Moolarben Stage 2 - Mod 4 - UG2 Modification

WesTrac NSW supports this application.
Please refer to our submission for additional detail.

I oppose this Modification, and object most strongly to the timing of notification, and to the time frame allowed for submissions.
You must extend the period for submissions. I , and others, will submit more detailed submissions when given time.

Firstly, the timing of this extension is abominable, being just before Xmas. The response period should be extended as a matter of transparency and justice to the community concerned about this. This modifcation further endangers 'The Drip' Aboriginal site and other Aboriginal sites. It further endangers areas already acknowledged to have high conservation value. It exacerbates the high climate impact of the mine. For all these reasons I oppose the modification.
Dr Haydn Washington, environmental scientist/writer

I also strongly object to the time for comment which was just too short for such a major project. It’s like the process has been designed to prevent comment to protect the coal development. It is a strategy to stop people from objecting. Either that or the logical conclusion must be you have already decided the outcome to approve it. And public comment is irrelevant.
The development poses substantial subsidence risk, and also proposes to mine under a biodiversity offset. This is just horrendous. A biodiversity offset has been made to compensate for damage to the environment they have already done and now they plan to damage that also. Why bother having a biodiversity offset system? What is the point when you can just mine it anyway ? It is outrageous greed. Biodiversity offsets are there for protection not exploitation. There is identified risk of cracking to the surface and subsidence over the developed area. This is unacceptable and will influence ground and surface water. The area of the biodiversity offset will be damaged and this is totally unacceptable. The International Energy Agency has stated that no more coal should be used otherwise our climate will pass a tipping point that will result in life on earth being affected. And yet here we are with another proposal to increase the extraction of coal. To make a group of shareholders and foreign nationals in China richer at the expense of the global community and environment. Which it seems Planning has already decided to approve- including under a biodiversity offset, otherwise why have you put this out to comment for such a short period of time, just before Christmas? How much more broken can this system get? How much more pro development can the process get? How much risk and threat to the whole global community and environment can Planning accept through climate change? It seems as long as there is a dollar involved it doesn’t matter what the consequences to the environment and the global community are. This development should not go ahead. It involves a biodiversity offset, it involves subsidence and surface cracking that will adversely affect local water cycles, and it involves increasing the output of coal which is clearly recognised as a significant contributor to climate change. I object to this development, I object to how it has been publicised for comment and I object to the process which is weighted to be pro industry against the environment and global community.

This very short exhibition period has not allowed adequate time for the community to respond. Please extend this exhibition period. Community consultation and engagement with the community re this modification has not occurred .It is unacceptable that Aboriginal cultural sites will be impacted. These sites and artifacts are extreme importance to past present and future generations of aboriginal people. Many sites in our region have already been affected. so all remaining sites require protection

Firstly I have to say I have been given little time to respond and would like more time if possible .perhaps the submission date could be extended.
I object as I dont think it appropriate that long wall mining should encroach on biodiverse sensitive areas .I am concerned that the change to allow a shallower profile is dangerous and may cause significant subsidence. given more time I could add to my objection to this proposal. As it stand I would just like to say I strongly oppose these modifications.

I would like to make a complaint about the very late notice, a letter posted the 3rd December, advising a 2 week exhibition period ending 16 Dec, which is impossible timing just before Christmas. I would like to request an extension to January, at least. I will make a more detailed submission in that time.

As attached

Object to any extension of mining based on greenhouse gas impacts and climate change

I object to this because there has not been enough time for the community to respond as information didn’t reach the community till almost 7 days after being sent and as it is close to Christmas is another reason why it not appropriate community engagement time It would be more appropriate for the closing to be 10 January 2022 so we have adequate time to review and assess the project details. The other area of concern is the risk to aboriginal cultural heritage exposing the sacred site above to collapse due increased extraction height and the extending of two long wall panels We can’t risk losing more aboriginal sites and artefacts. You must allow more time to compile a proper response. It’s the right thing for the community

Appropriate notification and community consultation is paramount if integrity is to be maintained for ANY project.
In line with the ICAC recommendations community must be given adequate opportunity and appropriate notification to in regards to any mining project such as 'Moolarben Coal Project Stage2 – Modification 4.’
To release for exhibition on the 3rd of Dec with consultation & submissions closure on 16th of December is completely inappropriate and reprehensible. Such action suggests underhandedness. To allow ONLY 13 days for a consultation process assuming notification occurs on the same day as the exhibition opened, which it seemly hasn't is disadvantaging local community and affected stakeholders. Furthermore, that you would select the 13 days leading upto Christmas and for the most part of which, COVID restrictions still in place ( restrictions came off on the 15th December) is completely unacceptable.

Proper process has not been followed. Community engagement has not occurred as per ICAC's recommendations.

Lack of community consultation:
1. Moolarben UG2 Modification Report Section 5 Engagement states that Public Consultation occurs by the company putting updates on their website. This is not consultation, as one must know that the project exists in the first place to find out about it.
2. The advertisement of a Hotline for enquiries or complaints is likewise not consultation or engagement.
3. The Newsletter referred to as the tool for Local Community Engagement (which was distributed in June and July 2021) was titled ‘Moolarben Coal Complex Open Cut Extension Project’. Mudgee District Environment Group (MDEG) called the feedback line advising availability and willingness to participate in the Scoping Report and the Social Impact Assessment for that project with no response
4. The last paragraph of the Newsletter (above) on the last page (of 4) gives the following information: UG2 Modification Moolarben is also investigating options to optimise the UG2 mining domain. Optimisations include extending underground mining to the south-east and increasing the maximum extraction height from 3.0 to 3.5 metres. Approval will be sought via a separate section 4.55 modification application to Project Approval (08_0135), which is planned to be lodged later this year. This notification to the community is inadequate, and there was no community consultation and engagement in relation to the modification.


Significant Issues are apparent and appropriate assessment in conjunction with community consultation needs to be given with adequate time to allow a fair and appropriate assessment.

One such issue is Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment: The project will have unacceptable impacts on significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. The Traditional Pathways of the Aboriginal people are intrinsically tied to the landscape. Changes to the visual landscape impact negatively on their connection to the land. It is imperative that all artefacts and occupation sites, including cave shelters, be treated with the greatest respect and according to their wishes, including allowing access to sites and a guaranteed continuity of landscape – that is, no subsidence.
The sandstone ridge-line above UG2 includes cave shelters, overhangs, artwork and artefacts. It is highly culturally significant. There must be no impact to this landscape.
UG2 undermines the heritage site S2MC236 a rock shelter, artwork and artefact scatter of high archaeological significance. There are 4 more sites identified in the extension area, with a total 10 new Aboriginal cultural heritage sites identified (Appendix E). This includes five rock shelters with potential archaeological deposit (PAD), three rock shelters with artefacts and PAD; and one rock shelter with artefact.
The assessment focusses on individual artefacts and materials instead of the overall site context and landscape. To collect artefacts, store them and return them to land after mining does not constitute appropriate respect to the aboriginal culture. The culture is more that just the artefacts, it is the country. The mining traumatises the land and the people. Significant mental health issues of community are not being taken into account. No assessment of the this toll has been made.

I ask that the planning department allow for proper process. Complete the appropriate notification to all the community and stakeholders. Allow an appropriate amount of time with reasonable parameters (not 13 days during Covid restrictions just before Christmas - Don't discriminate) . Have the decency to treat this community with the same respect that you would wish to be treated with. A failure to make appropriate extensions to allow proper process suggests corruption.

The NSW government does not need another corruption inquiry and the people of NSW should be spared of another such blight. Due process and integrity are called for

Mudgee District Environment Group objects to this Modification.

Council has reviewed the application, and does not consider the modification gives rise to any additional matters that need to be re-considered/re-assessed by Council.

I was unable to make an informed opinion on groundwater impacts as the most recent groundwater report on the Moolarben Coal Complex is not publicly available. Appendix B Groundwater Review refers to the AGE (2021) Groundwater Technical Report on UG4 LW401-LW408 Extraction Plan as part of their assessment. Review of groundwater impacts requires access to this current technical report referred to in Appendix B.
An exhibition period for two weeks just prior to Christmas period is inadequate and should be extended

The GW Review refers to there being no impact to the nearest 'high priority' GDE listed in the Water Sharing Plan for the Hunter Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources 2009. The 2009 WSP is both out of date and relies on a superficial desktop assessment based on incomplete remote vegetation mapping information of the upper Goulburn catchment which has not been comprehensively assessed for GDEs. This is evident by the omission of a number of locally known GDEs including The Drip gorge, springs associated with dry rainforest in upper slopes of the Munghorn/Moolarben valley and many more.

Consultation with indigenous groups appears incomplete and inadequate and MCO CCC was not fully informed of extent of subsidence and impacts on this significant cultural heritage site. I received a notification on the 9 December by post 6 days into a 2 week exhibition period 3- 16 December.

The potential impacts of increased subsidence and LW extensions would have on significant aboriginal cultural heritage sites located along the affected sandstone ridge-line above UG2, including cave shelters and artefacts. The assessment fails to take into account the overall site context and position in the landscape (high elevated position favouring winter usage, view/vantage point, good access to springs/ resources) but instead concentrates on individual artefacts types and materials. The whole is greater than the parts.
Thank you
Dr Julia Imrie