REFERRAL OF A PROJECT FOR A DECISION ON THE NEED FOR ... · Text boxes should be extended to allow...

Version 5: July 2013

REFERRAL OF A PROJECT FOR A DECISION ON THE NEED FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS ACT 1978

REFERRAL FORM The Environment Effects Act 1978 provides that where proposed works may have a significant effect on the environment, either a proponent or a decision-maker may refer these works (or project) to the Minister for Planning for advice as to whether an Environment Effects Statement (EES) is required. This Referral Form is designed to assist in the provision of relevant information in accordance with the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (Seventh Edition, 2006). Where a decision-maker is referring a project, they should complete a Referral Form to the best of their ability, recognising that further information may need to be obtained from the proponent. It will generally be useful for a proponent to discuss the preparation of a Referral with the Impact Assessment Unit (IAU) at the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) before submitting the Referral. If a proponent believes that effective measures to address environmental risks are available, sufficient information could be provided in the Referral to substantiate this view. In contrast, if a proponent considers that further detailed environmental studies will be needed as part of project investigations, a more general description of potential effects and possible mitigation measures in the Referral may suffice. In completing a Referral Form, the following should occur:

Mark relevant boxes by changing the font colour of the ‘cross’ to black and provide additional information and explanation where requested.

As a minimum, a brief response should be provided for each item in the Referral Form, with a more detailed response provided where the item is of particular relevance. Cross-references to sections or pages in supporting documents should also be provided. Information need only be provided once in the Referral Form, although relevant cross-referencing should be included.

Responses should honestly reflect the potential for adverse environmental effects. A Referral will only be accepted for processing once IAU is satisfied that it has been completed appropriately.

Potentially significant effects should be described in sufficient detail for a reasonable conclusion to be drawn on whether the project could pose a significant risk to environmental assets. Responses should include:

- a brief description of potential changes or risks to environmental assets resulting from the project;

- available information on the likelihood and significance of such changes;

- the sources and accuracy of this information, and associated uncertainties.

Any attachments, maps and supporting reports should be provided in a secure folder with the Referral Form.

A CD or DVD copy of all documents will be needed, especially if the size of electronic documents may cause email difficulties. Individual documents should not exceed 2MB as they will be published on the Department’s website.


ii

A completed form would normally be between 15 and 30 pages in length. Responses should not be constrained by the size of the text boxes provided. Text boxes should be extended to allow for an appropriate level of detail.

The form should be completed in MS Word and not handwritten. The party referring a project should submit a covering letter to the Minister for Planning together with a completed Referral Form, attaching supporting reports and other information that may be relevant. This should be sent to: Postal address Couriers Minister for Planning Minister for Planning GPO Box 2392 Level 20, 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3001 MELBOURNE VIC 3001

In addition to the submission of the hardcopy to the Minister, separate submission of an electronic copy of the Referral via email to [email protected] is required. This will assist the timely processing of a referral. ______________________________________________________________


PART 1 PROPONENT DETAILS, PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LOCATION 1. Information on proponent and person making Referral

Name of Proponent: APA Transmission Pty Limited (APA)

Authorised person for proponent: Rob Wheals

Position: Group Executive Transmission, Transmission Lead

Postal address: Level 25, 580 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000

Email address: [email protected]

Phone number: +61 2 9693 0000

Facsimile number: N/A

Person who prepared Referral: Marisa Feher

Position: Project Licensing and Environmental Approvals Lead

Organisation: APA Group

Postal address: Level 14, IBM Building, 60 City Road, Southbank VIC 3000

Email address: [email protected]

Phone number: +61 3 8533 2106

Facsimile number: N/A

Available industry & environmental expertise: (areas of ‘in-house’ expertise & consultancy firms engaged for project)

APA is part of the APA Group. The APA Group operate and maintain 15,000 kilometres of natural gas pipelines across mainland Australia. The APA Group owns gas storage facilities, gas-fired power stations and, wind and solar farms. APA has extensive ‘in-house’ expertise in pipeline and facility design and construction, planning and environmental management. APA has engaged suitably qualified consultants to undertake a range of specialist investigations relevant to the APA Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline. AECOM have provided technical advisory services to APA, including investigation and assessment of various matters to inform this referral in hydrology, geology, noise, greenhouse gas and the coordination of landscape and visual amenity impact assessment. AECOM has also provided advisory support on the potential cumulative and indirect impacts associated with APA Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project (the Project or Pipeline Project) and those associated with AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. AECOM has prepared the following specialist studies:

AECOM, 2018a, Greenhouse Gas Assessment Report (Attachment 11)

AECOM, 2018b, Hydrology and Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (Attachment 12)

AECOM, 2018c, Environmental Noise Assessment (Attachment 13)

AECOM, 2018d, Cumulative Impact Assessment Report (Attachment 14)

Ethos Urban (sub-consultant to AECOM) has been responsible for preparing the landscape and visual amenity impact assessment:

Ethos Urban 2018, Landscape and Visual Amenity Report (Attachment 15)


2

Archaeological Excavations has provided specialist advice on cultural and historic heritage and has been responsible for preparing the following assessments:

Archaeological Excavations 2018a, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Desktop (Attachment 9)

Archaeological Excavation 2018b, Desktop Historical Report (Attachment 10)

Monarc Environmental has provided specialist advice on ecology and acid sulphate soils and has been responsible for preparing the following assessments:

Monarc Environmental 2018a, Flora and Fauna Assessment Report (Attachment 2)

Monarc Environmental 2018b, Southern Brown Bandicoot Survey Report

Monarc Environmental 2018c, Growling Grass Frog Target Assessment

Monarc Environmental 2018d, Aquatic Survey Report Monarc Environmental 2018e, Swamp Skink Survey

Report Monarc Environmental 2018f, Southern Toadlet

Survey Report Monarc Environmental 2018g, Acid Sulphate Soil

Assessment Report


3

2. Project – brief outline

Project title: Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project location: (describe location with AMG coordinates and attach A4/A3 map(s) showing project site or investigation area, as well as its regional and local context)

The Project coordinate (GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55) at an average of 5 km spacing or major route changes in a kilometre point (KP) format which are shown as location points designating the alignment in provided in Table 1. A more detailed project coordinate table for each route change is provided in Attachment 1h.

Table 1 – Pipeline coordinates

KP Latitude Longitude

0 (Crib Point) 38° 20' 55.026" S 145° 12' 59.856" E

5 38° 18' 58.167" S 145° 11' 9.506" E

9 38° 17' 4.542" S 145° 11' 1.075" E

15 38° 15' 34.640" S 145° 13' 28.817" E

21 38° 12' 57.083" S 145° 15' 3.342" E

25 38° 12' 3.222" S 145° 17' 36.016" E

30 38° 11' 19.579" S 145° 20' 37.809" E

35 38° 9' 59.595" S 145° 23' 43.150" E

40 38° 9' 25.863" S 145° 26' 25.609" E

45 38° 7' 43.283" S 145° 28' 38.004" E

50 38° 5' 53.537" S 145° 30' 44.846" E

56.2 (East of Pakenham) 38° 3' 54.538" S 145° 32' 37.580" E

Short project description (few sentences):

APA is proposing to construct and operate a high pressure gas pipeline of approximately 56 km in length (including associated pipeline facilities), which will connect AGL’s proposed Gas Import Jetty at Crib Point to the Victorian Transmission System (VTS), east of Pakenham. Associated pipeline facilities include end of line and mid-line facilities, including a nitrogen storage facility at Crib Point. The pipeline will be designed to be bi-directional, allowing for the future supply of gas to emerging communities along the route.


4

3. Project description Aim/objectives of the project (what is its purpose / intended to achieve?):

The purpose of the proposed pipeline between Crib Point and Pakenham is to transport processed gaseous hydrocarbons, which meet the definition of petroleum under the Pipelines Act 2005 (Pipelines Act) between a new pipeline facility adjacent to existing jetty infrastructure at Crib Point and a location on the existing VTS, east of Pakenham.

More specifically, the proposed pipeline will transport gas from an import facility (developed by others) at Crib Point to Pakenham where it will be injected into the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) Declared Wholesale Gas Market and the VTS. The proposed pipeline will also allow gas to be transported from the VTS to future users along the pipeline route.

Background/rationale of project (describe the context / basis for the proposal, e.g. for siting):

Victoria and other States including South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania are heavily reliant on gas production from Victoria. In the absence of a significant discovery of, or significant investment in new sources of gas supply coming to market, the security of gas supply in south-eastern Australia is threatened by exposure to a projected gas shortfall from 2021.

The forecast supply shortfall raises the prospect of higher and more volatile prices for Australian customers, reflecting competition for scarcer domestic gas supplies. In addition, there is now the potential for an increased need for gas-powered generation due to weather related or contingency events that could still adversely impact this forecast and tighten the supply demand balance once again. In seeking to maintain security and stability of gas supply, and keep downward pressure on prices, AGL is actively working on securing gas supplies from alternative sources, including the Project.

Liquefaction of methane to make LNG provides for highly efficient transportation and storage as LNG occupies 1/600th of the volume of methane in its gaseous form. AGL investigated several potential LNG re-gasification sites in eastern Australia and determined that Victoria, and in particular Crib Point and its adjoining land, is the preferred location for the AGL Gas Import Project.

The importation of LNG to Crib Point by AGL requires a high pressure gas pipeline connection to the existing high pressure gas pipeline network in Victoria (referred to as the Declared Wholesale Gas Market or the VTS) to allow for the transportation of the gas to customers in south-eastern Australia.

APA has undertaken an assessment of the potential connection points on the existing VTS as part of the pipeline route selection process and determined the optimal location is east of Pakenham. Further information on the pipeline route selection process is contained in Section 4.

Main components of the project (nature, siting & approx. dimensions; attach A4/A3 plan(s) of site layout if available):

The Project consist of the following components:

Approximately 56 km of high pressure gas transmission pipeline with a nominal diameter of 600mm, within a construction right-of-way (ROW) of 30m in width and an operational easement of generally 15m in width;

Two mainline valves (MLVs), which will be situated along the route of the pipeline and either remotely or manually operated. MLVs are provided as a means to isolate the pipeline in segments for emergency management, maintenance, repair and/or operation;

A cathodic protection system is to be provided via a combination of cross-bonds to existing cathodic protection system and the installation of an impressed current system, on current design and subject to obtaining necessary tenure, at either of the MLVs which will be determined during detailed design. The system will be designed to use both impressed current and sacrificial anodes;

Crib Point Receiving Facility situated at landside of the Crib Point Jetty, including metering, pigging facility, nitrogen storage and injection, odourant plant, gas analysers and a vent stack;

Pakenham Delivery Facility situated adjacent to the Pakenham East Rail Depot, within land owned by Public Transport Victoria, including a scraper station, filtration, metering, heating,


5

pigging facility and a vent stack; and

An underground scraper/delivery station on the Longford Dandenong Pipeline and the Bunyip to Pakenham Pipeline (collectively referred to as the Longford Dandenong Pipeline) where the proposed pipeline connects to them. This station, which will be within the area of the permanent easement, will consist of a number of fittings that will allow for the future connection of temporary pig traps to inspect the internal lining of the pipeline during operations.

The design life of the pipeline and pipeline valves and assemblies (excluding scraper traps) is 60 years. Other station equipment, piping fixtures and instrumentation have a design life of between 10 and 40 years and will require maintenance and replacement during the pipeline design life. With ongoing integrity management, and subject to appropriate commercial drivers, the operational life of the pipeline is expected to be longer.

An overview of the locality of the pipeline is illustrated in Attachment 1a.

Ancillary components of the project (e.g. upgraded access roads, new high-pressure gas pipeline; off-site resource processing):

In terms of temporary facilities, access to the proposed construction ROW will utilise existing roads as much as possible and, subject to landowner approval, existing access tracks within private land. A temporary construction site depot will be required to facilitate the construction of the pipeline as well as a laydown area for the storage of pipe sections prior to them being delivered to the construction ROW.

These areas will be approved for use under relevant local planning schemes and not increase the environmental impacts of the Project. Any ancillary areas utilised as part of the Project will be currently approved sites for the proposed use or will be restored to previous land uses and condition once construction is complete.

Due to the proximity to populated areas, construction personnel are planned to be accommodated in existing local accommodation.

Key construction activities:

Pipeline construction is to comply with all relevant codes and standards including AS2885.1-2012: Pipelines – Gas and liquid petroleum (design and construction) (AS2885.1-2012) and the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association Code of Environmental Practice (APGA, 2017). The construction will also be guided by the environmental requirements to be specified in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be prepared in compliance with the Pipelines Act and Pipeline Regulations 2017 and accepted by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning prior to construction.

As identified above, the construction footprint will typically comprise a 30m wide pipeline construction ROW, as well as extra work space for temporary facilities to support construction. Extra work space and temporary facilities will include:

Access tracks (upgrade of existing and construction of new);

Additional work areas (e.g. vehicle turn-around points, additional work space for crossings, set up areas for alternate construction methodologies, stockpiling and storage areas); and

Water supply tanks and temporary dams for storing water required for dust suppression and hydrostatic testing (pressure testing) of the pipeline.

The typical layout of the construction ROW is shown in Figure 1 for reference.


6

Figure 1 - Typical Construction ROW layout for a pipeline

The width of the construction ROW may be reduced in areas such as sensitive environments and/or watercourses to minimise disturbance to these features. In some cases, due to the presence of areas of high ecological significance or other constraint, APA will utilise alternate construction techniques, such as Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) or boring, which will negate the need for construction disturbance within the area of the alternate method.

The extra work space and temporary areas of disturbance for the construction ROW are shown in Attachment 1c. The requirement for additional construction access tracks and working space will also be confirmed through ongoing discussions with owners and occupiers of land and further detailed engineering design.

The construction ROW and all temporary facilities, temporary access tracks and extra work areas will be progressively decommissioned and reinstated on completion of the construction phase.

Pipeline construction will occur in the following sequence:

Surveying of the construction ROW: Surveying works are undertaken to mark the extent of approved works areas and makers are placed along the proposed alignment to identify the pipeline centreline.

Installation of temporary gateways: Temporary construction gateways will be installed at every fence line that is intersected by the construction ROW to provide security for farm stock during construction.

Clearing of vegetation from the construction ROW: Clearing of vegetation within the construction ROW will be required to provide a safe and efficient area for construction activities.

Pipe stringing and bending: Stringing involves distributing pipe segments along the ROW in preparation for welding. Where required, pipe lengths will be bent using a hydraulic bending machine to match changes in either elevation or direction of the alignment.

Welding: Specialised construction crews will weld pipe segments together manually or using an automated welding process. Pipe segments will be welded into strings of up to approximately 1.5km in length, allowing for stock and landholder access breaks where required.

Trench excavation: A wheel trencher, rocksaw or excavator will be used to dig the trench to lay the pipeline in. Trenches will typically be excavated to a depth of approximately 2m to achieve a depth of cover of 1.2m to the natural ground level. Topsoil and other excavated material will be stockpiled to the side of the trench area as it will be reused during backfilling activities.

Lowering in and backfilling: the welded pipe strings will be lifted off skids and lowered into


7

the trench using side-boom tractors. The pipe coating is inspected and tested for defects as each welded pipe string is lifted. After lowering-in, the strings are welded together (a 'tie-in') in the trench.

Testing and commissioning: The pipeline will be pressure tested prior to commissioning to ensure that the pipeline passes strength and leak tests. This is done through a process called hydrostatic testing whereby sections of the pipeline (test sections) are filled with water and then pressurised.

Rehabilitation of the ROW: Shallow-rooted vegetation can be re-established across the entire ROW (e.g. cropping such as grain and fibre crops) although tall and deep rooted vegetation (e.g. mature trees) cannot, due to the potential to damage the pipeline and impede operational access requirements. Shallow-root cropping and grasslands re-establishment are encouraged and no long term impacts would be expected to land uses that rely on cropping and grazing primary production. Grass species and seeding requirements will be selected based on the desired final land use and in consultation with the landholder.

An illustrative summary of the key stages of pipeline construction is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Pipeline construction sequence

In areas of constraint, such as major waterways, sites of ecological significance, third party services and major transport corridors, APA will employ alternate trenchless construction methods such as boring and horizontal directional drilling (HDD). These construction methods avoid impacts to the surface of the land and physical features that would otherwise result in significant disturbance and disruption to these features. The locations of trenchless construction are identified in Attachment 1d, with the final sites and their location subject to final engineering design. A typical HDD work area set up and layout is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Typical HDD site set-up (APGA, 2017)


8

The HDD construction methodology will require the excavation of entry and exit pits, typically an approximate bell hole of 3m x 3m x 3m. As part of this process, a bore hole is drilled below the invert of the constraint being crossed from one side to the other and the pipe pulled back through the bore hole (refer to Figure 3). Preliminary design profiles of the HDD’s that currently cross sensitive environmental areas are provided in Attachments i-l, with the locations of all proposed HDDs identified in Attachment 1d.

The methodology for shallow horizontal boring (referred to as thrust boring or micro-tunnelling) involves construction of a horizontal bore hole for installation of a pipeline beneath sensitive surface features, roads and underground services. A typical set up for a thrust bored crossing is shown in Figure 4, with the locations for this methodology illustrated in Attachment 1d. Bell holes are excavated on both sides of the sensitive feature to the depth of the adjacent trench and graded to match the proposed slope of the pipeline and a boring machine operates within this bell hole to tunnel under the relevant constraint.

Figure 4 – Typical thrust bore site set up (APGA, 2017)

Further detailed design may result in the addition of further trenchless crossings and the methods described as part of this application should be considered the minimum that will be employed as part of the construction of the Project. These additional trenchless crossings will be considered as part of minimising impact to land use and property management where additional constraints are identified as part of the ongoing engagement with owners and occupiers of land.

Construction of the two end-of-line pipeline facilities will be undertaken by specialist crews across key distinct phases of works. These include initial earthworks and civil construction, mechanical installation and electrical and instrumentation works. Construction of the pipeline facilities will take approximately 8-9 months to complete and they will be commissioned with the final tie-ins to the pipeline component prior to a hand-over to operational control.

Key operational activities:

Following the reinstatement of land as part of the pipeline construction, the land will be returned to its prior use. Excavating or erecting permanent structures or buildings over the buried pipeline will be prohibited in accordance with the requirements under the relevant legislation and pursuant to agreements with the landowners. Pipeline markers will be provided at fences, road crossings and other locations as required by AS2885.1-2012.

When commissioned, the pipeline will be owned and maintained by APA. Routine corridor inspections will be undertaken in accordance with APA procedures to monitor the pipeline easement for any operational or maintenance issues. The ongoing corridor inspections will address issues such as:

Land stability (e.g. subsidence, erosion);

Revegetation;

Weed invasion;

Cover at watercourse crossings; and

Third-party activities.

The pipeline will also be designed and constructed so that in-line inspection equipment (known as intelligent pigs) can be used to inspect the integrity of the pipeline as required.


9

The pipeline and facilities will incorporate minimal maintenance requirements through the selection of reliable, readily available equipment and equipment configurations. Where practicable, commonality with existing APA facilities will be considered to achieve spares synergies and familiarisation benefits with other APA facilities. The facilities will be designed so equipment that requires removal for maintenance can be readily isolated and removed in a safe manner without operational outages (where practical) or obstruction from other equipment.

Key decommissioning activities (if applicable):

No infrastructure removal or decommissioning works are required or will be conducted during this project.

The pipeline will be designed and built with a life span of 60 years; however it could operate for longer if the pipeline integrity is maintained. In the event that the pipeline is no longer required, it will be decommissioned in accordance with AS2885 and relevant legislative requirements at the time of decommissioning. The following options will be considered:

Suspension: This would involve depressurising the pipeline, capping and filling with an inert gas such as nitrogen or water with corrosion inhibiting chemicals. The cathodic protection would be maintained to prevent the pipe corroding if water is used.

Abandonment: This would involve disconnecting it from all sources and purging the pipeline natural gas with a non-flammable liquid. The pipeline may then be filled with water and left to corrode in –situ, filled with cementitious mud, or removed (generally only in built up areas this is done).

While both decommissioning options have potential for small scale localised and temporary environmental impacts, recovering the buried pipe could result in significant and avoidable environmental impacts. A detailed decommissioning or abandonment plan and rehabilitation program would be developed and implemented in consultation with landholders and the regulator at the relevant time.

Is the project an element or stage in a larger project?

No Yes If yes, please describe: the overall project strategy for delivery of all stages and components; the concept design for the overall project; and the intended scheduling of the design and development of project stages).

Outlined below are the other proposed activities and works that are related to the Pipeline Project, which are being considered as part of the overall proposal being referred under the EE Act for a decision on the need for an EES. However, note these different projects / works are to be constructed, operated and owned by different companies.

The initial purpose of the Pipeline Project is to enable the connection of the AGL Jetty Project to the VTS. While the AGL Jetty Project is the subject of a separate referral form and associated technical assessments, it is to be considered as part of this referral to enable an overall assessment of the proposal under the EE Act. AGL and APA are submitting their respective referral documentation to enable consideration of all the components of the proposals and corresponding direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. This will enable a comprehensive, integrated and transparent assessment of the overall proposal under the EE Act.

AGL is proposing to develop an LNG import facility using a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) continuously moored at the Crib Point Jetty. The FSRU will receive LNG from visiting LNG carriers (that will moor directly adjacent to the FSRU), store the LNG and re-gasify it as required to meet demand. The FSRU will connect to the Pipeline Project via infrastructure to be constructed on the Crib Point jetty, including high pressure gas unloading arms and a high pressure gas flow line connecting to a flange on the landside component, which is the location at which APA assumes responsibility for the relevant infrastructure (and gas flows).

The construction and long term operation of the LNG import facility and the Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project will be undertaken by different companies. The projects are also subject to different regulatory regimes with the Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project to be licenced under the Pipelines Act while the LNG import facility will be licenced under the Environment Protection Act 1970.

The cumulative impacts of both projects have been discussed comprehensively in Section 19 and in Attachment 13.


10

Is the project related to any other past, current or mooted proposals in the region?

No Yes If yes, please identify related proposals.

While not directly related to the Project, two (2) projects around the northern part of the pipeline at Pakenham are identified in this section for reference due to their physical proximity and relevance to the Project. These are:

The Pakenham Delivering Facility is located within a portion of land which forms part of the site for the Pakenham East Stabling and Maintenance Depot, which is being developed by Transport for Victoria as part of the High Capacity Metro Trains Project. Once constructed, the stabling yard will allow for the stabling and maintenance of new 220m long trains. The rail depot is likely to be completed by the end of 2018 with a view to be fully operational by 2019. There will be a number of associated road upgrades surrounding the site to allow for the increase in heavy vehicle movements and new workforce related traffic. Additional upgrades to the Pakenham signalling and rail corridor will be completed as part of the rail depot works to allow the stabling and movement of the new capacity trains in and out of the depot.

Victorian Planning Authority and Cardinia Shire Council has prepared an amendment to the Cardinia Shire Planning Scheme (Amendment C234) that applies to approximately 630 hectares of land to the north of the Pakenham Delivery Facility and to the west of the pipeline alignment at Nar Nar Goon North. The Pakenham East precinct will be a self-sustaining and predominantly residential community that complements the existing Pakenham Township and urban form. This area of development will support one local town centre and a local convenience centre, and two local sports reserves offering a variety of sport and recreation opportunities. The area will also include 2 government primary schools, a government secondary school, a non-government primary school, and a range of local parks and waterways within walking distance of residents.

There are two (2) other activities indirectly related to the proposal which are the subject of separate statutory approvals. These are:

Upgrade works to the Crib Point Jetty: These works include the refurbishment of the existing Crib Point Jetty and construction of new mooring and berthing dolphins to provide a berth suitable to receive ships like the FSRU and a double berthed LNG carrier alongside. The works will be undertaken by PoHDA prior to the Pipeline Project being undertaken. The Jetty Upgrade works are not dependent on AGL’s Gas Import Jetty Project as the jetty needs to be refurbished in order for it to be suitable for any alternative shipping activity. A consent under the Coastal Management Act 1995 (Coastal Management Act) has been issued for this work.

Flattening of high spot on the seabed: The movement of vessels of various sizes along Westernport bay has resulted in the creation of a high spot on the seabed in the vicinity of the southern end of the existing Berth 2 wharf infrastructure. As part of its routine maintenance activities in maintaining operation of the jetty, Victorian Regional Channels Authority will be flattening the high spot. A Coastal Management Act consent has been issued for this work.


11

4. Project alternatives Brief description of key alternatives considered to date (e.g. locational, scale or design alternatives. If relevant, attach A4/A3 plans):

In selecting the proposed pipeline route, APA has undertaken detailed consideration of alternatives to meet the purpose of the proposed pipeline. This process included consideration of the best connection points to the VTS, and alternative routes to the proposed connection locations on the VTS taking account of environmental, safety, social, constructability and cost values (a full list of criteria is provided below).

The requirement for the pipeline to connect into the VTS was determined by the need to cater for the proposed volume of gas flows proposed for the pipeline, which ruled out the use of existing pipeline infrastructure.

Since identifying the proposed pipeline route, APA has continued a process of optimisation and review through consultation and engagement with relevant stakeholders and owners and occupiers of land. This refinement process resulted in a number of alignment revisions, which sought to continue avoidance and minimisation of the potential impacts to the environment and social and safety impacts of the proposed pipeline.

The analysis criteria applied to the route selection process included the following (in no particular order of preference):

Pipeline route length;

Terrain complexity and difficulty;

Extent of areas of environmental sensitivity (e.g. flora, fauna and waterways);

Extent of areas of conservation and nature reserves;

The number of land parcels and landowners;

Extent of areas of cultural heritage significance;

Extent of areas of good to high quality agricultural land;

Impacts to operation of the transport network;

Co-existence challenges or opportunities in respect of other utilities / assets (e.g. rail, other pipelines and power corridors);

Population density levels, including proximity to residential and industrial estates;

Public and worker safety (during construction and operation); and

Accessibility for pipeline construction and operation.

As identified above, the selection criteria were utilised to review multiple pipeline routes between Crib Point and a connection point on the VTS. APA has selected the pipeline route based on the above criteria and the key constraints and opportunities afforded by existing and proposed land use and infrastructure along each alternative route, with reference to the overarching considerations of public safety, environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposed pipeline.

The termination of the pipeline at the existing Dore Road MLV was initially assessed by APA as a logical connection point due to the requirement for additional above-ground pipeline facilities associated with the pipeline and the ability to co-locate these with existing gas infrastructure. However, following detailed assessment and consultation with affected stakeholders, review of the availability of land to achieve this outcome and the suitability of pipeline routes to this location, it was subsequently discounted.

In addition to the above high-level route selection criteria, ongoing engagement with individual owners and occupiers of land has resulted in refinement to the pipeline route based on


12

information provided about their property management.

An overview of the alternative pipeline routes assessed by APA as part of the pipeline route selection process is appended as Attachment 1n.

Brief description of key alternatives to be further investigated (if known):

APA has been undertaking a process of pipeline route refinement (refer to above) and is currently taking all reasonable steps to reach agreement for an easement with owners of land through which the proposed pipeline passes. Through continued easement negotiations, progression of the detailed pipeline design and a commitment to limit impacts to landowners’ properties there is potential for minor changes to the pipeline route.

Any future alteration to the pipeline route will be assessed for potential environmental or other impacts prior to any route revision, which will include but not be limited to, the following:

Ecological assessment;

Habitat hectare assessment;

Arboriculture assessment for any affected trees in the ROW or easement;

Cultural heritage assessment; and

Targeted fauna assessment, if required.

The alternative route will be incorporated into the Project if there is to be less or equal environmental impact to the proposed alignment.


13

5. Proposed exclusions Statement of reasons for the proposed exclusion of any ancillary activities or further project stages from the scope of the project for assessment:

There are no further stages or ancillary activities that have been excluded from the Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project. 6. Project implementation Implementing organisation (ultimately responsible for project, i.e. not contractor): APA Transmission Pty Limited

Implementation timeframe:

The current proposed timeline for the delivery of the construction, commissioning and operation of the Project is provided in Table 2. The timeframes are indicative only and subject to the successful completion of the regulatory approvals program, obtaining access to the land and contractual arrangements.

Table 2 – Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline indicative implementation time frames

Date Approval milestones

July – November 2019 Pipeline Construction - Street works - Hastings

October 2019 – March 2020 Pipeline Construction - Mainline

June – October 2019 Facility Construction - Earthworks & Civil

October 2019 – February 2020 Facility Construction - Mechanical and Electrical

March 2020 Commissioning

Should APA complete the regulatory approvals program, APA would seek to commence early pipeline and facility construction, where possible, prior to the main pipeline construction commencing in late-2019. The delivery timeframe of the Project has been developed to accommodate the timeframe of AGL to import LNG by March 2020. During the refurbishment of the Crib Point Jetty by PoHDA, temporary construction laydown and vehicle parking areas immediately north of the jetty will be established within areas already cleared of vegetation. This land is owned and administered by PoHDA. It is possible that there may be an overlap of construction activities at this location between June and July 2019 should the jetty refurbishment works not be complete at this time. Proposed staging (if applicable):

N/A


14

7. Description of proposed site or area of investigation Has a preferred site for the project been selected?

No Yes If no, please describe area for investigation. If yes, please describe the preferred site in the next items (if practicable).

General description of preferred site, (including aspects such as topography/landform, soil types/degradation, drainage/ waterways, native/exotic vegetation cover, physical features, built structures, road frontages; attach ground-level photographs of site, as well as A4/A3 aerial/satellite image(s) and/or map(s) of site & surrounds, showing project footprint):

The pipeline extends from Crib Point, south of Hastings, to a location east of Pakenham (at Nar Nar Goon North), where the pipeline connects into the VTS. An overview map of the pipeline route has been provided in Attachment 1a, which illustrates the location of the pipeline in relation to major towns, transport corridors and environmental features.

Topography/Landform

In the southern extent of the route, the pipeline traverses coastal floodplains in the lower reaches of the Western Port Catchment where the relief is mostly low lying and generally flat to gently undulating. The ground surface elevation ranges from approximately 1 to 2m Australian Height Datum in the southern portion of the route around Western Port and the agricultural areas to its north, up to 10 to 25m Australian Height Datum over the northern portion of the route where the gently sloping topography grades up around Pakenham.

The area north of Western Port was formerly occupied by the Koo Wee Rup Swamp. This was drained in the nineteenth century via the construction of numerous large drains, many of which have levee banks raised above the surrounding ground level to control flooding. This area covers much of the route north of the South Gippsland Highway through to Pakenham. It is known as the Koo Wee Rup Flood Protection District and is managed by Melbourne Water.

Vegetation cover

The majority of the pipeline route traverses the Gippsland Plain Bioregion which is characterised by flat to gently undulating terrain and vegetated by Swamp Scrub and open forests. The bioregion is generally below 200m in altitude, with coastal areas of sandy beaches, shallow inlets and extensive mudflats and mangroves (VEAC, 2010). There is a small portion of the pipeline route near Pakenham (KP53-54) that falls within the Highlands-Southern Fall Bioregion.

The Gippsland Plain Bioregion is characterised by native vegetation of disparate pattern, reflecting a variety of land-use histories in the bioregion. The region has been heavily modified by agricultural practices with only a quarter of the original extent of native vegetation remaining. Approximately half of the remaining native vegetation is located within public land, with a substantial proportion of this being within conservation reserves.

The pipeline route is proposed within both private and public land (refer below), with the private land predominantly being cleared for agricultural purposes. An area of public land, Warringine Park, is a conservation reserve managed by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. It is traversed by the pipeline (for approximately 2.1km) and is well vegetated with coastal swamp scrub, grassy/plains woodland and coastal saltmarsh. The pipeline is proposed at a location within and adjacent to an existing linear pipeline corridor, and the pipeline construction and operation would not affect the coastal saltmarsh and mangrove communities.

Geology/soil

According to the GeoVic modelled website, the pipeline passes through several lithology types from Sedimentary for most of the project corridor to Igneous near Pakenham (Monarc, 2018f). The southern part of the project corridor from Crib Point to Tooradin comprises marine, swamp deposits and sandstone while Swamp and Lake Deposits (Qm1) and Alluvium (Qa1) dominate the northern half.

The common lithology appears to be generally swamp/marsh environments around Western Port and the former Koo Wee Rup swamp areas. The tidal environment in the vicinity of Western Port and particularly past Watson Creek is likely to result in wet ground conditions. Wet and low-lying conditions are also likely to be found to the east of the Western Outfall Drain (KP31.5) which is reclaimed land.


15

The soils of the area are dominated by brown podsol soil types, although along the entire pipeline route, a wide range of soil types can be found and have been mapped (AECOM, 2018b). The brown podsol soil types are characterised as having relatively low permeability, tend to have an acidic pH level and are high in organic matter. The potential to encounter acid sulfate soil conditions is addressed further in Section 14.

Waterways and wetlands

The Project traverses a total of eight (8) main waterways and 58 unnamed channels/drains or waterways. Further information on waterways is provided in Sections 8 and 13.

The pipeline route crosses an extremity of the Western Port Ramsar Site for approximately 330 m at Watson Creek and approximately less than 300m at Warringine Park. In addition, the pipeline crosses 4 waterways (Warringine Creek, Kings Creek, Watson Creek, Langwarrin Creek) which drain into Western Port Ramsar Site. Further discussion on Ramsar Wetlands is provided in Section 13.

Designated as a wetland of international significance in 1982, the Western Port Ramsar Site covers 59,950 ha of Western Port. The environmental, social and economic worth of Western Port is recognised further through the declaration of Western Port as a UNESCO Biosphere reserve and the presence of three Marine National Parks within it (Churchill Island, French Island and Yaringa).

Warringine Park, a conservation park managed by the Mornington Peninsula Shire, is traversed by the preferred pipeline route. The Western Port Ramsar Wetland and the registered reserves of Warringine Creek Streamside that forms part of the Park is also intersected by the pipeline.

Site area (if known)

Route length (for linear infrastructure) and width (average) – See below.

The site area is determined by the length of the pipeline, which is approximately 56km. As identified in Section 3, APA will utilise a construction ROW of 30m in width across the length of the pipeline and additional work space as required to access the construction ROW and associated construction requirements.

In areas of constraint, APA has reduced the construction ROW to minimise impact to areas of ecological significance and to avoid clearing of vegetation. In order to safely and efficiently construct the pipeline the reduced construction ROW can only be achieved over shorter distances. The total areas of disturbance associated with the Project are included in Table 3.

Table 3 – Areas of project disturbance

Site Area Area (ha)

Pipeline easement area 74

Construction area 80

Project area (total easement area + total construction area) 154

The area required to safely and efficiently construct the pipeline is approximately 154ha. This includes an allowance for the construction of the two end-of line facilities, which will have an ongoing operational footprint of approximately 4.5ha (construction disturbance included in Table 3). The area of the construction ROW is illustrated in Attachment 1c.

The currently estimated site area may change and is dependent on factors such as detailed design and final arrangements with landowners. In addition, a construction area has been defined based on the current level of knowledge for works within public road reserves. The final area of the works will be determined between APA and the relevant road authority and will prioritise safety of construction personnel and measures to minimise impacts to the road network. Current land use and development:

The proposed pipeline traverses a number of different land uses with the land use being dependent on the relevant pipeline section (refer to Attachment 1a). The potential to affect existing productive land uses has been a key consideration in the pipeline route selection and is a matter that has been raised with affected landowners/occupiers as well as local councils.


16

In the southern portion of the pipeline route (Crib Point to Pearcedale), the pipeline is generally within rural residential, road corridors and industrial land. Areas of the pipeline in this section also intersect two conservation reserves (Warringine Park and the North Western Port Nature Conservation Reserve), a conservation reserve (Warringine Park) as well as horse studs and hobby farms. In the northern portion (Pearcedale to Pakenham), the pipeline is within more open agricultural land with the predominant land use being grazing (typically beef) or fodder harvesting.

In relation to the future development of the land for urban purposes, it is recognised that the proposed pipeline route is proximate to areas planned for urban expansion (notably the Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan). The Cardinia Western Port Green Wedge Management Plan and the draft Casey Western Port Green Wedge Management Plan identify a preference for limited urbanisation and sub-division of these areas, which represent a large portion of the pipeline route (approximately 46%).

Western Port and the drainage areas around the Koo Wee Rup-Longwarry Flood Protection District are well recognised for their agricultural and economic values due to rich agricultural soils. The pipeline route avoids existing high-value horticultural production areas (e.g. market produce) within this area. APA has identified a small number of proposed future market gardens which will be taken into account during the detailed design of the pipeline and associated construction methodology.

Approximately 2% of the pipeline route impacts existing high-value horticulture and this occurs within the area of the boundary of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. The majority of open agricultural areas impacted by the pipeline alignment are currently used for either grazing (typically beef) or for fodder harvesting. In this regard, the pipeline route achieves the aim of minimising impact to high-value agriculture and horticulture within the boundary of Cardinia Shire and City of Casey.

Where the pipeline intersects agricultural or farming land, it is acknowledged the pipeline construction phase will impact the use and enjoyment of the land and business enterprise. However this is a compensable matter under the Pipelines Act and APA would seek to return the land to its full production as a matter of priority following construction. APA will design and construct the pipeline to allow for the co-existence and return of the land to its pre-existing land use.

The pipeline route is co-located with adjacent existing oil, gas and water pipelines for approximately a third (34%) of its length. This was a key objective of the route selection process to minimise where possible the creation of new corridors seen as having a higher social impact than abutting existing infrastructure. Much of this co-location is with the Esso Australia oil and gas pipelines between the north of Hastings (Long Island Point) and the crossing of the South Gippsland Highway, north-west of Tooradin. When co-location of the pipeline with road reserves (in and adjacent to), drainage/levee bank channels and rail reserves are added, the pipeline route is co-located with linear infrastructure for the majority of its length (approximately 55%).

In relation to the sites of the proposed pipeline facilities, the Crib Point Receiving Facility is proposed within land that is owned by PoHDA and is zoned for port uses. The siting of this facility is therefore appropriate considering the proposed importation of LNG at the Crib Point Jetty. The current land use for the Pakenham Delivery Facility is associated with the development of rail infrastructure and the pipeline facility is a consistent industrial use (refer to Section 3). Description of local setting (e.g. adjoining land uses, road access, infrastructure, proximity to residences & urban centres):

The pipeline commences at Crib Point, adjacent to the jetty infrastructure that has a long history as a shipping port for the former petroleum terminal since 1960. From the APA Crib Point Receiving Facility, immediately north of the existing jetty, the pipeline follows existing oil and gas pipeline infrastructure corridors to the south of Hastings. These infrastructure corridors are followed for the first 5km of the pipeline route to Reid Parade, Hastings including a 2.1km crossing of Warringine Park, a local conservation reserve managed by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.

Through Hastings, the pipeline route generally follows Frankston-Flinders Road, with the exception of a short section of the Stony Point Rail Line corridor. This section of the pipeline route is within an existing urban area and the pipeline construction methodology will take into account the avoidance and minimisation of potential impacts to road users, potentially affected business


17

operations and residents of the local community.

From Graydens Road to the north of Hastings, the pipeline is generally located within private property following the crossing of the Stony Point Rail Line and Frankston-Flinders Road. Between Hastings and the South Gippsland Freeway, the pipeline is generally co-located adjacent to Esso Australia’s oil and gas pipeline corridor. The pipeline route has minor excursions from the existing linear infrastructure corridor to avoid social and environmental constraints or to facilitate a proposed construction methodology. Through this area, the pipeline route is located to the south of the Western Port Highway and the townships of Tyabb and Pearcedale, with the crossing of Baxter-Tooradin Road.

After crossing Baxter-Tooradin Road, the pipeline is located in more open agricultural land and it diverges from the Esso Australia oil and gas pipeline corridor prior to the crossing of the South Gippsland Highway. This facilitates a more direct route to the east of Pakenham, whereas the Esso Australia pipelines continue to Longford, East Gippsland. Between the South Gippsland Highway and Pakenham South, the pipeline traverses the low lying Koo Wee Rup swamp area and a number of significant drainage features that are maintained by Melbourne Water. Western Contour Drain, Cardinia Creek, Deep and Toomuc Creeks are three of the most significant drainage features that the pipeline crosses in this region.

Towards Pakenham, the pipeline crosses the Gippsland Rail Line prior to reaching the proposed Pakenham Delivery Facility. From this facility, the pipeline then follows Oakview Lane and Mt Ararat Road South where it terminates at the Longford-Dandenong Pipeline on the northern side of the Princes Highway. Planning context (e.g. strategic planning, zoning & overlays, management plans):

State Policy Context

Plan Melbourne 2017-2050

Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 (DELWP, 2017) describes the metropolitan planning strategy developed to guide Melbourne’s growth to 2050. The plan sets out a vision for the future and provides a blueprint that will shape how people in greater Melbourne will live and work over the next 32 years. The plan identifies Cranbourne and Pakenham as major activity centres and clearly identifies the Urban Growth Boundary to define the extent of land available for urban development within the horizon of the document.

Precinct Structure Plans

The proposed pipeline is not located within any Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) or Melbourne’s designated growth areas. The proposed pipeline is within the Urban Growth Boundary for approximately 19km as it passes from Crib Point and through Hastings and impact to this area has been shown to be unavoidable with consideration of the relevant route selection criteria (refer to Section 4). In the vicinity of Koo Wee Rup North, the pipeline runs adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary and the recently released Pakenham East PSP. Planning of the pipeline route is subject to controls requiring the consideration and design response to both existing land uses and foreseeable development.

State Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework forms part of every planning scheme in Victoria. It outlines the relevant State Planning Policies which have to be taken into consideration as part of every planning application in Victoria.

The purpose of the State Planning Policy Framework is to ensure the needs of existing and future communities are properly accounted for when considering matters such as zoning of land and minimising environmental impacts. Policies relevant for this project are;

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 11.01 Victoria Clause 11.02 Managing Growth

o 11.02-1S Supply of urban land o 11.02-2S Structure planning


18

Clause 11.03 Planning For Places o 11.03-1SActivity centres o 11.03-2S Growth areas o 11.03-3S Peri-urban areas

Clause 12 Environmental and Landscape Values Clause 12.01 Biodiversity

o 12.01-1S Protection of biodiversity o 12.01-2S Native vegetation management

Clause 12.05 Significant Environments and Landscapes o 12.05-1S Environmentally sensitive areas o 12.05-2S Landscapes

Clause 13 Environmental Risks and Amenity Clause 13.05 Noise

o 13.05-1S Noise abatement Clause 13.06 Air Quality

o 13.06-1S Air quality management Clause 13.07 Amenity

o 13.07-1S Land use compatibility Clause 14 Natural Resource Management Clause 14.02 Water

o 14.02-1S Catchment planning and management o 14.02-2S Water quality

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 15.01 Built Environment

o 15.01-4S Healthy neighbourhoods Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development

o 15.02-1S Energy and resource efficiency Clause 15.03 Heritage

o 15.03-1S Heritage conservation o 15.03-2S Aboriginal cultural heritage

Clause 17 Economic Development o 17.01 Employment o 17.04 Tourism

Local Planning Context

Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework outlines the local planning policies which are unique to each local government area that need to be taken into consideration with every planning application within the respective municipality. The following local policies are relevant to the Project given its location within the City of Casey, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and Cardinia Shire Council:

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council o Clause 21.02 - Profile of the Mornington Peninsula o Clause 21.03 - Mornington Peninsula - Regional Role and Local Vision o Clause 21.04 - Mornington Peninsula Strategic Framework Plan o Clause 21.05 - Objectives, Strategies and Implementation o Clause 21.06 - Strategic Framework and the Peninsula’s Settlement Pattern o Clause 21.09 – Planning for Rural Areas o Clause 21.10 – Managing Port Area Development o Clause 22.05 – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage o Clause 22.06 – Development on Highways, Main Roads and Tourist Routes.

City of Casey o Clause 21.02 - Key Issues and Strategic Vision o Clause 21.04 - Environment o Clause 21.05 - Economic Development o Clause 21.07 - Built Environment

Cardinia Shire Council o Clause 21.01 - Cardinia Shire Key Issues and Strategic Vision o Clause 21.02 – Environment o Clause 21.04 – Economic Development


19

o Clause 21.05 – Infrastructure o Clause 21.06 - Particular Uses and Development

Planning Zones and Overlays

The pipeline crosses three local government areas - Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, City of Casey and Cardinia Shire. Each local council has a planning scheme that sets out policies and provisions for the use and development of land. The land required for the proposed pipeline transverses a number of differently zoned parcels of land which are identified in the relevant planning schemes. The current land use zones intersected by the pipeline are summarised in Table 4, with these and adjacent planning zones illustrated in Attachment 1e.

Table 4 – Planning zones intersected by the pipeline and facilities

Zones / Planning Scheme

Percentage of Pipeline Route (%)

Additional Comments

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Special Use Zone Schedule 1

22.0 Identifies land for the purpose of port and industrial uses

Road Zone Category 1 5.5 Identifies land for significant existing/proposed roads

Public Conservation and Resource Zone

3.7 Seeks to protect and conserve land for its historic, scientific, landscape, habitat or cultural values and aims to provide facilities which assist in public education of the natural environment

Green Wedge Zone Schedule 2

1.4 Land set aside for agricultural purposes

Road Zone Category 2 1.1 Identifies land for significant existing/proposed roads

Public Use Zone Schedule 4 (Transport)

1.0 Land set aside for transport services

Industrial 3 Zone 0.4 Land set aside for Industrial purposes. This ensures that certain uses do not adversely affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive land uses

General Residential Zone Schedule 1

0.3 Land identified for residential purposes in the Mornington Peninsula Town Areas

Port Zone 0.1 Land identified for port related uses

City of Casey


8.7 Protects and conserves green wedge land and encourages sustainable land use management practices


8.1 Protects and conserves green wedge land and encourages sustainable land use management practices

Rural Conservation Zone

7.6 Maintains the biodiversity of areas identified as being ecologically sensitive

Public Use Zone Schedule 1

2.3 Land identified for public utility and community services

Public Use Zone - Transport

0.1 Land set aside for transport services

Road Zone – Category 1

0.4 Identifies land for significant existing/proposed roads


20

Cardinia Shire Council


29.6 Land identified for agricultural purposes. It encourages sustainable land management

Public Use Zone – Service Utility

3.1 Land identified for public utility and community services

Special Use Zone Schedule 7

2.7 Land identified for south east food production, export and employment node.

Farming Zone 1.3 Land identified for agricultural purposes and discourage non-agricultural uses. This includes dwellings which affect the intended land use.

Road Zone 0.5 Identifies land for significant existing/proposed roads

As identified in Table 4, impacts to the land uses from the pipeline are dependent on the location, with the largest land zone impacted being the Green Wedge Zones of the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire Council (combined approximately 46% of the pipeline route). Green wedges, including Western Port and the Mornington Peninsula Green Wedge, generally provide for agricultural and horticultural areas, open spaces and natural habitats for plants and animals.

Overlays reflect specific characteristics of land in an area that have specific attributes, such as areas of significant vegetation or heritage value. These overlays are used by local government in assessing development in relation to special planning considerations that should apply to these areas. The planning overlays that are traversed by the pipeline are summarised in Table 5, with these and adjacent planning overlays illustrated in Attachment 1f.

Table 5 – Planning overlays intersected by the pipeline

Planning scheme overlays Percentage of pipeline route (%)

Additional comments

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Bushfire Management 16 Area identified as bushfire hazard prone. It warrants bushfire protection measures.

Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 5)

5 This area forms part of the catchment of streams and waterways that discharge into Westernport Bay and includes coastal areas of State significance.


3 This area forms part of the catchment of the Warringine Creek, and other streams and waterways discharging to Westernport Bay.


1 The wetlands of the Mornington Peninsula are an integral element of the environmental systems that support biodiversity and a number are of state and international significance.

Land Subject to Inundation 1 Land which is prone to flooding associated with waterways and open drainage systems.

City of Casey



9 Areas fringing Western Port, which are noted for its coastal landscapes and extensive areas of remnant coastal vegetation.

Bushfire Management 1 Area identified as bushfire hazard prone. It warrants bushfire protection measures.


21

Cardinia Shire Council



1 The hills to the northern part of the municipality (generally to the north of the Princes Highway), which is an area with significant landscape and environmental values.

Floodway Overlay 1 Waterways, major floodpaths, drainage depressions and high hazard areas, which have the greatest risk and frequency of being affected by flooding.

Local government area(s):

The Project route traverses the following local government areas:

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council;

City of Casey; and

Cardinia Shire Council.

The pipeline route is of approximately equal length within the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and Cardinia Shire Council areas (approximately 36% of the pipeline route respectively), with a shorter length within the boundary of the City of Casey (approximately 28%). APA has engaged with all local governments as part of the planning stages of the Project and will continue to engage regarding specific council requirements for the management of local issues such as roads, council managed crown land and engagement with the local community.


22

8. Existing environment Overview of key environmental assets/sensitivities in project area and vicinity (cf. general description of project site/study area under section 7):

Key environmental assets identified in the project area include:

Matters of National Environmental Significance;

Native flora and fauna;

Aboriginal cultural heritage;

Historic heritage;

Waterways; and

Wetlands, including the Western Port Ramsar Site.

Matters of National Environmental Significance: A threatened ecological community (Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh) listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) was recorded along the construction ROW during field surveys. Three EPBC Act listed threatened flora species (Dense Leek-orchid, Swamp Fireweed and Swamp Everlasting) were also considered to have a high likelihood of occurrence, though their presence was not able to be confirmed due to the field surveys (survey timing). Four EPBC Act-listed threatened fauna species were recorded during field surveys, these being Growling Grass Frog (Vulnerable), Southern Brown Bandicoot (Endangered), Australian Grayling (Vulnerable) and Dwarf Galaxias (Vulnerable).

Native Vegetation: 201 flora species were recorded. This included 118 indigenous species, 13 non-indigenous natives and 70 introduced species. The field assessments identified predominantly fragmented and largely degraded patches of native vegetation remaining within the construction ROW. The construction ROW was found to intersect 91 patches of remnant vegetation, with scattered indigenous trees also present within the construction ROW.

Native Fauna: The pipeline route includes potentially suitable habitat for listed fauna species. A total of 42 rare or threatened fauna species of relevance were recorded. These comprised 16 species listed on the EPBC Act, 20 listed as protected on the Victorian FFG Act and 6 species listed on the Victorian Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna. Nine of these protected fauna species listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) have been identified across the pipeline route, these were: Growling Grass Frog, Southern Toadlet, Australasian Shoveler, Cattle Egret, Eastern Great Egret Hardhead, Lewin's Rail, Southern Brown Bandicoot and the Glossy Grass Skink.

Further information about native vegetation and flora and fauna is provided in Section 12.

Aboriginal cultural heritage: Parts of the project are located in registered heritage places and areas of cultural heritage sensitivity due to the presence of a number of registered cultural heritage places and named waterways as defined in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. These areas occur extensively over the pipeline route around Western Port and within the low-lying land within the Koo Wee Rup-Longwarry Flood Protection District.

Historic heritage: There is one site on the Victorian Heritage Inventory and Victorian Heritage Register along the pipeline route, which is the Denham Road Farmhouse (H7921-0119). This site is of low level significance and has been subject to prior disturbance through construction of other linear infrastructure.

Further information about Historic Heritage is provided in Section 15.

Waterways: The pipeline intercepts 8 main waterways and 58 un-named and named waterway and drains within the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment (managed by Melbourne Water Corporation). The water quality, aquatic habitat potential and riparian vegetation of these waterways varies greatly. Further information about the environmental values of waterways is provided in Section 13.


23

Wetlands: The pipeline route is proximate to the western boundary of the Western Port Ramsar Site from Crib Point to Warringine Park (approximately KP4.5), with the pipeline traversing an area of the Ramsar wetland within Warringine Park (for approximately 300m) and at Watsons Creek (for approximately 330m). In addition, a small number of dam and landowner water storages across the pipeline route have been identified that have aquatic and wetland type habitat. Further information about the environmental values of wetlands is provided in Section 13.


24

9. Land availability and control Is the proposal on, or partly on, Crown land?

No Yes If yes, please provide details.

The pipeline route crosses a number of areas of Crown land including land for conservation purposes, watercourses, road reserves and public transport land. A summary of the Crown land intersected by the pipeline route is presented in Table 6.

Table 6 – Crown Land

Crown Land Approx. Length (km) Approx. temporary construction area (ha)

Approx. easement area (ha)

Crown 4.2 6.3 7.6

Reserve 0.3 0.3 0.2

Road reserve 6.5 0.2 -

Current land tenure (provide plan, if practicable):

The pipeline route is primarily proposed within freehold land (owned by private persons), though large portions of the pipeline route are also proposed in public land (land owned by or vested in public authority) and Crown land (outlined above in Table 6). A summary of the different land tenure intersected by the pipeline route is presented in Table 7.

Table 7 – Current land tenure

Land Approx. Length (km)

Approx. temporary construction area (ha)

Approx. easement area (ha)

Freehold Land 43.5 65 68

Crown Land 4.2 6.3 7.6

Public land 8.5 3 4.3

Intended land tenure (tenure over or access to project land):

APA propose to obtain an easement in gross for the construction and operation of the pipeline, which will be registered on the title of freehold land. The easement will afford APA certain rights in relation to accessing the land for the ongoing and safe operation of the pipeline. APA will obtain an easement of generally 15m in width where landowners agree to conditions. This is the minimum area necessary to undertake any operations and maintenance activities.

In relation to the proposed pipeline facilities, APA will as a preferred option, seek to acquire or lease land to allow for the construction and continued access to these above-ground facilities during the operation of the pipeline.

The pipeline easement will include certain restrictions which can be undertaken on the activities within the easement area, including but not limited to preventing the erection of structures or excavation of land below a certain depth, planting of permanent vegetation that may impact the pipeline and line of sight between the pipeline warning markers and altering the existing contour of the land. Other than these restrictions in relation to the safe operation of the pipeline, landowners have the right to use and enjoy the land and APA will reinstate the land to its former condition following pipeline construction.

Where the pipeline intersects Crown land, or public land and similar tenures, APA will seek the agreement of the relevant land manager. These agreements will be specific to the authority that manages land (e.g. boundary watercourses, roads) and in addition APA will seek the relevant Crown Land Ministers consent for any Crown land affected by the pipeline where required.

Other interests in affected land (e.g. easements, native title claims):

There are currently no native title determinations or claimant applications that would be affected by the pipeline route (or proposed pipeline corridor).


25

The pipeline interfaces with the following infrastructure:

Existing roads (at grade separated rail crossings);

Easements for overhead power transmission lines;

Drainage structures and overland flow paths; and

Third-party utilities.

APA will liaise with the asset owners of relevant third-party crossings through the detailed design of the pipeline and will seek the technical design and works approvals to allow for the construction and operation of the pipeline.


26

10. Required approvals State and Commonwealth approvals required for project components (if known):

Commonwealth

The Project will be referred to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act for a decision on whether the Project is a ‘controlled action’ and requires further assessment and approval under the Act. The Project’s EPBC Act referral will be made on the basis of there being potential impacts to listed threatened species and listed ecological communities under the EPBC Act, but it concludes the Project will not have a significant impact on any item protected under the EPBC Act.

State

Other than the relevant overarching environmental approvals, the primary project approval for the pipeline is a pipeline licence, which is granted under the Pipelines Act. In addition to the pipeline licence, APA has a number of other requirements under the Pipelines Act, including obtaining the consent of the relevant Minister for where works will occur on Crown land (prior to issue of a pipeline licence), acceptance of a CEMP prior to pipeline construction and approval to construct and operate the pipeline.

A summary of other key State environmental legislation and its potential applicability to the Project is presented in Table 8.

Table 8 – Summary of State regulatory requirements

Legislation Authority Approval / Permit / Licence

Requirement / Applicability

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

Aboriginal Victoria and Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation

Two (2) Cultural Heritage Management Plans

Approval of Cultural Heritage Management Plans, which are currently under preparation, by Aboriginal Victoria and Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation.

Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994

Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority

- Discussion with the Authority to understand management of noxious weeds and pest animals.

Country Fire Authority Act 1958

Country Fire Authority

Hot works permit Permit to use fire in the open air, in support of operation of construction equipment in the open air during a total fire ban.

Marine and Coastal Act 2018

DEWLP Consent Consent of the responsible Minister for the use and development of coastal Crown land (including Crown land 200 metres inland of the high-water mark).

Fisheries Act 1995 DEWLP Permit to take and move

A permit will be required under the FFG Act for salvage activities requiring the handling of threatened and common fish species and threatened aquatic invertebrates.

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

DEWLP Permit to take Permits are required under the FFG Act for clearance of FFG Act listed species (Flora and Fauna) within Crown Land. This includes roadside and reserves such as Warringine Park.

Heritage Act 1995 Heritage Victoria Permit to Damage Consent to carry out works to a site listed on the Victorian Heritage


27

Inventory under the Act, if relevant.

Local Government Act 1989

Local Government Authorities

Road Opening Permit

Works permit for construction across or beneath roads.

Rail Safety Act 2006

VicTrack Third Party Access Approval

Works permit for construction across or beneath a railway.

Road Management Act 2004

VicRoads Road Opening Permit

Permit to conduct works on or in a roadway including a Traffic Management Plan.

Water Act 1989 Melbourne Water Corporation

Works on waterways Permit

Works will be conducted across waterways and drains maintained and managed by Melbourne Water. Design and works approvals will be obtained from Melbourne Water to undertake the relevant construction activities at each of the waterways and drains.

Wildlife Act 1975 DEWLP – Port Phillip and Western Port

Management Authorisation Permit

The removal or salvage of indigenous vertebrate species (except declared a pest) listed under the FFG Act and some introduced fish under the Fisheries Act 1995.

Section 85 of the Pipelines Act provides an exemption from the need to obtain planning approvals under the Planning Environment Act 1987 for the use or development of land or the doing or carrying out of any matter or thing for the purpose of the pipeline. Should any aspect of the Project not occur under a pipeline licence issued under the Pipelines Act, APA will obtain any necessary consents in accordance with any local planning requirements.

Have any applications for approval been lodged? No Yes If yes, please provide details.

A referral will be lodged with the Commonwealth Government under the EPBC Act. Approval agency consultation (agencies with whom the proposal has been discussed):

Consultation has been undertaken with the following approval agencies:

Aboriginal Victoria;

Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation;

Cardinia Shire Council;

City of Casey;

Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy;

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning;

Energy Safe Victoria;

Heritage Victoria;


Melbourne Water;

Public Transport Victoria;

VicRoads; and

VicTrack.

In addition to consultation with relevant regulatory agencies in relation to the necessary regulatory approvals for the Project, APA has also undertaken consultation with some of these parties as owners of land affected by the pipeline route.


28

Other agencies consulted: No other agencies have been formally consulted except for the ones listed above.


29

PART 2 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

11. Potentially significant environmental effects

Overview of potentially significant environmental effects (identify key potential effects and comment on their significance and likelihood, as well as key uncertainties):

The overview of potentially significant environmental effects presented in this section is provided with consideration to the following factors, as outlined by the Ministerial Guidelines:

Potential magnitude, extent and duration of adverse effects on environmental assets in the short, medium and longer term, as a result of the development, operation and where relevant, decommissioning of a project

Significance of the environmental assets affected, in relation to: – character of the potentially affected environmental assets – geographic occurrence of the environmental assets – values or importance of the environmental assets, based on expert knowledge, relevant policy and evidence of social values

Potential for more extended adverse effects in space and time, as a result of interactions of different effects and environmental processes affecting environmental assets.

The identified potential impacts in relation to the factors outlined by the Ministerial Guidelines are discussed in detail below.

Potential magnitude, extent and duration of adverse effects on environmental assets

The nature and extent of potential native vegetation removal for the project has been assessed in a series of ecological investigations (Attachments 2 – 6) and in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. On the basis of these investigations, it has been concluded that native vegetation removal for the project is not likely to have a significant environmental effect, given vegetation to be removed is of low quality within a modified setting. Commonwealth-listed vegetation (described in Section 12) and native vegetation that provide habitat for Southern Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog, Dwarf Galaxia and Australian Grayling will be avoided by the project through the selection of construction techniques.

The project will also implement a CEMP with specific project performance requirements and mitigation measures. Unavoidable impacts to native vegetation will include securing of offsets under the State Guidelines.

The ‘Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978’ (“the Ministerial Guidelines” DSE, 2006) states that the proposed clearing of 10 or more hectares of native vegetation from an area that is of an EVC identified as endangered has the potential to result in a significant environmental effect.

The construction of the Project will not impact 10ha or more of native vegetation. This vegetation has been characterised as fragmented condition and of low quality. Vegetation areas identified to provide significant fauna habitat have been considered during the selection of construction methods. APA has committed to undertake a number of direction drills and bores across the pipeline route to minimise impacts to areas of ecological sensitivity. The construction ROW will be reinstated with suitable vegetation and in sensitive fauna areas, the vegetation will assist the reinstatement of the habitat as agreed with the relevant Government Authorities and guidelines to the extent practicable. Ecological investigations relevant to the project are documented in Section 12.

Significance of the environmental assets affected.

The impact of the Pipeline project on the Western Port Ramsar Site values and ecological character described in Western Port Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description (KBR, 2010) is considered to be only temporary (AECOM, 2018d). In addition, the potential impacts would be localised and due to the poor condition of the receiving environment at the location of the pipeline, indistinguishable from the current background conditions.

The Pipeline project does not generate any direct water quality impacts on Western Port Bay as


30

there are no abstractions or discharges to the waters of the Bay. Increased sedimentation load to the Bay could affect critical flora and fauna components, however, the pipeline will be bored beneath all major watercourses that interact with the Ramsar site, and those that are not bored are considered highly likely to be dry during the construction period, limiting the risk of increased sediment loads into the Ramsar site during construction. APA will directionally drill beneath the most significant watercourses, and the valuable mangrove and saltmarsh habitat that provides high-tide roots for waterbird species mitigates the potential for impact to waterbirds and to waterbird habitat.

The majority of remnant native vegetation patches within the construction ROW remain as disturbed and modified examples of their respective EVC (Swamp Scrub, Swamp Riparian Woodland, Grassy Woodland). The region has been heavily modified by agricultural practices with only a quarter of the original extent of native vegetation remaining (refer to Attachments 2 to 7).

Due to the ‘endangered’ conservation status assigned by DELWP to the EVCs known to occur within the construction ROW, their conservation significance is high.

Swamp Scrub is the predominant EVC within the construction ROW that will be removed as a result of the project activities. Swamp Scrub within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion is a closed scrub to 8m tall at low elevations on alluvial deposits along streams or on poorly drained sites with higher nutrient availability. Dry variants have a grassy / herbaceous ground layer (DELWP, 2018). Across the pipeline route, most of the Swamp Scrub was mapped within Warringine Park.

The maximum extent of removal that is planned to occur for the Project in relation to the Swamp Scrub EVC is approximately 2.62 ha. This would constitute a loss of 0.26% of the remaining extent of this EVC that is thought to be less than 1,000ha. The character of the EVCs identified along the pipeline route has been significantly affected by past clearing and ongoing disturbance activities. This has resulted in the EVCs occurring generally as small, isolated, and fragmented patches with high weed cover along roadsides with the exception of the EVC within Warringine Park.

With consideration to the above, and the information provided in Section 12, it is not likely that the environmental assets identified within the project area are of significance.

Potential for more extended adverse effects in space and time

Given that the pipeline will be buried and normal use returned to the construction ROW with some restrictions, the project is not likely to have the potential to introduce extended adverse environmental effects. The Receiving and Delivering Facilities have been found through a number of specialists studies (Attachments 2 to 14) to have minimal to negligible effects to nearby sensitive receptors with respect to landscape and visual amenity, noise and traffic impacts.

Relevant avoidance mitigation measures and best practice construction methodologies will be documented in the CEMP. Through the implementation of these environmental controls the potential for extended adverse effects on the environment will be minimised.


31

12. Native vegetation, flora and fauna Native vegetation Is any native vegetation likely to be cleared or otherwise affected by the project?

NYD No Yes If yes, answer the following questions and attach details. What investigation of native vegetation in the project area has been done? (briefly describe)

A comprehensive ecological report was prepared by Monarc Environmental (2018a) to describe the existing conditions of the Project (refer to Attachment 2). As described in this report and summarised below, desktop assessment and field investigations were undertaken to determine the extent of native vegetation, and the potential for listed flora and fauna species to occur within the construction ROW.

Desktop assessment

Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) report, the Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Atlas, the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas database (VBA, Version 2018), Victorian Nature Kit mapping and previous ecological assessments were reviewed to provide information on the potential for threatened flora and fauna species and vegetation communities to occur within the construction ROW. A complete list of desktop resources is provided in the Flora and Fauna Assessment Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline (Monarc 2018a).

Field assessments

Field assessment of the project area was undertaken between December 2017 and August 2018 to determine the presence of native vegetation, scattered trees and the potential for threatened flora and fauna species.

Native vegetation and scattered tree assessments as well as targeted fauna surveys and an aquatic assessment were undertaken mainly within the construction ROW. The results of assessments have informed the pipeline alignment and construction methodology. There are areas such as Warringine Park where the ecological assessments have extended outside the construction ROW to further assess ecological values. APA has also undertaken field surveys on a limited number of alternative pipeline routes to inform the route selection process (refer to Section 4).

These assessments were conducted in accordance with the Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual (V1.3) (DSE, 2004), and included Habitat Hectare assessments of native vegetation patches.

What is the maximum area of native vegetation that may need to be cleared? NYD Estimated area ……8.26(hectares)

APA has undertaken an iterative process of refinement to the proposed pipeline route in order to minimise impacts to native vegetation and ecological communities. In December 2017, the estimated vegetation clearance using mostly modelled data was approximately 18.5ha of native vegetation. Further pipeline route selection, field survey verification and pipeline design allowed this to be reduced to approximately 11.5 ha in June 2018. Further route selection, design and avoidance has resulted in the total area of vegetation impact to be reduced to 6.83ha.

The distribution of the native vegetation identified during the field surveys comprises the following Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs):

3.291ha of Endangered EVCs (Swamp Scrub, Swampy Riparian Woodland and Grassy Woodland);

2.44ha of Vulnerable EVCs (Damp Heathy Woodland); and

1.098ha of Least Concern EVCs (Coastal Saltmarsh and Heathy Woodland).

The total hectares of endangered EVCs proposed for clearance is (3.291 ha) below the Environment Effects referral trigger of 10ha or more of native vegetation that is identified as endangered or of very high conservation significance in accordance with the Ministerial Guidelines. It is also below the combination referral criteria of potential clearing of 10ha or more of native vegetation.


32

Under the Victorian Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation the loss of scattered trees needs to be considered. Indigenous scattered trees were identified either within the construction ROW, or near the edge of the pipeline corridor. The construction ROW was found to contain 37 scattered indigenous trees. Of the 37 scattered indigenous trees, 11 were large, the remaining were small scattered trees. The loss of 37 scattered trees is equivalent to 1.42ha of vegetation removal, as listed below, which is not included in the 6.83ha referenced above. The conservation status of these scattered trees is:

0.874ha – Endangered;

0.14ha – Vulnerable; and

0.404ha - Least Concern.

This impact to vegetation represents the native vegetation currently within the proposed construction ROW for the Project. APA will undertake a review of the potentially impacted vegetation with a qualified arborist and construction personnel to determine if vegetation within the construction ROW can be retained and protected. For this reason the actual extent of clearing is likely to be less than what is represented in this referral.

The clearing of all native vegetation and trees for the project will be undertaken in accordance with the CEMP, which will include the requirement for undertaking clearing with the advice of a qualified arborist. An arborist will be present during the clearing of any larger hollow-bearing trees.

Due to land access restrictions, field surveys have not been undertaken in seven properties (CPT046, CPT047, CPT049, CPT075-W, CPT088, CPT128 & CPT129), which comprise of approximately 5km of the pipeline length. Modelled native vegetation available in NatureKit (DELWP 2018b) was utilised to determine native vegetation in these properties and review of existing high-quality aerial imagery and roadside assessments have been used to confirm the accuracy of the dataset.

Minor refinement to the pipeline route may be required as further property access is attained and affected landowner negotiations are finalised. Examples of other types of changes envisaged include:

Minor refinements to further avoid or reduce impacts on environmental values, such as Aboriginal cultural heritage places or threatened ecological communities identified during additional field surveys (refer to Section 20);

Minor refinements within a property to address landowner property management matters, such as avoiding areas of existing farm infrastructure;

Adjustment of infrastructure or watercourse crossing locations or approach angles to address specific design requirements, including from third party asset owners;

Modifications of the alignment to address cadastral inaccuracies; and

Refinement of the location and number of additional work spaces based on detailed construction planning.

As such a mechanism is required to enable the environmental impacts of alignment modifications through the detailed design to be assessed. The proposed approach to assess such alignment modifications are:

Vegetation mapping and field surveys for threatened species to understand the presence of suitable habitat and threatened ecological communities;

Aboriginal cultural heritage review/surveys;

Assessment of proximity to historic heritage listed and registered sites; and

Assessment of visual amenity, traffic and transport and land use and agriculture, where design refinements may result in an adverse impact.

If surveys and assessments demonstrate that effects to environmental values as a result of the realignment or design change are the same or less as assessed in this referral, then it is proposed to continue with the alignment change without seeking further approval. Any amendment to the proposed pipeline route will be subject to review and approval by DELWP in


33

the licencing process under the Pipelines Act and the scope of this referral.

Detailed design modifications may result in a change to the areas described as part of this referral for impacts to native vegetation. As such, it is considered that up to a 10% increase to the impact to the EVC’s and native vegetation in this referral should be considered as part of the project disturbance. Confirmation of the final disturbance area will be achieved through the finalisation of the detailed design for the Project.

APA will finalise the detailed design and secure offsets for the final area of disturbance for the Project prior to the pipeline construction. How much of this clearing would be authorised under a Forest Management Plan or Fire Protection Plan?

N/A ………………………. approx. percent (if applicable) Which Ecological Vegetation Classes may be affected? (if not authorised as above)

NYD Preliminary/detailed assessment completed. If assessed, please list.

The majority of the pipeline traverses the Gippsland Plain Bioregion which is characterised by flat to gently undulating terrain and vegetated by Swamp Scrub and open forests. The bioregion is generally below 200m in altitude, with coastal areas of sandy beaches, shallow inlets and extensive mudflats and mangroves (VEAC, 2010). There is a small portion of the pipeline route near Pakenham (KP53-54) that falls within the Highlands-Southern Fall Bioregion.

The Gippsland Plain Bioregion is characterised by native vegetation of disparate pattern, reflecting a variety of land-use histories in the bioregion. The region has been heavily modified by agricultural practices with only a quarter of the original extent of native vegetation remaining. Approximately half of the remaining native vegetation is located within public land, with a substantial proportion of this being within conservation reserves.

The field assessments between December 2017 and August 2018 identified predominantly fragmented and largely degraded patches of native vegetation remaining within the construction footprint. These patches often contained a mixture of native and introduced weeds. The construction ROW was found to intersect 91 patches of remnant vegetation. Of these, 46 will be impacted by the construction footprint, and 45 patches will be avoided using HDD and other design modifications.

Table 9 provides the extent of the each of the EVCs and status. The distribution of the EVC’s in relation to the pipeline route is illustrated in Attachment 1g. The presence of these EVCs was determined based on vegetation composition, soil types and location. The larger areas of remnant vegetation occurred in the reserves (e.g. Warringine Park, Western Port Coastal Park) and two private properties towards the southern end of the alignment. The remaining remnant patches largely occurred within roadside vegetation and along creek lines and low-lying areas (Monarc, 2018a).

Table 9 – Summary of EVCs to be impacted

Bioregion EVC Number and Name DELWP Status Area within construction footprint (ha)

Gippsland Plain

48 Heathy Woodland Least Concern 1.098

53 Swamp Scrub Endangered 2.615

83 Swampy Riparian Woodland Endangered 0.264

175 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0.412

793 Damp Heathy Woodland Vulnerable 2.444

Heathy Woodland

Heathy Woodland within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion is described spanning a variety of geologies but is generally associated with nutrient-poor soils including deep uniform sands (aeolian or outwash) and Tertiary sand/clay which has been altered to form quartzite gravel. Eucalypt-dominated low woodland to 10 m tall lacking a secondary tree layer and generally


34

supporting a diverse array of narrow or ericoid-leaved shrubs except where frequent fire has reduced this to a dense cover of bracken. Geophytes and annuals can be quite common but the ground cover is normally fairly sparse (DELWP, 2018c).

A large contiguous patch of Heathy Woodland was assessed on private property around KP15. This patch consisted of an overstorey Narrow-leaf Peppermint Eucalyptus radiata and Coast Manna Gum E. viminalis ssp. pryoriana. The understorey of this patch is comparatively intact with a large portion of indigenous understorey species present including Common Heath Epacris impressa, Prickly Tea-tree Leptospermum continentale, Common Correa Correa reflexa, Red-fruit Saw-sedge Gahnia sieberiana, Spiny-headed Mat-rush Lomandra longifolia, Small Grass Tree Xanthorrhoea minor, Small Mosquito-orchid Acianthus pusillus and Weeping Grass Microlaena stipoides. Weed species in this patch included Radiata Pine Pinus radiata, Bluebell Creeper Billardieria heterophylla, Bridal Creeper Asparagus asparagoides and Boneseed Chrysanthemoides monilifera.

Swamp Scrub

Swamp Scrub within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion is a closed scrub to 8 m tall at low elevations on alluvial deposits along streams or on poorly drained sites with higher nutrient availability. The EVC is dominated by Swamp Paperbark Melaleuca ericifolia (or sometimes Woolly Tea-tree Leptospermum lanigerum) which often forms a dense thicket, out-competing other species. Occasional emergent eucalypts may be present. Where light penetrates to ground level, a moss/lichen/liverwort or herbaceous ground cover is often present. Dry variants have a grassy / herbaceous ground layer (DELWP, 2018c).

Swamp Scrub was mapped at many locations across the alignment, varying in both age and quality between Warringine Park (KP3.2) to approximately KP52.3, on private property. The best examples of Swamp Scrub in all its forms were from Warringine Park. Dense, mature Swamp Scrub, with limited understorey except for areas of sun penetration, can be found around KP4.0 – KP4.3 while lower, more open areas supporting a variety of groundcover species are nearby. In the mature stands, logs were common, and the soil showed signs of inundation. The more open areas of Warringine Park contained a variety of woody and non-woody species including Prickly Currant-bush Coprosma quadrifida, Angled Lobelia Lobelia anceps, Shiny Swamp-mat Selliera radicans, Swamp Crassula Crassula helmsii, Tall Rush Juncus procerus and Common Reed Phragmites australis.

In some patches, there was a moderate to high coverage of weeds including Sweet Pittosporum Pittosporum undulatum, Bridal Creeper, Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare, Blackberry Rubus fruticosus agg and a mixture of pasture grasses. This was especially relevant to linear strips of Swamp Scrub along roadsides and adjacent to paddocks used for grazing livestock.

The presence of Swamp Scrub and a coastal environment can highlight the potential for the FFG Act threatened community of Coastal Moonah Woodland to be present in the area. This community is dominated by Moonah (Melaleuca lanceolata subsp. lanceolata) and is thought to have once occupied over 12,500ha on the Mornington Peninsula pre-European settlement but is now restricted to less than 1,000ha for its entire Victorian distribution (DSE, 2003). Field surveys did not record the key indicator species of this community within the alignment so it has been determined not to be present.

Swampy Riparian Woodland

Swampy Riparian Woodland within this bioregion is described as woodland to 15 m tall generally occupying low energy streams of the foothills and plains. The lower strata are variously locally dominated by a range of large and medium shrub species on the stream levees in combination with large tussock grasses and sedges in the ground layer (DELWP 2018c).

Most of the remnants of this EVC were of a small size, however one large patch totalling approximately 0.7ha in size was assessed in the northern part of Warringine Park (KP4.7), around Warringine Creek and southwards towards the existing fire access track.

This example had an overstorey of Swamp Gum Eucalyptus ovata with understorey trees of Swamp Paperbark and a mixture of shrubs including Sweet Bursaria Bursaria spinosa and Prickly Tea-tree. The ground layer was a mixture of graminoids including Tall Rush, Kangaroo Grass Themeda triandra, Austrostipa spp., Wattle Mat-rush Lomandra filiformis and Weeping Grass. Austral Bracken Pteridium esculentum was also present in some areas. This patch had been burnt recently leading to cover of medium shrubs being around 200% of benchmark cover for this


35

lifeform.

Grassy Woodland

Grassy Woodland within the Gippsland Plain is a variable open eucalypt woodland to 15m tall or occasionally Sheoak woodland to 10m tall over a diverse ground layer of grasses and herbs. The shrub component is usually sparse. It occurs on sites with moderate fertility on gentle slopes or undulating hills on a range of geologies (DELWP 2018c).

Remnant vegetation most attributable to this EVC was found in many locations across the construction footprint, including parts of the Frankston Flinders Road reserve. The best example of this community was identified in the northern part of Warringine Park (KP5.0), north of Warringine Creek. This patch, nearly half a hectare in size, had an overstorey of Eucalypts with Cherry Ballart Exocarpos cupressiformis, Black Wattle Acacia mearnsii and Black Sheoak Allocasuarina littoralis being the characteristic understorey tree species. The shrub layer made up 40% of the cover, being over the benchmark for this community, most probably due in part to recent fire history and being ecotonal with the Swampy Riparian Woodland along Warringine Creek. The shrub species recorded included Hedge Wattle Acacia paradoxa, Common Cassinia Cassinia aculeata, Cranberry Heath Astroloma humifusum, Honey-pots Acrotriche serrulata and Prickly Tea-tree. All of these are typical for this community. Groundcovers of herbs and graminoids were also present including Common Raspwort Gonocarpus tetragynus, Spiny-headed and Wattle Mat-rushes, Thatch Saw-sedge Gahnia radula, Kangaroo Grass, Weeping Grass, Austral Bracken and Apple-berry Billardiera sp. Again, these ground cover species are typical of this vegetation community.

Weeds within this patch included the ‘High Threat’ Sweet Vernal Grass Anthoxanthum odoratum and other grasses like the Large Quaking Grass Briza maxima and Paspalum Paspalum dilatatum.

Damp Heathy Woodland

Damp Heathy Woodland within this bioregion is described as woodland to 10m tall with tall dense heathy understorey which becomes tall scrub if long unburnt in high rainfall areas. The ground layer consists of grasses, herbs, small shrubs and tough-leaved monocots. Developed on sandy soils of moderate to low fertility, typically wet in winter due to impeding layer in soil and dry in summer (DELWP 2018c).

This community was identified in a small number of locations, with all the patches within the first 2.5km of the pipeline route. These patches had Swamp Gum in the overstorey, where an overstorey was present, Prickly Tea-tree, Burgan Kunzea sp. and several other shrub species in the understorey. The ground layer had typically characteristic species including Common Raspwort, Scented Sun-dew Drosera aberrans, Kangaroo Grass, Sword-sedge Lepidosperma sp. and the scrambler, Slender Dodder-laurel Cassytha glabella.

Weeds across these areas included Sweet Vernal Grass, Kikuyu Cenchrus clandestinus, blackberry and invasive non-indigenous natives like Sweet Pittosporum and Coast Wattle Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae.

Have potential vegetation offsets been identified as yet?

NYD Yes If yes, please briefly describe.

Offsets will be sought where the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided in accordance with relevant policy and guidelines. An offset strategy will be compiled for the Project. The intent of the offset strategy is to document a process to achieve State offset requirements:

Explore sites where State offsets can be met (partial or in full);

Explore opportunities to co-locate offsets;

Minimise the total number of sites such that financial efficiency is gained; and

Minimise the total number of sites such that better value for money can be achieved in delivering management outcomes.

The offsets will be secured before clearing by either:


36

Via a security agreement for the offset site that includes an onsite management plan; and

Evidence of a secured third-party offset, such as an allocated credit register extract from the native vegetation credit register.

The final extent of native vegetation offsets to be secured in accordance with State requirements will occur in consultation with DELWP through the payment of specified habitat compensation obligations and sourcing of offsets through a registered broker where required.

Other information/comments? (e.g. accuracy of information)

N/A NYD = not yet determined Flora and fauna What investigations of flora and fauna in the project area have been done? (provide overview here and attach details of method and results of any surveys for the project & describe their accuracy)

Six (6) ecological reports have been prepared to describe the existing conditions of the construction footprint. These are:

Monarc Environmental (2018a) - Flora and Fauna Assessment;

Monarc Environmental (2018b) - Southern Brown Bandicoot Targeted Survey Report;

Monarc Environmental (2018c) - Growling Grass Frog Targeted Survey Report;

Monarc Environmental (2018d) - Aquatic Survey Report Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline;

Monarc Environmental (2018e) - Swamp Skink Targeted Survey Report; and

Monarc Environmental (2018f) - Southern Toadlet Targeted Survey Report.

Flora and Fauna Assessment

The Flora and Fauna Report (refer to Attachment 2) was prepared to summarise the outcome of the desktop assessment and field investigation including targeted surveys to determine the ecological impact of the project by assessing the results against the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 significant impact guidelines for Matters of National Environmental Significance and relevant Victorian State Policies. The report also provides a summary of the potential mitigation measures and controls to reduce and / or manage impacts to flora and fauna within the construction footprint.

Southern Brown Bandicoot Survey

The Southern Brown Bandicoot Survey Report (refer to Attachment 3) summarises the outcome of the targeted field surveys for the Southern Brown Bandicoot undertaken between March and August 2018. A total of 134 camera survey weeks at 35 sites were used to assess the presence of Southern Brown Bandicoot within the construction ROW.

Growling Grass Frog Targeted Survey Report

The Growling Grass Frog Targeted Survey Report (refer to Attachment 4) was prepared to summarise the outcome of the targeted field surveys for the Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) undertaken at 12 locations along the alignment between 15 and 28 March 2018. The survey locations were selected after a desktop review and initial site inspection to assess the suitability of the identified habitat. Water quality was also recorded at each of the sites deemed to be suitable to support the Growling Grass Frog.

Aquatic Survey

The Aquatic Survey report (refer to Attachment 5) was prepared to summarise the outcome of the desktop review and field surveys of 16 waterbodies to determine if any fish or other aquatic species listed under the EPBC Act or and FFG Act were present in the surveyed waterbodies. Eight two-day/one-night aquatic surveys, conducted between April and July 2018. Aquatic surveys were undertaken using a combination of visual observation, hand-held dip-netting, bait traps, fyke netting and electrofishing (backpack), and in situ water quality sampling using a multi-parameter water quality meters.


37

The waterways survey resulted in the identification of 17 species. None of the species identified were listed under either the FFG Act or EPBC Act. The greatest numbers of fish retrieved were all introduced species, with Gambusia being collected from nine waterways and waterbodies. The presence of predatory and competitive fish such as Gambusia and Redfin Perch may impact on the likely presence of native species.

Swamp Skink Targeted Survey

The Swamp Skink Targeted Survey report (refer to Attachment 6) was prepared to summarise the outcome of the desktop and targeted surveys of the Swamp Skink Lissolepis coventryi undertaken from late February to mid-March 2018. The purpose of the survey was to determine if the Swamp Skink was present or was likely to be present in suitable habitats within or adjacent to the construction footprint. The VBA search indicated that up to 69 sightings of the Swamp Skink were reported between 2000 and 2018 within 5km of the pipeline alignment, particularly in Watson Creek and Warringine Park.

Southern Toadlet Targeted Survey

The Southern Toadlet Targeted Survey report (refer to Attachment 7) was prepared to summarise the outcome of the desktop and targeted surveys of the Southern Toadlet Pseudophryne semimarmorata, during their breeding season in May 2018. A search of the VBA indicated eight sites may provide suitable habitat for Southern Toadlet within the vicinity of the construction footprint.

These sites were assessed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit (DSE, 2010).

Have any threatened or migratory species or listed communities been recorded from the local area?

NYD No Yes If yes, please: List species/communities recorded in recent surveys and/or past observations. Indicate which of these have been recorded from the project site or nearby.

A number of threatened or migratory species have been recorded from the local area. A list of species that may occur within and 5 km at either side of the construction footprint was prepared by conducting a search of the VBA and the PMST that lists threatened species under the EPBC Act.

Listed ecological communities

The Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh threatened ecological community (EPBC – vulnerable) was recorded to occur across the pipeline route at Watson Creek, though the HDD of this area and the surrounding riparian vegetation will avoid impacts to the community.

This community is typically found on sandy or muddy substrate and may include coastal clay pans or similar areas. It occurs in places with at least some tidal connection, including rarely-inundated supratidal areas, intermittently opened or closed lagoons, and groundwater tidal influences. The ecological community may also include areas that have groundwater connectivity to tidal water bodies.

No other threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act were recorded to be intercepted by the pipeline alignment or construction footprint.

One FFG Act listed community was identified to potentially occur adjacent to the construction footprint. This community is known as Herb Rich Plains Grassy Wetland (West Gippsland) Community. Adjacent to and north of the construction footprint at KP33.5 there is a shallow depression that held water at the time of the last site visit. This area that is outside the construction footprint may be Herb rich Plains Grassy Wetland.

Listed flora species

Desktop studies and field surveys for project area (Monarc 2018a) identified six EPBC Act or FFG Act listed flora species known to occur within in the construction footprint, or with a likelihood of occurrence of ‘high’ or ‘moderate’:

River Swamp Wallaby-grass Amphibromus fluitans, EPBC vulnerable

Dense Leek-orchid Prasophyllum spicatum, EPBC vulnerable


38

Swamp Fireweed Senecio psilocarpus, EPBC vulnerable

Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre, EPBC vulnerable, FFG Listed

Strzelecki Gum Eucalyptus strzeleckii, EPBC vulnerable, FFG Listed

Merran's Sun-orchid Thelymitra X merraniae, FFG Listed

Field surveys were undertaken which identified the extent of potentially suitable habitat for threatened flora and informed the need, location, and timing for further targeted flora surveys.

River Swamp Wallaby-grass

This species was not recorded in the construction footprint during extensive field surveys undertaken by Monarc (2018a). There is, however, a known population on an existing pipeline easement adjacent (200m away) to the construction footprint between KP14.5 and KP15. This area will not be impacted by the construction footprint. Other suitable habitat within the construction footprint near this point will be traversed by HDD to avoid impacts.

Dense Leek-orchid

The Dense Leek-orchid is currently known from approximately 80 individuals distributed across eight populations ranging from south Gippsland (Wonthaggi) to the far south-east of South Australia (Duncan 2010). Duncan (2010) details two of these populations occur in Crib Point and one in nearby Stony Point Rail Reserve.

The construction footprint follows existing oil and gas pipeline infrastructure corridors in the Crib Point and Stony Point area but also traverses an area of Damp Heathy Woodland at KP1.5, which provides suitable habitat for this species. The presence of the Dense Leek-orchid at this location is presently undetermined as surveys have not been yet conducted during the flowering period. A targeted survey is planned at this location during spring 2018 to determine if the species is present.

Swamp Fireweed and Swamp Everlasting

Swamp Fireweed is known from approximately 14 sites with the recorded population in Westernport being one of the most easterly recorded (DEWHA 2008). Swamp Everlasting is known from about 35 populations with an estimated abundance of over 10,000 plants (Carter and Walsh 2011).

Both the Swamp Fireweed and Swamp Everlasting are considered to have a high likelihood of occurrence in suitable habitat at KP 33.5 as known populations exist nearby at Muddy Gates Lane and Manks Road, and the South Gippsland Railway line. A targeted survey is planned at this location during spring 2018 to determine if the species is present.

Strzelecki Gum

A single individual Strzelecki Gum was recorded within the construction footprint to the south of Langwarrin Creek (KP21). This individual is not considered to be an important population as no other adult or juvenile Strzelecki Gums were present in the immediate area. The closest known stand is near the mouth of the Bass River into Westernport (DSE 2008).

Merran's Sun-orchid

Merran's Sun-orchid has potential to occur in Damp Heathy Woodland between KP 1 to 2 as known populations exist in similar habitat nearby at Crib Point. A targeted survey is planned at this location for Spring 2018 to determine if the species is present.

Listed fauna species

Desktop studies and field surveys for project area (Monarc 2018a) identified 11 EPBC Act (Matters of National Environmental Significance) or FFG Act listed fauna species known to occur within in the construction footprint, or with a likelihood of occurrence of ‘high’ or ‘moderate’:

Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena, EPBC vulnerable, FFG Listed

Baillons Crake Porzana pusilla palustris, FFG Listed

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australia FFG Listed

Dwarf Galaxis Galaxiella pusilla, EPBC vulnerable, FFG Listed

Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta, FFG Listed


39

Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis, EPBC vulnerable, FFG Listed

Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii, EPBC migratory

Lewin's Rail Lewinia pectoralis pectoralis, FFG Listed

Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus obesulus EPBC endangered, FFG Listed

Swamp Skink Lissolepis coventryi, FFG Listed

White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus, EPBC migratory

Targeted surveys within potentially suitable habitat were conducted for five EPBC Act or FFG Act listed species:

Southern Brown Bandicoot;

Growling Grass Frog;

Swamp Skink

Dwarf Galaxias; and

Australian Grayling.

Southern Brown Bandicoot

The Southern Brown Bandicoot was recorded at eight of 35 locations were camera surveys were undertaken for the project. In addition, presence of the species has been assumed at a further 8 locations based on recent records. These 16 locations extend from the South Gippsland Highway (KP30.3) to McDonalds Drain Road (KP48.4), generally where the alignment traverses sections of the former Dalmore and Koo Wee Rup swamps. The structural habitat component that is present at all of these locations of known or assumed presence is a dense understorey. Dense understory vegetation was present at these locations as a range of condition states with varying floristic composition including shrubby weeds (Blackberry Rubus fruticosus agg.), dense stands of exotic grasses typically Phalaris spp., Common Reed Phragmites australis, plantings of native shrubs, weedy patches of remnant native vegetation and dense planted shadelines of exotic trees. These areas of known and assumed presence are associated with the narrow strips of native and exotic vegetation following the network of drainage channels, roadsides and railway lines in the former Dalmore and Koo Wee Rup swamps. Available evidence (Ecology Australia 2009, Maclagan 2016, Ecology Australia 2017, Maclagan et al. 2018) suggest that these narrow strips of vegetation form core habitat for the species in this landscape matrix.

Growling Grass Frog

The Growling Grass Frog was only found at one location within the drainage reserve of Cardinia Creek (KP40). In addition, the species was not recorded but may be present at the following locations which provide suitable habitat for the species:

• KP 20.32 - A farm dam and roadside drainage line within private property north of South Boundary Road East

• KP 23.05 - A wetland complex within private property east of Vowell Drive

• KP 31.1 - The Western Outfall Drain

• KP 41.5 - Deep Creek and Toomuc Creek

• KP 48.55 - Pakenham Creek

Swamp Skink

The Swamp Skink was not recorded during the targeted surveys. However, recent records indicate that this species have been recorded within 300m of the construction footprint as recently as January 2018. Suitable habitat includes wetlands or swampy heaths with dense vegetation, including both freshwater and saltmarsh habitats (Clemann, Chapple & Wainer 2004) or swamp margins, tea-tree thickets and even tidal saltmarshes (Wilson & Swan 2013).

Dwarf Galaxias

No Dwarf Galaxias were recorded during targeted surveys and predatory fish were recorded in most surveyed locations. However, the Dwarf Galaxias was assessed to have a “High’ to ‘Moderate’ likelihood of occurrence, due to either being a known resident, having recent records (<5 years) or


40

there being suitable habitat in the 10 watercourses listed below.

• Warringine Creek – avoided by HDD

• Pearcedale South

• Langwarrin Creek

• CPT 60 (dam and Lachies Marsh)

• Craigs Lane Drain

• Western Outfall Drain

• Cardinia Creek – avoided by HDD

• Toomuc Creek – avoided by HDD

• Deep Creek – avoided by HDD

• Pakenham Creek – avoided by HDD

Australian Grayling

The Australian Grayling was assessed to have a ‘High’ to ‘Moderate’ likelihood of occurring in Cardinia Creek, based on nearby records (Monarc 2018a). Cardinia Creek is also listed as an important river for the Australian Graying under the national recovery plan for the species (Backhouse 2008).

Other listed fauna

Database and survey results for the other listed fauna described above are as follows:

Baillons Crake – Not recorded during field surveys. There is a record from 2003 from a farm dam north of Greenhill Rd and west of McGregor Rd

Blue-billed Duck - Observed during field surveys at the Vowell Road Wetland, KP23.0

Eastern Great Egret - Observed during field surveys at the Vowell Road Wetland, KP23.0, and near KP30, (agricultural paddocks and planted trees).

Latham’s Snipe - Not recorded during field surveys. The species is considered to be an irregular visitor to the Western Port Ramsar site with a frequency of occurrence of 3% in annual surveys (Hale 2016). The most recent records of the species near the project area was ~420m from the alignment at the corner of Graydens Rd and Marine Parade, Hastings in 2013 (Atlas of Living Australia).

Lewin's Rail - Observed during field surveys at KP3.9.

White-throated Needletail - Not recorded during field surveys. The most recent records of the species near the project area were at Woolleys Beach and Warringine Park, Bittern in 2006 and 2007, respectively (Monarc 2018). If known, what threatening processes affecting these species or communities may be exacerbated by the project? (e.g. loss or fragmentation of habitats) Please describe briefly.

Of the Potentially Threatening Processes listed under the FFG Act, threatening processes relevant to the project include:

Degradation of native riparian vegetation along Victorian waterways and streams;

Prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of instream structures;

Increase in sediment input into Victorian waterways and streams due to human activities;

Input of petroleum and related products into Victorian marine and estuarine environments;

The discharge of human-generated marine debris into Victorian marine or estuarine waters;

Infection of amphibians with Chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis;

Habitat fragmentation as a threatening process for fauna in Victoria;

Invasion of native vegetation by ‘environmental weeds’; and

Loss of biodiversity as a result of the spread of Coast Wattle (Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae) and Sallow Wattle (Acacia longifolia subsp. longifolia) into areas outside its natural range.


41

Habitat fragmentation

Habitat within the construction ROW has been substantially modified due to its long use for agriculture purposes in the northern part of the alignment and industrial and peri-urban setting in the south. Native vegetation within the construction ROW comprises small, degraded patches that are already highly fragmented. The presence of exotic vegetation provides habitat for the Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus obesulus that is listed under the EPBC Act as Endangered.

Invasion of weed species

The CEMP will include control and mitigation measures to ensure appropriate biosecurity protocols are implemented to prevent the spread and establishment of pest and diseases as a result proposed works.

Injury to native fauna

The injury and / or mortality to native fauna from the removal of vegetation along the construction footprint or construction work such as trenching and movement of vehicles. These impacts can be mitigated through the presence of spotter/catchers during clearing works and by regular trench inspections. Are any threatened or migratory species, other species of conservation significance or listed communities potentially affected by the project?

NYD No Yes If yes, please: List these species/communities: Indicate which species or communities could be subject to a major or extensive impact

(including the loss of a genetically important population of a species listed or nominated for listing) Comment on likelihood of effects and associated uncertainties, if practicable.

This section provides an assessment of EPBC and FFG Act listed ecological communities, flora and fauna species potentially impacted by the Project.

These communities and species are addressed further in the following sections.

Listed ecological communities

No direct impacts to the Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh threatened ecological community (EPBC – vulnerable) are expected as HDD will be used to traverse the area of occurrence of this community. No other threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act were recorded to be intercepted by the pipeline alignment or construction footprint.

The potential occurrence of the FFG listed Herb Rich Plains Grassy Wetland (West Gippsland) Community is outside of the construction footprint and no direct impacts are expected.

Listed flora species

River Swamp Wallaby-grass

The known population on an existing pipeline easement adjacent (200m away) to the construction footprint between KP14.5 and KP15 will not be impacted. Other suitable habitat within the construction footprint near this point will be traversed by HDD to avoid impacts. As such, there are no direct impacts to populations or potential habitat of River Swamp Wallaby-grass

Dense Leek-orchid

The construction footprint follows existing oil and gas pipeline infrastructure corridors in the Crib Point and Stony Point area but also traverses an area of Damp Heathy Woodland at KP1.5, which provides suitable habitat for this species. The presence of the Dense Leek-orchid suitable within suitable habitat at KP1.5 is presently undetermined as surveys have not been yet conducted during the flowering period. A targeted survey is planned at this location during spring 2018 to determine if the species is present.

A targeted survey is planned at this location during spring 2018 to determine if the species is present. If the species is found to be present impacts will be avoided by using trenchless technology, or by minor realignment of the construction footprint. If the species is present and direct impacts cannot be entirely avoided, options for offsetting or translocation will be agreed with the relevant regulator prior to impacts occuring.


42

Swamp Fireweed and Swamp Everlasting

Both the Swamp Fireweed and Swamp Everlasting are considered to have a high likelihood of occurrence in suitable habitat at KP 33.5 as known populations exist nearby at Muddy Gates Lane and Manks Road, and the South Gippsland Railway line.

In response to this high likelihood of occurrence, a single HDD will be used to cross from the west of the Muddy Gates Lane road reserve to the east of the South Gippsland Railway reserve. As such, there will be no direct impacts to these areas of potential habitat traversed by the HDD. The area impacted to the east of the South Gippsland Railway reserve is a paddock that aerial imagery indicates is subject to ongoing hay production, and so provides lower quality habitat.

The presence of the Swamp Fireweed and Swamp Everlasting at this location is presently undetermined as surveys have not been yet conducted during the flowering and fruiting period, which are necessary to distinguish these species from other similar species. A targeted survey is planned at this location during spring and early summer 2018 to determine if either species is present. If either species are found to be present, impacts will be avoided by using trenchless technology, or by minor realignment of the construction footprint. If either species are present and direct impacts cannot be entirely avoided, options for offsetting or translocation will be agreed with the relevant regulator prior to impacts occuring.

Strzelecki Gum

A single individual Strzelecki Gum was recorded within the construction footprint to the south of Langwarrin Creek (KP21). This individual is not considered to be an important population as no other adult or juvenile Strzelecki Gums were present in the immediate area.

Options to avoid this individual were assessed but a feasible solution for avoidance was not available due to the proximity of houses and a road, and significant constraints that would be imposed on a HDD proposed to avoid a wetland at KP21.2. As such the individual Strzelecki gum is proposed for removal.

Merran's Sun-orchid

Merran's Sun-orchid has potential to occur in Damp Heathy Woodland between KP 1 to 2 as known populations exist in similar habitat nearby at Crib Point. A targeted survey is planned at this location for Spring 2018 to determine if the species is present. If present, similar mitigation to the Dense leek- orchid will be undertaken in consultation with DEWLP.

Southern Brown Bandicoot

The primary mitigation measure employed by the project to reduce impacts on the Southern Brown Bandicoot is to minimise vegetation clearing in areas of known or assumed presence. The most important design measure which has been implemented to achieve this minimisation, as far as practicable for a long linear footprint, is positioning of the construction footprint to avoid areas of remnant vegetation or exotic vegetation with a dense understorey. In addition trenchless crossing methods have been extensively used to minimise impacts where such areas of known or assumed presence are intersected, such as along roads, watercourses and drains.

These design measures are summarised in Table 10. The outcome of these design measures is that the estimated area of direct impact on areas of known and assumed presence is less than 0.5ha, patchily distributed over approximately 13km of the alignment. As such direct impacts to known or assumed habitat will be minor, localised and temporary.

Measures will also be employed during construction to reduce the potential for other direct or indirect impacts to the Southern Brown Bandicoot. These measures, as listed in the following section, will be incorporated into the CEMP for the Project. With mitigation measures in place, given the linear and temporary nature of disturbance associated with the project and contemporary research that demonstrates that the species is capable of sustaining populations in the fragmented landscape traversed by the alignment, it is not considered likely that the project will significantly impact the Southern Brown Bandicoot.


43

Table 10 – Design measures for areas of known and assumed presence of the Southern Brown Bandicoot

Approx. KP

Location Brief Description based on surveys

Proposed Mitigation Approx. area impacted (ha)

33.4 Muddy Gates Drain SBB assumed present in a mixture of exotic and native grasses

HDD.

Direct impacts avoided.

0

33.4 Muddy Gates Lane(adjacent to CPT086)

SBB assumed present in thick Cypress Hedge

HDD.


0

33.5 South Gippsland Railway Line (inactive)

SBB assumed present in a mixture of exotic and native grasses

HDD.


0

34.6 Adjacent to Manks Road

SBB recorded in planted vegetation along fenceline on southern side of Manks Road adjacent to the alignment crossing location.

ROW width narrowed to avoid clearing of roadside vegetation on southern side of Manks Road between KP33.6-34.

ROW width is already reduced between KP34.0-34.3 to avoid wetlands to south, so cannot be reduced further.

Manks Road will be underbored, with disturbance of road verges at the crossing location limited to a 10m wide access track.

0.3

35.4 Adjacent to Tooradin Station Road

SBB recorded near fallen pine tree in a heavily grassed roadside plantation

Tooradin Station Road will be underbored, however a 10m wide access track across road verges is still required as there is no feasible alternative access to the ROW at this location.

0.02

37.1 Tooradin Inlet Drain SBB recorded in blackberries and Phalaris on top of drain bank

ROW width reduced to 20m at crossing location.

0.05

Growling Grass Frog

As with the Southern Brown Bandicoot, the primary mitigation measure employed by the project to reduce impacts on the Growling Grass Frog is to minimise disturbance in and adjacent to areas of known or potential habitat. Of the locations of known presence or suitable habitat, only the Western Outfall Drain and the roadside drain at KP20.32 is also proposed for an open cut crossing. The outcome of these measures is that the estimated area of direct impact on areas of suitable habitat for the Growling Grass Frog will be approximately 0.12ha. Measures will also be employed during construction to reduce the potential for other direct or indirect impacts to the Growling Grass Frog. These measures, as described in the following section, will be incorporated into the CEMP for the Project. With mitigation measures in place, given the linear and temporary nature of disturbance associated with the project, it is not considered likely that the project will significantly impact the Growling Grass Frog.

Dwarf Galaxias

The Action Statement for the species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (DELWP 2015) suggests that important populations of this species may occur within Cardinia Creek, Watson Creek and Deep Creek. All of these watercourses will be crossed by HDD so direct impacts to habitat of these important populations will be entirely avoided. The likelihood of occurrence of the species in Watson Creek is considered to be low as the latest record was in 2010 and some 7.7km away from


44

the alignment.

Those waterways listed above which are not crossed by HDD will experience short-term localised impacts to suitable habitat for the Dwarf Galaxias as a result of the project. However important populations of the species are not likely to occur in these watercourses. Measures to mitigate direct impacts to watercourse bed and banks, and indirect impacts associated with temporary barriers to movement through watercourses, release of sediment, or introduction of biosecurity risks will be implemented. No significant impacts to this species are expected.

Those waterways listed above which are not crossed by HDD will experience short-term localised impacts to suitable habitat for the Dwarf Galaxias as a result of the project. However important populations of the species are not likely to occur in these watercourses. Measures to mitigate direct impacts to watercourse bed and banks, and indirect impacts associated with temporary barriers to movement through watercourses, release of sediment, or introduction of biosecurity risks are described above. With these measures in place no significant impacts to this species are expected.

Australian Grayling

Direct impacts on Australian Grayling habitat will be avoided as Cardinia Creek will be crossed by HDD. As such, the project is not considered likely to cause a significant impact to the Australian Grayling.

identifies six species of waterbirds for which the wetland regularly supports greater than 1% of the global population. These species, which are listed below, are comprised of three non-breeding spring-summer visiting shorebirds, an oystercatcher, a tern and a gull.

• Australian fairy tern Sternula nereis

• Australian pied oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris

• Curlew sandpiper Calidris ferruginea

• Eastern curlew Numenius madagascariensis

• Pacific gull Larus pacificus

• Red-necked stint Calidris ruficollis

Important habitat for migratory and resident shorebirds in Western Port comprises 27,000 ha of intertidal mudflat, used for foraging, and adjacent higher areas used for roosting (Dann 2011). The Australian pied oystercatcher forages in similar intertidal habitats to shorebirds, as well as beaches, and breeds on beaches on French Island and the north shore of Phillip Island (Dann 2011). The Fairy Tern is piscivorous and forages in the marine water column, and breeds regularly at Rams Island on the southern coast of French Island, and occasionally has been reported breeding at Tortoise Head (French Island) and Observation Point (Phillip Island) (Dann 2011). The Pacific Gull is a common resident of the Ramsar site, but breeds on islands off Wilsons Promontory or in Bass Strait not within the Ramsar site (Kellogg Brown & Root, 2010).

The alignment avoids all intertidal mudflat and shorebird roosting areas, and does not result in surface disturbance to the Ramsar wetland. Breeding sites for the Australian pied oystercatcher and Fairy Tern are on islands, and are at least 6km from the alignment. As such, there is no plausible risk that the project will seriously affect the foraging, roosting or breeding habitat of the birds listed above. Is mitigation of potential effects on indigenous flora and fauna proposed?

NYD No Yes If yes, please briefly describe.

Primary mitigation to vegetation communities and flora and fauna has been taken into account in the design of the pipeline and construction planning. APA has taken flora and fauna values into account in the pipeline route selection and is proposing alternate construction methods to limit impacts to sensitive environmental areas (e.g. HDD and boring). Where avoidance hasn’t been achievable, APA will minimise the construction ROW to 20m in areas of constraint. In these areas this will result in a 30% reduction to the potential disturbance.

Mitigation measures to be employed during the project are as follows:

The Project will be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with AS2885. Environmental management measures for the Project will be consistent with the APGA Code of Environmental Practice, 2017.


45

Pre-construction Phase

All Project personnel will undertake an induction that will include environmental management requirements and an overview of the environmental features and proposed controls of the Project.

The approved clearing extent, including environmental features within the construction footprint, will be identified with survey pegs and at some locations with flagging, marking tape or similar.

Construction Phase

Clearing of woody vegetation will be undertaken with a suitably qualified Wildlife handler present to:

Inspect habitat in advance of clearing. This will include a walk-through of the habitat to be removed immediately prior to clearance to flush out individuals.

Advise on clearing techniques that will minimise fauna impact.

Keep records of important fauna interactions, listing the species concerned, the nature of the interaction and its GPS coordinates.

As soon as practicable following clearing, fencing suitable to exclude the Southern Brown Bandicoot will be installed at the edges of the construction footprint adjacent to areas of known or assumed presence to reduce the likelihood of animals entering the construction footprint. Fencing will be monitored and repaired as required.

As soon as practicable following clearing, frog-proof fences will be installed between areas of identified Growling Grass Frog habitat and the construction footprint.

Structures to enable the Southern Brown Bandicoot to egress the trench will be provided every at regular at locations where exclusion fencing is installed, and elsewhere along the alignment at the end of the construction day.

A Wildlife handler will be available for the duration of construction activities.

In the event that Southern Brown Bandicoot or Growling Grass Frog are discovered within the construction footprint, all construction works in the surrounding area, including movement of vehicles, will cease. Works will not recommence until the Wildlife handler has removed the individual. Salvaged individuals will be removed to nearby habitat areas away from the construction area.

Inspections of open trenches will be undertaken each morning. If any trapped fauna are identified, they will be retrieved and translocated to suitable nearby habitat by a Wildlife handler.

Standard daytime construction hours, 7 days a week, will be applied, excluding travel to and from work areas along the construction footprint and noting that the following activities are likely to extend beyond standard construction hours: HDD, hydrotesting, pipe transport from port to laydown areas, and extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the Project.

If night time activities are required within or adjacent to areas of known or assumed presence for the Southern Brown Bandicoot or identified Growling Grass Frog habitat, a Wildlife handler will be present and monitor the construction site.

Initial construction (clearing / grade) is not to occur within 100 metres of identified Growling Grass Frog habitat adjacent to the construction footprint during the breeding season (Spring and Summer), unless two nocturnal, pre-clearance frog surveys have been undertaken immediately prior to works commencing.

A 40km speed limit will apply for all vehicles within the construction footprint.

End caps will be placed on pipe strings to prevent entry of fauna prior to pipe laying

Refuse containers will be located at each worksite to enable collection of waste, with regular removal from worksites to designated areas.

Refuse containers will be lidded to mitigate fauna access.

Watercourses / drains – specific construction mitigations

Specific erosion and sediment controls will be described in the CEMP and developed in general accordance with the IECA Australasia, Appendix P - Land-based pipeline construction.


46

Construction mitigation measures to be implemented for water crossings are:

Installation of flume pipes across access tracks to allow flow and minimise damage to the bed and banks of the waterway;

Installation of steel plates to block the flow across the water crossing together with high or low flow pumps to maintain flow during the installation of the pipeline. A grate, mesh or similar will be installed over the pump head to reduce the potential for vegetation disturbance or fish to travel into the pipe;

Salvage of aquatic fauna after plates have been installed and prior to construction or excavation;

Divert water to a dam or back to the waterway through a filtration system to prevent turbidity and sedimentation (e.g. rock drain or drain lined in geofabric).

Implementation of suitable sedimentation control measures (such as silt curtains) where appropriate to minimise impacts to water quality; and

Reinstate works area and re-establish vegetation as soon as possible.

Post Construction

Rehabilitation of the construction footprint will commence as soon as practicable after completion of construction, with the aim of restoration of groundcover within 6 months after works have been completed.

Dense cover of suitable native shrubs, or vegetation of similar structure as agreed with the relevant landholder, will be reinstated in any of the 35 locations of potential Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat impacted by the construction footprint, other than directly above the pipeline and a narrow track to allow ground access for surveillance patrols.

Rapid re-establishment of dense ground cover will be achieved at all 16 sites of known or assumed presence for the Southern Brown Bandicoot impacted by the construction footprint by planting of semi mature native shrubs at an appropriate density during rehabilitation. The aim is to re-establish dense understory vegetation in the 0.2–1m height range, as soon as practicable.

Monitoring of the condition of the construction footprint and other disturbed areas will be completed post construction and remedial measures undertaken, as required (minimum period of 24 months), with the aim that all disturbed areas are re-profiled to a stable landform consistent with original contours and drainage lines and vegetated with a self-sustaining, non-pest species groundcover.

Habitat features removed during construction such as large hollow logs and large rocks will be returned to the construction during rehabilitation if consistent with rehabilitation objectives at a particular location. Landholder requirements will be considered prior to returning habitat features to the ROW.

Biosecurity Measures

The following biosecurity measures will be applied:

Satisfaction of AQIS regulatory requirements for any vehicles and equipment sourced from overseas.

Inspection and certification of all vehicles, equipment and materials will occur either prior to or upon arrival at site. Vehicles and equipment cannot access the ROW until certified as clean.

After arrival at the Project site, all vehicles, plant and equipment will remain within the construction footprint and on approved roads and tracks.

Vehicles and equipment leaving the ROW, laydown areas or approved access routes and accessing vegetated land are to be re-certified prior to re-entry

Any topsoil imported for easement maintenance will be of an appropriate quality and weed and disease free.

Other information/comments? (eg. accuracy of information)


47


48

13. Water environments Will the project require significant volumes of fresh water (e.g. > 1 Gl/yr)?

NYD No Yes If yes, indicate approximate volume and likely source. Will the project discharge waste water or runoff to water environments?

NYD No Yes If yes, specify types of discharges and which environments.

During construction, the Project may need to discharge water that has accumulated in open excavations (e.g. pipeline trench dewatering) and following hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Water may be disposed of in several ways including; irrigation, release into sewers, landholders’ dams, paddocks, or into watercourses subject to relevant regulatory and/or landowner approvals.

Waste water management measures, including disposal of trench dewatering and hydrotest water will be addressed in the CEMP, which will be submitted and prepared for regulatory approval prior to construction.

Are any waterways, wetlands, estuaries or marine environments likely to be affected? NYD No Yes If yes, specify which water environments, answer the following questions and attach any relevant details.

There are a number of waterways that will be temporarily affected by the proposed works as construction occurs across the waterways. A hydrology and hydrogeological impact assessment was completed by AECOM to understand the potential impact that the Project may pose on the waterways, wetlands and marine environments during construction and operation (AECOM, 2018b).

The Western Port catchment varies from the hilly regions near the Bunyip State Park and Strzelecki Ranges to the low lying, flat to undulating terrain of the former Koo Wee Rup Swamp, with surface water draining from these topographic highs to Western Port. The catchment has an area of around 3,700 square kilometres and contains over 2,200 kilometres of rivers and creeks. Seventeen waterways enter Western Port, including major rivers and creeks such as Bunyip, Tarago, Cardinia, Yallock, Lang Lang and Bass River networks; all of which discharge directly into the Western Port Ramsar Wetland.

Much of the catchment has been modified to support rural and green wedge land use. Historically the Koo Wee Rup swamp covered large areas in the Western Port hinterland but was drained for development and has resulted in a number of watercourses in the lower catchment becoming channelised drains. The region contains a mixture of land uses, with the predominant land use being agriculture, consisting of dairying, grazing and horticulture.

The Western Port catchment contains five sub-catchments, three of which are intersected by the proposed pipeline route:

Mornington Peninsula system;

Cardinia system; and

Lower Bunyip, Lang Lang and Bass system.

In the Mornington Peninsula system most waterways are small creeks flowing into Western Port, Port Phillip Bay or Bass Strait with the exception being the more significant Watson Creek that is intercepted by the pipeline route. The system also supports a number of significant wetlands and creek estuaries.

The major waterways of the Cardinia system historically did not exist or were disconnected from Western Port by the former Koo Wee Rup swamp. Estuaries like Cardinia Creek support wetland habitat, and are used for flood mitigation and recreational use, as well as supporting threatened fauna species, such as Growling Grass Frog and Southern Brown Bandicoot.

In the Lower Bunyip, Lang Lang and Bass system the waterways are mainly rural, and used for water supply, flood mitigation and townships. Together with estuaries and waterways they also support a variety of plant and animal species.

The pipeline is considered broadly to occur across two zones with respect to the surface water setting. The first being from Crib Point to immediately east of Pearcedale (approximately 22 km reach) which is dominated by waterways with largely intact physical form and vegetation. The second zone extends from near Pearcedale to Pakenham (approximately 35km reach). This


49

reach traverses multiple waterways subject to significant clearing and drainage works, including a number that were included in the Koo Wee Rup swamp drainage program (AECOM, 2018a).

The proposed pipeline crosses eight main watercourses:

Warringine Creek;

Rutherford Creek;

Tributary of Rutherford Creek;

Watson Creek;

Western Outfall Drain;

Cardinia Creek;

Gum Scrub Creek; and

Toomuc Creek.

In addition, the pipeline crosses 58 unnamed channels/drains or waterways. The majority of these are likely to be ephemeral, with some channels observed by Coffey (2018) to be dry during a site visit as part a preliminary desktop geotechnical study (in February 2018). The creeks and waterways in the catchment were reported to have relatively significant levels of degradation, with the overall assessment of the catchment as ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ (AECOM, 2018b).

Open cut trenching is proposed for most of the waterway crossings as these are expected to be dry, or have very low flow at certain times of the year, particularly during the proposed construction period, between October and March (i.e. summer time). Timing construction to coincide with the times of the year where these waterways at the crossing points are dry, or have very low flows, will be expected to result in minimal environmental impact during construction. The proposed construction methodology for the crossing of the named waterways and drains is provided in Table 11.

Table 11 – Named waterways/drains intersected by the pipeline

Name Location (approx. KP) Feature Type (Watercourse / Drainage)

Crossing method

Warringine Creek 4.8 Watercourse HDD

Kings Creek 7.5 Watercourse HDD

Olivers Creek 10.5 Watercourse Open-cut

Watson Creek 19.1 Watercourse HDD

Langwarrin Creek 21.0 Watercourse Open-cut

Rutherford Creek 29.7 Channel / Drain HDD

Western Outfall Drain 31.0 Channel / Drain Open-cut

Muddy Gates Drain 33.4 Channel / Drain HDD

Manks Road Drain 34.3 Channel / Drain Bore

Tooradin Rd Drain 35.4 Channel / Drain Bore

Tooradin Inlet Drain 37.1 Channel / Drain Open-cut

Ridgeways Drain 37.5 Channel / Drain Open-cut

West Dalmore Drain 38.7 Channel / Drain Bore

Cardinia Creek 40.0 Channel / Drain HDD


50

Lower Gum Scrub Creek

41.4 Channel / Drain HDD

Toomuc Creek 41.4 Channel / Drain HDD

Deep Creek 41.5 Channel / Drain HDD

Hegelthornes Drain 45.0 Channel / Drain Open-cut

McGregors Drain 46.3 Channel / Drain Bore

The pipeline crosses four named creeks within 1km of the Western Port Ramsar Site boundary (Warringine Creek, Watson Creek, Kings Creek and Langwarrin Creek). As identified in Table 12, only Langwarrin Creek is proposed to be open trenched, with HDD proposed at the remaining three locations. The implementation of a HDD construction methodology at Langwarrin Creek is unable to be accommodated in the pipeline design due to the constrained conditions at this crossing.

The CEMP will identify suitable erosion and sediment control measures to implement during the construction of the pipeline at all waterway crossings to ensure no impact to the Ramsar wetland will occur as a result of the works. Are any of these water environments likely to support threatened or migratory species?

NYD No Yes If yes, specify which water environments.

An aquatic ecology assessment was undertaken by Monarc Environmental (Monarc, 2018d) over 16 waterbodies across the sub-catchments of Western Port to determine if any fish or other aquatic species listed under the EPBC Act or FFG Act were present. The 16 waterbodies targeted by the assessment were selected based on the PMST and the VBA. The surveys were completed between April and July 2018 and included the collection of water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, electricity conductivity, pH and turbidity).

The results from the in-situ water quality assessment indicated that electrical conductivity at half the crossings were at satisfactory levels and complied with the SEPP Waters of Western Port and catchment, lowlands and Phillip Island (EPA 2001). Dissolved oxygen was low at half of the crossings pH exceeded the guidelines at three (3) locations and turbidity exceeded the guidelines at all sites. Overall the results are within the range(s) to be expected, given the landscape and region the waterways and waterbodies occur.

The surveys of the waterbodies resulted in the identification of 17 species comprised of:

6 species of indigenous native freshwater fish;

1 native, but not indigenous species of fish (i.e. introduced and indigenous to Qld/NSW);

1 species of estuarine/marine fish;

7 species of introduced fish including 2 species that are listed as noxious under Section 75 of the Fisheries Act 1995 (European Carp and Gambusia);

2 species of common freshwater crustacean (shield and glass shrimp);

1 species of common estuarine/marine crustacean (crab); and

Likely 1 species of native aquatic mammal (as determined by the identification of an active and likely native water rat burrow).

No species listed under either the FFG Act or EPBC Act were detected during the survey effort.

The greatest numbers of fish retrieved were all introduced species, with Gambusia being collected from nine waterways and waterbodies. No EPBC Act or State listed species were recorded. The presence of predatory and competitive fish such as Gambusia and Redfin Perch at these locations are considered to impact on the likely presence of native species (Monarc, 2018d).

In general, a number of key factors may account for the lack of detection of any of the three Commonwealth or State listed fish species in the waterways including:


51

Low quality habitat values or absence of suitable aquatic or emergent vegetation;

Waterway degradation (habitat and water quality);

High abundance of competitive and predatory fish such as Gambusia (Unmack & Paras 1995); and

Lack of nearby populations and limited connectivity of survey sites to areas of higher habitat values.

Are any potentially affected wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention or in 'A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia'?

NYD No Yes If yes, please specify.

The pipeline is located within the defined boundary of the Western Port Ramsar Site. Designated as a wetland of international significance in 1982, the Ramsar site covers 59,950 ha of Western Port including Crib Point. Western Port is one of eleven Ramsar sites in Victoria and is the third most important area for wading birds in Victoria.

Western Port is a diverse but compact marine environment covering an area of approximately 680 km2 with an estimated volume of 0.8km3. It comprises vast intertidal mudflats with saltmarsh, seagrass and mangrove habitats as well as steep subtidal sloping banks with seagrass and deep channels that connect the north of the bay with the oceanic waters of Bass Strait in the south.

The ecosystem components associated with the habitats are closely connected by their relatively close spatial proximity and the strong tidal currents that transport water back and forth through the channels and over and off the intertidal flats.

These characteristics contribute to the listing of a large part of Western Port as a Ramsar wetland of international significance and the allocation of distinct areas as National Parks. Many of the animal and plant species are not specifically protected or listed for conservation value, but the combination of mangroves and seagrasses, saltmarsh, fish, birds, crustaceans, worms and other invertebrates all form the Western Port marine ecosystem.

The proposed pipeline route abuts the Ramsar boundary from Crib Point (KP0) to Warringine Park (KP4.5), where the pipeline is proposed in private land or the road reserve (the Esplanade) and outside of any area that would have an impact to the ecological significance to the adjacent wetland. The Crib Point Receiving Facility is also located within land that is immediately adjacent to the Western Port Ramsar Site.

Within the boundary of Warringine Park the pipeline route intersects the Ramsar wetland boundary, though at this location HDD is proposed to avoid impacts to the wetland. The preliminary design indicates the pipeline will be at a maximum depth of approximately 14-15m along the path of the drill in this area.

The pipeline is typically more than 700m from the Ramsar boundary between the north-side of Warringine Park (KP5) to south of Watson Creek (KP20). From Watson Creek to Langwarrin Creek (KP23) the pipeline is within 200m of the Ramsar boundary. HDD is proposed for the majority of this section of pipeline with the exception of Langwarrin Creek as the flow has been highly modified by the peri-urban up gradient land use and constraints with the implementation of HDD at this site. Could the project affect streamflows?

NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe implications for streamflows.

There are eight main water crossings and 58 unnamed waterways crossings. The unnamed waterways are anticipated to be ephemeral, with the relevant named creeks being either ephemeral or having significantly reduced flow during dryer months. The creeks and waterways in the catchment have been reported to have relatively significant levels of degradation, with the overall assessment of the catchment as ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’.

The design of the pipeline is such that its alignment and depth will not impact on the hydrology of the catchment during the operation of the pipeline. The excavation depth for the pipeline at open-cut waterways crossings is generally to 2.7m, which provides 1.5m of cover to the invert of the waterway and is adequate for long-term scour protection and pipeline integrity. The remaining risks are limited to the construction phase, thus will be at a local scale and limited in duration.


52

Timing of construction is planned to coincide with the times of the year where these waterways at the crossing points are dry, or have very low flows. This is a key environmental control and avoidance measure, which is anticipated to result in negligible environmental impact to stream flows during construction. For each waterway crossing, the pipeline installation will be completed in approximately 1-2 weeks, with flow (where present) blocked for a maximum of up to 7 days. Should flow be blocked during the works, APA will implement controls to allow natural flows to continue around the works area (refer below). The bed and banks of waterways are reinstated immediately following the pipeline installation, with the access track being removed during the reinstatement phase of the construction activities.

Four watercourse crossings that are proposed to be open-cut (Oliver Creek, Langwarrin Creek, Rutherford Creek, Western Outfall Creek) may have the potential for low water-flow during the proposed construction period. Some of the construction mitigation measures that would be implemented through the CEMP for these features are:

Installation of flume pipes across access tracks to allow flow and minimise damage to the bed and banks of the waterway;

Installation of steel plates to block the flow across the water crossing together with high or low flow pumps to maintain flow during the installation of the pipeline. A grate, mesh or similar will be installed over the pump head to reduce the potential for vegetation disturbance or fish to travel into the pipe;

Salvage of aquatic fauna after plates have been installed and prior to construction or excavation;

Divert water to a dam or back to the waterway through a filtration system to prevent turbidity and sedimentation (e.g. rock drain or drain lined in geofabric).

Implementation of suitable sedimentation control measures (such as silt curtains) where appropriate to minimise impacts to water quality; and

Reinstate works area and re-establish vegetation as soon as possible.

The use of these measures is considered on a case-by-case basis appropriate to the requirements of the waterway and in consultation between environmental and construction site personnel. All waterway crossings will be restored after the pipe installation. Restoration of these crossings may use a range of methods to ensure the area is stabilised after construction is complete and the reinstated works are in accordance with any requirements of Melbourne Water as the relevant Catchment Management Authority. Could regional groundwater resources be affected by the project?

NYD No Yes If yes, describe in what way.

There are two Local Groundwater Management Areas within the Western Port Basin:

Koo Wee Rup Water Supply Protection Area (KWR WSPA); and

Corinella Groundwater Management Area (Corinella GMA).

The pipeline crosses into the KWR WSPA, with the remainder located within the general Unincorporated Area. The KWR WSPA consists of seven sub zones and includes a Coastal Buffer area. Although no vertical limit has been placed on the depth of the WSPA, it is predominantly applied to the groundwater resource in the Western Port Group (i.e. Upper Tertiary Aquifer [Fluvial] and Upper Mid-Tertiary Aquifer), neither of which will be intersected by construction of the pipeline.

The KWR WSPA is managed via a Groundwater Management Plan that documents all local management rules including rules on trade, metering, groundwater monitoring, licenses and consultation. A Permissible Consumptive Volume (PCV) of 12,915 ML/year currently applies to the WSPA. Areas outside of the Corinella GMA and Koo Wee Rup WSPA are grouped into the Unincorporated Area, which has no groundwater management plans or local restrictions.

In terms of the Project, although dewatering activities may require an extraction licence(s), it is considered unlikely given the anticipated limited depth and duration of dewatering works (AECOM, 2018b). Consultation will occur with Southern Rural Water to confirm any applicable licencing requirements prior to construction of the pipeline.


53

The yield and salinity of groundwater in the Quaternary sediments of the Upper Aquifer is highly variable due to the heterogeneity of the soil type (including clay, silts, shoe string sands and dune sands), aquifer thickness and depth to groundwater. The yield is typically higher and the salinity lower in sandy and gravelly soils. Conversely, in clay soils the yield is low and the salinity higher such as in sediments forming the previously drained Koo Wee Rup Swamp.

Across the Basin, salinity ranges from less than 500 mg/L and up to 3,500 to 7,000 mg/L in the Upper Aquifer, and yields vary from less than 1 L/s and up to 10 - 50 L/s (southeast of Koo Wee Rup where sediments are thicker, and sandy and gravelly) (SRW, 2014b).

In the underlying Tertiary sediments of the Middle Aquifer (UTAF and UMTA) the salinity is typically between 1,000 and 3,500 mg/L across much of the Basin, with isolated pockets of lower or higher salinities. The yield is generally between less than 1 to 5 L/s, increasing to 10 - 50 L/s in the Koo Wee Rup area (southeast of the project area).

The salinity of groundwater in the water table aquifer along the proposed pipeline route is inferred to vary from less than 1,000 mg/L (9% of pipeline), 1,000 to 3,000 mg/L (60% of pipeline) and 3,000 to 7,000 mg/L (31% of pipeline).

The State Environment Protection Policy Groundwaters of Victoria (SEPP (GoV)), provides a framework to ‘maintain and where necessary improve groundwater quality to protect existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater across Victoria’. Groundwater segments are classified based on background total dissolved solids. Protected beneficial uses are provided for each segment, and groundwater quality indicators and objectives are established to protect each beneficial use.

It would be reasonable to consider groundwater across the project area to be Segment B (1,001 to 3,500 mg/L) based on regional data. The Segment B beneficial uses to be protected include:

Maintenance of ecosystems;

Potable mineral water supply;

Agriculture, parks and gardens;

Stock watering;

Industrial water use;

Primary contact recreation; and

Buildings and structures.

Approximately 48km of the pipeline route will be installed by standard open-trench construction methods. Approximately 14.5km (around 26%) of this is anticipated to be intersecting the local groundwater table and less than 2km (about 4%) of the trenched excavation is likely to be 1.5m or more below the water table.

The DELWP Water Information Management System identifies a total of 304 registered groundwater bores, with the status ‘used’ within 1 km of the proposed pipeline route (accessed online 7 August 2018). The nominated bore uses are:

205 stock, domestic or stock and domestic;

49 groundwater investigation or groundwater observation;

31 irrigation or stock, domestic and irrigation;

12 not known;

3 commercial;

2 stock, domestic and dairy; and

2 stock, domestic and miscellaneous.

A further 59 bores were nominated as ‘non-groundwater’, seven ‘not used’ and three ‘decommissioned’.


54

Where the published groundwater level map suggests the trench excavation will be between 1 and 2m below water table, highly localised response to the water table are possible, but impact on the resource is not envisaged given drawdown will be limited in duration (<1 month) and extent (less than 0.1m at 10m from excavation) given works will occur during the drier periods of the year and the clayey nature of the soils.

Bore search results for the project area are consistent with the rest of the region where most bores are used for domestic and stock or agribusiness (AECOM 2018b). The majority of domestic and stock bores in the Western Port Basin are thought to be installed in the Middle or Lower Aquifers.

The Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas was reviewed to understand the type and level of GDE’s and our potential impact to those during construction and operation (AECOM 2018b). The GDE proximate to the pipeline is mainly aquatic and terrestrial, with the pipeline route intersecting 11 watercourses designated as having a high GDE potential (national assessment). These are:

Warringine Creek;

Olivers Creek;

Kings Creek;

Watson Creek;

Langwarrin Creek;

Rutherford Creek;

Western Outfall Creek;

Cardinia Creek;

Lower Gum Scrub Creek;

Deep Creek; and

Toomuc Creek.

Between Crib Point (KP0) and the Pearcedale area (KP30) the proposed pipeline is in the vicinity of coastal wetlands described as semi-permanent saline, salt meadow wetlands that are classified as known GDEs (regional study). A number of high to moderate potential GDEs (regional study) described as coastal wetlands/saltmarsh are also in close proximity to the proposed pipeline route. Beyond the Pearcedale Area the proposed pipeline alignment turns northeast away from coastal GDEs and towards Pakenham.

There are numerous moderate to high potential (national assessment) terrestrial GDEs intersected by the proposed pipeline, particularly in the southern portion of the project area (between Crib Point and the Pearcedale area). These include woodland, coastal saltmarsh, swamp scrub and salt meadow.

It is not anticipated there will be any unacceptable risks to registered bores or GDEs from the trenched excavation sections of the proposed pipeline (AECOM, 2018b).

Groundwater impacts from the HDD sections are limited to quality risks from the water-based additives. Dewatering is not required as part of HDD construction activities as the pipe will be designed with suitable buoyancy control. Any drilling fluid material used as part of the HDD construction methodology will be environmentally stable and non-toxic (e.g. bentonite).

At locations where thrust boring is planned or for any other larger excavations, the excavation may require temporary dewatering to a maximum depth of 4m below ground. The potential impact on groundwater in these areas is as follows:

Lowering of water table: considered to be negligible to low potential to cause significant impact given limited lateral extent of drawdown (based on low permeability sediments, temporary dewatering and depth of excavation). The maximum drawdown likely to be less than 0.5 m at 50 m from excavation for a period of less than 2 months;

Reduction in base flow of creeks: considered to be negligible to low potential to cause significant impact given temporary dewatering and limited inflow rates anticipated (based


55

on low permeability sediments and depth of excavation); and

Settlement in areas of compressible (i.e. unconsolidated) sediments: considered low potential to cause significant impact given limited lateral extent of drawdown and appropriate site specific geotechnical investigations.

The key potential impacts during operation after construction and testing are identified to be:

Preferential pathway(s) along the trenched sections of pipeline due to use of packing sands - considered low potential to significantly impact groundwater flow regime and/or groundwater levels through appropriate design and construction methods (e.g. collar cut-offs/trench breakers); and

Groundwater contamination from fixed plant and fuel storage - considered low potential to significantly impact groundwater and surface water with implementation of suitable bunding and normal environmental controls, which are to be implemented through an Operational Environment Management Plan.

Could environmental values (beneficial uses) of water environments be affected?

NYD No Yes If yes, identify waterways/water bodies and beneficial uses (as recognised by State Environment Protection Policies)

An annual ‘Report Card’ is available at the Yarra and Bay website that describes the surface water quality across the Western Port catchment for the preceding year (period 1 July to 30 June). This is based on data from 33 monitoring sites using the water quality parameters: nutrients, water clarity (total suspended solids), dissolved oxygen, salinity (conductivity), pH (acidity/alkalinity) and metals. The 33 monitoring sites collect information for approximately 60% of the Western Port catchment. The remaining catchment area is mostly rural and would generally score as ‘Poor’ in the region.

The most recent report card publicly available (2016 – 2017) described the overall surface water quality for Western Port catchment as being ‘poor’ (i.e. under considerable stress), which is consistent with historical water quality index results that have designated the water quality to be ’Poor’ since 2000-2001.

The pattern of water quality across the Western Port catchment reflects the impacts of climate and land uses (including natural forests, agriculture, industrial centres and urban environments). In the upper catchment, the near-natural areas usually have ‘Good’ water quality, while rural streams in mid-catchment typically score ‘Fair’. Water quality declines further as waterways flow into the lower catchments of the former Koo Wee Rup swamp, with runoff carrying sediments, nutrients and other pollutants (including metals) results in ‘Poor’ to ‘Very Poor’ water quality.

Results for the five monitoring locations most relevant to the proposed pipeline alignment show the water quality as poor (Olivers Creek and Toomuc Creek) and very poor (Watsons Creek, Wylies Drain and Lower Gum Scrub Creek). These water quality scores were driven by the water quality parameters dissolved oxygen, salinity, nutrients and metals.

The State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) (SEPP (WoV)) provides the framework to set beneficial uses and environmental values of surface water with the aim of achieving sustainable waters throughout Victoria.

The project falls with Schedule F8: Waters of Western Port and Catchment, and transects three of its segments; Peninsula, Lowlands and Phillip Island, and South Eastern Rural. Values are provided for in-stream environmental quality indicators and objectives for a number of constituents - including physio chemical parameters and nutrients. For other toxicants SEPP (WoV) directs the reader to the ANZECC Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters - where the level of species protection would be determined based on the level to which the aquatic ecosystem has been modified.

The impact to the beneficial use of the creeks and the potential impact to the Western Port Ramsar Site is considered to be negligible due to the temporary nature of the works, timing of the activities (i.e. summer) and the implementation of suitable environmental controls as part of the Project’s implementation (AECOM, 2018b). Potential loss of drilling fluids as part of the HDD construction methodology are unlikely to occur given the depth of the HDD and the favourable geological conditions, however APA will implement suitable monitoring procedures and contingency planning in the event of a loss of drilling mud.


56

Could aquatic, estuarine or marine ecosystems be affected by the project?

NYD No Yes If yes, describe in what way.

The design of the pipeline is such that its alignment and depth will not affect the hydrology of the catchment. The remaining risks are limited to the construction phase, thus will be at a local scale and temporarily limited.

The pipeline alignment results in eight main water crossings and 58 unnamed waterways crossings (Coffey, 2018). Although only four named creeks are cross within 1 km of the Ramsar boundary. The unnamed waterways are anticipated to be ephemeral, with the relevant named creeks either ephemeral or having significantly reduced flow during dryer months. The creeks and waterways in the catchment have been reported to have relatively significant levels of degradation, with the overall assessment of the catchment as ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’.

Open-cut trenching is proposed for the majority of waterway crossings as these are expected to be dry, or have very low flow at certain times of the year. Timing construction to coincide with the times of the year where these waterways at the crossing points are dry, or have very low flows, will be expected to result in minimal environmental impact during construction.

The four named creeks within 1 km of the Ramsar boundary that will be crossed are Warringine Creek, Watson Creek (identified as major watercourses in the preliminary waterway crossing risk assessment; refer to Section 2.3.1), Kings Creek and Langwarrin Creek. Of these, only the Langwarrin Creek crossing is proposed to be open-trenched.

Is there a potential for extensive or major effects on the health or biodiversity of aquatic, estuarine or marine ecosystems over the long-term?

No Yes If yes, please describe. Comment on likelihood of effects and associated uncertainties, if practicable.

Is mitigation of potential effects on water environments proposed?


The pipeline will be constructed in accordance with the guidelines in the Australian Pipeline and Gas Association Code of Environmental Practice (2017) that will be reflected in the CEMP. The CEMP will contain mitigation measure for dewatering and management of run-off and sediments during construction.

Detailed geotechnical investigations will be completed prior to commencement of construction to confirm the assessment completed to date and inform the detailed design of each HDD profile.

APA will engage a suitably experienced drilling contractor to complete the HDD activities, with environmental controls for these activities outlined in the CEMP for the Project. These controls will include measures for inversely release of drilling fluids. The loss of return fluids to the terrestrial and/or aquatic environment is identified by visual assessment and a drilling fluid system monitored by drilling personnel. The drilling fluid volume tracking procedure consists of regular and accurate checks made periodically throughout drilling operations to ensure that any fluid loss is pre-emptively detected, potentially before visual identification of loss of drilling fluid occurrence.

Personnel undertaking the HDD operations will review the potential variables that can pre-emptively avoid loss of drilling fluid occurrence including bore design profile, known ground conditions and the pipeline depth of cover, ensuring that there is a negligible risk of drilling fluid losses.

In the event that the drilling fluid application exhibits any abnormal characteristics, and/or there is any reason to suspect losses (or potential for losses) drilling will be suspended immediately and further investigation and visual assessment conducted before re-commencement of HDD operations.

Depending on the HDD location and the severity of the loss of fluid, the crew will utilise different methods of remediation to deal with the loss of fluid. This will range from:

Sand bags;

Husk socks;

Layfalt hose with flex drive / sykes pump;

Vacuum truck; or


57

Floating boom with silt curtain.

The drilling crew will be equipped and trained in effective loss of fluid control measures and remediation activities that will be dependent on the specific environment traversed. The loss of drilling fluids is primarily mitigated by implementing a drilling depth that provides sufficient separation from the sensitive source and the location of the entry and exit points.

Other information/comments? (e.g. accuracy of information) N/A

14. Landscape and soils Landscape

Has a preliminary landscape assessment been prepared?

No Yes If yes, please attach.

A landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been undertaken by Ethos Urban for the proposed Crib Point Facility (refer to Attachment 15). The investigation was confined to this area only to establish a baseline understanding of the Crib Point Receiving Facility with respect to the jetty and area in the proximity within a strategic policy context.

The rest of project is unlikely to impact on the landscaping character of the area as the pipeline is a buried structure and the construction ROW will be reinstated.

Is the project to be located either within or near an area that is:

Subject to a Landscape Significance Overlay or Environmental Significance Overlay? NYD No Yes If yes, provide plan showing footprint relative to overlay.

Sections of the pipeline route cross Environmental Significance Overlays and Landscape Significance Overlays identified in Victorian Planning Provisions. A detailed summary of the local planning overlays applicable to the Project in relation to each LGA is provided in Section 7.

The most significant Environmental Significance Overlay applies to wetland and coastal areas in the Mornington Peninsula Shire and the City of Casey. The wetlands and coastal areas of Western Port and the Mornington Peninsula are an integral element of the environmental system that supports biodiversity and a number of state and international significance. In addition, communities in the region feel a strong connection to the values of Western Port and the preservation of the areas character.

The catchment areas of wetlands on the Peninsula are relatively small, increasing sensitivity to inappropriate development. The proposed pipeline intercepts the Environmental Significance Overlay at Warringine Park and Watsons Creek, with the construction methodology proposed at these locations reflecting the sensitivity of the environment.

Planning permits associated with undertaking works within these overlay areas are not required for the Project due to the exemption under the Section 85 of the Pipelines Act, though the route selection process has taken relevant environmental and natural features into account, which are reflected in the landscape and environmental significance overlays with each LGA.

Identified as of regional or State significance in a reputable study of landscape values?


The Crib Point Facility and the proposed pipeline Project are not identified as having regional or State significance landscape values. The LVIA (Ethos Urban 2018) reports on the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study (Planisphere, 2016) which assesses the landscape character and significance of Victorian coastal areas. Whilst the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study excludes the Crib Point area, the eastern coastline of Western Port is defined as the ‘Western Port Lowlands Character Area’.

The proposed pipeline crosses Watson Creek that is part of Western Port Ramsar Site. This diverse and natural coastline of Western Port within the Character Area is considered of local significance in relation to landscape values (and international significance in relation to ecological character). The proposed pipeline in this area will be constructed utilising a HDD methodology, with the preliminary HDD design indicating the drill entry and exit point will be outside of these


58

environments and in agricultural land. Within or adjoining land reserved under the National Parks Act 1975?


The pipeline route in the vicinity of Watson Creek is immediately adjacent to the Yaringa Marine National Park. The northern workspace area associated with the exit pit of this HDD is approximately 50m to the north-west of the National Park boundary. This is the closest point of construction activities to the National Park, with the construction ROW being proposed in an agricultural setting at this location.

APA is not proposing to disturb the riparian vegetation of Watson Creek, mangrove or saltmarsh communities associated with the intertidal areas of the national Park or any other ecological feature of the reserve. Suitable environmental controls will be implemented as part of the CEMP, which will avoid and minimise the potential environmental effects of pipeline construction and the potential for significant environmental effects which would impact the values of the National Park during the operation of the pipeline is negligible.

Following detailed pipeline design to confirm the HDD design, APA will consult with Parks Victoria to confirm the environmental control measures in relation to any potential impacts to the National Park.

Within or adjoining other public land used for conservation or recreational purposes? NYD No Yes If yes, please specify.

Land to the north of the Crib Point Receiving Facility is in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone. This land runs along the coast line to the north of the Crib Point Receiving Facility through Warringine Park up to Reid Parade, Hastings. Warringine Park is a conservation reserve, managed by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. There are a number of existing pipelines traversing these areas (from KP0 to 5) with them being highly modified as a result of the previous linear infrastructure construction and ongoing operational requirements for these assets (including the maintenance of vegetation within vegetated areas).

APA will limit additional clearing and widening of this corridor to the extent practicable, though there are constraints in working on and around existing high pressure gas and oil pipelines that will be taken into account in the construction planning. Due to this, APA will disturb additional areas as part of the pipeline construction, though the ongoing amenity and landscape values are unlikely to be significantly impacted due to the existence of these existing pipelines in this area. APA will reinstate disturbed areas within Warringine Park not required for the operation of the pipeline in accordance with measures agreed with Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.

The pipeline also intersects the North Western Port Nature Conservation Reserve at the crossing of Watson Creek (approximately KP19.1). This conservation reserve, which is managed by Parks Victoria, has an area equivalent to the boundary of the Western Port Ramsar Site at the location of the pipeline crossing and it the extends further upstream of Watson Creek (approximately 1km) to Tyabb-Tooradin Road. Various other linear infrastructure assets cross this reserve further upstream of the pipeline route (e.g. water, oil and gas pipelines and a high voltage transmission line).

The pipeline alignment is within the area of the conservation reserve for approximately 330m with no impacts to the site due to the implementation of HDD for the crossing of Watson Creek. Due to this, the proposed construction timing (in summer) and the implementation of suitable erosion and sedimentation controls during construction there will be a negligible impact to the conservation reserve. As identified above in relation to the Yaringa Marine National Park, APA will consult with and confirm the proposed environmental control measures proposed as part of the pipeline construction in this area.

Is any clearing vegetation or alteration of landforms likely to affect landscape values?


Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline is unlikely to materially impact on landscape values as it will co-locate immediately adjacent to the existing infrastructure pipeline corridor to Hastings and then north of Hastings it will be traverse through area highly modified by farming use. Clearing of vegetation will be minimised and alteration of landform will be temporary.

Activities that may create temporary visual impacts from construction include the following:


59

Clearing vegetation and stripping of topsoil to allow construction;

Vehicle/machinery turn-around areas;

Temporary stockpiles of excavated soil, pipeline or construction materials; and

Temporary storage facilities.

The Construction ROW will be reinstated following construction so that there will be no significant change or alteration to landscape values. In addition, the co-location of the pipeline with other linear infrastructure corridors for the majority of the pipeline route (approximately 55%) minimises the perceived alteration of landforms and broader landscape values of the regions through which the pipeline traverses.

The removal of vegetation within the proposed Crib Point Receiving Facility would cause a likely change to the landscape character, which results in a Moderate significance of impact on the perceived naturalistic quality of coastal edges landscape receptor (LI & IEMA, 2013).

Is there a potential for effects on landscape values of regional or State importance? NYD No Yes Please briefly explain response.

The proposed pipeline is unlikely to have potential effects on the landscape values of regional and State Significance given that the construction ROW will be reinstated after construction and areas of State significance will be constructed using an alternate construction methodology (e.g. HDD) which will negate any landscape impact during the construction of the pipeline.

The landscape features and values identified as landscape receptors potentially affected by the Crib Point Receiving Facility are:

The areas perceived naturalistic quality of the varied coastal edge;

The presence of maritime industry within the landscape; and

The visual amenity of passive recreational uses at the coastline.

The significance of the impact to these receptors has been assessed to be Low to Moderate (LI & IEMA, 2013).

The Pakenham Delivery Facility is proposed adjacent to the Pakenham East Rail Depot, which is currently under construction. This site is then immediately adjacent to the Princes Freeway. Through the co-location of like industrial land uses, it is considered that the potential landscape impact of this facility is negligible. APA will however consider the screening and visual amenity in the detailed site planning.

Is mitigation of potential landscape effects proposed?


APA will include provision of screening vegetation to be incorporated into the detailed site planning and design for the Crib Point Receiving Facility and the Pakenham Delivery Facility where possible. The planning will consider the primary viewpoint of each site by the public (i.e. The Esplanade at Crib Point; Princes Freeway, Nar Nar Goon). This will reduce the landscape impact of these sites, which are the primary operational landscape impacts associated with the Project.

In relation to the MLV’s APA will consult with landowners of where these facilities are to be located to determine any specific requirements for screening vegetation and fencing standards, noting the need for APA to maintain access and security of the site. Other information/comments? (e.g. accuracy of information) The assessment of the potential impact to the landscape is consistent with the technical assessments undertaken by APA (Ethos Urban, 2018) and other existing reviews of the regional landscape character of the coastal areas of Western Port. The coastal environment of this region has been well studied and previous assessments relating to landscape and visual qualities have informed the identification of the landscape and visual values of the proposed Crib Point


60

Receiving Facility. APA’s assessment is also consistent with impact assessment undertaken by AGL in relation to their Gas Import Jetty Project. In addition to this, the landscape assessment for the Crib Point Receiving Facility (Ethos Urban 2018) has taken into account various local and State planning policies as well as other relevant historical and broad regional strategies, including the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study, Western Port Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description, Victorian Coastal Strategy, Hastings South Coastal Management Plan, Interim Green Wedge Management Plan, Marine Precinct Strategy and the Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy. The review and inclusion of these strategies in the assessment process gives confidence in the completed assessment.

Note: A preliminary landscape assessment is a specific requirement for a referral of a wind energy facility. This should provide a description of:

The landscape character of the site and surrounding areas including landform, vegetation types and coverage, water features, any other notable features and current land use;

The location of nearby dwellings, townships, recreation areas, major roads, above-ground utilities, tourist routes and walking tracks;

Views to the site and to the proposed location of wind turbines from key vantage points (including views showing existing nearby dwellings and views from major roads, walking tracks and tourist routes) sufficient to give a sense of the overall site in its setting.

Soils Is there a potential for effects on land stability, acid sulphate soils or highly erodible soils?


The soils of the area are dominated by brown podsol soil types, although along the entire pipeline route, a wide range in soil types can be found and have been mapped (AECOM 2018b). The brown podsol soil types are characterised as having relatively low permeability, tend to have an acidic pH level and are high in organic matter. The risks with these soil types can be summarised as follows:

Moderately reactive, high plastic subsoil; and

Poor soil drainage, with seasonal water logging.

Based on CSIRO’s Australian Soil Resource Information System (CSIRO, 2014) the likelihood of acid sulfate soil being present in the project area is inferred to be:

Low to extremely low probability, very low confidence - southern portion of the pipeline route (Crib Point to Tooradin), based on mapped soil types and geological formations but little supporting data; and

High probability, low to high confidence – northern portion of the project area (Tooradin to Officer South), based on mapped soil types, geological formations and supporting data.

To better define the risks, an acid sulfate soil assessment was undertaken (Monarc 2018g) that included desktop review of the potential to encounter the relevant conditions and a subsequent targeted soil sampling program at specific locations along the pipeline route. Soil sampling was undertaken at ten locations, targeting areas where acidogenic soils were considered most likely to be present. Samples were collected at 0.5 m intervals to a depth of 3.5 m. A total of 13 samples were analysed, with at least one from each location.

Results of the soil sampling indicated that only the two locations at Crib Point presented positive indicators of acid sulfate soil. None of the other soils analysed were classified as acid sulfate soil. It was also noted that the buffering capacity of the samples analysed was high, including those locations at Crib Point.

There is a possibility at and around the soil testing location at Crib Point that exposure of soils to air could ultimately lead to acidification of surface and groundwater adjacent to the route.

Management measures to mitigate the impacts of exposure of acidic and acid sulfate soil during trenching works at the former at this location will be incorporated into the CEMP and will include the following measures:


61

Lining and bunding of stockpiles;

Limiting the exposure of the stockpile to a minimum by staging the works;

Developing protocols to neutralise soil acidity of the stockpile using the proper liming rates and soil blending techniques;

Regularly monitoring the pH of the stockpile and groundwater accumulated in the trench;

Monitoring stockpile volumes and exposure periods to ensure backfilling or disposal prior to oxidation;

Containment and treatment of groundwater accumulated in the trench prior to disposal (collecting and neutralising infiltrated water, and removing silt and other contaminants prior to discharge);

Developing contingencies for rain events; and

Developing contingency plans for offsite disposal of the excavated material and groundwater.

Sodic soils are highly dispersive and particularly susceptible to erosion. A desktop assessment undertaken by Coffey Geotechnics suggested that there is evidence of sodic soils around the northern aspect of the pipeline route though this is not conclusive. Stabilisation of disturbed soils is important to avoid sheet erosion and gully and headward erosion in drainage lines. Effective erosion and sediment control measures will be developed and included as part of the CEMP.

Are there geotechnical hazards that may either affect the project or be affected by it? NYD No Yes If yes, please briefly describe.

A desktop geotechnical study (Coffey, 2018) was undertaken for the pipeline with a view to providing commentary on construction conditions, excavatability, excavation design, backfill and drilling techniques. Key points are provided below:

The pipeline route is generally divided into 3 geological sections:

o Southern section (KP0 to KP25): mainly Red Bluff Sandstone

o Middle section (KP25 to KP50): mainly dune deposits and alluvium and colluvium deposits

o Northern section (KP50 to KP56): mainly Alluvium and Volcanic formations;

Materials along the alignment are generally easy to excavate with conventional machinery. Rock breakers and impact breakers may be required in limted situations. Most materials are considered to be readily drillable for exploration activities;

Concerns were raised regarding high watertables and settlement caused by groundwater extraction; and

Flow rates assessed to be relatively low for 10, 20 and 100-year flood events scenarios, which is commensurate with the small catchment areas and their relatively low relief.

Further geotechnical investigations have commenced along the proposed pipeline and facilities. The investigation includes cone penetrometer testing and drilling of a number of boreholes to confirm the preliminary HDD designs, along the pipeline and at the Crib Point Receiving Facility and the Pakenham Delivery Facility. These investigations will provide more detailed engineering and construction information on trench stability, rock levels, directional drilling and suitability of material for backfill.


A detailed contaminated land assessment will be undertaken during the geotechnical investigation and service proving investigation to understand the level of contamination present particularly within the fill material and the potential risk to human health and the environment.

Given the current land uses of the proposed pipeline, the likelihood of encountering contaminated soil that require remediation or treatment is unlikely. The only location where contaminated soil has been assessed as potentially occurring is within the boundary of the decommissioned BP Refinery at Crib Point.


62

The soils at this location have undergone a preliminary assessment for a comprehensive screen of contaminants including PFAS and PFOS by Monarc Environmental during the Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment. The outcome of the investigation indicated that soil are classified as ‘Fill Material’ in accordance with EPA publication IWRG621 (Monarc, 2018h).

Further testing of the potential contaminants will occur during the detailed design of the pipeline to inform APA of the potential to encounter material that needs to be managed during the construction program. APA is consulting with owners and occupiers of land to identify any other sites which may not be on the public record.


63

15. Social environments

Is the project likely to generate significant volumes of road traffic, during construction or operation?

NYD No Yes If yes, provide estimate of traffic volume(s) if practicable.

Road traffic generation during the construction phase of the project will be typical of construction on a linear reserve and will occur over a period of approximately 5-6 months. Construction vehicles for the project will access the construction ROW at discrete locations via the existing road network, with the majority of vehicle movements being related to light vehicles. Heavy and larger vehicles are required to transport pipe, plant and equipment to the relevant work areas.

Construction traffic will use the construction ROW and access tracks within private property to move equipment along the pipeline route so as to reduce as far as possible increases in traffic flow on the local road network.

Traffic impacts on the road network will be temporary and highly localised, with medium-term impacts only associated with entry and egress to the construction of the relevant pipeline facilities and any pipe stockpiling location. Construction of the pipeline will be progressive and the duration of the traffic impact to any one road will be of limited duration.

Traffic impacts through Hastings and in particular to Frankston-Flinders Road between KP5.0 and KP6.2 is likely to be mitigated by night works, traffic management and potential traffic redirection. A specific traffic management plan will be required for this area and the preparation of this plan will be in close consultation with Mornington Peninsula Shire and affected residential and commercial residents of the area.

To ensure public awareness of potential impacts during construction, APA will engage neighbours and communities in the areas affected by the pipeline during the detailed design with specific engagement activities prior to construction. This will include letterbox drops to neighbours of directly-affected landholders and works notifications to advise them of upcoming project activities, including temporary road closures or traffic controls being advertised.

APA will implement a traffic management plan for each road authority, which are to be prepared by suitably experienced and qualified personnel and that meet the conditions of the road authorities’ works in road reserve permits. These plans and APA’s stakeholder engagement will result in the Project having a manageable and controlled impact to the safe and efficient operation of the road network.

The Crib Point Receiving Facility is expected to receive 4-5 truck-loads of nitrogen per day over a month prior to receiving a mid and rich gas cargo. During the operation of the pipeline, delivery vehicles containing nitrogen are expected at the Crib Point Receiving Facility to top up storage volumes prior to expecting a mid or rich LNG cargo. In order to minimise impact to local residents and roads, nitrogen deliveries will be completed during the day and between Mondays to Fridays. Is there a potential for significant effects on the amenity of residents, due to emissions of dust or odours or changes in visual, noise or traffic conditions?

NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe the nature of the changes in amenity conditions and the possible areas affected.

Construction of the proposed pipeline, mainline valves compounds and facilities are likely to generate some temporary impacts on amenity of residents including dust, noise and visual changes. The potential amenity impacts from the long term operation of the Crib Point Receiving and Pakenham Delivery Facility have been assessed by AECOM (2018a) and Ethos Urban (2018). Noise modelling has been completed for Crib Point Receiving Facility including the movement of the 4-5 truck-loads of nitrogen a day and the noise impact have found to be acceptable and in accordance with the EPA Publication 1411: Guideline Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria. The noise and visual amenity assessments prepared to support this referral have assisted APA to undertake a number of early design and equipment specification changes to avoid amenity and nuisance impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. These changes include the selection of equipment and consideration of site layout in relation to potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

The pipeline route passes predominantly rural agricultural and commercial areas. However, in some areas it is aligned in close proximity to both rural residential properties and urban residential


64

areas. There are a number of commercial business along Frankston-Flinders Road at Hastings and an operational port at Crib Point.

The Crib Point Receiving Facility and the Pakenham Delivery Facility have been located in areas of industrial use which are either unlikely to change land use in the near future or where future land use is likely to be compatible such as Pakenham. Due to the longer term duration of activities planned at these locations greater consideration will be given to the site planning and sophistication of the controls, though impacts in relation to amenity and emissions are readily managed through implementation of standard construction controls.

Air Emissions

The main air emissions sources for the project will be during construction from machinery and vehicles, as well as fugitive dust generated from earthworks excavations, erosion of soil stockpiles and by vehicles and machinery movement. Construction will be progressive and therefore the duration and proximity to any one receiver or group of receivers will be limited.

Dust mitigation measures have been identified through the Project risk assessment process and will be managed through the CEMP. Mitigation measures will include reduced speed limits where dust is a concern and watering of exposed soils will be undertaken where required to manage dust. The implementation of these and other mitigation measures during construction is likely to limit impact on air quality during the construction of the pipeline and associated facilities.

Noise and vibration

Noise and vibration impact can result from trenching and backfilling and trenchless construction such as horizontal directional drilling and thrust boring. Noise can also result from ground disturbance activities associated with the clearing and reinstatement of the Construction ROW, general earthworks, loading and unloading of materials, and vehicle movements within the construction ROW.

Construction activities are unlikely to be at one location for long periods the noise impacts will be temporary, except for the two end of line facilities and the mainline valve compounds. APA will work with directly affected residents to minimise interference from noise during construction and works planning will take into account the potential nuisance noise levels.

Construction work will be undertaken in accordance with EPA publication 1411: Noise from industry in Rural Victoria. Construction activities will be planned to be carried out during daylight hours. However, some activities will need to be undertaken on a 24 hour basis such as trenchless construction and hydrotesting works. Night works may also be scheduled to reduce disruption to commercial business or heavily used roads. If 24 hour construction and / or night works are undertaken in close proximity to residents, early notification will be provided and each resident will be managed on a case-by-case basis as part of APA’s stakeholder engagement.

Noise modelling for the Crib Point and Pakenham pipeline facilities was completed to support this referral (AECOM, 2018c). Noise emissions were predicted using SoundPLAN version 7.4 environmental noise modelling software and the implementation of ISO 9613-2: 1996 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation’. The noise model for the Crib Point Receiving Facility has considered the cumulative impact of the proposed AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. The noise models have shown the following:

The operation of the Crib Point Receiving Facility assessed in conjunction with the proposed AGL Gas Import Jetty can meet the NIRV guidelines provided that noise mitigation requirements for the AGL Gas Import Jetty are included within the design; and

Noise modelling has predicted that the operation of the Pakenham Delivery Facility can meet the NIRV recommended maximum levels with the implementation of gas heaters with a sound power level of 92 dB(A).

The noise modelling for Crib Point Receiving Facility has included the movement of the 4-5 truck-loads of nitrogen a day and the noise impact associated with this and the operation of the facility has been found to be acceptable and in accordance with limits identified in the EPA Publication 1411: Guideline Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria.

Traffic

Traffic conditions during construction have been discussed in the previous section. It is expected that temporary changes to traffic conditions will not have a significant impact on the amenity of


65

residents or use of the existing road network. APA will enter into relevant traffic management plans with road authorities and undertake broad community engagement prior to construction activities which may have an inconvenience on road users (e.g. street-works in Hastings).

Odour

Odour from construction and operation activities are not expected.

Visual Amenity

There will be temporary visual changes to the landscape along the pipeline route during construction. The ROW will be re-instated and low laying vegetation reinstated as agreed with the affected landholder or local council.

The visual amenity impact of the Pakenham Delivery Facility will be low given its location within the Pakenham East Rail Depot. Vegetation screening will be used as a secondary mitigation control. Trees will be planted along the eastern boundary of the site to reduce any perceived visual amenity impact from the two landholders on the east side of Oakview Lane.

A detailed visual analysis and assessment of the visual impacts associated with the Crib Point Receiving Facility was undertaken by Ethos Urban for the Project (refer to Attachment 15). The purpose of the Landscape and Visual Amenity Impact Assessment was to understand the impact to visually sensitive receptors within the area in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LI & IEMA, 2013) and the potential cumulative effects associated with the AGL Import Jetty Project. The cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 19.

The Crib Point Receiving Facility components that were used to model the visual amenity impact included six (6) nitrogen storage tanks (8.5 m diameter and 20 m in height) and ancillary works (all assumed to be 3m in height, other than the nitrogen unloading gantry at 6m height), tow (2) new culverts along the existing 6 m wide roadway, 2.5m high galvanised chain-wire type fencing topped with 3 strands of barbed wire. The nitrogen storage tanks will be Colourbond© off white and the piping work will be painted in a beige colour.

The land surrounding the Crib Point Jetty although essentially rural, have areas of low scale settlement and areas used for light industry. The majority of residential development is located more than 1km from the proposed onshore infrastructure and more than 1.7km from the jetty, however there are a small number properties both single and double storey located along The Esplanade, approximately 720 metres north west of the proposed Facility. Directly west of the proposed along The Esplanade, is a large area of land that was the site of the Former Western Port BP Refinery. This area includes the Former BP Administration Building and gatehouse and associated industrial plant facilities and buildings. The proposed Receiving Facility is also located within 2km of the HMAS Cerberus, Royal Australian Naval Base, shown on the zoning map within the area zoned Commonwealth Land.

Within this rural landscape are open space and recreation reserves including Western Port Coastal Reserve, Crib Point Recreation Reserve and Cyril Fox Reserve to the south, Wooley’s Beach Reserve to the immediate south, Jack’s Beach Reserve to the north and the Woolley’s Road Equestrian Reserve to the north-west.

Visually sensitive receptors were identified as a results of the assessment and specific viewpoints were selected from within receptors and assessed against the Visual Impact Assessment framework described in the guidelines. Only visual receptor viewpoints that were expected to have at least partial views of the Crib Point Receiving Facility were assessed through consideration of their visual character and in some instances the production of photomontages to ascertain the visual impacts (Ethos Urban 2018).

Four visual receptors were found to potentially experience the greatest change in visual effects and these were:

Jack Beach;

The Victorian Maritime Centre;

Wooley’s Beach; and

French Island.

The primary uses within most of these places are expected to be passive recreation and sightseeing with the exception of French Island that is used for tourism purposes. French Island


66

visitors are likely to spend at least a day with the possibility of longer temporary trips, with a small number of persons residing permanently on the island. Within the four selected visual receptors, five key viewpoints were identified that most accurately represents the most significantly affected views of the surroundings. These specific viewpoints were considered to be either representative of similar views in the area or a public promoted view expected to attract visitors. These viewpoints were:

Jack’s Beach Residential Uses;

Submarine Lookout;

Maritime Museum;

Woolley’s Beach North; and

The Pinnacles.

The results of the visual impact assessment from each of the viewpoints considered are summarised in Table 12.

Table 12 – Visual Impact Assessment Outcome, Crib Point Receiving Facility

View Point Visual Impact Assessment Summary Visual Effects Significance Rating

Jack’s Beach The Receiving Facility will not be visible from this viewpoint.

Low

Submarine Lookout

The top of the Receiving Facility Nitrogen storage tanks will be visible above the treed foreshore. The location is a promoted lookout but contains limited access and view.

Low

Marine Museum The viewpoint is in close proximity to the Receiving Facility. The Facility can be seen from the ground level and second storey.

Moderate

Woolley’s Beach North

This is a promoted location with significant signposting and vehicle and pedestrian access. Promoted views primarily face east towards the ocean with a view of French Island. The Receiving Facility is partially visible from this viewpoint. Heavy vegetation is present between the Facility and the viewpoint, efficiently screening the Facility and reducing the perceived impact.

Low to Moderate

The Pinnacles The lookout has vehicle and pedestrian access and is the junction of several sections of the Pinnacles Track. The lookout has a 360-degree panoramic outlook dominated by vegetated foreground and sky due to the lower and mildly undulating surrounds. The background along the horizon is made up of the ocean and distant mainland and an unimpeded view of the proposed facility is expected.

Moderate

APA will minimise the visual impact from the proposed Crib Point Receiving Facility as part of the pipeline design process by incorporating the following into the facility design process:

Provision of screening vegetation to be incorporated along the western edge of the site adjacent to The Esplanade. This will reduce the visual impact of the proposed Receiving Facility from Jacks Beach and the Maritime Museum;

The tank finishes should be muted and non-reflective tones consistent with the Mornington Peninsula Shire Planning Scheme (even though no planning approval is required for the Facility); and

Directing lighting at the facility away from the storage tanks, with the nitrogen storage tanks utilising an external finish that minimise the reflectance of any lighting.

Is there a potential for exposure of a human community to health or safety hazards, due to emissions to air or water or noise or chemical hazards or associated transport?


67

NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe the hazards and possible implications.

Significant health and safety hazards to the local community are not expected from the Project. Access to the construction site will be clearly demarcated and public access will be denied.

Chemicals used during pipeline construction will not be present in quantities to cause any significant impacts to human health. They will be stored, handled and disposed of in accordance with the Material Safety Data Sheets and the specific requirements outlined in the CEMP.

Design, construction and operation of the Project will be undertaken in accordance with AS2885.1-2012. This standard facilitates the necessary requirements in consideration of the protection of the public, construction and operating personnel and the environment.

APA will review safety considerations identified in the project planning against the final constructed pipeline to consider and address any additional threats discovered during construction. During operation, the pipeline and facility safety is then regularly reviewed during operation to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of AS2885, and to ensure appropriate responses to changes in land uses and any external threats are implemented.

Is there a potential for displacement of residences or severance of residential access to community resources due to the proposed development?

NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe potential effects.

Due to the nature of pipeline construction and the land use across the project area, impacts to nearby residences will be limited and short in duration. APA will discuss measures to mitigate potential impacts on affected landowners and occupiers and their activities in advance of any work undertaken.

Road access in some areas may be temporarily restricted or subject to traffic management measures during construction. Where temporary road closure is proposed, permits will be sought from the relevant road authority. Affected residences will receive notification from APA as part of the ongoing stakeholder engagement program prior to construction and in accordance with any permit requirements.

Are non-residential land use activities likely to be displaced as a result of the project? NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe the likely effects.

The proposed pipeline is largely situated in agricultural land used for cropping, grazing, and other agricultural activities. Reinstatement of the construction ROW will ensure that existing land use activities can resume following construction of the pipeline and the reinstatement of land.

The location of above ground infrastructure associated with the proposed MLVs will be discussed with affected landholders. To the extent it is practicable and safe to do so, this infrastructure will be located to minimise impact on land use.

The Crib Point Receiving and Pakenham Delivery Facilities have been also located in areas of industrial use which are either unlikely to change land use in the near future and where land use is likely to be compatible reducing impact to the nearby community.

Do any expected changes in non-residential land use activities have a potential to cause adverse effects on local residents/communities, social groups or industries?

NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe the potential effects.

Changes to non-residential land use activities will be temporary only and are not expected to permanently affect local residences/communities, social groups or industries. As described previously, the siting of the pipeline facilities at Crib Point and Pakenham/Nar Nar Goon North is appropriate for the current and foreseeable land uses at these locations with the technical assessments completed (refer to Attachment 11 to 15) confirming that there is limited potential to cause any adverse effects.

Is mitigation of potential social effects proposed? NYD No Yes If yes, please briefly describe.

Any impacts associated with amenity, emissions or traffic are expected to be temporary only.

Mitigation measures and controls will be implemented as part of the CEMP to ensure noise and dust generated by the Project will conform to regulatory requirements such as those outlined in SEPPs.

During the pipeline construction, landowners and local residents will be kept up to date on progress of the Project to assist in reducing any potential social impacts. APA will have designated land liaison personnel who will be responsible for keeping open channels of


68

communication with affected owners and occupiers of land.

Trenchless construction will be used to construct the pipeline crossing underneath selected roads to maintain traffic flow and minimise disruption to road users. Operational railway crossings will also be crossed using trenchless construction.


Cultural heritage Have relevant Indigenous organisations been consulted on the occurrence of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the project area?

No If no, list any organisations that it is proposed to consult. Yes If yes, list the organisations so far consulted.

Consultation has occurred with the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) (for areas where Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAP) are the approval authority) and Traditional Owners groups and Aboriginal Victoria (for non-RAP area where Aboriginal Victoria is the approval authority) as part of the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment process.

In relation to the non-RAP area, APA has consulted and is actively involving the Boon Wurrung Foundation, BLCAC and the Wurundjeri Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Aboriginal Corporation in the development of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP).

What investigations of cultural heritage in the project area have been done? (attach details of method and results of any surveys for the project & describe their accuracy)

Cultural heritage investigations including standard and complex field surveys have been undertaken by Archaeological Excavations (Heritage Advisors) given the number of areas of Aboriginal Cultural heritage sensitivity. As the survey envelope falls within both a RAP area and a non-RAP area, two CHMP’s are currently being prepared under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2016.

A summary of the works to dates and progress is provided below.

CHMP 15383 extends from Crib Point (KP0) to Tooradin (KP35.5) and is located in the BLCAC RAP area. A Notice of Intent (NoI) was submitted to Aboriginal Victoria on 4 November 2017 and to BLCAC on 6 November 2017. BLCAC confirmed on 12 November that the RAP would be the evaluating authority for CHMP 15383. BLCAC have been consulted throughout the course of the CHMP preparation and are actively involved in the complex assessment fieldwork, which is currently being completed following the standard assessment.

CHMP 15384 extends from Tooradin (KP35.5) to Pakenham (KP56) in the non-RAP area. Aboriginal Victoria will be the evaluating authority for CHMP 15384. Three Aboriginal stakeholder groups have interest in the CHMP15384 area: Boon Wurrung Foundation; Wurundjeri Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Aboriginal Corporation; and Bunurong Aboriginal Corporation Land Council. The Aboriginal stakeholder groups attended an inception meeting for CHMP 15384 held on 19 December 2017 and are involved in the complex assessment fieldwork, which is currently being completed following the standard assessment.

The objectives of the cultural heritage assessment are to:

Determine the presence of Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the survey envelope;

Plan the management and protection of known Aboriginal cultural heritage during the course of activities associated with the Project; and

Provide contingency arrangements for managing the discovery of any further Aboriginal cultural heritage places during the course of activities associated with the Project.

At the time of preparation of this document, the Desktop Assessment for both CHMPs had been completed (refer to Attachment 9).

Is any Aboriginal cultural heritage known from the project area? NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe: Any sites listed on the AAV Site Register Sites or areas of sensitivity recorded in recent surveys from the project site or nearby


69

Sites or areas of sensitivity identified by representatives of Indigenous organisations

Areas of registered Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity were identified during the desktop assessment to occur throughout the activity area and are mainly associated with watercourses, landforms and registered Aboriginal places.

A search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) shows that six (6) Aboriginal places occur in, or within, 50m of the activity area with four of these places occurring in the activity area:

VAHR 7921-0419 comprising an isolated artefact;

VAHR 7921-0036 comprising an artefact scatter;

VAHR 7921-1533 Components 21 and 22 comprising a low density artefact scatter;

VAHR 8021-0408 Components 1-5 comprising a low density artefact scatter;

VAHR 7921-1427 comprising an artefact scatter; and

VAHR 7921-1533 Components 7 and 8 comprising a low density artefact scatter.

Five archaeological assessments have been completed in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline that have resulted in approved Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMP 13065, CHMP 13991, CHMP 10200, CHMP 12826 and CHMP 13355). These were reviewed as part of the desktop investigation and indicate the following:

Scarred trees may be present in areas of remnant mature native vegetation;

There is increased potential for Aboriginal cultural material to be present on elevated landforms (rises, crests, hills), on sandy dunes and in close proximity to watercourses which would have provided attractive long-term occupation areas;

There is increased potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage to be present in the Cranbourne Sands (which occur throughout the activity area within the Koo Wee Rup Plains);

Low-lying land and floodplains have lower potential to contain Aboriginal cultural heritage but cannot be ruled out due to the availability of resources year-round;

Aboriginal cultural material, if present, is likely to comprise low density artefact distributions and artefact scatters manufactured predominately on silcrete and quartz raw material; and

There is limited potential (based on ethnohistoric accounts) for burials to be present in sandy/silt deposits in the Tooradin area.

APA is currently in the process of completing the necessary standard and complex field investigations to prepare and seek approval of the CHMP’s for the pipeline. At the time of writing this referral, APA has identified 10 new cultural heritage places, with 7 of these within the RAP area of the BLCAC (5 artefact scatters and 2 low density artefact distributions) and 3 within the area without a Registered Aboriginal Party (1 artefact scatter and 2 low density artefact distributions). In total, 178 surface and sub-surface artefacts have been identified through the complex assessment process.

Following the completion of the complex assessment of each CHMP, APA will finalise conditions for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage material and places identified during the assessment phase. The conditions of the approved Cultural Heritage Management Plans will be implemented during the Project. Are there any cultural heritage places listed on the Heritage Register or the Archaeological Inventory under the Heritage Act 1995 within the project area?

NYD No Yes If yes, please list.

Historical sites of varying archaeological significance area currently recorded within or in close proximity to the proposed pipeline as listed in Table 13.

Table 13 – Historical sites within the proposed pipeline


70

Site Name Historical Database ID

Results Impact of proposed pipeline

Denhams Road Farmhouse

H7721-0119 Consent to Damage (C1059) was previously issued to Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd for Denham’s Road Farmhouse Site. If the extent of site disturbance for the ROW is within the same footprint of works approved under C1059, no additional Consent is required.

The farmhouse is considered to have a low level significance.

A shallow thrust bore is proposed within the area of disturbance by a previous linear infrastructure proponent.

Former BP Refinery Administration Building

HO240/

VHR H1016

The Former BP Refinery Administration Building is located within 60m of the proposed pipeline ROW.

Former BP Refinery Administration building built in 1965 by Van Driel P/L to a design by Don Hendry Fulton. The building was awarded the 1966 RVIA Victorian Architecture Medal. It has a brick ground floor, a cantilevered glass curtain wall overhung by eaves and an enclosing colonnade.

The administration building will not be impacted by the works.

Balla Balla Pastoral Homestead

HO13 The Balla Balla Pastoral Homestead is located within 36m of the proposed pipeline ROW.

Pastoral homestead constructed c.1870-1880 associated with the former Balla Balla pastoral run, occupied from 1839. The homestead was linked with Alexander M Hunter, a well known grazier. The homestead has possible earlier features, dating c.1850s that have been incorporated into its construction. The building and gardens are regionally significant for their historic, architectural and aesthetic qualities.

HO13 will not be impacted by the Project.

Dalmore Well HO47 Dalmore Well is located within 25m of the proposed pipeline ROW.

Evidence of early farming, predating Soldier settlement of the area. Brick well associated with the remains of the Old Dalmore Homestead, built in 1883 for Duncan MacGregor.

HO47 will not be impacted by the Project.

Hobson’s soldier Settler House and Trees

HO115/HO235 Hobson’s Soldier Setter House & Trees is located within 88m of the proposed pipeline ROW.

The house is significant as a well-preserved example of a soldier settlement house. It is an example of cheaper building fabrics using concrete blocks. It is significant for its association with the Hobson family. The house is of regional significance.

HO115 and HO235 will not be impacted by the Project.

Wattle & Daub Hut Jatoki Farm

H021 Wattle & Daub Hut Jatoki Farm is located within 100m of the proposed pipeline ROW.

A wattle and daub cottage built c.1870, significant and rare example of an early farmhouse constructed from locally procured material. It is significant for its

H021 will not be impacted by the Project.


71

association with the Craig family.

Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity

N/A Five areas of cultural heritage sensitivity (Land Gazetted for Military Purposes, Balla Balla Pre-emptive Right, Quail Island and Environs, Tyabb Coastline and Tyabb Waterholes) that occur within the proposed pipeline ROW are considered to have low archaeological potential.

This areas are traversed by the project. Mitigation and management measures will be included in the CEMP.

A structural engineer has been recommended by the Heritage Advisor to be engaged to provide expert advice to ensure the protection of nearby historical heritage structures from vibration and dust from construction vehicles. This recommendation will be included in the CEMP as a project requirement.

The CEMP for the project will require the construction contractor(s) to adhere to management and conservation procedures in the event that any heritage artefacts are discovered during construction. Is mitigation of potential cultural heritage effects proposed?


Where works are undertaken in proximity to the VHI-listed site, a consent to damage will be sought from Heritage Victoria in accordance with the Heritage Act 1995. APA’s proactive approach towards the registration and investigation of potential VHI sites represents its desire to mitigate construction impacts on places of cultural heritage value.

The CEMP for the Project will require the appointed construction contractor to adhere to management and conservation procedures in the event that any heritage artefacts are discovered during construction.


APA has engaged suitably qualified and experienced Heritage Advisors to complete the cultural heritage assessments and prepare the required CHMP’s. As such, it is expected the information provided in these documents will reflect this and the information provided will be factually correct. The CHMPs will be accompanied by mapping and coordinates or recorded information to allow the accurate transfer of information from the documents.

16. Energy, wastes & greenhouse gas emissions What are the main sources of energy that the project facility would consume/generate?

Electricity network. If possible, estimate power requirement/output – Please see below. Natural gas network. If possible, estimate gas requirement/output - Please see below. Generated on-site. If possible, estimate power capacity/output ………………………. Other. Please describe.

Please add any relevant additional information.

Electricity

The Crib Point Receiving Facility electricity energy demand is estimated to be approximately 275MW per annum;

The Pakenham Delivery Facility electrical energy demand is estimated to be approximately 1,000MW per annum; and

The Nitrogen Storage Facility at Crib Point electricity energy demand is estimated to be approximately 340MW per annum.

Natural Gas

The bath heaters located at the Pakenham Receiving Facility are estimated to use approximately 12 MW during the winter and 3.5 MW during the summer time. The gas consumption of the heaters is dependent on the ground temperature (influences the arrival temperature at Pakenham Delivery Facility), the seawater temperature (influences the FSRU inlet temperature), and the Crib Point pipeline and VTS pipeline line pack


72

(influences the temperature loss over the flow control valves).

Other

Some energy use will occur during the construction phase resulting from the combustion of diesel and other fossil fuels in vehicles and equipment, such as generators.

What are the main forms of waste that would be generated by the project facility?

Wastewater. Describe briefly. Solid chemical wastes. Describe briefly. Excavated material. Describe briefly. Other. Describe briefly.

Please provide relevant further information, including proposed management of wastes.

There is a potential for minor quantities of subsoil that will require disposal following restoration of the construction area. All waste soil will be managed in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 and relevant EPA IWRG soil disposal guidelines.

Other waste streams generated during the project include vegetative material from clearing operations, hard waste construction material (e.g. concrete, off-cuts, pipe coverings and materials from temporary structures such as fencing and signage).

Solid and liquid waste including excess excavated soils generated during construction will be managed in accordance with the standard measures of the CEMP, which are based on the following waste management hierarchy:

Avoid receiving waste at point of purchase;

Reduce wastes at point of use;

Reuse materials where possible;

Recycle wastes where practicable; and

Dispose of wastes appropriately and responsibly.

The operation of the pipeline, Crib Point Receiving Facility and Pakenham Delivering Facility is unlikely to generate quantifiable volumes of waste streams. Liquid is not expected in the gas stream under normal operations given that the gas supply is clean re-gasified LNG.

Pig trap facilities are included in the scope of this Project, however as no liquids are anticipated bunded pads under the pig trap facilities are not required.

Filters, which are proposed at the Pakenham Delivery Facility, will require cleaning as part of the standard operations and maintenance activities. These activities will be in accordance with the requirements of the Operational Environmental Management Plan. Particulate solids may be pyrophoric however are not anticipated. In the event that pyrophoric solids are identified, APA operations team shall ensure a temporary water supply is available to wet down any waste filter elements to prevent them from catching fire. Disposal of the cartridges and any generated waste water will be in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines.

No permanent waste oil or pipeline “trash” collection facilities will be installed at the Crib Point Receiving Facility and Pakenham Delivering Facility as these type of waste are not expected to be generated during normal operation activities.

What level of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to result directly from operation of the project facility?

Less than 50,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum Between 50,000 and 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum Between 100,000 and 200,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum More than 200,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum

Please add any relevant additional information, including any identified mitigation options.

The Project will emit between 2,500 and 3,030 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum (AECOM, 2018a).

An assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (refer to Attachment 11) estimates has


73

been carried out to meet the requirements of the State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) 2001 and the requirements of the Protocol for Environmental Management – Greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency in industry (2002).

The key GHG emissions are related to the consumption of electricity and gas by the Crib Point Receiving Facility and Pakenham Delivery Facility. The activities and sources of emissions, and the scope of emission associated with the Project are detailed in Table 14.

Table 14 – GHG activities and source of emissions

Activity GHG Emissions Source

Included Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Indirect emissions from electricity

Crib Point receiving facility

Grid Electricity Yes NA Yes Yes

Crib Point nitrogen storage facility


Pakenham delivery facility


Remote telemetry unit pipeline monitor

Grid Electricity No No NA No

Stationary energy emissions

Pakenham water bath heaters

Natural Gas Yes Yes NA Yes

Fugitive emissions

Crib Point receiving facility

Natural Gas Yes Yes NA NA

Crib Point vent stack Natural Gas

No No NA NA

Pakenham delivery facility


Pakenham vent stack

Natural Gas No No NA NA

Pipeline Transmission


Transport fuel emissions

- - - - -

APA survey vehicles Diesel Yes Yes NA Yes

Nitrogen delivery vehicles*

Diesel Yes Yes NA Yes

General Staff movements

Diesel Yes Yes NA Yes

Odorant delivery vehicles

Diesel Yes NA NA Yes

*It is noted that the nitrogen delivery vehicles are typically owned by a contractor which would categorise related emissions as only Scope 3, however, there is the potential for the delivery vehicles to be owned by APA, therefore have been included in the Scope1 boundary.

The actual emissions profile of Project will be affected by the gas volumes required to meet market demand by AGL as the preliminary use of the pipeline is associated with AGL’s Gas Import Jetty Project. While the preferred project delivery approach is yet to be resolved, three annual usage scenarios (representing worst case scenarios) have been assessed for the Project:

Scenario 1


74

40 cargos of LNG per annum will be processed by AGL’s FSRU;

Up to 6 out of the 40 cargos will be composed of rich LNG;

Nitrogen will be supplied via a 3rd party and delivered to site via road-freight from Dandenong and stored in an onsite tank facility; and

Odorant plant operational.

Scenario 2


Up to 4 out of the 40 cargos will be composed of rich LNG;

Nitrogen will be supplied via a 3rd party and delivered to site via road-freight from Dandenong and stored in an onsite tank facility; and


Scenario 3


All 40 cargos will be composed of lean LNG;

Nitrogen will not be required; and


The specification of rich gas exceeds the Australian Standard 4564-2011 Specification for general purpose natural gas (AS4564-2011) and upper limit of the AEMO Wobbe index. The Wobbe Index is an indicator of the interchangeability of fuel gases such as natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and town gas and is frequently defined in the specifications of gas supply and transport utilities. In order to meet the AS4564-2011 gas specifications and AEMO requirements before the gas is imported into the VTS, the nitrogen contents in the gas stream is increased through the injection of nitrogen at the Crib Point Receiving Facility.

A summary of the estimate of GHG emissions related to each scenario assessed is summarised in Table 15. Scenario 1 is estimated to lead to the highest quantity of scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions (2,831 tonnes of CO2-e pa). Scenario 1 is also the most likely operational scenario. Scenarios 2 and 3 result in less overall emissions, due to the lower demand of nitrogen required for rich LNG deliveries.

Table 15 – Summary of greenhouse gas emissions under each scenario

Source GHG Emissions Source

Scenario 1 (tCO2-e)

Scenario 2 (tCO2-e)

Scenario 3 (tCO2-e)

Indirect emissions from electricity

Scope 2 Grid Electricity 1,720 1,599 1,359

Scope 3 Grid Electricity 161 150 127

Stationary energy emissions

Scope 1 Natural Gas 389 378 356


Fugitive emissions


Transport fuel emissions

Scope 1 Diesel Oil 86 58 2

Scope 3 Diesel Oil 7 5 1

Totals

Scope 1 1,112 1,072 994


75

Scope 2 1,720 1,599 1,359

Scope 3 197 183 155

Total Scope 1+2 2,831 2,672 2,353

Total Scope 1+2+3 3,029 2,855 2,508

The outcome of the GHG emissions shows the likely emissions under all scenarios are well below the EE referral limit and therefore, it is unlikely to exceed the 200,000 tonnes of CO2-e per annum limit.

17. Other environmental issues Are there any other environmental issues arising from the proposed project?

No Yes If yes, briefly describe.

18. Environmental management What measures are currently proposed to avoid, minimise or manage the main potential adverse environmental effects? (if not already described above)

Siting: Please describe briefly

The pipeline commences at the Crib Point Receiving Facility located on an existing site owned by PoHDA. The pre-disturbed area presents significant advantages such as:

Limiting ecological impacts to native vegetation;

Minimising cultural heritage impacts by utilising an already pre-disturbed area; and

Utilising land already being used for industrial uses.

The pipeline route has been selected after more than 8-9 months of consultation with affected landowners/occupiers and government stakeholders, and the completion of detailed environmental investigations that inform the construction methodology for avoidance and minimisation of impacts. Route selection analysis criteria with consideration of environmental impact, included the following:

The extent of areas on environmental sensitivity such as flora, fauna and waterways;

The extent of areas of cultural heritage significance;

The extent of areas of good to high quality agricultural land;

The number of land parcels and landowners; and

Density levels, including proximity to residential and industrial estates.

The Pakenham Delivery Facility will be situated adjacent to the Pakenham East Rail Depot, which is within land owned by Public Transport Victoria. This presents similar advantages as those for the siting of the Crib Point Receiving Facility.

Design: Please describe briefly

An integral part of the pipeline design process is the review and planning of the potential environmental, safety and social implications of the development. Through the route selection process, APA has sought to avoid potential impact to these aspects by consideration of the outlined pipeline route selection criteria and review of present and foreseeable changes to land use.

The pipeline has a design life of 60 years. The design life of other pipeline equipment and sub-systems ranges from 15 to 25 years, but with ongoing integrity management, and subject to


76

appropriate commercial drivers, the operational life is expected to be longer.

APA undertakes the design and construction of the pipeline in accordance with AS2885.1-2012, which has important design reviews and controls to ensure the pipeline is adequately designed for its intended purpose and risks are minimised to as low as reasonably practicable with consideration of the environmental, safety and social impact of the pipeline operation.

APA continuously monitors activities around its assets, including what land use changes are occurring and what development is taking place to ensure it remains in a positon to comply with applicable operational and safety standards and legislation whilst meeting its commercial obligations and imperatives.

Specifically in relation to pipeline safety and land use, the Safety Management Study will be undertaken prior to pipeline construction and will then be reviewed against the final constructed pipeline to consider and address any additional threats discovered during construction. During operation, the Safety Management Study is then regularly reviewed to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of AS2885.1-2012, and to ensure appropriate responses to changes in land uses and any external threats are implemented.

Environmental management: Please describe briefly.

Management framework

APA is committed to responsible safety and environmental management. This is formalised in a Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Policy, which outlines the requirements of all APA employees including contractors. The HSE Policy sets out APA’s commitment, strategic intent, direction, and an overview of supporting strategies to achieve the aims of the policy.

The plans and procedures APA will implement as part of the operation of the pipeline are based on the specific risks that arise from its operation and relevant regulatory requirements. Risks associated with health and safety are managed by identifying hazards, assessing consequences and likelihood, evaluating risk and implementing preventive and mitigation measures as appropriate and required pursuant to relevant legislation and standards.

For the proposed pipeline, APA will undertake a Safety Management Study, Environmental Risk Assessment and a Construction Safety Hazard Identification to allow for the assessment of site-specific hazards and avoidance and mitigation measures. The risk assessments and registers developed through these processes consider risks to the following groups:

APA personnel, and customers;

the public;

the environment; and

APA’s assets/facilities.

If the hazards identified through this process are not able to be eliminated, work is carried out in accordance with plans and documented procedures, so as to ensure a safe working environment and practices. This approach is consistent with AS2885.1-2012.

Management plans

In relation to safety during construction, APA will implement a specific Construction Health and Safety Management Plan in addition to the CEMP. The preparation of these plans are informed by both APA’s hazard and risk assessments as well as specialist and technical assessments completed for specific activities. APA will seek approval of these plans prior to the construction of the pipeline in accordance with the requirements of the Pipelines Act.

Following the construction and commissioning of the pipeline, the asset will be owned and operated by APA in accordance with an Operational Safety Management Plan and Environmental Management Plan approved by the Minister. This will be consistent with APA’s HSE Management System. The pipeline will form part of the well-established operations and maintenance systems APA has in place for other pipeline assets in Victoria.

The CEMP and OEMP will be centralised, scope-specific documents that describe all environmental risks related to the Project and required actions to manage those risks, including conditions of approval. The CEMP and OEMP will be supported by a number of sub-plans which


77

provide detailed environmental controls to manage key environmental issues.

Performance standards will be identified to address key environmental risks, effects and legal requirements for the Project. Key environmental risks were defined through the process of an Environmental Risk Assessment conducted by APA with specialist consultants and contractors. The performance standards, which are defined in these plans, are a collation of the management and mitigation measures, environmental monitoring and contingency plans for the Project.

The CEMP and OEMP will outline the relevant assurance procedures for the construction activities, including regulatory reporting requirements.

Other: Please describe briefly

Add any relevant additional information.

19. Other activities Are there any other activities in the vicinity of the proposed project that have a potential for cumulative effects?

NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe.

The purpose of this cumulative impact assessment is to evaluate the potential indirect and cumulative impacts of the Pipeline Project as required in accordance with the ‘Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978’ (seventh edition, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2006) (the Guidelines). This includes an evaluation of the potential impacts of the Jetty Project as an indirect impact of the Pipeline Project, and the potential cumulative impacts of both the Pipeline Project and the Jetty Project collectively.

Two other activities are occurring within, or in proximity to, the footprint of the Pipeline Project and the Jetty Project at Crib Point:

Jetty Upgrade works to be undertaken by PoHDA to refurbish the existing Crib Point Jetty to provide an upgraded berth for shipping

Flattening of high spots on the seabed to be undertaken by VRCA to maintain operation of the Crib Point Jetty.

These two activities have not been considered within this cumulative impact assessment as they are not dependent on the Pipeline Project or the Jetty Project, are point in time activities that will not substantially overlap with the Pipeline Project or the Jetty Project and the effects from these activities have been addressed by other, separate statutory mechanisms (specifically consents under the Coastal Management Act 1995 that have already been issued).

The relevant potential effects of the Jetty Project as an indirect effect of the Pipeline Project, and the potential cumulative impacts of the Pipeline Project and the Jetty Project combined have been considered, as set out in relevant supporting documents including the Cumulative Impact Assessment Report (Attachment 14).

Based on this assessment, the Pipeline Project will not result in significant additive effects to the Jetty Project due to its predominantly onshore location.

Further detail on the assessment of potential cumulative impacts of the Pipeline Project and the Jetty Project is provided below.

An initial screening assessment was undertaken to assess where the Pipeline Project and the Jetty Project, when combined, had the potential for cumulative impacts to occur. This screening included determining the spatial and temporal boundaries of the potential effects and a recommendation on whether a more detailed assessment was required to identify potential cumulative impacts.

As a result of the screening assessment, it was found that further assessment was required for the following potential cumulative impacts:

Residential amenity, which may be impacted by project related infrastructure at Crib Point (specifically, operational noise emissions)


78

Significant landscapes and natural features and key viewpoints at and around Crib Point

Operational greenhouse gas emissions

Ecological considerations, including native vegetation and the Western Port Ramsar site.

Operational noise

The noise impact assessment (Attachment 13) modelled the indirect and cumulative effect of proposed noise emissions from both projects which comprised:

Crib Point Receiving Facility (part of the Pipeline Project):

Nitrogen offloading – day and night time operation

Nitrogen injection – day and night time operation

Jetty Project:

Mooring activities

Regasification

The cumulative assessment found that for all combinations of scenarios, the predicted cumulative levels were compliant with the NIRV Recommended Maximum Levels. The assessment found that the cumulative levels were slightly higher at some receivers than the levels for the Jetty Project only, but residents surrounding the connection point of the two projects at Crib Point are unlikely to perceive the change in noise levels when the two projects start operation. As a result, the cumulative noise impacts are not likely to have a significant effect on amenity or the local community and further noise mitigation measures are not required.

Landscape and visual

The LVIA prepared by Ethos Urban (2018) (Attachment 15) considered the potential impacts of the Jetty Project (including the FSRU ship, LNG carrier and its movements and the Jetty Infrastructure), in addition to the Receiving Facility (which forms part of the Pipeline Project). The Crib Point Pakenham pipeline is predominantly located underground, and as such, no assessment of its operational landscape character or visual impact is required.

The LVIA found that there was no substantial change to the overall landscape character as a result of the cumulative landscape effects. On this basis, the cumulative impact on landscape values and at sensitive receptors overall remains of Low to Moderate significance (depending on the selected viewpoint).

Minor changes to the visual impact at key viewpoints were identified in the LVIA. However, many of the existing viewpoints have had views of the existing industrial and maritime land uses on the Crib Point headland for many years. While there is some visual impact from several viewpoints as a result of the Jetty Project and the Pipeline Project, the cumulative visual impact is considered overall to be of Low to Moderate significance of visual effects due to the longstanding presence of maritime industry at this location and its part in the existing landscape.

Ecology

The cumulative impact assessment considered potential impacts on two key ecological components:

Total combined area of native vegetation to be cleared

Cumulative impact on the character of the Western Port Ramsar site.

The total combined extent of native vegetation clearance resulting from the Jetty Project and Pipeline Project is 8.691 ha.

The majority of native vegetation clearance will result from the Pipeline Project, comprising:

3.291 ha of Endangered EVCs (Swamp Scrub, Swampy Riparian Woodland and Grassy Woodland)

2.444 ha of Vulnerable EVCs (Damp Heathy Woodland)


79

1.098 ha of Least Concern EVCs (Coastal Saltmarsh and Heathy Woodland).

37 scattered trees within the construction footprint equating to an additional 1.418 ha of vegetation clearance

There is a cumulative vegetation clearance impact when the Pipeline Project is added to the Jetty Project with the Jetty Project contributing 0.44 ha of Heathy Woodland proposed to be cleared. This area of Heathy Woodland associated with the landside component of the Jetty Project has been identified as an area of regeneration less than 10 years old and its removal is considered exempt from the need for a permit under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme (Jacobs 2018).

As an indication, the overall amount of vegetation clearance from the Jetty Project and the Pipeline Project is below the Guidelines level deemed sufficiently significant for an EES referral to be required. The criteria for referral require potential clearing of 10 ha or more of native vegetation that is identified as endangered or of very high conservation significance. It is also below the combination referral criteria of potential clearing of 10 ha or more of native vegetation. Monarc Environmental (2018a) and Jacobs (2018) have assessed the respective impacts of the Pipeline Project and the Jetty Project on native vegetation including impacts on flora and fauna and ecological communities. These impacts are summarised in the respective project referrals. The potential cumulative impacts of the Jetty Project and the Pipeline Project on the Western Port Ramsar wetland values have been assessed against the Ecological Character Description (ECD) described in the Western Port Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description (KBR 2010). This ECD provides an account of the benefits and services that Ramsar wetlands provide and the critical components, processes and services that contribute to those benefits and services.

The assessment concluded that the Pipeline Project will not result in significant additive effects to the Jetty Project due to its predominantly onshore location. Most of the potential impacts on wetland values are associated with the Jetty Project and a number of specific studies have been undertaken to assess the potential impacts of this project. The Pipeline Project will not directly impinge on the waters or shoreline of Western Port, and as such, will not have an additive effect on the main potential impacts on wetland values associated with the Jetty Project. There is minor potential for cumulative sedimentation impacts from the Pipeline Project resulting from construction activities proximal to watercourses draining into Western Port.

However, these impacts would be readily manageable due to the temporary nature of the works associated with construction of the Pipeline Project, timing of the activities (i.e. during summer) and the implementation of suitable environmental controls such as HDD and the establishment of sediment controls. The potential for substantial fluid loss during HDD is unlikely to occur given the depth of the HDD and the geological conditions; however suitable monitoring procedures and contingency planning will be implemented in the event of a loss of drilling mud.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions were assessed separately for the Jetty Project and the Pipeline Project. The Jetty Project is predicted to have the highest GHG emissions of the two projects, primarily related to Scope 1 emissions associated with gas consumption. In combination, the two projects are expected to emit 123,348 tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum. This is under the 200,000 t CO2-e per annum threshold specified in the Guidelines and therefore, collectively, impacts on GHG emissions are not considered significant.

Conclusion

Based on this assessment, the Pipeline Project will not result in significant additive effects to the Jetty Project due to its predominantly onshore location.


80

20. Investigation program Study program Have any environmental studies not referred to above been conducted for the project?

No Yes If yes, please list here and attach if relevant. Has a program for future environmental studies been developed?

No Yes If yes, briefly describe.

A targeted Spring survey for the Dense Leek-orchid, Swamp Fireweed and Swamp Everlasting is planned to determine if the species is present within the construction ROW. The surveys will be conducted at the following locations:

KP 1 to 2, as known populations of Dense Leek-orchid are likely to occur in Damp Heathy Woodland in similar habitat nearby at Crib Point.

KP 33.5, as known populations of Swamp Fireweed are likely to occur in suitable habitat nearby at Muddy Gates Lane and Manks Road, and the South Gippsland Railway Line.

KP 33.5, as known populations of Swamp Everlasting likely to occur in suitable habitat along exist nearby at Muddy Gates Lane and Manks Road, and the South Gippsland Railway Line.

If the species is found to be present during field surveys, impacts will be avoided by using trenchless technology, or by minor realignment of the construction footprint. If the species is present and direct impacts cannot be entirely avoided, options for offsetting or translocation will be agreed with the federal regulator prior to impacts occurring. Given this approach, the Project is not expected to have a significant impact the relevant species. APA will provide the findings of the surveys to DELWP.

An arborist assessment will be undertaken for all trees within the boundaries of the construction ROW to understand if the trees marked as loss may be able to retained and managed during construction. Any tree immediately adjacent to the construction ROW will also be assessed to determine if the construction activities may affect their long term viability. The outcome of the arborist’s assessment and any mitigation measures will be included in the CEMP.

A detailed contaminated land assessment will be undertaken along the pipeline alignment to understand the condition of the soil in terms of contaminants of concerns in the event that disposal is required during construction. The outcome of the investigation and any mitigation such as soil management and / or disposal requirements will be reflected in the CEMP. The results of the assessment will also be provided to the appointed construction company to inform their HSE and works planning requirements.

Consultation program Has a consultation program conducted to date for the project?

No Yes If yes, outline the consultation activities and the stakeholder groups or organisations consulted.

A program of community and stakeholder engagement has been undertaken by APA to investigate potential social effects of the project and to inform design and planning controls for the Project. APA has also participated in a number of community consultation and stakeholder meetings held by AGL in relation to its Gas Import Jetty Project.

APA prepared a Consultation Plan in accordance with Part 4, Division 1 of the Pipelines Act and requirements of the Pipelines Regulations 2017. The Consultation Plan was approved on 18 October 2017 by the Minister in accordance with Section 18(2) of the Pipelines Act. The purpose of Consultation Plan was to articulate how APA proposes to consult and interact with stakeholders, particularly landowners and occupiers, likely to be affected by the Project. The Plan identified key objectives, tools and desired outcomes from the engagement with the relevant stakeholders.


81

In setting the foundation for engagement, the project adopted the following principles:

Direct: direct (i.e. two-way channels such as face-to-face, direct mail, email, or phone calls) is the preferred means of communicating major issues to affected community members and stakeholders.

Open: communications will be open, transparent, inclusive, accessible, accurate and consistent in its content, and will be planned, coordinated and timely in its delivery, to both internal and external audiences.

Proactive: proactive communications and early engagement are integral parts of all project and operational planning processes.

Tailored: messages and delivery channels must be tailored to the communication and information needs of their intended audiences.

A program of engagement with key stakeholders that includes affected landholders, local residents, businesses and Government Authorities commenced in November 2017 and will continue through to the Project completion in 2020. The consultation program has been developed around different stages of the Project’s development. The initial stages have been directed at immediately affected stakeholders to seek their feedback on the proposal and assess how the pipeline activities would affect them.

These stages form logical phases of consultation, with distinct aspects in relation to the provision of information, the method of consultation and level of engagement required with relevant stakeholders for each stage. The relevant stages are as follows:

Initial stakeholder engagement;

Obtaining land access for surveys;

Agreement on pipeline corridor;

Completion of regulatory approvals;

Pipeline construction; and

Pipeline operation and maintenance.

APA has completed the initial stakeholder engagement processes and is continuing consultation with external parties to confirm the performance standards required by the detailed design or to be managed through implementation of the project requirements (e.g. CEMP). With specific regard to owners and occupiers of land, APA is presently engaging to better understand the current and proposed land uses (e.g. cultivation, deep ripping, expected vehicle weights crossing pipeline, etc.) and to seek to acquire land tenure for the construction and operation of the pipeline.

APA appreciates the support affected parties have shown to date in relation to the preparedness to consider and potentially agree to access to their land for the required investigations. These processes are nearing completion for the purpose of supporting regulatory approval applications. Should APA be successful in securing land tenure for the Project, APA will commence consultation regarding detailed construction planning and scheduling with APA’s construction contractor.

Communications with external parties are recorded in a consultation management system. A snapshot of the communications to the time of writing this referral are summarised in Figure 5. The chart in Figure 5 illustrates the number and methods of reaching out to external stakeholders.


82

Figure 5 – Project communication summary (extract from APA’s consultation management system)

In delivering open and proactive engagement, APA has on numerous occasions visited communities along the pipeline route and hosted community information sessions for regional towns near the Project. These sessions have been arranged to provide further information, answer questions and gather feedback. APA personnel have also attended and participated in AGL hosted drop-in and information sessions regarding the Gas Import Jetty Project, with these occurring since January 2018. The following sessions were either attended by APA key project personnel or were APA hosted events:

22 January 2018: A community drop in session in Hastings was held with representatives of AGL and APA, and AGL’s environmental and marine consultants Jacobs and CEE Environment in attendance;

4 April 2018: AGL and APA held a town hall style presentation in Hastings;

19 April 2018: Neil Burgess MP hosted a Public Meeting in Blind Bight which AGL and APA attended;

17 May 2018: APA hosted community drop in session in Cardinia which AGL also attended;

22 May 2018: APA hosted community drop in session in Nar Nar Goon which AGL also attended;

25 June 2018: AGL hosted community presentation meeting at Balnarring;

27 July 2018: APA hosted community presentation meeting at Balnarring;

28 July 2018: APA hosted community presentation meeting at Hastings;

31 July 2018: APA hosted community presentation meeting at Crib Point;

1 August 2018: APA hosted community presentation meeting at Nar Nar Goon; and

2 August 2018: APA hosted community presentation meeting at Cardinia.

Further community information sessions are planned with AGL across September 2018 around the Mornington Peninsula region and southern portion of the pipeline route. In addition to the broader community consultation, specific stakeholder consultation has been undertaken and is ongoing with the following parties:

Aboriginal Victoria;


83

Boon Wurrung Foundation,

Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation;

Cardinia Shire Council;

City of Casey;

Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy;

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning;

Department of Premier and Cabinet;

Elgas;

Energy Safe Victoria;

Esso Australia;

Heritage Victoria;

Melbourne Water;


Parks Victoria;

Public Transport Victoria;

Southern Rural Water;

Victoria Police;

Victorian Farmers Federation (Cardinia Branch);

VicRoads;

VicTrack;

Viva Energy; and

Wurundjeri Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Aboriginal Corporation.

Has a program for future consultation been developed? NYD No Yes If yes, briefly describe.

Consultation will be ongoing with affected stakeholder during all phases of Project until post-construction. This will include:

Ongoing meetings with key stakeholders, local councils, infrastructure owners and government authorities;

One-on-one meetings with affected landowners and occupiers;

Regular community updates;

Community pop-up events and information sessions; and

Online materials.

Due to APA and AGL proposing projects with potential cumulative and indirect effects, APA and AGL have defined specific responsibilities for dealing with enquiries and engagement with external parties in relation to each company’s project and relevant activities. A stakeholder management strategy will be developed during the detailed design of the Project with AGL to define the processes of complaints, media and any engagement and project communications in order to identify, monitor and manage consultation in respect of the separate projects.


85

Attachments No. Attachment

1 Maps

1a Project Overview Plan

1b Pipeline Route- Proposed easements

1c Pipeline Construction – ROW

1d

1e

1f

1g

1h

1i

1j

1k

1l

1m

1n

Pipeline Construction - Methodology

Planning Zones

Overlay Plan

Native Vegetation Mapping

Project Bounding Coordinates

Warringine Creek HDD cross section

Warringine Park HDD Cross section

Kings Creek HDD Cross section

Watson Creek HDD Cross section

Toomuc Creek HDD cross section

Alternative Pipeline Routes

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Monarc Environmental (2018a) Flora and Fauna Assessment Report

Monarc Environmental (2018b) Southern Brown Bandicoot Survey Report

Monarc Environmental (2018c) Growling Grass Frog Target Assessment

Monarc Environmental (2018d) Aquatic Survey Report

Monarc Environmental (2018e) Swamp Skink Survey Report

Monarc Environmental (2018f) Southern Toadlet Survey Report

Monarc Environmental (2018g) Acid Sulphate Soil Assessment Report

Archaeological Excavations (2018a) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Desktop

Archaeological Excavation (2018b) Desktop Historical Report

AECOM (2018a) Greenhouse Gas Assessment Report

AECOM (2018b) Hydrology and Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

AECOM (2018c) Environmental Noise Assessment

AECOM (2018d) Cumulative Impact Assessment Report

Ethos Urban (2018) Landscape and Visual Amenity Report

APA (2018) 18027-PL-A0001- Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Consultation Plan, Rev4

DEWLP (2017), Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Consultation Plan letter, PL006610 EN/19/2130.

Reference Monarc 2018, contaminated land limited assessment letter Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC). June 2010. Remnant Native Vegetation Investigation Discussion Paper. Available http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/Discussion%20Paper%20%20Full%20Report%20RNV.pdf Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (LI & IEMA). 2013. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (third edition), Routledge, London. Coffey Services Australia Pty Ltd, 2018, Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Project Desktop Geotechnical and Hydrology Study. Report for APA Group Backhouse, G., Jackson, J. and O’Connor, J. 2008. National Recovery Plan for the Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.


86

Bamford M, Watkins D, Bancroft W, Tischler G & Wahl, J 2008, Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands International – Oceania, Canberra, Australia. Carter, O. 2006. National Recovery Plan for the Strzelecki Gum Eucalyptus strzeleckii. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Carter, O. and Walsh, N., 2011. National Recovery Plan for the Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Dann, P. 2011. Birds and Marine Mammals. In Understanding the Western Port Environment: A summary of current knowledge and priorities for future research. Edited by Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water, Melbourne. pp. 156–169. DELWP 2015. Action statement No.258 Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2015 Department of the Environment (2016). Gallinago hardwickii in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Department of the Environment (2018). Amphibromus fluitans in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 4 Sep 2018 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017). Western Port Ramsar Site Management Plan. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne. DEWHA, 2008. Approved Conservation Advice for Senecio psilocarpus (Swamp Fireweed). Canberra: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/64976-conservation-advice.pdf. DEWHA 2009, EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14: Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis), Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. IDM Partners, 2017; AGL LNG Project – Route Options Report IDM Partners, 2018; Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline: Route Options Report – Dalmore Drain Catchment Co-location DSE, 2008a. Strzelecki Gum Action Statement. Prepared by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment. DSE 2008b. Action statement No.229 Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Department of Sustainability and Environment 2008 Duncan, M. 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Dense Leek Orchid Prasophyllum spicatum. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Ecology Australia (2009) Southern Brown Bandicoot Strategic Management Plan for the former Koo Wee Rup Swamp Area. Prepared for Cardinia Shire Council, Casey City Council and Melbourne Water. (Ecology Australia Pty Ltd: Fairfield). Hale, J. 2016. Ecological Character Description Addendum - Western Port Ramsar Site. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. East Melbourne. Jacobs (2018b), AGL Gas Import Jetty Project, Flora and Fauna Assessment, prepared by Jacobs for AGL Wholesale Gas Limited Jenkins, G. 2011. Fish. In Understanding the Western Port Environment: A summary of current knowledge and priorities for future research. Edited by Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water, Melbourne. pp. 142–155.


87

Kellogg Brown & Root, 2010, Western Port Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description. Report for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Lee, R. 2011. Physical and chemical setting. In Understanding the Western Port Environment: A summary of current knowledge and priorities for future research. Edited by Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water, Melbourne. pp. 50–79. Maclagan. S. 2016. Ecology and conservation of the Southern Brown Bandicoot in an urbanising landscape. Victorian Naturalist. 133 (3) 2016. Maclagan. S. J., Coates. T and Ritchie. E. G. 2018. Don't judge habitat on its novelty: Assessing the value of novel habitats for an endangered mammal in a peri-urban landscape. Biological Conservation 223 (2018) 11–18 Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2016). Conservation Advice Isoodon obesulus southern brown bandicoot (eastern). Canberra: Department of the Environment. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/68050-conservation-advice-05052016.pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 02-May-2016.

REFERRAL OF A PROJECT FOR A DECISION ON THE NEED FOR ... · Text boxes should be extended to allow...

Documents

Transcript of REFERRAL OF A PROJECT FOR A DECISION ON THE NEED FOR ... · Text boxes should be extended to allow...