Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway · This consistency review is...

Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway Review of environmental factors consistency review Roads and Maritime Services | April 2019

BLANK PAGE

Prepared by Roads and Maritime Services

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Roads and Maritime Services NSW (Roads and Maritime). Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Roads and Maritime constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway Review of environmental factors consistency review Roads and Maritime Services | April 2019

Document controls

Approval and authorisation Title Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway

Accepted on behalf of Roads and Maritime NSW by

Ian Archer, Senior Project Manager

Signed:

Dated:

Document status Document status Date Prepared by Reviewed by

Draft 10/04/2019 A. Sanchez P. Townsend

05/12/2019

Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway Project REF consistency review i

Contents

Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The determined project ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2. The proposed modification ................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 The proposed modification ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Need for the proposed modification ............................................................................................. 4 2.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................. 4

3. Consistency review ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Potential environmental impacts .................................................................................................. 5 3.2 EPBC Act factors ....................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Licences, permits and approvals ................................................................................................ 11 3.4 Consistency review .................................................................................................................... 12

4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 15

5. Certification and endorsement ......................................................................................................... 16 5.1 Certification – Consistency review preparer ............................................................................... 16 5.2 Roads and Maritime certification and endorsement .................................................................... 16

Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway Project REF consistency review ii

Tables Table 3-1: Comparison of environmental impacts ......................................................................................... 5 Table 3-2: Comparison of EPBC Act factors ............................................................................................... 10 Table 3-3: Comparison of licence, permit and approval requirements ......................................................... 11 Table 3-4: Consistency review questions .................................................................................................... 12

Appendices

Appendix A Stage 1 of the Procedure for Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation and investigation

Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway Project REF consistency review 1

1. Introduction

1.1 The determined project Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) completed a review of environmental factors (REF) of the Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement project in November 2017. The REF described the project, assessed the potential environmental and social impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project and identified safeguards and management measures to avoid, mitigate or manage those potential impacts.

The project REF was placed on public display between 8 November and 8 December 2017 for community and stakeholder comment. The Batemans Bay Bridge replacement REF submissions report (the submissions report) was published in May 2018 to respond to the issues raised during the display period. The submissions report identified a number of design changes to the project. Some of these design changes resulted in a change to the REF area (the revised REF area). The revised REF area is shown in Figure 4-1 of the submissions report.

An environmental impact statement (EIS) was also published for the project in November 2017, as a small part of the project is located on land to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 – Coastal Wetlands (SEPP 14) (now repealed) applied. Development consent for this part of the project was issued by Eurobodalla Shire Council in May 2018.

The project REF and submissions report considered potential impacts on biodiversity and concluded that the project is not likely to significantly impact threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats, within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) or Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) and therefore there was no requirement for a Species Impact Statement or Strategic Assessment.

After consideration of the REF, EIS and submissions report, Roads and Maritime made a decision to proceed with the project on April 2018.

Subsequent to determination of the project, Roads and Maritime proposed to modify the project to including the demolition of the former Batemans Bay bowling clubhouse to facilitate the establishment of project ancillary facilities at this site. The former bowling clubhouse site is owned by Eurobodalla Shire Council and would be leased to Roads and Maritime for the project construction period. Although the former bowling clubhouse site is located within both the REF area and the EIS area, the proposed demolition works fall wholly within the REF area. The proposed modification was therefore subject to an Addendum REF (AREF). An AREF was determined in September 2018 to document the potential environmental impacts of the proposed modification.

1.2 Purpose This consistency review is prepared when there is a proposed modification to a determined REF. It helps to ensure that any proposed modifications are undertaken in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The purpose of this consistency review is to:

• Describe the determined project and the proposed modification • Review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed modification against the environmental

impacts of the determined project


• Decide whether or not the proposed modification is consistent with the determined project in accordance with the EP&A Act and the EPBC Act requirements

• Based on the decision of whether or not the proposed modification is consistent with the determined project, identify any further environmental impact assessment or environmental management requirements applicable to the proposed modification.


2. The proposed modification

2.1 The proposed modification The proposed modification is to establish a stockpile site directly adjacent to Replacement of the Kings Highway bridge over the Clyde River at Nelligen - Stockpile 3 (See Figure 2.1 and 2.2). The new stockpile would be located on the sloping area between the approved stockpile and the road. This area is located about 1.7 kilometres north of the Kings Highway/Princes Highway intersection on the western side of the Kings Highway on already disturbed land. The additional stockpile area is about 3,400 m2.

Figure 2.1 Replacement of the Kings Highway bridge over the Clyde River at Nelligen approved REF boundary

Figure 2.2 Proposed area for additional stockpile (red polygon)

The stockpile is located 1.5km from the project site to the west along the Kings Highway

Minimum 10m Offset from the edge line of the Kings Highway (100km/h)


2.2 Need for the proposed modification Following the development of the Marine Offset Strategy - Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement, Nelligen Bridge Replacement and Burrill Lake Bridge Bridge Replacement Projects, it was determined that 50-70 rootballs would need to be stored for river bank stabilisation offset projects.

The following alternative options were considered and determined not to be suitable:

• Existing Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement project stockpiles: The rootballs would require a substantial area to be unavailable for use during a period of up to 12 months in an already constrained site. This option was therefore considered not viable.

• Moruya Depot: The rootballs would require a substantial area to be unavailable for use during a period of up to 12 months. Based on the current area available at the Depot, this option was considered not viable.

• Deep Creek Stockpile: This stockpile is located south of Moruya Depot and is large enough to be suitable to store the rootballs. However, using this stockpile would require an additional transport distance of at least 25 km. Based on the size of the rootballs and available trucks, transporting all the rootballs would require 20 or more trips, resulting in additional greenhouse gas emissions, higher risk during transport due to the longer distance and substantially higher cost and logistic requirements.

• Proposed modification: The area is large enough to store all the rootballs, is within the disturbed zone, at a short distance from site and no substantial negative environmental or safety impacts were identified.

Based on the assessment of the options above, the area directly adjacent to Stockpile 3 identified in Replacement of the Kings Highway bridge over the Clyde River at Nelligen REF Submissions Report was determined to be the best option for the storage of the rootballs.

2.3 Consultation RMS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officers were consulted to assess the potential impacts on aboriginal cultural heritage.


3. Consistency review

3.1 Potential environmental impacts The project REF described the existing environment, addressed the potential impacts from construction and operation of the project and identified safeguards and management measures to be implemented to ameliorate the identified potential impacts. Further environmental assessment of specific issues and revised safeguards and management measures in response to submissions received and design changes were detailed in the submissions report.

Table 3-1: Comparison of environmental impacts

Environmental issue Consideration of the relative environmental impacts of the proposed modification compared to the determined project [ie additional positive, negative and/or neutral impacts]

Geology and soils There would be no vegetation clearance or disturbance of soils with the exception of potentially needing to push the rootballs into the ground to ensure they remain in place. The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts would be mitigated through the implementation soil and water management safeguards for the overall proposal.

Neutral operational impact. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts on soils or geology are expected during the operations phase.

Safeguards and management measures Soil impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and its associated Soil and Water Management Plan, including site specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/s.

Land surface The use of this additional stockpile area would not require any physical work with this area only used for the laydown of materials. There would be only minor physical work required to prepare the site; mainly to establish erosion and sedimentation controls. Impacts on land surface during construction are therefore considered minimal.

Neutral operational impact. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts on land surface are expected during the operations phase.

Safeguards and management measures Soil impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and its associated Soil and Water Management Plan, including site specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/s.



Hydrology/Hydrological issues There is potential from some changes to surface water flows due to the presence of materials or equipment on site which would potentially redirect flows. It is not expected that the rootballs would be left on site for prolonged periods (a maximum of 12 months is anticipated). Therefore, such impacts are considered minimal.

Neutral operational impacts. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts on local hydrology during the operations phase are expected.

Safeguards and management measures If changes to the surface water flows are encountered, an options assessment will be carried out to minimise these effects.

Biodiversity The area has been previously cleared of vegetation and use of this site will be limited to the existing cleared/grassed areas.

Sharing and Enabling Environmental Data portal was used to assess potential additional impacts. The area of the proposed modification is not listed as having high biodiversity values, acid sulfate soil risk, be in or adjacent to a national park or having any reports of pollution. Impacts on biodiversity during construction are therefore considered minimal.

Neutral operational impact. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts on local biodiversity are expected during the operations phase.

Safeguards and management measures Impacts on biodiversity would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and associated Biodiversity Management Plan.

Traffic, transportation and access

Access to the sites would be directly from the Kings Highway. There is potential for impacts along the highway due to vehicles accessing the stockpile location. Such impacts are considered minimal due to the short-term and infrequent use of the site. Traffic management measures would be implemented in line with the mitigation measures outlined the submissions report for traffic management.

Neutral operational impact. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts on traffic, transportation and access are expected during the operations phase.

Safeguards and management measures Traffic and transport impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and associated Traffic Management Plan. Traffic control arrangements and signage would be implemented to reduce traffic delays and ensure safety of road users, cyclists and pedestrians.



Water transport Neutral construction and operational impact. The proposed changes will not affect water transport.

Land use and property Neutral construction and operational impact. The Project footprint is still wholly within Roads and Maritime owned land.

Noise and vibration The use of this area would result in some noise impacts at the location. The closest resident is located about 360 m away from the activity area, separated by the Kings Highway and about 160 m of forested land. Due to the distances to the nearest residents, the short-term use of these stockpile areas, their positioning next to the Kings Highway and with the implementation of mitigation measures outlined the submissions report for noise management, the impacts are considered minimal.

Neutral operational impact. The proposed modification will not change noise profile of this area after construction.

Safeguards and management measures Noise and vibration impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and associated Noise and Vibration Management Plan.

Aboriginal cultural heritage Neutral construction and operational impacts. This stockpile area was used for the East Nelligen project and had the Aboriginal heritage due diligence assessment for the East Nelligen Project identified no impacts to Aboriginal heritage. Replacement of the Kings Highway bridge over the Clyde River at Nelligen REF Submissions Report (2017) concluded that no Aboriginal object sites were found in the proposed activity area during the field assessment. The site is highly disturbed and assessed to be of likely very low to negligible archaeological sensitivity. A new AHIMS search was conducted on 10 April 2019. RMS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer carried out a preliminary assessment based on Stage 1 of the Procedure for Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation and investigation (the procedure). This assessment concluded that there are no known previously recorded Aboriginal objects located in or near the activity area and it is unlikely to have Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.

Safeguards and management measures Safeguards outlined in the Project REF Submissions Report (Safeguards AH1 and AH3) will be implemented and are considered adequate to address impacts to this site arising from the project.

Non-Aboriginal heritage Neutral construction and operational impacts. There are no known Non-Aboriginal heritage items within this area.

Safeguards and management measures Safeguards outlined in the Project REF Submissions Report (Safeguard NAH2) will be implemented and are considered adequate to address impacts to this site arising from the project.



Landscape character and visual impacts

Neutral construction impact. The proposed modifications will not result in a substantial change to the localised, short-term, temporary visual impacts on road users and nearby commercial premises identified in the Project REF. Neutral operational impact. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts on landscape character and visual appeal are expected during the operations phase.

Safeguards and management measures Visual impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and the Urban Design and Landscape Plan.

Water quality The stockpile would be located directly adjacent to road drainage and therefore if sediment is produce it would have the potential to enter the stormwater system. However, there would be no vegetation clearance or disturbance of soils with the exception of potentially needing to push the rootballs into the ground to ensure they remain in place. The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts would be mitigated through the implementation erosion and sedimentation controls.

Neutral operational impact. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts on water quality are expected during the operations phase.

Safeguards and management measures Soil and water quality impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and its associated Soil and Water Management Plan, including site specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/s.

Air quality Neutral construction and operational impact. There will be no measureable change in air quality construction and operations impacts with respect to those assessed in the Project REF. Safeguards and management measures Air quality impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and Air Quality Management Plan. The management of dust would be undertaken to ensure that the criteria identified in section 6.12.1 of the project REF would be met at sensitive receivers during construction.

Socio-economic issues Neutral construction and operational impact. There will be no substantial change to socio-economic construction and operations impacts with respect to those assessed in the Project REF.



Climate change Positive construction impact. The alternative to this stockpile is located near the Moruya Depot (Deep Creek Stockpile). This alternative would have required transport distance to be increased by 25 km, resulting it substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Neutral operational impact. There will be no substantial change to climate change operations impacts with respect to those assessed in the Project REF.

Waste and resource management

Positive impact during construction. Establishing the stockpile will allow the project to stockpile rootballs for reuse in marine offset projects rather than having to dispose them through landfills.

Neutral operational impact. There will be no substantial change to waste management and resource construction and operations impacts with respect to those assessed in the Project REF.

Safeguards and management measures Waste impacts would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and associated Waste Management Plan. Waste materials would be managed, reused and disposed of in accordance with the relevant guidelines and standard practices.

Hazard and risk The stockpile is located directly adjacent to the Kings Highway with a sign-posted speed of 100km/h. The fill batter is within the 6:1 to Flat category and 1501-6000 ADT. The stockpile will be established in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barrier (2010). This guideline requires a clear zone width of 9m. The stockpile will have a minimum offset from the edge line to the stockpile area of 10 m. Based on this and the infrequent use of the stockpile, risks of creating a hazard for adjacent traffic are considered to be minimal.

There is potential from some changes to surface water flows due to the presence of materials or equipment on site which would potentially redirect flows onto the road. However, it is not expected that the rootballs would be left on site for prolonged periods (a maximum of 12 months is anticipated) and due to the existing landscape such impacts are considered minimal.

Neutral operational impact. The area will be rehabilitated after removal of the rootballs as required. No impacts to hazards and risks are expected during the operations phase.

Safeguards and management measures Hazards and risks would be managed through the safeguards and management measures outlined in section 6.2 of the submissions report, the approved CEMP and associated Sub-plans.



Cumulative impacts Positive construction cumulative impact. The proposed modification would ensure beneficial cumulative waste management and resources impacts as well as climate change by eliminating the need to transport the rootballs to a more distant stockpile site.

Neutral operational cumulative impact. The proposed modification would not result in any measurable change in the potential cumulative operational impacts from those identified in the Project REF.

3.2 EPBC Act factors Under the environmental assessment provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the following matters of national environmental significance and impacts on Commonwealth land are required to be considered for the proposed modification.

Table 3-2: Comparison of EPBC Act factors

Factor Consideration of the relative impact of the proposed modification compared to the determined project and if applicable any change to the EPBC strategic assessment or other EPBC approval

Any impact on a World Heritage property?

Not applicable to the Project. The Project does not impact on a world heritage property

Any impact on a National Heritage place?

Not applicable to the Project. The Project does not impact on a National Heritage place

Any impact on a wetland of international importance?

Neutral impact. The proposed modification will not result in any changes to the potential direct or indirect impacts to any wetlands.

Any impact on a listed threatened species or communities?

Neutral impact. The proposed modification will not result in a substantial change to the potential impacts to listed threatened species or communities identified in the Project REF, EIS or Submissions report. It is therefore not likely to significantly impact threatened species, populations or ecological communities within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Any impacts on listed migratory species?

Neutral impact. The proposed modification is not likely to significantly impact migratory species, within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Any impact on a Commonwealth marine area?

Not applicable to the Project. The Project would not impact on a Commonwealth marine area.

Does the proposal involve a nuclear action (including uranium mining)?

Not applicable to the Project. The Project does not involve a nuclear action.


Factor Consideration of the relative impact of the proposed modification compared to the determined project and if applicable any change to the EPBC strategic assessment or other EPBC approval

Additionally, any impact (direct or indirect) on Commonwealth land?

Not applicable to the Project. The Project does not impact Commonwealth land.

3.3 Licences, permits and approvals Table 3-3: Comparison of licence, permit and approval requirements

Existing requirement for the determined project

Identification of additional requirements or any change to the existing requirements as a result of the proposed modification

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (s43) - Environment protection licence (EPL) for scheduled activities being extractive activities from the EPA.

Neutral impact. The proposed modification does not require extractive activities.

Fisheries Management Act 1994 (s205) - Permit to harm marine vegetation from the Minister for Primary Industries.

Neutral impact. The propose modification does not require harming marine vegetation.

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (s90) - Aboriginal heritage impact permit (AHIP) from the Chief Executive of OEH.

Neutral impact. There are no known Aboriginal heritage items on the location of the proposed modification. No additional or changed requirements due to the proposed modification.

Heritage Act 1977 - Written notification to OEH of removal of heritage items from the Roads and Maritime S170 heritage and conservation register.

Neutral impact. There are no known heritage items on the location of the proposed modification. No additional or changed requirements due to the proposed modification.

Water Management Act 2000 (s90) - Water supply work approval from Lands & Water Department of Industry.

Neutral impact. The proposed modification does not require water supply works.

Water Management Act 2000 (s91F) - Aquifer interference approval from Lands & Water Department of Industry

Neutral impact. The proposed modification does not require works that would create aquifer interference.


Existing requirement for the determined project

Identification of additional requirements or any change to the existing requirements as a result of the proposed modification

Marine Estate Management Act 2014 - Marine Parks Permit for work in the Batemans Bay Marine Park.

Neutral impact. The proposed modification will not result on additional works within Batemans Bay Marine Park.

Crown Lands Act 1989 (s6) - Licence to occupy areas of Crown land.

Neutral impact. The proposed modification is not located on Crown land.

Fisheries Management Act 1994 (s199) – Notification to the Minister for Primary Industries prior to undertaking any dredging or reclamation works

Neutral impact. The proposed modification will not result in additional dredging or reclamation works.

3.4 Consistency review Table 3-4 below presents a set of questions to assist in identifying whether the proposed modification is consistent with the determined project, or if further environmental impact assessment is required. These questions are addressed with consideration to the information above.

Table 3-4: Consistency review questions

Consistency questions Discussion Response

Q1) Is the proposed modification to be carried out as part of a project which has a determined REF?

Yes, the proposed modification is to be carried out as part of the Batemans Bay Bridge replacement project.

Yes

Q2) Is the proposed modification so different in scope and impacts to the determined REF as to be a radical transformation and so, in reality, an entirely new project?

The proposed modification is required to fulfil legislative requirements consequent of impacts on marine vegetation assessed in the Project REF, EIS and Submissions Report. It will also allow the project to maintain a commitment to waste minimisation in line with the Project REF, EIS and Submissions Report. The Project Environmental Safeguards are considered adequate and appropriate in managing potential impacts arising from the modification. Based on the above, the proposed modification is not considered to be different in scope or impacts to the determined REF as to be a radical transformation

No



Q3) If the proposal is subject to the EPBC strategic assessment or other EPBC Act approval, would the proposed modification change the potential impacts on matters of national environmental significant or the environment of Commonwealth land?

The determined project is not subject to the EPBC Strategic Assessment or any other EPBC Act approval.

The assessment of the impact of the proposed modification on matters of national environmental significance and the environment of Commonwealth land considers that there would be no change to the findings of the determined project and the proposed modification is not likely to significantly impact threatened species, populations, ecological communities or migratory species, or the environment of Commonwealth land, within the meaning of the EPBC Act.

A referral to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy would not be required for the proposed modification.

No

Q4) If the proposal is subject to a Species Impact Statement (SIS) or Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR), would the proposed modification change the potential impacts on areas of outstanding biodiversity value, threatened species or ecological communities and their habitats as set out in the SIS or BDAR and its Conditions?

The determined project is not subject to a SIS or BDAR.

The proposed modification is not likely to significantly impact threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats, within the meaning of the BC Act or FM Act and therefore a Species Impact Statement is not required.

No

Q5) Would the proposed modification result in a reduction of the overall environmental impacts of the determined project including that it would not be likely to trigger the EPBC Act strategic assessment, other EPBC approval, SIS or BDAR?

The consistency review has assessed the environmental risks associated with undertaking the proposed modification and considers that it would result in a neutral impacts to most aspects and positive impacts to climate change and waste management.

Potential short-term minor negative impacts associated with the proposed modification during the construction period would be minimised through implementation of safeguards and management measures outlined in the submissions report, and other approved environmental management plans (such as the CEMP and associated sub-plans).

Yes



Q6) Whatever the outcome of the consistency review, are modifications to any other authorisations, or new authorisations, required, eg environment protection licences, Heritage Act permits, permits under the Fisheries Management Act etc?

The proposed modification would not result in any changes to, or additional requirement for, any environment protection licence, permits or approvals compared to the determined project

No


4. Conclusion The consistency review has considered the proposed modification in terms of consistency against the determined project Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement.

As set out in Table 3-4 above, the proposed modification is considered to be consistent with the determined project. In addition the project would not result in additional impacts that would likely trigger EPBC Act strategic assessment / EPBC Act approval / SIS / BDAR.


5. Certification and endorsement

5.1 Certification – Consistency review preparer This document provides a true and fair consistency review of the scope and potential impacts of the proposed modification compared with the scope and environmental impacts of the determined project.

Signed Signed

Name Adriana Sanchez Name Peter Townsend

Position Roads and Maritime Environment Officer

Position Roads and Maritime Project Manager

Date 10 April 2019 Date 10 April 2019

5.2 Roads and Maritime certification and endorsement I have reviewed the scope and potential environmental impacts of the proposed modification against the determined project. The proposed modification would reduce the overall environmental impacts of the determined project and as such, in accordance with section 5.4(a) of the EP&A Act, is exempt from further environmental impact assessment.

The proposed modification would not trigger the EPBC Act strategic assessment/other EPBC Act approval and/or a SIS or BDAR.

The CEMP and sub plans will be updated to incorporate the modification.

Signed

Name Ian Archer

Position Roads and Maritime Senior Project Manager

Date

5.2.1 Endorsement I have examined consistency of the proposed modification with the determined Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement. In accordance with section 5.4(a) of the EP&A Act I endorse the findings of this consistency review subject to adoption of my requirements in the table below.

16/04/2019


Requirements • Establish Erosion and Sedimentation Controls prior to disturbance to ensureimpacts on water quality are minimised.

• Include this stockpile in environmental inspection schedules.

• Monitor potential surface flow changes that may create new hazards for roadusers.

Signed

Name David Ledlin

Position Roads and Maritime Environment Manager SaWPO and Hunter NPO

Date 17/04/2019


Appendix A Stage 1 of the Procedure for Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation and investigation

Roads and Maritime Services

Level 6, 90 Crown Street, Wollongong NSW 2500 | PO Box 477 Wollongong NSW 2500 T 02 4221 2767 | F 02 4221 2777 | E [email protected] 13 22 13

10 April 2019 Adriana Sanchez Environment Officer 90 Crown Street WOLLONGONG NSW 2500 Dear Adriana, Preliminary assessment results for the Kings Highway Stockpile Site 3 for the Nelligen Bridge project based on Stage 1 of the Procedure for Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation and investigation (the procedure). The project, as described in the Stage 1 assessment checklist (see attached), was assessed as being unlikely to have an impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage. The assessment is based on the following due diligence considerations:

• The project is unlikely to harm known Aboriginal objects or places. • The AHIMS searches on 11 April 2019 showed no Aboriginal objects or places in the study area. • The study area does not contain landscape features that indicate the presence of Aboriginal objects,

based on the Office of Environment and Heritage’s Due diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal objects in NSW and the Roads and Maritime Services’ procedure.

• The cultural heritage potential of the study area appears to be reduced due to past disturbance. • There will be no clearing of vegetation and removal of mature trees in the study area.

Your project may proceed in accordance with the environmental impact assessment process, as relevant, and all other relevant approvals. If the scope of your project changes, you must contact Joanne Damcevski, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer, Southern, to reassess any potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage. If any potential Aboriginal objects (including skeletal remains) are discovered during the course of the project, all works in the vicinity of the find must cease. Follow the steps outlined in the Roads and Maritime Services’ Unexpected Archaeological Finds Procedure. For further assistance in this matter do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Joanne Damcevski Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer – Southern

AHIMS Web Services (AWS)Search Result Purchase Order/Reference : Kings Hwy Stockpile

Client Service ID : 414005

Date: 10 April 2019Roads and Maritime Services - Crown St Wollongong

Lvl 5, 90 Crown Street PO Box 477

Wollongong New South Wales 2520

Dear Sir or Madam:

AHIMS Web Service search for the following area at Lat, Long From : -35.6864, 150.1782 - Lat, Long To :

-35.6834, 150.1828 with a Buffer of 50 meters, conducted by Joanne Damcevski on 10 April 2019.

Email: [email protected]

Attention: Joanne Damcevski

The context area of your search is shown in the map below. Please note that the map does not accurately

display the exact boundaries of the search as defined in the paragraph above. The map is to be used for

general reference purposes only.

A search of the Office of the Environment and Heritage AHIMS Web Services (Aboriginal Heritage Information

Management System) has shown that:

0

0

Aboriginal sites are recorded in or near the above location.

Aboriginal places have been declared in or near the above location. *

If your search shows Aboriginal sites or places what should you do?

Important information about your AHIMS search

You can get further information about Aboriginal places by looking at the gazettal notice that declared it.

Aboriginal places gazetted after 2001 are available on the NSW Government Gazette

(http://www.nsw.gov.au/gazette) website. Gazettal notices published prior to 2001 can be obtained from

Office of Environment and Heritage's Aboriginal Heritage Information Unit upon request

Aboriginal objects are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 even if they are not recorded

as a site on AHIMS.

You must do an extensive search if AHIMS has shown that there are Aboriginal sites or places recorded in the

search area.

If you are checking AHIMS as a part of your due diligence, refer to the next steps of the Due Diligence Code of

practice.

AHIMS records information about Aboriginal sites that have been provided to Office of Environment and

Heritage and Aboriginal places that have been declared by the Minister;

Information recorded on AHIMS may vary in its accuracy and may not be up to date .Location details are

recorded as grid references and it is important to note that there may be errors or omissions in these

recordings,

Some parts of New South Wales have not been investigated in detail and there may be fewer records of

Aboriginal sites in those areas. These areas may contain Aboriginal sites which are not recorded on AHIMS.

This search can form part of your due diligence and remains valid for 12 months.

The information derived from the AHIMS search is only to be used for the purpose for which it was requested.

It is not be made available to the public.

3 Marist Place, Parramatta NSW 2150

Locked Bag 5020 Parramatta NSW 2220

Tel: (02) 9585 6380 Fax: (02) 9873 8599

ABN 30 841 387 271

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

rms.nsw.gov.au/

13 22 13

Customer feedback Roads and Maritime Locked Bag 928, North Sydney NSW 2059

April 2019

Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway · This consistency review is...

Documents

Transcript of Batemans Bay Bridge Replacement – Stockpile on Kings Highway · This consistency review is...