Final Overall Submission Leard Forest Coal Offsets 29th Jan 2013

Submission to Tony Burke re the EPBC

assessment of Maules Creek and Boggabri

Coal mine developments

Report prepared by North West Ecological Services on behalf of the Maules Creek

Community Council and the Northern Inland Council for the Environment

Leard State Forest Before Mining

Below Artists Impression of the full extent of mining in Leard State Forest

NWES Review of Boggabri & Maules Creek Coal Projects Jan 2013 Page 2

CONTENTS

Background .............................................................................................................................. 4

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.0 Failings of the Ecological Assessment and proposed Biodiversity Offset Management

Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Mapping of the high condition remnant area .......................................................................... 6

1.2 Vegetation identification and mapping in northern offset properties ..................................... 7

1.3 Consideration of like for like habitat and vegetation in offsets as compared to that to be

destroyed in Leard SF ......................................................................................................................... 9

1.3.1 Wirradale and Mt Lindsey offsets on Nandewar Range ................................................. 9

1.3.2. Boggabri Coal offsets east of Leard State Forest ................................................................ 13

1.4 The long-term security of compensatory offsets ................................................................... 17

1.5. Value of regeneration areas in the eastern and western offsets to the nationally protected

matters ............................................................................................................................................... 18

1.6 Value of remnant vegetation areas in the eastern and western offset properties to the nationally

protected matters ............................................................................................................................... 18

1.7 Value of revegetation of over burden slopes to the nationally protected matters ....................... 19

2.0 Potential impacts for which there is not enough information provided to make an

informed decision that has scientific credibility. ................................................................. 23

3.0 Results from field assessment of offset properties in the Maules Creek locality ....... 24

4.0 Review of Environmental Assessment prepared by Cumberland Ecology for Maules

Creek Project. ......................................................................................................................... 29

5.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ............................................................................................ 32

5.1 Clearing: ...................................................................................................................................... 32

5.2 Noise; .......................................................................................................................................... 32

5.3 Light; ........................................................................................................................................... 33

5.4 Dust; ............................................................................................................................................ 33

5.5 Roads and traffic; ........................................................................................................................ 33

6.0 The protected matters impacted by the mine proposals are; ...................................... 33

6.1 Box – Gum ecological community ............................................................................................. 33

6.2 Corben’s Long-eared bat ............................................................................................................. 34

6.3 Koala ........................................................................................................................................... 36


6.4 Border Thick-tailed Gecko.......................................................................................................... 37

6.5 Grey-headed Flying-fox .............................................................................................................. 37

6.6 Spotted-tailed Quoll .................................................................................................................... 37

6.7 Large-eared Pied Bat ................................................................................................................... 38

6.8 Superb Parrot .............................................................................................................................. 39

6.9 Swift Parrot ................................................................................................................................. 39

6.10 Regent Honeyeater .................................................................................................................... 41

6.11 Rainbow Bee-eater .................................................................................................................... 42

6.12 Tylophora linearis ..................................................................................................................... 42

6.13 Pultenaea setulosa .................................................................................................................... 44

7.0 Components of the Offset Assessment Calculator that indicate species decline and

threat to long-term viability are. .......................................................................................... 44

7.1 Time over which loss is averted .................................................................................................. 44

7.2 Time until ecological benefit ...................................................................................................... 44

7.3 Quality Score .............................................................................................................................. 45

7.4 Future quality of Leard without mines impact and offset ........................................................... 47

7.5 Future quality of Leard with mine impact and proposed offsets................................................. 47

7.6 Risk of Loss % without offset ..................................................................................................... 48

7.7 Risk of Loss % with offset .......................................................................................................... 48

7.8 Confidence in result .................................................................................................................... 48

7.9 Evaluation of Offset Calculator .................................................................................................. 49

8.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 49


Background

The Maules Creek Community and Northern Inland Council for the Environment met with

Tony Burke at Boggabri on Saturday the 15th of December. Concerns were raised about

misleading information in the environmental assessment for Maules Creek and Boggabri

Coal mine projects. Since then North West Ecological Services has been reviewing the EA’s

and assessing the offset properties, and has prepared this summary report and the eight

Appendices.

Included in this submission are:

1. Overall summary of findings and review, 2. Appendix A report detailing assessment of northern offset properties, 3. Appendix B expert opinion contributions to back up the submission, 4. Appendix C report detailing assessment of eastern and western offset properties, 5. Appendix D report detailing assessment of the offset property Kelso, 6. Appendix E report on research into noise impacts on ecosystems, 7. Appendix F report on research into light impacts on ecosystems 8. Appendix G report detailing assessment of Boggabri Coal eastern offset 9. Tylophora linearis report

This report demonstrates that the impact assessment and Biodiversity Offsets Management

Plan fail to meet the standards set out in the new Federal offsets policy. None of the key

criteria of that policy are met with regard to; Quality of the offsets, Time over which loss is

averted, Time until ecological benefit, Risk of loss, and Confidence of result.

Summary

This report and the Appendices attached provide the evidence to show that the offset

properties are not like for like, and in fact are very different communities to those proposed

for destruction in Leard State Forest.

It provides evidence that the offset properties do not provide suitable habitat for the EPBC

threatened species of Swift Parrot, Regent Honeyeater, Corben’s Long-eared bat and

Tylophora linearis, and that at best the habitat is considered marginal for those species and

the Koala.

The properties do not offset the critically endangered ecological community of Box – Gum

grassy woodland, of which 1,100 has is to be destroyed for the mines in Leard State Forest.

The vegetation mapping (done by Cumberland Ecology) of the high altitude remnants on the

Nandewar Range was found to be wrong, extensive areas mapped as grassy White box –

Stringybark woodland had no White box at all, and were in fact Stringybark open forest.


The review of the environmental assessment found the potential impact of the mines on

Leard State Forest to be underestimated, as the unmined areas will not provide refuge to

the EPBC species and critically endangered ecological community throughout the 21 year

life of the mine.

If the two mines are approved the majority of the forest will be impacted by edge effects,

fragmentation, noise, light, dust and vibration. Research from overseas clearly shows that

ecosystem function is significantly impacted at distance from those pollution sources

Most recently the EPBC endangered plant Tylophora linearis was recorded in the Maules

Creek project area and it is also likely to occur in the Boggabri Coal project area. The dry

season is hampering the chance of surveying the forest to determine its occurrence; further

surveys are required during suitable seasonal conditions. Its presence raises many

considerations not yet contemplated in the environmental assessment process.

There must be a thorough independent review of the vegetation mapping and condition

assessment of the offset properties, extensive surveys for Tylophora linearis during suitable

seasonal conditions, and consideration of the accumulative impacts on the unmined section

of the forest proposed for flora and fauna refuge. That work should be done by

independent botanists and ecologists with high standing and expertise in the area before a

final decision is made in relation to the mine proposals.

Introduction

This review of the environmental assessment reports and field inspection of the proposed

offset properties for the Maules Creek and Boggabri coal mine developments found neither of

the mines should be approved. The main reason is that the offsets and compensatory

measures do not meet the standards set out in the EPBC Act 1999 Environmental Offsets

Policy Oct 2012.

The key requirement of the Environmental Offsets Policy is that the impact + offset =

Improves or maintains the viability of the protected matter.

This fundamental requirement to improve or maintain the area and quality of suitable habitat

for the Regent Honeyeater, Swift Parrot, Corben’s Long-eared bat, Spotted-tailed Quoll,

Border Thick-tailed Gecko, Koala and Tylophora linearis is not achieved for the following

reasons.

1.0 Failings of the Ecological Assessment and proposed Biodiversity Offset

Management Plan


1.1 Mapping of the high condition remnant area

The mapping of high condition remnant area on the offset properties that provides suitable

habitat for the Regent Honeyeater, Swift Parrot, Corben’s Long-eared bat, Spotted-tailed

Quoll and Koala is very misleading.

Remnant vegetation on the eastern and western offset properties is dominated by unnaturally

thick immature regrowth of White Cypress, Narrow-leaf Ironbark and Silverleaf Ironbark on

rocky ridges. With the exception of a few small areas of White box and Dwyer’s Red gum

the vegetation in general has very low value for Koalas, and low nectar production value for

the Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot. Virtually all of the lower slopes productive soil

types that were once White box woodland has been cleared and cultivated. (Review of the

photos from the offset properties shown in Appendix C & D highlight the low quality habitat

and vegetation).

The same can be said of the northern offset properties where immature Silvertop Stringybark

open forest is the dominant community; it also has low nectar production value for the

Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot. Those open forests do contain productive nectar tree

species such as Yellow box and Blakely’s Red gum, however being sub dominant and in a

forest association, their production value is reduced considerably as compared to a woodland

situation where they are dominant.

Also misleading is that the high elevation open forests are rated as being of high condition

habitat for the Corben’s Long-eared bat. Corben’s Long-eared bat is at its altitudinal limit at

900 metres. It is not likely to occur in the Stringybark open forests. No surveys for the bat

have been done to indicate it does occur above 900m. Many bat surveys have been done in

Mt Kaputar NP and none have been recorded.

Tylophora linearis was not considered in the EA, it was recently recorded in the Maules

Creek project area near where the mining is proposed to commence, it would also not occur

above 900 metres in open forest associations.

The regrowth remnants of the eastern and western offsets are dominated by thick regrowth of

White Cypress and immature Narrow-leaf Ironbark and Silverleaf Ironbark. Whilst that

community is considered preferred habitat for Corben’s Long-eared bat, the immature age of

the trees does not provide sufficient roosting hollow habitat and the extensive areas of thick

White Cypress are a monoculture that limits diversity and abundance of the bats prey and

restricts the bats foraging activity.

The offset property “Kelso” is a classic example, where the figure of 342 ha of high condition

habitat is considered highly misleading, as much of the vegetation is thick White Cypress

regrowth of very low habitat value. Very little of the vegetation on that property has mature

trees that would provide high condition habitat. The results of the field inspection of “Kelso”

illustrate how misleading the calculation of High condition remnant has been. The report and

photos of “Kelso” are presented in Appendix D.


The environmental assessment has given no real recognition of the high habitat value per

hectare of the box woodland in Leard State Forest to the EPBC listed species and community.

There has been no credible assessment of habitat values and condition of the remnants on the

offset properties.

The lack of a credible methodology for condition assessment was raised by the Namoi CMA

in their original submission. They stated; “Without condition assessments it is not possible to

state whether there has been sufficient gain (no net loss) and whether equivalence (like for

like) has been achieved.

There was no comparative analysis of condition assessments or biometric benchmarking for

vegetation communities between the project disturbance area and offset properties.

Without thorough and complete condition assessments and biometric benchmarking of the

vegetation communities in both the project disturbance area and offset properties, it is not

possible for this comparative analysis to take place”.

The gross overestimation of high condition habitat on “Kelso” makes all the other

figures provided in the EA very questionable. All the offset areas must be reassessed by

an independent authority to estimate habitat values and re-evaluate the patch condition

of each remnant.

1.2 Vegetation identification and mapping in northern offset properties

The mapping of White box – Stringybark grassy woodland is also very misleading. The

properties of Wirradale and Mt Lindesay were inspected to verify the vegetation communities

as mapped in figure 2.2 of the Biodiversity Offsets Management Plan. No White box trees

were found in the property Mt Lindesay and the only White box trees observed on the

property Wirradale where at low elevation in the Maules Creek valley.

The bulk of the vegetation mapped as White box – Stringybark grassy woodland was found

to be Stringybark open forest with sub dominant species of Blakely’s Redgum, Apple box

and Yellow box. No White box trees occur in the areas assessed. Refer to report Appendix

A and the DVD of photos that illustrate how misleading the vegetation mapping has been at

the remnant areas assessed.

Extensive areas of the vegetation mapped as White box – Stringybark grassy woodland are in

fact open forests with a continuous shrub layer of greater than 30%, or have less than 50%

ground cover of tussock grasses, being dominated by litter and rock.

The definition of the the critically endangered White box – Yellow box – Blakely’s Red gum

Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland Ecological Community (CEEC) listed under

the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has been misinterpreted

to suit the desired outcome required.

Thiele and Prober (2000) estimated that less than 0.1% of Grassy White Box Woodlands (a

component of the Box – Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland ecological

community) remains in a near-intact condition. The community found in Leard State Forest

is part of the 0.1%.


The future of the box-gum woodland is very dire, 1,000’s of hectares of the highest

conservation value areas in Travelling Stock Routes and Crowns lands in the North West has

been destroyed by Coolatai Grass invasion in the last 20 years. None of it can be saved, it is

permanently lost, and what little is left in good condition is rapidly becoming invaded.

The extent of the Critically EEC as mapped in Leard State Forest would be significantly less

now than it would have been pre 1770, due to a lack of fire to maintain grassy ground cover

and limit White Cypress and shrub regrowth.

The EPBC Definition States

Box-gum grassy woodland tree-cover is generally discontinuous and consists of widely-

spaced trees of medium height in which the canopies are clearly separated (Yates & Hobbs

1997).

Extensive areas of Wirradale and Mt Lindsey mapped as White box – Stringybark

grassy woodland have open forest canopies with canopies clearly touching.

Woodlands that fit the Box-gum grassy woodland have a ground layer dominated by tussock

grasses (> 50%)

Extensive areas mapped as woodland have litter dominated ground cover.

Woodlands that fit the Box-gum grassy woodland have an overstorey dominated or co-

dominated by White Box, Yellow Box or Blakely’s Red Gum, or Grey Box in the Nandewar

bioregion.

Extensive areas mapped as White box woodland don’t have any White box and are

dominated by Stringybark or Apple box with sub dominant Yellow box or Blakely’s

Red gum.

Woodlands that fit the Box-gum grassy woodland have a sparse or patchy shrub layer.

Extensive areas mapped as White box woodland have continuous shrub layers 1 – 2.5

m tall.

The shrub cover described in the Box - Gum ecological community is naturally patchy,

shrubs may be dominant only over a very localised area. Shrub cover should therefore be

assessed over the entire remnant, not just in a localised area.

A woodland remnant with a significant ground layer of tussock grasses, and where the

distribution of shrubs is scattered or patchy, is part of the ecological community.

In shrubby woodlands, the dominance of native tussock grasses in the ground layer of

vegetation is lost. Therefore, a remnant with a continuous shrub layer, in which the shrub

cover is greater than 30%, is considered to be a shrubby woodland and so is not part of the

listed ecological community. Remnant attributes, such as shrubbiness, should be measured on

a scale of 0.1 hectares or greater.

All the offset properties must be reassessed by an independent authority to map the

vegetation communities according to the definition of the critically endangered Box –

Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland community.


All forest communities with touching crowns should be excluded, all shrub layers > 30

% should be excluded, and all areas of less than 50% tussock grass cover should be

excluded.

All the tables quantifying each vegetation community within the offsets, areas of each

vegetation community to be conserved, and areas of suitable habitat for each species in

offsets must be assessed again to have scientific credibility.

If the calculations in Table 2.4 of the BOMP were amended to reflect the results of this

survey, dramatically affect the areal estimates of vegetation type for Wirradale and Mt

Lindesay.

1.3 Consideration of like for like habitat and vegetation in offsets as

compared to that to be destroyed in Leard SF

As mentioned the vegetation mapping cannot be considered reliable. The findings raise

considerable doubts about the vegetation mapping done Cumberland Ecological. All of the

area identified and mapped as CEEC should be reassessed by an independent botanist, and

the area remapped so the calculations can be redone.

1.3.1 Wirradale and Mt Lindsey offsets on Nandewar Range

The extent of the White box woodland on the two properties Wirradale and Mt Lindesay is

the essential offset to compensate for the White box woodland to be cleared for the Maules

Ck Coal Project in Leard State Forest. The field survey found both the flora and fauna

communities on the two properties to be very different to that found in Leard State Forest at

300 m altitude. The dominant vegetation community on the (offset) properties between 930

and 1000m was found to be the Keith Class of Stringybark - Blakely's Red Gum - Rough-

barked Apple open forest, Nandewar and western New England Tablelands – Northern

Tableland Dry Sclerophyll Forests.

There are countless differences between the plants and animals occuring in the two

bioregions. The most obvious differences are the geology, dominant trees and grasses, and

bird species present.

Leard State Forest recorded over thirty species of woodland birds not likely to occur above

900m on the Nandewar Range, and six species of high altitude trees were recorded on the two

properties that would not occur at Leard: Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), Silvertop

Stringbark (Eucalyptus laevopinea), Orange gum (Eucalyptus prava), New England

Blackbutt (Eucalyputs andrewsii), Apple box (Eucalyptus bridgesiana), and Mallee Red gum

(Eucalyptus nandewarica). The dominant ground cover above 900 m is Snow Grass (Poa

sieberiana) which occurs sparsely in Leard State Forest.


THIS IS NOT LIKE FOR LIKE OFFSET?

Leard State Forest - Liverpool Plains Old growth White box woodland on gravelly

duplex soils at 300 metres elevation – 600mm rainfall - Brigalow Belt South bioregion –

Grazing property – Nandewar Plateau Immature Stringybark open forest on basalt soil

at 950 metres elevation – 1000 mm rainfall – Nandewar bioregion


Differences between the bird assemblages of the two bioregions, Leard State Forest and

Wirradale – Mt Lindesay

Comparison of the diversity of birds recorded at the offset properties of Wirradale and Mt

Lindsey as compared to Leard State Forest provides a good indicator of the faunal differences

between 300m and 900m altitude, and between the Nandewar and Brigalow belt south

bioregions.

The records provided from the field assessment show ninety five birds species at Wirradale

and 65 species at Mt Lindesay as compared to 168 species recorded at Leard State Forest.

The species below were only recorded at Leard State forest in the Brigalow belt south

bioregion; they highlight the value of low elevation large woodland remnants like Leard State

Forest. Scientific Name Common Name

Geopelia humeralis Bar-shouldered Dove

**Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift

Elanus axillaris Black-shouldered Kite

Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite

Haliastur sphenurus Whistling Kite

Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier

Turnix varia Painted Button-quail

Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella

Nymphicus hollandicus Cockatiel

Aprosmictus erythropterus Red-winged Parrot

Barnardius zonarius Australian Ringneck

Northiella haematogaster Blue Bonnet

Melopsittacus undulatus Budgerigar

Eudynamys orientalis Eastern Koel

Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo

Cacomantis variolosus Brush Cuckoo

Ninox connivens Barking Owl

Tyto novaehollandiae Masked Owl

**Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater

Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird

Ptilonorhynchus maculatus Spotted Bowerbird

Gerygone fusca Western Gerygone

Acanthiza uropygialis Chestnut-rumped Thornbill

Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill

Lichenostomus fuscus Fuscous Honeyeater

Manorina flavigula Yellow-throated Miner

Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater

Philemon citreogularis Little Friarbird

Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater

Pomatostomus temporalis Grey-crowned Babbler

Pomatostomus superciliosus White-browed Babbler

Coracina tenuirostris Cicadabird

Lalage sueurii White-winged Triller

Falcunculus frontatus Crested Shrike-tit

Corvus mellori Little Raven

Struthidea cinerea Apostlebird

Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin

Cincloramphus cruralis Brown Songlark

Petrochelidon nigricans Tree Martin

Taeniopygia guttata Zebra Finch

Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail


The species below were only recorded at Wirradale or Mt Lindesay in the Nandewar

bioregion; they highlight the difference of habitat and altitude as compared to Leard State

Forest.

Scientific Name Common Name

Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy-wren

Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren

Acanthiza lineata Striated Thornbill

Acanthiza pusilla Brown Thornbill

Aphelocephala leucopsis Southern Whiteface

Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Spinebill

Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird

Cinclosoma punctatum Spotted Quail-thrush

Coracina maxima Ground Cuckoo-shrike

Corvus orru Torresian Crow

Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin

Cheramoeca leucosternus White-backed Swallow

Petrochelidon ariel Fairy Martin

Of all the differences the main difference is the lack of White box at high altitude on

Wirradale and Mt Lindesay and the significant difference that makes to nectar production for

nectar feeding birds like the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater. The endangered plant

Tylophora linearis found in Leard State Forest recently, would also not occur in Stringybark

open forests at high altitude.

The surveys of Wirradale and Mt Lindesay were not exhaustive, but walking through the

remnants and looking over other remnants in the locality, it became obvious that the CEEC is

not a naturally occuring community at 930 – 1000 m altitude, with 1000 mm rainfall, on the

Nandewar range. The basalt soil type favoured grassy ground cover over non basalt soils, but

the open forest canopy is dominant throughout all remnants on all soil types at that altitude.

The doubts raised have significant ramifications for the adequacy of the Biodiversity Offset

Management Plan (BOMP), and it would seem that no valid decision can be made on the

mines without getting an independent review of the mapping and vegetation types identifed

as fitting the CEEC. The independent review should be done by independent botanists with

recognised expertise and who are familiar with the regions flora.

It is not clear where the 2604 ha of Conditon C and 1913 ha of Condition C Box Gum

Woodland is located, that must be made apparent and independently reviewed.

The area of 5275 ha on Wirradale declared as high condition remnant habitat for Swift Parrot,

Regent Honeyeater, and Corben’s Long-eared Bat is misleading, as both the nectar-feeding

parrot and honeyeater would not value immature Stringybark open forests at high elevation

and cypress dominated woodlands on the lower slopes as high habitat value. The 5275 ha is

considered at best marginal for the three species.


Stephen Debus states that it is his “professional opinion that, for birds, the offset proposals

cannot meet 'like for like' criteria, at least in the timeframe that will be critical for the Swift

Parrot and Regent Honeyeater. If they are not to decline further, these two species will need

compensatory resources immediately, to offset the loss of habitat in Leard SF. He believes

that the offset proposals cannot meet that requirement in the short to medium term, by which

time, on present trends, those two species are likely to have declined to unsustainable

levels”.

The offset properties Wirradale and Mt Lindesay are claimed to provide compensatory

habitat for the Corben’s Long-eared bat. There have been no surveys to identify if this bat

actually occurs, whereas Leard State Forest is known to be suitable habitat for Corben’s

Long-eared bat, another three were recorded by North West Ecological Services on the 18th

December 2012. The mature/old growth White box woodland with abundant tree hollows of

varying sizes is the preferred habitat for Corben’s Long-eared bat. There is no evidence to

suggest that preferred habitat for Corben’s Long-eared Bat will occur above 900m.

1.3.2. Boggabri Coal offsets east of Leard State Forest

Two properties east of Leard State Forest are proposed as offset properties for Boggabri Coal.

One of the properties adjoins the eastern boundary of Leard State Forest; the other

incorporates a large area of Kelvin Range. There is no vegetation/habitat link between Leard

State Forest and the range. Revegetation is proposed to provide a link to the Kelvin Range

property “Mallee”.

Leard State Forest

“Mallee”


The large property “Mallee” is dominated by immature White Cypress Pine and Narrow-leaf

Ironbark low open forest with occasional Silver-leaf Ironbark, and White box in areas with

better soils.

The majority of the property is steep skeletal ridges, valleys and rock outcrops. A small area

of the property is cultivated (Approx 36ha), approximately 140ha is derived grassland on

lower slopes, adjoining that is immature regrowth low open forest in areas previously cleared

(Approx 60ha).

The lower slopes once had a productive woodland/open forest similar to that on the ridge

communities in Leard SF, but not the critically endangered ecological community of White

box woodland. The soil types are considerably poorer than those found in Leard State Forest,

hence less productive. It appears that White box occurred as an occasional tree in a shrubby

Ironbark /Cypress woodland.

The ironbark and cypress have been logged over the accessible areas of the property. That

disturbance and lack of fire has resulted in thick regrowth of White cypress.

Like for Like comparison to Leard State Forest

North West Ecological Services conducted a fauna survey of “Mallee” for the Nandewar

Biodiversity Western Regional Assessment 2002 - 2004. The EPBC threatened species

Corben’s Long-eared bat was not recorded; however, it is likely to occur at lower

elevations. It was recorded in the area Boggabri Coal propose to mine in Leard State Forest

in December 2012.

Glenn Hoyes monitoring of bats use of mine rehabilitation areas at Mt Owen has found

Corben’s Long-eared bat is not likely to utilise revegetated areas such as the corridor linking

Leard State Forest to Kelvin Range in the life of the mine. It is likely to be 100 years before

suitable hollow and woodland habitat is regenerated.

The nectar production value of the ironbark and cypress associations in “Mallee” are

considerably less than the White box woodlands of Leard State Forest proposed for clearing.

Nectar feeding species such as the Regent Honeyeater, Swift Parrot and Grey-headed

Flying fox would consider “Mallee” to be marginal/unsuitable habitat.

The value of the Koala food source in the ironbark and cypress associations in “Mallee” is

much less than the White box woodlands of Leard State Forest proposed for clearing.

Tylophora linearis is likely to occur in the area Boggabri Coal propose to mine in Leard State

Forest; it is less likely to occur on the poorer soil types found in “Mallee”.

The Border Thick-tailed Gecko is likely to occur in the property “Mallee”, but its habitat

won’t be enhanced by management.

Boggabri Coal propose to destroy 623 hectares of high quality critically endangered Box –

Gum ecological community in a near natural state, of high integrity, weed free, old growth

structure, of very high landscape value. The White box woodland in Leard State Forest is


mature/old growth having never been logged; it has average hollow densities of 70 hollows

per ha of all sizes.








permanently lost, and what little is left in good condition is rapidly being invaded.

Boggabri Coal will destroy 623 ha and Maules Creek Coal will destroy 544 ha. The real

extent of the EEC is likely to have been considerably greater pre 1770, due to the reduction of

fires in last 100 years that has resulted in shrub and Cypress regeneration.

Neither of the eastern offset properties will compensate for the loss of the CEEC in Leard

State Forest. The community does not naturally occur in “Mallee” and the revegetation of the

corridor linking Kelvin Range to Leard State Forest will certainly not recreate the community

lost in Leard State Forest. There has been no assessment or fauna surveys to determine the

habitat value on “Mallee” to the EPBC species. There has been no consideration of how

management would significantly improve habitat values for those species.

The habitat value of the majority of the property “Mallee” will not change in the life of the

mine, as its structure will continue to be stunted or “locked up” by the thick White Cypress

regrowth.

The areas of derived grassland and adjoining regrowth on the lower slopes will continue to

mature to a point where it also becomes “locked up” until a natural disaster such as fire

releases it to mature to woodland/open forest structure. The Native Vegetation Act prohibits

the clearing of native vegetation, so it is under no immediate threat.

Grazing management for “Mallee” is not an issue to stimulate regeneration, other than feral

goat control, which should already be done by the existing landholder.

The aerial photo below shows the property adjoining the eastern boundary of Leard State

Forest, which is proposed as an offset for Boggabri Coal - it is referred to as waypoint 47. It

is to be revegetated to provide the corridor link to Kelvin Range and the offset property

“Mallee”. As can be seen in the photo the property is very highly degraded.

The photo below that shows an enlarged view of the same property east of Leard State Forest,

showing the extensive areas of erosion and bare ground to be revegetated to provide a fauna

corridor to Kelvin Range. Such revegetation is highly unlikely to be successful in the short

term; it will be slow to establish trees and shrubs in such degraded soils.


The revegetation won’t provide mature habitat for threatened EPBC species for at least 100

years, and will never regenerate the critically endangered ecological community found in

Leard State Forest.

The clearing for the mines will occur in the next 21 years. In that timeframe the revegetation

will have little value to fauna and there will no habitat gains for EPBC species in the offset

properties, which will lead to the decline of all EPBC woodland species. The property to be

revegetated to provide a linking corridor to Kelvin Range

Below: Enlarged view of the property showing its degraded state.

Leard State Forest


1.4 The long-term security of compensatory offsets

Over the 21-year life of the mine and the management of the offset properties, very little

habitat change could be attributed to management. The existing vegetation will be protected

and continue to mature despite the management. The past landholders have been controlling

weeds and feral animals, and the Native Vegetation Act has and will prevent clearing of

native vegetation. Threats from environmental weeds will continue to increase, day to day

inspection and control by owner graziers is likely to be more effective for stemming invasion

than absentee management by a mining company. Grazing is proposed to continue in the

BOMP using similar management as that practiced by many farmers following holistic

grazing principles.

National Parks are unlikely to want the properties as they have learnt that ex grazing

properties are very problematic and costly to manage as compared to undisturbed remnants.

They are not funded to manage what they have. Voluntary Conservation Agreements are

only as good as the plan and the landholders desire to implement the plan.

There is no monitoring or auditing of Voluntary Conservation Agreements. When the

properties are put on the market in twenty-one years it will be grazing interests that could

afford to purchase such large areas. The conservation gains of twenty-one years could be lost

in the first severe period of drought. Voluntary Conservation Agreements are binding;

however, it is highly unlikely that any third party or OEH would take an offending landholder

to the Land and Environment Court to enforce an agreement made more than 20 years earlier.

Leard State Forest


1.5. Value of regeneration areas in the eastern and western offsets to the

nationally protected matters

It is the opinion of experts (Appendix B) that the proposed habitat restoration of derived

native grasslands on the proposed offsets, within the life of the mines, will not:

recreate the critically endangered grassy box-gum woodland present in Leard State

Forest,

provide suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the Corben’s Long-eared bat,

provide suitable nesting and food resource for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater

provide suitable shelter and food resources for the Koala

provide suitable habitat for Tylophora linearis

or provide suitable habitat for the Border Thick-tailed Gecko

1.6 Value of remnant vegetation areas in the eastern and western offset

properties to the nationally protected matters

It is the opinion of experts (Appendix B) that the proposed habitat management of remnant

vegetation on the proposed offsets, will not in the life of the mines, maintain or improve the

populations of Nationally Protected species and community. In particular, those remnants

will not

recreate the critically endangered grassy box-gum woodland present in Leard State

Forest,

provide equivalent foraging and roosting habitat for the Corben’s Long-eared bat, as

compared to that present in Leard State Forest.

provide equivalent nesting and food resource for the Swift Parrot and Regent

Honeyeater, as compared to that present in Leard State Forest.

provide equivalent suitable shelter and food resources for the Koala, as compared to

that present in Leard State Forest.

provide equivalent suitable habitat for Tylophora linearis, as compared to that present

in Leard State Forest.

or provide equivalent suitable habitat for the Border Thick-tailed Gecko, as compared

to that present in Leard State Forest.


1.7 Value of revegetation of over-burden slopes to the nationally protected

matters

It is the opinion of experts (Appendix B) that the proposed revegetation of the pits and

tailings heaps will not in the life of the mines, maintain or improve the populations of

Nationally Protected species and community. In particular, the revegetation will not:

recreate the critically endangered grassy box-gum woodland,

provide additional foraging and roosting habitat for the Corben’s Long-eared bat

provide preferred nesting and food resource habitat for the Swift Parrot and Regent.

provide preferred shelter and food resources for the Koala

provide suitable habitat for Tylophora linearis,

provide suitable habitat for the Border Thick-tailed Gecko

There is a lot of concern about the likely success of revegetating the mine over-burden hills.

The restoration ecologists quoted in Appendix B indicate that revegetation is very

problematic and is highly likely to fail to recreate the woodland destroyed in Leard SF.

To gain an understanding of how successful mine revegetation can be North West Ecological

Services inspected a 25 year old revegetation area at Ravensworth in the Hunter Valley. The

inspection found the trees had grown well up to 2011, at which time there was widespread

deaths of trees 10m tall x 20 cm dbh. The figure below shows the revegetation area of the

Ravensworth open cut mine inspected. The picture below that shows tree deaths and weed

invasion.


Photo above shows tree deaths on mine over burden hills at Ravensworth. The ground cover

observed at the Ravensworth revegetation site was dominantly environmental weeds. The

same problem with serious weed invasion has already been established at the Boggabri mine.


Serious weed invasion of Tall Rhodes grass in Boggabri Coal rehabilitation area adjoining

Leard State Forest.


Boggabri coal mine discharge water killing a section of Leard State Forest

The bottom line with the proposed revegetation is that unless the mines replace the soil with

the appropriate depth of soil and at the correct slope, they can’t replace or rehabilitate the

forest back to anything even slightly resembling what it was before, because there will not be

enough water holding capacity. They can do anything they like, but if they do not achieve

restoration of the soil water holding capacity that was there before, there will be no woodland

created (Rob Banks soil scientist).

The Boggabri mine revegetation is doomed to failure, regardless of the soil depth and water

holding capacity, because the mine has spread Tall Rhodes grass throughout the entire area

and it has already become an uncontrollable environmental weed. Tall Rhodes grass has even

begun to invade the surrounding Leard State Forest from the mine. It is uncontrollable -

spraying throughout the young trees and shrubs is not possible, it will exclude the

regeneration of native ground cover permanently, and it will continue to spread throughout all

the operations area.

Donna Johnston (mine restoration ecologist) states that she can’t think of any examples of

good rehabilitation projects that have adequately accomplished suitable rehabilitation of

native woodland ecosystems on mining disturbed areas (e.g. waste emplacements) in NSW.


2.0 . Potential impacts for which there is not enough information provided

to make an informed decision that has scientific credibility.

Issues for which the precautionary principle should be applied.

There has been no real consideration of the extent of the accumulated impacts to the entire

Leard State Forest. It is likely that very little of the forest will escape the impacts identified

below, thereby further threatening the critically endangered ecological community and the

EPBC threatened species.

Light pollution from three and possibly four mines (Tarrawonga, Boggabri, Maules

Creek and Goonbri) would illuminate the majority of the forest every night. Presently

an unknown impact on ecosystem function. However, research done overseas

indicates it could be significant to invertebrates, predator prey relationships, plant

growth, flowering times and ecosystem function in general. See Appendix F

detailing research into light impacts.

Noise pollution from three and possibly four mines (Tarrawonga, Boggabri, Maules

Creek and Goonbri) would permeate the entire forest day and night. Presently an

unknown impact on ecosystem function, research done overseas indicates it could be

significant to birds, bats and predator prey relationships. See Appendix E detailing

research into noise impacts.

Background sound recordings have been done throughout Leard State Forest and in

forest areas around the Tarrawonga and Boggabri mines when the mines were shut

down. Those same sites will be rerecorded during mine operations, indications from

sound recording at other mines by Lance Batey, suggest significant noise levels over

and above levels required to cause disturbance to ecosystems is normal.

Dust pollution from three and possibly four mines (Tarrawonga, Boggabri, Maules

Creek and Goonbri) will settle over the entire forest day and night. Presently an

unknown impact on ecosystem function, research overseas indicates it could be

significant to flowering plants, seed production, and nectar production.

Will fauna utilise the 500m wide ridge corridor between the mines? They will

likely be deterred by the noise, vibration, and light coming from the two mines either

side of the corridor. The trees along that corridor are likely to die from deep drainage

into the mines either side. Dead trees are not likely to be an attractive corridor for

EPBC threatened species.

Will EPBC fauna disperse through the immature vegetation in the rehabilitation

areas? The juvenile trees will not be of benefit to EPBC species until they are mature,

that could take a long time (100 years), those in the old tailings hills may die before

they reach 30 years. Structure of logs and hollow habitats are not likely to form for

over 100 years. Glenn Hoye states that Corben’s long-eared bat was displaced by

mine operations at Mt Owen, and 20 years of monitoring revegetation areas has failed

to record it using those areas (Appendix B).


Nectar production for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater is greatest from

mature White box trees such as those in Leard forest; trees planted and regenerated

will not provide the same resource for these two birds within the life of the mine.

Accumulated Impacts

The clearing of 3,500 hectares of habitat in Leard State Forest, plus the impacts of edge

effect, noise, light, and dust, will impact on virtually all of the habitat and potential habitat for

the EPBC critically endangered ecological community and threatened species. Only the north

eastern aspect slopes of the forest will be avoided. That area will only be avoided until the

Goonbri project gets its approval.

3.0 Results from field assessment of offset properties in the Maules Creek

locality

Long-term security of proposed offsets

All of the native vegetation on the properties listed in the proposed offsets is protected under

the Native Vegetation Conservation Act. The only threat to that vegetation is from the mines

changing their plan to mine that land at a later date, which has been done in the Hunter

Valley, and recently Maules Creek applied to increase the mine area by taking in some of the

land they originally proposed for offsets.

The idea of a conservation covenant or granting the offset land to National Parks and Wildlife

Service to manage is no assurance that a conservation benefit is going to be achieved. It is

very evident that National Parks staffs rarely visit the Leard SCA as the gates were left open

for stock to have access to the free feed and two mobs of goats (listed as a key threatening

process) were observed that could devastate threatened plants and the Endangered Ecological

Community

Problems with revegetating old cultivation paddocks

The offset proposal is to revegetate and regenerate the lower slopes of the offset properties to

provide similar habitat to that lost in the forest on the more productive soil type.

The trouble is that the lower slopes have had the most clearing, grazing, and fertiliser

disturbance and are mostly derived grasslands or cropping paddocks. The time frame to

regenerate some sort of mature woodland with a mix of age classes and diversity of habitats

of hollow trees and logs is somewhere in the range of 200 – 300 years. Even at 300 years, it

is highly unlikely that the same suite of plants that are present in the forest would have

regenerated. Coupled to that problem is the likelihood of a weed explosion when the

paddocks are destocked.

The offset properties have large areas of cultivation paddocks. Cultivation effectively

destroys the soil biota and natural nutrient cycling in the soil. Artificial fertilisers and

chemicals have been applied over a long time, grossly affecting the nutrient balance and

leaving chemical residues in the soil. Topsoil has been lost, and compaction layers reduce

water infiltration and root growth.


Problems with revegetating derived grassland paddocks

The offset properties have large areas of derived grassland that have a history of being

repeatedly cleared and grazed. Derived grasslands have low diversity of native plants in the

ground cover.

Those common native species present are those that are the most resilient and least palatable

to stock. In contrast, Leard State Forest still has the full suite of sensitive understorey species

of plants such as Tylophora linearis. Those plants cannot be reintroduced where the soil

structure has been changed by grazing and fertiliser for 100’s of years. Many of them would

also require the forest woodland community with all the associations with fungi and bacteria

that we are only just beginning to comprehend.

All the plants dependent on associations with woodland and open forest ecosystems were

removed when the clearing took place. Derived grasslands have also lost a lot of topsoil due

to wind and downpours after droughts. They also have suffered compaction from stock

trampling over 100’s of years, and the years of urine and dung have affected the soil nutrient

balance. Grasslands also have much less deep nutrient cycling as compared to woodlands

and open forests.

Areas destocked for conservation are notorious for weed explosions. It is only a matter of

time until the serious environmental weeds observed along the roads and riparian zones of the

Maules Creek locality will invade the regeneration and rehabilitation areas and the immature

and mature woodlands. The problem weeds observed were African Boxthorn, Saffron

Thistle, Coolatai grass (listed as key threatening process), Green Panic, Tall Rhodes Grass,

Bridal veil Creeper, Prickly Pear, and Bathurst burr.

When the mines have exploited the resource and left in 25 years, who is going to ensure that

the offset properties are managed for conservation? On the other hand, Leard State Forest

has high integrity that maximises the forests defences against weed invasion in the long-term.

The ongoing control of weeds in all areas of the offset package must be ensured into

perpetuity. Otherwise, we will have lost a forest with high integrity, for weedy rehabilitation

areas that have no hope of achieving the same level of integrity.

Extent of the CEEC in offset properties

Looking at the distribution of where the EPBC Box Gum woodland naturally occurred, it is

clear that it was limited to the more fertile deeper soils of the lower slopes. The Box Gum

woodland in the lower slopes of the TSR and Leard SCA confirm the EEC community’s

preference for good soil depth and nutrient value. Virtually all of that lower slope land has

been cleared repeatedly and any remnants that do occur are immature.


Value of the proposed eastern and western offsets

There was one area of remnant on the property Louenville that is considered to be of high

conservation value, equivalent to that to be destroyed in Leard State Forest. That area is not

threatened by clearing unless the mines decide to include it in their open cut area at a later

date. That area is already providing habitat for the Nationally listed threatened species. The

purchase of it cannot be considered an additional conservation benefit or gain to offset the

clearing of the forest, as it is already contributing to landscape conservation.

None of the proposed offsets measure up to be gains in the next 50 years. It is most likely the

problems of destocking and weed explosion due to the modified nutrient status of the soils

and the high seed bank of exotic seeds will make it impossible to recreate the community lost

in the forest.

Some of the properties are highly degraded, having had sheet erosion, loss of top soil and

humus, and dominance of weeds that have taken advantage of less competition from native

plants. The property that adjoins the north eastern boundary of Leard SF is a classic case of

land that is not going to regenerate natural ground cover, shrubs and trees for a very long

time.

Too much of the BOMP and the offset assessment package is based on hypothetical scenarios

of purchasing land in the future and implementing management plans yet to be developed.

For example the Rehabilitation Plan has not been seen, it will dictate the management of the

over burden regeneration areas where the soil depth, water infiltration, and erosion controls

will be critical to the success of the revegetation.

The remnants of native woodland/open forest on the offset properties in the Maules Creek

locality were found to be dominantly on ridges of rocky slopes on poor skeletal soil. The

vegetation is multilayered (shrubby) and immature having a history of ringbarking in the last

century. Such remnants have low productivity, meaning that the availability of food resources

for fauna (foliage, nectar, invertebrates) are limited by the soil nutrient levels and moisture

levels in the skeletal soil. Whereas the clearing that is occurring in Leard State Forest is

removing the most highly productive lower slopes woodland on the best soils that hold the

most moisture.

Considering like for like, the ridge vegetation community in Leard State Forest is similar to

the ridge remnants in the offsets, however that community is not endangered, although it is

contributing to the overall habitat availability and integrity of the forest.

Problems with revegetation of over burden hills

North West Ecological Services did a tour of regeneration of overburden piles at

Ravensworth last year and inspected an area regenerated at least twenty five years ago.

Despite the previous good seasons, many of the large immature trees were observed to be

dying en masse and the ground cover was dominated by exotic plants. See previous photos

page 18.


It is already evident that Boggabri Coal is not going to be able to regenerate native ground

cover “ever” due to a severe infestation of tall Rhodes Grass. The problem is going to

continually expand with every new attempt to regenerate new areas as it is easily dispersed

and is more adapted to colonising disturbed ground than other native species. To control the

existing problem is already cost prohibitive as it would require the complete chemical kill of

all the existing regeneration areas and would mean restarting the plantings again after the

weed seed bank is destroyed. See photos page 19.

Offset management issues

The bulk of the native vegetation remnants on the potential offset properties surrounding

Leard State Forest are ridge remnants on shallow rocky soils. There are three issues that raise

real concerns about the long-term conservation value of those ridge remnants considered as

offsets.

Those are;

managing White Cypress regrowth (thick cypress dominates disturbed areas),

re-establishing a balanced woodland community (a natural mix of eucalypts, cypress,

tall and low shrubs, and grass ground cover),

and the likely impact of climate change (extensive areas of vegetation presently dying

from hot and dry weather).

Unnaturally thick immature and juvenile regrowth of White Cypress dominates extensive

areas on the mid slopes and upper slope/ridge remnants.

The history of clearing and grazing has advantaged White Cypress, and in the absence of fire

there appears to be no likelihood that its dominance will be challenged. Viewing the photos

of the offset properties it becomes obvious how significant the problem is.

Tree regrowth on the lower slopes deeper soils is patchy, but where it does occur it is often

species of Eucalypts and Allocasuarina, with considerably less cypress.

Inspection of the White box, Pilliga box, White Cypress, and Narrow-leaf Ironbark woodland

and open forest communities in Leard State Forest shows how the Eucalypt/Cypress balance

has been maintained by the large old eucalypts which have maintained their dominance over

the centuries because of the aboriginals use of fire.


Thick White Cypress regrowth on the offset property “Kelso”, mapped as high condition

remnant habitat for EPBC threatened species.

The loss of balanced communities and the loss of ground cover and open canopy that occurs

with White Cypress dominance is a significant threat to future habitat value. Woodland

species adapted to grassy open communities cannot find suitable habitat hence avoid such

areas.

The large ridge remnant in the offset property “Kelso”, showing the thick White Cypress

regrowth and extensive areas dying from hot and dry weather.


The impact of climatic extremes is evident on the ridge remnants, with extensive areas of

dead and dying trees and shrubs. The likelihood of those extremes becoming more frequent

and severe will have a significant impact on the vegetation of ridge remnants in the future.

4.0 Review of Environmental Assessment prepared by Cumberland

Ecology for Maules Creek Project.

Many of the tables lack keys to explain abbreviations used and others such as Table

C4 has no horizontal or vertical lines to see detail.

No map is provided of locations where surveys were done in the offsets. Table C4

tree hollow data refers to locations unknown; there are no maps or tables of GPS

points.

The hollow data recorded from the Leard State Forest and from the Offset properties

is a meaningless comparison. It is obvious that quadrat selection on the offsets

properties has been biased toward locations where hollow density was greatest. The

field inspection of those properties found the offset properties to be dominantly

immature as compared to mature/ old growth box woodland in the Leard SF.

Notably, the hollow statistics provided in the EA average across White Box and

Narrow-leaved Ironbark/White Cypress vegetation types - even though the EA notes

that White Box provides an abundance and diversity of tree hollows whilst the latter

types do not.

Table of White box hollow data taken from Table C.4 and Table 3.4 showing hollows

recorded from Leard State Forest and Offset Properties

Diameter classes of hollows Leard SF average number

per hectare from 81 plots

Offset properties average

number per hectare from

variable number of plots

< 5cm diam hollows 37.2 per ha 18 plots = 36 per ha

5 – 10 cm diam hollows 23.4 per ha 12 plots = 33 per ha

11 – 15 cm diam hollows 9 per ha 9 plots = 44 per ha




Table C5 in the BOMP is unreadable small print.

The seed and plants recommended for planting are not available.

G.1 Ecological Thinning of regrowth says stands may require thinning at an early

stage of the rehabilitation management time frame to encourage greater forest or

woodland quality and quantity. The EA states that trees can naturally thin out but it

may take 50 years.


Ongoing thinning is required for all Cypress dominated communities in the offsets, it

must be done, not may.

The mitigation measures regularly state that the land disturbed for mining purposes

for the project should be progressively rehabilitated in accordance with an agreed

mine closure plan. The majority of disturbed land should be returned to native forest

and woodland habitat.

“The rehabilitation plan has been designed with the intention of providing a self-

sustaining native forestry operation as well as maintaining pre-mime biodiversity

values. A detailed Rehabilitation Management Plan should be developed for the

project that provides for the progressive rehabilitation of all mine disturbed areas.

Page” S.6

The commitment to return the project area to pre-mine biodiversity values is not

backed up with any credibility that it is actually achievable. No rehabilitation plan

has been available for review. All the objectives are unclear when should is used so

frequently.

S.9 again says that all forest and woodland areas cleared by mining should be

rehabilitated as forest and woodland in the long-term using local native species,

maintaining treed habitat in the locality.

There is no mention of Tylophora linearis in any of the tables that refer to significant

plants likely to occur. Yet is was found on the 15th

January 2013.

Table 2.4 Condition Classes of Box Gum Woodland and Derived Native Grassland in the

Offsets

Several of the properties listed in the proposed offsets have no agreement for purchase

and cannot be considered as offsets until there is a purchase agreement. Those

properties still privately owned are Blue Range, Cattle Plain, Wallandilly, Kelso, and

Wirradale.

The table 2.4 has three columns that indicate the hectares of each property that are

considered in Condition B which is land greater than 0.1 ha that has more than 12

species. That column should indicate that the 12 species must be understorey species

not including grasses and at least one of those species must be listed as an “important

species”. This table needs explanation.

All of this information should be presented in a way that enables independent

verification of all of the sampling points, there are no tables or maps that show the

Grid references for the plots where they recorded more than 12 understorey species or

more than 20 mature trees per ha . It is likely that the definition of mature is used

loosely, referring to larger immature trees. The EPBC definition states that they must

be at least 125 cm circumference at 130 cm above the ground, was that the definition

used? This table needs explanation.


The last two columns of that table refer to habitat hectares of high condition remnant

forest and woodland and hectares of low condition derived native grassland habitat to

be re-vegetated to moderate condition habitat in the medium to long term. The habitat

considered is the hectares suitable for the EPBC species Regent Honeyeater, Swift

Parrot, and Greater Long-eared bat. Based on the findings from the “Kelso” field

assessment all those figures given are disputed.

The hectares listed for each property claimed to be high condition remnant that will

supposedly offset the destruction of known high condition forest in the Leard State

Forest are lacking in reliability. None of the re-vegetated derived native grassland can

be claimed to provide habitat for the two specialist nectar feeding birds for at least

fifty years or the hollow dependent bat for at least 100 years. High condition should

refer only to least disturbed mature structure like Leard State Forest.

It cannot be claimed that management can do anything in the life of the mine to

improve the nectar resource for the two birds or do anything that will provide more

potential hollows for the bat.

All the vegetation of the region is already protected by the native vegetation

conservation act. And as we have seen with the management of the Leard SCA,

formal covenant tenure does not deliver on conservation goals if the conservation

agency does not undertake pro-active management in excluding stock and carrying

out feral animal and weed control.

“Kelso” is a classic example of why shrubby regrowth White Cypress with Narrow-

leaf Ironbark growing on a skeletal ridge should not be considered to be of High

Condition. There is also a major discrepancy in the area of High Condition remnant,

table 2.4 claims that there is 342.8 hectares, this assessment calculated the poor native

vegetation remnant to be 263 hectares. The Condition C column is also not consistent

because it gives 16.4 hectares as having greater than 20 mature trees per hectare. If

the vegetation were in fact to be of High Condition it would have 342 hectares with

greater than 20 mature trees per hectare.

The 342 hectares would not be suitable habitat for the Swift Parrot and Regent

Honeyeater as claimed; neither species feeds on White Cypress and Narrow-leaf

Ironbark. The 342 hectares is not considered High Condition habitat for the South-

eastern Long-eared bat, as it prefers box woodlands like Leard State Forest.

The case studies in the EA report must be viewed with scepticism. The two

restoration ecologists quoted in the Expert Opinion Appendix B state that what the

mines are proposing does not work in reality, and there are no examples of where

box-gum endangered ecological community has been successfully regenerated. That

opinion is shared by North West Ecological Services having observed regeneration

areas in the Hunter Valley and Boggabri Coal rehabilitation.


5.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

5.1 Clearing:

Maules creek forest and woodland clearing = 1664.8ha total

Derived grassland = 413 ha

Cultivation 98.81

Critically Endangered Ecological Community clearing = 544.47ha

The real extent of the CEEC is likely to be considerably greater, but no longer obvious due to

shrub and White Cypress regrowth from a reduction of fires in last 100 years.

Boggabri coal forest and woodland clearing = 1385ha total

Critically Endangered Ecological Community clearing = 623 ha

Future clearing.

There is a very high likelihood of additional clearing for mining in the area in the future.

There is substantial exploration underway all the way from Maules Ck down to the southern

Liverpool Plains around Quirindi. The cumulative impact of the potential mining in the

region is large in scope. History shows that mines do not shut down when the area of

resource they have approval for runs out. What they do instead is apply for an extension to

the their operations, in this case extensions would be mean that more of Leard Forest or land

originally proposed for offsets is earmarked for mining.

5.2 Noise;

Noise from Boggabri coal mine and Tarrawonga coal mine were very loud pre-Christmas,

noise echoed throughout the southern catchment of the forest both night and day. During the

shutdown over Christmas, background noise levels were recorded for night and day, and will

be rerecorded again at those same locations when operations commence again in January.

The impacts of noise have been studied in America and found to be significant to birds and

bats and whole ecosystems through loss of species ability to communicate, foraging for prey,

predator avoidance, and avoidance of noisy areas.

The prospect of Maules Creek mine operating in the northern aspect of the forest will impact

on all the northern half of the forest, leaving only the small section of the eastern aspect

unaffected. However, there is another mine proposed for the eastern aspect of the forest

(Goonbri), if it goes ahead all of the forest will be impacted by light and noise 24 hours each

day. Both noise and light will impact greatly on the State Conservation Area and the offset

properties Teston South and Louenville.

The fauna corridor and the rehabilitation areas expected to provide fauna linkage between the

two forest remnants east and west of the mines will also be badly affected by vibration, noise

and light pollution.


5.3 Light;

As with noise, the very bright lights of the mine flood lights illuminate the entire southern

catchment of the forest at night, to the point that there is low visibility on the darkest nights.

Fauna have activity patterns that have evolved around the moon phases that require periods of

total darkness to maintain predator and prey relationships. As with the noise, the future

scenario of three mines operating on the southern, northern, and eastern aspects will result in

all of the forest impacted by constant light.

5.4 Dust;

As with noise and light, air borne dust levels will increase as the mine operations increase

production. The dry period pre-Christmas saw the southern side of the forest blanketed in

dust. Australian flora and fauna have evolved with dust storms, however constant dust

coupled with prolonged dry periods is likely to impact flowering plants and foliage browsers,

thereby affecting the whole ecosystem.

5.5 Roads and traffic;

As the scale of the mining operations increases so too will the impacts of road construction

and upgrading, which will further fragment the forest, and result in accidents and injury to

fauna.

Species such as the Koala and Pale-headed Snake are particularly vulnerable when crossing

roads. As roads get upgraded to be wider to accommodate more heavy vehicles and traffic,

those impacts will increase significantly.

Of great concern is the propose realignment of the major north south road through the forest

which will be swallowed up by the open cut pit. The new alignment enters the forest on the

eastern boundary, runs through mature White Box woodland critically endangered ecological

community to link up with existing road in the middle of the forest on the northern boundary.

That section of forest was supposed to be the fauna refuge not impacted by the mines. Mine

roads through the retained forest will be used more frequently and most likely will require

upgrading.

6.0 The protected matters impacted by the mine proposals are;

6.1 Box – Gum ecological community

1,167 hectares of high quality critically endangered Box – Gum ecological community in a

near natural state, of high integrity, weed free, old growth structure, and of very high

landscape value will be destroyed if these mines are approved. The White box woodland in

the forest is mature/old growth having never been logged; it has very high hollow densities

per hectare.










Boggabri Coal will destroy 623 ha and Maules Creek Coal will destroy 544 ha. The real

extent of the EEC is likely to have been considerably greater pre 1770. The community has

changed due to the reduction of fires in last 100 years that has resulted in shrub and White

Cypress regeneration.

Surveys of Leard State Forest fauna have found it to be highly diverse.

Fauna recorded – 13 frogs, 170 birds, 26 mammals, & 42 Reptiles = 251 native species is

high diversity of woodland species. At least 50 of those species are not likely to occur in the

northern offsets.

Species listed in the Threatened Species Conservation Act = 8 mammals, 14 birds, & 1

reptile.

EPBC Migratory birds recorded = Satin Flycatcher, Rainbow Bee-eater, White-throated

Needletail, and Fork-tailed Swift.

6.2 Corben’s Long-eared bat

The vulnerable Corben’s Long-eared bat is known to occur (three more were recorded 18th

& 19th

December 2012).

The proposal will result in the loss of hollow trees and woodland foraging area that will not

be replaced in the revegetated offsets for 100 - 150 years.

The recent records of Corben’s Long-eared bat indicate it has a strong association with the

lower slope White box – Pilliga box woodland. None were trapped in the Leard Forest at the

slopes and ridge communities of Narrow-leaf Ironbark – Silver-leaf Ironbark - Dwyer’s

Redgum and White Cypress. The proposed mines are targeting the bats preferred habitat in

the lower slopes box woodlands.

No surveys have been done to determine if the Corben’s Long-eared bat actually occurs in

the offset properties, or if the offsets are suitable habitat. Knowing that the habitat is suitable

is particularly relevant to the high altitude offsets, thick cypress regrowth offsets, and

rehabilitation areas.

Glenn Hoyes monitoring of 20 year old mine rehabilitation areas at Mt Owen has not

recorded Corben’s Long-eared bat utilising those areas for foraging. Whereas it did occur in

the pre-existing woodland destroyed by the mine.


The Nandewar biodiversity surveys completed in 2004 recorded 72 Corben’s Long-eared bats

(31 females and 34 males and 7 not sexed). Analysis from those records found the preferred

habitat to be low to mid altitude open forests of White box, Ironbark and White Cypress. The

Playgan State Forest was found to have one of the highest populations of the bat. The offset

property “Mallee” was surveyed at that time and no Corben’s Long-eared bats were found.

The Wildlife Atlas records below show the locations where Corben’s Long-eared bat was

recorded to the north east of Kaputar NP in the Horton Valley and south west of the offset

properties Wirradale and Mt Lindesay in Playgan State Forest. Bat surveys in the Kaputar

National Park failed to record the bat indicating high altitude open forests are not suitable

habitat. Whereas the low elevation woodlands such as Leard State Forest are known

preferred habitat.

The impact of noise is likely to affect this bats ability to find prey; hence it is likely to avoid

areas with excessive noise, which will be large areas of the forest considered to be providing

refuge for the bat.

Corben’s Long-eared Bat recorded in Leard State Forest 18th

& 19th

December 2012

Wildlife Atlas below show records of Corben’s Long-eared bat. Many surveys of Kaputar

NP have failed to record the bat above 900m altitude. Those bats recorded nearby in Playgan

State Forest and Horton Valley were surveys done by the author Phil Spark, and Dave

Milledge.


6.3 Koala

The vulnerable Koala is known to occur. The proposal will result in the loss of mature

preferred feed trees that are regularly used for feed and territory marking.

Such mature preferred feed trees will not be replaced in the revegetated offsets for 50 - 100

years. Koala abundance is initially influenced by the availability of preferred tree species and

ultimately influenced by soil fertility and regional rainfall as they affect the growth, and

water and nutrient content of Eucalypt leaves (Gall 1980; Martin & Handasyde 1999; Moore

et al.2004).

The Koalas preferred habitat is the lower slopes White box & Pilliga box woodlands, where

nutrient and moisture levels in the foliage are higher than the trees on the skeletal slopes and

ridges. Such deep rooted woodlands can support higher Koala populations with smaller

home ranges.

High moisture levels in foliage is critical for Koalas to survive heat wave conditions. Both

Silver-leaf and Narrow-leaf Ironbark’s found on the slopes and ridges of the eastern and

western offset properties are not Koala food sources. Dwyer’s Redgum is used, but to a lesser

extent, more in the cooler months when moisture stress is less of an issue.

The even age regrowth proposed for revegetation of the derived grasslands and cultivation

paddocks will not provide suitable Koala habitat for a considerable time, as Koalas require a

mix of age classes of both food and shelter species.

Moore et al 2010 found that Koalas preferentially use larger trees of their preferred food

species up to 60cm dbh, above which tree use is not related to tree size. It is not surprising

that tree size should so strongly affect where koalas are found during the day.


Larger trees possess more foliage and thus represent larger feeding patches; however, they

may also provide more shade and greater safety from perceived dangers on the ground.

(Moore et al.2010).

The proposed mines are targeting the preferred Koala habitat in the lower slopes box

woodlands. Koala recorded in Leard State Forest.

6.4 Border Thick-tailed Gecko

The vulnerable Border Thick-tailed Gecko is predicted to occur. The proposal will result

in the loss of habitat provided by litter layer, logs, and canopy cover that will not be replaced

in the revegetated areas of the offsets for 50 years. Management of the ridge offsets will do

very little to enhance the habitat for this species.

6.5 Grey-headed Flying-fox

The vulnerable Grey-headed Flying-fox is predicted to occur (4000 have been in the

Tamworth region over the last five months). The proposal will result in the loss of mature

nectar producing White box trees, which will not be replaced in the revegetated offsets for 50

- 100 years.

The nectar value of the lower slope White box woodland is higher than the vegetation

communities of Silverleaf and Narrow-leaf Ironbark, White Cypress on the slopes and ridges.

The proposed mines are targeting the preferred nectar producing habitat in the lower slopes

White box woodlands.

6.6 Spotted-tailed Quoll

The vulnerable Spotted-tailed Quoll is likely to occur. The forest is large enough and has

sufficient habitat, food source and integrity to support a small population of Spotted-tailed

Quolls.


The proposal will result in the loss of den habitat in hollow trees, large logs and potential

woodland foraging area. The fragmentation of the forest by the open cut mine, edge effects,

noise and light pollution and road mortality could cause a local population to become extinct.

The Stringybark dominated open forests of the offset properties Wirradale and Mt Lindesay

do provide habitat similar to that in Leard SF for the Spotted-tailed Quoll. However, the

proposed offset management will do little to change the habitat value of those remnants in the

life of the mine.

The Voluntary Conservation Agreements are a good idea, but they are only as good as the

details in the agreement, and how motivated the landholders are to implement those plans.

Having had experience with VCA’s they are only as good as the landholders desire to

manage for conservation. To get them enforced requires the dept. to take the owner to the

Land and Environment Court, which must be considered highly unlikely - hence the VCA’s

will do little more than the Native Vegetation Conservation Act is doing to protect the native

vegetation, and the landholders have the responsibility to continue to control weeds and feral

animals.

It is highly unlikely that National Parks and Wildlife Service will want the disturbed

agricultural land adjoining Kaputar NP and Leard SCA, as the management of such land is

more time consuming and expensive than undisturbed remnants. NPWS do not have the

resources to maintain the land that they are presently responsible for.

The current government has recently slashed their funding by a third, meaning that what

resources they do have will need to be spent maintaining undisturbed remnant parks. The

other option discussed in the report is to sell the land after the life of the mine with a VCA on

the title of the land.

The reality of that scenario is that it would be unlikely that persons buying such large blocks

of land would want it purely for conservation. It would not be attractive as a bush block, as

the existing remnants would still be immature open forest and the regeneration areas would

be still regrowth 20cm dbh. It is likely that grazing production would need to be pursued to

fund daily living costs and the maintenance of the land.

Meanwhile the high habitat value woodlands in Leard SF will have been destroyed for open

cut coal mines, resulting in a net loss of potential suitable habitat.

Potential habitat for the Spotted-tailed Quoll will not be replaced in the revegetated areas of

the eastern and western offsets for 150 - 200 years.

6.7 Large-eared Pied Bat

The vulnerable Large-eared Pied Bat is likely to occur. Leard State Forest is a stepping

stone island remnant between the known population on the Kelvin Range and the known

population in the Pilliga. The proposal will result in the loss of mature woodland/ open forest

foraging area, which will not be replaced in the revegetated offsets for 50-100 years.


6.8 Superb Parrot

The vulnerable Superb Parrot is predicted to occur. The proposal will result in the loss of

hollow trees and woodland foraging area, which will not be replaced in the revegetated

offsets for 50 – 100 years.

Superb Parrot Species Profile and Threats Database – Dept. of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities

The Superb Parrot occurs only in south-eastern Australia. The Superb Parrot is found in NSW

and northern Victoria, where it occurs on the inland slopes of the Great Divide and on

adjacent plains, especially along the major river-systems; vagrants have been recorded in

southern Queensland.

In NSW, it mostly occurs west of the Great Divide, where it mainly inhabits the Riverina, the

South-west Slope and Southern Tableland Regions: west to Mathoura, Boorooban, Goolgowi,

and east to Canberra, Yass and Cowra. Its range extends north to around Narrabri and Wee

Waa in the North-west Plains Region, from a line joining Coonabarabran and Narrabri, and

extending at least as far west as Tottenham and Quambone, with occasional records even

further west.

In the South-west Slope Region of NSW, Superb Parrots breed in box-gum forests and

woodlands dominated by River Red Gum, Blakely's Red Gum, Apple Box (E. bridgesiana),

Grey Box, White Box (E. albens) and Red Box (Webster 1998).

The Superb Parrot inhabits listed threatened habitats such as grassy Yellow Box-Red Gum

woodlands listed as Endangered under the Nature Conservation Act 1980 (ACT Government

1999c) and White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived

Native Grassland listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act (NSW NPWS 2002c).

The Superb Parrot forages on many different species of plants, most of which occur in

woodlands dominated by gum and box eucalypts.

6.9 Swift Parrot

The endangered Swift Parrot is predicted to occur. The proposal will result in the loss of

mature nectar producing White box trees in Leard SF, which will not be replaced in the

revegetated offsets for 50 - 100 years. The proposed mines will destroy the best nectar-

producing habitat for the Swift Parrot in the lower slopes White box woodlands of Leard SF.

The nectar production value of the lower slope White box woodlands in Leard SF are higher

than the Silver-leaf and Narrow-leaf Ironbark communities on the slopes and ridge remnants

in the eastern and western offset properties.


Offset remnants of White Cypress, Narrow-leaf Ironbark and Silver-leaf Ironbark have been

considered and calculated as high condition habitat area for the Swift Parrot. That claim is

false; those eucalypt species are not known food sources.


do not provide habitat equivalent to that in Leard SF for the Swift Parrot. The immature

Yellow box and Blakely’s Red gum trees growing in open forest associations with

Stringybark’s do not produce the nectar that mature trees in woodland situations do.

The proposed offset management will do little to change the nectar resource available for the

Swift Parrot over the life of the mine. Meanwhile the high habitat value White box

woodlands in Leard SF will have been destroyed for open cut coal mines, resulting in a net

loss of suitable habitat.

Swift Parrot Species Profile and Threats Database – Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

During the non-breeding season, this species feeds extensively on nectar, lerp, and other items from eucalypt foliage. Mugga Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), Red Ironbark (E. tricarpa), White Box (E. albens), Grey Box (E. macrocarpa) and Yellow Gum (E. leucoxylon) are important sources of nectar in the box-ironbark forests and woodlands of Victoria and New South Wales (Kennedy & Tzaros, 2005). Grey Box, River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) and White Box are major sources of lerps in these areas at times.

Swamp Mahogany (E. robusta), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Coastal Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana) and Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) are important nectar sources in coastal parts of the non-breeding range. Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis) and Yellow Box (E. melliodora) are used in northern New South Wales and south-eastern Queensland (Saunders & Heinsohn 2008; Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001).

There are also several records of the species foraging on lerps in the foliage of Blackbutt (E. pilularis) in the Wollongong area of New South Wales. Over large parts of their box-ironbark winter range, they also consume both developed and undeveloped racemes of Golden Wattle (Acacia pycnantha) (Cheers & Cheers 2005; Kennedy & Tzaros 2005; Mac Nally & Horrocks 2000). Swift Parrots have been observed foraging on lerp from Rough-barked Angophora (Angophora floribunda) during drought conditions (Saunders & Heinsohn 2008).

As a specialist nectarivore, dependent on flowering eucalypts in both breeding and non-breeding parts of its range, Swift Parrots are vulnerable to the loss of quantity and quality of key forage tree species (Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001).


6.10 Regent Honeyeater

The endangered Regent Honeyeater is predicted to occur. The proposal will result in the

loss of mature nectar producing White box trees, which will not be replaced in the

revegetated offsets for 50 – 100 years.

The nectar production value of mature White box trees on the lower slopes in Leard SF is

much higher than the Silver-leaf and Narrow-leaf Ironbark, White Cypress associations in the

slopes and ridge remnants of the eastern and western offset properties.

The proposed mines are targeting the preferred nectar producing habitat in the lower slopes

White box woodlands.


are not preferred habitat for the Regent Honeyeater. The immature Yellow box and Blakely’s

Red gum trees growing in open forest associations with Stringybark’s do not produce the

nectar of mature trees in woodland situations.

The proposed offset management will do little to change the nectar resource available for the

Regent Honeyeater over the life of the mine. Meanwhile the high production White box

woodland will have been cleared for an open cut coal mine. Stephen Debus comments

(Appendix B) that the impact to Leard State forest will not be compensated and both the

Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot will continue to decline.

Regent Honeyeater Species Profile and Threats Database – Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

The diet of the Regent Honeyeater consists mainly of nectar, supplemented with some invertebrates (mostly insects) and their exudates (e.g. lerp, honeydew), and occasionally fruit or, very rarely, other plant items such as seeds or sap. Nectar is taken mainly from a variety of eucalypt species, especially Mugga Ironbark, Yellow Box, White Box and Yellow Gum, and often from mistletoes (e.g. Needle-leaf Mistletoe, Box Mistletoe (Amyema miquelii)), but also from other plants, both native (Acacia spp., Banksia spp. and Grevillea spp.) and introduced (Fuchsia spp. and Prunus spp.) (Franklin et al. 1989; Geering 2005 pers. comm.; Higgins et al. 2001; Menkhorst 1997a; Oliver 2000; Webster & Menkhorst 1992). The composition of diet varies according to the availability of nectar. When nectar is available, Regent Honeyeaters tend to focus or specialise on flowering plants, and at times may feed almost exclusively on just a few flowering species. When nectar is scarce, they may spend up to 90% of their foraging time feeding on lerp, honeydew and insects. The diet, at least in the Bundarra-Barraba region of NSW, appears to vary little between the breeding and non-breeding seasons, although breeding birds tend to take a greater proportion of insect material (mostly lerp) (Oliver 2000). Furthermore, both insects and lerp are important in the diet of young, comprising 76% of the observed diet of nestlings, and 88% of the observed diet of fledgelings (Oliver 1998c).


Regent Honeyeaters select the largest trees available to forage in, as these typically provide more food (with greater nectar flows) than smaller trees. As such, the Regent Honeyeater is vulnerable to silvicultural practices that selectively remove large, spreading trees to promote the regeneration of dense regrowth, the timber of which is used for production purposes (Geering 2005 pers. comm.; Oliver 2000; Robinson & Traill 1996; Webster & Menkhorst 1992).

6.11 Rainbow Bee-eater

The migratory Rainbow Bee-eater is known to occur; the proposal will result in the loss of

mature woodland foraging area, which will not be replaced in the revegetated offsets for up to

50 years.

6.12 Tylophora linearis

Endangered Plant listed in EPBC Act recently recorded in Leard State Forest

The endangered plant Tylophora linearis was not considered in the environment assessment.

Six plants and likely more were recorded in the northwest corner of Leard State Forest

adjoining Teston south during this survey. The mining consultants did not record the species.

The area where T.linearis was found is likely to be mined in the early stage of the Maules

Creek proposal, effectively destroying the only suitable habitat currently known in the mature

woodland. That suitable habitat will not be replaced in the revegetated offsets for at least 150

years, if ever.

Extensive surveys are required to determine the extent of the plant in Leard State Forest.

Those surveys need to be done when the plant is growing with leaves visible, which is likely

to be November.

Tylophora linearis waypoints recorded in Leard State Forest

TL1 56 J 225003 6616440 305 m 1/15/2013 5:23:42 PM

TL2 56 J 224997 6616443 305 m 1/15/2013 5:24:20 PM

TL3 56 J 225001 6616438 306 m 1/15/2013 5:24:46 PM

TL4 56 J 224997 6616440 305 m 1/15/2013 5:25:10 PM

TL5 56 J 225005 6616437 305 m 1/15/2013 5:25:29 PM

TL6 56 J 225008 6616435 305 m 1/15/2013 5:25:52 PM


Location where six Tylophora linearis plants were recorded in Leard State Forest

Largest Tylophora linearis plant recorded on a low shrub

Leard State Conservation Area

Tylophora linearis


6.13 Pultenaea setulosa A vulnerable plant listed in the EPBC Act

The Pultenaea setulosa has been recorded in the Boggabri Coal Project area. At this point in

time there is no Boggabri BOMP to consider how the vulnerable plant Pultenaea setulosa

will be compensated for in the proposed offsets. The Maules Creek BOMP has identified the

project area as potential habitat for Pultenaea setulosa but has failed to consider it further.

The conservation advice for this species identifies the main threat as the destruction of

individuals and disturbance of habitat through mining activities and associated infrastructure

and development.

Application of the Offsets Assessment Calculator to those protected matters concludes that

the loss of habitat resulting from the proposed mines will not be offset in the time frame

required, which will result in the decline of those protected matters and threaten their long-

term viability.

7.0 Components of the Offset Assessment Calculator that indicate species

decline and threat to long-term viability are.

7.1 Time over which loss is averted

A key requirement of the guide is that the offset provides habitat when required to offset the

loss of habitat destroyed in Leard State Forest.

In this case, the protected matter species will not benefit from the revegetated offsets for 50 –

200 years, and in the case of the critically endangered ecological community destroyed in the

forest, it will never be recreated.

7.2 Time until ecological benefit

The proposed offset properties on the Nandewar range will probably never benefit the

critically endangered ecological community found in Leard State Forest, as they are different

communities in different bioregions.

For the EPBC threatened species, the time required to benefit from the offset properties

ranges from 50 years for nectar feeding bird species to 200 years for species that require large

hollow trees and logs like the Spotted-tailed Quoll.

Management of the offsets properties can do little to speed up the time for trees to mature, to

produce more nectar, provide more shelter, and to develop a range of sizes of tree hollows.

What management can do is enhance ground cover and tree and shrub regeneration in areas

that need it. That enhancement will be very vulnerable when the properties are sold after the

life of the mine, as much of the gains could be lost in the first prolonged drought period from

overgrazing.


Long-term Security of Voluntary Conservation Agreements.

The Voluntary Conservation Agreements are a good idea to formalise conservation plans,

however, they are only as good as the detail in the agreement, and how motivated the

landholder is to implement those plans. Problem is that there is no guarantee that the next

owners of the property will have any interest in conservation, so there is no guarantee that

VCA’s will provide real security.

To get VCA’s enforced requires the dept. to take the owner to the Land and Environment

Court, which is considered unlikely to occur - hence the VCA’s may do little more than the

Native Vegetation Conservation Act is doing now to protect the native vegetation. The offset

properties are regenerating woodland/open forest and the existing landholders have the

responsibility to continue to control weeds and feral animals.

It is highly unlikely that National Parks and Wildlife Service will want the disturbed

agricultural land adjoining Kaputar NP and Leard SCA, as the management of such land is

more time consuming and expensive than undisturbed remnants. NPWS do not have the

resources to maintain the land that they are presently responsible for.

The current government has recently slashed their funding by a third, meaning that what

resources they do have will need to be spent maintaining undisturbed remnant parks. The

other option discussed in the report is to sell the land after the life of the mine with a VCA on

the title of the land.

The reality of that scenario is that it would be unlikely that persons buying such large blocks

of land would want it purely for conservation. It would not be attractive as a bush block, as

the existing remnants would still be immature open forest and the regeneration areas would

be still regrowth 20cm dbh. It is likely that grazing production would need to be pursued to

fund daily living costs and the maintenance of the land.

Meanwhile the mine has cleared the high conservation value woodlands in Leard SF,

resulting in a net loss of potential suitable habitat for EPBC threatened species.

Potential hollow habitat for Corben’s Long-eared bat will not be replaced in the revegetated

areas of derived grassland in the eastern and western offsets for at least100 years.

There is no conservation proposal to offset the destruction of the area of Tylophora linearis.

7.3 Quality Score

Site condition

The site condition for Leard State Forest is very high, if left intact it will contribute

significantly to the viability of the threatened species and critically endangered ecological

community. It has high species diversity, undisturbed mature structure, and very few weeds

and feral animals. It conserves the community and native flora and fauna once found

throughout the adjoining highly disturbed agricultural landscape.


The site condition of the offsets varies considerably from 0 for cultivation paddocks to 2 for

derived grasslands, as they have lost the “important species” of plants. Plant diversity in

general is low, and they provide no shelter of food source habitats for the EPBC species

considered.

Some of the mature forest sections of the Nandewar range properties have high value, but that

value is diminished considerably as the habitat provided is different to that found in Leard

SF.

The environmental assessment has given no real recognition of the high habitat value per

hectare of the box woodland in Leard State Forest to the EPBC listed species and community.

There has been no credible assessment of habitat values and condition of the remnants on the

offset properties.

The lack of a credible methodology for condition assessment was raised by the Namoi CMA

in their original submission. They stated; “Without condition assessments it is not possible to

state whether there has been sufficient gain (no net loss) and whether equivalence (like for

like) has been achieved.

There was no comparative analysis of condition assessments or biometric benchmarking for

vegetation communities between the project disturbance area and offset properties.

Without thorough and complete condition assessments and biometric benchmarking of the

vegetation communities in both the project disturbance area and offset properties, it is not

possible for this comparative analysis to take place”.

Site context

The site context value for Leard State Forest is very high, as it is a large island remnant

situated as a major stepping stone between the Kaputar – Kelvin Ranges and the Pilliga

Forest. It is also the largest remnant on the Liverpool plains, and its woodland community is

poorly conserved in formal conservation reserves.

The proposed offset properties that adjoin Leard forest and Leard SCA also have high site

context values because of the presence of Leard SF and the link they provide to the larger

remnants. There context value will be diminished with the destruction of Leard SF.

Species Stocking Rate

Surveys of the Leard forest fauna have found it to be highly diverse. We do not know the

fauna diversity of the smaller offset remnants; however, it can be expected to be considerably

lower.

Leard SF fauna surveys recorded – 13 frogs, 170 birds, 26 mammals, & 42 Reptiles = 251

native species is high diversity of woodland species. At least 50 of those species are not

likely to occur in the northern offsets.

Species listed in the Threatened Species Conservation Act = 8 mammals, 14 birds, & 1

reptile.

EPBC Migratory birds recorded = Satin Flycatcher, Rainbow Bee-eater, White-throated

Needletail, and Fork-tailed Swift.


7.4 Future quality of Leard without mines impact and offset

The large size, shape, undisturbed state, and high integrity of Leard State Forest provides a

significant conservation benefit capable of maintaining viable populations of native flora and

fauna into the future.

The biodiversity targets set by the Namoi Catchment Management Authority require broad

scale revegetation to occur, certainly no further reduction to high quality remnants like Leard

SF.

Leard is situated nearly midway between the Kaputar – Kelvin Ranges and the Pilliga forest,

it will continue to provide crucial habitat as a stepping stone for many woodland species

including EPBC listed species.

7.5 Future quality of Leard with mine impact and proposed offsets

In 25 years the mines proposal will have resulted in the direct impacts of clearing 3,500

hectares and indirect impacts across the rest of the forest resulting from noise, vibration, dust,

fragmentation, edge effects, roads, traffic, feral animal invasion, and likely weed invasion. It

is highly likely that the full extent of the impacts to Leard State Forest have been

underestimated.

The regeneration areas in the offsets proposed will increase the area of native vegetation

cover and provide linkages in 25 years. However, those areas will continue to lack essential

habitats and flora and fauna diversity as compared to the existing critically endangered

ecological community for a minimum of 200 years. It is likely that they will never recreate

the diversity of habitats and species present in the existing forest.

It is likely that each of those mines will apply for extensions to their mining area that will

further erode the offset areas and refuge areas of Leard State Forest.

The end result will be decline of suitable habitat for EPBC species resulting in population

decline, for some species such as Corben’s Long-eared bat and the Koala those smaller

populations may be no longer viable.

The clearing for the mines will selectively remove the best areas of the critically endangered

ecological community, considering that the offsets wont recreate that same community, its

viability will also be threatened.



community) remains in a near-intact condition.

The community found in Leard State Forest is part of the 0.1%.






7.6 Risk of Loss % without offset

The risk of loss will be low that external factors could result in the loss of the existing EPBC

critically endangered ecological community and threatened species habitat in the areas of

properties proposed for offsets. Mining poses the single greatest threat to the remnants in the

Maules Creek locality. Farmers’ clearing native vegetation is largely prohibited under the

Native Vegetation Conservation Act.

The grazing management proposed will be similar to that practised by farmers applying

holistic management. Natural regeneration will continue to take place when seasonal

conditions are favourable, and woodlands and open forests will continue to mature to provide

habitat for threatened species. Invasion of weeds and dominance of White Cypress are

potential threats to regeneration of mixed age box gum woodland.

7.7 Risk of Loss % with offset

The risk of loss where the properties will be used to offset/compensate for the loss of EPBC

critically endangered ecological community and threatened species habitat in the State Forest

will be very similar to that without the offset.

The management of existing remnant vegetation will change very little in the life of the mine,

maturity of the vegetation will continue according to the seasonal conditions not the

management applied to grazing.

Considering the combined benefits of all the revegetation areas, habitat enhancement, and

management of the existing remnants against the known loss of mature forest containing

critically endangered ecological community and threatened species habitat there is a very

high risk that there will be significant loss and decline of EPBC species in the life of the

project.

7.8 Confidence in result

There is no confidence in the result achieving the goal of maintaining or improving the

habitat for EPBC species or the extent of critically endangered ecological community.

The mines are going to claim that they have achieved good outcomes elsewhere. But those

claims must be considered in the light that there is evidence and expert opinions from two

restoration ecologists (Appendix B) to say that there are no success stories of good mine

rehabilitation and revegetation, and none of recreating the CEEC on the scale proposed.


What is likely is that the revegetation areas on overburden will suffer moisture stress at 20 –

25 years and die, and the weeds present will continue to prevent regeneration of native

ground cover.

The offset remnants in the locality of Leard State Forest and Leard SCA will become

increasingly dominated by White Cypress regrowth, which will destroy suitable habitat for

EPBC threatened species, not enhance it.

The consideration of suitable habitat in the offsets is predicted only - no surveys have been

done to determine if the Corben’s Long-eared bat actually occurs in the Nandewar offset

properties, or if the offsets are suitable habitat.

There is no proposal to compensate for the loss of Tylophora linearis, compensation will not

be achieved in regeneration and rehabilitation areas, and will not be achieved by the

management of offset remnants. If the plant is not there now, it is not likely to occur.

7.9 Evaluation of Offset Calculator

The mines are going to claim that they can regenerate the EEC with low risk involved, and

they will claim that the corridor function and extent of native vegetation provided at a 5 – 1

ratio will offset the impact on the EPBC EEC to maintain or improve.

Appendix B shows expert opinions from restoration ecologists to say that the EEC

regeneration will not work; it has a very low confidence of succeeding.

The hollow dependent species such as Corben’s Long-eared Bat will not benefit for at least

50 - 100 years, nor will the food source for the Koala. Meanwhile the forest is destroyed and

those species decline.

The nectar dependent species of Swift Parrot, Regent Honeyeater, and Grey-headed Flying

fox will not benefit for at least 50 - 100 years until the trees mature to provide full nectar

production. Meanwhile the forest nectar production is destroyed and those species decline.

8.0 Conclusion

The NSW Government ranked the Leard State Forest in their first Draft Land Use Plan as

being of Tier 1 Biodiversity value, to be protected from further loss, and yet they have gone

against their own wisdom and approved both the Maules Creek project and Boggabri

expansion. This review highlights how planning NSW failed to seriously review the

Environmental Assessment, instead relying on coal company consultants and their list of

offsets and mitigation measures as the gospel truth.


This report has exposed some serious failures with the Environmental Assessment and

BOMP. The plan is for all offset properties to be put under VCA’s and the land next to the

Leard SCA properties C1, C2, & C3, and Wirradale will “hopefully” be added to the NPWS

estate. There are no guarantees for future management beyond 21 years other than VCA’s

which are only as good as the motivation of the landholder to implement them. The lack of

guaranteed long-term management, doesn’t measure up to the offset policy guidelines.

The tropical grasses and Coolatai grass are major threats to the offset properties that have not

been considered in the BOMP. Briars, Willows, Elms, thistles and African Boxthorn are

mentioned.

The failure to achieve a like for like offset community and the huge time delay to regenerate

mature structure with a diversity of habitats can only result in significant declines of all

species that are dependent on woodland structure including those listed in the EPBC Act

1999.

The decline of woodland birds is well documented, as is the decline of all threatened species.

The main cause of decline is habitat loss, meaning that the landscape has already been over

cleared to the point that there is insufficient woodland remnants to conserve what species we

have left.

Considering the low level of confidence that the offsets will ever regenerate the endangered

ecological community and the fact that it will take 50 – 100 years to provide marginal

woodland habitat for the threatened species considered, it is obvious that the precautionary

principle should be applied and the developments refused.

At the very least, the Federal Government should immediately an independent review of the

vegetation mapping, habitat condition, and identification of endangered ecological

communities on the properties Wirradale and Mt Lindesay in particular, and on all offset

properties in general. Such an assessment should be conducted by independent botanists with

suitable expertise in the area.

Documents

Final Overall Submission Leard Forest Coal Offsets 29th Jan 2013