j13074 rtsppr v4 - major projects

J13074RP2

Appendix A

Summary of submissions

J13074RP2

“This page has been intentionally left blank”

Singleton LG

A( Bulga)

Singleton LG

A (Broke)

Singleton LG

A (Jerrys P

lains)

Singleton LG

A (Singleton

)Maitla

nd LGA

Cessno

ck LGA

Muswellbrook LGA

Upp

er Hun

ter S

hire LGA

New

castle LGA

Great Lakes LGA

Gosford LGA

Wyong

LGA

Lake M

acqu

arie LGA

Orange Shire

LGA

Uralla Shire LGA

Greater Taree

LGA

Hastings Shire LGA

Lism

ore LG

ABlue

Mou

ntains LGA

Sydn

ey m

etropo

litan

LGA

Wollond

illy LG

AWingecarribee

LGA

Interstate

With

held/not provide

d

I 1 Withheld ● NI 2 John Lamb ● NI 3 Withheld ● NI 4 Withheld ● NI 5 Paul Harris ● NI 6 Mitchell Lamb ● NI 7 Allen Lamb ● NI 8 Jessica Lamb ● NI 9 Stephen Lamb ● NI 10 Jami Street ● NI 11 Kylie Kaizer ● NI 12 Erik Metlikovec ● NI 13 Hubert Upward ● NI 14 Helen Upward ● NI 15 Withheld ● NI 16 Pauline Rayner ● NI 17 Ron Corino ● NI 18 Michael Rayner ● NI 19 Adam Guise ● YI 20 Denis Wilson ● YI 21 Dominic May ● YI 22 Jill Sampson ● YI 23 Laura Elkin ● YI 24 Lyn Brattan ● YI 25 Michael Daley ● YI 26 Moira Williams ● YI 27 Neil Denison ● YI 28 Pablo Brait ● YI 29 Paul Frost ● YI 30 Robin Besier ● YI 31 Sharyn Munro ● NI 32 Erland Howden ● YI 33 Georgina Woods ● NI 34 Merryn Ironmonger ● YI 35 Withheld ● NI 36 Withheld ● YI 37 Garry and Fiona Bailey ● NI 38 Denis Maizey ● NI 39 Rex and Heather Davis ● NI 40 Alan Leslie ● NI 41 John Kaye ● YI 42 Andrew Upward ● NI 43 Belinda Upward ● NI 44 Withheld ● NI 45 Martin Tlaskal ● NI 46 Justin McKee ● NI 47 Gregory Banks ● N I 48 Nigel Banks ● N I 49 Nichola Krey ● NI 50 Ross McNeilage ● NI 51 Margaret Fisher ● NI 52 Phoebe Everingham ● YI 53 Withheld ● NI 54 Withheld ● Y

Location (local government area in NSW, or interstate)

Form letter?

Respondent type (see

note)No. Name and location

Singleton LG

A( Bulga)

Singleton LG

A (Broke)

Singleton LG

A (Jerrys P

lains)

Singleton LG

A (Singleton

)Maitla

nd LGA

Cessno

ck LGA

Muswellbrook LGA

Upp

er Hun

ter S

hire LGA

New

castle LGA

Great Lakes LGA

Gosford LGA

Wyong

LGA

Lake M

acqu

arie LGA

Orange Shire

LGA

Uralla Shire LGA

Greater Taree

LGA

Hastings Shire LGA

Lism

ore LG

ABlue

Mou

ntains LGA

Sydn

ey m

etropo

litan

LGA

Wollond

illy LG

AWingecarribee

LGA

Interstate

With

held/not provide

d


Form letter?

Respondent type (see note)

No. Name and location

I 55 John Hayes ● YI 56 Melanie Caban ● NI 57 Lyn Brattan ● YI 58 Craig Chapman ● YI 59 Alison Potter ● YI 60 James Whelan ● NI 61 Judith Leslie ● NI 62 Suzanne Skates ● YI 63 Anna Cooke ● YI 64 Michael Smith ● NI 65 Peter Smith ● NI 66 Laura Smith ● NI 67 Dominic May ● YI 68 Barbara May ● YI 69 Rebecca Smith ● NI 70 Daniel Smith ● NI 71 Ken Brown ● YI 72 Philipa Tlaskal ● NI 73 Moira Williams ● NI 74 Chris Ball ● YI 75 Peter Kennedy ● NI 76 Susie Russell ● NI 77 Andrew & Kim Robey ● NI 78 Withheld ● NI 79 Dimitrious Vikas ● NI 80 Jorge Tlaskal ● NI 81 Hannah Leslie ● NI 82 Robyn Smith ● NI 83 Denise Lamb ● NI 84 David Whitson ● NI 85 Kyke Robinson ● NI 86 John Putland ● NI 87 Withheld ● YI 88 Neville Hodkinson ● NI 89 Julie Castles ● NI 90 Aurelia Toomey ● YI 91 Withheld ● NI 92 Leslie Krey ● NI 93 Withheld ● NI 94 John Krey ● NI 95 Graeme O'Brien ● NI 96 Gerard Toomey ● YI 97 Georgina Woods ● NI 98 Garth O'Brien ● NI 99 Deborah Harris ● YI 100 Lucia Scurrah ● YI 101 AnneMaree McLaughlin ● YI 102 Annika Dean ● YI 103 Claire Noonan ● YI 104 Elisa Krey ● NI 105 Withheld ● YI 106 Margaret Edwards ● NI 108 Robert McLaughlin ● YI 109 Thomas Ferguson ● Y

Singleton LG

A( Bulga)

Singleton LG

A (Broke)

Singleton LG

A (Jerrys P

lains)

Singleton LG

A (Singleton

)Maitla

nd LGA

Cessno

ck LGA

Muswellbrook LGA

Upp

er Hun

ter S

hire LGA

New

castle LGA

Great Lakes LGA

Gosford LGA

Wyong

LGA

Lake M

acqu

arie LGA

Orange Shire

LGA

Uralla Shire LGA

Greater Taree

LGA

Hastings Shire LGA

Lism

ore LG

ABlue

Mou

ntains LGA

Sydn

ey m

etropo

litan

LGA

Wollond

illy LG

AWingecarribee

LGA

Interstate

With

held/not provide

d


Form letter?

Respondent type (see

note)No. Name and location

I 110 Marg McLean ● NI 111 S. Neil Mitchell ● NI 112 Withheld ● N I 113 Withheld ● NI 114 Withheld ● NI 115 Withheld ● YI 116 Withheld ● YI 117 Withheld ● YI 118 Withheld ● Y

SP 5Pride Management Services

●N

SP 11 Australian Coal Alliance ● N

SP 12Hunter Valley Protection Alliance Incorporated

●N

SP 13Economists at Large Pty Ltd

●N

SP 16Islington Village Community Group Inc

●Y

SP 17 The Wilderness Society ● N

SP 18North Queensland Conservation Council

●N

SP 19Yarra Climate Action Now

●Y

SP 20Hunter Communities Network

●N

SP 21Stop Coal Seam Gas Blue Mountains

●Y

SP 23Hunter Environment Lobby Inc.

●N

SP 24 Lock the Gate Alliance ● Y

SP 25Friends of the Earth Australia

●Y

SP 26North East Forest Alliance

●N

SP 27Nimbin Environment Centre

●Y

SP 28Singleton Shire Healthy Environment Group

●N

SP 29Nature Conservation Council

●N

SP 30Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc

●N

SP 31David Gravia (CEO), Digital Eskimo

●Y

SP 32Caroline Graham, Rivers SOS

●N

SP 33 Australian Institute ● Npecial interest, I ‐ individual

Summary of matters raised (objections)Respondent type (SP ‐ special interest, I ‐ individual) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48MatterNoise and vibrationExcessive noise generated by current operations does not comply with conditions, noise will increase with modification ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Excessive vibration already ● ● ● ●Approach to real time monitoring, noise monitor used in EA not representative, process for noise complaints not satisfactory ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Blasting causing structural damage to private dwellings ●Low frequency noise ‐ RTCA DP&I not applying the requirements of the INP ● ●LEC judgement stated that noise is clearly impacting community at current levels ●

35dB maximum noise level should be adopted as best practice, similar to wind farms ●

Traffic and traffic noise will be an ongoing problem

Sleep disturbance due to noise ● ● ● ● ●Air quality

Excessive dust generated by current operations does not comply with conditions, dust will increase with modification ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Impacts on health from cumulative dust

Cumulative air quality impact ‐cannot be adequately regulated in extreme weather events, cumulative assessment of Hunter Valley required

Rainwater tank water quality impacts due to dust ● ●Health impacts due to dust, including particulate pollution as a carcinogen ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Approach to real time dust monitoring and presentation of results

Health impacts due to emissions from blasting ● ●Reckless and unacceptable to continue to expose people to health risks when firmly established as causing harmPM2.5 particles in the Hunter enriched with carbon, sulfur and chromium, particles not suppressed by water, proposal will further pollute ●Ecology

Impacts biodiversity, including endangered ecological communities unacceptable

Offset is not like for like and does not compensate for loss of EECs ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Destruction of EECs, loss of biodiversity, impact on threatened species unacceptable

Mining companies including RTCA have history of mining/not protecting offsets

The nominated offset area contains no threatened flora species, no wetlands and no permanent streams

Consultation

Lack of genuine consultation ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●No consultation with CCC regarding application at October 2013 meeting ‐ demonstrates arrogance of RTCA ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Rehabilitation

Cannot re‐establish natural landforms ●Mine does little, if any, rehabilitation on mined areas ●Reinstatement and rehabilitation of Saddle Ridge will be impossible ● ● ●Visual

Excessive lighting impacts at night ●Existing visual impacts (views of dumps, plant and equipment) will be worsened ● ● ● ● ● ●Disturbance of NDA

Area was intended to be a permanent conservation area as agreed in the 2003 Deed ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Important for noise protection ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Important for dust protection ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●NDA important for light protection

RTCA did not rezone land in accordance with the Deed ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Area proposed to be mined is within area refused by LEC ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●RTCA previously agreed to no disturbance in 2003 deed and has failed to publically acknowledge that it has broken the agreement to protect the NDA from mining ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Summary of matters raised (objections)Respondent type (SP ‐ special interest, I ‐ individual)

No.MatterNoise and vibrationExcessive noise generated by current operations does not comply with conditions, noise will increase with modification

Excessive vibration already

Approach to real time monitoring, noise monitor used in EA not representative, process for noise complaints not satisfactory

Blasting causing structural damage to private dwellings

Low frequency noise ‐ RTCA DP&I not applying the requirements of the INP

LEC judgement stated that noise is clearly impacting community at current levels

35dB maximum noise level should be adopted as best practice, similar to wind farms


Sleep disturbance due to noise

Air quality

Excessive dust generated by current operations does not comply with conditions, dust will increase with modification

Impacts on health from cumulative dust


Rainwater tank water quality impacts due to dust

Health impacts due to dust, including particulate pollution as a carcinogen

Approach to real time dust monitoring and presentation of results

Health impacts due to emissions from blasting

Reckless and unacceptable to continue to expose people to health risks when firmly established as causing harmPM2.5 particles in the Hunter enriched with carbon, sulfur and chromium, particles not suppressed by water, proposal will further pollute

Ecology


Offset is not like for like and does not compensate for loss of EECs

Destruction of EECs, loss of biodiversity, impact on threatened species unacceptable



Consultation

Lack of genuine consultation

No consultation with CCC regarding application at October 2013 meeting ‐ demonstrates arrogance of RTCA

Rehabilitation

Cannot re‐establish natural landforms

Mine does little, if any, rehabilitation on mined areas

Reinstatement and rehabilitation of Saddle Ridge will be impossible

Visual

Excessive lighting impacts at night

Existing visual impacts (views of dumps, plant and equipment) will be worsened

Disturbance of NDA

Area was intended to be a permanent conservation area as agreed in the 2003 Deed

Important for noise protection

Important for dust protection

NDA important for light protection

RTCA did not rezone land in accordance with the Deed

Area proposed to be mined is within area refused by LEC

RTCA previously agreed to no disturbance in 2003 deed and has failed to publically acknowledge that it has broken the agreement to protect the NDA from mining

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

●

● ●● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Summary of matters raised (objections)Respondent type (SP ‐ special interest, I ‐ individual)

No.MatterNoise and vibrationExcessive noise generated by current operations does not comply with conditions, noise will increase with modification

Excessive vibration already

Approach to real time monitoring, noise monitor used in EA not representative, process for noise complaints not satisfactory

Blasting causing structural damage to private dwellings

Low frequency noise ‐ RTCA DP&I not applying the requirements of the INP

LEC judgement stated that noise is clearly impacting community at current levels

35dB maximum noise level should be adopted as best practice, similar to wind farms


Sleep disturbance due to noise

Air quality

Excessive dust generated by current operations does not comply with conditions, dust will increase with modification

Impacts on health from cumulative dust


Rainwater tank water quality impacts due to dust

Health impacts due to dust, including particulate pollution as a carcinogen

Approach to real time dust monitoring and presentation of results

Health impacts due to emissions from blasting

Reckless and unacceptable to continue to expose people to health risks when firmly established as causing harmPM2.5 particles in the Hunter enriched with carbon, sulfur and chromium, particles not suppressed by water, proposal will further pollute

Ecology


Offset is not like for like and does not compensate for loss of EECs

Destruction of EECs, loss of biodiversity, impact on threatened species unacceptable



Consultation

Lack of genuine consultation

No consultation with CCC regarding application at October 2013 meeting ‐ demonstrates arrogance of RTCA

Rehabilitation

Cannot re‐establish natural landforms

Mine does little, if any, rehabilitation on mined areas

Reinstatement and rehabilitation of Saddle Ridge will be impossible

Visual

Excessive lighting impacts at night

Existing visual impacts (views of dumps, plant and equipment) will be worsened

Disturbance of NDA

Area was intended to be a permanent conservation area as agreed in the 2003 Deed

Important for noise protection

Important for dust protection

NDA important for light protection

RTCA did not rezone land in accordance with the Deed

Area proposed to be mined is within area refused by LEC

RTCA previously agreed to no disturbance in 2003 deed and has failed to publically acknowledge that it has broken the agreement to protect the NDA from mining

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP101 102 103 104 105 106 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 5 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Respondent type (SP ‐ special interest, I ‐ individual) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INo. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Matter

Aboriginal heritage

Expansion will result in additional artefacts being destroyed which were intended for preservation under Deed ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Unacceptable impacts on Aboriginal heritage

Water

Impacts on surface water ‐ extensive surface disturbance represent a significant threat water qualityMine is extracting huge amounts of water, the impacts of which have not been assessed.Mine leachate leaking into water supplies from cracks in the strata caused by mining activitiesOngoing impacts on groundwater, particularly the perched aquifers supporting Warkworth Sands Woodlands

Mining method

Prefer underground mining instead of open cut ● ● ● ● ● ●Project need / justification

The justification of job provision should not be the basis of mining into NDA, and should not take precedence over public health, adherence to Deed and rights of community

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

The need to maintain jobs is unsupported by any information provided ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Failure to demonstrate that operations cannot be maintained in their current form

Assumption that expansion will improve job security of existing workforce is flawed (ref Stratford and Duralie extensions/job cuts)

Disagreement with lack of strike length threatening the viability of the mine

The fact that RTCA accelerated production in the 2003 approved area should not be used to justify expansion into areas previously agreed as NDA ●Socio‐economic

Residents should be compensated for impacts ● ● ● ●Wider social costs due to high wages paid to miners, difficult for small businesses to attract workers, higher local costs ● ●Majority of employees do not live in Bulga and are no exposed to impacts ●Threat of 1300 jobs lost is unreasonable in light of the lack of consultation

Assessment of social impacts inadequate

Families and land holders have made financial decisions based on the NDA remaining undisturbed ● ● ● ● ●No commitment from RTCA or DP&I regarding commitment to preservation of lifestyle and health, or assurances of mitigation or acquisition ● ●People have the right to live in quiet enjoyment without impacts of mining ● ● ●No economic assessment has been undertaken, and the need to maintain employment is unsupported ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Ongoing incorrect economic analysis provided by the mining industry needs to be independently assessedOngoing loss of neighbours and social support systems in Hunter Valley communities has not been considered

Application has no benefit to local communities

Property values low in the area due to mining ● ● ●Destruction of Hunter Valley villages from mining. Bulga must be protected.

Respondent type (SP ‐ special interest, I ‐ individual)No.

Matter

Aboriginal heritage

Expansion will result in additional artefacts being destroyed which were intended for preservation under Deed

Unacceptable impacts on Aboriginal heritage

Water


Mining method

Prefer underground mining instead of open cut

Project need / justification


The need to maintain jobs is unsupported by any information provided

Failure to demonstrate that operations cannot be maintained in their current form



The fact that RTCA accelerated production in the 2003 approved area should not be used to justify expansion into areas previously agreed as NDA

Socio‐economic

Residents should be compensated for impacts

Wider social costs due to high wages paid to miners, difficult for small businesses to attract workers, higher local costs

Majority of employees do not live in Bulga and are no exposed to impacts

Threat of 1300 jobs lost is unreasonable in light of the lack of consultation


Families and land holders have made financial decisions based on the NDA remaining undisturbedNo commitment from RTCA or DP&I regarding commitment to preservation of lifestyle and health, or assurances of mitigation or acquisition

People have the right to live in quiet enjoyment without impacts of mining

No economic assessment has been undertaken, and the need to maintain employment is unsupportedOngoing incorrect economic analysis provided by the mining industry needs to be independently assessedOngoing loss of neighbours and social support systems in Hunter Valley communities has not been considered


Property values low in the area due to mining

Destruction of Hunter Valley villages from mining. Bulga must be protected.


● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●


Matter

Aboriginal heritage

Expansion will result in additional artefacts being destroyed which were intended for preservation under Deed

Unacceptable impacts on Aboriginal heritage

Water


Mining method

Prefer underground mining instead of open cut

Project need / justification


The need to maintain jobs is unsupported by any information provided

Failure to demonstrate that operations cannot be maintained in their current form



The fact that RTCA accelerated production in the 2003 approved area should not be used to justify expansion into areas previously agreed as NDA

Socio‐economic

Residents should be compensated for impacts

Wider social costs due to high wages paid to miners, difficult for small businesses to attract workers, higher local costs

Majority of employees do not live in Bulga and are no exposed to impacts

Threat of 1300 jobs lost is unreasonable in light of the lack of consultation


Families and land holders have made financial decisions based on the NDA remaining undisturbedNo commitment from RTCA or DP&I regarding commitment to preservation of lifestyle and health, or assurances of mitigation or acquisition

People have the right to live in quiet enjoyment without impacts of mining

No economic assessment has been undertaken, and the need to maintain employment is unsupportedOngoing incorrect economic analysis provided by the mining industry needs to be independently assessedOngoing loss of neighbours and social support systems in Hunter Valley communities has not been considered


Property values low in the area due to mining

Destruction of Hunter Valley villages from mining. Bulga must be protected.


● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●●

● ● ● ● ●

Respondent type (SP ‐ special interest, I ‐ individual) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INo. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Matter

Other matters

Government makes decisions and changes (to legislation) that allow overseas companies to destroy people's lives for financial gain ●Mining by stealth, 'bit by bit' approach ‐ RTCA planning to make further applications bit by bit to avoid full assessment ● ● ● ●Planning system is one‐sided in favour of RTCA ● ●Various unacceptable groundwater impacts

RTCA holding gun to head of government ●RTCA should present the a clear picture for future MTW operations instead of interim changes to consent conditions ● ●Contrary to EA, land is well suited to agriculture

Government has a duty of care to protect communities from expansion of coal mining in the Hunter ● ● ●Cumulative health impact study for hunter coal industry is required

All feasible options have not been adequately considered or assessed

Mine does not care about the community's views ● ● ● ●Mining SEPP Amendments to be overturned. RTCA/DP&I trying to get approval before this happens.

Inconsistent with LEC judgement ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Application was already denied by the LEC.

Agrees with all the reasons for not allowing the Warkworth Extension Project that were outlined in the LEC judgementThe application should not be accepted as a modification, as it is an application to extend operations past the 2003 area of consent ●Government appears to be conspiring with RTCA to push the project through the approval system without due process ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Acceptance of the application by government shows disregard for the LEC ruling and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Unfair procedure ‐ application lodged two business days after new mining regulations came into force ‐ erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Unfair procedure ‐ application was exhibited without any prior notice with only a two week submission period and formal appeals for an extension have been rejected by DP&I

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Legal issues for removal of overburden from Warkworth to Mt Thorley.

Government has no understanding of impacts ●General concern about environmental impacts, cumulative environmental impacts ● ●Climate change ‐ mining proposal should be rejected due to greenhouse gas emissions and the need to limit global warming ● ● ●Loss of Wallaby Scrub Road would significantly extend journey time

Application indicates that spoil will be transferred from WML to MTO ‐ introduces cross contamination and may not be permitted under MTO approval


Matter

Other matters

Government makes decisions and changes (to legislation) that allow overseas companies to destroy people's lives for financial gainMining by stealth, 'bit by bit' approach ‐ RTCA planning to make further applications bit by bit to avoid full assessment

Planning system is one‐sided in favour of RTCA

Various unacceptable groundwater impacts

RTCA holding gun to head of government

RTCA should present the a clear picture for future MTW operations instead of interim changes to consent conditions

Contrary to EA, land is well suited to agriculture

Government has a duty of care to protect communities from expansion of coal mining in the Hunter

Cumulative health impact study for hunter coal industry is required


Mine does not care about the community's views

Mining SEPP Amendments to be overturned. RTCA/DP&I trying to get approval before this happens.

Inconsistent with LEC judgement

Application was already denied by the LEC.

Agrees with all the reasons for not allowing the Warkworth Extension Project that were outlined in the LEC judgementThe application should not be accepted as a modification, as it is an application to extend operations past the 2003 area of consentGovernment appears to be conspiring with RTCA to push the project through the approval system without due processAcceptance of the application by government shows disregard for the LEC ruling and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court

Unfair procedure ‐ application lodged two business days after new mining regulations came into force ‐ erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process



Government has no understanding of impacts

General concern about environmental impacts, cumulative environmental impacts

Climate change ‐ mining proposal should be rejected due to greenhouse gas emissions and the need to limit global warming

Loss of Wallaby Scrub Road would significantly extend journey time



● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

● ●


Matter

Other matters

Government makes decisions and changes (to legislation) that allow overseas companies to destroy people's lives for financial gainMining by stealth, 'bit by bit' approach ‐ RTCA planning to make further applications bit by bit to avoid full assessment

Planning system is one‐sided in favour of RTCA

Various unacceptable groundwater impacts

RTCA holding gun to head of government

RTCA should present the a clear picture for future MTW operations instead of interim changes to consent conditions

Contrary to EA, land is well suited to agriculture

Government has a duty of care to protect communities from expansion of coal mining in the Hunter

Cumulative health impact study for hunter coal industry is required


Mine does not care about the community's views

Mining SEPP Amendments to be overturned. RTCA/DP&I trying to get approval before this happens.

Inconsistent with LEC judgement

Application was already denied by the LEC.

Agrees with all the reasons for not allowing the Warkworth Extension Project that were outlined in the LEC judgementThe application should not be accepted as a modification, as it is an application to extend operations past the 2003 area of consentGovernment appears to be conspiring with RTCA to push the project through the approval system without due processAcceptance of the application by government shows disregard for the LEC ruling and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court

Unfair procedure ‐ application lodged two business days after new mining regulations came into force ‐ erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process



Government has no understanding of impacts

General concern about environmental impacts, cumulative environmental impacts

Climate change ‐ mining proposal should be rejected due to greenhouse gas emissions and the need to limit global warming

Loss of Wallaby Scrub Road would significantly extend journey time



● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

●●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

J13074RP2

Appendix B

Adequacy of increased biodiversity offset area

J13074RP2

“This page has been intentionally left blank”

CUMBERLAND ECOLOGY © - 13056 LET 4_V6.DOCX 4 21 NOVEMBER 2013

A.1 Introduction

Approval was granted to Warkworth Mining Limited (WML) for the Warkworth Mine to

commence mining in 1980 with the official mine opening in 1981. Several mining extensions and

approvals have been granted since that date including an approval granted in 2003 by the NSW

Government (DA 300-9-2002-i) (DOP, 2004) and 2004 by the Commonwealth (EPBC 2002/629)

(DEH, 2004, DOP, 2004).

A Project Approval was sought under Part 3A of the EP&A Act in 2010 to facilitate the extension

of Warkworth Mine (the Warkworth Extension Project) and allow mining for a further 21 years

from 2011. The Warkworth Extension Project was granted approval by the Planning

Assessment Commission as Delegate for the NSW Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in

February 2012 and by the Commonwealth in August 2012 (EPBC 2009/5081). However, the

NSW Government approval was overturned in the NSW Land and Environment Court in April

2013, and therefore WML is investigating an alternative option to enable continued mining. The

Commonwealth approvals are still valid, which includes approval for disturbance of the minor

extension area (EPBC 2009/5081).

WML proposes a minor extension to West Pit (Modification 6) in order to maintain existing

production levels as close to current levels and employment of its workforce. Modification 6

seeks to extend the Warkworth Mine disturbance area beyond the currently approved footprint

to approximately the Year 2 mine plan provided in the Warkworth Extension Project

Environmental Assessment (EA) (EMGA Mitchell McLennan 2010). This area is approximately

31 ha including a 1 ha dam (hereafter referred to as the “minor extension area”, see Figure 1).

In order to compensate these proposed impacts, land within the previously proposed offset

lands known as the "Southern Biodiversity Area" is proposed to be used as a biodiversity offset

and reserved for conservation (see Figure 1).

An area of approximately 32 ha of land containing Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark

Woodland within the Southern Biodiversity Area was initially proposed as an offset, as well as

the rehabilitation of 32 ha of mined areas to this woodland type. This represented a direct offset

ratio of 2:1 for woodland being protected to woodland being disturbed, plus additional

compensation via the rehabilitation of mined areas to woodland. Following discussions with the

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I), the area of proposed offset has been

increased to include 67 ha of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland. This now

represents a proposed offset ratio of over 4:1 for woodland being protected to that disturbed.

The flora and fauna of the minor extension area and the nominated offset area is well known

from numerous previous studies and reports that have taken place, in particular those for the

Warkworth Extension Project EA, and for the subsequent Land and Environment Court case.

The reports, which incorporated the minor extension area and surrounding areas (hereafter

referred to as the “study area”), have been reviewed for data relevant to the current assessment

and their findings incorporated into this report. These include but are not limited to the

following:

Bell, S. (2012). Expert Report: Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association v Minister for

Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited. Land and Environment

Court Proceedings No: 10224 of 2012. Prepared for EDO NSW.


Cumberland Ecology. (2010). Warkworth Mine Extension Ecological Assessment.

Prepared for Warkworth Mining Limited. Carlingford Court, NSW.

EMGA Mitchell McLennan. (2010). Proposed Warkworth Extension: Environmental

Assessment Prepared for Warkworth Mining Limited. EMGA Mitchell McLennan, St

Leonards.

Robertson, D. J. (2012). Statement of Evidence. Land and Environment Court of

NSW: Class 1, Proceedings 10224 of 2012. Prepared for MinterEllison Lawyers on

behalf of Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Limited. Carlingford Court, NSW.

Umwelt (Australia). (2011). Review of Ecological Assessments for Warkworth

Extension EA and HVO South Modification Projects. Prepared on behalf of

Department of Planning & Infrastructure. Toronto, NSW.

The purpose of this report is to provide an ecological assessment to be used to support

Modification 6. This report provides an assessment of the ecological impacts of the proposed

modification, with particular focus on threatened flora, fauna and endangered ecological

communities (EEC) listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC

Act) and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(EPBC Act). A range of mitigation and compensation strategies to ameliorate the ecological

impact of the proposed modification have been identified and are presented.

This report also provides a description of the ecological values present in the currently proposed

nominated offset area and assesses the suitability of this area to offset the impacts of the

proposed modification. This report is an updated version of a previous report, and discusses

the currently proposed 67 ha offset area.

º

MOUNT THORLEY OPERATIONS

North Pit

West Pit

Tailing Dam No.2

Woodlands Pit

CD Pit

Tailing Dam No.1

South Pit

Warkworth CPP

Administration officeWarkworth maintenance facilities

WARKWORTH GOULDSVILLE/LONG POINT

HAMBLEDON HILL

MOUNT THORLEY

Mount ThorleyIndustrial Estate

Wollomb

i Brook

Loders

Creek

H u n t e r R i v e r

Doctors Creek


CHAR

LTON

ROA

D

PUTTY ROAD

WALL

ABY S

CRUB

ROAD

GOLDEN HIGHWAY

WARKWORTH MINE

BULGA MINE

Sadd

lebac

k Ridg

e

Proposed extension to West PitWarkworth Modification 6

Ecological AssessmentFigure 1

¯

KEYArea within which nominated offsetwoodland is locatedProposed extension to West PitWarkworth Mine developmentconsent footprintProposed Warkworth Minedevelopment consent boundaryamendment

T:\J

obs\

2013

\J13

074

Min

or e

xten

sion

to W

est p

it - W

arkw

orth

mod

ifica

tion\

GIS

\02_

Map

s\E

001_

Prop

osal

_201

3112

1_06

.mxd

21/

11/2

013

0 0.5 1 1.5

km

GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Source: Coal & Allied, 2013; EMM, 2013; LPMA, 2013


A.2 Ecology of the minor extension area

A.2.1 Vegetation

Three vegetation communities are present in the minor extension area (see Figure 2)

(Cumberland Ecology 2010):

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland;

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest; and

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Derived Grassland.

Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest and Central Hunter Grey Box –

Ironbark Woodland are very similar communities and from an ecological perspective are

considered to be largely interchangeable based on the Umwelt (2011) review of the EA,

undertaken by Travis Peake.

These communities and are described in more detail below.

i. Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland

This community is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. Approximately 3 ha of this community

are present within the minor extension area (see Figure 2). The dominant canopy species

within this community are Grey Box (Eucalyptus molucanna) and Narrow-leaved Ironbark

(Eucalyptus crebra). There are also local abundances of Bulloak (Allocauarina luehmannii) and

White Feather Honeymyrtle (Melaleuca decora) in the midstorey.

Common understorey species include Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona), Acacia falcata, Native

Blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa) and Coffee Bush (Breynia oblongifolia). Common groundcover

species include Purple Burr-Daisy (Calotis cuneifolia), Blue Trumpet (Brunoniella australis),

Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens), Blue Flax Lily (Dianella revoluta), Three-awn Speargrass

(Aristida vagans), Wattle Matt-rush (Lomandra filiformis), Common Fringe-sedge (Fimbristylis

dichotoma) and Rock Fern (Cheilanthes sieberi).

ii. Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest

This community is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. Approximately 13 ha of this community

occur in the minor extension area (see Figure 2). Dominant canopy species in this community

include Narrow-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) and

Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana). Bulloak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) is a common midstorey

species.

West Pit

Sadd

lebac

k Ridg

e

Vegetation communities in the extension areaWarkworth Modification 6


KEYVegetation type

Central Hunter Grey Box - IronbarkWoodlandCentral Hunter Grey Box - IronbarkWoodland (Derived NativeGrassland)Central Hunter Ironbark - SpottedGum - Grey Box ForestProposed extension to West PitWarkworth Mine developmentconsent footprint

T:\J

obs\

2013

\J13

074

Min

or e

xten

sion

to W

est p

it - W

arkw

orth

mod

ifica

tion\

GIS

\02_

Map

s\E

002_

Vege

Com

msM

od_2

0130

927_

04.m

xd 2

1/11

/201

3

0 100 200 300

m


¯


As described above, this community is essentially the same as Central Hunter Grey Box –

Ironbark Woodland, and the main difference is that this community contains Spotted Gum as a

dominant canopy species. The understorey is virtually identical. The common understorey

species recorded in this community are Fan Wattle (Acacia amblygona) and Gorse Bitter Pea

(Daviesia ulicifolia). Common groundcover species include; Blue Trumpet (Brunoniella

australis), Common Everlasting (Chrysocephalum apiculatum), Wattle Matt-rush (Lomandra

filiformis), Many-flowered Mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora), Blue Flax-lily (Dianella longifolia),

Three-awn Speargrass (Aristida vagans), Rock Fern (Cheilanthes sieberi) and Variable Glycine

(Glycine tabacina).

iii. Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Derived Native Grassland

Derived Grassland is the name given to grassland vegetation that has been derived from the

clearing of pre-existing trees and shrubs. In the minor extension area, the pre-existing

woodland in the areas that are currently grassland would have been Central Hunter Grey Box –

Ironbark (discussed above). Despite the conservation status of the intact community, the

grassland community derived from it is not listed under the TSC Act as being part of the

community. However, if trees and shrubs are planted within it (or encouraged to regenerate

from nearby areas) then the grassland can regenerate into the EEC. Approximately 14 ha of

this community occur in the minor extension area (see Figure 2).

This community is generally dominated by native grass species, however some herbs also

occur. There is a low to moderate incursion of weed species within this community, particularly

along areas that have been disturbed. Weed incursion is high where exotic species have been

sown for soil stability control measures.

A.2.2 Flora

Approximately 400 flora species have been recorded on the wider study area; with over 75% of

the species being native. No threatened flora species have been recorded from the minor

extension area; however two threatened species have been recorded from the wider study area;

Lobed Blue Grass (Bothriochloa biloba) and Ancistrachne maidenii (Figure 3). Lobed Blue

Grass is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act, and although it was previously listed as

Vulnerable under the TSC Act its listing has since been removed due to a relative abundance of

this species in NSW. This species was recorded at one location within a road reserve along the

Golden Highway (Figure 3).

Ancistrachne maideni is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act. This species was recorded by

Andrews Neil (2006) during a previous survey within Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark

Woodland outside of the study area (Figure 3).

In addition to these two species, the Atlas of NSW Wildlife indicates that five individuals of Slaty

Red Gum (Eucalyptus glaucina) have been identified adjacent to the western boundary of the

study area (Cumberland Ecology 2010). This species is listed as Vulnerable under both the

TSC and EPBC Act. Despite these records the species has never been confirmed in the

numerous flora surveys that have been conducted within the study area since the initial

recording in 1998 (Cumberland Ecology 2010).


A number of additional threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act and/or the EPBC Act

are known to occur within the locality (Cumberland Ecology 2010), and several have potential to

occur in the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat, however numerous flora surveys

conducted in the study area over many years have failed to locate any further threatened

species.

A.2.3 Fauna

The minor extension area has been substantially modified due to previous land clearing and

past grazing and currently provides limited habitat for native species. Approximately half the

minor extension area consists of derived grassland. These areas constitute very poor habitat

for most fauna with the exception of common widespread species such as the Eastern Grey

Kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) and exotic fauna such as the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus

cuniculus).

The vegetation that does occur is characterised by regrowth vegetation, and much of it is still

highly fragmented with few older trees. The understorey is limited, and contains few areas of

dense shrubby vegetation. This significantly limits the habitat amenity of this area for species

such as woodland birds that depend on dense understorey for foraging resources and shelter.

Key habitat features such as bush rock, fallen logs, leaf litter and ground vegetation, which

provide shelter for many small to medium sized terrestrial fauna species are present to some

degree in most of the woodland communities within the study area. Generally, the types of

terrestrial native species using the study area are likely to be restricted to those that are

common and well-adapted to disturbed woodland and agricultural areas.

The mature living trees and stags that remain in forest and woodland communities within the

minor extension area provide a number of small to medium-sized tree hollows for fauna species

dependant on this resource as shelter and breeding habitat. However large hollows in tall trees

that provide breeding and shelter habitat, particularly for large forest owls and large gliders, are

relatively scarce. The scarcity of these larger hollows can be attributed to the immaturity of the

vegetation as it mostly comprises regrowth following past clearing. All open forest and

woodland vegetation communities within the minor extension area would provide suitable

foraging habitat for a wide range of nectarivorous birds during blossom periods.

No naturally occurring wetlands and permanent streams are present within the minor extension

area. However, some very small, ephemeral drainage lines and a large farm dam is present in

the southern part of the area. This dam may provide some suitable habitat for some wetland-

dependant species such as wetland birds and amphibians.

A total of 21 threatened fauna species including 14 bird and seven mammal species have been

recorded within the study area during past work, as summarised in the EA (Cumberland

Ecology 2010). The fauna of the study area is discussed in more detail below.

i. Birds

The minor extension area provides suitable foraging, shelter and breeding habitat for a range of

common bird species, in addition to some threatened species listed under the EPBC Act and/or


the TSC Act. Suitable habitat is present for woodland and grassland-dependant species, as

well as some open forest habitat. The threatened bird species that have been recorded within

the study area and which have potential to occur in the minor extension area include the

following (see Figure 3) (Cumberland Ecology 2010):

Black-breasted Buzzard (Hamirostra melanosternon) (Vulnerable under TSC Act);

Spotted Harrier (Circus assimilis) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Little Eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act)

Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Scarlet Robin (Petroica boodang) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Brown Treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Grey-crowned Babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Speckled Warbler (Chthonicola sagittata) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Hooded Robin (Melanodryas cucullata) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Glossy Black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) (Vulnerable under the TSC Act);

Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) (Endangered under the EPBC and TSC

Acts); and

Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) (Endangered under the EPBC and TSC Acts).

Of these species, the Little Lorikeet, the Speckled Warbler and the Grey-crowned Babbler have

been recorded from within the minor extension area (see Figure 3). Although potential habitat

for these species is present in the minor extension area, none of these species are likely be

dependent on this habitat, and would use it as part of a larger foraging range.

ii. Mammals

Extensive field surveys conducted in the study area show limited numbers of native small

terrestrial mammals and an abundance of exotic species. The low abundance of small

terrestrial native mammals is likely to be a result of the historical land use within the study area,

which was maintained as predominantly cleared grazing land until the early 1990s.

That notwithstanding, seven threatened mammal species have been recorded within the study

area, comprising mostly microchiropteran bats that are listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act:

Eastern Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis); Eastern Free-tail Bat


(Mormopterus norfolkensis); Little Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus australis); Large-footed Myotis

(Myotis macropus); and the Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) (see Figure 3). Of

these, the Large-eared Pied Bat is also listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The Eastern

Bent-wing Bat has been recorded from the minor extension area.

Other threatened mammal species recorded from the study area include the Squirrel Glider

(Petaurus norfolcensis) (listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act) and the Grey-headed Flying-

fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) (listed as Vulnerable under both the EPBC and the TSC Acts) (see

Figure 3). The Squirrel Glider has been recorded from woodland directly adjacent to the minor

extension area (see Figure 3).

The Koala (Phascolarctos cinerea) is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act.

This species has not been recorded from the study area or the minor extension area; however

numerous Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana) trees are present in the minor extension area.

This species is considered to be a secondary feed tree for the Koala (DECC 2008), and

therefore potential habitat for this species is considered to be present.

")

""

""

""

""

"

""

"

""

"

))

))

))

))

)

))

)

))

)

"

"

"

""

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

)

)

)

))

)

))

)

)

)

)

))

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

")

"

""

"

)

))

)

####

#

#

****

*

*

####

#

#

****

*

*

#

#

*

*

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

##**

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

*

*

*

***

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

***

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

**

*

**

*

*

*

*

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

**

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

BB

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

BB

B

B

_̂

_̂

MOUNT THORLEY OPERATIONS

North Pit

North Pit

West Pit

Tailing Dam No.2

CD Pit

Tailing Dam No.1

South Pit

Warkworth CPP

WARKWORTH GOULDSVILLE/LONG POINT

Wollomb

i Brook

Wo l

lom

biBr

o ok


CHAR

LTON

ROA

D

PUTTY ROAD

WALL

ABY S

CRUB

ROAD

GOLDEN HIGHWAY

HUNTER VALLEY OPERATIONS

WAMBO MINE

WARKWORTH MINE

BULGA MINE

Sadd

lebac

k Ridg

e

Threatened species records in the study areaWarkworth Modification 6


KEYThreatened flora_̂ Ancistrachne maidenii_̂ Bothriochloa biloba

Threatened fauna!B Brown Treecreeper!B Eastern Bentwing-bat!B Diamond Firetail!B Eastern Freetail-bat#* Glossy Black-Cockatoo#* Grey-crowned Babbler#* Grey-headed Flying Fox#* Hooded Robin#* Large Bent-wing Bat#* Large-eared Pied Bat#* Large-footed Myotis") Little Lorikeet") Regent Honeyeater") Speckled Warbler") Squirrel Glider") Swift Parrot

Proposed extension to West PitWarkworth Mine developmentconsent footprint

T:\J

obs\

2013

\J13

074

Min

or e

xten

sion

to W

est p

it - W

arkw

orth

mod

ifica

tion\

GIS

\02_

Map

s\E

003_

Thre

aten

edSp

ecie

s_20

1311

21_0

5.m

xd 2

1/11

/201

3

0 0.5 1 1.5

km


¯


A.3 Ecology of the nominated offset area

The currently proposed nominated offset area is approximately 67 ha in size, and incorporates

the previously proposed offset area of 32 ha. It is located approximately 2 km to the west of

Warkworth Mine (see Figure 1). This area is proposed to be conserved for the life of the project

as a biodiversity offset for the proposed modification.

A.3.1 Vegetation

The nominated offset area contains approximately 67 ha of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark

Woodland on a single lot owned by WML, and includes some farm dams and buildings (see

Figure 4). It is adjacent to other woodland and forest areas to the north and east, and good

connectivity is present between this area and vegetation in the minor extension area, through a

wide band of woodland and forest vegetation connecting the two areas. This is likely to be used

by a range of species for foraging and dispersal.

The dominant canopy species within this community are Grey Box (Eucalyptus molucanna) and

Narrow-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra). There are also local abundances of Bulloak

(Allocauarina luehmannii) and White Feather Honeymyrtle (Melaleuca decora) in the midstorey.

A.3.2 Flora

No threatened flora species have been recorded from the nominated offset area, however it is

considered to have potential to support all threatened flora species recorded in the study area.

Due to the similarity of the vegetation in the nominated offset area to the woodland communities

in the minor extension area and its close proximity, it is considered to provide very similar

habitat for flora species.

The vegetation communities present in the nominated offset area is the same as that in the

minor extension area (see Section A.3.1 above), and the woodland areas are in equivalent if

not better condition due to lower levels of fragmentation. Three threatened flora species were

recorded from in and near the study area (see Section A.2.2) and a number of additional

threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act and EPBC Act recorded from the locality were

considered to have potential to occur in the study area (Cumberland Ecology 2010). These are

also considered to have potential to occur in the nominated offset area due to its close proximity

and the presence of the same habitat.

PUTTY ROAD

Vegetation present in the nominated offset areaWarkworth Modification 6Environmental Assessment

Figure 4

KEYArea within which nominated offsetwoodland is located

Vegetation typeApproximately 67 ha of CentralHunter Grey Box - IronbarkWoodlandCentral Hunter Grey Box - IronbarkGrasslandProposed extension to West PitWarkworth Mine developmentconsent footprint

T:\J

obs\

2013

\J13

074

Min

or e

xten

sion

to W

est p

it - W

arkw

orth

mod

ifica

tion\

GIS

\02_

Map

s\E

029_

Vege

Nom

inat

edO

ffset

Are

aAm

ende

d_20

1311

21_0

2.m

xd 2

1/11

/201

3

0 100 200 300

m


¯


A.3.3 Fauna

As discussed above, the nominated offset area contains the same vegetation types as the minor

extension area and contains the same suite of fauna habitat features such as bush rock, fallen

logs, leaf litter and ground vegetation, which provide shelter for many small to medium sized

terrestrial fauna species. The woodland vegetation within the nominated offset area would

provide suitable foraging habitat for a wide range of nectar-feeding birds during blossom

periods. Some mature living trees and stags remain within the nominated offset area that would

provide a number of small to medium-sized tree hollows for fauna species dependant on this

resource as shelter and breeding habitat. However, in common with the study area, large

hollows are relatively scarce. No wetlands or permanent streams are present within the

nominated offset area; however several farm dams are present that are likely to provide some

habitat for some wetland-dependant species such as wetland birds and amphibians.

Two threatened microchiropteran bats have been recorded from the nominated offset area; the

Eastern Freetail Bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) and Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinobolus

dwyeri), and several other threatened species have been recorded in close proximity; the Grey-

crowned Babbler, the Speckled Warbler and the Hooded Robin (Melanodryas cucullata) (see

Figure 4). In addition to these species, due to the presence of high quality woodland

vegetation, the nominated offset area is likely to provide suitable foraging, shelter and breeding

habitat for a wide range of threatened fauna species listed under the EPBC Act and/or the TSC

Act, including all the species recorded from the study area. The nominated offset area is

located in close proximity to the minor extension area and is connected by a wide band of

woodland and forest vegetation, and it is likely that some species currently utilise habitats in

both areas.

""""))))

## ##** **

#

#

#

#

#

#

*

*

*

*

*

*

###

#

#

###

#

#

***

*

*

***

*

*

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

B

B

B

B

BB

B

BB

B

PUTTY ROAD

Threatened species records in the nominated offset areaWarkworth Modification 6


KEYThreatened fauna

!B Brown Treecreeper!B Eastern Freetail Bat#* Grey-crowned Babbler#* Hooded Robin#* Large-eared Pied Bat") Speckled Warbler

Area within which nominated offsetwoodland is locatedProposed extension to West PitWarkworth Mine developmentconsent footprint

T:\J

obs\

2013

\J13

074

Min

or e

xten

sion

to W

est p

it - W

arkw

orth

mod

ifica

tion\

GIS

\02_

Map

s\E

030_

Nom

inat

edO

ffset

Are

aTS

Am

endm

ent_

2013

1118

_02.

mxd

21/

11/2

013

0 100 200 300

m


¯


A.4 Impact assessment

A.4.1 Vegetation

The minor extension area will disturb approximately 31 ha of land including a 1 ha dam, and will

result in the removal of approximately 16 ha of woodland and forest vegetation, which consists

of two EECs listed under the TSC Act. Approximately 3 ha of Central Hunter Grey Box –

Ironbark Woodland will be removed and approximately 13 ha of Central Hunter Ironbark –

Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest will be removed. As discussed previously, these two EECs are

very similar and considered to be ecologically interchangeable. Approximately 14 ha of Central

Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Derived Grassland will also be removed, which is not listed as an

EEC. The remaining 1 ha within the minor extension area comprises an artificially created farm

dam. The minor extension area represents approximately 2.45% of the land present within the

previously approved expansion – the Warkworth Extension Project. This is a small fraction of

that area, for which NSW Government was previously obtained prior to the Land and

Environment Court decision and for which the Commonwealth approval remains valid.

Large areas of these EECs will remain in the wider study area, and only a very small area will

be removed for the proposed modification. To compensate for the removal of small areas of

EEC vegetation, approximately 67 ha of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland that

occurs in the nominated offset area will be protected for conservation in the long term. This

represents approximately a 4:1 ratio of woodland and forest vegetation being offset to that being

disturbed. This is over double the area that was previously proposed as an offset for the minor

extension. This offset ratio includes land to replace the area subject to the extension in West Pit

at a ratio of 2:1 as well as compensates for loss of protected land within NDA1 (prior to the

amendment to the Deed), also at a ratio of 2:1. The vegetation in the nominated offset area will

further benefit from an ongoing management regime that will be implemented including weed

control and supplementary planting of native species where required. Furthermore, WML will

rehabilitate 32 ha of EEC woodland after mining, thereby providing further areas of this

vegetation.

Taking into consideration the small size of the minor extension area and the large offset ratio

proposed for conservation in the nominated offset area, it is considered that the proposed

modification is unlikely to result in a significant impact to EECs.

A.4.2 Flora

No threatened flora species have been recorded from the minor extension area, and none are

expected to occur. Although three threatened flora species have been recorded from within the

wider study area, these have not been recorded from the minor extension area, and are

considered to be unlikely to occur. Potential habitat exists for these species in the minor

extension area, as well as other threatened flora species recorded from the locality, however

numerous surveys have been conducted and they have not been recorded. Large areas of

potential habitat for these flora species will remain in the wider study area, and high quality flora

habitat is being conserved in the nominated offset area. These areas will continue to provide


high quality habitat for flora species in the long term, and no significant impact is expected to

occur to threatened flora species as a result of the proposed modification.

A.4.3 Fauna

Some threatened fauna species have been recorded within the minor extension area, including

the Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla), the Speckled Warbler (Pyrrholaemus sagittatus), the

Grey-crowned Babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis) and the Eastern Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus

schreibersii oceanensis). Several additional threatened fauna species have also been

previously recorded from the wider study area and have potential to occur in the minor

extension area due to the presence of suitable habitat.

The minor extension area will remove approximately 16 ha of habitat for native species in the

form of woodland or forest vegetation. The remainder of the land comprises derived grassland

with very limited habitat for native fauna species, and a farm dam. The small area of woodland

and forest vegetation to be removed is considered to be minor in the context of the extensive

areas that will remain in the wider locality that will continue to provide habitat for fauna species.

Although habitat for some threatened species is present in the minor extension area, none of

these species are likely be dependent on this habitat and they are likely to use it as part of a

larger foraging range.

As compensation for this removal, approximately 67 ha of Central Hunter Grey Box Ironbark

Woodland within the nominated offset area will be protected for conservation. This represents

an offset ratio of 4:1 for vegetation to be provided for conservation relative to that being

removed. The area of woodland being provided as an offset is in good ecological condition and

will provide habitat for all the threatened fauna species to be impacted by the minor extension.

In addition, WML will rehabilitate 32 ha of EEC woodland after mining is complete, thereby

providing an additional area of woodland/forest habitat that will be protected for conservation in

the long term.

The removal of a small area of native vegetation is not expected to have a significant effect on

the threatened fauna species that have potential to occur in the minor extension area.

Considering the amount of retained native vegetation in the vicinity of the minor extension area,

and the significant area of high quality habitat provided in the nominated offset area, as well as

the rehabilitation proposed, it is considered unlikely that the modification will result in a

significant impact to threatened fauna species.

A.5 Management and mitigation

A range of measures have been considered to ameliorate the potential impacts of the proposed

modification, including measures to avoid, mitigate and compensate for impacts. These

measures are outlined below.

A.5.1 Avoidance

The extent and shape of the minor extension area has been modified in an effort to reduce the

ecological impacts.


A.5.2 Mitigation

Warkworth Mine is a currently approved operation, a range of management strategies are

currently in place to limit impacts on native flora and fauna within the area adjacent to the mine.

The strategies include the measures summarised in Table 1. These existing management

strategies will be reviewed, updated and implemented for the proposed modification.

Table 1 Existing mitigation measures relevant to flora and fauna

Existing mitigation measures Ecological benefits

Dust minimisation Control of dust reduces the indirect impacts on vegetation condition and the

habitat quality for all native species at Warkworth Mine.

Noise minimisation Minimisation of noise benefits fauna by reducing the potential for disturbance of

animals in habitat patches around the mine.

Weed control Weed control helps to protect the integrity of native vegetation within the mining

leases and maintains or improves the quality of habitat for plant and animal

species.

Feral animal control Feral animal control helps to control foxes, rabbits and other feral animals that are

key threats to many wildlife species.

Rehabilitation of disturbed areas Rehabilitation of disturbed areas restores forest and woodland cover to disturbed

areas and adds habitat for flora and fauna in the long term.

Linkage and integration of

rehabilitation areas with existing

vegetated areas to improve

ecological function and provide

habitat

Increases the viability of the scattered patches of habitat that occur across the

mining leases, connecting them and facilitating movement of native species

between patches.

Creation of habitat corridors

linking isolated remnant

vegetation stands

Increases the viability of the scattered patches of habitat that occur mining leases,

connecting them and facilitating movement of native species between patches.

Management of surface water,

erosion and sedimentation

Protects the integrity of the landscape.

Ongoing monitoring and

maintenance of all revegetation

Maintains the viability of the rehabilitated areas in the long term and provides

feedback data that can be used for adaptive management.


Table 1 Existing mitigation measures relevant to flora and fauna

Existing mitigation measures Ecological benefits

works and habitat enhancement

activities

Pre-clearance inspections and

tree felling procedures

Provides an opportunity to avoid impacts to arboreal fauna during clearing and/or

enables relocation of fauna to secure areas of vegetation.

Relocation of salvaged tree

hollows and (where required) the

establishment of nest boxes in

adjacent vegetation

communities.

Makes efficient use of tree hollows that could otherwise be destroyed. Replaces

tree hollows that are to be lost from clearing operations by establishing nest boxes

within secure habitat. This maintains the number of tree hollows on site in the

short to medium term.

Due diligence inspections for

surface infrastructure

Provides data for ongoing adaptive management and protection of adjacent

landscape areas if required.

Ongoing monitoring of native

flora and fauna across the

Warkworth mining leases

Provides data for ongoing adaptive management of threatened and regionally

significant flora and fauna.

A.5.3 Compensation

To supplement the mitigation measures, significant compensation measures are proposed to

offset the potential ecological impacts from the minor extension. These compensation

measures include the provision of compensatory habitat in offset areas and rehabilitation of

mined areas within the minor extension to woodland after mining.

The primary compensation measure is the provision of approximately 67 ha of Central Hunter

Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland in the nominated offset area. This vegetation will be managed

for conservation in the long term, including weed control and feral animal management. As

discussed previously, this community is considered to be equivalent to Central Hunter Ironbark

– Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest based on the Umwelt (2011) review of the EA, undertaken by

Travis Peake. Although a total of 31 ha of land with a 1 ha dam will be disturbed for the minor

extension area, only 16 ha currently contains woodland or forest vegetation, and the remainder

comprises derived grassland and a dam. Due to its low conservation significance, derived

grassland to be impacted in the minor extension area is not proposed to be offset. This means

that the currently proposed offset package represents an offset ratio of cleared to conserved

woodland and forest of over 4:1. As described earlier, this ratio includes land to replace the

area subject to the extension in West Pit at a ratio of 2:1 as well as compensates for loss of

protected land within NDA1 (prior to the amendment to the Deed), also at a ratio of 2:1.


Table 2 presents a breakdown of the area of each community to be impacted in the minor

extension area and the nominated offset area.

Table 2 Summary of approximate vegetation to be removed and offset

Vegetation

community

Disturbance

area (ha)

Nominated

offset area

(ha)

Initial

offset

ratio

Rehabilitation Final land

protected

(ha)

Final

offset

ratio

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC

3

67 4:1 32 99 6:1 Central Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest EEC

13

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark derived grassland

14 - - - - -

Total 30 67 4:1 32 99 6:1

In addition, rehabilitation will be undertaken on all areas disturbed by the minor extension area.

A Mining Operations Plan (MOP) is currently in place for Mount Thorley Warkworth (MTW) that

applies to the existing West Pit. The rehabilitation of the minor extension area will be conducted

as an extension of the rehabilitation designed and described in the current MOP. As described

in the current MOP, the final landform for West Pit is planned to comprise an undulating

landscape with final landform slopes varying according to erosion hazard, stability and drainage

requirements. The minor extension area will be rehabilitated in accordance with these concepts

as described in the MOP. In addition, WML will create a total of 32 ha of EEC vegetation that

will be protected in the long term for conservation. There is also potential to rehabilitate areas in

the minor extension area that are currently derived native grassland into woodland and forest

communities, thereby providing further conservation benefits.

A.5.4 Suitability of nominated offset area

The vegetation proposed to be used as an offset is considered to be highly suitable to offset the

impacts of the proposed modification. It contains the same communities as that which will be

impacted, and as such contains similar habitat features and supports very similar flora and

fauna assemblages, including habitat for all the threatened species recorded from the minor

extension area. It is in close proximity to the minor extension area (less than 2 km) and as

such, many of the more mobile species recorded from this area such as birds and bats are likely

to be able to utilise habitat that is present in the nominated offset area.

The proposed offset is considered to be consistent with the NSW Offset Principles for Major

Projects (OEH 2013), which are reproduced below.


1. Before offsets are considered, impacts must first be avoided and unavoidable impacts

minimised through mitigation measures. Only then should offsets be considered for the

remaining impacts.

A range of mitigation measures will be implemented for the proposed modification in addition to

the provision of offsets, as outlined previously.

2. Offset requirements should be based on a reliable and transparent assessment of losses and

gains.

The assessment of the losses that will take place in the minor extension area, and the gains to

be made in the offset area has been made on high quality vegetation mapping data, and the

results of numerous surveys conducted over several seasons and years.

3. Offsets must be targeted to the biodiversity values being lost or to higher conservation

priorities.

The biodiversity values being lost are the same as those that will be provided in the proposed

offset area.

4. Offsets must be additional to other legal requirements.

The nominated offset is currently required for biodiversity under the EPBC Act (EPBC

2009/5081). In accordance with the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE) policy

guiding the use of offsets under the EPBC Act, Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy; October 2012, a state offset and offset

under the EPBC Act may be suitable to duplicate where the ‘action’ is the same and where the

offset compensates for the residual impact to the protected matter identified under the EPBC

Act. On the basis that both ‘actions’ involve open cut mining of the same land the nominated

offset is an acceptable offset for the proposed modification.

5. Offsets must be enduring, enforceable and auditable.

The proposed offset will be subject to a suitable mechanism that will remain enforceable after

mining has been completed.

6. Supplementary measures can be used in lieu of offsets.

No supplementary measures are required.

7. Offsets can be discounted where significant social and economic benefits accrue to NSW as

a consequence of the proposal.

The proponent is a significant employer in the region, and the proposed modification will

maintain the existing significant social or economic benefits to NSW. This includes maintaining

employment levels and revenue raised from the extraction, processing and sale of coal. The

proposed offset ratio is considered to be appropriate, taking the economic benefits of the

integrated MTW into consideration, and the biodiversity benefits of the proposed offset lands.


A.6 Conclusion

Approximately 30 ha of vegetation will be removed by the Modification, of which approximately

3 ha comprises Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland, and 13 ha comprise Central

Hunter Ironbark – Spotted Gum – Grey Box Forest, both of which are listed as EECs under the

TSC Act. A total of 16 ha of forest and woodland communities will be impacted. The remaining

14 ha of vegetation comprise derived native grassland of minimal conservation significance.

No threatened flora species have been recorded from the minor extension area or are likely to

be impacted by the proposed modification. Several threatened fauna species have been

recorded from the minor extension area and others have the potential to occur due to the

presence of suitable habitat. However, the vegetation of the minor extension area is relatively

degraded, and it is unlikely to provide important habitat to these threatened species. Large

areas of similar vegetation will remain in the wider study area and in the locality that these

species will be able to utilise, and they are unlikely to be dependent on habitat present in the

minor extension area.

As an offset to the clearance of approximately 16 ha of native woodland vegetation, 67 ha of

Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland within the nominated offset area is currently

proposed to be protected. This is over double the area of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark

Woodland previously proposed as an offset for the Modification and represents an offset ratio of

over 4:1 for this community being provided to that being disturbed. The area of woodland in the

nominated offset area will provide a large area of high quality habitat for native species

including the threatened species with potential to be impacted by the Modification. In addition to

this area, WML will revegetate 32 ha to native vegetation communities after mining is complete.

Both the nominated offset area and the area to be revegetated after mining will be managed in

the long-term in accordance with appropriate management plans to maintain and increase their

conservation value.

Considering the large areas of native vegetation being retained in the wider locality, and the

substantial areas of offset land proposed; it is not considered that the removal of a small area of

habitat for the proposed Modification will detrimentally affect the threatened species recorded or

with potential to occur. No significant impact is considered likely to occur to threatened species

or EECs as a result of the proposed modification. No referral to the DoE is required due to the

existing EPBC approval for disturbance of this area.


A.7 References

Andrews, N. (2006). Warkworth Fauna and Flora Baseline Survey and CNA Biodiversity and

Rehabilitation Monitoring Andrews, Neil, Gosford, NSW

Bell, S. (2012). Expert Report: Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association v Minister for Planning

and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited. Land and Environment Court Proceedings

No: 10224 of 2012. Prepared for EDO NSW

Cumberland Ecology (2010). Warkworth Mine Extension Ecological Assessment Prepared for

Warkworth Mining Limited Carlingford Court, NSW

Department of Planning (2004). Warkworth Mine Development Consent Conditions Issued by

the NSW Minister for Planning DA-300-9-2002-I, dated 19 May 2003 (with changes made to

consent on 19 October 2004) DoP.

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (2009). Recovery Plan for the Koala

(Phascolarctos cinereus), DECC, Sydney, NSW.

Department of Environment and Heritage (2004) Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation (EPBC) Approval Issued by the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment,

EPBC 2002/629 DEH

EMGA Mitchell McLennan (2010). Proposed Warkworth Extension: Environmental Assessment

Prepared for Warkworth Mining Limited. EMGA Mitchell McLennan, St Leonards

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (2013). NSW offset principles for major projects (state

significant development and state significant infrastructure) online, available:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biocertification/offsets.htm

Robertson, D. J. (2012). Statement of Evidence. Land and Environment Court of NSW: Class 1,

Proceedings 10224 of 2012. Prepared for MinterEllison Lawyers on behalf of Rio Tinto Coal

Australia Pty Limited. Carlingford Court, NSW

Umwelt (Australia). (2011). Review of Ecological Assessments for Warkworth Extension EA and

HVO South Modification Projects. Prepared on behalf of Department of Planning &

Infrastructure. Toronto, NSW.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biocertification/offsets.htm

www.emgamm.comwww.riotinto.com.au

SYDNEYGround Floor, Suite 1, 20 Chandos StreetSt Leonards NSW 2065T 02 9493 9500 F 02 9493 9599

NEWCASTLELevel 1, 6 Bolton StreetNewcastle NSW 2300T 02 4927 0506 F 02 4926 1312

BRISBANESuite 1, Level 4, 87 Wickham TerraceSpring Hill Queensland 4000T 07 3839 1800 F 07 3839 1866

www.emgamm.com

j13074 rtsppr v4 - major projects

Documents