Environmental Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Modifications to Mackas Sand Extraction Operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 Salt Ash NSW

October 2012

Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Mackas Sand Pty Ltd

Project Director: Peter Jamieson Project Manager: Andy Goodwin Report No: 1646/R36/Final Date: October 2012

Newcastle

PO Box 3024 75 York Street Teralba, NSW 2284 Ph: 02 4950 5322 www.umwelt.com.au

Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to accompany an application to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure under Section 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to modify Major Project Approval 08_0142. Major Project Approval 08_0142 to extract up to 1 million tonnes of sand per year from each extraction area on Lot 218 in DP 1044608 (Lot 218) and Lot 220 in DP 1049608 (Lot 220) was granted on 20 September 2009 by the then Minister for Planning. Location of the approved extraction areas are shown on Figure 1.1. Details of the original proposal including the extractive operations are contained within the Environmental Assessment (EA) (Umwelt, 2009a) and subsequent approval.

Lot 218 and Lot 220 are owned by Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) and contain approximately 20 million tonnes of sand resource. The potential to extract sand from these lots to generate employment, training and economic development opportunities for Worimi LALC was part of the agreement between Worimi LALC and the New South Wales (NSW) Government that led to the establishment of the Worimi Conservation Lands on Stockton Bight in February 2007.

Worimi LALC has contracted Mackas Sand Pty Ltd (Mackas Sand) to obtain approval for and extract industrial grade and construction sand resources from the approved extraction areas on Lot 218 and Lot 220 on behalf of Worimi LALC.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) was engaged by Mackas Sand to undertake the necessary environmental assessments for this modification. The study area for this assessment consists of the proposed alternate haul route alignment from Lot 218 to Nelson Bay Road and approved extraction areas on Lot 218 and Lot 220. The study area is located approximately 20 to 25 kilometres north-east of Newcastle, NSW.

Consultation has been undertaken with officers from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure who have confirmed that the proposed modification can be determined under Section 75W of the EP&A Act.

To date sand extraction has been undertaken on Lot 220 by Mackas Sand. No extraction has been undertaken on Lot 218 due to issues in regard to access to the approved extraction area.

Part of the modification sought is to construct and utilise an alternate route to access the approved sand extraction area on Lot 218 in DP 1044608 (Lot 218), Salt Ash from Nelson Bay Road.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

Mackas Sand has decided not to use this route due to difficulties in regard to access over Pt 101 and Pt 13 of DP 753192. In addition the approved route from Lot 227 onto Lot 218 would have resulted in a significant earthworks cutting being constructed through an elevated knoll within the mobile sand dunes. This knoll is now used as a viewing location as part of Worimi Sand Dune Adventures. As a result, access into western side of Lot 218 extraction area via Pt 101, Pt 13 and Lot 227 is no longer the preferred access.

The preferred alternate access to the Lot 218 extraction area is via a right of way from Nelson Bay Road to Lot 122 DP 753192 which adjoins the northern boundary of Lot 218.

The modification sought is to construct and utilise the proposed new route from Nelson Bay Road to access the approved sand extraction area on Lot 218 in DP 1044608 (Lot 218), Salt Ash. The route as shown on Figure 1.2 is approximately 2 kilometres long and traverses Lot 4 DP 1121457, Lot 1 DP 177679, Lot 810 DP 1008279, Lot 58 DP 753192 and Lot 122 DP 753192. These land parcels are owned by B & R B Mackenzie FT Pty Ltd. Details of the proposed new intersection on Nelson Bay Road are shown on Figure 1.3.

To minimise potential impacts on flooding and disturbance to creek banks, the proposed road will utilise an existing culvert over Tilligerry Creek that is located approximately 240 metres south-east of Nelson Bay Road. Tilligerry Creek drains in a north-easterly direction to Port Stephens. The route will then traverse approximately 1760 metres south to the northern edge of the Lot 218 extraction area.

The route traverses approximately 1440 metres of low-lying land associated with the inter-barrier depression that is located between the Pleistocene inner barrier and Holocene outer barrier system. The inter-barrier depression has low potential to contain archaeological material.

Geotextile will be placed over the ground surface in areas with potential to contain archaeological material prior to sand fill and road base material being placed along the alignment of the road. This will minimise potential disturbance of any subsurface archaeological material that may exist along the road alignment. The most southern 540 metres of the proposed route traverses sand ridges associated with the Holocene dune system. This section of the route is known to contain archaeological material particularly in the vicinity of the ridge along the northern boundary of Lot 122. In addition the entire southern boundary of Lot 122 and the alignment of the proposed access across Lot 218 has been identified as Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD). Geotextile will be used where the road crosses this PAD.

In total, the preferred alternate haul route would disturb an area of approximately 2.03 hectares of which approximately 0.48 hectares is unvegetated (existing track), 1.18 hectares is disturbed grassland and the remaining 0.37 hectares is Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest.

As can be seen from Figure 1.4, Lot 218 adjoins the 4438 hectares of Worimi Conservation Lands to the south, east and north and is located adjacent to a significant tract of Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest which includes pockets of Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest. In total, construction of the preferred alignment of the alternate haul route would disturb approximately 0.37 hectares of these forest communities.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 2 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

The alignment of the proposed road has been located to avoid disturbance of several clusters of ground orchids Diuris praecox and Diuris arenaria which have been identified along sections of the southern boundary of Lot 122 and northern boundary of Lot 218. These orchid species are listed as vulnerable under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) respectively. Trees and understorey along this alignment would be cleared and windrowed along the edge of the alignment.

Field surveys undertaken during the September 2011 flowering period indicate that there are in excess of 250 Diuris praecox and approximately 50 Diuris arenaria located on the verges of the existing sand track along the southern boundary of Lot 122 and adjacent cleared land with these orchids showing a preference for the cleared areas along and adjacent to existing tracks. None of these plants will be disturbed by the proposed route. Additional field surveys were undertaken in late August 2012, September 2012 and early October 2012 along the proposed alignment to confirm that no Diuris praecox or Diuris arenaria were located within the disturbance area that will be required for construction of the proposed alternate haul road.

There are no changes proposed to the method of extraction for operations on Lot 218 other than that extraction will commence approximately 600 metres to the east of the western boundary of the approved extraction area and will progress in easterly and westerly directions from the access point.

Approval is also sought to lower the minimum extraction level in both Lot 218 and Lot 220 to being 0.7 metres above the maximum predicted groundwater level during extraction with the final landform being at least 1 metre higher than the maximum predicted groundwater level as is currently required.

This minor change in extraction depth is sought to improve the efficiency of extraction operations particularly in dry periods when the water table is well below its maximum predicted level. Efficiency is improved through increased trafficability of the exposed sand surface due to the greater moisture content increasing the stability and bearing capacity of the sand. The greater bearing capacity means that travel times and the amount of energy required to operate front-end loaders and dump trucks on the sand are significantly reduced.

In previous consultation in regard to maximum depths of extraction, NSW Office of Water (NOW) representatives have indicated that extraction to a depth 0.7 metres above the maximum predicted groundwater level may be accepted provided that the final landform for the site was reshaped to provide a minimum of 1 metre of sand above the maximum predicted groundwater level.

There has been extensive consultation with representative Aboriginal groups and Port Stephens Council in regard to the proposed alignment and use of the alternate haul road. Consultation with neighbouring land holders has also been undertaken, including face to face visits and phone calls. The primary concern identified by neighbouring land holders was air quality. No other significant concerns were raised by the community during the consultation process.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

APPROVAL PROCESS

The original proposal satisfied the definition of a Major Project under the then State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 and was approved by the Minister for Planning under Part 3A of the EP&A Act.

The then Department of Planning advised by email on 19 April 2010:

The Department has decided not to issue specific Director-General's requirements for the proposed modification to the Mackas Sand project.

Nevertheless, the EA for the proposed (modification) must address relevant matters from the DGRs issued in October 2008 for the project. The following matters are of particular interest to the Department: Noise; Air quality (dust emissions); Road safety arising from the use of a previously unformed road; Biodiversity issues (such as removal of vegetation to enable use of the proposed new access route); and Any interactions with adjacent landowners.

Please be aware that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Miscellaneous) Regulation 2010 commenced on 26 March 2010 and this may have application for the proposed modification, regarding landowner consent in particular.

KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Key environmental issues associated with the modified proposal were identified through risk assessment, consultation activities and requirements for the EA provided by the Director-General of the then Department of Planning (DoP).

Traffic Access and Public Safety

The approved access to Lot 218 extraction area from Lavis Lane is via Stockton Bight Track which is located within public road easement within Pt 76 and Pt 101 DP 753192 and then via Pt 101, Pt 13 DP 753192 and Lot 227.

The proposed haul road will require the construction of a new intersection on Nelson Bay Road as shown on Figure 1.2.

A concept design for the proposed new Nelson Bay Road intersection is shown on Figure 1.3. Roads and Maritime Services has indicated (see Appendix 5) that it has discussed the proposed intersection with Department of Planning and Infrastructure and Council and would be prepared to concur with the access subject to certain requirements.

Traffic assessment undertaken by TPK & Associates indicates that the Level of Service on Nelson Bay Road will not be adversely affected and construction and use of the proposed new intersection will not have an adverse impact on the road network and that the intersection can operate at acceptable levels of performance.

The proposed haul road will be constructed over private land that is either owned or is to be purchased by B & R B Mackenzie FT Pty Ltd. Prior to use for product haulage, this road will be constructed with an 8 metre wide formation. The most northern 200 metres of the proposed access adjacent to Nelson Bay Road will be sealed.

Lavis Lane will not be used for the transport of sand from Lot 218.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

Aboriginal Heritage

A detailed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment was prepared in consultation with local Aboriginal representatives for the area. Archaeological survey identified four Loci close to the alignment of the proposed alternate haul route that contain Aboriginal artefacts. The low foredunes from the inter-barrier depression to the base of the transgressive dune on Lot 218 were identified as having moderate or high archaeological potential and were classified as PAD within the alignment of the proposed alternate haul route. This includes the large intersected PAD identified as A3 during previous assessments.

Where possible, potential impacts to this site have been mitigated by changes in proposed road construction method and location. It is intended that any artefactual material within areas designated as PAD will be collected from the surface in consultation with the Aboriginal Heritage Management Group. Following artefact collection and vegetation clearing, within the identified boundaries of these sites, a layer of geotextile will be placed on the ground surface prior to fill material and road base being placed as part of road construction.

This technique of road construction has been adopted to avoid disturbing below the current ground surface and therefore should avoid impacts to any artefacts that may also be present but not currently visible.

The following Aboriginal parties that were previously involved in the assessment of Lot 218 and Lot 220 were consulted in regard to the proposed alternate haul route:

 Worimi LALC;

 Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd (Nur-Run-Gee);

 Viola Brown;

 Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated (Mur-Roo-Ma); and

 Carol Ridgeway-Bissett (previously Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage Co-operative).

Following archaeological survey and review of the final draft archaeological assessment the Aboriginal parties made the following recommendations:

 Worimi LALC indicated that recommendations provided in the draft report do not, in any way, restrict or unfavourably effect this development.

 Nur-Run-Gee recommended that existing infrastructure on Lot 218 should be utilised and is hesitant to support any variation to Project Approval 08_0142.

 Mur-Roo-Ma recommended that the previously approved access to the sand extraction face should be utilised and the alternate haul route should not be approved.

 Both Carol Ridgeway-Bissett and Viola Brown recommended that the proposed modification is not approved because of its impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage and the cultural landscape, including flora and fauna.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 5 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

Ecology and Biodiversity

A detailed ecological assessment was undertaken for the proposed alternate haul route to determine the existing natural environment and likely impacts of the proposal on the biodiversity of the area, particularly on threatened species, populations and communities. The proposed access will traverse approximate 1650 metres of existing track and improved pasture. The remaining 350 metres of the proposed access track will be located within Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest and Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest and will require selected removal of trees from approximately a 0.44 hectare area.

The loss of a small area of these forest communities will be offset by sand extraction reducing the rate at which the mobile sand dune system moves landward and smothers existing vegetation. Landward movement of the mobile dune system in this area is currently smothering approximately 0.4 hectares of vegetation per year per kilometre length of mobile dune.

Noise

The proposed modification to use the alternate haul route alignment will result in reduced noise impacts.

Quarry trucks will no longer drive past the closest residences to the approved haul route to Lot 218 along Lavis Lane (i.e. Ford residence (R4) and Towers residence (R3) as shown on Figure 1.5).

A Noise Management Plan (Umwelt, 2009b) has been prepared for sand extraction operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 and associated product transport. Key operational features relevant to the Noise Management Plan are:

The approved hours of extraction being 24 hours a day 7 days a week except for operations within 250 metres of the Hufnagl Residence (R27) (see Figure 1.5) when operations are limited to 7.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday with no operations within 250 metres of R27 outside these times.

Transportation of sand from Lot 220 along Oakvale Drive between 5 am and 10 pm Monday to Saturday and 8.00 am to 12.00 pm Sundays and Public Holidays in accordance with provisions of Condition 9 (b) of Schedule 3 of Project Approval 08_0142 as Mackas Sand has an agreement with the owners of residences off Oakvale Drive. A copy of this agreement has been provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I).

Transportation of sand from Lot 218 along Lavis Lane in accordance with the provisions of Condition 9 of Schedule 3 of Project Approval 08_0142 between:

. 6.00 am and 6.00 pm (EST) Monday to Friday; . 6.00 am and 7.00 pm (DST) Monday to Friday; . 7.00 am to 4.00 pm Saturdays; and . No transport on Sundays or public holidays.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 6 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

As the transport of sand along Lavis Lane will no longer occur if the proposed modification is approved, this aspect of the Noise Management Plan will be updated to reflect the changes to traffic movements. The proposed new access road will provide direct access to Nelson Bay Road which is a Main Road.

Air Quality

The proposed modification to use the alternate haul route to Lot 218 will not increase air quality impacts from those set out in the EA (Umwelt, 2009a) and approved under Major Project Approval 08_0142 other than along the alignment of the alternate haul route which is either owned by or under agreement with B & R B Mackenzie FT Pty Ltd.

As stated in the EA (Umwelt, 2009a), the major source of potential dust generation is from traffic on unsealed access roads. The principal measure used to control dust will be sealing part of the access road closest to Nelson Bay Road and dust suppression on the gravel sections of haul road. Dust suppression will be achieved using a water cart to keep roads moist during periods of product transport.

In addition, dust control will be achieved by ongoing rehabilitation of parts of the extraction areas that were vegetated prior to extraction occurring.

Sand screening operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 are unlikely to result in any significant increase in dust generation. This is attributed to the low dust content and moisture content of the sand that is being quarried. Lot 220 is sheltered from prevailing winds by surrounding vegetation and as a result the likelihood of dust being transported off site is low. Additional dust controls for sand screening operations are not considered to be required at Lot 220.

Sand extraction operations at Lot 218 will be located within the mobile dune field and will initially be approximately 1700 metres from the nearest residence.

Two dust deposition gauges have been established to monitor dust deposition levels as shown on Figure 1.5. One gauge (DDG1) is located to the north of the access road and approved extraction area on Lot 220. The other dust deposition gauge is located adjacent to the alternate haul route to Lot 218 (DDG2). Baseline dust deposition monitoring levels (Umwelt, 2011a) indicate high levels of airborne sand being present due to the natural windblown movement of the dunes on Lot 218. Deposition levels at monitoring site DDG2 vary significantly and have on several occasions exceeded 4 g/m2/month.

Interactions with Surrounding Land

The alternate access for which approval is sought will not increase impacts in terms of dust, noise, traffic movements and visual on surrounding non-project related properties beyond levels of impact approved as part of Major Project Approval 08_0142.

Approval for Worimi LALC's land dealings associated with the proposed modification to Major Project Approval 08_0142 was granted by NSW Aboriginal Land Council at its meeting on 28 September 2011.

Use of the alternate haul route and extraction area access site will increase the location of the initial quarry face from being approximately 1100 metres from the nearest non-project related residence (Towers residence R3 on Figure 1.5) to being approximately 1700 metres away reducing interaction between surrounding residences and extraction operations.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 7 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

Unexploded Ordnance

An Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) assessment was undertaken as part of the EA (Umwelt, 2009a) and identified that there was potential for UXO to occur within the western part of the approved Lot 218 extraction area as a result of WWII use of the area as a bombing range and for explosives testing. This potential for UXO to occur is limited to the undisturbed sections of the landform that existed prior to approximately 1950.

The majority of the sand that will be removed from the approved Lot 218 extraction area will be windblown sand that has been deposited above the ground surface that existed prior to 1950. This material has negligible potential to contain UXO.

An Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan (UXOMP) (see Appendix 6) has been prepared for operations within Lot 218. The UXOMP has identified that there is a possibility of UXO and related debris existing within the Danger Zone which includes the western 1.5 kilometres of the approved extraction area in Lot 218 and the section of proposed haul road on Lot 218.

The UXOMP found that there is a low probability of UXO being encountered provided that any excavation within this area does not go below the stabilised ground surface as it existed prior to 1950. The UXOMP recommends that if excavation or works are likely to occur below the 1950 stabilised ground surface, an UXO survey should be undertaken by suitably qualified specialists.

Any extraction within the approved extraction area on Lot 218 that is within the Danger Zone will be restricted to being above the 1950 stabilised surface unless UXO surveys are undertaken by suitably qualified specialists and any identified UXO is cleared prior to extraction occurring.

An assessment of whether archaeological subsurface testing is required will also be undertaken once UXO survey and clearance is undertaken and prior to excavation below the 1950 stabilised ground surface occurring.

To minimise potential UXO impacts, it is proposed to construct that section of the alternate haul route that is within Danger Zone by filling above the 1950 stabilised landform. This can be readily achieved as the section of alternate haul route that is located within Danger Zone traverses a low-lying section of the terrain that is naturally prone to water logging. Along this section of the alternate haul route, vegetation will be cleared and windrowed along the edges of the haul road, geotextile will then be placed over the cleared ground surface and sand and road-base material will then be placed over the geotextile ensuring that excavation does not occur below the 1950 stabilised surface.

Alternatives and Justification for Proposed Modifications

A range of alternatives were considered in developing the proposed modifications to Major Project Approval 08_0142. These included:

Not seek to establish an alternate haul route to the approved extraction area. This alternative is not preferred due to the uncertainty about obtaining access to the private section of the approved haul road and the ongoing ability to maintain access through the 30 metre high mobile dunes over time. The alternate haul route will access Lot 218 extraction area directly from Nelson Bay Road over land that is owned or has agreements in place with the Directors of Mackas Sand or related parties.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 8 Mackas Sand Modification EA Executive Summary

The use of Stockton Bight Track and a section of road over Lot 2 DP 916061 and Lot 122 DP 753102 was considered. These lots are owned by B & R B Mackenzie FT Pty Ltd which is associated with Mackas Sand. Several alignments of the realigned section of Stockton Bight Track were considered prior to the road being gazetted on 1 September 2011 with the gazetted alignment being the alignment that was acceptable to the Towers family. Port Stephens Council subsequently rescinded the decision to realign a section of Stockton Bight Track meaning that this route was no longer available.

The alternative of not seeking to temporarily reduce the maximum extraction depth to 0.7 metres above the maximum predicted groundwater level was also considered. This is not preferred as reducing the maximum extraction depth to 0.7 metres above the maximum predicted groundwater level allows sand to be extracted more efficiently through reducing travel times, fuel usage and wear and tear on the extraction and haulage equipment.

Approval of the alternate haul route and new intersection on Nelson Bay Road will provide certainty of access to the approved Lot 218 extraction area. By facilitating the extraction of sand from Lot 218, the current proposal enables the creation of a number of additional benefits for the local community as assessed for the approved project (Umwelt, 2009a) through direct means such as employment and wages, and indirect processes such as spending and use of services.

The alternate access to Lot 218 will create a number of benefits for Worimi LALC including direct income that will enable implementation of a cultural development programme, employment opportunities, training and university scholarships that will be provided as part of a commercial arrangement that has been established between Mackas Sand and Worimi LALC. It will also enable the Worimi Sand Dune Adventures to continue to use an elevated knoll at the western end of Lot 218 extraction area that would have been removed as part of haul route construction if the approved access to Lot 218 extraction area was utilised.

The extraction of sand from Lot 218 will also create benefits for local, state and national governments through land tax, rates, GST, fuel excise and other taxes.

The proposal will provide access to sand within Lot 218 and create a long term and potentially indefinite supply of construction sand and at least 20 years supply of industrial grade sand for the Sydney and Hunter regional markets. It is anticipated that these markets will require up to 3.0 million tonnes of sand per year by 2015, if additional resources do not become available.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 9 Mackas Sand Modification EA Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1.1 1.1 Overview...... 1.1 1.1.1 Background to the Modified Proposal ...... 1.1 1.1.2 The Proponent...... 1.1 1.1.3 The Proposed Modification ...... 1.1 1.2 Approval Requirements ...... 1.2 1.3 Consultation ...... 1.3 1.3.1 Agency Consultation ...... 1.3 1.3.2 Community Consultation ...... 1.3 1.4 Environmental Assessment Team ...... 1.4 1.5 Structure of the Environmental Assessment ...... 1.4

2.0 Description of the Proposed Modifications ...... 2.1 2.1 Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 ...... 2.1 2.1.1 Land Use and Tenure of Alternate Haul Route ...... 2.2 2.1.2 Services ...... 2.2 2.2 Modification to Maximum Depth of Extraction ...... 2.2

3.0 Planning Context ...... 3.1 3.1 Commonwealth Legislation ...... 3.1 3.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...... 3.1 3.1.2 Native Title Act 1993...... 3.1 3.2 New South Wales Legislation ...... 3.1 3.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979...... 3.1 3.2.2 Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 ...... 3.2 3.2.3 Other Legislation ...... 3.2 3.3 Local Planning Instruments...... 3.3 3.3.1 Port Stephens Local Environment Plan 2000 ...... 3.3 3.3.2 Port Stephens Development Control Plan 2007 ...... 3.4

4.0 Environmental Assessment ...... 4.1 4.1 Relevant Previous Work and Conditions...... 4.1 4.2 Environmental Risk Analysis ...... 4.2 4.3 Ecology...... 4.3 4.3.1 Flora ...... 4.3 4.3.2 Fauna ...... 4.5 4.3.3 Potential Impacts ...... 4.7 4.3.4 Proposed Management and Mitigation Measures ...... 4.7 4.4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ...... 4.10 4.4.1 Environmental and Archaeological Context ...... 4.10 4.4.2 Archaeological Surveys and Identified Sites ...... 4.10 4.4.3 Aboriginal Cultural Significance ...... 4.12

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 i Mackas Sand Modification EA Table of Contents

4.4.4 Archaeological Significance ...... 4.12 4.4.5 Potential Impacts ...... 4.13 4.4.6 Proposed Management and Mitigation Measures ...... 4.14 4.4.7 Aboriginal Party Consultation ...... 4.15 4.5 Historical Heritage ...... 4.16 4.6 Traffic and Access ...... 4.16 4.7 Noise ...... 4.18 4.8 Air Quality ...... 4.19 4.9 Water Resources ...... 4.20 4.9.1 Surface Water Resources ...... 4.20 4.9.2 Groundwater Resources ...... 4.20 4.9.3 Soil and Water Management...... 4.22 4.9.4 Groundwater Modelling ...... 4.24 4.9.5 Maximum Extraction Depth ...... 4.25 4.9.6 Temporary Variation to Extraction Depth ...... 4.26 4.10 Rehabilitation ...... 4.26 4.11 Surrounding Land Use ...... 4.27 4.12 Unexploded Ordinance ...... 4.27 4.13 Greenhouse Gas and Energy ...... 4.28 4.14 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4.28

5.0 Consolidated Statement of Commitments for Operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 ...... 5.1 5.1 Operational Controls ...... 5.1 5.2 Ecology...... 5.1 5.3 Aboriginal Heritage ...... 5.2 5.4 Historic Heritage ...... 5.3 5.5 Traffic and Access ...... 5.3 5.6 Noise ...... 5.3 5.7 Air Quality ...... 5.4 5.8 Groundwater ...... 5.4 5.9 Surface Water ...... 5.4 5.10 Public Safety ...... 5.5 5.11 Visual ...... 5.5 5.12 Greenhouse Gases ...... 5.5 5.13 Environmental Management, Monitoring and Auditing...... 5.5

6.0 Conclusion and Justification ...... 6.1 6.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts ...... 6.1 6.2 Suitability of the Site ...... 6.3 6.3 Benefits of the Proposed Modifications ...... 6.3 6.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Modifications ...... 6.3 6.5 Ecologically Sustainable Development ...... 6.4

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 ii Mackas Sand Modification EA Table of Contents

7.0 Checklist of EA Requirements ...... 7.1

8.0 Abbreviations ...... 8.1

9.0 References ...... 9.1

FIGURES

1.1 Locality Plan ...... 1.1

1.2 Proposed Alternate Access Route to Nelson Bay Road...... 1.1

1.3 Proposed Nelson Bay Road Intersection Design ...... 1.1

1.4 Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest ...... 1.1

1.5 Monitoring Sites and Residences ...... 1.2

2.1 Maximum Extraction Depth Map ...... 2.2

4.1 Lot 218 Extraction Area Boundary ...... 4.2

4.2 Alternate Haul Route Vegetation Communities and Threatened Species Locations ...... 4.3

4.3 Location of AHIMS Registered Sites ...... 4.10

4.4 Surveyed Area of Alternate Haul Route with Identified Sites and Features ...... 4.11

4.5 Water Reserves and Easements ...... 4.20

4.6 Sediment and Erosion Controls ...... 4.23

4.7 Predicted Average Groundwater Levels for Lot 218 and Lot 220 ...... 4.24

4.8 Predicted Maximum Groundwater Levels for Lot 218 and Lot 220 ...... 4.24

4.9 Unexploded Ordnance Plan Mackas Sand ...... 4.27

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 iii Mackas Sand Modification EA Table of Contents

APPENDICES

1 Director-General’s Requirements

2 Statement of Authorship and Project Team

3 Ecological Assessment

4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

5 Traffic Report

6 Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 iv Mackas Sand Modification EA Introduction

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Background to the Modified Proposal

Major Project Approval 08_0142 was granted on 20 September 2009 to Mackas Sand Pty Ltd (Mackas Sand) for the extraction of up to 2 million tonnes annually from Lot 218 DP 1044608 and Lot 220 DP 1049608 in Salt Ash, Port Stephens as shown in Figure 1.1. Sand extraction has commenced in Lot 220. The original development consent includes provision for Mackas Sand to access Lot 218 by an unsealed road located within the Crown Road reserve on Pt 76 and the western part of Pt 101 and on private land on the remainder of Pt 101 and Pt 13 in DP 753192, Salt Ash.

Mackas Sand is seeking approval for modification of Major Project Approval 08_0142 to establish an alternate access route to Lot 218. The route will pass via a right of way from Nelson Bay Road to Lot 122 DP 753192 which adjoins the northern boundary of Lot 218. The route as shown on Figure 1.2 is approximately 2 kilometres long and traverses Lot 4 DP 1121457, Lot 1 DP 177679, Lot 810 DP 1008279, Lot 58 DP 753192, and Lot 122 DP 753192. These land parcels are owned by or under agreement to be purchased by B & R B Mackenzie FT Pty Ltd. Access to the extraction area will be via Lot 218. The proposal includes the construction of a new intersection on Nelson Bay Road. The proposed design of the intersection is depicted within Figure 1.3.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) has been engaged by Mackas Sand to undertake the necessary environmental assessments for the proposed modification. The modification proposal is being assessed under Part 3A of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

1.1.2 The Proponent

Mackas Sand currently has approval to undertake sand extraction operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 under agreement with the landowners, Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC). Worimi LALC was formed under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. The objectives of Worimi LALC are to improve, protect and foster the best interests of all Aboriginal people within the Worimi LALC area and other people who are members of the Council.

1.1.3 The Proposed Modification

The modification proposal relates to the modification of the access road to Lot 218 and the access point to the approved Lot 218 extraction area as shown on Figure 1.2.

The proposed modification seeks to construct a gravel road access from the existing Nelson Bay Road alignment approximately 2 kilometres southward through Lot 4 DP 1121457, Lot 1 DP 177679, Lot 810 DP 1008279, Lot 58 DP 753192 and Lot 122 DP 753192 to provide access to the approved extraction area on Lot 218. The proposed route will provide access to the mobile dunes in Lot 218 at an access point approximately

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 1.1

Mackas Sand Modification EA Introduction

600 metres east of the previously approved access point at the western end of the Lot 218 extraction area.

There are no proposed changes to the extraction areas, method of haulage or limits to extraction on Lot 218 other than seeking to temporarily enable the minimum extraction depth to be 0.7 metres above maximum predicted groundwater level with the final landform being at least 1 metre above the maximum predicted groundwater level. This is sought to improve efficiency of operations particularly during dry periods when the groundwater level is well below the maximum predicted level.

A network of groundwater monitoring bores has been established as shown on Figure 1.5. It is proposed to augment this monitoring bore network by establishing additional monitoring bores within the approved Lot 218 and Lot 220 extraction areas once sufficient sand has been extracted to enable bores to be established on the quarry floor in a location that does not adversely impede extraction and transport operations. These bores will be used to monitor groundwater level and quality within the extraction area.

Lot 218 has a total area of approximately 412 hectares with the approved extraction area being approximately 150 hectares in area. The approved extraction area consists of unvegetated mobile sand dunes. Vegetated dunes within Lot 218 and a Water Reserve adjoin the site to the north, while mobile dunes that form part of Stockton Sand Dunes adjoin the site to the south.

Quality Sands and Ceramics sand quarry adjoins the north-western corner of the Lot 218 extraction area.

1.2 Approval Requirements

The original proposal satisfied the definition of a Major Project under State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 and was approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act by the Minister for Planning.

The then Department of Planning advised by email on 19 April 2010:

The Department has decided not to issue specific Director-General's requirements for the proposed modification to the Mackas Sand project.

Nevertheless, the EA for the proposed (development) must address relevant matters from the DGRs issued in October 2008 for the project. The following matters are of particular interest to the Department: Noise; Air quality (dust emissions); Road safety arising from the use of a previously unformed road; Biodiversity issues (such as removal of vegetation to enable use of the proposed new access route); and Any interactions with adjacent landowners.

This modification application has been prepared to address the requirements of Part 3A of the EP&A Act, the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and amendments as well as specific requirements issued by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) (provided in Appendix 1).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 1.2

Mackas Sand Modification EA Introduction

Further details on the approvals process and legislation that applies to the proposal are provided in Section 3.

1.3 Consultation

1.3.1 Agency Consultation

Consultation with government agencies has been undertaken during preparation of the environmental assessment (EA), during and following preparation of the management plans required by Major Project Approval 08_0142 and during the EA undertaken during the modification process. This has included consultation with:

DP&I;

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC);

Port Stephens Council (PSC);

NSW Office of Water (NOW);

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH); and

Hunter Water Corporation (HWC).

Specific issues raised during this consultation in regard to the proposed alternate haul route have related to dust suppression, noise and potential impacts on HWC use of the emergency groundwater borefield or areas proximate for groundwater extraction. No specific issues have been raised in regard to the proposed temporary increase to maximum extraction depth, however, there has been extensive discussion particularly in regard to determination of the maximum predicted groundwater level. The outcomes of this consultation have been taken into consideration and addressed in relevant sections of the document.

1.3.2 Community Consultation

In general all new extractive operations in NSW are required to establish a Community Consultative Committee (CCC). The main purpose of the CCC is to allow for the effective communication between the management of the project (including Environmental Managers employed by the company) and the local community.

Membership of the CCC is made up of at least three members of the community, one member of the local Council, an independent Chairperson, and two to three members of the project management team (including Environmental Managers). Advertisements calling for expressions of interest to be on the CCC were placed in the Port Stephens Examiner in December 2009 and August 2010. The CCC was formed and had its first meeting on 15 September 2010 and met quarterly until March 2012 at which time it was decided to meet every six months. The CCC met most recently on 12 September 2012.

The CCC meets to discuss issues relating to the operation and standing of Mackas Sand within the community in regards to environmental management. It is generally accepted that community members of the CCC will encourage conversation regarding the operation to gauge the attitudes of the community and report back to the CCC at meetings. As well as informal communication such as this, the Chairperson may hold formal information sessions to communicate relevant information to special interest groups.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 1.3 Mackas Sand Modification EA Introduction

In addition to this, a website (www.mackassand.com.au) is used to display plans, strategies, monitoring results and reports and to keep the community informed.

There have been no major issues brought to the CCC since it commenced and Mackas Sand has had no complaints in regard to its operations over this time.

There has been extensive consultation with representative Aboriginal groups, and Port Stephens Council in regard to the proposed alignment and use of the alternate haul road. Consultation with neighbouring land holders in the vicinity of the proposed new intersection on Nelson Bay Road has also been undertaken, including face to face visits and phone calls. The primary concern identified by neighbouring land holders was air quality, which is discussed further in Section 4.8. No other significant concerns were raised by the community during the consultation process.

1.4 Environmental Assessment Team

Umwelt has prepared this modification application. Statement of Authorship and a full listing of the project team members and their respective roles are provided in Appendix 2.

1.5 Structure of the Environmental Assessment

An overview of the structure of this EA is provided below:

Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the modification proposal, the major outcomes of the environmental assessment, and an outline of key commitments that will be made to mitigate any potential impacts.

Section 1 introduces the modification proposal, outlines the background to the proposal, provides a summary of key details, and outlines the structure of the EA.

Section 2 contains a detailed description of the modification proposal, the study area and the consideration of alternative access routes.

Section 3 describes the planning context and environmental context for the proposal, including the applicability of Commonwealth and State legislation.

Section 4 contains a description of the existing environment and a comprehensive analysis and assessment of the key environmental issues relevant to the proposal, including direct and cumulative impacts.

Section 5 details the draft Statement of Commitments proposed to be adopted throughout the life of the proposal in order to mitigate any potential impacts.

Section 6 contains a conclusion as required by the Environmental Assessment Requirements (EARs).

Section 7 provides a checklist of how the EARs have been addressed in the EA.

Section 8 provides a list of abbreviations referred to in the EA.

Section 9 provides a list of references referred to in the EA.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 1.4 Mackas Sand Modification EA Description of the Proposed Modifications

2.0 Description of the Proposed Modifications

2.1 Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

The modification sought is to construct and utilise an alternate route to access the approved sand extraction area on Lot 218 in DP 1044608 (Lot 218), Salt Ash. Lot 218 has a total area of approximately 412 hectares with the approved extraction area occupying approximately 150 hectares. Lot 218 primarily consists of unvegetated mobile sand dunes. Vegetated dunes within a Water Reserve adjoin the lot to the north, while mobile dunes within Crown Reserve 91676 adjoin the site to the south. Quality Sands and Ceramics sand quarry adjoins the site to the north-west on Pt 13 DP 753192.

The approved access to Lot 218 extraction area is via a public road reserve (Stockton Bight Track) that passes through Pt 76 and part of Pt 101 from where it leaves Stockton Bight Track and traverses across Pt 101 and Pt 13 of DP 753192 to Lot 227 DP 1097995 (Lot 227) which provides access to Lot 218. Pt 101 and Pt 13 in DP 753192 are owned by members of the Towers family and Lot 227 is owned Worimi LALC. The approved route from Lot 227 onto Lot 218 would have resulted in a significant earthworks cutting through an elevated knoll within the mobile sand dunes that is now used as a viewing location as part of Worimi Sand Dune Adventures. Access into western side of Lot 218 extraction area via Pt 101, Pt 13 and Lot 227 is no longer the preferred access.

The preferred alternate access to the Lot 218 extraction area is via Lot 4 DP 1121457, Lot 1 DP 177679, Lot 810 DP 1008279, Lot 58 DP 753192 and Lot 122 DP 753192. All lots are owned or under contract to purchase by B & R B Mackenzie FT Pty Ltd.

The alternate access will be constructed with an 8 metre wide combination sealed and gravel pavement that will be constructed along the 20 metre wide easement within Figure 1.2, via Lot 4 DP 1121457, Lot 1 DP 177679, Lot 810 DP 1008279, Lot 58 DP 753192 and Lot 122 DP 753192 and Lot 218. The width of the easement will be decreased to 10 metres where required to avoid impact to areas of ecological, heritage or other values along the alignment as appropriate.

A truck turning bay and loading area approximately 30 metres by 30 metres in area will be constructed adjacent to the advancing face of the mobile dune system. Construction of the proposed access road (including the turning bay) will involve establishing a level surface that can sustain traffic by heavy vehicles. The level of activity required to do this will vary along the proposed access road depending on factors such as the type of vegetation present, previous disturbance (including the level of existing vegetation clearance), landform and slope angle. In general terms, these activities may include vegetation clearance, and filling of areas to create a level surface, and the introduction of road base (or similar) materials.

Vegetation along the 370 metre section between the face of the dune and the northern edge of the forested area on Lot 122 comprises Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt forest ecological community and will result in the removal of approximately 0.37 hectares of this vegetation community to provide for the access route and a small turning area for trucks adjacent to the mobile dune field. The alternate route will avoid disturbance of Diuris praecox or Diuris arenaria which are listed as vulnerable under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) respectively were identified along or adjacent to the proposed alternate access route.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 2.1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Description of the Proposed Modifications

Trees and understorey along the alignment as specified within Section 4.4 will be cleared and windrowed along the edge of the alignment. Geotextile will then be placed over the ground surface prior to sand fill and road base material being placed over the geotextile in order to minimise potential for impact to surface artefacts that may be present within the road alignment.

The chosen route avoids several clusters of ground orchids Diuris praecox and Diuris arenaria. The route veers slightly to the west to pass through a localised depression in consideration of the highly significant Aboriginal Cultural Heritage values present within the landscape (see Section 4.4). From Lot 122, the alternate haul route then traverses across approximately 1150 metres of previously disturbed grassland and 500 metres of existing track to Nelson Bay Road through the inter-barrier depression. This area has low potential for archaeological material and will not require the use of geotextile other than if warranted for pavement construction purposes.

The 200 metres closest to Nelson Bay Road will be sealed to minimise potential air quality and noise impacts to nearby residents. It is anticipated that the proposed alternate access road will take three months to construct.

2.1.1 Land Use and Tenure of Alternate Haul Route

Lot 4 DP 1121457, Lot 1 DP 177679, Lot 810 DP 1008279, and Lot 58 DP 753192, are all zoned 1(a) Rural Agriculture.

The alignment of the proposed access road and surrounding land parcels is shown on Figure 1.2.

Lot 218 is currently vacant, however is currently used for recreational purposes including off-road and four-wheel driving, horse riding, walking, sand tours, etc. Parts of the site have also previously been used as a bombing range and for weapons testing. Lot 218 is zoned 7(c) Environmental Protection – Water Catchment under the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

The land capability and agricultural suitability of the study area has been mapped by Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) Scientific Services Division (2009) and was found to be very low. Lot 218 and the lots through which the proposed road will pass were classified as having a land capability of VII to VIII and an agricultural suitability classification of 5.

2.1.2 Services

An electricity transmission line easement will be crossed by the proposed alternate route. There are no other services known to occur within the alternate haul route alignment.

2.2 Modification to Maximum Depth of Extraction

A detailed groundwater model (Umwelt, 2011b) has been developed for Lot 218 and Lot 220 and the surrounding areas of North Stockton Sand Beds. This model has been used to determine maximum permitted extraction depths for Lot 218 and Lot 220 as shown on Figure 2.1.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 2.2

Mackas Sand Modification EA Description of the Proposed Modifications

Major Project Approval 08_0142 permits extraction to a maximum depth not less than 1 metre above the highest predicted groundwater level and 2 metres above the average groundwater level. As can be seen from Figure 2.1, extraction depths across Lot 218 and Lot 220 permitted by these two criteria are similar, with the maximum predicted groundwater level determining the maximum extraction depth in most locations.

Approval is sought to lower the permitted extraction level in both Lot 218 and Lot 220 to be 0.7 metres above the maximum predicted groundwater level during extraction with the final landform being at least 1 metre higher than the maximum predicted groundwater level as is currently required.

This minor change in extraction depth is sought to improve the efficiency of extraction operations particularly in dry periods when the water table is well below its maximum predicted level. Efficiency is improved through increased trafficability of the exposed sand surface due to the greater moisture content increasing the stability and bearing capacity of the sand. The greater bearing capacity means that travel times, the amount of energy required to operate front-end loaders and dump trucks on the sand, and wear and tear, are significantly reduced.

In previous consultation in regard to maximum depths of extraction, NOW representatives have indicated that extraction to a depth 0.7 metre above the maximum predicted groundwater level may be accepted provided that the final landform for the site was reshaped to provide a minimum of 1 metre of sand above the maximum predicted groundwater level.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 2.3 Mackas Sand Modification EA Planning Context

3.0 Planning Context

3.1 Commonwealth Legislation

3.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth EPBC Act requires any action that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on Commonwealth land or Matters of National Environmental Significance to obtain approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment.

A search of the Commonwealth Government’s Protected Matters Search Tool was undertaken on 10 October 2012 and did not identify any Matters of National Environmental Significance in relation to the proposal. The proposal will not affect any Commonwealth lands.

A discussion of impacts to actual and potential EPBC listed flora and fauna is included in Section 4.3. The proposed modification has been referred under the EPBC Act to DSEWPC.

3.1.2 Native Title Act 1993

The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 provides for determinations of native title in Australia. The main objects of the Act are:

to provide for the recognition and protection of Native Title;

to establish ways in which future dealings affecting Native Title may proceed and to set standards for those dealings;

to establish a mechanism for determining claims to Native Title; and

to provide for, or permit that validation of past acts, and intermediate period acts, invalidated because of the existence of Native Title.

Native Title claims are investigated by the National Native Title Tribunal and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

On 28 November 2005, it was determined that Native Title did not exist for an area that included Lots 218 and 220.

3.2 New South Wales Legislation

3.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The original proposal satisfied the definition of a Major Project under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 and approval was given in accordance with the requirements of the now repealed Part 3A of the EP&A Act. Modifications to projects approved under Part 3A that are outside the scope of the original approval are permitted with consent under Section 75W of the EP&A Act. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is the determining authority for modifications under Section 75W of the EP&A Act.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3.1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Planning Context

3.2.2 Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983

Ownership of Lots 218, 220 and 227 and what is now the Worimi Conservation Lands have been transferred to Worimi LALC in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. Clause 45(2) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 states:

45(2) Not withstanding any other Act, but subject to this section:

(a) any transfer of lands to an Aboriginal Land Council under section 36 includes the transfer of mineral resources or other natural resources contained in those lands,

(b) any vesting of the title to lands in an Aboriginal Land Council under Section 37 includes, subject to that section, the vesting of the title to the mineral resources or other natural resources contained in those lands.

Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, consent is required from NSW Aboriginal Land Council for land dealings associated with the development. NSW Aboriginal Land Council issued a Dealing Approval Certificate on 11 October 2011 under Division 4 of Part 2 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 for Worimi LALC providing their consent to the proposed amendment to the access road for Major Project Approval 08_0142 for the purpose of sand extraction at Lot 218 in DP 1044608.

3.2.3 Other Legislation

Table 3.1 discusses the application of other NSW legislation to the proposal.

Table 3.1 – NSW Legislation

Legislation Key Requirements Relevance to the Proposal Heritage Act Approval is required from the Heritage No approval is required under this 1977 Council of NSW to disturb or excavate legislation for projects assessed land where this will or is likely to result in under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed. National Parks Approval is required from DECC to No approval is required under this and Wildlife Act destroy, deface or damage; or cause or legislation for projects assessed 1974 permit the destruction of or damage to under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal Place. Native Approval is required under this Act from No approval is required under this Vegetation Act the relevant Catchment Management legislation for projects assessed 2003 Authority to clear native vegetation in under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. certain circumstances. Protection of the Environment Protection Licences are The sand extractive activities Environment required from OEH for ‘scheduled approved under Major Project Operations Act activities’ and ‘scheduled development Approval 08_0142 are subject to 1997 work’. EPL 13218. No additional EPL will be required for the proposed modification to the approved project. Roads Act 1993 Development that affects a public road, Approval under the Roads Act will be Crown road, highway, main road, sought for the proposed new freeway or tollway requires approval intersection with Nelson Bay Road from the NSW Roads and Traffic before the commencement of Authority (now Roads and Maritime construction of the intersection. Services (RMS)) or the local Council under this Act.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3.2 Mackas Sand Modification EA Planning Context

Table 3.1 – NSW Legislation (cont)

Legislation Key Requirements Relevance to the Proposal Threatened Approval is required to: A comprehensive ecological Species (a) harm any animal that is of, or is part assessment has been prepared for the Conservation of, a threatened species, population proposed modification and is presented Act 1995 or ecological community; in Appendix 3. Impact assessments prepared for the proposal in (b) pick any plant that is of, or is part of, accordance with this Act concluded a threatened species, population or that approval is not required under this ecological community; legislation. (c) damage critical habitat; or (d) damage habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community. Water Approval is required to interfere with No approvals under the Water Management any groundwater sources contained in Management Act 2003 are sought at Act 2003 the Tomago, Tomaree and Stockton this time. A water access licence may aquifers in accordance with the Water be sought in the future but will be the Sharing Plan for the Tomago-Tomaree- subject of a separate application. Stockton Groundwater Sources 2003, which was made in accordance with this legislation.

3.2.3.1 Hunter Water Regulations 2010

The Hunter Water Regulations 2010 are a regulation under the Hunter Water Act 1991 that applies to the Chichester, Grahamstown, Nelson Bay, North Stockton and Tomago Catchment Areas. The proposal lies within the North Stockton Catchment. Under Clause 10 (1) of the Regulation a person can only engage in an extractive industry with an approval given by the Director-General of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services.

A permit under the Hunter Water Regulations 2010 for sand extraction operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 was granted on 7 June 2012.

3.3 Local Planning Instruments

3.3.1 Port Stephens Local Environment Plan 2000

The proposal has been considered in accordance with the provisions of the Port Stephens LEP 2000. This plan sets the broad planning framework for development in Port Stephens. The proposed haul road modification is located within Zone 1(a) Rural Agriculture. The objective of this zone is to maintain the rural character of the area and to promote the efficient and sustainable utilisation of rural land and resources and regulate development for purposes other than agriculture, so that the development is compatible with rural land uses, the environment and the amenity of the locality.

The construction and use of the proposed alternate road is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone 1(a) Rural Agriculture.

The Draft Port Stephens LEP 2012 is scheduled to be exhibited publicly towards the end of 2012. The proposed haul route is within land zoned RU2 – Rural Landscape within the draft LEP and is consistent within the approved land uses with consent for that zone.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3.3 Mackas Sand Modification EA Planning Context

3.3.2 Port Stephens Development Control Plan 2007

The Port Stephens Development Control Plan 2007 (the DCP) provides guidelines for development within the Port Stephens Local Government Area (LGA). Under Section 75R of the EP&A Act, the DCP does not apply to projects being assessed under Part 3A of that Act. However, Port Stephens Council has requested that consideration is given to the DCP in the EA. Table 3.2 outlines relevant elements of the DCP and their relevance to the proposal.

Table 3.2 – Port Stephens Development Control Plan 2007

Section Relevant Requirement Relevance to Proposal B2.3 Development must comply with the provisions The proposal is consistent with of Council’s Urban Stormwater and Rural Port Stephens Council’s Urban Water Quality Management Plan. Stormwater and Rural Water Quality Management Plan. B2.4 Development Applicants should refer to The proposed alternate haul route will Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 not involve any excavation or section 51 A – Development of Land Identified disturbance of potentially acid on Acid Sulphate Soils for relevant generating soils or lower the development standards. groundwater table in areas where potentially acid generating soils may occur. B2.C14 Clearing must not be carried out as an activity Clearing will be necessary to enable in itself for an unspecified end-use. Clearing the proposed alternate haul route to be must only be considered where it is necessary constructed. This is addressed in to enable a land use permitted on the land. Section 4.3. B2.C15 Development must provide filter and protection A detailed Soil and Water strip to natural drainage lines, watercourses, Management Plan has been prepared streams, foreshores of constructed drainage setting out sediment and erosion corridors, riparian habitat strips and exclusion controls that are to be implemented zones for preserving vulnerable and/or and maintained along the alternate significant remnant vegetation and species. haul route as discussed in Section 4.9. Potential impacts to biodiversity are discussed in Section 4.3. B2.C16 Development near watercourses must provide Development will not be undertaken riparian buffer up to 40 metres. within 40 metres of Tilligerry Creek or other natural watercourse. B2.C18 Development must contain nutrient and Measures to prevent erosion and sediment flows and minimise weed dispersal in sediment transport are outlined in non-urban zones or on sites adjoining remnant Section 4.9. bushland or semi-natural open spaces using permanent mitigation measures (such as bund walls, catch drains, swales and settling ponds). B2.C19 The proposed means of clearing must be Clearing methods are detailed in appropriate to soil type, species of understorey Sections 4.3 and 4.4. or tree to be retained. Details must be provided with the development application. B2.20 Erosion and sediment controls during and after The proposed erosion and sediment construction should have minimal impact on controls will not cause additional watercourses and remnant bushland. environmental impacts (refer to Section 4.9). B2.C21 Development should reuse cleared material Cleared material will be re-used along where possible. the proposed alternate haul route and for rehabilitation of the site (refer to Sections 4.9 and 4.10).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3.4 Mackas Sand Modification EA Planning Context

Table 3.2 – Port Stephens Development Control Plan 2007 (cont)

Section Relevant Requirement Relevance to Proposal B2.C23 Development must provide buffer zones as The study area does not contain core screening to roads for the protection of koala habitat areas or any Endangered identified core habitats, koala habitat buffer Ecological Communities (refer to area and Endangered Ecological Communities. Section 4.3). B2.C25 Development must provide temporary Clearing methods have been tree/vegetation protection measures prior to developed to minimise disturbance to any clearing works. fauna species (refer to Section 4.3). B2.C26 All millable timber must be retrieved. Waste All cleared timber will be retained for vegetation must be recycled as chip, tub use along the proposed alternate haul grindings or mulch. The use of woodchip, route and in rehabilitation (refer to topsoil and tub grindings for on site mulching or Sections 4.3 and 4.10). seedbank regeneration is preferred. B2.C27 Development must provide full time supervision A Mackas Sand representative, and of clearing works to protect environmental ecologist, and representatives of the values. Aboriginal Heritage Management Group will inspect areas proposed for clearing activities as described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. B2.C28 Development must include rehabilitation or The alternate haul route will be revegetation works for any areas adversely maintained as an access throughout affected by clearing or construction works. and beyond the life of the quarry. Vegetated sections of the extraction areas will be rehabilitated in accordance with the approved Landscape Management Plan (refer to Sections 4.3 and 4.10). B2.C29 Development must include effective measures Measures to mitigate potential erosion to mitigate any potential adverse impacts from and sediment impacts are detailed in soil erosion, siltation of watercourses and Section 4.9. Measures to mitigate alteration to drainage patterns, the spread of potential biodiversity issues are weeds, rubbish dumping and incursion by detailed in Section 4.2. domestic or feral animals. B2.C30 A separate approval for vegetation clearance Approval is not required under the may be required from the Catchment Native Vegetation Act 2003 for Management Authority (CMA) in accordance projects being assessed under with the Native Vegetation Act 2003. The Section 75 W of the EP&A Act. applicant should consult with the CMA prior to lodging an application with Council.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3.5 Mackas Sand Modification EA Planning Context

Table 3.2 – Port Stephens Development Control Plan 2007 (cont)

Section Relevant Requirement Relevance to Proposal B2.C34 An application for development on sites that An assessment of koala habitat was contain Preferred or Supplementary Habitat, made during the ecological Habitat Buffers and Habitat Linking Areas as assessment of the study area (refer to identified in Port Stephens Comprehensive Section 4.3). Section 4.3 provides Koala Plan of Management must include: details of vegetation clearing and An assessment of koala habitat, by a measures to mitigate impacts to fauna suitably qualified person, in accordance such as koalas. with the Guidelines for Koala Habitat Assessment (Appendix 6 of the CKPoM); Clear details concerning which vegetation is to be cleared or disturbed and which is to be retained; Details of proposed building envelopes and fire fuel reduction zones and how they will be enforced; Proposed measures to restore koala habitat that will result in a net gain of habitat; Proposed measures to allow safe movement of koalas and measures to mitigate the impact from dogs that occupy the adjacent habitat; Details of any proposed program to monitor koalas and their habitat during and following construction; and Proposed measures to mitigate the impact of motor vehicles on koalas. B2.C44 During the construction phase development The alignment of the alternate haul must provide: route is not substantially affected by Controls to prevent the spread of weeds on weeds. machinery including a disposal and wash No soil, mulch or plants will be down area; imported to the site as part of the An area for storage of contaminated spoil proposed alternate haul route that is separate from clean material; modification other than road-base and sub-base that will be free of weeds. Certification that any soil, mulch and plants brought onto the site is free of weeds and weed seeds; and Site inductions for all personnel and visitors that includes weed management practices as required by Council. B2.C45 Tree removal must be in accordance with the As the proposal is being considered provisions of the Port Stephens Tree under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, the Preservation Policy (1998). policy does not apply. B2.C46 Tree and vegetation removal must comply with As the proposal is being considered the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, the 2003. Act does not apply. B2.C51 Control run-off from site must comply with The proposal is consistent with the Hunter Water Corporation’s Special Areas Hunter Water Regulations 2010 Regulation 1989. (refer to Section 3.2.3.1).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3.6 Mackas Sand Modification EA Planning Context

Table 3.2 – Port Stephens Development Control Plan 2007 (cont)

Section Relevant Requirement Relevance to Proposal B2.C71 Figure B2.3 Building Site Acceptability Based Small sections of Lot 218 are located on ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) in zones marked 20-25 ANEF and Zones shows the acceptability of different 25-30 ANEF on Figure B2.3 of the types of development and their acceptability DCP. based on Australian Standard 2021-2000. It The proposal does not involve any specifies the detail required to be submitted development for residential or with development applications for each type of accommodation purposes. The development. When a development application proposal is not consistent with any of is received for a type of development that is not the development types listed in listed Council will exercise its discretion as to Section B2 of the DCP, which relate to whether an acoustic report is required. these types of development. It is Where Figure B2.3 specifies that a considered unlikely that the proposal development application is ‘Conditionally will be adversely affected by aircraft Acceptable’ an acoustic report must be noise. submitted that is signed and endorsed by an acoustic engineer. The report must demonstrate that Australian Standard 2021-2000 has been considered in the design of the building and any proposed attenuation measures must be incorporated into the design and conditions of the consent. B2.C73 Erosion and sediment control measures for Any erosion and sediment controls will development works must be prepared in be prepared in accordance with the accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Erosion and Sediment Control Control Regional Policy and Code of Practice Regional Policy (Port Stephens for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Council 2002) and Code of Practice for Construction (Landcom 2004). Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction (Landcom 2004) (refer to Section 4.9). B3.C2 New development proposals, including the The proposal is not consistent with any change of use or intensification of existing of the development types listed in the businesses, must provide the required number Schedule of Car Parking of parking spaces in accordance with Requirements provided in the DCP. Schedule of Car Parking Requirements. In the case of a combination of uses on a single site, the car parking requirements must be added together. B3.C4 Where the proposed development is not listed An assessment of traffic impacts was within the Schedule of Car Parking undertaken for the proposal (refer to Requirements, Council must determine the Section 4.6). required number of car parking spaces, by External car parking has not been either: considered in the EA as the proposal The applicant submitting a traffic report will not affect existing car parking prepared by either a suitably qualified areas or require the construction of consultant to determine the required additional car parking spaces. number of car parking spaces; or Council staff establishing a rationale to calculate the required number of car parking spaces.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 3.7 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.0 Environmental Assessment

4.1 Relevant Previous Work and Conditions

Potential environmental impacts of extractive operations on Lot 218 were addressed as part of the EA (Umwelt, 2009a) that accompanied Major Project Approval application 08_0142 to the Minister for Planning. Through the review and submission process, appropriate environmental controls were refined with these controls set out in approval conditions granted on 20 September 2009, licence conditions and Statement of Commitments from the proponent, Mackas Sand.

Since that time an Environmental Management Strategy (Umwelt, 2011a) and a number of reports, management plans and monitoring programs have been prepared and submitted to relevant government agencies. These include:

Maximum Extraction Depth Map;

Groundwater Monitoring Report;

Soil and Water Management Plan;

Landscape Management Plan;

. Biodiversity Monitoring program; . Weed Management Plan; and . Rehabilitation and Decommissioning Plan.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management Plan;

Non-Indigenous Heritage Management Plan;

Noise Management Plan;

Summer 2011, Winter 2011, June 2012 and September 2012 Noise Monitoring Programs;

Air Quality Monitoring Program;

Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan;

Operational Management Procedure;

Hydrocarbon Spill Procedure; and

Annual Environmental Management Reports for 2009-2011 and 2011-2012.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

Extraction operations at Lot 220 and environmental performance are discussed in detail in the Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR) (Umwelt, 2012). The AEMR includes:

details of production levels since operations commenced;

description of operations that have been undertaken and are proposed for the next 12 months;

results and analysis of dust, noise and groundwater monitoring undertaken;

records of complaints (none received); and

environmental performance of Mackas Sand Lot 220 operations against relevant approval and licence conditions.

Each of the above reports, management plans and monitoring programs are available on Mackas Sand website (www.mackassand.com.au.com). These reports detail the current status of sand extraction operations under Major Project Approval 08_0142.

Prior to lodging this modification application, there had been no extractive operations undertaken at Lot 218. Mobile sand within the approved extraction area has continued to move landward since 2009 with groundwater monitoring bore SP6 which was located approximately 20 metres north of the advancing edge of the mobile dune being buried by several metres of windblown sand between February and March 2011. The rate of sand advancement means that surveying and pegging the landward boundary of the approved extraction area as required by approval conditions is not feasible. An alternative is to delineate the approved landward boundary of the mobile dunes using GPS as is approved for delineating the seaward boundary of the approved Lot 218 extraction area. The boundary and survey co-ordinates of the approved extraction area on Lot 218 are shown on Figure 4.1.

4.2 Environmental Risk Analysis

During the planning and consultation process for the proposed alternate haul route modification a preliminary risk analysis was undertaken. The following potential environmental impacts of constructing and using the alternate haul route were considered and have been addressed as part of the EA as noted:

Ecology – This is assessed further in Section 4.3.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage – This is assessed further in Section 4.4.

Historic Heritage – This is further assessed in Section 4.5.

Traffic and Access – This is assessed further in Section 4.6.

Noise – This is assessed further in Section 4.7.

Air Quality – This is assessed further in Section 4.8.

Water Resources – This is assessed further in Section 4.9.

Rehabilitation – This is assessed further in Section 4.10.

Surrounding Land Use – This is assessed further in Section 4.11.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.2

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

Unexploded Ordinances – This is assessed further in Section 4.12.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy – This is assessed further in Section 4.13.

Visual – No further assessment as there is no significant change to visual aspects of the development.

Cumulative Impacts – This is assessed further in Section 4.14.

4.3 Ecology

A detailed ecological assessment of the study area was prepared by Umwelt and is presented in Appendix 3.

The purpose of the assessment was to determine the existing natural environment and likely impacts of the proposal on the biodiversity of the area, in particular threatened species, populations and communities listed under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act.

As shown on Figure 1.4, the proposed development is located adjacent to the 4438 hectares of Worimi Conservation Lands and Worimi National Park, which contain similar and higher quality vegetation communities to those of the project area.

4.3.1 Flora

Three vegetation communities were recorded within the project area: Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest, Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest and Previously Disturbed Grassland. The distribution of these communities within the project area is shown in Figure 4.2. No vegetation occurs in the Lot 218 operational area.

In addition to the quadrat and rapid assessment plots that were completed and surveys undertaken in spring 2011, targeted orchid surveys were undertaken on 6, 20 September 2012 and 12 October 2012. These surveys consisted of meander transects undertaken on- foot targeting the threatened orchid species sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) and rough doubletail (Diuris praecox). Any of these threatened orchid species identified in the field were way-pointed with a GPS in order to identify locations to be avoided and for mapping purposes.

Targeted orchid surveys identified sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) occurring in a previously recorded location near the alternate haul route but not within the alternate haul route. The other orchid species, Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) was not detected during the targeted orchid surveys. Additional inspection undertaken on 20 September 2012 and 12 October 2012 also failed to locate any Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) flowering.

4.3.1.1 Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest

The Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest (nomenclature following Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (LHCCREMS) vegetation classification (NPWS, 2000)), occurs in the southern part of the proposed alternate haul route and covers approximately 0.37 hectares within the proposed alternate haul road alignment, and extends into the adjoining Worimi Conservation Lands. This community is characterised by a canopy stratum to 30 per cent cover, up to 16 metres in height that is dominated by blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) and smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata). A sub-canopy layer is present and is dominated by old man banksia (Banksia serrata) and broom-heath (Monotoca elliptica). The sub-canopy typically has a canopy cover of 10 per cent and a height of up to 10 metres.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.3

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

The understorey stratum is mostly open (5 per cent canopy cover) and dominated by Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia), prickly Moses (Acacia ulicifolia), bossiaea (Bossiaea rhombifolia) and Platysace lanceolata. The ground cover is generally dense (to 50 per cent canopy cover) consisting of common bracken fern (Pteridium esculentum), kangaroo grass (Themeda australis), blady grass (Imperata cylindrica var. major), raspwort (Gonocarpus teucrioides) and flax lily (Dianella caerulea var. producta). This community generally consists of a good succession of species in all strata.

4.3.1.2 Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest

Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (nomenclature following LHCCREMS vegetation classification), occurs in a moist depression along the eastern border of the alternate haul route, adjacent to Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest and occupies an area of approximately 0.42 hectares. This vegetation community is characterised by a canopy stratum to 30 per cent cover and 15 metres in height that is dominated by swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) and will not be disturbed by the proposed alternate haul route.

The understorey is open (10-15 per cent cover), to 8 metres in height, consisting of prickly tea-tree (Leptospermum juniperinum) and lemon-scented tea-tree (Leptospermum polygalifolium). The groundcover stratum is typically dense (60 per cent canopy cover), and is dominated by Juncus spp., saw-sedge (Gahnia clarkei) and swamp water fern (Blechnum indicum).

4.3.1.3 Previously Disturbed Grassland

As shown on Figure 4.2, a significant proportion of the northern section of the alternate haul route comprises previously disturbed areas such as existing dirt roads and 1.18 hectares of previously disturbed grassland. In the disturbed grassland, vegetation has been cleared for agricultural purposes, leaving only ground cover vegetation, typically less than 0.5 metres in height.

The disturbed grassland in most cases is dominated by introduced grasses such as paspalum (Paspalum dilatatum), kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) and red Natal grass (Melinis repens). Introduced herbs were also common, including fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis), white clover (Trifolium repens), Paddy’s lucerne (Sida rhombifolia) and cobbler’s pegs (Bidens pilosa).

Native species were also recorded in the grassland however these make up approximately 5 per cent of the groundcover species within this community. The native species recorded in the grassland include common couch (Cynodon dactylon) and slender rat’s tail grass (Sporobolus creber). In areas subject to inundation native species included Juncus sp., common reed (Phragmites australis) and broadleaf cumbungi (Typha orientalis) were recorded.

4.3.1.4 Threatened Flora Species and Endangered Populations

No threatened flora species or endangered flora populations were recorded along the proposed haul route during this assessment.

Previous surveys have identified three threatened species or hybrids of threatened species occurring within the vicinity of the proposed haul route including Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina) which is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts and two cryptic orchid species, sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) which is listed as endangered

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.4 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

under the TSC Act and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) which is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts (refer to Figure 4.2).

Although it was not identified during surveys of the Project Area, potential habitat was identified for the threatened leafless tongue-orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana). Despite the absence of records, it should be noted that surveys were not undertaken during the flowering season of this orchid (November to January) and that despite the rarity of this species there was considered to be potential for this species to occur. The leafless tongue orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) is listed as a vulnerable species under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act.

No other threatened flora species or endangered flora populations were recorded along the alternate haul route.

A list of all threatened flora species recorded or regarded to have potential to occur within a 10 kilometre radius of the Project Area (based on database searches and literature review) is presented in Appendix 3.

4.3.2 Fauna

4.3.2.1 Fauna Habitat

The alternate haul route provides foraging, roosting and nesting habitats for a variety of fauna species. Two broad habitat types were identified along the alternate haul route: open forest and previously disturbed/grassland. While the previously disturbed/grassland areas provide mostly foraging habitat, the open forest areas provide a range of habitat niches for fauna species.

The canopy in the open forest habitat is dominated by smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata) and blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) which support a moderate abundance of tree hollows providing important habitat for hollow-dependent fauna. A total of two habitat trees were recorded and marked within a 20 metre buffer of the proposed alternate haul route.

The canopy trees also provide foraging resources such as insects, nectar and foliage, for a wide variety of fauna including small and medium sized arboreal mammals, birds and reptiles. Swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) provides an important winter foraging resource for a wide range of species, in particular migratory birds.

The open, mid-stratum of the open forest habitat supports tea-trees and paperbarks, providing a good nectar resource for birds and arboreal mammals. These shrubs, combined with the dense ground stratum of grasses and sedges also provide important cover and refuge for reptiles, small mammals and birds.

Narrow artificial drainage channels occur throughout the disturbed grassland and these, in conjunction with slow draining depressions, provide the only local surface water resources for fauna species.

4.3.2.2 Koala Habitat

The proposed alternate haul route will pass through a small area of Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest which is classified as Supplementary Koala Habitat (SKH). However given its proximity to the Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (less than 50 metres away) which is identified as Preferred Koala Habitat (PKH) some is reclassified as Habitat Buffer over SKH as described within Appendix 3.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.5 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.3.2.3 Animal Species

A total of 36 fauna species were recorded during fauna surveys of the alternate haul route, including 30 bird species, one mammal species, two reptile species and three amphibian species.

4.3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

One threatened species was recorded during the 2012 surveys; being the grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) which is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. A group of seven of these birds were identified to the east of the alternate haul route. Previous surveys have identified three threatened species adjacent to the alternate haul route (refer to Figure 4.2) and a further seven species are known to occur in the vicinity. Other threatened fauna species known or expected to occur in the study area include:

little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis);

grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus);

long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus);

varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera);

glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami);

swift parrot (Lathamus discolor);

regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia);

masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae);

powerful owl (Ninox strenua);

brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa);

koala (Phascolarctos cinereus);

eastern pygmy possum (Cercatetus nanus);

squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis);

eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis);

eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis);

greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii);

yellow-bellied sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris);

large-eared pied-bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri); and

spotted-tail quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.6 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

A total of 12 migratory and/or marine fauna species were identified as occurring or having the potential to occur in the area surrounding the alternate haul route based on the results of an EPBC Protected Matters search and habitat availability within these areas.

4.3.3 Potential Impacts

4.3.3.1 Flora

Development of Lot 218 extraction area will not remove any vegetation or create any ecological impacts beyond the boundary of the operational area. The development of the proposed alternate haul route involves the disturbance of approximately 0.37 hectares of native vegetation and approximately 1.18 hectares of previously disturbed grassland. As shown on Figure 1.4, there is similar and higher quality vegetation in the large expanse of vegetation extending along the Stockton dune system, which is contiguous with the project area. This includes the Worimi Conservation Lands and Worimi National Park.

Although the natural vegetation within the project disturbance area is of ecological significance (approximately 0.37 hectares), the small area of impact will not significantly reduce the area of any vegetation communities or affect floristic diversity on a local or regional scale.

Assessments of significance (in accordance with the EP&A Act and EPBC Act) are included within Appendix 3. The proposal has been discussed with a DSEWPC representative and has been referred under the EPBC Act.

4.3.3.2 Fauna

No threatened fauna species have been recorded within the alternate haul route, however 11 threatened species are known to occur in adjacent, contiguous habitats and the alternate haul route provides potential habitat for a further nine threatened fauna species.

Assessments of significance (in accordance with the EP&A Act) prepared for the threatened fauna species previously recorded within the vicinity and those deemed to have the potential to occur within the alternate haul route (see Appendix 3) determined that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on any threatened fauna species based on the small area of impact to potential fauna habitat (0.37 hectares) and the large areas of similar and contiguous habitat in the vicinity of the alternate haul route.

4.3.4 Proposed Management and Mitigation Measures

4.3.4.1 Vegetation Clearance

The following mitigation measures are based on those developed for the EA Umwelt (2009a) for approved sand extraction operation (Major Project Approval 08_0142). The following sections describe the relevant mitigation measures, how they relate to the proposed development and how they should be integrated with the ecological management of the approved sand extraction operations.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.7 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

Trees will be cleared in accordance with the procedure described below. The identification of tree hollows is to be undertaken by an appropriately qualified and experienced ecologist during pre-clearance inspections.

Within the area of clearing, hollow-bearing trees and other habitat structures such as stags, logs and stumps will be clearly marked by an appropriately qualified and experienced ecologist to prevent accidental clearing.

Vegetation surrounding the marked habitat structures will be cleared and the marked structures left undisturbed for a period of 24 hours.

Marked hollow-bearing trees will be shaken prior to felling using a bulldozer and then left for a short period to allow any fauna using the hollows to be observed.

Hollow-bearing trees will be slowly pushed over using a bulldozer, with care taken to avoid damage to hollows.

Immediately following tree felling each of the identified hollows will be examined for fauna by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist.

Where practical, felled trees will be left for a 24-hour period prior to removal in order to allow species to move in to adjoining vegetation of their own volition.

Nocturnal species which do not immediately move into adjoining vegetation will be captured and kept in a warm, dark and quiet place prior to release within the same vegetation community from which it was captured at night.

Captured nocturnal animals will be released on the evening of capture and will not be held for extended periods of time.

In the event that injured fauna are identified, species will be immediately taken to the nearest veterinarian or certified wildlife carer for treatment.

The timing of clearing operations will be designed to reduce the potential impact on breeding species, particularly the squirrel glider and threatened micro-bats. Clearing will (where possible) avoid the winter months when micro-bats and the eastern pygmy possum are in a state of torpor and squirrel gliders begin to breed.

Salvaged tree hollows and logs will be stockpiled and used in site rehabilitation. Once rehabilitation is structurally mature, salvaged tree hollows will be replaced in similar densities to those in unaffected vegetation on the site. Salvaged logs and branches will be spread following topsoil spreading to enhance ground fauna characteristics.

Nest boxes will be used in lieu of salvaged tree hollows if appropriate, as determined as part of the rehabilitation management of the site.

4.3.4.2 Road Usage Rules for the Protection of Ecological Values

A number of threatened fauna species have potential to be injured or killed as a result of traffic on the proposed alternate haul route. The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa) and the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus) are examples of species that have potential to pass over the alternate haul route on the ground. Other fauna species such as kangaroos, wallabies and possums also have potential to be injured crossing this road.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.8 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

Due to the potential risk of injury/death to fauna crossing the alternate haul route, it is appropriate to have road usage rules to minimise potential impacts on native fauna. The following road usage rules are proposed:

enforce a 40 kilometre per hour maximum speed limit on the alternate haul route for all quarry traffic;

minimise night traffic where possible (most fauna collisions are likely to occur at night time, in particular dusk and dawn);

erect signage at either end of the alternate haul route to inform drivers of the ecological values of the habitats through which it passes and therefore the need to drive with caution; and

leave tree canopies overhanging the track where safe and appropriate as this will allow some gliding species to cross without coming to the ground.

4.3.4.3 Rehabilitation

On completion of sand extraction works, if the alternate haul route is no longer required for other purposes such as fire fighting, rehabilitation of the road should be integrated with that of the quarry, in accordance with the rehabilitation principles outlined in the Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt, 2009d).

Broadly, rehabilitation of the alternate haul route will aim to re-establish the native vegetation communities that existed prior to clearing for its construction. Revegetation of disturbed areas will utilise locally-occurring plant species in a composition that closely resembles that of the pre-development vegetation communities. Monitoring of any revegetated areas along the road access should be integrated with any monitoring program for the sand extraction areas as described in the Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt, 2009d).

4.3.4.4 Biodiversity Offsetting Considerations

The vegetation present in the alternate haul route supports known and potential habitat for a number of threatened flora and fauna species. Although there are threatened species habitats present, the area of impact of the proposed development is small (0.37 hectares of native vegetation and fauna habitat) and it adjoins a very large remnant of vegetation which offers similar or higher quality habitats for the same threatened species, which is conserved in Worimi Conservation Lands and National Park. The alternate haul route does not comprise unique values or areas that are dissimilar to the surrounding coastal dune system. The alternate haul route will have very little impact on threatened species habitats in the locality.

The Worimi LALC owns a significant area (4438 hectares) of native vegetation along the Stockton dune system which is managed for its conservation values. The Worimi Conservation Land includes the 524 hectare Worimi National Park. The dedication of the Conservation Land was part of an agreement to allow some parts of the Stockton sand dune system to be developed (including for sand extraction) while dedicating other areas to conservation. As set out in the original EA (Umwelt, 2009), the establishment of Worimi Conservation Land has previously been accepted as an adequate biodiversity offset for the development.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.9 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) for the extraction areas was completed in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders and in accordance with Condition 29 of Major Project Approval 08_0142 (Umwelt, 2009c). The ACHMP was approved by the then Department of Planning on 9 November 2009. An Aboriginal Heritage Management Group (AHMG) was subsequently established in accordance with the ACHMP.

A comprehensive Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment was undertaken for the proposal and is presented in Appendix 4. The assessment included:

undertaking detailed consultation with relevant Aboriginal stakeholders in accordance with the DECCW Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants;

reviewing the environmental and archaeological context of the Stockton Bight region and the alternate haul route in order to develop a model with which to predict the likelihood of archaeological material existing;

undertaking a survey of the alternate haul route in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders;

assessing the cultural heritage significance of the alternate haul route primarily based upon the scientific and Aboriginal cultural heritage;

reviewing the impacts of the alternate haul route in relation to the archaeological assessment; and

providing appropriate recommendations to manage and mitigate impacts to cultural heritage associated with the alternate haul route.

4.4.1 Environmental and Archaeological Context

Environmental factors such as the availability of fresh water and other resources influence the choices people make about how they use the landscape and also affect the likelihood that archaeological evidence will be present and detectible. The alternate haul route is located across the interface between stabilised dunes of Holocene age and the inter-barrier depression. The stabilised dunes would have provided direct access to the swamp resources of the inter-barrier depression whilst also being within 2 kilometres of the current beachfront and marine resources. Furthermore, the Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt vegetation community that populated the dunes would have provided a very broad variety of animal and plant resources.

A total of 75 AHIMS registered sites have been recorded within the search area. These sites are shown in Figure 4.3. Middens (AFT and SHL) are the most common site type, followed by artefact scatters/isolated artefacts (ART) and sites with shell only (SHL).

4.4.2 Archaeological Surveys and Identified Sites

Previous archaeological field surveys were undertaken along transects of the alternate haul route in Lot 218 and within the general vicinity of the alternate haul route as described within Appendix 4. Further survey of the alternate haul route was conducted on 30 July 2012. In addition on-site discussion in regard to proposed management measures was undertaken at that time. The survey team included representatives of Worimi LALC, Mur-Roo-Ma Inc and Nur-Run-Gee Pty Limited. The alternate haul route was surveyed on foot with the exception of the sections of the alternate haul route that are located within the inter-barrier depression.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.10

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

The level of effective coverage within the area surveyed for the proposed alternate haul route was 1.6 per cent of the total area subject to pedestrian survey. It is noted that only approximately 20 per cent (380 metres) of the proposed route could be subject to pedestrian survey as the remaining 80 per cent of the proposed route was located in the swamplands of the inter-barrier depression and was considered to have no archaeological potential.

Previously recorded site A3 is present within the alternate haul route and was identified during the survey. Previous archaeological excavations have identified high densities of stone and shell, as well as a dated hearth feature as discussed within Appendix 4.

Four fragmented shell loci (one containing a tuff flake) were identified during the survey and are shown in Figure 4.4. Loci 1 to 4 are located within a 150 metre by 150 metre area on the crests of four discrete, low elevation dunes bordering the inter-barrier depression. Based on the results of the survey and previous archaeological investigations undertaken in this area, A3 extends right along this landform, with visible aspects of the site separated by areas of low visibility or disturbance.

Locus 1 is located on the crest of a low elevation dune adjacent to woodland. The surface distribution of shell at Locus 1 extends over an area of approximately 25 metres by 15 metres. The locus contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density (12/m2) of shell fragments being confined to an area of approximately 125 centimetres by 75 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune. Exposed soils within the locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. Visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low. No stone artefacts were present.

Locus 2 is located approximately 10 metres from the inter-barrier depression adjacent to a vehicle track and electricity easement on a very gently inclined low elevation dune. The track and easement cuts into the toe of the dune slope and Locus 2 is exposed approximately 13 metres from the track. Surface distribution of shell extends over an area of approximately 5 metres by 5 metres. The site contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density of shell fragments (5/m2) being confined to an area of approximately 75 centimetres by 50 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune. Exposed soils within this locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. Visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low. No stone artefacts were observed.

Locus 3 is located immediately adjacent to a vehicle track and electricity easement on a very gently inclined low elevation dune spur the crest of which is located 25 metres from the inter-barrier depression. The track and easement cuts into the toe of the dune slope and Locus 3 is exposed between the track and dune crest. Surface distribution of shell extends over an area of approximately 25 metres by 25 metres. The site contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density of shell fragments (5/m2) being confined to an area of approximately 125 centimetres by 125 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune spur. Exposed soils within this locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. A tuff flake was present within Locus 3. In addition, a fragment of very heavily weathered mammalian long bone was also present. As with Loci 1 and 2, visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.11

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

Locus 4 is located on a very gently inclined low elevation dune approximately 100 metres from the inter-barrier depression. Surface distribution of shell extends over an area of approximately 25 metres by 20 metres. The site contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density of shell fragments (8/m2) being confined to an area of approximately 150 centimetres by 150 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune. Exposed soils within this locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. As with other loci in the survey area visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low.

4.4.3 Aboriginal Cultural Significance

In assessing Aboriginal heritage, social significance is primarily equated with the significance placed on cultural (and sometimes natural) heritage by Aboriginal people and is often referred to as Aboriginal cultural significance. Aboriginal people value their heritage for a range of reasons, some of which are unique and some of which may be shared with non-Aboriginal people. Thus, Aboriginal people may consider a site containing archaeological material important for reasons related to its archaeological value but may also see the site as a tangible aspect of their culture that provides a direct link to Aboriginal people in the past. In contrast, sites, places or landscapes may also be of significance to Aboriginal people for reasons not linked to the presence of tangible archaeological materials such as the presence of places of spiritual importance, significant resources or important natural features.

As Aboriginal cultural significance relates to the values of a site, place or landscape to Aboriginal people, it must be determined by Aboriginal people.

A draft copy of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment prepared for the proposal (refer to Appendix 4) was provided to all relevant Aboriginal stakeholders and it was requested that comment be provided regarding the Aboriginal cultural significance of the sites and areas of PAD within the study area, and on the significance of the proposal areas as a whole. Aboriginal stakeholders have previously indicated that Stockton Bight is of very high Aboriginal cultural significance due to its social, spiritual, aesthetic and educational value to the Aboriginal community (see Appendix 4). The cultural significance of the foredunes adjacent to the inter-barrier depression was reaffirmed by Aboriginal stakeholders during the consultation process. The study area is therefore considered to have high Aboriginal cultural significance.

4.4.4 Archaeological Significance

In relation to the alternate haul route, the assessment of archaeological significance has two components: the archaeological significance of sites and PADs (if any) associated with the alternate haul route; and the archaeological significance of the landscape encompassed by the alternate haul route as a whole. The application of the archaeological significance criteria to sites and PADs is relatively straightforward however the assessment of the significance of the alternate haul route as a landscape warrants further discussion. A cultural landscape can be defined as the connection between Aboriginal heritage (including sites and features and their relationships) and the natural elements of the landscape such as landscape history, topography and flora and fauna. Using this approach, archaeological material comprises one element of a cultural landscape and the significance of this landscape may be separate from that of the sites or features that it contains (ERM, 2006:101).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.12 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.4.4.1 Alternate Haul Route

The landscape associated with the alternate haul route is located at the interface between stabilised dunes of Holocene age and the inter-barrier depression. The stabilised dunes would have been an area that was regularly utilised by Aboriginal people to access the rich resource base provided by the inter-barrier depression. Sections of the proposed alternate haul route outside areas that have previously been disturbed by easement or track construction and vegetation clearance have vegetation communities and associated resources very similar to those that would have been present during periods associated with the deposition of cultural materials. Sections of the alternate haul route therefore have high archaeological landscape significance because they provide a cultural landscape within which the landscape history, flora, fauna and archaeological material associated with this portion of Stockton Bight can be experienced as a whole.

4.4.5 Potential Impacts

The construction of the alternate haul route will require the establishment of a suitable level surface of approximately 8 metres in width along the length of the alternate haul route, with a turning bay of approximately 30 metres by 30 metres located in the area adjoining Lot 218 extraction area and an overall potential construction width of 10 metres. This will involve widening of the existing vehicle tracks (where present) to create a road that can sustain heavy traffic and vegetation clearance from approximately a 30 metre by 30 metre area to create the turning bay.

Where feasible (with reference to environmental constraints and construction requirements) it is proposed that the alternate haul route will be constructed by the filling of areas to create a level surface. This will require clearance of native vegetation in woodland areas between an existing perimeter trail in low dunes and the grassland that borders the inter-barrier depression. It may then be necessary to introduce road base (or similar) materials to create a stable surface.

Given that A3 has a moderate to high level of archaeological significance based on the previously demonstrated occurrence of sub-surface artefactual material in this area and its potential for deposits with some degree of integrity and a low to moderate significance as a cultural landscape, Mackas Sand has indicated that the alternate haul route will be constructed using a low ground disturbance method in order to mitigate impacts to this site. Consequently, Mackas Sand has indicated that the alternate haul route within the site/PAD will be constructed by laying geotextile material over the natural ground surface and introducing additional fill material (i.e. not sand excavated from other sections of the alternate haul route) over the geotextile to provide a suitable road surface. This will be done after surface artefacts have been collected and in a progressive fashion so that all heavy vehicle movement associated with road construction and subsequent use is confined to the area in which geotextile and fill have already been introduced. Consequently, it will not be necessary to undertake significant ground disturbance works within A3 and sub-surface deposits will be protected from impacts associated with construction and use of the alternate haul route.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.13 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.4.6 Proposed Management and Mitigation Measures

4.4.6.1 General Recommendations

1. Mackas Sand will ensure that its employees and contractors are aware that it is an offence under Section 86 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to harm an Aboriginal object without the consent of the Director-General of OEH or unless otherwise approved under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. If Project Approval 08_0142 is modified to incorporate the alternate haul route, the Mackas Sand ACHMP should also be modified to include the alternate haul route, with all recommendations included in this assessment to be incorporated into the revised ACHMP. All provisions of the ACHMP will then apply to the alternate haul route.

3. Any Aboriginal objects (such as stone artefacts or shell fragments) salvaged in relation to the recommendations provided (see Section 9 of Appendix 4) will be subject to analysis and interpretation in accordance with the methodology provided in Section 5.10 of the Mackas Sand ACHMP (Umwelt, 2009c).

4. The arrangements for care and control of any salvaged Aboriginal objects will be as specified in Section 5.11 of the Mackas Sand ACHMP.

5. Should any unexpected sub-surface deposits (other than human skeletal material) be identified during construction and use of the alternate haul route, they will be managed in accordance with Section 5.8 of the Mackas Sand ACHMP (Umwelt, 2009c).

6. Should any further investigations be necessary (surface collection, test excavation or salvage excavation) will be conducted in accordance with the approved methodologies provided in the Mackas Sand ACHMP (Umwelt, 2009c: Appendix 2 as revised).

7. Should human/possible human skeletal material be identified during construction and use of the alternate haul route, it will be managed in accordance with Section 5.9 of the Mackas Sand ACHMP (Umwelt, 2009c).

4.4.6.2 A3 and PAD within Section of the Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route that Extends from the Northern Boundary of Lot 122 to the Lot 218 Approval Area

1. In consultation with the AHMG (as established under the Mackas Sand ACHMP), Mackas Sand should demarcate the route boundary from the edge of the inter-barrier depression south to the intersection with the Lot 218 approved operational area (i.e. within the area identified as PAD). This demarcation should be done prior to route construction and any surface artefacts within demarcated area should be collected in consultation with the AHMG.

2. Vegetation clearance from the edge of the inter-barrier depression south to the intersection with the Lot 218 approved operational area (i.e. within the area identified as PAD) will occur as a staged process in accordance with the following methodology:

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.14 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

following the initial inspection, the remaining large trees will be cleared by machinery (in accordance with ecological tree clearance procedures) and the AHMG will be invited to inspect the additional area of ground disturbance resulting from large tree clearance at a time determined in consultation with the AHMG; and

during vegetation clearance inspections (as discussed above), any Aboriginal objects such as stone artefacts and shell) will be collected in accordance with the approved methodology incorporated in the ACHMP (Umwelt, 2009c: Appendix 2, Attachment 3).

3. Following vegetation clearance, construction of the alternate haul route from the edge of the inter-barrier depression south to the intersection with the Lot 218 approved operational area should proceed in accordance with the description provided in Section 8 of Appendix 4 (i.e. road construction could commence creating a level surface of approximately 8 metres in width along the length of the alternate haul route, with a turning bay of approximately 30 metres by 30 metres located in the area adjoining Lot 218 extraction area and an overall potential construction width of 10 metres).

4. It is noted that the additional recommendations regarding this activity were provided by Aboriginal party representatives as described in Section 4.4.7.

4.4.7 Aboriginal Party Consultation

The following Aboriginal parties that were previously involved in the assessment of Lot 218 and Lot 220 were consulted in regard to the proposed alternate haul route:

 Worimi LALC;

 Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd (Nur-Run-Gee);

 Viola Brown;

 Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated (Mur-Roo-Ma); and

 Carol Ridgeway-Bissett (previously Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage Co-operative).

Following archaeological survey and review of the final draft archaeological assessment the Aboriginal parties made the following recommendations:

1. Worimi LALC indicated that recommendations provided in the draft report (which are consistent with those provided above), ‘do not, in any way, restrict or unfavourably effect this development’.

2. Nur-Run-Gee recommended that existing infrastructure on Lot 218 should be utilised and is hesitant to support any variation to Project Approval 08_0142.

3. Mur-Roo-Ma recommended that the previously approved access to the sand extraction face should be utilised and the alternate haul route should not be approved.

4. Both Carol Ridgeway-Bissett and Viola Brown recommended that the proposed modification is not approved because of its impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage and the cultural landscape, including flora and fauna.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.15 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.5 Historical Heritage

A review of the Australian Heritage Database maintained by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC), the State Heritage Register (SHR) and State Heritage Inventory maintained by the NSW Heritage Council, the Register of the National Trust (NSW) and the Port Stephens LEP was undertaken in May 2011. There are no items of European heritage listed along the alignment of the alternate access road.

A Non-Indigenous Heritage Management Plan has been prepared and approved for sand extraction operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220. A copy of this plan can be found on the Mackas Sand website www.mackassand.com.au.

4.6 Traffic and Access

A detailed traffic assessment was undertaken as part of the EA for the approved development (Umwelt, 2009a).

The proposed modification seeks to change the location of the access to Lot 218 extraction area and involves the establishment of a new access road between Lot 218 and Nelson Bay Road and a new intersection on Nelson Bay Road as shown on Figure 1.2. This proposed modification does not change current access and haulage arrangements for sand extraction operations at Lot 220.

As set out in Section 4.5.2 of the original EA (Umwelt, 2009a), up to 1 million tonnes of sand per year will be transported from Lot 218 to surrounding markets. It is anticipated that the maximum rate of laden truck movements hauling sand from Lot 218 will be eight trucks per hour (i.e. 16 movements per hour) with a maximum of approximately 3150 tonnes of sand transported from the site per day.

The proposed new private access road as shown on Figure 1.2, is approximately 2 kilometres long and traverses Lot 4 DP 1121457, Lot 1 DP 177679, Lot 810 DP 1008279, Lot 58 DP 753192, Lot 122 DP 753192 and Lot 218 in DP 1044608 (Lot 218), Salt Ash. Mackas Sand or related parties have acquired Right of Ways over these land parcels and have subsequently either purchased the subject land parcels or are in the process of purchasing the subject land parcels except for Lot 218 which is owned by WLALC.

The private access road will be an 8 metre wide gravel construction for the majority of its length. A 200 metre section adjacent to Nelson Bay Road will be sealed to minimise dust generation and the potential for air quality impacts on adjoining residences and on Nelson Bay Road.

Construction of the new Nelson Bay Road intersection and the associated haul route to Lot 218 will remove the need for quarry traffic from Lot 218 to travel along Lavis Lane and will provide direct access to Nelson Bay Road. Lavis Lane is a local street under the care and control of Port Stephens Council and Nelson Bay Road (Main Road 108) is a classified State Road and is the responsibility of Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). Construction of the proposed new intersection on Nelson Bay Road will enable quarry traffic resulting from operations on Lot 218 to be diverted away from a local street (Lavis Lane) to directly access a State Road which will significantly reduce potential heavy traffic impacts on Lavis Lane and adjoining residences. This will provide for the continued safety for recreational and residential users of Lavis Lane.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.16 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

The proposed construction of the new intersection was discussed with Port Stephens Council and RMS. RMS advised on 13 July 2012:

RMS has reviewed the information provided and has discussed this matter with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and Council. RMS would be prepared to concur with the vehicular access to / from the approved sand extraction area through your property provided certain requirements are met at full cost to the developer. The following preliminary comments apply:

The proposed intersection/access driveway on Nelson Bay Road shall be designed and constructed to accommodate left in/left out movements only and the design vehicle. The left in movement will require a deceleration lane (Austroads AUL) and the left out movement will be a give-way arrangement. The intersection shall be designed in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Road Design 2009 (with RMS supplements) and relevant Australian Standards, to RMS/Council satisfaction. The intersection shall include the provision of a raised concrete median to physically prevent right in and right out movements. Appropriate signage should also be provided to reinforce these restrictions.

The intersection/access driveway should be sealed to the returns, as a minimum, and designed/constructed in accordance with Council requirements.

The proponent should engage a traffic consultant to undertake a traffic analysis in accordance with the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments as supporting information to be submitted with the development application.

Subsequent to this advice, a concept plan for the proposed new intersection was prepared and submitted to RMS for review. On 14 September 2012, RMS advised:

RMS has reviewed the concept plan and would concur with and left in / left out vehicular access onto Nelson Bay Road to/from Lot 4. The following preliminary comments apply to the concept design layout:

The left turn deceleration lane shall be designed for 80kph design speed, refer to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A section 5.3. Truck turning speeds also need to be considered.

A raised island shall be provided to physically deny right turn movements in and out of the property – reference RMS letter dated 13 July 2011.

Carriageway widths on Nelson Bay Road and the access road are required to determine land configurations for vehicles and cycles. Adjacent sealed shoulders are required.

The provision for cyclists as shown travelling between the southbound through vehicles and a decelerating left turning truck is considered to be in appropriate in this high speed environment. Cyclists should be brought along a 2 m shoulder up to and through the intersection, crossing on the road carriageway side of the proposed raised island.

Additionally, as loaded trucks pulling out onto Nelson Bay Road for the access road will not have sufficient sight to enter and accelerate up to 80% of the posted speed in accordance with standard design criteria, the requirement for an acceleration lane should be included in the Traffic Impact Assessment for the proposal. Other matters raised in my letter dated 13 July 2011 still apply.

A conceptual layout of the proposed intersection is shown on Figure 1.5 and further detail is provided in Appendix 5. The final layout will be subject to the requirements of RMS.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.17 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

It is envisaged that to meet market requirements, transport of sand may occur 24 hours per day seven days a week. Ability to transport sand 24 hours per day seven days per week will be important to enable orders for large projects to be met and to meet loading requirements should in the future sand be transported by ship from the Port of Newcastle.

Condition 31 of Schedule 3 of Major Project Approval 08_0142 states:

Road Upgrades

31. The Proponent shall upgrade Lavis Lane (including the eastern section leading to the private haul road) to provide a minimum 6 metre sealed carriageway, to the satisfaction of Council, within 6 months of the commencement of quarrying operations on Lot 218, unless otherwise agreed by the Director-General.

As discussed, the proposed modification to access to Lot 218 will not utilise Lavis Lane. Consequently, Mackas Sand seeks to have the requirement to seal the remaining unsealed section of Lavis Lane and the eastern section of the approved haul road deleted.

As stated in the 13 July 2012 response from RMS, the full cost of constructing the proposed new access on Nelson Bay Road is to be met by Mackas Sand.

4.7 Noise

The proposed modification to use the alternate haul road alignment will not result in any additional noise impacts from those set out in the EA (Umwelt, 2009a) other than for residences immediately adjacent to the proposed new intersection on Nelson Bay Road. It will however result in no traffic noise impacts on residences adjacent to Lavis Lane and Towers residence (R3).

In addition, received noise levels at the closest residences to extraction operations on Lot 218 (Ford residence (R4) and Towers residence (R3) as shown on Figure 1.5), will be lower than previously predicted due to the initial extraction face being approximately 600 metres further to the east and shielded by the mobile sand dunes which are elevated to over 30 metres above the extraction floor. There will be no change to residences proximate to Lot 220 extraction and haulage operations.

Analysis undertaken within the original EA (2009a) indicated that truck traffic noise levels at the Towers (R3) and Ford (R4) residences which are 20 metres and 26 metres distant from the approved Lavis Lane haul route, would remain within acceptable levels provided truck movements do not exceed 7 laden trucks (i.e. 14 trucks movements) per hour before 7.00 am (night time) and 19 laden trucks (i.e. 38 trucks movements) per hour after 7.00 am (daytime and evening).

Given that the nearest residences to the alternate haul road of the proposed new Nelson Bay Road intersection are in excess of 50 metres away, predicted road traffic noise levels at a maximum of 8 laden truck movements per hour will remain at acceptable levels.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.18 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

The approved hours of extraction being 24 hours a day seven days a week except for operations within 250 metres of the Hufnagl Residence (R27) (see Figure 1.5) when operations are limited to 7.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday with no operations within 250 metres of R27 outside these times.

Transportation of sand from Lot 218 along Lavis Lane in accordance with the provisions of Condition 9 of Schedule 3 of Project Approval 08_0142 between:

. 6.00 am and 6.00 pm (EST) Monday to Friday; . 6.00 am and 7.00 pm (DST) Monday to Friday; . 7.00 am to 4.00 pm Saturdays; and . No transport on Sundays or public holidays.

It is proposed to expand the provisions for the transportation of sand from Lot 218 to include the proposed alternate access route. The Noise Management Plan will be updated to reflect the change in approved haulage arrangements before the commencement of extraction from Lot 218. Mackas Sand is seeking approval to be able to transport sand 24 hours a day seven days a week from Lot 218.

4.8 Air Quality

The proposed modification to use the alternate haul route to Lot 218 will not increase air quality impacts on non-project related residential properties from those set out in the EA (Umwelt, 2009a) and approved under Major Project Approval 08_0142.

As stated in the EA (Umwelt, 2009a), the major source of potential dust generation is from the use of unsealed access roads. The principal measure used to control dust will be dust suppression on the gravel sections of haul road. This will be achieved using a water cart to keep roads moist during periods of product transport.

Furthermore the 200 metres of access route southward from Nelson Bay Road will be sealed to minimise potential dust impacts to nearby residences, and provide a suitable surface for vehicles braking as they approach the intersection before the commencement of sand extraction at Lot 218.

In addition, dust control will be achieved by ongoing rehabilitation of parts of the extraction areas that were vegetated prior to extraction occurring.

Sand extraction operations at Lot 218 will be located within the mobile dune field and will initially be approximately 1700 metres from the nearest residence.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.19 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

An Air Quality Monitoring Program (Umwelt, 2011a) has been developed for operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220. Two dust deposition gauges have been established to monitor dust deposition levels as shown on Figure 1.5. One gauge (DDG1) is located to the north of the access road and approved extraction area on Lot 220. The other dust deposition gauge is located adjacent to the alternate haul route to Lot 218 (DDG2).

Baseline dust deposition monitoring levels (Umwelt, 2011a) indicate on occasions high levels of airborne sand being present due to the natural windblown movement of the dunes on Lot 218. Deposition levels at monitoring site DDG2 vary significantly and have on several occasions exceeded 4 g/m2/month.

Dust emissions as a result of the use of haulage of sand product from Lot 218 will be monitored using dust deposition gauges and regular visual inspection.

If monitoring or visual inspection indicates that the use of a water cart as proposed for the alternate haul route is not adequately controlling dust emission levels at DDG2 the rate of water application will be increased and consideration will be given to sealing further sections of the alternate haul route.

4.9 Water Resources

4.9.1 Surface Water Resources

The alternate haul route for which modification is sought is predominantly within the inter-barrier depression which separates the Inner Barrier Pleistocene dune system from the Outer Barrier Holocene dune system. Due to the high infiltration capacity of the underlying dunes and the relatively flat topography of the inter-barrier depression, the only natural surface drainage feature in the area of the alternate haul route is Tilligerry Creek. There are however several man-made drains that have been constructed across the inter-barrier depression that drain westward to the Tilligerry Creek system and south-westward to the 14 Foot Drain and Fullerton Cove. The proposed alternate haul route will cross Tilligerry Creek at an existing culvert and will not impact on the flow or flooding regime of Tilligerry Creek.

4.9.2 Groundwater Resources

The alternate haul route and Lot 218 and Lot 220 approved extraction areas are located on the Stockton Sandbeds which form part of the Tomago-Tomaree-Stockton groundwater resource (shown in Figure 4.5). The groundwater resource is managed in accordance with the Hunter Water Regulations 2010, Tomago-Tomaree-Stockton Groundwater Management Plan 1996 and Water Sharing Plan for the Tomago-Tomaree-Stockton Groundwater Source 2003 (refer to Sections 3.2.3.1).

The Tomago-Tomaree-Stockton Sandbeds cover an area of approximately 275 square kilometres along a coastal strip 10 to 15 kilometres wide, extending from the Hunter estuary in the south to Port Stephens in the north and Raymond Terrace to the west. The sandbeds occur on porous sandy soils lying over deep porous sands. The porosity of the sand allows for significant infiltration of rainfall and storage of large quantities of water.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.20

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

The Tomago-Tomaree-Stockton Sandbeds form an integral part of HWC’s bulk water supply by augmenting surface water supplies and providing a backup water supply during periods of drought. The sandbeds consist of three main zones which contain distinct groundwater systems:

The Tomago Sandbeds cover an area of approximately 150 square kilometres and occur between the outer dune barrier and a Palaeozoic rock outcrop on the landward side of Stockton Bight. This aquifer has been used to supply Newcastle with potable water since the 1930s and currently supplies approximately 20 per cent of the water provided by HWC. The total capacity of this aquifer is estimated to be 100,000 mega litres (ML), of which approximately 60,000 ML can be accessed with existing infrastructure. The Tomago Sandbeds are located to the west of the approved extraction areas and alternate haul route.

The Tomaree Sandbeds include the Anna Bay, Glovers Hill and Nelson Bay Sandbeds and occupy an area of approximately 70 square kilometres at the northern tip of the Tomaree Peninsula. These aquifers are used to supply water to townships along the Tomaree and Tilligerry Peninsulas, and Karuah. The Tomaree Sandbeds are located to the north of the approved extraction areas and alternate haul route.

The Stockton Sandbeds on which the approved extraction areas and alternate haul route are located cover an area of approximately 80 square kilometres along the coastline between Newcastle and Port Stephens. The Stockton Sandbeds occur in the outer dune barrier of Stockton Bight and overlie the eastern extremity of the Tomago Sandbeds. This aquifer has not been developed for groundwater use, although it has been identified by HWC as a potential water reserve that may be used in drought conditions.

The Tomago Sandbeds are much older than the Stockton Sandbeds, with sand deposits accumulating during the Pleistocene period, approximately 250,000 to 10,000 years ago. In contrast, the Stockton Sandbeds accumulated during the Holocene, in the last 10,000 years.

HWC has obtained an easement over part of WR 57573, extending in a north-east to south-west direction to the north-east of Lot 218 on land owned by Worimi LALC (refer to Figure 4.5). It is understood (Rhys Blackmore HWC pers comm. October 2011) that a borefield may be developed in this easement in the future for use during periods of drought however is more likely that this borefield may be developed in a location immediately to the west of the easement shown on Figure 4.5.

The HWC easement is located entirely within vegetated sand dunes and is approximately 200 metres north of the approved extraction area on Lot 218. The alternate haul route to Lot 218 is located approximately 1.6 kilometres west of the HWC easement.

The Water Sharing Plan for the Tomago-Tomaree-Stockton Groundwater Source 2003 indicates that long term average extraction limit for Stockton aquifer as 14,000 ML/year of which 2000 ML/year can be extracted under domestic and stock rights with an additional 3100 ML/year being identified in 2003 as required for extraction under existing access licences.

There is currently an embargo on granting new licences to utilise the groundwater in the Stockton aquifer and as a result it is not possible to use this groundwater resource at this time as a source of water for dust suppression.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.21 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.9.3 Soil and Water Management

A detailed Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) (Umwelt, 2011a) has been prepared for operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 in accordance with the requirements of Condition 18 Schedule 3 of Project Approval 08_0142:

The proponent shall prepare and implement a Soil and Water Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Director-General. This plan must: (a) be prepared in consultation with DECCW, OOW and HWC, and be submitted to the Director General for approval within 3 months of the date of this approval; and (b) include a: Site Water Balance; Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program; and Surface Water Monitoring Program.

The SWMP will be revised to take into account the construction and use of the alternate haul route before the commencement of sand extraction at Lot 218. Key aspects of the SWMP are outlined in Sections 4.9.3.1 to 4.9.3.4.

4.9.3.1 Site Water Balance

There are no proposed changes to the site water balance for operations on Lot 220.

Use of the alternate haul route to Lot 218 will slightly decrease the length of haul route requiring watering for dust suppression from approximately 2.2 kilometres to 1.8 kilometres.

Estimated annual water demand for dust suppression on the approved Lot 218 haul route is provided in Table 4.1. In determining annual water demand for Lot 218 it has been assumed that 70 per cent of operation days are fine and that 80 per cent of daily evaporation occurs during the period when product is transported on the haul route.

Table 4.1 – Estimated Water Demand for Dust Suppression for Lot 218 Product Haulage

Road Watered Days of Average Daily Annual Water Length Road Product Evaporation Demand for Dust (m) Width (m) Haulage per (mm/day) Suppression (ML) year Approved Haul Route Lavis Lane 700 8 295 3.8 3.5 Stockton Bight 650 6 295 3.8 2.4 Track 1 Approved 850 6 295 3.8 3.2 Access Total 2200 9.2 Alternate 1800 8 340 3.8 10.4 Haul Route

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.22 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

As can be seen from Table 4.1, it is estimated that annual water demand for dust suppression will increase from approximately 9.2 ML/year to 10.4 ML/year principally due to produce haulage occurring 24 hours a day 7 days a week with resultant increase in water demand for dust suppression.

Further reductions in water usage at Lot 218 could be achieved through sealing sections of the alternate haul road between Lot 218 and Nelson Bay Road.

4.9.3.2 Sediment and Erosion Control

The extraction area on Lot 218 comprises highly permeable sand. There are no surface drainage features within the extraction area and no specific requirements for sediment and erosion control.

Both the approved and alternate haul routes to the Lot 218 extraction area traverse relatively flat land that has high infiltration capacity. As a result, surface run-off is not generated in significant quantities, even during significant rainfall events. This is demonstrated by the lack of natural surface drainage paths within and surrounding the study area and the artificial drains within the inter-barrier depression that drain to Tilligerry Creek. Establishment of the alternate haul route will create additional localised areas of low permeability along the road surface. Small quantities of surface run-off will be generated from these areas and will be readily managed through the use of silt fences that will be established along the edge of the haul route (see Figure 4.6). During the construction phase silt fences will be maintained and remain in position until a suitable vegetative cover is established adjacent to the alternate haul route.

Construction of haul routes require no special water management controls as the underlying sand and adjoining landform has sufficient infiltration and detention capacity to adequately dissipate runoff from the flat haul road. Sections of the alternate haul route traverse low-lying areas that will initially be built up with windblown sand prior to placement of road base material. In areas where vegetation is to be cleared along the alignment of the alternate haul route, it will be windrowed along the edge of the cleared area. Silt fence will be erected between the windrowed areas and the road construction area as shown on Figure 4.6.

4.9.3.3 Groundwater Monitoring

Condition 22 of Major Project Approval 08_0142 states that the Groundwater Monitoring program shall include:

(a) detailed baseline data on groundwater levels and quality, based on statistical analysis (including available HWC data) (b) groundwater impact assessment criteria; including trigger levels for investigating any potentially adverse groundwater impacts; (c) a program to monitor groundwater levels and quality; (d) a protocol for further groundwater modelling to confirm the limits to excavation depth across the site permitted in accordance with condition 7 of schedule 2; and (e) a protocol for the investigation, notification and mitigation of identified exceedances of the groundwater impact assessment criteria.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.23

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

In accordance with the Groundwater Monitoring Program (Umwelt, 2011a) groundwater levels are monitored monthly and groundwater quality is monitored quarterly at the six monitoring bore locations (SP1 to SP6/BL158) shown on Figure 1.5. It is proposed to install additional groundwater monitoring bores within the Lot 218 and Lot 220 extraction areas to enable groundwater level and quality to be monitored with monitoring to be undertaken at the same time as for bores SP1 to SP6/BL158.

Groundwater quality is monitored quarterly for the life of the operation for the following groundwater quality parameters:

pH (Lab);

conductivity (µS/cm);

arsenic;

iron;

manganese; and

turbidity.

Quarterly results will be compiled and analysed to check for unforeseen impacts or unacceptable trends in groundwater quality. A short report will be prepared quarterly and provided to the Quarry Manager who will implement any necessary changes or controls that may be required.

Groundwater quality results will be analysed quarterly and reported annually. If any unexpected trends in groundwater quality are observed, the reason for the unexpected trends or exceedances will be explored, potential contingency measures will be developed and a report will be prepared and submitted to the DP&I, NOW and Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

4.9.3.4 Surface Water Monitoring

There are no surface flow or drainage lines on either Lot 218 or Lot 220 due to the high permeability of the underlying sand other than the man-made shallow drainage channels that drain groundwater in an east to west direction along the northern boundary of Lot 220 and to the north and north-west of Lot 218.

As a result there is no surface water that can be monitored to establish baseline conditions other than in low-lying areas that may intermittently be inundated when the groundwater level is high. As this water is intermittent and directly connected to the groundwater, it is considered that these areas would have water quality that is consistent with that recorded in the groundwater of the site as discussed in Section 4.9.3.3.

4.9.4 Groundwater Modelling

A detailed groundwater model (Umwelt, 2011a) has been developed for the project and includes the surrounding area of Stockton Sandbeds. The groundwater modelling has been undertaken to determine average (see Figure 4.7) and maximum predicted (see Figure 4.8) groundwater levels within the extraction area to enable the maximum extraction depth to be determined in accordance with the requirements of Conditions 7a and 7b of Major Project Approval 08_0142.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.24

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

As shown on Figure 4.7, modelled average groundwater levels within the approved extraction area on Lot 218 range from approximately 1.75 mAHD along the south-eastern edge of the extraction area to 2.50 mAHD in the south-western edge of the extraction area.

As shown on Figure 4.8, maximum predicted groundwater levels in the approved extraction area on Lot 218 range from approximately 2.75 mAHD along the south-eastern edge of the extraction area and 3.5 mAHD along the north-western edge of the extraction area to approximately 4.0 mAHD in the south-western edge of the extraction area.

As shown on Figure 4.7, modelled average groundwater levels within Extraction Area 1 on Lot 220 range from 0.75 mAHD in the north-western corner to approximately 2.25 mAHD at the south-eastern boundary of Extraction Area 1. Modelled average groundwater levels within Extraction Area 2 on Lot 220 range from approximately 2.0 mAHD along the northern edge to approximately 2.50 mAHD at the southern edge of Extraction Area 2.

As shown on Figure 4.8, maximum predicted groundwater levels within Extraction Area 1 on Lot 220 range from approximately 1.25 mAHD in the north-western corner of the land parcel to approximately 3.4 mAHD at the south-eastern edge of Extraction Area 1. Maximum predicted groundwater levels in Extraction Area 2 on Lot 220 range from approximately 2.75 mAHD at the northern edge to approximately 3.8 mAHD at the southern corner of Extraction Area 2.

As shown on Figures 4.7 and 4.8, modelling indicates that groundwater from the Stockton Sandbeds generally drains in a south-easterly direction to the Pacific Ocean and in a north- westerly direction towards Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove with the groundwater divide being approximately parallel to the coast and located approximately 1.3 to 2.0 kilometres inland from the coast.

As shown on Figure 4.8, groundwater from approximately the most western 1 kilometre of Lot 218 extraction area drains in a north-westerly direction towards Fullerton Cove and away from HWC groundwater easement. Groundwater from the remainder of the Lot 218 extraction area also drains away from the HWC groundwater easement towards the Pacific Ocean. Groundwater from Lot 220 also drains away from HWC groundwater easement towards Tilligerry Creek. As a result, operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 have negligible potential to adversely impact on groundwater within or adjacent to the HWC groundwater easement.

4.9.5 Maximum Extraction Depth

The maximum extraction depth for operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 has been determined in accordance with the requirements of Conditions 7a and 7b of Major Project Approval 08_0142 and are shown on Figure 2.1.

As can be seen from Figure 2.1, the maximum depth to which extraction can occur on Lot 218 varies from approximately 3.75 mAHD along the south-eastern boundary of the approved extraction area to approximately 5.0 mAHD at the south-western end of the approved extraction area.

As can be seen from Figure 2.1, the maximum depth to which extraction can occur on Lot 220 in accordance with current approval conditions varies from approximately 2.75 mAHD at the north-western edge of Extraction Area 1 to approximately 4.25 mAHD at the south-eastern boundary of Extraction Area 1.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.25 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

The maximum depth to which extraction can currently take place in Extraction Area 2 on Lot 220 ranges from approximately 4.0 mAHD along the northern boundary of the area to approximately 5.0 mAHD along the southern boundary and is reasonably consistent for both the 2 metres above average groundwater level and 1 metre above maximum predicted criteria set out in Conditions 7a and 7b of Major Project Approval 08_0142.

4.9.6 Temporary Variation to Extraction Depth

In previous consultation in regard to maximum depths of extraction, NOW representatives have indicated that extraction to a depth 0.7 metres above the maximum predicted groundwater level may be accepted provided that the final landform for the site was reshaped to provide a minimum of 1 metre of sand above the maximum predicted groundwater level. This requirement has been approved for Sibelco sand extraction operations which are located immediately to the west of Mackas Sand operations on Lot 220.

Operations at the Sibelco site adjacent to Lot 220 have shown that the ability to extract to within 0.7 metres of the maximum predicted groundwater level improves the efficiency of extraction operations significantly. Efficiency is improved through increased trafficability of the exposed sand surface due to the greater moisture content increasing the stability and bearing capacity of the sand. The greater bearing capacity means that the amount of energy required to operate front-end loaders and dump trucks on the sand, travel times and wear and tear on equipment are significantly reduced.

Mackas Sand has requested that similar provisions allowing extraction to within 0.7 metres of the maximum predicted groundwater level provided that at least 1 metre depth of sand above maximum predicted groundwater level is achieved as part of the final landform be considered for sand extraction on Lot 218 and Lot 220.

4.10 Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation of Lot 218 and 220 extraction areas will be undertaken in accordance with the approved Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt, 2009d). The proposal to temporarily allow extraction to within 0.7 metre of the maximum predicted groundwater level will not alter the final landform for Lot 218 and Lot 220. The final landform for the extraction areas within Lot 218 and Lot 220 will be at least 2 metres above the average groundwater level, and 1 metre above the maximum predicted groundwater level shown on Figure 4.8, as discussed within the Mackas Sand Environmental Management Strategy and associated management plans (Umwelt, 2011a). The height of the final landform will be verified by topographic survey.

On completion of sand extraction works, if the proposed access track is no longer functional, its rehabilitation should be integrated with that of the quarry, in accordance with the rehabilitation principles outlined in the approved Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt, 2009d).

Broadly, rehabilitation of the alternate haul route if required will aim to re-establish the native vegetation communities that existed prior to clearing for its construction. Revegetation of disturbed areas will utilise locally-occurring plant species in a composition that closely resembles that of the pre-development vegetation communities. Monitoring of any revegetated areas along the alternate haul route will be integrated with any monitoring program for the sand extraction areas as described in the approved Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt, 2009d).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.26 Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

4.11 Surrounding Land Use

The alternate haul route will pass through lands owned by or under agreement with B & R B Mackenzie FT Pty Ltd. Surrounding lands within the inter-barrier depression are used for stock grazing. Lot 122 DP 753192 is used for stock grazing and is otherwise undeveloped.

Approval for Worimi LALC's land dealings associated with the proposed modification to Major Project Approval 08_0142 was granted by NSW Aboriginal Land Council at its meeting on 28 September 2011.

Use of the alternate haul route and extraction area access site will increase the location of the initial quarry face from being approximately 1100 metres from the nearest residence (Towers residence R3 on Figure 1.5) to being approximately 1700 metres away reducing interaction between surrounding residences and extraction operations.

4.12 Unexploded Ordinance

An Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) assessment was undertaken as part of the EA (Umwelt, 2009a) and identified that there was potential for UXO to occur within the western part of the approved Lot 218 extraction area as result of WWII use of the area as a bombing range and for explosives testing. This potential for UXO to occur is limited to the undisturbed sections of the landform that existed prior to approximately 1950.

An Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan (UXOMP) (see Appendix 6) has been prepared for operations within Lot 218. The UXOMP has identified that there is a possibility of UXO and related debris existing within the Danger Zone (see Figure 4.9) which includes the western 1.5 kilometres of the approved extraction area in Lot 218 and the southern sections of Route A and Route B as shown on Figure 4.9.

The UXOMP found that there is a low probability of UXO being encountered provided that any excavation within this area does not go below the stabilised ground surface as it existed prior to 1950. The UXOMP recommends that if excavation or works are likely to occur below the 1950 stabilised ground surface an UXO survey should be undertaken by suitably qualified specialists.

Any extraction within the approved extraction area on Lot 218 that is within Danger Zone will be restricted to being above the 1950 stabilised surface unless UXO surveys are undertaken by suitably qualified specialists and any identified UXO is cleared prior to extraction occurring.

An assessment of whether archaeological subsurface testing may be required within the Danger Zone (see Figure 4.9) will also be undertaken once UXO survey and clearance is undertaken and prior to excavation below the 1950 stabilised ground surface occurring.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.27

Mackas Sand Modification EA Environmental Assessment

To minimise potential UXO impacts, it is proposed to construct that section of the alternate haul route that is within Danger Zone by filling above the 1950 stabilised landform. This can be readily achieved as the section of alternate haul route that is located within Danger Zone traverses a low-lying section of the terrain that is naturally prone to waterlogging. Along this section of the alternate haul route, vegetation will be cleared and windrowed along the edges of the haul road, geotextile with then be placed over the cleared ground surface and sand and road-base material will then be placed over the geotextile ensuring that excavation does not occur below the 1950 stabilised surface.

All personnel working on Lot 218 will be informed on the dangers of UXO and given training in identification of UXO and procedures to be followed should any UXO be located as part of the inductions.

4.13 Greenhouse Gas and Energy

A detailed greenhouse gas assessment was prepared for the development (Umwelt, 2009a) to determine its predicted greenhouse emissions and potential areas for energy efficiency.

It was estimated that the development would contribute an estimated 0.016 per cent to yearly national greenhouse emissions and an estimated 0.000219 per cent to yearly international greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposed modification to the sand extraction to enable extraction to occur within 0.7 metres of the predicted maximum groundwater level will reduce energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions from those estimated in the original EA (Umwelt, 2009a).

4.14 Cumulative Impacts

The development and proposed modifications will have very limited cumulative interaction with surrounding developments and activities.

The development and proposed modifications will not result in a substantial overall increase in sand production in the Stockton Bight area, due to the diminishing capacity of most existing sand mining operations. There are no known proposed or approved developments within the vicinity of the alternate haul route to Lot 218 and a large proportion of the surrounding land is managed for conservation, thereby limiting the potential for future development in the area.

The development and proposed modification through providing access to the approved Lot 218 extraction area will act to off-set a significant decline in construction and industrial grade sand supplies for Sydney and Hunter regional markets which is being caused by diminishing availability to sand resources in the Newcastle and Sydney Regions.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 4.28 Mackas Sand Modification EA Consolidated Statement of Commitments

5.0 Consolidated Statement of Commitments for Operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220

5.1 Operational Controls

5.1.1 All activities will be undertaken generally in accordance with the EA (Umwelt, 2009a) and the Modification EA (Umwelt, October 2012).

5.1.2 Sand extraction and processing activities at Lot 218 and Lot 220 may be undertaken 24 hours per day, seven days per week. No sand extraction operations will be undertaken within 250 metres of R27 (Hufnagl residence) between the hours of 6.00 pm and 7.00 am unless an agreement with the owner of R27 is obtained for extraction activities within these hours.

5.1.3 Transport of product from Lot 220 will be undertaken between 5.00 am and 10.00 pm, Monday to Saturday and 8.00 am to 12.00 pm on Sundays and Public Holidays.

5.1.4 Transport of product from Lot 218 will be undertaken 24 hours a day, seven days per week.

5.1.5 A maximum of 1,000,000 tonnes per year of sand products will be extracted from Lot 218 and a maximum of 1,000,000 tonnes per year will be extracted from Lot 220. Annual sand production information will be provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services (DTIRIS).

5.1.6 The final landform for the extraction areas within Lot 218 and Lot 220 will be at least 1 metre above the maximum predicted groundwater level as shown on Figure 2.1 of the Modification EA. The height of the final landform will be verified by topographic survey.

5.2 Ecology

5.2.1 A Vegetation Clearance Management Plan will be developed prior to any vegetation clearing occurring for the proposal. This plan will be implemented for all vegetation clearing required as part of the proposal.

5.2.2 A comprehensive Biodiversity Monitoring Program will be developed prior to any vegetation clearing being undertaken for the proposal.

5.2.3 Clearing operations will be timed so that potential impacts on breeding species, particularly the squirrel glider and threatened micro-bats are avoided. Where possible, clearing will be avoided in winter months when micro-bats and the eastern pygmy possum are in a state of torpor and squirrel gliders begin to breed.

5.2.4 A Feral Animal Control Management Plan will be developed and implemented prior to any clearing activities being undertaken for the proposal.

5.2.5 A Weed Management Plan will be developed and implemented prior to any clearing activities being undertaken for the proposal.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 5.1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Consolidated Statement of Commitments

5.2.6 A comprehensive Rehabilitation and Decommissioning Plan will be prepared to ensure rehabilitation objectives are achieved to a reasonable extent. The Plan will include:

. the rehabilitation program; . native vegetation and fauna habitat management including provision of artificial hollows and nest boxes and fauna translocation procedures; . feral animal control; . fire management; . weed management; . minimisation of edge effects; . stormwater control; . fauna displacement measures including nest boxes and tree hollows; . control of public access; . monitoring; and . funding.

5.2.7 The feasibility of establishing native vegetation at the western end of Lot 218 to create a link between adjoining vegetated areas following the completion of sand extraction in this area will be investigated within five years of operations commencing on Lot 218 and, if feasible, the Rehabilitation and Decommissioning Plan will be revised to include vegetation of this area.

5.3 Aboriginal Heritage

5.3.1 An ACHMP will be developed in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders and OEH prior to the commencement of any clearing activities. The ACHMP will include:

. a protocol to assess significance of Aboriginal objects; . appropriate remedial actions etc. at end of life of operations. These will be drawn from the Rehabilitation and Decommissioning Plan; . identification of an ‘in perpetuity’ keeping place with the requirement for ‘in perpetuity’ being resolved with the Aboriginal community; . establishment of a Management Group that includes an invitation to all stakeholders and an archaeologist; . a commitment to lodging site cards for any Aboriginal objects identified; . a skeletal material protocol. Relevant legislation requires that if Aboriginal skeletal material is found, the proponent will need to obtain approval in writing from OEH and Police before work resumes; . development of an Aboriginal Cultural Education program for use as part of the induction for workers; and . protocols for extraction of sand on Lot 218 from below the 1950 land surface including test pitting procedures as set out in the EA and survey and clearance of UXO should UXO be identified in the extraction area.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 5.2 Mackas Sand Modification EA Consolidated Statement of Commitments

5.3.2 An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Group will be established prior to commencement of the proposal to manage matters relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage within the study area.

5.3.3 The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Group will conduct a monitoring visit to the Lot 218 proposal area on a monthly basis for the first 12 months of operation, with subsequent inspection intervals to be determined as part of the ACHMP.

5.3.4 The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Group will conduct a monitoring visit to the Lot 220 operational area on a twice yearly basis for 12 months, with subsequent inspection intervals to be determined as part of the ACHMP.

5.3.5 A sample of reject material from the screening operations on Lot 220 will be taken each day, where sufficient material is present. The samples will be provided to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Group on a monthly basis.

5.4 Historic Heritage

5.4.1 Prior to disturbance of any tank traps at either Lot 218 or Lot 220, the location of the tank traps will be surveyed and a photographic record made in accordance with Heritage Council of NSW requirements for archival recording. The survey data and photographic recording will be forwarded to the Heritage Branch of the DP&I.

5.4.2 Any disturbed tank traps will be replaced along the original alignment of the Northern Defence Line once extraction and rehabilitation works along this alignment have been completed.

5.5 Traffic and Access

5.5.1 Mackas Sand will make a contribution to Council for maintenance of Oakvale Drive in accordance with the Port Stephens Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2007, as may be updated from time to time, to the satisfaction of the Director- General.

5.6 Noise

5.6.1 An Operational Noise Management Plan will be developed for the proposal and implemented prior to sand extraction commencing. The plan will incorporate a noise monitoring program to monitor noise emissions and determine compliance with the project specific noise goals. The plan will include quarterly monitoring for a 12 month period and specific measures to monitor and address potential noise impacts at residential receiver R27 (Hufnagl Residence).

5.6.2 No sand extraction will be undertaken within 250 metres of receiver R27 during evening and night periods unless agreement is reached with the landholder.

5.6.3 A Traffic Noise Management Plan will be developed and implemented for truck movements on the private haul road from Lot 220 unless a written agreement exists between Mackas Sand and occupiers of residences adjacent to the private haul road and Oakvale Drive. The Plan will focus on but not be limited to truck movements between the hours of 5.00 am and 7.00 pm. (Note: Mackas Sand has a written agreement with occupiers of residences adjacent to Oakvale Drive and copies of these have been provided to DP&I).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 5.3 Mackas Sand Modification EA Consolidated Statement of Commitments

5.7 Air Quality

5.7.1 Dust suppression activities, such as spraying a suitable dust suppressant, will be undertaken on all unsealed access roads used to transport product from Lot 218 and Lot 220 so that at least a 75 per cent reduction in dust generation is achieved.

5.7.2 Air quality monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with the Air Quality Monitoring Program and will include monthly monitoring of dust deposition levels at DDG1 and DDG2. Air quality monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Environment Protection Licence for the operation as may be changed from time to time.

5.8 Groundwater

5.8.1 A Groundwater Management Plan will be developed prior to any sand extraction activities to the satisfaction of the DP&I in consultation with OEH. The Plan will include a groundwater monitoring program that includes quarterly monitoring of groundwater level and quality (electrical conductivity, pH, turbidity, arsenic, manganese and iron) at groundwater monitoring bores SP1 to SP6 (BL158) as shown on Figure 1.5 of the Modification EA. The results of the monitoring are to be commented on and compiled into an annual report.

5.8.2 Any refuelling of equipment used for the proposal will be undertaken by a registered contractor to remove the need for on-site storage of fuels. No maintenance of equipment or storage of chemicals will occur at either site.

5.8.3 Prior to sand washing being undertaken on Lot 220, access to a suitable water supply will be obtained and evidence of this will be provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Prior to sand washing commencing, a detailed Water Management Plan for the sand washing operation will be prepared and provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

5.8.4 Additional groundwater monitoring bores will be established on the quarry floor of Lot 218 and Lot 220 once sufficient sand has been extracted to achieve quarry floor level and provide adequate space so that the bores do not impact on the movement of extraction equipment and haulage vehicles. Monitoring of these bores will be undertaken at the same time and in the same manner as monitoring bores SP1 to SP6/BL158.

5.9 Surface Water

5.9.1 Flow dissipation structures will be installed along on-site access roads as required in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Regional Policy (Port Stephens Council, 2002) and the Code of Practice for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004).

5.9.2 Site Water Management Plans for operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 will be submitted for approval to the DP&I in consultation with OEH prior to the commencement of sand extraction activities. The Plan will include details on the storage and handling of chemicals on the sites including refuelling of mobile equipment.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 5.4 Mackas Sand Modification EA Consolidated Statement of Commitments

5.9.3 Access road will be constructed so as to not impede flood flows on Tilligerry Creek floodplain.

5.10 Public Safety

5.10.1 High visibility fencing with appropriate set back from the extraction face and signage will be erected on the seaward side of the Lot 218 operational area prior to extraction commencing.

5.10.2 Inspections of high visibility fencing and any structures built to control public access to the sites will be undertaken every week. Maintenance or repair of any fences and structures will occur within this timeframe, as required.

5.11 Visual

5.11.1 A 30 metre vegetated buffer will be maintained along the northern boundary of Lot 220, except where the access road will be constructed into the site. Buffer areas of 20 metres will be maintained along the other boundaries of the site. In-fill planting will be undertaken in buffer areas as required to ensure a sufficient visual screening is in place around the site.

5.11.2 Extensive supplementary planting of suitable screening species will be undertaken in the Lot 220 northern boundary buffer area within 50 metres of the Hufnagl residence, within 2 months of receiving a written request for trees to be planted from the property owner.

5.12 Greenhouse Gases

5.12.1 Mackas Sand will seek to achieve continuous improvement in energy efficiency in sand extraction and processing operations.

5.13 Environmental Management, Monitoring and Auditing

5.13.1 Mackas Sand will obtain an Environmental Protection Licence for the proposal in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

5.13.2 Three years after the commencement of the proposal, and every four years thereafter, Mackas Sand will commission and pay the full cost of an Independent Environmental Audit of the proposal.

5.13.3 Within seven days of detecting an exceedance of the limits/performance criteria in this approval or an incident causing (or threatening to cause) material harm to the environment, Mackas Sand shall report the exceedance/incident to OEH and any relevant agency. The report will:

. describe the date, time and nature of the exceedance/incident; . identify the cause (or likely cause) of the exceedance/incident; . describe what action has been taken to date; and . describe the proposed measures to address the exceedance/incident.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 5.5 Mackas Sand Modification EA Consolidated Statement of Commitments

5.13.4 Prior to the commencement of any operations, Mackas Sand will implement, publicise and list with a telephone company a contact phone number, which will enable the general public to reach a person who can arrange appropriate response action to the enquiry. Mackas Sand will maintain a register to record details of all enquiries received and actions undertaken in response. Mackas Sand will supply the OEH with a copy of the enquiries register on an annual basis.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 5.6 Mackas Sand Modification EA Conclusion and Justification

6.0 Conclusion and Justification

6.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts

As detailed in Section 4, the environmental impacts of the proposed modifications to Major Project Approval 08_0142 have been identified and the subject of a detailed environmental assessment that has been based on:

environmental risk assessment of proposed modifications;

assessment of site characteristics (existing environment);

consultation with government agencies;

consultation with community and other stakeholders; and

detailed environmental assessment.

The key issues identified, including those specified in the Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the original EA, were the subject of comprehensive specialist assessments and review, which are detailed in Section 4 and the appendices to this document.

Whilst there are many complex aspects which must be read in their entirety to fully understand these assessments, Table 6.1 provides a broad overview of the key outcomes of the EA.

Table 6.1 - Overview of Environmental and Social Impacts

Environmental/Social Overview of Key Outcomes Issue (After proposed Management and Mitigation) Temporarily Increasing The temporary increase in maximum extraction depth to be Maximum Extraction Depth 0.7 metre above the maximum predicted groundwater level will enable sand to be extracted more efficiently reducing energy usage, travel times and wear and tear on excavation equipment. The final landform will be shaped to ensure that there is at least 1 metre of sand and soil above the maximum predicted extraction level. The temporary lowering of the maximum extraction depth can be undertaken in a manner that has no adverse social or environmental consequences and has been permitted at similar sand extraction operations previously. Surface Water and The proposed access road will utilise an existing road and culvert Flooding in the vicinity of Tilligerry Creek and will be constructed to have negligible impact on surface flow regime of Tilligerry Creek. Water Usage Adoption of the proposed alternate haul route will decrease the travel length outside Lot 218 extraction area by approximately 300 metres and will require additional water for dust suppression on this route due to extended period of product haulage. Public Safety The proposed new intersection on Nelson Bay Road will be constructed in accordance with RMS requirements. High visibility fencing will be erected on the seaward side of where extraction is taking place on Lot 218. Noise Noise assessment indicates that, with appropriate controls including limiting truck speed and truck movements per hour, activities on the proposed alternate haul route can be undertaken without having a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area or nearby residences.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 6.1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Conclusion and Justification

Table 6.1 - Overview of Environmental and Social Impacts (cont)

Environmental/Social Overview of Key Outcomes Issue (After proposed Management and Mitigation) Air Quality There are no non-project related residences that could be subject to adverse air quality impacts as a result of the use of the alternate haul route given that the 200 metres of road from Nelson Bay Road will be sealed, and that the unsealed portion of the access road will be watered as necessary. Bio-Diversity The construction of the alternate haul route is not expected to significantly impact on Diuris praecox and Diuris arenaria. The alignment of the alternate haul route minimises impact on these species. Construction of the access road across Lot 122 and Lot 218 will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectares of Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt forest vegetation community. The loss of this small area of forest community will be offset by sand extraction reducing the rate at which the mobile sand dune system moves landward and smothers existing vegetation. Aboriginal Archaeology The majority of the alternate haul route is within the inter-barrier depression, which was identified as having negligible archaeological significance. The remainder of the alternate haul route between Lot 218 and the inter-barrier depression was identified as site A3 and associated PAD and has high archaeological potential. The remainder of the alternate haul route between Lot 218 and the inter-barrier depression was identified by Aboriginal stakeholders as having high Cultural Heritage value. Four fragmented shell loci have been identified in the proximity of the alternate haul route. Surface artefacts from these sites will be collected in consultation with the Aboriginal Heritage Management Group prior to commencing construction of the alternate haul route at these sites. Following collection of the artefacts, geotextile will be placed over site A3 and associated PAD along the haul route to prevent further disturbance of subsurface material. Road construction has been designed to utilise natural sand fill material as far as possible to minimise disturbance to subsurface materials. A series of procedures have been developed should any archaeological material be found during excavation. Interaction with The alternate haul route will be sealed for the 200 metres closest to surrounding landholders Nelson Bay Road. The alternate access for which approval is sought will not increase impacts in terms of dust, noise, traffic movements and visual on surrounding non-project related properties beyond levels of impact approved as part of Major Project Approval 08_0142.

The impacts of the proposal have been minimised through:

obtaining a detailed understanding of the issues and impacts by scientific evaluation;

developing proactive and appropriate strategies to avoid, minimise and mitigate or manage; and

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 6.2 Mackas Sand Modification EA Conclusion and Justification

implementation of commitments as set out in the Consolidated Statement of Commitments (refer to Section 5).

6.2 Suitability of the Site

The proposed alternate haul route will allow for efficient transportation of sand from Lot 218. The proposed minor changes to maximum extraction depth at Lot 218 and Lot 220 will also facilitate improved extraction efficiency and reduced energy usage with minimal environmental impact.

6.3 Benefits of the Proposed Modifications

Approval of the alternate haul route will provide certainty of access to the approved Lot 218 extraction area and minimise potential impacts on residences adjacent to Lavis Lane and recreational users of Lavis Lane. By facilitating the extraction of sand from Lot 218, the current proposal enables the creation of a number of additional benefits for the local community as assessed for the approved project (Umwelt, 2009a) through direct means such as employment and wages, and indirect processes such as spending and use of services.

The extraction of sand from Lot 218 will also create benefits for local, state and national governments through land tax, rates, GST, fuel excise and other taxes.

6.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Modifications

A range of alternatives were considered in developing the proposed modifications to Major Project Approval 08_0142. These included:

Not seek to establish an alternate haul route to the approved extraction area. This alternative is not preferred due to concerns about the ongoing ability to establish and maintain access over the approved alignment over time and the associated physical constraints that establishing and maintaining this access presents.

Several alignments of alternate haul route were considered. The final route was chosen due to:

. minimised impacts to biodiversity; . minimised impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage values along the alignment; and . greatest certainty for ongoing access to Lot 218.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 6.3 Mackas Sand Modification EA Conclusion and Justification

6.5 Ecologically Sustainable Development

One of the objectives of the EP&A Act is ‘To encourage ecologically sustainable development’. The definition of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) adopted by the EP&A Act is detailed in Section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. The four principles of ESD defined under this Act are:

the precautionary principle – if there are any threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

inter-generational equity – the present generation should ensure the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity – this is a fundamental consideration; and

improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms – environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services.

Table 6.2 outlines the ways these principles have been considered for the proposal.

Table 6.2 – Incorporation of the Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development

ESD Principle Relationship to the proposal Precautionary a detailed analysis of available scientific information has been undertaken for principle the EA and consideration has been given to the extent of scientific certainty relating to any potential impacts; an assessment of alternatives that could be used to replace or supplement the proposal has been undertaken; potential threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage were identified by a risk assessment undertaken for the initial stages of the EA process. This risk analysis was revised as a greater understanding of the proposal and its potential impacts was developed through the EA. Any potential impacts are identified and assessed through the EA (refer to Section 4); and measures to mitigate potential impacts associated with the proposal have been developed and are discussed in Section 4. Inter- a number of mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise any generational potential impacts to the local community (refer to Section 4); equity the proposal will not sterilise any land from any potential future land uses; and  the proposal will assist in addressing industrial and construction grade sand supply limitations to the Hunter and Sydney regional markets.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 6.4 Mackas Sand Modification EA Conclusion and Justification

Table 6.2 – Incorporation of the Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (cont)

ESD Principle Relationship to the proposal Inter-generational the proposal will create a potentially indefinite source of construction equity (cont) grade sand supplies for future generations through utilisation of naturally replenishing sand resources at Lot 218; the utilisation of sand resources at Lots 218 and 220 were key elements in the dedication of the Worimi Conservation Lands by Worimi LALC. These lands will preserve a 4438 hectare section of Stockton Bight for future generations; and the proposal will create a number of ongoing benefits for Worimi people, local and wider communities. Conservation of potential impacts to flora and fauna species and vegetation biological diversity communities of local, regional, state and national significance were and ecological identified and mitigation measures developed to minimise any potential integrity impacts as discussed in Section 4.3; the species, communities and habitats present in the proposed operational areas of the proposal are extensively represented and conserved in the surrounding area (refer to Section 4.3); the extraction of sand resources at Lot 218 will prevent sand dunes encroaching on and smothering on average approximately 2.6 hectares of native forest per year; and the utilisation of sand resources as part of the proposal was a key element in the dedication of the Worimi Conservation Lands by Worimi LALC. These lands preserve a 4438 hectare part of Stockton Bight, including approximately 2180 hectares of Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest. Improved valuation, providing access to Lot 218 will allow for the extraction of fine grade pricing and incentive natural sand. Such sand is an essential resource for many construction mechanisms and industrial products and processes. Currently, no man-made products are available as supplements to this type of sand. Alternative products are available to medium and coarse grade construction sand, although the use of these products is currently constrained by high processing and transport costs and limited availability.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 6.5 Mackas Sand Modification EA Checklist of EA Requirements

7.0 Checklist of EA Requirements

The DGRs from the original EA are included in full in Appendix 1 and a checklist of where each requirement is addressed in the current EA, is provided in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 – Checklist of Environmental Assessment Requirements

Requirement Section of EA General Requirements The Environmental Assessment must include: an executive summary; Executive Summary a detailed description of the project including the: . need for the project; Section 2 . various components and stages of the project; Section 2.1 Section 2.2 . alternatives considered; Section 6.4 . likely inter-relationship between the proposed operations and existing sand Original EA extraction operations; and . plans of any proposed building works. Original EA a risk assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the project, Section 4.2 identifying the key issues for further assessment; a detailed assessment of the key issues specified below, and any other Section 4 significant issues identified in the risk assessment (see above), which includes: . a description of the existing environment, using sufficient baseline data; Original EA Section 4 . an assessment of the potential impacts of all stages of the project including Original EA any cumulative impacts, taking into consideration any relevant guidelines, Section 4 policies, plans and statutory provisions (see below); and . a description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimise, Original EA mitigate, rehabilitate/remediate, monitor and/or offset the potential impacts Section 4 of the project, including detailed contingency plans for managing any significant risks to the environment; a statement of commitments, outlining all the proposed environmental Section 5 management and monitoring measures; a conclusion justifying the project on economic, social and environmental Section 6 grounds, taking into consideration whether the project is consistent with the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; and a signed statement from the author of the Environmental Assessment certifying Appendix 2 that the information contained in the report is neither false nor misleading. Key Issues Biodiversity – including: Section 4.3 . accurate estimates of any vegetation clearing associated with the project; . a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the project on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitat, and the surrounding National Park Estate and Worimi Conservation Lands; and . a description of any measures that would be implemented to maintain or improve biodiversity values in the region;

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 7.1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Checklist of EA Requirements

Table 7.1 – Checklist of Environmental Assessment Requirements (cont)

Requirement Section of EA Soil and Water – paying particular attention to: Original EA . any potential impacts due to acid-sulphate soils; and Section 4.9 . the requirements of the Hunter Water Regulations 2010 and Tomago- Tomaree-Stockton Groundwater Sharing Plan; Noise; Section 4.7 Air Quality; Section 4.8 Heritage – both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage; Section 4.4, Section 4.5 Visual; and Original EA Rehabilitation and Final Land Form – including a detailed description of the: Section . proposed rehabilitation strategy for the project (including detailed plans of 4.10 the proposed final landform), taking into consideration any relevant strategic land use planning or resource management plans or policies; and . financial assurances that would be put in place to ensure that this strategy is implemented properly; and Social & Economic Section 6 References Section 9 The environmental assessment of key issues listed above must take into account relevant guidelines, policies, and plans. While not exhaustive, the following attachment contains a list of some of the guidelines, policies, and plans that may be relevant to the environmental assessment of this project. Consultation Section 1.3 During the preparation of the Environmental Assessment, you should consult with the relevant local, State or Commonwealth government authorities, service providers, community groups or affected landowners. In particular, you should consult with: Department of Environment and Climate Change (now Office of Environment and Heritage); Department of Water and Energy (now NSW Office of Water); Hunter Water Corporation; Department of Primary Industries (Minerals)(now Department of Trade Investment Regional Infrastructure and Services); Roads and Traffic Authority; and Port Stephen’s Council. The consultation process and the issues raised must be described in the Environmental Assessment.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 7.2 Mackas Sand Modification EA Abbreviations

8.0 Abbreviations

ACHMP Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan

AEMR Annual Environmental Management Report

AHD Australian Height Datum

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

AHMG Aboriginal Heritage Management Group

ANEF Australian Noise Exposure Forecast

CCC Community Consultative Committee

CKPoM Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DCP Development Control Plan

DECC Department of Environmental and Climate Change

DGRs Director-General’s Requirements

DoP Department of Planning (now Department of Planning & Infrastructure)

DP&I Department of Planning and Infrastructure

DSEWPC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

DST Daylight Savings Time

DTIRIS Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services

EA Environmental Assessment

EARs Environmental Assessment Requirements

EP&A Act Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ESD Ecological Sustainable Development

EST Eastern Standard Time

HWC Hunter Water Corporation

LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council

LEP Local Environment Plan

LHCCREMS Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 8.1 Mackas Sand Modification EA Abbreviations

LGA Local Government Area

Mackas Sand Mackas Sand Pty Ltd

ML Megalitres

NOW NSW Office of Water

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

PAD Potential Archaeological Deposits

PKH Preferred Koala Habitat

PSC Port Stephens Council

RMS Roads and Maritime Services

SHR State Heritage Register

SKH Supplementary Koala Habitat

SWMP Soil and Water Management Plan

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

Umwelt Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

UXOMP Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan

WR Water Reserve

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 8.2 Mackas Sand Modification EA References

9.0 References

Environmental Resources Management (Australia) Pty Ltd (ERM), 2006. Stockton Bight Remaining Lands Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Nelson Bay.

Landcom, 2004. Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Volume 1, 4th Edition, 2004 (Landcom).

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2000). Vegetation Survey, Classification and Mapping: Lower Hunter and Central Coast Region. A project undertaken for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy by the CRA Unit, Sydney Zone.

Port Stephens Council Local Environmental Plan 2000.

Port Stephens Council, 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control, Regional Policy and Code of Practice.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2009a. Environmental Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 DP 1044608 and Lot 220 DP 1049608, Salt Ash. Report prepared for Mackas Sand.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2009b. Noise Management Plan for Sand Extraction Operations, Lot 218 and Lot 220 Nelson Bay Road, Salt Ash, NSW.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2009c. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan for Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 DP 1044608 and Lot 220 DP 1049608, Salt Ash.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2009d. Mackas Sand Pty Limited Landscape Management Plan (including Rehabilitation Management Plan and Long Term Management Strategy).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2011a. Environmental Management Strategy for Sand Extraction at Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash, NSW.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2011b. Maximum Extraction Depth for Sand Extraction at Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash, NSW.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2012. Mackas Sand Annual Environmental Management Report Year to 20 September 2012.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R36/Final October 2012 9.1

APPENDIX 1

Director-General’s Requirements

APPENDIX 2

Statement of Authorship and Project Team

Umwelt Project Team

Peter Jamieson (Project Director)

Environmental assessment and direction, client and stakeholder consultation, report writing and review

Andy Goodwin (Project Manager)

Environmental assessment and management, client, agency, community and Aboriginal stakeholder consultation, archaeological and ecological survey participation, report writing and review

Jan Wilson (Manager Cultural Heritage)

Archaeological reporting and review

Nicola Roche (Senior Archaeologist)

Archaeological reporting and review

Andrew Roberts (Senior Archaeologist)

Archaeological survey, report writing and review

Alison Riley (Senior Ecologist)

Ecological reporting and review

Shaun Corry (Ecologist)

Ecological survey and report writing

Subconsultants

Terry Keating (TPK & Associates Pty Ltd)

Traffic Report

David Thomas (Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd)

Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan

1646/R36/A2 2

APPENDIX 3

Ecological Assessment

Mackas Sand

Ecological Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 DP 1044608, Salt Ash

October 2012

Ecological Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 DP 1044608, Salt Ash

October 2012

Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Mackas Sand

Project Director: Peter Jamieson Project Manager: Andy Goodwin Report No: 1646/R38/Final Date: October 2012

Newcastle

PO Box 3024 75 York Street Teralba, NSW 2284 Ph: 02 4950 5322 www.umwelt.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Legislative Context ...... 1 1.2 Description of the Alternate Haul Route ...... 2 1.3 Objectives ...... 2

2.0 Methods ...... 3 2.1 Literature Review ...... 3 2.1.1 Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens NSW (Driscoll and Bell 2006) ...... 3 2.1.2 Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy Vegetation Mapping ...... 3 2.1.3 Draft Flora and Fauna Assessment for Proposed Rezoning of Lot 218, Stockton Bight (Umwelt 2004) ...... 4 2.1.4 Ecological Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash (Umwelt 2009a) ...... 4 2.1.5 Modification to Environmental Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash (Umwelt 2012a)...... 4 2.1.6 Ecological Database Searches ...... 5 2.2 Field Surveys ...... 5 2.2.1 Flora Survey ...... 5 2.2.2 Plant Identification and Taxonomic Review ...... 6 2.2.3 Targeted Orchid Surveys ...... 7 2.2.4 Fauna Survey ...... 7

3.0 Flora Survey Results ...... 8 3.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 8 3.1.1 Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest ...... 8 3.1.2 Previously Disturbed Grassland ...... 8 3.1.3 Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest ...... 9 3.2 Threatened Flora Species and Endangered Populations ...... 9 3.3 Threatened Ecological Communities ...... 10

4.0 Fauna Survey Results ...... 10 4.1 Fauna Habitat ...... 10 4.2 Koala Habitat Assessment ...... 11 4.3 Fauna Species Recorded ...... 12

5.0 Impact Assessment ...... 12 5.1.1 Summary of Impacts ...... 13 5.1.2 Threatened Flora Species ...... 13 5.1.3 Threatened Ecological Communities ...... 13 5.1.4 Endangered Populations ...... 13 5.1.5 Threatened Fauna Species ...... 13

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 i

5.1.6 Koala Assessment ...... 14 5.1.7 Matters of National Environmental Significance (EPBC Act) ...... 14 5.1.8 Key Threatening Processes ...... 15 5.1.9 Threatened Species Conservation Act KTPs ...... 16 5.1.10 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act KTPs...... 17 5.1.11 Critical Habitat ...... 17

6.0 Proposed Mitigation Measures ...... 17 6.1 Protection and Management of Arboreal Habitat (Clearing Procedure) ...... 17 6.2 Road Usage Rules for the Protection of Ecological Values ...... 18 6.3 Rehabilitation ...... 19 6.4 Biodiversity Offsetting Considerations ...... 19

7.0 References ...... 20

FIGURES

1.1 Locality Plan ...... 1

1.2 Proposed Alternate Haul Route ...... 1

2.1 Alternate Haul Route Survey Locations ...... 6

3.1 Alternate Haul Route Vegetation Communities and Threatened Species Locations ...... 8

4.1 Alternate Haul Route Koala Habitat ...... 11

PLATES

1. Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest ...... 8

2. Disturbed Grassland ...... 8

3. Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest ...... 8

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 ii

APPENDICES

A. Flora Species List

B. Threatened Flora and Fauna Species, Endangered Populations and TECs recorded or with Potential to Occur

C. Fauna Species List

D. Assessment of Significance under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

E. Assessment under the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

F. Assessment of Significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 iii

1.0 Introduction

In 2009, Mackas Sand was granted development consent (Major Project Approval 08_0142) to extract industrial grade and construction sand resources from Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash, New South Wales (NSW) (Figure 1.1). The approval includes provision for Mackas Sand to access Lot 218 via an existing public road off Lavis Lane and then via a private haul route through the Quality Sands and Ceramics sand quarry and Lot 227 DP 1097995. The Ecological Assessment for that development application was prepared by Umwelt (2009a). Mackas Sand sought approval for modification of Major Project Approval 08_0142 to establish an alternate haul road route to Lot 218 around the Quality Sands and Ceramics sand quarry site in January 2012 (Umwelt 2012a). The alternate route proposal as assessed in (Umwelt 2012a) is now considered unfeasible. A new alternate haul road route has been proposed and is the subject of this assessment. The currently proposed alternate haul route connects Lot 218 directly with Nelson Bay Road and is shown in Figure 1.2.

Mackas Sand now seeks approval for modification of Major Project Approval 08_0142 to establish this new alternate haul route to Lot 218 via a new access off Nelson Bay Road. Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) has been engaged by Mackas Sand to prepare the necessary environmental assessments for the proposed modification (the ‘alternate haul route’), including this Ecological Assessment.

1.1 Legislative Context

The original proposal satisfied the definition of a Major Project under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 and approval was given in accordance with the requirements of the now repealed Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Modifications to projects approved under Part 3A that are outside the scope of the original approval are permitted with consent under Section 75W of the EP&A Act. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is the determining authority for modifications under Section 75W of the EP&A Act.

In addition, the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requires any action that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on Commonwealth land or Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) to obtain approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment.

A search of the Commonwealth Government’s Protected Matters Search Tool was undertaken on 10 October 2012 and did not identify any MNES in relation to the proposal. The proposal will not affect any Commonwealth lands. A discussion of impacts to actual and potential EPBC listed flora and fauna is included in Section 5.1.7. The proposed modification has been referred under the EPBC Act to Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 1

1.2 Description of the Alternate Haul Route

The modification sought is to construct and utilise an alternate route to access the approved sand extraction area on Lot 218 in DP 1044608 (Lot 218), Salt Ash.

The alternate access to the Lot 218 extraction area is via a new road connecting Lot 218 to Nelson Bay Road in the north. The proposed alternate haul route is approximately 2 kilometres in length and passes through Lot 4 DP1121457, Lot 1 DP177679, Lot 810 DP1008279, Lot 58 DP753192, and Lot 122 DP753192 (refer to Figure 1.2). Right of way has been obtained by Mackas Sand for the development of the alternate access. The section of track located within Lot 218 has been assessed within (Umwelt 2012a) and was not reassessed as part of the current assessment.

Approximately 500 metres of the alternate Nelson Bay Road haul route follows an existing track. Approximately 1180 metres of the alignment of the alternate haul road route is to be constructed over disturbed grassland with the remaining 320 metres to be constructed through Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest.

The alternate haul route easement will be a gravelled surface disturbance approximately 8 metres in width however for the purpose of this assessment a maximum width of 10 metres was assessed. In total, the preferred alternate haul route would disturb an area of approximately 2.03 hectares of which approximately 0.48 hectares is unvegetated (existing track), 1.18 hectares is disturbed grassland and the remaining 0.37 hectares is Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest.

1.3 Objectives

This Ecological Assessment was prepared by Umwelt to assess the potential impact of the alternate Nelson Bay Road haul route on native flora and fauna species, populations and ecological communities occurring within or in the vicinity of the alternate haul road route. The total disturbance footprint of the alternate haul route is approximately 2.03 hectares.

The objectives of the Ecological Assessment were to:

record the flora and fauna species/communities present in the habitats of the alternate haul route;

identify any threatened or migratory species, endangered populations, threatened ecological communities (TECs), or their habitats, listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) or the EPBC Act;

assess the impact that the alternate haul route would have on any threatened flora and fauna species, endangered populations, TECs, or their habitats, recorded, or with the potential to occur within the alternate haul route; and

provide management recommendations to mitigate ecological impacts associated with the alternate haul route.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 2

2.0 Methods

2.1 Literature Review

A review of previous documents and reports relevant to the Project was undertaken. This included regional and sub-regional vegetation mapping reports, site-specific surveys completed within the alternate haul route, ecological surveys undertaken in the vicinity of the alternate haul route and also relevant ecological database searches. The information obtained was used to inform survey design, and was also used to assist in the assessment of potentially occurring threatened and migratory species, endangered populations and TECs. Relevant documents are discussed below, focussing on the key findings of each assessment.

2.1.1 Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens NSW (Driscoll and Bell 2006)

Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales (Driscoll and Bell 2006) was commissioned by the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC). The aim of the report was to identify and map groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) on the Tomago and Tomaree sandbeds to assist in the management of water extraction from aquifers.

Driscoll and Bell (2006) provide the most comprehensive vegetation mapping in the local area. The alternate haul route is located to the south-east of the Driscoll and Bell (2006) study area, however some mapped vegetation communities extend as far south as the alternate haul route. The characteristics of the vegetation communities in the alternate haul route were compared to vegetation community descriptions from Driscoll and Bell (2006). Based on this, the vegetation communities along the forested section of the alternate haul route broadly align with two community descriptions, being Tomago Blackbutt – Apple – Bloodwood Forest and Anna Bay Blackbutt – Apple –Bloodwood Forest.

2.1.2 Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy Vegetation Mapping

Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (LHCCREMS) Vegetation Mapping (NPWS 2000 and House 2003) is a broad-based vegetation mapping system for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast regions incorporating seven local government areas (LGAs), from Port Stephens to Gosford and west to Cessnock. The aim of this report was to provide cross tenure maps of the distribution of vascular plant communities in the Lower Hunter and Central Coast regions.

Characteristics of the vegetation communities along the alternate haul route were compared to the LHCCREMS vegetation map units and where appropriate, were mapped using the same map unit names.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 3

2.1.3 Draft Flora and Fauna Assessment for Proposed Rezoning of Lot 218, Stockton Bight (Umwelt 2004)

The Draft Flora and Fauna Assessment for Proposed Rezoning of Lot 218 at Stockton Bight report (Umwelt 2004) was prepared to meet the flora and fauna assessment requirements for Port Stephens Council as a component of a rezoning application of the site.

Surveys undertaken identified 39 fauna species, including the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus), powerful owl (Ninox strenua), Gould’s wattled bat (Chalinolobus gouldii) and little forest bat (Vespadelus vulturnus). A total of 25 flora species were recorded within the Coastal Sands Apple – Blackbutt Forest and Swamp Mahogany Paperbark Forest communities which were mapped outside the approved sand extraction area of Lot 218.

2.1.4 Ecological Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash (Umwelt 2009a)

Umwelt was engaged by Mackas Sand to undertake the environmental assessments associated with sand extraction on Lots 218 and 220 at Salt Ash. The vegetated disturbance area for the sand extraction development on Lot 220 was 48 hectares. The approved Lot 218 extraction area comprises unvegetated mobile sand dune. Although the assessment covered both Lots 218 and 220, as the disturbance area of Lot 218 is unvegetated, all detailed surveys were undertaken within Lot 220. The 2009 survey area overlapped the alternate haul route and included similar vegetation communities.

The report drew on the previous ecological surveys undertaken in 2003 and 2004 (see Umwelt 2004) with additional ecological surveys including targeted flora and fauna surveys, ground-truthing existing vegetation community mapping, threatened flora species survey, an assessment of the current condition of the project area and an updated fauna survey and habitat assessment.

No threatened flora species, endangered populations or TECs were recorded in Lots 220 or 218. Four threatened fauna species were recorded during surveys specifically for this project, being the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) and the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis).

2.1.5 Modification to Environmental Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash (Umwelt 2012a)

Umwelt was engaged by Mackas Sand to undertake the environmental assessments associated with an alternate haul road to allow access to Lot 218 at Salt Ash. Modification to Environmental Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 and Lot 220, Salt Ash (Umwelt 2012a) was put on public exhibition from 18 January 2012 to 17 February 2012. The report drew on the previous ecological surveys undertaken in 2003, 2004 and 2009 with additional ecological surveys including targeted flora and fauna surveys, ground-truthing the vegetation community mapping, threatened flora species survey, an assessment of the current condition of the project area and an updated fauna survey and habitat assessment conducted.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 4

Three threatened flora species were identified within the proposed haul road route being Diuris arenaria (sand doubletail), Diuris praecox (Newcastle doubletail) and a hybrid Angophora inopina (Charmhaven apple). Three threatened bat species were recorded during the assessment including grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), little bent-wing bat (Miniopterus australis) and greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax ruppellii).

No endangered populations or TEC’s were recorded.

2.1.6 Ecological Database Searches

A search of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Atlas of NSW Wildlife database was undertaken to identify threatened species, endangered populations and TECs that have been previously recorded within a 10 kilometre radius of the alternate haul route. Similarly, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) Protected Matters database was searched to identify Commonwealth listed threatened and migratory flora and fauna species and ecological communities whose range falls within the bounds of the alternate haul route and/or have been previously recorded or are predicted to occur within a 10 kilometre radius. The data obtained from these two database searches were used to compile a list of threatened species, populations and TECs potentially occurring within the alternate haul route. A comparison between habitat requirements for each of these species and the habitat types present within the alternate haul route was undertaken to determine the likelihood of TSC Act and EPBC Act listed flora and fauna species occurring.

2.2 Field Surveys

Ecological surveys undertaken as part of this assessment were conducted by Umwelt on 24 July, 6 September, 20 September and 12 October 2012. The survey effort is described in Sections 2.2.1 below. The aims of the field surveys within the alternate haul route were to:

describe the vegetation communities and fauna habitat types present;

describe the health and condition of the vegetation and habitats;

obtain information on the general floristics and fauna species diversity;

identify threatened flora and fauna species, migratory species and populations or TECs or their habitats occurring within or having potential to occur; and

collate sufficient information to enable an accurate assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological values.

2.2.1 Flora Survey

Detailed flora surveys have been undertaken previously within Lot 218 and 220 to inform ecological impact assessments (Umwelt 2004, 2009a and 2012a) and the results of these surveys have been taken into consideration during the development of the survey methodology for the current assessment.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 5

Three rapid assessment plots were sampled in selected areas within the alternate haul route (see Figure 2.1). At each rapid assessment plot, a period of 15 to 20 minutes was spent searching for the dominant vascular flora species present within the plot. Species within the plot were assigned a cover-abundance value to reflect their relative cover and abundance. A modified Braun-Blanquet 6-point scale (Braun-Blanquet 1927, with selected modifications sourced from Poore 1955 and Austin et al. 2000) was used to estimate cover-abundances of all plant species recorded within each quadrat and plot. Table 2.1 shows the cover-abundance categories used.

Table 2.1 - Modified Braun-Blanquet Crown Cover-Abundance Scale

Class Cover-Abundance* Notes 1 Few individuals Herbs, sedges and grasses: <5 individuals (less than 5% cover) Shrubs and small trees: <5 individuals 2 Many individuals Herbs, sedges and grasses: 5 or more (less than 5% cover) individuals Shrubs and small trees: 5 or more individuals Medium-large overhanging tree 3 5 – less than 20% cover - 4 20 – less than 50% cover - 5 50 – less than 75% cover - 6 75 – 100% cover - Note:* Modified Braun-Blanquet scale (Poore 1955; Austin et al. 2000).

At each of the rapid assessment plots, information was gathered regarding the condition of vegetation. Additionally, features indicating the general health of the vegetation at each quadrat were recorded, including: evidence of natural regeneration; occurrence and abundance of weeds; and evidence of disturbance and feral animals.

In addition to rapid assessment plot sampling, ground-truthing of vegetation mapping was undertaken across the extent of the alternate haul route, and all species observed opportunistically were recorded.

2.2.2 Plant Identification and Taxonomic Review

All vascular plants recorded or collected were identified using keys and nomenclature from Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 and 2002) and Wheeler et al. (2002). Recent changes to nomenclature and classification were incorporated into the results, as derived from PlantNET (Botanic Gardens Trust 2012), the on-line plant name database maintained by the National Herbarium of NSW.

Common names used follow Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 and 2002) where available, and draw on other sources such as local names where these references do not provide common names. Where the identity of a specimen was unknown or uncertain, it was lodged with the National Herbarium of New South Wales at the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 6

2.2.3 Targeted Orchid Surveys

Orchid surveys specifically targeting sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) were undertaken by an Umwelt ecologist on 6 and 20 September and 12 October 2012. This survey focused on areas considered to represent potential habitat along the alternate haul route and consisted of parallel transect approximately 5 metres apart being walked throughout the areas of potential habitat. A total area of 2.4 hectares was searched during the survey (refer to Figure 2.1). Any individuals identified during the surveys were counted and recorded with a hand held Global Positioning System (GPS).

Prior to the commencement of the surveys, areas known to contain both species of orchid were surveyed to ensure the species were flowering and detectable. Areas known to contain both species of orchids were identified during targeted orchid surveys during 2011 (see Section 2.1.5). The location of previous orchid survey and known orchid locations are shown on Figure 2.1.

2.2.4 Fauna Survey

Detailed fauna surveys have been undertaken previously within Lots 218 and 220 to inform ecological impact assessments (Umwelt 2004, 2009a and 2012a) and the results of these surveys have been taken into consideration during the development of the survey methodology for this assessment.

The fauna survey consisted of an assessment of habitat within each of the different fauna habitats and opportunistic sightings of fauna species. A total of three fauna habitat assessment sites were assessed during the field survey (refer to Figure 2.1).

Observations of the following habitat features were made throughout the alternate haul route:

evidence of fire;

nature of and extent of erosion;

extent of weed species;

presence of feral animals;

type of ground cover (e.g. litter, rock, soil);

ground fauna resources;

wet soaks/drainage lines;

degree of dieback;

presence of mistletoe;

number of habitat trees;

structure and floristics of vegetation cover; and

koala habitat.

As part of the habitat assessment, all habitat trees (those with hollows, nests or dreys) were marked and recorded using a GPS.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 7

3.0 Flora Survey Results

3.1 Vegetation Communities

Two vegetation communities were recorded within the alternate haul route, being: Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest and Previously Disturbed Grassland. The distribution of these communities within the alternate haul route is shown in Figure 3.1 (see Plates 1 to 3). A third community, Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest is adjacent to the eastern edge of the alternate haul route and has therefore also been described below. Flora Species List is included as Appendix A.

3.1.1 Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest

The Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest (nomenclature following LHCCREMS vegetation classification (NPWS 2000)), occurs in the southern part of the proposed alternate haul route and covers an area of approximately 0.37 hectares within the alternative haul route alignment and extends into the adjoining Worimi Conservation Lands. This community is characterised by a canopy stratum to 30 per cent cover, up to 16 metres in height that is dominated by blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) and smooth-barked apple (Angophora costata). A sub-canopy layer is present and is dominated by old man banksia (Banksia serrata) and broom-heath (Monotoca elliptica). The sub-canopy typically has a canopy cover of 10 per cent and a height of up to 10 metres.

The Coastal Sand Apple - Blackbutt Forest extends into the adjoining Worimi Conservation Lands. The 4438 hectares of Worimi Conservation Lands include the 524 hectare Worimi National Park and contains a significant tract of Coastal Sand Apple - Blackbutt Forest and pockets of Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (described in Section 3.1.3).

3.1.2 Previously Disturbed Grassland

A significant proportion of the northern section of the alternate haul route comprises previously disturbed areas such as existing dirt roads and 1.18 hectares of previously disturbed grassland within the proposed alternate haul route alignment. In the disturbed grassland, vegetation has been cleared for agricultural purposes, leaving only ground cover vegetation, typically less than 0.5 metre in height.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 8

common reed (Phragmites australis) and broadleaf cumbungi (Typha orientalis) were recorded.

3.1.3 Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest

Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (nomenclature following LHCCREMS vegetation classification), occurs in a moist depression along the eastern border of the alternate haul route, adjacent to Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest and occupies an area of approximately 0.42 hectares. As shown on Figure 3.1, this community is located outside of the proposed haul road disturbance footprint. This vegetation community is characterised by a canopy stratum to 30 per cent cover and 15 metres in height that is dominated by swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis).

3.2 Threatened Flora Species and Endangered Populations

No threatened flora species or endangered flora populations were recorded along the proposed haul route during this assessment.

Previous surveys have identified three threatened species occurring within the vicinity of the proposed haul route including Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina) which is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts and two cryptic orchid species, sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) which is listed as endangered under the TSC Act and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) which is listed as vulnerable under the TSC and EPBC Acts (Refer to Figure 3.1).

Targeted orchid surveys identified sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) occurring in the previously recorded location (adjacent to the alternate haul route) but not within the alternate haul route. The other orchid species, Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) was not detected during the targeted orchid surveys. An additional inspection undertaken on 20 September and 12 October 2012 also failed to locate any Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) flowering.

The leafless tongue-orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana), was an additional threatened flora species that was identified as having the potential to occur within the alternate haul route (based on database searches and literature review) and this, and the other three species listed above, are assessed further in Appendix B.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 9

3.3 Threatened Ecological Communities

All TECs occurring in the Sydney Basin Bioregion were considered for their potential to occur in the alternate haul route, and this list was narrowed down to the following TECs that were considered to have potential to occur:

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South-East Corner Bioregions;

Littoral Rainforest in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South-East Corner Bioregions;

Freshwater Wetlands in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South-East Corner Bioregions; and

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South-East Corner Bioregions.

The characteristics of the vegetation communities recorded along the proposed haul route were compared with the characteristics of the above TECs. No TECs were found to be consistent with the vegetation communities within the alternate haul route.

While the Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest recorded shares some floristic and structural characteristics with the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplain TEC, the community does not occur on a floodplain, is not associated with any floodplain, and therefore is not consistent with the description provided in the final determination for the listing of the community under the TSC Act (NSW Scientific Committee 2004). This community will not be disturbed by the proposed development.

The disturbed grassland community identified within the alternate haul route does occur within a coastal floodplain, however prolonged use of the area for cattle grazing has resulted in a highly modified environment which is almost completely dominated by pasture grasses such as kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestina) and other introduced herbs such as fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis). Swamp oak (Casuarina glauca) and broad-leaf paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) do occur occasionally throughout the grassland however the occurrence of these elements alone within the disturbed grassland is not sufficient for this vegetation community to meet the description of Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest TEC according to the scientific committee’s final determination (NSW Scientific Committee 2004). Based on the condition of the understorey and the highly disturbed nature of the floodplain, no coastal floodplain TEC’s are considered to occur within the alternate haul route.

4.0 Fauna Survey Results

4.1 Fauna Habitat

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 10

4.2 Koala Habitat Assessment

The vegetation communities of the alternate haul route were assessed according to the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM). One tree species listed as a core koala feed tree in the CKPoM, swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), was found to occur in the vicinity of the alternate haul route. This species occurs in the Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (refer to Figure 4.1).

The proposed alternate haul route will pass through a small area of Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt Forest which is classified as Supplementary Koala Habitat (SKH) according to the CKPoM. However given its proximity to the Swamp Mahogany – Paperbark Forest (less than 50 metres away) which is identified as Preferred Koala Habitat (PKH) some is reclassified as Habitat Buffer over SKH.

The alternate haul route will result in the removal of all vegetation within the 10 metre road wide road alignment which will comprise of approximately 0.26 hectares of SKH and 0.11 hectares of Buffer over SKH.

An assessment of the alternate haul route in accordance with Appendix 4 of the CKPoM has been prepared and detailed in Section 5.7.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 11

4.3 Fauna Species Recorded

A total of 36 fauna species were recorded during fauna surveys of the alternate haul route, including 30 bird species, one mammal species, two reptile species and three amphibian species. A list of all species recorded in the alternate haul route is provided in Appendix C.

One threatened species was recorded during the current surveys; being the grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) which is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. A group of seven of these birds were identified to the east of the alternate haul route. Previous surveys have identified three threatened species adjacent to the alternate haul route (refer to Figure 3.1) and a further seven species are known to occur in the vicinity. Threatened species recorded during 2003 2008, 2011 and current surveys include:

grey-crowned babbler (eastern subsp.) (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis);

grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus);

little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis); and

greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii).

The following list of threatened fauna species have been previously recorded in the local area in habitats comparable to those identified within the alternate haul route:

squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis);

koala (Phascolarctos cinereus);

eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus);

new holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae);

eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis);

masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae); and

powerful owl (Ninox strenua).

A further 10 threatened fauna species were identified as having the potential to occur within the alternate haul route (based on database searches and literature review) and identified in Appendix B.

5.0 Impact Assessment

The following sections provide an assessment of the impacts of the proposed alternate haul route (as described in Section 1.2), taking into consideration the proposed mitigation measures detailed in Section 6.0 that will be adhered to for the project.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 12

5.1.1 Summary of Impacts

The proposed haul route will result in the removal of approximately 0.37 hectares of native vegetation that comprises Coastal Apple – Blackbutt Forest. The remainder of the proposed haul route will result in the modification of 1.66 hectares of disturbed land and predominately exotic grassland currently being grazed by cattle.

5.1.2 Threatened Flora Species

An intergrade of Angophora floribunda and Angophora inopina was identified in 2011 (Umwelt 2012a) along the previously proposed haul road route to the south-west of the currently proposed alternate haul route. This species was located approximately 500 metres west of the currently proposed haul route and were not recorded during the current survey and as such, will not be impacted upon by the proposed haul road (see Figure 3.1).

Approximately 250 individuals of the threatened orchid species Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) were recorded adjacent to the habitats of the alternate haul route in 2011 (refer to Figure 3.1). In addition, 50 sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) were also recorded in areas adjacent to the alternate haul route at this time. Neither species have been recorded within the alternate haul route, however only sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) was identifiable during the targeted survey which included areas where the sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) was previously identified.

Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina), leafless tongue orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) are listed as vulnerable species under the TSC Act and sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) is listed as an endangered species under the TSC Act. Assessments of significance (in accordance with the EP&A Act) prepared for Charmhaven apple, leafless tongue orchid, Newcastle doubletail and sand doubletail (Appendix D) determined that the proposed alternate haul route would not be likely to have a significant impact on any of these species.

Although the impact associated with the development of the alternate haul route on these threatened flora species will be low, a number of impact mitigation measures (refer to Section 6.0) have been developed to further reduce the impacts.

5.1.3 Threatened Ecological Communities

No TECs will be impacted as a result of the alternate haul route.

5.1.4 Endangered Populations

No endangered populations will be impacted as a result of the alternate haul.

5.1.5 Threatened Fauna Species

No threatened fauna species have been recorded within the alternate haul route, however 11 threatened species are known to occur in adjacent, contiguous habitats (refer to Section 4.3) and the alternate haul route provides potential habitat for a further nine threatened fauna species.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 13

Assessments of significance (in accordance with the EP&A Act) prepared for the threatened fauna species previously recorded within the vicinity and those deemed to have the potential to occur within the alternate haul route (Appendix D) determined that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on any threatened fauna species based on the small area of impact to potential fauna habitat (0.37 hectares) and the large areas of similar and contiguous habitat in the vicinity of the alternate haul route.

5.1.6 Koala Assessment

An assessment of potential impacts on the koala under the Port Stephens CKPoM has been undertaken and is included in Appendix E. Koala habitat delineation in line with the CKPoM identified the native vegetation within the alternate haul route as being SKH (0.26 hectares) and Buffer over SKH (0.11 hectares) as a result of PKH occurring directly to the east of the alternate haul route. The remainder of the haul route is considered to represent Mainly Cleared areas. The loss of 0.26 hectares of SKH and 0.11 hectares of Buffer over SKH is not expected to represent a significant loss of habitat for the Koala in the local area and is not expected to result in an adverse affect on the persistence of the Koala in the local area or region.

5.1.7 Matters of National Environmental Significance (EPBC Act)

Under the Commonwealth EPBC Act, the approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment is required for any action that may have a significant impact on Matters MNES. These matters are:

listed threatened species and communities;

migratory species protected under international agreements;

Ramsar wetlands of international importance;

the Commonwealth marine environment;

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;

World Heritage properties;

National Heritage places; and

Nuclear actions.

Below is a summary of the key MNES that apply to the alternate haul route, with further assessment provided in Appendix F.

The previous alternate haul route assessed in 2011 (Umwelt 2012a) was referred to the DSEWPC and assessments of particular threatened species was made at that time (Umwelt 2012b). It was determined that there was no or negligible potential for significant impact to the assessed species and accordingly no further assessment is provided here. Species included;

eastern bristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus);

dwarf kerrawang (Rulingia prostrata); and

new holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 14

Threatened Flora Species

The Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina), leafless tongue orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) are listed under the EPBC Act. Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina) and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) are known to occur in the vicinity of the alternate haul route and potential habitat was identified for the leafless tongue orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) within the alternate haul route.

Threatened Fauna Species

Eight threatened fauna species were identified as potentially occurring within either the alternate haul route, being:

regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia);

swift parrot (Lathamus discolor);

spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus);

long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus);

New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae);

koala (Phascolarctos cinereus);

grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); and

large-eared pied-bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri).

Migratory Species

A total of 12 migratory and/or marine fauna species were identified as occurring or having the potential to occur in the alternate haul route based on the results of an EPBC Protected Matters search (SEWPC 2012) and habitat availability within these areas.

The EPBC Act set out criteria which are used to determine whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on MNES. These criteria are addressed in the Assessment of Significance provided in Appendix F for each of the recorded and potentially occurring species listed as threatened or migratory under the EPBC Act. The assessments of significance conclude that the project will not result in a significant impact on any listed threatened species and communities or migratory species listed under the Schedules of the EPBC Act based on the small area of impact (approximately 2.03 hectares) and the large areas of similar and contiguous habitat in the vicinity of the alternate haul route within the Worimi Conservation Lands as described in Section 3.1.1).

5.1.8 Key Threatening Processes

A number of Key Threatening Processes (KTP) listed under the Schedules of TSC Act and EPBC Act, are relevant to the proposed development. A discussion of the implications of the relevant KTP under each Act is detailed below.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 15

5.1.9 Threatened Species Conservation Act KTPs a) Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed

The invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed contributes greatly to the loss of biodiversity along the NSW coast. The rapid colonisation of this species poses potential risk if disturbed areas are not monitored and maintained.

The development of the alternate haul route has potential to cause some localised outbreaks of bitou bush, particularly along the track edge. Weed management commitments as articulated within the Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt 2009b) will apply along the proposed alternate haul route alignment to ensure ongoing monitoring and management of any weed outbreaks that may occur. b) Invasion, establishment and spread of Lantana camara

The invasion, establishment and spread of lantana (Lantana camara) contributes greatly to the loss of biodiversity throughout NSW coast and ranges. The rapid colonisation of this species poses potential risk if disturbed areas are not monitored and maintained.

The development of the alternate haul route has potential to cause some localised outbreaks of lantana (already present along the proposed alternate haul route), particularly along the track edge. Weed management commitments as articulated within the Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt 2009b) will apply along the proposed alternate haul route alignment to ensure ongoing monitoring and management of any weed outbreaks that may occur. c) Clearing of native vegetation

The clearing of native vegetation is listed as a major factor contributing to the loss of biological diversity. The proposed development will involve the clearing of less than 0.37 hectares of native vegetation. Relative to the distribution of vegetation and habitats within the local area, the disturbance of 0.37 hectares is not regarded as a significant loss of native vegetation. d) Loss of hollow-bearing trees

The loss of hollow-bearing trees is a major threat to native vertebrate fauna, in particular threatened species, throughout NSW. Hollow bearing trees provide nesting, roosting and foraging resources for a range of native fauna. Many fauna species are known to select hollows with specific characteristics highlighting the value of a range of hollow-bearing trees in an area.

The alternate haul route supports a number of hollow-bearing trees, providing potential habitats for hollow-dependent species such as the threatened squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis). Two habitat trees were marked within a 20 metre alignment of the proposed haul route, To reduce the impacts on any hollow-dependent species in the alternate haul route, hollow bearing trees will be avoided, where possible, or where this is not possible an ecologically appropriate tree-clearing procedure (as set out in the Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt 2009b)) will be followed for all clearing works.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 16

e) Removal of dead wood and dead trees

Dead wood and dead trees provide valuable nesting, roosting and foraging resources for a range of native fauna. The removal of dead wood and dead trees results is a loss of habitat for native fauna. The proposed development will involve the clearing of 0.37 hectares of native vegetation which would support such habitats for native fauna. The alternate haul route is connected with large expanses of similar native vegetation, and as such the removal of 0.37 hectares does not comprise a significant loss of habitat in the local region.

5.1.10 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act KTPs. a) Land clearance

The clearing of native vegetation is listed as a major factor contributing to the loss of biological diversity. The proposed development will involve the clearing of 0.37 hectares of native vegetation. Relative to the distribution of vegetation and habitats within the local area, the disturbance of 0.37 hectares is not regarded as a significant loss of native vegetation.

5.1.11 Critical Habitat

No critical habitat listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act was identified in the alternate haul route.

6.0 Proposed Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures for the alternate haul route are based on and consistent with those developed for the existing approved sand quarry as outlined in Umwelt (2009a and 2009b) and Major Project Approval 08_142. The following sections describe the relevant mitigation measures, how they relate to the proposed development and how they should be integrated with the ecological management of the approved sand extraction operations.

6.1 Protection and Management of Arboreal Habitat (Clearing Procedure)

An approved vegetation clearing procedure was developed for the sand extraction proposal (Umwelt 2009b). All vegetation clearing in relation to the proposed alternate haul route will be undertaken in accordance with this procedure. The clearing procedure is aimed to minimise the impacts of the proposed developments on arboreal fauna species and habitat. In particular a number of hollow-bearing trees occur which provide potential habitat for threatened species recorded or potentially occurring in the alternate haul route such as the greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) and squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis).

The vegetation clearing procedure detailed in Umwelt (2009b) is provided below.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 17

Vegetation Clearing Procedure

Vegetation surrounding the marked habitat structures will be cleared and the marked structures left undisturbed for a period of 24 hours.

Marked hollow-bearing trees will be shaken prior to felling using a bulldozer and then left for a short period to allow any fauna using the hollows to be observed.

Hollow-bearing trees will be slowly pushed over using a bulldozer, with care taken to avoid damage to hollows.

Immediately following tree felling each of the identified hollows will be examined for fauna by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist.

Where practical, felled trees will be left for a 24-hour period prior to removal in order to allow species to move in to adjoining vegetation of their own volition.

Captured nocturnal animals will be released on the evening of capture and will not be held for extended periods of time.

In the event that injured fauna are identified, species will be immediately taken to the nearest veterinarian or certified wildlife carer for treatment.

6.2 Road Usage Rules for the Protection of Ecological Values

A number of threatened fauna species have potential to be injured or killed as a result of traffic on the alternate haul route. The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa) and the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus) are examples of species that have potential to pass over the alternate haul route on the ground. Other fauna species such as kangaroos, wallabies and possums also have potential to be injured crossing this road.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 18

enforce a maximum 40 kilometre/hour speed limit on the alternate haul route for all quarry traffic;

minimise night traffic where possible (most fauna collisions are likely to occur at night time, in particular dusk and dawn);

erect signage at either end of the alternate haul route to inform drivers of the ecological values of the habitats through which it passes and therefore the need to drive with caution; and

leave tree canopies overhanging the track where safe and appropriate as this will allow some gliding species to cross without coming to the ground.

6.3 Rehabilitation

Broadly, rehabilitation of the alternate haul route will aim to re-establish the native vegetation communities that existed prior to clearing for its construction. Revegetation of disturbed areas will utilise locally occurring plant species in a composition that closely resembles that of the pre-development vegetation communities. Monitoring of any revegetated areas along the road access should be integrated with any monitoring program for the sand extraction areas as described in Section 7.0 of the Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt 2009b).

6.4 Biodiversity Offsetting Considerations

The vegetation present along the alternate haul route supports known and potential habitat for a number of threatened flora and fauna species. Although there are threatened species habitats present, the area of impact of the proposed development is small (0.3 hectare of native vegetation and fauna habitat) and it adjoins a very large remnant of vegetation which offers similar or higher quality habitats for the same threatened species, which is conserved in Worimi Conservation Lands and National Park. The alternate haul route does not comprise unique values or areas that are dissimilar to the surrounding coastal dune system. The alternate haul route will have very little impact on threatened species habitats in the locality and as such is not regarded to warrant the negotiation of any biodiversity offsetting areas.

Further to this, the Worimi LALC owns a significant area (4438 hectares) of native vegetation along the Stockton dune system which is managed for its conservation values. The Conservation Land includes the 524 hectare Worimi National Park. The dedication of the Conservation Land was part of an agreement to allow some parts of the Stockton sand dune system to be developed (including for sand extraction) while dedicating other areas to conservation – in effect, the Worimi Conservation Land was a pre-emptive biodiversity offsetting agreement.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 19

7.0 References

Anstis M, 2002. Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Barker J, Grigg G C, & Tyler M J, 1995. A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney.

Botanic Gardens Trust 2011. PlantNET – The Plant Information Network System of Botanic Gardens Trust, Sydney, Australia (version 2.0). accessed October 2011.

Braun-Blanquet J, 1927. Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Vienna.

Churchill S, 1998. Australian Bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Churchill S, 2008. Australian Bats: second edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Cogger H G, 2000. Reptiles & Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books, Chatswood.

Driscoll C. & Bell S, 2006. Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree sandbeds, Port Stephens, New South Wales. Part 1 – Management of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. Unpublished Report to Hunter Water Corporation. Eastcoast Flora Survey, September 2006.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Fisheries Management Act 1994.

Harden G J, editor 1992. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 3. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney.

Harden G J, editor 1993. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 4. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney.

Harden G J, editor 2000. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 1. 2nd edition. New South Wales University Press and Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.

Harden G J, editor 2002. Flora of New South Wales. Volume 2. Revised edition. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney & New South Wales University Press, Sydney.

House S, 2003. Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, Technical Report, Digital Aerial Photo Interpretation and Updated Extant Vegetation Community Map, May 2003. Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy, Callaghan, NSW.

Menkhorst P, and Knight F, 2004. A field guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

(NPWS) National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2000. Vegetation Survey Classification and Mapping: Lower Hunter and Central Coast Region. Version 1.2. A Project undertaken for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environment

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 20

Management Strategy. Sydney Zone, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

NSW Scientific Committee, 2004. Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions - endangered ecological listing. Final Determination gazetted 17 December 2004.

NSW Scientific Committee, 2004. Swamp oak floodplain forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions - endangered ecological listing. Final Determination gazetted 17 December 2004. (OEH) NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2012. NSW Wildlife Atlas Search Tool (BioNet). http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/ (Accessed August 2012).

Poore M E D, 1955. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. The Braun-Blanquet system. Journal of Ecology 42: 216-224.

(PSC) Port Stephens Council (2002). Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM). Prepared by Port Stephens Council with the Australian Koala Foundation.

Robinson M, 1998. A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Australian Museum/Reed New Holland, Sydney.

(SEWPC) Department of Sustainability , Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2012. Protected Matters Search Tool. http://www.environment.gov.au. (Accessed August 2012).

Slater P, Slater P, and Slater R, 2003. The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds. Weldon Publishing, Sydney.

Strahan R, 2002. The Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Swan G, Shea G, & Sadlier R, 2004. A Field Guide to Reptiles of New South Wales. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2004. Flora and Fauna Assessment for Proposed Rezoning of Lot 218, Stockton Bight. Draft report prepared for Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2009a. Ecological Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 DP 1044608 and Lot 220 DP 1049608, Salt Ash. Prepared for Mackas Sand.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2009b. Landscape Management Plan (including Rehabilitation Management Plan and Long Term Management Strategy). Prepared for Mackas Sand.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2012a. Environmental Assessment of Modifications to Mackas Sand Extraction Operations on Lot 218 and Lot 220 Salt Ash NSW. Prepared for Mackas Sand.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 21

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2012b. Letter to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, & Communities dated 15 March 2012).

Weigel J, 1990. Australian Reptile Park’s Guide to Snakes of South-East Australia. Weigel Postscript.

Wheeler D J B, Jacobs S W L, and Whalley R D B, 2002. Grasses of New South Wales, 3rd Edition. The University of New England, Armidale.

Wilson S, and Swan G, 2003. A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R38/Final October 2012 22

APPENDIX A

Flora Species List

Appendix A – Flora Species List

The following list was developed from flora surveys undertaken as part of the proposed alternate haul route modification to Major Project 08_0142, located at Salt Ash, New South Wales (NSW). It includes all species of vascular plants observed along the alternate haul route during field surveys. Not all species are readily detected at any one time of the year, and the list will not necessarily include all plant species likely to occur in the project area. Many species flower only during restricted periods of the year, and some flower only once in several years. In the absence of flowering material, many of these species cannot be identified or even detected.

Names of classes and families follow a modified Cronquist (1981) System.

Any species that could not be identified to the lowest taxonomic level are denoted in the following manner:

sp. specimens that are identified to genus level only.

The following abbreviations or symbols are used in the list:

asterisk (*) denotes species not indigenous to the study area;

Bold species indicated in bold text are indicative of threatened species or hybrids of threatened species; subsp. subspecies; and var. variety.

All vascular plants recorded or collected were identified using keys and nomenclature in Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 and 2002) and Wheeler et al. (2002). Where known, changes to nomenclature and classification have been incorporated into the results, as derived from PlantNET (Botanic Gardens Trust 2012), the on-line plant name database maintained by the National Herbarium of New South Wales.

Common names used follow Harden (1992, 1993, 2000 and 2002) where available, and draw on other sources such as local names where these references do not provide a common name.

1646/R38/AA 1

Table 1 – Flora Species List

Family Scientific Name Common Name Cycadopsida (Cycads) Zamiaceae Macrozamia communis burrawang Filicopsida (Ferns) Blechnaceae Blechnum indicum swamp water fern Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium esculentum bracken Magnoliopsida (Flowering Plants) – Liliidae (Monocots) Cyperaceae Cyperus sp. Cyperaceae Gahnia sieberiana red-fruit saw-sedge Cyperaceae Schoenus melanostachys black bog-rush Juncaceae Juncus sp. Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia spiny-headed mat-rush Orchidaceae Acianthus fornicatus pixy caps Orchidaceae Caladenia catenata lady fingers Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var. producta Poaceae *Andropogon virginicus whisky grass Poaceae *Axonopus compressus broad-leaved carpet grass Poaceae Cynodon dactylon common couch Poaceae Imperata cylindrica var. major blady grass Poaceae *Paspalum dilatatum paspalum Poaceae *Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyu grass Poaceae Phragmites australis common reed Poaceae Sporobolus creber slender rat's tail grass Poaceae Themeda australis kangaroo grass Restionaceae Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum Typhaceae Typha orientalis broadleaf cumbungi Magnoliopsida (Flowering Plants) – Magnoliidae (Dicots) Apiaceae *Hydrocotyle bonariensis pennywort Asteraceae *Conyza bonariensis flaxleaf fleabane Asteraceae *Hypochaeris radicata catsear Asteraceae *Senecio madagascariensis fireweed Casuarinaceae Casuarina glauca swamp oak Epacridaceae Leucopogon ericoides pink beard-heath Epacridaceae Monotoca elliptica tree broom-heath Fabaceae (Faboideae) Desmodium gunnii slender tick trefoil Fabaceae (Faboideae) Hardenbergia violacea false sarsaparilla Fabaceae (Faboideae) *Trifolium repens white clover Fabaceae (Mimosoideae) Acacia irrorata subsp. irrorata green wattle Haloragaceae Gonocarpus teucrioides raspwort Myrtaceae Angophora costata smooth-barked apple Myrtaceae Eucalyptus pilularis blackbutt

1646/R38/AA 2

Table 1 – Flora Species List (cont.)

Family Scientific Name Common Name Myrtaceae Eucalyptus robusta swamp mahogany Myrtaceae Leptospermum polygalifolium lemon-scented tea-tree Myrtaceae Melaleuca quinquenervia broad-leaved paperbark Polygonaceae Rumex sp. dock Proteaceae Banksia serrata old-man banksia Thymelaeaceae Pimelea linifolia slender rice flower Verbenaceae *Lantana camara lantana Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis purpletop

1646/R38/AA 3

APPENDIX B

Threatened Flora and Fauna Species, Endangered Populations and TECs recorded or with Potential to Occur

Appendix B – Threatened Flora and Fauna Species, Endangered Populations and TECs recorded or with Potential to Occur

Threatened species, endangered populations and threatened ecological communities (TECs) recorded during surveys and known to occur in the local area are listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below. The results of the searches of the OEH Atlas of NSW Wildlife and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) Protected Matters Database are also included. These database searches provided lists of species, populations or TECs previously recorded within a 10 kilometre radius of the alternate haul route, or with potential habitat within that radius except for marine or pelagic species for which the project area does not provide habitat.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 provide information on each threatened species (including specific habitat, distribution and reservation) which has contributed to determine their likelihood of occurring within the alternate access route, as well as the likelihood of being impacted as a result of the proposed development. Where indicated in the tables, species with potential to occur and potential to be impacted have been further assessed in Appendices D and F.

1646/R38/AB 1

Table 1 – Threatened Flora Assessment

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? THREATENED FLORA SPECIES Netted bottle V (TSC) This species typically grows Occurs chiefly from the Karuah NR. The alternate haul is unlikely to No brush Callistemon in dry sclerophyll forest on Georges River to the provide potential habitat for this linearifolius the coast and adjacent Hawkesbury River. species and the species was not ranges. recorded during flora surveys. There is no potential for a significant impact on this species. Eucalyptus V (TSC) Generally occupies deep, There are two separate This species is not This species was not recorded No parramattensis V low-nutrient sands, often meta-populations of this known from any during flora surveys undertaken in subsp. decadens (EPBC) those subject to periodic species. The Tomago reservation areas in potential habitat for the species. inundation or where water Sandbeds meta- the region. This species is not expected to tables are relatively high. population is bounded occur. There is no potential for a It occurs in dry sclerophyll by Salt Ash and Tanilba significant impact on this species. woodland with dry heath Bay in the north and understorey. It also occurs Williamtown and as an emergent in dry or Tomago in the south. wet heathland. Often where The Kurri Kurri this species occurs, it is a meta-population is community dominant. bordered by Cessnock —Kurri Kurri in the north and Mulbring — Aberdare in the south. Large aggregations of the sub-species are located in the Tomalpin area.

1646/R38/AB 2

Table 1 – Threatened Flora Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Charmhaven V (TSC) Habitat for this species This species has a Medowie SCA. An intergrade of Angophora Yes apple V typically occurs on the restricted distribution, floribunda and Angophora inopina Angophora (EPBC) shallow sandy soils of the being confined to the was recorded in the vicinity of the inopina Narrabeen Group, on Wyong, alternate haul route. Although exposed ridges and slopes Lake Macquarie and this species was not recorded with westerly or northerly Port Stephens Shires of during field surveys, there is still aspect. It has also been NSW. Pure forms of some potential for impact. recorded on shallow alluvial this species have been soils in upper catchments recorded from the and in embedded clay soil Wallarah catchment in lenses with sandstone. the south and north to This species is known to the Toronto area. naturally hybridise with A. Disjunct populations floribunda, particularly have been identified at around major drainage Karuah. lines. Leafless tongue- V (TSC) This species appears to This species is known This species is not This species was not recorded Yes orchid V favour moist soils on the flat to occur in the Karuah known from any during flora surveys, however Cryptostylis (EPBC) coastal plains. Occupies Manning and Wyong reservation areas in potential habitat was identified hunteriana swamp heath, but also CMA sub-regions in the the region. within the alternate haul route. sclerophyll forest and Hunter Central Rivers woodland, often on sandy region. soils. Typically found in communities containing Eucalyptus haemastoma, E. capitellata and Corymbia gummifera.

1646/R38/AB 3

Table 1 – Threatened Flora Assessment (cont.)

1646/R38/AB 4

Table 1 – Threatened Flora Assessment (cont.)

1646/R38/AB 5

Table 1 – Threatened Flora Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Knotweed V (TSC) This species normally This species has been This species is not This species was not recorded No Persicaria elatior V grows in damp places, recorded in south- known from any during surveys. The alternate (EPBC) especially beside streams eastern and northern reservation areas in haul route does not contain and lakes. Occasionally in NSW. In the north it is the region. preferred habitat features for this swamp forest or associated known from Raymond species. This species is not with disturbance. Terrace (near expected to occur and further Newcastle) and the assessment is not required. Grafton area (Cherry Tree and Gibberagee State Forests). This species also occurs in Queensland. Dwarf kerrawang E (TSC) Occurs on sandy, This species is known This species is not This species was not recorded No Rulingia prostrata E sometimes peaty soils in a to occur in the Karuah known from any during surveys. The alternate (EPBC) wide variety of habitats. Manning sub-region of reservation areas in haul route does not contain Chiefly in gullies along the the Hunter/Central the region. preferred habitat features for this escarpment south from Rivers Catchment and a species. This species is not Picton. disjunct population expected to occur and further occurs on Swamp assessment is not required. Mahogany ecotonal forest at Tomago. Dwarf heath E (TSC) Grows mainly in tall heath Occurs only in NSW This species is not This species was not recorded No casuarina E on sand, but can also occur from the Nabiac area, known from any during surveys. The alternate Allocasuarina (EPBC) on clay soils and sandstone north-west of Forster, to reservation areas in haul route does not contain defungens or exposed nearby-coastal Byron Bay on the NSW the region. preferred habitat features for this hills/headlands adjacent to north coast. species. This species is not sandplains. expected to occur and further assessment is not required.

1646/R38/AB 6

Table 1 – Threatened Flora Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Biconvex V (TSC) Biconvex paperbark Scattered and Tilligery SCA. This species was not recorded No paperbark V generally grows in damp dispersed populations during surveys. The alternate Melaleuca (EPBC) places, often near streams of this species are haul route does not contain biconvexa or low-lying areas on known to occur in the preferred habitat features for this alluvial soils of low slopes Karuah Manning and species. This species is not or sheltered aspects. Wyong sub-regions of expected to occur and further the Hunter/Central assessment is not required. Rivers Catchment. Black-eyed Susan V (TSC) Usually found in low open This species is confined Glenrock SCA, This species was not recorded No Tetratheca juncea V forest or woodland with a to the Wyong, Snapper Island NR, during surveys. The alternate shrub understorey and Lake Macquarie, haul route does not contain (EPBC) Wallaroo NP, grass groundcover on low Newcastle, Port preferred habitat features for this nutrient soils, however it Stephens, Great Lakes Wallaroo SF. species. This species is not and has also been found in and Cessnock LGAs. expected to occur and further heathland and moist forest. assessment is not required. This species generally prefers well-drained sites and ridges, although it also found on upper and mid-slopes.

1646/R38/AB 7

Table 1 – Threatened Flora Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Siah’s backbone E On the Australian mainland, Siah's Backbone occurs Hunter Wetlands This species has not been No Streblus (EPBC) the species is found in from Cape York NP. recorded within the project area or pendulinus warmer rainforests, chiefly Peninsula to Milton, its surrounds. The site does not along watercourses. The south-east New South provide suitable habitat for this altitudinal range is from Wales (NSW), as well species. There is no potential for near sea level to as Norfolk Island. a significant impact on this 800 metres above sea Outside of Australia, the species as a result of the level. The species grows in species is found in construction of the alternate haul well developed rainforest, Papua New Guinea, route. gallery forest and drier, Micronesia, Vanuatu, more seasonal rainforest. New Caledonia, Fiji, Rapa and Hawaii. Key: TSC = Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; PD = Preliminary Determination; EEC = Endangered Ecological Community; CEEC = Critically Endangered Ecological Community; EP = Endangered Population; SCA = State Conservation Area; and NP = National Park.

1646/R38/AB 8

Table 2 – Threatened Ecological Communities

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Freshwater EEC Associated with coastal Known from along the Hunter Estuary NP This endangered ecological No Wetlands on (TSC) areas subject to periodic majority of the NSW Pambalong NR. community (EEC) is not present Coastal flooding and in which coast. There is less than within the alternate haul route and Floodplains of the standing fresh water 150 ha remaining on the as such there is no potential for a New South Wales persists for at least part of Tweed lowlands significant impact on this EEC. North Coast, the year in most years. (estimate in 1985); Sydney Basin and Typically occurs on silts, about 10,600 ha on the South East Corner muds or humic loams in lower Clarence Bioregions low-lying parts of floodplain (in 1982); floodplains, alluvial flats, about 11,200 ha on the depressions, drainage lower Macleay lines, backswamps, floodplain (in 1983); lagoons and lakes but may about 3500 ha in the also occur in backbarrier lower Hunter – Central landforms where Hunter region (in floodplains adjoin coastal 1990s); less than 2700 sandplains. Generally occur ha on the NSW south below 20 metres elevation coast from Sydney to on level areas. Moruya (in the mid 1990s), including about 660 ha on the Cumberland Plain (in 1998) and about 100 ha on the Illawarra Plain (in 2001); and less than 1000 ha in the Eden region (in 1990).

1646/R38/AB 9

Table 2 – Threatened Ecological Communities (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Swamp Oak EEC Associated with Known from parts of the Pambalong NR. No vegetation community within No Floodplain Forest (TSC) grey-black clay-loams and LGAs Greater Taree, the alternate haul route meets the of the New South sandy loams, where the Great Lakes, Port requirements of this EEC as Wales North groundwater is saline or Stephens, Maitland, specified in the Final Coast, Sydney sub-saline, on waterlogged Newcastle, Cessnock, Determination. As such, there is Basin and South or periodically inundated Lake Macquarie. no potential for this TEC to occur. East Corner flats, drainage lines, lake Bioregions margins and estuarine fringes associated with coastal floodplains. Generally occurs below 20 metres (rarely above 10 metres) elevation.

1646/R38/AB 10

Table 2 – Threatened Ecological Communities (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Swamp Sclerophyll EEC Associated with humic clay This community is This EEC is not Swamp Mahogany – Parperbark No Forest on Coastal (TSC) loams and sandy loams, on known to occur in known to occur in Forest was identified adjacent to Floodplains of the waterlogged or periodically numerous LGAs, but is reserves in the the alternate haul route however NSW North Coast, inundated alluvial flats and believed to be restricted region. the location of this community is Sydney Basin and drainage lines associated to the areas of coastal not on or associated with a South East Corner with coastal floodplains. NSW; no further south coastal floodplain, as specified in Bioregions Generally occurs below 20 than the Shoalhaven the Final Determination for this metres (though sometimes LGA and as far north as EEC. up to 50 metres) elevation. the NSW -Queensland The composition of the border, but no further community is primarily west than Bathurst. determined by the frequency and duration of water logging and the texture, salinity nutrient and moisture content of the soil, and latitude.

1646/R38/AB 11

Table 2 – Threatened Ecological Communities (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Littoral Rainforest EEC Occurs on sand dunes and Littoral Rainforest Glenrock SCA. This EEC is not present within the No in the NSW North (TSC) on soil derived from occurs only on the coast alternate haul route and as such Coast, Sydney underlying rocks. Stands on and is found at locations there is no potential for a Basin and South headlands exposed to in the NSW North Coast significant impact on this EEC. East Corner strong wind-action may Bioregion, Sydney Bioregions take the form of dense, Basin Bioregion and wind-pruned thickets. South East Corner Stands are generally taller Bioregion. in sheltered sites such as hind dunes, although wind- pruning may still occur on their windward sides. Most stands occur within 2 kilometres of the sea, though are occasionally found further inland within reach of the maritime influence.

Key: TSC = Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; PD = Preliminary Determination; EEC = Endangered Ecological Community; CEEC = Critically Endangered Ecological Community; EP = Endangered Population; SCA = State Conservation Area; and NP = National Park.

1646/R38/AB 12

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? AMPHIBIANS Wallum froglet V (TSC) Wallum Froglets are found This species is known to Tomaree NP. This species was not recorded No Crinia tinnula only in acid paperbark occur in the Hunter, during surveys. The alternate swamps and sedge Karuah Manning, haul route does not contain swamps of the coastal Wyong and Macleay preferred habitat features for this ‘wallum’ country. Hastings subregions of species. There is no potential for the Hunter/Central a significant impact on this Rivers Catchment. species. Stuttering barred E (TSC) Found in rainforest and Occur along the east Killarney NR, This species was not recorded No frog V wet, tall open forest in the coast of Australia from Watagans NP. during surveys. The alternate Mixophyes balbus (EPBC) foothills and escarpment on southern Queensland to haul route does not contain the eastern side of the the north-eastern preferred habitat features for this Great Dividing Range. Victoria. species. There is no potential for a significant impact on this species. Green and golden E (TSC) Occurs amongst emergent NSW North Coast near This species is not This species was not recorded No bell frog V aquatic or riparian Brunswick Heads, known from any during surveys. The alternate Litoria aurea (EPBC) vegetation and amongst southwards along the conservation haul route does not contain vegetation, fallen timber, NSW Coast to Victoria reserves in the preferred habitat features for this including grassland, where it extends into region. species. There is no potential for cropland and modified east Gippsland. a significant impact on this pastures. Breeds in still or species. slow flowing waterbodies with some vegetation such as Typha spp. and Eleocharis spp.

1646/R38/AB 13

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

nearby dry eucalypt forest, NSW. North-eastern species. There is no potential for at elevations below NSW, particularly the a significant impact on this 1,000 metres. They breed Coffs Harbour-Dorrigo species as a result of the around shallow, flowing area, is now a construction of the alternate haul rocky streams. stronghold. route. BIRDS Little lorikeet V (TSC) This species can be found This species is Glenrock SCA, This species was not recorded No Glossopsitta in dry-open eucalypt forests distributed from just Joe Redman during surveys. The alternate pusilla and woodlands, and have north of Cairns, around Reserve, haul route does not contain been identified in remnant the east coast of preferred habitat features for this Wallaroo NP, vegetation, old growth Australia down to species. There is no potential for vegetation, logged forests, Adelaide. Worimi NR, a significant impact on this and roadside vegetation. In NSW this species is Wallaroo SF. species. The little lorikeet usually found from the coast to forages in small flocks, not the western slopes of always with birds of their the Great Dividing own species. They nest in Range, extending as far hollows, mostly in living west as Albury, Dubbo, smooth-barked apples. Parkes and Narrabri.

1646/R38/AB 14

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Spotted harrier V (TSC) Their habitat of choice is The spotted harrier can This species is not This species was not recorded No Circus assimilis open grassy woodland, be found throughout known to occur in during surveys. The alternate grassland, inland riparian mainland Australia any reserves in the haul route does not contain woodland and shrub except for areas of region. preferred habitat features for this steppe. Although mostly dense forest on the species. There is no potential for associated with native coast, escarpments and a significant impact on this grasslands it has also been ranges and rarely ever species. identified in agricultural in Tasmania. farmland. Their nest is made in a tree and composed of sticks. Individuals of this species are sparsely distributed throughout Australia and occur as a single population. Red goshawk CE This species is known to This species is This species is not This species was not recorded No Erythrotriorchis (TSC) inhabit open woodland and distributed sparsely known to occur in during surveys. The alternate radiatus V forest, preferring a mosaic through northern and any reserves in the haul route does not contain (EPBC) of vegetation types, a large eastern Australia region. preferred habitat features for this population of birds as a although very rare in species. There is no potential for source of food, and NSW. Formerly, it was a significant impact on this permanent water, and are at least occasionally species. often found in riparian reported as far south as habitats along or near Port Stephens. watercourses or wetlands. In NSW, preferred habitats include mixed subtropical rainforest, Melaleuca swamp forest and riparian Eucalyptus forest of coastal rivers.

1646/R38/AB 15

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Flame robin V (TSC) This species is known to This robin is located in This species is not This species was not recorded No Petroica phoenicea breed in moist eucalypt south-eastern Australia known to occur in during surveys. The alternate forests and woodlands. It from the Queensland any reserves in the haul route does not contain can usually be seen on border to Tasmania and region. preferred habitat features for this ridges and slopes in areas into Victoria as well as species. There is no potential for where there is an open south-east SA. a significant impact on this understorey layer. This species. species migrates during the winter to more lowland areas such as grasslands where there are scattered trees, as well as open woodland of the inland slopes and plains. Scarlet robin V (TSC) This robin can be found in The scarlet robin can be Worimi NP. This species was not recorded No Petroica boodang woodlands and open found in south-eastern during surveys. The alternate forests from the coast Australia, from haul route does not contain through to inland slopes. Tasmania to the preferred habitat features for this The birds can sometimes southern end of species. There is no potential for be found on the eastern Queensland, to western a significant impact on this fringe of the inland plains in Victoria and south SA. species. the colder months of the year. Woody debris and logs are both important structural elements of its habitat. It forages from low perches on invertebrates either on the ground or in woody debris or tree trunks.

1646/R38/AB 16

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Varied sittella V (TSC) The varied sittella can The varied sittella is a Medowie SF, This species was not recorded Yes Daphoenositta typically be found in sedentary species that Worimi SF. however there is potential habitat chrysoptera eucalypt forests and inhabits the majority of and it has been recorded in woodlands, especially of mainland Australia with habitats nearby. There is rough-barked species and the exception of the potential for a significant impact mature smooth-barked treeless deserts and on this species. gums with dead branches, open grasslands. Its it can also be identified in NSW distribution is mallee and acacia basically continuous woodlands. This species from the coast to the far builds a cup shaped nest west. made of plant fibres and spiders webs which is placed at the canopy level in the fork of a living tree. Australasian bittern V (TSC) Favours permanent This species may be Limeburners Creek This species was not recorded No Botaurus E freshwater wetlands with found over most of the NR, during surveys. The alternate poiciloptilus (EPBC) tall, dense vegetation, state except for the far Lake Innes NR. haul route does not contain particularly bullrushes north-west. preferred habitat features for this (Typha spp.) and species. There is no potential for spikerushes a significant impact on this (Eleoacharis spp.). species. Black bittern V (TSC) Inhabits both terrestrial and Records of the species This species is not This species was not recorded No Ixobrychus estuarine wetlands, are scattered along the known from any during surveys. The alternate flavicollis generally in areas of east coast, with reservation areas in haul route does not contain permanent water and individuals rarely being the region. preferred habitat features for this dense vegetation. Where recorded south of species. There is no potential for permanent water is Sydney or inland. a significant impact on this present, the species may species. occur in flooded grassland, forest, woodland, rainforest and mangroves.

1646/R38/AB 17

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Australian painted E (TSC) Prefers fringes of swamps, In NSW, this species Pambalong NR. This species was not recorded No snipe V dams and nearby marshy has been recorded at during surveys. The alternate Rostratula australis (EPBC) areas where there is a the Paroo wetlands, haul route does not contain cover of grasses, lignum, Lake Cowal, Macquarie preferred habitat features for this low scrub or open timber. Marshes and Hexham species. There is no potential for Swamp. Most common a significant impact on this in the Murray-Darling species. Basin. Black-necked stork E (TSC) Inhabits permanent This species is Limeburners Creek This species was not recorded No Ephippiorhynchus freshwater wetlands widespread across NR, during surveys. The alternate asiaticus including margins of coastal northern and Lake Innes NR, haul route does not contain billabongs, swamps, eastern Australia, preferred habitat features for this Crowdy Bay NP, shallow floodwaters, and becoming uncommon species. There is no potential for adjacent grasslands and further south into NSW, Myall Lakes NP, a significant impact on this savannah woodlands; can and rarely found south Booti Booti NP. species. also be found occasionally of Sydney. on inter-tidal shorelines, mangrove margins and estuaries.

1646/R38/AB 18

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Osprey V (TSC) Habitat for this species The osprey has a This species is not This species was not recorded No Pandion haliaetus includes inshore coastal distribution along the known from any during surveys. The alternate and estuarine waters, and majority of the eastern conservation haul route does not contain occasionally inland rivers coastline, however is reserves in the preferred habitat features for this and lakes (Debus 2001). absent from Tasmania region. species. There is no potential for This species feeds mainly and rare in Victoria a significant impact on this on fish, however also takes (Debus 2001). It is species. crustaceans, reptiles, small common around the mammals or birds (Debus northern coast, 2001). Breeding occurs especially on rocky from July to September and shorelines, islands and nests are often in dead reefs (DECC 2008). The trees and on headlands species is uncommon to and rocky islands rare or absent from (Hollands 2003). Nests are closely settled parts of re-used for many years south-eastern Australia. (Hollands 2003), and are usually within 1 kilometre of the ocean (DECC 2008). Pied oystercatcher V (TSC) Favours intertidal flats of This species is thinly Limeburners Creek This species was not recorded No Haematopus inlets and bays, open scattered along the NR, during surveys. The alternate longirostris beaches and sandbanks. entire coast of NSW. Crowdy Bay NP, haul route does not contain Myall Lakes NP, preferred habitat features for this Darawank NR, species. There is no potential for Booti Booti NP. a significant impact on this species.

1646/R38/AB 19

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Glossy V (TSC) Habitat for this species The glossy This species is This species was not recorded Yes black-cockatoo includes forests on low- black-cockatoo has a known to occur in during surveys. Potential nesting Calyptorhynchus nutrient soils, specifically sparse distribution along Goulburn River NP, and roosting trees for this species lathami those containing key the east coast and Wollemi NP, Yengo are present, as are scattered Allocasuarina feed species. adjacent inland areas NP, Barrington preferred feeding trees They will also eat seeds from western Victoria to Tops NP, and (Allocasuarina littoralis). There is from eucalypts, Rockhampton in Mount Royal NP. potential for a significant impact angophoras, acacias, Queensland. In NSW, it on this species. cypress pine and hakeas. has been recorded as Breeding occurs in autumn far inland as Cobar and and winter, with large Griffith. hollows required. Grey-crowned V (TSC) Open box-gum woodlands Occurs throughout This species is This species was recorded during Yes babbler (eastern on the slopes. northern and known to occur in the current surveys. This species subsp.) Box-cypress-pine and open south-eastern Australia. Goulburn River NP, was not recorded within the Pomatostomus box woodlands on alluvial In NSW, this species Wollemi NP, Yengo alternate haul route and no nests temporalis plains. Also found in acacia occurs on the western NP and it is also were observed. There is potential temporalis shrubland and adjoining slopes of the Great known to occur in for an impact on this species. areas. Feeds on Dividing Range and on Belford NP. invertebrates; forage on the the western plains trunks and branches of reaching as far west as eucalypts and other Louth and Hay. It also woodland trees or on the occurs in woodlands in ground, digging and the Hunter Valley and in probing amongst litter and several locations on the tussock grasses north coast of NSW. (DECC 2008). Occupy territories from 1 to 50 ha.

1646/R38/AB 20

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Eastern Bristlebird E (TSC) Dense, low vegetation The distribution of the This species is not This species was not recorded No Dasyornis E including heath and open Eastern Bristlebird has known from any during surveys. The alternate brachypterus (EPBC) woodland with a heathy contracted to three conservation haul route does not contain understorey; in northern disjunct areas of south- reserves in the preferred habitat features for this NSW occurs in open forest eastern Australia: region. species. There is no potential for with tussocky grass southern Queensland/ a significant impact on this understorey; all of these northern NSW, the species. vegetation types are fire Illawarra Region and in prone. the vicinity of the NSW/Victorian border. Brown treecreeper V (TSC) Typical habitat for this This species occurs This species is This species was not recorded No (eastern subsp.) species includes drier over central NSW, west known to occur in during surveys. The alternate Climacteris forests, woodlands and of the Great Dividing Goulburn River NP, haul route does not contain picumnus victoriae scrubs with fallen branches; Range and sparsely Wollemi NP and preferred habitat features for this river red gums on scattered to the east of Yengo NP. species. There is no potential for watercourses and around the divide in drier areas a significant impact on this lake-shores; paddocks with such as the Cumberland species. standing dead timber; and Plain of Western margins of denser wooded Sydney, and in parts of areas. This species prefers the Hunter, Clarence, areas without a dense Richmond and Snowy understorey. River valleys.

1646/R38/AB 21

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

1646/R38/AB 22

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Regent honeyeater CE Generally occurs in Once recorded between This species is This species was not recorded Yes Anthochaera (TSC) temperate eucalypt Adelaide and the central known to occur in during surveys. Potential winter phrygia E woodlands and open coast of Queensland, its Goulburn River NP, foraging resources (Eucalyptus (EPBC) forests of south eastern range has contracted Wollemi NP and robusta) are present adjacent to Australia. It is commonly dramatically in the last Yengo NP. the alternate haul route and may recorded from 30 years to between attract this migratory species. box-ironbark eucalypt north-eastern Victoria There is potential for a significant associations, wet lowland and south-eastern impact on this species. coastal forests dominated Queensland. by swamp mahogany, spotted gum and riverine casuarina woodlands. Key foraging species (typically winter-flowering species in the Hunter Valley) include mugga ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), yellow box (E. melliodora), Blakelys red gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi), white box (E. albens) and swamp mahogany (E. robusta). Masked owl V (TSC) This species is generally The masked owl occurs This species is This species was not recorded Yes Tyto recorded from open forest sparsely throughout the known to occur in during surveys, however the novaehollandiae habitat with sparse mid- continent and nearby Goulburn River NP, masked owl is known to occur in storey but patches of islands, including Wollemi NP, Yengo nearby, similar habitats (Umwelt dense, low ground cover. It Tasmania and New NP, Barrington 2004). There is potential for a is also recorded from Guinea. Tops NP and significant impact on this species. ecotones between wet and Mount Royal NP. dry eucalypt forest, along minor drainage lines and near boundaries between forest and cleared land.

1646/R38/AB 23

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Powerful owl V (TSC) The powerful owl inhabits a The powerful owl occurs This species is This species was not recorded Yes Ninox strenua range of vegetation types, in eastern Australia, known to occur in during surveys. The species has from woodland and open mostly on the coastal Goulburn River NP, been tentatively recorded in sclerophyll forest to tall side of the Great Wollemi NP, Yengo adjacent habitats (Umwelt 2004). open wet forest and Dividing Range, from NP, Barrington There is potential for a significant rainforest. It generally south western Victoria to Tops NP and impact on this species. requires large tracts of Bowen in Queensland. Mount Royal NP. forest or woodland habitat but can occur in fragmented landscapes as well. The species breeds and hunts in open or closed sclerophyll forest or woodlands and occasionally hunts in open habitats. It roosts by day in dense vegetation. MAMMALS Spotted-tailed quoll V (TSC) Habitat for this species is In NSW the spotted- This species is This species was not recorded Yes Dasyurus E highly varied, ranging from tailed quoll occurs on known to occur in within the project however, the maculatus (EPBC) sclerophyll forest, both sides of the Great Wollemi NP, Yengo open forest habitats provide woodlands, coastal Dividing Range, with the NP, Barrington potential habitat for this species. heathlands and rainforests. highest densities Tops NP and There is potential for a significant Records exist from open occurring in the north Mount Royal NP. impact on this species. country, grazing lands and east of the state. It rocky outcrops. Suitable occurs from the coast to den sites including hollow the snowline and inland logs, tree hollows, rocky to the Murray River. outcrops or caves.

1646/R38/AB 24

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Brush-tailed V (TSC) Prefers dry sclerophyll This species has a Cotton-Bimbang This species was not recorded Yes phascogale open forest with sparse patchy distribution NP during surveys however potential Phascogale groundcover of herbs, around the coast of Limeburners Creek nesting and roosting resources for tapoatafa grasses, shrubs or leaf Australia. In NSW it is NR this species are present. There is litter. Also inhabit heath, more frequently found in Werrikimbe NP potential for a significant impact swamps, rainforest and wet forest on the Great Talawahl NR on this species. sclerophyll forest. Dividing Range in the Khappinghat NR. north-east and south- east of the State. There are also a few records from central NSW. Koala V (TSC) This species inhabits The koala has a This species is This species was not recorded but Yes Phascolarctos V eucalypt forest and fragmented distribution known to occur in has been previously recorded cinereus (EPBC) woodland, with suitability throughout eastern Goulburn River NP, nearby in similar habitats (Umwelt influenced by tree species Australia, with the Wollemi NP, Yengo 2004). There is potential for a and age, soil fertility, majority of records from NP, Barrington significant impact on this species. climate, rainfall and NSW occurring on the Tops NP and fragmentation patterns. The central and north coasts, Mount Royal NP. species is known to feed on as well as some areas a large number of eucalypt further west. It is known and non-eucalypt species, to occur along inland however it tends to rivers on the western specialise on a small side of the Great number in different areas. Dividing Range. Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. punctata, E. cypellocarpa, E. viminalis, E. microcorys, E. robusta, E. albens, E. camaldulensis and E populnea are some preferred species.

1646/R38/AB 25

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Eastern pygmy V (TSC) Found in a broad range of This species is found in This species is not This species was not recorded Yes possum habitats from rainforest south-eastern Australia, known from any during surveys, however the (Cercartetus through sclerophyll from southern reservation areas in eastern pygmy possum is known nanus) (including Box-Ironbark) Queensland to eastern the region. to occur in nearby, similar habitats forest and woodland to South Australia and in (Umwelt 2004). There is potential heath, but in most areas Tasmania. In NSW it for a significant impact on this woodlands and heath extends from the coast species. appear to be preferred, inland as far as the except in north-eastern Pillaga, Dubbo, Parkes NSW where they are most and Wagga Wagga on frequently encountered in the western slopes. rainforest. Squirrel glider V (TSC) Inhabits a variety of mature The species is widely This species is This species was not recorded Yes Petaurus or old growth habitats, though sparsely known to occur in during surveys. This species was, norfolcensis including box, box-ironbark distributed in eastern Wollemi NP, however, recorded in Lot 220 and woodlands, river red gum Australia, from northern Yengo NP and in proximity to the alternate haul forest, and blackbutt- Queensland to western Mount Royal NP. route in previous surveys (Umwelt bloodwood forest with Victoria. 2011). There is potential for a heath understorey. It significant impact on this species. prefers mixed species stands with a shrub or acacia mid-storey, and requires abundant tree hollows for refuge and nest sites.

1646/R38/AB 26

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Long-nosed V (TSC) Inhabits coastal heaths and This species is found on Cotton-Bimbang This species was not recorded Yes potoroo V dry and wet sclerophyll the south-eastern coast NP, during surveys. However, the Potorous (EPBC) forests. Dense understorey of Australia, from Werrikimbe NP. open forest habitats provide tridactylus with occasional open areas Queensland to eastern potential habitat for this species. is an essential part of Victoria and Tasmania, There is potential for a significant habitat, and may consist of including some of the impact on this species. grass-trees, sedges, ferns Bass Strait islands. In or heath, or of low shrubs NSW it is generally of tea-trees or melaleucas. restricted to coastal A sandy loam soil is also a heaths and forests east common feature. of the Great Dividing Range. New Holland V This species inhabits a This species has a This species is not This species was not recorded Yes mouse (EPBC) range of habitats from open disjunct distribution known to occur in during surveys. This species was Pseudomys heathlands, open across Tasmania, any reserves in the however recorded in Lot 220 in novaehollandiae woodlands with a heath Victoria, Queensland region. previous surveys (Umwelt 2011). understorey, as well as and NSW There is potential for a significant vegetated dunes. The New impact on this species. Holland mouse lives in a burrow which is shared with other individuals.

1646/R38/AB 27

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Grey-headed V (TSC) This species occurs in Grey-headed flying- This species is This species was not recorded Yes flying-fox V subtropical and temperate foxes are found within known to occur in during surveys. This species was Pteropus (EPBC) rainforests, tall sclerophyll 200 km of the eastern Wollemi NP, however recorded in Lot 220 and poliocephalus forests and woodlands, coast of Australia, from Yengo NP and in proximity to the alternate haul heaths and swamps as well Bundaberg in Barrington Tops route in previous surveys (Umwelt as urban gardens and Queensland to NP. 2011). There is potential for a cultivated fruit crops. Melbourne in Victoria. significant impact on this species. Roosting camps are generally located within 20 km of a regular food source and are commonly found in gullies, close to water, in vegetation with a dense canopy. Eastern freetail-bat V (TSC) This species occurs in dry The eastern This species is This species was not recorded Yes Mormopterus sclerophyll forest and freetail-bat is found known to occur in during surveys. However, the norfolkensis woodland east of the Great along the east coast Wollemi NP, open forest habitats provide Dividing Range. It roosts from south Queensland Yengo NP and foraging resources for this mainly in tree hollows but to southern NSW. Barrington Tops species. There is potential for a will also roost under bark or NP. significant impact on this species. in man-made structures. Little bentwing-bat V (TSC) Prefers moist eucalypt Occurs in coastal north- Medowie SCA. This species was not recorded Yes Miniopterus forest, rainforest or dense eastern NSW and during surveys. This species was australis coastal banksia scrub. This eastern Queensland. however recorded in Lot 220 and species roost in caves, in proximity to the alternate haul tunnels and sometimes tree route in previous surveys (Umwelt hollows during the day, and 2011). There is potential for a at night forage for small significant impact on this species. insects beneath the canopy of densely vegetated habitats.

1646/R38/AB 28

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Eastern V (TSC) This species hunts in Eastern bentwing-bats This species is This species was not recorded Yes bentwing-bat forested areas and uses occur along the east and known to occur in during surveys. However, the Miniopterus caves as the primary north-west coasts of Goulburn River NP, open forest habitats provide schreibersii roosting habitat, but also Australia. Wollemi NP, foraging resources for this oceanensis uses derelict mines, storm- Yengo NP, species. There is potential for a water tunnels, buildings Barrington Tops NP significant impact on this species. and other man-made and Mount Royal structures. It forms discrete NP. populations centered on a maternity cave that is used annually in spring and summer for the birth and rearing of young. Greater broad- V (TSC) The greater broad-nosed The greater broad- The species is This species was not recorded Yes nosed bat bat appears to prefer moist nosed bat is found known to occur in during surveys. This species was Scoteanax environments such as mainly in the gullies and Wollemi NP, however recorded in proximity to rueppellii moist gullies in coastal river systems that drain Yengo NP and the project area in previous forests, or rainforest. They the Great Dividing Barrington Tops surveys (Umwelt 2011). There is have also been found in Range, from north- NP. potential for a significant impact gullies associated with wet eastern Victoria to the on this species. and dry sclerophyll forests Atherton Tableland. It and open woodland. It extends to the coast roosts in hollows in tree over much of its range. trunks and branches and In NSW it is widespread has also been found to on the New England roost in the roofs of old Tablelands, however it buildings. does not occur at altitudes above 500 m.

1646/R38/AB 29

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Yellow-bellied V (TSC) This species forages for The yellow-bellied The species is This species was not recorded Yes sheathtail-bat insects, flies high and fast sheathtail-bat is a wide- known to occur in during surveys. However, the Saccolaimus over the forest canopy, but ranging species found Wollemi NP. open forest habitats provide flaviventris lower in more open country. across northern and potential foraging resources for It forages in most habitats eastern Australia. In the this species. There is potential for across its very wide range, most southerly part of its a significant impact on this with and without trees; and range - most of Victoria, species. appears to defend an aerial south-western NSW and territory. It roosts singly or adjacent South Australia in groups of up to six, in - it is a rare visitor in late tree hollows and buildings; summer and autumn. in treeless areas they are There are scattered known to use mammal records of this species burrows. across the New England Tablelands and North West Slopes. Large-footed V (TSC) This species generally The large-footed myotis The species is There are no potential foraging No myotis roosts in groups of is found in the coastal known to occur in habitats for this species Myotis macropus 10-15 close to water in band from the north- Wollemi NP. (i.e. streams and pools). As such, caves, mine shafts, hollow- west of Australia, across there is no potential for a bearing trees, stormwater the top-end and south to significant impact on this species. channels, buildings, under western Victoria. It is bridges and in dense rarely found more than foliage. It forages over 100 km inland, except streams and pools catching along major rivers. insects and small fish by raking its feet across the water surface.

1646/R38/AB 30

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? Large-eared pied V The large-eared pied bat is This species has a The species is This species was not recorded Yes bat (EPBC) generally found in a variety distribution from south known to occur in during surveys. However, the Chalinolobus V (TSC) of drier habitats, including western Queensland to Goulburn River NP, open forest habitats provide dwyeri dry sclerophyll forests and NSW from the coast to Wollemi NP and potential foraging resources for woodlands, however, it the western slopes of Yengo NP. this species. There is potential for probably tolerates a wide the Great Dividing a significant impact on this range of habitats. It tends Range. species. to roost in the twilight zones of mines and caves, generally in colonies or common groups. Brush-tailed E (TSC) This species occupies The brush-tailed rock- This species is not This species has not been No rock-wallaby V rocky escarpments, wallaby was once known to occur in recorded within the project area or Petrogale (EPBC) outcrops and cliffs with a abundant and ubiquitous any reserves in the its surrounds. The site does not penicillata preference for complex throughout the region. provide suitable habitat for this structures with fissures, mountainous country of species. There is no potential for caves and ledges facing south-eastern Australia. a significant impact on this north. It browses on Its distribution roughly species as a result of the vegetation in and adjacent followed the Great construction of the alternate haul to rocky areas eating Dividing Range for route. grasses and forbs as well 2500 km from the as the foliage and fruits of Grampians in West shrubs and trees. This Victoria to Nanango in species shelters or basks south-east Queensland, during the day in rock with outlying populations crevices, caves and in coastal valleys and overhangs and is most ranges to the east of the active at night. divide, and the slopes and plains as far west as Cobar in NSW and Injune (500 km north- west of Brisbane) in Queensland.

1646/R38/AB 31

Table 3 – Threatened Fauna Assessment (cont.)

Species Legal Specific Habitat Distribution in Reservation in the Occurrence in Project Area and Detailed Status Relation to Project Region Potential for Significant Impact Assessment Area of Significance Required? ENDANGERED POPULATION Emu population in EP Occur in open forest, Previously widespread Medowie SCA. This species was not recorded No the New South (TSC) woodland, coastal heath, on the NSW north coast, during surveys. The alternate Wales North Coast coastal dunes, wetland but now largely haul route does not contain Bioregion and Port areas, tea tree plantations restricted to coastal and preferred habitat features for this Stephens local and open farmland, and near coastal areas species and there is no government area occasionally in littoral between Evans Head connectivity to known populations rainforest. and Red Rock and west of this species. There is no to the Bungawalbin potential for a significant impact area. There have also on emu populations. been some recent records from the Port Stephens area. Key: TSC = Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; EP = Endangered Population; EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; SCA = State Conservation Area; EEC = Endangered Ecological Community; NR = Nature Reserve; and E = Endangered; SF = State Forest. V = Vulnerable; NP = National Park;

1646/R38/AB 32

APPENDIX C

Fauna Species List

Appendix C – Fauna Species List

The following list was compiled from fauna surveys undertaken along the alternate haul route, as shown on Figure 2.1 of the main report. It includes all vertebrate fauna species observed along the alternate haul route during field surveys.

The following abbreviations or symbols are used in the list:

V Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).

Birds recorded were identified using descriptions in Slater et al. (2003) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Birds Australia. Reptiles recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Cogger (2000), Swan et al. (2004), Weigel (1990) and Wilson and Swan (2003) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Cogger (2000).

Amphibians recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Cogger (2000), Robinson (1998), Anstis (2002) and Barker et al. (1995) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Cogger (2000). Mammals recorded were identified using keys and descriptions in Strahan (2002), Churchill (2008) and Menkhorst and Knight (2004) and the scientific and common name nomenclature of Strahan (2002) for non-bat species and Churchill (1998) for bats.

1646/R38/AC 1

Table 1 – Fauna Species List

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status TSC Act EPBC Act BIRDS Accipitridae Aquila audax wedge-tail eagle Cacatuidae Cacatua galerita sulphur-crested cockatoo Columbidae Geopelia humeralis bar-shouldered dove Psittacidae Trichoglossus haematodus rainbow lorikeet Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus scaly-breasted lorikeet Platycercus eximius eastern rosella Cuculidae Cacomantis flabelliformis fan-tailed cuckoo Halcyonidae Dacelo novaeguineae laughing kookaburra Todiramphus sanctus sacred kingfisher Maluridae Malurus lamberti variegated fairy-wren Stipiturus malachurus southern emu-wren Acanthizidae Gerygone albogularis white-throated gerygone Acanthiza pusilla brown thornbill Meliphagidae Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris eastern spinebill Lichenostomus chrysops yellow-faced honeyeater Manorina melanocephala noisy miner Anthochaera chrysoptera little wattlebird Myzomela sanguinolenta scarlet honeyeater Pomatostomidae Pomatostomus temporalis grey-crowned babbler (eastern V temporalis subsp.) Eupetidae Psophodes olivaceus eastern whipbird Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced cuckoo-shrike Pachycephalidae Pachycephala pectoralis golden whistler Artamidae Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian raven Rhipiduridae Rhipidura leucophrys willie wagtail

1646/R38/AC 2

Table 1 – Fauna Species List (cont)

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status TSC Act EPBC Act Monarchidae Myiagra rubecula leaden flycatcher Grallina cyanoleuca magpie-lark Charadriidae Vanellus miles masked lapwing Petroicidae Eopsaltria australis eastern yellow robin Hirundinidae Petrocheildon ariel fairy martin MAMMALS Macropodidae Macropus giganteus eastern grey kangaroo REPTILES Varanidae Varanus varius lace monitor Elapidae Pseudechis porphyriacus red-bellied black snake AMPHIBIANS Myobatrachidae Crinia signifera common eastern froglet Paracrinia haswelli Haswell’s froglet Hylidae Litoria fallax dwarf tree frog

1646/R38/AC 3

APPENDIX D

Assessment of Significance under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Appendix D – Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Assessment of Significance

Threatened species, endangered populations or threatened ecological communities (TECs) recorded during surveys and known to occur in the local area are listed in Appendix B, as are the results of the searches of the relevant ecological databases. These database searches provided lists of species, populations or TECs previously recorded within a 10 kilometre radius of the alternate haul route, or with potential habitat within that radius.

Appendix B provides information on each threatened species, population and TEC (including specific habitat, distribution and reservation) and provides assessments of the potential for an impact from the project. Those considered to have reasonable potential to occur within the alternate haul route (based on known distribution and habitat requirements) and with reasonable potential to be impacted by the project are addressed in more detail in the ‘Assessment of Significance’ included in this appendix.

Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) requires an assessment of significance be prepared relating to the potential impacts of the project on listed threatened species, endangered populations or TECs. As a formal assessment method format has not been established for the Part 3A pathway, an assessment that applies the key principles of the Part 5A assessment is used here to assess the potential for the project to impact threatened species, endangered populations or TECs within the alternate haul route.

An assessment of significance is provided below for those identified threatened species, endangered populations or TECs considered to have the potential to be impacted by the project.

Species and TECs listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requiring further assessment are considered in a separate assessment provided in Appendix F.

Threatened flora and fauna species included under this assessment are listed below.

Threatened Flora Species

• Charmhaven apple Angophora inopina;

• leafless tongue orchid Cryptostylis hunteriana;

• Newcastle doubletail Diuris praecox; and

• sand doubletail Diuris arenaria.

Threatened Fauna Species

• grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis;

• varied sittella Daphoenositta chrysoptera;

• glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami;

• swift parrot Lathamus discolor;

• regent honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia;

1646/R38/AD 1

• masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae;

• powerful owl Ninox strenua;

• spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus;

• brush-tailed phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa;

• koala Phascolarctos cinereus;

• eastern pygmy possum Cercartetus nanus;

• squirrel glider Petaurus norfolcensis;

• long-nosed potoroo Potorous tridactylus;

• grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus;

• yellow-bellied sheathtail-bat Saccolaimus flaviventris;

• eastern freetail-bat Mormopterus norfolkensis;

• little bentwing-bat Miniopterus australis;

• eastern bentwing-bat Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis;

• large-eared pied bat Chalinolobus dwyeri; and

• greater broad-nosed bat Scoteanax rueppellii.

1646/R38/AD 2

Threatened Flora Species

Charmhaven Apple – Angophora inopina

Eleven individuals of hybrid A. inopina – A. floribunda trees were recorded adjacent to the alternate haul route in 2011 however field surveys did not record this species within the proposed disturbance area.

Leafless Tongue Orchid – Cryptostylis hunteriana

Although no leafless tongue orchids (Cryptostylis hunteriana) were identified within the alternate haul route, potential habitat for this species was identified. This species is known to occur in the Karuah-Manning and Wyong Catchment Management Areas.

Newcastle Doubletail – Diuris praecox

Approximately 250 individual Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) were recorded during targeted orchid surveys conducted in the vicinity of the alternate haul route in September 2011. Targeted searches were undertaken again in 2012 however this species was not detected during the survey. Further surveys undertaken on 20 September and 12 October 2012 also failed to identify this species in the alternate haul route. The species has a distributional range between Ourimbah and Nelson Bay New South Wales. No individuals have been recorded within the alternate haul route, however potential habitat was identified.

Sand Doubletail – Diuris arenaria

Approximately 50 individuals of sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) were identified during targeted orchid surveys conducted in the vicinity of the alternate haul route in September 2011 and again during targeted surveys in 2012.This species is only known to occur along the Tomaree Peninsula near Port Stephens New South Wales. No individuals were recorded within the alternate haul route despite targeted searches. Although no individuals were recorded within the alternate haul route, given the cryptic nature of this species and its perceived association with areas of disturbance, the presence of this species within the alternate haul route cannot be completely discounted. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina) was not recorded within the alternate haul route. As such, the life cycle of the species is unlikely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

The project will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for the leafless tongue orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana). Given the small combined area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality it is considered unlikely that the lifecycle of the leafless tongue orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction.

1646/R38/AD 3

Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) has been recorded in significant numbers (approximately 250 individuals) adjacent to the alternate haul route. The species has been previously recorded scattered on hills and slopes along the coastal areas of Port Stephens. The records adjacent to the alternate haul route are highly concentrated and would constitute part of a local viable population of the species. No known Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) will be disturbed by the development of the alternate haul route. The alternate haul route is located amongst a large, continuous vegetation remnant that spans the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, which includes 4438 hectares of Worimi Conservation Lands. The Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) is known to occur in parts of this large vegetation remnant, and elsewhere throughout Port Stephens, where important habitats for it exist.

Approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for the Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) will be disturbed as part of the proposed action and given the presence of higher quality habitat for this species in the locality, the proposed action is not likely to disrupt the lifecycle of the species such that a local population would be at risk of extinction.

No sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) was identified within the alternate haul route during targeted surveys in suitable flowering conditions in 2012 however approximately 50 individuals were recorded surrounding the alternate haul route in 2011. No known sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) will be disturbed by the development of the alternate haul route. This species is only known to occur along the Tomaree Peninsula near Port Stephens New South Wales. The alternate haul route is part of a large, continuous vegetation remnant that spans the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, which includes 4438 hectares of Worimi Conservation Lands. The sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) is known to occur in parts of this large vegetation remnant, and elsewhere throughout Port Stephens, where important habitats for it exist.

Approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for the sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria) will be disturbed as part of the proposed action and given the presence of higher quality habitat for this species in the locality, the proposed action is not likely to disrupt the lifecycle of the species such that a local population would be at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, some of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. There is an abundance of additional suitable habitat throughout this larger remnant for the range of threatened flora species for which the proposed alternate haul route provides potential habitat.

Conclusion – Given the small area of potential habitat to be removed (0.37 hectare) compared to the vast areas of comparative habitat nearby and the absence of known records of any of the potentially occurring threatened flora species within the alternate haul route, it is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina), leafless tongue orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana), Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox) or sand doubletail (Diuris arenaria).

1646/R38/AD 4

Threatened Fauna Species

Grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies) – Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis

The grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) was not recorded in the alternate haul route, however it was recorded in proximity. No evidence was observed that suggested this species was nesting within the alternate haul route, as evidenced by the conspicuous nests of the species. The grey-crowned babbler is more common in the western parts of New South Wales however the Office of the Environment and Heritage (OEH) Atlas of New South Wales Wildlife shows a small number of records of this species in nearby habitats of a similar nature. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The project will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. The alternate haul route supports both potential foraging and potential nesting habitat for the grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis).

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, some of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. While the grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) is a sedentary bird with a small home range, there is an abundance of suitable habitat throughout this larger remnant.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The alternate haul route will disturb a small area (0.37 hectare) of potential habitat for the grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis). While this species is a sedentary bird and therefore sensitive to fragmentation, it is considered unlikely that the development of the alternate haul route will isolate any known populations of this species.

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis).

1646/R38/AD 5

Varied Sittella – Daphoenositta chrysoptera

The varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) was not recorded in the alternate haul route, however it is regarded to have potential to occur. The OEH Atlas of New South Wales Wildlife shows a small number of records of this species in nearby, adjacent habitats of a similar nature. c) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, some of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. While the varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) is a fairly sedentary bird with a small home range, there is an abundance of suitable habitat throughout this larger remnant.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. d) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The alternate haul route will disturb a small area (0.37 hectare) of potential habitat for the varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera). While this species is a sedentary bird and therefore sensitive to fragmentation, it is considered unlikely that the development of the alternate haul route will isolate any known populations of this species.

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the varied sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera).

Glossy Black-cockatoo – Calyptorhynchus lathami

The glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) was not identified within the alternate haul route during the surveys, however Allocasuarina littoralis, a known food resource for the species, was previously recorded (albeit in low abundance) within adjoining vegetation, offering potential foraging habitat. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The project will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. The suitability of these habitats is only marginal as there is a low abundance of food resources (in particular Allocasuarina littoralis).

1646/R38/AD 6

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, some of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. If the glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) occurs in the locality, it likely forages widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of foraging resources in the alternate haul route is unlikely to be significant.

A tree-clearing procedure has been designed for the project to minimise impacts on any potentially occurring hollow-roosting species such as the glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami).

Given that only marginal habitats exist in the alternate haul route relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhunchus lathami) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area (0.37 hectare) of marginal potential habitat for the highly mobile glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami). It is unlikely that the project will result in the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The proposed development within the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami).

Conclusion

The proposed development within the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami).

Swift Parrot – Lathamus discolor

The swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) was not identified within the alternate haul route during surveys. Winter flowering swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) occurs in vegetation adjoining the alternate haul route and provides a potential foraging resource for this migratory species. Winter flowering foraging resources were not identified in the alternate haul route. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential foraging habitat for the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor). This is a highly mobile, migratory species, which is likely to make use of habitat within a number of vegetated areas within the region, depending on the availability of winter flowering resources. The species has potential to opportunistically forage on trees within the alternate haul route, however given there is approximately 0.37 hectare of habitat, this species would not be dependent on these resources during migrations. Adjacent forested habitats, 4438 hectares of which are protected in the Worimi Conservation Lands, potentially provide an important resource.

1646/R38/AD 7

Given the small area of disturbance to possible foraging habitat for the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor), the life cycle of this species is unlikely to be disrupted such that a local viable population would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of marginal potential habitat for the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor), however will not cause the isolation of any known areas of important habitat for this species. The swift parrot is a highly mobile, migratory species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor).

Regent Honeyeater – Anthochaera phrygia

The regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) was not identified within the alternate haul route during surveys. Winter flowering swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) occurs in vegetation adjoining the alternate haul route, providing a potential foraging resource for this migratory species. Winter flowering foraging resources were not identified in the alternate haul route. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential foraging habitat for the regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia). This is a highly mobile, migratory species, which is likely to make use of habitat within a number of vegetated areas within the region, depending on the availability of winter flowering resources. The species has potential to opportunistically forage on trees within the alternate haul route, however given there is approximately 0.37 hectare of habitat, this species would not be dependent on these resources during migrations. Adjacent forested habitats, 4438 hectares of which are protected in the Worimi Conservation Lands, potentially collectively provide an important resource.

Given the small area of disturbance to possible foraging habitat for the regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), the life cycle of this species is unlikely to be disrupted such that a local viable population would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of marginal potential foraging habitat for the regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), however will not cause the isolation of any known areas of important habitat for this species. The regent honeyeater is a highly mobile, migratory species.

1646/R38/AD 8

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia).

Powerful Owl – Ninox strenua

The powerful owl (Ninox strenua) was not identified within the alternate haul route during surveys however was recorded in nearby similar habitats during previous surveys (Umwelt 2004). This species is known to occur in adjacent habitats and the alternate haul route supports potential foraging habitat for this species. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. The adjacent habitats, which are similar in characteristics to those of the alternate haul route, are known habitats for the powerful owl (Ninox strenua).

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. The powerful owl (Ninox strenua) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species in the local area.

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the powerful owl (Ninox strenua) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential habitat for the powerful owl (Ninox strenua) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the powerful owl (Ninox strenua).

1646/R38/AD 9

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the powerful owl (Ninox strenua).

Masked Owl – Tyto novaehollandiae

The masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) was not identified within the alternate haul route during surveys. Surveys undertaken in 2002 (ERM 2002) in nearby, similar habitats identified a pair of masked owls. The alternate haul route provides marginal foraging habitat for the species. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectares of potential habitat for this species. The adjacent habitats, which are similar in characteristics to those of the alternate haul route, are known habitats for the masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae).

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. The masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) is likely to forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential habitat for the masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae).

1646/R38/AD 10

Spotted-Tailed Quoll – Dasyurus maculatus

The spotted tailed-quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) was not identified within the alternate haul route during surveys, however suitable potential habitat was identified. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. The adjacent habitats, which are similar in characteristics to those of the alternate haul route, provide better quality habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectare Worimi Conservation Lands. The spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) if present would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).

Brush-tailed Phascogale – Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa

The brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa) was not identified within the alternate haul route during the surveys however potential habitat was identified. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species.

1646/R38/AD 11

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Much of this remnant also offers suitable habitat for the brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa). The approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route is likely to be relatively insignificant relative to the local availability of habitats.

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat for the brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The easement for the haul route is 10 metres in width. The brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa) would possibly need to cross this track when moving between the bushland on the north and south of the track, as there are no other corridors. Mitigation measures relating to the sensitive use of this road by vehicles have been developed to minimise any impacts on species such as the brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa). Even with these mitigation measures in place, there is potential for individuals of this species to be injured or killed while attempting to cross the access track.

The proposed development of the alternate haul route will create a minor barrier to movement for the brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa) passing between habitats to the north and south of the proposed access track. However, the extent of this is not such that a significant area of known habitat will be modified, removed or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas.

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the brush- tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa).

1646/R38/AD 12

Koala – Phascolarctos cinereus

The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) was not recorded in the alternate haul route, however has been recorded previously in adjacent, similar habitats. The alternate haul route is considered to provide mainly supplementary habitat and connectivity between preferred habitats. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The alternate haul route will require the removal of less than 0.37 hectare of habitat for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) comprising approximately 0.26 hectare of supplementary koala habitat and 0.1 hectare of buffer over supplementary as defined by the Port Stephens Comprehensive koala plan of management (CKPoM).

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which spans the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) would utilise the resources of the alternate haul route opportunistically as part of a much wider foraging range throughout this adjacent bushland. The less than 0.37 hectare of koala habitat in the alternate haul route is expected to be a relatively insignificant component of any home range of the species in the locality.

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area (0.37 hectare) of potential habitat for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).

The easement for the alternate haul route is 10 metres in width. The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) would need to cross this track on foot when moving between the bushland on the north and south of the track, as there are no other corridors. Mitigation measures relating to the sensitive use of this road by vehicles have been developed to minimise any impacts on species such as the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). Even with these mitigation measures in place, there is potential for a small number of individuals of this species to be injured or killed while attempting to cross the access track.

The alternate haul route will create a minor barrier to movement for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) passing between habitats to the north and south of the proposed access track. However, the extent is such that a significant area of known habitat is unlikely to be modified, removed or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas.

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).

1646/R38/AD 13

Eastern Pygmy Possum – Cercartetus nanus

The eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus) was not recorded in the alternate haul route, however was recorded in nearby, similar habitats in 2004 (Umwelt 2004). The open woodland habitats of the alternate haul route supports potential foraging and nesting habitat for this species. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. Adjacent habitats, which are similar in characteristics to those of the alternate haul route, are known habitats for the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus).

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Much of this remnant offers suitable habitat for the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus). The 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route is unlikely to be significant, relative to the local availability of habitats.

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential habitat for the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The alternate haul route will be 10 metres in width. The eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus) would possibly need to cross this track when moving between the bushland on the north and south of the track, as there are no other corridors. It is likely that this species can glide across that distance, in particular if there are overhanging canopies across the track. However, an individual of this species may be forced to cross the track on the ground. Mitigation measures relating to the sensitive use of this road by vehicles have been developed to minimise any impacts on species such as the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus). Even with these mitigation measures in place, there is potential for individuals of this species to be injured or killed while attempting to cross the access track.

1646/R38/AD 14

The alternate haul route will create a minor barrier to movement for the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus) passing between habitats to the north and south of the proposed access track. However, the extent of this is not such that a significant area of known habitat will be modified, removed or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas.

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the eastern pygmy possum (Cercartetus nanus).

Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis)

The squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) was not recorded in the alternate haul route, however the open woodland habitats provide potential foraging and nesting resources for this species. This species has previously been recorded in nearby similar habitats (Umwelt 2004 and 2009a). a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Much of this remnant offers suitable habitat for the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis). The 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route is unlikely to be relatively significant relative to the local availability of habitats.

A tree-clearing procedure has been designed for the project to minimise impacts on any potentially occurring hollow-roosting species such as the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis).

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The easement for the alternate haul route is 10 metres in width. The squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) would possibly need to cross this track when moving between the bushland on the north and south of the track, as there are no other corridors. It is most likely that this species can glide across that distance, in particular if there are overhanging canopies across the track. Mitigation measures relating to the sensitive use of this road by vehicles have been developed to minimise any impacts on species such as the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis). Even with these mitigation measures in place, there is potential for individuals of this species to be injured or killed while attempting to cross the access track.

1646/R38/AD 15

The development of the alternate haul route will create a minor barrier to movement for the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) passing between habitats to the north and south of the proposed access track. However, the extent of this is not such that a significant area of known habitat will be modified, removed or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas.

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis).

Long-nosed Potoroo – Potorous tridactylus

The long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) was not recorded in the alternate haul route, however the habitat provided by the alternate haul route is considered to provide suitable habitat for this species. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. The adjacent habitats, which are similar in characteristics to those of the alternate haul route, similarly provide potential habitat for the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus).

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Much of this remnant offers suitable habitat for the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus). The 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route is likely to be relatively insignificant relative to the local availability of habitats.

Given that the development of the alternate haul route will disturb only a small area of potential habitat relative to the available habitats in the wider locality, it is considered unlikely that the lifecycle of the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The easement for the alternate haul route is 10 metres in width. The long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) would possibly need to cross this track when moving between bushland on the north and south of the track, as there are no other corridors. Mitigation measures relating to the sensitive use of this road by vehicles have been developed to minimise any impacts on species such as the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) that would need to cross the track. Even with these mitigation measures in place, there is potential for individuals of this species to be injured or killed while attempting to cross the alternate haul route.

1646/R38/AD 16

The development of the alternate haul route will create a minor barrier to movement of potentially present long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) passing between habitats to the north and south of the alternate haul route. However, the extent of habitat removal is not such that a significant area of known habitat will be modified, removed or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas.

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus).

Grey-headed Flying-fox – Pteropus poliocephalus

The grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) was not recorded within the alternate haul route during current surveys but has been recorded widely in nearby, connected habitats previously (Umwelt 2004, 2009 and 2012a). a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The project will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectares of known habitat for this species. The alternate haul route supports foraging habitat for the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), however there are no roost sites.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. The grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of home range of the species.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential foraging habitat for the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species. The proposed 10 metre width of road easement is unlikely to be sufficient to fragment habitats for this highly mobile bat species which has a very wide foraging range.

1646/R38/AD 17

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus).

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat – Saccolaimus flaviventris

The yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) was not recorded within the alternate haul route. The open forest habitats of the alternate haul route provide potential foraging and roosting resources for this species. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The project will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris). The alternate haul route supports both foraging habitat and potential roosting habitat for this hollow-roosting species.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Any locally occurring population of the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

An approved tree-clearing procedure has been designed as part of the Mackas Landscape Management Plan (Umwelt 2009b) to minimise impacts on any potentially occurring hollow-roosting species such as the yellow-bellied sheath-tail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris). Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris).

Conclusion: The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris).

1646/R38/AD 18

Eastern Freetail-bat – Mormopterus norfolkensis

The eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) was not recorded within the alternate haul route. The open forest habitats of the alternate haul route provide potential foraging and roosting resources for this species. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The project will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for the eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis). The alternate haul route supports both foraging habitat and roosting habitat for this hollow-roosting species.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Any locally occurring population of the eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the eastern freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis).

1646/R38/AD 19

Little Bentwing-bat – Miniopterus australis

The little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) was not recorded within the alternate haul route. This species was recorded within the vicinity of the alternate haul route during previous surveys. The open forest habitats of the alternate haul route provide foraging resources for this species and as the species occasionally roosts in tree hollows, potential roosting habitat for this species was also identified. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of known habitat for the little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis). The alternate haul route supports foraging habitat and potential roosting habitat for this occasional hollow-roosting species.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. The little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is in place, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of known habitat for little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis), however will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the little bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis).

1646/R38/AD 20

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

The eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) was not recorded within the alternate haul route during current surveys. This species was recorded during previous surveys in adjacent habitats. The open forest habitats of the alternate haul route provide suitable foraging resources, however suitable roosting habitats were not identified. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. The alternate haul route supports potential foraging habitat for the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), however there are suitable roost sites were not identified.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Any locally occurring populations of the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential habitat for the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii ocenanensis).

1646/R38/AD 21

Large-eared Pied bat – Chalinolobus dwyeri

The large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) was not recorded within the alternate haul route during current surveys. The open forest habitats of the alternate haul route provide suitable foraging resources, however no suitable roosting habitats were identified. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The project will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for this species. The alternate haul route supports foraging habitat for the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), however suitable roost sites were not identified.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. Any locally occurring populations of the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the loss of approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of potential habitat for the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri).

1646/R38/AD 22

Greater Broad-nosed Bat – Scoteanax rueppellii

The greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) was not recorded within the alternate haul route however the species is known to occur in the local area. The open forest vegetation of the alternate haul route provides foraging and roosting habitats for this species. a) Whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The development of the alternate haul route will require the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of known habitat for the broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii). The alternate haul route supports foraging habitat and potential roosting habitat for this hollow-roosting species.

The alternate haul route comprises a very small area of a much larger remnant of vegetation, of similar or better condition, which occurs along the south-east coast of Port Stephens from Salt Ash to Anna Bay, much of which is included in the 4438 hectares Worimi Conservation Lands. The broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) would forage widely through this broader remnant, and therefore the approximately 0.37 hectare of resources in the alternate haul route would be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species.

Given the small area of disturbance (0.37 hectare) relative to the availability of habitats in the broader locality, and an approved tree-clearing procedure is provided, it is unlikely that the lifecycle of the broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) would be disrupted such that a local viable population of the species would be placed at risk of extinction. b) In relation to the regional distribution of the habitat of the threatened species, whether a significant area of known habitat is to be modified or removed, or isolated from currently interconnecting or proximate areas

The development of the alternate haul route will disturb a small area of habitat for broad- nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) and will not cause the isolation of any known populations of this species.

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation, modification or removal of a significant area of known habitat for the broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii).

Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not have a significant impact on the bat broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii).

Significance Assessment Conclusion

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in a significant impact on any Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) listed threatened species, endangered populations or endangered ecological communities.

1646/R38/AD 23

APPENDIX E

Assessment under the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

Appendix E – Assessment of Impact on Koala Habitat under the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

The alternate haul route lies within the Port Stephens Local Government Area (LGA) and as such the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44) are superseded by the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM).

The CKPoM (Port Stephens Council 2002) provides recommended performance criteria for development applications in order to protect and effectively manage koala habitat in the Port Stephens LGA. These criteria are reproduced in Table 1, and are to apply to all developments proposed on sites that contain or are adjacent to preferred or supplementary habitat, Habitat Buffers or habitat linking areas. The proposed haul route traverses through a 50 metre buffer over Supplementary Koala Habitat as a result of referred koala habitat being identified immediately east of the alternate haul route (see Figure 4.1 of main text). An assessment of the alternate haul route against the specific criteria described in the CKPoM is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 - Performance Criteria from CKPoM

Performance Criteria from CKPoM Proposed Alternate Haul Route a) Minimise the removal or degradation of No Preferred Koala Habitat removed. native vegetation within Preferred Koala Removal of small area (approximately Habitat or Habitat Buffers. 0.11 hectare) of Habitat Buffer over Supplementary Koala Habitat. b) Maximise retention and minimise Removal of small area (approximately degradation of native vegetation within 0.26 hectare) of Supplementary Koala Habitat. Supplementary Koala Habitat and Habitat Large areas (>4000 hectares) of similar or Linking Areas. higher quality contiguous habitat retained adjacent to the alternate haul route in Worimi Conservation Area. c) Minimise the removal of any individuals of Alternate haul route avoids all recorded preferred koala food trees, where ever they preferred koala food trees. occur on a developed site. In the Port Stephens LGA these tree species are Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), Parramatta Red Gum (E. parramattensis) and Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis). d) Make provision, where appropriate, for No rehabilitation will be appropriate for the restoration or rehabilitation of areas proposed haul route. identified as Koala Habitat, including Habitat Buffers and Habitat Linking Areas over Mainly Cleared Land. e) Make provision for long term management The areas of koala habitat adjoining the and protection of koala habitat including alternate haul route will remain intact and both existing and restored habitat. unmodified. No formal management or protection measures are considered to be required.

1646/R38/AE 1

Table 1 - Performance Criteria from CKPoM (cont)

Performance Criteria from CKPoM Proposed Alternate Haul Route f) Not compromise the potential for safe • Tree removal will be minimised where movement of koalas across the site. This possible and an overhead canopy should include maximising tree retention connection is encouraged where generally and minimising the likelihood that appropriate. the proposal would result in the creation of • No fences, other than those already existing barriers to koala movement, such as would between Lot boundaries, will be erected for be imposed by certain types of fencing. The the alternate haul route. preferred option for minimising restrictions to safe koala movement is that there be no fencing (of a sort that would prelude koalas) associated with dog free developments within or adjacent to Preferred or Supplementary Koala Habitat, Habitat Buffers or Habitat Linking Areas. Suitable fencing for such areas could include: • Fences where the bottom of the fence is a minimum of 200 millimetres above ground level that would allow koalas to move underneath; • Fences that facilitate easy climbing by koalas; for example, sturdy chain mesh fences, or solid style fences with timber posts on both sides at regular intervals of approximately 20 metres; or • Open post and rail or post and wires (not barbed wire on the bottom strand). g) Be restricted to identified envelopes which • The alternate haul route will be restricted to contain all buildings and infrastructure and a maximum width of 10 metres within the fire fuel reduction zone. Generally there will koala habitat areas. be no clearing on the site outside these envelopes. In the case of applications for subdivision, such envelopes should be registered as a restriction on the title, pursuant to the Conveyancing Act 1919.

1646/R38/AE 2

Table 1 - Performance Criteria from CKPoM (cont)

Performance Criteria from CKPoM Proposed Alternate Haul Route h) Include measures to effectively minimise the • A maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per threat posed to koalas by dogs, motor hour will apply to the entire length of the vehicles and swimming pools by adopting alternate haul route the following minimum standards: • Signage will be erected at either end of the • The development must include alternate haul route warning haul vehicles of measures that effectively abate the koala presence. threat posed to koalas by dogs through • Night driving will be reduced where possible prohibitions or restrictions on dog to minimise driving during periods of higher ownership. Restrictions on title may be koala activity. appropriate; • The development must include measures that effectively minimise the threat posed to koalas from traffic by restricting motor vehicle speeds, where appropriate, to 40 kilometres per hour or less; and • The development must reduce the risk of koala mortality by drowning in backyard swimming pools. Appropriate measures could include: trailing a length of stout rope (minimum diameter of 50 millimetres), which is secured to a stable poolside fixture, in the swimming pool at all times; designing the pool in such a way that koalas can readily escape; or enclosing the pool with a fence that precludes koalas. The last option should include locating the fence away from any trees which koalas could use to cross the fence.

Conclusion

Approximately 0.37 hectare of koala habitat will be removed or modified during the development of the alternate haul route.

The 0.37 hectare of koala habitat in the alternate haul route is expected to be a relatively insignificant component of the home range of the species in the locality and as such it is considered that the development of the alternate haul route is unlikely to have a significant impact on koala habitat in the locality.

1646/R38/AE 3

APPENDIX F

Assessment of Significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Appendix F – Assessment of Significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

A search of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) Protected Matters Database identified (discounting fishes and marine species) 11 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) listed threatened species and 12 migratory species known to occur or considered likely to occur, on the basis of habitat modelling, within a 10 kilometre radius of the alternate haul route.

The EPBC Act listed species recorded or with potential to occur in the alternate haul route, and therefore covered under this assessment are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – EPBC Act Listed Threatened and Migratory Species Included in this Assessment of Significance for the Proposed Development

Species EPBC Act Status Recorded/Potential to Occur Endangered Species Swift parrot endangered potential Lathamus discolor Regent honeyeater endangered potential Anthochaera phrygia Vulnerable Species Newcastle doubletail vulnerable potential Diuris praecox Leafless tongue-orchid vulnerable potential Cryptostylis hunteriana Charmhaven apple vulnerable potential Angophora inopina Grey-headed flying-fox vulnerable potential Pteropus poliocephalus Large-eared pied-bat vulnerable potential Chalinolobus dwyeri New Holland mouse vulnerable potential Pseudomys novaehollandiae Koala vulnerable potential Phascolarctos cinereus Spotted-tailed quoll endangered potential Dasyurus maculatus maculatus Long-nosed potoroo vulnerable potential Potorous tridactylus Migratory Species White-throated needletail migratory potential Hirundapus caudacutus Rainbow bee-eater migratory potential Merops ornatus Rufous fantail migratory potential Rhipidura rufifrons Fork-tailed swift migratory potential Apus pacificus

1646/R38/AF 1

Table 1 – EPBC Act Listed Threatened and Migratory Species Included in this Assessment of Significance for the Proposed Development (cont.)

Species EPBC Act Status Recorded/Potential to Occur White-bellied sea-eagle migratory potential Haliaeetus leucogaster Satin flycatcher migratory potential Myiagra cyanoleuca Regent honeyeater migratory potential Anthochaera phrygia Black-faced monarch migratory potential Monarcha melanopsis Cattle egret migratory potential Ardea ibis Great egret migratory potential Ardea alba Latham’s snipe migratory potential Gallinago hardwickii Painted snipe migratory potential Rostratula australis

An assessment of the potential impacts of the alternate haul route is provided below for each threatened and migratory species listed in Table 1 above. The assessment is based on the removal of approximately 0.37 hectare of native vegetation and assuming the impact mitigation measures identified in Section 6 of the main report are adhered to.

The aim of this assessment is to determine whether the development of the alternate haul route is likely to have a significant impact on any EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). In this instance, MNES with potential to occur within the alternate haul route include:

• listed threatened species (including endangered and vulnerable species); and

• listed migratory species.

Each category is addressed separately below.

Endangered Species

The following EPBC Act listed endangered species are considered in this assessment:

• swift parrot (Lathamus discolor); and

• regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia).

An assessment in accordance with the DSEWPC principal significant impact guidelines is provided below for these species.

1646/R38/AF 2

In this case, a population means:

• a geographically distinct regional population, or collection of local populations; or

• a regional population, or collection of local populations, that occurs within a particular bioregion.

The two species listed above were not recorded within the alternate haul route, however have potential to occur. The species are known to occur in the locality seasonally, opportunistically foraging on available winter-flowering vegetation. The alternate haul route does not contain a geographically distinct regional population, or collection of local populations of these species and does not contain a regional population, or collection of local populations of this species that occur within the New South Wales North Coast Bioregion. Therefore, the alternate haul route does not provide habitat for a population of an EPBC Act listed endangered species.

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

• lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population; or

No populations of swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) were recorded within the alternate haul route. The proposed development of the alternate haul route will not lead to a decrease in the size of a population (as defined above) of an endangered species.

• reduce the area of occupancy of the species; or

No populations of swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) were recorded within the alternate haul route. Approximately 0.37 hectare of marginal potential foraging habitat will be disturbed as a result of the proposed development. Substantial areas of similar potential habitats for these species are protected within a large expanse of continuous vegetation adjacent to the alternate haul route, some of which is protected within the Worimi Conservation Lands.

• fragment an existing population into two or more populations; or

No populations of swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) were recorded within the alternate haul route. Given the small scale of disturbance associated with the development of the alternate haul route (0.37 hectare) and the mobile nature of the above species, the development of the alternate haul route will not fragment an existing population of either species into two or more populations.

• adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; or

No populations of swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) were recorded within the alternate haul route. The alternate haul route does not contain habitat critical to the survival of these endangered species, and therefore such habitats will not be affected as a result of the development of the alternate haul route.

1646/R38/AF 3

• disrupt the breeding cycle of a population; or

No populations of swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) were recorded within the alternate haul route. Breeding habitat for either species does not occur within the alternate haul route. The development of the alternate haul route will not disrupt the breeding cycle of a population of an endangered species.

• modify, destroy, remove isolate, or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline; or

The habitats within the alternate haul route provide only marginal foraging habitat for the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) and regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), and less than 0.37 hectare of such habitats will be disturbed as a result of the proposed development. The development of the alternate haul route will not modify, destroy, remove, isolate, or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that an endangered species is likely to decline.

• result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat; or

The alternate haul route currently supports introduced plant and animal species in a low to moderate abundance that is unlikely to be harmful to the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia). The development of the alternate haul route will not result in a significant increase in invasive species that are harmful to the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia).

• interfere with the recovery of the species.

Given the small area of potential, marginal foraging habitat to be disturbed, the proposed development of the alternate haul route will not interfere with the recovery of the swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) or regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia).

Vulnerable Species

The following EPBC Act listed vulnerable species are considered in this assessment:

• New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae);

• spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculates maculatus);

• long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus);

• koala (Phascolarctos cinereus);

• large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri);

1646/R38/AF 4

• grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus);

• Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina);

• Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox); and

• leafless tongue-orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana).

An assessment in accordance with the DSEWPC principal significant impact guidelines is provided below for these species.

In this case, an important population is a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations that are:

• key source populations either for breeding or dispersal; or

• populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity; and/or

• populations that are near the limit of the species range.

There are no species for which the alternate haul route supports an important population based on the DSEWPC definition.

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

• lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species; or

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in a long-term decrease in an important population of a vulnerable species.

• reduce the area of occupancy of an important population; or

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the reduction in the area of occupancy of an important population of a vulnerable species.

• fragment an existing important population into two or more populations; or

The development of the alternate haul route will not result in the fragmentation of an existing important population into two or more populations.

• adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; or

The alternate haul route does not contain habitat critical to the survival of New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae), spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus), koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina), leafless tongue-orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) or Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox). The development of the alternate haul route will not result in any adverse affect on habitat critical to the survival of these species.

1646/R38/AF 5

• disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population; or

The development of the alternate haul route will not disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population of a vulnerable species.

• modify, destroy, remove, isolate, or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline; or

The development of the alternate haul route involves the disturbance to approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae), spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus), koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina), leafless tongue-orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox). However, it is unlikely that this loss would cause a vulnerable species to decline.

• result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat; or

The alternate haul route currently supports introduced plant and animal species in a low to moderate abundance. It is considered unlikely that the development of the alternate haul route will result in the introduction of an invasive species that is harmful to the New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae), spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus), koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina), leafless tongue-orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) or Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox). The development of the alternate haul route will not result in a significant increase in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species.

• interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

The development of the alternate haul route will involve the disturbance to approximately 0.37 hectare of potential habitat for New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae), spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus), koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Charmhaven apple (Angophora inopina), leafless tongue-orchid (Cryptostylis hunteriana) and Newcastle doubletail (Diuris praecox). Significant areas of similar habitats occur within the local area. The habitats of the alternate haul route are not vital for these species. The development of the alternate haul route will not interfere substantially with the recovery of these species.

1646/R38/AF 6

Migratory Species

The 12 EPBC Act migratory species listed in Table 1, recorded or found to have potential to occur in the alternate haul route are considered in this assessment.

A proposed development is regarded to have a significant impact if it affects an area of important habitat for any migratory species. Under the definition of the EPBC Act, an area of important habitat is:

• habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species;

• habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species range; or

• habitat within an area where the species is declining.

The alternate haul route is not considered to comprise important habitat for any of the listed migratory species, based on the DSEWPC criteria described above. As such, no further assessment is required for any EPBC Act listed vulnerable species recorded or potentially occurring in the alternate haul route. The development of the alternate haul route will not impact on an important population of any EPBC Act listed vulnerable species.

Conclusion

The proposed development of the alternate haul route will not result in a significant impact on any EPBC Act listed threatened, vulnerable or migratory species.

1646/R38/AF 7

APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 4 Director-General’s Requirements Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

Mackas Sand

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 DP 1044608, Salt Ash

October 2012

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 DP 1044608, Salt Ash

October 2012

Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Mackas Sand

Project Director: Peter Jamieson Project Manager: Andy Goodwin Report No: 1646/R37/Final Date: October 2012

Newcastle

PO Box 3024 75 York Street Teralba, NSW 2284 Ph: 02 4950 5322 www.umwelt.com.au

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Table of Contents of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1.1

1.1 Description of the Alternate Haul Route ...... 1.1 1.2 Background Information ...... 1.2 1.3 Relevant Cultural Heritage Legislation ...... 1.3 1.3.1 EP&A Act ...... 1.3 1.3.2 New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ...... 1.3 1.4 Report Structure ...... 1.5 1.5 Project Team ...... 1.5

2.0 Aboriginal Party Consultation ...... 2.1

2.1 Consultation Regarding Proposed Initial Alternate Haul Route ...... 2.1 2.2 Consultation Regarding Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route ...... 2.2

3.0 Environmental Context ...... 3.1

4.0 Archaeological Context ...... 4.1

4.1 OEH AHIMS Database ...... 4.1 4.2 Previously Recorded Sites Associated with the Alternate Haul Route ...... 4.2 4.3 Assessment of Initial Alternate Haul Route ...... 4.3 4.4 Summary ...... 4.4

5.0 Predictive Model ...... 5.1

6.0 Survey Methodology and Results ...... 6.1

6.1 Survey Methodology ...... 6.1 6.2 Results ...... 6.1 6.2.1 Effective Coverage ...... 6.2 6.2.2 Archaeological Sites ...... 6.4 6.3 Summary ...... 6.5

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 i Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Table of Contents of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

7.0 Significance Assessment ...... 7.1

7.1 Aboriginal Cultural Significance ...... 7.1 7.2 Archaeological Significance ...... 7.2 7.2.1 Archaeological Significance Assessment Criteria ...... 7.2 7.2.2 Assessment of Archaeological Significance ...... 7.5

8.0 Impacts in Relation to the Archaeological Assessment ...... 8.1

9.0 Archaeological Recommendations ...... 9.1

9.1 A3 and PAD within Section of the Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route that Extends From the Northern Boundary of Lot 218 to the Lot 218 Approval Area ...... 9.1 9.2 General Recommendations ...... 9.2

10.0 Aboriginal Party Recommendations ...... 10.1

10.1 Recommendations Provided in Response to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of the Initial Alternate Haul Route ...... 10.1 10.2 Recommendations Provided in Response to 2012 Draft Assessment for Alternative Haul Route ...... 10.1

11.0 References ...... 11.1

FIGURES

1.1 Locality Plan ...... 1.1

1.2 Proposed Alternate Access Route to Nelson Bay Road ...... 1.1

4.1 Location of AHIMS Registered Sites ...... 4.1

6.1 Surveyed Area of Alternate Haul Route with Indentified Sites and Features ...... 6.1

9.1 Archaeological Management Recommendations for Access Track Construction ...... 9.1

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 ii Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Table of Contents of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

PLATES

1 Transect 1: View to south east of proposed access track in woodland from MGA 395723E 6368361S ...... 6.1 2 Transect 1: View of ground surface at MGA 395741E 6368450S ...... 6.1 3 Transect 1: View of bioturbation evident along proposed access track ...... 6.1 4 Transect 1: View to north-east through woodland taken at MGA 395748E 6368481S ...... 6.1 5 Transect 2: View to east of locus 1 from MGA 395717E 6368579S showing flags marking location of midden shell ...... 6.1 6 Transect 2: View facing north-east from proposed access track route, showing locus 1 in background ...... 6.1 7 Transect 2: View facing south-east from MGA 395734E 6368653S showing gently undulating surfaces in the proposed access track area...... 6.1 8 Transect 2: View of locus 2 facing south-east from MGA 395721E 6368658S ...... 6.1 9 Transect 2: View to south from locus 2 at MGA 395721E 6368658S, showing easement...... 6.1 10 Transect 2: View to south-west from MGA 395833E 6368678S showing locus 3) near easement ...... 6.1 11 Transect 2: View of locus 3 looking north showing flag marking Midden Shell ...... 6.1 12 Transect 2: View of tuff flake in locus 3 ...... 6.1 13 Transect 2: View of fragmentary bone and shell in locus 3 ...... 6.1 14 Transect 2: View to south east from locus 3 to locus 1 across proposed access track ...... 6.1 15 Transect 2: View to south from locus 3 to locus 2 (near mid-ground poles) from MGA 395833E 6368678S ...... 6.1 16 Transect 2: View to south from MGA 395770E 6368616S showing flags marking location of shell in locus 4 ...... 6.1 17 Inter Barrier Depression: View of proposed route of access track from MGA 395885E 6369727S ...... 6.1 18 Inter Barrier Depression: View facing south of access track at MGA 396016E 6369648S ...... 6.1

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 iii Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Table of Contents of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

APPENDICES

1 Aboriginal Stakeholder Consultation

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 iv Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Introduction of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

1.0 Introduction

Major Project Approval 08_0142 was granted to Mackas Sand for the extraction of sand from Lot 218 in DP 1044608 and Lot 220 in DP 1049608 (refer to Figure 1.1). Major Project Approval 08_0142 includes provision for Mackas Sand to access Lot 218 by creating a small access road to adjoin an existing access route through the Quality Sands and Ceramics sand quarry (as shown in Figure 1.1).

Mackas Sand is proposing to develop an alternate haul route which will allow access to Lot 218 directly from Nelson Bay Road, as shown in Figure 1.2. In accordance with Section 75W of Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), Mackas Sand is seeking a modification to Major Project Approval 08_0142 to incorporate the alternate haul route. Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) has been engaged by Mackas Sand to prepare the necessary environmental assessments for the proposed modification, including this Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment.

1.1 Description of the Alternate Haul Route

The modification sought is to construct and utilise an alternate route to access the approved sand extraction area on Lot 218 in DP 1044608 (Lot 218), Williamtown.

The approved access to Lot 218 extraction area is via Lavis Lane and then a public road reserve (Stockton Bight Track) that passes through Pt 76 and part of Pt 101 from where it leaves Stockton Bight Track and traverses across Pt 101 and Pt 13 of DP 753192 to Lot 227 DP 1097995 (Lot 227) which provides access to Lot 218. Pt 101 and Pt 13 in DP 753192 are owned by members of the Towers family and Lot 227 is owned by Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council (WLALC).

The proposed alternate access to the Lot 218 extraction area is via a proposed new road connecting Lot 218 to Nelson Bay Road in the north. The proposed alternate haul route passes through Lot 4 DP1121457, Lot 1 DP177679, Lot 810 DP1008279, Lot 58 DP753192, and Lot 122 DP753192. Right of way has been obtained by Mackas Sand for the development of the alternate haul route, should it be approved.

The alternate haul route easement will be a gravelled surface of approximately 8 metres in width with a length of approximately 2 kilometres. A turning bay of approximately 30 metres by 30 metres will be located at the base of the mobile dune on Lot 218. Where the alternate haul route follows an existing track, it may be necessary to widen the existing track. In order to allow for construction impacts, an easement of approximately 30 metres in width was assessed along the full length of the alternate haul route. It was subsequently determined that a total disturbance width of approximately 10 metres would be adequate to account for all impacts.

Construction of the proposed alternate haul route (including the turning bay) will involve establishing a trafficable surface that can sustain heavy vehicle traffic. The level of activity required to do this will vary along the proposed alternate haul route depending on factors such as the type of vegetation present, previous disturbance (including the level of existing vegetation clearance), landform and slope angle. In general terms, these activities may include vegetation clearance, filling of areas to create a level surface and the introduction of road base (or similar) materials.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 1.1

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Introduction of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

1.2 Background Information

An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) for the approved extraction areas was completed in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal parties and in accordance with Condition 29 of Major Project Approval 08_0142 (Umwelt 2009a). The ACHMP was approved by the Department of Planning on 9 November 2009. An Aboriginal Heritage Management Group (AHMG) was subsequently established in accordance with the ACHMP.

Following development of the ACHMP, it was identified that the approved access was not preferred and an initial alternate haul route was proposed. Section 5.12 of the ACHMP specifies:

Should Mackas Sand need to conduct activities resulting in vegetation clearance or ground disturbance outside the current approval areas, these activities will be discussed with the AHMG (including an on-call archaeologist, if required). The AHMG will provide advice regarding any requirements for additional cultural heritage inspections/investigations and/or the need to obtain appropriate permits or consents from DECCW prior to undertaking any such activities outside the current approval areas.

In accordance with Section 5.12 of the ACHMP, the AHMG (including an on-call archaeologist) were invited to conduct an inspection of the initial proposed alternate haul route on Friday 12 February 2010. Further surveys conducted with the AHMG (or nominated representative) were undertaken in March and May 2010 after preparation of a proposed survey methodology. A draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment for the proposed initial alternate haul route was provided to the registered Aboriginal parties for review in August 2010. Comments received in response to this draft are discussed in Section 2.1. Prior to finalisation of this assessment, further changes were made to the proposed initial alternate haul route and were subject to additional survey conducted with the AHMG (or nominated representative) in October 2011. These changes included a section of alternate haul route within Lot 218 (previously referred to as ‘Route A’) that forms part of the currently proposed alternate haul route (refer to Figure 1.2). The altered draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment for the proposed alternate haul route was again subject to review by the registered Aboriginal parties (refer to Section 2.1) and was finalised in December 2011 (Umwelt 2011). The results of this assessment are discussed further in Section 4.

It was subsequently identified that the proposed initial alternate haul route was also not suitable and that proposal was rescinded. The currently proposed alternate haul route was developed to allow direct access from Nelson Bay Road rather than Lavis Lane. In accordance with Section 5.12 of the ACHMP, the AHMG (and the on-call archaeologist) were invited to conduct an inspection of the currently proposed alternate haul route on Monday 30 July 2012. The inspection by the AHMG identified that construction and use of the alternate haul route may result in impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage and the AHMG consequently recommended that the alternate haul route should be assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements and guidelines.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 1.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Introduction of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

1.3 Relevant Cultural Heritage Legislation

Major Project Approval 08_0142 was granted to Mackas Sand under Part 3A of the EP&A Act and the proposed modification is sought under Section 75W of the EP&A Act.

1.3.1 EP&A Act

The EP&A Act regulates development activity in New South Wales. Part 3A of the EP&A Act (now repealed) previously applied to projects that were declared to be a ‘Major Project’ (in accordance with Section 75B of the EP&A Act) and the current approval was granted under Part 3A. The proposed modification will be considered under Section 75W of the EP&A Act and as the project approval was issued in accordance with Part 3A of the EP&A Act, the following provisions also apply to the proposed modification. Under Section 75U of the EP&A Act, it is not necessary to obtain an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) permit under Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ((NPW Act) - as discussed below) in relation to activities approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. Projects approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act are subject to conditions of approval issued by the Department of Planning (now Department of Planning and Infrastructure - DP&I) and (where relevant) Aboriginal cultural heritage is addressed by appropriate conditions. Furthermore, Section 75J (5) of the EP&A Act states that conditions of approval for the carrying out of a project may require the proponent to comply with obligations made in a statement of commitments submitted by the proponent as part of the development approval process.

In relation to Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments, current DP&I guidelines indicate that consultation should be undertaken in accordance with the Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) 2004) as the established process for ongoing consultation for projects approved under Part 3A. This is discussed further in Section 1.4.5.

1.3.2 New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) is primarily responsible for regulating the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales under the NPW Act (as amended October 2010). The NPW Act is accompanied by the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 (the Regulation), the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010) and other industry-specific codes.

The objectives of the NPW Act include:

The conservation of objects, places or features (including biological diversity) of cultural value within the landscape, including, but not limited to: (i) places, objects and features of significance to Aboriginal people.

The NPW Act defines an Aboriginal object as:

any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales.

Under Section 84 of the NPW Act, an Aboriginal Place must be declared by the Minister as a place that, in the opinion of the Minister, is or was of special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 1.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Introduction of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

In accordance with Section 86(1) of the NPW Act, it is an offence to harm or desecrate a known Aboriginal object, whilst it is also an offence to harm an Aboriginal object under Section 86(2). Similarly, Section 86(4) states that a person must not harm or desecrate an Aboriginal place. Harm to an object or place is defined as any act or omission that:

a) destroys, defaces or damages an object or place, or b) in relation to an object – moves the object from the land on which it had been situated, or c) is specified by the regulations, or d) causes or permits the object or place to be harmed in a manner referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), but does not include any act or omission that: e) desecrates the object or place, or f) is trivial or negligible, or g) is excluded from this definition by the regulations.

Section 87(1) of the NPW Act specifies that it is a defence to prosecution under Section 86(1) and Section 86(2) if the harm or desecration of an Aboriginal object was authorised by an AHIP and the activities were carried out in accordance with that permit. As discussed above, the provisions of Part 3A of the EP&A Act can overrule the requirement for an AHIP under the NPW Act, with these provisions applying to activities approved under Part 3A only. However, the other provisions of the NPW Act are still applicable.

Section 87(2,4) of the NPW Act establishes that it is a defence to prosecution under Section 86(2) (the strict liability offence) if due diligence was exercised to reasonably determine that the activity or omission would not result in harm to an Aboriginal object or if the activity or omission constituting the offence is a low impact act or omission (in accordance with Section 80B of the Regulation). The Regulation identifies that compliance with an industry specific code (or if such a code does not exist the generic OEH code) is taken to constitute due diligence in determining whether a proposed activity will harm an Aboriginal object. In addition, Section 3A of the Regulation specifies that an act carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010) ‘is excluded from the definition of harm’ as provided in the NPW Act. This may include (but is not limited to) test excavations carried out in accordance with this Code.

Consultation with the Aboriginal community is an integral part of identifying and assessing the significance of Aboriginal objects and/or places and determining and carrying out appropriate strategies to mitigate impacts upon Aboriginal heritage.

Furthermore, ongoing consultation with the Aboriginal community has been undertaken as part of Mackas Sand operations through the AHMG. The AHMG is guided by the ACHMP developed as part of Project Approval 08_0142. Consultation with regard to the project commenced on 27 February 2010 under the Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants. However, in recognition of the change in consultation expectations, all consultation undertaken after November 2010 was generally in accordance with Section 80C (2-11) of the Regulation.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 1.4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Introduction of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

1.4 Report Structure

The key objective of this report is to assess the archaeological and Aboriginal cultural heritage significance of the alternate haul route and, where relevant, to provide appropriate mitigation and management strategies in relation to the proposal. In order to achieve this objective, the assessment involved:

• undertaking detailed consultation with relevant Aboriginal parties in accordance with the Aboriginal Cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010 in accordance with Section 80C(2-11) of the Regulation (refer to Section 2.0);

• reviewing the environmental and archaeological context of the Stockton Bight region and in particular that of the proposed alternate haul route (refer to Sections 3.0 and 4.0) in order to develop a model with which to predict the likelihood that archaeological material (namely Aboriginal objects) will be associated with these areas (refer to Section 5.0) and to provide background information against which to assess the significance of any sites or PAD that may be associated with the alternate haul route;

• undertaking a survey of the previously unsurveyed portion of alternate haul route in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal parties (Section 6.0);

• assessing the cultural heritage significance of the alternate haul route primarily based upon the scientific and Aboriginal cultural heritage significance of any associated archaeological sites or areas of PAD in addition to considering the broader cultural landscape that comprises the alternate haul route (Section 7.0);

• reviewing the impacts of the alternate haul route in relation to cultural heritage (Section 8.0); and

• providing appropriate recommendations to manage and mitigate impacts to cultural heritage associated with the alternate haul route area (Section 9.0).

1.5 Project Team

This assessment report was prepared by Andy Roberts (Umwelt Senior Archaeologist) and Andy Goodwin (Umwelt Social and Environmental Analyst) and was reviewed by Nicola Roche (Umwelt Senior Archaeologist) and Peter Jamieson (Umwelt Director). The survey of the alternate haul route was conducted by Andy Roberts, Andy Goodwin, Jamie Merrick, Lennie Anderson, Anthony Anderson and Jonathan Lilley.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 1.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Aboriginal Party of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 Consultation

2.0 Aboriginal Party Consultation

This section documents the outcomes of consultation with registered Aboriginal parties in relation to current and previous proposals to modify the approved alternate haul route.

2.1 Consultation Regarding Proposed Initial Alternate Haul Route

As discussed in Section 1.2, consultation regarding proposed alternate haul routes has been ongoing since February 2010. All consultation was initially conducted in accordance with the Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (2004) and, after November 2010, in accordance with Section 80C of the NPW Regulation 2010, as discussed in Section 1.4.1. Consultation undertaken in accordance with these requirements is discussed below and summarised in Table 1 of Appendix 1.

The original notification process involved the placement of a public advertisement in the Newcastle Herald on 27 February 2010 (refer to Appendix 1). Letters providing notice of the proposed assessment and requesting information on known Aboriginal parties that may wish to be consulted regarding the assessment were sent to the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (now OEH), New South Wales Native Title Services, the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Owners, Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council and Port Stephens Council on 3 March 2010 (refer to Appendix 1). In addition, letters seeking registrations of interest for consultation regarding the assessment and providing a proposed methodology for the survey were sent on 3 March 2010 to the following Aboriginal parties previously involved in the assessment of Lot 218:

1. Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council (WLALC);

2. Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd (Nur-Run-Gee);

3. Worimi Traditional Aboriginal Elders and Owners Group;

4. Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated (Mur-Roo-Ma); and

5. Carol Ridgeway-Bissett (previously Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage Co-operative).

All groups registered an interest in being consulted regarding the assessment with the exception of Worimi Traditional Aboriginal Elders and Owners Group. In addition, correspondence from DECCW (now OEH) identified Ms Viola Brown as an Aboriginal party who may wish to be consulted regarding the assessment. Ms Brown was contacted in writing on 22 March 2010 and subsequently registered her interest in being consulted regarding the assessment.

As discussed above, surveys of the proposed initial alternate haul route were conduted in consultation with Aboriginal parties, as listed in Table 2.1 below.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 2.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Aboriginal Party of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 Consultation

Table 2.1 - Aboriginal Parties Represented in Surveys of Initial Alternate Haul Route

Date Aboriginal party Representative 29 March 2010 Worimi LALC Jamie Merrick Nur-Run-Gee Chris Collison Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson 22 May 2010 Worimi LALC Jamie Merrick Nur-Run-Gee Lennie Anderson Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson 10 October 2011 Worimi LALC Jamie Merrick Nur-Run-Gee Chris Collison Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson

A draft Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment (Umwelt 2010a) was developed following the first two surveys and was provided to the registered Aboriginal parties for review and comment on 3 August 2010. WLALC indicated that that draft report was an accurate assessment and that the proposed management activities did not restrict or unfavourably affect the development. All other registered Aboriginal parties indicated that they objected to the initial alternate haul route on the grounds that it would result in impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage (and in some cases, impacts to flora and fauna of cultural significance).

The survey on 10 October 2011 related to an additional change to the initial alternate haul route that included the portion of the currently proposed alternate haul route within Lot 218 (refer to Figure 1.2). This additional change was referred to as ‘Route A’. Following the survey of Route A, a meeting was held with the registered Aboriginal parties and the draft Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment was modified to take into account the additional change. This draft assessment was again provided to the registered Aboriginal parties for comment. All Aboriginal parties reiterated their comments on the previous draft assessment, with the addition of some specific recommendations regarding an additional area of potential archaeological deposit (PAD) within Route A.

2.2 Consultation Regarding Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route

In accordance with Section 5.12 of the ACHMP, the AHMG was consulted in regard to the current modification proposal. All current representatives of the AHMG; Anthony Anderson of Moo-roo-ma Incorporated, Lennie Anderson of Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd, and Jamie Merrick of WLALC were contacted by letter on 25 July 2012. An opportunity to visit the site and discuss the project was also extended to Viola Brown and Carol Ridgeway-Bisset.

Anthony Anderson of Mur-Roo-Ma, Lennie Anderson of Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd, Jamie Merrick, Jonathan Lilley of WLALC, as well as Andy Roberts and Andy Goodwin of Umwelt and Robert Mackenzie of Mackas Sand attended a modification project briefing to the AHMG on 30 July 2012. The modification briefing was followed with archaeological inspection of the uninspected section of the proposed alternate access road from the boundary of Lot 218 northward to Nelson Bay Road (refer to Figure 1.2).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 2.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Aboriginal Party of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 Consultation

Discussion and recommendations regarding the proposed modification occurred at Murrook Cultural Centre following the inspections. With regard to the proposed alternate haul route, Moo-Roo-Ma and Nur-Run-Gee reiterated their positions and recommendations as described within Section 2.1:

• that as access is already approved through impacted lands, further impact of any kind to highly culturally significant lands due to the current proposal is not warranted, nor approved of by those members of the AHMG.

A letter outlining the proposed survey methodology was distributed to all registered Aboriginal parties (see Section 2.1) on 9 August 2012. As an inspection in accordance with the methodology provided in the letter and outlined in the ACHMP had already been undertaken, it was proposed not to undertake formal survey a second time.

A copy of the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment was forwarded to the AHMG members on 28 September 2012. It was requested that the registered Aboriginal parties provide written comment on the modified draft report. In accordance with Section 80C of the Regulation it was particularly requested that each party comment on the following:

1. whether there are any Aboriginal objects of cultural value to Aboriginal people in the area;

2. whether there are any places of cultural value to Aboriginal people in the area; and

3. the proposed methodology for mitigation and salvage activities associated with sites/PAD subject to harm by the alternate haul route.

All reports and comments received from the Registered Aboriginal Parties are summarised in the final report and presented in full in Appendix A.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 2.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Environmental Context of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

3.0 Environmental Context

The Lot 218 approval area is located in dune fields that form part of the Outer Barrier of Stockton Bight. A detailed summary of the landscape history of the Stockton Bight area is provided in Umwelt (2009b: 3.1-3.3) and outlines the broader context for the formation of the Stockton Bight dual barrier system. Briefly, Lot 218 approval area is mainly comprised of Outer Barrier stabilised dunes that are covered by large quantities of recently deposited wind-blown sand. The previously assessed (refer to Umwelt 2011) section of the currently proposed alternate haul route adjoins the active (wind-blown) face of the transgressive dune and extends along a very gently inclined lower slope to swale interface to the border of Lot 218.

The longest section of the proposed alternate haul route from Nelson Bay Road is located within the Inter-Barrier Depression which separates the outer and inner barriers and consists of a swamp formed when the Outer Barrier blocked drainage. The proposed alternate haul route then passes through low elevation dunes gaining altitude as it enters low dunes and swales nearing Lot 218.

The area provided direct access to the swamp resources of the Inter-Barrier Depression whilst also being within two kilometres of the current beachfront and marine resources. Furthermore, the Coastal Sand Apple – Blackbutt vegetation community that populated the low dunes would have provided a very broad variety of animal and plant resources (Umwelt 2009b:3.4).

In discussing environmental factors, it is essential to consider how changes in the environment have affected the integrity and visibility of any archaeological material that may have been present. Recent environmental changes in relation to the proposed alternate haul route have resulted from the construction and use of access tracks and an electricity easement.

Furthermore, some areas of the existing tracks have been cleared of vegetation and are continually disturbed by vehicle traffic. These activities will have resulted in impacts to any surface archaeological materials that may be present and also may have affected the integrity of sub-surface deposits (if present).

In summary, the alternate haul route is located within an environmental context that would have been rich in resources utilised by Aboriginal people however, the area has been subject to varying levels of disturbance, which in turn, may have impacted on the archaeological record.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 3.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Archaeological Context of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

4.0 Archaeological Context

As discussed in the ACHMP (Umwelt 2009a) and in the Mackas Sand Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (Umwelt 2009b), a large number of archaeological investigations have been conducted in the local area, resulting in the identification of a large number of archaeological sites and the development of a clear understanding of the distribution and nature of sites.

4.1 OEH AHIMS Database

Aboriginal objects (grouped or individually depending on the circumstances) are generally registered as sites on the OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) database. A search of the AHIMS database was conducted on 8 August 2012 for the area bounded by MGA coordinates 394000 - 402000, Northings: 6366000 - 6373000 with a buffer of 50 metres.

Sites are listed on the AHIMS database according to site feature and may be registered as including a number of different features. The feature AFT (artefact) records the presence of artefactual material including stone, bone, shell and metal artefacts. Sites with this feature are typically stone artefact scatters (if they contain more than one artefact) or isolated artefacts (if they contain a single artefact). In this region, the features SHL (shell) or ETM (earth mound) may be combined with other features such as AFT and are generally used to denote midden sites (with the exception of burials, denoted by the feature BUR). The feature PAD (potential archaeological deposit) is often used for areas in which it is considered likely that artefacts are present below the ground surface. PADs are not strictly archaeological sites as the presence of archaeological material has not yet been demonstrated.

A total of 75 AHIMS registered sites have been recorded within the search area. These sites are listed in Table 4.1 by site type and site feature and their location is shown in Figure 4.1. Middens (AFT and SHL) are the most common site type, followed by artefact scatters/isolated artefacts (ART) and sites with shell only (SHL).

Table 4.1 - AHIMS Registered Sites within the Search Area

Site Type Site Feature(s) Number of sites AFT and SHL: Midden midden shell with artefacts in 27 association AFT: Artefact scatter and/or isolated an isolated find or scatter of stone 23 artefact artefacts SHL: Shell only edible/useful species, shell 23 BUR: Burial human remains 2 Total 75

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 4.1

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Archaeological Context of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

4.2 Previously Recorded Sites Associated with the Alternate Haul Route

Figure 4.1 identifies two sites located in proximity to the alternate haul route (NPWS #38-4-0658) and site A3 (NPWS #38-4-0649) originally recorded by ERM (2003) as a series of exposures containing stone artefacts and shell on an elevated area bordering the Inter-Barrier Depression. A3 was re-recorded by Umwelt (2004b:5.1) as a large scatter of fragmented shell (primarily pipi shell) and stone artefacts present in exposures on a crest of a north-east to south-west trending low dune extending into the Inter-Barrier Depression. Umwelt (2004:5.1) identified a greater distribution of surface artefacts extending to the north-east of the originally recorded location of A3 and extended the boundary of the site to encompass an area that was previously considered to be a PAD. Site A3 was defined as the shoreline and low dunes bordering the Inter-Barrier Depression, with the densest concentrations of artefacts found on the low dunes.

Archaeological salvage works were undertake at A3 under Section 90 Consent #1884 in relation to the Tomago to Tomaree Electricity Supply Upgrade (Umwelt 2010b) and resulted in the recovery of very high numbers of artefacts and large quantities of fragmented pipi shell in an artefact scatter with shell extending across a low dune formation bordering the Inter-Barrier Depression. These works involved excavations at six locations (two areas of 4 metres by 4 metres and four areas of 2 metres by 2 metres), detailed surface recording and the sieving of loose sand in an area of disturbance. Two of the excavated locations are situated in proximity to the proposed alternate haul route, spaced approximately 50 metres either side of the route centreline. The salvage program resulted in the recovery of 4437 artefacts, including a large sandstone grindstone. Approximately 6 kilograms of pipi shell were also salvaged, with less than 10 grams of estuarine species (oyster and mud whelk) recovered. In addition, a probable hearth feature was excavated within A3. The feature was lenticular in profile and contained large quantities of charcoal and a fine ash lens. Artefacts were present within the soil profile both directly above and directly below the feature. The feature was excavated and a sample of charcoal was submitted to the University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory for radiocarbon dating. The sample (Wk-20910) returned a date of 3224 +/- 40BP.

In comparison with other dates from Holocene contexts within Stockton Bight and given that Holocene dune stabilisation in this area is conventionally accepted to have occurred 3500 – 4000 years ago this is a very early date. A3 also provided quantitative information for the presence of sites containing relatively high densities of stone artefacts and shell on low elevation, low gradient dune spurs that protrude into the resource-rich, swampy environment of the Inter-Barrier Depression. These areas contrast to other beachward dune formations in terms of their low elevation, very low inclination and direct association with the Inter-Barrier Depression. Such sites are only identifiable where levels of exposure and vegetation are such that at least a proportion of the sub-soil is exposed. This is supported by the presence of extensive sub-surface deposits within sections of A3 where no artefactual material was visible on the ground surface.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 4.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Archaeological Context of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

4.3 Assessment of Initial Alternate Haul Route

As discussed in Section 1.2, the currently proposed alternate haul route replaces a previous proposal that was subject to an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment (Umwelt 2011). This assessment included the section of the currently proposed alternate haul route that extends for the northern boundary of Lot 218 to the Lot 218 approval area (refer to Figure 1.2).

The assessment recorded further exposures of surface artefacts within site A3 and identified the area along the northern boundary of Lot 218 as a PAD on the basis that previous excavations in sections of A3 had demonstrated that this landform is associated with high density deposits of stone artefacts and shell. Furthermore, the assessment described the section of the currently proposed alternate haul route that extends from the northern boundary of Lot 218 to the Lot 218 approval area as a PAD due to its landform context but recognised that its potential was lower than the PAD directly associated with A3. A3 and the associated PAD were identified as having moderate to high archaeological significance whilst the PAD associated with the section of the currently proposed alternate haul route that extends from the northern boundary of Lot 218 to the Lot 218 approval area was assessed as having low to moderate archaeological significance.

In considering the likely impacts to the site/PADs, it was noted that the proposed haul route could be constructed in these areas using a low ground disturbance method involving laying geotextile over the natural ground surface and introducing additional fill material over the geotextile to provide a suitable surface. This was to be done progressively so that all heavy vehicle movement associated with road construction and use in the vicinity of the site/PADs was confined to areas in which geotextile and fill had already been introduced. By utilising this method, it was intended that significant ground disturbance works could be avoided. The following recommendations for management and mitigation activities within A3 and the additional PAD within the section of the currently proposed alternate haul route were provided by Umwelt (2011:27).

• Prior to the commencement of access road construction, the boundaries of the road within A3 and the additional PAD should be clearly demarcated to prevent incidental impacts outside the road corridor. Demarcation should be undertaken in consultation with the AHMG and during demarcation any Aboriginal objects present within the demarcated area will be subject to surface collection.

• Vegetation clearance (where required) will occur as a staged process as follows:

As discussed, this alternate haul route was not constructed but was replaced by the currently proposed alternate haul route.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 4.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Archaeological Context of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

4.4 Summary

The currently proposed alternate haul route includes a section that was previously assessed as a PAD (Umwelt 2011) and also intersects a large site (A3) within which previous archaeological excavations have identified high densities of stone and shell, as well as a dated hearth feature. Previous recommendations for management of haul route construction in the vicinity of this site and PAD have also been provided (Umwelt 2011) but were not enacted due to the change to the currently proposed alternate haul route.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 4.4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Predictive Model of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

5.0 Predictive Model

The development of a predictive model is an essential component of any archaeological assessment. It assists in identifying focal areas for survey effort and providing an indication of the site types common to the area but is also critical in assessing the likelihood that archaeological material may be present but not visible. The majority of archaeological surveys are undertaken in areas where vegetation or other factors limit ground surface visibility and thus reduce the chances that any archaeological materials that may be present on the surface will be detectable. Furthermore (and perhaps more importantly), surface survey alone does not take into account the possibility that archaeological materials may be present in a sub-surface context. Based on the environmental and archaeological contextual information discussed above, the following predictions can be made for the alternate haul route.

• It is highly unlikely that Aboriginal objects will be present within the portions of the alternate haul route that are located within the Inter-Barrier Depression. Whilst the Inter-Barrier Depression would have served as an extremely valuable resource, the very swampy nature of this area dictates that it was not suitable for the types of activities associated with the deposition of Aboriginal objects in readily detectible quantities.

• A portion of the proposed alternate haul route intersects low elevation dunes extending into the Inter-Barrier Depression that contain previously recorded site A3. It is therefore predicted that this portion of the proposed haul route is highly likely to contain both surface and sub-surface deposits of Aboriginal objects (in the form of stone artefacts and midden shell) that may extend over a relatively large area at relatively high densities.

• It is predicted that stone artefacts if present will move down in the sand over time so clear stratigraphic integrity will be rare but spatial integrity may still be retained.

• The majority of visible Aboriginal objects in low elevation dunes will have been subject to disturbance as a result of vegetation clearance, easement (and pole) construction, track construction (in some areas incorporating fill) and use and stock grazing.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Survey Methodology of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 and Results

6.0 Survey Methodology and Results

The survey of the alternate haul route was conducted on 30 July 2012. Survey of a larger area than required for the proposed alternate haul route was undertaken on low lying dunes near the Inter-Barrier Depression to allow for the consideration of route alignment options. Survey participants are listed in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 – Survey Participants

Date Name Organisation 30 July 2012 Anthony Anderson Mur-Roo-Ma Lennie Anderson Nur-Run-Gee Jamie Merrick Worimi LALC Jonathan Lilly Worimi LALC Andy Roberts Umwelt Andy Goodwin Umwelt Robert McKenzie Mackas Sand

The inspection methodology and results are provided below.

6.1 Survey Methodology

The alternate haul route was surveyed on foot with the exception of the section of the route that is located within the Inter-Barrier Depression (refer to Figure 6.1) and the previously assessed section of the alternate haul route (as discussed in Section 4). The sections of the route within the Inter-Barrier Depression were inspected from the adjoining sections of the alternate haul route. In consultation with the Aboriginal party representatives listed above, it was discussed that these areas were too wet and boggy and heavily vegetated to be effectively surveyed. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.0, it was predicted that these areas had limited archaeological potential, a prediction that was supported by the Aboriginal party representatives.

A centreline was surveyed along the proposed alternate haul route from MGA 3975721 6368345 to 395754 6368504 in two transects. A survey corridor of 50 metres width (Transect 1) that passed through woodland was widened to 120 metres (Transect 2) as it passed through cleared areas on low elevation dunes bordering the Inter-Barrier Depression. The larger area in Transect 2 was surveyed to allow some flexibility in route alignment options in this area.

6.2 Results

In total, an area of 36,000 metre square (m2) covering approximately 380 metres (22 per cent) of the 1.7 kilometres of the proposed alternate haul route was surveyed (refer to Plates 1 to 18, Table 6.2 and Figure 6.1). This area focussed on the low back dune and low elevation dunes bordering the Inter Barrier Depression.

A further 1.37 kilometres (78 per cent) of track that passes through the Inter-Barrier Depression was not surveyed (as explained in Section 6.1) apart from a general inspection from the vehicle. The survey is described in Table 6.2. All listed coordinates are in MGA (WGS84).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 6.1

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Survey Methodology of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 and Results

6.2.1 Effective Coverage

The level of effective coverage within the area surveyed (on low elevation dunes) for the proposed alternate haul route was 1.6 per cent of the total area subject to pedestrian survey.

It is noted that only approximately 20 per cent (380 metres) of the proposed route could be subject to pedestrian survey (as discussed in Section 6.1) as the remaining 80 per cent of the proposed route was located in the swamplands of the Inter-Barrier Depression and was considered to have no archaeological potential.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 6.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Survey Methodology of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 and Results

Table 6.2 – Pedestrian Transects and Areas surveyed

Tr. # Area (m2) Geomorphic General Description Exposure % exp % vis Effective Unit/Landforms Types Coverage Category m2/% 1 12000 back dune (low) Transect 1 incorporated 175 metres of sand-apple blackbutt woodland on bioturbation 7 15 126/1.05 (175x75) an undulating low elevation dune system that extends northeast-southwest towards the Inter Barrier Depression: • General ground surface visibility was moderate. • Visibility on the track running along the northern boundary of Lot 218 was good. This track was 2 metres wide at the beginning of the transect. • Natural ground surfaces were observed throughout transect and no prior disturbance was noted with the exception of bioturbation. • No Aboriginal objects or PAD were observed within Transect 1. 2 24,000 low elevation Transect 2 incorporated 200 metres of low elevation dunes and extended to Vehicle 9 20 432/1.8 (200x120) dunes bordering approximately 60 metres each side of the proposed alignment: track IBD • Visibility and exposure within the transect were good and only limited by Stock sparse low grass coverage resulting from land clearance and ongoing trampling grazing. • Use by vehicles of the track (that passes through the survey area from north-east to south-west) has resulted in limited exposures of mid to light grey sands on more elevated and well drained areas, with the majority of exposures containing light grey sands. The construction of this track also involved the use of imported gravel fill which was placed in areas of lower elevation prone to water retention between the most landward low elevation dunes. • An electricity easement passes through this transect from north-east to south-west landward of the low elevation dunes and therefore avoids areas of archaeological potential. Imported fill including tyres and sand has been used to construct the access road within the easement. • Four loci were present within Transect 2 and were identified based on the presence of midden shell, grey sands and in one case a tuff artefact. • Shell deposits and the artefact are likely to have been brought to the surface through bioturbation and do not appear to have exposed as a result of the construction or use of access tracks. • Aboriginal parties indicated that artefacts were once commonly seen on this low dune area but were no longer visible at the time of the survey.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 6.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Survey Methodology of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 and Results

6.2.2 Archaeological Sites

Archaeological objects were identified during the survey on low elevation dunes near the proposed alternate haul route within the area previously identified as site A3. Four fragmented shell loci (one containing a tuff flake) were identified during the survey and are shown in Figure 6.1. Loci 1 to 4 are located within a 150 metre by 150 metre area on the crests of four discrete, low elevation dunes bordering the Inter-Barrier Depression (refer to Plate 1 to Plate 18). These loci form part of the A3 site (NPWS # 38-4-0649), as described in Section 4.2. Based on the results of the survey and previous archaeological investigations undertaken in this area, A3 extends right along this landform, with visible aspects of the site separated by areas of low visibility or disturbance.

Locus 1 is located on the crest of a low elevation dune adjacent to woodland (refer to Plates 5 and 6). The surface distribution of shell at Locus 1 extends over an area approximately 25 metres by 15 metres. The locus contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density (12/m2) of shell fragments being confined to an area of approximately 125 centimetres by 75 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune. Exposed soils within the locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. Visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low. No stone artefacts were present.

Locus 2 is located approximately 10 metres from the Inter-Barrier Depression adjacent to a vehicle track and electricity easement on a very gently inclined low elevation dune. The track and easement cuts into the toe of the dune slope and Locus 2 is exposed approximately 13 metres from the track (refer to Plate 8 and Plate 9). Surface distribution of shell extends over approximately 5 by 5 metres. The site contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density of shell fragments (5/m2) being confined to an area of approximately 75 centimetres by 50 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune. Exposed soils within this locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. Visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low. No stone artefacts were observed.

Locus 3 is located immediately adjacent to a vehicle track and electricity easement on a very gently inclined low elevation dune spur the crest of which is located 25 metres from the Inter-Barrier Depression. The track and easement cuts into the toe of the dune slope and Locus 3 is exposed between the track and dune crest (refer to Plate 10 and Plate 15). Surface distribution of shell extends over an area approximately 25 metres by 25 metres. The site contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density of shell fragments (5/m2) being confined to an area of approximately 125 centimetres by 125 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune spur. Exposed soils within this locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. A tuff flake was present within Locus 3 (refer to Plate 12). In addition, a fragment of very heavily weathered mammalian long bone was also present (refer to Plate 13). As with Loci 1 and 2, visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low.

Locus 4 is located on a very gently inclined low elevation dune approximately 100 metres from the Inter-Barrier Depression. Surface distribution of shell extends over approximately 25 metres by 20 metres. The site contains fragmented and weathered pipi shell, with the highest density of shell fragments (8/m2) being confined to an area of approximately 150 centimetres by 150 centimetres. More sparsely distributed pipi fragments are present across the crest of the low elevation dune. Exposed soils within this locus consist of mid grey fine sand with frequent charcoal flecks and fragments. As with other loci in the survey area visibility within the site area was good as grasses were very low.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 6.4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Survey Methodology of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 and Results

Four fragmented shell loci were noted during the survey of the proposed alternate haul route within the area previously identified as site A3. The majority of previously recorded archaeological material within A3 was identified at the interface of the low dune and the Inter-Barrier Depression. As was discussed in Section 5, this area would have provided direct access to the very rich resources of the Inter-Barrier Depression whilst also providing a slightly elevated landform suitable for camping. This is supported by the results of previous archaeological investigations within A3 in proximity to the alternate haul route which have resulted in the recovery of very high numbers of stone artefacts and large quantities of shell (predominantly pipi). Pipi is a beach species that would not have been available within the estuarine context of the Inter-Barrier Depression. The majority of shell deposited at the site must have been obtained from the beachfront prior to being transported to the shore of the Inter-Barrier Depression.

It is noted that the low relief dune landform extends south from the current interface with the Inter-Barrier Depression and that changes in the morphology of the Inter-Barrier Depression would have meant that the southern extension of this landform may, at times, have been closer to these resources. Thus whilst it would be expected that the greatest concentrations of archaeological material would be in proximity to the current interface with the Inter-Barrier Depression, it is likely that sub-surface archaeological material will be present throughout the remainder of this landform, albeit possibly at lower concentrations. For this reason, the surveyed portion of the alternate haul route south of the Inter-Barrier Depressions is assessed as a PAD, as shown in Figure 6.1.

6.3 Summary

The survey of the proposed alternate haul route traversed low elevation dunes bordering the Inter-barrier Depression. Archaeological objects were identified during the survey within the area previously identified as site A3. Four visible loci of this site containing shell and an isolated artefact were located immediately adjacent to the alternate haul route. This site is located within a landform that has been demonstrated to contain relatively high density sub-surface deposits (Umwelt 2010b and in prep) and is in a context known to have been extensively utilised by Aboriginal people in this region. Thus, this portion of the proposed haul route is associated with surface evidence of site A3 as well as including areas of landform identified as PAD.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 6.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Significance Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

7.0 Significance Assessment

The assessment of cultural significance is critical in establishing mitigation and management strategies for cultural heritage (refer to Pearson and Sullivan 1995:21). Cultural significance is defined by the Burra Charter in terms of aesthetic, scientific, historic and social values. In NSW Aboriginal cultural heritage is typically assessed according to its social and scientific significance (in accordance with the NPWS 1997) and these are defined below.

7.1 Aboriginal Cultural Significance

As Aboriginal cultural significance relates to the values of a site, place or landscape to Aboriginal people, it must be determined by Aboriginal people. Aboriginal parties have previously indicated that Stockton Bight is of very high Aboriginal cultural significance due to its social, spiritual, aesthetic and educational value to the Aboriginal community (refer to ERM 2006).

A draft copy of this report was provided to all relevant Aboriginal parties on 28 September 2012 and it was requested that comment be provided regarding the Aboriginal cultural significance of the sites associated with the alternate haul route and on the significance of the survey areas as a whole. Responses are summarised in Table 7.1 and included in full within Appendix A.

Table 7.1 – Aboriginal Parties Response Summary

Aboriginal Party Comment Summary Moo-Roo-Ma In general supports management and mitigation recommendations, however strongly believes the access road should not be passed Nur-Run-Gee No further disturbance to landforms should be accepted. Viola Brown (individual) Is not in agreement with current proposal Carol Rideway-Bissett Is not in agreement with current proposal WLALC The recommendations provided do not restrict or adversely affect the proposed ‘Alternate Haul Road’

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 7.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Significance Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

7.2 Archaeological Significance

The Burra Charter defines the archaeological significance of an Aboriginal site, object or place according to its potential to address research questions and provide greater insight into Aboriginal society and chronological changes in how Aboriginal people utilised the landscape and its resources (Australian ICOMOS Incorporated 2000:12). The major concepts underlying archaeological significance relate to the rarity and representativeness of a site, its integrity, intactness and overall research potential. Each of these concepts is relatively self-explanatory however the concept of representativeness warrants further discussion. Representativeness is closely linked with rarity and relates to the degree to which a site encapsulates the typical aspects of sites of its type at a local, regional and, in some cases, national level. In simple terms, representative value should be considered in terms of whether a site embodies the essential characteristics of sites of that type in the locality and region and whether sites of that type remain extant in a context that will allow for their continued conservation. The criteria for the assessment of archaeological significance are provided below.

7.2.1 Archaeological Significance Assessment Criteria

The criteria applied to the assessment of archaeological significance are listed in Table 7.2.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 7.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Significance Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

Table 7.2 – Criteria for Assessment of Archaeological Significance

Criterion Low Moderate High Rarity The location of the site within the landscape, The location of the site within the landscape, its The location of the site within the its type, integrity, contents and/or potential for type, integrity, contents and/or potential for landscape, its type, integrity, contents sub-surface artefacts, are common within the sub-surface artefacts, are common within the and/or potential for local and regional context. regional context but not the local context. sub-surface artefacts, are rare within the local and regional context. Representativeness This site, when viewed in relation to its type, This site, when viewed in relation to its type, This site, when viewed in relation to its contents, integrity and location in the contents, integrity and location in the landscape, type, contents, integrity and location in landscape, is common within a local and is uncommon within a local context but common the landscape, is uncommon within a regional context and sites of similar nature (or in a regional context and sites of similar nature local and regional context and sites of in better condition) are already set aside for (or in better condition) are already set aside for similar nature conservation within the region. conservation within the region. (or in better condition) are not already set aside for conservation within the locality or region. Integrity Stratigraphic integrity of the site has clearly The site appears to have been subject to The site appears relatively undisturbed been destroyed due to major disturbance/loss moderate levels of disturbance, however, there and there is a high possibility that useful of topsoil. The level of disturbance is likely to is a moderate possibility that useful spatial spatial information can still be obtained have removed all spatial and chronological information can still be obtained from sub- from sub-surface investigation of the information. surface investigation of the site, even if it is site, even if it is still unlikely that any unlikely that any useful chronological evidence useful chronological evidence survives. survives. (In cases where both spatial and chronological evidence is likely to survive the site will gain additional significance from high scores for rarity and representativeness).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 7.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Significance Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

Table 7.2 – Criteria for Assessment of Archaeological Significance (cont.)

Criterion Low Moderate High Connectedness There is no evidence to suggest that the site is There is some evidence to suggest that the site There is good evidence to support the connected to other sites in the local area or is connected to other sites in the local area or theory that the site is connected to other the region through: the region through: sites in the local area or the region • their chronology (rarely known); and • their chronology (rarely known); and through: • their site type (e.g. connectedness could • their site type (e.g. connectedness could be • their chronology (rarely known); and be argued between an axe quarry, a argued between an axe quarry, a nearby • their site type (e.g. connectedness nearby set of axe grinding grooves and an set of axe grinding grooves and an adjacent could be argued between an axe adjacent site exhibiting evidence of axe site exhibiting evidence of axe reduction). quarry, a nearby set of axe grinding reduction). grooves and an adjacent site exhibiting evidence of axe reduction). Research Potential The site, when viewed in relation to its type, The site, when viewed in relation to its type, The site, when viewed in relation to its contents, integrity and location in the contents, integrity and location in the landscape type, contents, integrity and location in landscape has limited potential to contribute to has moderate potential to contribute to a greater the landscape has high potential to a greater understanding of how Aboriginal understanding of how Aboriginal people lived contribute to a greater understanding of people lived within this area or region. within this area or region. how Aboriginal people lived within this area or region.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 7.4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Significance Assessment of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

7.2.2 Assessment of Archaeological Significance

The assessment of archaeological significance has two components:

1) the archaeological significance of sites associated with the proposed alternate haul route; and

2) the archaeological significance of the landscape encompassed by the proposed alternate haul route as a whole.

The application of the archaeological significance criteria to sites and PADs is relatively straight forward however the assessment of the significance of the cultural landscape warrants further discussion. A cultural landscape can be defined as the connection between Aboriginal heritage (including sites and features and their relationships) and the natural elements of the landscape such as landscape history, topography and flora and fauna. Using this approach, archaeological material comprises one element of a cultural landscape and the significance of this landscape may be separate from that of the sites or features that it contains (ERM 2006:101).

Archaeological Significance of Site A3

As discussed in Section 4.3, site A3 (and any associated sub-surface deposits) has previously been assessed as having moderate to high archaeological significance (Umwelt 2011). Sites of this size with extensive deposits of high density stone artefacts and shell can contribute significantly to our understanding of how Aboriginal people used this area and the site has moderate to high archaeological significance based on its rarity, representativeness, integrity, connectedness and overall research potential.

Archaeological Significance of Landscape of Alternate Haul Route

The landscape associated with the alternate haul route is located at the interface between stabilised dunes of Holocene age and the Inter-Barrier Depression. The stabilised dunes would have been an area that was regularly utilised by Aboriginal people to access the rich resource base provided by the Inter-Barrier Depression. Sections of the proposed alternate haul route outside areas that have been previously been disturbed by easement or track construction and vegetation clearance have vegetation communities and associated resources very similar to those that would have been present during periods associated with the deposition of cultural materials. Sections of the alternate haul route therefore have high archaeological landscape significance because they provide a cultural landscape within which the landscape history, flora, fauna and archaeological material associated with this portion of Stockton Bight can be experienced as a whole.

The remaining sections of the alternate haul route are located within the Inter-Barrier Depression and are unlikely to contain archaeological deposits. The Inter-Barrier Depression remains significant in terms of its broader association with the stabilised dune environments likely to contain archaeological materials, as described above.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 7.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Impacts in Relation to the of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 Archaeological Assessment

8.0 Impacts in Relation to the Archaeological Assessment

As discussed in Section 1.1, the construction of the alternate haul route will require the establishment of a suitable level surface of approximately 8 metres in width along the length of the alternate haul route, with a turning bay of approximately 30 metres by 30 metres located in the area adjoining Lot 218 extraction area and an overall potential construction width of 10 metres. This will involve widening of the existing vehicle tracks (where present) to create a road that can sustain heavy traffic and potential for vegetation clearance to create the turning bay.

Where feasible (with reference to environmental constraints and construction requirements) it is proposed that the alternate haul route will be constructed by the filling of areas to create a level surface. This will require clearance of native vegetation in woodland areas between an existing perimeter trail in low dunes and the grassland that borders the Inter-Barrier Depression. It may then be necessary to introduce road base (or similar) materials to create a stable surface.

Given that A3 has a moderate to high level of archaeological significance based on the previously demonstrated occurrence of sub-surface artefactual material in this area and its potential for deposits with some degree of integrity and a low to moderate significance as a cultural landscape, Mackas Sand has indicated that the alternate haul route will be constructed using a low ground disturbance method in order to mitigate impacts to this site. Consequently, Mackas Sand has indicated that the alternate haul route within the site/PAD will be constructed by laying geotextile material over the natural ground surface and introducing additional fill material (i.e. not sand from other sections of the alternate haul route) over the geotextile to provide a suitable road surface. This will be done after surface artefacts have been collected and in a progressive fashion so that all heavy vehicle movement associated with road construction and subsequent use is confined to the area in which geotexile and fill have already been introduced. Consequently, it will not be necessary to undertake significant ground disturbance works within A3 and sub-surface deposits will be protected from impacts associated with construction and use of the alternate haul route.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 8.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Archaeological Recommendations of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

9.0 Archaeological Recommendations

The following mitigation and management recommendations have been developed in light of the archaeological context of the region (including the outcomes of the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment of the initial alternate haul route); the findings of the survey; the consideration of archaeological significance, the potential impacts of the proposed development and current cultural heritage legislation. It is noted that these recommendations reiterate those provided for the section of the currently proposed alternate haul route that extends from the northern boundary of Lot 218 to the Lot 218 approval area and was previously assessed by Umwelt (2011). This reiteration is intended to provide a complete set of recommendations for the proposed alternate access route. These recommendations are provided from an archaeological perspective, with Aboriginal party recommendations provided separately in Section 10.0.

9.1 A3 and PAD within Section of the Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route that Extends From the Northern Boundary of Lot 218 to the Lot 218 Approval Area

1. In consultation with the AHMG (as established under the Mackas Sand ACHMP), Mackas Sand should demarcate the route boundary from the edge of the Inter-Barrier Depression south to the intersection with the Lot 218 approved operational area (i.e. within the area identified as PAD). This demarcation should be done prior to route construction and any surface artefacts within demarcated area should be collected in consultation with the AHMG (refer to Figure 9.1).

2. Vegetation clearance from the edge of the Inter-Barrier Depression south to the intersection with the Lot 218 approved operational area (i.e. within the area identified as PAD) will occur as a staged process in accordance with the following methodology:

understorey vegetation and all trees smaller than approximately 50 centimetres diameter at chest height will be removed by earth-moving equipment or similar and placed outside the newly cleared area so that all of the newly cleared area is visible. At this stage, the AHMG will be invited to undertake an inspection of the newly cleared area; following the initial inspection, the remaining large trees will be cleared by machinery (in accordance with ecological tree clearance procedures) and the AHMG will be invited to inspect the additional area of ground disturbance resulting from large tree clearance at a time determined in consultation with the AHMG; and during vegetation clearance inspections (as discussed above), any Aboriginal objects such as stone artefacts and shell) will be collected in accordance with the approved methodology incorporated in the ACHMP (Umwelt 2009a: Appendix 2, Attachment 3). 3. Following vegetation clearance, construction of the alternate haul route from the edge of the Inter-Barrier Depression south to the intersection with the Lot 218 approved operational area should proceed in accordance with the description provided in Section 8. (i.e. road construction could commence creating a level surface of approximately 8 metres in width along the length of the alternate haul route, with a turning bay of approximately 30 metres by 30 metres located in the area adjoining Lot 218 and an overall potential construction width of 10 metres).

4. It is noted that the additional recommendations regarding this activity were provided by Aboriginal party representatives (refer to Section 10.0).

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 9.1

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Archaeological Recommendations of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

9.2 General Recommendations

3. Any Aboriginal objects (such as stone artefacts or shell fragments) salvaged in relation to the recommendations provided in Sections 9.1 will be subject to analysis and interpretation in accordance with the methodology provided in Section 5.10 of the Mackas Sand ACHMP (Umwelt 2009a).

4. The arrangements for care and control of any salvaged Aboriginal objects will be as specified in Section 5.11 of the Mackas Sand ACHMP.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 9.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT Aboriginal Party Recommendations of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

10.0 Aboriginal Party Recommendations

The specific recommendations provided by each of the relevant Aboriginal parties are listed below. This information is based on comments provided by Aboriginal parties, as detailed in Section 2.0 and Appendix A. It is noted that Section 10.1 below incorporates previous recommendations made by Aboriginal parties as part of the assessment of the initial alternate haul route (Umwelt 2011), where these recommendations remain pertinent to the currently proposed haul route. The comments provided by Aboriginal parties to earlier haul route proposals are also contained in Appendix A.

10.1 Recommendations Provided in Response to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of the Initial Alternate Haul Route

1. Worimi LALC indicated that recommendations provided in the previous draft report (which are consistent with those provided above), ‘do not, in any way, restrict or unfavourably effect this development’.

2. Nur-Run-Gee recommended that existing infrastructure on Lot 218 should be utilised and is hesitant to support any variation to Project Approval 08_0142.

3. Mur-Roo-Ma recommended that the previously approved access to the sand extraction face should be utilised and the alternate haul route should not be approved.

10.2 Recommendations Provided in Response to 2012 Draft Assessment for Alternative Haul Route

Recommendations provided by Aboriginal parties during the current assessment process are qualitively similar to those provided during the 2011 assessment process. Details of comments are provided within Appendix A. In addition to the comments included within Section 10.1, Carol Ridgeway-Bissett recommended:

• that a nearby area be set aside for the reburial of artefacts. This comment was strongly supported by Viola Brown;

• ensuring proper assessment of acid sulphate soil and traffic impacts due to the proposal on Nelson Bay Road;

• ensuring proper assessment of impacts to the wider Cultural Landscape, including flora and fauna, water resources and the tangible and intangible record; and

• ensuring that any rehabilitation undertaken is effective.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 10.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment DRAFT References of Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218

11.0 References

Australian ICOMOS Incorporated, 2000. The Burra Charter: the ICOMOS charter for conservation of places of cultural significance with associated guidelines and code on the ethics of coexistence. Australian ICOMOS, Canberra.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, 2004. Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, 2010. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW.

Environmental Resources Management (Australia) Pty Ltd (ERM), 2003. Electricity Supply Upgrade from Tomago to Tomaree Environmental Impact Statement. Annex D Indigenous Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report to EnergyAustralia.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS), 1997. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage: Standards and Guidelines Kit. NPWS, Hurstville.

Pearson, M. and Sullivan, S, 1995. Looking after heritage places: the basics of heritage planning for managers, landowners and administrators. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) 2004a. Archaeological and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey and Assessment of Lot 220 in DP 1049608, Stockton Bight. Report to Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited, 2004b. Research Design and Methodology to Accompany NPWS Section 87 and Section 90 Permit Applications for Stage 2 Investigations and Site Conservation Works for the Tomago to Tomaree Electricity Supply Upgrade Project. Report to EnergyAustralia.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), 2009a. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan for Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 DP 1044608 and Lot 220 DP 1049608, Salt Ash. Report to Mackas Sand.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), 2009b. Environmental Assessment of Sand Extraction Operations from Lot 218 DP 1044608 and Lot 220 DP 1049608, Salt Ash Report to Mackas Sand.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), 2010a. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of proposed Access Road to Lot 218 DP 1044608, Salt Ash.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), 2010b Research Design and Methodology to Accompany an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit Application for Stage Three Investigations for the Tomago to Tomaree Electricity Supply Upgrade Report.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), 2011. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of proposed Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 DP 1044608, Salt Ash.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), In prep. Results of Archaeological Investigations associated with the Tomago to Tomaree Electricty Supply Upgrade Project. Report to EnergyAustralia.

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 1646/R37/V2 October 2012 11.1

APPENDIX 1

Aboriginal Stakeholder Consultation

Appendix 1 – Aboriginal Party Consultation

Proposed Initial Alternate Haul Route

Refer to Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt), 2011. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of proposed Alternate Haul Route to Lot 218 DP 1044608, Salt Ash for copies of correspondence materials.

Table 1 – Proposed Initial Alternative Haul Route

Date Type of Consultation Authorities/Aboriginal Parties Outcome Contacted 27/02/2010 Advertisement providing notification of Advertisement placed in assessment and opportunity to registration Newcastle Herald interest in on-going consultation. 03/03/2010 Letter providing notification of assessment Department of Environment, Viola Brown identified as an additional potential registrant and request to identify Aboriginal parties. Climate Change and Water Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Owners Port Stephens Shire Council NSW Native Title Services Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council 03/03/2010 Letter providing notification of assessment, Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Interest registered invitation to register interest in on-going Council consultation and proposed survey Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd Interest registered methodology. (Nur-Run-Gee) Worimi Traditional Aboriginal Les Ridgeway previously indicated would no longer be Elders and Owners Group involved in cultural heritage assessments Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated Interest registered (Mur-Roo-Ma) Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage Interest registered. Carol indicated that, due to lack of Cooperative insurance coverage, she would not be participating in the survey but will remain a registered party for consultation purposes

1646/R37/A1 1

Table 1 – Proposed Initial Alternative Haul Route (cont.)

Date Type of Consultation Authorities/Aboriginal Parties Outcome Contacted 29/03/2010 Initial survey of proposed access road. Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Jamie Merrick participated in survey Council Nur-Run-Gee Chris Collison participated in survey Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson participated in survey 6/05/2010 Letter providing notification of assessment, Viola Brown Interest registered in on-going consultation invitation to register interest in on-going consultation and proposed survey methodology. 21/05/2010 Survey of additional portion of proposed Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Jamie Merrick participated in survey access road. Council Nur-Run-Gee Lennie Anderson participated in survey Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson participated in survey 03/08/2010 Draft (initial) Aboriginal cultural heritage Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Comment provided in writing assessment provided to relevant Aboriginal Council parties for review and comment. Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd Comment provided in writing (Nur-Run-Gee) Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated Comment provided in writing (Mur-Roo-Ma) Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage Verbal comment provided Cooperative Viola Brown Verbal comment provided

1646/R37/A1 2

Table 1 – Proposed Initial Alternative Haul Route (cont.)

Date Type of Consultation Authorities/Aboriginal Parties Outcome Contacted 28/09/2011 Letter providing notification of alteration to Worimi Local Aboriginal Land No comment provided. proposed access road and provision of Council proposed additional survey methodology. Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd Comment provided in writing. (Nur-Run-Gee) Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated Comment provided in writing. (Mur-Roo-Ma) Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage No comment provided. Cooperative Viola Brown No comment provided. 10/10/2011 Survey of altered sections of proposed access Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Jamie Merrick participated in survey. road. Council Nur-Run-Gee Chris Collison participated in survey. Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson participated in survey. 27/10/2011 Discussion of survey results and potential Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Jamie Merrick participated in discussion. mitigation/management strategies with survey Council participants. Nur-Run-Gee Lennie Anderson participated in discussion. Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson was unavailable to participate in discussion but authorised Lennie Anderson to also represent views of Mur-Roo-Ma. 8/11/2011 Draft Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Comment provided in writing. provided to relevant parties for review and Council comment. Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd Comment provided in writing. (Nur-Run-Gee) Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated Comment provided in writing. (Mur-Roo-Ma) Carol Ridgeway-Bisset Verbal comment provided. (previously Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage Cooperative) Viola Brown Verbal comment provided.

1646/R37/A1 3

Consultation Regarding Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route

Note that ongoing communications with the Aboriginal Heritage Management Group (AHMG) that do not relate to the current modification proposal are not included within the communication record. The current record commences at the time of AHMG survey of the of sections of proposed alternate access road to Lot 218 and alternate extraction area at Lot 220 as this is when a briefing regarding the modification proposal was given. The proposed alternate extraction area at Lot 220 has since been removed from this modification application. Note that Ms Carol Ridgeway-Bissett remains a registered Aboriginal party but no longer represents Maaiangal Aboriginal Heritage Cooperative.

Table 2 - Consultation Regarding Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route

Date Type of Consultation Authorities/Aboriginal Parties Outcome Contacted 25/07/2012 Letter and email sent to member organisations Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Time and date for AHMG site inspection agreed. of the AHMG with regard to AHMG inspection Council of proposed Lot 218 alternate haul route Nur-Run-Gee Pty Ltd Time and date for AHMG site inspection agreed. (Attached). (Nur-Run-Gee) Mur-Roo-Ma Incorporated Time and date for AHMG site inspection agreed. (Mur-Roo-Ma) 30/07/2012 Discussion and survey of sections of proposed Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Jamie Merrick and Jono Lilley participated in survey and alternate access road to Lot 218 and alternate Council discussion. extraction area at Lot 220 (Internal to AHMG. Nur-Run-Gee Lennie Anderson participated in survey and discussion. Lot 220 modification now removed from application). Following survey, additional Mur-Roo-Ma Anthony Anderson participated in survey and discussion. discussion of survey results and potential mitigation/management strategies.

1646/R37/A1 4

Table 2 - Consultation Regarding Currently Proposed Alternate Haul Route (cont.)

Date Type of Consultation Authorities/Aboriginal Parties Outcome Contacted 09/08/2012 Project description and proposed survey Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Email sent on 03/09/2012 informing of approaching methodology sent to registered Aboriginal Council methodology comment due date. No comment on parties (attached). methodology received. Nur-Run-Gee Phone call on 03/09/2012 and email on 04/09/2012 informing of approaching methodology comment due date. No comment on methodology received. Mur-Roo-Ma Written comment on methodology received 16/08/2012. (attached). Carol Ridgeway-Bissett Phone call on 03/09/2012 informing of approaching methodology comment due date and to reiterate opportunity for additional site survey. Survey opportunity declined and no comment on methodology received. Viola Brown Phone call on 03/09/2012 informing of approaching methodology comment due date and to reiterate opportunity for additional site survey. Survey opportunity declined and no comment on methodology received. 28/09/2012 Draft Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Email undeliverable; phone call follow up. provided to relevant parties for review and Council comment via email. Nur-Run-Gee Email delivered; phone call follow up. Mur-Roo-Ma Email delivered; phone call follow up. 03/10/2012 Draft Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Comment provided in writing 18/10/2012. provided to relevant parties for review and Council comment as hard copy. Nur-Run-Gee Comment provided in writing 08/10/2012. Mur-Roo-Ma Comment provided in writing 09/10/2012. Carol Ridgeway-Bissett Comment provided verbally 12/10/2012. Viola Brown Comment provided verbally 16/10/2012: Viola affirmed the recommendations of Carol Ridgeway-Bissett, especially with regard to the burying of collected artefacts nearby.

1646/R37/A1 5

Newcastle

PO Box 3024 75 York Street Teralba, NSW 2284 Ph: 02 4950 5322 www.umwelt.com.au

APPENDIX 1

Director-General’s Requirements

APPENDIX 5

Traffic Report

10 Haig Street Belmont NSW 2280 PH. (02) 4945 5688 Mob. 0418 419 190 E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC REPORT

PROPOSED SAND MINING DEVELOPMENT

LOT 218 DP 1044608, WILLIAMTOWN

October 2012

Macka’s Sand Pty Ltd The Applicant

Port Stephens Shire Council Local Government Area

Prepared by Terry Keating Director TPK & Associates Pty Ltd

TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

P R O P O S E D SAND MINING

LOT 218 DP 1044608 , WILLIAMTOWN

TRAFFIC REPORT

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 – The Project TPK & Associates Pty Ltd (TPK) was invited by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd (for The Client) to join their project team to provide traffic assessment and report services for the proposed land use at:

Lot 218 DP1044608, Williamtown (See Figure 1)

The sand mining precinct has no abutting public roads; one of the key focus points of this assessment will be to confirm the suitability of the access to the broader road network.

1.2 – Task Description This report has focused on: -  Site connection to the public road network  The background to the need for the intersection.  The preferred geometric layout.  The impact on the road network.

1.3 – Project Representative Mr. Terry Keating, Director TPK, undertook the evaluation and preparation of the report. He has over 40 years experience in the road safety and traffic management profession, including the assessment of traffic generating developments, road safety audits (Lead Auditor) and practical deliberations for Land and Environment court matters.

Page | 2 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

SECTION 2 – BACKGROUND The proposed intersection onto Nelson Bay Road (MR 108) is required as part of connection of an approved sand extraction site to the broader road network; the proposed access road is the final alternative in a prolonged consideration of access options for the site (Lot 218 DP 10-44608). Figure 1 shows the route of the access track.

SITE

FIGURE 1 – PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK ROUTE

Page | 3 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

TPK has not expanded on the history to date surrounding site access in this report as it is irrelevant to the assessment given a recent meeting by members of the project team with Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) Newcastle reached agreement in principle to permitting this access onto Nelson Bay Road.

Members of the Project Team met recently with representatives of RMS, Newcastle to discuss access for the sand extraction site. Prior to the meeting a concept plan for the connection of the Access Road onto Nelson Bay Road had been sent to RMS for comment at the meeting; that plan is shown as Figure 2 of this report.

FIGURE 2 – CONCEPT FOR NELSON BAY RD INTERSECTION

Page | 4 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

RMS provided confirmation of their acceptance to the access in a letter dated 13th July 2011 (should be 2012); an extract from the letter relevant to this assessment is inserted below.

EXTRACT FROM RMS LETTER 13th JULY 2012

END OF EXTRACT

The project team prepared a new version of the concept plan responding to RMS comments primarily adjusting to the RMS comment of “the left out movement will be a give way arrangement”; Figure 3 is a snapshot from the adjusted concept plan.

FIGURE 3 – EXTRACT FROM ADJUSTED CONCEPT PLAN

Page | 5 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

RMS reviewed the second concept plan and responded to the Umwelt on the 14th September 2012; an extract from that letter, relevant to this report is provided on the following page.

EXTRACT FROM RMS LETTER DATED 14th SEPTEMEBER 2012

END OF EXTRACT

TPK’s analysis has adopted the geometric form recommended by RMS on the 14th September 2012; a concept plan for the core section of the intersection is provided in Appendix A.

That plan is part of a series of design plans that will no doubt be provided to RMS by Umwelt.

Page | 6 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

SECTION 3 – TRAFFIC GENERATIONS

The proposed sand extraction will generate traffic based on: Operation: 7 days, Sundays & Public holidays limited activity. Times: 6am to 10.30pm; last load out at 10pm. Staff: 2 shifts per day, 2 persons per shift. TPK will adopt 2 trips in for the am peak analysis and 2 trips in and out for the pm peak. Trucks: Average of 80 loads per day, 5 per hour. TPK will adopt 8 inwards 8 outwards trips for the peak analysis.

TPK undertook peak hour traffic survey on Nelson Bay Road as part of this assessment, the outcomes were: 23.07.12 PM Peak 1500 to 1600 Westbound 347vph Eastbound 601vph 24.07.12 AM Peak 0745 to 0845 Westbound 697vph Eastbound 276vph

TPK referenced RMS Traffic Volume Data from a nearby permanent counting station 05.191; historic data disclosed an AADT for 1995 of 13364vpd & for 2004 17174vpd. 2% growth per annum is indicated and has been adopted for this assessment.

SECTION 4 - ASSESSMENT

4.1 – Access Track & Work Site The Access Track carriageway will be a sealed surface for a distance of approximately 200m from Nelson Bay Road intersection; this will minimise the potential for the transportation of loose material onto the public road network.

The working site area will be a shifting point and will have the flexibility to accommodate the staff vehicles and provide manoeuvre areas for heavy vehicles. Site OH & S standards will further support the safety of staff and traffic movements on the work site.

4.2 – Intersection Nelson Bay Road & Access Track The proposed intersection will restrict access to the Access Track to left in & left out; SIDRA has been used to model performance.

TPK utilise the intersection-modelling program SIDRA to review intersection performance. The outcomes of the model include:  Level of Service.  Average Delay.  95% back of queue length. Page | 7 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

The term Level of Service (LoS) is one output parameter of the SIDRA model; it provides an insight into “operating conditions” of the intersection and each approach. The output range is indicated in the range LoS A to LoS F where A indicates good operating conditions reducing to F where other forms of control may need to be considered.

The geometric layout utilised in the model is shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4 – SIDRA GEOMETRIC LAYOUT

The scenarios modelled were:  AM Peak 2012  AM Peak 2022 (2% growth pa)  PM Peak 2012  PM Peak 2022 (2% growth pa)

The outcomes of the modelling are summarise in the SIDRA output Movement Summary; the outcomes for this assessment are provided as Movement Summaries 1 to 4 on the following pages.

The output data indicates that the intersection performance will be acceptable for the present peaks and the year 2022.

Page | 8 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

M1 – MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK AM NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK, WILLIAMTOWN AM PEAK 2012 Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand HV Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average Flow Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: ACCESS TRACK 1 L 8 50.0 0.006 9.0 X X X X 0.59 49.8 Approach 8 50.0 0.006 9.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.59 49.8 East: NELSON BAY RD (FROM NEL BAY) 4 L 11 56.0 0.008 10.2 LOS B 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.67 49.0 5 T 734 5.0 0.388 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 744 5.7 0.388 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8 West: NELSON BAY RD 11 T 291 5.0 0.154 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 291 5.0 0.154 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 All Vehicles 1043 5.9 0.388 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

M2 – MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK AM NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK, WILLIAMTOWN AM PEAK 2022 Giveway / Yield (Two-Way) Design Life Analysis (Practical Capacity): Results for 10 years

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand HV Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average Flow Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: ACCESS TRACK 1 L 10 50.0 0.007 9.0 X X X X 0.59 49.8 Approach 10 50.0 0.007 9.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.59 49.8 East: NELSON BAY RD (FROM NEL BAY) 4 L 13 56.0 0.010 10.2 LOS B 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.67 49.0 5 T 880 5.0 0.466 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 893 5.7 0.466 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8 West: NELSON BAY RD 11 T 349 5.0 0.185 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 349 5.0 0.185 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 All Vehicles 1252 5.9 0.466 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

Page | 9 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

M3 – MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK PM NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK, WILLIAMTOWN PM PEAK 2012 Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand HV Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average Flow Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: ACCESS TRACK 1 L 11 50.0 0.008 9.0 X X X X 0.59 49.8 Approach 11 50.0 0.008 9.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.59 49.8 East: NELSON BAY RD (FROM NEL BAY) 4 L 8 62.5 0.007 10.5 LOS B 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.67 49.0 5 T 365 10.0 0.200 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 374 11.2 0.200 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7 West: NELSON BAY RD 11 T 633 2.3 0.329 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 633 2.3 0.329 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 All Vehicles 1017 6.1 0.329 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

M4 – MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK PM NELSON BAY RD & ACCESS TRACK, WILLIAMTOWN PM PEAK 2022 Giveway / Yield (Two-Way) Design Life Analysis (Practical Capacity): Results for 10 years

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand HV Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average Flow Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: ACCESS TRACK 1 L 13 50.0 0.009 9.0 X X X X 0.59 49.8 Approach 13 50.0 0.009 9.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.59 49.8 East: NELSON BAY RD (FROM NEL BAY) 4 L 10 62.5 0.008 10.5 LOS B 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.67 49.0 5 T 438 10.0 0.239 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 448 11.2 0.239 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7 West: NELSON BAY RD 11 T 759 2.3 0.395 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 Approach 759 2.3 0.395 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 All Vehicles 1220 6.1 0.395 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

Page | 10 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

SECTION 5 – SUMMARY This assessment by TPK has concluded that the sand mining activity will not have an adverse impact on the road network, that the site connection to Nelson Bay Road can operate at acceptable levels of performance and that OH & S standards set up by management will manage the interaction of staff and heavy transport.

Prepared by T Keating Mr. T Keating Director, TPK & Associates 4th October 2012

Page | 11 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

APPENDIX A INTERSECTION CONCEPT LAYOUT

Page | 12 TPK & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD – PROPOSED INTERSECTION, NELSON BAY RD, WILLIAMTOWN – TRAFFIC REPORT

Page | 13

APPENDIX 1

Director-General’s Requirements APPENDIX 6

Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan

Gibson Nominees Pty. Ltd. One-stop Seamless Strategic Support

A.C.N. 008 434 222

For

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd Environmental Consultants Post Office Box 838 Toronto NSW 2283

UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE EXTRACTION OF WIND-BLOWN SAND FROM LOT 218 IN DEPOSITED PLAN 1044608 AT WILLIAMTOWN NSW

September 2011

© Gibson Nominees Pty. Ltd. "COPYRIGHT Gibson Nominees Pty. Ltd. 2011. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording of information and retrieval systems, including publication on the web) without prior permission of Gibson Nominees Pty. Limited. "

2930 Nelson Bay Road, Salt Ash N.S.W. 2318 Australia Telephone: +61 2 4982 6205 Mobile Service: 0427 680 685 E-Mail: [email protected]

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

PREFACE

The Department of Defence (Defence) has established and sponsors the Defence Unexploded Ordnance Panel (DUXOP), to which a group of specially trained and skilled commercial ammunition search and technical contractors and consultants have been accredited (see http://www.defence.gov.au/uxo/duxop.asp ). The primary role of the DUXOP is to provide UXO assessment, search and clearance services to Defence and to other Commonwealth departments. Accreditation to the DUXOP is frequently seen as a pre-requisite for the provision of such services outside Defence, including by some State Government Departments and by some commercial entities.

This Plan has been prepared by Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd. The company is not a member of the DUXOP. It does, however, provide an extensive range of strategic-level UXO-related services to Defence and, on occasions, other State and Territory departments.

A principal service provided by Gibson Nominees is assistance with establishment and maintenance of the DUXOP. This has involved assessment of proposals from companies aspiring to DUXOP membership. Having been privy to the confidential technical, commercial and financial details of each DUXOP tenderer, a significant conflict of interest were to arise if Gibson Nominees were to be accredited and permitted to commercially compete with other DUXOP members. Consequently, the company, although otherwise qualified, has not applied for DUXOP accreditation.

Gibson Nominees continues to provide a wide range of UXO-related consultancy services to Defence and other departments under a provision which allows the Commonwealth to engage a UXO consultant ex-Panel when it is in the interests of the Commonwealth to do so.

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Detail Page

Preface 2 Executive Summary 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 5 2.0 SITE HISTORY - The Background Setting 5 2.1 Proofing Activities 6 2.2 Mortar Firings (Macs Track) 7 2.3 Firing from Williamtown Area 7 2.4 Newcastle Fortress Logbooks 8 2.5 3.7 inch Heavy Anti-Aircraft (HAA) Batteries 8 3.0 MORPHOLOGY 8 4.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DEDUCTIONS 9 4.1 Likely Incidence Levels, Natures and Types 10 5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 12 5.1 Likelihood, from site history, of UXO on-site 15 5.2 Ammunition Contamination Category 15 5.3 Magnitude of Usage 16 5.4 Exposure Likelihood against varying proposed or actual Land Use Intensities 15 5.5 Risk Values 16 5.6 Likely level of Risk as indicated by Model Scores 17 5.7 Mitigating Measures 17 6.0 UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 18 6.1 Preparation 19 6.2 Action on Discovery 19 7.0 CONCLUSION 20

APPENDIX:

1. Thomas, D.G. and Edwards, L.D. (2005): A Qualitative Screening Risk Assessment of Unexploded Ordnance-Affected Sites in Australia. Department of Defence, Canberra (unpub.).

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mackas Sand Pty Ltd proposes to extract commercial grade windblown sand from Lot 218 in DP 1044608 on Stockton Beach near Williamtown NSW. Land within that title has been assessed by Department of Defence as potentially contaminated by unexploded ordnance (UXO), a legacy of World War II operational and training activities.

This paper summarises the military land use history of Lot 218 and adjacent properties. Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd has drawn on a number of sources of expert advice in the preparation of this plan.

The military land use summary identifies many of the types and natures of ammunition that were fired on the beach, malfunctioned items of which may be remnant on the land. Pictorial examples of these items are provided, both in new condition and in a condition following extensive exposure to the elements. It also examines the morphology of the site, especially in respect to the effect of mobile sand on UXO items that are potentially present.

The paper applies a qualitative screening risk assessment model, which has been developed by Department of Defence, to the site which indicates that the potential for UXO to be present in part of a former impact area on the land is substantial (although this impact area does not fall within the approved sand extraction area). Potential in other areas in the title vary between moderate and slight. However, the Macka’s Sand proposal asserts that only windblown sand deposits laid down since the mid 1950’s would be extracted. On that basis, the potential for hazardous items to be remnant within those levels in the approved extraction area has been assessed as slight.

The paper also suggests a plan to manage the potential UXO incidence. Pre-extraction search and clearance is not recommended and the plan details a number of precautionary measures to be observed by management and staff. These include a requirement for UXO search and clearance in any location in the former range danger area where excavation is necessary below the 1950’s wind-blown sand deposition level. The plan also provides recommended action in the event that either a UXO item or evidence of an impact area is discovered.

The paper containing the Department of Defence Risk Assessment model is provided as an appendix.

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Macka’s Sand Pty Limited, a company experienced in the extraction of commercial grade sands, proposes to extract windblown sand from the mobile beach dune area within Lot 218 in Deposited Plan 1044608, Parish of Stowell, County of Gloucester at Williamtown, NSW. The company is aware that the subject area is potentially contaminated by unexploded ordnance (UXO) which may pose a hazard to personnel and equipment engaged in extractive and processing procedures.

This paper summarises the military land use history of the Macka’s Sand and adjacent properties. It outlines the factors which may have resulted in the legacy which may present hazards to the proposed operation. It provides an assessment on the nature and the possible effects of the hazard and on resultant risk magnitude and proposes a management plan designed to minimise the potential risk.

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd has drawn on a number of sources of expert advice in the preparation of this plan1. The expert ammunition technical opinions provided, based on the assessment of the historical research undertaken, indicates that given the inception of some simple safe working practices, the hazard posed by UXO is insufficient to prevent the proposed project.

2.0 SITE HISTORY – The Background Setting

By mid-1942, the Australian Government was forced to accept that for the first time in the history of white settlement, it may be about to become committed to a land battle on the Australian mainland. Japanese assets had bombed Darwin and on June 7 of that year, Newcastle was shelled by a Japanese submarine surface armament from Stockton Bight.

At this time, Australia was committed to denying Japanese access to the mainland by halting the latter’s advance in New Guinea. Already hampered by losses associated with the fall of Singapore, the build-up of assets in the south-west Pacific was not yet complete. It was doubted that any Japanese incursion onto Australia’s north-eastern coast line and a subsequent southern advance in strength could be contained well to the north and even more doubtful that it could be repulsed. The Australian strategy was to establish a series of delaying positions forward of a number of major defence lines with the intention of not only denying the enemy access to the developed centres but also to force him to expend valuable resources which were not easily resupplied from Japan’s domestic support base over the distance involved. One such major defence line ran east-west through and south of Brisbane. A second such line was immediately north of Newcastle. An assessment had been made that any land force invasion would aim for the rapid acquisition of Australia’s industrial centres in order to support further operations. Newcastle and Wollongong were assessed as priority objectives.

11 The site history review and the identification of the natures and types of UXO which are possibly remnant has been drawn from a report by David Thomas, who as Staff Officer Grade 2 (UXO) at Headquarters 2nd Military District in 1988, completed a site assessment of those areas on Stockton Beach known or suspected to be UXO- affected. 5

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

The possibility that the more northerly defensive lines may fall, but more particularly be by-passed in a marine-borne operation was well realised. Likely landing sites were identified, with Stockton Beach being assessed as a suitable point of entry. On the establishment of a beach head toward the northern end (local defence and sea conditions being more favourable) an invading force would advance in strength parallel to the coast. It would be constrained by the sea on the left flank and Port Stephens and the Hunter River estuary on the right and would be confronted by delaying positions firstly on a line Tilligerry Creek to the sea in the vicinity of Salt Ash and a major defensive line from Fullerton Cove to the sea north of Fern Bay. The proposed sand extraction site lies between these two lines.

Both the Salt Ash and the Fern Bay lines were in range of a coastal battery of three 9.2 inch guns at Fort Wallace and at least one 6 inch gun at Fort Scratchley could bear on targets in the vicinity. Defensive targets on the Stockton and Tilligerry Peninsulas were probably registered by these batteries. In addition to these fixed batteries and given the likelihood that any incursive attempt would be supported by air assets, the north-eastern approaches to Newcastle were also defended by at least three mobile heavy (3.7 inch) anti-aircraft batteries.2

The Newcastle Defence Line was manned principally by infantry elements, but supported by other arms, including field artillery (18 and 25 pounder [pdr]) and both heavy (3.7 inch) and light (40mm Bofors) anti-aircraft artillery. It is likely that had these defences ever been operationally tested, armour and anti-armour assets (mounting principally 37mm, 2 pdr and 6 pdr weapons] would have deployed to augment the defence. Department of Defence records do not indicate, however, that these calibres were ever fired in other than a proof (testing and calibration) capacity. 20 Garrison Battalion, which was the principal infantry unit manning the line, is believed to have had a considerable mobile (truck mounted) capability. This suggestion is supported by the road construction and improvements (some of which are still evident today) through the vegetated dune system. It is reasonable to assume that a number of alternate delaying positions well forward of the defence line proper were established with a view to a planned fighting withdrawal to the main line if necessary. The pertinent factors in this observation include the likely support of not only the delaying actions by the battalion’s mortar platoon (4.2 inch and possibly 3 inch mortars) and the battalion’s lighter 2 inch mortars, but also their covering any planned withdrawal. Given that these scenarios were rehearsed, some ammunition of these calibres must be assumed to have impacted in the vicinity of the extraction site.

2.1 Proofing Activities

In 1942, prior to the inception of the Newcastle Defence Line, an ammunition and armour plate proof facility was established between what became the defence line and the former Stockton Rifle Range. The proof range proper was used up until the 1960’s, primarily for the proof of armour plate and armour piercing kinetic attack

2 Australian War Memorial (AWM) file 54-243/18/15 – Operational log books – Newcastle fortress (6 vols) from 12 March 1942 to 14 May 1944. However, the Newcastle Fortress Logbooks, which recorded all large calibre live fire activities in the Newcastle area, show no evidence that the land targets registered form Forts Wallace and Scratchley were ever engaged with high explosive ammunition. Similarly, all practices fired by the 3.7 inch anti-aircraft batteries were directed seawards.

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

(free from explosive) projectiles which were usually caught in massive sand traps and concrete butts behind the target3. The potential for explosive-filled projectiles originating from within the armour plate proof range to terminate in Lot 218 is consequently considered negligible.

One such proof activity which is pertinent, however, concerns the firing of high explosive (HE) artillery projectiles from locations east and north of the former rifle range along Stockton Beach in conjunction with proof and experimental trials. Proof rounds were fired to test or calibrate weapons, propellants or projectiles and/or components. When proofing involved weapons or propellant, it was not usual for HE- filled projectiles to be used. At Fern Bay, proof projectiles, filled with an HE substitute (HES - sand or pitch) and fitted with empty fuze bodies (or plugs that represented fuzes) were made up in order that their ballistic characteristics could be expected to be similar to HE-filled projectiles. Many of those projectiles which have been found over time have, therefore, given every external appearance of being HE- filled items and should be treated as such. Only when explosive demolition or intrusive measures were attempted the inert HES filling was discovered. At other times, however, it was necessary to use HE-filled projectiles for proof. During the period late 1943 to early 1946, proof of fuzes No 117 using 25 pdr filled HE as the proof vehicle was carried out on Stockton Beach4. Defence records indicate that a number of these projectiles failed to function as designed5.

In addition, some otherwise inert projectiles are believed to have been fitted with red phosphorous smoke boxes. This marking device gave off a puff of white smoke when the projectile impacted, thus assisting observation and plotting of the fall of shot. The smoke box is capable of inflicting burns if such a projectile is interfered with.

2.2 Mortar Firings (Macs Track)

It is known that other firings took place in the Stockton area, not associated with proofing, and that some mortar firings onto the beach took place from the Macs track area6. The suspected impact area may have included Lot 218.

2.3 Firing from Williamtown Area

Interviews with local inhabitants at the time have revealed definite recollection of 25pdr artillery firing from Williamtown onto the beach. A resident (now deceased) interviewed claimed to remember watching shells impact into the sand dunes on the beach7. This information is corroborated by an entry in the Newcastle Fortress

3 Sinclair, Knight and Partners (SKP) for the Housing Commission of New South Wales, September 1983: ‘Investigation of the presence of unexploded ordnance and feasibility of detection and clearance – site 4600 Fern Bay’. 4 Thomas, D.G. for Department of Defence (Army) May 1988: ‘Unexploded ordnance site assessment – Stockton Rifle Range, Fern Bay Armour Plate Proof Range, Stockton Beach artillery proof range and Morna Point air weapons range.’ 5 Letter, Deputy Master-General of Ordnance Eastern Command to Quartermaster General’s Branch (E259/1/186), January 1962. 6 Deputy Master General of the Ordnance (DMGO) B259/1/186 of 12 January 1962. 7 Thomas, 1988. Ibid. 7

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

Logbooks of 28 January 19438. It is possible that at least some of these projectiles terminated within Lot 218.

2.4 Newcastle Fortress Logbook Records

The logbook records of the Newcastle coastal defence system provide valuable insight to many aspects of military activity from Port Stephens to the central coast from March 1942 to May 1944 (by which time the Japanese threat to Newcastle had passed). It appears that while the Fortress Headquarters may not have been the approving authority for many of these activities, it played a key role in their coordination. As a result, outlines of many activities were recorded by fortress staff. Of relevance is the indication that impact areas for those coastal defence and training tasks which were fired were bounded, in part, by the high water mark. Consequently it would appear that Stockton Beach was not engaged by HE-filled ammunition from either Fort Wallace or Fort Scratchley. There are, however, records of proof firings and it is possible that as part of these, projectiles may have needed to be recovered. In this case, it is possible (but no-where has it been found to be confirmed) that they impacted on Stockton Beach. In this unlikely event, while any finds should be treated with due caution, it is likely that any hazard would be minimal from these sources.

2.5 3.7 inch Heavy Anti-Aircraft (HAA) Batteries

Newcastle was defended against air attack by wheeled 3.7 inch HAA weapons in a number of locations including the former Stockton rifle range, Cox’s Track and Fern Bay. The 3.7 inch gun could traverse through 36 degrees horizontally and in excess of 180 degrees in the vertical plane. The danger areas for practices using these weapons were generally 22,000 yards (20km). Ammunition was fitted with a fuze which was designed to function the projectile (mainly HE or illumination) after a pre- set time of flight or, in later versions, on reaching a particular altitude. Non- operational procedures for the firing of these weapons imposed a left and right of arc (described as bearings) with all practices logged by the Newcastle Fortress as firing seaward. Consequently, unless these weapons engaged targets in anger (of which there is no record) any projectile that failed to function would have fallen into the sea. Some fragmentation which may have been from 3.7 inch projectiles which did function in the air over the beach has, however, been recovered in the past. However, from the records available, it would appear that negligible hazard is remnant from this source.

3.0 MORPHOLOGY

The effect of landform frequently contributes strongly to the characterisation of UXO- contaminated sites. However, it is probable that the dynamic effects of the landform in the dunal area proposed for sand extraction in this instance are difficult to equal. Firstly, many of the military activities which occurred on Stockton beach probably had little or no effect on the subject site. Those items which may have impacted on the land and failed to function as designed (principally 25 pdr and infantry support weapons such as 4.2 inch and 3 inch mortars and possibly hand grenades) have a

8 AWM File 54-243/18/15. Ibid. 8

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

maximum ballistic penetration depth of not more than two metres in sand9, which in most locations is insufficient to reach or penetrate the harder sedimentary ‘core’ of the dunes.

Due to the potential for the incidence of aboriginal heritage material being present on the land, the Environmental Management Strategy for this project10 indicates that sand will only be extracted from the post 1950’s level of windblown sand deposits with extraction not occurring below the underlying relict soil profile unless further archaeological investigation is undertaken. It is intended that a depth buffer of not less than 50cm of windblown sand from the mobile dune be maintained over the relict soil surface. In the event that a stabilised soil surface is exposed during extractive activities, works will cease in that location. At first appearance, these measures would seem to offer concurrent protection from the hazards of UXO. The rationale is that as the windblown deposits were laid down after the cessation of World War II hostilities, it is not possible for the material to be mined to contain UXO. However, this is not necessarily the case.

The effect of sand mobility in the high dunes at Stockton extends to many times the ballistic penetration depth of ordnance likely to be remnant. In 1989, a 3-metre long survey marker was placed in the summit of a dune to a depth at which the top 10cm protruded. The sand mobility was such that three weeks later, it had fallen over11. This drifting effect results in complete items being covered by considerable (and unpredictable) depths of sand for long periods. With sand movement, some eventually become uncovered and a few may be discovered and disposed of. More importantly, however, those which become uncovered on a slope (such as the face of a wind-exposed relict dune) are likely to gravitate downslope once sand support around it is eroded. It is likely that such an item will then terminate in wind-blown deposits at the base of the relict dune as was in and prior to the 1950’s and at a level where it will once again become buried.

Consequently, there is some potential for hazardous material to be remnant in windblown sand deposits, particularly in the vicinity of the feet of relict dunes.

The Environmental Management Strategy for the project advises, however, that the windblown dunes are advancing inland at an approximate rate of 5 metres per year. In locations that are well away from 1950’s relict dunes, our assessment is that the potential for hazardous material resulting from World War II activities to be remnant is negligible.

4.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DEDUCTIONS

In 1995, all available Department of Defence Explosive Ordnance Incidence reports outlining finds on the southern end of Stockton Beach over the previous twenty years were reviewed as part of a study by ADI Limited12 as part of planning by Mineral

9 Adaption of US Army Corps of Engineers data. 10 Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd (2009): Environmental management strategy for sand extraction at lot 218 and lot 220, Salt Ash, NSW. December. 11 Thomas, D.G. (1989) for Department of Defence (Army): Post Operation Report – Operation ‘Sandsifter’. 12 ADI Limited (1995): Site history review – hazard identification and assessment within proposed mineral sand extraction area in Crown reserve at Fern Bay, NSW. 9

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

Deposits Ltd to mine mineral sands at the southern end of Stockton Beach. They showed that incidental discoveries had become more frequent in the years immediately prior to 1995. From April 1974 until September 1983, ten reports were filed while from then until May 1994, 23 such reports were recorded13. The review noted that it was not considered that more items were becoming uncovered with time, but that increased public usage, awareness and possibly increased emotive sentiment in respect to the UXO issue may have been contributing factors. Two matters were, however, worthy of note. Firstly, of the 55 finds recorded, only 17 were assessed as possibly having the potential to have explosive fill or pyrotechnic (i.e., such as tracer or smoke box) components14. Of this 17, 11 must be assumed to have been filled, two of which (primer and fuze) are minor components in terms of fill quantity. The second matter is that of all of the 3.7 inch anti-aircraft projectiles reported by the Newcastle Fortress log books to have been fired, not one malfunctioned item has come to light, no doubt due to the primary danger areas being seaward.

Further examination of the nature of finds and the narratives provided with the reports established that at least 75% of the items reported had been recovered from, or in the vicinity of, the former armour plate proof range. Finds of some larger calibre (principally 25 pdr) ordnance must be assumed to have resulted from proofing activities on the beach artillery range.

Finally, in the years after 1995, extensive parts of the southern area of Stockton Beach were mined for mineral sand. The UXO management plan implemented for those operations was such that any ordnance-related material of greater than 75mm diameter was screened from extraction plant and deposited at the bottom of a dredge pond. The progressive re-filling of the dredge pond saw this material buried at depths from which they are never likely to re-surface.

As a likely consequence of this mining activity, a review of post 2000 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Reports held by Department of Defence indicates that significantly less finds are being made on the southern parts of Stockton Beach.

It should be noted, however, that Lot 218 does not fall within that area from which mineral sands were previously extracted. Consequently, any remedial action co- incidental to the mineral sands extraction activity does not include the land title of interest.

4.1 Likely Incidence Levels, Natures and Types

From the data to hand, it appears that only a minor part of Lot 218 falls within a former impact area and that area is outside the proposed extraction area (see Figure 1.). Approximately half of the land is within a former ‘danger area’ (i.e., a buffer area into which projectiles that overshot or otherwise failed to terminate in the impact area could be expected to impact). In the absence of any firm evidence of previous recoveries from Lot 218, the likelihood of encountering hazardous items in the proposed sand extraction area can only be assessed as moderate to slight with a low incidence of items likely to be remnant.

13 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Reports, Regional Explosive Ordnance Services (East), Department of Defence. 14 Ammunition technical advice at the time. 10

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

Incidental (i.e., single items rather than concentrations) of the following types and natures of ordnance are assessed as possibly being within Lot 218:

• Projectile, 25 pdr HE,HES, smoke and proof. • Projectile, mortar, 4.2 inch, HE, white phosphorous, illumination and smoke. • Projectile, mortar, 3 inch, HE, white phosphorous, illumination and smoke. • Projectile, infantry, anti-tank, HE anti-tank. • Grenade, fragmentation, 36M. • Grenade, hand, No 69.

In order that these items can be recognised if encountered, photographs of new objects and, where available, of their likely appearance due to the effects of the ravages of time and decomposition, are provided below.

25 pdr smoke base ejection fuzed point detonating (PD) No 221 (left) and UXO (partial function (right).

25 pdr HE fuzed PD No 119 (left) and UXO fuzed PD No 117 (right).

4.2 in mortar HE Mk 2 fuzed No 162.

3 inch mortar HE Mk2 fuzed No 150 Mk1 (right) and UXO (left).

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

3 in mortar smoke.

Projectile, infantry, anti-tank

Grenade, fragmentation, 36M.

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

Grenade, hand, No 69 Mk 1. Note, the case of this weapon is bakelite.

Mortar 2 inch HE

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

5. RISK ASSESSMENT In 2005, Department of Defence (Defence) devised a rapid screening qualitative risk assessment model that produced a nominal value in order to rank the degree of risk presented by potentially UXO-affected land against current or likely future land uses. The paper describing the model in detail is provided at Appendix 1. The model takes into account four factors and within each factor allocates a value. These are:

• Likelihood, from site history, of UXO on-site (H) – scores 1 – 10. • Ammunition Contamination Category (A) – scores 1-10 • Magnitude of Usage (M) – scores 0.1-5 • Exposure Likelihood Against Varying Proposed (or actual) Land Use Intensities – (E) – scores 2-10

In order to obtain a nominal value by which the risk presented by a range of potentially UXO-affected sites can be ranked (Defence has ranked each known site in each State and Territory) a formula has been devised using the values that are applicable to each site. That formula is:

Risk (R) = HA x M x E 100 5 10

5.1 Likelihood, from site history, of UXO on-site

The site history for Lot 218 indicates that various areas within the land have been:

• Use as a demolition range, land service impact area or an air or naval weapons range (impact area shown at Figure 1.). Extremely high likelihood – score 10. (Highest Possible Score [HPS] – 10). • Use as a live firing range (not including an impact area) ammunition depot or former operational area (danger area shown at Figure 1.). Very high likelihood – Score 8. (HPS – 10). • Use as a field training area or in close proximity to a live firing range (Other areas shown at Figure 1.). High likelihood – score 6. (HPS – 10).

5.2 Ammunition Contamination Category

The history of the site demonstrates that UXO in the category of ‘UXO2 - Blast/fragmentation potential (mortar, artillery, aircraft bomb) chemical and natures and types exhibiting high initiation sensitivity, attractiveness or portability potential’ either was known to have, or was likely to have, impacted the site – Hazard level is Extremely High – score 10. (HPS – 10)

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

5.3 Magnitude of Usage

The Defence rating for this factor for Stockton Beach Artillery Range is that it ‘Acquired for use as a demolition range, land service impact area or an air or naval weapons range’ and that usage was light – score 2.5. (HPS – 5). The score outside the known range impact area reflects that it was ‘Acquired for use as a field training area or in close proximity to a live firing range’ and that the magnitude of use was light – score 2.

5.4 Exposure Likelihood against varying proposed or actual Land Use Intensities

The proposed land use for Lot 218, as described in the model is ‘High density housing, heavy commercial and industrial, roads, railways, bridges, mining, other intrusive activities and extractive industries’ or Very High exposure likelihood - score 10. (HPS – 10).

5.5 Risk Values

Using the formula R = HA x M x E 100 5 10

The value established for the impact area (see Figure 1.) is:

R = 10x10 x 2.5 x 10 100 5 10

= 0.5

Similarly, the risk value established for the artillery range danger area is:

R = 8 x 10 x 2 x 10 100 5 10

= 0.32

And the risk value established for the remaining area outside the artillery range danger area is:

R = 6 x 10 x 2 x 10 100 5 10

= 0.24

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

5.6 Likely level of Risk as indicated by Model Scores

Because the Commonwealth of Australia is not considered responsible for the ongoing effects of UXO on land in which it has never had, or has disposed of, a legal interest15, the risk ranking of sites provided from the model do not dictate priorities for site remediation. Under the Commonwealth Policy, that is seen as the responsibility of the landowner/occupier. However, Defence will undertake field assessment of potentially UXO-affected sites where it is seen as appropriate to do so. In addition, Defence will render safe or remove any item of UXO once it has been found and reported (there is no charge for this service). For Defence purposes, the risk value can be used to determine the priorities for such assessment. The following values are used as a guide:

Low priority: < 0.25 Moderate priority: 0.25 to 0.4 High priority: > 0.4

These priority category scores do, however, reflect the potential type, nature and incidence of UXO as measured against actual or potential land use. Scores of less than 0.25 reflect a slight risk, those of between 0.25 and 0.4 reflect moderate risk and those above 0.4 reflect significant risk.

In these terms, then the risk levels in terms of the model for Lot 218 appear to be:

• Area outside the Stockton Beach Artillery Range danger area: Slight risk (0.24) • Area within the danger area but outside the impact area: Moderate risk (0.32) • Area within the impact area: Significant risk (0.5).

The risk scores generated by the Defence model do not and cannot take into account any mitigating measures intended for the proposed land use. In Lot 218, measures outlined in the Environmental Management Strategy16 will have some effect on reducing the prima facie risk.

5.7 Mitigating Measures

The proposal is to where possible during sand extraction to maintain a 50 cm buffer of windblown sand over the stabilized soil surface in order to preserve any indigenous significant sites and artifacts. It is understood that this measure will see sand removed from only post mid-1950’s deposits. While this measure will not eliminate any potential for UXO to be encountered or disturbed (see paragraph 3 [Morphology] above) it could be expected to reduce the likely levels of incidence. On that basis, it is appropriate that the risk descriptions within the former impact area be reduced to Moderate and elsewhere to Slight. It is noted, however, that the approved sand extraction area does not fall within the known former impact area.

15 Commonwealth Policy on the Management of Land Affected by Unexploded Ordnance (See http://www.defence.gov.au/uxo/what_is_defence_doing/what_is_defence_doing_policy.asp) 16 Umwelt (2009) ibid. Page 25. 17

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

6.0 UNEXPLODED ORDANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Unexploded Ordnance is defined as explosive ordnance (EO) that has been primed, fused, armed or otherwise prepared for action and which has been fired, dropped, launched, projected or placed in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to operations, installations, personnel or material but remains unexploded either by malfunction or design or for any cause. UXO includes items of military ammunition or explosives removed from their original resting-place for any reason, including souveniring by members of the public.

By design, unfired EO is inherently stable. The design is such that an item will not function if subjected to shock or many other forms of mistreatment. However, EO which has been fired and which has failed to function as designed can be expected to have had many of the safety features that make unfired EO safe, disengaged or damaged. Safety devices may be disengaged by such influences as set-back (i.e., inertial effects), spin (such as induced by the rifling in a barrel) time of flight of the projectile, changes in atmospheric pressure as a projectile gains height or even proximity to a target. For this reason UXO may be significantly more sensitive to shock, movement or tampering than unfired ammunition. Deterioration over time as a result of exposure to the elements will frequently exacerbate sensitivity in fuze chemicals and explosive or pyrotechnic filling. However, there is no record in Australia of a civilian having been killed or injured by an item of UXO other than it having been mistreated, tampered with or inappropriately handled. In such cases, the effects of an item of UXO functioning can be expected to be fatal or at best, inflict serious injury.

Depending on the type and nature of EO being fired, Defence statistics indicate that historically, between 2% and 5% of items failed to function as designed and become, by definition, UXO. By way of example, if an artillery regiment of, say, 50 field guns fires a fire mission of 6 rounds per gun, 300 projectiles will terminate in the impact area. If the malfunction rate is, say, 2%, the result will be six projectiles that failed to initiate.

Locations that have been subjected to HE EO impact can usually be readily identified by commercial UXO search and clearance specialists17. Designed functioning effects of HE-filled EO are both blast and fragmentation. The fragmentation effect of EO results in the disintegration of the casing (and other components) of the projectile and its spread under explosive force over considerable (but varying) distances, dependent upon the type and nature of the items being fired. Consequently, particles of fragmentation, which may be on or close to the surface (but in the case of Lot 218 may be at considerable depth due to the deposition of wind-blown sand to varying levels) is indicative of an impact area in which UXO is potentially present.

The essential elements, therefore, of an effective UXO management plan must be based on awareness, vigilance and appropriate response. There are two principal factors in implementing such a plan:

17 See http://www.defence.gov.au/uxo/duxop.asp for details of Department of Defence-accredited UXO consultants and contractors in Australia. 18

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

• Preparation, awareness and vigilance; and • Action on discovery potential impact and of suspect item/s.

6.1 Preparation

The Site Operator (i.e., facility manager) must have a basic understanding of the likelihood of incidence of hazardous items and become familiar with the likely appearance of not only UXO items, but fragmentation and explosive ordnance waste that may be indicative of an impact area in which UXO may be remnant.

The facility manager should consider retaining a professional UXO consultant or contractor periodically (annually is suggested as appropriate) to brief management and employees on likely on-going hazards that may potentially result from the presence of UXO, its likely appearance after more than 50 years exposure to the elements and the appropriate action to take on discovery of UXO or suspected evidence of impact.

Access road and haul way construction works may require excavation in limited areas below the level of the 1950’s deposits and possibly into relict dune strata. Prior to excavation at these levels search and clearance by a specialist UXO clearance contractor is warranted in conjunction with the required archaeological examination. In the event that relict dune strata are inadvertently broken into, further excavation should cease at that location until the required UXO and archaeological assessments have been completed. Wherever practical, unless UXO clearance is undertaken, a buffer of not less than 50cm of post-1950’s deposit material should be maintained above the relict dune strata, in order to minimise the potential for a hazardous item to be struck or disturbed.

The responsibilities of employees in respect to UXO should be included in site inductions for new workers. This should include the need to be vigilant and watch for unfamiliar items during all stages of extraction and processing works and awareness of the action to be taken on discovery of a potentially hazardous item. The following preliminary briefing is appropriate:

“If you should find a suspicious item that may be a UXO, do not touch or disturb it. It has been there for many years, it won't hurt you if you don't disturb it. Tell your site supervisor who will contact Police - they will arrange for military experts to attend and dispose of it.

“Unless the UXO was deliberately disturbed (picked up, played with, kicked, thrown, etc.) there are no known instances, in Australia, where a UXO has injured a member of the public”.

The Occupational Health and Safety Plan for the site should incorporate the appropriate parts of this UXO Management Plan.

6.2 Action on Discovery

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

In the event that an item suspected to be UXO is found:

• Works should cease in the immediate area.

• DO NOT TOUCH, DISTURB OR TAMPER WITH THE ITEM. This includes making any attempt to move the item to a 'safe' location.

• Mark the location so that it can be found later. Coloured tape or paint make easily recognised marker material. In placing marking material DO NOT TOUCH the item. Note the best route or access to it.

• Keep people away from the item

• Inform the site supervisor of the find.

• The site supervisor should inform the police that a possible ammunition item has been found. They will attend and will request Defence attendance. Specially trained Defence personnel will attend and dispose of the item or render it safe. There is no charge for this service.

Prior to resumption of works in the area from which the item originated, a search - trained ammunition contractor should be engaged to ensure that there are no more potentially hazardous items in the vicinity of the find (see footnote to paragraph 5 for access to contact details for Defence-accredited UXO contractors/consultants).

In the event that concentrations of fragmentation and other items of explosive ordnance waste (such as fuze bodies or fuze fragments are encountered, they could be indicative of an impact area. In that event, works should be suspended in the immediate area and its surrounds and a search -trained ammunition contractor engaged to ensure that there are no potentially hazardous items in the vicinity.

7.0 CONCLUSION

The potential for UXO incidence in the extraction area of Lot 218 has been assessed as Slight. This level of potential is insufficient to require search and clearance of the sand deposits approved for extraction prior to the commencement of works. The implementation of the Management Plan detailed above will provide adequate precautions in the unlikely event that any hazardous items are encountered.

The Commonwealth Policy on the Management of Land Affected by UXO18 extends, on a case by case basis, an indemnity to landowners and occupiers. The Policy, in this respect, states:

18 See http://www.defence.gov.au/uxo/what_is_defence_doing/what_is_defence_doing_policy.asp 20

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

‘Although the Commonwealth is not considered legally liable to do so, the Commonwealth will indemnify landowners/occupiers for:

a. claims made against them in respect of personal injury and/or damage to property arising from detonation of UXO which is present on their land as a result of Commonwealth or allied military activities; or

b. such injury or damage suffered by themselves;

unless the circumstances of a particular case render it inappropriate for the Commonwealth to give such an indemnity. Circumstances where an indemnity would be inappropriate include irresponsible conduct on the part of a landowner/occupier, prior knowledge and acceptance of a UXO risk, or the existence of an effective claim by the landowner/occupier against another party.

Each application for an indemnity will be individually assessed. Should a landowner/occupier wish to apply for an indemnity from the Commonwealth in respect of a personal injury or property damage which has arisen from detonation of UXO, the landowner/occupier should apply to the Department of Defence outlining all the relevant circumstances.’

While indemnity for any potential UXO incident within Lot 218 (however unlikely) would be adjudged by the Commonwealth on the merits of the particular case, it is suggested that the adherence to the Plan provided herein may constitute appropriate precautions in the terms of the Commonwealth indemnity provisions.

Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd Unexploded Ordnance Management Plan for Sand Extraction at Lot 218, DP 1044608 at Williamtown NSW

APPENDIX 1

A QUALITATIVE SCREENING RISK ASSESSMENT OF UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE-AFFECTED SITES IN AUSTRALIA

Authors:

David Thomas, Gibson Nominees Pty Ltd. Telephone: (02) 4982 6205 / 0427 680 685, e-mail: [email protected] and

Leigh Edwards, Project Director Strategic Acquisitions, Department of Defence. Telephone (02) 6266 8404 / 0416 266 456, e-mail [email protected]

Abstract

Responsibility for implementation of the Commonwealth Policy on the Management of Land Affected by Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) has devolved to the Directorate of Property Services, National Operations Division in respect to land in which the Commonwealth no longer has (or has never had) a legal interest and which is potentially (or actually) contaminated by UXO.

As part of its responsibilities under the Policy, Defence must undertake field assessment of such land and provide advice to State and Territory administrations on the management of any residual hazard to ensure that exposure to persons can be minimized.

In order to prioritise sites for assessment and in order to give appropriate advice in the face of residual hazard, Defence needed a preliminary risk assessment protocol as a basis on which to base risk magnitude. Two risk assessment models were considered, but which did not suit the Defence purpose. Using a number of elements inherent in these models, Defence then developed a protocol which takes into account history of military usage of the land, the types and natures of ordnance used on the land and the magnitude of that usage. It also takes into account the actual or proposed use of the land in terms of intensity of human usage. Numerical values are attached to each dimension of the model. A risk score is determined from the product of the values allocated in the case of each site. The methodology employed is fully explained.

In addition, by use of a risk score threshold, land which is potentially significantly affected and land which is potentially affected to a minor degree is determined. The threshold determination allows appropriate advices to be attached to each land area based broadly on risk magnitude.

Introduction

Under the provisions of the Commonwealth Policy, the implementation of management measures to protect the public from the hazards of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) has devolved to Department of Defence19. In order to provide advice to State and Territory Governments and local authorities on appropriate management measures, Defence has agreed to review the priority and resources allocated to assessing UXO contamination of non-Commonwealth land. Following

19 Commonwealth Policy on the Management of Land Affected by Unexploded Ordnance dated 19 May 1999 (Paragraph 5).

2 this review, Defence will develop strategic and operational plans for the UXO site assessment program20. For Defence to constructively participate in consultation with stakeholders, a procedure for allocating resources to site assessment studies on non- Commonwealth land is required. It would appear that the most appropriate manner in which to determine priorities for such site assessments is the application of a rapid, qualitative screening risk assessment to each potentially UXO-affected area21.

In Australia, most State and Territory Governments do not perceive UXO to be a contaminant of a similar nature to those that are usually the subject of environmental protection legislation and policy. In fact, most environmental protection authorities are unable to provide any meaningful guidelines on the management of UXO. Consequently, the development of disciplined assessment procedures has fallen to a few narrow, albeit very focused, interest groups. These have principally comprised specialist environmental consultancies (including EPA-accredited auditors) and contracting and consulting firms with a business interest in the provision of UXO assessment and remediation services.

Overseas, the development of UXO-risk assessment protocols has fallen mainly to defence agencies. A model produced by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is extremely complex and is considered to be too detailed to apply to a site-by-site Australia-wide risk assessment. In addition, it applies values to some cultural and topographical factors that are probably inappropriate to the Australian demographic and physical environments. The UK Ministry of Defence retained Enviros Aspinwalls PLC (a leading environmental engineering consultancy) to develop what the company calls a five-dimensional probability-based quantitative model that enabled explosive ordnance contamination to be considered similarly to standard land quality assurance procedures. However, this model is, in fact, a qualitative approach using judgment and qualitative data to present risks numerically. In Australia, Greg Guthrie (then with ADI Limited) has proposed a screening level risk assessment for Australian UXO sites22. Whilst the UK model also appears to have some cultural features that are diverse from some Australian scenarios (probably as the result of comparative population densities), both the UK and the Australian (Guthrie) examples would appear to offer some potential for Defence use.

This paper briefly reviews the qualities of both models and draws on each of them to produce a mechanism that can provide a rational basis for the preparation of a prioritised risk-based site assessment strategy.

20 Australian National Audit Office Performance Audit - Environmental Management of Commonwealth land – Follow-up Audit dated July 2000. 21 Which may range from individual real property titles to hundreds of such land parcels, depending upon contamination characteristics. 22 Guthrie, Greg. G. (1997): Screening level risk assessment for UXO contamination in Australia. Parari ’97 Conference, Canberra, November. V3.0 8 Jun 10 3

Part 1: Review

The MOD UK (Aspinwalls) Model

The model examines the circumstances under which a person may encounter an item of UXO and links the probability of contact with human behaviour. The method closely pursues the source - pathway - receptor continuum, which depends on the probability of the receptor making contact with the source. Five event descriptions are used:

1. UXO exists on site.

2. Persons have access to the site.

3. Persons have access to ordnance.

4. Item is capable of detonating or deflagrating under applied stimulus.

5. The explosive event is capable of causing significant harm to human health.

The probability of each event is rated from 0-3 on the bases that it is impossible, unlikely, likely, or certain to occur. Each assessed rating becomes a multiplier. The following, a former ammunition depot planned for residential redevelopment, is an example:

The example makes the following assumptions: a. The processing of ammunition would have been closely controlled, but its presence is still likely. b. The ordnance is likely to be in a condition under which it is safe for storage and transport within the depot. c. The depot would have been subjected to at least a careful search prior to closure and it is consequently unlikely that ordnance is easily accessible.

Consequently, each event was assessed as follows:

Event 1: Unexploded ordnance exists on site

The example steers away from assessing this factor as ‘certain’ but there is a low probability that some such items remain on the site. Hence this factor is scored as ‘likely’ and given a value of 2.

Event 2. Persons have access to the site

The proposed site use defines that public will access the site and a ‘certain’ rating and a value of 3 is allotted.

Event 3. Persons have access to ordnance.

V3.0 8 Jun 10 4

Due to proposed construction and land use, potential for contact with ordnance items is likely – score 2.

Event 4. Item is capable of detonating or deflagrating under applied stimulus

Ammunition was stored in a safe condition; however, deterioration may result in increased sensitivity. Consequently, the functioning of an item under some form of applied stimulus is considered likely – score 2.

Event 5. The explosive event is capable of causing significant harm to human health.

The degree of hazard resulting from this event depends on the types and natures of ordnance handled in the former depot. The model assumes that the larger the item, the more probable the potential for harm. In this instance, likely harm is assumed – score 2.

This then led to the following Total Risk Score: 2x3x2x2x2 = 48

Comment:

1. The model does not allow for concurrent activity. In the example above, ammunition depots are also typically used for ordnance disposal by means of burial, burning or explosive demolition. The likelihood for incidence of UXO (or abandoned ordnance items) as a result of any of these activities may be greater than that appreciated in the example, which deals only with the core business of a former ammunition depot. As a consequence, the resultant real risk may be greater than appreciated and assessed.

2. Further to the above comment, the model was developed by environmental consultants who had little experience in either the hazards presented by the different types and natures of ordnance or by the potential increase in hazard presented by those items failing to function when used (or, in the more likely event in respect to an ammunition depot, failing to function when subjected to explosive demolition action). Consequently, in presenting such factors for risk assessment, it is essential that the full range of activities that potentially (or actually) occurred and the effects (actual and potential) that have resulted be identified by an expert assessor.

3. It is likely that some peculiar topographical and demographic limitations are built into the UK model that would not necessarily apply to Australian scenarios, particularly, for example, where formerly used Defence sites that were still under control of the Commonwealth or where remote sites in which the Commonwealth has no longer any legal interest are concerned. In fact, the model scores the risk of a former small arms firing range at 72 in comparison with the above example at 48. The comparative scores associated with potential for access to both the site and ordnance are questionable. No allowance is made for the comparative degrees of hazard presented by small arms ammunition and (say) high-explosive-filled artillery projectiles.

V3.0 8 Jun 10 5

The Guthrie Model

The model produced by Greg Guthrie in November 1997 initially concentrates on hazard identification and the consequent exposure potential. In hazard identification, the model precepts go further than the Aspinwalls model in that the employment of particular types of ordnance and the manner in which they were used is acknowledged. The exposure potential component assesses the probability of human interaction with hazardous items.

Hazard is identified as explosion, fragmentation, burning or chemical toxicity. Five ammunition-related categories are employed. These are: • UXO(S) - Small arms ammunition and pyrotechnics; • UXO – UXO other than UXO(S); • EO – Explosive ordnance that has not been fired or used or subjected to other than normal handling or storage; • EOW – Explosive ordnance waste that is free from explosive or pyrotechnic compounds; and • EOP – Explosive ordnance packaging.

The model allows for the consideration of the likelihood of these categories being present through historical research of military land-use. Multiple land-use combinations are allowed for, either concurrently or chronologically. At this dimension, nine specific classifications were selected as follows: • no history of military use; • history of military occupancy; • use as a close training area; • use as a field training area; • use as a live firing weapons range; • use as an air or naval weapons range; • use as a demolition range; • use as an EO storage area; and • in close proximity to a range.

By allotting a subjective quality reflecting the degree of probability of encountering each of the ammunition-related categories against each of the forms of military land- use, a two dimensional matrix is constructed as follows:

Table 1: Qualitative Ammunition Contamination Probability

Site Classification Ammunition Contamination Category UXO(S) UXO EO EOW EOP No History of Military Usage Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Low History of Military Occupancy Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Low Use as a Close Training Area Very High Low Medium Very High Very High Use as a Field Training Area High High High Very High Very High Use as a Live Firing Range High Very High High Very High Very High Use as an Air/Naval Weapons Range Low Very High Low Very High Very Low Use as a Demolition Range Very Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Use as an EO Storage Area Very Low Very Low High Very High Very High In Close Proximity to a Range Medium Low Medium High High V3.0 8 Jun 10 6

An innovative quality, dealing with the level of risk potentially generated by the range of UXO items that could normally be encountered, is the consideration of the UN classification system of specific items according to their primary hazard. For explosive ordnance, these generally comprise mass explosion (hazard division 1.1) or projection (hazard division 1.2). The hazard thus presented is then related to each of the five ammunition contamination categories by assessment of the probability of major injury being caused to a human receptor that is in contact with a functioning item from within each category: • UXO(S) Moderate Risk of Injury • UXO Serious23 Risk of Injury • EO Major Risk of Injury • EOW Minor Risk of Injury • EOP Minimal Risk of Injury

The second axis of the process is to assess the probability of human receptors coming into contact with the hazard most likely to be on the site. Guthrie identifies a number of additional factors that could be expected to emerge from a study of the site history: • period of usage of the site • volume of ordnance used within the site • previous UXO incidents on the site • nature of ordnance used within the site • the natural features of the site, including climate, terrain, geology, flora and fauna • current and anticipated land uses

The first four of these are seen as modifiers to the initial probability assessments. The final two modify exposure probability between any UXO remnant on the site and human receptors.

Probable UXO density, nature and location of UXO represent one end of the exposure pathway. The intensity and nature of human interaction completes the pathway. Guthrie uses 14 types of land-use, each of increasing intensity in this regard. Against each he scales three levels of UXO location probability: at the surface, near surface and sub-surface.

The final product is the qualitative result of combined consideration of worst case contamination probability, item risk and exposure potential. He states that this function can be expressed mathematically as:

UXO risk = (contamination probability x item risk) + exposure potential where each end of the exposure pathway is of equal value, for without either, risk does not exist. (See comment 2 below).

23 The inbuilt mechanisms that make unfired EO inherently safe may become disengaged when an item is fired. Consequently, UXO is likely to be more unstable than EO. Thus risk from UXO is assessed as greater than from EO. V3.0 8 Jun 10 7

Comment

1. Guthrie has produced two versions of this risk assessment methodology. In this version, each value is a description, usually between ‘very low’ and ‘very high’. A former version attached a numerical value rather than a description, between zero and, typically, 5. It is suggested that the method employing numerical expression goes some way to reducing the subjectivity of the assessment, but also allows a response, or a number of alternative responses to be triggered when certain end values result from a mathematical expression.

2. The mathematical expression produces a value for probability and risk that is a product of those two factors. However, the final risk value is arrived at by the addition to, rather than a further multiplication by, an exposure potential value. Consequently, it is possible to produce a risk value even if the ‘contamination probability’ and/or ‘item risk’ do not exist. To make the expression valid, it would be necessary to have ‘exposure potential’ as a multiplication factor rather than an added value. Further, it is suggested that the addition method overly decreases the significance of the equally important receptor end of the pathway.

3. The site classification area allows for former use as a live firing range, but makes no further distinction in respect to a dedicated impact area within such a range. Experience (and logic) indicates that the incidence of hazardous items is comparatively much greater under the latter form of use and that it offers similar potential for incidence as does an air or naval weapons range. Similarly, the model does not allow for EO resulting from disposal by burial. Again, experience has shown that this is a necessary factor to be addressed in former ammunition depots and probably on field firing ranges where EOW and EOP could realistically be mixed with UXO or hazardous EO components.

V3.0 8 Jun 10 8

Part 2: The Defence Assessment Application

The construction of a model that is suitable for the development of a risk-based site assessment program by which the comparative levels of human exposure can be determined cannot be over simplistic; concurrently, it should be able to be used by any member of the Defence UXO Panel24 to produce a consistent result i.e. reach the same conclusion at different sites that have similar characteristics. Further, it should ideally be able to assess varying degrees of risk within single sites as a result of different hazard properties and/or varying proposed (or current) land-use patterns within that site. The desired outcome is a tool that can rank risk in such a manner that assessment resources can be allocated according to priorities that are objectively determined. For this reason the allocation of factor values rather than descriptors is considered to be appropriate.

It is also desirable for such a model to fit neatly within wider environmental assessment processes. To this end, it is proposed to follow the source-pathway- receptor linkage used in the two models discussed above. The Aspinwalls model demonstrates where the process fits within such a scenario.

Precepts

Although derelict, unfired ordnance is not UXO within the terms of the popular definition, it is often accepted as such. However, unfired ammunition that poses a blast hazard is often inherently safer than UXO, regardless of age and deterioration in both explosive fill and, where ammunition is fuzed, safety mechanisms. This distinction is drawn as part of the risk assessment process (Table 3, column 6) where explosive ordnance (EO) is represented in an Ammunition Contamination Category that falls between category SAA 2 (Large quantities of concentrated small arms ammunition and pyrotechnics) and category UXO 1 (Blast/fragmentation potential posed by such types as fired practice ammunition).

In Australia, the most significant sites on the national UXO register, both by incidence and area, are former field firing ranges and ammunition depots. Regionally, operational World War II areas are also significant. Whilst the comparative hazard generally posed by all of these is a function of human interaction, the potential incidence of UXO within impact areas and demolition ranges compared with other locations is such that the resultant variation in consequent hazard levels should be acknowledged.

Consequently, the following model, which incorporates a number of factors devised by Guthrie, is suggested. It should be noted that most of the factors considered in the Aspinwalls model are inherent in the suggested application.

UXO / EO Contamination Likelihood

This dimension considers military land use against the likelihood of incidence of various UXO/EO being remnant and allocates a value for each.

24 Ie, a panel of UXO-specialist contractors that retain persons with an expert knowledge of the input factors and the relative hazard potential of each. V3.0 8 Jun 10 9

Table 2: Likelihood of UXO on Site

Site History Description Likelihood of Score UXO from this military land use

No history of military land use Very low 0.5

History of military occupancy as an administrative or non-EO-related logistic facility Low 1

Use as military training area, but no recorded history of live firing Moderate 2

Use as a field training area or in close proximity to a live firing range High 6

Use as a live firing range (not including an impact area) ammunition depot or former operational area Very high 8

Use as a demolition range, land service impact area or an air or naval weapons range Extremely high 10

Ammunition Contamination Category

This factor allows consideration of the level of hazard to people posed by various contamination categories. It is probably appropriate to qualitatively reflect hazard on a continuum of potential to cause minor injury to potential to cause immediately fatal injury. Seven ammunition categories that present increasing levels of hazard are proposed:

V3.0 8 Jun 10 10

Table 3: Ammunition Contamination Category

Ammunition Category Hazard Level Score EOP Extremely low 1 EOW Very low 2 SAA1 Low 3 (Small quantities of dispersed small arms ammunition.) SAA2 (Large quantities of concentrated small arms Moderate 5 ammunition and pyrotechnics). Unfired EO other than SAA that may or may not have High 7 been prepared for action (i.e., fuzed and primed). UXO 1 - Blast/fragmentation potential – (practice Very high 8 ammunition such as bomb dummy units). UXO2 - Blast/fragmentation potential (mortar, artillery, aircraft bomb) chemical and natures and types exhibiting Extremely high 10 high initiation sensitivity, attractiveness or portability potential.

EOP allows consideration of the possible failure to remove any hazardous items when ammunition was unpacked or repacked. The likely incidence of such items being present at a site and the likelihood of such a hazard occurrence is usually minor against most military land uses. However, it may become moderate in locations where large amounts of ammunition were processed or used (ammunition depots, firing ranges and former operational areas).

The likelihood of incidence of explosive ordnance of a particular ammunition contamination category against historical military land use to can now be considered. The result termed ‘Ammunition Contamination Likelihood’ is derived indicatively by the product of the ammunition category probability score and the site history score.

A matrix can be constructed as follows (see Table 4):

V3.0 8 Jun 10 11

Table 4: Preliminary Qualitative Ammunition Contamination Hazard Likely to Result from Former Land Use Categories

Ammunition Contamination Category Site History (score) Description EOP EOW SAA 1 SAA 2 EO UXO 1 UXO 2 (score) (1) (2) (3) (5) (7) (8) (10) No history of military land use 0.5 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 (0.5) History of military occupancy as an administrative or non- 1 2 3 5 7 8 10 EO-related logistic facility (1) Use as military training 2 4 6 10 14 16 20 area, but no recorded history of live firing (2) Use as a field training 42 area or in close 6 12 18 30 48 60 proximity to a live firing range (6) (8)

8 16 24 40 56 64 80 Use as a demolition range, land service impact area or an air or naval weapons range 10 20 30 50 70 80 100 (10)

The indicative contamination hazard as a result of previous site usage falls into one of six usage categories and seven ammunition categories. By multiplying both factors we can see, for example, that the comparative likely hazard of large calibre artillery projectiles being remnant in an impact area is 10 x 10 = 100 (against a highest possible score [HPS] of 100). Similarly, the comparative likely hazard of large calibre UXO being remnant on a live firing range (other than in an impact area), in an ammunition depot or in a former operational area is 8 x 10 = 80 (again against a HPS of 100).

This exercise ties together the likelihood of ordnance being present on a particular site together with a comparative hazard/consequence/impact characteristic of the ordnance.

V3.0 8 Jun 10 12

Magnitude of Usage

Magnitude of usage considers the likely (or possible) incidence of UXO as a result of the level of use to which the site was put. For example, a field firing range that was continually used over a number of years could expect to exhibit a greater incidence of UXO than would, say, a local Volunteer Defence Corps range that was used infrequently. In fact, some ranges have been identified for which there is no evidence of usage at all of a nature that could be expected to result in UXO incidence. Where site research prior to field assessment indicates that some areas were lightly used, if used at all, it would be inappropriate for this factor not to be acknowledged and reflected in the risk assessment process. One mechanism that may assist in identifying lightly used areas is the reflection of UXO incidence indicated by the number of Explosive Ordnance Reports (EORs) originating at a given site and the types and natures of UXO dealt with. However, this mechanism should not be considered solely. A number of areas that were formerly quite heavily used were subsequently subjected to minimal human activity, as a result of which UXO that may have been remnant was not discovered.25 The values for Magnitude of Usage are reflected at Table 5.

Table 5: Magnitude of Usage

Indications of Use (score) Site History Description Indications of Evidence of Light No Evidence of Extensive Use Use Use Acquired for military 0.5 0.25 0.1 occupancy as an administrative or non-EO-related logistic facility Acquired for use as military 1 0.5 0.2 training area, but no recorded history of live firing Acquired for use as a field 3 2 0.6 training area or in close proximity to a live firing range Acquired for use as a live 4 1.5 0.8 firing range (not including an impact area) ammunition depot or former operational area Acquired for use as a 5 2.5 1.0 demolition range, land service impact area or an air or naval weapons range

25 An example is Yarrabandi in Central Western NSW. A small parcel of Crown Land was acquired shortly after WW2 where large-scale demolitions of a range of natures and types of EO (including large calibre artillery ammunition) were undertaken in what can only be described as a questionable manner up until 1963. The area acquired was of insufficient size to contain the effects of the demolitions and EO and fragments were projected up to 2,500 metres into surrounding private land in which the Commonwealth had never had any legal interest. The incidence of EO on the private land did not start to become apparent until a subsequent land owner began a cultivation program in 1980. V3.0 8 Jun 10 13

Exposure Likelihood

This factor deals with UXO Exposure Likelihood related to various proposed or actual site uses. The potential has been scaled from Low to High. Values represent the level of likely human exposure and thus risk of injury if an item of UXO is present. Because proposed land use reflects likely human exposure, which is seen as a critical risk assessment component, values allocated are between 1 and 10 (see below). Proposed land use categories are comprised as follows:

Low level – dry land grazing, isolated areas and non-intrusive activities.

Medium level – agriculture (cropping), improved pasture grazing, shallow (300mm) intrusive activities, camping grounds, parkland, State and National parks, fire / 4WD trails.

High level – medium density housing, rural residential, single dwelling housing, light commercial, light industrial.

Very high level - High density housing, heavy commercial and industrial, roads, railways, bridges, mining, other intrusive activities and extractive industries

Table 6: Exposure Likelihood against Varying Proposed (or Actual) Land Use Intensities

Proposed (or actual) Land Use Exposure Likelihood Category (score) Low level 2 Medium level 5 High level 8 Very high level 10

All factors can now be formulated into a risk function:

R= HA x M x E 100 5 10

Where:

R = UXO–related risk; H = Likelihood that, from the site history, UXO exists on the site (Table 2); A = Ammunition contamination category (Table 3). (The product of H and A results in a qualitative ammunition contamination hazard resulting from former land use Categories (Table 4)); M = Magnitude of Usage (Table 5). E = Exposure resulting from Proposed (or actual) land use (Table 6).

V3.0 8 Jun 10 14

As an example: A former heavily used WWII artillery field firing range (other than a known impact area) proposed for rural residential and light commercial development and open access parkland.

H = 8 (from Table 3, line 5) A = 10 (from Table 4, column 8) M = 4 (from Table 5, column 2) E = 8 (from Table 6, column 2, line 3)

R = 8x10 x 4 x 8 100 5 x 10

= 0.512

However, this progression reflects only the risk factor for rural residential land. That for supporting services, such as roads and buried services due to intrusive activity could have an ‘E’ factor of 10, resulting in a final risk factor of 0.64.

A further example could be a Volunteer Defence Corps temporary mortar range that was used on two occasions only. The proposed land use is rural residential:

H = 10 (within the known impact area) or 8 (elsewhere on the former range) A = 10 M = 2.5 (within the known impact area) or 1.5 (elsewhere on the former range) E = 8

R = (10 x 10) x 2.5 x 8 5,000

= 0.4 and

R = (8 x 10) x 1.5 x 8 5,000

= 0.192

By comparison, consider a heavily used grenade range. The proposed land use is medium density residential.

H = 10 A = 8 M = 5 E = 8

Then:

R= (10 x 8) x 5 x 8 5,000

= 0.64

V3.0 8 Jun 10 15

As a mid-line example, take an area used in 1992 for a combined arms live fire and manoeuvre exercise (such as one of the ‘Kangaroo’ activities) in which the impact area boundaries are known and where the proposed land use is cultivation for improved pasture.

Then, within the impact area:

H = 10 A = 10 M = 2.5 E = 5

R = (10 x 10) x 2.5 x 5 5,000

= 0.25

Elsewhere in the manoeuvre area:

H = 8 A = 10 M = 1.5 E = 5

R = (8 x 10) x 1.5 x 5 5,000

= 0.12

As an extreme example, take the scenario of a heavily used former air to surface bombing range proposed for high density residential use:

H = 10 A = 10 M = 5 E = 10

R = (10 x 10) x 5 x 10 5,000

= 1.0

All of the examples above pre-suppose that each site has been used, to some extent, for purposes that may have resulted in a UXO contamination legacy. Consider, however, the effect on the resultant values when there is no evidence that land acquired for such purposes was, in fact, ever used.

V3.0 8 Jun 10 16

Going back to the first example,

A former WWII artillery field firing range (other than a known impact area) proposed for rural residential and light commercial development and open access parkland.

H = 8 A = 10 M = 0.8 E = 8

R = 8x10 x 0.8 x 8 5000

= 0.1024

It is worthy of note that in such a scenario, there would be no known ‘impact area’ and consequently, the 6th usage category in Table 4 would be inapplicable in many cases. But imagine that land had been acquired for an artillery range, a siting board convened and an intended impact area identified. If there were no evidence of subsequent range use, the following values would then apply against the scenario outlined above:

H = 8 A = 10 M = 1 E = 8

R = 8x10 x 1 x 8 100 5 x 10

= 0.128

The inclusion of this factor, then, has a marked effect on the product. The process weighs sites for which there is no evidence of use in an appropriate manner. This perhaps raises the question ‘if there is no evidence of use, why is the site being assessed at all; in fact, why is it on the UXO register?’ The response must lie in the inability to give a 100% guarantee that no activity occurred on the site at any time that was likely to have resulted in a UXO legacy. It is suggested that where sites have been identified for such use, but no evidence of actual usage has (to date) been identified, such a guarantee would be, at best, imprudent. The process (and the product) adequately reflects the unlikelihood of such a legacy, and that is appropriate within this assessment process.

Site Assessment Prioritisation

In developing a strategic risk-based assessment strategy, priorities will need to be established in consultation with State and Territory authorities. Three priority levels are suggested as appropriate. This model, in addition to providing a rapid screening assessment tool, can be equally as well applied to determining the priority in which Defence site assessment resources are allocated. The following provisional priority values are suggested:

V3.0 8 Jun 10 17

Low priority: < 0.25 Moderate priority: 0.25 to 0.4 High priority: >0.4

The priority threshold should be reconsidered following the assessment of a significant proportion of affected sites using this methodology.

Defence Advice – General Caution

The Commonwealth has a responsibility to advise private and non-Commonwealth public landowners and managers through State and Territory-Government agencies on appropriate action to be taken in the face of UXO hazard. Defence has developed a standard advice in the event that an item suspected of being ordnance-related is found. The advice is as follows:

“Actions on finding a suspicious item:

“If you should find a suspicious item that may be a UXO, do not touch or disturb it. It has been there for many years, it won't hurt you if you don't disturb it. Contact Police -they will arrange for military experts to attend and dispose of it.

“Unless the UXO was deliberately disturbed (picked up, played with, kicked, thrown, etc) there are no known instances, in Australia, where a UXO has injured a member of the public”.

Whilst more definitive advice can often not be given until after a field UXO assessment has been completed, there may be some correlation between ‘priority triggers’ suggested above and the appropriate detailed assessment and remediation action required to be taken. This correlation may relate to a relationship between assessment priority and advice to be provided if (and only if) the input to the risk assessment model is found, from field assessment, to be valid.

There are three levels of advice that have been accepted, by convention rather than by any direction, as appropriate for Defence to provide in accordance with the Commonwealth Policy. These are:

Advice 1 – Substantial Potential for UXO Incidence

This advice applies to those sites that present a known moderate to significant hazard based on incidence and UXO type/nature. Development and/or land usage re-zoning proposals for land parcels considered to be subject to a substantial UXO potential should only proceed following the conduct of UXO investigation and remediation. The advice states “The land within this title has been used for purposes that may have resulted in an unexploded ordnance hazard. Department of Defence advise that prior to any change in land use that is likely to increase human exposure to the hazard, the land should be subjected to a detailed assessment and, where required, remediation. A list of Department of Defence-accredited unexploded ordnance consultants and contractors is at http://www.defence.gov.au/uxo

V3.0 8 Jun 10 18

Advice 2 – Slight Potential for UXO Incidence

This advice reflects potential low incidence and applies in areas with a confirmed history of military activities that may have resulted in residual UXO but Defence considers it inappropriate to assess as substantial and the Defence UXO site assessment recommended against a hazard reduction operation (HRO) being undertaken. The advice states: “All land usage within these areas may continue without specific UXO search or remediation.” However, the general caution remains applicable.

Advice 3 - Other

This advice relates to land in which Defence may or may not, at some time, have had a legal interest, but there is no evidence to suggest that it was used for a purpose that was likely to result in an ordnance-related legacy. The advice states: “Defence records do not confirm that the site was used for live firing. UXO or explosive ordnance fragments/components have not been recovered from that site. These sites have been included for general information purposes only. Defence makes no recommendations in regards to this category.”

Conclusion

The above model is as objective as believed possible. There is no requirement for ‘educated guesses’ to be made; consequently, rankings should be standard regardless of who is applying the assessment. The model can be applied to particular locations where certain types of military activity occurred within a more general land use (such as a demolition range within a field firing range) or where particular types of land use and hence differing human exposure risks are proposed. Consequently, the detailed application of the model would allow for risk contours to be drawn on planning maps, thus assisting the design and scoping of, initially, more detailed assessment and, where required, remediation strategies.

The qualitative screening risk assessment model has been developed for application by Defence to a national program of UXO site assessments. The model may also assist State and Territory land authorities in their management of UXO-affected sites.

V3.0 8 Jun 10 19

References:

Enviros Aspinwalls PLC (2001): The application of a risk assessment to the remediation of explosive ordnance. For UK Ministry of Defence (unpub).

Australian Government (1999): Commonwealth policy on the management of land affected by unexploded ordnance. Department of Defence. May.

Guthrie, G.G. (1997): Screening level risk assessment for UXO contaminated sites in Australia. Parari ’97 Symposium, Canberra. November.

Standards Association of Australia (1999): AS4360-1999 Risk management. Homebush, Sydney.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2001): UN recommendations for transport of dangerous goods. http://www.unec.org/trans/danger/publi/unrec/12_e.html

United States Department of Defense (1993): Mil-Std-882, Systems Safety Program Requirements 19 January 1993. AMSC, F6869.

V3.0 8 Jun 10