sydney Children’s Hospital: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research (Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis) - in 2007 Access Economics released a report on the Economic costs of Crohn’s Disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC) in Australia. Around 61,000 Australians live with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) – an estimated 28,000 with CD and 33,000 with UC. IBD is more common than epilepsy or road traffic accidents; its prevalence is comparable with Type 1 diabetes or schizophrenia. There are around 776 new cases of CD and 846 new cases of UC per year. Preliminary research has shown that including additional nutrients in polymeric formulation (used to treat IBD) can enhance the efficacy of polymeric formulation. The main outcome of the project is to undertake research that will improve nutritional treatment of IBD and lead to a clinical trial funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.  Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service: funding provided towards the operation of the Newcastle Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service Pilot and Crew Training Program. Pilot & air crewman training is an annual mandatory requirement to satisfy Ambulance Service of NSW and Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations. The goals of this training are to maintain and increase skill levels of operational personnel for all evacuation and rescue scenarios; and to reduce risk of mishap to patients, aircraft and crew

Table 8.15 Summary of project impact - Impact on health services

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Construction Construction Singleton LGA Health care Low Medium and operational providers and workforce use users of health care services Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.3.6 Social and Community Services

The Singleton LGA has a number of social and community services that target different groups within the community such as youth, family, aged and disability support services etc. These services are operated by government agencies, non-government organisations and volunteer community groups.

The two main ways in which the Project could impact the capacity and/or demand for these services, is through population change associated with any potential operational workforce increase or through direct impacts to social and community service infrastructure.

Given no predicted workforce change anticipated as part of the Project, it is not expected that the Project will impact demand for these services. Likewise, due to the temporary, short- term nature of the construction workforce it is not likely that this workforce will create any extra service demand on this sector, as it is assumed construction workers are more likely to access community services in their communities of normal residence. Stakeholders consulted also did not raise this impact as of importance in relation to the Project.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 192

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Support is also provided to social and community services through the XCN Corporate Social Involvement program. In this regard recent support has been provided to Lifeline Newcastle and the Hunter Support Program. The Hunter Support Program commenced in 2011 and was an amalgamation of the former Singleton Men's Program and Crises Intervention Response Service (CIRS) funded in 2010 by XCN. The program provides personal, relationship and suicide prevention counselling for men and their families in the Singleton and Muswellbrook areas. The program targets those men experiencing personal emotional difficulty and support for their family members, the general adult community in need of counselling, and also has an education component to raise awareness of suicide in the broader community, including provision of suicide awareness training. Demand for the service in Singleton remains high, however the new service extended to Muswellbrook in 2011 is highly utilised by the community. The service continues to gain a high level of engagement. . XCN has also been a supporter of the development of the Singleton Neighbourhood Centre.

At a more localised level, there are very few community and/or social services provided in the neighbouring communities of Broke and Bulga. Social and community services provided in these localities are usually outreach programs from more regionally based agencies e.g. mobile preschools, or local community based groups such as mothers groups or play groups. Small communities of this size usually request greater provision of services to their localities, particularly where some infrastructure exists to accommodate visiting or outreach service delivery. Further provision of additional programs and services of this nature were noted by residents of Broke and Bulga as part of the Our Villages, Our Vision project.

Consequently, it is assessed that for the life of mine (including construction), the Project is ‘likely’ to have no measureable impact on community services and infrastructure (‘negligible’ consequence) which equates to a ‘low’ mitigated social risk, with such impacts also ranked as ‘low’ from a stakeholder perspective (see Table 8.16).

However, to address the perceived needs of local community stakeholders regarding the provision of particular social and community programs, this need could potentially be further addressed through the company’s local and regional social investment programs.

Table 8.16 Summary of project impact - Impact on social community services

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Construction Construction Singleton LGA Social and Low Low and operational community workforce use service of Social and providers and Community users Services Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.3.7 Emergency Services

There are four main emergency services provided within Broke, Bulga and the Singleton LGA. These include: ambulance, police, fire and the State Emergency Service (SES). There are also a number of additional regional emergency services such as the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service and the Singleton School of Infantry.

It has been determined that the two main ways the Project may impact on the provision of these services is through changes in demand (population change as a result of workforce

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 193

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

increases, operational need, increased workplace accidents and/or increased traffic accidents) and through changes in access and capacity.

As there is not expected to be any long-term population change as a result of the project, it is not expected that the Project will generate any extra demand on emergency services – either in construction or operational phases.

As discussed in the social profile (Section 5.0), there are rural fire brigades located in Bulga and Broke, with the Singleton regional headquarters located at Bulga; there are also police stations located at Singleton and a small station located in Bulga; and ambulance and state emergency services are based in Singleton. Singleton is also serviced by a professional Fire Brigade base located in town.

There is the possibility that with two road relocations, the Project may increase the time for emergency service providers to access the Broke and Payne’s Valley regions. This particularly applies to Singleton-based services such as the ambulance, the police service and the SES. As outlined in the traffic impact assessment, it is expected that these delays would be of two minutes on the Broke Road re-alignment. The Rural Fire Service, police, SES and Ambulance were all consulted with during the development of the project. No issues in relation to response times were raised.

Consequently, it is assessed that for the period of construction of the new roads, the Project is ‘likely’ to have a temporary but insignificant reduction in (‘minor’ consequence) which equates to a ‘medium’ mitigated social risk, with such impacts also ranked as ‘low’ from a stakeholder perspective (see Table 8.17).

The BCM will endeavour to work collaboratively with relevant emergency service providers in developing appropriate response plans for the period of road relocation and construction so that these services and the broader community are not adversely affected.

Table 8.17 Summary of project impact - Impact on emergency services

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Construction Construction – Broke and Broke, Bulga Low Low workforce use Road Paynes Valley and Paynes of Emergency relocations regions valley residents Services

Road Construction - Broke and Broke, Bulga Medium Low Relocation Road relocation Paynes Valley and Paynes (impact on regions valley residents emergency response) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 194

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

8.2.4 Impacts on Social Amenity

Social amenity is the inherent pleasantness or attractiveness of a social environment and is often a critical factor that affects people’s perception of their quality of life. A number of Project aspects have been identified as potentially impacting social amenity, these include:

 Visual impacts  Air quality impacts (in particular dust emissions)  Noise impacts  Traffic.

8.2.4.1 Visual Amenity

As outlined in Section7.0, visual amenity was one of the issues most frequently raised by local stakeholders, in particular the visual impact of the existing large overburden hill that spans the southern and western limits of the BSO. There was a perception among neighbouring residents that the overburden had not been rehabilitated and the grey spoils were considered very visible from much of Milbrodale Road, Putty Road and the Bulga village. As a result, visual impacts were the third most discussed topic with neighbouring community members, and have thus been ranked as a ‘high’ perceived risk from a stakeholder perspective. In this regard, BCM undertook an aerial seeding program in 2011, with a further program completed in 2012. This program has resulted in some seeding and vegetation development on the overburden spoils as a temporary rehabilitation option.

As part of the Project, a specifically designed Noise and Visual Bund is proposed to be built. The outer face of the bund will be developed over a three year period and progressively rehabilitated. The bund will also be designed so that its landform and vegetation resemble a more natural landscape, based on feedback received from the community. This community feedback was obtained through a ‘Community In-focus’ session; two of which have been conducted on visual issues specifically. Local residents were invited to attend and participate in a session facilitated by a landscape architect to explore:

 Existing examples of preferred and least preferred mine landform and rehabilitation  Preferred aspects of non-mine landform and vegetation  Factors which may limit feasibility of landform design (e.g. water courses, gradient stability, ability to buffer the community from noise)  How visual amenity is assessed from a technical perspective.

The Visual In-focus Sessions were conducted over two evenings. The first evening included a bus tour to examine the existing landscape (mining and non-mining), presentation of technical aspects of visual amenity and group discussion on preferred and least preferred design outcomes. The second session involved a presentation back to the group outlining how the group’s feedback was being considered in the bund design. Feedback obtained from participants included preference for:

 Undulating/natural land form  Variation in bund ridge line  Variation in vegetation.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 195

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

These preferences have been considered in the development of the bund design. Many neighbouring stakeholders also expressed the view that the new bund would be a positive improvement for visual amenity in the area.

In summary, the noise and visual bund will surround the western side of the mine and afford some undulation in height and will be rehabilitated and revegetated with endemic species. The development of the bund is a significant Project undertaking and will provide a life of Project (permanent) vegetation screening around the operations over the Project life and beyond. Full details of the Noise and Visual Bund can be found in the EIS Main Report.

Taking into consideration the current visual impacts associated with the BSO, it can be assessed that it is ‘likely’ that the proposed bund development planned for the Project will result in a ‘moderate’ impact on visual amenity in the Broke, Bulga area, therefore providing a ‘medium’ mitigated impact (see table below).

Table 8.18 Summary of project impact - Visual impacts (social amenity) Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Visual Life of mine Broke and Broke and Medium High Bulga Bulga Community Residents Wider community Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.4.2 Air Quality

Air quality was identified by stakeholders (local and regional) as one of the issues of most concern. Existing operational issues relating to air quality were discussed as well as concerns that further Project development would result in increased air quality impacts. Consequently, this issue has been ranked as ‘high’ from a stakeholder perspective (see Table 8.19).

As part of the EIS, dust levels are assessed against a range of criteria. Amenity is one of the four criteria assessed and applies to depositional dust. While amenity is assessed in this manner against defined criteria through the EIS (refer to EIS (Section 5.6 of the Main Report) for further details), it is still important to assess amenity from a social impact perspective.

Consequently, air quality impacts relating to social amenity have been ranked as follows: it is ‘possible’ that the proposed change in dust emissions associated with the Project will impact on social amenity in a temporary but significant manner, resulting in a ‘moderate’ consequence), therefore providing a ‘medium’ mitigated impact (see Table 8.19).

Table 8.19 Summary of project impact - Dust emissions (social amenity) Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Dust emissions Life of mine Broke and Local residents Medium High – impact on Bulga and business social amenity owners Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 196

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

In relation to dust management, the BCC has a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week control centre to assist in the management of both dust and noise. A range of dust monitoring and management strategies are proposed to be used and can be found in Section 5.6 of the EIS Main Report. XCN is also an active member of the Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network.

8.2.4.3 Noise

Noise was also a key issue raised by local community stakeholders (see Section 6.0). Residents living in Bulga and along Milbrodale Road were more likely to raise noise concerns than other residents. In relation to existing operations, a number of residents reported being able to audibly identify different types of machinery – particularly on still and cooler nights – which disturbed them from their sleep. Impacts of noise on tourist accommodation operators was also noted, given that reduced amenity, as a result of noise, may impact people’s willingness to stay in the region for a ‘rural getaway’. Stakeholders in Bulga also spoke of the cumulative impact of noise as a result of the presence of multiple operations operating under differing noise consent conditions and with varying monitoring frameworks and locations. Overall the perceived impact of noise, on social amenity, is ranked as a ‘high’ perceived stakeholder risk (see Table 8.20).

A review of the BCC complaints data over the past 12 months also illustrates that noise complaints are the most frequent complaint received (during the period 1 January 2011 to 16 October 2012) (see Figure 8.4).

As Figure 8.5 also illustrates, the majority of noise complaints are received from four complainants.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 197

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 8.4 BCC complaints data (2011-2012) Source: BCC Note: Complaints data for the BCC from 1 Jan 2011 to 16 October 2012.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 198

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Figure 8.5 BCC complaints by complainant Source: BCC Note: Complaints data for the BCC from 1 Jan 2011 to 16 October 2012.

The Project mine design has a number of features that the modelling demonstrates will improve noise outcomes over the life of the Project. These include:

 Development of the Noise and Visual Bund: as outlined in Section 7.0, the development of the Noise and Visual Bund is a key strategy designed to mitigate impacts of the Project on the community. The construction of the outer edge of the Noise and Visual Bund will occur in the first 3 to 4 years of the Project; and the bund will extend in the north, west and to the south of operations, shielding the mine and baffling noise. Further information on the Noise and Visual Bund and the outcomes of the noise modelling can be found in Section 5.4 of the EIS Main Report.  Use of Noise attenuated fleet and proactive noise management: in 2009, BCM also made a commitment as part of a modification for the existing operations, to commence an ongoing program to reduce noise impacts of the operations. This involved the purchase of noise attenuated equipment. Noise attenuated equipment will continue to be used as part of the Project. The Project also provides a range of working locations to allow for proactive noise management action. Further information on the Noise and Visual bund and the noise attenuated fleet can be found in Section 5.4 of the EIS Main Report.  Real time noise monitoring: BCM operate a control room, manned 24 hours a day 7 days a week, which monitors real time noise and dust. This allows the control room to pro-actively manage operations. Full details of the noise monitoring proposed as part of the Project can be found in Section 5.4 of the EIS Main Report.

So that local community residents were aware of the outcomes of the noise modelling work and the strategies to be employed to reduce noise impacts associated with the Project, BCM invited all local residents identified within the Project noise management zone to one of two

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 199

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

‘Noise In-focus’ sessions. These sessions included presentations on the Project and noise assessments as well as the provision of further noise information from an independent provider.

Once again, as part of the EIS, noise levels are assessed against a range of criteria. While amenity is assessed in this manner against defined criteria through the environmental assessment (refer to Section 5.4 of the EIS Main report for further details), it is still important to risk impacts on social amenity as a result of noise from a social impact perspective.

Consequently, the impact of noise from the Project on social amenity is ranked as follows. It is ‘possible’ that the Project noise emissions will impact on social amenity in a temporary but significant manner, resulting in a ‘moderate’ consequence, therefore providing a ‘medium’ mitigated impact (see Table 8.20).

Table 8.20 Summary of project impact - noise (social amenity)

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Noise Life of mine Broke and Local Medium High emissions – Bulga Residents and impact on business social amenity owners Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.4.4 Traffic

During consultation with local stakeholders, some Broke residents raised concerns around an increase in ‘mine vehicles’ travelling through Broke to access operations. This raised a number of concerns including safety and impacts on the local amenity and sense of community in Broke (see Section 7.0 for further discussion). This issue has escalated more recently with articles appearing in the local paper - the Singleton Argus - and complaints received by the Bulga Coal Complex particularly in relation to mine vehicles speeding through the 50km/h and 60km/h speed limit zones, littering in the local area and use of back residential streets, instead of main thoroughfares, to access mining operations.

As identified through the Our Villages Our Vision project, the residents of Broke largely see themselves as having a quiet, relaxed rural community. These values are generally not conducive to large amounts of mine traffic, which may be noisy (e.g. exhaust, gears, rattling trays) and smelly (exhaust fumes). Residents have also reported incidents of littering directly from mine vehicles, which is seen to reduce the overall amenity of the town.

A review of the TIA indicates that some of the traffic travelling through Broke is generated by the BCC, particularly employees, contractors and suppliers, and that these workers will sometimes use the amenities in the village. While it is the role of public bodies such as the Police and Local Council to monitor breaches of the law such as speeding and littering, the BCC’s management team has communicated to the workforce that speeding and littering through Broke may result in disciplinary action. This message is a standard part of the environment and community inductions for the operations, and is reinforced through regular workforce toolbox talks. Broke road is also used by people from a number of other mining operations in the Hunter Valley. However XCN, as a member of the Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue working group, has assisted in the development of safe driver guidelines for the industry in the Hunter Valley broadly. This information has been provided to other mines in the area.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 200

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

BCM also participates in the ‘Adopt-A-Road’ program for Broke Road, designed to maintain the social amenity of the road through the collection of litter and road side rubbish.

With the predicted small and temporary construction workforce that will be required as a result of the Project, it is ‘possible’ that there will be a temporary but significant reduction in social amenity in the local area as a result of construction traffic travelling through Broke village (‘moderate’ consequence), therefore ranking as a ‘medium’ mitigated technical risk (see Table 8.21).

While this issue was ranked relatively low in initial consultation with stakeholders in relation to the project; as highlighted above the issue of traffic impacts associated with existing mine workforces on social amenity appear to have increased at a community level during the Project and are thus ranked as a ‘medium’ perceived stakeholder issue, particularly for the residents of Broke Village (see Table 8.21).

Table 8.21 Summary of project impact - Traffic (social amenity)

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Construction Construction Broke Village Residents of Medium Medium traffic travelling Broke Village through Broke Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.5 Health and Wellbeing Impacts

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organisation, 2003). The health status of a country is often evaluated by considering health expenditure per capita as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product. However, at a township level, specific health indicators draw a more accurate picture of the health of a community.

8.2.5.1 Determinants of Health

The health status of an individual and/or a community is determined by interactions between human biology and the environment. Figure 8.6 identifies some of the many factors that act within and across these two spheres to trigger negative and positive health outcomes.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 201

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Source: (Department of Health, 2007) Figure 8.6 Determinants of health

WHO categorises these factors into three key determinants, which are further described in the following figure:

 Social and economic environment  Physical environment  Individual characteristics and behaviours (World Health Organisation, 2009).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 202

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Social Determinants of Health Social and economic environment  Income and social status - higher income and social status are linked to better health. The greater the gap between the richest and poorest people, the greater the differences in health.  Education – low education levels are linked with poor health, more stress and lower self- confidence.  Social support networks – greater support from families, friends and communities is linked to better health. Culture - customs and traditions, and the beliefs of the family and community all affect health.  Health services - access and use of services that prevent and treat disease influences health.  Employment and working conditions – people in employment are healthier, particularly those who have more control over their working conditions. Physical environment  Physical environment – safe water and clean air, healthy workplaces, safe houses, communities and roads all contribute to good health. Individual characteristics and behaviours  Genetics - inheritance plays a part in determining lifespan, healthiness and the likelihood of developing certain illnesses. Personal behaviour and coping skills – balanced eating, keeping active, smoking, drinking, and how we deal with life’s stresses and challenges all affect health.  Gender - men and women suffer from different types of diseases at different ages. Source: (World Health Organisation, 2009)

Source: WHO (2009) Figure 8.7 WHO social determinants of health

It is important to note that these determinants of health are interconnected. The health status of an individual and a community is typically due to the combined effect of health determinants and their composite factors. Nonetheless, there are certain factors that are deemed to have a positive/negative effect on health. There are ‘protective factors’ that decrease the risk of ill health (e.g. strong social network and a nutritious diet) and ‘risk factors’ that increase the risk (e.g. tobacco smoking and low socioeconomic status) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008). Understanding health determinants can help to uncover why certain populations and environments may be healthier than others. This information can then be used to predict health trends within and across populations.

In the current assessment, a full assessment of the WHO social determinants of health has not been undertaken as this is not a requirement as part of the EIS process. However, to understand the potential social consequences of health and wellbeing (in the absence of any consequence definitions from the NSW Department of Health), consequence definitions from the Western Australian Department of Health Risk Assessment Process (2010) have been utilised for the current assessment (see Table 8.1). As the table illustrates there can be a number of social consequences of poor health and wellbeing, including the actual incident/illness itself, impacts from ongoing treatment and support (i.e. time, suffering and inconvenience), and costs associated with treatment and support and burden on health service provision.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 203

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

In reviewing the project description and the outcomes of community consultation (Section 6.0) a number of Project factors have been identified which may impact on health and wellbeing. These include:

 Occupation health and safety (OHS) of employees  Increased traffic on the road network  Drug and alcohol use by employees  Air quality and blast fumes  Psychosocial impacts e.g. stress.

8.2.5.2 Occupational Health and Safety of Employees/Contractors

Work that occurs on a mine site carries inherent hazards in relation to the health and safety of employees. Interactions with large equipment, explosives, considerable quantities of dirt and rock, and the implementation of repetitive tasks present hazards that can lead to injury to employees. As a result, the BSO currently implements a comprehensive OHS management system that aims to minimise rates of injury to zero. This system is closely regulated by a number of pieces of legislation including the Mines Act (1992) and Workplace Health and Safety Act (2011).

For large contracts, contractors will undergo a pre-qualification for their intended task to audit their capability to deliver safe work outcomes. BCM will aim to select contractors and sub-contractors with compatible SD work cultures and standards to undertake the pre- qualification process.

Prior to, and during construction, risk assessment processes will be established. This assists in the identification, control and communication of the hazards/risks involved with the contracted works.

BCM will provide a site familiarisation induction package which will outline SD hazards, safe systems of work and expectations. This will reinforce the SD requirements for work in relation to the Project.

The Project requires the same safety standards from a sub-contractor as it does for a contractor.

During construction of the Project the construction workforce will be exposed to various hazards, however in recognition of this Xstrata Coal have recently launched the SAFEBUILD program. This program aligns with the successful SAFECOAL program that currently exists for the mining operations, but is further tailored to construction activities and hazards. With these processes in place, it is assumed that, at a minimum, similar OHS management systems will be implemented for the Project workforce that are currently in place at the BSO.

Therefore, from a technical safety point of view BCM has shown it can manage a range of mining and technical/engineering risks. However, from a social impact perspective, in a worst case scenario the potential risks are still perceived to be high i.e. potential consequences of more than one fatality and more than five permanent disabilities (‘catastrophic’ consequence); however such risks are considered ‘rare’, resulting in an overall ‘medium’ mitigated technical risk. (see Table 8.22).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 204

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.22 Summary of project impact - OHS of employees

Project Aspect Timeframe Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope potentially technical risk stakeholder impacted risk

OHS of Life of mine Singleton LGA Employees and Medium Low employees/cont families ractors Health care providers and users

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.5.3 Traffic Safety

One of the key existing health and wellbeing issues arising from the social profile (Section 5.0) was the rate of fatalities in the Singleton LGA due to car accidents. Such data is not surprising given that 72 per cent of people that live in Singleton travel to work by car, either as a driver or a passenger; and there are a number of people also accessing the Singleton LGA for employment. For example, in relation to the BCC workforce alone, around 77 per cent of the workforce live outside the Singleton LGA and travel to the LGA to work at the BCC operations.

In relation to road fatalities, data collected as a part of the TIA which found that between 2005 and 2010, across the subregional traffic network, there were:

 Eight crashes on the intersection of the Golden Highway and Broke Road (two crashes involving fatalities and two involving injuries)  Two crashes on the intersection of the Golden Highway, Putty Road and Mitchell Line Road (one involving injury)  Eight crashes on the intersection of Broke and Charlton Road (seven involving injuries)  Nine crashes reported on Broke Road (five involving injuries) in a 10 year period from 2000 to 2010.  Five crashes reported on Charlton Road (two involving injuries).

The existing road crash data indicates that over a five year period the likelihood of injury or fatalities are possible. This risk already exists for BCC’s operational workforce; however, traffic impacts associated with the influx of a Project construction workforce, could further increase the opportunity for road accidents, injury and fatalities. It should be noted however, that as a part of the proposed Broke and Charlton Road realignments, the Project will aim to improve safety through the construction and design of these roads, which will become Council owned assets. Overall, however, the worst case consequence still remains:

 Potential for greater than one fatality  Potential for greater than five permanent disabilities  Pressure on hospital emergency departments (i.e. demand exceeds capacity of health services by >40 % at any point of time). Road safety was also raised by a small number of local community residents as an issue, specifically perceived road safety issues due to the proposed Project road relocations, increased mine traffic through Broke Village and general safety of mine traffic when travelling on roads in the locality (see Section 6.1.9).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 205

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Health service providers also raised concerns about road safety generally and the potential for further road accidents to place a temporary, but significant burden on emergency services. For these reasons perceived road safety issues associated with the Project have been ranked as a ‘medium’ perceived stakeholder issue (see Table 8.23).

XCN has recognised the regional issues in relation to road safety and funded the development of the cross roads foundation to deliver roads safety programs for young people. Furthermore, as has been previously highlighted in Section 8.2.4.4, the BCC’s management team has communicated to the workforce that speeding through Broke village may result in dismissal. This message is a standard part of the environment and community inductions for the operations, and is reinforced through regular workforce toolbox talks.

Broke road is also used by people from a number of other mining operations in the Hunter Valley. However XCN, as a member of the Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue working group, has assisted in the development of safe driver guidelines for the industry in the Hunter Region broadly. This information has been provided to other mines in the area.

In risking this impact, a consequence ranking of ‘catastrophic’ has been assigned with a ‘possible’ likelihood, which still results in a mitigated technical risk of ‘high’ (see Table 8.23)

Table 8.23 Summary of project impact - Traffic impacts on community health and wellbeing

Project Aspect Timeframe Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope potentially technical risk stakeholder impacted risk

Increased traffic Construction Broke and Construction High Medium during Permanent workforce construction and Bulga road relocations Road users

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.5.4 Drug and Alcohol Mis-use

Through consultation with regional stakeholders and service providers, a number of stakeholders raised concerns about a perceived increase in drug and alcohol use within the Singleton community, particularly among “mining employees”. Issues of binge drinking, drug overdose and/or long-term, sustained addiction and dependence were noted. Stakeholders outlined that gathering data on drug and alcohol abuse was difficult, as it often went unreported. Excessive drug and alcohol use can often be a sign of underlying stress and anxiety, even depression. Drug and alcohol mis-use cannot only be detrimental to the individuals involved, but may also reduce the health and wellbeing of family and friends, increase the rate of substance-related injuries (e.g. injury as a result of falls, fighting or driving under the influence) and increase costs in the area of health service provision.

The Singleton LGA has a total of eleven pubs, five bottle shops and five licensed clubs within the locality. At a community level, the Singleton Liquor Accord was developed as an alliance between pubs and clubs in Singleton to encourage responsible service of alcohol and facilitate more moderate drinking behaviour. The PHIDU data (2007-2008) reviewed in the social profile (see Section 5.3.4.3) indicates that the Singleton LGA is ranked nineteenth, out of 154 LGAs, with a rate of 9.2 per 100 (for persons aged 18 years and over) for alcohol consumption at levels considered to be high risk to health compared to the Hunter (6.8 per 100), Country NSW (7.7 per 100) and NSW (5.7 per 100). Consistent with key stakeholder

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 206

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

consultation outcomes, this data indicates that alcohol consumption is an issue within the LGA relative to other areas.

Interviews with regional stakeholders also suggested that there has been an increase in the population of single men within the LGA community, which can exacerbate the alcohol issue. This trend is evidenced by a review of the ABS data discussed in Section 5.3.6.4, which illustrates that the percentage of single men (persons aged 15 years and over) in the LGA has increased by 27 per cent between 2001 and 2011.

However, despite the above discussion, BCM applies a rigorous drug and alcohol policy across the workforce, which involves entry tests, random drug and alcohol sampling and fitness for work drug and alcohol sampling (e.g. after an incident). Xstrata Coal enforces Australian OHS guidelines for drug and alcohol levels (e.g. 0.02 blood alcohol content) with an employee not able to work if they exceed such guidelines. This provides incentive for employees not to drink to excess or use drugs prior to or in-between shifts.

Random drug and/or alcohol tests are conducted onsite by competent external drug and alcohol testers. Testing of individuals for the presence of drugs and/or alcohol occurs randomly on a monthly basis during the course of a standard shift. All drug and/or alcohol test must be conducted by competent personnel in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

BCM also maintains an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to assist employees and their immediate families with personal and/or work related problems that require specialised counselling. The EAP is a strictly confidential service run by professional counsellors and is at no cost to the employee. The EAP is available to employees who may have a drug or alcohol dependency or other related problem. Any employee needing information on the EAP can refer to the pamphlets describing the service located throughout the site and on the intranet, or can ask their Team Leader for assistance. The complex also offers an Employment Health Program, affording all employees the opportunity to attend, free of charge, certain fitness centres in most areas.

Although drug and alcohol mis-use may be a wider issue within the community, there are only limited ways the Project could negatively contribute to this issue. While the nature of the construction workforce may potentially facilitate particular behaviours e.g. workers away from home having more free time, less inclined to participate in usual recreational activities; it is assumed that the construction workforce will be required to meet BCM’s existing drug and alcohol requirements. For this reason it can be assessed that in a worst case scenario (e.g. a construction worker drives under the influence and causes a car accident), the Project may lead to greater than one fatality or greater than five permanent disabilities (a ‘catastrophic’ consequence), however this is likely to be a ‘rare’ occurrence, resulting in an mitigated technical risk of ‘medium’ (see Table 8.24).

As only a small number of regional stakeholders raised drug and alcohol mis-use as a general, community wide issue, the perceived stakeholder risk, in relation to the project, is also ranked as ‘low’ (see Table 8.24 Summary of project impact - Increased drug and alcohol mis-use in the workforce).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 207

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.24 Summary of project impact - Increased drug and alcohol mis-use in the workforce

Project Aspect Timeframe Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope potentially technical stakeholder impacted risk risk

Increased drug Construction Singleton LGA Workforce Medium Low and alcohol mis- and Operations Health care use providers Wider community Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.5.5 Air Quality

As discussed in Section 6.1.1, general impacts on air quality as a result of dust were one of the most discussed issues amongst stakeholders – with the health impacts associated with air quality also noted. Of particular concern for those interviewed was the perceived impact of dust on respiratory health of individuals and families e.g. asthma, and/or health impacts as a result of the presence of dust in drinking water. This latter issue was of particular concern to Bulga community residents given their reliance on rain/tank water for drinking.

A number of regional health service providers also anecdotally raised concerns around respiratory health, advising they had seen increased cases of asthma and other respiratory disease in the region. The health care providers also noted that when community members perceived that their health may be in danger (e.g. from dust) this can also lead to an increase in their levels of stress and anxiety, which in turn can impact on the management of conditions such as asthma.

A recent report commissioned by Beyond Zero Emissions (Australia) (October, 2012) has provided an international review relating to health and social harms of coal mining in local communities. The review concluded that while there are several studies about the social harms of coal mining in the Hunter region, few Australian studies directly examine the health effects of coal mining or coal burning power stations on the health of local communities, with the vast majority of the evidence cited in the report being from international studies conducted across a variety of countries – United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Eastern Europe and Asia.

As the report indicates “these international studies are seen to indicate serious health impacts for communities living near coal mines and coal combusting power stations. While some of these countries share a similar cultural ethos and are economically and politically comparable, there is considerable variation in mining practices and regulatory standards between countries that needs to be taken into account when extrapolating evidence from one country to another. There are also differences in techniques and tools for monitoring air quality which make comparisons difficult. However, emerging methods for measuring exposures are becoming increasingly accurate and replicable…” (page vi).

The report concludes that what is needed is evidence from well-designed local studies that are capable of quantifying associations to underpin cost-benefit analyses, to inform public and political debate and decision making and guide policy and planning regarding minimizing harm and maximizing benefits of industry activity.

Given the lack of focussed and conclusive government studies of health impacts of air quality in the Hunter Valley, and the ongoing media attention on this issue, the perceived

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 208

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

health and well-being impacts associated with increased dust can be ranked as a ‘medium’ stakeholder perceived risk (see Table 8.25).

A review of the most recent data relating to respiratory system diseases for 2007-2008, however indicates that the Singleton LGA has a rate 24.5 per 100, which is less than the Hunter (26.7), Country NSW (25.7) NSW rates (25.4) (PHIDU, 2011). In relation to asthma specifically (2007-2008), Singleton has a rate of 9.8 per 100 which again is less than the Hunter (10.3) and Country NSW (10.3) regions, but higher than NSW as whole (9.2).

In light of the above, it is therefore ‘possible’ that the Project could result in existing chronic health effects requiring medical treatment for 1-2 per cent of population at risk (‘minor’ consequence), resulting in a technical risk of ‘low’ (see Table 8.25).

Table 8.25 Summary of project impact - Impact of increased exposure to nitrogen dioxide

Project Aspect Timeframe Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope potentially technical risk stakeholder impacted risk Increased dust Life of mine Broke and Local Residents Low Medium emissions Bulga Health care causing providers and respiratory users health issues Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.5.6 Blast Fumes

Only a small number of stakeholders raised concerns around health impacts caused by fume (orange plumes) occasionally produced as a by-product of blasting (see Section 6.1.10). In addition, only 6 formal complaints were received on this issue from January 2011 to October 2012. Consequently the issue is risked as ‘low’ from a stakeholder perspective (see Table 8.26).

An orange plume can be produced from a blast due to incomplete combustion. This can occur if the shot becomes wet for an extended period of time. Under ideal conditions, the only gaseous products from the explosion are carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O) and nitrogen (N2). However, even small changes in the reaction stoichiometry can lead to the formation of gases including carbon monoxide (CO) and nitric oxide (NO). In addition, some of the NO formed may oxidise in the presence of oxygen (O2) to produce NO2 (Moetaz et. al., 2008). It is the presence of NO2 that is sometimes observed as an orange plume.

As an existing operation BCM has a range of blast design and monitoring controls already in place to manage issues in relation to fly rock, overpressure, vibration and fume. These include the design of blasts, management of change and blast timing and assessment of a range of criteria for public and infrastructure safety. This can also include road closures to manage public safety impacts from fly rock and blast fume. A comprehensive blast monitoring system also includes controls to limit blasting during adverse meteorological conditions.

In relation to amenity, blasting will generally be undertaken between 9:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Saturday. No blasts are detonated outside these hours or on Sundays or Public Holidays unless approved by OEH.

A range of assessments, criteria and controls in relation to blasting can be found in Sections 5.5 and 5.6 of the EIS Main Report.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 209

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

With similar levels of production and these controls in place it is not expected that the Project will increase the frequency of orange plumes or increase the public’s exposure to blast outputs. Consequently, the mitigated risk of this Project aspect impacting on health and wellbeing is also considered ‘low’ (unlikely to occur and of minor consequence) (see Table8.26).

Table 8.26 Summary of project impact - Impact of dust emissions on community health and wellbeing

Project Aspect Timeframe Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope potentially technical risk stakeholder impacted risk Increased Operation Broke and Broke and Low Low exposure to Bulga Bulga nitrogen dioxide Residents (orange blast Surrounding plumes) road users

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.6 Sense of Community and Cohesion

The following section describes the potential impacts that the Project may have on sense of community and community cohesion as a result of population change, impacts on areas of community value and other land uses; and levels of conflict in the locality. Coakes Consulting has developed consequence definitions based on previous social impact assessment work for these impacts (see Table 8.26).

8.2.6.1 Population Change

The introduction of new groups of people or the out flux of a proportion of the population can alter existing values and sense of community. While most communities are generally resilient to natural population change, a rapid or massive change can often have adverse social impacts. Coakes (1995) discusses many different elements of sense of community including the need for shared value, social interaction and connection to a common structure (e.g. geography, gender, culture).

As discussed in Section 8.2.1, the Project will trigger population change through the influx of a temporary construction workforce and some land acquisition. In a worst case scenario, the temporary construction workforce is likely to make around a one per cent population change to the Singleton LGA, which can be classified as only a ‘minor’ consequence (temporary and insignificant).

In conjunction with issues relating to sense of community, the ongoing sustainability of rural villages was a frequently discussed issue during community consultation (see Section 6.1.5). One of the variables perceived to be impacting community sustainability was the loss of residents from villages and rural areas, either through natural attrition or through land acquisition as a result of mining.

However, given that acquisition may be required for approximately 2-3 properties, it is predicted that such acquisition will result in only a ‘negligible’ impact on sense of community. With these consequences ‘likely’ to eventuate, it is assessed that the mitigated impact on sense of community from population change as a result of the Project is ‘‘low’ (see Table 8.27).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 210

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Although community stakeholders raised general issues relating to the large amount of land/property owned by mining companies in the region; and the subsequent impact on community sustainability and sense of community; this issue was not of great concern in relation to the Project specifically. This could be due to the fact that the Project remains largely within its existing mine footprint and the company has a history of co-existing with local land uses and continuing the use of agricultural properties within the bufferlands, where appropriate; assisting to maintain local values, identity and culture. Consequently, this impact was ranked as a ‘low’ perceived issue from a stakeholder perspective (see Table 8.27).

Table 8.27 Summary of project impact - Impact of population change on sense of community

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Population Life of mine Broke and Wider Low Low Change Bulga community (impact on sense of Singleton LGA community) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.6.2 Heritage and Places of Community Value

Heritage places often hold strong values for a community, with such places representing key milestones in a community’s development, serving as reminders of people and events over time.

As part of the EIS (see Section 5.11 of the EIS Main Report) for the Project, a European Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken. In general, the identified historical heritage of the Project area reflects the history of the area as cleared agricultural and pastoral land, including dairying land. With the exception of Charlton Road (which follows the alignment of part of Section 8 of the Great North Road) and the Broke RAAF Landing Ground (one of three satellite airstrips associated with the parent site of Bulga RAAF Base which were planned and constructed between 1942 and 1943), the heritage resource is considered to be typical of the surrounding region and includes former post-and-rail fence lines, former house/dairy sites and timber yard complexes. In general, these sites have been assessed as having no, or only local, significance. The section of Charlton Road which forms part of the Project area and the Broke airstrip has both been assessed as being of local significance.

A number of locally listed (not proposed to be impacted) heritage items, including Blaxland House, Broke Cemetery and Charlton, are located in the immediate vicinity of the Project area.

As part of the scoping of issues for the Project, it was identified that further investigation was required to better understand the heritage significance of Charlton Road as part of the Great North Road. As a result, the Project team sought to undertake some additional consultation to further assess the perceived heritage values of the Great North Road and Charlton Road. This consultation was undertaken with five key stakeholders that had particular and relevant heritage interests. Consultation with these stakeholders has indicated that some values do exist in relation to the ’line’ of the road, which is a signature design of colonial surveyor Sir Thomas Mitchell.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 211

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Consultation with other community residents, residing in proximity to the road, indicated some heritage values associated with the road, but stronger values associated with the road as a transport route for local traffic and as a buffer between mining activities and local villages (particularly in the case of Wallaby Scrub Road).

As part of the Our Villages: Our Vision Project (Coakes, 2012), community members also identified a number of places surrounding the mine operations that they perceive to be of heritage value, including:

 Charlton Road/Wallaby Scrub Road/Great North Road  Mount Leonard  Historical buildings located in the villages  Wollombi Brook  Local Cemeteries  Broke Bridge  Bulga Bridge.

In general, with the exception of Charlton Road, the Broke airstrip and blasting requirements relating to some items in the vicinity of the Project area, no further management was recommended by the EIS assessment with regards to the potential historical heritage resource of the Project area.

The proposed realignment of a section of Charlton Road provides an opportunity to undertake further archaeological investigation of this section of the Great North Road to identify any significant remnant fabric associated with its construction, surfacing or use. Additionally an interpretation strategy is proposed to acknowledge the line of the road on the Noise and Visual Bund in consultation with the Heritage Branch, Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and the Convict Trail Project. This strategy also includes a financial contribution of $100,000.

Full details of the Heritage impact assessment and mitigation strategies can be found in Section 5.11 of the Main EIS Report.

In relation to local places of significance, in 2010, BCM embarked on a project to document the history of the Broke Fordwich area. The idea to develop a local history manuscript came about through people’s interest in local heritage and a desire to capture the diverse history of the Broke village and district. On 13th September 2012, ‘From Brook to Broke: A History of Broke Fordwich’ was launched. The book was written by Hunter History Consultants, using primary and secondary research sources and interviews with local established families, with many of the photographs in the book provided by local residents. A free copy of the book was made available to every household in Broke and Bulga.

Given the above assessment, the perceived heritage impacts of Project are classified as ‘low’ from a stakeholder perspective. From a technical social impact perspective; the impact on sense of community as a result of damage to items and/or places of community value i.e. Great North Road as a result of the proposed Project road relocation of Charlton Road, is considered ‘minor’ and ‘possible’, resulting in a mitigated technical social risk of ‘low’ (see Table 8.28).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 212

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.28 Summary of project impact - Impact on local heritage and places of community value

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Impacts on Permanent Broke and Heritage Low Low local heritage stakeholders Bulga and places of Local Residents community value Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.6.3 Differing Land Uses and Conflict

As discussed in the social profile (see Section 5.3.2), the land in the Broke/Bulga area has many different land uses: rural settlements; a military training area; open cut and underground coal mining; coal seam gas exploration; agriculture and viticulture; Wollombi Brook; and World Heritage National Parks, reflective of the areas extensive natural capital assets.

Given the varying land uses, the NSW State Government has recognised the potential for land use conflict in and around coal mining in the Upper Hunter and has developed a Strategic Regional Land Use Plan which seeks to resolve some of these land use issues through the identification and prioritisation of prime geographic areas for each land use. This has been achieved through the identification and mapping of prime geographic areas that illustrate differing agricultural land uses across the landscape (e.g. prime agricultural land) and strategic industry clusters (i.e. viticulture and equine workings).

Land use conflict can often materialise through impacts of differing land uses (e.g. noise, dust, lighting, visual impacts) or more indirectly through having to share scarce resources (e.g. water, workforce, transportation infrastructure). The main areas of potential land use conflict with coal mining in the Broke and Bulga area include those with:

 Agriculture/viticulture  Tourism  Residential settlements (i.e. villages)  Residential ‘lifestyle’ blocks (i.e. large block primarily used for residential recreation and/or hobby farming)  Natural/native land uses (e.g. National Park)  Other industries (e.g. Mt Thorley industrial estate, other mining operations, CSG).

Stakeholder concerns regarding land use conflict were largely articulated through discussion of impacts of mining activities e.g. noise, dust and the effects of such activities on other industry sectors, particularly agriculture, viticulture and tourism.

Regional stakeholders raised broader concerns about impacts of the presence of mining in the region, particularly in relation to employment. In this regard, local businesses outlined that they found it difficult to compete for local workers due to the high wages offered by the mining industry.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 213

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Based on the perceptions noted above, the impact of continued mining activities on other land uses in the Broke and Bulga areas is ranked as a ‘high’ perceived issue from a stakeholder perspective (see Table 8.29).

XCN is aware of the potential for land use conflict as a result of its activities and to date at the operational level has attempted to minimise conflict through four main strategies:

 Continually seeking to minimise environmental impacts –development of the noise and visual bund is a key project component designed to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project, other activities include development of proactive noise and dust management and monitoring systems  Adopting a ‘good neighbour’ approach – developing community relationships through regular, open and genuine community consultation and communications and social investment in the locality (e.g. community newsletters, community BBQs, personal meetings with local landholders and community residents)  Respecting and maintaining other land uses – this includes, where practical, supporting their presence in the community (e.g. retaining vineyards, agricultural properties on mine owned land and leasing of these enterprises/residential properties to community residents). For example, XC owned Colinta Holdings Pty Ltd manages many of the grazing lands owned by the company and BCM owns a number of vineyards in the Broke Fordwich area. The vineyards are operated by experienced local vignerons who manage the property of behalf of the BCC, including horticultural requirements, pest management, pruning, harvesting and ongoing selling of the product. Over 150 hectares of land is currently maintained as vineyards producing up to 600 tonnes of grapes per annum.  Social investment and contribution – supporting local community events such as the Broke Fair, community groups and local primary schools through BCM and XCN’s social investment programs.

Overall, the Project is being considered in a complex environment, of differing values and land uses. However, the strategies the BCM has implemented have minimised the level of impacts likely to be experienced through a proactive and collaborative management approach. Consequently, it is not expected that the Project will increase land use conflict in the area. With this in mind, it has been assessed that the risk of additional land use conflict is ‘possible’ but ‘’moderate’ (possibility that community disputes may occur) resulting in a ‘‘medium’ mitigated risk ranking (see Table 8.29 Summary of project impact - Impact on land use conflict).

Table 8.29 Summary of project impact - Impact on land use conflict

Project Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived Aspect scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Impact of Life of mine Broke and Other land Medium High project and Bulga users ongoing Wider operations on Community land use conflict Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 214

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

8.2.7 Economics

As part of the EIS for the Project, an Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) was commissioned and undertaken by Economic Consulting Services (ECS). The EIA documents that the construction and operation of the Project will result in the following economic impacts (refer to Table 8.30 below).

Table 8.30 Summary of estimated economic project impacts

Parameter Impact

Development investment $500 million

Total operating cost expenditure (excluding initial $12,230 million capital)

Total forecast revenue increase (Project case less $16,983 million base case)

Construction phase employment impact: Direct (average) 170 jobs a year Local impact 27 jobs a year Region impact 225 jobs a year State Impact 800 jobs a year

Operations phase employment impact: Direct 700 jobs a year Local Impact 52 jobs a year Region Impact 1,010 jobs a year State Impact 2,450 jobs a year

Construction phase economic output: Local $6 million Region $153 million State $385 million

Operations phase gross economic output: Local expenditure $4 million Region $410 million State $837 million

Net benefit (7% discount rate) $2,588million State government royalties ($m each year at maximum output) $76 million State government royalties ($m life of project) $1,760 million Commonwealth government carbon tax $450 million Source: ECS (2012) Note: Numbers rounded

The EIA highlights that the mine extension will involve the investment of an estimated $500 million over a three year construction period starting from project approval. There will be a need for an estimated $12,230 million in continuing capital to keep the mine fully operating. The total company expenditure to develop the mine extension and operate it for a further

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 215

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

seventeen years is estimated at $16,983 million assuming industry benchmark expenditure levels.

This expenditure will flow through the economy with multiplier effects on local employment and business. Workforce participation in the area is high and unemployment low meaning there is limited opportunity for any additional workers from this area. The mine workers are well paid and some workers in other sectors may be attracted to the construction activities placing pressure on wages in those sectors.

The project development investment is predicted to have a ripple effect through the economy as workers spend their wages on household goods and services and businesses expand to meet the needs of the project. The multiplier effect is estimated to increase turnover in the local economy by $6 million a year, by $153 million in the regional economy and by $385 million a year in New South Wales.

During the eighteen years extended operating phase, the project will increase economic output by $4 million in the local economy, $410 million in the region and $837million in the State as a whole.

Employment impacts will see a total of 52 local jobs, 1,010 in the region and 2,450 in the State. Most of these jobs are already in place – this project extends the employment contracts for a further eighteen years. The analysis suggests a benefit to the community of $2,588 million in current terms.

The company has a wide range of mitigation and offset measures to address the negative project impacts. Under new Australian legislation, the cost of greenhouse gas emissions will now be factored into the cost of operations through a carbon tax. The cost of this tax is included in the analysis as is put at $450 million over the extended mine life.

The positive impacts associated with the presence of the BCC in the region i.e. local employment and expenditure, were also raised by stakeholders during consultation; and are further highlighted at a micro level in Section 4.0. This analysis, undertaken by Coakes Consulting, revealed that the BSO makes significant economic contributions to the community through:

 Employment (direct impact)  Business expenditure (direct impact)  Employees’ household expenditure (indirect impact)  Employees’ use of local services and facilities (indirect impact)  Employees’ participation in community groups and activities (indirect impact)  Suppliers’ employment impact (indirect impact)  Suppliers’ business expenditure (indirect impact).

As highlighted in Table 8.31 a few key towns emerged as likely to be significantly affected by continued operation of the BCC, as part of the proposed Project, which were Maitland, Singleton, and Cessnock. These locations tended to be where large numbers of BSO employees lived, and consequently where most employee household expenditure and use of local services also occurred. In addition, Table 8.32 summarises all of the data in relation to the direct employment impacts of BSO, and the associated employee household expenditure that occurs, for each town.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 216

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.31 Summary of TRC results for key locations of interest Maitland Singleton Cessnock Newcastle Bulga Broke Number of BSO employees 147 140 112 49 7 - / contractors (estimated) Employees’ annual $22.3 mil $13.9 mil $11.0 mil $6.4 mil - $0.1 mil household expenditure (estimated) Use of schools (as a 30% 23% 14% 6% - - percentage of employees’ children) Use of health services (as 28% 25% 17% 8% - - a percentage of services used by employees and their families) Percentage of suppliers’ 8% 9% 4% 18% <1% <1% employees Supplier’s business $1.2 mil $5.2 mil $0.1 mil $7.2 mil - - expenditure with direct reliance on Bulga Coal contracts (estimated) Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Table 8.32 Summary of direct employment impacts and associated indirect household expenditure impacts Location Estimated BSO employees / Estimated household expenditure contractors Maitland 147 $22,308,442.02 Singleton 140 $13,865,495.27 Cessnock 112 $10,980,338.79 Branxton 63 $817,890.37 Not specified 56 $392,844.98 Newcastle 49 $6,337,040.10 Lake Macquarie 35 $3,026,838.23 Greta 35 $534,526.73 Kurri Kurri 21 $2,659,753.65 Central Coast 14 $1,159,214.67 Jerrys Plains 14 $193,202.42 Port Stephens 7 $644,008.14 Wollongong 7 $547,406.93 Bulga 7 - Muswellbrook - $354,204.51 Northern NSW - $193,202.42 Sydney - $193,202.42 Broke - $96,601.21 Tamworth - $64,400.81 Pokolbin - $32,200.40 Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

As highlighted above, it is expected that the current economic benefits associated with company, employee and supplier expenditure will continue for the proposed mine life and given the relatively small local economy, the majority of employment and business opportunities will flow to the surrounding region with Singleton, Maitland, Cessnock and

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 217

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Newcastle the key beneficiaries. Given the tradition of mining and mine services, the region is well set up to handle the additional investment and expansion.

8.2.8 Environmental Impacts

As part of the EIS, a range of specific environmental impact studies have been undertaken. Some of these assessments have been discussed in the report as they have been raised in the context of social impacts (e.g. impacts of air quality on community health). A summary of community perceptions relating to these impacts, as identified through the scoping phase of the SIOA, is provided below. For further detail on the technical environmental risk ranking of these impacts can be found in each of the respective studies within the EIS.

8.2.8.1 Ecology

Although a key area of assessment in environmental impact assessment programs, consultation with stakeholders did not identify ecology as a key community issue for those consulted. If ecology was raised it was usually discussed in the context of the need to have respect for the natural environment in relation to general environmental concerns, in regard to pest management and the development of appropriate ecological offsets.

Some local stakeholders in the Bulga and Broke localities raised concerns in relation to effective pest management on the mine site, particularly in relation to kangaroos creating hazards on the road. Consultation with members of the Singleton Council indicated a desire for ecological offsets to be located in the Singleton LGA, rather than in other regions. Overall, ecology was ranked as a ‘low’ perceived issue from a community perspective.

8.2.8.2 Water

During the neighbouring landholder consultation, a small number of people raised the Project’s impact on water. Most of the issues raised in relation to water were in regards to impacts on surface water (i.e. run off to creeks and rivers) and ground water (i.e. impacts on local aquifers). These concerns related to existing operations and water management post- mining. Some stakeholders also raised concerns in relation to water quality and in particularly salinity. Overall, in the context of the Broke and Bulga community, water was a ‘medium’ perceived stakeholder issue.

8.2.8.3 Climate Change

As part of the EIS for the Project, a greenhouse gas impact assessment was commissioned to assess the emission of greenhouse gases. Climate change and greenhouse gases were not widely discussed during stakeholder consultation. Some regional stakeholders discussed climate change/renewable energies in the context of ongoing employment (i.e. moving from coal to clean coal or renewable industries), but did not raise specific concerns in relation to Project or the impacts of climate change locally. As a result, community perceived impacts of climate change have been ranked as ‘low’ in the current assessment (see Table 8.33).

It should be noted however, that while community consultation undertaken as part of the SIA did not raise many issues in relation to climate change at a local or LGA level, there are a number of environmental groups at regional, state and national levels that are specifically concerned about the climate issues and which are lobbying government and industry to bring about change in this regard. It should be noted however, that the Project will be required to pay taxes as a result of the Federal Government’s Carbon Pricing Reduction Scheme.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 218

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.33 Summary of project impact - Impact on land use conflict Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk Ecology Life of mine Broke and Local Residents Medium (EIS) Low Bulga Wider Singleton LGA community Water Life of mine Broke and Local Residents Low (EIS) Medium Bulga Water users Wider community Climate Change Life of mine Singleton LGA Wider Low (EIS) Low Wider community Community Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

8.2.9 Community Sustainability and Intergenerational Equity

8.2.9.1 Community Sustainability

As defined by Hempel (1999), a sustainable community is one in which “economic vitality, ecological integrity, civic democracy, and social well-being are linked in complementary fashion, thereby fostering a high quality of life and a strong sense of reciprocal obligation among its members.” One way to assess community sustainability is through an analysis of a community’s capitals as outlined in Section 5.3.

In applying this framework a number of existing strengths and vulnerabilities were identified across the communities of interest in the assessment area, which may impact their ongoing sustainability. Overall, the Broke, Bulga and Singleton communities present strong levels of resilience across all five capitals, but in particular economic and natural capitals (e.g. high levels of diversity and quality of natural resources, strong levels of employment and average household income).

Areas of vulnerability presented in the analysis include some dependency on the mining industry (e.g. limited diversity in employment, skills and investment), decreasing capacity in certain infrastructure areas (e.g. roads and housing), low levels of post-school education, higher levels of fatalities due to car accidents and limited access to particular community services (e.g. specialist health services).

According to Hart (1999), natural, human, social, and built capitals are the key assets to defining community resilience and sustainability over time. Hart stresses the importance of optimising a community’s utilisation of its key capitals and also discusses the inter- relationship and linkages across different community capitals and assets, such that where one capital is depleted, other community capitals and assets are also likely to be correspondingly compromised. For example, should human capital be depleted, in terms of a potential deterioration in levels of education or health, the subsequent maintenance of built capitals (e.g. economic infrastructure) are likely to also become affected, thus compromising the overall sustainability of the community (Coakes and Sadler, 2012).

Furthermore impacts of a project in a community or region may also be dichotomous in nature i.e. an impact can have both positive and negative consequences, depending on the existing environment and cumulative circumstances. An example of this is while the presence of mining within a region may facilitate local employment and business opportunities; this may also have the effect of increasing competition for labour in other sectors and make it more difficult for non-mining businesses to retain employees. The key to

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 219

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

supporting ongoing sustainability is to understand this balance and manage any negative effects.

Further to the analysis in the social profile (Section 5.0), one of the ways the Project has sought to understand these issues is by commissioning the Our Villages, Our Vision project, which has provided a mechanism for local residents in the Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale areas to have their say on the future sustainability of their respective localities. Over 100 community stakeholders have participated in identifying what they currently value in the community and their aspirations for the future. These values and aspirations have been collated to provide a roadmap for future development and investment within the community across the five key community capital areas. Such opportunities include:

 Economic diversification and investment  Identification of natural areas to be protected or enhanced  Outline of social events and activities to further increase sense of community and social cohesion  Provision of appropriate health and education services to improve the skills, health and wellbeing of individuals  Key infrastructure which should be maintained or established to support the community in its growth and prosperity.

Although the Our Villages, Our Vision project has been commissioned by the Project, it is intended that the document becomes a community resource for the reference of community, government and industry moving forward. The visioning project is not prescriptive nor is it a planning document, but is intended to facilitate capacity in the community to prioritise community aspirations and develop appropriate plans and feasibility studies to translate these ideas into reality at the local level. All stakeholders have a role to play in this process – government, industry and community.

BCM has focused on supporting local community events and groups e.g. Broke Fair, Little Bit of Italy in Broke, Singleton Beef and Land Management Association’s Junior Cattle judging Day, Branxton Campdraft.

The structure of the Voluntary Planning Agreement is also designed to support Council and the local community in key community service areas and needs e.g. local roads, community programs, specially funded capital works programs.

Community sustainability was the fifth most common issue identified by local community stakeholders and was related to a range of sub-issues including land use and place attachment, impacts on wine and tourism industries, impacts on quality of life and cumulative population decline, changing sense of community and quality of life. At a regional level, Singleton stakeholders identified similar issues, and also highlighted what they saw as a perceived dependence of the community on the mining sector – through employment and investment. For these reasons, community sustainability is ranked as an issue of ‘high’ importance from a stakeholder perspective.

8.2.9.2 Intergenerational Equity

Intergenerational equity is when the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (IAIA, 2003).

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 220

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

The ABS statistics outlined in Section 5.3.4 report that the Singleton LGA, Hunter Region and NSW have declining proportions of 0 to 14 year olds in their respective populations (between 2001 and 2011) and steady proportions of 15 to 19 year olds, which is consistent with national trends of an aging population. It is well known that rural communities often experience a drain in the younger age groups of their populations, as young people leave the area to access higher education or employment (see ABS, 2003). Although employment opportunities are currently strong in the Singleton LGA, particularly in the mining sector, opportunities for work in other industries can be limited in a regional centre such as Singleton, with residents having to travel out of the area to work. This trend is likely to continue, based on current Singleton education data, which indicates that only 56 per cent of Year 10 students will go on to complete Year 12 at Singleton High School and students have to travel out of the area to access diversified TAFE courses and residential University courses (see Section 5.3.4.2 for further discussion).

In response to these issues, XCN, as part of its apprenticeship program, has employed 69 apprentices since 2006 across its operations and also has an ongoing scholarship program with the University of Newcastle, which, in 2012 donated $320,000 to support mining-related undergraduate degrees.

The SRLUP (2012) is a coordinated plan by NSW State Government to address issues of sustainability and equity in the Upper Hunter region (see Section 5.4 for more discussion). Key strategies in the SRLUP include:

 Protecting areas of agricultural and industrial value through Strategic Land Clusters (e.g. viticulture, prime agricultural lands) ensuring there will be continued skills and economic diversity  Planning for key infrastructure upgrades to roads and housing  Protecting and enhancing areas of ecological significance  Protecting areas of heritage significance for the future  Developing and supporting economic diversity.

The implementation of the above strategies seeks to “support growth, protect the environment and respond to competing land uses, whilst preserving key regional values over the next 25 years” (NSW DP&I, 2012 p.8).

One of the largest legacies the Project will leave for future generations is mine land, post closure. The quality of the land and its ability to support other land uses will be an enabling or prohibiting factor for future generations. End land use and rehabilitation was ranked as the fourth most identified issue by local stakeholders during consultation (see Section 6.0). Concerns raised included the quantity and quality of rehabilitation, legacy issues in relation to the final void, likely end land use options and the overall safety of the area. For this reason end land use and rehabilitation was ranked as a ‘high’ perceived stakeholder issue.

A conceptual closure plan has been developed as part of the EIS. The conceptual closure plan provides a sustainable land use plan and rehabilitation for the mine. However, it also does not close off the possibilities of alternative uses that may be deemed feasible in the future. Preparation of a conceptual closure plan, from the onset of the Project, provides an assurance that the site will, at a minimum, be put back to a sustainable land use.

The majority of existing soils in the area are low in fertility and susceptible to erosion, so full commercial agricultural ventures with end land use are limited. Biodiversity outcomes are considered the most sustainable option and consequently the project will be progressively rehabilitated during its life with revegetation, with the aim of recreating similar native

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 221

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

vegetation species and ecological communities removed by mining. Further details with regard to final landform can be found in section 5.14 of the EIS Main Report.

Approximately five years prior to closure, a comprehensive social impact assessment and stakeholder engagement program will be undertaken, so that community aspirations relating to final land uses are explored and appropriate strategies put in place to manage change associated with the closure process.

8.2.9.3 Summary

In summary, given the above assessment, from a technical social perspective, it is unlikely that the Project will result in significant change across any of the key community capitals thus affording a risk ranking of ‘low’ (‘unlikely’ and ‘negligible’ consequence).

Table 8.34 Summary of project impact - Community sustainability

Project Aspect Time Geographic Stakeholders Mitigated Perceived scope impacted technical risk stakeholder risk

Impact of Life of mine Broke and Other land Low High project and Bulga users ongoing operations on Wider community Community sustainability

Source: Coakes Consulting (2012)

Approval of the Project will however afford open cut mining to continue at the BSO until 2035. The operation is an existing mining operation and has been operating in the area for over 30 years. Most of the features and facilities are already established and a number of the proposed Project design features are in place to sustain and improve the long term sustainability of the mine in the context of the local setting and communities of Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale.

In addition to the key Project design features proposed, such as the Noise and Visual Bund, the Project team has conducted a number of further works to better understand the community now and in the future. The Project aims to deliver a mining Project that’s impacts - social and environmental - continue to be effectively managed and improve significantly over the life of the Project.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 222

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

8.2.10 Cumulative Impacts

Much of the discussion in relation to the Project, with community stakeholders, has been undertaken in light of the cumulative impacts of mining more generally. In relation to cumulative impacts it was noted by a number of stakeholder groups, in consultation, that the study of cumulative impacts in the Hunter region has been limited; with a call for further assessment of this kind and improved collaboration among mining operations to address cumulative impacts.

There is however a history of industry working together to address cumulative issues, particularly in relation to environmental issues. For example:

 Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme – cooperation between community, government and industry to address cumulative water issues  Cumulative air quality modelling research undertaken for EA processes and the more recent development of the Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network  Joint consent conditions developed to encourage coordinated monitoring and reporting of results and response to complaints among operations on key issues – noise, blasting, dust  Joint RiverCare Programs to address cumulative river issues  Joint road contributions to address cumulative traffic issues  Muswellbrook Shire Council Effluent Use Scheme – Award winning initiative developed by Mount Arthur Coal  Various engagement mechanisms utilised to create greater information provision and exchange between industry and industry and community e.g. Mine Networking Group (to coordinate funding initiatives and identify options for joint support of programs between mines), joint Community Consultative Committees, General Mines Forum (Muswellbrook Shire initiative.  Muswellbrook Mining Skills Centre Partnership – the mining skills centre at Hunter TAFE’s Muswellbrook campus was established in response to a group of mining industry partners identifying a skills gap in their first year apprentices including little practical experience or understanding of the mining culture and employer expectations. Apprentices now attend Muswellbrook TAFE for the first 8 months of their apprenticeship, receiving high quality training and knowledge in skills such as plant mechanism, work health and safety, community engagement and environmental awareness, before commencing work at a local mine. The partnership comprises mine operators Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Muswellbrook Coal, and Xstrata Coal as well as Muswellbrook Shire Council, Hunter TAFE, Powerserve and local community representatives.

The recent Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue process, commissioned by the NSW Minerals Council, and which commenced in 2011, has also been designed with the objective of better understanding the increasing interest and concern in the community about cumulative impacts of mining in the Upper Hunter and to work with the community to develop solutions to some of these challenges.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 223

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

The process has involved a series of issues-based workshops (air quality and health; water; land use conflict; mine rehabilitation; and social impacts), face-to-face meetings and a Stakeholder Survey, from which a number of key findings have been reported (see ACCSR 2011):

 Stakeholders generally recognise that cumulative impacts exist  Most agree it is important for industry and community to work together  There are negative perceptions of the mining industry as a whole although relationships with individual companies rated more favourably  Most frequently mentioned topics: dust, air quality, employment opportunities and development  Other issues raised included: environment, health and safety, economy, employment and income.

The study suggests the community is comprised of different groups that do not always agree on what needs to be done and that bridging these divides is a key challenge in developing solutions to cumulative impacts of mining. The industry has responded to the survey and committees have been developed to manage and direct industry efforts. The following table summarises the key projects developed in consultation with stakeholders at four workshops held in July and August 2012.

Table 8.35 Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue - Key Project Summary

Workshop 12 Month projects

Land Management  A grazing trial to measure the productivity of land that has been mined and restored to pasture.  A project that will identify biodiversity reference sites for a number of Hunter Valley Communities to allow for benchmarking of rehabilitation outcomes.  Establish a set of rehabilitation principles that will encourage best practice and reduce the time that land is left without permanent or temporary cover.

Social Impacts and  Housing research project to help business and community leaders better Infrastructure understand housing affordability and availability in the Upper Hunter.  A roadshow to discuss the infrastructure needs of the region with the broader community to develop a shared understanding of the needs of the region to inform advocacy.

Water  Implement the Minerals Council of Australia’s Water Accounting Framework to provide a consistent way to measure the water management performance of mines in the area.  With a small group of stakeholders understand the water research/ studies proposed by the new Commonwealth Independent Expert Scientific Committee and report back to stakeholders.

Emissions and Health  Develop industry management practices for emissions using predictive forecasting and consistent responses.  With other stakeholders and government develop a plan to more broadly communicate the research that is being undertaken into emissions and health by the Government.

Source: Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue (2012)

The dialogue process is also attempting to address some of the social impact challenges that exist within the region, such as housing and accommodation, through the Social Impacts and Infrastructure Working Group. A workshop held in July 2012, focused specifically on housing, identifying the need for a regional approach to housing and further housing research / study. The issue of infrastructure provision to the region was also discussed in

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 224

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

reference to the Infrastructure ‘Roadshow’ a mechanism designed to facilitate greater interaction among industry and community groups and to share examples of what is currently being achieved through industry actions and investments; as well as providing a forum to understand infrastructure requirements and priorities across the Upper Hunter (ACCSR, 2012).

The UHMD demonstrates a commitment by industry to listen to, and address, the concerns of the community about the cumulative impacts of mining. The continued and further involvement of XCN in these processes is therefore critical, at both a regional, LGA and local level.

Given the range of perceived cumulative impacts identified as part of the regional stakeholder consultation component of the SIOA, and in some cases, statistical data supporting these anecdotal assertions, there is a clear need for effective social assessment and monitoring of relevant social indicators over time to inform and guide strategy development in relation to social impact.

While the UHMD has provided an important medium for discussion and prioritisation of issues, across a range of different stakeholder groups, the need for evidence-based assessment of social impacts and issues is still required and is lacking in many project- related assessments within the region.

8.2.11 Project Impact Summary

The following table provides a summary of the predicted Project impacts outlined in the above sections. As previously discussed, certain impact themes i.e. economic and environmental have not been risked as part of the SIA risking process given that these studies have been technically assessed as part of the broader environmental assessment.

Table 8.37 also summarises the key strategies, as detailed above, that BCM has committed to undertaking to address the key impacts associated with the Project.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 225

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.36 Summary of mitigated social impacts for the Project

Project Aspect Time Geographic scope Stakeholders Mitigated technical Perceived impacted risk stakeholder risk

Population change impacts Construction Workforce (population Construction Singleton LGA and Near Neighbours Low Low change) broader community

Operational Workforce (population Operation and closure Hunter Region Wider community Low Low change) Acquisition (population change) Construction Neighbouring Wider community Low Medium Community Impacts on recreational values, areas and amenities Construction workforce impacts on Life of Mine Singleton LGA Wider community Low Low recreational facilities Project footprint – impacts on Life of Mine Neighbouring Near neighbours Low Low recreational areas and activities in the Community Visitors to the area locality Impacts on community infrastructure and services Construction workforce (housing and Construction (1-2 Singleton LGA Wider community Medium Medium accommodation ) years) Property acquisition (impact on housing Life of Mine Broke and Bulga Wider community Low Low and accommodation due to relocation ) Reduction in capacity of road due to Construction Broke, Bulga and Mt Road users of the sub- Medium Medium construction workforce Thorley regional network Relocation of Broke and Charlton Life of Mine Broke and Bulga Road users of Broke Medium Medium Roads and Charlton Roads Reduction in capacity of utilities Life of mine Broke and Bulga Asset owners Low Low Utility users Construction and operational workforce Life of mine Broke and Bulga Broke and Milbrodale Medium (Positive) Low (Positive) use of education services Public Schools Construction and operational workforce Construction Singleton LGA Health care providers Low Medium use of health care services and users

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 226

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Project Aspect Time Geographic scope Stakeholders Mitigated technical Perceived impacted risk stakeholder risk

Construction and operational workforce Construction Singleton LGA Social and community Low Low use of social and community services service providers and users

Construction and operational workforce Construction Broke and Paynes Broke, Bulga and Low Low use of emergency services Valley regions Paynes valley residents

Road relocation (impact on emergency Construction Broke and Paynes Broke, Bulga and Medium Low response) Valley regions Paynes valley residents

Impacts on social amenity

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 227

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Project Aspect Time Geographic scope Stakeholders Mitigated technical Perceived impacted risk stakeholder risk

Dust emissions (impact on respiratory Life of mine Broke and Bulga Local Residents Low Medium health) Health care providers and users Increased exposure to nitrogen dioxide Operation Broke and Bulga Broke and Bulga Low Low (orange blast plumes) Residents Surrounding road users

Impacts on sense of community and cohesion Population Change (impact on sense Life of mine Broke and Bulga Wider community Low Low of community) Singleton LGA

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 228

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Table 8.37 Summary of strategies to address Project related impacts Impact(s) Project Aspect Strategies (to reduce / enhance Project impacts / opportunities) Population change Construction  Utilisation of local contracting companies where practical and development of appropriate protocols to manage Community Service Use Workforce contractor activities (Influx)  Capacity of road Development of a dedicated Construction Traffic Management Plan, elements to include: infrastructure . Consult with Singleton Council/RMS in relation to the potential for Broke village traffic mitigation measures including .e.g. Traffic Impacts o Installation of speed humps to slow traffic and reduce traffic through back streets of Broke Road Safety o Speed signage o Contractor and employee training program –focus on road safety and village amenity o Provision of appropriate parking and vehicle access points for staff at each mine infrastructure area, consideration of car-pooling / bussing of contractors to site Capacity of road Road Relocations  Establishment of a Project Development Working Group – group to be developed to address project construction infrastructure (Charlton and aspects e.g. for the period of road relocation and include key stakeholders from the Broke and Bulga communities. Traffic (safety) Broke Roads) Key objectives of the group to provide information regarding road relocation construction program and assist in the scoping of visual mitigation and roadside beautification programs Emergency Services  (response times) Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Contribution to address road infrastructure and maintenance issues with the Singleton Council Sense of Community –  Heritage Values Great North Road interpretation strategy – to include historical and archaeological investigation and development of acknowledgment of the historical road alignment in consultation with the Convict Trail Project and OEH - Heritage Branch Visual Noise and Visual  Development of noise and visual bund Noise Bund Development  Continued communication regarding development of the noise and visual bund. Dust  Monitoring and management of noise and air quality (Social Amenity)  Village beautification programs Sense of Community Property  Replanting of Vere Vineyard historical cabernet clone Land Use Conflict Acquisition  Continued utilisation of buffer lands for residential and complementary land uses where practical Community Sustainability  Community Planning forum to involve village stakeholders, local government and mining industry representatives and facilitated to prioritise projects identified in the Visioning project and to identify areas for further provision of support, such as: . Upgrades and further development of local recreational areas . Upgrade and beautification of local amenities . Development of Village entry statements . Development of community infrastructure/facilities  Continued provision of support to the Broke-Fordwich Wine and Tourism Association  Continued support for local village events and festivals

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 229

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

Impact(s) Project Aspect Strategies (to reduce / enhance Project impacts / opportunities)  Ongoing facilitation of community engagement program in line with the Social Involvement Plan for the Complex e.g. BBQ’s Intergenerational equity Ongoing  Commitment to comprehensive SIA as part of closure planning Community Sustainability Operations  Review of post mining land use options Environment Social Licence  Continued preference for employment of local residents and procurement of local small and medium enterprises (SME’s)  Monitoring of social indicators  Continued support for local primary schools – Broke and Milbrodale  See also community programs above Cumulative Impacts Ongoing  Continued engagement in key regional and LGA forums e.g. UHMD, Singleton Housing Strategy, Council initiated Operations committees Social Licence  VPA contribution to address identified LGA issues

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 230

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

9.0 Monitoring of Social Impacts

 Key areas of predicted project impact, namely construction activities e.g. origin of construction workforce, intended residence of construction workers in the locality/region, use of local services

 Key regional issues, through collection of relevant census and social indicator data

 Social and economic contributions of the operation in the community through recurring implementation of workforce and supplier surveys (TRC-Analysis)

 Actions and investments arising from the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the project.

BCM has an existing Social Involvement Plan and it is suggested that outcomes of the SIA be integrated into this document to inform future management of social impacts and operational planning.

XCN currently undertake a community perception survey every three years to inform engagement and investment activities at the operational and regional level. Data obtained through this SIA could be utilised to further inform engagement and investment planning at an XCN level through greater alignment of investment priorities with regional community issues, impacts, needs and aspirations.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 231

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date: January 2013

10.0 Conclusion

The SIOA has identified a number of social and economic impacts that BCM will need to manage as a part of the proposed Project. Given limited extension of the mine footprint and mine plan design, the social impacts of the project have been minimised where possible. The key impacts of relevance largely include impact of the proposed construction workforce (approximately 300 workers) on housing and accommodation, given current shortages in housing and accommodation in the region, impacts on road capacity and road safety as a result of proposed road relocations (Broke and Charlton Roads), impacts on social amenity (as a result of visual, air quality, noise and traffic impacts), and health and well-being impacts associated with the presence of the construction workforce on site.

The SIA program has also provided a detailed context for the project, including discussion of regional issues relating to mining, documentation of the social and economic linkages and associations between the BCC and the community and has also highlighted the key values that residents of the local villages hold, in proximity to the BSO, and their desire to see further improvements in their respective localities across the differing community capital areas – natural/environmental, physical, social, human and economic.

A range of initiatives have also been recommended to assist with the management of social impacts in relation to the Project. BCM also has a range of existing strategies in place to address and enhance project impacts and these and any further commitments will be summarised in the operation’s Social Involvement Plan.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 232

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

11.0 References

Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) (2011). Understanding the AEDI results, Available online at: http://res.aedi.org.au/Understanding_the_AEDI_Results.pdf

ABC News (2012). Singleton Housing Plan on the Way. ABC Online. August 30th, Available online at: www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-30/singleton-housing/4233502

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2003). Australian Social Trends, cat. No. 4102.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001a). Basic Community Profile, Broke, NSW (State Suburb), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001b). Basic Community Profile, Bulga, NSW (State Suburb), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001c). Basic Community Profile, Singleton, NSW (Local Government Area), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001d). Basic Community Profile, Upper Hunter Region, NSW (State Electoral Division), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001e). Basic Community Profile, NSW (State), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006a). Basic Community Profile, Broke, NSW (State Suburb), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006b). Basic Community Profile, Bulga, NSW (State Suburb), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006c). Basic Community Profile, Singleton, NSW (Local Government Area), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006d). Basic Community Profile, Upper Hunter Region, NSW (State Electoral Division), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006e). Basic Community Profile, NSW (State), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011a). Basic Community Profile, Broke, NSW (State Suburb), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011b). Basic Community Profile, Bulga, NSW (State Suburb), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011c). Basic Community Profile, Singleton, NSW (Local Government Area), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011d). Basic Community Profile, Upper Hunter Region, NSW (State Electoral Division), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 233

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011e). Basic Community Profile, NSW (State), cat. No. 2001.0. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009). Tourist Accommodation, Small Area Data, New South Wales. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010). Tourist Accommodation, Small Area Data, New South Wales.: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Tourist Accommodation, Small Area Data, New South Wales. ABS: Canberra, ACT.

Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility (ACCSR) (2011). Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue. Prepared for the NSW Minerals Council.

Australian Government (2011); Securing a clean energy future, Available online at: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Consolidated-Final.pdf

Australian Government Comlaw (2012). Minerals Resource Rent Tax Act 2012. Available online at: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012A00013/Html/Text#_Toc320092730

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2011), Singleton Hospital, Available on line at: http://www.myhospitals.gov.au/hospital/singleton-hospital

Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) (2011) 2011-2020 Hunter Valley Corridor Capacity Strategy Consultation Document. Available online at: http://www.artc.com.au/library/news_2011-04-11.pdf

Beckley, T.M., Martz, D., Nadeau, S., Wall, E. and Reimer, B. (2008). Multiple capacities, multiple outcomes: Delving deeper into the meaning of community capacity. Journal of Rural and Community Development 3(3): 56-75.

Bradley R. and Gans J, Growth in Australian Cities. Economic Record. East Ivanhoe: Sep 1998. Vol. 74, Iss. 226, p.266-278 (13 pp.) of 1998.

Buchan Consulting (2011); Upper Hunter Economic Diversification Project, Available online at: http://www.muswellbrook.nsw.gov.au/about- council/reports/Upper%20Hunter%20Economic%20Diversification%20Report/Upper%20Hun ter%20Economic%20Diversification%20Report%201%20-%20Regional%20Economy.pdf

Burdge, Rabel J. (2004) A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment. Third ed. Middleton, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press.

Coakes Consulting (2012a) Aboriginal Needs and Opportunities Assessment (ANOA): the Hunter Region. Report prepared for Xstrata Coal NSW.

Coakes Consulting (2012b) Our Villages Our Vision: A Future Vision for Broke, Bulga & Milbrodale. Report prepared for Xstrata Coal NSW.

Coakes Consulting (2012c) Regional Issues Assessment: Singleton LGA. Report prepared for Xstrata Coal NSW.

Coakes, S. (1995). Participation of Women in Rural Communities: the Influence of Social Structural and Contextual Factors. Curtin University of Technology. Perth. Australia.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 234

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Coakes, S. and Sadler, A. (2011). Utilizing a sustainable livelihoods approach to inform a social impact assessment practice. In Vanclay, F. and Esteves, A.M. (Eds.) New Directions in Social Impact Assessment. Edward Elgar, UK.

Coakes, S. and Askew, L.E. (2012). Developing social consequence definitions for predicting social impacts of resource developments (in preparation).

Country Transport (2011), Town Services – Singleton. Available online at: http://www.countrytransport.131500.com.au/index.asp?InfoMode=TownServices&Town=sing leton&ServiceType=Community

Deloitte Access Economics (2012) Economic and social impacts of the Warkworth Extension Project. Report commissioned by Singleton Council.

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) (2011). Closing the Gap: Indigenous Reform Agenda. Available online at: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/progserv/ctg/Pages/default.aspx

Department for International Development (DfID) (1999), Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for International Development.

Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Development and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Fenton M, Coakes S, Marshall N. (2003). Social Assessment in Natural Resource Management: The Development and Application of Town Resource Cluster Analysis (TRC- Analysis). In: Becker E, Vanclay F. (eds). International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK.

Goffet N., (2011), How Hunter Expressway will turn Singleton into a ‘traffic dump’, The Newcastle Herald, 22/11/11, page 1.

Hart, M. (1999). Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, Ipswich, MA: QLF/Atlantic Centre for the Environment. Available online at: http://www.sustainablemeasures.com

Hempel L (1999). Conceptual and analytical challenges in building sustainable communities.in Mazmanian, D. A., & Kraft, Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Massachusetts

Hunter History Consultants (2012). From Brook to Broke: A History of Broke Fordwich.

Hunter New England Area Health (HNEAH) (2010). Respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancer among residents in the Hunter New England Area Health. Available at: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2010/pdf/HNE_Respi_Cardio_Disease.pdf

Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator (HVCCC) (2011). About the HVCC. Available online at: http://www.hvccc.com.au/

Hunter Valley Research Foundation (2011a). A select socio-economic and well-being profile of the Hunter Region. Hunter Valley Research Foundation: Newcastle, NSW.

Hunter Valley Research Foundation (2011b). Community Perception Survey: XCN. Hunter Valley Research Foundation: Newcastle, NSW.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 235

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Hunter Valley Research Foundation (2011c). Wellbeing Watch. Available online at: http://hvrf.com.au/images/HVRF_Publications/Wellbeing_Watch_2011_low_res.pdf

Hunter Valley Wine Industry Association (HVWIA) (2011). About the Hunter Valley Wine Industry. Available online at: www.winehuntervalley.com.au/The-HVWIA/About-the- HVWIA/The-HVWIA.aspx

International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) (2003). Social Impact Assessment: International Principles. Available online at: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special- publications/SP2.pdf

Miller, J. (1985). Koori: A Will to Win. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Newcastle Port Corporation (2008). New Trade Record for Newcastle Port. Available online at: http://www.newportcorp.com.au/client_images/612898.pdf

Newcastle Port Corporation Website (NPC 2011). Available online at: http://www.newportcorp.com.au/site/index.cfm

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR) (2011). Ranking of NSW LGAs, Available online at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_research

NSW Department of Housing (2003). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2003). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2004). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2004). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2005). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2005). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 236

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

NSW Department of Housing (2006). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2006). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2007). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2007). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2008). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2008). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2009). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2009). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2010). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2010). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Housing (2011). Rents, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 237

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

NSW Department of Housing (2011). Sales, Rural Local Government Areas, sorted by Statistical Sub-Division, Available online at: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Rent+and+Sales+Re ports/

NSW Department of Lands (DoL) (2007). Map of Aboriginal Lands Council Boundaries. Available online at: http://www.alc.org.au/media/33571/map.jpg

NSW Department of Planning (2010). New South Wales Statistic Local Area Population Projections, 2006-2036, Available online at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yvzXybG72TA%3D&tabid=124&la nguage=en-

NSW Department of Planning (2006). Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, Available online at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/regional/pdf/lowerhunter_regionalstrategy.pdf

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) (2012). Strategic Regional Land Use Plan: Upper Hunter. NSW Government.

New South Wales Government, (2011). Department of Planning and Infrastructure; Major Project Assessments; Available online at: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=search&page_id=&search=&author ity_id=543&search_site_type_id=&reference_table=&status_id=&decider=&from_date=&to_ date=&x=33&y=6

NSW Minerals Council (2001). History of Mining: Singleton Mining History. Available online at: http://www.nswmin.com.au/Mining-in-NSW/History-of-Mining/Singleton-Mining- History/Singleton-Mining-History/default.aspx

NSW Liberals & Nationals (2010). NSW Strategic Land Use Strategy, Available online at. http://grip.org.au/documents/doc-47-strategic-regional-land-use-policy---document.pdf

NSW Parliament (2011). Hansards Report - Hunter Expressway, Accessed http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20110506013

NSW Transport, Roads and Maritime Services (RTA) (2011). Website: Road Projects: The Hunter Expressway, Available online at: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/the_hunter_region/hunter_expressway/index .html

NSW Water (2011). Aquifer Interference Policy, Available online at: http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-management/Law-and-policy/Legal-reform/Legal- reform#policy

OECD (2007). Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning (Executive Summary), Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_2649_39263294_37425853_1_1_1_1,00.html

Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU) (2011). A Social Health Atlas of Australia, The University of Adelaide.

Sandman, P.M. (1993). Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax VA.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 238

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Singleton Argus (2011). Singleton District Guide, Available online at: http://magresources.f2.com.au/sdg/2011/sdg/pageflip.html

Singleton Council (2009). Website: Services and Facilities Available on line at: http://www.singleton.nsw.gov.au/templates/singleton_content_2.aspx?edit=false&pageID=11 00

Singleton Council (2009a). Website: Parks and Facilities Available on line at: http://www.singleton.nsw.gov.au/templates/singleton_content_2.aspx?edit=false&pageID=11 28

Singleton Council (2010). Minutes of Meeting of Singleton Council meeting in the Council Chambers, 21/06/2010, available online at: http://www.singleton.nsw.gov.au/agenda/Open/2010/CM_21062010_MIN.HTM

Singleton Council (2012a). Our Place a Blueprint 2022: Singleton Community Strategic Plan, January.

Singleton Council (2012b). Singleton Council: Services and Facilities. Available on line at: http://www.singleton.nsw.gov.au/templates/singleton_content_2.aspx?edit=false&pageID=11 00

Singleton Council (2012c) Minutes from the Joint Meeting with Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Mining Industry. At Singleton Diggers, Friday 15 June.

Singleton Council (2012d). Councillors. Available on line at: http://www.singleton.nsw.gov.au/templates/singleton_content_2.aspx?edit=false&pageID=10 80

Umwelt (2011), Bulga Optimisation Project, Preliminary Environmental Assessment, Newcastle, NSW.

Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue (2012). 12 month projects update; Available online at: http://www.nswmin.com.au/Policy-and-Advocacy/People-and-Communities/Upper-Hunter- Mining-Dialogue/Upper-Hunter-Mining-Dialogue/default.aspx

Vanclay, F (2008). Place Matters. In F. Vanclay, M. Higgins and A. Blackshaw (eds) Making sense of place: Exploring concepts and expressions of place through different senses and lenses. National Museum of Australia Press, Canberra, Australia.

Visit New South Wales (2011) Destination NSW-Hunter Valley Singleton. Available online at: http://www.visitnsw.com/destinations/hunter/hunter-valley/singleton

WHO.(2009). HIA. Available online at: http://www.who.int/hia/about/why/en/

Xstrata Coal Bulga Coal (2010). Xstrata Coal Bulga Coal Annual Environmental Monitoring Report; Available online at: http://www.bulgacoal.com.au/EN/Publications/Pages/EnvironmentalMonitoringReports.aspx

Xstrata Coal Bulga Coal (2010). Xstrata Coal Bulga Coal Annual Environmental Management Report; Available online at: http://www.bulgacoal.com.au/EN/Publications/Pages/AEMR.aspx

Xstrata Coal Bulga Coal (2011); Xstrata Coal Bulga Coal Website; Available online at: http://www.bulgacoal.com.au/EN/Pages/default.aspx

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 239

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 240

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Appendix A Detailed Summary of Relevant Xstrata/Bulga Coal Policies and Plans

Occupational Health and Safety

Document or Policy Overview

The Xstrata Sustainable Development policy makes the commitment that all Xstrata operations (including Bulga Open Cut) shall:  provide visible safety leadership, and appropriate leadership development and training at every level  foster and maintain a positive safety culture, behaviour, and awareness  identify and eliminate or mitigate safety, occupational and community health and hygiene hazards  maintain operational integrity Xstrata Sustainable  apply safe work systems and occupational and community health and hygiene programmes Development Policy  actively engage with and monitor contractors, suppliers and business partners so that they understand and respect our occupational and community health and safety standards  encourage and support our people and the communities associated with our operations to participate in programmes which enhance their health and well-being  report, manage and learn from injuries, illnesses and high potential incidents  prepare for and effectively respond to emergencies and crises

Shift length  Regular shift length: 12h and 20 minutes  Up to 14 hours: Work under a specific risk assessment with approval from superintendent or manager  Up to 16 hours: Approval required from manager Bulga Coal Surface Operations Fatigue Management Plan  Over 16 hours: No one is to work over 16 hours unless in emergency (non-production) and must be approved by the operations manager  Operations are to consider provision of transport for employees working the longer hours. Call out  Call outs must take into consideration the amount of sleep an employee has had between the last shifts and for how long.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 241

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview

 An employment must work: o No more than 6 shifts straight (day) o No more than 5 shifts straight (night) o No more than 5 shifts straight (N/S and D/S combination) o A maximum of 63 hours per week averaged over two weeks (commencing on a Monday). Other considerations:  Supplementary labour  Task rotation  Fatigue Impairment Supervisors Guidelines  Managing a fatigued worker  Training and education

The Health Management Plan shall:  Provide and maintain hygiene facilities  Manage health and occupational illness and disease related issues in the workplace  Workplace environment monitoring  Collect health, illness and disease statistics  Provide related education programs The types of programs offered at Bulga Coal to manage health include: Bulga Coal Health Management  Plan Systems and processes  Risk Management  Provision of hygiene facilities  Provide the following to employees: o Subsidised access to gyms o Early injury intervention program (flexibility for employees access treatments during work hours) o Employee Assistance Program (Fully confidential counselling service (including for immediate family, defacto and step) o Job Fit System – establishing ergonomic reviews of work spaces

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 242

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview

o Pre-employment and exit medical and functional assessments o Ongoing health monitoring through minimum three yearly medicals

Provision of confidential, free counselling service, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week via telephone or personal appoint. The Employee Assistance Program is designed to support employees and their families with issues which include:  Personal issues  Relationship issues  Work/personal stress  Interpersonal conflict  Working relationships  Substance abuse  Gambling  Grief and Loss  Trauma Bulga Coal Grief Policy  Depression  Anxiety  Financial problems  Critical incidents, which are situations with the potential to cause psychological harm to employees and may occur inside or outside the workplace. Critical incidents may include: o Serious workplace accidents o Death or injury of employees or their families o Involvement in violent confrontations such as an assault or armed hold-up o Redundancy and organisational transition o Challenging or distressing work events  Conflict within teams or organisations.

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 243

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview

Xstrata Coal implements a wide range of training, education and induction programs to provide employees with the information and support around correct behaviour. Examples of these include compulsory induction programs for contractors and employees, visitor inductions and daily tool box talks. An example of the depth of information which is contained in the induction program is the Environment and Community session which covers:  The role of E&C in the organisation  Site environmental performance (year to date)  Approval, consent and licence arrangements  An overview of surrounding communities and Bulga Coal’s goals to proactively manage impacts on the community  Noise monitoring and the role of employees to be sensitive to noise and need to seek to minimise noise at all times  Dust – the role of employees to be sensitive to dust and proactively manage dust emissions  Awareness and communication around ongoing water and sediment Control  Environmental incident procedures Training and Inductions  Waste minimisation through utilisation of bins (recycling, industrial, general etc.), do not litter  Blasting – the role of employees to be aware, manage and minimise vibration, overpressure and fumes;  Archaeology and Cultural Heritage – the role of employees to be aware and respectful, not to enter conversation areas and be aware of the consequences for breaching legislation  Rehabilitation – the role of employees to be aware it is major focus for the site and everybody’s responsibility  Flora and Fauna – the role of employees to be aware and respectful and to report injured wildlife  Lighting – the role of employees to be aware of lighting impacts which includes avoiding shining lights towards the community  Awareness of Ground Disturbance Permits. The induction messages are updated on a daily basis through crew tool box talks at the start of shift. An example of an Environment and Community Tool Box Talk Update was in December 2011, after receiving reports that ‘mine workers’ were speeding and littering when travelling through Broke village. All employees were briefed with the message that Bulga Coal does not tolerate speeding and littering and that the community are entitled to a clean and safe environment and to be treated with respect

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 244

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview

Xstrata Coal acknowledges that short and long term abuse of alcohol and drugs can affect the health and safety of employees, contractors and visitors. No person, employee, contractor or visitor should be permitted to work at Bulga if the concentration of drugs or alcohol in their body exceeds the thresholds in the relevant Australian standards and legalisation. The drug and alcohol procedure was developed in consultation with employees. Key components to the drug and alcohol management system include:  Independent, confidential drug and alcohol testing including: o Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing o Monthly random testing a random 10% sample of a crew o Post incident testing o Challenge to fitness for work testing Drug and Alcohol Procedure o Blanket testing (at the discretion of the operations manager) o Self-voluntary testing  Management of prescribed and non-prescribed medication/drugs  Alcohol breath testing  Positive test management  Refusal to undergo a test, interference with a test etc.

Source: Bulga Coal Complex (2012), XCN (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 245

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Community Engagement

Document or Policy Overview

The Xstrata Sustainable Development policy makes the commitment that all Xstrata operations (including Bulga Open Cut) shall contribute to the social and economic development of sustainable communities associated with our operations. This shall be achieved by:  Identifying the communities and other stakeholders associated with our operations and actively engage with them in a culturally appropriate and transparent manner as early as possible and throughout the life cycle of our operations to establish relationships based on mutual benefit and active participation  Respecting the culture, customs, interests and rights of communities, including indigenous peoples and vulnerable or previously disadvantaged groups Xstrata Sustainable  Working with governments, local authorities, community representatives, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations and Development (SD) Policy other interested parties to develop and support projects that benefit the communities associated with our operations  Contributing a minimum of 1% of Group profit before tax each year to fund initiatives that benefit the communities associated with our operations, particularly those located in remote areas or in regions with a lower level of social and economic development and infrastructure  Managing our funding so that our community initiatives receive stable and continuing financial support  Working to minimise the adverse impacts of our operations on the communities in which we operate and avoiding sole dependence on our operations

The Social Involvement Plan has been developed to assist XCN in:  Engaging with the communities in which we operate  Investing in the communities in which we operate  Meeting legal obligations;  Meeting the requirements of Xstrata Business Principles, SD Policy and SD Standards Xstrata Coal Social  Meeting the requirements of the Xstrata Coal Social Involvement Framework Involvement Plan  Meeting the requirements of Xstrata Coal NSW SD Guidelines The Social Involvement Plan includes: Stakeholder Engagement  Stakeholder Identification and Information Needs Assessment (e.g. local landholders, government, shareholders)  Engagement approach and methods (e.g. face to face consultation)  Complaints management requirements

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 246

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview  Project engagement and social impact assessment (SIA)  Linkages with environmental management Community Support  Local Community Support  Corporate Social Involvement (CSI) (local, regional, state and national)  Implementation of Apprentice, Graduate, Vacation and Work Experience Programs Community Support Management Systems A structured approach is implemented to ensure:  Community contributions are consistent with Xstrata, Xstrata Coal and XCN Policy and Guidelines for community support  Community contributions target community needs  Community contributions address XCN and business unit drivers  Internal approval is obtained prior to commitment  Community contributions are effectively managed  Community contributions are evaluated for their effectiveness  Community contributions are effectively communicated to internal and external Stakeholders Selection of Community Support Initiatives should include:  Recommendations provided as part of stakeholder surveys or feedback forms;  Results from any Social Impact Assessments  Meetings with local Government Stakeholders (e.g. Community Support Officer), community groups (e.g. Landcare, Rotary, CCC‘s) and schools  Face to face meetings with local landholders, the general community and community groups  Communication with employees through existing channels such as toolbox talks, information sessions and site newsletters  Feedback obtained through miscellaneous forums. Evaluation, Reporting and Communication  Community support programs will be assessed and publically reported annually  The Stakeholder Involvement Plan will be reviewed and updated annually (including feedback from external stakeholders)  A formal community survey will be undertaken every three years

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 247

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview

The Bulga Coal Complex Social Involvement Plan seeks to:  Identify key stakeholders and their information needs  Identify and document key community risks and opportunities including methods to manage them effectively so as to prevent adverse impacts  Establish and document engagement strategies  Deliver sustainable benefits to the community in which the Bulga Complex operates via the community support program  Comply with the requirements of Xstrata Sustainable Development Standards and Business Principles and Xstrata Coal Policies and Standards. Stakeholder engagement consider:  Clarity of purpose (why it is engagement occurring, level of influence on decision making by stakeholder and desired outcome)  Commitment (allocating time and resources (including senior levels), provide and encourage feedback, record and document process and feedback)  Communication (being open, honest, informed, clear and aware of expectation setting)  Information (providing quality, relevant and timely information) Bulga Coal Complex Social Involvement Plan  Work with flexibility and responsiveness  Timeliness (timeliness in responding, informing and providing feedback)  Inclusiveness (accepting and be inclusive of different points of view, avoiding jargon and technical language)  Continuous learning (monitoring and evaluating, encouraging feedback, building on past experience, reporting back to the organisation for organisation learning) Based on the stakeholder, level of impact and type of information which may be required Bulga Coal shall engage using a range of methodologies including:  Face to face meetings upon request  Community barbeque program ( two per year)  External community newsletters (quarterly)  Presentations or information sessions  Community support program (ongoing)  Employee toolbox talks, crew talks and Internal staff newsletters  Aboriginal heritage meetings

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 248

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview  Community Consultative Committee Meetings (quarterly)  Community Information Sheets  Mine tours (on request and at Broke Fete)  Beltana and Bulga Coal websites  Media statements Complaints management As a part of its complaints management policy Bulga Coal shall:  Acknowledge all complaints, respond to the complainant within 24 hours, where practicable  Register all complaints  Investigate complaints impartially giving proper consideration to the facts and the circumstances prevailing at the time  Implement corrective actions if required  Report to relevant stakeholders of investigation outcomes and corrective actions Community Support Program The local community support program shall contribute monetary or in-kind support to activities which support:  enterprise and job creation  the environment  education  social/community development  health  culture and art The local community support program shall be mindful of issues of long-term dependency and manage such situations to achieve long-term, independent sustainability. The Stakeholder Involvement Plan will be reviewed annually, in accordance with XCN requirements and shall be reported through:  Annual Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (internal)  Face-to-face consultation program (internal)  Monthly Environment and Community Status (internal)  Community Support Program (internal)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 249

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Document or Policy Overview  Xstrata Sustainability Database (internal)  Xstrasafe Database (internal)  Annual Environmental Monitoring Report (external)  Community Newsletters (external)  Community BBQs (external)

Source: Bulga Coal Complex (2012), XCN (2012)

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 250

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Appendix B Media Review

Due to the large number of relevant newspaper articles for the selected period, a representative sample of the most recent articles is captured below.

Source Title of Article Date Author Key Themes Singleton Expectant mothers in 5-Apr-11 - Services Argus Singleton Singleton Environment workshop covers 15-May-11 - Health Argus health matters Singleton Dust levels at Maison Dieu tip 17-May-11 - Mining impacts / Dust Argus the monitor Singleton No coal seam gas in Singleton 7-Jun-11 Paul Maguire Coal Seam Gas Argus vineyards Newcastle Coal dust concerns 8-Jun-11 Matthew Kelly Health Herald Newcastle Coal vs. cows: an ungodly row 25-Jun-11 Ian Kirkwood Land use Herald Singleton Singleton mine talks 5-Jul-11 Di Sneddon Mining industry Argus Singleton Singleton gets nine of the 14 15-Jul-11 - Mining impacts / Air Argus air quality monitor locations quality Singleton Health study to look at broader 9-Aug-11 Sarah Lee Health Argus impacts Singleton Coal mining dust 12-Aug-11 Sarah Lee Mining impacts / Air Argus quality Singleton Community united in struggle 19-Aug-11 Paul Maguire Community Argus to survive Singleton Action plans to minimise open 26-Aug-11 - Land Use Argus cut mining impacts Singleton Ashton debate set for Tuesday 2-Sep-11 - Mine expansions Argus morning, September 6 Singleton Ashton meeting today 6-Sep-11 Declan Martin Mine expansions Argus Singleton Audit on risky business 16-Sep-11 Paul Maguire Mining impacts Argus Singleton Open doors at Plashett 20-Sep-11 - Heritage Argus Singleton Massive response to coal gas 20-Sep-11 - Coal Seam Gas Argus inquiry Singleton Fifteen more miners to go 30-Sep-11 - Mine expansions Argus Singleton Showdown on farm 14-Oct-11 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Singleton Injunction on coal operations 18-Oct-11 Louise Nichols Mining / Heritage Argus after Plains take legal step Singleton Camberwell Common appeal 1-Nov-11 - Mine expansions / Argus being considered Community Singleton Hospital appears safe 1-Nov-11 Paul Maguire Health Argus Singleton No royalties for five years 4-Nov-11 Louise Nichols Coal Seam Gas Argus Singleton Push for hospital here 4-Nov-11 Paul Maguire Health Argus

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 251

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Source Title of Article Date Author Key Themes Singleton Dairy report makes no sense 8-Nov-11 - Agriculture Argus Singleton Hearing begins 11-Nov-11 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Singleton Hearing begins 11-Nov-11 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Singleton Dust levels peak again 11-Nov-11 - Dust Argus NSW Minerals Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue 15-Nov-11 - Mining impacts Council Singleton Industry shares the wealth 18-Nov-11 - Mining impacts Argus Singleton Singleton - Sold out 18-Nov-11 Louise Nichols Housing Argus Newcastle Mines run low on Orica 23-Nov-11 Ian Kirkwood Mine industry Herald explosives Singleton Mining begins under council's 25-Nov-11 Paul Maguire Mining impacts Argus nose Singleton Singleton farmer fights mine in 29-Nov-11 - Mining impacts Argus court Singleton New study will determine dust 29-Nov-11 - Dust Argus chemical compound Newcastle Premier asked to halt NuCoal 1-Dec-11 Frances Mine expansions Herald at Jerrys Plains Thompson Singleton Government requests Doyles 2-Dec-11 - Mine expansions Argus Creek suspension Singleton Not over yet 2-Dec-11 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Singleton No access 6-Dec-11 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Singleton Big step for road extension 16-Dec-11 - Roads / Infrastructure Argus Singleton No to Ashton coal 23-Dec-11 Paul Maguire Mining impacts Argus Singleton $4.3m mine deal accepted 6-Jan-12 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Singleton No shortage of jobs in coal 6-Jan-12 - Employment Argus industry Singleton Health message from the chief 6-Jan-12 - Health / Housing Argus Singleton Family's desperate search for 10-Jan-12 Paul Maguire Housing Argus a home Singleton Gas dispute nipped before it 17-Jan-12 - Mine expansions / Land Argus begins Use Singleton No new mines 20-Jan-12 Louise Nichols Mine expansions Argus Singleton Spare bedrooms find a home 10-Feb-12 Louise Nichols Housing Argus in housing crisis 1233 ABC Hunter GP sounds warning 15-Feb-12 - Health Newcastle over coal expansion Singleton Singleton coal China link 17-Feb-12 Paul Maguire Mining Argus Singleton Singleton home 17-Feb-12 Paul Maguire Housing Argus

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 252

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Source Title of Article Date Author Key Themes Sydney NuCoal strikes $76m deal for 21-Feb-12 - Exploration Morning Hunter Valley project Herald Singleton Singleton land on market 24-Feb-12 Paul Maguire Housing Argus Newcastle Hunter air quality monitors in 25-Feb-12 Michelle Harris Air Quality Herald action Singleton Upper Hunter Air Quality 28-Feb-12 - Air Quality Argus Monitoring Network Singleton Singleton dust report 28-Feb-12 Paul Maguire Mining impacts / Dust Argus Newcastle Corrosive dust fallout blamed 29-Feb-12 Greg Ray Mining impacts Herald for pipe decay Singleton Doyles Creek Mine 2-Mar-12 - Land Use Argus Singleton Blast scare 6-Mar-12 Paul Maguire Mining impacts / Health Argus Newcastle Air quality network makes a 8-Mar-12 Matthew Kelly Air Quality Herald difference Singleton Strategy anger 9-Mar-12 Paul Maguire Land Use Argus Singleton Coal land use strategy forum 13-Mar-12 - Land Use Argus in Singleton ABC News CCC member speaks out 13-Mar-12 - Exploration against Hunter coal mine Singleton Get a job in the coal mines 16-Mar-12 - Employment Argus ABC News Mine fined for exceeding dust 21-Mar-12 David Marchese Mining impacts limit Singleton Carbon tax will hit Singleton 3-Apr-12 Paul Maguire Carbon tax Argus Singleton Angry response to new mining 10-Apr-12 - Mining impacts Argus report Singleton Return more royalties 13-Apr-12 - Royalties Argus Australian New apprentices for Coal & 16-Apr-12 Andrew Duffy Employment Mining Allied Newcastle Camberwell open-cut mine 19-Apr-12 Michelle Harris Mine expansions Herald plan revived Australian Camberwell coal mine plan 19-Apr-12 Cole Latimer Mine expansions Mining renewed Singleton Ashton second chance 20-Apr-12 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Newcastle Row over Ashton Coal impacts 20-Apr-12 Michelle Harris Mining impacts / Herald expansions ABC News Mayor 'stunned' coal mine 20-Apr-12 David Marchese Mine expansions back on agenda Newcastle Ombudsman looks at Ashton 21-Apr-12 Michelle Harris Mining expansions Herald Coal dealings Singleton Health talks gains 21-Apr-12 Sarah Lee Health Argus Singleton Sharyn Munro's book tells 24-Apr-12 - Mining impacts Argus story of coal mining impacts Newcastle Next step in Doyles Creek 27-Apr-12 Frances Employment

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 253

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Source Title of Article Date Author Key Themes Herald mine Thompson Newcastle Camberwell residents want 28-Apr-12 Matthew Kelly Mine expansions Herald public hearing Singleton Changing times on the land 1-May-12 - Land Use Argus Newcastle Hunter farmers rally in Sydney 1-May-12 Frances Land Use Herald Thompson ABC Rio Tinto accused of Mt 4-May-12 - Mine closure Newcastle Pleasant ploy Singleton Mine workings threaten 8-May-12 - Mining impacts Argus waterway Newcastle Singleton Council accused of 8-May-12 - Mining industry Herald being 'anti-mining' Singleton Air pollution 11-May-12 - Mining impacts / health Argus Singleton Singleton misses federal 11-May-12 - Royalties Argus funding Muswellbrook Rio tight-lipped on mine’s 11-May-12 Stacey Post Mine Closure Chronicle future Singleton Coal boom steadies 15-May-12 Paul Maguire Mining impacts Argus Singleton Environment workshop covers 15-May-12 - Air Quality / Health Argus health matters Singleton Air quality exceedance 15-May-12 - Air Quality Argus Newcastle Integra Coal in dispute with 16-May-12 Matthew Kelly Mine expansions / Herald Camberwell residents Community Newcastle Research: does CSG cause 16-May-12 Frances Mining impacts Herald farmer stress? Thompson 1233 ABC Mine applies for 'minor' 17-May-12 David Marchese Mine expansions extension Singleton Coal loader brings on more 18-May-12 Paul Maguire Coal industry / Argus health debate expansions Singleton Bypass push is on 18-May-12 - Mining impacts Argus Singleton Great Greta issued with 18-May-12 - Mining impacts / Water Argus pollution plan Singleton Mine site rehabilitation 22-May-12 - Rehabilitation Argus prompts new techniques Singleton Mine cops dust fine 25-May-12 - Mining impacts / Dust Argus Newcastle McGeoch’s talks to happen 25-May-12 Paul Maguire Royalties Herald behind closed doors Singleton Ashton Coal Planning 29-May-12 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Assessment hearing 1233 ABC Ashton fight resumes in 31-May-12 - Mine expansions Singleton Singleton Ashton heats up 1-Jun-12 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Singleton Warkworth mine heads to 5-Jun-12 Paul Maguire Mine expansions Argus Land and Environment Court Singleton Singleton mine back open 5-Jun-12 - Mine expansions Argus after fire

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 254

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Source Title of Article Date Author Key Themes Newcastle Singleton coal opportunities 19-Jun-12 Di Sneddon Mining industry Herald Newcastle Coal roads reclassification 22-Jun-12 - Roads / Herald application Infrastructure Newcastle Court to hear mine subsidence 26-Jun-12 - Mining impacts Herald to blame for damage Newcastle Plan to extend Ravensworth 28-Jun-12 Ian Kirkwood Mine expansions Herald mine Singleton Stoner to comment on coal 3-Jul-12 Paul Maguire Royalties Argus cash Singleton Singleton road safety audit 6-Jul-12 - Roads / Infrastructure Argus Singleton Mine changes help stop fumes 6-Jul-12 - Mining impacts Argus Singleton Singleton mine job 6-Jul-12 Louise Nichols Employment /Mining Argus industry Singleton Singleton Council signs $4.3 10-Jul-12 Paul Maguire Voluntary planning Argus million deal agreement Singleton Chamber links business to 13-Jul-12 - Employment / Local Argus coal business Newcastle Impact of mining boom on 18-Jul-12 Frances Mining impacts Herald property to be examined Thompson Newcastle Upper Hunter housing demand 30-Jul-12 Frances Housing Herald at desperate level Thompson Newcastle Work on Hunter rail tracks 6-Aug-12 Michelle Harris Rail / Infrastructure Herald Newcastle Inquest begins into death of 21-Aug-12 Dan Proudman Workplace Health & Herald Ravensworth miner Safety Singleton Mine awaits sentencing after 28-Aug-12 Di Sneddon Mining Argus rock wall height found to be higher than limit 1233 ABC Long awaited dust study 28-Aug-12 - Dust Newcastle released for Hunter coal trains ABC News Water demand skyrocketing 2-Oct-12 - Water Demand after dry winter increasing Newcastle Noise row over Xstrata mine 2-Oct-12 Frances Noise Herald Thompson Newcastle Ravensworth fined for creek 2-Oct-12 Stephen Ryan Pollution Herald pollution ABC News Push for Hunter mining shuttle 4-Oct-12 - Road Infrastructure bus Singleton Listen up boys 5-Oct-12 Di Sneddon Environment / Noise / Argus Dust Singleton Contractors hit by coal cut 9-Oct-12 Louise Nichols Employment Argus Newcastle Poll: Camberwell open-cut 9-Oct-12 Matthew Kelly Ashton Coal Mine Herald mine approved Muswellbrook Keep Denman coal mine free 12-Oct-12 Dayarne Smith Mining Impact Chronicle Newcastle Coal v foals: The last stand 13-Oct-12 Joanne Mining Impacts Herald McCarthy Singleton Coal hard truth 16-Oct-12 Paul Maguire Mining Impacts Argus

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 255

Social Impact & Opportunities Assessment: Bulga Optimisation Project (BOP) (Rev 3) Date January 2013

Source Title of Article Date Author Key Themes Singleton Land demand rises 19-Oct-12 Louise Nichols Housing Argus Newcastle Poll: Coal trains to worsen rail 23-Oct-12 Ian Kirkwood Coal Trains / Traffic Herald gate delays Newcastle Cancer count put down to 23-Oct-12 Michelle Harris Health Herald chance

Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd 256