longwall 411 to 418 subsidence management status...

SUBSIDENCE MANAGEMENT STATUS REPORT

1 of 70

Longwall 411 to 418

Subsidence Management Status

Report

Springvale Colliery

July 2016


2 of 70

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 4

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 5

3. FACE POSITION OF THE LONGWALL ......................................................................................... 5

4. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND CONSULTATION ....................................................................... 7

4.1. Management Actions ............................................................................................................... 7

4.2. Consultation ............................................................................................................................. 7

5. OBSERVED IMPACTS AND NOTIFICATIONS .............................................................................. 9

6. MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 9

6.1. Subsidence............................................................................................................................. 11

6.2. Rainfall ................................................................................................................................... 12

6.3. Groundwater Monitoring Program .......................................................................................... 13

6.3.1. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 13

6.3.2. Groundwater Level Results ............................................................................................ 16

6.3.3. Groundwater Quality Results ......................................................................................... 29

6.4. Surface Water Monitoring Program ....................................................................................... 31

6.4.1. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 31

6.4.2. Surface water flows ........................................................................................................ 32

6.4.3. Surface Water Quality .................................................................................................... 36

6.5. Fauna Monitoring Program .................................................................................................... 40

6.5.1. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 40

6.5.2. Results ........................................................................................................................... 40

6.6. Flora Monitoring Program ...................................................................................................... 43

6.7. Native Species diversity ......................................................................................................... 44

6.7.1. THPSS MMP .................................................................................................................. 44

6.7.2. 2009 EMP ....................................................................................................................... 46

6.8. Eucalypt Recruitment ............................................................................................................. 47

6.8.1. THPSS MMP Sites ......................................................................................................... 47

6.8.2. 2009 EMP ....................................................................................................................... 48

6.9. Species Condition scores ....................................................................................................... 48

6.9.1. THPSS MMP Sites ......................................................................................................... 48

6.9.2. 2009 EMP ....................................................................................................................... 49

6.10. Non Live ground cover ....................................................................................................... 50

6.10.1. THPSS MMP Sites ......................................................................................................... 50

6.10.2. 2009 EMP ....................................................................................................................... 51

6.11. Establishment of non-native weeds ................................................................................... 51

6.11.1. THPSS MMP Sites ......................................................................................................... 52

6.11.2. 2009 EMP ....................................................................................................................... 52

6.12. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 52

6.13. Photo-monitoring ................................................................................................................ 53

6.13.1. Surface Features ............................................................................................................ 53

6.13.2. Newnes Plateau Shrub swamps .................................................................................... 57

7. ADEQUECY, QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................... 63


3 of 70

8. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ...................................................................................... 63

9. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 63

Appendices Appendix 1 Plans

Appendix 2 Groundwater and Surface Water Report


4 of 70

1. INTRODUCTION

Springvale Colliery is an existing underground coal mine producing high quality thermal coal for both

domestic and international markets. It is located 15 kilometres to the northwest of the regional city of

Lithgow and 120 kilometres west-northwest of Sydney in New South Wales.The regional locality of

Springvale Mine is shown on Figure 1.

Figure 1 Regional Locality

This Subsidence Management Status Report (SMSR) fulfils the requirement of Condition 14 of the

Springvale Mine SMP Approval Conditions for Longwalls 411 to 418. This SMSR covers the

monitoring period between the 1st of February and the 31

st of May 2016, with monitoring results

available for this period presented in this report. Some results collected during the reporting period

may not be included due to the time associated with analysis and presentation of results following

field work. These results will however be included in future reports.

Regulatory requirements applicable to the SMP are outlined in Section 2.


5 of 70

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this document is to report in accordance with and comply with the requirements of

Condition 14 of the Springvale Mine SMP Approval. Table 1 summarises the requirements of this

Condition and where they have been addressed in this document.

Subsidence Management Status Report Requirements Table 1.

Condition

Condition Requirement Section

Addressed

17a The current face position of the panel being extracted; 3

17b A summary of any subsidence management actions undertaken by the leaseholder; 4

17c A summary of any comments, advice and feedback from consultation with

stakeholders in relation to the implementation of this approval (including the

preparation, implementation and review of plans, programmes, reports or strategies

required by this approval) undertaken or received and a summary of the

leaseholders response to the comments, advice and feedback given by the

stakeholders;

4

17d A summary of any observed and/or reported subsidence impacts, incidents, service

difficulties, community complaints, and any other relevant information reported to

the leaseholder and a summary of the leaseholders response to these impacts,

incidents, service difficulties and complaints

5

17e A summary of subsidence development based on monitoring information compared

with any defined triggers and/or predicted subsidence to facilitate early detection of

potential subsidence impacts;

6

17f A summary of the adequacy, quality and effectiveness of the implemented

management processes based on the monitoring and consultation information

summarised above; and

7

17g A statement regarding any additional and or outstanding management actions to be

undertaken or the need for early responses or emergency procedures to ensure

adequate management of any potential subsidence impacts due to longwall mining

8

This report also provides the opportunity for relevant stakeholders to provide feedback regarding the Springvale Mine monitoring and management measures as required under Condition 9.

3. FACE POSITION OF THE LONGWALL

Extraction of Longwall 418 commenced on the 22nd

of October 2015 and was completed on the 27th of

May 2016 with a total retreat of 2487m. As at the 31st of May 2016 mining had not yet commenced in

Longwall 419.

Longwall locations and the face position with reference to subsidence monitoring lines are shown

below in Figure 2.


6 of 70

Figure 2 Face Position and Subsidence Monitoring Locations


7 of 70

4. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND CONSULTATION

4.1. Management Actions

There has been no management actions required during the reporting period.

4.2. Consultation

The contact details for Springvale personnel responsible for environment management and

community relations, along with details for community complaints and enquiries have been provided

in Table 2.

Primary Contact Springvale Colliery Table 2.

Contact Position Contact Details

Primary Contacts

Jacques Le Roux Mine Manager T: (02) 6350 1613

F: (02) 6355 1502

Catherine Suggate Environment and

Community Co-ordinator

T: (02) 6350 1672

F: (02) 6355 1502

Community Enquiries/Complaints

Springvale Enquiries and Community Complaints T: (02) 6350 1640

During the reporting period the following consultation was undertaken:

Stakeholder correspondence summary Table 3.

Date From To Method Details

29/03/2016 Springvale DRE Letter MOP 2015 – 2022

Submission

03/05/2016 DRE Springvale Email SMSR Reports

28/10/2015 Springvale DRE Letter EMP revision

Correspondence

26/11/2015 Centennial DPE

DRE

OEH

LCC

Site visit Newnes Plateau

Inspection

22/12/2015 Centennial DRE Letter THPSS MMP trigger

Notification

With reference to correspondence from DRE an explanation and update is provided below.

Correspondence DRE Table 4.

Topic Response

Mining Operations Plan 2016 – 2022

The Springvale Colliery Mining Operations Plan for 2015 to 2022 was submitted to DRE and approved on the 25

th of February 2016.


8 of 70

Topic Response

SMSR Report Feedback

Feedback from submitted November 2015 and March 2016 SMSR’s received from DRE requesting a response to seven identified points.

Points have been addressed either in this report or via covering letter to DRE.

East Wolgan Swamp Restoration

Rehabilitation works at East Wolgan Swamp commenced in January 2014 and the following activities are being undertaken:

detailed vegetation mapping (before rehabilitation);

swamp re-hydration works- construction and strategic placement of coir logs, sandbag and jute mesh weirs;

direct seeding - collecting seeds off targeted species already within the swamp and placing in rehabilitation area; and

brush matting - collecting branches from vegetation in the area adjacent and placing it in the rehabilitation area to encourage and provide cover for new growth.

There has been no updates obtained during the July SMSR reporting period.

Soil Moisture Monitoring Program

With the change in groundwater consultants difficulty was experienced with

instrument compatibility. The previous monitoring equipment being utilised was

quite old and not manufactured anymore. More modern equipment does not fit

down the small diameter PVC. Due to the location within swamps approval

requirements for the hole would need to be further considered.

As there have been no emergency discharges or mining in the vicinity of this trial

monitoring location changes would be attributable to climatic conditions.

The application of soil moisture monitoring or similar methodology in future monitoring programs in future extraction areas will be considered for suitability based on subsidence impact performance measures.

No changes to the EMP are proposed.

SMSR Format The format for the reporting was updated to align more clearly with the Subsidence Monitoring status report requirements and reflects the monitoring locations in the approved Environmental Monitoring Program. The alignment of the SMSR Report was considered to improve the integration of SMP approval, reporting and monitoring requirements.

As noted in Table 3 above, the EMP was approved by DRE during the reporting period. The included monitoring sites include both Subsidence Environment Monitoring Program SV-MS-036 and 418 EMP. The program(s) approved at the time of undermining defines monitoring sites and triggers.


9 of 70

5. OBSERVED IMPACTS AND NOTIFICATIONS

There have been no observed subsidence impacts, incidents or service difficulties during the retreat

of Longwall 418. Inspections were conducted by Craven Elliston & Hayes before and after mining.

Details regarding the photo-monitoring undertaken are documented in Section 6.8

6. MONITORING PROGRAM This section presents the subsidence and environmental monitoring that was undertaken during the

reporting period. Subsidence monitoring locations (or subsidence lines) are presented in Figure 2.

The environmental monitoring locations are presented in Figure 3. Plans are presented in Appendix 1.


10 of 70

Figure 3 Environmental Monitoring Locations


11 of 70

6.1. Subsidence

All required subsidence monitoring lines have been installed and all pre-mining subsidence surveys

completed in accordance with the approved Subsidence Monitoring and Reporting Program. All

subsidence, tilt and strain results are within the predicted range.

The maximum recorded subsidence values for each of Springvale’s Subsidence Lines for LW418

during the reporting period were:

B Line – Surveyed 15/05/2016 – Value = -1.275m

Y Line – Surveyed 15/02/2016 – Value = -0.552m

CWS Line – Surveyed 10/8/2015 – Value = -0.018m

X Line – Surveyed 15/02/2016 – Value = -0.224m

V Line – Surveyed 03/02/2016 – Value = -0.511m

W Line – Surveyed 15/02/2016 – Value = -0.741m


12 of 70

6.2. Rainfall

Rainfall data is summarised in Table 5 and Figure 4.

Rainfall data Table 5.

Month Observed Newnes

Plateau (mm) Long Term Average

Newnes Plateau (mm) Observed

Lithgow (mm) Long Term Average

Lithgow (mm)

February 2016 15.4 125.8 28.8 79.1

March 2016 52.2 98.4 69.6 65

April 2016 8.8 67.3 6.2 42.5

May 2016 29.4 44.6 26 49.4

Figure 4 Monthly Rainfall

From the rainfall data collected during the monitoring period (1

st February 2016 to 31

st May 2016), the

following general observations can be made:

Observed rainfall at Newnes Plateau for the reporting period is below average for all months. Ranging from 12% and 13% of the long term average in February and April, and 53% and 66% in March and May.

Total rainfall for the period was 105.8mm, which equates to 31.5% of the long term average for the same period.

Over the reporting period on the plateau there were two rain days in excess of 10mm per day, and four days of 5 to 10mm per day.

Cumulative rainfall deficit (CRD) considers the long term impacts of the effect of rainfall. This assists in the interpretation of data undertaken as part of the subsidence environmental monitoring program.


13 of 70

6.3. Groundwater Monitoring Program

6.3.1. Methodology

Groundwater monitoring is carried out within the Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamps in order to monitor

the Standing Water Level of shallow aquifers. Deeper piezometers are installed on the plateau/ridges

(to monitor depth of aquifers) in between the Shrub Swamps. Groundwater monitoring locations are

listed in Tables 6 and 7 below.

EMP Monitoring Locations Table 6.

Monitoring

Site

Swamp Name Site in 2009

EMP?

2009 EMP

Reference

Site in 2015

EMP?

Quality

Monitoring

2015

WE1 East Wolgan

Swamp

Yes EW-SV6 No N/A

WE2 East Wolgan

Swamp

Yes EWS-SV7 No N/A

SS1 Sunnyside

Swamp

Yes SS-SV8 No N/A

SS2 Sunnyside

Swamp

Yes SS-SV9 No N/A

SS3 Sunnyside

Swamp

No N/A No N/A

SS4 Sunnyside

Swamp

No N/A No N/A

SS5 Sunnyside

Swamp

No N/A No N/A

CW1 Carne West

Swamp

Yes CW-SV10 Yes Yes

CW2 Carne West

Swamp

Yes CW-SV11 Yes Yes

CW3 Carne West

Swamp

No N/A Yes No

CW4 Carne West

Swamp

No N/A Yes No

SSE1 Sunnyside East

Swamp

Yes SSE-SV12 Yes No

SSE2 Sunnyside East

Swamp

Yes SSE-SV13 Yes No

SSE3 Sunnyside East Yes SSE-SV14 Yes Yes


14 of 70

Monitoring

Site

Swamp Name Site in 2009

EMP?

2009 EMP

Reference

Site in 2015

EMP?

Quality

Monitoring

2015

Swamp

SW1 Sunnyside West

Heath

Yes SSW1 No N/A

CC1 Carne Central

Swamp

No N/A Yes Yes

MS1 Marrangaroo

Swamp

No N/A Yes Yes

TS1 Tri Star Swamp No N/A Yes No

TG1 Twin Gully

Swamp

No N/A Yes No

Ridge/Aquifer Piezometer Locations Table 7.

Monitoring Site Location Site in 2009

EMP?

2009 EMP

Reference

Site in 2015

EMP?

RSS Ridge Piezometer

over 411

Gateroads

Yes R-SV3 Yes

RSE Ridge Piezometer

over 415

Longwall Block

Yes R-SV4 No

SPR1101/SPR1401* Over Longwall

416

No N/A Yes

SPR1104/RCW Ridge Piezometer

over 419

gateroads

Yes R-SV5 Yes

SPR1107 Over Longwall

420

No N/A Yes

SPR1108 South of Longwall

420 over

Longwall 427

No N/A Yes

SPR1109 Overall Longwall

418

No N/A Yes


416/417

No N/A Yes

SPR1111 North of Longwall No N/A Yes


15 of 70

Monitoring Site Location Site in 2009

EMP?

2009 EMP

Reference

Site in 2015

EMP?

422


423

No N/A Yes

AP5PR NW of Angus

Place Mine

No N/A Yes

*Note: SPR1101 water levels dropped below the base of the piezometer in December 2013 and SPR1401 was installed as a replacement in November 2014.

Monitoring and reporting has been undertaken in accordance with the Springvale Colliery Longwalls

411 to 418 Subsidence Management Plan Environmental Management Plan Approval dated 14th of

August 2015.


16 of 70

6.3.2. Groundwater Level Results

Monitoring results completed up to May 2016 are summarised in the below section.

East Wolgan Swamp

Water levels at East Wolgan Swamp are monitored at WE1 and WE2 and displayed below in Figure

5.

Water levels at East Wolgan have previously responded to periods of above average rainfall. Since early 2009 the responses have declined to short duration spikes in water level. Both WE1 and WE2 have remained dry over the reporting period, while WE2 showed a minor response to rainfall during January.

Figure 5 East Wolgan Swamp Hydrograph


17 of 70

Sunnyside Swamp

Water levels at Sunnyside Swamp are monitored by five piezometers, SS1, SS2, SS3, SS4 and SS5.

Sites SS1 and SS2 were part of the 2009 SMP EMP in relation to the mining of Longwalls 414 and

above Sunnyside Swamp. No sites were part of the 2014 SMP EMP as mining had passed the

swamp area, however monitoring of all five piezometers has continued. For the purposes of this

report, only SS1 and SS2 will be analysed as these are the only sites included for monitoring under

an SMP EMP.

Figure 6 below shows water levels at SS1 and SS2.

SS1 and SS2 show a declining water level over the review period as water levels within the swamp

equilibrate with the reduced rainfall recharge.

Figure 6 Sunnyside Swamp Hydrograph


18 of 70

Carne West Swamp

Water levels at West Carne Swamp are monitored at piezometers CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 (Figure

7).

CW1 and CW2 have shown uncharacteristic declines since early 2014. Previous observations have demonstrated consistent water levels since piezometer installation in mid-2005. CW1 remained dry over the reporting period. CW2 showed an apparent but very minor response to elevated rainfall during January; however the response is so small it may be due to barometric compensation of the data. No other responses were observed during the reporting period.

CW3 and CW4 showed declining water levels during 2013 and have remained below the base of the piezometers since then. No responses were observed during the reporting period.

Figure 7 Carne West Hydrograph

While baseline data collected shows a higher water level, a correlation can be drawn with the

cumulative rainfall deficit observed on the Newnes Plateau in more recent monitoring rounds. The

decrease in groundwater level has been observed since May 2013.

CW1 and CW2 were within the angle of draw of Longwall 418 in December 2015 and reported to the

Department of Environment and DRE on the 22nd

of December 2015 following notification of the

trigger by RPS on the 18th of December 2015.

In the case of the CW1 and CW2 swamp piezometer triggers, the preliminary investigation indicates

that water levels at CW1 and CW2 piezometers now display trends that are more rainfall dependent

as opposed to predominantly groundwater dependent, which had been the case for the entire

baseline monitoring period from 2005 up to 2014. Further data analysis is required to determine if the

changes to water levels in Carne West Swamp are related to mine subsidence or the decline in the

regional groundwater table aquifer, which appears to be a delayed response to longer term climatic

influences.


19 of 70

CW3 and CW4 were within the angle of draw of Longwall 417 in March and April 2015.

In the case of the CW3 and CW4 swamp piezometer triggers under the LW 415-417 THPSS MMP,

the preliminary investigation indicates that given the trigger level was reached prior to mining within

200m of the monitoring location, a rainfall deficit is likely to have contributed to the reduction in water

level at CW3 and CW4. The change in climatic conditions has resulted in a change in pre-mining

groundwater levels which is not reflected by the triggers defined in the THPSS MMP. This behaviour

is similarly exemplified in the Tri Star reference swamp.

There is no evidence of mining related impact to Carne Swamp.


20 of 70

Sunnyside East Swamp

Water levels at Sunnyside East Swamp are monitored at piezometers SSE1, SSE2 and SSE3 (Figure

8).

Water levels at SSE1 have remained at or below the base of the piezometer since 2013. No response

was observed during the reporting period.

Water levels at SSE2 and SSE3 showed a decline during 2012/2013 that correlates with a downturn

in the CRD, however water levels declined to below previously recorded levels. Water levels in SSE2

have previously shown small fluctuations marginally above the base of the piezometer, however there

have been no responses to significant rainfall events as has been observed in the past. SSE2

remained below the base of the piezometer for the reporting period.

SSE3 displayed responses to above average rainfall in the previous reporting period; however they

were noted as being smaller than for similar rainfall events in the past. Having shown a minor

response to rainfall during January, SSE3 remained below the base of the piezometer for the

reporting period.

Figure 8 Sunnyside East Hydrograph

SSE1 was within the angle of draw of Longwall 416 in January 2013.

In the case of the SSE1 swamp piezometer trigger under the LW 415-417 THPSS MMP, the

preliminary investigation indicates that the likely cause was an extended period of dry weather, which

contributed to the reduction in water level within the reference swamp piezometers (which are located

away from mining activities).

Following the implementation of the action plan, reporting was conducted by RPS and Gingra

Ecological Surveys.


21 of 70

RPS concluded that “water levels at TS1 and TG1 were both above the 95th percentile when the

trigger level was exceeded in SSE1. The statistics for MS1 and CC1 are heavily skewed by sampling

events which are displayed as sharp drawdown spikes in the hydrograph. These events are not

reflective of mining activities and recover to normal groundwater level relatively quickly. Both these

sites would have exceeded the 95th percentile if the sampling events were not taken into account.

The reference sites support the low water levels observed in SSE1.”

Gingra concluded that “The patterns of decline observed in vegetation along Sunnyside East Swamp

appear, at this stage, to be driven by the combination of the post-fire response of vegetation and

climatic conditions which have prevailed since early 2012.”

SSE2 and SSE3 were within the angle of draw of Longwall 417 between November 2014 and March

2015.

In the case of the SSE2 and SSE3 swamp piezometer triggers under the LW415-417 THPSS MMP, the preliminary investigation indicates a rainfall deficient may have contributed to the reduction in water level at the before mentioned monitoring locations. The change in climatic conditions has resulted in a change in pre-mining groundwater levels which is not reflected by the triggers defined in the THPSSMMP. At the location of the 3 piezometer sites, there has been no evidence of mining related impact.


22 of 70

Sunnyside West Heath

Water level at West Sunnyside Swamp is monitored at piezometer SW1 (Figure 9). Over the

reporting period water levels are observed to remain within historical levels.

A clear relationship between rainfall and groundwater levels can be seen with SW1 groundwater

levels correlating with rainfall patterns and intensity. Following large rainfall events, if above average

rainfall conditions are not maintained the water levels quickly decline to the base of the piezometer.

This response is typical of SW1 and can be seen in previous observations.

Water levels were below the base of the piezometer for the majority of the reporting period following a

decline during February. Water levels at SW1 have previously been below base of casing and

typically coincide with sustained periods of below average rainfall.

Figure 9 Sunnyside West Hydrograph


23 of 70

Reference Swamps

Water levels at reference swamps are presented in Figures 10 to 13.

Water levels in CC1 have typically remained above ground level. Over the review period water levels at CC1 show a rapid decline during February and March in response to decreased rainfall, then stabilise at around 0.25mbgl to 0.30mbgl. Water levels over the review period represent the lowest natural water levels observed at CC1.

Water levels in MS1 historically show fluctuations consistent with the CRD trend. Water levels over the reporting period show a rapid decline during February and March with an apparent stabilisation in the last half of the review period consistent with the decreasing trend in CRD. As with CC1, the reduced water levels at MS1 represent the lowest natural water levels on record.

Water levels at TS1 have historically shown significant variation, with a maximum range of the order of 4m. Water levels generally show a good correlation with CRD and have declined below base of piezometer on a number of occasions. Over the review period water levels have remained below the base of the piezometer. A minor apparent response is observed in February that may be attributable to the elevated rainfall in January; however the response is only minor and may be the result of barometric compensation.

Water levels at TG1 have historically remained within 0.25m of ground level, with only a few larger water level declines evident corresponding with the CRD trends. Over the review period, water levels declined during February and then stabilised at a new equilibrium level associated with the reduced rainfall recharge.

Figure 10 Carne Central Swamp Hydrograph


24 of 70

Figure 11 Marrangaroo Swamp Hydrograph

Figure 12 Tri Star Swamp Hydrograph


25 of 70

Figure 13 Twin Gully Swamp Hydrograph


26 of 70

Ridge and Aquifer Piezometer Monitoring

The groundwater levels for ridge piezometers are shown in Figure 14 and 15.

During the reporting period, no ridge piezometers were within 200m of an active longwall. The

following is noted over the reporting period:

Impact Sites

Groundwater levels at groundwater monitoring impact sites are provided on Figure 14.

Water levels at SPR1101 dropped below the base of the piezometer in December 2013. A replacement bore, SPR1401, was installed in November 2014. Water levels at SPR1401 initially showed a decline due to subsidence equilibration from LW417 but stabilized over the latter half of 2015. A further, minor, stepped decline coinciding with LW418 is also apparent. Over the current reporting period water levels have remained stable.

The water level at SPR1104 was consistent over the reporting period showing the continuation of a slight declining trend.

Water levels at SPR1107 show the continuation of a gradual decline over the reporting period. As with SPR1104, a slight stepped decline is apparent during the previous reporting period, this is inferred to be associated with mining of LW418.

Water levels at SPR1109 showed the continuation of a gradual decline following the depressurisation event in late 2015 when the piezometer was undermined by LW418.

Over the reporting period water levels at SPR1110 have remained below the base of the piezometer.

The groundwater level at RSS has remained stable over the reporting period; a very gradual long term decline is evident.

Over the reporting period water levels at RSE have remained below the base of the piezometer.

Reference Sites

Groundwater levels at groundwater monitoring reference sites are provided on Figure 15.

Water levels at SPR1108, SPR1111, SPR1113, and AP5PR, generally show stable to slightly declining water levels over the reporting period. The decline follows a groundwater high over 2012 and 2013. Over the reporting period the declines range from 0.25m at SPR1108 to 0.66m at SPR1111.


27 of 70

Figure 14 Impact Aquifer Piezometers

Figure 15 Reference Aquifer Piezometers


28 of 70

SPR1101 SPR1101 was first within the angle of draw of Longwall 416 in September 2013. A trigger was activated in an aquifer piezometer (SPR1101) installed on the topographic ridge to the west of Sunnyside-East Swamp under the 415-417 THPSS MMP. The trigger was based on historical monitoring data which indicated a decline in the water level in SPR1101 piezometer. In the case of the SPR1101 aquifer piezometer trigger, the investigation indicated that the likely cause was the depth of drilling of the SPR1101 exploration borehole, which was subsequently inappropriately used as a water level monitoring bore. The drilling of the SPR1101 borehole, was likely to have intersected the zone of discontinuous fracturing (B-Zone) caused by subsidence related to the extraction of Longwall 416 at Springvale. Historical monitoring indicates that the aquifers which supply groundwater to the swamp have not been impacted by adjacent mining activities. The SPR1101 borehole was drilled to a depth below the aquifers which supply groundwater to the swamp, and it is considered that the decline in water level based on data from this borehole does not represent an impact to the groundwater system which supplies water to the swamp. SPR1109

LW418 was first within the angle of draw of SPR1109 in November 2015 and was reported to the

Department of Environment and DRE on the 22nd

of December 2015 following notification of the

trigger by RPS on the 18th of December 2015.

In the case of the SPR1109 aquifer piezometer trigger under the LW 415-417 and 418 THPSS MMP , it is considered likely that the changes to aquifer groundwater levels at SPR1109 are consistent with a delayed response to longer term climatic influences.


29 of 70

6.3.3. Groundwater Quality Results

The 2015 EMP requires swamp groundwater quality monitoring at impact sites SSE3, CW1, and

CW2, and at reference sites CC1 and MS1. The swamps are monitored for parameters that act as

potential indicators of mining related impacts, these being pH, electrical conductivity, and iron.

Due to the prevailing dry conditions, the swamp water levels have remained beneath the base of the piezometer within CW1, CW2 and SSE3 during the reporting period.

pH readings from impact sites CW1, CW2, and SSE3; and reference sites MW1 and CC1 are

presented in Figure 16. Only measurements from CC1 and MS1 are available for the reporting period

due to the prevailing dry conditions. The pH levels for MS1 and CC1 remained within historic levels

and display a declining trend over the reporting period.

EC readings from impact sites CW1, CW2, and SSE3; and reference sites MW1 and CC1 are

presented in Figure 17. Only measurements from CC1 and MS1 are available for the reporting period

due to the prevailing dry conditions. The EC levels at MS1 remained within historic levels during the

reporting period, whilst the most recent measurement at CC1 is the lowest since monitoring

commenced in 2012. Over the review period CC1 displays a steep decline in EC while values at MS1

continued an increasing trend since mid-2015 followed by a sharp decline in EC during the last

monitoring round.

Iron readings from impact sites CW1, CW2 and SSE3, and reference sites MW1 and CC1 are

presented in Figure 18. No lab samples could be obtained from impact sites during the reporting

period due to the prevailing dry conditions. The iron levels within MS1 and CC1 show significant

fluctuations during the reporting period. CC1 shows a consistent and sharp declining trend, while

MS1 continued an increasing trend followed by a rapidly decline with the last monitoring round. The

trends are noted as being very similar to those displayed by the electrical conductivity at both

locations.

Figure 16 pH Swamp Piezometers


30 of 70

Figure 17 EC Swamp Piezometers

Figure 18 Fe Swamp Piezometers


31 of 70

6.4. Surface Water Monitoring Program

6.4.1. Methodology

Flow monitoring sites and standing water levels (where appropriate) within surface streams above

Springvale are located in the table below.

Surface Water Monitoring Sites Table 8.

Monitoring Site Description Site in 2009

EMP?

2009 EMP

Reference

Site in 2015

EMP?

East Wolgan

Upstream

Upstream Yes East Wolgan 1 No

East Wolgan

Downstream

Downstream Yes East Wolgan 2 No

Sunnyside U/S

Junction

Upstream Yes Wolgan Tributary

1

No

East Wolgan D/S

Junction

Downstream Yes Wolgan Tributary

2

No

Sunnyside U/S Upstream Yes Sunnyside 1 No

Sunnyside D/S Downstream Yes Sunnyside 2 No

Carne West

Upstream

Upstream Yes Carne West 1 No

Carne West

Downstream/

Carne West

Downstream Yes Carne West 2 Yes

CWP Nth end of Carne

West Swamp

No N/A Yes

SS3 D/S

Nth end of

Sunnyside East

Swamp

No N/A Yes

Marrangaroo

Creek Upstream

Marrangaroo

Creek Upstream

No N/A Yes

Streams flows are monitored on a fortnightly basis using a pygmy flow meter under the 2009 EMP

and monthly under 2015 EMP for flow, electrical conductivity, manganese, iron, temperature and

visual inspection of colour. Total suspended solids are monitored monthly. If there is no flow no

quality parameters are monitored. The exception is Carne West Pool where water pool monitoring is

undertaken to assist in monitoring stream flow.


32 of 70

6.4.2. Surface water flows

Wolgan River

Surface flow contributions to the upper Wolgan River are monitored at tributaries at East Wolgan

River downstream of the junction with Sunnyside Swamp and at Sunnyside Swamp upstream of the

junction. Flows are shown on Figure 19. A small peak in flow occurred at the start of the review period

resulting from elevated rainfall, both sites then displayed declining low flow conditions over the review

period.

Figure 19 Wolgan River Flow

Table 9 shows a comparison of reporting period flow data with historical flow data for Wolgan River.

For both East Wolgan D/S Junction and Sunnyside U/S Junction, average flow for the reporting period

was below the long term average for all data. This is due to low rainfall conditions over the reporting

period.

Wolgan River Flow Statistics Table 9.

Monitoring Site

Average Stream Flow - All Data to 30/09/15 (KL/Day)

Average Reporting Period Stream Flow (KL/Day)

Stream Flow Range All data to 30/09/15 (KL/day)

Comments

East Wolgan D/S Junction

729 98 0 – 12,668

Low reporting period average due to below average rainfall conditions.

Sunnyside U/S Junction

698 126 0 – 8,977 Low reporting period average due to below average rainfall conditions.


33 of 70

East Wolgan

East Wolgan Swamp is located in proximity to Longwall 411. There has been no mining in the vicinity

of this site. No emergency discharges have occurred during the reporting period.

Surface flows at East Wolgan swamp are monitored at East Wolgan Upstream and East Wolgan

Downstream. Historically, no significant flows are recorded at these locations and the sites were

recorded as being dry during the review period.

Historic flows are presented in Figure 20.


Surface flows at Sunnyside East swamp are monitored at SS3 Downstream. SS3 Downstream has been reported as dry since early 2015 and prior to this had only minor flows that were too low for gauging. SS3 Downstream remained dry during the reporting period.

Historic flows are presented in Figure 20.

Figure 20 East Wolgan and Sunnyside East Flow


34 of 70

Sunnyside Swamp

Surface flows at Sunnyside Swamp are monitored at Sunnyside Upstream and Sunnyside

Downstream. Flows are shown on Figure 21. Over the reporting period low flows were recorded at

Sunnyside Upstream and Sunnyside Downstream. A decline from a rainfall induced small peak at the

start of the review period is evident.

Figure 21 Sunnyside Swamp Flow

Table 10 shows a comparison of reporting period flow data with historical flow data for Sunnyside

Swamp. Average flow during the reporting period for both Sunnyside U/S and D/S were below the

average values for all data. Average long-term flows at Sunnyside D/S are over 50% greater than

those at Sunnyside U/S.

Sunnyside Swamp Flow Statistics Table 10.

Monitoring site

Average Stream Flow - All Data to 30/09/15 (KL/Day)

Average Reporting Period Stream Flow (KL/Day)

Stream Flow Range All data to 30/09/15 (KL/day)

Comments

Sunnyside Swamp U/S


Sunnyside Swamp D/S



35 of 70

Carne West Swamp

Surface water at Carne West Swamp is monitored at Carne West Upstream and Carne West Downstream as well as pool depth monitoring at Carne West Pool (CWP) adjacent to Carne West Downstream. Surface flows are typically too low for accurate gauging at Carne West Upstream and Downstream. Pool depths at CWP are shown on Figure 22.

CWP displays highly variable water depth. Peak depths appear to be declining consistent with the CRD. Over the reporting period CWP showed relatively shallow water depth but remained consistently wet.

Figure 22 CWP Waterhole

Flow results recorded at Carne West for the reporting period are displayed in Table 11 below.

Carne West Flow Results Table 11.

Date 21-March-16 4-April-16 20-April-16 4-May-16 18-May-16 31-May-16

Flow (kl/day) Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

Reference Site – Marrangaroo Creek

Dry or low flow measurements are usually recorded in Marrangaroo Creek. Flows over the reporting period are summarised on Table 12. Consistent flows are reported from February to May, ranging from 116 kL/day down to 21 kL/day. In mid to late May flows were too low to be measured.

Marrangaroo Creek Flow Gauging Table 12.

Date 8-Feb-16 23-Feb-16 9-Mar-16 22-Mar-16 5-Apr-16 21-Apr-16 2-May-16 17-May-16 30-May-16

Flow (kl/day) 116 94 39 36 33 21 39 too low too low


36 of 70

6.4.3. Surface Water Quality

All surface water monitoring sites are monitored for electrical conductivity (EC), pH, manganese, iron, total suspended solids (TSS) and temperature. The monitoring results are discussed below. The results for temperature and TSS are discussed briefly below as they are both driven by climatic influences and can vary greatly depending on the time of day the samples are taken. Temperature fluctuations are dominated by the season and time of day the samples are obtained. TSS measurements are driven by rainfall runoff intensity and fluctuations will vary greatly depending on the time the sample is taken. Spot samples are generally not representative of true maximum and minimum values

As outlined above in section 6.4.2 Carne West and East Wolgan monitoring sites are not presented in this section as the monitoring sites were either dry or experienced low flow during the reporting period. The monitoring results at Carne West and East Wolgan are therefore unrepresentative of long term trends.


37 of 70

Marrangaroo Creek Low flow measurements were recorded throughout the reporting period at Marangaroo Creek. When the flow is not high enough to record a flow reading the sample is considered unrepresentative as the water sample is likely to be stagnant.

Table 13 summarizes water quality data for the reporting period.

Marrangaroo Creek Quality Statistics Table 13.

Parameter Statistic 2006 – Current Reporting Period 95th

Percentile*

pH

Range 3.47 – 8.85 5.3 – 8.23

4.66 – 7.11 Median 5.6 6.4

Mean 5.6 6.6

EC (µS/cm)

Range 7 - 71 7 - 44

59 Median 30.0 23.0

Mean 32.6 23.22

Mn (mg/L)

Range 0 – 0.4 0.003 – 0.05

0.02 Median 0.010 0.009

Mean 0.015 0.008

Fe (mg/L)

Range 0 – 4.34 0.05 – 0.48

0.46 Median 0.05 0.08

Mean 0.17 0.16

Over the review pH values were recorded in the range 5.3 to 8.23, EC values ranged from 7µS/cm to 44µS/cm and manganese concentrations ranged from 0.003mg/L to 0.05mg/L. Iron concentrations ranged from 0.05mg/L to 0.48 mg/L, however during the last four monitoring events, iron concentrations have been below the limit of reporting.

Over the review period, all parameters at Marangaroo Creek remained within historical limits, and all mean and median values for the reporting period remained with the 95 percentile values.


38 of 70

Wolgan River


Wolgan River Quality Statistics Table 14.

Parameter

Statistic

Wolgan East D/S Junction

Sunnyside U/S Junction

2006 – Current

Reporting Period

95th

Percentile*

2006 – Current

Reporting Period

95th

Percentile*

pH

Range 3.66 – 8.30

5.94 – 8.02

6.15 – 7.70

3.87 – 8.49 5.75 – 7.95

6.22 – 7.80 Median 6.90 6.76 6.90 6.69

Mean 6.90 6.85 6.90 6.95

EC (µS/cm)

Range 4 – 350 22 – 44

75.0

5 – 390 18 – 42

65.0 Median 33.5 30.0 34.0 31.0

Mean 40.6 29.4 39.2 31.2

Mn (mg/L)

Range 0 – 0.472

0.003 – 0.009

0.012

0 – 0.30 0.003 – 0.005

0.010 Median 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004

Mean 0.010 0.005 0.006 0.005

Fe (mg/L)

Range 0.05 – 3.13 0.21 – 0.90

1.28

0.11 – 1.76

0.23 – 1.00

1.31 Median 0.56 0.34 0.56 0.33

Mean 0.65 0.40 0.65 0.41

Both sites show highly variable pH throughout the reporting period with values remaining within

historical limits. The lower bounding values appear to show the continuation of a declining trend,

however, this is offset by the increased variability of the data. EC values are well within historical

limits and show only small fluctuations.

Long term manganese concentrations show a seasonal variation and this trend continued over the

reporting period. Average concentrations for the reporting period remained below the long term

average for both Wolgan River D/S Junction and Sunnyside U/S Junction.

Iron concentrations showed a declining trend over the reporting period and were well below the long

term average for both Wolgan River D/S Junction and Sunnyside U/S Junction.


39 of 70

Sunnyside Swamp


Sunnyside Swamp Quality Statistics Table 15.

Parameter

Statistic

Sunnyside Swamp U/S

Sunnyside Swamp D/S

2006 – Current

Reporting Period

95th

Percentile*

2006 – Current

Reporting Period

95th

Percentile*

pH

Range 5.31 – 8.94 5.66 – 6.30

5.82 – 7.24

5.55 – 8.4 6.37– 7.83

6.20 – 7.71 Median 6.70 5.88 6.85 6.75

Mean 6.64 5.93 6.84 6.81

EC (µS/cm)

Range 1 – 820 32 - 53

75.0

1 – 840 31 – 38

200 Median 47.0 36.5 43.0 35.0

Mean 56.0 37.6 49.4 34.4

Mn (mg/L)

Range 0.002 – 0.071

0.012 – 0.026

0.017

0 – 2.5 0.003 – 0.009

0.016 Median 0.007 0.015 0.005 0.005

Mean 0.008 0.017 0.007 0.005

Fe (mg/L)

Range 0.11 – 2.15 0.16 – 1.14

1.50

0 – 5 0. 4 – 1.34

2.02 Median 0.57 0.30 0.74 0.49

Mean 0.68 0.40 0.84 0.62

pH levels have fluctuated but maintain relatively stable trends at both Sunnyside U/S and Sunnyside

D/S, with Sunnyside D/S elevated above Sunnyside U/S. pH values have declined from a peak in

mid-2015 and all values for the reporting period are within historical limits.

EC remained relatedly stable and within historic limits. Median and mean concentrations for the

reporting period are below historical levels at both Sunnyside U/S and Sunnyside D/S (Figure 25).

The peak manganese concentration at Sunnyside Swamp U/S exceeded the 95th percentile; however

the mean and median values were below or equal the 95th percentile (Table 5.7 and Figure 26).

Manganese concentrations at both sites show a consistent declining trend over the previous reporting

period. Concentrations at both sites remained within historical limits.

Filtered Iron remained within historic limits at both sites, although values spiked to 1.14mg/L and 1.34

mg/L at the U/S and D/S sites respectively at the start of the review period. Following the spike,

concentrations returned to previous levels and then showed a declining trend over the remainder of

the reporting period.


40 of 70

6.5. Fauna Monitoring Program

6.5.1. Methodology

As part of the on-going monitoring program at Springvale, fauna monitoring is undertaken three times

per year, during spring, summer and autumn. Monitoring was undertaken at five locations during the

reporting period, as outlined in Table 16. Autumn monitoring was conducted between the 15th and 19

th

of February and 4th and 8

th of April 2016.

Fauna Monitoring Sites Table 16.

Location Site

Newnes Plateau Woodland F-SV2

Sunnyside Swamp F-SV3

Carne West Swamp F-SV4

Carne West Swamp South F-SV5

East Wolgan Swamp F-AP3

The faunal surveys sample a range of faunal groups with a specific emphasis on threatened and

endangered species. Targeted searches are carried out for threatened species during the season

within which they are most active.

Data from the surveys is then analysed to show:

Species count;

Habitat characteristics;

Species diversity; and

Species richness.

6.5.2. Results

Habitat Measurements

Habitat characteristics are presented below in Table 17. A non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test shows

no significant differences between each of the sites sampled in autumn 2016. There are also no

significant differences between the habitat characteristics measured between 2004 and 2016

(Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks). Most of the cover parameters at the survey

sites have risen since the commencement of monitoring.


41 of 70

Autumn 2016 Habitat Characteristics Table 17.

% Cover SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 AP3 Mean

Tree Cover 48 12 20 8 12 20

Tall Shrub Cover 12 44 36 28 32 30

Tall Sapling Cover 14 8 8 8 0 8

Low Shrub Cover 92 72 68 72 84 78

Low Sapling

Cover

36 20 8 4 8 15

Fern Cover 28 56 20 48 24 35

Cutting Grass 52 36 16 8 16 26

Grass Cover 84 44 44 16 20 42

Forb Cover 4 68 76 80 92 64

Reed Cover 0 64 36 68 76 49

Vine Cover 0 0 4 0 0 1

Litter Cover 100 100 100 100 100 100

Log Cover 48 12 44 12 12 26

Rock Cover 24 4 4 0 0 6

Tree Hollows 0 0 8 4 0 2

Habitat complexity scores are used to provide an index of habitat complexity that can be used to

determine changes in habitats over time. The system scores the following parameters: tree cover, tall

and short shrub cover, ground cover, logs/rocks and litter cover. The scores range from 0 to 3, hence

the maximum score is 18. Scores for each site during the monitoring period are provided in Table 18

and a comparison of autumn scores from 2011 – 2016 are provided in Table 19.

The scores indicate moderate to high habitat complexity. There are no significant differences between

the complexity scores for each site, or between the annual surveys.

Habitat Complexity Scores for Monitoring Sites Table 18.

AP3 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Mean

Habitat Complexity Scores Autumn 2016 13 16 14 14 12 14


42 of 70

Mean Habitat Complexity Scores 2011 -2016 Table 19.

Mean of Sites

Total Habitat Complexity Scores Autumn 2016 14






Biodiversity

Twenty native mammals (plus three introduced), forty-eight birds, six reptiles and two amphibian

species were recorded during the autumn monitoring survey within the SMP Area. Biodiversity indices

are provided in Table 20. There are no significant differences from previous year’s results for native

mammals and birds.

Biodiversity Indices for fauna in Springvale SMP Area Table 20.

Evenness

Simpson’s

Index of

Diversity

Total

Numbers

Recorded

Species

Richness

Fauna

Group

0.867 0.945 481 48 Birds

0.861 0.861 102 11 Mammals

(non-bat)

0.796 0.721 24 6 Reptiles

- - 3 2 Amphibians

Eight threatened species were located during the surveys (Gang-gang Cockatoo, Flame Robin,

Scarlet Robin, Varied Sittella, Little Pied Bat, Eastern False Pipistrelle, Eastern Bentwing-Bat, Yellow-

bellied Sheathtail Bat and Blue Mountains Water Skink), as well as a number of bird species

considered to be declining in the western slopes of NSW. The water skink was captured in West

Carne Swamp and is considered a long-time resident in that area.

Analysis of data shows no significant effects from the Springvale mining operations.


43 of 70

6.6. Flora Monitoring Program

Flora Monitoring sites in the 2009 EMP and 2015 EMP are listed in Table 21.

Flora Monitoring Sites Table 21.

Monitoring Site Description Site in 2009 EMP? Site in 2015 EMP?

NP07 Sunnyside West Heath Yes No

KC01 Kangaroo Creek Swamp Yes No

KC02 Kangaroo Creek Swamp Yes No

NO005 Junction Swamp Yes No

NP006 Junction Swamp Yes No

WE01 Sunnyside Swamp Yes No

WE02 Sunnyside Swamp Yes No

CLA03 Prickly Swamp Yes No

CLA04 Prickly Swamp Yes No

WC01 Carne West Swamp Yes Yes




SSE01 Sunnyside East No Yes

TG01 Twin Gully No Yes

TG02 Twin Gully No Yes

TRI01 Tristar No Yes

TRI02 Tristar No Yes

LGG01 Lower Gang Gang Swamp No Yes

UGE01 Upper Gang Gang East Swamp No Yes

BS01 Barrier Swamp No Yes

CCS01 Carne Central Swamp No Yes


44 of 70

The following parameters are measured at each quadrate during the monitoring period:

Species Composition Cover/abundance;

Condition of Swamps and associated vegetation;

Plant species diversity;

Discussion on comparative monitoring results; and

Indicator species including eucalypts, sphagnum cristatum.

Monitoring is carried out in summer, autumn and spring.

The following sections summarises results from the interim summer 2016 monitoring results report.

6.7. Native Species Diversity

A modified Braun-Blanquet scale was used to visually estimate cover abundance for species

occurring within each site.

6.7.1. THPSS MMP

Total native plant species richness for impact and reference sites is shown in Table 22. Results from

the quadrat (400 m2) and four 20 m transects are tabulated for comparison between sampling

methods and reference/impact sites.


45 of 70

Total native plant species richness Table 22.

Site Species Richness Shannon-Wiener Index

(point intercept method) Evenness

400m2 Quadrat Point Intercept Method

Impact sites

WC01 11 11 2.01 0.84

WC02 13 13 1.96 0.76

WC03 14 14 2.05 0.78

WC04 13 12 2.07 0.83

SSE01 17 17 2.25 0.79

Mean±SD 13.6 ± 2.2

13.6 ± 2.2 2.07 ± 0.11 0.80 ± 0.03

Reference sites

TG01 18 14 2.19 0.83

TG02 20 19 2.32 0.79

TRI01 23 17 2.16 0.76

TRI02 18 17 2.06 0.74

LGG01 20 20 2.41 0.80

UGE01 19 19 2.22 0.75

BS01 16 13 2.10 0.82

CCS01 18 18 2.17 0.75

Mean±SD 19.0 ± 2.1

18.0 ± 1.6 2.20 ± 0.78 0.78 ± 0.03

Lower mean native species richness was observed in impact sites (13.6 ± 2.2) when compared with

reference sites (19.0 ± 2.1). A similar observation was calculated from the point intercept method

(impact = 13.6 ± 2.2; reference = 18.0 ± 1.6).

A lower Shannon-Wiener Index score was calculated for impact sites (2.07 ± 0.11) compared with

reference sites (2.20 ± 0.78) for the point intercept method.

Analysis using the native plant species richness trigger levels indicated an ‘exceedance’ in three

impact sites and four reference sites for the spring monitoring period. For impact sites a trigger

exceedance has recurred at WC02 and triggers have been detected for the first time at WC01 and

SSE01. There were also exceedances at four reference sites (TRI01, LGG01, UGE01 and BS01).

Exceedances are in bold in Table 21 and listed below against relevant trigger levels.

WC01 (Impact Site) – 11 versus a 11.2 trigger level;

WC02 (Impact Site) – 13 versus a 13.3 trigger level;


46 of 70

SSE01 (Impact Site) – 17 versus a 20.3 trigger level;

TRI01 (Reference Site) – 23 versus a 25.3 trigger level;

LGG01 (Reference Site) – 20 versus a 20.3 trigger level;

UGE01 (Reference Site) – 19 versus a 20.3 trigger level; and

BS01 (Reference Site) – 16 versus a 18.2 trigger level.

Figure 23 depicts the total native plant species richness results per site.

Figure 23 Native plant species richness at each site. Solid bars represent Summer 2016

results below baseline values. Lines above and below boxes represent ± 30%

trigger values. When the box obscures the line an exceedance has occurred.

Reference sites were inexplicably found to fail the flora trigger levels more so than impact sites. The

precise reasons for this are unknown although Erskine and Fletcher (2011) indicate a number of

potential causal environmental factors other than mining (e.g. climate, biotic, or anthropogenic)

requiring consideration. It should be noted that the preceding months have been uncharacteristically

warmer and drier than historical weather data would otherwise indicate. This could explain the overall

trend of declining species richness across all sites (THPSS – Annual Monitoring 2015, RPS 2016).

6.7.2. 2009 EMP

Total native plant species richness for impact and reference sites in the 2009 SMP EMP is shown in

Figure 24. Data for four years (2013 to 2016) is presented graphically to compare spring to early

summer monitoring results.


47 of 70

Figure 24 Native species richness recorded in SEMP monitoring sites for 2013, 2014, 2015

and 2016

Monitoring sites NP005, NP006, NP007, SS01, SS02 and WC02 show a decline in total native plant

species richness since 2013 (Figure 24). However, the significance of this observed decline is difficult

to interpret for the following reasons:

Repeated measures were not possible for these sites due to inaccuracies in the pre 2015 reporting of site coordinates. The projection of these coordinates resulted in sites being located on non-swamp vegetation with no nearby swamp vegetation being observed. The 2016 dataset was obtained from sites established in nearby swamp vegetation, which are unlikely to represent conditions observed in pre 2015 monitoring.

NP007 has been burnt. The influence of post fire recovery on species richness data at this site cannot be separated from the impacts of mining.

Uncharacteristically dry conditions have been experienced across the whole monitoring area, for 2 consecutive years and are likely contributing to the reductions in species richness across the reference and impact sites.

‘Total native species’ includes both swamp and non-swamp species.

Results may be influenced by larger climate change related factors which are not measurable over such a short time frame. No analyses of the effects of climate change have been performed for this project.

6.8. Eucalypt Recruitment

Non-swamp eucalypt presence was estimated by summing incidence recorded in each 0.5 m x 0.5 m

quadrat centred on sequential 1 metre intervals along each of the four parallel transects. This

provided a total of approximately 80 quantitative measurements of eucalypt presence per monitoring

quadrat.

6.8.1. THPSS MMP Sites

Eucalypt recruitment within monitoring sites for the summer survey period is shown in Table 23 below.

Eucalypt recruitment in Summer 2016 Table 23.


48 of 70

Site Transect (metre intercept)

2 9 11 17

Impact

WC01 - - - -

WC02 - - - -

WC03 - - - -

WC04 - - - -

SSE01 - 3 - 2

Reference

TG01 - - - -

TG02 - - - -

TRI01 - - - -

TRI02 - - - -

LGG01 - - - -

UGE01 - - - -

BS01 - - - -

CCS01 - - - 6

No increase in the incidence of eucalypt recruits was observed in any impact sites; however there

was a great increase at reference site CCS01. The reference swamp in question is typically drier than

other shrub swamps and the occurrence is unlikely to represent a substantial change in conditions.

Summer monitoring results identified no change from spring 2015 monitoring in Eucalyptus

recruitment in impact site SSE01 and reference sites TG01 and TG02. None of the sites exceeded

the trigger value for Eucalypt recruitment (i.e. more than 3 individual plants within a year). Detection of

Eucalypt recruitment in summer has not shown advancement or indication of further recruitment from

the previous winter and spring monitoring events where Eucalypt recruitment was noted in two impact

sites (WC02 and WC04) and three reference sites (TG01, TG02 and TRI02).

6.8.2. 2009 EMP

No increase in eucalypt recruitment was observed in the SEMP monitoring sites during the 2016

summer survey period.

6.9. Species Condition Scores

Four parallel transects were established to measure species condition scores. The starting points of

these transects were positioned randomly along a predetermined edge of the 400 m2 permanent

monitoring quadrat. A condition score was estimated for each plant species intersected every 0.5 m

along the transects.


Overall mean species condition scores for impact and reference sites are shown in Table 24.Mean

condition scores for Gleichenia dicarpa have also been included as this is a key swamp species.


49 of 70

Overall condition scores for each site and for key swamp species Gleichenia Table 24.dicarpa

Site Overall mean condition Gleichenia dicarpa mean condition

Impact

WC01 3.8 2.7

WC02 3.6 2.9

WC03 4.1 2.9

WC04 4.1 3.3

SSE01 3.8 3.5

Mean condition (impact) 3.9 3.1

Reference

TG01 3.4 3.9

TG02 3.4 3.4

TRI01 4.2 3.7

TRI02 4.1 3.4

LGG01 3.8 3.8

UGE01 4.0 4.0

BS01 3.5 3.4

CCS01 4.0 4.0

Mean condition (reference) 3.8 3.7

The mean condition score for overall key species in impact sites was 3.9 compared with 3.8 for

reference sites. The mean condition score for Gleichenia dicarpa impact sites was 3.1 compared with

3.7 for reference sites. None of the impact sites (overall or Gleichenia dicarpa) had a mean condition

score of 2.5 or less, therefore none of the impact sites have triggered the performance criteria.

6.9.2. 2009 EMP

Mean species condition scores for SMP Sites are shown in Table 25.

SMP Mean Species Condition Table 25.

Site 2013 2014 2015 2016 Change

NP007 2.34 2.14 4.11 3.92 No change

KC01 2.56 2.63 4.43 4.31 No change

KC02 2.25 2.76 4.13 4.21 No change

NP005 2.16 2.32 3.96 4.59 No change


50 of 70

Site 2013 2014 2015 2016 Change

NP006 2.33 1.77 4.06 4.00 No change

SS01 2.45 2.36 3.94 4.00 No change

SS02 2.75 2.80 4.15 4.20 No change

WC01 3.50 3.08 3.75 4.00 No change

WC02 2.74 2.73 4.27 4.00 No change

WC03 2.80 3.55 4.18 4.00 No change

WC04 2.59 2.77 4.41 4.26 No change

CLA03 1.67 2.13 1.98 4.70 Improved condition

CLA04 2.24 2.42 2.48 4.15 Improved condition

The improved condition detected in spring 2015 has continued and it is still unclear as to whether it is

a consequence of observer bias and/or improved condition following extreme weather events (i.e.

2013 fires and snow storm in 2014). Further monitoring will be utilised to evaluate whether observer

bias is a factor to consider in the evaluation of this data.

6.10. Non Live Ground Cover

Bare earth scoring was estimated at each of the 0.5 m intervals inspected for species condition.


Percent of non-live ground cover was estimated using both the Braun-Blanquet cover abundance

scale for the entire 400 m2 quadrat and the point intercept method. Results are tabulated in Table 26.


51 of 70

Non-live ground cover (cover abundance and point intercept methods) Table 26.

Site Bare ground (modified Braun Blanquet

cover abundance score) Point intercept Method (%)

Impact

WC01 1 1.3

WC02 1 0

WC03 1 8.8

WC04 1 1.3

SSE01 1 1.3

Reference

TG01 1 1.8

TG02 1 1.8

TRI01 1 0

TRI02 1 0.6

LGG01 1 0.6

UGE01 1 2.5

BS01 1 0

CCS01 1 2.5

Neither method identified a substantial area of bare earth within the impact sites with both methods

obtaining similar results.

Data comparisons with trigger values show no increase of bare ground of more than 100 m2. No

trigger of this parameter was observed in the summer 2016 monitoring period.

6.10.2. 2009 EMP

No detectable change in non-live groundcover was observed in the SEMP monitoring sites since

2013.

6.11. Establishment of Non-native Weeds

Non-native weed presence was estimated by summing incidence recorded in each 0.5 m x 0.5 m

quadrat centred on sequential 1 m intervals along each of the four parallel transects. Species name

was recorded. This provided a total of approximately 80 quantitative measurements of weed presence

per monitoring quadrat.

The main weed species previously observed in the monitoring sites are Catsear (Hypochaeris

radicata*) and Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus*).


52 of 70


No weeds were detected using the point intercept method, or identified within 400 m2 flora quadrats,

although it is likely weeds exist within some of the quadrats as previously detected, it is unlikely there

has been an increase, and no exceedance triggers have occurred for summer 2016.

6.11.2. 2009 EMP

Only one instance of weeds was detected at the KC01 site. Although it is likely weeds exist within

some of the quadrate as previously detected, it is unlikely there has been a substantial increase.

6.12. Conclusions

Monitoring results were compared with the flora trigger levels specified in the THPSS MMP. The

results of this comparison are provided in Table 27.

Monitoring results and flora trigger levels Table 27.

Performance indicator

Parameter measured Trigger level Summer 2016

Change in species assemblage

Change in diversity of native species

A change in the number of species of greater than 30 % for a given site within a three year period.

Trigger in three impact sites (WC01, WC02 and SSE01) and four reference sites (TRI01, UGE01, LGG01 and BS01).

Recruitment of eucalypt species

An increase in eucalypts in an impact site compared to reference sites of more than three individual plants within a one year period.

No impact sites showed an increase in eucalypt recruitment beyond the trigger level. Eucalypt recruitment has stabilised in SSE01 after approaching the trigger threshold.

Change in condition

Condition of key species

A decline in condition score at an impact site of more than 1.5 compared to the average condition score at reference sites within a one year period.

No impact sites showed a decrease in condition beyond the trigger level.

Non-live ground cover An increase of bare ground of more than 100m

2 in a site

within a three year period.

No impact sites showed an increase in bare earth beyond the trigger level.

Non-native weeds

An increase in non-native weed species of more than 4 in a monitoring site (each having a cover of greater than 5%) compared to the average number in reference sites within a one year period.

No impact sites showed an increase in weed species beyond the trigger level. Invasive species previously detected in CCS01 and LGG01.

Trigger exceedances were recorded at impact sites WC01, WC02 and SSE01 as a result of the

survey monitoring. In the case of WC01 and WC02 the trigger appears to be a result of missed or

undifferentiated fringe dry sclerophyll species and not a decline in the richness of typical swamp

species. The decline in species richness at SSE01 also requires further monitoring. The declining

conditions of Gleichenia dicarpa, a key swamp species in the Carne West swamp, should be closely

monitored as it may trigger further investigations in subsequent surveys.


53 of 70

6.13. Photo-monitoring

6.13.1. Surface Features

Photographic inspections are conducted pre and post mining. The surveys target surface features

which may include rock formations, drainage lines, roads, Forests NSW tracks, waterholes, steep

slopes and rock beds within the watercourses.

Table 28 summarises the photographic survey monitoring undertaken as relevant to Longwall 418

extraction.

Longwall 418 Photographic Monitoring Summary Table 28.

Area Photographed Date Photographed Resurvey Number

LW418 Areas 1,2,

(Pre-mining)

2/2/2014 and 4/4/2014 Baseline Survey

LW418 Areas 1,2,

(Pre-mining)

20/8/2014 and 29/8/2014 Resurvey 2*

LW 418 Areas 1, 2

(Pre-mining)

25/2/2015 and 26/2/2015 Resurvey 3

LW418 Areas 1, 2, 6/8/2015 Resurvey 4

LW418 Undermining 23/10/2015 Resurvey 5

LW418 Undermining 1 11/11/2015 Resurvey 6

LW418 Area 1 Undermining 21/12/2015 Resurvey 7

LW418 Undermining 27/01/2016 Resurvey 8

LW418 Undermined 10/02/2016 Resurvey 9

LW418 Undermined 8/3/2016 Resurvey 10

LW418 Undermined 6//04/2016 Resurvey 11

LW418 Areas 1, 2 6//04/2016 Resurvey 12

LW418 Undermined 10+11/05/2016 Resurvey 13

* Second survey


54 of 70

Photos from the last survey of the features are presented in Table 29.

Comparison of Key Surface Features above Longwall 418 Table 29.


Baseline survey

LW418-2_Photo 033_2014_Feb04_IMG 033

Resurvey 12

LW418-2_Photo 033_2016_Apr 06_IMGP0013

Carne West Swamp

Baseline survey

LW418-1_Photo 046_2014_Feb02_IMG 0050

Resurvey 12

LW418-1_Photo 046_2016_Apr 06_IMGP0054


55 of 70

Tracks

Baseline survey

LW418-1_Photo 004_2014_Feb02_IMG

0004

Resurvey 13

LW418-1_Photo 004_2016_May 6_IMGP0028

Rock Feature

Baseline

LW418-1_Photo 037_2014_Feb02_IMG

0041

Resurvey 12

LW418-1_Photo 037_2016_Apr 06_IMGP0107


56 of 70

Subsidence Lines

Baseline

LW418-2_Photo 043_2014_Feb04_IMG 043

Resurvey 12

LW418-2_Photo 043_2016_Apr 06_IMGP0022

Photos are considered consistent with previous photographic records.


57 of 70

6.13.2. Newnes Plateau Shrub swamps

Photographic monitoring sites have been established for each swamp overlying the SMP area.

Relevant to the extraction of Longwall 417 and 418 is Sunnyside East Swamp.

Table 30 summarises the photographic survey monitoring undertaken in reference to Sunnyside East

Swamp.

Sunnyside East Swamp photographic Monitoring Summary Table 30.

Date Photographed Resurvey Number

14/4/2009 Baseline

28-30/10/2009 Resurvey 1

21/5/2010 Resurvey 2

17/11/2010 Resurvey 3





3/4/2013 Resurvey 8


19/9/2013 Resurvey 10

3/12/2013 Resurvey 11

15/1/2014 Resurvey 12

14/3/2014 Resurvey 13

22/4/2014 Resurvey 14

22/7/2014 Resurvey 15

27/10/2014 Resurvey 16

19/1/2015 Resurvey 17

16/4/2015 Resurvey 18


2/10/2015 Resurvey 20


58 of 70


28/01/2016 Resurvey 21


The following images compare baseline to the last survey undertaken. The monitoring tool is used as

a visual tool and data collected is used in combination with other monitoring methodology e.g. flora,

groundwater, climatic data to assist in interpretation.

Comparison of Sunnyside East Swamp Photographic Monitoring Table 31.

Baseline Resurvey 22

Photo_003_2009_0414Image0049

SSES_Photo 003_2016_Apr04_IMGP0003

Photo_006_2009_0414Image0052



59 of 70

Photo_022_2009_0414ImageSSE_Stitch

2

SSES_Photo 022_2016_Apr04_IMGP0017-18

Photo_067_2009_0414Image2407


Photo_073_2009_0414Image0104




60 of 70

Table 32 summarises the photographic survey monitoring undertaken in reference to Carne West

Swamp.

Carne West Swamp photographic Monitoring Summary Table 32.


24/11/2008 Baseline

22/12/2009 Resurvey 1



3/6/2011 Resurvey 4

25/10/2011 Resurvey 5

3/4/2012 Resurvey 6

30/10/2012 Resurvey 7


11/12/2013 Resurvey 9

23/4/2014 Resurvey 10

23/7/2014 Resurvey 11

10/10/2014 Resurvey 12

16/1/2015 Resurvey 13

10/4/2015 Resurvey 14


6/10/2015 Resurvey 16

17/01/2016 Resurvey 17

5//04/2016 Resurvey 18

The following images compare baseline to the last survey undertaken. The monitoring tool is used as

a visual tool and data collected is used in combination with other monitoring methodology e.g. flora,

groundwater, climatic data to assist in interpretation.


61 of 70

Comparison of Carne Swamp Photographic Monitoring Table 33.

Baseline Resurvey 18

CWS_Photo_002_2008_1124Image0004

CWS_Photo_002_2016_Apr 5_IMGP0001




62 of 70









63 of 70

7. ADEQUECY, QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS

The adequacy, quality, effectiveness of the implemented management processes based on

monitoring and consultation is considered to be satisfactory to date.

There were no non-compliances with the conditions of the SMP approval during the reporting period.

8. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

No TARP exceedances were triggered during the reporting period.

There are no outstanding management actions requiring an update.

9. CONCLUSIONS

Extraction of Longwall 418 commenced on the 22nd

of October 2015 and was completed on the 27th of

May 2016 with a total retreat of 2487m.

There have been no observed subsidence impacts, incidents or service difficulties during the retreat

of Longwall 418. Subsidence results have been within the predications.

During the reporting period observed rainfall on the Newnes Plateau remained significantly below the

long term average. A cumulative rainfall deficient therefore continues to be observed in the region.

Longer term climatic influences appear to be contributing to water monitoring data observations

(groundwater and surface water). This is supported by similar observations being made in reference

sites.

Data analysis demonstrates there have been no significant differences in habitat characteristics at

fauna monitoring sites. There has been no significant difference in fauna species richness values

within the SMP area. Threatened species continue to be recorded.

Flora observations made at trigger and reference sites support that cofounding environmental factors are active within the mining area.


64 of 70

Appendix 1

Plans


65 of 70


66 of 70


67 of 70


68 of 70


69 of 70

Appendix 2

Groundwater and

Surface Water

Report

Springvale Colliery

Castlereagh Highway

Lidsdale NSW 2790

PO Box 198

longwall 411 to 418 subsidence management status...

Documents