Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review - Peabody Energy

METROPOLITAN
COAL
2012 ANNUAL REVIEW
METROPOLITAN COAL

METROPOLITAN COAL
2012 ANNUAL REVIEW
Project No. MET-08-08/8.1
Document No. 00482778

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE ANNUAL REVIEW 6
2 WORKS DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD 7
3 REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE – UNDERGROUND MINING AREA AND
SURROUNDS 9
3.1 CATCHMENT MONITORING PROGRAM 9
3.1.1 Background 9
3.1.2 Baseline Data of Existing Surface Water and Groundwater Resources 9
3.1.3 Surface Water Model Development, Calibration and Verification 15
3.1.4 Groundwater Model Development, Calibration and Verification 19
3.1.5 Assessment of Environmental Performance 20
3.1.6 Management and Mitigation Measures 20
3.1.7 Further Initiatives 20
3.2 SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM 20
3.2.1 Background 20
3.2.2 Monitoring 21
3.2.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 25
3.2.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 38
3.2.5 Further Initiatives 39
3.3 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 39
3.3.1 Background 39
3.3.2 Monitoring 39
3.3.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 56
3.3.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 98
3.3.5 Further Initiatives 98
3.4 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 99
3.4.1 Background 99
3.4.2 Monitoring 99
3.4.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 187
3.4.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 195
3.4.5 Further Initiatives 195
3.5 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 195
3.5.1 Background 195
3.5.2 Monitoring 195
3.5.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 197
3.5.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 198
3.5.5 Further Initiatives 198
3.6 HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 198
3.6.1 Background 198
3.6.2 Monitoring 198
3.6.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 201
3.6.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 201
3.6.5 Further Initiatives 201
3.7 BUILT FEATURES MANAGEMENT PLAN 202
3.7.1 Background 202
00482778 i

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.7.2 Monitoring 202
3.7.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 202
3.7.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 203
3.7.5 Further Initiatives 203
3.8 PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN 204
3.8.1 Background 204
3.8.2 Monitoring 204
3.8.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 204
3.8.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 205
3.8.5 Further Initiatives 205
3.9 RESEARCH PROGRAM 205
3.9.1 Background 205
3.9.2 Program Summary 206
3.10 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN 207
3.10.1 Background 207
3.10.2 Monitoring 207
3.10.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 207
3.10.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 207
3.10.5 Further Initiatives 208
3.11 REHABILITATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 208
3.11.1 Background 208
3.11.2 Rehabilitation and Remediation Measures 208
3.11.3 Monitoring 209
3.11.4 Assessment of Environmental Performance 220
3.11.5 Further Initiatives 221
4 REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE – SURFACE FACILITIES AREA 222
4.1 NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN 222
4.1.1 Background 222
4.1.2 Monitoring 222
4.1.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 227
4.1.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 229
4.1.5 Further Initiatives 229
4.2 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN 230
4.2.1 Background 230
4.2.2 Monitoring 230
4.2.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 236
4.2.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 238
4.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Management 239
4.2.6 Further Initiatives 240
4.3 SURFACE FACILITIES WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 240
4.3.1 Background 240
4.3.2 Monitoring 240
4.3.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 244
4.3.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 247
4.3.5 Further Initiatives 248
4.4 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN 248
4.4.1 Background 248
4.4.2 Monitoring 248
4.4.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 249
4.4.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 252
4.4.5 Further Initiatives 253
00482778 ii

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 253
4.5.1 Background 253
4.5.2 Monitoring 253
4.5.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance 254
4.5.4 Management and Mitigation Measures 255
4.5.5 Further Initiatives 255
4.6 REHABILITATION STRATEGY 256
5 OTHER APPROVAL CONDITIONS 256
6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLAINTS 259
7 WORKS PROPOSED IN THE NEXT REVIEW PERIOD 261
8 REFERENCES 262
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Longwall Dimensions
Provisional Extraction Schedule
Status of New Monitoring Sites
AWBM Parameters – Waratah Rivulet
Sensitivity Analysis Results – Waratah Rivulet
Calibrated AWBM Parameters – Waratah Rivulet, Woronora River and O’Hares Creek
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for D Line
Resulting from Longwall 20 Extraction
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9G
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9C
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9C West
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Longitudinal Line
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9J
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for the Transmission Line
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for the Princes Highway Line
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Table 15 Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines 14,
15 and 16 Resulting from Longwall 20 Extraction
Table 16 Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines 14,
15 and 16 Resulting from Longwall 21 Extraction
Table 17 Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet Cross Line
WRS5 Resulting from Longwall 20 Extraction
Table 18 Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet Cross Line
WRS5 Resulting from Longwall 21 Extraction
Table 19 Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Ridge to Ridge Monitoring Points
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Table 20 Surface Water Quality Summary
Table 21 Assessment of Water Resource and Watercourse Performance Indicators and Measures
Table 22 Statistical Analysis of Water Quality Data
00482778 iii

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Table 23 Summary of Pre-Longwall 20 Recorded Aluminium Concentrations at Upstream Sites on Waratah
Rivulet
Table 24 Summary of Pre-Longwall 20 Recorded Iron Concentrations at Upstream Sites on Waratah Rivulet
Table 25 Summary of Pre-Longwall 20 Recorded Manganese Concentrations at Upstream Sites on Waratah
Rivulet
Table 26 Revised Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Cover/Abundance in Valley Side
Swamps (Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Table 27 Revised Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Condition (Spring 2009, Autumn 2010,
Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Table 28 Species Richness in Upland Swamps Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011,
Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012
Table 29 Number of Species Recorded in Riparian Sites (Spring 2008, Autumn 2009, Spring 2009,
Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Table 30 Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Cover/Abundance in Riparian Sites (Spring 2008,
Autumn 2009, Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn
2012)
Table 31 Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Condition in Riparian Sites (Spring 2008,
Autumn 2009, Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn
2012)
Table 32 AUSRIVAS Band Results
Table 33 Amphibian Species Diversity and Abundance, Spring/Summer 2009 and 2010
Table 34 Number of Sites used per Species in 2009, 2010 and 2011
Table 35 Other Subsidence Impact Performance Measures of Relevance to the Biodiversity Management
Plan
Table 36 Aboriginal Heritage Site Monitoring – Round 1
Table 37 Estimated Intrusive L Aeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - September Quarter 2010
Table 38 Estimated Intrusive L Aeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - December Quarter 2010
Table 39 Estimated Intrusive L ) Aeq(15minute Mine-Related Noise Levels - March Quarter 2011
Table 40 Estimated Intrusive L Aeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - June Quarter 2011
Table 41 Estimated Intrusive L Aeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - September Quarter 2011
Table 42 Estimated Intrusive L Aeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - December Quarter 2011
Table 43 Estimated Intrusive L Aeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - March Quarter 2012
Table 44 Estimated Intrusive L Aeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - June Quarter 2012
Table 45 Noise Performance Indicators
Table 46 Annual Average Dust Deposition Rates, August 2011 to July 2012
Table 47 Internal Air Quality Performance Indicators
Table 48 Summary of Project CO 2-e Emission Sources
Table 49 Completed Energy Savings Actions over Previous Five Years
Table 50 Summary of Surface Facilities Water Management Performance Indicators
Table 51 Assessment of Licensed Discharge Compliance
Table 52 Waste Management Performance Indicators
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Plate 6
Rock Ledge, Unnamed Tributary (Prior to Collapse)
Rock Ledge, Unnamed Tributary (Post Collapse)
Drill Holes before Aesthetic Remediation
Drill Holes after Aesthetic Remediation
Surface Cracks before Aesthetic Remediation
Surface Cracks after Aesthetic Remediation
00482778 iv

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Regional Location
Project General Arrangement
General Arrangement of the Major Surface Facilities Area
Environmental Management Structure
Longwalls 20-22 Layout
Meteorological Monitoring Sites
Surface Water Quantity Monitoring Sites
Surface Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Groundwater Level Monitoring Sites
Groundwater Quality Monitoring Sites
Subsidence Monitoring Locations
Longwalls 20-22 Upland Swamps
Location of Woronora River 1, Woronora River South Arm and Dahlia Swamp Vegetation
Monitoring Sites
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Locations
Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Locations
Amphibian Monitoring Locations
Longwalls 20-22 Cliffs, Overhangs and Steep Slopes
Longwalls 20-22 Aboriginal Heritage Sites
Key Private Receiver Areas
Location of Air Quality Monitoring Sites
Mine Access Road and Parkes Street Intersection
Rehabilitation Strategy Framework
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Subsidence Monitoring Results
Photographic Record of Waratah Rivulet and Eastern Tributary
Metropolitan Coal Complaints Record
00482778 v

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Metropolitan Coal is wholly owned by Peabody Energy Australia Pty Ltd (Peabody), and is located adjacent to the
township of Helensburgh and approximately 30 kilometres north of Wollongong in New South Wales (NSW).
Metropolitan Coal was granted approval for the Metropolitan Coal Project (the Project) under Section 75J of the
NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 on 22 June 2009. A copy of the Project Approval is
available on the Peabody website (http://www.peabodyenergy.com.au).
The Project comprises the continuation, upgrade and extension of underground coal mining operations and
surface facilities at Metropolitan Coal. The Approved underground mining Project layout is shown on
Figure ES-1.
The Metropolitan Coal Environmental Management Structure is shown on Figure ES-2.
This Annual Review has been prepared to review the environmental performance of the Project during the review
period (i.e. from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012). In accordance with Condition 2, Schedule 7 of the Project
Approval, the Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 management plans include specific performance indicators that
are used to judge the performance of the Project and guide the implementation of any management measures.
Metropolitan Coal is also required not to exceed the subsidence impact performance measures outlined in
Table 1 of Condition 1, Schedule 3, the noise impact assessment criteria outlined in Table 2 of Condition 1,
Schedule 4, and the air quality impact assessment criteria outlined in Tables 5, 6 and 7 of Condition 11,
Schedule 4 of the Project Approval. The environmental performance of the Project is assessed in this Annual
Review against the specific performance indicators and performance measures/criteria.
No Project-related exceedances of performance measures or criteria occurred during the review period.
During the review period, two performance indicators were exceeded viz., changes in the quality of water
entering Woronora Reservoir are not significantly different post-mining compared to pre-mining concentrations
that are not also occurring at control site WOWQ2 and changes in the quality of water in the Woronora Reservoir
are not significantly different post-mining compared to pre-mining concentrations, that are not also occurring in
the Nepean Reservoir (control site). Exceedance of the two performance indicators triggered an assessment
against the performance measures, negligible reduction to the quality of water resources reaching the Woronora
Reservoir and negligible reduction in the water quality of Woronora Reservoir, respectively. The performance
measures were not exceeded.
The Annual Review includes:
• A description of the works that were carried out in the review period, and the works proposed to be carried
out in the next review period.
• A comprehensive review of the monitoring results and complaints records of the Project during the review
period.
• Identification of non-compliances during the review period and description of what actions were and/or will
be taken to ensure compliance.
• Identification of trends in the monitoring data over the life of the Project.
• Identification of any discrepancies between the predicted and actual impacts of the Project, and analysis of
the potential cause of any significant discrepancies.
• A description of what measures will be implemented over the next review period to improve the
environmental performance of the Project.
00482778 ES-1

Project Conditions of Approval
Part 3A Approval
Strategic Framework for
Environmental Management
Environmental Management Strategy
Environmental Management Plans and
Monitoring Programs
Mining Area and Surrounds
Surface Facilities Area
Catchment
Monitoring Program
Extraction Plan
Subsidence
Monitoring Program
Water Management Plan
Biodiversity
Management Plan
Land Management Plan
Noise
Management Plan
Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas
Management Plan
Surface Facilities
Water
Management Plan
Research Program
Construction
Management Plan
Heritage Management Plan
Built Features
Management Plan
Public Safety
Management Plan
Traffic
Management Plan
Waste
Management Plan
Rehabilitation
Strategy
Rehabilitation
Management Plan
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O A L
FIGURE ES-2
Environmental Management
Structure
METROPOLITAN COAL
MET-08-AD7 2012 Ann Rev_007A

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
1 INTRODUCTION
Metropolitan Coal is wholly owned by Peabody Energy Australia Pty Ltd (Peabody), and is located adjacent to the
township of Helensburgh and approximately 30 kilometres (km) north of Wollongong in New South Wales (NSW)
(Figure 1).
Metropolitan Coal was granted approval for the Metropolitan Coal Project (the Project) under Section 75J of the
NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) on 22 June 2009. A copy of the Project
Approval is available on the Peabody website (http://www.peabodyenergy.com.au).
The Project comprises the continuation, upgrade and extension of underground coal mining operations and
surface facilities at Metropolitan Coal. The approved underground mining Project layout is shown on Figure 2.
In June 2010, Metropolitan Coal submitted the Metropolitan Mine Replacement Drift Construction Modification
Environmental Assessment (Metropolitan Coal, 2010a) to the NSW Minister for Planning under Section 75W of
the EP&A Act to modify the Project to allow for the additional construction of a replacement underground drift,
including construction of a new drift portal at the mine’s Major Surface Facilities Area. The modification was
approved by the Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DP&I) in September
2010. The extent of the mine’s Major Surface Facilities Area is shown on Figure 3.
In July 2011, the Director-General of the DP&I also approved an amendment of Project Approval conditions
relating to the amount of product coal to be trucked off-site and the number of truck departures for product coal
and coal reject under Section 75W of the EP&A Act to modify the Project.
The Metropolitan Coal Environmental Management Structure is shown on Figure 4. It includes the Metropolitan
Coal Environmental Management Strategy (Metropolitan Coal, 2011a), developed to provide the strategic context
for environmental management at Metropolitan Coal, and management plans and monitoring programs
applicable to the underground mining area or mine’s surface facilities area.
Figure 4 illustrates that a number of management plans and monitoring programs are included in the
Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Extraction Plan (Metropolitan Coal, 2010b) to manage the environmental
consequences of the Extraction Plan, namely the:
• Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Subsidence Monitoring Program (Metropolitan Coal, 2011b);
• Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Water Management Plan (Metropolitan Coal, 2011c);
• Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Biodiversity Management Plan (Metropolitan Coal, 2012a);
• Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Land Management Plan (Metropolitan Coal, 2011d);
• Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Heritage Management Plan (Metropolitan Coal, 2011e);
• Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Built Features Management Plan (Metropolitan Coal, 2012b); and
• Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Public Safety Management Plan (Metropolitan Coal, 2010c).
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Condition 3, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval requires the preparation of an Annual Review, as follows:
Annual Review
3. By the end of October 2010, and annually thereafter, the Proponent shall review the environmental
performance of the project to the satisfaction of the Director-General. This review must:
(a)
describe the works that were carried out in the past year, and the works that are proposed to be
carried out over the next year;
(b) include a comprehensive review of the monitoring results and complaints records of the project
over the past year, which includes a comparison of these results against the
• the relevant statutory requirements, limits or performance measures/criteria;
00482778 1

Creek
Waratah
Eastern
Prospect
Reservoir
GREAT
PARRAMATTA
PARRAMATTA
MAIN
WESTERN
WESTERN MOTORWAY
WESTERN
SILVERWATER
NATURE RESERVE SYDNEY
HIGHWAY
RIVER
PACIFIC
HIGHWAY
SYDNEY
HARBOUR
SYDNEY
HARBOUR
NATIONAL
PARK
South
Creek
KEMPS CREEK
NATURE RESERVE
LIVERPOOL
SOUTH
HUME
WESTERN
HIGHWAY
MOTORWAY
RAILWAY
F6
SOUTHERN
FREEWAY
SYDNEY
HIGHWAY
MAIN
RIVER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY
Harris
Creek
Williams
Creek
GEORGES
GEORGES
RIVER
NATIONAL
PARK
RIVER
RIVER
SUTHERLAND
BOTANY BAY
TOWRA POINT
NATURE RESERVE
BOTANY BAY
NATIONAL PARK
CAMDEN
RIVER
SOUTH
BYPASS
RIVER
WESTERN
CATARACT
CORDEAUX
NEPEAN
Avon
Reservoir
NARELLAN ROAD
Glenlee
Washery
FREEWAY
RIVER
METROPOLITAN
SPECIAL AREA
HUME
APPIN
GEORGES
Cordeaux
Reservoir
ILLAWARRA
ESCARPMENT
STATE CONSERVATION
AREA
MET-08-AD7 2012 Ann Rev_001A
APPIN
RIVER
F6
O'HARES CREEK
SPECIAL AREA
SOUTHERN
Creek
Stokes
ROAD
Cataract
Reservoir
FREEWAY
O'Hares
Creek
GEORGES
CAMPBELLTOWN
ILLAWARRA
ESCARPMENT
STATE CONSERVATION
AREA
Lake
Illawarra
Punchbowl
Creek
DHARAWAL STATE
CONSERVATION AREA
ILLAWARRA ESCARPMENT
STATE CONSERVATION
AREA
HOLSWORTHY
MILITARY
RESERVE
WORONORA RIVER
F6
ILLAWARRA
WORONORA
SPECIAL
AREA
Bulli
Pass
Woronora
Reservoir
FREEWAY
SOUTHERN
RAILWAY
MLA 2
ML 1610
DHARAWAL
NATURE RESERVE
PRINCES
Rivulet
CCL 703
Lawrence
MLA 1
HIGHWAY
Hargrave
WORONORA
Drive
F6
HEATHCOTE
NATIONAL
PARK
GARAWARRA
STATE
CONSERVATION
AREA
Corrimal Coke Works
WOLLONGONG
SOUTHERN
PORT KEMBLA HARBOUR
Port Kembla
FREEWAY
DRIVE
HACKING RIVER
STANWELL PARK
S O U T H
P A C I F I C
O C E A N
Port Kembla Coal Terminal
LADY
HURST
WAKE
HELENSBURGH
Coalcliff Coke Works
ROYAL
NATIONAL PARK
ROYAL
NATIONAL
PARK
Metropolitan Coal Major
Surface Facilities Area
PORT HACKING
LEGEND
Railway
Coal Lease Boundary
Mining Lease Application Boundary
Product Coal Road Transport Route
Coal Reject Road Transport Route
Sydney Catchment Authority Special Area
0 2
Kilometres
Source: Topographic Map Base - (Sydney Special,
Wollongong Special) Geoscience Australia 2006,
Reserve Boundaries - Department of Lands NSW 2003 and
Sydney Catchment Authority Special Areas -
Sydney Catchment Authority 2006
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O A L
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
10
METROPOLITAN COAL

314 000 E
315 000 E
316 000 E
317 000 E
6 217 000 N
6 217 000 N
HELENSBURGH
RAILWAY
6 216 000 N
Existing Underground
Access Drive (Main Drift)
To Underground
Mining Operations
6 215 000 N
HELENSBURGH
Parkes
New Substation
314 000 E
Street
Parkes
Oxley
Street
HELENSBURGH GULLY
Mine Access Road
Fuel and
Consumables
Storage Facilities
Replacement
Drift Portal
Workshop
& Store
Administration
Buildings
Place
Replacement
Underground Drift
CAMP GULLY
Ventilation
Shaft No 1
(Disused)
Coarse Coal
ROM Coal
Reject
Stockpile
Main Drift
Portal
Stockpile
& Winder
Bath House
Bath House
Extension
315 000 E
Additional 1 ML
Hill Tank
Coal Handling and
Preparation Plant
(to be Upgraded)
Ventilation
Shaft No 2
Sediment
Ponds
Haul Road
Water Treatment
Plant
Product Coal
Stockpile
Product Coal
Conveyor
316 000 E
Additional Coal
Reject Stockpile
Turkeys
Nest Dams
Coal Reject
Paste Plant
Rail Spur
Approved
Camp Gully
Emplacement
ILLAWARRA
CAMP GULLY
6 216 000 N
LEGEND
Additional/Upgraded Project Infrastructure
Approximate Extent of Major Surface
Facilities Area
6 215 000 N
0 500
Metres
Source: Aerial Photography (2005)
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O A L
FIGURE 3
General Arrangement of the
Major Surface Facilities Area
METROPOLITAN COAL
MET-08-AD7 2012 Ann Rev_004A

Project Conditions of Approval
Part 3A Approval
Strategic Framework for
Environmental Management
Environmental Management Strategy
Environmental Management Plans and
Monitoring Programs
Mining Area and Surrounds
Surface Facilities Area
Catchment
Monitoring Program
Extraction Plan
Subsidence
Monitoring Program
Water Management Plan
Biodiversity
Management Plan
Land Management Plan
Noise
Management Plan
Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas
Management Plan
Surface Facilities
Water
Management Plan
Research Program
Construction
Management Plan
Heritage Management Plan
Built Features
Management Plan
Public Safety
Management Plan
Traffic
Management Plan
Waste
Management Plan
Rehabilitation
Strategy
Rehabilitation
Management Plan
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O A L
FIGURE 4
Environmental Management
Structure
METROPOLITAN COAL
MET-08-AD7 2012 Ann Rev_005A

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• the monitoring results of previous years; and
• the relevant predictions in the EA, PPR, and Extraction Plan;
(c) identify any non-compliance over the last year, and describe what actions were (or are being)
taken to ensure compliance;
(d)
(e)
(f)
identify any trends in the monitoring data over the life of the project;
identify any discrepancies between the predicted and actual impacts of the project, and analyse
the potential cause of any significant discrepancies; and
describe what measure will be implemented over the next year to improve the environmental
performance of the project.
This 2012 Annual Review presents data for the past year (i.e. the review period) from 1 August 2011 to 31 July
2012.
1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE ANNUAL REVIEW
The remainder of this Annual Review is structured as follows:
• Section 2 summarises the works that were carried out in the review period.
• Section 3 describes the environmental performance of mining activities in the underground mining area and
surrounds.
• Section 4 describes the environmental performance of mining activities at the surface facilities area.
• Section 5 details the environmental performance of mining activities against other Project Approval
requirements.
• Section 6 provides a review of the complaints records for the review period.
• Section 7 outlines the works that will be carried out in the next review period (i.e. 1 August 2012 to 31 July
2013).
• Section 8 lists the references cited.
Sections 3 and 4 include a comprehensive review of monitoring results, identification of any non-compliance,
identification of trends in the monitoring data and the identification of any discrepancies between predicted and
actual impacts.
00482778 6

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
2 WORKS DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD
The layout of Longwalls 20-22 is shown on Figure 5. A summary of the longwall dimensions is provided in
Table 1 and a provisional production schedule is provided in Table 2.
In accordance with Condition 5, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal has carried out first
workings in the mining area consistent with the approved mine plan. Metropolitan Coal has also carried out
secondary extraction in accordance with the approved mine plan.
Metropolitan Coal commenced the secondary extraction of Longwall 20 in May 2010 (at chainage 2,800 metres
[m]). Longwall 20 was completed in August 2011. Longwall 21 advanced 2,165 m as at 31 July 2012 (Figure 5).
Table 1
Longwall Dimensions
Longwall
Total Void Width
(m)
Width of Pillar Preceding
Longwall Tailgate (m)
Longwall Length
(m)
Longwall 20 163 -* 2,802
Longwall 21 163 40 3,087
Longwall 22A 163 55 1,176
Longwall 22B 163 55 1,782
* The distance between Longwall 20 and Longwalls 1 to 18 is approximately 290 m and the barrier includes several development headings.
Table 2
Provisional Extraction Schedule
Longwall Start Finish
Longwall 20 May 2010 August 2011
Longwall 21 September 2011 December 2012
Longwall 22A January 2013 July 2013
Longwall 22B July 2013 May 2014
Condition 6, Schedule 2 of the Project Approval requires that Metropolitan Coal not extract more than 3.2 million
tonnes (Mt) of run-of-mine (ROM) coal from the mining area in a calendar year. During the 2011 calendar year
approximately 1.93 Mt of ROM coal was extracted. From 1 January 2012 to 31 July 2012 a total of 1.01 Mt of
ROM coal was extracted from the mining area.
00482778 7

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3 REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE – UNDERGROUND MINING
AREA AND SURROUNDS
3.1 CATCHMENT MONITORING PROGRAM
3.1.1 Background
A comprehensive Metropolitan Coal Catchment Monitoring Program (Metropolitan Coal, 2011f) has been
prepared in accordance with Condition 2, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval. The Catchment Monitoring
Program includes detailed baseline data of existing surface water and groundwater resources, a program for the
ongoing development and use of appropriate surface water and groundwater models, a program to monitor and
assess impacts on surface water and groundwater resources, and a program to validate and calibrate the
surface water and groundwater models.
3.1.2 Baseline Data of Existing Surface Water and Groundwater Resources
Figures 6 to 10 show the meteorological monitoring sites, surface water quantity monitoring sites (i.e. gauging
stations and pool water levels), surface water quality monitoring sites, groundwater level monitoring sites and
groundwater quality monitoring sites, at which baseline data is available or will be obtained for the Metropolitan
Coal underground mining area.
As a component of the Catchment Monitoring Program, Metropolitan Coal has established a number of new
surface water and groundwater monitoring sites to supplement existing baseline data. The status of the new
monitoring sites is summarised in Table 3.
Table 3
Status of New Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Component
New Monitoring Site
Status
Gauging station • Eastern Tributary gauging station • Installation to commence in the next review
period (scheduled for August 2012)
Pool water
levels
Swamp water
levels
Deep
groundwater
bores
• Honeysuckle Creek gauging station (control) • Installation to commence in the next review
period (scheduled for August 2012)
• Pool WPR1 on Woronora River (control) • WRP1 reinstated as a result of flood damage to
the diver stand (awaiting survey data)
• Swamp 28 (S28)
• Swamp 30 (S30)
• Swamp 33 (S33)
• Swamp 35 (S35)
• Bee Creek Swamp (SBC)
• Swamp 137A (S137A)
• Swamp 137B (S137B)
• Site PM03
• Site 9EGW2
• Site 9FGW2
• Site PHGW2
• Site F6GW1
• Site 9GGW3
• Installation of S28, S30, S33, S35, SBC, S137A
and S137B to commence in the next review
period (scheduled for August to October 2012)
• Installed. Additional holes drilled to 50, 160 and
240 m AHD (June 2012)
• Installed. Additional holes drilled to 50, 160 and
240 m AHD (May 2011)
• To be installed in the next review period
• Installed. Additional holes drilled to 50, 160 and
240 m AHD (June 2012)
• To be installed in the next review period
• To be installed in the next review period
00482778 9

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.1.3 Surface Water Model Development, Calibration and Verification
Numerical catchment runoff models have been developed using the nationally recognised Australian Water
Balance Model (AWBM) (Boughton, 2004) and calibrated for the Waratah Rivulet gauging station (GS2132102)
and the O’Hares Creek gauging station at Wedderburn (GS213200). The models have been progressively
updated using the latest monitoring data, and verification checks are conducted as described below. A
preliminary calibration of the AWBM has also been undertaken for the gauging station on Woronora River
(GS2132101).
In 2010 Metropolitan Coal undertook a critical review of the rating relationships used to generate flow data from
the recorded stage (water level) data. Metropolitan Coal provided feedback to the Sydney Catchment Authority
(SCA) on the outcomes of the review and proposed amendments to the rating curves. The review recommended
the existing low flow ratings for the SCA gauging stations be amended to provide the best match possible to the
existing gauging results, and that historical flow data be regenerated using the revised rating relationships for use
in subsequent hydrological analyses. The SCA has not changed the rating curve used to generate flow from
recorded stage data. The subsequent un-amended data provided by the SCA has therefore been used as a
basis of ongoing modelling as outlined below. The modelling reported herein is therefore an update to the
information presented in the 2011 Annual Review rather than a revision. No attempt has been made to change
the model calibration at this stage given the discrepancies evident in low flow ratings which affect low flow
accuracy.
The model has been verified by testing the model sensitivity for changes of parameter values and by testing the
uniqueness of the model calibration – and its goodness of fit to different components and periods of the flow
record. An AWBM has been fitted to monitored flows at GS2132102 (Waratah Rivulet). Model parameters are
presented in Table 4.
Table 4
AWBM Parameters – Waratah Rivulet
Surface Store 1 2 3
Surface Store Capacities (C) mm 5 130 880
Partial Areas (A) 0.100 0.560 0.340
Baseflow Index (BFI) 0.3
Baseflow Recession Constant (K base) 0.979
Surface Flow Recession Constant (K surf) 0.68
Evaporation Factor (EvF) 0.85
The period of available recorded flow data for Waratah Rivulet (GS2132102) is from 21 February 2007 to 3 July
2012. The monitored flow over this period has averaged 351.1 millimetres (mm)/year while the modelled flow
averages 463.1 mm/year. In order to assess the sensitivity of model predictions to changes in key model
parameters, model parameters were varied by ± 10% and modelled average flow re-calculated. Table 5
summarises the results.
Table 5 indicates that the model is relatively sensitive to the adopted evaporation factor and moderately sensitive
to the capacity of the conceptual storage volumes used to simulate catchment storage effects. The model
sensitivity to a baseflow “leakage” (or system loss) was also assessed by subtracting a constant 0.025 mm/day
from the baseflow store (equivalent to a flow loss of 0.5 megalitres [ML]/day). Chart 1 shows a comparison of
hydrographs of recorded flows, modelled flows and modelled flows with the constant baseflow loss for Waratah
Rivulet (GS2132102).
Chart 1 indicates that the model predictions with a loss of 0.025 mm/day or 0.5 ML/day are inconsistent with the
monitored flows. If a loss of this order of magnitude were occurring, it would be expected that it would have been
discernible during periods of low flow.
00482778 15

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 5
Sensitivity Analysis Results – Waratah Rivulet
Model Parameter Change Predicted Average Flow
(mm/year)
Change in Predicted Flow
(%)
- Base Case 463.1 -
C values -10% 475.5 2.68%
C values +10% 450.8 -2.66%
BFI -10% 463.4 0.06%
BFI +10% 462.9 -0.04%
K base* -10% 466.1 0.65%
EvF -10% 505 9.05%
EvF +10% 421.4 -9.00%
* Note K base cannot be increased by 10% as the constant cannot be greater than 1.
Chart 1
AWBM Model Sensitivity to Baseflow Loss – Waratah Rivulet
Table 6 shows the calibrated values of these parameters for the SCA owned gauging stations on Waratah
Rivulet and the Woronora River, and the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) gauging station on O’Hares
Creek at Wedderburn. The data from the period following model calibration has been used to verify the
reasonableness and robustness of model performance. When checked against streamflow data and concurrent
climate data the data indicates that the models provide close predictions of post calibration flow data which
provides verification of the validity of the models.
Table 6
Calibrated AWBM Parameters – Waratah Rivulet, Woronora River and O’Hares Creek
Gauging Station
C1
(mm)
C2
(mm)
C3
(mm)
AWBM Parameters
A1 A2 A3 BFI K base
GS2132102 Waratah Rivulet 5 130 800 0.100 0.560 0.340 0.30 0.979
GS2132101 Woronora River 4 150 400 0.164 0.633 0.203 0.21 0.970
GS213200 O’Hares Creek at Wedderburn 4 150 400 0.164 0.633 0.203 0.18 0.963
00482778 16

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 2 shows flow hydrographs of recorded flows at the Waratah Rivulet gauging station and AWBM generated
flows that have been derived from catchment rainfall and regional evaporation data. Chart 3 shows the same
Waratah Rivulet data converted to modelled and observed flow duration curves. Charts 2 and 3 indicate that the
Waratah Rivulet catchment model is a good fit to the observed data.
Chart 2
Recorded and Modelled Streamflow Hydrographs – GS2132102 Waratah Rivulet
Chart 3
Recorded and Modelled Flow Duration Curves - GS2132102 Waratah Rivulet
00482778 17

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 4 presents a comparison of modelled and monitored flows from the commencement of Longwall 20 (i.e.
after 1 May 2010). Whilst there has been a relatively close fit maintained between modelled and recorded flows
over this period there is a tendency for recorded flows to be lower than modelled flows during periods of low flow.
This behaviour was also evident in the modelled and recorded flows in 2007 when similar recessionary flow
behaviour occurred. It may be that these discrepancies are a reflection of inaccuracies in the recorded low flows.
Chart 4 Recorded and Modelled Streamflow Hydrographs – Waratah Rivulet from the
Commencement of Longwall 20
Additional data has been recorded at the SCA gauging station on Woronora River (GS2132101). Whilst much of
the data prior to June 2010 is considered to be poor, there is now sufficient consistent data since June 2010 to
support the initial calibration of a model. Chart 5 shows flow hydrographs of recorded flows at the Woronora
River gauging station and AWBM generated flows that have been derived from catchment rainfall and regional
evaporation data. The calibrated AWBM is considered to provide a good fit to the post June 2010 data record at
Woronora River gauging station.
Chart 5 Recorded and Modelled Streamflow Hydrographs – Woronora River
00482778 18

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.1.4 Groundwater Model Development, Calibration and Verification
A three-dimensional numerical model of groundwater flow has been developed for the mine and its surroundings.
During the previous review period, the model was used to make impact predictions for future Longwalls 23-27
(Merrick and Alkhatib, 2011). During the review period, the model has been used to make impact predictions for
future Longwalls 301-303.
A further investigation into alternative ways of measuring potential Woronora Reservoir leakage was initiated
during the review period following consultation with the Dams Safety Committee (DSC). The following activities
were specified for the investigation:
1. Conceptual models of lake-aquifer flux indicators in terms of monitoring piezometers at various locations
and various depths.
2. Analysis of vertical hydraulic gradients from measured potentiometric heads.
3. Simulation of vertical hydraulic gradients using a refined groundwater model.
4. Consideration of changes in vertical hydraulic gradients as a potential method for monitoring changes in
reservoir leakage.
As reservoir leakage (vertically to groundwater) cannot be measured directly, it will have to be inferred from
hydraulic gradients in the Hawkesbury Sandstone. Ten piezometer sites were identified as suitable monitoring
locations for Woronora Reservoir leakage, comprising seven existing sites and three additional sites. Of the
seven existing sites, four have a good record of available data from vibrating wire piezometers; the other three
are installed and data acquisition has commenced. Vertical head gradients and vertical pressure gradients have
been calculated at the four sites with long datasets for those piezometers installed within Hawkesbury
Sandstone. In terms of pressure head gradient, the expected values would be close to unity at shallow depths,
decreasing with depth but remaining positive. In terms of potentiometric head gradient, the expected values
would be close to zero at shallow depths, increasing negatively with depth. Three of the four sites had
anomalous shallow gradients because the uppermost piezometers are sampling perched water tables.
In order to focus on the near-surface groundwater response to posed reservoir leakage, the existing 3D
groundwater model was cut down to a 4-layer model which has three layers for Hawkesbury Sandstone and one
for the Bald Hill Claystone. The model was run initially under natural conditions to give benchmark heads and
vertical gradients. Subsequently, the model cells immediately under the reservoir were stressed by withdrawing a
volume rate of water from directly beneath the reservoir to simulate leakage, and the effects on the heads and
head gradients at the candidate monitoring sites were examined.
The investigation found that the simulated percentage changes in potentiometric head gradients are very small
and do not exceed 1%, as a rule, until 10 ML/day or more leakage is assumed. As the target leakage rates are in
the order of 1 ML/day, further refinement of the model is required to give better replication of vertical gradients
through the Hawkesbury Sandstone before a conclusion can be reached as to whether the existing monitoring
network is sufficient as a base for inferring changes in reservoir leakage.
As the current model was not adequately replicating the observed head gradients in the Hawkesbury Sandstone,
steady-state re-calibration of the upper part of the groundwater system was undertaken. This model consisted of
five layers in the Hawkesbury Sandstone and one basal layer for the Bald Hill Claystone. Calibration was
performed against Hawkesbury Sandstone groundwater levels and the vertical head differences between
piezometers within individual monitoring bores. Although an improved calibration was achieved, it was not
possible to replicate all vertical head differences. This suggests that not all piezometer measurements are
reliable.
The revised property values for the Hawkesbury Sandstone and the Bald Hill Claystone were transferred to the
full model, expanding the number of layers from 13 to 15. This expanded model has been used to simulate the
extraction of Longwalls 301-303 for both the high-flow and low-flow model variants.
In addition, at the request of the DSC, the model has been run in monte carlo mode to assess the probability
distribution for leakage from the reservoir during the extraction of Longwalls 301-303. Thirty-six realisations have
been investigated by selecting randomised values for the permeabilities in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Bald Hill
Claystone and the fractured zone.
00482778 19

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The work will continue in the next review period.
The expanded partially-recalibrated model was also used to revise the theoretical vertical head profiles, during
Longwalls 20-22 extraction, that are the basis of one of the performance indicators in the Longwalls 20-22 Water
Management Plan (refer to Section 3.3.3.3 of the Annual Review). In general, the new model gives a better
replication of the measured head declines through the Hawkesbury Sandstone.
The groundwater model will continue to be refined as new data become available.
3.1.5 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The monitoring and assessment of Project impacts on surface water and groundwater resources described in the
Catchment Monitoring Program is consistent with the programs described for the Metropolitan Coal
Longwalls 20-22 Water Management Plan in Section 3.3 of this Annual Review.
3.1.6 Management and Mitigation Measures
Metropolitan Coal has maintained a register of water monitoring sites that includes the location, the date the site
was established, photographs and relevant comments. The monitoring register has been made publicly available
on the Peabody website and will be updated as required.
3.1.7 Further Initiatives
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Catchment Monitoring Program within three months of the submission of this Annual
Review, to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
In accordance with the Construction Management Plan (refer to Section 3.10 of this Annual Review), gauging
stations on Honeysuckle Creek and the Eastern Tributary will be constructed in the next review period.
Additional upland swamp piezometers and deep groundwater piezometers will also be installed in the next review
period.
Metropolitan Coal will continue to monitor and assess data quality from the deep piezometer bores, particularly
those piezometers exhibiting relatively long equilibration times in low permeability strata.
3.2 SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM
3.2.1 Background
The Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Subsidence Monitoring Program has been prepared to validate
subsidence predictions and analyse the relationship between the subsidence effects and subsidence impacts of
the Extraction Plan in accordance with Condition 6, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval.
The objectives of the monitoring program are:
• To monitor the subsidence parameters and subsidence impacts about Longwalls 20-22 extraction.
• To provide subsidence parameter and subsidence impact data required as part of the management of
environmental consequences as detailed in the Longwalls 20-22 Extraction Plan. These include the:
– Water Management Plan;
– Biodiversity Management Plan;
– Land Management Plan;
– Heritage Management Plan;
– Built Features Management Plan; and
00482778 20

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
– Public Safety Management Plan.
• To validate subsidence predictions.
• To provide subsidence data to improve the predictive methods and provide a better understanding of the
underlying factors contributing to ground movement.
3.2.2 Monitoring
The Subsidence Monitoring Program includes subsidence parameter monitoring (i.e. the actual movement of the
ground surface) and subsidence impact monitoring (e.g. surface cracking). The results of subsidence parameter
monitoring are described below. The results of subsidence impact monitoring are described in Sections 3.3 to
3.8.
In accordance with the Subsidence Monitoring Program, this Annual Review provides a comparison between the
predicted and observed subsidence movements for several monitoring lines above or near Longwalls 20-22 that
were surveyed to the end of July 2012. As described in Section 2, Longwall 20 was completed in August 2011.
Longwall 21 advanced 2,165 m as at 31 July 2012 (Figure 5).
Subsidence monitoring data from the following monitoring lines and points was assessed:
• D Line;
• Line 9G;
• Line 9C;
• Line 9C West;
• Longitudinal Line;
• Line 9J;
• Transmission Line;
• Princes Highway Line;
• Freeway Line;
• Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines; and
• Ridge to Ridge Monitoring Points.
The subsidence parameter monitoring locations are shown on Figure 11 (and Figure MSEC 586-101 in
Appendix 1) and are described below. Subsidence movements are surveyed in three dimensions using a total
station survey instrument.
Figure 11 indicates that some monitoring lines are located outside the currently extracted longwall footprint for
Longwalls 20 and 21. In such cases, i.e. away from the extracted longwall footprint, the observed subsidence
movements are generally low and within the limits of survey accuracy. At low values of subsidence, observed
results may also be affected to a greater extent by environmental factors such as moisture and temperature
variation. The adopted limits of survey accuracy for 3D surveys are of the order of ±20 millimetres (mm) for
vertical subsidence, ±0.5 millimetres per metre (mm/m) for tilt and ±0.5 mm/m for tensile and compressive strain
based on conventional movements. Low values of predicted subsidence also have a larger limit of accuracy as
discussed in the Project Environmental Assessment (EA) (Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd, 2008), which notes, where
subsidence is predicted at points beyond the goaf edge, which are likely to experience low values of subsidence,
the predictions should generally be accurate to within 50 mm of subsidence.
D Line
Subsidence monitoring over completed Longwalls 1-18 includes a main subsidence line (D Line) established
perpendicular to the longwall panels (Figure 11). D Line is monitored as part of the Subsidence Monitoring
Program to provide general information regarding the movement of the landscape over time (over Longwalls 1-
18), in addition to general information regarding ground movement in response to Longwalls 20-22.
D Line was monitored within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
00482778 21

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Line 9G
Line 9G is located along Fire Road 9G, extending from D Line to beyond the Longwalls 20-22 35 degree (°) angle
of draw (Figure 11). The purpose of Line 9G is to measure the subsidence parameters (subsidence, tilt, strain)
associated with the extraction of each longwall and the cumulative subsidence parameters associated with
overall extraction.
Line 9G was monitored within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
Line 9C and Line 9C West
Line 9C and Line 9C West are located along and adjacent to Fire Road 9C (Figure 11).
The purpose of Line 9C and Line 9C West is to:
• supplement the measurement of subsidence parameters from Line 9G to compare the subsidence
behaviour in the eastern and western sections of the longwall panels;
• provide a detailed data set for ridge top movement adjacent to the Waratah Rivulet to compare with
previous extraction approximately parallel to the Waratah Rivulet (D Line);
• provide detailed subsidence movements in both longitudinal and lateral directions extending from a ridge
top to the base of a valley to measure ‘down slope’ movement; and
• monitor subsidence in the area of Swamps 16 and 17.
Line 9C and Line 9C West have been surveyed monthly while subsidence has been above 20 mm/month.
Line 9C and Line 9C West were also monitored once when Longwall 20 was beyond the subsidence line by at
least 600 m and prior to the commencement of Longwall 21.
Longitudinal Line
The Longitudinal Line is situated perpendicular to Fire Road 9G (Figure 11).
The purpose of the Longitudinal Line is to:
• supplement the subsidence measurement from Line 9G to compare the subsidence behaviour in
longitudinal and transverse directions; and
• provide an indication of the likely subsidence behaviour ahead of longwall extraction to better understand
the likely behaviour ahead of the finish lines, in particular in relation to infrastructure.
The Longitudinal Line was monitored within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
Line 9J
Line 9J is located along Fire Road 9J, extending from the Princes Highway to a point 200 m west of the
Longwall 21 finish line (Figure 11).
The purpose of Line 9J is to:
• provide data on the subsidence profile from the extracted longwalls to the F6 Southern Freeway; and
• obtain subsidence information across the finish line of the longwall panels to calibrate the subsidence
prediction methods.
Line 9J was monitored within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
00482778 23

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Transmission Line
The Transmission Line is located along the easement containing the TransGrid and Integral Energy high tension
transmission lines and generally the fibre optic cables (Figure 11).
The purpose of the Transmission Line is to:
• provide monitoring of ground movements about the transmission lines, towers, and fibre optic cables;
• to supplement the subsidence data about the F6 Southern Freeway; and
• obtain subsidence information ahead of the longwall panels to calibrate the subsidence prediction methods.
The Transmission Line was monitored within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
Princes Highway Line
The Princes Highway Line is located along the verge of the Princes Highway extending from the F6 Southern
Freeway bridge to the point where the high tension transmission lines intersect the Princes Highway (Figure 11).
The purpose of Princes Highway Line is to:
• provide monitoring of ground movements about the Princes Highway;
• supplement the subsidence data about the F6 Southern Freeway; and
• obtain subsidence information ahead of the longwall panels to calibrate the subsidence prediction methods.
The Princes Highway Line was monitored within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
Freeway Line
The Freeway Line is located along the verge of the F6 Southern Freeway extending from 200 m south of Kelly’s
Creek to a point 600 m from the edge of Longwall 22 extraction (Figure 11).
The purpose of the Freeway Line is to:
• provide monitoring of ground movements about the F6 Southern Freeway; and
• obtain subsidence information ahead of the longwall panels to calibrate the subsidence prediction methods.
During the review period, many of the survey marks for the Freeway Line were disturbed or destroyed as the
result of resurfacing operations undertaken by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) during the extraction of
Longwall 20. In addition to this, restricted access to the freeway resulted in greater than anticipated errors in the
survey results during the extraction of Longwall 20. The survey methods for the Freeway Line have subsequently
been modified to produce an accuracy of results to within normal limits and destroyed or disturbed marks have
been reinstated. As a result of these complications the latest survey (i.e. 15 June 2012) will be used as a
baseline for future survey results.
Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines
A number of cross lines are monitored for subsidence movement, as described below:
• the existing E Line which runs across the Waratah Rivulet at the WRS3 rock bar in a direction
perpendicular to the river;
• 13 existing cross lines across the Waratah Rivulet downstream of the WRS3 rock bar;
• an additional three cross lines above Longwalls 20–22 (Lines 14, 15, and 16), including a cross line across
the WRS5 rock bar (WRS5 Line); and
• additional cross lines at Pools P, Q, R and S.
00482778 24

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The existing cross lines have been monitored within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
Lines 14, 15 and 16 have been surveyed monthly until the longwall passes the Waratah Rivulet and subsidence
is less than 20 mm/month. Lines 14, 15 and 16 have also been surveyed within 1 month of the completion of
Longwall 20.
Cross lines at rock bars P and Q have been surveyed within three months of the completion of Longwall 20.
Ridge to Ridge Monitoring Points
Five monitoring points have been established at ridge top locations on either side of the Waratah Rivulet
(Figure 11). The locations were selected on the basis that a direct line of sight exists between the monitoring
points. The purpose of the ridge to ridge survey points is to measure total valley closure and compare predicted
values with measured values.
The ridge to ridge monitoring points have been surveyed monthly until the longwall passes the Waratah Rivulet
and subsidence reduces to less than 20 mm/month.
The ridge to ridge monitoring points have also been surveyed within 1 month of the completion of Longwall 20.
3.2.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
A review of the subsidence survey results and comparison between the predicted and observed subsidence
movements over the review period was conducted by Mine Subsidence Engineering Consultants (MSEC).
Subsidence measurements were generally within survey tolerance of predicted movements or represented
disturbed survey marks. A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements is provided below.
D Line
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along D Line for the latest survey is presented
in Table 7.
Table 7
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for D Line
Resulting from Longwall 20 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 19 May 2010
Latest Survey Date 10 August 2011
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
Face Distance from D Line at Latest Survey Date
3 m
650 m to Mark D92
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due to
the extraction of Longwall 20 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwall 20 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 20 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental tensile strain due to
the extraction of Longwall 20 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental compressive strain
due to the extraction of Longwall 20
(mm/m)
Observed
Value
Predicted Final
Value
92

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The profiles of the observed incremental and total subsidence, tilt and strain along D Line are shown on Figure 1
of Appendix 1. The observed incremental movements are the additional movements since the survey that was
measured on the 19 May 2010 prior to the commencement of Longwall 20. The profile of the predicted total
subsidence due to the full extraction of Longwall 20 is also shown on Figure 1 of Appendix 1.
The maximum observed incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 20 was 92 mm at Peg D133.
The maximum observed incremental tilt was 1.0 mm/m between Pegs D136 and D137. The maximum
incremental tensile and compressive strains of 0.6 mm/m and 0.7 mm/m, respectively, occur in survey bays D78-
D79 and D74-D75.
Figure 1 of Appendix 1 indicates that the maximum observed total subsidence is less than the maximum
predicted total subsidence. The maximum observed incremental subsidence and tilt are greater than predicted
as shown in Table 7, however, these movements occur above the previously extracted Longwall 18 and are likely
to be the result of residual subsidence due to Longwall 18, which occurs over time following the completion of a
longwall. The maximum observed tensile and compressive strains in Table 7 occur within the valley of the
Waratah Rivulet which experienced significant valley closure movement during the extraction of Longwalls 1 to
18 and these strains may be the result of reactivation of these movements.
Line 9G
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Line 9G for the latest survey is
presented in Table 8.
Table 8
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9G
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 4 May 2010
Latest Survey Date 30 May 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
Face Distance from Line 9G at Latest Survey Date
1,305 m
300 m before on maingate side, 470 m before on tailgate side
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental tensile strain due to
the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Observed
Value
Predicted
Final Value
23 740
145 758
0.3 3.8
0.2 0.8*
Comments
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg G29
Maximum observed total subsidence at
Peg G27
Maximum observed incremental tilt
between Pegs G12 and G13
Maximum observed incremental tensile
strain between Pegs G7 and G8
Maximum incremental compressive strain
due to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m) 0.5 0.9*
Maximum observed incremental
compressive strain between Pegs G18 and
G19
Note: * denotes that the maximum predicted tensile and compressive strains are based on conventional movements.
The profiles of the observed incremental subsidence, tilt and strain along Line 9G due to the extraction of
Longwalls 20 and 21 are shown on Figures 2 and 3, respectively, of Appendix 1. The observed incremental
movements are the additional movements since the survey that was measured prior to the commencement of
each longwall. Figure 2 of Appendix 1 indicates that only small subsidence movements had developed due to
the extraction of Longwall 20. Figure 3 of Appendix 1 indicates that only small subsidence movements had
developed, since Longwall 21 had not extracted beneath Line 9G at the time of the latest survey. Similarly, the
profiles of the observed total subsidence, tilt and strain along Line 9G resulting from the extraction of Longwall 21
shown on Figure 4 of Appendix 1 show only small subsidence movements. The observed subsidence
movements therefore predominantly reflect the movements due to the extraction of Longwall 20.
00482778 26

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The maximum observed incremental and total subsidence, tilt and strain due to the extraction of Longwall 21 are
significantly less than predicted since Longwall 21 is only partially extracted. The maximum observed
incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 20 was 124 mm at Peg G27, which is located above
Longwall 20. The maximum observed incremental tilt due to the extraction of Longwall 20 was 1.1 mm/m
between Pegs G29 and G30. The maximum incremental tensile and compressive strains of 0.2 mm/m and
0.5 mm/m occur in survey bays G18-G19 and G25-G26.
The maximum predicted incremental and total subsidence and tilt resulting from the extraction of Longwall 20 are
shown on Figures 2 and 4, respectively, of Appendix 1. Figures 2 and 4 (Appendix 1) indicates that the maximum
observed subsidence due to Longwall 20 is less than the maximum predicted subsidence. The observed
subsidence profile is, however, greater than the predicted subsidence profile away from the maximum
subsidence as small vertical movements, with negligible tilts and strains, have occurred on both sides of
Longwalls 20 and 21. The small vertical movements extending several hundred metres to the north of
Longwall 21 may be the result of redistribution of in situ stresses due to the extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21.
Such movements were not observed along the D Line monitoring line during the extraction of Longwalls 1 to 18.
The movements are within the level of accuracy of predictions as discussed in the EA, specifically “where
subsidence is predicted at points beyond the goaf edge, which are likely to experience low values of subsidence,
the predictions should generally be accurate to within 50 mm of subsidence.” The small vertical movements
extending to the south of Longwall 20 are likely to be the result of reactivation of the goaf due to Longwalls 1 to
18.
Line 9C
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Line 9C for the latest survey is
presented in Table 9.
Table 9
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9C
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 29 March 2010 (Longwall 18 Chainage 85 m)
Latest Survey Date 14 May 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
1,419 m
Face Distance from Line 9C at Latest Survey Date
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due to
the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental tensile strain due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental compressive
strain due to the extraction of
Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Observed
Value
766 m past Line 9C on maingate side, 887 m past Line 9C on the
tailgate side
Predicted
Final Value
647 805
690 827
4.4 4.6
1.0 1.0*
1.1 0.7*
Comments
Maximum observed incremental subsidence at
Peg C34
Maximum observed incremental subsidence at
Peg C34
Maximum observed incremental tilt between
Pegs 44 and C45
Note: * denotes that the maximum predicted tensile and compressive strains are based on conventional movements.
Maximum observed incremental tensile strain
between Pegs C14 and C15
Maximum observed incremental compressive
strain between Pegs C28 and C29. Disturbed
pegs ignored.
The profiles of the observed incremental subsidence, tilt and strain along Line 9C due to the extraction of
Longwalls 20 and 21 are shown on Figures 5 and 6, respectively, of Appendix 1. The base survey for Line 9C
was undertaken on the 29 March 2010 when Longwall 18 still had approximately 85 m of extraction remaining.
Hence the survey results along Line 9C include a small component from the extraction of Longwall 18 which is
predicted to be approximately 20 mm as shown in Appendix 1. The profiles of the predicted incremental
subsidence and tilt due to the full extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 are also shown on Figures 5 and 6.
00482778 27

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The maximum observed incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 21 was 647 mm at Peg C34,
which is located above the chain pillar between Longwalls 20 and 21. The maximum observed incremental tilt
was 4.4 mm/m between Pegs C44 and C45 (Figure 6, Appendix 1).
The maximum incremental tensile and compressive strains of 1.0 mm/m and 1.1 mm/m occur in survey bays
C64-C65 and C34-C35. The maximum tensile and compressive strains ignore the high strains at the location of
the disturbed peg and survey error, which have been labelled in Figure 6 of Appendix 1.
Figure 5 of Appendix 1 indicates that only small subsidence movements had developed due to the extraction of
Longwall 20.
Figures 5, 6 and 7, Appendix 1 indicate that the maximum observed subsidence is less than the maximum
predicted subsidence. The observed subsidence profile is, however, greater than the predicted subsidence
profile away from the centre of the panel as small vertical movements, with negligible tilts and strains, have
occurred to the north of Longwalls 20 and 21. These small vertical movements extend several hundred metres to
the north of Longwalls 20 and 21 and may be the result of redistribution of in situ stresses due to the extraction of
Longwall 20. Such movements were not observed along the D Line monitoring line during the extraction of
Longwalls 1 to 18. The movements are within the level of accuracy of predictions as discussed in the EA,
specifically, “where subsidence is predicted at points beyond the goaf edge, which are likely to experience low
values of subsidence, the predictions should generally be accurate to within 50 mm of subsidence.”
Line 9C West
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Line 9C West for the latest survey is
presented in Table 10.
Table 10
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9C West
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 29 March 2010 (Longwall 18 Chainage 85 m)
Latest Survey Date 14 May 2012
Longwall Chainage at Survey Date
Face Distance from Line 9C West at Latest Survey Date
1,419 m
827 m past peg 9CW1
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental tensile strain due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental compressive
strain due to the extraction of Longwall
21 (mm/m)
Observed Value
Predicted Final
Value
537 660
576 670
6.3 5.2
1.0 0.6*
0.3 0.3*
Comments
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg 9CW7
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg 9CW8A
Note: * denotes that the maximum predicted tensile and compressive strains are based on conventional movements.
Maximum observed incremental tilt
between Pegs 9CW9 and 9CW10
Maximum observed incremental tensile
strain between Pegs 9CW9 and 9CW10
Maximum observed incremental
compressive strain between Pegs 9CW13
and 9CW14
The profiles of the observed incremental subsidence, tilt and strain along Line 9C West due to the extraction of
Longwalls 20 and 21 are shown on Figures 8 and 9, respectively, of Appendix 1. The base survey for Line 9C
West was undertaken on the 29 March 2010 when Longwall 18 still had 85 m of extraction remaining. The
profiles of the predicted incremental subsidence and tilt due to the full extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 are also
shown on Figures 8 and 9 of Appendix 1.
00482778 28

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The maximum observed incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 21 was 537 mm at Peg 9CW7,
which is located above Longwall 21. The maximum observed incremental tilt was 6.3 mm/m between Pegs
9CW9 and 9CW10. The maximum incremental tensile and compressive strains of 1.0 mm/m and 0.3 mm/m
occur in survey bays 9CW9-9CW10 and 9CW13-9CW14.
Line 9C West is located approximately 100 m to the north of Longwall 20 at its nearest point. As a result,
predicted and observed values of subsidence, tilt and strain due to Longwall 20 are very small and are within
expected limits of accuracy of predictions as discussed above for Line 9C.
Figures 9 and 10, Appendix 1 indicate that the maximum observed subsidence is less than the maximum
predicted subsidence. The maximum observed tilt is slightly higher than the maximum predicted tilt, however the
majority of the predicted profile of tilt matches the observed tilt.
Longitudinal Line
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along the Longitudinal Line for the latest
survey is presented in Table 11.
Table 11
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Longitudinal Line
Resulting from Longwall 20 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 4 May 2010
Latest Survey Date 10 August 2011
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
Face Distance from Longitudinal Line at Latest Survey Date
3 m
550 m past Mark GLE10, 935 m past Mark GLW9
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due
to the extraction of Longwall 20 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwall 20 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 20 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental tensile strain due
to the extraction of Longwall 20 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental compressive
strain due to the extraction of Longwall
20 (mm/m)
Observed Value
Predicted Final
Value
129 138
129 138
0.3 0.1
0.3
Within limits of
survey
accuracy*
Comments
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg GLE6
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg GLE6
Note: * denotes that the maximum predicted tensile and compressive strains are based on conventional movements.
0.3
Maximum observed incremental tilt
between Pegs GLE4 and GLE5
Maximum observed incremental tensile
strain between Pegs GLE6 and GLE7
Maximum observed incremental
compressive strain between Pegs GLW6
and GLW5
The profiles of the observed incremental subsidence, tilt and strain along Longitudinal Line are shown on
Figure 11 of Appendix 1. The observed incremental movements are the additional movements since the base
survey that was measured on 4 May 2010 prior to the commencement of Longwall 20. The profile of the
predicted incremental subsidence due to the full extraction of Longwall 20 is also shown on Figure 11 of
Appendix 1.
The maximum observed incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 20 was 129 mm at Peg GLE6.
The maximum observed incremental tilt was 0.3 mm/m between Pegs GLE4 and GLE5. The maximum
incremental tensile and compressive strains of 0.3 mm/m occur in survey bays GLE6-GLE7 and CGLW6-GLW5.
The maximum observed subsidence is less than the maximum predicted subsidence (Table 11).
00482778 29

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Line 9J
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Line 9J for the latest survey is
presented in Table 12.
Table 12
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Line 9J
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 6 May 2010
Latest Survey Date 21 June 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
1,224 m
Face Distance from Line 9J at Latest Survey Date
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental tensile strain due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental compressive
strain due to the extraction of
Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Observed Value
909 m to nearest mark (J53); Line 9J does not pass above
Longwall 21
Predicted Final
Value
21 29
23 30
0.6
Within limits of
survey
accuracy*
Comments
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg J3
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg J16
Note: * denotes that the maximum predicted tensile and compressive strains are based on conventional movements.
0.4
0.5
Maximum observed incremental tilt
between Pegs J7 and J8
Maximum observed incremental tensile
strain between Pegs J15 and J16
Maximum observed incremental
compressive strain between Pegs J10 and
J11
The profiles of the observed incremental subsidence, tilt and strain along Line 9J due to the extraction of
Longwalls 20 and 21 are shown on Figures 12 and 13 of Appendix 1. The observed incremental movements are
the additional movements since the survey that was measured, prior to the commencement of each longwall.
Figure 14 of Appendix 1 indicates that only small subsidence movements have developed, since Longwall 21
had not been fully extracted at the time of the latest survey. Similarly, the profiles of the observed total
subsidence, tilt and strain along Line 9J resulting from the extraction of Longwall 21 presented in Figure 13 of
Appendix 1 show only small movements. The observed subsidence movements therefore predominantly reflect
the subsidence movements due to the extraction of Longwall 20.
The maximum observed incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 21 was 21 mm at Peg J3. The
maximum observed incremental tilt was 0.6 mm/m between Pegs J7 and J8. The maximum incremental tensile
and compressive strains of 0.4 mm/m and 0.5 mm/m, respectively, occur in survey bays J15-J16 and J10-J11.
These maxima occur near the south eastern end of Line 9J, which is the furthest distance from Longwall 21.
Line 9J is located approximately 330 m to the north east of Longwall 20 at its nearest point and is currently more
than 900 m from the Longwall 21 face position. As a result, observed values of subsidence, tilt and strain are
small, being less than 20 mm, which is within the expected limits of accuracy of predictions.
Transmission Line
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along the Transmission Line for the latest
survey is presented in Table 13.
00482778 30

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 13
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for the Transmission Line
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 4 May 2010
Latest Survey Date 2 July 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
Face Distance from Transmission Line at Latest Survey
Date
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due to
the extraction of Longwall 20 (mm) **
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 20 (mm/m)**
Maximum incremental tensile strain due to
the extraction of Longwall 20 (mm/m)**
Maximum incremental compressive strain
due to the extraction of Longwall 20
(mm/m)**
Observed
Value
1,296 m
1,600 m from LW21 to nearest Mark;
450 m from LW20 to nearest Mark;
The Transmission Line does not pass above Longwalls 20 or 21
Predicted Final
Value
13 Within limits of
survey
accuracy*
Comments
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg T45
13 Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg T45
0.6 Maximum observed incremental tilt
between Pegs E/T60 to D
0.2 Maximum observed incremental tensile
strain between Pegs T29 and T30
0.3 Maximum observed incremental
compressive strain between Pegs T27 and
T28
Note: * denotes that the maximum predicted tensile and compressive strains are based on conventional movements.
** results shown for LW20 which is nearer to the monitoring line.
The profiles of the observed incremental subsidence, tilt and strain along the Transmission Line due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 are shown on Figures 15 and 16, respectively, of Appendix 1. The observed
incremental movements are the additional movements since the base survey that was measured prior to the
commencement of each longwall. The profile of the predicted incremental subsidence due to the full extraction
of Longwalls 20 and 21 is also shown on Figures 15 and 16 of Appendix 1.
The maximum observed incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 20 was 13 mm at Peg T45.
The maximum observed incremental tilt was 0.6 mm/m between Pegs E/T60 and D. The maximum incremental
tensile and compressive strains of 0.2 mm/m and 0.3 mm/m, respectively, occur in survey bays T29-T30 and
T27-T28.
The Transmission Line is located approximately 450 m to the east of Longwall 20 at its nearest point. As a result,
predicted and observed values of subsidence, tilt and strain are very small. Observed movements are within
expected limits of accuracy of predictions. Some survey marks were disturbed near the southern end of the
transmission line as the result of maintenance vehicles accessing the transmission line. Figures 15, 16, and 17
indicate that there is greater scatter in the observed subsidence parameters at the southern end of this
monitoring line. The disturbance from maintenance vehicles may have contributed to the greater scatter in this
part of the monitoring line.
Princes Highway Line
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along the Princes Highway Line for the latest
survey is presented in Table 14.
00482778 31

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 14
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for the Princes Highway Line
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 25 May 2010
Latest Survey Date 20 June 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
1,233 m
Face Distance from Princes Highway Line at Latest Survey
Date
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental tilt due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental tensile strain due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 (mm/m)
Maximum incremental compressive
strain due to the extraction of Longwall
21 (mm/m)
Observed Value
8
4
0.9
1,850 m to nearest mark; the Princes Highway Line does not
pass above Longwall 21
Predicted Final
Value
Within limits of
survey
accuracy*
Comments
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg PH1
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Peg PH1
Note: * denotes that the maximum predicted tensile and compressive strains are based on conventional movements.
0.2
0.4
Maximum observed incremental tilt
between Pegs PH1 and PH2
Maximum observed incremental tensile
strain between Pegs PH4 and PH5
Maximum observed incremental
compressive strain between Pegs PH1 and
PH2
The profiles of the observed incremental subsidence, tilt and strain along the Princes Highway Line due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 are shown on Figures 18 and 19 of Appendix 1. The profiles of the observed
total subsidence, tilt and strain along the Princes Highway Line are shown on Figure 20 of Appendix 1.
The observed incremental movements are the additional movements since the base survey that was measured
on the 27 September 2011. The Longwall 21 face position was approximately 1.8 km from the nearest mark on
the Princes Highway line and at this distance, Longwall 21 is not anticipated to have had any effect on the
observed incremental or total subsidence results for Longwall 21. Some survey marks have either been
disturbed or destroyed as indicated in Figures 18, 19 and 20 of Appendix 1.
The maximum observed incremental subsidence due to the extraction of Longwall 21 was 8 mm at Peg PH1. The
maximum observed incremental tilt was 0.9 mm/m between Pegs PH1 and PH2. The maximum incremental
tensile and compressive strains of 0.2 mm/m and 0.4 mm/m occur in survey bays PH4-PH5 and PH1-PH2.
The Princes Highway Line is located approximately 690 m and 615 m to the south east of Longwall 20 and
Longwall 21, respectively, at its nearest point. As a result, predicted and observed values of subsidence, tilt and
strain are very small and within the limits of survey accuracy. Observed movements are within expected limits of
accuracy of predictions.
Freeway Line
The Freeway Line is located along the Southern Freeway to the east of the finishing end of Longwall 20 and
Longwall 21 over a total length of approximately 3,000 m.
During the review period, many of the survey marks for the Freeway Line were disturbed or destroyed as the
result of resurfacing operations undertaken by RMS during the extraction of Longwall 20. In addition to this,
restricted access to the freeway resulted in greater than anticipated errors in the survey results during the
extraction of Longwall 20. The survey methods for the Freeway Line were subsequently modified to produce an
accuracy of results to within normal limits and destroyed or disturbed marks have been reinstated. As a result of
these complications the latest survey (i.e. 15 June 2012) will be used as a baseline for future survey results.
00482778 32

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines
Cross Lines 14, 15 and 16
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines 14, 15
and 16 due o the extraction of Longwall 20 is presented in Table 15.
Table 15
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet
Cross Lines 14, 15 and 16 Resulting from Longwall 20 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 17 June 2011
Latest Survey Date 30 August 2011
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
0 m
Face Distance from Monitoring Line at Latest Survey Date 2,030 m to Line 14
2,020 m to Line 15
1,940 m to Line 16
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental net
vertical movement due to the
extraction of Longwall 20 (mm)
Subsidence
Parameter
Maximum incremental
closure due to the
extraction of Longwall
20 (mm)
Maximum incremental
upsidence due to the
extraction of Longwall
20 (mm)
Line
14
15
16
14
15
16
Line
14
15
16
Observed
Value
5
1
3
0
0
2
Observed
Value
65
80
79
Subsidence
160
203
157
Predicted Final Value
233
253
254
74
177
176
Predicted Final Value
Upsidence
74
177
176
Comments
Net Vertical
Movement
86
25
-19
Monitoring line length of 22 m to 27 m
represents a small portion of the total
valley profile used for closure
predictions
Monitoring line length of 22 m to 27 m
represents a small portion of the total
valley profile used for upsidence
predictions
The profiles of the observed incremental net vertical movement, strain, upsidence and closure along Waratah
Rivulet Cross Lines 14, 15 and 16 due to the extraction of Longwall 20 are shown on Figures 21, 24 and 27 of
Appendix 1, respectively. The observed incremental movements are the additional movements since the base
survey that was measured on the 17 June 2010 when the Longwall 20 extraction face was at chainage 2,689 m
(113 m extracted), and was approximately 630 m from the nearest cross line.
The maximum observed net vertical movement of 65 mm at Line 14 was less than the predicted net vertical
movement of 86 mm. The maximum observed net vertical movement of 80 mm and 79 mm at Line 15 and
Line 16, respectively, are greater than the predicted net vertical movement.
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines 14, 15
and 16 due to the extraction of Longwall 21 is presented in Table 16.
00482778 33

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 16
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet Cross
Lines 14, 15 and 16 Resulting from Longwall 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 30 August 2011
Latest Survey Date 27 April 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
1442 m
Face Distance from Monitoring Line at Latest Survey Date 1,292 m past Line 14
1,375 m past Line 15
1,388 m past Line 16
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental net
vertical movement due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Subsidence
Parameter
Maximum incremental
closure due to the
extraction of
Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental
upsidence due to the
extraction of
Longwall 21 (mm)
Line
14
15
16
14
15
16
Line
14
15
16
Observed
Value
5
11
7
3
0
5
Observed
Value
73
147
426
Subsidence
191
294
554
Predicted Final Value
134
207
274
76
122
228
Predicted Final Value
Upsidence
76
122
228
Comments
Net Vertical
Movement
115
172
326
Monitoring line length of 22 m to 27 m
represents a small portion of the total
valley profile used for closure
predictions
Monitoring line length of 22 m to 27 m
represents a small portion of the total
valley profile used for upsidence
predictions
The profiles of the observed net vertical movement, strain, upsidence and closure along Waratah Rivulet Cross
Lines 14, 15 and 16 due to the extraction of Longwall 21 are shown on Figures 22, 25 and 28 of Appendix 1,
respectively. The observed incremental movements are the additional movements since the survey that was
measured on the 30 August 2011 prior to the extraction of Longwall 21.
The maximum observed net vertical movement of 73 mm and 147 mm at Line 14 and Line 15, respectively, were
less than the predicted net vertical movements. The maximum observed net vertical movement of 426 mm at
Line 16, was greater than the predicted net vertical movement.
The predicted net vertical movements for Longwalls 20 and 21 include predicted upsidence which is recognised
as providing a conservative prediction of subsidence movements. As described in the EA, if the observed
upsidence is much less than the predicted upsidence values, then the predicted net vertical movement may be
greater than that currently predicted. The predicted value of net vertical movement may not eventuate and small
amounts of subsidence may be observed instead of uplift. Given the low levels of observed strain for Waratah
Rivulet Cross Lines 14, 15 and 16 and the low values of observed upsidence for these short lines, it is possible
that only negligible overall valley upsidence has developed, in which case it is considered appropriate to use the
predicted subsidence rather than net vertical movement for comparison with the observed results. The observed
net vertical movements are less than the predicted subsidence.
There was negligible measured upsidence and closure at each of the monitoring lines which are approximately
25 m in length and represent a small portion of the overall valley profile. The lines represent the full width of the
rock bars present over Longwall 20 and indicate generally low levels of strain.
WRS5 Line
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Waratah Rivulet Cross Line WRS5 due
to the extraction of Longwall 20 is presented in Table 17.
00482778 34

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 17
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet Cross Line WRS5
Resulting from Longwall 20 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 17 June 2011
Latest Survey Date 31 August 2011
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
0 m
Face Distance from Monitoring Line at Latest Survey Date
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental net
vertical movement due to the
extraction of Longwall 20 (mm)
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental closure
due to the extraction of
Longwall 20 (mm)
Maximum incremental
upsidence due to the extraction
of Longwall 20 (mm)
Observed
Value
Subsidence
1,908 m from the nearest WRS5 Peg. The WRS5 Line does
not pass above Longwall 20
Predicted Final Value
Upsidence
Net Vertical
Movement
24 3 14 -11
Observed
Value
Predicted Final
Value
3 59
1 14
Comments
Monitoring line length of 41 m represents a small
portion of the total valley profile used for closure
predictions
Monitoring line length of 41 m represents a small
portion of the total valley profile used for
upsidence predictions
The profiles of the observed net vertical movement, strain, upsidence and closure along the WRS5 Line due to
Longwall 20 are shown on Figure 30 of Appendix 1. The observed incremental movements are the additional
movements since the base survey that was measured on the 17 June 2010 when the Longwall 20 extraction face
was at chainage 2,689 m (113 m extracted), and was approximately 780 m from the nearest cross line.
The maximum observed net vertical movement of 24 mm is greater than the predicted net vertical movement of
-11 mm. The predicted net vertical movement includes predicted upsidence which is recognised as providing a
conservative prediction of subsidence movements. As described in the EA, if the observed upsidence is much
less than the predicted upsidence values, then the predicted net vertical movement may be greater than that
currently predicted. The predicted value of net vertical movement may not eventuate and small amounts of
subsidence may be observed instead of uplift. Given the low levels of observed strain for the WRS5 Line and the
negligible observed upsidence for this short line, it is possible that only negligible overall valley upsidence has
developed, in which case it is considered appropriate to use the predicted subsidence rather than net vertical
movement for comparison with the observed results. The observed net vertical movements are also greater than
the predicted subsidence. This is likely to be the result of the far field vertical movements and is within the level
of accuracy for the method of prediction.
There was negligible measured upsidence and closure at the monitoring line due to the extraction of
Longwall 20.
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements along Waratah Rivulet Cross Line WRS5 due
to the extraction of Longwall 21 is presented in Table 18.
00482778 35

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 18
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Waratah Rivulet Cross Line WRS5
Resulting from Longwall 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 31 August 2011
Latest Survey Date 10 July 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
1,075 m
Face Distance from Monitoring Line at Latest Survey Date
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental net
vertical movement due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental closure
due to the extraction of
Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum incremental
upsidence due to the extraction
of Longwall 21 (mm)
Observed
Value
Subsidence
896 m past WRS5
WRS5 Line is not located above Longwall 21
Predicted Final Value
Upsidence
Net Vertical
Movement
-61 124 65 59
Observed
Value
Predicted Final
Value
75 260
150 65
Comments
Monitoring line length of 41 m represents a small
portion of the total valley profile used for closure
predictions
Monitoring line length of 41 m represents a small
portion of the total valley profile used for
upsidence predictions
The profiles of the observed net vertical movement, strain, upsidence and closure along the WRS5 Line due to
Longwall 21 are shown on Figure 31 of Appendix 1. The observed incremental movements are the additional
movements since the base survey that was measured on the 31 August 2011 prior to the extraction of
Longwall 21.
The maximum observed net vertical movement of -61 mm is less than the predicted net vertical movement of
59 mm. It can be seen on Figure 32 of Appendix 1 that upsidence and closure has developed during the
extraction of Longwall 21. The incremental compressive strain at the location of maximum upsidence is
9.5 mm/m.
Ridge to Ridge Monitoring Points
A summary of the observed and predicted subsidence movements at the ridge to ridge monitoring points for the
latest survey is presented in Table 19.
00482778 36

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 19
Summary of Predicted and Observed Subsidence Movements for Ridge to Ridge Monitoring Points
Resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21 Extraction
Monitoring Summary
Initial Survey Date 12 May 2010
Latest Survey Date 10 July 2012
Longwall Chainage at Latest Survey Date
1,075 m
Face Distance from nearest Peg at Latest Survey Date 845 m to Mark Trig 5
Subsidence Parameter
Maximum incremental subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwall 21 (mm)
Maximum total subsidence due to the
extraction of Longwalls 20 and 21 (mm)
Observed
Value
Predicted
Final Value
710 826
771 916
Comments
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Trig 5
Maximum observed incremental
subsidence at Trig 5
Incremental Closure Between Trig 1 and Trig 2 6 - Crosses Waratah Rivulet
Incremental Closure Between Trig 1 and Trig 3 39 - Crosses Longwalls 20 and 21
Incremental Closure Between Trig 1 and Trig 4 -76 - Trig 4 located above Longwall 20
Incremental Closure Between Trig 1 and Trig 5
Located along same ridge line and crosses
-63 -
Longwall 20
Incremental Closure Between Trig 2 and Trig 3
Crosses minor tributary and Longwalls 20
41 -
and 21
Incremental Closure Between Trig 2 and Trig 4 -95 - Crosses minor tributary
Incremental Closure Between Trig 2 and Trig 5 -23 - Crosses Waratah Rivulet and Longwall 20
Incremental Closure Between Trig 3 and Trig 4 169 - Located along same ridge line
Incremental Closure Between Trig 3 and Trig 5 91 - Crosses Waratah Rivulet and Longwall 21
Incremental Closure Between Trig 4 and Trig 5 97 - Crosses Waratah Rivulet
Table 19 indicates that the maximum observed subsidence is less than the maximum predicted subsidence. The
incremental horizontal movement of the ridge to ridge monitoring points are shown on Drawing
Nos. MSEC 586-102 to MSEC 586-107 in Appendix 1. The horizontal movement vectors show a general
movement towards the longwall goaf and towards the bases of nearby valleys.
The measured closures of the ridge to ridge monitoring points are plotted on Figures 21 to 32 of Appendix 1 for
the ridge to ridge monitoring points across the Waratah Rivulet (i.e. Trig 1-Trig 2, Trig 2-Trig 5, Trig 4-Trig 5, and
Trig 3-Trig 5). The greatest observed closure of 170 mm occurred between marks Trig 3 and Trig 4. These
marks are located along the same ridgeline (i.e. they do not cross a valley) indicating that the observed closure
may be predominantly conventional closure across the Longwalls 20 and 21.
The observed upsidence, closure and strain values of Waratah Rivulet Cross Lines 14, 15 and 16 did not
indicate that any significant valley related movements had occurred, as discussed above. Since the cross lines
in the base of the Waratah Rivulet valley do not indicate that any valley related closure had occurred and largest
closure movements of the ridge to ridge monitoring points occur between marks that cross Longwall 20, it is likely
that the closure movements predominantly represent the conventional closure of the ground surface across
Longwalls 20 and 21. This is also supported by the observed movements of Line 9G. This monitoring line
crosses Longwall 20 perpendicular to the longwall orientation and is located along a ridge line and is therefore
unlikely to be affected by valley closure movements. The sum of differential bay length differences in the vicinity
of Longwall 20 show a measured closure of approximately 50 mm to 60 mm, which represents the conventional
closure across Longwall 20.
00482778 37

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Incremental Vectors
A plot of the observed incremental horizontal movement vectors for the monitoring lines discussed in this Annual
Review, based on the latest 3D survey results, is shown on Drawing Nos. MSEC586-102 to MSEC586-107
inclusive of Appendix 1. Drawing Nos. MSEC586-102, MSEC586-103 and MSEC586-104 of Appendix 1 show
the incremental horizontal movement vectors for the extraction of Longwall 20 and Drawing Nos. MSEC586-105,
MSEC586-106 and MSEC586-107 of Appendix 1 show the horizontal movement vectors for the extraction of
Longwall 21 based on the face position at the latest survey date.
The vectors show a general movement towards the extracted goaf of Longwalls 20 and 21. With increased
distance away from the goaf, the vectors are generally within survey tolerance and show an increasing trend for
movements in the downslope direction and towards nearby valleys. Survey marks along the Freeway Line have
been destroyed or disturbed and have greater survey error, as discussed in the Freeway Line section above.
The vector movements of the Waratah Rivulet cross lines 14, 15 and 16 do not indicate any significant closure
movement towards the centre of the stream.
Horizontal Movements
Absolute Horizontal Movements
Absolute horizontal movements of the survey marks have been used for assessment of potential far-field
movements at infrastructure resulting from the Longwalls 20 and 21 extraction.
A plot of observed incremental horizontal movement versus distance from nearest goaf edge for the monitoring
lines discussed in this Annual Review is provided on Figure 33 of Appendix 1. The plot includes the monitoring
lines surveyed during Longwalls 20 and 21 with the exception of the Freeway Line, which is considered to have
significant horizontal errors as discussed above. This plot includes all survey marks located over previously
extracted longwalls, which typically have greater horizontal movements than survey marks located over solid
coal.
A plot of the observed horizontal movement versus face distance from the nearest goaf edge of the active
longwall for only pegs located over solid coal is provided on Figure 34 of Appendix 1. This plot includes pegs
that have solid coal between the peg and active longwall which is representative of the majority of locations of
the surface infrastructure to the east of the Metropolitan Coal longwalls.
Figures 33 and 34 of Appendix 1 indicate that the horizontal movements fit consistently within the horizontal
movement data set for the southern coalfield.
Relative Horizontal Movements
Mine subsidence impacts to surface features occur due to the influence of differential movements. The
assessment of potential differential horizontal movements at infrastructure resulting from Longwalls 20 and 21
extraction included assessment of relative lateral and longitudinal movements and mid ordinate deviation, both of
which are described below.
Plots of Incremental Relative Lateral peg movement and Relative Longitudinal peg movement are presented in
Figures 35 and 36 of Appendix 1, respectively. A plot of Incremental observed mid ordinate deviation is
presented in Figure 37 of Appendix 1. The plots includes survey pegs that are located over solid coal and with
solid coal between the peg and the active longwall and include all survey lines with the exception of the Freeway
Line, which is considered to have significant horizontal errors as discussed above.
The observed relative horizontal movements for the monitored lines fit within the data sets for the southern
coalfield.
3.2.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
At this stage the implementation of the Subsidence Monitoring Program and associated subsidence prediction
methods and management processes are considered to be adequate.
00482778 38

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.2.5 Further Initiatives
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Subsidence Monitoring Program within three months of the submission of this Annual
Review, to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
Metropolitan Coal will continue to meet with the RMS Technical Committee on a regular basis over the next
review period, the frequency of which will largely be driven by the location of the longwall.
In the next review period, survey pegs that are known to have been disturbed will be reviewed and where
possible the baseline survey values will be adjusted (i.e. re-calibrated) to enable the calculation of incremental
subsidence.
3.3 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.3.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Water Management Plan has been prepared to manage the potential
environmental consequences of the Extraction Plan on watercourses (including the Woronora Reservoir),
aquifers and catchment yield in accordance with Condition 6, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval.
3.3.2 Monitoring
Stream Features
Visual and photographic surveys of the Waratah Rivulet (from Flat Rock Crossing to the full supply level) and
Eastern Tributary (from within the 35° angle of draw of Longwalls 20-22 to the full supply level) are conducted
monthly until subsidence is less than 20 mm/month, and thereafter within three months of the completion of each
longwall.
Visual inspections of Tributary A (within the 35° angle of draw of Longwalls 20-22) and Tributary B (within the
35° angle of draw of Longwalls 20-22) are conducted within three months of the completion of each longwall.
The visual and photographic surveys record the nature and extent of:
• the location, approximate dimensions (length, width and depth), and orientation of surface cracks
(specifically whether cracks are developed perpendicular to the stream flow or are controlled by rock joints
or other factors, etc.);
• the nature of iron staining (e.g. whether isolated or across the entire streambed);
• the extent of iron staining (e.g. length of stream affected);
• description of gas release (e.g. isolated bubbles or continuous stream and type of gas [methane or carbon
dioxide using an OdaLog gas detector]);
• the nature of scouring, for example the depth of scouring, type of soil exposed, any obvious vegetation
impact, potential for severe erosion, etc.;
• water discoloration or opacity if present;
• natural underflow if evident (i.e. evidence of surface flows either entering or existing the sub-surface domain
via surface cracks in the streambed);
• rock bar characteristics such as extent of cracking, seepage, underflow;
• whether any actions are required (e.g. implementation of management measures, incident notification,
implementation of appropriate safety controls, review of public safety, etc.); and
• any other relevant information.
00482778 39

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates are recorded where appropriate (e.g. of particular observations and
associated photographs).
The monthly visual and photographic surveys, conducted until subsidence is less than 20 mm/month, record the
above parameters by exception (i.e. where they differ to the baseline visual and photographic record). The visual
and photographic surveys conducted within three months of the completion of each longwall provide a detailed
photographic record similar to that provided in the Water Management Plan.
During the review period, a detailed photographic record of Waratah Rivulet and Eastern Tributary was
conducted by MSEC within three months of Longwall 20 completion and is provided in Appendix 2. Visual
inspections were also conducted along the Waratah Rivulet in November 2011 and monthly from January to May
2012.
Stream bed cracking was observed in two sections of the Waratah Rivulet, namely, between Flat Rock Crossing
and the rock bar of Pool H, and at the rock bar of Pool N (located between Longwalls 21 and 22). Both areas
were affected by surface tension being proximal to secondary extraction. No stream bed cracking was observed
directly above Longwalls 20 or 21.
The crack at rock bar H, as at end May 2012, had dimensions, 16 m long and 30 mm wide. The crack has
progressively lengthened and widened during the extraction of Longwall 21. Water flow does not appear to have
been affected by the crack as evidenced by continuous overflow of water over the rock bar and retention of
ponded water on the surface of the rock bar. At rock bar N, the crack orientations are consistent with a
compression of the rock bar across the valley characteristic of the ‘valley closure’ mechanism. The closure
mechanism results in a variety of individual crack orientations and crack dimensions. The shear fractures
generally run along the axis of the rivulet and dip at shallow (

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Surface Water Flow
Surface water flow monitoring has included continuous flow monitoring at the SCA-owned gauging stations on
the Waratah Rivulet (GS2132102) and Woronora River (GS2132101) and at the OEH gauging station on
O’Hares Creek at Wedderburn (GS213200).
Chart 6 shows concurrent streamflow data from the SCA-owned gauging stations on Waratah Rivulet and
Woronora River and the OEH-owned gauging station on O’Hares Creek at Wedderburn. Streamflow is
expressed on a per unit catchment area basis (in mm) to allow direct comparison of flow magnitudes without
having to adjust for contributing catchment area. Flows are plotted on a logarithmic scale to emphasise the lower
flow range.
Chart 6
Recorded Streamflow Hydrographs – Waratah Rivulet, Woronora River and O’Hares Creek at
Wedderburn
Chart 7 shows the same data expressed as the distribution of monitored flows (flow duration curves) expressed
as ML/km 2 /day to remove the effect of catchment area on flows. Of the three streams, Waratah Rivulet yielded
the highest flow per unit catchment area in medium and low flows, with strong low flow persistence. O’Hares
Creek (at Wedderburn) yielded similar flows, with slightly greater high flows. Woronora River recorded the
lowest low flows per unit catchment. The results of surface water flow monitoring at Waratah Rivulet are
analysed in Section 3.3.3.1.
00482778 41

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 7 Recorded Flow Duration Curves - GS2132102 Waratah Rivulet, Woronora River GS213101,
O’Hares Creek GS213200
Pool Water Levels
Water levels in a number of pools on the Waratah Rivulet, Eastern Tributary, Tributary B and Woronora River
have been either manually monitored on a daily basis or monitored using a continuous water level sensor and
logger (Figure 7).
The pool water level monitoring results are discussed in Section 3.11 in relation to the initiation of stream
remediation.
Woronora Reservoir Leakage
Metropolitan Coal will investigate the development of a suitable performance indicator to assess potential
leakage from the Woronora Reservoir for future longwalls in consultation with the SCA, with a view to trialling the
performance indicator during the mining of Longwalls 26 and 27.
Stream Water Quality
Surface water quality sampling has been conducted monthly at a number of sites on Waratah Rivulet,
Tributary B, Tributary D, Eastern Tributary, Far Eastern Tributary, Honeysuckle Creek, Bee Creek and the
Woronora River (Figure 8).
Water quality parameters sampled include electrical conductivity (EC), pH, redox potential (Eh), dissolved
oxygen (DO), turbidity, calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), potassium (K), chloride (Cl), sulphate (SO 4),
bicarbonate (HCO 3), total nitrogen (Ntot), total phosphorus (Ptot), nitrate (NO 3), barium (Ba), strontium (Sr),
manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co) and aluminium (Al). Samples collected for cation, anion and
metal analysis have been field filtered. Unfiltered water quality samples were also collected at a number of sites
on the Waratah Rivulet, Eastern Tributary and Woronora River (Figure 8) and analysed for total iron. The raw
data demonstrates that the overall water quality of most indicator parameters has not been noticeably affected by
mining.
00482778 42

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, the key parameters of interest are pH, EC, dissolved aluminium,
dissolved iron and dissolved manganese. The results of key water quality parameters are graphically presented
for a selection of sites in Charts 8 to 12: Woronora River (sites WOWQ 1, WOWQ 2 and WOWQ 4), Waratah
Rivulet (sites WRWQ 1, WRWQ 8 and WRWQ 9) and Eastern Tributary (sites ETWQ F and ETWQ AU).
Chart 8
pH
Chart 9
Electrical Conductivity (EC)
00482778 43

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 10 Dissolved Iron (Fe)
Chart 11 Dissolved Manganese (Mn)
00482778 44

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 12 Dissolved Aluminium (Al)
Summary statistics from all sampling locations on the Eastern Tributary, Waratah Rivulet and Woronora River
are presented in Table 20. Concentrations were relatively consistent between the sites with all watercourses
experiencing spikes or pulses throughout the time series. The Waratah Rivulet appeared to have higher
dissolved manganese concentrations and the Woronora River higher dissolved aluminium concentrations.
Table 20
Surface Water Quality Summary
Location Eastern Tributary Waratah Rivulet Woronora River
Parameter Range Average Range Average Range Average
pH (field) 4.69 – 9.50 6.74 5 – 8.39 6.66 2.42 – 8.48 5.46
EC (field) (µS/cm) 47.2 – 310.0 157.8 84 - 306 177.78 75 - 245 149.31
Mn (mg/L)* 0.005 – 0.290 0.052 0.015 – 1.0 0.11 0.001 – 0.18 0.05
Fe (mg/L)* 0.027 – 1.0 0.303 0.034 – 2.9 0.47 0.012 - 15 0.37
Al (mg/L)* 0.011 – 0.2 0.052 0.002 – 0.095 0.03 0.008 – 0.42 0.10
* Field filtered
Woronora, Nepean and Cataract Reservoir Water Quality
Metropolitan Coal has sourced water quality data for the review period for the Woronora Reservoir, Nepean
Reservoir and Cataract Reservoir from the SCA in accordance with a data exchange agreement. Results of the
analysis of this data are presented in Section 3.3.3.5.
Swamp Groundwater Levels
Upland swamp groundwater monitoring is described in Section 3.4.2.2 of this Annual Review.
00482778 45

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Shallow Groundwater Levels
Continuous water level monitoring of shallow groundwater levels has been conducted at sites WRGW1 and
WRGW2 along Waratah Rivulet upstream of Longwall 20, site RTGW1A on Tributary B over Longwall 22A, sites
WRGW7 and WRGW8 along Waratah Rivulet downstream of Longwall 21, and sites ETGW1 and ETGW2 on
the Eastern Tributary downstream of Longwall 21 (Figure 9).
Sites WRGW1 and WRGW2 are located on opposite banks of the Waratah Rivulet, to the immediate south of
Longwall 20 (Figure 9). The groundwater monitoring results for sites WRGW1 and WRGW2 are shown on
Chart 13, and are compared with rainfall events over a period of four years as recorded at the Waratah Rivulet
catchment PV1 pluviometer (Figure 6). Sites WRGW1 and WRGW2 show comparable information over the
review period. At the time of passage of the Longwall 21 mining face past the piezometer sites (March 2012), the
measured groundwater levels dropped by about 1 m. As wet conditions prevailed at the time, this was not a
climatic effect. No similar response was observed with the passage of Longwall 20 a year earlier.
All Waratah Rivulet piezometers (i.e. WRGW1 to WRGW8, refer Figure 9) show the same dynamic responses to
stream flow interaction and rainfall, with rapid response to rainfall events. However, no other piezometers show
a decline from March 2012. Downgradient site WRGW8 does not exhibit the rapid recession observed at the
other sites on the rivulet. Upgradient sites (WRGW3 to WRGW6) have the greater response amplitude.
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
208
207
206
205
204
203
COLLAR at 207.8 mAHD
WARATAH RIVULET
Piezo WRGW1
Piezo WRGW2
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] WR1&2-Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
LW20 START
COLLAR at 207.9 mAHD
LW21 START
208
207
206
205
204
203
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
31-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 13 Shallow Groundwater Hydrographs on Waratah Rivulet at WRGW1 and WRGW2
The downgradient sites on the Eastern Tributary (ETGW1 and ETGW2) show an increase in water level of about
3 m from February to July 2012 (Chart 14). This coincides with a period of higher rainfall.
00482778 46

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
170
169
168
167
166
165
COLLAR at 172.63 mAHD
EASTERN TRIBUTARY
Piezo ETGW1
Piezo ETGW2
Rain PV1 [Waratah]
Longwall Starts
Review Start
LW20 START
COLLAR at 172.05 mAHD
LW21 START
170
169
168
167
166
165
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
164
163
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] ET1&2_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
164
163
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
31-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 14 Shallow Groundwater Hydrographs on Eastern Tributary at ETGW1 and ETGW2
Deep Groundwater Levels/Pressures
Continuous groundwater level/pressure monitoring has been conducted at site 9EGW1B, site 9FGW1B,
site 9GGW1B, site 9GGW2B, site 9HGW0 (Longwall 10 Goaf Hole), site 9HGW1B, site PHGW1, site PM01R,
site PM02 and site PM03 (Figure 9).
The measured vertical hydraulic head profiles for these bores have been examined and selected stable bores
compared against the predicted vertical hydraulic head profiles by Dr Noel Merrick, with the following outcomes:
• some installations are providing unreliable data;
• some vibrating wire piezometers have been slow to stabilise since installation, particularly those installed in
claystones;
• sites close to current mining show significant depressurisation with depth, consistent with the Project EA;
• sites close to old workings at Helensburgh show substantial depressurisation with depth, consistent with the
Project EA; and
• the pressure reductions with depth agree well with model predictions.
The monitoring sites closest to recent mining include site 9FGW1B (900 m north-west of Longwall 20) and
site 9GGW1B (above Longwall 22B) (Figure 9). Their vertical head profiles are compared with simulated results
in Section 3.3.3.3.
The time-series record for site 9FGW1B is shown on Chart 15. The two deepest piezometers (491 m in
Wombarra Claystone; 513 m in Bulli Coal seam) have been slow to stabilise.
The excavation of Longwalls 20 and 21 might be responsible for the slow decline in head in the Scarborough
Sandstone (piezometer at 455 m). However, it is unclear what effect mining has had on the Bulli Seam
piezometer (at 513 m), due to unstable readings when Longwall 20 commenced. At the end of the review period,
this piezometer seems to have stabilised with a substantial pressure head of about 280 m.
00482778 47

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
GROUNDWATER HEAD (mAHD)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
Processing Date: 14-Apr-2011
LW20 START
[Helensburgh][MultiPiezos]
Hyd9FGW1c.grf, .xls
[Sep12] StartDates.xls
19-Feb-10
12-Mar-10
2-Apr-10
23-Apr-10
14-May-10
4-Jun-10
25-Jun-10
16-Jul-10
6-Aug-10
27-Aug-10
17-Sep-10
8-Oct-10
29-Oct-10
19-Nov-10
10-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
21-Jan-11
11-Feb-11
4-Mar-11
25-Mar-11
15-Apr-11
6-May-11
27-May-11
17-Jun-11
8-Jul-11
29-Jul-11
19-Aug-11
9-Sep-11
30-Sep-11
21-Oct-11
11-Nov-11
2-Dec-11
23-Dec-11
13-Jan-12
3-Feb-12
24-Feb-12
16-Mar-12
6-Apr-12
27-Apr-12
18-May-12
8-Jun-12
29-Jun-12
20-Jul-12
10-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 15 Time Variations in Potentiometric Heads at Site 9FGW1B
REVIEW START
LW21 START
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
-40
-80
-120
-160
-200
9FGW1
Piezo 55m [HBSS]
Piezo 74m [HBSS]
Piezo 137m [HBSS]
Piezo 185m [BHCS]
Piezo 210m [BGSS]
Piezo 369m [BGSS]
Piezo 405m [SPCS]
Piezo 455m [SBSS]
Piezo 491m [WMCS]
Piezo 513m [BUCO]
Bulli Seam at
-204 mAHD
The time-series record for site 9GGW1B is shown on Chart 16. Site 9GGW1B (located over Longwall 22 about
100 m from the nearest edge of Longwall 21) shows strong depressurisation below the Bulgo Sandstone, with
heads about -10 to -20 m AHD in the Scarborough Sandstone and the Coal Cliff Sandstone for most of the
review period. While the heads in this hole showed significant abrupt effects from Longwall 20 mining, the
responses to Longwall 21 mining have been less abrupt. Nevertheless, there was a characteristic rise in
pressure in the middle of the review period from the Bald Hill Claystone down to the lower Bulgo Sandstone as
the longwall face approached the bore. As the longwall face passed the bore in July 2012, the pressures
dropped sharply in the bottom seven piezometers. The Hawkesbury Sandstone piezometers appear to have
been unaffected.
300
250
Processing Date: 14-Apr-2011
LW20 START
REVIEW START
LW21 START
300
250
GROUNDWATER HEAD (mAHD)
200
150
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
0
9GGW1B
Piezo 45m [HBSS]
Piezo 60m [HBSS]
Piezo 124m [HBSS]
Piezo 159m [BHCS]
Piezo 179m [BHCS]
Piezo 345m [BGSS]
Piezo 385m [BGSS]
Piezo 404m [SPCS]
Piezo 416m [SBSS]
Piezo 476m [CCSS]
-50
[Helensburgh][MultiPiezos]
Hyd9GGW1c.grf, .xls
[Sep12] StartDates.xls
14-Mar-09
4-Apr-09
25-Apr-09
16-May-09
6-Jun-09
27-Jun-09
18-Jul-09
8-Aug-09
29-Aug-09
19-Sep-09
10-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
21-Nov-09
12-Dec-09
2-Jan-10
23-Jan-10
13-Feb-10
6-Mar-10
27-Mar-10
17-Apr-10
8-May-10
29-May-10
19-Jun-10
10-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
21-Aug-10
11-Sep-10
2-Oct-10
23-Oct-10
13-Nov-10
4-Dec-10
25-Dec-10
15-Jan-11
5-Feb-11
26-Feb-11
19-Mar-11
9-Apr-11
30-Apr-11
21-May-11
11-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
23-Jul-11
13-Aug-11
3-Sep-11
24-Sep-11
15-Oct-11
5-Nov-11
26-Nov-11
17-Dec-11
7-Jan-12
28-Jan-12
18-Feb-12
10-Mar-12
31-Mar-12
21-Apr-12
12-May-12
2-Jun-12
23-Jun-12
14-Jul-12
4-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 16 Time Variations in Potentiometric Heads at Site 9GGW1B
-50
Bulli Seam at
-202 mAHD
00482778 48

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Groundwater Quality
Shallow groundwater quality has been sampled monthly at sites WRGW1 and WRGW2 along the Waratah
Rivulet and site RTGW1A adjacent to Tributary B (Figure 10). During the review period, groundwater quality was
monitored also at downstream monitoring sites WRGW7 and WRGW8 established on the Waratah Rivulet and
ETGW1 and ETGW2 on the Eastern Tributary.
Water quality parameters sampled include EC, pH, Eh, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, SO 4, HCO 3, Ba, Sr, Mn, Fe, Zn, Co
and Al. The samples collected for the analysis of cations, anions and metals have been field filtered.
Monitoring results for Fe, Mn and pH levels at sites WRGW1 and WRGW2 are provided on Charts 17 to 19.
Monitoring results for sites WRGW3 to WRGW8 are also shown on Charts 17 to 19 to show trends over the
length of the Waratah Rivulet. Rainfall events over a period of four years, as recorded at the Waratah Rivulet
catchment PV1 pluviometer (Figure 6), provide a context for the substantial fluctuations in parameters; however,
there is no obvious relationship with rainfall.
The key observations at the Waratah Rivulet groundwater quality monitoring sites (WRGW1 to WRGW8) are:
• Fe concentrations are usually in the 1 - 10 milligrams/Litre (mg/L) range.
• Peak value Fe concentrations of 14 mg/L occur at WRGW1 and WRGW2.
• Mn concentrations are always less than 1 mg/L.
• Groundwater is generally acidic with pH usually between pH 5.5 and 7.
• Fe and Mn concentrations increase with distance downstream to WRGW1 and WRGW2 and then decrease
to WRGW7 and WRGW8.
• Aluminium was below the detection limit in all samples.
• There is no evidence of irregular behaviour during the mining of Longwall 21 (from September 2011).
• There is a downwards trend in Fe and Mn concentrations during the review period at WRGW1 and
WRGW2.
WARATAH RIVULET
Piezo WRGW1
Piezo WRGW2
Piezo WRGW3
Piezo WRGW4
Piezo WRGW5
Piezo WRGW6
Piezo WRGW7
Piezo WRGW8
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
Iron [mg/L]
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] WR_Fe.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! Fe [LAB]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
LW20 START
LW21 START
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 17 Iron Concentration at Sites WRGW1 to WRGW8
00482778 49

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
WARATAH RIVULET
Piezo WRGW1
Piezo WRGW2
Piezo WRGW3
Piezo WRGW4
Piezo WRGW5
Piezo WRGW6
Piezo WRGW7
Piezo WRGW8
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
Manganese [mg/L]
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] WR_Mn.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! Mn [LAB]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
LW20 START
LW21 START
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 18 Manganese Concentration at Sites WRGW1 to WRGW8
WARATAH RIVULET
Piezo WRGW1
Piezo WRGW2
Piezo WRGW3
Piezo WRGW4
Piezo WRGW5
Piezo WRGW6
Piezo WRGW7
Piezo WRGW8
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
pH
9
8
7
6
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] WR_pH.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! pH [FIELD]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
LW20 START
LW21 START
9
8
7
6
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
5
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 19 pH Levels at Sites WRGW1 to WRGW8
Site RTGW1A on Tributary B (over Longwall 22A) is sampled monthly for groundwater quality. To provide
context for the monitoring results at site RTGW1A, comparison has been made with the upgradient groundwater
quality monitoring site SWGW1 (west of Longwall 18) (Figure 10), positioned in shallow Hawkesbury Sandstone.
Groundwater quality at both sites is shown on Charts 20 to 22 for Fe, Mn and pH. Rainfall events over a period
of four years, as recorded at the Waratah Rivulet catchment PV1 pluviometer (Figure 6), provide a context for the
moderate fluctuations in parameters; however, there is no obvious relationship with rainfall.
00482778 50

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Fe concentrations are generally equal to or below 1 mg/L, with two isolated values of 6-7 mg/L at the end of the
review period at site RTGW1A. However, a similar isolated value occurred prior to the commencement of
Longwall 20. At the upland swamp, the Fe concentration did not exceed 0.10 mg/L during the review period. Mn
concentrations are low at both sites, being always below about 0.3 mg/L during the review period. Aluminium
was below the detection limit in all samples. The groundwater at the upland swamp (site SWGW1) is acidic,
generally between pH 4 and pH 5, while the groundwater at site RTGW1A is close to neutral (pH generally
around pH 6 to 7).
There is no systematic temporal pattern for any analyte, and neither site shows any irregularities due to the
mining of Longwall 21 (from September 2011).
Iron [mg/L]
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] SW&RT_Fe.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! Fe [LAB]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
TRIBUTARY B
and SWAMP S06
Piezo SWGW1 [S06]
Piezo RTGW1A [Trib.B]
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
LW20 START
LW21 START
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 20 Iron Concentrations at Sites RTGW1A and SWGW1
00482778 51

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Manganese [mg/L]
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] SW&RT_Mn.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! Mn [LAB]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
TRIBUTARY B
and SWAMP S06
Piezo SWGW1 [S06]
Piezo RTGW1A [Trib.B]
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Start LW20
Line/Symbol Plot 19
LW20 START
LW21 START
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.1
20
10
0
0
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 21 Manganese Concentrations at Sites RTGW1A and SWGW1
pH
9
8
7
6
5
TRIBUTARY B
and SWAMP S06
Piezo SWGW1 [S06]
Piezo RTGW1A [Trib.B]
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwalls Start
LW20 START
LW21 START
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] SW&RT_pH.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! pH [FIELD]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
9
8
7
6
5
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
4
4
30
20
10
3
3
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 22 pH Levels at Sites RTGW1A and SWGW1
00482778 52

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Groundwater quality at the two Eastern Tributary sites (ETGW1, ETGW2) is shown on Charts 23 to 25 for Fe, Mn
and pH. Rainfall events over a period of four years, as recorded at the Waratah Rivulet catchment PV1
pluviometer (Figure 6), provide a context for the mild fluctuations in parameters; however, there is no obvious
relationship with rainfall.
Fe concentrations are high, ranging from 11 to 14 mg/L in the review period. Mn concentrations are low at both
sites, in the range 0.5 to 0.6 mg/L. Aluminium was below the detection limit in all samples. The groundwater is
generally acidic, between pH 5.5 and pH 6. There is no systematic temporal pattern for any analyte, and neither
site shows any irregularities due to the mining of Longwall 21 (from September 2011).
Iron [mg/L]
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] ET_Fe.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! Fe [LAB]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
EASTERN TRIBUTARY
Piezo ETGW1
Piezo ETGW2
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
LW20 START
LW21 START
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 23 Iron Concentrations at Sites ETGW1 and ETGW2
00482778 53

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
1
0.9
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct112] ET_Mn.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! Mn [LAB]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
LW20 START
LW21 START
1
160
150
140
Manganese [mg/L]
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
EASTERN TRIBUTARY
Piezo ETGW1
Piezo ETGW2
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Start LW20
Line/Symbol Plot 19
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.1
20
10
0
0
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 24 Manganese Concentrations at Sites ETGW1 and ETGW2
9
[DATA][Water Quality]
[1Oct12] ET_pH.grf
WQ_Aug2008-Mar2012.xls! pH [FIELD]
[Rain]Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[1Sep12] StartDates.xls
LW20 START
LW21 START
9
160
150
140
pH
8
7
6
EASTERN TRIBUTARY
Piezo ETGW1
Piezo ETGW2
Rain PV1
Start Review Period
Longwalls Start
8
7
6
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
5
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 25 pH Levels at Sites ETGW1 and ETGW2
00482778 54

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Inspections of Mine Workings
Metropolitan Coal has developed an In-rush Hazard Management Plan required by the NSW Coal Mines Health
and Safety Regulation, 2006 to manage the potential risk of water in-rush. In addition to shift inspections
conducted by statutory officials that report on any abnormal conditions at the working face and in outbye areas,
Metropolitan Coal conducts statutory weekly inspections of development workings to identify water
accumulations. Monthly inspections of the bleeder roadway (behind the longwall) have been conducted for signs
of water make or water build-up however these inspections are no longer possible due to gas content.
A weekly audit of the statutory inspections is conducted by the shift undermanager. In the event the statutory
inspection identifies the potential for in-rush, an investigation is conducted by the Senior Mine Supervisor on that
shift and reported to the Mine Manager.
The mine inspections did not identify any abnormal water flows from the goaf, geological structure, or strata
generally.
Mine Water Make
In accordance with the Water Management Plan, Metropolitan Coal has also monitored the mine water balance.
The inferred water make (i.e. groundwater that has seeped into the mine through the strata) has been calculated
from the difference between total mine inflows (reticulated water into the mine, moisture in the downcast
ventilation, and the in-situ coal moisture content) and total mine outflows (reticulated water out of the mine,
moisture in the exhaust ventilation, and moisture in the ROM coal).
Monitoring of the mine water balance comprises:
• Metered water reticulated into the mine (recorded continuously and downloaded monthly).
• Metered water reticulated out of the mine (recorded continuously and downloaded monthly).
• Manual measurement of moisture content into and out of the mine through the mine ventilation system
using a digital psychrometer. The frequency of readings is as follows:
−
−
−
every hour over a 12 hour period on four occasions during a 12 month period;
every day for two weeks on two occasions during a 12 month period; and
otherwise once per week.
• Measurement of the in-situ moisture content of the coal during routine channel sampling for coal quality.
Channel samples are collected every third cut-through in development driveage.
• Measurement of the moisture content of ROM coal conveyed out of the mine at the drift portal using an
automated moisture scanner. Prior to commissioning of a fully automated data acquisition system, the
average daily moisture content is recorded continuously and downloaded daily.
Water Make Calculation Assumptions
The inferred water make (i.e. groundwater that has seeped into the mine through the strata) is calculated from
the difference between total mine inflows (reticulated water into the mine, moisture in the downcast ventilation,
and the in-situ coal moisture content) and total mine outflows (reticulated water out of the mine, moisture in the
exhaust ventilation, and moisture in the ROM coal).
Given the large fluctuations in daily water usage and the cycle period for water entering the mine, being used by
machinery, and draining to sumps for return pumping to the surface, a 20 day average is used to provide a more
reliable estimate of water make.
The estimated daily mine water make during the review period is shown in Chart 26. The following assumptions
were made in the estimation of water make:
• Where metered data was unavailable, no estimation of daily water make was calculated and the graph
shows a gap.
00482778 55

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• Where no air moisture measurement for the downcast ventilation was available for a given day, the average
of all measured values was used (0.165 ML/day).
• Where no ROM coal moisture content was available for a given day, the average of all measured values
was used (7.72%).
• The in-situ coal moisture content was assumed to be 1.5%.
The average daily water make during the review period was 0.084 ML/day (Chart 26). Note that the increased
water make during the period April 2011 to July 2011 was a result of dewatering of old workings in advance of
the 200 Mains Panel.
Chart 26 Estimated Daily Mine Water Make
3.3.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The performance indicators and subsidence impact performance measures described below have been
developed to address the predictions of subsidence impacts and environmental consequences on water
resources and watercourses included in the EA, Preferred Project Report (PPR) (Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd,
2009) and Extraction Plan.
Table 21 provides a summary of the performance of the Project against the water resource and watercourse
performance indicators and subsidence impact performance measures. The results of the assessment are
described below.
00482778 56

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 21
Assessment of Water Resource and Watercourse Performance Indicators and Measures
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure Performance Indicator(s) Performance
Indicator
Exceeded
Negligible reduction to the quantity of water resources reaching the
Woronora Reservoir.
Negligible reduction to the quality of water resources reaching the
Woronora Reservoir.
No connective cracking between the surface and the mine.
Negligible leakage from the Woronora Reservoir.
Negligible reduction in the water quality of Woronora Reservoir.
Negligible environmental consequences (that is, no diversion of flows,
no change in the natural drainage behaviour of pools, minimal iron
staining, and minimal gas releases) on the Waratah Rivulet between
the full supply level of the Woronora Reservoir and the maingate of
Longwall 23 (upstream of Pool P).
Negligible environmental consequences over at least 70% of the
stream length (that is no diversion of flows, no change in the natural
drainage behaviour of pools, minimal iron staining and minimal gas
releases) of the Eastern Tributary between the full supply level of the
Woronora Reservoir and the maingate of Longwall 26.
00482778 57
Changes in the quantity of water entering Woronora Reservoir is not
significantly different post-mining compared to pre-mining, that is not also
occurring in the control catchment(s).
Changes in the quality of water entering Woronora Reservoir are not
significantly different post-mining compared to pre-mining concentrations that
are not also occurring at control site WOWQ2.
Visual inspection does not identify abnormal water flow from the goaf, geological
structure, or the strata generally.
No
Yes
No
Performance
Measure
Exceeded
The 20-day average mine water make does not exceed 2 ML/day. No No
Significant departures from the predicted envelope of vertical potentiometric
head profiles at Bores 9FGW1B 1 and 9GGW1B do not occur.
The water tables measured at Bores 9FGW1B and 9GGW1B are higher than
the water levels of streams crossed by a transect along Longwall 22 (i.e. a
hydraulic gradient exists from each bore to the nearest watercourse).
The groundwater head of Bores 9GGW2B and PM02 is higher than the water
level of Woronora Reservoir (i.e. a hydraulic gradient exists from the bores to
the Woronora Reservoir).
Changes in the quality of water in the Woronora Reservoir are not significantly
different post-mining compared to pre-mining concentrations, that are not also
occurring in the Nepean Reservoir (control site).
No change to the natural drainage behaviour of Pool P. Specific indicators
include: no new cracking in the stream bed of Pool P or rock bar; continual flow
through/below the rock bar of Pool P such that water is ponded upstream; and
continual surface water flow along the length of Pool P.
Analysis of water depth data for Pool P (when mining is within 400 m of Pool P)
indicates the water depth is at or above the pool’s previous minimum (i.e. when
mining is beyond 400 m of Pool P).
Analysis of water depth data for Pools Q, R and S on Waratah Rivulet indicates
the water depths are above that required to maintain water over the downstream
rock bar.
Iron staining to be addressed in future Extraction Plans and revisions to the
Water Management Plan.
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Not applicable to Longwalls 20-22
No gas releases observed at Pool P on the Waratah Rivulet. No No
To be addressed in future Extraction Plans and revisions to the Water
Management Plan.
Not applicable to Longwalls 20-22

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.3.3.1 Quantity of Water Resources Reaching the Woronora Reservoir
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
Changes in the quantity of water entering Woronora Reservoir is not significantly different post-mining
compared to pre-mining, that is not also occurring in the control catchment(s).
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, data analysis has been conducted to assess whether a statistically
significant reduction in the quantity of water entering Woronora Reservoir in the post-mine period relative to the
pre-mine period has occurred, that has not also occurred in the control catchment(s), specifically:
• The monitored flow rates on Waratah Rivulet and the control catchments have been integrated over
successive 14 day periods for comparison with the corresponding integrated flows (14 day totals) predicted
by the AWBM models of the same catchments.
• The ratio of total monitored flow divided by AWBM predicted flow has been calculated at 14 day intervals
commencing at the end of the baseline period and advancing from the commencement of Longwall 20.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the median of the ratios for the sliding 1 year
period in the Waratah Rivulet falls below the 20th percentile of the baseline data, unless the same is also
occurring in data for the control sites.
Chart 27 shows a comparison of the monitored and AWBM simulated water flows through Waratah Rivulet
(GS2132102) from the commencement of the calibration period to 31 July 2012 1 .
Chart 27
Monitored and AWBM Simulated Average Daily Flow Rates at Waratah Rivulet (GS2132102)
Chart 28 shows a percentile plot for the 83 ratios of 14 day flow sums that occurred in the baseline period. The
20th percentile threshold value required for testing the quantity of water entering Woronora Reservoir past the
Waratah Rivulet gauging station (GS2132102) is 0.67.
1 Flow data available for this review ended on 3/7/2012.
00482778 58

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 28
Percentile Values of the 83 Ratios of 14 Day Flow Sums that occurred at Waratah Rivulet
(GS2132102) in the Baseline Period
Chart 29 shows a plot of the sliding 12 month mean of the ratio of 14 day sums of monitored flow at GS2132102
and flows simulated via the AWBM. The 12 month sliding mean in Chart 29 does not fall below the 20th
percentile value of 0.67. The performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period as no reduction
in the volume of water reaching Woronora Reservoir has occurred in the post-mining period since the
commencement of Longwall 20.
Chart 29 1 year Sliding Mean for the Ratios of the 14 Day Sums of Monitored and AWBM Simulated
Daily Average Water Flow Rates at Waratah Rivulet (GS2132102)
00482778 59

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, if data analysis indicates the performance indicator has been
exceeded or is likely to be exceeded, an assessment will be made against the following subsidence impact
performance measure.
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
Negligible reduction to the quantity of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir
The subsidence impact performance measure will be considered to have been exceeded if analysis of the
monitoring and modelling results confirms that the Project has resulted in a greater than negligible reduction in
the quantity of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir.
3.3.3.2 Quality of Water Resources Reaching the Woronora Reservoir
Water quality sampling is conducted on the Waratah Rivulet (site WRWQ9), Eastern Tributary (ETWQ2) and
Woronora River (WOWQ2), near the inflow points to the Woronora Reservoir (Figure 8). The field filtered 2 water
quality data has been analysed for key water quality parameters of relevance to water supply, namely:
• iron;
• manganese; and
• aluminium.
Monitoring of water quality in areas subject to mining indicates that the effects of subsidence on water quality
have been most noticeable in iron, manganese, and to a lesser extent, aluminium (Gilbert & Associates, 2008).
Water quality data from sites WRWQ9 and ETWQ2 collected following the commencement of Longwall 20 have
been analysed against monitoring data collected at both sites prior to the commencement of Longwall 20 and
against water quality data collected from site WOWQ2 on the Woronora River. Data analysis has been
conducted to assess whether the performance indicator below has been exceeded.
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
Changes in the quality of water entering Woronora Reservoir are not significantly different post-mining
compared to pre-mining concentrations that are not also occurring at control site WOWQ2.
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, this performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if
data analysis indicates a statistically significant change in the quality of water post-mining of Longwall 20.
Specifically if:
• any water quality parameters 3 exceed the baseline mean plus two standard deviations for two consecutive
months; or
• the sliding 12 month mean for any water quality parameter exceeds the baseline mean plus one standard
deviation; and
• there was not a similar increase in the same measure(s) at the control site.
The baseline mean plus one standard deviation and baseline mean plus two standard deviations for each water
quality parameter has been calculated from the baseline data and is presented in Table 22.
2 The field filtered concentrations are taken to be equivalent to the dissolved fraction.
3 Log transformations (i.e. logs to the base 10 of the water quality concentrations) have been used to calculate the arithmetic
means and standard deviations. Metal concentrations are measured as positive values and therefore have a positively
skewed distribution. Log transformations can be used to standardise the variance of a sample (Bland, 2000)
00482778 60

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 22
Statistical Analysis of Water Quality Data
Site
Dissolved
Aluminium
(mg/L)
Dissolved
Iron
(mg/L)
Dissolved
Manganese
(mg/L)
Waratah Rivulet (WRWQ9)
Baseline mean plus one standard deviation 0.030 0.284 0.054
Baseline mean plus two standard deviations 0.055 0.544 0.082
Eastern Tributary (ETWQ2)
Baseline mean plus one standard deviation 0.082 0.545 0.081
Baseline mean plus two standard deviations 0.157 0.898 0.118
Woronora River (WOWQ2)
Baseline mean plus one standard deviation 0.097 0.326 0.043
Baseline mean plus two standard deviations 0.252 0.754 0.065
Plots showing the concentrations of dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese recorded at sampling sites
WRWQ9 and ETWQ2 after the commencement of Longwall 20 in relation to the baseline mean plus 2 standard
deviations are shown on Charts 30 to 35.
Charts 36 to 38 show the concentrations of dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese recorded at control site
WOWQ2 after the commencement of Longwall 20 in comparison to the baseline mean plus 2 standard
deviations.
Dissolved aluminium and dissolved iron concentrations exceeded the baseline mean plus 2 standard deviations
on two or more consecutive months during the review period in the Waratah Rivulet at site WRWQ9.
Specifically, dissolved aluminium exceeded the trigger value on the three consecutive samples collected
between 9/2/2012 and 12/4/2012 (0.07 mg/L, 0.062 mg/L and 0.056 mg/L, respectively). Dissolved iron
concentrations exceeded the trigger value on the five consecutive samples collected between 19/1/2012 and
3/5/2012 (0.58 mg/L, 0.6 mg/L, 0.81 mg/L, 1 mg/L and 0.56 mg/L, respectively).
Dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations at site ETWQ2 remained below the baseline mean
plus 2 standard deviations level.
In comparison there were no exceedances of the baseline mean plus 2 standard deviations level at the control
site WOWQ2 during the review period. There was however an exceedance in the trigger value for dissolved iron
at WOWQ2 (1.0 mg/L in February and 1.5 mg/L in March) in the previous review period (1 August 2010 to 31
July 2011) in the absence of exceedances at sites WRWQ9 and ETWQ2.
00482778 61

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 30 Comparison of Dissolved Aluminium Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Waratah Rivulet (WRWQ9)
Chart 31 Comparison of Dissolved Iron Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Waratah Rivulet (WRWQ9)
00482778 62

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 32 Comparison of Dissolved Manganese Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Waratah Rivulet (WRWQ9)
Chart 33 Comparison of Dissolved Aluminium Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Eastern Tributary (ETWQ2)
00482778 63

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 34 Comparison of Dissolved Iron Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Eastern Tributary (ETWQ2)
Chart 35 Comparison of Dissolved Manganese Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Eastern Tributary (ETWQ2)
00482778 64

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 36 Comparison of Dissolved Aluminium Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Woronora River (WOWQ2)
Chart 37 Comparison of Dissolved Iron Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Woronora River (WOWQ2)
00482778 65

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 38 Comparison of Dissolved Manganese Concentrations Post Longwall 20 with Baseline Data –
Woronora River (WOWQ2)
Plots showing the 12 month sliding means of the dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations
recorded at sampling sites WRWQ9 and ETWQ2 after the commencement of Longwall 20 are shown on
Charts 39 to 44. For comparison, plots showing the 12 month sliding means for the same water quality
parameters at control site WOWQ2 are shown on Charts 45 to 47. Each plot shows the baseline mean plus one
standard deviation value.
The 12 month sliding means exceeded the mean plus one standard deviation value for dissolved aluminium,
dissolved iron and dissolved manganese at site WRWQ9. The 12 month sliding mean did not exceed the mean
plus one standard deviation value at site ETWQ2.
The 12 month sliding mean for dissolved aluminium at the control sampling site WOWQ2 also marginally
exceeded the baseline mean plus one standard deviation value during the review period. There was however no
exceedance of the dissolved iron or manganese baseline mean plus one standard deviation value at the
WOWQ2 control site.
00482778 66

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 39
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Aluminium Concentrations at WRWQ9
on Waratah Rivulet
Chart 40
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Iron Concentrations at WRWQ9 on
Waratah Rivulet
00482778 67

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 41
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Manganese Concentrations at WRWQ9
on Waratah Rivulet
Chart 42
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Aluminium Concentrations at ETWQ2
on Eastern Tributary
00482778 68

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 43
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Iron Concentrations at ETWQ2 on
Eastern Tributary
Chart 44
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Manganese Concentrations at ETWQ2
on Eastern Tributary
00482778 69

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 45
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Aluminium Concentrations at WOWQ2
on Woronora River
Chart 46
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Iron Concentrations at WOWQ2 on
Woronora River
00482778 70

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 47
Twelve Month Sliding Geometric Mean of Dissolved Manganese Concentrations at WOWQ2
on Woronora River
At sampling site WRWQ9, the 12 month sliding mean for dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese exceeded
the baseline mean plus one standard deviation value during the review period. Specifically, there were seven
exceedances of the dissolved aluminium value, 12 exceedances of the dissolved iron value and five
exceedances of the dissolved manganese value. There were no exceedances of the baseline mean plus one
standard deviation value at Eastern Tributary site ETWQ2.
There was a marginal exceedance of the dissolved aluminium baseline mean plus one standard deviation value
at control site WOWQ2 on Woronora River.
These results indicate that the sliding 12 month means for dissolved aluminium, dissolved iron and dissolved
manganese at site WRWQ9 exceeded the baseline mean plus one standard deviation during the review period
and that because there were not similar exceedances of the same measure at the control site, the performance
indicator was exceeded.
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, if data analysis indicates the performance indicator has been
exceeded or is likely to be exceeded, an assessment is made against the following subsidence impact
performance measure.
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
Negligible reduction to the quality of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir.
As the performance indicators for dissolved aluminium, dissolved iron and dissolved manganese were exceeded
an assessment against the subsidence impact performance measure has been conducted.
The performance measure was assessed by considering if the change in water quality is not negligible (i.e. small
and unimportant, so as to be not worth considering). The performance measure is considered to have been
exceeded if analysis of the monitoring results confirms that the Project has resulted in a greater than negligible
reduction in the quality of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir.
00482778 71

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The assessment of whether the performance measure has been exceeded (i.e. whether the Project has resulted
in a greater than negligible reduction in the quality of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir)
included the following considerations:
• Whether the dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations which resulted in the exceedance
are high relative to historical concentrations observed in other sites on Waratah Rivulet.
• Whether the dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations are high relative to historical
concentrations measured in other watercourses contributing to inflows to Woronora Reservoir.
• Whether the dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations exceed the SCA’s bulk water supply
agreement values for aluminium (0.4 mg/L), iron (1 mg/L) and manganese (0.1 mg/L).
The assessment of these considerations of significance is provided below.
Historically Recorded Dissolved Aluminium, Iron and Manganese Concentrations at Upstream Sites on Waratah
Rivulet
Site WRWQ9 is located on Waratah Rivulet downstream of the current longwall operations near the inflow to
Woronora Reservoir. There are a number of other monitoring sites on Waratah Rivulet, including WRWQ1,
WRWQ2, WRWQ3, WRWQ4, WRWQ5, WRWQ6, WRWQ7 and WRWQ8 (Figure 8). Site WRWQ1 is the most
upstream site with sites WRWQ2, WRWQ3, WRWQ4, WRWQ5, WRWQ6, WRWQ7, WRWQ8 and WRWQ9
being located progressively further downstream. Of these sites, WRWQ9 is the only site located downstream of
Longwalls 20-22 (Figure 8).
A statistical summary of pre-longwall 20 concentrations of dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese recorded
at the upstream sites is provided in Tables 23, 24 and 25 below.
00482778 72

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 23
Summary of Pre-Longwall 20 Recorded Aluminium Concentrations at Upstream Sites on Waratah Rivulet
Statistic WRWQ1 WRWQ2 WRWQ3 WRWQ4 WRWQ5 WRWQ6 WRWQ7 WRWQ8
WRWQ
9
Number of Observations 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 29
Maximum (mg/L) 0.082 0.095 0.065 0.076 0.066 0.054 0.047 0.049 0.055
Minimum (mg/L) 0.006 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.004
Mean (mg/L) 0.028 0.031 0.021 0.021 0.020 0.016 0.014 0.014 0.019
Standard Deviation (mg/L) 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.011 0.012
Mean + 2 Standard Deviations (mg/L) 0.065 0.067 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.040 0.033 0.036 0.043
Median (50 th percentile) (mg/L) 0.022 0.026 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.018
80 th percentile (mg/L) 0.037 0.043 0.030 0.026 0.027 0.023 0.019 0.018 0.023
90 th percentile (mg/L) 0.055 0.052 0.036 0.036 0.041 0.025 0.023 0.030 0.037
Table 24
Summary of Pre-Longwall 20 Recorded Iron Concentrations at Upstream Sites on Waratah Rivulet
Statistic WRWQ1 WRWQ2 WRWQ3 WRWQ4 WRWQ5 WRWQ6 WRWQ7 WRWQ8 WRWQ9
Number of Observations 50 46 50 50 48 49 51 51 50
Maximum (mg/L) 1.30 1.40 1.00 0.82 2.90 0.50 1.60 0.92 0.39
Minimum (mg/L) 0.17 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.03
Mean (mg/L) 0.65 0.45 0.29 0.38 0.32 0.21 0.56 0.26 0.18
Standard Deviation (mg/L) 0.30 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.40 0.14 0.37 0.17 0.09
Mean + 2 Standard Deviations (mg/L) 1.26 0.91 0.73 0.80 1.13 0.49 1.30 0.60 0.37
Median (50 th percentile) (mg/L) 0.61 0.42 0.26 0.36 0.26 0.18 0.46 0.22 0.17
80 th percentile (mg/L) 0.92 0.58 0.38 0.58 0.39 0.35 0.72 0.38 0.27
90 th percentile (mg/L) 1.1 0.70 0.53 0.67 0.44 0.40 1.20 0.44 0.30
00482778 73

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 25
Summary of Pre-Longwall 20 Recorded Manganese Concentrations at Upstream Sites on Waratah Rivulet
Statistic WRWQ1 WRWQ2 WRWQ3 WRWQ4 WRWQ5 WRWQ6 WRWQ7 WRWQ8 WRWQ9
Number of Observations 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 29
Maximum (mg/L) 0.250 0.180 0.300 1.000 0.340 0.210 0.350 0.380 0.069
Minimum (mg/L) 0.041 0.050 0.052 0.053 0.043 0.030 0.061 0.074 0.016
Mean (mg/L) 0.117 0.099 0.149 0.162 0.114 0.092 0.153 0.153 0.039
Standard Deviation (mg/L) 0.059 0.036 0.058 0.169 0.057 0.036 0.066 0.061 0.016
Mean + 2 Standard Deviations (mg/L) 0.236 0.171 0.264 0.500 0.228 0.163 0.284 0.275 0.071
Median (50 th percentile) (mg/L) 0.110 0.094 0.135 0.130 0.100 0.085 0.140 0.145 0.036
80 percentile (mg/L) 0.164 0.128 0.196 0.180 0.124 0.114 0.212 0.190 0.055
90 percentile (mg/L) 0.196 0.152 0.219 0.190 0.144 0.130 0.231 0.210 0.064
00482778 74

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
It is apparent that the aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations at upstream sampling sites have been
higher than those which triggered the exceedance at WRWQ9. Significantly, aluminium, iron and manganese
concentrations at sampling sites upstream of Longwalls 20-22 have been substantially higher than those which
triggered the exceedance at WRWQ9 over the post-Longwall 20 period.
Comparative plots of dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations at sites on Waratah Rivulet
(WRWQ1 to WRWQ9) are shown in Charts 48, 49 and 50 below. It is apparent that the dissolved aluminium,
iron and manganese concentrations at WRWQ9, which appear as the black line on the charts, have generally
been lower than those measured at the other upstream sites along Waratah Rivulet.
Chart 48
Comparison of Monitored Aluminium Concentrations along Waratah Rivulet
00482778 75

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 49
Comparison of Monitored Iron Concentrations along Waratah Rivulet
Chart 50
Comparison of Monitored Manganese Concentrations along Waratah Rivulet
Historically Recorded Dissolved Aluminium, Iron and Manganese Concentrations in Woronora River
The dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations in Waratah Rivulet (WRWQ9) and Woronora
River (WOWQ2) over the pre and post-Longwall 20 mine period are shown on Charts 51, 52 and 53 below.
00482778 76

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 51
Comparison of Dissolved Aluminium Concentrations at WRWQ9 (Waratah
Rivulet downstream) and WOWQ2 (Woronora River downstream)
Dissolved aluminium concentrations in Waratah Rivulet at site WRWQ9 have been lower than the corresponding
dissolved aluminium concentrations in Woronora River at control site WOWQ2 during the review period.
Dissolved aluminium concentrations in Waratah Rivulet at site WRWQ9 peaked in February 2012 and have
decreased toward the latter part of the review period. Transient spikes in dissolved aluminium have also been
observed in Woronora River at higher concentrations than those observed in Waratah Rivulet which suggests
similar and higher concentrations occur in streams unaffected by mining.
Chart 52
Comparison of Dissolved Iron Concentrations at WRWQ9 (Waratah Rivulet
downstream) and WOWQ2 (Woronora River downstream)
00482778 77

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Dissolved iron concentrations in Waratah Rivulet at site WRWQ9 have been higher than the corresponding
dissolved iron concentrations in Woronora River at control site WOWQ2 during the review period. Dissolved iron
concentrations have decreased in Waratah Rivulet at site WRWQ9 during the latter part of the review period.
The peak concentration recorded in April 2012 was similar to dissolved iron concentrations recorded at the
control site on Woronora River in February 2011. This suggests that spikes in iron of similar magnitudes occur in
streams unaffected by mining. It is also consistent with the expected effects of mining resulting in transient
spikes in dissolved iron outlined in the EA.
Chart 53
Comparison of Dissolved Manganese Concentrations at WRWQ9 (Waratah Rivulet
downstream) and WOWQ2 (Woronora River downstream)
Dissolved manganese concentrations in Waratah Rivulet at site WRWQ9 have been higher than the
corresponding dissolved manganese concentrations in Woronora River at control site WOWQ2 during the review
period. Dissolved manganese concentrations have decreased in Waratah Rivulet at site WRWQ9 during the
latter part of the review period. The peak concentration recorded in March 2012 was similar to dissolved iron
concentrations recorded at the control site on Woronora River in February 2009. This suggests that spikes in
manganese of similar magnitudes occur in streams unaffected by mining. It is also consistent with the expected
effects of mining resulting in transient spikes in dissolved manganese as outlined in the EA.
Comparison of Dissolved Aluminium, Iron and Manganese Concentrations at WRWQ9 against the SCA’s Bulk
Water Supply Agreement Values
It is understood that the SCA’s Bulk Water Supply Agreement provides for an aluminium concentration below
0.4 mg/L, an iron concentration below 1 mg/L and a manganese concentration below 0.1 mg/L. The maximum
value of aluminium, iron and manganese during the review period was 0.07 mg/L (9/2/2012), 1 mg/L (3/4/2012)
and 0.1 mg/L (23/3/2012), respectively. These concentrations are at or below the respective Bulk Water Supply
Agreement concentrations.
Conclusion
In summary, an analysis of the monitoring results shows that:
• There is little evidence to conclude that the exceedance of dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese at site
WRWQ9 would have resulted in a greater than negligible reduction in the quality of the water resources
reaching the Woronora Reservoir.
• Significantly higher concentrations of dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese were observed upstream on
Waratah Rivulet during the same period.
00482778 78

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• Equivalent or higher dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations have been observed in
Woronora River at site WOWQ2 during the exceedance period or on prior occasions.
• The maximum dissolved aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations recorded during the review period
were at or below the respective Bulk Water Supply Agreement concentrations.
On the basis of the assessment above, it is concluded that the performance measure requiring negligible
reduction to the quality of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir was not exceeded. During the next
review period, the analysis against the performance measure will be peer reviewed by a specialist approved by
the DP&I and the results will be reported to DP&I, SCA and OEH in accordance with the Water Management
Plan.
Independent Peer Review of 2011 Annual Review Analysis against the Performance Measure
During the 2011 Annual Review period, there was an exceedance of the subsidence impact performance
indicator for the quality of water entering the Woronora Reservoir for dissolved iron at site WRWQ9 on Waratah
Rivulet. In accordance with the Water Management Plan an assessment was made against the subsidence
impact performance measure, Negligible reduction to the quality of water resources reaching the Woronora
Reservoir, and the results of the assessment were presented in the 2011 Annual Review. The assessment
concluded that the performance measure had not been exceeded.
In accordance with the Water Management Plan, an independent peer review of the assessment was conducted
by Evans & Peck (2012), a specialist approved by the DP&I, and the results were reported to DP&I, SCA and
OEH. The findings of the independent review were consistent with the 2011 Annual Review, concluding:
The analysis undertaken for this review confirms the conclusion in the 2011 Annual Review that there is
little evidence to conclude that the exceedance of the geometric mean plus one log-standard deviation of
dissolved iron concentration at Site WRWQ9 would have resulted in a greater than negligible reduction in
the quality of the water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir.
3.3.3.3 Connective Cracking between the Surface and the Mine
Analysis against Performance Indicator 1
Performance Indicator 1:
Visual inspection does not identify abnormal water flow from the goaf,
geological structure, or the strata generally.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if visual inspections identify abnormal water flow
from the goaf, geological structure, or the strata generally.
The mine inspections did not identify any abnormal water flows from the goaf, geological structure, or strata.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
Analysis against Performance Indicator 2
Performance Indicator 2:
The 20-day average mine water make does not exceed 2 ML/day.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if data analysis indicates the 20 day average
mine water make exceeds 2 ML/day.
The 20 day average daily mine water make was 0.084 ML/day.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
00482778 79

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Analysis against Performance Indicator 3
Performance Indicator 3:
Significant departures from the predicted envelope of vertical potentiometric
head profiles at Bores 9FGW1B and 9GGW1B do not occur.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the measured potentiometric head profile is
inconsistent in shape or lies significantly to the left of the predicted high-inflow model curve.
Site 9FGW1B is located approximately 600 m west of Longwall 21 and site 9GGW1B is located over
Longwall 22B. The vertical head profiles measured at the end of the review period (31 July 2012) are presented
in Charts 54 and 55 and compared with simulated profiles at the end of Longwall 21. Measurements taken one
year earlier are included to show the change in head over the review period.
Three of the piezometers at site 9FGW1B have been responding slowly and have been increasing towards true
equilibrium values (Chart 54). The piezometer in the Wombarra Shale has stabilised during the review period,
but the two tardy piezometers in the lower Hawkesbury Sandstone and the Bald Hill Claystone are still increasing
slowly. The piezometer in the Bulli Coal seam has now stabilised at a higher head (Chart 54). When allowance
is made for the piezometers that have not reached their final head values, the agreement between measured and
simulated head profiles is quite good. The measured data are more closely aligned with heads calculated using
the low-inflow model.
0
50
100
150
200
POTENTIOMETRIC HEAD [mAHD]
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
9FGW1
Measured 31-July-2011
Measured 28-July-2012
High-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Low-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Stratigraphy
Increasing
Increasing
HBSS
BHCS
BGSS
0
50
100
150
200
DEPTH [m]
250
300
350
250
300
350
400
SPCS
400
450
SBSS
450
500
Increasing
WMSH
CCSS
BUCO
500
550
600
[Model][SURFACT][LW20-22]
550
Verify_9FGW1_litho_Sep2012.grf
Prediction_LW20-22.xls!9FGW1
[MultiPiezos] Lithology.xls!9FGW1
[SURFACT] Vertical Heads Sep2012!9FGW1
600
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Chart 54
Measured and Simulated Potentiometric Head Profiles at Indicator
Site 9FGW1B
00482778 80

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
0
50
100
POTENTIOMETRIC HEAD [mAHD]
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
9GGW1
Measured 31-July-2011
Measured 29-July-2012
High-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Low-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Stratigraphy
HBSS
0
50
100
150
200
BHCS
BGSS
150
200
DEPTH [m]
250
300
250
300
350
350
400
450
SPCS
SBSS
WMSH
400
450
500
550
CCSS
BUCO
WWCO LOSS
[Model][SURFACT][LW20-22]
500
Verify_9GGW1_litho_Sep2012.grf
Prediction_LW20-22.xls!9GGW1
[MultiPiezos] Lithology.xls!9GGW1
[SURFACT] Vertical Heads Sep2012!9GGW1
550
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Chart 55
Measured and Simulated Potentiometric Head Profiles at Indicator
Site 9GGW1B
As shown in Section 3.3.2 (Chart 16), site 9GGW1B has undergone sudden reductions in head in the lowermost
seven piezometers in the final month of the review period due to the passage of the Longwall 21 face. The
maximum head variation is about 50 m. Chart 55 shows instantaneous measured heads at 31 July 2011 and 29
July 2012, bracketing the review period. The measured profiles agree well with the simulated profiles except at
the higher elevations in the Bald Hill Claystone and the Hawkesbury Sandstone. The higher elevations in the
Hawkesbury Sandstone are not considered significant but they indicate that the model requires re-calibration in
the upper layers. The measured data are more closely aligned with heads calculated using the high-inflow
model.
In an effort to better match the responses in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, a sub-model consisting only of the
Hawkesbury Sandstone and the Bald Hill Claystone was established for re-calibration, with the number of model
layers representing the Hawkesbury Sandstone increased from three to five. The calibrated model properties
were then incorporated into the full model (expanded from 13 to 15 layers), and high-flow and low-flow model
variants were re-run for the effect of Longwalls 20-22.
Charts 56 and 57 show the simulated vertical head profiles at the end of Longwall 21 using the partially recalibrated
model compared with the measured head profiles at the start and end of the review period. There is a
clear improvement in the simulation of Hawkesbury Sandstone heads, especially for the high-flow model, but
further re-calibration (using deeper head data) is warranted.
00482778 81

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
0
50
100
POTENTIOMETRIC HEAD [mAHD]
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
9FGW1
Measured 31-July-2011
Measured 28-July-2012
High-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Low-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Stratigraphy
HBSS
0
50
100
150
150
BHCS
200
BGSS
200
DEPTH [m]
250
300
350
250
300
350
400
SPCS
400
450
SBSS
450
500
Increasing
WMSH
CCSS
BUCO
500
550
600
[Model][SURFACT][LW20-22]
550
Verify_9FGW1_litho_Sep2012_recalib.grf
Prediction_LW20-22_NA.xls!9FGW1
[MultiPiezos] Lithology.xls!9FGW1
[SURFACT] Vertical Heads Sep2012!9FGW1
600
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Chart 56
Measured and Simulated Potentiometric Head Profiles at Indicator
Site 9FGW1B using a Partially Re-Calibrated Model
0
50
100
POTENTIOMETRIC HEAD [mAHD]
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
9GGW1
Measured 31-July-2011
Measured 29-July-2012
High-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Low-Flow Model Prediction [LW21]
Stratigraphy
HBSS
0
50
100
150
200
BHCS
BGSS
150
200
DEPTH [m]
250
300
250
300
350
350
400
450
SPCS
SBSS
WMSH
400
450
500
550
CCSS
BUCO
WWCO LOSS
[Model][SURFACT][LW20-22]
500
Verify_9GGW1_litho_Sep2012_recalib.grf
Prediction_LW20-22_NA.xls!9GGW1
[MultiPiezos] Lithology.xls!9GGW1
[SURFACT] Vertical Heads Sep2012!9GGW1
550
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Chart 57
Measured and Simulated Potentiometric Head Profiles at Indicator
Site 9GGW1B using a Partially Re-Calibrated Model
00482778 82

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, if data analysis indicates a performance indicator has been
exceeded or is likely to be exceeded, an assessment will be made against the following subsidence impact
performance measure.
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
No connective cracking between the surface and the mine.
The performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
Analysis against Performance Indicator 4
Performance Indicator 4:
The water tables measured at Bores 9FGW1B and 9GGW1B are higher
than the water levels of streams crossed by a transect along Longwall 22
(i.e. a hydraulic gradient exists from each bore to the nearest watercourse).
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the 7-day average potentiometric head at the
water table piezometer is less than the surface water level for one week.
The 7-day average groundwater levels in the uppermost piezometers in the Hawkesbury Sandstone at sites
9FGW1B and 9GGW1B are presented in Chart 58. The water level at 9FGW1B is 30 m higher than the
elevation of the nearest downgradient watercourse (Tributary B). At 9GGW1B, the water level is 65-70 m higher
than Tributary A (to its west) and 45-50 m higher than Eastern Tributary (to its east). The performance indicator
was not exceeded during the review period.
300
300
290
LW20 START
LW21 START
290
280
280
270
270
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
[7-Day Average]
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
Tributary B
Eastern Tributary
Tributary A
Waratah Rivulet
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
WATER LEVEL
9FGW1B [Piezo 55m][255.8mAHD]
9GGW1B [Piezo 45m][242.85mAHD]
Transect Creek Levels
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
[MultiPiezos]
TransectLW22Check_b.grf,
TransectLW22Check.xls!Upper_HBSS
StartDates.xls
190
180
170
160
1-Apr-09
31-May-09
31-Jul-09
30-Sep-09
30-Nov-09
30-Jan-10
1-Apr-10
1-Jun-10
1-Aug-10
DATE
Chart 58 7-day Average Shallow Hawkesbury Sandstone Groundwater Levels at Sites 9FGW1B and
9GGW1B
30-Sep-10
30-Nov-10
30-Jan-11
1-Apr-11
1-Jun-11
1-Aug-11
1-Oct-11
1-Dec-11
30-Jan-12
31-Mar-12
31-May-12
00482778 83

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
However, it is likely that the shallowest piezometer at 9GGW1 is recording a perched water table, while 9FGW1B
is recording the regional water table. This conclusion is reached by comparing pressure head versus depth
profiles with the hydrostatic head profile. For this reason, another transect (Chart 59) has been drawn for deeper
piezometers in the Hawkesbury Sandstone. In this case, the water level at 9FGW1B is about 10-15 m higher
than the elevation of the nearest downgradient watercourse (Tributary B). At 9GGW1B, the water level is 25-
30 m higher than Tributary A (to its west) and about 7-10 m higher than Eastern Tributary (to its east). This
confirms that the performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
300
290
LW20 START
LW21 START
300
290
280
280
270
270
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
[7-Day Average]
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
Tributary B
Eastern Tributary
Tributary A
Waratah Rivulet
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
WATER LEVEL
9FGW1B [Piezo 74m][237.3mAHD]
9GGW1B [Piezo 60m][228.35mAHD]
Transect Creek Levels
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
[MultiPiezos]
TransectLW22Check_c.grf,
TransectLW22Check.xls!Lower_HBSS
StartDates.xls
190
180
170
160
1-Apr-09
31-May-09
31-Jul-09
30-Sep-09
30-Nov-09
30-Jan-10
1-Apr-10
1-Jun-10
1-Aug-10
DATE
Chart 59 7-day Average Deeper Hawkesbury Sandstone Groundwater Levels at Sites 9FGW1B and
9GGW1B
30-Sep-10
30-Nov-10
30-Jan-11
1-Apr-11
1-Jun-11
1-Aug-11
1-Oct-11
1-Dec-11
30-Jan-12
31-Mar-12
31-May-12
The transect in Chart 60 provides an illustration of relative ground and water levels. This shows clearly that the
performance indicator has not been breached.
00482778 84

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
320
A
Honeysuckle
Creek
A'
320
300
300
ELEVATION [mAHD]
280
260
240
220
200
9FGW1
[Data][Shallow GW]
TransectA.grf, .dat
Transects.xls!LineA
Piezo 55m
Piezo 74m
Tributary B
Tributary B
9GGW1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
DISTANCE [m]
from Origin E308000, N6215800
Waratah Rivulet
Tributary A
Perched
Piezo 45m
Piezo 60m
Eastern
Tributary
280
260
240
220
200
Chart 60 Topographic Transect A-A' and Hawkesbury Sandstone Water Levels at 31 July 2012
3.3.3.4 Leakage from the Woronora Reservoir
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
The groundwater head of Bores 9GGW2B and PM02 is higher than the
water level of Woronora Reservoir (i.e. a hydraulic gradient exists from the
bores to the Woronora Reservoir).
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the 7-day average potentiometric head at the
uppermost piezometer is less than the reservoir water level for one week.
The 7-day average groundwater levels in the uppermost piezometers in the Hawkesbury Sandstone at sites
9GGW2B and PM02 are presented in Chart 61. A comparison of PM02 and 9GGW2B with the maximum
possible Woronora Reservoir water level shows a clearance of 25 m to 35 m at 9GGW2B during the review
period and more than 65 m at PM02.
00482778 85

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
250
LW20 START
LW21 START
250
240
240
230
230
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
[7-Day Average]
220
210
200
190
WATER LEVEL
PM02 [Piezo 35m][232.35mAHD]
9GGW2B [Piezo 55m][185.78mAHD]
Maximum Reservoir
Start Review Period
Longwall Starts
220
210
200
190
180
180
170
160
[MultiPiezos]
LakeCheck_b.grf,
LakeCheck.xls!UpperHBSS
StartDates.xls
170
160
1-Jan-08
1-Mar-08
1-May-08
1-Jul-08
31-Aug-08
31-Oct-08
31-Dec-08
2-Mar-09
2-May-09
1-Jul-09
31-Aug-09
31-Oct-09
31-Dec-09
2-Mar-10
2-May-10
2-Jul-10
DATE
1-Sep-10
31-Oct-10
31-Dec-10
2-Mar-11
2-May-11
2-Jul-11
1-Sep-11
1-Nov-11
1-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-May-12
1-Jul-12
Chart 61 7-day Average Groundwater Levels at Sites 9GGW2B and PM02
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, if data analysis indicates the performance indicator has been
exceeded or is likely to be exceeded, an assessment will be made against the following subsidence impact
performance measure.
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure: Negligible leakage from the Woronora Reservoir.
The performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
3.3.3.5 Woronora Reservoir Water Quality
Metropolitan Coal has sourced surface water quality data for the Woronora Reservoir (site DW01), Cataract
Reservoir (site DCA1) and Nepean Reservoir (site DNE1) from the SCA in accordance with a data exchange
agreement. Consistent with the monitoring of water reaching the Woronora Reservoir (Section 3.3.3.2), the
water quality data has been analysed for key water quality parameters of relevance to water supply and the
effects of subsidence, namely:
• iron;
• manganese; and
• aluminium.
Water quality data from site DW01 collected following the commencement of Longwall 20 is analysed against
monitoring data collected at site DW01 prior to the commencement of Longwall 20 and against water quality data
collected from the Nepean Reservoir at site DNE1. Data from the Cataract Reservoir were also sourced from the
SCA and considered in the analysis of reservoir water quality.
00482778 86

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
Changes in the quality of water in the Woronora Reservoir are not significantly different post-mining
compared to pre-mining concentrations that are not also occurring in the Nepean Reservoir (control site).
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if data analysis indicates a statistically
significant change in the quality of water post-mining, specifically if:
• any water quality parameter’s exceed the baseline mean plus 2 standard deviations for two consecutive
months; or
• the sliding 12 month mean for any water quality parameter exceeds the baseline mean plus 1 standard
deviation; and
• there was not a similar increase in the same measure at the control site.
Charts 62 to 64 show the water quality results for total aluminium, total iron and total manganese at sites DCA1
(Cataract Reservoir), DNE1 (Nepean Reservoir) and DW01 (Woronora Reservoir). The data show that total iron
and total manganese have been higher in the Cataract Reservoir and Nepean Reservoir than in Woronora
Reservoir whilst the opposite is true for total aluminium. There is no visual evidence of a trend in Woronora
Reservoir, Nepean Reservoir or Cataract Reservoir in any of these parameters over the period of available data.
Chart 62 Total Aluminium Concentrations in Cataract Reservoir, Nepean Reservoir and Woronora
Reservoir
00482778 87

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 63 Total Iron Concentrations in Cataract Reservoir, Nepean Reservoir and Woronora Reservoir
Chart 64 Total Manganese Concentrations in Cataract Reservoir, Nepean Reservoir and Woronora
Reservoir
Charts 65 to 67 show the concentrations of total aluminium, total iron and total manganese recorded at DC01 in
the Woronora Reservoir after the commencement of Longwall 20 compared to the baseline mean plus 2
standard deviations.
Metropolitan Coal was unable to access sufficient data from the SCA under the data exchange agreement to
conduct an assessment of the performance indicator prior to the 2011 Annual Review. Therefore, the
assessment below represents the first reporting of analysis against the performance indicator.
00482778 88

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The reservoir water quality data provided by the SCA did not correspond to a monthly time series, rather
sampling had been conducted at various time increments with the most common being at weekly intervals.
Rather than discarding or averaging data to form a monthly data set all data provided has been used in the
analysis. In interpreting the results of the data analysis an exceedance of the indicator is considered to have
occurred if there were two or more observations which exceed the mean plus 2 standard deviations over a period
exceeding four weeks (28 days).
Chart 65 Total Aluminium Concentrations Woronora Reservoir Compared to Baseline Mean Plus 2
Standard Deviations
There was a small isolated exceedance in total aluminium toward the end of the review period. However,
because there were no exceedances over consecutive observations the performance indicator was not
exceeded.
Chart 66 Total Iron Concentrations Woronora Reservoir Compared to Baseline Mean Plus 2 Standard
Deviations
00482778 89

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
As total iron concentrations have remained below the baseline mean plus 2 standard deviations over the review
period, the performance indicator was not exceeded.
Chart 67 Total Manganese Concentrations Woronora Reservoir Compared to Baseline Mean Plus 2
Standard Deviations
There was a small isolated exceedance of total manganese concentration relative to the baseline mean plus 2
standard deviations value during the current review period, however because there were no exceedances over
consecutive observations the performance indicator was not exceeded.
There was also an exceedance of total manganese concentration in the previous review period. These
exceedances occurred on three consecutive occasions comprising the 1, 9 and 16 of June 2011. Because this is
shorter time span than a single month there was no exceedance of the indicator.
Charts 68 to 70 show the 12 month moving average concentrations for total aluminium, total iron and total
manganese recorded at site DW01 in the Woronora Reservoir after the commencement of Longwall 20. Each
plot shows the baseline mean plus 1 standard deviation value. Because the data supplied by the SCA does not
correspond to a monthly sampling period the 12 month moving averages were calculated using all data over 12
month periods. The moving averages were advanced incrementally for each water quality record to form the
moving average sequence.
00482778 90

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 68 Twelve Month Moving Average Total Aluminium Concentration in Woronora Reservoir
Compared to Baseline Mean plus 1 Standard Deviation
Chart 69 Twelve Month Moving Average Total Iron Concentration in Woronora Reservoir Compared to
Baseline Mean plus 1 Standard Deviation
00482778 91

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 70 Twelve Month Moving Average Total Manganese Concentration in Woronora Reservoir
Compared to Baseline Mean plus 1 Standard Deviation
The 12 month moving average total manganese in Woronora Reservoir at DC01 exceeded the baseline mean
plus 1 standard deviation value from the 23/6/2011 to the 1/3/2012.
The 12 month moving average total manganese in the Nepean Reservoir and Cataract Reservoir compared to
the baseline mean plus 1 standard deviation are shown on Charts 71 and 72 below. The 12 month moving
average total manganese concentration in the Nepean Reservoir at DNE1 and in the Cataract Reservoir at DCA1
did not exceed the baseline mean plus 1 standard deviation.
Chart 71 Twelve Month Moving Average Total Manganese in Nepean Reservoir Compared to Baseline
Mean plus 1 Standard Deviation
00482778 92

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 72 Twelve Month Moving Average Total Manganese in Cataract Reservoir Compared to Baseline
Mean plus 1 Standard Deviation
Because the 12 month moving average total manganese concentration exceeded the baseline mean plus 1
standard deviation criterion and there was not a similar exceedance at the control site in the Nepean Reservoir,
the performance indicator has been exceeded.
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, if data analysis indicates the performance indicator has been
exceeded or is likely to be exceeded, an assessment is made against the following subsidence impact
performance measure.
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
Negligible reduction in the water quality of Woronora Reservoir
As the performance indicator was exceeded during the review period, an assessment against the subsidence
impact performance measure was conducted. The performance measure was assessed by considering if the
change in water quality is not negligible (i.e. small and unimportant, so as to be not worth considering). The
performance measure is considered to have been exceeded if analysis of the monitoring results confirms that the
Project has resulted in a greater than negligible reduction in the water quality of the Woronora Reservoir.
The assessment of whether the performance measure has been exceeded (i.e. whether the Project has resulted
in a greater than negligible reduction in the water quality of the Woronora Reservoir) included the following
considerations:
• Whether the manganese concentrations which resulted in the exceedance are high relative to historical
concentrations observed in the Woronora Reservoir.
• Whether the manganese concentrations which resulted in the exceedance are high relative to historical
concentrations observed in other water supply storages since the commencement of Longwall 20 (i.e.
Nepean and Cataract).
• Whether the manganese concentrations exceed either the SCA’s bulk water supply agreement value for
manganese (less than 0.1 mg/L).
00482778 93

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The assessment of these considerations of significance is summarised below.
Historically Recorded Manganese Concentrations in Woronora Reservoir
Chart 73 shows the total manganese concentrations recorded in Woronora Reservoir at DC01 historically and
over the review period. The total manganese concentration which caused the exceedance of the 12 month
moving average occurred just prior to the start of the review period (there being a lag effect associated with the
moving average). The maximum recorded total manganese concentration of 0.1 mg/L occurred on 14/7/2011.
This concentration of total manganese has only been observed once prior to 14/7/2011 at DC01. There were
lower spikes in total manganese recorded at DC01 during the review period and similar spikes are evident in the
historical record between July 1988 and February 1992. This suggests the manganese concentrations during
the review period have been experienced on numerous occasions prior to the commencement of Longwall 20.
Chart 73 Historical Total Manganese Concentrations in Woronora Reservoir at Sampling Site DC01
Recorded Manganese Concentrations in the Woronora, Nepean and Cataract Reservoirs since Commencement
of Longwall 20
Chart 74 shows the total manganese concentrations recorded in the Woronora, Nepean and Cataract Reservoirs
from the commencement of Longwall 20.
00482778 94

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 74 Total Manganese Concentrations in Woronora, Nepean and Cataract Reservoirs since
Commencement of Mining Longwall 20
Total manganese concentrations have been higher in both the Cataract and Nepean Reservoirs than in the
Woronora Reservoir over this period. The pattern of higher values before the start of the review period (i.e. from
March to July 2011), a reduction in manganese concentrations until about February 2012 before they increased
to May 2012, followed by generally decreasing concentrations is evident in both the Woronora and Cataract data.
This pattern may reflect a climatic/hydrological response and does not suggest a mine related influence. There
were no data observations for the Nepean Reservoir between the 1/3/2012 and the end of the review period
(31/7/2012). The pattern and magnitude of total manganese concentrations in the Nepean Reservoir up to
1/3/2012 was however generally similar to both the Woronora and Cataract Reservoirs.
Comparison of Total Manganese Concentrations in the Woronora Reservoir against the SCA’s Bulk Water
Supply Agreement Values
It is understood that the SCA’s Bulk Water Supply Agreement provides for a manganese concentration below
0.1 mg/L. A maximum manganese concentration of 0.1 mg/L was recorded just prior to the review period (on
14/7/2011). During the review period, a maximum total manganese concentration of 0.068 mg/L was recorded
on the 10/5/2012, which are both within the SCA’s Bulk Water Supply Agreement levels.
Conclusion
In summary, an analysis of the monitoring results shows that:
• There is little evidence to conclude that the exceedance at site DC01 in the Woronora Reservoir would
have resulted in a greater than negligible reduction in the water quality of the Woronora Reservoir.
• Equivalent and higher manganese concentrations have been observed in the Cataract Reservoir and
Nepean Reservoir during the exceedance period and/or on prior occasions.
• It is understood that the Bulk Water Supply Agreement value applicable to supply from Woronora Reservoir
for manganese is 0.1 mg/L and that the highest recorded observation in Woronora Reservoir is not
considered significant in relation to that limit.
On the basis of the assessment above, it is concluded that the performance measure requiring negligible
reduction in the water quality of Woronora Reservoir was not exceeded. During the next review period, the
analysis against the performance measure will be peer reviewed by a specialist approved by the DP&I and the
results will be reported to DP&I, SCA and OEH.
00482778 95

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.3.3.6 Waratah Rivulet Downstream of Maingate 23
Table 1 of the Project Approval requires the Project to result in:
Negligible environmental consequences (that is, no diversion of flows, no change in the natural drainage
behaviour of pools, minimal iron staining and minimal gas releases) on the Waratah Rivulet between the
full supply level of the Woronora Reservoir and the maingate of Longwall 23 (upstream of Pool P).
Pools P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W on the Waratah Rivulet are located approximately 390 m, 600 m, 740 m, 980 m,
1,080 m, 1,350 m and 1,460 m downstream from the maingate of Longwall 22, respectively. The methods used
to assess the performance of the Project against the subsidence impact performance measure are described
below.
No Diversion of Flows or Change in the Natural Drainage Behaviour of Pools
Pool P terminates by flowing through and below its rock bar. Pool P (Figure 7) will be visually inspected on a
weekly basis when mining is within 400 m of the pool to observe whether any change to the natural drainage
behaviour of the pool has occurred.
Observations will include:
• evidence of new cracking within the stream bed or rock bar;
• whether the pond continues to flow through and below its rock bar; and
• whether surface flow is evident along the length of Pool P prior to flowing through/below its rock bar.
As at the end of the review period mining had not advanced to within 400 m of Pool P.
The water depth in Pools P, Q, R and S on the Waratah Rivulet (Figure 7) and at control pools WRP1, WRP2,
WRP3 and WRP4 on the Woronora River is continuously monitored using a water depth sensor and logger.
Assessment against Performance Indicators
Visual inspections of Pool P will be conducted on a weekly basis when mining is within 400 m of the pool and
assessed against the following performance indicator:
No change to the natural drainage behaviour of Pool P. Specific indicators include: no new cracking in
the stream bed of Pool P or rock bar; continual flow through/below the rock bar of Pool P such that
water is ponded upstream; and continual surface water flow along the length of Pool P.
The performance indicator will be considered to have been exceeded if the natural drainage behaviour is altered
such that either: mining induced cracking is evident in the stream bed or rock bar of Pool P; or water ceases to
be ponded upstream of the rock bar; or surface flow ceases along the length of Pool P. If visual observation
indicates a potential impact to the natural drainage behaviour of Pool P on the Waratah Rivulet, then pools
downstream, and the control pools on the Woronora River (i.e. Pools WRP1, WRP2, WRP3 and WRP4) will be
inspected and an assessment will be made against the subsidence impact performance measure.
Water level data for Pool P will also be downloaded monthly and assessed against the following performance
indicator:
Analysis of water depth data for Pool P (when mining is within 400 m of Pool P) indicates the water
depth is at or above the pool’s previous minimum (i.e. when mining is beyond 400 m of Pool P).
The performance indicator will be considered to have been exceeded if the water depth in Pool P (when mining is
within 400 m of Pool P) has been below the pool’s previous minimum (i.e. when mining is beyond 400 m of
Pool P). If data analysis indicates the water depth in Pool P (when mining is within 400 m of Pool P) has been
below the pool’s previous minimum (i.e. when mining is beyond 400 m of Pool P), pools downstream on Waratah
Rivulet and the control pools on Woronora River will be analysed and an assessment will be made against the
performance measure.
00482778 96

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Although mining has not been within 400 m of Pool P during the review period, Chart 75 shows the pool water
levels since the commencement of Longwall 20.
Chart 75 Pool P Water Level
The earlier monitoring data for Pool P showed evidence of daily temperature fluctuations which are
superimposed on the recorded water level data. These oscillations were also measured at other pool water level
data at Metropolitan Coal during the same period. The data loggers were upgraded which substantially reduced
temperature effects. The later monitored data, including the period after the commencement of Longwall 20,
indicates that water in Pool P has remained ponded upstream of the rock bar since the commencement of mining
of Longwall 20.
Water level data for Pools Q, R and S will also be downloaded monthly and assessed against the following
performance indicator:
Analysis of water depth data for Pools Q, R and S on Waratah Rivulet indicates the water depths are
above that required to maintain water over the downstream rock bar.
The performance indicator will be considered to have been exceeded if the water depth in Pools Q, R or S has
been below that required to maintain water over the downstream rock bar. If data analysis indicates water depths
in Pools Q, R or S have been below that required to maintain water over the downstream rock bar, pools
downstream on the Waratah Rivulet and the control pools on Woronora River will be analysed and an
assessment will be made against the subsidence impact performance measure. Mining has not been within
400 m of Pool P during the review period and thus assessment against the above performance indicators will be
undertaken in future Annual Reviews.
Assessment against Performance Measure
The performance measure, negligible environmental consequences (that is, no diversion of flows, no change in
the natural drainage behaviour of pools ….), will be considered to have been exceeded if analysis of water depth
data indicates that changes in the drainage behaviour are statistically different from:
• pre-mining conditions (i.e. when mining is greater than 400 m from the pool); and
• the behaviour of downstream unaffected pools;
as a result of the Project and the change in drainage behaviour cannot be explained by climatic conditions.
00482778 97

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Mining has not been within 400 m of Pool P during the review period and thus assessment against the above
performance measure will be undertaken, as necessary, in future Annual Reviews.
Minimal Gas Releases
Visual and photographic surveys of the Waratah Rivulet downstream of maingate 23 to the Woronora Reservoir
full supply level are conducted monthly until subsidence of Waratah Rivulet is less than 20 mm/month, and
thereafter within three months of the completion of each longwall.
Assessment against Performance Indicator
Consistent with the Water Management Plan, the visual surveys will be used to assess whether the following
performance indicator has been exceeded:
No gas releases observed at Pool P on the Waratah Rivulet.
Pool P will be monitored for gas releases on a monthly basis when subsidence is greater than 20 mm/month.
The performance indicator will be considered to have been exceeded if gas releases are observed at Pool P on
the Waratah Rivulet.
Subsidence at Pool P has not been greater than 20 mm/month during the review period. Opportunistic visual
inspections of Pool P have not observed any gas releases.
If the visual surveys indicate the performance indicator has been exceeded, an assessment will be made against
the subsidence impact performance measure.
Assessment against Performance Measure
The performance measure, minimal gas releases, will be assessed by considering if the gas releases observed
have resulted in greater than minimal gas releases.
The performance measure is exceeded if analysis of the monitoring results confirms that the Project has resulted
in greater than minimal gas releases on the Waratah Rivulet downstream of maingate 23. As described above,
the performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
3.3.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
At this stage the implementation of the Water Management Plan and associated management processes are
considered to be adequate.
3.3.5 Further Initiatives
In the next review period the measurement of the moisture content of ROM coal conveyed out of the mine at the
drift portal using the automated moisture scanner will be fully automated.
The analysis against the watercourse subsidence impact performance measures, Negligible reduction to the
quality of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir and Negligible reduction in the water quality of
Woronora Reservoir, included in this Annual Review will be peer reviewed by a specialist approved by the DP&I
and the results will be reported to the DP&I, SCA and OEH in accordance with the WMP.
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Water Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual Review, to
the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I. The Water Management Plan will be revised so that the
assessment of Performance Indicator 4 for connective cracking between the surface and the mine is consistent
with the approach to data analysis. Currently, Performance Indicator 4 indicates a transect (i.e. a spatial
indicator), while assessment of the performance indicator indicates a time series check (i.e. a temporal indicator).
The assessment of the performance indicator will be updated to reflect the spatial indicator.
00482778 98

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.4 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.4.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Biodiversity Management Plan has been prepared to manage the potential
environmental consequences of the Extraction Plan on aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna, with a specific
focus on swamps, in accordance with Condition 6, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval.
3.4.2 Monitoring
3.4.2.1 Upland Swamp Vegetation Monitoring
Eight upland swamps, viz. Swamps 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 have been mapped above or immediately
adjacent to Longwalls 20-22 (Figure 12). A swamp substrate characterisation study has also been conducted to
contribute to Metropolitan Coal’s understanding of the ecological, hydrological and geomorphic processes of
swamps over Longwalls 20-22.
With the exception of in-valley Swamp 20, which supports tea tree thicket, all swamps over Longwalls 20-22 are
small valley side swamps and comprise restioid heath, with intergrades with banksia thicket. Transitions
between restioid heath and banksia thicket are thought to be driven by fire frequency.
Three swamps (Swamps 16, 17 and 23), although showing seepage, are more akin to sandstone heath
woodland with low tree densities. The vegetation contains species found in upland swamps, mixed with a range
of non-swamp species.
Swamps 101, 111a and 125 have been selected as control sites for the restioid heath/banksia thicket valley side
swamps (Figure 12) and Swamps Woronora River 1, Woronora River South Arm and Dahlia Swamp have been
selected as control sites for the tea tree thicket vegetation of Swamp 20 (Figure 13).
The upland swamp vegetation monitoring program includes visual monitoring, transect/quadrat monitoring and
monitoring of indicator species, as described below.
Visual Inspections
Visual inspections are conducted monthly for the period of time that Longwalls 20, 21 or 22 is within 400 m of a
swamp to record evidence of potential subsidence impacts. During the review period, Swamps 16/17, 18 and 20
were inspected monthly by Metropolitan Coal when mining was within 400 m of these swamps.
Visual inspections of the swamps overlying and immediately adjacent to Longwalls 20-22 and at the control
swamps are also conducted at the same time as the vegetation surveys. During the review period, visual
inspections were conducted in spring 2011 and autumn 2012 by Eco Logical Australia. These visual inspections
have been conducted bi-annually since spring 2009.
Traverses covering the majority of the extent of the swamp are conducted to record:
• cracking of exposed bedrock areas and/or swamp sediments;
• areas of increased erosion, particularly along any existing drainage lines;
• any changes in water colour;
• changes in vegetation condition, including areas of senescing vegetation that appear unusual; and
• the amount of seepage at the time of inspection, relative to recent rainfall events.
Photographs of any cracking, erosion, water colour changes and vegetation senescence are taken concurrently
with a description of the magnitude and extent of the observations, and appropriate global positioning system
(GPS) readings. Seepage is documented by photographs of flow over exposed surfaces.
00482778 99

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
No major cracking of exposed bedrock areas (including areas where water flow was evident) or swamp
sediments was observed during the visual inspections by Metropolitan Coal of Swamps 16/17, 18 and 20. No
areas of erosion (with the exception of Fire Road 9C where heavy rain had scoured the roadside), changes in
water colour or changes in vegetation condition (e.g. unusual vegetation dieback) were observed.
Traverses covering the majority of the extent of each swamp were conducted in spring 2011 and autumn 2012,
and the following provides a summary of the visual observations.
Spring 2011
• No cracking of exposed bedrock areas or swamp sediments was observed in either longwall or control
swamps, other than what has been reported previously in baseline surveys in longwall Swamps 17 and 23,
and the rock displacement in longwall Swamp 24 (Eco Logical Australia, 2011).
• Areas of minor erosion were observed in several of the upland swamps and adjacent areas, specifically
sheet erosion of bare areas within longwall Swamp 24 and control Swamp 111a, rill and gully erosion along
the tracks which run adjacent to longwall Swamps 16, 17, 23 and 26, and scour of the banks of small
drainage lines which run through longwall Swamp 20 and control Swamp 125. These areas represent both
the continuation of previously observed erosion patterns as well as new areas of erosion. In all instances
the areas of erosion were relatively minor and are thought to be related to the increased rainfall prior to and
during spring 2011.
• No changes in water colour were observed in either longwall or control swamps, and no new areas of water
ponding were recorded. Water colour presented clear.
• Generally, the vegetation of both longwall and control swamps was found to be in good condition, with
flowering, fruiting and new growth observed for many species. The only exception to the generally good
condition of swamp vegetation was small patches of senescent mid-layer vegetation observed in areas
adjacent to exposed bedrock in the lower portions of some of the restioid heath swamps (longwall Swamps
17, 18 and 23). As reported in autumn 2011, the cause of this senescence is thought to be the frequent or
continued inundation of the shallow sediments in these areas as a result of wet conditions observed in
autumn 2011. The area of vegetation affected remained unchanged from autumn 2011. Similar patterns of
vegetation senescence have been observed in other upland swamps beyond the current mining area (for
example Swamps 19, 30, 137 and 137b).
• Small patches of senescent vegetation recorded during the baseline surveys at the end of Transect 3 in
longwall Swamp 25 and between Transects 1 and 2 in control Swamp 125 (Eco Logical Australia, 2010),
were found to have diminished in area with adjacent healthy vegetation encroaching into the patches of
senescent vegetation.
• Minor dieback of scattered individuals of Banksia ericifolia subsp. ericifolia, Petrophile pulchella and
Xanthorrhoea resinosa were observed in both longwall and control swamps. There appeared to be no
pattern to the occurrence of this dieback particularly as adjacent individuals of the same species were found
to be good condition. The cause of dieback is unknown but it has been observed to occur in the same
species across other areas of the study area and is not confined to those areas that have been undermined.
• Seepage areas were commonly observed across terminal steps and other rocky areas throughout longwall
and control sites.
• No weed species were observed within any of the upland swamps inspected.
Autumn 2012
• No cracking of exposed bedrock areas or swamp sediments was observed in either longwall or control
swamps, other than what has been reported previously in longwall Swamps 17 and 23, and the rock
displacement in longwall Swamp 24 by the baseline surveys (Eco Logical Australia, 2010).
• Small areas of minor increased erosion were observed in the bare areas of longwall Swamp 17 in addition to
areas previously identified. Also, rill and gully erosion was observed in the table drains adjacent to longwall
Swamps 16 and 17. Minor sheet-wash erosion was observed in longwall Swamp 24 and along walking trail
9J adjacent to longwall Swamp 26, and the drainage line downstream of longwall Swamp 20, and minor
bank scour was observed within the drainage channel which runs through control Swamp 125. The
observed erosion was thought to be the result of heavy rainfall events in late summer.
00482778 102

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• No changes in water colour observed in either longwall or control swamps, and there were no new areas of
water ponding.
• Small areas of iron staining in saturated sediments, and associated metallic sheens to water surfaces were
observed in seepage areas at several sites including longwall Swamp 20; and control Swamps 101 and 125.
The amount and extent was the same for both longwall and control sites and is likely to be a natural
occurrence as a result of the above average period of rainfall during 2011 and 2012, raising iron containing
groundwater. The water colour under the areas of metallic surface sheens was found to be clear.
• In general, vegetation of both longwall and control swamps was found to be in good condition. Sites
containing previously recorded small patches of vegetation senescence (longwall Swamps 17, 18 and 23)
were re-inspected during autumn 2012. No further senescence was found in these areas, and in some
instances adjacent vegetation was found to be opportunistically encroaching into these areas.
• Minor dieback of scattered individuals such as Banksia ericifolia subsp. ericifolia, Petrophile pulchella and
Hakea teretifolia were observed in both longwall and control swamps (for example within longwall Swamps
18 and 25, and control Swamps 101 and 125). Some of these have been recorded during previous surveys.
• Seepage areas were commonly observed across terminal steps and other rocky areas throughout longwall
and control sites. In both longwall and control sites, soil sediments were generally damp to saturated, and
areas of standing water were common. The amount of water observed within the swamps is most likely
attributable to the above average rainfalls of the preceding months.
• No weed species were observed within any of the upland swamps inspected.
Transect/Quadrat Monitoring
Transect and quadrat monitoring has been conducted in spring 2011 and autumn 2012 of:
• restioid heath vegetation – in Swamps 16, 17, 18, 24 and 25 overlying Longwalls 20-22, and in control
Swamps 101, 111a and 125 (Figure 12); and
• tea tree thicket vegetation – in Swamp 20 overlying Longwalls 20-22, and in control swamps Woronora
River 1, Woronora River South Arm and Dahlia Swamp (Figures 12 and 13).
Longwall Swamps 16 and 17 (restioid heath/sandstone heath woodland) were added to the vegetation monitoring
program in autumn 2010 (Figure 12).
Each swamp has been monitored with three transects, with the exception of tea tree thicket control Swamps
Woronora River 1, Woronora River South Arm and Dahlia Swamp, where only a single transect has been
established owing to the much larger size of the control swamps.
For the restioid heath swamps, assessments have been made on 1 square metre (m 2 ) quadrats centred on the
transect line every 5 m starting from 0 m. For the tea tree thicket swamps, assessments have been made on
1 m 2 quadrats located upslope of the transect line with one quadrat edge located on the line as a means of
avoiding the impacts of vegetation trampling as a result of access into these thickly vegetated swamps. As for
restioid heath swamps, assessments are made every 5 m starting from 0 m.
The data collected for each quadrat includes:
• vegetation structure;
• dominant species;
• estimated cover and height for each stratum;
• full floristics;
• estimated cover abundance for each species using seven point Braun-Blanquet scale; and
• condition/health rating for each species in the quadrat 4 .
4
Condition Rating: Healthy – 5; Minor dieback – 4; Some dead branches – 3; Many dead stems – 2; Severe
damage/dieback – 1.
00482778 103

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Permanent photo points have been established along each transect.
The results of the transect/quadrat monitoring surveys for spring 2011 and autumn 2012 are provided in the
following sections.
Vegetation Structure, Cover Abundance and Condition
Spring 2011
• The vegetation structure, dominant species and estimated cover and abundance for each stratum in spring
2011 was variable when compared to the autumn 2011 data. Overall, the vegetation within upland swamps
appeared to be increasing in height and density, when compared to previous seasons, though this pattern
was not uniform across individual quadrats or seasons, with both increases and decreases in vegetation
height and cover recorded in individual quadrats. This broad trend is supported by the data collected as
part of visual observations for each of the swamps where overall increases in vegetation height and new
growth on individual species (e.g. Banksia ericifolia subsp. ericifolia, Hakea teretifolia) were observed (e.g.
longwall Swamps 23 and 24, and control Swamps 111a and 125).
• The cover abundance of individual species in spring 2011 continued to fluctuate between seasons and
between sites, when compared to previous seasons. No species, or groups of species, were observed to
have undergone any major increase or decrease in cover abundance during spring 2011.
• Fluctuations in vegetation condition were recorded at both longwall and control sites. Generally, vegetation
at all sites was in a healthy condition (Condition 5). Minor dieback (Condition 4) to some dead branches
(Condition 3) was noted in scattered individuals of a number of species at all longwall and control sites.
Such species included the shrubs, Petrophile pulchella, Banksia oblongifolia, Banksia ericifolia subsp.
ericifolia, Acacia longifolia subsp. longifolia, Symphionema paludosum, Sprengelia incarnata and Viminaria
juncea, and the ground-cover species, Chordifex fastigiatus, Lepidosperma filiforme, Schoenus brevifolius,
and Lepyrodia scariosa.
Autumn 2012
• The vegetation structure, dominant species and estimated cover and abundance for each stratum in
autumn 2012 was relatively consistent with that observed in spring 2011 suggesting that the trend of
increased height and percentage cover, which was observed in spring 2011, may have slowed. This data is
supported by observational data which only noted increased vegetation height and density at control
Swamp 101.
• Fluctuating cover values were recorded at both longwall and control sites. No patterns of increasing or
decreasing cover abundance were identified in relation to individual species across sites or groups of
species (i.e. riparian species, generalist species, shrubs, ground covers) within sites.
• Fluctuations in vegetation condition were recorded at both longwall and control sites. Generally, vegetation
at all sites was in a healthy condition. Minor dieback (Condition 4) to some dead branches (Condition 3)
was noted in occasional individuals of a number of species at all longwall and control sites. Such species
included Gleichenia microphylla, Actinotus minor, Schoenus brevifolius, Chorizandra cymbaria,
Lepidosperma filiforme, Chordifex fastigiata, C. dimorpha, Symphionema paludosum, Petrophile pulchella
and Dillwynia floribunda.
The changes in vegetation structure, cover abundance and condition are thought to reflect normal population
variation and cycles in response to seasonal variations and plant growth.
Analysis of Vegetation Cover Abundance and Condition – Valley Side Swamps
Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was used to examine the differences in vegetation cover/abundance over time
between the longwall and control sites for each season, and the results are presented in Table 26.
00482778 104

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 26
Revised Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Cover/Abundance in Valley Side Swamps
(Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Season R statistic p-value
Spring 2009 (B) 0.188 0.017
Autumn 2010 (B) 0.068 0.189
Spring 2010 0.124 0.071
Autumn 2011 0.064 0.208
Spring 2011 0.076 0.150
Autumn 2012 0.019 0.383
(B) – baseline monitoring surveys
The results for spring 2009 to autumn 2011 presented in Table 26 are different to results presented in past
reports (Eco Logical Australia, 2010 and 2011). This is because the method for calculating the mean cover
abundance for each species was revised for this analysis. In this analysis, the mean cover abundance and
vegetation condition score for each species was calculated across all quadrats within each transect. For
previous analyses (Eco Logical Australia, 2010 and 2011) the average was calculated only for those quadrats in
which each species was present. Whilst the previous methodology was valid, the inclusion of calculating the
averages across all quadrats provides a more robust analysis.
The results of the revised ANOSIM for all survey periods were similar to those previously presented (Eco Logical
Australia, 2010 and 2011), that is, a significant difference was observed in spring 2009, prior to the
commencement of longwall mining with no significant difference observed in any other season. The magnitude
of the difference between treatments has reduced over time as evidenced by the R statistic, indicating that the
longwall and control treatments have become more similar and that there have not been any significant
differences in the vegetation cover/abundance between the longwall and control swamps since spring 2009.
Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was also used to examine the differences in vegetation condition over time
between the longwall and control sites for each season, and the results are presented in Table 27. As for the
cover/abundance data, results from spring 2009 to autumn 2011 presented in this report are different from those
presented previously due to the revised methodology for calculating the condition for each species in each
transect.
Table 27
Revised Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Condition
(Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Season R statistic p-value
Spring 2009 (B) 0.176 0.012
Autumn 2010 (B) 0.153 0.046
Spring 2010 0.165 0.039
Autumn 2011 0.142 0.069
Spring 2011 0.112 0.108
Autumn 2012 0.072 0.233
(B) – baseline monitoring surveys
The results of the revised ANOSIM for all survey periods were similar to those previously presented (Eco Logical
Australia, 2010 and 2011), that is, significant differences for vegetation condition were observed in spring 2009,
autumn 2010 and spring 2010, with no significant differences observed in autumn 2011, spring 2011 or autumn
2012. As for vegetation cover/abundance, the magnitude of the difference has reduced over time as evidenced
by the R statistic. This indicates that the longwall and control sites have become more similar and that there
have not been any significant differences in the vegetation condition between the longwall and control swamps
since spring 2010.
00482778 105

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Species Richness
A summary of species richness within swamp quadrats recorded since spring 2009 is provided in Table 28 and
Chart 76.
Table 28
Species Richness in Upland Swamps in
Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012
Site
Spring
2009
Autumn
2010
Spring
2010
Autumn
2011
Spring
2011
Autumn
2012
Swamp 16 RH/SSW - 64 68 67 59 61
Swamp 17 RH/SSW - 66 64 63 66 70
Swamp 18 RH 59 55 44 59 60 57
Swamp 24 RH 57 62 56 63 56 60
Swamp 25 RH 54 57 61 53 53 52
Swamp 101 RH 66 51 59 56 57 52
Swamp 111a RH 59 62 65 59 60 54
Swamp 125 RH 62 64 64 58 61 54
Swamp 20 TTT 45 39 40 39 41 30
Woronora River 1 TTT 24 23 19 20 20 20
Woronora South Arm TTT 29 30 29 26 28 29
Dahlia Swamp TTT 24 25 24 22 23 23
RH: restioid heath TTT: tea tree thicket SSW: sandstone woodland
Chart 76 Species Richness in Upland Swamp Sites in Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010,
Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012
00482778 106

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
As previously reported, the drier valley side swamps supporting restioid-heath vegetation are more floristically
diverse with 44 – 70 (mean = 59.3) species recorded. The wetter tea tree thicket swamps are less diverse with
19 – 45 species recorded (mean = 28.0). This difference in floristic diversity is consistent with previous studies
within upland swamp vegetation (Keith and Myerscough, 1993), where swamps with less fertile soils and
increased light penetration to the ground layer (drier valley side sites) are more floristically diverse than the
wetter, more densely vegetated in-valley tea tree thicket sites.
Of the tea tree thickets, longwall Swamp 20 is the most diverse (45 species recorded to date) compared to the
remaining tea tree thicket swamps (control Swamps Woronora 1, Woronora River South Arm and Dahlia Swamp)
where between 19 and 30 species have been recorded to date.
Spring 2011
• Species richness was relatively stable from autumn 2011 to spring 2011 with minor increases (differences
of less than 3 species) observed at most swamps.
• The exceptions to this general pattern occurred for longwall Swamps 16 and 24 where species richness
declined by 8 and 7 species, respectively. The decline in species richness at Swamp 24 appeared to follow
a seasonal pattern with species richness ranging from 62 - 63 in autumn surveys and 56 - 57 in spring
surveys where less common species were recorded in one or two quadrats only during the autumn surveys.
The decline in species richness at Swamp 16 did not appear to be related to any observable pattern or
trend.
Autumn 2012
• Species richness was variable in autumn 2012 when compared to spring 2011.
• Decreases in species richness were recorded at all valley side control swamps (Swamps 101, 111a, 125)
between spring 2011 to autumn 2012 while small increases and decreases were recorded at longwall
swamps. Over all seasons, there does not appear to be any increasing or decreasing trends in species
richness for valley side swamps between seasons or between survey periods.
• Within the tea tree thicket sites, similar patterns of species richness have occurred at control swamps
across all previous seasons. However, at longwall Swamp 20, a notable decrease in species richness was
recorded in autumn 2012. A total of 30 species was recorded compared to 41 in spring 2011. From the
data however, species richness in Swamp 20 generally tends to be lower in the autumn survey periods
when compared to the spring surveys (Table 28), possibly representing seasonal differences. Species not
recorded during autumn 2012 included more cryptic species such as Drosera peltata, Drosera binata,
Utricularia sp. and Selaginella uliginosum.
Analysis of Species Richness
Upland swamp sites were split into two groups for analysis on the basis of their floristic differences: valley side
swamps (restioid heath) and tea tree thicket swamps.
For the valley side swamp sites, species richness data were analysed for each season using analysis of variance
(ANOVA). No significant differences between longwall and control sites were recorded for any season (spring
2009 [p=0.086], autumn 2010 [p=0.672] spring 2010 [p=0.501], autumn 2011 [p=0.341], spring 2011 [p=0.866] or
autumn 2012 [p=0.085]). Mean species richness for longwall and control sites are presented in Chart 77.
00482778 107

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 77 Mean Species Richness in Valley Side Swamps – Spring 2009 to Autumn 2012
As there is only one tea tree thicket longwall site, the data was not analysed using ANOVA. Instead, a graphical
representation of the data is presented in Chart 78. Longwall Swamp 20 was floristically more diverse than the
tea tree thicket control swamps, across all seasons, and this was most likely due to the proximity of adjacent
eucalypt woodland vegetation communities and the occurrence of species from these communities in Swamp 20.
Chart 78 Mean Species Richness in Tea Tree Thicket Swamps – Spring 2009 to Autumn 2012
00482778 108

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Indicator Species Monitoring
Population monitoring of indicator species were continued in spring 2011 and autumn 2012.
Twenty tagged individuals of Epacris obtusifolia, Sprengelia incarnata and Pultenaea aristata have been
monitored in each of the following valley side swamps, commencing spring 2009:
• Epacris obtusifolia – longwall Swamps 18, 24 and 25 and control Swamps 101, 111a and 125.
• Sprengelia incarnata – longwall Swamp 24 and control Swamps 101 and 125.
• Pultenaea aristata – longwall Swamps 18, 24 and 25 and control Swamps 101 and 111a. Note, survey of
Pultenaea aristata in Swamp 24 commenced in autumn 2010.
Twenty tagged individuals of Banksia robur, Callistemon citrinus and Leptospermum juniperinum have also been
monitored in longwall Swamp 20 and at the associated control sites (Woronora River 1, Woronora River South
Arm and Dahlia Swamp).
Population monitoring data collected includes a condition/health rating and a reproductive rating for each plant.
The following provides a summary of the results of population monitoring for spring 2011 and autumn 2012.
Condition
Spring 2011
• The condition of tagged plants at all valley side swamp sites and tea tree thicket sites has progressively
declined since 2009, and continued to decline in spring 2011. Thus, an increase in the number of plants
with some level of dieback (Conditions 1 to 4) was recorded, with a subsequent decrease in the number of
tagged plants recorded in a healthy condition (Condition 5). The exceptions to this were:
– Banksia robur in longwall Swamp 20 where the number of species in a healthy condition increased; and
– Leptospermum juniperinum in longwall Swamp 20 where the number of species in a healthy condition
remained stable.
• For those species and swamps where declines were observed, the declines were relatively small in spring
2011 except for Epacris obtusifolia and Pultenaea aristata in longwall swamps where moderate declines in
the number of healthy individuals were recorded.
• Given the condition of tagged plants have declined at both longwall and control sites, the declines are
considered to represent natural declines in response to climatic conditions, ageing plants and natural
disturbances such as inclement weather conditions, and are not thought to be related to the mining of
longwalls 20-22.
• As in previous seasons, of the three species in valley side swamps, Sprengelia incarnata at both longwall
and control sites has undergone the greatest decrease in overall condition since monitoring began, followed
to a lesser degree by Pultenaea aristata and Epacris obtusifolia. The decline in condition for Sprengelia
incarnata is often due to individuals presenting with leaf dieback on the lower stems. This species is
typically found with this habit throughout all sites and probably reflects the normal growth form of this
species.
• Eight tagged individuals of the valley side swamp indicator species were observed to be dead or to have
severe dieback (Condition 1) during spring 2011, with seven of these individuals previously observed in the
same condition, namely:
– Tag J6 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 18 (also dead in autumn 2011).
– Tag J17 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 18 (condition 5 in autumn 2011, dead in spring 2011).
– Tag J28 Pultenaea aristata in control Swamp 101 (condition 1 in autumn 2011).
– Tag K26 Sprengelia incarnata in control Swamp 101 (dead in spring 2010).
– Tags K52 and K58 Sprengelia incarnata in longwall Swamp 24 (dead in autumn 2011).
– Tags J86 and J98 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 24 (dead in autumn 2011).
00482778 109

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• One individual, Pultenaea aristata J97 in longwall Swamp 24, was recorded as dead in autumn 2011, but
was observed to be in good condition in spring 2011 having re-sprouted.
• Of the three monitored species within tea tree thickets, Banksia robur and Callistemon citrinus underwent
the greatest decrease in overall condition, followed to a lesser degree by Leptospermum juniperinum. The
decline in condition for tea tree thicket indicator species was generally associated with some level of leaf
herbivory (commonly Banksia robur), leaf discolouration (commonly Callistemon citrinus) or some loss of
leaves (commonly Leptospermum juniperinum). These recorded declines were common to both longwall
and control sites.
• No further dead individuals were recorded in tea tree thicket swamps in spring 2011 (Tag A64 Banksia
robur in control swamp Dahlia Swamp was recorded as dead in spring 2010). One individual, tag A58
Banksia robur in Woronora Swamp, was relocated in spring 2011 after not being found in autumn 2011 due
to the increased height and density of the surrounding Gleichenia microphylla.
Autumn 2012
• The decline in the condition of indicator species continued in autumn 2012, with decreases in the number of
plants in a healthy condition recorded at all valley side swamp sites and tea tree thicket sites, with the
exception of the following species:
– Epacris obtusifolia in longwall swamps;
– Pultenaea aristata in longwall swamps; and
– Banksia robur in control swamps.
• For those species and swamps where declines were observed, the declines were relatively small with the
exception of Banksia robur and Leptospermum juniperinum in longwall Swamp 20 where a greater
decrease in the number of healthy individuals occurred. This decrease in condition was largely attributable
to increased foliage herbivory in Banksia robur and shading of lower branches in Leptospermum
juniperinum.
• The continued decrease in the proportion of healthy plants at valley side swamps occurred at both longwall
and control sites and thus is considered to represent natural declines in response to climatic conditions,
ageing plants and natural disturbances such as inclement weather conditions.
• Similar to spring 2011, of the three species in valley side swamps, Sprengelia incarnata at both longwall
and control sites underwent the greatest decrease in overall condition since monitoring began, followed to a
lesser degree by Pultenaea aristata and Epacris obtusifolia. The decline in condition for Sprengelia
incarnata was recorded at both longwall and control sites across all seasons and was due to individuals
presenting with leaf dieback on the lower stems. This species is typically found with this habit throughout
all sites and likely reflects the normal growth form of this species.
• A total of 15 individuals of the tagged valley side swamp indicator species were recorded as dead or in
condition 1 (Severe dieback) during autumn 2012 including nine individuals which were recorded as dead
for the first time in autumn 2012, namely:
– Tag J1 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 18.
– Tags K41, K45 and K49 Sprengelia incarnata in longwall Swamp 24.
– Tag L95 Epacris obtusifolia in longwall Swamp 25.
– Tags K23, K25, K33 and L34 Sprengelia incarnata in control Swamp 101.
• Six individuals, recorded as dead in autumn 2012, had been recorded as dead in previous seasons,
namely:
– Tag J17 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 18 (dead in spring 2011).
– Tag J6 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 18 (dead in autumn 2011).
– Tags K52 and K58 Sprengelia incarnata in longwall Swamp 24 (dead in autumn 2011).
– Tags J86 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 24 (dead in autumn 2011).
– Tag K26 Sprengelia incarnata in control Swamp 101 (dead in spring 2010).
00482778 110

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• Two individuals observed to be dead in spring 2011 (Tag J28 Pultenaea aristata in control swamp 101 and
Tag J98 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 24) were observed to be in good condition in autumn 2012
having re-sprouted.
• Of the three monitored species within tea tree thickets, Leptospermum juniperinum and Banksia robur in
longwall Swamp 20 underwent the greatest decline in overall condition. The decline in condition for tea tree
thicket indicator species was generally associated with some level of leaf herbivory (commonly Banksia
robur), leaf discolouration (commonly Callistemon citrinus) or some loss of leaves (commonly
Leptospermum juniperinum). These causes for recorded declines in condition were common to both
longwall and control sites.
• No further dead individuals were recorded in tea tree thicket sites in autumn 2012 (Tag A64 Banksia robur
in control swamp Dahlia Swamp was recorded as dead in spring 2010).
Reproductive Rating
Similar to previous seasons very little flowering was detected in spring 2011 and autumn 2012, as recorded in
the reproductive scale 5 . The infrequent flowering of most species was generally recorded at both longwall and
control sites and across all seasons. Exceptions to this were:
• Epacris obtusifolia – commonly recorded flowering in control swamps and less frequently in longwall
swamps during baseline surveys in spring 2009; and
• Sprengelia incarnata – commonly recorded flowering at both longwall and control sites in autumn 2012.
The infrequent recording of flowering plants of indicator species is thought to be related to the timing of surveys
not coinciding with peak flowering periods. As flowering was infrequent across all seasons (including baseline
surveys) and at both control and longwall swamps, the infrequent flowering of swamp indicator species does not
appear to have been caused by mining of Longwalls 20-22.
Analysis of the Proportion of Plants Surviving
For the spring 2011 survey one individual was found to have died as follows:
• Tag J17 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 18.
No tagged individuals were found to have died in any other longwall or control swamp monitoring sites during
spring 2011.
For the autumn 2012 survey nine dead individuals of the tagged valley side swamp indicator species were
recorded, five within longwall sites and four within control sites as follows:
• Tag J1 Pultenaea aristata in longwall Swamp 18.
• Tags K41, K45 and K49 Sprengelia incarnata in longwall Swamp 24.
• Tag L95 Epacris obtusifolia in longwall Swamp 25.
• Tags K23, K25, K33 and L34 Sprengelia incarnata in control Swamp 101.
Due to the low occurrence of plant deaths no statistical analyses (e.g. ANOVA) were undertaken for this
assessment.
Analysis of Differences in Health Ratings and Reproductive Ratings
Charts 79 to 81 present means and 95% confidence intervals for vegetation condition and reproductive status for
the selected indicator species in the valley side swamp sites. Charts 82 to 84 present the means and 95%
confidence intervals for vegetation condition and reproductive status for the selected indicator species in the tea
tree thicket swamp sites. The autumn 2011 data for Epacris obtusifolia, Pultenaea aristata and Leptospermum
juniperinum were re-analysed as a result of a transposition error between reproductive status and condition
values, and are reflected in Charts 79, 80 and 83, respectively.
5
Reproductive Scale: High (75-100% of potential flowering) – 5; Moderate (25-75% of potential flowering) – 4; Low (under
25% of potential flowering) – 3; Sparse (occasional flowers only) – 2; nil – 1.
00482778 111

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 79
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Mean Reproductive Status (RS) for the
indicator species, Epacris obtusifolia. NB: Includes revised results for autumn 2011
Chart 80
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Mean Reproductive Status (RS) for the
Indicator Species, Pultenaea aristata. NB: Includes revised results for autumn 2011
00482778 112

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 81
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Mean Reproductive Status (RS) for the
Indicator Species, Sprengelia incarnata
Chart 82
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Mean Reproductive Status (RS) for the
Indicator Species, Banksia robur
00482778 113

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 83
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Mean Reproductive Status (RS) for the
Indicator Species, Callistemon citrinus
Chart 84
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Mean Reproductive Status (RS) for the
Indicator Species, Leptospermum trinervium. NB: Includes revised results for autumn 2011
00482778 114

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
In general, vegetation condition was similar for selected indicator species at both longwall and control sites, as
indicated by overlapping confidence intervals.
Instances where the confidence intervals for vegetation condition did not overlap may indicate significant
differences. However these potential differences are unlikely to indicate changes relating to mining as it was
more common for mean vegetation condition to be higher (healthier) at longwall sites than control sites.
As for vegetation condition, reproductive status was generally similar for each indicator species in each season,
as indicated by overlapping confidence intervals (Charts 79 to 82). Where confidence intervals did not overlap, it
was more common for reproductive status to be higher at longwall sites than control sites.
3.4.2.2 Upland Swamp Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring of upland swamps has involved the use, where practicable, of paired (shallow and deep)
piezometers. Where a shallow piezometer has not been practicable to install due to the depth of the swamp
sediments, deeper piezometers have been installed. Monitoring commenced in August 2010 at piezometers
installed in the following upland swamps (Figures 9, 12 and 13):
• Valley side Swamp 16 (S16) overlying Longwalls 20-22 (sandstone piezometer to a depth of 10 m).
• Valley side Swamp 17 (S17) overlying Longwalls 20-22 (sandstone piezometer to a depth of 10 m).
• Valley side Swamp 25 (S25) overlying Longwalls 20-22 (swamp substrate piezometer to a depth of 0.9 m
and sandstone piezometer to a depth of 10 m).
• Valley side Swamp 101 (S101) (control - swamp substrate piezometer to a depth of 0.9 m and sandstone
piezometer to a depth of 10 m).
• In-valley Swamp 20 (S20) overlying Longwalls 20-22 (swamp substrate piezometer to a depth of 0.9 m and
sandstone piezometers to depths of 4 and 10 m).
• Headwater Swamp Woronora River 1 (WRSWAMP1) (control - swamp substrate piezometer to a depth of
0.9 m and sandstone piezometers to depths of 4 and 10 m).
Longer-term groundwater level data for upland swamps has been acquired with single swamp substrate
piezometers at sites SWAMP1, SWAMP2 and SWAMP3, and paired piezometers at site SWAMP4 (swamp
substrate) and SWGW1 (sandstone piezometer) (Figure 9).
Chart 85 shows that the perched groundwater levels at SWAMP1, SWAMP2 and SWAMP3 have a highly
dynamic behaviour that is characterised by an immediate response to rainfall events, followed by fairly rapid
recessions as water is lost by evaporation and evapotranspiration. The monitored sites are far from current
mining, and there is no evidence of any change in behaviour due to mining.
The groundwater levels in the paired piezometers at SWAMP4 and SWGW1 and their correlations to rainfall are
shown on Chart 86. The groundwater levels at SWAMP4 are perched and hydraulically isolated from a deeper
perched water table (or the regional water table) in the underlying sandstone aquifer (measured by site
SWGW1).
SWAMP4 is considered to be characteristic of headwater upland swamps in that they typically obtain most of
their moisture from direct rainfall infiltration. The water tables at SWAMP 4 are generally about 3 m apart. There
is a strong correlation between swamp and sandstone water level fluctuations which suggests either direct
leakage from the swamp to the underlying sandstone, and/or direct rain recharge to adjacent sandstone with
lateral groundwater flow to the sandstone beneath the swamp.
00482778 115

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
SWAMP1 & SWAMP3
296
295
294
293
292
291
COLLAR at 295.6 mAHD
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] SW1&2&3_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
SWAMPS
Piezo SWAMP1 [S14]
Piezo SWAMP2 [Bee Ck]
Piezo SWAMP3 [S92]
Rain PV1[Waratah]
COLLAR at 294.7 mAHD
COLLAR at 245.3 mAHD
SWAMP2 GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
248
247
246
245
244
243
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 85
Perched Groundwater Hydrographs in SWAMP 1, SWAMP 2 and SWAMP3
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
344
343
342
341
340
339
338
SWAMP4 COLLAR 344.09
SWGW1 COLLAR 343.74
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
140
120
100
80
60
40
RAINFALL RESIDUAL MASS [mm]
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
337
20
-200
336
0
-300
1-Jul-08
1-Aug-08
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
31-Aug-12
LEGEND
Piezo SWAMP4 [Swamp S06]
Piezo SWGW1 [Hawkesbury Sandstone]
Daily Rainfall (Woronora)
Woronora Residual Mass [PV2]
DATE
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12]SwampS06_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Woronora_Rain.xls!Daily !Resmass
Chart 86 Separation of Water Tables at SWAMP 4
00482778 116

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The residual mass curve is an indicator of rainfall trends. In previous years as the residual mass trends agreed
well with observed groundwater level trends 6 , rainfall is inferred to be the primary driving force. During the review
period, rainfall conditions have been wetter than normal. This has resulted in groundwater levels staying close to
their maximum observed levels, indicating close to full saturation in the swamp. Previously two alternative
mechanisms for recharge to the sandstone have been presented, both lateral recharge from adjacent sandstone
and/or vertical recharge from the overlying swamp. As the water level in the sandstone piezometer does not
continue to rise with the residual mass curve during 2012, it is likely that the sandstone water level is established
by slow downwards leakage of water from the swamp. This conclusion tends to make less likely the alternative
mechanism of direct rain recharge to adjacent sandstone with lateral groundwater flow to the sandstone beneath
the swamp.
The hydrographs at the two control swamps (SWAMP 101 and WRSWAMP1 [Figure 9]) are displayed in
Chart 87 and Chart 88. Both sites showed a pronounced drop in groundwater levels in February 2011,
associated with a rainfall deficit, but there have been mixed responses during the review period. At SWAMP 101,
the water tables are always separated, generally by less than 0.5 m, and groundwater flow direction is
downwards. Water levels have remained close to full saturation levels during the review period. At site
WRSWAMP1, the water level in the swamp (piezometer at 1 m depth) is always lower than the potentiometric
level in the deeper sandstone piezometers. This suggests that the swamp is being recharged by groundwater
from below and possibly from the sides. The swamp piezometer and the 4 m sandstone piezometer show good
connectivity across the swamp/sandstone interface (except during January-March 2012), with separation from
the groundwater head at the 10 m sandstone piezometer which reported rises in water level consistent with
wetter conditions during the review period.
293
COLLAR at 293.44 mAHD
COLLAR at 293.38 mAHD
293
150
140
292.5
292.5
130
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
292
291.5
291
290.5
290
SWAMP S101
Piezo Depth 1m
Piezo Depth 10m
Rain PV1[Waratah]
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
292
291.5
291
290.5
290
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
289.5
289
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] Swamp101_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
289.5
289
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 87 Groundwater Hydrographs at SWAMP 101
6
It is noted that the Woronora Residual Mass curve differs from that presented in previous reporting periods. This has
occurred as the long term monthly means have not yet stabilised due to the limited period of rainfall record. This is
responsible for the unusual residual mass highs occurring from 2012.
00482778 117

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
321
320.5
320
319.5
COLLAR at 321.14 mAHD COLLAR at 321.14 mAHD COLLAR at 321.04 mAHD
SWAMP WRSWAMP1
Piezo Depth 1m
Piezo Depth 4m
Piezo Depth 10m
Rain PV1[Waratah]
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
321
320.5
320
319.5
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
319
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] WRSwamp1_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
319
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 88 Groundwater Hydrographs at WRSWAMP1
Hydrographic responses for the monitored swamps overlying or adjacent to Longwalls 20-22 (Swamp 16,
Swamp 17, Swamp 20 and Swamp 25) are displayed in Charts 89 to 91. All sites showed a pronounced drop in
the swamp substrate and sandstone groundwater levels in February 2011, associated with a rainfall deficit, but
there have been responses during the review period that are inconsistent with a climatic effect. The excavation
front for Longwall 21 passed piezometers S17, S16 and S20 in November 2011, December 2011 and April 2012,
respectively. Clear mining effects are inferred in the sandstone piezometers at S16 and S20, but no immediate
effect was observed at S17. Mining will pass S25 in August 2012.
The piezometer at Swamp 16 is located in weathered Hawkesbury Sandstone at 10 m depth. There is no
companion piezometer in the overlying valley side swamp sediments as they are no more than 36 cm deep
(median 19 cm) and would not sustain a water table. Based on measurements at other sites, especially multilevel
vibrating wire piezometer sites, it is certain that the water table in the sandstone at Swamp 16 is perched.
This means there will be an unsaturated zone, possibly several of them, beneath the monitored elevation until
the regional sandstone water table is encountered.
The water table at Swamp 16 is normally 2.5-4.2 m deep, but from mid-November to mid-December 2011, the
water table dropped 5.2 m to a new depth of about 8 m. The steep decline in water level commenced when the
Longwall 21 face was about 600 m west of the piezometer location, and the water level reached a stable
minimum precisely when the Longwall 21 face was directly beneath the piezometer. The water level has
remained the same for eight months and appears to have reached a new equilibrium level. Despite the decline,
piezometer S16 has not been drained (according to reported surveyed levels and drilled depths). There is still
about 2 m of water in the hole, whereas the previous minimum height of water was about 6 m.
Swamp 17 sandstone water levels were unaffected by passage of the Longwall 21 front. However, there is a
downward trend from January to July 2012 which is inconsistent with climatic trends. This is possibly a postmining
effect.
00482778 118

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
It is likely that the advancing Longwall 21 has caused tensional surficial cracks, known elsewhere at the
Metropolitan Mine to extend to 10-20 m depth, which have opened up the low permeability fine-sandstone base
that supports the monitored perched sandstone water table at Swamp 20. Water has been lost to the
immediately underlying unsaturated zone and will have caused a rise in the elevation of the underlying perched
or regional (unmonitored) water table. This appears to have occurred selectively at Swamp 16 but not at
Swamp 17, which is consistent with the expected randomness of crack locations. However, if the minor postmining
breach at Swamp 17 is a mining effect, this could be explained by the occurrence of tensional surficial
cracks at Swamp 17 after the longwall face has passed.
At Swamp 20, water appears to be infiltrating downwards to a series of perched water tables monitored by
sandstone piezometers at 4 m depth and 10 m depth. The sandstone water levels remained stable during the
review period until April 2012 when the deepest piezometer reacted to the approach and passage of the
Longwall 21 mining face. The water level dropped suddenly by 1.8 m, then rose by 2.8 m, then declined by
about 5 m at the end of the review period. The upper two piezometers (one sandstone and one swamp
substrate) showed no effect but there is evidence of a slight decline in the final month of the review period.
Whether this is a climatic effect or a mining effect cannot be answered at this time.
As Swamp 25 maintains a consistent separation between swamp water levels and the water table level in
sandstone at depth 10 m, water is likely to be infiltrating downwards from the swamp. During the review period,
the deeper water table has risen in response to generally wetter conditions. The Longwall 21 face was about
100 m short of S25 at the end of the review period but no mining effect has occurred at this time.
251
COLLAR at 251.18 mAHD
COLLAR at 240.57 mAHD
241
150
250
240
140
130
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
249
248
247
246
245
244
SWAMPS S16 & S17
S16 [Piezo Depth 10m]
S17 [Piezo Depth 10m]
Rain PV1[Waratah]
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
239
238
237
236
235
234
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
243
242
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] Sw16&17_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
233
232
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 89 Groundwater Hydrographs at Swamps 16 and 17
00482778 119

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
220
220
150
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
219.5
219
218.5
218
217.5
217
216.5
216
215.5
215
214.5
214
COLLAR at 219.28 mAHD
COLLAR at 219.14 mAHD COLLAR at 219.14 mAHD
SWAMP S20
Piezo Depth 1m
Piezo Depth 4m
Piezo Depth 10m
Rain PV1[Waratah]
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] Swamp20_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
219.5
219
218.5
218
217.5
217
216.5
216
215.5
215
214.5
214
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 90 Groundwater Hydrographs Swamp 20
273
COLLAR at 273.15 mAHD
COLLAR at 272.91 mAHD
270
150
140
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
272.5
272
271.5
271
270.5
270
SWAMP S25
Piezo Depth 1m
Piezo Depth 10m
Rain PV1[Waratah]
E:[DATA][Shallow GW]
[1Sep12] Swamp25_Hydrographs.grf
ShallowGW_Aug2008-Aug2012.csv
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
269.5
269
268.5
268
267.5
267
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
31-Aug-08
30-Sep-08
31-Oct-08
30-Nov-08
31-Dec-08
30-Jan-09
2-Mar-09
1-Apr-09
1-May-09
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
30-Jan-10
2-Mar-10
1-Apr-10
2-May-10
1-Jun-10
2-Jul-10
1-Aug-10
1-Sep-10
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31-Jan-11
2-Mar-11
2-Apr-11
2-May-11
1-Jun-11
2-Jul-11
1-Aug-11
1-Sep-11
1-Oct-11
1-Nov-11
1-Dec-11
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
1-Mar-12
1-Apr-12
1-May-12
1-Jun-12
1-Jul-12
1-Aug-12
DATE
Chart 91 Groundwater Hydrographs at Swamp 25
00482778 120

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.4.2.3 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
The riparian vegetation monitoring program includes visual, quadrat, transect and indicator species monitoring of
riparian vegetation on the Waratah Rivulet and Eastern Tributary, as described below.
Visual Inspections
Visual inspections of riparian areas have been conducted in spring 2011 and autumn 2012 in locations adjacent
to riparian vegetation monitoring sites (longwall sites MRIP01, MRIP02, MRIP05, MRIP06 and MRIP09, and
control sites MRIP03, MRIP04, MRIP07, MRIP08 and MRIP10, Figure 14), and areas traversed whilst accessing
the monitoring sites, to record:
• areas of new water ponding;
• any cracking or rock displacement; and
• changes in vegetation condition, including areas of senescing vegetation that appear unusual.
The following provides a summary of the results of visual inspections for spring 2011 and autumn 2012.
Spring 2011
• Cracking of streamside rocky areas at the downstream end of site MRIP01 on the western bank was similar
in appearance and extent to that first reported in autumn 2011. No dieback of vegetation was observed in
areas adjacent to the cracked bedrock. No other cracking of streamside rocky areas or rock displacement
was observed during the spring 2011 survey.
• No cracking of streamside sediments was observed within either longwall or control sites.
• No new areas of water ponding was observed within either longwall or control sites.
• No dieback of vegetation was observed in areas adjacent to the cracked bedrock.
• As previously recorded, flood impacted and senescing vegetation was recorded at all sites, including
evidence of further flooding since the autumn 2011 survey. Most sites were found to have flood-swept
vegetation, with plants being buried by sediment and other plant material, and with varying degrees of
physical damage to the bark of stems and branches. Woody debris and litter dams from previous floods
had been moved and altered by ongoing floods but remain common throughout the sites. In general
vegetation appeared to be recovering from flood impacts, although those areas where vegetation has been
buried by woody debris, litter or sediments, are slower to respond. The majority of vegetation was found to
be in healthy condition (Condition 5) but an increase in the number of plants with dieback (Condition 4 or
less) was recorded and is most likely attributable to successive flood events.
• Recent erosion and scouring of creek bank sediments, attributable to floodwaters, was observed at a
number of both longwall and control sites (MRIP01, MRIP02, MRIP05 and MRIP09, and MRIP03 and
MRIP07, respectively), and was particularly evident at sites on the Eastern Tributary.
Autumn 2012
• There were no changes to the cracking of the streamside rocky area at the downstream end of site MRIP01
on the western bank (first observed during the autumn 2011 survey). No dieback of vegetation was
observed in areas adjacent to the cracked bedrock in autumn 2012.
• Cracking of streamside rocky areas was observed during the autumn 2012 survey between sites MRIP01
and MRIP02. Several short and fine cracks were observed on the eastern bank above the water level (at
the time of inspection). No dieback of vegetation was observed in areas adjacent to the cracked bedrock.
• No other cracking of streamside rocky areas or rock displacement was observed within either longwall or
control sites.
• No cracking of non-sandy streamside sediments was observed within either longwall or control sites.
• No new areas of water ponding was observed in either longwall or control sites.
00482778 121

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• Flood impacted vegetation was recorded at all sites, including evidence of further flooding since the spring
2011 survey. Most sites were found to have flood-swept vegetation, with plants being buried by sediment
and other plant material, and with varying degrees of mechanical damage to bark and branches. Woody
debris and litter dams were common, and in some areas, soils surfaces were stripped of litter, small shrubs
and groundcovers. In general vegetation is continuing to recover form consecutive flood impacts excluding
those areas where vegetation has been buried by woody debris, litter or sediments.
• Some creek bank areas continue to display signs of erosion and scouring of sediments; for example, along
the Eastern Tributary between sites MRIP05 and MRIP09, and along Waratah Rivulet at sites MRIP04 and
MRIP10. The Eastern Tributary appears to have been more impacted by recent flooding as demonstrated
by woody debris movement, bank scouring and the extent of flood swept vegetation.
Transect/Quadrat Monitoring
Quadrat and transect monitoring has been conducted in spring 2011 and autumn 2012.
A permanent quadrat (20 m x 2 m) has been used to monitor riparian vegetation on the Waratah Rivulet and
Eastern Tributary at sites MRIP01, MRIP02, MRIP05 and MRIP06 (overlying Longwalls 20-22) and at sites
MRIP03, MRIP04, MRIP07 and MRIP08 (downstream of Longwalls 20-22) (Figure 14).
The data collected for each quadrat includes:
• vegetation structure;
• dominant species;
• estimated cover and height for each stratum;
• full floristics;
• estimated cover abundance for each species using seven point Braun-Blanquet scale; and
• condition/health rating for each species in the quadrat.
A permanent transect (50 m x 2 m, i.e. a 30 m extension of each quadrat) has also been used to monitor riparian
vegetation at sites MRIP01 to MRIP08. The data collected along each transect includes the occurrence of weed
species (species and location) and a condition/health rating for each plant along the transect.
Permanent photo points have been established for each quadrat and along each transect.
The following provides a summary of the results of quadrat/transect monitoring for spring 2011 and autumn 2012.
Vegetation Structure, Dominant Species and Estimated Cover and Abundance for each Stratum
Structural data consisting of the percent cover and height for each stratum has varied between riparian sites and
seasons. Generally, the structural data is characterised by variability though general trends in individual
structural layers are present such as increasing cover of the lower storey at site MRIP07 and MRIP08 and
relatively consistent results at site MRIP06. The variability within the height and percent cover of each stratum is
attributed to the accuracy of the methodology and successive flooding events. Results for spring 2011 and
autumn 2012 are as follows.
Spring 2011
Riparian vegetation at all sites has been flood impacted, and as a result the vegetation structure and cover
abundance values were variable compared to previous surveys, with the exception of autumn 2011. The only
sites where a discernible pattern could be observed were at control sites MRIP07 and MRIP08 where a reduction
in cover was recorded across all structural layers from autumn 2011 to spring 2011. At both these sites floodimpacted
vegetation was still common and recovery appeared to be slower than that observed at other sites. At
site MRIP08 in particular, the scouring and deposition of sediments has impacted heavily on the ground layer
vegetation.
Despite the damage to vegetation and the flood-swept appearance, many individuals at the time of survey were
still alive, and/or recovering.
00482778 123

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Autumn 2012
Riparian vegetation at all sites was found to be flood impacted as a result of successive flooding including further
floods between the spring 2011 and autumn 2012 surveys. Results for autumn 2012 were similar to autumn
2011, and riparian vegetation continues to improve in condition despite being impacted by consecutive floods.
Species Richness
A summary of species richness within riparian quadrats is provided in Table 29 and Chart 92.
Table 29
Number of Native Species Recorded in Riparian Sites (Spring 2008, Autumn 2009, Spring 2009,
Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Spring
Site
2008
Longwall Sites
Autumn
2009
Spring
2009
Autumn
2010
Spring
2010
Autumn
2011
Spring
2011
Autumn
2012
MRIP01 53 57(1) 53 44(1) 58(1) 40 45 49
MRIP02 64 56 60 48 49 48 42 42
MRIP05 64 66 69 53 46 47 50 52
MRIP06 63 75 64(1) 61 49 57 54 55
Control Sites
MRIP03 55 47 54 40(2) 37 37 33 37
MRIP04 43 42(1) 50 47 41 38 32 36
MRIP07 56 58 64 44 36 40 38 49
MRIP08 42 42 49 33 20 33 27 29
Note: numbers in brackets indicate the number of exotic species recorded in addition to native species.
Chart 92 Species Richness in Riparian Monitoring Sites (Spring 2008, Autumn 2009, Spring 2009,
Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
00482778 124

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
As previously reported (Eco Logical Australia, 2010), site MRIP06 was the most floristically diverse site while
MRIP08 was the least diverse, where the ground layer comprised a combination of boulders and sparse
vegetation cover dominated by Lomandra fluviatilis.
The longwall sites were generally more floristically diverse compared to the control sites. The differences in
floristic diversity can be attributed to the nature of the habitats at these sites. All four longwall sites are generally
shrubbier, and have little exposed bedrock present. Control sites MRIP03 and MRIP07 are also relatively
shrubby, however sites MRIP04 and MRIP08 are characterised by extensive rock and boulders, sediments, and
less vegetative cover in comparison.
Results for spring 2011 and autumn 2012 are as follows.
Spring 2011
Species richness in spring 2011 decreased from that observed in autumn 2011 for all sites except longwall sites
MRIP01 and MRIP05. Species richness at longwall site MRIP02 and control sites MRIP03 and MRIP04 in spring
2011 were below the previously recorded range for these sites. The declines observed in spring 2011 appear to
be part of a general trend of reduced or declining species richness for the period from autumn 2010 to spring
2011, when compared to species richness in the preceding surveys (spring 2008 to spring 2009). The decline in
species richness from autumn 2010 to spring 2010 coincided with a change from drier conditions (spring 2008 to
spring 2009) to wetter conditions and flooding events.
Autumn 2012
Species richness at all riparian sites increased in autumn 2012 compared to spring 2011 with the exception of
site MRIP02 which remained unchanged (Table 29 and Chart 92). The increases in species richness were small
with the exception of site MRIP07 where a larger increase in species richness was observed in autumn 2012.
The increases in species richness observed in autumn 2012 may be related to regeneration following flood
impacts although there was evidence of further flooding occurring between the spring 2011 and autumn 2012
surveys. Species richness in autumn 2012 remained below that observed in spring 2008 to spring 2009 for all
sites.
Analysis of Species Richness - Spring 2008 to Autumn 2012
Species richness data were analysed for each season using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Significant
differences between the control and longwall sites were recorded in spring 2008 (p=0.04), autumn 2009 (p=0.03),
spring 2010 (p=0.02), autumn 2011 (p=0.027) and spring 2011 (p=0.004), with marginal differences recorded in
autumn 2010 (p=0.07) and autumn 2012 (0=0.056). No significant differences were recorded in spring 2009
(p=0.17). The same results were recorded when only considering native species. Results are presented in
Chart 93.
The longwall sites were generally floristically richer over all survey seasons compared with control sites and this
is most likely attributable to the habitat and shrubbier nature of the longwall sites compared to the control sites.
The monitoring data indicates that changes in species richness at longwall sites are within the range of natural
variability as measured at the control sites.
00482778 125

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 93 Mean Species Richness at Riparian Sites – Spring 2008 to Autumn 2012
Cover Abundance and Condition
Spring 2011
Fluctuations in species cover and vegetation condition were recorded across all sites. Some ground cover and
shrub layer species which recorded declines in cover following flooding in autumn 2010 increased in cover
abundance to similar values prior to first flooding impacts.
As in previous seasons vegetation was generally found to be in a healthy condition (Condition 5), though
increases in the number of plants with minor dieback (Condition 4) and less frequently with some dead branches
(Condition 3) occurred, coinciding with higher rainfall and the associated successive flooding.
Autumn 2012
Similar to previous surveys, fluctuations in species cover and vegetation condition were recorded across all sites.
No patterns of increasing or decreasing cover abundance were identified in relation to individual species across
sites or groups of species (i.e. riparian species, generalist species, shrubs, ground covers) within sites.
Vegetation at both longwall and control sites were generally found to be in a healthy condition (Condition 5) and
only infrequently with minor dieback (Condition 4) or some dead branches (Condition 3). Species including
Banksia ericifolia subsp. ericifolia, Prostanthera linearis and Pteridium esculentum were recorded with dieback at
multiple sites, though the majority of individuals of all species were recorded in a good condition across all sites.
Although flood-swept, vegetation in most sites at the time of the surveys were found to be still living, again
reflecting the robust nature of sandstone vegetation to disturbance.
Analysis of Riparian Vegetation Cover Abundance and Condition
Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was used to examine the differences in vegetation cover abundance over time
between the longwall and control sites for each season, and the results are presented in Table 30.
Significant differences were observed between longwall and control sites in autumn 2010 through to autumn
2011, with marginal differences observed in spring 2009 and spring 2011. No significant differences were
observed in spring 2008, autumn 2009, spring 2009, spring 2011 or autumn 2012.
00482778 126

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 30
Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Cover/Abundance in Riparian Sites (Spring 2008,
Autumn 2009, Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Season R statistic p-value
Spring 2008 (B) 0.271 0.092
Autumn 2009 (B) 0.203 0.111
Spring 2009 (B) 0.417 0.059
Autumn 2010 (B) 0.297 0.027
Spring 2010 0.365 0.033
Autumn 2011 0.260 0.038
Spring 2011 0.292 0.065
Autumn 2012 0.224 0.159
(B) – baseline monitoring surveys
The significant differences observed during the baseline monitoring period (autumn 2010) and following the
commencement of mining longwalls 20-22 (spring 2010 and autumn 2011) suggests that differences are related
to natural variability between sites rather than the result of mining Longwalls 20-22. This is further supported by
the results in spring 2011 and autumn 2012 during which no significant difference was detected between longwall
and control sites. The significant differences observed from autumn 2010 to autumn 2011 are most likely
attributable to track establishment through the longwall sites impacting vegetation cover (e.g. sites MRIP01,
MRIP05, MRIP06) and the variable impacts of successive flooding along all riparian sites between spring 2010
and autumn 2012.
Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was also used to examine the differences in vegetation condition over time
between the longwall and control sites for each season, and the results are presented in Table 31. Significant
differences were observed in autumn 2010, spring 2010 and autumn 2011 with no significant differences
observed in any other seasons.
Table 31
Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) for Vegetation Condition in Riparian Sites (Spring 2008, Autumn 2009,
Spring 2009, Autumn 2010, Spring 2010, Autumn 2011, Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012)
Season R statistic p-value
Spring 2008 (B) 0.200 0.121
Autumn 2009 (B) 0.073 0.286
Spring 2009 (B) 0.135 0.188
Autumn 2010 (B) 0.406 0.018
Spring 2010 0.583 0.026
Autumn 2011 0.469 0.029
Spring 2011 0.375 0.077
Autumn 2012 0.240 0.120
(B) – baseline monitoring surveys
As for vegetation cover/abundance the significant differences were recorded in both baseline monitoring periods
and following the commencement of mining Longwalls 20-22. Again, these differences are not thought to be
related to the mining of Longwalls 20-22 but rather are thought to be related to track establishment through the
longwall sites impacting vegetation condition (e.g. sites MRIP01, MRIP05, MRIP06), and the variable impacts of
successive flooding along all riparian sites between spring 2010 and autumn 2012.
00482778 127

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Analysis of the Occurrence of Weed Species
Over the monitoring period (spring 2008 – autumn 2012), weed species have been recorded at the following
sites:
• one weed species was recorded in site MRIP06 in spring 2009;
• one species was recorded in sites MRIP01 and MRIP03 in autumn 2010;
• one species was recorded in site MRIP01 in spring 2010; and
• one species was recorded in site MRIP01 autumn 2012.
Where weed species were recorded, only one to several individuals were found.
Due to the low incidence of weed species recorded, no statistical analysis (e.g. ANOVA) was undertaken for this
assessment.
Analysis of Differences in Health Ratings
ANOSIM was used to compare the differences in health ratings (plant condition) for species recorded along
riparian transects and the results are presented in Chart 94. Significant differences were observed between
seasons (p

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Indicator Species Monitoring
Population monitoring of indicator species has been conducted in spring 2011 and autumn 2012.
Twenty tagged individuals of Prostanthera linearis, Schoenus melanostachys and Lomatia myricoides have been
monitored at sites MRIP01, MRIP02, MRIP05, MRIP06 and MRIP09 (overlying Longwalls 20-22) and at sites
MRIP03, MRIP04, MRIP07, MRIP08 7 and MRIP10 (downstream of Longwalls 20-22) (Figure 14).
Population monitoring data collected includes a condition/health rating and a reproductive rating for each plant.
Monitoring of indicator species is conducted bi-annually in autumn and spring.
A summary of the results is presented below.
Spring 2011 and Autumn 2012
Similar to spring 2010 and autumn 2011, many of the tagged plants within the riparian sites were severely flood
impacted. Some individuals were unable to be located in spring 2011 and again in autumn 2012 due to burial
under vegetation, sediments and woody debris. Those plants unable to be relocated were replaced with new
individuals. In several instances, plants missing and/or buried in spring 2011 were relocated in autumn 2012,
being uncovered after subsequent flooding. Plants that died from factors other than flooding were not replaced
with new individuals.
In autumn 2012 all tagged plants were located with the exception of one individual, Tag H63 Prostanthera linearis
at longwall site MRIP05. If not located in spring 2012 surveys it will be replaced by another individual within the
monitoring site.
Condition Scale
The condition scores for Prostanthera linearis and Schoenus melanostachys have declined since spring 2010,
with an increase in the number of plants with some level of dieback (Conditions 1 to 4) and a subsequent
decrease in the number of tagged plants in a healthy condition (Condition 5). This decline continued marginally
in spring 2011 and autumn 2012 at both longwall and control sites with the number of plants in healthy condition
only slightly below that recorded in autumn 2011. Exceptions to this in autumn 2012 were Prostanthera linearis
and Schoenus melanostachys at control sites.
Given that declines have been recorded at both longwall and control sites, the results are considered to
represent natural fluctuations in response to climatic conditions, ageing plants and, in particular, to natural
disturbances including floods.
As previously noted, of the three indicator species, Lomatia myricoides has been the least impacted by flooding
largely in part to its robust habit and deep root zone. This is highlighted by the fact that in all survey season the
vast majority of plants have been observed in Condition 5 at both control and longwall sites. Only one additional
dead Lomatia myricoides was observed in autumn 2012. Prostanthera linearis and Schoenus melanostachys
were most impacted by flooding in spring 2011 and autumn 2012 with many individuals of Prostanthera linearis
found flood-swept and uprooted, whilst many Schoenus melanostachys were buried under sediment and woody
debris. A greater proportion of Prostanthera linearis and Schoenus melanostachys also had some level of
dieback (Condition 1 to 4).
A total of 23 individuals of the monitored riparian indicator species have died since spring 2009, including 13
plants detected during the autumn 2012 surveys:
• Tag H9 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP01 (Condition 5 in spring 2011).
• Tag H11 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP01 (Condition 5 in spring 2011).
• Tag H23 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP02 (Condition 1 in spring 2011).
• Tag H37 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP02 (Condition 2 in spring 2011).
7
Note: Only 10 individuals of Prostanthera linearis were available for tagging at site MRIP08.
00482778 129

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• Tag G101 Lomatia myricoides at control site MRIP03 (Condition 5 in spring 2011).
• Tag H116 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP03 (Condition 1 in spring 2011).
• Tag I131 Schoenus melanostachys at control site MRIP03 (Condition 2 in spring 2011).
• Tag H140 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP04 (Condition 2 in spring 2011).
• Tag H62 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP05 (Condition 3 in spring 2011).
• Tag H100 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP06 (Condition 3 in spring 2011).
• Tag I173 Schoenus melanostachys at control site MRIP07 (Plant not found in spring 2011).
• Tag H144 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP10 (Condition 4 in spring 2011).
• Tag H158 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP10 (Condition unknown in spring 2011).
• Tag G16 Lomatia myricoides at longwall site MRIP01 (Not located during spring 2010 surveys).
• Tag H7 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP01 (Recorded as dead in autumn 2011).
• Tag H104 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP03 (Recorded as dead in spring 2010).
• Tag H112 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP03 (Recorded as dead in autumn 2011).
• Tag H113 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP03 (Recorded as dead in autumn 2011).
• Tag H42 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP09 (Recorded as dead in spring 2010).
• Tag H152 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP10 (Recorded as dead in autumn 2011).
• Tag G27 Lomatia myricoides at longwall site MRIP02 (Recorded as dead in spring 2011).
• Tag H25 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP02 (Recorded as dead in spring 2011).
• Tag I183 Schoenus melanostachys at longwall site MRIP08 (Recorded as dead in autumn 2011).
Four individuals observed to be dead or having severe dieback (Condition 1) in spring 2011 were observed to be
in an improved condition in autumn 2012 having recovered, namely:
• Tag H139 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP04 (Condition 4 in autumn 2012).
• Tag G180 Lomatia myricoides at control site MRIP07 (Condition 4 in autumn 2012).
• Tag H150 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP10 (Condition 2 in autumn 2012).
• Tag H101 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP03 (Condition 5 in autumn 2012).
One individual (Tag H63 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP05) was not located during the autumn 2012
survey.
Analysis of the Proportion of Plants Surviving
For the spring 2011 survey, nine individuals were found to have died, two within control sites and six within
longwall sites, as follows:
• Tag H3 Prostanthera linearis in site MRIP01.
• Tags H23, H24, H25 Prostanthera linearis in site MRIP02.
• Tag G27 Lomatia myricoides in site MRIP02.
• Tag H116 Prostanthera linearis in site MRIP03.
• Tag H140 Prostanthera linearis in site MRIP04.
• Tags H154 and H158 Prostanthera linearis in site MRIP010.
00482778 130

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
For the autumn 2012 survey, 13 individuals were recorded as dead, seven within control sites and six within
longwall sites, as follows:
• Tags H9 and H11 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP01.
• Tags H23 and H37 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP02.
• Tag G101 Lomatia myricoides at control site MRIP03.
• Tag H116 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP03.
• Tag I131 Schoenus melanostachys at control site MRIP03.
• Tag H62 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP05.
• Tag H100 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP06.
• Tag I173 Schoenus melanostachys at control site MRIP07.
• Tags H144 and H158 Prostanthera linearis at control site MRIP10.
• Tag H158 Prostanthera linearis at longwall site MRIP10.
Due to the low occurrence of plant deaths no statistical analysis (e.g. ANOVA) was undertaken for this
assessment. Nonetheless, given the relatively small proportion of plants which have died, and that deaths have
occurred at both longwall and control sites, the recorded plant deaths are not thought to be related to the mining
of Longwalls 20-22.
Analysis of Differences in Health Ratings and Reproductive Ratings
Charts 95 to 97 present means and 95% confidence intervals for vegetation condition and reproductive status for
the selected indicator species in the riparian sites.
Data for condition and reproductive status demonstrated little variation between control and longwall sites for
Lomatia myricoides as indicated by overlapping confidence intervals, though a seasonal response in
reproductive status is visible for Prostanthera linearis. Data for Schoenus melanostachys showed vegetation
condition and reproductive status to be more variable across all sites with greater confidence intervals and
confidence intervals not overlapping between control and longwall sites.
Instances where the confidence intervals do not overlap may indicate significant differences (although further
analysis would be required to confirm this). However, these potential differences are unlikely to indicate changes
relating to mining as those seasons in which the vegetation condition confidence intervals do not overlap showed
vegetation condition to be higher (healthier) at longwall sites than control sites for Schoenus melanostachys.
Inversely, the reproductive status of plants within control sites was higher than at longwall sites in those seasons
where confidence intervals did not overlap, with the exception of Prostanthera linearis in spring 2011.
00482778 131

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 95
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Reproductive Status (RS) for the Indicator
Species Lomatia myricoides
Chart 96
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Reproductive Status (RS) for the Indicator
Species Prostanthera linearis
00482778 132

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 97
Mean Scores for Vegetation Condition (VC) and Reproductive Status (RS) for the Indicator
Species Schoenus melanostachys
3.4.2.4 Aquatic Biota and their Habitats
Metropolitan Coal assesses subsidence impacts and environmental consequences on aquatic habitats in
accordance with the Water Management Plan (Section 3.3 of the Annual Review). Surface water monitoring
includes monitoring of surface water flow, pool water levels, surface water quality, iron staining and gas release.
Observations of surface cracking, iron staining and gas release are also made during the conduct of the aquatic
ecology surveys.
The aquatic ecology monitoring program for Longwalls 20-22 has been designed to:
• monitor subsidence-induced impacts on aquatic ecology (referred to as stream monitoring); and
• monitor the response of aquatic ecosystems to the implementation of stream remediation works (referred to
as pool monitoring).
The design of the monitoring programs uses a “Beyond BACI” experimental design and focuses on
representative sampling within streams and pools in the Longwalls 20-22 mining area and in suitable control
streams and pools not subject to mine subsidence.
Stream Monitoring
The stream monitoring program includes bi-annual (autumn and spring) monitoring of aquatic habitat
characteristics, water quality, aquatic macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes.
Baseline monitoring has been carried out prior to the commencement of Longwall 20 in spring 2008, autumn
2009, spring 2009 and autumn 2010. Surveys have been carried out in spring 2010, autumn 2011, spring 2011
and autumn 2012 since the commencement of Longwall 20.
00482778 133

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Monitoring has been carried out at two sampling sites (approximately 100 m long) at the following stream
sampling locations:
• Locations WT3 on Waratah Rivulet, C1 and C3 on Tributary C 8 (also referred to as Eastern Tributary) and
B1 on Tributary B, overlying Longwalls 20-22.
• Locations WT4 and WT5 on Waratah Rivulet and C2 on Tributary C 8 , downstream of Longwalls 20-22.
• Control locations: WR1 on Woronora River; OC on O’Hares Creek; BC on Bee Creek; and WOT on
Woronora Tributary.
The approximate locations of the sampling sites are shown on Figure 15.
The methods used to survey aquatic biota and their habitats at each site are:
• Stream characteristics are recorded in accordance with the Australian River Assessment System
(AUSRIVAS) protocol (including, visual assessment of stream width and depth, composition of the
substratum, riparian conditions, signs of disturbance, water quality and percentage cover of the substratum
by algae).
• Water quality sampling is conducted for electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, turbidity,
oxygen reduction potential, alkalinity, total phosphorous and total nitrogen to provide information relevant to
water quality at the time of sampling.
• Aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling is conducted using the AUSRIVAS protocol, as well as quantitative
sampling where three replicate macroinvertebrate samples are collected within each site using timed
sweeps.
• The distribution of submerged and emergent (occurring in-stream and in the riparian zone) aquatic
macrophytes are estimated along each sampling location by assigning a cover class to each species. The
cover classes are: (1) one plant or small patch (i.e. few), (2) not common, growing in a few places
(i.e. scattered), and (3) widespread (i.e. common). In addition, an assessment of the in-stream
(i.e. submerged and emergent) aquatic vegetation is made within each site by estimating the relative
abundance (i.e. percentage cover) of aquatic macrophytes within five haphazardly placed 0.25 m 2 quadrats,
using a stratified sampling technique.
In summary, the results of the surveys indicate that generally, the structure of assemblages of
macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes is typical of Hawkesbury sandstone environments.
As described above, aquatic macroinvertebrates are sampled using the AUSRIVAS protocol and quantitative
sampling methods. Table 32 presents the AUSRIVAS Band results for each site. Generally, fewer families of
macroinvertebrates than expected were commonly collected from all sites sampled (including control sites),
compared to reference sites selected by the AUSRIVAS model. Charts 98 and 99 present the mean abundance
and mean diversity of macroinvertebrates at each sampling location, respectively, using the quantitative sampling
data.
No individuals of the threatened dragonfly species, Adams Emerald Dragonfly (Archaeophya adamsi) or Sydney
Hawk Dragonfly (Austrocordulia leonardi) were found. The native freshwater crayfish (Euastacus sp.) has not
been observed at any of the sampling locations.
8
Locations C1, C2 and C3 are referred to as ET1, ET3 and ET2 in the Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Biodiversity
Management Plan and on Figure 15 of the Annual Review.
00482778 134

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 32
AUSRIVAS Band Results
Stream Site Sp-08 Aut-09 Sp-09 Aut-10 Sp-10 Aut-11 Sp-11 Aut-12
Waratah Rivulet WT3-1 B B B B B C B B
Tributary C
Note: also referred to
as Eastern Tributary
(ET)
WT3-2 B B B C B C B B
WT4-1 D C C C B C C A
WT4-2 B C C B B C B A
WT5-1 B C C C C B A B
WT5-2 D C C C C C C B
C1-1 D C B B C C B B
C1-2 D C C B B B C A
C2-1 D B B C C B C C
C2-2 D C B C C C D B
C3-1 - - B C C C B B
C3-2 - - D C C C C C
Tributary B B1-1 B C C C C C B C
B1-2 C B C B C C C B
Bee Creek BC1 D C C B C C D C
BC2 C B D B C B B B
Woronora Tributary WOT1 C B -* B C C B C
WOT2 C C D C C C C B
Woronora River WR1 D B C B C C C C
WR2 C C C B C C C C
O’Hares Creek OC1 B B B A B B A A
- Survey of Sites ET3-1 and ET3-2 commenced in spring 2009.
-* Insufficient water habitat available to sample
OC2 D B B B B B B C
The mean diversity of macrophytes recorded in quadrats at any one location was generally low (i.e. < 4 species).
Floating attached species and/or submerged species of macrophytes (i.e. instream macrophytes) have been
recorded at sampling locations WT4, WT5, WR and OC (Triglochin procerum), C1, WT3, WT4, WT5, WR and
OC (Chara/Nitella spp.) and WR (Myriophyllum pedunculatum). Charts 100 and 101 present the mean
percentage cover and mean diversity of macrophytes at each sampling location, respectively, using the
quantitative sampling data.
00482778 136

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 98a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 98b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 98c Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 98d Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River,
OC – O’Hares Creek. (n = 3)
00482778 137

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 98e Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 98f Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 98g Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 98h Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River,
OC – O’Hares Creek. (n = 3)
00482778 138

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 99a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 99b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 99c Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 99d Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River,
OC – O’Hares Creek. (n = 3)
00482778 139

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 99e Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 99f Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 99g Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 99h Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River,
OC – O’Hares Creek. (n = 3)
00482778 140

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 100a Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 100b Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 100c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Steam Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 100d Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River,
OC – O’Hares Creek. (n = 5)
00482778 141

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 100e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Steam Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 100f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 100g Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Steam Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 100h Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River,
OC – O’Hares Creek. (n = 5)
00482778 142

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 101a Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 101b Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 101c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 101d Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River, OC – O’Hares
Creek. (n = 5)
00482778 143

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 101e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 101f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 101g Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 101h Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: C – Tributary C/Eastern Tributary [C1 – Location 1 etc], WT – Waratah Rivulet [WT3 - Location 3 etc], B – Tributary B, BC – Bee Creek, WOT – Woronora Tributary, WR – Woronora River,
OC – O’Hares Creek. (n = 5)
00482778 144

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
A temporal comparison of the aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte data has been carried out for the
locations sampled from spring 2008 to autumn 2012 using both multivariate and univariate techniques.
Charts 102 and 103 present the nMDS plots for macroinvertebrates and macrophytes at each sampling location,
respectively, using the quantitative sampling data. Temporal and spatial variability in the structure of
assemblages of macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes was observed at all locations.
Charts 104a to 104f present the mean diversity of macroinvertebrates, mean abundance of macroinvertebrates,
mean number of Leptophlebiidae, mean number of Atyidae, mean diversity of macrophytes and mean
percentage cover of macrophytes, respectively, at each location sampled on Tributary C/Eastern Tributary
(i.e. locations C1, C2 and C3) and at the control locations (i.e. Woronora River and O’Hares Creek) using the
quantitative sampling data.
Charts 105a to 105f present the mean diversity of macroinvertebrates, mean abundance of macroinvertebrates,
mean number of Leptophlebiidae, mean number of Atyidae, mean diversity of macrophytes and mean
percentage cover of macrophytes, respectively, at each location sampled on Waratah Rivulet (i.e. locations WT3,
WT4 and WT5) and the control locations (i.e. Woronora River and O’Hares Creek) using the quantitative
sampling data.
Charts 106a to 106d present the mean diversity of macroinvertebrates, mean abundance of macroinvertebrates,
mean diversity of macrophytes and mean percentage cover of macrophytes at Tributary B and the control
locations (i.e. Bee Creek and Woronora Tributary), respectively, using the quantitative sampling data.
Macroinvertebrate taxa that commonly distinguished between locations within the Longwalls 20-22 area and
control locations were Leptophlebiidae and Atyidae. Dissimilarities between locations were commonly due to
relatively small differences in abundance of these species.
The structure of macrophyte assemblages varied among locations and through time although similar taxa
(i.e. Lepidosperma filiforme, Triglochin procerum and Gleichenia dicarpa) were consistently ranked as most
important.
Temporal variability in macroinvertebrate and macrophyte indicators at locations sampled within the
Longwalls 20-22 area was similar in magnitude and direction as the control locations.
To date, the monitoring data indicates that any effect of subsidence on assemblages of aquatic
macroinvertebrates at places sampled within the Longwalls 20-22 mining area appears to be within the range of
natural variability in these assemblages as measured by the control locations.
00482778 145

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 102a nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 102b nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 102c nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 102d nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: Tributary C/Eastern Tributary (C1: blue square, C2: blue diamond, C3: blue plus sign), Waratah Rivulet (WT3: red circle; WT4: red triangle; WT5: red square), Tributary B (cyan triangle),
Bee Creek (yellow triangle), Woronora Tributary (black open diamond), Woronora River (blue open square), O’Hares Creek (green open diamond) (n = 3). NB Sampling of C3 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 146

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 102e nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 102f nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 102g nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 102h nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: Tributary C/Eastern Tributary (C1: blue square, C2: blue diamond, C3: blue plus sign), Waratah Rivulet (WT3: red circle; WT4: red triangle; WT5: red square), Tributary B (cyan triangle),
Bee Creek (yellow triangle), Woronora Tributary (black open diamond), Woronora River (blue open square), O’Hares Creek (green open diamond) (n = 3). NB Sampling of C3 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 147

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 103a nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 103b nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 103c nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 103d nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: Tributary C/Eastern Tributary (C1: blue square, C2: blue diamond, C3: blue plus sign), Waratah Rivulet (WT3: red circle; WT4: red triangle; WT5: red square), Tributary B (cyan triangle),
Bee Creek (yellow triangle), Woronora Tributary (black open diamond), Woronora River (blue open square), O’Hares Creek (green open diamond) (n = 3). NB Sampling of C3 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 148

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 103e nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 103f nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 103g nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 103h nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Stream Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: Tributary C/Eastern Tributary (C1: blue square, C2: blue diamond, C3: blue plus sign), Waratah Rivulet (WT3: red circle; WT4: red triangle; WT5: red square), Tributary B (cyan triangle),
Bee Creek (yellow triangle), Woronora Tributary (black open diamond), Woronora River (blue open square), O’Hares Creek (green open diamond) (n = 5). NB Sampling of C3 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 149

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 104a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring
Chart 104b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring
Chart 104c Mean (+SE) Number of Leptophlebiidae, Stream Monitoring
Chart 104d Mean (+SE) Number of Atyidae, Stream Monitoring
Key: Tributary C/Eastern Tributary (C1: solid blue squares, C2: solid blue diamonds, C3: solid blue plus symbols) and the control locations (Woronora River: open blue squares,
O’Hares Creek: open green circles) (n = 6). NB Sampling of C3 commenced at T3 (spring 2009).
00482778 150

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 104e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring
Chart 104f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring
Chart 105a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring
Chart 105b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring
Key: Tributary C/Eastern Tributary (C1: solid blue squares, C2:solid blue diamonds,; C3: solid blue plus symbols), Waratah Rivulet (WT3: solid red circle, WT4: solid red diamond, WT5: solid red square) and
the control locations (Woronora River: open blue squares, O’Hares Creek: open green circles) (n = 6). NB Sampling of C3 commenced at T3 (spring 2009).
00482778 151

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 105c Mean (+SE) Numbers of Leptophlebiidae, Stream Monitoring
Chart 105d Mean (+SE) Numbers of Atyidae, Stream Monitoring
Chart 105e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring
Chart 105f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring
Key: Waratah Rivulet (WT3: solid red circle, WT4: solid red diamond; WT5: solid red square) and the control locations (Woronora River: open blue squares, O’Hares Creek: open green circles)
(macroinvertebrates: n = 6; macrophytes: n = 10).
00482778 152

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 106a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Stream Monitoring
Chart 106b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Stream Monitoring
Chart 106c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Stream Monitoring
Chart 106d Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Stream Monitoring
Key: Tributary B (red circles) and the control locations (Bee Creek: purple triangles, Woronora Tributary: green squares) (macroinvertebrates: n = 6; macrophytes: n = 10).
00482778 153

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Pool Monitoring
The pool monitoring program includes bi-annual (autumn and spring) monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates
and macrophytes in pools to allow the response of aquatic ecosystems to the implementation of future stream
remediation works on the Waratah Rivulet to be assessed.
Baseline monitoring of pools has been carried out prior to the commencement of Longwall 20 9 in spring 2008,
autumn 2009, spring 2009 and autumn 2010. Surveys have been carried out in spring 2010, autumn 2011, spring
2011 and autumn 2012 since the commencement of Longwall 20.
Monitoring has been carried out at the following pools:
• Larger pools, J, M1 and N on Waratah Rivulet overlying Longwalls 20-22.
• Smaller pools K, L and M on Waratah Rivulet overlying Longwalls 20-22.
• One larger control pool on Woronora River (Pool WP) and one larger control pool on O’Hares Creek
(Pool OC).
• Three smaller control pools on Woronora River (Pool WP-A, WP-B and WP-C) and three smaller control
pools on O’Hares Creek (Pool OC-A, OC-B and OC-C).
The approximate locations of the sampling sites are shown on Figure 15.
Sampling is carried out at two random sites within the larger pools and at one site within the smaller pools.
Within each site in each pool, aquatic macroinvertebrates and macrophytes are sampled using the same
quantitative techniques described for stream monitoring above. The AUSRIVAS sampling technique is not used
for macroinvertebrate sampling in the pool monitoring.
Quantitative estimates of aquatic macrophytes (i.e. emergent, floating attached and/or submerged species of
aquatic plants) are collected at one site at each small pool and at two sites at each large pool. In addition, the
spatial distribution of floating attached and/or submerged macrophytes (e.g. Myriophyllum penduculatum and
Triglochin procerum) is also mapped in each pool, to provide a visual comparison of their distribution through
time.
Charts 107 to 110 present the mean abundance of macroinvertebrates, mean diversity of macroinvertebrates,
mean percentage cover of macrophytes and mean diversity of macrophytes at the larger pools, respectively,
using the quantitative sampling data.
Charts 111 to 114 present the mean abundance of macroinvertebrates, mean diversity of macroinvertebrates,
mean percentage cover of macrophytes and mean diversity of macrophytes at the smaller pools, respectively,
using the quantitative sampling data.
9
Pools monitored since spring 2008: larger pools - Pool N on Waratah Rivulet, Pool WP on Woronora River and Pool OC on
O’Hares Creek.
Pools monitored since spring 2009: larger pools - Pools J and M1 on Waratah Rivulet; smaller pools: Pools K, L and M on
Waratah Rivulet, Pools WP-A, WP-B, WP-C on Woronora River and Pools OC-A, OC-B, OC-C on O’Hares Creek.
00482778 154

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 107a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Spring 2008 Chart 107b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Autumn 2009
Chart 107c Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 107d Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Autumn 2010
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 3).
00482778 155

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 107e Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 107f Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Autumn 2011
Chart 107g Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 107h Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Larger Pools, Autumn 2012
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 3).
00482778 156

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 108a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2008 Chart 108b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2009
Chart 108c Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 108d Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2010
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 3).
00482778 157

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 108e Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 108f Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2011
Chart 108g Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 108h Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2012
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 3).
00482778 158

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 109a Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Spring 2008 Chart 109b Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Autumn 2009
Chart 109c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 109d Mean (+SE) Macrophytes Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Autumn 2010
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 5)
00482778 159

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 109e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 109f Mean (+SE) Macrophytes Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Autumn 2011
Chart 109g Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 109h Mean (+SE) Macrophytes Percentage Cover, Larger Pools, Autumn 2012
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 5)
00482778 160

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 110a Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2008 Chart 110b Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2009
Chart 110c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 110d Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2010
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 5)
00482778 161

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 110e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 110f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2011
Chart 110g Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 110h Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Larger Pools, Autumn 2012
Larger Pools Key: PJ – Pool J, PM1 – Pool M1, PN – Pool N, WP – Woronora Pool, OP - O’Hares Creek Pool (n = 5).
00482778 162

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 111a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Smaller Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 111b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2010
Chart 111c Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Smaller Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 111d Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2011
Note: Pools A, B and C on Waratah Rivulet represent Pools K, L and M, respectively (n = 3).
00482778 163

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 111e Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Smaller Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 111f Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2012
Chart 112a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Smaller Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 112b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2010
Note: Pools A, B and C on Waratah Rivulet represent Pools K, L and M, respectively (n = 3).
00482778 164

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 112c Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Smaller Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 112d Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2011
Chart 112e Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Smaller Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 112f Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2012
Note: Pools A, B and C on Waratah Rivulet represent Pools K, L and M, respectively (n = 3).
00482778 165

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 113a Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Smaller Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 113b Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2010
Chart 113c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Smaller Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 113d Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2011
Note: Pools A, B and C on Waratah Rivulet represent Pools K, L and M, respectively (n = 5).
00482778 166

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 113e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Smaller Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 113f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2012
Chart 114a Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Smaller Pools, Spring 2009 Chart 114b Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2010
Note: Pools A, B and C on Waratah Rivulet represent Pools K, L and M, respectively (n = 5).
00482778 167

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 114c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Smaller Pools, Spring 2010 Chart 114d Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2011
Chart 114e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Smaller Pools, Spring 2011 Chart 114f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Smaller Pools, Autumn 2012
Note: Pools A, B and C on Waratah Rivulet represent Pools K, L and M, respectively (n = 5).
00482778 168

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
A temporal comparison of the aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte data was carried out for the pools
sampled from spring 2008 to autumn 2012 using both multivariate and univariate techniques.
Charts 115 and 116 present nMDS plots for macroinvertebrates and macrophytes at the larger pools,
respectively, using the quantitative sampling data. Charts 117a to 117f present the mean diversity of
macroinvertebrates, mean abundance of macroinvertebrates, mean number of Leptophlebiidae, mean number of
Atyidae, mean diversity of macrophytes and mean percentage cover of macrophytes, respectively, at the larger
pools using the quantitative sampling data.
Charts 118 and 119 present nMDS plots for macroinvertebrates and macrophytes at the smaller pools,
respectively, using the quantitative sampling data. Charts 120a to 120d present the mean diversity of
macroinvertebrates, mean abundance of macroinvertebrates, mean diversity of macrophytes and mean
percentage cover of macrophytes at the smaller pools, respectively, using the quantitative sampling data.
Temporal and spatial variability in the structure of assemblages of macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes
was observed at all pools (large and small). Macroinvertebrate taxa that commonly distinguished between larger
and smaller pools within the Longwalls 20-22 area and control pools were Leptophlebiidae and Atyidae.
Dissimilarities between locations were commonly due to relatively small differences in abundance of these
species.
The structure of macrophyte assemblages varied among the larger pools and through time although similar taxa
(i.e. Lepidosperma filiforme, Triglochin procerum and Gleichenia dicarpa) were consistently ranked as most
important. Macrophyte species that commonly distinguished between smaller pools within the Longwalls 20-22
mining area and control pools included Lomandra fluviatilis, Lepidosperma filiforme and Gleichenia dicarpa.
Temporal variability in macroinvertebrate and macrophyte indicators at all pools sampled within the
Longwalls 20-22 area was similar in magnitude and direction as the reference pools.
00482778 169

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 115a nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 115b nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 115c nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 115d nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: Pool J: open green squares; Pool M1: solid orange triangles, Pool N: solid orange diamonds and the control pools (Woronora Pool: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pool: open green squares).
NB Sampling of Pools J and M1 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 170

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 115e nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 115f nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 115g nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 115h nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: Pool J: open green squares; Pool M1: solid orange triangles, Pool N: solid orange diamonds and the control pools (Woronora Pool: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pool: open green squares).
NB Sampling of Pools J and M1 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 171

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 116a nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2008 Chart 116b nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2009
Chart 116c nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 116d nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: Pool J: solid orange squares; Pool M1: solid orange triangles, Pool N: solid orange diamonds and the control pools (Woronora Pool: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pool: open green squares).
NB Sampling of Pools J and M1 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 172

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 116e nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 116f nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 116g nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 116h nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Large Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: Pool J: solid orange squares; Pool M1: solid orange triangles, Pool N: solid orange diamonds and the control pools (Woronora Pool: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pool: open green squares).
NB Sampling of Pools J and M1 commenced in spring 2009.
00482778 173

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 117a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Large Pool Monitoring
Chart 117b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Large Pool Monitoring
Chart 117c Mean (+SE) Number of Leptophlebiidae, Large Pool Monitoring
Chart 117d Mean (+SE) Number of Atyidae, Large Pool Monitoring
Key: Pool J: solid orange squares; Pool M1: solid orange triangles, Pool N: solid orange diamonds and the control pools (Woronora Pool: open blue squares, O’Hares Pool: open green circles).
NB Sampling of Pools J and M1 commenced at T3 (spring 2009) (n = 6).
00482778 174

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 117e Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Large Pool Monitoring
Chart 117f Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Percentage Cover, Large Pool Monitoring
Key: Pool J: solid orange squares; Pool M1: solid orange triangles, Pool N: solid orange diamonds and the control pools (Woronora Pool: open blue squares, O’Hares Pool: open green circles).
NB Sampling of Pools J and M1 commenced at T3 (spring 2009) (n = 6).
00482778 175

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 118a nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Small Pool Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 118b nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Small Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Chart 118c nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Small Pool Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 118d nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Small Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Key: Waratah Rivulet Pools: solid purple triangles and the control pools (Woronora Pools: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pools: open green squares).
00482778 176

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 118e nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Small Pool Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 118f nMDS Plot of Macroinvertebrates, Small Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Chart 119a nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Small Pool Monitoring, Spring 2009 Chart 119b nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Small Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2010
Key: Waratah Rivulet Pools: solid purple triangles and the control pools (Woronora Pools: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pools: open green squares).
00482778 177

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 119c nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Small Pool Monitoring, Spring 2010 Chart 119d nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Small Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2011
Chart 119e nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Small Pool Monitoring, Spring 2011 Chart 119f nMDS Plot of Macrophytes, Small Pool Monitoring, Autumn 2012
Key: Waratah Rivulet Pools: solid purple triangles and the control pools (Woronora Pools: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pools: open green squares).
00482778 178

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 120a Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Diversity, Small Pool Monitoring
Chart 120b Mean (+SE) Macroinvertebrate Abundance, Small Pool Monitoring
Chart 120c Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Diversity, Small Pool Monitoring
Chart 120d Mean (+SE) Macrophyte Abundance, Small Pool Monitoring
Key: Waratah Rivulet Pools: solid purple triangles and the control pools (Woronora Pools: solid blue circles, O’Hares Pools: open green squares) (macroinvertebrates: n = 6; macrophytes: n = 10).
00482778 179

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.4.2.5 Amphibian Surveys
A monitoring program has been developed for Longwalls 20-22 to monitor amphibian species, with a focus on
the habitats of the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleiporus australiiacus) and Red-crowned Toadlet (Pseudophryne
australis) associated with tributaries.
Six test sites overlying Longwalls 20-22 and six control sites are surveyed annually in spring/summer (i.e.
October to February) during suitable weather conditions. The approximate locations of the sampling sites in
relation to longwall panels are shown on Figure 16.
Each site is surveyed once during a standard one hour general area day search (early morning and late
afternoon) supplemented by an evening 60 minute search/playback session using hand held spotlights and head
lamps.
Species are assigned to the following relative abundance categories for tadpole and adult stages:
• 0 = no sightings;
• 1 = one sighting of adult or tadpole stage;
• UC = uncommon (i.e. 2 to 10 individuals), adult or tadpole stage;
• MC = moderately common (i.e. 11 to 20 individuals), adult or tadpole stage;
• C = common (i.e. 21 to 40 individuals), adult or tadpole stage; and
• A = abundant (>40 individuals), adult or tadpole stage.
Baseline monitoring has been conducted in spring/summer 2009 and 2010. Longwall 20 commenced in May
2010. At the time of the spring/summer 2011 survey the following test sites had been undermined: Site 1 was
undermined by Longwall 20 in late September 2010, Site 2 was undermined by Longwall 20 in late June 2011,
and Site 3 was undermined by Longwall 21 in late October 2011.
The results of the three surveys to date (2009-2011) are summarised in Table 33, Table 34 and Chart 121 below.
Chart 121 shows the number of amphibian species recorded at each site in 2009 to 2011.
Adult Red-crowned Toadlets were observed at three test sites (sites 2 to 4) in spring/summer 2009, five test sites
(sites 2 to 6) in 2010, and four test sites (sites 2 to 5) in 2011 (Table 33). At the control sites, adult Red-crowned
Toadlets were observed at three sites in 2009 (sites 7, 9 and 10), three sites in 2010 (sites10 to 12), and at no
sites in 2011. Evidence of breeding for the Red-crowned Toadlet in test sites was observed at site 3 in 2011.
Evidence of breeding at control sites was observed at sites 8 and 10 in 2011 (Table 33).
Only one adult Giant Burrowing Frog has been recorded (at test site 4 in 2011). Evidence of breeding has been
observed at two control sites (site 10 in 2009 and site 7 in 2011 (Table 33).
Tables 33 and 34 indicate:
• The Common Eastern Froglet was located at all test sites in 2009 and 2010, and at all but site 6 in 2011. At
control sites, this species was recorded at 2 sites in 2009, 5 in 2010 and at 4 sites in 2011.
• The Brown-striped Frog was located in 3 test sites and 1 control site in 2009, 2 test sites in 2010 and one
control site in 2011.
• The Spotted Grass Frog was located in 1 control site in 2009, no sites in 2010 and at two test sites and one
control site in 2011. The Smooth Toadlet was located in 1 test and 1 control site in 2009, 2 test sites in 2010
and at 2 control sites in 2011.
• The Blue Mountains Tree Frog was located at 3 test sites in both 2009 (sites 2, 4 and 6) and 2010 (sites 1, 3
and 5), at1 control site in 2010 and 1 test site in 2011.
• The Bleating Tree Frog was located at 2 control sites (sites 10 and 11) in 2010.
00482778 180

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Scientific Name Common Name Survey
Myobatrachidae
Crinia signifera
Heleiporus
australiiacus
Limnodynastes
peronii
Limnodynastes
tasmaniensis
Pseudophryne
australis
Common
Eastern Froglet
Table 33
Amphibian Species Diversity and Abundance, Spring/Summer 2009, 2010 and 2011
2009 1 1
0
2010 3
0
2011 3
0
Giant Burrowing
Frog V, V 2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
Brown-striped
Frog
Spotted Grass
Frog
2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
Red-crowned
Toadlet V 2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
Relative
Sites Above Longwalls 20-22 Control Sites Total
Abundance 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Test Control Test Control
1
0
4
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
c100
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
7
0
1
10
>10
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
3
0
2
0
3
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
4
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c100
0
0
0
0
0
c100
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
>10
4
30
8
c100
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
c100
0
0
1
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
>16
0
20
c100
29
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
5
0
24
0
9
10
6
>10
14
c233
25
c110
0
1
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
c100
1
0
0
0
0
c100
3
0
4
0
0
c105
MC
MC
MC
A
C
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
UC
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
UC
0
UC
0
C
0
UC
UC
UC
MC
MC
A
C
A
0
1
0
0
0
UC
UC
0
0
0
0
A
1
0
0
0
0
A
UC
0
UC
0
0
A
00482778 182

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 33 (Continued)
Amphibian Species Diversity and Abundance, Spring/Summer 2009, 2010 and 2011
Scientific Name Common Name Survey
Myobatrachidae (Cont.)
Uperoleia
laevigata
Hylidae
Litoria citropa
Litoria dentata
Litoria freycineti
Litoria
latopalmata
Smooth Toadlet 2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
Blue Mountains
Tree Frog
Bleating Tree
Frog
Southern Rocket
Frog
Broad-palmed
Frog
2009 0
0
2010 4
0
2011 0
0
2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
2009 0
0
2010 3
0
2011 0
0
2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
Relative
Sites Above Longwalls 20-22 Control Sites Total
Abundance 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Test Control Test Control
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
c500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c1000
1
c200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
4
38
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
10
0
0
3
0
9
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
6
8
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
15
0
0
2
0
6
c1041
13
c241
0
0
0
c1000
0
0
1
0
UC
UC
0
0
UC
0
UC
UC
UC
UC
0
0
0
0
0
0
UC
0
UC
UC
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
UC
UC
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
UC
MC
0
0
UC
0
UC
A
MC
A
0
0
0
A
0
0
00482778 183

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 33 (Continued)
Amphibian Species Diversity and Abundance, Spring/Summer 2009, 2010 and 2011
Scientific Name Common Name Survey
Hylidae (Cont.)
LItoria lesueurii Lesueur’s Frog 2009 0
0
2010 0
42
2011 2
0
Litoria wilcoxii Stony Creek 2009 0
Frog
0
Litoria peronii
Litoria
phyllochroa
Peron’s Tree
Frog
Green Stream
Frog
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
2009 0
0
2010 0
0
2011 0
0
Relative
Sites Above Longwalls 20-22 Control Sites Total
Abundance 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Test Control Test Control
0
0
2
0
2
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
c1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
52
8
4
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
>8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
c1000
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UC
A
UC
UC
MC
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
UC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UC
UC
UC
UC
0
0
0
0
0
0
UC
A
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
00482778 184

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
1
2
Table 33 (Continued)
Amphibian Species Diversity and Abundance, Spring/Summer 2009, 2010 and 2011
Relative
Sites Above Longwalls 20-22 Control Sites Total
Scientific Name Common Name Survey
Abundance 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Test Control Test Control
Species Diversity at Each Site 2009 1 5 2 6 5 5 3 0 1 7 0 0
Species Diversity in all Control
and all Test sites
Species Diversity across the
survey site
V, V
2010 4 5 7 3 4 3 4 2 0 6 4 4
2011 3 3 6 4 4 1 3 6 3 5 0 0
2009 9 8
2010 7 7
2011 7 9
2009 11
2010 10
2011 10
First line of data refers to the presence or absence of adults, while the second line of data refers to absence or presence of tadpoles.
Relative Abundance of adult and tadpole stage assessed independently: 0 – no sightings, 1 – One sighting, UC – Uncommon, 2 to 10 individuals, MC – Moderately common, 11 to 20 individuals, C – Common, 21 to 40
individuals, A – Abundant, >40 individuals, c1000 = approximately 1,000 animals estimated.
V
Listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act.
Listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act.
00482778 185

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 34
Number of Sites used per Species in 2009, 2010 and 2011
Species
Common Eastern
Froglet
Giant Burrowing
Frog
Test Sites
2009
Test Sites
2010
Test Sites
2011
Control Sites
2009
Control Sites
2010
Control Sites
2011
6 6 6 2 5 4
0 0 1 1 0 1
Brown-striped Frog 3 2 0 1 0 1
Spotted Grass Frog 0 0 1 1 0 1
Red-crowned
Toadlet
3 5 4 3 3 2
Smooth Toadlet 1 2 0 1 0 2
Blue Mountains
Tree Frog
3 3 2 0 1 0
Bleating Tree Frog 0 0 0 0 2 0
Southern Rocket
Frog
2 3 1 1 4 3
Broad-palmed Frog 0 0 0 0 2 0
Lesueur’s Frog 0 5 5 0 0 1
Stony Creek Frog 2 0 0 1 0 0
Peron’s Tree Frog 1 0 0 0 2 1
Green Stream Frog 3 0 0 0 0 0
8
7
6
Number
of
Species
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site
2009 2010 2011
Chart 121 Amphibian Species Diversity, 2009, 2010 and 2011
00482778 186

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• The Southern Rocket Frog was located in 2 test sites in 2009 (sites 5 and 6), 3 test sites in 2010 (sites 1, 2
and 3) and 1 test site (site 3) in 2011. The species was located in 1 control site in 2009 (site 10), 4 control
sites in 2010 (sites 7, 8, 10 and 12), and 4 control sites (sites 7 to 10) in 2011.
• The Broad-palmed Frog was located at two control sites (sites 7 and 11) in 2010.
• Lesueur’s Frog was located in 5 test sites in 2010 (sites 1 to 4, and 6) and at 5 test (sites 1 to 4, and 6) and
1 control site (site 10) in 2011.
• The Stony Creek Frog was located in two test sites (sites 2 and 5) and at one control site (site 10) in 2009.
• Peron’s Tree Frog was located at 1 test site (site 2) in 2009, 3 control sites in 2010 (sites 7, 10 and 12) and
at one control site in 2011 (site 8).
• The Green Stream Frog was located in 3 test sites (sites 4 to 6) in 2009.
These data reflect an expected variability across sites and years (i.e. space and time). A portion of the variability
is likely associated with survey weather conditions at the time of survey or in the weeks preceding the surveys.
The year 2009 was a very dry year, whereas 2010 was a much wetter year and more free surface water and
damp micro-habitat areas were present across the survey area than in 2009. Daytime and night time
temperatures were depressed in 2011 although rainfall was above average. Lower than average night time
temperatures likely depressed frog calling behaviour. Based on the results of the surveys of test and control
sites to date, amphibian species diversity and abundance are consistent with expected population variations and
cycles in response to seasonal variations.
In summary, the amphibian surveys identified the following:
• Six test sites are located above Longwalls 20-22 with three (sites 1, 2 and 3) having been undermined at the
time of the spring/summer 2011 survey.
• Eleven amphibian species were located across the survey area in 2009 and 10 species in years 2010 and
2011.
• Species diversity at individual test sites varied between one to seven, and in control sites between zero and
seven species.
• Seven species were located across all test sites and nine species across all control sites in spring/summer
2011.
• Breeding events have been identified for six species located in test sites during 2009 – 2011, including one
event for the Red-crowned Toadlet. At control sites, breeding events have been identified for 10 species,
including two events for the Red-crowned Toadlet both in 2011, and two breeding events for the Giant
Burrowing Frog.
• The amphibian species diversity and abundance data are consistent with expected population variations and
cycles in response to seasonal variations.
3.4.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The performance indicators and subsidence impact performance measures described below have been
developed to address the predictions of subsidence impacts and environmental consequences on biodiversity
included in the EA, PPR and Extraction Plan.
The results of the assessment of the performance of the Project against the biodiversity performance indicators
and subsidence impact performance measures are described below.
00482778 187

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.4.3.1 Threatened Species, Populations and Ecological Communities
Analysis against Performance Indicator 1
Performance Indicator 1:
The vegetation in upland swamps is not expected to experience changes
significantly different to vegetation in control swamps.
This indicator is considered to have been exceeded if:
• data indicates a declining trend in the condition of swamp vegetation; or
• data analysis indicates statistically significant changes in vegetation between the mined and control
swamps.
Detailed analysis of the above performance indicator is provided in Section 3.4.2.1. In summary:
• Visual inspections of upland swamp vegetation indicate that the upland swamp vegetation performance
indicator has not been exceeded (i.e. the observations have not identified a declining trend in the condition
of vegetation in swamps overlying Longwalls 20-22) during the spring 2011 and autumn 2012 survey
periods.
• Analysis of quadrat/transect data indicates that the upland swamp performance indicator ‘The vegetation in
upland swamps is not expected to experience changes significantly different to changes in control swamps’
has not been exceeded.
• Analysis of indicator species data indicates that the upland swamp performance indicator ‘The vegetation in
upland swamps is not expected to experience changes significantly different to changes in control swamps’
has not been exceeded.
Analysis against Performance Indicator 2
Performance Indicator 2:
Surface cracking within upland swamps resulting from mine subsidence is
not expected to result in measurable changes to swamp groundwater
levels when compared to seasonal variations in water levels experienced
by upland swamps prior to mining or control swamps.
This indicator is considered to have been exceeded if data analysis indicates statistically significant changes in
swamp substrate groundwater levels (i.e. if the seven day moving average data lie outside two standard
deviations from the mean established for the full length of record).
Groundwater level bandwidths defined by two standard deviations (2σ) from the mean have been determined for
the full period of record up to the commencement of the review period. This is considered more robust than the
full period of record to the end of the review period, as anomalous readings during the review period will distort
the bandwidth. Data acquired at the swamp substrate piezometers up to 31 July 2011 are unaffected by mining
and serve as a suitable baseline for assessment of subsequent potential impacts. As the performance indicator
applies only to swamp substrate groundwater levels, bandwidths are not defined for the sandstone piezometers
underlying the swamps.
The bandwidth for control swamp 101 (Chart 122), about 1.3 m, is conditioned by the strong dry episode in
February 2011.
The bandwidth for the Woronora River control swamp (Chart 123) is about 0.8 m for the swamp substrate
piezometer. This swamp substrate piezometer has unexpected reductions in water level during parts of the
review period, indicating a sensitivity to short duration rainfall events and poor facility for storage of rain water in
the swamp. It is noted that the February 2011 groundwater levels in the swamp substrate were outside the -2σ
limit, at the end of a dry period. During the review period, water levels exceeded the +2σ limit during June 2012
after consecutive rain events. There were no breaches of the -2σ limit during the review period.
The 4 m sandstone piezometer water level is similar to the swamp level, but generally higher, which indicates
upwards flow of water from the sandstone to the swamp. The 10 m sandstone piezometer had a significant rise
in water level during the review period that is consistent with the climatic trend indicated by rainfall residual mass.
00482778 188

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
293.5
293
292.5
292
291.5
291
290.5
COLLAR at 293.44 mAHD
LW20 START
+2σ to July 2011(1m)
-2σ to July 2011(1m)
SWAMP 101
Piezo Depth 1m
Piezo Depth 10m
Longwall Starts
Rain PV1[Waratah]
Review Start Date
LW21 START
COLLAR at 293.38 mAHD
7-Day Average
Water Levels
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
293.5
293
292.5
292
291.5
291
290.5
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
290
290
20
10
289.5
18-May-10
17-Jun-10
17-Jul-10
17-Aug-10
16-Sep-10
17-Oct-10
16-Nov-10
17-Dec-10
16-Jan-11
15-Feb-11
18-Mar-11
17-Apr-11
18-May-11
17-Jun-11
18-Jul-11
17-Aug-11
DATE
17-Sep-11
17-Oct-11
16-Nov-11
17-Dec-11
16-Jan-12
16-Feb-12
17-Mar-12
17-Apr-12
17-May-12
17-Jun-12
17-Jul-12
289.5
[DATA] [Swamps]
[Sep2012] Swamp101_Performance.grf
Swamp Performance.xlsx!7day_mean(.csv)
Swamp Performance.xlsx!15minutes(.csv)
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[Sep2012] StartDates.xls
0
Chart 122 Performance Assessment of Groundwater Hydrographs at Site S101 (Control Swamp 101)
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
321
320.5
320
319.5
319
COLLAR at 321.14 mAHD SWAMP WRSWAMP1 COLLAR at 321.14 mAHD COLLAR at 321.04 mAHD
LW20 START
Piezo Depth 1m
LW21 START
7-Day Average
Piezo Depth 4m
Water Levels
Piezo Depth 10m
Longwall Starts
Rain Residual Mass
Rain PV1[Waratah]
Review Start Date
+2σ to July 2011(1m)
-2σ to July 2011(1m)
18-May-10
17-Jun-10
17-Jul-10
17-Aug-10
16-Sep-10
17-Oct-10
16-Nov-10
17-Dec-10
16-Jan-11
15-Feb-11
18-Mar-11
17-Apr-11
18-May-11
17-Jun-11
18-Jul-11
17-Aug-11
17-Sep-11
17-Oct-11
16-Nov-11
17-Dec-11
16-Jan-12
16-Feb-12
17-Mar-12
17-Apr-12
17-May-12
17-Jun-12
17-Jul-12
DATE
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
321
320.5
320
319.5
319
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
RESIDUAL MASS [mm]
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
[DATA] [Swamps]
[Sep2012] WRSwamp1_Performance.grf
Swamp Performance.xlsx!7day_mean(.csv)
Swamp Performance.xlsx!15minutes(.csv)
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[Sep2012] StartDates.xls
Chart 123
Performance Assessment of Groundwater Hydrographs at Site WRSWAMP1 (Control
Swamp Woronora River 1)
00482778 189

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Swamp 20 and Swamp 25 are the two swamp sites in the vicinity of mining that have swamp substrate
piezometers. The responses at the sandstone piezometers at the other swamp sites (Swamp 16 and Swamp 17)
are discussed in Section 3.4.2.2.
The performance assessment during the review period for Swamp 20 is illustrated in Chart 124. Although
groundwater levels fell below the -2σ limit in February 2011, as they did at the Woronora River control swamp
(Chart 123), during the review period all swamp substrate groundwater levels stayed well within the bandwidth.
There was no breach of the performance indicator. At Swamp 20 the overlying swamp sediments remain
unaffected although there is a clear mining effect in the sandstone at a depth of 10 m but no apparent effect at
the 4 m sandstone piezometer.
There is a downwards trend in swamp groundwater levels at the end of the review period. As the effect at
Swamp 20 occurred shortly before the end of the review period, it is too early for a conclusion on the
permanence of the effect. The response at this piezometer will continue to be monitored to see if the -2σ limit
has been breached.
The performance assessment during the review period for Swamp 25 is illustrated in Chart 125. As all swamp
substrate groundwater levels have remained within the bandwidth, there is no breach of the performance
indicator during the review period.
Given the multi-piezometer evidence at Swamp 20, surface cracking within upland swamps resulting from mine
subsidence is not expected to result in measurable changes to swamp groundwater levels when compared to
seasonal variations in water levels experienced by control swamps or upland swamps prior to mining.
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
220
219.5
219
218.5
218
217.5
217
216.5
216
215.5
215
COLLAR at 219.28 mAHD COLLAR at 219.14 mAHD
LW20 START
+2σ to July 2011 (1m)
-2σ to July 2011 (1m)
7-Day Average
Water Levels
COLLAR at 219.14 mAHD
LW21 START
18-May-10
17-Jun-10
17-Jul-10
17-Aug-10
16-Sep-10
17-Oct-10
16-Nov-10
17-Dec-10
16-Jan-11
15-Feb-11
18-Mar-11
17-Apr-11
18-May-11
17-Jun-11
18-Jul-11
17-Aug-11
17-Sep-11
17-Oct-11
16-Nov-11
17-Dec-11
16-Jan-12
16-Feb-12
17-Mar-12
17-Apr-12
17-May-12
17-Jun-12
17-Jul-12
DATE
SWAMP S20
Piezo Depth 1m
Piezo Depth 4m
Piezo Depth 10m
Longwall Starts
Rain PV1[Waratah]
Review Start Date
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
220
219.5
219
218.5
218
217.5
217
216.5
216
215.5
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
215 0
[DATA] [Swamps]
[Sep2012] Swamp20_Performance.grf
Swamp Performance.xlsx!7day_mean(.csv)
Swamp Performance.xlsx!15minutes(.csv)
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[Sep2012] StartDates.xls
Chart 124 Performance Assessment of Groundwater Hydrographs at Site S20 (Swamp 20)
00482778 190

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
COLLAR at 273.15 mAHD
LW20 START
+2σ to July 2011(1m)
-2σ to July 2011(1m)
SWAMP 25
Piezo Depth 1m
Piezo Depth 10m
Longwall Starts
Rain PV1[Waratah]
Review Start Date
LW21 START
COLLAR at 272.91 mAHD
7-Day Average
Water Levels
GROUNDWATER LEVEL [mAHD]
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
DAILY RAINFALL [mm]
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
267
267
20
10
266
18-May-10
17-Jun-10
17-Jul-10
17-Aug-10
16-Sep-10
17-Oct-10
16-Nov-10
17-Dec-10
16-Jan-11
15-Feb-11
18-Mar-11
17-Apr-11
18-May-11
17-Jun-11
18-Jul-11
17-Aug-11
DATE
17-Sep-11
17-Oct-11
16-Nov-11
17-Dec-11
16-Jan-12
16-Feb-12
17-Mar-12
17-Apr-12
17-May-12
17-Jun-12
17-Jul-12
266 0
[DATA] [Swamps]
[Sep2012] Swamp25_Performance.grf
Swamp Performance.xlsx!7day_mean(.csv)
Swamp Performance.xlsx!15minutes(.csv)
[Rain] Waratah_Rain.xls!Daily
[Sep2012] StartDates.xls
Chart 125 Performance Assessment of Groundwater Hydrographs at Site S25 (Swamp 25)
Analysis against Performance Indicator 3
Performance Indicator 3:
Impacts to riparian vegetation are expected to be localised and limited in
extent, similar to the impacts previously experienced at the Metropolitan
Colliery.
This indicator is considered to have been exceeded if:
• visual inspections identify vegetation dieback greater than 50 centimetres from the stream; or
• data analysis indicates the riparian vegetation has not recovered after one year of the completion of stream
remediation on Waratah Rivulet.
Detailed analysis of the above performance indicator is provided in Section 3.4.2.3. In summary, despite the
impacts of flooding events in spring 2010, autumn 2011, spring 2011 and early 2012 visual inspections of
riparian vegetation indicate that the riparian vegetation performance indicator ‘Impacts to riparian vegetation are
expected to be localised and limited in extent, similar to the impacts previously experienced at Metropolitan Coal’
has not been exceeded.
Analysis against Performance Indicator 4
Performance Indicator 4:
Subsidence effects at the occurrences of the Southern Sydney Sheltered
Forest on Transitional Sandstone Soils in the Sydney Basin Bioregion EEC
situated approximately 400 m to the east of Longwalls 20-22 are expected
to be negligible.
This indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the assessment of subsidence parameters indicates the
subsidence effects at the occurrences of the Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest on Transitional Sandstone Soils
in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) situated to the east of Longwalls 20-22
are an order of magnitude above those predicted.
00482778 191

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Subsidence effects in the area approximately 400 m to the east of Longwalls 20-22 at the occurrences of the
Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest on Transitional Sandstone Soils in the Sydney Basin Bioregion EEC are
within subsidence predictions. The performance indicator has not been exceeded.
Analysis against Performance Indicator 5
Performance Indicator 5:
The aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte assemblages in streams
and pools are not expected to experience long-term impacts as a result of
mine subsidence.
This indicator is considered to have been exceeded if data analysis indicates significant changes in relation to
reference places before (i.e. pre-mining) to after (i.e. post-mining) mining of Longwalls 20-22:
• occur in the aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte assemblages in streams at locations WT3, ET1, ET3
and B1 after the completion of Longwall 26; and
• occur in the aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte assemblages at pools J, K, L, M1, M and N after one
year of the completion of stream remediation on Waratah Rivulet.
This performance indicator will be assessed and reported on in future Annual Reviews.
Analysis against Performance Indicator 6
Performance Indicator 6:
The amphibian assemblage is not expected to experience changes
significantly different to the amphibian assemblage at control sites.
This indicator is considered to have been exceeded if data analysis identifies a significant decline in the
amphibian population.
As discussed in Section 3.4.2.5, the amphibian species diversity and abundance data are consistent with
expected population variations and cycles in response to seasonal variations. There is no significant difference
between test and control sites. Thus, this performance indicator has not been exceeded.
Subsidence Impact Performance Measures included in the Land Management Plan and Water
Management Plan
Subsidence impact performance measures of relevance to the Biodiversity Management Plan are also contained
in the Land Management Plan and Water Management Plan. In the event the subsidence impacts observed
exceed the land subsidence impact performance measure or an applicable water resource/water course
subsidence impact performance measure, Metropolitan Coal will conduct a review of potential impacts on flora,
fauna, and their habitats in accordance with the Biodiversity Management Plan.
Subsidence impact performance measures of relevance to the Biodiversity Management Plan are outlined in
Table 35.
None of the subsidence impact performance measures of relevance to the Biodiversity Management Plan have
been exceeded during the review period.
00482778 192

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 35
Other Subsidence Impact Performance Measures of Relevance to the Biodiversity Management Plan
Water Resources
Catchment yield to the Woronora Reservoir
Woronora Reservoir
Watercourses
Waratah Rivulet between the full supply level of
the Woronora Reservoir and the maingate of
Longwall 23 (upstream of Pool P)
Eastern Tributary between the full supply level
of the Woronora Reservoir and the maingate of
Longwall 26
Land
Cliffs
Negligible reduction to the quality or quantity of water resources
reaching the Woronora Reservoir
No connective cracking between the surface and the mine
Negligible leakage from the Woronora Reservoir
Negligible reduction in the water quality of Woronora Reservoir
Negligible environmental consequences (that is, no diversion of flows,
no change in the natural drainage behaviour of pools, minimal iron
staining, and minimal gas releases)
Negligible environmental consequences over at least 70% of the stream
length (that is no diversion of flows, no change in the natural drainage
behaviour of pools, minimal iron staining and minimal gas releases)
Less than 3% of the total length of cliffs (and associated overhangs)
within the mining area experience mining induced rock fall
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure for Threatened Species, Populations and
Ecological Communities
If data analysis indicates a biodiversity performance indicator has been exceeded or is likely to be exceeded,
Metropolitan Coal will implement suitable management measures and an assessment will be made against
biodiversity subsidence impact performance measure.
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
Negligible impact on threatened species, populations, or ecological communities
Negligible Impact on Threatened Species - Key Assessment Considerations
In relation to threatened species, a number of threatened flora and fauna species listed under the NSW
Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 or Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act, 1999 are known to occur, or have the potential to occur within 600 m of Longwalls 20-22
secondary extraction or in the surrounding area.
The key assessment considerations that will be taken into account to assess whether there has been a greater
than negligible impact on threatened species are:
1. What is the nature of the environmental consequence (e.g. the potential for adverse impacts on upland
swamps, riparian vegetation, slopes and ridgetops or aquatic habitats)
2. What are the potential factors that may have contributed to the environmental consequence (e.g. the
degree of subsidence effects, ineffective management measures or prevailing climatic conditions)
3. Which threatened species have the potential to be impacted
4. What are the potential impacts on the lifecycle of the potential threatened species (e.g. foraging,
breeding/reproduction, nesting, shelter and movement/dispersal)
5. What are the potential impacts on the habitat of the potential threatened species (e.g. area affected)
6. Has the habitat connectivity of the threatened species been affected (e.g. loss of stream pool habitat
connectivity)
7. What actions, if any, are most appropriate to mitigate the impacts and/or to minimise future impacts
Neither the performance indicators, nor the biodiversity subsidence impact performance measure were exceeded
during the review period.
00482778 193

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Negligible Impact on Populations - Key Assessment Considerations
No endangered flora or fauna populations listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 are
known to occur within 600 m of Longwalls 20-22 secondary extraction or in the surrounding area.
The key assessment considerations that will be taken into account to assess whether there has been a greater
than negligible impact on threatened populations (in the event a threatened population is listed that is applicable
to the study area) are:
1. What is the nature of the environmental consequence (e.g. the potential for adverse impacts on upland
swamps, riparian vegetation, slopes and ridgetops or aquatic habitats)
2. What are the potential factors that may have contributed to the environmental consequence (e.g. the
degree of subsidence effects, ineffective management measures or prevailing climatic conditions)
3. Are there any threatened populations have the potential to be impacted
4. What are the potential impacts on the lifecycle of the threatened population
5. What are the potential impacts on the habitat of the threatened population (e.g. area affected)
6. Has the habitat connectivity of the threatened population been affected
7. What actions, if any, are most appropriate to mitigate the impacts and/or to minimise future impacts
Neither the performance indicators, nor the biodiversity subsidence impact performance measure were exceeded
during the review period.
Negligible Impact on Ecological Communities - Key Assessment Considerations
Occurrences of the Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest on Transitional Sandstone Soils in the Sydney Basin
Bioregion EEC listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 are situated some 400 m to
the east of Longwalls 20-22, near the 600 m boundary.
The key assessment considerations that will be taken into account to assess whether there has been a greater
than negligible impact on threatened ecological communities are:
1. Can any subsidence impacts (e.g. surface cracking, subsidence-induced erosion) be observed within the
occurrences of the Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest on Transitional Sandstone Soils in the Sydney
Basin Bioregion EEC situated to the east of Longwalls 20-22
2. If yes, over what area has been affected
3. What are the potential environmental consequences of the change in subsidence effects
4. What actions, if any, are most appropriate to mitigate the impacts and/or to minimise future impacts
Neither the performance indicator that relates to the Southern Sydney Sheltered Forest on Transitional
Sandstone Soils in the Sydney Basin Bioregion EEC, nor the biodiversity subsidence impact performance
measure was exceeded during the review period.
3.4.3.2 Swamps 76, 77 and 92
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
Swamps 76, 77 and 92 - Set through condition 4
Metropolitan Coal is not permitted to undermine Swamps 76, 77 and 92 without the written approval of the
Director-General. Swamps 76, 77 and 92 will not be undermined by Longwalls 20-22.
Swamps 76, 77 and 92 will be subject to assessment in future Extraction Plan(s) and revisions of the Biodiversity
Management Plan.
00482778 194

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.4.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
At this stage the implementation of the Biodiversity Management Plan and associated management processes
are considered to be adequate.
3.4.5 Further Initiatives
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review, and if
necessary, revise the Biodiversity Management Plan within three months following the submission of this Annual
Review to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
In the next review period, piezometers will be installed in a number of upland swamps overlying Longwalls 23-27
and control swamps as described in Section 3.1.
3.5 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.5.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Land Management Plan has been prepared to manage the potential
environmental consequences of the Extraction Plan on cliffs, overhangs, steep slopes and land in general, in
accordance with Condition 6, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval.
3.5.2 Monitoring
Cliffs and Overhangs
Visual inspections are conducted monthly for the period of time that longwall extraction takes place within 400 m
of sites COH1, COH2, COH3, COH4 and COH14 (Figure 17) to record evidence of potential subsidence impacts.
Specific details that are noted and/or photographed during the inspections include:
• the date of the inspection;
• the location of longwall extraction (i.e. the longwall chainage);
• the location of the cliff instability (i.e. freshly exposed rock face and debris scattered around the base of the
cliff or overhang) relative to the cliff face or overhang;
• the nature and extent of the cliff instability (including an estimate of volume);
• the length of the cliff instability;
• other relevant aspects such as water seepage (which can indicate weaknesses in the rock);
• whether any actions are required (e.g. implementation of management measures, initiation of the
Contingency Plan, incident notification, implementation of appropriate safety controls, review of public
safety, etc.); and
• any other relevant information.
Additional opportunistic observations of subsidence impacts are also conducted during routine works and
sampling by Metropolitan Coal and its contractors. Inspections of sites COH1 and COH2 were conducted in
November 2011 and monthly from January to May 2012. No cliff instabilities (i.e. freshly exposed rock face and
debris scattered around the base of the cliff or overhang) or areas of water seepage in excess of that expected to
result from rainfall conditions were evident.
Steep Slopes and Land in General
Opportunistic visual inspections for subsidence impacts on steep slopes and land in general are conducted by
Metropolitan Coal and its contractors as part of routine works conducted in the catchment.
00482778 195

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Specific details that are noted and/or photographed during the inspections include:
• the location, approximate dimensions (length, width and depth), and orientation of surface tension cracks;
• the location of the surface tension crack in relation to fire trails;
• the location and approximate dimensions of rock falls (e.g. rock ledges that occur along the Waratah
Rivulet);
• whether any actions are required (for example – implementation of management measures, initiation of the
Contingency Plan, incident notification, implementation of appropriate safety controls, review of public
safety, etc.); and
• any other relevant information.
The date of the observation, details of the observer and the location of longwall extraction are also documented.
A surface tension crack on Fire Road 9C was recorded by Metropolitan Coal surveyors in February 2012. The
tension crack is approximately 10 m long, with a maximum width of 20 mm. The tension crack is situated
adjacent to the ribline of Longwall 20 (between survey pegs C20 and C21) and is consistent with predictions of
surface tension in this area. Subsequent inspections have noted no increase in crack development. A fallen rock
ledge on the Unnamed Tributary (with the coordinates 56H0309271; 6214092) was noted by
Bio-Analysis Pty Ltd during the aquatic ecology surveys in September 2011. Plates 1 and 2, respectively, show
the rock ledge in autumn 2011 (prior to collapse) and spring 2011 (following collapse).
The potential for impacts on public safety, as well as the potential environmental consequences of the surface
cracking and fallen rock ledge were assessed. Neither of the subsidence impactswere considered to represent a
safety or environmental hazard. Due to the narrow dimension of the surface tension crack, manual remediation
was not considered warranted.
Plate 1 Rock Ledge, Unnamed Tributary (Prior to Collapse)
Plate 2 Rock Ledge, Unnamed Tributary (Post Collapse)
3.5.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The performance indicators and subsidence impact performance measure described below have been
developed to address the predictions of subsidence impacts and environmental consequences on land included
in the EA, PPR and Extraction Plan.
The results of the assessment are described below.
00482778 197

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
Steep slopes and land in general are expected to experience surface tension
cracking no greater than 0.1 m wide and 25 m in length.
The subsidence impact assessment in the Land Management Plan indicates that the size and extent of surface
cracking at the steep slopes is expected to be similar to that observed during the extraction of previous longwalls
at the Colliery (i.e. where surface cracking up to approximately 25 m long and 0.1 m wide has been observed).
As described above, a surface tension crack was observed on Fire Road 9C adjacent to the ribline of
Longwall 20. The extent of the surface tension crack is approximately 20 mm wide and 10 m in length. Due to
the narrow dimension of the crack, manual remediation is not considered warranted.
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
Less than 3% of the total length of cliffs (and associated overhangs) within the mining area experience
mining-induced rock fall.
The subsidence impact performance measure was not exceeded during the review period.
3.5.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
At this stage the implementation of the Land Management Plan and associated management processes are
considered to be adequate.
3.5.5 Further Initiatives
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Land Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual Review, to
the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
3.6 HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.6.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Heritage Management Plan has been prepared to manage the potential
environmental consequences of the Extraction Plan on Aboriginal heritage sites or values in accordance with
Condition 6, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval.
3.6.2 Monitoring
A monitoring program has been implemented to monitor the impacts and consequences of Project related
subsidence on Aboriginal heritage sites.
The first round of monitoring (Round 1) was conducted in January 2012 and March 2012 and included all
Aboriginal heritage sites located within the 35º Angle of Draw for Longwall 20 (Figure 18 and Table 36).
In addition to the sites listed in Table 36, an additional Aboriginal heritage site (MET 3) was identified near
FRC 13 and was visited during monitoring.
The Round 1 monitoring team included an archaeologist (with experience in rock art recording and management)
and Aboriginal stakeholder representatives. A summary of the information collected during monitoring is recorded
in the Heritage Management Plan – Subsidence Impact Register.
00482778 198

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 36
Aboriginal Heritage Site Monitoring – Round 1
Aboriginal Heritage Site
FRC 13 FRC 23 FRC 279
FRC 14 FRC 124 FRC 280
FRC 15 FRC 125 FRC 281
FRC 16.1 FRC 160 FRC 284
FRC 16.2 FRC 168 FRC 285
FRC 17 FRC 266 FRC 304
FRC 20 FRC 273 MET 1
FRC 21 FRC 272 PAD 2
FRC 105 FRC 278 -
Specific details that are recorded during the monitoring program include:
• the date of monitoring;
• the location of longwall extraction (i.e. the longwall chainage) at the time of monitoring;
• comparison of the physical characteristics of the site at the time of monitoring against the previous
monitoring and the baseline record (detail/quantify any changes observed);
• inspections of rock surfaces for cracking and/or exfoliation and/or blockfall since the previous monitoring
and against the baseline record;
• inspection of art motifs for damage or deterioration since the previous monitoring and against the baseline
record;
• identification of any natural deterioration processes (e.g. fire, vegetation growth and water seepage);
• detailed description and quantification of any changes noted during the completion of the above tasks;
• a photographic record of any changes noted during monitoring (taken at the same position and distance as
baseline record to allow comparison over time);
• whether any follow-up actions are required to be considered (e.g. implementation of management or
initiation of the Contingency Plan, etc.); and
• any other relevant information.
The following changes were noted at sites FRC 15, FRC 16.1, FRC 281 and FRC 284 during monitoring:
• At site FRC 15 (an overhang with artefacts and deposit) the level of moisture was observed to have reduced
even though rainfall leading up to the monitoring event resulted in an increase in moisture at other
Aboriginal heritage sites. Small cracks have been identified in the rear wall of site FRC 15 and are in close
proximity to the art motifs, however, no detailed photography is available from the baseline recording of the
area of the cracking and therefore cannot with confidence be attributed to subsidence.
• At site FRC 16.1 (an overhang with art, artefacts and deposit) there was evidence of rock fall from the roof,
which was also identified in the 2009 baseline recording. Any changes in rock fall will be examined during
the next round of monitoring.
• At site FRC 281 (an overhang with art, artefacts and deposit) multiple cracks ranging from large, medium
and small were recorded in the shelter wall either running through or next to motifs. These cracks varied in
length but were all approximately 0.4 cm wide. The majority of the art recorded shows no evidence of
damage or major changes. While cracks were noted in the 2009 baseline survey of this site, additional
cracks (not recorded in the baseline) are considered to have resulted from subsidence.
• At site FRC 284 (an overhang with artefacts and deposit) fracturing was recorded in the buttress-like
formation at the rear wall indicating that the ceiling is placing significant downward pressure on the rear
wall.
00482778 200

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Site FRC 168, a grinding groove previously visited and photographed could not be located during Round 1
monitoring.
3.6.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The subsidence impact performance measure described below has been developed to address the predictions of
subsidence impacts and environmental consequences on Aboriginal heritage included in the EA, PPR and
Extraction Plan.
The monitoring results are used to assess the Project against the Aboriginal heritage subsidence impact
performance measure:
Less than 10% of Aboriginal heritage sites within the mining area are affected by subsidence impacts.
For the purpose of measuring performance against the Aboriginal heritage subsidence impact performance
measure, sites are considered to be “affected by subsidence impacts” if they exhibit one or more of the following
consequences that cannot be attributed to natural weathering or deterioration:
• overhang collapse;
• cracking of sandstone that coincides with Aboriginal art or grinding grooves; and
• rock fall that damages Aboriginal art.
The Heritage Management Plan – Subsidence Impact Register is used to progressively monitor the cumulative
number and percentage of Aboriginal heritage sites affected by subsidence impacts.
Two sites, FRC 281 and FRC 284, have been identified as being impacted by the effects of mining induced
subsidence. This represents less than 10% of the total Aboriginal heritage sites within the mining area.
The Aboriginal heritage subsidence impact performance measure was not exceeded during the review period.
3.6.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
In the event that any subsidence impact is recorded during monitoring, consideration will be given to
implementing appropriate management, remediation and/or mitigation measures in consultation with the OEH
and Aboriginal stakeholders.
The development of management and/or remediation measures will be determined in consultation with the OEH
and the Aboriginal stakeholders and with regard to the specific circumstances of the subsidence impact (e.g. the
location, nature and extent of the impact) and the assessment of consequences. It is acknowledged that whilst
measures may reduce the risk of impact and consequence, they may also have the potential to cause substantial
damage to Aboriginal heritage sites and their settings.
Sites FRC 15, FRC 281 and FRC 284 are proposed to be subject to further monitoring at an interval of
approximately six months from the most recent monitoring event.
It is also proposed to locate site FRC 168, which could not be located during monitoring.
3.6.5 Further Initiatives
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Heritage Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual Review,
to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
00482778 201

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.7 BUILT FEATURES MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.7.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Built Features Management Plan was developed to manage the potential
environmental consequences of the Extraction Plan on built features in accordance with Condition 6, Schedule 3
of the Project Approval. Each plan was developed in consultation with the relevant asset owner.
3.7.2 Monitoring
Site inspections were conducted prior to the commencement of secondary extraction of Longwall 20 to establish
the condition of the infrastructure items. Following re-surfacing of the F6 Southern Freeway (March 2012) in the
vicinity of Helensburgh as part of routine maintenance, a further pavement condition assessment was conducted
by the RMS (previously Roads and Traffic Authority) prior to Longwall 21 extraction approaching within 1,000 m
of the Longwall Finish Line.
A monitoring program was implemented to monitor subsidence impacts on the following infrastructure at the
various frequencies described in the Built Features Management Plan:
• Integral Energy infrastructure;
• Nextgen infrastructure;
• TransGrid infrastructure;
• Optus infrastructure;
• Telstra infrastructure;
• Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) (previously Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]) infrastructure;
• RailCorp infrastructure;
• Sydney Water infrastructure; and
• Wollongong City Council.
Subsidence monitoring relevant to each Built Feature Management Plan was conducted in accordance with each
Plan. In relation to the Built Features Management Plan – RMS (previously RTA), a Technical Committee was
established comprising representatives from the RMS, Metropolitan Coal, the Mine Subsidence Board (as
observers), and technical specialists to monitor progress on a regular basis. A specific subsidence report on
Longwall 20 movements and impacts was prepared at the completion of Longwall 20 by MSEC and monitored
bridge movements were assessed by Cardno Pty Ltd at regular intervals in accordance with the Technical
Committee’s requirements. At the completion of Longwall 20 the subsidence movements were generally in
accordance with predicted subsidence within the accuracy of the survey and prediction methods. No impact to
any built feature was evident over the review period.
3.7.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The results of the subsidence impact monitoring in relation to the built features performance indicators and built
features subsidence impact performance measure are provided below.
Specific performance indicators have been developed for the various infrastructure items and are outlined in the
Built Features Management Plan.
Built Features Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
The Project Approval requires Metropolitan Coal not to exceed the following built features subsidence impact
performance measure:
Safe, serviceable and repairable, unless the owner and the MSB agree otherwise in writing.
00482778 202

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
In relation to the Built Features Management Plan – RMS (previously RTA), Cardno Pty Ltd assessed the
monitored bridge movements as at end July 2011. The assessment concluded that there were no differential
movements of any concern, however some disturbance of ground pegs (1G and 4G for northbound and 8G for
southbound) may have occurred.
The built features subsidence impact performance measure was not exceeded during the review period.
Heritage Subsidence Impact Performance Measure – Garrawarra Centre Historical or Heritage
Significance Items
The Project Approval also requires Metropolitan Coal not to exceed the following heritage subsidence impact
performance measure for items of heritage or historical significance at the Garrawarra Centre:
Negligible damage (fine or hairline cracks that do not require repair), unless the owner of the item and the
appropriate heritage authority agree otherwise in writing.
The Garrawarra Complex is located more than 3 km from Longwalls 20-22 and at this distance no measurable
systematic or non-systematic subsidence movements were indicated. The subsidence impact performance
measure will be assessed as a component of future Extraction Plans.
3.7.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
At this stage the implementation of the Built Features Management Plan and associated management processes
are considered to be adequate.
Over the review period, Metropolitan Coal held meetings with the RMS Technical Committee which was
established to facilitate consultation in regard to the Built Features Management Plan – RMS (previously RTA) in
relation to the F6 Southern Freeway and associated bridges.
The RMS conducted slope stabilisation works to mitigate the risk of dislodging rocks as a consequence of mining
disturbance.
Since there were no impacts to built features over the review period, no further management or mitigation
measures were implemented.
3.7.5 Further Initiatives
Monitoring of subsidence impacts will be conducted in accordance with the Longwalls 20-22 Subsidence
Monitoring Program.
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Built Features Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual
Review, to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
Following a review of subsidence monitoring frequency, the RMS Technical Committee recommended an
additional survey of subsidence lines be conducted when the longwalls approach 1,000 m from the finish line.
The purpose of the additional surveys is to confirm that ground movements to that point are in general
accordance with predicted subsidence. The Longwalls 20-22 Subsidence Monitoring Program and Built Features
Management Plan - RMS will be revised accordingly.
00482778 203

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.8 PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.8.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Public Safety Management Plan has been prepared to manage the
potential consequences of the Extraction Plan on public safety within the underground mining area in accordance
with Condition 6, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval.
3.8.2 Monitoring
Hazards identified in relation to public access to the underground mining area that may arise as a result of the
Extraction Plan include:
• damage to fire trails (e.g. cracks);
• dislodgement of rocks onto fire trails or roads;
• dislodgement of rocks from cliffs and overhangs;
• entrapment by fire caused by locked gates;
• vehicle collision with monitoring equipment located near fire trails;
• slips, trips and falls by visitors to the tributaries; and
• snake bite, spider bite or other animal encounter.
Monitoring of cliffs and overhangs, steep slopes and land in general has been conducted for subsidence impacts
in accordance with the Land Management Plan, and of infrastructure items in accordance with the Built Features
Management Plan. No subsidence impacts were identified during the review period that were considered to pose
a risk to public safety.
Further, no safety incidents were reported by visitors, personnel or contractors to Metropolitan Coal in the
underground mining area during the review period.
3.8.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The monitoring results have been used to assess the Project against the performance indicator and the built
features subsidence impact performance measure.
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
Public safety will be ensured in the event that any hazard to the general
public arising from subsidence effects becomes evident.
No subsidence impacts were identified during the review period that were considered to pose a risk to public
safety.
Analysis against Subsidence Impact Performance Measure
Subsidence Impact Performance Measure:
Safe, serviceable and repairable, unless the owner and the MSB agree otherwise in writing.
Neither the performance indicator, nor the built features subsidence impact performance measure was exceeded
during the review period.
00482778 204

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.8.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
The monitoring information has been used to assess whether any management measures are required in
response to subsidence impacts in relation to public safety. No management measures relating to subsidence
impacts have been required over the review period in relation to public safety.
The following safety management measures are applicable to persons accessing the Woronora Special Area:
• The SCA Standard Conditions of Entry, which outline specific safety controls for authorised personnel
accessing the Woronora Special Area.
• The Metropolitan Coal Catchment Area Induction and SCA Catchment Area Induction, which address the
safety of personnel accessing the Woronora Special Area including awareness of SCA Standard Conditions
of Entry, suitable Personal Protective Equipment, emergency procedures, other site specific safety
protocols outlined in the Environmental Management Plans for catchment works, and the Metropolitan Coal
Bushfire Preparedness Plan.
• The Metropolitan Coal Surface Emergency Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with the
NSW Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, 2002, and operates in conjunction with the First Aid Management
Plan and Firefighting Capability Management Plan.
The general public is not permitted to access the Woronora Special Area for any recreational or other purpose.
3.8.5 Further Initiatives
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Public Safety Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual
Review, to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
Monitoring of subsidence impacts in relation to public safety will continue in the next review period.
3.9 RESEARCH PROGRAM
3.9.1 Background
In accordance with Condition 9, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval, a Metropolitan Coal Research Program was
developed in consultation with the NSW Office of Water, SCA, DECCW (now OEH) and Industry & Investment
NSW and submitted to the Director-General of the DP&I.
The Approval Condition states:
The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Research Program for the Project to the satisfaction of the Director
General, and allocate $320,000, towards the implementation of the program. This program must:
a) be prepared in consultation with DWE, SCA, DECC and DPI
b) be submitted to the Director-General for approval by the end of 2010;
c) be targeted at genuine research, as opposed to implementing the matters required by this approval; and
d) be directed at encouraging research into improving:
• the prediction of valley closure and upsidence, and the resultant subsidence impacts;
• the assessment of the environmental consequences of subsidence impacts on natural features;
• the remediation of subsidence impacts on watercourses;
• the understanding of subsidence impacts and their environmental consequences on swamps;
• the conservation of the Eastern Ground Parrot on the Woronora Plateau; or
• the environmental management of underground mining operations in the Southern Coalfield.
The DP&I approved the Metropolitan Coal Research Program in May 2011.
00482778 205

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.9.2 Program Summary
The research program is comprised of three projects that will investigate technical aspects concerning
groundwater, subsidence and Eastern Ground Parrot populations on the Woronora Plateau.
Conservation of the Eastern Ground Parrot on the Woronora Plateau
The first project, being undertaken by OEH, will result in the implementation of a targeted regional survey for the
Eastern Ground Parrot across the Woronora Plateau using bioacoustic monitoring to assess the presence and
size of any populations, and establish their relationship to site attributes. The project will establish an experiment
using long-term monitoring sites to assess any impact of longwall mining on the species and concurrently assess
the status and distribution of the endangered Eastern Bristlebird. This will enable the establishment of a baseline
library of digital recordings from swamps across the Woronora Plateau that could be retrospectively analysed for
changes in other bird species in the future.
New bioacoustic survey and monitoring techniques targeting the threatened Eastern Ground Parrot and Eastern
Bristlebird across the Woronora Plateau are currently being developed. The development and refinement of the
new monitoring technology has been the focus of this year’s efforts, along with the selection of sites and
establishment of an experiment using long-term monitoring sites to assess any impact of longwall mining on the
species. Fieldwork is planned for spring and summer 2012/13.
Evaluation of Fundamental Geotechnical Mechanisms Contributing to Valley Closure Subsidence Effects
Under Irregular Topographic Conditions
The second project is being conducted by the University of New South Wales, under the supervision of Professor
Bruce Hebblewhite. Professor Hebblewhite is undertaking research in the evaluation of fundamental geotechnical
mechanisms contributing to valley closure subsidence effects under irregular topographic conditions. Australia
has provided world leadership in identifying the now widely accepted phenomenon of valley closure and related
valley floor upsidence when mining beneath or in close proximity to valleys and other forms of irregular surface
topography. Despite being a widely accepted phenomenon the mechanisms remain unclear. The objective of this
project is to carry out a comprehensive program of numerical investigations and calibration studies for a range of
different parameters, in order to clearly understand the underlying or driving geotechnical mechanisms which
cause this behaviour and hence improve the prediction capabilities.
Initial investigations have commenced with the development of a series of numerical modelling studies. The aim
of the initial work is to evaluate different modelling techniques and provide a basis for early stage calibration of
the models with known measured field data. The next stage will be to proceed to more detailed analysis of a
range of parametric studies focused on potential site variables.
Significance of Chain Pillars on Simulated Groundwater Pressures
In the third project Dr Noel Merrick from Heritage Computing will investigate the role played by chain pillars in
isolating groundwater pressure reductions above mined longwall panels, and whether they might limit the
outwards propagation of pressure reductions and environmental effects. The outcomes of this project will be an
improved understanding of the significance of chain pillars with respect to alteration of the groundwater regime, a
quantitative appreciation of critical pillar widths in absolute and relative terms and a methodology for transferring
geotechnical model outputs to groundwater model inputs (permeability fields).
The current groundwater model developed for Metropolitan Coal is being refined as part of on-going
development. In relation to the role of chain pillars, one such refinement relates to the permeability variations
about longwall panels suggested by output from geotechnical models. Groundwater model output will be
compared with field data once model refinement has occurred.
00482778 206

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.10 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.10.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Construction Management Plan has been prepared for surface construction works
(excluding remediation or rehabilitation works) in the Woronora Special Area in accordance with Condition 11,
Schedule 3 of the Project Approval.
3.10.2 Monitoring
As the requirement for surface construction works arise, Metropolitan Coal provide the specific details of the
proposed surface construction works (in the form of a completed Surface Works Assessment Form) to the DP&I
and SCA for comment.
During the review period, a Surface Works Assessment Form for the construction of two new gauging stations,
one on the Eastern Tributary and another on Honeysuckle Creek was provided to the DP&I and SCA for
comment. Construction of the gauging stations will be undertaken in the next review period.
A Construction Management Plan – Performance Indicator Assessment Form will be used to monitor and assess
the performance of construction works. The results of the monitoring will be reported in future Annual Reviews.
3.10.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
The performance of the construction activities will be assessed against the performance indicators outlined
below.
Performance Indicator 1:
Performance Indicator 2:
Performance Indicator 3:
Performance Indicator 4:
The construction works are/have been conducted as described for the
construction site in the Construction Management Plan – Surface Works
Assessment Form.
Inspection of the construction works indicates appropriate erosion and
sediment controls are/have been installed and are effective.
Inspection of the construction works indicates appropriate fuel and spill
management measures are/have been implemented and are effective.
The construction works are/have been conducted in accordance with
other management measures described in the Construction
Management Plan.
3.10.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
Management measures will be implemented to minimise potential impacts associated with surface construction
works in the Woronora Special Area, including measures relevant to:
• vegetation management;
• Aboriginal heritage management;
• erosion and sediment management;
• fuel and spill management;
• transport management;
• waste management;
• bushfire preparedness and management;
• pest management; and
00482778 207

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• site clean up.
The Construction Management Plan – Surface Works Assessment Form will be used to manage the surface
construction works.
3.10.5 Further Initiatives
In the next review period, the two new gauging stations, one on the Eastern Tributary and another on
Honeysuckle Creek will be constructed.
Additional upland swamp piezometers and deep groundwater piezometers will also be installed in the next review
period.
3.11 REHABILITATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.11.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Rehabilitation Management Plan has been prepared for the underground mining area for
areas requiring rehabilitation or remediation measures including surface disturbance areas and stream pool/rock
bar remediation in accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 6 of the Project Approval.
3.11.2 Rehabilitation and Remediation Measures
3.11.2.1 Surface Disturbance Areas
A Rehabilitation Management Plan – Surface Disturbance Register is used to manage the implementation of
rehabilitation measures.
No surface disturbance areas were rehabilitated during the review period.
3.11.2.2 Stream Pool/Rock Bar Remediation
Stream remediation activities have commenced at Pools A and F along the Waratah Rivulet in accordance with
approvals obtained from the SCA under Part 5 of the EP&A Act.
In the review period, stream remediation activities have been conducted at Pool A and Pool F on the Waratah
Rivulet. Stream remediation activities at these pools have included the drilling of holes and the injection of grout
(polyurethane resin) into sub-surface fractures. Associated activities have included the mobilisation, placement
and operation of equipment and the implementation of a variety of environmental management measures.
A substantial grout curtain at Pool A was established along the length of the river cross section in early 2012 and
permeability testing of the structure in June 2012 indicated a low hydraulic conductivity. In June 2012 drill rigs,
site shed, product lines and related stream remediation equipment was removed from the site. Plates 3 and 5
show photographs of the drill holes and surface cracks prior to aesthetic remediation, while Plates 4 and 6 show
photographs of the drill holes and surface cracks post aesthetic remediation.
00482778 208

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Plate 3 Drill Holes before Aesthetic Remediation
Plate 4 Drill Holes after Aesthetic Remediation
Plate 5 Surface Cracks before Aesthetic Remediation
Plate 6 Surface Cracks after Aesthetic Remediation
3.11.3 Monitoring
3.11.3.1 Surface Disturbance Areas
Some surface disturbance areas will be able to be rehabilitated during the life of the Project (e.g. monitoring sites
no longer required), while other surface disturbance areas will likely remain until after the completion of mining
operations.
Once a surface disturbance area is no longer being utilised, monitoring is conducted to assess:
• where appropriate, whether equipment/infrastructure items have been removed;
• whether the area is tidy or rubbish removal is required;
• whether erosion and sediment controls are required and if so, the effectiveness of those installed;
• the presence of weeds and the need for the implementation of weed control measures;
00482778 209

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• where appropriate, whether vegetation is re-establishing naturally or whether active revegetation is
required; and
• if active revegetation is conducted, whether vegetation is establishing.
No surface disturbance areas were rehabilitated during the review period as the majority of disturbance pertained
to the installation of environmental monitoring sites which are a life of mine asset. These sites will be
rehabilitated to appropriate standards following cessation of mining.
In accordance with the Rehabilitation Management Plan, the Rehabilitation Management Plan – Surface
Disturbance Register is used to monitor the performance of the measures implemented to rehabilitate surface
disturbance areas.
3.11.3.2 Stream Pool/Rock Bar Remediation
Monitoring of Pool Water Levels
Water levels in pools on the Waratah Rivulet and Eastern Tributary are monitored in accordance with the
Catchment Monitoring Program and Water Management Plan.
Stream remediation will be initiated:
• at pools/rock bars on Waratah Rivulet between the downstream edge of Flat Rock Swamp and the full
supply level of the Woronora Reservoir; or
• at pools/rock bars on the Eastern Tributary between the maingate of Longwall 26 and the full supply level
of the Woronora Reservoir,
if the water level in a pool falls below its cease to overflow level (i.e. stops overflowing), except if as a result of
climatic conditions.
An assessment of the monitored pool water levels on Waratah Rivulet between Flat Rock Swamp and the full
supply level of the Woronora Reservoir has been conducted, as described below.
Pools A, B, C, E, F, G, G1, H and I on the Waratah Rivulet are situated in the completed mining area (i.e.
overlying Longwalls 1 to 13) between Flat Rock Swamp and the tailgate of Longwall 20 (Figure 7). Manual pool
water level monitoring of Pools A, B, C, E, F, G, G1, H and I are shown on Chart 126.
As a result of previous mining, the water levels in pools upstream of Flat Rock Crossing (i.e. Pools A to G) have
been impacted by mine subsidence as described in the Water Management Plan and Rehabilitation
Management Plan.
As described in Section 3.11.2, stream remediation activities have been undertaken at Pools A and F on the
Waratah Rivulet. The rock bars at Pools A and F are considered to largely control the pools located upstream of
these rock bars. As a result, Metropolitan Coal anticipates that the restoration of surface flow and pool holding
capacity at Pools A and F will restore the surface flow and pool holding capacity of pools between Flat Rock
Swamp and Pool F. Metropolitan Coal will assess whether stream remediation is required at any additional
pools/rock bars between Flat Rock Swamp and Pool F once stream remediation activities at Pools A and F have
been completed.
Recorded manual water levels in Pools E, G1, H and I were temporarily below their cease to flow levels during
isolated periods during the review period. The presence of flow over the rock-bar controls downstream of these
pools is also noted on the manual records. In spite of the fact recorded water levels were below the pool full or
cease-to-overflow levels, there were no instances when the pool was recorded as not overflowing. This
inconsistency can be explained in part by the resolution of manual water level observations in pools which is
expected to be +/- 5 to 10 mm. There were however several instances in Pools E and G1 when the recorded
pool water levels were below the pool full levels by more than these tolerances (i.e. more than 10 mm below the
pool full level). Site personnel responsible for taking the manual pool water level observation have subsequently
confirmed that the pools were overflowing when all these observations were taken.
00482778 210

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
The cease to overflow levels of the manually monitored pools, including Pools E, G1, H and I will be resurveyed
and consideration will be given to installing automatic pool monitoring devices to improve the degree of accuracy
of pool water level data for these pools.
Chart 126 Pool Water Levels in Pools A, B, C, E, F, G, G1, H and I
Automatic pool water level monitoring is also conducted for Pools A and F and for pools further downstream of
Flat Rock Crossing (Pools H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W). The recorded pool water level
responses in these pools are presented in Charts 127 to 142. Where available, the surveyed cease to overflow
levels of the pools are also shown on Charts 127 to 142.
Recorded water levels have remained above surveyed cease to overflow levels in all pools over the review period
with the exception of Pool J (Chart 129). However, it is apparent from the monitored water levels in Pool J that
there is likely to have been a change in the zero level datum of the water level logging device which will be
resurveyed during the next review period. Other than this apparent shift in datum the recorded pool water levels
in Pool J are consistent with natural recessional behaviour and therefore is not considered at this time to have
triggered stream remediation.
Daily temperature fluctuations affected recorded pool water level hydrographs in 2010. This is apparent in a
number of the recorded pool water level hydrographs as large diurnal fluctuations in recorded water level during
periods of low flow. Metropolitan Coal has upgraded the pool water level meter instrumentation in order to
remove the effects of daily temperature fluctuations. Data recorded since these upgrades show substantially
less temperature effects.
Remediation of Pools A and F has been ongoing over the review period. The monitored data show a trend of
longer periods of sustained rock bar overflow in both Pools A and F. It is proposed to conduct an assessment of
the stream remediation activities at Pool A against the stream remediation performance indicator detailed in the
Rehabilitation Management Plan once a period of drier climatic conditions has been experienced.
00482778 211

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 127 Pool A - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 128 Pool F - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 212

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 129 Pool J - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 130 Pool K - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 213

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 131 Pool L - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 132 Pool M - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 214

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 133 Pool N - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 134 Pool O - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 215

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 135 Pool P - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 136 Pool Q - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 216

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 137 Pool R - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 138 Pool S - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 217

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 139 Pool T - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 140 Pool U - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 218

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 141 Pool V - Recorded Pool Water Level
Chart 142 Pool W - Recorded Pool Water Level
00482778 219

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
3.11.4 Assessment of Environmental Performance
3.11.4.1 Surface Disturbance Areas
Analysis against Performance Indicators
Metropolitan Coal will assess the progress of the rehabilitation measures against the following performance
indicators:
Redundant equipment/infrastructure items have been removed.
The site is neat and tidy (i.e. it does not contain any rubbish).
No weed management measures are required.
No erosion or sediment control measures are required.
Where appropriate, native vegetation is naturally regenerating or active revegetation is establishing.
No further active revegetation measures are required.
The progress of the rehabilitation will be recorded in the Rehabilitation Management Plan – Surface Disturbance
Register and reported in future Annual Reviews.
Analysis against Rehabilitation Objective
When appropriate, an assessment of the site will be made against the rehabilitation objective for other land
affected by the Project, viz. Restore ecosystem function, including maintaining or establishing self-sustaining
native ecosystems: comprised of local native plant species; with a landform consistent with the surrounding
environment.
The rehabilitation objective will be considered to have been met if:
• the site contains self-sustaining native vegetation (i.e. the vegetation is able to sustain itself, without the
implementation of any management measures);
• the vegetation is healthy;
• the native vegetation is comprised of local native plant species, as assessed by a suitably qualified botanist;
• ecosystem function is considered to have been restored (i.e. ecosystem processes [water cycle, nutrient
cycle and energy interception] at site scale are functioning well); and
• the landform is consistent with the surrounding environment.
The assessment will be recorded in the Rehabilitation Management Plan – Surface Disturbance Register and the
progress of rehabilitation will be reported in Annual Reviews.
3.11.4.2 Stream Pool/Rock Bar Remediation
Analysis against Performance Indicators
Metropolitan Coal will assess the progress of the stream remediation measures against the following
performance indicator:
Analysis of water level recession rates for a pool indicates a similar pool behaviour to that which existed
prior to being impacted by subsidence.
The water level recession rates performance indicator will be considered to have been met if data analysis
indicates there is not a statistically significant change in pool water level recession rates after stream
remediation, compared to pool water level recession rates prior to the triggering of stream remediation.
Analysis of water level recession rates will be conducted following completion of stream remediation measures.
00482778 220

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Analysis against Rehabilitation Objective
The rehabilitation objective for the Waratah Rivulet between the downstream edge of Flat Rock Swamp and the
full supply level of the Woronora Reservoir and the Eastern Tributary between the maingate of Longwall 26 and
the full supply level of the Woronora Reservoir, viz. Restore surface flow and pool holding capacity as soon as
reasonably practicable, will be assessed using the results of the assessment of the performance indicator and
progress reported in Annual Reviews.
3.11.5 Further Initiatives
Metropolitan Coal will conduct an analysis of the stream remediation activities at Pool A against the stream
remediation performance indicator detailed in the Rehabilitation Management Plan to assess whether surface
flow and pool holding capacity at Pool A has been restored once a period of drier climatic conditions has been
experienced.
In the next review period stream remediation activities will be conducted at Pools F and G/G1 on the Waratah
Rivulet.
The cease to overflow levels of the manually monitored pools, including Pools E, G1, H and I will be resurveyed
and consideration will be given to installing automatic pool monitoring devices to improve the degree of accuracy
of pool water level data for these pools. The zero level datum of the water level logging device at Pool J will also
be resurveyed during the next review period.
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Rehabilitation Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual
Review, to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
00482778 221

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
4 REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE – SURFACE FACILITIES AREA
4.1 NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.1.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Noise Management Plan has been prepared for the Major Surface Facilities Area in
accordance with Condition 8, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval.
4.1.2 Monitoring
In accordance with the Noise Management Plan noise monitoring for the Project has consisted of unattended
and attended monitoring, as described below.
Real-time Noise Monitoring
Real-time noise monitoring for the Project is undertaken using an unattended statistical noise logger. Real-time
noise monitoring is used as an internal Metropolitan Coal noise management tool and not for compliance
purposes.
Real-time noise monitoring commenced in December 2010. The real-time noise monitoring site is located at the
northern boundary of 16 Oxley Place (Figure 19).
The real-time noise monitor includes the following general specifications:
• Records 15 minute statistical noise data.
• Records real-time audio (MP3 or wav) files continuously.
• Produces daily reports, including:
– 15 minute statistical data (L A10, L A90);
– L Aeq(15 minute) and L Aeq(period) noise levels;
– L Aeq(15 minute) in 1/3 octave; and
– L Aeq(15 minute) in the 12.5 to 630 Hertz (Hz) (low frequency) range.
The real-time noise monitor has been set up to record noise levels 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and a
graphical summary of the previous 24 hours of noise is sent to mine staff via email on a daily basis.
The continuous recording also includes an audio function which allows the monitor to record audio of the noise
signal. This audio information can be downloaded in order to allow the listener to determine whether the noise
source is Project related. There are numerous other potential noise sources apart from Project noise, such as
insects, frogs, local vehicles, domestic activities (lawn mowers, etc.) and wind and rain, which may influence
noise monitoring results.
The real-time monitor was initially set up approximately 20 m east of the rear (eastern) residential boundary of
16 Oxley Place. Following analysis of the results the monitor was moved to be within 5 m of the residential
boundary, to provide a more representative measurement of the noise levels at the residential boundary.
The results of the attended surveys conducted at 16 Oxley Place have been compared with those obtained from
the real time noise monitor and good correlation was obtained between the attended results and those from the
real time noise monitor.
00482778 222

P40
6 217 000 N
LEGEND
Receiver Location
Approximate Extent of Major Surface
Facilities Area
Real-time Noise Monitoring Site
Attended Noise Monitoring Site
Automatic Weather Station
314 000 E
315 000 E
HELENSBURGH
316 000 E
317 000 E
6 217 000 N
6 216 000 N
Additional 1 ML
Hill Tank
P40
S36
P42
P44
P46
Sediment
Ponds
F17
F19
Additional Coal
Reject Stockpile
Product Coal
Stockpile
Rail Spur
ILLAWARRA
RAILWAY
6 216 000 N
New Substation
MC3
Parkes
P59
P72/74
Street
P57
P55A P55
P56/58
P53
Portal
& Winder
P48
P50
P52/54
Coarse Coal
Reject
Stockpile
ROM Coal
Stockpile
CAMP GULLY
HELENSBURGH GULLY
6 215 000 N
HELENSBURGH
Parkes
P83
R2
314 000 E
Street
MC2
P86
P88
P65
P67
P69
H54
H48
Mine Access Road
Oxley
MC1
Place
Workshop
& Store
O18
Administration
Buildings
H52
O16
O14 O9
O12 H50
O7
O10
O8 O7A
O5
O6 W7
O4
W1
O3
O2
W5
O1
W3
Replacement
Underground Drift
CAMP GULLY
Bath House
Extension
315 000 E
Coal Handling and
Preparation Plant
(to be Upgraded)
Bath House
Haul Road
Product Coal
Conveyor
316 000 E
Coal Reject
Paste Plant
Turkeys
Nest Dams
0
6 215 000 N
500
Metres
Aerial Photography 2005
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O A L
FIGURE 19
Key Private Receiver Areas
METROPOLITAN COAL
MET-08-AD7 2012 Ann Rev_002B

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Attended Noise Monitoring
Continuous real-time monitoring is supplemented by attended noise monitoring, which commenced in September
2010.
Attended noise monitoring is conducted quarterly and additional monitoring may also be conducted in the event
of ongoing noise complaints from a particular landholder/locality that requires further investigation.
Results from the attended monitoring program are used to verify data collected from the real-time noise monitor
and to track the noise performance of the mine prior to 2014. Post-2014 attended monitoring will be utilised to
determine compliance with noise impact criteria.
The Noise Management Plan requires attended noise measurements and recordings to be conducted quarterly
to quantify the intrusive noise emissions from the mine, including processing and transportation operations as
well as the overall level of ambient noise. The attended monitoring data has also been used to determine
whether there is a consistent relationship between real-time continuous noise levels and long-term attended
monitoring data. Consistent with the Noise Management Plan requirements attended noise monitoring has been
conducted quarterly from September 2010 until July 2012.
The Noise Management Plan requires the attended noise monitoring program to be conducted at sites
representative of the nearest residences to the Project that are potentially most affected by Project noise
emissions and nominates the following as indicated in Figure 19:
• residences to the south-west at 2 to 18 Oxley Place;
• residences to the west north-west at 53 to 59 Parkes Street;
• residences to the north-west at 48, 50, 52/54 Parkes Street; and
• residences further to the north-west at 42, 44 and 46 Parkes Street.
In accordance with the Noise Management Plan attended noise monitoring was conducted for 15 minute periods
during the daytime, evening and night-time periods. The monitoring was carried out on two consecutive days
and nights resulting in at least two 15 minute samples for each monitoring location every three months. Daytime
monitoring at residences to the south-west at 2 to 18 Oxley Place was conducted in the morning period, to
include a representative number of reject and product truck movements on the Mine Access Road.
Consistent with the Noise Management Plan, attended noise monitoring has been conducted quarterly at:
• 16 Oxley Place;
• 53 Parkes Street;
• 50 Parkes Street; and
• 36 Old Station Road, noting this residence is immediately adjacent to 42 Parkes Street and representative
of the nearest residences in this area.
The results of attended noise monitoring are compared against the relevant noise performance indicators and
noise criteria.
Attended Monitoring Results
The previous quarterly noise monitoring survey results for the period September 2010 to July 2012 are estimated
in Tables 37 to 40. The intrusive LAeq(15minute) mine-related noise levels for the four quarterly noise monitoring
surveys conducted within the review period are estimated in Tables 41 to 44.
00482778 224

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 37
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - September Quarter 2010
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 51, 52, 52 52, 50, 50 50, 50
53 Parkes Street 52, 57 48, 47 47, 47
50 Parkes Street 48, 49 48, 48 47, 47
36 Old Station Road 44, 44 47, 52 46, 47
Table 38
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - December Quarter 2010
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 44, 51, 50, 53 45, 43 45, 43
53 Parkes Street 51, 48 48, 49 47, 47
50 Parkes Street 44, 50 40, 51 42, 48
36 Old Station Road 40, 53 38, 46 37, 46
Table 39
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - March Quarter 2011
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 52, 51 50 46, 47
53 Parkes Street 49, 50 49 50, 50
50 Parkes Street 49, 48 47 49
36 Old Station Road 43, 45 45 42
Table 40
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - June Quarter 2011
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 51, 52 50, 49 50, 51
53 Parkes Street 49, 50 49 49, 50
50 Parkes Street 48, 49 49, 47 48, 47
36 Old Station Road 45, 50 44, 46 48, 50
Table 41
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - September Quarter 2011
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 52 50, 47 52, 48
53 Parkes Street 52, 55, 56 55, 54 55, 54
50 Parkes Street 48 48, 54 49, 53
36 Old Station Road 48, 45 48 47, 53
00482778 225

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 42
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - December Quarter 2011
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 53, 59 50, 51 50, 50
53 Parkes Street 55, 53 51, 50 52, 50
50 Parkes Street 51, 50 48, 47 48, 48
36 Old Station Road 54, 51 51, 52 53, 45
Table 43
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - March Quarter 2012
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 58, 57 50, 50 49, 50
53 Parkes Street 53, 54 50, 50 49, 49
50 Parkes Street 50, 49 49, 48 48, 49
36 Old Station Road 50, 50 51, 50 54, 43
Table 44
Estimated Intrusive LAeq(15minute) Mine-Related Noise Levels - June Quarter 2012
Monitoring Locations
Mine-Related Intrusive LAeq(15minute) (dBA)
Day Evening Night
16 Oxley Place 54, 55 49, 50 49, 50
53 Parkes Street 54, 52 49, 50 50, 50
50 Parkes Street 51, 51 50, 48 49, 50
36 Old Station Road 52, 51 51, 51 51, 51
Assessment of Monitoring Results
Consistent estimated mine-related noise levels were obtained for the four surveys from September 2011 to July
2012, with higher levels on occasion during the September 2011 survey as a result of the drift fan replacement at
Metropolitan Coal. Furthermore, the attended noise levels recorded at 16 Oxley Place, 53 Parkes Road and 50
Parkes Road were generally constant in noise level as these locations are influenced by continuous noise from
the Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP) and conveyors whereas mine-related noise levels at 36 Old
Station Road were more varied as a result of mobile plant such as front end loaders and bulldozers associated
with the train loading operations.
The attended monitoring results for the four locations when the mine was fully operational for the September
2011 to July 2012 survey period are summarised are follows:
• 16 Oxley Place – the typical attended results are 52 dBA to 58 dBA daytime, 47 dBA to 51 dBA evening and
48 dBA to 50 dBA night-time.
• 53 Parkes Road - the typical attended results are 52 dBA to 56 dBA daytime, 50 dBA to 55 dBA evening
and 49 dBA to 52 dBA night-time.
• 50 Parkes Road - the typical attended results are 48 dBA to 51 dBA daytime, 47 dBA to 54 dBA evening
and 48 dBA to 53 dBA night-time.
• 36 Old Station Road for periods when the mine is fully operational the typical attended results are 50 dBA to
54 dBA daytime, 48 dBA to 51 dBA evening and 43 dBA to 54 dBA night-time.
00482778 226

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• Unattended real-time monitor - 16 Oxley Place. The real-time noise monitor has been located at 16 Oxley
Place. Higher levels of typically 2 dBA to 3 dBA were recorded by the unattended real-time monitor when
compared to the attended location at the rear of the dwelling (approximately 10 m west). The higher levels
are considered to result from ‘façade reflection’ from the acoustically solid rear fence.
Comparison with the previous noise monitoring results for the survey period of September 2010 to July 2011
shows no significant change in the long term mine related noise levels at the four monitoring locations.
Complaints Records
During the review period two complaints relating to operational noise were received by Metropolitan Coal
(Section 6). In response to these complaints, the temporary construction drift fan was replaced by an alternative
construction drift fan resulting in reduced noise levels.
In comparison, four operational noise complaints were received in the 2010-2011 review period, two in the
2009-2010 review period and four complaints in the 2008-2009 review period (Section 6).
Given the proximity of the major surface facilities to the nearby private residences (Figure 19) this is considered
to be a very low number of noise complaints.
Transport noise complaints are incorporated in traffic complaints (Section 4.4.2).
4.1.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
Noise performance indicators and impact criteria have been developed in consideration of the predicted impacts
of the Project on noise included in the Project EA, as described below.
Assessment against Performance Indicators
Metropolitan Coal has adopted interim noise performance indicators to allow tracking of mine noise
improvements and performance, including noise levels at the nearest residential locations at which the Project
noise impact criteria will be applicable from the end of 2014.
As described in the Project EA, Metropolitan Coal has, and will be, upgrading and/or extending the existing
supporting infrastructure systems at the Major Surface Facilities Area. As noise performance will be linked to the
progress of the major surface facilities upgrades, the performance indicators are also linked to the status of the
upgrades (Table 45).
None of the relevant noise performance indicators (i.e. the upgrades design/construction indicators) were
exceeded during the review period.
00482778 227

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 45
Noise Performance Indicators
Status of Major
Surface Facilities
Upgrades
Upgrades Design/
Construction.
Upgrades
Commissioned
(Pre-end 2014).
Upgrades Complete
(Post-2014).
Noise Performance Indicator
Establishment of a quarterly operational attended
noise monitoring program and real-time noise
monitoring system at the site by December 2010.
Design of the major surface facilities fixed plant
upgrades (and any associated mobile plant
upgrades) is to be undertaken cognisant of the
material noise reductions at the site that will be
required.
Undertake noise modelling of the preferred upgrade
design prior to construction to determine if sufficient
noise reduction is likely to be achieved from the
planned fixed and mobile plant upgrades.
Privately Owned Residences:
Day
L Aeq(15
minute)
53
dB(A)
Evening
L Aeq(15
minute)
48
dB(A)
Night
L Aeq(15
minute)
48
dB(A)
Night
L A1(I
minute)
53
dB(A)
Develop real-time noise monitoring performance
indicators.
Assessment of
Noise Performance Indicator
The performance indicator will be
considered to be exceeded if the
installation and commissioning of the
real-time noise monitor and
commencement of quarterly attended
noise monitoring is not undertaken
prior to 31 December 2010.
The performance indicator will be
considered to be exceeded if the
formal notification of the
design/engineering team is not
undertaken.
The performance indicator will be
considered to be exceeded if the
sound power levels audit and noise
modelling review (and associated
additional design work if necessary) is
not undertaken.
The performance indicator will be
considered to be exceeded if the
indicator noise levels are not met at
the nearest private receivers.
The performance indicator will be
considered to be exceeded if the
Noise Management Plan is not
updated to include real-time
performance indicators prior to 30
June 2014.
Assessment against Noise Impact Criteria
The Project Approval requires Metropolitan Coal by the end of 2014 to ensure that the noise generated by the
Project does not exceed the noise impact assessment criteria in Table 2 of Condition 1, Schedule 4 at any
residence on privately-owned land, or on more than 25% of any privately-owned land.
Table 2:
Noise Impact Assessment Criteria
Day L Aeq(15 min) Evening L Aeq(15 min) Night L Aeq(15 min) Night L A1(I min)
50 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 50 dB(A)
Notes:
• To determine compliance with the L Aeq(period) noise limits, noise from the project is to be measured at the most affected
point within the residential boundary, or at the most affected point within 30 metres of a dwelling (rural situations) where
the dwelling is more than 30 metres from the boundary. Where it can be demonstrated that direct measurement of noise
from the project is impractical, alternative means of determining compliance (see Chapter 11 of the NSW Industrial Noise
Policy) may be accepted. The modification factors in Section 4 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy shall also be applied to
the measured noise levels where applicable.
• To determine compliance with the L A1(1 minute) noise limits, noise from the project is to be measured at 1 metre from the
dwelling façade. Where it can be demonstrated that direct measurement of noise from the project is impractical,
alternative means of determining compliance (see Chapter 11 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy may be accepted.
• The noise emission limits identified in the above table apply under meteorological conditions of:
- wind speeds of up to 3 m/s at 10 metres above ground level; or
- temperature inversion conditions of up to 3ºC/100m, and wind speeds of up to 2 m/s at 10 metres above ground level,
determined in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.
00482778 228

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Post 2014, the performance criteria in Table 2 of Condition 1, Schedule 4 will be considered to be exceeded if:
• the recorded noise levels are more than 2 decibels (dB) above the noise criteria specified in the Project
Approval; and
• sustained non-compliances are not addressed and rectified.
In addition the Project Approval requires by the end of 2014 that if the noise generated by the Project exceeds
the criteria in Table 4 of Condition 1, Schedule 4 at any residence on privately-owned land, Metropolitan Coal
will, upon receiving a written request from the landowner, implement reasonable and feasible noise mitigation
measures (such as double-glazing, insulation, and/or air conditioning) at the residence in consultation with the
landowner. If within 3 months of receiving this request from the landowner, Metropolitan Coal and the landowner
cannot agree on the measures to be implemented, or there is a dispute about the implementation of these
measures, then either party may refer the matter to the Director-General of the DP&I for resolution.
Table 4:
Additional Noise Mitigation Criteria
Day L Aeq(15 min) Evening L Aeq(15 min) Night L Aeq(15 min) Night L A1(I min)
50 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 50 dB(A)
Notes: Noise generated by the project is to be measured in accordance with the notes presented below Table 2 of
Condition 1
4.1.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
Metropolitan Coal has undertaken upgrades to the major surface facilities in the review period and upgrade
works are ongoing. One component of the site upgrades of relevance to major surface facilities noise
management is the progressive implementation of additional noise controls. The following significant noise
reduction works were undertaken in the review period at the Major Surface Facilities Area:
• Completion of the installation of new cladding on the CHPP.
• Use of a portable noise monitor at sensitive receivers.
• Installation of a new drift ventilation fan with superior noise suppression over current fan.
• Ongoing discussions with Pacific National regarding minimisation of night time rolling stock.
While the noise impact assessment criteria described in Section 4.1.3 does not apply until the end of 2014,
Metropolitan Coal has commenced addressing aspects of the noise impact criteria in Table 45. This has
included designing the major surface facilities upgrades cognisant of the material noise reductions that will be
required, including the notification of the lead upgrade design contractors of the noise impact assessment criteria
that need to be achieved.
A number of options for upgrading of the washery building cladding were previously evaluated to determine their
relative noise mitigation. Additional components of the new washery building cladding were installed during the
review period.
Furthermore whilst the ‘Additional Noise Mitigation Criteria’ of Table 4 from the Project Approval does not apply
until the end of 2014, Metropolitan Coal has taken a proactive approach and commissioned noise mitigation
works in the form of double glazing for neighbouring residences in consultation with the landowners. The criteria
for eligibility for double glazing have been informed by an independent acoustic study.
4.1.5 Further Initiatives
The Project upgrades of the Major Surface Facilities Area will continue in the next review period. Metropolitan
Coal will continue to implement noise monitoring in accordance with the Noise Management Plan and regularly
update the noise model to monitor its progress towards compliance with the noise criteria that will become
effective from the end of 2014. Metropolitan Coal will use the noise monitoring and modelling to identify other
areas where reasonable and feasible noise attenuation may be able to be implemented.
00482778 229

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will revise the Noise
Management Plan within three months of the Independent Environmental Audit to address the recommendation
made in relation to blasting. Specifically, the Independent Environmental Audit stated:
No blasting activities have occurred on the surface operational areas of Metropolitan Coal leases. The
audit concludes that Metropolitan Coal is currently meeting its obligations under the Department of
Planning Approval conditions for Schedule 4 "Specific Environmental Conditions — General" Condition
7, however for completeness, a section be included in the either the Environmental Management
Strategy or Noise Management Plan to document blasting at the surface facility and its restriction and
process to conduct blasting in the unlikely occasion it would be required.
Section 8 of the Noise Management Plan will be revised to describe blasting within the Major Surface Facilities
Area.
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will also review and, if
necessary, revise the Noise Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual Review, to
the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
4.2 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.2.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan has been prepared for the surface
facilities area in accordance with Condition 13, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval.
4.2.2 Monitoring
The Metropolitan Coal air quality monitoring network consists of the following components:
• ten dust deposition gauges to monitor monthly dust fall out;
• one High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS) to measure 24 hour average particulate matter less than 10 microns
(µm) (PM 10) concentrations on a 6-day cycle;
• one Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) monitor to measure PM 10 in real-time; and
• one Automatic Weather Station.
The dust deposition and PM 10 monitoring results are described below.
Deposited Dust
Monthly dust deposition rates are measured at ten dust gauges (DG1 to DG10) (Figure 20).
Of the ten dust deposition gauges, five are monitored for compliance with Environment Protection Licence
(EPL) 767 (DG1 to DG5). The remaining five dust gauges (DG6 to DG10), as well as the EPL dust gauges are
used by Metropolitan Coal to guide operations and monitor the performance of on-site dust controls. It should be
noted that DG4 is a control dust gauge that is located at the Helensburgh Golf Course some 2 km from the Major
Surface Facilities Area.
Out of a possible 120 samples (10 sites over 12 months) for the reporting year, 117 were collected, resulting in a
primary data recovery rate of 97.5%. In March and July 2012, samples were lost due to broken dust gauges at
sites DG3 and DG6, respectively. Further, no data is available for September 2011 at site DG9 due to a locked
gate preventing access.
The annual average dust deposition rates for each of the sites are presented in Table 46.
00482778 230

6 217 000 N
P40
TEOM
LEGEND
Approximate Extent of Major Surface
Facilities Area
Receiver Location
EPA Licenced Dust Deposition Gauge
Additional Dust Deposition Gauge
Automatic Weather Station
High Volume Air Sampler
Real Time Dust Monitor
314 000 E
315 000 E
HELENSBURGH
316 000 E
317 000 E
6 217 000 N
DG1
6 216 000 N
DG9
DG2
P40
DG7
S36
P42
P44
P46
Additional 1 ML
Hill Tank
Sediment
Ponds
F17
Product Coal
Stockpile
F19
Additional Coal
Reject Stockpile
Rail Spur
ILLAWARRA
RAILWAY
6 216 000 N
New Substation
MC3
Parkes
P59
P72/74
Street
P57
P55A
DG6
P56/58
HELENSBURGH GULLY
P53
P55
Workshop
& Store
Portal
& Winder
P50
P52/54
P48
Coarse Coal
Reject
Stockpile
ROM Coal
Stockpile
CAMP GULLY
6 215 000 N
DG10
HVAS1
TEOM 1
HELENSBURGH
DG5
Parkes
P83
DG4
located approximately
2km south-west
DG8
R2
314 000 E
Street
MC2
P86
P88
P65
P67
P69
H54
H48
DG3
MC1
Replacement
Drift Portal
Administration
Buildings
Mine Access Road
O18
O16
O14 H52
O12
H50
O9
O7
O10
O8 O7A
O5
O6 W7
O4
W1
O3
O2
W5
O1
W3
Replacement
Underground Drift
Oxley
Place
CAMP GULLY
Bath House
Extension
315 000 E
Coal Handling and
Preparation Plant
(to be Upgraded)
Bath House
Haul Road
Product Coal
Conveyor
316 000 E
Coal Reject
Paste Plant
Turkeys
Nest Dams
0
6 215 000 N
500
Metres
Aerial Photography 2005
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O A L
FIGURE 20
Location of Air Quality
Monitoring Sites
METROPOLITAN COAL
MET-08-AD7 2012 Ann Rev_003A

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 46
Annual Average Dust Deposition Rates, August 2011 to July 2012
Location Site ID Dust Deposition (g/m 2 /month)
136 The Crescent [EPA ID 1/H] DG1 1.5
28 Old Station Road [EPA ID 2] DG2 0.9
Mine Entrance [EPA ID 3] DG3 2.0
Helensburgh Golf Course [EPA ID 4] DG4 1.8
83 Parkes Street [EPA ID 5] DG5 1.2
55 Parkes Street [EPA ID 6] DG6 1.1
32 Old Station Road DG7 1.0
88 Parkes Street DG8 2.0
Helensburgh Public School DG9 1.1
Helensburgh Private School DG10 0.9
The monthly dust deposition monitoring results are shown in Chart 143. Chart 143 shows that the highest dust
deposition results at most gauges were recorded in January 2012.
Chart 143 Dust Deposition Monitoring Data, August 2011 to July 2012
Annual average dust deposition monitoring results for the period August 2007 to June 2012 are presented in
Chart 144. Higher dust deposition levels were recorded at the majority of the dust gauges during the 2009/2010
review period due to the dust storms and bushfires in NSW during October 2009.
00482778 232

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 144 Trends in Annual Average Dust Deposition, 2007 to 2012
Dust deposition levels were lower in 2011/2012 in comparison to the previous years with the exception of
2010/2011. The annual average over the whole network was 1.4 g/m 2 /month for this review period, compared
with 2.1 g/m 2 /month, 1.4 g/m 2 /month, 2.6 g/m 2 /month and 1.3 g/m 2 /month for 2007/2008, 2008/2009, 2009/2010
and 2010/2011, respectively.
Particulate Matter
One TEOM and one HVAS are located near the Metropolitan Mine (Figure 20). The TEOM allows for continuous
measurement of PM 10 concentrations, at five-minute intervals, while the HVAS provides an average PM 10
concentration for a specific 24-hour period, on a six-day cycle. A discussion of PM 10 monitoring results obtained
by both TEOM and HVAS is provided below.
Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance
Metropolitan Coal installed a TEOM to measure PM 10 concentrations in real-time and developed associated data
review and trigger based systems for on-site dust management in December 2010. The location of the TEOM is
in close proximity to the mine as illustrated on Figure 20.
Chart 145 shows a graph of the 24-hour average PM 10 concentrations from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012. Data
were available for 360 days (98.4% data recovery) over the entire period. The highest 24-hour average PM 10
concentration during the monitoring period was 31.0 µg/m 3 recorded on the 24 September 2011.
There were 6 days (30/8/11, 22/9/11, 3/11/11, 2/4/12, 3/4/12 and 4/4/12) of missing data for PM 10 recorded by
the TEOM. Accompanying notes state that on the 3 November 2011 there was no email received and for the 2-
4 April the TEOM was not online. The highest 10-minute average PM 10 concentration recorded was 141.6 µg/m 3 .
00482778 233

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 145 24-Hour Average PM 10 Concentration (TEOM), August 2011 to July 2012
High Volume Air Sampler
A HVAS has been installed at the Metropolitan Mine to measure 24-hour PM 10 concentrations on a six-day cycle.
The 24-hour average PM 10 monitoring results recorded at the HVAS during the review period are shown in
Chart 146.
Chart 146 24-Hour Average PM 10 Concentration (HVAS), August 2011 to July 2012
The maximum recorded 24-hour average PM 10 concentration using the HVAS instrumentation was 31.9 µg/m 3 in
January 2012 and the annual average concentration was 13.3 µg/m 3 .
00482778 234

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Long-term PM 10 Analysis
Chart 147 shows the 24-hour average PM 10 concentrations from 2007 to 2012. There are two periods where the
data is missing, one from 17 March 2009 to 6 April 2009 and another from 28 August 2009 to 28 January 2010
due to maintenance issues. Chart 147 shows that there are a higher number of elevated measurements (over
50 µg/m 3 ) in the 2009/2010 period relative to the 2007/2008, 2008/2009, 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 review
periods.
Chart 147 24-Hour Average PM 10 Concentration (HVAS) 2007 to 2012
Chart 148 shows the annual average PM 10 concentration (measured by HVAS) from 2007 to 2012. The annual
average PM 10 concentration for the review period (13.3 µg/m 3 ) is relatively low in comparison to previous years
(14.8 µg/m 3 [2007/2008], 15.3 µg/m 3 [2008/2009], 26.0 µg/m 3 [2009/2010] and 11.8 µg/m 3 [2010/2011]).
00482778 235

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 148 Annual Average PM 10 Concentration (HVAS) 2007 to 2012
Complaints Records
Metropolitan Coal records mine related complaints in a complaint register as described in Section 6. No dust
related complaints were received in the review period.
4.2.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
Air quality performance indicators and impact criteria have been developed in consideration of the predicted
impacts of the Project on air quality included in the Project EA, as described below.
Assessment against Performance Indicators
Establishment of the Real-Time Monitoring System
Metropolitan Coal installed a TEOM to measure PM 10 in real-time and associated data review and trigger based
systems for Metropolitan Coal on-site dust management in December 2010.
Monitoring Performance Indicators
In accordance with the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, Metropolitan Coal has assessed the
Project against the air quality performance indicators outlined in Table 47.
00482778 236

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 47
Internal Air Quality Performance Indicators
Pollutant Averaging Period Monitoring Point Performance Indicator 1, 2
PM 10 24 hour HVAS1 37.5 µg/m 3
Annual 25 µg/m 3
10 minute TEOM1 150 µg/m 3*
24 hour 37.5 µg/m 3*
Deposited Dust Annual Metropolitan Coal Dust Gauges
excluding DG4
3 g/m 2 /month
1
2
Total measured level excluding extraordinary events such as bushfires, prescribed burning, dust storms, sea fog, fire incidents, illegal activities.
Background PM 10 concentrations due to all other sources plus the incremental increase in PM 10 concentrations due to the mine alone.
* Indicative performance criteria only – to be reviewed and updated with ongoing monitoring results.
HVAS1 = High Volume Air Sampler 1.
TEOM1 = Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 1.
µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic metre.
g/m 2 /month = grams per square metre per month.
The annual average dust deposition rates for each of the sites presented in Table 46 indicate that compliance
with the deposited dust performance indicator (3 g/m 2 /month) was achieved during the review period.
Charts 145 and 146 indicate there were no exceedances of the PM 10 24-hour performance indicators (37.5 µg/m 3 )
during the review period.
The annual average PM 10 concentration measured at the HVAS was 13.3 µg/m 3 which is lower than the annual
average PM 10 performance indicator of 25 µg/m 3 .
The 10 minute average PM 10 concentration measured at the TEOM was 141.6 µg/m 3 which is lower than the air
quality performance indicator for the 10 minute average PM 10 concentration of 150 µg/m 3 .
Assessment against Air Quality Impact Criteria
The Project Approval requires Metropolitan Coal to ensure that dust generated by the Project does not cause
additional exceedances of the air quality impact assessment criteria listed in Tables 5, 6 and 7 of Condition 11,
Schedule 4 at any residence on privately-owned land, or on more than 25% of any privately-owned land.
Table 5: Long term impact assessment criteria for particulate matter
Pollutant Averaging period Criterion
Total suspended particulate (TSP) matter Annual 90 μg/m 3
Particulate matter < 10 µm (PM 10) Annual 30 μg/m 3
Table 6: Short term impact assessment criterion for particulate matter
Pollutant Averaging period Criterion
Particulate matter < 10 μm (PM 10) 24 hour 50 μg/m 3
Table 7: Long term impact assessment criteria for deposited dust
Pollutant Averaging period Maximum increase in
deposited dust level
Maximum total deposited
dust level
Deposited dust Annual 2 g/m 2 /month 4 g/m 2 /month
Note:
Deposited dust is assessed as insoluble solids as defined by Standards Australia, AS/NZS 3580.10.1:2003: Methods for Sampling and
Analysis of Ambient Air - Determination of Particulate Matter – Deposited Matter - Gravimetric Method, or its latest version.
00482778 237

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Deposited Dust
Compliance with the dust deposition impact criteria was achieved during the review period. All sites show
maximum total deposited dust levels that are well within the long term impact assessment criterion of
4 g/m 2 /month.
Particulate Matter
The maximum recorded 24-hour average PM 10 concentration using the HVAS instrumentation was 31.9 µg/m 3 in
January 2012. Compliance with the 24-hour PM 10 short-term impact assessment criteria (50 µg/m 3 ) was
achieved during the review period.
The HVAS recorded an annual average PM 10 value of 13.3 µg/m 3 , well below the annual average PM 10 air quality
impact assessment criteria of 30 µg/m 3 .
Annual average total suspended particulate (TSP) concentrations can be estimated from the PM 10
measurements by assuming that 40-50% of the TSP is comprised of PM 10. This relationship generally applies
across the majority of airsheds, and has been validated through data collected by co-located TSP and PM 10
monitors operated for reasonably long periods of time in the Hunter Valley (NSW Minerals Council, 2000). Use
of this relationship indicates that the annual average TSP concentration for the review period is anticipated to be
less than 33 µg/m 3 , well below the PM 10 air quality impact assessment criteria of 90 µg/m 3 .
4.2.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
A number of measures have been implemented to manage and mitigate air quality impacts at Metropolitan Coal,
including:
• enclosing conveyor systems;
• the operation of automated water sprays on conveyors, transfer points and stockpile areas based on real
time meteorological data;
• watering of haulage roads and stockpile areas with a water truck when required;
• progressive sealing of car parks and yard areas;
• the use of chemical dust suppressant on unsealed haulage roads;
• planting of native plants on exposed areas to stabilise soils;
• upgrade of greenhouse gas data acquisition systems;
• deployment of a real-time portable dust monitoring system to supplement the data acquired by the static air
quality monitoring network; and
• commencement of studies required to complete the Pollution Reduction Programs issued in accordance
with Environment Protection Licence 767 as per the NSW EPA Dust Stop Program.
Metropolitan Coal has also implemented the following measures to minimise dust emissions associated with offsite
coal and coal reject haulage:
• underground coal emplacement project minimising coal reject trucking;
• a project implemented to maximise coal yield thereby reducing reject trucking;
• automatic covers have been fitted to coal reject haulage trucks;
• automatic or manual covers have been fitted to coal haulage trucks;
• audits have been performed to ensure haulage truck covers are being used appropriately;
• all haulage vehicles are required to pass through a truck wash before leaving the site;
• the mine entrance road is washed five days per week;
• the mine entrance road is scrubbed using a road sweeper and then washed each Saturday; and
00482778 238

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
• a sweeper/sucker is operated on Parkes Street by Metropolitan Coal four days per week and one day per
week by the Wollongong City Council.
4.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Management
Condition 10, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval requires that Metropolitan Coal implement all reasonable and
feasible measures to minimise:
a) energy use on site; and
b) the scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions produced on site,
to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions are emissions due to the operation of the Project and
consumption of electricity on-site. Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are emissions that will result from the offsite
transport and burning of the coal produced by the Project, plus emissions associated with the production of
diesel that is used on-site.
Table 48 below outlines the key greenhouse gas emission sources at the Project and the respective scope of
emissions.
Energy Savings Action Plan
Under the NSW Government's Energy Efficiency Action Strategy, high energy users are required to implement
cost effective energy saving measures identified in their Energy Savings Action Plans (ESAP).
The ESAP for Metropolitan Coal was formally accepted in January 2008. Annual Reports are required and the
ESAP is to be reviewed and updated every four years.
Energy savings are seen as an important component of Peabody Energy Australia’s commitment to sustainable
development. The energy savings measures that have been put into place have resulted in energy savings of
more than 1,430 gigajoules (GJ) per annum, more than 890 tonnes of CO 2 and a reduction in the electricity
demand of more than 50 kilovolt amps. Table 49 shows energy saving actions that have been completed to
date.
Table 48
Summary of Project CO 2-e Emission Sources
Project Component
Consumption of diesel fuel to
power on-site equipment.
Direct Emissions
(Scope 1)
Emissions from the
combustion of diesel during
operations.
Indirect Emissions
(Scope 2)
Electricity consumption. N/A Emissions resulting from
generation of the electricity
consumed during operations.
Coal extraction (gas flaring
and ventilation).
Transporting product and
reject coal by truck.
Transporting product coal by
train.
Emissions resulting from
venting or burning methane
and venting carbon dioxide
(CO 2).
N/A
N/A
Indirect Emissions
(Scope 3)
Emissions attributable to the
extraction of diesel fuel.
Emissions attributable to the
extraction of fuel used in
electricity generators.
N/A N/A Emissions from the
combustion of diesel from
third-party truck operators.
N/A N/A Emissions from the
combustion of diesel from
third-party train operators.
Steelmaking. N/A N/A Emissions generated from
off-site coke usage for steel
and iron production.
N/A
00482778 239

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 49
Completed Energy Savings Actions over Previous Five Years
Description
Increased conveyor maintenance frequency to reduce
friction losses and wear.
Annual Savings
(gigajoules [GJ])
Not estimated 1
Annual Greenhouse
Gas Savings
(tonnes CO 2-e)
Status
Completed
High efficiency motor replacement policy. Not estimated 1 Completed
Installation of Current Transformer on hot water system
to monitor load on Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) and detect failures.
Not Applicable 2
Completed
Low impendence transformer purchasing policy. Not estimated 1 Completed
Redundant equipment disconnection policy. > 360 > 100 Completed
Replace existing heat coil ducting with heat pumps.
Abandoned as not technically feasible
Compressed air receiver installation. 359 98 Completed
Compressed air review and ongoing 10% leakage
reduction.
35 10 Completed
Surface lighting optimisation. 35 10 60% complete
1
Annual savings not estimated as these are measures that will provide minor efficiency gains over an extended period (e.g. gains of
approximately 0.5% to 4% on power demand from these components). Minor ongoing efficiency savings will continue as a result of these
policies.
2
This is a monitoring system to evaluate the load on, and efficiency of, the hot water system.
The increasing ROM coal production at Metropolitan Coal will increase electricity demand as the throughput of
coal handling and processing systems increases. Approved construction activities (e.g. construction of the
Replacement Drift) are also likely to increase site electricity demand in the short term.
However, upgrades to the major surface facilities, materials handling systems and ventilation will provide
significant opportunities to improve the energy efficiency of the operations (i.e. energy demand per tonne of coal
produced).
4.2.6 Further Initiatives
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan within three months of the submission
of this Annual Review, to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
In the next review period, Metropolitan Coal will:
• implement the recommendations of the Coal Mine Particulate Matter Control Best Practice Report, which
will include the installation of additional dust control sprays on the Run-of-Mine stockpile;
• upgrade the automated weather station triggered stockpile dust sprays to account for precipitation levels
experienced prior to the activation of the sprays; and
• implement revegetation and regeneration measures at the surface facilities area ,as appropriate.
4.3 SURFACE FACILITIES WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.3.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Surface Facilities Water Management Plan has been prepared for the surface facilities area
and two ventilation shaft sites in accordance with Condition 15, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval.
4.3.2 Monitoring
The surface facilities water management system is monitored by Metropolitan Coal, as described below.
00482778 240

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Meteorology
Daily total rainfall and rainfall intensity are measured at the Metropolitan Coal meteorological station at
Robertson Street in Helensburgh. The rainfall data is used as an input to the surface facilities water balance
model.
The total rainfall recorded during the review period was 1,720 mm. The total monthly rainfall data for the review
period is shown in Chart 149.
Water Use
Flow meters at key points in the water management system monitor flow rates using an electronic system and
manual (weekly) readings. Manual weekly readings have been recorded during the review period while the
electronic system has been updated.
Metropolitan Coal used approximately 136 ML of potable town water (as recorded by the Sydney Water meter)
during the review period, with a monthly average of approximately 11 ML. The amount of town water used over
the review period is shown in Chart 149. Metropolitan Coal also sourced approximately 114 ML of water from
Camp Gully during the review period.
Chart 149
Rainfall and Town Water Use during the Review Period
Licensed Discharge
Water discharged from the Water Treatment Plant to Camp Gully is monitored in accordance with EPL No. 767,
which requires Metropolitan Coal to continuously monitor the volume (KL/day) of water discharged from the clean
water tank in the Water Treatment Plant to Camp Gully.
The total amount of water discharged from the Water Treatment Plant to Camp Gully during the review period
was 113 ML.
Water Quality
Surface water quality monitoring is conducted at EPL No. 767 monitoring point 9 (clean water tank of the water
treatment plant), if discharge is occurring to Camp Gully. Water quality parameters for EPL No. 767 monitoring
point 9 include: pH (pH units), oil and grease (mg/L) and total suspended solids (mg/L).
The levels of pH recorded at EPL No. 767 monitoring point 9 during the review period ranged from pH 7.9 to 8.5,
with an average of pH 8.3 (Chart 150).
00482778 241

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Oil and grease concentrations recorded at EPL No. 767 monitoring point 9 during the review period ranged from
less than the detection limit (

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 151 Oil and Grease recorded at EPL No. 767 Monitoring Point 9
Chart 152 Total Suspended Solids recorded at EPL No. 767 Monitoring Point 9
Mine Water Make
Monitoring of mine water make is conducted in accordance with the Water Management Plan. The monitoring
results are described in Section 3.3 of this Annual Review.
00482778 243

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Overall System Integrity
The following water management items are visually inspected and reported in accordance with the mine’s
maintenance system:
• Integrity of all water management system pipelines and pumps for leaks and general serviceability (daily
inspection).
• Integrity of all concrete bunded areas (hydrocarbon storages) for integrity and signs of leakage (daily
inspection).
• Integrity of main water storages (Turkey’s Nests, Sediment Ponds and Taj Mahal) and status of sediment
accumulation (daily inspection).
• Signs of discharge of site runoff to Camp Gully or Helensburgh Gully, other than via licensed discharge
points (daily inspection).
• Integrity of upslope diversions at site perimeter (weekly inspection).
• Integrity and effectiveness of erosion control measures (weekly inspection).
The Water Treatment Plant is also checked daily by the site’s maintenance personnel under the direction of the
Environment and Community Manager.
The Environment and Community Manager (or their delegate) also inspects the site weekly.
The daily and weekly inspections identified a number of improvements and required maintenance measures. The
improvements and measures are described in Section 4.3.4 below.
During the review period one environmental incident occurred on 15 August 2011. Water run-off from a Virgin
Excavated Natural Material stockpile in the drift construction area was identified draining via an on-site clean
water drain to the Helensburgh Creek culvert and subsequently into Camp Gully. Steps were immediately taken
to barricade the clean water drain with sandbags to prevent further run-off into Camp Gully via the culvert. Clean
up measures were implemented including the removal of the Virgin Excavated Natural Material stockpile using an
excavator to a suitable containment area. Water samples taken from Camp Gully indicated the water quality at
the discharge point into Camp Gully was quickly restored. The OEH’s Pollution Line was advised of the incident
on 15 August 2011 at 4:28 pm (Reference Number 130 492) and the DP&I on 15 August 2011 at 4:31 pm.
Correspondence between Metropolitan Coal and OEH included the agreement of corrective actions to be
implemented to rectify the issue including:
• installation of a concrete containment barrier to further segregate clean and dirty water;
• repair of sprinkler system on new drift conveyor to prevent a re-occurrence of the malfunction that led to
continuous operation of the sprinkler system on the conveyor; and
• provision of further training to the contractors responsible for the drift construction regarding environmental
obligations.
4.3.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
In accordance with the Surface Facilities Water Management Plan, the performance indicators outlined in
Table 50 will be used to assess the performance of the Surface Facilities Water Management Plan.
00482778 244

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Table 50
Summary of Surface Facilities Water Management Performance Indicators
Aspect Objective Performance Indicator
Water use.
To minimise the use of potable water
(i.e. town water) and maximise the use
water recycled from underground and
water captured on site.
Erosion control.
Containment of
contaminants.
Licensed discharge.
System integrity.
To implement measures to effectively
control erosion.
To implement effective isolation and
containment systems to prevent
contaminants from impacting on
groundwater resources.
To comply with the licensed discharge
limits for surface water discharges to
Camp Gully.
To regularly check that key
components of the water management
system are operating effectively.
The use of potable water (i.e. megalitres of town water
used per tonne of coal produced) does not increase over
time, after taking into consideration climatic conditions.
Potable water has not been used in circumstances
where there is a viable alternative.
Inspections of the major surface facilities area and
ventilation shaft(s) indicate the measures implemented
are effectively controlling erosion.
Effective containment and/or isolation measures are in
place for potential contaminants on site.
Surface water discharges comply with the requirements
of EPL No. 767.
Inspections of system components indicate no
maintenance or additional management measures are
required to be implemented.
4.3.3.1 Water Use
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
The use of potable water (i.e. megalitres of town water used per tonne of
coal produced) does not increase over time, after taking into
consideration climatic conditions.
Potable water has not been used in circumstances where there is a viable
alternative.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the use of potable water increases over time,
after taking into consideration climatic conditions and potable water has been used in circumstances where there
is a viable alternative.
The use of potable water used per tonne of coal produced is variable and is seen to generally be highest during
periods of low rainfall (Chart 153). The operation’s water is sourced from on-site harvesting, licenced extraction
from Camp Gully and the Sydney Water supply. When on-site harvesting and extraction from Camp Gully is not
possible (i.e. during two consecutive months of below average rainfall) additional demands are placed on Sydney
Water’s supply.
The higher usage of potable water used per tonne of coal in August and September 2011 can be attributed to the
commencement of a longwall changeout. During this time the reduction in coal production resulted in higher
water use per ROM tonnes produced.
Ongoing site auditing during the review period has not identified incidences of potable water being used where
there is a viable alternative.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
00482778 245

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Chart 153
Potable Water Used per ROM Tonne Produced vs Rainfall
4.3.3.2 Erosion Control
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
Inspections of the major surface facilities area and ventilation shaft(s)
indicate the measures implemented are effectively controlling erosion.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if inspections of the major surface facilities area
and ventilation shaft(s) indicate the measures implemented are not effectively controlling erosion.
Weekly inspections of the major surface facilities area and ventilation shaft(s) indicate that the erosion control
measures implemented during the review period have effectively controlled erosion.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
4.3.3.3 Containment of Contaminants
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator:
Effective containment and/or isolation measures are in place for potential
contaminants on site.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if effective containment and/or isolation
measures are not in place for potential contaminants on site.
Weekly inspections have confirmed that effective containment and isolation measures have been in place for
potential contaminants on site. Effective containment and/or isolation measures have included the separation of
waste materials and storage of liquids within bunded areas.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
00482778 246

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
4.3.3.4 Licensed Discharge
Analysis against Performance Indicator
Performance Indicator: Surface water discharges comply with the requirements of EPL No. 767.
.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if surface water discharges do not comply with
the requirements of EPL No. 767.
EPL No. 767 requires that the concentration of oil and grease, pH and total suspended solids discharged from
the Water Treatment Plant to Camp Gully do not exceed the levels specified in the licence. EPL No. 767 states
that the monitoring results at EPL No. 767 monitoring point 9 (clean water tank of the water treatment plant) are
to be used to determine compliance with the concentration limits in the licence. The recorded monitoring results
at EPL No. 767 monitoring point 9 are assessed against the concentration limits specified by EPL No. 767 in
Charts 150 to 152 above and Table 51 below.
Table 51
Assessment of Licensed Discharge Compliance
Parameter EPL No. 767 Concentration Limit Recorded Values During the Review Period 1
(minimum-maximum)
Oil and grease (mg/L) 10

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
−
−
excavation of the Turkey’s Nest dams to remove silt and maintain storage capacity; and
installation of a new spillway for the sediment ponds.
• Management measures in response to system integrity issues identified by daily or weekly inspections
including:
−
−
−
−
turbidity sensor triggered pump response times adjusted to improve the water treatment plant
processing efficiency;
installation of a refurbished thickener paddles;
on-going maintenance of site bunding; and
repairs to the site emergency diesel water pump.
4.3.5 Further Initiatives
Metropolitan Coal will continue to investigate the potential for improvements to the re-use of site water and site
water management over the next review period.
In the next review period activities will be undertaken to augment existing water storage infrastructure to
maximise mine water storage capacity. In addition, Metropolitan Coal will investigate the potential to operate the
underground emplacement plant utilising untreated mine water. Implementation of this initiative would have the
dual benefits of reducing potable water use and the reservation of treated water for higher order uses.
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Surface Facilities Water Management Plan within three months of the submission of this
Annual Review, to the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
4.4 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.4.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Traffic Management Plan has been prepared to minimise the traffic impacts of the Project on
the residential areas and schools within Helensburgh in accordance with Condition 22, Schedule 4 of the Project
Approval.
4.4.2 Monitoring
The majority of product coal from Metropolitan Coal is transported by train to the Port Kembla Coal Terminal for
transport to domestic and overseas customers, with trains operating up to 24 hours per day, seven days per
week (Figure 1). Small volumes of product coal for the domestic market are transported by road to the Corrimal
Coke Works and Coalcliff Coke Works (Figure 1), five days per week.
Coal reject material is also transported by road to the Glenlee Washery for disposal (Figure 1), five days per
week.
Coal and coal reject deliveries are weighed on receipt at their destination (e.g. Port Kembla, Glenlee Washery)
and the delivered tonnages are reported at regular intervals to Metropolitan Coal.
Metropolitan Coal monitors the amount of product coal transported from site by road and by rail. A total of
1,497,707 tonnes of product coal was transported from site by rail and 139,484 tonnes by road in the review
period.
Metropolitan Coal also monitors the amount of coal reject that is transported from the site by road each year. A
total of 220,362 tonnes of coal reject was transported from site in the review period.
Monitoring details are available on the Metropolitan Coal website and are updated every six months.
00482778 248

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Complaints Records
During the review period no complaints were received in relation to transport or transport noise (Charts 154 and
155, Section 6). This compares to two transport or transport noise complaints last year and eight transport
related complaints in the previous review period (Charts 154 and 155, Section 6).
4.4.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
Analysis against Performance Indicators
In accordance with the Traffic Management Plan, performance indicators are used to monitor the performance of
Project traffic management. If data analysis indicates a performance indicator has been exceeded or is likely to
be exceeded, management measures are implemented and Metropolitan Coal continues to monitor.
Performance Indicator 1:
When annual road maintenance contribution negotiations are required,
the negotiations should commence with the relevant councils and/or DP&I
by 31 August.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the annual contribution negotiations have not
commenced by 31 August.
Metropolitan Coal commenced negotiations with the Wollongong City Council, Campbelltown City Council and
Wollondilly Shire Council prior to 31 August 2011.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
Performance Indicator 2:
Annual road maintenance contributions to relevant councils are made by
30 November.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the annual contributions to the relevant
councils are not made by 30 November each year.
Metropolitan Coal made contributions to the Wollongong City Council, Campbelltown City Council and
Wollondilly Shire Council by 30 November 2011.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
Performance Indicator 3:
Coal transported off-site by road in a calendar year does not reach
150,000 tonnes prior to 31 October.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the amount of coal transported off-site by road
exceeds 150,000 tonnes prior to 31 October in any one year.
As described above, Metropolitan Coal monitors the amount of product coal transported from site by road. Less
than 150,000 tonnes of product coal was transported from Metropolitan Coal in the 2011 calendar year prior to 31
October 2011.
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
Performance Indicator 4:
Product coal truck movements to the Corrimal Cokeworks and Coalcliff
Cokeworks do not exceed 22 and 27 movements respectively in any one
day.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the number of product coal trucking
movements to the Corrimal Cokeworks and Coalcliff Cokeworks exceed 22 and 27 movements, respectively, in
any one day.
Product coal truck movements to the Corrimal Cokeworks and Coalcliff Cokeworks have not exceeded 22 and 27
movements, respectively, in any one day.
00482778 249

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
This performance indicator was not exceeded during the review period.
Analysis against Project Approval Conditions
Condition 6, Schedule 2:
Limits on Approval
6. The Proponent shall not:
…..
(b)
transport more than 2.8 million tonnes of product coal from the site in a calendar year.
A total of 1,466,802 tonnes of product coal was transported from Metropolitan Coal in the 2011 calendar year,
and some 1,106,028 tonnes of product coal has been transported from site in the period January to July 2012.
This Approval Condition was not exceeded during the review period.
Condition 17, Schedule 4:
Parkes Street Intersection
17. By the end of 2010, the Proponent shall:
(a)
(b)
undertake a road safety audit of the Parkes Street and Colliery Road intersection, in
consultation with the RTA and WCC; and
implement any recommendations of this audit,
to the satisfaction of the Director-General.
The Road Safety Audit of the Mine Access Road and Parkes Street intersection (Figure 21) was conducted in
September 2010 in accordance with Condition 17, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval. The road safety audit
considered the following aspects:
• intersection layout and geometric design;
• vehicle/vehicle conflicts;
• vehicle/pedestrian conflicts; and
• lighting, signs, delineation and drainage.
Detailed upgrade design plans have been provided to Wollongong City Council’s Traffic Safety Committee to
address the recommendations of the Road Safety Audit. It is anticipated that the upgrade design of the Parkes
Street and Colliery Road intersection will be implemented in the next review period.
Condition 18, Schedule 4:
Road Maintenance Contributions
18. From the end of 2009, the Proponent shall make a suitable annual contribution to WCC, WSC, and
CC for the maintenance of local roads that are used as haulage routes by the project. If there is
any dispute over the amount of the contribution, the matter must be referred to the Director-General
for resolution.
Metropolitan Coal has made contributions to the Wollongong City Council, Wollondilly Shire Council and
Campbelltown City Council for the 2011 calendar year in accordance with this condition. Metropolitan Coal is
currently in discussions with the Councils regarding contributions for 2012.
00482778 250

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Conditions 19 and 20, Schedule 4:
Road Transport Restrictions
19. The Proponent shall not:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
load coal or coal reject onto trucks, or transport it off site by road, outside the hours of 7am
and 6pm Monday to Friday;
transport more than 170,000 tonnes of coal off site by road in a calendar year;
transport any coal off site to the Port Kembla Coal Terminal by road;
permit the departure of more than 25 trucks containing product coal for delivery to the
Corrimal Cokeworks on any given day; or
permit the departure of more than 30 trucks containing product coal for delivery to the
Coalcliff Cokeworks on any given day.
20. During emergencies (such as the disruption of rail services) the Proponent may exceed the
restrictions in Condition 19 above with the written approval of the Director-General.
The loading and transport of coal product and coal reject has been undertaken in accordance with Conditions 19
and 20, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval.
There were no exceedances of Conditions 19(a), (d) or (e) during the review period.
In late April 2012 Metropolitan Coal requested, and was granted permission, to temporarily exceed the road
transportation restrictions in Conditions 19(b) and 19(c) in accordance with Condition 20 of the Project Approval.
The request was made following disruptions to the rail network and infrastructure, specifically, broken rail track
connecting Metropolitan Coal to the Illawarra Rail Line, followed by the slumping of the product coal stockpile at
the toe of the stockpile onto the rail track blocking the Metropolitan rail spur.
During the period of exceedance of Condition 19, Metropolitan Coal implemented the following management
measures:
• where practicable, the additional truck movements were scheduled to avoid school drop off and pick up
times, as well as peak hour traffic;
• larger capacity trucks (e.g. truck and dog combinations) were used to minimise the additional number of
trucks required; and
• use of the underground reject emplacement facility was maximized to minimise reject trucking.
Condition 21, Schedule 4:
Monitoring
21. The Proponent shall monitor the amount of coal and coal reject transported from the site by road
and rail each year, and report the results of this monitoring on its website every six months.
The results of coal transport monitoring are provided on Metropolitan Coal’s website and are updated every six
months.
4.4.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
As described above, Metropolitan Coal has contributed to the relevant local Councils for the maintenance of local
roads that are used as haulage routes by the Project. Metropolitan Coal is currently in discussions with the
relevant Councils regarding contributions for 2012.
The loading and haulage of coal product and coal reject will be undertaken in accordance with the operational
requirements set out in Metropolitan Coal’s Project Approval.
00482778 252

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
A telephone number for the provision of comments or complaints regarding Metropolitan Coal is displayed on the
signage at the entrance to Metropolitan Coal (1800 115 003). This number can be used by members of the
community to provide comments regarding product coal and coal reject haulage.
Metropolitan Coal product coal and coal reject haulage is undertaken by private haulage companies.
Metropolitan Coal has provided its contract haulage companies with a Driver’s Code of Conduct regarding:
• the approved hours of haulage operations;
• speed management and use of air brakes; and
• general community courtesy measures.
Metropolitan Coal has instructed its haulage companies to provide these instructions to individual drivers and
incorporate these measures in their standard operating procedures. The Driver’s Code of Conduct includes a
disciplinary procedure for breaches of the standard instructions and operating procedures.
4.4.5 Further Initiatives
The Road Safety Audit of the Mine Access Road and Parkes Street intersection (Figure 21) was conducted in
September 2010 in accordance with Condition 17, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval. Detailed upgrade design
plans for the intersection have been provided to Wollongong City Council’s Traffic Safety Committee to address
the recommendations of the Road Safety Audit. It is anticipated that the intersection upgrade will be implemented
in the next review period.
In accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal will review and, if
necessary, revise the Traffic Management Plan within three months of the submission of this Annual Review, to
the satisfaction of the Director-General of DP&I.
4.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.5.1 Background
A Metropolitan Coal Waste Management Plan has been prepared for the surface facilities area in accordance
with Condition 25, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval to:
• identify waste streams and monitor the quantities generated;
• identify waste management measures to minimise waste generation; and
• ensure that waste generated by Metropolitan Coal is appropriately stored, handled and disposed of.
4.5.2 Monitoring
Waste generated at the Project is monitored on a monthly basis through waste disposal receipts provided by
Metropolitan Coal’s waste contractors.
During the review period approximately 151 tonnes of waste were recycled and 315 tonnes were disposed of.
Some 220,362 tonnes of coal reject was generated by Metropolitan Coal during the review period.
Visual inspections of on-site waste storage areas have been conducted on a regular basis by Metropolitan Coal
to confirm waste materials are being suitably stored.
In accordance with the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1977 and OEH’s waste tracking
system, Metropolitan Coal has tracked the transportation of waste oil to a licensed recycling facility during the
review period. Some 17,600 Litres of waste oil has been recycled.
00482778 253

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
4.5.3 Assessment of Environmental Performance
In accordance with the Waste Management Plan, the performance of the mine has been assessed against the
performance indicators outlined in Table 52.
Table 52
Waste Management Performance Indicators
Aspect
Waste generation
Storage of waste
Handling and disposal
of waste
Performance Indicator
Waste generation has been minimised, as evidenced by:
- an increase in the amount or type of waste recycled;
- a decrease in the amount of waste generated that is disposed of to licensed landfill facilities;
and/or
- no practicable opportunities for additional waste minimisation have been identified to those
currently being implemented.
Waste has been separated and stored according to type in appropriate storage facilities
(e.g. sealed containers for liquid waste).
The transport of particular waste types has been tracked in accordance with DECCW waste
tracking requirements.
Metropolitan Coal’s waste management contracts, where relevant, specify that the waste is to be
transported by an appropriately licensed contractor and disposed of at an appropriately licensed
facility.
4.5.3.1 Waste Generation
Performance Indicator 1:
Waste generation has been minimised, as evidenced by:
- an increase in the amount or type of waste recycled;
- a decrease in the amount of waste generated that is disposed of to
licensed landfill facilities; and/or
- no practicable opportunities for additional waste minimisation have
been identified to those currently being implemented.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if waste generation has not been minimised
according to the above criteria.
The underground emplacement project has reduced the off-site disposal of coal reject material by approximately
40,000 tonnes to date. The emplacement of reject material in unused workings will continue in the future.
During the review period, recycled/re-used metal was used in the installation of water monitoring equipment in
the catchment area.
Given the expansion activities (i.e. construction) that have occurred at the surface facilities area during the review
period, no further practicable opportunities for waste minimisation have been identified. On this basis, it is
considered that this performance indicator has not been exceeded during the review period.
4.5.3.2 Storage of Waste
Performance Indicator 2:
Waste has been separated and stored according to type in appropriate
storage facilities (e.g. sealed containers for liquid waste).
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if waste has not been separated and stored
according to type in appropriate storage facilities.
Waste on site is adequately sorted and stored according to waste type prior to collection. Weekly site inspections
are conducted by the site Environment and Community Coordinator to ensure waste is separated and stored in
accordance with Metropolitan Coal’s Waste Management Plan.
This indicator has not been exceeded during the review period.
00482778 254

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
4.5.3.3 Handling and Disposal of Waste
Performance Indicator 3:
The transport of particular waste types has been tracked in accordance
with DECCW waste tracking requirements.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if the transport of particular waste types has not
been tracked in accordance with OEH (previously DECCW) waste tracking requirements.
All transport of waste from the Metropolitan Coal site has been tracked in accordance with OEH waste tracking
requirements.
This indicator has not been exceeded during the review period.
Performance Indicator 4:
Metropolitan Coal’s waste management contracts, where relevant,
specify that the waste is to be transported by an appropriately licensed
contractor and disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility.
The performance indicator is considered to have been exceeded if Metropolitan Coal’s waste management
contracts, where relevant, do not specify that the waste is to be transported by an appropriately licensed
contractor and disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility.
Metropolitan Coal’s waste management contracts specify waste is to be removed by an appropriately licensed
contractor and disposed to an appropriately licensed facility.
This indicator has not been exceeded during the review period.
4.5.4 Management and Mitigation Measures
Metropolitan Coal aims to implement the waste hierarchy established under the NSW Waste Avoidance and
Resource Recovery Act, 2001 to manage Project waste generation. The waste hierarchy ensures that
management measures are considered against the following priorities:
1. Avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption.
2. Resource recovery.
3. Disposal, including management of disposal options in the most environmentally responsible manner.
The additional emplacement of reject material in unused workings during the review period has reduced the offsite
disposal of coal reject material by approximately 40,000 tonnes to date.
No new management or mitigation measures, to those outlined in the Waste Management Plan and previous
Annual Reviews, were implemented during the review period.
4.5.5 Further Initiatives
The underground emplacement project involving the emplacement of reject material in unused workings will
continue.
Current management and mitigation measures are considered adequate, however, Metropolitan Coal will
continue to seek opportunities for additional waste minimisation and for the recycling and re-use of materials at
the site.
Waste minimisation initiatives and waste management practices will continue to be conducted in accordance with
Metropolitan Coal’s Waste Management Plan.
00482778 255

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
4.6 REHABILITATION STRATEGY
A Metropolitan Coal Rehabilitation Strategy has been prepared for the surface facilities area in accordance with
Condition 2, Schedule 6 of the Project Approval.
The Rehabilitation Strategy has been developed to be a concise framework document which describes the
development of rehabilitation objectives and completion criteria for the preferred future landuse for the surface
facilities area following the completion of mining activities. The Rehabilitation Strategy framework is illustrated on
Figure 22. Detailed rehabilitation plans for the surface facilities area will be developed over the life of the Project
and will be presented in the Mine Closure Plan and future revisions of the Rehabilitation Strategy.
As various factors will influence the landuse options available for the surface facilities area following the
completion of mining activities, it is not possible for Metropolitan Coal to define a final landuse option (and
associated final rehabilitation objectives and completion criteria) at this stage of the Project life. It is anticipated
that operations at the surface facilities area will continue for at least another 20 years.
The Rehabilitation Strategy will be regularly reviewed and revised as necessary following consultation with
relevant stakeholders, outcomes of rehabilitation trials and changes to rehabilitation guidelines and policies. The
framework strategy illustrated on Figure 22 shows how consultation will influence all stages of the development
of the final landuse option, and this will be reflected through regular review of the Rehabilitation Strategy.
As the life of the Project nears its end, a final landuse and associated rehabilitation objectives and completion
criteria will be developed and included in future revisions of the Rehabilitation Strategy and the Mine Closure
Plan.
5 OTHER APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The Project Approval includes a number of additional conditions that are not specifically addressed in the
Metropolitan Coal management plans or monitoring programs. These are discussed below.
Structural Adequacy
Condition 9, Schedule 2 of the Project Approval requires Metropolitan Coal to ensure that new buildings and
structures, and any alterations or additions to existing buildings and structure at the surface facilities area, are
constructed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and any additional
requirements of the Mines Subsidence Board in areas where subsidence effects are likely to occur.
Building construction activities during this review period included the:
• construction of an electrical substation, associated cabling and switch room;
• construction of the replacement drift;
• extension to the bathhouse;
• renovations to the store and workshop building;
• installation of the Coal Preparation Plant motor control centre; and
• completion of construction of the Large Coal Plant building, an extension of the existing Coal Handling and
Preparation Plant.
Building Code of Australia requirements were stipulated for all buildings.
Demolition
In accordance with Condition 10, Schedule 2 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal is required to ensure that
all demolition work is carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601-2001: The Demolition of
Structures, or its latest version.
00482778 256

Consideration of
Landuse Options
Consultation
Landuse Option Refinement
(selection of preferred
landuse options)
Expert Input
(preferred landuse options)
Informed Stakeholder Engagement
(preferred landuse options)
Rehabilitation
Strategy
Development
Proposed Rehabilitation Objectives
(preferred landuse option)
Final Completion Criteria and Rehabilitation Objectives
Mine Closure Plan
(under MREMP process)
Final Planning
and Implementation
M E T R O P O L I T A N
FIGURE 22
Rehabilitation Strategy Framework
C O A L
METROPOLITAN COAL
MET-08-AD7 2012 Ann Rev_006A

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Metropolitan Coal has undertaken a number of demolition activities during the review period including the
removal of two explosives magazines. All activities were carried out as per Australian Standards.
Operation of Plant and Equipment
Metropolitan Coal is required to ensure that all plant and equipment used at the site is maintained in a proper and
efficient condition and operated in a proper and efficient manner in accordance with Condition 11, Schedule 2 of
the Project Approval.
All plant and equipment in use at Metropolitan Coal is regularly serviced in accordance with the relevant Industry
& Investment NSW Mining Design Guidelines to ensure plant and equipment is maintained in proper and efficient
condition. All plant and equipment are operated in a proper and efficient manner.
Rail Noise
Condition 4, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval requires Metropolitan Coal to only use locomotives that are
approved to operate on the NSW rail network in accordance with noise limits L6.1 to L6.4 in RailCorp’s EPL
(No. 12208) and Australian Rail Track Corporation’s EPL (No. 3142) or a Pollution Control Approval issued under
the former Pollution Control Act, 1970.
All locomotives that have been used by Metropolitan Coal are approved to operate on the NSW rail network in
accordance with the relevant noise limits.
Blasting
The Project Approval (Condition 7, Schedule 4) requires that Metropolitan Coal not undertake blasting operations
at the surface facilities area without the written approval of the Director-General of DP&I.
No blasting activities were carried out at the surface facilities area during the review period.
Minor blasting underground is necessary at times when geological structures are encountered that cannot be
excavated by the longwall mining machine. Minor blasting is also required underground at times when a section
of the longwall roof falls ahead of the hydraulic supports of the longwall mining machine.
Odour
In accordance with Condition 9, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval, Metropolitan Coal has not caused or
permitted the emission of offensive odours from the site. No odour complaints were received during the review
period.
The Metropolitan Coal sewage system is connected to the town sewage network, and is maintained on a regular
basis. Back-up pump systems are incorporated in the Metropolitan Coal sewage system to compensate for any
unexpected malfunctions.
Visual
Metropolitan Coal has minimised the visual impacts of the surface facilities area and the ventilation shaft site in
accordance with Condition 23, Schedule 4 of the Project Approval.
The Major Surface Facilities Area is located within a narrow valley with heavily vegetated slopes which limit the
visibility of the buildings and structures to public areas and private residences in the surrounding area.
At the entrance to the site and along the boundary fences, planting of screening trees and general rehabilitation
has been undertaken to improve the natural aesthetics of the area. Planting of native species of trees, shrubs
and grasses has also been carried out around the top administration building. Seeding using native grasses has
also been implemented in specific areas around the surface facilities to improve stormwater control and visual
appearance of the areas.
The new bathhouse extensions were constructed using a suitable colour to blend in with the existing buildings
and natural surrounds. A recently installed power substation adjacent to the top administration building was also
designed to retain existing vegetation, minimise its footprint area and blend into its existing surrounds.
00482778 258

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
Offsets – Catchment Improvement Works
The planning for two Sydney Catchment Area Rehabilitation Projects has been undertaken during the review
period in consultation with the Sydney Catchment Authority and in accordance with Condition 5(b), Schedule 6 of
the Project Approval which requires Metropolitan Coal to carry out catchment improvement works in the
Woronora catchment area.
The catchment improvement works include:
• the rehabilitation of a former quarry on Fire Road 9H; and
• the rehabilitation of a disused access track to the Darkes Forest Mine (a historic mine located to the south
of Metropolitan Coal).
Rehabilitation activities are proposed to include weed control measures, erosion and sediment controls and
measures to encourage the regeneration of native vegetation.
Implementation of the catchment improvement works will commence in the next review period.
Independent Environmental Audit
In accordance with Condition 8, Schedule 7 of the Project Approval, an Independent Environmental Audit was
undertaken during the review period by an appropriately qualified, experienced and independent team of experts
whose appointment was endorsed by the Director-General of the DP&I. A copy of the audit report has been
submitted to the Director-General of the DP&I in June 2012 and made publicly available on the Peabody website.
The Independent Environmental Audit concluded:
The audit review, assessment of the documentation and performance of the Metropolitan Coal operations
demonstrated a high degree of compliance with the Project Approval and other environmental approvals
granted for the project.
Condition 4 Schedule 7 of the Project Approval requires Metropolitan Coal to review, and if necessary revise, the
strategies, plans and programs required under the Project Approval within three months of an Independent
Environmental Audit. This will be completed in the next review period.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLAINTS
A protocol for the management and reporting of complaints has been developed as a component of Metropolitan
Coal’s Environmental Management Strategy.
A dedicated telephone number for the provision of comments or complaints is maintained by Metropolitan Coal
(1800 115 003) and is displayed on signage at an entrance to the mine.
Metropolitan Coal records and responds to all complaints and maintains a complaints register on its website.
During the review period a total of two complaints were received and related to operational noise (Charts 154 and
155).
A copy of the complaints register is provided in Appendix 3, including actions taken by Metropolitan Coal to
address the complaints received.
00482778 259

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
18
16
14
Number of Complaint Issues
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Traffic/Traffic
Noise
Dust
Operational
Noise
Lighting Other Total
August 2011 - July 2012
Chart 154 Summary of Metropolitan Coal Complaints by Issue, August 2011 to July 2012
18
16
14
Number of Complaint Issues
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Traffic/Traffic
Noise
Dust
Operational
Noise
Lighting Other Total
Jan 2006 - July 2006 Aug 2006 - July 2007 Aug 2007 - July 2008 Aug 2008 - July 2009
Aug 2009 - July 2010 Aug 2010 - July 2011 Aug 2011 - July 2012
Chart 155 Summary of Metropolitan Coal Complaints Record, January 2006 to July 2012
00482778 260

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
7 WORKS PROPOSED IN THE NEXT REVIEW PERIOD
The layout of Longwalls 20-22 is shown on Figure 5. Longwall 21 had advanced 2,165 m as at the end of the
review period (Figure 5). In the next review period, Longwall 21 is expected to be completed in December 2012
and Longwall 22 to commence in January 2013.
In the next review period, the following activities will be conducted:
• Subsidence survey pegs that are known to have been disturbed will be reviewed and where possible the
baseline survey values will be adjusted (i.e. re-calibrated) to enable the calculation of incremental
subsidence.
• The measurement of the moisture content of ROM coal conveyed out of the mine at the drift portal using the
automated moisture scanner will become fully automated.
• Two new gauging stations, one on the Eastern Tributary and another on Honeysuckle Creek will be
constructed. Additional upland swamp piezometers and deep groundwater piezometers will also be
installed.
• The analysis against the watercourse subsidence impact performance measures, Negligible reduction to the
quality of water resources reaching the Woronora Reservoir and Negligible reduction in the water quality of
Woronora Reservoir, included in this Annual Review will be peer reviewed by a specialist approved by the
DP&I and the results will be reported to the DP&I, SCA and OEH.
• The Water Management Plan will be revised so that the assessment of Performance Indicator 4 for
connective cracking between the surface and the mine is consistent with the approach to data analysis.
• The Subsidence Monitoring Program and Built Features Management Plan - RMS will be revised to include
an additional survey of subsidence lines when the longwalls approach 1,000 m from the finish line .
• Aboriginal heritage sites FRC 15, FRC 281 and FRC 284 will be subject to further monitoring at an interval of
approximately six months from the most recent monitoring event, and a search for site FRC 168, which could
not be located during monitoring, will be carried out.
• Metropolitan Coal will conduct an analysis of the stream remediation measures at Pool A against the stream
remediation performance indicator detailed in the Rehabilitation Management Plan to assess whether
surface flow and pool holding capacity at Pool A has been restored once a period of drier climatic conditions
has been experienced.
• Stream remediation activities will be conducted at Pools F and G/G1 on the Waratah Rivulet.
• Metropolitan Coal will continue upgrades of mine infrastructure at the mine’s Major Surface Facilities Area.
• Metropolitan Coal will implement the recommendations of the Coal Mine Particulate Matter Control Best
Practice Report (which will include the installation of additional dust control sprays on the Run-of-Mine
stockpile), upgrade the automated weather station triggered stockpile dust sprays to account for precipitation
levels experienced prior to the activation of the sprays and implement revegetation and regeneration
measures at the surface facilities area, as appropriate.
• Activities will be undertaken to augment existing water storage infrastructure to maximise mine water storage
capacity and Metropolitan will investigate the potential to operate the underground emplacement plant
utilising untreated mine water.
• The Mine Access Road and Parkes Street intersection upgrade will be implemented.
• Catchment improvement works will commence in the Woronora catchment area and include the
rehabilitation of a former quarry on Fire Road 9H and the rehabilitation of a disused access track to the
Darkes Forest Mine.
• Metropolitan Coal will complete their review, and if necessary revision of the strategies, plans and programs
required under the Project Approval in consideration of the recommendations of the Independent
Environmental Audit.
• Metropolitan Coal will review, and if necessary, revise the strategies, plans and programs required under the
Approval within three months following the submission of this Annual Review to the satisfaction of the
Director-General of DP&I.
00482778 261

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
8 REFERENCES
Boughton, W.C. (2004) The Australian Water Balance Model. Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol 19,
pp. 943–956.
Eco Logical Australia (2010) Metropolitan Coal Vegetation Monitoring Longwalls 20-22 Baseline Data Spring
2008, Autumn 2009 and Autumn 2010. Unpublished report prepared for Metropolitan Coal, dated
12 June 2011.
Eco Logical Australia (2011) Metropolitan Coal Vegetation Monitoring Spring 2010 Longwalls 20-22 Vegetation
Monitoring Report. Unpublished report prepared for Metropolitan Coal, dated 15 June 2011.
Evans & Peck (2012) Independent Peer Review of Woronora Reservoir Water Quality Performance Indicator.
Report prepared for Metropolitan Coal.
Gilbert & Associates (2008) Metropolitan Coal Project Surface Water Assessment, Appendix C in Helensburgh
Coal Pty Ltd (2008) Metropolitan Coal Project Environmental Assessment.
Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd (2008) Metropolitan Coal Project Environmental Assessment.
Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd (2009) Metropolitan Coal Project Preferred Project Report.
Keith, D.A. and Myerscough, P.J. (1993) Floristics and soils relations of upland swamp vegetation near Sydney.
Australia Journal of Ecology 18, 325-344.
Merrick, N.P. and Alkhatib, M., (2011) Groundwater Assessment for Metropolitan Colliery Longwalls 23-27.
Heritage Computing Report HC2011/3 for Metropolitan Coal, May 2011, 79p.Metropolitan Coal (2010a)
Metropolitan Coal Replacement Drift Construction Modification Environmental Assessment.
Metropolitan Coal (2010b) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Extraction Plan.
Metropolitan Coal (2010c) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Public Safety Management Plan.
Metropolitan Coal (2011a) Metropolitan Coal Environmental Management Strategy.
Metropolitan Coal (2011b) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Subsidence Monitoring Program.
Metropolitan Coal (2011c) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Water Management Plan.
Metropolitan Coal (2011d) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Land Management Plan.
Metropolitan Coal (2011e) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Heritage Management Plan.
Metropolitan Coal (2011f) Metropolitan Coal Catchment Monitoring Program.
Metropolitan Coal (2012a) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Biodiversity Management Plan.
Metropolitan Coal (2012b) Metropolitan Coal Longwalls 20-22 Built Features Management Plan.
New South Wales Minerals Council (2000) Technical Paper – Particulate Matter and Mining Interim Report.
00482778 262

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
APPENDIX 1
SUBSIDENCE MONITORING RESULTS
00482778

Surface Level (m AHD)
Subsidence (mm)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Tilt (mm/m)
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\D-Line 3dim data\Metrop D-Line - Tot Subs Tilt Strn.grf.....27-Sep-12
Profiles of Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along the
D Line due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
D160
D158
D156
D154
D152
D150
D148
D146
D144
D142
D140
D138
D136
D134
D132
D130
D128
D126
D124
D122
D120
D118
D116
D114
D112
LW18
LW17
Disturbed Peg
(D148)
LW16
LW15
D106 D108D110
D104
D102
D100
D98
D96
LW14
LW13
D91 D93D95
D89
D87
D85 Waratah Rivulet
D83
D81
D79
LW12
D75
D77
D73
D71
D67 D69
D65
LW11
LW10
D57 D59D61D63
D55
LW9
D53
D51
D49
D45
D47
D39 D41D43
LW8
LW7
D37
D35
D33
D31
D29
D27
D25
D23
D21
D19
D15
D17
D13
D11
D5 D7D9
D3
LW6 LW5 LW4 LW3 LW2A
Disturbed Peg
(D36)
D1
Strain (mm/m)
-1 0123456
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-10
-9
-8
Observed Incremental Profiles (LW1 to 18)
Observed total profiles due to LW1 to LW18
Observed Incremental Profiles (LW20)
Observed total profile after LW20
Predicted Total Profiles
LW18 LW17 LW16 LW15 LW14
LW13
LW12
LW11
Disturbed Peg
(D79)
LW10
LW9
LW8
LW7
LW6
LW5
LW4
LW3
LW2A
3600 3400 3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Distance from peg IGE of LW1 (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\G Line\G-Line - Inc LW20.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line G due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
310
305
Surface Level (m AHD)
300
295
290
285
280
275
G1
G3
G5
G7
G9
G11
G13
G15
G17
G19
G21
G23
G25
G27
G29
G31
G32A
G34
G36
G38
G40
G42
G44
G46
G48
G50
G52
G54
G56
G58
G60
G62
G64
G66
G68
G70
G72
270
265
260
0
LW5 LW20 LW21 LW22B
100
Subsidence (mm)
200
300
400
500
600
Observed Profiles during LW21
Predicted Profiles after LW21
2
1
Tilt (mm/m)
0
-1
-2
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
LW5 LW20 LW21 LW22B
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\G Line\G-Line - Inc LW21.grf.....27-Sep-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line G due to Metropolitan Colliery LW21
310
305
Surface Level (m AHD)
300
295
290
285
280
275
G1
G3
G5
G7
G9
G11
G13
G15
G17
G19
G21
G23
G25
G27
G29
G31
G32A
G34
G36
G38
G40
G42
G44
G46
G48
G50
G52
G54
G56
G58
G60
G62
G64
G66
G68
G70
G72
270
265
260
0
LW5 LW20 LW21 LW22B
100
Subsidence (mm)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Observed Profiles during LW21
Predicted Profiles after LW21
4
3
2
Tilt (mm/m)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
LW5 LW20 LW21 LW22B
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

310
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\G Line\G-Line - Total.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Total Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line G due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20 and 21
305
Surface Level (m AHD)
300
295
290
285
280
275
G1
G3
G5
G7
G9
G11
G13
G15
G17
G19
G21
G23
G25
G27
G29
G31
G32A
G34
G36
G38
G40
G42
G44
G46
G48
G50
G52
G54
G56
G58
G60
G62
G64
G66
G68
G70
G72
270
265
260
0
LW5 LW20 LW21 LW22B
Subsidence (mm)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
4
Observed Profiles during LW20
Observed Profiles during LW21
Predicted Profiles after LW21
3
2
Tilt (mm/m)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
LW5 LW20 LW21 LW22B
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

59
5
58
57
56
5
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\C Line\C-Line Inc LW20.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line 9C due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
320
300
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
C11
C13
C15
C17
C19
C21
C23
Surface Level (m AHD)
280
260
240
220
200
C25
C27
C29
C31
C33
Baseline survey 29 March 2010 (LW18 chainage ~106m)
LW18 completed 20 April 2010
LW20 commenced 9 May 2010
LW20 completed 16 Aug 2011
Latest Survey 10 Aug 2011 (LW20 chainage ~4m)
C35
C37
C39
C41
C43
C45
C47
C49
C51
C53
C55
C57
C59
C61
C63
C65
C67
C69
0
LW20
200
Subsidence (mm)
400
600
LW 24
LW 25
800
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
LW 22B
LW 23B
1000
Tilt (mm/m)
6
4
2
0
-2
Predicted Profiles
Observed Profiles
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
LW 14
LW 13
LW 12
LW 11
LW 10
-4
-6
Strain (mm/m)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
Survey Error
Disturbed peg (C40)
LW20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\C Line\C-Line Inc LW21.grf.....02-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line 9C due to Metropolitan Colliery LW21
320
300
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
C11
C13
C15
C17
C19
C21
C23
Surface Level (m AHD)
280
260
240
C25
C27
C29
C31
C33
C35
C37
C39
C41
C43
C45
C47
C49
C51
C53
C55
C57
C59
C61
C63
C65
C67
C69
220
200
0
LW20
LW21
200
Subsidence (mm)
400
600
800
1000
Predicted Profiles
Observed Profiles
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
6
4
Tilt (mm/m)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Strain (mm/m)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Survey Error
Disturbed peg (C40)
LW20
LW21
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

320
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\C Line\C-Line Total Subs.grf.....02-Oct-12
Profiles of Total Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line 9C due to Metropolitan Colliery LW21
300
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
C11
C13
C15
C17
C19
C21
C23
Surface Level (m AHD)
280
260
240
C25
C27
C29
C31
C33
C35
C37
C39
C41
C43
C45
C47
C49
C51
C53
C55
C57
C59
C61
C63
C65
C67
C69
220
200
0
LW20
LW21
200
Subsidence (mm)
400
600
800
1000
6
Predicted Profiles
Observed Profiles due to LW20
Observed Profiles due to LW21
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
4
Tilt (mm/m)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Strain (mm/m)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
Survey Error
Disturbed peg (C40)
LW20
LW21
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

10
10
59
5
58
57
56
5
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\9CW Line\9CW-Line Inc LW20.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line 9CW due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
280
Surface Level (m AHD)
260
240
220
9CW1
9CW2
9CW3
9CW4
9CW5
9CW6
9CW7
9CW8
9CW8A
9CW9
9CW10
9CW11
9CW12
9CW13
9CW14
9CW15
9CW16
9CW17
9CW18
9CW19
9CW20
9CW21
9CW22
9CW23
9CW24
9CW25
9CW26
9CW27
200
180
0
Tilt (mm/m)
Subsidence (mm)
200
400
600
800
4
0
Disturbed
Peg 9CW8A
Observed Profiles
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
Predicted Profiles
LW 16
5 5
LW 15a LW 15b
LW 14
LW 13
LW 12
LW 22A
LW 11
LW 10
LW 9
LW 21
LW 20
LW 24
LW 23B
LW 22B
Peg
Destroyed
LW 25
-4
Disturbed
Peg 9CW8A
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\9CW Line\9CW-Line Inc LW21.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line 9CW due to Metropolitan Colliery LW21
280
Surface Level (m AHD)
260
240
220
9CW1
9CW2
9CW3
9CW4
9CW5
9CW6
9CW7
9CW8
9CW8A
9CW9
9CW10
9CW11
9CW12
Disturbed
Peg 9CW8A
9CW13
9CW14
9CW15
9CW16
9CW17
9CW18
9CW19
9CW20
9CW21
9CW22
9CW23
9CW24
9CW25
9CW26
9CW27
200
180
0
LW21
Subsidence (mm)
200
400
600
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
Peg
Destroyed
800
4
Observed Profiles
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
Predicted Profiles
2
Tilt (mm/m)
0
-2
-4
-6
Survey Error
-8
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
LW21
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

280
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\9CW Line\9CW-Line Total.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Total Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line 9CW due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20 and 21
Surface Level (m AHD)
260
240
220
9CW1
9CW2
9CW3
9CW4
9CW5
9CW6
9CW7
9CW8
9CW8A
9CW9
9CW10
9CW11
9CW12
Disturbed
Peg 9CW8A
9CW13
9CW14
9CW15
9CW16
9CW17
9CW18
9CW19
9CW20
9CW21
9CW22
9CW23
9CW24
9CW25
9CW26
9CW27
200
180
0
LW21
Subsidence (mm)
200
400
600
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
Peg
Destroyed
800
4
2
Tilt (mm/m)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
1.5
1.0
Observed Profiles due to LW20
Observed Profiles due to LW21
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
Predicted Profiles after LW21
Survey Error
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
LW21
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

58
57
56
5
300
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\GL Line\GL-Line.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line GL due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
295
Surface Level (m AHD)
290
285
280
275
270
265
GLW9
GLW8
Western
End
GLW7
GLW6
GLW5
GLW4
GLW3
GLW2
GLW1
GLE1
GLE2
GLE3
GLE4
GLE5
GLE6
GLE7
GLE8
GLE9
GLE10
Eastern
End
260
255
250
-20
LW20
0
Subsidence (mm)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2
1.5
1
Observed Profiles
Latest Survey
Predicted Profiles
Tilt (mm/m)
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
LW 25
-1.5
LW 21
LW 24
LW 23B
-2
LW 15b
LW 20
LW 22B
1.5
Strain (mm/m)
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
LW 13
LW 12
LW 11
LW 10
LW 9
-1.0
-1.5
LW20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\J Line\J-Line - Inc LW20.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line J due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
320
310
300
J1
J3
J5
J7
J9
J11
J13
J15
J17
J19
J21
Surface Level (m AHD)
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
South Eastern
End
J25
J27
J29
J31
J33
J35
J37
J39
J41
J43
J45
J47
J49
J51
J53
220
210
North Western
End
-20
0
Tilt (mm/m)
Subsidence (mm)
20
40
60
80
100
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
1.5
Disturbed Peg
(J16)
Observed Profiles during LW20
Predicted Profiles after LW20
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\J Line\J-Line - Inc LW21.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line J due to Metropolitan Colliery LW21
320
310
300
J1
J3
J5
J7
J9
J11
J13
J15
J17
J19
J21
Surface Level (m AHD)
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
South Eastern
End
J25
J27
J29
J31
J33
J35
J37
J39
J41
J43
J45
J47
J49
J51
J53
220
210
North Western
End
-20
0
Tilt (mm/m)
Subsidence (mm)
20
40
60
80
100
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
1.5
Disturbed Peg
(J16)
Observed Profiles during LW21
Predicted Profiles after LW21
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

320
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\J Line\J-Line - Total.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Total Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along
Line J due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20 and 21
310
300
J1
J3
J5
J7
J9
J11
J13
J15
J17
J19
J21
Surface Level (m AHD)
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
South Eastern
End
J25
J27
J29
J31
J33
J35
J37
J39
J41
J43
J45
J47
J49
J51
J53
220
210
North Western
End
-20
0
Subsidence (mm)
20
40
60
Disturbed Peg
(J16)
Tilt (mm/m)
80
100
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
1.5
Observed Profiles during LW20
Observed Profiles during LW21
Predicted Profiles after LW21
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\Transmission Line\Transmission-Line Inc LW20.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along the
Transmission Line due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
Surface Level (m AHD)
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
H/T61
G
F
E/T60
D
C
B
A
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
T17
T18
T19
T20
T21
T22
T23
T24
T25
T26
T27
T28
T29
T30
T31
T32
T33
T34
T35
T36
T37
T38
T39 T40
T41
T42
T43
T44
T45
T46
T47
T48
T49
T50
T51
T52
T53
T54
T55
T56
T57
T58
210
Continuous
Miner LW20 LW21
-60
-40
-20
Subsidence (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
Disturbed Mark
(H/T61)
Disturbed Marks
(T1, T7)
Disturbed Mark
(T38)
100
120
5
4
3
Observed Profiles
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
Predicted Profiles
Line/Scatter Plot 219
2
Tilt (mm/m)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Disturbed Mark
(H/T61)
Disturbed Marks
(T1, T7)
Disturbed Mark
(T38)
-5
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Continuous
Miner LW20 LW21
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\Transmission Line\Transmission-Line Inc LW21.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along the
Transmission Line due to Metropolitan Colliery LW21
Surface Level (m AHD)
Subsidence (mm)
Tilt (mm/m)
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
H/T61
G
F
E/T60
D
C
B
A
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Continuous
Miner LW20 LW21
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
Disturbed Marks
Disturbed Marks
T16
T17
T18
T19
T20
T21
T22
Observed Profiles
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
Predicted Profiles
T23
T24
T25
T26
T27
T28
T29
T30
T31
LW 16
LW 15a LW 15b
LW 14
T32
T33
T34
T35
T36
T37
T38
T39 T40
T41
T42
T43
LW 13
LW 12
LW 11
LW 10
LW 9
LW 8
LW 7
LW 6
T44
T45
LW 21
LW 20
LW 5
LW 4
T46
T47
T48
T49
T50
Disturbed Mark
LW 3
Disturbed Mark
LW 2A
E
D
T51
T52
T53
T54
T55
T56
T57
T58
1.5
1.0
Disturbed Mark
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Continuous
Miner LW20 LW21
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\Transmission Line\Transmission-Line Total.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Total Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along the
Transmission Line due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20 and 21
Surface Level (m AHD)
Subsidence (mm)
Tilt (mm/m)
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
H/T61
G
F
E/T60
D
C
B
A
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Continuous
Miner LW20 LW21
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
Disturbed Marks
Disturbed Marks
T16
T17
T18
T19
T20
T21
T22
Observed Profiles due to LW20
Observed Profiles due to LW21
Observed Profiles (Latest Survey)
Predicted Profiles
T23
T24
T25
T26
T27
T28
T29
T30
T31
LW 16
LW 15a LW 15b
LW 14
T32
T33
T34
T35
T36
T37
T38
T39 T40
T41
T42
T43
LW 13
LW 12
LW 11
LW 10
LW 9
LW 8
LW 7
LW 6
T44
T45
LW 21
LW 20
LW 5
LW 4
LW 3
LW 2A
T46
T47
T48
T49
T50
T51
T52
T53
T54
Disturbed Marks
Disturbed Marks
E
D
T55
T56
T57
T58
1.5
1.0
Disturbed Mark
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Continuous
Miner LW20 LW21
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\Princes Hwy Line\Princes Hwy-Line - Inc LW20.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along the
Princes Highway Line due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20
Surface Level (m AHD)
340
330
320
310
300
290
PH39
PH37
PH35
PH33
PH31
PH29
PH27
PH25
PH23
PH21
PH19
PH17
PH15
PH13
PH11
PH9
PH7
PH5
PH3
PH1
280
270
-40
-20
Continuous Miner
LW20
Subsidence (mm)
0
20
40
60
Mark Disturbed
(PH23)
Mark Destroyed
(PH21)
Survey Error
(PH12)
80
Observed Profiles during LW20
Predicted Profiles after LW20
100
2
1
Tilt (mm/m)
0
-1
-2
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Continuous Miner
LW20
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\Princes Hwy Line\Princes Hwy-Line - Inc LW21.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Incremental Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along the
Princes Highway Line due to Metropolitan Colliery LW21
Surface Level (m AHD)
340
330
320
310
300
290
PH39
PH37
PH35
PH33
PH31
PH29
PH27
PH25
PH23
PH21
PH19
PH17
PH15
PH13
PH11
PH9
PH7
PH5
PH3
PH1
280
270
Continuous Miner
LW20
-40
-20
Subsidence (mm)
0
20
40
60
Mark Disturbed
(PH23)
Mark Destroyed
(PH21)
Survey Error
(PH12)
80
Observed Profiles during LW21
Predicted Profiles after LW21
100
2
1
Tilt (mm/m)
0
-1
-2
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Continuous Miner
LW20
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\Princes Hwy Line\Princes Hwy-Line - Total.grf.....03-Oct-12
Profiles of Total Subsidence, Tilt and Strain along the
Princes Highway Line due to Metropolitan Colliery LW20 and 21
Surface Level (m AHD)
340
330
320
310
300
290
PH39
PH37
PH35
PH33
PH31
PH29
PH27
PH25
PH23
PH21
PH19
PH17
PH15
PH13
PH11
PH9
PH7
PH5
PH3
PH1
280
270
-20
Continuous Miner
LW20
0
Subsidence (mm)
20
40
60
Mark Disturbed
(PH23)
Mark Destroyed
(PH21)
Survey Error
(PH12)
80
100
2
Observed Profiles during LW20
Observed Profiles during LW21
Predicted Profiles after LW21
1
Tilt (mm/m)
0
-1
-2
1.5
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Continuous Miner
LW20
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 14001-14005\Line 14001-14005 Inc LW20.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 14000 Line due to LW20
214
Surface Level AHD (m)
212
210
208
206
204
14001
14002
14003
14004
14005
202
-50
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
0
50
100
150
200
1.0
Measured during LW20
Measured in latest survey
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
200
150
100
50
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Predicted Closure
End of Longwall 20
on 16 August 2011
0
May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Mar-11 May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 14001-14005\Line 14001-14005 Inc LW21.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 14000 Line due to LW21
214
Surface Level AHD (m)
212
210
208
206
204
14001
14002
14003
14004
14005
202
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
-50
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
0
50
100
150
200
1.5
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
Strain (mm/m)
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
-1.0
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Predicted Closure
Nov-11 Jan-12 Mar-12 May-12 Jul-12 Sep-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 14001-14005\Line 14001-14005 Total.grf
Profiles of Total Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 14000 Line due to LW20 and 21
214
Surface Level AHD (m)
212
210
208
206
204
14001
14002
14003
14004
14005
202
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
-50
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
0
50
100
150
200
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Predicted Closure
Measured during LW20
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Jul-11Sep-11Nov-11Jan-12Mar-12May-12Jul-12Sep-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 15001-15006\Line 15001-15006 Inc LW20.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 15000 Line due to LW20
212
Surface Level AHD (m)
210
208
206
204
202
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
200
-50
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
Strain (mm/m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
300
Measured during LW20
Measured in latest survey
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
250
200
150
100
50
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Prediced Closure
End of Longwall 20
on 16 August 2011
0
May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Mar-11 May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 15001-15006\Line 15001-15006 Inc LW21.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 15000 Line due to LW21
212
Surface Level AHD (m)
210
208
206
204
202
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
200
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
-50
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
Strain (mm/m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
Survey Error
400
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Prediced Closure
Survey Error
0
Nov-11 Jan-12 Mar-12 May-12 Jul-12 Sep-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 15001-15006\Line 15001-15006 Total.grf
Profiles of Total Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 15000 Line due to LW20 and 21
212
Surface Level AHD (m)
210
208
206
204
202
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
200
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
-50
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
Strain (mm/m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
Measured during LW20
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
Survey Error
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Prediced Closure
Survey Error
May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11Nov-11Jan-12Mar-12May-12 Jul-12 Sep-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 16001-16005\Line 16001-16005 Inc LW20.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 16000 Line due to LW20
210
Surface Level AHD (m)
208
206
204
202
200
198
16001
16002
16003
16004
16005
196
-50
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
1.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Measured during LW20
Measured in latest survey
-1.0
300
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
250
200
150
100
50
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Prediced Closure
End of Longwall 20
on 16 August 2011
0
May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Mar-11 May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 16001-16005\Line 16001-16005 Inc LW21.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 16000 Line due to LW21
210
Surface Level AHD (m)
208
206
204
202
200
198
16001
16002
16003
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
16004
16005
196
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
Strain (mm/m)
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
-1.0
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Prediced Closure
Nov-11 Jan-12 Mar-12 May-12 Jul-12 Sep-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\x-Lines 16001-16005\Line 16001-16005 Total.grf
Profiles of Total Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along the 16000 Line due to LW20 and 21
210
Surface Level AHD (m)
208
206
204
202
200
198
16001
16002
16003
LW 15b
LW 21
LW 20
16004
16005
196
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
Strain (mm/m)
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Measured during LW20
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
-1.0
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Prediced Closure
May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11Nov-11Jan-12Mar-12May-12 Jul-12 Sep-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\WRS5\WRS5 Inc LW20.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along Line WRS5 due to LW20
208
Surface Level AHD (m)
206
204
202
200
WRS5-1
WRS5-2
WRS5-3
WRS5-4
WRS5-5
198
-40
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0
Measured during LW20
Measured in latest survey
Strain (mm/m)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
200
150
100
50
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Predicted Closure
End of Longwall 20
on 16 August 2011
0
May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Mar-11 May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\WRS5\WRS5 Inc LW21.grf
Profiles of Incremental Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along Line WRS5 due to LW21
208
Surface Level AHD (m)
206
204
202
200
WRS5-1
WRS5-2
WRS5-3
WRS5-4
WRS5-5
198
LW 15b
LW 21
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
4.0
LW 14
LW 13
LW 20
2.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
-10.0
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Predicted Closure
Nov-11 Jan-12 Mar-12 May-12 Jul-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\SurveyData\WRS5\WRS5 Total.grf
Profiles of Total Net Vertical Movement, Strain, Upsidence
and Closure along Line WRS5 due to LW20 and 21
208
Surface Level AHD (m)
206
204
202
200
WRS5-1
WRS5-2
WRS5-3
WRS5-4
WRS5-5
198
LW 15b
LW 21
Net Vertical Movement (mm)
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
4.0
LW 14
LW 13
LW 20
2.0
Strain (mm/m)
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
Measured during LW20
Measured during LW21
Measured in latest survey
-10.0
Upsidence and Closure (mm)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance along Monitoring Line (m)
Observed Upsidence
Predicted Upsidence
Observed Closure
Observed Closure Between Ridge Top Marks
Predicted Closure
Nov-11 Jan-12 Mar-12 May-12 Jul-12
Date

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\MSEC586 - 2012 Annual Subsidence Reivew\SurveyData\Compiled Incr HMvts-ALL PEGS.grf 03-Oct-12
320
Observed incremental horizontal peg movement (mm)
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Plot includes movement data that may be affected by;
- valley closure movements,
- nearby geological faults or dykes, and/or
- previously extracted panels near survey pegs.
Metropolitan LW21 Monitoring Lines
Metropolitan D Line Pegs - LW20
MetropolitanDLinePegs-LW9toLW18
Metropolitan LW20 Monitoring Lines
Other Southern Coalfield Data
-0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900
Distance from nearest goaf edge of incremental panel to survey peg (m)

I:\Projects\Metropolitan\MSEC586 - 2012 Annual Subsidence Reivew\SurveyData\Compiled Incr HMvts-Peg to Solid coal-A3-ALL PEGS-Consolidated.grf 03-Oct-12
Observed incremental horizontal peg movement (mm)
245
240
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
195
190
185
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Metropolitan LW21 Monitoring - Line G
Metropolitan LW20 Monitoring
Metropolitan Bridge 1 Ground Pegs (LW20)
Metropolitan LW1 to 18 Monitoring
Other Southern Coalfield Data
Plot includes movement data that may be affected by;
- valley closure movements,
- nearby geological faults or dykes, and/or
- previously extracted panels near survey pegs
Nom. survey
tolerance ±20mm
-0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Distance from nearest goaf edge of incremental panel to survey peg (m)

120
Incremental Observed Relative Lateral Peg Movements due to One Longwall (20m peg spacing ± 10m)
Only Pegs with Solid Coal Between Peg and Longwall
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\MSEC586 - 2012 Annual Subsidence Reivew\SurveyData\Compiled RelLat Mvts 20m-A3-Solid Coal.grf 03-Oct-12
Observed relative lateral peg movements for peg spacing 20m ±10m (mm)
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Metropolitan LW21 Monitoring - Line G
Metropolitan LW20 Monitoring
MetropolitanBridge1GroundPegs(LW20)
Metropolitan LW1 to 18 Monitoring
Other Southern Coalfield Data
Plot includes movement data that may be affected by;
- valley closure movements,
- nearby geological faults or dykes, and/or
- previously extracted panels near survey pegs
Nom. survey
tolerance ±5mm
-0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Distance from nearest goaf edge of incremental panel to survey peg (m)

120
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\MSEC586 - 2012 Annual Subsidence Reivew\SurveyData\Compiled RelLong Mvts 20m-A3-Solid Coal.grf 03-Oct-12
Incremental Observed Relative Longitudinal Peg Movements due to One Longwall (20m peg spacing ± 10m)
Only Pegs with Solid Coal Between Peg and Longwall
Observed relative longitudinal peg movements for peg spacing 20m +-10m (mm)
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Metropolitan LW21 Monitoring - Line G
Metropolitan LW20 Monitoring
Metropolitan Bridge 1 Ground Pegs (LW20)
Metropolitan LW1 to 18 Monitoring
Other Southern Coalfield Data
Plot includes movement data that may be affected by;
- valley closure movements,
- nearby geological faults or dykes, and/or
- previously extracted panels near survey pegs
Nom. survey
tolerance ±5mm
-0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Distance from nearest goaf edge of incremental panel to survey peg (m)

50
I:\Projects\Metropolitan\MSEC553 - LW21 Monitoring\SurveyData\Mid Ordinate Deviation 20m-A3-Solid Coal.grf 03-Oct-12
Incremental Observed Mid Ordinate Deviation due to One Longwall (20m peg spacing ± 10m)
Only Pegs with Solid Coal Between Peg and Longwall for Metropolitan Colliery Data Only
45
40
Observed relative longitudinal peg movements for peg spacing 20m +-10m (mm)
35
30
25
20
15
Metropolitan LW21 Monitoring - Line G
Metropolitan LW20 Monitoring
Metropolitan Bridge 1 Ground Pegs (LW20)
Metropolitan LW1 to 18 Monitoring
Other Southern Coalfield Data
Plot includes movement data that may be affected by;
- valley closure movements,
- nearby geological faults or dykes, and/or
- previously extracted panels near survey pegs
10
5
0
-0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Distance from nearest goaf edge of incremental panel to survey peg (m)

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
APPENDIX 2
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD WARATAH RIVULET AND EASTERN TRIBUTARY
00482778

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
00482778

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
APPENDIX 3
METROPOLITAN COAL COMPLAINTS RECORD
00482778

Metropolitan Coal 2012 Annual Review
APPENDIX 1
METROPOLITAN COLLIERY
1/8/11-31/7/12
Complaints Register
Complaint
ID #
Person Receiving
Complaint Quarter Date Received Time Received
Method Of
Complaint
Name Of Person
Making Complaint
Details Of Person Making
Complaint Nature Of Complaint Action Taken By Licencee Follow Up Contact With Complainant
If No Action By Licencee,
Reasons Why
2011_5 Ryan Pascoe
(Environment &
Community Manager)
4 29/10/2011 11.59am Email Increased noise levels,
particularly at night and
apparent some distance
from mine.
Installation of new drift fan completed resulting in significant
noise reductions.
Meeting organised with complainant to
discuss matter and provide tour of mine to
show environmental controls.
2011_6 Jason Fuller (Control
Room)
4 23/12/2011 11:45pm Telephone Noise occurring at 11.45pm
disrupting sleep
Control Room investigated complaint-found that it was
caused by a contractor's pump truck revving loudly to run the
pump. Use of the pump was stopped, to be recommenced
the next day. The Environmment and Community manager
was informed.
00482778