I Grant Brosie, fully support the Hunter Bird Observers Club's submission in regards to the planned rail flyover on Ash Island. The total disregard for Swan Pond's bird life is disgraceful.

In support of HBOC's submission

I am against this modification (MP 06_0009 MOD2) and support the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers Club.

Dear Sir/Madam/Committee,
I write to voice my strenuous objection to this proposal.
I am also horrified at the duplicitous nature of the wording of the proposal.
Hidden in it is the awful fact that it would destroy one of the best remaining wetland and tidal mudflat habitats for many species of migrating waders on the Eastern Coast of Australia.
As the Department should be aware, because of the threatened or vulnerable status of a whole suite of shorebirds which undertake an annual migration from Siberia to winter in Australia, many of their essential feeding grounds have been protected by a series of international treaties.
This is a personal plea, so I need not spell out the details, which I now see have been admirably set out by the Conservation Officer of the Hunter Bird Observers' Club, Ann Lindsey. I would like to endorse her submission.
Since coming back to NSW in 1975 I have watched with alarm the decline in wader numbers on Kooragang Is. and the area around the Stockton Bridge as a variety of industrial projects [some of them no doubt essential] has eaten into their feeding grounds.
I am not convinced from what I can learn that this project is essential, nor that any need that it would meet cannot be met by a less damaging location.
I urge you to reject it.
Yours truly,
Ted Nixon

Dear Sir / Madam
Please, please, please take to heart the submission regarding Swan Pond, Koorangang Island, which has been made by Ann Lindsay on behalf of the Hunter Bird Observers
Club. I have only just seen a copy of it, and understand that submissions should be received by tomorrow (01 August).

I would add two points to boost the need for a complete reassessment of the proposed development which would affect Swan Pond.

Firstly, one needs to have a full appreciation of the East Asian Flyway, and the tremendous feats these small birds perform in getting to the north, often northern Siberia, to breed. Human population explosion is severely restricting their ability to continue to migrate and breed. There are international treaties between Australia and Japan, Korea and China to conserve their necessary feeding grounds - but despite this, land reclamation of the extensive mud flats surrounding the Yellow Sea continue to go ahead. The Yellow Sea is a staging stop for "refuelling" in the massive effort to fly to Siberia. How can Australians criticise the Koreans and Chinese if we deliberately destroy such an important feeding ground in NSW? We let ourselves down!

Secondly, of course, humans are part of Nature, and so are the birds. Their decline and stressed conditions are really indicative of the broader threat to biodiversity. When our
biodiversity is threatened, everything and everyone are threatened. Planners should not be considering if further encroachment on valuable areas is acceptable; each case really should indicate a need to expand and protect such a valuable asset!

Of course business and manufacturing must thrive - but expansion must be guided by a very disciplined approach to planning, that recognises and rejects short-term gain which
accelerates long-term loss, which cumulatively spells long-term disaster.

Yours truly
Barrie Ayres

Objection to the NCIG Rail Flyover: project number MP 06 0009.

* The RFM proposal would destroy an additional area of Swan Pond, on the eastern side of Ash Island (more than was granted in the original approval granted in 2006).
* Swan Pond is critical habitat for many migratory shorebirds, and is one of the largest roosting sites for migratory shorebirds in the Hunter Estuary.
* Migratory shorebirds are listed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A number of species listed as threatened and vulnerable under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, are also present on the site.
* The table below outlines a number of these birds, which the Hunter Bird Observers Club have recorded on a number of site visits since 1999.
* Because migratory shorebirds are listed under the EPBC Act, the NCIG RFM should be deemed a `controlled action' and assessed under the EPBC Act.
Table 1: Migratory birds listed under the EPBC Act 1999 (sighted at Swan Pond)
Common name Proper name Status: Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
Latham's Snipe Black-tailed Gallinago hardwickii

Balck-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa
Vulnerable
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 acuminata

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea
Endangered
The White-fronted Chat Epthianura albifrons Vulnerable

* The EA does not consider the cumulative impacts of development in and around the Hunter Estuary. This is despite the fact that there has been a steep decline in the numbers of birds that use the Hunter Estuary over the past decade, most likely due to the cumulative impact of development.

* The NCIG RFM would destroy an Endangered Ecological Community of Saltmarsh.

* It would also impact the Green and Golden Bell Frog, which is listed as `vulnerable' under the TSC and EPBC Acts. The Green and Golden Bellfrog lives on land that would be destroyed immediately adjacent to the Kooragang Island Main Line.

* The relocation of Ausgrid power lines to the middle of an island that is used by thousands of birds is outrageous and unacceptable.


* No field sites were undertaken to record and monitor birds. Rather desktop studies of bird populations were relied upon. These do not contain an adequate representation of the actual birds that use the site.

* No offsets are mentioned in the EA.

* The EA does not refer to Swan Pond by its proper name, but rather calls it "additional land on the west". This description is vague and fails to convey the actual areas that would be destroyed in the RFM were approved.

* The EA only provides a description of the habitat to be destroyed in square meters. It is, however, important to indicate the topography of the land that would be destroyed, as it is shallow shoreline with intermittent mudflats, which are used by thousands of waterfowl and migratory shorebirds.

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 the position outlined by Hunter Bird Observers Club.

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 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