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