Mod 2 - Design Changes

1. The applicant considers the proposal to be minor.
I would argue that an application for 75 houses would not be considered as minor. 75 houses have about the same value of about $28m as the proposed modification.

2. The application states there will be nil operational jobs
If the project is for operational efficiency then surely the application should explain the numbers of jobs lost by the project being permitted.

3. The flyover is to be constructed to allow normal coal trains to pass under.
The future capacity of the Hunter rail line can be considerably enhanced by the use of double stacked trains. As such the proposed flyover should be constructed with a clearance to permit double stacked trains. To do otherwise would be extremely short sighted and add to the impediments of increasing rail line capacity in the future.

4. The Operational Noise levels need to be monitored.
The noise levels of plant and equipment changes with age, equipment loadings and a host of other factors.
Much of the plant and equipment to be used on the site has not even been developed or built yet.
Whilst noise modelling is a guide to the construction design it is certainly not an appropriate tool for site noise licensing.
The consent conditions should define five noise monitoring locations, the measurement technique and the maximum noise levels. The monitors should be real time and allow public access. This consent condition should form part of the EPL.

5. Point 3.3 of Attachment A of the Appendix B states that the noise level from the flyover will be negligible.
Given that the trains will have to climb a 10.5m grade trains may be at full power especially if from a standing start it is hard to believe the noise will be no greater than flat operation.

6. The table of Noise at various locations claims to have permissible noise levels.
I would argue that it is 2012 and for any audible noise to be heard more than 1km from its source is totally unacceptable.

7. Whilst I am not qualified to comment on the environmental aspects of the site I have formed the opinion that to further disturb the site would without doubt further impact adversely on the site.
Further I would be confident at the original project approval was extremely easy on NCIG. If the application was under consideration now the issues would be considered far more rigorously.

8. All lighting should be fitted with shields and automatic switches to limit light to essential areas when those areas are in use.

Dust management would need to be significantly upgraded. The are of impact of the NCIG project includes the full length of all rail corridors from which the NCIG draws supply. The dust strategy needs to address the dust and train fumes and should include (but not be limited to) coal dust blowing from trains, wagon hopper leaks, derailment spillage, dust from train turbulence and caseinogenic fumes from locomotive exhausts. The dust monitoring should be stipulated in the EPL and should be real time with community access.

9. Offsets should not be considered as appropriate for this project.

10. There must be an undertaking in the consent conditions that id the site ceases to operate as a significant coal export terminal that the site be remediated back to its original state under the supervision and instruction of the NSW Government.


11. The facility is currently operating well under capacity. With ship loaders having a 10,500tph capacity (and 12,500tph peak) it should take about 6.6 hours to load a 70,000 tonne load. Current loading time is about 30 hours.

In conclusion I strongly oppose this application as I do not believe it adequately addresses the basic are reasonable issues expected by a caring community.
I have no financial involvement and have made no political contributions.

If we lose Swan Pond as it is known it will mean we will lose an important Dry Season Refuge for the Birds
We will lose a recreational requirement for the Greater population of Newcastle and indeed the world of nature lovers, scientists, birdwatchers, ecologists interested in the natural environment and how it works and the delicate organisms that inhabit these ponds in the balance of our precious natural world. Fast disappearing by greed Lorna Mee

I am lodging this objection in support of Hunter Bird Observers Club's submission re the effects of the project on Swan Pond. The pond is important bird habitat in an area of shrinking wetalands for bird life.

There are considerable environmental problems with this proposal as outlined in the submission from the Hunter Bird Observers Club

The Hunter Estuary is an extremely important area for migratory and resident shorebirds. Despite declining numbers, it remains the most important area in NSW for shorebirds, and is the only site in NSW that has been designated as internationally important for migratory shorebirds (Bamford M, Watkins D, Bancroft W, Tischler G and Wahl J. 2008. Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway: Population estimates and internationally important sites. Wetlands Inter¬national - Oceania. Canberra, Australia).

Swan Pond is the only brackish wetland of its type remaining in the lower Hunter Estuary, and is particularly important shorebird habitat. Swan Pond includes coastal saltmarsh and mudflats that are exposed for longer periods than at most other parts of the Estuary, providing high quality foraging and roosting habitat for migratory shorebirds and other wetland species. The value of the area is clearly demonstrated by the fact that up to three thousand birds can regularly be seen on Swan Pond. Eighty-five species have been recorded here since 1999 (Hunter Bird Observers' Club Records). Twenty-two of these species are migratory shorebirds, 9 of which are regularly found at Swan Pond. These are: Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii, Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa, Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia, Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis, Red Knot Calidris canutus, Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminate and Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea. Two of these species are listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), the Curlew Sandpiper as Endangered and the Black-tailed Godwit as Vulnerable. The Broad-billed Sandpiper Limicola falcinellus, another species listed under the TSC Act, is also found at Swan Pond.

Migratory shorebirds are listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and are a matter of national environmental significance. However, the Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project claims that it does not trigger the EPBC Act. AWSG does not agree, and believes that this development should be declared a controlled action. Swan Pond was not included in the original NCIG proposal.

We submit that the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the development is seriously inadequate.
* It does not acknowledge that Swan Pond is important habitat for migratory shorebirds which are `matters of national environmental significance' under the EPBC Act. This submission outlines Swan Pond's importance in this context.
* The EA is also apparently unaware that Australia is signatory to several international agreements that underpin our obligations to protect these birds and their habitat, encapsulated in the protection of birds listed as Marine and Migratory under the EPBC Act. The Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species provides a multinational framework for the conservation of migratory species. In addition Australia has signed bilateral agreements with Japan (JAMBA; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1981/6.html), China (CAMBA; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1988/22.html) and the Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2007/24.html) relating to the conservation of migratory birds.
* Moreover, The EA does not acknowledge that shorebirds are mentioned in the Particular Manner Requirements (2006/2987) for the original project's being `not a controlled action' other than by reference to "condition 7" (EA p. 14).

We wish to emphasise that the destruction of relatively small areas of habitat can have major consequences. Past and present decisions by successive Federal and State governments resulting in such development have contributed to an alarming decline in both species diversity and populations.

The further degradation of Ash Island, and particularly of Swan Pond and its vicinity, is of the greatest concern to us. The proposed Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group Coal Export Terminal Rail Flyover Modification Stage 2F would have a real and serious impact on Swan Pond. The realignment would destroy approximately 50 metres by 790 metres of Swan Pond, totally destroying its southern end and compromising the northern section. The destruction would include the shallow shore and mudflats that are ideal shorebird habitat. Moreover, the construction stage would inevitably cause further destruction of Swan Pond and widespread disturbance of its bird populations.

I support the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers Club. The proposed development will destroy an internationally important wetland where 22 species of international migratory shorebirds have been recorded. This includes three species, Black-tailed Godwit, Curlew Sandpiper and Broad-billed Sandpiper which are listed under the TSC Act as Vulnerable, Endangered and Endangered respectively. Several other threatened species have been recorded there, including Black-necked Stork and Australasian Bittern both of which are listed as Endangered under the TSC Act. Two species of international migratory shorebirds, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and Red Knot, and one species of waterfowl, Chestnut Teal, have been observed in significant numbers representing > 1% of their total world population, confirming this wetland's status as internationally important.

I support HBOC submission.

Please consider the terrible impact this develoment would have on parts of Ash Island. Ash Island is a wetland of international importance, and a home to endangered wildlife.

RE: Ash Island (Swan Pond)

in support of HBOC's submission

"I support the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers Club. The proposed development will destroy an internationally important wetland where 22 species of international migratory shorebirds have been recorded. This includes three species, Black-tailed Godwit, Curlew Sandpiper and Broad-billed Sandpiper which are listed under the TSC Act as Vulnerable, Endangered and Endangered respectively. Several other threatened species have been recorded there, including Black-necked Stork and Australasian Bittern both of which are listed as Endangered under the TSC Act; the Australasian Bittern threatened to such an extent that it is listed as Endangered at the national level as well. Two species of international migratory shorebirds, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and Red Knot, and one species of waterfowl, Chestnut Teal, have been observed in significant numbers representing >1% of their total world population, confirming this wetland's status as internationally important. In the East Asian flyway for migratory birds, there is increasing pressure on migratory shorebirds by countries who are signatories to agreements that are designed to protect these increasingly dwindling bird populations, yet who are infilling their important estuarine habitats regardless of treaty commitments to bird protection. Australia must lead by good example in such matters if we are to have a legitimate and credible voice within international conservation initiatives. These habitats, particularly those that are chosen as important by the birds themselves, as is the eastern side of Swan Pond and deep pond threatened by this development, are critical to migratory shorebirds. There was a time when the birds above, that are now becoming more common on threatened species schedules than in the wild, were found in large numbers in the Hunter River estuary. The reason that these birds have now become rare is that the only place they have to live in the world has been steadily piece by piece taken away from them. Although impacts proposed, if measured in isolation may be argued as only a small incremental loss, this development if it proceeds will be at the expense of shorebird habitat important to the birds and it will represent a key role in a cumulative impact that has gone well beyond significant by any ecological definition."

I fully support the submission by the Hunter Bird Observers Club regarding this proposal.

I support the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers Club. The proposed development will destroy Swan Pond which is an important area for international migratory shorebirds. Some of these birds - Black-tailed Godwit, Curlew Sandpiper and Broad-billed Sandpiper - are listed under the TSC Act as Vulnerable, Endangered and Endangered respectively. The use of Ash Island by other threatened birds, and the fact that a significant percentage of the population of many species rely on the area, mean that the wetland is internationally important.

I am appalled by the proposal to destroy much of Swan Pond on Ash Island. This is one of the premier wetland habitats and bird watching sites in NSW. There are numerous rare and vulnerable species that use this habitat including birds (Chestnut Teal, Bittern, etc, Green and Gold Bellfrogs). I find it ridiculous in this day and age with such little valuable habitat remaining and global warming on the rise that there is a proposal to destroy this habitat in order to export more coal which will further increase global warming.

I strongly support the submission made by my Hunter Bird Observers Club.
The migratory birds which use this area are already severely threatened by loss of habitat.
It is vital that we Australians do all we can to protect these vulnerable and beautiful birds.
Please accept my sincere plea on behalf of the creatures who are dependent on our human wisdom.
Yours sincerely
Pam Durie

I support the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers Club. The proposed development threatens an internationally significant wetland. The eastern side of Ash Island represents the best of what is left of a once much more extensive wildlife haven on Kooragang Island. The wider Hunter Estuary has seen substantial habitat loss in the last 200 years, making the remnant high quality habitat areas critical for the survival of many species in the region. With increased pressures on the environment from mining developments in the Hunter Valley, our native wildlife is under constant strain throughout the region. The natural world is something that we can all freely take pleasure from. It is important that this continues to be the case for our future generations. Therefore, it is essential that all potential impacts on the environment are properly assessed and serious negative impacts are prevented. Knowing the site well, the proposed development appears to me to be highly destructive to the Swan Pond habitat and it is disappointing that this substantial environmental impact has not been properly acknowledged or considered. Although the area of habitat loss is relatively small, the eastern edge of Swan Pond that will be destroyed is perhaps the most important location for shorebirds on Ash Island. In addition, much of the 'disturbed land' has also become important and cannot be disregarded. The proposed development is located in a highly sensitive area ecologically and it deserves a credible assessment. This has not happened and a lack of detailed local knowledge regarding the significance of the impacts on migratory shorebirds is clearly evident.

I wish to support the objection submitted by the Hunter Bird Observers Club,to this proposal.If it is allowed to proceed,it will destroy a wetland of international significance covered by the Ramsar Treaty on international wetlands.Swan Pond is a unique site with no similar sites in the Hunter Estuary.Aside from providing habitat for several engangered and vulnerable migratory and Australian species,it also provides a valuable dry season refuge for water fowl.

I am writing to object, most strongly, to the plans which would have a devistating impact on wildlife on Kooragang Island.
Surely an area which is frequented by endangered, vulnerable and threatened species of birds is vitally important and needs to be preserved.
I am also greatly concerned about increasing amountsof pollution.
The Ramsar Agreement means the government must protect this vitally important and internationally recognised site.
I also support the submission made by the Hunter Bird Observers Club.
Please, do the right thing, and stop the destruction of this unique piece of land.

I would like to make a submission against the Newcastle Coal & Infrastructure Group Coal Export Terminal, Stage 2F, Rail Flyover Modification (RFM).
I support the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers' Club.
The proposed development will destroy the habitat of international migratory shorebirds (22 species have been recorded), some of which are listed under the TSC Act as vulnerable and/or endangered, these include the Black-tailed Godwit, the Curlew Sandpiper and the Broad-billed Sandpiper.
The wetland on the south side of Ash Island will be largely destroyed. 9 species of migratory shorebirds use this wetland regularly. Some of these are listed as vulnerable and/or endangered on the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Australian birds including the Black-necked Stork and the Australian Bittern are also found here and are both listed as endangered.
The Green and Golden Bell Frog also listed as vulnerable under the TSC & EPBC Acts, inhabit areas in the vicinity of the wetlands.comm

Please record my objection to this development, on the following grounds:

- the development will have an unacceptable impact on native flora and fauna, including migratory birds and threatened species (the green and golden bell frog),
- the proponent has not secured adequate appropriate compensatory habitat to off-set the development, as required,
- the application appears to significantly understate the magnitude of the proposed variation to the original development (it is not minor, as claimed), and its potential environmental impact,
- the proponent does not appear to have conducted necessary field survey, and relies too heavily on desk research,
- the development appears not to be necessary for the future development of NCIG.
- the development contributes to coal exports, which fuel runaway climate change, and intensifies Newcastle's current unsustainable reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels, impeding the development of more sustainable alternative industries.

I also believe that the proposal should be considered a controlled action under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, due to its potential impact on Ramsar protected wetlands and associated fauna, and since it includes additional land that was not included in the original approval. (I note that the associated T4 development was considered a controlled action).

Thank you for your consideration of the issues I have raised matters.

John Sutton
31 August 2012

I support the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers Club.