Wambo Coal AEMR 2011-2012 - Peabody Energy

Wambo Coal Pty Limited 

ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REPORT 2011- 2012 

WAMBO COAL 

Peabody Energy Australia Pty Ltd 

Jerrys Plains Road, Warkworth, NSW 2330 

PMB 1, Singleton NSW 2330 

www.peabodyenergy.com.au

WAMBO COAL 

ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT REPORT 

JULY 2011 TO JUNE 2012

Name of Mine: 

Titles/Mining Lease: 

Open Cut MOP Commencement Date: 

Open Cut MOP Completion Date: 

Underground MOP Commencement Date: 

Underground MOP Completion Date: 

AEMR Commencement Date: 

AEMR Completion Date: 

Name of Leaseholder: 

Reporting Officer: 

Title: 

Wambo Coal 

CL365, CL374, CL397, CCL743, ML1402, 

ML1572, ML1594, A444, EL7211 

01/07/2010 

30/06/2016 

01/11/2005 

01/11/2012 




Troy Favell 

Environment & Community Manager 

Signature: 

Date: 27 August 2012 

Distribution 

Department of Trade & Investment 

Department of Planning & Infrastructure 

Office of Environment & Heritage 

Office of Water 

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 

Singleton Shire Council 

Community Consultative Committee Members 

Wambo Mine Officials

Table of Contents 

2011-2012 AEMR 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 

1.3 Consents, Leases and Licences .................................................................................... 2 

1.3.1 Development Consents ................................................................................... 2 

1.3.2 Mining Leases and Authorisations ................................................................... 2 

1.3.3 Environmental Protection Licence ................................................................... 9 

1.3.4 NPW Act Approvals ......................................................................................... 9 

1.3.5 Water Licences ................................................................................................ 9 

1.3.6 Mining Operations Plan ................................................................................... 9 

1.3.7 Subsidence Management Plan ...................................................................... 13 

1.3.8 Emplacement Area Approvals ....................................................................... 13 

1.3.9 EPBC Approval .............................................................................................. 13 

1.4 Mine Contacts .............................................................................................................. 13 

1.5 Review of 2011-2012 Objectives and Targets ............................................................. 15 

1.6 Actions from 2010-2011 AEMR Review ....................................................................... 15 

2.0 OPERATIONS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ................................................. 18 

2.1 Exploration ................................................................................................................... 18 

2.2 Land Preparation .......................................................................................................... 18 

2.3 Construction ................................................................................................................. 18 

2.4 Mining ........................................................................................................................... 20 

2.4.1 Production and Waste Summary ................................................................... 20 

2.4.2 Estimated Mine Life ....................................................................................... 20 

2.4.3 Underground Operations ............................................................................... 22 

2.4.4 Open Cut Operations ..................................................................................... 22 

2.5 Coal Handling and Preparation .................................................................................... 23 

2.5.1 Reject Management....................................................................................... 26 

2.5.1.1 Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Reject ....................................... 26 

2.5.1.2 Handling and Disposal Procedures ............................................................ 26 

2.5.1.3 Tailing Management Strategy .................................................................... 26 

2.6 Waste Management ..................................................................................................... 26 

2.6.1 Sewage Treatment and Disposal ................................................................... 27 

2.6.2 Rubbish Disposal ........................................................................................... 27 

2.6.3 Oily Waste Disposal....................................................................................... 27 

2.7 ROM and Product Coal Stockpiles ............................................................................... 27 

Page i


2.8 Water Management ...................................................................................................... 27 

2.8.1 Water Supply and Use ................................................................................... 32 

2.8.2 Surface Water Management .......................................................................... 32 

2.8.2.1 Water Balance & Modeling ........................................................................ 32 

2.8.2.2 NWC Discharge Report ............................................................................. 32 

2.8.3 Water Discharge ............................................................................................ 34 

2.9 Hazardous Material Management ................................................................................ 34 

2.9.1 Hydrocarbon Containment ............................................................................. 34 

2.9.2 Explosive Management ................................................................................. 35 

2.9.3 Material Safety Data Sheets .......................................................................... 35 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE ..................................... 36 

3.1 Meteorological Monitoring ............................................................................................ 36 

3.1.1 Environmental Management .......................................................................... 36 

3.1.2 Environmental Performance .......................................................................... 36 

3.1.3 Rainfall and Evaporation................................................................................ 36 

3.1.4 Temperature .................................................................................................. 36 

3.1.5 Wind Speed and Direction ............................................................................. 36 

3.2 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 40 


3.2.1.1 Site Specific Particulate Matter Control: Best Practice Assessment .......... 40 

3.2.1.2 Penalty Infringement Notice ....................................................................... 41 

3.2.1.3 Dust Suppression Trials ............................................................................. 41 


3.2.2.1 Air Quality EIS Predictions ......................................................................... 41 

3.2.2.2 High Volume Air Sampling ......................................................................... 42 

3.2.2.3 PM 10 .......................................................................................................... 43 

3.2.2.4 Dust Deposition ......................................................................................... 46 

3.3 Erosion & Sediment Control ......................................................................................... 48 



3.4 Surface Water .............................................................................................................. 49 



3.4.2.1 Water Quality ............................................................................................. 49 

3.4.2.2 pH Analysis ............................................................................................... 50 

3.4.2.3 Total Suspended Solids ............................................................................. 50 

3.4.2.4 Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids ..................................... 52 

Page ii


3.4.2.5 Oil and Grease .......................................................................................... 52 

3.4.2.6 Flow Monitoring ......................................................................................... 52 

3.5 Groundwater Management ........................................................................................... 53 



3.5.2.1 Depth to Water .......................................................................................... 54 

3.5.2.2 pH .............................................................................................................. 58 

3.5.2.3 Electrical Conductivity ............................................................................... 58 

3.6 Contaminated Land ...................................................................................................... 59 


3.7 Threatened Flora and Fauna ........................................................................................ 59 



3.7.2.1 Pre-Clearance Surveys.............................................................................. 60 

3.7.2.2 Acacia Species .......................................................................................... 60 

3.7.2.3 Remnant Woodland Enhancement Program ............................................. 61 

3.8 Weeds .......................................................................................................................... 65 



3.8.2.1 Remnant Woodland Enhancement Areas .................................................. 65 

3.8.2.2 North Wambo, South Wambo and Stoney Creeks ..................................... 65 

3.8.2.3 Open Cut Rehabilitation............................................................................. 65 

3.9 Feral Animal Control ..................................................................................................... 65 



3.9.3 Remnant Woodland Enhancement Program ................................................. 66 

3.10 Blasting and Vibration .................................................................................................. 66 



3.10.2.1 Blast Monitoring ....................................................................................... 66 

3.10.2.2 Wambo Rail Development Vibration Monitoring ...................................... 68 

3.11 Operational Noise ......................................................................................................... 68 



3.12 Visual Stray Light ......................................................................................................... 71 

3.12.1.1 Environmental Performance .................................................................... 71 

3.13 Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation ................................................................. 72 

Page iii


3.13.1 Aboriginal Heritage ........................................................................................ 72 

3.13.1.1 Environmental Management .................................................................... 72 

3.13.1.2 Environmental Performance .................................................................... 72 

3.13.1.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Conservation Agreement – Remnant 

Woodland Enhancement Area (A)............................................................................ 73 

3.13.2 European Heritage ........................................................................................ 75 

3.13.2.1 Environmental Management .................................................................... 75 

3.14 Spontaneous Combustion ............................................................................................ 76 

3.14.1 Underground .................................................................................................. 76 

3.14.2 Open Cut ....................................................................................................... 76 

3.14.3 CHPP ............................................................................................................. 76 

3.15 Bushfire Management .................................................................................................. 77 



3.16 Mine Subsidence .......................................................................................................... 77 

3.16.1.1 Subsidence Response Strategy............................................................... 77 

3.17 Hydrocarbon Contamination ......................................................................................... 77 

3.18 Methane Drainage/ Ventilation ..................................................................................... 78 

3.18.1 Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................................... 78 

3.19 Public Safety ................................................................................................................ 78 

3.19.1 United Colliery Activities ................................................................................ 78 

3.20 Reportable Environmental Incidents ............................................................................ 78 


Minor (Category 1) ....................................................................................................... 78 

Serious (Category 2) .................................................................................................... 78 

Major (Category 3) ....................................................................................................... 79 


3.21 Independent Audit ........................................................................................................ 80 

4.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS ......................................................................................... 80 

4.1 Employment Status ...................................................................................................... 80 

4.2 Environmental Complaints ........................................................................................... 80 

4.3 Community Liaison ....................................................................................................... 83 

4.3.1 Community Consultation................................................................................ 83 

4.3.2 Information Sessions ..................................................................................... 83 

4.3.3 Community Contributions .............................................................................. 83 

4.3.4 Community Programs .................................................................................... 83 

5.0 REHABILITATION ....................................................................................................... 85 

Page iv


5.1 Rehabilitation of Disturbed Land .................................................................................. 86 

5.1.1 Open Cut ....................................................................................................... 86 

5.1.1.1 Rehabilitation Performance ....................................................................... 87 

5.1.1.2 North East Tailings Dam ............................................................................ 87 

5.1.2 Rail Line ......................................................................................................... 88 

5.1.3 NWC Diversion .............................................................................................. 89 

5.2 Rehabilitation Trials and Research .............................................................................. 89 

5.3 Rehabilitation Monitoring .............................................................................................. 89 

5.3.1.1 Ecosystem Function Analysis Summary .................................................... 89 

6.0 ACTIVITIES PROPOSED FOR THE NEXT AEMR PERIOD....................................... 92 

6.1 Wambo’s Key Activities for 2012-2013 ......................................................................... 92 

6.2 Objectives and Targets for 2011-2012 Reporting Period ............................................. 92 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1 – WCPL Development Consents ............................................................................... 6 

Table 1.2 – WCPL Mining Leases and Authorisations ............................................................... 7 

Table 1.3 – Water Licence Summary ....................................................................................... 10 

Table 1.4 – Emplacement Area Approvals ............................................................................... 13 

Table 1.5 – Contact Details of Relevant Mine Officials ............................................................ 14 

Table 1.6 – Review of Objectives and Targets ........................................................................ 15 

Table 1.7 – Actions from 2010-2011 Annual Environmental Management Report Review ..... 16 

Table 2.1 – Production and Waste Summary .......................................................................... 21 

Table 2.2 – Annual Open Cut ROM Production Levels ............................................................ 23 

Table 2.3 – Stored Water Summary ......................................................................................... 29 

Table 3.1 – Surface Water Quality Criteria .............................................................................. 49 

Table 3.2 – Groundwater Quality Criteria ................................................................................. 55 

Table 3.3 – Noise Criteria for WCPL from November 2005 ..................................................... 69 

Table 4.1 – WCPL Employment Status (end of June 2012) .................................................... 81 

Table 4.2 – WCPL Historical Complaints ................................................................................. 81 

Page v


List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 – Site Location Plan .................................................................................................. 3 

Figure 1.2 – Mining Leases ........................................................................................................ 6 

Figure 1.3 – Water Licences and Permits .................................................................................. 9 

Figure 1.4 – Current Emplacement Areas ................................................................................ 10 

Figure 2.2 – Extent of Mining Operations 30 June 2012 .......................................................... 21 

Figure 2.3 – Coal Handling and Preparation Plant Process ..................................................... 22 

Figure 2.4 – Water Storage and Catchment Areas .................................................................. 28 

Figure 2.5 – Water Reticulation Diagram ................................................................................. 29 

Figure 3.1 – Environmental Monitoring Locations .................................................................... 34 

Figure 3.2 – 2011-2012 Rainfall and Evaporation Summary ................................................... 38 

Figure 3.3 – 2011-2012 Maximum and Minimum Temperatures ............................................. 38 

Figure 3.4 – 2011-2012 Annual Wind Rose ............................................................................. 39 

Figure 3.6 – 2011-2012 Summer Wind Rose ........................................................................... 39 

Figure 3.9 a – Results for TSP at HV01 ................................................................................... 44 

Figure 3.9 b – Results for TSP at HV02 ................................................................................... 44 

Figure 3.9 c – Results for TSP at HV03 ................................................................................... 44 

Figure 3.9 d – Results for TSP at HV04 ................................................................................... 44 

Figure 3.10a – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ01 ...................................................................... 45 

Figure 3.10b – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ02 ...................................................................... 45 

Figure 3.10c – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ03 ...................................................................... 45 

Figure 3.10d – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ04 ...................................................................... 45 

Figure 3.11 – 2011-2012 Depositional Dust Gauges Annual Averages ................................... 47 

Figure 3.12 – Ground Wa ter Monitoring Location ................................................................... 50 

Figure 3.13a – Ground Water (Brosi Wells) Depth to Water .................................................... 57 

Figure 3.13b – Ground Water (Wambo Wells) Depth to Water ................................................ 57 

Figure 3.14 – Ground Water (100 Series) Depth to Water ....................................................... 57 



Figure 3.17 – Ground Water (United) Depth to Water ............................................................. 57 

Page vi


Figure 3.18 – Remnant Woodland Enhancement Program Monitoring .................................. 63 

Figure 3.19 – 2011-2012 Weed Control ................................................................................... 64 

Figure 3.20 – 2011-2012 Blast Monitoring Results .................................................................. 68 

Figure 3.21 – Aboriginal and European Heritage Sites ............................................................ 64 

Figure 4.1 – 2011-2012 Breakdown of Community Complaints by Issue ................................ 82 

Page vii


List of Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Appendix 2 

Appendix 2A 

Appendix 2B 

Appendix 2C 

Appendix 2D 

Appendix 2E 

Appendix 2F 

Appendix 2G 

Appendix 3 

Appendix 4 

Appendix 5 

Appendix 6 

Rail Transport Records 

Environmental Monitoring Program Results 

Meteorological Data 

Air Monitoring Results 

Surface Water Monitoring Results 

Ground Water Monitoring Results 

Blast and Vibration Monitoring Results 

Noise Monitoring Results 

Flora & Fauna Monitoring 

Summary of Environmental Incidents 

Register of Community Complaints 

Rehabilitation Plan 

Independent Audit Response 

Page viii


EXCUTIVE SUMMARY 

Wambo Coal Pty Limited (WCPL) continued to operate in accordance with its Mining Operations Plans (MOP), 

Development Consents, Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) and all other approvals during the 2011-2012 

reporting period. 

WCPL reported four notifiable environmental incidents during the reporting period in relation to blasting, dam 

overflow, dam seepage and elevated dust results. 

All environmental monitoring undertaken during the reporting period was in accordance with DA 305-7-2003, DA 

17-8-2004, Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) No.529 and approved management plans. 

WCPL completed no final rehabilitation in the open cut during the reporting period, however approximately 40ha of 

final landform at RL160 was completed and in readiness for topsoil application and seeding early in the next 

reporting period. Remedial rehabilitation works of North East Tailings Dam (NETD) continued, during the reporting 

period. Construction of Stage 3 of the North Wambo Creek Diversion was nearing completion at the end of the 


The WCPL Open Cut moved a total of 34,223,764 bank cubic metres (bcm) of prime overburden to allow the 

extraction of 3.949 million tonnes (Mt) of run of mine (ROM) coal during 2011-2012. 

The WCPL Underground operation extracted a total 4.797 Mt of ROM coal during the 2011-2012 reporting period. 

A total of 5.698 Mt of product coal was produced by WCPL during the 2011-2012 reporting period. 

All coal produced from WCPL was railed via the WCPL rail spur and rail line to the Port of Newcastle for export. 

There was no change in production methods during this reporting period. 

At the current rates of production and assuming no further mining approvals, the Open Cut and Underground mine 

has a remaining life of approximately 5 years and 4 years respectively. 

WCPL received a total of eighty two community complaints during the reporting period. 

Page ix


1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Scope 

This Annual Environmental Management Report 

(AEMR) details the environmental performance of 

Wambo Coal Pty Limited (WCPL) mining, 

exploration, construction and rail activities for the 

period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. WCPL is 

required to prepare and submit an AEMR in 

accordance with the NSW Trade & Investment – 

Division of Resources and Energy (DRE), 

Guidelines to the Mining, Rehabilitation and 

Environmental Management Process (Guidelines 

No. EDG03). 

The preparation of this AEMR, also satisfy’s the 

Annual Review requirements under Development 

Applications (DA) 305-7-2003 and 177-8-2004. The 

AEMR also satisfy’s the reporting requirements for 

Environment Protection Licence 529, approval 

under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2003/1138) and the 

approved Subsidence Management Plan (SMP) for 

Longwalls (LW) 1-6. Table 1.0 display WCPL’s 

annual reporting requirements and where the 

requirements are addressed within the AEMR. 

A recent aerial photo and locality plan of WCPL is 

shown in Figure 1.1. 

1.2 Background 

WCPL is owned by Peabody Energy Australia Pty 

Limited (75%) and Sumiseki Materials Co, Ltd (25% 

- Net profit B class shares). WCPL is an Open Cut 

and Underground mining operation located 

approximately 15 kilometres (km) west of Singleton 

near the locality of Warkworth. It is bounded by 

Wollombi Brook to the east, coal mining operations 

to the north, grazing land to the south and north 

west and the Wollemi National Park to the west and 

south west. 

WCPL was granted development consent by Patrick 

Plains Shire Council in 1969 with Open Cut and 

Underground mining commencing shortly after. 

Subsequent development consents issued in 1972, 

1974 and 1977 covered a range of early Open Cut 

and Underground operations. Singleton Shire 

Council (SSC) approved extensions to mining 

operations, construction activities and modifications 

to road haulage rates in the period between 1980 

and 1991. 

In July 1991, a Development Application (DA) was 

lodged with SSC seeking approval for the expansion 

of Open Cut and Underground mining activities and 

the consolidation of earlier development consents. 

Development consent was granted in February 

1992. 

The Homestead Underground Mine commenced in 

1979 and operated until 1999. In 2003 the mine 

entries were sealed. 

The Wollemi Underground Mine commenced 

production in 1997 and was placed under care and 

maintenance in October 2002 after the available 

longwall reserves were exhausted. 

Open Cut operations were suspended between 

March 1999 and August 2001. Following the 

closure of the Wollemi Underground Mine, Open 

Cut operations were expanded to maintain an 

overall production rate of 3 million tonnes per 

annum (Mtpa) of product coal. Development of the 

North Wambo Underground Mine (the Underground) 

commenced in November 2005, with longwall 

operations commencing in October 2007. 

Coal from the Open Cut and the Underground 

operations is washed at the Coal Handling and 

Preparation Plant (CHPP). Until June 2006 product 

coal was transported by highway rated trucks via 

the Golden Highway to the Mount Thorley Coal 

Loader for rail transport to the Port of Newcastle. 

The construction and commissioning of the WCPL 

Rail Development (WRD) in May 2006, which 

includes the rail line from Mount Thorley and WCPL 

rail spur and coal terminal, allows the direct rail 

transportation of all product coal from WCPL to the 

Port of Newcastle. 

United Colliery (United), owned by Xstrata Coal 

NSW, ceased longwall underground mining in the 

Arrowfield Seam during the 2009-2010 reporting 

period. United underground mining previously 

occurred beneath sections of WCPL’s Open Cut 

and Underground operations. The last of United’s 

coal was loaded by rail on 27 May 2010. United are 

currently under care and maintenance, whilst 

undertaking further exploration activities within 

A444. 

Page 1


1.3 Consents, Leases and 

Licences 

1.3.1 Development Consents 

Mining and rail activities at WCPL operate under 

various development consents granted by the NSW 

Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DP&I), 

formally the Department of Planning (DoP), and 

SSC. The continued development of open cut and 

underground mining activities commenced under 

DA 305-7-2003 in November 2004. The construction 

of the rail spur, rail loop and train loadout area 

commenced under DA 177-8-2004 in January 2005. 

Table 1.0 outlines the annual reporting 

requirements from DA305-7-2003 and DA177-8- 

2004 and where the requirement is addressed in the 

AEMR. Table 1.1 provides a historical summary of 

development approvals and active development 

consents applicable to WCPL. 

During April 2011, an application to modify DA177- 

8-2004 in accordance with Section 75(W) of the 

EP&A Act was lodged by WCPL for the 

establishment of a small locomotive refuelling 

station adjacent to the WCPL rail loadout facility. At 

the time of preparing the 2010-2011 AEMR, no 

decision had been made by the DP&I regarding this 

modification. On 17 February 2012 an approval was 

granted for the refueling facility. 

All other development consents, except DA 108/91 

granted by SSC, were surrendered by WCPL in 

November 2005. 

1.3.2 Mining Leases and 

Authorisations 

WCPL’s current mining leases and authorisations 

are listed below in Table 1.2 and shown in Figure 

1.2 

Page 2


Table 1.0 – Annual Review Reporting Requirements 

Annual Review Reporting Requirements 

Schedule 4 - DA 305-7-2003 

Site Water Balance 

25. Each year, the Applicant shall: 

(a) review the site water balance for the development against the predictions in the EIS; 

(b) re-calculate the site water balance for the development; 

(c) assess current and forecast compliance with the rules of the Hunter River Salinity Trading 

Scheme; and 

(d) report the results in the Annual Review. 

Monitoring 

79. The Applicant shall: 

(a) keep records of the 

amount of coal transported from the site each year; and 

number of coal haulage truck movements generated each day by the development; and 

(b) include these records in the Annual Review. 

Greenhouse Gas 

87. For the life of the development, the Applicant shall: 

(a) monitor the greenhouse emissions generated by the development; 

(b) investigate ways to reduce greenhouse emissions generated by the development; and 

(c) report on greenhouse gas monitoring and abatement measures in the Annual Review, to 

the satisfaction of the Director-General 

Waste Minimisation 

88. For the life of the development, the Applicant shall: 

(a) monitor the amount of waste generated by the development; 

(b) investigate ways to minimise waste generated by the development; 

(c) implement reasonable and feasible measures to minimise waste generated by the 

development; and 

(d) report on waste management and minimisation in the Annual Review, to the satisfaction of 

the Director-General. 

Schedule 6 - DA 305-7-2003 

Annual Review 

5. The Applicant shall submit an annual review of the environmental performance of the 

development to the satisfaction of the Director-General. This review must: 

(a) describe the development (including any rehabilitation) that was carried out in the past 

year, and the development that is proposed to be carried out over the next year; 

(b) include a comprehensive review of the monitoring results and complaints records of the 

development over the past year, which includes a comparison of these results against: 

the relevant statutory requirements, limits or performance measures/criteria; 

the monitoring results of previous years; and 

the relevant predictions in the EIS; 

(c) identify any non-compliance over the past year, and describe what actions were (or are 

being) taken to ensure compliance; 

(d) identify any trends in the monitoring data over the life of the development; 

(e) identify any discrepancies between the predicted and actual impacts of the development, 

and analyse the potential cause of any significant discrepancies; and 

(f) describe what measures will be implemented 

Note: Violet represents January 2007 Modification 

Brown represents June 2009 Modification 

Blue represents February 2011 Modification 

Section 

Section 2.8.2.1 

Section 2.8.3 

Appendix 1 

Section 2.5 

Section 3.18.1 

Section 2.6 

Section 

This Document 

Section 2.0 

Section 5.1 

Section 3.0 

Page 3


Table 1.0 – Annual Review Reporting Requirements cont. 

Annual Review Reporting Requirements 

Schedule 4 - DA 177-8-2004 

Operating Conditions 


(a) ensure any visible air pollution generated by the development is assessed regularly, and 

that operations are modified, and/or stopped as required to minimise air quality impacts on 

privately owned land; 

(b) implement all practicable measures to minimise air pollutant emissions from the 

development; and 

(c) report on the effectiveness of these measures in the AEMR, 

to the satisfaction of the Director-General. 

Monitoring of Coal Transport 


(a) keep records of the: 

amount of coal loaded at the development each year; and 

number of coal haulage train movements generated by the development (on a daily 

basis); and 

(b) include these records in the AEMR. 

Schedule 6 - DA 177-8-2004 

Annual Reporting 

4. Within 1 year of the date of this consent, and annually thereafter, the Applicant shall submit 

an AEMR on the development to the Director-General and relevant agencies. This report must: 

(a) identify the standards and performance measures that apply to the development; 

(b) include a summary of the complaints received during the last year, and compare this to the 

complaints received in previous years; 

(c) include a summary of the monitoring results on the development during the last year; 

(d) include an accurate record of the amount of product coal transported on the development 

over the last year on a weekly basis; 

(e) include an analysis of these monitoring results against the relevant: 

impact assessment criteria; 

monitoring results from previous years; and 

predictions in the SEE; 

(f) identify any trends in the monitoring over the life of the development; 

(g) identify any non-compliance during the last year; and, if necessary, 

(h) describe what actions were, or are being taken, to ensure compliance. 

SMP Approval LW1-6 

A summary of results of the monitoring programmes discussed in Section 6 will be reported in 

the Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR). Any remediation works undertaken 

will also be reported in the AEMR. Members of the Wambo CCC receive a copy of the AEMR. 

EPBC 2003/1138 

Section 

Section 3.0 

Appendix 1 

Section 2.5 

Section 

This Document 

Section 3.0 

Section 4.0 

Section 3.0 

Appendix 1 & 

Section 2.5 

Section 3.0 

Section 

Section 1.3.7 

Section 3.16 

Section 

3(d) a process to review and report annually on this plan 1 . Section 3.7 

1 WCMP have prepared to the satisfaction of the Minster for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and 

Communities a Flora and Fauna Management Plan 

Page 4

SUMP 

SUMP 

N 

NEW 

Muswellbrook 

LOCALITY PLAN 

HIGHWAY 

ENGLAND 

Singleton 

HIGHWAY 

PACIFIC 

Maitland 

WAMBO 

MINE 

Broke 

NEWCASTLE 

Morriset 

SYDNEY - 

NEWCASTLE 

FREEWAY 

NEWCASTLE - 

SYDNEY (150km) 

SYDNEY 

JERRYS PLAINS 15km 

COAL & ALLIED 

RIVERVIEW PIT 

GOLDEN 

HIGHWAY 

WAMBO OPEN CUT 

UNITED COLLIERY 

NORTH WAMBO 

CREEK DIVERSION 

WARKWORTH 

VILLAGE 

WAMBO RAIL 

LOADOUT 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

WAMBO CHPP 

NORTH WAMBO 

UNDERGROUND 

WAMBO ADMIN 

SINGLETON 

20km 

NORTH 

WAMBO CREEK 

BROOK 

WOLLOMBI 

STONY 

SOUTH 

WAMBO 

CREEK 

CREEK 

Legend 

Colliery Holding Boundary 

DA Approved Open Cut Limits 

MOP Open Cut Limits 

Wambo Owned Land 

Open Cut Mining at 30th June 2012 

North Wambo Underground Workings (Existing) 

North Wambo Underground Workings (Proposed) 

Prepared by Pegasus Technical CAD FILE: 08667A 

WAMBO COAL 

SITE LOCATION PLAN 

FIGURE 1.1


Table 1.1 – WCPL Development Consents 

Approval Name Number Approval 

Authority 

WCPL Mining Operations 

Date 

Granted 

Expiry Date 

Original consolidated consent for mine 

operations 

Modification to include Wollemi Box Cut and 

mine 

Modification to include Brambles Coal 

Transport System 

DA 108/91 SSC 17/02/1992 

DA 108/91 SSC 16/10/1996 

DA 108/91 SSC 21/12/1998 

21 years from issue 

of coal lease 


of coal lease 


of coal lease 

Expansion of open cut and underground 

mining operations 

(MOD 1 ) Modification to allow DA No. 

108/91 to remain active 

(MOD 2 ) Re-orientation of the Wambo 

seam underground mine longwall panels 

(MOD 3 ) Upgrade of open cut workshop 

and underground surface facilities 

(MOD 4 ) Extraction of the Wollemi 

remnants 

(MOD 5 ) Construction of a temporary bypass 

of North Wambo Creek 

(MOD 6 ) Construction of the North Wambo 

Creek Diversion, gas and dewatering wells 

(MOD 7) Construction of internal water 

storage dam 

(MOD 8) Construction of internal water 

storage dam 

(MOD 9 ) Preparation of an Extraction Plan 

rather than a Subsidence Management Plan 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 04/02/2004 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 2004 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 04/05/2005 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 10/01/2006 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 19/04/2006 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 20/10/2006 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 25/01/2007 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 22/06/2009 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 27/08/2009 Nov 2026 

DA 305-7-2003 DP&I 28/02/2011 Nov 2026 

(MOD 10) Montrose Water Storage Dam DA 305-7-2003 DP&I Pending 

WCPL Rail Development 

Jerry’s Plains Rail Line DA 235/97 SSC 16/07/1998 Perpetuity 

Modification to DA235/97 to correct 

residents list and allow the preparation of 

management plans in a staged manner 

DA 235/97 SSC 01/05/2003 Perpetuity 

Altered alignment of Jerry’s Plains Rail Line DA 235/97.3 SSC 03/12/2004 Perpetuity 

WCPL rail and coal loading infrastructure DA 306-7-2003 DP&I 01/06/2004 01/06/2025 

WCPL rail and coal loading infrastructure 

(altered alignment of rail loop) 

(MOD 1) Upgrade of Wallaby Scrub Road / 

Golden Hwy Intersection 

(MOD 2) Establishment of a locomotive 

provisioning facility adjacent to the WCPL 

Rail Loadout Facility 

DA 117-8-2004 DP&I 16/12/2004 16/12/2025 

DA 117-8-2004 DP&I 15/12/2006 16/12/2025 

DA 117-8-2004 DP&I 12/02/2012 16/12/2025 

Page 6


Table 1.2 – WCPL Mining Leases and Authorisations 

Lease Reference Area (ha) Date Granted Expiry Date 

Coal Lease 365 (Coal Mining Act 1973) 530 19/09/1990 19/09/2011 

Coal Lease 374 (Coal Mining Act 1973) 382 06/12/1991 21/03/2026 

Coal Lease 397 (Coal Mining Act 1973) 1,480 04/06/1992 04/06/2013 

Consolidated Coal Lease 743 (Coal Mining Act 1973) 3,000 09/03/1990 14/08/2022 

Mining Lease 1402 (Coal Mining Act 1973) 352 23/09/1996 14/08/2022 

Mining Lease 1572 (Coal Mining Act 1973) 1,012 21/12/2005 21/12/2026 

Mining Lease 1594 (Mining Act 1992) 263 01/05/2007 30/04/2028 

Exploration Licence A444 3,060 04/10/2007 16/05/2011* 

Exploration Licence EL7211 967 29/09/2008 29/09/2011** 

Notes: - United has a strata title lease to the Arrowfield seam in the northern 1.5 km of CCL743 and CL397. 

- Mining Lease 1402 covered surface rights to enable development of the Wollemi Mine. 

- A444 is an Authority to Prospect granted under Coal Mining Act 1973. 

- * An Exploration Licence Renewal Application was submitted into DTIRIS for A444 2011, pending approval. 

- ** An Exploration Licence Renewal Application was submitted into DTIRIS for EL7211 2011, pending approval. 

Page 7

ROAD 

597726 

857021 

ROAD 

753792 

837165 

544091 

794836 

753792 

837165 

729048 

617852 

723283 

821127 

753792 

111381 

114966 

753792 

70046 

90727 

753792 

752481 

659810 

729984 

659810 

857021 

729984 

635392 

635392 

247239 

729985 

247239 

247239 

247239 

65744 

Ph. of Wollombi 

147 

753792 

ROAD 

566275 

733895 

733895 

783484 

58745 

783484 

729048 

HUNTER RIVER 

723283 

HUNTER RIVER 

752468 

729048 

114966 

823767 

823767 

HUNTER RIVER 

659810 

729048 

752468 

HUNTER RIVER 

HUNTER RIVER 

UNIDENTIFIED 

UNIDENTIFIED 

111381 

729960 

111381 

HUNTER RIVER 

111381 

111381 

111381 

737880 

821123 

111381 

249327 

729963 

753792 

111381 

249327 

729985 

ROAD 

821123 

729961 

857021 

857021 

729984 

723249 

ROAD 

857021 

857021 

COUNTY OF HUNTER 

ROAD 

ROAD 

GOLDEN HWY 

CONSOLIDATED COAL LEASE No.743(CL175/315) 

Embraces the surface and land below to 

unlimited depth. 

CONSOLIDATED COAL LEASE No.743 

Embraces the mines , beds , veins & 

seams of coal only. 

CONSOLIDATED COAL LEASE No.743(CL175) 

Excepts the surface and land below 

to a depth of 15.0 metres. 

COAL LEASE No.365 

Embraces the mines , beds , veins & 

seams of coal only. 

MINING LEASE ML 1402 

Embraces the surface and land below to 

unlimited depth. Excepts the mines,beds, 

veins & seams of coal. 

COAL LEASE No.257 ( UNITED Lease) 

The surface and land to the base of the 

Whynot Seam is excluded from the CL 374 area 


15m. above the roof to 15m. below the floor 

of the Arrowfield Seam is excluded from CL. 743 


15m. above the roof to 15m. below the floor 

of the Arrowfield Seam is excluded from CL. 397 

COAL LEASE No. 397 

Excludes the surface and land below 

to depth of 15m. 

ROAD 

ROAD 

PARISH OF WHYBROW 

COUNTY OF HUNTER 


Includes the surface and land below 

to unlimited depth. 

WAMBO RD 

ROAD 


Embraces the surface and land below 

to the base of the Whynot seam 

MINE LEASE No. 1572 

Embraces the surface and soil below 

there of to a depth of 5m below the floor 

of the seam known a in the Whynot 

AUTHORISATION No. 444 

NATIONAL PARK 

APPROVED MINING LEASE No. 1594 

WOLLEMI 

EXPLORATION LICENCE No. 7211 

WAMBO RD 

COLLIERY HOLDING BOUNDARY 

Legend 

WAMBO COAL 

MINING LEASES 

FIGURE 1.2 

Prepared by Pegasus Technical CAD FILE: 08668A


1.3.3 Environmental Protection 

Licence 

WCPL operates under Environmental Protection 

Licence 529 (EPL 529), issued by the NSW Office 

of Environment & Heritage (OEH), formerly the 

Department of Environment, Climate Change and 

Water (DECCW), under the authority of the 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. 

EPL 529 also covers WCPL’s activities at the mine 

and rail spur. 

During the reporting period, the OEH varied EPL 

529 on several occasions to incorporate an 

additional Pollution Reduction Program (PRP). The 

new PRP involves providing the OEH with a report 

by the 29 June 2012 that documents WCPL’s Best 

Management Practice (BMP) to identify the most 

practicable means to reduce particle emissions. For 

more information about the BMP report please see 

Section 3.2.2. 

1.3.4 NPW Act Approvals 

WCPL holds a permit under the National Parks and 

Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act), for the salvage and 

impact on Aboriginal heritage sites prior to ground 

disturbance. Consent number #2222 was issued 

under Section 87 and Section 90 of the NPW Act on 

the 20 June 2005. In consultation with the OEH and 

local Aboriginal groups, the OEH granted approval 

to extend the permit for an additional 5 years, 

expiring on the 19 June 2015. 

Consent number #2085 was issued under Section 

90 of the NPW Act on 14 December 2004 for the 

salvage of Aboriginal artefacts along the Wambo 

Rail Development. Salvage works for the Wambo 

Rail Development were completed and reported in 

the 2005-2006 reporting period. There have been 

no further salvage works under consent number 

#2085. Consent #2085 expired in January 2007. 

For further information regarding Aboriginal Heritage 

and salvage works undertaken during this reporting 

period, please refer to Section 3.13.1. 

For further details regarding Permit #3130 for Care 

and Control of Aboriginal Objects, previously 

salvaged under Section 87/90 permits, please refer 

to Section 3.13. 1. 

1.3.5 Water Licences 

Details of the current water licenses for WCPL are 

presented in Table 1.3. The location of these 

licensed facilities is shown in Figure 1.3. 

1.3.6 Mining Operations Plan 

In accordance with the Mining Act 1992, WCPL 

have prepared and submitted two Mining 

Operations Plans (MOP’s) for the open cut and 

underground operations. 

All open cut mining activities were carried out 

generally in accordance with the approved Open 

Cut MOP. All underground mining activities at North 

Wambo Underground (Underground) were carried 

out generally in accordance with the approved 

Underground MOP. 

The Open Cut MOP was approved by the DTIRIS, 

formerly the Industry & Investment NSW (I&I NSW) 

on the 29 June 2010. The Open Cut MOP was 

prepared in accordance with the DTIRIS Guidelines 

and Format for Preparation of Mining Operations 

Plan Version 3, January 2006. WCPL consulted with 

the DTIRIS and provided information to the 

community through WCPL’s Community 

Consultation Committee (CCC) throughout the 

development of the Open Cut MOP. The MOP 

covers all aspects of the Open Cut operation 

including mining, rehabilitation and tailings 

management, until June 2016. 

WCPL sought an interim modification to the Open 

Cut MOP to raise a larger area of the Wombat dump 

to RL160. The request to raise dump levels is 

consistent with commitments made in the 2003 EIS. 

The DTIRIS approved the modification on the 20 

December 2010. WCPL are planning to seek a 

modification to the Open Cut MOP during the next 

reporting period, to address proposed operational 

changes. 

The MOP for the Underground was approved by the 

DTIRIS in November 2005 for the period November 

2005 to November 2012. The Underground MOP 

applies to all underground mining operations and 

refers to the Open Cut MOP where applicable. No 

modifications to the Underground MOP were sought 

by WCPL during the reporting period. WCPL are 

currently preparing a new MOP for the 

Underground. The new Underground MOP will be 

submitted to DRE for approval in the next reporting 

period. 

WCPL currently holds water licences for a number 

of bores, wells and pumps located across the mine 

site. There were four new water licenses and one 

renewal licensed issued by the NSW Office of Water 

(NOW) during the reporting period. 

Page 9


Licence 

Number 

Table 1.3 – Water Licence Summary 

Description Facility Valid To Extraction Limits 

20BL132753 Old Well No. 1 Well 28/07/2013 243ML/year 

20BL166910 Dewatering (Bore No. 1) Bore 25/10/2013 450ML/ year 2 

20BL167737 Well No. 2 Well 08/01/2011* 70ML/year 

20SL033872 Wollombi Brook Pump Pump 06/07/2011* 750ML/year 

20BL167810 Well – Domestic, Stock Well Perpetuity 11ML/year 

20AL200631 Hunter River Pump Pump Perpetuity 1,000ML/year 

20WA200632 Hunter River Pump Pump 30/06/2017 6ML/year 

20BL168017 Dewatering (Bore No. 2) Bore 21/05/2012* 750ML/year 

20BL168643 Dewatering Bore Bore 7/08/2013 300ML/year 

20BL166438 Well - Stock Bore Perpetuity 5ML/year 

20BL167738 Dewatering Bore Bore 11/09/2015 300ML/year 

20BL168997 Piezometer Test Bore Perpetuity Groundwater monitoring 





20BL166906 Spearpoints Irrigation Perpetuity 19ML/year 

20BL172061 Dewatering (Bore No.2a) Bore 22/03/2014 750ML/year 

20BL172156 Dewatering Excavation 3/05/2014 98ML/year 

20BL171155 Dewatering Excavation 25/09/2012 243ML/year 

20BL172237 GW14, GW18, GW21 Monitoring Bore Perpetuity Groundwater monitoring 

20BL172238 GW12 Monitoring Bore Perpetuity Groundwater monitoring 


20BL172242 GW16, GW17 Monitoring Bore Perpetuity Groundwater monitoring 





20BL173032 Dewatering Bore Bore 30/11/2016 450ML/ year 2 

20BL173033 Dewatering Bore Bore 30/11/2016 450ML/ year 2 

20BL173034 Dewatering Bore Bore 30/11/2016 450ML/year 2 

20BL173035 Dewatering Bore Bore 30/11/2016 450ML/year 2 

Note: *Renewal licences pending 

2 The volume of groundwater extracted from the works authorised by licenses 20BL173032, 20BL173033, 20BL173034, 20BL173035 and 

20BL166910 shall not exceed 450 megalitres in any 12 month period commencing 1 st July. 

Page 10

SUMP 

SUMP 

5 


GOLDEN 

GW16 

GW17 

WOMBAT DUMP 

HIGHWAY 

MONTROSE PIT 


HUNTER PIT TAILINGS DAM 

NORTH WAMBO CREEK 

DIVERSION 

GW19 

SOUTH BATES PIT 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

GW20 

7 

WOLLEMI BOXCUT 

HOMESTEAD 

PIT 

GW21 

WAMBO CHPP 

GW18 

WAMBO ADMIN 

NORTH WAMBO UNDERGROUND 

2 

12 

NORTH 

9 

13 

3 

8 

WAMBO 

CREEK 

1 

WOLLOMBI 

4 

BROOK 

GW14 

GW15 

STONY 

GW12 

11 

CREEK 

10 

SOUTH 

6 

WAMBO 

CREEK 

GW22 

GW13 

Legend 





Pump/well/bore Locations 

8 

Dams 

Creeks 


Licence Number Description Reference 

Number 

20BL 132753 Old Well No. 1 1 

20BL 166910 No.1 Dewatering Bore 2 

20BL 167737 Well No. 2 3 

20SL 033872 Wollombi Brook Pump 4 

20AL200631 

20WA200632 

Hunter River Pump 5 

Hunter River Pump 

20BL 168017 No.2 Dewatering Bore 6 

20BL 172061 No.2a Dewatering Bore 6a 

20BL 168643 Dewatering Bore 7 

20BL 167738 Dewatering Bore 

8 

20BL 168997 Piezometer 9 

20BL 168998 Piezometer 

10 


11 

5 

Extraction Limits 

243 ML/year limit 



750ML/year limit. 







Groundwater monitoring 



Licence Number Description Reference 

Number 


12 


13 

20BL 172237 

20BL 172238 

20BL 172240 

20BL 172242 

20BL 172244 

20BL 172255 

20BL 172256 

20BL 172256 

Piezometer 

Piezometer 

Piezometer 

Piezometer 

Piezometer 

Piezometer 

Piezometer 

Piezometer 

GW14 

GW18 

GW22 

GW12 

GW15 

GW16 

GW17 

GW20 

GW22 

GW13 

GW19 

WAMBO COAL 

WATER LICENSES AND PERMITS 

FIGURE 1.3 

Extraction Limits 



Groundwater Monitoring 










Groundwater Monitoring

SUMP 

SUMP 

NORTH WAMBO 


WOMBAT PIT DUMP 

MONTROSE PIT 




NORTH EAST CUT 

TAILINGS DAM 


HOMESTEAD 

PIT 


DIVERSION 

WAMBO CHPP 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

WAMBO ADMIN 


BROOK 

CREEK 

WOLLOMBI 

STONY 

CREEK 

SOUTH 

WAMBO 

CREEK 

Legend 





Active Emplacement 

Rehabilitation 



WAMBO COAL 

CURRENT EMPLACEMENT AREAS 

FIGURE 1.4 


2010-2011 AEMR 

1.3.7 Subsidence Management Plan 

WCPL’s Underground operates under an approved 

Subsidence Management Plan (SMP). The SMP for 

First Workings was approved by the DTIRIS in 

October 2005 with mining commencing in 

November 2005. The SMP for Second Workings 

was lodged in March 2006 and was approved by the 

DTIRIS on the 11 December 2006. This SMP 

covers underground mining activities until 1/11/2013 

which includes longwall panels 1 through to 6 (LW 

1-6). The SMP also includes the management of 

environmental impacts associated with subsidence. 

Mine subsidence is discussed further in Section 

3.16. 

1.3.8 Emplacement Area Approvals 

Table 1.4 outlines previous emplacement approvals 

issued under Section 126 Approvals for 

Emplacement Areas (Dams). These emplacement 

areas can be seen in Figure 1.4. The Hunter Pit 

emplacement is the only current operational area. 

Rehabilitation of past emplacement areas continued 

this reporting period with these activities outlined in 

Section 2.5.1.3. 

DTIRIS a Section 101 amendment, replacing the 

original Section 127. 

A Section 100 Application for raising the tailings 

level in the Hunter Pit Dam was submitted to the 

NSW Department of Trade and Investment at the 

end of the 2011-2012 reporting period. The raising 

of this wall is part of the WCPL life of mine tailings 

strategy which will extend the tailings facility life 

through to 2014. 

1.3.9 EPBC Approval 

WCPL was granted approval (EPBC 2003/1138) in 

accordance with Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) for 

the expansion of the mine on the 23 November 

2004. In accordance with the approval, WCPL have 

prepared a Flora and Fauna Management Plan to 

address the conditions set out in EPBC 2003/1138. 

1.4 Mine Contacts 

Table 1.5 outlines the contact details for site 

personnel responsible for mining, coal preparation, 

rehabilitation and environmental management at 

WCPL. 

A Section 127 Approval to Discontinue 

Emplacement Areas was granted on the 8 

September 2004 for the North East Tailings Dam 

(NETD). In July 2009 WCPL submitted to the 

Table 1.4 – Emplacement Area Approvals 

Date 

Granted 

Area Details Current Status 

Area No. 1 Whynot (South) Area Rehabilitated. 

28/08/1991 

Area No. 2 Ridge Open Cut and Cut 11N areas Capping complete. 

Area No. 3 

Ridge Portal/Western Open Cut 

Ridge Portal rehabilitated. 

Western Cut temporary 

rehabilitated. 

Area No. 4 

This comprised sub areas A and B as below: 

02/12/1993 

Area A 

A south east extension of the North 

East Open Cut 

Now called Charlies Hole. This 

area was rehabilitated during the 

reporting period 

Area B Original slurry drying pond area Rehabilitated. 

North Whynot Void - Rehabilitated. 

08/05/1995 

Area ‘C’ Open cut approval area number 8/8A 

Used as mine water storage. Not 

planned to be used for tailings. 

Hunter Pit Commenced filling in 29/03/2004 Current disposal area. 

23/01/2004 Area No. 1 Whynot (South) Area Rehabilitated. 

Page 13


Table 1.5 – Contact Details of Relevant Mine Officials 

Title Name Office Phone 

General Manager Peter Baker 02 6570 2216 

Open Cut Manager Geoff Moore 02 6570 2308 

Underground Manager Andrew Boyling 02 6570 2314 

Coal Handling and Preparation Plant Manager Glen Pitt 02 6570 2381 

Environment and Community Manager Lachlan Crawford 02 6570 2206 

Senior Environmental Advisor Troy Favell 02 6570 2209 

Environment and Community Coordinator David Rankin 02 6570 2217 

Blasting Hotline 02 8250 5205 

Community Inquiry Line & Environment Hotline 02 6570 2245 

Page 14


1.5 Review of 2011-2012 

Objectives and Targets 

The objectives and targets for the 2011-2012 

reporting period were identified in the 2010-2011 

AEMR. These are presented below in Table 1.6, 

including an assessment of whether or not the 

objectives and targets have been met. 

1.6 Actions from 2010-2011 

AEMR Review 

The DTIRIS found that the 2010-2011 AEMR was 

informative, well presented and acceptable for the 

reporting period. The DP&I also found the 2010- 

2011 AEMR satisfied the requirements under 

Condition 5, Schedule 6 of DA 305-7-2003 and 

Condition 4, Schedule 6 of DA 177-8-2004. 

However both DTIRI and DP&I identified a number 

of actions for WCPL to address during the next 

reporting period. Actions from the AEMR site 

inspection on the 25 January 2012 are listed in 

Table 1.7. 

A review of the 2010-2011 AEMR was undertaken 

by DTIRIS and DP&I. The review by both 

government departments included a site inspection 

on 25 January 2012 by DTIRIS and DP&I. 

Table 1.6 – Review of Objectives and Targets 

Objective 

Target 

2011 – 2012 

Status 

2011 – 2012 

Target 

2012 - 2013 

Land rehabilitated (hectares) 76.2 40 3 40 

Land disturbed (hectares) 68.4 36.5 74.9 

Number of significant 

environmental incidents 

Number of regulatory 

penalties 

Annual Average % Waste 

Recycled 

Number of environmental 

newsletters distributed 

0 0 0 

0 1 0 

70 75 75 

4 2 3 

3 At the end of the 2011-2012 reporting period, WCPL have shaped approximately 40ha at RL160 in preparation for final rehabilitation 

planned for September 2012. 

Page 15


Table 1.7 – Actions from 2010-2011 Annual Environmental Management Report Review 

No DRE Issue DRE Action Description Summary Due Comments 

1 No bioremediation site Details Wambo Coal’s spill management 

documentation 

30 April 2012 A new location was selected for the bioremediation area. For 

further details please refer to Section 3.6. 

2 Contractor laydown areas not 

formalised 

Develop formal laydown areas Next AEMR WCPL currently investigating options to centralise a contractor 

laydown area and the outcomes provided in the next AEMR. 

3 Lack of progressive rehabilitation 

undertaken in reporting period 

Immediate address of temporary 

stabilisation cover of disturbed areas 

1 March 2012 Please refer to Section 5.0 of the AEMR. 

Need to catch up and redress the shortfall in 

progressive rehabilitation in the Wambo 

Coal MOP commitments 

Throughout 

2012 by next 

AEMR 

Please refer to Section 5.0 of the AEMR. 

4 North East Tailings Dam 

Rehabilitation 4 Progress reports for the tailings dam 

rehabilitation to be provided to DII’s 

Environmental Sustainability Unit as well as 

Mine Safety Department. 

Report progress 

in next AEMR. 

Wambo commenced monthly reporting of the NETD 

rehabilitation status to the DII (Mine Safety) and the NSW Dam 

Safety Committee in October 2009. See Section 5.0 of the 

AEMR for further details. 

No DP&I Issue DP&I Action Description Summary Due Comments 

1 Rehabilitation No rehabilitation work was completed and 

the rehabilitation target was not achieved for 

the 2010-11 reporting period. The DP&I 

note in a letter dated 23 January 2012 that 

the mine was committed to rehabilitate 

approximately 40ha of the RL160 

overburden dump surface by June 2012. 

30 June 2012 Please refer to Section 5.0 of the AEMR. 

2 Homestead Complex The Department is satisfied with the 

continuing work on the Homestead 

Complex, which appears to be progressing 

generally in accordance with the interim 

Conservation Management Plan dated 15 

August 2011 

Completed Please refer to Section 3.13.2 of the AEMR 

4 

Carry over action form 2009/2010 AEMR 

Page 16


No DP&I Issue DP&I Action Description Summary Due Comments 

3 Water Management Structures Provide a timetable for the upgrade of the 

Open cut workshop area, including for the 

drain to the Box Cut Dam 

Completed in 

May 2012 

The upgrades and de-silting of the drain and the installation of 

sediment traps around the Open Cut Workshop were completed 

in May 2012 

The de-silting of the Eagles Nest Dam has 

not been carried out. Please submit a 

timetable for the completion of this activity 

August 2012 De-silting of Eagles Nest Dam commenced late during the 

2011-2012 reporting period. Works expected to be complete by 

August 2012. See Section 3.6 of the AEMR. 

Continue to monitor the water leaking from 

Hunter Tailing Pit into the C11 Dam and 

advise of any changes to water quality in 

this area. 

Ongoing Monthly inspections continue to monitor. V-notched weir and 

sediment catchment structure has been installed to capture and 

accumulate sediment. Water from Hunter Tailings Pit is 

contained within C11 dam. 

Page 17


2.0 Operations During the 

Reporting Period 

2.1 Exploration 

Surface exploration throughout the reporting period 

consisted of a total of 147 boreholes at 

approximately 34,150 meters drilled. Exploration 

drilling occurred in the following 

areas; 

23 x boreholes within A444 with a total of 

3,350 m drilled; 

61 x boreholes within CCL743 with a total of 

19,500 m drilled; 

63 x boreholes within CL397 with a total of 

11,300 m drilled; and 

Drilling is required to further define coal reserves, 

coal quantity and gas content of the Whybrow, 

Redbank Creek, Wambo, Whynot, Arrowfield and 

Bowfield coal seams. All exploration boreholes were 

fully grouted upon completion. 

It is expected that exploration activities over the 

coming twelve months will continue within A444, 

CL397, CCL743 and EL7211. WCPL is anticipating 

drilling approximately 360 boreholes (approximately 

28,700 m) during the next reporting period. A444 

and EL7211 are both pending confirmation of 

renewal. 

2.2 Land Preparation 

In accordance with the Open Cut MOP and DA 305- 

2003, all land clearing at WCPL is carried out under 

approved management plans and procedures. One 

such approved management plan is the Flora and 

Fauna Management Plan (FFMP), which includes a 

Vegetation Clearance Protocol (Figure 2.1). In 

accordance with the FFMP, a Surface Disturbance 

Permit (SDP) procedure and checklist has been 

developed. The SDP requires the approval of 

WCPL’s environmental department prior to any 

clearing activities taking place. The SDP aims to 

identify any environmental issues such as Cultural 

Heritage sites, flora and fauna communities, surface 

drainage, threatened species, and the identification 

of any seed or timber resources that can be 

salvaged. 

In addition to the FFMP, WCPL have developed a 

Timber Management Plan (TMP). The TMP has 

identified a number of options regarding the 

management and salvage of timber resources, 

dependent on the characteristics of the vegetation 

to be cleared, and is determined on a case by case 

basis. 

Nominally, a minimum of 100 millimetres (mm) of 

topsoil is recovered from the surface prior to mining 

an area. The actual volume of topsoil recovered is 

dependent on the depth of insitu soil conditions (e.g. 

deeper in alluvial areas and shallower on ridge 

lines), and the quality of the material. 

Where possible, direct placement of stripped topsoil 

onto re-profiled areas is preferred to stockpiling, in 

order to avoid rehandling and reduce the potential 

for further topsoil degradation or loss. However, due 

to lack of available area, this was not possible 

during this reporting period. If a re-profiled surface is 

not available, the topsoil is stockpiled. The 

treatment of the topsoil stockpiles is dependent on 

the planned timeframe between construction and 

use. If these stockpiles are to be left for longer than 

three months, they are generally shaped into 

elongated mounds and seeded with pasture to keep 

the soil fertile, stop weeds from growing and to 

reduce soil loss. 

Due to a change in dump plan for the RL 160 dump, 

approximately 14.2ha of previously rehabilitated 

land was re-disturbed during the reporting period. 

The topsoil and established pasture vegetation was 

recovered from the re-disturbed area prior to 

dumping. 

2.3 Construction 

During the reporting period there were a number of 

major projects completed or commenced across 

WCPL operations, these included: 

Maingate 8 High Wall Stabilisation: The project 

included meshing and rock bolting of the high wall 

above the new portal entries in the former 

Homestead Pit. The project also completed 

stabilising the wall behind the main Homestead 

Ventilation Fan. The box culvert portal entries in the 

former Homestead Pit have now been placed into 

final position on the established hardstand pad. 

Ground shaping for internal drainage above the 

Homestead Pit at the entry to Maingate 8 has been 

completed, with drain overpass design to be 

completed during the next reporting period. 

Finalised plans of adjacent infrastructure areas 

including the electrical enclosures are due to be 

finalised in July 2012. 

North Wambo Creek Diversion (Stage 3): 

Construction works were nearing completion on the 

final stage (i.e. Stage 3) of the North Wambo Creek 

Diversion program. At the end of the reporting 

period approximately 800,000 m 3 of excavation had 

been carried out to construct the permanent creek 

line around the old Wollemi Underground Portal 

area, in conjunction with revegetation works. 

Page 18


Figure 2.2 – Vegetation Clearance Protocol 

Page 19


The construction of this diversion will allow the open 

cut to progress mining the Bates South area and 

provide future access to the proposed South Bates 

underground longwall panels. 

2.4 Mining 

2.4.1 Production and Waste Summary 

Table 2.1 provides a summary of coal production for 

the 2011-2012 reporting period. During the 

reporting period, a combined total of 8.746 (Mt) of 

ROM coal was mined, representing a 0.18% 

increase compared with the 2010-2011 reporting 

period. 

Stage 3 North Wambo Creek Diversion 

QR Refuelling: Construction works are nearing 

completion on this project which will allow the onsite 

refuelling of the Queensland Rail (QR) locomotive 

engines utilising the Wambo coal loading terminal. 

The new refuelling facility includes a Transtank for 

diesel storage, sanding tanks, structural steel 

platforms at rail level, drainage works and oily water 

management system. It is anticipated the remaining 

installation works will be finished by August 2012 

with commissioning completed by September 2012. 

Location of the locomotive refuelling station (WES 2011) 

Homestead Backfill Project: The Backfill Project 

involves the placement of a grouted paste into the 

old Homestead underground mine workings. These 

workings are in the Whybrow seam some 40 metres 

below the surface. In order to fill the old 

underground roadways approximately 300 

boreholes are planned. The boreholes are drilled 

down to intersect the old workings and a paste 

mixer is then used to produce a grouting mix that is 

gravity fed into the boreholes until the void and 

boreholes are filled. 

Open cut operations in the reporting period were 

undertaken generally in accordance with the Open 

Cut MOP, however the provisional mine production 

schedule in the Open Cut MOP for the 2011-2012 

reporting period was not achieved. The provisional 

mine production in the MOP for Financial Year 2012 

estimated 8.9Mt ROM from the open cut. During the 

reporting period the actual ROM for the open cut 

was 3.949Mt. Market conditions and WCPL not 

implementing the production increases with the 

Contractor for the open cut has resulted in lower 

production tonnages and lower volumes of waste 

rock handling and topsoil removal. 

During the reporting period, approximately 

180,678m 3 of topsoil was recovered, whilst no 

topsoil was used for rehabilitation purposes during 

this reporting period. However WCPL planned to 

spread approximately 273,660m 3 in the next 

reporting period. Approximately 34,223,764bcm of 

overburden material was removed during the 

reporting period, almost 53% of the nominated 

target of 63.7Mcm for FY12 as provided in the Open 

Cut MOP. 

Underground operations in the reporting period 

were generally in accordance with the Underground 

MOP. The provisional mine production schedule in 

the Underground MOP for the 2011-2012 reporting 

period allowed for approximately 2.872Mt ROM coal 

mined. However the actual ROM coal for reporting 

period was 4.797Mt, approximately 1.7% increase 

on FY11. 

2.4.2 Estimated Mine Life 

Coal resources in the Colliery Holding and A444 

exploration area are approximately 648 Mt with 

greater than 64.3% (416.7 Mt) of the resource at 

measured status. WCPL has approval to mine up to 

14.7 Mt per annum of ROM coal for 21 years from 

2004 within the Colliery Holding. This mining will 

take place through the existing Open Cut operations 

in the Whybrow, Redbank Creek, Wambo and 

Whynot seams and Underground mining in the 

Wambo seam. 

Page 20


Table 2.1 – Production and Waste Summary 

Cumulative Production 

Unit 

2010-2011 

Reporting 

Period 

2011-2012 

Reporting 

Period 

2012-2013 

Reporting 

Period 

(Prediction) 

Topsoil Stripped m 3 194,750.5 180,678 28,507 

Topsoil 

Used/Spread 

Overburden 

Moved 

Processing 

Waste 

m 3 9,800 0 273,660 

bcm 27,583,359 34,223,764 28,071,879 

Mt 3.036 3.246 2.834 

ROM Coal Mined Mt 8.730 8.746 8.288 

- Open Cut Mt 4.015 3.949 3.833 

- Underground Mt 4.715 4.797 4.455 

Product Mt 5.680 5.698 5.478 

Page 21


2.4.3 Underground Operations 

WCPL’s North Wambo Underground (NWU) mines 

the Wambo seam using continuous miners and 

longwall mining methods. The first of eight longwall 

blocks (LW1) was completed in February 2009 and 

production commenced in the second longwall block 

(LW2) in March 2009. In December 2010, extraction 

of Longwall Panel 3 (LW3) was completed, with 

production of Longwall Panel 4 (LW4) commencing 

in January 2011. During November 2011 LW4 was 

completed. Extraction of Longwall Panel 5 (LW5) 

commenced during December 2011. At the end of 

the reporting period LW5 had retreated 

approximately 2,858m. The completion of LW5 is 

expected during August 2012. The NWU continues 

to operate seven days a week. 

In total 8 x 250m wide Longwall panels, 

approximately 3.8 km to 4 km in length will be 

developed with the Longwall panels orientated 

south-west to north-east. Longwall panels one to 

five will be developed off main headings driven from 

the existing Bates North Open Cut highwall. The 

remaining three panels will be developed by punch 

mining directly off the Homestead Pit Open Cut 

highwall. 

WCPL primarily use Joy Mining Longwall 

equipment, including the Longwall operating 

system. The Longwall panels are formed by driving 

two sets of gateroads (the tailgate and maingate 

roads). Each gateroad requires two roadways 

(headings) to be driven parallel to each other (31 m 

apart). One of the roadways is used for personnel 

and materials access and fresh air intake ventilation 

while the other is used for coal clearance and return 

air ventilation. The roadways are developed using 

two Joy 12CM30 continuous miners. Approximately 

77,382m of development has occurred since the 

commencement of North Wambo Underground, with 

a total of 17,695m of Longwall retreat. 

The headings are connected every 100m by driving 

a cut through from one heading to another. This 

forms pillars of coal along the length of the 

gateroad. The tailgate and maingate roads are 

separated by the 250 m wide Longwall panel. The 

maingate roads and tailgate roads are then linked 

together by driving an installation road and bleeder 

road at the inbye end of the longwall panels. 

As the continuous miners develop the roadways, 

Run of Mine (ROM) coal is conveyed to a stockpile 

with an approximate 70,000 tonne capacity. When 

a sufficient stockpile is present, coal is loaded onto 

trucks for transport to the CHPP. During the 2011- 

2012 reporting period, approximately 4.79 Mt of 

ROM coal was produced by NWU. 

At the end of the reporting period the following 

equipment was available for mining activities at the 

Underground, including: 

 

 

 

 

2 x Joy 12CM29 Continuous miners; 

1 x Joy 12CM30 Continuous miner 

3 x electric shuttle cars with a 15 t payload; 

8 x Load Haul Dump (LHD) machines; 

9 x personnel transporters Specialised 

Mining Vehicles (SMV’s); 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Associated longwall equipment; 

146 Joy Roof Supports; 

2 x Joy 7LS2a Shearers; 

2 x BSL and AFC systems; 

2 x Monorail system; 

2 x Pump sled; and 

2 x 5MVA Transformer 

The old Wollemi Underground Mine was on care 

and maintenance throughout the reporting period 

with no coal being produced from this mine. The old 

Wollemi workshop, bathhouse and store facilities 

previously used by the WCPL’s Underground 

operations were decommissioned during October 

2008 due to the completion of the new 

administration and bathhouse facilities. The sealing 

of the old Wollemi Mine was completed during the 

reporting period on 25 May 2012. 

2.4.4 Open Cut Operations 

Downer EDI Mining are contracted to undertake 

Open Cut mining operations at WCPL. Open cut 

mining is divided into pits known as the Bates Pit, 

Bates South Pit, Montrose Pit and the Homestead 

Pit. The Bates Pit, Bates South Pit and the 

Montrose Pit are adjoining and linked via a mining 

corridor. The Homestead Pit is a separate mining 

area. Operations during the reporting period 

occurred in the Bates Pit, Bates South Pit, Montrose 

Pit and the Homestead Pit. The current Open Cut 

workings are presented in Figure 2.2. 

Mining of the Open Cut commences with the 

removal of vegetation and topsoil as described in 

Section 2.2. Following land preparation, 

excavators and trucks remove any weathered 

material as a “free dig” operation. The weathered 

material that can be free dug ranges from one metre 

to ten metres in thickness. The remaining 

overburden is drilled, blasted and removed utilising 

the excavators and rear dump haul trucks to 

uncover the coal. 

Page 22


The exposed coal is mined using excavators and 

loaded into haul trucks. The intervening clay bands, 

when thick enough, are excavated and loaded out 

separately for disposal in pit to avoid complications 

in the coal washing process. The coal is mined 

without blasting. The majority of ROM coal is 

delivered directly from the Open Cut to the ROM 

dump hopper using haul trucks, with the balance 

temporarily stockpiled on the ROM coal stockpile 

pad. Mining is based on a shift roster of two 12.5 

hour shifts per day. Table 2.2 shows annual ROM 

production levels from Open Cut mining at WCPL 

for the past 15 years. 

Table 2.2 – Annual Open Cut ROM Production Levels 

Year 

Coal 

(ROM 

tonnes) 

Overburden 

(Bank Cubic 

Metres) 

Ratio 

1997-1998 1,232,658 7,322,227 6.2:1 

1998-1999 482,002 1,684,484 3.5:1 

1999-2000 13,700 41,800 3.0:1 

2000-2001 0 0 - 

2001-2002 922,613 8,025,081 8.7:1* 

2002-2003 3,671,000 22,550,000 6.1:1 

2003-2004 4,220,000 23,530,000 5.6:1 

2004-2005 4,186,000 23,240,000 5.6:1 

2005-2006 5,424,000 30,620,000 5.6:1 

2006-2007 5,790,000 35,150,783 6.1:1 

2007-2008 4,245,395 27,854,967 6.6:1 

2008-2009 3,386,614 23,886,024 7.1:1 

2009-2010 2,751,000 19,866,651 7.2:1 

2010-2011 4,015,000 27,583,359 6.9:1 

2011-2012 3,949,250 34,223,764 8.7:1 

* Anomalously high ratio due to reopening and expansion. 

During the reporting period, Open Cut coal was 

primarily mined from the Whybrow, Redbank Creek, 

Wambo and Whynot seams. Backfilling of the 

Wombat Pit and Bates Pit continued, reducing the 

need for out of pit dump space. 

At the end of the reporting period the following 

equipment was utilised to undertake Open Cut 

mining activities: 

2 x Cat 16H Grader 

1 x Cat 16M Grader 

1 x Cat 24H Grader 

2 x Cat 773 Service Truck 

1 x Cat 773D Water Cart 

1 x Cat 775D Water Cart 

2 x Cat 777C Water Cart 

7 x Cat 785B Dump Truck 

9 x Cat 785C Dump Truck 


6 x Hitachi EH3500 Dump Trucks 

2 x Komatsu 830E Dump Truck 

11 x Komatsu 930E Dump Truck 

6 x Komatsu HD785 Dump Truck 

4 x Cat 793B Dump Truck 


1 x Cat 972H Loader 

1 x Cat 992D Loader 

1 x Cat 992G Wheel Loader 

1 x Cat 994 Wheel Loader 

1 x Cat D10R Dozer 

3 x Cat D10T Dozer 

1 x Cat D11N Dozer 

7 x Cat D11R Dozer 

1 x Hitachi EX2500 Excavator 

1 x Hitachi EX3600 Excavator 

3 x Komatsu PC5500 Excavator 

1 x Komatsu PC250-6 Excavator 

1 x Liebherr R994B Excavator 

1 x Liebherr R996 Excavator 

2.5 Coal Handling and 

Preparation 

The coal handling process is illustrated in Figure 

2.3. Coal from the Open Cut and Underground 

operations is transferred to the CHPP via haul 

trucks on internal haul roads. Coal is tipped directly 

into the 400 tonne ROM bin or stockpiled adjacent 

to the ROM bin and subsequently loaded into the 

ROM crusher using a front-end loader, as required. 

Three stages are used to crush the ROM coal. The 

crushed coal passes into the CHPP, then into two 

separate Modules which contain dense medium 

cyclone coarse coal circuits. These operate in 

parallel with a teetered bed separator for the 

beneficiation of fine material in Module 2, and 

spirals in Module 1. 

All clean coal is conveyed to the clean coal 

stockpile. Four underground reclaim points feed 

coal from the clean coal stockpile onto the reclaim 

conveyor (The fourth reclaim point was previously 

used to feed the clean coal from United.) The 

reclaim conveyor transfers coal onto the load-out 

conveyor, which conveys to the train load-out bin. 

The WCPL train loading system is designed to load 

trains at a rate of 4,500 tonnes per hour (tph). 

Details of the amount of coal transported by rail 

from the rail load facility are presented in Appendix 

1. All coal produced by WCPL was transported by 

rail during the reporting period. During the reporting 

period the CHPP processed a total of 8.730 Mt 

ROM coal. The average coal recovery was 65%. 

Page 23

SUMP 

SUMP 


GOLDEN 

HIGHWAY 

WOMBAT DUMP 

MONTROSE PIT 





DIVERSION 


STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 


HOMESTEAD 

PIT 

WAMBO ADMIN 

WAMBO CHPP 

NORTH WAMBO 

BROOK 

CREEK 

WOLLOMBI 

STONY 

CREEK 

SOUTH 

WAMBO 

CREEK 

Legend 







Open Cut Mining at 30th June 2012 

Dams 

Creeks 


WAMBO COAL 

EXTENT OF MINING OPERATIONS 

FIGURE 2.2


Figure 2.3 – Coal Handling and Preparation Plant Process 

Page 25


2.5.1 Reject Management 

2.5.1.1 Chemical and Physical 

Characteristics of Reject 

The CHPP beneficiates ROM coal to produce both a 

high energy steaming coal and a pulverised coal 

injection product, the by-product being reject made 

up of carbonaceous shale and waste rock material. 

The rejects represent approximately 30-35% of the 

ROM coal processed in the plant and are classified 

as either coarse or fine 

Coarse reject typically represent two-thirds of this 

material and is made up of


January 2009, the waste from the Open Cut 

workshop is now managed as part of the TWMS. 

 

 

Underground portal area, and 

Open Cut workshop and wash down area. 

The TWMS was reviewed during the reporting 

period and a revised contract with the preferred 

licensed waste contractor commenced in December 

2011. 

2.6.1 Sewage Treatment and 

Disposal 

Sewage from the various areas of mining operation 

is treated in four onsite treatment systems as 

follows: 

 

 

 

 

CHPP Bathhouse – septic tank system which 

feeds to a transpiration area; 

CHPP Control Room – biocycle system; 

Administration Buildings – effluent system 

pumps to a transpiration dam located to the 

west of the complex; and 

North Wambo Underground Portal – effluent 

collection tank. 

The Wollemi Bathhouse and Facilities are no longer 

in use. The effluent treatment system is not 

operational and these facilities have now been 

decommissioned. 

Effluent treatment systems are inspected and 

maintained on a periodic basis to ensure effective 

operation. All effluent collected from the 

Underground portal is disposed of by a licensed 

contractor and records are maintained on site. 

2.6.2 Rubbish Disposal 

Bulk garbage bins for each waste stream are 

located around site. These bins are collected and 

managed on a regular basis by a licensed waste 

contractor. For details of waste disposed and 

recycled during the reporting period please refer to 

Table 2.4. 

2.6.3 Oily Waste Disposal 

Waste oils from the site are collected, stored and 

are removed by a licensed waste contractor on a 

periodic basis for reprocessing and reuse. For 

details of waste oil disposal during the reporting 

period please refer to Table 2.4. 

A mix of passive and active oily water separator 

systems for the separation of hydrocarbons from 

oily water runoff, are located across the site 

including: 

the rail load out, 

Licensed waste contractors remove collected waste 

oil from the separators on a regular basis. Routine 

inspections are carried out on all systems to ensure 

that there are no blockages or overflows. Records of 

all waste disposals are kept on site. 

2.7 ROM and Product Coal 

Stockpiles 

A 70,000 tonne ROM coal stockpile for underground 

coal is located near the Underground portal level, 

just east of the Underground entrance. 

Underground coal is conveyed to the Underground 

ROM stockpile from the portal entrance by 

Conveyor CV01. 

Coal is transported from the Open Cut and 

Underground ROM Stockpile via truck and either 

tipped directly into the 400 tonne ROM hopper or 

stockpiled adjacent to the ROM bin. The ROM 

stockpile area is approximately 200m x 200m with a 

ROM coal storage capacity of approximately 

250,000 tonnes. 

The capacity of WCPL clean coal stockpile is 

approximately 500,000 tonnes. 

2.8 Water Management 

The water management system at WCPL comprises 

clean water (imported water from the Hunter River 

or Wollombi Brook), mine water (collected run-off 

from disturbed catchments or recycled water from 

the CHPP) and fresh water (either imported from the 

town supply or collected rainwater). The water 

management system is illustrated in Figures 2.4 

and 2.5 and major storages are presented in Table 

2.3. 

A network of storages and drains has been 

established to capture runoff from mine water 

catchment areas. Runoff from areas disturbed by 

mining (including the CHPP and associated 

industrial areas) is collected in Open Cut voids and 

other mine water storages. These storages are 

used as priority water sources for the CHPP and 

dust suppression. Runoff from haul roads is treated 

in sediment dams or diverted to mine water 

storages. 

CHPP tailings are discharged to the Hunter Pit 

tailings dam. Water that is liberated from the settled 

tailings filters through spoil at the southern end of 

the dam and reports to the North Homestead Pit. 

Water is reticulated from this pit back to the CHPP. 

Page 27


Runoff from rehabilitated and establishing 

revegetated mine areas is directed to sediment 

dams. These are either allowed to drain to local 

drainages or directed to mine water storages, 

depending upon the water quality. 

An extensive reticulation system has been 

developed to: 

transfer water between Open Cut and 

Underground operations and mine water 

storages; 

 

 

 

source water from Wollombi Brook and the 

Hunter River; 

facilitate controlled releases to Wollombi Brook; 

and 

(until the end of 2009) provided water to the 

adjacent United Collieries operation. 

 

such as upgrades to pump-out lines from the 

Bates Pit area and movement towards an 

integrated water management system; and 

automation of major pump installations across 

the site was maintained and refined; 

Maintenance of pumping infrastructure 

continued. 

The available water sources and underground 

storage capacity for mine water have provided 

WCPL with flexibility to manage its water system. 

During the reporting period the main water 

management related activities included: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reviewing the site water balance for the short 

and medium term, taking into account the new 

MOP and water availability; 

dewatering of the Open Cut from Bates South 

and Montrose pits; 

Controlling water levels in the Underground 

workings; 

maintaining water supply to the Open Cut truck 

fill water tanks to provide water for dust 

suppression; 

maintenance and testing of the Hunter River 

Salinity Trading Scheme (HRSTS) discharge 

system; 

continued decanting of water from the Hunter 

Pit (emplacement area) Tailings to the 

Homestead Pit for reuse; 

maintenance of the fire water reticulation 

system to the Wambo Homestead complex; 

continued installation and refining of telemetry 

for site water management and control; 

continued dewatering from the No.2 and No.1 

boreholes and installed bores 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D 

and 4C; 

Dewatering of the Homestead Pit void; 

planning and execution of modifications to 

water management systems in the Open Cut 

Page 28


Table 2.3 – Stored Water Summary 

Volume Held ML 

Start of 

Reporting 

Period 

End of 

Reporting 

Period 

Storage 

Capacity 

Clean Water 

Admin Box Cut 285 258 258 

Wollemi Box Cut (alluvial)

Legend 


Inpit Catchments 

Dump Catchments 

Dams 

Creeks 

WAMBO COAL 

WATER STORAGE CATCHMENT AREAS 

FIGURE 2.4 



Table 2.4 – WCPL Waste Statistics 

Wambo Coal Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 YTD 

Chemical Anchors 3018 739 1409 1747 3410 10,323 

Medical Waste 0 

Oily Rags 482 521 454 643 669 597 923 790 832 963 889 7,763 

Miscellaneous Chemical disposal 0 

Hazardous Disposal 482 3,539 454 1,382 2,078 2,344 923 790 4,242 963 889 0 18,086 

General Waste Bulk 40,940 68,520 45,120 40,300 51,460 53,800 28,980 76,820 45,640 43,764 34,340 529,684 

General Waste Front Lift 9,885 12,549 8,620 10,560 11,265 13,130 10,040 15,320 11,919 13,640 14,010 130,938 

Pallets/Timber Recycling 2,400 2,880 2,420 1,440 9,140 

Non-Hazardous Disposal 50,825 81,069 53,740 50,860 62,725 66,930 39,020 94,540 60,439 59,824 49,790 0 669,762 

Total Disposal 51,307 84,608 54,194 52,242 64,803 69,274 39,943 95,330 64,681 60,787 50,679 0 687,848 

% 28.39% 34.30% 20.82% 16.74% 25.51% 22.73% 20.71% 29.33% 21.53% 24.15% 20.55% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 

Contaminated Grease 584 2,158 210 42 37 1,786 32 79 4,928 

Empty Oil Drums 881 3,468 2,683 2,197 1,509 986 695 1,134 1,266 1,818 1,185 17,822 

Fluorescent Tubes 0 

Hydraulic Hose 1,539 2,158 1,445 475 1,175 981 932 2,861 1,948 2,319 1,153 16,986 

Oil Filters 1,413 40 1,345 2,798 

Oily Water 0 15,610 15,610 

Parts Washer 35 0 120 155 0 0 240 550 

Hazardous Recycle / Reuse 2,420 7,658 6,286 2,922 2,846 2,159 1,627 5,781 3,214 21,124 2,657 0 58,694 

Confidential Documents 93 129 97 86 53 74 103 202 837 

Comingled Recycling 2,550 1,910 1,740 2,339 2,182 1,710 1,550 4,496 1,440 1,690 2,130 23,737 

Non-Hazardous Recycle / Reuse 2,643 2,039 1,740 2,436 2,268 1,763 1,550 4,570 1,543 1,690 2,332 0 24,574 

E-Waste 70,000 114,000 130,500 90,500 97,500 502,500 

Effluent 78,500 51,750 72,500 166,250 121,500 119,200 609,700 

Recycle cartridges Planet Ark 13 13 

Coolant 4,700 4,700 

Timber Recycling 4,860 2,240 2,520 2,220 3,320 429 15,589 

Scrap Steel 2,680 46,340 77,240 35,860 22,900 51,750 31,540 51,560 43,960 41,480 34,460 439,770 

Tyre Recycling 0 

Waste Batteries 54 54 

Waste Oil 38,300 47,000 40,300 40,200 39,700 57,300 43,500 53,800 44,000 35,000 58,500 497,600 

Washbay 5,000 5,500 10,000 12,455 1,100 34,055 

Other Recycle / Reuse 124,353 152,384 198,060 254,530 184,100 231,570 149,740 219,360 230,915 168,080 190,889 0 2,103,981 

Total Recycle / Reuse 129,416 162,081 206,086 259,888 189,214 235,492 152,917 229,711 235,672 190,894 195,878 0 2,187,249 

% 71.61% 65.70% 79.18% 83.26% 74.49% 77.27% 79.29% 70.67% 78.47% 75.85% 79.45% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 

Figure 2.5 Water Reticulation Diagram 

Page 31


2.8.1 Water Supply and Use 

Continuity of water supply to the CHPP, Open Cut 

and Underground is important for the processing of 

coal and the operation of the mine. During this 

reporting period the site water balance for the 

mining activities was recalculated. This water 

balance is presented in Table 2.5. 

WCPL manages its water supply through a number 

of site water storage dams. The mine routinely 

obtains water from the Hunter River Licence 

(Number 20AL200631), Wollombi Brook Licence 

(Number 20SL033872), the Wollemi and 

Homestead goaf areas and from rainfall runoff. 

WCPL’s annual water catchment generally matches 

operational water requirements for CHPP and Open 

Cut usage. In 2010-2011, minimal water was 

extracted from the Hunter River catchment via the 

Wollombi Brook pumps. Water extracted from 

Wollombi Brook (and the Hunter River) is used to 

supply the fire suppression system, underground 

operations and open cut workshop. 

2.8.2 Surface Water Management 

To minimise the potential for water quality impacts 

from mining operations, a network of water storages 

has been established to separate the clean water 

(runoff from undisturbed areas) and dirty water 

(runoff from disturbed areas). Rainfall runoff from 

undisturbed areas is diverted away from mining 

areas. Runoff from areas disturbed by mining is 

diverted into the onsite dams for use across the site. 

West Cut Dam and Area C Dam have now been 

dewatered and are only sumps. 

South Wambo Dam, Chitter Dam, Homestead Pit 

(North) decant dam and sumps across site are 

pumped to the CHPP’s supply dam (Eagle’s Nest) 

and to tank fill points in the Open Cut to allow water 

carts to fill and assist in dust suppression. 

The wash down and runoff water from the CHPP 

and adjacent stockpiles is accumulated in 

sedimentation ponds which feed into the Gordon 

Below Franklin Dam network. The Gordon Below 

Franklin Dam network is designed to slow the flow 

of the water and encourage the precipitation of fine 

sediment to drop out. The sediment ponds are 

cleaned out on a regular basis using a variety of 

methods including dredging and truck and 

excavator. Water from these dams is returned to the 

Eagles Nest Dam. A new dredging program was 

carried out during the period to remove excess 

sediment from the CHPP dam network. 

Water stored in Eagles Nest Dam is used in the coal 

washing process and for dust suppression at the 

CHPP. 

2.8.2.1 Water Balance & Modeling 

In March 2010, WCPL completed a detailed review 

of the operations water balance. The water balance 

is based on monitoring data from numerous water 

flow meters on site and information provided by 

WCPL technical personnel. 

In addition, a comprehensive predictive site water 

and salt model was finalised in February 2011, in 

accordance with recent development consent 

requirements. The completed water model includes 

a predictive accounting system for water and salt 

budgets. 

2.8.2.2 NWC Discharge Report 

In April 2008, the North Wambo Creek (NWC) 

Diversion Plan was approved by DP&I, DTIRIS and 

NOW, subject to a number of approval conditions. In 

accordance with the approval conditions for the 

NWC Diversion Plan, WCPL must prepare and 

submit a flow assessment report after each flow 

event down the diversion. 

Construction of Stage 2 of the North Wambo Creek 

Diversion was completed in September 2008. The 

original design was modified to incorporate a 

temporary outlet from the proposed take-off point for 

the Stage 3 diversion channel to North Wambo 

Creek. The design profile near the downstream end 

of the permanent diversion channel was also 

modified from the design to incorporate a large hard 

rock-outcrop exposed during the excavation of this 

area. The rock outcrop was partially excavated to 

form a local rock-bar. 

Construction of Stage 3 of the diversion 

commenced in late 2011 and remains scheduled for 

completion in September 2012. 

Since the Stage 2 diversion was commissioned a 

series of small and medium intensity rainfall events 

have been experienced over the upstream and 

adjacent catchment areas, several of which 

produced a measurable flow in the diversion 

channel. 

An initial review 5 and survey of the diversion 

condition was undertaken in mid July 2009 following 

moderate flood flows recorded in February and early 

April 2009. 

Inspections were also conducted along the upper 

reaches of South Wambo Creek and the mid 

reaches of Apple tree Creek which were selected as 

5 Gilbert & Associates Pty Ltd “Review of North Wambo Creek 

Diversion (Stage 2)”, September 2009 

Page 32


reference creeks for use in assessing the relative 

performance of the diversion. 

Recommendations were made for remedial works in 

areas where it was considered that intervention was 

necessary to limit continued erosion and instability 

at unnaturally high rates and to reduce the potential 

for the erosional features from expanding into 

adjacent, stable areas. Recommendations were 

also made for ongoing revegetation and 

maintenance works to enhance the longer term 

integrity of the diversion as a whole. 

Subsequent remediation works were implemented 

by Wambo Coal in 2011 in response to the review. 

A second review 6 and survey of the diversion was 

conducted in mid-February 2012 following additional 

flow events experienced in late January early 

February 2012. 

North Wambo Creek Diversion - View looking 

upstream from the third bend (15th February 2012) 

The review involved inspections and survey of the 

condition of the diversion and repeat inspections of 

the reference creeks. This report has been compiled 

to document the finding of this second review. The 

focus of the second review has been on the 

changes that have occurred in the diversion 

between July 2009 and February 2012 surveys. 

Recommendations are made for remedial works in 

areas where it is considered that intervention is 

necessary to limit continued erosion and instability 

at un-naturally high rates and to reduce the potential 

for the current erosion from expanding into adjacent, 

stable areas. Recommendations are also made for 

ongoing revegetation and maintenance works to 

enhance the longer term integrity of the diversion as 

a whole. 

North Wambo Creek Diversion – View of Bend 8 with 

rip-rap on outside bank and plantings on inside bank 

(14th July 2009) 

North Wambo Creek Diversion - View looking 

upstream from the third bend (14th July 2009) 

North Wambo Creek Diversion – View of Bend 8 with 

rip-rap on outside bank and planting on inside bank 

(16th February 2012) 

For further information regarding any remedial 

recommendations within the NWC Diversion, please 

refer to Section 5.1.4. 

6 Gilbert & Associates Pty Ltd “Review of North Wambo Creek 

Diversion (Stage 2)”, April 2012 

Page 33


2.8.3 Water Discharge 

WCPL’s water management system is currently 

balanced by the adjustment of flow from the various 

water sources and storages. However, where 

excess water is generated, WCPL has facilities to 

discharge water. This is done in accordance with 

EPL529, DA 305-7-2003, the Hunter River Salinity 

Trading Scheme (HRSTS), and Managed Envelope 

of Residuals Flood (MERF) Scheme. 

EPL 529 approves discharge into Wollombi Brook 

when the flow is greater than 500 ML/day at the 

Bulga gauging station, provided other conditions of 

the HRSTS and MERF are satisfied. 

During the reporting period under the HRSTS there 

were 19 water discharge days under HRSTS or 

MERF, totalling approximately 344ML discharge. 

Table 2.5 – 2011-2012 Water Balance 

Water Sources (ML) 

Hunter River 0 

Wollombi Brook 232 

United 271 

Rainfall/run off 3906 

Underground Seepage 1237 

Open Cut Seepage 421 

Wollemi Sump 5 

Site Wells 0 

Total Water Input 6072 

Water Usage (ML) 

Dust Suppression 

CHPP Consumption 

Underground 

United 

Domestic Usage 

621 

998 

329 

Total Water Usage 1950 

Water Loss (ML) 

Evaporation – Mine Water 

& Tailings Dams 

0 

2 

2893 

HRSTS/MERF Discharge 344 

Water Balance 599 

2.9 Hazardous Material 

Management 

WCPL has systems in place to ensure active and 

efficient management of hazardous material within 

its operations. There are several locations on site 

where hazardous material is stored. WCPL has 

storage areas at the Open Cut workshop, 

Underground and the CHPP. The Open Cut mining 

contractor and other on-site contractors are 

responsible for the maintenance and operation of 

their facilities. 

An audit of the storage and handling of hazardous 

substances and dangerous goods for the Open Cut 

was carried out in November 2010. The audit was 

intended to be a high level audit to determine and 

report on the level of compliance with the 

requirements of relevant key legislation and 

Australian Standards. Good practices were 

observed with several improvements regarding 

storage and handling recommended. 

At WCPL, dangerous goods and explosives are 

managed separately under their respective 

legislation i.e. to comply with the updated 

Dangerous Goods Act 2005 and Explosive Act 2003 

respectively. 

2.9.1 Hydrocarbon Containment 

Diesel fuel for the Open Cut is stored above ground 

within specifically designed concrete bunding. Oil 

and grease storages on site are contained within 

impervious bunds and purpose built hydrocarbon 

storage units. Diesel for the Underground is stored 

within a portable, self bunded (double walled) 

Transtank located at the portal area. 

There is one decommissioned underground 

unleaded fuel storage tank adjacent to the light 

vehicle car park that will be removed during the next 

reporting period. During this reporting period WCPL 

engaged an independent environmental consultancy 

to validate compliance of the old underground tank 

against The Protection of the Environment 

Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage 

Systems) Regulation 2008. 

Consulting Earth Scientists Pty Ltd (CES) was 

engaged by WCPL to provide environmental 

consultancy services during the removal of a 10,000 

L Underground Storage Tank (UST) and associated 

infrastructure and provide validation (excavations 

and excavated material). The UST was located in 

the north-eastern corner of the Underground Go- 

Line as shown. 

Page 34


The purpose of the environmental consultancy 

services is to validate the soil in the walls and base 

of the tank pit excavation and to classify the 

excavated soil for offsite disposal in accordance 

with the Department of Environment and Climate 

Change NSW guidelines (Waste Classification 

Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, NSW DECC, 

2008). 

Validation of the UST excavation and waste 

classification sampling of the stockpiled material 

was undertaken on 5 July 2011. All concentrations 

of the soil samples collected from the pit walls and 

base as well as from underneath the bowser and 

the fuel line were below the SAC for TPH, BTEX, 

PAH and Lead. Therefore, the tank pit excavation is 

deemed suitable to remain on a site for continued 

commercial/industrial land use in accordance with 

the NSW EPA “Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for 

Assessing Service Station Sites” (1994). 

upgraded last reporting period to conform with the 

Explosive Act 2003. The focus has been on 

increased security. 

2.9.3 Material Safety Data Sheets 

All materials stored on site have appropriate 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). No chemical 

or hazardous material is permitted on site unless the 

mine has a copy of the appropriate MSDS or, in the 

case of a new product; it is accompanied by a 

MSDS. ChemAlert is used to maintain an electronic 

register of chemicals on site. The Open Cut 

contractor and other on site contractors are 

responsible for the maintenance of a MSDS register 

for their areas. 

All concentrations of the soil samples collected from 

the excavated material stockpile were below the 

SAC for TPH, BTEX, PAH and Lead. Therefore, the 

stockpiled material was classified as “General Solid” 

waste in accordance with the NSW DECC (2008) 

waste classification guidelines. 

Former location of underground storage tank 

All bulk fuel, oil and grease storage areas are 

regularly inspected as part of the internal monthly 

environmental inspection schedule. 

As discussed there are a number of oily water 

separator systems located across the site. For more 

information please refer to Section 2.6.3. 

2.9.2 Explosive Management 

In addition to priming and initiating explosives, up 

to 120 tonnes of ammonium nitrate prill is stored in 

tippers on site as well as 50 tonnes of Ammonium 

Nitrate Emulsion (ANE) for the Open Cut 

operations. The ammonium nitrate is loaded 

into mobile processing units (MPU) at a reload 

facility situated in the mine. The MPU is then driven 

onto bench where all the ingredients are mixed 

entering into a blast holes. The ammonium nitrate 

storage area and the magazine areas were 

Page 35


3.0 Environmental 

Management and 

Performance 

3.1 Meteorological Monitoring 

3.1.1 Environmental Management 

The WCPL maintains a weather station in 

accordance with the Australian Standard AS2923 – 

1987. The weather station is located approximately 

350m east of the WCPL administration building (see 

Figure 3.1). The meteorological station was 

approved for relocation to its current position (see 

Figure 3.1) by the OEH in December 2007. As 

required under Schedule 4, Condition 10(a) of 

Development Consent DA 305-7-2003, the 

meteorological station records the following 

parameters: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

temperature (at 2 m and 10 m); 

lapse rate; 

wind speed; 

wind direction; 

solar radiation; 

humidity; and 

sigma theta. 

Evaporation is calculated from this information, for 

use in reports such as the site water balance. 

Meteorological information collected at the weather 

station is used on a daily basis for general mining 

activities including the location of operating plant 

and equipment, and to minimise blasting impacts on 

the neighbouring residences. 

3.1.2 Environmental Performance 

During the reporting period the meteorological 

station maintained a high percentage capture rate 

for data. The malfunctioning solar radiation sensor 

reported in the previous AEMR, was replaced and 

recalibrated in accordance with relevant Australian 

Standards at the beginning of this reporting period. 

In June 2012, WCPL’s environmental monitoring 

specialist completed a comprehensive maintenance 

and calibration program at the meteorological 

station. A summary of weather data recorded during 

the reporting period is provided below and in 

Appendix 2A. 

3.1.3 Rainfall and Evaporation 

The monthly and cumulative rainfall and evaporation 

data for the 2011-2012 reporting period is provided 

in Figure 3.2 below. The long term annual average 

rainfall is from the Bureau of Meteorology Jerry’s 

Plains Post Office weather station, which has 

recorded weather data since 1884, is provided in 

Appendix 2A. 

A total of 729.8mm of rainfall was recorded at 

WCPL during the reporting period, approximately 

84.7mm above the long term average recorded at 

Jerrys Plains Post Office. The highest monthly 

rainfall of 124.1 mm was recorded in February 2012. 

The long-term average rainfall (1884 – 2012) 

recorded at the Jerrys Plains Post Office weather 

station is 645.1mm. Rainfall recorded during the 

previous reporting period (2010-2011) was 

741.0mm. 

3.1.4 Temperature 

The maximum and minimum temperatures recorded 

during the 2011-2012 reporting period are shown in 

Figure 3.3 below. The maximum temperature of 

37.5 0 C was recorded in January 2012, which was 

below the maximum 42.5 0 C recorded in January 

2011. The lowest temperature of -1.8 0 C which was 

above the minimum of -5.7 0 C recorded in July 2010. 

The seasonal average temperatures recorded 

during the reporting period were as follows: 11.4 0 C 

in winter; 18.0 0 C in spring; 21.1 0 C in summer; and 

16.8 0 C in autumn. These results are typical of 

temperature variations in this region. 

3.1.5 Wind Speed and Direction 

The dominant winds recorded during the 2011-2012 

reporting period were from the northwest (NW) and 

south east directions with the strongest wind 

strength from the NW. The maximum wind speed of 

4.9 m/s was recorded in September 2011. The 

mean monthly wind speed varied between 1.6 m/s 

to 2.1 m/s, with the yearly average being 1.8 m/s. 

The annual and seasonal wind roses for the 

reporting period are shown in Figures 3.4 to 3.8. 

Page 36

SUMP 

SUMP 

N19 

SW46 

SW45 

Hunter 

River 

Golden 

Doctors 

D17 

N18 

Creek 

Highway 

N16 

BM05 

AQ04 

Warkworth Mine Owned 

Dyson 

Putty Road 

N20 

AQ03 

SW39 

GOLDEN HIGHWAY 

SW41 

FM1 

D14 

D026 


DIVERSION 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

FM8 

FM2 

SW47 

SW08 

WAMBO 

FM3 

FM7 

STONY 

SW06 

D09 

CREEK 

SW48 

SW32 

CREEK 

FM9 

WAMBO 

HOMESTEAD 

SW03 

D01 

FM4 

MW17 

N21 

SW07 

FM6 

BM03 

D23 

SW05 

OFFICE 

WOLLOMBI 

* 

FM5 

SW40 

AQ02 

MW16 

BROOK 

C.H.P.P. 

D03 

N03 

AQ01 

MW15 

D07 

FM10 

SW02 

WARKWORTH 

BM02 

D12 

HAYNES 

N22 

WALLABY 

SCRUB ROAD 

SOUTH 

D11 

N01 

FM11 

SW01 

Legend 





Former Underground Workings 

Air Quality Monitoring Site 

Dust Depostion Monitoring Site 

Noise Monitoring Site 

Mine Water Monitoring Site 

* 

Surface Water Monitoring Site 

Blast Monitoring Site 

Surface Water Flow Site 

Meteorological Station 

North Wambo Underground 

Workings (Existing) 


Workings (Proposed) 

Dams 

WAMBO COAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS 

FIGURE 3.1 



Wambo Coal Weather Station 

Rainfall vs Evaporation - July 2011 to June 2012 

600 

4000 

500 

3500 

Monthly Rain 

Monthly (mm) 

400 

300 

200 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

Cumulative (mm) 

Monthly 

Evaporation 

Cumulative 

Rainfall 

1000 

100 

500 

Cumulative 

Evaporation 

0 

0 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Figure 3.2 – 2011-2012 Rainfall and Evaporation Summary 

45 


Temperature (2m) - July 2011 to June 2012 

40 

Temperature ( o C) 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

Maximum 

Temperatu 

Average 

Temperatu 

Minimum 

Temperatu 

0 

-5 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Figure 3.3 – 2011-2012 Maximum and Minimum Temperatures 

Page 38


Figure 3.4 – 2010-2011 Annual Wind Rose 

Figure 3.5 – 2010-2011 Winter Wind Rose 

Figure 3.6 – 2010-2011 Spring Wind Rose 

Figure 3.7 – 2010-2011 Summer Wind Rose 

Figure 3.8 – 2010-2011 Autumn Wind Rose 

Page 39


3.2 Air Quality 

 

Fitting dust suppression systems at transfer 

points where necessary. 


Dust generation is primarily managed by road 

maintenance and consolidation, and utilising water 

carts to apply recycled mine water onto internal 

roads and other disturbed areas. Other dust control 

measures during the reporting period included: 

 

Induction training to all employees highlighting 

their responsibility to limit the level of dust 

produced; 

Rehabilitation of disturbed land on a 

progressive basis to reduce total disturbed 

area; 

 

Keeping disturbance areas to a minimum by 

minimising the disturbance in advance of 

mining operations until mining is due to 

commence in the area and clearly defining 

roads; 

Modifying mining operations during 

unfavourable weather conditions to reduce dust 

generation; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dust suppression equipment is fitted and 

operated on drills; 

Regular servicing of water carts for effective 

road watering and continual operation; 

Revegetating topsoil stockpiles which are not 

planned to be used for over three months; 

Designing blast holes with stemming to provide 

optimum confinement of the blast charge; 

Constraints on blasting operations to reduce 

impact of immediate neighbours (e.g. rescheduling 

blasts when wind blowing towards 

immediate neighbours); 

Use of additional contractor water trucks to 

water frequently used roads around the CHPP 

as required; 

Operation of two water truck fill points during 

the reporting period to reduce the time between 

road watering; 

Operation of water sprays during raw coal 

unloading at the ROM dump hopper; 

Regular use of a road sweeper on the main 

access road into WCPL; 

Implementing speed limits on roadways; 

Cleaning up coal spillage around the CHPP to 

prevent dust; and 

WCPL operate under an approved Air Quality 

Monitoring Program (AQMP), a requirement of 

Consent Condition 5, Schedule 4 of DA305-7-2003. 

The AQMP was revised to address operational 

changes and re-submitted to the DP&I in June 

2008. 

In accordance with Consent Condition 4, Schedule 

4, DA305-7-2003 and the AQMP, WCPL maintained 

four air quality monitoring stations AQ01, AQ02, 

AQ03 and AQ04 (see Figure 3.1). Each air quality 

monitoring station consists of a Tapered Element 

Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) unit monitoring 

PM 10, a High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS) unit 

monitoring Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and 

a dust depositional gauge. 

In accordance with the AQMP, WCPL has 

maintained and operated the following air quality 

monitoring equipment, throughout the reporting 

period: 

 

Four HVAS units measuring TSP; 

Four real time TEOM units measuring 

particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter 

(PM 10) on a continuous basis; and 

 

Sixteen depositional dust gauges. 

3.2.1.1 Site Specific Particulate Matter 

Control: Best Practice Assessment 

In 2011, the NSW Environmental Protection 

Authority (EPA) required, through a Pollution 

Reduction Program, that WCPL provide a report 

which examines in detail the potential measures 

which could be employed to further reduce 

particulate emissions from the mine. This is part of 

a larger program which aims to reduce particulate 

emissions from the coal mining industry as a whole 

in NSW. 

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR Consulting) 

was commissioned by WCPL, to perform this 

assessment, which has included a site inspection, 

emissions estimation and the identification, 

quantification and justification of existing and 

proposed control measures for the site. The study 

was performed in accordance with the Coal Mine 

Particulate Matter Control – Best Practice: Site 

Specific Determination Guideline issued by the New 

South Wales (NSW) Environmental Protection 

Authority (EPA) in November 2011. 

The findings of this assessment will be summarised 

in the next AEMR as the report was no yet finalised 

at the end of the 2011-2012 reporting period. 

Page 40


3.2.1.2 Penalty Infringement Notice 

WCPL received a Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN) 

on the 12 June 2012 as a result from a site 

inspection on the 4 May 2012 by the DP&I. The PIN 

was in relation to excessive wheel generated dust 

witnessed during the site inspection. For further 

details regarding this matter please refer to Section 

3.20.2. 

3.2.1.3 Dust Suppression Trials 

During the reporting period WCPL commenced 

trailing a dust suppressant on internal haul roads, a 

control recommendation identified in the best 

practice assessment for particulate matter control. 

The name of the dust suppressant is called 

Petrotac. 

Petrotac application on haul road at Wambo 

Petrotac is an emulsion that is sprayed on semi 

permanent roads to reduce dust. It works by 

soaking through the surface of the road and bonding 

the aggregate particles together. WCPL 

commenced a trial of Petrotac dust suppression 

product on a portion of our main haul road during 

April 2012. 

The trial showed signifcant reduction in dust 

emissions and improved road stability in wet and dry 

weather conditions. Plans are in place to roll the out 

Petrotac product to a greater area of the main haul 

road. Some of the advantages identified during the 

tial include: 

 

It is stable and environmentally safe; 

Requires only occassional maintenance 

following the initial application; and 


All air quality monitoring conducted at WCPL during 

the 2011-2012 reporting period was measured and 

monitored against the impact assessment criteria 

stipulated in Consent Condition 2, Schedule 4 of DA 

305-7-2003 and in accordance with EPL 529, which 

apply at any privately owned residences as follows: 

 

Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual 

Average Impact Assessment criteria less than 

90 µg/m 3 ; 

Particulate matter less than 10µm in size (PM 10) 

annual average assessment criteria less than 

30 µg/m 3 ; 

 

 

 

PM 10 24 hour assessment criteria of less than 

50 µg/m 3 ; 

Deposited dust annual average assessment 

criteria less than 4 g/m2/month; and 

Deposited dust maximum increase in deposited 

dust level of less than 2 g/m2/month. 

In accordance with Condition 5(b), Schedule 6 of 

DA 305-7-2003, a comparison of the air quality 

results for the reporting period at any privately 

owned land were compared against the modelled 

predictions in the 2003 Environmental Impact 

Statement (2003 EIS) (see Section 3.2.2.1). 

3.2.2.1 Air Quality EIS Predictions 

Table 3.0 provides a summary of predicted 

concentrations from the 2003 EIS for Year 7 of the 

project. Considering the variability regarding the 

conceptual mine plans used in the 2003 EIS air 

quality model, the location of receptors in the model 

versus the actual location of WCPL air quality 

monitoring stations, the results from 2011-2012 

monitoring are generally comparable with exception. 

The annual average PM 10 results are below the 

concentrations predicted in the EIS, however the 

annual average for TSP are higher. The annual 

average results for dust deposition are also 

marginally higher. 

Table 3.0 EIS Predicted Dust Concentrations 

Air Quality 

Station* 

Receptor 

ID No. 

24-hour 

PM10 

ug/m 3 

Annual 

PM10 

ug/m 3 . 

Annual 

TSP 

ug/m 3 . 

Annual dust 

deposition 

g/m 2 /month 

AQ3 37 38.4 18.5 20.2 0.38 

AQ4 40 46.7 29.1 32.8 0.73 

Note: * Nearest to receptor location from model 

Will be used in conjunction with other 

management practices to reduce dust 

generation on site. 

Page 41


3.2.2.2 High Volume Air Sampling 

Monitoring of TSP occurred at four locations during 

the reporting period; 

1. HV01 – Coralie 

2. HV02 – Wambo Road 

3. HV03 – Thelander 

4. HV04 – Muller 

WCPL annual average impact assessment criteria 

for TSP is less than 90 µg/m 3 (see Table 3.1) on 

privately owned land. 

Pollutant 

Total suspended particulates 

(TSP) matter 

Table 3.1 TSP Criteria 

Averaging 

Period 

Criterion 

Annual 90 µg/m 3 

All four HVAS continued to operate on a six day 

cycle (in line with the OEH cycle) during the 

reporting period, in accordance with AS 2724.3 – 

1984 – Determination of total suspended 

particulates (TSP) – High volume sampler 

gravimetric method. The locations of the HVAS are 

illustrated in Figure 3.1. Both HV01 and HV02 are 

located on WCPL owned land. HV03 and HV04 are 

located on privately owned land. 

Both HV01 and HV02 had a capture rate of 100% 

during the 2011-2012 reporting period, however 

HV03 and HV04 had a capture rate of 98% and 

95% respectively. A land access issue at HV03 on 

the 14 th February 2012 and intermittent power 

failures during March 2012 at HV04 were the 

primary causes of the lower capture rate 

percentages. To supplement HV04 data for March 

2012, several ‘make up’ runs were completed by 

WCPL environmental monitoring specialist. 

The TSP results recorded at each of the HVAS sites 

are illustrated in Figures 3.9a-d below and provided 

in Appendix 2B. The annual average TSP 

concentration at all four monitoring locations did not 

exceed the long term impact annual average criteria 

of 90g/m 3 on any privately owned land. The annual 

average TSP results (at privately owned residences) 

for HV03 recorded a decrease of 23g/m 3 when 

compared to the annual average reported in the 

2010-2011 AEMR. 

Table 3.2 TSP Recent Annual Averages 

2009-2010 

Annual Ave. 


Annual Ave. 


Annual Ave. 

HV01 55g/m 3 60g/m 3 53g/m 3 

HV02 56g/m 3 48g/m 3 50g/m 3 

HV03 44g/m 3 55g/m 3 32g/m 3 

HV04 44g/m 3 37g/m 3 46g/m 3 

The highest daily TSP result for HV03 of 89.0g/m 3 

was recorded on the 03/01/2012. A review of 

meteorological conditions indicated that prevailing 

winds tended from the East South East, while 

conditions were warm and dry. HV03 and HV04 

both recorded elevated results on the 3 rd of January 

2012 (89.0g/m 3 and 117g/m 3 respectively). 

HV03 and HV04 are located north west of the mine 

and therefore under these metrological conditions 

may be considered within the influence of WCPL 

mining and neighbouring coal mine operations 

activities. However, HV02 also recorded elevated 

TSP for the same day of 122g/m 3 which suggests a 

regional dust event was occurring on that day. HV02 

is located to the south of WCPL operations on 

WCPL owned land. 

The highest daily TSP result for HV04 of 

122.0g/m 3 was recorded on the 14/04/2012, 

however the recorded TSP at HV03 for the 

14/04/2012 of 23.6g/m 3 was significantly lower. A 

review of meteorological conditions indicated that 

prevailing winds tended from the North West may 

have influenced the sampling period to 14 th of April 

2012. HV03 and HV04 are located north west of the 

mine and therefore under these metrological 

conditions is considered outside the influence of 

WCPL activities. The low result recorded by HV03 

on the same day suggest HV04 was under different 

localised influences. 

The highest daily TSP result of 115g/m 3 was 

recorded at HV01, which was above the annual 

average criteria of 90g/m 3 . HV01 is located 

adjacent to the mine entry road on WCPL owned 

land. The higher annual TSP result can be attributed 

to an increase of mining related traffic utilising this 

area as a temporary hard stand area to 

accommodate a number of contractors. 

The annual average TSP results for HV04 recorded 

an increase of 9g/m 3 when compared to the annual 

average reported in the 2010-2011 AEMR. For a 

summary of recent TSP annual averages please 

refer to Table 3.2. 

Page 42


3.2.2.3 PM 10 

Four real-time TEOM PM 10 units were in operation 

during the reporting period as part of the air quality 

monitoring program: 

1. AQ01 – Coralie 

2. AQ02 – Wambo Road 

3. AQ03 – Thelander 

4. AQ04 – Muller 

WCPL annual average and daily impact assessment 

criteria for PM 10 is less than 90 µg/m 3 and 50 µg/m 3 

respectively (see Table 3.3) on privately owned 

land. 

Pollutant 

Table 3.3 PM 10 Criteria 

Averaging 

Period 

Criterion 

Particular matter < 10µm (PM 10) 24hour 50 µg/m 3 

Particular matter < 10µm (PM 10) Annual 30 µg/m 3 

Each TEOM PM 10 unit records the PM 10 particulates 

every 15 minutes and calculates the 24 hour 

average, which is compared to the relevant criteria 

mentioned above. These units operated and 

sampled in accordance with AS 3580.9.8 - 2002, 

Method for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air - 

Determination of Suspended Particulate Matter - 

PM 10 Continuous Direct Mass Method using a 

Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 

Analyser. 

average PM 10 results (at privately owned 

residences) for HV04 recorded a slight increase of 

0.25g/m 3 when compared to the annual average 

reported in the 2010-2011 AEMR. For a summary of 

recent PM 10 annual averages please refer to Table 

3.4. 

Table 3.4 PM 10 Recent Annual Averages 

2009-2010 

Annual Ave. 


Annual Ave. 


Annual Ave. 

AQ01 20.29g/m 3 15.84g/m 3 17.60g/m 3 

AQ02 20.40g/m 3 15.72g/m 3 17.36g/m 3 

AQ03 18.08g/m 3 16.49g/m 3 14.56g/m 3 

AQ04 18.88g/m 3 15.68g/m 3 15.93g/m 3 

There were no exceedances of the daily 50g/m 3 

limit on privately owned land during the 2011-2012 

reporting period. This is in contrast to a total of two 

exceedances of the daily 50g/m 3 limit during 2010- 

2011 and a total of seven exceedences recorded 

during the 2009-2010 reporting period. 

The highest recorded daily PM 10 results on privately 

owned land for HV03 and HV04 were 43.2g/m 3 

and 41.9g/m 3 respectively. 

The highest daily PM 10 result of 82.5g/m 3 on 

WCPL owned land was recorded at AQ01. AQ01 is 

located adjacent to the mine entry road on WCPL 

owned land. Please refer to Section 3.20.2 for 

further details. 

Results recorded from the PM 10 units are illustrated 

in Figure 3.10a-d below and tabled in Appendix 

2B. 

Units AQ01, AQ02, AQ03 and AQ04 had a capture 

rate of 99%, 93%, 99% and 99% per unit 

respectively an overall improvement on the 2010- 

2011 AEMR period. Intermittent power failures and 

instrument malfunctions were identified as the 

primary cause of equipment failure. A software 

related failure for AQ02 was the primary cause of 

the unit malfunctioning. All TEOM PM 10 units have 

power surge protection devices fitted to protect 

against power surges. The locations of these TEOM 

PM 10 units are shown in Figure 3.1. 

The PM 10 annual average concentration at all four 

monitoring locations did not exceed the annual 

average criteria of 30 g/m 3 limit on privately owned 

land during the reporting period. The annual 

average PM 10 results (at privately owned 

residences) for HV03 recorded a decrease of 

1.93g/m 3 when compared to the annual average 

reported in the 2010-2011 AEMR. The annual 

Page 43


High Volume Air Sampling 

HV01 - Coralie 


HV02 - Caban 

180 

140 

Total Suspended Particulates (ug/m 3 ) 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

01/07/11 

15/07/11 

29/07/11 

12/08/11 

26/08/11 

09/09/11 

23/09/11 

07/10/11 

21/10/11 

04/11/11 

18/11/11 

02/12/11 

16/12/11 

30/12/11 

13/01/12 

27/01/12 

10/02/12 

24/02/12 

09/03/12 

23/03/12 

06/04/12 

20/04/12 

04/05/12 

18/05/12 

01/06/12 

15/06/12 

TSP 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual 

Limit 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

01/07/11 

15/07/11 

29/07/11 

12/08/11 

26/08/11 

09/09/11 

23/09/11 

07/10/11 

21/10/11 

04/11/11 

18/11/11 

02/12/11 

16/12/11 

30/12/11 

13/01/12 

27/01/12 

10/02/12 

24/02/12 

09/03/12 

23/03/12 

06/04/12 

20/04/12 

04/05/12 

18/05/12 

01/06/12 

15/06/12 

TSP 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual 

Limit 

Figure 3.9 a – Results for TSP at HV01 

(Coralie Unit) 

Figure 3.9 b – Results for TSP at HV02 

(Wambo Road Unit) 


HV03 - Thelander 


HV04 - Muller 

100 

180 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

01/07/11 

15/07/11 

29/07/11 

12/08/11 

26/08/11 

09/09/11 

23/09/11 

07/10/11 

21/10/11 

04/11/11 

18/11/11 

02/12/11 

16/12/11 

30/12/11 

13/01/12 

27/01/12 

10/02/12 

24/02/12 

09/03/12 

23/03/12 

06/04/12 

20/04/12 

04/05/12 

18/05/12 

01/06/12 

15/06/12 

TSP 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual 

Limit 


160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

01/07/11 

15/07/11 

29/07/11 

12/08/11 

26/08/11 

09/09/11 

23/09/11 

07/10/11 

21/10/11 

04/11/11 

18/11/11 

02/12/11 

16/12/11 

30/12/11 

13/01/12 

27/01/12 

10/02/12 

24/02/12 

09/03/12 

23/03/12 

06/04/12 

20/04/12 

04/05/12 

18/05/12 

01/06/12 

15/06/12 

TSP 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual 

Limit 

Figure 3.9 c – Results for TSP at HV03 

(Thelander Unit) 

Figure 3.9 d – Results for TSP at HV04 

(Muller Unit) 

Page 44


Particulate Matter 

AQ01 (Coralie - Wambo Coal site enterance road) 


AQ02 (Wambo Road) 

100 

100 

Particulate Matter (10 micron) (ug/m 3 ) 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

PM10 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual Limit 

Daily Limit 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

PM10 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual Limit 

Daily Limit 

0 

07/11 

08/11 

09/11 

10/11 

11/11 

12/11 

01/12 

02/12 

03/12 

04/12 

05/12 

06/12 

01/07/11 

01/08/11 

01/09/11 

01/10/11 

01/11/11 

01/12/11 

01/01/12 

01/02/12 

01/03/12 

01/04/12 

01/05/12 

01/06/12 

Figure 3.10a – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ01 

(Coralie – Wambo Coal Entry Road) 

Figure 3.10b – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ02 

(Wambo Road) 

100 


AQ03 (Thelander) 

100 


AQ04 (Muller) 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

02/07/11 

02/08/11 

02/09/11 

02/10/11 

02/11/11 

02/12/11 

02/01/12 

02/02/12 

02/03/12 

02/04/12 

02/05/12 

02/06/12 

PM10 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual Limit 

Daily Limit 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

07/11 

08/11 

09/11 

10/11 

11/11 

12/11 

01/12 

02/12 

03/12 

04/12 

05/12 

06/12 

PM10 

Results 

Yearly 

Average 

Annual Limit 

Daily Limit 

Figure 3.10c – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ03 

(Thelander) 

Figure 3.10d – PM 10 Results Recorded at AQ04 

(Muller) 

Page 45


3.2.2.4 Dust Deposition 

WCPL maintains a network of 15 dust deposition 

gauges, the location of each dust deposition gauge 

is shown in Figure 3.1. 

All depositional dust gauges were sampled and 

analysed for insoluble solids and ash residue, in 

accordance with AS3580.10.1:2003 Methods for 

Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air and National 

Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) 

requirements. 

WCPL annual average impact assessment criteria 

for depositional dust is 4g/m 2 /month (see Table 3.5) 

on privately owned land. 

Table 3.5 Impact Assessment Criteria for Dust 

Pollutant 

Deposited 

Dust 

Averaging 

Period 

Max increase 

in deposited 

dust levels 

Max total 

deposited 7 

dust levels 

Annual 2 g/m 2 /month 4 g/m 2 /month 

A summary of the annual averages for the 15 dust 

gauges is provided in Figure 3.11 below and a full 

summary of the monthly results provided in 

Appendix 2B. There was a capture and analysis 

rate of 100% for all dust gauges expect for D07 and 

D12. Results were not obtainable for D07 during the 

December 2011 exposure period due to the glass 

bottle and funnel missing at the time of collection. 

Results were not obtainable for D12 for the 

November 2011 exposure period as the glass bottle 

was broken at the time of collection. Throughout the 

reporting period it was noted some of the dust 

gauges contained various sources of foreign 

material including bird droppings, insects, sticks and 

other organic matter when analysed. 

Contamination was assessed based on field 

observations, laboratory observations, historical 

data and wind patterns. All monthly dust results 

deemed to be contaminated were excluded from the 

annual average. 

Table 3.6 compares the annual dust averages for 

insoluble solids, exclusive of results deemed 

contaminated, against previous reporting periods. 

There were no depositional dust gauges that 

exceeded the annual average criteria for insoluble 

solids of 4 g/m 2 /month on privately owned land (see 

Figure 3.11). On two occasions where the monthly 

result exceeded the 4g/m 2 /month criteria at D24 and 

D25. The monthly result exceeded the 4g/m 2 /month 

criteria at D24 for the October 2011 exposure 

period, however the sample was deemed 

contaminated. The monthly result exceeded the 

4g/m 2 /month criteria at D25 for the March 2012 

exposure period. The slightly elevated monthly 

result may have been influenced from south to 

south east winds during March 2012. 

Dust gauges D01 and D07 exceeded the average 

criteria of 4 g/m 2 /month, however these dust gauges 

are situated on WCPL owned land and therefore the 

annual average criteria of 4 g/m 2 /month does not 

apply. D01 is located near an internal unsealed 

road, used regularly during the reporting period. 

D01 was also located in close proximity to a number 

of major construction works including the 

Homestead Backfill Project. D07 is located near an 

internal unsealed road, used regularly during the 


D14 was located directly west of the advancing 

open cut and within the footprint of the disturbance 

area. After the July 2011 exposure period, D14 was 

removed to allow land preparation activities to 

continue in accordance with the open cut mining 

operations plan. The removal of D14 has brought 

the total number of dust gauges in the dust 

monitoring network to 15. 

Table 3.6 Dust Recent Annual Averages 

(Insoluble Solids) 

2009-2010 

Annual Ave. 

g/m 2 /moth 


Annual Ave. 

g/m 2 /moth 


Annual Ave. 

g/m 2 /moth 

D01 10.4 3.6 18.1 

D03 2.8 3.0 2.4 

D07 5.2 6.2 4.6 

D09 2.7 4.4 3.7 

D11 3.3 1.8 2.2 

D12 4.6 3.8 3.0 

D14* 8.5 9.3 - 

D17 1.8 1.3 1.3 

D19 3.3 2.6 2.9 

D20 1.9 1.4 1.4 

D21 1.5 1.1 1.4 

D22 1.6 1.2 1.4 

D23 3.7 2.1 2.1 

D24 1.6 1.6 1.1 

D25 2.3 1.7 2.2 

D26 1.8 1.3 1.3 

Note: Bold indicates dust gauges at privately owned residences. 

*D14 was removed from the dust monitoring program during the 

reporting period after July 2011 due to open cut activities, hence no 

annual average. 

7 Deposited dust is assed as insoluble solids as defined by 

Standards Australia, 1991, AS 3580.10.1-1991: Methods for 

Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air 

Page 46


Assessment criterion of a maximum increase of 

2g/m 2 /month annual average for deposited dust was 

compared with annual average deposited dust 

results from the previous reporting period (see 

Figure 3.11a). There was one exceedance of the 

2g/m 2 /month annual average increase criterion 

when compared with dust results from the 

2010/2011 reporting period. As discussed the 

elevated results from D01 during the reporting 

period were primarily contributed to major 

construction works occurring close to D01 and 

completely within WCPL operational area. The 

intention of this criterion is to distinguish dust 

contribution by WCPL from other sources. However 

the speciation of WCPL dust and other sources is 

outside the methodology of depositional monitoring 

in accordance with AS3580.10.1:2003. 

Monthly Dust Despositional Monitoring 

Annaul Averages 2011-2012 

Annual Average (g/m 2 /month) 

19 

18 

17 

16 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

D01 

D03 

D07 

D09 

D11 

D12 

D14 

D17 

D19 

D20 

D21 

D22 

D23 

D24 

D25 

D26 

Insoluble Solids Ash Residue Project Criteria 

Note: D01 & D07 are located WCPL land and therefore the annual average criteria of 4 g/m 2 /month does not apply. 

Figure 3.11 – 2011-2012 Depositional Dust Gauges Annual Averages 

Figure 3.11a – Maximum Increase in Depositional Dust between 2010/2011 to 2011/2012 

Page 47


3.3 Erosion & Sediment 

Control 


Erosion and sedimentation is managed in 

accordance with WCPL Erosion and Sediment 

Control Plan (ESCP), a requirement of Consent 

Condition 32, Schedule 4 of DA305-7-2003. The 

ESCP is a component of WCPL’s Site Water 

Management Plan as required under Condition 30, 

Schedule 4 of DA305-7-2003. The main principles 

of the ESCP include: 

Separation of runoff from disturbed and 

undisturbed areas where practicable; 

Construction of sediment structures or 

utilisation of existing mine water storages to 

capture runoff up to a specified design criterion; 

 

 

Construction of surface drains to facilitate the 

efficient transport of surface runoff. Drains are 

designed using trapezoidal or parabolic crosssections; 

and 

Progressive rehabilitation stabilisation of mine 

infrastructure areas. 

These principles take into account the general 

recommendations for site drainage works presented 

in “Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and 

Construction Volume 1” (Landcom 2004). 

 

 

 

 

The use of a street sweeper to remove dirt and 

mud from mine access roads; 

Monthly monitoring of all sediment control 

structures and maintenance when required; 

Limiting clearance and disturbance of the 

natural environment; and 

Progressive rehabilitation across site. 


Monthly inspections of sediment control structures 

as well as inspections following rainfall events of 20 

mm or more in a 24 hour period are conducted 

across the mine by WCPL personnel and 

contractors. During these inspections, sediment 

control structures are inspected for capacity, 

structural integrity and effectiveness. 

The routine removal of sediment from a number of 

the sediment control structures, including Hales 

Crossing Sediment Dam was undertaken during the 

reporting period. As discussed in the last AEMR, a 

plan of works to remove coal sediment from a series 

of purpose built sediment dams around the CHPP 

and product stockpile areas was scheduled for 

2011. Dredging to remove coal fines and increase 

the dam capacity within the Gordon Below Franklin 

Dam commenced in June 2011. The recovered coal 

fines were reprocessed through the CHPP. 

A number of strategies are used on site for erosion 

and sediment control including: 

 

The establishment of diversion banks on the 

upstream side of the site to divert clean water 

around the site and into natural drainage lines; 

The establishment of catch drains in 

accordance with relevant criteria (outlined in the 

ESCP) to direct sediment-laden water into 

sediment control structures; 

The strategic placement and design of 

sediment control structures on site to treat 

sediment laden water before it leaves site; 

 

 

 

The placement of hay bales along catch drains 

to control the velocity of flow and prevent 

scouring; 

The establishment of sediment ponds or 

utilisation of existing mine water structures to 

treat sediment laden water; 

The establishment of sediment fencing as 

required on the down-slope side of soil 

stockpiles; 

Dredging Eagles Nest Dam in June 2012 

During the reporting period WCPL commenced 

rehabilitation program within the NWC Diversion 

Stage 3. Please refer to Section 5.1.4 for further 

details about the NWC Diversion rehabilitation 

works. 

Page 48


3.4 Surface Water 


Surface water monitoring is undertaken in 

accordance with WCPL’s Surface Water Monitoring 

Program (SWMP), a requirement of Consent 

Condition 33, Schedule 4 of DA305/7/2003. The 

SWMP is a component of WCPL’s Site Water 

Management Plan as required under Condition 30, 

Schedule 4 of DA305-7-2003. In addition, the 

SWMP has also been prepared to fulfil WCPL’s EPL 

529 license conditions. 

The SWMP has previously been prepared to the 

satisfaction of DP&I and SSC and in consultation 

with DTIRIS and NOW. The SWMP was approved 

by the DP&I in October 2005. WCPL revised the 

SWMP in October 2008 and November 2009 and 

re-submitted the surface water monitoring program 

to the relevant government departments to 

accommodate operational changes and 

development consent modification requirements. 

WCPL received official notification from the DTIRIS 

during April 2010 accepting the changes to the 

SWMP. 

At the time of writing the 2011-2012 AEMR, WCPL 

were finalising another revision of the SWMP for 

submitting to the DP&I and NOW. The revision of 

the SWMP was in response to an action item in the 

2011 Environmental Independent Audit. 

The results in Section 3.4.2 of the 2011-2012 

AEMR for surface water are for those surface water 

monitoring sites required for monitoring in 

accordance with approved in the 2005 SWMP. 

In accordance with SWMP, WCPL maintained 

surface water monitoring sites, located within: 

Local waterways including Wollombi Brook, 

Doctors Creek, Longford Creek, North Wambo 

Creek, South Wambo Creek and Stony Creek; 

and 

Mine water storage dams including Eagles Nest 

Dam, Chitter Dam and South Dam. 

WCPL participates in the HRSTS which allows 

water to be discharged into the Wollombi Brook 

from the licensed discharge point SW15 (Eagles 

Nest Dam) as listed in EPL 529. For further details 

of water discharges refer to Section 2.8.3. 


3.4.2.1 Water Quality 

Surface water quality criteria for pH, Electrical 

Conductivity (EC) and Total Suspended Solids 

(TSS) for the monitoring locations at WCPL are 

provided in Table 3.1. The surface water quality 

criteria for pH and TSS were adopted from the 

discharge criteria (i.e. Schedule 4, Consent 

Condition 24 of DA 305-7-2003, and Condition L3.3 

of EPL 529) and the HRSTS. 

Table 3.1 – Surface Water Quality Criteria 

Stream System 

pH Criteria 

EC Criteria 

(µS/cm) 

TSS Criteria 

(mg/L) 

WCPL Mine Site 

Wollombi Brook 6.5 - 9.0 3,106 120 

North Wambo Creek 6.5 - 9.0 2,093 120 

Eagles Nest Dam 6.5 - 9.5 N/A * 120 

South Wambo Creek 6.5 - 9.0 492 120 

Stony Creek 6.5 - 9.0 492 120 

Wambo Rail Development 

Wollombi Brook 

Longford Creek 

Doctors Creek 

Less than 20% more 

than upstream 

concentration 


than upstream 

concentration 


than upstream 

concentration 

Note: * Under Schedule 4, Condition 24 of DA 305-7-2003 and condition L3.3 of EPL 529 the 

Eagles Nest Dam discharge point is not required to be monitored for EC. 

^ ANZECC Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000) 

Page 49


Trigger levels for EC however have been derived 

from historical monitoring data (using a minimum of 

24 data points), where available, in accordance with 

the Australia and New Zealand Environment and 

Conservation Council Guidelines for Fresh and 

Marine Water Quality (ANZECC Guidelines) 

(ANZECC, 2000). 

Additional surface water monitoring in natural 

waterways (except Hunter River) is also undertaken 

after rainfall events of more than 20 mm rain in 24 

hours (12 am to 12 am). Mine water dams including 

Eagles Nest Dam are also included in the surface 

water monitoring program. The monthly surface 

water quality results for the reporting period are 

discussed below. 

For the complete monthly surface water quality and 

rainfall event sampling results during the reporting 

period, please see Appendix 2C. 

All surface water samples are monitored for pH and 

Electrical Conductivity (EC) on a monthly basis. 

Surface water samples from natural waterways 

(except Hunter River) and mine water dams 

including Eagles Nest Dam, South Dam and Chitter 

Dam are also analysed for total dissolved solids 

(TDS) and Total Suspended Solid (TSS). In 

addition, monitoring of oil and grease concentrations 

is also undertaken. Although monitoring of 

additional mine water dam sites are not required 

under the SWMP, mine water quality is undertaken 

by WCPL for salt budgeting and for operational 

purposes. 

EC and pH are measured in the field while samples 

are collected and analysed in the laboratory for 

TDS, TSS, oil and grease. Surface water samples 

are collected in accordance with AS/NZS 

5667.4:1998 – Guidance on sampling from lakes, 

natural and man-made and AS/NZS 5667.6:1998 – 

Guidance on sampling of rivers and streams. 

A number of surface water monitoring sites within 

North Wambo Creek, South Wambo Creek and 

Stony Creek were dry during the monthly sampling 

regime and therefore no water samples could be 

obtained. 

Surface water monitoring undertaken in accordance 

with SWMP indicated that WCPL’s mining 

operations had minimal influence on the water 

quality of the surrounding natural water courses 

during the reporting period. 

3.4.2.2 pH Analysis 

The recorded pH values from the surface water 

monitoring program during the reporting period are 

presented graphically and tabulated in Appendix 

2C. 

The pH levels for the Eagles Nest Dam during the 

2010-2011 reporting period were within the pH 

criteria and ranged from 8.50 to 9.20. In general, 

mine water quality within Eagles Nest Dam is 

typically more alkaline than pH values of the 

surrounding natural creeks and streams. 

The recorded pH for the creeks and streams 

surrounding the operation varied depending on 

rainfall and volumetric flow. 

Wollombi Brook recorded average pH values of 

7.54, 7.73, 7.53 and 7.64 at surface water 

monitoring sites SW01, SW02, SW03 and SW40 

respectively. All monthly recorded pH values were 

within the SWMP surface water quality criteria and 

consistent with average pH result from the previous 


South Wambo Creek and Stony Creek recorded 

average pH values of 7.43, 7.63 and 6.88 at surface 

water monitoring sites SW06, SW07 and SW08 

respectively. All monthly recorded pH values were 

within the SWMP surface water quality criteria and 

consistent with average pH result from the previous 


North Wambo Creek recorded pH average pH 

values of 7.53 and 7.67 at surface water monitoring 

sites SW05 and SW27 respectively. There were no 

results obtainable at SW32 and only one result at 

SW04 due to dry conditions within the creek at each 

time of sampling during the reporting period. The 

one sample obtained at SW04 returned a pH value 

pH 8.00 and is within the SWMP surface water 

quality criteria. 

The recorded pH values monitored at SW39 and the 

WRD surface water sites SW43 to SW46 (i.e. 

Doctors and Longford Creeks) were within the 

surface water quality criteria and consistent with 

average pH result from the previous reporting 

period. 

3.4.2.3 Total Suspended Solids 

The recorded TSS values from the surface water 

monitoring program during the 2011-2012 reporting 

period are graphically presented and tabulated in 

Appendix 2C. 

Variations in TSS for the Eagles Nest Dam during 

the 2011-2012 reporting period were within surface 

water quality criteria limits and ranged from


Variations in TSS observed throughout the year 

within the surrounding natural creeks and streams 

were attributable to significant recent rainfall events. 

The monthly recorded TSS concentrations within 

the natural waterways surrounding the operations 

generally remained below the criteria of 120 mg/L, 

with the exception of several results as discussed 

below. 

Wollombi Brook recorded average TSS 

concentrations of 8mg/L, 17mg/L, 11mg/L and 

23mg/L at surface water monitoring sites SW01, 

SW03, SW02 and SW40 respectively. All monthly 

recorded TSS concentrations were within the 

SWMP surface water quality criteria. All annual 

average TSS concentrations for Wollombi Brook 

during the 2011-2012 AEMR reporting period were 

consistent with the average TSS concentrations 

recorded in the previous 2010-2011 AEMR. 


average TSS concentrations of 15 mg/L, 24 mg/L 

and


3.4.2.4 Electrical Conductivity and Total 

Dissolved Solids 

Monitoring of EC and TDS during the reporting 

period of the natural creek water systems varied 

depending on the volumetric flows within these 

creek systems. This relationship between EC 

concentrations and flow can been seen from 

monitoring data at both gauging stations within the 

Wollombi Brook 8 (Appendix 2C). 

The EC and TDS concentrations within the mine 

water system typically depends on the quality of the 

fresh water added to the system and the mine water 

pumped around site. EC and TDS results recorded 

during the 2011-2012 reporting period are 

graphically presented and tabulated in Appendix 

2C. 

Wollombi Brook recorded average EC values of 

408S/cm, 458S/cm, 425S/cm and 450S/cm at 

surface water monitoring sites SW01, SW02, SW03 

and SW40 respectively. The annual average EC 

concentrations for Wollombi Brook during the 2011- 

2012 AEMR reporting period were lower compared 

to the average EC concentrations recorded in the 

previous 2010-2011 AEMR. The relationship 

between the lower EC concentrations and water 

flows in Wollombi brook is displayed in Appendix 

2C. 

All monthly recorded EC values during 2011-2012 

were within the SWMP surface water quality criteria, 

in contrast with the results from SW03 during the 

2009-2010 AEMR. During the 2009-2010 reporting 

period there were five occasions at SW05 where the 

EC criteria was not achieved due to low flows in the 

brook. However, the Wollombi Brook sustained 

good flows during this reporting period, resulting in 

lower EC concentrations. 


average EC values of 439S/cm, 547S/cm and 

346mg/L at surface water monitoring sites SW06, 

SW07 and SW08 respectively. All annual average 

EC concentrations for South Wambo Creek and 

Stony Creek during the 2011-2012 AEMR reporting 

period were comparable to the average EC 

concentrations recorded in the previous 2010-2011 

AEMR. 

All monthly recorded EC values during 2011-2012 

were within the SWMP surface water quality criteria 

for SW06, SW07 and SW08. During the previous 

2010-2011 reporting period the monthly EC criterion 

was not achieved on several occasions at SW06 

and SW07. Both SW06 and SW07 are upstream of 

8 Data supplied by the NSW Office of Water 

WCPL mining operation and therefore considered 

outside the influence of mining. 

North Wambo Creek average EC values of 

430S/cm, 1627S/cm and 280mg/L at surface 

water monitoring sites SW27, SW05 and SW04 

respectively. Monthly EC concentrations for North 

Wambo Creek at SW27, SW05 and SW04 during 

the 2011-2012 AEMR reporting achieved the criteria 

for EC. On comparisons to the previous reporting 

period EC results at SW05 did not meet the EC 

criteria of 2140S/cm for August 2010 and 

September 2010. 

EC concentrations at SW39 achieved the water 

quality criteria of 492mg/L during the reporting 

period. On comparisons to the previous reporting 

period EC results at SW39 did not meet the EC 

criteria on several occasions. SW39 is to the north 

west of the operations where grazing activities occur 

on WCPL land under a private lease arrangement 

and therefore considered outside the influences 

from mining. 

Results from the WRD water monitoring program 

show that EC in the Wollombi Brook achieved the 

EC criteria. 

As discussed above, surface water sites at Longford 

Creek (SW43 and SW44) are adjacent to the 

Golden Highway and considered outside the 

influence of any WCPL activities. Additionally 

surface water sites at Doctors Creek (SW46 and 

SW45) are immediately downstream from non 

WCPL agricultural and mining activities, including 

cattle grazing and coal stockpiling. 

Doctors Creek also provides for the passage of 

mine water discharged from a neighbouring mine to 

the Hunter River. During the reporting period there 

were a number of visual confirmations that several 

discharges to Doctors Creek were being 

undertaken. The high EC periodically recorded at 

Doctors Creek is consistent with these events. 

3.4.2.5 Oil and Grease 

Oil and grease results recorded during the reporting 

period concluded that oil and grease concentrations 

in the surrounding waters were generally in 

compliance with the criteria set out in the WRD 

SWMP. Oil and grease results recorded during the 

2010-2011 reporting period are tabulated in 

Appendix 2C. 

3.4.2.6 Flow Monitoring 

In consultation with NOW, WCPL completed a 

program to re-install all nine surface water flow sites 

destroyed during the June 2007 floods. The 

Page 52


replacement program involved the installation of 

hydrographic stations in North Wambo Creek, South 

Wambo Creek and Stony Creek, the locations of 

each flow monitoring site are illustrated in Figure 

3.1. 

monitoring sites approved in the 2005 GWMP. 

Appendix 2D contains all groundwater monitoring 

results from the expanded network of groundwater 

monitoring sites undertaken during the reporting 

period. 

The overall objectives of the GWMP are to establish 

baseline groundwater quality and water level data 

and to implement a programme of data collection 

that can be utilised to assess potential impacts of 

mining activities on the groundwater resources of 

the area. 

NWC Flow monitor site FM1 – April 2009 

The results of the flow monitoring program within 

North Wambo Creek, South Wambo Creek and 

Stony Creek were not able to be finalised due to 

software and technical difficulties. WCPL were 

progressing to resolve the matter at the end of the 

reporting period. The flow monitoring data for the 

2011-2012 period will be presented in the next 


Flow monitoring in Wollombi Brook is undertaken at 

Bulga and Warkworth, the results are obtained from 

the NOW website and are presented in Appendix 

2C. 

3.5 Groundwater Management 


WCPL operates in accordance with the 

Groundwater Monitoring Program (GWMP). The 

GWMP was approved by the DP&I in October 2005. 

WCPL revised the GWMP in July 2008 and January 

2010, re-submitting the GWMP to the relevant 

government departments to accommodate 

operational changes, report recommendations and 

development consent modification requirements. 

WCPL received official notification from the DTIRIS 

during April 2010 accepting the changes to the 

revised GWMP, however WCPL were still awaiting a 

response from DP&I. 


were finalising another revision of the GWMP for 


the GWMP was in response to an action item in the 


The results in Section 3.5.2 of the 2011-2012 

AEMR for groundwater are for those groundwater 

From a hydrogeological perspective, the Wambo 

area is relatively complex due to the occurrence of 

alluvium, it’s proximity to Wollemi National Park and 

a number of historical and proposed mining 

developments. Due consideration must also be paid 

to constraints imposed by the existing and proposed 

mining operations. 

Groundwater data is collected on-site on a 

bimonthly basis and records from 1994 are available 

for some sites. During the 2008-2009 reporting 

period, WCPL initiated an independent review of the 

current groundwater monitoring network, 

undertaken by a specialist groundwater hydrologist. 

The outcomes of that review concluded that a 

modification of the groundwater monitoring network 

was required for current and future mining 

operations. Based on the recommendations from 

the review, a total of 11 new groundwater 

monitoring bores were installed in 2009-2010 with 

an additional vibrating wire piezometer installed 

during 2010-2011. The groundwater monitoring 

network now consists of 30 monitoring sites. These 

sites consist of purpose constructed monitoring 

bores (also referred to as piezometers); water 

supply bores, and bores owned by neighbouring 

landholders. Actual bores may be standpipe 

monitoring bores, stock wells or multiple vibrating 

wire piezometers. Appendix 2D presents the 

results from the groundwater monitoring network. 

The location of groundwater sites monitored during 

the reporting period are illustrated in Figure 3.12. 

All groundwater samples were collected in 

accordance with AS/NZS 5667.11:1998 – Guidance 

on sampling of ground waters. All samples collected 

were analysed in the field for pH, electrical 

conductivity (EC), temperature and depth to water. 


The purpose of groundwater impact assessment 

criteria is to provide “Trigger Levels” for each of the 

key groundwater parameters, that is, depth to water, 

pH and EC. The “Trigger Levels” for each existing 

monitoring site used in the GWMP has been 

Page 53


assessed through review of the historical water level 

and water quality data. For the depth to water level 

and EC, the upper and lower trigger levels have 

been assigned as two standard deviations greater 

and less than the maximum and minimum observed 

values. In terms of pH, the lower and upper trigger 

levels have been specified as 6.0 and 9.5 

respectively which encompass the normal range for 

groundwater. To date, few pH values at either 

WCPL or United Collieries have been measured 

outside this range. 

The groundwater quality criteria from the updated 

GWMP which were applicable to groundwater 

monitoring sites from December 2005 are 

summarised in Table 3.2. 

The depth to water monitoring results during the 

reporting period are illustrated in Figures 3.13a-b to 

3.17 and provided in Appendix 2D. All water levels 

are measured from the top of the borehole casing. 

3.5.2.1 Depth to Water 

In general, water levels remained static for most of 

the reporting period, with most groundwater 

monitoring sites displaying slightly elevated water 

levels through this period. Good rainfall events in 

each of the months September through December 

2011 of 72.4mm, 68.8mm, 119.6 mm and 77.8mm 

respectively and again during February and March 

2012 of 124.5mm and 85.9mm respectively 

supported this trend. 

Groundwater Wells 

GW02 and GW11 located on the Brosi property 

were monitored throughout 2011-2012. During this 

time, the water levels showed slight increases, 

peaking in February 2012 before showing a gradual 

decline for the remainder of the reporting period. 

levels at the end of the reporting period. As 

recorded in the 2010-2011 reporting period, the 

water level at GW09 again remained outside the 

water level criterion during the 2011-2012 reporting 

period. 

100 and 200 Series Piezometers 

The 100 and 200 series piezometers located 

adjacent to the Wollombi Brook were monitored 

throughout 2011-2012. The 100 series piezometers 

standing water levels were generally higher than in 

2010-2011 reporting period. Piezometers P106, 

P111, P114 and P116 were periodically outside 

their respective criteria “minimum” level at times. As 

per other groundwater monitoring sites, standing 

water levels appeared to be elevated in months 

corresponding to good rainfall events. 

The 200 series piezometers standing water levels 

remained static during the reporting period and also 

displayed similar characteristics to the 100 series 

piezometers regarding increases in water levels in 

February 2012 and April 2012. 

300 Series Piezometers 

The 300 series piezometers are located adjacent to 

Stony Creek. During this reporting period P301 and 

P315 water levels were maintained within their 

respective depth to water level criteria. Due to 

access issues, GW315 was not sampled in April 

and June 2012. 

Longwall Panel 5 moved adjacent to P301 during 

January 2012, corresponding to a drop in measured 

depth to water level in December 2011. However 

further monitoring in February 2012 displayed a 

substantial recovery of the standing water level. 

While GW02 achieved the criteria values, GW11 

was found to be periodically below the minimum 

criterion level in 2011-2012. In contrast, both water 

levels in GW02 and GW11 during 2010-2011 

remained stable and within criterion for the period. 

GW08 and GW09 are located on WCPL property 

and were monitored throughout the 2011-2012 

period. The water levels remained mostly static for 

the period with a slight increase in water levels 

noted after heavy rainfalls in March 2012. 

Groundwater monitoring in 2011-2012 identified 

only minor decreases and fluctuations of water 

Page 54


Table 3.2 – Groundwater Quality Criteria 


Site 

Depth to Groundwater 

Level 

Min WL 

(mbGL) 

Max WL 

(mbGL) 

Min pH 

pH 

Max pH 

Electrical Conductivity 

Min EC 

(S/cm) 

Max EC (S/cm) 

P106 7.16 12.3 6.0 9.5 100 1,325 

P109 4.30 7.81 6.0 9.5 100 890 

P110 2.31 10.86 6.0 9.5 250 1,300 

P111 5.54 9.20 6.0 9.5 300 715 

P114 5.70 7.92 6.0 9.5 250 750 

P116 5.50 9.08 6.0 9.5 1,500 8,000 

P202 8.15 10.60 6.0 9.5 2,500 8,500 

P206 19.18 23.99 6.0 9.5 1,400 3,500 

P301 8.77 15.98 6.0 9.5 8,500 10,000 

*P311 18.15 25.85 6.0 9.5 6,500 8,000 

P315 2.26 11.90 6.0 9.5 250 600 

GW02 4.05 11.41 6.0 9.5 100 860 

GW08 1.17 3.80 6.0 9.5 1,500 2,500 

GW09 2.02 2.85 6.0 9.5 1,500 1,800 

GW11 4.25 7.75 6.0 9.5 200 750 

P1 13.33 30.28 6.0 9.5 5,000 12,000 

P3 5.63 9.15 6.0 9.5 300 11,200 

P5 0.76 7.74 6.0 9.5 750 5,250 

P6 1.58 6.47 6.0 9.5 1,500 3,500 

P11 0.50 44.58 6.0 9.5 10,000 23,000 

P12 5.75 7.77 6.0 9.5 2,800 8,820 

P13 5.96 7.98 6.0 9.5 1,000 3,200 

P15 5.46 6.42 6.0 9.5 2,900 22,000 

P16 6.47 7.37 6.0 9.5 3,800 22,700 

P17 5.25 6.21 6.0 9.5 8,900 17,000 

P18 6.48 7.53 6.0 9.5 4,450 22,000 

P20 6.83 7.86 6.0 9.5 4,750 22,800 

Note: mbGL – meters below ground level 

* P311 has now been decommissioned due to subsidence related impacts 

Page 55

SUMP 

SUMP 

GW20 

GW16 GW17 GW19 

P1 

P11 


DIVERSION 

P3 

P20 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

P5 

P6 

GW21 

WAMBO CHPP 

GW18 

WAMBO ADMIN 

P315 

WAMBO 

GW09 

NORTH 

CREEK 

GW08 

WOLLOMBI 

BROOK 

GW15 

P301 

GW12 

P114 P206 

P116 

P106 

P202 

GW14 

STONY 

CREEK 

P109 

GW02 

SOUTH 

GW11 

WAMBO 

CREEK 

GW22 

GW13 

Legend 





Wambo Ground Water Well Monitoring Site 

Wambo Peizometer Monitoring Site 

Wambo Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Site 

United Peizometer Monitoring Site 




Workings (Proposed) 

Dams 

WAMBO COAL 

GROUND WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS 

FIGURE 3.12


Figure 3.13a – Ground Water (Brosi Wells) Depth to Water 

Monthly Piezometer Monitoring 

100 Series 

Figure 3.13b – Ground Water (Wambo Wells) Depth to Water 

Monthly Ground Water Monitoring 

Wambo Property 

P106 P109 P110 P111 P114 P116 

GW08 - Old Well No. 1 (United Well 1) GW09 - New Well No. 2 (United Well 2) 

Month 

Month 

Depth to Water (m) 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Figure 3.14 – Ground Water (100 Series) Depth to Water 



100 Series 


200 Series 


0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

P106 P109 P110 P111 P114 P116 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Month 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

P202 

Dec-11 

Month 

Jan-12 

P206 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 



300 Series 

P301 P311 P315 

Figure 3.17 – Ground Water (United) Depth to Water 


United Piezometers 

P1 P3 P5 P6 P11 P12 


0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Month 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

Jul-11 

P13 P15 P16 P17 P18 P20 

Month 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Page 57


United Collieries Piezometers 

The United Collieries network of piezometers 

displayed largely static water levels for most of the 

reporting period. All piezometers except P1, P12 

and P13 were not sampled in February due to 

access issues at the time. P5 and P18 both 

periodically exceeded maximum depth to water 

value. P11 has remained dry throughout this and 

the previous reporting period. The December 2011 

result for P6 was outside the minimum depth to 

water criteria. 

The remaining sites remained within their respective 

depth to water criteria for the 2011-2012 reporting 

period. Significant rainfall events during the middle 

of the reporting period were likely influencing 

increases in water levels at the corresponding time. 

3.5.2.2 pH 

The results for pH analysis of the groundwater 

monitoring network are provided graphically and 

tabulated in Appendix 2D. 

The pH values for groundwater in wells GW02, 

GW09 and GW11 remained within the GWMP 

trigger levels during the reporting period with pH 

values averaging from 6.88 to 7.89. 

GW08 had a single value slightly outside of 

minimum criteria in 2011-2012. The groundwater 

wells GW02 and GW11 located on the Brosi’s 

property are subject to the ANZECC criteria for 

“Raw Waters for drinking purposes subject to 

coarse screening”. GW02 was just outside of the 

pH range of 6.5-8.5 in August 2011. This value is 

similar to those recorded by the 100 series 

piezometers in the ‘Wambo Creek Alluvium’. GW11 

was within the ANZECC pH range of 6.5-8.5 for the 

whole monitoring period. 

All pH values recorded during the 2011-2012 

reporting period for the 100, 200 and 300 series 

remained within the pH trigger limits except for one 

value recorded at P315. The value of pH3.7 

obtained at P315 in February 2012 was not able to 

be verified with further sampling due to accessibility 

issues. Ongoing monitoring in the next reporting 

period will identify if the water quality is returning 

back within the water quality criteria. 

3.5.2.3 Electrical Conductivity 

The results for EC analysis of the groundwater 

monitoring network are provided graphically and 

tabulated in Appendix 2D. 

Groundwater wells GW08 and GW11 remained for 

the most part within their respective GWMP trigger 

levels for EC during the reporting period. Low 

rainfall in July and August 2011 may have 

contributed to the elevated EC at GW02 in August 

2011. The average EC for GW02 and GW11 was 

574 uS/cm and 417 uS/cm respectively. The 

recorded EC at GW09 has remained below the 

minimum EC criterion of 1500S/cm since 

December 2010. Average EC of GW09 for this 

reporting period was 471 uS/cm. 

The measured EC in the 100 and 200 piezometer 

series remained relatively static during the reporting 

period. The measured EC for P114 was the only 

100 or 200 series piezometer with EC values above 

the groundwater quality criteria for the reporting 

period. Further monitoring demonstrated EC 

concentrations for P114 began returning to previous 

concentrations. The EC results recorded in the 

2011-2012 reporting period for both the 100 and 

200 piezometer series were consistent with EC 

results recorded in the 2010-2011 period. 

The measured EC in the 300 series piezometers 

during the reporting period showed some 

fluctuations. All the measured EC values at P301 

fell below their minimum EC trigger level of 

8500S/cm with an annual average of 2788S/cm 

and a minimum EC valve of 2130S/cm for 

February 2012. The April 2012 sampling event at 

P301 showed a periodic increase in EC to 

4,040uS/cm. The EC results recorded in the 2010- 

2011 reporting period for the 300 piezometer series 

were generally consistent with EC results recorded 

in the 2009-2010 period. 

Most of the United Collieries monitored piezometers 

generally remained within their respective EC 

criteria levels during the reporting period. The 

remainder of United’s piezometers returned EC 

values well below their respective minimum EC 

trigger levels. The EC results recorded in the 2011- 

2012 reporting period for the United Collieries 

piezometers were consistent with EC results 

recorded in the 2010-2011 period. 

All pH values recorded during the 2011-2012 

reporting period for the United Collieries 

piezometers remained within their respective pH 

trigger limits as listed in Table 3.2. 

Page 58


3.6 Contaminated Land 


The highest potential for land contamination at 

WCPL is from hydrocarbons. The main areas with 

the potential for land contamination are the 

hydrocarbon storage and refuelling areas. All 

hydrocarbon storage areas are routinely inspected 

as part of WCPL Environmental Management 

System (EMS). These concrete bunded areas are 

regularly monitored and maintained, reducing the 

risk of any hydrocarbon spillage. 

WCPL developed a detailed scope of works to 

remove the old underground unleaded fuel tank and 

its associated fuel bowser, in response an audit 

report recommendation. As discussed in Section 

2.9.1, WCPL engaged an independent 

environmental consultancy to validate compliance of 

the facility against The Protection of the 

Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum 

Storage Systems) Regulation 2008. Validation of 

the UST excavation and waste classification 

sampling of the stockpiled material was undertaken 

on 5 July 2011. All concentrations of the soil 

samples collected from the pit walls and base as 

well as from underneath the bowser and the fuel line 

were below the SAC for TPH, BTEX, PAH and 

Lead. Therefore, the tank pit excavation is deemed 

suitable to remain on a site for continued 

commercial/industrial land use in accordance with 

the NSW EPA “Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for 

Assessing Service Station Sites” (1994). 

All concentrations of the soil samples collected from 

the excavated material stockpile were below the 

SAC for TPH, BTEX, PAH and Lead. Therefore, the 

stockpiled material was classified as “General Solid” 

waste in accordance with the NSW DECC (2008) 

waste classification guidelines. 

As discussed in the last AEMR, WCPL and Downer 

EDI were finalising procedures and location of the 

bioremediation site within the Open Cut. The 

location of the bioremediation area was changed 

during this reporting period to allow for realignment 

of the haul road for the raising of the Hunter Pit 

tailings dam wall. The new location chosen for the 

site is now adjacent to the ramp going to RL 160. 

This facility in now operational to accept and treat 

hydrocarbon contaminated material. Further details 

regarding the bioremediation site are discussed in 

Section 3.17. 

With the above controls in place, the probability of 

contaminated land at WCPL is considered to be low. 

Any soil that becomes contaminated with 

hydrocarbons is reported and collected for treatment 

in the new bioremediation facility. 

General location of new bioremediation site 

General arrangement of new bioremediation site 

3.7 Threatened Flora and 

Fauna 


WCPL has a Flora and Fauna Management Plan 

(FFMP) for the mine, and for the Wambo Rail 

Development (WRD). Both Plans have been 

prepared in accordance with the development 

consent requirements, and were approved by the 

DP&I in 2005. The FFMP’s document management 

practices aimed at minimising the potential impacts 

on flora and fauna as a result of WCPL’s activities. 

Both plans include a Vegetation Clearance Protocol 

and Threatened Species Management Protocol. 

The FFMP for the mine also outlines the Remnant 

Woodland Enhancement Program (RWEP), the 

Rehabilitation Program and the Flora and Fauna 

Monitoring Program. 

Page 59


During 2008 the FFMP was reviewed internally and 

audited externally by an ecologist. The revised 

FFMP was submitted to the DP&I in April 2008, and 

approved by the DP&I in June 2008. A further 

review of the FFMP was completed in early 2010 

and subsequently re-submitted into the DP&I. At the 

end of the reporting period, WCPL were awaiting 

notification from DP&I regarding the latest revision 

of the FFMP. 


were finalising another revision of the FFMP for 


the FFMP was in response to an action item in the 


The WRD FFMP includes the requirements for the 

protection and maintenance of the rail loop 

woodland areas as part of the RWEP. 

The key components of the Vegetation Clearance 

Protocol include the delineation of areas to be 

cleared of remnant vegetation, pre-clearance 

surveys, fauna management strategies, vegetation 

clearance procedures, seed collection, and salvage 

reuse of materials. 

The key components of the Threatened Species 

Management Protocol are site observations and 

surveys, threatened species management 

strategies, consultation and reporting. 


During the reporting period WCPL engaged a 

specialist ecologist to undertake the annual 

ecological monitoring Remnant Woodland Areas 

and Riparian Bend and Bank Stability Monitoring, in 

accordance with the FFMP. A summary of the 

monitoring is in Section 3.7.2.3. In addition to this, 

WCPL completed Swift Parrot and Regent 

Honeyeater and winter bird surveys. The results of 

the winter bird survey are incorporated into the 

annual Ecological Monitoring Report, included in 

Appendix 2G. 

3.7.2.1 Pre-Clearance Surveys 

During the reporting period, several pre-clearance 

surveys were undertaken in consultation with 

ecological specialists, for mining and exploration 

related activities, including the advancing open cut 

into the area known as the Montrose Pit . Under the 

FFMP, pre-clearance surveys identify requirements 

for additional flora and fauna management 

measures. 

3.7.2.2 Acacia Species 

During the development of the EIS in 2003, a stand 

of an Acacia species was found to the west of North 

Wambo Creek, which was initially identified as 

Acacia anuera. In 2004 Terry Tame (Acacia expert) 

and Travis Peake (then of the Hunter Catchment 

Management Trust) concluded this stand to be 

Acacia pendula. However, the lack of flowering 

plants meant that confirmation could not be 

attained. 

The NSW Scientific Committee has made a final 

determination to list the population of the tree 

Acacia pendula in the Hunter catchment as an 

Endangered Population in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of 

the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. 

An Acacia management plan was developed in 

2006. During the development of this management 

plan site investigations were undertaken of the 

Acacia sp. on site and the known stands of Acacia 

pendula in Jerry’s Plains cemetery. These 

investigations raised questions over the correct 

identification of the large stand of Acacia sp at 

WCPL. Due to the lack of flowering it is thought that 

perhaps this plant is a sterile hybrid of Acacia 

pendula and Acacia homalophylla. Conclusively 

identified Acacia pendula and these hybrid Acacia 

have been found at Jerry’s Plains cemetery and 

across WCPL’s site. 

Further detailed investigations, which included a site 

inspection in April 2007 to determine the correct 

identification of these Acacia species was 

undertaken by HLA Envirosciences. Although the 

findings to date have been inconclusive, WCPL 

continued to monitor these plants for signs of 

flowering during 2010-2011 so that correct 

identification may be made. 

In 2008, investigations were undertaken with an 

expert botanist during the reporting period to verify if 

the strand is actually Acacia pendula. It was 

determined that insufficient information exists (i.e. 

did not flower during the reporting period again) with 

respect to the genetic characteristic of this species. 

In accordance with Condition 16 of the Wambo Coal 

SMP, WCPL prepared the Acacia pendula 

Management Plan for LW Panel 4. The Acacia 

pendula Management Plan for LW Panel 4 was 

approved by the DTIRIS on the 13 January 2011. 

In accordance with WCPL’s Acacia pendula 

Management Plan for LW Panel 4 an inspection 

was completed on 15 June 2011 by an ecologist. 

These investigations were conducted as a due 

diligence precaution to determine the current 

condition of the population with regards to the 

health, recruitment, extent and habitat attributes 

Page 60


prior to undermining. The results from that survey 

concluded the stand is generally healthy with 

respect to Age Classes, Recruitment, Health, 

Infestations and Senescence. The stand shows the 

typical attributes of a dynamic population which is 

self-propagating and is likely to continue to do so 

provided no stochastic events impact upon the area. 

Underground mining activities below this stand of 

Acacia species were completed during the reporting 

period. In accordance with the Acacia pendula 

Management Plan for LW Panel 4, post inspections 

were undertaken on 5 December 2011 by an 

ecologist. These investigations were conducted as a 

due diligence precaution to compare the condition of 

the population with regards to the health, 

recruitment, extent and habitat attributes 

subsequent to undermining by LW-4. 

The stand of Acacia pendula (Weeping Myall) within 

the RWEP area is generally healthy with respect to 

Age Classes, Recruitment, Health, Infestations and 

Senescence. The stand shows the typical attributes 

of a dynamic population which is currently 

selfpropagating and is likely to continue to do so 

provided no stochastic events impact upon the area. 

There are large numbers of the parasitic mistletoe 

Amyema pendula present on many of the Weeping 

Myall trees. In high numbers these mistletoes have 

a detrimental effect on the Weeping Myall and have 

most likely caused the death of some specimens. 

For the complete assessment report, please refer to 

Appendix 2G. 

3.7.2.3 Remnant Woodland Enhancement 

Program 

The objective of the Remnant Woodland 

Enhancement Program (RWEP) is to help conserve 

regional biodiversity, whilst enhancing the habitat 

available to flora and fauna. The RWEP will provide 

a strategy that gives protection in perpetuity for 

RWEP Area A and long-term protection of RWEP 

Areas B and C. The RWEP also includes the area 

within the area of the WRD rail loop (see Figure 

3.18). 

During late 2009, WCPL added another area of 

approximately 50ha to the Remnant Woodland 

Enhancement Program. The additional area offset 

construction of the new South Dam. This recent 

offset area is now referred to as RWEP Area D (see 

Figure 3.18). 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Summary 

Flora monitoring identified 266 flora species across 

34 flora quadrats. Based on these observations, the 

current management practices within the RWEP 

areas of Wambo Coal Mine is appropriate for the 

conservation of flora species. Variation evident in 

the results from the six years of monitoring is most 

likely related to natural variation in species 

distribution, natural variation in species abundance 

and variation inherent in the sampling design, and 

not due to current management practices. There 

was no evidence to suggest that current 

management practices or mining activity was having 

any effect on the flora species within the RWEP 

areas of Wambo Coal Mine. 

While no Swift Parrots (Lathamus discolor) or 

Regent Honeyeaters (Anthochaera phrygia) were 

identified during targeted winter bird surveys, annual 

surveys for these species should continue into the 

future, particularly during years of heavy eucalypt 

blossom when either or both species may occur on 

Wambo Coal land. 

Diurnal bird monitoring identified a total of 126 bird 

species across 26 survey sites and 

opportunistically, including nine threatened species. 

Current management practises within the RWEP 

areas of Wambo Coal Mine appear to be 

appropriate for the conservation of bird species. 

Variation evident in the results across the years of 

monitoring is most likely related to natural variation 

in species diversity, natural variation in species 

abundance and variation inherent in the sampling 

design, and not to current management practises. 

One Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), which is listed 

as Vulnerable under the NSW Threatened Species 

Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), responded during 

call playback surveys. Owl species targeted by call 

playback also included Masked Owl (Tyto 

novaehollandiae), Barking Owl (Ninox connivens) 

and Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa). Due to the large 

home range area of the target owl species, which 

each have a home range in the vicinity of or greater 

than 1000 hectares and the relatively few (four) call 

playback sessions undertaken each year it is not 

unexpected that threatened owls species are rarely 

detected. 

Spotlighting surveys identified the Common 

Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) as the 

most common arboreal mammal species in RWEP 

areas of the Wambo Coal Mine. Across five years of 

annual monitoring only four arboreal mammal 

species have been identified. The Common 

Brushtail Possum was identified each year and the 

Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) was recorded for 

the first time in 2011. The threatened Yellow bellied 

Page 61


Glider (P. australis) and Squirrel Glider (P. 

norfolcensis) were recorded for the first time in 

2010. Both species are listed as Vulnerable under 

the TSC Act. 

Amphibian species were recorded at their highest 

abundance to date with 13 species being identified. 

Three species of reptile were recorded which is the 

lowest abundance from all survey years. 

Ten microbat species were positively identified with 

four being listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act, 

namely the Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus 

dwyeri), Little Bentwing Bat (Miniopterus australis), 

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii 

oceanensis) and Yellow-Bellied Sheathtail-bat 

(Saccolarimus flaviventris). 

Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) 

There is no evidence to suggest that current 

management practices or mining activities are 

having any negative impact on fauna species within 

the RWEP areas. 

Riparian monitoring identified Stoney Creek as 

being in good condition, and North Wambo and 

South Wambo Creeks in moderate condition. 

Current bank erosion problem areas are a result of 

historic land management practises, however, in the 

absence of current management will continue to 

degrade. Subsidence from mining practices was 

detected along North Wambo Creek during riparian 

assessments. Recommendations have been made 

to address problem erosion areas and to undertake 

other management actions that would lead to 

increased condition scores for all three creeks. 

The 2011 survey recorded the average number of 

bird species, when compared to all other survey 

seasons, including the Common Bronzewing (Phaps 

chalcoptera) and Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta 

chrysoptera) (see below). 

Male Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera) 

Page 62

SUMP 

SUMP 

V10-A2 

NORTH WAMBO 

CREEK DIVERSION 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

V10-A1 

D 

V11-B1 

V6-A1 

V11-B2 

V6-B1c 

V6-B2c 

C 

V6-A3 

V1-B3 

V2-B2 

V13-B1 

V9-B2 

B 

V14-B1 

V14-A1 

V14-B2 

V1-B1 

V2-B1 V5-B2 

V5-B3 

V1-B2 

A 

V6-B2 

V6-B3 

V1-A1 

V3-B1 V6-B1 

V5-B1 

V6-A1 

V5-A1 

V5-A2 

V10-B1 

V9-B1 

V1-A2 

V2-A1 

Wollemi 

National 

Park 

V9-A1 

Legend 


Remnant Woodland Enhancement 

Vegetation Communities 


Plot Type - Condition 

Base - Satisfactory 

Base - Good 

Analogue - Poor 

Analogue - Satisfactory 

Analogue - Good 

WAMBO COAL 

REMNANT WOODLAND ENHANCEMENT 

PROGRAM MONITORING 

FIGURE 3.18 



DIVERSION 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

WARKWORTH 

D 

STAGE 3 CREEK 

DIVERSION 

A 

C 

WAMBO 

HOMESTEAD 

WAMBO ADMIN 

WAMBO CHPP 


B 

A 

STONY 

CREEK 

SOUTH 

WAMBO 

CREEK 

WOLLOMBI 

BROOK 

Legend 


Remnant Woodland Enhancement 

Weed Control 

Dams 

WEED CONTROL 

FIGURE 3.19 

WAMBO COAL 



3.8 Weeds 


The FFMP details the weed control measures used 

to minimise the potential for weed invasion. These 

include identification of weed infestations during 

pre-clearance surveys, removal of weeds or 

application of approved herbicides and follow-up 

inspections to assess effectiveness of the weed 

management measures implemented. 

Only certified personnel who have completed the 

ChemCert Farm Chemicals User Course, the 

SMART Train Chemical User qualification or 

equivalent undertake weed control at WCPL. All 

activities are conducted in accordance with the 

Pesticides Amendment (Records) Regulation 2002. 

Weed sighting sheets have been developed and are 

made available to all personnel. The sighting sheets 

assist with prioritising weed control works and 

identifying problem areas. During the reporting 

period WCPL engaged a weed contractor to assist 

with the ongoing (monthly) weed control. All areas 

that are inspected and controlled are entered into 

GIS database to assist in the management of weeds 

across the entire site (see Figure 3.19). 


3.8.2.1 Remnant Woodland Enhancement 

Areas 

A comprehensive weed control program within 

Remnant Woodland Areas continued during the 

reporting period. The target species of the weed 

control program included African Olive, Mother of 

Millions, Creeping Pear, Tiger Pear, Purple Top, 

Caster Oil Plant, Galenia and African Boxthorn. 

North Wambo Creek and Stony Creek. Continued 

monitoring will be undertaken during 2011-2012 to 

determine if there is any seasonal variation in the 

weed species present. All weed control work is 

performed in accordance with the Cattle Care 

requirements. 

3.8.2.3 Open Cut Rehabilitation 

Weed control programs continued within areas of 

the Open Cut rehabilitation. Several methods of 

weed control have historically been employed, 

including weed spraying, burying and competition 

planting. 

3.9 Feral Animal Control 


The FFMP details the feral animal control measures 

used to minimise the threat to native fauna and 

comply with the requirements of the Rural Lands 

Protection Act, 1998. Programs to assess the 

status of pest populations, implementation of pest 

control measures, implementation of mandatory 

pest control for any declared pests (i.e. rabbits, pigs 

and wild dogs) and follow-up inspections to assess 

effectiveness of the control measures implemented 

are carried out on an annual basis. 


During the reporting period WCPL completed an 

extensive feral animal control program. The 

vertebrate pest control program was undertaken in 

during January/February 2012 and during May 2012 

throughout the RWEP areas, around WCPL 

infrastructure and WCPL owned buffer lands. 

Follow up spraying continued in this reporting 

period, to enhance previous spraying campaigns. 

Weed spraying in RWEP A and the Rail Loop areas 

reduced significantly the areas infested by Creeping 

Pear. The weed control program also focussed on 

reducing the number of African Olive trees across 

WCPL landholdings. 

WCPL weed control program and continued 

monitoring will be undertaken during 2012-2013 to 

determine if there is any seasonal variation in the 

weed species present. 

3.8.2.2 North Wambo, South Wambo and 

Stoney Creeks 

During the reporting period weed control was 

undertaken along potions of South Wambo Creek, 

Jan/Feb 2012 Dog Baiting Locations 

The aim of the program was to target wild dogs that 

had been reported in and surrounding the 

Warkworth area. Feral species control is an integral 

component of Wambo’s long term flora and fauna 

enhancement program. 

Page 65


The vertebrate pest management program involved 

1080 baiting, targeting wild dogs (Canis lupus 

familiaris) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes). The program 

was run in conjunction with the Livestock Health and 

Pest Authority and surrounding mining operations. 

Figure 1 Illustrates the general area targeted for dog 

baiting in its regional context. 

The vertebrate pest management program proved 

extremely successful with at least one bait taken 

from 88% (or 41 of the 47 sites) of the baiting sites 

established. A further 6% (3 of the 47 sites) of the 

sites had been disturbed by dog activity although no 

baits were actually taken from these sites, leaving 

only three sites (6%) where baits were not taken 

and sites were not disturbed at all. Fifty four percent 

of all the baits taken showed evidence of being 

consumed by dogs of various sizes, 43% were 

taken by foxes, with the remaining 3% taken by 

other non targeted vertebrate species. 

3.9.3 Remnant Woodland 

Enhancement Program 

The results of the vertebrate pest control program 

within the RWEP areas are described in Section 

3.9.2. 

3.10 Blasting and Vibration 


Open cut blasting activities are conducted by Dyno 

Nobel and monitoring is conducted by WCPL 

personnel using a network of permanent blast 

monitors located on site and on neighbouring 

properties surrounding WCPL (Figure 3.1). Blast 

monitoring was conducted at four locations around 

the mine during the 2011-2012 reporting period. 

The locations of these blast monitors are as agreed 

by the OEH and satisfy WCPL’s regulatory 

requirements in relation to blast monitoring. 

EPL 529 also permits WCPL’s blasting operations a 

maximum of 120 dB(L) and requires less than 5% of 

total blasts exceed 115 dB(L) at any non-mine 

owned residential location (Table 3.10). 

Table 3.10 WCPL Overpressure Criteria 

Airblast overpressure 

level 

Allowable exceedance 

(dB(Lin Peak)) 

5% of the total number of blast over a 

115 

period of 12 months 

120 0% 

than 5% of total blasts exceed 5 mm/second at any 

non-mine owned residential locations. 

Table 3.11 WCPL Ground Vibration Criteria 

Peak particle velocity 

Allowable exceedance 

(mm/s) 

5% of the total number of blast over a 

5 

period of 12 months 

10 0% 

Every blast is designed with consideration for 

vibration and overpressure impacts of blasting on 

our neighbours, including the Underground 

operations. In addition to the blast designs, a 

blasting protocol is in place which prevents blasting 

during weather conditions which may adversely 

affect neighbours. The wind criteria of the blasting 

protocol were modified following an incident in 

January 2007. 

Prior to each blast, both wind speed and wind 

direction are continually assessed in accordance 

with WCPL blasting guidelines. 


3.10.2.1 Blast Monitoring 

There were a total of 76 blasts in the open cut 

during the reporting period. All 76 blasts were 

monitored with a 93.4% capture rate. During 

November 2011 WCPL experienced technical 

issues with the downloading of the data resulting in 

no available vibration data for November 2011. As a 

result WCPL immediately reviewed the procedures 

and monitoring system and as a result engaged an 

external consultancy firm in December 2011 to 

download, maintain and verify the data. To date 

there have been no repeat incidents with 100% 

capture rate. 

The blast results for each of the four monitors are 

illustrated in Figure 3.20 and are provided in 

Appendix 2E. 

There was only one blast at WCPL during the 

reporting period recording levels above 115 dB(L) at 

blast monitors located at various sensitive 

receptors. On the 13/10/2011 BM05 recorded an 

overpressure of 118.5dB(L), however WCPL was 

able to meet the 5% of total blasts exceeding 115 

dB(L), with the total of 1% of blasts not achieving 

the 115 dB(L) criteria. 

No blasts exceeded the 120 dB(L) limit during the 


EPL 529 permits WCPL a maximum ground 

vibration of 10 mm/second and requires that less 

Page 66


WCPL’s development consent specifies that blasts 

within 2 km of the Wambo Homestead need to be 

monitored. 

monitor). The highest recorded vibration result at 

BM01 was 4.07mm on the 16/12/2011. 

Any recorded overpressures at the Wambo 

Homestead blast monitor, that exceed the EPL 

blasting criteria of 115dB and 120dB are not 

considered a non-compliance because the property 

is owned by the mine. 

There were no vibration results greater than 5 

mm/second at any of the monitoring sites during the 

reporting period (except results from the Homestead 

125 

2011-2012 AEMR Blast Results for WCPL 

5.0 

100 

4.0 

Overpressure Result (dB(L)) 

75 

50 

25 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

Vibration (mm/s) 

0 

08/07/11 

15/07/11 

22/07/11 

29/07/11 

05/08/11 

12/08/11 

19/08/11 

26/08/11 

02/09/11 

09/09/11 

16/09/11 

23/09/11 

30/09/11 

07/10/11 

14/10/11 

21/10/11 

28/10/11 

04/11/11 

11/11/11 

18/11/11 

25/11/11 

02/12/11 

09/12/11 

16/12/11 

23/12/11 

30/12/11 

06/01/12 

13/01/12 

20/01/12 

27/01/12 

03/02/12 

10/02/12 

17/02/12 

24/02/12 

02/03/12 

09/03/12 

16/03/12 

23/03/12 

30/03/12 

06/04/12 

13/04/12 

20/04/12 

27/04/12 

04/05/12 

11/05/12 

18/05/12 

25/05/12 

01/06/12 

08/06/12 

15/06/12 

22/06/12 

29/06/12 

0.0 

Overpressure Limit Homestead Overpressure Kelly Overpressure Harris Overpressure Muller Overpressure 

Kelly Vibration Vibration Limit Homestead Vibration Harris Vibration Muller Vibration 

Date 

Figure 3.20 – 2011-2012 Blast Monitoring Results 

Page 67


3.10.2.2 Wambo Rail Development Vibration 

Monitoring 

Construction of the Wambo Coal Terminal (WCT) 

commenced in May 2005 and has been operational 

since June 2006. Quarterly vibration monitoring was 

undertaken between 2005 and 2008 for the WRD in 

accordance with DA 177-8-2004, Schedule 4, 

Condition 12, and the approved Wambo Rail 

Development Vibration Monitoring Program. 

Monitoring results from 2005 to 2008 concluded that 

WRD has not increased vibration levels in the 

Warkworth area. In the previous reporting period 

(2008/2009), WCPL engaged a vibration consultant 

to complete a summary of all of the vibration 

monitoring results since the construction of the 

WCT. The summary report was sent to the DoP to 

seek approval to discontinue monitoring and 

approval was granted in December 2008. 

3.11 Operational Noise 


Noise monitoring is undertaken in accordance with 

WCPL’s approved Noise Monitoring Program 

(NMP). 

A number of proactive management measures 

designed to minimise noise generation from 

operations at WCPL and the WRD have been 

implemented over the reporting period including: 

 

Regular maintenance of plant and equipment 

and pre-start up inspections; 

The applicant shall ensure noise emissions from the 

operation of the JPRL when measured at any 

residence along the railway line corridor shall not 

exceed the following EPA criteria 

a) Planning level of L Aeq24hr 55dB(A); and 

b) Maximum pass-by level of L Amax 85dB(A). 

Real Time Noise Monitoring 

Four real-time monitoring locations have been 

established at representative locations to the south 

and north-west of WCPL. 

The noise environment surrounding WCPL is 

monitored using four fixed remote continuous noise 

monitors. The monitors are installed on properties 

identified in the WCPL’s NMP, including Kelly (N03), 

Muller (N16), Thelander (N20) and the WCPL 

owned WA (N21). 

Attended Noise monitoring 

Attended environmental noise monitoring was 

undertaken on a quarterly basis at five sites during 

Quarters (3) and (4) 2011 and Quarters (1) and (2) 

2012 around the mine. The survey purpose is to 

quantify and describe the existing acoustic 

environment around WCPL and WRD and compare 

results with relevant development consent 

conditions or modelled EIS noise levels. Noise 

levels from WCPL complied with the development 

consent criteria or modelled noise levels at all sites 

during the 2011/2012 attended monitoring (see 

Figure 3.1). 

Positioning of portable generators and 

machinery to take advantage of natural and 

man made barriers to mitigate sound travel; 

 

Equipment is turned off or throttled down when 

not in use; 

Construction of noise and visual bunds 

surrounding the operational activities; and 

 

Minimal disturbance of vegetation between the 

site and nearby residences to provide a screen 

to mitigate sound dispersal. 

The noise monitoring criteria for the mine and WRD 

are presented in Table 3.3. The noise criteria only 

apply to noise generated from WCPL’s mining 

operations, rail loop and rail loading operations. 

In addition to these noise criteria the Wambo rail 

line also has rail pass-by criteria as set out in 

consent DA 235/97 from SSC. These criteria are 

listed in consent Condition 8 DA 235/97 and are as 

follows: 

Page 68


Day 

L Aeq(15 minute) 

Table 3.3 – Noise Criteria for WCPL from November 2005 

Evening/Night 

L Aeq(15 minute) 

Night 

L A1(1 minute) 

35 41 50 94 – Curlewis 

35 40 50 

35 39 50 

35 38 50 

3 – Birrell 

4B – Circosta 

15B - McGowen/Caslick 

16 – Cooper 

23C – Kannar 

25 – Fenwick 

28A & B – Garland 

33 -Thelander/O'Neill 

39 – Northcote 

40 – Muller 

254A – Algie 

5 – Strachan 

6 - Merrick 

7 - Maizey 

37 - Lawry 

48 - Ponder 

1 - Brosi 

17 - Carter 

18 - Denney 

38 - Williams 

49 - Oliver 

63 - Abrocuff 

75 - Barnes 

91 - Bailey 

35 37 50 27 - Birralee 

43 - Carmody 

137 - Woodruff 

163 - Rodger/Williams 

246 - Bailey 

35 36 50 13B - Skinner 

178 - Smith 

188 - Fuller 

262A, B & C - Moses 

Land Number 

35 35 50 All other residential or sensitive receptors, excluding 

the receptors listed in condition 1 above 

Notes: 

a) Noise from the development is to be measured at the most affected point or within the residential boundary, or at the 

most affected point within 30 metres of a dwelling (rural situations) where the dwelling is more than 30 metres from 

the boundary, to determine compliance with the LAeq(15 minute) noise limits in the above table. Where it can be 

demonstrated that direct measurement of noise from the development is impractical, the DEC may accept alternative 

means of determining compliance (see Chapter 11 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy). The modification factors in 

Section 4 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy shall also be applied to the measured noise levels where applicable. 

b) Noise from the development is to be measured at 1 metre from the dwelling façade to determine compliance with the 

L A1(1 minute) noise limits in the above table. 

c) The noise emission limits identified in the above table apply under meteorological conditions of: 

Wind speeds of up to 3 m/s at 10 metres above ground level; or 

Temperature inversion conditions of up to 3ºC/100m, and wind speeds of up to 2 m/s at 10 metres above 

ground level. 

Page 69



Real Time Noise Monitoring 

WCPL compile quarterly reports on monitoring data 

from four fixed SentineX continuous noise 

monitoring systems adjacent to WCPL. Below is a 

summary of the quarterly reports for real time noise 

monitoring during the reporting period. 

Q1- July to September 2011 

Assessment of noise impacts for the July to 

September, 2011, monitoring period indicates that 

WCM complied with the noise level criteria 

prescribed in the Wambo Coal NMP. Review of the 

L A1,1minute results indicates that animal noise, road 

noise and meteorological influences dominate the 

LA1 noise environment adjacent to the WCM. 

Mining noise was encountered during audio review 

at the N21 (WA) and N16 (Muller) site locations. 

However, this was considered to represent only the 

background contribution to measured noise levels 

rather than the transient or peak events associated 

with potential for sleep disturbance. It should be 

noted that the N16 (Muller) monitoring location is 

subject to cumulative mining noise impacts, and as 

the source of mine noise contributions could not be 

confirmed, exceedences could not be attributed to 

the WCM. 

Where mining noise impacts were observed, 

uncertainty exists in the validity of the monitoring 

data. While EPL 529 excludes data influenced by 

strong temperature inversions (lapse rates of 

3 C/100m and wind speeds up to 2 m/s), the 

methods available to assess atmospheric stability 

(sigma-theta method) provide conflicting evaluation 

as to the validity of the noise monitoring data. 

Pasquill Gifford (P-G) ‘F’ class stability was 

commonly observed during the monitoring period, 

denoting temperature lapse rates of between +1.5 

and +4.0 deg/C per 100m. It stands to reason that 

portions of the dataset monitored under ‘F’ class 

stability conditions would be subject to lapse rates in 

excess of 3.0 deg/C per 100m; however, in the 

absence of available methods or data, the 

frequency of this scenario could not be determined. 

Consequently, all noise monitoring results observed 

under ‘F’ class conditions were retained in the 

analysis. 

October to December, 2011 

Assessment of continuous noise monitoring data 

indicated that the WCM complied with the 

L AeqLF,15minute noise level criteria for more than 88% 

of time at the N21 (WA) monitoring location and 

98% of the time at the N20 (Thelander) monitoring 

location. Following a conservative detailed analysis 

of the N16 (Muller) monitoring data, it was found 

that L AeqLF,15minute noise levels attributable to WCM 

operations exceeded the 40dB(A) criteria 

approximately 22% of the monitoring period. The 

measured exceedence rate attributable to all 

environmental noise sources at this location was 

approximately 48%. 

Mine noise was audible at both the N21 (WA) and 

N16 (Muller) sites; however, it was found to 

comprise the background noise contribution for a 

majority of these events. Meteorological influences 

were also observed to contribute to measured noise 

levels at these locations, and the passage of 

vehicles on the Golden Highway was the dominant 

noise impact at the N16 (Muller) monitoring location. 

January to March, 2012 

Measured noise levels were found to comply with 

the L Aeq,15minute criteria more than 90% of the time at 

the N21 (WA) monitoring location and 94% of the 

time at the N20 (Thelander) monitoring location. 

These results are consistent with those obtained in 

the previous (October to December (2011)) period. 

Analysis of monitoring results, including WCM 

meteorological station data, demonstrates that lower 

rates of night time temperature inversions were 

observed as compared to the winter months. This 

indicates that the WCM site may be less affected by 

enhanced noise propagation associated with 

temperature inversions in the summer months, 

resulting in a higher rate of compliance with the 

performance criteria. 

Results of L Aeq,15minute audio review indicate that 

mining noise impacts were present during the 

January to March (2012) period; however, 

environmental sources (including insects, livestock, 

road noise and meteorological impacts) were found 

to dominate the night time noise environment. 

April to June, 2012 

Assessment of continuous noise monitoring data 

indicated that the WCM complied with the 

L AeqLF,15minute noise level criteria for more than 83% 

of time at the N21 (WA) monitoring location and 

92% of the time at the N20 (Thelander) monitoring 

location. Moderate (F class) and strong (G class) 

temperature inversions (conditions under which 

enhanced noise propagation may occur) were found 

to be present for 36% of the night time monitoring 

period from April to June. These inversion events 

typically generate meteorological conditions under 

which enhanced noise propagation may occur. 

Comparison of the measured L AeqLF,15minute noise 

level result distributions indicates that noise levels 

above the relevant criteria may be observed with 

higher frequency during the winter months. 

Audio review suggested that mine noise was 

present at both the N21 (WA) and N16 (Muller) 

sites; however, environmental noise sources 

(including road noise, insects and meteorological 

impacts) were found to dominate the night time 

noise environment. The passage of vehicles on the 

Golden Highway was the dominant noise impact at 

the N16 (Muller) monitoring location. Mining noise 

was not observed to contribute to measured Sleep 

Page 70


Disturbance (L A1,1minute) noise levels above the 

criteria at any monitoring location during this period. 

For the complete quarterly reports of real time noise 

monitoring at WCPL for the reporting period, please 

refer to Appendix 2F. 

Attended Noise Monitoring 

Q3 2011 Attended Noise Monitoring 

Environmental noise monitoring was undertaken on 

4 October 2011 for the day measurements, and 

26/27 September 2011 for the night measurements. 

During day monitoring, WCPL was audible at all five 

locations. During night monitoring, WCPL was 

inaudible at two locations. Of the remaining 

locations where WCPL was audible, there were no 

exceedances of the LAeq(15 minute) or LA1(1 

minute) criteria. Noise levels from WCRS complied 

with the LAeq(15 minute) and LA1(1 minute) 

development consent criteria or modelled noise 

levels at all remaining monitoring locations during 

the Quarter 3 2011 survey. It is noted that wind 

speeds and/or temperature inversion conditions 

were at levels greater than which development 

consent conditions would apply for WCPL and rail 

activities in some instances. In all instances, the 

predicted EIS noise levels were met regardless. 



15 November and 22 December 2011 for the day 

measurements, and 14/15 December 2011 for the 

night measurements. During day monitoring, WCPL 

was audible at all five locations. During night 

monitoring, WCPL was inaudible at three locations. 

Of the remaining locations WCPL was audible, there 

were no exceedances of the LAeq(15 minute) or 

LA1(1 minute) criteria. Noise levels from rail 

activities complied with the LAeq(15 minute) and 

LA1(1 minute) development consent criteria or 

modelled noise levels at all remaining monitoring 

locations during the Quarter 4 2011 survey. It is 

noted that wind speeds and/or temperature 

inversion conditions were at levels greater than 

which development consent conditions would apply 

for WCPL and rail activities in some instances. In all 

instances, the predicted EIS noise levels were met 

regardless. 



28 February and11 March 2012 for the night 

measurements, and 21 March and 3 April 2012 for 

the day measurements. During day monitoring, 

WCPL was inaudible at three locations. During night 

monitoring, WCPL was inaudible at two locations. 

Of the remaining locations where WCM was 

audible, there were no exceedances of the LAeq(15 

minute) or LA1(1 minute) criteria. Noise levels from 

WCRS complied with the LAeq(15 minute) and 

LA1(1 minute) development consent criteria or 

modelled noise levels at all remaining monitoring 

locations during the Quarter 1 2012 survey. It is 

noted that wind speeds and/or temperature 

inversion conditions were at levels greater than 

which development consent conditions would apply 

for WCPL and rail activities in some instances. In all 

instances, the predicted EIS noise levels were met 

regardless. 


Environmental noise monitoring described in this 

report was undertaken on 26/27 June 2012 for the 

night measurements, and 8 May, 29 June and 23 

July 2012 for the day measurements. During day 

monitoring, WCPL was inaudible at four locations. 

During night monitoring, WCPL was inaudible at two 

locations. Of the remaining locations where WCPL 

was audible, there were no exceedances of the 

LAeq(15 minute) or LA1(1 minute) criteria. Noise 

levels from rail activies complied with the LAeq(15 

minute) and LA1(1 minute) development consent 

criteria or modelled noise levels at all remaining 

monitoring locations during the Quarter 2 2012 

survey. It is noted that wind speeds and/or 

temperature inversion conditions were at levels 

greater than which development consent conditions 

would apply for WCPL and rail activities in some 

instances. In all instances, the predicted EIS noise 

levels were met regardless. 

For the complete annual report of attended noise 

monitoring at WCPL for the reporting period, please 

refer to Appendix 2F. 

3.12 Visual Stray Light 

To minimise lighting impacts on WCPL’s neighbours 

there is a plan depicting all the neighbours on 

display in the Open Cut Examiners (OCE) office to 

reference for lighting plant positioning. 

All mobile lighting plants are strategically positioned 

to avoid light being directed towards our neighbours 

and specific lighting fixtures associated with the 

product stockpile area were adjusted in response to 

previous community complaints. 

3.12.1.1 Environmental Performance 


4 of DA305-2033, WCPL completed an assessment 

of all external lighting associated with the mine to 

Page 71


Australian Standard AS4282 (INT) 1995 – Control of 

Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. The 

independent audit completed in June 2011 

concluded WCPL lighting did meet the requirements 

of AS4282. 

During this reporting period there were no 

community complaints in relation to lighting, 

compared to five complaints reported to WCPL in 

the previous AEMR reporting period. The reduction 

in complaints is largely due to change in procedures 

implemented by WCPL and completion of mining 

activities in the vicinity of the Rug Dump. 

3.13 Cultural and Natural 

Heritage Conservation 

3.13.1 Aboriginal Heritage 

3.13.1.1 Environmental Management 

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage is managed in 

accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 

1974 (NPW Act), the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 

Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 

(ACHCRs) and the Environmental Planning and 

Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The NPW Act 

provides protection for Aboriginal objects or places, 

while the EP&A Act ensures that Aboriginal cultural 

heritage is properly assessed in land use planning 

and development. The NPW Act provides statutory 

protection for all Aboriginal heritage, places and 

objects with penalties levied for breaches of the Act. 

This legislation is overseen by the Office of 

Environment and Heritage (OEH). Part 6 of this Act 

is the relevant part concerned with Aboriginal 

objects and places, with Section 86, 87, 89A and 

Section 90 being the most pertinent. 

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation 

Requirements for Proponents (ACHCR’s) were 

issued by OEH on 12th April 2010. These 

consultation requirements generally replace the 

previously issued Interim Community Consultation 

Requirements (ICCR) for Applicants (DEC 2004). 

The ACHCR guidelines apply to all AHIP 

applications prepared after 12th April 2010. For 

projects commenced before the 12th April 2010, 

Section 1 (Q1) of the transitional arrangements 

indicates that if Aboriginal consultation was 

commenced prior to the 12th April 2010 (including 

advertising and notification of stakeholders), then 

consultation is to be continued under the previous 

ICCR guidelines. 

Aboriginal heritage sites within the WCPL mining 

leases were identified and assessed during the 

2003 EIS. The location of sites is shown on Figure 

3.21. 

The WCPL Surface Disturbance Permit (SDP) 

process requires the location of the proposed 

disturbance to be checked, to ensure that an 

archaeological and heritage assessment has been 

conducted and that any Aboriginal artefacts or 

objects likely to be impacted upon have been 

salvaged in accordance with the relevant permits 

issued under the NPW Act, or are protected from 

disturbance. 

OEH released a publication entitled Due Diligence 

Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal 

Objects in New South Wales on 24th September 

2010. This Code of Practice was developed with the 

express intention of satisfying the due diligence 

requirement contained within s87(2) of the NPW Act 

1974. In September 2010, the NSW Minerals 

Council released a publication entitled NSW 

Minerals Industry Due Diligence Code of Practice 

for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects which is a 

recognised industry specific code of practice. Due 

diligence inspection relates to the physical 

identification of Aboriginal objects. Community 

consultation is only required once Aboriginal objects 

have been detected and if an Aboriginal Heritage 

Impact Permit (AHIP) is deemed necessary. The 

OEH due diligence requirements are described as 

the minimum standard of care required, however, it 

is noted within that Code of Practice that any 

industry-specific due diligence procedures of a 

higher standard should be followed instead. 

3.13.1.2 Environmental Performance 

A Section 87/ 90 Permit (#2222) (now known as an 

Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit) was issued to 

WCPL by the DEC (later DECCW and now OEH) 

under the NPW Act on 20 June 2005. In 

consultation with the DECCW and local Aboriginal 

groups, the DECCW granted approval to extend the 

permit for an additional 5 years, expiring on the 19 

June 2015. 

Ongoing artefact analysis works associated with the 

salvage programme were conducted during the 

reporting period in accordance with the 

requirements under Permit #2222. The salvage 

programme targeted sites in the approved Open Cut 

disturbance area. 

The arrangements for the salvage operation 

followed the Interim Community Consultation 

Guidelines (ICCG) issued by the DEC in 2004. All 

respondents to the ICCG process attended a site 

induction at WCPL on 12 February 2009. The 

members of the Wonnarua Aboriginal Community 

Page 72


Stakeholders (WACS) undertook the salvage and 

excavation works under the guidance of an 

archaeologist. 

Temporary Keeping Place 

The WACS, WCPL and the Archaeologist from RPS 

HSO met at WCPL in February 2009 and agreed on 

a Temporary Keeping Place that was subsequently 

approved by the DECCW on 14 July 2009. All 

artifacts salvaged during the operation are stored at 

the Temporary Keeping Place under Permit #3130 

for Care and Control of Aboriginal Objects Salvaged 

under Section 87/ 90 permits #2085 and #2222 in 

accordance with the NPW Act (1974 as amended). 

During August 2011, a staged salvage programme 

was undertaken in accordance with the 

requirements under Permit #2222. The salvage 

programme targeted sites to the south west of North 

Wambo Creek within the S87-S90 Application Area 

and in the northern portion of the approved Open 

Cut disturbance area. 

3.13.1.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 

Conservation Agreement – Remnant 

Woodland Enhancement Area (A) 

During the previous 2010 reporting period WCPL 

engaged an Archaeologist to establish an Aboriginal 

Cultural Heritage Conservation Agreement for 

RWEP Area A. The preparation of this document 

involved consultation with local Aboriginal Groups 

and the OEH and was developed in accordance 

with DA305-7-2003, Schedule 4, Consent Condition 

51. The agreement establishes protocols for 

maintaining the cultural significance within RWEP 

Area A. 

Page 73

WARNING 

No part of this plan should be used 

for critical design dimensions. 

Confirmation of critical positions 

should be obtained from RPS Newcastle. 

Legend 


Approved Open Cut Limit 

Wambo Coal Owned Land 

Partially Savaged Sites Permit 2222 

Extant Sites Permit 2222 

Additional Wambo Recorded Sites 

United Colliery Recorded Sites 

Rio Tinto Recorded Sites 

Extant Sites No Permit 

Salvaged Sites 

Copyright 

"This document and the information shown shall remain the property of 

RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purpose 

for which it was supplied and in accordance with the terms of engagement for 

the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any way is prohibited." 

TITLE: FIGURE 3.21: HERITAGE SITES LOCATION: WAMBO 

DATUM: (GDA 94) 

2011 - 2012 AEMR 

MGA ZONE 56 

PROJECTION: 

DATE: 

PURPOSE: 


HERITAGE 

LAYOUT REF: 

J:\JOBS\Wambo\Wambo Mapping Database 

\Arch a e o l o gy\Arch Sites Extinct & Extant 

VERSION (PLAN BY): D A4 (GG-NW) 

CLIENT: 

JOB REF: 

WAMBO COAL 

103318-1 

RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD (ABN 44 140 292 762) 

241 DENISON STREET BROADMEADOW PO BOX 428 HAMILTON NSW 2303 

T: 02 4940 4200 F: 02 4961 6794 www.rpsgroup.com.au


3.13.2 European Heritage 

3.13.2.1 Environmental Management 

On the 16 December 2011 the annual inspection of 

the Wambo Homestead Complex (WHC) was 

undertaken by a structural engineer. The objective 

of the assessment was to determine if any damage 

to the Wambo Homestead buildings was attributed 

to ground vibration. In the opinion of the structural 

engineer, ‘...the Wambo Homestead buildings are 

not vulnerable to normal blasting, but that elements 

of individual buildings are subject to damage when 

large blasts result in ground wave frequencies which 

are similar to characteristic frequencies of those 

building elements. The only damage possibly 

caused by blast vibrations in the period was that 

which happened in April 2011. Again, damage was 

only of a cosmetic character, did not affect the 

structural integrity of the buildings, and could be 

readily repaired with normal maintenance.’ 

The annual archival photographic record of the 

WHC was undertaken in November 2011. Copies 

of the Archival Photographic Record November 

2011 were sent to NSW Heritage Office, DP&I and 

SSC in March 2012. 

In accordance with the 2006 Conservation 

Management Plan for the WHC, routine pest 

inspections and baiting programs for termites and 

rodents continued. 

During the reporting period, Godden Mackay Logan 

Pty Ltd (GML) was commissioned by WCPL to 

review and update the 2006 CMP for the Wambo 

Homestead. The review of the CMP was necessary 

as part of planning by WCPL for the ongoing 

conservation and management of the Wambo 

Homestead Complex and to meet the requirements 

of the relevant statutory authorities. 

The focus of the CMP review was to provide 

appropriate conservation policies for managing the 

significant heritage components and values of the 

Wambo Homestead. The review examined the 

current conditions and future management options 

to identify the relevant opportunities and constraints. 

The condition and integrity of the Wambo 

Homestead was also re-examined and reviewed 

recording the changes due to both the passage of 

time and the recent programmes of maintenance, 

stabilisation and repair works. 

Voluntary Action Plan 

On 02 December 2010, representatives of WCPL, 

DP&I and the Heritage Branch conducted an 

inspection of the Wambo Homestead (WH), to 

determine compliance with Condition 59 of the 

Wambo Development Consent (DA 305-7-2003). 

During the inspection it was identified that, although 

WCPL had completed maintenance activities 

including yard maintenance, installation of a fire 

suppression system and other maintenance 

activities listed in the 2006 Conservation 

Management Plan (CMP), it was also identified that 

some additional works would improve WH 

conservation. 

As a result WCPL, committed to a Voluntary Action 

Plan (VAP) to work with the Heritage Council to gain 

approval for the proposed VAP works. Completion 

of these works would ensure continued 

maintenance of the WH in accordance with 

Condition 59. 

The maintenance tasks and activities committed to 

in the VAP were identified during the inspection. 

The tasks/activities were divided into two tiers: 

 

 

Tier 1: Those tasks that can be completed 

without further assessment or approval; and 

Tier 2: Those tasks that will require approval 

from the Heritage Branch and/or further 

assessment and planning by a suitably qualified 

architectural/heritage consultant prior to 

commencement. 

The following photos display some of the tasks and 

activities completed as part of Wambo Voluntary 

Action Plan regarding the maintenance works at the 

Wambo Homestead Complex. 

Main Homestead stabilisation and stormwater 

control 

Page 75


only on ppv, WCPL engaged a specialist engineer 

(Bill Jordan & Associates) to investigate whether 

blast ground wave frequency, as well as ppv, is a 

more accurate indicator of potential vibration 

impacts. It has been previously been shown that 

movement of the building or its parts can be greatly 

amplified compared with the blast wave if resonant 

frequencies are excited in the building. 

Butchers Hut stabilisation 

The results of this study will allow a better 

appreciation of the risks posed to the Wambo 

Homestead buildings from blast ground vibration, 

and lead to more accurate setting of blast limits, and 

blast design, which will take the resulting 

frequencies into account. 

As discussed in the last AEMR, a blast vibration 

vulnerability study was completed during the 

reporting period for the Wambo Homestead. For a 

copy of the report please refer to Appendix 2E. 

3.14 Spontaneous Combustion 

3.14.1 Underground 

Main Homestead stabilisation and stormwater 

control 

There were no spontaneous combustion incidents at 

the Underground during the reporting period. 

Inspections for spontaneous combustion form part 

of the Underground inspection system. WCPL will 

continue to monitor for signs of spontaneous 

combustion in the next reporting period. 

The Underground mine atmosphere is monitored 

continuously in the main fan return. Monitoring 

results and trends are displayed in the control room. 

Any abnormal readings trigger an audible and visual 

alarm. All monitoring equipment is tested and 

calibrated regularly. 

3.14.2 Open Cut 

Carriage House & Stables stabilisation and 

weather control 

Blast Vibration Study 

Wambo currently monitors and reports on open cut 

blasting ground vibration, and potential impacts on 

the WHC. Ground vibration is currently monitored 

and assessed based on peak particle velocity (ppv), 

measured in mm per second. 

In response to concerns expressed about the 

accuracy of assessing blast vibration impacts based 

As reported in previous AEMR’s, spontaneous 

combustion (spon comb activity within the Open Cut 

operations is limited to one location. The spon comb 

is located on the north western side of the Hunter 

Pit. This incident is considered minor and is being 

monitored by WCPL operations. Inspections for 

spontaneous combustion form part of the Open Cut 

inspection program. 

3.14.3 CHPP 

There were no spontaneous combustion incidents at 

the CHPP during the reporting period. Inspections 

for spontaneous combustion form part of the CHPP 

inspection program. 

Page 76


3.15 Bushfire Management 


The Bushfire Management Plan (BFMP) was 

originally approved by the NSW Rural Fire Service 

(NSWRFS) and SSC in 2005. This plan 

incorporates both an identification of likely bushfire 

hazards on the site, and an assessment of the risks 

those hazards represent. Based on the hazard level 

and the associated risk level, fire management 

strategies for the site have been formulated. 

In February 2008, the BMP was reviewed in 

consultation with the NSWRFS and subsequently 

approved on 1 July 2008. The revised BMP was 

sent to the SSC in accordance with Consent 

Condition 93, Schedule 4 of DA305-7-2003. 

In December 2010, the NSWRFS completed an 

assessment of various grassland and bushland 

areas within WCPL’s landholdings regarding 

bushfire hazards. WCPL are currently reviewing the 

BMP. 


The bushfire trails around the WCPL boundary were 

periodically inspected during the reporting period. 

Sections of WCPL internal bush tracks that form 

part of the Fire Trail running along the western 

boundary of the Wollemi National Park were 

maintained for vehicular access. Existing signage 

on several main access gates were replaced during 

the previous reporting period, detailing land 

ownership and emergency contact numbers in case 

of fire outbreak. Vegetation under and around power 

line easements were maintained in accordance with 

BMP during the reporting period. 

There were no bushfires or incidents of fire within 

WCPL owned land during the reporting period. 

3.16 Mine Subsidence 

WCPL’s Underground operates under an approved 

Subsidence Management Plan (SMP). This SMP 

covers underground mining activities for the next 

seven years for Longwall Panels 1 through to 6 (LW 

1-6), and includes an assessment of environmental 

impacts associated with subsidence. 

The first of eight longwall blocks (LW1) was 

completed in February 2009 and production 

commenced in the second longwall block (LW2) in 

March 2009. In December 2010, extraction of 

Longwall Panel 3 (LW3) was completed, with 

production of Longwall Panel 4 (LW4) commencing 

in January 2011. During November 2011 LW4 was 

completed. Extraction of Longwall Panel 5 (LW5) 

commenced during December 2011. At the end of 

the reporting period LW5 had retreated 

approximately 2,858m. The completion of LW5 is 

expected during August 2012. The NWU continues 

to operate seven days a week. 

The results of subsidence monitoring are reported to 

the DII as per the requirements in the SMP. 

Subsidence monitoring in the South Wambo and 

Stony Creek areas is further discussed in Section 

5.1.2 of this report. Since 2006, Baseline Riparian 

Vegetation and Bed Bank Stability Monitoring 

Programs were initiated in North Wambo, South 

Wambo and Stony Creeks. The Riparian Vegetation 

and Bed Bank Stability Monitoring Program 

continued in during the 2011-2012 reporting period. 

The monitoring programs are designed to obtain a 

greater understanding of any subsidence related 

impacts on the riparian environment (see Section 

5.1.2). 

3.16.1.1 Subsidence Response Strategy 

In accordance with the North Wambo Creek 

Subsidence Response Strategy, monitoring of 

pumping volumes from the NWU during the 

reporting period was undertaken. A graph of 

pumping volumes and rainfall during the reporting 

period is provided in Appendix 2D. 

3.17 Hydrocarbon 

Contamination 

Any soil that becomes contaminated by 

hydrocarbons is managed on site. All the necessary 

information regarding soil contamination incidents, 

are captured in relevant Wambo Environmental 

Incident Reports. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.1, WCPL and Downer 

EDI have provided a new location for the 

bioremediation site within the Open Cut during the 

last reporting period. The new facility is open to 

accept and treat hydrocarbon contaminated soil 

material during the next reporting period. In 

accordance with the operating procedure for the 

bioremediation facility, contaminated soil from 

WCPL operation is placed within segregated bays, 

where the material is treated and sampled over time 

until laboratory results determine the material 

suitable for removal and replacement back into 

open cut voids. 

Page 77


3.18 Methane Drainage/ 

Ventilation 

For LW2 and the first half of LW3 operations the 

Underground was ventilated by both relocated 

Wollemi axial fans operating in parallel at 

approximately 190 m 3 /s at 2,000 Pascals. Methane 

levels at these main fans averaged 0.9 % = 1710 

litres / second. 

With the commencement of LW2 operations it was 

apparent that the Longwall gas make exceeded the 

capacity of the relocated Wollemi axial fans and 

work began on a project to upgrade the mine’s 

ventilation infrastructure. Two larger fans were 

purchased to replace the two Wollemi axial fans in 

in late 2010. The new fans have made a dramatic 

improvement (50%) to ventilation quantities in the 

Development panels and a significant increase 

(20%) to the Longwall district ventilation quantities. 

During the reporting period the NWU was ventilated 

by the new larger mine fans CMF03 & CMF04. 

Methane emissions have varied throughout the 

reporting period from 800l/s to 2800l/s depending on 

LW production and gas zone, with an average of 

1460l/s. The old Wollemi mine was sealed on 25 th 

May 2012. 

3.18.1 Greenhouse Gas 

In accordance with the requirements of the National 

Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 

(NGERS), WCPL report each year the company’s: 

direct greenhouse gas emissions; 

total energy produced; and 

total energy consumed. 

At the time of writing the AEMR, the 2011-2012 

NGERS report was not finalised. A summary of the 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy 

consumed from the 2010-2011 reporting period are 

provided below. A summary of the 2011-2012 GHG 

emissions will be provided in the next AEMR. 


Scope 1: 970,781 (t CO 2 - e) 

Scope 2: 36,356 (t CO 2 - e) 

Energy Consumed: 1,620,613 (GJ) 

Energy Produced: 153,369,531 (GJ) 

The key focus of energy efficiency management at 

WCPL is during the business planning phase. 

During project planning, consideration is given to 

potential energy consumption of project 

components, and the availability and practicality of 

more energy efficient alternatives. 

WCPL participates in the Federal Government’s 

energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) program. As 

part of that program, WCPL has conducted a 

systematic review of energy usage across the 

operation, and identified areas for potential energy 

efficiency improvement. 

Regular scheduled maintenance of equipment and 

plant is also a key component of maintaining 

operational energy efficiency. 

An enterprise-wide strategy for managing methane 

emissions is being developed by Peabody Energy 

Australia. 

3.19 Public Safety 

Public safety is managed through the 

implementation of safety systems and daily security 

inspections. Fencing, signposting and locked 

external gates form part of the safety measure to 

ensure the safety of the public. A contracted 

security service patrols the mine site and 

surrounding areas. There were no incidents 

regarding public safety during the reporting period. 

3.19.1 United Colliery Activities 

United Collieries (United) ceased Longwall mining 

beneath WCPL land during this reporting period. 

The last of United’s coal was loaded by rail on 27 

May 2010. United are currently under care and 

maintenance program. Previously installed 

ventilation boreholes that were maintained by 

United personnel, have now been decommissioned. 

United are still conducting exploration and 

environmental monitoring activities on WCPL owned 

land. 

3.20 Reportable Environmental 

Incidents 


Environmental incidents are managed in 

accordance with WCPL’s Environmental Incident 

Response Procedure. All environmental incidents 

are recorded on the Environmental Incident Report 

Form which is required to be closed off by the 

Environmental Department. Incidents classifications 

are as follows: 

Minor (Category 1) 

Minor incidents are those that cause negligible 

actual impact on the environment, are readily 

controlled by established procedures (for example: 

small hydrocarbon spills in a non-sensitive 

environment that are able to be immediately 

cleaned up). 

Serious (Category 2) 

Incidents categorised as serious are those that 

cause localised, reversible damage to the 

environment, for example: hydrocarbons spills in a 

Page 78


non-sensitive environment and/or contained area 

and saline water discharge. 

Major (Category 3) 

Incidents categorised as significant are those that 

have actual or potential severe damage to the 

environment with the potential to result in 

environmental liability, regulatory intervention and/or 

significant community concern or actual damage 

that will require significant remediation/ 

management. 


During the reporting period WCPL recorded a total 

of eleven environmental incidents, of which there 

were eight Category 1 incidents and three Category 

2 incidents (Appendix 3). The Category 1 incidents 

included small hydrocarbon spills contained within 

the open cut pit, excessive dust generation, and 

unapproved works commencing on Wambo owned 

land. 

In accordance with WCPL’s statutory obligations, 

regulatory authorities were informed of four 

incidents in relation to dam overflow, blasting, dam 

seepages and elevated dust results A summary of 

the incidents and reports are provided below. 

WCPL received a Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN) 

on the 12 June 2012 as a result from a site 

inspection on the 4 May 2012 by the DP&I. The PIN 

was in relation to excessive wheel generated dust 

witnessed during the site inspection. 

Elevated Dust Result – 20 September 2011 

As reported to Scott Brooks via telephone on Friday 

23 September 2011, Wambo recorded a PM10 level 

of 82.5ug/m 3 for the 24 hour period on 20 

September 2011 (midnight to midnight) at 

monitoring location PM02. The day was extremely 

windy, with upwind monitors (PM03 and PM04) 

indicating regional dust contributions of between 

26.4 – 27.3 ug/m 3 . 

A contributor to the elevated dust result was the 

North Wambo Creek Diversion Stage 3 (NWCD) 

project. The dust risk from the project was assessed 

on the morning of the incident and operations were 

halted for the day. The only exception was the water 

cart, which was kept on a watering circuit until late 

in the afternoon when wind speed had subsided. 

However, the strong wind gusts caused difficulties 

with the refilling of the water cart, increasing refill 

time and decreasing the ground watering capacity. 

See Appendix 3 for further information. 

South Wambo Dam Overflow 5 March 2012 

WCPL received a written request by the 

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) dated 29 

March 2012, requesting a written report on the mine 

water discharge event that occurred on land owned 

on the 5 March 2012. The summary of the 

investigation and response to the EPA is provide 

below. 

A discharge to ground when mine water overflowed 

from South Wambo Dam (the dam) via the dam 

spillway. The discharge was first noticed on the 

morning of Monday 05 March 2012, and was halted 

by 10am the same day. During a previous 

inspection of the dam at 2pm on Saturday 03 March 

2012, it was noted that the dam water level was 

high, but did not appear to be in any risk of 

overflowing. The discharge commenced at some 

point after the inspection on the 03 March 2012, 

giving a maximum discharge duration of 44 hours. 

The dam water level was already high due to high 

rainfall, and operational pumping of mine water to 

the dam, in the month leading up to the discharge. 

The dam has a water level sensor, which sends an 

alarm when water level reaches 1m below the dam 

spillway level. An inspection in the last week of 

February noted a discrepancy between the actual 

dam water level and the level being reported by the 

water level sensor. At this time a new sensor was 

ordered, and pumping to the dam was halted. 

Despite this, heavy rain over the weekend of 03-04 

March caused the water level to over top the 

spillway. 

The following measures have been completed or to 

prevent a recurrence of the discharge incident, 

including a replacement probe for the dam water 

level sensor, increased inspection schedules for the 

dam has been revised to ensure weekly verification 

of the remotely monitored dam water level, 

earthworks to reinstate the spillway in accordance 

with the dam design, following the temporary works 

completed to halt the discharge and environmental 

training package to the workforce. 

Open Cut Blast 30 March 2012 

WCPL received written request on the 2 April 2012 

by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 

regarding complaints received by the EPA 

Environment Line on 30 March 2012 alleging, that 

around 3.35pm a large orange plume from a blast 

was seen moving towards homes near Jerry Plains. 

The complainants also alleged that there was 

excessive vibration/overpressure from the blast. The 

summary of the investigation and response to the 

EPA is provide below. 

Two overburden shots were fired in the Wambo 

Open Cut at 15:36 (shot M16WWA2) and 15:40 

(shot M9WWD2) on Friday 30 March 2012. The two 

shots on 30 March 2012 generated ground vibration 

and overpressure. The blast monitoring results for 

the ground vibration and overpressure from these 

shots, as monitored at Wambo blast monitoring 

sites, were well within WCPL blasting criteria. 

The shots generated airborne dust and visible NOx 

fumes. Both shots were observed and 

photographed by WCPL environmental staff, and 

recorded on video by Downer EDI Mining (Wambo 

Page 79


open cut mine operators). The video recordings 

and photographs indicate that the visible NOx fumes 

remained and dissipated onsite. Although the 

recordings show that the airborne dust appeared to 

remain on site, complaints subsequently received 

from neighbours indicate that unobserved dust may 

have left site. 

C11 Dam Seepage 22 May 2012 

WCPL received written request by the Environment 

Protection Authority (EPA) dated 23 May 2012, 

requesting a written report on the mine water 

seepage from C11 Dam, as reported to the EPA 

Pollution line on 22 May 2012 by WCPL. The 

summary of the investigation and response to the 

EPA is provided below. 

Seepage water entering United Collieries’ (United) 

Colliery Holding was reported by United 

environmental staff to Wambo Coal Mine (Wambo) 

environmental staff at approximately 4.45pm on the 

21 May 2012. Investigation that evening, and the 

following morning, indicated that the probable 

source of the seepage was the Wambo C11 Dam, 

located within Wambo’s Colliery Holding. 

The C11 Dam is located adjacent to the Colliery 

Holding boundary between Wambo and United (see 

Figure 1), and is used as a staging dam for transfer 

of water between the two mines. The dam is 

situated in a disused open cut void, and the 

northern dam wall consists of consolidated rock 

strata overlain by rehabilitated spoil. Water level in 

the C11 Dam has risen since November 2011 due 

to water transfers following heavy summer rain. This 

increased water level rise has resulted in seepage 

through the rehabilitated spoil in the north eastern 

wall of the dam. The seepage has then re-surfaced 

further downslope, within the United Colliery 

Holding. 

A remedial action plan was implement which 

included recovering water from ponds along the 

seepage using a vacuum truck, installing a pump at 

C11 to reduce the water level in the dam, daily 

inspections of the dam and further water sampling 

and testing. The water level in C11 is now 

maintained and monitored at an acceptable level. 

3.21 Independent Audit 


6 of DA305-7-2003, WCPL completed an 

independent environmental audit to assess the 

performance of the operation and whether the 

operation is complying with its relevant development 

consents, EPL or mining leases at the end of the 

last reporting period. 

In the opinion of the auditors, the documentation, 

reporting and activities at the WCPL generally 

demonstrated a high degree of compliance with the 

conditions attached to the current consent and 

approvals granted for the project. However there 

were a number of recommendations provided in 

relation to management plans and programs to 

address specific requirements within the consent 

and/or approval conditions. For a summary of 

WCPL responses to the audit findings please refer 

to Appendix 6 of this AEMR. 

4.0 Community Relations 

4.1 Employment Status 

There were approximately 871 personnel, including 

contractors, employed at WCPL at the end of the 

reporting period. This is an overall increase of 

approximately 29 personnel from the previous 

reporting period. Downer EDI, who are contracted 

by WCPL to undertake the Open Cut mining, 

employed a total of 469 personnel, an increase of 

approximately 116 personnel compared with the 

previous reporting period. The increase of Open Cut 

contractors was in response to increasing 

production requirements. The breakdown of 

employee numbers is presented in Table 4.1. 

4.2 Environmental Complaints 

WCPL received a total of 82 community complaints, 

an overall increase of 47 community complaints 

from the previous reporting period. A total of 68 

complaints were recorded by WCMP in relation to 

noise (Figure 4.1). A review of the noise complaints 

identified approximately 71% of all the 68 noise 

complaints were from two community members, 

residing south of the WCPL operation. A majority of 

these complaints were in response to WCPL 

completing mining activities in the Homestead Pit 

and Rug Dump areas, which are no longer 

occurring. 

A total of 27 complaints were registered through the 

OEH Hotline. A number of the community 

complaints related to noise and lighting enquiries. 

All community complaints were managed in 

accordance with WCPL’s Community Complaints 

Procedure. 

A comparison between the numbers of complaints 

received this year with those received in previous 

years is presented in Table 4.2. The number of 

complaints received increased from the previous 

reporting period by approximately 45%. A register of 

complaints and the company’s response to resolve 

any issues are presented in Appendix 4. 

Page 80


Table 4.1 – WCPL Employment Status (end of June 2012) 

Admin 

Open 

Cut 

CH&PP 

Underground 

WCPL 

Staff/Supervisors 35 2 11 65 

Production/Mineworkers 8 85 

Fitters 4 34 

Electricians 7 27 

Contractors - Other 5 30 191 

Total WCPL 40 2 60 402 

Downer EDI 

Employees 54 377 

Contractors 3 35 

Total Downer EDI 57 412 

Total (All) 871 

Table 4.2 – WCPL Historical Complaints 

Reporting Period 

Complaints Received 

2011 - 2012 82 

2010 - 2011 35 

2009 - 2010 18 

2008 - 2009 3 

2007 - 2008 26 

2006 - 2007 29 

2005 - 2006 32 

2004 - 2005 12 

2003 - 2004 28 

2002 - 2003 20 

2001 - 2002 4 

Page 81


No. of complaints 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

2011-2012 Community Complaints 

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

No. (cumulative) 

Dust Dust - Blasting Noise Fumes - Blasting Lighting 

Coal Spillage Other Blasting - Vibration Cumulative FY11 FY12 Total 

Figure 4.1 – 2011-2012 Breakdown of Community Complaints by Issue 

Page 82


4.3 Community Liaison 

4.3.1 Community Consultation 

During the reporting period WCPL held four 

Community Consultative Committee (CCC) 

meetings. These meetings were conducted on; 

26 th July 2011; 

18 th October 2011; 

 

21 st February 2012; and 

22 nd May 2012. 

Community representatives act as the point of 

contact between the mine and the community. The 

committee is made up of residents from the Jerry’s 

Plains, Warkworth and South Wambo areas, 

representatives of SSC and WCPL and is chaired 

by an independent person. The DP&I endorsed the 

composition of the committee in December 2005. 

There was one publication of the Wambo Coal 

Environment and Community Newsletter during the 

reporting period. This was distributed to households, 

the CCC and the workforce in November 2011. The 

newsletter is intended to keep the community 

informed about WCPL activities. 

4.3.2 Information Sessions 

WCPL plan to hold the next rounds of community 

information sessions in August 2012 and February 

2013. The sessions will build on our successful 

face-to-face sessions in November-December 2011 

and will be held at the School of Arts Hall in Jerrys 

Plains. Any notifications of the information sessions 

are provided in the Singleton Argus, posters at local 

petrol stations and notification flyers distributed to 

local areas. 

4.3.3 Community Contributions 

At the end of the 2011-2012 reporting period, WCPL 

had provided in excess of $55,000 in support and 

donations. This includes such programs as the 

development of a bushtucker garden at Singleton 

High School, educational support for Jerrys Plains 

Public School, a new information board at Singleton 

Heights Public School, as well as donations to the 

Westpac Rescue Helicopter and numerous sporting 

teams and clubs in the district. 

Wambo also takes great pride in its ongoing 

partnership with Singleton Council for the Hall of 

Fame and Mayoral Scholarship programs. 

As well as continuing support for these existing 

programs, WCPL provided financial assistance for a 

number of community activities. Projects and groups 

sponsored included, but not limited to: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Singleton Pony Club 

Sydney to Wollongong Charity Ride for 

Multiple Sclerosis 

Broke Public School 

St Josephs High School 

Jerrys Plains Public School 

Giggle Ball – Camp Quality 

Oxfam 

Singleton Amateur Swimming Club 

Singleton Chamber of Commerce & Industry 

Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service 

NAIDOC Family Fun Day; and 

NSW Streetsmart Handbook. 

4.3.4 Community Programs 

Language Program 

WCPL continued support through the language 

program for Jerrys Plains Public School. The 

language program was developed in consultation 

with the school Principal and teaching staff during 

the second half of 2008. After securing a highly 

qualified speech pathologist to work with the 

students at Jerrys Plains Public School, the 

implementation of the program commenced during 

Term 1 of 2009. 

The language program operates in the school for 

nine hours each Tuesday. The program involved a 

Page 83


speech and language assessment for each of the 

students. The assessment process is 

comprehensive, taking several hours for each 

student. 

In collaboration with the school Principal, two 

meetings were organised so that interested parents 

could learn about the program and how to best 

assist their children with respect to speech and 

language skills at home. The language program has 

been well received and is set to continue during the 

next reporting period. 

Singleton High School 

WCPL entered into a partnership with Singleton 

Public School to enhance the school grounds and 

gardens through a native vegetation landscaping 

program. This program is considered the initial 

stage of a more widely scoped environmental 

education program to be developed in consultation 

with the wider school community over a number of 

years 

Singleton Hall of Fame 

Wambo Coal continues to be the proud sponsor of 

the Wambo Coal Singleton Hall of Fame. In 2009, 

WCPL welcomed the opportunity to be involved in 

the project which celebrates local achievements and 

builds community spirit. WCPL involvement in the 

Singleton Hall of Fame continued throughout 2011, 

and is planned for the following reporting period. 

Wambo Coal’s Environment and Community 

Manager is a member of the Wambo Coal Singleton 

Hall of Fame committee that implemented the 

initiative. The committee's role is to decide which 

nominated individuals, families and 

organisations will be inducted into the Wambo Coal 

Singleton Hall of Fame. 

Singleton Public School 

During the reporting period, WCPL donated to 

Singleton Public School a prize consisting of a 

HUMMV (Hummer) ride and helicopter joy flight for 

10 people. The prize was used by the school to 

encourage participation in a healthy lifestyles 

program being run for students and their families. 

Singleton Mayoral Scholarship 

The Singleton Mayoral Scholarship was developed 

by the Singleton Council to encourage and 

celebrate the dedication and commitment of people 

in the Singleton area. 

In 2012, five $5,000 scholarships were on offer. In 

line with our commitment to the Singleton Shire, we 

take great pride in helping create opportunities for 

talented local individuals to progress their education 

through the Mayoral Scholarship Programme. 

Page 84


5.0 Rehabilitation 

Table 5.1 provides a summary of the rehabilitation 

undertaken at WCPL during the 2011-2012 

reporting period. Appendix 5 provides the annual 

rehabilitation plan for WCPL. Table 5.2 shows the 

maintenance activities conducted during 2011-2012 

on previously rehabilitated land. 

Table 5.1 – Rehabilitation Summary 

Area Affected/Rehabilitated (hectares) 

Current 


AEMR 

Next Report 

(estimated) 

A: MINE LEASE AREA 

A1 Mine Lease(s) Area 7050 7050 7050 

B: DISTURBED AREAS 

B1 Infrastructure area (other disturbed areas 

to be rehabilitated at closure including facilities, 

roads) 

B2 Active Mining Area (excluding items B3- 

B5 below) 

B3 Waste Emplacements 

(active/unshaped/in or out-of-pit) 

B4 Tailings Emplacements 

(active/unshaped/uncapped) 

B5 Shaped Waste Emplacement (awaits 

final vegetation) 

256.24 214.46 256.24 

208.54 148.57 223 

456.44 508.24 360.44 

40.39 40.39 40.39 

68.36 0 96 

ALL DISTURBED AREAS 1030 911.66 976.07 

C1 Planned Rehabilitated Area 120 60 137 

C2 Total Rehabilitated Area (except for 

maintenance) 

249.6 249.6 386.6 

D1 10 to 18 degrees 4.3 4.3 4.3 

D2 Greater than 18 degrees 0.0 0.0 0.0 

E1 Pasture and grasses 206.31 206.31 327.31 

E2 Native forest/ecosystems 49.43 49.43 65.13 

E3 Plantations and crops 0.0 0.0 0.0 

E4 Other (include non vegetative outcomes) 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Page 85


Table 5.2 – Maintenance Activities on Previously Rehabilitated Land 

Nature of Treatment 

Area Treated (ha) 

Report 

Period 

Next 

Period 

Comment/Control Strategies/Treatment 

Detail 

Additional erosion control 

works (drains re-contouring, rock 

protection) 

0 

As 

required 

For the next reporting period WCPL will be 

developing an annual maintenance rehabilitation 

program. 

Soil Treatment (detail – fertiliser, 

lime, gypsum etc) 

Treatment/ Management (detail 

– grazing, cropping, slashing etc) 

Re-seeding/ Replanting (detail – 

species density, season etc) 

Repairs to subsidence induced 

cracking 

0 

0 

0 

0 

As 

required 

As 

required 

As 

required 

As 

required 



program. 



program. 



program. 

Subsidence cracking repaired along site internal 

access roads. 

Adversely Affected by Weeds 

(detail – type and treatment) 

0 

As 

required 

See Section 3.8 for to weed control measures on 

other WCPL owned land 

Feral animal control (detail – 

additional fencing, trapping, 

baiting etc) 

0 

As 

required 

While no work is proposed directly on rehabilitated 

areas, work will be conducted on other WCPL 

owned land. Refer to Section 3.8. 

5.1 Rehabilitation of Disturbed 

Land 

5.1.1 Open Cut 

Landform reshaping consists of re-contouring 

overburden dumps to the designed shape for final 

rehabilitation. The bulk shaping of overburden is 

undertaken using bulldozers. Reshaping results in 

a stable landform incorporating slopes and drainage 

which blend in with the surrounding natural 

topography. Slope stability is integral to 

rehabilitation design and the objective during 

rehabilitation planning is to design all slopes to a 

gradient of ten degrees or less. Slopes steeper than 

ten degrees may be necessary in some locations to 

ensure rehabilitation merges seamlessly with 

adjacent undisturbed land. 

Once bulk reshaping is completed, the landform is 

deep-ripped to approximately 300mm, and then the 

final trim and rock raking are undertaken. The 

ripping loosens up any near surface strata within the 

landform that have been compacted during 

placement, aiding root penetration during vegetation 

establishment. 

The final trim smooths out any wash-outs, rough 

edges, temporary access tracks, local steep 

topography and prepares the surface for 

revegetation. Rock-raking removes exposed 

surface rock greater than 200 mm in diameter. This 

raking is usually done along the contour, leaving a 

textured surface that assists with erosion 

minimisation until vegetation can be established. 

Ameliorants, if required, are applied to the trimmed 

overburden surface prior to topsoil spreading. 

Topsoil stripped ahead of mining will be applied to 

the reshaped surface in an even layer generally not 

less than 100mm. Topsoil is placed using rear 

dump haul trucks, or ejector trucks, and spread with 

dozers or graders. Once spread, the topsoil surface 

will be disc or chisel cultivated to create a textured 

surface which assists in trapping surface runoff, 

provides seed entrapments and creates 

microclimates favourable for seed germination. 

Where biosolids are used, cultivation also integrates 

the topdressing material, which is a requirement of 

the EPA biosolids handling guidelines. 

Following surface preparation, vegetation 

establishment across the rehabilitated area is 

commenced. The aim of revegetation is to minimise 

erosion and facilitate the development of the postmining 

land-use, be it agricultural production or 

habitat/ecosystem enhancement. 

Page 86


5.1.1.1 Rehabilitation Performance 

Existing rehabilitated areas include the Whynot, 

Low-wall and Ridge Dump areas, RL160 Dump, 

Charlies Hole, Wombat Hill, and Radio Shack in the 

current Open Cut plus older rehabilitation from 

previous Open Cuts. 

engineered solutions to cap the weak tailings 

surface. The design has considered the strength of 

the current crust (verified through Shear Vane 

Testing), the equipment to be used and the capping 

material to determine the reinforcement and the 

placement method required to ensure the safety of 

this operation. 

During the previous reporting period of 2010-2011, 

rehabilitated areas within the Open Cut were reliant 

on the completion of overburden dumps, particularly 

in the Rug/ Ridge dump area. Due to delays in 

overburden removal from the Homestead Pit (which 

was being placed on the Rug/ Ridge dump), no 

significant dump areas were available for reshaping, 

and no open cut rehabilitation was completed during 

the period of 2010-2011. 

Further rehabilitation planned for the 2011-2012 

was primarily focused on the RL 160 Dump. At the 

time of reporting, 40 ha of final reshaped landform 

had been completed. Topsoiling and seeding of the 

area is scheduled to commence and be completed 

in September 2012. 

The planned rehabilitation for next reporting period 

is 40 ha. This work is planned for the Rug/ Ridge 

Dump. 

All disused tailings dams are rehabilitated with the 

exception of the North East Tailings Dam, which is 

currently being capped for rehabilitation (see 

Section 5.1.1.2). 

5.1.1.2 North East Tailings Dam 

The rehabilitation of the area known as the North 

East Tailings Dam (NETD) has been established as 

a stand alone project within Peabody’s Wambo Coal 

Operation. Initial works commenced at the NETD 

during the 2008/2009 AEMR reporting period. The 

dam, which was discontinued as an active disposal 

site in 2004 following Department Approval under 

Section 127, has been the subject of a number of 

studies to identify a safe and viable method of 

capping the relatively weak surface. WCPL have 

been working together with Australian Tailings 

Consultants to develop a capping strategy utilising 

reinforced geogrid and controlled layers of coarse 

reject and overburden placed by specialist low 

ground pressure equipment. 

NETD rehabilitation works using low press ground 

equipment 

Placement of the initial rejects layer has continued 

with additional small dozers sourced. Progress has 

been slow due to the weak surface with the crust rewetting 

as the equipment traverses, however a 

repeatable process has now been demonstrated 

and productivity is improving. 

During the last reporting period, heavy rain in early 

June 2011 caused major ponds to form on the dam 

surface which suspended work activity. Pumping 

continued throughout the month with the majority of 

water removed. As a result of the water on the 

surface no placement of fabric or rejects occurred 

during the month. Pumping efforts were successful 

with access regained to the dam surface mid month 

with rejects placement and geo grid placement 

resuming in early July 2011. 

The scope of the NETD capping project is to 

rehabilitate the 1220m long by 200m wide 

decommissioned tailings storage facility. WCPL 

have investigated and evaluated the capping 

method utilising purpose built low ground pressure 

equipment, in conjunction with Geotextile 

reinforcement. Extensive design works have been 

undertaken to develop the concept and provide 

Wet weather June 15 2011 

Page 87


After pumping 31 July 2011 

NETD Rehabilitation Status as of December 2011 

NETD at the end of June 2012 

NETD Rehabilitation Status as of June 2012 

At the end of the reporting period approximately 

56% of the dam surface is covered with a layer of 

rejects. The target is to complete rejects placement 

on 100% of the dam by the end of 2012. 

5.1.2 Rail Line 

NETD Rehabilitation Status as of July 2011 

Rehabilitation was progressively completed on the 

Wambo Rail Development (WRD) following the 

completion of construction activities. The primary 

aims of this rehabilitation was to allow the 

regeneration of native flora species on the site, 

maintain the structural stability of the land, prevent 

erosion and sedimentation, and provide natural 

screening, where possible, to maintain the visual 

amenity of the WRD. 

Continued monitoring of the rehabilitation and tree 

maintenance works will continue throughout 2011- 

2012 reporting period. 

Page 88


5.1.3 NWC Diversion 

Following Stage 2 completion of the NWC Diversion 

construction works, all disturbed areas were 

rehabilitated in 2008/2009. Rehabilitation consisted 

generally of topsoil application, application of soil 

ameliorants, ripping, seeding (mainly a pasture 

seedmix), and strategic tubestock planting to 

provide long-term bank stabilisation. Revegetation 

using hydromulching was also undertaken on 

steeper batters. 

Following the first two flows, or discharges, through 

Stage 2 of the NWC Diversion in February and April 

2009, an assessment of diversion condition and 

bank stability was undertaken. The diversion was 

inspected by the hydrological consultants who 

designed the diversion (Gilbert and Associates) and 

a Hunter Valley based consultancy that specialises 

in rehabilitation and erosion control (GSS 

Environmental). The two inspection reports (GSSE, 

October 2009, and Gilbert & Associates, September 

2009) identified several areas requiring remedial 

attention. 

During the reporting period, WCPL prepared 

tenders for the remedial rehabilitation works within 

Stage 2 NWC Diversion, based on the 

recommendations provided from both GSSE and 

Gilbert’s. After completing the Tendering process 

and awarding contracts, rehabilitation works within 

Stage 2 of the NWC Diversion commenced in April 

2011, with works completed during June 2011. 

North Wambo Creek Diversion (Stage 3) 

Construction works were nearing completion on the 

final stage (i.e. Stage 3) of the North Wambo Creek 

Diversion program. At the end of the reporting 

period approximately 800,000 m 3 of excavation had 

been carried out to construct the permanent creek 

line around the old Wollemi Underground Portal 

area, in conjunction with revegetation works. The 

construction of this diversion will allow the open cut 

to progress mining the Bates South area and 

provide future access to the proposed South Bates 

underground longwall panels. 

Stage 3 revegetation works for the flood bunding 

and diversion channels and associated areas is 

planned for early September 2012. 

For full details regarding the North Wambo Creek 

Diversion Discharge Report please refer to Section 

2.8.2.2. 

5.2 Rehabilitation Trials and 

Research 

During the previous reporting period, WCPL 

commenced incorporating biosoilds into the Open 

Cut rehabilitation program. A wider application area 

was planned for the current reporting period, as well 

as trial application of organic compost material. As 

no rehabilitation was completed during this reporting 

period, application of biosoilds and organic compost 

is expected to occur during the next reporting 

period. 

The use of mobile tree mulching plant was utilised 

throughout the reporting period and will be utilised 

where possible during the next reporting period. 

After identification and separate recovery of timber 

and habitat trees, the mulcher will mulch trees in 

situ, leaving a blanket of mulch, which assists with 

dust suppression and erosion control, as well as 

providing a source of organic matter in the stripped 

topsoil. 

5.3 Rehabilitation Monitoring 

During the reporting period a program of works 

associated with the monitoring of revegetated 

disturbed riparian lands utilising the CSIRO 

developed Ecosystem Function Analysis (EFA) 

monitoring tool was undertaken. A separate survey 

and report has been prepared for the monitoring of 

rehabilitated areas associated with the Open Cut 

areas. 

The data that has been derived from the monitoring 

program provides a scientifically robust platform 

against which the effectiveness of rehabilitation 

techniques can be assessed and where applicable 

amended, with a view to achieving sustainable 

vegetation communities on disturbed landscapes. 

The purpose of the assessment is to determine 

whether rehabilitated areas are on a trajectory 

toward self sustainability and functionality. 

The riparian areas surveyed included South Wambo 

Creek and North Wambo Creek downstream of the 

Open Cut offices. The second component of the 

riparian monitoring program commenced in 2008 

and focused on the North Wambo Creek Diversion 

rehabilitation works. 

5.3.1.1 Ecosystem Function Analysis 

Summary 

Open Cut EFA 

RPS was engaged by Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (Wambo 

Coal) to undertake the October 2011 Ecosystem 

Function Analysis (EFA) monitoring of 14 previously 

established open cut EFA transects. Twelve EFA 

transects were established in 2006 comprising: 

Six pasture rehabilitation transects; 

Four woodland rehabilitation transects; 

One pasture analogue transect; and 

One woodland analogue transect. 

A further two pasture rehabilitation transects were 

created in 2008. During 2009 two pasture 

rehabilitation transects were repositioned to more 

Page 89


representative pasture rehabilitation locations. 

During 2010 six new transects were established, 

comprising: 

Two pasture analogue transects; 

Two woodland analogue transects; and 

Two pasture rehabilitation transects. 

The total number of EFA transects investigated 

during 2011 was 20 and comprised: 

Three analogue woodland transects; 

Four rehabilitation woodland transects; 

Three analogue pasture transects; and 

Ten rehabilitation pasture transects. 

With the exception of one transect (9R) all other 

pasture rehabilitation transects recorded LFA scores 

similar to the analogue transects in 2011. This 

suggests that at least during 2011 that many of the 

rehabilitation transects had a similar landscape 

function to the target analogue transects. Continued 

sampling will be required to determine whether the 

rehabilitation analogue sites will continue to exhibit 

such high scores during future years particularly 

those of harsher conditions. Only when 

rehabilitation sites recorded similar or better LFA 

scores than analogues sites over a range of years 

and seasonal conditions, can the rehabilitation 

works be considered a success from an EFA 

assessment. 

Woodland rehabilitation transects appear to be 

trending towards the analogue values. 

Landscape Organisational Index (LOI) and Stability 

Index (SI) scores at the analogue transects were 

approximately consistent with the rehabilitation 

transect scores, however, some rehabilitation sites 

had lower infiltration index (INFI) and nutrient index 

(NI) scores than analogue transects. Overall EFA 

analysis indicates that the woodland rehabilitation 

transects within the open cut area of Wambo Coal 

are approaching but have not yet demonstrated LFA 

values characteristic of target woodland 

communities. However the general pattern of 

increase in EFA parameters suggests that the 

rehabilitation woodland transects are improving 

towards the analogue goal. 

NWCD Stage 2 EFA 

RPS was engaged by Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (Wambo 

Coal) to undertake the November 2011 Ecosystem 

Function Analysis (EFA) monitoring of 14 previously 

established riparian EFA transects. This is the fourth 

year of monitoring of rehabilitation works along the 

North Wambo Creek Diversion (NWCD). The EFA 

monitoring of 10 rehabilitation transects began in 

the October 2008. Two further transects (one 

analogue and one rehab) were previously 

established in 2006 as part of previous EFA 

monitoring of open cut rehabilitation transects. In 

2010, two new analogue sites were established 

along North Wambo Creek to bring the total number 

of analogue sites to three (as recommended in the 

2009 report). Also in 2010, rehabilitation transect 

14R was moved to a more suitable location, as 

recommended in the 2009 report. 

LFA scores were relatively constant in 2011 in 

comparison to previous years. Similarity in scores 

was likely due to the continued presence of the tall 

grassland along NWCD that was also present in 

2009 and 2010. The reasons for declines in some 

LFA scores were not known, however the data 

indicates that it is related to a decline in the ability of 

water to infiltrate the soil and a reduced level of 

nutrient cycling via litter decomposition. 

Along the approximate 2.5 km length (straight line) 

of the NWCD there was a general pattern of 

declining LFA scores from upstream to downstream. 

As the good season for grass growth was common 

to all NWCD transects, the reason for the 

geographic variation in scores was unknown. 

Vegetation dynamics and habitat complexity scores 

were approximately similar between 2009, 2010 and 

2011. 

Open Cut EFA Transect Locations 

NWCD Stage 2 EFA Transect Locations 

Page 90


Riparian EFA 

Riparian assessments which included taking 

pedestrian based surveys along sections of North 

Wambo Creek, South Wambo Creek and Stoney 

Creek utilising field sheets to give an overall rating 

of creek health were undertaken over four days in 

November 2011. Two types of transect were 

assessed for each of the three streams, these were: 

 

 

Cross sectional – A marked single line transect 

across the width of the stream from bank to 

bank, hereafter referred to as ‘transects’; and 

Longitudinal – An unmarked transect along the 

length of the creek between two transects, 

hereafter referred to as ‘sections’. 

There are two types of riparian monitoring including 

bed and bank stability monitoring, and riparian 

vegetation monitoring. 

Bed and bank stability monitoring is undertaken by 

surveying consultants who undertake replicate 

surveys of the three creeks to measure areas of 

significant erosion and to identify changes related to 

water flow. A written assessment was completed of 

any areas of significant erosion, bare soil and visible 

subsidence along each creek line. The results were 

not finalised at the times of preparing the AEMR. 

The results of the bed and bank stability for 2011- 

212 will be included in the next AEMR. 

Riparian Monitoring Condition Scores 

Riparian Vegetation Monitoring 

The effects of subsidence and erosion on riparian 

vegetation were monitored by repetitive sampling of 

established permanent transects. Riparian 

monitoring identified Stoney Creek as being in good 

condition, and North Wambo and South Wambo 

Creeks in moderate condition. Current bank erosion 

problem areas are a result of historic land 

management practises however in the absence of 

current management will continue to degrade. 

Subsidence has also been recorded during 2011 

annual assessments. Impacts from mining 

subsidence were found along North Wambo creek. 

Rock formations at the base of the creek bed 

experienced both compression and expansion as a 

result of subsidence. Natural fault lines within the 

rock as well as solid rock segments experienced 

expansion within a range of 6–20 mm. 

The subsidence impacts are consistent with the 

predictions made in the SMP. Invention measures to 

address affected areas will be reported in the next 


Page 91


6.0 Activities Proposed 

for the Next AEMR 

Period 

6.1 Wambo’s Key Activities for 

2012-2013 

Key activities for WCPL in the next reporting period 

include: 

Final rehabilitation for NWC Diversion Stage 3. 

Rehab maintenance for Stage 2 NWD 

Diversion 

 

 

Completion of rejects capping on NETD. 

Completion of Open Cut mining in Homestead 

Pit, and development of underground access 

facilities. 

Continuation of mining in Bates/Bates 

South/Montrose pits. 

 

 

 

Completion of LW5 and commencement of 

LW6, and development for LW7 

Produce Mining Operations Plan for NWU, and 

modify Open Cut Mining Operations Plan 

Finalise modifications to development consents 

for NWU extension. 

6.2 Objectives and Targets for 

2011-2012 Reporting 

Period 

WCPL’s proposed objectives and targets for the 

2012-2013 reporting period are outlined in Table 

6.1. 

Objective and Targets 2012- 2013 

Land rehabilitated (hectares) 40 

Land disturbed (hectares) 74.9 

Number of significant 

environmental incidents 

0 

Average % of waste recycled 70 

Number of regulatory 

penalties 

Number of community 

newsletters distributed 

0 

3 

Table 6.1 – Objectives and Targets for 2012-2013 

Page 92

Appendix 1 

Rail Haulage Records

Wambo Coal Pty Ltd AEMR 2011-2012 

Tonnes Railed from Wambo Coal Terminal 2011-2012 

Railed date Train No 

Tonnes to Port 

ex P/N or QR 

Arrival Time Commence Loading Complete Loading 

1/07/2011 JW 266 7230.60 30/06/2011 11:18 PM 30/06/2011 11:35 PM 1/07/2011 1:20 AM 

1/07/2011 JW 62 3437.00 1/07/2011 10:05 AM 1/07/2011 10:11 AM 1/07/2011 11:00 AM 



4/07/2011 JW 240 7268.8080 4/07/2011 9:20 PM 4/07/2011 9:25 PM 4/07/2011 11:25 PM 

5/07/2011 JW 272 7272.20 4/07/2011 11:30 PM 5/07/2011 12:50 AM 5/07/2011 3:18 AM 












7/07/2011 JW 158 7376.60 7/07/2011 10:50 AM 7/07/2011 11:02 AM 7/07/2011 12:40 PM 


































Appendix 1: Rail Transport Records 1




ex P/N or QR 


21/07/2011 JW 988 7408.00 21/07/2011 3:40 AM 21/07/2011 12:53 PM 21/07/2011 2:25 PM 












25/07/2011 / 0 JW 62 3481.00 25/07/2011 / 0 9:34 AM 25/07/2011 / 0 9:46 AM 25/07/2011 / 0 11:00 AM 








27/07/2011 / JW 240 7219.00 27/07/2011 / 8:38 PM 27/07/2011 / 8:43 PM 27/07/2011 / 10:28 PM 




































ex P/N or QR 







16/08/2011 JW 258 7127.00 stowed 16/08/2011 7:21 PM 16/08/2011 11:30 PM 







18/08/2011 0 JW 288 7221.00 18/08/2011 0 4:16 AM 18/08/2011 0 4:20 AM 18/08/2011 0 6:06 AM 








19/08/2011 / JW 226 7135.60 19/08/2011 / 10:24 PM 19/08/2011 / 10:28 PM 20/08/2011 / 12:06 AM 




































ex P/N or QR 






















7/09/2011 / JW 926 7223.60 7/09/2011 / 9:15 AM 7/09/2011 / 9:19 AM 7/09/2011 / 11:12 AM 








12/09/2011 JW 162 7230.60 stowed 12/09/2011 4:49 AM 12/09/2011 6:22 AM 



















21/09/2011 JW 166 7202.80 Stowed 21/09/2011 12:49 PM 21/09/2011 2:22 PM 









ex P/N or QR 


24/01/1900 JW 110 7227.20 24/09/2011 4:24 AM 24/09/2011 4:30 AM 24/09/2011 6:00 AM 



24/01/1900 JW 62 3428.00 24/09/2011 2:58 PM 24/09/2011 3:03 PM 24/09/2011 3:56 PM 

24/01/1900 JW 222 7267.00 24/09/2011 5:46 PM 24/09/2011 5:51 PM 24/09/2011 7:24 PM 








28/09/2011 0 JW 62 3379.00 28/09/2011 0 10:00 00 AM 28/09/2011 0 10:08 08 AM 28/09/2011 0 10:55 AM 












































ex P/N or QR 














18/10/2011 0 JW 252 7209.00 00 18/10/2011 0 9:20 PM 18/10/2011 0 9:28 PM 18/10/2011 0 11:00 PM 



















2/11/2011 JW 110 7213.40 stowed 2/11/2011 10:47 AM 2/11/2011 12:20 PM 

























ex P/N or QR 














4/12/2011 / JW 922 7079.20 0 4/12/2011 / 8:10 PM 4/12/2011 / 8:14 PM 4/12/2011 / 10:05 05 PM 
















12/12/2011 JW 906 7222.00 stowed 12/12/2011 11:56 PM 13/12/2011 1:33 AM 




























ex P/N or QR 














28/12/2011 / JW 118 7123.30 330 28/12/2011 / 4:43 AM 28/12/2011 / 4:49 AM 28/12/2011 / 6:23 AM 








1/01/2012 / JW 194 7105.20 stowed 1/01/2012 / 12:06 AM 1/01/2012 / 1:43 AM 













11/01/2012 JW 146 7131.60 stowed 11/01/2012 10:59 PM 12/01/2012 12:29 AM 























ex P/N or QR 














23/01/2012 / 0 JW 262 7260.80 23/01/2012 / 0 8:488 PM 23/01/2012 / 0 8:53 PM 23/01/2012 / 0 10:25 PM 












































ex P/N or QR 














10/02/2012 / 0 JW 948 7179.60 960 10/02/2012 / 0 10:21 AM 10/02/2012 / 0 10:28 AM 10/02/2012 / 0 11:59 AM 








13/02/2012 / JW 102 7200.40 13/02/2012 / 11:24 PM 13/02/2012 / 11:29 PM 14/02/2012 / 1:01 AM 




































ex P/N or QR 














28/02/2012 / 0 JW 982 7261.50 28/02/2012 / 0 1:26 PM 28/02/2012 / 0 1:34 PM 28/02/2012 / 0 3:10 PM 

1/03/2012 JW 998 7243.60 stowed 1/03/2012 10:55 AM 1/03/2012 12:49 PM 







3/03/2012 / JW 178 7204.60 3/03/2012 / 11:45 AM 3/03/2012 / 12:12 PM 3/03/2012 / 1:47 PM 




































ex P/N or QR 














21/03/2012 0 JW 970 7235.60 21/03/2012 0 7:30 PM 21/03/2012 0 7:43 PM 21/03/2012 0 9:17 PM 












































ex P/N or QR 














6/04/2012 / 0 JW 214 7255.40 6/04/2012 / 0 10:18 PM 6/04/2012 / 0 10:34 PM 7/04/2012 / 0 12:05 AM 












































ex P/N or QR 














30/04/2012 / 0 JW 962 7259.20 30/04/2012 / 0 1:00 AM 30/04/2012 / 0 1:07 AM 30/04/2012 / 0 3:08 AM 












































ex P/N or QR 


























































ex P/N or QR 














17/06/2012 0 JW 970 7278.00 800 17/06/2012 0 2:22 PM 17/06/2012 0 2:28 PM 17/06/2012 0 4:06 PM 






































Appendix 2 

Environmental Monitoring 

Program Results

Appendix 2A 

Meteorological Data


Wambo Coal Pty Ltd - Weather Summary - July 2011 to June 2012 

Date 

Temperature (2m) Temperature (10m) Humidity Wind Speed Solar Radiation 

Cumulative 

Rain Cumulative Rain Evaporation 

Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum 

Evaporatio 

July 11 -1.5 11.1 24.3 -0.6 11.3 21.1 30.3 72.7 99.8 0.03 2.1 4.4 -2.0 393.6 540.4 13.1 13.1 343.4 343.4 

August 11 1.5 11.7 25.4 2.6 12.6 25.6 25.6 79.8 99.8 0.02 1.7 3.7 -5.0 239.5 824.2 36.4 49.4 239.6 583.0 

September 11 1.6 15.1 32.2 2.6 15.9 32.5 12.0 66.9 99.3 0.04 2.0 4.9 -4.1 349.1 862.6 72.4 121.8 322.6 905.6 

October 11 5.2 17.0 31.8 6.4 17.7 31.4 17.3 73.2 99.5 0.04 1.8 3.9 -4.0 413.2 992.9 68.8 190.6 379.9 1,285.5 

November 11 8.7 21.8 36.3 9.8 22.2 35.9 25.7 71.8 99.1 0.04 2.0 4.0 -2.7 387.9 1023.9 119.6 310.2 375.9 1,661.4 

December 11 8.5 19.3 29.8 9.6 19.8 29.8 28.6 73.9 98.6 0.0 1.9 3.7 -2.8 584.8 1119.8 77.8 388.1 509.4 2,170.9 

January 12 9.3 22.7 37.5 11.3 23.2 37.3 19.0 71.4 98.1 0.0 2.0 4.2 -2.0 278.5 1135.0 36.9 424.9 308.7 2,479.5 

February 12 13.1 21.7 32.3 14.0 22.1 32.2 31.3 79.8 98.9 0.0 1.7 3.5 -1.8 518.6 1022.5 124.1 549.0 427.7 2,907.3 

March 12 11.0 20.4 33.0 12.3 21.0 33.1 28.8 77.5 99.2 0.0 1.8 4.0 -2.3 175.4 974.6 85.9 634.9 224.0 3,131.3 

April 12 7.2 17.9 30.9 7.9 18.6 30.7 33.4 77.0 99.6 0.0 1.6 3.9 -2.3 153.6 874.0 18.4 653.3 189.8 3,321.1 

May 12 -0.6 12.0 28.2 0.7 13.1 28.3 21.4 76.5 99.3 0.0 1.6 4.0 -3.7 109.9 720.7 33.2 686.5 158.9 3,480.0 

June 12 -1.8 11.2 21.9 -0.5 12.0 22.1 38.8 81.9 99.7 0.0 1.8 3.7 -4.3 103.7 614.1 43.3 729.8 142.9 3,622.9 

Yearly -1.8 16.8 37.5 -0.6 17.5 37.3 12 75 100 0.0 1.8 4.9 -5 309 1,135 729.8 729.8 3,622.9 25,891.7 

Temperature (oC) 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

-5 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 



Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Maximum 

Temperature 

Average 

Temperature 

Minimum 

Temperature 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

-5 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 



Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Maximum 

Temperature 

Average 

Temperature 

Minimum 

Temperature 


Wind Speed - July 2011 to June 2012 


Humidity - July 2011 to June 2012 

Wind Speed (m/s) 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Maximum Wind 

Speed 

Average Wind 

Speed 

Minimum Wind 

Speed 

Relative Humidity (%) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Maximum 

Humidity 

Average 

Humidity 

Minimum 

Humidity 

Appendix2A: Meterological Data 1


Wambo Coal Pty Ltd - Weather Summary - July 2011 to June 2012 


Rainfall - July 2011 to June 2012 


Evaporation - July 2011 to June 2012 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Monthly 

Rainfall 

Cumulative 

Rainfall 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Monthly Rainfall (mm) 

100 

Cumulative Rainfall (mm) 

0 

500 

0 

Monthly 

Evaporation 

Cumulative 

Evaporation 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Monthly Evaporation (mm) 

Cumulative Evaporation (mm) 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 


Solar Radiation - July 2011 to June 2012 

Maximum 

Solar 

Radiation 

Average 

Solar 

Radiation 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Solar Radiation 

Minimum 

Solar 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 


Rainfall vs Evaporation - July 2011 to June 2012 

Radiation 0 

0 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

Monthly Rainfall 

Monthly 

Evaporation 

Cumulative Rainfall 

Jul 11 

Aug 11 

Sep 11 

Oct 11 

Nov 11 

Dec 11 

Jan 12 

Feb 12 

Mar 12 

Apr 12 

May 12 

Jun 12 

Monthly (mm) 

Cumulative (mm) 

Cumulative 

Evaporation 

Appendix2A: Meterological Data 2

Jerrys Plains Long Term Climate Statistics 

Monthly Climate Statistics for 'JERRYS PLAINS POST OFFICE' [061086] 

Created on [ 27 Jun 2012 18:45:15 GMT+00:00] 

061086 JERRYS PLAINS POST OFFICE 

Commenced: 1884 

Last Record: 2012 

Latitude: 32.50 Degrees South 

Longitude: 150.91 Degrees East 

Elevation: 90 m 

State: NSW 

Statistic Element January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual No. Years Start Year End Year 

Mean maximum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1907 to 2012 31.7 30.9 28.9 25.3 21.3 18 17.4 19.4 22.9 26.2 29.1 31.2 25.2 105 1907 2012 

Highest temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2012 44.6 45.5 42.8 38.9 30 26.1 26 31 36.2 41 44.9 45.6 45.6 55 1957 2012 

Date of Highest temperature for years 1957 to 2012 12‐Jan‐07 2‐Feb‐06 14‐Mar‐98 4‐Apr‐86 24‐May‐58 5‐Jun‐58 24‐Jul‐90 21‐Aug‐95 25‐Sep‐80 21‐Oct‐88 19‐Nov‐68 25‐Dec‐57 25‐Dec‐57 N/A 1957 2012 

Lowest maximum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2012 17.8 18 16.5 15.2 11.6 8.9 8.3 8.3 12.8 14.1 15.4 16.7 8.3 55 1957 2012 

Date of Lowest maximum temperature for years 1957 to 2012 17‐Jan‐86 24‐Feb‐04 2‐Mar‐87 17‐Apr‐83 27‐May‐87 26‐Jun‐59 7‐Jul‐57 10‐Aug‐61 5‐Sep‐75 3‐Oct‐66 5‐Nov‐96 25‐Dec‐62 10‐Aug‐61 N/A 1957 2012 

Decile 1 maximum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2011 24.6 24.4 23.5 20.8 17.5 15.1 14.4 15.6 17.8 19.9 21.7 24 54 1957 2011 

Decile 9 maximum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2011 38 36.6 33.7 29.8 25 21 20.2 23.3 27.8 31.7 35.2 36.7 54 1957 2011 

Mean number of days >= 30 Degrees C for years 1957 to 2012 17.4 13.8 9.8 2.8 0 0 0 0.1 1.4 5.5 10.5 15.8 77.1 55 1957 2012 

Mean number of days >= 35 Degrees C for years 1957 to 2012 7.3 4.4 2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.8 3.3 5.7 23.7 55 1957 2012 

Mean number of days >= 40 Degrees C for years 1957 to 2012 1.3 0.7 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.8 3.4 55 1957 2012 

Mean minimum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1907 to 2012 17.2 17.1 15 11 7.4 5.3 3.8 4.4 7 10.3 13.2 15.7 10.6 105 1907 2012 

Lowest temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2012 7.7 6.5 4.5 0.6 ‐1.8 ‐3 ‐4.5 ‐3 ‐0.6 1 3 5 ‐4.5 55 1957 2012 

Date of Lowest temperature for years 1957 to 2012 9‐Jan‐04 21‐Feb‐88 28‐Mar‐84 27‐Apr‐78 29‐May‐87 30‐Jun‐86 4‐Jul‐71 1‐Aug‐98 6‐Sep‐81 18‐Oct‐84 23‐Nov‐08 19‐Dec‐60 4‐Jul‐71 N/A 1957 2012 

Highest minimum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2012 27.8 26.2 22.7 21.1 17.8 17.2 15.3 15.3 19.2 20.6 30 27.8 30 55 1957 2012 

Date of Highest minimum temperature for years 1957 to 2012 26‐Jan‐82 6‐Feb‐11 14‐Mar‐83 1‐Apr‐59 11‐May‐63 5‐Jun‐58 25‐Jul‐90 30‐Aug‐99 23‐Sep‐03 28‐Oct‐67 30‐Nov‐59 26‐Dec‐57 30‐Nov‐59 N/A 1957 2012 

Decile 1 minimum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2011 13.4 13.4 10.7 6.4 3.2 0.9 ‐0.6 0.4 2.8 5.6 8.8 11.4 54 1957 2011 

Decile 9 minimum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2011 21.1 20.9 19.2 16.4 13.3 10.6 8.9 10 12.2 15.4 17.8 20 54 1957 2011 

Mean number of days = 10 mm for years 1884 to 2012 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 20 127 1884 2012 

Mean number of days of rain >= 25 mm for years 1884 to 2012 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 5.6 127 1884 2012 

Mean daily wind run (km) for years 1957 to 1972 276 255 236 200 197 186 231 228 227 256 262 270 235 13 1957 1972 

Mean daily solar exposure (MJ/(m*m)) for years 1990 to 2012 24.5 21.4 18.6 15 11.4 9.7 10.7 14.1 18 21.4 23.6 25.4 17.8 22 1990 2012 

Mean number of clear days for years 1957 to 2010 7.3 5.6 7.4 9.1 8.5 8.4 10.5 12.1 11.1 8.7 7.2 7.5 103.4 53 1957 2010 

Mean number of cloudy days for years 1957 to 2010 11.3 11.2 10.8 9.5 10.3 10.7 8.4 7.7 7.7 10.5 10.7 10.8 119.6 53 1957 2010 

Mean daily evaporation (mm) for years 1957 to 1972 7.1 6 5 4 2.9 2 2.3 2.6 3.7 5.3 6.5 6.6 4.5 10 1957 1972 

Mean 9am temperature (Degrees C) for years 1940 to 2010 23.4 22.7 21.2 18 13.6 10.6 9.4 11.4 15.3 19 21.1 23 17.4 69 1940 2010 

Mean 9am wet bulb temperature (Degrees C) for years 1940 to 2010 19.3 19.3 17.9 15 11.6 9 7.7 9 11.9 14.5 16.3 18.1 14.1 64 1940 2010 

Mean 9am dew point temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2010 16.9 17.3 15.7 12.8 9.7 7.2 5.7 6.2 8.3 10.5 12.8 14.8 11.5 45 1957 2010 

Mean 9am relative humidity (%) for years 1940 to 2010 67 72 72 72 77 80 78 71 65 59 60 61 70 60 1940 2010 

Mean 9am cloud cover (okas) for years 1907 to 2010 4.2 4.4 4 3.6 3.9 4 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.9 4 3.8 103 1907 2010 

Mean 9am wind speed (km/h) for years 1957 to 2010 9.6 9 8.8 8.6 9 9.4 10.6 11 11.7 10.9 10.5 9.9 9.9 53 1957 2010 

Mean 3pm temperature (Degrees C) for years 1956 to 2010 29.8 28.9 27.2 24.1 20.1 17.1 16.4 18.2 21.2 24.2 26.9 29 23.6 54 1956 2010 

Mean 3pm wet bulb temperature (Degrees C) for years 1956 to 2010 21.1 21.1 19.6 17.1 14.6 12.2 11.2 12.1 14.1 16.2 18 19.7 16.4 50 1956 2010 

Mean 3pm dew point temperature (Degrees C) for years 1957 to 2010 15.6 16.3 14.4 11.7 9.3 7.2 5.7 5.4 6.9 9 11.1 13.1 10.5 45 1957 2010 

Mean 3pm relative humidity (%) for years 1957 to 2010 47 50 49 49 52 54 51 45 43 42 42 42 47 45 1957 2010 

Mean 3pm cloud cover (oktas) for years 1957 to 2010 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4 3.8 4 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.3 53 1957 2010 

Mean 3pm wind speed (km/h) for years 1957 to 2010 13.2 13 12.4 11.3 11 11.5 13 14.3 14.7 14.1 14.2 14.2 13.1 52 1957 2010 

Appendix 2A: Jerrys Plans Long‐Term Climate Statistics 

Source: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_061086.shtml

Appendix 2B 

Air Monitoring Data


D01 D03 D07 

D26 

Month 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 

(g/m 2 /month) 

IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Jul 11 6.4c 5.0c 78 3.1 1.8 58 7.6c 6.2c 82 0.3 0.3 100 

Aug 11 86.1c 82.5c 96 3.8 2.6 68 6.2c 3.6c 58 1.0 0.7 70 

Sep 11 3.7 2.3 62 2.3 1.4 61 3.5 2.5 71 1.2 0.9 75 

Oct 11 12.5 5.7 46 2.2 1.7 77 5.1 3.3 65 1.1 0.8 73 

Nov 11 10.1c 4.9c 49 5.9c 3.0c 51 10.0c 4.1c 41 0.5 0.3 60 

Dec 11 4.3c 2.0c 47 4.5c 1.3c 29 Missing Dust Gauge Bottle & Funnel 1.9 1.0 53 

Jan 12 11.9c 6.4c 54 2.7 2.2 81 4.8c 3.4c 71 1.3 1.2 92 

Feb 12 29.8c 16.9c 57 2.0 1.7 85 7.4c 5.1c 69 2.3 1.7 74 

Mar 12 9.1 1.0c 11 1.4 1.0 71 6.5c 4.7c 72 1.8 1.2 67 

Apr 12 25.9 16.3 63 2.8 1.9 68 5.3 3.5 66 1.4 1.1 79 

May 12 39.2 25.3 65 1.9 1.4 74 4.5 3.4 76 1.1 0.9 82 

Jun 12 10.0c 7.6c 76 1.5 1.0 67 4.5c 2.0c 44 0.4c 0.4c 100 

Average 

(incl. Cont.) 

Average 

(excl.cont) 

20.8 14.7 58 2.8 1.8 66 5.9 3.8 65 1.2 0.9 73 

18.1 12.4 58 2.4 1.7 66 4.6 3.2 65 1.3 0.9 73 

D09 D11 D12 D14 

Month 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Jul 11 7.7c 3.6c 47 0.8 0.6 75 2.3 1.3 57 13.1c 4.5c 34 

Aug 11 2.3 1.6 70 1.6 1.0 63 1.6 1.1 69 

Sep 11 36 3.6 23 2.3 64 20 2.0 13 1.3 65 33 3.3 21 2.1 64 

Oct 11 3.3 2.1 64 3.3 2.0 61 3.7 2.7 73 

Nov 11 4.8c 2.0c 42 3.4 1.8 53 

Dust Gauge Bottle Broken 

Dec 11 3.3 1.2 36 2.4 1.3 54 2.7 1.8 67 

Jan 12 2.3 1.6 70 1.5 1.4 93 3.7 2.6 70 

Feb 12 4.0c 2.6c 65 2.4 1.5 63 3.3 2.5 76 

Mar 12 6.8c 3.1c 46 3.4 1.9 56 3.9 2.4 62 

Apr 12 4.2 2.3 55 1.9 1.2 63 3.1 2.4 77 

May 12 6.9 3.8 55 2.8 1.8 64 2.1 1.6 76 

Jun 12 5.0c 3.5c 70 1.1 0.8 73 1.9c 1.3c 68 

Average 

(incl. Cont.) 

Average 

(excl.cont) 

4.5 2.5 57 2.2 1.4 62 2.9 2.0 69 13.1 4.5 34 

3.7 2.1 57 2.2 1.4 62 3.0 2.1 69 13.1 4.5 34 

Appendix 2B: Air Monitoring Results 

'c' indicates that the sample was contaminated 

Shaded cells indicate that the result was above 4g/m 2 /month


D17 

D19 D20 D21 

Month 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Jul 11 0.4 0.3 75 0.7 0.6 86 0.6 0.5 83 0.5 0.4 80 

Aug 11 0.7 0.5 71 1.9 1.5 79 1.3 1.0 77 0.5 0.4 80 

Sep 11 1.0 0.6 60 2.8 2.0 71 1.2 0.8 67 1.3 0.9 69 

Oct 11 1.4 1.0 71 3.6 2.5 69 1.5 1.0 67 1.2 0.8 67 

Nov 11 2.4 0.9 38 4.1c 2.5c 61 2.2 1.4 64 1.6 1.1 69 

Dec 11 1.2 0.8 67 4.0c 2.7c 68 1.4 0.8 57 1.8 1.2 67 

Jan 12 1.9 1.5 79 3.9 2.9 74 1.5 1.3 87 2.0 1.6 80 

Feb 12 2.8 2.0 71 3.8 2.6 68 1.0 0.9 90 2.80 1.80 64 

Mar 12 1.2 0.9 75 3.7 2.5 68 1.6 1.3 81 1.60 1.30 81 

Apr 12 0.9 0.8 89 3.6 2.7 75 1.2 1.1 92 1.30 1.30 100 

May 12 0.7 0.6 86 2.4 1.8 75 2.2 1.8 82 0.50 0.50 100 

Jun 12 0.8c 0.7c 88 1.4c 0.9c 64 0.9c 0.7 78 0.5c 0.50 100 

Average 

(incl. Cont.) 

Average 

(excl.cont) 

1.3 0.9 72 3.0 2.1 72 1.4 1.1 77 1.3 1.0 80 

1.3 0.9 72 2.9 2.1 72 1.4 1.1 77 1.4 1.0 80 

D22 

D23 

D24 

D25 

Month 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Insoluble 

Solids (g/m 2 

/month) 

Ash Residue 


IS/AR Ratio 

Jul 11 0.5 0.4 80 3.3 2.2 67 0.3 0.2 67 1.0 0.6 60 

Aug 11 0.6 0.5 83 2.5 1.2 48 0.9 0.6 67 1.4 0.9 64 

Sep 11 1.2 0.9 09 75 1.0 0.7 70 1.0 0.6 06 60 1.4 0.9 64 

Oct 11 1.0 0.8 80 0.9 0.8 89 10.6c 9.7 92 1.4 1.1 79 

Nov 11 1.2 0.9 75 2.0 0.9 45 1.9 0.9 47 1.9 1.1 58 

Dec 11 1.5 1.1 73 3.7 1.3 35 1.3 0.7 54 2.2 1.5 68 

Jan 12 2.0 1.9 95 1.2 1.0 83 1.2 0.9 75 2.6 2.4 92 

Feb 12 2.5 1.9 76 13.8c 5.7c 41 1.2 0.8 67 3.5 2.2 63 

Mar 12 1.8 1.2 67 2.1 1.4 67 0.9 0.6 67 4.2 2.7 64 

Apr 12 2.5 2.2 88 3.2 1.4 44 1.4 1.0 71 2.9 2.3 79 

May 12 1.0 0.9 90 1.3 1.0 77 0.7 0.5 71 1.7 1.3 76 

Jun 12 1.2c 0.9c 75 2.0c 1.1c 55 0.3c 0.2 67 1.1c 0.9c 82 

Average 

(incl. Cont.) 

Average 

(excl.cont) 

1.4 1.1 80 3.1 1.6 60 1.8 1.4 67 2.1 1.5 71 

1.4 1.2 80 2.1 1.2 60 1.1 1.4 67 2.2 1.5 71 


'c' indicates that the sample was contaminated 

Shaded cells indicate that the result was above 4g/m 2 /month


Wambo Coal Dust Monitoring Program 

Particulate Matter (10 Micron) Monitoring Data 

Date of Run 

PM01 - Coralie 

(Sentinex 19) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM02 - Wambo Road 

(Caban) (Sentinex 20) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM03 - Thelander 

(Sentinex 21) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM04 - Muller 

(Sentinex 22) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

01/07/11 11.2 11.20 6.7 6.70 8.4 8.40 9.9 9.90 

02/07/11 8.3 9.75 8.7 7.70 7.4 7.90 8.4 9.15 

03/07/11 9.0 9.50 9.1 8.17 6.8 7.53 7.5 8.60 

04/07/11 10.2 9.68 9.3 8.45 8.1 7.68 8.1 8.48 

05/07/11 19.3 11.60 14.2 9.60 11.8 8.50 8.9 8.56 

06/07/11 11.4 11.57 15.1 10.52 10.5 8.83 9.2 8.67 

07/07/11 11.5 10.99 12.6 10.81 7.5 8.64 7.1 8.44 

08/07/11 7.0 10.99 11.6 10.91 6.8 8.41 6.1 8.15 

09/07/11 5.4 10.37 12.5 11.09 5.8 8.12 5.3 7.83 

10/07/11 7.1 10.04 10.1 10.99 6.5 7.96 5.6 7.61 

11/07/11 8.1 9.86 12.2 11.10 8.7 8.03 7.9 7.64 

12/07/11 11.8 10.03 15.5 11.47 12.0 8.36 9.8 7.82 

13/07/11 14.1 10.34 27.7 12.72 15.1 8.88 14.0 8.29 

14/07/11 12.2 10.47 10.7 9.01 12.7 8.61 

15/07/11 17.7 10.95 10.1 12.53 15.7 9.45 16.4 9.13 

16/07/11 12.5 11.05 11.5 9.58 15.8 9.54 

17/07/11 11.3 11.06 11.3 9.68 12.4 9.71 

18/07/11 9.9 11.00 4.7 9.41 5.5 9.48 

19/07/11 7.3 10.81 7.8 12.21 5.2 9.18 4.8 9.23 

20/07/11 8.5 10.69 8.0 11.95 7.3 9.09 7.0 9.12 

21/07/11 5.0 10.42 5.3 11.56 5.0 8.90 4.9 8.92 

22/07/11 6.7 10.25 6.6 11.28 6.5 8.79 7.3 8.85 

23/07/11 7.2 10.12 7.2 8.72 7.7 8.80 

24/07/11 6.2 9.95 4.8 8.55 4.9 8.63 

25/07/11 8.6 9.90 6.7 8.48 6.3 8.54 

26/07/11 8.2 9.83 5.0 8.35 5.6 8.43 

27/07/11 11.8 9.91 6.4 8.27 8.2 8.42 

28/07/11 16.3 10.1414 12.11 11.33 86 8.6 829 8.29 91 9.1 844 8.44 

29/07/11 12.3 10.21 19.4 11.73 8.8 8.30 10.2 8.50 

30/07/11 13.6 10.32 13.6 11.82 9.2 8.33 9.6 8.54 

31/07/11 12.7 10.40 22.0 12.28 12.3 8.46 12.8 8.68 

01/08/11 19.9 10.70 24.0 12.79 15.4 8.68 15.3 8.88 

02/08/11 24.4 11.11 26.9 13.38 15.0 8.87 11.5 8.96 

03/08/11 22.0 11.43 23.1 13.77 14.5 9.04 16.0 9.17 

04/08/11 21.0 11.71 16.8 9.26 17.1 9.40 

05/08/11 20.6 11.95 24.2 14.17 14.1 9.39 14.5 9.54 

06/08/11 20.9 12.19 22.9 14.49 14.5 9.53 15.3 9.69 

07/08/11 9.7 12.13 8.9 14.29 7.8 9.48 9.4 9.69 

08/08/11 5.9 11.97 4.4 9.35 4.0 9.54 

09/08/11 6.7 11.84 5.2 13.98 3.6 9.21 3.7 9.40 

10/08/11 5.5 11.68 9.9 13.84 4.6 9.10 4.6 9.28 

11/08/11 9.9 11.64 11.6 13.77 5.9 9.02 6.4 9.21 

12/08/11 12.4 11.66 12.4 13.73 8.6 9.01 12.0 9.27 

13/08/11 14.1 11.71 11.0 9.06 12.3 9.34 

14/08/11 14.3 11.77 12.1 9.12 15.7 9.48 

15/08/11 14.0 11.82 11.8 9.18 9.8 9.49 

16/08/11 15.7 11.90 12.8 9.26 13.2 9.57 

17/08/11 12.3 11.91 12.1 9.32 13.5 9.65 

18/08/11 7.5 11.82 6.1 9.25 7.0 9.60 

19/08/11 7.7 11.74 7.7 9.22 7.2 9.55 

20/08/11 10.8 11.72 10.3 9.24 10.6 9.57 

21/08/11 8.6 11.66 9.8 9.25 9.5 9.57 

22/08/11 7.6 11.58 6.8 9.21 7.4 9.53 


Individual results in bold are above the yearly average limit. 

Individual results in bold and red, shaded grey are above daily limit.




Date of Run 


(Sentinex 19) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 



PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 


(Sentinex 21) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM04 - Muller 

(Sentinex 22) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

23/08/11 8.1 11.52 5.0 13.46 6.9 9.16 6.6 9.47 

24/08/11 12.0 11.53 9.0 13.33 9.2 9.17 10.1 9.49 

25/08/11 11.8 11.53 6.7 9.12 10.5 9.50 

26/08/11 17.8 11.64 22.3 13.59 14.3 9.21 15.4 9.61 

27/08/11 24.1 11.86 14.9 9.31 17.7 9.75 

28/08/11 18.6 11.97 16.6 9.43 16.5 9.86 

29/08/11 23.0 13.85 12.7 9.49 15.8 9.96 

30/08/11 17.2 12.06 16.9 13.93 18.1 9.63 19.3 10.11 

31/08/11 21.1 12.21 19.0 14.07 15.7 9.73 17.9 10.24 

01/09/11 18.6 12.31 17.3 14.15 16.2 9.83 17.1 10.35 

02/09/11 14.8 12.35 12.0 14.10 15.6 9.92 17.9 10.47 

03/09/11 14.5 12.38 11.5 14.03 12.6 9.96 13.4 10.51 

04/09/11 13.4 12.40 13.0 14.01 10.8 9.97 14.3 10.57 

05/09/11 18.6 12.49 19.9 14.14 15.3 10.05 17.0 10.66 

06/09/11 15.3 12.53 23.4 14.35 12.8 10.09 13.30 10.70 

07/09/11 24.6 12.71 18.2 14.44 17.3 10.20 21.1 10.85 

08/09/11 19.4 12.81 18.6 14.53 20.3 10.34 22.5 11.02 

09/09/11 5.4 12.70 4.7 14.32 3.5 10.25 4.6 10.93 

10/09/11 9.4 12.66 8.0 14.19 6.8 10.20 6.3 10.87 

11/09/11 10.1 12.62 12.2 14.15 7.5 10.16 7.6 10.82 

12/09/11 15.7 12.66 16.2 14.19 16.3 10.24 15.3 10.88 

13/09/11 14.0 12.68 20.5 14.31 5.4 10.18 7.9 10.84 

14/09/11 10.9 12.66 25.1 14.52 8.8 10.16 9.1 10.82 

15/09/11 27.0 12.85 29.6 14.81 11.1 10.17 11.8 10.83 

16/09/11 17.7 12.91 31.5 15.11 10.5 10.18 11.6 10.84 

17/09/11 21.2 13.02 23.0 15.26 12.6 10.21 15.8 10.90 

18/09/11 29.0 13.22 26.7 15.46 20.4 10.34 18.9 11.00 

19/09/11 37.1 13.52 42.3 15.93 43.1 10.74 41.5 11.38 

20/09/11 49.4 13.96 82.5 17.08 27.3 10.94 26.4 11.56 

21/09/11 25.3 14.10 30.1 17.30 12.6 10.96 14.5 11.60 

22/09/11 25.3 14.23 25.3 17.44 22.9 11.10 22.4 11.73 

23/09/11 32.9 14.45 34.9 17.72 25.6 11.28 21.8 11.85 

24/09/11 37.0 14.72 31.8 17.95 35.6 11.56 36.5 12.13 

25/09/11 5.3 14.61 4.2 17.73 4.6 11.48 3.8 12.04 

26/09/11 9.9 14.56 8.9 17.59 12.5 11.49 9.1 12.00 

27/09/11 13.2 14.54 12.5 17.51 15.1 11.53 14.6 12.03 

28/09/11 14.0 14.53 12.3 17.43 12.7 11.54 14.1 12.06 

29/09/11 7.2 14.45 6.7 17.27 5.7 11.48 5.5 11.98 

30/09/11 8.0 14.38 10.2 17.17 6.3 11.42 5.9 11.92 

01/10/11 8.7 14.32 9.1 17.05 6.8 11.37 6.7 11.86 

02/10/11 6.6 14.24 7.3 16.91 9.4 11.35 6.8 11.81 

03/10/11 10.8 14.20 11.0 16.83 10.0 11.34 11.0 11.80 

04/10/11 13.4 14.19 13.4 16.78 14.2 11.37 12.0 11.80 

05/10/11 15.6 14.21 17.2 16.79 14.0 11.39 16.1 11.85 

06/10/11 12.1 14.19 11.7 16.72 12.0 11.40 13.9 11.87 

07/10/11 20.5 14.25 22.8 16.80 17.2 11.46 21.0 11.96 

08/10/11 13.1 14.24 13.4 16.76 13.5 11.48 14.5 11.98 

09/10/11 12.4 14.22 6.5 16.62 6.5 11.43 6.1 11.93 

10/10/11 14.5 14.22 8.1 16.51 6.1 11.38 5.7 11.86 

11/10/11 14.7 14.23 12.9 16.47 10.0 11.37 7.6 11.82 

12/10/11 20.4 14.29 20.9 16.52 17.0 11.42 18.6 11.89 

13/10/11 27.1 14.41 17.4 16.53 19.1 11.49 

14/10/11 20.2 14.47 17.3 16.54 15.0 11.53 19.3 11.96 







Date of Run 


(Sentinex 19) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 



PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 


(Sentinex 21) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM04 - Muller 

(Sentinex 22) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

15/10/11 14.8 14.47 12.0 16.49 10.3 11.51 11.5 11.95 

16/10/11 19.0 14.51 16.5 16.49 14.1 11.54 13.0 11.96 

17/10/11 24.2 14.60 21.2 16.54 24.5 11.66 28.9 12.12 

18/10/11 23.1 14.68 21.2 16.60 27.1 11.80 29.8 12.28 

19/10/11 23.0 14.75 27.7 16.73 19.5 11.87 

20/10/11 18.3 14.79 24.2 16.81 14.9 11.89 19.1 12.35 

21/10/11 27.0 14.90 38.6 17.06 22.9 11.99 19.4 12.41 

22/10/11 34.0 15.06 37.7 17.29 33.2 12.18 31.0 12.58 

23/10/11 30.2 15.20 34.3 17.47 28.1 12.32 30.7 12.74 

24/10/11 43.5 15.44 58.2 17.92 20.0 12.38 27.1 12.86 

25/10/11 22.8 15.51 36.4 18.11 15.5 12.41 15.0 12.88 

26/10/11 10.2 15.46 8.1 18.01 9.2 12.38 9.3 12.85 

27/10/11 21.9 15.52 10.9 17.93 15.3 12.41 14.9 12.87 

28/10/11 20.7 15.56 15.5 17.91 18.9 12.46 24.4 12.96 

29/10/11 16.0 15.56 18.7 17.92 12.7 12.46 16.8 13.00 

30/10/11 12.1 15.53 14.3 17.88 10.0 12.44 8.4 12.96 

31/10/11 15.2 15.53 11.5 17.81 17.0 12.48 13.2 12.96 

01/11/11 19.3 15.56 18.0 17.82 21.3 12.55 20.9 13.03 

02/11/11 25.9 15.65 22.7 17.86 20.1 12.61 18.5 13.07 

03/11/11 17.0 13.10 

04/11/11 19.7 15.68 18.0 17.87 24.4 13.19 

05/11/11 23.6 15.74 28.2 17.97 12.6 12.61 26.6 13.30 

06/11/11 21.4 15.79 30.1 18.08 23.3 12.69 22.6 13.37 

07/11/11 23.1 15.84 31.9 18.21 26.7 12.80 21.4 13.43 

08/11/11 29.7 15.95 40.8 18.43 26.1 12.91 25.8 13.53 

09/11/11 23.3 16.01 32.7 18.56 20.0 12.96 22.4 13.60 

10/11/11 25.4 16.08 43.5 18.79 18.8 13.01 20.3 13.65 

11/11/11 45.9 16.30 30.33 18.90 43.2 13.23 33.33 13.80 

12/11/11 28.2 16.39 25.8 18.96 31.6 13.37 26.2 13.89 

13/11/11 30.1 16.50 26.0 19.02 31.7 13.51 26.1 13.98 

14/11/11 28.0 16.58 32.7 19.15 32.5 13.65 21.5 14.04 

15/11/11 44.9 16.79 36.0 19.29 42.6 13.86 41.9 14.24 

16/11/11 29.3 16.88 28.4 19.37 22.5 13.93 26.4 14.33 

17/11/11 9.3 16.83 7.5 19.27 9.2 13.89 9.9 14.30 

18/11/11 14.6 16.81 13.6 19.22 17.5 13.92 17.4 14.32 

19/11/11 18.6 16.82 18.5 19.22 20.6 13.97 17.7 14.35 

20/11/11 32.7 16.94 31.3 19.32 22.1 14.02 24.4 14.42 

21/11/11 18.9 16.95 18.4 19.31 18.0 14.05 20.2 14.46 

22/11/11 9.6 16.90 12.9 19.26 14.6 14.06 12.9 14.45 

23/11/11 5.8 16.82 5.2 19.14 14.6 14.06 5.7 14.39 

24/11/11 10.5 16.78 9.7 19.06 6.4 14.01 10.7 14.36 

25/11/11 6.2 16.70 4.6 18.95 9.6 13.98 5.4 14.30 

26/11/11 7.9 16.64 5.2 18.84 4.4 13.91 4.2 14.23 

27/11/11 14.0 16.63 14.6 18.80 12.3 13.90 11.5 14.21 

28/11/11 20.3 16.65 19.0 18.80 23.7 13.97 23.0 14.27 

29/11/11 24.2 16.70 30.3 18.89 24.1 14.03 29.0 14.37 

30/11/11 22.6 16.74 27.1 18.96 15.3 14.04 18.0 14.39 

01/12/11 18.8 16.75 19.3 18.96 15.5 14.05 16.0 14.40 

02/12/11 15.8 16.75 16.5 18.94 17.2 14.07 19.5 14.44 

03/12/11 15.7 16.74 17.5 18.93 18.0 14.10 21.5 14.48 

04/12/11 14.2 16.73 16.9 18.92 13.7 14.09 17.3 14.50 

05/12/11 15.6 16.72 13.5 18.87 14.8 14.10 21.8 14.55 

06/12/11 15.3 16.71 14.2 18.84 26.1 14.18 19.0 14.58 







Date of Run 


(Sentinex 19) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 



PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 


(Sentinex 21) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM04 - Muller 

(Sentinex 22) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

07/12/11 11.5 16.68 11.4 18.78 12.8 14.17 17.2 14.59 

08/12/11 10.0 16.63 7.3 18.70 9.6 14.14 11.3 14.57 

09/12/11 17.4 16.64 12.7 18.66 16.2 14.15 17.9 14.59 

10/12/11 13.1 16.62 12.2 18.61 17.4 14.17 16.0 14.60 

11/12/11 14.3 16.60 13.1 18.57 11.6 14.16 12.7 14.59 

12/12/11 8.6 16.55 6.5 18.48 6.1 14.11 7.8 14.55 

13/12/11 20.4 16.58 13.9 18.45 16.0 14.12 12.6 14.54 

14/12/11 21.5 16.61 16.1 18.43 19.2 14.15 19.0 14.56 

15/12/11 24.1 16.65 17.3 18.43 21.8 14.61 

16/12/11 22.8 16.69 12.6 18.39 21.9 14.20 18.0 14.63 

17/12/11 21.5 16.72 15.2 18.36 21.0 14.24 22.9 14.68 

18/12/11 18.0 16.72 20.0 18.38 19.6 14.27 27.3 14.75 

19/12/11 16.8 16.73 18.3 18.37 17.4 14.29 24.5 14.81 

20/12/11 21.1 16.75 14.0 18.35 18.4 14.31 14.9 14.81 

21/12/11 26.6 16.81 17.4 18.34 20.5 14.35 20.6 14.84 

22/12/11 16.6 16.81 13.6 18.31 14.7 14.35 22.2 14.89 

23/12/11 15.6 16.80 12.1 18.27 14.2 14.35 18.3 14.91 

24/12/11 20.0 16.82 14.3 18.24 19.3 14.38 19.1 14.93 

25/12/11 13.5 16.80 12.4 18.20 13.0 14.37 15.5 14.93 

26/12/11 12.8 16.78 13.2 18.17 12.0 14.36 12.7 14.92 

27/12/11 17.4 16.78 13.8 18.14 21.1 14.39 21.2 14.96 

28/12/11 23.4 16.82 19.1 18.15 21.5 14.43 29.1 15.03 

29/12/11 21.3 16.84 16.7 18.14 28.9 14.51 29.0 15.11 

30/12/11 22.2 16.87 21.7 18.16 30.8 14.60 29.5 15.19 

31/12/11 19.0 16.88 18.6 18.16 23.0 14.65 26.2 15.25 

01/01/12 24.1 16.92 23.3 18.20 21.8 14.69 26.4 15.31 

02/01/12 30.6 17.00 22.5 18.22 30.0 14.77 27.8 15.38 

03/01/12 21.8 17.02 33.33 18.32 30.33 14.86 32.22 15.47 

04/01/12 23.8 17.06 38.7 18.44 24.0 14.91 34.3 15.57 

05/01/12 36.2 17.16 34.6 18.54 34.5 15.01 35.2 15.68 

06/01/12 17.6 17.16 14.4 18.51 14.7 15.01 17.8 15.69 

07/01/12 19.1 17.17 22.5 18.54 31.7 15.10 29.6 15.76 

08/01/12 30.0 17.24 36.9 18.65 28.9 15.17 31.9 15.85 

09/01/12 20.7 17.26 20.6 18.66 16.7 15.18 20.7 15.87 

10/01/12 15.4 17.25 15.3 18.64 13.1 15.17 18.9 15.89 

11/01/12 31.1 17.32 26.1 18.68 16.5 15.18 16.7 15.89 

12/01/12 30.7 17.39 23.0 18.71 19.6 15.20 23.6 15.93 

13/01/12 25.3 17.43 31.5 18.78 26.7 15.26 34.4 16.03 

14/01/12 25.2 17.47 20.9 18.80 25.6 15.31 30.3 16.10 

15/01/12 18.7 17.48 12.5 18.76 16.3 15.32 21.4 16.13 

16/01/12 17.5 17.48 14.6 18.74 18.9 15.34 19.4 16.14 

17/01/12 23.9 17.51 18.8 18.74 24.0 15.38 26.4 16.20 

18/01/12 19.6 17.52 15.3 18.72 20.0 15.40 22.6 16.23 

19/01/12 19.2 17.53 14.5 18.69 19.8 15.42 28.5 16.29 

20/01/12 24.3 17.56 21.5 18.71 26.9 15.48 29.9 16.36 

21/01/12 20.2 17.58 16.7 18.70 17.7 15.49 26.7 16.41 

22/01/12 17.4 17.57 11.2 18.66 16.0 15.50 23.3 16.44 

23/01/12 23.0 17.60 14.2 18.63 17.1 15.50 19.6 16.46 

24/01/12 19.4 17.61 12.9 18.60 17.3 15.51 25.9 16.50 

25/01/12 12.7 17.59 8.2 18.54 9.2 15.48 18.0 16.51 

26/01/12 14.3 17.57 9.1 18.49 10.2 15.46 10.6 16.48 

27/01/12 23.9 17.60 14.0 18.47 15.7 15.46 16.6 16.48 

28/01/12 14.2 17.58 10.6 18.43 15.7 15.46 15.0 16.47 







Date of Run 


(Sentinex 19) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 



PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 


(Sentinex 21) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM04 - Muller 

(Sentinex 22) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

29/01/12 19.4 17.59 13.7 18.40 18.5 15.47 17.2 16.48 

30/01/12 17.3 17.59 16.6 18.39 12.4 15.46 19.3 16.49 

31/01/12 14.1 17.58 16.2 18.38 12.9 15.45 12.9 16.47 

01/02/12 8.3 17.53 5.9 18.31 5.7 15.40 6.0 16.43 

02/02/12 6.6 17.48 5.4 18.25 4.3 15.35 5.1 16.37 

03/02/12 11.5 17.45 7.4 18.19 9.4 15.32 8.8 16.34 

04/02/12 20.0 17.46 12.1 18.16 15.3 15.32 15.1 16.33 

05/02/12 19.3 17.47 20.9 18.17 17.0 15.33 18.5 16.34 

06/02/12 34.7 17.55 22.4 18.20 25.1 15.37 25.5 16.38 

07/02/12 14.4 17.54 13.5 18.17 14.4 15.37 15.0 16.38 

08/02/12 21.6 17.56 19.0 18.18 21.8 15.40 21.3 16.40 

09/02/12 22.0 17.58 16.4 18.17 21.5 15.43 25.0 16.44 

10/02/12 19.0 17.58 15.2 18.15 15.1 15.42 17.7 16.44 

11/02/12 14.8 17.57 11.4 18.12 10.5 15.40 14.9 16.44 

12/02/12 15.4 17.56 15.4 18.11 15.4 15.40 17.5 16.44 

13/02/12 20.0 17.57 17.2 18.10 14.6 15.40 20.3 16.46 

14/02/12 22.0 17.59 13.2 18.08 16.5 15.40 14.9 16.45 

15/02/12 17.3 17.59 11.6 18.05 13.8 15.40 18.7 16.46 

16/02/12 19.7 17.60 16.8 18.04 16.7 15.40 21.7 16.48 

17/02/12 21.6 17.62 22.4 18.06 18.3 15.41 21.5 16.51 

18/02/12 26.6 17.65 23.4 18.09 22.9 15.45 24.9 16.54 

19/02/12 24.6 17.68 22.0 18.10 23.7 15.48 25.2 16.58 

20/02/12 16.2 17.68 13.4 18.08 10.2 15.46 15.0 16.57 

21/02/12 10.5 17.65 8.7 18.04 9.4 15.43 10.2 16.55 

22/02/12 21.2 17.66 14.8 18.02 17.6 15.44 17.9 16.55 

23/02/12 17.0 17.66 18.2 18.02 21.7 15.47 21.9 16.57 

24/02/12 27.2 17.70 15.5 18.01 19.0 15.48 30.1 16.63 

25/02/12 15.55 17.69 14.2 17.99 14.9 15.48 22.9 16.6666 

26/02/12 14.8 17.68 14.9 17.98 11.3 15.46 18.2 16.66 

27/02/12 15.9 17.67 21.8 18.00 16.4 15.47 15.6 16.66 

28/02/12 19.6 17.68 35.5 18.08 14.4 15.46 14.9 16.65 

29/02/12 17.1 17.68 20.5 18.09 17.4 15.47 23.7 16.68 

01/03/12 18.8 17.68 20.2 18.10 14.6 15.47 16.1 16.68 

02/03/12 6.8 17.64 5.0 18.04 2.1 15.41 4.8 16.63 

03/03/12 14.2 17.62 11.4 18.01 11.0 15.40 11.1 16.61 

04/03/12 19.2 17.63 16.1 18.00 13.9 15.39 15.1 16.60 

05/03/12 18.5 17.63 10.5 17.97 11.4 15.37 14.2 16.59 

06/03/12 21.6 17.65 16.5 17.96 16.1 15.38 20.1 16.61 

07/03/12 11.7 17.63 11.4 17.93 15.3 16.60 

08/03/12 8.9 17.59 8.6 17.89 3.2 15.33 4.3 16.55 

09/03/12 12.7 17.57 18.4 17.89 8.2 15.30 4.8 16.51 

10/03/12 20.4 17.58 16.9 17.89 14.9 15.30 11.7 16.49 

11/03/12 21.9 17.91 23.7 15.33 28.1 16.53 

12/03/12 22.8 17.60 16.3 17.90 19.3 15.35 23.1 16.56 

13/03/12 23.4 17.63 20.0 17.91 25.4 15.39 25.3 16.59 

14/03/12 23.6 17.65 18.6 17.91 19.6 15.40 24.8 16.62 

15/03/12 22.9 17.67 21.5 17.93 21.5 15.43 22.5 16.65 

16/03/12 14.8 17.66 25.8 17.96 13.7 15.42 15.7 16.64 

17/03/12 11.8 17.64 10.6 17.93 10.3 15.40 15.9 16.64 

18/03/12 16.3 17.63 14.5 17.91 16.5 15.40 18.8 16.65 

19/03/12 13.7 17.62 11.4 17.89 12.4 15.39 17.0 16.65 

20/03/12 20.6 17.63 14.4 17.87 18.9 15.41 18.0 16.66 

21/03/12 8.7 15.38 







Date of Run 


(Sentinex 19) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 



PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 


(Sentinex 21) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM04 - Muller 

(Sentinex 22) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

22/03/12 20.2 17.64 11.4 17.84 17.5 15.39 17.7 16.66 

23/03/12 24.0 17.66 29.3 17.89 20.4 15.41 18.8 16.67 

24/03/12 22.0 17.68 17.1 17.89 12.5 15.40 13.6 16.66 

25/03/12 20.7 17.69 14.7 17.88 19.3 15.41 25.5 16.69 

26/03/12 21.4 17.70 17.2 17.87 17.8 15.42 24.6 16.72 

27/03/12 25.4 17.73 18.7 17.88 17.7 15.43 22.2 16.74 

28/03/12 22.6 17.75 19.0 17.88 15.9 15.43 27.2 16.78 

29/03/12 24.8 17.78 13.3 17.86 11.0 15.41 16.2 16.78 

30/03/12 19.9 17.78 15.3 17.85 18.3 15.42 20.7 16.79 

31/03/12 17.8 17.78 15.3 17.84 14.7 15.42 17.3 16.79 

01/04/12 25.1 17.81 19.1 17.85 16.2 15.42 18.0 16.80 

02/04/12 25.0 17.84 13.7 17.83 16.9 15.43 16.2 16.79 

03/04/12 23.5 17.86 21.0 17.84 20.2 15.45 22.3 16.81 

04/04/12 40.0 17.94 24.0 17.87 25.4 15.48 29.5 16.86 

05/04/12 33.4 17.99 17.7 17.87 20.5 15.50 25.4 16.89 

06/04/12 24.9 18.02 20.7 17.88 19.5 15.52 23.2 16.91 

07/04/12 35.8 18.08 32.7 17.94 26.4 15.56 26.5 16.95 

08/04/12 28.0 18.12 29.8 17.98 30.9 15.61 31.7 17.00 

09/04/12 14.4 18.11 13.7 17.97 11.1 15.59 10.4 16.98 

10/04/12 12.9 18.09 14.4 17.95 9.8 15.57 14.5 16.97 

11/04/12 11.7 18.06 13.5 17.93 11.1 15.56 15.3 16.96 

12/04/12 12.8 18.05 9.8 17.90 13.5 15.55 13.6 16.95 

13/04/12 21.6 18.06 24.7 17.93 13.2 15.54 15.3 16.95 

14/04/12 12.1 18.04 21.3 17.94 10.7 15.53 17.0 16.95 

15/04/12 25.4 18.06 30.6 17.99 21.0 15.54 25.1 16.97 

16/04/12 29.4 18.10 22.0 18.01 25.2 15.58 30.3 17.02 

17/04/12 11.0 18.08 16.4 18.00 10.6 15.56 11.1 17.00 

18/04/12 11.9 18.06 59 5.9 17.95 13.8 15.5555 14.11 16.99 

19/04/12 12.8 18.04 8.9 17.92 22.6 15.58 11.8 16.97 

20/04/12 19.3 18.04 12.3 17.90 11.5 15.56 17.7 16.97 

21/04/12 21.3 18.05 13.8 17.88 16.8 15.57 20.4 16.99 

22/04/12 19.5 18.06 20.1 17.89 18.4 15.58 21.6 17.00 

23/04/12 15.4 18.05 14.4 17.88 8.7 15.56 13.3 16.99 

24/04/12 14.3 18.04 9.6 17.85 8.8 15.53 8.6 16.96 

25/04/12 9.5 18.01 15.2 17.84 8.0 15.51 7.5 16.93 

26/04/12 17.5 18.01 17.2 17.84 11.3 15.49 13.3 16.92 

27/04/12 18.5 18.01 22.1 17.85 15.3 15.49 16.2 16.91 

28/04/12 17.5 18.01 25.1 17.88 13.4 15.49 17.7 16.92 

29/04/12 15.3 18.00 15.4 17.87 14.5 15.48 17.6 16.92 

30/04/12 25.0 18.02 24.2 17.89 22.6 15.51 22.4 16.94 

01/05/12 20.8 18.03 20.6 17.90 13.6 15.50 17.3 16.94 

02/05/12 22.0 18.04 23.9 17.92 8.7 15.48 11.2 16.92 

03/05/12 14.9 18.03 9.9 17.89 6.6 15.45 7.7 16.89 

04/05/12 21.5 18.04 16.9 17.89 14.5 15.44 14.6 16.88 

05/05/12 10.1 18.02 12.7 17.87 6.7 15.42 10.2 16.86 

06/05/12 10.9 17.99 17.7 17.87 7.8 15.39 6.9 16.83 

07/05/12 17.1 17.99 15.2 17.86 10.6 15.38 11.1 16.81 

08/05/12 17.3 17.99 16.6 17.86 13.5 15.37 8.4 16.78 

09/05/12 27.0 18.02 25.0 17.88 10.3 15.35 9.3 16.76 

10/05/12 33.7 18.07 22.1 17.90 11.4 15.34 9.8 16.74 

11/05/12 19.7 18.07 27.1 17.93 11.9 15.33 11.9 16.72 

12/05/12 18.0 18.07 24.4 17.95 12.0 15.32 10.3 16.70 

13/05/12 19.2 18.08 18.4 17.95 12.0 15.31 11.2 16.68 







Date of Run 


(Sentinex 19) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 



PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 


(Sentinex 21) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

PM04 - Muller 

(Sentinex 22) 

PM10 24 

Hour Result 

YTD 

Average 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

(ug/m 3 ) 

14/05/12 15.8 18.07 17.1 17.95 11.8 15.30 8.8 16.66 

15/05/12 25.4 18.09 21.7 17.96 11.1 15.28 11.7 16.64 

16/05/12 26.2 18.12 33.6 18.02 16.2 15.29 18.0 16.65 

17/05/12 26.7 18.15 28.4 18.05 14.8 15.29 15.8 16.64 

18/05/12 22.0 18.16 23.6 18.07 13.5 15.28 14.9 16.64 

19/05/12 13.8 18.14 38.1 18.14 13.6 15.27 11.8 16.62 

20/05/12 20.7 18.15 26.2 18.16 15.7 15.28 16.6 16.62 

21/05/12 25.0 18.17 23.8 18.18 17.7 15.28 19.2 16.63 

22/05/12 14.8 18.16 24.3 18.20 13.5 15.28 11.3 16.61 

23/05/12 22.2 18.18 30.3 18.24 13.0 15.27 17.6 16.62 

24/05/12 20.2 18.18 22.2 18.26 17.1 15.28 17.9 16.62 

25/05/12 9.3 18.15 9.4 18.23 8.3 15.25 7.5 16.59 

26/05/12 8.6 18.13 13.5 18.21 5.4 15.22 7.9 16.57 

27/05/12 10.6 18.10 6.4 18.17 6.4 15.20 6.7 16.54 

28/05/12 23.8 18.12 15.9 18.17 10.0 15.18 10.9 16.52 

29/05/12 10.7 18.10 8.2 18.13 7.5 15.16 11.6 16.51 

30/05/12 14.9 18.09 8.9 18.10 19.1 16.51 

31/05/12 21.5 18.10 11.5 18.08 17.3 15.17 23.3 16.53 

01/06/12 15.1 18.09 9.3 18.05 13.6 15.16 19.7 16.54 

02/06/12 10.3 18.07 6.1 18.02 11.2 15.15 17.2 16.54 

03/06/12 5.2 18.03 4.0 17.97 6.1 15.12 8.0 16.52 

04/06/12 5.7 17.99 5.4 17.93 3.8 15.09 5.0 16.49 

05/06/12 7.4 17.96 9.3 17.90 7.6 15.07 6.2 16.45 

06/06/12 11.1 17.94 10.0 17.88 8.9 15.05 9.5 16.43 

07/06/12 14.8 17.93 6.3 17.84 9.1 15.03 11.2 16.42 

08/06/12 12.2 17.91 10.3 17.82 6.5 15.00 7.5 16.39 

09/06/12 14.1 17.90 11.4 17.80 8.4 14.99 9.5 16.37 

10/06/12 17.6 17.90 12.22 17.7878 86 8.6 14.97 10.00 16.35 

11/06/12 6.8 17.87 5.4 17.74 4.5 14.94 7.7 16.33 

12/06/12 8.4 17.84 7.6 17.71 8.2 14.92 10.6 16.31 

13/06/12 9.3 17.82 8.2 17.68 13.2 14.91 9.7 16.29 

14/06/12 18.8 17.82 15.5 17.67 11.0 14.90 11.8 16.28 

15/06/12 23.3 17.83 11.8 17.66 7.9 14.88 8.5 16.26 

16/06/12 10.4 17.81 12.2 17.64 8.4 14.86 9.1 16.24 

17/06/12 6.4 17.78 7.9 17.61 5.5 14.83 5.9 16.21 

18/06/12 12.1 17.76 10.2 17.59 5.0 14.81 5.8 16.18 

19/06/12 14.5 17.76 6.9 17.55 5.5 14.78 5.0 16.15 

20/06/12 19.3 17.76 11.1 17.54 4.8 14.75 4.9 16.11 

21/06/12 11.6 17.74 16.5 17.53 7.0 14.73 7.1 16.09 

22/06/12 10.3 17.72 16.2 17.53 9.3 14.71 9.2 16.07 

23/06/12 6.3 17.69 6.7 17.50 4.7 14.69 5.1 16.04 

24/06/12 7.6 17.66 11.2 17.48 5.5 14.66 5.9 16.01 

25/06/12 18.4 17.66 13.7 17.47 6.3 14.64 5.3 15.98 

26/06/12 12.0 17.65 8.2 17.44 11.1 14.63 9.6 15.96 

27/06/12 10.5 17.63 8.3 17.41 10.2 14.61 13.7 15.96 

28/06/12 10.8 17.61 6.8 17.38 9.9 14.60 15.8 15.96 

29/06/12 19.4 17.61 17.4 17.38 10.3 14.59 16.3 15.96 

30/06/12 12.6 17.60 10.8 17.36 5.0 14.56 5.6 15.93 

Run 366.0 366.0 366.0 366.0 

Data 362.0 340.0 361.0 363.0 

Capture % 99 93 99 99 

Max 49.4 82.5 43.2 41.9 





Date of Run 

TSP Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 



HV01 - Coralie HV02 - Wambo Road HV03 - Thelander 

TSP Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 

TSP 

Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 

TSP 

Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

HV04 - Muller 

01/07/11 23.2 23 7.2 7 7 7 16.5 17 

07/07/11 37.1 30 26.4 17 8.6 8 7.7 12 

13/07/11 22.3 28 90.2 41 16.8 11 13.9 13 

19/07/11 21.9 26 18.8 36 6.2 10 8.8 12 

25/07/11 21.4 25 24.4 33 6.5 9 6.5 11 

31/07/11 29.7 26 26 48.3 42 36 16.3 11 10 21.9 12 13 

06/08/11 52.9 30 58.8 39 22 12 23.8 14 

12/08/11 27 29 28.3 38 10 12 27.7 16 

18/08/11 13.2 28 13.1 35 9 11 11.2 15 

24/08/11 26.7 28 19.1 33 22.1 12 21.4 16 

30/08/11 47.1 33 29 41 32 34 37.8 20 15 46.9 26 19 

05/09/11 58.8 32 67.1 37 35.2 16 45.6 21 

11/09/11 25.1 31 29 36 7.5 16 10 20 

17/09/11 66.9 34 77.6 39 25.8 16 34.4 21 

23/09/11 92 38 77.7 42 47.1 19 57.6 24 

29/09/11 20.5 53 37 13 53 40 9.5 25.02 18 11 31.72 23 

05/10/11 51.2 37 56.9 41 39.3 19 44.8 24 

11/10/11 55.4 38 38.4 41 18 19 23.3 24 

17/10/11 80.2 41 62.1 42 63.5 21 89.4 27 

23/10/11 100 44 103 45 74.4 24 79.4 30 

29/10/11 71.2 72 45 66.7 65 46 36.1 46.26 25 42.3 55.84 31 

04/11/11 115 48 74 47 86.6 28 76.5 33 

10/11/11 103 51 120 50 49.2 28 50.7 34 

16/11/11 75.6 52 71.5 51 40.4 29 56.4 34 

22/11/11 37.2 51 40.2 51 22 29 31.8 34 

28/11/11 61 78 51 63.6 74 51 52.7 50.18 30 56.3 54.34 35 

04/12/11 41.4 51 23.5 50 24.5 29 61.7 36 

10/12/11 46.2 51 34.3 50 40.2 30 46.1 37 

16/12/11 82.6 52 42 50 65.3 31 61.8 37 

22/12/11 57.1 52 37.1 49 39.6 31 80.8 39 

28/12/11 56.8 57 52 33.1 34 49 42.8 42.48 32 77.1 65.5 40 

03/01/12 87.4 53 122 51 89.0 33 117 43 

09/01/12 52.6 53 53.4 51 41.9 34 48.1 43 

15/01/12 91.1 54 44.5 51 61 35 83.3 44 

21/01/12 62.9 55 38.6 50 56.2 35 98.5 45 

27/01/12 91.9 77 56 43.6 60 50 48.9 59.4 36 47.4 78.86 45 

02/02/12 11.4 55 12.8 49 4.8 35 4.8 44 

08/02/12 56.3 55 40 49 44.1 35 42.9 44 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 


Individual results in bold are above the long-term goal for TSP


Date of Run 

TSP Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

HV01 - Coralie HV02 - Wambo Road HV03 - Thelander 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 

TSP Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 

TSP 

Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 

TSP 

Result 

(ug/m 3 ) 

HV04 - Muller 

14/02/12 66.2 55 28.1 48 35 57.4 45 

20/02/12 36.1 54 32 48 16.3 34 27.3 44 

26/02/12 41.5 42 54 50.8 33 48 21 21.55 34 82.2 42.92 45 

03/03/12 31.8 54 27.4 48 17.1 34 22.4 45 

09/03/12 39.8 53 65.4 48 19.9 33 37.3 44 

15/03/12 57.7 53 61.2 48 58.4 34 44 

21/03/12 47.3 53 44.4 48 18.4 34 44 

27/03/12 82.3 52 54 57.5 51 48 37.4 30 34 30 44 

02/04/12 87.4 55 50.5 48 57.6 34 82.3 45 

08/04/12 82.7 55 93.4 49 79.1 35 102 47 

14/04/12 42.6 55 76.8 50 23.6 35 122 48 

20/04/12 63.4 55 43.5 50 29.4 35 58.8 48 

26/04/12 55.8 66 55 68.5 67 50 38.2 46 35 84.3 90 49 

02/05/12 68.1 55 78 51 18.3 35 30 49 

08/05/12 43.5 55 61.6 51 21 34 17.4 48 

14/05/12 43.2 55 50.7 51 19.8 34 18.8 48 

20/05/12 64.5 55 86.9 52 30 34 50.4 48 

26/05/12 29.1 50 55 57 67 52 11 20 34 14 26 47 

01/06/12 51.7 55 27.2 51 42.4 34 76.3 48 

07/06/12 35 54 13.6 51 16.8 33 30.1 47 

13/06/12 16.7 54 16.1 50 13.2 33 40.6 47 

19/06/12 31.8 53 28.6 50 5.2 33 4.2 46 

25/06/12 41.3 35 53 52.9 28 50 4.9 17 32 7.9 32 46 

Monthly 

Mean 

YTD 

Average 

HV01 HV02 HV03 HV04 

Total Runs to Date 61 61 61 61 61 

Possible Runs to Date 61 61 61 60 58 

% Capture 100 100 100 98 95 

Annual Average (ug/m3) 53 50 32 46 

Max 115 122 89 122 


Individual results in bold are above the long-term goal for TSP

Appendix 2C 

Surface Water Monitoring 

Results

Annual Environmental Management Report 2011-2012 

EC and Flow Data for Wollombi Brook (Warkworth) January 2011 to December 2011 

EC and Flow Data for Wollombi Brook (Warkworth) January 2012 to July 2012 

Source: http://realtimedata.water.nsw.gov.au/water.stm?ppbm=SURFACE_WATER&rs&3&rskm_url 

Appendix 2C: Surface Water Monitoring Results


EC and Flow Data for Wollombi Brook (Bulga) January 2011 to December 2011 

EC and Flow Data for Wollombi Brook (Bulga) January 2012 to July 2012 

Source: http://realtimedata.water.nsw.gov.au/water.stm?ppbm=SURFACE_WATER&rs&3&rskm_url 

Appendix 2C: Surface Water Monitoring Results


Monthly Surface Water Monitoring 

Mine Water Dams 

SW30 - Turkeys Nest Dam SW31 - GBF Dam SW38 - Homestead Open Cut 

SW47 - NWU Pumpout SW48 - Homestead Pit Inflow SW49 - Bates Pit Pump Out 



SW30 - Turkeys Nest Dam SW31 - GBF Dam SW38 - Homestead Open Cut 

SW47 - NWU Pumput SW48 - Homestead Pit Inflow SW49 - Bates Pit Pump Out 

pH 

10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Electrical Conductivity (uS/cm) 

10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 





SW13 - Area C Dam 

SW14 - Admin Dam 

SW13 - Area C Dam 

SW14 - Admin Dam 

pH 

10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

SW29 - SCB Dam 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

SW37 - Wollemi Sump 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

SW29 - SCB Dam 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

SW37 - Wollemi Sump 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Appendix 2C: Surface Water Monitoring Results (Mine Water) 

Blank in graph indicates that no sample was collected






10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

SW15 - Eagles Nest Dam 





SW15 Eagles Nest Dam 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 


Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

pH 

Month 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 



Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 

Month 

Appendix 2C: Surface Water Monitoring Results (Mine Water) Blank in graph indicates that no sample was collected






pH 

10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

SW11 - West Cut Dam Pipe 

SW20 - Dam Adj to West Cut Dam 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

SW12 - West Cut Dam 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jul-11 

SW11 - West Cut Dam Pipe 

SW20 - Dam Adj to West Cut Dam 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 


Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 

Month 


Blank in graph indicates that no sample was collected


Month 


SW14 - Box Cut Dam 

(Admin) 


pH EC (uS/cm) pH EC (uS/cm) pH EC (uS/cm) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) 

Jul-11 8.70 5,730 8.70 1,105 8.90 7,330 

Aug-11 8.90 1,378 9.10 6,440 10 4,150 

Sep-11 9.30 6,630 8.70 1,093 9.10 5,970 73 3,830 

Oct-11 8.90 715 9.10 6,450 

Nov-11 9.10 6,250 8.90 728 9.00 6,870 24 5,000 

Dec-11 8.90 645 8.80 4,930 27 3,320 

Jan-12 8.90 7,430 8.90 723 8.60 6,510


SW47 - NWU Pumpout 

SW49 - Bates Pit Pump 

SW48 - Inpit Water 

Month 

water 

out 

SW51 - South Dam 

pH EC (uS/cm) pH EC (uS/cm) pH EC (uS/cm) pH EC (uS/cm) 

Jul-11 8.80 9,180 8.40 6,180 8.30 3,180 8.9 7730 

Aug-11 8.80 8,780 7.90 7,330 8.50 1,478 8.9 7540 

Sep-11 9.00 6,530 8.50 6,800 8.20 1,150 9.1 7350 

Oct-11 9.50 6,780 8.60 6,150 8.60 1261.00 9.1 6400 

Nov-11 8.60 5,900 7.30 3,170 9 6920 

Dec-11 8.50 3,800 6.80 712 9 6480 

Jan-12 8.20 5,750 8.60 914 8.8 6530 

Feb-12 8.50 3,950 8.30 807 8.9 6780 

Mar-12 7.50 5,240 8.70 738 9 7260 

Apr-12 8.60 7,030 8.70 813 9.1 7,430 

May-12 8.70 6,670 8.70 649 9 6,760 

Jun-12 8.70 6,830 8.70 813 9.00 6,160 

Average 9.03 7,818 8.39 5,969 8.28 1,307 8.98 6,945 


Blank cells indicate that no sample was collected due to the site being dry, inaccessible or not due for collection 

Bolded/shaded cells indicate results outside recommended criteria

Annual Environmental Management Report 2011-12 

Month 

SW03 - Wollombi Brook Pump Out 

SW02 - Wollombi Brook Down 

pH EC (uS/cm) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) O&G (mg/L) pH EC (uS/cm) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) O&G (mg/L) 

Jul-11 7.20 286 12 191

Annual Environmental Management Report 2011 - 2012 

Month 

SW01 - Wollombi Brook Up SW03 - Wollombi Brook Pump Out SW02 - Wollombi Brook Down 

pH EC (uS/cm) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) pH EC (uS/cm) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) pH EC (uS/cm) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) 

Criteria 6.0-9.5 3,269 120 N/A 6.0-9.5 3,269 120 N/A 6.0-9.5 3,269 120 N/A 

Jul-11 7.20 285 12 190 7.20 286 12 191 7.10 354 15 204 

Aug-11 7.40 398 6 226 7.80 392 7 228 7.40 398 6 220 

Sep-11 7.60 474 8 258 7.80 465 14 278 7.90 481 6 270 

Oct-11 8.10 302 7 138 7.20 269 8 189 9.00 340 5 174 

Nov-11 7.00 589 5 348 7.50 577 11 320 7.80 623 18 354 

Dec-11 7.80 212 16 185 7.70 290 42 192 8.10 376 17 223 

Jan-12 7.30 536 6 406 7.40 553 10 340 7.30 583 5 366 

Feb-12 7.80 366 5 196 7.60 412 8 214 8.80 511 6 244 

Mar-12 7.60 306 9 188 7.20 350 58 194 7.10 299 17 189 

Apr-12 7.30 444 8 212 7.60 464 8 218 7.40 470 6 244 

May-12 7.40 545 6 332 7.70 602 17 319 7.50 622 5 330 

Jun-12 8.00 433 8 268 7.70 437 12 248 7.40 442 8 274 

Average 7.54 408 8 246 7.53 425 17 244 7.73 458 10 258 

Month 

SW40 - Wollombi Brook Upstream of SWC SW04 - North Wambo Creek Up SW26 - North Wambo Creek Middle Upper 



Jul-11 6.40 275 

Aug-11 7.50 396 

Sep-11 7.80 455 12 266 

Oct-11 8.20 280 6 171 

Nov-11 6.90 637 50 149 

Dec-11 8.40 315 15 227 8.00 280 5 173 

Jan-12 7.50 750 532 5 322 

Feb-12 8.20 381 6 206 

Mar-12 7.70 647 87 116 

Apr-12 7.40 444 14 190 

May-12 7.50 600 12 302 

Jun-12 8.20 443 6 286 

Average 7.64 450 21 224 8.00 280 5 173 

Appendix 2C: Surface Water Monitoring Results 

Blank cells indicate that no sample was collected as the site was dry, inaccessible or not due for collection 

Bolded/shaded cells indicated results are outside recommended criteria


Month 

SW27 - North Wambo Creek Middle Lower 

SW32 - North Wambo Creek Pump 

SW05 - North Wambo Creek Down 



Jul-11 7.60 2,290 5 1,310 

Aug-11 7.00 438 60 570 7.50 2,160 5 1,190 

Sep-11 8.00 296 508 596 7.70 1,702 60 1,030 

Oct-11 7.20 275 111 826 7.00 381 38 356 

Nov-11 7.40 2,050 28 1,180 

Dec-11 8.10 244 42 297 7.80 350 71 406 

Jan-12 7.60 2,230 16 340 

Feb-12 7.80 202 316 626 7.30 1,297 48 748 

Mar-12 7.90 1,122 548 700 7.60 221 85 172 

Apr-12 7.80 2,470 6 1,320 

May-12 7.80 2,310 5 1,290 

Jun-12 7.30 2,060 5 1,250 

Average 7.67 430 264 603 7.53 1,627 31 883 

Month 

SW06 - South Wambo Creek SW07 - South Wambo/Stony Creeks SW08 - Stony Creek 


Criteria 6.0-9.5 581 120 N/A 6.0-9.5 581 120 N/A 6.0-9.5 581 120 N/A 

Jul-11 7.00 431 8 250 7.00 294 5 149 

Aug-11 7.00 496 5 262 6.80 328 5 185 

Sep-11 7.60 450 27 214 

Oct-11 7.70 334 5 228 7.60 558 5 280 6.60 358 5 164 

Nov-11 7.30 434 10 258 7.40 788 5 400 

Dec-11 8.10 810 306 5 151 8.20 820 326 5 145 

Jan-12 7.30 475 5 312 7.70 596 5 376 

Feb-12 7.70 521 5 158 7.70 521 19 292 

Mar-12 7.20 258 5 134 7.60 243 29 178 

Apr-12 7.40 475 5 234 7.60 596 5 290 7.10 402 5 176 

May-12 7.50 584 6 217 7.50 640 5 312 

Jun-12 7.30 503 33 284 7.40 658 5 388 

Average 7.43 439 10 225 7.63 547 9 296 6.88 346 5 169 





Month 

SW39 - Waterfall Creek 

pH EC (uS/cm) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) 

Criteria 6.0-9.5 492 120 N/A 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 7.20 438 276 690 

Sep-11 7.70 163 594 817 

Oct-11 8.40 188 38 552 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 7.80 230 308 934 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 8.30 218 586 620 

Mar-12 7.50 762 194 258 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Average 7.82 333 333 645 









10.0 

SW01 - Up SW02 - Down SW03 - Pump Out SW40 - Confluence 

SW01 - Up SW02 - Down SW03 - Pump Out SW40 - Upstream of SWC 

2,000 

pH 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 


(uS/cm) 

1,600 

1,200 

800 

400 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

0 






100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 


Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 


450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 


Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 


Blanks in graphs indicate that no sample was collected



North Wambo Creek 



10.0 

SW04 - Up SW26 - Middle Upper SW27 - Middle Lower 

SW32 - Pump 

SW05 - Down 

3,000 


SW32 - Pump 

SW05 - Down 

pH 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 







SW32 - Pump 

SW05 - Down 

SW32 - Pump 

SW05 - Down 


600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 





South Wambo & Stony Creeks 



pH 

10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Jul-11 

SW06 - South Wambo SW07 - South Wambo/Stony SW08 - Stony 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Jul-11 


Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 








350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


451 

401 

351 

301 

251 

201 

151 

101 

51 

1 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 

Month 



232, 6% 271, 7% 

Inflows (ML) 

Rainfall Runoff 

Tailings Water Bleed 

0, 0% 

175, 5% 

281, 8% 

154, 4% 

319, 9% 

2240, 61% 

Groundwater Inflows (Open 

Cuts) 

Groundwater Inflows 

(Underground) 

Recovery of Water supplied to 

Underground 

Hunter River Extractions 

Wollembi Brook Extractions 

United Bores 

The bulk of water inflows occurred from rainfall and runoff captured in the water 

management system (61%). In comparison with EIS predictions this would correspond to 

the bulk of the open cut dewatering (25.8%), the sediment control dams (11.5%) and a 

proportion of the tailings water recovery (43.5%). The EIS prediction for average licenced 

extraction of 2.6% compares with about 6% of inflows in 2011 – 2012. The recovery of 

water from the underground (8%) was less than the EIS prediction of 13%. 

The estimate water management system outflows over 2011-2012 are shown graphically on 

Figure below 

Outflows (ML) 

360, 

12% 

0, 0% 

621, 20% 

Dust Suppression 

CHPP Makeup 

Underground Supply 

Transfers To United 

Domestic Usage 

2, 0% 

0, 0% 

743, 24% 

384, 

12% 

999, 32% 

Evaporation 

HRSTS/MERF Releases 

Spill 

Appendix 2C: Water Balance Summary 2011-2012

Releases to the Hunter River via the HRSTS amounted to 12% of outflows. There were no 

reported spills from the water management system. There were no transfers to United 

Collieries and a negligible water use for potable supply. The bulk of outflows comprised 

water re-use in the CHPP (32%), evaporation losses (24%) and water used for dust 

suppression activities (20%). 

Appendix 2C: Water Balance Summary 2011-2012

Appendix 2D 


Results

Wambo Coal Pty Ltd AEMR 2011‐2012 

Water Volume (m3) 

160000 

140000 

120000 

100000 

80000 

60000 

40000 

20000 

0 

North Wambo Creek Subsidence Monitoring Response Strategy: 

Water Usage & Pump Out Rates & Rainfall 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Monthly Rainfall (mm) 

Water In Pump Out Balance Rainfall 

Appendix 2D: Groundwater Monitoring Results



100 Series 


100 Series 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

P106 P109 P110 P111 P114 P116 

P106 P109 P110 P111 P114 P116 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

pH 

Month 

Month 


100 Series 


100 Series 

P106 P109 P110 P111 P114 P116 

P106 P109 P110 P111 P114 P116 

Month 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 


Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 

Appendix 2D: Ground Water Monitoring Results Blanks in graphs indicate that no sample was collected



200 Series 


200 Series 

P202 P206 

P202 P206 

10.0 

6,000 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

pH 

Month 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 


200 Series 


200 Series 

P202 P206 

Month 

25 

20 

P202 P206 


Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 


Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 




300 Series 


300 Series 

P301 P311 P315 

P301 P311 P315 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

pH 

Month 

Month 


300 Series 


300 Series 

P301 P311 P315 

P301 P311 P315 

Month 

22 

21.5 

21 

20.5 

20 

19.5 

19 

18.5 

18 

17.5 

17 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


Month 



P106 

P109 

P110 

Month 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

Temp ( o Depth to 

C) pH EC (uS/cm) 



Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 6.1-8.1 292-1069 6.21-13.21 N/A 6.0-7.9 367-768 5.09-7.38 N/A 6.0-9.5 250-1,300 2.31-10.86 N/A 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 6.80 509 4.69 18.0 6.60 454 5.26 18.0 6.00 622 4.69 18.0 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 6.90 466 7.45 19.5 7.00 431 4.74 17.3 6.40 574 4.37 17.5 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 7.00 558 6.59 19.7 8.70 522 4.35 17.6 7.60 801 4.20 17.9 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.90 484 6.55 20.8 6.80 567 4.34 22.1 6.60 760 4.16 20.2 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.90 491 6.33 19.9 6.90 567 4.36 18.8 6.40 731 4.20 19.0 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.40 449 7.14 18.4 7.20 528 4.43 18.3 6.80 633 4.23 18.1 

Average 6.98 493 6.46 19.4 7.20 512 4.58 18.7 6.63 687 4.31 18.5 

P111 P114 P116 

Month 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 





Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 6.0-9.5 300-715 5.54-9.20 N/A 6.3-8.2 458-715 6.02-7.79 N/A 6.3-7.8 181-8035 4.80-8.53 N/A 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 6.10 496 6.69 19.0 6.80 509 7.67 18.9 7.10 1,570 6.18 19.0 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 6.80 603 5.94 18.5 6.80 1,065 5.40 18.7 7.20 737 5.40 18.9 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 6.40 586 5.57 19.1 7.30 3,240 5.36 19.9 7.30 666 5.03 19.7 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.30 536 5.51 19.0 6.80 6,890 5.29 22.7 7.00 677 4.67 21.7 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.40 450 5.60 21.4 6.80 3,320 5.22 19.6 6.80 593 4.41 20.5 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.30 604 5.75 18.0 7.00 2,880 5.33 18.5 7.00 588 4.57 18.8 

Average 6.55 546 5.84 19.2 6.92 2,984 5.71 19.7 7.07 805 5.04 19.8 

Appendix 2D: Ground Water Monitoring Results 

Blank cells indicate that no sample was collected due to the site 

being dry, inaccessible or not due for collection. Bolded/Shaded 

cells indicate results outside recommended criteria


Month 

pH 

P202 

Depth to 

EC (uS/cm) 

Water (m) 

P206 



Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 6.4-7.9 2519-7616 6.81-11.35 N/A 7.1-8.5 1848-3175 18.34-22.72 N/A 

Jul-11 7.50 3,520 7.65 19.2 

Aug-11 7.40 3,490 8.11 19.6 7.30 2,340 17.82 19.2 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 7.40 3,490 8.18 19.4 7.20 2,240 17.17 19.6 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 7.10 3,600 7.95 19.2 7.20 2,360 17.00 20.4 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 7.70 3,600 7.14 20.8 7.30 2,340 16.44 21.6 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 7.50 3,820 8.02 18.9 7.30 2,360 15.56 19.3 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.40 5,100 8.25 17.3 7.30 2,160 16.08 18.6 

Average 7.43 3,803 7.90 19.2 7.27 2,300 16.68 19.8 

Month 

pH 

P301 

Depth to 

EC (uS/cm) 

Water (m) 

P311 



Water (m) 

P315 



Water (m) 

Criteria 5.7-7.4 3045-12735 10.62-14.59 N/A 6.0-9.5 6,500-8,000 18.15-25.50 N/A 5.6-7.2 291-522 4.90-10.42 N/A 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 7.20 2,420 10.13 19.0 6.40 376 4.67 19.2 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 7.40 2,420 10.57 19.1 6.90 593 6.14 18.8 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 7.00 2,490 19.90 20.5 7.50 365 3.77 20.0 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.50 2,130 13.20 19.9 3.70 624 4.00 21.6 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.80 4,040 13.28 19.7 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.00 3,230 13.60 18.8 

Average 6.98 2,788 13.45 19.5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6.13 490 4.65 19.9 

P311 ceased to be monitored as at Mar. 08 

because it has collapsed 

Temp ( o C) 






GW 12 GW 13 GW14 

Month 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 





Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria N/A N/A N/A 

Aug-11 6.80 21,400 10.22 21.0 6.80 3,490 4.94 18.9 9.48 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 6.70 21,300 10.20 20.4 6.90 3,990 4.82 19.8 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 6.60 22,300 10.18 6.90 4,180 4.79 21.9 9.90 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.80 22,000 9.93 20.8 6.90 3,920 4.76 21.4 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.80 22,200 9.89 21.0 7.10 4,820 4.82 21.4 

May-12 

Jun-12 6.90 19,700 10.14 18.6 7.30 3,540 4.88 19.4 

Average 

Average 6.77 21,483 10.09 20.4 6.98 3,990 4.84 20.5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 9.69 #DIV/0! 


Month 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 





Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 

Aug-11 7.10 628 10.87 20.1 7.40 556 6.39 18.7 7.00 5,240 10.65 19.0 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 7.00 628 10.74 21.2 7.20 600 7.11 19.1 7.00 5,200 10.62 20.3 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 6.60 521 10.71 21.1 7.10 414 4.28 18.8 7.00 5,080 8.25 19.9 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.90 725 10.57 21.3 7.30 492 5.23 20.8 7.00 5,160 8.49 21.2 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.90 621 10.42 20.2 7.50 500 5.00 19.0 7.20 5,050 7.60 19.2 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.00 599 10.44 19.8 7.50 656 6.77 18.3 7.20 4,740 8.67 18.8 

Average 

Average 6.92 620 10.63 20.6 7.33 536 5.80 19.1 7.07 5078 9.05 19.7 







Month 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 





Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 VIBRATING WIRE PIEZO 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

Decommissioned 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Average 

Average #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 






Month 

pH 

GW21 

Depth to 

EC (uS/cm) 

Water (m) 

GW22 



Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 

Aug-11 7.20 16,050 36.13 19.0 8.00 6,560 36.67 21.0 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 7.90 6,690 36.65 21.4 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 8.10 6,770 22.20 36.6 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 8.10 6,680 36.47 22.8 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 8.10 6,890 36.39 21.6 

May-12 

Jun-12 36.40 8.30 6,110 36.31 20.60 

Average 

Average 7.20 16,050 36.27 19.0 8.08 6,617 34.12 24.0 







Brosi Property 



Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

GW02 - Max's New Well GW11 - Max's Extra Well 


pH 

Month 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 







Month 

25 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Temperaturee ( o C) 

Month 







10.0 


2,400 


pH 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


2,000 

1,600 

1,200 

800 

400 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Month 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 




Month 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 






P1 P3 P5 P6 P11 P12 

10.0 

P13 P15 P16 P17 P18 P20 

9.0 

8.0 

pH 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 



P1 P3 P5 P6 P11 P12 

P13 P15 P16 P17 P18 P20 

Month 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Depth 

to Water (m) 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 



P1 P3 P5 P6 P11 P12 


(uS/cm) 

P13 P15 P16 P17 P18 P20 

16,000 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Month 




GW02 - Max's New Well 

GW11 - Max's Extra Well 

Month 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

Depth to 



Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 6.2-7.4 355-734 5.39-9.3.6 N/A 6.5-7.8 356-649 3.99-7.68 N/A 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 6.30 908 6.09 17.9 6.70 454 4.20 16.9 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 6.80 518 5.93 19.0 6.70 505 4.10 18.2 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 7.40 550 5.80 19.9 7.10 691 3.92 20.5 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.70 490 5.67 20.9 6.90 477 3.89 21.2 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.90 492 5.64 19.9 7.20 504 3.94 19.8 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.20 486 5.71 17.5 7.20 468 4.00 17.0 

Average 6.88 574 5.81 19.2 6.97 517 4.01 18.9 

GW08 - Old Well No. 1 (United Well 1) 

GW09 - New Well No. 2 (United Well 2) 

Month 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

Depth to 



Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Temp ( o C) 

Criteria 6.5-7.6 1660-2158 2.32-3.55 N/A 6.6-6.9 1215-2047 1.92-3.88 N/A 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 6.86 1,925 3.39 7.70 657 3.78 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 6.83 1,767 3.28 7.72 374 3.79 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 5.94 594 1,836 3.30 330 7.87 787 374 3.70 370 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 7.94 1,864 3.27 8.28 555 3.65 

Mar-12 . 

Apr-12 7.22 1,847 3.37 7.55 420 3.83 

May-12 

Jun-12 6.94 1,846 3.41 8.22 446 4.00 

Average 6.96 1,848 3.34 #DIV/0! 7.89 471 3.79 #DIV/0! 






P1 P3 P5 

Month 

Depth to 

Depth to 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Criteria 6.5-7.3 6924-10053 20.12-30.18 6.1-8.3 42-329 5.82-10.53 7.0-7.9 1638-5107 3.56-8.35 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 6.93 8560 25.99 7.38 1043 8.56 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 7.08 7640 25.99 7.44 870 8.10 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 6.94 8,300 25.61 7.30 895 7.08 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.83 8,060 25.63 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 7.16 8,080 25.85 7.31 888 7.48 

May-12 

Jun-12 6.84 8,380 25.90 7.27 796 8.32 

Average 6.96 8,170 25.83 7.34 898 7.91 

P6 P11 P12 

Month 

Depth to 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

13035- 

Criteria 6.8-8.5 236-4353 2.82-7.10 6.4-7.6 

20646 

Depth to 

Water (m) 

4.60-36.27 6.0-9.5 2,800-8,820 5.75-7.77 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 7.49 574 5.90 7 1037 6.38 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 7.16 718 4.56 7.2 958 6.22 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 7.42 421 1.37 7.10 1,280 6.31 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.42 1,581 6.32 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.67 355 4.87 7.63 961 6.72 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.23 426 5.81 7.07 684 6.72 

Average 7.19 499 4.50 7.07 1,084 6.45 

Appendix 2: Ground Water Monitoring Results 





P13 P15 P16 

Month 

Depth to 

Depth to 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

pH EC (uS/cm) 

Water (m) 

Water (m) 

Criteria 6.0-9.5 1,000-3,200 5.96-7.98 6.0-9.5 

5.46-6.42 6.0-9.5 

2,900- 

22,000 

3,800- 

22,700 

Depth to 

Water (m) 

6.47-7.37 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 6.52 1062 6.56 7.59 7,740 5.96 7.27 8,080 6.97 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 6.26 1,048 6.44 7.71 6,950 5.87 7.4 7170 6.83 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 6.24 1,107 6.42 7.02 7,380 5.86 6.44 7,780 7.01 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 6.16 1,025 6.53 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 6.69 1,107 6.73 7.98 7,380 5.98 7.64 7,630 7.16 

May-12 

Jun-12 6.27 1,091 6.91 7.38 7,470 6.00 7.30 7,690 7.24 

Average 6.36 1,073 6.60 7.54 7,384 5.93 7.21 7,670 7.04 

Month 

pH 

Criteria 6.0-9.5 

P17 

EC (uS/cm) 

8,900- 

17,000 

Depth to 

Water (m) 

pH 

5.25-6.21 6.0-9.5 

EC (uS/cm) 

4,450- 

22,000 

Depth to 

Water (m) 

pH 

6.48-7.53 6.0-9.5 

EC (uS/cm) 

4,750- 

22,800 

Depth to 

Water (m) 

6.83-7.86 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 7.50 11480 5.77 7.35 8460 7.02 7.24 8940 7.16 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 7.42 9900 5.98 7.48 7610 7.17 7.24 8150 6.94 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 6.94 10,560 5.95 6.90 8,630 7.15 6.54 8,820 7.22 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 8.04 10,480 5.96 7.76 7,950 8.38 7.58 8,260 7.58 

May-12 

Jun-12 7.63 10,820 6.05 7.49 8,010 7.45 7.23 8,540 7.69 

Average 7.51 10,648 5.94 7.40 8,132 7.43 7.17 8,542 7.32 

P18 

P20 

Appendix 2: Ground Water Monitoring Results 




Appendix 2E 

Blast Monitoring Results


Homestead (BM01) Kelly (BM02) Muller (BM05) Harris (BM03) 

Blast 

Number 

Date Time Identification 

Monitor 

No. 

Cal Date 

Overpressure Vibration 

Monitor 


Monitor 


Monitor 

Overpressure 

Waveform 

Cal Date 

Waveform 

Cal Date 

Waveform 

Cal Date 

dB(L) (mm/sec) 

No. 


No. 


No. 

dB(L) 

Vibration 

(mm/sec) 

Waveform 

1 6/7/2011 11:26:00 M7WWD2 722 05/04/11

WA M B O H O M E S T E A D 

BLAST VIBRATION VULNERABILITY STUDY 

REPORT FOR 

WAMBO COAL MINE 

PEABODY ENERGY AUSTRALIA 

Bill Jordan & Associates Pty Ltd 

ABN 83 003 320 652 

Chartered Structural Engineer specialising 

in conservation of historical structures 

PO Box 141 

NEWCASTLE NSW 2300 

Telephone: (02)4929 4841 

Fax: (02)4929 7933 

E-mail: mail@bjaeng.com.au 

Web: www.bjaeng.com.au

WAMBO HOMESTEAD 

1 

B L A S T V I B R AT I O N V U L N E R A B I L I T Y S T U DY 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Wambo Homestead and blast vibrations 

Wambo Homestead is a complex of early 19 th century buildings located on the Wambo Coal Mine site near Warkworth 

in the NSW Hunter Valley. The building complex has been the subject of many studies over the years and is registered 

under the NSW Heritage Act with State Significance. No further discussion of the many heritage aspects of these 

buildings will be contained in this report. 

Vibrations from mine blasting are a risk to the buildings and their condition has been monitored continually for many 

years. A permanent ground vibration monitoring station is set up near the complex and the records from this station 

are assessed continually. Bill Jordan & Associates has also been undertaking an annual assessment of the buildings to 

determine if vibration damage has been caused; separate visits and assessments have also been carried out following 

the few occasions when the monitor recording registers a value greater than 5 mm/s peak particle velocity (PPV). 

1.2 Setting of limits 

1.2.1 BLAST VIBRATION LIMITS BASIS 

The following publications appear to form the basis for the setting of vibration limits in use at present: 

• AS 2187.2—2006 (or particularly its predecessor, AS 2187.2—1979), “Explosives—Storage and 

use, Part 2: Use of Explosives”, 

• Australian and New Zealand Environment Council, “Technical basis for guidelines to minimise 

annoyance due to blasting overpressure and ground vibration”, September 1990 (ANZEC 1990). 

Since the existing limits were set, further publications have been issued which are relevant and likely to be considered 

in any future approvals, in particular “Assessing Vibration: a technical guideline, Department of Environment and 

Conservation NSW, February 2006 (DEC 2006). 

Of particular note from all these publications is that the limits have all been based on human response to vibration, 

not building response. For example, the ANZEC 1990 guideline states: 

The recommended criteria apply only to the minimisation of annoyance and. discomfort arising 

from blasting. 

Similarly, the more recent DEC 2006 publication states: 

This guideline presents preferred and maximum vibration values for use in assessing human 

responses to vibration and provides recommendations for measurement and evaluation 

techniques. It does not address motion sickness, occupational vibration, blasting vibration 

effects or vibration-induced damage to buildings or structures. 

AS 2187.2—2006 does address damage limits in the “Informative” appendix (i.e. does not form part of the Standard 

as a “Normative” appendix does), Appendix J, but does not distinguish between normal buildings and sensitive or 

heritage buildings. The previous edition (1979) suggested a PPV limit of 5 mm/s for heritage buildings, but without 

any justification. 

Overseas standards such as the United States (USBM) RI 8507, the British BS 7385–2 and German DIN 4150 have 

some applicable limits. One of the key features in these standards, now recognized in AS 2187.2, is that the limits 

are frequency dependent: in AS 2187.2—2006 the frequency dependent vibration limits from BS 7385–2 are given 

in Figure J4.4.2.1 and those from (USBM) RI 8507 in Figure J4.4.2.2. Whilst heritage buildings are not dealt with 

specifically in these standards, it is notable that the most stringent case in BS 7385–2 is for a PPV of 15 mm/s at 

4 Hz, rising to 20 mm/s at 15 Hz and 50 mm/s at 40 Hz; the most stringent condition in (USBM) RI 8507 has similar 

April 2012 

Wambo Homestead 

Vibration vulnerability

2 

frequency limits but starts at a lower PPV with a “plaster” cosmetic limit of 12.7 mm/s from 2.5 Hz to 10 Hz, before 

rising to a PPV of 50 mm/s at 40 Hz also. 

1.2.2 APPLICATION OF LIMITS 

One key factor in all these limits is that they apply either to maintaining comfort levels for occupants or guard against 

even the slightest cosmetic damage in a pristine occupied building. The limits have also been set with no consideration 

for the vulnerability of a particular building and are therefore an envelope of a “worst case” scenario: the “worst 

case” would be when the vibration frequencies generated by a blast coincide with resonant frequencies in the building, 

leading to substantial amplification. 

The application of these standards has been explored in recent papers 1,2,3 . The work leading to the papers started with 

detailed finite element structural modelling, but with limited monitoring of buildings; it was then extended so that the 

induced vibrations of elements of the building could be directly measured, in the first instance with velocity-recording 

instruments. Whilst this has led to more robust results in assessing the vulnerability of the buildings, the difficulties 

of setting up such instruments on delicate fabric was limiting in its application. 

1.3 The basis for the new approach 

The long term monitoring at Wambo has shown few, if any, indications that vibrations were affecting the buildings, 

with the exception of a single incident when there was possibly some slight ceiling plaster cracking in the main house 

(“New House”) which could have been caused by resonant vibrations. 

Building structures react to ground vibrations caused by blasting in a similar manner to their reaction to earthquake 

ground vibrations. Vibrations are transmitted to the building from the foundation and the reaction of the building 

depends upon the size and frequency of the activating movement and the inertia and frequency response of the 

building. Air blast limits are such that buildings would normally not be affected even to the extent of what might be 

experienced in strong winds. There is little or no evidence that air blast has caused damage in buildings at the distances 

relevant to Wambo Homestead. 

In design for earthquake actions, the vibration is normally considered in terms of acceleration units and these can 

be readily transformed into building forces from Newtonian mechanics: this is the simplest, quasi-static approach 

often used in the past for smaller and less important structures. For larger structures the response of the building 

is taken in account by evaluating the response spectrum in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1170.4: this 

can be readily done for a new building built from modern materials with known properties and of a form which can 

be readily modelled and analysed. Historical masonry buildings can be analysed approximately if full dimensional 

details are known, but the unknown properties of the materials and the connections between elements do no yield 

satisfactory results. 

The inability to obtain usable results by calculation has led to the approach of directly measuring the vibrational 

characteristics of a building. 

As explained above, the previous building monitoring work was limited in application due to the type of instrument 

available. New lightweight and very sensitive accelerometers have now been sourced and coupled to a seismic recorder, 

so giving the best results yet obtained for building vibrational behaviour. 

1.4 Application to Wambo 

1.4.1 GROUND VIBRATION 

The response of a building is dependent upon the magnitude, direction and frequencies of the ground vibration and 

the orientation and characteristic frequencies of the building and its individual components. In general, it is found that 

for a 19 th century building such as Wambo, the following characteristic frequencies are present: 

• single storey building as a whole — 5 Hz to 10 Hz (new house); 

• two-storey building as a whole — 2 Hz to 5 Hz (kitchen wing); 

1 Jordan, JW, Sutcliffe D and Mullard J, Blast Vibration Effects on Historical Buildings, Australasian Structural Engineering Conference, Melbourne, June 2008 (revised and 

published in the Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 1, 2009). 

2 Jordan, JW, Monitoring Blast Effects on Historical Buildings, Australasian Structural Engineering Conference Sydney, August 2010 

3 Jordan, JW, Mine blasting vibration and its effects on buildings and structures – implementing a frequency-based approach, Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 

Annual Conference, Barossa Valley, November 2011. 


Vibration vulnerability 

April 2012

• individual wall panels — 20 Hz to 40 Hz; 

• ceilings — 15 Hz to 30 Hz (the form of the roof structure in the Wambo house is not known, 

and possible shorter framing member spans result in higher frequencies). 

These frequencies are relevant for blast design in that, if a ground vibration is similar to a characteristic building 

frequency, the action can be greatly magnified. Theoretically, a maximum amplification of 50× is possible at resonance 

for a single-degree-of-freedom structure and structure amplifications of more than 20× have been measured during 

blasting events in or near Hunter Valley mines. 

3 

2 THE ASSESSMENT 

2.1 Monitoring 

Recording instrumentation was set up on two occasions when blasting was being carried out in the Homestead Pit, 

on 16 December 2011 and 17 February 2012, with ground vibration PPV levels recorded at the Homestead monitor 

of 4.07 mm/s and 1.68 mm/s respectively. Instrumentation was set up in the house on the first occasion and the first 

floor of the kitchen wing on the second. Figure 1 shows the sensor locations for the two events. 

Figure 1: Positions of accelerometers 

for the two monitored events. The 

New House was monitored on 16 

December 2011 and the Kitchen Wing, 

first floor, on 17 February 2012. 

The wall mounted accelerometers were, 

in each case, mounted at the tops of 

the walls. The numbers relate to the 

vibration recording data and are the 

channel numbers used on the recorder. 

( Base drawing from EJE Architecture) 

2.1.1 THE NEW HOUSE (16/2/2011) 

Three accelerometers were set up in a front room of the new house where the wall and ceiling dimensions were 

judged to be of a size which might make them vulnerable to out-of-plane resonant vibration at the expected blast wave 

frequencies: one sensor was fixed near the middle of the ceiling, one just below the ceiling on the front wall and one 

just below the ceiling near the middle of the wall adjoining the front hallway. 

Photographs of the installation are shown in Figures 2 to 5. 

The seismic recorder is fitted with a GPS receiver which gives time accuracy to better than one millisecond. The 

current ground monitor is not accurately timed and is understood to have an internal clock which is reset periodically. 

If times of similar accuracy could be obtained from both recorders, then observation of arrival times in the building 

could be correlated with different stages of the blast wave, allowing better indication of the activating vibration. 




4 

Figure 2: Channel 1 sensor was mounted 

high on the wall adjoining the hallway. 

Figure 3: Channel 2 sensor was mounted 

high on the front wall between the two 

windows. The timber seen had been placed 

to prop the ceiling and were temporarily 

removed for the recording. 

Figure 4: Channel 3 was as close to the 

centre of the ceiling as practicable. All 

accelerometers were mounted using a special 

wax and masking tape. The mounting 

materials have been chosen to be the least 

likely to damage sensitive paint finishes. 




5 

Figure 5: Setup for recording in front 

room of New House 

2.1.2 KITCHEN WING 

The ceiling of the first floor of the Kitchen Wing is timber lined and not considered generally vulnerable to vibration 

damage at the levels expected: it is of the “collar-tie” form with sloped sides leading up to a central flat section. The 

accelerometer sensors were therefore mounted at the tops of walls with a view to obtaining the best data: 

• one sensor was placed on the end (southern) wall above the door; 

• one was placed midway along the eastern wall near the non-structural partition wall; 

• one was placed on the chimney breast as the chimney may have different vibrational characteristics 

and a lower frequency response from the walls. 

Photographs of the installation are shown in Figures 6 to 8. 

Figure 6: Sensor 2 beside non-structural wall, which was not considered to 

affect significantly the behaviour of the brick wall which it joins. 




6 

Figure 7: Sensor 1 above the doorway. 

Figure 8: Overall setup in the southern, 

first-floor room of the Kitchen Wing. 

Sensor 3 was set up on the chimney breast 

as its behaviour may have been different 

from the rest of the building. 

2.2 Results 

2.2.1 ANALYSIS 

The results from the accelerometers were analysed as follows: 

• using an routine based on in the program Matlab, the acceleration readings were analysed to yield 

velocity and displacement values, a typical result being shown in Figure 9; 

Figure 9: Recordings and transformations from sensor 3 (centre 

of ceiling) on 16/12/2011. The maximum velocity is 21.6 

mm/s, an amplification of 16×. Displacement of the ceiling is a 

maximum of 0.3 mm, which is well within the acceptable limit. 

The time scale in this plot relates to the GPS-sourced time and could 

be used to give greater understanding of the effects if other blast 

recorders were time to similar accuracy. 




• spectrograms were constructed using a Matlab procedure from both the ground monitor velocity 

signals and the accelerometer results so that comparisons of activating and induced vibrations 

could be made as seen in Figure 10. 

7 

Figure 10: For the event of 16/12/2011, the ground monitor spectrogram for the vertical recording is on the left and the resultant 

ceiling spectrogram is on the right. Note that the scales of the two spectrograms are different. It will be seen that the ground vibration 

had a strong vertical pulse at 16 Hz and that the ceiling resonated at about 13 Hz. The closeness of these values explains the large 

amplification. 

All the diagrams for the two monitored events are reproduced in the appendix. 

It should be emphasised that the results may not explain the behaviour of the whole of the buildings. However, every 

effort was made to make them representative and, in the case of the New House ceiling, the location was chosen to 

coincide with fabric which may have been damaged previously by blast vibration. 

The ground monitor geophone is mounted with axes north-south, east-west and vertical. The horizontal axes have 

orientations similar to the walls of the house, making it easier to make comparisons. 

2.2.2 NEW HOUSE 

Readings taken in the New House are summarised in Table 1. The orientation refers to the direction of movement. 

Event ident. 

Channel 

no. 

Table 1 – New House 16/12/2011 

Orientation Max ‘a’, Max ‘v’, Max. ‘s’, mm 

mm/s² mm/s 

Dominant 

frequency, 

Hz 

House 1 E-W 676 8.4 0.21 30 2.3 

2 N-S 712 8.7 0.14 13 4.6 

3 V 1630 21.6 0.28 13 16.6 

Velocity 

amplification 

in building 

Grounds E-W 1.9 12.5 

N-S 3.6 15.5 

V 1.3 16 

The dominant frequencies tabulated are not sharp peaks and, in some cases, there are a number of pulses at different 

frequencies which probably relate to the blast design parameters. The spectrograms from which the frequencies are 

taken are appended. 

It can be seen clearly that significant movement occurs in elements of the house when resonance is present. The 

movement in the ceiling has a particularly high acceleration, equivalent to 0.16 g (where g = acceleration due to 

gravity). On its own, this value suggests that fastenings of the ceiling were subjected to a 16% increase in load but this 

should not have led to adverse effects. However, if values increased proportionally for higher levels of blast vibration, 

then a PPV of 5 mm/s might result in a ceiling load increase of 64%. Such an extrapolation is only very approximate 

because of the many factors involved, but it does show that the ceiling is vulnerable at a low PPV of 5 mm/s if 

frequencies are not controlled. 




8 

2.2.3 KITCHEN WING 

Results for the first floor of the Kitchen Wing, recorded on 17/2/2012, are scheduled in a similar manner in Table 2. 

Event ident. 

Channel 

no. 

Table 2 – Kitchen Wing first floor 17/2/2012 

Orientation Max ‘a’, Max ‘v’, Max. ‘s’, mm 

mm/s² mm/s 

Dominant 

frequency, 

Hz 

Kitchen Wing 1 N-S 845 13.1 0.31 10 10 

2 E-W: 1 184 3.9 0.25 12 2.7 

3 E-W: 2 220 3.8 0.13 10 2.6 

Velocity 

amplification 

in building 

Grounds N-S 1.31 11 

E-W 1.47 12 

V 0.84 NA 

Reference to the spectrogram plots helps explain the different levels of amplification from what was experienced 

in the house. In particular, the vibration of the chimney was quite low, indicating that resonance did not occur; the 

north-south side wall did seem to get some resonance, as seen by the distinct pulses in the spectrogram, but other 

frequencies were present as seen by the smearing. The most distinct movement was for the N-S direction, which is 

likely to have been attributable to the movement in the end wall of building; the frequency correlating with what might 

have been expected from the building as a whole would be up to 5 Hz. 

3 CONCLUSIONS 

3.1 Vibration vulnerability 

Vibration monitoring during blast events in representative rooms in the New House and Kitchen Wing at Wambo 

Homestead has shown that effects on the buildings are related to the frequencies in the blast wave. In particular, it was 

observed that the buildings are most vulnerable to damage when the blast wave contains frequencies in the 10 Hz to 

15 Hz range. 

3.2 Scope for blast design adjustments to reduce vulnerability 

Adjusting detonator delays and blast patterns has the potential for controlling the frequency distribution within the 

blast wave. If, in the future, blasts critical to Wambo Homestead were be designed to have frequencies below 8 Hz 

and greater than (say) 16 Hz, then the potential for damage, particularly to plaster ceilings, could be greatly reduced. 

With suitable blast design this could allow substantially increased blast sizes without any greater risk of damage to the 

buildings. 

J.W. Jordan FIEAust CPEng 

NPER Structural & Conservation Reg. No. 161488 





APPENDIX A 

Waveforms and spectrograms 

Event of 16 December 2011 


Appendices 



Channel 1: Wall adjoining hallway, front room of New House (east-west movement). 

Channel 2: Front wall facing verandah of New House. 

Channel 3: Centre of ceiling in front room of New House

East - west ground monitor (“transverse”) 

North - south ground monitor (“radial”) 

Vertical ground monitor 


Appendices 



APPENDIX B 

Waveforms and spectrograms 

Event of 17/2/2012 


Appendices 



Channel 1: 

Channel 2: 

Channel 3:

North - south ground monitor (“radial”) 

East - west ground monitor (“transverse”) 


Appendices 



Appendix 2F 

Noise Monitoring Results

Wambo Coal Mine 

Annual Report 

_____________________________________________ 

2011/2012 

Environmental Noise Monitoring 

Prepared for 


_____________________________________

Wambo Coal Mine Annual Report 

2011/2012 

Environmental Noise Monitoring 

Reference: 12384_R01.doc 

Report date: 21 August 2012 

Prepared for 


PMB 1 

Singleton NSW 2330 

Prepared by 

Global Acoustics Pty Ltd 

PO Box 3115 

Thornton NSW 2322 

Prepared: 

Katie Weekes 

Environmental Scientist 

QA Review: Joel Curran 

Chemical Engineer (Acoustics) 

Global Acoustics Pty Ltd ~ Environmental noise modeling and impact assessment ~ Sound power testing ~ Noise 

control advice ~ Noise and vibration monitoring ~ OHS noise monitoring and advice ~ Expert evidence in Land 

and Environment and Compensation Courts ~ Architectural acoustics ~ Blasting assessments and monitoring ~ 

Noise management plans (NMP) ~ Sound level meter and noise logger sales and hire 

12384_R01.doc 

Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Global Acoustics was engaged by Wambo Coal Pty Ltd to provide a summary of the 

quarterly environmental noise surveys conducted around Wambo Coal Mine (WCM), and the 

Wambo Coal Rail Spur (WCRS) from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. 

Monitoring was delayed several times during Quarter 2, 2012 due to train scheduling and the 

arrival of trains coinciding with acceptable meteorological conditions. As a result of trying to 

find a suitable time to undertake WCRS monitoring, the Quarter 2 2012 survey was extended 

into August 2012. 

WCM was granted consent (DA 305-7-2003) in February 2004, which enables the extension of 

current open cut and underground mining operations. 

The WCRS consists of two Development Applications (DA’s): 

 

The Wambo Rail Loop (DA 177-8-2004); and 

The Wambo Rail Line (DA 235/97). 

The relevant sections of these consents are reproduced in Appendix A. 

Attended environmental noise monitoring described in this report was undertaken on a 

quarterly basis at five sites during Quarters 3 and 4 2011 and Quarters 1 and 2 2012 around 

the mine. The survey purpose is to quantify and describe the existing acoustic environment 

around WCM and WCRS and compare results with relevant development consent conditions 

or modelled EIS noise levels. 

Noise levels from WCM complied with the development consent criteria or modelled noise 

levels at all sites during the 2011/2012 attended monitoring. 

Noise levels from WCRS complied with the development consent criteria or modelled noise 

levels at all sites during the 2011/2012 attended monitoring. Monitoring was delayed several 

times during Quarter 2, 2012 due to train scheduling and the arrival of trains coinciding with 

acceptable meteorological conditions. As a result of trying to find a suitable time to 

undertake WCRS monitoring, the Quarter 2 2012 survey was extended into July 2012. 

It is noted that wind speeds and/or temperature inversion conditions were at levels greater 

than which development consent conditions would apply for WCM and WCRS activities in 

some instances. In all instances, the predicted EIS noise levels were met regardless. 

Rail pass-by monitoring was not undertaken during this reporting period. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page ii

Table of Contents 

1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................1 

1.2 Monitoring Locations and Frequency ........................................................................................2 

1.3 Terminology...............................................................................................................................4 

1.4 Wambo Coal Mine Development Consent.................................................................................5 

1.5 Wambo Coal Rail Spur Development Consent ..........................................................................6 

2 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................8 

2.1 Assessment Method ...................................................................................................................8 

2.1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................8 

2.1.2 Attended Noise Monitoring .................................................................................................8 

3 RESULTS.........................................................................................................................................9 

3.1 Attended Noise Monitoring – Quarter 3, 2011...........................................................................9 

3.1.1 Wambo Coal Mine Noise ....................................................................................................9 

3.1.2 Wambo Coal Rail Spur Noise ...........................................................................................11 

3.2 Attended Noise Monitoring – Quarter 4, 2011.........................................................................13 

3.2.1 Wambo Coal Mine Noise ..................................................................................................13 








4 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................25 

4.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................25 

Appendices 

A. DEVELOPMENT CONSENT................................................................................................A.1 

A.1 Wambo Coal Mine Development Consent............................................................................. A.1 

A.1.1 Relevant Wambo Coal Mine Development Consent Conditions ..................................... A.1 

A.2 Wambo Rail Spur Development Consent .............................................................................. A.4 

A.2.1 Relevant WCRS Development Consent Conditions......................................................... A.4 

12384_R01.doc 

Page iii

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

Global Acoustics was engaged by Wambo Coal Pty Ltd to provide a summary of the 

quarterly environmental noise surveys conducted around Wambo Coal Mine (WCM), and the 

Wambo Coal Rail Spur (WCRS) from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. 

Monitoring was delayed several times during Quarter 2, 2012 due to train scheduling and the 

arrival of trains coinciding with acceptable meteorological conditions. As a result of trying to 

find a suitable time to undertake WCRS monitoring, the Quarter 2 2012 survey was extended 

into August 2012. 

The rail spur and mine operate under separate development consents and have been 

monitored separately. Reporting, however, has been combined in this document. 

Wambo Coal operates both open cut and underground mining operations from their mine at 

Warkworth, NSW. The open cut operations include use of heavy mobile equipment in open 

cut pits, on haul roads and on waste rock emplacements. The underground operations have 

surface facilities. Both operations utilise a coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP) 

including conveyors, bins and other material-handling infrastructure. 

The WCRS is located between Mt Thorley and Warkworth Village, New South Wales (as 

shown in Figure 1) and includes the following components: 

 

 

a product coal stockpile and reclaim area, product coal conveyer, train loadout bin, rail 

loop and a rail spur from the Wambo Coal Mine to Mount Thorley; and 

rail transport of product coal to the market, an intermittent activity that can take place at 

anytime. 

Attended environmental noise monitoring described in this report was undertaken on a 

quarterly basis at five sites during Quarters 3 and 4 2011 and Quarters 1 and 2 2012 around 

the mine. Figure 1 shows the monitoring locations. 

Two of the five monitoring locations are within the Noise Affectation Zone, as identified in 

EIS reports (Wambo Development Project EIS (Resource Strategies, 2003), and Jerrys Plains Coal 

Terminal and Rail Line Environmental Impact Statement and Statement of Environmental Effects 

(CMPS&F, 1997)); as such, noise criteria do not apply directly to these properties. For these 

locations, measured noise levels from WCM and WCRS are compared against EIS modelled 

noise results. Compliance with modelled noise levels at these nearest receptors indicates 

compliance with development consent criteria at properties further away is likely. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 1

The survey purpose is to quantify and describe the existing acoustic environment around 

WCM and WCRS and compare results with relevant development consent conditions or 

modelled EIS noise levels. 

1.2 Monitoring Locations and Frequency 

Table 1.1 outlines the monitor type and frequency for the noise monitoring locations shown 

in Figure 1. 

Table 1.1 WAMBO COAL MONITORING LOCATIONS AND FREQUENCY1 

Site 

Reference 

Site Location 

Monitor 

Type 

Consent Requirement Frequency 1 

N01 Lambkin Residence Attended Mine & Rail Spur 

Development Consents 

Quarterly 

N03 Kelly Residence Real-time & 

Attended 

N16 Muller Residence Real-time & 

Attended 

Mine Development Consent 

Mine Development Consent 

Continuous & Quarterly 

Continuous & Quarterly 

N20 Thelander Residence Real-time Mine Development Consent Continuous 

N21 

Wambo South 

Residence 

Real-time Mine Development Consent Continuous 

N22 3 Henderson Residence Attended Rail Spur Development 

Consent 

Quarterly 

N23 Redmanvale Road Attended Mine Development Consent Quarterly 

N24 Curlewis Residence Attended Mine & Rail Spur 

Development Consents 

N25 2 Dyson Residence Rail Pass-by Rail Spur Development 

Consent 

Quarterly 

Every fifth quarterly 

period 

Source: Wambo Coal Noise Monitoring Program – EMP011 2007. 

Notes: 1. Quarterly attended locations are shown in italics; 

2. Dyson required every fifth quarterly period (last monitored in Q2 2011); and 

3. Monitoring at N22 not undertaken after Quarter 3, 2010 due to a change of ownership (mine 

owned). 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 2

Source: WCNMP, 2007 

Figure 1 

Monitoring Sites 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 3

1.3 Terminology 

Some definitions of terminology, which may be used in this report, are provided in Table 1.2. 

Table 1.2 TERMINOLOGY 

Descriptor 

L A 

L A10 

Definition 

The A-weighted root mean squared (RMS) noise level at any instant 

The noise level which is exceeded for 10 per cent of the time, which is 

approximately the average of the maximum noise levels 

L A90 

The level exceeded for 90 per cent of the time, which is approximately the 

average of the minimum noise levels. The L A90 level is often referred to as 

the “background” noise level and is commonly used to determine noise 

criteria for assessment purposes 

L Aeq 

L pk 

dB(A) 

The average noise energy during a measurement period 

The unweighted peak noise level at any instant 

Noise level measurement units are decibels (dB). The “A” weighting scale 

is used to describe human response to noise 

SPL 

Sound pressure level (SPL), fluctuations in pressure measured as 10 times a 

logarithmic scale, the reference pressure being 20 micropascals 

SEL 

Sound exposure level (SEL), the A-weighted noise energy during a 

measurement period normalised to one second 

Hertz (Hz) 

Cycles per second, the frequency of fluctuations in pressure, sound is 

usually a combination of many frequencies together 

ABL 

Assessment background level (ABL), the 10th percentile background noise 

level for a single period (day, evening or night) of a 24 hour monitoring 

period 

RBL 

Rating background level (RBL), the background noise level for a period 

(day, evening or night) determined from ABL data 

Day 

Evening 

Night 

This is the period 7:00am to 6:00pm 

This is the period 6:00pm to 10:00pm 

The period 10:00pm to 7:00am 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 4

1.4 Wambo Coal Mine Development Consent 

WCM was granted consent (DA 305-7-2003) in February 2004, which enables the extension of 

current open cut and underground mining operations. 

The Wambo Coal Environmental Management System, Noise Monitoring Programme (Document 

EMP011, Rev 3, May 2007) was prepared in accordance with Schedule 4, Consent Condition 9. 

The Noise Monitoring Programme indicates that monitoring will be conducted for WCM 

activities, and the noise levels to be used for assessment. Monitoring for noise from mining 

activities is undertaken at the properties numbered N01, N03, N16, N23 and N24. 

It should be noted that properties N01, and N03 are within the Noise Affectation Zone for the 

development, and are also subject to acquisition upon request, as detailed in Schedule 4, 

Condition 1 of DA 305-7-2003. As such, there are no operational noise goals that apply 

directly to these properties. Predicted maximum noise levels from the EIS are therefore used 

for comparison at these locations except where these levels are less than the minimum 

criterion for intrusive noise nominated in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (35 dB). In these 

instances, a criterion of 35 dB is used for assessment. Compliance with predicted levels at 

these locations indicates likely compliance at properties further away from WCM. 

Table 1.3 summarises relevant noise assessment criteria for WCM. 

Table 1.3 WAMBO COAL MINE NOISE GOALS 

Location 

L Aeq(15minute) Day dB 

L Aeq(15minute) Evening / 

Night dB 

L A1(1minute) Night dB 

N01 2 35 41 / 35 3 - 

N03 2 54 59 / 57 3 - 

N16 1 35 40 50 

N23 1 35 38 50 

N24 1 35 41 50 

Notes: 1. Criteria from Development Consent DA 305-7-2003; 

2. N01, and N03 are within the Zone of Affectation. Modelled noise levels from EIS are presented for these sites; 

and 

3. Seasonal modelled noise level for Winter/Not winter. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 5

1.5 Wambo Coal Rail Spur Development Consent 

The WCRS consists of two Development Applications (DA’s): 

The Wambo Rail Loop (DA 177-8-2004); and 

The Wambo Rail Line (DA 235/97). 

The Wambo Coal Environmental Management System, Noise Monitoring Programme (Document 

EMP011, Rev 3, May 2007) was prepared in accordance with Schedule 4, Consent Condition 9. 

The Noise Monitoring Programme indicates that monitoring will be conducted for WCRS 

activities, and the noise levels to be used for assessment. Monitoring for noise from rail 

activities is undertaken at properties numbered N01 and N24 each quarter and at N25 every 

fifth quarter for rail pass-by noise. Rail pass-by monitoring was not undertaken during this 


It should be noted that property number N22 is within the Noise Affectation Zone for the 

development, and is also subject to acquisition upon request, as detailed in Condition 1 of DA 

177-8-2004. As such, the operational noise goals or predictions do not apply directly to this 

property. Due to a change of ownership (the property is now owned by a mining company), 

monitoring is not undertaken at N22. 

It is also noted however that Condition 2 of DA 177-8-2004 indicates that “While the land listed 

in Table 1 [of Condition 1] is privately owned, the Applicant shall implement all practicable measures 

to ensure that the impacts of the development comply with the predictions in the SEE, and the relevant 

conditions in this consent, at any residence on this land, to the satisfaction of the Director-General.” 

Therefore, the predicted operational noise levels outlined in the Jerrys Plains Coal Terminal and 

Rail Line Environmental Impact Statement and Statement of Environmental Effects (CMPS&F, 

1997), as reproduced in Resource Strategies (2005), are referred to in this report. Compliance 

with the predicted levels from the EIS at this monitoring location indicates likely compliance 

at properties further away from the WCRS. 

Table 1.4 summarises relevant noise assessment criteria for the WCRS during operation. 

Table 1.4 OPERATIONAL NOISE GOALS, WAMBO COAL RAIL SPUR 

Location L Aeq Day dB L Aeq(15minute) Evening 

and Night dB 

L A1(1minute) Night dB 

N01 35 41 / 35 2 - 

N24 35 41 50 

Notes: 

1. This site is within the Zone of Affectation and so modelled noise levels from EIS are adopted as criteria; and 

2. Seasonal modelled noise level for Winter/Not winter. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 6

The noise limits identified in Table 1.4 apply under meteorological conditions of: 

 

 

wind speeds of up to 3 m/s at 10 metres above ground level; or 

temperature inversion conditions of up to 3ºC/100m, and wind speeds of up to 2 m/s at 

10 metres above ground level. 

The relevant section of each consent is reproduced in Appendix A. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 7

2 METHODOLOGY 

2.1 Assessment Method 

2.1.1 Overview 

Noise monitoring was conducted at the nearest residences in accordance with the 

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) ‘Industrial Noise Policy’ (INP) guidelines and 

Australian Standard AS 1055 ‘Acoustics, Description and Measurement of Environmental 

Noise’. The mine was operating for all monitoring. WCRS monitoring was only conducted 

while train loading was in progress. 

Meteorological data was obtained from the Wambo Coal Mine meteorological station. This 

allowed correlation of atmospheric parameters and measured noise levels. Ground level 

atmospheric condition measurement was also undertaken during attended monitoring. 

2.1.2 Attended Noise Monitoring 

Attended noise monitoring was conducted at all sites during day and night hours. 

Monitoring was not conducted in the evening period, as consent limits are the same for 

evening and night periods, and night time monitoring is considered a more suitable time to 

measure the source of interest. The duration of all measurements was 15 minutes. 

Attended monitoring is preferred to the use of loggers when determining compliance with 

prescribed limits; it allows an accurate determination of the contribution, if any, to measured 

noise levels by the source of interest (in this case WCM and / or WCRS). 

Weather conditions were recorded at each location during each noise level measurement. 

Although the consent is not specific as to where the meteorological data should be sourced, 

information from WCM has been used as it is measured with an elevated anemometer as is 

required by the consent. The anemometer at WCM is not overly distant from the monitoring 

locations and is considered to be representative of the general area. Wind speeds measured 

at 10 metres above ground are usually higher than those measured closer to ground level. In 

accordance with consent conditions, noise criteria only apply in wind speeds up to 3 metres 

per second. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 8

3 RESULTS 

3.1 Attended Noise Monitoring – Quarter 3, 2011 

3.1.1 Wambo Coal Mine Noise 

Noise levels generated by activity at Wambo are shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2, where 

comparison of measured L Aeq(15 minutes) and L A1(1 minute) levels for WCM is made with 

relevant noise goals. 

Table 3.1 L Aeq(15 minute) dB GENERATED BY WCM AGAINST NOISE CRITERIA - QUARTER 3, 2011 

Location Date / Start Time Wind 

Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 

Wambo 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 

6,8 

N01 2 27/09/11 00:10 0.0 3.0 41 35 N IA NA 

N03 2 26/09/11 22:06 0.5 3.0 59 57 N

Table 3.2 L A1(1 minute) dB GENERATED BY WCM AGAINST NOISE CRITERIA - QUARTER 3, 2011 


Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

dB 1 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 

Exceedance 6,8 

N01 2 27/09/11 00:10 0.0 3.0 NA N - NA 

N03 2 26/09/11 22:06 0.5 3.0 NA N - NA 

N16 27/09/11 01:54 0.0 3.0 50 N

3.1.2 Wambo Coal Rail Spur Noise 

Noise levels generated by activity associated with the Wambo Coal Rail Spur are shown in 

Table 3.3 and Table 3.4, where comparison of measured L Aeq(15 minutes) and L A1(1 minute) levels 

for WCRS is made with relevant noise goals. 

Table 3.3 L Aeq(15 minute) dB GENERATED BY WCRS AGAINST NOISE CRITERIA - QUARTER 3, 2011 


Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 

6,8 

N01 27/09/11 00:10 0.0 3.0 41 35 N IA NA 

N24 26/09/11 23:15 0.1 3.0 41 41 N IA NA 

N01 04/10/11 14:00 1.8 -1.6 35 35 Y IA Nil 

N24 04/10/11 12:48 3.0 -1.8 35 35 N IA NA 

Notes: 

1. Development consent criterion; 

2. Monitoring location is within Zone of Affectation. EIS or SEE modelled noise level presented; 

3. The noise emission limits identified in the above table apply under meteorological conditions of: 

- Wind speeds of up to 3 m/s at 10 metres above ground level; or 

- Temperature inversion conditions of up to 3ºC/100m, and wind speeds of up to 2 m/s at 10 metres above 

ground level. 

4. Estimated or measured L Aeq dB attributed to WCRS; 

5. NM denotes WCRS audible but not measurable, IA denotes inaudible; 

6. NA in exceedance column means atmospheric conditions outside conditions specified in development consent and 

so criterion is not applicable; 

7. Vertical temperature gradient (VTG) calculated using sigma theta values according to INP procedures; and 

8. Bold and red text indicate an exceedance of relevant criterion. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 11

Table 3.4 L A1(1 minute) dB GENERATED BY WCRS AGAINST NOISE CRITERIA - QUARTER 3, 2011 


Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

dB 1 

Criterion 

Applies? 1,3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 


N24 26/09/11 23:15 0.1 3.0 50 N IA NA 

Notes: 


2. Monitoring location is within Zone of Affectation, no EIS L A1,1min levels available; 




ground level. 

4. Estimated or measured L A1,1min dB attributed to WCM; 

5. NM denotes WCM audible but not measurable, IA denotes inaudible; 


so criterion is not applicable, or, there is no applicable criterion; 



12384_R01.doc 

Page 12








Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 

6,8 

N01 2 22/12/11 15:01 4.1 -1.6 35 35 N IA NA 

N03 2 15/11/11 13:48 3.1 -1.9 54 54 N IA NA 

N16 15/11/11 14:50 4.1 -1.8 35 35 N IA NA 

N23 15/11/11 15:17 4.4 -1.8 35 35 N IA NA 

N24 15/11/11 10:02 3.6 -1.9 35 35 N IA NA 

N01 2 15/12/11 02:01 0.7 4.1 41 35 N IA NA 

N03 2 15/12/11 01:49 0.6 4.1 59 57 N IA NA 

N16 14/12/11 22:27 1.5 -1.0 40 40 Y IA Nil 

N23 14/12/11 23:29 1.3 -1.0 38 38 Y NM Nil 

N24 15/12/11 02:38 0.3 4.1 41 41 N NM NA 

Notes: 






ground level. 

4. Estimated or measured L Aeq dB attributed to WCM; 






12384_R01.doc 

Page 13



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

dB 1 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 


N01 2 15/12/11 02:01 0.7 4.1 NA N IA NA 

N03 2 15/12/11 01:49 0.6 4.1 NA N IA NA 

N16 14/12/11 22:27 1.5 -1.0 50 Y IA Nil 

N23 14/12/11 23:29 1.3 -1.0 50 Y



Table 3.7 and Table 3.8, where comparison of measured L Aeq(15 minutes) and L A1(1 minute) levels 

for WCRS is made with relevant noise goals. 



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 

N01 22/12/11 15:01 4.1 -1.6 35 35 N IA NA 

N24 15/11/11 10:02 3.6 -1.9 35 35 N IA NA 

N01 15/12/11 02:01 0.7 4.1 41 35 N IA NA 

N24 15/12/11 02:38 0.3 4.1 41 41 N IA NA 

6,8 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 15



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

dB 1 

Criterion 

Applies? 1,3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 


N24 15/12/11 02:38 0.3 4.1 50 N IA NA 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 16








Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 

N01 2 03/04/12 12:14 1.6 -1.9 35 35 Y NM Nil 

N03 2 21/03/12 10:10 0.3 -1.6 54 54 Y NM Nil 

N16 21/03/12 09:40 0.0 -1.0 35 35 Y IA Nil 

N23 21/03/12 07:50 0.2 -1.6 35 35 Y 26 Nil 

N24 03/04/12 13:10 0.7 -1.9 35 35 Y IA Nil 

N01 2 12/03/12 01:18 0.6 4.1 41 35 N NM NA 

N03 2 29/02/12 00:11 0.0 4.1 59 57 N 32 NA 

N16 29/02/12 00:40 0.0 4.1 40 40 N IA NA 

N23 29/02/12 01:07 0.0 4.1 38 38 N IA NA 

N24 12/03/12 02:09 0.9 4.1 41 41 N IA NA 

6,8 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 17

Table 3.10L A1(1 minute) dB GENERATED BY WCM AGAINST NOISE CRITERIA - QUARTER 1, 2012 


Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

dB 1 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 


N01 2 12/03/12 01:18 0.6 4.1 NA N NM NA 

N03 2 29/02/12 00:11 0.0 4.1 NA N 45 NA 

N16 29/02/12 00:40 0.0 4.1 50 N IA NA 

N23 29/02/12 01:07 0.0 4.1 50 N 30 NA 

N24 12/03/12 02:09 0.9 4.1 50 N IA NA 

Notes: 






ground level. 


5. NM denotes WCM audible but not measurable, IA denotes inaudible “-” denotes no criterion; 





12384_R01.doc 

Page 18



Table 3.11 and Table 3.12, where comparison of measured L Aeq(15 minutes) and L A1(1 minute) 

levels for WCRS is made with relevant noise goals. 



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 

N01 03/04/12 12:14 1.6 -1.9 35 35 Y IA Nil 

N24 03/04/12 13:10 0.7 -1.9 35 35 Y IA Nil 

N01 12/03/12 01:18 0.6 4.1 41 35 N IA NA 

N24 12/03/12 02:09 0.9 4.1 41 41 N IA NA 

6,8 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 19



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

dB 1 

Criterion 

Applies? 1,3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 


N24 12/03/12 02:09 0.9 4.1 50 N IA NA 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 20








Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 

N01 2 23/07/2012 13:13 3.6 -1.8 35 35 N IA NA 

N03 2 08/05/2012 13:34 3.2 -1.8 54 54 N NM NA 

N16 08/05/2012 14:04 3.2 -1.8 35 35 N IA NA 


N24 29/06/2012 13:54 2.6 -1.8 35 35 Y IA Nil 

N01 2 26/06/2012 22:13 0.7 -1.0 41 35 Y IA Nil 

N03 2 26/06/2012 22:48 1.7 -1.0 59 57 Y 46 Nil 

N16 26/06/2012 23:24 0.7 3.0 40 40 N 33 NA 

N23 26/06/2012 23:59 1.1 -1.0 38 38 Y 33 Nil 

N24 27/06/2012 01:01 1.6 3.0 41 41 N IA NA 

6,8 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 21



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

dB 1 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 


N01 2 26/06/2012 22:13 0.7 -1.0 NA N IA NA 

N03 2 26/06/2012 22:48 1.7 -1.0 NA N 57 NA 

N16 26/06/2012 23:24 0.7 3.0 50 N 49 NA 

N23 26/06/2012 23:59 1.1 -1.0 50 Y 30 Nil 

N24 27/06/2012 01:01 1.6 3.0 50 N IA NA 

Notes: 






ground level. 


5. NM denotes WCM audible but not measurable, IA denotes inaudible “-” denotes no criterion; 





12384_R01.doc 

Page 22



Table 3.15 and Table 3.16, where comparison of measured L Aeq(15 minutes) and L A1(1 minute) 

levels for WCRS is made with relevant noise goals. 



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Winter 

Criterion 

L Aeq(15 

min) dB1 

Not winter 

Criterion 

Applies? 3 


L Aeq(15 

min) dB 

4,5 

Exceedance 




N24 27/06/2012 01:01 1.6 3.0 41 41 N IA NA 

6,8 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 23



Speed 

(m/s) 

VTG 7 

( 0 C/100m) 

Criterion 

L A1(1 min) 

Criterion 

Applies? 1,3 


L A1(1 min) 

dB 4,5 


dB 1 

N24 27/06/2012 01:01 1.6 3.0 50 N IA NA 

Notes: 






ground level. 







12384_R01.doc 

Page 24

4 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE 

4.1 Summary 

Noise levels from WCM complied with the development consent criteria or modelled noise 

levels at all sites during the 2011/2012 attended monitoring. 

Noise levels from WCRS complied with the development consent criteria or modelled noise 

levels at all sites during the 2011/2012 attended monitoring. Monitoring was delayed several 

times during Quarter 2, 2012 due to train scheduling and the arrival of trains coinciding with 

acceptable meteorological conditions. As a result of trying to find a suitable time to 

undertake WCRS monitoring, the Quarter 2 2012 survey was extended into July 2012. 

It is noted that wind speeds and/or temperature inversion conditions were at levels greater 

than which development consent conditions would apply for WCM and WCRS activities in 

some instances. In all instances, the predicted EIS noise levels were met regardless. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page 25

A P P E N D I X 

A . D EVELOPMENT CONSENT 

A.1 Wambo Coal Mine Development Consent 

A.1.1 Relevant Wambo Coal Mine Development Consent Conditions 

The relevant sections of the Development Consent conditions are reproduced below: 

Acquisition Upon Request 

1. Upon receiving a written request for acquisition from the landowner of the land listed in 

Table 1, the Applicant shall acquire the land in accordance with the procedures in conditions 9 

– 11 of Schedule 5: 

2 – Lambkin 23A & B – Kannar 

13C – Skinner 

19A & B – Kelly 

31A, B, C & D – Fisher 

51 – Hawkes 

22 – Henderson 56 – Haynes 

Table 1: Land subject to acquisition upon request 

Note: For more information on the numbering and identification of properties used in this 

consent, see Attachment 1 of the EIS for the Wambo Development Project. 

NOISE 

Noise Impact Assessment Criteria 

6. The Applicant shall ensure that the noise generated by the development does not exceed the 

noise impact assessment criteria presented in Table 9. 

Day 

Evening/Night 

Night 

Land Number 

L Aeq(15 minutes) 



35 41 50 94 – Curlewis 

35 40 50 3 - Birrell 

4B – Circosta 

15B – McGowen/Caslick 

16 – Cooper 


25 – Fenwick 

28A & B – Garland 

33 – Thelander/O’Niell 

39 – Northcote 

40 – Muller 

254A - Algie 

12384_R01.doc 

Page A.1

Day 

Evening/Night 

Night 

Land Number 




35 39 50 5 – Strachan 

6 – Merrick 

7 – Maizey 

37 – Lawry 

48 - Ponder 

35 38 50 1 – Brosi 

17 – Carter 

18 – Denney 

38 – Williams 

49 – Oliver 

63 – Abrocuff 

75 – Barnes 

91 – Bailey 

35 37 50 27 – Birralee 

43 – Carmody 

137 – Woodruff 

163 – Roger/Williams 

246 - Bailey 

35 36 50 13B – Skinner 

178 – Smith 

188 – Fuller 

262A, B & C – Moses 

35 35 50 All other residential or sensitive 

receptors, excluding the receptors 

listed in condition 1 above 

Table 9: Noise Impact Assessment Criteria dB(A) 

Notes: 

a) Noise from the development is to be measured at the most affected point or within the 

residential boundary, or at the most affected point within 30 metres of a dwelling 

(rural situations) where the dwelling is more than 30 metres from the boundary, to 

determine compliance with the L Aeq(15 minute) noise limits in the above table. 

Where it can be demonstrated that direct measurement of noise from the 

development is impractical, the DEC may accept alternative means of determining 

compliance (see Chapter 11 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy). The modification 

factors in Section 4 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy shall also be applied to the 

measured noise levels where applicable. 

b) Noise from the development is to be measured at 1 metre from the dwelling façade to 

determine compliance with the L A1(1 minute) noise limits in the above table. 

c) The noise emission limits identified in the above table apply under meteorological 

conditions of: 

• wind speeds of up to 3 m/s at 10 metres above ground level; or 

• temperature inversion conditions of up to 3ºC/100m, and wind speeds of up 

to 2 m/s at 10 metres above ground level. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page A.2

Land Acquisition Criteria 

7. If the noise generated by the development exceeds the criteria in Table 10, the Applicant 

shall, upon receiving a written request for acquisition from the landowner, acquire the land in 

accordance with the procedures in conditions 9 – 11 of Schedule 5. 

Day/Evening/Night 

Property 


43 94 – Curlewis 

Table 10: Land Acquisition Criteria dB(A) 


254A - Algie 

40 All other residential or sensitive receptor, excluding the 

receptors listed in condition 1 above 

Note: Noise generated by the development is to be measured in accordance with the notes 

presented below Table 9 above. 

Monitoring 

8. The Applicant shall conduct real-time monitoring of the noise generated by the 

development at a minimum of four properties to the south and north-west of the site, in 

general accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy and AS1055-1997: Acoustics – 

Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise. 

9. Before carrying out any development, the Applicant shall prepare a Noise Monitoring 

Program to the satisfaction of the Director-General, which includes a noise monitoring 

protocol for evaluating compliance with the criteria in Tables 9 & 10. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page A.3

A.2 Wambo Rail Spur Development Consent 

A.2.1 Relevant WCRS Development Consent Conditions 

The relevant noise criteria, as detailed in the Construction/Operational Noise Management Plan 

and Monitoring Programme (Resource Strategies, 2005), are reproduced below: 

DA 177-8-2004 

Schedule 

4 

Condition 

4 Construction Hours 

The Applicant shall ensure that all construction work 

is carried out from 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Saturday 

(inclusive) and 8 am to 6 pm Sundays and public 

holidays. 

5 Operating Hours 

The Applicant shall: 

(a) take all practicable measures to minimise train 

movements at the development on Friday evening 

(6pm-9pm) and Sunday morning (9am-12am) to the 

satisfaction of the Director-General. 

(b) report on the implementation and effectiveness of 

these measures to 

the satisfaction of the Director-General. 

6 The Applicant shall monitor the noise generated by 

the development at least four times a year at a 

minimum of 3 representative locations near the site, 

in general accordance with the NSW Industrial 

Noise Policy and AS1055-1997: Acoustics – 

Description and Measurement of 

Environmental. 

7 Before carrying out any development, the Applicant 

shall prepare a Noise Monitoring Program for the 

development to the satisfaction of the Director- 

General, which includes a noise monitoring protocol 

for evaluating compliance with the criteria in Table 2. 

2.1 CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION NOISE CRITERIA DA 177-8-2004 

The noise impact assessment criteria for construction and operation of the Wambo Coal 

Terminal and Rail Spur (DA 177-8-2004) are presented in Table 1 for residential and 

sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the development. 

12384_R01.doc 

Page A.4

Table 1: Noise Impact Assessment Criteria 

Day 

LAeq (15 

minute) (dBA) 

Evening/Night 

LAeq (15 

minute) (dBA) 

Night 

LA(1 minute) 

(dBA) 

Land Number 

(Figure 2) 

35 41 50 94 Curlewis 

35 40 50 3 Birrell 

4B Circosta 

15 McGowen/Caslick 

16 Cooper 

25 Fenwick 

28 Garland 

33 Thelander/O’Neill 

39 Northcote 

40 Muller 

254 Algie 

35 39 50 5 Strachan 

6 Merrick 

7 Maizey 

37 Lawry 

48 Ponder 

35 38 50 1 Brosi 

17 Carter 

18 Denney 

30 Williams 

49 Oliver 

63 Abrocuff 

75 Barnes 

91 Bailey 

35 37 50 27 Birralee 

43 Carmody 

137 Woodruff 

163 Rodger/Williams 

246 Bailey 

35 36 50 13B Skinner 

178 Smith 

188 Fuller 

262 Moses 

35 35 50 All other residential or sensitive 

receptors, excluding the receptors 

listed in condition 1 (see DA 177- 

8-2004). 

Notes: 

a) For more information on the numbering and identification of properties used in this 

consent, see Attachment 1A and Attachment 1B of the SEE for the Alterations to the 

Wambo Development Project – Rail and Train Loading Infrastructure. 

b) Noise from the development is to be measured at the most affected point or within the 

residential boundary, or at the most affected point within 30 metres of a dwelling (rural 

situations) where the dwelling is more than 30 metres from the boundary, to determine 

12384_R01.doc 

Page A.5

compliance with the LAeq(15 minute) noise limits in the above table. Where it can be 

demonstrated that direct measurement of noise from the development is impractical, the 

DEC may accept alternative means of determining compliance (see Chapter 11 of the NSW 

Industrial Noise Policy). The modification factors in Section 4 of the NSW Industrial Noise 

Policy shall also be applied to the measured noise levels where applicable. 

c) Noise from the development is to be measured at 1 metre from the dwelling façade to 

determine compliance with the LA1(1 minute) noise limits in the above table. 

d) The noise emission limits identified in the above table apply under meteorological 

conditions of: 

• Wind speeds of up to 3 m/s at 10 metres above ground level; or 

• Temperature inversion conditions of up to 3ºC/100m, and wind speeds of up to 2 m/s at 10 

metres above ground level. 

2.2 RAIL PASS-BY CRITERIA 

The rail pass-by noise criteria for the Wambo Rail Development are as follows (DA235/97): 

the applicant shall ensure noise emissions from the operation of the JPRL when 

measured at any 

residence along the railway line corridor shall not exceed the following EPA 

criteria: 

(a) planning level of LAeq 24hr 55 dB(A); and 

(b) maximum pass-by level of LAmax 85 dB(A). 

It should be noted that the above criteria are consistent with the Department of Environment 

and Conservation’s (DEC, formerly the Environment Protection Authority [EPA]) 

Environmental Noise Control Manual (EPA, 1994). 

12384_R01.doc 

Page A.6

27 July 2012 

Wambo Coal Pty Ltd 

GPO Box 5101 

Brisbane QLD 4001 

Attention: 

David Rankins 

Subject: 

2012 AEMR Noise Summary 

Dear David, 

Please find below a summary of the continuous noise monitoring assessment for Wambo Coal Mine 

(WCM) for the period 1 July, 2011, to 30 June, 2012. 

July to September, 2011 

Assessment of noise impacts for the July to September, 2011, monitoring period indicates that WCM 

complied with the noise level criteria prescribed in the Wambo Coal NMP. Review of the L A1,1minute 

results indicates that animal noise, road noise and meteorological influences dominate the LA1 noise 

environment adjacent to the WCM. Mining noise was encountered during audio review at the N21 

(WA) and N16 (Muller) site locations. However, this was considered to represent only the background 

contribution to measured noise levels rather than the transient or peak events associated with potential 

for sleep disturbance. It should be noted that the N16 (Muller) monitoring location is subject to 

cumulative mining noise impacts, and as the source of mine noise contributions could not be 

confirmed, exceedences could not be attributed to the WCM. 

Where mining noise impacts were observed, uncertainty exists in the validity of the monitoring data. 

While EPL 529 excludes data influenced by strong temperature inversions (lapse rates of 3 C/100m 

and wind speeds up to 2 m/s), the methods available to assess atmospheric stability (sigma-theta 

method) provide conflicting evaluation as to the validity of the noise monitoring data. Pasquill Gifford 

(P-G) ‘F’ class stability was commonly observed during the monitoring period, denoting temperature 

lapse rates of between +1.5 and +4.0 deg/C per 100m. It stands to reason that portions of the dataset 

monitored under ‘F’ class stability conditions would be subject to lapse rates in excess of 3.0 deg/C per 

100m; however, in the absence of available methods or data, the frequency of this scenario could not 

be determined. Consequently, all noise monitoring results observed under ‘F’ class conditions were 

retained in the analysis. 

October to December, 2011 

Assessment of continuous noise monitoring data indicated that the WCM complied with the 

L AeqLF,15minute noise level criteria for more than 88% of time at the N21 (WA) monitoring location and 

98% of the time at the N20 (Thelander) monitoring location. Following a conservative detailed analysis 

of the N16 (Muller) monitoring data, it was found that L AeqLF,15minute noise levels attributable to WCM 

operations exceeded the 40dB(A) criteria approximately 22% of the monitoring period. The measured 

exceedence rate attributable to all environmental noise sources at this location was approximately 

48%.

Mine noise was audible at both the N21 (WA) and N16 (Muller) sites; however, it was found to 

comprise the background noise contribution for a majority of these events. Meteorological influences 

were also observed to contribute to measured noise levels at these locations, and the passage of 

vehicles on the Golden Highway was the dominant noise impact at the N16 (Muller) monitoring 

location. 

January to March, 2012 

Measured noise levels were found to comply with the L Aeq,15minute criteria more than 90% of the time at 

the N21 (WA) monitoring location and 94% of the time at the N20 (Thelander) monitoring location. 

These results are consistent with those obtained in the previous (October to December (2011)) period. 

Analysis of monitoring results, including WCM meteorological station data, demonstrates that lower 

rates of night time temperature inversions were observed as compared to the winter months. This 

indicates that the WCM site may be less affected by enhanced noise propagation associated with 

temperature inversions in the summer months, resulting in a higher rate of compliance with the 

performance criteria. 

Results of L Aeq,15minute audio review indicate that mining noise impacts were present during the January 

to March (2012) period; however, environmental sources (including insects, livestock, road noise and 

meteorological impacts) were found to dominate the night time noise environment. 

April to June, 2012 

Assessment of continuous noise monitoring data indicated that the WCM complied with the 

L AeqLF,15minute noise level criteria for more than 83% of time at the N21 (WA) monitoring location and 

92% of the time at the N20 (Thelander) monitoring location. Moderate (F class) and strong (G class) 

temperature inversions (conditions under which enhanced noise propagation may occur) were found to 

be present for 36% of the night time monitoring period from April to June. These inversion events 

typically generate meteorological conditions under which enhanced noise propagation may occur. 

Comparison of the measured L AeqLF,15minute noise level result distributions indicates that noise levels 

above the relevant criteria may be observed with higher frequency during the winter months. 

Audio review suggested that mine noise was present at both the N21 (WA) and N16 (Muller) sites; 

however, environmental noise sources (including road noise, insects and meteorological impacts) 

were found to dominate the night time noise environment. The passage of vehicles on the Golden 

Highway was the dominant noise impact at the N16 (Muller) monitoring location. Mining noise was not 

observed to contribute to measured Sleep Disturbance (L A1,1minute ) noise levels above the criteria at any 

monitoring location during this period. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information. 

Yours faithfully, 

Clayton Sparke 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

Advitech Pty Limited 

Job No.: J0110410-04 

Folder No.: F11891 

Our Ref: 11891 WCM AEMR (Noise) 2012 Rev0.doc 

WCM 2011 AEMR (Noise) 


11891 WCM AEMR (Noise) 2012 Rev0 (2) 

27 July 2012 

2

Appendix 2G 

Flora & Fauna 

Monitoring Results

Our Ref: PR109410:RS/TL 

16 December 2011 

WAMBO COAL PTY LTD 

PMB 1 

SINGLETON NSW 2330 

ATTENTION: TROY FAVELL 

Dear Troy, 

RE: 

ACACIA PENDULA POPULATION POST-UNDERMINING HEALTH 

INSPECTION, WAMBO MINE 

On 5 December 2011 an RPS ecologist undertook an inspection of the Acacia pendula 

(Weeping Myall) population adjacent to the eastern corner of RWEP C area at Wambo 

Coal Mine. These investigations were conducted as a due diligence precaution to 

compare the condition of the population with regards to the health, recruitment, extent 

and habitat attributes subsequent to undermining by LW-4. The following letter contains 

the methodologies and results of the December 2011 field investigation. 

It should be noted that an initial inspection pre-undermining was undertaken in June 

2011 to determine Acacia pendula health prior to mining occurring. 

This assessment aims to provide information on the health of the Acacia pendula 

(Weeping Myall) population after undermining by LW-4. Acacia pendula is listed within 

Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act 1995) 

as an Endangered Population in the Hunter Catchment. 

Methodology 

An inspection of the Acacia pendula population and habitat on the site was undertaken 

as follows: 

An Ecologist from RPS (Mr Robert Sansom, BSc (Hons)) was accompanied to 

the A. pendula population by Mr David Rankin from Peabody Wambo Mine. 

The A. pendula population was inspected and notes taken with regard to age 

cohorts, recruitment levels, health, infestations, senescence, as well as soil and 

drainage attributes. 

Searches were undertaken within the A. pendula habitat areas for any changes 

that may be attributable to subsidence.

Results 

The onsite population of A. pendula occupies approximately 2.5 hectares adjacent to the 

southern bank of North Wambo Creek. This population has been divided into two areas 

that have been fenced to prohibit the ingress of livestock. A (fenced) vehicular track 

bisects the two areas. 

Age Cohorts 

Several age cohorts were evident. These ranged from large specimens (up to 9 metres 

tall) to seedlings less than 0.1 metre tall with several age classes in between. At the time 

of the inspection the number of larger specimens were equalled or surpassed by the 

number of seedlings (0.1 to 1 metre) and juveniles (1 to 3 metres). 

Recruitment 

Successful recruitment is evident by the presence of numerous healthy seedlings and 

juvenile specimens. These new recruits were located within some small areas and are 

probably the progeny of a few older specimens that have had an opportunity to set seed. 

Health 

Many of the larger specimens of A. pendula have substantial small deadwood in the 

lower two thirds of the foliage and branches, commonly with only the uppermost third of 

the crown holding live foliage. It was noted during the initial (baseline) inspection in June 

2011 that many of the larger specimens were host to a large number of parasitic 

mistletoe, in particular Amyema pendulum. A number of the larger specimens with 

multiple mistletoe infestations show very poor health or are dead. 

A number of A. pendula specimens were also found to be host to gall forming insects or 

borers as evidenced by the presence of smooth woody nodules or clumps of particulate 

wood on the branches of many of the A. pendula specimens. 

Infestations 

As stated above, many of the A pendula specimens within the local population have 

infestations of Gall forming insects and borers. Acacias in general are often known to be 

hosts to galls and borers, however high numbers of these can detrimentally affect the 

health of the plant by re-directing nutrients and weakening the physical structure of the 

plant. 

Amyema pendulum (Mistletoe) is a parasitic plant that is tolerated in small numbers, 

however, many of the Acacia pendula specimens that were found to be in poor health or 

dead were also found to be host to multiple (up to 7 or 8) mistletoes. 

Senescence 

A large number of the larger specimens (approximately 12 to 15%) have recently died 

and are now standing deadwood. This is a part of a natural process for a stand of 

2

Acacias such as these. Acacias are known as a “pioneer” species that germinate quickly 

within disturbed areas and have a relatively short lifespan, which can improve conditions 

(such as shade, wind protection, moister habitat) for other species to establish. 

However, it is considered that many of the observed dead specimens of Acacia pendula 

have succumbed to infestations of large numbers of Mistletoe. 

Soil 

The soil supporting the population of A. pendula is fine and clayey with a well 

established crust that incorporates mosses and lichens. The initial inspection in June 

2011 found that the crust was broken or absent in some small areas (usually less than 

2m 2 ). These crustless areas are possibly due to past land management practises (such 

as slashing) or disturbances from livestock or tree removal. No cracks larger than 5mm 

wide and 20cm long were observed in the soil surface during the June 2011 (baseline) 

inspection. 

During the post-undermining inspection (December 2011) the soil surface was relatively 

unchanged except for a small area (approximately 5m 2 ) which contained approximately 

4 interconnected surface cracks that were a maximum of 1 cm wide and 150 cm long. It 

is considered that these cracks may have been created by subsidence. As these cracks 

are relatively small and located in a fine-grained crusted, clayey topsoil it is considered 

that these cracks will most likely be self healing. 

Drainage 

The initial (June 2011) inspection took place on a day with significant rainfall. The 

drainage throughout the A. pendula stand is via overland flow in the form of small 

rivulets and pools. The slope of the area is approximately 1% with a northerly aspect. 

The post undermining inspection in December 2011 was undertaken a few days after a 

significant rainfall event. The drainage within the Acacia pendula area has not 

significantly changed. There was evidence of the same types of small overland rivulets 

and pools. No areas of retained surface water were observed during the post 

undermining inspection. It is considered that the overland drainage within the Acacia 

pendula conservation area is unchanged. 

Conclusion 

The stand of Acacia pendula (Weeping Myall) within the RWEA area is generally healthy 

with respect to Age Classes, Recruitment, Health, Infestations and Senescence. The 

stand shows the typical attributes of a dynamic population which is currently selfpropagating 

and is likely to continue to do so provided no stochastic events impact upon 

the area. There are large numbers of the parasitic mistletoe Amyema pendula present 

on many of the Weeping Myall trees. In high numbers these mistletoes have a 

detrimental effect on the Weeping Myall and have most likely caused the death of some 

specimens. 

3

We trust this report proves useful for your purposes. If you have any further enquiries 

regarding this or other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the writer or Mr Toby 

Lambert (Senior Ecologist - Senior Project Manager). 

Yours faithfully 

RPS AUSTRALIA EAST PTY LTD 

Robert Sansom 

Botanist / Ecologist 

BSc(Hons) 

4

2011 Annual Ecological 

Monitoring Report 

Wambo Coal Mine 

Prepared by: 

RPS 

241 Denison Street, 

Broadmeadow NSW 2292 

PO Box 428, HAMILTON NSW 2303 

T: +61 2 4961 6500 

F: +61 2 4961 6794 

E: newcastle@rpsgroup.com.au 

W: rpsgroup.com.au 

Prepared for: 


PMB 1 

SINGLETON NSW 2330 

Report No: 109410 

Version/Date: Final / May 2012 

rpsgroup.com.au

Document Status 

Review Format 

Issue 

Version Purpose of Document Orig Review 

Approval 

Date Review 

Date 

Draft V1 For Client Review A. Smith T. Lambert VD 12.01.12 

Final Final for Submission A. Smith P. Hillier 02.05.12 T. Lambert 03.05.12 

Disclaimers 

This document is and shall remain the property of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. The 

document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in 

accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised copying or 

use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. 

rpsgroup.com.au

Executive Summary 

RPS Australia East (RPS) was commissioned by Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (Wambo) to 

undertake the annual ecological monitoring program for their Remnant Woodland 

Enhancement Program (RWEP). The RWEP was established to offset land disturbed by 

open cut coal mining. HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd initially established the annual flora and 

fauna monitoring program in 2006 (HLA 2007a, b). RPS has undertaken the monitoring 

program in 2007 (RPS Harper Somers O’Sullivan 2007), 2008 (RPS Harper Somers 

O’Sullivan 2009), 2009 (RPS 2010), 2010 (RPS 2011) and 2011 (this report). 

Flora monitoring identified 266 flora species across 34 flora quadrats. Based on these 

observations, the current management practices within the RWEP areas of Wambo Coal 

Mine is appropriate for the conservation of flora species. Variation evident in the results 

from the six years of monitoring is most likely related to natural variation in species 

distribution, natural variation in species abundance and variation inherent in the sampling 

design, and not due to current management practices. There was no evidence to suggest 

that current management practices or mining activity was having any effect on the flora 

species within the RWEP areas of Wambo Coal Mine. 

While no Swift Parrots (Lathamus discolor) or Regent Honeyeaters (Anthochaera phrygia) 

were identified during targeted winter bird surveys, annual surveys for these species 

should continue into the future, particularly during years of heavy eucalypt blossom when 

either or both species may occur on Wambo Coal land. 

Diurnal bird monitoring identified a total of 126 bird species across 26 survey sites and 

opportunistically, including nine threatened species. Current management practises within 

the RWEP areas of Wambo Coal Mine appear to be appropriate for the conservation of 

bird species. Variation evident in the results across the years of monitoring is most likely 

related to natural variation in species diversity, natural variation in species abundance and 

variation inherent in the sampling design, and not to current management practises. 

One Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), which is listed as Vulnerable under the NSW 

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), responded during call playback 

surveys. Owl species targeted by call playback also included Masked Owl (Tyto 

novaehollandiae), Barking Owl (Ninox connivens) and Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa). Due 

to the large home range area of the target owl species, which each have a home range in 

the vicinity of or greater than 1000 hectares and the relatively few (four) call playback 

sessions undertaken each year it is not unexpected that threatened owls species are 

rarely detected. 

Spotlighting surveys identified the Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) as 

the most common arboreal mammal species in RWEP areas of the Wambo Coal Mine. 

Across five years of annual monitoring only four arboreal mammal species have been 

identified. The Common Brushtail Possum was identified each year and the Sugar Glider 

(Petaurus breviceps) was recorded for the first time in 2011. The threatened Yellow- 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Final Report, May 2012 Page i

ellied Glider (P. australis) and Squirrel Glider (P. norfolcensis) were recorded for the first 

time in 2010. Both species are listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act. 

Amphibian species were recorded at their highest abundance to date with 13 species 

being identified. Three species of reptile were recorded which is the lowest abundance 

from all survey years. 

Ten microbat species were positively identified with four being listed as Vulnerable under 

the TSC Act, namely the Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), Little Bentwing Bat 

(Miniopterus australis), Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) and 

Yellow-Bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolarimus flaviventris). 

There is no evidence to suggest that current management practices or mining activities 

are having any negative impact on fauna species within the RWEP areas. 

Riparian monitoring identified Stoney Creek as being in good condition, and North Wambo 

and South Wambo Creeks in moderate condition. Current bank erosion problem areas are 

a result of historic land management practises, however, in the absence of current 

management will continue to degrade. Subsidence from mining practices was detected 

along North Wambo Creek during riparian assessments. Recommendations have been 

made to address problem erosion areas and to undertake other management actions that 

would lead to increased condition scores for all three creeks. 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Final Report, May 2012 Page ii

Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I 

1 INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 Site Location 1 

1.2 Qualifications and Licensing 3 

1.2.1 Qualifications 3 

1.2.2 Licensing 3 

1.2.3 Certification 3 

2 FLORA 4 

2.1 Methods 4 

2.1.1 Limitations of Flora Survey 5 

2.2 Results 7 

2.2.1 Overall Floristic Species Diversity 7 

2.2.2 Species Diversity within Quadrats 7 

2.2.3 Species Diversity within Vegetation Communities 10 

2.3 Discussion 12 

2.3.1 Species Diversity within Quadrats 12 

2.3.2 Introduced Species Percentage Composition 12 

2.3.3 Introduced Species Abundance 13 

2.4 Recommendations 14 

2.5 Conclusion 14 

3 FAUNA 15 

3.1 Methods 15 

3.1.1 Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater Winter Surveys 15 

3.1.2 Bird Surveys 15 

3.1.3 Owl and Nocturnal Fauna Call Playback 17 

3.1.4 Spotlighting 17 

3.1.5 Herpetofauna Surveys 17 

3.1.6 Bat Surveys 18 

3.2 Results 18 



3.2.3 Owl Call Playback 22 


3.2.5 Herpetological Surveys 23 





3.3.3 Owl Call Playback 26 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Final Report, May 2012 Page iii


3.3.5 Herpetological Surveys 26 



4 RIPARIAN MONITORING 29 

4.1 Methods 29 

4.2 Results 30 

4.2.1 South Wambo Creek 33 

4.2.2 North Wambo Creek 33 

4.2.3 Stoney Creek 34 

4.2.4 Overall Riparian Condition 35 

4.2.5 Annual Riparian Condition Photographs 35 


4.4 Recommendations 36 


5 REFERENCES 37 

Figures 

Figure 1-1: Wambo Coal Mine Site Locality .................................................................................................. 2 

Figure 2-1: Locations of Flora Monitoring Plots ............................................................................................. 6 

Figure 2-2: Native and Exotic Diversity for Each Monitoring Plot .................................................................. 9 

Figure 2-3: Percentage of Native Diversity of Plots (2006 - 2011) .............................................................. 10 

Figure 2-4: Average Native Species Count and Introduced Species Percentage per Vegetation 

Community ................................................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 3-1: Fauna Survey Effort .................................................................................................................. 16 

Figure 3-2: Number of Bird Species Recorded per Site. ............................................................................. 21 

Figure 3-3: Number of Sites per Species (all other species were recorded at less than four sites). .......... 22 

Figure 3-4: Total Number of Each Species Recorded Across All Sites (all other species were 

recorded with less than six individuals across all sites). .............................................................. 22 

Figure 4-1: Riparian Transect Condition Scores ......................................................................................... 31 

Figure 4-2: Riparian Section Condition Scores ........................................................................................... 32 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Final Report, May 2012 Page iv

Tables 

Table 2-1:Total Number of Flora Species Recorded Each Year ................................................................... 7 

Table 2-2: Flora Diversity within Plots .......................................................................................................... 8 

Table 3-1: Number of reptile and frog species recorded over the four years of monitoring ........................ 26 

Table 5-1: North Wambo Creek Riparian Section Condition Scores .......................................................... 97 

Table 5-2: Stoney Creek Riparian Condition Scores ................................................................................... 98 

Table 5-3: South Wambo Creek Riparian Condition Scores ....................................................................... 99 

Table 5-4: 2011 Stoney Creek Riparian Condition Photographs Compared with 2010 Photographs ......101 

Table 5-5: 2011 South Wambo Creek Riparian Condition Photographs compared to 2010 photos.........104 

Table 5-6: 2011 North Wambo Riparian Condition Photographs compared with 2010 Photographs .......107 

Appendices 

APPENDIX A 

Flora Diversity Results 

APPENDIX B 

Flora Quadrat Data 

APPENDIX C 

Introduced Flora Species 

APPENDIX D 

Fauna Species List 

APPENDIX E 

Riparian Condition Assessment Field Proforma 

APPENDIX F 

Riparian Condition Scores 

APPENDIX G 

Riparian Condition Photographs 

APPENDIX H 

Staff Qualifications 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Final Report, May 2012 Page v

1 Introduction 

RPS Australia East (RPS) was commissioned by Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (Wambo) to 

undertake the annual ecological monitoring program for their Remnant Woodland 

Enhancement Program (RWEP). The RWEP was established to offset land disturbed by 

open cut coal mining. HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd initially established the annual flora and 

fauna monitoring program in 2006. RPS has undertaken the monitoring program in 2007 

(RPS Harper Somers O’Sullivan 2007), 2008 (RPS Harper Somers O’Sullivan 2009), 

2009 (RPS 2010), 2010 (RPS 2011) and 2011 (this report). 

The annual monitoring program comprises: 

• Flora Monitoring; 

• Fauna Monitoring, comprising; 

» Winter bird surveys targeting Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater; 

» Diurnal bird surveys; 

» Owl call playback surveys; 

» Spotlighting surveys; 

» Micro-bat surveys; and 

» Opportunistic recording of all guilds of fauna during surveys. 

• Riparian Condition Monitoring. 

1.1 Site Location 

Wambo is located within the Singleton Local Government Area and is approximately 15 

km west of the township of Singleton. The open cut workings are located in the north of 

the site with a mixture of pasture-covered grazing land and native vegetation comprising 

the remainder of the site. Figure 1-1 shows the regional location of the site. 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Final Report, May 2012 Page 1

1.2 Qualifications and Licensing 

1.2.1 Qualifications 

The principal authors of this report were Lauren Vanderwyk, Andrew Smith and Paul 

Hillier, with input from Toby Lambert, Chris McLean and Rob Sansom. The document was 

reviewed by Toby Lambert. The academic qualifications and professional experience of all 

RPS ecologists involved in the project are documented in Appendix I. 

1.2.2 Licensing 

Research was conducted under the following licences: 

• NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Scientific Investigation Licence S100536 

(Valid 31 December 2012); 

• Animal Research Authority (Trim File No: 01/1142) issued by NSW Agriculture (Valid 

12 March 2012); 

• Animal Care and Ethics Committee Certificate of Approval (Trim File No: 01/1142) 

issued by NSW Agriculture (Valid 12 March 2013); and 

• Certificate of Accreditation of a Corporation as an Animal Research Establishment 

(Trim File No: 01/1522 & Ref No: AW2001/014) issued by NSW Agriculture (Valid 22 

May 2014). 

1.2.3 Certification 

As the principal author, I, Toby Lambert make the following certification: 

The results presented in the report are, in the opinion of the principal author and certifier, 

a true and accurate account of the species recorded, or considered likely to occur within 

the site. 

Principal Author and Certifier: 

Toby Lambert 

Senior Ecologist – Senior Project Manager 

RPS Australia East 

May 2012 


2 Flora 

2.1 Methods 

In 2011, a total of 34 permanent flora quadrats (20m x 20m) were surveyed (see Figure 

2-1), comprising 32 quadrats sampled in 2010 plus two new relocated quadrats in 2011 

due to a creek diversion. The vegetation surveys were conducted between late October to 

early December 2011. 

The relocated quadrats were previously called V6-A1c and V6-A3, and were located 

north-east of and within RWEP Area C respectively. At the request of Lachlan Crawford of 

Wambo Coal Pty Ltd ,the quadrats were relocated to a new part Area C (V6-A1c) and 

within the Analogue Area east of Area C (V6-A3). These two quadrats occur within 

Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Grey Box / Bulloak / Honeymyrtle Forest. The replacement of these 

sites has meant that data can only be analysed for the 2011 survey for these sites. 

During the 2010 flora surveys, five flora plots (V1-A1, V1-A2, V1-B1, V1-B2 & V1-B3) 

were moved from within the channel of Wollombi Brook to the banks of the Brook as per 

the recommendation in the 2009 report. All of these quadrats occur within River Oak / 

Rough-barked Apple Forest. This has meant that data can only be analysed for the 2010 

and 2011 surveys for these sites. In addition, a new quadrat was added to RWEP Area D 

in 2010 bringing the total number of permanent flora quadrats in Area D to two. The new 

quadrat in Area D was added at the request of Wambo Coal Pty Ltd. 

Changes to quadrat numbers and locations were undertaken with due consideration given 

to obtaining improved sampling, both within individual RWEP areas, as well as within each 

mapped vegetation community occurring within the survey areas. As such, analysis of the 

data has been applied to monitoring both within quadrats and within vegetation community 

types. 

The following parameters were collected in accordance with Table 8 of the Wambo Coal 

Flora and Fauna Management Plan: 

• Flora species diversity; 

» Total number of flora species; 

» Number and percent of native flora species; and 

» Number and percent of introduced flora species. 

• Flora species abundance (modified Braun-Blanquet 1-6 (Braun-Blanquet 1982)). 

Specimens of plant species which could not be identified within the field were collected 

and identified according to nomenclature in Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 & 2002). 

Figure 2-1 shows the location of the 2011 flora plots. 


2.1.1 Limitations of Flora Survey 

Not all flora species occurring throughout the year are likely to be detected during a 

survey undertaken once a year. For example cryptic orchids flower within certain seasons 

and cannot be detected at other times of the year. Also, vegetation structure and cover 

abundance was estimated visually and as a result there are likely varied levels of observer 

bias. This observer bias has been limited where possible by using guides and charts for 

measurements, where suitable. 


WARNING 





Legend 

Wambo Coal Land 

Ownership Boundary 

V10-A2 

RWEP Areas 

Flora Monitoring Plot 

V10-A1 

V10-B3 

D 

V11-B1 

V11-B2 

V6-B1c 

V6-B4 

V5-B4 

E 

V6-A1c 

V6-B2c 

V1-B3 

V2-B2 

V1-B1 

V2-B1 

V5-B2 

V5-B1 

V13-B1 

B 

V9-B2 

V14-B1 

V14-A1 

V14-B2 

V6-A3 

V1-B2 

V1-A1 

V3-B1 

V5-B3 

A 

V6-B1 

V6-B2 

V6-B3 

V10-B1 

V9-B1 

V1-A2 

V2-A1 

0 1 

SCALE: 1:30,000 AT A3 SIZE 

2km 

V9-A1 

TITLE: FIGURE 2-1 LOCATION OF FLORA 

LOCATION: WAMBO COAL MINE 


MONITORING PLOTS 

PROJECTION: MGA ZONE 56 

DATE: 

PURPOSE: 


REPORT FIGURE 

LAYOUT REF: J:\JOBS\Wambo\All Jobs\109410 Wambo AMR 2011\10- Drafting\Workspaces 

VERSION (PLAN BY): A A3 (AS-NW) 

Copyright 

"This document and the information shown shall remain the property of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. 

The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was supplied and in accordance with 

the terms of engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any way is prohibited." 

CLIENT: 

JOB REF: 


109410 



T: 02 4940 4200 F: 02 4961 6794 www.rpsgroup.com.au 

creativepeople 

making a difference

2.2 Results 

2.2.1 Overall Floristic Species Diversity 

A total of 266 flora species were recorded in 2011. Table 2-1 shows little overall change in 

the total number of species recorded within the RWEP areas and adjacent analogue sites 

since 2006. 

Table 2-1:Total Number of Flora Species Recorded Each Year 

Year No. of Plots 

Total No. of 

Species 

No. Native No. Exotics 

2011 34 266 210 56 (21%) 

2010 34 275 222 53 (19%) 

2009 33 249 167 82 (33%) 

2008 33 261 208 53 (20%) 

2007 31 292 233 59 (20%) 

2006 34 260 220 40 (15%) 

Appendix A shows a summary table of the results of the 2011 flora survey, listing the 

total number of species and the percentage of introduced species recorded in each 

quadrat. Appendix B lists the flora species recorded within each flora monitoring plot and 

the related Braun-Blanquet rating. 

The 2011 flora survey results are shown above as part of a comparison of data from the 

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 surveys (Table 2-1). Following is a summary of the 

changes in species diversity and introduced species composition across the quadrats and 

vegetation communities. 

2.2.2 Species Diversity within Quadrats 

Table 2-2 lists the vegetation communities sampled, total number of plants, and 

percentage of natives and exotic species within each flora monitoring plot. Figure 2-3 

illustrates the native and exotic diversity that was recorded within each flora monitoring 

plot. 

A total of 56 introduced species were recorded in 2011. Fireweed (Senecio 

madagascariensis*) was the most frequently recorded introduced species in 2011 and 

2010, occurring in 25 and 27 quadrats respectively. Prickly Pear (Opuntia stricta var. 

stricta*) were recorded at 22 and 13 sites respectively in 2011. Prickly Pear was observed 

at moderate densities in grassland areas in the western portion of RWEP area A. All 

individuals were less than half a metre in height and were scattered (rather than occurring 

in dense stands). 

Figure 2-2 shows that plots V1 and V2 (located along Wollombi Brook within the River 

Oak/Rough-barked Apple Forest and River Red Gum Woodland vegetation communities, 

respectively) are the two sample areas which have the highest weed infestation. This is 


similar to the results obtained in previous years. An investigation of the Braun Blanquet 

cover scores (Appendix B) shows that the V1 and V2 monitoring plots also have the 

highest overall densities of exotic species. Ground cover species, namely Heliotropium 

amplexicaule (Blue Heliotrope), Galenia pubescens (Galenia) and Senecio 

madagascariensis (Fireweed) account for the greatest densities within these areas. 

Table 2-2: Flora Diversity within Plots 

Vegetation Community 

Sampled 

River Oak / Rough-barked 

Apple Forest 

River Red Gum Woodland 

Yellow Box / Blakely’s Red 

Gum / Rough-barked Apple 

Forest 

Coast Banksia / Roughbarked 

Apple / Blakely’s 

Red Gum Forest 

(Warkworth Sands 

Woodland EEC) 

Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Grey 

Box / Bulloak / Honeymyrtle 

Forest 

Spotted Gum / Narrow-leaf 

Ironbark / Bulloak / 

Paperbark Forest 

Slaty Gum / Narrow-leaf 


Paperbark Forest 

Grey Gum / Narrow-leaf 


Honeymyrtle Forest 

White Mahogany / Roughbarked 

Apple Forest 

Brush Wilga/Native Olive 

Shrubland 

Flora 

Monitoring 

Plot 

Total 

No. 

Spp 

No. 

Native 

spp. 

% 

Natives 

No of 

exotic 

spp. 

% 

Exotics 

V1-A1 29 11 38 18 62 

V1-A2 27 11 41 16 59 

V1-B1 27 18 67 9 33 

V1-B2 23 15 65 8 35 

V1-B3 29 13 45 16 55 

V2-A1 23 7 30 16 70 

V2-B1 30 10 33 20 67 

V2-B2 32 16 50 16 50 

V3-B1 32 22 69 10 31 

V5-B1 35 26 74 9 26 

V5-B2 36 27 75 9 25 

V5-B3 31 28 90 3 10 

V5-B4 28 25 89 3 11 

V6-A1c 31 30 97 1 3 

V6-A3 21 21 100 0 0 

V6-B1 29 24 83 5 17 

V6-B1c 30 28 93 2 7 

V6-B2 36 32 89 4 11 

V6-B2c 36 33 92 3 8 

V6-B3 40 34 85 6 15 

V6-B4 11 8 73 3 27 

V9-A1 31 29 94 2 6 

V9-B1 40 37 93 3 8 

V9-B2 37 34 92 3 8 

V10-A1 36 31 86 5 14 

V10-A2 42 35 83 7 17 

V10-B2 33 32 97 1 3 

V10-B3 29 27 93 2 7 

V11-B1 30 28 93 2 7 

V11-B2 36 33 92 3 8 

V13-B1 59 50 85 9 15 

V14-A1 36 26 72 10 28 

V14-B1 37 31 84 6 16 

V14-B2 44 40 91 4 9 


Figure 2-2: Native and Exotic Diversity for Each Monitoring Plot 

Figure 2-3 below illustrates changes in the percentages of native species diversity within 

the monitoring plots. Since 2006, most plots have shown an overall small decrease in 

native species percentage, with the greatest decrease being within V2-B1 going from 50% 

native species diversity in 2006 to 33% in 2011. Whilst V14-A1 also had a notable 

decrease across the survey seasons (16% decrease), the percentage of native species 

diversity remains high at 84%. One monitoring plot, namely V5-B4, has had an equally 

large increase in the percentage of native species diversity, with an increase of 14% since 

monitoring began in 2008. 

Only one site has been recorded as consistently reducing in native species diversity 

percentage from season to season, namely V10-A1, however the actual percentage of 

native species diversity remains high at 86% in 2011. All other monitoring plots show 

mostly small variations in species diversity. 


Figure 2-3: Percentage of Native Diversity of Plots (2006 - 2011) 

2.2.3 Species Diversity within Vegetation Communities 

Figure 2-4 shows the average native species count and introduced species percentage for each 

vegetation community sampled for flora monitoring. All communities are seen to peak in native 

species diversity in 2007 and begin to fall thereafter. The White Mahogany / Rough-barked Apple 

Forest community begins to recover once more in 2009 and has remained relatively constant 

during the 2010 and 2011 survey. All remaining communities begin to either recover or stabilise 

between the 2010 and 2011 surveys. All communities have shown either an average increase in 

native species diversity or remained relatively constant, in comparison to results collected in 2006. 

The percentage of introduced species diversity has also remained constant and with little 

fluctuation for most communities. 


Figure 2-4: Average Native Species Count and Introduced Species Percentage per 



2.3 Discussion 

2.3.1 Species Diversity within Quadrats 

Variation in the number of species recorded in 2011 between quadrats is a factor of: 

• Within vegetation communities: 

» Differences in quadrat conditions, such as minor differences in aspect, slope, and 

soil type; 

» Inherent differences in the species composition of a single vegetation community 

throughout the community; and 

» Variation in the amount of rainfall at each quadrat. 

• Between vegetation communities: 

» The different species composition of different vegetation communities, generally 

as a result of different site characteristics, such as slope, aspect, soil type, etc. 

Variation in the number of species recorded across the five years of sampling is likely a 

factor of: 

• Seasonal conditions: 

» The increase in the number of species at all quadrats in 2007 is likely a result of a 

good season; 

» The general decrease in the number of species at quadrats in 2008 is likely a 

result of a poor season; and 

» Moderate to minor fluctuations in the number of species recorded in quadrats in 

2009, 2010 and 2011 are likely a result of moderate seasonal conditions. 

• The timing of surveys: 

» Cryptic species such as orchids have only a short flowering and detectable 

period. Surveys completed in different months or even weeks of the year are 

likely to detect a different range of cryptic species; 

» There is no evidence to suggest that the number of flora species at any quadrat 

are being affected by current mining practices; and 

» Current land management practices within the RWEP areas appear to be 

appropriate for the conservation of flora species diversity. 

2.3.2 Introduced Species Percentage Composition 

Variation in the introduced species percentage composition is likely due to: 

• Vegetation community/quadrat landform location. The three vegetation communities 

that recorded more than 25 percent of introduced species are all located within 

riparian locations where propagules (seeds and vegetative material) from weed 

species are easily distributed by moving water; 

• Variation in seasonal conditions from year to year; 


• Natural fluctuations in the abundance and distribution of introduced species from year 

to year; and 

• The timing of surveys from year to year. Annual introduced species may be detected 

in one month but not another. 

There is no evidence to suggest that the fluctuations recorded in the percentage 

composition of introduced species are due to any factor other than a combination of those 

listed above. 

2.3.3 Introduced Species Abundance 

Variation in the number of introduced species recorded in quadrats in 2011 is likely a 

result of the same factors affecting the number of all flora species, as discussed above in 

Section 2.3.1. 

• Fireweed: 

» The distribution of Fireweed has increased from six quadrats in 2006 to a peak of 

27 quadrats in 2010, but decreased to 24 quadrats in 2011; 

» The increase in abundance is likely due to a favourable season in 2007 when the 

species was recorded in 21 quadrats followed by the natural spread of the 

species by airborne seed dispersal; 

» At most sites Fireweed was recorded at a low density; and 

» Due to the low density of Fireweed at sites where it occurs, the small size of the 

plant and the absence of a species specific control measure (i.e. a species 

specific herbicide), no control actions are currently recommended for this 

species. 

• Prickly Pear: 

» The distribution of Prickly Pear has remained relatively constant from 2006 to 

2011 being recorded in 17 and 21 quadrats respectively; 

» At most quadrats Prickly Pear was recorded at moderately low densities; 

» The variation in the abundance of this weed species is likely due to natural 

variation in this species abundance, most likely as a result of the species 

interaction with the Cactoblastis moth (Cactoblastis cactorum); and 

» Although Prickly Pear occurs at moderate density in parts of RWEP area A 

(outside quadrats), no control measures are recommended as it is anticipated 

that the Cactoblastis moth will respond to the increased density through 

increased fecundity. It is expected that the density of Prickly Pear will decrease 

over the next two years. 

• Scarlet Pimpernel: 

» Like Fireweed, the Scarlet Pimpernel increased its distribution between 2007 and 

2010 from 9 to 15 quadrats respectively, however in 2011 a slight decrease in its 

distribution occurred, being recorded at 12 quadrats; 

» At most sites Scarlet Pimpernel was recorded at a low density; and 


» Due to the low density of Scarlet Pimpernel at sites where it occurs, the small 

size of the plant and the absence of a species specific control measure (i.e. a 

species specific herbicide), no control actions are currently recommended for this 

species. 

• Spot herbicide spraying for African Boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) was undertaken 

during 2010 along North Wambo Creek and had resulted in the death of almost all 

African Boxthorn plants. Assessments during 2011 have recorded that some African 

Boxthorn plants have started regrowing in some sections that were sprayed in 2010. 

It is recommended that secondary methods of bush regeneration be undertaken to 

ensure this species does not re-establish and increase its distribution across the 

study area. 

2.4 Recommendations 

The following recommendations are suggested to maintain the quality and diversity of 

flora species within the RWEP areas of Wambo Coal: 

• Continue the exclusion of domestic stock from RWEP areas; 

• Continue the annual flora monitoring program in future years; and 

• Undertake weed control measures wherever weed species occur at high densities 

(not all areas were covered during the annual monitoring program). 

2.5 Conclusion 

Current management practises within the RWEP areas of Wambo Coal Mine appear to be 

appropriate for the conservation of flora species. The recorded variation among the 

occurrence of flora species (both native and exotic) from the six years of monitoring can 

be possibly related to natural variation in species distribution, natural variation in species 

abundance and variation inherent in the sampling design, and not to current management 

practices. There was no evidence to suggest that current management practices or mining 

subsidence was having any effect on the flora species within the RWEP areas of Wambo 

Coal Mine. 


3 Fauna 

Fauna surveys consisted of five targeted survey types including: 

• Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) and Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) 

winter surveys; 

• Diurnal bird surveys; 

• Nocturnal owl call playback surveys; 

• Spotlighting surveys; and 

• Anabat ‘micro-bat’ surveys. 

In addition to the above targeted surveys, opportunistic reptile and frog surveys were also 

undertaken during all other survey activities. 

3.1 Methods 

Figure 3-1 shows the locations of the fauna survey points undertaken during 2011. 

3.1.1 Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater Winter Surveys 

Three targeted surveys for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater were undertaken on 

28 July, 12 August and 1 September 2011. Each survey comprised a single day of survey 

conducted by two ecologists for a total of 16 person hours of survey per day. Survey 

methodology comprised: 

• Searches for congregations of members of the Psittacidae (Parrots, Lorikeets and 

Rosellas) and Meliphagidae (Honeyeaters) families to indicate the presence of feed 

trees; 

• Searches for lorikeets and observation of their movements as an indication of 

localised occurrences of blossoming events; and 

• Opportunistic searches for threatened avian species. 

Surveys were undertaken throughout Remnant Woodland Enhancement Program 

(RWEP) areas (A–C). All existing vehicle tracks were surveyed during searches for the 

above possible indicators of suitable habitat areas for both target species. Opportunistic 

surveys were also undertaken while travelling throughout other areas of Wambo Coal 

Mine. During the surveys, special attention was given to identifying areas containing 

flowering eucalypt trees. 

3.1.2 Bird Surveys 

A total of 26 bird surveys were undertaken in 2011. 24 sites comprise all of those 

surveyed in 2010, whilst two sites (13 and 15) were moved due to works associated with 

the North Wambo Creek Diversion (NWCD) (see Figure 3-1 for survey site locations). 


WARNING 





Legend 

Owl Call Playback 






Anabat Detector 

D 

E 

E 






C 

Spotlighting Routes 






RWEP Areas 

Bird Survey Plots 

B 

A 

TITLE: FIGURE 3-1 FAUNA SURVEY EFFORT LOCATION: WAMBO COAL MINE 


PROJECTION: 

MGA ZONE 56 

DATE: 

PURPOSE: 


REPORT FIGURE 


VERSION (PLAN BY): 

A A3 (AS-NW) 

Copyright 

"Thi s d o cu m e n t a n d th e i nformation shown shall remain the property of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. 

The d o cument may only be used for the purpose for which it was supplied and in accordance with 

th e te rm s o f engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any way is prohibited." 

CLIENT: 

JOB REF: 


109410 





making a difference

Each site was a one hectare (100 m x 100 m) area that was surveyed for a 20 minute 

period. At each site the number of birds heard and observed directly was recorded. 

Species recorded outside the one hectare area were also recorded (although numbers 

could rarely be determined from calls alone). 

3.1.3 Owl and Nocturnal Fauna Call Playback 

Owl call playback surveys were conducted on five nights at four different locations (Figure 

3-1) enabling calls to be broadcast over those portions of the three RWEP areas 

considered most likely to represent potential habitat for forest owl and nocturnal fauna 

species. Forest owl surveys were also conducted opportunistically during spotlighting 

surveys. The nocturnal calls of the following species were played using a megaphone 

(10W rated output): 

• Barking Owl (Ninox connivens); 

• Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua); 

• Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae); 

• Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa); 

• Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis); and 

• Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis). 

This method of survey is considered the most appropriate for the detection of large forest 

owls (see Kavanagh and Peak 1993, Kavanagh et al 1995) with playback being 

considered audible for up to one kilometre on a still night (Kavanagh and Peak 1993). 

After listening for five minutes, the calls of the above species were broadcast for 

approximately four minutes each and were separated by a listening period of two minutes. 

At the end of each two minute listening period a brief spotlighting scan was made of 

surrounding trees for owls that had approached silently. At the completion of the final 

species call, a listening period of five minutes was undertaken and followed by a final 

spotlight scan of the surrounding trees. 

3.1.4 Spotlighting 

Spotlighting was undertaken across five nights by two people for a period of three hours 

each night (six person hours per night). One and a half hours was undertaken on foot 

(predominately along vehicle tracks) and the remaining 1.5 hours was undertaken from a 

slow moving 4WD. See Figure 3-1 for the location of spotlighting transects. 

Where water bodies were encountered during spotlighting or where frog species could be 

heard calling in close proximity, frog searches were undertaken around the margins of 

suitable water bodies. 

3.1.5 Herpetofauna Surveys 

Reptile species were recorded opportunistically during all ecological surveys throughout 

the day and frog surveys were undertaken when water bodies were encountered during 

spotlighting. 


3.1.6 Bat Surveys 

Nocturnal bat surveys were conducted at eight sites over five nights within RWEP areas. 

Anabat detectors were used to record the echolocation calls of micro-bats. For each of the 

five nights, two Anabat detectors were set for the entire night. Figure 3-1 shows the 

location of the Anabat detectors. All calls were analyzed by Anna McConville who has 

expertise in bat call recognition. 

3.2 Results 

A total of 162 fauna species were recorded during 2011 surveys, including 20 mammal, 

126 bird, three reptile and 13 amphibian species. Appendix D lists all fauna species 

recorded during survey activities. 


No Swift Parrots or Regent Honeyeaters were identified during winter bird surveys. 

Limited eucalypt blossom was recorded on Narrow-leafed Ironbark (Eucalyptus 

crebra)and Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis).. 

An additional nine threatened bird species were identified during the winter surveys. 

Appendix D lists all the bird species recorded during each survey and Figure 3-2 shows 

the location of threatened species recorded during all surveys in 2011. 


A total of 126 bird species were recorded during opportunistic surveys and from the 26 

bird survey locations. Seventy eight species were recorded from the 26 survey locations 

alone. The 2011 bird survey results are shown below as part of a comparison of data from 

the 2008, 2009 and 2010 surveys. Unfortunately most of the 2007 bird survey data was 

not collated in a format that allowed comparison with the more recent surveys. 

Total Species Diversity 

A comparison of the total number of bird species recorded across the four years identified 

the following: 

• The total number of species recorded has ranged between 66 and 86 species with 86 

being recorded in 2007, 66 in 2008, 84 in 2009, 69 in 2010 and 78 in 2011. 

Species Diversity within Sites 

A comparison of the total number of bird species recorded at each site from 2008 to 2011 

(see Figure 3-2) identified the following: 

• 2011 produced the median score (n=78) in species diversity across all surveys years 

to date; 

• The range of species recorded across all sites is between four and 28 species with an 

average of 7 species per site; 

• Six sites have shown the lowest, or equal lowest bird species richness since 2008; 

• Nine sites have shown the highest or equal highest bird species richness since 2008; 


and 

• two sites have showed a continual decline in bird species richness since 2008, 

namely sites 16 and 20. 

Species Diversity across Sites 

A comparison of the number of sites at which each species was recorded in 2011 (see 

Figure 3-3) identified the following: 

• Nine species were recorded across ten or more sites in 2011. The nine species in 

order of highest to lowest site presence was as follows: 

» Rufous Whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris) (n=16); 

» Yellow-faced Honeyeater (Lichenostomus chrysops) (n=15); 

» Australian Raven (Corvus coronoides) (n=14); 

» Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina) (n=13); 

» Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike (Coracina novaehollandiae) (n=12); 

» Weebill (Smicrornis brevirostris) (n=11); 

» Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus) (n=11); 

» Grey Butcherbird (Cracticus torquatus) (n=10); and 

» Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) (n=10). 

• The Rufous Whistler was recorded at 16 of the 26 sites (62% of sites) in 2011 which 

is a decrease where it was detected at 21 sites in 2010, representing a decline at 

18% of sites. 

• The Rufous Whistler had the highest presence across sites than any other bird 

species in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 (n=18, 21, 21 and 16 sites respectively); and 

• Almost half (49%) of bird recordings in 2011 were observed or heard at less than five 

sites. 


WARNING 





 

Legend 

Wambo Coal Land 

Ownership Boundary 

RWEP Areas 

Threatened Species 

 

Brown Treecreeper 

Grey-crowned Babbler 

Hooded Robin 

D 

E 

Rail Loop 

Little Lorikeet 

Powerful Owl 

Speckled Warbler 

Varied Sitella 

C 

Bats 

Eastern Bentwing-bat 

Large-eared Pied Bat 

LittleBentwing-bat 

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat 

 

B 

A 

0 

1 

2km 

SCALE: 1:30,000 AT A3 SIZE 

TITLE: FIGURE 3-2 THREATENED SPECIES LOCATIONS LOCATION: WAMBO COAL MINE 


PROJECTION: MGA ZONE 56 

DATE: 

PURPOSE: 


REPORT FIGURE 



Copyright 

"This document and the information shown shall remain the property of RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. 

The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was supplied and in accordance with 

the terms of engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any way is prohibited." 

CLIENT: 

JOB REF: 


109410 





making a difference

Species Abundance in 2011 

This year is the third year to have included individual counts of bird species during the 

annual monitoring surveys. A comparison of the number of individuals recorded across all 

sites (see Figure 3-4) identified the following: 

• The Yellow-faced Honeyeater was the most abundant species, with 30 individuals 

recorded; 

• Seven species were recorded on more than 20 occasions. The seven species were 

the: 

» Yellow-faced Honeyeater (Lichenostomus chrysops) (n=30); 

» White-winged Chough (Corcorax melanorhamphos) (n=24). 

» Superb Fairy Wren (Malurus cyaneus) (n=23); 

» Australian Raven (Corvus coronoides) (n=22); 

» Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina) (n=21); 

» Rufous Whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris) (n=20); and 

» Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) (n=20). 

• 69 species were recorded on less than ten occasions. 

Figure 3-2: Number of Bird Species Recorded per Site. 


Figure 3-3: Number of Sites per Species (all other species were recorded at less than four 

sites). 

Figure 3-4: Total Number of Each Species Recorded Across All Sites (all other species were 

recorded with less than six individuals across all sites). 

3.2.3 Owl Call Playback 

One target owl species, namely the Powerful Owl responded to the call playback of its 

own call. The Powerful Owl is listed as Vulnerable under the NSW Threatened Species 

Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). No other target species responded to their calls, 

however, a Southern Boobook Owl (Ninox novaeseelandiae) was recorded during 

spotlighting surveys. Three other non-threatened nocturnal birds, the Tawny Frogmouth 


(Podargus strigoides), Nankeen Night Heron (Nycticorax caledonicus) and Australian 

Owlet Nightjar (Aegotheles cristatus), were recorded during spotlighting surveys. 


Spotlighting surveys produced results from the mammal, bird and amphibian guilds. One 

threatened species was recorded during spotlighting surveys, namely the Grey-headed 

Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the TSC Act and 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This species 

was recorded on two separate survey occasions. 

Across the five nights of spotlighting surveys, a total of nine Common Brushtail Possums 

(Trichosurus vulpecula) were recorded, a significant decrease from the 65 individuals that 

were recorded in 2010. 

Non-threatened species recorded during spotlighting surveys included the Eastern Grey 

Kangaroo (Macropus giganteus), Red-necked Wallaby (Macrpous rufogriseus), Sugar 

Glider (Petaurus breviceps) and Wallaroo (Macropus robustus). Two non-native species, 

namely the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and domestic Dog (Canis lupus familiaris) were also 

recorded during spotlighting surveys. 

3.2.5 Herpetological Surveys 

Three reptile species were recorded opportunistically during ecological surveys in 2011 

(See Appendix D). These are the Tree Skink (Egernia striolata), Lace Monitor (Varanus 

varius) and Delicate Garden Skink (Lampropholis delicata). 

A total of 13 frog species were recorded during searches of water bodies as part of 

spotlighting surveys and opportunistically throughout other field surveys. Five species 

were commonly recorded, namely the Spotted Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes tasmaniensis), 

Smooth Toadlet (Uperoleia laevigata), Dwarf Green Tree Frog (Litoria fallax), Broadpalmed 

Frog (Litoria latopalmata) and Peron’s Tree Frog (Litoria peronii). The Ornate 

Burrowing Frog (Platyplectrum ornatum) was recorded once along a roadside. The 

remaining species were recorded infrequently during searches of water bodies. 


A total of 10 microbat species were positively identified during 2011 surveys. Four of 

these species, namely the Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), Little Bent-wing 

Bat (Miniopterus australis), Eastern Bent-wing Bat (Minioprterus schreibersii oceansis) 

and Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) are listed as Vulnerable under 

the TSC Act. These species were recorded at three, one, one and three sites, 

respectively. The Large-eared Pied Bat is also listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. 

There was variation in the number of calls recorded from the four threatened species with 

the Large-eared Pied bat being recorded 160 times, Little Bentwing Bat once, Eastern 

Bent-wing Bat once and Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat 17 times. 


An additional species, namely the Western Broad-nosed Bat (Scotorepens balstoni), was 

analysed as a ‘Probable’ recording (meaning that the unique call ‘signature’ could not be 

definitely assigned to the species) across three separate sites. 



Targeted winter bird surveys for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater during 2008, 

2009, 2010 and 2011 have failed to identify either species. Each year a limited foraging 

resource of few eucalypt blossoms during winter was observed, which reduced the 

chances of either species migrating to the area. Due to each species highly nomadic 

movement patterns, the failure to record either species does not suggest that they could 

not occur at Wambo Coal Mine. When years of heavy eucalypt blossom do occur, either 

species may occur in response to the presence of an increased foraging resource. 


The 2011 survey recorded the average number of bird species, when compared to all 

other survey seasons, including the Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera) and Varied 

Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) (see Plate 1 and 2). Nine of the 26 sites recorded the 

highest number of bird species compared to any other year. Conversely six sites recorded 

their lowest species richness score since 2008, however just two of these sites have 

recorded decreasing numbers of bird species in the four consecutive years of data. It may 

be however that this decline is due to variation from a combination of a number of factors, 

as opposed to localised population decreases in specific bird species. The variation in the 

number of species recorded each year may partly be attributed to any of the below 

factors: 

• Natural variability in the number of bird species at a site during any 20 minute period; 

• Variability in seasonal conditions across the four years of sampling; 

• Variation in the number of sites sampled each year (ranged from 22 to 26); 

• Variability in the time of year of surveys; 

• Variability in the time of day of surveys; and 

• Observer bias. Likely variation in the skill level of observers across the four years has 

likely resulted in an unknown level of variability in the total number of species 

recorded. 

The variability in the number of bird species recorded at each site is likely due to a 

combination of the above factors and as such is a result of variability inherent in 

undertaking a single brief survey at each site. 


Plate 1. Male Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera) 

Plate 2. Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera). Vulnerable under the TSC Act. 


3.3.3 Owl Call Playback 

No threatened owl species were recorded during the 2007 and 2010 annual surveys. The 

Powerful Owl was recorded once in 2008 and in 2011 while the Masked Owl was 

recorded once in 2009. Due to the large home range area of the target owl species and 

the relatively few (four) call playback sessions undertaken each year, it is not unexpected 

that threatened owls species are rarely detected. 

The Tawny Frogmouth and Australian Owlet Nightjar were recorded during spotlighting 

surveys in all five years. Both species were recorded in low numbers and appear to be 

present at a relatively low density. 


Spotlighting surveys recorded one threatened species, the Grey-headed Flying-fox, and 

various non-threatened species during 2011. There was a noticeable difference in 

Common Brush-tail Possum abundance between 2010 results and 2011 results (n=65 and 

n=9 respectively). This difference could be due to seasonal variability, resource availability 

during survey periods that limit on site presence or it could indicate an early population 

decline. Declines of this species have occurred across much of Australia, including a large 

area of the central western slopes of New South Wales, including the Pilliga forests (Kerle 

2004). While the declines at the study area may be due to natural declines such as 

predation by Powerful Owl, due to the recorded declines in other areas it is recommended 

that future monitoring work to continue for Common Brushtail Possum. 

Spotlighting surveys have shown to detect non-targeted nocturnal species such as the 

Australian Owlet-nightjar and Tawny Frogmouth regularly and encompass multiple fauna 

guilds within the results. 

3.3.5 Herpetological Surveys 

Table 3-1 shows the number of reptile and amphibian species recorded over the five 

years of monitoring, including the Green Tree Frog (Litoria caerulea) (Plate 3). 

Table 3-1: Number of reptile and frog species recorded over the four years of monitoring 

Year No. Of Reptile Species No. Of Frog Species 

2007 8 12 

2008 8 9 

2009 5 6 

2010 10 10 

2011 3 13 

The level of variation in the number of reptile and frog species recorded during the four 

years of sampling is most likely a result of variation in seasonal conditions across the 

years. Additionally variable weather conditions and dates of survey (months of year) are 

likely to have caused variation in the number of species recorded. 


Plate 3. Green Tree Frog (Litoria caerulea) 


Surveys conducted in 2011 produced similar results to 2010 bat surveys. With 10 and 11 

microbat species being positively recorded in 2011 and 2010 respectively and both years 

containing four threatened species, the results are consistent. Recordings analysed as 

‘Probable’ included only 1 and 2 extra species for 2011 and 2010 respectively. 

Of the threatened species positively recorded the two that were recorded in both years, 

the Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobous dwyeri) and Eastern Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus 

schreibersii oceanensis), are cave dwelling species that forage in woodlands and forests. 

The Little Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus australis) and Yellow-bellied Sheat-tail Bat 

(Saccolaimus flaviventris) were recorded in 2011 but not in 2010 whereas the Eastern 

False Pipstrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis) and Eastern Freetail Bat (Mormopterus 

norfolkensis) were recorded in 2010 and not in 2011. These species primarily roost in tree 

hollows or under decorticating bark and forage for insects throughout woodland and forest 

vegetation. 

Of the data that were analysed as ‘Probable’ in 2011, eight species were recorded with 

three listed as threatened, while 2010 recorded eleven ‘Probable’ species including six 

threatened species. 

All positively recorded threatened species fall into their geographical distributions 

according to Law et al. (2011). 



While no Swift Parrots or Regent Honeyeaters have been identified during targeted winter 

bird surveys, annual surveys for these species should continue into the future, particularly 

during years of heavy eucalypt blossom when either or both species may occur on 

Wambo Coal land. 

Current management practices observed within the RWEP areas of Wambo Coal Mine 

are appropriate for the conservation of bird species. Variation evident in the results from 

four to five years of monitoring is most likely related to natural variation in species 

diversity, natural variation in species abundance and variation inherent in the sampling 

design, and not to current management practises. 

Due to the large home range area of the target owl species and the relatively few (five) 

call playback sessions undertaken each year, it is not unexpected that threatened owls 

species are rarely detected. However, one threatened Owl, the Powerful Owl, was 

successfully detected during 2011 annual surveys. 

Spotlighting surveys identified the Common Brushtail Possum as the most common 

arboreal mammal species in RWEP areas of Wambo Coal Mine, however, there has been 

a noticeable decline from 2010 to 2011, which may be of conservation concern due to 

declines in other non-urban areas (Kerle 2004). Across five years of annual monitoring 

only four arboreal mammal species have been identified. The Common Brushtail Possum 

was identified each year, the Yellow-bellied Glider and Squirrel Glider were recorded for 

the first time in 2010 and the Sugar Glider was recorded for the first time during 2011. 

Amphibian recordings for 2011 were the highest yet, highlighting the diversity of this fauna 

group across the study site. Reptile abundance was lowest this year; however, there are 

various factors contributing to this result as discussed previously. Ongoing monitoring will 

allow for further observations and recordings to be made across the study site. 

Consistent data over two years of surveys is a positive outlook for threatened microbat 

species. Ongoing monitoring will provide significant data on the persistence of these 

species and continue to illustrate any fluctuations of species diversity across the study 

site. 


4 Riparian Monitoring 

4.1 Methods 

Riparian assessments were undertaken by repeating methods defined by HLA (2007) 

which included taking pedestrian based surveys along sections of North Wambo Creek, 

South Wambo Creek and Stoney Creek utilising field sheets to give an overall rating of 

creek health. 

Pedestrian based surveys were undertaken over four days including the 7th, 10th, 11th 

and 22nd November 2011. Two types of transect were assessed for each of the three 

streams, these were: 

• Cross sectional – A marked single line transect across the width of the stream from 

bank to bank, hereafter referred to as ‘transects’; and 

• Longitudinal – An unmarked transect along the length of the creek between two 

transects, hereafter referred to as ‘sections’. 

Transect and section locations were established in the field by HLA (2007) and comprise 

the length of underground workings, plus at least one site beyond each end of the 

underground workings. 

Two types of riparian monitoring were undertaken – bed and bank stability monitoring, and 

riparian vegetation monitoring. 

Bed and Bank stability 

Bed and bank stability monitoring is undertaken by surveying consultants who undertake 

replicate surveys of the three creeks to measure areas of significant erosion and to 

identify changes related to water flow. A written assessment was completed of any areas 

of significant erosion, bare soil and visible subsidence along each creek line. 

Riparian Vegetation Monitoring 

The effects of subsidence and erosion on riparian vegetation were monitored by repetitive 

sampling of established permanent transects by assessing: 

• The current erosion status of transects and sections; 

• Photographing each transect site and any areas of significant erosion or subsidence 

impacts; and 

• Quantifying vegetative structure and species composition for each transect by: 

» Completing visual assessment field sheets (see Appendix E) of weighted 

riparian vegetation characteristics to give an overall rating. Riparian vegetation 

components assessed included: 

• Overstorey characteristics; 

• Understorey characteristics; 


• Ground cover characteristics; 

• Introduced species presence; 

• Feral animal activity; 

• Surface stability; 

• Riparian microhabitat presence; and 

• Disturbance levels. 

» Visual assessment field sheets were updated in 2010 and 2011 to remove 

inconsistencies in the weighting of scores. Negative attributes were given 

negative scores in 2010 and 2011. 

» Due to the change in the weighting of scores in 2010 and 2011, comparison 

between 2010 and 2011 results and previous results cannot be made. 

Field Sheet Scoring System 

Transects and sections are awarded different colours according to their total score 

condition rating. Sites ranked as poor are colour coded red, moderate as yellow, good as 

green, and excellent as blue. The maximum possible score is 54 and the minimum 

possible score is -51. Total score categories are as follows: 

• Greater than 33 – Excellent condition (blue); 

• 28 to 33 – Good condition (green); 

• 14 to 27 – Moderate condition (yellow); 

• Less than 14 – Poor condition (red). 

The above condition rating score ranges are not equally weighted and were determined 

by an assessment of the maximum possible score for each assessed component at each 

condition level. 

Poor condition sites are likely to be highly degraded and/or missing significant vegetation 

structural components. Active management would likely be required to improve the scores 

of poor condition sites. Moderate condition sites are considered relatively satisfactory and 

require varying degrees of land management (to be considered on a site by site basis). 

Good condition sites are considered in relatively good health and may only require 

maintenance works such as weed control. Excellent condition sites are considered 

unlikely to require any maintenance. 

4.2 Results 

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the results of the riparian condition assessments along South 

Wambo Creek, North Wambo Creek and Stoney Creek. Appendix F lists the individual 

transect and section scores for each creek line. Appendix G shows the 2011 photographs 

of each transect site. 


WARNING 





Legend 

Excellent Condition 

Good Condition 

Satisfactory Condition 

Poor Condition 

Drainage Line 

1A 

2A 

3A 

4A 

WAMBO COAL MINE 

5A 

6A 

7A 

8A 

9A 

10A 

11A 

North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North North Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek 

12A 

13A 

14A 

15A 

1C 

2C 

3C 

4C 


Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Stoney Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek 

5C 

4B 

5B 

1B 

2B 

3B 

South South Wambo Wambo Creek 

Creek 

0 1 

SCALE: 1: 25,000 AT A4 SIZE 

2km 

Copyright 

"This document and the information shown shall remain the property of 

RPS Australia East Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purpose 

for which it was supplied and in accordance with the terms of engagement for 

the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any way is prohibited." 

TITLE: FIGURE 4-1 SURVEY TRANSECT LOCATION: WAMBO 


LOCATIONS 

MGA ZONE 56 

PROJECTION: 

DATE: 

PURPOSE: 


REPORT FIGURE 

LAYOUT REF: 

J:\JOBS\Wambo\All Jobs\109410 Wambo 

AMR 2011\10- Drafting\Workspaces 


CLIENT: 

JOB REF: 


109410 



T: 02 4940 4200 F: 02 4961 6794 www.rpsgroup.com.au

4.2.1 South Wambo Creek 

South Wambo Creek was dominated by moderate transect and section condition scores. 

Transects 

The five transects along South Wambo Creek were in moderate condition. Data from 2010 

showed two sites in the poor condition category whereas results from 2011 have improved 

to all be considered as moderate. Moderate condition transects generally consist of: 

• A low sparse understorey layer containing some weed species; 

• A moderately diverse canopy layer; 

• A species poor ground cover layer with increasing areas of bare soil and decreasing 

areas of foliage cover; 

• The presence of rabbits; 

• A lack of disturbance factors; 

• The presence of minor stream bank erosion and minor sedimentation evidence; and 

• The presence of some riparian microhabitat features. 

Sections 

Three out of four sections along South Wambo Creek were found to be in moderate 

condition with the fourth being in good condition. South Wambo Creek condition scores 

were typically characterised by: 

• A moderately species diverse canopy layer; 

• A low and sparse understorey layer containing some weed species; 

• A relatively poor species ground cover layer with increasing areas of bare soil and 

decreasing areas of foliage cover; 

• A high diversity of weeds; 

• The presence of rabbits; 

• The presence of some riparian microhabitat features; and 

• A lack of other disturbance factors. 

4.2.2 North Wambo Creek 

North Wambo Creek was dominated by moderate transect and section condition scores. 

Transects 

Thirteen of the 15 transects along North Wambo Creek were found to be in moderate 

condition. One transect was in excellent condition with a score of 34 while the remaining 

transect was in poor condition with a score of only four. North Wambo Creek transect 

condition scores were typically characterised by: 

• A mature but species poor canopy of moderate density; 

• A sparse and short ground cover layer; 


• A relatively high number of weed species; 

• Some areas of gully and stream erosion; 

• The presence of rabbits at some sites; and 


North Wambo Creek Transect 4 was in poor condition scoring only four. Transect 4 lacked 

both canopy and understorey layers and was essentially a grassland containing many 

weed species. However, while scoring only four, Transect 4 had high ground cover and 

lacked any areas of erosion and most disturbance factors (rabbits were present). 

Sections 

The sections along North Wambo Creek were almost evenly divided between moderate 

and good condition (n=8 and n=6 respectively). North Wambo Creek transect moderate 

condition scores were typically characterised by: 

• A mature canopy of moderate species diversity and density; 

• Some weed species in the understorey; 

• A complete ground cover of grasses, although containing some weed species; 

• The presence of rabbits at some sites; 

• Some areas of gully and stream erosion; and 


In comparison to the moderate condition sites the good and excellent sections along North 

Wambo Creek typically showed: 

• An reduced presence of weed species in the canopy, understorey and ground cover 

layers; and 

• A higher presence of riparian microhabitat features. 

4.2.3 Stoney Creek 

Stoney Creek comprised excellent transect and section scores where sites were within 

remnant forest vegetation, and good and moderate scores for sites adjacent to or lacking 

remnant forest vegetation. 

Transects 

Stoney Creek transect scores ranged from excellent in the upper reaches of the creek line 

to moderate along the middle section of the creek line with the lower more disturbed parts 

of the creek line being in good condition. The presence of a significant canopy layer, a 

general lack of weed species and the absence of feral animals were the key differences 

between the excellent scoring transects and those considered to be good and moderate 

along Stoney Creek. While the condition score varied, all transects along Stoney Creek 

lacked areas of erosion. 


Sections 

Stoney Creek sections scores also ranged from excellent in the upper reaches of the 

creek line to good and moderate along the lower more disturbed parts of the creek line. 

Excellent scores resulted from an increased number of ground cover species, the 

presence of a litter layer and an absence of feral animal species. Three of the four 

sections along Stoney Creek recorded minor levels of erosion. 

4.2.4 Overall Riparian Condition 

The overall condition of the riparian sites based on average calculations is moderate and 

good condition. Stoney Creek is identified as being in good condition while both North 

Wambo Creek and South Wambo Creek are in moderate condition. 

4.2.5 Annual Riparian Condition Photographs 

In 2011 four photographs were taken at each riparian transect, with individual 

photographs showing the left bank, right bank, upstream channel and downstream 

channel. Appendix G shows the photographs from the 2011 riparian condition 

assessment. Riparian condition photographs during previous years were varied in their 

location, typically showing areas of problem erosion. 


Both South Wambo and North Wambo creeks are historically deeply eroded creek lines, 

up to four to five metres deep in some parts. Stoney Creek is a shallow narrow creek in 

the upper sections and a wide and historically deeply eroded creek in the lower parts. 

Past land management practices (presumably land clearing during European settlement) 

have resulted in all three creeks being present as deeply eroded channels. Today all three 

are essentially grass covered channels with scattered or remnant tree cover and some 

areas of minor or moderate erosion. 

All three creeks contain some scattered areas of active erosion typically present as 

eroding or collapsing banks. These areas of erosion and collapsing banks do not appear 

to be a result of current land management practices however there is little evidence of 

current land management practices to reduce or eliminate the erosion that is occurring. 

Where possible, remedial works to repair eroded banks or tree planting to help stabilise 

banks, should be undertaken. 

Two common causes for reductions in condition scores were the presence of weeds and 

the presence of rabbits. Selective spraying of Lycium ferocissimum (African Boxthorn) and 

Olea europaea subspecies cuspidata (African Olive) had been undertaken extensively 

throughout 2011. However, these species are continuing to germinate and spread 

throughout the riparian areas. In addition, a large percentage of the ground cover 

vegetation is composed of introduced exotic species. While these species appear to be 

outcompeting native ground cover species, they provide protection for the soil from 

erosion and should only be removed when successional native species are planted and 

have become established. 


Management to control the number and presence of rabbits along the creeks would 

increase the stability of banks and result in increased condition scores. 

Impacts from mining subsidence were found along North Wambo creek. Rock formations 

at the base of the creek bed experienced both compression and expansion as a result of 

subsidence. Natural fault lines within the rock as well as solid rock segments experienced 

expansion within a range of 6–20 mm. 

4.4 Recommendations 

Implementation of the following recommendations would improve the condition scores of 

North Wambo Creek, South Wambo Creek and Stoney Creek: 

• Where appropriate, undertake remediation works at sites of significant bank erosion; 

• Where remediation works are likely to cause more damage than good, plant 

seedlings of local tree species around erosion areas to stabilise banks and assist in 

the prevention of future erosion; 

• Prevent or limit livestock access to North Wambo Creek and Stoney Creek; 

• Undertaken rabbit control measures along all three creeks; and 

• Undertake a weed management program that uses successional techniques that do 

not leave areas of bare soil. 


Riparian monitoring identified Stoney Creek as being in good condition, and North Wambo 

and South Wambo Creeks in moderate condition. Current bank erosion problem areas are 

a result of historic land management practises however in the absence of current 

management will continue to degrade. Subsidence has also been recorded during 2011 

annual assessments. Recommendations have been made to address problem erosion 

areas and to undertake other management actions that would lead to increased condition 

scores for all three creeks. 


5 References 

Braun-Blanquet, J. (1982). Plant Sociology: The Study of Plant Communities. McGraw Hill 

Publishers, New York. 

Harden, G. (ed) (1992). Flora of New South Wales, Volume 3. New South Wales 

University Press, NSW. 

Harden, G. (ed) (1993). Flora of New South Wales, Volume 4. New South Wales 

University Press, NSW. 

Harden, G. (ed) (2000). Flora of New South Wales, Volume 1. Revised edition. New South 

Wales University Press, NSW. 

Harden, G. (ed) (2002). Flora of New South Wales, Volume 2. Revised edition. New South 

Wales University Press, NSW. 

HLA Envirosciences (2007). Riparian Vegetation and Bed and Bank Stability Monitoring 

Wambo Coal. An unpublished Report prepared for Wambo Coal Pty Limited, May 

2007. 

HLA Envirosciences (2007b). Terrestrial Fauna Survey, An unpublished report prepared 

for Wambo Coal Pty Ltd, May 2007. 

Kearle, A. (2004). A cautionary tale: decline of the common brushtail possum Trichosurus 

vulpecula and common ringtail possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus in the woodlands 

of the western slopes and plains of New South Wales, in ‘The Biology of Australian 

Possums and Gliders’, (eds R. Goldingay and S. Jackson), pp. 71-84, Surrey Beaty, 

Sydney. 

Kavanagh, R., and Peake, P. (1993) Survey procedures for nocturnal forest birds: an 

evaluation of the variability in census results due to temporal factors, weather and 

technique. In ‘Australian Raptor Studies’ (ed. P Olsen), pp. 86-100, Australasian 

Raptor Association, RAOU, Melbourne. 

Kavanagh, R., Debus, S., Tweedie, T. and Webster, R. (1995) Distribution of nocturnal 

forest birds and mammals in north-eastern New South Wales: relationships with 

environmental variables and management history, Wildlife Research 22, 359–377. 

Law. B., Eby. P., Lunney. D. and Lumsden. L. (Eds.) (2011). The Biology and 

Conservation of Australasian Bats. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 

Australia. 

RPS Harper Somer’s O’Sullivan (2007). Annual Ecological Monitoring Report – Wambo 

Coal Mine, Singleton, NSW. Report prepared for Wambo Coal Pty Ltd. 


RPS Harper Somer’s O’Sullivan (2009). Annual Ecological Monitoring Report for 2008 – 

Wambo Coal Mine, Singleton, NSW. Report prepared for Wambo Coal Pty Ltd. 

RPS (2010). 2009 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report – Wambo Coal Mine, Singleton, 

NSW. Report prepared for Wambo Coal Pty Ltd. 

RPS (2011). 2010 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report- Wambo Coal Mine, Singleton, 

NSW. Report prepared for Wambo Coal Pty Ltd. January 2011. 

Simpson, K., and Day, N. (2010). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Penguin Books, 

Australia. 

Tyler, M.J. and Knight, F. (2011). Field Guide to the Frogs of Australia. Revised Edition. 

CSIRO Publishing, Australia. 

Van Dyk, S. and Strahan, R. (eds) (2008). The Mammals of Australia. New Holland 

Publishers, Australia. 

Wilson, S. and Swan, G. (2010). A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. New Holland 

Publishers, Australia. 


Appendix A 

Flora Diversity Results 


Table 1: Flora Diversity Within Plots 

Vegetation Community Sampled 

River Oak / Rough-barked Apple Forest 


Yellow Box / Blakely’s Red Gum / Roughbarked 

Apple Forest 

Coast Banksia / Rough-barked Apple / 

Blakely’s Red Gum Forest (Warkworth 

Sands Woodland EEC) 

Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Grey Box / Bulloak 

/ Honeymyrtle Forest 

Spotted Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark / 

Bulloak / Paperbark Forest 

Slaty Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Bulloak 

/ Paperbark Forest 

Grey Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Bulloak 

/ Honeymyrtle Forest 

White Mahogany / Rough-barked Apple 

Forest 

Brush Wilga/Native Olive Shrubland 

Flora 

Monitoring 

Plot 

Total 

No. 

Spp 

No. 

Native 

spp. 

% 

Natives 

No of 

exotic 

spp. 

% 

Exotics 

V1-A1 29 11 38 18 62 

V1-A2 27 11 31 16 59 

V1-B1 27 18 67 9 33 

V1-B2 23 15 65 8 35 

V1-B3 29 13 45 16 55 

V2-A1 23 7 31 16 69 

V2-B1 30 10 33 20 67 

V2-B2 32 16 50 16 50 

V3-B1 32 22 69 10 31 

V5-B1 35 26 74 9 26 

V5-B2 36 27 75 9 25 

V5-B3 31 28 90 3 10 

V5-B4 28 25 92 3 8 

V6-A1c 31 30 97 1 3 

V6-A3 21 21 100 0 0 

V6-B1 29 24 83 5 17 

V6-B1c 30 28 93 2 7 

V6-B2 36 32 89 4 11 

V6-B2c 36 33 92 3 8 

V6-B3 40 34 85 6 15 

V6-B4 11 8 73 3 27 

V9-A1 31 29 94 2 6 

V9-B1 40 37 92 3 8 

V9-B2 37 34 92 3 8 

V10-A1 36 31 86 5 14 

V10-A2 42 35 83 7 17 

V10-B2 33 32 97 1 3 

V10-B3 29 27 93 2 7 

V11-B1 30 28 93 2 7 

V11-B2 36 33 92 3 8 

V13-B1 59 50 85 9 15 

V14-A1 36 26 72 10 28 

V14-B1 37 31 84 6 16 

V14-B2 44 40 91 4 9 


Table 2: Number of Flora Species Recorded Each Year 


River Oak / Rough-barked Apple 

Forest 


Yellow Box / Blakely’s Red Gum / 

Rough-barked Apple Forest 

Coast Banksia / Rough-barked 

Apple / Blakely’s Red Gum Forest 

(Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC) 

Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Grey Box / 

Bulloak / Honeymyrtle Forest 

Spotted Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark 

/ Bulloak / Paperbark Forest 

Slaty Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark / 


Grey Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark / 


White Mahogany / Rough-barked 

Apple Forest 


Flora 

Monitoring 

Plot 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

V1-A1 9 29 11 41 31 29 

V1-A2 18 29 27 29 28 27 

V1-B1 29 35 13 18 9 27 

V1-B2 18 23 6 12 3 23 

V1-B3 20 29 9 17 26 29 

V2-A1 22 32 25 19 21 23 

V2-B1 22 31 33 29 28 30 

V2-B2 32 34 38 42 28 32 

V3-B1 29 51 45 26 19 32 

V5-B1 33 44 38 35 37 35 

V5-B2 27 44 38 38 34 36 

V5-B3 37 38 36 43 31 31 

V5-B4 32 33 30 28 

V6-A1c 25 44 39 36 34 31 

V6-A3 35 54 41 21 29 21 

V6-B1 31 46 44 38 29 29 

V6-B1c 32 43 40 38 39 30 

V6-B2 36 49 46 36 26 36 

V6-B2c 24 44 36 33 36 36 

V6-B3 33 51 46 34 37 40 

V6-B4 25 17 20 11 

V9-A1 23 41 39 41 27 31 

V9-B1 39 39 34 35 39 40 

V9-B2 33 40 37 34 37 37 

V10-A1 27 40 39 36 37 36 

V10-A2 28 46 43 41 43 42 

V10-B2 39 55 44 46 45 33 

V10-B3 23 29 

V11-B1 26 33 29 29 35 30 

V11-B2 38 50 43 38 35 36 

V13-B1 46 67 64 56 63 59 

V14-A1 40 54 59 34 36 36 

V14-B1 30 48 49 26 36 37 

V14-B2 35 58 48 39 43 44 


Table 3: Changes in the Number of Species Recorded 


Sampled 

River Oak / Rough-barked 

Apple Forest 


Yellow Box / Blakely’s Red 

Gum / Rough-barked Apple 

Forest 


Apple / Blakely’s Red Gum 

Forest (Warkworth Sands 

Woodland EEC) 

Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Grey 

Box / Bulloak / Honeymyrtle 

Forest 

Spotted Gum / Narrow-leaf 

Ironbark / Bulloak / Paperbark 

Forest 

Slaty Gum / Narrow-leaf 

Ironbark / Bulloak / Paperbark 

Forest 

Grey Gum / Narrow-leaf 


Honeymyrtle Forest 

White Mahogany / Roughbarked 

Apple Forest 

Brush Wilga/Native Olive 

Shrubland 

Flora 

Monitoring 

Plot 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Total 

Change 

V1-A1 20 -18 30 -10 -2 20 

V1-A2 11 -2 2 -1 -1 9 

V1-B1 6 -22 5 -9 18 -2 

V1-B2 5 -17 6 -9 20 5 

V1-B3 9 -20 8 9 3 9 

V2-A1 10 -7 -6 2 2 1 

V2-B1 9 2 -4 -1 2 8 

V2-B2 2 4 4 -14 4 0 

V3-B1 22 -6 -19 -7 13 3 

V5-B1 11 -6 -3 2 -2 2 

V5-B2 17 -6 0 -4 2 9 

V5-B3 1 -2 7 -12 0 -6 

V5-B4 1 -3 -2 -4 

V6-A1c 19 -5 -3 -2 -3 6 

V6-A3 19 -13 -20 8 -8 -14 

V6-B1 15 -2 -6 -9 0 -2 

V6-B1c 11 -3 -2 1 -9 -2 

V6-B2 13 -3 -10 -10 10 0 

V6-B2c 20 -8 -3 3 0 12 

V6-B3 18 -5 -12 3 3 7 

V6-B4 -8 3 -9 -14 

V9-A1 18 -2 2 -14 4 8 

V9-B1 0 -5 1 4 1 1 

V9-B2 7 -3 -3 3 0 4 

V10-A1 13 -1 -3 1 -1 9 

V10-A2 18 -3 -2 2 -1 14 

V10-B2 16 -11 2 -1 -12 -6 

V10-B3 N/A 6 6 

V11-B1 7 -4 0 6 -5 4 

V11-B2 12 -7 -5 -3 1 -2 

V13-B1 21 -3 -8 7 -4 13 

V14-A1 14 5 -25 2 0 -4 

V14-B1 18 1 -23 10 1 7 

V14-B2 23 -10 -9 4 1 9 


Table 4: Percentage Change in Introduced Species 


River Oak / Rough-barked Apple 

Forest 


Yellow Box / Blakely’s Red Gum / 

Rough-barked Apple Forest 


Apple / Blakely’s Red Gum Forest 

(Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC) 

Narrow-leaf Ironbark / Grey Box / 


Spotted Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark 

/ Bulloak / Paperbark Forest 

Slaty Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark / 


Grey Gum / Narrow-leaf Ironbark / 


White Mahogany / Rough-barked 

Apple Forest 


Flora 

Monitoring 

Plot 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average 

V1-A1 11 -10 14 -14 17 4 

V1-A2 18 5 -15 -2 9 3 

V1-B1 9 -16 -5 0 0 -2 

V1-B2 4 -10 17 -17 2 -1 

V1-B3 5 -23 2 30 1 3 

V2-A1 -3 0 -3 -1 17 2 

V2-B1 5 1 -1 13 -1 3 

V2-B2 -3 2 5 -5 7 1 

V3-B1 0 7 0 -5 5 1 

V5-B1 6 -1 -6 -10 13 0 

V5-B2 8 -4 1 -1 2 1 

V5-B3 0 0 1 -6 7 0 

V5-B4 -10 -5 -2 -6 

V6-A1c 5 -2 7 -2 -9 0 

V6-A3 16 -2 -7 4 -14 -1 

V6-B1 3 2 5 1 0 2 

V6-B1c -6 3 1 -1 -3 -1 

V6-B2 2 5 -4 2 0 1 

V6-B2c -3 1 0 -1 3 0 

V6-B3 17 -5 -3 -1 4 2 

V6-B4 -4 -2 17 4 

V9-A1 3 3 0 -3 -1 0 

V9-B1 0 0 0 2 3 1 

V9-B2 0 2 1 -1 3 1 

V10-A1 1 3 0 3 3 2 

V10-A2 -4 9 -1 1 1 1 

V10-B2 2 0 -1 1 -2 0 

V10-B3 N/A -2 -2 

V11-B1 -1 0 4 -1 1 1 

V11-B2 11 0 -9 1 2 1 

V13-B1 10 1 1 -3 4 3 

V14-A1 14 -3 -2 1 6 3 

V14-B1 13 0 -19 -1 13 1 

V14-B2 13 -4 -7 7 -3 1 


Appendix B 

Flora Quadrat Data 


Plot: V1-A1 

Flora Species 

Braun Blanquet 

Cover ('11) 

Casuarina cunninghamiana subsp. cunninghamiana 4 

Ehrharta erecta* 4 

Galenia pubescens* 4 

Bothriochloa decipiens - 

Austrostipa ramosissima 2 

Bromus catharticus 1 

Cerastium glomeratum* 2 

Cheilanthes distans - 

Echinopogon caespitosus var. caespitosus - 

Echium plantagineum* 2 

Einadia hastata 2 

Euchiton involucratus - 

Heliotropium amplexicaule* 2 

Lolium rigidum* 1 

Oxalis radicosa 2 

Pavonia hastata* 2 

Petrorhagia nanteuilii 2 

Plantago lanceolata* 2 

Rumex acetosella 1 

Senecio madagascariensis* 2 

Acacia decurrens 1 

Anagallis arvensis* 1 

Commelina cyanea - 

Conyza sumatrensis* 1 

Hypochaeris radicata* 1 

Juncus usitatus 1 

Microlaena stipoides 1 

Opuntia aurantiaca* 1 

Phragmites australis 1 

Verbena rigida 2 

Bromus diandrus 2 

Cynodon dactylon 4 

Sonchus oleraceus 1 

Oenothera glazioviana 1 


Plot: V1-A2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 








Calystegia marginata 2 

Cerastium glomeratum 2 


Lolium rigidum* 2 


Petrorhagia nanteuilii 2 


Silene gallica* 2 


Bromus catharticus* 1 

Cayratia clematidea 1 

Dodonaea viscosa subsp. cuneata 1 

Leptospermum sp. - 

Lomandra longifolia - 

Lycium ferocissimum* 1 



Rumex brownii 1 

Sonchus oleraceus* 1 


Verbascum virgatum* 1 

Gomphocarpus fruticosis 1 


Plot: V1-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Entolasia marginata 6 

Breynia oblongifolia 3 

Cardiospermum grandiflorum* 3 


Clematis glycinoides 2 

Stephania japonica 2 

Wahlenbergia luteola - 

Oplismenus aemulus 2 

Solanum nigrum* 1 

Cardiospermum grandiflorum* 3 

Leptospermum sp. 4 

Heliotropium amplexicaule 4 

Casuarina cunninghamiana 3 

Lomandra longifolia 2 

Verbascum virgatum 1 

Chloris truncata 3 

Oxalis sp. 3 


Opuntia stricta 1 

Plantago lanceolata 2 


Grevillea robusta 3 

Stephania japonica 2 


Backhousia myrtifolia 1 


Sida corrugata 2 


Cheilanthes sieberi ssp. sieberi 1 

Anagallis arvensis 1 

Acacia parramattensis 1 


Plot: V1-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 


Dichelachne micrantha 1 

Euchiton involucratus 1 


Galenia pubescens 2 

Aristida ramosissima 2 

Rubus parvifolius 2 

Casuarina cunninghamiana 4 

Melaleuca sp. 2 



Cooba 1 



Backhousia myrtifolia 1 

Echinopogon ovatus 1 


Wahlenbergia sp. 2 

Chrysocephalum apiculatum 2 


Senecio madagascariensis 2 


Cerastium glomeratum 2 

Oxalis sp. 1 

Verbascum thapsus* 2 


Plot: V1-B3 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 



Heliotropum amplexicaule* 4 




Apium leptophyllum* - 

Austrostipa verticillata 2 

Briza major* 2 

Crassula sieberiana subsp. sieberiana 2 

Echinopogon caespitosus 2 




Oenothera stricta* 2 


Petrorhagia nanteuilii - 




Opuntia stricta* 2 


Salvia vebenacea* - 


Spartothamnella juncea - 

Trifolium campestre* 1 


Commelina cyanea 1 


Entolasia marginata 1 


Paspalum urvillei 1 


Briza subaristata 2 

Cardiospermum grandiflorum 3 



Heliotropum amplexicaule* 4 


Plot: V2 - A1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 


Richardia humistrata* 4 

Petrorhagia nanteuilii* 3 



Briza minor* 2 



Eucalyptus camaldulensis (dead) 2 

Oenothera stricta* 2 


Rumex crispus* 2 


Setaria gracilis* 2 

Silene gallica 2 


Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi 1 


Eragrostis leptostachya 1 

Facelis retusa 1 

Verbena rigida* 1 


Plot: V2-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 




Eucalyptus camaldulensis 4 


Briza minor* 



Lolium perenne* 2 

Opuntia stricta var. stricta* 2 


Panicum effusum 2 



Setaria gracilis* 2 

Sida rhombifolia* 2 

Vulpia myuros* 2 

Amyema pendula 1 




Opuntia aurantica* 1 


Senecio quadrentata* 1 

Solanum nigrum* 


Verbascum virgatum* 1 



Austrostipa sp. 1 

Acetosella vulgaris 2 

Centaurium erythraea 2 

Trifolium arvense* 1 


Plot: V2-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides 4 

Acacia filicifolia 3 


Eucalyptus camaldulensis 3 

Exocarpos strictus 3 




Briza minor* - 

Cheilanthes sieberi 2 


Dichondra repens 2 






Plantago debilis 2 



Wahlenbergia communis 2 


Cynoglossum australe - 

Dianella revoluta 1 

Glycine clandestina 1 

Notelaea microcarpa var. microcarpa 1 

Olea europaea* 1 

Rumex acetosella * 1 

Bromus molliformis 1 

Setaria pumila 1 

Aristida ramosa 1 

Verbena rigida 1 

Briza subaristata 1 



Plot: V3-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 


Juncus mollis 4 

Melaleuca thymifolia 1 

Eucalyptus blakelyi 3 

Eucalyptus melliodora 3 

Cirsium vulgare* 1 

Gamochaeta spicata* 2 



Wahlenbergia gracilis 2 

Cyperus gunnii 1 

Digitaria porrecta 

Eucalyptus crebra 1 

Juncus subsecundus 

Lepidium africanum* 2 

Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora 1 



Vittadinia sp. 1 



Centaurium erythraea* 2 

Austrostipa sp. 1 


Hypochaeris radicata 2 

Glycine tabacina 2 

Euchiton gymnocephalus 1 



Cymbopogon refractus 1 


Cyclospermum leptophyllum* 1 

Fimbristylis dichotoma 2 

Tricoryne elatior 2 

Microtis sp. 1 


Plot: V5-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Angophora floribunda 4 

Pteridium esculentum 4 

Pimelea linifolia subsp. linifolia 2 






Glycine clandestina 

Hibbertia linearis 2 

Hibbertia obtusifolia 2 

Hypochoeris radicata* 2 

Imperata cylindrica var. major 3 



Panicum sp. 2 




Anagallis arvensis subsp. caerulea* 1 


Aristida vagans 1 

Austrostipa pubescens 1 

Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia 2 

Brachyloma daphnoides 1 

Cyperus polystachyos 1 

Eucalyptus tereticornis 1 


Galenia pubescens 1 


Hibiscus heterophyllus - 

Juncus continuus 1 

Lagenifera stipitata 1 


Opuntia aurantiaca* - 


Verbena bonariensis 1 

Conyza sumatrensis 1 

Exocarpos cupressiformis 1 

Taraxacum officinale 1 


Plot: V5-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 








Dianella longifolia 2 



Imperata cylindrica var. major 3 



Melinus repens* 2 


Themeda australis 2 

Acacia filicifolia - 

Brachychiton populneus subsp. populneus 1 

Cheilanthes sieberi - 

Conyza bonariensis* 1 


Dianthus armeria* 1 


Gahnia aspera 2 




Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis 1 


Opuntia aurantiaca* - 


Petrorhagia nanteuilii - 

Solanum nigrum* 1 



Pimelea linifolia 1 

Tagetes minuta 2 




Veronica plebeia 1 


Plot: V5-B3 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 



Allocasuarina luehmannii 3 









Grevillea montana 2 


Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora - 




Austrostipa scabra - 



Conospermum ellipticum 1 

Dianella revoluta var. revoluta 1 

Eragrostis leptostachya - 


Grevillea arenaria subsp. arenaria 1 

Isopogon anemonifolius 3 


Persoonia linearis 1 

Wahlenbergia communis - 

Wahlenbergia gracilis - 


Melinus repens* 1 

Oxalis sp. 2 



Hypochaeris radicata 1 

Lomandra sp. 2 



Plot: V5-B4 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 


Melinis repens* 4 

Allocasuarina littoralis 3 







Glycine tabacina 



Laxmannia gracilis 

Lomandra filiformis subsp. coriacea 2 





Amyema congener subsp. congener 



Cymbopogon refractus 


Dichelachne crinita 1 

Entolasia stricta 

Eragrostis brownii 





Notelaea microcarpa 1 

Lomandra confertifolia 2 


Zornia dyctiocarpa 1 


Plot: V6-A1c 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Dodonaea viscosa subsp. cuneata - 


Melaleuca decora - 


Aristida vagans - 

Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata 3 

Brachycome multifida - 

Cheilanthes distans 3 


Desmodium brachypodum 2 

Eucalyptus moluccana 2 

Lomandra confertifolia subsp. pallida - 


Spartothamnella juncea 2 

Vittadinia sulcata 2 

Amyema congener subsp. congener - 

Amyema pendulum - 

Breynia oblongifolia - 

Calotis lappulacea - 

Choretrum candollei 1 

Desmodium varians 2 



Einadia nutans - 

Eragrostis leptostachya - 

Eremophila debilis - 



Olearia elliptica 4 

Pavonia hastata* - 

Petrorhagia nanteuilii* - 

Senecio madagascariensis* - 

Sida corrugata - 

Solanum stelligerum - 

Eucalyptus dawsonii 1 

Austrodanthonia fulva 2 

Bursaria spinosa 2 


Calotis lappulacea 1 







Oxalis radicata 1 

Poa sieberiana 2 

Scutellaria humilis 1 

Brunoniella pumilio 2 


Plot: V6-A3 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 



Cymbopogon refractus - 

Einadia nutans - 

Enchylaena tomentosa 2 


Amyema pendulum - 

Anagallis arvensis* - 



Brunoniella australis 2 

Calotis hispidula 2 


Chloris ventricosa - 

Cyperus polystachyos 2 

Dianella longifolia - 

Dichelachne crinita - 


Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis - 

Lomandra multiflora - 

Melaleuca decora - 

Oxalis chnoodes - 

Sclerolaena muricata - 


Sida rhombifolia* - 

Solanum campanulatum - 

Solanum stelligerum - 

Sporobolus elongatus - 

Trifolium subterraneum* - 







Daviesia genistifolia 4 

Acacia amblygona 2 


Acacia implexa 1 


Dianella revoluta 1 

Brachycome angustifolia 2 


Plot: V6-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Melaleuca decora 4 








Lomandra confertifolia subsp. pallida 1 

Lomandra filiformis 1 

Opuntia stricta* 1 




Chloris ventricosa 1 

Crassula sieberiana - 




Eragrostis brownii 1 




Opuntia aurantica* 1 


Sporobolus creber* 1 

Veronica plebia 1 

Wahlenbergia communis - 




Cyperus. sp 1 


Plot: V6-B1c 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 


Austrostipa scabra subsp. scabra 4 




Acacia binervia - 





Goodenia rotundifolia 2 


Acacia amblygona - 

Acacia doratoxylon - 


Arthropodium milleflorum 1 


Bertya oleifolia 1 




Chloris divaricata - 


Crassula sieberiana 1 


Dianella prunina - 


Fimbristylis dichotoma 1 




Macrozamia flexuosa 1 


Panicum effusum* - 

Pavonia hastata* - 






Eragrostis sp 1 

Xanthosia tridentata 1 


Plot: V6-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 














Austrodanthonia ramosissima 1 

Austrostipa scabra 1 

Caesia parviflora 1 

Calotis cuneata 2 










Cirsium vulgare 2 

Gamochaeta coarctata 2 

Pratia purpurascens 2 




Entolasia stricta 1 



Notodanthonia longifolia 1 



Plot: V6-B2c 

Flora Species 

Braun 

Blanquet Cover 

('11) 









Eremophila debilis 2 





Acacia doratoxylon 1 

Acacia longifolia 1 





Cyperus gracilis - 



Dianella prunina 1 

Dillwynia acicularis 1 


Einadia nutans 1 


Glycine tabacina - 





Paspalidium distans 1 






Stackhousia viminea 1 



Plot: V6-B3 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 







Austrostipa pubescens 2 











Senecio quadridentatus 1 

Solanum prinophyllum 2 

Acacia salicina 1 




Asperula conferta - 



Calotis cuneifolia 1 


Carex inversa 2 














Cyperus sp. 2 


Plot: V6-B4 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 



Amyema linophyllum - 




Austrodanthonia fulva - 

Chrysocephalum apiculatum - 


Dianella revoluta var. revoluta - 

Einadia hastata - 

Glycine clandestina - 

Laxmannia gracilis - 





Pimelea linifolia subsp. linifolia - 





Oxalis radicata 1 



Plot: V9-A1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 




Corymbia maculata 3 



Acacia gunnii 2 




Cyperus gracilis 2 


Indigofera australis 2 



Acacia browneii 1 






Eragrostis benthamii 1 





Oxalis chnoodes 1 


Echinopogon caespitosus 2 

Juncus continuus 1 




Plot: V9-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 







Eucalyptus punctata 3 

Acacia binervia 2 


Exocarpos strictus 2 







Centaurium spicatum 1 



Cyperus polystachyos - 

Dendrophthoe vitellina 1 








Imperata cylindrica 1 



Macrozamia reducta 1 

Opuntia stricta 1 


Pomaderris ferruginea - 



Sigesbeckia orientalis spp. orientalis* 1 



Hypericum gramineum 1 

Pomax umbellata 1 


Plot: V9-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 












Goodenia rotundifolia - 

Grevillea montana - 




Pultenaea spinosa 2 





Daviesia ulicifolia subsp. ulicifolia 1 




Gahnia aspera - 


Hardenbergia violacea 1 

Lomandra multiflora 1 

Maytenus silvestris 1 





Solanum stelligerum 1 



Oxylobium cordifolium 2 

Anisopogon avenaceus 1 

Goodenia hederacea 2 


Plot: V1--A1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 






Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi - 







Vittadinia cuneata var. cuneata 2 



Amyema gaudichaudii 1 



Austrostipa scabra var. scabra 1 

Brachychiton discolor - 

Calotis cuneifolia 1 



Dianella longifolia - 




Gamochaeta spicata 1 

Glycine clandestina - 












Cassinia aculeata 2 

Amyema gaudichaudii 2 


Plot: V1--A2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Cassinia cunninghamii 4 






Austrostipa scabra var. scabra 2 










Austrodanthonia tenuior 1 


Centaurium erythraea* 1 












Gamochaeta spicata* 1 


Grevillea montanum 1 







Setaria gracilis* - 


Veronica plebia 1 





Plot: V1--B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 




Bursaria spinosa var. spinosa 4 



Clematis aristata 1 








Exocarpos cupressiformis 2 

Gamochaeta coarctata* 1 





Lomandra multiflora 1 







Pomaderris ferruginea 2 

Pomax umbellata 1 


Schenkia spicata 2 



Acacia binervia - 

Amyema gaudichaudii - 

Austrodanthonia fulva - 



Acacia doratoxylon - 

Aristida ramosissima - 

Arthropodium milleflorum - 

Brachycome sp - 

Correa reflexa - 

Cyperus polystachyos - 

Desmodium brachypodum - 


Einadia hastata - 


Glycine tabacina - 


Panicum simile - 


Plot: V1--B3 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 





Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi - 






Acacia falciformis 1 







Goodenia rotundifolia - 





Notelaea microcarpa 3 



Acacia linifolia 3 


Austrodanhonia fulva 2 







Plot: V11-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 











Leucopogon muticus - 




Amyema pendulum 1 



Cassinia uncata 1 




Dianella revoluta - 




Exocarpos stricta - 



Lepidosperma laterale - 



Panicum effusum - 






Plot: V11-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 















Pomax umbellata - 


Amyema pendulum 1 






Dianella revoluta - 



Gomphocarpus fruticosus* 1 

Lepidosperma laterale 1 

Leucopogon muticus 1 










Acacia maidenii 1 

Senecio madagascariensis 1 


Plot: V13-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 








Callistemon linearis 2 


Carex inversa 2 

Centaurium tenuiflorum* 2 





Eucalyptus acmenoides 2 




Pimelea latifolia subsp. hirsuta 2 

Pomaderris ferruginea 3 


Adiantum aethiopicum 1 

Adiantum hispidulum var. hispidulum 1 

Alchornea ilicifolia - 



Calystegia marginata 1 

Cassinia aculeata 1 

Cayratia clematidea 1 


Claoxylon australe 1 




Gamochaeta spicata 2 

Geijera salicifolia var. latifolia 1 

Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi 1 

Hibiscus heterophyllus subsp. heterophyllus 2 


Lepidosperma laterale - 

Notelaea longifolia 1 

Notelaea ovata 1 



Pandorea baileyana - 

Phyllanthus gunnii 1 

Pittosporum multiflorum 1 


Podolobium ilicifolium - 


Rubus parvifolius 1 


Plot: V13-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 



Sigesbeckia orientalis ssp. orientalis* 2 

Stephania japonica var. discolor 1 

Taraxacum officinale 1 

Trema tomentosa - 

Vernonia cinerea var. cinerea 1 


Viola hederacea 1 

Vulpia myuros* 1 




Plot: V14-A1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 



Geijera salicifolia var. salicifolia 3 








Acacia doratoxylon 1 



Capsella bursa-pastoris 1 









Gnaphalium coarctatum* 1 

Gomphocarpus fruiticosus* 1 





Petrorhagia nanteuilii* - 




Trifolium dubium* 1 


Plot: V14-A1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Veronica plebeia - 

Vittadinia sulcata - 



Urtica incisa 1 

Trifolium arvense* 1 

Geranium homeanum 1 

Plot: V14-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 








Acacia falcata 1 










Desmodium brachypodium 1 





Eucalyptus albens 1 


Gamochaeta coarctata 1 











Wahlenbergia stricta 1 

Cyclospermum leptophyllum 1 

Gamochaeta sp. 1 



Plot: V14-B1 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 

Sigesbeckia orientalis 1 

Plot: V14-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 


















Amyema congener subsp. congener 1 







Chloris ventricosa - 

Cirsium vulgare* - 





Eucalyptus albens 1 


Geranium solanderi 1 

Gomphocarpus fruticosus* 1 





Plantago debilis - 




Sporobolus elongatus 1 


Cyclospermum leptophyllum 2 


Plot: V14-B2 

Flora Species 


Cover ('11) 


Cypress sp 


Scutellaria humilis 2 


Appendix C 

Introduced Flora Species 


Table 1: Introduced Species Frequency of Occurrence 

Scientific Name Common Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Senecio madagascariensis* Fireweed 8 22 21 29 27 25 

Opuntia stricta var. stricta* Prickly Pear 23 20 19 17 20 22 

Anagallis arvensis* Scarlet Pimpernel 9 15 10 16 16 13 

Heliotropium amplexicaule* Blue Heliotrope 7 7 7 1 6 11 

Sonchus oleraceus* - 3 10 

Hypochaeris radicata* Cat’s Ear 1 6 10 8 5 9 

Cerastium glomeratum* - 4 7 8 

Galenia pubescens* Galenia 6 3 4 3 7 8 

Conyza sumatrensis* - 5 8 

Gamochaeta coarctata* - 5 8 

Pavonia hastata* Pavonia 6 6 6 7 8 

Cyclospermum leptophyllum* - 2 7 

Plantago lanceolata* Lamb’s Tongue 3 8 5 6 7 

Opuntia aurantiaca* Tiger Pear 8 9 6 2 6 6 

Petrorhagia nanteuilii * - 4 5 2 5 5 

Echium plantagineum* - 3 4 

Cirsium vulgare* Scotch Thistle 8 7 3 2 4 

Verbascum virgatum* Twiggy Mullein 1 3 2 4 

Centaurium erythraea* - 1 4 

Gomphocarpus fruticosus* 

Narrow Leaf Cotton 

Bush 

2 5 1 4 

Bromus catharticus* Prairie Grass 5 3 3 

Ehrharta erecta* Panic Veldt Grass 2 3 2 2 3 3 

Acetosella vulgaris* - 2 3 

Verbena rigida* Veined Verbena 2 2 1 3 2 3 

Melinis repens* Red Natal Grass 1 1 3 

Sigesbeckia orientalis* - 3 

Briza subaristata* - 3 

Setaria gracilis* Slender Pigeon Grass 2 5 1 5 3 2 

Solanum nigrum* Black Nightshade 3 1 2 3 2 

Lolium rigidum* Stiff Ryegrass 3 1 2 2 2 

Oenothera stricta* Evening Primrose 3 1 2 2 

Silene gallica* French Catchfly 1 2 2 2 

Vulpia myuros* - 2 2 

Cardiospermum grandiflorum* - 1 1 2 

Taraxacum officinale* Dandelion 5 2 

Trifolium arvense* Haresfoot Clover 2 2 

Sida rhombifolia* Paddy’s Lucerine 8 9 6 6 2 1 

Briza maxima* - 1 1 

Centaurium tenuiflorum* Common Centaury 2 5 2 1 1 1 

Dianthus armeria* - 1 1 

Lepidium africanum* Peppercress 1 1 1 1 1 

Lolium perenne* - 1 1 

Lycium ferocissimum* African Boxthorn 1 1 1 

Olea europaea* - 2 1 1 

Richardia humistrata* - 2 1 1 

Rumex crispus* Curled Dock 1 2 1 1 1 1 

Trifolium campestre* - 1 1 

Trifolium dubium* Yellow Suckling Clover 2 2 1 1 1 

Verbena bonariensis* Purple Top 1 2 1 1 

Tagetes minuta* Stinking Roger 3 1 2 1 

Capsella bursa-pastoris* Shepherds purse 1 

Setaria pumila* - 1 

Paspalum urvillei* - 1 


Scientific Name Common Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Lepidium africanum* - 1 

Facelis retusa* - 1 

Bromus molliformis* Soft Brome 1 

Anagallis arvensis var. caerulea* Blue Pimpernel 1 

Apium leptophyllum* Slender Celery 8 8 5 1 0 

Conyza bonariensis* Tall Fleabane 2 7 8 3 1 0 

Salvia verbenaca* Vervain 2 1 1 0 

Senecio quadridentatus* Cotton Fireweed 2 1 1 0 

Trifolium subterraneum* - 1 0 

Ageratina riparia* Crofton Weed 3 1 0 

Aira cupaniana* Silvery Hairgrass 1 0 

Arenaria leptoclados* 

Lesser Thyme-leaved 

Sandwort 

2 1 0 

Asparagus plumosus* 

Climbing Asparagus 

Fern 

3 2 0 

Bidens pilosa* Farmer’s Friend 5 3 3 3 0 

Bidens subalternans* Greater Beggar's Tick 6 0 

Brassica fruticulosa* Twiggy Turnip 1 0 

Brassica juncea* Chinese Mustard 2 0 

Briza minor* Shivery Grass 4 1 2 4 0 

Bromus sterilis* Sterile Brome 6 0 

Cotoneaster pannosus* Cotoneaster 1 1 1 0 

Cyperus aggreatus* - 10 1 0 

Cyperus tenellus* - 1 0 

Echinochloa crus-galli* Barnyard Grass 1 0 

Emex australis* Double Gee 2 1 0 

Gamochaeta americana* Cudweed 1 5 3 0 

Gamochaeta spaericum* Cudweed 5 4 0 

Hydrocotyle bonariensis* Pennywort 1 1 2 0 

Hyperichum perforatum* St John’s Wort 1 0 

Juncus acutus* Spiny Rush 3 7 3 1 0 

Lepidium bonariense* Peppercress 1 9 3 1 0 

Modiola caroliniana* Red Mallow Flower 1 1 0 

Myrsiphyllum asparagoides* Florist's Smilax 1 0 

Oxalis latifolia* - 1 0 

Panicum diffusum* - 1 0 

Paronychia brasiliana* Brazilian Whitlow 1 0 

Pennisetum clandestinum* Kikuyu 2 1 1 0 

Polycarpon tetraphyllum* Four-leaved Allseed 1 3 0 

Portulaca oleracea* Pigweed 2 1 0 

Raphanus raphanistrum* - 1 0 

Richardia brasiliensis* White Eye 2 1 2 0 

Richardia humistrata* - 2 2 2 2 0 

Rumex brownii* Swamp Dock 3 3 0 

Salix alba var. alba* White Willow 1 0 

Silybum marianum* Variegated Thistle 1 1 0 

Solanum prinophyllum* - 5 0 

Soliva sessilis* Jojo 1 0 

Solvia pterosperma* Bindii 1 0 

Sonchus oleraceus* Common Sowthistle 2 12 6 9 0 

Sporobolus africanus* Parramatta Grass 1 0 

Sporobolus creber* Slender Rat’s tail grass 1 0 

Stellaria media* Chickweed 2 1 0 

Xanthium italicum* - 1 0 


Appendix D 




Family sequencing and taxonomy follow for each fauna class: 

• Birds – Simpson and Day (2010) 

• Reptiles – Wilson and Swan (2010) 

• Amphibians – Tyler and Knight (2011) 

• Mammals - Van Dyck and Strahan (ed) (2008) 

Appendix Key 

Symbol Meaning 

= Species Detected 

# = number of individuals recorded 

A = recorded outside one hectare bird survey area 

* = Introduced species 

(CE) = Species listed under TSC Act as Critically Endangered 

(E) = Species listed under TSC Act as Endangered 

(V) = Species listed under TSC Act as Vulnerable 

(CE*) = Species listed under the EPBC Act as Critically Endangered 

(E*) = Species listed under the EPBC Act as Endangered 

(V*) = Species listed under the EPBC Act as Vulnerable 

(M*) = Species listed under the EPBC Act as Migratory 

D = ‘Definite’ level of identification during Anabat echolocation analysis 

P = ‘Probable’ level of identification during Anabat echolocation analysis 

Po = ‘Possible’ level of identification during Anabat echolocation analysis 

Data Source 

1 to 26 = Bird monitoring plot number 

X = recorded during 28/06/2011 Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater survey 

Y = recorded during 12/07/2011 Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater survey 

Z = recorded during 01/08/2011 Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater survey 

Opp. = Opportunistically recorded 

F&F = Recorded during nocturnal spotlighting, frog surveys or Anabat surveys 


Family Scientific Name Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X Y Z Opp. F&F 

Birds 

Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood Duck (M*) 1 

Anatidae 

Anas gracilis Grey Teal 

Anas superciliosa Pacific Black Duck 

Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle (V, M*) 1 

Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle (M) 

Accipiridae Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier (V) 

Elanus axillaris Black-shouldered Kite 

Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk 

Aegothelidae Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar 

Ardea modesta Eastern Great Egret (M*) 

Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret 

Ardeidae 

Ardea pacifica White-necked (Pacific) Heron 

Egretta novaehollandiae White-faced Heron 

Nycticorax caledonicus Nankeen Night Heron 

Rallidae 

Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen 1 

Gallirallus philippensis Buff-banded Rail 

Podicipedidae Tachybaptus novaehollandiae Australiasian Grebe 

Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing 1 

Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon 1 

Columbidae Geopelia striata Peaceful Dove 1 

Geopelia humeralis Bar-shouldered Dove 1 2 

Leucosarcia picata Wonga Pigeon 1 

Eulophus roseicapillus Galah 2 4 2 

Cacatuidae Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested Cockatoo 1 3 3 1 1 1 

Calyptorhynchus funereus Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo 

Phalacrocoracidae 

Microcarbo melanoleucos Little Pied Cormorant 

Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant 

Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet (V) 2 2 2 2 1 2 

Platycercus eximius Eastern Rosella 1 3 

Psittacidae Platycercus elegans Crimson Rosella 

Psephotus haematonotus Red-rumped Parrot 2 3 

Alisterus scapularis Australian King Parrot 

Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed Cuckoo 1 1 1 

Chalcites basalis Horsefield’s Bronze-Cuckoo 

Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo 

Cuculidae 

Cacomantis variolosus Brush Cuckoo 1 

Chalcites lucidus Shining Bronze-Cuckoo 1 1 

Eudynamys orientalis Eastern Koel 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Scythrops novaehollandiae Channel-billed Cuckoo 1 1 2 1 1 

Halcyonidae 

Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra 1 1 1 1 

Todiramphus sanctus Sacred Kingfisher 2 2 1 1 1 1 

Meropidae Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater (M*) 1 2 1 1 

Coraciidae Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird 1 1 1 2 



Climacteridae 

Cormobates leucophaea White-throated Treecreeper 1 1 1 1 1 

Climacteris picumnus Brown Treecreeper (V) 1 

Maluridae 

Malurus cyaneus Superb Fairy-wren 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 4 2 

Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy-wren 

Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote 2 

Paradalotus striatus Striated Pardalote 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 

Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren 4 

Chthonicola sagittata Speckled Warbler (V) 1 1 1 

Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 

Gerygone mouki Brown Gerygone 1 

Pardalotidae Gerygone albogularis White-throated Gerygone 1 1 

Gerygone fusca Western Gerygone 1 2 1 

Acanthiza lineata Striated Thornbill 

Acanthiza pusilla Brown Thornbill 4 1 1 4 1 5 

Acanthiza reguloides Buff-rumped Thornbill 3 2 3 3 

Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill 

Acanthiza nana Yellow Thornbill 4 5 2 2 1 2 

Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird 1 2 

Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Spinebill 

Meliphaga lewinii Lewin’s Honeyeater 

Plectrhyncha lanceolata Striped Honeyeater 3 2 2 1 1 

Philemon corniculatus Noisy Friarbird 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 

Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 

Manorina melanophrys Bell Miner 

Lichenostomus chrysops Yellow-faced Honeyeater 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 3 4 1 1 2 2 2 

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus melanops Yellow-tufted Honeyeater 3 

Lichenostomus leucotis White-eared Honeyeater 2 

Acanthagenys rufogularis Spiney-cheeked Honeyeater 

Lichenostomus penicillatus White-plumed Honeyeater 1 3 

Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater 1 1 

Melithreptus lunatus White-naped Honeyeater 1 1 2 

Phylidonyris niger White-cheeked Honeyeater 3 

Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater 1 3 3 1 1 2 

Lichenostomus fuscus Fuscous Honeyeater 

Eopsaltriidae Microeca fascinans Jacky Winter 2 1 

Eupetidae Psophodes olivaceus Eastern Whipbird 

Eopsaltria australis Eastern Yellow Robin 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Petroicidae 

Melanodryas cucullata 

cucullata 

Hooded Robin (V) 

Petroica rosea Rose Robin 

Pomatostomidae Pomatostomus temporalis Grey-crowned Babbler (V) 2 4 3 

Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella (V) 1 

Falcunculus frontatus Crested Shrike-tit 2 

Pachycephalidae Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 

Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler 



Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Myiagra rubecula Leaden Flycatcher 2 

Monarchidae Myiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher 3 1 

Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark 2 1 

Rhipiduridae 

Rhipidura albiscarpa Grey Fantail 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 

Rhipidura leucophyrs Willie Wagtail 1 1 1 1 1 

Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 

Campephagidae Coracina tenuirostris Cicadabird 2 

Lalage sueurii White-winged Triller 1 

Oriolidae Oriolus sagittatus Olive-backed Oriole 1 1 1 1 1 

Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow 1 1 

Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Artamidae Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird 1 

Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Strepera graculina Pied Currawong 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 

Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian Raven 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Cororacidae Corcorax melanorhamphos White-winged Chough 3 5 10 2 4 

Charadriidae 

Vanellus miles Masked Lapwing 

Elseyornis melanops Black-fronted Dotterel 

Estrildidae 

Neochmia temporalis Red-browed Finch 2 3 

Taeniopygia bichenovii Double-barred Finch 

Nectariniidae Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird 1 1 1 1 1 

Hirundinidae 

Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow 1 

Petrochelidon ariel Fairy Martin 4 2 

Sylviidae Acrocephalus australis Australian Reed Warbler 2 

Megaluridae Cincloramphus mathewsi Rufous Songlark 2 1 1 

Zosteropidae Zosterops lateralis Silvereye 1 1 

Falco cenchroides Nankeen Kestrel 

Falconidae Falco berigora Brown Falcon 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 

Cisticolidae Cisticola exilis Golden-headed Cisticola 

Motacillidae Anthus novaeseelandiae Australasian Pipit 

Phasianidae 

Coturnix ypsilophora Brown Quail 

Coturnix pectoralis Stubble Quail 

Podargidae Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth 

Recurvirostridae Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt 

Strigidae 

Ninox strenua Powerful Owl (V) 

Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook 

Sturnidae Sturnus tristis Common Myna 

Mammals 

Vombatidae Vombatus ursinus Common Wombat 

Petauridae Petaurus breviceps Sugar Glider 

Phalangeridae Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum 

Macropodidae Macropus giganteus Eastern Grey Kangaroo 



Macropus robustus Common Wallaroo 

Macropus rufogriseus Red-necked Wallaby 

Wallabia bicolour Swamp Wallaby 

Pteropodidae Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox (V) 

Emballonuridae Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheath-tail Bat D 

Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern Horseshoe-bat D 

Austronomous australis White-striped Freetail Bat D 

Molossidae Mormopterus sp. 2 D 

Mormopterus sp.4 Southern Freetail-bat D 

Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat (V) D 

Miniopterus schreibersii Common Bentwing-bat (V) D 

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat (V, V*) D 

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould’s Wattled Bat D 

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat D 

Vespertilionidae Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat P 

Canidae 

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox* 

Canis lupus familiaris* Dog* 

Frogs 

Myobatrachidae 

Hylidae 

Crinia signifera Common Froglet 

Limnodynastes dumerilli subsp. 

dumerilli 

Banjo Frog 

Platyplectrum ornatum Ornate Burrowing Frog 

Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Spotted Grass Frog 

Uperoleia laevigata Smooth Toadlet 

Litoria caerulea Green Tree Frog 

Litoria chloris Red-eyed Tree Frog 

Litoria dentata Bleating Tree Frog 

Litoria fallax Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog 

Litoria latopalmata Broad-palmed Frog 

Litoria peronii Peron’s Tree Frog 

Litoria tyleri Tyler’s Tree Frog 

Litoria wilcoxii Stone Creek Frog 

Reptiles 

Egernia striolata Tree Skink 

Scincidae 

Lampropholis delicata Delicate Garden Skink 

Varanidae Varanus Varius Lace Monitor 


Appendix E 

Riparian Condition Assessment Field Proforma 

2011 Annual Ecological Monitoring Report, Final Report, May 2012 

Page 89

Site ID: ____________________ Date: ___________________ Job Number: __ ____________ 

Recorder: ____________________ GPS: E_________________ N__________________ Waypoint Name: __________ 

Photo Numbers: N:_________ S:__________ E:__________ W:__________ 

Site Location: North Wambo Creek South Wambo Creek Stoney Creek Waterfall Creek 

Landform Morphological Type: Crest Mid slope Lower Slope Flat 

Landform Pattern: Precipitous Steep Gently Inclined Gentle 

TOTAL TRANSECT 

SCORE: ________ 

Blue (Excellent) = >33 

Green (Good) = 28 - 33 

Amber (Average) = 14 - 27 

Red (Poor) = 30 

(3) 

Total PFC of weed 

species in canopy 

>70 

(-3) 

30-70 

(-2) 

1-30 

(-1) 

0 

(0) 

Number of O/S species 

0 

(0) 

1-2 

(1) 

2-5 

(2) 

>5 

(3) 

Reproductive stage of 

majority of native 

overstorey 

Seedling 

(0) 

Juvenile (too young 

to reproduce) 

(1) 

Mixture of juvenile 

and mature 

(2) 

Mature 

(3) 

Native Vegetation 

Recruitment 

Nil 

(0) 

Fruit present (on 

ground or on tree) 

(1) 

Fruit and seedlings 

present 

(2) 

Fruit, seedlings 

and juveniles 

present 

(3) 

List of dominant species (3-5) 


Understorey (shrub 

layer) 

(Score) 

Comments 

Average height of 

understorey species (m) 

3 

(3) 

Total PFC incl weeds 

0 

(0) 

1-30 

(1) 

30-70 

(2) 

>70 

(3) 

Total PFC of weed 

species in understorey 

>70 

(-3) 

30-70 

(-2) 

1-30 

(-1) 

0 

(0) 

Number of O/S species 

0 

(0) 

1-2 

(1) 

2-5 

(2) 

>5 

(3) 


Ground Cover (Score) Comments 

Average ground cover 

height (cm) 

0 

(0) 

1-10 

(1) 

11-50 

(2) 

51-100 

(3) 

Leaf litter depth (cm) 

0 

(0) 

10 

(3) 

Leaf litter cover (%) 

75 

(3) 

Bare Soil cover (%) 

>75 

(0) 

50-75 

(1) 

20-50 

(2) 

75 

(-3) 

50-75 

(-2) 

20-50 

(-1) 

20 

(3) 



Introduced Species (Score) Comments 

Number of weed species 

in all strata 

>5 

(-3) 

3-5 

(-2) 

1-2 

(-1) 

nil 

(0) 

List of dominant weed species (3-5) 

Feral animal activity (Score) Comments 

Rabbits 

Active Warrens 

(-3) 

Scat mounds 

(-2) 

Soil Disturbance 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Pigs 

Confirmed 

Sighting 

(-3) 

Soil Disturbance 

(-2) 

Tracks / Scats 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Dogs / Foxes 

Confirmed 

Sighting 

(-3) 

Scats 

(-2) 

Tracks only 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Other 

Confirmed 

Sighting (-3) 

Scats 

(-2) 

Tracks only 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 


Surface Stability (Score) Comments 

Topsoil 

Nil 

(0) 

Exposed / shallow 

(1) 

Stable 

(2) 

Stable and 

organic content 

present 

(3) 

Mass Movement 

(slumping) 

Severe 

(-3) 

Moderate 

(-2) 

Minor 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Sheet or Rill Erosion 

Severe 

(-3) 

Moderate 

(-2) 

Minor 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Gully Erosion (>0.3m 

deep) 

Severe 

(-3) 

Moderate 

(-2) 

Minor 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Stream Bank and/or 

Tunnel Erosion 

Severe 

(-3) 

Moderate 

(-2) 

Minor 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Soil Compaction 

Severe 

(-3) 

Moderate 

(-2) 

Minor 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Sedimentation evidence 

(ie from upslope erosion 

/ construction works / 

sed fences not 

maintained etc 

Severe 

(-3) 

Moderate 

(-2) 

Minor 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 


Riparian Microhabitat (Score) Comments 

Water Presence 

Nil 

(0) 

Ephemeral Puddles 

or Stream 

(1) 

Dam 

(2) 

Perennial Stream 

(3) 

Rocks 

Nil 

(0) 

Scattered small 

rocks various sizes 

(1) 

Large rocks of 

various sizes 

(2) 

Boulders partially 

emerging, various 

sizes 

(3) 

Timber 

Nil 

(0) 

Scattered twigs, 

sticks 

(1) 

Scattered logs 

(2) 

Dead standing 

trees OR in 

stream snags 

(fallen timber) 

(3) 

Disturbance (Score) Comments 

Rubbish 

Frequent Building 

and/or mining 

debris 

(-3) 

Scattered rural litter 

(eg car body) 

(-2) 

Scattered domestic 

litter (bagged rubbish, 

tires etc) 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Unauthorised Access 

Evidence of largescale 

clearing 

(-3) 

Small scale damage 

- broken limbs, 

vehicle tracks 

(-2) 

Broken gates, 

padlocks 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 

Other 

Severe 

(-3) 

Moderate 

(-2) 

Minor 

(-1) 

Nil 

(0) 


Appendix F 

Riparian Condition Scores 


Overstorey 

Understorey 

Ground Cover 

Introduced 

Species 

Feral Animals 

Surface 

Stability 

Riparian 

Microhabitat 

Disturbance 

Table 1: North Wambo Creek Riparian Transect Condition Scores 

North Wambo Creek Transect 

1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 10A 11A 12A 13A 14A 15A 

Average Height 2 3 3 0 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 

Total PFC 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 

Total PFC of Weeds Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Number of Overstorey 

Species 

1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 

Reproductive Stage 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 


Recruitment 

2 2 1 0 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 


Total PFC Incl. Weeds 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Total PFC of Weeds Only 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 


Recruitment 

0 1 0 0 3 0 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 


Leaf Litter Depth 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 

Leaf Letter Cover 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Bare Soil Cover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 

Total PFC Incl. Weeds 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 

Total PFC of Weed 

Species 

-1 -2 -2 -3 -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 

Number of Groundcover 

Species 

2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Number of Weed Species -3 -3 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 

Rabbits -2 -3 -3 0 -3 -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -3 0 

Pigs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dogs/Foxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 -3 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Top Soil 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Mass Movement 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 

Sheet or Rill Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gully Erosion 0 -1 -1 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 

Stream Bank 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 

Soil Compaction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sedimentation Evidence 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Water Presence 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 

Rocks 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Timber 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 

Rubbish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unauthorised Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Score 19 18 18 9 15 19 22 23 26 28 27 15 26 19 34 

Condition M M M P M M M M M M M M M M E 


Overstorey 

Understorey 

Ground Cover 

Introduced 

Species 

Feral Animals 

Surface 

Stability 

Riparian 

Microhabitat 

Disturbance 

Table 5-1: North Wambo Creek Riparian Section Condition Scores 

North Wambo Creek Transect 

1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N 13N 14N 

Average Height 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Total PFC 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 

Total PFC of Weeds Only 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 

Number of Overstorey 

Species 

2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 

Reproductive Stage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 


Recruitment 

3 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 


Total PFC Incl. Weeds 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Total PFC of Weeds Only 0 -1 0 -1 -1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 


Recruitment 

3 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 


Leaf Litter Depth 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Leaf Letter Cover 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bare Soil Cover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Total PFC Incl. Weeds 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Total PFC of Weed 

Species 

-1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 

Number of Groundcover 

Species 

0 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 

Number of Weed Species -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 

Rabbits -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pigs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dogs/Foxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -3 -1 -1 0 0 -3 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Top Soil 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Mass Movement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sheet or Rill Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gully Erosion -1 0 0 -3 -2 0 -1 0 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 

Stream Bank 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 

Soil Compaction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sedimentation Evidence 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 

Water Presence 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Rocks 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Timber 2 3 2 0 1 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 

Rubbish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unauthorised Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Score 26 28 22 15 19 28 24 31 32 25 22 29 27 29 

Condition M G M M M G M G G M M G M G 


Overstorey 

Understorey 

Ground Cover 

Table 5-2: Stoney Creek Riparian Condition Scores 

Transect 

Section 

1C 2C 3C 4C 5C 1T 2T 3T 4T 

Average Height 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Total PFC 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 

Total PFC of Weeds Only 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 

Number of Overstorey Species 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 

Reproductive Stage 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Native Vegetation Recruitment 3 3 0 2 3 3 3 3 1 


Total PFC Incl. Weeds 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 

Total PFC of Weeds Only 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 



Leaf Litter Depth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Leaf Letter Cover 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Bare Soil Cover 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 


Total PFC of Weed Species 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -1 

Number of Groundcover Species 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 

Introduced Species Number of Weed Species -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 

Rabbits 0 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -1 -3 -3 

Feral Animal Activity 

Pigs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dogs/Foxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Top Soil 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Mass Movement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sheet or Rill Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Surface Stability Gully Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -1 -1 

Stream Bank 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -1 -2 

Soil Compaction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sedimentation Evidence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Water Presence 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 

Riparian Microhabitat Rocks 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 

Timber 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 

Rubbish 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 

Disturbance 

Unauthorised Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Score 38 38 20 26 30 43 31 28 27 

Condition E E M M G E E G M 


Overstorey 

Understorey 

Ground Cover 

Table 5-3: South Wambo Creek Riparian Condition Scores 

Transect 

Section 

1B 2B 3B 4B 5B 1S 2S 3S 4S 


Total PFC 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 

Total PFC of Weeds Only 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 

Number of Overstorey Species 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 

Reproductive Stage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 




Total PFC of Weeds Only 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 



Leaf Litter Depth 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 

Leaf Letter Cover 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bare Soil Cover 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 


Total PFC of Weed Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 

Number of Groundcover Species 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 

Introduced Species Number of Weed Species -2 -3 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 

Rabbits -1 -1 -2 -1 0 -2 -3 -2 -1 

Feral Animal Activity 

Pigs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dogs/Foxes 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Top Soil 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Mass Movement 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 

Sheet or Rill Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Surface Stability Gully Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Stream Bank -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 

Soil Compaction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sedimentation Evidence -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 

Water Presence 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 

Riparian 

Rocks 

Microhabitat 

0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 

Timber 0 1 0 2 2 3 2 3 2 

Rubbish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Disturbance Unauthorised Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Score 16 22 16 26 18 26 29 27 26 

Condition M M M M M M G M M 


Appendix G 

Riparian Condition Photographs 


Table 5-4: 2011 Stoney Creek Riparian Condition Photographs Compared with 2010 Photographs 

Transect Left Bank 1 Upstream 2 Right Bank 1 Downstream 2 

1C 2011 

1C 2010 


2C 2010 




3C 2010 


4C 2010 




5C 2010 


Table 5-5: 2011 South Wambo Creek Riparian Condition Photographs compared to 2010 photos 


1B 2011 

1B 2010 




2B 2010 


3B 2010 




4B 2010 


5B 2010 

1 = Bank side was assessed while looking upstream. Left and right bank photos were taken from any position along the transect that allowed as 

much as possible of the bank to be contained within the photograph. 

2 = Upstream and downstream photographs were taken while standing in the centre of the creek channel. 


Table 5-6: 2011 North Wambo Riparian Condition Photographs compared with 2010 Photographs 


1A 2011 

1A 2010 


2A 2010 




3A 2010 


4A 2010 




5A 2010 


6A 2010 




7A 2010 


8A 2010 




9A 2010 

10A 

2011 

10A 

2010 



11A 


11A 

2010 

12A 


12A 

2010 



13A 


13A 

2010 

14A 


14A 

2010 



15A 


15A 

2010 

1 = Bank side was assessed while looking upstream. Left and right bank photos were taken from any position along the transect that allowed as 

much as possible of the bank to be contained within the photograph. 

2 = Upstream and downstream photographs were taken while standing in the centre of the creek channel. 


Appendix H 

Staff Qualifications 


Curriculum Vitae 

TOBY LAMBERT 

Principal Ecologist 

Newcastle, NSW 

Bachelor of Environmental Science, University of Newcastle, 1993 - 1996 

Accredited BioBanking Assessor, Tafe NSW – Ryde, 2009 

NSW Driver’s Licence (Class C) 

OH&S Induction Training (Green Card) 

NPWS Scientific Investigation Licence and NSW Animal Ethics Research Authority 

AREAS OF EXPERTISE: 

Toby has over fifteen years experience in undertaking and managing a diverse array of ecological and 

environmental surveys and assessments. As a Principal Ecologist, he supervises all facets of flora and fauna 

assessment and related reports: planning, supervision of field and reporting staff, project scheduling, budget 

management, liaising with clients and Government departments and providing advice of all kinds. He has also been 

called upon to prepare expert evidence for matters at the NSW Land and Environment Court. Toby has 

produced ecological and environmental documentation for private and public projects ranging in complexity. These 

include a number of wind farms throughout Australia and New Zealand, coal mines and a range of infrastructure 

projects within the Hunter region. Toby has also managed ecological master planning for residential projects in 

Sydney, the Central Coast and the Hunter. Toby’s fields of expertise are Environmental Impact Assessment and 

mediation, flora, fauna and habitat survey method, design and identification, detailed understanding of legislation 

and threatened species issues, terrestrial fauna surveys and project management. He has experience in conducting 

comprehensive fauna surveys and preparing related documentation in a broad array of environments throughout 

New South Wales, with most projects located in the greater Sydney area, Mid-West, Blue Mountains, Central 

Coast, Hunter and Forster / Great Lakes regions. Toby has also undertaken ecological projects in Western 

Australia, Queensland, the ACT and New Zealand. 

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE: 

Ecology 

Centennial Coal - Environmental Project Manager for consultancy works to Centennial Coal covering a broad 

range of disciplines, but primarily focussed on ecological impact assessments, monitoring and management at 

numerous coal mines in the Mid-West, western Blue Mountains and Lake Macquarie NSW. 

Peabody Energy Australia - Senior Project Manager for project specific and ongoing monitoring 

requirements for Wambo Coal Mine at Warkworth in the Upper Hunter Valley, Toby liases directly with the 

Environmental Manager of the mine in relation to requirements to fulfil consent conditions for the ongoing 

development and operation of the project. 

Allco Wind Energy - This involved undertaking fauna surveys for a 100 turbine wind farm on the North 

Island of New Zealand and coordinating other ecological specialists to prepare an ecological impact assessment 

for submission to Taranaki Council. Aspects included regular liason with the Department of Conservation 

regarding issues of significance, survey methodology, and mitigation and management measures to protect 

significant ecological features. Local bird groups were also involved and Toby was involved in the public 

consultation sessions. 

Stockland Wallarah Peninsula - This Lake Macquarie, NSW project required a multi-disciplinary approach 

to an innovative residential proposal on environmentally sensitive land. Project management of, and participation 

in, a large and diverse planning team were major features of this work. Toby was a pivotal member of the 

rpsgroup.com.au


- CONTINUED - 

project management team that provided the detailed ecological input and advice that was required from the 

early stages of the planning process to the point of submission to determining authorities. The proposal 

required sophisticated and creative impact assessment and reporting. Toby made a major contribution to the 

production of a series of comprehensive ecological reports that ensured the ecological integrity of the site was 

maintained in the post-development landscape. 

Hunter Economic Zone Industrial Estate - Project Manager for the environmental component of the 

development of the Hunter Economic Zone industrial estate at Kurri Kurri, to be the largest industrial estate in 

NSW. 

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: 

Senior Project Manager - Cumberland Ecology, Epping 2005 

Duties included flora and fauna surveying and survey design; overseeing and contribution to the preparation of 

complex ecological and environmental reports for both small and large projects; flora and fauna surveying and 

survey design; liaison with both the private sector and federal, state and local government departments. 

Principal Consultant / Co-Founder - Keystone Ecological, Kariong 2004 - 2005 

Preparation and development of Keystone Ecological Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment report format; 

development of client database, including organisation of promotional material, logo design and customer relations; 

administration including preparation of quotes and invoices and organising accounts and BAS statements; Flora and 

fauna surveying and survey design; along with Anabat II Data Analysis. 

Project Manager - Ecology - Conacher Travers Environmental, Somersby 1998 - 2004 

Supervision of flora and fauna survey design; report quality control; production of technical reports such as Review 

of Environmental Factors, Flora & Fauna Assessments, Statement of Environmental Effects, Species Impact 

Statements and Plans of Management, Land and Environment Court Evidence preparation, EPBC Act Referrals and 

Preliminary Information preparation; Flora & fauna surveying; liaison with Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Department of Environment and Heritage, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural 

Resources, Department of Agriculture, Local Governments and private clients; Anabat II Data Analysis; Water 

Testing; Data Recording and Statistical Analysis. 

Volunteer for Green and Golden Bell Frog Survey - Australian Museum, North Avoca 1999 - 2001 

Survey and searches for the endangered species Green & Golden Bell Frog; assisting in weighing, measuring and 

micro-chipping frogs for on-going research purposes. 

Environmental Scientist - Australian Defence Industries (ADI), St Marys 1998 

Bore Water Sampling; statistical analysis of test results; and report production. 

Environmental Scientist - Anne Clements & Associates, North Sydney 1997 

Field Assistant to Botanist and data recording. 

Research Assistant - University of Newcastle 1996 

Initiation of design of final year project for Biology Dept; research into fire regimes on species composition & 

regeneration in open woodland; use of advanced scientific equipment including infra red gas analyser in the field, 

and replication of experiments using computer database; theoretical knowledge on soils, nutrient cycles & 

vegetation types. 

MEMBERSHIPS & ACHIEVEMENTS: 

Ecological Consultants Association of NSW (ECA) – Council Member 

Newcastle Green Drinks for Environmental Professionals organising committee 

rpsgroup.com.au


PAUL HILLIER 

Senior Ecologist 


Bachelor of Environmental Science (Environmental Management) 

NSW Driver’s Licence (Class C) 

OH&S Induction Training (Green Card) 

Senior First Aid 

Dive Master (PADI Scuba Diver) 


Paul has broad range of Ecological Assessment reporting experience from 7 years of professional ecological work 

both in Australia and abroad. Project experience has primarily included a range of flora and fauna assessment 

disciplines as required by a wide range of corporate and domestic client requirements. Paul has been employed 

both within the private and public sector, providing a strong knowledge and understanding of the role of both 

developers and government in legislation and planning. 

Paul has the majority of his experience within the consultancy industry, primarily focussing on the preparation of 

Flora and Fauna Assessments, Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, Review of 

Environmental Factors and Statement of Environmental Effects. Paul has experience with targeted threatened flora 

and fauna surveys, including a strong knowledge of Geographic Information Systems mapping and analyses. 


Ecology 

• Ecological Constraints Master Plan – Huntlee, Singleton and Cessnock, NSW (2007-2010) 

• Ecosystem Function Analysis – Wambo Coal, Singleton NSW (2010). 

• Ecological Assessment Report – White Rock Wind Farm, Glen Innes, NSW (2011). 


Ecological Records Officer – West Yorkshire Ecology (2007-2009) 

Duties included collection and collation of ecological records from across West Yorkshire, United Kingdom; 

Preparation of fee proposals for ecological services; GIS/ spatial analysis and database management; Database 

searches and reporting; Liaison with client, stakeholder groups, state and local governing bodies; Review of local 

planning applications and consequent consultations to local councils. 

Ecologist – Harper Somers O’Sullivan (2004-2006) 

Duties included flora and fauna surveying and survey design; overseeing and contribution to the preparation of 

complex ecological and environmental reports for both small and large projects; liaison with both the private 

sector and federal, state and local government department. 


• For Australian Wildlife Needing Aid (FAWNA), NSW Australia 

rpsgroup.com.au


ROB SANSOM 

Botanist/Ecologist 


Bachelor of Science (Hons), University of New England 


Robert has over eleven years experience in undertaking a diverse array of ecological and environmental surveys 

and assessments. Rob has also produced or sourced background information on ecological and environmental 

matters for use by expert witnesses in support of clients in the NSW Land and Environment Court. 

Rob’s fields of special competence are Threatened Flora species searches; Threatened Flora, Vegetation and 

Bushland Management Plans; delineation and GPS plotting of Vegetation Community boundaries; and species / 

community / wetland monitoring surveys and reporting. 

• Environmental and ecological impact assessment, monitoring and reporting 

• Terrestrial flora and habitat survey design, execution, analysis and reporting 

• Spatial mapping of vegetation and threatened flora species using differentially corrected 

• GPS accurate to less than 1 metre 

• Understanding of threatened species legislation, issues and requirements 

• Bushland and vegetation management planning and monitoring 

• Threatened Flora Management Plans and Monitoring 

• Bushfire Threat Assessments 

• Production of a wide variety of reports and assessments 

• Targeted threatened flora surveys 

• Flora identification and habitat assessment 

• Delineation and GPS mapping of vegetation community boundaries 

• Ecological Community quality assessments and reports 

• Experience in PATN Statistical package 


Mining 

• Angus Place – Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment for proposed longwall mining. Includes vegetation surveys, 

Community Mapping, Flora Species Identification and assessment under the NSW Threatened Species 

Conservation Act 1995, (TSC Act 1995) and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act 1999, (EPBC Act 1999). 

• Bulga Mine Refuelling Facility – Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment including field survey, vegetation 

community mapping, flora species identification, writing of Flora and Fauna Assessment to address the 

requirements of the TSC Act (1995) and the EPBC Act (1999). 

Infrastucture 

• Transgrid - Mangrove Mountain – Targeted searches for threatened flora species (Tetratheca glandulosa and 

Prostanthera junonis) prior to regular maintenance of high voltage power line easements, mark-up and mapping of 

locations, population extent and counts. 

• Transgrid - Bulga – Targeted searches for threatened flora species and endangered ecological communities 

prior to regular maintenance of high voltage power line easements, mark-up and mapping of locations and 

extent. Flora and Fauna Assessment to address the requirements of the TSC Act (1995) and the EPBC Act 

(1999). 

rpsgroup.com.au


- CONTINUED - 

• Wallarah Peninsula – Searches for Threatened species (Tetratheca juncea, Syzygium paniculatum and Grevillea 

parviflora) for proposed water supply and sewer lines. 

Monitoring 

• Karuah – Annual monitoring flora and fauna surveys and reporting for a Hard Rock Quarry and Processing 

Plant. 

• Wambo Coal Mine – 2 yrs annual surveys and field works associated with Landscape Function Analysis (LFA) 

of rehabilitated areas. 

Vegetation Management 

• Cliftleigh – Vegetation Management Plan for riparian / constructed wetland area associated with large 

residential development. 

• Cessnock – Vegetation Management Plan for proposed residential development and upgrade to golf course. 

• Newnes Junction – Flora and Fauna Management Plan for proposed sand extraction quarry. 


Botanist – Conacher Travers Pty Ltd 

(12 years) 

Involved in the production of a wide assortment of ecological reports such as Flora and Fauna Assessments (FFA), 

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIS), Review of Environmental Factors (REF), Bush Fire Assessments (BFA) 

Vegetation Management Plans (VMP), Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) and Species Impact Statements (SIS). 

Responsible for flora surveys, vegetation community mapping, flora species identification and flora input into 

reports. Also responsible for acquiring ecological data and maintaining this data to the most up-to-date status. 

Botanist – Conacher Environmental Group 

(1 1 / 2 years) 

Small Project coordinator; Botanist; Data acquisition, management, manipulation and Statistical analysis. Production 

of a a wide variety of Reports such as FFAs, BFAs, EIS, REFs, VMPs AMR, and SIS. 

Botanist / Ecologist – RPS Australia East Pty Ltd 

(1 year) 

Undertaking flora and fauna field surveys, Monitoring, Land Function Analysis (LFA) and a wide variety of reports 

for various purposes and types of clients. 


• OH&S Induction Training (Green Card) 

• NPWS Scientific Investigation Licence 

• NSW Animal Ethics Research Authority 

• Planning for Bushfire Prone Areas (Short course) 

• Trimble Short Course – Using Trimble Hand-held GPS Datalogger with Terrasync software and desktop 

Pathfinder Software. 

• Erosion and Sediment Control – Fundamentals of Erosion and Sediment Control (Short course) 

rpsgroup.com.au


ANDREW SMITH 

Field Ecologist 


Ph.D. (Avian Population Ecology), Bachelor of Science in Environmental Biology (Sub-major: Wildlife Ecology) 

NSW Driver’s Licence (Class C), 4WD Training 

White Card (OH&S Induction Training) 

Remote and Senior First Aid 

Waterways Authority Boating Licence 


Andrew has over 10 years experience in Environmental Science with a wide range of industry groups. His skills 

include project design, data collection, statistical analysis and presentation of scientific data (both written and oral 

communication). Andrew has produced a number of ecological reports for the private sector and as peerreviewed 

scientific publications. Recently, Andrew used his knowledge Australian birds to create migration route 

maps of a large number of bush birds that move seasonal along south-eastern Australia. 


ENVIRONMENT 

Flora and fauna identification and habitat assessment 

Targeted threatened flora and fauna surveys 

Delineation and mapping of vegetation communities 

Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) assessment 

Experience with GPS/GIS for project design and mapping 

Conducting Field Surveys for Flora, Fauna and Habitat Identification 

Report Preparation including Fauna and Flora Assessments 

Ecological Monitoring and Reporting 

Vegetation Management Plan Reporting 

Understanding of environmental legislation 


Research Officer – Birds Australia (2010) 

Andrew was employed on the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative project: movements and landscape connectivity. The 

project was funded of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW. Primarily, he mapped 

the movements and migration routes of several bird species along south-eastern Australia, including the Swift 

Parrot, Regent Honeyeater, Flame Robin and Scarlet Robin. 

Scientific Officer – Department of Industry and Investment (2009) 

Andrew was employed under Dr Rod Kavanagh to perform over 100 bird surveys over a large area on the midnorth 

coast of NSW. This work was performed to help develop a broad scale biological diversity monitoring 

strategy. 

rpsgroup.com.au


- CONTINUED - 

Ph.D Candidate – Australian White Ibis: University of Technology, Sydney (2005–2009) 

Andrew investigated the population ecology of the Australia White Ibis (Threskiornis molucca) in the urban 

environment. Andrew compiled detailed information on the breeding, feeding, movement and population dynamics 

of ibis which is critical for the longer term sustainable management of this species. 

Technical Officer – University of Technology, Sydney (2007–2009) 

Andrew was employed to help run the practical components for a number of environmental subjects: Wildlife 

Ecology, Animal Behaviour and Physiology, and Catchment Ecosystems. His role mainly involved teaching students 

a wide range of wildlife surveying techniques. 


Ecological Consultants Association of NSW (ECA) 

NSW, Royal Zoological Society (RZS) 

Birdlife Australia 

Australia Bird Study Association 

Landscape Functional Analysis Training 

rpsgroup.com.au

Appendix 3 

Summary of 

Environmental Incidents

Wambo Coal Pty Limited AEMR 2011-2012 

Summary of Environmental Incidents 

1 July 2011 - 30 June 2012 

NO 

DATE 

RECEIVED 

AREA 

RESPONSIBLE 

CAT. 

1 20/9/2011 Projects - Daracon 1 

ISSUE 

Excessive dust generation from Project works 

NWCD 

ACTION TAKEN 

Vegetation had been cleared over the previous week, 

exposing bulldust on high wind day. 

Very windy day – wind speed between 8am and 4pm 

on 20/9/2011 was 9.5m/s @ 280 degrees (WNW). 

More formalised assessment of dust potential, and 

modification of operations in response to climatic 

conditions (as put into practice on the high wind day). 

Introduction of a second water cart. Currently a 

smaller subcontractor’s cart is being used, while a 

second (or, if required, third) large water cart is being 

sourced and prepared for use. 

Establishment of a second water refill standpipe, to 

provide greater flexibility in water cart refilling, and 

ensure greater watering coverage. 

Modification of refill standpipes to prevent the 

recurrence of the refilling difficulties caused by the 

strong wind gusts on the day of the incident. 

Identification of topsoil material with high dust 

potential (i.e. bulldust), and the prioritised 

management (stripping, stockpiling and stockpile 

revegetation) of that material, as permitted by 

prevailing weather conditions. Once the topsoil 

material has been stripped, stockpiled and 

revegetated, it is expected that the underlying clay 

material will represent a much lesser dust risk. 

• Implementation of processes for the regular 

inspection of the project site, closer assessment of 

dust monitoring results, and provision of timely 

feedback to the project contractors. 

2 6/10/2011 Projects - Daracon 1 Creek line Disturbance 

 

 

 

Authorisation (DA approval) had been obtained to 

clear ground for construction of NWC Diversion. 

Vegetation clearance and ground disturbance had 

occurred prematurely for entire area of flood bund 

section of creek, causing unnecessary disturbance, 

and increasing erosion/ sedimentation risk. 

Section of impacted creek line to be revegetated. Turf 

Appendix 3: Summary of Environmental Incidents


NO 

DATE 

RECEIVED 

AREA 

RESPONSIBLE 

CAT. 

ISSUE 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN 

being laid in creek bed and spray mulch on disturbed 

creek banks. 

Additional sediment control structures, including 

sediment pond, being installed for wider project 

disturbance area. 

Communication to project supervisors and toolbox 

talk to project workforce, about importance of 

maintaining the integrity of sediment/ erosion control 

measures. 

3 10/11/2011 Downer EDI 1 Small spill in fuel farm 

4 28/12/2011 Downer EDI 1 Excessive dust Generation 

5 21/01/2012 Downer EDI 1 Diesel Fuel Leak 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approx. 50L diesel was released into the fuel farm 

bunded area when an operator failed to turn off the 

valve prior to removing the hose. 

No contaminated soil or water, the fuel will be 

pumped out of the bund and disposed with the waste 

oil. 

Open cut areas not of operational necessity were 

closed off to heavy vehicle traffic to reduce watering 

footprint. 

Grading works are ongoing to remove the layer of 

loose surface dust and generally improve road/ramp 

surface conditions. 

Toolbox talks given to operators regarding driving to 

conditions, including slowing down in dry and/or 

windy conditions to reduce wheel generated dust. 

The Downer EDI Standard Work Practice (SWP) for 

Dust Control is being updated to improve operational 

response to dusty conditions. 

Approximately 600 litres of fuel was leaked from a 

punctured hose on a D10T Dozer while ripping a 

ramp in Montrose Open Cut 

The leak was quickly reported to OCE and Workshop. 

As the dozer was operating within the Blast Exclusion 

Zone the OCE requested that it move to a safe 

location outside of the zone before shutting down 

Once out of the blast area, the Dozer was isolated 

and absorbent materials placed around to contain the 

leak. 

Contaminated soil to be Bio-remediated once the 

dozer is repaired and moved away from the spill site. 

The operator was disciplined and retrained in the 



NO 

DATE 

RECEIVED 

AREA 

RESPONSIBLE 

CAT. 

ISSUE 

6 05/03/2012 Wambo 2 South Wambo Dam Overflow 

7 30/03/2012 Downer Blasting 2 Vibration & fume Event 

8 4/05/2012 Downer EDI 1 Excessive dust generation in open cut 

Appendix 3: Summary of Environmental Incidents 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN 

correct operation of the dozer for the given task. 

A discharge to ground occurred at Wambo Coal 

Mine, when mine water overflowed from South 

Wambo Dam (the dam) via the dam spillway. 

Once the faulty water level sensor was noticed in the 

last week of February, a new sensor was ordered and 

pumping to the dam was halted (pumping from the 

dam continued to transfer mine water for licenced 

discharge). 

Once the discharge was noticed, minor earthworks 

were conducted on the dam spillway to halt the 

discharge, and reduce the risk of further discharge. 

A replacement probe for the dam water level sensor, 

which was on order at the time of the discharge, has 

been installed and calibrated to ensure accurate 

recording and reporting of dam water level. 

Earthworks are planned to ensure the spillway is 

reinstated in accordance with the dam design. 

Two shots on 30 March 2012 generated ground 

vibration and overpressure. 

The shots generated airborne dust and visible NOx 

fumes. Both shots were observed, and visible NOx 

fumes remained and dissipated onsite; however, 

airborne dust may have left site. 

The pre-blast checklist has been modified to include 

a Blast Fumes Checklist, which records pre-blast 

conditions that may contribute to visible NOx fumes, 

and post-blast NOx fumes observations and rating. 

Wambo has installed an additional blast monitoring 

station approximately 2km to the southwest of the 

existing BM05 (Muller) monitor, to ensure blast 

overpressure and ground vibration levels experienced 

at residences in that vicinity are accurately 

represented by those measured at BM05. 

Report sent to EPA – Recommendations/Outcomes 

pending 

Dust observed from haul trucks in Montrose and 

Bates Pits during open cut inspection. 

Immediately following the inspection, haul trucks 

were instructed to reduce speed until additional 

watercarts were made available. 

The two remaining watercarts were repaired and


NO 

DATE 

RECEIVED 

AREA 

RESPONSIBLE 

CAT. 

ISSUE 

9 19/05/2012 Downer EDI 1 Hydraulic Oil Leak 

10 21/05/2012 Wambo 1 Drill site established on unapproved site 

11 21/05/2012 Wambo 2 C11 Dam Seepage 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN 

made operational, with four watercarts operating by 

3.30pm that day. 

Shift supervisors have been reminded of their duty to 

report and address dust generating conditions, as per 

the Downer EDI Mining Standard Work Practice - 

Dust Management (SWP 1021). 

On Monday 07 May, operations were modified, in 

accordance with SWP 1021, due to dry, windy 

conditions. 

Driller noticed oil coming from rig during operation. 

Immediately shut down and isolated machine. 

Then proceeded to contain spill using provided spill 

kit materials. 

Maintenance inspection and testing was carried out 

by Onedrill 

Contractors accidentally established drill site at a 

location on Wambo owned land in 

The error arose through confusion between this site 

and another nearby site that had been approved. 

Environmental Dpt spoke with both the Geologists 

and Contractors to ensure correct Surface 

Disturbance permit process of site approval and 

establishment are being followed. 

Identified that flow of documentation was not 

reaching all personnel involved directly in setting up 

the site which allowed for the wrong site to be 

established. 

All personnel involved are now to receive a copy of 

relevant documents. Supervisor must physically visit 

the site with the personnel. 

A discharge to ground occurred at Wambo Coal 

Mine, when mine water seeped through spoil from 

C11Dam (the dam) onto a neighbouring mine’s land. 

The discharge was first noticed on the 21 May 2012. 

Diesel pump installed in C11 to pump down water 

level 

Farm dam on United land reinstated to catch 

seepage. Sediment control placed downstream. 

Vacuum truck used to recover seepage water from 

downstream of farm dam. 


Appendix 4 

Register of Community 

Complaints


Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 

1 29/07/2011 2 Noise 

Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register - July 2011 

Type - Primary Receiving Officer Action Taken 

Lachlan Crawford (OEH 

Hotline) 

Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register – August 2011 

Complaint logged. Investigated. Noise consent 

exceeded, likely due to environmental 

conditions. No further action 

Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 

Type - Primary 

Type - 

Secondary 

2 05/8/2011 1 Noise Dust 

Receiving Officer 


Hotline/DOPI by phone) 

3 15/8/2011 1 Water discharge Troy Favell 

Action Taken 

Complaint logged. Investigated. 

Noise source not identified, no 

operations occurring within 

described area. Complainant 

contacted by WCPL staff. No further 

action 


Discharge point capped. No further 

action 

Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 


Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register – September 2011 




5 14/09/2011 11 Dust Lachlan Crawford 


Complainant contacted by WCPL 

staff. No further action 


Operations modified to reduce 

future dust production. 

Complainant contacted by WCPL 

Staff. No further action. 

Appendix 4: Summary of Community Complaints


Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register – October 2011 

Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 


Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register – November 2011 

Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 

Type - 

Primary 


6 16/11/2011 12 Noise Lachlan Crawford 



Action Taken 

Complaint logged. Investigated. Complainant 

contacted by WCPL staff. No further action. 

Complaint logged. Investigated. Within noise 

compliance levels. Complainant contacted by 

WCPL staff. No further action taken. 

Complaint logged. Investigated. Within noise and 

blast compliance t levels. Complainant contacted 

by WCPL staff. No further action taken. 

Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 

Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register – December 2011 

Type - 

Primary 


Action Taken 


Complaint logged. Investigated. Noise within 

compliance levels. Operations modified with aim 

of reducing noise. Complainant contacted by 

WCPL staff. No further action. 

10 23/12/2011 13 

Blast – Nox 

Fumes 

Troy Favell 

Complaint logged. Investigated. Blast outcome 

was considered most favourable due to ground 

conditions. Complainant contacted by WCPL staff/ 

No further action. 

11 28/12/2011 11 Dust Lachlan Crawford Complaint logged. Investigated. Identified all 



12 30/12/2011 6 Noise Troy Favell 

available water carts were in use throughout open 

cut. Investigating further options. Complainant 



compliance levels. Complainant contacted by 


Number 

Date (d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 

Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register - January 2012 








19 29/01/2012 2 Noise Lachlan Crawford (OEH Hotline) 


DA approved consent criteria. Complainant 


Complaint logged. Investigated, operational 

changes reviewed Complainant contacted by 







contacted by WCPL staff. No further action 











Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 


Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register - February 2012 






24 10/02/2012 3 Other Lachlan Crawford 






Complaint logged. Investigated. Noise within DA 

approved consent criteria. Complainant 











Electric fence not replaced on private resident 

property. Contractors contacted. New procedural 

guidelines to enter private residence property 

implemented, Private resident contacted & 

consulted on procedure 





















































Complaint logged. Investigated. Possible 

meteorological enhancement. Complainant 


Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 

Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register - March 2012 






40 4/03/2012 15 Noise Lachlan Crawford (DOPI by Complaint logged. Investigated. Possible 



phone) 


42 16/03/2012 3 Other Lachlan Crawford 

Blast - Nox 

43 23/03/2012 16 

Fumes 

Lachlan Crawford 



46 29/03/2012 2 Noise Lachlan Crawford (EPA Hotline) 


48 30/03/2012 18 

49 30/03/2012 19 

50 30/03/2012 20 

Blast - vibration 

and fumes 


and fumes 


and fumes 




meteorological enhancement. Complainant 





Private resident notified Wambo of contractor 

feeding horse. Contractor advised that under no 

circumstances are livestock to be approached. 

Procedural protocols put in place. Private 

landowner contacted 

Complaint logged. Complainant contacted by 

WCPL staff. No further action 













Complaint logged. Investigated. Blast within DA 










Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 


Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register - April 2012 






55 13/04/2012 25 Blast vibration Lachlan Crawford 





Complaint logged. Investigated. Discussions held 

with operators to modify procedures. Complainant 



approved consent criteria. Complainant contacted by 





Complaint logged. Investigated. Complainant 




WCPL staff. 












WCPL staff. 


Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complainant 

ID# 


Peabody Wambo Coal - Complaint Register – May 2012 






64 3/05/2012 2 Noise - Drill 

Lachlan Crawford (EPA 

Hotline) 


Hotline) 


Hotline) 



67 4/05/2012 24 Blast fumes Lachlan Crawford 




Hotline) 


Hotline) 





Complaint logged. Investigated. Possible meteorological 

enhancement. Complainant contacted by WCPL staff. 

No further action 
















Complaint logged. Investigated. Complainant contacted 

by WCPL staff. No further action 





approved consent criteria. Possible meteorological 

enhancement Complainant contacted by WCPL staff. No 

further action 





71 15/05/2012 2 Noise - Drill 


Hotline) 






Hotline) 


Hotline) 


Hotline) 




Hotline) 

78 31/05/2012 18 Blast (vibration) Lachlan Crawford 



Hotline) 



Complaint logged. Investigated. Possible meteorological 











Complaint logged. Investigated. Noise outside DA 
















Complaint logged. Investigated. Vibration within DA 








Number 

Date 

(d/m/yr) 

Complain 

ant ID# 


Peabody Wambo Coal -Complaint Register - June 2012 



81 14/06/2012 19 Blast (vibration) Lachlan Crawford 




enhancement Complainant contacted by WCPL staff. 


Complaint logged. Investigated. Vibration within DA 





enhancement Complainant contacted by WCPL staff. 



Appendix 5 

Rehabilitation Plan

Appendix 6 

Environmental Audit 

Responses

Wambo Coal AEMR 2011-2012 - Peabody Energy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?