Continuation Project: Submission to the PAC · 1 Summary On behalf of the Bulga-Milbrodale Progress Association, I have reviewed documentation in relation to the Warkworth-Mt Thorley

2014

Review of the Warkworth / Mt Thorley Continuation Project: Submission to the PAC

December 2014

Submission to

Planning Assessment Commission

NSW Department of Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

Dr Stephen A. J. Bell

Eastcoast Flora Survey

PO Box 216

Kotara Fair NSW 2289

1

Summary

On behalf of the Bulga-Milbrodale Progress Association, I have reviewed documentation in relation to the

Warkworth-Mt Thorley Continuation Project, and specifically the Response to Submissions prepared by

Warkworth Mining Limited (WML). A summary of my main findings is as follows:

a) WML proposes as a high priority the nomination of WSW to the federal EPBC Act, yet continues to

push for the clearing of this factually Critically Endangered ecological community as part of this

proposal;

b) despite this desire to nominate WSW for federal protection, WML have at the same time displayed

a lack of understanding of the identity and significance of WSW, as evidenced in their latest

documentation which wrongly considers Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland a sub-

community of WSW;

c) instigating the Precautionary Principle is entirely applicable to the future of WSW, irrespective of

WMLs claims that it cannot be applied to only part of a ‘comprehensive offset package’. The scientific

uncertainty for successful restoration of WSW implores application of the Principle;

d) the $1 million Implementation Bond, proposed as a supplementary offset measure for WSW,

provides no certainty that successful WSW restoration can be achieved, when all that is required is

for restoration to ‘follow a trajectory towards a reference state’ after 15 years. More stringent

completion criteria, incorporating quantitative data collection, are required within this 15 year

period to ensure greater accountability;

e) the $1 million Save Our Species contribution to Regent Honeyeater conservation is inappropriate as

an offset measure for removal of WSW. This species does not frequent nor forage within WSW to

any great extent, and its inclusion as a WSW offset is misleading: it would be more appropriate as an

offset measure for Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC;

f) WML, in their WSW Restoration Manual, admit that there is a low likelihood of success in the

restoration of WSW in grassland areas, which based on the available scientific evidence, will fail to

produce vegetation definable as WSW;

g) research on WSW restoration completed to date by the University of New England, funded by WML,

strongly suggests that successful restoration of WSW to a pre-disturbance state in former grazing

lands is currently unachievable. This is in keeping with the sentiments of WML outlined in the WSW

Restoration Manual, and the high priority push by WML for listing WSW as an endangered

community federally, indicated in their Integrated Management Plan for WSW;

h) canopy planting densities proposed for restoration areas by WML will ultimately result in dense

forest communities, not woodlands referable to WSW. Such planting densities will also expedite

cover estimates prematurely towards benchmark values, meaning that completion criteria may be

reached sooner;

i) use of fire and priority in the treatment of weed species in restored areas requires careful thought

and some revision, prior to application of measures proposed in the Local Offsets Management Plan;

j) Reference sites established by WML within WSW have been poorly cited and are not representative

of moderate-high quality WSW: new reference sites should be established. Two of the five Reference

sites do not fall within WSW (admitted by WML), and all of them support below-benchmark values

2

for species richness, % cover of native mid storey, % cover of native grass cover, and % cover of native

shrubs. These sites should not be used to track the progress of restored WSW;

k) the WSW Restoration Manual primarily advocates the use of Biometric methods to monitor the

progress of restoration. Many of these methods are difficult to repeat and audit, are highly subjective

and qualitative, and modification to include the collection of quantitative data should be undertaken.

Cover estimates using the Braun-Blanquet system are inappropriate to use in repeated monitoring

of permanent sites;

l) proposed completion criteria are poor and uninformative, and require only that a positive trend

towards a WSW reference site be shown over three consecutive years: there is no requirement for

benchmark values to be met, only trending towards benchmark. Clarification is also required as to

whether or not any native species present within a Transformation site is considered a positive trend,

or if such species have to be characteristic of WSW;

m) as demonstrated by environmental staff from Coal & Allied at the annual Tom Farrell Institute mine

rehabilitation conference in September this year, there is still much to be learnt on how to

successfully and consistently create native vegetation communities on mine spoil. The science of

ecosystem restoration is well behind the policy that requires it. Dr Peter Erskine, keynote speaker at

that conference and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Mined Land

Rehabilitation, encapsulates this situation through his conclusions that successful restoration of

native vegetation communities after mining is just not possible; the creation of ‘novel ecosystems’,

in his words, is the best that can be expected. Replacing intact WSW with novel ecosystems such as

these is irresponsible for such a highly restricted and critically endangered vegetation community.

n) the draft Conditions of Consent issued by DPE assumes that restoration of WSW will be successfully

accomplished, when there is much scientific evidence to suggest that this will not be the case. I

consider that the completion criteria proposed to track the progress of restoration to be inadequate,

and other measures in the proposed conditions do not protect and conserve WSW in any way;

o) the Secretary’s Report prepared by DPE endorses the view of WML that exclusion of mining from

areas currently supporting WSW is not economically possible, and justifies this stance on the

Biodiversity Offset Package proposed. However, 6 of the 7 offset measures proposed in this package

offer nothing to ensure that the risk of extinction to WSW will be alleviated should the proposal

proceed (and the 7th will only contribute if fully implemented by all stakeholders). This is despite

assurances by DPE that the risk of extinction to WSW is of higher importance than WML’s economic

arguments in deciding the project outcome: using their own documented key consideration, the

proposal should be refused.

A final word in relation to the Warkworth Sands Woodland endangered community: I have in previous

documentation (Bell 2012) argued for the irreplaceability of such a geographically restricted vegetation

community, questioning how small an ecosystem has to be before determining authorities are willing to

refuse any further detrimental development. Justice Preston agreed that any further loss of WSW would be

permanent and irreplaceable (NSWLEC 48, 2013, paragraphs 134-135), and it is irresponsible to now allow

any further fragmentation and clearing of this community. No amount of additional offset measures (such as

securement of unrelated land-based offsets elsewhere, promises of successful restoration, or the $1 million

contribution to Regent Honeyeater conservation) will protect and conserve such a highly restricted and

factually critically endangered vegetation community.

3

Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Aims & Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Review Documents .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.3 Qualifications & Experience .................................................................................................................... 5

2. Significance of Warkworth Sands Woodland ................................................................................................ 6

3. The Precautionary Principle........................................................................................................................... 6

4. The $1 million Implementation Bond ............................................................................................................ 7

5. The $1 million Save Our Species Conservation Program ............................................................................... 8

6. Restoration of Warkworth Sands Woodland ................................................................................................ 8

6.1 Likelihood of Success ............................................................................................................................... 8

6.2 UNE Research .......................................................................................................................................... 8

6.3 Canopy Planting Density .......................................................................................................................... 9

6.4 Use of Fire to Control Regrowth ............................................................................................................ 10

6.5 Weed Control ........................................................................................................................................ 11

7. Monitoring of Restoration ........................................................................................................................... 11

7.1 Reference & Transformation Sites ........................................................................................................ 11

7.2 Benchmark Data .................................................................................................................................... 12

7.3 Monitoring Methods ............................................................................................................................. 12

7.4 Completion Criteria for WSW ................................................................................................................ 13

8. Best Practice Mine Rehabilitation Conference, 2014 .................................................................................. 14

9. Draft Conditions of Consent ........................................................................................................................ 15

10. Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report......................................................................................... 16

11. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 17

12. References ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1. EDO Letter of Instruction ........................................................................................................ 22

Appendix 2. Dr Stephen Bell (Resume) ........................................................................................................ 28

4

1. Background

1. Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Warkworth and Mt Thorley projects were placed on

public exhibition in July and August 2014. Rio Tinto prepared a response to the issues raised during

the exhibition period which is now available on the Major Projects website of the Department of

Planning and Environment (Planning). Planning has recommended that both the Warkworth and Mt

Thorley projects be approved, and have prepared a Secretary’s Report and recommended Conditions

for any approval.

2. The projects have now been referred to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) to carry out a

review. The Terms of Reference for the Warkworth PAC are:

1) Carry out a review of the Warkworth Continuation Project, and:

a) consider the EIS for the project, the issues raised in submissions, the formal response to

submissions, the Department of Planning and Environment’s preliminary assessment

report of the project, and any other relevant information provided on the project during

the course of the review;

b) assess the merits of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to the potential

amenity, health and social impacts on the village of Bulga and surrounds;

c) apply all relevant NSW Government policies in those considerations and to that

assessment; and

d) provide recommendations on any reasonable and feasible measures that could be

implemented to avoid, reduce and/or offset the potential impacts of the project.

2) Conduct public hearings on the project no later than 12 December 2014.

3) Complete the review by 20 February 2015, unless the Secretary agrees otherwise.

3. As part of this review the Minister for Planning has requested that the PAC undertake a public hearing

on the projects. A public hearing provides an opportunity for interested parties to present relevant

information to the PAC. A consequence of a PAC public hearing is that community merit appeal rights

for any approval are removed.

4. It is the intention of the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association to appear at the PAC public hearing

and to present its objections to the Warkworth and Mt Thorley projects in a formal manner with the

assistance of a barrister. Accordingly, I have been asked to act as an expert witness to assist the PAC

impartially on matters relevant to my area of expertise, prepare a written report on my opinion for

submission to the PAC and (if possible) appear (by phone or Skype) before the PAC as an expert

witness.

5. This report satisfies the second of these requests, and builds on my earlier submission to the EIS in

July 2014.

1.1 Aims & Objectives

6. I have been requested by EDO NSW to undertake the following work (Appendix 1):

review the documents listed below.

5

prepare a written expert report that addresses the issues identified below (‘Issues to address in

your expert report’), and ensure that the work is prepared in accordance with Division 2 of Part

31 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

participate in a discussion with your instructing solicitors and barristers.

if possible, appear by phone or Skype as an expert witness at the PAC public hearing for the

purpose of giving oral evidence.

7. In the interests of clarity, I have structured my report in such a way that the key points as I see them

are dealt with collectively. By this I mean that common themes in the review documents have been

grouped together, rather than addressed repeatedly for each document.

1.2 Review Documents

8. Relevant parts of the following documents have been reviewed:

Response to Submissions: https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/4ab85aaceed 6ad99b6cf72daddeb7980/10.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20RTS.pdf

Response to Submissions – Appendices: https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/ b7c155c623089af6cbb2dd14acf334be/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20RTS%20Appendices.pdf

Recommended Conditions of Consent: https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/ caa7f813ed9c17e9f3cd04b0b59f4a7a/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Recommended%20Conditions%20of%20Consent.pdf

Secretary Environmental Assessment Report: https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/ public/bb35cb64104a750149cc59bb694ee656/10.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Secretary%27s%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

1.3 Qualifications & Experience

9. I am a vegetation scientist and senior partner at Eastcoast Flora Survey, a specialist vegetation

consultancy operating out of Newcastle, New South Wales. I have 25 years’ experience in the

assessment of vegetation within the Hunter and Central Coast regions. Eastcoast Flora Survey was

founded in 1996, and specialises in the assessment, classification and mapping of native vegetation.

Prior to this, I have been employed on short-term projects with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife

Service, the University of New South Wales, the University of Newcastle and other environmental

consultancies principally in the vegetation and ecology fields. In 1990, I graduated from the

University of Newcastle with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree. In 2013, I received my PhD for

a thesis investigating the definition and mapping of rare plant communities, with particular reference

to threatened ecological communities. Currently, I am a Conjoint Fellow within the Plant Sciences

Group, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, at the University of Newcastle.

10. Appendix 2 further outlines my qualifications and experience in vegetation ecology.

11. I have been provided with a copy of the Expert Witness Code of Conduct, being Schedule 7 to the

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). I have read the Code and agree to be bound by it.

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/4ab85aaceed%206ad99b6cf72daddeb7980/10.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20RTS.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/4ab85aaceed%206ad99b6cf72daddeb7980/10.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20RTS.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/%20b7c155c623089af6cbb2dd14acf334be/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20RTS%20Appendices.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/%20b7c155c623089af6cbb2dd14acf334be/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20RTS%20Appendices.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/%20b7c155c623089af6cbb2dd14acf334be/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20RTS%20Appendices.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/%20caa7f813ed9c17e9f3cd04b0b59f4a7a/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Recommended%20Conditions%20of%20Consent.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/%20caa7f813ed9c17e9f3cd04b0b59f4a7a/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Recommended%20Conditions%20of%20Consent.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/%20caa7f813ed9c17e9f3cd04b0b59f4a7a/11.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Recommended%20Conditions%20of%20Consent.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/%20public/bb35cb64104a750149cc59bb694ee656/10.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Secretary%27s%20Assessment%20Report.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/%20public/bb35cb64104a750149cc59bb694ee656/10.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Secretary%27s%20Assessment%20Report.pdfhttps://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/%20public/bb35cb64104a750149cc59bb694ee656/10.%20Warkworth%20Continuation%20Project%20-%20Secretary%27s%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

6

2. Significance of Warkworth Sands Woodland

12. All parties involved in this matter recognise the significance of Warkworth Sands Woodland (WSW).

Factually, it is a Critically Endangered community, but at present is listed only as Endangered under

NSW legislation; there is no Federal listing although it clearly qualifies as Critically Endangered.

WSW only occurs at Warkworth in the central Hunter Valley, and presently occupies 465 hectares (in

varying condition states). In previous documentation (Bell 2012), I have argued for the

irreplaceability of such a geographically restricted vegetation community, questioning how small an

ecosystem has to be before determining authorities are willing to refuse any further detrimental

development. Justice Preston agreed that any further loss of WSW would be permanent and

irreplaceable (NSWLEC 48, 2013, paragraphs 134-135).

13. In the latest proposal, WML agree that WSW is a vegetation community of considerable significance,

as their Integrated Management Plan (detailed in Section 4, Appendix J, Response to Submissions)

for the TEC proposes that a nomination for WSW as an endangered ecological community under

the Commonwealth EPBC Act be expedited. They consider this to be a ‘high’ priority, and third in a

list of 18 priority actions. This is somewhat hypercritical, given that WML propose to remove

approximately 75 hectares of this highly restricted community, knowing that any successful

nomination to the EPBC Act will likely post-date approval for the current mine proposal.

14. I am uncertain if WML have a true appreciation of exactly what constitutes WSW and how

significant it is (acknowledging the varying opinions expressed in the L&E Case), as evidenced in their

latest documentation. For example, in the WSW Restoration Manual (Niche 2013), their ‘Community

2’ is attributable to WSW. In its accompanying description, Community 2 purports to be “open

woodland on shallow sand dominated by E.agglomerata, E.crebra +/- E.tereticornis in the

overstorey…”. Eucalyptus agglomerata (Blue-leaved Stringybark) is a tall stringybark tree of the

moist coastal ranges in the Hunter Valley, and does not occur anywhere on the Hunter Valley floor.

Indeed, there are no stringybark trees present in species lists compiled for the wider Warkworth

area, so it perplexes me to learn that a community co-dominated by this species with Eucalyptus

crebra is apparently a part of WSW. More disturbing is the possibility that such a community may be

restored onto grassland areas and passed off as WSW. I can only assume that the reference to Blue-

leaved Stringybark emanates from inclusion of this species from the Kurri area, contained in Story et.

al. (1963) when describing the Warkworth soil landscape.

15. A second example in this regard relates to Section 2.4.2 of the LOMP document (Appendix B of the

Response to Submissions). This point is discussed later in my report (Section 7), but it is clearly stated

in this section of the LOMP that Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland is “a sub-community

of WSW, as described in the NSW Scientific Committee (2002) final determination”. Factually

incorrect statements such as this show a complete lack of understanding of WSW by WML, and

considerably downplay any appreciation by WML of the significance of the community.

3. The Precautionary Principle

16. In my submission July 2014, I raised the issue of the Precautionary Principle and how it related to the

factually Critically Endangered WSW. I argued that the Precautionary Principle should dictate

extreme caution in further clearing of this TEC, because successful restoration has not yet been

demonstrated, and promises of successful restoration are unproven. In their response (Appendix J,

7

Response to Submissions), WML has argued that the Precautionary Principle cannot be applied to

only a single element of a ‘comprehensive’ offset package.

17. I disagree strongly with this claim. Other elements of the offsets package proposed by WML (e.g.

land-based offsets, preparation of integrated management plan, contribution to Regent Honeyeater

conservation) are unrelated to the fact that it is scientifically unknown if successful restoration of

WSW can be achieved, and there is a strong scientific literature in support of failure (see Bell 2012).

Application of the precautionary principle in this case is precisely why it exists: we must be

precautionary in making major land use decisions that may impact on the long-term survival of WSW.

As defined in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991; “the precautionary

principle…. if 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”.

18. In the absence of evidence that successful restoration of WSW can be achieved, the precautionary

principle should be instigated.

4. The $1 million Implementation Bond

19. One key supplementary offset measure for the project is the contribution to a WSW Implementation

Bond to the value of $1 million over the first 15 years of the proposal. This measure is to provide a

financial incentive to WML to ensure that restoration of WSW follows a trajectory towards a

reference state within 15 years of project approval. I have strong concerns over this for three

reasons.

20. Firstly, ecologically speaking 15 years is a relatively short time-frame in which to satisfactorily

demonstrate that restored grasslands are at least progressing towards reference ecosystems.

Previous studies in the scientific literature have demonstrated the slow return of green-field sites

(former grazing lands) that have been actively restored for conservation purposes. Examples include

the restoration of old pasture lands in western Sydney (Wilkins et. al 2003), analysis of which failed

to distinguish planted areas from untreated pasture after 10 years of growth, and restoration of

Themeda grasslands in Victoria (McDougall & Morgan 2005), where 15 years of monitoring has

shown the area to still be plagued with weed species which drive it away from its intended state.

21. Secondly, what are the characteristics that define an area as being “on a trajectory towards a

reference state”? By its very nature, a trajectory is graphically represented by a curve from Point A

to Point B: there are no qualitative requirements along a trajectory that have to be met. In the case

of WSW restoration, the simple planting of appropriate canopy species (Angophora floribunda,

Banksia integrifolia) into old pasture lands of the NBA and SBA places that area “on a trajectory

towards a reference state”, but it is certainly not approaching the ecological functions of the

reference state. For this Implementation Bond to take some form of credence, there needs to be

more stringent completion criteria outlined for this initial 15 years, prior to relinquishment of the

Bond. I will discuss completion criteria more fully in Section 7.

22. Thirdly, it is clear that if demonstration of a successful and ongoing trajectory towards WSW cannot

be achieved by 15 years, then the Implementation Bond will be redirected to other conservation

projects by OEH, and not returned to WML. Although WML claim that their commitment to ensuring

the success of WSW restoration will be ongoing in the event of expiration of the Bond, I fail to see

8

how this will eventuate once the financial incentive has dissipated. It makes no business sense for a

company to continue expending time and money on the restoration of WSW, when there is no

financial incentive to do so.

5. The $1 million Save Our Species Conservation Program

23. In recognition of the time lag between impact and re-establishment of WSW, WML propose to

contribute $1 million to the Save Our Species conservation initiative, and specifically the Regent

Honeyeater. WML claim that this species has been “identified as potentially using WSW as foraging

habitat”. None of the literature that I have read on this species makes note of foraging within WSW

(Menkhorst et. al. 1999; Oliver 2000; and others), and it is unlikely to form an important component

of the regional foraging habitat of this species. Such an offset measure would be more appropriate

for Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC, which supports more suitable habitat for this

species. As a consequence, I do not consider the $1 million contribution to the SOS program to be

any form of offset for WSW.

6. Restoration of Warkworth Sands Woodland

6.1 Likelihood of Success

24. The restoration of WSW across 160 hectares is one of the key supplementary offset measures

proposed for the project. I have previously detailed my concerns about the likelihood of success of

such restoration, based on the scientific literature, and I will not repeat that here (see Bell 2012, and

my submission of July 2014).

25. However, it is important to appreciate that restoration of WSW to a reference state on former grazing

lands is already severely handicapped by the environment in which it occurs. By this I mean that the

former grazing lands have been heavily grazed and weed infested, and any attempt to restore to high

quality WSW are unrealistic. Consequently, the goal of successfully restoring WSW on these lands

to such a condition will inevitably fail, and their ultimate role as WSW will be questionable. At best,

a ‘novel’ community bearing some similarities to WSW will eventuate. The ‘net increase’ of WSW,

proposed by WML as an offset measure, will not occur in reality because the restored vegetation will

differ floristically and structurally from WSW.

26. WML is clearly in agreement with this fact, yet maintain that by clearing existing moderate or high

quality WSW and attempting to restore WSW to grasslands, they will provide a ‘net increase’ (by

19%) of WSW. In the introduction to the WSW Restoration Manual (Section 1.2), it is stated that “it

is important to appreciate the limitations of restoration and caution is needed not to raise the

expectations of stakeholders to believe that fully functioning WSW can be readily created in the

short-term by active restoration interventions”. I believe this to be an upfront admission that

successful WSW restoration will not be achieved as promised in the current application.

6.2 UNE Research

27. In my July 2014 submission, I raised the point that the results obtained through research conducted

by the University of New England (UNE) on behalf of WML were perhaps not supportive of WMLs

claim that WSW restoration was achievable. Among others, I cited a recently published paper by

9

Gross and Vary (2014) which reported depauperate species diversity in WSW restoration trials,

skewed towards exotic species. Concluding sentiments in that and other papers (e.g. Fatemi et. al.

2012, 2013; Taylor 2010) were clearly that more research is required before we can confidently claim

to restore WSW to match reference sites.

28. In response, WML claimed that “the research papers outlined by Bell are only part of the WSW story”.

No attempt was made to counter my point in any way, so I can only assume that my initial sentiments

were correct. The fact remains that research sanctioned by WML indicated that successful

restoration of WSW to a pre-disturbance state in former grazing lands is currently unachievable,

and considerably more research is required: a further indication in which to apply the precautionary

principle to proposed clearing of WSW. The UNE results should not be ignored, but accepted as fact:

we cannot at present successfully restore WSW on former grazing land.

29. I have read through the WSW Restoration Manual prepared by Niche Environmental (2013), and

despite claims that this document incorporates the results of all research conducted by UNE, it seems

to have been selective in the information that it contains, presenting only the positive outcomes. It

does acknowledge the UNE survival trials when preparing suggested species lists for rehabilitation,

and outline basic tube planting procedures and topsoil management supported by UNE. However,

there is no mention of the role in seed dispersal by ants (Taylor 2010) nor other seed bank dispersal

issues raised in Gross and Vary (2014), which will impact on the success of restoration attempts.

There does seem to be some confusion over the application of mulch to planted tube stock, in one

instance suggesting that mulch should be applied to 10cm depth and to 30cm around the base of

stems (Section 5.1.2 of the WSW Restoration Manual), yet on the following page it specifies that

mulch be removed from this 30cm zone at planting. This should be clarified and corrected in the

WSW Restoration Manual.

30. Inevitably, the claims that all of the UNE research outcomes have been incorporated into the WSW

Restoration Manual are misleading, and fail to acknowledge and address restoration problems.

6.3 Canopy Planting Density

31. Part of the proposed offset package for WSW includes the rehabilitation of a disused sand quarry in

the SBA (Appendix B: Local Offsets Management Plan). The LOMP document proposes a canopy

planting density of 800 trees per hectare for this rehabilitation, which equates to one tree every

3.5m, or one per 13m2. I consider this to be inappropriate for the re-establishment of a woodland

community, and a more realistic figure would be one tree every 15m, or 50 trees per hectare. By

definition, ‘woodland’ refers to a vegetation type where trees are widely spaced and their crowns do

not touch (Lindenmayer et. al. 2005). Observations made by me in other parts of the Hunter Valley

in other endangered woodland communities suggests that individual trees occur between 15 and

30m apart.

32. Paragraph 4 of the Final Determination for WSW states: ”Warkworth Sands Woodland is generally of

woodland to low woodland structure” (my emphasis). Clearly, trees planted at densities of one every

3.5m will result in the growth of forest vegetation, not woodland. I am concerned that rehabilitation

of this quarry, and elsewhere in the SBA and NBA, will ultimately produce forest vegetation with

poorly developed understorey due to over-shading by a dense canopy. Such high planting densities

will affect the composition and structure of the understorey, which may not accurately reflect that

present within reference sites of WSW.

33. To counter this over-planting of canopy species, Yoda’s Law of Thinning, or competition-induced

thinning (Yoda et. al. 1963), suggests that over time, natural attrition of canopy species will ultimately

10

produce the desired tree spacing. However, this is a complex process which may take many decades

or centuries, and the self-thinning actions have been shown to vary between species and differing

growth environments (Weller 1987; Carleton & Wannamaker 1987). In his recent review of the

influence of plant architecture on competition, Ford (2014) concluded that we have little knowledge

on the effects different structural features of plants have on competition, and that further work is

required on tree biology (metabolism and water conduction) to advance understanding. In short,

Yoda’s Law cannot be universally applied to all species and situations, and we cannot assume that

over-planting of canopy species in a forest format will be naturally corrected to woodland over time.

34. Further on this point, woodland trees are typically shorter than they are tall (broad in overall outline),

which is a direct reflection of the conditions in which those trees were grown. In open environments,

there are no limitations to leaf and branch development, so branches tend to be wide and spreading.

When grown in closer proximities, trees will inevitably grow narrow and tall in their competition for

light, leading to a tall forest of trees rather than a woodland. This is basic fact of plant growth. The

planting of canopy species at intervals of 3.5m will not produce the woodland required for WSW.

35. In relation to completion criteria and reaching benchmark figures, planting of canopy species at high

density will prematurely expedite progress towards benchmark values, with % cover values per

assessment plot quickly reached. In my view, this is not appropriate, and completion criteria should

have built into assessments recognition of the influence of higher planting densities on achieved

cover values.

36. If the proposed project proceeds, the opportunity will be available to attempt return of ‘woodland’

vegetation to former grazing lands, and it would be disappointing to find that over-planting of canopy

species has led to a dense forest type which barely resembles WSW.

6.4 Use of Fire to Control Regrowth

37. The LOMP document (Appendix B, Response to Submissions) discusses the potential problem of

excessive regrowth of Callitris and Allocasuarina within restored areas, and the use of fire as a

measure ‘to unlock’ these areas from an ‘unnatural state’. While I understand the reasoning behind

this argument, I am concerned that the use of fire will not open up the vegetation as intended, but

will instead exacerbate the problem.

38. Most Allocasuarina species are fire-sensitive (killed), and respond through the release of seed by

dried out cones, usually within a week or two of fire. For example, Benson & McDougall (1995) and

Clarke et. al. (2010) document mass seed release from stands of Allocasuarina littoralis after fire had

stimulated seed release, and also point out that this species is a common coloniser of disturbed

ground. Observations I have made around the Hunter Valley also suggest that Allocasuarina

luehmanii behaves in a similar way following disturbance. Both of these species are present within

and surrounding WSW.

39. Callitris endlicheri and C. glaucophylla, also present in and around WSW, are fire sensitive, but their

potential for dominance following disturbance is lessened through slower growth rates (Lunt at. al.

2011). In addition, Hunter (2011) has documented that increasing cover abundance of Callitris

glaucophylla is positively correlated to increasing species diversity, and it may not be necessary to

control stands of this species in WSW.

40. The use of fire as a management tool should be carefully assessed prior to use, to avoid the situation

where vigorous invasion of Allocasuarina species eventuates at the expense of other diversity.

11

6.5 Weed Control

41. The LOMP document (Appendix B, Response to Submissions) also discusses the control of weed

species throughout the proposed restoration lands. Priority noxious and environmental weeds are

listed in Table 14 of that document, and control will be prioritised “to declared noxious weed species

under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 and environmental weeds listed in Table 14”. I note that Red Natal

Grass (Melinis repens) is not included in this list, but this species is widespread and abundant across

grassland areas proposed for restoration, at least in the NBA. I suspect that Red Natal Grass will

continue to cause problems during the restoration phase of WSW, and I am concerned that control

of this weed will not be undertaken in lieu of other higher priority species.

7. Monitoring of Restoration

42. The WSW Restoration Manual (Niche 2013) and the Local Offsets Management Plan (LOMP) both

discuss the monitoring of restoration efforts, and it appears that the latter document replicates

information presented in the former. In most cases, I will defer to the Niche (2013) document in

discussions.

7.1 Reference & Transformation Sites

43. In total, 10 monitoring sites have been established within WSW: five in Reference sites in the NBA

and SBA, and five in Transformation areas of the NBA and SBA. The five Reference sites are to provide

‘baseline’ data against which the progression of Transition sites can be measured. I have several

concerns about the quality of these Reference sites.

44. Two of these Reference sites (Site 1 and Site 4) are situated in areas that do not represent true WSW.

In his judgement, Justice Preston agreed with me that areas formerly mapped as WSW by WML were

more likely to be other non-WSW ecological communities than WSW, and yet these two Reference

sites have been placed there. I believe that these two sites will provide misleading data, and will not

guide the restored grasslands appropriately.

45. In the LOMP document (Section 2.4.2, Appendix B, Response to Submissions), it is admitted that

these two Reference sites have been incorrectly cited: “reference plots 1 and 4 are located on

vegetation mapped as CHGBIW [Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland] however is

considered to be a sub community of WSW, as described in the NSW Scientific Committee (2002) final

determination”. I find this statement blatantly incorrect and misleading. WML seem to be implying

here that any vegetation referable to CHGBIW is actually a ‘sub community’ of WSW: does that mean

the ~47,000 hectares of CHGBIW outlined by NSW Scientific Committee (2011a) is actually a sub-

community of WSW? There is no reference to such a suggestion in NSW Scientific Committee (2002)

or the update in NSW Scientific Committee (2011b), nor in NSW Scientific Committee (2011a) for

that matter: CHGBIW is a completely separate endangered community which bears no relationship

to WSW. I can only think that this statement has been added to the LOMP to justify the poor

placement of two of the five Reference sites (1 & 4). These two reference sites should be replaced

with new sites.

46. Collectively, the five WSW Reference sites (each of 20 x 20m in size) support an average of 22 native

plant species per plot (range: 15-31). If Reference sites 1 and 4 are removed (as these are apparently

CHGBIW, not WSW), then the average drops to 21 native species per plot. I am concerned that, if

taken as benchmark values, these figures will not give a true representation of the level of species

12

diversity that should be aimed for in WSW restoration activities. In support of this claim, the twelve

plots (20 x 20m) that I have sampled within WSW (as reported in Bell 2012) range from 23-40 species

per plot, with an average of 31 native species per plot. This represents ~ 30% more species per plot

in my own data compared to the Reference data. In terms of providing benchmark data, these five

Reference sites do not appear to be very representative of other stands of WSW, and effectively

‘lower the bar’ in respect of meeting completion criteria for restoration (see later).

47. Currently, the five Transformation sites support an average of 8 native species per plot (range: 5-16),

or ~36% of the benchmark supplied by the Reference sites.

7.2 Benchmark Data

48. Under the BioMetric method, vegetation types in New South Wales have been attributed

‘benchmark’ values for a range of floristic and structural attributes. These benchmark values are

intended to be used as a measure of vegetation condition, against which existing or developing

ecosystems can be assessed. Ideally, benchmark values will be based on categorical and quantitative

data for all vegetation types, but inevitably this is not the case for all vegetation types.

49. For the Hunter Valley (which includes vegetation type HU600: Rough-barked Apple - Coast Banksia

shrubby woodland on Warkworth Sands of the central Hunter Valley, Sydney Basin), benchmark data

was based on expert review (Ayers et. al. undated), which in turn was reliant on data available from

the then incomplete remnant vegetation study of Peake (2006). No revision to these benchmarks has

been done since initial establishment, but is well overdue given the availability of considerable new

data. For example, the revised Hunter classification (Somerville 2009) shows species richness of 29

species per assessment plot for HU600, which is an increase of three from the existing benchmark of

26 species per plot.

50. Benchmark vales for vegetation type HU600 are provided in the LOMP document, and it is against

these values that satisfactory restoration will be measured. I have considerable concerns about the

use of these values, particularly in regard to whether or not these benchmarks, or those recorded for

the Reference sites, will be used to measure restoration success. For example, the current

benchmark value for ‘native species richness’ (number of native species per assessment plot) is 26.

The Reference plots established by WML returned an average of only 22 species per plot, with only

one of these (Reference Site 1), exceeding benchmark. Four of the five Reference sites established

by WML show below-benchmark values for species richness, and indeed also for % cover of native

mid storey, % cover of native grass cover, and % cover of native shrubs (Section 2.4.2, LOMP

document): clearly, these sites have been poorly chosen and are not representative of good quality

WSW. Additionally, I would argue that the single site that exceeds benchmark (Reference site 1: 31

species) is floristically not WSW but is dominated by Eucalyptus crebra, and is representative of other

Central Hunter communities.

51. As a consequence of these concerns, I strongly believe that new Reference sites for WSW need to

be established prior to monitoring and assessment of restoration progress.

7.3 Monitoring Methods

52. The WSW Restoration Manual (Appendix A, Response to Submissions) promotes a system of

monitoring that is based heavily on the BioMetric or BioBanking methodology (Gibbons et. al. 2005):

“This Manual will rely on BioBanking as a rigorous field methodology to collect and monitor changes

in the key vegetation structure and species composition characteristics.” BioMetric is now widely

13

used for vegetation and habitat condition assessment; however, I believe that it is not suitable for

repeated monitoring. I will outline my reasoning further.

53. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has recently introduced a standard approach for the

assessment of vegetation (Sivertsen 2010), and the approach adopted therein fundamentally differs

from that in BioMetric. Specifically, Sivertsen (2010) advocates the measuring of plant abundance by

counting individual stems (tallies >20 are estimated to the nearest 10 or 50), while BioMetric

promotes the estimation of % cover abundance values, assessed subjectively.

54. For repeated monitoring, measuring individual plant abundance is a superior and more repeatable

method than the estimation of % cover. It is difficult to understand why OEH promotes two markedly

different techniques for vegetation assessment, yet the most appropriate for repeated monitoring

(Sivertsen 2010) is overlooked in favour of BioMetric when undertaking biobanking assessments and

other conservation initiatives (e.g. the Upper Hunter Strategic Assessments).

55. Throughout the WML documentation, the use of Braun-Blanquet cover abundance values are

advocated for assessing the abundance of plant species in proposed monitoring programs (e.g.

Section 5.3.1 in LOMP). I have argued elsewhere (including in my presentation at the Tom Farrell

Institute Best Practice Ecological Rehabilitation Conference this year) that using such methods is

inappropriate for monitoring projects where repeated visits to a site are required. This is particularly

so with the potential for differing observers to be undertaking the monitoring, and the differing

climatic conditions experienced from year to year.

56. The Braun-Blanquet cover estimation method was designed for vegetation classification, not

vegetation monitoring. They are two entirely different processes: the first classifies vegetation into

different types (such as WSW), the second tracks the health and condition of that type. The Australian

Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook (2009) states that “If the objectives of the survey are narrowly

focused and looking for fine levels of discrimination (e.g. site-based monitoring), then actual

quantitative measurements are more appropriate than class values” (p 87). Quantitative measures

are not collected using the Braun-Blanquet technique.

57. I do appreciate that the Braun-Blanquet estimation method is currently the accepted way that many

monitoring projects are completed, and indeed is advocated as an alternative in the recent DPI Best

Practice Guidelines for Offset Monitoring. However, the estimation of cover abundance values by

eye is highly subjective and variable, difficult to repeat, and certainly problematic to audit.

Introducing quantitative measures into repeated monitoring projects is clearly warranted, yet it is

likely a problem that is wider than the current issue.

58. In relation to the proposed WSW monitoring, I believe that a more quantitative approach to data

collection is required to assess the progress of WSW restoration, although given the poorly designed

completion criteria that have been proposed (see following), this may be seen as unnecessary.

7.4 Completion Criteria for WSW

59. The LOMP document (Appendix B, Response to Submissions) details the proposed Completion

Criteria (CC) for WSW and other vegetation types. I consider these CC to be particularly poor and

uninformative, and require substantial revision for them to become acceptable. For example, CC for

the first three years of restoration simply involve the translocation of salvaged resources, planting

where required, and monitoring of survival (Section 4.2.4 of LOMP). There is no detail as to what

results need to be met for sites to be deemed acceptable at Year 2, Year 3 etc. What level of survival

of planted stock is acceptable (100% survival, 70% survival, 50% survival?); what level of weed

14

invasion or persistence is acceptable; how effective do weed control activities need to be; how many

native understorey species are required to be present in these early years to be deemed acceptable?

60. Of greatest concern, however, is the statement listed in Section 4.2.4 for the final CC of restored

WSW: “Ecological monitoring demonstrates a positive trend towards the reference site or the NSW

Biometric HU600 for all attributes measured over three consecutive assessments” (my emphasis).

What exactly is a ‘positive trend’? For example, the planting and survival of canopy stock (Angophora

floribunda) in former grassland can be seen as a ‘positive trend’, so this attribute (i.e. a canopy

dominated by Angophora floribunda) will be met from the end of the third year of restoration.

61. Irrespective of the benchmark values documented for HU600 or the Reference sites established,

these CC require only a ‘positive trend towards’ these benchmark values. So in terms of native species

richness, there is no requirement for restored WSW to achieve the benchmark value of 22

(Reference sites) or 26 (HU600) native species per assessment plot, only to show a ‘positive trend

towards’ that value over three years. This requirement to show a ‘positive trend towards’ is repeated

for all other CC criteria involving BioMetric attributes (% overstorey cover, % shrub cover, etc).

62. As an example, Transformation site 3 currently supports 5 native species (Cynodon dactylon.

Cymbopogon refractus, Sporobolus creber, Chrysocephalum apiculatum & Cheilanthes sieberi:

Appendix A in LOMP). Over the next three years monitoring of this site may show native species to

grow to 6, then 8, then 9 native species. Clearly, this is exhibiting a ‘positive trend towards’ the

benchmark value of 22 or 26 native species, even though it supports less a third of the expected

species richness for WSW. A restored site supporting only 9 native species, as discussed under this

scenario, should not meet CC for species richness.

63. In the above example, note that only two of the native species currently recorded for Transformation

site 3 are included in the list of characteristic species of WSW. This raises an additional problem in

the CC: do the native species present within a Transformation site need to be a characteristic WSW

species, or can they be any native species? As I understand the proposed monitoring methods, there

is no distinction between what is a native plant species, and what is a native species characteristic of

WSW. Scoring of non-characteristic WSW species in Transformation plots will consequently

contribute to meeting the current CC, even though they may not follow a ‘positive trend towards’

WSW. I see this as a major flaw in the current CC.

64. Completion criteria should entail a requirement for a specified number of WSW species to be present

in all Transformation sites, and these should be drawn from the characteristic species which typify

high quality WSW. Similarly, other structural attributes should be specifically listed in any CC (e.g. a

shrub density of 10 stems/0.04ha plot and height range of 0.5-1.5m, with key species identified).

Without such stringent conditions for CC, whatever restoration is achieved will likely show little

resemblance to WSW.

8. Best Practice Mine Rehabilitation Conference, 2014

65. In September this year, I attended the annual Best Practice Ecological Rehabilitation Conference at

Singleton hosted by the Tom Farrell Institute for the Environment, University of Newcastle. One of

the speakers at that conference was Mr Bill Baxter from Coal & Allied, with a talk entitled: “Coal &

Allied’s Recent Efforts to Restore Central Hunter Ironbark Communities”. In this talk, Mr Baxter

outlined the trials of attempting to restore Central Hunter endangered communities, and

15

emphasised the ongoing battle with weed species and the poor germination of several native species.

The overwhelming ‘take-home’ message from this talk was that there is still much to be learnt on

how to successfully and consistently create vegetation communities on mine spoil.

66. As I have alluded to on several occasions in the past, the science of successful mine rehabilitation is

well behind the policy. Given that this proposal includes the commitment by WML to rehabilitate

1,617 hectares of Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC, I am at a loss to know how this

is to be done when current techniques employed by WML staff themselves show inconsistent and

unreliable results.

67. The keynote speaker at the TFI Conference was Dr Peter Erskine from the Centre for Mined Land

Rehabilitation at the University of Queensland. In his overview of the past, present and future of

mine rehabilitation, Dr Erskine maintained that successful restoration of native vegetation

communities after mining is not possible. Instead, the creation of what he termed ‘novel

ecosystems’ is the best that can be expected: restoring native ecosystems is idealistic not practical.

Dr Erskine suggested that priorities in mine rehabilitation should instead focus on safe, stable, non-

polluting landscapes, rather than self-sustaining native communities. Promises of successful

restoration of endangered ecological communities, such as that proposed by WML, are unlikely to

be achieved.

9. Draft Conditions of Consent

68. In the Draft Conditions of Consent (CC) issued by DPE, the retirement of biodiversity credits under

the Biobanking Scheme has been stipulated for within 3 years of commencement of operations

(57,777 credits) and within 10 years of the completion of mining (11,204 credits). In respect to WSW,

no amount of credit retirement will conserve this community, and as I have discussed elsewhere

(Section 6), it is unlikely that successful restoration of this community can be achieved in the NBA

and SBA.

69. Prior to clearing of WSW, the CC also stipulate that an additional land-based offset of equal or greater

biodiversity value to the 72ha to be cleared must be identified and secured, to the satisfaction of the

Chief Executive of OEH. Again, this land-based offset will not contribute to the conservation of WSW

in any way.

70. Within 6 months of the commencement of development, the CC specify that WML develop ‘suitable

completion criteria to the satisfaction of OEH for determining the successful regeneration of the

Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC’ in the NBA and SBA within 15 years. The WSW Restoration Manual

(Niche 2013) and the Local Offsets Management Plan (LOMP) both discuss and outline completion

criteria, but as outlined in Section 7 I do not consider these to be adequate for determining success

(although OEH may hold a different view). The Niche (2013) document, prepared on behalf of WML,

also admits that fully functioning WSW cannot be readily created in the short-term (Section 1.2 of

the WSW Restoration Manual), so the development of criteria that satisfies this condition will

certainly be a challenge, and likely unattainable.

71. As I have discussed in Section 5, the $1 million contribution to the Save Our Species – Regent

Honeyeater conservation program (an additional WSW offset requirement in the CC) is not an

appropriate offset measure for WSW, as this species does not frequent or forage in this habitat to

16

any great degree. Once again, such a contribution does not conserve WSW in any way, nor does it

advance knowledge on WSW ecology.

10. Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report

72. The DPE have produced a Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report, as required under the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In this document they outline the reasons behind

their support and approval of the proposal.

73. WML argue that mining of areas supporting WSW is essential for economic and operational reasons,

which DPE accepts. Use of the existing drag lines to extract coal is preferred over truck and shovel

techniques, although presumably the latter can operate in a wider range of operating conditions than

a drag line.

74. Despite acknowledgement of the WML justification for clearing WSW, DPE claim that the productivity

and economical extraction of coal should not be the key reason for approval. Instead, they state (p.

48): “However, the Department believes that the key consideration of whether the Warkworth Sands

Woodland should be avoided is whether mining the Warkworth Sands Woodland would place the

community at a significant risk of extinction over the medium to long term. This consideration is in

part dependant on the proposed and potential offsetting measures for Warkworth Sands Woodland,

which are considered below” (my emphasis).

75. This document then outlines aspects of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy which I have previously

discussed, including: retirement of biodiversity credits, acquisition and securement of land-based

offsets elsewhere, development of performance criteria for WSW restoration, restoration of WSW

on former grazing lands in the NBA and SBA, lodgement of a $1 million incentive bond to be refunded

if WSW can be successfully restored on the NBA and SBA after 15 years, preparation of an integrated

management plan for WSW, and contribution of $1 million to the Regent Honeyeater SOS

conservation program.

76. The Secretary’s Report concludes on p. 53 that: “With the implementation of the proposed

Biodiversity Offset Strategy, the Department and OEH are satisfied that the project would not result

in the extinction of the Warkworth Sands Woodland EEC, given the occurrences of the EEC on the site

and in the general locality” (my emphasis). This presumably acknowledges the statement by WML in

their EIS which determined that the proposed clearing of 72 hectares (17%) of WSW would have a

significant impact on this EEC.

77. My major concern with this conclusion is that very few of the proposed offset measures will

satisfactorily mitigate the risk of extinction for WSW, despite the clearly stated belief of DPE. In my

understanding;

- retirement of biodiversity credits does not diminish the risk of extinction to WSW;

- purchase of land-based offsets elsewhere (irrespective of offset ratios of 9:1) does not diminish

the risk of extinction to WSW;

- promises of successful restoration of WSW on former grazing lands in the NBA and SBA does

not diminish the risk of extinction to WSW;

- preparation of performance criteria for WSW restoration efforts does not diminish the risk of

extinction to WSW;

17

- lodgement of $1 million as an incentive bond for successful restoration does not diminish the

risk of extinction to WSW;

- contribution of $1 million to the Regent Honeyeater SOS conservation program does not

diminish the risk of extinction to WSW.

78. Only the preparation of an Integrated Management Plan for WSW has some potential to reduce the

extinction risk on this community, but only if fully implemented by all stakeholders. Consequently, I

believe that the Department has not correctly answered its own key consideration into whether or

not WSW can be avoided: “whether mining the Warkworth Sands Woodland would place the

community at a significant risk of extinction over the medium to long term”. Only one of the proposed

7 offset measures has any potential to mitigate the impact of the clearing of 72 hectares of WSW,

and WSW remains at significant risk of extinction over the medium to long term as a result of the

proposed action.

79. Ultimately, mitigating the risk of extinction to WSW can only be accomplished by cessation of clearing

of remaining stands of this highly restricted community. If and when restoration of WSW can be

shown to be successful (which it has not to date), there may then be potential for further clearing to

be justified.

11. Conclusions

80. In summary, I have concerns with the current proposal in relation to the following points:

WML proposes as a high priority the nomination of WSW to the federal EPBC Act, yet continues

to push for the clearing of this factually Critically Endangered ecological community as part of

this proposal;

despite this desire to nominate WSW for federal protection, WML have at the same time

displayed a lack of understanding of the identity and significance of WSW, as evidenced in their

latest documentation which wrongly considers Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland a

sub-community of WSW;

instigating the Precautionary Principle is entirely applicable to the future of WSW, irrespective

of WMLs claims that it cannot be applied to only part of a ‘comprehensive offset package’. The

scientific uncertainty for successful restoration of WSW implores application of the Principle;

the $1 million Implementation Bond, proposed as a supplementary offset measure for WSW,

provides no certainty that successful WSW restoration can be achieved, when all that is required

is for restoration to ‘follow a trajectory towards a reference state’ after 15 years. More stringent

completion criteria, incorporating quantitative data collection, are required within this 15 year

period to ensure greater accountability;

the $1 million Save Our Species contribution to Regent Honeyeater conservation is inappropriate

as an offset measure for removal of WSW. This species does not frequent nor forage within

WSW to any great extent, and its inclusion as a WSW offset is misleading: it would be more

appropriate as an offset measure for Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland EEC;

WML, in their WSW Restoration Manual, admit that there is a low likelihood of success in the

restoration of WSW in grassland areas, which based on the available scientific evidence, will fail

to produce vegetation definable as WSW;

18

research on WSW restoration completed to date by the University of New England, funded by

WML, strongly suggests that successful restoration of WSW to a pre-disturbance state in former

grazing lands is currently unachievable. This is in keeping with the sentiments of WML outlined

in the WSW Restoration Manual, and the high priority push by WML for listing WSW as an

endangered community federally indicated in their Integrated Management Plan for WSW;

canopy planting densities proposed for restoration areas by WML will ultimately result in dense

forest communities, not woodlands referable to WSW. Such planting densities will also expedite

cover estimates prematurely towards benchmark values, meaning that completion criteria may

be reach sooner;

use of fire and priority in the treatment of weed species in restored areas requires careful

thought and some revision, prior to application of measures proposed in the Local Offsets

Management Plan;

Reference sites established by WML within WSW have been poorly cited and are not

representative of moderate-high quality WSW: new reference sites should be established. Two

of the five Reference sites do not fall within WSW (admitted by WML), and all of them support

below-benchmark values for species richness, % cover of native mid storey, % cover of native

grass cover, and % cover of native shrubs. These sites should not be used to track the progress

of restored WSW;

the WSW Restoration Manual primarily advocates the use of Biometric methods to monitor the

progress of restoration. Many of these methods are difficult to repeat and audit, are highly

subjective and qualitative, and modification to include the collection of quantitative data should

be undertaken. Cover estimates using the Braun-Blanquet system are inappropriate to use in

repeated monitoring of permanent sites;

proposed completion criteria are poor and uninformative, and require only that a positive trend

towards a WSW reference site be shown over three consecutive years: there is no requirement

for benchmark values to be met, only trending towards benchmark. Clarification is also required

as to whether or not any native species present within a Transformation site is considered a

positive trend, or if such species have to be characteristic of WSW;

as demonstrated by environmental staff from Coal & Allied at the annual Tom Farrell Institute

mine rehabilitation conference in September this year, there is still much to be learnt on how to

successfully and consistently create native vegetation communities on mine spoil. The science

of ecosystem restoration is well behind the policy that requires it. Dr Peter Erskine, keynote

speaker at that conference and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre

for Mined Land Rehabilitation, encapsulates this situation through his conclusions that

successful restoration of native vegetation communities after mining is just not possible; the

creation of ‘novel ecosystems’, in his words, is the best that can be expected. Replacing intact

WSW with novel ecosystems such as these is irresponsible for such a highly restricted and

critically endangered vegetation community;

the draft Conditions of Consent issued by DPE assumes that restoration of WSW will be

successfully accomplished, when there is much scientific evidence to suggest that this will not

be the case. I consider that the completion criteria proposed to track the progress of restoration

to be inadequate, and other measures in the proposed conditions do not protect and conserve

WSW in any way;

19

the Secretary’s Report prepared by DPE endorses the view of WML that exclusion of mining from

areas currently supporting WSW is not economically possible, and justifies this stance on the

Biodiversity Offset Package proposed. However, 6 of the 7 offset measures proposed in this

package offer nothing to ensure that the risk of extinction to WSW will be alleviated should the

proposal proceed (and the 7th will only contribute if fully implemented by all stakeholders). This

is despite assurances by DPE that the risk of extinction to WSW is of higher importance than

WML’s economic arguments in deciding the project outcome: using their own documented key

consideration, the proposal should be refused.

20

12. References

Ayers, D., Seddon, J., Briggs, S., Doyle, S., & Gibbons, P. (undated) Interim benchmarks for the BioMetric Tool.

Unpublished Report, New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation.

[http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/projects/BiometricTool.htm]

Bell, S.A.J. (2012) Expert Report: Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association v Minister for Planning and

Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited. Land and Environment Court Proceedings No: 10224 of

2012. Unpublished Report to EDO NSW, July 2012.

Benson, D. & McDougall, L. (1995) Ecology of Sydney plant species. Part 3: Dicotyledon families

Cabombaceae to Eupomatiaceae. Cunninghamia 4(2): 217-431.

Carleton, T.J. & Wannamaker, B.A. (1987) Mortality and self-thinning in post-fire black spruce. Annals of

Botany 59: 621-628.

Clarke, P.J., Knox, K.J.E., & Butler, D. (2010) Fire intensity, serotiny and seed release in 19 woody species:

evidence for risk spreading among wind-dispersed and resprouting syndromes. Australian Journal of

Botany 58(8): 629-636.

Fatemi, M., Haddadchi, A & C.L. Gross (2012) The discovery of microsatellite markers for Hardenbergia

violacea (Fabaceae), using next-generation sequencing. Conservation Genetics Resources 4: 1063-

1065.

Fatemi, M., Houliston, G.J., Haddadchi, A & C.L. Gross (2013) Cost-effective microsatellite markers for Banksia

integrifolia (Proteaceae). Applications in Plant Sciences 1(2): 1200130 [doi:10.3732/apps.1200130].

Ford, E.D. (2014) The dynamic relationship between plant architecture and competition. Frontiers in Plant

Science 5: 1-13 (Article 275)

Gibbons, P., Ayers, D., Seddon, J., Doyle, S., & Briggs, S. (2005) BioMetric Version 1.8. A Terrestrial Biodiversity

Assessment Tool for the NSW Property Vegetation Plan Developer. Operational Manual. Department

of Environment and Conservation (NSW). Canberra.

Gross, C.L., & Vary, L.B. (2014) Arrested recovery in a sandy woodland correlates with a lack of heavy and

long seeds in the seed bank. Ecosphere 5(6):70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00020.1

Lindenmayer, D., Crane, M., & Michael, D. (2005) Woodlands, a disappearing landscape CSIRO Publishing.

Lunt, I.D., Zimmer, H.C. & Cheal, D.C. (2011) The tortoise and the hare? Post-fire regeneration in mixed

Eucalyptus-Callitris forest. Australian Journal of Botany 59(6): 575-581.

McDougall, K.L. & Morgan, J.W. (2005) Establishment of native grassland vegetation at Organ Pipes National

Park near Melbourne, Victoria: Vegetation changes from 1989 to 2003. Ecological Management &

Restoration 6 (1), 34-42.

Menkhorst, P., Schedvin, N., & Geering, D. (1999) Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1999 – 2003. Natural

Heritage Trust.

Niche Environment & Heritage (2013) Warkworth Sand Woodlands Restoration Manual. Prepared for Coal &

Allied Industries Limited. [Appendix A in Response to Submissions]

NSW Scientific Committee (2002) Warkworth Sands Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion – Final

Determination as an endangered ecological community. NSW Scientific Committee.

21

NSW Scientific Committee (2011a) Central Hunter Grey Box – Ironbark Woodland in the NSW North Coast

and Sydney Basin Bioregions - Final Determination as an endangered ecological community. NSW

Scientific Committee.

NSW Scientific Committee (2011b) Warkworth Sands Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion -

Determination to make a minor amendment to Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Threatened Species

Conservation Act. NSW Scientific Committee.

Oliver, D.L. (2000) Foraging behaviour and resource selection of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia

in Northern New South Wales. Emu 100: 12-30.

Peake, T.C. (2006) The Vegetation of the Central Hunter Valley, New South Wales. A report on the findings of

the Hunter Remnant Vegetation Project. Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority,

Paterson.

Sivertsen, D (2010) Native Vegetation Interim Type Standard. Department of Environment, Climate Change

and Water NSW, Sydney.

Somerville, M. (2009) Hunter, Central & Lower North Coast Vegetation Classification & Mapping Project

Volume 2: Vegetation Community Profiles. Report prepared by HCCREMS/Hunter Councils

Environment Division for Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Tocal, NSW.

Story, R., Galloway, R.W., van de Graaff, R.H.M. & Tweedie, A.D. (1963) General Report on the Lands of the

Hunter Valley. Land Research Series No. 8. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation, Melbourne.

Taylor, J. (2010) The role of ants as seed dispersers in the Warkworth Sands Woodlands, and their use as

bioindicators of ecosystem restoration success. Thesis. University of New England, Armidale, New

South Wales, Australia.

Weller, D.E. (1987) A re-evaluation of the -3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Ecological Monographs 57:

23-43.

Wilkins, S., Keith, D.A., & Adam, P. (2003) Measuring success: Evaluating the restoration of a grassy eucalypt

woodland on the Cumberland Plain, Sydney, Australia. Restoration Ecology 11(4): 489-503.

Yoda, K., Kira, T., Ogawa, H., & Hozumi, K. (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated

and natural conditions. Journal of Biology Osaka City University 14: 107-129.

22

Appendices

Appendix 1. EDO Letter of Instruction

23

24

25

26

27

28

Appendix 2. Dr Stephen Bell (Resume)

CONTACT DETAILS

Eastcoast Flora Survey PO Box 216 KOTARA FAIR NSW 2289

Telephone: (02) 4953 6523 Mobile:

Profile: http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/stephen-bell2/

Conjoint Fellow School of Environmental & Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 ([email protected])

Profile: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/stephen-bell December 2014

PRÉCIS Stephen has been involved in native vegetation survey, classification and mapping in the Greater Sydney and Hunter Regions since 1990. During this time, he has undertaken comprehensive surveys for the National Parks and Wildlife Service in over 30 conservation reserves, and has been contracted to the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage as Senior Botanist and Team Leader for several large scale regional projects within the Sydney Basin bioregion. Under contract to local Councils, Stephen has co-ordinated and completed LGA-wide vegetation classification and mapping projects for Wyong, Gosford, Cessnock, Pittwater and Lake Macquarie LGAs, and has assisted in similar mapping projects for Blue Mountains LGA. Stephen has also completed several studies on Endangered Ecological Communities and threatened plant species, and published the results of some of these in the scientific literature.

On behalf of the Ecological Society of Australia, Stephen was the ecological expert on the Hunter Regional Vegetation Committee (2003), and is a past member of the Hunter Threatened Flora Recovery Team, and a founding member of the Hunter Rare Plants Committee (a sub-committee of the Hunter Region Botanic Gardens). He is also often called upon by Government for advice regarding the significance of vegetation communities and plant species within the northern Sydney Basin bioregion, and has sat on numerous expert panels in this regard. Stephen has been called upon as an Expert Witness for several cases heard in the NSW Land and Environment Court, where his knowledge on the vegetation of the Sydney Basin bioregion has been used to argue contentious land-use decisions.

Stephen has published several scientific papers on various aspects of the vegetation of the Sydney Basin, including classifications of vegetation within conservation reserves, threatened and rare plant species, and the description of new plant species. Stephen has completed nearly 4000 standard full floristic sampling plots within the Sydney Basin, which are stored and used in classification analyses for many projects. Other skills include extensive multivariate data analysis experience, and GIS mapping. Stephen’s PhD thesis, completed on a part-time basis through the University of Newcastle, presented improvements in the recognition, identification and classification of restricted and significant vegetation communities, such as Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs).

In October 1996, Stephen established Eastcoast Flora Survey, a specialist botanical consultancy providing high quality services to government and the private sector.

http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/stephen-bell2/mailto:[email protected]://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/stephen-bell

29

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), 2013 Defining and mapping rare vegetation communities: Improving techniques

to assist land-use planning and conservation (University of Newcastle)

Bachelor of Science (Honours), 1991 Effects of the weed Scotch Broom on bird communities in open forests on Barrington Tops (University of Newcastle)

Bachelor of Science, 1989 Majors in Geography and Biology (University of Newcastle)

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Eastcoast Flora Survey Consultant Botanist (Principal) Oct. 1996 - Present Ecotone Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Manager - Flora Studies Jan. 1996 - Oct. 1996 Private Ecological Consultant Sole trader Jan. 1991 - Dec. 1995 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Project Officer Sept. 1993 - Jan. 1994 University of Newcastle, Geography Dept. Field Tutor (Scientific) July 1993 - Aug. 1993 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Project Officer Jan. 1993 - June 1993 University of NSW, School of Biol. Sciences Research Assistant (Bird ecology) Sept. 1992 - Jan. 1993 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Technical Officer (Scientific) Jan. 1992 - June 1992 RZ Mines (Newcastle) Environmental Research Officer Oct. 1990 - Dec. 1991 Wayne Perry & Associates P/L Environmental Officer (Casual) June 1990 - Oct. 1990

RESEARCH INTERESTS Vegetation classification and mapping, at local and regional scales Definition and mapping of rare and threatened vegetation communities Restoration of threatened grassy woodlands from derived grasslands Improving data sampling methods for monitoring and classification Re-constructing vegetation distribution using information from historical botanical explorers Population ecology and habitat of rare and threatened plants Taxonomy and significance of Hunter Region plants

MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS Committee Member, NSW Species Technical Group, Flora (Save Our Species Program) (2014-)

Ecological Society of Australia representative on the Hunter Regional Vegetation Committee (2001-2003)

SIGNIFICANT CONSULTANCIES Tablelands Snow Gum TEC: Field Survey & Classification Analysis, Southern Tablelands, New South Wales. A project

for the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage and NSW Scientific Committee (2014)

Vegetation survey, classification and mapping of the Singleton Army Training Area, a project for the Department of Defence (2011-12).

Attribution of endemic Hunter Region vegetation communities into the NSW Vegetation Classification & Assessment (NSW VCA Database), a project for the Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority & the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust (2011).

Consultant Lead Botanist for Revised Classification and Mapping of Wollemi National Park, a project for Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008-2013).

30

Consultant Lead Botanist for Native Vegetation of the Putty Valley, a project for Department of Environment and Climate Change & Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority (2007-2008).

Consultant Lead Botanist for Native Vegetation of the Northern Hawkesbury LGA, a project for Department of Environment and Climate Change & Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority (2007-2008).

Consultant Lead Botanist for Native Vegetation of Yengo and Parr Reserves and Surrounds, a project for Department of Environment & Climate Change (2006-2007).

Review of Central Coast Vegetation Communities for Department of Environment and Climate Change bioregional conservation assessments (2007).

Member of Steering Committee (and co-supervisor of Newcastle University Honours student) for the CCCEN NSW Wetland Action Grants-funded project on “Biodiversity assessment and conservation of hanging swamps on the Central Coast Plateau, NSW” (2004).

Founding member of Hunter Region Botanic Gardens' Hunter Region Rare Plants Committee (2000-present).

Consultant botanist for Vegetation survey and analysis of Warragamba Special Area and Lake Burragorang catchment (incorporating Blue Mountains, Kanangra-Boyd & Nattai National Parks, and Yerranderie, Burragorang & Nattai SRA’s) for National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Sydney Catchment Authority (2001-2002).

Consultant Botanist/ Vegetation Mapping Consultant (Hunter Region) for NPWS CRA Lower North East (south of the Hunter). 1998-1999.

Consultant Botanist/ Vegetation Mapping Consultant for Lower Hunter & Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy for National Parks and Wildlife Service CRA Unit & Department of Urban Affairs & Planning. 1998-1999.

MEMBERSHIP OF EXPERT PANELS Commonwealth Department of the Environments Hunter Valley Woodlands Expert Technical Workshop (2014)

Hunter Councils Biodiversity Modelling & Prioritisation: Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast Region of New South Wales Technical Review Workshop (2014)

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Hunter Valley Grasslands Expert Panel & Workshop (2013)

Lake Macquarie City Council Grevillea parviflora Expert Panel & Workshop (2013)

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Priority Action Statements for Threatened Species Expert Panel (2012)

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Review of Benchmarks for Greater Hunter Vegetation Classification Expert Panel (2012)

Hunter-Central Rivers CMA’s Hunter Vegetation and the NSWVCA Expert Panel (2009)

Port Stephens Shire Council Conservation Assessment Database Expert Panel (2009)

Lake Macquarie City Council Tetratheca juncea Expert Panel & Workshop (2009)

NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change Climate Change & Biodiversity Impacts Expert Panel (2008)

Hunter-Central Rivers CMA’s Vegetation Classification Expert Panel (2008)

Ecological Expert for the HotSpots Fire Project, Hawkesbury Pilot Program (2007)

Hunter Valley Threatened Flora Recovery Team Technical Advisor (2006-7)

Kurri Sands Swamp Woodland EEC Recovery Team Member (2005)

Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority Regionally Significant Vegetation Expert Panel (2005)

NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources High Conservation Value Vegetation Expert Panel advising the Hunter Regional Vegetation Committee (2003)

Environment Australia's Expert Panel for the Lower North-east CRA division (1998)

31

CONFERENCE & WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS Best Practice Mine Rehabilitation Conference, September 2014, Singleton, NSW; The Tom Farrell Institute for the

Environment, University of Newcastle: “Effective Biodiversity Offsets: Improving planning, valuation and monitoring practice” (with Martin Fallding).

Plant Identification for Flora of the Hunter Valley, 7th - 8th April 2014, Kurri Kurri, Australian Network for Plant Conservation: “Introduction to the flora of the Hunter Valley - history, diversity and ecology”.

HOTSPOTS Fire Project: Awabakal and Worimi Fire Forum, 27th July 2011, Williamtown, Never Never Resources: “Vegetation of the Worimi Conservation Lands”.

HOTSPOTS Fire Project: Wanaruah Fire Forum, 17th – 19th August 2010, Sandy Hollow, Upper Hunter Valley, Nature Conservation Council: “Vegetation of Wanaruah Lands, Sandy Hollow”.

Coastal Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Workshop, 3rd – 4th September 2009, South West Rocks, NSW (Geoscience Australia): “Surveying, classifying and mapping vegetation on the Tomago Sandbeds”.

Vegetation Management and Biodiversity Conservation in the Hunter Region, May 2000, Singleton, NSW (Hunter Env