Maules Creek Community Council Inc.
[email protected] www.maulescreek.org @upthecreek2382 www.facebook.com/maulescreek Appendix 1 - 6 October 2011 Contents
Appendix 1 - Biodiversity Report by the Envirofactor
Appendix 2 - Groundwater Peer Review by Water Resource Australia Pty Limited
Appendix 3 - Soils and Rehabilitation Report by SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd
Appendix 4 - Maules Creek Coal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report by Dr Ian Lowe
- Boggabri Coal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report by Dr Ian Lowe - Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Country by the CDIAC.
Appendix 5 - Environmental and Social Externalities Report by Dr Ian Curtis
- Assessment of the habitat value of Leard State Forest by Economists at Large
Appendix 6 - Official Documents
o Letter from MCCC to Planning Minister re Underground Mining o Economic Assessment of Boggabri Coal Underground Option by Economists at Large o Letter from MCCC to Resources and Minerals Minister re Departmental Briefing o Letter from MCCC to Planning Minister re No Go Zones
p 267 224 997 m 0408 224 997
To: Phil Laird From : Wendy Hawes, Terrestrial Ecologist
COMMENTS: REGARDING MAULES CREEK COAL PROJECT PROPOSAL IN REGARDS TO FLORA AND FAUNA
Hi Phil I’ve looked at the various reports associated with the Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Maules Creek Coal Project and following are my comments re this document.
General Comments Much of the mitigation of the ecological impacts associated with the proposed Maules Creek Coal Project is contingent upon procedures and methods detailed in various management plans and guidelines identified within the EIA including: Biodiversity Management Plan Rehabilitation Management Plan Biodiversity Offset Management Plan Data Collection for Monitoring Reference Sites.
All of these plans and/or guidelines are yet to be developed consequently, it is impossible to adequately assess the efficacy of mitigation actions in regard to this development.
Avoidance of impacts associated with the development appears haphazard. The location of infrastructure as shown in the EIA is only indicative. The EIA states that the siting of infrastructure may be altered to avoid areas of critically endangered ecological communities but only if it doesn’t impact on “efficiency and engineering practicality”. Unfortunately impact assessment cannot be adequately undertaken on indicative plans.
Vegetation Clearance and Landscape Context As outlined in the document, this project will remove 2,178ha of vegetation the majority of which is native vegetation in moderate to good condition, including 544ha of the Critically Endangered Ecological Community White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland listed under State and Commonwealth legislation (Maules Creek EIA report). Omitted from assessment under the EIA is a further 210ha of identified in the report as ‘low diversity derived native grassland with White Box’ which would constitute the NSW listed Threatened Ecological Community - White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodlands.
Unlike the Commonwealth, NSW listing does not limit this EEC by condition criteria and includes, ‘degraded remnants that have few, if any, native species in the understorey This condition is typical of Box-Gum Woodland where agricultural practices have been more intensive (e.g. pasture improvement over long periods)’ NPWS(undated)1
The majority of native vegetation will be removed from Leard State Forest a large relatively intact remnant (approximately 7,500ha according to the EIA) within the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion, which has since European settlement been extensively cleared for agriculture. Less than 40% of native vegetation remains within this bioregion, the majority of remnants occurring as small patches and linear remnants on private land and along roads within a highly developed agricultural matrix of exotic pastures, cropping and irrigation. As a result of their small size and the surrounding landuse many of these remnants are in poor condition as a consequence of ongoing degradation as a result of weed invasion, inappropriate grazing regimes, fertilizer and herbicide application, firewood collection and regrowth control. Therefore, although Leard State Forest has historically been subject to forestry activities (which ceased some 20 years ago), its size and condition within this landscape make it a block of remnant vegetation of high conservation value and important for the maintenance of ecological function within the locality and region. This fact is not disputed by the EIA report.
Large relatively intact remnants support meta-populations of biota essential for the on- going maintenance of species populations and the genetic diversity in small adjoining and/or remote remnants. Large intact remnants provide a buffer against the risk of local extinction in highly fragmented landscapes such as that within the Brigalow Belt South.
What the EIA fails to acknowledge is the importance of such large remnants in sustaining populations of flora and fauna in a changing climate. The size and diversity of habitat within large blocks are important as they provide refugia and have the built-in resilience to ensure the on-going survival of our native biodiversity. This is because small populations within highly fragmented remnants, such as that outside Leard State Forest, will be at escalating risk of extinction with changing climate, due to increasing frequency of extreme stochastic events (floods, bushfires, disease and increasing temperatures).
1 NSW National Parks and Wildlife (undated) Identification Guidelines for Endangered Ecological Communities – White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage www.environment.nsw.gov.au Remnant Vegetation Cover The EIA depends heavily on an assessment of remnant vegetation cover locally (within 20km radius of the project area [ie 125,664ha]) as evidence that viable local populations of native flora and fauna not be significantly impacted by the project. The use of this device is misleading. While this methodology for conceptualizing habitat availability has its uses, it also has some severe limitations which have not been clearly outlined in the EIA. Table 4.3 presents estimated habitat figures both locally and for the sub-region, based on broad estimates of potential habitat in the following proportions: 30% forest and woodland, 43% grassland (includes both improved and native pasture) and 1% wetland. These proportions have been determined from landuse information provided in URS Australia (2001) Liverpool Plains Catchment Investment Report, which indicates 36% of land is under dryland cropping, 4.5% under irrigation cropping, 7.5% under improved pasture, 35% under native pasture and 17% under timbered native vegetation. It also assumes that, of the remaining areas not under agricultural use, another 10% is forested and/or woodland in State Forests, TSRs and National Parks. Please note, I have not read the URS report, so will have to take as read that these figures are those presented in the URS report and refer specifically to the Liverpool Plains sub-region Figures given in Table 4.3 appear to have been rounded down and up in a very ad hoc fashion. The area within a 20km radius is in fact 125,664ha not 125,600ha, the proportion of forest and woodland should be 27% not 30%, and the habitat available for the forest and woodland species is 33,929ha (32% less area than indicated by the 50,000ha threshold value used in the table). It is also debatable as whether improved pastures which may be also part of a cropping cycle should be included as grassland habitat in the calculations. This notwithstanding, what is also misleading about Table 4.3 is that there is no consideration of: habitat condition. Not all areas of these broad habitat categories will be suitable for occupation by the species under consideration. The suitability of any given area of habitat will depend upon individual species’ requirements which may be very general or extremely specific. Presence or absence of specific species’ requirements is often highly dependent upon the degree of degradation resulting from human activity. landscape connectivity. Not all species will be able to access all available habitat within the 20km radius, even if suitable, due to the highly fragmented nature of the landscape. The 20km radius includes extensive areas of remnant wooded vegetation along the Nandewar Range to the north and east, yet it is unlikely many sedentary species, such as woodland birds, reptiles and small mammals, within Leard State Forest could access this habitat. patch size – native vegetation remnants surrounding Leard State Forest and within the agricultural matrix exist predominantly as isolated patches, too small to support viable breeding populations of many species which often require habitat remnants greater than 100ha for their long-term viability.
the cumulative impact on the habitat within and adjoining Leard State Forest of clearing 3,259ha (60% of forest and woodland and 38% of grassland) for all the various proposed mining projects (Table 4.4 - Maules Creek EIA).
The impact incremental loss of habitat and therefore connectivity in the landscape is complex. The simplistic landscape assessment provided in the EIA as demonstrated in Table 4.3 is deceptive as it overlooks this complexity. It has been demonstrated (Pearson et al 19962) that for species with poor movement ability (ie those that require contiguous habitat for movement) the loss of as little as than 30% of habitat will lead to a loss in connectivity and declines in populations. For those species with intermediate movement ability this threshold is 40% and for highly mobile species 70%. What this modeling indicates is that 70% of habitat must be retained within a landscape to ensure no loss of connectivity and maintain populations of flora and fauna (McIntyre et al 20023). Given that Maules Creek Coal Project will in the short to medium term lead to a loss of 2,178ha of habitat, of which 1664.8ha will comprise forest and woodland within Leard State Forest (approximately 32%) it is highly likely the Maules Creek Coal Project will lead to a significant loss of biodiversity both in the locality and in the region.
Rehabilitation of Mined Area Currently there is no Rehabilitation Management Plan for the mining area making it difficult to comment the likely success or otherwise of the proposed rehabilitation as a mitigation to the adverse impacts of the proposal. The following comments are based on what little information is provided in the EIA. While there is some truth in the statement in the EIA that ‘the net loss of vegetation at a given stage of the Project time will be minimized through the progressive clearance and concurrent rehabilitation of land within the Project Boundary’, it is also true that progressive rehabilitation will not prevent significant and irreversible changes in flora and fauna assemblages both within the project boundary and in adjoining remnant vegetation as a result of clearing. The proposed reshaping and re-spreading of topsoil to a depth of 100mm is likely to be less than ideal for many native flora species and in particular the species comprising the CEEC. The rehabilitation process, as presented, fails to adequately address the complex
2 Pearson SM, Turner MG, Gardner RH & O’Neill (1996) An organism-based perspective of habitat fragmentation. In Biodiversity in managed landscapes theory and practice. Eds Szaro RC & Johnston DW pp 77-95 Oxford University Press. New York
3 McIntyre S, McIvor JG and Heard KM (eds) (2002) Managing and Conserving Grassy Woodlands. CSIRO Publishing nature of natural ecosystems and the highly variable requirements of flora species including but not limited to: aspect, soil type, depth, pH, hydrology and nutrient status, light requirements, humidity and relationships with soil biota. The use of fertiliser on rehabilitation sites is likely to favour weed invasion and inhibit native species regeneration. Stockpiling of topsoil depending upon the storage method and time is likely to make the existing native seedbank unviable. The EIA acknowledges that young rehabilitated vegetation will provide only limited habitat for some fauna species. The vegetation communities and habitat provided by the Project Area will not be restored for many years, if ever and certainly not in the life of the mine (21 years). Features which will be lacking include: mature (more than 30 years) and old growth trees (more than 100 years), hollow-bearing trees (more than 140 years), soil biota (time frame unknown) and surface rock and areas of outcropping (geological timeframe). Rehabilitation of native vegetation is a risky undertaking, highly subject to the adverse effects of temperature, rainfall, weed invasion, insect attack, grazing by native and non- native herbivores and individual plant vigour. As acknowledged in the EIA the time- frame to recreate a fully functioning ecosystem is unknown. To be successful it will require far more consideration and planning than is evident in the EIA and on-going intensive management long-after the mine closes. The rehabilitation excludes the final void which will be left open either to fill with water or be used as a refuse dump. Neither alternative is considered environmentally responsible. Potential issues with this proposal include of leakage of toxic substances into groundwater from dumped rubbish and/or chemical substances remaining in the void post-mining (oil, petrol, diesel etc). Toxic substances will also potentially impact on fauna using this water resource for breeding, drinking and/or feeding. This notwithstanding, the creation of a large permanent body of water in an area naturally watered only intermittently by ephemeral streams will significantly change the flora and fauna assemblages of the area from what existed pre-mining. This is an outcome inconsistent with the stated aims of the rehabilitation in the EIA.
Proposed Biodiversity Offset Strategy In summary the offset proposes to establish a number of ‘stepping-stone’ corridors from what remains of Leard State Forest West to the vicinity of Leard State Conservation Area and the Namoi River riparian corridor (Western Offset Area) North and east to connect up with the proposed Boggarbri Coal Offsets which potentially will connect to the Nandewar Range (Eastern Offset Area)
Two other areas; To the south-west is a jointly owned property with Boggabri Coal which will potentially form part of a regional east west corridor (Shared Properties) depending upon the success of the rehabilitation of adjoining properties by Boggabri Coal Approximately 15km NE of the Project Area Aston Coal has acquired two properties that adjoin the eastern boundary of Mt Kaputar National Park (Northern Offset Area).
This proposal, in the absence of the extensive clearing required for the Maules Creek Coal Project, would have significant biodiversity benefits to the locality and region. However, in the context of an offset for the loss of 2,178ha of habitat comprising 32% of a large contiguous remnant block, it has significant shortfalls. These include: In the short to medium term there will be a significant net loss of native vegetation and habitat in the locality and region, as in this time-frame no new and/or replacement habitat will be established, but clearing for the current project will occur (ie large areas of habitat will be lost). Any improvement in landscape connectivity in the long-term from this strategy is highly dependent upon the success of the Boggabri Coal Biodiversity Offsets outside the control of Aston Coal. With the exception of the properties adjacent to Mt Kaputar, the proposed offset vegetation is highly fragmented and generally comprises small patches in an extensively developed agricultural landscape, and at best will be marginal habitat for many of the species impacted by the proposal. While there may be some similarities in the overstorey species, the difference in altitude between Leard State Forest [300-500m above sea level (asl)] and the Northern Offset Area (700-1000 asl) make it highly unlikely the vegetation communities and the habitats they form are representative of those to be cleared in Leard State Forest. This is not consistent with the ‘like for like’ criterion. It is difficult to see how increasing the viability of the species assemblage in Mt Kaputar and Horton Falls National Parks, by buffering these areas from agricultural and mining landuse, will offset the adverse impacts of the proposed mining development on the largely different species assemblage in Leard State Forest. There will be a suite of species which currently exist within Leard State Forest, ie those that require large intact areas of habitat for survival for which the offset areas are unlikely to provide habitat except in the very long-term. Even if rehabilitation and replanting within the offset properties is successful important habitat features will be absent for long periods of time eg tree hollows. Based on figures in the EIA the project will remove over 191,000 tree hollows. It can take up to 140 years for a tree hollow to form and remaining tree hollows in adjoining habitat are likely to already be occupied. The installation of nest boxes to replace this lost habitat is impractical. While it may take many years to replace lost tree hollows some habitat features or aspects of biodiversity may never be retrieved eg soil biota, groundcover diversity, stygofauna. Consequently there will be long-term biodiversity losses. In the life of the proposal (21 years) it is unlikely there will be any significant gains in habitat, but there is a high likelihood of local species extinctions as a consequence of the time-lag between the clearing event and the establishment of suitable habitat to support displaced flora and fauna.
Threatened Species and Endangered Ecological Communities Although not required under Part 3A the EIA has undertaken a Section 5a Assessment of Significance (7 part test) under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979). While this author agrees with a number of the outcomes of the test, generally speaking this test has been poorly executed. Examples include: confusion regarding the area of CEEC that will be cleared - variously 944ha and 544ha exclusion of a further 210ha of Box Gum Woodland that would constitute the NSW listed EEC key threatening process are simply listed - there is no assessment of whether the action constitutes, or will result in the operation of, any of these processes a number of species are erroneously identified as hollow-dependent including Diamond Fire-tail, Grey-crowned Babbler and Regent Honeyeater. At least one species identified as occurring or having habitat in the Project area ie the White-browed Woodswallow has not been assessed.
Incorrectly states that Lepidium aschersonii has been found in Leard State Forest rather that Leard State Conservation Area.
Unclear why clearing large areas of vegetation will not fragment habitat for many sedentary species under consideration.
The EIA indicates there will be significant impacts for a number of threatened species and ecological communities and including: Box–Gum Woodland – TSC and EPBC Act Nine species of woodland bird – TSC Act Four species of raptor/owls – TSC Act Regent Honeyeater – TSC and EPBC Act Four species of hollow-dependent microchiropteran bat – 4xTSC Act and 1x EPBC Act. In the case of fauna it is the conclusion of the EIA that because a large area of Leard State Forest will remain, individual animals not killed by the immediate clearing operation will be able to move into this remaining habitat and utilize its resources eg tree hollows, foraging habitat etc. This very simplistic approach belies the fact that in nature ecological niches are rarely vacant. Any existing habitat will already be occupied. Displaced fauna cannot simply move. Displaced fauna will increase both intra and inter specific competition for the reduced food resources, mates and roosting/breeding sites. Increased competition will lead to increased stress within populations, potentially increasing disease factors and disrupting breeding cycles. In human terms consider the impact of leveling 32% of any town or city suburb including all houses, schools, supermarkets and food outlets. Then expecting the displaced families to move in with the neighbours and share their houses, schools and food resources. In the case of Box-Gum Woodland the project will remove 544ha or 58% of this community which constitutes the CEEC within the Project Area. Given nationally the majority of remnants of this community are small and highly degraded the large size and good condition of remnant areas within Leard State Forest make it extremely important for the maintenance of genetic diversity both locally and regionally. For both flora and fauna the large remnant that is Leard State Forest supports meta- populations which provide for the restocking of the small remote remnants within the more highly developed agricultural matrix.
While I agree with the assessment of significant impact for the species outlined above I believe there are substantial flaws in the impact assessment as regards a number of other threatened species.
A number of threatened species whose distribution matches the Project Area have been excluded from assessment based on a lack of suitable habitat present within the study area. However, given the vegetation communities and habitats described in the EIA it does appear habitat for these species exists within the project area and/or adjoining habitat. Therefore an assessment of the impact of the Maules Creek Coal Project on these species should be undertaken. These species include:
Terrestrial Species
Bush Stone-curlew - TSC Act – this species inhabits grasslands, grassy woodlands and grassy open forests including those with sparse grassy groundcover. According to the report these habitats are present within the project area and in the adjoining Leard State Forest.
Black-breasted Buzzard – TSC Act – this species is associated with a range of inland habitats including riparian woodland and grasslands. Habitat for this species is present within the study area. Glossy Black Cockatoo – TSC Act – this species is associated with woodland and open forest containing Casuarina/Allocasuarina. At least one vegetation community containing these species is present within the study area.
Squirrel Glider – TSC Act – suitable habitat for this species is considered to be present in the study area.
Large-eared Pied Bat – TSC Act / EPBC Act – inhabits moderately wooded habitats, roosting in caves, mine tunnels and abandoned nests of Fairy Martins. Foraging habitat for this species is present within the study area.
Black-striped Wallaby – TSC Act – inhabits vegetation types with dense understorey adjoining more open grassy systems. Habitat for this species appears to be present within the study area.
Eastern Freetail Bat – TSC Act – inhabits open forest and woodland living under bark and in tree hollows. It was recorded in the locality and other records exist near Gunnedah and habitat for this species is present within the study area.
Stripe-faced Dunnart – TSC Act – inhabits tussock grasslands on a range of soil types (including clay) often along drainage lines. Sheltering in soil cracks, under fallen logs and rocks. Habitat for this species exists within the study area.
Pale-headed Snake – TSC Act – inhabits eucalypt and cypress open forests and woodlands. Habitat for this species exists within the study area.
Anomalopus mackayi – TSC Act and EBPC Act – inhabits open grassy woodland and grasslands on lower slopes and floodplains. Sheltering in soil tunnels, under fallen logs and timber. Habitat for this species exists within the study area.
Other issues with the threatened species assessment within the EIA:
An assessment of the Aquatic Ecological Community of the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Darling
As described in the determination this community includes “all native fish and aquatic invertebrates within all natural creeks, rivers, streams, and associated lagoons, billabongs, lakes, flow diversions to anabranches, and the floodplains of the Darling River”. Areas of floodplain of the Namoi River and its tributaries within the project area have been erroneously excluded from this community. One of the threats to this community is the alienation of floodplain areas which are important source of nutrients essential for ecosystem function within the aquatic environment. These nutrients becoming available to the riverine system as a result of overland flows during various flood events. Potentially the proposed pipeline and the rail link, to be constructed above the 1 in 100 flood level, will act as levee banks alienating areas of floodplain from the river channel. The impact of this construction must therefore be assessed in regards to its impact on this TEC.
Loss of a significant area of foraging habitat for cave dependent bats Although no known breeding habitat for these bats will be impacted by the Maules Creek Coal Project it will significantly reduce (32%) the available foraging habitat. All these bat species are known to travel large distances for food and water. Whether the remaining habitat will be sufficient to maintain the existing breeding colonies of these bats is unknown. Therefore contrary to the EIA assessment it is likely the Project will disrupt the breeding cycle of these species.
Loss of important habitat for the migratory and nomadic Swift Parrot The EIA finds the habitat removal for the project not significant for this species due to its high mobility and the large area of Leard State Forest that will remain. However, migratory and nomadic species (including the Swift Parrot) have high energy needs and often require large areas of concentrated resources to sustain them in their extended movements across the landscape. It has been the incremental loss of habitat areas in particular foraging habitat which has significantly impacted on these species and lead to their decline. Consequently, it is likely that a 32% reduction in a large landscape remnant in good condition, such as that proposed by Maules Creek Coal Project, will significantly impact on these species by reducing the available resources and therefore numbers of individuals the area can support at any given time.
Groundwater Dependent Fauna A desktop assessment has been undertaken of the potential impact of the proposal on a unique suite of stygofauna known to be associated with the groundwater in the Maules Creek catchment and potentially Leard State Forest. Currently the assessment within EIA identifies that apart from the low hydraulic transmissivity, conditions within the aquifers beneath the Maules Creek Coal Project could support stygofauna populations. Consequently, if there are areas of high fracturing and connectivity with the Maules Creek alluvial aquifer it is likely stygofauna will be present within the Project Area.
The EIA assessment of no impact relies on groundwater modelling which indicates the proposal will have little impact on groundwater aquifers of the Maules Creek alluvium. However, drawdown up to 2m is expected in adjacent catchments of Goonbri and Bollol Creeks by year 21 of the mine’s life. None of these areas have been sampled for stygofauna. It would seem logical to undertake sampling to determine the presence or absence of stygofauna within the aquifers of the Permian Maules Creek Formation and Boggabri Volcanics, as well as the identified impacted alluvium areas, so that any potential impact of the Maules Creek Coal Project can be properly assessed. It is considered inadequate and contrary to the precautionary principle to proceed with the development and only consider sampling when significant changes in water quality and/or levels occur that can be attributed to mining. The pre-cautionary principle on which economically sustainable development (ESD) is based, states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio, 1992).
If stygofauna are present within the Project Area or adjoining alluvium areas impacted by drawdown then there is a high likelihood the proposal may place this unique suite of stygofauna at risk of extinction.
WENDY HAWES
21 Gordon Street PO Box 626 INVERELL NSW 2360
Tel: 0267 224 997 Mob: 0408 224 997 Email: [email protected] [email protected]
PERSONAL DETAILS
BORN: 24 February 1957 DRIVERS LICENCE: Current Class C Gold
EDUCATIONAL RECORD
1969-1974: WARILLA HIGH SCHOOL - Higher School Certificate
1975-1977: UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND - Bachelor of Science (In zoology and ecology)
1978-1979: UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND - Master of Science (Prelim)
1988: INVERELL COLLEGE OF TAFE - Computer Studies 1
1989: INVERELL COLLEGE OF TAFE - Text Editing
2008: UNE PARTNERSHIPS – Certificate IV in Training and Assessment
CURRENT MEMBERSHIPS
The Envirofactor Pty Ltd - Director Accredited Expert: Biodiversity and Threatened Species - NSW Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 Goonoowigall Conservation Area Consultative Group - DECCW Border Rivers Community Consultative Advisory Committee (Scientific Rep) – DECCW National Parks and Wildlife Northern Tablelands Region Advisory Committee (NCC/NPA Rep) - DECCW Nature Conservation Council Rep – Inverell Bushfire Management Committee Ecological Society of Australia Australian Conservation Foundation Birds Australia Gould League Australian Network for Plant Conservation Australian Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Association
RESUME WENDY HAWES
TECHNICAL REPORTS
Hawes W (1979) Preliminary Study of the Ecology and Behaviour of the Blue Bonnet Parrot (Psephotus haematogaster haematorrhous) Master of Science (Preliminary) Thesis. University of New England.
Hawes W (1992) Rehabilitation of Degraded North West Croplands with Perennial Grasses. Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Hawes W (1992) Flora and Fauna Survey In Boobera Lagoon - Environmental Audit. Department of Land and Water Conservation.
Hawes W (1994) Wildlife as a Natural Resource In 2000 and beyond.....Keeping the Land in Trust. Macintyre Development Unit 2000. Nornews Ltd, NSW.
Hawes W, Boschma D and Rose A (1995) Report on the Current Land Condition of the former "Moree Common". Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Hawes W, O’Keefe P and J Kewley (2000) Acacia sp. “Myall Creek” (Miller s.n. 25 May 2000). Site Inspection and Sample Collection. Department of Land and Water Conservation.
SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS
Blakers M, Davies S J J F and Reilly P N (1984) The Atlas of Australian Birds. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. Melbourne University Press.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (1999) Interim Guidelines - for targeted and general flora and fauna surveys under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997. Centre for Natural Resources NSW Dept of Land and Water Conservation, Parramatta.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (2000) Guidelines for Mapping Native Vegetation. Centre for Natural Resources, Parramatta.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (undated) Collecting field information for assessment of clearing applications under the NVC Act 1997. Departmental document.
Ede AJ and W Hawes (1998) Guidelines for Native Vegetation Assessment and Reporting – Barwon Region. Dept of Land and Water Conservation. Departmental document.
Ede AJ and W Hawes (2004) Draft Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Existing and New Structures/Developments under Part 8 of Water Act 1912 – Barwon Region. Dept Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources. Departmental document.
Gray E, Ede AJ and W Hawes (2000) Assessment Notes and Short Reporting Guidelines – Barwon Region. Department of Land and Water Conservation. Departmental document (Update of 1998 document).
Hawes W (2008) Draft National Recovery Plan - White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland. Department of Environment and Climate Change in press.
Nadolny C et al (2003) Grassy Vegetation in North-western NSW and Guidelines for its Management for Conservation. Armidale Tree Group, Armidale, NSW.
Nadolny C, Hunter JT and W Hawes (2010) Native Grassy Vegetation in the Border-Rivers-Gwydir Catchment: diversity, distribution, use and management. A report to the Border Rivers-Gwydir Catchment Management Authority.
Oliver I and D Parkes (2003) A Prototype Toolkit for Scoring the Biodiversity Benefits (and Disbenefits) of Land use change. Vers 5.1. Centre for Natural Resources. Department of Sustainable Natural Resources, Parramatta.
Oliver I, Ede A, Hawes W and A Grieve (2005) The NSW Environmental Services Scheme: Results for the biodiversity benefits index, lessons learned, and the way forward. Ecological Management. & Restoration. 6 197-205.
Turner K and PL Smith (1996) Guidelines for assessing the significance of native vegetation removal on threatened species, populations, or ecological communities, or their habitats. Dept of Land and Water Conservation publication.
2 RESUME WENDY HAWES
FLORA AND FAUNA SURVEY EXPERIENCE
2010 Targetted Survey for Threatened Flora Species – Tuttle’s Lane, Glen Innes – PowerServe Pty Ltd - TE
2009 Split Rock Dam Stage 1 Upgrade Flora and Fauna Survey – State Water - TE
2008 TSR Flora Survey for Identification of HCV sites – Lachlan CMA and Forbes/Young RLPBs – NWES & TE Copeton Dam Upgrade Flora and Fauna Survey – State Water -TE
2007 Border Rivers-Gwydir High Conservation Vegetation Mapping – Vegetation typing – DECC - TE
2006 Dept Environment and Climate Change - “5 Corners” Fauna Survey – NWES & TE
2005 Dept Environment and Conservation - Biodiversity Conservation in the NSW Sheep-Wheat Belt Project (Plant and Bird Surveys) – TE Bat Survey – Dept of Lands Hillgrove Derelict Mine Project – The Envirofactor (TE)
2004-2003 Habitat Manipulation in Grassy Woodlands Project (Reptile Survey) – CNR
2003-2002 Nandewar Regional Biodiversity Assessment Survey – NSW NPWS
2002 Threatened Flora Survey “Balaclava” Glen Innes - DLWC “Minbalup” Community Biodiversity Survey – NWES and Greening Australia
2001 Vegetation Condition Rating Project and Reptile Survey – Centre for Natural Resources (CNR) Flora and Fauna Survey, Peery National Park – Australian Museum, Australian Herpetological Society, Birds Australia
2001 Bat Survey – Ironbark Nature Reserve – NWES
2000 King Conrad Mine Fauna Survey – NWES and DLWC Fauna Survey, Sturt National Park – Australian Museum, Australian Herpetological Society, NWES
1998 Threatened Flora Survey “Fairview” Walgett– DLWC Threatened Flora Survey “Fairlands” Boggabilla - DLWC
1996 Pilliga Fauna Survey – DLWC Ecologists in conjunction with Harry Parnaby (Australian Museum) Gwydir Wetlands Fauna Survey – Northwest Ecological Services (NWES) and Dept Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) 1992 Environmental Audit Boobera Lagoon (Flora and Fauna Survey) – Dept Conservation and Land Management
RELEVANT TRAINING Department of Natural Resources Aboriginal Sites Identification Aerial Photo Interpretation Four Wheel Drive Training Introduction to Arcview Laboratory Techniques and Safety Risk Management Assessment Soil Data System Sponsorship Workshop Train the Trainer Vegetation Management Legal Enforcement Workshop Wetland Plant Identification WorkCover OHS General Induction for Construction Work in NSW Farming For The Future Facilitation Training State Forests Frog and Bat Identification and Survey Skills University of New England Identification of Western Grasses Tree and Shrub Identification
3 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
THE ENVIROFACTOR PTY LTD
APR 2004 - PRESENT DIRECTOR/TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGIST
Design & undertake flora/ fauna surveys and threatened species assessments for research, urban and rural infrastructure development to meet legislative requirements under planning state and federal planning legislation. Examples include: - Identification of HCV vegetation within the Lachlan CMA area – GBW CMN - Ecologist’s Inspection of the Gwydir Highway Upgrade (Inverell) – Cut & Fill - Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment – Proposed Boral Concrete Batching Plant (Tamworth) - Flora and Fauna Impact assessment - Gwydir Highway Rehabilitation (Inverness), Spencer’s Gully Bridge and Sawpit Gully Bridge Construction and Road Realignment, Guyra Road Realignment, Mackie Lane Widening (Inverell Shire Council) - Flora and Fauna Reports for Rural Subdivisions at Sandy Hollow, Scone, Merriwa, Muswellbrook- - Review of Environmental Factors for Copeton Dam and Split Rock Dam Security Upgrades – State Water - Review of Environmental Factors – Boomi, Boronga, Welbondonga, Euraba & Dolgelly Artesian Water Supply Projects, Kensington Artesian Water Supply Project, Cryon Water Management Project, Tholloo Joint Water Supply Scheme, Wingadee Joint Water Supply Scheme (Office of Water) - Statement of Environmental Effects for Rural Subdivisions at Inverell and Armidale - Flora and Fauna Assessment for Telstra Cable Installation (Croppa Creek, Lowana and Copeton) Critical expert review - Flora Survey and Analysis Report of Box Gum Woodland at Muswellbrook (DEWHA) Expert advice for legislative compliance – Assessment of the presence of the endangered ecological community, Myall Woodlands at Warren NSW (DEWHA) Develop National Recovery Plan for the Critically Endangered Ecological Community – White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (DECCW) Develop and deliver environmental education packages: -Staff field training for Multiple Ecological Communities Stewardship Program – Central West CMA - Biodiversity and Threatened Species Training Workshop – Border Rivers-Gwydir CMA - High Conservation Roadside Vegetation – Border Rivers-Gwydir CMA Provide specialist ecological advice for the preparation and development of: - Commonwealth and State Scientific Committees’ – Threatened Ecological Community listings including: Box Gum Woodland, Myall Woodland Coolibah/Black Box Woodland, Inland Grey Box Woodland and Native Grasslands - Commonwealth Environmental Stewardship Program
Project management, costing, OH&S risk assessments/safe work practices, equipment maintenance, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting. Client and government agency liaison.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Inverell Resource Centre (IRC)
OCT 1992 – JUNE 2006 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGIST Provide specialist ecological advice on vegetation management, biodiversity, habitat assessment and threatened species to: - Departmental staff including Vegetation Management, Compliance and Water Licensing Officers administering State Environmental Planning Policy No 46 (SEPP 46), Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NVC Act), Water Act 1912 and Water Management Act 2000 - Local Government, Private Consultants, Community Groups and Landholders.
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY (continued)
Act as an expert witness in departmental compliance actions in respect to environmental harm and biodiversity issues, as well as, prepare remediation plans for areas illegally cleared. Provide specialist ecological advice for the preparation and development of: - Commonwealth and State Scientific Committees’ - Endangered Ecological Community listings - Natural Resources Commission statewide biodiversity & vegetation targets - DNR Director General’s requirements for EIS, SEEs and REFs - Catchment Management Authority (CMA) targets/plans- Vegetation Benchmarks for Property Vegetation Plan Developer (PVP Developer) - Consultant Briefs for Flora and Fauna surveys - Plans of Management for public and private land eg Boobera Lagoon Management Plan, Moree Common, Goonoowigall Bushland, Inverell Bushfire Management Plan - Property Agreements.
Critical review of flora, fauna and threatened species components of EIS’, SEEs and REFs for departmental comment.
Assist in the development of: - Decision support systems - Biodiversity Benefits Index, Terrestrial & Aquatic Threatened Species database, PVP Developer - Staff assessment guidelines – see Scientific Contributions - Flora and fauna survey guidelines. Develop & deliver workshops, education material & presentations on native vegetation management and biodiversity for: - Departmental staff – Vegetation Management Officers, Water Licensing Staff, Compliance Staff - NGOs – Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Network, Australian Network for Plant Conservation, UNE, “5 Corners” Voluntary Conservation Area - Landholders - Other agency staff – CMA Community Support Officers, Rural Fire Control Officers, Rural Lands Protection Board Rangers
Design and conduct flora and fauna surveys, OH&S risk assessments, implementation of safe working practices, staff recruitment & management. Data collection, analysis and reporting.
MAR 1995 (6 Months) ACTING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLANNER - MOREE Responsible for the maintenance of the Farming for the Future program. Liaison with landcare groups. Organising & delivery of property planning workshops.
AUG 1990 - AUG 1995 EDUCATION OFFICER – BARWON Liaison with educators and community groups regarding their environmental education needs. Develop and deliver specific education programs for schools, tertiary institutions and community groups. Organise functions focusing on the environment & education for specific events (eg Landcare Month, World Environment Day, Water Week). Responsible for the resources, operation & financial allocations associated with the IRC Environmental Education Centre. Team leader of the Northwest Schools Landcare Competition coordination committee. Organise outside sponsorship to fund specific events.
AUG 1989 - SEPT 1992 TECHNICAL ASSISTANT - BARWON Assist with the implementation, maintenance, sampling and recording data of field trails. Collection and preparation of samples and undertaking laboratory (physical and chemical) soil tests for conservation earthworks and research programs. Assist in the operation and maintenance of equipment and stores for use in the laboratory and field. Assist in soil survey. Undertake data entry, analysis and interpretation. Report and submission writing.
RESUME WENDY HAWES
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY (continued)
1988 - 1989 INVERELL COLLEGE OF TAFE
TEACHER: (Casual) Design and deliver an outreach course, "Meeting Procedures", for community groups
1984-1987 J.C. HAWKINS (BVSc) Inverell VETERINARY ASSISTANT: Office administration, accounts, client liaison, surgical assistant, records maintenance and hospital/office cleaning.
1978-1983 COMMUNITY YOUTH SUPPORT SCHEME Coonamble and Inverell
PROJECT OFFICER: Co-ordinating activities for young unemployed people (16-25 years). Liaison with employers and community organisations. Counselling and conflict resolution. Submission writing for government funding.
REFEREES Dr Peter Smith Julian Prior Manager – Climate Change Science Senior Lecturer Department of Environment, Climate Change and Ecosystem Management Water University of New England Phone: (02) 9895 6177 Phone: (02) 6773 3610 Fax: (02) 9895 7867 Fax: (02) 6773 2769 email: [email protected] email: [email protected]
6
Review of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
Prepared for: Maules Creek Community Council and Namoi Water
October 2011
Water Resource Australia Pty Limited ABN 89 134 938 060
P.O Box 7275 Tathra NSW 2550
Phone: 02 6494 5030 Mobile: 04 0045 6452 Email: [email protected]
Page i
Revision Details Date Amended By 00 Original 02/10/2011 Brian Rask 01 Final 06/10/2011 Brian Rask
©Water Resource Australia Pty Limited (WRA) [2011]. Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of WRA. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by WRA. WRA makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.
Author: Brian Rask ......
Signed: ......
Date: 06/10/2011 ......
Distribution: MCCC (electronic transfer); Namoi Water (electronic)
Page ii
Contents Page number Executive summary ii
1. Introduction 1
2. Background Information 2
2.1 Scope of Work 2 2.2 Supplied Information 2 2.3 Review Criteria/Guidelines 2 2.3.1 MDBC Guidelines 2 2.3.2 Director General Requirements 3 2.4 Review Limitations 4
3. Peer Review 5
3.1 MDBC Guidelines 5 3.1.1 The Report 5 3.1.2 Data Analysis 5 3.1.3 Conceptualisation 5 3.1.4 Model Design 5 3.1.5 Calibration 8 3.1.6 Verification 10 3.1.7 Prediction 11 3.1.8 Sensitivity Analyses 11 3.1.9 Uncertainty Analyses 11 3.2 Director General Requirements 12
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 14
5. References 15
List of tables Page number Table 3-1 Calibration Performance Measures 9
Appendices
Appendix A Glossary Appendix B MDBC Review Checklist
Page i
A groundwater model in the Maules Creek area of the Namoi Catchment in New South Wales has been developed by Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd. (AGE) in support of the Environmental Assessment for the Maules Creek Coal Mine (Project). The objective of the groundwater study was to assess the impact of the Project on the hydrogeological regime and to meet the applicable Director-General’s Requirements. This report provides a review of the model development and reporting according to Australian modelling guidelines (MDBC, 2000) and the Project Director-General’s Requirements. Setup and development of the steady state model is in line with current industry practices – as indicated by the MDBC checklist (Table E-1, MDBC, 2000). A thorough background literature research has been conducted and used as the foundation for the conceptual and numeric models. The modelling report is overall of a high quality and provides sufficient figures and diagrams to provide illustrations of key features and results. Using the MDBC guidelines checklist, the modelling is found to be deficient and/or lacking in the areas of calibration, verification, sensitivity analyses and uncertainty analyses – each to varying degrees. The deficiency that stands out the most is the incomplete calibration. The steady state calibration is reported to have a good statistical calibration (SRMS); however the report does not provide any other measures by which to judge the validity of the model, chiefly the qualitative assessments required by the MDBC guidelines, if available. These qualitative assessments are often more telling of the reasonableness of a model’s ability to replicate the groundwater and surface water systems than the statistics. This project is rich in comparison to most projects for studies and data as indicated by the fact the report dedicates nearly 37 pages to describing it all but only two dedicated to describing how the model matches heads. The calibration procedure is also found deficient in the respect a transient calibration was not conducted despite the fact this project has a relatively large amount of recent and historic data/studies available to it. The reasoning provided by AGE, that they could not perform a transient calibration because pumping records are not publically available, does not seem to stand up when looked at closely or at least is in need of more explanation. Firstly, Aston Resources is a member of the Namoi Water Study and as such has or could have access to the usage data provided by NOW for that study. Secondly, calibration could have been done based upon assumed usage and qualitative assessment of fit made and thirdly, calibration could have been considered for just the bedrock only. The latter is arguably the most important. The primary risks of impact being assessed are associated with the alluvial systems yet the connection between the alluvial and bedrock systems in the calibrated model are not assessed to the previous studies and conceptual model to provide the reader with any confidence the model is replicating reality. Additional recommendations provided by the reviewer regarding the Maules Creek groundwater modelling report are as follows:
The cumulative impact assessment should consider the declining water levels within the alluvial systems along with the impacts of the surrounding mines as currently presented.
A clear method for identifying mining related loss of well yields from background yield losses should be defined up front to eliminate any confusion or difficulties after the fact.
Recommendations by AGE for groundwater monitoring and seepage inflow measurements should be included in the consent requirements if approved. The overall impression left after the review is that the work done is competent and well presented, however it is the work not done that leaves cause for concern and uncertainty.
Page ii
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
1. Introduction
The Maules Creek Coal Mine was approved in 1995 and is seeking a contemporary Project Approval for the construction and operation of an open cut mine. The open cut coal mining is estimated to extract up to 13Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) over a mine life of 21 years.
The objective of the groundwater assessment is to assess the impact of the Project on the hydrogeological regime and to meet the applicable Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs).
This report provides a peer review for Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) and Namoi Water of the Maules Creek Coal project Groundwater Impact Assessment (Project). The review is to be within the context of industry best practice and meeting the DGRs.
A glossary of technical terms is provided in Appendix A.
Page | 1
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
2. Background Information
2.1 Scope of Work
The key tasks requested by MCCC/Namoi Water for the review of the groundwater assessment conducted in support of the Project submission were:
A review of the groundwater assessment report by AGE (AGE, June 2011);
A summary of AGE findings and how they relate to the DGRs as well as industry best practices, i.e. Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) guidelines for modelling exercises (MDBC, 2000).
An identification of limitations, if any, of the work conducted/presented and how they relate to fully satisfying the DGR requirements as well what work, analyses, reporting could be done to provide further assessment and confidence in findings, if any.
Recommendations, if any, for further action/discussion.
2.2 Supplied Information
The application documentation on which this review is based are: 1. Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants, Pty, Ltd. (June 2011), Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment. Prepared for Aston Resources Limited. 2. Hansen Bailey, (July 2011), Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment Statement. Prepared for Aston Coal 2 Pty Limited The above references were downloaded from the NSW Government Planning website for major projects (http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au).
2.3 Review Criteria/Guidelines
The review has been designed to provide an assessment of the groundwater assessment based upon unbiased or subjective criteria. As such the MDBC guidelines process for review has been selected for the review along with the DGRs for the project available on the project planning website (http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au).
2.3.1 MDBC Guidelines
The 2-page review checklist (Table E-1, Appendix E, MDBC, 2000) provided in the guidelines has been selected for the model review. Not all questions in the checklist are relevant to the review - where possible these have been duly marked.
Page | 2
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
2.3.2 Director General Requirements
A copy of the DGRs was downloaded from the NSW planning website. The relevant section(s) that pertain to groundwater are summarised below.
a risk assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the project, identifying key issues for further assessment;
a detailed assessment of the key issues specified below, and any other significant issues identified in the risk assessment (see above), which includes:
o A description of the existing environment, using sufficient baseline data;
o An assessment of potential impacts of the project, including any cumulative impacts, taking into consideration any relevant guidelines, policies, plans and statutory provisions (see below); and
o A description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimise and if necessary, offset the potential impacts of the project, including detailed contingency plans for managing any significant risk to the environment.
a statement of commitments, outlining all the proposed environmental management and monitoring measures
Soil and Water
o detailed modelling of the potential surface water and groundwater impacts of the project;
o a detailed site water balance, including a description of the measures to be implemented to minimise water use on site;
o a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the project on:
. the quality and quantity of both surface water and ground water resources;
. water users, both in the vicinity of and downstream of the project;
. the riparian and ecological values of the watercourses both on site and downstream of the project; and
. environmental flows; and
o a detailed description of the proposed water management system for the project and water monitoring program.
Page | 3
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
2.4 Review Limitations
The level of effort and detail provided as part of a project submission is heavily dependent upon timing and budgetary constraints - details that are unknown by the reviewer. Hence any item(s) that may be commented as lacking or deficient are not necessarily an indication of unwillingness or inability to perform said task but instead a result of the prioritisation of tasks.
Given the above limitation by the reviewer, the following review has not made any assumptions regarding the cause for deficiencies, if any, but instead focuses upon what is and isn’t presented and what are the potential consequences.
Page | 4
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
3. Peer Review
3.1 MDBC Guidelines
A copy of the completed review checklist is provided in Appendix B. A discussion of findings is provided in the following sections corresponding with the sections of the review table.
3.1.1 The Report
The modelling and assessment report is a standalone document of high quality. Numerous cross-sections and “cartoon” diagrams are used to clearly present conceptualisations and subsurface structural understandings.
“The objective of the groundwater study was to assess the impact of the Project on the hydrogeological regime and to meet the applicable Director Generals Requirements.” (AGE, 2011). These two objectives are essentially the same and as such will be commented further in Section 3.2.
3.1.2 Data Analysis
The assessment is founded upon a seemingly thorough literature review and the modelling is where possible based upon previous modelling and site investigations throughout the study area. Documentation of where information has been collected seems quite thorough.
Although the report is quite thorough in its description of different sources of information and previous studies, the report would benefit from a summary section which provides a series of specific summary tables dedicated to what relevant information is available from all the sources. For example, from all the historic and current studies within the study area, provide a summary of the water level information (time, location, aquifer source, and level(s)) available. This would provide the reader a clear understanding of what water level information is available for steady state and transient calibration.
Recharge and discharge rates have not been explicitly estimated as part of this study. Response to rainfall events were presented and commented upon. A cumulative rainfall deficit was provided. Initial recharge rates were assumed based upon previous modelling in the area and then allowed to change in the bedrock areas for calibration.
3.1.3 Conceptualisation
The conceptual model is the most important part of any modelling exercise as it provides the framework and limitations for all analyses and assumptions. The report provides a good summary of the conceptual framework used to construct and constrain the model along with graphs and diagrams where applicable to further demonstrate the ideas.
Overall the conceptual model in combination with the data presentation provides an adequate description of the major hydrogeologic processes.
3.1.4 Model Design
The documentation and design of the model seem reasonable and fit for purpose. One of the key factors in model development is the “[t]he model must not be configured or constrained such that it artificially produces a restricted range of prediction outcomes” (MDBC, 2000). The explicit boundary conditions at the edge of the model seem to be unrestrictive.
Page | 5
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
It appears that AGE have adopted hydraulic parameters from the more transmissive lower lying areas of the catchment as hydraulic parameters for the smaller tributaries such as Horsearm Creek, Maules Creek, etc. The database and conceptualisation provided within the AGE report and previous studies (Coffeys and UNSW) demonstrate that these catchments have a much lower hydraulic properties, typically orders of magnitude lower. Given that these catchments are of much greater risk for impact than the lower more transmissive aquifers, it would be most prudent and considered best practice to have these aquifers characterised as close to the fields study results as possible. The potential consequence of characterising the aquifer(s) with much higher transmissivities than what is known to exist there is to under estimate the drawdown propagation and thus impacts of the project. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the parameterisation of these tributary aquifers is in any way conservative or a worst case scenario.
AGE note that Evapotranspiration (ET) was applied at a maximum potential ET rate of 0.4mm/day, that this assumed rate is “at the lower end of the range of possible values,” and that any higher rates caused numerical stability problems. While this does raise some red flags for the model it is not uncommon and does not necessarily render a model invalid when ET is a minor component of the overall mass balance. In the case of this model ET comprises over 15% the total budget, and greater than 1/3 rainfall recharge, despite being set at such a small maximum potential rate. This would indicate a large area of the model must have water levels within the recharge extinction depth (2m). This seems unlikely for an alluvial system that has experienced declining water levels up to 3 metres in the last 15years (AGE, 2010). A map of depth to groundwater level should be provided for clarification. It would also be inferred that if ET were such an important component of the groundwater system that potential impacts to GDEs would of concern given they would be the primary source of ET.
The above issue of ET may also be a demonstration that the omission of groundwater abstraction in the calibration of the model is not as insignificant an issue as the authors have claimed. AGE state “the extraction rate from bores is accounted for in the balance of inputs and outputs adopted during the steady state model calibration. Groundwater discharging from the model via drains, river flow, evapotranspiration and constant head cells account for water that would be removed by irrigation from the aquifer.” The above statement and assumptions raises many causes for concern or comment:
A steady state simulation provides an “average” condition or state of a system based upon average rates of inflow and outflow – how is a steady state simulation able to account for abstraction in a long-term average manner when the abstraction is causing declining water levels over the last 15years and as such indicates it exceeds the natural net inflow? Wouldn’t the long-term average simulated condition be less than the current if not dry? How could this match current water levels as is the objective of the steady state?
The mechanisms described that would account for the omission of abstraction are typically shallow features such as river channels and ET (up to 2m below ground surface). In order for these to then extract water from the model the estimated water level must be within this depth from surface. By definition, the model must have heads greater than existing conditions, or the boundary conditions have much lower draining depths, in order the create the increased flow and existing depth to water level contour./profile.
In this instance the estimated baseflow rates to the surface water systems must be an over estimate of existing conditions and any comparison in the results of a percent decrease in flow would not be valid or at least would be considered an under estimate of relative change and thus not meet the DGRs.
Page | 6
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
This assumption also then assumes a greater connection between the surface water and groundwater systems which can then under estimate impacts in the alluvial groundwater system from drawdown in the bedrock. Greater water levels in the alluvium results numerically in a greater transmissivity, resulting in less drawdown. Greater connection of the River cells with the alluvium results in less drawdown. Greater water levels in the alluvium (from a steady state simulation used as an initial head in the transient simulation) would start the transient simulation with too much water in storage in the alluvium, which are often orders of magnitude greater than that in the bedrock aquifers.
Page | 7
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
Given the above notes it is difficult to ascertain how this assumption could lead to a conservative or worst case simulation of potential impacts. In addition, by not including groundwater abstraction, and the current decline of water levels, the modelling is not considering all cumulative impacts as required by the DGRs.
3.1.5 Calibration
Calibration has been limited to steady state only. “Steady state simulations...are used to model equilibrium conditions (e.g. representing the long term “average” hydrological balance), and/or conditions where aquifer storage changes are not significant” and [t]ransient simulations are used to model time-dependent problems, and/or where significant volumes of water are released from or taken into aquifer storage” (MDBC, 2000). As such, the model is calibrated for long term average conditions, however it is being used to assess transient time and storage dependent problems - this is not an ideal situation.
The calibration procedure is found to be deficient in the respect a transient calibration was not conducted despite the fact this project has a relatively large amount of recent and historic data/studies available to it. The reasoning provided by AGE, that they could not perform a transient calibration because pumping records are not publically available, does not seem to stand up when looked at closely or at least is in need of more explanation. Firstly, Aston Resources is a member of the Namoi Water Study and as such has or could have access to the usage data provided by NOW for that study. Secondly, calibration could have been done based upon assumed usage and qualitative assessment of fit made and thirdly, calibration could have been considered for just the bedrock only. The latter is arguably the most important.
The level of confidence in transient calibration would be limited because of the unknown/uncalibrated flow rates (pit inflows and potentially inconsistent usage data), however this is still present for the steady state simulation as the natural flow rate to the river and creek systems is not known either. In the end even a qualitative assessment provides a level of reasonableness above not doing anything.
The MDBC guidelines provide a table of model calibration performance measures (Table 3.2.1, MDBC, 2000). The steady state calibration conducted is compared and summarised using this table as its basis.
Page | 8
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
Table 3-1 Calibration Performance Measures
Performance Measure1) Criterion1) Comment(s)2)
Water balance Difference between total inflow Less than 1% for each stress A water balance is provided for and total outflow, including period and cumulatively for the review with an error of <1%. changes in storage, divided by entire simulation. total inflow or outflow, expressed as a percentage. Iteration residual error The calculated error term is the Iteration convergence criterion Iteration convergence criteria is maximum change in heads (for should be one to two orders of not documented. any node) between successive magnitude smaller than the level iterations of the model. of accuracy desired in the model head results. Commonly set in the order of millimetres or centimetres. Qualitative measures Patterns of groundwater flow Subjective assessment of the A general review and discussion (based on modelled contour goodness of fit between on goodness of fit is presented. plans of aquifer heads). Patterns modelled and measured A graph of predicted vs. of aquifer response to variations groundwater level contour plans observed heads is also in hydrological stresses and hydrographs of bore water provided. No obvious bias is (hydrographs). Distributions of levels and surface flows. present. No justification for model aquifer properties surface flows is provided. adopted to achieve calibration. Justification for adopted model aquifer properties in relation to Justification for adopted model measured ranges of values and parameters is provided to associated non-uniqueness measured ranges. Non- issues. uniqueness is not explicitly addressed in calibration. Quantitative measures Statistical measures of the Residual head statistics criteria RMS error and Scaled RMS are differences between modelled are detailed in Section 3.3. provided for a selected set of and measured head data. the original data set. Mathematical and graphical Consistency between modelled comparisons between measured head values (in contour plans No comparison of flows either and simulated aquifer heads, and scatter plots) and spot conceptual or measured is and system flow components. measurements from monitoring presented. Justification for the bores. rate of average baseflow to the ephemeral streams is not Comparison of simulated and provided. measured components of the water budget, notably surface water flows, groundwater abstractions and evapotranspiration estimates. Notes: 1) MDBC, 2000 2) Reviewer’s comments
The calibration conducted would at best have to be considered basic according to MDBC guidelines. The approach adopted by the modellers would seem to be more in line with the following description provided within the guidelines:
“where understanding or data are lacking, it is possible to design the associated model aspects to be conservative with respect to their intended use (eg. assuming an unknown aquifer parameter or stress is at the upper or lower limit of a realistic range).”
However the above philosophy is not an exemption from following standard calibration and sensitivity procedures to describe, assess and quantify non-uniqueness within the model. Non- uniqueness is the situation whereby many model input values and arrangements can produce the same or equally acceptable solutions. This situation arises because of the numerous
Page | 9
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
variables available within the model setup. The recommended procedure for addressing non- uniqueness is described within the MDBC guidelines as follows:
The main methods that should be employed in conjunction to reduce the non-uniqueness problem comprise:
calibrating the model using hydraulic conductivity (and other) parameters that are consistent with measured values; and,
calibrating to multiple distinct hydrological conditions with that parameter set.
The first method is designed to restrict the possible range of parameters to values that are consistent with the actual (“unique”) values of the aquifer. The second method provides an indication of the predictive performance of a model by demonstrating that a given set of input model parameters (consistent with field measurements) are capable of reproducing system behaviour through a range of distinct hydrological conditions. The variation in hydrological conditions should not just relate to natural conditions, but also to induced stresses (e.g. pumping, river regulation, etc.).
Similarly to the first method, a suggested third method of reducing the non-uniqueness problem involves the use of measured groundwater flow rates (eg. stream baseflow) as calibration targets, as this restricts the water budget to values that are consistent with actual aquifer conditions. However, it is often not practical or possible to directly measure groundwater flow rates, and where it is possible to estimate them, there is usually a large degree of uncertainty associated with the estimates, so this method is often not applicable.
It is highly preferable that a model is calibrated to a range of distinct hydrological conditions (eg. prolonged or short term dry or wet periods, and ranges of induced stresses), and that calibration is achieved with hydraulic conductivity and other parameters that are consistent with measured values, as this helps address the non- uniqueness problem of model calibration.
The model calibration presented in the report only addresses the first of three methods to be used conjunctively to address non-uniqueness. Simply put the model as reported is a non- unique solution with no evaluation as to the limits of possible solutions and the likely impact on this would have on predictive results.
3.1.6 Verification
“Verification (also called validation) is a test of whether the model can be used as a predictive tool, by demonstrating that the calibrated model is an adequate representation of the physical system. The common test for verification is to run the calibrated model in predictive mode to check whether the prediction reasonably matches the observations of a reserved data set, deliberately excluded from consideration during calibration” (MDBC, 2000).
Verification was not performed and/or presented in the model report. The aim of the verification/calibration being to replicate the rate of drawdown associated with mining.
It is noted in the predictive simulation setup description that the predictive model is intended to be simulating impacts/water levels from the commencement of mining in 2006 – yet a comparison of the predictive results for the first 5 years of mining with the monitoring dataset has not been provided. This period would at face value seem to be a reasonable datasets from which either a transient calibration or verification exercise could have been performed as there would be some monitoring data as required by the consent requirements for Boggabri Coal.
Page | 10
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
3.1.7 Prediction
The setup of the predictive simulations is typical for an open pit mining and reclamation plan.
The assumed parameterisation of the backfill is reasonable.
The presentation of results within the bedrock aquifers is adequate to understand predicted impacts.
Predictive model results that describe flow rates and/or changes to flow rates should have a caveat with them stating the model is not calibrated to any flow rates. This is not to say the reported values are wrong or even unreasonable – it just that is has not been demonstrated that the model provides reasonable estimates of flow rates. In addition, it is not demonstrated that any estimates of flows to and from the alluvium or changes in them are considered worst case or conservative despite the claims otherwise regarding faulting, higher water levels, etc. No comparison has been made to existing conditions in the calibration section and as such it is not known how the model actually replicates reality. A couple of potentially conservative assumptions do not exclude the potentially non-conservative assumptions made elsewhere. Without transient calibration, sensitivity and/or verification assessments it is not possible to say which assumptions out-weight the others in the nature of how conservative the model is.
The assessment provides two options for reclamation of the mine void. The results for Option 2 indicate that additional recharge would occur to the bedrock aquifers and by inference the alluvium as a result of higher recharge to the spoil and a higher recovered water level. The Report also states that there are no risks to water quality as a result of this increased recharge. How is this conclusion consistent with the numerous salinity studies and reclamation projects throughout NSW, and Australia in general, that has found that clearing of forests in the higher topography area led to rising water levels and salinity problems in the lower lying areas as a direct result of increase recharge from rainfall?
Along these same lines – it is not clear how the modelling has accounted for increased recharge from any changes to land use outside the pit area.
3.1.8 Sensitivity Analyses
Sensitivity analyses have been provided for predictive models. These simulations provide a reasonable bound for the impact assessment. Noel Merrick’s independent review provides some recommendations for improvement.
3.1.9 Uncertainty Analyses
No formal uncertainty analyses (i.e. Monte Carlo simulations, etc.) have been presented. This is not uncommon within the practice as computational, budgetary and time constraints often limit the ability to perform these analyses.
Page | 11
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
3.2 Director General Requirements
The DGRs list the following requirements that pertain to the groundwater assessments:
a risk assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the project, identifying key issues for further assessment;
a detailed assessment of the key issues specified below, and any other significant issues identified in the risk assessment (see above), which includes:
o A description of the existing environment, using sufficient baseline data;
o An assessment of potential impacts of the project, including any cumulative impacts, taking into consideration any relevant guidelines, policies, plans and statutory provisions (see below); and
o A description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimise and if necessary, offset the potential impacts of the project, including detailed contingency plans for managing any significant risk to the environment.
a statement of commitments, outlining all the proposed environmental management and monitoring measures
Soil and Water
o detailed modelling of the potential surface water and groundwater impacts of the project;
o a detailed site water balance, including a description of the measures to be implemented to minimise water use on site;
o a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the project on:
. the quality and quantity of both surface water and ground water resources;
. water users, both in the vicinity of and downstream of the project;
. the riparian and ecological values of the watercourses both on site and downstream of the project; and
. environmental flows; and
o a detailed description of the proposed water management system for the project and water monitoring program.
The first main bullets are the context by which the final two main bullets will be discussed.
Figures are provided that depict the zone of impact or cone of depression estimated with the proposed mine plane. The zone of impacts is directly influenced/constrained by the alluvial system in all predictive simulations, including the cumulative impact simulations. Therefore this interaction is of direct importance to the impact assessment. As previously stated, it has not been demonstrated that the model replicates reality in depicting this relationship or that it is even conservative.
Page | 12
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
The impact assessment does not account for arguably the greatest cumulative impact which is the current declining water levels in the alluvial systems.
Pumps are rarely set any deeper than required due to extra electrical and capital costs. Given falling water level conditions within the alluvial aquifer, freeboard above many pumps are likely to already be minimal if non-existent. Mitigation measures for negotiating with land holders to lower pumps, replace bores, etc. to compensate for yield losses attributable to mining related impacts has been recommended but it is unclear how the cause of yield losses will be determined given the background conditions.
Water quality impacts from site activities are adequately covered with recommendations for mitigation and monitoring. One notable exclusion, though, is addressing any potential risk of salinity related impacts from increased recharge at topographically higher areas.
The majority of the impact assessment section is dedicated to changes in flow rates in the alluvium, to mine void, or the interaction between bedrock and alluvium. However, the modelling report has provided no evidence, qualitatively or quantitatively, that the model replicates reasonable estimates of current flow rates. As such, confidence in the impact assessment is limited.
Water management measures, including measures to reduce water use, are not provided. However the monitoring recommendations and data management and reporting recommendations are sound and should be included in the consent requirements, if approved. Particular weight should be given to the Mine Water Seepage Monitoring requirements for the following reasons:
the model is not calibrated to flows and as such the estimate provided of losses to the alluvium is largely uncertain. Good monitoring and water balance on seepage inflows to the mine will indicate how close the current estimate is.
any future revisits to the model should include a transient calibration, of which pit inflows will be required to constrain the model solution. It is not in MCCC and Namoi Waters interest for them to do the same thing as Boggabri Coal and say they cannot do better modelling simply because they are not collecting the necessary information. AGE has done well to provide recommendations such that future work can provide greater confidence in the hydrogeologic assessments.
The project will require licensing of water take and/or water trading to offset inflows. Therefore as accurate an estimate as possible is in all parties’ interests.
A description of the water level and quality monitoring systems has been provided and is relatively standard for this type of project. It is noted that a recommendation is provided for reviews of the monitoring data and model accuracy every 5 years. There is concern here with the idea of improving your understanding of impacts after the project is already started and underway. Adopting this approach undermines the EA process by allowing a project to go forward without having confidence in what impacts will occur - essentially rendering the process a function of creating compensation rather than assessing whether the project should be approved.
Page | 13
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The modelling work conducted thus far is considered to be consistent with the fundamental guiding principle of best practice as defined by Hugh Middlemis (2004) in Benchmarking Best Practice for Groundwater Flow Modelling:
The fundamental guiding principle for best practice modelling is that model development is an ongoing process of refinement from an initially simple representation of the aquifer system to one with an appropriate degree of complexity. Thus, the model realisation at any stage is neither the best nor the last, but simply the latest representation of our developing understanding of the aquifer system.
Based upon the current understanding of the work conducted presented in the AGE 2011 report, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented:
Overall the work presented is in line with industry best practice, with the caveat above that modelling is an ongoing process of increased complexity often balanced by the practical limitations of budget and time.
The report and presentation of the work conducted is of a high quality and is easily understood with good use of diagrams.
A thorough background literature search has been completed and is well documented and used as a base for the conceptual and numeric model.
Using the MDBC guidelines checklist, the modelling is found to be deficient and/or lacking in the areas of calibration, verification, sensitivity analyses and uncertainty analyses – each to varying degrees. The end result is a deficient demonstration or basis by which to have any real confidence that what is being provided is the best estimate or even worst case, in particular with flow rates which form the majority of the impact discussion. Water level hydrograph comparing the predicted and measured water levels for the first 5 years of the predictive simulation could go a long way to providing confidence the model actually replicates reality.
The primary risks of impact being assessed are associated with the alluvial systems yet the connection between the alluvial and bedrock systems are not well explored either through field testing, literature research, vertical water level gradients, and or model sensitivity assessments. Further work should be conducted, including field studies such as pumping tests and model sensitivity assessments to quantify this interaction.
The cumulative impact assessment should consider the declining water levels within the alluvial systems along with the impacts of the surrounding mines as currently presented.
A clear method for identifying mining related loss of well yield from background yield losses should be defined up front to eliminate any confusion or difficulties after the fact.
In summary, the overall impression left after the review is that the work done is competent and well presented, however it is the work not done that leaves cause for concern and uncertainty.
.
.
Page | 14
Continuation of Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment
5. References
Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants, Pty, Ltd. (October 2010) Continuation of Boggabri Coal Mine Groundwater Assessment. Prepared for Boggabri Coal Pty Limited, http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au. Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants, Pty, Ltd. (June 2011), Maules Creek Coal Project Groundwater Impact Assessment. Prepared for Aston Resources Limited. http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au. Hansen Bailey (December 2010), Continuation of Boggabri Coal Mine Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Boggabri Coal Pty Limited. http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au. Hansen Bailey, (July 2011), Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment Statement. Prepared for Aston Coal 2 Pty Limited Middlemis, H (2004), Benchmarking Best Practice for Groundwater Flow Modelling, prepared for The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia.
Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) (2000), Groundwater Flow Modelling Guideline, prepared by Aquaterra.
NSW Department of Planning (2010), Boggabri Coal Project (MP 09_0182) Director General Requirements, http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au.
NSW Department of Planning (2011), Maules Creek Coal Project (MP 10_0138) Director General Requirements, http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au
Page | 15
Appendix A
Glossary
Aquiclude Low-permeability unit that forms either the upper or lower boundary of a groundwater flow system.
Aquifer Rock or sediment in a formation, group of formations or part of a formation that is saturated and sufficiently permeable to transmit economic quantities of water to bores, wells and springs.
Aquifer properties Characteristics of an aquifer that determine its hydraulic behaviour and its response to abstraction.
Aquifer, confined Aquifer that is overlain by a confining, low permeability strata. The hydraulic conductivity of the confining bed is significantly lower than that of the aquifer.
Aquifer, semi-confined Aquifer confined by a low-permeability layer that permits water to slowly flow through it. During pumping, recharge to the aquifer can occur across the confining layer; also known as a leaky artesian or leaky confined aquifer.
Aquifer, unconfined Also known as a water table or phreatic aquifer. An aquifer in which there are no confining beds between the zone of saturation and the surface. The water table is the upper boundary of unconfined aquifers.
Aquitard Low-permeability unit that can store groundwater and also transmit it slowly from one aquifer to another. Aquitards retard but do not prevent the movement of water to or from an adjacent aquifer.
Artesian water Groundwater that is under pressure when tapped by a bore and is able to rise above the level at which it is first found. It may or may not flow out at ground level. The pressure in such an aquifer commonly is called artesian pressure, and the formation containing artesian water is an artesian aquifer or confined aquifer.
Australian Height Datum (AHD) Reference point (very close to mean sea level) for all elevation measurements, and used for correlating depths of aquifers and water levels in bores.
Baseflow Part of stream discharge that originates from groundwater seeping into the stream.
Bore Structure drilled below the surface to obtain water from an aquifer system.
Boundary Lateral discontinuity or change in the aquifer resulting in a significant change in hydraulic conductivity, storativity or recharge.
Cone of depression Depression of the potentiometric surface, which has the shape of an inverted cone, and develops around a production bore from which water is being drawn. It defines the area of influence of a bore.
Confining layer Body of relatively impermeable material that is stratigraphically adjacent to one or more aquifers; it may lie above or below the aquifer.
Discharge Volume of water flowing in a stream or through an aquifer past a specific point in a given period of time.
Discharge area Area in which there are upward or sideways components of flow in an aquifer.
Drawdown Lowering of the water table in an unconfined aquifer or the potentiometric surface of a confined aquifer.
Fissility The property of rocks to split down planes of weakness.
Fracture Breakage in a rock or mineral along a direction or directions that are not cleavage or fissility.
Fractured rock aquifer Occurs in sedimentary, igneous and metamorphosed rocks that have been disturbed, deformed, or weathered, and which allow water to move through joints, bedding plains and faults. Although fractured rock aquifers are found over a wide area, they generally contain much less groundwater than alluvial and porous sedimentary aquifers.
Groundwater Water contained in interconnected pores located below the water table in an unconfined aquifer or located in a confined aquifer.
Groundwater flow Movement of water through openings in sediment and rock; occurs in the zone of saturation.
Groundwater flow system Regional aquifer or aquifers within the same geological unit that are likely to have similar recharge, flow, yield and water quality attributes.
Hydraulic conductivity The rate with which water can move through pore spaces or fractures. It depends on the intrinsic permeability of the material and on the degree of saturation.
Hydraulic gradient Change in total head (see below) with a change in distance in a given direction, which yields a maximum rate of decrease in head.
Hydraulic head Specific measurement of water pressure or total energy per unit weight above a datum. It is usually measured as a
water surface elevation, expressed in units of length. The hydraulic head can be used to determine a hydraulic gradient between two or more points.
Hydrogeology Study of the interrelationships of geologic materials and processes with water, especially groundwater.
Hydrology Study of the occurrence, distribution, and chemistry of all waters on the Earth.
Hydrostatic pressure The pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium due to the force of gravity.
Infiltration Flow of water downward from the land surface into and through the upper soil layers.
Parameterisation The process of defining the parameters necessary for the specification of a model.
Perched water Unconfined groundwater separated from an underlying body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone and supported by an aquitard or aquiclude.
Permeability Property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, clay or soil to transmit a fluid. Measures the relative ease of fluid flow under unequal pressure. Hydraulic conductivity is a material’s permeability to water at the prevailing temperature.
Permeable material Material that permits water to move through it at perceptible rates under the hydraulic gradients normally present.
Piezometer (monitoring well) Non-pumping monitoring well, generally of small diameter, which is used to measure the elevation of the water table and/or water quality. A piezometer generally has a short well screen through which water can enter.
Porosity Proportion of interconnected open space within an aquifer, comprised of intergranular space, pores vesicles and fractures.
Porosity, primary Porosity that represents the original pore openings when a rock or sediment formed.
Porosity, secondary Porosity caused by fractures or weathering in a rock or sediment after it has been formed.
Potentiometric surface Surface to which water in an aquifer would rise by hydrostatic pressure.
Pumping test Test made by pumping a bore for a period of time and observing the change in hydraulic head in the aquifer. It may be used to determine the capacity of the bore and the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer.
Recharge Process that replenishes groundwater, usually by rainfall infiltrating from the ground surface to the water table and by river water entering the water table or exposed aquifers; addition of water to an aquifer.
Recharge area Area in which there are downward components of hydraulic head in the aquifer. Infiltration moves downward into the deeper parts of an aquifer in a recharge area.
Recovery Difference between the observed water level during the recovery period after pumping stops and the water level measured immediately before pumping stopped.
Residence time Time that a water source spends in storage before moving to a different part of the hydrological cycle (ie it could be argued it is a rate of replenishment).
Saturated zone Zone in which the voids in the rock or soil are filled with water at a greater pressure than atmospheric. The water table is the top of the saturated zone in an unconfined aquifer.
Sedimentary aquifers Occur in consolidated sediments, such as porous sandstones and conglomerates, in which water is stored in the intergranular pores, and limestone, in which water is stored in solution cavities and joints. They are generally located in sedimentary basins that are continuous over large areas, they may be tens or hundreds of metres thick, and they contain the largest groundwater resources.
Specific yield Ratio of the volume of water a rock or soil will yield by gravity drainage to the volume of the rock or soil. Gravity drainage may take many months to occur.
Spring Location where groundwater emerges on to the ground surface. Water may be free flowing or slowly seeping.
Storativity Volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit
change in head. It is equal to the product of specific storage and aquifer thickness. In an unconfined aquifer, the storativity is equivalent to specific yield.
Stratigraphy The study of stratified rocks (sediments and volcanics), including their sequence in time, the character of the rocks and the correlation of beds in different localities.
Surface water-groundwater Occurs in two ways: (1) Streams gain water from interaction groundwater through the streambed when the elevation of the water table next to the streambed is greater than the water level in the stream. (2) Streams lose water to groundwater by outflow through streambeds when the elevation of the water table is lower than the water level in the stream.
Transmissivity Rate at which water of a prevailing density and viscosity is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer or confining bed under a unit hydraulic gradient. It is a function of properties of the liquid, the porous media, and the thickness of the porous media.
Unconfined aquifer Where the groundwater surface (water table) is at atmospheric pressure and the aquifer is recharged by direct rainfall infiltration from the ground surface.
Unsaturated zone That part of an aquifer between the land surface and water table. It includes the root zone, intermediate zone and capillary fringe.
Water table Surface in an unconfined aquifer or confining bed at which the pore water pressure is atmospheric. It can be measured by installing shallow wells extending a few feet into the zone of saturation and then measuring the water level in those wells.
Well Any structure bored, drilled driven or dug into the ground, (which is deeper than it is wide), to reach groundwater.
Appendix B
MDBC Review Checklist
MODEL REVIEW: Maules Creek Coal Project – Groundwater Impact Assessment
Q. QUESTION Not Score 0 Score 1 Score 3 Score 5 Score Max. COMMENT Applicable Score or (0, 3, 5) Unknown 1.0 THE REPORT
1.1 Is there a clear statement of project objectives? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good 1.2 Is the level of model complexity clear or acknowledged? Missing No Yes 1.32 Is a water or mass balance reported? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good 1.4 Has the modelling study satisfied project objectives? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good 1.5 Are the model results of any practical use? No Maybe Yes 2.0 DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 Has hydrogeology data been collected and analysed? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good This area has had many previous studies and the project proponent has provided additional investigations to supplement a historic database. 2.2 Are groundwater contours or flow directions presented? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good 2.3 Have all potential recharge data been collected and Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good analysed? (rainfall, streamflow, irrigation, floods, etc.) 2.4 Have all potential discharge data been collected and Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good Private land owner abstraction not analysed? (abstraction, evapotranspiration, drainage, obtained or used. It is known that NOW springflow, etc.) provided water use records to the Namoi Water Study of which Aston Resources is a member and as such should have access to the data. 2.5 Have the recharge and discharge datasets been analysed Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good for their groundwater response? 2.6 Are groundwater hydrographs used for calibration? No Maybe Yes 2.7 Have consistent data units and standard geometrical datums No Yes Some inconsistencies as noted in Noel been used? Merrick’s review.
Q. QUESTION Not Score 0 Score 1 Score 3 Score 5 Score Max. COMMENT Applicable Score or (0, 3, 5) Unknown 3.0 CONCEPTUALISATION
3.1 Is the conceptual model consistent with project objectives Unknown No Maybe Yes and the required model complexity? 3.2 Is there a clear description of the conceptual model? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good 3.3 Is there a graphical representation of the modeller’s Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good conceptualisation?
3.4 Is the conceptual model unnecessarily simple or Yes No unnecessarily complex? 4.0 MODEL DESIGN
4.1 Is the spatial extent of the model appropriate? No Maybe Yes 4.2 Are the applied boundary conditions plausible and Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good The explicit boundary conditions input unrestrictive? to the model seem to be unrestrictive. However the fixed parameterisation of the alluvium makes this in effect a prescribed boundary condition and the modelling results presented indicate that the alluvium is restricting any drawdown propagation. This relatively important role the alluvium is playing is not balanced by presentation of field testing, data analysis, or sensitivity and/or uncertainty analyses.
4.3 Is the software appropriate for the objectives of the study? No Maybe Yes
5.0 CALIBRATION
Q. QUESTION Not Score 0 Score 1 Score 3 Score 5 Score Max. COMMENT Applicable Score or (0, 3, 5) Unknown 5.1 Is there sufficient evidence provided for model calibration? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good The level of statistical calibration and presentation is adequate for the steady state model. It is also noted that the predictive simulation starts in 2006 when mining began – yet no comparisons are provided either as calibration or verification that the predicted water levels match those measured of the same time period (either in absolute head values or rate of decline). No transient calibration is conducted despite the fact this study has more information available to it than most others which still manage to provide a transient calibration exercise to demonstrate a model’s ability to at least reasonably represent response to flux changes in the system. 5.2 Is the model sufficiently calibrated against spatial Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good A large residual error is still noted, observations? especially in the bedrock units. 5.3 Is the model sufficiently calibrated against temporal Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good observations? 5.4 Are calibrated parameter distributions and ranges plausible? No Maybe Yes 5.5 Does the calibration statistic satisfy agreed performance Unknown Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good None stated criteria?
Q. QUESTION Not Score 0 Score 1 Score 3 Score 5 Score Max. COMMENT Applicable Score or (0, 3, 5) Unknown 5.6 Are there good reasons for not meeting agreed performance Not Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good No agreed performance criteria were criteria? Applicable documented. Reasons presented in the report for not performing a transient calibration (at least for the bedrock aquifers alone) are not plausible and/or fully justified. 6.0 VERIFICATION
6.1 Is there sufficient evidence provided for model verification? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good None provided even though datasets are said to exist and the predictive simulation included the previous 5 years of mining. 6.2 Does the reserved dataset include stresses consistent with Not Unknown No Maybe Yes the prediction scenarios? Applicable 6.3 Are there good reasons for an unsatisfactory verification? Not Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good Applicable 7.0 PREDICTION
7.1 Have multiple scenarios been run for climate variability? Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good 7.2 Have multiple scenarios been run for Unknown Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good Two mine closure options are operational/management alternatives? presented. 7.3 Is the time horizon for prediction comparable with the length Missing No Maybe Yes Calibration is steady state (i.e. no time of the calibration / verification period? period) and no verification is provided. 7.4 Are the model predictions plausible? No Maybe Yes 8.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Q. QUESTION Not Score 0 Score 1 Score 3 Score 5 Score Max. COMMENT Applicable Score or (0, 3, 5) Unknown 8.1 Is the sensitivity analysis sufficiently intensive for key Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good Sensitivity analysis for calibration is not parameters? presented. Minimal sensitivity analyses are performed for predictive simulations. Note Noel Merrick’s comments/suggestions for better ranges in storage values for sensitivity assessments. 8.2 Are sensitivity results used to qualify the reliability of model Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good No sensitivity for model calibration is calibration? provided 8.3 Are sensitivity results used to qualify the accuracy of model Missing Deficient Adequate Very Good Good presentation of bounds of prediction? estimate. Noted Noel’s Merrick’s suggestions for improvement (8.1). 9.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
9.1 If required by the project brief, is uncertainty quantified in Unknown Missing No Maybe Yes Unknown if required by project brief but any way? quantification of uncertainty is not provided – other than that implied by the predictive sensitivity simulations. However a section is provided that provides some qualitative description of overall uncertainty.
TOTAL SCORE PERFORMANCE: %
BRIAN M. RASK – PRINCIPAL HYDROGEOLOGIST/MODELLER P.O. Box 7275, Tathra, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected]
EDUCATION Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A Bachelor of Science (Watershed Science) 1999
University of Phoenix, Lone Tree, Colorado, U.S.A Master Business Administration (Technology Management) 2003
AWARDS Winner of the 2008 NSW AWA Water Research Merit Award – 2007-2008 Collaborative Research Program: Conceptualisation and Modeling of Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction in the Upper Nepean Fractured Aquifer System
KEY QUALIFICATIONS
Brian has provided numerous management and technical services throughout his career from senior hydrogeologist/modeler to Groundwater Team Manager and Water Resources Capability Executive for the PB water group in Sydney. As such Brian has been responsible for the leadership and coordination of over 30 staff in the Water Quality, Surface Water and Groundwater Teams. At the same time Brian was responsible for the continued technical development of the group through hands-on experience and appropriate educational training; Brian’s success is best exemplified by one of Brian’s projects in which he was the lead researcher evaluating and quantifying the surface and groundwater interaction within a fractured rock system – winner of the 2008 NSW AWA Water Research Merit Award.
Brian has extensive experience in hydrogeology in the US and Australia. Project experience includes surface and groundwater assessments; environmental impact statements; mine site water supply management; water supply, storage and operational management programs; contaminated site/surface and groundwater transport assessments/modeling; remedial action plans; project and financial management; drilling and well design/construction management. Brian is also experienced in the use of numerous surface and groundwater modeling programs including, but not limited to, MODFLOW (Visual and Groundwater Vistas), MODFLOW- SURFACT, FEFLOW, HEC-RAS, Quickflow, WinFlow, and WinTrans.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 1 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – GROUNDWATER MODELLING
Middlemount Mine - Groundwater Impact Assessment, Middlemount Coal, QLD Senior Hydrogeologist/Modeler 2010 A groundwater model was created using the Groundwater Vistas MODFLOW pre-processor in conjunction with MODFLOW SURFACT. The model was calibrated with extensive calibration sensitivity assessments performed. One operational scenario was simulated with multiple predictive sensitivity simulations performed. Results of all modeling and a final report were provided within the aggressive 4-week project delivery schedule.
Cobbora Coal Mine Project - Groundwater Impact Assessment, Cobbora Management Company, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist/Modeler 2009 - 2010 A groundwater model was created using the Visual MODFLOW pre-processor in conjunction with MODFLOW SURFACT. The model was suitably calibrated for the project requirements. Two operational scenarios were simulated with respect to how the pit is dewatered, as well as numerous recovery simulations. An additional water balance model was developed to estimate the filling duration and long-term water level fluctuations within the final voids (2). Results of all modeling provided the quantitative basis for the groundwater impact assessment.
Airport Link – Eastern Connections, Thiess-John Holland, Brisbane, QLD Senior Hydrogeologist/Modeler 2009 A three dimension numerical model was developed in MODFLOW to simulate the inflow rates, drawdown and potential mitigation measures for the Eastern Connections area. Additional 2D models were used to provide pressure profiles on walled structures across the Eastern connections. Numerous sensitivity runs and adjustments to model and structural designs were done in order to provide a best for project, client, and environmental outcome.
Airport Link – Felix St Fate and Transport Groundwater Model, Thiess-John Holland, Brisbane, QLD Senior Hydrogeologist/Modeler 2009 A fate and transport model was developed for the Felix St, Lutwyche site, following identification of hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater at this location. The primary aims of the model were to evaluate the risk for the migration of contaminant into previously uncontaminated areas, the likelihood that contaminants would reach drained structures within the underground works, estimate concentrations of any contaminants for water treatment plant design purposes, and to estimate the duration treatment will be required. The results of the modeling provided the client with the appropriate information and risk assessment required for them to proceed with further design, construction and mitigation measures.
Oberon Timber Complex, Oberon, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist/ Lead Modeler 2008 A concept design was required to create “no discharge” from a waste heap. Analytical modeling followed by the creation of a MODFLOW model was used to estimate barrier wall and drainage trench (or extraction well) requirements.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 2 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
South West Rocks, Caltex, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist/ Modeler 2006 A MODLFOW model was created and calibrated based upon steady state and transient flows as well as transiently calibrated for chemical transport, including natural attenuation processes. The geology of the area required the model to consist of three distinct aquifer layers with differing hydrogeologic and chemical transport properties. The model was used to estimate future plume migration and degradation due to natural attenuation processes. The end goal of the project was the delineation of a bore exclusion zones in all three layers. The modeling used MODLFOW along with the RT3D and MODPATH packages.
Greystanes Estate – Southern Employment Lands Groundwater Modeling, Boral Resources, Sydney, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist /Modeler 2006 A MODLFOW model was created and transiently calibrated for the quarry and surrounding areas. Future predictive simulations were then conducted to evaluate options for groundwater drainage for the post-quarry operations development of the land. A variety of drainage structures were modelled, including drains, artificially constructed high yielding aquifers, and wells. Model results were then prepared and presented to the client for selection of final drainage design concept.
Northern Hawkes Nest WWTP, Great Lakes Council, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist /Modeler 2006 A MODFLOW groundwater model was developed for the Hawks Nest Waste Water Treatment Plant to evaluate the suitability of expanding the existing dune exfiltration scheme to accommodate a proposed development to the north. The groundwater model was calibrated under steady state and transient conditions using historical effluent discharge rates, groundwater levels and rainfall. The model simulated increased effluent loadings for wet weather and peak effluent periods, predicting the likelihood of groundwater approaching the surface. The groundwater model water used to estimate area vulnerable to rises in groundwater table.
Groundwater Availability Assessment, Rancho Rosado, Colorado, USA Hydrogeologist /Modeler 2004 Provided oversight of the construction and testing of two artesian monitoring wells. Used results of the testing program to estimate groundwater availability using Quickflow. Provided preliminary well field design and cost to client.
Cherry Creek Alluvium/Stream Interaction Model for the Environmental Impact Statement for Rueter-Hess Reservoir, URS Corporation, Denver, Colorado, USA Hydrogeologist /Modeler 2002 - 2004 Conducted hydrologic and hydrogeologic assessment of the potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of an off-channel reservoir and associated facilities. The assessment included detailed site inspections, aquifer testing, flow measurements, collection of data from surrounding entities and extensive literature research. The data sets acquired were then used to create and model the stream, alluvium and deep aquifer under various reservoir operational scenarios using MODFLOW. Prepared a final report which was eventually included by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The modeling was critical in the eventual permitting of the reservoir.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 3 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Future Groundwater Production Assessment, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Hydrogeologist /Modeler 2001 - 2003 Conducted analytical and numerical modeling to estimate production rates from heavily pumped aquifers with layered sandstone and shale units. The assessment used simple analytical solutions as well as MODFLOW-SURFACT to estimate declining water levels and production rates within four separate aquifers, based upon historical water levels and pumping rate declines. The results of the study were used as part of a long-term water planning strategy which included the financial justification for the construction of a reservoir to store groundwater that is pumped year-round versus on demand-supply, thus reducing the number of wells required to meet peak demand.
Groundwater Availability Modelling, El Paso County, Colorado, USA Hydrogeologist /Modeler 2002 - 2003 Modified an existing MODFLOW model and simulated various pumping scenarios of various water entities. Based upon the results of the modeling, recommendations for well field placements and sustainability, as well as water development strategies, were provided to the client.
Analytical Modelling, Carlsbad, New Mexico, USA Hydrologist/ Modeler 2000 Conducted analytical modelling to estimate the increased runoff associated with a small development. The results of the modelling were used for detention pond design and site development approval.
Groundwater Modeling, Confidential Client, Nebraska, USA Hydrologist/ Modeler 2000 Characterized surface and ground water interaction, as well as ground water transport properties down-gradient of a hog farm. Modeled hypothetical spills and evaluated probabilities of water quality impacts to downstream water users.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL REVIEW
Ecomarkets, Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne, VIC Peer Reviewer 2009 - 2010 Brian was the lead peer reviewer for the North Central and North East catchment models. Through a series of meetings at strategic model development stages (steady state and transient calibration) Brian was able to provide comments and recommendations throughout the process to assist DSE and their modeling contractor to deliver a groundwater model that met all project specifications. A final model review report was prepared by Brian that documented the model development, key assumptions, limitations and recommendations for model use and improvements.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 4 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Groundwater Fate and Transport Model, Stage 3 Remediation Powerhouse Fuel Spill Plume, Department of Defense, Garden Island, Western Australia. Peer Reviewer 2010 PB was commissioned to undertake Stage 3 works for environmental remedial works associated with the Powerhouse diesel fuel spill Part of the Stage 3 works includes undertaking groundwater modeling to simulate observed groundwater contamination; and scenario modeling to simulate options for aquifer remediation. Modeling undertaken included both flow and solute transport. Groundwater flow and transport modeling was undertaken using Visual MODFLOW Pro and MT3DMS software respectively. Brian provided technical peer review of the groundwater modeling and associated report.
Cape Lambert Magnetite Project: Hydrogeological Assessment, MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd, Western Australia. Peer Reviewer 2010 PB was commissioned to undertake hydrogeologic assessment for the Cape Lambert Magnetite Project. The hydrogeologic assessment included the development, calibration, and sensitivity assessment of a groundwater numeric model. The model was then used to assess the potential impacts associated with assumed mining conditions. Modeling was undertaken using the preprocessor Visual MODFLOW Pro in conjunction with MODLFOW-SURFACT software. Brian provided technical peer review of the groundwater modeling and associated report.
Melbourne Desalination Treatment Plant, AquaSure Joint Venture, VIC Peer Reviewer 2009-2010 As one of the Joint Venture’s associates, PB was commissioned to provide hydrogeologic assessments associated with the design and construction of a desalination plant in Victoria. These technical studies include the assessment of impacts during and after construction. Numerous models (3D MODFLOW and analytical models) were developed at various stages as part of the assessment. The assessments include estimated inflows to tunnels and excavations as well as the short and long term drawdown associated with the project. These results are then provided as part of an overall assessment of follow-on impacts such as acid-sulphate soils, subsidence, and ecological impacts. Brian was commissioned to provide technical peer review of the groundwater models being prepared as well as ongoing modeling/technical support.
Airport Link, Thiess-John Holland, Brisbane, QLD Peer Reviewer 2008 - 2009 A three dimension numerical model was developed in MODFLOW to simulate the inflow rates, drawdown and potential mitigation measures for the entire project area (global model). Numerous sensitivity runs and adjustments to model and structural designs were done in order to provide a best for project, client, and environmental outcome. Brian provided technical reviews of various versions as well as providing some strategic advice throughout the review and internal and external commenting processes.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 5 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Abbot Point State Development Area Infrastructure Corridor Study, Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning, QLD Groundwater Technical Advisor 2008 Brian conducted a review of the groundwater conditions in the area(s) proposed and provided a hydrogeologic constraints analysis and recommendations for work to be performed in order to further develop the preferred option(s) for the infrastructure corridor. Significant constraints were identified as the proposed area is a wetland and as such require significant risk mitigation.
Groundwater Due Diligence, Rio Tinto Hunter Valley, NSW Groundwater Technical Advisor 2008 A due diligence assessment was conducted for all operations in the Hunter Valley as it pertains to commitments made regarding groundwater investigations, monitoring, licensing, etc. The results of the investigation provided Rio Tinto with a roadmap of what further works need to be completed as well as a general prioritisation of tasks.
Jacinth Ambrosia Project, Iluka Resources Limited, South Australia Peer Reviewer 2008 Brian was responsible for the technical and fit-for-purpose peer review of all groundwater borefield construction design and tendering documents. Brian worked closely with the team to ensure that he understood the key demands and drivers to ensure the design and tender packages were appropriate for the intended purpose.
Old State Mine, Delta Electricity, Lithgow, NSW Peer Reviewer 2007 - 2008 PB was commissioned to conduct a groundwater model using FEFLOW to estimate potential water supply from the old State Mine at Lithgow. Brian provided peer review of the model and reporting through two rounds of model calibration and predictive simulations. The nature of the old workings for the longwall mining operation, known discharge points from the mine workings, outcropping and local groundwater users provided many challenges for the modeling and thus a significant modeling effort was required.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – GROUNDWATER-SURFACE WATER INTERACTION
Collaborative Research Program: Conceptualisation and Modeling of Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction in the Upper Nepean Fractured Aquifer System, Sydney Catchment Authority, NSW Project Manager/ Lead Researcher/Senior Hydrogeologist 2007 - 2008 A Collaborative Research project to investigate the surface water and groundwater interaction in Doudles Folley Creek was undertaken near Bowral, NSW. The investigation comprised a comprehensive suite of hydrogeologic and hydrogeochemical tools, and tracers (environmental and applied) to quantify the natural interaction of the two systems and how it changes under a trial borefield simulation. Brian was the project manager and lead hydrogeologist for the project. The results of the eight month field program and later desk top analyses has provided the Sydney Catchment Authority with clear and quantifiable evidence of the background interaction and changes associated with localised pumping. The innovative approach, application of tools, and results on the project were recognised by Brian, his team, and the SCA being awarded the 2008 NSW AWA Water Research Merit Award.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 6 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Collaborative Research Program: Impacts of Longwall Mining in the Waratah Rivulet, Sydney Catchment Authority, NSW Project Manager/ Lead Researcher/Senior Hydrogeologist 2007 - 2008 A Collaborative Research project to investigate the changes to surface water and groundwater interaction in Waratah Rivulet as a result of longwall mining was undertaken near Helensburgh NSW. The investigation comprised a comprehensive suite of hydrogeologic and hydrogeochemical tools, and tracers (environmental and applied) to quantify the post-mining interaction of the two systems and how it might have changed as a result of longwall mining. Brian was only involved as the project manager and lead hydrogeologist for the project for the initial stages of the proejct. This project was a three year long project and as project manager Brian was responsible for the initial project reviews, such as literature review of longwall mining impacts and baseline dataset, and the development of the methodology for the field studies.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Assessment for the Water for Bowen Project, SunWater, QLD Water Resources Team Lead / Senior Hydrogeologist 2008 - 2009 The Water for Bowen project proposed to deliver up to 60,000 mega litres (ML) of water per annum from SunWater’s existing water allocation in the Burdekin Falls Dam. Brian was the technical lead for the water resources technical reports, as well as the lead hydrogeologist to assess the impacts to groundwater.
Environmental Impact Assessment for the Princess Highway Upgrade at Banora Point, RTA, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist 2007 Brian provided technical oversight and review of the hydrogeologic impact assessment. The assessment included the impacts associated with a large cut into the hillside which was expected to encounter local groundwater. The final report provided an assessment of the likely impacts to local springs and wetlands along with a water management strategy plan.
Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Monitoring, Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority, Colorado, USA Project Manager/Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 1999 - 2006 Managed and conducted basin-wide surface and groundwater sampling and monitoring of water quality and flow within a rapidly developing watershed that supplies water to a reservoir used for recreation in a State Park in Colorado, US. Sampling occurred on a variety of schedules ranging from fortnightly to annually, depending upon the water quality analysis required. Storm water sampling also was conducted to estimate peak flow concentrations and loading of phosphorus to the reservoir.
Review of Lower Guadalupe Water Supply Project, O’Connor Ranches, Houston, Texas, USA Project Manager/Senior Hydrologist 2003 - 2006 Managed staff and provided technical expertise for the review of a large-scale (>1,000 GL/yr) water supply transfer project. Reviewed the project in relation to permit requirements, storage requirements, environmental impacts and water yield analyses. Presented findings and answered questions/comments in a public forum.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 7 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Watershed Evaluation for an Environmental Contamination Lawsuit, Client Confidential, California, USA Senior Hydrologist 2002 - 2004 Assessed watershed characteristics to determine runoff volumes in a small watershed to assess the frequency and duration of flow in an ephemeral stream. These data were then used to evaluate transport mechanisms to move volatile organic compounds across a rocket test site, and potentially off-site.
Bear Creek Water Quality Monitoring Program, Evergreen Wastewater, Evergreen, Colorado, USA Hydrologist 2002 Provided a monitoring program for the characterization and assessment of wastewater discharge impacts to Bear Creek water quality. The study included site inspection of creek and discharge outfalls. The program was accepted and used as the dataset to settle a litigation case.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT
Hydrogeological Assessment of Broke Gas Prospect, Sydney Gas, Broke, Hunter Valley, NSW Project Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist 2006 - 2009 Desktop assessment(s) of groundwater and surface water resources, groundwater quality and potential impacts from extraction of coal seam methane from Wittingham and Wollombi Coal Measures. Brian also provided strategic planning advice for throughout his 4 years of project involvement.
Emergency Drought Supply Evaluation: Pinedale Mine, Delta Electricity, Lithgow, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist 2008 Provided technical guidance and oversight of a desk-top investigation into the feasibility of extracting water for the mine void. The feasibility investigation included estimating volumes potentially available within the mine void, identification of permitting requirements, a conceptual model, and the conceptual design and placement of potential extraction bores.
Supervision and Hydrogeological Analysis of Drilling and Testing Program – Warragamba and Wallacia Investigation Sites, Sydney Catchment Authority, Wallacia, NSW Project Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist 2006 - 2007 Brian was project manager of the Drilling and Supervision project at the Warragamba and Wallacia Investigation Sites, which included the supervision of drilling two bores at the Warragamba site and three bores at the Wallacia site and the supervision of geophysical logging and pump testing of these test bores. Four bores were installed in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, with one bore (3A) drilled to 450m into the underlying Narrabeen Group sediments. 7-day pumping and recovery tests were conducted at each site with water levels monitored in all bores. A final report documenting all field work, water quality, pumping test results and estimated safe yields were provided at the completion of the project.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 8 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Supervision and Hydrogeological Analysis of Drilling and Testing Program – Illawarra Investigation Sites, Sydney Catchment Authority, Wollongong, NSW Project Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist 2006 - 2007 Brian was project manager of the Drilling and Supervision project at the Illawarra site. The primary objective of the investigation was to establish the potential groundwater yield and water quality, and to determine the potential for borefield construction. One bore was drilling on site, which had below average yields and water quality not ideal for borefield development. Further drilling and exploration was consequently canceled. A final report documenting all field work, water quality and yield measurements was provided at the completion of the project.
Emergency Drought Supply Evaluation: Lithgow Mine, Delta Electricity, Lithgow, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist 2006 - 2007 Evaluated and managed the project to identify potential water sources for drought supply. One site identified was the Lithgow Mine. Conducted numerous desk-top and field investigations into the feasibility of extracting water for the mine void. Feasibility investigations have ranged from estimating volumes potentially available within the mine void, identification of permitting requirements, a conceptual model, and the conceptual design and placement of potential extraction bores.
Greystanes Estate - Southern Employment Lands Groundwater Drainage Concept Design, Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW Senior Hydrogeologist 2006 Brian was coordinator for the groundwater design team; organizing a team of hydrogeologists, geochemists, civil engineers, waste water treatment engineers and draftsmen to provide a comprehensive concept design of the groundwater drainage network. The network was designed to maintain water levels below ground surface to a sufficient level to prevent, salinity and negative impacts to shallow piping networks, utilities, and other features associated with the 160 hectare development. Groundwater was then designed to be treated to a sufficient level for discharge to Prospect Creek.
Deep Aquifer Well Construction, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrogeologist/Hydrogeologist 1999 - 2006 Provided contract documents and technical specifications for the drilling and construction of large diameter high production rate water supply wells. Solicited competitive bids on behalf of the client from drillers for the construction of the wells. Recommended to the client contractor selections and provided project oversight on behalf of the client over a six-year period.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 9 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Well Operations Efficiency Program, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Project Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist 2004-2005 Designed and managed the creation of a groundwater use optimization program for the efficient operation of a well field of over 25 deep aquifer wells, which is expected to expand to over 40 wells in the next 20 years. The software operates the wells through an existing SCADA system based upon water levels in multiple storage tanks, and uses previous historical data, such as demand and climate records, to predict demand. The system also adjusts production rates based upon water levels in the wells; the intent being to distribute pumping aerially across the aquifer as much as possible to reduce localized drawdown and air intrusion. As a result of implementing the system, operational electrical costs alone are expected to decrease by 15% the first year, resulting in an estimated net savings in 2006 of over $250,000 (US). Once the system is fully operational and the well field is completed, electrical cost savings are expected to exceed US$500,000 annually.
Passive Injection and Recovery Well, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Project Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist 2004 - 2005 Designed, managed, and obtained State and Federal permits for the construction and testing of a new well construction design, intended to allow water to be extracted from and recharged to multiple aquifers within a single well. The well design allows for water to be extracted from one or more aquifers and injected and\or brought to the surface without the need of redundant infrastructure for each aquifer, such as wells, pumps, meters, piping, etc. The design included multiple options for the measurement of flow to and from each aquifer, which was required for groundwater production reporting to the State and injection reporting to USEPA.
Characterized a UAN spill and plume migration, CF Industries – Fremont, Fremont, Nebraska, USA Hydrogeologist 2000 - 2003 Characterization included onsite inspection, monitoring well construction, water quality sampling, and analytical modeling of plume migration. Based upon the study results an assessment of risk to surrounding shallow groundwater users was provided to the State as well as a monitoring and remediation plan. Subsequently, annual reports were supplied to the client and the State.
Alluvial Aquifer Characterization Program, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Hydrogeologist 2000 - 2001 Conducted and managed a drilling program to characterize an alluvial aquifer determined to be a critical factor in the supply of water and reuse of treated water. The program included discreet split spoon sampling every 1.5 meters during borehole drilling and monitoring well construction. Results of the drilling program were used to characterize the aquifer within the project area and recommendations were provided to the client for the placement of large diameter, high rate production wells (12 in total).
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 10 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Preliminary Groundwater Availability Assessment, Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA Hydrogeologist 2001 Conducted field visits and literature research on local aquifers. Literature reviewed included geophysical logs of boreholes completed in the surrounding area as well as seismic refraction tests conducted onsite. Based upon the findings, a drilling and testing program was recommended to the client for aquifer testing and production well construction. An assessment of potential impacts to surrounding groundwater users and surface water flows was also provided, as well as a monitoring plan to assess impacts.
Large Lot Residential Well Permitting, Newmont Mining, Ouray, Colorado, USA Hydrogeologist 2001 Assisted Newmont Mining in the permitting of residential wells for the housing development being constructed at a reclaimed mine site. In addition, provided contract documents and technical specifications for the solicitation of bids to drill and construct the wells.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT
Rueter-Hess Reservoir Operational Studies, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 1999- 2006 Over the period of 6 years, conducted and managed numerous studies for the design and operation of an off-channel reservoir to be used as an integral part of a water supply distribution system, as well as a water reuse program. Assessments included sizing the reservoir and intake structures based upon various potential water sources available, as well as modeling of chemical mixing expected to take place within the reservoir from the various source waters. Over the period of 2004-2006, the planned reservoir size increased over 400% due to the partnership with other water supply entities, resulting development of complex operational rules and accounting.
Upper South Platte River Water Supply Feasibility Assessment, Parker Water and Sanitation District, South Platte River, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2004 - 2005 Conducted a preliminary evaluation of water availability and reservoir site location in the upper regions of the South Platte River, Colorado. The study included reservoir sizing and cost estimation. The results of the study were presented in a long-term water supply planning conference held by the client.
Lower South Platte River Water Supply Feasibility Assessment, Parker Water and Sanitation District, South Platte River, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2004 - 2005 Conducted a preliminary evaluation of water availability and reservoir site location in the lower regions of the South Platte River, Colorado. The study included reservoir sizing and cost estimation. The results of the study were presented in a long-term water supply planning conference held by the client.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 11 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
Parker Farms Management Strategy, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Logan County, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2003 - 2005 After the purchase of numerous farms and associated water rights a study was conducted to assess water availability from the new assets. A detailed review was conducted to estimate historical land and water use, with the intention of providing recommendations for more efficient water use; the point being if water is used more efficiently, more water would be available for municipal use. The study resulted in a water management and land management plan designed to maximize the efficiency of water used in irrigation, making available more water to be supplied for municipal purposes.
Cactus Park Reservoir and Hydroelectric Generation Project, Grand Mesa Water Task Force, Cedaredge, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2005 The project included the preliminary feasibility study of using a network of reservoirs to store water and generate hydroelectric revenue to pay for the project construction and maintenance. The study included historic flow characterisations, water rights availability assessment, as well as the operational simulations of up to three hydroelectric stations and two reservoirs working in series over a 30 year period. Results of the operational simulations were provided for reservoir and hydroelectric generator sizing and cost estimates. A final report was prepared and presentation given to the task force, as well as recommendations for future actions and potential fatal flaws.
Annual Operational Review and Water Supply Assessment, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 1999 - 2005 Managed, conducted and presented to the client annually a review of their water supply and operations, as well as provided recommendations for system improvements and advice regarding potential short fall in supply. The water supply system included both surface and ground water components requiring planning to meet short-term and long-term objectives.
Cherry Creek Water Availability Assessment, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colorado, USA Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2002- 2004 Conducted a water availability assessment for the sizing of an in-take structure and forebay, as well as the terminal off-channel reservoir. Fifty years worth of hydrologic records were used in the estimate of water availability. Flow records needed to be adjusted for increased drainage area from the point of recorded flow to the intake structure and decreased due to water diversions from other entities in the same reach. Flow estimates were then verified with downstream flow measurements.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 12 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – MINING RELATED HYDROLOGIC/HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDIES
Preliminary Water Availability Assessment for a Proposed Mine, U.S. Energy, Mt. Emmons, Colorado, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2005 The water availability assessment included the use of multiple reservoirs and water diversions and transportation from multiple catchments.
Tailings Seepage Analyses, Smith Williams Consulting, Rock Creek, Alaska, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2005 Conducted tailings seepage analyses for the design of tailings facilities using a variety of potential hydraulic conductivities resulting from processing as well as potential tailings structure lining.
Preliminary site Hydrologic/Hydrogeologic Characterization for Mine Feasibility Report, Smith Williams Consulting, Mt. Hope, Nevada, USA Senior Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2004 - 2005 Installed monitoring network for the measurement of discharge from the mine pits to the local alluvial aquifer and associated stream. Numerous pumping tests were conducted and analyzed.
Monitoring of Tailings Facility, Battle Mountain Resources, San Luis Mine, Colorado, USA Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2001 Installed monitoring network downstream of the tailings facility to demonstrate no discharge to the local water supply.
Discharge Monitoring Network, Battle Mountain Resources, San Luis Mine, Colorado, USA Hydrologist/Hydrogeologist 2000 - 2001 Installed monitoring network for the measurement of discharge from the mine pits to the local alluvial aquifer and associated stream. Numerous pumping tests were conducted and analyzed.
Analytical Modeling, AMAX-Gold, Fort Knox, Alaska, USA Engineer Technician 1993 Conducted literature research for watershed characterization. Conducted analytical modeling for mine dewatering as well as tailings seepage estimates.
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 13 Brian M. Rask – Principal Hydrogeologist/Modeller
PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS
“Interpreting Pumping Tests for a Basalt-Interbed Hydrostratigraphic Unit,” Co-authored with C.E. Divine, Proceedings of the Twenty Second Annual American Geophysical Union Hydrology Days, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. April 1-4, 2002
“Results of Rueter-Hess Reservoir Project EIS Modeling,” Paper presented at the AWRA Summer Specialty Conference: Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions, Keystone, Colorado, USA. July 1-3, 200
LANGUAGES
English – native language
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
March 2009 – present Water Resource Australia Pty Ltd February 2006 – March 2009 Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd May 1999–- January 2006 John C. Halepaska and Associates, Inc. (USA) Oct 1991 – January 1993 John C. Halepaska and Associates, Inc. (USA)
P.O. BOX 7275, TATHRA, NSW 2550 | (02) 6494 5030 | [email protected] PAGE 14
SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MAULES CREEK COAL PROJECT
Prepared for MAULES CREEK COMMUNITY COUNCIL September 2011
Copyright
© SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011). This report has been prepared specifically for the client, Maules Creek Community Council. Neither this report nor its contents may be referred to or quoted in any statement, study, report, application, prospectus, loan, other agreement or document, without the express approval of either the client or SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd.
Disclaimer The information contained in this report is based on sources believed to be reliable. SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd, together with its members and employees accepts no responsibility for the results of incautious actions taken as a result of information contained herein and any damage or loss, howsoever caused, suffered by any individual or corporation. The findings and opinions in this report are based on research undertaken by Robert Banks (BSc Hons, Certified Professional Soil Scientist, Dip Bus) of SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd, independent consultants, and do not purport to be those of the client.
1 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Report Objectives ...... 3 2. Stepwise Review of Environmental Assessment Main Report – Volume 1 ...... 3 3. Soil ...... 5 3.1 Introductory Remarks ...... 5 3.2 Stepwise Critique of soils sections of Appendix P ...... 6 4. Discussion of points raised in review ...... 8 4.1 Not quoting reference material ...... 8 4.2 Standard Land Capability assessment...... 9 4.3 Using soil data to predict hydrological impacts...... 11 4.4 Using soil data to predict effectiveness of rehabilitation and revegetation ...... 14 4.5 Lack of understanding of Land Capability in Rehabilitation Planning ...... 16 4.5 Short comment on Surface Water ...... 16 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 18 5.1 Groundwater and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE’s) ...... 18 5.2 Methodology and Soil mapping reference material ...... 18 5.3 Purpose of the Alluvial Soil Study ...... 18 5.4 Errors in interpretation of Laboratory Data ...... 18 5.5 Inadequate Rehabilitation Planning ...... 19 5.6 Inconsistency of Principal Consulting Group ...... 19 6. References ...... 21 7. Appendices ...... 23 Appendix 7.1 Stygofauna Occurrence Map Maules Creek ...... 24 Appendix 7.2 Stygofauna Reference material for Maules Creek area...... 25 Appendix 7.3 Stagnant Alluvial Soil Landscape Definitions ...... 26 Appendix 7.4 Soil Landscapes from Banks and King (In Press) ...... 27 Appendix 7.5 Soil Landscape Available Water Calculations ...... 72
2 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) 1. Introduction 1.1 Background
This report has been prepared in response to a request from Mr Philip Laird of the Maules Creek Community Council. He requested that a review be made of the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Maules Creek Coal Project which was presented to the Maules Creek Community Council by Aston Resources in August 2011.
This review covers an assessment of the validity of the information given in the EA, and supplies supplemental information and science to aid in assessing some of the claims made by Aston Resources about their project.
This review concentrates on the area covered by Coal Lease CL375 as well as the proposed 21 year mining limit boundary given in Hansen and Bailey (2011, Appendix 4, Page 4), and not the adjacent infrastructure areas. The review is not as comprehensive as it might have been due to the limited time frame given by the proponent to comment on their EA.
1.2 Report Objectives The main objectives of this review are to:
1. Critically review the Environmental Assessment commissioned by Aston Resources, specifically with respect to soils, and aspects of vegetation and water.
2. Provide some basic modeling to show that there are important issues which Aston have clearly failed either to address, or to address adequately in their Environmental Assessment.
3. Summarise the issues that remain to be addressed with respect to soil, vegetation, and water by Aston Resources.
2. Stepwise Review of Environmental Assessment Main Report – Volume 1 The following is a review by page number of the Main Report for the Environmental Assessment.
Page xii, Para 7: Although no Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE’s) have been identified within the boundary of the Project Boundary, there are known occurrences of Stygofauna adjacent to the project boundary. A desktop study alone does not quantify potential offsite impacts of mining on Stygofauna. Interestingly, the presence of springs within the EA area are not mentioned, nor the occurrence of Melaleuca bracteata (white cloud tree) which only occur within areas of shallow groundwater and are therefore groundwater dependent.
3 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Page xviii Paras 9 - 15: According to this section, the soil and land capability survey provided by GSS is original work. This review will demonstrate below that this is clearly copyrighted work (SoilFutures, 2008; NCMA, 2009) which has been reproduced verbatim by the consultants. Although additional information may have been provided by the consultants through the addition of 21 soil test pits, this serious breach of copyright needs to be addressed and, in future, the consultants need to properly reference their material.
Page 9, Para 7: The comment on alteration of natural drainage through forestry activities is not justified in any way. In fact the opposite appears to be true for the area of the EA. There are three occurrences within the EA area of mapped high conservation stream lines which need to be addressed (Lampert and Short, 2004).
Page 11, Para 1: Kelvin State Forest is no longer a state forest. This should be changed.
Page 154, Map: Both the ―project alone‖ and ―cumulative‖ 21 year zone of influence appear to go very close to areas of potential and actual Stygofauna habitat (SoilFutures, 2011) as indicated in the map provided for Maules Creek Community Council by SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd in Appendix 1 of this document. Comment – the effects on Stygofauna habitat may need to be addressed. Stygofauna reference material is provided in Appendix 2 of this document.
Page 168, Table 46: This shows the degree of plagiarism used by the consultants and whilst the soil information is essentially correct and done to appropriate government approved standards, the mapped information (Figure 33) is clearly obtained from published information without proper referencing or acknowledgement. The materials used should be sourced either as SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2008) or NCMA (2009) No indication is given of this in either Volume 1 of the EA or appendix P (the soils section). Soil Type 1 is clearly Leard Soil Landscape. Soil Type 2 is clearly Blue Vale Soil Landscape. Soil Types 3a and 3 b are subdivisions of Hartfell Soil Landscape. Soil Types 4a, b and c are subdivisions Brentry and part of Velyama Soil Landscape. Soil Type 5 is clearly Driggle Draggle variant a Soil Landscape, Soil Type 6 is Burburgate Soil Landscape. Further discussion demonstrating the exact line up of soil landscape boundaries is given below.
Page 168, section 7.15.1: As stated above, there is an exact line up of the published soil landscape information (SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd, 2008; NCMA, 2009). ―Soil Type 5‖ lines up with Driggle Draggle variant a soil landscape which is geomorphically classified as a Stagnant Alluvial soil landscape. A definition of a Stagnant Alluvial landscape is provided in Appendix 3 of this review. The landscape clearly is alluvial in origin and to say that it does not have ―Alluvial Soils‖ is in fact a play on words.
Page 169, whole page. Descriptions of the ―soil types‖ given are reasonable, however salinity rankings for soils are incorrect (see review below of appendix p) and the topsoil stripping recommendations appear to have been misused later in the document. It is essential that the different land capability soils are restored to at least required depths. There is no real mention of how subsoils will be used in rehabilitation to acquire the required depth of soil to restore land capability.
4 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Page 170 Para2: no mention is made of how subsoils will be handled to get the required soil depth to restore land capability as stated.
Page 170 para 3: As stated above, Driggle Draggle variant a soil landscape is a Stagnant Alluvial landscape and by its definition is alluvial in natural. The ―Alluvial Soil‖ assessment is purely a play on words in this assessment.
Page 170 Paras 5 – 7 and Table 48. Clearly the consultant misunderstands the requirement to restore lands to their previous capability. There is an obvious general decrease in land capability post mining in table 48. The intention to have slope batter grades of 10 degrees will significantly decrease land capability from pre mining land capability. Effort should be made to plan a landscape which truly reflects the pre mining landscape in the post mining environment.
Page 175 Para 1 and 2: As it is Aston’s intent to create a post mining landscape which is consistent with the pre – mining land use biodiversity does this mean that it is the intent to restore soil depths and land capabilities to the extent where the same land use as before can occur (ie recreational and unrestricted access by members of the public, forestry etc)?
3. Soil 3.1 Introductory Remarks Whilst it is good to see that Hansen Bailey Consultants and their subcontractors have taken care to put soil and land capability into this EA within the bounds of the Leard State Forest, it is interesting to note that there is clearly both a breach of copyright and a significant case of plagiarism, having occurred in both Volume 1 and Volume 5 of the EA. The boundary definition of both the Land Capability mapping and the Soil mapping within the EA area is exactly the same as that in SoilFutures (2008) and NCMA (2009), though the mapping is presented as original work based on detailed survey.
It is also interesting to note, that though Hansen Bailey have strongly defended their position to not undertake Land Capability mapping in the Leard Forest for the adjacent Boggabri Coal EA (Hansen Bailey 2010), they have now considered it necessary. This represents either a change of direction which is not stated by Hansen Bailey or an inconsistency in their approach to the production of mining Environmental Assessments.
Appendix P, of the EA is reasonably well presented and worded, yet the failure to acknowledge source information and the misuse of this information becomes apparent on review of this section of the EA. This section of the review will proceed with a stepwise analysis of Appendix P, the Soil and Land Capability Assessment. Following this, a series of calculations based on soil data will be made, to test the assumptions made regarding rehabilitation and offsite effects which have not been addressed adequately in the EA
5 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
3.2 Stepwise Critique of soils sections of Appendix P
Appendix P, page 2: Objective 1-2: This is an interesting objective, and will be discussed further below. The soil landscape in which this area occurs is a Stagnant Alluvial Landscape and therefore it is alluvial in nature.
Page 2, Objective 3-1. It is interesting to note, that subsoil management recommendations do not get more than a passing mention in this document.
Page 2, 1.3.1, Para 1: There is no reference to the ASC here. It should be Isbell (2002)
Para2: This system is discouraged now, and use of the Land and Soil Capability Systems, in CWCMA (2008) is to be encouraged.
Page 5, para 3: There is no data to substantiate changed natural drainage having occurred as a result of forestry activity in this report.
Page 5, Para 6: Slopes quoted do not seem to be correct in this statement. A slope assessment to test this comment is presented in below in this review.
Page 7, Introduction: It should be noted that the objective to assessment of topsoil is the main part of this section of the EA. The assessment of subsoil materials appears to have undergone the same assessment as the topsoils, which is highly inappropriate and will be discussed below.
Page 7, section 3.1: This section needs to be rewritten with regard to the information which was clearly and demonstrably used to make the soil map. It is not apparent that and aerial photograph investigation was done as the maps produced are identical to the reference material in NCMA (2009). There are one or two extra lines on the maps of soils and land capability which follow. It needs to be stated that the NCMA maps were used as a base and that a few amendments were made to this base information. Without proper acknowledgement in the methodology section, what follows is clearly a breach of copyright followed by plagiarism.
There is no problem with having used the NCMA base maps, however they must be quoted at all stages in the EA.
Page 7, section 3.1.2: This should be called soil profile description. That aside, it appears that no serious attempt to establish the depth of the natural soils beyond the shallow pits has been made.
Page 10- 11, Table 4 and Figure 3: As stated above in this review for the soils section of Volume 1 of the EA, these soil map units are identical to those already published with a couple of subdivisions thrown in. The source needs to be acknowledged. The map should say adapted from NCMA (2009) in the least.
Pages 12 – 20, and Appendix 3: Soil profiles descriptions given as representative
6 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) examples of the soil in a soil mapping unity need to be given numbers and locations, otherwise they may appear to be concocted. This needs to be addressed. The soil unit descriptions appear to be reasonable; however it is clear that the subsoils are being subjected to an assessment for topdressing. Though they may not be suitable for topdressing, they are suitable as subsoils, to be replaced following mining activities. The comments on subsoils are clearly misleading and the use of this topsoil assessment is not appropriate. The result is that all subsoils appear to be considered unsuitable for rehabilitation works.
It is apparent that salinity interpretations given in the soil unit descriptions are incorrect. The interpretations given are for salinity of water. Soil salinity is assessed using ECe which is the EC of a 1:5 liquor of soil and water, then multiplied by a textural factor (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007). It appears that no attempt has been made to use this standard and the salinity comments should be corrected.
Page 21: The point of this investigation is uncertain. No clear classification of what alluvial soils are is attempted and as stated above, the landscape is clearly a Stagnant Alluvial plain which is marginally less frequently flooded than its downstream alluvial plain counterparts. There appears to be no rationale in presenting this information as the soils in the Stagnant Alluvial Plain environment are clearly derived from alluvium as described in NCMA (2009).
Page 23: No indication is given of soil depths in most of the Land Capability pre mining descriptions. Soil depth is a key factor in Land Capability classes and to achieve a post mining outcome of equal or similar land capability, soil depths need to be restored to the appropriate rooting depth in the post mining environment.
Page: 24: this is clearly the same land capability map as found in NCMA (2009), with some renumbering of allocated land capability from that published by NCMA. Both the source reference material and the reasons for reallocation of Land Capability classes need to be explained clearly.
Page 26: The post mining Land Capability descriptions are interesting. The described majority of slopes being 10 degrees or 20% places doubt on the post mining land classifications. No indication of soil depths required to re-establish former land capabilities are given.
Page 33: It becomes apparent in Figure 8, that all soils in the whole of the planned area of disturbance through mining as well as the infrastructural areas are planned to be stripped for topsoil. This is clearly not appropriate. The area of planned mining should be the only areas where stripping of soil is done, unless Aston wishes to extend their mining permissions into their infrastructure areas as well as the floodplain of the Namoi River. The maps need to show the area to be mined in this instance, not the whole soil or land capability or stripping depths for all lands under Aston’s control.
As a result of the above comment, it would appear that the pre and post mining estimates of land capability are very misleading.
Pages 37 – 39: Whilst this section talks about industry standards etc, it is interesting to note that the intent in the post mining environment is to place a topsoil cover of
7 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) only 100 mm of soil material over the ―re-graded spoil‖ in the shaped landscape. This means that; according to CWCMA (2008) and Murphy, Gray and Bowman (In Press), all post mining land capability would, by definition, be reduced to Land Capability Class 6 and 7.
4. Discussion of points raised in review The following section of this review will test the assertions made in the EA with respect to soil, and land capability. SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd could only access the spatial information for the Coal Lease area for CL 375, and not the whole area of the EA. Spatial information presented below using the 21 year limit of disturbance from mining area approximate only and was hand digitised from Hansen Bailey’s maps.
4.1 Not quoting reference material As stated above, both GSSE and Hansen Bailey have breached copyright by not citing the sources of the soil information, the boundaries of their soil and land capability classes, and have claimed that their boundaries are the result of their own work. This is clearly not so, thought they have made modifications to the maps. This is both a copyright breach and plagiarism, and both GSSE and Hansen Bailey need to be questioned about the reason for doing this. There are no issues with them using this reference material as the basis of the soil survey and the land capability assessments; however the source of the information should be correctly acknowledged.
The main source which needs to be quoted is NCMA (2009) ―Reconnaissance Soil Landscapes of the Namoi Catchment”, from which the land capabilities maps are derived etc. The principal of SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd provided this information to GSSE’s representatives, which makes it all the more puzzling as to why it was not referenced correctly.
The available soil landscape mapping details soil distributions and limitations. Soil landscapes for Coal Lease 375 controlled by Aston Resources are given in Figure 1 below, with detailed soil landscape descriptions given in Appendix 4.
Please note that the boundaries of the soil landscapes are exactly those used by Hansen Bailey and GSSE for their soil mapping. A few minor splits of soil landscapes were inserted into their maps, but otherwise they are identical.
8 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Figure 1: Soil Landscapes of Coal Lease 375 (NCMA, 2009; from Banks and King, In Press)
4.2 Standard Land Capability assessment. Existing Soil and Land Capability mapping is available for the site – it is accurate to 1:25 000 scale and derived from Banks and King (In Press) and available in NCMA, 2009) (see Figure 2 below).
9 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Figure 2: Rural Land Capability of Coal Lease 375 ( Namoi CMA 2009)
Please note that the boundaries for the Soil and Land Capability given by both Hansen Bailey and GSSE are identical to those in NCMA (2009) with some minor additions. The Soil and Land Capability classes however were changed in Hansen Bailey and GSSE’s EA. The source material and methodology for Hansen Bailey’s and GSSE’s
10 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) maps need to be properly referenced.
4.3 Using soil data to predict hydrological impacts. Figure 4 has been prepared using Ringrose-Voase et al (2003), and further refined in SoilFutures (2009) and KLC Environmental (2010). Each soil landscape unit has been ranked in terms of its saturated hydraulic conductivity, and runoff potential, using real data and modeled data from Ringrose-Voase et al (2003). Figure 3 shows the potential loss of runoff to the wider Namoi catchment through the disturbed land created by area of proposed open cut mining. This is of concern to the wider community as most runoff within the rehabilitation area will be contained and lost to the community.
Figure 3 shows clearly that the estimated runoff losses to the wider Namoi catchment are to the order of 912 ML. This is 912ML of water that will no longer enter adjacent streams and rivers as it will be largely contained on site following mining.
Figure 4 shows the estimated annual recharge rates for the land within the area proposed to be open cut mined through the life of the project. It should be noted that whilst recharge will continue to occur post mining, it is likely to go into different aquifers at different rates when compared with the natural rates and paths for recharge simply because of the change in the structure of the geological material onsite. Estimates for recharge pre mining are to the order of 216 ML. What will happen following mining in this regard is largely unknown?
These hydrological changes to the Namoi catchment will be permanent, and need to be seriously considered in both in terms of the future generations within the agricultural community, the environmental flow effects, and any cumulative effects with other existing or proposed mines.
11 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Figure 3: Predicted Runoff Losses Thorugh Open Cut mining (Extracted from KLC 2011)
12 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Figure 4: Predicted Deep Drainage (disturbance to natural groundwater recharge) Losses Thorugh Open Cut mining (Extracted from KLC 2011)
13 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
4.4 Using soil data to predict effectiveness of rehabilitation and revegetation The proposed rehabilitation of mine spoil includes land shaping, and then covering with 10 cm of topsoil obtained from suitable areas within the area to be mined. Also noted above is the attempt to re plant the ―box-gum‖ communities which the mine plans to destroy through clearing of land. This would be through a process of replanting as well as natural regeneration from seed banks stored in the topsoil.
The plant community referred mostly as ―box-gum‖ throughout the EA, is actually classified as White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland and is critically endangered as given in the Threatened Ecological Communities List under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
It should be noted, that the natural soil depths in the EA area are much greater than 10 cm, and would average at least 1 m, except for some upper slope areas (see Appendix 4 for full soil distribution details in each soil landscape).
Whilst the proposal sounds amenable to restoring land to its previous land capability, it is clearly not. The native vegetation communities within the area proposed to be mined and the areas already mined and in part ―rehabilitated‖ are adapted to certain soil types, depths and soil profile moisture storage, known as Available Water Holding Capacity (or AWC). Using published soil landscape information on AWC for the published soil landscapes of the proposed 21 year mining area it was possible to build up a pre and post mining soil moisture storage map for the areas included in open cut mining in the Environmental Assessment. Soil profiles used for these calculations are given in Appendix 5 and were retrieved from the NSW Soil and Land Information System (SALIS), a database run by NSW OEH.
The difference in moisture storage can be represented on a map to illustrate that it is effectively not possible to replace the vegetation cleared, and it is doubtful, in the long term as to whether any long term tree or simulated vegetation community is possible. Figure 5 shows clearly that the estimated AWC of the area to be mined over 21 years by Aston Resources at the Maules Creek Mine is to the order of 5780 ML. Were this area to be entirely mined and covered with 10 cm of sandy clay loam material as stated in Appendix S, the landscape AWC for the newly formed rehabilitation areas with only be 459 ML (AWC estimate from Hazelton and Murphy, 2007). This represents soil available water holding capacity deficit of 5321 ML, so it is very difficult to see how anything like the original native vegetation can be replaced on the ―rehabilitated‖ areas.
14 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Figure 5: AWC of Soil Landscapes in area of 21 year mining disturbance using (from Banks and King (In Press) in NCMA, 2009)
15 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) 4.5 Lack of understanding of Land Capability in Rehabilitation Planning
It appears that the consideration of before and after Land Capability is skewed towards forming rehabilitated lands into the same or similar slope categories only. Land Capability or the modern equivalent, Soil and Land Capability (CWCMA, 2008) has a soil depth and type component which has been ignored in rehabilitation planning.
If Aston is to restore Land Capability to that which existed pre mining, then the amount of soil thickness or soil depth required to recreate a particular land capability class is essential. There is a short comment in Hansen Bailey’s EA volume 1 about putting subsoils back between the spoil and the topsoil. Although GSSE’s brief included subsoil handling planning, this has not appeared in Appendix P at all.
Table 1 below indicates the original slope ranges of the soil landscapes used in the EA pre mining and the soil depths which currently exist in those areas. To obtain a rehabilitation outcome, in the post mining environment which is equivalent to the pre mining one, it is essential that the soil depth be restored to at least approximate these values.
Table 1: Soil Depths, Soil and Land Capability Class, slope ranges, and average soil depths of Soil Landscapes in approximate area of 21 year mining disturbance using (from Banks and King (In Press) in NCMA, 2009) Soil Landscape LSC Slope Slope Area Average Soil Depth Code Name Class min % max % Hectares (m) bvy Blue Vale 4 1 10 189 0.9 byr Brentry 4 1 3 335 1.6 Driggle Draggle ddwa variant a 5 0 0 19 0.3 hay Hartfell 6 1 5 132 0.1 lex Leard 5 10 35 799 0.45 vey Velyama 4 1 8 167 3
4.5 Short comment on Surface Water
The NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) published the River Styles report and maps of the entire Namoi Catchment, detailing river and stream condition of all of the major 2nd order and above streams in the Namoi Catchment (Lampert and Short, 2004). The spatial data for the area including and surrounding the Maules Creek Coal Environmental Assessment is given in Figure 6 below. It is strongly suggested that this information be more seriously considered in the EA. Comment needs to be given on how Aston will maintain the catchment for the streams which occur within their Coal Lease and, how they will ensure the currently ―Good‖ rated stream condition is maintained.
16 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Figure 6: River Condition Layer from Lampert and Short (2004)
17 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) 5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This brief review demonstrates that the Maules Creek Coal Environmental Assessment (2011) does not adequately address several important environmental issues. Existing published information has been used although it has not been referenced properly, breaching copyright in the process. Aside from this, Hansen Bailey has shown an inconsistent approach to this assessment with respect to the methodology which they stringently defended in their EA for Boggabri Coal (Hansen Bailey (2010).
5.1 Groundwater and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE’s)
The presence of springs in associated with the presence of Mellaleuca bracteata (a Groundwater Dependant Ecosystem) has not been covered at all in this report Stygofauna are present in areas to the north of the Boggabri Coal EA in the Maules Creek Catchment. Stygofauna have not been addressed in any other than a desktop way. Proper work needs to be done on the potential changes to both water quality and water quantity in their known habitat, including the long term effects of changes hundreds of years past the mines closure. Currently the predicted cumulative impacts on groundwater extend well into the Maules Creek Catchment where Stygofauna are known and reported. GDE’s and Stygofauna need to be more adequately addressed.
5.2 Methodology and Soil mapping reference material
The soils section of the EA is based on work which is claimed to be original; however the work is clearly that of Banks and King (In Press) as given in NCMA (2009). This needs to be addressed Methodology needs to be altered to state that NCMA (2009) was used as a reference base, of which some minor subdivisions were made. Though the Soil and Land Capability Classes for the area were directly derived from NCMA (2009), the classes applied to the plagiarized polygons have been changed. No explanation as to why this is so has been given.
5.3 Purpose of the Alluvial Soil Study
The Alluvial Soil study conducted on Back Creek within Driggle Draggle Soil Landscape does not seem to have a point. Clearly it is a Stagnant Alluvial landscape, and therefore the soils are derived from alluvium. The purpose of this study is not made clear.
5.4 Errors in interpretation of Laboratory Data
18 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) The soils sections of the EA have errors in the interpretation of soil laboratory data for salinity.
5.5 Inadequate Rehabilitation Planning
Post mining lands should be restored to the previous land capability which is derived from slope, terrain and soil attributes. Although Soil Landscape mapping has been used and an assessment of the suitability of the soils for top soiling has been made, no account has been taken of restoring both slopes and, more importantly soil depth to the rehabilitated terrain. No plan has been put forward as to how subsoils are to be managed to restore the soil depth required to achieve this. No subsoil management plan, which was part of GSSE’s brief, has been put forward nor is an indication of what depth of soil required to restore previous land capability. This needs to be supplied. It is critical that soil information be used to develop a realistic rehabilitation plan with respect to the intention to restore ―box-gum‖ woodlands destroyed by the mining process. This plant community needs to be referred to properly as defined in the Threatened Ecological Communities List under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Modeled outcomes in this review show that the planned mining would result in a permanent removal of to the order of 912 ML runoff which would otherwise have entered the wider Namoi catchment. Modeled outcomes in this review indicate that the planned mining would disrupt 216 ML of natural recharge to groundwaters. The end result of this change is unknown. Published soil landscapes and soil data (which have been used and modified in the EA) indicate that the rehabilitation proposal for mine spoil is inadequate to restore native vegetation at the site. The soil available water holding capacity of the site pre-mining estimated to be 5780 ML, and only 459 ML post mining, creating a 5321 ML soil Available Water Holding Capacity deficit. It appears that the slopes of the ―rehabilitated‖ areas will be significantly steeper than those pre-mining. How will this allow re-establishment of prior land capability? The application of a topsoil suitability study to the subsoils in the pre-mining landscape is clearly inappropriate to the consideration of subsoils. It appears from the maps and tables of ―topsoil suitability‖ that topsoil will be sourced not only outside the mine disturbance area, but also on the Namoi Floodplain itself. Is Aston Resources required to extend their mining permissions to do this?
5.6 Inconsistency of Principal Consulting Group
Hansen-Bailey appears to have changed their stance about doing land capability studies in State Forests yet have defended previous studies where they have not acknowledged its importance in rehabilitation planning (Hansen Bailey, 2010). Why has this happened and will they re-do the land capability
19 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) section in Hansen Bailey (2010) to make their approach consistent.
20 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) 6. References
Banks RG and King D (In Press) Soil Landscapes of the Boggabri 100 000 sheet. Map and Report. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. CSIRO (2009). Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook. 3rd Edition, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Vic. Ecologia (no date). Environmental Management. Stygofauna. Ecologia Environment. Perth. Central West CMA (2008) Soil and Land Capability – How we safely manage the land. Central West Catchment Management Authority, Wellington. RH Gunn, JA Beattie, RE Reid and RHM Van de Graff (Eds) 1988. Australian Soil and Land Survey Handbook – Guidelines for Conducting Surveys. Inkata Press. Melbourne and Sydney Hansen Bailey (2010) Boggabri Coal Mine Environmental Assessment. Hazelton, P.A. and Murphy, B.M. (2007). What Do All the Numbers Mean? A Guide for the Interpretation of Soil Test Results. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Vic. Isbell RF (2002) The Australian Soil Classification. Revised Edition. CSIRO Publishing. Sydney and Melbourne. KLC Environmental (2010) Gins Leap Gap Project (Final Report). Namoi Catchment Management Authority, Gunnedah and Tamworth. Lampert, G. and Short, A (2004) River styles, indicative geomorphic condition and geomorphic priorities for river conservation and rehabilitation in the Namoi catchment, North-West, NSW DIPNR, Sydney. Murphy BW, Gray J, and Bowman G (In Press) The land and soil capability scheme – a rural land evaluation system for NSW. Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Dept of Premier and Cabinet, Sydney. NCMA (2009). Reconnaissance Soil Landscapes of the Namoi Catchment. Namoi Catchment Management Authority, Tamworth. (Available online or as a self extracting DVD ROM) QDNR (1997). Salinity Management Handbook. Queensland Department of Natural Resources. Scientific Publishing, Resource Sciences Centre. Brisbane. A.J. Ringrose-Voase, R.R. Young, Z. Paydar, N.I. Huth, A.L. Bernardi, H.P. Cresswell, B.A. Keating, J.F. Scott, M. Stauffacher, R.G. Banks, J.F. Holland, R.M. Johnston, T.W. Green, L.J. Gregory, I. Daniells, R. Farquharson, R.J. Drinkwater, S. Heidenreich, S.G. Donaldson, C.L. Alston (2003) Deep Drainage under Different Land Uses in the Liverpool Plains. NSW Agriculture Technical Bulletin, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report. SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd. 2008. Reconnaissance Soil Landscapes of the Namoi Catchment. SoilFutures Consulting, Gunnedah. SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd 2009. Deep Drainage and Runoff Estimates for Coal Exploration Leases EL 6505 and EL 7223. Presented to Senate Committee hearing
21 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) for food security, 2009. SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd 2011. Soil Landscapes with known Stygofauna Occurrence and Potential Groundwater Dependent Vegetation. Maules Creek – NSW. SoilFutures Consulting, Gunnedah. .
22 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
7. Appendices
23 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Appendix 7.1 Stygofauna Occurrence Map Maules Creek
24 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Appendix 7.2 Stygofauna Reference material for Maules Creek area.
Anderson and Acworth (2007) report that some of the alluvial aquifer systems in the vicinity of Maules Creek and Back Creek to the north of the proposed mine are characterised by a mixture of fresher groundwater coming from Mt Kaputar and coal aquifer waters coming from the Permian Triassic sequences which are proposed to be mined in this EA. The rock in which the coal lays dips to the north east, thus creating a vector for groundwater to cross into the Maules Creek catchment from the EA area.
It is generally acknowledged that Stygofauna are only found in stable hydrogeological conditions, and as such, any change in the condition of the Stygofauna habitat (ie the alluvial aquifer in which they live) generally results in the death of the Stygofauna community (Ecologia, nd).
25 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Appendix 7.3 Stagnant Alluvial Soil Landscape Definitions
A stagnant Alluvial Plain or soil landscape is defined in NCST (2009) as : An alluvial plain on which erosion and aggregation by channelled and overbank stream flow is barely active or inactive because of reduced water supply, without apparent incision or channel enlargement that would lower the level of stream action. Typical elements include stream channel, plain. Common elements include bar, scroll, levee, backplain, swamp. Occasional elements include ox-bow, flood-out, lake.
26 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Appendix 7.4 Soil Landscapes from Banks and King (In Press)
27 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) bv BLUE VALE Residual Landscape-- 84.8 km2; Undulating low hills and hills on Permian sandstones and conglomerates of the Curlewis Hills. Local relief 70 m; elevation 250 - 420 m; slopes 1 – 10%. Woodland and grassland, in State Forests or cleared for grazing.
Soils— Soils vary little across the landscape. Brown Chromosols (Non-calcic Brown Soils) and Brown Sodosols (Solonetz) are dominant, with Bleached Brown Chromosols (Non-calcic Brown Soils) occasionally present.
Qualities and Limitations-- known saline aquifer recharge area; inherent erosion risk; sheet erosion risk; rill and gully erosion risk; wind erosion risk; low moisture availability; Callitris spp. (cypress pines) regrowth potential.
LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
Undulating low hills and hills on Permian sandstones and conglomerates of the Curlewis Hills. Type location is south of Willowtree Range in Leard State Forest . Grid Reference 2 27900E, 66 11000N.
LANDSCAPE
Geology and Regolith
Quartz and lithic sandstones, conglomerates, mudstones, and associated coal seams of the Permian Black Jack group Geological map code Pbx) and the Maules Creek Formations (Geological map code Pmx). Some sandstones within this group are highly acidic. Depth to unweathered rock is generally less than 2 m.
Terrain
Simple and convex sideslopes with generally broad crests on undulating to hills and hills of the Curlewis Hills. . Local relief to 70 m; elevation 250 - 420 m; slopes 1 – 10%. Drainage is predominantly by sheetflow.
Climate and Hydrology
The Permian sandstones form an important saline fractured rock aquifer system that is hydraulically connected to the deep Gunnedah Formation aquifers on the alluvial plains (Broughton, 1994).
Average annual rainfall range 570 – 655 mm, increasing towards the Melville Range. Vegetation
Open and closed woodland communities, 90% cleared for grazing. Dominant tree species include Eucalyptus albens (white box), E. sideroxylon (mugga ironbark), E. melanophloia (silver-leaved ironbark) , Eucalyptus crebra (narrow-leaved ironbark), Eucalyptus populnea (bimble box), Eucalyptus pilligaensis (pilliga grey box), Eucalyptus dealbata (tumbledown gum), Allocasuarina distyla (scrub she-oak), Notelaea microcarpa (native olive), Beyeria viscosa (sticky wallaby-bush), Olearia elliptica (sticky daisy bush), Ehretia membranifolia (peach bush), Geijera parviflora (wilga), Alectryon oleifolius (rosewood), Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine), and Callitris endlicheri (black cypress pine).
Groundcover species include Bothriochloa macra (red grass), Austrostipa verticillata (slender bamboo grass), Chloris truncata (windmill grass), Aristida vagans (three-awned spear grass), and Austrostipa setacea (corkscrew grass), Austrostipa scabra (spear grass), Desmodium brachypodium (large tick- trefoil), Cymbopogon refractus (barbed-wire grass) and Aristida ramosa (wire grass).
Land Use
Much of this landscape is in State Forests or cleared and used for grazing on native or improved pastures. The landscape has a history of cropping in some locations, but now is predominantly used for
28 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) grazing. Owing to the underlying geology, this landscape is a favoured area for open cut coal mining.
Land Degradation
Most soils in cleared areas show moderate to severe sheet erosion. This is most evident in areas previously cultivated, where topsoils are thin and gravelly. Overgrazed pastures providing inadequate groundcover are also affected. Rill erosion and gully head formation is also evident in some areas.
LANDSCAPE QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Known saline aquifer recharge area; inherent erosion risk; sheet erosion risk; rill and gully erosion risk; wind erosion risk; poor moisture availability; Callitris spp. (cypress pines) regrowth potential. Known saline discharge sites at landscape margins and in adjacent flanking landscapes.
SOILS
Variation and Distribution
As this landscape crosses the western map boundary into the Baan Baa sheet, it was studied as one unit crossing the map boundary into the Baan Baa Sheet. Some soil profiles are described by Pengelly (In Press) with type locations occurring on the Baan Baa sheet to the west of the Boggabri sheet.
This landscape is dominated by Chromosols (Red-brown Earths and Non-Calcic brown soils. Crests on sandstone generally have Vertic Red Chromosols (Red-brown Earths) whereas crests conglomerate tend to have Bleached Red Chromosols (Non-Calcic Brown Soils), sideslopes are generally dominated by Vertic Brown Chromosols (Red-brown Earths) with Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils) occurring on lower slopes.
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Crests on sandstone Red Chromosols 25% Crests on conglomerate Bleached Red Chromosols 15% Hillslopes Bleached Brown Chromosols 50% Lower slopes Brown Sodosols 10%
Dominant Soil Materials bv1 – Dark brown clay loam, sandy (A1 Horizons). Dark reddish brown to dark brown (5YR 3/3 – 10YR 4/3) clay loam, sandy to clay loam; massive; earthy (dry); porous; field pH 6.5 – 7.0. Quartz and conglomerate coarse fragments absent to few (0 – 10%). Surface is hardsetting, occasionally loose. bv2 – Dark brown sandy loam (A1 Horizons). Dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) loamy sand to sandy loam; massive to weak pedality; earthy (dry); sub-angular blocky (5 – 10 mm) where pedal; field pH 6.0. Few (2 – 10%) quartz sandstone coarse fragments often present. Surface is loose to hardsetting. bv3– Bleached sandy loam (A2e Horizons). Brown (7.5YR 4/4) (dry colours almost white) sandy loam; massive; earthy (dry); porous; field pH 6.0. Conglomerate coarse fragments few (2 – 10%). bv4 – Reddish brown clayey subsoils (B2 Horizons). Red to reddish brown (2.5YR 4/8 – 5YR 4/4) sandy clay loam to medium heavy clay; weak to strong pedality; peds smooth-faced (dry); angular blocky (20 – 50 mm); field pH 6.0 – 8.5. Slickensides many (>50%) in clays; calcareous segregations very few (<2%) when pH 8.5. bv5 – Yellowish brown clayey subsoils (B2, B21, B22k Horizons). Strong brown to brownish yellow (7.5YR 4/6 – 10YR 6/6) and dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) light clay with fine sand to heavy clay; moderate to strong pedality; peds smooth-faced (dry); angular blocky (20 – 50 mm) to prismatic (20 – 100 mm); field pH 7.5 – 9.5. Calcareous segregations common (10 – 20%) and fine calcium carbonate evident with HCl where pH 8.5; slight salting occasionally evident with AgNO3 at depth; few quartz sandstone and quartz coarse fragments occasionally evident.
29 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Type Profiles
Type profile 1: Hillcrest Soil classification: moderately well drained Bleached Eutrophic Red Chromosol, thick, slightly gravelly, loamy, clay loamy, very deep, (Non-calcic Brown Soil); few (2-10%) surface gravels; surface condition is gravelly, hard set, expected to be hardsetting when dry Depth of observation: 70 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 topographic map - 500m South East of "Thuin" (Map reference: 228036 E, 6605363 N). Profile 96. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.2 m, bv2 dark brown sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; few (2-10%), as parent material coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6; clear (20-50 mm) smooth boundary to- Layer 2, A2, 0.2 - 0.55 m, bv3 brown sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; few (2- 10%), as parent material coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to-
Layer 3, B2, 0.55 - 0.7 m, bv4 red sandy clay loam with weak pedality (angular blocky), smooth-faced peds; as parent material coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to weathered conglomerate.
Type profile 2: Hillcrest Soil classification: mod. well drained Vertic Mesotrophic Red Chromosol, medium, non gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, moderate, 3 (Non-calcic Brown Soil); Depth of observation: 55 cm. Location: Gulligal 1:25 000 topographic map - NR Trig on " Emerald Plains" (Map reference: 222278 E, 6582458 N). Profile 45. Improved Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.15 m, bv1 dark reddish brown clay loam sandy with massive structure, earthy; common roots; field pH is 6.5; clear (20-50 mm) smooth boundary to- Layer 2, B2, 0.15 - 0.55 m, bv4 reddish brown medium heavy clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 8.5; directly overlies bedrock
Type profile 3: hillslope Soil classification: mod. well drained Bleached-Vertic Mesotrophic Brown Chromosol, medium, non gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, moderate, 2; Depth of observation: 90 cm. Location: Gulligal 1:25 000 topographic map – hillock on "Emerald Plains" (Map reference: 222424 E, 6582638 N). Profile 46. Improved Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.05 m, bv1 dark brown clay loam sandy with massive structure, earthy; common roots; field pH is 7; sharp (<5 mm) smooth boundary to- Layer 2, B2, 0.05 - 0.45 m, bv5 no colour recorded, heavy clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; no roots; field pH is 8.5; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to-
Layer 3, B22, 0.45 - 0.9 m, bv5 brownish yellow heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 50-100 mm), smooth-faced peds; common (10% - 20%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 9.5; directly overlies bedrock
30 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) ****
Type profile 4: Lower slope Soil classification: Brown Sodosol, medium, non gravelly, sandy, clayey, moderate, 2 (Red-brown Earth); Depth of observation: 90 cm. Location: BORAH 1:50 000 topographic Map (from Baan Baa Survey - 200m ENE of Kanangra Ridge (Map reference: 783596 E, 6592890 N). Profile 164. Voluntary native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.15 m, bv2 dark brown loamy sand with weak pedality (sub-angular blocky, 5-10 mm), earthy; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm), quartz, coarse fragments; few roots; field pH is 6; sharp (<5 mm) boundary to- Layer 2, A2, 0.15 - 0.3 m, bv3 strong brown loamy sand with single grained, sandy; few (2- 10%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 7; sharp (<5 mm) boundary to-
Layer 3, B2, 0.3 - 0.53 m, bv5 strong brown fine light clay with moderate pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 7.5; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to-
Layer 4, C, 0.53 - 0.9 m, Associated soil strong brown sandy clay loam with moderate pedality (sub- material. angular blocky, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; common (10- 20%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; field pH is 8.5; layer continues...
Erodibility
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind bv1 moderate high moderate bv2 high high high bv3 high high high bv4 low - moderate moderate low bv5 moderate high low
31 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Cropping High High High Pasture low - Moderate Low Low
Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations
This landscape has been classified as LMU C – Sedimentary Footslopes (URS 2001). Some crest and bench elements of this landscape should be managed for a much higher limitations than are implied by this classification, with higher tree cover levels and possible exclusion of stock where appropriate.
Generally, soils should remain under perennial native or improved pasture as part of a rotational grazing system. Contour banks should be incorporated on slopes above 2% to minimise sheet and gully erosion. Groundcover levels should remain above 70%, with at least 25% tree cover planted throughout the landscape, particularly as shelterbelts or interception plantings and along drainage lines (Pengelly, In Press).
Regrowth of species such as Callitris spp. (cypress pines) should be managed to reduce soil erosion. Low to moderate limitations for grazing, high limitations for cropping.
Urban Capability Low to moderate limitations for urban development due to relatively stable soils. Some areas have bedrock very close to the surface which may cause some footing problems. Care should be taken with water supply, drainage and septic systems in this area to not aggravate local salinity problems.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s
LMU B – Sedimentary Slopes. LMU C – Sedimentary Footslopes.
32 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) by BRENTRY Transferral Landscape—99.3 km2. Drainage plains and fans formed on Quaternary alluvium from Permian quartz sandstones and conglomerates of the Curlewis Hills. Local relief is less than 40 m, elevation 240 - 410 m. Slopes range from 0 – 2%. Mostly cleared open woodland, with isolated patches remaining in upper catchment areas and where the landscape meets the Cox’s Creek Floodplain.
Landscape Variant—bya—gilgai variant with giant melonhole gilgai and Vertosols dominating the area. The soils and characteristics of this variant are quite different from by in that they have very poor (often internal) drainage, and riparian-like vegetation, with distinct zonation of vegetation according to position on gilgai and the associated degree of cracking/self-mulching.
Soils—Footslopes are dominated by very deep gravelly imperfectly drained loamy Grey Chromosols (Solodic Soils), or by giant moderately well drained loamy Brown Sodosols (Red-brown Earths/Solodic Soils). Gilgai variant bya is dominated by very poorly drained giant Grey or Brown Vertosols (Grey and Brown Clays). Plain elements of the landscape are dominated by giant very poorly drained Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays) and imperfectly to poorly drained deep to giant loamy Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils and Solodized Solonetz).
Some locations near rhyolite have Silpanic Sodosols (Solodic soils with hard silica pans).
Qualities and Limitations— Localised poor drainage; high run-on, complex soils/complex terrain (bya), localised flood hazard near alluvial plains; localised seasonal waterlogging; localised dryland salinity; known saline discharge area; known recharge area; inherent erosion risk; high sheet erosion risk; high rill and gully erosion risk; high wind erosion risk; Callitris spp. (cypress pines) regrowth potential. Soil materials with high plasticity, localised low wet bearing strength, localised high shrink- swell potential, high organic matter (some topsoils), sodicity/dispersion, localised high erodibility, hardsetting surfaces, low permeability, localised high permeability, strong alkalinity, localised salinity and low fertility.
LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
Drainage plains, lower footslopes and fans at the base of Permian sedimentary hills of the Curlewis Hills. Type locations is on the northern end of the Boggabri Stock Route. Grid Reference 213200E, 65 96 600N.
LANDSCAPE
Geology and Regolith
Quaternary alluvium from Permian quartz sandstones, conglomerates and coal seams of the Black Jack Group and Maules Creek Formations. Alluvium and colluvium is generally derived from Top Rock (to), Blue Vale (bv) and Leard (le) soil landscapes. Regolith depth is generally greater than 3 m.
Climate and Hydrology
The Permian sandstones underlie much of the Triassic sedimentary material in the Liverpool Plains, and together form an important saline fractured rock aquifer system that is hydraulically connected to the deep Gunnedah Formation aquifers on the alluvial plains (Broughton, 1994). Flood heights of adjacent floodplain landscapes are such that water often reaches the lower parts of this landscape, influencing soils, land use and vegetation types.
Soils are generally have impeded drainage and much of this landscape is dominated by runoff and interflow (water running downhill in the A2e horizon), which can cause waterlogging and salinity at the break of slope with adjacent (lower) landscapes.
Estimated average annual rainfall range 575 – 630 mm.
Terrain
Level to very gently inclined drainage plains, lower footslopes and fans, and occasional sheet flood
33 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) fans, of the Curlewis Hills, with slopes from 0 – 2%. Elevation ranges from 240 - 380 m, local relief to 40 m, usually less than 10 m on drainage plains, with closely to very widely spaced (250 – 1585 m) unidirectional to divergent shallow drainage lines, which tend to terminate in fans rather than connecting with other surface drainage.
Vegetation
Open woodland with grass understorey, 80% cleared for grazing and cropping. Major tree and shrub species are Eucalyptus populnea (bimble box), E. sideroxylon (mugga ironbark), E. microcarpa (western grey box), E. pilligaensis (pilliga grey box), E. crebra (narrow-leaved ironbark), E. melanophloia (silver-leaved ironbark), localised E. albens (white box), E. dealbata (tumbledown gum), Eucalyptus blakelyi (blakely’s red gum), Eucalyptus conica (fuzzy box), Allocasuarina leuhmannii (bull oak) Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine), Notelaea microcarpa (native olive), Beyeria viscosa (sticky wallaby-bush), and Olearia elliptica (sticky daisy bush).
Groundcover species include Austrostipa verticillata (slender bamboo grass), Chloris truncata (windmill grass), Austrostipa setacea (corkscrew grass), Austrostipa scabra (spear grass), Austrodanthonia spp. (wallaby grass), Panicum spp. (panics), Chloris ventricosa (tall windmill grass), Cymbopogon refractus (barbed-wire grass), Aristida ramosa (wire grass)and Bothriochloa macra (red grass).
Land Use
Mostly used for native and occasional improved pasture grazing. Some areas were previously cultivated but this was restricted by high soil erodibility, and structure and fertility decline.
Land Degradation
There is moderate to severe sheet and wind erosion on fans where overgrazing or cropping has occurred. Entire surface horizons have been removed in some areas, leaving hardsetting clay soil surfaces, often with ferromanganiferous nodules or quartz and jasper gravels on the surface. Minor to moderate rill and gully erosion is common in some areas, creating a network of rapidly migrating, very shallow channels, which are mostly relatively stable and revegetated. Some dryland salinity occurs in this landscape, particularly at the lower end of the footslope.
Landscape Variants
Landscape variant bya is a giant gilgai variant dominated by very heavy and dispersive Vertosols. This part of the landscape has unique vegetation patterns related to micro-topography of the gilgai with tussock grasses on mounds, sod grasses on the sides of depressions, and wetland type vegetation in the centre of the hollows. This pattern is thought to be related to the abundance of available calcium and waterlogging events. Many of the hollows remain full of water for several months following rain events.
LANDSCAPE QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Localised poor drainage; high run-on, complex soils/complex terrain (bya), localised flood hazard near alluvial plains; localised seasonal waterlogging; localised dryland salinity; known saline discharge area; known recharge area; inherent erosion risk; high sheet erosion risk; high rill and gully erosion risk; high wind erosion risk; Callitris spp. (cypress pines) regrowth potential.
34 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) SOILS
Variation and Distribution
Brentry is a complex outwash unit from a sedimentary complex of materials which includes a full range of sand to swelling clay minerals. As the landscape appears to be very old, distribution patterns are hard to discern as the landscape becomes flatter.
Soils on footslope positions in this landscape vary according to local sediment source. Some footslopes are dominated by very deep gravelly imperfectly drained loamy Grey Chromosols (Solodic Soils), with others by giant moderately well drained loamy Brown Sodosols (Red-brown Earths/Solodic Soils). Gilgai variant bya is dominated by very poorly drained giant Grey or Brown Vertosols (Grey and Brown Clays). The plain elements of the landscape are dominated by giant very poorly drained Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays) and imperfectly to poorly drained deep to giant loamy Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils and Solodized Solonetz).
Some locations near rhyolite have Vertic Red Chromosols with a silica hardpan. Although these are limited in distribution, they are significant because they topsoils are cemented together by silica and these locations tend to be of limited productivity as ploughing only makes the pan break into hard, cemented lumps.
As this landscape crosses the western map boundary into the Baan Baa sheet, it was studied as one unit crossing the map boundary into the Baan Baa Sheet. Some soil profiles are described by Pengelly (In Press) with type locations occurring on the Baan Baa sheet to the west of the Boggabri sheet.
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Footslope Brown Sodosols 25% Grey Chromosols 15% Gilgai var. bya Grey Vertosols <5% (80% of variant) Brown Vertosols <2% (20% of variant) Plain Brown Vertosols 25% Brown Sodosols 25% Plains near a source of Silica Vertic Red Chromosols with hardpan <1% (eg Rhyolite)
Dominant Soil Materials by1 – Dark sandy topsoils (A1 Horizons). Dark brown to brown (7.5YR 3/3 – 10YR 4/3) loamy sand and sandy loam; massive; earthy (dry); porous; field pH 5.0 – 5.5. Surface loose, occasionally hardsetting. by2—Dark clay loamy topsoils (A1, Ap Horizons). Dark reddish brown to dark reddish grey to dark brown (5YR 3/2 – 4/2 – 7.5YR 3/2) clay loam, sandy to silty clay loam; generally earthy and massive but can have moderate pedality with smooth faced angular blocky (10 – 20 mm) peds with heavier textures; field pH 5.5 – 7.0; surface is hardsetting and can be gravelly in some locations. by3—Brownish clay topsoils (A1 Horizons) generally in association with giant gilgai of bya. Dark brown to dark greyish brown (7.5YR 3/2 – 10YR 4/2) light to heavy clay; strong pedality, peds smooth faced and polyhedral (2 – 5 mm); field pH 5.5 – 7.5; some locations have chloride salts as measured by silver nitrate field test; some areas covered with gibber like gravel lag but generally not gravelly; surface is cracking to self-mulching and can appear scalded and hardset in some locations with a long history of heavy grazing scalded looking. by4 – Bleached sandy loams (A2e, A2en Horizons). Very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2)( dry colours often almost white) clayey sand; massive; earthy (dry); field pH 5.0. Ferromanganiferous nodules commonly present. Extremely hardset and often very eroded where exposed. by5 – Hardsetting dark clayey topsoils (A1 Horizons). Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sandy clay; moderate pedality; smooth-faced peds (dry); sub-angular blocky (10 – 20 mm); field pH 7.5. Very few
35 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) (<2% orange mottles; few (2 – 10%) quartz fragments. Surface is hardsetting. This material occurs predominantly on the adjacent Baan Baa 1:100 000 Sheet. by6 – Brownish clay subsoils (B21, B21k, B22, B23 Horizons). Brown to dark brown (7.5YR 5/6 – 10YR 3/3), occasionally to yellowish red (5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam to medium heavy sandy clay; moderate to strong pedality; peds smooth-faced (dry); sub-angular blocky (10 – 50 mm) to angular blocky (20 – 50 mm) and prismatic (50 – 100 mm); field pH 8 – 10. Very few to few (<2 – 10%) orange, yellow, and red mottles; occasionally mangan ped coatings common (10 – 50%); calcareous segregations absent to common (0 – 20%); slight to conspicuous salt evident with AgNO3; quartz and lithic sandstone, conglomerate, and jasper coarse fragments generally very few to common (<2 – 20%). Hardsetting when exposed. by7 – Greyish blocky clay subsoils (B22k, B23 Horizons). Brown to greyish brown (7.5YR 4/2 – 10YR 5/2) medium sandy clay to heavy clay with coarse sand; moderate to strong pedality; peds smooth-faced (dry); sub-angular blocky (10 – 50 mm), occasionally polyhedral; field pH 6.5 – 10. Slickensides absent to common (0 – 50%); dark, orange, and red mottles very few to many (<2 -50%); mangan ped coatings many (20 – 50%) at depth; calcareous segregations few to common (2 – 20%) in upper subsoil horizons; gypseous crystals absent to few (0 – 10%); lithic sandstone, quartz, and jasper coarse fragments few to common (2 – 20%) in upper subsoil horizons. by8—Grey gilgai clayey subsoils (B2, B2g, B22, B22k Horizons). Dark grey to grey to light yellowish brown (2.5Y4/1 – 5/1 – 10YR or Y 6/3) medium to heavy clays; various mottle colours may occur at depth; strong pedality with smooth faced prismatic to lenticular (5 – 50 mm) peds; slickenside coatings generally evident; field pH 7.0 – 9.0; slight to conspicuous salt evident with AgNO3; quartz and lithic sandstone, conglomerate, and jasper coarse fragments generally very few to common (<2 – 20%); segregations few to common (2 – 20%) where pH >8.5. by9—Reddish clay subsoils (B2 Horizons). Yellowish red (5YR 5/6 – 5/8) heavy clay; strong pedality with smooth-faced prismatic (50 – 100 mm) peds; slickenside coatings often present, field pH 6.0 – 8.0
Associated Soil Materials
Soils on drainage plains are occasionally underlain by C horizon material of yellowish red (5YR 5/6) sandy clay loam with fine sand and many (20 – 50% orange and red mottles; field pH 8.5. Conspicuous salt evident with AgNO3; slight fine calcium carbonate evident with HCl. Not encountered exposed.
TYPE PROFILES
Type profile 1: Footslope Soil classification: Grey Chromosol, very thick, moderately gravelly, loamy, clayey, deep, (Solodic Soil); common (10-20%) surface gravels; surface condition is gravelly, hard set, expected to be hardsetting when dry Depth of observation: 120 cm. Location: Gully on Main Road - Leard State Forest. (Map reference: 226711 E, 6609902 N). Profile 98. Timber Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, by1, very dark grey sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; common (10-20%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60- 200 mm),stones (200-600 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 7; abrupt (5-20 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 2, A2, 0.1 - 0.18 m, by4, dark grey sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; common (10-20%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm),stones (200-600 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 6; clear (20-50 mm) smooth boundary to...
36 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Layer 3, A31, 0.18 - 0.28 m, by4, dark greyish brown clayey sand with massive structure, earthy; many (20-50%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm),stones (200-600 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 6; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 4, 2A3, 0.28 - 0.8 m, by4, greyish brown coarse clayey sand with massive structure, earthy; very abundant (> 90%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm),stones (200-600 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 6; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; clear (20-50 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 5, B2, 0.8 - 1.2 m, by7 dark grey mottled light sandy clay with weak pedality (angular blocky); smooth-faced peds, abundant (50-90%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm),stones (200- 600 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 6; directly overlies bedrock
Type profile 2: footslope Soil classification: Hypocalcic Subnatric Brown Sodosol, medium, non gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, moderate (Solodic Soil) Depth of observation: 160 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 Topographic Map - Boggabri-Mullaley Stock route (Map reference: 213165 E, 6596563 N). Profile 71. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.2 m, by2 dark reddish brown silty clay loam with strong pedality (angular blocky, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; common roots; field pH is 6.5; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0.2 - 0.6 m, by2 brown medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; few roots; field pH is 8.5; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; clear (20-50 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 3, D, 0.6 - 1.6 m, by8 strong brown sandy clay loam with massive structure, earthy; ; no roots; field pH is 8; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; layer continues...
Type profile 3: Gilgai variant bya Soil classification: very poorly drained Epicalcareous-Epihypersodic Epipedal Grey Vertosol, non gravelly, very fine, very fine, giant, 2 (Grey Clay); Depth of observation: 120 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 Topographic Map – westernmost gilgai on "Merton" (Map reference: 230187 E, 6596559 N). Profile 57. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.15 m, by3, dark greyish brown medium heavy clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 2-5 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; many roots; field pH is 7; diffuse (>100 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0.15 - 0.55 m, by8, light yellowish brown medium heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; many (20% - 50%) calcareous segregations; common roots; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; diffuse (>100 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 3, B22, 0.55 - 1.2 m, by8, light greyish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few roots; field pH is 8.5; diffuse (>100 mm) smooth boundary to...
37 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Type profile 4: Plain Soil classification: very poorly drained Episodic Epipedal Brown Vertosol, non gravelly, very fine, very fine, very deep, (Brown Clay); Depth of observation: 160 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 Topographic Map - front paddock "Merton" (Map reference: 231152 E, 6597608 N). Profile 77. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, by3, dark brown medium clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 2- 5 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few roots; field pH is 7.5; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 2, B1, 0.1 - 0.45 m, by6, brown medium heavy clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 5-10 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 9.5; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 3, B2, 0.45 - 1 m, by6, brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 9.5; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 4, B22, 1 - 1.6 m, by6, brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) gypseous segregations; field pH is 8.5; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to...
**** Type profile 5: Plain Soil classification: very poorly drained Vertic Eutrophic Red Chromosol, medium, non gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, very deep, 3 (Solodic Soil with a silica pan); Depth of observation: 70 cm. Location: Emerald Hill 1:25 000 Topographic Map – Paddock north of entrance road to ―Gunnible‖ (Map reference: 236750 E, 6574975 N). Profile 10. Cropping. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.15 m, by2, dark reddish grey fine clay loam sandy with massive structure, earthy; ; cultivated pan; few roots; field pH is 5.5; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, A2, 0.15 - 0.3 m, by4, reddish brown fine clay loam sandy with massive structure, earthy; ; cultivated pan; no roots; field pH is 5.5; abrupt (5-20 mm) boundary to... Layer 3, B2, 0.3 - 0.7 m, by9, yellowish red heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 50- 100 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; field pH is 7; soil continues...
Type profile 6: Plain Dominance: Approximately 15% of soil landscape. Soil classification: Brown Sodosol, medium, non gravelly, loamy, clayey, deep, (Solodized Solonetz); Depth of observation: 140 cm. Location: Borah 1:50 000 topographic map (from Baan Baa Survey) 50 m north of Road intersection (Map reference: 783054 E, 6591733 N). Profile 17. Timber. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.12 m, by1 dark brown fine sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; few roots; field pH is 5; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to- Layer 2, A2, 0.12 - 0.3 m, by4, 7.5YR 2.5/2 fine clayey sand with massive structure, earthy; no roots; field pH is 5; sharp (<5 mm) boundary to-
Layer 3, B21, 0.3 - 0.7 m, by6, brown fine sandy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 50- 100 mm), smooth-faced peds; no roots; field pH is 9; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to-
38 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Layer 4, B22, 0.7 - 1.25 m, by6 strong brown fine light medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 50-100 mm), smooth-faced peds; no roots; field pH is 10; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to-
Layer 5, D, 1.25 - 1.4 m, Associated soil material yellowish red fine light medium clay ; no roots; field pH is 8.5; layer continues...
Notes on Soil Test Results
The soil test results for soil profile 57, layer 2, (by8) has extremely high calcium content owing to its gypsum store. Laboratory sample preparation for particle size analysis and cation exchange capacity (CEC) measurement could not adequately remove the large amounts of gypsum in the sample. Tis resulted in false readings for calcium in the cation exchange capacity measurements and a zero clay content in the particle size analyses (the gypsum made the clay aggregate). Despite these results, the material is a heavy clay.
Erodibility
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind by1 moderate high moderate by2 moderate high moderate by3 moderate high low by4 high high high by5 moderate high low by6 low moderate low by7 low moderate low by8 moderate moderate low by9 low moderate low
Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Cropping moderate high high Grazing Low Moderate low
Soil Conservation Earthworks (Small Farm Dams)
All topsoils for all soil types in this landscape are generally unsuitable for dam construction. Most subsoils generally have extreme shrink swell as well as high variability in other engineering characteristics and site specific soil testing is recommended. The Red Sodosols subsoils (by4 and by9) tend be suitable for waterholding in normal small farm dams, although care should be taken to keep batter grades relatively low and that the core is very well compacted..
Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations
The dominant soils in this landscape have low to moderate fertility and are prone to structural severe decline under cultivation or heavy grazing. Native or improved pasture grazing is recommended, ensuring that 70% groundcover is present throughout the year, with 15% tree cover planted as shade and shelter belts, and along drainage lines. Areas of topsoil degradation have shown strong improvement with controlled grazing and attention to soil nutrient status. Regrowth of species such as Callitris spp. (cypress pines) and Cassinia spp. (cough bush/siffon bush) should be managed to reduce soil erosion.
Generally low limitations for grazing, moderate to high limitations for cropping.
Urban Capability Generally low to moderate limitations for urban development. The dispersiveness and high erodibility of the soils should be taken into consideration. Flood prone areas should be avoided. Areas such as
39 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) bya which have very high foundation hazard are not generally suited for normal structures.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s
LMU F – Mixed Alluvial Plains. Slopes <2% with a mosaic of soils, often including Vertosols other than Black Earths (dark Vertosols).
40 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) dd DRIGGLE DRAGGLE Stagnant Alluvial Landscape-- 240 km2; Extensive stagnant alluvial plains, alluvial fans and sheet-flood fans on Quaternary and older alluvium which form westward draining plains from the Melville Range. Local relief <9 m; slopes <1%; elevation range 240 – 260 m. Complex mosaic of grassland and woodland approximately 70% cleared for mixed cropping and grazing. Landscape Variant—dda—Stagnant alluvial plain and fan system confined by low hills in the Maules creek district. This variant may tend to have more pronounced run-on from adjacent landscapes and because of its confined nature may have more potential for high groundwater.
Soils— Soil distribution is complex and related to ancient alluvial processes which are no longer evident. Soil types include poorly drained giant clay loamy Grey Chromosols (Solodic Soils), poorly drained giant silty Brown Sodosols (imperfectly drained giant Gypsic Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays), poorly drained giant Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays), and very poorly drained giant Grey Vertosols (Grey Clays). The Vertosols tend to dominate the landscape. Some low rise areas have Brown Dermosols (Brown Clays).
Qualities and Limitations—Complex soils, localised dieback, localised poor drainage, engineering hazard, localised low fertility, localised flood hazard, localised permanently high watertables, localised poor moisture availability, known discharge area, recharge area, high run-on, dryland salinity, irrigated salinity, localised seasonal waterlogging and localised wind erosion risk. Soil materials with localised high plasticity, localised low wet bearing strength, localised high shrink-swell potential, localised high organic matter (topsoils), widespread sodicity/dispersion, localised high erodibility, hardsetting topsoils, low permeability, localised strong alkalinity, localised saline subsoils.
LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
Extensive stagnant alluvial plains, alluvial fans and sheet-flood fans on Quaternary and older alluvium which form westward draining plains from the Melville Range. This landscape is differentiated from Dead Horse (dh) soil landscape, which occurs further to the south and the adjacent Burburgate (bu) soil landscape, by its generally older and poorer soils. Type location is on where Bollol Creek crosses the Boggabri – Manilla Road east of Barber’s Lagoon (Grid Reference 2 23600E, 66 02650N.)
LANDSCAPE
Geology and Regolith
Deep Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium derived from the mixed geologies of the Melville Range. In some areas, Permian bedrock highs underlay the alluvium at depths of less than 30 m, and it is possible that the alluvium in these areas could be much older than Tertiary. Some of the more competent upper streams have gravel beds which extend for up to half way across the landscape, with water disappearing and re-emerging from them along the stream course. It appears that some older areas of alluvium have been uplifted through block faulting or warping of the Permian bedrock substrate which underlays the landscape. This occurs near Wean Racecourse where there is a sudden 5 – 8 m rise in the plain over approximately 100 m.
Generally, the sediments which for the alluvium are extremely old and weathered, giving rise to poorer soils than most of the other alluvial landscapes on the Boggabri Sheet. Regolith depth is 20 - > 40 m.
Terrain
Extensive stagnant alluvial plains, alluvial fans and sheet-flood fans on Quaternary and older alluvium which form very low relief, slightly undulating plains with local relief <3 m; slopes <1%; elevation range 240 – 360 m. Drainage is generally by sheetflow with few, barely incised channels (open- depressions <50 cm deep) which are only active from end to end during extremely wet periods. Main drainage lines are discontinuous and unidirectional to deranged, forming gullies in some places where flow is concentrated by culverts. Drainage is more constrained to channels at the upper ends of the landscape where streams have some competence and energy as they leave the steeper elements of the Melville Range.
41 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Climate and Hydrology
As this landscape forms a complex mosaic of soils over a very complex and mostly ancient alluvium, its hydrology is difficult to describe simply. Generally at the head (upper reaches) of the landscape, streams are relatively competent and have gravel beds. As the streams lose competence, much of their water appears to go into the gravel beds which underlie the plains. Some of these gravel beds continue to rise to the surface across the plain, forming well watered open depressions which are characterised by isolated closed-forest (dry rainforest) occurrences.
There is potential for deep drainage from fallow agriculture and poor grazing practice over much of the landscape. Salt stores in subsoils are very large (due to the extreme age of the landscape) and it is possible that deep drainage could contribute to salinisation of otherwise fresh shallow aquifers in the district. Estimated average annual rainfall range 570 – 670 mm. Vegetation as this landscape is a broad and complex mosaic of soils, it has a correspondingly broad group vegetation types. Generally the landscape is dominated by various types of woodland. Species found vary in dominance possibly dependant on waterlogging conditions of soils and flood regimes. Tree species include Eucalyptus albens (white box, Eucalyptus trachyphloia (silver leaved ironbark) Eucalyptus melliodora (yellow box), Eucalyptus pilligaensis (pilliga box), Eucalyptus microcarpa (western grey box), Eucalyptus camaldulensis (river red gum), Eucalyptus dealbata (tumbledown red gum). Other species include: Brachychiton populneus (kurrajong), Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine), Notelaea microcarpa (native olive), Geijera parviflora (wilga), Alectryon oleifolius (western rosewood), Angophora floribunda (rough-barked apple), Acacia decora (western golden wattle), Acacia salicina (cooba), Acacia homalophylla (yarran), occasional Acacia harpophylla (brigalow), Casuarina cristata (belah), Casuarina cunninghamiana (river oak (creek lines)) and Allocasuarina luehmannii (bull oak).
Small pockets of closed forest (dry rainforest) occur on the plain where groundwater bearing gravel seams are very close to the surface. These areas tend to be dominated by Melaleuca bracteata (white cloud tree), and Angophora floribunda (rough barked apple) with Geijera parviflora (wilga) generally found on the flanks of the closed forest.
Ground cover species include Austrostipa spp (spear grasses), Bothriochloa macra,(red grass), Dicanthium sericeum (Queensland blue grass), Aristida sp (wire grasses), with Juncus spp. (rushes) found in some low lying areas. There are many introduced grass species in this landscape.
Land Use
Previously widely cultivated. Owing to the wide variety of soil types in this landscape, it has a mosaic of agricultural land capability, and this is reflected in the land use patterns. Much of the landscape is used for grazing, with dryland and some irrigated agriculture being primarily located on higher quality soils.
Land Degradation
Sheet erosion and soil structure decline are a common feature of this landscape which is largely an artefact of previous, more widespread cultivation, and heavy stocking. During dry periods, some of the lighter (silty) topsoil areas are extremely prone to wind erosion. Dryland salinity is apparent in some areas, as is scalding with sodic and often saline subsoils exposed. Some gully and streambank erosion occurs in areas where flow is concentrated by road culverts.
Landscape Variant—dda—Stagnant alluvial plain and fan system confined by low hills in the Maules creek district. This variant may tend to have more pronounced run-on from adjacent landscapes and because of its confined nature may have more potential for high groundwater.
Landscape Qualities and Limitations
42 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Complex soils, localised dieback, localised poor drainage, engineering hazard, localised low fertility, localised flood hazard, localised permanently high watertables, localised poor moisture availability, known discharge area, recharge area, high run-on, dryland salinity, irrigated salinity, localised seasonal waterlogging and localised wind erosion risk.
SOILS
Variation and Distribution
Soil distribution is complex and related in many cases to ancient alluvial processes which are no longer evident. There is little in the way of landform elements to indicate soil patterns.
Soil types include poorly drained giant clay loamy Grey Chromosols (Solodic Soils), poorly drained giant silty Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils), imperfectly drained giant Gypsic Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays), poorly drained giant Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays), and very poorly drained giant Grey Vertosols (Grey Clays). The Vertosols tend to dominate the landscape. Some low rises with ancient abandoned fluvial features on them have imperfectly drained Eutrophic Brown Dermosols (Brown Clays
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Plain Grey Chromosols 15% Brown Sodosols 15% Gypsic Brown Vertosols 10% Brown Vertosols 25% Grey Vertosols 25% Very low rises Brown Dermosols <10%
Soil Materials dd1—Light sandy hardsetting topsoils (A1 horizons). Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam to sandy clay loam; earthy, massive; field pH 6.0 – 7.5; surface is hardsetting, becoming easily compacted and bare under traffic or heavy grazing/cultivation. dd2—Hardsetting loamy topsoils (A1 Horizons). Dark reddish brown to dark brown (5YR 3/3 – 7.5YR 3/3) silty clay loam, earthy, massive; field pH 6.0 – 7.0, occasionally more acid in degraded condition. Surface is hardsetting. dd3—Brown structured clayey topsoils (A1 Horizons). Very dark brown to brown (7.5YR 2.5/2 – 7.5 YR 4/4) silty clay to medium clay; moderate to strong pedality, peds smooth faced polyhedral to angular blocky (1 – 50 mm) (often dependant on management), pH 6.0 – 8.5; occasionally has low level salinity with a slight reaction with silver nitrate. Surface is generally cracked, occasionally self- mulching, and often appears hardsetting in heavily grazed or cultivated areas. dd4—Grey Clay topsoils (A1, Ap Horizons). Dark grey (10YR 4/1) medium to heavy clay; strong pedality with smooth-faced polyhedral (2-5 mm) peds; pH 6.5 – 7.5; surface is seasonally cracking, occasionally self-mulching.
dd5—Reddish clay topsoils (A1 horizons). Reddish brown (5YR 4/4) medium to heavy clay; strong pedality with smooth-faced, angular blocky peds (20 – 50 mm); pH 6.5 – 8.0, surface is hardsetting. This material was not sampled for laboratory analyses, however is significant in that it should have much higher permeability that most of the topsoils in this landscape. dd6—Bleached topsoils horizons (A2e Horizons). Greyish brown (10YR 5/2) (dry colour almost white silty loam to silty clay loam, earthy, massive; pH 6.0 – 7.0; occasionally has few (2 – 10%) managniferous nodules; surface is generally very hardsetting where exposed by erosion or cultivation. dd7—Brown clayey subsoils (B2, B22, 2B22 horizons). Dark brown to strong brown (7.5YR 3 /4 – 7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay to heavy clay; strong pedality with peds tanging angular blocky to prismatic and
43 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) lenticular (10 – 100 mm) generally becoming courser and more prismatic with depth, slickenside ped coatings become common with depth; pH 7.0 – 9.5; calcium carbonate nodules and soft segregations become more common with depth, gypsum crystals can often be found as a discreet layer in this material. Chloride salts are generally evident, often increasing with depth, as indicated by silver nitrate field tests. dd8—Grey and yellowish clayey subsoils (B1, B2, B22 horizons). Dark grey (2.5Y 4/1) to greyish yellow (2.5Y 5/2) or dark greyish brown to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/2 – 4/4) medium to heavy clays; strong pedality, with peds lenticular to prismatic (10 – 100 mm) generally becoming coarser with depth; slickenside ped coatings become common with depth; pH 6.5 – 9.0, increasing with depth, calcium carbonate nodules and soft segregations become more common with depth, chloride salts are generally evident, often increasing with depth, as indicated by silver nitrate field tests. dd9 Dark silty clay subsoils (B2 horizons). Very Dark Brown (7.5YR 2.5/3) silty clay, strong pedality with smooth faced, angular blocky peds (10 – 20 mm), pH (6.0 – 7.0), few (2 – 10%) calcareous nodules present, and chloride salts are generally strongly evident as indicated by silver nitrate field tests.
Type Profiles
Type profile 1: Plain Soil classification: Haplic Eutrophic Grey Chromosol, medium, slightly gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, very deep, (Solodic Soil); Depth of observation: 60 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 Topographic Map (Map reference: 223887 E, 6600958 N). Profile 72. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.2 m, dd1 dark greyish brown sandy clay loam with massive structure, earthy; ; few roots; field pH is 7; abrupt (5-20 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 2, A2, 0.2 - 0.4 m, dd6 greyish brown silty loam with massive structure, earthy; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; few (2% - 10%) manganiferous segregations; no roots; field pH is 7; abrupt (5-20 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 3, B1, 0.4 - 0.6 m, dd8 dark greyish brown medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 50-100 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; no roots; field pH is 6.5; soil continues
Type profile 2: Plain Soil classification: imperfectly drained Gypsic Epipedal Brown Vertosol, non gravelly, very fine, very fine, giant, (Brown Clay); Depth of observation: 140 cm. Location: Kelvin 1:25 000 Topographic Map - TSR between Rosebury & Surrey (Map reference: 239255 E, 6589636 N). Profile 231. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.08 m, dd3 dark brown medium clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 5- 10 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; common roots; field pH is 6.5; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) broken boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0.08 - 0.8 m, dd7 brown medium clay with strong pedality (lenticular, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; common (10% - 20%) gypseous segregations; few roots; field pH is 7; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; diffuse (>100 mm) broken boundary to... Layer 3, 2B2, 0.8 - 1.4 m, dd7 strong brown light medium clay with moderate pedality (lenticular, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) gypseous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; soil continues
44 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Type profile 3: Plain Soil classification: poorly drained Epicalcareous-Endohypersodic Epipedal Brown Vertosol, non gravelly, fine, very fine, giant, (Brown Clay); Depth of observation: 110. cm. Location: Gulligal 1:25 000 Topographic Map - Blue Vale Rd nr "Coulston" (Map reference: 232655 E, 6584829 N). Profile 228. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, dd3 brown silty clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 5-10 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few roots; field pH is 6.5; gradual (50- 100 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0.1 - 0.65 m, dd7 strong brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20- 50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; diffuse (>100 mm) broken boundary to... Layer 3, B22, 0.65 - 1.1 m, dd7 brown heavy clay with strong pedality (lenticular, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; soil continues….
Type profile 4: Plain Soil classification: Hypocalcic Mesonatric Brown Sodosol, thin, non gravelly, silty, clayey, very deep, (Solodic Soil); Depth of observation: 140 cm. Location: Kelvin 1:25 000 Topographic Map TSR between Rosebury + Surrey (Map reference: 239132 E, 6589643 N). Profile 230. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.05 m, dd2 dark reddish brown silty clay loam with massive structure, earthy; ; common roots; field pH is 6.5; sharp (<5 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0.05 - 0.35 m, dd9 7.5YR 2.5/3 silty clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; few roots; field pH is 6.5; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to... Layer 3, 2B2, 0.35 - 1.4 m, dd7 strong brown light medium clay with moderate pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; common (10% - 20%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; soil continues….
Type profile 5: Plain Soil classification: very poorly drained Episodic-Endohypersodic Epipedal Grey Vertosol, non gravelly, very fine, very fine, giant, ; Depth of observation: 140 cm. Location: Gulligal 1:25 000 Topographic Map - N Blue Vale Rd (Map reference: 232117 E, 6588601 N). Profile 226. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, dd4 dark grey mottled medium clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 2-5 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; common roots; field pH is 7; diffuse (>100 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0.1 - 1.1 m, dd8 dark grey heavy clay with strong pedality (lenticular, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; few roots; field pH is 9; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to...
45 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Layer 3, B22, 1.1 - 1.4 m, dd8 greyish yellow medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; soil continues…
Type profile 6: Very low rise Soil classification: imperfectly drained Eutrophic Brown Dermosol, medium, non gravelly, clayey, clayey, very deep, (Brown Clay); Depth of observation: 140 cm. Location: Kelvin - Low red rise - Wean Rd (Map reference: 238220 E, 6587666 N). Profile 229. Voluntary Native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.2 m, dd5 reddish brown medium clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 7.5; AgNO3 result is no precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) broken boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0 - 1 m, dd7 strong brown coarse sandy clay with moderate pedality (prismatic, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; abundant (50- 90%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; few roots; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is no precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to...
Layer 3, B22, 1 - 1.4 m, dd7 strong brown medium clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; few (2% - 10%) gypseous segregations; no roots; field pH is 8.5; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) broken boundary to...
QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Erodibility
Soil Material Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind dd1 moderate high moderate – high dd2 moderate high low dd3 low moderate low dd4 moderate high low dd5 low moderate low dd6 high high moderate – high dd7 moderate high low dd8 moderate high low dd9 low high low
Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Cropping Low - Moderate Moderate - high Low – Moderate Pasture Low Low - moderate Low
Soil Conservation Earthworks (Small Farm Dams)
The subsoils in this landscape generally have extreme shrink swell as well as high variability in other engineering characteristics and site specific soil testing is recommended before dam construction in this landscape. Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations Although the soil type in this landscape area also found in other, younger landscapes on the Boggabri
46 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Sheet, they are much older and more weathered versions of the same soils. They tend to be low in naturally available nutrients, have very sodic subsoils and high in salts in many locations. This landscape is classified by URS (2001) as LMU F – Mixed Alluvial Plains – which has a high capability for cropping. The age of this landscape generally precludes continuous cropping and permanent pasture is recommended as the sustainable landuse for this landscape, with occasional cropping for pasture re-establishment purposes.
Moderate to high limitations for cropping. Low to moderate limitations for grazing.
Urban Capability
Generally low capability for urban development due to sporadic flood hazard, drainage and salinity problems in the landscape. Some higher rises in the landscape have moderate suitability and may be effected by high foundation hazard and low septic absorption potential.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s
LMU F – Mixed Alluvial Plains.
47 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) gp GINS LEAP Colluvial
Landscape—20.5 km2; Steep to precipitous hills and scarps on Permian Rhyolite and other acid to intermediate volcanics of the Boggabri Hills. Local relief to 180 m, slopes generally greater than 30% with some areas >70%, elevation range 240 – 440 m. Landscapes forms cliffs, cliff footslopes, scree slopes and hillslopes. Woodland, open forest mostly occurring in state forests or unused.
Soils— Upper slopes are dominated by rapidly drained shallow Lithic Leptic Tenosols (Lithosols). Mid to lower slopes are dominated by rock scree and exposed saprolite or well drained shallow to moderately deep Red Vertosols (Red Clays).
Qualities and Limitations— Localised engineering hazard, gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, mass movement hazard, poor moisture availability, potential recharge area, rockfall hazard, rock outcrop, high run-on (lower slopes), shallow soils, steep slopes and woody weeds.
LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
Steep to precipitous hills and scarps on Permian Rhyolite and other acid volcanics of the Boggabri Hills. Type location is on the slopes of Gins Leap (Grid Reference 2 16200E, 66 04500N).
LANDSCAPE
Geology and Regolith
Colluvium derived from acid to intermediate volcanics of the Boggabri Volcanics. Includes rhyolitic, to dacitic lavas, ashflow tuffs with occasional trachyte and andesite outcrop. Regolith is generally deeply weathered and fractured colluvium underlain generally by a deep saprolite. Soil depths generally <50 cm.
Terrain
Steep to precipitous hills and scarps. Slopes are typically < 1000 m long. Local relief to 180 m, slopes generally greater than 20% with some areas >70%, elevation range 240 – 440 m. Rock outcrop <20%. Typical landform elements include narrow crests, steep to precipitous simple to waxing hillslopes, scarps, cliff footslopes with minor scree slopes and gullies. Drainage is generally by widely spaced, deeply incised drainage lines and sheetflow.
Climate and Hydrology
It is likely that the deeply weathered saprolites and colluvium on lower slopes of this landscape are a recharge area for small fractured rock aquifers which may feed into shallow saline groundwater on adjoining lower landscapes.
Estimated average annual rainfall range 575 – 630 mm.
Vegetation
Generally mixed open woodland and woodland, with some small areas of closed forest in sheltered locations such as at the base of cliff lines.
Woodland areas include Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine), Eucalyptus crebra (narrow-leaved ironbark), E. melanophloia (silver-leaved ironbark), E. dealbata (tumbledown gum), Callitris endlicheri (black cypress pine), localised E. albens (white box), Notelaea microcarpa (native olive), Beyeria viscosa (sticky wallaby-bush), Dodonaea viscosa (giant hopbush), Olearia elliptica (sticky daisy bush), occasional Acacia cheelii, Kunzea sp. 'Mt Kaputar', Calytrix tetragonia (common fringe- myrtle), Ozothamnus obcordatus, Acacia triptera (spur-wing wattle), Micormyrtus sessilis (heath myrtle) and Homoranthus flavescens.
48 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Groundcover species include Austrostipa scabra (spear grass), Desmodium brachypodium (large tick- trefoil), Cymbopogon refractus (barbed-wire grass), Bothriochloa decipens (red grass), Cymbopogon refractus (barbed wire grass), Cheilanthes sieberi (rock fern) and Aristida ramosa (wire grass).
Small closed forest areas tend to be dominated by Alphitonia excelsa (red ash), Geijera parviflora (wilga), and Ficus rubiginosa (rusty fig).
Small areas of spinifex grassland dominated by Triodia irritans (spinifex), occur in some locations on particularly exposed and rocky colluvium.
Land Use
Generally unused land or lands in State Forests with some lower sloping areas used for occasional light grazing. Gins Leap is used for recreation as a look out.
Land Degradation
Areas with a long history of grazing, either by domestic stock or feral goats exhibit severe sheet and rill erosion.
Landscape Qualities and Limitations
Localised engineering hazard, gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, mass movement hazard, poor moisture availability, potential recharge area, rockfall hazard, rock outcrop, high run-on (lower slopes), shallow soils, steep slopes and woody weeds.
SOILS
Variation and Distribution
Upper slopes are dominated by rapidly drained shallow Lithic Leptic Tenosols (Lithosols). Mid to lower slopes are dominated by rock scree and exposed saprolite or well drained shallow to moderately deep Red Vertosols (Red Clays).
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Upper slopes Tenosols 25% Mid to Lower slopes Red Vertosols 40% Loose rock scree/exposed weathered rock 25%
Dominant Soil Materials
gp1—Black Sandy Loam (A1 Horizons). Black (7.5YR 2.5/1) light sandy loam; single grained structure, sandy fabric; field pH is 5.5; Coarse fragments absent to abundant (0 -90%). Surface condition ranges from loose to hardsetting. gp2—Yellowish Brown Sandy Subsoils (BC Horizons). Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/ 4) whole- coloured coarse sandy loam with single grained structure, sandy fabric; field pH is 5.5; Coarse fragments absent to abundant (0 -90%). gp3—Red Clayey Topsoils (A1 Horizons). Dusky red (2.5YR 3/2) coarse light medium sandy clay with moderate pedality (granular, 1-2 mm), smooth-faced peds; field pH is 7; Coarse fragments absent to few (0-10%); Surface condition is generally gravelly and self-mulched. gp4—Reddish Brown Clay subsoils (B2 Horizons). Dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/ 4) mottled heavy
49 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; field pH is 7; ; Coarse fragments absent to few (0-10%).
Type Profiles
Type profile 1: Upper slope Soil classification: rapidly drained Basic Lithic Leptic Tenosol, medium, very gravelly, loamy, loamy, shallow, 2 (Lithosol); many (20-50%) surface gravels; surface condition is gravelly, loose, expected to be loose when dry Depth of observation: 30 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 topographic map - Gins Leap track (Map reference: 216126 E, 6604482 N). Profile 328. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.2 m, gp1 7.5YR 2.5/1 whole-coloured coarse light sandy loam with single grained, sandy; abundant (50-90%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm), as substrate, coarse fragments; field pH is 5.5; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, BC2, 0.2 - 0.3 m, gp2 dark yellowish brown whole-coloured coarse sandy loam with single grained, sandy; abundant (50-90%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm), as substrate, coarse fragments; field pH is 5.5; directly overlies bedrock
Type profile 2: Lower Slope Soil classification: well drained Self-Mulching Red Vertosol (Red Clay); many (20-50%) surface gravels; surface condition is gravelly, self mulched, expected to be self mulching when dry Depth of observation: 70 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 topographic map - between rest stop and Gins Leap. (Map reference: 216178 E, 6604527 N). Profile 329. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.15 m, gp3 dusky red whole-coloured coarse light medium sandy clay with moderate pedality (granular, 1-2 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm), as substrate, coarse fragments; field pH is 7; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0.15 - 0.7 m, gp4 dark reddish brown mottled fine heavy clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm), as substrate, coarse fragments; field pH is 7; directly overlies bedrock
Associated Soil Materials
QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Pasture Moderate High Low
Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations This landscape has very limited production value and should generally be excluded from agricultural activities. High to severe limitations for grazing, severe limitations for cropping.
Urban Capability
50 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Generally high limitations for urban development due to steep slopes and high levels of hard rock outcrop.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s LMU A - Sedimentary Hilltops and steep slopes. This landscape is definitely not sedimentary in origin, but has the same capabilities as those described for LMU A.
51 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) ha HARTFELL Erosional
Landscape—26.2 km2. Rolling to undulating low hills on Permian-Carboniferous rhyolites, rhyolite tuffs and andesites of the Gunnedah and Boggabri Volcanics. Local relief to 50 m, slope range 8 - 20% with rounded to relatively flat crests, elevation range 240 - 450 m. Rock outcrop approximately 40%. Partially cleared open-woodland with a grass or shrub understorey.
Soils—Hillcrests dominated by very shallow Lithic Leptic Tenosols (Lithosols) with hillslopes on rhyolite dominated by Chernic Tenosols (Lithosols). Hillslopes on dacite and andesite tend to have heavier soils such as Grey or Black Vertosols (Grey Clays and Black Earths).
Limitations-- Localised engineering hazard, low fertility, flood hazard, gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, poor moisture availability, potential recharge area, rock outcrop, high internal run-on, shallow soils, and woody weeds.
LOCATION
Rolling low hills on Permian-Carboniferous rhyolite and rhyodacite/andesite. Type location is west of Leard State Forest, north of (Grid reference 2 20000E, 66 15000N).
Geology
Permian/Carboniferous rhyolite, rhyolite tuff and rhyodacite/andesite of the Permian Boggabri and Gunnedah Volcanics. Depth to unweathered rock is generally < 1 m but can exceed this in some deeply weathered andesite locations.
Terrain
Rolling to undulating low hills with local relief 30 - 50 m between 240 and 450 m. Slopes range from 8 - 20%, waxing gently to moderately inclined long (>300 m) sideslopes with rounded to flat, moderately broad (100 - 300 m) crests. Rock outcrop often forms low, rounded scarps and covers approximately 40% of the land surface. Few incised drainage lines.
Climate and Hydrology
Generally a runoff dominated but some areas of andesite may function as intensively fractured rock aquifers. Generally, the rhyolite in this landscape has only limited fracturing and is more runoff dominated. Estimated annual rainfall range 580 – 635 mm.
Vegetation
Partially cleared mixed open-woodland with grass understorey. Dominant tree species include Alphitonia excelsa (red ash), Eucalyptus dealbata (tumbledown gum), E. crebra (narrow-leaved ironbark), E. melanophloia (silver-leaved ironbark), Eucalyptus populnea (bimble box), Geijera parviflora (wilga), Notelaea microcarpa (native olive), Brachychiton populneus (kurrajong), Dodonaea viscosa (giant hopbush), Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine) and Acacia cheelii (motherumbah).
Ground cover plants include Aristida spp. (wire grasses), Austrostipa scabra (spear grass), Austrostipa verticillata (slender bamboo grass), Desmodium brachypodium (large tick-trefoil), Cymbopogon refractus (barbed-wire grass) and Aristida ramosa (wire grass).
Land Use
Trees have been thinned for native pasture in some locations. Mainly used for light sheep and cattle grazing.
Existing Land Degradation
Moderate to severe sheet erosion has occurred throughout the landscape. There is some minor gully
52 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) erosion <1.5 m deep where deeper soils occur. Gully erosion usually continues to bedrock. Skeletal soils directly overlying bedrock have been eroded to bare rock especially on crests. Areas of recently exposed rock are difficult to distinguish from natural outcrop. Areas where stock have concentrated tend to exhibit structural decline, especially on shallower soils. Most cleared areas are dominated by Callitris glaucophylla regrowth.
Landscape Qualities and Limitations
Localised engineering hazard, low fertility, flood hazard, gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, poor moisture availability, potential recharge area, rock outcrop, high internal run-on, shallow soils, and woody weeds.
SOILS
Variation and Distribution
Hillcrests are generally dominated by very shallow Lithic Leptic Tenosols (Lithosols) with hillslopes on rhyolite dominated by Chernic Tenosols (Lithosols). Hillslopes on dacite and andesite tend to have heavier soils such as Grey or Black Vertosols (Grey Clays and Black Earths).
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Hillcrests Lithic Leptic Tenosols 20% Hillslopes on rhyolite Chernic Tenosols 15% Hillslopes on dacite/ andesite Grey/Black Vertosols 15%
Dominant Soil Materials
Soil materials ha2 and ha3 occur more extensively on the adjacent Soil landscapes of the Curlewis 1:100 000 Sheet (Banks 1995). These materials were not encountered during this survey, however there may be limited occurrences in the southern portion of the map. ha1--Hardsetting dark reddish brown fine sandy clay loam (A1 horizons). Black (7.5YR 2.5/1)to dull reddish brown (5YR 4/4) to dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3) sandy clay loam to clay loam sandy; massive, earthy, dense, field pH 6.0 - 7.0, often very stony throughout; surface is hardsetting. ha4—Greyish clay topsoils (A1 horizons). Very dark brown to dark grey (7.5YR 3/1 - 3/2) light to medium clay; strong pedality with polyhedral (2 – 10 mm) peds; field pH 7.0 – 8.5, lime occasionally evident in small amounts and generally only detectable with HCl field test. Surface is self-mulching to self-mulching and cracking. ha5—Grey clay subsoils (B horizons). Dark grey (10YR 4/1) medium to heavy clay, strong pedality with smooth-faced prismatic (20 – 50 mm) peds, field pH 7.0 – 8.0. Surface is generally self-mulching and seasonal cracking. ha6—Brown clay subsoils (B22 Horizons). Brown (10 YR 5/3) medium to heavy clay, strong pedality with smooth faced (10 – 20 mm) prismatic peds, slickenside ped coatings usually present, field pH 7.0 – 8.0.
Type Profiles
Type profile 1: Hillcrest Soil classification: rapidly drained Basic Lithic Leptic Rudosol, very gravelly, clay loamy, very shallow, (Lithosol); abundant (50-90%) surface gravels; surface condition is hard set, expected to be hardsetting when dry Depth of observation: 12 cm. Location: Therribri 1:25 000 topographic map - Rhyolite hill "Riverway" (Map reference: 217694 E, 6615056 N). Profile 276. Voluntary native Pasture.
53 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.12 m, ha1 7.5YR 2.5/1 coarse clay loam sandy with massive structure, earthy; abundant (50-90%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6; directly overlies bedrock
Type profile 2: Hillslope Soil classification: Chernic Tenosol, medium, gravelly, clayey, clayey, very shallow, (Lithosol); many (20- 50%) surface gravels; surface condition is self mulched, expected to be self mulching when dry Depth of observation: 50 cm. Location: Therribri 1:25 000 topographic map - Leard SF W TSR (Map reference: 218989 E, 6615659 N). Profile 178. Logged Native Forest. Layer 1, A, 0 - 0.25 m, ha4 dark brown light clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 5-10 mm), smooth-faced peds; common (10-20%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 7; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, C, 0.25 - 0.5 m, Assoc clear (20-50 mm) boundary to...bedrock
Type profile 3: Hillslope on andesite/dacite Soil classification: mod. well drained Self-Mulching Grey Vertosol (Grey Clay); few (2-10%) surface gravels; surface condition is self mulched, expected to be seasonal cracking when dry Depth of observation: 70 cm. Location: Therribri 1:25 000 topographic map - Leard SF (Map reference: 221945 E, 6612330 N). Profile 176. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A, 0 - 0.05 m, ha4 very dark grey light clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 2- 5 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 8.5; sharp (<5 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0 - 0.38 m, ha5 dark grey light medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 7.5; clear (20-50 mm) irregular boundary to...
Layer 3, 2B2, 0 - 0.7 m, ha6 brown medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2-10%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 7.5; layer continues...
54 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Erodibility
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind ha1 high high low ha4 moderate high low ha5 moderate high low ha6 moderate high low
Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Pasture moderate - high Severe Low Soil Conservation Earthworks (Small Farm Dams)
Generally high to extreme limitations for earthworks as suitable sites are rare, and soils are generally very shallow. Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations
Best managed as uncleared timber or for light grazing under timber in areas of heavier soil. Maintain and monitor 70% permanent pasture cover to reduce overland flow and prevent sheet erosion. Areas of very dense cypress pines (Callitris spp.) regrowth should be thinned to avoid associated soil erosion problems.
Severe limitations for cultivation. Moderate to high limitations for grazing. Urban Capability
Low to moderate limitations for urban development.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s
LMU A - Sedimentary Hilltops and steep slopes. LMU B – Sedimentary Slopes.
Comment: Although this unit is not on sedimentary material, the predominant acid volcanics, shallow soils and slopes give it the same land capability listed for the sedimentary Land Management Units.
55 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) le LEARD Erosional
Landscape—47.7 km2; Rolling to steep and low hills on Permian Sandstones and conglomerates of the Curlewis Hills in the Central portion of the Boggabri sheet. Local relief to 150 m, slopes 10 – 35% but generally around 15%, rock outcrop 10%, elevation range 290 – 500 m. Woodland and open forest partially cleared for grazing or managed as State Forest.
Landscape Variant—lea—small areas of steeper land with >32% slope with higher erosion hazard.
Soils— Hillcrests and benches are dominated by well drained Rudosols and Tenosols (Lithosols), with Brown Kurosols (Brown Podzollic Soils) and minor Red and Brown Chromosols (Non-calcic Brown Soils and Podzollic Soils) occurring on acid shales/mudstones. Grey Sodosols are reported for some locations in the nearby Baan Baa 1:100 000 Sheet (Pengelly, In Press).
Qualities and Limitations— Low fertility, localised gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, poor moisture availability, recharge area, rock outcrop, run-on, shallow soils, localised steep slopes (lea), and woody weeds.
LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
Rolling to steep and low hills on Permian Sandstones and conglomerates of the Curlewis Hills in the Central portion of the Boggabri sheet. Type Location is at Willowtree Range in Leard State Forest (Grid Reference 2 28300E, 66 12500N).
LANDSCAPE
Geology and Regolith
Permian sediments of the Black Jack Group and Maules Creek Formation (Geological map codes Pbx and Pmx). Lithologies include siltstones, quartz and lithic sandstones, claystones, minor tuff beds, with some conglomerates forming higher hillcrests. Bedding is usually near horizontal.
Regolith depth is usually <2 m.
Terrain
Rolling to steep and low hills with local relief to 150 m, slopes 10 – 35% but generally around 15%, rock outcrop 10%, elevation range 290 – 500 m. Crests are generally broad and rounded with occasional outcrop, sideslopes being long and occasionally benched. Drainage is by sheetflow with moderately spaced, ephemeral erosional streams draining the landscape.
Climate and Hydrology
This landscape is characterised by a mixture of runoff and deep drainage through shallow, stony soils into a fractured rock aquifer. Estimated average annual rainfall range 600 – 645 mm.
Vegetation
Predominantly woodland, much of which is maintained in State Forests. Some locations cleared for grazing. Dominant tree and shrub species include Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine), Callitris endlicheri (black cypress pine), Eucalyptus crebra (narrow-leaved ironbark), E. melanophloia (silver- leaved ironbark), E. sideroxylon (mugga ironbark) localised E. albens (white box), Acacia cheelii (motherumbah), Notelaea microcarpa (native olive), Beyeria viscosa (sticky wallaby-bush), Olearia elliptica (sticky daisy bush). Groundcover species include Austrostipa scabra (spear grass), Austrostipa verticillata (slender bamboo grass), Desmodium brachypodium (large tick-trefoil), Cymbopogon refractus (barbed-wire grass) and Aristida ramosa (wire grass).
Land Use
56 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Predominantly used for light grazing or forestry activities. Some areas in the north of Leard State forest are still cultivated for winter cereals.
Land Degradation
Minor to severe sheet erosion is evident on cleared crests, and sideslopes where animal tracks are present. Rill and gully erosion are evident in areas with current or historical cultivation. Most areas remain protected by either adequate vegetation or leaf litter cover.
Landscape Variant lea—small areas of steeper land with >32% slope with higher erosion hazard.
Landscape Qualities and Limitations
Low fertility, localised gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, poor moisture availability, recharge area, rock outcrop, run-on, shallow soils, localised steep slopes (lea), and woody weeds.
SOILS
Variation and Distribution
Hillcrests and benches are dominated by well drained Rudosols and Tenosols (Lithosols), with Brown Kurosols (Brown Podzollic Soils) and minor Red and Brown Chromosols (Non-calcic Brown Soils and Podzollic Soils) occurring on acid shales/mudstones. Grey Sodosols are reported for some locations in the nearby Baan Baa 1:100 000 Sheet (Pengelly, In Press).
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Upper slopes/Crests Rudosols/Tenosols 40% Acid Shale Hillslopes Brown Kurosols/Chromosols 15% Lower slopes Grey Sodosols 15%
Dominant Soil Materials
Joint field work was carried out for Leard soil landscape across the boundary of the Boggabri and Baan Baa Sheets to ensure precision of mapping. Some of the type profiles and soil materials described here have type locations on the adjacent Baan Baa 1:100 000 Sheet (Pengelly, In Press). le1 – Dark sandy to clay loam topsoils (A1, A11, A12, AC Horizons). Dark reddish brown to dark brown (5YR 3/3 – 7.5YR 4/3) and dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand to clay loam; massive to weak pedality; earthy to smooth-faced peds in clay loams (dry); sub-angular blocky (2 – 5 mm) where pedal; porous; field pH 5.5 – 7.0. Quartz and lithic sandstone, quartz, and jasper fragments few to abundant (2 – >90%). Surface loose, occasionally hardsetting. le2—Bleached near surface layers (A2e Horizons). Brown (7.5YR 4/3 – 4/4) sandy loam to sandy clay loam (dry colours le1—Loamy topsoils (A1 Horizons). almost white), earthy, massive; field pH 5.5 – 7.0. Quartz and lithic sandstone, quartz, and jasper fragments few to abundant (2 – >90%). Hardsetting and highly erodible where exposed. le3 – Reddish clayey subsoils (B21, B22 Horizons). Red to reddish brown (2.5YR 4/6 – 5YR 4/4) light medium clay to medium silty clay; moderate pedality; peds smooth-faced (dry); dense; sub- angular (10 – 20 mm) to angular blocky (10 – 20 mm); field pH 6.5. Red mottles absent to few (0 – 10%), hardsetting when exposed. le4 – Greyish clayey subsoils (B21, B22k Horizons). Pale brown (10YR 6/3) medium to medium heavy clay; moderate pedality; peds smooth-faced dry); dense; sub-angular blocky (5 – 20 mm); field pH 8.0 – 9.0. Yellow mottles absent to few (0 – 10%); calcareous segregations common (0 – 20%) and strong fine earth calcium carbonate detectable with HCl field test where pH 8.5. Not encountered exposed.
57 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) le5 – Dark brown weakly structured loam subsoils (B2t Horizons). Dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) loam; weak pedality; peds smooth-faced (dry); sub-angular blocky (2 – 5 mm); porous; field pH 6.0. Conglomerate and quartz coarse fragments common (10 – 20%). Not encountered exposed.
Type Profiles
Type profile 1: Crest Soil classification: well drained Basic Lithic Leptic Rudosol, slightly gravelly, loamy, shallow, (Lithosol); few (2-10%) surface gravels; surface condition is loose, expected to be loose when dry Depth of observation: 30 cm. Location: BAAN BAA 1:50 000 topographic Map - Crest of most southern ridge at Booroomin (Map reference: 785702 E, 6597023 N). Profile 92. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A11, 0 - 0.07 m, le1 dark reddish brown loam with massive structure, earthy; few (2-10%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm), quartz, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6.5; abrupt (5-20 mm) boundary to- Layer 2, A12, 0.07 - 0.3 m, le1 dark reddish brown loam with massive structure, earthy; many (20-50%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm), quartz, coarse fragments; few roots; field pH is 6.5; directly overlies bedrock
Type profile 2: Upper Slope Soil classification: mod. well drained Basic Bleached-Leptic Tenosol, medium, moderately gravelly, loamy, shallow, (Lithosol); Depth of observation: 45 cm. Location: Therribri 1:25 000 Topographic Map - Road cut Willow Tree Range (Map reference: 228225 E, 6612345 N). Profile 94. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.15 m, le1 dark greyish brown sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; many (20-50%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20- 60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 7.5; abrupt (5-20 mm) smooth boundary to- Layer 2, A2, 0.15 - 0.45 m, le2 brown sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; abundant (50-90%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; few roots; field pH is 6; directly overlies bedrock
Type profile 3: Upper Slope Soil classification: well drained Basic Lithic Orthic Tenosol, thin, gravelly, sandy, loamy, shallow, 3 (Earthy Sand); few (2-10%) surface gravels; surface condition is loose, expected to be loose when dry Depth of observation: 30 cm. Location: BAAN BAA 1:50 000 topographic map - upper slope of southern most ridge at Booroomia (Map reference: 785555 E, 6596716 N). Profile 93. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.05 m, le1 dark brown loamy sand with massive structure, earthy; few (2-10%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm), quartz, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6; abrupt (5-20 mm) boundary to- Layer 2, B2, 0.05 - 0.3 m, le5 dark brown loam with weak pedality (sub-angular blocky, 2- 5 mm), smooth-faced peds; common (10-20%), coarse gravel (20-60 mm), quartz, coarse fragments; few roots; field pH is 6; directly overlies bedrock
Type profile 4: Midslope
58 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Soil classification: Eutrophic Haplic Brown Kurosol, thin, gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, moderate, (Brown Podzollic Soil); many (20-50%) surface gravels; surface condition is gravelly, hard set, expected to be hardsetting when dry Depth of observation: 45 cm. Location: Gulligal 1:25 000 Topographic Map - Vickery SF (Map reference: 235766 E, 6592726 N). Profile 181. Logged Native Forest. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, le2 brown sandy clay loam with massive structure, earthy; common (10-20%), as parent material coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 5.5; clear (20-50 mm) broken boundary to- Layer 2, B2, 0.1 - 0.45 m, le4 strong brown light clay ; common (10-20%), as parent material coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 7.5; directly overlies shale bedrock
Type profile 5: Midslope Soil classification: imperfectly drained Calcic Subnatric Grey Sodosol, medium, moderately gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, shallow, 3 (Solonetz); very few (< 2%) surface gravels; surface condition is gravelly, loose, expected to be loose when dry Depth of observation: 30 cm. Location: Baan Baa 1:100 000 Topographic Map. East slope of hill south of Curracabah trig. (Map reference: 786600 E, 6598100 N). Profile 7. Timber/scrub/unused. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, le1 dark yellowish brown fine light clay loam with weak pedality (sub-angular blocky, 2-5 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2- 10%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; few roots; field pH is 7; sharp (<5 mm) boundary to- Layer 2, B21, 0.1 - 0.18 m, le4 pale brown medium heavy clay with moderate pedality (sub- angular blocky, 10-20 mm), smooth-faced peds; no roots; field pH is 8; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to-
Layer 3, B22, 0.18 - 0.3 m, le4 pale brown medium clay with moderate pedality (sub- angular blocky, 5-10 mm), smooth-faced peds; common (10% - 20%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; layer continues...
59 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Erodibility
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind le1 moderate high moderate le2 high severe moderate le3 low moderate low le4 moderate high low le5 moderate high low
Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Cropping High High High Native/improved Low Moderate Low pasture
Soil Conservation Earthworks (Small Farm Dams)
Farm dam construction limited by site availability and shallow soils, however, the Red Chromosol subsoil le4 is generally suitable for dam construction with no special limitations.
Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations This landscape can be categorised as LMU B, Sedimentary Slopes (URS, 2001) and is limited by low soil fertility, including topsoil acidification and high aluminium toxicity potential. High timber cover levels are recommended with grazing on native or improved pastures. Steeper areas such as lea should be excluded from stock.
Severe limitations for cropping. Moderate – high limitations for grazing.
Urban Capability
Generally low limitations for urban development.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s
LMU A - Sedimentary Hilltops and steep slopes. LMU B – Sedimentary Slopes.
60 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
to Top Rock Transferral Landscape—67.1 km2, Broad, long (1000 – 1500m) gently inclined footslopes on colluvium derived from Permian sandstones and conglomerates of the Curlewis Hills. Local relief 30 – 70 m; slopes 2 – 8%; elevation range 250 – 280m. 95% cleared for native and improved pasture grazing.
Soils- This landscape is relatively simple and dominated by hard duplex soils with highly variable gravel content and degrees of sodicity. Upper slopes are generally dominated by moderately well drained very deep Red Sodosols and some Bleached Red Chromosols (Red-brown Earths), whilst mid to lower footslopes are dominated by imperfectly to poorly drained deep to very deep Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils).
Qualities and Limitations--Localised dieback, localised poor drainage, localised engineering hazard, gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, known discharge area, known recharge area, high run-on, dryland salinity, seepage scalds, wind erosion risk (under cultivation), woody weeds (Callitris spp. (cypress pines) regrowth potential).
LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
Footslopes and alluvial fans on colluvium derived from Permian sandstones and conglomerates of the Curlewis Hills, extending onto the Baan Baa 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Type location is at Broadwater Reserve near the Vickery Mine Site (Grid Reference 2 26500E, 65 92 600N).
LANDSCAPE
Geology and Regolith
Fans and footslopes of colluvium derived from Permian quartz sandstones and conglomerates of the Black Jack Group and Maules Creek Formation. Soil depths range from 1.4 m to greater than 2.5 m, with highly weathered sediments encountered below this.. In some areas, the sandstone bedrock has very low pH and high salinity levels.
Terrain
Long (1000 – 1500m), broad, very gently to moderately inclined footslopes and alluvial fans of colluvium derived from Permian sediments of the Curlewis Hills, with slopes varying from 2 – 8%, occasionally up to 10%. Elevation ranges from 250 – 450 m; local relief 30 – 70 m.
Drainage is predominantly by sheetflow, with some closely to widely spaced (250 – 1000m), divergent to unidirectional shallow stream channels, although on lower footslopes drainage becomes similar to that of Sheet Flood Fans, with numerous, shallow, rapidly migrating, integrated to interrupted stream flow.
Climate and Hydrology
The Permian sandstones underlie much of the Triassic sedimentary material in the Liverpool Plains, and together form an important fractured rock aquifer system that is hydraulically connected to the deep Gunnedah Formation aquifers on the alluvial plains (Broughton, 1994). Estimated average annual rainfall range is 575 – 650 mm. Vegetation
Open and closed woodland communities, 90% being cleared for grazing. Dominant tree species include Eucalyptus albens (white box), Eucalyptus populnea (bimble box), Eucalyptus pilligaensis (pilliga grey box), Eucalyptus dealbata (tumbledown/ hill red gum), Allocasuarina distyla (scrub she- oak), Ehretia membranifolia (peach bush), Geijera parviflora (wilga), Alectryon oleifolius (rosewood), Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine), and Callitris endlicheri (black cypress pine).
Groundcover species include Bothriochloa macra (red grass), Austrostipa verticillata (slender bamboo grass), Chloris truncata (windmill grass), Aristida vagans (three-awned spear grass), and Austrostipa setacea (corkscrew grass).
61 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Land Use
The majority of the landscape is utilised for native and improved pasture grazing. Winter cereal cropping was the dominant land use since the early 1900’s due to the lightly textured topsoils, with native pasture grazing before this. Cropping is still practiced in some areas, although is limited by poor fertility and structure.
Land Degradation
Areas with current or previously inadequate groundcover exhibit moderate to severe fertility and structural decline, as well as moderate to severe sheet, rill, wind and gully erosion. The entire surface horizon has been removed in some areas. Salinisation of dams is evident in association with saline bedrock. Saline discharge areas often occur at junctions with plains and the lower Brentry (by) Soil Landscape .
Landscape Qualities and Limitations
Localised dieback, localised poor drainage, localised engineering hazard, gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, known discharge area, known recharge area, high run-on, dryland salinity, seepage scalds, wind erosion risk (under cultivation), woody weeds (Callitris spp. (cypress pines) regrowth potential). Included Soil Landscape
Small areas of Blue Vale (bv) soil landscape which occur on upper footslopes and fans (Brentry (br) soil landscape) have been included where they are too small to map accurately at 1:25 000 scale. SOILS
Variation and Distribution
This landscape is relatively simple and dominated by hard duplex soils with highly variable gravel content and degrees of sodicity. Upper slopes are generally dominated by moderately well drained very deep Red Sodosols and some Bleached Red Chromosols (Red-brown Earths), whilst mid to lower footslopes are dominated by imperfectly to poorly drained deep to very deep Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils).
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Upper footslope Red Sodosols/Chromosols 40% Mid-Lower footslope Brown Sodosols 60%
Dominant Soil Materials
Soil materials to5, to6 and to7 are described in detail in Soil Landscapes of the Baan Baa 1:100 000 Sheet (Pengelly, in press). to1 – Dark silty loam and clay loam topsoils (A1 Horizons). Very dark grey to dark greyish brown (10YR 3/1 – 4/2) clay loam, sandy top sandy clay loam; massive; earthy (dry); porous; field pH 6.0 – 7.0. Surface hardsetting, can be gravelly in some areas. to2—Bleached near surface layers (A2e Horizons). Brown (7.5YR 4/3 – 10 YR 4/3) sandy clay loam to light clay (dry colours almost white); earthy, massive; field pH 6.0 – 7.0; gravels absent to abundant (0 - >90%). Hardsetting when exposed. to3—Reddish clayey topsoils (A1 Horizons). Dark reddish brown (5YR 3/6) medium to heavy clay; strong pedality with smooth-faced angular-blocky (20 – 50 mm) peds; field pH6.0 – 7.0; Surface hardsetting, can be gravelly in some areas. to4 –Yellowish brown mottled clay subsoils with segregations (B22k, B23k, B23y, Ck Horizons). Dark brown to pale brown (7.5YR 3/2 - 10YR 6/3) light to heavy clay, occasionally with fine sand; moderate to strong pedality, with smooth-faced angular blocky (10 – 50 mm) to prismatic (20 – 50
62 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) mm) peds; field pH 7.5 – 9.0. Slickensides absent to common (0 – 50%), increasing with depth; with very few to few (<2 – 10%) dark, orange and red mottle; calcareous segregations very few to common (<2 – 20%); occasional gypseous crystals at depth; absent to strong fine calcium carbonate evident with HCl at depth; absent to conspicuous salt evident with silver nitrate field test; lithic and quartz sandstone, jasper and ironstone gravel fragments absent to few (0 – 10%). Not encountered exposed.
TYPE PROFILES
Type profile 1: Upper footslope Soil classification: mod. well drained Subnatric Eutrophic Red Sodosol, thick, moderately gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, very deep, (Red-brown Earth); many (20-50%) surface gravels; surface condition is gravelly, hard set, expected to be hardsetting when dry Depth of observation: 160 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 Topographic Map - new road cutting. Whitehaven Mine (Map reference: 230680 E, 6595615 N). Profile 79. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, , 0 - 0.3 m, to1 dark brown clay loam sandy with massive structure, earthy; many (20-50%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6.5; clear (20-50 mm) smooth boundary to- Layer 2, A2, 0.3 - 0.6 m, to2 brown sandy clay loam with massive structure, earthy; many (20-50%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 7; clear (20-50 mm) smooth boundary to- Layer 3, B2, 0.6 - 1.1 m, to3 dark reddish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (angular blocky, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; many (20-50%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 7; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to-
Layer 4, B22, 1.1 - 1.6 m, to4 strong brown medium heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; many (20-50%), gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm),cobbles (60-200 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; very few (< 2%) manganiferous segregations; no roots; field pH is 7; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm); Soil continues… **** Type profile 2: Mid footslope Soil classification: Hypernatric Eutrophic Brown Sodosol, medium, non gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, very deep, (Solodic Soil); few (2-10%) surface gravels; surface condition is hard set, expected to be hardsetting when dry Depth of observation: 200 cm. Location: Gulligal 1:25 000 Topographic Map – Gully on Broadwater Reserve (Map reference: 227188 E, 6592588 N). Profile 225. Voluntary/native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, to1 dark greyish brown sandy clay loam with massive structure, earthy; very few (< 2%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; many roots; field pH is 6.5; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to- Layer 2, A2, 0.1 - 0.25 m, to2 brown light clay with massive structure, earthy; very few (< 2%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 7; abrupt (5-20 mm) boundary to-
63 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Layer 3, B2, 0.25 - 0.68 m, to4 strong brown light medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; no roots; field pH is 8.5; diffuse (>100 mm) boundary to-
Layer 4, 2B2, 0.68 - 2 m, to4 dark brown medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20- 50 mm), smooth-faced peds; many (20-50%), gravel (6-20 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 8.5; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; soil continues
Type profile 3 Soil classification: poorly drained Mesonatric Vertic Effervescent Brown Sodosol, medium, non gravelly, silty, clayey, giant, 2 (Solodic Soil); Depth of observation: 120 cm. Location: Gulligal 1:25 000 Topographic Map - slope plain junction "Emerald Plains" (Map reference: 222830 E, 6582722 N). Profile 48. Improved Pasture. Layer 1, A, 0 - 0.15 m, to2 no colour recorded, light sandy clay with massive structure, earthy; field pH is 7; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to- Layer 2, B2, 0.15 - 0.75 m, to4 brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) smooth boundary to... Layer 3, B22, 0.75 - 1.2 m, to4 strong brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 50- 100 mm), smooth-faced peds; ; common (10% - 20%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm); Soil continues…
Notes on Soil Test Results
QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Erodibility
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind to1 moderate high moderate to2 high severe moderate to3 moderate high low to4 moderate high low
Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Cropping Moderate- High High High Grazing Low-Moderate Moderate Low
Soil Conservation Earthworks (Small Farm Dams) Subsoil materials in this landscape are highly variable in character and range within a soil material from having low to high limitations for construction of earthworks. Individual site testing is recommended before commencing construction. Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations
Soils should be managed under permanent improved or native pasture due to their high erodibility and
64 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) low to moderate fertility. Contour banks should be incorporated, even on very gently inclined slopes. Ground cover should remain above 70% throughout the year, with 25% tree cover in stands or shelter belts.
Short grazing and long rest periods should be used to encourage an increase in soil organic matter levels where topsoil is absent.
Regrowth of species such as Callitris spp. (cypress pines) should be managed to reduce soil erosion and improve pasture production.
Generally low to moderate limitations for grazing. Generally high limitations for cropping. Urban Capability Low limitations for urban development. Salinity hazard and soil erosivity should be considered before construction.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s
LMU C – Sedimentary Footslopes.
65 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) ve VELYAMA Transferral Landscape—74.4 km2; Very gently inclined to moderately inclined long footslopes of hills on Permian-Carboniferous rhyolites, rhyolite tuffs, andesite and rhyodacite of the Boggabri Volcanics in the Boggabri and Curlewis Hills. Local relief to 60 m, slope range 1 – 8%, elevation 240 – 330 m. Mostly cleared open-woodland with a grass or shrub understorey or grassland.
Soils— Slopes derived from more course grained parent materials dominated by moderately well drained to imperfectly drained deep to very deep Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils and Solodized Solonetz). Slopes which contain a mixture of clayey and coarse grained parent materials generally have some component of poorly drained very deep to giant Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays) with some Grey Vertosols (Grey Clays). Slopes dominated by clayey materials tend to be dominated by moderately well drained deep to giant Black Vertosols (Black Earths). Poorly drained deep to giant Grey Vertosols (Grey Clays) frequently occur at the terminal end of the landscape.
Qualities and Limitations— Complex soils distributions, localised tree dieback, poor drainage on duplex soils, high engineering hazard (Vertosols), low fertility (duplex soils), localised flood hazard, high gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, poor moisture availability on duplex soils, saline discharge area, recharge area, high run-on, dryland salinity, irrigated salinity, localised seasonal waterlogging, and localised seepage scalds.
LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
Very gently inclined to moderately inclined long footslopes of hills on Permian-Carboniferous rhyolites, rhyolite tuffs and rhyodacite of the Boggabri Volcanics in the Boggabri and Curlewis Hills. Type location is at ―Riverway‖ north of Boggabri (Grid Reference 2 17 000, 66 15000N).
LANDSCAPE
Geology and Regolith
Alluvium and colluvium from both acid and intermediate volcanic of the Boggabri Volcanics (geological map code Pbr). This landscape is defined by a mixture of both heavy clay alluvia from andesites and dacites, and the more light texture alluvia from rhyolitic material. Depth to unweathered rock was not determined for this landscape although some bores in the district penetrate more than 20 m in clay alluvium without encountering rock.
Terrain
Elevation range 240 – 330 m.
Climate and Hydrology
Estimated annual rainfall range 575 – 625 mm Vegetation
As this landscape is characterised by two virtually opposite soil types in terms of fertility, there are quite marked differences between the dominant woodland and grassland species present.
Woodlands species on duplex soils include Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine), Allocasuarina leuhmannii (bull oak), Eucalyptus melliodora (yellow box), E. albens (white box), E. pilligaensis (pilliga box), E. populnea (bimble box), Geijera parviflora (wilga), Notelaea microcarpa (native olive), Beyeria viscosa (sticky wallaby-bush), Carissa ovata (currant bush) and Cassine australis (red olive plum). Groundcover species include Austrostipa verticillata (slender bamboo grass), Dicanthium sericeum (Queensland bluegrass), Cymbopogon refractus (barbed wire grass) and Aristida ramosa (wire grass).
Heavy soils tend to be dominated by Casuarina cristata (belah), Eucalyptus microcarpa (western grey box), Alectryon oleifolius (rosewood), Eremophila mitchellii (budda), Acacia pendula (myall), and Geijera parviflora (wilga) separated by grasslands. Grassland species include Dicanthium sericeum (Queensland bluegrass), Austrostipa aristiglumis (plains grass), Aristida leptopoda (white wiregrass),
66 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Oxalis perennans (sorrel), Chloris truncata (windmill grass) and Sclerolaena muricata (copper burr).
Land Use
Due to the large difference in the two main soil groups of this landscape, it is split between grazing on lighter soils and cropping on heavier soils
Land Degradation
Historical and some current sheet, rill and gully erosion are evident throughout this landscape. Saline outbreaks are common at slope breaks, and soil structure decline is common in cropping areas.
Landscape Qualities and Limitations
Complex soils distributions, localised tree dieback, poor drainage on duplex soils, high engineering hazard (Vertosols), low fertility (duplex soils), localised flood hazard, high gully erosion risk, sheet erosion risk, poor moisture availability on duplex soils, saline discharge area, recharge area, high run-on, dryland salinity, irrigated salinity, localised seasonal waterlogging, and localised seepage scalds,
SOILS
Variation and Distribution
Soil distribution is highly complex and related to colluvial and alluvial processes as well as proximity to differing parent materials. Some locations have similar soil types from top to bottom of an individual footslope, whereas others have a complex and highly variable Mosaic of duplex soils and Vertosols.
Slopes predominantly derived from more acid and course grained parent materials are dominated by moderately well drained to imperfectly drained deep to very deep Brown Sodosols (Solodic Soils and Solodized Solonetz). Slopes which contain a mixture of clayey and coarse grained parent materials generally have some component of poorly drained very deep to giant Brown Vertosols (Brown Clays) with some Grey Vertosols (Grey Clays). Slopes dominated by clayey materials tend to be dominated by moderately well drained deep to giant Black Vertosols (Black Earths). Poorly drained deep to giant Grey Vertosols (Grey Clays) frequently occurring at the terminal end of the landscape.
Position in landscape Soil Type Dominance Footslopes on coarse parent Brown Sodosols 35% materials Footslopes with mixed parent Brown Vertosols 15% materials Footslopes on Clayey parent Black Vertosols 40% materials Terminal end of footslopes Grey Vertosols 10%
Dominant Soil Materials ve1—Hardsetting brown sandy loam (A1 horizons). Dark yellowish brown to brown (10YR 3 /4 - 4/3) sandy loam,; earthy, massive; field pH 5.5 – 6.0, surface is hardsetting. ve2—Dark clay loamy topsoils (A1 Horizons). Very dark grey to dark greyish brown (10YR 3/1 - 3/2) silty clay loam to clay loam, sandy; earthy, massive; field pH 6.0 – 7.0; surface is hardsetting. ve3—Dark cracking clay topsoils (A1, Ap horizons). Black (5YR 3/2) to very dark grey (10YR 3/2) medium to heavy clay; strong pedality with smooth faced polyhedral (2- 10 mm) , occasionally angular blocky (10 – 20 mm) peds; field pH 5.5 – 8.5; occasional presence of lime where pH> 8.0. Surface is seasonally cracking to self-mulching and cracking. ve4—Grey clay topsoils (A1, Ap horizons). Dark grey to brown (10YR 4/1 – 7.5YR 4/2) light to
67 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) medium clay; strong pedality with smooth faced polyhedral to angular blocky (2 – 10 mm) peds; field pH 6.0 – 7.0; surface is seasonal cracking and often self-mulching. ve5—Bleached silty horizons (A2e horizons). Light brown to light grey (10YR 6/2 – 7/2) sandy loam to silty loam; earthy, massive; field pH 5.5 – 6.5; manganiferous nodules found in some locations, hardsetting and highly erodible when exposed. ve6—Grey clay subsoils (B horizons). Dark greyish brown to dark grey (2.5Y4/1, 10YR 4/1) to dark greyish brown (10 YR 4/2) sandy clay to heavy clay; strong pedality with smooth-faced prismatic to lenticular (20 – 200 mm) peds; slickenside coatings often present; field pH range 6.0 – 9.0 (increasing generally with depth); lime segregations occur where pH> 8.0; chloride salts occur in some locations as indicated by silver nitrate field tests. ve7—Darker brown clay subsoils (B Horizons). Dark brown to brown, occasionally reddish brown 7.5YR 3/3 – 10YR 4/4, 5YR 4/3) medium to heavy clay; strong pedality with smooth faced prismatic to lenticular (20 – 50 mm) peds, slickenside coatings generally present; field pH 6.5 – 9.5; soft lime segregations present where pH> 8.0; chloride salts are very common as indicated by silver nitrate field tests. ve8—Black clay subsoils (B horizons). Black to very dark grey (5YR 2.5/1 – 7.5YR 3/1) medium to heavy clay; strong pedality with prismatic, occasionally columnar peds, slickenside ped coatings generally present; field pH 6.0 – 9.0 (generally increasing with depth), lime segregations occur where pH> 8.0; chloride salts occur in some locations as indicated by silver nitrate field tests. ve9—Light brown to yellowish clay subsoils (B horizons). Brown to light yellow 10YR 5/4 – 2.5Y 6/3) medium to heavy clay; strong pedality with prismatic (20 – 100 mm) peds, slickenside peds coatings occasionally present; field pH 6.0 – 9.5; lime segregations occur where pH> 8.0; chloride salts occur in some locations as indicated by silver nitrate field tests.
Type Profiles
Type profile 1: mid footslope Soil classification: Brown Sodosol, medium, non gravelly, loamy, clayey, deep, (Solodic Soil); Depth of observation: 130 cm. Location: Boggabri 1:25 000 topographic map - "Kilmarnock" mid footslope (Map reference: 221321 E, 6598237 N). Profile 202. Voluntary native Pasture. Layer 1, , 0 - 0.2 m, ve1 dark yellowish brown sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; common roots; field pH is 6; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, A2, 0 - 0.6 m, ve5 light grey sandy loam with massive structure, earthy; few (2% - 10%) manganiferous segregations; few roots; field pH is 6; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to...
Layer 3, B2, 0.6 - 1.3 m, ve9 dark yellowish brown medium clay with moderate pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; field pH is 9; soil continues...
Type profile 2: Lower footslope Soil classification: Brown Sodosol, medium, gravelly, clay loamy, clayey, very deep, (Solodic Soil); common (10-20%) surface gravels; surface condition is hard set, expected to be hardsetting when dry Depth of observation: 130 cm. Location: Therribri 1:25 000 topographic map - nr gate to "Velyama" (Map reference: 217766 E, 6611138 N). Profile 293. Voluntary native Pasture.
68 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.11 m, ve2 very dark grey whole-coloured silty clay loam with massive structure, earthy; common (10-20%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; common roots; field pH is 6; abrupt (5-20 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, A2, 0 - 0.19 m, ve5 light brownish grey whole-coloured silty loam with massive structure, earthy; common (10-20%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; few roots; field pH is 6; abrupt (5-20 mm) boundary to...
Layer 3, B1, 0.19 - 0.5 m, ve9 brown whole-coloured medium clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; no roots; field pH is 8; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 4, B2, 0.5 - 1 m, ve7 brown whole-coloured medium heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 8.5; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to... Layer 5, BC, 1 - 1.3 m, ve9 yellowish brown medium clay with weak pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; common (10-20%), fine gravel (2-6 mm),gravel (6-20 mm),coarse gravel (20-60 mm), as parent material, coarse fragments; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9.5; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; soil continues...
Type profile 3: Lower footslope Soil classification: poorly drained Gypsic Self-Mulching Brown Vertosol (Brown Clay); Location: Boggabri "Kilmarnock" L. Footslope (Map reference: 221150 E, 6598175 N). Profile 134. Voluntary native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.2 m, ve3 very dark greyish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 2-5 mm), smooth-faced peds; few roots; field pH is 6; diffuse (>100 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0 - 0.8 m, ve7 brown heavy clay with strong pedality (lenticular, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; no roots; field pH is 9.5; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; diffuse (>100 mm) boundary to...
Layer 3, B22, 0 - 1.3 m, ve7 dark yellowish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; soil continues...
Type profile 4: Lower footslope Soil classification: mod. well drained Epicalcareous Self-Mulching Black Vertosol (Black Earth); Depth of observation: 120 cm. Location: Therribri 1:25 000 topographic map - Lower footslope "Riverway" (Map reference: 216766 E, 6614575 N). Profile 278. Cropping. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.1 m, ve3 dark reddish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (polyhedral, 2-5 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 8.5; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to...
69 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Layer 2, B2, 0 - 0.8 m, ve8 dark reddish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; no roots; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; gradual (50-100 mm) boundary to...
Layer 3, 2B2, 0 - 1.2 m, ve7 reddish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is conspicuous white precipitate; soil continues...
Type profile 5: Lower footslope Soil classification: poorly drained Endocalcareous Epipedal Grey Vertosol (Grey Clay); Depth of observation: 130 cm. Location: Therribri 1:25 000 topographic map - 500m NNE "Velyama" gate (Map reference: 217928 E, 6611460 N). Profile 279. Voluntary native Pasture. Layer 1, A1, 0 - 0.08 m, ve4 dark grey medium clay with moderate pedality (angular blocky, 5-10 mm), smooth-faced peds; common roots; field pH is 6; clear (20-50 mm) boundary to... Layer 2, B2, 0 - 0.5 m, ve6 dark grey heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; very few (< 2%) calcareous segregations; few roots; field pH is 8.5; diffuse (>100 mm) boundary to...
Layer 3, B22, 0 - 1.3 m, ve9 yellowish brown heavy clay with strong pedality (prismatic, 20-50 mm), smooth-faced peds; few (2% - 10%) calcareous segregations; field pH is 9; AgNO3 result is light precipitate; soil continues...
Associated Soil Materials
QUALITIES AND LIMITATIONS
Erodibility
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind ve1 moderate high moderate ve2 moderate high low ve3 moderate high low ve4 high severe low ve5 severe severe moderate ve6 high severe low ve7 moderate high low ve8 moderate high low ve9 moderate high low
Erosion Hazard
Non-concentrated flows Concentrated flows Wind Cropping Low – Moderate Moderate - High Low - moderate Pasture Low Low - Moderate Low
Rural Capability and Sustainable Land Management Recommendations Low to moderate limitations for grazing. Low to high limitations for cropping due to the extremes of soil type in the landscape with low limitations on the Vertosols (cracking clays) and high limitations on the other lighter soils. Urban Capability
70 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011)
Low to moderate limitations for urban development. Areas with Vertosols have very high foundation hazard. Salt loads are high in this landscape and septic or drainage placements should be located so as not to exacerbate any potential salinity problems.
Liverpool Plains Land Management Unit/s
LMU C – Sedimentary Footslopes
LMU G – Colluvial Basalt Footslopes.
71 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) Appendix 7.5 Soil Landscape Available Water Calculations
Boggabr Averag i Soil e Soil AWC Area AW Sl_cod Profile Depth (mm ML/H Hectare C e Soil landscape name No. (m) ) a s (ML) bvy Blue Vale 96 0.9 230 2 189 435 305 byr Brentry 77 1.6 912 9 335 1 Driggle Draggle variant ddwa a 228, 231 3 1050 11 19 201 hay Hartfell 276 0.1 13 0 132 17 lex Leard 94 0.45 71 1 799 567 150 vey Velyama 202134 3 904 9 167 9
72 SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) R E S U M E - ROBERT BANKS
PO Box 582 GUNNEDAH NSW 2380 Tel: 02 6742 7489 Mob: 0427 431 512 E-mail: [email protected]
EDUCATION/QUALIFICATIONS 1986 - 1990 Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Bachelor of Science with Honours Plant Ecology, Soils and Geomorphology
January 2005 – June Gunnedah TAFE, Gunnedah NSW 2005 Diploma of Business (Frontline Management)
Other Qualifications: Chainsaw Operators Safety Awareness Certificate (DLWC No.590) Confined Space Awareness Training Certificate (DLWC)
WORK HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE
1990 – 2004 Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR, and its predecessors, DLWC, CaLM and Soil Conservation Service) Gunnedah, NSW
Senior Soil Scientist, Soil Surveyor
Full time position as Soil Surveyor contributing to the State Soil Landscapes Survey program Conducted an environmental and cultural audit of Boobora Lagoon for CaLM at Boggabilla with the Gammillaroi people from Toomela Mission (1992). Providing technical input and setting directions for collaborative research projects within the Liverpool Plains relating to soils and salinity information. Part of this job resulted in the creation of the original Land Management Units for the Liverpool Plains. These have since been redrafted by Robert as Soil Landscape Mapping became available for the whole Liverpool Plains. Responsible for conducting soil surveys and participate in multidisciplinary team research projects at a local and national scale. Responsible for soils input to many areas of NW NSW ranging from identification of salinity risk, developing sustainable agronomic practices to advising engineers and planners on soil related hazards. Development of NSW State Salinity Policy (Working group member) Development of Federal and State Carbon Credit Policy (Working Group member)
“PO BOX 582 GUNNEDAH , N S W 2 3 8 0 P H O N E 0 2 6 7 4 2 7 4 8 9 + MOBILE 0427 431 51 2 + E - M A I L SOILFUTURES@CLEARMAI L.COM.AU Completed Soils and Land Information System in-service course Completed Presentation Skills workshop Completed Extension Skills workshop
Assisted Landcare and Total Catchment Management, CMA, CMB
Groups
Land resource consultancies Projects of national and regional significance including Soil and Regolith Attributes for CRA/RFA Modeling Resolution, Northern Floodplains Regional Planning NHT project, and Australian Soil Resource Information System Scientific supervisor for 7 soil surveyor staff in Barwon Region Training programs for 14 overseas soils students and at least as many Australian Students Supervision and training of Honours Students from UNE, Macquarie University and Sydney University Extension of soil management information in NW NSW.
Presented at over 300 field days in NW NSW on wide variety of soil management issues to landholders and soil managers in the region
Hamburg University, Hamburg, Germany October–November 1991 Invited to present lectures in Australian soils and geomorphology at Institute for Boedenkunde (Soil Science), Hamburg (3 weeks), University of Hamburg and Ingolstadt on National soil science tour of Germany and Austria. This was followed by a 1 week work tour at Cambridge University and Rothamstead, England at the request of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CaLM).
December 1993–July Two 7-month secondments to Hong Kong Geotechnical Engineering 1994 and November Office, Hong Kong (Aerial Photograph Interpretation and Soil Consultant) 1996–June 1997 Assisted in negotiating contract for 4-year study of landslide hazard in Hong Kong, employing up to 14 Australian consultants at any one time from October 1993 – November 1997. Assisted in design and implementation of Aerial Photograph Interpretation (API) procedures for the systematic investigation of features of the Territory (SIFT) program. This was conducted to identify dangerous cut slopes, fill slopes and retaining walls of Hong Kong and asses risk to human life
Participated in hazard identification procedure through API and field
investigation.
Acted as soil/geomorphology consultant in for Lantau Island Landslide Investigation team Responsible for training local staff in API and other remote sensing tools Production of 108 1:1000 maps and reports over various areas of the Territory Completion of SIFT project as outlined above and reporting to Legislative Council that in excess of 50 000 dangerous features required remediation in the Territory of Hong Kong
August 1999 2-week secondment to Tasmania’s Department of Primary Industries Water and Energy, Launceston Tasmania Helped to design and implement sampling strategy for Electromagnetic Induction surveys over different geomorphic zones of the Midlands of Tasmania to identify degree of salinity risk for irrigation development
September 2001 Soil Research in Western Queensland as part of Dr John Ley’s wind erosion team based at Gunnedah Research Centre Lead a soils investigation team to sample clay pan environments
Investigated the role of soil engineering, inherent salinity and sodicity properties of clay pan soils to develop a soil based model for development of surfaces and wind erosion features in clay pan environments in Western Queensland. At the time of the project, these soil parameters had not been seriously considered in their environmental context.
September 2004– SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd, Gunnedah, NSW. current Principal Consultant and Director Started a new company to capitalise on expertise gained through service as NSW Government Soil Scientist offering sound soils advice for special developments in NSW.
Activities of Company have included to date: Development and use of Electromagnetic Induction (EM) technology in salinity investigation for broadacre applications (suitability for alternative crops), as well as for water storage suitability assessment. Crop suitability soil surveys for citrus and plantation timber developments GIS and scientific paper contribution to KLC Environmental Design of effluent management and disposal system for abattoir development application, and for Peel Council Effluent Re-use scheme for proposed Equine Centre Salinity studies for urban development in Tamworth Shire Development of property dryland tree plantation and cell grazing designs, and successful funding submissions for on ground action for client who wished to bring tree cover to 30% and enable better pasture management on property. Tree and Soil sampling for CRC for Plant Based Solutions for Salinity (Adelaide). Identifying and sampling rare woody species. which may have potential for development for timber products. Soil sampling was involved for this project to determine soil characteristics which plants favoured in their natural or plantation habitat. Presentation of soil management and salinity information at 32 field days for the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, the Australian Grasslands Society, Gunnedah TAFE and the Namoi Catchment Management Authority Tree planting and water use design for urban development Provision of general soil advice to land managers, planners, other environmental scientists and to University of New South Wales Groundwater Unit. Significant Wetland mapping for the Western CMA – GIS subcontractor to Wetlands and Woodlots Mining Exploration for limestone mining potential in the Gunnedah Shire Training of DNR staff Soil Coring OH&S, and safe operation Technical expertise on soil test results provided to GHD-Hassall for municipal effluent disposal projects (7 separate locations in NSW). Contracted by Namoi Catchment Namoi Authority to complete soil landscape mapping for entre Namoi Catchment. This job consisted of mapping unmapped areas and producing seamless soil landscape and geomorphic coverage for the Namoi Catchment, involved management of seven separate subcontractors, working as a team, and overseeing and compiling all soil profile and landscape description data. Completed soil landscape mapping at 1:100 000 Scale for the Hunter REMS CCC, to allow effective native vegetation modeling to be developed. Represented Caroona Coal Action Group at Senate Inquiry on Food Production Security. May 2009. Expert Witness, for Caroona Coal Action Group in Mining Magistrates Court May 2009. Expert Witness For client suing insurer over foundation issues claim on house November 2009. Slater and Gordon Lawyers, Gunnedah 2 EM31 surveys for clients seeking to construct irrigation storages October – November 2009 Expert Witness Report on Gully erosion along proposed subdivision boundary. April 2010. McCabe Terril HBM Legal Group. Setting EPA sampling sites and doing baseline soil sampling and EPA reporting for Tamworth Regional Council Effluent Irrigation Scheme. February - June 2010 Irrigation development suitability soil Studies for Doyle Group in SE QLD, November, 2009 – present. Ongoing Effluent irrigation Development Study using EM31 as a tool for potential monitoring – salt loading and nutrient budgeting for Gunnedah Leather Processors, Gunnedah – June 2010 – present – on going
ACCREDITATION Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS), Level 2, Experienced Professional
Accreditation through Australian Soil Science Society for practitioners of Soil Science. Level 2 CPSS must have at least 5 years experience in soil science, have achieved academic and professional excellence and must maintain annual professional training of at least 50 hours. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Member of Australian Soil Science Society Incorporated (ASSSI)
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES Member of the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee (2004 – 2009)
Voluntary position as both landholder and soils expert on community committee which has been establish to encourage and fund sustainable land management in the Liverpool Plains, and to direct the activities of professional staff who work for the committee.
REFEREES Mr Greg Chapman Manager Soil and Land Information. DIPNR PO BOX 3720 Parramatta NSW 2124 Telephone 02 9895 6172
Dr Anthony Ringrose-Voase CSIRO Division of Land and Water GPO Box 1666 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone 02 6246 4911
PUBLICATIONS Banks, R.G. (1994), Soil Landscapes of the Curlewis 1:100 000 Sheet Map, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Sydney Banks, R.G. (1995), Soil Landscapes of the Curlewis 1:100 000 Sheet Map, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Sydney Banks, R.G. & Riley, S.J. (1996), The Role of phosphorous and heavy metals in the spread of weeds in urban bushlands: an example from the Lane Cove Valley, NSW, Australia. The Science of the Total Environment 182: 32 – 52 Banks, R.G. & Beasley, R. (1996) Recent findings into processes involved in dryland salinity in the northern region (Liverpool Plains) of New South Wales. 4th National Conference and Workshop on the Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Land. Albany, Western Australia, 25 – 30 March 1996 Conference Proceedings pp 87 –88. Banks, R.G. 1997 “Sols Profunds i Rentats” (Soils of the world temperate zone) In: R. Poch et al. (eds) Encyclopedia Catalana - Vol 6 Selves Temperades - Biosphera Edition pp31 - 36. BARCELONA, SPAIN. Banks, R.G. (1998), Soil Landscapes of the Blackville 1:100 000 Sheet Map and Report, Department Land and Water Conservation, Sydney Banks, R.G. (2001), Soil Landscapes of the Tamworth 1:100 000 Sheet Map and Report, Department Land and Water Conservation, Sydney Banks, R.G.(In Press), Soil Landscapes of the Boggabri 1:100 000 Sheet Map and Report, Department Land and Water Conservation, Sydney Banks, R.G. & McKane, D (1999) Soil Carbon Storage Units of the NSW Interim Bioregions. Series of maps and reports produced as a consultancy to the Australian Greenhouse, being incorporated into assessment of Australia wide soil carbon assessments. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra Banks R.G Various Dates 2004 – 2009 – Privately produced scientific reports and documents available on request for viewing only on request from SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd as these documents are deemed commercial – in confidence.
Kalaitzis P, Banks V & Banks R (2000) Impacts Of Declining Shallow Ground Water Tables On The Health Of Terrestrial Native Vegetation In The Gunnedah Area, NSW. LWWRDC Technical report for project No. NDW23. Johnstone, R., Abbs, K., Banks, R., Donaldson, S & Greiner, R. (1995) Unique Mapping Areas as the basis for Integrating Biophysical and Economic Modeling in the Liverpool Plains. MODSIM 95 Conference Proceedings Keady, L.C. & Banks, R.G. (1998) Field Guide to Soils of the Western Barwon Region Floodplains. Department of Land and Water Conservation, SYDNEY. Keady, L.C., Banks, R.G, & Beasley, R. (1998) Reconnaissance Soil Associations of the Collarenebri 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Department of Land and Water Conservation, SYDNEY Keady, L.C., Banks, R.G, & Beasley, R. (1998) Reconnaissance Soil Associations of the Dungalear 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Department of Land and Water Conservation, SYDNEY. Keady, L.C., Banks, R.G, & Beasley, R. (1998) Reconnaissance Soil Associations of the Gwabegar 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Department of Land and Water Conservation, SYDNEY Keady, L.C., Banks, R.G, & Beasley, R. (1998) Reconnaissance Soil Associations of the Mogil Mogil 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Department of Land and Water Conservation, SYDNEY Keady, L.C., Banks, R.G, & Beasley, R. (1998) Reconnaissance Soil Associations of the Pilliga 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Department of Land and Water Conservation, SYDNEY Keady, L.C., Banks, R.G, & Beasley, R. (1998) Reconnaissance Soil Associations of the Walgett 1:100 000 Map Sheet. Department of Land and Water Conservation, SYDNEY Mcgaw, A.J.E., Banks, R.G. & Milford, H.B (2000).Catchment Management – the relevance of soils in management and planning. Ringrose-Voase, A.J., Paydar, Z., Huth, N.I., Banks, R.G., Cresswell, H.P., Keating, B.A., Young, R.R., Bernardi, A.L., Holland, J.F. & Daniels, I. 1999. Modeling deep drainage of different land use systems. 2. Catchment wide application. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Modeling and Simulation, Hamilton, New Zealand, December 1999, Volume 1. (Eds L. Oxley and F. Scrimgeour) pp. 43-48. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. A.J. Ringrose-Voase, R.R. Young, Z. Paydar, N.I. Huth, A.L. Bernardi, H.P. Cresswell, B.A. Keating, J.F. Scott, M. Stauffacher, R.G. Banks, J.F. Holland, R.M. Johnston, T.W. Green, L.J. Gregory, I. Daniells, R. Farquharson, R.J. Drinkwater, S. Heidenreich, S.G. Donaldson & C.L. Alston (In Press) Deep Drainage under Different Land Uses in the Liverpool Plains. NSW Agriculture Technical Bulletin, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report. STAUFFACHER M, WALKER G, DAWES W, ZHANG L, DYCE P And BANKS R (In Press) Dryland Salinity Management: Can Simple Catchment-Scale Models Provide Reliable Answers? An Australian Case Study. CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report (In Press) SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (Banks, RG) (2008). Reconnaissance 1:100 000 scale Soil Landscapes of the Namoi Catchment. Available on DVD ROM in Self extracting form from the Namoi Catchment Management Authority, Tamworth. SoilFutures Consulting Pty Ltd (Banks, R.G.) (2009) Reconnaissance Soil Landscapes of the Hunter Councils Catchments. Hunter Councils Incorporated, Maitland. Townsend, F.N., Lang, J.C. & Banks, R.G. (1999) Dryland Salinity in the Liverpool Plains, NSW. Soil Mapping and Interpretation of Landscape Processes. 6th National Conference and Workshop on the Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Land. Naracoorte, South Australia, 1 - 5 November 1999. Poster presentation summary in Conference Proceedings. Published on Web
Maules Creek proposed coal mine: greenhouse gas emissions By Dr Ian Lowe
In my earlier submission regarding the Boggabri Coal Mine, I estimated that the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the proposed mine would be about 20 to 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
On the new data now provided, with an additional expected 13 million tonnes per year of raw coal being mined and 10.8 mt/year product being exported, the GHG burden will be significantly greater. The proponent’s own estimate, which certainly does not inflate the final impact, gives the total impact as about 30 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, or some 630 million tonnes for the period 2012-2032. To put these figures in perspective, the total of the emissions from the entire country of New Zealand is about the same – 32.6 mt in 2007. The State of NSW now emits about 150 mt/year and the likely 2020 target will be lower. The response currently before the Commonwealth parliament aims at a 5 per cent reduction if there is no concerted international action, with reductions in the range 15 to 25 per cent if there is international agreement to tackle the problem of climate change seriously. So the expected reduction in emissions from NSW if the national goal is uniformly allocated will be in the range from 7.5 to 37.5 million tonnes per year. In that context, even the proponent’s estimate of the local emissions, Scope 1 + Scope 2, of about 0.25 mt/year is a significant extra burden for the State. The Scope 3 emissions, unavoidably produced by the use of the coal by its customers, will be somewhere in the range from about 20 to 27 per cent of the State’s total emissions budget in 2020. Put another way, the Scope 3 emissions from this mine alone are comparable in scale to the most ambitious State reduction target being canvassed at this stage. So NSW would need to double its reduction within the State to undo the damage that would be done to the global atmosphere if this mine were allowed.
The EIS includes assertions that the overall impact on the global climate would be minuscule: “an annual increase in average global temperature of 0.00003 C”. This is a specious argument. First, it is based on an assumption that doubling the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would raise the average global temperature by 2.5 C, where the science is now warning that the increase could be much greater. The “best guess” for a doubling of the pre-industrial level is now 2.9, with a warning that it could be in the range up to 4.4 C. The Australian Academy of Science said last year that global emissions need to peak by 2020 and then be reduced rapidly to give a 50:50 chance of keeping the increase below 2 degrees. Allowing the atmospheric concentration to double runs a serious risk of passing a critical “tipping point” and precipitating catastrophic interference in the climate system. Even if this doesn’t happen, the crucial question is not the average annual increase in global temperature due to this project, but its total impact. Being charitable and using the proponent’s figures, 0.00003 C per year for twenty years is 0.0006 C overall if the mine stops operating in 2032. Dr Malte Meinshausen, Senior Research Fellow at the Potsdam Institute, gave evidence as an expert witness in a recent case in the Queensland Land and Environment Court about the direct measurable impacts of a temperature increase on that scale. He estimated that 0.0006 C increase in average temperature would cause an increase in sea level that would flood an additional 23,000 homes around the Pacific rim by 2080, for example.
The crucial point that needs to be considered is that the science now shows that carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere (and continues to change the global climate) for a very long time. While it has been generally accepted that a significant fraction will still be in the atmosphere 200 years after being released, there is now evidence that as much as 35 per cent of the CO2 could still be there in 1000 years. The mine effectively would transfer into the atmosphere huge amounts of carbon that are now safely sequestered beneath the ground. So the damage to the climate and sea level from a large coal mine would stretch far into the distant future.
It should be added that the Maules Creek proposal is additional to the Boggabri mine, which has applied to be allowed to expand its output to 7 mt/yr. That should be a reminder that approval of a mine does not set limits, as in this case the proponent has come back with a request to expand its output dramatically. A proposal for another mine (Tarawonga), very near these two, is also being developed with the intent of producing a further 3 mt/yr. If all three proposals were to go ahead, the total impact of burning the coal would be greater than 60 mt/yr of CO2- equivalent. To put the potential impacts into a global perspective, if the Maules Creek mine were a nation, it would rank 75th in the world for total emissions, ahead of the greenhouse gas emissions of 140 entire countries. If all three proposals were approved, the total greenhouse gas impact of the mining province would rank above all but 50 entire nations: more than such countries as Sweden, Hungary, Finland, Portugal and Norway, among the 165 it would exceed. So the proposals really are of global significance.
[Type text]
Maules Creek & Leard Forest Coal Mines
Assessment of the Environmental and Social Values and Community Concerns of the Maules Creek Community Council
Evaluation of the Potential Loss for Compensation Purposes
Researched and prepared by:
Curtis NRA® Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
Contact details: Ian A Curtis BSc BSc(Hons) PhD
Mail PO Box 187 Brooklyn NSW Australia 2083
Email [email protected]
Phone Mobile: 0429 469081
Disclaimer
This report is prepared for the contracting party only and no fiducial obligation or duty of care of any sort whatsoever exists by Curtis NRA to any other party who may be affected by the contents contained herein. The report contains confidential data as to the economic environmental impact of the Maules Creek and Leard Forest Coal Mines, for the use of the client. Any use of this data so as to derive compensation payments to mitigate the impact is a matter between the client and the injurious party, and Curtis NRA expressly excludes itself from any liability in this regard.
Copyright
This material is copyright. No part of this document may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without the written permission of Maules Creek Community Council Inc. (MCCC), and Curtis NRA, except by the aforementioned parties for their own consultation with respect to the project. Concepts, plans, tables and figures, case studies, text and data, are the intellectual property of MCCC and Curtis NRA, and may not be used for any purpose without the express written permission of the aforementioned parties.
Overrider
As the social discipline of economics has had many paradigm shifts during the last 150 years, any peer review of this report must be undertaken with the express consent of the author, and a surety given that the reviewer is indeed a peer of the dominant discipline of the author, namely Land Economics, or Ecological Economics. Many universities in Australia now offer courses in land economics, among them, Melbourne University, and the University of Western Sydney. It may be sufficient to satisfy any concerns that the methodologies used herein have been published in both the relevant peer reviewed journals, the Elsevier Journal of Ecological Economics, and the Australian and New Zealand Property Journal. The author‟s PhD thesis has been downloaded 3580 times to 89 distinct countries with countless citations.
2 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
Contents
1.0 Executive Summary
2.0 Introduction
3.0 The Landowners
4.0 Leard State Forest
5.0 The Coal Mines
6.0 Environmental and Social Impacts
7.0 The value of the Ecosystem Goods and Services generated by Leard Forest
8.0 The Communities Aspirations for an Impact Mitigation Mechanism („s‟)
9.0 Proposals
10.0 Conclusion
References
3 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
1.0 Executive Summary
The community of Maules Creek, 20km NE of Boggabri in central western NSW is being impacted by several open cut coal mines nearby, such that they feel threatened by the flow on and cumulative effects, health and environmental, of the activities. Representations to the mining companies proposing that the mining be conducted underground, have been generally rejected as too costly.
Also, of immediate and on-going concern, but difficult to quantify without sufficient time to prepare a longitudinal study, is the effect on property values in Maules Creek.
The mining complex will impact by clearing all native vegetation from about 4700 hectares of land, some of which is a critically endangered ecological community.
Accordingly, the community of Maules Creek do not see any Net Social Benefit (NSB) accruing to them, or any tangible attempt to internalise what are significant negative exernalities.
The ecosystem goods and services lost due to the clearing of the forest have been valued at some $490,000 per annum. These ecosystem goods and services fall into one of four categories:
Stabilisation Services Regeneration Services Production of Goods Life fulfilling Services
Some of which are vital, others necessary, useful or desirable.
It is proposed that the Maules Creek Community be compensated, and the negative externalities internalised, by the establishment of two funds to be run for the lifetime of the mines, and after. It is proposed that one fund be designed to offset the environmental impacts; and the other to accommodate impacts to amenity, predicted detrimental changes to property prices and cumulative impacts".
Both of the mechanisms proposed for the funds are based on an empirical database, namely, real property values.
4 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 2.0 Introduction
Curtis NRA was engaged by Maules Creek Community Council Inc (MCCC) in a letter dated 18th September 2011, and emailed 19th September.
The principal of Curtis NRA, Dr Ian Curtis, visited Boggabri on Wednesday/Thursday 21/22nd September, and met with members of the MCCC, followed by a meeting with the environmental manager and the general manager of Boggabri Mines.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how the impacts of the mines on both the community and the environment, including clearing of the native vegetation in Leard State Forest could be compensated. These impacts are termed „negative externalities‟, and they have been quantified a number of times in the various Environmental Assessments required to gain approval. In strict economic terms, the only way to internalise a negative externality is to internalise it, by compensating the affected parties.
The MCCC do not see any Net Social Benefit (NSB) accruing to their community, which is the most directly affected, by a combination of noise; airborne particulate matter (with associated health risks); traffic disruption; loss of ecological services through clearing of native vegetation; reduction in property values; and, loss of quality of life in what was predominantly a quiet rural setting.
The MCCC propose that two funds be established and funded by the all of the mines in the complex to compensate them for the losses. Such a plan would see a NSB for the community and landholders. The funds proposed are an „Environment Fund‟, and a „Community Fund‟, the former designed to offset the loss of ecological services and environmental „goods‟, by instituting environmental projects possibly in conjunction with the Namoi CMA; and the latter for the proper management of cumulative impacts.
5 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 3.0 The Land and the Landowners
The Maules Creek community is located about 20kms north east of the town of Boggabri in Central Western NSW, in a geographical and climatic region described as the North Western Central Slopes and Plains. Under the Interim Bio-geographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA), the larger region is known as the „Brigalow Belt South‟ (BBS) after Thackway & Cresswell 1995, which extends south from the Queensland border. Under IBRA, the protection levels in this bioregion are in the range 0.01% – 5%, while anecdotally, it is thought to be around 1% – 2%.
The land around Maules Creek is generally flat, and comprises deep black soils of basaltic origin. Agricultural pursuits include cropping, and cattle grazing where the land is more undulating as it approaches the foothills of Mt Kaputar. The area is quite scenic, as can be imagined from reading this excerpt from a recent tourist brochure:
"After you cross the Harparary Bridge, take the Maules Creek Road and head for 'the hills'. Maules Creek is situated at the foothills of the Mt Kaputar National Park and is truly amazing countryside. The rugged enchanting landscape hides a deep rich black soil, perfectly suited to farming. As a result the region harbours some of the country's leading cattle. Water flows from the mountains, trickling through Melaleuca lined creeks to arrive as clear as crystal. Many beautiful locations along the river provide captivating hideaways to have a picnic or just enjoy the presence of nature. The size and grandeur of the Nandewar Ranges viewed from the Maules Creek area is spectacular."
Present population1 is about 183 people comprising some 73 families, a few of which have been landholders there upwards of 100 years, to 150 years. Every person is affected by the current and proposed mining activities to varying extents, as can be seen from the 15yr Noise Assessment map (Figure 1 in Section 5), with Private Residences shown as solid blue squares. Up to fifteen landholders whose properties directly abutted the mine have been bought out, resulting in the loss of some vital skill sets and community contributions.
Anecdotal evidence from one current and continuing landholder located well up the valley from the mine throws some level of doubt about the veracity of the Noise Assessment, as the low drone from machinery could be heard overnight due to an inversion sitting low over the valley. The air quality and noise consultants present at the recent Aston Resources open day (22nd September 2011) in Boggabri confirmed this and agreed that the modelling shows that there would be an inversion layer over Maules Creek 41% of the time generally and 69% in winter. This is a serious concern for human comfort and health.
1 2006 Census
6 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 4.0 Leard State Forest
Leard State Forest is 8134 hectares in extent, and is described as „Grassy Box Woodland‟ in more or less original condition, with little sign of any recent cypress pine thinning activity by NSW State Forests.
Grassy Box Woodland consists of a diverse mix of species including grass and herbaceous species, however dominated by White Box (Eucalyptus Albens), Yellow Box (E. Melliodora), and Blakeley‟s Red Gum (E. Blakelyi). Shrubs are generally absent; hence the appearance of the community is described as „park-like‟.
Other species that can occur in association with this ecological community are: Western Grey Box (E. microcarpa); Coastal Grey Box (E. mollucanna); Fuzzy Box (E conica); Apple Box (E. Bridgesiana); Red Box (E. Polyanthemos); Red Stringybark (E. Macrorhyncha); Long-leaved Box (E. Goniocalyx); New England Stringybark (E. Calignosa); Brittle Gum (E. Mannifera); Candlebark (E. Rubida); Argyle Apple (E. Cinera); White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla); Black Cyprus Pine (C. enderlichi); Kurrajong (Brachyciton populneus), and Drooping Sheoak (Allocasuarina verticillata).
Once widespread in the eastern states of Australia, Grassy Box Woodlands and Derived Grasslands2 are now rare, with less than 5% remaining in good condition. Accordingly Grassy Box Woodlands are listed as „critically endangered‟ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, and also the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act. Moreover, in 2008 to 2010, under the Federal Government‟s „Caring for Our Country‟ initiative, five rounds of „reverse auctions‟ were conducted in a Market-Based Incentive program (MBI), resulting in some 27,000 hectares being protected under 201 independent land managers. The National Heritage Trust has also allocated twenty million dollars for recovery plans for this, and one other ecological community.
More information about this ecological community can be found on the „Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Network website www.gbwcmn.net.au/about
2 Derived Grasslands are described as formerly Grassy Box Woodlands with the trees removed.
7 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 5.0 The Coal Mines
The coal mines currently operating in and bordering Leard State Forest are currently overall in the ownership of minority foreign owned corporations. As shareholdings are complex, including a number of nominee companies, the best guess has been about 36.3% foreign owned. The main players are:
1. Boggabri Coal: 100% Japanese owned by Idemitsu. 2. Aston Resources: 35% owned by Nathan Tinkler. 3. Tarrawonga: 30% Idemitsu, 70% Whitehaven.
The Tarrawonga Modification lies to the south of Boggabri coal mine, with the Tarrawonga extension further south. The Goonbi Coal Project lies to the east of The Tarrawonga Modification (see Figure 2).
All of the coal mines involved have undertaken to, or been required to put strict controls in place to ensure the cumulative effects of their operations are manageable under an Environmental Management Strategy. In some cases Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) have been prepared and put in place, and in other cases, prepared prior to being put in place.
The operating mines have undertaken a range of offset measures, including revegetation surrounding the mines, and the purchase of offset land of approximate commensurability to that cleared, although there is the concern that much of the offset land is „derived grasslands‟. Boggabri Mine claim to have had their contribution to offsetting increased several times by Government, and it currently stands at 6:1. Nevertheless, it will be many decades before „derived grasslands‟ will again resemble a forest with equivalent biomass and biodiversity to that removed.
8 [Type text]
Fig 1. 15yr Noise Assessment
® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
Fig 2. The current and proposed mines in and adjacent to Leard State Forest
10 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 6.0 Environmental and Social Impacts
6.1 Impacts on Leard State Forest
There is a level of uncertainty regarding the extent of clearing in Leard Forest, and how much of this is the critically endangered ecological community, and how much other habitat for mammals. Cumberland Ecology, in a report forming part of Aston Resources EIA, state that:
“based upon current proposals within Leard State Forest, the combined impact of mining would remove 3081.8 ha of forest and woodland, which is 60% of the extant forest and woodland. Such mining would also be likely to remove 1217.1 of 2153.1 ha of Box Gum Woodland and Derived Native Grassland, equating to 57% of the CEEC within Leard State Forest.”
Clearly therefore, the overall footprint of the combined mining activities is in the vicinity of 4300 hectares plus edge effects. Edge effects can encompass both human induced and other biophysical effects, including microclimate variables across the ecotone. Wider corridors or larger gaps are shown to have a more significant impact than narrow corridors or smaller gaps due to depth of penetration of the various effects into the forest. The effects are more pronounced in closed canopy environments closer to the edge, ie. rainforest, however they still exist and extend further into an open forest environment than a closed forest environment (Goosem and Turton 2000).
Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) reaching the forest floor has a significant relationship with distance from clearing, leading to possible emergence of alien species at the edge. Soil surface temperatures both on the surface and at 10cm depth are highest at the edge and extend inwards depending on the orientation of the corridor and season (declination of the sun). Air temperatures and vapour pressure deficits have more pronounced gradients for open canopy forests than closed canopy forests, which has implications for regeneration. Overall, linear clearing impacts on microclimate decrease with distance from the edge. Wide clearings or gaps without canopy retention allow greater invasion of weeds, and result in greater penetration of disturbance indicator species (Goosem and Turton 2000).
Owing to the irregular, however predominantly circular shape of the impact footprint, it is difficult to do more than estimate the extent of the edge effects. Based on an estimate of maximum edge effects of 100% at the edge, reducing to 0% at 200 metres from the edge, the likely total impact footprint would be in the vicinity of 4700 hectares.
11 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 6.2 Other Environmental and Social Impacts
Other environmental and social impacts relate to the physical presence of the mines and their flow on effects by way of noise and dust pollution; increased heavy traffic on the gravel side roads; possibilities of contaminated watercourses and interference with groundwater recharge; loss of community, etc. However, these impacts are beyond the scope of this report, and they have been amply explored by both the Mining Company‟s consultants, and the community‟s responses, both independently and through their consultants.
The remaining concern, and the most cogent issue facing the community, is the unknown effect the mining complex and cumulative impacts will have on their property values. Clearly, the sale of prime agricultural land adjacent to, or nearby an operating coal mine complex with a life of 21 yrs is difficult at best, and the obvious first indication would be slower than normal disposal rates, possibly resulting in the dropping of prices, or low offers. This effect is most concerning for those nearing retirement, and looking to either sell to move closer to the coast, or to put succession plans in place. Over the 21+ year life of the mines, this prospect will be very real for the large majority of the community.
12 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 7.0 Valuation Law and Practice
In Australia, all of the principles and practice of valuation have been derived from judgements handed down by the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Privy Council. Some relevant law and practice as it applies to this particular situation would be helpful in discussion, particularly when the possibility exists of loss of property values due to the presence of the mines and their associated negative externalities.
The definition of „unimproved value‟ in the Commonwealth Act and used in connection with, and defined by the taxing laws of Australia and the States and New Zealand is:
“The capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms as a bona fide’ seller would require, assuming that, at the time the value is required to be ascertained for the purpose of this act, the improvements did not exist.” (Lambert 1932:15).
This assumed that the increased value attaching to any particular piece of land which is due to the successful working of other people‟s land in the district, or the progressive works affected by the state, the general prosperity of the country, all form a portion of the „unimproved value‟. (Curtis 2003).
The courts insist that:
“The value of a particular piece of land is the value of civilised government at that spot, it is the value which the presence of the community gives to the land and which the community unconsciously assesses. It is something which is already in existence and must be discovered not invented.....it will be seen, therefore, that unimproved value is in reality the capital value of the economic rent of a piece of vacant land or other natural resource”. (Herps (1942:107; Curtis 2003).
The above was supported by a judgement of the Privy Council in Fiji on July 1 1957, where it was ruled that land is to be valued as situated in the community with the amenities that have grown up around it (Tetzner vs The CSR Co Ltd). (Curtis 2003)
13 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 7.1 The Value of the Ecosystem Goods and Services generated by Leard Forest
Table 1. The now commonly accepted suite of ecosystem goods and services (Curtis 2003; 2004, adapted and modified after Costanza 1997 and Cork and Shelton 2000).
Group Type Stabilisation Services Gas regulation (atmospheric composition) Climate regulation (temperature, rainfall) Disturbance regulation (ecosystem resilience) Water regulation (hydrological cycle) Erosion control and soil/sediment retention Biological control (populations, pest/disease control) Refugia (habitats for resident and transient populations) Regeneration Services Soil formation Nutrient cycling and storage (incl carbon sequestration) Assimilation of waste and attenuation, detoxification Purification (clean water, air) Pollination (movement of floral gametes) Biodiversity Production of Goods Water supply (catchment) Food production (that sustainable portion of GPP) Raw materials (that sustainable portion of GPP, timber, fibre etc.) Genetic resources (medicines, scientific and technological resources Life Fulfilling Services Recreation opportunities (nature-based tourism) Aesthetic, cultural and spiritual, (existence values) Other non-use values (bequest and quasi option values)
Every use of land has an opportunity cost, that being the existing use or other uses to which the land could be put (the use foregone) (Edwards 1987; McNeeley 1988; Frank 1991). The value of a conservation area should be at least as much as the cost of preserving it, or measured by the cost of the foregone opportunities, as the area cannot be developed or redeveloped (Allison et al., 1996). McNeeley (1988:33) described marginal opportunity cost as a „very useful tool in making decisions about allocation of resources‟. Moreover, McNeeley (1988:33) argued that marginal opportunity cost: “…can be used as a means by which those who will lose from having restrictions placed on their use of biological resources can be compensated to recover the value of their lost opportunity”.
Marginal opportunity cost can be expressed in terms of the annual net revenue foregone, in which case it would be capitalised, resulting in a land value in restricted and unrestricted use (McNeeley 1988). These concepts clearly link the natural production function of land with land valuation procedures. As ecosystem goods and services are the production function of land in its natural state (the Usus Fructus per annum), and as ecosystem goods and services are essential for planetary life support (Ke Chung and Weaver 1994), it could be argued that the provision of ecosystem goods and services are the „highest and best use‟ of land. It follows that apart from the economic valuation procedures described in Coleman (1996), Tamlin (1996) and Reed (2003), the value of non-market environmental attributes can be derived indirectly by using prices from a related market which does exist (Allison et al., 1996), namely, the property market. For the first time, now, the production
14 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists function of land set aside for conservation can be valued in much the same way as more traditional uses of land, such as agriculture or urban development. Clearly, for conservation to be a viable alternative land use it must be competitive with other uses to which land could be put, otherwise no one will pay for it.
Individuals in the community constantly reveal their preferences to purchase property for a multitude of uses. The pecuniary measures of these preferences are used as comparable sales by state agencies charged with the responsibility of valuing property and determining unimproved values as a basis for levying rates and taxes. The collective values thus underpin the costs of administration and provision of infrastructure in the bioregion (Lambert 1932; Herps 1942; Murray 1954; Blackwell 1994). Unimproved values are assessed on the principle of the highest and best legal use, yet assume that improvements do not and have never existed.
Valuer General for Ireland, member of the Royal Society and founder of Political Arithmetric, Sir William Petty (1623 – 1687) was first credited with capitalisation of the Usus Fructus per annum or productivity function of the land (Murray 1954, 1969; Roll 1961).
The Oxford Dictionary defines Usufruct as: 1.Law. “The right of temporary possession, use, or enjoyment of the advantages of property belonging to another, so far as may be had without causing damage or prejudice to this. Usufruct is the power of disposal of the use and fruits, saving the substance of the thing” (Simpson and Weiner 1989).
Sir William Petty believed that capitalisation of all of the profit and benefits produced by land held in the public domain was a logical economic step to take to determine capital value, or vice versa (Murray 1954, 1969; Roll 1961). However, Petty was uncertain as to how to determine the rate of return from land other than using the surplus from production as rent, but came up with an ingenious solution. Petty determined that the rights to land of three generations of humans would be a reasonable estimate, and as three life expectancies in England in the 17th Century were 120 years, he computed the value of land at twenty one year‟s purchase of its annual rent, or in money-capital terms, a capitalisation rate of 4.76% (Roll 1961).
In this study, the surrogate market is the broader property market in the bioregion in which the mines are located. However, like all farm budgets, it is also necessary to determine „what‟ and „how much‟ is being produced in the context of ecosystem goods and services. Two models were chosen to properly reflect the type and status of the Leard State Forest, namely „Open Forest‟ and „State Forest‟. The capitalisation rate is determined by a study of the market relevant to scarcity and risk and by using ecological models based upon the relationship between vegetation cover and species richness, land use characteristics and level of protection. The models are proprietary, however, they are based on the collective work of Holdridge (1967), Lugo
15 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists (1988), Brown and Lugo (1982), Mooney (1988) and McArthur and Wilson (1967). The LOP model uses Level Of Protection to set the capitalisation rate. As the level of protection decreases, the capitalisation rate increases reflecting risk (Figure 3). The LUC model uses Land Use Characteristics to set the capitalisation rate. As human and climate induced modification increases, so does the capitalisation rate in order to reflect scarcity of ecosystem goods and services (Figure 4). Both models are also used to determine „how much‟ ecosystem goods and services are being produced, which are expressed as a range. The relationship between vegetation cover and species richness is generally 3:2, except for Mediterranean climate ecosystems, where it is generally 1:1 (Mooney 1988). As both alienated and un-alienated land provide ecosystem services it is important to be able to estimate the extent to which the land contributes to the overall contribution. Depending on the level of disturbance, other human activities on the land can co-exist with the provision of ecosystem services.
16 [Type text]
Vegetative Cover
Refugia & biodiversity Gas regulation & climate control 100
Genetic resources 100 100 Hydrological cycle & water supply
Biological control 90 100 90 Continuous Purification & assimilation
Nutrient cycling Taxa Soil formation & erosion control 85 100 100 85
Aesthetics, other non-use Food & raw materials 75 90 100 90 75
Recreation opportunities 60 75 100 100 75 60 Discontinuous Pollination
Rural Disturbance regulation 45 60 100 100 100 60 45
30 30 45 100 100 45 30 30
Urban Savannah 15 20 30 100 100 100 30 20 15
20 Cities 0 10 25 100 100 25 20 10 0 Agriculture Disturbance Disturbance Legend SP Strict Protection None CC SF CA NP SP CA SF CC None NP National Park capitalisation rate increases Market capitalisation rate increases CA Conservation Area Cap Rate SF State Forest Level of Protection CC Conservation Covenant None No protection Figure D4. Triangulation model to assess extent of ecosystem services intact under a given level of protection or no protection Scoring: Calculate the mean of the values within the diamonds included in the selection as well as those the dotted line passes through. This example, State Forest: 66% ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
Vegetative Cover
Refugia & biodiversity Gas regulation & climate control 100
Genetic resources 100 100 Hydrological cycle & water supply
Biological control 90 100 90 Continuous Purification & assimilation
Nutrient cycling Taxa Soil formation & erosion control 85 100 100 85
Aesthetics, other non-use Food & raw materials 75 90 100 90 75
Recreation opportunities 60 75 100 100 75 60 Discontinuous Pollination
Disturbance regulation 45 60 100 100 100 60 45
30 30 45 100 100 45 30 30
Rangelands Savannah 15 20 30 100 100 100 30 20 15
0 10 20 25 100 100 25 20 10 0 Human induced modification Climate induced modification Legend TRF Tropical Rainforest RL Rangelands CrpL RL OF WS TRF TemRF DS OF GL Dsrt TemRF Temperate Rainforest Dsrt Desert capitalisation rate increases Market capitalisation rate increases WS Wet Sclerophyll CrpL Croplands Cap Rate DS Dry Sclerophyll Land Use Characteristic OF Open Forest GL Grasslands Figure D16. Triangulation model to assess extent of ecosystem services intact under a given land use characteristic Scoring: Calculate the mean of the values within the diamonds included in the selection as well as those the dotted line passes through. This example, Open Forest: 67%
18 [Type text]
The local government areas (LGAs) that are contained wholly within or that administer parts of the bioregion were ascertained from public records and maps. These local governments were consulted as to the total rateable value of alienated land within their jurisdiction, and the total area of that land. A dollar value per hectare was calculated for each LGA (total rateable value/total area). Statistical analysis can be performed on the resulting set of dollar values for the LGAs, and the range, mean, median, mode, standard deviation and skewness calculated. Owing to the variability in the data (range), due to varying degrees of urbanisation, development, use, distance from services, and average parcel size, the data set can be expected to have a high degree of positive skewness. The measure of central tendency most commonly accepted for this type of skewed data set is the „median‟, however, in this study it is appropriate to express the values as a range, and those measures will include both the mean and the median. These measures will provide the fairest approximation of all of the uses to which land is put in the bioregion on a broadacre basis and will take into account all of the various principles and factors that affect the value of land.
The median and mean unimproved values per hectare of the alienated (rateable) land in the bioregion are then used as a surrogate for the median and mean unimproved value per hectare of the un-alienated (public or unrateable land). This is consistent with valuation practice (McNamara 1983). However adoption of the mean or median unimproved value as a surrogate value implies that the value is for the average or „median‟ use in the region and not the single „highest and best‟ use. It is thus a conservative estimate, allowing that other uses of land can co-exist with the provision of ecosystems services.
Table 2. The current real property valuation calculations for each shire in the Brigalow Belt Bioregion (as supplied to the relevant Shire Councils by the NSW Valuer General).
LGA Total VG valuation (for Gross Shire Area $ value per hectare rating purposes) Moree Plains SC $2,487,348,445 17,928 square km $1,387 Narrabri SC $1,243,634,158 13,028 square km $...955 Warrumbungles SC $ 951,005,400 12,380 square km $ 768 Gwydir SC $1,298,654,520 9,122 square km $1,424 Liverpool Plains SC $1,435,730,378 5,086 square km $2,823
The mean of this data set is $1,471 per ha, and the median is $1,387 per ha. Thus the range of the values to be used is $1,387 to $1,471 per ha.
Using the LOP and LUC models for „open forest‟ and „state forest‟, the level of contributions compared to the highest level, which is a closed canopy tropical rainforest, are 66% and 67%. ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
The impact area in Leard Forest, including edge effects, is 4700 ha.
Capitalisation rates for this „land use characteristic‟ would normally be 7 – 8 %, while for this „level of protection‟ they would be, say 9%, that is higher than for say, a Wet Tropics World Heritage Area rainforest, as the higher capitalisation rate reflects an elevated risk. In the case of this State Forest, clearly there has been no protection afforded by its EPBC listing, or the native vegetation clearing laws, and the very fact it is being cleared demonstrates that it is at risk. Under these circumstances, a capitalisation rate of 11% will be adopted for the purpose of this report.
Applying the capitalisation rate to the range of capital values, results in an annual range of $152.57 to $161.81 per hectare.
The algorithm then is:
Impact area X % contribution X $ annual value
The value of ecosystem goods and services for the impact area in Leard Forest is in the range of:
$476,858 to $505,737 per annum
20 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 8.0 The Communities Aspirations for an Impact Mitigation Mechanism (‘s’)
The community propose two funds to manage the negative impacts and achieve a level of self-managed internalisation of these externalities in their lives and businesses, they are as follows. These will most likely be modified as a result of this report, however, they are included here as an outline of their expectations.
Principles for Community Fund
1. The objective of the fund is to capture benefit to the impacted community and its members with an emphasis on quality of life to offset impacts on health, living standards, amenity and property prices. 2. The community fund be contributed to by all mines in the Leards Forest Coal Complex. 3. The contribution be paid on a per tonne basis. 4. The contribution be linked to the coal price 5. The fund be administrated by a trust with 5 trustees. 2 Mining, 1 NSC GM, 2 community. 6. Accounts to be administered by reputable accounting firm and independently audited. 7. Broad Objectives to be determined by the trustees after scoping submission process and projects to be tendered for on a competitive basis.
Principles for Leards Forest Environmental Trust (LFET)
1. The objective of the fund is to offset the cost of environmental impact to the Leard Forest. 2. The cost of forest impacts to be determined by consulting environmental economists. Fund calculated to pay for total forest impacts over 21 year. Impacts included in calculations are; a. Carbon Sequestration value of the forest. b. BioBanking (NSW) or Bush Broker (Vic) value of the Leard Forest Ecosystem. c. Value of the timber in the forest. d. Recreational Value e. Non-use value.
3. The LFET be contributed to by all mines in the Leards Forest Coal Complex 4. The contribution be paid on a per tonne basis. 5. The contribution be linked to the coal price 6. The fund be administrated by a trust with 7 trustees. 2 Mining, 1 NSC GM, 2 community, 2 environmental groups. 7. Broad Objectives to be determined by the trustees after scoping submission process and projects to be tendered for on a competitive basis.
21 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
Proposals
In both proposals, linking compensation to the revenue from the mining and sale of coal should be avoided. Some landholders would be offended that they were, somehow involved in an extractive industry, while others may see such an arrangement as a de facto partnership that may inappropriately reflect or impact on them in the future.
Leard Forest Environmental Trust
Call out 2 above to be replaced by the utilisation of the now assessed value of the ecosystem goods and services lost, which encompass: stabilisation services; regeneration services & life fulfilling services. These would need to be replaced or supplemented by local environmental projects.
Call outs 4 & 5 deleted as obsolete.
The mines would be required to contribute collectively a sum equivalent to the value of the ecosystem goods and services lost due to clearing the forest, as assessed in Section 7.1 above.
The fund would thus have disposable annual income of some $490,000 for the life of the mines (21yrs+), increasing at the cost of inflation and a lump sum on closure estimated to be equivalent to 50 yrs discounted net annual value. The final lump sum will thus allow sufficient time for full return of the offset areas and derived grassland to the delivering of a full suite of ecosystem goods and services with sufficient biomass and diversity to be self-sustaining.
The fund would be administered as envisaged by the MCCC.
Maules Creek Community Fund
Call outs 4 & 5 deleted
The Community Fund needs to be funded by the Mines on the basis of the core concerns of the community, namely loss or reduction of property values, which, as stated in Sect 9, are and will be due to: general reduction in quality of life; loss of general amenity values;
22 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists loss of, or reduction in property values, including forced sales due to delays in realisation, succession issues, and cumulative impacts apparent to prospective buyers.
As all of these issues generally relate to where the individual properties are located in juxtaposition to the mines, and as such can be all be located in, and around the Maules Creek Community, centred on the School and the Community Hall.
As cited in Section 7 above:
The courts insist that:
“The value of a particular piece of land is the value of civilised government at that spot, it is the value which the presence of the community gives to the land and which the community unconsciously assesses. It is something which is already in existence and must be discovered not invented.....
And, also from Section 7:
“This assumed that the increased value attaching to any particular piece of land which is due to the successful working of other people‟s land in the district, or the progressive works affected by the state, the general prosperity of the country, all form a portion of the „unimproved value‟”.
Accordingly, the mechanics of the Community Fund should be geared to two mechanisms: 1. gross unimproved property values in the Maules Creek Community, The current Valuer General‟s assessment for each property could be used as a baseline for future analysis of sales, when there are sufficient sales for a longitudinal study, and; 2. certified valuations of all of the affected properties in Maules Creek. The valuations to all be conducted by a reputable firm of licensed valuers knowledgeable in rural property, and based upon both the underlying characteristics of the properties, and the productivity or potential productivity, at the date of valuation.
All of the mines would be required to contribute to the fund, which could be set at a minimum of 10% to a maximum of 25% of the gross improved values of all of the properties in Maules Creek Community. These percentages could represent the potential range of loss in value. This sum should be paid as a lump sum, with the interest accruing used to compensate individual property owners and families for health or social issues or loss of property value when realised (or when there is sufficient evidence for a longitudinal study). The capital sum after mine closure and
23 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists rehabilitation can be used for other works, including rebuilding the community and providing a sinking fund for those disadvantaged.
Call outs 4 & 5 deleted as obsolete.
24 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists 10.0 Conclusion
The proposal set out above relies on data that is available in the public arena, and utilises an empirical database as the baseline for compensation for the loss of the forest, and both an empirical database and a certified valuation to argue the case for compensation for loss in property values, other community impacts and uncertainties. In the author‟s opinion, properly applied, this model will be hard to challenge, as it satisfies the economic criterion of the utilisation of human preferences to establish compensation (what people pay for land), ecological models based on the literature and utilising canopy cover and species richness as the parameters, and real estate valuation principles and practice, which are derived from judgements handed down in the Supreme Court, High Court, and the Privy Council.
25 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists References
Allison, G., Ball, S., Cheshire, P., Evans, A. and Stabler, M. 1996. The Value of Conservation? A Literature Review of the Economic and Social Value of the Cultural Built Environment for the Department of National Heritage, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, UK. Blackwell, F. 1994. Site Value Taxation. The Valuer and Land Economist, 33 (1): 133- 136, 146. Brown, S. and Lugo, A.E. 1982. The storage and production of organic matter in tropical forests and their role in the global carbon cycle. Biotropica, 14: 161-187. Cork, S.J. and Shelton, D. 2000. The Nature and Value of Australia's Ecosystem Services: A Framework for Sustainable Environmental Solutions. In: Sustainable Environmental Solutions for Industry and Government, pp. 151-159. Proceedings of the 3rd Queensland Environmental Conference, May 2000. Environmental Engineering Society, Queensland Chapter, The Institution of Engineers, Australia, Queensland Division, and the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Pp151-159. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neil, R.V.P., J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997a. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature., 387: 253-260. Curtis, I. A. 2003. PhD Thesis “Valuing Ecosystem Services in a Green Economy” James Cook University, Cairns, Qld, Australia. Curtis, I. A. 2004a. Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign weights to the attributes. Ecological Economics. Vol 50, Issue 3-4: 163-194. Curtis, I. A. 2006. Valuing the environmental impact of a power line corridor through a State Forest in Queensland: A heuristic exercise in environmental valuation for the property profession. Australian Property Journal: June 2006 issue Feature Article. Curtis, I. A. 2008. Economic Approaches to the Value of Tropical Rainforest. In: Living in a Tropical Dynamic Landscape, Eds: Stork and Turton. Chapter 19. Blackwell, UK.
26 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists Goosem, M. and Turton, S. 2000. Impacts of Roads and Powerlines on the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. A Report to the Wet Tropics Management Authority. Rainforest CRC, Cairns. Herps, M.D. 1942. The Legal and Economic Aspects of Land Valuation. The Valuer, 7: 103-110. Holdridge, L.R. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Centre, San Jose, Costa Rica. Ke Chung, K. and Weaver, R.D. 1994. Biodiversity and humanity: paradox and challenge. In: Biodiversity and Landscapes: a paradox of humanity (Eds K. Ke Chung and R.D. Weaver). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA. Lambert, W.J. 1932. Initiating a Discussion on some of the Principles of Land Valuation Associated with the Unimproved Value of Land. The NSW Valuer, 2: 15-24. Lugo, A.E. 1988. Estimating Reductions in the Diversity of Tropical Forest Species. In: Biodiversity (Ed E.O. Wilson). National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. McNamara, J. 1983. Comparable Sales. The NSW Valuer, 28: 447. McNeeley, J.A. 1988. Economics and biological diversity: developing and using economic incentives to conserve biological resources. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland. Mooney, H.A. 1988. Lessons from Mediterranean-Climate Regions. In: Biodiversity (Ed E.O. Wilson). National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Mooney, H.A. and Ehrlich, P.R. 1997. Ecosystem Services: A Fragmentary History. In: Nature's Services: Societal Dependance on Natural Ecosystems (Ed G.C. Daily). Island Press, Washington, DC. USA. Murray, J. 1936. Scientific Method and Valuation Problems. The Valuer, 4: 243-245. Murray, J.F.N. 1954. Principles and Practice of Valuation. Commonwealth Institute of Valuers (Inc). 3rd ed., Sydney, Australia. Principia 1958. The Effect of Improvements on "Unimproved Value". The Valuer, 15 (2): 113-114. Reed, R., Elliot, P. and Balfour, G. 2003. Challenges facing the Valuation of National Parks - Accounting Standards and Bushfires. Australian Property Journal, May 2003:419-427.
27 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists Roll, E. 1961. A History of Economic Thought. Faber and Faber, London, UK. Simpson, J.A. and Weiner, E.S.C. 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. Weaver, R.D. and Ke Chung, K. 1994. Biodiversity and humanity: toward a new paradigm. In: Biodiversity and Landscapes: a paradox of humanity (Eds K. Ke Chung and R.D. Weaver). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.
28 ® Curtis NRA Australia ABN 68 364 350 351 Land & Ecological Economists, Environmental Scientists
29 Dr Ian Curtis, Curriculum Vitae, June 2011
Profession Land & Ecological Economist, Environmental Scientist
Qualifications ASLE & AVLE(Econ): Land Economics Bachelor of Science Bachelor of Science with Honours Doctor of Philosophy
Majors Land Economics, Geology, Environmental Sciences (EIA) Resource & Ecological Economics
Educated St Ignatius College Riverview; Metropolitan Business College, Sydney University Extension Board, UTS, James Cook University, Macquarie University
Professional Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand Associations (MEIANZ). Australia and New Zealand Institute for Ecological Economics (ANZSEE). International Society of Ecological Economics (ISEE).
Capability Statement • Able to work autonomously or as part of a collective enterprise • Original and lateral thinker, uses both deductive and inductive reasoning as the occasion warrants • Innovative, intuitive approach to problem solving • Methodologically receptive. Not encumbered by any particular paradigm that may limit discourse • Prolific producer, highly organised and addicted to time-lines • Receptive to diverse stakeholders in contentious issues • Highly literate and excellent verbal and written communication skills • Committed to ecologically sustainable outcomes
Year/years Relevant or principal activity ~ Host Organisation
2011 Default judgement handed down by Justice Cathy Davani in favour of the customary landholders in the Lake Murray and Middle Fly Region of the Western Province of Papua New Guinea on Tuesday 21st June, 2011, in the sum of K226 million (AUD$94 million). (see below CELCOR appointment & Publications).
Numerous small appointments, Statements of Environmental Effects (SEE), Local Government Objections etc. Various Clients.
2009/2010 Appointed by CELCOR (PNG) in conjunction with the EDO (NSW), on the
direction of the National Court of Papua New Guinea, to assess the T/as: pecuniary value of the environmental damage and consequent reduction in Curtis NRA ecosystem services provided by customary land due to a large scale unauthorised logging activity in the Western Province of Papua New Australia Guinea. ABN Ian Curtis has gone sailing during the recession we ‘didn’t have!’ 68364350351 Cruising on his classic Herreshoff 35’ cutter ketch, ‘Noctiluca’. Contracted to Flanagan Consulting Group (FCG) North Queensland, as business development strategist in the Natural Resources Sector 2008. Proposed and prepared FCG’s contribution as North Queensland delivery
1
Dr Ian Curtis, Curriculum Vitae, June 2011
agent, to the Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) bid for inclusion on the Defence Environment and Heritage Panel. 2008. Subsequently appointed to the Panel Coordinated all sub-consultants, managed and contributed to the FCG bid
as ‘Investigations Manager’, in conjunction with PB, to deliver the EIS for the proposed new Townsville Marine Precinct at the mouth of the Ross 2007/2008 River. 2008.
Appointed on contract as Regional Manager, North Queensland, SMEC Australia. Engineering and Environmental Consultants. Various projects as Project Director 2007 – 2008:
Appointed Service Provider on a $4m contract for DEWHA Australian
Govt’s Tasmanian Forest Conservation Fund to deliver the Market-based Voluntary Conservation Agreement component. Over 28900 hectares of priority forest secured under protection at a cost to Govt of ~ $35 million. Consortium with KPMG, SEMF and Corporate Communications,
Tasmania. 2006 – 2007. Prepared and delivered a report “Environmental Gains and Capital Improvements on Restoration Island since 1995”. Longboat Investments 2004/2007 Pty Limited. 2007 COMPLETED T/as: Appointed on contract for two years to the Nature Conservation Trust of Curtis New South Wales. Developed policy and procedures and implemented the successful roll out of the Revolving Fund model for conservation gains. NRA Identified landscape corridors and linkages and directly negotiated terms of Australia purchase with landholders, initiated covenant development, and on-sold to new trustees. 2005-2007. ABN 68364350351 Investigated the regional ecological significance and economic implications for several private landholdings in the North West Growth Centre of Sydney under the NSW State Government’s Metrostrategy. Report to the Clifton Coney Group. 2005 COMPLETED Assessed the pecuniary environmental impact of the unauthorised removal of timber and associated impacts from an endangered regional ecosystem (under the Vegetation Management Act 1999) in the Shire of Eacham, Atherton Tablelands. 2005. Private landholding. Matter settled by mediation July 2007 Collaborated with Arup Project Management and WBM Oceanics in an expression of interest to DEH Australian Govt for the Stewardship component of their ‘Maintaining Australia’s Biodiversity Hotspot’s’ program: Subsequently invited to tender 19 April 2005. SELECTED AS PREFERRED TENDERER, PROGRAM DEFERRED Presented two interactive seminars to executives of Powerlink Qld and Energex as to the current scientific thinking involved with pecuniary evaluation of environmental impacts due to edge effects and fragmentation. 2005 COMPLETED Evaluated the monetary environmental impact of the Calvale-Tarong transmission line through Allies Creek State Forest, Mundubberra, Southern Inland Burnett Region, Queensland, 2005. Powerlink Queensland. COMPLETED & PUBLISHED Reviewed and recommended potential market-based incentives to protect biodiversity on private and other lands under the Conservation Partnerships Program, 2004. Brisbane City Council. Payments for environmental services provided by private landholders were quantified in dollar terms. COMPLETED http://www.curtisnra.com.au
2
Dr Ian Curtis, Curriculum Vitae, June 2011
2001-2003 Research into the value of ecosystem goods and services provided in the terrestrial domain (published) PhD Thesis James Cook University, Cairns Campus. Main Journal paper cited 52 times (Google Scholar). Thesis downloads: 3034 times to 74 distinct countries (as at May 2011). Honorary Research Fellow, Rainforest CRC, Learning Advisor, Academic Support Division, James Cook University and tutor and occasional lecturer, School of Tropical Environment Science and Geography, James Cook University, Cairns Campus Collaborated in the development of a ‘Visitor Monitoring System’ (VMS) for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area in Queensland. Report to the Wet Tropics Management Authority. Rainforest Cooperative Research Centre Developed a set of socio-economic indicators: ‘How the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area functions in the life of the community’. Report to the Wet Tropics Management Authority. Rainforest Cooperative Research Centre Conceived and facilitated a six round (web-hosted) Delphi Philosophical Inquiry with a panel of 50 scientists and economists to determine the need for inclusion of ecosystem services in the market system and to weight the environmental attributes. James Cook University 1999-2001 Solar radiation modelling in the Daintree and assessment of it’s potential as an energy source (published). James Cook University, Cairns Campus Environmental and energy audit of North Queensland Hotels and Resorts and quantification of greenhouse gas emissions (published). James Cook University, Cairns Campus Freelance land economist: Planning for James Cook University Cairns Campus to incorporate the adjoining 13ha site as a Science & Technology Park. Stafford Moor & Farrington/Herring Daw/Babcock Brown 1995-1998 Geological investigation of the proposed Cairns regional land-fill site at Springmount Road, Mareeba. James Cook University Co-authored an environmental impact study for an eco-tourism development on Restoration Island, Cape York. Approval August 1996, ratified by the Planning & Environment Court in February 1998. Longboat Investments P/L 1994-1995 Undertook corporate advisory work including corporate divestment, equity raisings, mergers & acquisitions, and preparation of appropriate information memoranda. Corporate Advisory Services Pty Limited 1991-1993 Freelance land economist, industrial futures analyst, AGL industrial parks Australian Gaslight Company Freelance land economist: Relocation and redevelopment of a number of obsolete ambulance stations resulting in a new for old exchange overall. Stafford Moor & Farrington/Sydney Health 1988-1991 Managing Partner of the North Sydney professional office of international property consultants Hillier Parker, with a staff of 30, including architects, engineers and quantity surveyors. A key role was the provision of timely advice to institutional clients as to the most appropriate time to refurbish prime and fringe CBD, retail and hi-tech industrial investments in order to maximise occupancy and yield. NSW State Partner in Sydney City office responsible for industrial real estate agency and consultancy activities in NSW 1985-1988 Industrial Director, Richardson & Wrench Ltd, Sydney City HO. Primary responsibilities for the industrial and tourism and leisure divisions 1964-1985 Various consultancy activities and employment, including private investment and development; including the acquisition and planning for an ecotourism
3
Dr Ian Curtis, Curriculum Vitae, June 2011
resort on Restoration Island, Cape York Peninsula; Establishment of a Scuba-diving destination in Rabaul, PNG Islands; Management of several tourism related businesses in Rabaul, including a 40 room resort hotel; Owner/builder/operator of ‘what is now’ Bloomfield Wilderness Lodge on Cape York Peninsula, Principal of Curtis Industrial Brokers in Sydney; NSW Industrial Manager of Raine & Horne Limited in Sydney; L J Hooker franchisee in Cairns; and 8 years as a valuer and sales and leasing negotiator in the industrial department of L J Hooker Limited, Sydney City HO
Publications On request Academic On request record Referees On request Contact Mail: PO Box 187 Brooklyn NSW 2083 details Email: [email protected] W: www.curtisnra.com.au Phone: Home office: 0429 469081
4
Assessment of the habitat value of Leard State Forest
Prepared by
Economists at Large Pty Ltd
July-August 2011
Report prepared by:
Economists at Large Pty Ltd Melbourne, Australia www.ecolarge.com [email protected]
Phone: +61 3 9005 0154 | Fax: +61 3 8080 1604 98 Gertrude St, Fitzroy VIC 3065, Melbourne, Australia
Citation:
Campbell, R., 2011. Assessment of the habitat value of Leard State Forest , a report for the Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC), prepared by Economists at Large, Melbourne, Australia.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the organisations involved.
This report is distributed with the understanding that the authors are not responsible for the results of any actions undertaken on the basis of the information that is contained within, nor for any omission from, or error in, this publication.
Contents
Summary ...... 4
Leard State Forest ...... 5
Valuing habitat and environmental assets ...... 6
Total Economic Value ...... 6
Benefits Transfer ...... 7
Other approaches...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Market-based instruments ...... 7
BushBroker ...... 9
What is a Habitat Hectare: ...... 9
Using BushBroker prices to estimate the value of Leard State Forest ...... 10
Conclusion ...... 13
References: ...... 14
Economists at Large 3
Summary The Leard State Forest is located on the Liverpool Plains in Narrabri Shire, north-central New South Wales. Covering an area of 8,136 hectares, it is a large, relatively intact area of remnant native vegetation. The forest is within the Brigalow Belt South bioregion, one of Australia’s 15 “biodiversity hotspots” (DSEWPC 2009). Ecological communities found in the forest include critically endangered box-gum grassy woodlands and native grasslands. 24 threatened species of animal and bird that are known to inhabit the forest, including the Regent Honeyeater, the Greater Long-eared Bat and the Koala (NPANSW n.d.).
In the Brigalow Belt South bioregion 61% of native vegetation has been cleared (NVAC 1999), and only 2.5% of the vegetated area is in reserves. Several coal mining projects are looking to expand operations into the forest, mainly using open-cut mining.
To understand how these projects would affect their local area, the Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) has asked Economists at Large to consider the economic values of Leard State Forest. Environmental and ecological economics provide several methods for assessing the economic values of environmental resources. Some of these are described below, however due to the limited resources available for this report, we have not been able to conduct physical surveys of the forest itself. Instead, we have made a range of estimates based on Victoria’s, BushBroker programme.
BushBroker is a market for native vegetation offsets. It is one of a growing number of market-based instruments being used to provide incentives for improvements in natural resource management. Under the programme, developers who would like to clear an area of native vegetation on their land negotiate with landowners whose land meets the complex ‘like for like’ rules under Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action (DSE 2002). In each individual agreement landholders and developers negotiate prices privately. Price information collected across bioregions and published by the programme.
We have used price data from the Victorian BushBroker vegetation offset market to estimate a range of values relating to the native vegetation of the Leard State Forest:
Leard State Forest Area (ha) 8,134 Habitat hectare value using Victorian minimum value $162,680,000 Habitat hectare value using average minimum price across Victorian bioregions $630,385,000 Habitat hectare value using average of all BushBroker transactions $989,038,061 Habitat hectare value using average of Victorian bioregion averages $1,178,074,333 Habitat hectare value using average maximum price across Victorian bioregions $1,506,145,667
Economists at Large 4
Leard State Forest The Leard State Forest is located on the Liverpool Plains in Narrabri Shire, north-central New South Wales. Covering an area of 8,134 hectares, it is one of the most intact areas of habitat in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion (NPANSW n.d.). The Brigalow Belt is considered one of Australia’s 15 “biodiversity hotspots” by the federal environment department. The biodiversity hotspots are areas which have high diversity of locally endemic flora and fauna, that are under risk from land management activities and provide high-value potential for conservation (DSEWPC 2009).
The Leard State Forest contains many rare and threatened ecological vegetation classes. Most important are several types of box-gum grassy woodlands and grasslands that are listed as critically endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Some vegetation classes in the forest include:
• Yellow box-Blakely’s red gum grassy • Pilliga box – white cypress pine grassy woodland open woodland
• White box – white cypress pine grassy • Weeping Myall grassy open woodland woodland • Narrow-leaved ironbark shrubby open • White box – white cypress pine grassy forest open forest • Derived native grassland Source: (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010)
The forest also includes some areas of exotic grassland and areas used for forestry that are in a degraded condition.
The National Parks Association of NSW lists at least 24 threatened species of birds and animals known to inhabit the forest:
• Brown Treecreeper • White-browed • Greater Long-eared • Hooded Robin Woodswallow Bat • Black-chinned • Spotted Harrier • Yellow-bellied Honeyeater • Little Lorikeet Sheath-tail Bat • Painted Honeyeater • Little Eagle • Eastern Cave Bat • Pied Honeyeater • Turquoise Parrot • Eastern Bent-wing • Grey-crowned • Barking Owl Bat Babbler • Masked Owl • Little Pied Bat • Speckled Warbler • Black-necked Stork • Koala • Diamond Firetail • Eastern False • Varied Sittella Pipistrelle Source: (NPANSW n.d.)
Economists at Large 5
Valuing habitat and environmental assets
Total Economic Value Valuation of the environment is difficult. While benefits like clean air, water and a biodiverse environment benefit everyone, these benefits are generally not bought and sold in markets, making their valuation difficult. Some environmental goods and services are easy to identify – water, timber, going camping in a beautiful place – these are known as direct uses. Other indirect uses are less obvious – a stable climate, reduced erosion, protection from flooding, insects that pollinate crops. Still less obvious are non-use values – the fact that people value animals, plants and environments even though they may never see them. Economists generally try to assess all these values in relation to environmental goods, an approach known as Total Economic Value (TEV).
TEV and its various components – non-use values, use values and their various sub categories are shown in the diagram below with some examples.
Assessing all aspects of Total Economic Value involves many different studies and valuation techniques. Some examples include:
• Valuation of direct uses through goods prices, entry fees or travel cost methodology. See O'Connor et al. (2009) for an Economists at Large study on whale watching worldwide, showing that whale conservation contributes to an industry with revenue of over $2.8 billion in 2008.
• Valuation of indirect uses through evaluation of avoided costs. The city of New York saved $6-8 billion over 10 years by improving the integrity of ecosystems in their water catchments, rather than building and running a filtration plant. See (Chichilnisky and Heal 1998)
• Valuation of people’s “willingness to pay” to protect a particular environmental good. See (Bennett, Dumsday, and Kragt 2007) for an example of the non-use value of Victorian forests.
Economists at Large 6
Conducting such studies is expensive and time consuming. It is beyond the scope of this report to attempt such a large and detailed study of the Leard State Forest with physical assessments and social surveys. Because of the size of such studies, environmental values are often ignored in cost benefit analysis.
Benefits Transfer Because of the expense and difficulty of these studies, economists often use “benefits transfer” estimate environmental values. This involves taking the results of a study of a particular environmental good or service in one area and using that as the basis for estimating values in another area. See Economists at Large (2008) for an example of benefits transfer, where values from a study on red gum forests in Victoria are transferred to red gum forests in NSW. Unfortunately we are unaware of any study or range of studies that are suitable to allow benefits transfer to assess the economic value of the Leard State Forest.
There are far too few comprehensive studies of ecosystems service valuation, biodiversity or landscape values in Australia. The result of this is that these environmental assets are given a value of zero in planning decisions, particularly in areas of productive land use. American study Scott et al. (2001) conclude that in productive agricultural areas where remnant vegetation is largely on private land, creative engagement of the private sector is crucial for conservation. One such approach that is gaining in popularity in Australia is market-based instruments.
Market-based instruments Market-based instruments (MBIs) are being developed to create incentives for environmental goods. While there are many different programmes, they all try to create incentive and competition for environmental goods and services where none existed before. By creating supply and demand for a good or service, the scarcity of it and the costs involved in producing it, give it a market value. Well-known examples include water markets, or markets for emitting pollution.
MBIs to improve land management and conservation of biodiversity are also becoming widespread. Examples include conservation tenders and environmental markets. Conservation tenders involve landholders preparing a tender to receive funds in return for environmental improvements on their land. Environmental markets involve the buying and selling of a particular good or right, such as the right to clear native vegetation. In all cases, landholders retain the ownership of their land while these schemes provide an incentive to manage it partly for public, environmental good.
Environmental tenders A successful environmental tender programme operates on the Liverpool Plains, close to Leard State Forest. The Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, a community-based non-profit organisation, has been running tenders since 2001. Landholders prepare proposals of environmental improvements they could carry out on their land which will benefit the community
Economists at Large 7
and the environment, and set the prices they would charge for carrying out these works. These proposals are assessed by the LPLM using a mathematical model incorporating the proposed benefits and the landholder’s asking price.
While environmental tender programmes have been very successful in achieving conservation outcomes, it is difficult to use their results to estimate values of environmental goods outside their programme. It is difficult to compare the site-specific, often multi-criteria benefits provided by the tendered projects, and price information is often unavailable. Environmental markets, however, generally trade in more defined, quantifiable environmental goods and knowledge of market prices is important for participants, regulators and observers.
Environmental markets Australia has two programmes that are working to put a market price on native habitat offsets, BioBanking in New South Wales and BushBroker in Victoria. BioBanking has had few transactions to date and has little publically available price information. BushBroker, on the other hand, has been operating for eight years, has had many transactions, and has publically-available price data.
Economists at Large 8
BushBroker The BushBroker programme trades in a specific good – native vegetation offsets. Different types of offset are bought and sold, relating to their ecological vegetation class. While individual transactions are private, general price information is readily available enabling market participants and observers to value their own needs and plan their participation in the market – if any.
The offsets are measured in “habitat hectares” an approach which incorporates habitat quality – environmental service value – and also enables market participants to assess their position.
What is a Habitat Hectare: A habitat hectare is a site-based measure of quality and quantity of native vegetation that is assessed in the context of the relevant native vegetation type. This measure can be consistently applied across the State.
If it is assumed that an unaltered area of natural habitat (given that it is large enough and is
within a natural landscape context) is at 100% of its natural quality, then one hectare of such habitat will be equivalent to one habitat hectare. That is the quality multiplied by the quantity. Ten hectares of this high quality habitat would be equivalent to ten habitat hectares, and so on. If an area of habitat had lost 50% of its quality (say, through weed invasion and loss of understorey), then one hectare would be equivalent to 0.5 habitat hectares, ten hectares would equivalent to five habitat hectares, and so on.
Source: (DSE 2002) p18
BushBroker has regulations on how these offsets can be generated. The general guidelines are:
• The areas of habitat being offset and restored must meet complex “Like for like” rules under Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action (DSE 2002).
• The two sites must be within the same bioregion for high and very high conservation value vegetation classes, while medium and low value classes can trade within their own or adjacent bioregions.
• The offset is permanent; the offset site is permanently protected through a legally-binding Landowner agreement and ongoing monitoring.
In generating habitat hectares, some activities that landholders undertake include:
• weed control • revegetation
• rabbit control • ecological burning
• stock exclusion • bushfire prevention
• fencing • ecological thinning
Economists at Large 9
The legislated requirement for clearers of vegetation to obtain habitat hectare offsets from landholders who can supply only limited amounts of these offsets introduces the economic concept of scarcity to habitat conservation. The demand and supply of these offsets will give them a price, which economists believe will bring about a more efficient allocation of these resources.
Landowners and developers negotiate prices one-on-one, so each sale is dependent on the circumstances of that particular transaction. Supply and demand of particular types of offset are important in the relevant regions. Timing is also important – when developers are in urgent need of offsets prices can be driven up. Landowner attitudes are also influential, with some motivated largely by interest in habitat, while others are motivated primarily by payment (BushBroker managers pers. com).
Using BushBroker prices to estimate the value of Leard State Forest
BushBroker price histories are not available for individual agreements or specific ecological vegetation classes. Even if this information were available these prices reflect supply and demand within a bioregion and may not be reflective of conditions around the Leard State Forest, under a similar market. Instead, we have used minimum and average habitat hectare prices to estimate a range of values.
Given that specific vegetation class prices cannot be transferred, it is worth noting in relation to the average values that:
• Woodland and grassland vegetation classes similar to those found in Leards State Forest are traded on BushBroker and are included in the average values.
• Vegetation classes traded under BushBroker including examples of very high, high, medium and low conservation significance, reflecting Leard State Forest’s areas of threatened ecosystems as well as areas of lesser value.
• The percentage of native vegetation clearance in Brigalow Belt South Bioregion - 61% is similar to Victoria as a whole – 66% (DSE 2002 p7) – suggesting that demand and supply of offsets would potentially be similar.
We have assumed that 1 hectare of state forest would equal one habitat hectare. This is supported by Parsons Brinckerhoff (2010), who found the areas it had assessed comprised “native forest and woodland communities with relatively few exotic species and high natural species diversity. (p ix)” Future estimates of the forest’s value incorporating physical assessment of the forest may relax this assumption as better data becomes available.
Economists at Large 10
The table below shows the publicly available price history from the BushBroker programme from May 2006 to May 2011. These prices have been used to estimate a range of values for the habitat of Leard State Forest.
Bioregion Number o f Total number of Average Habitat Hectare price Agreements Habitat Hectares price per range * * Habitat Hectare * Gippsland Plain 21 29 $149,000 $85,000 - $250,000 Goldfields 39 38 $45,000 $25,000 - $66,000 Victorian 10 11 $101,000 $80,000 - $110,000 Riverina Victorian 29 54 $170,000 $49,000 - $267,000 Volcanic Plain
Highlands- 14 74 $34,000 $20,000 - $38,000 Southern Fall Other bioregions 11 25 $370,000 $206,000 - $380,000 Total 95 231 *Average across all agreements in each bioregion * *80+% of agreements in each bioregion fall in this range
From this price history we can derive a number of values:
$/ha Minimum habitat hectare price $20,000 Average minimum of all bioregions $77,500 Average price across program (total habitat hectares/total ammount spent) $121,593 Average of bioregion average prices $144,833 Average maximum of all bioregions $185,167
From these average values we can estimate a range of values for the Leard State Forest:
Leard State Forest Area (ha) 8,134 Habitat hectare v alue using Victorian minimum value $162,680,000 Habitat hectare value using average minimum price across Victorian bioregions $630,385,000 Habitat hectare value using average of all BushBroker transactions $989,038,061 Habitat hectare value using averag e of Victorian bioregion averages $1,178,074,333 Habitat hectare value using average maximum price across Victorian bioregions $1,506,145,667
Economists at Large 11
The wide range of values here reflects the difficulty in precisely monetiseing the value of the environment and its services. Nonetheless, we believe it is important to make such estimates to ensure that stakeholders clearly understand that environmental assets are scarce and have value. Conserving them should not be seen as a cost, but rather as protecting real and valuable assets that play a critical role underpinning market based economic activity. While there is no doubt that such environmental assets have value, there are all-too-few attempts to quantify them.
Points to note about these estimates: • These are estimates of the value of habitat and ecosystems of the Leard State Forest. It is not an estimate of the total economic value (TEV) of the forest. Further research is needed to determine the TEV of the forest. As mentioned above, TEV includes: o Direct use values such as recreation, tourism and forestry; o Indirect use values or environmental service values such as impacts on ground and surface water volume and quality, carbon sequestration, impact on air quality, etc o Non-use values relating to how the people of NSW value the existence of the forest and its flora and fauna.
• While the habitat hectare approach does incorporate quality of habitat, and so some indication of environmental service value, these values should not be considered a present value of environmental services. Instead, these values reflect the scarcity of different vegetation class offsets – the demand for them and the supply of them in Victoria. While the percentages of native vegetation clearance is similar in both areas, forecasting the levels of supply and demand that would prevail in the Leards Forest area is impossible until a similar market is developed in NSW or detailed surveys are carried out.
• These values represent the replacement cost of the entire Leard State Forest, incorporating every ecological vegetation class found in the forest, at a scale of a fraction of a hectare, reflecting the small scale of transactions usually traded under BushBroker. Re-establishing and maintaining fragile ecosystems involve considerable capital costs, maintenance and commitment over many years, as reflected in the BushBroker prices.
• Estimates are based on transactions relating to smaller, often fragmented areas of habitat. The Leard State Forest is a relatively large area of in-tact habitat. Ecologists suggest large areas of habitat are of greater value than smaller, separated ones, ie the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. See Hawes (2011) who discusses this in relation to the Leard State Forest. Our estimates do not consider the impact of the small size of areas transacted.
• The size of the area in the Leard State Forest is significantly larger than the combined areas for all BushBroker transactions. Transaction costs associated with BushBroker sales are significant – the initial site inspection costs at least $5,000 and many other costs are associated. Payments are held in non-interest bearing accounts for considerable periods, further inflating prices. If larger areas were being considered it is possible that considerable savings could be realised. See BushBroker information sheet 22 – fees and services for full details.
Economists at Large 12
Conclusion
Leard State Forest contains remnant native habitat of considerable value. Valuing environmental assets such as native ecosystems is difficult, generally involving extensive physical and social surveys not possible in this report.
Victoria’s BushBroker programme, a market based instrument aimed at providing incentives for conservation through the buying and selling of vegetation offsets, provides proxy prices for native vegetation values. By using the minimum and several average prices, we have estimated a range of values for the Leard State Forest.
Leard State Forest Area (ha) 8,134 Minimum value $162,680,000 Habitat value using average minimum price across bioregions $630,385,000 Habitat value using average of all transactions $989,038,061 Habitat value using average of bioregion averages $1,178,074,333 Habitat value using average maximum price across bioregions $1,506,145,667
Several factors should be considered with these estimates: • They do not provide a full estimate of Total Economic Value. • They are not a present value of a stream of environmental services, but represent the scarcity and replacement cost of vegetation offsets. • These reflect market conditions in Victoria • BushBroker prices are based on smaller areas of native vegetation, the sum of which may not be as valuable as an in-tact large area. • Transaction costs in BushBroker are considerable
As such these estimates should not be taken as definitive, but should be used as the basis for further investigation, through physical and social methods. Given the paucity of total economic value studies in Australia, we encourage efforts to value the environmental assets of Leard State Forest in more detail. These estimates do, however, demonstrate that native vegetation has considerable economic value, which should be taken into account when making decisions in relation to the Leard State Forest.
Economists at Large 13
References: BushBroker website http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/biodiversity/rural- landscapes/bushbroker
Meeting between Rod Campbell of Economists at Large and BushBroker managers Penny de Vine and Anne Buchan, held at DSE 11am, 15 th July, 2011.
BioBanking website http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biobanking/
All documents relating to the Boggabri Coal Extension Project – the full environmental assessment, including appendix J Biodiversity assessment, and the MCCC’s submission on the assessment can be found at: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=3562
Bennett, Jeff, Rob Dumsday, and Marit Kragt. 2007. Non-Use Values of Victorian Public Land : Case Studies of River Red Gum and East Gippsland Forests. Assessment . Prepared for Victorian Environmental Assessment Council by URS.
Chichilnisky, Graciela, and Geoffrey Heal. 1998. “Economic returns from the biosphere.” Nature 391.
DSE. 2002. Victoria’s native begetation management: a framework for action . Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/land- management/victorias-native-vegetation-management-a-framework-for-action.
DSEWPC. 2009. Australia’s 15 National Biodiversity Hotspots. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra . http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html.
Economists at Large. 2008. River Red Gum Forestry in the New South Wales Riverina: Seeing the Value for the Trees . A report for the National Parks Association of NSW and the Wilderness Society.
Hawes, Wendy. 2011. Comments regarding Boggabri Coal proposal in regards to flora and fauna. Comments from Wendy Hawes, Terrestrial Ecologist of The Envirofactor Pty Ltd to Maules Creek Community Council.
NPANSW. Coal mining in Leard State forest. Website of the National Parks Association of New South Wales . http://www.npansw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=703&Itemid=56 1.
NVAC. 1999. Setting the scene: The native vegetation of New South Wales . National Parks . Background paper by the Native Vegetation Advisory council of NSW.
Economists at Large 14
O’Connor, Simon, Roderick Campbell, Tristan Knowles, and Hernan Cortez. 2009. World wide whale watching 2009 . An Economists at Large report for the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2010. Continuation of Boggabri Coal Mine - Appendix J - Biodiversity Impact Assessment .
Scott, J. Michael, Frank W. Davis, R. Gavin McGhie, R. Gerald Wright, Craig Groves, and John Estes. 2001. “Nature Reserves: Do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity?” Ecological Applications 11 (4) (August): 999-1007. doi:10.1890/1051- 0761(2001)011[0999:NRDTCT]2.0.CO;2. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051- 0761%282001%29011%5B0999%3ANRDTCT%5D2.0.CO%3B2.
Economists at Large 15
Boggabri Coal Mine Extension Project Proposal:
August 2011 review of Environmental Assessment - Appendix C (underground mining option), Appendix Q (economic assessment) and subsequent submissions by Gillespie Economics
Prepared by
Economists at Large Pty Ltd
August 2011
Report prepared by:
Economists at Large Pty Ltd Melbourne, Australia www.ecolarge.com [email protected]
Phone: +61 3 9005 0154 | Fax: +61 3 8080 1604 98 Gertrude St, Fitzroy VIC 3065, Melbourne, Australia
Citation:
Campbell, R., 2011. August 2011 review of Environmental Assessment - Appendix C (underground mining option), Appendix Q (economic assessment) and subsequent submissions by Gillespie Economics , a report for the Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC), prepared by Economists at Large, Melbourne, Australia.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the organisations involved.
This report is distributed with the understanding that the authors are not responsible for the results of any actions undertaken on the basis of the information that is contained within, nor for any omission from, or error in, this publication.
Economists at Large 2
Contents
Introduction ...... 4 Background ...... 4 What’s new in this report? ...... 4
Analysis of Appendix C – Underground Concept Study ...... 6
Scrutiny of calculations in Appendix Q – Economic assessment ...... 8 Revenue ...... 9 Operating costs ...... 10 Response to Gillespie Economics’ Response to residual economic matters raised by Maules Creek Community Council...... 12 Producer surplus benefits ...... 12 Project definition and scale ...... 12 Opportunity Costs ...... 13 Distribution of costs and benefits ...... 14 Health Impacts ...... 14 Benefits transfer and social value of employment ...... 15
Conclusion ...... 16
References ...... 16 Appendix: Modelling of Underground option ...... 17
Economists at Large 3
Introduction
Background The proposed project extension of the Boggabri Coal Project involves the extension of an existing open-cut mine into farmland and the Leard State Forest, Narrabri Shire, NSW. In February 2011 the Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) made a submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure NSW on the environmental assessment of the project. The MCCC are concerned that the proposal will have a negative effect on agriculture, the community and the forest, which contains nationally threatened ecosystems, habitat and fauna species.
As part of the MCCC’s submission, Economists at Large conducted a review of Appendix Q ‐ Economic Assessment of the environmental impact statement. This initial review highlighted problems in the economic assessment, particularly relating to:
No economic analysis of alternative projects; Inappropriate treatment of mining profits and distribution of benefits and; Miscalculation and/or omission of external costs and benefits.
These issues have been explored in subsequent submissions by Gillespie Economics and Economists at Large and are further discussed in this report.
What’s new in this report? This report includes analysis of material not covered in our earlier submissions.
Analysis of Appendix C – Underground Concept Study , confirming the consultant’s conclusion that an underground mining option is viable. From the consultant’s figures we estimate the NPV of the underground option is $1.8 billion, higher than the estimate of production benefits under the project proposal in Appendix Q – Economic Assessment , which was $1.3 billion. We urge the proponents to publish their internal analysis of underground mining to enable the public to understand why this option is not being pursued and suggest that as the option is viable other parties may be interested in developing it. Scrutiny of calculations in Appendix Q – Economic assessment. The values presented in the cost-benefit analysis of the economic assessment do not correspond with values presented in the rest of the appendix. We show our calculations which result in a $500 million dollar difference with the Economic Assessment. We urge the authors to explain this variation and publish their calculations for the NSW government and public to have confidence in their analysis.
Economists at Large 4
Response to Gillespie Economics’ Response to residual economic matters raised by Maules Creek Community Council , in particular:
• Producer surplus: Gillespie Economics have misinterpreted our suggestions. Our ideas are supported by Eggert (2001), which Gillespie Economics claim guided their analysis. We urge them to adjust their treatment of producer surplus in line with Eggert’s and our suggestions.
• Project definition and scale: We agree that a national level is appropriate for cost- benefit analysis. Again Eggert (2001) provides useful guidance on how the economic assessment should be revised for a national perspective.
• Opportunity cost: We agree that if using a national-level approach our suggestion of incorporating investors’ opportunity costs of capital is not appropriate and we make some suggestions for how to incorporate opportunity cost at a national scale.
• Distribution of costs and benefits: We are in general agreement about how these will be distributed, and suggest some revision to the economic assessment in line with expert opinion.
• Benefits transfer: We agree this can be a useful technique, but maintain the value being used needs to be appropriate.
We believe that all these issues need to be clarified and adjustments made to the economic assessment of the project to ensure a decision is made in line with the public interest. Doing so would not only allow for the best outcome in relation to this project, but could serve as a guide for other projects in the area and nationally. This is occurring at a time when the mining industry is perceived as lacking a “social licence to operate” in farming areas. Robust and transparent assessment of this project can help to address this issue.
Economists at Large 5
Analysis of Appendix C – Underground Concept Study Appendix C of the original environmental assessment examined the option of extending the Boggabri Mine as an underground mine. The authors WDS Consulting found:
“The study has identified that the utilisation of underground mining methods can be economically viable in the Boggabri resource.” WDS Consulting (2009) p-7
However, the proponents of the project and Gillespie Economics have consistently claimed that underground mining is not feasible:
This underground concept study concluded that alternative mining methods did not maximise the utilisation of the in-situ coal resource and was not a practical or feasible option due to the geological structure of the coal seams. Response to submissions p52.
While underground mining may not maximise the volume of coal extracted from the Boggabri deposit, this is not the criteria by which the project should be assessed. Proper financial and economic analysis of all options should be conducted to enable the socially optimal option to be selected. Despite WDS’s considerable analysis and conclusion that underground mining could be viable, financial analysis that would enable comparison with the current proposal was not carried out:
At the request of Idemitsu, a full financial analysis was not within our deliverable scope. Our primary financial deliverables, … are to be integrated into Idemitsu cost models for internal economic analysis. (p7-1)
As Idemitsu’s internal analysis is not available, we have made estimates from the findings of WDS’s study. From the data presented in Appendix C we have calculated the following values.
Table 1 Net Revenue of underground option
Source Discount rate 7% Economic assessment p9 Total estimated 82.1 Appendix C p-4 product (Mt) Operating years (2011 22 Appendix C p4-21 to 2032) Based on visual estimates of Figure 4.2 Production Summary, Appendix C p 4-21. Note this is slightly Average annual 3.73 lower than reported on p4-20, 4.0Mt, but in line production (Mt) with the production total on p-4. See Appendix for full modelling Assumed price of coal $94 Economic assessment p9 per tonne Present value of yearly revenue based on Present value revenue $3,730 production estimates on p4-21 and a $94/tonne ($M) coal price.
Economists at Large 6
Estimated operating cost per production $32.47 Appendix C p7-7 tonne
Present value operating Operating cost per tonne multiplied by production $1,288 costs ($M) estimates on p4-21
Appendix C p7-15 outlines capital expenditures Present value capital $652 over the life of the mine, this distribution is costs ($M) discounted at 7%
Net Present Value $1,790
The net present value of this option according to this analysis is higher than the “net production benefits” reported in table 2.2 of Appendix Q – Economic Assessment.
Table 2 Comparison of underground and open cut proposal net revenue
Appendix C - Underground option Appendix Q - Economic assessment
($m) ($m)
Revenue $3,730 $5,343 Other production NA $54 benefits Capital costs $652 $778 Operating costs $1,288 $3,328 Other production NA $25 costs NPV $1,790 $1,266
Idemitsu’s investors should be asking why this is the case. We call on Idemitsu to release their internal modelling to explain this discrepancy. If this project is to have social licence to operate, it is important for communities and the wider public to understand the project’s benefits and why a particular option is being persued.
It is important to note that this analysis does not include external costs and benefits. The MCCC have indicated that they would support an underground mine, suggesting that the external costs of this option to the community are lower. The proponent’s cursory, dot-point explanations in section 4.12.6 (p43) of the Environmental Assessment of why they have rejected the underground option need considerable expansion if they are to contribute to the public’s understanding of the project.
In their latest response, Gillespie Economics are careful not contradict WDS’s conclusion that underground mining is viable, but correctly point out that alternatives must be feasible to the proponents. We agree. As the proponents are unable to present another proposal that is feasible to
Economists at Large 7
them, we suggest the NSW government allow other parties to develop such proposals. These proposals might bring greater benefits to the state, the nation and the local community. We understand the lease on the area is due to expire shortly, providing a timely opportunity to investigate other options.
Scrutiny of calculations in Appendix Q – Economic assessment Having found net present value of the underground mining option to be higher than the project proposal, we re-examined the calculation of values presented in Table 2.2 of the Economic Assessment. The values presented in Table 2.2 do not correspond with values presented in the rest of the economic appendix. Both revenue and operating cost estimates are significantly higher. There is not enough information presented to calculate capital costs.
Table 3 Present values presented in Economic Assessment, table 2.2, p12
Table 2.2
Revenue ($M) 5,343 Operating costs ($M) 3,328 Capital costs ($M) 778 Net Revenue ($M) 1,237
The following calculations show that these values are different compared to when these calculations are replicated using data in the text of the assessment.
Economists at Large 8
Revenue From values in the text, we calculate the present value of revenue from the project to be $6,801 million, higher than $5,343 million as reported in the Economic Assessment Table 2.2. We arrived at our figure by using production levels based on page 8, where the assessment says:
Open cut mining is assumed to ramp up to 7Mtpa of product coal by Year 5 and remain at this level until Year 21.
By applying this increasing level of production to coal price as estimated on page 9 and the discount rate on p12 the following values are obtained.
Table 4 Present value of revenue calculation
Discount 7% Rate 1 Coal Price 2 94 ($/tonne)
3 Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Coal Production 5 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 (MTPA)4 Revenue 508 545 583 620 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 658 ($M) PV annual 474 476 476 473 469 438 410 383 358 334 313 292 273 255 238 223 208 195 182 170 159 revenue ($M) PV Revenue 6,801 ($M)
1 p12 2 p9 3 p6 4 p6&9
Economists at Large 9
Operating costs From values in the text of the economic assessment, we calculate the present value of operating costs to be $4,290 million, higher than the $3,328 million as reported in Table 2.2. We arrived at our figure buy finding the present value of average annual operating costs, as reported on page 8, where the assessment says:
The operating costs of the Project include those associated with overburden stripping, mining, processing, rail and port charges, selling costs, rehabilitation, marketing and general administration. Average annual operating costs of the mine are estimated at $370M
Using the same discount rate, we find:
Table 5 Present value of operating cost calculation
Item
Discount rate 5 7%
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average annual 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 operating cost 6 ($M) PV of annual 370 346 323 302 282 264 247 230 215 201 188 176 164 154 143 134 125 117 109 102 96 cost PV of 4290 operating cost
5 p12 6 p8
Economists at Large 10
In summary, the net revenue for the project proposal as calculated from the values in the text is almost $500 million higher than the values presented in the Economic Assessment Table 2.2. Below we have used the same capital cost value as there is no information in the economic appendix on the timing of these costs.
Table 6 Comparison of net revenue
Table 2.2 Calculated from text Revenue ($M) 5,343 6,801 Operating costs ($M) 3,328 4,290 Capital costs ($M) 778 778 Net Revenue ($M) 1,237 1,733
The point of this comparison is not to suggest that project is more valuable than was presented, but to show that the public can have no confidence in figures presented. We urge the proponents to explain how they arrived at their evaluation and to publish their full working and modelling. Without this transparency neither the public nor the NSW government can understand the benefits of this proposal and make a decision on whether to support it or not. This lack of transparency is a key reason the mining industry is losing its “social licence to operate”, particularly in farming areas.
Economists at Large 11
Response to Gillespie Economics’ Response to residual economic matters raised by Maules Creek Community Council.
Producer surplus benefits We maintain that the financial benefits that accrue only to the project proponents are of limited relevance in trying to understand this project’s impact on a local or state scale. Gillespie Economics have misinterpreted this point, suggesting that we believe “producer surplus benefits (mine profits) should not feature in BCA (cost-benefit analysis)” (p1). We fully agree that in analysing the full costs and benefits of a project, profit is an important calculation to consider. Our point is that profits that accrue to overseas shareholders do not accrue to the local community, or the state of NSW.
This point is made clear by Eggert (2001) who state that when considering the perspective of local communities “ an analyst must be careful to … eliminate any net benefits that accrue to nonresidents of the community ” (p28).
Gillespie Economics claim to have taken an approach “exactly” in line to that outlined in Eggert (2001) – taking commercial evaluation of the project and making adjustments for externalities, taxes and social time preference. But beyond these points the analysis of Gillespie Economics departs from Eggert. Eggert devotes considerable attention to how benefits are accounted for in analysis of mining projects. It is worth quoting him at length:
Let us now turn to … issues that challenge and bedevil practitioners of social benefit-cost analysis. The first challenge is deciding "whose benefits and costs count" …. It sometimes is called the issue of standing--that is, who has standing in the analysis of benefits and costs? This is an issue of scope. Should the analysis include only those costs and benefits affecting residents of the local community? The state or province? The nation? The world? Whether the net benefits of a project are positive or negative often depends on how narrow or broad the scope of the study is . (p27)
Project definition and scale Eggert’s mention of scale or scope returns to one of our original points – the changing scope of the Economic Assessment. On page 2 of their Response to residual economic matters , Gillespie Economics say that cost-benefit analysis is generally undertaken at a national scale “ with the inclusion of all costs and benefits that are generated within a nation’s borders from a development, regardless of who [sic] they accrue to .” We are pleased that they have settled on a scale for the assessment and look forward to the following adjustments in their analysis:
• Reduction of net production benefits to reflect profits to overseas shareholders, in line with Eggert (2001) who points out “ a national government would consider profits send abroad as a cost. ” (p27) • Consideration of the opportunity cost of the mine from a national perspective – the value of the next best alternative project.
Economists at Large 12
Opportunity Costs Opportunity cost is a concept in economics that incorporates the value of the foregone alternative in decision making. In other words, considering what are the cost and benefits of the next-best option available. In their original Economic Assessment, Gillespie Economics considered the opportunity cost of not proceeding with the mine from the perspective of the proponent – the sale of their equipment, some $8m.
We suggested a global perspective, incorporating the opportunity cost of investors’ capital at a global level, which would significantly reduce the net present value of the project, possibly to zero. This reinforces Eggert’s idea that the net benefits of the project depend on the scope of the analysis, as opportunity costs are different at each level.
To consider the opportunity cost from a national perspective, the analysts need to consider what the net benefits of this mine are compared to another mine that may not be going ahead because of the time and resources devoted to the Boggabri project. We suggest that from a national perspective the next best coal mine will be similar to those of the Boggabri mine, again negating most of the production benefits of the mine.
The importance of opportunity cost in relation planning coal mines was demonstrated in Victoria recently by Mantle Mining. Mantle withdrew their application to explore for coal southwest of Melbourne in the face of community opposition. Mantle withdrew not only because of community opposition, but “ in order to focus its resources on other higher priority projects .” (Mantle Mining 2011)(p1) Mantle’s opportunity cost was not the loss of time and equipment put into the application, but the profits of the mines that they would be unable to develop in order to slug it out with the community near Melbourne.
In the Economic Assessment of the Boggabri mine, however, consider opportunity cost at neither a national perspective, nor even the company-wide perspective of the proponents. Instead they use a site-specific scope, claiming that there are only two alternatives: the proposed mine or cessation of mining.
Economists at Large 13
Distribution of costs and benefits We agree with Gillespie Economics the distribution of costs and benefits of the project and have revised our table:
Benefits Costs
Global After tax profits Greenhouse gasses National Company tax
Royalties Ecology State Social benefits of employment Heritage Air quality Noise and vibration Groundwater Unquantified and unspecified Local Traffic community support programs Visual impacts Surface water Health impacts
We agree that if all externalities have been internalised then there is no need to estimate their values. The physical studies that the original economic assessment was based on estimated that externalities would be adequately offset, however many of these conclusions have since been questioned by experts in the relevant fields. See for example the submission by ecologist Wendy Hawes relating to the Environmental Assessment’s appendix J – Biodiversity assessment, which raised serious questions about the project’s ability to offset its impacts.
Given the disagreement between physical scientists, the economic assessment should be revised to include this uncertainty and risk, particularly if it is to incorporate the community and the state’s point of view, as can be seen in Table 1. The uncertainty relating to these costs makes it difficult to see if the community should support changing their landscape in exchange for $9.7 million dollar contribution in the form of a statue of Ben Lexcen, public seating, a better caravan park, road improvements and a contribution to a community programme.
In considering this trade off, the community should recall the proponent’s response to submissions where they admit they did not include lost recreation value of the Leard State Forest. In their response the proponents calculated a “back-of-the-envelope” lost recreation value amounted of $4 million in present terms. If the compensation package is worth $9.7 million, this leaves $5.7m to compensate the community for changes to their landscape and uncalculated environmental risk. As the proponents often point out, this pales in significance next to the estimated value of the project.
Health Impacts Gillespie Economics point out that there has been no research done on the health impacts of this project. It is not their responsibility to carry this out, and likely beyond their expertise. As the health impacts of coal mining can be considerable, this impact should be assessed in the overall assessment of the project. The economics assessment could then quantify the likely economic impacts of health effects. Note that a study is currently underway in the Hunter Valley on coal mining’s health impacts commissioned by local politician Tim Duddy. This follows studies such as Hendryx and Ahern (2009)
Economists at Large 14
which found strong, negative health impacts of coal mining and increased mortality in the Appalachian Mountains of the United States. They found that the health impacts far outweighed the economic benefits of mines there.
Benefits transfer and social value of employment We agree that benefits-transfer is a useful technique, but one that needs to be used with great caution, or as a matter of last resort. We should clarify that our criticism of the use of benefits- transfer from another study to estimate the social value of employment was not a criticism of benefits-transfer per se, but a criticism of how it was done by Gillespie Economics. The study used was about an underground mine in a traditional mining area, whereas this mine is an open-cut mine in a more agricultural area.
Economists at Large 15
Conclusion We call for greater transparency in the analysis of this and all major projects. At a time when mining projects in agricultural areas are causing great public and political debate, greater transparency is essential. The project proponents should release all modelling and analysis that enables the public to understand their decision to apply for this project using these means. Governments should require thorough, transparent analysis of all project options before making a decision. Where a proponent is not willing to pursue an option that is of greater benefit to the public, then other submissions should be sought.
In addition to publishing calculations and modelling to date, the proponents should adjust their economic analysis to reflect the following points:
Appropriate treatment of profits/producer surplus/production benefits National scale of analysis Opportunity cost Disagreement among physical scientists over external costs Discussion of distribution of benefits
We look forward to these adjustments and continuing analysis of this and other projects.
References
Eggert, Roderick G. 2001. Mining and Economic Sustainability: National Economies and Local Communities . Sustainable Development . Report commissioned by the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development project of the Institute for Environment and Development, England.
Hendryx, Michael, and Melissa M Ahern. 2009. “Mortality in Appalachian coal mining regions: the value of statistical life lost.” Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) 124 (4): 541-50. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2693168&tool=pmcentrez&rende rtype=abstract.
Mantle Mining. 2011. Deans Marsh Update. Mantle Mining Website . http://www.mantlemining.com/files/announcements/1001855.pdf.
WDS Consulting. 2009. Underground Concept Study . Appendix C of Environmental assessment of the Boggabri Coal Project. https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/ec47a18c2ed59f998d4765469401fbcd/Appendix C - Underground Concept Study_Part 1.pdf.
Economists at Large 16
Appendix: Modelling of Underground option
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Production 0.3 1.9 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.6 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.2 3.3 2.9 4.1 5.1 4.8 3.3 2.9 4 3.8 4 3.9 see p4-21
178. 423 451. 423. 432. 347. 357. 357. 366. 394. 310. 272. 385. 479. 451. 310. 272. 376. 357. 376. 366. revenue ($M) 28.2 6 .0 2 0 4 8 2 2 6 8 2 6 4 4 2 2 6 0 2 0 6 discount rate 7%
156. 345 344. 301. 288. 216. 207. 194. 186. 187. 137. 113. 149. 173. 152. 104. disc rev ($M) 26.4 98.2 80.7 92.3 90.8 82.7 0 .3 2 6 1 6 9 3 4 6 7 1 5 8 8 0
372 PV revenue 9.9
Year OpX 146 155. 146. 149. 120. 123. 123. 126. 136. 107. 133. 165. 155. 107. 129. 123. 129. 126. 9.7 61.7 94.2 94.2 ($M) .1 9 1 4 1 4 4 6 4 2 1 6 9 2 9 4 9 6 119 118. 104. disc OpX 9.1 53.9 99.5 74.8 71.8 67.1 64.4 64.8 47.6 39.1 51.6 60.0 52.8 33.9 27.9 35.9 31.9 31.4 28.6 .3 9 2 128 PV opX cost 8.4
249. 357 CapX 53.6 70.8 27.5 27.5 4 .7 217. 292 Disc CapX 50.1 54.0 19.6 18.3 8 .0
PV CapX 652
179 NPV 0
Economists at Large 17
Maules Creek Community Council Inc Re: Proposed No Go Zones in the Maules Creek Catchment 1 Maules Creek Community Council Inc [email protected] Steve Bradshaw 02 6794 4503 Phil Laird 0428 712 622 Fiona Morse 0408 656 808 Alistair Todd 0427 936 745 Peter Watson 0427 434 643
18 May 2011
Attn: Mr Brad Hazzard Minister for Planning Level 33 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dear Minister;
Re: Proposed No Go Zones in the Maules Creek Catchment
We are writing to you on behalf of the Maules Creek Community regarding coal and coal seam gas mining in our area. We understand that the NSW State Government is currently formulating its strategic lands policy and we would like to strongly urge the government to “ring fence” the Leards Forest Coal Complex and quarantine the Maules Creek catchment, aquifers and farmland as a “No Go Zone”.
The Maules Creek area is currently the target of a number of resource companies who are proposing large open cut mines in the Leards State Forest. Despite much of the forest being listed under the EPBC act as containing the critically endangered ecological community Box Gum Grassy Woodland more than 20 million tonnes per annum of coal production is being proposed by Boggabri Coal and Aston Resources.
The MCCC is proposing that should these projects obtain planning approval, mining activity should be limited to the Leards Forest area. (See attached map). The areas adjacent to the Kaputar National Park, Namoi River and Maules Creek catchments and aquifers and farmland be placed in a “No Go Zone”. This No Go Zone would exclude any further mining activity such as coal mining or coal seam gas extraction.
We are focused on community and environmental impacts and our chief concerns are;
1. Damage or increased burden to the already stretched water aquifers in the Maules Creek Catchment. Impacts on the stock and domestic water supplies of the local Maules Creek residents will threaten livelihoods and will deplete the groundwater available for the irrigators in the Harparary irrigation precinct. Maules Creek Community Council Inc Re: Proposed No Go Zones in the Maules Creek Catchment 2 2. Purchase of properties by mines for further developments, zone of affectation or environmental offsets is depopulating our community and this could see the numbers of residents drop below the critical mass required to maintain a viable community. 3. Long term, sustainable farmland will be lost. Families and skilled farmers who, over many generations have made a living providing food and fibre will also be lost.
Our concerns are borne out, as over the past four years the area to the south of the Leards Forest has seen impacts to the ground water supply and a serious reduction in its number of residents so that now only six households remain from Leards Forest to the Manilla Rd.
We would very much like to meet with you so that we can discuss with you our proposed No Go Zone and options for the future. We would greatly appreciate an opportunity to provide input to the strategic lands policy in relation to our area. Should you wish to discuss our request further, please contact any of the individuals listed above.
Regards
MCCC Inc
CC: Katrina Hodgkinson CC: Kevin Humphreys CC: Kevin Anderson CC: Mark Coulton Maules Creek Community Council Inc Re: Proposed No Go Zones in the Maules Creek Catchment 3