westernport gas import jetty and pipeline project...2020/09/10 · limited and apa transmission pty...

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



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)



Page | 2

2. Review of Statements

Table 1 provides a review of the statements.



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.



Page | 4


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.’



Page | 5


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.


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.


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.




Page | 6


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.


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



Page | 7


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



Page | 8


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



Page | 9


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.



Page | 10


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.



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.

westernport gas import jetty and pipeline project...2020/09/10 · limited and apa transmission pty...

Documents