Hexham Train Facility

Coal train company QR National has applied to the NSW Government for approval to construct ten new railway lines at Hexham, parallel to the existing rail track. If approved, this development will significantly encroach on the internationally-significant Hexham Wetlands.



Key points

* The proposal would have unacceptable impacts on the health of local residents, through increased noise, vibration, and air pollution from coal trains. Diesel exhaust was recently listed as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organisation. Coal dust itself is believed to have significant impacts on health.

* The proposal would encroach on the Hexham Wetlands, which provide important habitat for many migratory bird species. Recently, the endangered Australian Painted Snipe has been recorded in the wetlands.

* The proposal would clear an area of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains, and an area of SEPP 14 Wetlands that are supposed to be protected by state legislation. The proposed development footprint is immediately adjacent to the Hunter Wetlands National Park.

* Hexham Wetland is important habitat to globally important bird species, and is recognised in international bilateral migratory bird protection agreements with Japan, China, and the Republic of Korea.

* The proposal would undermine the multi-million dollar tax-payer funded restoration program of the Hexham Wetlands, which is in its final stages. This is the largest wetland rehabilitation project carried out in the Southern Hemisphere.

* Hexham Wetlands provide essential habitat for economically important fisheries. In 1999 NSW Fisheries calculated a high dollar value per hectare per annum of $19,580 on the Hexham Wetlands.

* The proposal would encroach into "High Hazard", "Very High Hazard" and "Extreme Hazard" Flood Zones.

* The proposal would encroach into part of " The Stockton to Watagans Conservation Green Corridor," areas put aside for protection by the NSW Planning Department in its "Lower Hunter Regional Strategy".

* There are alternative sites for this development. The proponent appears to have chosen this location due to convenience and cost factors, with disregard to the major environmental impacts.


Cheers from Newcastle

We are writing to complain about the QR National Train Support project.
The project is going to increase traffic conjestion, which is already a problem on Maitland Rd, Hexham & the New England Hwy at Hexham & Tarro.
The amount of land fill proposed over the entire project is going to cause flooding in the Hexham swamp & more cause flow on flooding in Old Maitland Rd, Hexham - which already goes under water in periods of extended rain. There is no drainage plan shown on UHVA or QR Nationals plans.
The access off the Tarro interchange will create more traffic backing up along the New England Hwy at Tarro - the traffic backs up over the Tarro railway line in peak traffic and there are going to be more rear end accidents.
The project will cause major problems with dust & noise in the Hexham vicinity, with train brakes screeching as they pull off the main rail lines. Just recently the trees which screen the rail line have been all taken out, so there is no buffer zone. The project plan does not show any trees or shrubs being planted to help disguise the mess.
In summary, we oppose the plan on the basis of flooding, noise & dust, bad access to the site.
Regards,
Glenn Lynch.

On behalf of the Estate of Mary Lynch, I am writing to oppose the QR National train support project.

I oppose it due to the proposed filling of land will force water onto surrounding properties.

I oppose it due to dust & noise created from the train support facility.

I oppose it due to the inadequate access off the New England Hwy at Tarro.

I can be contacted by email if you require any further details from me.

Thanks
Helen Lynch- Foster

By the end of 2014 Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group ("NCIG") will have spent approximately$2.5 billion constructing a 66 million tonnes per annum coal export terminal at the Port of Newcastle. To enable the export facilities in Newcastle to operate effectively and to their maximum potential, it is essential that enhancements are made to the Hunter Valley rail infrastructure. The planned QR National Train Service Facility ("TSF") at Hexham has been identified by the Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator as a critical component of the Hunter Valley coal chain which will contribute to reducing train congestion in the system and enable increased throughputs in the coal chain.

Over recent years the significant investment in all sections of the coal chain includes expansion of mine sites, development of new mine sites, additional rail providers and more above rail infrastructure with new wagons and locomotives, as well as increasing of port terminal capacity and port infrastructure. The below rail systems have been investing but need to complete additional work to relieve the existing constraints in the rail network. This QRN TSF is needed and will assist in reducing rail network congestion and improve the throughput capability of the other new facilities that are being underutilised. Assistance in providing prompt planning approvals to allow construction to commence as soon as possible will assist entire coal chain.

The proposed Hexham location is beside the main corridor rail track which connects the NCIG terminal to most of its supply mines, and is therefore appropriate for such a service facility. Operation of the proposed TSF is consistent with the NCIG export terminal, and will assist NCIG achieve its full potential.
From NCIG's perspective, the TSF is needed now, and the sooner the TSF is operational, the better it will be for NCIG operations.

NCIG strongly supports the TSF proposal as a facility which is required to enable the coal chain to meet the current and growing demand for export coal from Newcastle.

The proposal would have unacceptable impacts on the health of local residents, through increased noise, vibration, and air pollution from coal trains. Diesel exhaust was recently listed as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organisation. Coal dust itself is believed to have significant impacts
on health.

The proposal would encroach on the Hexham Wetlands, which provide important habitat for many migratory bird species. Recently, the endangered Australian Painted Snipe has been recorded in the wetlands.

The proposal would clear an area of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains, and an area of SEPP 14 Wetlands that are supposed to be protected by state legislation. The proposed development footprint is immediately adjacent to the Hunter
Wetlands National Park.

Hexham Wetland is important habitat to globally important bird species, and is recognised in international bilateral migratory bird protection agreements with Japan, China, and the Republic of Korea.

The proposal would undermine the multi-million dollar tax-payer funded restoration program of the Hexham Wetlands, which is in its final stages. This is the largest wetland rehabilitation project carried out in the Southern Hemisphere.

Hexham Wetlands provide essential habitat for economically important fisheries. In 1999 NSW Fisheries calculated a high dollar value per hectare per annum of $19,580 on the Hexham Wetlands.

The proposal would encroach into "High Hazard", "Very High Hazard" and "Extreme Hazard" Flood Zones.

The proposal would encroach into part of " The Stockton to Watagans Conservation Green Corridor," areas put aside for protection by the NSW Planning Department in its "Lower Hunter Regional Strategy".

There are alternative sites for this development. The proponent appears to have chosen this location due to convenience and cost factors, with disregard to the major environmental impacts.

The Green Corridor Coalition strongly opposes the QRNational proposal to build a Train Support Facility (TSF) that incorporates land containing SEPP 14 wetlands, three Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC) and zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The proposed TSF is obviously too large for the available area zoned IN3 Heavy Industry and threatens to set a dangerous precedent for additional industrial development on the wetland margins of Hexham Swamp.

Hexham Swamp is a large and critical component of the Green Corridor. After years of campaigning to secure this important natural asset it is outrageous that inappropriate industrial proposals continue to threaten its ecological values.

The Green Corridor Coalition supports its opposition with the following;


* Watagan Ranges to Port Stephens conservation corridor (Green Corridor) is identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan. This proposal threatens a key component of the Green Corridor and promises little compensation.

* Hexham Swamp Rehabilitation Project - to their credit the Commonwealth and NSW Governments have made a huge financial investment in, and commitment to, the Hexham Swamp Rehabilitation Project - a project of state significance under Part 3A. It is completely unacceptable that a proposal that includes the storage of 400,000 litres of diesel fuel and together with the ARTC proposal combine to produce a railway yard rivalling that at Broadmeadow should be located on the margins of such a precious natural resource.

* State Environmental Planning Policy No.14 (SEPP14) - in the northern section of the proposed development lies SEPP14 Wetland No.833. This wetland is listed as a Freshwater Wetland on Coastal Floodplain (EEC) and will be totally destroyed if this development is approved. It is ludicrous to accept the proponent's view that it is not considered likely to be significantly affected by the proposal. On the contrary, 100% destruction is more than significant. The deceptive manner in which the proponent sums all the wetland habitats on the property and declares that SEPP14 Wetland No.833 is only a minor proportion of the whole is dishonest. It still amounts for greater than 10%; a significant proportion in any case.

* Offsets for native vegetation clearance are seriously deficient and the continued practice of compensatory wetlands for all the ongoing industrial development in the Lower Hunter is failing to deliver its supposed benefits. Restoration of degraded wetlands must be started early enough, given time to work, and be evaluated for their success, before the impact on the site begins, and if this is not done, the use of a promise to provide compensation as an excuse to start development is singularly dishonest and environmentally irresponsible - Ambrose (2000).

* Cumulative negative impacts - the Hunter Estuary system is in crisis and precipitating towards total collapse. It is fuelled by cumulative unsustainable exploitation of the natural systems at a rate far beyond the capacity for the natural processes to repair and replace. Estuarine wetlands are decreasing in size and biodiversity is negatively impacted precisely because of developments (such as this one at Hexham) where supposedly small areas are removed to suit economic purposes. The long-term sustainability of these wetlands requires environmental needs to be considered as a matter of priority, further encroachment and habitat destruction considered unacceptable and the retention, not alienation, of land designated for its protection should be paramount. This proposal adds yet another burden on the natural processes here as it follows the Australian Rail Track Corporation proposal for Hexham Relief Roads and precedes the impending F3 Heatherbrae Extension.

* Newcastle LEP 2012 zonings - the old coal washery site is zoned IN3 Heavy Industry and contains about 60% of the proposed development. The remainder lies within portions of land to the North and South of the washery site, however the zoning E2 Environmental Conservation for these parcels of land properly indicates their unsuitability. The objectives of the generic Zone E2 include the protection and restoration of ecological values and the prevention of development that could destroy or adversely affect those values. Additional to those objectives the Newcastle Council has identified that the management of the Hunter River floodplain needs to restrict the type and scale of development and to provide for the conservation, enhancement and protection of the Hexham Wetlands. Several development types (with consent) are permitted in these areas such as drainage, environmental protection works, flood mitigation etc but listed under the heading of Prohibited is industrial development.

* Flooding - The Lower Hunter River has a long history of flooding with many reported instances of floodwaters overtopping the natural banks of the river and inundating the adjacent floodplains. This is properly identified within the proponent's Environmental Assessment however it "washes over" the fact that this proposed development lies entirely within a major designated floodway (Lower Hunter Floodplain Risk Management Study 2001) capable of high water velocities in times of severe inundation. The majority of the proposed works lie in an area rated as very high hazard and the northern portion lies within a known major drainage point rated as extreme hazard during floods.

* Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS) - after months of negotiation, Planning NSW issued the final LHRS in November 2006 and that document set the boundaries for both development and environmental protection for the region. That document respected the current land zonings where this application is proposed and excluded all surrounding lands from development through the use of the "sustainability criteria". The LHRS, therefore, promoted the prohibition of development on these lands set aside for environmental and floodway purposes.

* Alternate Sites - from the outset the proponent has preferred the Hexham site and only by means of a deceptive assessment of other sites does it conclude that Hexham is superior to any other. It is clear that the only real reason for continuing to choose Hexham is that the proponent already owns this land and to seriously consider any other would ultimately mean undertaking acquisition of it. Citing repeatedly that timing issues with property acquisition is a negative factor in each case shows the proponent's determination to disregard the findings of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy which nominates Stoney Pinch as the preferred site.

* Duplication of Infrastructure - why the proponent needs to build its own TSF is a complete mystery. With all carriers sharing the same rail system it would only be reasonable to expect that all carriers would share the same train support facility. The coal industry expects the community to accept that all the expansion of the infrastructure that supports the coal industry is done so in the name of cost and logistical efficiency. Duplication of infrastructure does not support this argument.

* Fishery Resource Value - land owned by the proponent designated as floodplain totals 128ha. NSW Department of Fisheries and Ocean Watch (Aust) Ltd values the Hexham Swamp Floodplain (includes a mosaic of wetlands) extremely highly to the fishing industry. An assessment of the fish production capacity of these wetlands was carried out and a dollar value at $19,580 per hectare per annum was determined. It is scandalous that an important renewable resource should be threatened by a proposal that supports an industry with limited life span and such dire consequences for the health of our environment.

* Carbon Footprint - currently this area remains part of the mosaic of wetlands that forms the greater Hexham Swamps. It is well documented that many wetlands are effective carbon sinks as the natural anaerobic conditions (plants die, sink to the oxygen depleted bottom and decompose very slowly) are ideal for long term carbon sequestration. This wonderful benefit should be acknowledged, the owners of wetlands given an alternate income stream as they protect and care for the wetlands. Not only does this proposal threaten to destroy this carbon sink potential but will only add further to the generation of carbon as it will burn great amounts of diesel fuel in its operation. This aspect is unacceptable to the whole community.


Yours faithfully

Tom Clarke
Secretary

It is not responsible to spend taxpayers' money on large infrastructure projects to aid a dying industry. Fossil fuels may be phased out before this project is completed. But if you go ahead please use the alternative routes which avoid the valuable wetlands. We have seen more than enough damage to river systems and wetlands in NSW due to mining and associated developments like this.

I wish to object to this proposal, as much for the increased adverse health impacts on local residents, through increased
noise, vibration, and air pollution from coal trains. Diesel exhaust and coal dust are known to have significant impacts
on health.

But the proposal would encroach on the Hexham Wetlands, which provide important habitat for many
migratory bird species and the endangered Australian Painted Snipe has been now recorded there. These Wetlands are supposed to be being restored, at taxpayers' expense.

How can it be permissable to clear an area of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands
on Coastal Floodplains, and an area of SEPP 14 Wetlands that are supposed to be protected by
state legislation?

The Hexham Wetlands also provide essential habitat for economically important fisheries. In 1999 NSW
Fisheries calculated their value, per hectare per annum of $19,580.

It doesn't make sense either to be building these rail lines in very high flood hazard zones, especially in times of predicted more frequent severe weather events like floods.

There are alternative sites for this development.; the cost and convenience and cost factors for the developer should not outweigh the with major environmental and health impacts.

see attached

see attached

see attached.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached