Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Westernport Gas
Import Jetty and
Pipeline Project
Reply Evidence
of Brett Lane
Prepared for AGL Wholesale Gas
Limited and APA Transmission Pty
Ltd
C/- Hall & Wilcox and Ashurst
9th October 2020 Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | ii
Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Review of Statements ................................................................................................................... 2
3. References ................................................................................................................................... 11
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 1
1. Introduction
This Reply Evidence responds to matters raised by expert witnesses for submitters in their expert
evidence statement to the Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Inquiry and Advisory
Committee (IAC).
Specific Statements reviewed are those that address issues related to the assessment and impacts of
the project on terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity. They are listed below together with the table number
in which they are reviewed in this response report.
▪ Mary Cole (Cinnamon Fungus and Amphibian Chytrid Fungus)
▪ Michelle Thomas (Wildlife Disaster Management)
▪ Matt Edmunds (Marine Ecology – touching on some aspects of terrestrial ecology)
▪ Graeme Lorimer (Merrans Sun Orchid)
▪ Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Craig Blount (Marine Ecology and Shorebirds)
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 2
2. Review of Statements
Table 1 provides a review of the statements.
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 3
Table 1: Detailed submission comments and responses
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
98. Mary Cole (Agpath) - Cinnamon Fungus
and Amphibian Chytrid Fungus
Figures 4, 5 and 6 Draft map showing the risk of biodiversity loss from
Phytophthora cinnamomi
These maps appear to be produced by the opponent to illustrate the risk Phytophthora poses to the
native vegetation within the study area. In an effort to respond to this concern, this map could not
be located or reproduced from online sources as it is a draft composite map. The scale and source
of this data requires further explanation in order to respond to the concerns raised, as it is unclear
what is being represented.
Section 8 g Inadequacy of mitigation measures and protocols to
determine the presence and to prevent the spread of
Cinnamon Fungus and Chytrid Fungus.
- Wash down bays
- Movement of construction personal
- Adhesiveness of soil
MM FF 03 parts a, b, d, e, f, g, h, k and l detail objectives that will collectively result in effective
control of the spread of pathogens. These measures are reflected in Appendix J of the Pipeline
Licence Application and Environmental Control S5 indicates the following:
“If an area of Cinnamon Fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi dieback is identified within the ROW,
biosecurity clean-down locations will be established at the exits to the area. Clean-down will be
required for vehicles, machinery and personnel clothing exiting the area. This will involve the
following steps:
• scrape off soil (clumps, lumps and thick caked on soil), manure and organic material from
vehicles, machinery and personnel clothing with a shovel and/or hard bristled brush.
• Spray/rinse with Phytoclean areas that have contacted soil.
These locations and requirements will be communicated to all personnel.”
Mitigation measures provided in Section 8g of Ms Cole’s expert report should be considered in an
updated Construction Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Controls S5 and S6.
Chytrid control should be based on hygiene and other measures outlined in Murray et al. (2011), as
required in Environmental Control B13 (d) of Appendix J to the Appendix J of the Pipeline Licence
Application.
Section 8 a Does recommending that a wildlife handler ‘should ‘be
present to move frogs, mean that that person is present
or does work halt until the amphibian is carefully
removed to safety?
Measures documented in MM FF 08 for fauna salvage must be expanded to include aquatic
habitats. This has been achieved in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (Appendix J
to the Pipeline License Application) through the adoption of Environmental Control B13, which sets
out in detail how potential frog impacts during construction will be mitigated.
Implementation of this control must have regard to the measures outlined in Murray et al. (2011)
(see Environmental Control B13 (d).
115. Graeme Lorimer – Merran’s Sun-
orchid
1.1 – Frac-outs
Paragraphs 1-5
The fluid is under pressure and it sometimes bursts
unintentionally to the ground surface – called a ‘frac-
out’. In that event, the fluid spreads over surrounding
vegetation, which (in the case of KP1.13 to KP1.7) is
habitat for the threatened Merran’s Sun-orchid.
This risk is not addressed in the EES
I am not qualified to comment on detailed engineering aspects of the proposed works and the risks
of this occurring.
1.2 - Contingency for
Unfeasibility of HDD
Paragraphs 6-9
The potential impacts on Merran’s Sun-orchid from an
unspecified alternative to HDD could be serious.
I recommend the adoption of a condition on the project
that, if HDD is not going to be used between KP1.13
and KP1.8, a new approval process will be required to
identify and mitigate the threats to Merran’s Sun-orchid
and its habitat.
I’m not qualified to comment on the likelihood of HDD not being feasible at this site. However,
should surface excavation be required to construct the pipeline in this area, consideration will need
to be given to approvals and consequential amendment of the native vegetation removal permit and
offset strategy.
1.3 - Ground Subsidence or
Settling
Paragraphs 10-14
Sometimes HDD can leave a cavity in the soil
surrounding the pipe.
Soil (which is sandy, at Crib Point) ultimately caves in to
fill the cavity, leaving a depression in the ground
surface.
This is not considered in the EES
The pipeline is located to the one side of most of the orchids in very flat terrain. Any subsidence
(considered unlikely by APA – see Kim Stewart’s response in Annexure C of Dr Lorimer’s statement)
would occur to one side of most of the orchids. Given the topography and high soil permeability, this
wold be highly unlikely to lead to changes in drainage patterns of an extent or duration that would
lead to changes in habitat value away from any area of subsidence.
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 4
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
I recommend that Mitigation measure MM-GG10
include a requirement for surveillance of possible
ground settling following HDD; and Consideration be
given to specifying a maximum drill hole diameter
and/or use ‘grouting’ to fill soil cavities.
Paragraph 42 Unable to find information about the flow rate and does
not know the pressure of the return line, though he
thinks it would be low.
Expert evidence from engineers familiar with the operational procedure of HDD should be consulted
to determine these concerns. As per Annexure C, Kim Stewart explains that it is not operating at
pressure as it is an open pipe at the return end which would not allow the build-up of pressure.
Paragraph 43 ‘The risk of this pipe [return line] failing is negligible, as
it would not be under pressure and would be subject to
routine inspection on foot’. I believe that this statement
is unreliable without any indication of the return line’s
flow rate and the probability of leak holes of various
sizes. I would have hoped that engineering evidence
would have been provided about the likelihood of a
leak.
I am not qualified to assess the likelihood or risk of such failures.
It is accepted that a spill occurring on a population of sun-orchids would likely result in a significant
impact, unless appropriate mitigation measures are in place.
As recognised in paragraph 41, it should be acknowledged that the return line alignment avoids
directly impacting on records of Merran’s Sun-orchids, with ‘micro-siting’ to occur to further avoid
impact to these plants. All records have been and are currently marked with a fluorescent yellow
marker peg so construction personal can easily identify them on ground. Mitigation measures also
include the provision to deploy a spill kit if a leak is detected. These measures significantly reduce
the likelihood that, if a spill were to occur, it would result in a significant impact to the species.
Paragraph 44 The EES proposes mitigation measure MM-FF10 to
reduce the risk associated with a leak from the return
line. It mainly involves the abovementioned ‘micro-
siting’, twice-daily surveillance for leaks and, if a leak is
detected, rapid deployment of spill kits. I gather from
Mr Stewart that the kit would include sandbags to limit
the area covered by the leakage. These measures seem
appropriate except that twice-daily may not be enough
to detect a leak soon enough to keep the risk very low,
as assumed in the EES.
I am not qualified to assess the likelihood or risk of such failures or the appropriate frequency of
checks.
Paragraph 46 I recommend that MM-FF10 be strengthened by
requiring the HDD work between KP1.13 and KP1.7 be
done during January to March, when sun-orchids die
back to underground tubers. A leak during those
months would pose much less risk to the orchids and
allow easier clean-up.
It is desirable that the proponent undertakes HDD during a period of dormancy to reduce the risk of
impact from a spill clean-up in the unlikely event of a leak. No leaves associated with Sun-orchids
were detected adjacent to the yellow marker pegs in August by Nature Advisory during the site visit.
It is therefore likely that the dormancy period for this Merran’s Sun-orchid population is from
January through to May. Therefore, it is recommended that HDD occurs between KP 1.13 and 1.7
(i.e. where the orchids occur) between January-May, to offer more flexibly to the proponent while still
negating the concern raised.
Paragraph 53 I note that there are quite a few trees along the HDD
alignment where Merran’s Sun orchids occur. Their old
roots and the decayed roots of trees removed in the
past represent possible fissure lines for frac-outs.
As per Kim Stewart’s response in Annexure C in regard to HDD blowouts and likelihood of needing to
resort to an alternative solution: ‘An initial site assessment has been undertaken and the HDD
construction method is considered suitable for the site. For HDDs, the drill profile design, the work
method statement and the proposed volumetric drilling fluid tracking program, including proposed
intervention levels, is to be submitted to DELWP and approved prior to the commencement of HDD
activities.’
Paragraph 55
‘A site geotechnical assessment is part of the technical
documentation used to define the HDD crossing design.
In addition, the potential for ‘frac-outs’, or loss of fluids
through fractures in the overlying strata, is minimised
by a review of geology and selection of a drill profile and
depth that controls this potential risk.’
This reference is out of the context of ecological
impacts and none of the EES sections related to
vegetation appear to recognise that frac-outs could
occur. I am concerned that the people assessing
As per Kim Stewart’s response in Annexure C in regard to HDD blowouts and likelihood of needing to
resort to an alternative solution: ‘An initial site assessment has been undertaken and the HDD
construction method is considered suitable for the site. For HDDs, the drill profile design, the work
method statement and the proposed volumetric drilling fluid tracking program, including proposed
intervention levels, is to be submitted to DELWP and approved prior to the commencement of HDD
activities.’
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 5
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
impacts on flora either did not read the quote above or
did not understand its implications.
Paragraph 57
The only other reference to frac-outs that I have found
in the EES documents is that the list of reportable
incidents on p. 34 of the CEMP includes ‘Frac-outs
(outside of the identified tolerance levels)’. I cannot find
any identified tolerance levels. I would hope that no
frac-outs would be tolerated in the habitat of Merran’s
Sun-orchid.
The CEMP should be updated to include the identified tolerance levels. Tolerance levels must be
applied where HDD is used to avoid the habitat of Merran’s Sun-orchid.
Paragraph 58 I cannot provide more detail about the likelihood of a
frac-out within Merran’s Sun-orchid habitat because of
my lack of expertise in geotechnical analysis and the
operation of HDD rigs. I would have hoped that an
analysis would have appeared in the EES. Mr Stewart
appeared quite sanguine about the risk but he didn’t
provide any reasons why it would be much lower than is
typical for HDD projects.
I am not qualified to comment on the likelihood or frequency of unintended expression of drilling
mud at the surface.
Paragraph 62 If a frac-out were to occur, my experience suggests to
me that the optimum immediate responses depend on
the size of the frac-out, the difficulty cleaning up the
fluid without damaging the vegetation, the significance
of the vegetation and whether heaving occurs.
An ecologist should assess the situation to decide the
optimum approach, e.g. whether a vac-truck should be
used.
This approach should be incorporated into the relevant section of the CEMP
Paragraph 64 I recommend the expansion of mitigation measure MM-
FF10 be generalised as follows so that it is not confined
to return line spills: (see box following this statement in
Dr Lorimer’s statement)
Apart from the January to March limitation on works, these mitigation measures should be
incorporated into the relevant section, unless more appropriate measures commensurate with risks
are deemed a better response to this issue by engineering experts.
Paragraph 67 ‘Conditions that pose potential problems include weak,
compressible soils, poorly graded clean sands and
gravel (especially combined with low blow counts) and
high groundwater’. The sandy soil at Crib Point appears
to be a candidate for settling
This is beyond my expertise to comment.
Paragraph 69 Settling would create one or more depressions that
would be wetter than the current habitat occupied by
the Merran’s Sun-orchids. That may cause any orchids
within the depressions to die out or diminish in
numbers. Other species that benefit more from wetter
conditions would become more competitive against the
sun-orchids, potentially displacing them.
This is beyond my expertise to comment.
Paragraph 71 I also recommend that mitigation measure MM-GG10
include a requirement for surveillance of possible
ground settling following HDD. The appropriate time
intervals for the surveillance would have to be
determined by someone with suitable expertise.
This is beyond my expertise to comment.
Paragraph 72 An HDD expert might be able to specify a maximum
hole diameter to avoid settling, and/or recommend the
use of grouting to fill the void around the pipe.
This is beyond my expertise to comment.
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 6
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
Paragraph 77 I recommend the adoption of a condition on the project
that, if HDD is not going to be used between KP1.13
and KP1.8, a new, transparent approval process will be
required to identify and mitigate the threats to Merran’s
Sun-orchid and its habitat.
This is beyond my expertise to comment.
See also my response to paragraphs 6-9 above.
Paragraph 82 Therefore, the claim on p. 115 of the Biosis report and
p. 13 of the Application for Pipeline Licence that the
population size is 338-391 – not just that this is the
number of plants that were flowering during the surveys
– is inaccurate. The actual number of Merran’s Sun-
orchid plants could be much higher.
Although it is recognised that the population may be larger than what was recorded during the field
surveys, the surveys were conducted in accordance with the Survey Guidelines for Australia’s
threatened orchids: Guidelines for detecting orchids listed as ‘threatened’ EPBC Act 1999 (DoEE
2013). Constraints, in terms of only recording flowering plants is one which occurs regardless of the
rigorousness of the survey. Additionally, there are no provisions in the survey guidelines to assume
that the population is X percentage larger than the number of flowering individuals recorded.
Therefore, the population size has been determined as accurately as possible to be 338-391
individuals. It is likely that most, if any, additional individuals would occur within the limits of the
current mapped population. Any individuals in this area that were dormant and not detected would
still be protected by the proposed mitigation measures.
Paragraph 84 I regard this as a minor technical error but I felt
compelled to put it on the record because it could have
implications for management of the population in
future. For example, it could one day lead to a false
conclusion about changes in the population size.
Given the above response, it is unlikely that the determination of the population size could one day
lead to a false conclusion about changes in the population size. It is expected that the same survey
guidelines would be adopted, which present the same constraint of only being able to record
individuals that are flowering. Trends in population could therefore still be determined with ongoing
annual monitoring assuming similar proportions of individuals flower each year. This is a
reasonable assumption and the only one possible for meaningful population trend monitoring.
100. Michelle Thomas, Animalia Wildlife
Shelter and Rescue
Section 3, para 1 Ms Thomas claims the project contributes to continual
fragmentation of habitat and vast tracts of cleared land
making it non-viable to maintain corridors for
wildlife
The removal of native vegetation has been avoided and minimised, particularly in many of the most
extensive areas of indigenous fauna habitat along the alignment, by avoiding clearing altogether
through the adoption of HDD construction methods. Elsewhere, were native vegetation removal is
unavoidable, it has been minimised through the adoption of a narrower construction corridor,
reduced by 10 metres or, in some cases, 20 metres. A summary of the extent of this is provided in
my Witness Statement in Section 1.4.3 (point 2).
The proposal will not seriously compromise the functioning of the local-scale wildlife corridors in
native vegetation areas through which it passes.
Section 3, paras 2 and 3 The proponent has not shown the number of expected
species likely to be displaced, counted them or
assessed the impact on populations, not-withstanding
the physical impacts the animals also suffer and that
they will need to compete for habitat as their own was
lost if they are not caught.
Ms Thomas also expresses concerns that direct
euthanasia of wildlife will be mandated.
MM FF 08 provides for a salvage and translocation protocol to be developed for the Construction
Environmental Management Plan. This will ensure that direct impacts on fauna in removed
vegetation will be reduced. There is no requirement to count the number of fauna species or
individuals affected until the CEMP is implemented. These salvage operations are undertaken in
accordance with a DELWP-approved Wildlife Management Authority under the Victorian Wildlife Act
1975 and its associated DELWP pre-approval evaluation and post implementation reporting
arrangements.
My experience of these salvage programs is that fauna are only euthanised where they are injured
seriously, something that is avoided through the adoption of humane protocols for salvage, set out
in the approved Wildlife Management Authority. It is also a requirement that personnel of
organisations engaged for such salvage work are also following standard operating procedures
designed to avoid and minimise any animal suffering as approved by an accredited Animal Ethics
Committee
Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 Possible risks and impacts on fauna from vegetation
clearance are listed.
The previous response sets out the process under which fauna salvage occurs. MM FF08 provides
for the human capture and translocation of native fauna to minimise harm and suffering. The
licensing arrangement for such work (see previous response) involve strong controls that provide for
this.
Sections 3.3 and 3.6 Southern Brown Bandicoot has been recorded in
Wharingine Park in the last 12 months.
In section 1.4.4, point 3 of my witness statement, I recommend adoption of revegetation of
disturbed areas in all potential habitats for this species throughout the Project Area in a way that
provides habitat for this species in recognition of its past range, the possibility of its persistence and
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 7
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
recolonisation of these areas and recognition of the whole Terrestrial Project Area as a ‘potential
extension to the Southern Brown Bandicoot Management Area’ in DEPI (2014).
108. Matt Edmonds, Australian Marine
Ecology I provide response below on aspects of this statement that address terrestrial and freshwater ecology issues dealt with in Technical Report B of the EES.
Section 2.1, pages 6 -7 Marine and intertidal resident and migratory waterbirds
are briefly considered. A series of bird feeding guilds
are proposed.
The description of the waterbirds of Western Port as an ecological asset provided in this statement
lacks detail and makes no reference to the decades of citizen science, the result of which have
been published (see Section 5.1.6 and in particular 5.1.6.3 of Technical Report B). The foraging
guilds proposed fail to take account of the fact that behavioural and anatomical differences among
intertidal shorebirds actually result in a very diverse range of foraging strategies and adaptive
changes in foraging behaviour and diet in response to tidal, diurnal, monthly and annual changes in
intertidal communities and the behaviour of intertidal invertebrates (Dann 1987 in Lane 1987). The
consideration of birds in this section of the statement is cursory and lacks detail.
Section 2.2, pages 8 - 9 There is ‘potential for disturbance to the energetics of
some wetland bird species.’
Statements about the potential for impacts on wetland birds in Western Port from noise, lighting
and visual presence of the facility fail to take account of the detailed assessment of the occurrence
of marine and intertidal birds near the proposed facility and its surrounds in Section 5.1.6.3 or
impacts on migratory waterbirds undertaken in Sections 7.1.3.1 of Technical Report B. These are
based on an abundance of empirical data on the distribution and numbers of waterbirds in Western
Port and in the vicinity of the Project Area in particular. This has concluded that significant impacts
on these birds will not occur.
Section 2.4, p. 10 ‘There is considerable potential for more subtle, indirect
ecosystem processes that could lead to significant
impacts on species of high conservation value, such as
particular migratory bird species. This is because the
ecosystem is tightly and intricately linked between
subtidal and littoral processes. Sophisticated biological
modelling and impact prediction is required to account
for intricacies in the ecosystem and provide information
on specific values’
Modelling a complex ecological system inevitably involves assumptions where knowledge is
incomplete (as it inevitably always is) and variance around estimates of known parameters that
compound one another. Predictive ecological modelling is therefore not usually feasible in the
context of an individual project EESEES. Regional studies by government can attempt such
exercises to provide a context for environmental decision-makers. In the absence of a validated
model, impact assessment based on spatial and temporal duration of impacts and studies of the
responses of individual ecological components (e.g. benthic communities, waterbirds) is still very
informative.
My understanding of the marine ecological impacts of the operation of the Gas Import Jetty are that
they will be localised and sub-tidal based on the modelled extent to which the physical parameters
underpinning sub-tidal ecology are affected by the operation of the facility. Given these impacts are
confined to a small percentage of the sub-tidal habitats of Western Port it can be safely concluded
that significant impacts on waterbirds dependent on sub-tidal biota, many of which (e.g. fish) are
mobile, are unlikely to be affected significantly based on the analysis in Technical Report B. It is
also my understanding that there will be no changes to the physical parameters underpinning the
ecosystem of Western Port’s intertidal areas, so important for supporting waterbirds, including listed
migratory species. Therefore, impacts on this critically important group have correctly been
assessed as not significant in Technical Report B.
Section 2.5, p. 11. Dr Edmonds asserts that the assessment of migratory
bird failed to apply appropriate criteria to assess
impacts.
In Section 5.1.6.3, Technical Report B provides a thorough assessment of the status, distribution
and abundance of these birds in and near the Project Area based on the extensive long-term data
sets on waterbirds in Western Port. Impacts are then assessed in Section 7.1.3.1 against the
significant impact criteria published by the Commonwealth Government to inform assessments of
impacts under the EPBC Act. Dr Edmond’s assertion is therefore incorrect.
Section 2.5, p. 12-13 Dr Edmonds acknowledges that there was a noise
impact assessment and consideration of existing noise
levels in waterbird habitats potentially affected by the
project in Technical Report B. However, he disagrees
with the approach and proposes that impacts on
breeding success in arctic breeding grounds, fat
storage rates and carrying capacity of Western Port and
claims the bay is at carrying capacity for these birds.
In Section 7.1.2.3, Technical Report B provides a detailed assessment of the possibility of noise
affecting waterbirds. This include reference to noise monitoring on waterbird habitats potentially
affected by the operations of the project. Refer to my comments above (Section 2.4, p. 10) on
modelling and the difficulty of building reliable ecological models. There are no precedents for such
models. The concept of ‘carrying capacity’, although theoretically elegant is in practice difficult to
demonstrate and predict for intertidal foraging birds.
Section 3.1, p. 24 Dr Edmonds claims that the EES has not assessed
‘potential effect of bird disturbance at Cribb Point
In Section 7.2.1, Technical Report B provides a detailed assessment of the operational impacts of
the project on shorebirds. This correctly concludes that this impact will not be significant as the
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 8
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
affecting the usage and carrying capacity of the network
of feeding and roosting sites across Westernport.’
extensive and detailed historical data indicates that the area around Crib Point (within distances of
concern in terms of disturbance) does not support significant numbers of waterbirds.
Section 3.2, p. 29 Dr Edmonds claims that ‘There was no assessment of
wetland ecosystems and the impacts on birds in any of
the reports.
The usage by ecosystems in Western Port by waterbirds was extensively documented in Section 5.1
of Technical Report B and impacts have been explored in detail in Sections 7.1.1, 7.1.3 and 7.1.5.
Dr Edmonds claim is incorrect.
Section 3.2, p. 31 Dr Edmunds indicates that there was no attempt to
gather additional empirical data on the ‘sensitivity of
wetland bird guilds and probably bats to noise, light
spill, visual disturbance, odours, etc.’
It is unusual for an EES investigation to gather such data. An EES is inevitably a prediction exercise
based on existing knowledge given that the project assessed does not yet exist. Technical Report B
provides a thorough and ‘fit for purpose’ documentation of the diversity, abundance and distribution
of waterbirds on and near the Project Area, followed by a detailed impact assessment, including
review of existing information and local examples. This is an acceptable basis for predicting the
impacts of the Project on waterbirds.
Section 3.4, p. 34 - 35 Dr Edmonds takes issue with the reference in Table 34,
p. 179 in Technical Report B to ‘tropic effects likely to
effect waterbirds are considered to be unlikely’ being
attributed to the marine report.
The table entry is based not on the marine report assessing trophic effects on waterbirds but on it
assessing impacts on the prey species they rely upon. Trophic effects refer to changes in the
transfer of energy and nutrients between the physical and biological components of an ecosystem.
Dr Edmond’s issue is that modelling of these intricate and detailed inter-relationships has not been
undertaken. See my earlier comments on modelling for a response on this point.
Section 3.4, p. 36 Concern is expressed at the lack of an ecosystem-
based model to assess cumulative impacts on
waterbirds
See my earlier comments about the challenges of ecological modelling and the validity of the
approach to impact assessment.
Cumulative impacts of the project were assessed in Technical Report B, in Section 7.1.6. This
considered the incremental extent, and direct and indirect impacts of the Project in and around the
Project Area compared with the same consideration of existing human activity in Western Port.
Specific consideration was given to the Port of Hastings Authority Crib Point Jetty upgrade, the
assessment of which found no significant impacts on migratory waterbirds.
Section 3.6, p. 43-44 Species level mitigation measures were extended only
to a limited number of species, with other species dealt
with as groups.
Grouping of species for the purpose of developing mitigation measures (such as lumping all
intertidal-foraging waterbirds together) is founded on the fact that they utilise the same habitats an
that the impacts are direct or indirect physical impacts. More complex ‘trophic’ or pollution impacts
have been assessed by other experts as not affecting those habitats. Mitigation measures at a more
specific level than habitats are therefore not warranted.
Section 3.7, p. 48 It is implied that the EES did not assess impacts on
waterbirds at a large enough scale.
Section 5.1.6.3 documents in detail (e.g. see summary of key waterbird areas in Table 20) the
waterbird feeding and roosting areas in the northern half of Western Port. This enables a very
succinct conclusion in Section 5.1.6.4 about the role of the Project Area and its surrounds as
roosting and feeding habitat for this group.
Section 4.1, p. 53 Dr Edmonds criticises the marine report for not
addressing impacts on listed and migratory species and
Ramsar sites.
These matters are dealt with in detail (descriptions of values and impact assessments and
mitigation measures) in Technical Report B, not the marine ecology technical report.
Dr Edmonds’ statement that “Listed species and Ramsar features were recognised, but not scoped
into the EES assessment” is not correct as a review of the EES Scoping Requirements will reveal.
Section 4.6, p. 72-73 Dr Edmonds indicates that all components of the
waterbird community in western Port should be
separately assessed for Project impacts.
The EES Scoping Requirements call for an assessment of project impacts on: ‘flora and fauna
species listed as threatened or migratory under the EPBC Act, FFG Act and/or DELWP advisory lists’
and the Ramsar wetland. It provides a very detailed and specific set of values and impacts that
must be addressed. At no point does it require ecological modelling or a highly reductionist
approach to impact assessment. It requires a focus on the highest ecological values and many
specific impact pathways. This is consistent with practice for Victorian EESs. Technical Report B,
including its reliance on the marine technical report, adequately addresses these requirements.
Section 4.6, p. 71-74 Dr Edmonds claims that impacts on the project were
not assessed on the Ramsar site
Technical Report B provides a detailed assessment of impacts on key components, processes and
services (CPS) of the Western Port Ramsar site based on the framework in the site Ecological
Character Description (Hale 2016) in Section 7.1.5, p. 177-181 and Table 34. It also assesses
impacts against the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines (Appendix A7.3). These are the
accepted management and assessment frameworks for Australian Ramsar sites and are used by
environmental decision-making bodies regularly to inform their decisions about projects that
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 9
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
potentially affect these valuable wetlands. The assessment in Technical Report B is consistent with
this approach and provides adequate information to inform a decision on whether the impacts of
the Project on the site are acceptable or significant.
Section 4.7, p. 75-78 Dr Edmonds criticises the EES for not taking an
ecosystem-based approach to the impact assessment
and provides a range of conceptual models to illustrate
his preferred approach. He asserts that it is best
practice and a requirement for Ramsar sites.
See my earlier comments on the difficulties of establishing and validating ecological models for
impact prediction. It is telling that Dr Edmonds fails to present actual examples of these and limits
examples to ‘conceptual models’. Given this, to claim it is ‘best practice’ for the purpose of Ramsar
site impact assessment is misleading.
The requirements of Ramsar site impact assessment in Australia are founded on the EPBC Act
Guidelines on Significance and the Limits of Acceptable Change to key components, processes and
services in an Ecological Character Description. This is how impacts on the Ramsar site have been
assessed in Technical Report B.
Section 5.1.2, p. 80 It is asserted that the EES does not adequately assess
impacts on ‘the variety of Ramsar natural values and
listed bird fauna’
My earlier responses indicate that this is incorrect.
Craig Blount & Marcus Lincoln
Smith, Cardno
Section 3.1.2, p. 9-11 Limitations of data for assessment of shorebirds and
the Western port Ramsar site are discussed, concluding
that inadequate data were collected for assessing
impact on shorebirds.
The data collected from the Crib Point Area meet the survey requirements for this group under the
EPBC Act. Shorebird and other water bird usage of habitats in Western Port has been studied for
almost 50 years on a regular, seasonal or more frequent basis by volunteer birders (see e.g. Hansen
et al. 2011, 2015). The combination of this extensive data with local field surveys in accordance
with guidelines provides a very reliable picture of how shorebirds utilise the Project Area and the
surrounding areas most at risk from it. An overview of these findings is provided in Technical Report
B at a level of detail sufficient to understand the role of the Project Area for populations of these
birds.
Section 3.2.3, p. 12 The spatial scale at which waterbird data have been
collected for the impact assessment is not adequate
See comment above about the rich data on water bird abundance and distribution available for the
EES from historical data collection work. If the Crib Point area was key to important populations of
waterbirds they would have been detected by now.
Comments later in this section fail to appreciate that the components, processes and services
approach to Ramsar site impact assessment is an Australia-wide, accepted framework for
monitoring and assessing impacts on the ecological character of Ramsar sites. These have not
been proposed by the authors of Technical Report B; rathe they have been correctly adopted by
them as the impact assessment framework for an Australian Ramsar site.
Section 3.3, p. 13-14 Concern is expressed that the cumulative impact of the
project on waterbirds has not been adequately
assessed.
Technical Report B correctly points out that quantification of impacts of existing human activities in
Western Port has not been done. That said, quantitative studies of waterbird numbers in Western
Port (e.g. Hansen et al. 2015) indicate that species currently declining at a global or national
population scale are also declining in Western Port. Given more widespread declines, it is not
possible to attribute declines in Western Port to human activities in this Ramsar site.
Cumulative impacts of the project were assessed in Technical Report B, in Section 7.1.6. This
considered the incremental extent, and direct and indirect impacts of the Project in and around the
Project Area compared with the same consideration of existing human activity in Western Port.
Specific consideration was given to the Port of Hastings Authority Crib Point Jetty upgrade, the
assessment of which found no significant impacts on migratory waterbirds.
Section 3.4.2, p. 14-15 It is asserted that insufficient knowledge of the impacts
of the Project on waterbirds at Crib Point is available
and that operational phase adaptive management is an
insufficient response to the possible impact on these
birds.
The distribution and abundance of waterbirds in Western Port has been studied for almost 50 years
(see Hansen et al. 2011). The surveys undertaken for the Project and documented in Technical
Report B were in accordance with required EPBC Act survey guidelines and found very few birds,
consistent with the findings documented by Hansen et al., (2011). They confirmed current
knowledge that the Crib Point jetty area is not a high usage waterbird habitat area in Western Port.
The fortunate availability of such detailed, long-term data on abundance and distribution provides a
strong basis for this impact assessment. No significant impacts are anticipated. My view is that
monitoring to inform adaptive management as proposed in Technical Report B is in fact pointless,
for the reasons I explain in Section 3.4.2, p. 19 of my Peer Review report.
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 10
Opposing Expert report Relevant section of report Terrestrial biodiversity concern Response
Section 3.5.2, p. 18 In reviewing the application of the Significant Impact
Criteria for listed migratory species, the authors make
several incorrect claims about the adequacy of
information on which to base the assessment,
including:
▪ The entire Ramsar site is important for
these birds;
▪ Shorebird abundance data have not been
provided;
Data presented in Hansen (2011) and the counts undertaken in accordance with EPBC Act survey
guidelines provide a sound, long-term, quantitative basis for understanding the impact of the project
on these species. Technical Report B presents this information. This shows that the Crib Pont area
is not important for migratory shorebirds. Impacts therefore will not be significant.
Section 3.5.2, p. 19-20 The authors assess the impacts of the project against
the EPBC Act significant impact criteria and assert that
the risk assessment is an inadequate basis for
undertaking this assessment.
In Technical Report B, the impact assessment for listed migratory species in accordance with the
significant impact criteria is presents in Appendix 7 (A7.2). This takes account of the information on
the role of the Project Area and nearby habitats for these species (based on long term published
survey data (Hansen et al. 2015) and site-specific surveys) and the lack of direct or indirect impacts
on their key habitats as these are located sufficiently distant from the project Area not to be
affected. This assessment is not based on the risk assessment.
Section 3.6, p. 20 Pacific Golden Plover Hansen et al. (2011, 2015) indicates that Western Port supports an average of 68 Pacific Golden
Plovers (max. 200). The most consistent records (see Appendix 1 of Hansen et al.) are from
Barrallier Island/N W French Island and Tortoise Head and Rams Island on the south coast of
French island. The Atlas of Living Australia record of this species from Crib Point cited by the
authors would have been an incidental record of the species away from its usual haunts in the bay.
Westernport Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project
Review of Expert Witness Statements Report No. 20117 (3.2)
Page | 11
3. References
Dann, P. 1987. The feeding behaviour and ecology of shorebirds. Chapter 3 In Lane, B A. 1987.
Shorebirds in Australia. Nelson, Melbourne.
DEPI 2014. Sub-regional species strategy for the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Department of
Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne.
Hansen, B., Menkhorst, P. and Loyn, R. 2011. Western Port Welcomes Waterbirds: waterbird usage of
Western Port. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 222.
Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.
Hansen, B D. Menkhorst, P. Moloney, P and Loyn, R 2015. Long-term declines in multiple waterbird
species in a tidal embayment, south-east Australia. Austral Ecology 40: 515–52.
Murray, K., Skerratt, L., Marantelli, G., Berger, L., Hunter, D., Mahony, M. and Hines, H. 2011. Hygiene
protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs. A report for the Australian
Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.