2.3.4.1 Developing the coal resource development pathway

In BAs, the baseline is defined as a future that includes all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields that are commercially producing as of December 2012. The coal resource development pathway (CRDP) is defined as a future that includes all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields that are in the baseline as well as those that are expected to begin commercial production after December 2012.

The difference in results between CRDP and baseline is the change that is primarily reported in a BA. This change is due to the additional coal resource development, which includes all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields, including expansions of baseline operations that are expected to begin commercial production after December 2012. Developments that were approved before December 2012 but were not commercially producing at that time are additional coal resource developments.

The CRDP is informed by companion product 1.2 for the Hunter subregion (Hodgkinson et al., 2015). Hodgkinson et al. (2015) summarised existing and proposed mining developments in the subregion based on publicly available information as of May 2015. Updates were made to some sections during the review process, but most of the information presented in that product is current as of May 2015. Baseline and additional coal resource development mining operations were determined according to the approach outlined in companion submethodology M04 (as listed in Table 1) for developing a coal resource development pathway (Lewis, 2014).

The list of candidate mines for the baseline and additional coal resource development for the Hunter subregion (see Section 1.2.4 of companion product 1.2 for the Hunter subregion (Hodgkinson et al., 2015)) was presented for review and comment to representatives of many mining companies with operations in the Hunter subregion at a workshop on 18 August 2015 in Singleton, NSW. Stakeholders from the Office of Water Science, DPI Water (formerly NSW Office of Water), WaterNSW and NSW Department of Industry’s Division of Resources and Energy also attended the workshop. The list was updated based on information obtained at the workshop, from follow-up conversations with mine representatives and from review comments by the mining sector of companion product 1.2 of the Hunter subregion (Hodgkinson et al., 2015). In September 2015, the Assessment team finalised the list of mines and mining operations in the CRDP.

There were no CSG fields proposed in the Hunter subregion at this time.

2.3.4.1.1 Baseline coal resource developments

Although coal mining has occurred in the Hunter subregion for over 100 years, not all historical mines are included in the baseline. Baseline mines are those that were operating or in care and maintenance as of December 2012. Mines that are in care and maintenance are included because it is assumed that mining could resume within the life of their existing approvals and/or dewatering is often continued through the care and maintenance period. Table 7 summarises the 42 mining operations (referred to hereafter as simply ‘mines’) that are included in the baseline for the Hunter subregion. In companion product 1.2 for the Hunter subregion (Hodgkinson et al., 2015), the number of operating mines as of May 2015 is reported as 18 mines, 7 mine complexes and 6 in care and maintenance, or a total of 31 operations. The discrepancy with the 42 baseline mines in Table 7 reflects:

definition of baseline mines as operating as of December 2012
complexes often include open-cut and underground operations, and these have been separated out in Table 7 because they have different hydrological effects and are differentiated in the numerical modelling (e.g. separate entries for Ravensworth Complex underground and Ravensworth Complex open-cut)
differences in what is or is not part of a complex (e.g. Glendell and Ravensworth East mines are listed individually in Table 7, but in companion product 1.2 for the Hunter subregion (Hodgkinson et al., 2015) are included as part of Mount Owen complex).

Table 7 identifies which mines are part of a mine complex, as well as which mines and mining operations have been included in the surface water and/or groundwater modelling for the baseline. Fourteen baseline mines are not included in the surface water modelling because:

The mining method is bord and pillar – this method always results in less subsidence than longwall mining (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014). For first workings, the mine is not collapsed following coal extraction and surface subsidence is unlikely; for second workings, some coal pillars are removed and can lead to some collapse of the immediate roof strata over the mined void, but surface subsidence is minimal. Disruption to surface water drainage from the mined area and the site facilities can reasonably be assumed to be negligible, relative to changes in groundwater from mine water pumping.
Mining takes place predominantly under the coastal lakes and/or urban areas.
The distance down-catchment before discharge to the coastal lakes is negligible.
The mine is located downstream of Greta on the Hunter River, which is approximately the point at which tidal influences impact Hunter River flows. This interaction cannot be represented in the river model.
Mining had ceased prior to the end of December 2012.

One baseline mine, Ulan Open-Cut, is not included in the groundwater modelling due to lack of data. Groundwater modelling for Wambo’s baseline underground operations includes only the North Wambo area, as flow rate data for the other underground extraction areas were not found.

Table 8 lists the mines or mining operations for which surface water or groundwater modelling is not undertaken and provides the rationale for exclusion.

The start date reflects the year that published information indicates mining commenced, although for some this reflects the long-term history, whereas others reflect a start date under the ownership of the current company or the start date of the development consent for the current suite of mining activities. These are not necessarily the same start years used for modelling, although many are: availability of data and the period chosen for modelling have determined the start dates for representing the hydrological effects of historical mines in the hydrological models.

End dates represent the year to which mining has been approved or, if mining is known to have ceased, the year when mining ceased. End dates in Table 7 can also differ from those used in the hydrological models because pumping and other hydrological effects of excavations can continue beyond the cessation of coal extraction. The start and end dates used in the numerical modelling are provided in Table 23 for groundwater modelling and Figure 38 for surface water modelling in companion product 2.1-2.2 for the Hunter subregion (Herron et al., 2018a).

Figure 14 shows the distribution of baseline mines across the subregion. Underground mines dominate the eastern part of the subregion, and both open-cut and underground mines occur in the central and western parts of the subregion.

Table 7 Mines in the baseline coal resource development (baseline)

Baseline is a future that includes all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields that are commercially producing (or in care and maintenance under a current approval) as of December 2012. Baseline mines are date stamped to September 2015 and reflect information obtained at that time.

Mine	Open-cut or underground	Company	Start or estimate of start of mining	End of mine life or estimated project life	Comments	Modelled?^a
Mine	Open-cut or underground	Company	Start or estimate of start of mining	End of mine life or estimated project life	Comments	GW	SW
Abel	UG	Donaldson Coal (Yancoal)	2008	2028	Part of Donaldson Coal Complex. Ongoing operation.	Y	N
Ashton	OC	Yancoal	2004	2011	Mining ceased in North East Open Cut (NEOC) in early 2011. Proposed South East Open Cut (see Table 9).	Y	Y
Ashton	UG	Yancoal	2006	2023	Planning approval granted in October 2002. Consent to extract from four overlying seams (2006, 2012, 2014 and 2019). Extraction from Upper Liddell seam commenced August 2012.	Y	Y
Austar	UG	Yancoal	2005	2026	This is an amalgamation of older mines (Bellbird, Pelton-Ellalong and Southland), operating since 1974. Stage 1 operations under Yancoal Australia began in 2005. Stage 2 completed in 2012. Stage 3 commenced in 2013. Modification to Stage 3 longwall panels approved November 2015 (see Table 9).	Y	Y
Awaba	UG (B&P)	Centennial Coal	1947	2012	Mine closed. Still pumping to keep water out of Newstan.	Y	N
Bengalla	OC	Rio Tinto Group	1999	2015	Development consent granted in 1996. Commenced production in 1999. Expansion of operation (see Table 9).	Y	Y
Bloomfield	OC	Bloomfield Collieries	2006	2021	Mining since 1840s. Current development since 2006. Mining is occurring at less than the approved rate. Have sought extension of current approvals for Stages 3, 4 and 5. Modification 3 approved February 2013.	Y	N
Bulga	OC	Glencore Coal	1986	2014	Part of Bulga Coal Complex. Ongoing operation to 2035. Baseline to 2014; ACRD from 2015 (see Table 9).	Y	Y
Bulga	UG	Glencore Coal	2008	2031	Part of Bulga Coal Complex. Mining approved in four seams and commenced prior to 2012.	Y	Y
Chain Valley	UG	Lake Coal (LDO Coal)	1962	2013	Current operations approved to end 2027, includes baseline to end 2013 and ACRD to 2027 (see Table 9).	Y	N
Cumnock	UG	Glencore Coal	1950	2011	Part of Ravensworth Complex. Formerly known as Liddell State Coal mine. Wash Plant Pit was mined until 2011. In care and maintenance since 2011. Current operations limited to pumping of wet tailings.	Y	N
Dartbrook	UG	Anglo American	1997	2006	Construction began in 1993. Commercially producing in 1997. Mining ceased on 1 January 2007. In care and maintenance.	Y	Y
Donaldson	OC	Donaldson Coal (Yancoal)	2001	2013	Part of Donaldson Coal Complex. This mine closed in July 2013 after exhaustion of reserves.	Y	N
Drayton	OC	Anglo American	2007	2021	Ongoing operation since 1983. Current operations commenced 2007 and approved to 2021. Mining to wind down in 2016, following decision by the Planning Assessment Commission to not support Drayton South expansion.	Y	Y
Glendell	OC	Glencore	2008	2023	Part of Mount Owen Complex since 1997. Approval granted in 1983, but not commenced until 2008, with commercial production in 2010.	Y	Y
Hunter Valley Operations	OC	Rio Tinto Group	1968	2030	Ongoing operation. Mining commenced in West Pit (Howick Coal mine) in 1968. Hunter Valley No. 1 (North Pit) mine commenced in 1979. In 2009, multiple approvals were replaced by single approval to 2030.	Y	Y
Integra	OC	Vale Australia	1991	2035	Development approval in 1991. Camberwell open-cut mine commenced in 1991. Current approval to 2035. In care and maintenance since July 2014, based on poor economic outlook.	Y	Y
Integra	UG	Vale Australia	1996	2035	Development approval in 1991. Underground development commenced in 1999 at Glennies Creek, with first coal produced in 2002. Current approval to 2035. In care and maintenance since July 2014, based on poor economic outlook.	Y	Y
Liddell	OC	Glencore	1946	2014	Ongoing operation. Expansion of operations to development consent boundary approved in 2014 (see Table 9).	Y	Y
Mandalong	UG	Centennial Coal	2005	2017	Current operation approved to 2035, including expansion. Based on current extraction rates: baseline to 2017; ACRD from 2018 (see Table 9).	Y	N
Mangoola	OC	Glencore	2006	2026	Approved and operating in December 2012. Modification 6 – extraction rate increase approved April 2014.	Y	Y
Mannering	UG	Lake Coal (Centennial Coal)	1960	2022	Modification 2 (linking Mannering and Chain Valley) approved November 2014. This is assumed to be change to an existing approval. In care and maintenance since January 2013. Baseline to 2019.	Y	N
Moolarben	OC	Yancoal Australia	2010	2038	Ongoing operation. Stage 1 (including UG4) approved in 2007. Commercial production in OC1 in 2010. Modification 3 (approved in January 2015) extends mining operations out to December 2038. Includes new pit (see Table 9). Baseline to 2019.	Y	Y
Moolarben	UG	Yancoal Australia	2010	2038	Part of Stage 1 approval in 2007 (see above). New UG operations approved in January 2015 (see Table 9). Baseline to 2014.	Y	Y
Mount Arthur	OC	BHP Billiton	2001	2022	Part of Mount Arthur Coal Mine Complex. Mining since 1960 in Bayswater OC2 and OC3. North OC approved in 2001. Production commenced in April 2002. Expansion approved in 2014 (see Table 9), plus extension of mining to 2026.	Y	Y
Mount Owen	OC	Glencore	1993	2015	Part of Mount Owen Complex. Ongoing operation approved to 2025, but expect currently approved area will be mined out by 2018. Mount Owen Continued Operations project will expand mine area and extend life of operations. Assume baseline to 2015; ACRD from 2018 (see Table 9).	Y	Y
Mount Thorley–Warkworth	OC	Coal and Allied (Rio Tinto)	1980	2018	An integrated ongoing operation of two adjacent open-cut mines. Expansion approved in October 2015 (see Table 9).	Y	Y
Muswellbrook	UG (B&P)	Muswellbrook Coal Company (MCC) (Idemitsu)	1907	1997	Underground operations from 1907 to 1997. Pumping of water has been ongoing since cessation of mining.	Y	N
Muswellbrook	OC	MCC (Idemitsu)	2005	2018	Open-cut operation since 1944. Current operations in No. 1 OC extension (since 2005). Mining in No. 2 OC has ceased, but extended into previous B&P workings.	Y	Y
Myuna	UG (B&P)	Centennial Coal	1982	2032	Approval to extend operations until end of 2032 granted in January 2012. Approval to increase annual permissible extraction from 2 to 3 tonnes granted in February 2015.	Y	N
Newstan	UG	Centennial Coal	1999	2020	Mining for over 125 years. Current operations approved for 21 years from 1999. In care and maintenance in 2008 due to difficult geological conditions, and since early 2014 due to poor economic outlook. Ongoing pumping is occurring to keep water out of Awaba.	Y	N
Ravensworth	UG	Glencore	1999	2023	Part of Ravensworth Complex. In care and maintenance in October 2014 due to economic outlook. Pumping at 80% of full rate as at August 2015.	Y	Y
Ravensworth	OC	Glencore	1993	2039	Part of Ravensworth Complex. Includes Narama, West and North OC pits. Mining ceased in Narama OC in 2014. West OC was mined between 2006 and 2011. North OC is a continuation of West OC which was approved with a mine life of 29 years and producing before December 2012.	Y	Y
Ravensworth East	OC	Glencore	2000	2027	Part of Mount Owen Complex since 2004. Production commenced in 2000. Approved to mine in West Pit and BNP until March 2021; is expected to commence in BNP in 2015. Mount Owen Continuation Project would extend operations to 2027 but not increase area of mining (see Mount Owen Complex in Table 9).	Y	Y
Rix’s Creek	OC	Bloomfield Collieries	1990	2018	Approval to increase production rate granted in November 2014. Seeking extension of project to 2038, but no increase in extraction volume. Exhibition of EIS closed on 3 December 2015.	Y	Y
Tasman	UG (B&P)	Donaldson Coal (Yancoal)	2006	2013	Part of Donaldson Coal Complex. Approved to mine until 2025, but ceased production in July 2013.	Y	N
Ulan	OC	Glencore	1981	2021	Mining at Ulan has taken place since the 1920s. Part of Ulan Coal Complex. Open-cut mining ceased in 2008. Recommenced in 2010 – expected to continue for 7 to 11 years.	N	Y
Ulan	UG	Glencore	1986	2021	First longwall mine (replacing B&P) commenced in 1986. Approved to 2021. In 2011, a 21 year extension was approved, including continuation of Ulan No. 3 (part of baseline) and the new Ulan West UG mine (Table 9).	Y	Y
Wambo	OC	Peabody Energy	1993	2017	Part of Wambo Mine Complex. Mining since 1970s. Existing operations commenced in 1993. Mining expected to continue to 2017.	Y	Y
Wambo	UG	Peabody Energy	2005	2016	Part of Wambo Mine Complex. Ongoing operation since early 1970s. Includes North Wambo, South Bates, Arrowfield and Bowfield developments. North Wambo UG mine commenced in November 2005 (in GW model). There are plans to expand (see Table 9).	Y^b	N
West Wallsend	UG	Glencore	1969	2015	Started as B&P mining operation. Longwall unit installed in 1989. In care and maintenance as at September 2015.	Y	N
Wilpinjong	OC	Peabody Energy	2006	2027	Ongoing operation, comprising multiple pits, with plans for expansion (see Table 9).	Y	Y

^aSee Table 8 for reasons why some mines were not modelled.

^bonly part of the baseline underground developments is modelled.

ACRD = additional coal resource development, baseline = baseline coal resource development, B&P = bord and pillar, EIS = environmental impact statement, GW = groundwater, OC = open-cut, SW = surface water, UG = underground

Full company names: Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd (Bloomfield Collieries ), Coal and Allied Industries Ltd (Coal and Allied), Donaldson Coal Ltd (Donaldson Coal), Glencore Coal Australia Pty Limited (Glencore Coal), Muswellbrook Coal Company Limited (MCC), Peabody Energy Australia Ltd (Peabody Energy), Yancoal Australia Ltd (Yancoal)

Table 8 Reasons for not modelling some mines in the baseline coal resource development (baseline)

Mine	Open-cut or underground	Company	Excluded from SW or GW modelling?	Reasons for not modelling
Abel	UG	Donaldson Coal (Yancoal)	SW	Downstream of Greta, hence in the tidal zone of Hunter River. Cannot be represented in the river model. No additional coal resource development at this site. Modelled changes will be identical in baseline and CRDP.
Awaba	UG (B&P)	Centennial Coal	SW	Bord-and-pillar mine – assumed to not cause subsidence, hence no impact on surface drainage. Panels mostly under Lake Macquarie and/or surrounding urban areas. Models do not represent interactions with lake or account for urban runoff processes. Surface areas (i.e. site facilities) have negligible downstream catchments before entering Lake Macquarie.
Bloomfield	OC	Bloomfield Collieries	SW	Downstream of Greta, hence in the tidal zone of Hunter River. Cannot be represented in the river model. No additional coal resource development at this site. Modelled changes will be identical in baseline and CRDP.
Chain Valley	UG	Lake Coal (LDO Coal)	SW	Panels mostly under Lake Macquarie and/or surrounding urban areas. Models do not represent interactions with lake or account for urban runoff processes. Surface areas (i.e. site facilities) have negligible downstream catchments before entering Lake Macquarie.
Cumnock	UG	Glencore Coal	SW	Mining ceased in 2011, so not technically a baseline mine. Open-cut mining at Ravensworth occurs over top of former underground panels, so impact on surface water part of Cumnock area is modelled.
Donaldson	OC	Donaldson Coal (Yancoal)	SW	Downstream of Greta, hence in the tidal zone of Hunter River. Cannot be represented in the river model. No additional coal resource development at this site. Modelled changes will be identical in baseline and CRDP.
Mandalong	UG	Centennial Coal	SW	No stream network represented in the groundwater model in this area, therefore no modelled baseflows. Changes on streamflow could not be modelled properly without the changes in baseflow.
Mannering	UG	Lake Coal (Centennial Coal)	SW	Panels mostly under Lake Macquarie and/or surrounding urban areas. Models do not represent interactions with lake or account for urban runoff processes. Surface areas (i.e. site facilities) have negligible downstream catchments before entering Lake Macquarie.
Muswellbrook	UG (B&P)	Muswellbrook Coal Company (Idemitsu)	SW	Bord-and-pillar mine – assumed to not cause subsidence, hence no impact on surface drainage. Not strictly baseline as not commercially producing in December 2012. Pumping has continued and GW changes are modelled.
Myuna	UG (B&P)	Centennial Coal	SW	Bord-and-pillar mine – assumed to not cause subsidence, hence no impact on surface drainage. Panels mostly under Lake Macquarie and/or surrounding urban areas. Models do not represent interactions with lake or account for urban runoff processes. Surface areas (i.e. site facilities) have negligible downstream catchments before entering Lake Macquarie.
Newstan	UG	Centennial Coal	SW	Panels mostly under Lake Macquarie and/or surrounding urban areas. Models do not represent interactions with lake or account for urban runoff processes. Surface areas (i.e. site facilities) have negligible downstream catchments before entering Lake Macquarie.
Tasman	UG (B&P)	Donaldson Coal (Yancoal)	SW	B&P mine – assumed to not cause subsidence, hence no impact on surface drainage. Downstream of Greta, hence in the tidal zone of Hunter River. Cannot be represented in the river model. No additional coal resource development at this site. Modelled changes will be identical in baseline and CRDP.
Ulan	OC	Glencore	GW	Did not have flow rate data.
Wambo	UG	Peabody Energy	SW	As at May 2015, only extraction from North Wambo UG had commenced. About half of this area under the open-cut mine, which is modelled. Unclear when mining of South Bates, Arrowfield and Bowfield will occur.
West Wallsend	UG	Glencore	SW	Downstream of Greta, hence in the tidal zone of Hunter River. Cannot be represented in the river model. No additional coal resource development at this site. Modelled changes will be identical in baseline and CRDP.

ACRD = additional coal resource development, baseline = baseline coal resource development, B&P = bord and pillar, CRDP = coal resource development pathway, GW = groundwater, OC = open-cut, SW = surface water, UG = underground

Full company names: Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd (Bloomfield Collieries ), Donaldson Coal Ltd (Donaldson Coal), Glencore Coal Australia Pty Limited (Glencore Coal), Muswellbrook Coal Company Limited (MCC), Yancoal Australia Ltd (Yancoal)

Figure 14 Mines in the baseline coal resource development (baseline)

A mine with both open-cut and underground operations is shown as a dot with a ring around it.

Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 1)

2.3.4.1.2 Additional coal resource development

The mines in the CRDP are the sum of those in the baseline and those identified as additional coal resource developments. In determining which development proposals (from Table 5 in the companion product 1.2 for the Hunter subregion (Hodgkinson, 2015)) would be included as additional coal resource developments (and hence the CRDP), the following were considered:

Whether the development proposal sought to extend the life of a baseline mine beyond the end date for which it was originally approved or to expand the area mined beyond that covered by approvals granted prior to 31 December 2012.
1. A proposal to extend the completion date of a baseline mine was deemed to be baseline. This is because there is no increase to the already approved area and volume of extraction, hence no new hydrological impact, just a delay in timing.
2. A proposal to increase the area mined was deemed to be an additional coal resource development because it would lead to an increase in the hydrological impact to what had already been approved.
What the status of the proposal was in terms of the approval process at the time of finalising the baseline and additional coal resource development mines in September 2015. Generally, a proposal was deemed to be an additional coal resource development if:
1. it had been approved, but coal production had not commenced before 31 December 2012, or
2. an environmental impact statement (EIS) had been submitted and there were no apparent reasons why it would not be approved.

Table 9 summarises the list of mining developments that met the criteria for inclusion in the CRDP as an additional coal resource development. There are 22 additional coal resource developments comprising 13 open-cut and 9 underground mining proposals. Out of these 22 coal resource developments, 6 proposals are for new mines (3 open-cut and 3 underground mines) and 16 are expansions to existing open-cut and longwall operations. There are no CSG development proposals.

Where a mine development is already known to have commenced (i.e. since 31 December 2012), the start date reflects the actual start year. Where a mine development is yet to commence, the start date reflects the date reported in the mine’s EIS as the start year for the proposal or, if this is not known, Assessment team estimated a start date (2018 when start date unknown; or if based on documented dates, mining should have commenced but had not, the current (2016) or subsequent (2017) year was adopted). The reported end dates reflect what has been approved or is being sought in the approval. Start dates and end dates will almost certainly deviate from these assumptions. The additional coal resource development reflects an assessment in September 2015, from which coal resource development plans have since deviated. For example, on 27 November 2015, the Planning and Assessment Commission recommended that the Drayton South Coal Project not proceed; at this time it had already been modelled in the CRDP.

Sixteen additional coal resource developments have sufficient information available to be able to model their hydrological impact into the future (see companion submethodology M04 (Lewis, 2014)). However, three proposals are not included in surface water or groundwater models:

West Muswellbrook Project – insufficient data were available to represent the hydrological impact in the models
Austar proposal – which involved some retraction of already approved longwall panels, plus some expansion of the same panels at the other end, the net change in area mined was negligible and deemed not to significantly change what had already been approved
Wambo – flow rates were not available for the proposed new panels and therefore not represented in the groundwater model; with respect to surface water modelling, the new panels were located beneath existing panels and it was assumed there was no net change in surface drainage.

In addition, the Wilpingjong Coal Mine is also not included in the groundwater modelling for the CRDP due to lack of flow-rate data. Mount Arthur Coal Mine Complex is not included in the groundwater modelling because the increase in mined area (~70 ha) is negligible and the model is largely insensitive to this scale of change. The Chain Valley Colliery is not included in the surface water modelling because the footprint is largely underneath Lake Macquarie and any effects are assumed to be swamped by lake and tidal processes. The Mandalong Southern Expansion Project is not included in the surface water modelling because the stream network incorporated into the groundwater model to represent groundwater – surface water interactions inadvertently did not include the streams in this area. As a result, changes in baseflow from groundwater drawdown were not generated for input into the surface water model. A decision was made to not present results from runoff interception only, as this would give an incomplete and inaccurate estimate of the potential changes on streamflow from the additional coal resource development. Table 10 identifies the additional coal resource development proposals that are not included in groundwater and/or surface water modelling for the CRDP, and the reasons for exclusion.

The distribution of the mines identified as additional coal resource developments (listed in Table 9) is shown in Figure 15. There are three developments in the coastal area, but most of the proposed new coal mines and expansions are further inland around the Hunter Coalfield and the Western Coalfield.

The potential hydrological changes from the additional coal resource developments that are not included in the surface water and/or groundwater modelling are considered in companion product 3-4 for the Hunter subregion (as listed in Table 2). Where appropriate, the conceptual model of the Hunter subregion, results from the numerical modelling of the modelled additional coal resource development and/or information that has become available since the numerical modelling was completed are used to infer potential hydrological changes and potential for impacts on landscape classes and assets.

Table 9 Mines comprising the additional coal resource development

The mines in the coal resource development pathway (CRDP) are the sum of those in the baseline and the additional coal resource development (ACRD). The ACRD is all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields, including expansions of baseline operations that are expected to begin commercial production after December 2012. This table reflects decisions made in September 2015 with information obtained at that time.

Mine	Open-cut or underground	Company	Start year	End year	Comments	Modelled?
Mine	Open-cut or underground	Company	Start year	End year	Comments	GW	SW
Ashton	OC	Yancoal	2018^b	2025	Expansion. South East Open Cut (SEOC) mine. Recommendation made to PAC August 2011 and initially approved in October 2012 for 7-year mine life to 2025. Appealed. Approval not finalised. For bioregional assessment purposes, assumed likely to proceed.	Y	Y
Austar	UG	Yancoal	2014	2026	Modification to Stage 3 area approved December 2013. Entails retraction of some longwall panels at one end and expansion at other end. Production commenced in the stage 3 area in 2013. Note: an environmental assessment was submitted for public exhibition in November 2015 for development of three new longwall panels and was approved on 2 February 2016. This expansion is not included as an ACRD as it occurred after the ACRD mines were finalised for modelling (September 2015).	N	N
Bengalla	OC	Rio Tinto Group	2016	2039	Expansion approved March 2015.	Y	Y
Bulga	OC	Glencore	2015	2035	Bulga Coal Optimisation Project. Expansion project approved December 2014.	Y	Y
Bylong	OC	Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO)	2017^b	2025	Bylong Coal Project. New mine. DGRs issued June 2014. EIS submitted on 23 September 2015. Contentious project, considerable community concern. For bioregional assessment purposes, assumed likely to proceed.	Y	Y
Bylong	UG	KEPCO	2022	2044	Bylong Coal Project. Proposed new mine. EIS submitted on 23 September 2015. For bioregional assessment purposes, assumed likely to proceed.	Y	Y
Chain Valley	UG	Lake Coal (LDO Group)	2014	2027	Chain Valley Modification 1. Approval to expand into newly acquired sub-lease areas granted on 23 December 2013.	Y	N
Drayton South	OC	Anglo American	2016	2030	Drayton South Coal Project. PAC refused project approval October 2014. Gateway application was submitted in January 2015. EIS submitted in May 2015. Gone to IESC. For bioregional assessment purposes, assumed likely to proceed. Note: On 27 November 2015, the PAC recommended Drayton South Coal Project not proceed. However, the decision to include Drayton South as an ACRD was made in September 2015 and it has been modelled as part of the CRDP.	Y	Y
Liddell	OC	Glencore	2015	2028	Expansion of operations to development consent boundary approved in December 2014. DA Modification 1 assumes mine life of 10 years, with a 3-year buffer to allow for changes in economic environment.	Y	Y
Mandalong	UG	Centennial Coal	2018^b	2040	Mandalong Southern Extension Project. Expansion of mine area and extension of development consent to 2040. Project under PAC review as at August 2015. For bioregional assessment purposes, assumed likely to proceed.	Y	N
Moolarben	OC	Yancoal	2020	2035	Expansion. Project life of 24 years. Stage 2 comprising one open-cut (OC4) and two underground mines (UG1 and UG2) approved in January 2015.	Y	Y
Moolarben	UG	Yancoal	2015 (UG1), 2025 (UG2)	2025 (UG1), 2028 (UG2)	Stage 2 comprising one open-cut (OC4) and two underground mines (UG1 and UG2) approved in January 2015. Longwalls to commence in series. Modifications to stages 1 and 2 for optimisation of underground operations submitted for exhibition July 2015.	Y	Y
Mount Arthur	UG	BHP Billiton	2016^b	2030	Approved in 2008, but no mining has commenced. Project life is 21 years, but end date reflects current approval.	Y	Y
Mount Arthur	OC	BHP Billiton	2022	2026	Expansion of South Pit into Bayswater No.3 mining lease. Approved in 2014.	N	Y
Mount Owen	OC	Glencore	2018^b	2030	Mount Owen Continued Operations Project. Proposes to expand North Pit by 382 ha and extend mine life to 2030 and, extend Ravensworth East mine life by 6 years (2027). Proposed disturbance area of 485 ha. EIS submitted for review. Exhibition stage ended.	Y	Y
Mount Pleasant	OC	Rio Tinto Group	2018^b	2037	New mine with four pits. EIS in 1997. Development consent granted in 1999, but mining not commenced. Modification 1 approved in September 2011 did not involve changes that would impact mine footprint. Current approval is to 2022, although original DC indicated a mine life of 20 years.	Y	Y
Mount Thorley–Warkworth	OC	Rio Tinto Group	2016	2037	Expansion. Two separate developments with project life of 21 years. Approved October 2015	Y	Y
Ulan	UG	Glencore	2014	2031	Expansion. Ulan West. Commercially producing in May 2014 (pumping from 2012).	Y	Y
West Muswellbrook	OC	Muswellbrook Coal Company	Not known	Not known	West Muswellbrook Project. New mine. Gateway application submitted December 2014. Approved.	N	N
Wallarah 2	UG	Wyong Coal	2018^b	2046	New mine. Awaiting approval as at August 2015. For bioregional assessment purposes, assumed likely to proceed. Anticipated mine life of 25 years plus 3 years for construction.	Y	Y
Wambo	UG	Peabody Energy	Not known	2025	Various modifications involving additional longwall panels: Modification 13 – two additional longwall panels in North Wambo UG; Modification 14 – one additional panel in North Wambo UG; Modification 15 – three additional panels in South Bates UG. All have been approved (Mod 15 on 10 November 2015).	N	N
Wilpinjong	OC	Peabody Energy	2026	2033	DGRs for expansion project issued December 2014. Pre-EIS. Proposal involves 500 ha increase to existing pit, plus 300 ha new pit with 7-year extension.	N	Y

^aSee Table 10 for reasons why some mines were not modelled.

^bStart date uncertain – estimated for modelling

DGRs = Director General Requirements (for the environmental assessment to be prepared by the proponent), EIS = environment impact statement, GW = groundwater, OC = open-cut, PAC = Planning Assessment Commission, SW = surface water, UG = underground

Full company names: Glencore Coal Australia Pty Limited (Glencore Coal), Muswellbrook Coal Company Limited (MCC), Peabody Energy Australia Ltd (Peabody Energy), Yancoal Australia Ltd (Yancoal)

Table 10 Reasons for not modelling some mines comprising the additional coal resource development

Mine	Open-cut or underground	Company	Excluded from SW or GW modelling	Reasons for not modelling
Austar	UG	Yancoal	SW and GW	The proposed modification to approved Stage 3 longwall panels entails retraction of starting locations and/or extension at other end of four longwall panels. Net change in longwall extent is around 5% to 10% of existing approved extent and <1% of the entire baseline extent.
Chain Valley	UG	Lake Coal (LDO Group)	SW	Mine footprint is predominantly under Lake Macquarie. Surface water models not able to represent hydrological changes.
Mandalong	UG	Centennial Coal	SW	The stream network in this area was inadvertently not represented in the groundwater model, resulting in no modelled changes in baseflow due to drawdown. Thus a complete and accurate estimate of streamflow changes was not possible.
Mount Arthur	OC	BHP Billiton	GW	Small increase in existing open-cut mine footprint. Groundwater model is not sensitive to this scale of change.
West Muswellbrook	OC	Muswellbrook Coal Company	SW and GW	Insufficient data to represent in surface water and groundwater models
Wambo	UG	Peabody Energy	SW and GW	Insufficient data to represent in groundwater models. Additional panels all underlie already approved panels and use existing site facilities, so no additional impact at surface to that under baseline conditions.
Wilpinjong	OC	Peabody Energy	GW	Insufficient data to represent in groundwater models. No EIS available.

baseline = baseline coal resource development, EIS = environmental impact statement, GW = groundwater, OC = open-cut, SW = surface water, UG = underground

Full company names: Muswellbrook Coal Company Limited (MCC), Peabody Energy Australia Ltd (Peabody Energy), Yancoal Australia Ltd (Yancoal

Figure 15 Mines comprising the additional coal resource development

Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 1)

2.3.4.1.3 Identified coal resources not in the coal resource development pathway

There are ten other coal resource exploration and development proposals with economically demonstrated resources that could potentially be extracted at some stage in the future (see companion product 1.2 for the Hunter subregion (Hodgkinson et al., 2015)). These proposals were not included as additional coal resource developments in the CRDP for the Hunter subregion as the Assessment team determined that, on the basis of available information at September 2015, they are unlikely to become commercially producing mines within the next 10 to 15 years. Table 11 provides a summary of the proposals that were considered and the rationale for not including them as additional coal resource developments, and hence part of the CRDP. In general, projects that were still in an exploration phase were considered too immature in their development to include as additional coal resource developments. Two projects (Doyles Creek and Mount Penny) were not included in the CRDP because they have been the subject of Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) inquiries and had their exploration licences suspended.

Figure 16 shows the location of the ten identified coal resources not included in the CRDP.

Table 11 Reasons for not including some mines as additional coal resource development in the coal resource development pathway (CRDP)

Listed coal resource developments were deemed unlikely to proceed or too immature in development to include as additional coal resource developments (ACRDs). The mines in the coal resource development pathway (CRDP) are the sum of those in the baseline and in the ACRD. The ACRD is all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields, including expansions of baseline operations that are expected to begin commercial production after December 2012. Status of mines reflects information obtained prior to September 2015.

Mine	Open-cut or underground	Company	Reasons for not including as an additional coal resource development
Bickham Coal Project	UG	Bickham Coal Company	Potential new mine. Pre-EIS as at September 2015. Original proposal for OC mine not approved. Changed proposal to UG. Exploration licence renewed. Considered too immature in its development to include as an ACRD.
Dellworth Project	OC	NuCoal Resources	Potential new mine. Pre-EIS as at September 2015. Reports that Savoy Hill more likely to progress. Based on data and information available to the Assessment team as of September 2015, the potential for future commercial production at this site is considered unlikely.
Doyles Creek	OC / UG	NuCoal Resources	NSW Government suspended exploration licence (EL) in 2014 on recommendation from ICAC. Subsequent judicial review and constitutional challenges have followed. No mining to date. Based on data and information available to the Assessment team as of September 2015, the potential for future commercial production at this site is considered unlikely.
Ferndale Project	OC	Whitehaven Coal	Potential new mine. Pre-EIS. EL 7430 expired 17 December 2014 and the status of its renewal, the EIS and the future of this project is unclear (as of September 2015). Considered too immature in its development to include as an ACRD.
Kayuga Project	OC	Anglo American	Expansion of Dartbrook, which was in care and maintenance as at September 2015. Mining lease applications were rejected by NSW Court of Appeal; decision appealed, but approval still not obtained. Size of resource is not specified. Not included in OZMIN database (Geoscience Australia, Dataset 2). Based on data and information available to the Assessment team as of September 2015, the potential for future commercial production at this site is considered unlikely.
Mitchells Flat Project	OC	Glencore	Still in exploration phase as at September 2015. Considered too immature in its development to include as an ACRD.
Monash Deposit	OC	Yancoal Australia	Potential new mine. Pre-EIS as of September 2015. Considered too immature in its development to include as an ACRD.
Mount Penny Deposit	OC	Cascade Coal	NSW Government suspended exploration licence (EL) in 2014 on recommendation from ICAC. No mining to date. Based on data and information available to the Assessment team as of September 2015, the potential for future commercial production at this site is considered unlikely.
Savoy Hill	UG	NuCoal Resources	Potential new mine. Still in exploration phase. Considered too immature in its development to include as an ACRD.
Spur Hill Project		Malabar Coal	Potential new mine. DGRs issued in July 2014. No EIS submitted (September 2015). Environmental and engineering studies continuing. Considered too immature in its development to include as an ACRD.

DGRs = Director General Requirements (for the environmental assessment to be prepared by the proponent, EIS = environmental impact statement, EL = exploration licence, ICAC = Independent Commission Against Corruption

Figure 16 Mines not included in the coal resource development pathway (CRDP) as additional coal resource development

The listed coal resource developments were deemed unlikely to proceed or too uncertain to include as additional coal resource developments (ACRDs). The mines in the coal resource development pathway (CRDP) are the sum of those in the baseline and the ACRD. The ACRD is all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields, including expansions of baseline operations that are expected to begin commercial production after December 2012.

Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 1)

2.3.4.1.4 Coal resource development pathway

The mines in the CRDP comprise the baseline mines in Table 7 and those identified as additional coal resource developments in Table 9. As stated in Section 2.3.4.1.1 (see Table 8) and Section 2.3.4.1.2 (see Table 10), not all mines in the CRDP have enough data or information to be quantitatively assessed through surface water and/or groundwater modelling; rather, they will be discussed as commentary only. This section focuses only on those mines in the CRDP that have been included in the surface water and/or groundwater modelling.

The CRDP maximum footprint for surface water modelling is shown in Figure 17 and has been differentiated into its baseline and additional coal resource development parts. The maximum footprint for surface water modelling reflects the largest extent of disrupted surface over the life of the operation, and includes the excavation areas, site facilities and areas affected by drainage changes. Rehabilitation is assumed to commence at the end of coal extraction. The maximum surface water footprint for the mines in the baseline, based on the spatial data obtained for the Assessment, is 463.0 km² and for the mines in the CRDP is 704.6 km². This means that the additional surface water footprint from the additional coal resource development is 241.6 km², a 52% increase on the baseline maximum footprint.

The CRDP maximum footprint for groundwater modelling is shown in Figure 18 and has also been differentiated into its baseline and additional coal resource development components. The maximum footprint for groundwater modelling is represented at the ground surface by the union of the area disturbed by open-cut mining and the area overlying the underground extraction areas. The maximum groundwater footprint for the baseline, based on the spatial data that has been obtained for the BA, is 598.4 km² and for the CRDP is 710.7 km². The additional groundwater footprint at the surface from the additional coal resource developments is 212.3 km², almost a 35% increase on the baseline maximum footprint. However, the additional coal resource development footprint overlaps the baseline footprint by an additional 80.6 km². This reflects that some of the proposed developments occur below existing baseline activities. This is important for groundwater modelling, where mine water pumping rates and depths of extractions are more important inputs than the area of excavation.

Timelines of baseline and additional coal resource development mines are shown in Figure 19 in chronological order. These timelines provide a future snapshot of the intensity and duration of mining in the Hunter subregion. Although some mines were operating prior to 1980, Figure 19 shows the period relevant to the BA numerical modelling. Baseline developments extend out to 2039 (at Ravensworth Complex), while the CRDP includes mining developments that extend to 2046 (at Wallarah 2).

Figure 17 The maximum mine footprint for coal resource developments in the coal resource development pathway that are included in the surface water modelling

The maximum footprint of the coal resource development pathway (CRDP) is the union of the footprints for the baseline and additional coal resource development.

Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 3)

Figure 18 The maximum mine footprint for coal resource developments in the coal resource development pathway that are included in the groundwater modelling

The maximum footprint of the coal resource development pathway (CRDP) is the union of the footprints for the baseline and additional coal resource development.

Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 4)

Figure 19 Timeline for coal resource developments in the coal resource development pathway

Green = baseline, blue = additional coal resource development, red line = December 2012, light grey = not modelled, dashes = groundwater model only, dots = surface water model only, OC = open-cut, UG = underground

The dates reflect the expected period of coal extraction and may not coincide precisely with the dates used for mine pumping in the modelling.

Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 5)

Last updated:

18 January 2019

2.3.4.1 Developing the coal resource development pathway

2.3.4.1.1 Baseline coal resource developments

2.3.4.1.2 Additional coal resource development

2.3.4.1.3 Identified coal resources not in the coal resource development pathway

2.3.4.1.4 Coal resource development pathway

Product Finalisation date

Numbered headings

ASSESSMENT

PRODUCT DATA