"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."

RE: Ash Island (Swan Pond)

in support of HBOC's 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.

I support HBOC 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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.