Moolarben Stage 1 MOD 15 - UG4 Ancillary Works

No de-watering bore should be permitted near The Drip. There should be 'nil impact' on The Drip, which is not adequately monitored by the conditions. New modelling identifies greater draw-down of groundwater than previously assessed, and this needs to be fully assessed before considering Mod 15. Threats to the Goulburn River will be increased by surface disturbance on Bora Creek, and any disturbance of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites is not acceptable.

1. The proximity of the de-watering bore opposite The Drip is not acceptable
2. New modelling as part of this proposal has identified greater draw-down of groundwater than previously assessed. This needs to be fully assessed before Mod 15 can be considered.
3. MOD 15 proposal does not adequately monitor or manage for 'nil impact' from the previous approval on The Drip
4. Surface disturbance in biodiversity offset area is not acceptable
5. Surface disturbance on Bora Creek will increase threats to Goulburn River
6. Disturbance of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage site is not acceptable

I am appalled at the proposal for a dewatering bore just 250 metres from the Goulburn River and opposite The Drip. This is completely unacceptable: The Drip is similar to the wet tropics and robbing it of this water will be critical.

We need to protect our groundwater which will not be served at all by this new borefield, and the resulting subsidence from the adjacent Underground Mine 4 (UG4). The groundwater levels will be extensively reduced for many kilometres, having a major effect on the ground and surface water systems that supply The Drip and the Goulburn River National Park, perhaps permanently.

Also recent modelling has shown that Moolarben Coal Mine has caused a greater loss of groundwater than previously assessed or expected. This too is unacceptable. A full assessment of this situation needs to be completed before Mod 15 can be determined.

In respect of the concept of ‘nil impact’ on The Drip it has been shown that conditions are not sufficiently monitored or managed to meet the needs of this iconic landscape. This needs correcting immediately.

There are problems with surface disturbance as well, as in the biodiversity area (how unacceptable is this!) and also at Bora Creek, which in turn will increase the threats to the Goulburn River.

The disturbance of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage is extremely upsetting to me. Imagine if our great cathedrals were bulldozed to make way for our modern infrastructure. Yet we do it to our first Nations of Australia with little thought.. We are diminished as a nation because of this lack of respect

I know The Drip, and have some familiarity with the surrounding landscape.
The proposers must be quite aware that they intend to draw more water than they admitted before, and that the boreholes are close to The Drip, endangering its flow of water. Proposers cannot pretend to an objective Government that these bores would not affect the groundwater stores... they are designed to do exactly that.
The biodiversity offset area (proposed to host damaging infrastructure), must surely be protected by a Government regulation which would forbid such vandalism.
Wilful damage to Bora Creek and to Aboriginal cultural sites is not acceptable, it is a crime. The public interest is served by preserving The Drip in a pristine state, for many reasons only one of them being Tourism at a national level, and the ongoing revenue and stimulation from same. UG4 Ancillary Works must NOT proceed.

After consideration of the Moolarben Stage 1 Mod 15 - UG4 Ancillary Works we strongly object to the modification.
With regards to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage component of the report we have the following comments:
• Whilst the report doesn’t consider all of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage to be of high scientific or cultural significance we consider all of our Cultural Heritage to be important.
• We are very concerned about the cumulative impacts on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in our region from the multiple mining projects which have destroyed and displaced our cultural heritage.
This modification will add more Aboriginal cultural heritage sites to the list of those destroyed by mining within our region – despite the fact that one of those sites has been considered to be of high scientific value. Once these places are destroyed they are gone for good.
As such we recommend that all efforts should be made to avoid impacts on Site S1MC‐230– namely finding an alternative location for the Remote Services Infrastructure.
Further to this we recommend that any there be no further works or infrastructure established in the Bora Creek Management Area. This area should be avoided due to the cultural and scientific significance.
• We believe that all areas which will be impacted by the proposed modifications and associated works – including during their construction and operation (such as the water pipeline and any ancillary developments, access roads etc) should be surveyed to ascertain the presence of any Aboriginal Cultural Heritage materials prior to the application for approval of any modifications to the Project Approval for Stage 1 of the Moolarben Coal Complex.
If areas are not surveyed then the actual impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage from the project may be underestimated. Prior to any approval, development or disturbance along the Dewatering Bore and Access Track (South) the unsurveyed area of the access track must be surveyed.
We request that a detailed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessment be carried out all areas which will be impacted by the proposed modifications both during construction and operation of the mine or ancillary infrastructure prior to approval being sought for the modification so that decisions are made with all information present.
• Further to the previous point we feel that if there are any areas which have not been surveyed as part of the biodiversity assessments which will be impacted during construction or operation of the mine infrastructure as part of the modifications then these assessments need to be conducted and included in reports prior to the modification approval being sought. Again we feel that informed decision making is essential in the approval process.
• We strongly disagree with the impact assessment as summarised in Table 18 of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage report, which states where consequence of harm is assessed as a “Partial loss of value” because it is anticipated that the sites will be managed (collected and catalogued) under the Moolarben Coal Operations Heritage
Management Plan, thus salvaging some heritage value and resulting in a partial loss of value. Table 18 itself states that the type of harm is direct and the degree of harm is total. Even if cultural heritage objects are salvaged and placed in a keeping place we do not consider the total destruction of those sites to be a partial loss of value. The site and the cultural landscape associated with that site will no longer exist – the cultural integrity of those places will be destroyed. The impact of the
modification on these sites needs to be clearly stated.
• Any management plans for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage need to make allowances for Aboriginal Cultural Protocols and Practices to be observed – particularly in relation to any on-country works, additional surveying and salvage works.
• We are extremely concerned about the impacts of the modifications on the groundwater and the Goulburn River Catchment that may be associated with the dewatering bore sites and infrastructure. There needs to be more investigation to ensure that these works will not impact upon the integrity and security of the groundwater system. We are extremely concerned that the draw-down of groundwater will be significantly greater than predicted which could result in irreversible damage to the Drip.
• We are extremely concerned about the impacts to the environmental and cultural values of the “The Drip” which may result from any impacts to the groundwater and Goulburn River Catchment from the works associated with the modifications. This place is culturally significant for the local Aboriginal community and is of particular significance to our women. We have concerns about the dewatering bore and its proximity to the Goulburn River and the Drip and believe that a comprehensive study of the groundwater needs to be conducted prior to approvals to determine exactly what the potential impacts will be.
We believe that Moolarben Mine has failed to demonstrate that they will have nil impact on the Goulburn River and the Drip - this in itself should be grounds for refusal.
• We have concerns about the ongoing management of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage onsite. We do not feel that the there is adequate consultation with all of the Registered Aboriginal Parties - despite requests from RAP’s. From our understanding this is inconsistent with the Heritage Management Plan which requires annual meetings as a minimum. Other mining companies maintain this practice in accordance with their HMPs as part of their approvals and we see no reason why Moolarben cannot do the same.
In terms of the specific Recommendations 1-8 in the draft ACH report we have the following comments:
1. For the reasons discussed above we disagree with Recommendation 1 regarding the mitigation by salvage for site S1MC‐230. We feel that Mitigation through design needs to be investigated as a first option due to the scientific and cultural values of the site.
2. As with recommendation 1 we feel that wherever possible the impact to Sites S1MC‐278, S1MC‐433 and S1MC‐434 need to be avoided through design in terms of the relocation of the Remote Services Infrastructure Area.
3. In the event that our recommendations are not taken up and destruction of Sites S1MC‐278, S1MC‐433, S1MC‐434 and S1MC-230 is approved we agree that the process as described in Section 5.5 of the Moolarben HMP must be conducted, subsequent to any Modification approval and prior to any activities.
4. In terms of recommendation 4 we feel that the surveying along the Dewatering Bore and Access Track (South) the unsurveyed area of the access track must occur prior to approval for modification being sought and the results included in this report (if any new sites are identified).
5. We agree with recommendations 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Again, we strongly object to the Moolarben Stage 1 MOD 15 - UG4 Ancillary Works for all of the above-mentioned reasons.
We do not believe that mining companies such as Moolarben should be allowed to get a mine approved and then continually put in modification after modification to extend their footprint. When is enough enough and when will a coal mine be told no?
At times we feel like this process can be tokenistic and that our comments fall on deaf ears so we hope that the time is taken to seriously consider our recommendations.
Regards
Tony Lonsdale
CEO
Mudgee LALC

The NSW Department of Planning
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/25446


20th October 2019

Dear Sir, Madam,
Re Moolarben Coal mine Complex (MCC) modification 15-UG4 Ancillary works
I oppose the Moolarben Coal mine Complex modification 15.
Approval to drill a cluster of 3 dewatering boreholes opposite The Drip and 250 metres from the Goulburn River would be catastrophic for this incredibly sensitive area.
This borefield and associated longwall mining would significantly lower groundwater levels for many kilometres and alter the groundwater system and potentially destroy The Drip as we know it.
New modelling for Moolarben has identified greater draw down of groundwater than previously assessed. This needs to be reassessed fully before this modification should be considered. There is definitely no guarantee that there will be no impact on The Drip.
The disturbance to Bora Creek as well as to biodiversity offsets is also not acceptable.
Aboriginal cultural heritage sites may also be in the firing line if this modification is approved.
Please consider these reasons when making your assessment and final determination on whether this modification should be approved.

Yours sincerely

Robbin Binks

I am writing as a local Wiradjuri person to formally object to the Moolarben Stage 1 MOD 15-UG4 Ancillary Works.
This proposal poses a huge threat to the cultural heritage of the area in terms of the direct impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites and the serious threats to the Drip. The Drip is culturally significant to the local Aboriginal community and in particular to Wiradjuri women - we are seriously concerned about the placement of a de-watering bore so close to the Goulburn River and the Drip.
I do not believe that Moolarben has collected enough evidence to support their application particularly in relation to the groundwater and the cultural heritage of the area that will be impacted by this modification.
Moolarben needs to conduct a full cultural heritage assessment of ALL areas which will be impacted by the modification - including the de-watering bore access track.
This is essential to provide a full picture of the physical cultural heritage in the area - for all we know there could be an additional 20 sites located on that track. This information is essential to allow decision makers to have all of the information at hand.
Likewise there needs to be a full, comprehensive groundwater study conducted by an independent body prior to any approval to assess the impacts on the groundwater. I have serious concerns that the draw-down of groundwater will be significantly higher than Moolarben has predicted.
There needs to be an in depth analysis of the impacts of the de-watering bore on the Groundwater and thereby the Goulburn River and the Drip and serious consideration given to relocating the de-watering bore to reduce the potential impact on the Drip. I do not consider the de-watering bore site to be appropriate or sensible due to its close proximity to the Goulburn River and the Drip. The placement of a cluster of de-watering boreholes opposite The Drip and only 250 metres from the Goulburn River is seriously concerning. This would permanently lower groundwater levels and potentially the water supply to The Drip.I do not believe that Moolarben has demonstrated that they will have nil impacts on the Drip and groundwater and this alone should be a reason not to approve the modification.
In terms of the cultural heritage sites which have been recorded and assessed by Moolarben as discussed in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage report I do not feel that any effort has been made to avoid destroying these sites. Unfortunately this is all too common when it comes to our cultural heritage located within mining operations.
The analysis in the report itself identifies Site S1MC‐230 as being of high scientific and cultural significance yet it is going to be destroyed by this modification. It is not very often that our sites are regarded as of high scientific significance in such reports yet no effort has been made to modify the proposed location of the Remote Services Infrastructure Area to avoid destroying any of the cultural heritage on Bora Creek. Site S1MC‐230 is not a common site type in the region - it should be protected due to its scientific and cultural significance. Much more can be learnt from protecting this site than digging it up and putting the objects in boxes. In addition to Site S1MC‐230 Sites S1MC‐278, S1MC‐433, and S1MC‐434 will also be destroyed - effectively wiping out the cultural heritage of Bora Creek. Whilst the report says that these places will be only partially impacted this is incorrect. Just because objects will be collected and placed in a keeping place do not mean that the sites will be intact or only partially disturbed. The objects themselves are not the site - they are physical evidence of the occupation of the area by Wiradjuri people but they alone do not tell the story of that place. The whole cultural landscape is relevant and is part of what makes those places significant and they will be completely changed by this modification which will result in complete destruction of those sites - they will be wiped off the face of the earth. The cumulative effects of the Ulan, Moolarben and Wilpinjong mines has resulted in hundreds of Aboriginal sites being destroyed. This not only results in the physical destruction of these places but it also impacts on the ability of local Aboriginal people to maintain cultural transmission between generations about those places, songlines, stories and cultural responsibility in terms of caring for country. We have lost enough of our cultural heritage and I believe that alternatives need to be investigated and chosen as the preferred option for the placement of the Remote Services Infrastructure Area to avoid destroying these sites.
Again I strongly feel that there needs to be comprehensive groundwater study to determine potential impacts to the Drip and full cultural heritage assessments on all areas which will be impacted by the developments as part of this modification - including access tracks must be conducted PRIOR to any approvals being given for the modification. I believe these studies are essential to provide a full picture of the effects of this modification and that decision makers must have all of the information in front of them prior to allow them to make an informed decision.
I believe that will all of the information present there will be serious concern about the project. It has been the experience of our local Aboriginal community that it is very rare for mining operations to be denied approvals on cultural heritage grounds however I hope that this in addition to the serious concerns about the security of the groundwater and the potential threat to the Drip result in this modification NOT be approved.

I am writing to formally object to the Moolarben Stage 1 MOD 15-UG4 Ancillary Works for the following reasons.

There has not been adequate investigation into the effects of the de-watering bore on the groundwater. The draw-down of groundwater could be significantly greater than estimated and this needs to be investigated further.
The proximity of the de-watering boreholes to the Goulburn River (250 metres) and across from the Drip is extremely alarming. There has not been any guarantee from Moolarben that there will be nil impacts from the modification.
There needs to be a comprehensive groundwater study conducted to give a greater understanding of the impacts of the de-watering bores on the groundwater, the Goulburn River and the Drip. There is the potential that the de-watering bores could permanently lower the groundwater levels which could affect water supply to the Drip – this must be investigated before any approvals are granted.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage within the Modification will be totally and permanently destroyed. These sites will no longer exist. The objects will be put into storage and loose their place on country like the thousands of others which have been collected from sites destined to be destroyed by mining in our region. I will not be able to teach my children or grandchildren about these sites, their connection to other places, trade routes, the cultural practices carried out there (including toolmaking) their responsibility to look after these places and so on because these sites will no longer exist. As an Aboriginal person and an Elder the destruction of more of our culture and heritage and the ability to pass on knowledge to future generation is devastating. When will decision makers put cultural values above economic interests of mining companies?
Site S1MC‐230 is said to be of high scientific significance as a blade workshop. This site type is not common in the area or region and yet it will be destroyed along with Sites S1MC‐278, S1MC‐433, and S1MC‐434. No consideration has been given to cultural significance and no efforts have been made to avoid destroying these sites despite being of high scientific significance. If high cultural and scientific significance is not enough to stop a site being destroyed then I have to question what is. The Remote Services Infrastructure Area should be relocated to avoid destroying these sites. I believe Moolarben should be required to do this now before any approval is given.
Cultural heritage assessments have not been carried out in all areas which will impacted by the modification. All areas which will be impacted - including access tracks and areas to be disturbed during construction of infrastructure must be surveyed prior to any approval. There is a high potential for more cultural heritage sites to be identified and this information needs to be included in reports relevant to approvals.

Overall I think that the report is lacking and needs more detailed assessments on groundwater and cultural heritage surveying and management options to provide all of the information and give a true picture of the impacts of the modification.
In its current state the application is not comprehensive enough considering the serious and irreversible impacts to warrant an approval.
The application for modification should be rejected and more information must be provided before any re-submission is considered.

Submission uploaded by Andrew Rode (Departmental Officer) on behalf of submitters.

Uploaded by Andrew Rode (Departmental Officer) on behalf of submitter. Attachment to be provided.

Re: RE Moolarben UG4 Aboriginal Culture Heritage Assessment-Draft Report

Please see our concern for the above subject if you need any further information please contact us on 0263720959 Regards Debbie Foley

BCD Response Moolarben Mod 15

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: MOORLARBEN COAL PROJECT STAGE 1 - MODIFICATION 15


I would like to put my objection to this new modification.

1- Already a greater drawdown of groundwater than previously acknowledged has been reported. This is unacceptable at a time in history when water preservation has reached a crisis level. Enough water is being taken considering we have 3 huge coal mines operating in the area and we know the havoc the Climate Crisis is causing.

2- The drilling of 3 dewatering boreholes so close to 'The Drip' and the Goulburn river cannot be allowed to happen. This treasured area has to be preserved for future generations. It's a National Park which means the water should be flowing for every human and animal species to enjoy.

3- Also how is it possible that a large coal mining company could be given the go ahead to access a biodiversity offset area? How daring would that be?

4- My last point concerns the cultural heritage of the area which is significant. Moorlarben has no right to tread on land that has been used by aboriginal people for thousand of years.

To conclude, I hope this modification will be most strongly opposed by the NSW Government.

Yours sincerely,


Elisabeth Brasseur
4 George St
Mudgee, NSW 2850

I wish to lodge my objection to this latest proposal for 4 dewatering boreholes including 3 within close proximity of the Goulburn River near “ The Drip’’

I have been a regular visitor to this section of the Goulburn River over the last 20 years and have observed the impacts of the mining operations on the River. There is ample evidence of the reduction in the flows and quality of water in the river. Further interception of groundwater can only exacerbate the situation.

The onus of proof should be to establish whether this additional development will have a neutral or beneficial effect on the groundwater and the River. All scientific evidence offered by the proponent needs to be reviewed by an independent scientific body.

Evidence that the ESD principles in the NSW Protection of the Environment Act are complied with also needs to be established, in particular intergenerational equity and precautionary principle.

I trust you will consider these concerns

Division of Resources & Geoscience advice attached.

Uploaded by Andrew Rode (Departmental Officer) on behalf of submitter.

See attached

Attached.